,::'1')'<~.
. ........ . -. o;;.~~ .
-------
x>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response
Washington, DC 20460
9355.4-06
June 1990
P392-963351
Superfund
Summary of Treatment
Technology
Effectiveness for
Contaminated Soil
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's peer
and administrative review policies and approved for presentation and publication. Mention of trade
names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency is committed to a broad use of treatment technologies for the
management of Superfund waste. The 1990 National Contingency Plan (NCP) clearly states EPA's
preference for the selection of more treatment remedies to comply with the CERCLA preference for
remedies that employ treatment as a principal element. A further reinforcement of the importance of
treatment is that, in the Revised NCP, the two criteria of "long-term effectiveness and permanence"
and "reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment" are given the most weight in the
balancing process during Superfund remedy selection.
The Revised NCP expresses a preference for treatment in response actions, and in fact during FY
1990, 73% of the Superfund sites involved treatment as part of the selected remedies in the Records
of Decision. However, Superfund experience with treatment technologies for soils is somewhat
limited. Relatively few soil treatment technologies are considered to be fully developed and available
for common use. In order to meet the goals contained In the 1986 Superfund amendments, which
formed the basis for the Revised NCP, the Agency must rely on technologies that are currently
innovative and require site-specific treatability testing before they are readily available for use.
This document represents a substantial effort conducted by OERR for several years to compile and
analyze numerous treatment data on contaminated soil from reports which were obtained from EPA
Regional offices, the Departments of Defense and Energy, and treatment vendors. Results were
presented as received, without independent validation, to facilitate timely technology transfer. The
document was technically reviewed by EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory staff prior to
publication.
Associated with this document is a unique soil treatment data base which is presented as an appendix
to the document. Together the document and quantitative data base have a number of potential
applications, including screening treatment technologies for specific wastes, evaluating relative
effectiveness of various technologies on similar contaminants, and targeting technologies for
treatability studies, as well as providing data for the development of treatment standards for
contaminated soil and debris.
We hope this document will be useful to EPA project managers, other Federal and State project
managers, and contractors, all of whom are challenged to remediate hazardous waste sites in this
country. Additional copies of the report may be obtained at no charge from EPA's Center for
Environmental Research Information, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45268, using
the EPA document number found on the report's front cover. Once this supply is exhausted, copies
can be purchased from the National Technical Information Service, Ravensworth Bldg., Springfield,
VA, 22161, (703) 487-4600. Reference copies will be available at EPA libraries in their Hazardous
Waste Collection.
Henry L. Longest, II, Director
Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
To comply with the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) began to reevaluate past disposal practices for
contaminated soils from Superfund sites. SARA required that U.S. EPA give preference to
alternatives that use treatment as a principal element for these and all Superfund wastes, in addition,
the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to RCRA prohibit continued land disposal
of untreated hazardous wastes and require U.S. EPA to develop treatment standards that must be met
before disposal of contaminated soil from Superfund sites is allowed.
The U.S. EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) contracted COM Federal
Programs Corporation (FPC) to assist the Agency in fulfilling these obligations. An extensive soil
treatment data collection effort was conducted throughout 1987 and 1988. The results from several
hundred previously 'conducted studies were collected and reviewed. All applicable soil treatment
information was carefully extracted and loaded into a series of relational data bases developed
specifically for this application. The quantitative data were subjected to a limited mathematical
analysis to determine the effectiveness of six categories of treatment technologies on eleven
contaminant treatability groups. The qualitative information was valuable in documenting the unique
characteristics of various contaminant-soil matrices and their treatability. The U.S. EPA is using the
results of both the quantitative and qualitative analyses to prepare Superfund program guidance. This
report summarizes the results of this study and presents the recommendations developed for the
treatment of contaminated soils.
iv
-------
(INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Executive Summary vjii
Approach and Conclusions viii
Technology Conclusions xiv
Figures xx
Glossary xxi
Acknowledgements xxii
Section 1
Overview 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Organization and Use of this Report 2
.3 Data Collection and Analysis 5
.4 Data Screening 6
.5 Organization of Treatment Data 7
.6 Data Limitations 7
.7 Special Considerations of Soil Treatment 8
1.8 Summary 11
Section 2
Treatability Group Descriptions and Treatment Recommendations 13
2.1 Introduction 13
2.2 Non-Polar Halogenated Aromatic Compounds Excluding PCBs,
Furans, Dioxins, and their Precursors (W01) 18
2.3 PCBs, Halogenated Dioxins, Furans, and their Precursors (W02) 18
2.4 Halogenated Phenols, Cresols, Amines, Thiols, and Other Polar
Aromatics (W03) 18
2.5 Halogenated Aliphatic Compounds (W04) 22
2.6 Halogenated Cyclic Aliphatics, Ethers, Esters, and Ketones (W05) 22
2.7 Nitrated Aromatic and Aliphatic Compounds (W06) 22
2.8 Heterocyclics and Simple Non-Halogenated Aromatics (W07) 22
2.9 Polynuclear Aromatics (W08) 27
2.10 Other Polar Non-Halogenated Organic Compounds (W09) 27
2.11 Non-Volatile Metals (W10) 27
2.12 Volatile Metals (W11) 27
vi
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Section 3 Page
Technology Descriptions and Conclusions 35
3.1 Thermal Destruction 35
3.2 Dechlorination 44
3.3 Bioremediation 51
3.4 Low Temperature Thermal Desorption 60
3.5 Chemical Extraction and Soil Washing 67
3.6 Immobilization 75
Appendices
A. Contaminants Arranged by Waste Treatability Group 83
B. Treatment Technology Categories and Individual Treatment Processes 99
C. Data Screens and Modifications 101
D. Total Constituent Analysis Waste Treatment Results for Organics 103
E. Extraction Protocol-Waste Treatment Results for Inorganics 177
F. Extraction Protocol-Waste Treatment Results for Organics 185
G. Other Waste Treatment Results 193
H. Treatability Study Summaries 241
I. Bibliography 395
vii
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
APPROACH AND CONCLUSIONS
Background
The Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, mandated that the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) identify, investigate, and remediate abandoned
hazardous waste sites in this country. Many of these sites contain large quantities of contaminated
soil. In the past, the less contaminated soils were often capped, while the hot spots were often
excavated and landfilled in permitted disposal facilities.
Under SARA, U.S. EPA is required to reevaluate past disposal practices and to give preference to
alternatives that use treatment as a principal element. SARA requires U.S. EPA to select remedies
which are protective of human health and the environment, and which comply with "applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements" of the state and federal governments. The Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and its 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
(HSWA) are two major laws that may be applicable to Superfund wastes. HSWA prohibits continued
land disposal of untreated hazardous wastes and requires U.S. EPA to develop treatment standards
that must be met before disposal is allowed. After the standards or land disposal restrictions (LDRs)
become effective, wastes that are not treated to those standards will be banned from land disposal.
The LDRs for contaminated soils could have a major impact on the Superfund program. These
disposal restrictions will assist U.S. EPA in ensuring that remedies involving treatment are
incorporated into remedial actions. For this reason, the U.S. EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response (OERR) led an intensive effort to compile existing soil treatment data and to evaluate the
effectiveness of the available technologies. This report summarizes the qualitative and quantitative
information collected, which exemplifies the current status of soil treatment technologies. The Tech-
nology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges (U.S. EPA, September 1988)
provides additional qualitative information on technologies which may be suitable for the management
of soils and sludges containing CERCLA wastes.
Purpose And Scope
The U.S. EPA OERR contracted CDM Federal Programs Corporation (FPC) to collect and evaluate
the available information on soil treatment technologies. FPC performed a comprehensive study to
meet two goals: (1) to support the development of RCRA treatment standards for contaminated soils
from Superfund sites and (2) to assist in technology transfer. This study focused on treatment
methods for excavated soils, because these soils would trigger the LDRs during subsequent
placement; therefore, in-sltu treatment applications were not included In the scope. The soil treatment
data collected for this project were evaluated and screened, and preliminary conclusions were drawn
regarding the effectiveness of the various technologies surveyed on commonly occurring classes of
contaminants and soils.
VIII
-------
These conclusions are based upon the data that were compiled as a result of the 1987 and 1988 data
collection effort. This body of information will be broadened and updated as additional soil treatment
data become available from CERCLA response actions, Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) program demonstrations, and RCRA corrective actions. To facilitate timely technology transfer,
the currently available information is presented as received, without independent validation. Due to
the developmental status of some of the technologies and applications, the reproducibility of the
results cannot be ensured. However, based upon this information, a reader who has a thorough
knowledge of specific waste site conditions can select treatment technology categories which warrant
further site-specific investigation.
Data Collection And Analysis
During the data collection effort, nearly 550 documents were obtained from various sources. The
sources included U.S. EPA Superfund removal and remedial activities, U.S. EPA Office of Research
and Development (OR&D) tests, Department of Defense and Department of Energy studies, state
programs, private party studies, and vendor demonstrations. Abstracts of many of these documents
are included in the Superfund Treatability Clearinghouse Abstracts (U.S. EPA, March 1989). Docu-
ments that dealt with in-situ or liquid treatment applications, or did not contain test results from treat-
ability studies (approximately 480 documents), were eliminated from further quantitative analysis.
However, the documents which reported some quantitative or pertinent qualitative information on the
treatment of excavated soils were reviewed and the pertinent facts were incorporated into this
summary.
Sixty-eight studies contained analytical data on soil treatment applications and formed the quantitative
basis for this report. These 68 studies reported the results of laboratory, pilot, and full scale treatment
studies of thermal destruction, dechlorination, bioremediation, low temperature thermal desorption,
chemical extraction and soil washing, and immobilization technologies treating contaminated soils.
All applicable quantitative and qualitative data were entered into a data base system developed for
this project. Because insufficient treatment data were available on some individual contaminants, data
from similar contaminants were classified among eleven treatability groups. These groups are listed
below. A more detailed breakdown is provided in Appendix A.
(W01) non-polar halogenated aromatics, excluding PCBs, dioxins, furans, and their precursors
(W02) PCBs, halogenated dioxins, furans, and their precursors
(W03) halogenated phenols, creosols, amines, thiols, and other polar aromatics
(W04) halogenated aliphatic compounds
(W05) halogenated cyclic aliphatics, ethers, esters, and ketones
(W06) nitrated aromatic and aliphatic compounds
(W07) heterocyclics and simple non-halogenated aromatics
(W08) polynuclear aromatics and heterocyclics
(W09) other polar non-halogenated organic compounds
(W10) non-volatile metals
(W11) volatile metals
The many discrete treatment technologies were classified into the following six technology groups:
thermal destruction
dechlorination
bioremediation
low temperature thermal desorption
chemical extraction and soil washing
immobilization
ix
-------
Data Limitations
Many treatment technologies for contaminated soil are still under development. For this reason, the
data collected for this study were sometimes highly variable; however, the data were sufficient to
develop preliminary conclusions regarding the effectiveness of various treatment technologies on
common types of contaminants.
Each of the studies reviewed for this project was conducted for a different purpose in response to
different requirements. As a result, the soil treatment data base has several limitations which are
noted as follows:
• Treatment data were unavailable for some contaminants.
• Some treatment technologies were only tested at laboratory/bench or pilot scales, thereby
limiting the applicability of data to full scale treatments.
• The untreated and treated soils from a particular test were sometimes analyzed using different
analytical procedures; a removal efficiency could not be calculated for these tests.
• The degradation products from waste destruction technologies were seldom identified or
quantified, preventing a complete evaluation of the technologies' effectiveness.
• Some treatment technologies transfer contaminants from one medium to another — these cross
media impacts were not always quantified.
• Different analytical protocols were used to generate treatment data for different tests. These
various protocols may not yield comparable results.
• The reporting of significant figures was inconsistent, limiting the ability to statistically evaluate
and compare the data.
• Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures used for field sampling and laboratory
analysis were inconsistently reported, and few studies were independently validated or reviewed,
limiting the reliability of the data.
Because many of these treatment technologies are still under development, the effectiveness of the
technologies on variable waste concentrations, combinations of contaminants, and different soil
characteristics is only partially documented. Because the average removal efficiencies presented
herein are based on highly variable data and are subject to a great deal of uncertainty, removal
efficiency should be one of several criteria used for selecting technologies for further evaluation. In
addition, the screening process and limitations of the data base may have introduced biases into the
data. These factors may affect the statistical significance of the data.
Considerations Of Soil Treatment
The complex nature of solid waste matrices, such as contaminated soil from a Superfund site,
severely complicates the treatment process. Soil is a non-homogeneous medium and the proportion
of clay, organic matter, sand, debris, and other constituents can affect the distribution and treatability
of contaminants. In addition, the distribution of contaminants often is very non-homogeneous and is
dependent on patterns of contaminant deposition and transport. Collectively, these conditions make
the treatment of contaminated soil a technical challenge. Discussions of some important considera-
tions relevant to the selection of soil treatment processes follow.
-------
The magnitudes of the untreated contaminant concentration and the desired treatment goal are impor-
tant factors in technology selection. Some processes are designed to treat wastes with high levels
of contamination, while others are only effective below certain threshold levels. Treatment processes
can also provide widely varying treatment levels with some processes producing residues in the part
per billion range, while others result in part per million range residues.
A critical element in solids treatment is materials handling. Waste transfer throughout the treatment
system is particularly important for solids and viscous sludges where traditional conveyance methods
are frequently ineffective. Slugs of material or debris tend to jam treatment equipment, resulting in
breakage, downtime, and the potential for uncontrolled releases to the environment. Materials
handling equipment should be tested on the waste as part of any treatability testing program.
Experiments should be conducted on an untreated waste as well as on any intermediate mixtures
exhibiting changes in viscosity, particle size, density, etc.
Preprocessing of waste to maximize homogeneity of the waste characteristics is important to
successful treatment technology operation. Any treatment technology will operate most efficiently and
cost effectively when it is designed and utilized to treat a homogeneous waste with a narrow range
of physical/chemical characteristics. Preprocessing is important to the waste treatment system,
because the effectiveness of some technologies is directly affected by the conditions of the contami-
nated soil. If contaminant types and concentrations, waste viscosity, particle size, BTU content,
moisture content, acidity, alkalinity, etc. vary widely, control of the system can be difficult and costly.
Many of these waste characteristics can be modified and improved with appropriate preprocessing.
Materials handling and preprocessing technologies with potential application for soil are currently in
use in industries such as construction, agriculture, and mining. The use of such technologies should
be considered during all soil remediation activities. Preprocessing techniques should also be
incorporated in treatability testing programs. The results of such tests will better define the range of
waste characteristics which the actual treatment technology will have to address.
General Conclusions
Contaminated soils can be treated through three basic mechanisms: (1) destruction of the con-
taminants through chemical alteration to a less toxic compound; e.g., thermal destruction, de-
chlorination, and bioremediation; (2) transfer of the contaminants to another waste stream for subse-
quent treatment; e.g., low temperature thermal desorption and chemical extraction and soil washing;
and (3) permanent bonding of the contaminants within a stabilized matrix preventing future leaching;
e.g., immobilization.
The two technologies that have been widely demonstrated on soils to date are thermal destruction
for organic contaminants and immobilization for inorganic contaminants. While these two technologies
may be highly effective in treating particular classes of wastes, neither provides an ideal solution to
complex mixtures of organic and inorganic wastes which are common at Superfund sites. The
inherent difficulty in treating a waste in a soil matrix, where waste conveyance and mixing are in
themselves complicated unit operations, contributes to the need to find special solutions. Other
issues, such as landfill capacity and cost, cross media impacts, and natural resource conservation
also support the need to develop and use alternative treatment technologies for contaminated soil.
This report has been prepared with the goal of presenting information on a number of treatment
options that are applicable to excavated soils. As stated previously, in situ soil techniques, such as
some types of bioremediation, soil vapor extraction, immobilization, and combined ground water and
vadose zone soil treatment were beyond the scope of this project. In situ techniques should also be
considered when researching remediation measures for a contaminated soil problem.
The analytical data base system developed for this project was subjected to a series of screens by
the U.S. EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. The screens were intended to eliminate
xi
-------
data which were from the application of an inappropriate technology to a waste; from a test which
appeared to be inadequately designed or operated; or from a study which used inappropriate
analytical procedures.
After an in-depth review of the data remaining after screening, recommendations were developed
regarding the effectiveness of the six technology groups on each of the treatability groups. For
destruction and physical transfer technologies applied to organics, the removal efficiency was
analyzed. This evaluation factor was replaced by the reduction in mobility for immobilization for
organics and inorganics, and for chemical extraction and soil washing of inorganics. In Figure 1,
"Predicted Treatment Effectiveness for Contaminated Soil," summary information is provided by
treatability group and by technology. For each treatability group, the effectiveness of various
technologies is evaluated using the following ratings:
• Demonstrated Effectiveness - A significant percentage of the data (20%) is from pilot and full
scale operations, the average removal efficiency for all the data exceeds 90%, and there are at
least ten data pairs.
• Potential Effectiveness - The average removal efficiency for all the data exceeds 70%.
• No Expected Effectiveness- The average removal efficiency for all of the data is less than 70%,
and no interference is expected to this process as a result of this group.
• No Expected Effectiveness - Potential adverse effects to the environment or to the treatment
process may occur.
In some cases, data that met these requirements were judged to be more or less effective than the
data imply, based upon additional qualitative information. If the compounds within a treatability group
were so variable that a range of conclusions could be drawn for a particular technology, two symbols
were used. These cases are discussed in the report.
Abbreviated conclusions for each of the six technology categories follow. The referenced removal
efficiencies represent averages from the available data. The removal efficiencies were calculated
using the following formula:
Untreated _ Treated
Concentration Concentration
X 100 = Percent Removal Efficiency*
Untreated Concentration
"(Percent Mobility Reduction for Immobilization of Organics and Inorganics and Chemical
Extractions and Soil Washing of Inorganics)
This differs from the measure of destruction and removal efficiency (ORE) commonly used for
incineration, which measures the effluent concentration in the stack gas rather than the concentration
in the treated ash. For immobilization technologies, this factor represents the reduction in mobility
from the stabilized matrix as opposed to the actual destruction of the contaminants. The untreated
and treated soil concentrations were measured in the leachate from the application of an extraction
protocol from untreated and treated wastes, rather than in terms of total constituent analysis. The
treated soil concentrations were not adjusted upward to account for the dilution effected by the
addition of large quantities of stabilizing agents. The reduction in mobility also applies to the chemical
extraction and soil washing data for inorganic treatability groups.
xii
-------
FIGURE 1
"-"-v^TSCHHOtOaY
IREATAMLJTY OROU?^~~^
NON-POLAR HALOGENATED
AROMATICS
(W01|
PCB., HALOGENATED
tMOXINS, RJRANS. AND
THEIR PRECURSORS
(W02)
HALOGENATED PHENOLS,
CRESOLS, AMINES, THIOLS.
AND OTHER POLAR
AROMATICS (W03)
HALOGENATED
AUPHATIC COMPOUNDS
(W04)
HALOGENATED CYCLIC
AUPHATICS, ETHERS.
ESTERS, AND KETONES
(WOS)
NTTRATED COMPOUNDS
(WOS)
HETEROCYCUCS AND
SIMPLE NON-HALOGENATEO
AROMATICS
(WOT)
POLYNUCLEAR
AROMATICS
(W08)
OTHER POLAR
NON-HALOGENATED
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
(W0»)
NON-VOLATILE
METALS
(W10)
VOLATILE
METALS
(W11)
THERMAL
DiSTRUCnON
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
o1
x1
OCCHLOMNAHON
d
o
e
e2
Q1
O1
o2-3
Q2-3
o2-3
o1
o1
4
•OHEMEOMfflON
«3
O
o
o*3
e1
e
Q*»
e
O2'3
0 X1
0 X1
LOW TEMPERATURE
THERMAL DESORPTION
• e3
o1
9
•
O1
O1
•
Q3
O
o1
o1
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
AND SOIL WASHING
e
e
e
e
e1
e
o
e
o
e
e
4
IUMOWUZATON
O2
Q1
Q3
e2
o1
Q1
Q2
0
e2
• 3
•
• Demonstrated Effecllvwwn
O Potential Effectiveness
O No Expected Effectiveness (no exf
nterference to process)
X No Expected Effectiveness (potential adverse effects to environment or
process)
1 Data were not available for this treatablllty group. Conclusions are drawn from data for
compounds with similar physical and chemical characteristics.
2 High removal efficiencies implied by the data may be due to volatilization or soil washing.
3 The predicted effectiveness may be different than the data imply, due to Mlatioro In the
4 These technologies may have limited applicability to high levels of organic*.
Figure 1. Predicted Treatment Effectiveness
for Contaminated Soil
xiii
-------
TECHNOLOGY CONCLUSIONS
Thermal Destruction
Thermal destruction uses high temperatures to incinerate and destroy hazardous wastes, usually by
converting the contaminants to carbon dioxide, water, and other combustion products in the presence
of oxygen. Some technologies require a two-stage system with a secondary combustion chamber,
while other technologies effect combustion in a single stage. Thermal destruction is a proven
technology which can effectively and rapidly treat all organic compounds. It consistently achieves the
best overall results for these contaminants, usually accomplishing well over 99% removal. Thermal
destruction technologies are equally effective on halogenated, non-halogenated, aliphatic, aromatic,
and polynuclear compounds, based on an analysis of contaminant concentrations in the ash.
However, incineration of nitrated compounds may generate large quantities of nitrous oxides.
Rotary kiln incineration is most common for soils, probably due to the relative simplicity and abundant
availability of the equipment. Feed systems can be altered to accommodate large diameter particles,
and residence times can be increased to ensure that all the contaminants have been treated.
Depending on the capacity of the unit, rotary kilns can also process large volumes of wastes. Several
new technologies have recently been applied to soils. Circulating and fluidized bed combustion units
are effective on small particle sizes. Larger particles may be too heavy for entrainment, which is the
key to heat transfer and thus combustion in these units. This problem may not be significant however,
because the majority of contaminants tend to be adsorbed to smaller clay and fine sand-sized
particles.
Some infrared incinerators offer increased control of temperature and residence time. These units
also can be run in a pyrolytic (absence of oxygen) mode. Pyrolytic technologies are being tested on
wastes containing metals, because recent treatment studies suggest that, in the absence of oxygen,
metals may be charred into the ash (U.S. EPA, December 1988). The theory behind this mechanism
is still under investigation.
Thermal destruction has not been widely demonstrated as an effective technology for treating soils
contaminated with metals. High concentrations of volatile metal compounds 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. Baghouse filters, while
more effective, also result in significant increases in operating and maintenance costs. Non-volatile
metals tend to remain in the soil when exposed to thermal destruction; however, they may slag and
foul the equipment, increasing the frequency of costly maintenance. If detrimental effects such as
volatile metal emissions to the atmosphere or non-volatile metal slagging can be prevented, thermal
destruction followed by immobilization of the ash residue are effective technologies for mixed organic
and inorganic wastes.
Dechlorination
Dechlorination is a destruction process that uses e chemical reaction to replace chlorine atoms in
chlorinated aromatic molecules with an ether or hydroxyl group. This 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 and subsequently treated.
Field and laboratory tests have identified several types of solutions that can dechlorinate PCBs,
dioxins, furans, and other aromatic compounds. Based upon the limited data available from a
laboratory study, dechlorination may also have potential applications to other halogenated compounds
including straight-chain aliphatics. Although no data were available for halogenated cyclic aliphatics,
it is expected that dechlorination will be effective on these compounds as well.
xiv
-------
The data in the data base indicate that PCBs, halogenated dioxins, furans, and pentachlorophenols
may be treated by dechlorination to approximately 80% removal. More recent data indicate that
removal efficiencies may approach 99.9% (des Rosiers, 1989). The degradation products have not
been identified, but treated soils have been tested for bioaccumulation, mutagenicity, and acute
toxicity, and there is no evidence that the degradation products are toxic (des Rosiers, 1989).
Because the dechlorination process is operated at elevated temperatures (100°C or greater), wastes
containing mixtures of halogenated and non-halogenated volatile compounds appear to experience
destruction of both types of compounds. In reality, the non-halogenated compounds probably have
been volatilized or extracted by the dechlorinating solvent.
The toxicity of the original waste is reduced or eliminated by stripping chlorine atoms. Resulting
by-products should be identified and may require subsequent treatment to achieve protective levels
of the remaining contaminants. The soils must be slurried with the dechlorinating solution to maximize
contact and enable the chemical reactions to occur. Excessive amounts of humus and reactive clays
with high cation exchange capacities will limit the effectiveness of dechlorination, because of the types
of soil-contaminant bonds formed and their relative strengths. The presence of moisture at four to
ten percent or greater tends to hinder the completion of the reaction (des Rosiers, October 1988; U.S.
EPA, April 1984). However, excess moisture can be removed prior to treatment by evaporation,
distillation, or other techniques. High concentrations of reactive metals, under very alkaline
conditions, hinder the dechlorination process. To date, no full scale soil treatment programs have
been undertaken using dechlorination.
Bioremediation
Bioremediation is a destruction process that uses soil microorganisms to chemically degrade organic
contaminants. These microorganisms include bacteria, fungi, and yeasts. Biodegradation of
hazardous wastes can occur as both an intracellular and an extracellular activity. When intracellular,
the hazardous organic compound is used as an energy source by the cell. When extracellular, the
waste is broken down as a result of exposure to enzymes that are produced by the cell in the process
of metabolizing other substances such as glucose or cellulose. In the latter case, the enzymes are
excreted outside the cell membrane, where they come into contact with the waste material and trigger
the breakdown reaction. Both intracellular and extracellular biodegradation can occur in the presence
or in the absence of oxygen. In the presence of oxygen (aerobic), bacteria, fungi, and yeasts
biodegrade organics to carbon dioxide, water, and cell protein. In the absence of oxygen (anaerobic),
they biodegrade the waste, generating methane, carbon dioxide, and cell protein.
Bioremediation has successfully treated many non-halogenated compounds, but it is less successful
with halogenated compounds. The data base indicates that non-halogenated aromatics, heterocyclics,
and other polar compounds have exhibited removal efficiencies in excess of 99%. Halogenated
aliphatic compounds were also successfully treated; however, the average of over 99% removal from
the available data may be a result of volatilization in addition to bioremediation. Volatilization may
also account for some of the removal of semivolatile compounds. As expected, the data base
2indicates that the more complex halogenated and nitrated compounds exhibited lower removal
efficiencies, ranging from approximately 50% to 87%. In addition, poly-halogenated compounds may
be toxic to many microorganisms; however, recent research indicates that various species of white
rot fungi are capable of degrading these halogenated compounds. Metal salts also present a problem,
because high concentrations may be inhibitory or toxic to many microorganisms.
Low Temperature Thermal Desorotion
Low temperature thermal desorption is a physical transfer process that uses air, heat, and/or
mechanical agitation to volatilize contaminants into a gas stream, where the contaminants are then
subjected to further treatment. Like other physical transfer processes, low temperature thermal
desorption moves the contaminants into a medium which is easier to treat than soil. This is a
xv
-------
relatively new technology, based upon a simple mass transfer concept, and manyapplications are
under development. This technology is most effective on the more volatile organic compounds, and
it is limited in its ability to volatilize metals (with the exception of mercury) and semi-volatile organic
compounds.
A low temperature thermal desorption unit operates more effectively at higher temperatures and
increased residence times. For highly contaminated soils, a larger volume of air flowing through the
unit also enhances treatment performance. The degree of volatility of the compound rather than type
of substituted group is the limiting factor. Removal efficiencies, ranging from approximately 65% for
polynuclear aromatics to 99% for non-polar halogenated aromatics, have been demonstrated by these
units at bench, pilot, and full scales.
In comparison to thermal destruction units, this technology is in a developmental phase. Capital and
operating costs for low temperature units are significantly less than corresponding costs for thermal
destruction units. For highly volatile contaminants, the low temperature units provide equivalent
performance; however, the data base indicates that as the volatility of the contaminants decreases,
so does the effectiveness. A potential advantage of the low temperature unit over thermal destruction
is the ability of the former to effectively and safely treat wastes containing mixtures of organics and
inorganics. When coupled with subsequent treatment of the gas stream and immobilization of the
solids in a treatment train, this technology offers a possible solution to the problem of wastes con-
taining organics and high concentrations of inorganics.
Chemical Extraction And Soil Washing
Chemical extraction and soil washing are physical transfer processes in which contaminants are
disassociated from the soil, becoming dissolved or suspended in a liquid solvent. This liquid waste
stream then undergoes subsequent treatment to remove the contaminants and the solvent is recycled,
if possible. Soil washing uses water as the solvent to separate the clay particles, which contain the
majority of the contaminants, from the sand fraction. Chemical extraction processes use a solvent
which separates the contaminants from the soil particles and dissolves the contaminant in the solvent.
If the selection of the solvent is optimized, with the addition of surfactants or chelating agents,
chemical extraction and soil washing can successfully treat many organic and inorganic contaminants,
particularly those which are more soluble in the solvent of choice.
For the same contaminants, the data base indicates that chemical extraction and soil washing are
more effective on sandy soils than on soils high in clay. The differences between the treatability of
sand and clay are (1) the contaminant to soil bond may be within the clay particles, but on the outer
surface of the sand particles and (2) clays have proportionally more surface area than sands, which
translates to potentially greater contaminant adsorption on clays.
Soil washing is best suited for sites where nearly all the contaminants are adsorbed on the clay
fraction. Soil washing then physically separates the contaminated clay from any relatively clean sand
fractions, reducing the volume of waste requiring further treatment. The chemical extraction process
involves breaking the bond between the contaminant and the soil particle in order to establish a bond
between the contaminant and the solvent.
Much of the data in the data base is from soil washing, a form of aqueous chemical extraction that
has been successfully demonstrated in several laboratory and pilot scale tests, and in three full scale
units in the Netherlands. The majority of the available data on organic compounds indicates removal
efficiencies of approximately 90% to 99%, with lower values of approximately 71% to 82% for some
of the less volatile and less water soluble aromatic compounds. The reported effectiveness could be
due in part to volatilization for compounds with higher vapor pressures.
In addition to effectiveness on some organics, the chemical extraction process, with optimized solvent
selection, has demonstrated reductions in mobility of 85% to 89% for volatile and non-volatile metals,
xvi
-------
respectively. The majority of the available data for chemical extraction is from laboratory studies,
where the soil was sorted by hand into relatively small-sized clumps. The results achieved under
these ideal conditions may not be reproducible under full scale conditions, where larger clumps of soil
will be treated.
The chemical extraction process has some limitations. It is often difficult to select a solvent that is
effective on both organic and inorganic contaminants. While surfactants are most effective on
organics, they are not as effective as chelating agents on inorganics. The fine clay particles, which
may remain contaminated due to their high cation exchange capacities, are very difficult to separate
from the solvent. The clay particles may require immobilization prior to disposal, while the spent
solvents are often toxic and may also require treatment.
Immobilization
Immobilization processes reduce the mobility of contaminants by stabilizing or solidifying them within
the soil matrix, without causing significant contaminant destruction or transfer to another medium.
Volatile organics may volatilize during treatment, and an emission control system may be required.
Contaminant leaching can be significantly retarded by selecting optimal formulations and proportions
of stabilizing agents.
The most common processes add portland cement and/or lime pozzolan materials (such as flyash)
to the waste. In portland cement systems, hydration products from silicate compounds and water are
generated, resulting in the formation of a calcium silicate hydrate gel. The gel swells and interlocking
silicate fibrils are formed which surround the contaminant ions. After setting and curing, a rigid mass
exists that is resistant to leaching. The lime/pozzolan processes use finely divided non-crystalline
silica (flyash) and the calcium in lime to produce a cementitious solid. The contaminants are
entrapped within this concrete mixture. In addition to the commonly used portland cement and
lime/pozzolan materials, many vendors have developed proprietary agents which are claimed to have
increased effectiveness. These proprietary formulations were not evaluated in detail during this study.
Immobilization has successfully reduced the mobility of metal compounds; and recent research with
organophilic clays, by the U.S. EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, indicates that this
technology may be applicable to some organic contaminants as well (Gibbons & Soundararajan,
1988).
For the immobilization processes, contaminant concentrations are typically measured in terms of EP
Toxicity, Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), or similar extraction protocols performed
on the untreated and treated soils. Immobilization can accomplish reductions in mobility of 81% to
93% for metals. Reductions in mobility for organics range from 61% to 99%; immobilization appears
to be most effective on polynuclear aromatics and halogenated aliphatics. This reported mobility
reduction does not reflect an increase in the treated soil leachate concentration to account for the
dilution effected by the addition of large quantities of stabilizing agents. The effectiveness of this
technology in immobilizing organic compounds is being investigated. Some organic mobility
reductions may actually be removals as a direct result of volatilization during the exothermic mixing
process and throughout the curing period. However, the data available indicate that significant
bonding takes place between some organic contaminants and certain organophilic species in the
binding matrix. For example, current research efforts attempt to quantify this bond energy through
the use of Differential Scanning Calorimetry, and only preliminary results are available at this time
(Gibbons & Soundararajan, 1988).
xvii
-------
SUMMARY
The complex nature of contaminated soils presents a significant challenge in terms of successful
waste treatment and minimization of undesirable cross media impacts. The effectiveness of available
soil treatment technologies can vary widely due to the unique characteristics of contaminated soils.
Key factors affecting technology selection and effectiveness include the following:
• Materials handling and preprocessing techniques may be necessary to homogenize the
contaminant concentrations and particle sizes before feeding the waste into a particular
technology.
• Initial contaminant concentrations and soil characteristics may limit the ability of a technology
to treat the waste. Waste concentrations must be characterized before and during remediation.
• Treatment goals vary depending on the level of acceptable risk. These goals affect the selection
process, with some technologies, such as thermal destruction, capable of removing contaminants
down to the part per billion range while others achieve treatment goals in the part per million
range.
• Mixtures of organic and inorganic contaminants may preclude the use of some treatment
processes due to the potential for undesirable cross media impacts. An acceptable solution may
involve the use of several treatment technologies in a treatment train.
All of these factors must be considered when predicting the effectiveness of treatment technologies
for contaminated soils. The results summarized in this report should only be used to select treatment
technologies for further site-specific evaluation. In addition, treatment technologies which were
beyond the scope of this study, such as in-situ treatment and combined treatment of soil and ground
water, should also be considered.
When determining the applicability of technologies to a soil waste, treatment test results from a series
of actual site samples representative of the variety of site conditions should be evaluated. In terms
of treatment technology effectiveness, the entire treatment train configuration should be considered,
including materials handling and preprocessing; destruction, contaminant transfer, or immobilization;
and effluent, emission, or residue treatment technologies. Where possible, the results of previous
treatability studies and successful treatment applications should be consulted to aid in the prediction
of treatment system effectiveness. However, in every case, there can be no substitute for the
information provided by well operated pilot scale treatability studies on a series of waste samples that
are representative of the variety of conditions found at the site.
xviii
-------
REFERENCES
1. des Rosiers, P. 1990. Chemical Detoxification of Dioxin-Contaminated Wastes Using
, Potassium Polyethylene Glycolate. Publication Pending, Chemosphere.
2. des Rosiers, P. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October 1988. Meeting with COM
Federal Programs Corporation.
3. Gibbons, J.J. and Soundararajan, R. July 1988. American Laboratory - Environmental
Analysis, Report on the Nature of Chemical Bonding Between Modified Clay Minerals and
Organic Waste Materials.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March 1989. Superfund Treatability Clearinghouse
Abstracts. Prepared by COM Federal Programs Corporation for the Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response. EPA/540/2-89/001.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 1988. High Temperature Thermal
Treatment for CERCLA Waste: Evaluation and Selection of Onsite and Offsite Systems.
Prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. EPA/540/X-88/006.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September 1988. Technology Screening Guide for
Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges. Prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. and
Versar Inc. for the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. EPA/540/2-88/004.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 1984. Project Summary Report on the Feasi-
bility of APEG Detoxification of Dioxin- Contaminated Soils. ORD Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. EPA/600/S2-84/071.
xix
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Predicted Treatment Effectiveness for Contaminated Soil xiii
2-1 Predicted Treatment Effectiveness for Contaminated Soil 14
2-2 Number and Type of Data Pairs Used to Predict the Treatment
Effectiveness for Contaminated Soil 17
2-3 Final Conclusions by Treatability Group-Non-Polar Halogenated
Aromatics (W01) 19
2-4 Final Conclusions by Treatability Group-PCBs, Halogenated
Dioxins, Furans, and their Precursors (W02) 20
2-5 Final Conclusions by Treatability Group-Halogenated Phenols, Cresols,
Amines, and Thiols (W03) 21
2-6 Final Conclusions by Treatability Group-Halogenated Aliphatic
Compounds (W04) 23
2-7 Final Conclusions by Treatability Group-Halogenated Cyclic Aliphatics,
Ethers, Esters, and Ketones (W05) 24
2-8 Final Conclusions by Treatability Group-Nitrated Aromatic and Aliphatic
Compounds (W06) 25
2-9 Final Conclusions by Treatability Group-Heterocyclics and Simple
Non-Halogenated Aromatics (W07) 26
2-10 Final Conclusions by Treatability Group-Polynuclear Aromatics (W08) 28
2-11 Final Conclusions by Treatability Group-Other Polar Non-Halogenated
Organic Compounds (W09) 29
2-12 Final Conclusions by Treatability Group-Non-Volatile Metals (W10) 30
2-13 Final Conclusions by Treatability Group-Volatile Metals (W11) 31
3-1 Thermal Destruction Flow Diagram 36
3-2 Final Conclusions by Treatment Technology-Thermal Destruction 37
3-3 Dechlorination Flow Diagram 44
3-4 Final Conclusions by Treatment Technology-Dechlorination 46
3-5 Composting Flow Diagram 52
3-6 Activated Sludge Flow Diagram 52
3-7 Final Conclusions by Treatment Technology-Bioremediation 53
3-8 Low Temperature Thermal Desorption Flow Diagram 60
3-9 Final Conclusions by Treatment Technology-Low Temperature
Thermal Desorption 61
3-10 Chemical Extraction Flow Diagram 67
3-11 Soil Washing Flow Diagram 67
3-12 Final Conclusions by Treatment Technology-Chemical Extraction and
Soil Washing 69
3-13 Immobilization Flow Diagram 75
3-14 Final Conclusions by Treatment Technology-Immobilization 77
xx
-------
GLOSSARY
ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
CAS Chemical Abstracts Service
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (1980)
DRE Destruction and Removal Efficiency
HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (1984)
LDR Land Disposal Restrictions
OERR Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (USEPA)
OR&D Office of Research and Development (USEPA)
OSW Office of Solid Waste (USEPA)
QA Quality Assurance
QC Quality Control
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976)
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (1986)
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
XXI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This document was prepared within EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR)
Hazardous Site Control Division, Russel Wyer, Director, under the direction of Bill Hanson, Chief of
the Remediation, Operations and Guidance Branch. Carolyn K. Offutt was the EPA Project Manager.
Additional EPA support was provided by a number of EPA Headquarters, Regional, and Office of
Research and Development personnel who supplied data and valuable comments and
recommendations.
The primary technical reviewers of this document, who provided their expertise included the following
from the EPA Office of Research and Development:
Paul des Rosiers
Edwin Barth
Robert Thurnau
Richard Traver
In addition, Eugene Tseng of the National Science Foundation Engineers Research Center for
Hazardous Substances Control at UCLA and several members of the Hazardous Waste Treatment
Council participated with both data collection and technical review of this report. Other OERR
participants in the development of this document included Jim Antizzo, Jennifer Haley, John Kingscott,
and John Cunningham.
COM Federal Programs Inc. (FPC) of Fairfax, Virginia performed the research and writing of this
report under EPA Contracts 68-01-6939 and 68-W8-0098. The FPC Project Manager was Joan
O'Neill Knapp.
Other researchers and authors from FPC assisting in the development of this document include Emily
Cord-Duthinh, Andrew Oravetz and Gregory Lacy. Don Bissex and Paul Jaumillot programmed and
managed the computerized data base. Elio Arniella provided technical expertise. Leita Bennett
performed the statistical analyses. Judy Willis and Suzanne Kannan typed the many drafts of this
report. Dave Hrebenach, Kevin McClatchy, Harry Lindenhofen, Bob Prolman, Donna Koepper, Trish
Kenney, Susan Murphy, and many others also provided invaluable assistance. Substantial support
was also received from Ermon Green and Deepak Bhinge of C.C. Johnson and Malhotra, P.C.
xxii
-------
SECTION 1
OVERVIEW
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Background
The Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of
1980, as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of
1986, mandated that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) identify,
investigate, and remediate abandoned
hazardous waste sites in this country. Many of
these sites contain large quantities of
contaminated soil. In the past, the less
contaminated soils were often capped, while the
hot spots were excavated and landfilled in
permitted disposal facilities.
Under SARA, U.S. EPA is required to re-
evaluate past disposal practices and to give
preference to alternatives that use treatment as
a principal element. SARA requires the U.S.
EPA to select remedies which are protective of
human health and the environment, and which
comply with "applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements" (ARAR's) of the state
and federal governments. The Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976
and its 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) are two major laws that
may be applicable to Superfund wastes. HSWA
prohibits continued land disposal of untreated
hazardous wastes and requires U.S. EPA to
develop treatment standards that must be met
before disposal is allowed. After the standards
or land disposal restrictions (LDRs) become
effective, wastes that are not treated in
accordance with those standards will be banned
from land disposal.
The LDRs for contaminated soils could have a
major impact on the Superfund program. These
disposal standards will assist the U.S. EPA in
ensuring that remedies involving treatment are
incorporated into remedial actions. For this
reason, the U.S. EPA Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response (OERR) led an intensive
effort to compile existing soil treatment data and
to evaluate the effectiveness of the available
technologies. This report summarizes the
information collected for the U.S. EPA. This
information exemplifies the current status of soil
treatment technologies and was used to develop
program guidance.
Scope of Work
The U.S. EPA Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response (OERR) contracted COM
Federal Programs Corporation (FPC) to support
the Superfund program by collecting and
evaluating the available information on soil
treatment technologies. The purpose of the
assignment was to support the development of
treatment standards for contaminated soils from
Superfund sites as well as to provide technology
transfer to the Superfund program. This report
presents the results of the data collection effort
and identifies the treatment technologies that
have been tested on contaminated soils. This
assignment focused on treatment methods for
excavated soils, because these soils would
trigger the LDRs during subsequent placement.
As a result, in-situ treatment applications were
not included in the scope of this assignment.
Although data were sought on the treatment of
contaminated debris, minimal information was
available; therefore, debris was excluded from
the scope as well.
This summary report includes the data that were
available to the research team during their 1987
and 1988 data collection effort. The information
is presented as received, without independent
validation, to facilitate timely technology transfer.
Due to the developmental status of some of the
technologies and applications, the reproducibility
of the results cannot be ensured. These
limitations notwithstanding, the data were
-------
evaluated and screened, and were used to
develop preliminary conclusions regarding the
effectiveness of the various technologies on
commonly occurring classes of contaminants
and soils.
The available data and preliminary conclusions
presented in this summary report will assist
hazardous waste management personnel and
U.S. EPA project managers in selecting soil
treatment technologies for site-specific
evaluation. This body of information will
continue to be broadened and updated as more
information becomes available from CERCLA
response actions, Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) program
demonstrations, and RCRA corrective actions.
Additional information on treatment technologies
is available from the Superfund Treatability
Clearinghouse Abstracts (U.S. EPA, March
1989), and from the Technology Screening
Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils and
Sludges (U.S. EPA, September 1988). The
information contained in this summary report and
in the studies referenced herein provide
preliminary answers to the following questions.
1) What soil treatment technologies are
potentially applicable to a given set of site
conditions?
2) What previous treatment studies,
referenced in this document, have been
conducted on similar contaminants? Who
are the contacts for those studies?
3) What special characteristics of the soil itself
could affect treatment effectiveness?
4) What additional analyses should be
conducted on soil samples to better predict
the effectiveness of treatment
technologies?
5) What potential materials handling issues
could limit the operation of a treatment
system?
6) Which soil characteristics could be modified
through preprocessing to improve treatment
performance?
7) What are the emissions, effluents, and
residues from various treatment
technologies, and what potential cross
media impacts should be considered?
1.2 ORGANIZATION AND USE OF THIS
REPORT
Organization
This document has been organized into the
following sections, which present the project
results and conclusions:
i
Section /discusses the scope of the project, the
organization and use of the report, the data
collection and analysis effort, the data screening
rationale, the organization of the treatment data,
the limitations of the data, and special
considerations of soil treatment. A methodology
is presented for using this document to select
technologies for further site-specific
investigation.
Section2identifies the eleven treatability groups
and treatment recommendations for each group.
Section 3 discusses the six technology groups,
including principles of operation, waste
characteristics, and design and operating
parameters that affect performance.
Appendices A through I present supporting
documentation. To evaluate a technology for a
waste site, knowledge of both the general
characteristics of the soil itself and the individual
contaminant concentrations is required. Based
upon these data, a site-specific evaluation of a
technology or a treatment train approach can be
conducted.
Methodology to Use This Report
A methodology for using this report to select
treatment technologies for further investigation
at a hazardous waste site is recommended
below.
STEP 1. Determine which treatability groups
are present on the site. Section 2 describes the
treatability groups. Appendix A lists the
individual compounds within each treatability
group and the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS)
codes.
-------
STEP 2. Determine which treatment
technologies have been applied to those
treatability groups. Section 2 describes the
types of treatment technologies for which data
are available in each treatability group.
Appendix B lists the technology groups and
treatment technologies considered in this study.
STEP 3. Determine which of these treatment
technologies have been most effective on the
types of waste found at the site. Section 3
describes the six technology groups in more
detail and summarizes results and conclusions
for each treatability group. Appendix C explains
how the available analytical data from previous
treatment studies were evaluated and screened
to develop these conclusions. Appendices D
through G tabulate data on the effectiveness of
these technologies in terms of treated soil
concentrations and removal efficiencies achieved
(reduction in mobility for immobilization and
chemical extraction and soil washing of
inorganics). These reports are sorted first by
treatability group, then by technology group, and
finally by removal efficiency (or reduction in
mobility).
The most effective performance data may be
found in Appendices D through F. Appendices
D and F present treatment results for organic
contaminants, while Appendix E presents
inorganic results. These analytical data are
summarized in Sections 2 and 3 of this report.
The remainder of the available data, reflecting
technology and treatability group combinations
that are not the most effective or have not been
widely tested, are found in Appendix G. These
data are particularly valuable in the evaluation of
sites with mixed organic and inorganic
contamination, where a treatment train may be
the most effective approach. These data also
provide preliminary results from new and
emerging applications of treatment technologies
to complex soil contamination problems.
STEP 4. Determine the intent and applicability
of the study which produced the data of interest.
Appendix H presents short summaries of those
studies containing the analytical data that have
been evaluated in detail in this report. Results of
the bench, pilot, or full scale tests are presented
briefly and the contaminant names and CAS
codes are listed. The summaries in Appendix H
are presented in order by the Document Library
Number, to enable the reader to go from the
data tables in Appendices D through G to the
summary of the document which produced the
data of interest. The source documents
themselves may be accessed through the
Hazardous Waste Collection in the U.S. EPA
libraries, by referring to the Document Library
Number in the bibliography.
It is recommended that applicable document
summaries be reviewed first, followed by
thorough evaluations of the documents
themselves. This historical data should then be
supplemented with site-specific treatability
studies. In this way, new studies can begin
where the previous studies ended, building upon
the previous work to further establish the
effectiveness of treatment technologies on
complicated environmental problems.
STEP 5. Once potential treatment
technologies have been selected, review other
studies evaluating these technologies to
determine the limitations and capabilities of the
technology. Appendix I is a bibliography of the
nearly 550 documents that were reviewed as
part of this study. The bibliography also includes
documents that did not contribute analytical data
to the data base, but that may be very useful in
a qualitative sense. For example, some of the
documents are proposed work plans that contain
detailed design information, and many of the
literature reviews contain information on the
potential applicability of various treatment
technologies.
The bibliography is sorted first by technology
group and then by individual treatment
technology, to facilitate the identification of those
documents that contain further information on a
particular technology. A recommended contact
is listed in the bibliography for this purpose. All
efforts have been made to maintain current
contact information for each document.
Example: Here is an example of how to use this
document to identify treatment technologies
which may be applicable to a wood treatment
site. Wood Treatments, Inc. (WTI) used oils
containing pentachlorophenol (PCP) and
creosote to preserve and treat wood. For a brief
period, copper, chromium, and arsenic were also
used to treat wood at WTI. Sludge in a lagoon
at the facility is contaminated with
pentachlorophenol, cresols, poly nuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), constituents of the oils,
-------
and low concentrations of metals. Low
concentrations of benzene and toluene, which
were used to clean equipment, are also present
in the lagoon.
STEP 1. The following Treatability Groups are
present in the sludge:
• W03 includes the pentachlorophenol and
cresols
• W07 includes the benzene and toluene
• W08 includes the polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons
• W10 includes copper and chromium
• W11 includes arsenic
STEP 2. The following treatment technologies
have been applied to these Treatability Groups:
thermal destruction
dechlorination
bioremediation
low temperature thermal desorption
chemical extraction and soil washing
immobilization
STEP 3. The following treatment technologies
have been most effective on the types of waste
atWTI:
• Thermal destruction has been demonstrated to
be effective on all the organic contaminants.
It is ineffective on the metals. High
concentrations of volatile metals may create
an emissions problem, but the metal
concentrations at WTI may not be high enough
to cause any problems.
• Dechlorination is potentially effective on the
PCP and cresols, but it is ineffective on the
other, non-chlorinated compounds; although
the more volatile non-halogenated organics
may appear to be destroyed, they have in fact
been volatilized instead.
• Bioremediation has been demonstrated to be
effective on benzene, toluene, and PAHs, and
it is potentially effective on PCP and cresols.
Although bioremediation is not effective on
metals, which are sometimes toxic to the
microorganisms, the low concentrations of
metals at WTI may prove not to adversely
affect this treatment process.
• Low temperature thermal desorption has been
demonstrated to be effective on benzene and
toluene. It is potentially effective on PCP and
cresols. It is not effective on the PAHs or
metals.
• Chemical extraction and soil washing have
been demonstrated to be effective on
benzene and toluene, and are potentially
effective on the other contaminants.
• Immobilization has been demonstrated to be
effective on metals, and it is potentially effec-
tive on PCP, cresols, and possibly PAHs.
However, emissions of benzene and toluene,
two volatile organics, would have to be con-
trolled. High concentrations of oils may
adversely affect this treatment process.
In summary, bioremediation and thermal
destruction may effectively treat the organic
contaminants. Immobilization may effectively
reduce the mobility of the metals and possibly
some of the organics. Chemical extraction and
soil washing may also be effective.
Dechlorination and low temperature thermal
desorption would be effective only on PCP, and
benzene and toluene, respectively. A treatment
train may be required to remediate all the
contaminants at WTI.
STEP 4. The following documents describe
thermal destruction, bioremediation, chemical
extraction and soil washing, and immobilization
for these types of wastes. Summaries of these
documents are presented in Appendix H.
Corresponding document numbers can be found
on the bottom right-hand corner of each page of
Appendix H.
• Thermal Destruction: FDBP-1, EUZH-1,
EURE-1, FCQC-1, EUZM-1, EXPC-1, EZZB-1,
EZYN-1
• Bioremediation: EWGC-1, EZZA-1, EWFZ-1,
EWQX-1
• Chemical Extraction and Soil Washing:
EUQW-1, EUTT-3, EVAR-1, EUTT-2, FCQC-1
• Immobilization: FHMH-1, FCAK-1, EUXT-1,
FAAP-1, FCAK-2, EURY-1, FCAK-3, EUXT-1
STEP 5. Additional studies are listed in the
Bibliography (Appendix I) regarding remediation
-------
of wood treatment sites, materials handling
problems for sludges, and other documents.
Some examples of these documents are listed
below. These documents should be discussed
with the contacts listed in the Bibliography.
• CLMS: Remedial Investigation of the Coleman
Evans Wood Preserving Site.
• FBTR: The SRS/EIF Oily Sludge Fixation
Process.
• FHYK: Treatment Demonstration Report of
Creosote Contaminated Soils.
• EUXR: On Site Incineration Testing of Shirco
Infrared Systems Portable Pilot Test Unit at
the International Paper Company Wood
Treatment Plant.
This information suggests that bioremediation
may effectively treat the organic contaminants.
Chemical extraction and soil washing followed
by treatment of the liquid may effectively treat
both the organic and inorganic contaminants.
Thermal destruction would effectively treat the
organic contaminants, but might be very
expensive, particularly if high concentrations of
metals are present. Dechlorination and low
temperature thermal desorption would treat only
a few of the organic contaminants.
Immobilization may be needed to reduce the
mobility of the solid residues generated by these
other technologies. Treatability studies should
be undertaken to evaluate bioremediation,
chemical extraction and soil washing, and
possibly immobilization. Because the waste is
a relatively homogeneous sludge, different
remedies will probably not be needed for any
hot spots. However, materials handling issues
should be addressed when selecting a remedy.
1.3 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
During the data collection effort, nearly 550
documents were obtained from various sources.
These included U.S. EPA Superfund removal
and remedial activities; U.S. EPA Office of
Research and Development (OR&D) tests;
Department of Defense and Department of
Energy studies; state programs; private party
studies; and vendor demonstrations. Any
available document that contained information
on the treatment of contaminated soil was
collected in order to compile as complete a data
base as possible. These documents represent
a compilation of the best available information,
which will be expanded as more data become
available from CERCLA response actions, SITE
demonstrations, and RCRA corrective actions.
Many of the documents dealt with in-situ soil
treatment, or the treatment of liquids rather than
excavated soils. Many other documents were
proposals or literature reviews, or dealt primarily
with site characterization. Those documents
that did not contain test results were eliminated
from further quantitative analysis; however,
applicable qualitative information was retained
and used to develop this report.
Sixty-eight studies contained analytical data from
the results of laboratory, pilot, and full scale
testing of thermal destruction, dechlorination,
bioremediation, low temperature thermal
desorption, chemical extraction and soil
washing, and immobilization technologies
treating contaminated soils. Because insufficient
treatment data were available on individual
contaminants, data from contaminants with
similar physical and chemical structures, and
hence similar treatability characteristics, were
classified among eleven treatability groups.
Treatment technologies were classified into six
technology groups. All applicable quantitative
and qualitative soil treatment data were entered
into a data base developed for this assignment.
The data were then subjected to multiple
screens. These screens were intended to
eliminate data derived from: (1) the application
of an inappropriate technology to a particular
waste; (2) a test that appeared to be
inadequately designed or operated; (3) a study
that used inappropriate analytical procedures,
such as total waste analysis results to evaluate
immobilization; or (4) less successful test runs
that were used to optimize treatment conditions.
Data which passed through the screens are
presented in Appendices D, E, and F. Appendix
D presents total constituent analysis data for the
nine organic treatability groups. Appendix E
includes extraction protocol data for the two
inorganic contaminant groups for chemical
extraction and soil washing and immobilization
technologies. Appendix F presents extraction
protocol results for six of the nine organic con-
taminant groups for immobilization technologies.
Additional data that were eliminated from
-------
quantitative analysis, because they are not
representative of the "best" performance, are
referenced where appropriate, and have been
included in Appendix G. The rationale for the
data screens is discussed in more detail in Sec-
tion 1.4 and in Appendix C.
1.4 DATA SCREENING
The available data were examined to identify the
"best" or most successful treatment results.
These screens are described in detail in
Appendix C. Some data points were screened
from the data base because, based upon the
study descriptions, they appeared to be from
inadequately designed or operated technology
applications. These data points may have been
generated during unsuccessful test runs
designed to optimize equipment performance.
Other individual data points and some entire
treatment studies were screened from the data
base, because they were reported using
inappropriate analytical protocols. If untreated
and treated soil concentrations could not be
matched, or if the calculated removal efficiency
was less than or equal to zero, the data were
also removed from consideration.
Results from treatment technologies that are
considered to be ineffective on the contaminant
being measured, such as thermal destruction of
metals, were also screened from the data base..
Much of this data was generated during the
treatment of mixed organic and inorganic
wastes. These data provide valuable insights
into the behavior of multiple contaminants
treated by a variety of technologies, similar to a
treatment train approach.
The data which passed through the screens are
summarized in Sections 2 and 3, and are
presented in detail in Appendices D, E, and F.
The data which did not pass through these
screens are presented in Appendix G. These
data, while not indicative of the best
performance, provide useful qualitative
information in this rapidly developing field, and
are referenced in this report, where applicable.
The rationale for screening out certain treatment
data is described below.
• Treatment of Inorganic Wastes - Thermal
destruction technologies were not considered
to be effective or environmentally sound
technologies for the treatment of inorganic
wastes; therefore, these data were not
considered in this analysis. Data for
inorganic compounds treated by
dechlorination, bioremediation, and low
temperature thermal desorption, technologies
targeted for the treatment of organic
compounds, were also screened from the
data base. Data from research using these
technologies on mixed organic and inorganic
wastes were screened from the data base
and are included in Appendix G.
• Total Constituent Analysis Data for
Immobilization Technologies - Immobilization
treatments retard the leaching of individual
waste constituents. The effectiveness of such
technologies should be assessed by the
concentrations in the leachate from the
treated and untreated wastes.
Concentrations in the leachate are measured
using an extraction procedure and cannot be
obtained from total constituent analysis
results. Accordingly, only immobilization data
sets containing leachate concentration data
from untreated and treated wastes were
considered. Data sets containing total
constituent analysis concentrations were
screened from the data base and appear in
Appendix G. Some samples of soils which
were treated by immobilization underwent
both total constituent analysis and leachate
extraction procedures. While the total
constituent analyses were screened from the
data base, leachate extraction data for these
samples were retained.
Leachate Extraction Data for Destruction
Technologies - Data sets for the treatment of
organic compounds, where the contaminants
were removed and destroyed, were required
to be reported in terms of total constituent
analysis of the untreated and treated soils.
Therefore, leachate extraction procedure data
were not considered. When available, the
extraction procedure results have been
included in Appendix G. Some samples of
soils, which were treated by destruction
technologies, underwent both total constituent
analysis and leachate extraction procedures.
While the leachate extraction data were
screened from the data base, the total
constituent analysis data from these samples
were retained.
-------
• Laboratory Precision and Accuracy- Precision
in this report is defined as the agreement
among analytical results from similar wastes
that underwent similar treatment under similar
conditions. Accuracy is the nearness of the
mean to the true value. Data that clearly
indicated poor laboratory precision or accuracy
were not considered.
• Detection Limits and Negative Removal
Efficiencies- In instances where treated waste
concentrations were reported as zero or less
than an unspecified detection limit (not
detected), common analytical detection limits
were substituted so that removal efficiencies
or reductions in mobility could be calculated.
Data were not considered where the detection
limit resulted in a removal efficiency less than
or equal to zero (where the reported treated
soil concentration was greater than or equal to
the reported untreated soil concentration).
Also, due to the uncertainty involved in estab-
lishing some detection limits, data were not
considered for compounds for which detection
limits could not be estimated.
1.5 ORGANIZATION OF TREATMENT
DATA
The treatment data collected were classified by
the contaminants present and the treatment
technology employed. Due to a lack of sufficient
treatment data on a contaminant-specific basis,
the data were sorted into categories of
contaminants with similar physical and/or
chemical properties, referred to as treatability
groups. Contaminants were sorted among
eleven treatability groups. The various
treatment technologies were sorted among six
technology groups. Lists of the treatability
groups and technology groups follow. Examples
of individual contaminants and treatment tech-
nologies are provided in Appendices A and B.
Treatability Groups
• Non-polar halogenated aromatic compounds
excluding PCBs, dioxins, furans, and their pre-
cursors (W01)
• PCBs, halogenated dioxins, furans, and their
precursors (W02)
• Halogenated phenols, cresols, amines, thiols,
and other polar aromatics (W03)
• Halogenated aliphatic compounds (W04)
• Halogenated cyclic aliphatics, ethers, esters,
and ketones (W05)
• Nitrated aromatic and aliphatic compounds
(W06)
• Heterocyclics and simple non-halogenated
aromatics (W07)
• Polynuclear aromatics and heterocyclics
(W08)
• Other polar non-haiogenated organic
compounds (W09)
• Non-volatile metals (W10)
• Volatile metals (W11)
Technology Groups
Thermal Destruction (Incineration)
Dechlorination (Dehalogenation)
Bioremediation
Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
Chemical Extraction and Soil Washing
Immobilization
1.6 DATA LIMITATIONS
Contaminated soil treatment techniques are still
largely under development, and limited data are
available at this time. Each study that
generated data referenced In this report was
conducted for a different purpose in response to
different requirements. The data referenced in
this report came predominantly from laboratory
studies performed at bench scale, using beakers
as reaction vessels, or from pilot scale studies,
using down-sized equipment. Limited
information exists from full scale treatments
performed at actual sites. Therefore, this
evaluation of the effectiveness of the
technologies has several limitations, which are
noted below.
• Scale-up Uncertainties - The prediction of
scale up achievable by various technologies,
based on small-scale results, is not a straight
forward task. At times, high removal
efficiencies can be accomplished under ideal
small scale conditions using a hand-sorted
waste feed and tightly controlled and
maintained operating conditions. It may be
impossible to reproduce these removal
efficiencies on a larger automated scale.
Therefore, actual full scale technology
effectiveness may be lower than the results
indicated from bench scale testing.
-------
• Incomplete Reports - The types of reports
collected range from'detailed printouts of all
data generated, to very brief reports or
letters summarizing the information into a
few data points. Thus, the relative
importance of the data reported could not
be determined consistently.
• Incomplete Waste Stream Analysis - Waste
streams were not consistently measured to
determine the fate of the contaminants and
their intermediate and final degradation
products in emissions, effluents, or residues.
Often, the study was designed to demonstrate
that a certain concentration could be achieved
in a certain regulated emission stream. For
example, in instances where incinerator stack
gas was measured, while the incinerator ash
was not analyzed, the data was not added to
the data base. This variability in waste stream
measurement also resulted in a lack of
information regarding undesirable cross media
impacts.
• Incomplete Contaminant Analysis - A full
range of contaminants was seldom quantified.
Often, the studies reported analyses for
certain target compounds only. This may
have been due in part to the high cost
associated with analyzing samples.
Unfortunately, this approach resulted in a lack
of information for many compounds, and a
"not analyzed" cannot be assumed to mean
"not detected." This lack of data was
especially significant in the case of
bioremediation, where often the initial
compound was not detected in the treated
residue, yet no attempt was made to analyze
for any biodegradation products.
• Incomplete Reporting of QA/QC Procedures -
Detailed laboratory quality assurance and
quality control procedures (QA/QC) were
rarely reported, and there is no assurance that
they were consistently applied within the
study. For example, some documents did not
indicate which analytical methods were used.
Many documents did not address whether the
analytical results of laboratory blanks or
spiked samples met acceptable QA/QC
criteria. In addition, many documents did not
indicate whether any field or wash blank or
duplicate samples were collected, whether any
chain-of-custody records were maintained, or
what decontamination procedures were used.
This lack of information raised questions
about the quality of the data.
Lack of Independent Validation - There were
few cases, if any, in which a third party
reviewed and validated the data generated for
quality assurance purposes. Independent
verification is an important element in the
acceptance of any data.
Varied Analytical Protocols - Because each
treatment study was conducted in response to
unique requirements, a variety of analytical
protocols was reported among the many
tests. These different protocols do not yield
comparable results. In addition, the untreated
and treated soils from a particular test were
not always analyzed using consistent pro-
cedures, thereby invalidating the calculation
of a removal efficiency or reduction in
mobility.
Significant Figures - The number of reported
significant figures varied from one study to
the next, and the majority of the studies
reported at least two significant figures.
Therefore, the values presented in Sections 2
and 3 of this report are limited to two sig-
nificant figures. While Appendices D through
G present seven digits, they are only
statistically valid to two significant figures.
Statistical Significance - The available data
exhibit wide variations in untreated soil
characteristics, process operating conditions,
and hence treatment system performance.
For this reason, the calculation of average
untreated and treated soil concentrations and
process removal efficiencies for one group
may not statistically be significantly different
from those of another group. Caution is
advised when referring to these values.
Preferably, each treatment technology should
be evaluated separately when drawing
conclusions about the effectiveness of a par-
ticular technology on a particular contaminant.
1.7 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
SOIL TREATMENT
OF
The majority of the treatment data summarized
and discussed in this report were from the
treatment of contaminated soils. The balance of
the data was from the treatment of sludges. No
data were available from the treatment of debris.
-------
Therefore, this report focuses on the treatment
of contaminated soils only and does not address
contaminated debris. However, some of the
technologies described in this report for soil
treatment may also be modified to treat debris.
A major purpose of this assignment was to
document the difficulties encountered when
treating contaminated soils and, therefore, to
substantiate the necessity of different treatment
standards for these wastes. The available
treatment data exhibited large variations in
effectiveness, due to many factors that are
unique to the soil itself. Knowledge of these
considerations is important to understand and
predict the effectiveness of treatment
technologies on contaminated soils.
The complex nature of a solid waste matrix,
such as contaminated soil from a Superfund site,
severely complicates the treatment process.
The contamination may have been non-uniformly
deposited over time, which resulted in hot spots
and areas of very low concentration. In addition,
large volumes of soil may be contaminated with
a mixture of compounds. The complex bonding
forces that are exhibited by various soil frac-
tions, particularly clays and organic matter, can
be difficult to counteract and can affect the
treatability of contaminated soil. To further com-
plicate these circumstances, the age of many of
these sites has allowed significant opportunity
for environmental weathering to occur, allowing
many contaminants to migrate through the soil
matrix. Collectively, these conditions, coupled
with the frequent existence of debris such as
rocks, tree stumps, metallic objects, and
discarded appliances, make the treatment of
contaminated soil a technical challenge.
Discussions of some of the important con-
siderations relevant to the selection of soil
treatment processes follow.
Soil Type
The type of soil that is contaminated can
determine the effectiveness of the treatment
process. The particle size, or soil texture,
correlates strongly with the mineralogy.
Sand-sized and silt-sized particles tend to be
composed of relatively inert silica oxides and
similar minerals, whereas clay-sized particles
tend to consist of clay minerals. Clay minerals
generally consist of planar sheets of silica and
aluminum oxides interlayered with cations. The
cations are held within the sheets by ionic
bonds, Van der Waals forces, or similar bonds.
Under the appropriate conditions, the cations
can be replaced relatively easily by other ions
with similar size and charge. Thus, clay miner-
als have a relatively high cation exchange
capacity.
The particle size affects treatability in two ways.
First, because the potential reaction sites are
primarily limited to the surface of the particle,
the surface-to-volume ratio has a major impact
on the nature and rate of reactions between the
particle and the contaminant. Therefore, larger
sand-sized particles are less reactive than
smaller clay-sized particles, particularly since
reactions may occur between the sheets of clay
minerals. Second, the cation exchange capacity
has a major impact on the reactions that can
occur. The high cation exchange capacity of
clay minerals enables them to be more reactive
with many contaminants than the minerals
characteristic of sand-sized particles. Organic
matter, which also has a high cation exchange
capacity, is also more reactive than sand-sized
particles. Thus, the relatively large surface area
and the high cation exchange capacity make
clays and organic matter more difficult to treat
than sands and silts.
Some technologies, such as chemical extraction
and soil washing, use the differences in cation
exchange capacity and surface area as the
basis for soil treatment. Surface soils generally
contain both sand and clay particles. The
majority of the contamination may be adsorbed
on the clays. Washing the soil to separate clays
and sand may produce a large volume of
relatively clean sandy soil and a small
concentrated volume of clay and contaminants,
depending on the type of soil.
Contaminant Concentrations
The magnitudes of the untreated contaminant
concentration and the desired treatment goal are
important factors in technology selection. Some
processes are designed to treat wastes with very
high levels of contamination, while others are
only effective below certain threshold levels.
Treatment processes also provide widely varying
effluents, with some processes effective in the
part per billion range, while others result in part
per million range residues. A technology such
as thermal destruction is an appropriate method
-------
of treating very concentrated levels of organic
contamination, resulting in very low levels of
residual contamination in the ash. If, however,
the untreated soil contains relatively low levels
of volatile organics, the use of an incinerator
would be very costly in terms of energy
consumption. A low temperature thermal
desorption or biological unit would probably be
as effective at a much lower cost.
Materials Handling
Materials handling, or waste transfer throughout
the treatment system, is a major consideration
for soils and viscous sludges, because
traditional conveyance methods are frequently
ineffective. Fugitive emissions of volatiles may
be a problem while the soil is being excavated,
stockpiled, and transported to the treatment unit.
Slugs of material or debris tend to jam treatment
equipment, resulting in breakage, downtime, and
the potential for uncontrolled releases to the en-
vironment. Materials handling equipment should
be tested on the waste as part of any treatability
testing program. Experiments should be
conducted on the untreated waste as well as on
any intermediate mixtures exhibiting changes in
viscosity, particle size, density, etc.
Preprocessing
Preprocessing is vital to the success of the
waste treatment system, because the
effectiveness of some technologies is directly
correlated to the conditions of the contaminated
soil. Preprocessing of waste to increase the
homogeneity of the waste is important because
any treatment technology will operate most
efficiently and cost effectively when it is
designed and utilized to treat a homogeneous
waste with a narrow range of physical and
chemical characteristics. If contaminant types
and concentrations, waste viscosity, particle
size, BTU content, moisture content, acidity,
alkalinity, etc. vary widely, control of the system
can be very difficult and costly to maintain.
Moisture content is an example of a waste
characteristic that affects different technologies
in different ways. For example, dechlorination is
adversely affected by a high water content, while
chemical extraction and soil washing frequently
employ a water-based solvent to dissolve or dis-
perse contaminants. For thermal destruction
and low temperature thermal desorption, the
presence of moisture increases the energy
required to destroy or volatilize the con-
taminants. Many treatment operations can
benefit from moisture addition or reduction,
which is a relatively simple unit operation.
Material size is another waste characteristic that
can be altered during preprocessing to improve
treatment performance. With smaller clumps of
soil, the contaminant within the soil is more
accessible to the driving force that governs the
treatment process. Residence times and operat-
ing temperatures can be reduced, thereby
reducing treatment system costs and improving
throughput. Conveying the contaminated soil
through the treatment train is also most effective
when the soil particles are relatively small.
There is less likelihood of jamming the
equipment and causing costly maintenance and
downtime.
Materials handling and preprocessing tech-
nologies with potential applications for soil are
currently in use in areas such as the
construction, agricultural, and mining industries.
The use of such technologies should be
seriously considered during all soil remediation
activities. Preprocessing techniques should also
be incorporated in treatability testing programs.
The results of such tests will better define the
range of waste characteristics which the primary
treatment technology will have to address.
Waste Mixtures
The treatment of soils contaminated with a
mixture of organic and inorganic contaminants,
such as those commonly encountered at
Superfund sites, presents additional challenges.
For example, bioremediation of soils
contaminated with organic compounds and high
concentrations of metals may be difficult
because the metals may be toxic to the micro-
organisms. Thermal destruction of soils
contaminated with volatile organic compounds
and volatile metals will effectively destroy the
organic contaminants, but it may also volatilize
the metals. Air pollution control systems utilizing
state-of-the-art equipment may not be successful
in trapping volatile metal emissions. If these
systems are not effective, the risk of metal
emissions to the atmosphere will be very high.
To avoid this serious cross media impact, an
alternative treatment train approach could
include low temperature thermal desorption to
10
-------
volatilize the organics with their subsequent de-
struction or entrapment in the gas stream
treatment system. The volatile metals remaining
in the soil residue could then be immobilized.
Basic Treatment
Given effective materials handling and
preprocessing equipment, waste treatment can
be accomplished through the following three
basic mechanisms: destruction of soil
contaminants, physical transfer of contaminants
to another medium for subsequent treatment, or
immobilization of contaminants. The mixtures of
organic and inorganic contaminants, which often
are present in Superfund site soils, may
preclude the use of some treatment processes
due to potential undesirable cross media
impacts, such as uncontrolled particulate
emissions from an incinerator scrubber system.
An acceptable solution may involve the use of
several treatment mechanisms in a treatment
train to treat mixed organic and inorganic waste.
1.8 SUMMARY
The complex nature of contaminated soil
presents a unique challenge in terms of
successful waste treatment and minimization of
undesirable cross media impacts. When
determining the applicability of technologies to a
soil waste, treatment test results from a series of
actual site samples, representative of the variety
of site conditions, should be evaluated. In terms
of treatment technology effectiveness, the entire
treatment train configuration should be
considered, including materials handling and
preprocessing; contaminant destruction, physical
transfer, or immobilization; and effluent,
emission, or residue treatment technologies.
Where possible, the results of previous studies
and successful treatment applications should be
consulted to aid in the prediction of treatment
system effectiveness.
The remaining chapters of this report focus on
assessing the relative effectiveness of various
treatment technologies upon the full range of
contaminants encountered at Superfund sites.
While qualitative conclusions are discussed at
length in Sections 2 and 3, the quantitative
results, which formed the bases for those
conclusions, are presented in the Appendices.
When referring to the analytical data in
Appendices D through G, it is important to also
refer to the corresponding treatability study
summaries presented in Appendix H to better
understand each particular treatment study. The
information summarized in this report and
presented in detail in the many source
documents will be very valuable to hazardous
waste professionals when they consider specific
contaminated soil problems. However, the
maximum degree of confidence can be obtained
from well operated pilot scale treatability studies,
which test a series of waste samples representa-
tive of the variety of conditions found at each
site.
11
-------
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
March 1989. Superfund Treatability September 1988. Technology Screening
Clearinghouse Abstracts. Prepared by Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils and
CDM Federal Programs Corporation for the Sludges. Prepared by Camp Dresser and
Office of Emergency and Remedial Mckee Inc. and Versar Inc. for the the Office
Response. EPA/540/2-89/001. of Emergency and Remedial Response.
EPA/540/2-88/004.
12
-------
SECTION 2
TREATABILITY GROUP DESCRIPTIONS
AND TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This section discusses the available soil
treatment data in terms of the following eleven
treatability groups:
• non-polar halogenated aromatics, excluding
PCBs, dioxins, furans, and their precursors
(W01)
• PCBs, halogenated dioxins, furans, and their
precursors (W02)
• halogenated phenols, cresols, amines, thiols,
and other polar aromatics (W03)
• halogenated aliphatic compounds (W04)
• halogenated cyclic aliphatics, ethers, esters,
and ketones (W05)
• nitrated aromatic and aliphatic compounds
(W06)
• heterocyclics and simple non-halogenated
aromatics (W07)
• polynuclear aromatics and heterocyclics
(W08)
• other polar non-halogenated organic
compounds (W09)
• non-volatile metals (W10)
• volatile metals (W11)
Examples of the compounds in each of these
groups are found in Appendix A. If data were
available for an individual compound, that
compound is designated with an asterisk in
Appendix A.
After an in-depth review of the data remaining
after screening, a prediction was made of the
treatment effectiveness of the six technology
groups on each of the treatability groups. For
destruction and physical transfer technologies
applied to organics, the removal efficiency was
analyzed. This evaluation factor was replaced
by the reduction in mobility for immobilization
and for chemical extraction and soil washing of
inorganics. An overall summary of the predicted
treatment effectiveness is presented in
Figure 2-1 using the following ratings:
• Demonstrated Effectiveness - A significant
percentage of the data, 20%, are from pilot
or full scale operations, the average removal
efficiency for all of the data exceeds 90%,
and there are at least ten data pairs.
• Potential Effectiveness - The average
removal efficiency for all of the data exceeds
70%.
• No Expected Effectiveness - The average
removal efficiency for all of the data is less
than 70%, and no interference is expected to
this process as a result of this group.
• No Expected Effectiveness - Potential
adverse effects to the environment or to the
treatment process may occur. For example,
high concentrations of metals may interfere
with biological treatment.
In several instances, the data base implied that
a technology would be more or less effective
than the quantitative data for the technology
appeared to support. In these cases,
engineering judgment was used to predict the
effectiveness of the technology. This judgment
was based on data for compounds with similar
physical and chemical characteristics, an
understanding of the treatment technology's
capabilities and characteristics, and a careful
evaluation of the data and the limitations of the
test runs involved. The conclusions from the
data base were modified in the following
instances:
• Bioremediation of non-polar halogenated
aromatics (W01) generated an average
removal efficiency of 53%. However, the
untreated soil concentration was very low,
13
-------
^^TECHNOLOOY
TAEATAMJTY OROU?~~—«
NON-POUR HALOGENATED
AROMATICS
(W01)
PCB», HAUXaENATED
DIOXINS, FU HANS. AND
THEIR PRECURSORS
(W02|
HALOGENATED PHENOLS,
CHESOLS, AMINES. THIOLS,
AND OTHER POLAR
AROMATICS (W03)
HALOGENATED
AUPHATIC COMPOUNDS
(VW4)
HALOGENATED CYCLIC
AUPHATICS. ETHERS,
ESTERS, AND KETONES
(VWS)
NITRATED COMPOUNDS
(W06)
HETEROCYCUCSANO
SIMPLE MON-HALOGENATED
AROMATICS
-------
averaging 2.9 ppm, and treatment of more
heavily contaminated soils generally yields
higher removal efficiencies. Data for
compounds with similar physical and
chemical characteristics suggest that
bioremediation is more effective than 53%
removal efficiency. Therefore, bioremediation
was predicted to be potentially effective on
these compounds.
• Low temperature thermal desorption has
been demonstrated to be effective on some
of the more volatile compounds among the
non-polar halogenated aromatics (W01),
particularly chlorobenzene and
1,2-dichlorobenzene. It is not expected that
this technology will perform as well on the
less volatile pesticides that are also
contained in this treatability group such as
DDE and DDT. For this reason, both the
demonstrated effectiveness and potential
effectiveness designations have been
indicated.
• Nearly all of the data in the data base on
thermal destruction of halogenated phenols,
cresols, amines, thiols, and other polar
aromatics (W03) were generated by bench
scale tests. Only 8% of the data were from
pilot and full scale tests. However, the
average removal efficiency was 96%,
comparable to that for compounds with
similar physical and chemical characteristics.
Therefore, thermal destruction was predicted
to have demonstrated effectiveness on these
contaminants.
• Immobilization of halogenated phenols,
cresols, amines, thiols, and other polar
aromatics (W03) generated an average
reduction in mobility of 61%. This average
was based only on four data pairs for
pentachlorophenol. Data for compounds with
similar physical and chemical characteristics
suggest that immobilization is more effective
than 61% reduction in mobility. Therefore,
immobilization was predicted to be potentially
effective on these contaminants.
• Bioremediation of halogenated aliphatics
(W04), heterocyclics and simple non-
halogenated aromatics (WOT), and other polar
non-halogenated organics (W09) generated
average removal efficiencies of >99%.
However, several of these studies found that
these compounds may have volatilized during
treatment. Data for compounds with similar
physical and chemical characteristics suggest
that bioremediation of these compounds is
not as effective as >99%. Therefore,
bioremediation was predicted to be
potentially effective on these compounds.
Dechlorination of some non-halogenated
compounds (W07, W08, and W09) generated
average removal efficiencies of 91% to 99%.
Because these compounds are
non-halogenated, these removal efficiencies
could not be due to dechlorination. These
removal efficiencies appeared to be caused
by volatilization at the elevated temperatures
used in dechlorination processes, or by the
dechlorination process acting as a soil
washing process. Therefore, dechlorination
was predicted to have no effect on all
non-halogenated compounds. However,
these anomalies should be considered and
may be useful in developing a treatment
process or treatment train for mixtures of
halogenated and non-halogenated wastes.
Low temperature thermal desorption is not
generally effective for the majority of
polynuclear aromatic compounds (W08), as
the average of the data in the data base
indicates. However two of the more volatile
compounds in this group, particularly
anthracene and acenaphthene, were treated
by this technology with removal efficiencies
ranging from 72% to 99% in a series of
bench scale tests documented in the data
base. Considering the range of results for
different polynuclear compounds, both the
potential effectiveness and the no expected
effectiveness . designations have been
indicated.
Immobilization of non-volatile metals (W10)
has been well demonstrated historically. The
24 pairs of untreated and treated soil data in
the data base have an average reduction in
mobility of only 81%. This unexpectedly low
average is due to two tests (5 data pairs) on
low levels of chromium (1 ppm or less) which
had very poor results (10% - 40% reduction
in mobility). These data pairs lowered the
average of the other 19 successful data
pairs, which had reductions in mobility
ranging from 85% to >99%. If the 5
uncharacteristic data pairs are disregarded,
the remaining data support the prediction that
immobilization has demonstrated
effectiveness on non-volatile metals.
15
-------
• Immobilization of volatile metals (W11) has
been well demonstrated historically. The
data in the data base are limited to bench
scale results. Based upon the average
reduction in mobility of these results, 93%,
and other qualitative knowledge, it is
predicted that immobilization will demonstrate
effectiveness on volatile metals at pilot and
full scale as well.
In all other instances, the conclusions presented
in Figure 2-1 were developed from the criteria
described previously.
Figure 2-2 summarizes the volume of data upon
which the conclusions in Figure 2-1 are based.
Figure 2-2 lists the number of data pairs
available and identifies the percentage of these
data pairs which are from bench-, pilot-, and full-
scale treatability tests. Figure 2-2 indicates that
nearly all of the conclusions in Figure 2-1 are
based on more than ten data pairs.
The treatability groups were taken from the
"Proposed Guidance Manual; Interim Guidance
for Treatment of Contaminated Soil at CERCLA
and RCRA Corrective Action Sites," which was
prepared for the Office of Solid Waste (U.S.
EPA, June 1988). Consistent information has
been compiled for each treatability group
regarding the amount of treatment data
available, the effectiveness of the various
treatment technologies, and general
observations. Quantitative conclusions for each
treatability group regarding each technology are
presented in Figures 2-3 through 2-13. For
each treatability group, these figures summarize
the following information by technology group:
• number of untreated and treated data pairs
available
• percent of data from bench, pilot, and full
scale operations
• average untreated and treated soil
concentrations
• average removal efficiency or reduction in
mobility for immobilization and chemical
extraction and soil washing of inorganics
• general observations
For the organic data from thermal destruction,
dechlorination, bioremediatlon, low temperature
thermal desorption, and chemical extraction and
soil washing, the untreated and treated soil
contaminant concentrations were measured
using the total constituent analysis methodology.
For the organic and inorganic data from
immobilization technologies and for the inorganic
data from chemical extraction and soil washing,
the untreated and treated soil concentrations
were measured in terms of extraction protocol
leachate rather than by the total constituent
analysis methodology.
This study calculated the effectiveness of all
technologies using the formula:
Untreated _ Treated
Concentration Concentration
Untreated Concentration
x 100 - Percent
Removal Efficiency*
(Percent Mobility Reduction for Immobilization of
Organics and Inorgencs and Chemical Extractions
and Soil Washing of Inorganics)
This differs from the commonly used measure of
destruction and removal efficiency (ORE) for
incineration, which measures the concentration
in the stack gas rather than in the ash.
The average untreated and treated soil
concentrations in Figures 2-3 through 2-13 were
calculated from the untreated or treated soil data
available for that technology group and
treatability group, regardless of scale or
individual contaminant. For each pair of
untreated and treated concentration values, a
percent removal efficiency was calculated. The
average removal efficiencies presented in
Figures 2-3 through 2-13 were then calculated
by averaging the individual removal efficiencies.
The effectiveness of the treatment technology on
that treatability group is more accurately
characterized by calculating the average removal
efficiency for a treatability group from the
individual removal efficiencies, rather than from
a removal efficiency calculation using the
average untreated and the average treated
concentrations. The same rationale was used
regarding the average reduction in mobility for
immobilization data and for inorganic chemical
extraction and soil washing data.
The data and averages summarized in Figures
2-3 through 2-13 are not to be interpreted as the
actual treatment standards for contaminated
soils subject to the RCRA land disposal
restrictions (LDRs). The actual treatment
standards for contaminated soils are being
16
-------
"•""•^•TECHNOLOGY
TREATABILITY GROUP^^--*,.
NON-POLAR HALOOENATED
AROMATICS
-------
developed by the U.S. EPA Office of Solid
Waste (OSW) and are not the same as the aver-
ages presented in these figures.
2.2 NON-POLAR HALOGENATED
AROMATIC COMPOUNDS
EXCLUDING PCBS, FURANS,
DIOXINS, AND THEIR
PRECURSORS (W01)
Halogenated aromatic compounds (e.g.,
chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene), which contain
chlorine or bromine, exhibit different reactivities
than their aliphatic counterparts. Generally, the
compounds in this group exhibit low water
solubilities, making them difficult to treat by
aqueous processes unless additives (i.e.,
surfactants) are used. They are more resistant
to biodegradation and require higher
temperatures in incineration processes than their
non-halogenated counterparts. For all
non-incineration processes including
dechlorination, brominated and chlorinated
compounds behave similarly. For incineration
processes, the major difference is that
brominated compounds release hydrogen
bromide and bromine, which inhibit flame
propagation processes and can cause severe
corrosion of exposed metal parts and refractory
materials.
The effectiveness of soil treatment technologies
on this group of contaminants is summarized in
Figure 2-3. This group of compounds can be
treated by thermal destruction. Low temperature
thermal desorption and chemical extraction and
soil washing may effectively treat many of the
members of this group, but the treatment
efficiency will be influenced by the operating
conditions. Though the only data available to
analyze treatment efficiency were for
chlorobenzene, dechlorination may effectively
treat the compounds in this group. This
treatability group is more resistant to biological
degradation than its non-halogenated
counterparts, but bioremediation may still be a
treatment option to consider. PCBs, furans,
dioxins and their precursors are excluded from
this group because current regulations mandate
more stringent treatment wastes containing
these contaminants. These compounds are
evaluated in treatability group W02.
2.3 PCBS. HALOGENATED DIOXINS,
FURANS, AND THEIR
PRECURSORS (W02)
As explained in Section 2.2, more stringent
regulations cover the destruction of PCBs,
halogenated dioxins, and furans. Furthermore,
wastes containing chlorinated phenolic
compounds (e.g., halogenated phenoxyacetic
acid derivatives) may contain halogenated furans
and dioxins as impurities. Because of the more
toxic nature and the more stringent treatment
requirements for these wastes, they are
classified as a separate group.
The effectiveness of soil treatment technologies
on this group of contaminants is summarized in
Figure 2-4. The treatment specified by existing
U.S. EPA regulations for this group is thermal
destruction. In addition, dechlorination and
chemical extraction and soil washing have been
shown to be potentially effective in some cases.
Ongoing research indicates that some biological
processes show potential application to this
treatability group. Immobilization processes
have been used to immobilize PCBs and these
data are presented in Appendices F and G.
2.4 HALOGENATED PHENOLS.
CRESOLS, AMINES. THIOLS. AND
OTHER POLAR AROMATICS (W03)
This group of compounds includes halogenated
phenols, halogenated alkyl-substituted phenols,
halogenated cresols, halogenated amines, and
halogenated alkyl-substituted thiols (e.g.,
chlorophenol, methoxychlor). As a group, these
compounds are more water soluble than
non-polar halogenated aromatics. This property
can result in better treatment efficiency with
chemical extraction and soil washing. Thermal
destruction and dechlorination have successfully
treated this group. Low temperature thermal
desorption, immobilization, and biological
processes also have the potential to be effective
on these compounds. The effectiveness of soil
treatment technologies on this group of con-
taminants is summarized in Figure 2-5.
Due to the presence of halogens, nitrogen, and
sulfur, thermal destruction of these compounds
produces large amounts of acid gases. These
acid gases can result in serious cross media
18
-------
TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
DECHLORINATION
BIOREMEDIATION
N
LOW TEMPERATURE
THERMAL DESORPTION
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
AND SOL WASHING
IMMOBILIZATION
NUMBER AND SCALE
OF AVAILABLE DATA
32 PAIRS
1% BENCH
9* % PILOT
0 %FULL
8 PAIRS
1°° % BENCH
0 % PILOT
0 *FULL
66 PAIRS
95 It BENCH
5 % PILOT
0 %FULL
» PAIRS
48 *BENCH
* % PILOT
** %FULL
20 PAIRS
100 % BENCH
0 % PILOT
0 *FULL
1 PAIRS
100 % BENCH
0 * PILOT
0 *FUU
AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS (ppm)
ANO% REMOVALS
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppnt) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED S90 >99 *
TREATED "-02*
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 190 98 %
TREATED 1-6
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 2-9 53 *
TREATED 0-79
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED . , 130 99*
TREATED 0.07
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 170 >99 %
TREATED 0.30
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS MOBILITY
(ppm) REDUCTION
UNTREATED 3.1 S3 *
TREATED _..p.65
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
• This technology works very well at optimum operating conditions on a variety of Initial concentrations.
• Brominated compounds will inhibit flame propagation.
• High levels of acid gases produced In the presence of oxygen will attack the refractory walls and
exposed metal surfaces.
• Data were for chlorobenzene only. These data suggest that this technology Is potentially effective
In certain situations.
• This technology Is not effective for all contaminants In this class; however, there is potential for
effectiveness for low Initial concentrations with further development.
• The presence of these contaminants at low concentrations Is not expected to Interfere with the
treatment of applicable wastes.
• The effectiveness of this technology may be different than the data Imply, because the initial
concentrations In these tests were so low.
• Although this technology was not expected to perform well on this treatabllity group, the data from
studies which utilized higher operating temperatures and longer residence times Indicate that many
of the compounds in this group may be treated by this technology with potential effectiveness.
• This technology Is not recommended for the treatment of waste mixtures which contain high
concentrations of metallic and/or organic forms of mercury, unless emissions are controlled.
• This technology has demonstrated effectiveness on some of the more volatile contaminants in this
group, and it Is potentially effective on the remaining contaminants.
• This technology is potentially effective on these contaminants but all data are from bench scale.
• Surfactants may adhere to the soil and reduce soil permeability.
• Possible volatile emission losses may occur during treatment.
•Data were for chlorobenzene only.
• These data suggest that this technology Is potentially effective in certain situations,
particularly where the initial concentration is low.
• The treatment mechanism for the more volatile compounds may be volatilization as opposed to
Immobilization. Air pollution control systems may be necessary to minimize cross media
impacts from these volatile emissions.
• It is not recommended that this technology be selected If this Is the only treatabillty group present.
CD
a/2O*0
Figure 2-3. Final Conclusions by Treatabillty Group
Non-Polar Halogenated Aromatlcs (VV01)
-------
ro
o
TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
DECHLOfil NATION
BIOREMEDIATION
LOW TEMPERATURE
THERMAL DESORPTION
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
AND SOIL WASHING
*
IMMOBILIZATION
NUMBER AND SCALE
OF AVAILABLE DATA
161 PAIRS
1% BENCH
83* PILOT
14 *FULL
31 PAIRS
97 * BENCH
3 % PILOT
0 %FULL
1 PAIRS
0_% BENCH
100% PILOT
0 %FULL
0 PAIRS
°_% BENCH
0 % PILOT
°_*FULL
a PAIRS
82 % BENCH
1% PILOT
_Ji*FUU
0 PAIRS
2.% BENCH
0_% PILOT
0 %FULL
AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS (ppm)
AND% REMOVALS
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 1,100 >99 %
TREATED ..0.055
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTBEATK) 180 83 *
TREATED , 1.6
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED_2i22P_ >99 %
TREATED 0.12
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 0 0 %
TREATED P.
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 9.900 71 %
TREATED ^.O00
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS MOBILITY
(ppm) REDUCTION
UNTREATED 2. 9%
TDMTCTI .. 9
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
• This technology works very well at optimum operating conditions on a variety of initial concentrations.
• High levels of add gases produced in the presence of oxygen will attack the refractory walls and
exposed metal surfaces.
• 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 efficiencies.
• Moisture content over 4 to 7% deactivates the NaPEG reagent.
• Particle size and soil matrix affect reagent penetration and process effectiveness.
• Recent data indicate that greater than 99% of PCBs and furarts can be destroyed
(des Hosiers, 1988).
• The lone data pair Is PCBs.
• Ongoing research suggests that this technology may be potentially effective for this group.
• No data were available.
• The physical and/or chemical characteristics of the constituents of this treatablllty group
suggest that this technology would not be effective.
• This technology Is not recommended for the treatment of waste mixtures which contain high
concentrations of metallic and/or organic forms of mercury unless emissions are controlled
• This technology Is potentially effective on these contaminants with further development.
• Some of the available data for this treatablllty group were based on very high Initial concentrations;
however consideration should be given to the ability of the technology to treat high Initial
concentrations.
• The presence of oil In the matrix enhances removal.
• The removal efficiency decreases as the percent of days and clayey silts Increases.
• Surfactants may adhere to the soil and reduce soil permeability.
• Incomplete quantitative data were available to evaluate treatment effectiveness. These
quantitative data and additional qualitative information suggest that this technology Is
potentially effective In certain situations, particularly where the initial concentration Is low.
• It Is not recommended that this technology be selected If this Is the only treatablllty group present.
Figure 2-4. Final Conclusions by Treatablllty Group
PCBs, Halogenated Dloxins, Furans, and Their Precursors (W02)
aoorao
-------
ro
TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
D6CHLOHINATION
BIOREMEDIATION
LOW TEMPERATURE
THERMAL DESORPTION
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
AND SOL WASHING
IMMOBILIZATION
NUMBER AND SCALE
OF AVAILABLE DATA
81 PAIRS
^IHENCH
2% PILOT
6 «FULL
8 PAIRS
100% BENCH
0% PILOT
0 %FULL
3 PAIRS
100 % BENCH
0 * PILOT
0 %FULL
1« PAIRS
100 % BENCH
OHPILOT
o %FUU
20 PAIRS
100 % BENCH
OUPILOT
0 KFULL
4 PAIRS
100 % BENCH
0 % PILOT
O.KFULL
AND% REMOVALS
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 550 96 %
TRFATO) O-70
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 2L i! %
TREATED 2.4
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 83 74 *
TWATCn 17
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 260 ZS. *
TBPATpn 67_
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED §7. Z2. *
TBF^TFO 1*
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS MOBILITY
(ppm) REDUCTION
uMmuTFD _,.2£ 61 *
TREATED 1-1
• This technology works well at optimum operating conditions on a variety of initial concentrations.
• Oxides of nitrogen and sulfur can create potential serious cross media Impacts If not removed
from gas emissions.
• High concentrations of add gases produced in the presence of oxygen will attack the refractory walls
and exposed metal surfaces.
* Data were for pentachlorophenol only. These data suggest that this technology is potentially
effective In certain situations.
• Recent data indicate that greater than 99% of contaminants can be destroyed
(des Hosiers, 1988).
• This technology is potentially effective for low Initial concentrations.
• Btoremedlation requires uniformly mixed media with small particle sizes.
• Toxic compounds such as cyanides, arsenic, heavy metals, and some organics adversely affect the
treatment
• Preprocessing Includes mixing and nutrient and organism addition.
• Btoremedlation Is a slow process.
• Btoremedlation has low costs relative to other technologies.
• Although the data suggest that this technology Is not as effective with this treatablllty group, the
technology, If operated at higher temperatures and residence times, may successfully treat
many of the compounds In this group.
• This technology is not recommended for the treatment of waste mixtures which contain high
concentrations of metallic and/or organic forms of mercury, unless emissions are controlled.
• Data were from pentachlorophenol only.
• This technology is potentially effective on these contaminants, especially for treating sandy soils.
• Surfactants may adhere to the soil and reduce soil permeability.
• Data were from pentachlorophenol only. These data suggest that this technology is potentially
effective In certain situations, particularly where the Initial concentration Is tow.
• The effectiveness of this technology on these contaminants may be different than the data
Imply, due to limitations In the test conditions.
• It is not recommended that this technology be selected If this is the only treatablllty group present
Figure 2-5. Final Conclusions by Treatablllty Group
Halogenated Phenols, Crasols, Amines, and Thtols (VV03)
-------
impacts as well as serious damage to both metal
and refractory components in the treatment
equipment.
2.5 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC
COMPOUNDS (W04)
This group of compounds includes all
brominated, chlorinated, andfluorinated alkanes,
alkenes, and acetylenes. These include
industrial halogenated solvents such as carbon
tetrachloride, trichloroethylene,
perchloroethylene, and the dichloroethane and
trichloroethane compounds.
The effectiveness of soil treatment technologies
on this group of contaminants is summarized in
Figure 2-6. The high volatility of this class
renders it very susceptible to treatment by low
temperature thermal desorption. In addition,
thermal destruction, biological processes, and
chemical extraction and soil washing have
successfully treated this group. However, in
some instances, volatilization of the compounds
in this group has been misinterpreted to be
actual destruction during the treatment process.
If wastes containing such volatile compounds
are immobilized, volatile emissions may need to
be captured and treated. Dechlorination may
effectively treat this group. However, acetylene
is one of the final products of the dechlorination
of halogenated aliphatics. In the presence of
certain heavy metals such as silver and copper,
acetylene may form explosive metal acetylides.
2.6 HALOGENATED CYCLIC ALIPHA-
TICS, ETHERS, ESTERS, AND
KETONES (W05)
This group is comprised of a wide variety of
halogenated polar cyclic aliphatic compounds
which are primarily used as pesticides or
pesticide precursors. This group includes
halogenated ethers, carboxylic acids, aldehydes,
and ketones. These compounds are generally
less volatile but more water soluble than
halogenated aliphatic compounds.
The effectiveness of soil treatment technologies
on this group of contaminants is summarized in
Figure 2-7. The only data available to evaluate
this treatability group were for thermal
destruction processes. Though no data were
available to analyze treatment efficiency,
chemical extraction and soil washing,
bioremediation, and dechlorination theoretically
may effectively treat this group. Treatment
effectiveness must be confirmed by treatability
studies.
2.7 NITRATED AROMATIC AND
ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS (W06)
The physical/chemical characteristics of this
class of compounds generally are dominated by
the presence of one or more nitro groups (-NO2).
The class includes both nitrated aromatic and
aliphatic compounds. These compounds are
primarily used as explosives or intermediates in
the production of explosives. Smaller amounts
of some of these chemicals are also used to
manufacture precursors for organic dyes and
pigments. Because most of these compounds
are explosive, extreme caution is required when
treating them, especially in high concentrations.
The effectiveness of soil treatment technologies
on this group of contaminants is summarized in
Figure 2-8. Thermal destruction of high
concentrations of these compounds may also
result in the release of nitrous gases. A nitrous
oxide burner should be used in thermal
destruction processes to control these
emissions. Thermal destruction processes have
successfully treated this group with biological
processes showing potential effectiveness as
well. Limited data suggest that chemical
extraction and soil washing may also have
potential effectiveness on this group.
2.8 HETEROCYCLICS AND SIMPLE
NON-HALOGENATED AROMATICS
(W07)
This group includes simple non-polar aromatic
solvents such as benzene, toluene, ethyl
benzene, styrene, and xylenes. It also includes
the heterocyclic compounds from Appendix VIII
of 40 CFR 261 which are primarily pyridine and
a few alkyl substituted pyridine derivatives. For
a number of chemical reactions, pyridine and
benzene behave similarly. The major difference
(excluding their physical molecular structures
and molecular weights) is that substituted
pyridines are more water soluble than their
benzene analogues.
The effectiveness of soil treatment technologies
on this group of contaminants is summarized in
Figure 2-9. The compounds in this group are
very volatile, making treatment by low
temperature thermal desorption very efficient. In
22
-------
TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
DECHLONNATON
MOREMEDIATION
LOWTEMPEHATURE
THERMAL OESORPTION
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
AND SOIL WASHING
IMMOBILIZATION
NUMBER AND SCALE
OF AVAILABLE DATA
_ae PAIRS
_?1* BENCH
79% PILOT
O.HFULL
16 PAIRS
JOO* BENCH
0%PILOT
O.X FULL
27 PAIRS
°- % BENCH
100 It PILOT
* %FULL
132 PAIRS
_27_*BENCH
50%p|LOT
23 It FULL
*0 PAIRS
100 % BENCH
0 It PILOT
0_*FULL
9 PAIRS
100 % BENCH
9_% PILOT
0_%FULL
AVERAOE CONCENTRATIONS (ppm)
AND* REMOVALS
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED U. >99 %
TREATED 0-016
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 330 98 «.
TREATED <*•**
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 23. >99 %
TREATED 0.027
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 590 9* *
TREATED !§.
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 290 >99 *
TREATED 0-22
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS MOBILITY
(ppm) REDUCTION
UNTREATED 2i §§. %
TREATED 0-2*
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
• This technology works well at optimum operating conditions on a variety of Initial concentrations.
• If this Is the only treatabillty group present, low temperature thermal desorptJon may be more cost
effective.
• High levels of acid gases produced In the presence of oxygen will attack the refractory walls and
exposed metal surfaces.
• These data suggest that this technology Is potentially effective In certain situations.
• Some halogenated aliphatlcs react with the APEG reagents to form explosive compounds,
especially in the presence of heavy metals. The potential for this to occur should be evaluated
In the laboratory before dechlorlnation treatment Is selected.
• The high removal efficiency may be the result of volatilization or the APEG process acting as a
soil washing process.
• This technology Is potentially effective for low Initial concentrations.
• Bloremediation requires uniformly mixed media with small particle sizes.
• Toxic compounds such as cyanides, arsenic, heavy metals, and some organlcs adversely affect the
treatment.
• Preprocessing includes mixing and nutrient and organism addition.
* Bioremedlation Is a slow process.
• Bioremedlation has low costs relative to other technologies.
• Removal may actually represent volatilization during preprocessing and treatment.
* This technology works well on this treatabillty group.
• Removal efficiencies are not as high with soils having extremely elevated concentrations.
A longer residence time may remedy this situation.
• This technology is not recommended for the treatment of waste mixtures which contain high
concentrations of metallic and/or organic forms of mercury, unless emissions are controlled.
• This technology is potentially effective on these contaminants, but all data are from bench scale.
• This technology may be more applicable to sandy soils.
• Surfactants may adhere to the soil and reduce soil permeability.
• Volatile emissions may occur during treatment.
• Though these data suggest that this technology is potentially effective In certain situations,
particularly where the Initial concentration is low, the reductions In mobility may be due to
volatilization of the volatile compounds during treatment.
• Air pollution control systems may be necessary to minimize cross media Impacts from
these volatile emissions.
• It is not recommended that this technology be selected if this Is the only treatabillty group present.
Figure 2-6. Final Conclusions by Treatabillty Group
Halogenated Aliphatic Compounds (VV04)
-------
TREATMENT
TECHNOLOOV
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
"
DECHLORINATION
BIOREMEDIATION
LOWTEMPERATURE
THERMAL DESORPTION
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
AND SOIL WASHING
IMMOHUZATION
NUMBER AND SCALE
OF AVAILABLE DATA
118 PAIRS
_?*% BENCH
_J?.% PILOT
°%FULL
0 PAIRS
0% BENCH
0_% PILOT
0 %FUi_L
0. PAIRS
0.% BENCH
0.% PILOT
P_*FULL
2. PAIRS
?_% BENCH
0 % PILOT
0 %FULL
? PAIRS
2.% BENCH
°% PILOT
°_*FULL
0 PAIRS
0.% BENCH
0 % PILOT
0_%FULL
AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS (ppm)
AND* REMOVALS
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED__Z§0_ §9. %
TREATED 17
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 2. 2. %
TREATED 0
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED
-------
TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
DECHLOMNAT10N
BtOREMEDUTON
LOW TEMPERATURE
THERMAL DESORPTION
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
AND SOIL WASHING
•mOMUZATION
NUMBER AND SCALE
OF AVAILABLE DATA
J« PAIRS
_Z1% BENCH
_?!% PILOT
°_%FUU.
0 PAIRS
0% BENCH
0 % PILOT
0>FULL
a PAIRS
°.% BENCH
100 % PILOT
0 %FULL
0 PAIRS
5. % BENCH
0»PILOT
9.% FULL
3 PAIRS
100 % BENCH
°% PILOT
99 1
TREATED *-7
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS MOBILITY
(ppm) REDUCTION
UNTREATED ?_ 0*
TREATED 2.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
• This technology works well at optimum operating conditions on a variety of Initial concentrations.
• High amounts of nitrous gases may be released into the atmosphere If not controlled by a nitrous
oxide burner.
• Data were not available available for this treatability group.
• The physical and/or chemical characteristics of the constituents of this treatability
group Indicate that this technology would noj be effective.
• This technology is potentially effective on these contaminants, especially at low concentrations.
• Some of the available data for this treatability group were based on very high initial concentrations;
however consideration should be given to the ability of the technology to treat high initial
concentrations.
• BioremediatJon requires uniformly mixed media with small particle sizes.
• Toxic compounds such as cyanides, arsenic, heavy metals, and some organics adversely affect the
treatment.
* Preprocessing includes mixing and nutrient and organism addition.
• Bioremediation is a siow process.
• Bioremediation has low costs relative to other technologies.
• No data were available for this treatability group.
• The physical and/or chemical characteristics of the constituents of this treatability group
indicate that this technology would not be effective.
* This technology Is not recommended for the treatment of waste mixtures which contain high
concentrations of metallic and/or organic forms of mercury, unless emissions are controlled.
• This technology Is potentially effective on these contaminants. However, data are limited and
testing was conducted at bench scale.
• Data were not available for this treatability group. Data for compounds with similar physical
and chemical characteristics suggest that this technology is potentially effective in certain
situations, particularly where the initial concentrations are low.
Figure 2-8. Final Conclusions by Treatability Group
Nitrated Aromatic and Aliphatic Compounds (VV06)
aoorao
-------
to
o>
TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
DECHLORINATION
BIOREMEDIATION
LOW TEMPERATURE
THERMAL DESORPTION
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
AND SOIL WASHING
IMMOBILIZATION
NUMBER AND SCALE
OF AVAILABLE DATA
42 PAIRS
Z.% BENCH
88 % PILOT
5 %FULL
2* PAIRS
1 00 % BENCH
0* PILOT
0 %FULL
S* PAIRS
0_% BENCH
100 % PILOT
0 %FULL
111 PAIRS
37 % BENCH
39%PILOT
24 %FULL
55 PAIRS
98 % BENCH
0 % PILOT
2 * FULL
12 PAIRS
100 * BENCH
0% PILOT
0_%FULL
AVFRAnF rnWEIfnift7M*llK fiwMnl
AND * REMOVALS
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 740 >99 «.
TREATED 0.077
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 2,200 99 %
TREATED 23
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 220 >99 %
TREATED ...0.025
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED _, 920 96*.
TREATED 1.7
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED . 1,700 >99 *
TREATED 3.8
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS MOBILITY
(ppm) REDUCTION
UNTREATED 23 73 %
TREATED 5.8
• This technology works very well at optimum operating conditions on a variety of initial
concentrations.
• Low temperature thermal desorption may be more cost effective.
• The physical and/or chemical characteristics of the constituents of this treatability
group suggest that this technology would oat be effective.
• The high removal efficiency may be the result of volatilization or the APEG process
acting as a soil washing process.
• This technology is potentially effective for low Initial concentrations.
• The high removal Indicated by the data may actually represent volatilization during preprocessing
and treatment.
• Bloremedlation requires uniformly mixed media with small particle sizes.
• Toxic compounds such as cyanides, arsenic, heavy metals, and some organic compounds
adversely affect treatment.
* Preprocessing includes mixing and nutrient and organism addition.
• Bloremedlation Is a slow process.
• Bioremedlation has low costs relative to other technologies.
• This technology works well on this treatability group.
• This technology Is not recommended for the treatment of waste mixtures which contain high
concentrations of metallic and/or organic forms of mercury, unless emissions are controlled.
• This technology Is potentially effective on these contaminants but nearly all data are from bench
scale.
• Volatile emissions may occur during treatment.
• Surfactants may adhere to the soil and reduce soil permeability.
• Though these data suggest that this technology is potentially effective In certain situations,
particularly where the initial concentration Is low, the reductions In mobility may be due to the
volatilization of volatile organic compounds during treatment.
• Air pollution control systems may be necessary to minimize cross media Impacts from these volatile
emissions.
• It is not recommended that this technology be selected If this Is the only treatability group present.
Figura 2-9. Final Conclusions by Treatability Group
Hetsrocycllcs and Simple Non-Halogenated Aromatlcs (WOT)
tamo
-------
addition, thermal destruction, biological
processes, and chemical extraction and soil
washing have successfully treated this group. In
some cases, volatilization of the compounds in
this group may have been misinterpreted to be
actual destruction during the treatment process.
This probably accounts for the apparent
effectiveness of dechlorination on these
non-halogenated contaminants. If wastes
containing such volatile compounds are im-
mobilized, volatile emissions may need to be
captured and treated. Other technologies which
were beyond the scope of this report, such as
in-situ vapor extraction, may also be effective.
2.9 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
AND HETEROCYCLICS (W08)
This group contains compounds with two or
more fused aromatic rings. It also includes
compounds containing heterocyclic rings. These
compounds all have low aqueous solubilities and
relatively high boiling points.
The effectiveness of soil treatment technologies
on this group of contaminants is summarized in
Figure 2-10. This treatability group can be
successfully treated by thermal destruction.
Biological processes and chemical extraction
and soil washing have demonstrated potential
effectiveness on this group in some cases.
Some compounds in this group may be treated
by low temperature thermal desorption.
However, the data suggest that this technology
is not generally effective for this group.
Because these compounds exhibit very low
water solubilities, immobilization may be
effective in specific instances.
The apparent effectiveness of dechlorination on
this treatability group is probably the result of
volatilization of a single compound.
2.10 OTHER POLAR
NON-HALOGENATED ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS (W09)
This broad grouping contains the non-
halogenated polar organic compounds including:
• Non-halogenated phenols, phenylethers, and
cresols
• Aromatic and aliphatic alcohols
• Aromatic and aliphatic aldehydes and ketones
• Aromatic and aliphatic nitrites and isocyanates
• Sulfonic acids, sulfones, and thiols
• Phosphate esters, carboxylic acid esters, and
sulfate esters
• Amines, substituted hydrazines, and
nitrosamines
As a whole, these compounds are
non-halogenated and contain one or more polar
groups. They are all, to varying degrees, water
soluble.
The effectiveness of soil treatment technologies
on this group of contaminants is summarized in
Figure 2-11. They can be treated effectively by
thermal destruction and biological processes and
in some cases by chemical extraction and soil
washing. Potential effectiveness is indicated by
low temperature thermal desorption. The
apparent effectiveness of dechlorination on this
treatability group may be the result of
volatilization or a soil washing effect.
Immobilization of the semi-volatile compounds in
this class may be effective.
2.11 NON-VOLATILE METALS (W10)
The toxic metal compounds listed in Appendix
VIII of 40 CFR 261 can be divided into two
classes: those containing volatile metal salts and
those containing non-volatile metal salts.
Non-volatile metal compounds are defined as
those not possessing significant vapor pressures
below 1000°C. The non-volatile metals include
copper, nickel, beryllium, chromium, and barium.
The effectiveness of soil treatment technologies
on this group of contaminants is summarized in
Figure 2-12. This group of metals can be
treated by immobilization and by chemical
extraction and soil washing. If the concentration
of one or more metals in a waste is high, a
recovery technology may be considered as well.
2.12 VOLATILE METALS (W11)
Volatile metals are defined as those possessing
significant vapor pressures below 1000°C.
Volatile metals include compounds of lead, zinc,
cadmium, and mercury. It is necessary to
distinguish between volatile and non-volatile
metallic compounds, because in thermal
destruction treatment technologies, volatile metal
constituents form gaseous metal oxides and
metal chlorides, generating very fine particulates
in the emissions. The effectiveness of soil
treatment technologies on this group of
contaminants is summarized in Figure 2-13.
27
-------
TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
DECHLORINATION
BOREMEOIATION
LOW TEMPERATURE
THERMAL DESORPTION
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
AND SOIL WASHING
IMMOBILIZATION
NUMBER AND SCALE
OF AVAILABLE DATA
24 PAIRS
33 % BENCH
^ItPILOT
1*FULL
5 PAIRS
100% BENCH
0%PILOT
Ox FULL
37 PAIRS
_!£. * BENCH
81 % PILOT
0 %FULL
52 PAIRS
27 % BENCH
_£0%p|LOT
13%FULL
a* PAIRS
71 % BENCH
0% PILOT
29 %FULL
2_ PAIRS
100 % BENCH
0 % PILOT
0 %FULL
AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS (ppm)
AND* REMOVALS
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 1,200 >99 v.
TREATED 0-32
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 3.600 91_ %
TREATED 1BO
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 120 87. %
TREATED 3.8
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
IIMTPFATFP 1.400 65. «
TREATED 130
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 1,600 82 %
TPCATpn , ...3BO
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS MOBILITY
(ppm) REDUCTION
UNTREATED 3.0 98 *
TBMTFfl 0.03
QENERAL OBSERVATIONS
• This technology works very well at optimum operating conditions on a variety of Initial
concentrations.
• The physical and/or chemical characteristics of the constituents of this treatability
group suggest that this technology would not be effective.
• The high removal efficiency may be the result of volatilization or the APEG process
acting as a soil washing process.
• This technology Is potentially effective for low Initial concentrations.
• Bioremediation requires uniformly mixed media with small particle sizes.
• Toxic compounds such as cyanides, arsenic, heavy metals, and some organic compounds
adversely affect treatment.
• Preprocessing includes mixing and nutrient and organism addition.
• Bioremediation Is a slow process.
• Bioremediation has low costs relative to other technologies.
• This technology Is not generally effective as a treatment for this group, but individual compounds
may be treated effectively at higher operating temperatures and longer residence times.
• This technology Is not recommended for the treatment of waste mixtures which contain high
concentrations of metallic and/or organic forms of mercury, unless emissions are controlled.
• This technology Is potentially effective on these contaminants with further development.
• Some of the available data for this treatability group were based on very high initial concentrations;
however, consideration should be given to the ability of the technology to treat high initial
concentrations.
• Surfactants may adhere to the soil and reduce soil permeability.
• These limited data suggest that this technology is potentially effective in certain situations, particularly
where the initial concentration Is low.
Figure 2-10. Final Conclusions by Treatability Group
Polynuclear Aromatlcs and Heterocyclics (W08)
-------
IS)
99 «.
TREATED 0-32
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 1.900 8J.%
TREATED __ J70_
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 70,000 91 It
TREATED 15.000
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS MOBILITY
(ppm) REDUCTION
lujTQCATrn 20 77 v.
TREATED 5.6
ndlEBAI IMMBRVAimMS
• Th Is technology works well at optimum operating conditions on a variety of Initial
concentrations.
• The physical and/or chemical characteristics of the constituents of this treatablllty
group suggest that this technology would not be effective.
• The high removal efficiency may be the result of volatilization or the APEG process
acting as a soil washing process.
• This technology is potentially effective for low Initial concentrations.
• Bioremediation requires uniformly mixed media with small particle sizes.
• Toxic compounds such as cyanides, arsenic, heavy metals, and some organic compounds
adversely affect treatment.
• Preprocessing includes mixing and nutrient and organism addition.
• Bioremediation Is a slow process.
• Bioremediation has low costs relative to other technologies.
• Removal may actually represent volatilization during preprocessing and treatment.
• This technology Is potentially effective on some contaminants in this group.
• This technology Is not recommended for the treatment of waste mixtures which contain high
concentrations of metallic and/or organic forms of mercury, unless emissions are controlled.
• This technology Is potentially effective on these contaminants.
• Some of the available data for this treatabllity group were based on very high initial concentrations;
however, consideration should be given to the ability of the technology to treat high Initial
concentrations.
• Treatment effectiveness should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
• Volatile emissions may occur during treatment.
• These limited data suggest that this technology is potentially effective in certain situations, particularly
where the initial concentration Is low.
• The treatment mechanism for the more volatile compounds may be volatilization as opposed to
Immobilization. Air pollution control systems may be necessary to minimize cross media impacts
from these volatile emissions.
• It is not recommended that this technology be selected If this Is the only treatablllty group present.
Figure 2-11. Final Conclusions by Treatablllty Group
Other Polar Non-Halogenated Organic Compounds (W09)
tauto
-------
CO
o
TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
DECHLOfi) NATION
BIOREMEDIATION
LOW TEMPERATURE
THERMAL DESORPTION
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
AND SOIL WASHING
IMMOBILIZATION
NUMBER AND SCALE
OF AVAILABLE DATA
0 PAIRS
°_* BENCH
°% PILOT
0%FUU_
0 PAIRS
0% BENCH
OXWLOT
0%FULL
0 PAIRS
2. % BENCH
P_% PILOT
0_%FULL
OPAIRS
?* BENCH
0* PILOT
0%FUU.
3* PAIRS
100 % BENCH
0 % PILOT
0 KFUU.
» PAIRS
67 % BENCH
33 % PILOT
0 %FULL
AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS (ppm)
AND* REMOVALS
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 0 0 *
TREATED 2.
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 0 0 *
TREATED 2.
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 2. 2. %
TREATED 2.
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 0 0%
TREATED P_
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
|ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 3* 89 %
TREATED 1.1
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS MOBILITY
(ppm) REDUCTION
UNTREATED 28 81 %
TOATED 0.34
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
• The physical and/or chemical characteristics of the constituents of this treatabillty
group Indicate that this technology would not be effective.
• Pyrolysls and Infrared thermal destruction of wastes with metal concentrations over 500 ppm may
possibly reduce the mobility of these metals by binding the metals into the solid residue.
• The physical and/or chemical characteristics of the constituents of this treatabllity
group suggest that this technology would not be effective.
• High concentrations of heavy metals may adversely affect particular organisms.
• The physical and/or chemical characteristics of the constituents of this treatability group
suggest that the technology would not be effective.
• The physical and/or chemical characteristics of the constituents of this treatability
group Indicate that this technology would not be effective.
• This technology is not recommended for the treatment of waste mixtures which contain high
concentrations of metallic and/or organic forms of mercury, unless emissions are controlled.
• This technology is potentially effective on these contaminants.
• Water and H2SO4 at a pH of 1 .0 and a 3:1 molar ratio of EDTA at a pH of 12.0 can
both achieve good levels of extraction.
• Iron (1-2%) may cause solvent regeneration problems.
• This technology works well on these contaminants.
• High levels of oil and grease may Interfere with the process.
• Soluble salts of Mg, Sb, Zn, Cu, and Pb may Interfere with the pozzolan reaction.
• High levels of sulfates may Interfere with the process.
• ProtrAAtntAnt rnav bfi roaulmd to Increase DH
Figure 2-12. Final Conclusions by Treatability Group
Non-Volatile Metals (W10)
asono
-------
CO
TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
DECHLORINATON
BIOREMEDIATION
LOW TEMPERATURE
THERMAL DESOHPTION
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
AND SOIL WASHING
IMMOBILIZATION
NUMBER AND SCALE
OF AVAILABLE DATA
0 PAIRS
0 % BENCH
0 % PILOT
0 SFULL
0_ PAIRS
0 % BENCH
0 % PILOT
0 SFULL
0 PAIRS
°_S BENCH
0 S PILOT
0 SFULL
° PAIRS
0 % BENCH
0 SHLOT
0 SFULL
54 PAIRS
100 % BENCH
0 SPILOT
0 SFULL
33 PAIRS
100 % BENCH
0 % PILOT
0 SFULL
AVERAOS CONCENTRATIONS (ppm)
AND* REMOVALS
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 0 0 «
TREATED 0
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED, 0. 0 %
TREATED . 0
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 0 0 «
TREATED 0.
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 0 °*
TREATED 2.
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 71 85 %
TREATED 10
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS MOBILITY
(ppm) REDUCTION
UNTREATED 610 93 %
TREATED 1,4
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
• This technology Is not recommended If the waste contains high concentrations of volatile metals,
due to potential volatilization of these metals with subsequent cross media Impacts.
• Pyrolysis and Infrared thermal destruction may reduce the mobility of these metals by binding the
metals into the solid residue.
• The physical and/or chemical characteristics of the constituents of this treatabllity
group suggest that this technology would jnot be effective.
• High concentrations of heavy metals may adversely affect particular organisms.
• The physical and/or chemical characteristics of the constituents of this treatabillty group
suggest that the technology would not be effective.
• The physical and/or chemical characteristics of the constituents of this treatabllity
group indicate that this technology would not be effective.
• This technology Is not recommended for the treatment of waste mixtures which contain high
concentrations of metallic and/or organic forms of mercury, unless emissions are controlled.
• This technology Is potentially effective on these contaminants, especially for sandy soils.
• Silty and clayey soils are not as effectively treated.
• Arsenic may be difficult to extract due to low solubility.
• Based on the pilot scale data this technology works well on these contaminants. Some bench scale
data was not representative of optimum conditions.
• High levels of oil and grease may interfere with the process.
• Soluble salts of Mg, So, Zn, Cu, and Pb may interfere with the pozzolan reaction.
• High levels of sulfates may interfere with the process.
• Pretreatment may be required to increase pH.
Figure 2-13. Final Conclusions by Treatabillty Group
Volatile Metals (W11)
MUM
-------
Because it is technically difficult and costly to
treat the emissions effectively, it is not
recommended to incinerate wastes containing
high concentrations of these metals. Volatile
metals can be treated by immobilization and by
chemical extraction and soil washing. For high
concentrations of these metals, a recovery
technology may also be considered as a
treatment option. The relatively high volatility of
metallic and organic forms of mercury is of
particular concern when selecting a treatment
technology. Effective emission control during
both pretreatment and actual treatment may be
necessary. Otherwise, potentially serious
impacts to both human health and the
environment may occur.
32
-------
REFERENCES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
June 7, 1988. Proposed Guidance
Manual; Interim Guidance for Treatment
of Contaminated Soil at CERCLA and
RCRA Corrective Action Sites.
Prepared by Versar Inc. for the Office of
Solid Waste.
33
-------
(INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE)
34
-------
SECTION 3
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
This section discusses the available soil
treatment data in terms of the six technology
groups. These six groups are:
thermal destruction
dechlorination
bioremediation
low temperature thermal desorption
chemical extraction and soil washing
Immobilization
Consistent information has been compiled for
each technology category, including summary
figures presenting conclusions in a format similar
to Figures 2-3 through 2-13 in Section 2. The
explanation of the calculations in Figures 2-3
through 2-13 also applies to Figures 3-2, 3-4,
3-7, 3-9, 3-12, and 3-14 in this section. Each
figure is preceded by a short report that
presents subsections on Description and
Applicability, Basic Principles of Operation,
Waste Characteristics Affecting Performance,
and Design and Operating Parameters Affecting
Performance. The text is supplemented with
process diagrams, Figures 3-1, 3-3, 3-5, 3-6,
3-8, 3-10, 3-11, and 3-13.
With the exception of rotary kiln incineration and
some cement and lime/pozzolan immobilization
processes, all of the technologies described in
the following section are considered to be
Innovative technologies for the treatment of
contaminated soil. In most cases, the specific
technologies are already developed, it is the
application of these technologies to the
treatment of contaminated soil that is new.
Continued development and testing by the waste
treatment community is expected to identify
additional treatment technologies and to improve
the performance and versatility of the
technologies presently in use.
3.1 THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Description and Applicability
Thermal destruction is a controlled destruction
process that uses high temperatures to destroy
hazardous wastes usually through conversion to
carbon dioxide, water, and other combustion
products in the presence of oxygen. "The
specific products of thermal destruction
[combustion] vary depending on the types of
wastes that are burned [and destruction
operating parameters]. Most thermal destruction
units consist of a waste feed system, an air or
oxygen-fed burner system, a combustion
chamber, a combustion monitoring system, and
equipment for air pollution treatment and control
and ash removal" (U.S. EPA, November 1986).
These elements are applied somewhat
differently in the various types of thermal
destruction or combustion units. Figure 3-1 is a
schematic flow diagram of this technology. A
discussion of these applications follows and it
also includes those technologies which do not
use a burner or combustion chamber.
The thermal destruction system usually operates
in two steps or chambers. The organic
contaminants are first desorbed from the soil
and combustion is partially initiated in the
primary combustion chamber. Complete
destruction of the organic contaminants then
occurs in the secondary combustion chamber.
Proper operation is particularly essential when
incinerating halogenated compounds and PCBs,
to avoid forming products of incomplete
combustion.
Thermal destruction does not destroy volatile
metals such as lead and mercury or non-volatile
metals such as iron and chromium. Incinerating
wastes with high concentrations of volatile
35
-------
Contaminated
Feed
Emission* Control Equipment
Scrubber
Water
Excess
Air
Secondary*
Combustion
Chamber
Primary
Combustion
Chamber
J_L
Product
Cooler
Water
To Treatment
or Recycle
Not necessary for
Circulating Bed
orRuidizedBed
Combustion
Solid Residue
(Ash)
(Adapted from U.S. EPA, December 1966.)
Figure 3-1. Thermal Destruction Row Diagram
metals has the potential to adversely affect
human health and the environment. In the high
temperature environment of hazardous waste
incinerators, in the presence of oxygen,
practically all metals form metal oxides which
enter the gas stream. Some of these metal
oxide participates are too small to be removed
by conventional air pollution control technology,
such as scrubbers or electrostatic precipitators.
Baghouse dust collectors usually remove these
small participates, but the air emissions must
first be cooled to below 200°C, adding additional
expense. For these reasons, conventional air
pollution control systems may not be able to trap
these contaminants and they can potentially be
subsequently released into the environment.
Metals which do not form particulates will be
concentrated in the treated soil. Metals may
also produce a slag which coats equipment and
hampers effective operation. Some thermal
destruction technologies, such as infrared
incineration and pyrolysis, may fuse the metals
into the ash residue, reducing the ability of the
metals to leach out of the residue.
As the data base demonstrates, thermal
destruction is very effective in treating organic
contaminants. The effectiveness of this
treatment technology on soil contaminants is
summarized in Figure 3-2. The effectiveness of
thermal destruction for the treatment of
contaminated soil wastes was measured by the
removal efficiency in the solid phase using an
equation involving treated and untreated soil
concentrations, as previously defined in Section
2.1. This equation is significantly different from
the conventional method of destruction and
removal efficiency (DRE) analysis, which uses
untreated soil concentrations and effluent gas
concentrations. The removal efficiency
calculated from the solid phase was used
because it gave a better indication of the
quantity of contamination remaining in the
treated residue.
The data base indicates that a removal
efficiency of greater than 98% was achieved for
each organic treatability group except for
halogenated phenols, cresols, amines, thiols,
and other polar aromatic compounds (W03).
36
-------
TRSATAMUTYOROUP
.
NOMttXAR
HALOQENATED
AROMATICS
IWftll
PCS.,
HALOGENATED
WOXINS. FURANS.
AND THEIR
PRECUSORS
(W02)
HALOGENATED
PHENOLS. CRESOLS,
AMINES. THOLS.
AND OTHER POLAR
AROUATICS
(W03)
HAIOSENATEO
ALIPHATIC
COMPOUNDS
(W04)
HALOGENATED CYCLIC
AUPHATK3. ETHERS.
ESTERS, AND
KETONES
(WOS)
NITRATED
COMPOUNDS
(WQ6)
NUMBER AND SCALE
OF AVAILABLE DATA
3? DAlOft
1% BENCH
8* % PILOT
0 SFULL
161 PAIRS
3> BENCH
83%PHOT
14 %FULL
§1 PAIRS
_??> BENCH
?.% PILOT
6*FULL
92 PAIRS
21 % BENCH
79%PILOT
°*FULL
IMPAIRS
_J£* BENCH
33% PILOT
0%FULL
142 PAIRS
__73* BENCH
27% PILOT
0« FULL
AND % REMOVALS
AUCCUAC AUCTQACC
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL ,
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 590 >99 %
TREATED 0.024
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 1,100 >90 %
TREATED O.OSS
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppn) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 550 M. %
TREATED 0.70
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 41 >99 %
TREATED 0.016
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
Mm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 790 90, %
TREATED 17
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 98,000 9B %
TREATED 200
GENERAL OeSCKVATIONS
• This technology works very well at optimum operating conditions on a variety of Initial concentrations.
• Bromlnated compounds will Inhibit flame propagation.
• High levels of add gases produced In the presence of oxygen will attack the refractory walls and
exposed metal surfaces.
• This technology works very well at optimum operating conditions on a variety of Initial concentrations.
• High levels of add gases produced in the presence of oxygen will attack the refractory walls and
exposed metal surfaces.
• This technology works well at optimum operating conditions on a variety of initial concentrations.
• Oxides of nitrogen and sulfur can create potential serious cross media Impacts if not removed
from gas emissions.
• High concentrations of add gases produced in the presence of oxygen will attack the refractory walls
and exposed metal surfaces.
• This technology works well at optimum operating conditions on a variety of Initial concentrations.
• If this is the only treatabillty group present, low temperature thermal desorption may be more cost
effective.
• High levels of acid gases produced in the presence of oxygen will attack the refractory walls and
exposed metal surfaces.
• This technology works well at optimum operating conditions on a variety of initial
concentrations.
• This technology works well at optimum operating conditions on a variety of Initial concentrations.
• High amounts of nitrous gases may be released into the atmosphere if not controlled by a nitrous
oxide burner.
Figure 3-2. Final Conclusions by Treatment Technology — Thermal Destruction
a/21/go
-------
CO
CO
TREATAB1UTY GROUP
HETEROCYCLJCS
AND SIMPLE
NON-HALOGENATED
AROMATICS
(WOT)
POLYNUCLEAR
AROMATICS
woe)
OTHER POLAR
NON-HALOGENATED
ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS
(W0»)
NON-VOLATILE
METALS
(W10)
VOLATILE
METALS
(W11)
NUMBER AND SCALE
OF AVAILABLE DATA
42 PAIRS
Z.* BENCH
88 *PILOT
5_%FULL
24 p/MRS
33% BENCH
59% PILOT
BKFULL
34 PAIRS
35% BENCH
65 % PILOT
0*FULL
0 PAIRS
0% BENCH
0%PILOT
0%FULL
0 PAIRS
°% BENCH
0%PILOT
°*FULL
AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS (PPM)
AND % REMOVALS
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 740 >99 «
TREATED 0.077
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 1200 >99 %
TREATED 0.32
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 690 ~98 %
TREATED 0.2B
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 0 OK
TREATED 0
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 0. 0. *
TREATED 0_
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
• This technology works very well at optimum operating conditions on a variety of Initial
concentrations.
• Low temperature thermal desorption may be more cost effective.
• This technology works very well at optimum operating conditions on a variety of Initial
concentrations.
-
• This technology works well at optimum operating conditions on a variety of Initial
concentrations.
• The physical and/or chemical characteristics of the constituents of this treatability
group indicate that this technology would not be effective.
• Pyrolysls and Infrared thermal destruction of wastes with metal concentrations over 500 ppm may
nnealKhf r&rtt mA M*A mnhllllu «f thABA mAtala hu hln«4[pw« HIA mAtala Intn tfriA aAllH rAeirii IA
possiDiy reduce tne mooiiiiy OT tnese metais oy Dinotng tne meiais into tne SOHQ restaue.
• This technology is not recommended If the waste contains high concentrations of volatile metals,
due to potential volatilization of these metals with subsequent cross media Impacts.
• Pyrolysis and Infrared thermal destruction may reduce the mobility of these metals by binding the
metals Into the solid residue.
Figure 3-2 Final Conclusions by Treatment Technology — Thermal Destruction (Cent.)
-------
Although only a 96% removal efficiency was
achieved for these compounds, the average
treated soil concentration was very low at 0.70
ppm. This concentration is close to the
analytical detection limit for these compounds.
Therefore, very little relative difference can be
detected between the untreated and treated soil
concentrations. This makes higher removal
efficiencies difficult to measure. In light of this
limitation in the sensitivity of the analytical
protocol and instrumentation, it can be
concluded that thermal destruction has been
demonstrated to be very effective on these
contaminants as well.
Basic Principles of Operation
There are several types of thermal destruction
units. Some of these units are capable of
treating both liquid and solid wastes, while
others can treat only liquid or solid waste. Most
thermal destruction processes follow a similar
basic flow scheme. Wastes are fed into the
primary chamber where desorption and partial
destruction of the organic contaminants occur.
The ash residue is then removed from the unit
for disposal and the gaseous products pass
through the unit to a secondary chamber
(afterburner). In the secondary chamber, carbon
monoxide and other products of incomplete
combustion (PICs) are further oxidized. The gas
stream then passes through an air emissions
control device, such as a cyclone separator,
which removes partlculates, then on to a
scrubber system, and finally out through the
stack. The principal differences between the
various types of thermal units involve the
operation of the primary chamber. The following
is a discussion of several different types of
processes.
Rotary Kiln- "Rotary kiln systems are capable of
Incinerating solid, liquid, and gaseous hazardous
wastes either separately or simultaneously.
Because of their versatility, rotary kilns have
been used for treatment in large commercial
facilities. A rotary kiln is a slowly rotating,
refractory-lined cylinder that is mounted at a
slight incline from the horizontal. Solid wastes
enter at the high end of the kiln. Rotation of the
kiln exposes the solids to the heat, vaporizes the
contaminants, and allows them to combust by
mixing with air at high temperatures. The
rotation then causes the ash to move to the
lower end of the kiln where it can be removed.
Rotary kiln systems usually have a secondary
combustion chamber or afterburner located
downstream from the kiln to ensure more
complete combustion of the volatilized
components of solid wastes" (U.S. EPA,
November 1986). Temperatures in the kiln can
vary from 800°C to as high as 1200°C
(Kristensen, 1985). Gas residence time in the
afterburner can range from 1 to 3 seconds at
temperatures from 1200°C to 1400°C.
Fluidized Bed - "A fluidized bed (combustion
unit) consists of a column containing inert
particles, such as sand, which is referred to as
the bed. Air driven by a blower enters the
bottom to fluidize the bed. Air passage through
the bed promotes rapid and uniform mixing of
the injected waste material within the fluidized
bed. The bed has an extremely high heat
capacity (approximately three times that of flue
gas at the same temperature), thereby providing
a large heat reservoir. The injected waste
reaches ignition temperature quickly and
transfers the heat of combustion back to the
bed" (U.S. EPA, November 1986). In the
primary reaction zone, average gas
temperatures are 800°C to 900°C with a gas
residence time of 1/2 second. The gas
residence time in the secondary chamber varies
from 2 to 5 seconds at temperatures from 900°C
to 950°C (Rasmussen, C-E Environmental,
February 1989). "Continued bed agitation by the
fluidizing air allows larger particles to remain
suspended in the combustion zone." (U.S. EPA,
November 1986). Fluidized bed combustion
units can handle a variety of solid and liquid
wastes. However, wastes with a high ash
content can foul the bed. Wastes containing
chlorine or sulfur may require the addition of
lime or sodium carbonate to absorb acid gases.
Another limitation is that low melting point
constituents may melt, become sticky, and
defluidize the bed.
Circulating Bed- The circulating bed combustion
unit is a continuous process similar to the
fluidized bed combustion unit. The circulating
bed unit can also handle solid and liquid wastes.
Air is driven into the bottom of the combustion
chamber to promote rapid mixing and provide a
high heat exchange between the particles. Flue
gases and treated particles pass through the top
of the combustion chamber. The flue gases are
quenched and filtered of any particulates which
may remain. The particles that pass through the
top of the combustion chamber are initially
separated from the flue gases by a cyclone filter.
These filtered particles are mixed with fresh feed
soil and fed back into the bottom of the
39
-------
combustion chamber. Ash is removed from the
bottom of the combustion chamber. By using
high turbulence and recirculating some of the
waste, more complete combustion can occur.
This results in lower quantities of process
emissions and lower operating temperatures,
which may reduce operating costs. Circulating
bed combustors operate at temperatures
between 800°C and 900°C with gas residence
times of 2 to 3 seconds. Solid residence times
are usually from 2 to 3 minutes (H. Diot, Ogden
Environmental Services, February 1989). Due to
the high efficiency of combustion in the
recirculating system, no secondary destruction
chamber is required. Therefore, the flue gas is
simply quenched, sent through a dust filter, and
emitted through a stack.
Infrared- Infrared incineration is a relatively new
process that has been tested at a number of
sites. Material to be processed is fed into a
metering conveyer located at the feed end of the
furnace. The primary chamber consists of a
rectangular cross section "box" fabricated from
carbon steel, lined with layers of lightweight
ceramic fiber blankets mounted on stainless
steel studs, and retained with ceramic fasteners.
The material to be processed is conveyed
through the furnace on a woven wire belt, which
is supported on high-temperature alloy rollers.
In the primary chamber, the wastes are passed
under a series of transversely-mounted heating
elements. These elements, which provide the
infrared energy, are silicon carbide glow rods
with external electrical connections at both ends.
When the processed material reaches the
discharge end of the furnace, it drops off the
belt through a chute and into an enclosed
hopper. The exhaust gases pass into the
secondary chamber. The secondary chamber is
similar in construction to the primary chamber
and also uses ceramic fiber blanket insulation.
An auxiliary fuel fired burner is used to ignite
combustible gases present in the exhaust and
burn them at a predetermined temperature. This
process can also operate at a variety of
atmospheres, including oxidizing, reducing, or
starved air mode. When the infrared incinerator
Is run in a starved air mode, it destroys the
wastes in a pyrolytic manner (U.S. EPA,
November 1985). The primary desorption
chamber operates at temperatures of 500°C to
800°C with a sample retention time of 10 to 45
minutes. The secondary combustion chamber
operates at 1200°C and a gas residence time of
2 to 30 seconds (des Rosiers, U.S. EPA, May
1987).
Pyrolysis- Pyrolysis units, also called controlled
air or starved air incinerators, are another major
technology used for hazardous waste thermal
destruction. These are batch treatment systems
that slowly volatilize or distill off the organics at
relatively low temperatures. Pyrolysis treatment
is a two-stage combustion process. The waste
is ram-fed into the first stage, or primary
chamber, and burned at roughly 50 to 80
percent of the stoichiometric air requirements at
500°C to 700°C. This starved air condition is
created by a low air flow rate. This causes most
of the volatile fraction to be destroyed
pyrolytically, with the required heat provided by
the oxidation of the carbonaceous fraction in the
waste. The solid or sample residence times are
usually long (minutes) and depend upon the type
of sample. The resultant smoke and pyrolysis
products consist primarily of volatile
hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide, along with
products of combustion. The combination of low
temperatures and low air flow in the primary
chamber yields a gas stream that is relatively
low in metals and particulates. The gas stream
from the primary chamber passes to the second
stage or secondary chamber operated at 1200°C
with a gas residence time of a few seconds (I.
Licis, U.S. EPA, February 1989). Here
additional air is injected to complete the
combustion, which can occur either
spontaneously or through the addition of
supplementary fuels. It is this two-stage process
that generally allows low stack emissions. The
primary chamber combustion reactions and
turbulent velocities are maintained at low levels
by the starved air conditions so that particulate
entrainment and carryover are minimized (U.S.
EPA, November 1986). This technology is
especially useful when treating wastes
containing both metals and organics. The
volatile organics are released in the primary
chamber and destroyed in the secondary
chamber. At the relatively low primary
combustion temperatures and low excess air,
the metals usually become bound in the char
residue and do not overload the secondary
combustion system. The main drawback to
pyrolytic systems is the low throughput of waste,
since a high residence time is required to ensure
complete volatilization of organics.
Wet Air Oxidation and Aqueous Thermal
Decomposition - Thermal destruction processes
that do not use an open flame include wet air
oxidation and aqueous thermal decomposition.
Both processes incorporate the waste into
anaqueous solution and elevate the temperature
40
-------
and pressure. In low temperature wet air
oxidation, temperatures range from 200°C to
300°C with residence times of 1 hour or more.
Wet air oxidation, above the critical temperature
of water, operating at 600°C and 3400 psi to
3700 psi (Super Critical Water Oxidation), has
demonstrated the destruction of PCBs and
RCRA wastes and requires less than a minute's
residence time (Killilea, Modar Inc., February
1989). By this action, the contaminants are
decomposed into simple organic compounds by
the aqueous thermal decomposition process
while wet air oxidation uses these conditions to
dissolve more oxygen into solution, thereby
oxidizing the contaminants (USATHAMA,
January 1985). Data are available for the
aqueous thermal decomposition of explosives,
but data are limited for wet air oxidation.
Waste Characteristics Affecting
Performance
The contaminant content coupled with the
physical and chemical waste properties of the
matrix must be considered to determine which
thermal destruction process is most appropriate
for treatment. These considerations include the
actual compounds present In the waste, their
concentrations, and the combustion temperature
of the contaminant.
The combustion temperature of a contaminant
defines the minimum operating temperature of a
thermal destruction unit. The specific
compounds and concentration ranges present in
the waste can also affect treatment performance.
Alkali metal salts, particularly sodium and
potassium sulfate, and elevated levels of organic
phosphorous compounds cause refractory attack
and slagging at high temperatures. High
halogen concentrations in the presence of
oxygen and moisture in the gas stream, form
acids which are extremely corrosive and attack
refractory metals and metallic pollution control
devices. Elevated chlorine concentrations
decrease the heating value of the waste and
increase the emission of HCI. Volatile metals
produce emissions that are difficult to remove
with conventional air pollution control equipment.
Thermal destruction is not useful for wastes
containing non-volatile metals because these
inorganics are not destroyed and remain in the
ash residue. At high temperatures (>1375°C),
these metals may slag, and the generation of
oxides of nitrogen can increase significantly.
Heterogeneity of the waste matrix and debris
content are two other factors that greatly affect
the treatment performance. A thermal
destruction process is selected and optimized
based on an expected contaminant
concentration. However, a non-homogeneous
waste such as a Superfund soil, often contains
"hot spots" or high contaminant concentrations
localized in the matrix. A thermal destruction
unit may not be capable of handling the surges
created by this phenomenon. As a result, there
may be heavy particulate carryover into the
afterburner or the particulate removal systems.
Stack emissions may rise above acceptable
limits. Debris that enters the thermal destruction
unit may cause these same results by
"occluding" (shielding) the waste from treatment.
Debris such as drums, polyurethane bags, and
other materials may also interfere with the
process by lowering the operating temperature
or by slagging and fouling the equipment.
Preprocessing can compensate for the effects of
heterogeneity and debris content. Preprocessing
may include screening and mixing as well as
crushing to provide a consistent particulate size
and homogeneity more suitable for treatment.
Although extensive preprocessing will appear to
increase capital and O&M costs, the tests
performed have demonstrated the economic
advantage of these preliminary operations
compared to the costs of operating the primary
process over a broader range of conditions.
The extensive equipment repair and replacement
costs and the ripple effects caused by
equipment downtime, experienced at some
hazardous waste sites to date, strongly support
the use of extensive preprocessing of the soil
wastes.
Other waste properties that affect treatment
performance include moisture content, heating
value, and special properties such as explosive
content. The moisture content affects treatment
performance by decreasing the heating value of
a waste. Therefore, more energy has to be
added to the process. The heating value is
defined by the amount of energy released when
a waste is oxidized. Some of this energy is
used to fire subsequent waste as it enters the
combustion chamber. Thus, once combustion is
started in the chamber, enough energy must be
added to the unit to make up the difference
between the energy released during combustion
(heat of combustion) and the energy needed to
41
-------
maintain the operating temperature. Explosives
also present a problem because a waste
containing high explosive concentrations may
produce excessive heat or even explosions
during incineration.
Design and Operating Parameters
Affecting Performance
The design and operating parameters that affect
treatment performance include temperature,
residence time, turbulence (degree of mixing),
quantity of excess oxygen, and air handling
design.
These are defined as follows:
Temperature - The optimum operating
temperature must be high enough to maintain
combustion. Thus, it must remain above the
contaminant ignition temperature. The
temperature must also be high enough for
complete combustion of the waste
components to occur. Because some
intermediate products are more stable than
the initial products, the temperature must also
be high enough to combust these products.
This is often accomplished in a two-phase
system consisting of primary and secondary
combustion chambers. The maximum
temperature must also be controlled.
Combustion chamber temperatures should not
reach the point at which ash turns into a
molten agglomerate.
Residence Time - The residence time also
affects the degree of combustion. For cost-
effective operation, the residence time must
be minimized, but maintained long enough to
ensure complete combustion. This time is a
significant factor affecting system capacity,
throughput, and cost.
Turbulence (Degree of Mixing) - The most
difficult variable to quantify is the degree of
mixing. Sufficient mixing (or turbulence), with
temperature and residence time, Is necessary
to effectively ensure that the entire matrix is
efficiently treated by the process.
Quantity of Excess Oxygen - The quantity of
oxygen that is theoretically required to
complete combustion is the stoichiometric
requirement. Because no process is 100%
efficient, excess oxygen, usually as air, must
be provided beyond the stoichiometric amount
to ensure complete combustion. Otherwise,
undesirable products of incomplete
combustion are formed, such as carbon
monoxide. The amount of air introduced Into
the combustion chambers must also be
closely monitored to ensure that the presence
of too much air does not lower the
temperature or "choke" the combustion
process.
Air Handling Design - Air handling for thermal
destruction includes the particulates catch
and scrubber design. Each component must
be designed not only to remove particulates
and gases, but also to handle surges in the
process. Careful attention should be given to
air handling design to ensure adequate
emissions treatment prior to release of the
final product gases to the atmosphere. The
further treatment and disposal requirements
of the particulates catch and effluent scrubber
water must also be considered.
Ash Generation and Disposal
The incineration of soils generates large
amounts of ash and residue. Ash characteristics
will depend on the type of thermal destruction
process. Very little information is available in
the literature on the type of ash generated by
different incineration technologies.
When treating soils by incineration, the
characteristics of the treated soil will provide
important information on the ultimate disposal of
the ash. Bench scale tests should be performed
to determine the characteristics of the ash that
may be generated during full scale treatment
tests. A muffle furnace could be used to
generate ash that would be similar in heavy
metals content to the ash produced by some full
scale systems. Attempts should be made to
simulate full scale incineration temperatures in
the laboratory. However, a muffle furnace may
not be accurate to simulate high temperatures
and short residence times in some afterburners
(U.S. EPA, September 1988). Sample quantities
should be large enough to allow for subsequent
total waste constituent, EP Toxicity, and TCLP
testing. Information gained from testing ash and
treated soils will be very useful during feasibility
study preparation, since test results will reveal
whether delisting of the waste is possible. If the
ash still meets hazardous waste criteria and
requires further treatment, the costs of the
incineration alternative can increase
substantially.
42
-------
REFERENCES
1. Diot, M. Ogden Environmental Services.
February 1989. Private communication with
Harry Lindenhofen, COM Federal Programs
Corporation.
2. Killilea. W. Modar Inc.
Private communication.
February 1989.
3. Kristensen, A. Spring 1985. "Operating the
Rotary Kiln Incinerators at Kommunekemi,
Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials,"
Volume 2. Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. New York,
NY.
4. Licis, I. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory. February 1989. Telephone
conversation with Harry Lindenhofen, COM
Federal Programs Corporation.
5. Rasmussen, G. C-E Environmental,
Combustion Engineering Inc. February 1989.
Private communication with Harry
Lindenhofen, COM Federal Programs
Corporation.
6. des Rosiers, Paul. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. May 1987. Trip Report:
Boehringer - Ingelheim, FRG,
"Test/Evaluation of Shirco Infrared Desorption
Process on Dioxin-Contaminated Wastes from
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol Manufacture using
Hexachlorocyclohexane (Lindane) Wastes as
Feedstock."
7. U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials
Agency. January 1985. "Final Report:
Development of Optimum Treatment System
for Wastewater Lagoons - Phase II -
Aqueous Thermal Decomposition Laboratory
Testing." Prepared by Environmental
Science and Engineering, Inc.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
December 1988. High Temperature Thermal
Treatment for CERCLA Wastes.
EPA/540/X-88/006.
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
September 1988. Technology Screening
Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils and
Sludges. Prepared by Camp Dresser &
McKee Inc. and Versar Inc. for the Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response,
EPA/540 2-88/004.
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
December 1986. "Engineering
Evaluation/Cost Analysis, Carter Industrial
Site, Detroit, Michigan." Prepared by Roy
F. Weston, Inc.
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
November 1986. "Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BDAT) Background
Document for F001-F005 Spent Solvents."
Volume I. Washington, D.C. Prepared by
James R. Berlow and David Pepson for
the Office of Solid Waste.
12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
November 1985. "Final Report: On-site
Incineration Testing of Shirco Infrared
Systems Portable Pilot Test Unit - Times
Beach Dioxin Research Facility, Times
Beach, Missouri." Prepared by Shirco
Infrared System. EPA-81585-2.
43
-------
3.2 DECHLORINATION
Description and Applicability
Dechlorination is a destruction process which
uses a chemical reaction to remove the chlorine
atoms in chlorinated molecules. This converts
the more toxic compounds into less toxic, more
water soluble products. This transformation of
contaminants within the soil results in
compounds that are more readily removed from
the soil and subsequently treated (Rogers, July
1987). Figure 3-3 is a schematic flow diagram
of this technology.
Field and laboratory tests have identified several
types of solutions which can dechlorinate PCBs,
dioxins, and furans. These solutions include
potassium polyethylene glycolate (KPEG),
sodium polyethylene glycolate (NaPEG), and
methoxypolyethylene glycolate (MPEG). These
processes are generally classified as alkali
polyethylene glycolate (APEG). Another type of
dechlorination treatment, referred to as the Sea
Marconi's CDP-process, uses high molecular
weight polyethylene glycolates (1500 to 6000)
in combination with potassium carbonate and
inorganic peroxide (i.e., sodium peroxide). This
process has been proven to destroy 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in solvents and soils
as well as on hard surfaces (U.S. EPA, October
1986).
Halogenated aromatic compounds are
dechlorinated by a nucleophilic substitution
reaction in which a chlorine atom is replaced by
an ether or hydroxyl group. Chlorinated aliphatic
compounds are dechlorinated by an elimination
reaction and the formation of a double or triple
carbon-carbon bond (Morrison and Boyd, 1973).
The toxicity of the original waste is reduced by
removal of chlorine atoms. Treatability studies
should identify resulting byproducts; these
by-products may require subsequent treatment
to destroy all remaining contaminants. Bioassay
tests revealed that neither tetrachlorobenzene
nor APEG reaction by-products accumulated in
fathead minnows, caused cell mutations, or
caused immediate harm to fish or mammals (des
Rosiers, U.S. EPA, July 1987; des Rosiers,
Contam-
inated
Soil
*
^. Carbon Adsorption Un
Volatilized Organic*
1 1
Fresh
Reagent
,
H Reaction Decant S
(lOCfc -150°C) "" Reagent V
Fresh
Reagent
I
Rrst Sec
to So" k. ***
Wash Wi
\
ond
ill +.
ish
I
To Atmosphere
1
. _t
Water
Treated
Soil
To
Treatment
•(Adapted from U.S. EPA, May 1967.)
Rgure 3-3. Dechlorination Row Diagram
44
-------
U.S. EPA, 1989). The water solubleby-products
are expected to biodegrade to CO2 and water
(des Rosiers, U.S. EPA, February 1989). Earlier
studies indicated that not all of the chlorines
were removed by the process (Rogers and
Peterson, 1985). However, recent data indicate
that essentially all of the chlorine can be
removed by the process (des Rosiers, U.S. EPA,
1989).
The contaminated soils must be slurried with the
solution to maximize contact and enable the
chemical reactions to occur. The presence of
moisture at 4% to 10% (U.S. EPA, April 1984;
des Rosiers, U.S. EPA, October 1988), or high
concentrations of reactive metals such as
aluminum or transition metals, hinders the
dechlorination process. To date, no full scale
soil treatment programs have been undertaken
using dechlorina-tion. However, two mobile
systems are being employed and are anticipated
to be In full operation in 1989. Additionally, a
mobile APEG process was used to treat liquid
chlorinated hazardous wastes at a Superfund
site. A removal efficiency of greater than 99%
was obtained for oils contaminated with dioxins
and polychlorinated phenols (des Rosiers, U.S.
EPA, 1989).
Equipment for the dechlorination process
consists of a reagent drum, drum pumps, a
reaction vessel, a carbon filter drum, a heater,
and a condenser. In addition, several soil
wash/rinse units and a carbon adsorption unit
may also be required.
The effectiveness of this treatment technology
on soil contaminants is summarized in Figure
3-4. The dechlorination process has been
shown to successfully treat PCBs, dioxins, and
furans in bench scale treatability studies.
Removal efficiencies of up to 95% (W02) have
been achieved by these studies with an average
removal efficiency of 83% from the available
data. These results came predominantly from
bench scale studies; however, no full scale data
are available to support these findings at this
time. Therefore, due to the uncertainties
concerning successful scale-up, it is predicted
that dechlorination is potentially effective on this
technology group.
Dechlorination may also be potentially effective
in treating halogenated aliphatic (W04) and
nonpolar halogenated organic compounds
(W01). However, the degradation products from
the APEG treatment of halogenated aliphatic
compounds include acetylene (Rogers, U.S.
EPA, June 1988; Morrison and Boyd, 1973).
Acetylene is an extremely volatile and potentially
explosive compound which may also form
acetylides. Several of these metal acetylides,
particularly those of copper and silver, are very
unstable and can explode upon drying (Morrison
and Boyd, 1973).
No data were available for halogenated cyclic
alipatics, ethers, esters, and ketones (W05).
However, data for compounds with similar
physical and chemical characteristics suggest
that dechlorination is potentially effective on
these compounds.
The limited available data suggest that the
APEG solutions may also be potentially effective
on other halogenated polar aromatic compounds
(W03). Wastes contaminated with
non-halogenated organic compounds and
inorganic compounds cannot be treated by
dechlorination, because of the absence of
chlorine in these treatability groups. It is
possible that contaminants in these treatability
groups may volatilize into the air stream or
transfer into the reagent during treatment of
halogenated compounds. Dechlorination may be
used as part of a treatment train to treat waste
mixtures which contain halogenated and non-
halogenated organic compounds and inorganic
compounds.
The presence of reactive metals (e.g.,
aluminum) under alkaline conditions may be
deleterious to the dechlorination process. If
these contaminants are present in the waste
matrix, a suitable pretreatment may be
necessary to remove them prior to the
dechlorination treatment (U.S. EPA, September
1988).
Dechlorination of some non-halogenated
compounds (WOT, W08, and W09) generated
average removal efficiencies ranging from 91%
to 99%. Because these compounds are
non-halogenated, these removal efficiencies
could not be due to dechlorination. These
removal efficiencies appeared to be caused by
volatilization at the elevated temperatures used
in dechlorination processes, or by the
dechlorination process acting as a soil washing
process. Therefore, dechlorination was
predicted to be ineffective on all
non-halogenated compounds. However, these
anomalies should be considered and may be
45
-------
7BC ATABIUTY GROUP
NON-POLAR
HALOGENATED
AROMATICS
(Won
PCB..
HALO6ENATED
OIOXINS. FURANS,
AND THEIR
PRECURSORS
MTRATED
COMPOUNDS
(W06)
NUMBER AND SCALE
fW AWAII AM K AATA
§ PAIRS
J°°,% BENCH
0*PILOT
°%FULL
31 PAIRS
_5L* BENCH
3% PILOT
0%FULL
§ PAIRS
_100%BENCH
On PILOT
0«FULL
16 PAIRS
_100% BENCH
0% PILOT
OSFULL
0 PAIRS
9% BENCH
0% PILOT
OKFUU.
0 PAIRS
0% BENCH
OK PILOT
0%FULL
AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS (ppm)
AMOK REMOVALS
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 190 98 %
TREATED 1.6
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 180 83 %
TREATED 1.6
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 96 96 tt
TREATED 2.4
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 330 96_ %
TREATED 0.44
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 0. 0 *
TREATED £
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 0 0 *
Tne»Ten 0
• Data were for chlorobenzene only. These data suggest that this technology Is potentially 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 efficiencies.
• Moisture content over 4 10 7?b deactivates me roartva reagent.
• Particle size and soil matrix affect reagent penetration and process effectiveness.
• Recent data Indicate that greater than 99% of PCBs and furans can be destroyed
fdes Hosiers. 1988).
• Data were for pentachlorophenol only. These data suggest that this technology Is potentially
effective In certain situations.
• Recent data Indicate that greater than 99% of contaminants can be destroyed
(des Hosiers, 1988).
• These data suggest that this technology is potentially effective in certain situations.
• Some halogenated allphatics react with the APEQ reagents to form explosive compounds,
especially in the presence of heavy metals. The potential for this to occur should be evaluated
In the laboratory before dechlorlnation treatment is selected.
• The high removal efficiency may be the result of volatilization or the APEG process acting as a
soil washing process.
• Data were not available for this treatablllty group. Data for compounds with similar
physical and chemical characteristics suggest that this technology is potentially effective
In certain situations. Treatablllty studies will be needed to confirm the technology's
effectiveness.
• Data were not available available for this treatabillty group.
• The physical and/or chemical characteristics of the constituents of this treatability
group Indicate that this technology would not be effective.
8/21/90
Figure 3-4. Final Conclusions by Treatment Technology — Dechlorlnation
-------
TREATABOrTY GROUP
HETEROCYCLICS
AND SIMPLE
NON-HALOGENATED
AROMATICS
(W07)
POLYNUCUEAR
AROMATICS
(WOB)
OTHER POIAR
NON-HALOGENATEO
ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS
(WOB)
NON-VOLATILE
METALS
(W10)
VOLATILE
METALS
(W11)
NUMBER AND SCALE
OF AVAILABLE DATA
8* PAIRS
100 % BENCH
0% PILOT
0_%FULL
8 PAIRS
J°£% BENCH
OXPILOT
_P_*FULL
_^PAIRS
J^SBENCH
°% PILOT
°%FULL
0 PAIRS
2.% BENCH
0.% PILOT
°_%FULL
OpAIRS
°.%BENCH
?% PILOT
°_%FULL
AVERAGE CONCENTMTWNS (ppm)
AND % REMOVALS
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED £200 99 %
TREATED 23
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 3,600 91 %
TREATED 180
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 1.700 96 %
TREATED 30.
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 0_ p_*
TREATED 0_
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 0_ 0%
TREATED 0.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
• The physical and/or chemical characteristics of the constituents of this treatablllty
group suggest that this technology would not be effective.
• The high removal efficiency may be the result of volatilization or the APEG process
acting as a soil washing process.
• The physical and/or chemical characteristics of the constituents of this treatablllty
group suggest that this technology would not be effective.
• The high removal efficiency may be the result of volatilization or the APEG process
acting as a soil washing process.
• The physical and/or chemical characteristics of the constituents of this treatability
group suggest that this technology would not be effective.
• The high removal efficiency may be the result of volatilization or the APEG process
acting as a soil washing process.
• The physical and/or chemical characteristics of the constituents of this treatablllty
group suggest that this technology would not be effective.
• The physical and/or chemical characteristics of the constituents of this treatability
group suggest that this technology would not be effective.
Figure 3-4. Final Conclusions by Treatment Technology — Dechlorlnatlon (Corrt.)
a/2i/»o
-------
useful in developing a treatment process or
treatment train for mixed wastes.
Basic Principles of Operation
In the batch dechlorination process, the
contaminated soil is placed into the reaction
drum where it is slurried with the dechlorination
reagent which has been preheated. Water
vapor from the reaction drum is processed
through a condenser and a carbon filter drum
prior to discharge. Vigorous mixing and
increasing the temperature and reaction time will
ensure complete destruction of the
contaminants.
Finally, the soil is washed to remove excess
reagent from the soil matrix. The soil
washing/rinsing is usually performed twice, but
the rinsing may be conducted even more often
to ensure that no reagent remains in the soil.
By-products from the process (usually metal
chlorides and biphenyl compounds) may be
treated using activated carbon (after pH
adjustment), ion exchange, bioremediation, or
immobilization.
Waste Characteristics Affecting
Performance
Water vapor and moisture in the soil can
deactivate APEG reagents. Care must be taken
since the dechlorinating agents are very
hygroscopic and can absorb water from the air.
When sodium polyethylene glycolate is used, a
moisture content of 4% to 10% in the soil matrix
can deactivate the dechlorination process (U.S.
EPA, April 1984; des Rosiers, U.S. EPA,
October 1988). Preheating the soil matrix
before dechlorination to remove moisture content
may considerably improve the process
efficiency. Heating the reagents enhances the
rate of dechlorination (Rogers and Peterson,
September 1985).
Dechlorination as a chemical destruction process
is affected by the permeability of the soil matrix.
Particle size distribution and clay content can
significantly affect the ability of the
dechlorination reagents to penetrate the
contaminated soil matrix (U.S. EPA, May 1987).
However, dioxins have a tendency to chemisorb
or bond with the soil particles (des Rosiers, U.S.
EPA, February 1989). This characteristic, when
coupled with non-uniform distribution of the
contaminant throughout the soil matrix, reduces
the effectiveness of dioxin destruction by the
dechlorination reagents.
Organic contaminants in the soil matrix may be
adsorbed on the surface or absorbed within the
soil particles, in the micropores of the soil, or
even wrapped up in the helical humic structures
present in some soils. Extraction of dioxin from
the micropores of the soil matrix can be
expected to occur more slowly than extraction
from the surface of the soil particles. The rate
of reaction for the dechlorination process is
notably higher for liquids than for soils. This is
consistent with available data which reveal
better removal of dioxins from sludges than from
soils. In addition, the appropriateness of
dechlorination for mixed wastes (especially
those containing halogenated aliphatics) should
be evaluated in the laboratory, because an
explosion hazard may be present when
dechlorinating these compounds.
Design and Operating Parameters
Affecting Performance
The design and operating parameters which
influence the effectiveness of the dechlorination
process are soil moisture and type, degree of
mixing, reaction time, PEG:soil:contaminant
ratio, pH control, temperature, and solvent and
PEG recoveries. These parameters are
summarized as follows:
1. Soil moisture and type - Water bound in the
soil deactivates the alkali polyethylene
glycolate reagent. The soil should be dried
before reagent is added. The type of soil will
also affect the amount of time necessary to
treat contaminated soils with the APEG
reagents. Contaminants can be bound tightly
to certain soils, hence reaction times and
temperatures may have to be varied to
effectively remove the contaminants.
2. Degree of mixing - The degree of mixing
between the soil and the polyethylene
glycolate (APEG solution) is a critical factor.
The degree of mixing needs to be thorough to
ensure that the contaminant in the soil makes
intimate contact with the dechlorination
reagent. Creating a slurry may improve
removal efficiencies.
3. Reaction time - Reaction time between the
contaminant and the dechlorination reagent
must be sufficient to ensure that all
48
-------
possible reactions occur. This must be
determined experimentally depending on the
type and amount of solvent and physical and
chemical characteristics of the soil.
4. APEG:soil:contaminant ratio - This ratio is
dependent on the type of APEG, the initial
contaminant concentration, the solvent used
(usually dimethyl sulfoxide), and the soil type.
As a general rule, two and a half times more
APEG reagent than the maximum number of
chlorine atoms on contaminant molecules is
required to effectively dechlorinate (des
Rosiers, U.S. EPA, February 1989).
5. pH control- The pH is extremely important to
the operation of the process. It has been
reported that the pH should be raised above
12 before adding APEG reagent. "Continuous
monitoring to ensure that the pH is
maintained in the proper range during the
treatment process is recommended.
6. Temperature - The optimum temperature
range for dechlorination varies depending on
the compounds present. Typically, the
reaction is run at about 100°C, but
dechlorination of some compounds may
require temperatures up to 150°C.
7. Solvent and APEG recoveries-The degree of
recovery of solvent following the
dechlorination treatment is important to the
overall economics of the process. Recovery
of APEG reagents by distillation is typically
only about 50%, while washing is significantly
more successful, yielding 94% to 99%
recovery of the reagent.
'Contaminated soils containing organic
esters, such as n-butyl esters of 2,4,-D and
2,4,5-T, must be pretreated with potassium
hydroxide to a pH above 12 prior to adding
APEG reagent to avoid wasting the special
dechlorinating reagent.
49
-------
REFERENCES
1. Morrison, R.T., and Boyd, R.N. 1973.
"Organic Chemistry, 3rd Edition," Allyn and
Bacon, Inc., Boston.
2. Rogers, C. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. June 1988. Telephone conversation
with Andrew Oravetz of COM.
3. Rogers, C.; A. Kormel; L. Peterson. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. July 1987.
"Mobile KPEG Destruction Unit for PCBs,
Dioxins and Furans in Contaminated Waste,"
Land Disposal Remedial Action, Incineration
and Treatment of Hazardous Waste;
Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual
Research Symposium, Cincinnati, OH, p. 361.
EPA/600/9-87/015.
4. Rogers, C.; L. Peterson. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. September 1985.
"Chemical Destruction/Detoxification of
Chlorinated Dioxins in Soils," Incineration and
Treatment of Hazardous Wastes; Proceedings
of Eleventh Annual Research Symposium,
Cincinnati, OH. EPA 600-9-85/028.
5. des Rosiers, Paul E. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. February 1989.
Telephone conversation with Harry
Lindenhofen, CDM Federal Programs
Corporation.
6. des Rosiers, Paul E. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1989. Chemical Detoxi-
fication of Dioxin-Contaminated Wastes Using
Potassium Polyethylene Glycolate.
Publication pending, Chemosphere.
7. des Rosiers, Paul E. October 1988. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Meetings
with CDM Federal Programs Corporation on
October 16 and 20, 1988.
8. des Rosiers, Paul E. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. July 1987. Chemical
Detoxification using Potassium Polyethylene
Glycolate (KPEG) for Treating Dioxin and
Furan-Contaminated Pentachlorophenol,
Spent Solvents and Polychlorinated
Biphenyls Waste. Prepared for Office of
Environmental Engineering & Technology
Demonstration, Washington, D.C. 20460.
9. des Rosiers, P. 1987. "Evaluation of
Technology for Wastes and Soils
Contaminated with Dioxins, Furans and
Related Substances," Journal of Hazardous
Materials, Volume 14.
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
September 1988. "Technology Screening
Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils and
Sludges." Prepared by Camp Dresser &
Mckee Inc. and Versar Inc. for the Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response.
EPA/540/2-88/004.
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
May 1987. "PCB Sediment
Decontamination Process/Selection for
Test and Evaluation;" and Slide
Presentation: "Effective Treatment
Technologies for the Chemical Destruction
of PCB." Prepared by Research Triangle
Institute for HWERL.
12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
October 1986. "Technical Resource
Document: Treatment Technologies for
Dioxin-Containing Wastes."
EPA/600/2-86/096.
13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
April 1984. "Project Summary Report on
the Feasibility of APEG Detoxification of
Dioxin-Contaminated Soils" ORD
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory. Cincinnati, OH.
EPA/600/S2-84-071.
50
-------
3.3 BIOREMEDIATION
Bioremediation is a destruction process which
uses soil microorganisms to chemically degrade
organic contaminants. The microorganisms can
include bacteria, fungi, and yeasts
(Cheremisinoff, 1986). Biodegradation can
occur in the presence or in the absence of
oxygen. In the presence of oxygen (aerobic),
bacteria, fungi, and yeasts biodegrade organics
to carbon dioxide, water, and cell protein. In the
absence of oxygen (anaerobic), they biodegrade
the waste to generate methane, carbon dioxide,
and cell protein (U.S. EPA, November 1986).
Two typical bioremediation processes which can
be applied to soils are composting, depicted in
Figure 3-5, and activated sludge, depicted in
Figure 3-6.
The effectiveness of this treatment technology
on soil contaminants is summarized in Figure
3-7. The data base suggests that halogenated
aliphatic compounds (W04) and the polar
non-halogenated organic compounds (W09) are
successfully treated biologically with average
removal efficiencies in excess of 99%.
However, it is unclear from the data base if
these results represent actual destruction or if
the contaminants from the biomass/waste
mixture volatilized as a result of handling or
heating the contaminated soil during treatment.
In one study, the results indicated that
volatilization was the removal mechanism, not
biodegradation (U.S. EPA, June 1987). In
another study, measurements indicated that
trichloroethylene volatilized from a compost
within several hours (USATHAMA, May 1986).
If volatile emissions can be controlled, then
biological treatment may be potentially effective
on these wastes.
The data base indicates that biological treatment
of nitrated compounds (W06) and polynuclear
aromatic compounds (W08) has been achieved,
with average removal efficiencies of 82% and
87%, respectively, in pilot scale studies.
Therefore, biological treatment is predicted to be
potentially effective on these groups of
contaminants also.
Bioremediation is more successful with non-
halogenated compounds than with halogenated
compounds. The data base indicates that
non-halogenated aromatics (W01) and
heterocyclics (W07), have exhibited average
removal efficiencies of 99%. Halogenated
aliphatic compounds were also successfully
treated; however, the average of 99% removal
from the available data may be a result of
volatilization in addition to bioremediation. As
expected, the data base indicates that the more
complex halogenated compounds (W01 and
W03) exhibited lower removal efficiencies,
ranging from 53% to 74%. In addition,
poly-halogenated compounds may be toxic to
many microorganisms; however, recent research
indicates that various species of white rot fungi
are capable of degrading these halogenated
compounds. Bioremediation is predicted to be
potentially effective on halogenated compounds.
One data pair for PCBs (W02) from a pilot study
yielded a removal efficiency of 99%, suggesting
that bioremediation may be able to treat soils
containing PCBs. However, one data pair does
not provide sufficient support to conclude that
bioremediation is effective for this treatability
group. No data were available in the data base
on bioremediation of dioxins, furans, or their
precursors. A decision to biologically treat these
contaminants must be made on a case-by-case
basis and confirmed with treatability studies.
Ongoing research may develop biological
processes to treat these halogenated wastes.
Bioremediation of these compounds may be
feasible, especially if the overall concentrations
are low.
No data were available in the data base to
evaluate the effectiveness of biologically treating
halogenated cyclic aliphatics, ethers, esters, and
ketones (W05). Data for compounds with similar
physical and chemical characteristics imply that
bioremediation may potentially be effective on
these wastes.
Biological processes are not suitable for the
treatment of wastes with high levels of metals
(W10 and W11). The metal contaminants are
not destroyed by the organisms and high levels
of metals in the waste may be toxic to the
organisms, thereby reducing the effectiveness of
this process on the organic portion of the waste.
Metal salts also present a problem, because
high concentrations may be inhibitory or toxic to
many microorganisms.
Basic Principles of Operation
There are two categories of bioremediation,
anaerobic and aerobic. While anaerobic
biological processes have been shown to be
effective in treating complex organic wastes that
generally cannot be treated aerobically (e.g.,
51
-------
Oxygen
Wast* and
"Seed" Material
Composting
Basin
Fugitive
Emission
Control
Leaelwte
Collection
Figure 3-5. Composting Row Diagram
Oxygen
and
Nutrients
Waste
Influent
Sludge Recycle '
Treated
Effluent
Waste
Sludge
•(Modified from U.S. EPA, November 1986.)
Figure 3-6. Activated Sludge Flow Diagram
52
-------
TMCATAM rrv nwiiiB
NON-POUR
HALOGENATED
AROMATOS
HALOOENATED
ALIPHATIC
COMPOUNDS
(W04)
MIPMaYnCS ETHERS
ESTERS, AND
KETONES
99 %
TREATED . 0.027
AVERAGE AVERAGE
UNTREATED 0 0_ %
TREATED 0
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppn) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 13.000 82 %
TREATED 1<*00
• This technology Is not effective tor all contaminants In this daw; however, there Is potential for
• The presence of these contaminants at low concentrations Is not expected to InWrtere with the
treatment of applicable wastes.
• Trie effectiveness of this technology may be different than the data Imply, because the Initial
concentrations In these tests were so low.
•The tone data pair is PCBt.
• This technology Is potentially effective for low Initial concentrations.
• Btoremedtedon requires uniformly mixed media with small panicle sizes.
• Tinvlc mmwinite niKh sui rMnnlrimi limn nlf IUMM/V nMtnln Anri JUMIMJ nmnnU^i ftriwAf JM)W flffcwf iHA
trefltmont,
• ri^kfocMsinQ inditOM mtxin^ ftno nutrnni find oroaiHsni MKauon.
n|n(Mknk tairtirferkli*vnf i IM rkntawittnllw «ifhM~thin in rMrtiyn
•ItiiatVtnM inllli !•••! Inltlnf ••uiii»»tmtlnnB
situaoons wivi low inioai concentrations.
• Some of the available data for this testability group were based on very Ngh Initial concentrations;
• Btoremediatlon requires uniformly mixed media with small panicle sizes.
• Tfi¥W* fflnm inrii mirfi M rvtwilriAfl wMrilr huMtiru* fThMtAit fiwl • m^ • ***iflnLf*n tvhfaV'Milv ofHivt ttisv
treatment.
• Preprocessing Includes mixing and nutrient and organism addition.
• Bloremedlatlon Is a slow process.
Flgur* 3-7 Final Conclusions by Trastmsnt Technology — BtorsmsdMlon
M1/M
-------
TMATAeHJTYOftOUP
HETEROCYCUQS
AND SIMPLE
NON44ALOGENATED
AROMATICS
(¥•07)
POLYNUCLEAR
AROMATICS'
(VMS)
OTHER POiAR
NON4MU3GEIMTED
ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS
(W0»)
NON-VOLATILE
METALS
(W10)
VOLATILE
METALS
(W11)
NUMKft AND SCALE
OF AVAILABLE DATA
54 PAIRS
0% BENCH
100% PILOT
0_%FULL
37 PAIRS
1£% BENCH
»1 % PILOT
0 4LF1M 1
22 PAIRS
% BENCH
100%PILOT
°%FULL
0 PAIRS
0% BENCH
0* PILOT
0.* FULL
0 PAIRS
0% BENCH
0% PILOT
OXFULL
AVtMM CONCENTMHOM (Mm)
AND%MMOVAL*
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
99 «.
TREATED 0-025
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(P)m) EFFICIENCY
UMTBBTED 120 87.*
TncATcn 3 8
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
IMHeATEO, ««. >9B «
TOUTED 0.32
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(FF«l) EFFICIENCY
laiTDCATcn 0 0.%
TREATED 2.
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppn) EFFICIENCY
iMTHUTeo..,. 0 0 «
TREATED 2.
(MNHIAL OSMHVATIONS
• This technology Is potentially effective lor low Initial concentrations.
• The high removal Indicated by the data may actually represent volatilization during
preprocessing and treatment.
• Btoremedtetion requires uniformly mixed media with small particle sizes.
adversely affect treatment.
• Preprocessing includes mixing and nutrient and organism addition.
• Btoremedtation is a slow process.
* BtoremedJation has Tow costs relative to other technoiooles
• This technology Is potentially effective tor low initial concentrations.
• Btoremedlatton requires uniformly mixed media wtth small particle sizes.
• Toxic compounds such as cyanides, arsenic, heavy metals, and some organic compounds
adversely affect treatment
• Preprocessing Includes mixing and nutrient and organism addition.
• nil Himniilliilli ii i 111 fl Klnw inm jmit
• Btoremedlation has low costs relative to other technologies.
• This technology Is potentially effective for low Initial concentrations.
• Btoremedlatton requires uniformly mixed media with small parade sizes.
* Tnvic fwntMiifvlft ftui4i JM fvflnlficui nnumlc hitflw mntAlft ttntt mill m nrannlc compounds
adversely affect treatment
• Preprocessing Includes mixing and nutrient and organism addition.
• Btoremedtetton Is a slow process.
• Btoremedlatlon has low costs relative to other technologies.
• Removal may actually represent volatilization during preprocessing and treatment
• Hign concentrations of neavy mews may adversely anect pe/ucuiar organisms.
• The physical andtor chemical characteristics of the constituents of tills treatabHIty group
suggest that the technology would not be effective.
• High concentrations of heavy metals may adversely affect particular organisms.
• The physical and/or chemical characteristics of the constituents of this treatablllty group
suggest that the technology would not be effective.
Flgur* 3-7. Final Conclusions by Treatment Tachnotogy — Btoramadlatlon (Cont)
aai/w
-------
organochlorine pesticides), only limited data on
these anaerobic processes were available.
Therefore, aerobic biological treatment will be
the focus of this discussion.
Aerobic processes use organisms (bacteria,
yeasts, fungi) which require oxygen (either air or
oxygen-containing compounds) for
biodegradation of organic contaminants.
Additional nutrients in the form of nitrogen and
phosphorous are also needed (U.S. EPA,
November 1986). Nitrogen and phosphorous
must be added at a carbon to nitrogen to
phosphorous ratio of 50 to 2 to 1 to optimize
biodegradation (U.S. EPA, June 1987). The
organisms degrade the organic waste and obtain
energy for cell metabolism and cell growth. A
fraction of the waste is also oxidized to
by-products such as nitrates, sulfates, water,
and carbon dioxide. Intermediate degradation
by-products must be identified and evaluated for
their mutagenicity and carcinogenicity (Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality, 1986). A
biomass of organisms, consisting mainly of cell
protein, entrained constituents of the waste,
partially degraded constituents, and intermediate
biodegradation products, is formed during the
treatment process. This final treated residue
must be disposed. If this residue is classified as
a hazardous waste, other treatment technologies
will need to be employed prior to disposal (U.S.
EPA, November 1986).
Several types of aerobic bioremediation have
been used to treat contaminated soils, liquids,
and sludges. Some of these processes have
been adapted from the activated sewage sludge
treatment of sanitary wastewater. Figures 3-5
and 3-6 are schematic flow diagrams of
composting and activated sludge bioremediation,
respectively. These and other types of
bioremediation which have been used to treat
sludges and soils are described below.
Landfarming has been used by the petroleum
refining industry for some time. Oily wastes are
spread over a large area of soil to evaporate the
water and biodegrade the organics. These
landfarming sites may be used for years, and
any metals in the wastes accumulate in the soil
(Lorenzen, et al, December 1986). Because
operating parameters are difficult to control,
landfarming is less effective than other
bioremediation techniques. Some of the con-
taminants infiltrate into the soil, and may affect
subsurface soils or ground water. Several
newer technologies have been developed that
avoid the problems associated with landfarming.
Composting has been used to treat
nonhazardous wastes for many years, and this
technology is now being used for industrial and
hazardous wastes. In composting these wastes,
the waste is first mixed with organic bulking
amendments such as wood chips, straw, or
manure to enhance the nutrient supply available
to microorganisms, and to make the physical
characteristics of the soil more suitable.
Microorganisms may be added as part of the
organic amendments, or the wastes may be
seeded with microorganisms. The resulting
mixture is placed into lined containers which
may include aeration, temperature control, and
leachate collection equipment. Air emission
containment and control may be required as well
(USATHAMA, May 1986).
Many bioremediation technologies slurry the
waste and treat it in bioreactors. Contaminated
soil or sludge is slurried with water in a mixing
tank or lagoon. These mixers are often aerators,
which keep the solids slurried with the water,
and add oxygen for microorganisms. Emulsifiers
may be added and pH may be adjusted to
increase the solubility of the organics. Nutrients
may be added as well. As with other forms of
bioremediation, air emissions may need to be
controlled. After several weeks or months, the
contaminant concentrations are reduced to
acceptable levels. The solid residue is then
separated from the liquids. The liquids may be
recycled to the next batch, or discharged to a
wastewater treatment plant or surface water
(U.S. EPA, November 1986).
Microorganisms
Many sources of microorganisms may be used.
Indigenous microorganisms naturally present in
the waste may be suitable if the appropriate
nutrients are added. Indigenous microorganisms
may also be enriched in the laboratory. This is
done by collecting microorganisms from the site
and gradually feeding them increasing
concentrations of the waste under optimum
conditions. This builds up the microorganism's
tolerance and ability to digest the contaminants.
Alternatively, seed microorganisms from
agricultural waste or sludge from a sewage
treatment plant may be used. In the future,
specialized microorganisms may be created by
genetic engineering, to clean up particularly
toxic contaminants.
55
-------
Biodegradation of wastes can occur as both an
extracellular as well as an intracellular activity.
When intra cellular, the organic compound is
used as an energy (food) source by the cell
(Bopp, 1986 and Biological Sciences Branch,
1987). When extra cellular, the waste is broken
down as a result of exposure to enzymes that
are produced by the cell in the process of
metabolizing other substances, such as glucose
(Bumpus, 1987 and 1986). In the latter case,
the enzymes are secreted outside the cell
membrane, where they come into contact with
the waste material and trigger the breakdown
action.
Both intracellular and extracellular
biodegradation may occur at the same time, by
different microorganisms. Alternatively some
microorganisms may have both intracellular and
extracellular enzyme activity. The
characteristics of biodegradation using
intracellular and extracellular processes are
slightly different, as explained below.
Microorganisms which degrade contaminants
intracellularly are absorbing the contaminants
into the cell to use as food. High concentrations
of contaminants may be toxic to these
microorganisms. However, if the concentrations
are nontoxic, or if the microorganism is
acclimated to the contaminant, the contaminant
may degrade relatively rapidly. As the
concentration of the contaminant decreases, the
food supply for these microorganisms
decreases, and the microorganisms begin to die.
The rate of degradation of the contaminants
decreases, and eventually the contaminant
concentrations stabilize. Thus, intracellular
biodegradation may not be able to decrease the
contaminant concentration as low as
concentrations attainable by extracellular
biodegradation.
Microorganisms which degrade contaminants
extracellularly may be digesting the
contaminants to use as food, or may be
degrading the contaminants as an unintended
by-product of another activity. For example, the
enzymes secreted by a fungus to digest
cellulose may degrade other compounds as well.
Contaminants may be less toxic to these
microorganisms, because the compounds are
not absorbed into the cell. Extracellular
biodegradation may be slower than intracellular
biodegradation, because the organism is not
benefiting from the process. However, the
organism is less affected by the decrease in
contaminant concentration, and the rate of
contaminant degradation remains relatively
constant. Thus, extracellular biodegradation
may be able to decrease the contaminant
concentration to very low levels.
Waste Characteristics Affecting
Performance
Bioremediation systems require that the
contaminated soil or sludge be sufficiently and
homogeneously mixed to ensure optimum
contact with the seed organisms. Another
important factor is the level at which a
contaminant can be toxic to the organisms in the
biomass. Cyanides, certain heavy metals such
as arsenic and cadmium, and some products of
biodegradation can be toxic at high levels.
The presence of larger particles (>2 cm),
especially rocks and debris, does not present
serious operating problems for composting.
Treatment efficiency may be improved, however,
by employing pretreatment methods, to reduce
oversized materials and to create a more
homogeneous waste matrix. The smaller
particles will increase the efficiency of the
treatment because of better contact between
organisms and contaminants (USATHAMA,
September 1982). Activated sludge must have
a small and fairly uniform particle distribution
which can be slurried and maintained in
suspension throughout the process.
For the successful application of bioremediation
to soils and sludges, the soil or sludge must be
compatible with the physical-chemical and
nutritional needs of the organisms. Toxic effects
on the organisms must be considered.
Treatment process modifications and/or waste
pretreatment may also be required to provide
the proper environment necessary for
maintaining an active population of organisms
(U.S. EPA, November 1986).
Design and Operating Parameters
Affecting Performance
Many parameters affect the performance of
bioremediation systems including equalization
basins or areas, nutrients, aeration/oxygen
supply, waste-biomass contact time,
microorganism growth phase, temperature, pH
control, and selection of microorganisms. The
ways in which these parameters are controlled
are specific to the. type of bioremediation
process employed (U.S. EPA, November 1986).
56
-------
The following outlines several important
parameters for bioremediation:
Equalization - Equalization homogenizes the
feed material to minimize variations in the
contaminant load and matrix. This is
Important because biological treatment is
sensitive to variations in untreated flow rate
and organic loadings. Sudden changes in
these parameters can cause process upsets,
toxic effects, or reduced dissolved oxygen
levels, all of which will result in diminished
treatment efficiency. Sufficient equalization
time should be provided to yield a relatively
constant loading to the treatment system
(U.S. EPA, November 1986).
Nutrients- Nutrient addition is important when
controlling the growth of organisms,
particularly because insufficient nutrients will
result in poor biological growth with poor
removal of organic compounds. The principal
inorganic nutrients required are nitrogen and
phosphorus. The total amount of nutrients
required will depend on the net mass of
organisms produced. In addition to the major
nutrients, trace amounts of potassium,
calcium, sulfur, magnesium, iron, and
manganese are required for optimum
biological growth (U.S. EPA, November
1986).
Aeration/Oxygen Supply - An adequate
supply of oxygen is critical to maintain an
environment in which aerobic organisms can
grow and metabolize the organic material.
The oxygen can be provided as atmospheric
oxygen or in the form of oxygen-supplying
compounds (e.g., peroxides). In bioreactors,
the dissolved oxygen concentration in the
aeration basin should be maintained close to
the saturation level at all times (U.S. EPA,
November 1986). In composts, diffusion of
oxygen will vary according to the physical and
chemical characteristics of the compost. If
the supply of oxygen does not keep pace with
the needs of the organisms, the oxygen will
become a limiting factor. Mechanical
aeration, mixing, or the addition of
oxygen-containing compounds are effective
solutions for this problem (U.S. EPA, June
1987).
Waste/Bio Mass Contact Time - For a
specified amount of organic contaminant
biodegradation of organic contaminants to be
achieved, a sufficient amount of contact
between the waste and the organisms must
occur. The amount of contact required is a
function of the concentration of organic
contaminants in the waste. The way in which
this contact is achieved varies with the type
of biological treatment system used. In
bioreactors, contact is maintained by constant
mixing and aeration of the biomass/waste
mixture. In composting, waste is neither
added nor removed, so contact is more
difficult to maintain. Contact can be
controlled by allowing the contaminants to
remain in the compost for the maximum
amount of time possible or by blending
portions of older composted material with new
compost and waste feed.
Microorganism Growth Phase - This
parameter can only be controlled in the
activated sludge process where biomass
(sludge) wasting and recycling are practiced
(U.S. EPA, November 1986). In composting
and bioreactors, as the concentrations of
organisms and waste by-products increase
and the concentrations of contaminants are
reduced, the population of organisms will
plateau and then begin to decrease.
Temperature - Biological growth can occur
under a wide range of temperatures, although
the majority of the species are active between
20°C and 35°C. The rate of biochemical
reactions in cells increases with temperature
up to a maximum, above which the rate of
activity declines as enzyme denaturation
occurs and organisms either die off or
become less active. The temperature in
bioreactors can be controlled effectively.
Composts are more susceptible to
temperature variations than are activated
sludge systems. This is primarily due to the
build-up of heat within the compost as
biodegradation occurs and to the large
surface area available for heat transfer to and
from the atmosphere (U.S. EPA, November
1986). Weather changes can also cause
problems in controlling the temperature of the
compost. Mechanical aeration can be used
as a means to control the temperature of the
compost, with increases in aeration resulting
in decreases in temperature. The estimation
of the critical operating temperature is an
important design factor.
57
-------
pH Control - In general, neutral or slightly
alkaline pH levels favor biological growth.
The optimum range for most organisms found
in biological treatment systems is between
6.0 and 8.0 (U.S. EPA, November 1986).
However, fungi often require lower pH levels,
usually 4.5 or lower (U.S. EPA, July
1986-January 1987). Treatment effectiveness
is generally insensitive to changes within this
range; however, pH levels outside of this
range can lower treatment performance. The
pH of the feed should be monitored and
adjusted during pretreatment, in the aeration
basin of bioreactors, and during the feed
preparation for composts (U.S. EPA,
November 1986).
Selection of Microorganisms- The nature and
quantities of the toxic constituents in a waste
affect the biodegradability of the waste.
Organisms differ substantially in their
tolerance to toxins and in their ability to
degrade compounds at differing
concentrations. In all biological treatment
systems, the organisms naturally undergo a
selection process in which the organisms
capable of efficient biodegradation under the
given circumstances increase their numbers
and other organisms are killed or washed out.
Recently, biological additives have been
developed that are essentially freeze-dried
cultures of special organisms. These cultures
can be added to the biological treatment
system to enhance and maintain the
population of specific organisms (U.S. EPA,
November 1986).
58
-------
REFERENCES
1. Biological Sciences Branch, General Electric
Company. April 1987. "Rapid Assay for
Screening and Characterizing Microorganisms
for the Ability to Degrade Polychlorinated
Biphenyls." Applied and Environmental Micro
Biology Magazine.
2. Bopp, L. H. General Electric Company.
1986. "Degradation of Highly Chlorinated
PCBs by Pseudomonas Strain LB400."
Journal of Industrial Microbiology.
3. Bumpus, J.A.; D. Aust. Department of
Biochemistry, Michigan State University.
1987. "Mineralization of Recalcitrant Environ-
mental Pollutants by a White Rot Fungus."
Presented at the Hazardous Materials Control
Research Institute.
4. Bumpus, J.A.; D. Aust. Center for the Study
of Active Oxygen in Biology and Medicine,
Department of Biochemistry, Michigan State
University. 1986. "Biological Oxidations by
Enzymes from a White Rot Fungus." Symp. of
American Institute of Chemical Engineers.
5. Cheremisinoff, P.N. November 1986.
"Special Report: Treatment of Hazardous
Wastes," Pollution Engineering.
6. Lorenzen, D.; R. A. Conway; L. P. Jackson;
A. Hamza; C. L Perket; W. J. Lacy.
December 1986. "Hazardous and Industrial
Solid Waste Testing and Disposal: Volume
6." Published by ASTM.
7. Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality, Baton Rouge, LA. November 1986.
"Field Test Report-Phase III Engineering De-
sign, Old Inger Superfund Site, Darrow, LA."
8. U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials
Agency. May 1986. "Composting
Explosives/Organics Contaminated Soils."
Prepared by Atlantic Research Corporation.
9. U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials
Agency. September 1982. "Composting of
Explosives." Prepared by Atlantic Research
Corporation.
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
June 1987. "Final Report: Soil Treatment
Pilot Study Brio/Dop Sites." Prepared by
Ecova Corporation for Brio Site Task
Force.
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
November 1986. "Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT) Background
Document for F001- F005 Spent
Solvents." Volume I. Washington, D.C.
Prepared by James R. Berlow and David
Pepson for the Office of Solid Waste.
12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
July 1986-January 1987. "Leetown
Pesticide Site Treatability Study -
Progress Reports in Memo Form."
Prepared by NUS Corporation. 13. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
October 1985. "Capacity and Capability
of Alternatives to Land Disposal for
Superfund Wastes: Alternative
Technologies for Treatment and Disposal
of Soils Contaminated with Organic
Solvents." Review Draft. Prepared by
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
59
-------
3.4 LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL
DESORPTION
Description and Applicability
Low temperature thermal desorption is the
physical process of using ambient air, heat,
and/or mechanical agitation to volatilize
contaminants from a soil into a gas stream for
further treatment. The equipment used in low
temperature thermal desorption includes an
aeration unit, gas stream handling equipment,
soil handling equipment, and appropriate
monitoring systems. Figure 3-8 is a schematic
flow diagram of this technology.
The effectiveness of this treatment technology
on soil contaminants is summarized in Figure
3-9. Low temperature thermal desorption data
are limited.
The process is most effective on volatile organic
compounds.
Data for the other halogenated aromatic (W01
and W03) and aliphatic compounds (W04) and
the volatile non-halogenated organic compounds
(W07) indicate that these compounds can be
successfully treated by this technology.
Although some polynuclear aromatic compounds
(W08) may be effectively treated under optimum
operating conditions, such as elevated
temperatures, low temperature thermal
desorption is not generally as successful as
destruction technologies, because removal
efficiencies average only 65%. Polar
non-halogenated organic compounds (W09)
represent a broad range of physical/ chemical
characteristics. The effectiveness of low
temperature thermal desorption on this
treatability group should be evaluated on a
compound-specific basis.
Air or
Alternate
Gas
1 Heat »
| Source » -
i.
j
Contar
S
[ •
Aen
Ur
\
Trea
Sc
ninated
oil
1
lion
lit
ted
ill
To
Atmosphere
or Recycle
A
T
G
A
S
T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T
'(Adapted from USATHAMA, June 1986.)
Figure 3-8. Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
Flow Diagram
60
-------
TREATAMUTY GROUP
NON-POLAR
HALOGENATED
AROMATICS
AMAH
(VTO1J
PCB.,
HALOGENATED
DtOXINS, FURANS.
AND THEIR
PRECUSORS
(W02)
HALOGENATED
PHENOLS. CRESOLS,
AMINES, THIOLS.
AND OTHER POLAR
(W03)
ALIPHATIC
COMPOUNDS
(W04)
HALOGENATED CYCLIC
AUPHATOS, ETHERS.
ESTERS. AND
KETONES
(W06)
NITRATED
COMPOUNDS
(W06)
NUMKR AND SCALE
OF AVAILABLE DATA
29 PAIRS
_*L% BENCH
4%HLOT
_*L*FULL
0 PAIRS
0% BENCH
0%PILOT
0 %FULL
M WMRS
_!??% BENCH
0% PILOT
0*FULL
132 PAIRS
yi u neur*Lj
50% PILOT
23% FULL
0 PAIRS
0% BENCH
0% PILOT
0%FULL
0 PAIRS
0% BENCH
0% PILOT
OSFULL
AVERAOE CONCENTRATIONS (ppm)
AND % REMOVALS
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 130 99 %
TREATED 0.07
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 0 0 %
TREATED 0
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 260 72 *
TREATED 67
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 590 94 %
TREATED 18
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppn) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 0. 0 %
TREATED 0
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 0 0 %
TREATED 0.
OENCRAL OMERVA-nOW
• Although this technology was not expected to perform well on this treatablllty group, the data from
studies which utilized higher operating temperatures and longer residence times Indicate that many
of the compounds in this group may be treated by this technology with potential effectiveness.
• This technology Is not recommended for the treatment of waste mixtures which contain high
concentrations of metallic and/or organic forms of mercury, unless emissions are controlled.
• This technology has demonstrated effectiveness on some of the more volatile contaminants In this
group, and it Is potentially effective on the remaining contaminants.
•No data were available.
• The physical and/or chemical characteristics of the constituents of this treatablllty group
suggest that this technology would oat be effective.
concentrations of metallic and/or organic forms of mercury, unless emissions are controlled.
• Although the data suggest that this technology Is not as effective with this treatablllty group, the
technology, if operated at higher temperatures and residence times, may successfully treat
many of the compounds In this group.
• Ttita tA/*hnrtl/viv ta nnt inpnnii iiftnrinri frir tfw* troatmont nf uravto mlvti iron whlpfi fwitafn hlfih
concentrations of metallic and/or organic forms of mercury, unless emissions are controlled.
• This technology works well on this treatablllty group.
• Removal efficiencies are not as high with soils having extremely elevated concentrations.
A longer residence time may remedy this situation.
• This technology Is not recommended for the treatment of waste mixtures which contain high
concentrations of metallic and/or organic forms of mercury, unless emissions are controlled.
• No data were available for this treatablllty group.
• The physical and/or chemical characteristics of the constituents of this treatabillty group
suggest that this technology would flfll be effective.
• This technology Is not recommended for the treatment of waste mixtures which contain high
concentrations of metallic and/or organic forms of mercury unless emissions are controlled
• No data were available for this treatablllty group.
• The physical and/or chemical characteristics of the constituents of this treatablllty group indicate
that this technology would not be effective.
• This technology Is not recommended for the treatment of waste mixtures which contain high
concentrations of metallic and/or organic forms of mercury, unless emissions are controlled.
Figure 3-9 Final Conclusions by Treatment Technology — Low Temperature Thermal
Desorptlon
O21/90
-------
o>
IS)
TREATAMUTYOROUP
HETEROCYCUCS
AND SIMPLE
NON-HALOGENATiD
AROMATICS
(W07)
POLYNUCLEAR
AROMATICS
-------
No data are available for PCBs, dioxins, furans,
and their precursors (W02); halogenated cyclic
aliphatics, ethers, esters, and ketones (W05); or
nitrated compounds (W06). It is not expected
that this technology would be effective on any of
these three treatability groups.
The data base indicates that metals (W10 and
W11) are not effectively treated by low
temperature thermal desorption, because of the
low vapor pressures of most metals at the
normal operating temperatures of desorption
units. Mercury is an exception to this
generalization. Because of its relatively high
vapor pressure of 0.0012 mm of Hg at 20°C,
mercury can be expected to volatilize under the
operating conditions of some low temperature
thermal desorption units. Unfortunately, mercury
is not easily removed from gas streams by
conventional post-treatment systems. Therefore,
waste mixtures that contain metallic and/or
organic forms of mercury should not be treated
by this technology, unless the mercury
emissions can be controlled.
Due to its effectiveness in treating volatile
organics, low temperature thermal desorption
could be used in combination with one or more
other technologies (in a treatment train) to treat
soils containing mixtures of organic and
inorganic compounds. For example, if a waste
contains volatile metals and volatile organics,
low temperature thermal desorption followed by
immobilization may be an effective treatment
train scenario to consider.
Basic Principles of Operation
The basic principle of operation for this
technology is to provide a driving force to aid in
the volatilization of the contaminants from a soil
matrix to the gas stream with subsequent
treatment of the gas stream (see Figure 3-8).
Thus, low temperature thermal desorption is
actually a physical process that uses mass
transfer as its method of treatment. Unlike
incineration, it does not rely on combustion or an
open flame to oxidize or chemically destroy the
contaminants. A low temperature thermal
desorption unit can be operated at ambient
temperature, or the unit itself or the inlet gas
stream can be heated by electricity or a fossil
fuel. If a fossil fuel is chosen, it must be clean
burning and it should not produce volatile
organic emissions.
Most units incorporate mechanical agitation
during treatment to facilitate the effectiveness of
the process. The inlet gas stream is used to
purge the unit of volatile organics as they are
released from the soil. When air is used, it is
usually sent to an afterburner for subsequent
treatment. Nitrogen can be used to provide a
non-oxidizing atmosphere. This gas can then be
filtered, recovered, and recycled back to the
process (U.S. EPA, December 1987).
A low temperature thermal desorption unit may
be operated as either a batch or a continuous
process. The batch process involves putting a
volume of soil into the unit at a fixed bed height.
Air is then circulated through the unit. The air
either enters the unit just above the bed or
through a perforated plate just below the bed.
In contrast, the continuous process transports
the soil through the unit by a conveyer belt or by
a screw conveyer, which also provides agitation
during treatment. The inlet air stream may then
pass through the unit in a countercurrent
direction, which provides maximum removal.
Waste Characteristics Affecting
Performance
The physical properties of the waste, such as
moisture content, heating value, debris content,
and soil composition, may have significant
effects on the treatment performance. High
moisture content usually causes the waste to
exhibit a low heating value, thus, the overall
process requires more energy. Also, the
moisture content of the treated soil provides an
indication of volatile organic removal. The
greatest removal usually occurs during the
evaporation of moisture from the soil. The soil
composition (e.g., silt content, clay content) can
also affect the treatment process in varying
degrees. Very little information exists that can
quantify these variables. As previously stated,
this technology performs best for the treatment
of volatile organics, or for those contaminants
that have a high volatility or high vapor pressure
and tend to bind less to the matrix.
According to available data, some of the more
successful tests incorporated extensive
preprocessing of the inlet soil. This prepro-
cessing included removing rocks and debris from
the waste matrix, mixing the waste to create a
more homogeneous feed, and screening and
crushing the waste matrix to achieve a smaller
63
-------
particle size. Air emission monitoring must also
be conducted to control fugitive emissions during
preprocessing. Although no tests directly
correlated preprocessing to technology
performance, it is believed that these measures
did improve treatment effectiveness.
Design and Operating Parameters
Affecting Performance
Design and operating parameters that affect
treatment performance include air handling,
temperature, feed control, degree of mixing,
residence time, and bed height and are
described as follows:
Air handling - Inlet and outlet air streams
must be monitored for contaminant
concentration, moisture content, temperature,
flow rate, and pressure (USATHAMA, January
1987). All of these factors have a direct
bearing on treatment performance. By
measuring the effluent contaminant
concentration, a removal efficiency can be
determined. Based on this measurement,
process changes can be implemented. If
necessary, untreated soil concentration
should also be monitored for fugitive
emissions that may occur during
preprocessing and feeding. Temperature,
flow rate, and pressure combine to affect the
amount of each contaminant that can be
saturated in the purge gas and removed.
This effect is also determined by the physical
characteristics of the contaminants, such as
the solubility of the contaminant in water.
Attempts at correlating air inlet moisture to
removal efficiency for a given temperature
have also been conducted (USATHAMA,
June 1986). As previously mentioned, the
outlet gas handling system may involve either
a gas recovery system or an afterburner and
emissions control system. The type of purge
gas used is dependent on the scale and
economics of the operation.
Temperature - The optimum operating
temperature is dependent on several factors.
First, the temperature must be high enough to
volatilize the contaminants without reaching
the ignition temperature. Second, the
temperature combined with bed height,
residence time, and degree of mixing must
also be able to affect the entire matrix.
Finally, the optimum operating temperature is
waste specific and is also affected by soil
moisture, soil composition, and nature of the
contaminants. The operating temperatures
used are lower than those on incinerators,
and sometimes the process is run at room
temperature using only aeration as a driving
force for mass transfer.
If low temperature thermal desorption is used
in a treatment train, and the waste includes
volatile metals such as mercury, the operating
temperature must be kept well below the
volatilization point of these elements so that
they remain in the soil for further treatment.
Attention should be given to the location of
the temperature measurement device when
monitoring the system. The bed temperature
may fluctuate from one location in the unit to
another and at different depths in the soil,
especially if there is no mechanical agitation
during treatment. Thus, the temperature
must be carefully monitored to provide
sufficient energy to volatilize the
contaminants while keeping them below the
ignition temperature. Inlet air or gases are
often heated to maintain a constant
temperature in the low temperature thermal
desorption unit.
Feed control - This is an often overlooked
design parameter. It is usually assumed that
any low temperature thermal desorption unit
will properly feed the contaminated soil or
sludge whether in a batch or continuous
process. However, in a realistic situation, the
contaminated matrix may contain debris and
particles of different sizes. A feed system
must be properly designed to handle these
variations without clogging and to remove
debris or large particles that may damage
other machinery. The system must also be
designed to monitor and handle variations in
contaminant concentration. The feed control
system is one area that determines total
system capacity.
•Degree of mixing- This design parameter is
difficult to define or quantify. Several
variables that help determine whether there is
a proper degree of mixing are residence time,
tempera- ture, bed height, and mechanical
agitation. These factors combine to ensure
that the treatment is properly affecting as
much of the matrix as possible.
Residence time - For a given temperature,
the residence time will determine the system
capacity. By controlling the residence time,
the system will be better able to adapt to
64
-------
changes in the waste characteristics such as properly treated during batch processing. This
contaminant concentration, moisture content, is why it is advantageous to use mechanical
and heterogeneity. agitation or screw conveying during treatment.
These measures will help ensure that all of the
Bed height - The bed height should be matrix is treated, while using a minimum
regulated to ensure that the entire matrix is residence time.
65
-------
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials
Agency. January 1987. "Contract DAAK
11-85-C-0007 (Task Order 4) Bench-Scale
Investigation of Air Stripping of Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOCs) from Soil."
Technical Report. Prepared by Roy F.
Weston, Inc.
2. U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials
Agency. June 1986. "Pilot Investigation of
Low Temperature Thermal Stripping of
Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOCs) from Soil:
Volume l-Technical Report and Volume
Il-Appendices." AMXTH-TE-CR-86074.
Prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Decembers, 1987. Telephone Conversation
with , Robert Thurnau of the Office of
Research and Development, U.S. EPA Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
66
-------
3.5 CHEMICAL EXTRACTION AND
SOIL WASHING
Description and Applicability
Chemical extraction and soil washing are
physical transfer processes in which
contaminants are washed from the soil,
becoming dissolved or suspended in a liquid
chemical. This liquid waste stream then
undergoes subsequent treatment to remove the
contaminants, and the solvent is recycled, if
possible. Soil washing processes generally use
water as the solvent to separate the clay
particles, which contain the majority of the
contaminants, from the coarser soil fractions.
Chemical extraction processes generally use a
solvent that separates the contaminants from the
soil particles and dissolves the contaminant in
the solvent. Numerous combinations of soil
washing, chemical extraction, and other
treatment technologies are available. Figures
3-10 and 3-11 are schematic flow diagrams of
chemical extraction and soil washing,
Solvent Recycle
Soil
•nd •
Debris
Extract Solvent
Organic
-•»• Waste
Concentrate
Solid*
Water
Rgure 3-10. Chemical Extraction Flow Diagram
Contaminated
Soil •»
Water — •»•
Ufnathlnn —B^BI ni'«v
»_
Water
Treatment
1 1
Clean Contaminated
Sands Fines
to Treated
Water
Rgure 3-11. Soil Washing Row Diagram
67
-------
respectively. If the selection of the solvent is
optimized with the addition of surfactants or
chelating agents, chemical extraction and soil
washing can successfully treat many organic
and inorganic contaminants, particularly those
that are more soluble in the solvent of choice.
The difference between the treatability of sand
and clay is best explained by the location of the
contaminant-soil bond and the different surface
to volume ratios. Clays are much smaller than
sand particles and have a plate-like rather than
a massive structure. In clays, the bonding takes
place between the layers of the clay mineral,
and the contaminants are therefore less
accessible to the solvent. For sands, the
bonding takes place on the outside of the
mineral; therefore, the contaminants are readily
available for removal by the solvent. The small
plate-like structure of clays also provides clays
with a much higher surface to volume ratio than
sands. Thus, clays have much more surface
area that can adsorb contaminants.
Chemical extraction and soil washing are
therefore best suited for sandy and sandy loam
soils that are low in humus and clay content.
The basic mechanism at work in the chemical
extraction process includes breaking the bond
between the contaminant and the soil particle to
establish a bond between the contaminant and
the solvent. For the same contaminants,
chemical extraction exhibits a distinctly improved
effectiveness on larger sand particles than on
smaller clay particles. Soil washing is best
suited for sites where nearly all the
contaminants are adsorbed on the clay particles.
Soil washing then physically separates the
contaminated clay from the relatively clean sand
fractions. This reduces the volume of waste
requiring further treatment.
Chemical extraction and soil washing have been
successfully demonstrated through a number of
bench and pilot scale studies; however, only
three full scale units are currently in operation.
These units are located in the Netherlands
(Soczo, et al, undated; FPC, August 1987). The
equipment required to operate a chemical
extraction system includes pretreatment screens,
a water-knife unit, counter-current extractors,
scrubbers, filter presses, an activated carbon
column, and solvent regeneration/reuse units.
The effectiveness of these treatment
technologies on soil contaminants is summarized
in Figure 3-12. Chemical extraction and soil
washing appear to offer the best treatment on
halogenated aromatics (W01) except for PCBs
and dioxins (W02), halogenated aliphatics
(W04), nitrated compounds (W06), and
heterocyclic and non-halogenated aromatic
compounds (W07). For these compound groups
a removal efficiency of greater than or equal to
99% was achieved by the available data. These
data must be viewed with caution because the
results may be due to some of these con-
taminants having volatilized during treatment.
In addition, these data were entirely from bench
scale testing. Because of the uncertainties
associated with the success of scale up, this
technology was predicted to be potentially
effective on these compounds.
The removal efficiencies of the other organic
compounds ranged from 72% for halogenated
polar aromatics (W03) to 82% for polynuclear
aromatics (W08) to 91% for other polar
non-halogenated organics (W09). Some of
these compounds have strong contaminant soil
binding abilities due to surface dipolar
characteristics which may account for the lower
effectiveness on some contaminants. The
majority of these data were from bench scale
applications as well. Therefore, chemical
extraction was predicted to be only potentially
effective on these contaminants.
Bench scale studies for PCB-contaminated
sediments (W02) achieved more than 99%
removal. However, one study conducted on
manufactured organic and inorganic soils
achieved only 35% to 50% removal of PCBs. In
addition, the extraction of PCBs was found to be
more efficient for sediments containing oil than
for those containing little or no oil (U.S. EPA,
May 1987). Chemical extraction on
dioxin/furan-contaminated soils can be expected
to achieve removal efficiencies comparable to
those for PCBs, because of their similar
chemical structures. Available data from a
bench scale treatability study on dioxins
(excluding PCBs and herbicides) report an
average removal of 91%.
Although no data were available for halogenated
cyclic aliphatics, ethers, esters, and ketones
(W05), the physical and chemical characteristics
of these contaminants suggest that they can
potentially be treated by chemical extraction or
soil washing. This judgment is, in part, based
on the higher water solubilities of this group.
68
-------
NON-POLAR
HALOGENATED
AROMATICS
JUMM1
PCB.,
HALOGENATED
DtOXINS, FURANS,
AND THEIR
PRECURSORS
(W02)
HALOGENATED
PHENOLS. CRESOLS.
AMINES, THTOLS,
AND OTHER POLAR
AROMATICS
(VMS)
HALOGENATED
ALIPHATIC
COMPOUNDS
(W04)
HALOGENATED CYCLIC
AUPHATICS. ETHERS,
ESTERS, AND
KETONES
(WOS)
NITRATED
COMPOUNDS
(W06)
NUMBER AND SCALE
OF AVAILABLE DATA
20 PAIRS
100 % BENCH
0 It PILOT
0 SFULL
22 PAIRS
82 S BENCH
*%HLOT
_1±*FULL
20 PAIRS
100 % BENCH
?% PILOT
°*FULL
40 PAIRS
_15°_* BENCH
°% PILOT
0 %FULL
8 PAIRS
0% BENCH
0% PILOT
OSFULL
3 PAIRS
100% BENCH
0% PILOT
0*FULL
AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS (ppm)
AND % REMOVALS
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 170 >99 %
TBFATPn 0.30
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 9.900 71 %
TREATED *.OOQ
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UHTHEATEP 87 72 %
TREATED .18
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 290 >99 %
THEATFn 0.22
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 0 0 %
TREATED 0
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED 6.900 >99 %
TREATED 4-7
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
• This technology Is potentially effective on these contaminants but all data are from bench scale.
• Surfactants may adhere to the soil and reduce soil permeability.
• Possible volatile emission losses may occur during treatment
• This technology Is potentially effective on these contaminants with further development.
• Some of the available data for this treatabillty group were based on very high initial concentrations;
however consideration should be given to the ability of the technology to treat high Initial
concentrations.
• The presence of oil In the matrix enhances removal.
• The removal efficiency decreases as the percent of clays and clayey silts Increases.
• Surfactants may adhere to the soil and reduce soil permeability.
• Data were from pentachtorophend only.
• This technology is potentially effective on these contaminants, especially for treating sandy soils.
• Surfactants may adhere to the soil and reduce soil permeability.
• This technology Is potentially effective on these contaminants, but all data are from bench scale.
• This technology may be more applicable to sandy soils.
• Surfactants may adhere to the soil and reduce soil permeability.
• Data were not available for this treatabllity group. Data for compounds with similar
physical and chemical characteristics suggest that this technology Is potentially effective In
certain situations.
• Surfactants may adhere to the soil and reduce soil permeability.
• This technology Is potentially effective on these contaminants. However, data are limited and
testing was conducted at bench scale.
Figure 3-12. Final Conclusions by Treatment Technology — Chemical Extraction and
Soil Washing
-------
THEATABHJTYOIKHJP
HETEBOCYCLICS
AND SIMPLE
NON-HALOGENATED
AROMATICS
(W07)
POLYNUCLEAR
AROMATICS
(W06)
OTHER POLAR
NON-HALOGENATED
ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS
(W0»)
NON-VOLATILE
METALS
(W10)
VOLATILE
METALS
(W11)
NUMBER AND SCALE
OF AVAILABLE DATA
55 PAIRS
98 % BENCH
P_% PILOT
2.% FULL
24 PAIRS
71 % BENCH
0% PILOT
29 %FULL
58 PAIRS
??% BENCH
0% PILOT
5*FULL
34 PAIRS
100 % BENCH
0% PILOT
°_%FUU.
54 PAIRS
1°0% BENCH
0%F1LOT
0%FULL
AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS (ppm)
AND* REMOVALS
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED _LZ2P_ >99 %
TREATED 3.8
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UMTBFATFn 1.600 82 «.
TREATED 52.
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(ppm) EFFICIENCY
UNTREATED Z9l2S2. 2L *
TREATED 1S.OOO
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS MOBILITY
(ppm) REDUCTION
UNTREATED 34 89 *
TREATED 1-1
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS MOBILITY
(ppm) REDUCTION
UNTREATED ZL §§. %
TREATED 12.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
• This technology is potentially effective on these contaminants but nearly all data are from bench
scale.
• Volatile emissions may occur during treatment.
• Surfactants may adhere to the soil and reduce soil permeability.
• This technology Is potentially effective on these contaminants with further development.
• Some of the available data for this treatabillty group were based on very high initial concentrations;
however, consideration should be given to the ability of the technology to treat high initial
• Surfactants may adhere to the soil and reduce soil permeability.
• This technology is potentially effective on these contaminants.
• Some of the available data for this treatabillty group were based on very high Initial concentrations;
however, consideration should be given to the ability of the technology to treat high Initial
concentrations.
• Treatment effectiveness should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
• Surfactants may adhere to the soil and reduce soil permeability.
• Volatile emissions may occur during treatment.
• This technology is potentially effective on these contaminants.
• Water and H ;SO4 at a pH of 1 .0 and a 3:1 molar ratio of EDTA at a pH of 12.0 can
both achieve good levels of extraction.
* Iron (1 -2%) may cause solvent regeneration problems
• This technology Is potentially effective on these contaminants, especially for sandy soils.
• Sllty and clayey soils are not as effectively treated.
• Arsenic may be difficult to extract due to low solubility.
Figure 3-12. Final Conclusions by Treatment Technology — Chemical Extraction and Soil
Washing (Cont.)
-------
Data for volatile metals further demonstrate
better reductions in mobility (85% to 99%) for
sandy soil matrices as compared to 65% to 75%
reductions in mobility for silty soils. The
reductions in mobility for non-volatile metals
ranged from 41% to 99%. However, either the
use of sulfuric acid as an extraction solvent at a
pH of 1.0 or the use of ethylenediaminetetracetic
acid (EDTA) as a chelating Figure 3-12 agent at
a pH of 12.0 yields consistently high reductions
in mobility. Metals having low water solubilities
(e.g., arsenic) may be difficult to remove from
the soil by extraction. Finally, the presence of
iron (1% to 2%) in a contaminated soil may
hinder regeneration and/or reuse of the solvent
(U.S. EPA, December 1985).
Basic Principles of Operation
Two principal removal mechanisms are used in
extractive cleaning:
• The contaminants are dissolved in the
extracting agent with or without the
assistance of a chemical reaction (e.g.,
chelation) preceding or acting simultaneously
with the extraction.
• The contaminants are dispersed in the
extraction phase in the form of particles
(suspended or colloidal) with or without the
assistance of a surfactant and prior
mechanical treatment. The subsequent
separation between the contaminated clay
particles and the relatively clean sand
particles in the resulting slurry is dependent
on differences in particle size, settling
velocity, surface properties, or a combination
of these characteristics.
A general process scheme for chemical
extraction/soil washing involves the following
steps:
1. "The soil to be cleaned is pretreated to
remove large objects such as pieces of wood,
vegetation, concrete, stones, drums, etc.,
while hard clods of soil are reduced in size.
The sieved residue may be cleaned
separately.
2. The pretreated soil is mixed intensively with
an extracting agent. The primary purpose of
this step is to transfer the contaminants to the
extraction fluid, either as particles or as a
solute.
3. The soil and the extracting agent are
separated. The contaminants, the smaller
soil particles (clay and silt particles), and the
soluble components in the soil are generally
carried off with the extraction agent.
4. The soil undergoes subsequent washing with
clean extracting agent and/or water to remove
as much of the remaining extraction fluid as
possible.
5. The larger particles carried off with the
extraction phase are separated and, if
required, these particles undergo a
subsequent washing with clean extracting
agent.
6. The contaminated fine grained material and
the soluble components are separated from
the extraction fluid, whereupon part of the
fluid is re-used after the addition of
chemicals, if required." (Assink, November
1985).
The chemical extraction/soil washing process
results in the transfer of contaminants from the
soil matrix to the wash medium. The
contaminants may still be adsorbed on the clays
suspended in the wash medium. The wash
medium then undergoes further treatment before
final disposal or regeneration. A large number
of physical, chemical, and biological purification
methods, including coagulation, flocculation,
sedimentation, an aerobic and aerobic biological
treatment, and immobilization, are available to
clean the contaminated aqueous extracting
agents (Assink, 1985).
Waste Characteristics Affecting
Performance
Chemical extraction is recommended for soils
that contain less than 30% fine (<63um) and/or
humus particles. Sand particles (>50mm to
80mm) are fairly easy to clean because of their
relatively high settling velocities and smaller
specific surface areas for adsorption. On the
other hand, humus-like components and silt and
clay particles readily form a relatively stable
suspension with the extraction liquid, making it
almost impossible to separate the soil particles
from the contaminated particles. Hence, this
technology is more applicable to sandy waste
matrices.
71
-------
In addition, the smaller particles produce a
larger quantity of sludge, thereby increasing
treatment costs. Moreover, size distribution
analysis on metals (e.g., lead) reveals that
larger quantities of contaminant are associated
with the finer particles. As mentioned, soils with
low humus content, and consequently low (less
than 0.12%) total organic carbon (TOC), are
easier to treat than high TOC soils (up to 2% to
4%), due to the strong affinity between the
contaminants and the organic material (U.S.
EPA, December 1985).
A recommended treatment train involves
treatment of the medium and coarse soil
particles by chemical extraction, and treatment
of the remaining fines either by biological or
immobilization processes. Soils containing
complex mixtures of contaminants (e.g., metals
and organics) are not recommended for
treatment using chemical extraction due to the
difficulty in formulating a suitable extraction fluid.
In addition, variations in the concentrations of
the contaminants in the waste matrix may also
require frequent reformulation of the extraction
mixture. For example, low concentrations of
contaminants in the waste matrix will generally
require a weaker reagent mixture than will high
concentrations of the same contaminants. This
phenomenon can be avoided if suitable
pretreatment is applied to create a more
homogeneous waste feed material.
The use of surfactants to remove organics
reduces soil permeability, as the surfactant
adheres to the soil particles and decreases the
effective porosity of the soil matrix. Mechanical
treatment following chemical extraction or soil
washing, such as tilling, may be employed in an
attempt to recreate soil porosity if the treated
soil will be placed back on the site. Similarly,
other solvents may also undergo reactions with
the soil matrix that may reduce contaminant
mobility. This also may adversely affect the
extraction process efficiency.
Design and Operating Parameters
Affecting Performance
Temperature, pH control, reaction time,
extracting agent concentration, solution-soil
ratio, and number of rinses are the primary
variables affecting removal efficiencies in
chemical extraction (U.S. EPA, October 1987)
and are discussed as follows:
Temperature - Elevated temperatures may
reduce the required reaction times; however,
they may also volatilize a significant amount
of the organics. If needed, VOC emissions
can be treated in the field with an activated
carbon air filtration system. Temperature has
little effect on chelation of metals, with the
exception of chromium III, where an elevated
temperature may be necessary for rapid
chelation. Ambient temperature (70°F to
80°F) has been accepted as the standard
operating temperature.
pH control - pH is one of the most critical
parameters. Both metal cations and chelating
agents are influenced by hydrogen ions;
therefore, any change in pH affects the
equilibrium of the system. Metals are most
effectively chelated at pH levels ranging from
8.0 to 12.0. With respect to organic
contaminants, pH is a useful variable for
improving the mobility of the contaminant into
solution. Available data demonstrate that a
pH of 9.6 accomplished the best removals for
organic compounds. A pH of 12.0 was
demonstrated as the optimum pH for metal
chelation in a recent OR&D study on organics
and metals removal (U.S. EPA, October
1987). However, in some instances, the
combination of water and sulfuric acid at a pH
of 1.0 achieved good metals removal. A 3:1
molar ratio of EDTA at a pH of 12.0 has also
achieved good metals removal. The optimum
pH for metals removal needs to be
determined by the actual metals present and
their concentrations in the waste.
Reaction time - Reaction time, which
determines the actual contact time between
the extractant and the contaminated soil and,
in effect, the time for transfer of
contaminants, may affect the treatment
performance considerably. Bench tests
analyzing the wash solvent at various
reaction times show that a 15-minute contact
time is sufficient to effect a near complete
transfer of metal contaminants. Organics, on
the other hand, have been reported to take
one to three hours depending on other
conditions (U.S. EPA, October 1987).
Extractant concentration - The concentration
of the extractant for the chemical extraction
and soil washing processes depends on the
type of extractant used. The choice of a
72
-------
particular wash solvent is based upon a
number of factors including purification
efficiency, safety, toxicity, and regeneration
and treatment capability. Moreover, a
number of chemical additives aimed at
improving the extraction efficiency may be
considered. For example, acids may be
added to dissolve heavy metals; or,
particularly in the case of clay and humus
soils, the addition of bases may help to
disperse contaminants in the extraction phase
(Assink, 1985).
A literature search on organics removal (U.S.
EPA, October 1987) indicated an optimum
range of surfactant concentrations between
1% and 10%; however, concentrations over
1.5% were reported to result in materials
handling problems. Surfactant concentrations
of 0.1% are reported to be optimal (R. Traver,
U.S. EPA, September 23, 1988). EDTA is
considered to be the most acceptable
chelating agent for metals, as it chelates a
variety of metals over a broad pH range, is
completely miscible with water, will not
chelate univalent metal ions, and is readily
available. Based on the manufacturer's
calculations, a modest ratio of 1:1 to 3:1
EDTA to total metal ions present in the
contaminated soil should chelate all of the
metals present (with the possible exception of
arsenic), depending on the pH of the wash
solution.
Solution:soil (ratio) - The solution to soil ratio
should be kept to a minimum to facilitate
dewatering and to minimize the production of
wastewater. However, based on the available
literature, solution to soil ratios below 10:1
may not allow adequate soil-solution contact.
Number of rinses - Following contact with the
wash solution, the soil should be rinsed with
either clean solution or plain water to
enhance removal of solubilized contaminants;
excessive rinsing, however, will generate
additional wastewater. According to the
literature, a minimum of two rinses is
necessary (U.S. EPA, May 1987).
73
-------
REFERENCES
1. Assink J.W. November 1985. "Extractive
Methods for Soil Decontamination, a General
Survey and Review of Operational Treatment
Installations." Apeldoorn, Netherlands.
2. COM Federal Programs Corporation. August
1987. "Final Trip Report for Data Collection
Field Visits to U.S. EPA Region II, New York,
NY, U.S. EPA Region II, Edison, NJ, and
SARM Review Meeting at OHMSETT,
NJ-BDAT Work Assignment."
3. Soczo, E.R.; E.J.H. Verhagen and C.W.
Versluijs. "Review of Soil Treatment
Techniques in the Netherlands." National
Institute of Public Health and Environmental
Hygiene, Laboratory for Waste Emission
Research (LAE), The Netherlands.
4. Traver, Richard. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory. September 23,
1988. Memorandum to FPC.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
October 1987. "CERCLA BOAT SARM
Preparation and Results of Physical Soils
Washing Experiments (Final Report)."
Volumes I, II. Prepared by PEI Associates,
Inc. for the U.S. Hazardous Waste
Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May
1987. "PCB Sediment Decontamination
Process-Selection for Test and Evaluation"
and Slide Presentation: "Effective Treatment
Technologies for the Chemical Destruction of
PCBs." Prepared by Research Triangle
Institute for the U.S. Hazardous Waste
Engineering Research Laboratory.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
December 1985. "Removing Lead with EDTA
Chelating Agent From Contaminated Soil at
the Michael Battery Company." Prepared for
the Office of Research and Development,
U.S. Hazardous Waste Engineering Research
Laboratory.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
December 1985. "Treatment of Contaminated
Soils with Aqueous Surfactants." Prepared
by Science Applications International
Corporation for the Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Hazardous Waste
Engineering Laboratory.
74
-------
3.6 IMMOBILIZATION
Description and Applicability
Immobilization refers to a broad class of
treatment processes that physically or chemically
reduce the mobility of hazardous constituents in
a waste. Figure 3-13 is a schematic flow
diagram of this technology. Other terms that are
sometimes used
synonymously with immobilization include sta-
bilization, solidification, and encapsulation (U.S.
EPA, undated). These terms are defined below:
Stabilization - A process by which a waste is
converted to a more chemically stable form.
The term entails the use of a chemical reaction
to transform the toxic component to a new
non-toxic compound or substance.
Solidification - A process in which materials are
added to a liquid or semiliquid waste to produce
a solid. It may or may not involve a chemical
bonding between the toxic contaminant and the
additive.
Encapsulation - A process involving the
complete coating or enclosure of a toxic particle
or waste agglomerate with a new substance,
e.g., the additive or binder. Microencapsulation
is the encapsulation of individual particles.
Macroencapsulation is the encapsulation of an
agglomeration of waste particles or
microencapsulated materials (U.S. EPA,
undated; ASTM, undated).
Since the goal of immobilization is to reduce the
mobility of hazardous constituents, the
effectiveness of immobilization is evaluated by a
leaching test or extraction procedure on the
treated residue and not by a total constituent
analysis of the waste. Therefore, the reference
to the removal efficiency for
immobilization actually reflects the reduction in
the mobility of the contaminants that remain in
the treated residue.
The immobilization treatment system typically
consists of a materials feed system, a reaction
tank equipped with mixing equipment, and an
area for curing (U.S. EPA, 52 Federal Register
29991). The effectiveness of immobilization
depends on the type and amount of binder
(additives) used. The greater the amount of
binder used, the higher the cost of treating the
waste.
Soil/Sludge
Bag Filter
Feed Pump
Portland / Lima/
Cement/ Pozzolan
Silo / Silo Sodium Silicate
Tank
(L_D
Mixing Pump
Flllport
TOD
Feed Pump
Disposable
Container
•(Ad*>ted from U.S. EPA, 1985.)
Figure 3-13. Immobilization Row Diagram
75
-------
The effectiveness of this treatment technology
on soil contaminants is summarized in Figure
3-14. According to the data base, the
immobilization technology was successfully
applied to the treatment of volatile metals and
non-volatile metals at bench, pilot, and full
scales. Studies on these treatability groups
report average reductions in mobility in the
leachate of 93% and 81%, respectively. In the
case of the non-volatile metals, elimination of 5
of the 24 available data pairs, which had
untreated soil leachate concentrations of 1 ppm
or less, significantly raises the average reduction
in mobility. This revised analysis was the
source of the prediction that this technology had
demonstrated effectiveness on these
contaminants.
Data on the immobilization of organic
contaminants are presented in Appendix F. The
immobilization of organic contaminants may be
effective in some cases (Gibbons, July 1988).
The data base indicates that immobilization can
reduce the mobility of various organics in the
leachate. The data on poly nuclear aromatics
(W08) was the most successful, indicating an
average reduction in mobility of 99%; however
all of the data are from bench scale testing.
Immobilization of halogenated phenols, cresols,
amines, thiols, and other polar aromatics was
the least successful, with an average reduction
in mobility of 61%. However, this average was
based only on four data pairs for pentachloro-
phenol. Data for compounds with similar
physical and chemical characteristics suggest
that immobilization is more effective than 61%
reduction in mobility. Therefore, immobilization
was predicted to be potentially effective on these
contaminants.
Bench scale results from non-polar halogenated
aromatics (W01), halogenated aliphatics (W04),
heterocyclics and simple non-halogenated
aromatics (W07), and other polar
non-halogenated organics (W09) all indicated
the potential effectiveness of immobilization.
However volatilization is a likely cross media
impact from this technology which should be
anticipated and treated appropriately.
No immobilization data were available for PCBs
and similar compounds (W02), halogenated
cyclic aliphatics (W05), or nitrated compounds
(W06). Data for compounds with similar
physical and chemical characteristics suggest
that immobilization may be potentially effective,
particularly where the initial concentrations are
low.
Basic Principles of Operation
"The basic principle of [immobilization] is the
binding of constituents of concern into a solid
that is resistant to leaching. The mechanism by
which this occurs depends upon the type of
[immobilization] process. Two of the most
common are lime/pozzolan-based processes and
Portland cement-based processes." (U.S. EPA,
52 FR 29991).
"In portland cement systems, the waste is mixed
with anhydrous cement powder, water, and
frequently, pozzolanic additives. The cement
powder consists of a mixture of powdered oxides
of calcium, silica, aluminum, and iron produced
by kiln burning materials rich in calcium and
silica at high temperatures. The major
mechanism of [immobilization] in this system is
the formation of hy drat ion products from silicate
compounds and water. A calcium silicate
hydrate gel is formed. This gel swells and forms
the cement matrix which is composed of
interlocking silicate fibrils. At the same time,
constituents present in the waste slurry, (e.g.,
hydroxides of calcium and various heavy
metals), form the interstices of the concrete
matrix. Metal ions also become incorporated
into the crystal structure of the cement matrix
itself. A rigid mass results from the interlocking
fibrils and other components during setting and
curing." (U.S. EPA, 52 FR 29991).
"The lime/pozzolan processes use the finely
divided, noncrystalline silica in pozzolanic
material (e.g., fly ash) and the calcium in lime to
produce a concrete-like solid of calcium silicate
and alumino hydrates. The waste containment
is-achieved by entrapping the waste in this
pozzolan concrete matrix. In actual operation,
the waste, water, and a selected pozzolanic
material are mixed to a pasty consistency.
Hydrated lime is blended into the mixture and
the resulting moist material is packed or
compressed into a mold and cured over a
sufficient time interval." (U.S. EPA, 52 FR
29991).
76
-------
TREATABUJTY GROUP
NON-POUR
HALOGENATED
AROMATICS
tVUM\
(WO1)
PCB»,
HALOGENATED
DIOXINS, FURANS.
AND THEIR
PRECUSORS
(W02)
HALOGENATED
PHENOLS. CHESOLS.
AMINES, THKJLS.
AND OTHER POUR
AROMATICS
(W03)
HALOGENATED
ALIPHATIC
COMPOUNDS
(W04)
HALOGENATED CYCLIC
AUPHATICS. ETHERS,
ESTERS. AND
KETONES
(WOS)
NITRATED
COMPOUNDS
(W06)
NUMBER AND SCALE
OF AVAILABLE DATA
1 PAIRS
1°° * BENCH
0 it PILOT
" 14FULL
0 PAIRS
9. « BENCH
°_ % PILOT
0 %FULL
* PAIRS
J£?% BENCH
_£% PILOT
°*FULL
9 PAIRS
J59. 14 BENCH
0 14 PILOT
°_%FULL
2 PAIRS
° 14 BENCH
°*PILOT
°_%FUU.
? PAIRS
9% BENCH
? 14 PILOT
?.%FUU.
AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS (ppm)
AND % AVO. MOBILITY REDUCTION
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS MOBILITY
(ppm) REDUCTION
UNTREATED 3.1, 83 n
TREATED 0.$5
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS MOBILITY
(ppm) REDUCTION
UNTREATED 2. 2. %
TREATED 0
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS MOBILITY
(ppm) REDUCTION
UNTREATED 2.5 61_ %
TREATED 1-1
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS MOBILITY
(ppm) REDUCTION
UUTREATED „ 11 88 %
TREATED 0-g*
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS MOBILITY
(ppm) REDUCTION
UNTREATED 0 0 *
TREATED 2.
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS MOBILITY
(ppm) REDUCTION
UNTREATED 2. 2. 14
TREATED 2.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
• Data were for chlorobenzene only.
• These data suggest that this technology Is potentially effective In certain situations.
particularly where the Initial concentration Is low.
• The treatment mechanism for the more volatile compounds may be volatilization as opposed to
Immobilization. Air pollution control systems may be necessary to minimize cross media
impacts from these volatile emissions.
• It is not recommended that this technology be selected If this is the only treatability group present
• Incomplete quantitative data were available to evaluate treatment effectiveness. These
quantitative data and additional qualitative information suggest that this technology is
potentially effective in certain situations, particularly where the Initial concentration is low.
• It is not recommended that this technology be selected If this Is the only treatability group present.
• Data were from pentachtorophenol only. These data suggest that this technology is potentially
effective In certain situations, particularly where the initial concentration Is low, the effectiveness
of this technology on these contaminants may be different than the data Imply, due to limitations In
the test conditions.
• R Is not recommended that this technology be selected if this Is the only treatability group present.
• Though these data suggest that this technology is potentially effective in certain situations,
particularly where the initial concentration Is low the reductions in mobility may be due to
volatilization of the volatile compounds during treatment.
• Air pollution control systems may be necessary to minimize cross media impacts from
these volatile emissions.
• It is not recommended that this technology be selected if this is the only treatability group present.
• Data were not available for this treatability group. Data for compounds with similar physical
and chemical characteristics suggest that this technology Is potentially effective in certain
situations, particularly where the Initial concentration Is low.
• It is not recommended that tills technology be selected if this is the only treatability group present.
• Data were not available for this treatability group. Data for compounds with similar physical
and chemical characteristics suggest that this technology is potentially effective In certain
situations, particularly where the initial concentrations are low.
Figure 3-14. Final Conclusions by Treatment Technology — Immobilization
-------
00
TREATAHUTYOnOUP
HETEROCYCUCS
AM SIMPLE
NON-HALOGENATED
AROMATICS
(WOT)
POLYNUCLEAR
AROMATICS
(Woe)
OTHER POLAR
NON4MLOGENATED
ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS
-------
Waste Characteristics Affecting
Performance
"The level of performance for stabilization
processes is measured by the amount of
constituents that can be leached from the
stabilized material. There are two techniques
currently recognized by the U.S. EPA as
measures of teachability. The first is the
Extraction Procedure (EP) Toxicity Test (40 CFR
261); the second is the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP)." (U.S. EPA, 52
FR 29991).
"In the lime/pozzolan system, oil, grease, and
very fine insoluble materials (i.e., 74 x 10"6
meter particle size) can weaken bonding
between waste particles and cement by coating
the particles." (U.S. EPA, 52 FR 29991). The
acidic pH of the medium can render the cement
or lime/pozzolan system inadequate by
neutralizing the alkaline conditions required for
the reactions. The particle shape may interfere
with the setting of the cement or lime/pozzolan
system. Excessively "flat" waste particles may
cause the mixture to maintain a fluidized
consistency and may impede curing and setting
of the material (U.S. EPA, 1985). High moisture
content may also negatively affect the process
by causing the free liquid to separate, which
results in an increase of leaching potential in the
lime/pozzolan or cement system. "The presence
of certain inorganic compounds (e.g., sodium
borate and calcium sulfate) will also interfere
with the cementitious reactions, prolonging
setting and curing time and weakening bond
strength. Soluble salts of copper, lead,
manganese, tin, and zinc may cause large
variations in setting and curing time and reduce
the dimensional stability of the cured matrix,
thereby increasing teachability potential." (U.S.
EPA, 52 FR 29991). Inorganic salts (e.g.,
barium carbonate) when present in the waste
matrix can increase the amounts of metals,
particularly chromium, that are capable of
leaching out of the solidified mass (AFESC,
December 1983).
Extreme temperatures below 4°C and above
30°C may also prolong the curing rate. Heating
the waste slurry can also dramatically affect the
results. By increasing the temperature of the
waste slurry (to greater than 100°C), the
leaching potential also increases (AFESC,
December 1983). In addition, a large flux in the
temperature during the curing period can also
interfere with the immobilization process (U.S.
EPA, 1985). "The presence of certain organic
compounds may likewise interfere." (U.S. EPA,
52 FR 29991).
In portland cement systems, large amounts of
sulfates and sodium salts of arsenate,
phosphate, iodate, and sulfides will impede
setting, causing swelling and spalling of the
stabilized product (USATHAMA, December
1980).
Other physical/chemical characteristics that may
influence the performance of the Immobilization
process include the bulk to dry ratio of the soil,
the wet/dry durability, the freeze/thaw durability,
and the long term durability or the effect of
weathering processes on the immobilized waste.
In addition, the final waste volume can vary
between 1.5 and 3 times its original volume, but
generally the volume increase is about twice the
original volume of the waste (ORNL, 1986).
Even factors not directly associated with the
technology can influence the performance of the
immobilization process. These factors include
geographical location, as it influences weather
conditions and their subsequent impact on the
process and economic considerations.
/
Design and Operating Parameters
Affecting Performance
The primary design and operating parameters
affect-ing the performance of the immobilization
techology are selection of immobilizing agents
and other additives, ratio of waste stabilizing
agents to other additives, mixing cure conditions,
pH control, ion exchange potential, and oil
content of the waste (U.S. EPA, 52 FR 29991
and U.S. EPA, 1985).
1. Selection of immobilizing agents and other
additives - "The type of immobilizing agent
selected and the use of additives will
determine the bonding and structure of the
immobilized waste solid and, therefore, have
an effect on how well waste constituents are
incorporated into the solid. Immobilizing
agents and other additives must be carefully
selected based on the chemical and physical
characteristics of the waste to be
immobilized. For example, the amount of
sulfates in a waste will come into
consideration when choosing a lime/pozzolan
over portland cement-based system. Lime/
pozzolan or a special low alumina,
sulfate-resistant cement would be the
[immobilizing] agent of choice, as it would
79
-------
prevent swelling and spelling in the stabilized
product. Waste-solidifying formulations in
immobilization processes vary widely, and a
variety of materials may be used in
conjunction with the [immobilizing] agent to
change performance characteristics. These
include soluble silicates, hydrated silica gels,
clays, emulsifiers, surfactants, carbon, and
zeolites. In Portland cement systems, soluble
silicates will reduce the interference from
metal ions in the waste. Emulsifiers and
surfactants will allow the incorporation of
immiscible organic liquids. Carbon, silicates,
and zeolites will adsorb toxic constituents and
be encapsulated within the [immobilized] solid
crystal lattice matrix." (U.S. EPA, 52 FR
2991).
2. Ratio of waste [immobilizing] agents and
other additives - "The amount of
[immobilizing] agents and other additives is a
critical parameter in that [immobilizing]
materials are necessary in the mixture to bind
the waste constituents of concern properly,
thereby making them less susceptible to
leaching. The appropriate ratios of amounts
of waste to [immobilizing] agents and other
additives are established after evaluating the
waste and the selected [immobilization]
formulation. This may be done by setting up
a series of experiments that allow separate
leachate and strength testing of different mix
ratios. Once established, the ratios are
maintained by monitoring the volume and/or
weight of the waste and the [immobilizing]
agents and other additives through the use of
feed systems." (U.S. EPA, 52 FR 29991).
3. Mixing- "The conditions of mixing include the
type and duration of mixing. Mixing is
necessary to ensure adequate distribution of
the waste and the [immobilizing] agents,
thereby resulting in uniform bonding.
Insufficient mixing could result in some of the
waste constituents of concern not being
bound in the solid and thus being susceptible
to leaching." (U.S. EPA, 52 FR 29991).
4. Cure conditions - "The conditions of cure
include the duration of curing and the
ambient curing conditions (temperature and
humidity). The duration of curing is a critical
parameter to ensure that the waste particles
have had sufficient time in which to form astable
solid. The time necessary for complete
[immobilization] to occur depends upon the
waste type and the treatment process used.
The performance of the[immobilized] waste (i.e.,
the levels ofconstituents in the leachate) will be
highly dependent upon whether complete
[immobiliza-tion] has occurred. Curing
conditions such as ambient temperature and
humidity affect the rate of curing and, therefore,
could affect the strength of the [immobilized]
solid." (U.S. EPA, 52 FR 29991).
5. pH Control- "It is important that the pH of all
cementitious processes be greater than 10.0.
This ensures that enough lime is present to
initiate and continue the cementitious
reactions. At a pH below 10.0, the
cementitious reactions virtually cease.
Additionally, if there is not substantial excess
alkalinity, the initial process mechanisms of
calcium alumino-sulfate generation may give
a false set because components present in
the system will adsorb or react with the lime
or hydroxide present. This may reduce the
pH to below 10.0, thereby stopping the
cementitious reactions. Thus, the practitioner
must make certain that enough lime or
hydroxide is available to not only react to
form the cementitious bonds, but also to act
as a buffer to keep the pH greater than 10.0."
(U.S. EPA, 1985).
6. Ion exchange potential - "Ion exchange
potential is important because it helps keep
metal ions unavailable for leaching as in an
alkaline environment. The ion exchange
works in exactly the same manner as
commercial ion exchange resins or natural
zeolites." (U.S. EPA, 1985).
7. Off content of the waste- "Oil contaminated
wastes seem to have limited effect on the
cementitious matrix. It appears that
hydrocarbon oils can be added to the mix at
up to 30% to 40% by weight without stopping
the cement reaction. The best results
apparently occur in high solids content mixes,
where the oil most likely is adsorbed on the
surfaces of the additives, but enough surface
area remains to permit the reactions to
proceed." (U.S. EPA, 1985).
80
-------
REFERENCES
1. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA. Prepared by ASTM
Committee D34.09.01.
2. AFESC. December 1983. "An Investigation
of Technologies for Hazardous Sludge
Reduction at Air Force Logistics Command
Industrial Waste Treatment Plants." Vols. I,
II, III. Prepared by CENTEC Corporation for
Tyndall Air Force Base, FL.
3. Gibbons, J.J., and Soundararajan, R. July
1988. American Laboratory - Environmental
Analysis, Report on the Nature of Chemical
Bonding Between Modified Clay Minerals and
Organic Waste Materials.
4. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL),
Chemical Technology Division. 1986.
"Testing Protocols for Evaluating Monolithic
Waste Forms Containing Mixed Waste."
Advances in Ceramics. Vol. 20: Nuclear
Waste Management II. Prepared by T.M.
Gilliam; T.L. Sams; W.W. Pitt.
5. U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials
Agency. December 1980. "Engineering and
Development Support of General Decon
Technology for the Darcom Installation Rest-
oration Program. Task 4. General
Technology Literature Searches (II)
Solidification Techniques for Lagoon Water."
Prepared by Atlantic Research Corporation.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Federal Register. Part II, U.S. EPA. 40 CFR
Part 268. August 12, 1987. Hazardous
Waste Management System; Land Disposal
Restrictions; California List Constituents;
Notice of Availability and Request for Com-
ment. (52 FR 29991).
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985.
"Critical Characteristics and Properties of
Hazardous Waste Solidification/Stabilization."
Prepared by JACA Corporation for the Water
Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Undated. Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory, "Treatment of
Hazardous Waste with
Solidification/Stabilization." Prepared by
Carlton C. Wiles.
81
-------
(INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE)
82
-------
APPENDIX A
CONTAMINANTS ARRANGED BY
WASTE TREATABILITY GROUPS
This appendix presents a list of specific contaminants in each Treatability Group. The asterisks appearing
beside certain contaminants indicate which contaminants have data in Appendices D, E, and F and were
used to develop the quantitative conclusions in this report. Data for the remaining contaminants are in
Appendix G.
Most, but not all of the contaminants in Appendix A are defined as hazardous substances. Chemical
Abstracts Services (CAS) codes are given for each contaminant. When a CAS code could not be identified,
a code was assigned.
83
-------
APPENDIX A
Best Demonstrated Available Technology
for WO1 - HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC COMPOUNDS
Contaminant Name
CAS Number
1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
* 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2 -CHLORONAPHTHALENE
* 4,4'-ODD
* 4,4'-DDE
* 4,4'-DDT
BENZYL CHLORIDE
* CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZILATE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
PENTACHLOROBENZENE
* TOTAL CHLOROBENZENES
* TOTAL TRICHLOROBENZENES
95-94-3
120-82-1
95-50-1
541-73-1
106-46-7
91-58-7
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
100-44-7
108-90-7
570-15-6
118-74-1
608-93-5
T108-90-7
TOT-TCB
* - Data are available on these contaminants in
Attachments D, E, and F. 84
-------
APPENDIX A
Best Demonstrated Available Technology
for W02 - DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
Contaminant Name
CAS Number
* 1,2,3,4-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
* 2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
* 2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
* 2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOXYACETIC ACID
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOXYPROPIONIC ACID
* 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETIC ACID (2,4-D)
DECACHLOROBIPHENYLS
* DICHLOROBIPHENYLS
HE PTACHLOROBIPHENYLS
* HEPTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS
* HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURANS
* HEXACHLOROBIPHENYLS
* HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS
* HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURANS
* MONOCHLOROBIPHENYL
NONACHLOROBIPHENYLS
OCTACHLOROBIPHENYLS
* OCTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS
* OCTACHLORODIBENZOFURANS
* PCB-1016
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1242
* PCB-1248
PCB-1254
* PCB-1260
* PENTACHLOROBIPHENYLS
* PENTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS
* PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURANS
* TETRACHLOROBIPHENYLS
* TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS
* TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURANS
* TOTAL DIOXINS AND FURANS
TOTAL FURANS
* TOTAL PCB'S
* TRICHLOROBIPHENYLS
30746-58-8
1746-01-6
F1746-01-6
93-76-5
93-72-1
94-75-7
JPCB
BPCB
GPCB
HEPCDD
HEPCDF
FPCB
HEXCDD
HEXCDF
APCB
IPCB
HPCB
OCDD
OCDF
12674-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
53469-21-9
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
11096-82-5
EPCB
PCDD
PCDF
DPCB
TCDD
TCDF
TOT-DF
TOT-FUR
1336-36-3
CPCB
* - Data are available on these contaminants in
Attachments D, E, and F.
85
-------
APPENDIX A
Best Demonstrated Available Technology
for W03 - HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS
Contaminant Name
CAS Number
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
* 2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
* 2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
* 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2,6-DICHLOROPHENOL
2-CHLOROPHENOL
3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
* 3,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
4-CHLORO-3 -METHYLPHENOL
4-CHLOROANILINE
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
METHOXYCHLOR
P-CHLOROBENZENESULFONIC ACID
* P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL SULFIDE
* P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL SULFONE
* P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL SULFOXIDE
* PENTACHLOROPHENOL
* SUPONA
58-90-2
95-95-4
88-06-2
120-83-2
87-65-0
95-57-8
91-94-1
34DCP
101-55-3
59-50-7
106-47-8
7005-72-3
72-43-5
PCBSA
CPMS
CPMS02
CPMSO
87-86-5
470-90-6
* - Data are available on these contaminants in
Attachments D, E, and F.
86
-------
APPENDIX A
Best Demonstrated Available Technology
for W04 - HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
Contaminant Name
CAS Number
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
* 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
* 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE
* 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
* 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
* 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
* 1,2-DIBROMO- 3 -CHLOROPROPANE
* 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
* 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
2-CHLORO-1,3-BUTADIENE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
BROMOFORM
BROMOMETHANE (METHYL BROMIDE)
* CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROETHANE
* CHLOROFORM
CHLOROMETHANE (METHYL CHLORIDE)
CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
* METHYLENE CHLORIDE (DICHLOROMETHANE)-
PENTACHLOROETHANE
* TETRACHLOROETHENE
* TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
* TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
* VINYL CHLORIDE
630-20-6
71-55-6
79-34-5
76-13-1
79-00-5
75-34-3
75-35-4
96-12-8
107-06-2
78-87-5
126-99-8
75-27-4
75-25-2
74-83-9
56-23-5
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
156-59-2
10061-01-5
124-48-1
75-71-8
106-93-4
87-68-3
67-72-1
75-09-2
76-01-7
127-18-4
156-60-5
10061-02-6
79-01-6
75-69-4
75-01-4
* - Data are available on these contaminants in
Attachments D, E, and F.
87
-------
APPENDIX A
Best Demonstrated Available Technology
for W05 - HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES
Contaminant Name
CAS Number
2 -CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
3 -CHLOROPROPIONITRILE
ALDRIN
ALPHA-BHC
BETA-BHC
BIS(2 -CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE
BIS(2 -CHLOROETHYL) ETHER
BIS(2 -CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER
CHLORDANE
CHLOROMETHYL METHYL ETHER
DELTA-BHC
DIELDRIN
ENDOSULFAN I
ENDOSULFAN II
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE
ENDRIN
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
ENDRIN KETONE
EPICHLOROHYDRIN
* GAMMA-BHC (LINDANE)
* HEPTACHLOR
* HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
HEXACHLORONORBORNADIENE
* ISODRIN
OCTACHLOROCYCLOPENTENE
TOXAPHENE
110-75-8
542-76-7
309-00-2
319-84-6
319-85-7
111-91-1
111-44-4
39638-32-9
57-74-9
542-88-1
319-86-8
60-57-1
959-98-8
33213-65-9
1031-07-8
72-20-8
7421-93-4
53494-70-5
106-89-8
58-89-9
76-44-8
1024-57-3
77-47-4
3389-71-7
465-73-6
706-78-5
8001-35-2
* - Data are available on these contaminants in
Attachments D, E, and F.
88
-------
APPENDIX A
Best Demonstrated Available Technology
for WO6 - NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
Contaminant Name
CAS Number
* 1,3,5-TRINITROHEXAHYDRO-1,3,5-TRIAZINE
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE
* 2 -AMINO-4,6-DINITROTOLUENE
2-METHYL-4,6-DINITROPHENOL
2-NITROANILINE
2-NITROPHENOL
3-NITROANILINE
4-NITROANILINE
4-NITROPHENOL
* DINITROBENZENE
ETHYL PARATHION
* HMX
METHYL PARATHION
NITROBENZENE
* NITROCELLULOSE
PENTACHLORONITROBENZENE
* TRINITROBENZENE
* TRINITROPHENLYMETHYLNITRAMINE (TETRYL)
* TRINITROTOLUENE (TN)
121-82-4
51-28-5
121-14-2
606-20-2
T99-55-8
534-52-1
88-74-4
88-75-5
99-09-2
100-01-6
100-02-7
25154-54-5
56-38-2
135-HMX
298-00-0
98-95-3
9004-70-0
82-68-8
99-35-4
479-45-8
118-96-7
* - Data are available on these contaminants in
Attachments D, E, and F. 39
-------
APPENDIX A
Best Demonstrated Available Technology
for W07 - HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
Contaminant Name CAS Number
1-ETHYL-2-METHYL-BENZENE 611-14-3
ALKYL BENZENE " ABC
* AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS TOT-AR
* BENZENE 71-43-2
* BENZENE, TOLUENE, ETHYLBENZENE, XYLENES BTEX
* ETHYLBENZENE 100-41-4
ISOPROPYLBENZENE 98-82-8
* M-XYLENE 108-38-3
* O&P XYLENE 95-47-6
0-XYLENE 97-47-6
P-XYLENE 106-42-3
PYRIDINE 110-86-1
* STYRENE 100-42-5
* TOLUENE 108-88-3
* XYLENES (TOTAL) 1330-20-7
* - Data are available on these contaminants in
Attachments D, E, and F.
90
-------
APPENDIX A
Best Demonstrated Available Technology
for WO8 - POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
Contaminant Name CAS Number
* 1-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 90-12-0
* 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 91-57-6
* ACENAPHTHENE 83-32-9
* ACENAPHTHYLENE 208-96-8
* ANTHRACENE 120-12-7
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 56-55-3
BENZO(A)PYRENE 50-32-8
* BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 205-99-2
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 191-24-2
* BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 207-08-9
BIPHENYL 92-52-4
CHRYSENE ' 218-01-9
DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE 53-70-3
* DIBENZOFURAN 132-64-9
* FLUORANTHENE 206-44-0
* FLUORENE 86-73-7
INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE 193-39-5
* NAPHTHALENE 91-20-3
* PHENANTHRENE 85-01-8
* PYRENE 129-00-0
* TOTAL POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS TOT-PAH
* - Data are available on these contaminants in
Attachments D, E, and F.
91
-------
APPENDIX A
Best Demonstrated Available Technology
for W09 - OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Contaminant Name CAS Number
1,2-BENZENEDICARBOXYLIC ACID 117-82-8
1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE 122-66-7
1,4 DIOXANE 123-91-1
1-PROPANOL 71-23-8
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL 105-67-9
* 2-BUTANONE 78-93-3
2-ETHOXYETHANOL 110-80-5
2-HEPTANONE 110-43-0
2-HEXANONE 591-78-6
2 -METHYLPHENOL 95-48-7
3-METHYL PHENOL . 108-39-4
4-HYDROXY-4-METHYL-2 -PENTANONE 123-42-2
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE 108-10-1
4-METHYL-3-PENTEN-2-ONE 141-79-7
4-METHYL-4-PENTEN-2-ONE 3744-02-3
4-METHYLPHENOL 106-44-5
5-METHYL-2-HEXANONE 110-12-3
* ACETONE 67-64-1
ACETONITRILE 75-05-8
ACETOPHENONE 98-86-2
ACROLEIN 107-02-8
ACRYLONITRILE 107-37-1
ALLYL ALCOHOL 107-18-6
ANILINE 62-53-3
BENZIDINE 92-87-5
BENZOIC ACID 65-85-0
BENZOIC ACID, DIHYDROXY T119-36-8
BENZYL ALCOHOL 100-51-6
* BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 117-81-7
* BUTYLBENZYL PHTHALATE 85-68-7
* CARBON DISULFIDE 75-15-0
CRESOLS 1319-77-3
CYCLOHEXANONE 108-94-1
* DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE 84-74-2
* DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE 117-84-0
DIETHYL PHTHALATE 84-66-2
DIMETHOXYETHANE , 110-71-4
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE 131-11-3
DIPHENYLAMINE 122 - 3 9 -4
ETHANOL,2-ETHOXY ACETATE 111-15-9
ETHOXYETHYLENE 109-92-2
* - Data are available on these contaminants in
Attachments D, E, and F. 92
-------
APPENDIX A
Best Demonstrated Available Technology
for WO9 - OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Contaminant Name
CAS Number
ETHYL ACETATE
ETHYLENE OXIDE
HEXADECANOIC ACID
HEXANEDIOIC ACID, DIOCTYL ESTER
ISOBUTANOL
ISOPHORONE
METHANOL
METHYL METHACRYLATE
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
ORGANIC CYANIDE
PHENOL
PROPANOIC ACID,2-METHYL
TRIETHYLAMINE
VINYL ACETATE
141-78-6
75-21-8
57-10-3
123-79-5
78-83-1
78-59-1
67-56-1
80-62-6
621-64-7
62-75-9
86-30-6
C57-12-5
108-95-2
74381-40-1
121-44-8
108-05-4
* - Data are available on these contaminants in
Attachments D, E, and F.
93
-------
APPENDIX A
Best Demonstrated Available Technology
for W10 - NON-VOLATILE METALS
Contaminant Name
CAS Number
ALUMINUM
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
CALCIUM
* CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM (HEXAVALENT)
COBALT
* COPPER
IRON
LITHIUM
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MOLYBDENUM
* NICKEL
POTASSIUM
SODIUM
STRONTIUM
VANADIUM
7429-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
18540
7440-
7440-
7439-
7439-
7439-
7439-
7439-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
90-5
39-3
41-7
70-2
47-3
-29-9
48-4
50-8
89-6
93-2
95-4
96-5
98-7
02-0
09-7
23-5
24-6
62-2
* - Data are available on these contaminants in
Attachments D, E, and F.
94
-------
APPENDIX A
Best Demonstrated Available Technology
for Wll - VOLATILE METALS
Contaminant Name CAS Number
ANTIMONY 7440-36-0
* ARSENIC 7440-38-2
* CADMIUM 7440-43-9
* LEAD 7439-92-1
MERCURY 7439-97-6
SELENIUM 7782-49-2
SILVER 7440-22-4
THALLIUM 7440-28-0
TIN 7440-31-5
TITANIUM 7440-32-6
* ZINC 7440-66-6
* - Data are available on these contaminants in
Attachments D, E, and F. 95
-------
APPENDIX A
Best Demonstrated Available Technology
for W12 - OTHER INORGANICS
Contaminant Name
CAS Number
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
ASBESTOS (FIBROUS)
BORON
CARBON MONOXIDE
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHLORIDE
CYANIDE
DESTRUCTION REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
FLUORIDE
HC1 EMMISSIONS KG/HR
HYDRAZINE
HYDROCYANIC ACID
NITRATE AS N
OXIDES OF NITROGEN
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS G/DSCF
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS MG/DSCM
PH
PHOSPHATE
PHOSPHORUS
SILICON
SULFATE
SULFIDE
THALLIUM SULFATE
URANIUM
YITRIUM
N7664-41-7
01332-21-4
7440-42-8
XCOX
COD
CHLORIDE
57-12-5
XDRE-%
16984-48-8
X7647-01-0
302-01-2
74-90-8
NO3
XNOX
XPART-A
XPART
XPH
PO4
7723-14-0
7440-21-3
SULFATE
A57-12-5
10031-59-1
7440-61-1
10361-92-9
* - Data are available on these contaminants in
Attachments D, E, and F. 96
-------
APPENDIX A
Best Demonstrated Available Technology
for W13 - OTHER ORGANICS
Contaminant Name
CAS Number
% REMOVAL TOTAL VOLATILE ORGANICS
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
1-PENTENE-3-OL
2 METHYL PROPANE
2(3H)FURANONE,DIHYDRO
2(5H)-FURANONE, 5,5-DIMETHYL
2,3,4 TRIMETHYL HEXANE
2,3-DIMETHYL HEPTANE
2,4-DIMETHYL HEPTANE
2,5-DIMETHYL HEPTANE
2,6,10,14 TETRAMETHYL HEXADECANE
2,6,10,14 TETRAMETHYL PENTADECANE
2-CHLOROETHANOL PHOSPHATE
3 HEXON-2-ONE-5-METHYL
3,3-DIMETHYL HEXANE
3,5-DIMETHYL HEPTANE
3-METHYL OCTANE
4 PENTIN 2-ONE
4-METHYL OCTANE
4-PENTEN-2-ONE
4H-1,2,4 TRIAZALE, 4 METHYL
7,12-DIMETHYLBENZ (A) ANTHRACENE
9,9'-DICHLOROFLUORENE
ALK20
ALKANE (19.71)
ALKANE (25.02)
ALKANE (27.81)
AZULENE,7-ETHYL-1,4-DEMETHYL
BENZAMIDE,2 -HYDROXY-N-PHENYL
CIO AROMATIC (9.7-11.5)
C7 ALIPHATIC (20.68)
C9 AROMATIC (37.54)
C9 AROMATIC (7.6-9.0)
CAPTAN
CARBAZOLE (9-AZAFLUORENE)
CHLOROPHENESIC ACID
CHLOROPHENIC ACID
CRUDE OIL
DECENE
DIAZINON
DIBENZ (A,H) ACRIDINE
XRET-VOC
1-MP
616-25-1
75-28-5
96-48-0
20019-64-1
921-47-1
3074-71-3
2213-23-2
2216-30-0
638-36-8
1921-70-6
115-96-8
5166-53-0
563-16-6
926-82-9
2216-33-3
13891-87-7
2216-34-4
1389-18-7
1057-00-8
57-97-6
C86-73-7
ALK20
ALK19
ALK25
ALK27
1529-05-5
87-17-2
C10AR97
C7AL
C9AR37
C9AR76
133-06-2
A86-73-7
CPEA
CPA
CRUDE
19699-18-0
333-41-5
226-36-8
* - Data are available on these contaminants in
Attachments D, E, and F. 97
-------
APPENDIX A
Best Demonstrated Available Technology
for W13 - OTHER ORGANICS
Contaminant Name
CAS Number
DICYCLOPENTADIENE
DIESEL FUEL, OIL, PETROL
DIMETHYL TEREPHTHALATE
DIMETHYLNAPHTHALENE
EICOSANE
GLYPHOSATE
HEPTADECANE
HEPTANE
HEXADECANE
HEXANE
MALATHION
METHYLCYCLOPENTANE
MINERAL OIL
NONANE
OCTADECANE
OIL AND GREASE
OTHER VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
PENTADECANE
PENTANE
PHENOLIC COMPOUNDS
PHORATE
PRONAMIDE
TETRACOSANE HEXAMETHYL
TOTAL EXTRACTABLE HYDROCARBONS
TOTAL HYDROCARBONS
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
TOTAL ORGANIC HALOGENS
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
TOTAL VOLATILE ORGANICS
TRIMETHYLNAPHTHALENE
77-73-6
DIESEL
A131-11-3
DMN
112-95-8
GLY
629-78-7
142-82-5
544-76-3
110-54-3
121-75-5
96-37-7
8020-83-5
111-84-2
593-45-3
TOT-OIL
OTH-VOC
629-62-9
109-66-0
PHEN
298-02-2
23950-58-5
111-01-3
TEH
THC
TOC
TOX
TOT-PETROL
TOT-VOC
TMN
* - Data are available on these contaminants in
Attachments D, E, and F. 93
-------
APPENDIX B
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY GROUPS
AND INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT PROCESSES
Thermal Destruction
•Rotary Kiln
•Fluidized Bed
"Circulating Bed
•Infrared
•Pyrolysis
Wet Air Oxidation
•Aqueous Thermal Decomposition
•Critical Water Oxidation
UV Photolysis
Dechlorination
•APEG Dechlorination
*KPEG Dechlorination
•MPEG Dechlorination
NaPEG Dechlorination
Biological
Activated Sludge
•Composting
Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
'Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
Chemical Extraction and Soil Washing
•Chemical Extraction
•Soil Washing
Immobilization
•Solidification
•Stabilization
Fixation
Technologies with analytical data in Appendices D, E, and F.
99
-------
(INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE)
100
-------
APPENDIX C
DATA SCREENS AND MODIFICATIONS
The analytical data contained in the contaminated
soil data base were evaluated through two series of
screens in order to eliminate data that were not
representative of well designed and well operated
systems. This section describes the various data
screens that were applied and presents the rationale
for each. All rejected data have been retained in
subsections of the data base and are available for
further evaluation. Data which passed through both
series of screens are presented in Appendices D, E,
and F. Data which passed through the primary
screens but not the secondary screens are retained
in Appendix G.
The initial screens were very general in nature,
representing a quality control check on the data
base. Data were removed from consideration for
four basic reasons:
• Unmatched untreated data or treated data were
not considered further. This included unreported
untreated or treated values or unmatched
analytical protocols.
• If the calculated removal efficiency was less than
or equal to zero, corresponding untreated and
treated data were disregarded. This
phenomenon either indicated problems with the
technology effectiveness or with the analytical
protocols. Sometimes, the negative result was
unavoidable. This was the case for the
non-volatile organic data from low temperature
thermal desorption process where the
non-volatiles were not volatilized, but the waste
was reduced in volume, thereby resulting in a
concentration increase with no mass increase.
• The EP Toxicity and TCLP protocols were the
only extraction protocols included in the data
base, because only data from these tests have
been used to develop other LDR guidelines.
• If the treatment data resulted from a series of
tests on the same waste material, the data from
the tests with the highest removal efficiencies
were retained and all other test data were
screened from the data base. In this way, only
the most successful performance results were
considered. These data were often generated by
a series of test runs designed to determine the
best operating conditions.
The secondary screens were more specific with
respect to treatment technologies and contaminants
treated. Descriptions of these screens follow:
• Specific data pairs were screened because the
technology was not appropriate for the
contaminant group. An example is the low
temperature thermal desorption data for
inorganics.
.• Only extraction analyses were used to evaluate
the effectiveness of the immobilization
technology. All total constituent analyses for
wastes treated with immobilization were screened
from the data base.
• Non-detected effluent values were substituted
with common detection limits. These detection
limits are presented at the end of this appendix.
If the addition of the detection limits resulted in a
negative removal efficiency, the data were
screened from the data base.
• All total constituent analysis data for metals were
eliminated from further consideration. Because
metals can not be destroyed, but are instead
immobilized or removed, only extraction protocols
are an effective measurement of the success of
the treatment technology. Appendix G contains
the total constituent analysis data for metals,
which shows how effectively the treatment
process removed metals from the waste.
• All data for the destruction of metals were
screened and eliminated from further
consideration because metals cannot be
destroyed. This screen affects data from thermal
destruction, bioremediation, and dechlorination
technologies.
• Nine contaminants were not detected (ND) in the
treated soils and no substitute detection limits
101
-------
were available. Therefore, when the treated soil
concentration of these contaminants was ND,
these data pairs were screened from the data
base:
Ethoxyethylene 109-92-2
Hexane 110-54-3
Dimethoxyethane 110-71-4
Heptane 142-82-5
Alkyl Benzene ABC
Molybdenum 7439-82-4
RDX 121-82-4
HMX 133-GHMX
Tetryl 479-45-8
The secondary screens further refined the data
base, identifying the "best" performance data for
each treatability group. The data that passed
through both the initial and secondary screens
appear in Appendices D, E, and F. The data that
passed through the initial but not the secondary
screens appear in Appendix G. While the data in
Appendix G are not indicative of the "best"
performance, they provide valuable information
regarding the treatment of mixtures of organic and
inorganic wastes. In these cases, an approach must
be sought which optimizes the treatment of each
contaminant in the mixed waste, without creating
undesirable cross media impacts. Often treatment
trains are the best solutions to such problems.
Detection Limits Substituted for Non-Detected
Values
During the process of extracting data for
incorporation into the soil treatment data base, a
number of reports which were evaluated reported
the treated soil concentrations as not detected (ND).
In order to provide non zero treated soil
concentration values and thus more realistic removal
efficiencies, common analytical detection limits were
substituted for the treated soil concentrations for a
number of compounds. These substituted detection
limits follow:
Contaminant CAS Code
Compound and CAS Code
Detection Limit (ppm)
1. acenaphthene 0.33
83-32-9
2. 2-amino-4,6-dinitrotoluene 1
T99-55-8
3. arsenic 0.01
7440-38-2
4. barium 0.2
7440-39-3
5. benzene 0.005
71-43-2
6. carbon tetrachloride 0.005
56-23-5
7. 1,1-dichloroethane 0.005
75-34-3
8. 1,2-dichloroethane 0.005
107-06-2
9. 1,1-dichloroethene 0.005
75-35-4
10. dinitrobenzene 0.5
25154-54-5
11. di-n-octyl phthalate 0.33
117-84-0
12. nickel 0.04
7440-02-0
13. silver 0.01
7440-22-4
14. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin 0.00017
1746-01-6
15. tetrachloroethene 0.005
127-18-4
16. toluene 0.005
108-88-3
17. trans-1,2-dichloroethene 0.005
156-60-5
18. trichloroethene 0.005
79-01-6
19. trinitrobenzene 1
99-35-4
20. trinitrotoluene (TNT) 1
118-96-7
21. xylenes (total) 0.005
1330-20-7
102
-------
APPENDIX D
TOTAL CONSTITUENT ANALYSIS
WASTE TREATMENT RESULTS FOR ORGANICS
This Appendix tabulates the data used to develop the conclusions in the report for treatment of
organic contaminants by thermal destruction, dechlorination, bioremediation, low temperature thermal
desorption, and chemical extraction and soil washing technologies. Data used to develop the
conclusions on the immobilization of organics are presented in Appendix F. The untreated and
treated concentrations in the wastes are reported, as well as the corresponding removal efficiencies.
The data are sorted by treatability group, technology group, and contaminant. Not all treatability
groups have data for all technology groups.
103
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 1
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group:
Technology Group:
W01
HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC COMPOUNDS
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0.964706
0.846666
SOIL =
0.999990
0.999989
0.999986
0.999985
0.999985
0.999983
0.999982
0.999979
0.999933
0.999872
0.999838
0.999833
0.999803
0.999773
0.999275
SOIL =
0.999995
0.999981
0.999979
0.999943
0.999885
0.999839
0.999839
0.999515
0.998936
0.998936
0.997222
0.997222
SOIL =
3.40000
3.00000
2 data points
200.60000 E1
181.36600 E1
360.00000
340.00000
129.60000 E1
117.84600 E1
111.66500 E1
240.00000
29.67000
7.83500
6.19400
30.00000
5.07100
22.00000
6.90000
15 data points
16600.00000 J
242.00000 E3
58.00000
169.00000 E2
40.00000
31.00000
31.00000
33.00000
4.70000
4.70000
1 .80000
1 .80000
12 data points
0.12000
0.46000
SLUDGE
0.00200 ND
0.00200 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00200 ND
0.00200 ND
0.00200 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00200 ND
0.00100 ND
0.00100 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00100 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
SLUDGE
0.08000 J
0.00470
0.00120
0.00960
0.00460
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.01600
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
(SLUD) = 0
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
(SLUD) = 0
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
data points
4,4'-DDT
4, 4 '-ODD
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
4, 4' -DDT
4, 4 '-ODD
4, 4' -ODD
CHLOROBENZENE
4,4'-DDT
4, 4' -DDE
4, 4' -DDE
CHLOROBENZENE
4, 4' -DDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
data points
CHLOROBENZENE
TOTAL CHLOROBENZENES
TOTAL CHLOROBENZENES
TOTAL CHLOROBENZENES
TOTAL CHLOROBENZENES
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
TOTAL CHLOROBENZENES
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
Sea Test
Media le Document Number
SOIL B 980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
SOIL B 980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
SOIL 980-TS1-RT-EZUY-1
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
980-TS1-RT-EZUY-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUY-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUY-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUY-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-
980-TS1-RT-EZUY-
980-TS1-RT-EZUY-
980-TS1-RT-EZUY-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-
980-TS1-RT-EZUY-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-
SOIL P 980-TS1-RT-FCNU-1
SOIL P 980-TS1-RT-EWQD-
SOIL P 980-TS1-RT-EWQD-
SOIL P 980-TS1-RT-EWQD-
SOIL P 980-TS1-RT-EWQD-
SOIL P 980-TS1-RT-EZZB-
SOIL P 980-TS1-RT-EZZB-
SOIL P 980-TS1-RT-EWQD-
SOIL P 980-TS1-RT-EZZB-
SOIL P 980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
SOIL P 980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
SOIL P 980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
Num
~£S
21
20
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
6
1
4
5
1
3
1
2
5
1
2
4
7
8
5
6
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 2
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: U01
Technology Group:
HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC COMPOUNDS
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
Contaminant Name
Sea
Media le
Document Number
Test
Num
1
2
3
0.999843
0.999816
0.999746
2.10000
1.80000
1.30000
SOIL = 3 data points
0.00033 ND CIRCULATING BED COMB TOTAL TRICHLOROBENZENES SOIL P
0.00033 ND CIRCULATING BED COMB TOTAL TRICHLOROBENZENES SOIL P
0.00033 ND CIRCULATING BED COMB TOTAL TRICHLOROBENZENES SOIL P
980-TS1-RT-EUXM-1 3
980-TS1-RT-EUXM-1 1
980-TS1-RT-EUXM-1 5
SLUDGE (SLUD)
0 data points
o
01
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 3
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: U01
Technology Group:
HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC COMPOUNDS
DECHLORINATION
ik
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Remova I
Efficiency
0.999970
0.999690
0.996220
0.990470
0.976810
0.976640
0.965730
0.965110
SOIL =
Untreated Qul
Concen (PPM) Unt
387.00000
345.00000
4.26000
387.00000
345.00000
13.10000
4.26000
13.10000
8 data points
Treated Qul - Sea
Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name Media le
0.01020
0.10600
0.01610
3.69000
8.00000
0.30600
0.14600
0.45700
SLUDGE
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
(SLUD) = 0
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
data points
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
Document Number
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
Test
Num
4
1
2
8
5
3
6
7
o
O5
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 4
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W01
Technology Group:
HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC COMPOUNDS
BIOREMEDIATION
Removal Untreated
nk Efficiency Concen (PPM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
0.999724
0.999669
0.999669
0.913808
0.829790
0.771430
0.768250
0.752418
0.746110
0.731897
0.730280
0.716510
0.695590
0.678612
0.677460
0.648490
0.646189
0.638300
0.638300
0.629053
0.586924
0.571780
0.544400
0.534129
0.519909
0.505790
0.494820
0.484641
0.464529
0.440000
0.400990
0.380977
0.340309
0.339430
0.306380
0.289249
0.283894
0.253128
0.240930
0.230570
0.170210
18.10000
18.10000
18.10000
6.82200
0.23500
0.87500
6.82200
6.82200
0.77200
6.82200
0.87500
4.68800
0.77200
1.75800
0.77200
6.82200
1.75800
0.23500
0.23500
4.68800
6.82200
0.40400
0.25900
4.68800
1.75800
0.25900
0.77200
1.75800
3.80600
0.87500
0.40400
3.80600
1.09900
0.87500
0.23500
4.68800
1.09900
1.75800
0.77200
0.77200
0.23500
Qul Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
Contaminant Name
0.00500 ND
0.00600 ND
0.00600 ND
0.58800
0.04000
0.20000
1.58100
1.68900
0.19600
1.82900
0.23600
1 .32900
0.23500
0.56500
0.24900
2.39800
0.62200
0.08500
0.08500
1.73900
2.81800
0.17300
0.11800
2.18400
0.84400
0.12800
0.39000
0.90600
2.03800
0.49000
0.24200
2.35600
0.72500
0.57800
0.16300
3.33200
0.78700
1.31300
0.58600
0.59400
0.19500
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDE
Sea
Media le
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
Test
Document Number
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1
Num
2
2
2
1
13
8
1
2
11
2
7
7
11
3
1
12
4
3
13
7
12
9
15
8
3
16
1
13
9
7
9
9
5
8
4
8
16
13
12
2
3
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 5
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W01
Technology Group:
HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC COMPOUNDS
BIOREMEDIATION
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul
.nk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment
42
43
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
0.129208
0.069498
0.034749
SOIL = 44
0.892407
0.886690
0.819950
0.800058
0.759954
0.720210
0.719659
0.714691
0.685230
0.674061
0.656428
0.600135
0.490446
0.464210
0.294928
0.214740
0.192852
0.121760
0.069498
0.030888
0.021276
0.018633
SOIL = 22
1.09900
0.25900
0.25900
data points
6.82200
6.82200
0.77200
6.82200
1.75800
0.77200
.40900
.40900
0.77200
.75800
.75800
.48300
.09900
1.41100
6.82200
1.09900
1.48300
0.77200
0.25900
0.25900
0.23500
0.16100
data points
0.95700
0.24100
0.25000
SLUDGE
0.73400
0.77300
0.13900
1 .36400
0.42200
0.21600
0.39500
0.40200
0.24300
0.57300
0.60400
0.59300
0.56000
0.75600
4.81000
0.86300
1.19700
0.67800
0.24100
0.25100
0.23000
0.15800
SLUDGE
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
(SLUD) =
ANAEROBIC
ANAEROBIC
ANAEROBIC
ANAEROBIC
ANAEROBIC
ANAEROBIC
ANAEROBIC
ANAEROBIC
ANAEROBIC
ANAEROBIC
ANAEROBIC
ANAEROBIC
ANAEROBIC
ANAEROBIC
ANAEROBIC
ANAEROBIC
ANAEROBIC
ANAEROBIC
ANAEROBIC
ANAEROBIC
ANAEROBIC
ANAEROBIC
(SLUD) =
Technology Contaminant
4, 4' -DDT
4, 4' -DDE
4, 4' -DDE
0 data points
4, 4' -DDT
4, 4' -DDT
4, 4' -DDE
4, 4' -DDT
4,4'-DDT
4, 4' -DDE
4,4' -DDT
4, 4' -DDT
4, 4' -DDE
4, 4' -DDT
4, 4' -DDT
4,4' -DDT
4,4' -DDT
4, 4' -DDT
4, 4' -DDT
4,4' -DDT
4, 4' -DDT
4, 4' -DDE
4,4' -DDE
4, 4' -DDE
4,4' -DDE
4,4' -DDE
0 data points
Sea Test
Name Media le Document Number Nun
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
' SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1 5
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1 5
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1 5
980-TS1-RT-EZUU- 17
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-
18
17
18
20
18
24
24
17
20
19
25
22
23
17
22
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1 26
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1 18
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1 21
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1 21
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1 19
980-TS1-RT-EZUU-1 23
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 6
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Croup: U01
Technology Group:
HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC COMPOUNDS
LOU TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION
8
nk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Removal
Efficiency
0.999991
0.999985
0.999985
0.999985
0.999985
0.999957
0.999938
0.999933
0.999839
0.999817
0.999798
0.999535
0.999394
0.999394
0.999394
0.999394
0.999355
0.999091
0.999091
0.998750
' 0.998667
0.998667
0.998667
0.997424
0.997368
0.980000
0.882353
0.866666
0.866666
SOIL =
Untreated
Concen (PPM)
322.00000
322.00000
322.00000
322.00000
322.00000
322.00000
320.00000
300.00000
322.00000
322.00000
322.00000
43.00000
6.60000
6.60000
6.60000
33.00000
31.00000
6.60000
22.00000
16.00000
15.00000
15.00000
15.00000
6.60000
7.60000
50.00000
1.70000
1.50000
1.50000
29 data poi
Qul
sated Qul
in
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
(PPM)
00300
00500
00500
00500
00500
01400
02000
02000
05200
05900
06500
02000
00400
00400
00400
02000
02000
00600
02000
02000
02000
02000
02000
01700
02000
00000
20000
20000
20000
Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SLUDGE
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
(SLUD)
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
=
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
0 data
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
,2-D I CHLOROBENZENE
,2-D I CHLOROBENZENE
,2-D I CHLOROBENZENE
,2-D I CHLOROBENZENE
,2-D I CHLOROBENZENE
points
Media
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
Sea
le
B
B
B
B
B
B
F
F
B
B
B
F
B
B
B
F
F
B
F
F
F
F
F
B
F
P
F
F
F
Test
Document Number
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-FCSF-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
Num
2
1
3
9
10
8
1
1
6
5
4
1
14
15
16
1
1
13
1
1
1
1
1
17
1
1
1
1
1
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 7
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: U01
Technology Group:
HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC COMPOUNDS
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION AND SOIL WASHING
Removal
Untreated Qul
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
0.999964
0.999939
0.999911
0.999846
0.999846
0.999808
0.999770
0.999692
0.999538
0.999273
0.999114
0.999051
0.999000
0.999000
0.997152
0.996835
0.995758
0.995455
0.985000
0.979091
330.00000
330.00000
316.00000
13.00000
13.00000
13.00000
330.00000
13.00000
13.00000
11.00000
316.00000
316.00000
13.00000
11.00000
330.00000
316.00000
330.00000
330.00000
11.00000
11.00000
Treated Qul
Sra
Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name Media le
0.01200
0.02000
0.02800
0.00200
0.00200
0.00250
0.07600
0.00400
0.00600
0.00800
0.28000
0.30000
0.01300
0.01100
0.94000
1.00000
1 .40000
1.50000
0.16500
0.23000
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL 6
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
Document Number
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
Test
Num
49
43
1
19
25
13
55
26
20
31
2
7
14
37
56
8
50
44
32
38
SOIL
20 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD)
0 data points
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 8
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: U02
Technology Group:
DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Rnk
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
emoval Untreated Qul Treated
ficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM)
i^™™™™»»**«* ••
0.999166
0.998733
0.998620
0.998000
SOIL =
0.999998
0.999996
0.999994
0.999991
0.999980
0.999957
0.999950
0.999833
0.999643
0.999130
0.997200
0.996800
0.996300
0.995500
0.994700
0.991000
0.991000
3.60000
1.50000
2.90000
1.50000
4 data points
840
510
3300
220
100
47
400
120
.00000 E1
.00000 E1
.00000 E2
.00000 E1
.00000 E1
.00000
.00000 E1
.00000 E1
56.00000
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.00000
.06060
.05420
.04580
.03800
.03210
.00120
.00120
0.00300
0.00190
0.00400
0.00300
Qul
Trt
ND
ND
ND
ND
Treatment Technology Contaminant Name Media
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
SLUDGE (SLUD) =
0.00200
0.00200
0.02000
0.00200
0.00200
0.00200
0.02000
0.02000
0.02000
0.02000
0.00017
0.00017
0.00017
0.00017
0.00017
0.00001
0.00001
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
PCS- 1260
PCB-1016
PCS- 1260
PCB-1016
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
Sea Test
le Document Number Nun
B
B
B
B
980-TS1-RT-EZYN-1
980-TS1-RT-EZYN-1
980-TS1-RT-EZYN-1
980-TS1-RT-EZYN-1
«__
1
1
1
1
0 data points
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOXYACET
1C ACID
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOXYACET
1C ACID
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETIC
ACID (2,4-D)
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOXYACET
1C ACID
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOXYACET
1C ACID
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOXYACET
1C ACID
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETIC
ACID (2,4-D)
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETIC
ACID (2,4-D)
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETIC
ACID (2,4-D)
2,4-D I CHLOROPHENOXYACET I C
ACID (2,4-D)
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7.8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
FURAN
OCTACH LOROD I BENZOD I OX I NS
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
f
r
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
980-TS1-RT-EUZH-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZH-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZH-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZH-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZH-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZH-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZH-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZH-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZH-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZH-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZH-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZH-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZH-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZH-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZH-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZH-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZH-1
5
2
2
3
1
4
5
3
1
4
5
2
4
3
1
5
5
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Treatability Group: W02
Technology Group:
DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Page: 9
Date: 01/30/1990
Removal Untreated
Rnk Efficiency
Qul Treated Qul
Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
Contaminant Name
Sea Test
Media le Document Number Num
18
19
20
21
22
0.980000
0.980000
0.970000
0.970000
0.960000
0.00049
0.00066
0.00072
0.00080
0.00058
23 0.750000 0.00045
SOIL = 23 data points
0.00001
0.00001
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
0.00002 ROTARY KILN
0.00002 ROTARY KILN
0.00002 ROTARY KILN
0.00011 ND ROTARY KILN
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO SOIL F
FURAN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO SOIL F
FURAN
OCTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS SOIL F
OCTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS SOIL F
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO SOIL F
FURAN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO SOIL F
FURAN
980-TS1-RT-EUZH-1 2
980-TS1-RT-EUZH-1 4
980-TS1-RT-EUZH-1 3
980-TS1-RT-EUZH-1 4
980-TS1-RT-EUZH-1 3
980-TS1-RT-EUZH-1 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
0.999999
0.999999
0.999999
0.999999
0.999998
0.999998
0.999998
0.999997
0.999997
0.999996
0.999996
0.999996
0.999996
0.999996
0.999995
0.999995
0.999995
0.999994
0.999993
0.999993
0.999989
0.999979
740.00000
770.00000
1060.00000
1000.00000
1200.00000
650.00000
770.00000
710.00000
790.00000
5.66000
4.70000
200.00000
3.15100
9.50000
5.94000
5.16000
48.00000
50.00000
110.00000
170.00000
160.00000
160.00000
71.00000
7.45800
30.00000
35.00000
7.30000
0.00040 ND
0.00040 ND
0.00040 ND
0.00040 ND
0.00040 ND
0.00040 ND
0.00080 ND
0.00080 ND
0.00080 ND
0.00001
0.00001
0.00040 ND
0.00001
0.00003 J
0.00002
0.00002
0.00020 ND
0.00020 ND
0.00040 ND
0.00080 ND
0.00080 ND
0.00080 ND
0.00040 ND
0.00005
0.00020 ND
0.00040 ND
0.00015 J
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
DICHLOROBIPHENYLS
DICHLOROBIPHENYLS
TRICHLOROBIPHENYLS
TRICHLOROBIPHENYLS
TRICHLOROBIPHENYLS
DICHLOROBIPHENYLS
TETRACHLOROBIPHENYLS
TETRACHLOROBIPHENYLS
TETRACHLOROBIPHENYLS
OCTACHLORODIBENZOFURANS
OCTACHLORODIBENZOFURANS
TRICHLOROBIPHENYLS
OCTACHLORODIBENZOFURANS
OCTACHLORODIBENZOFURANS
OCTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS
OCTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS
MONOCHLOROBIPHENYL
MONOCHLOROBIPHENYL
TETRACHLOROBIPHENYLS
PENTACHLOROBIPHENYLS
PENTACHLOROBIPHENYLS
PENTACHLOROBIPHENYLS
DICHLOROBIPHENYLS
OCTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS
MONOCHLOROBIPHENYL
TRICHLOROBIPHENYLS
OCTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
980-TS1-RT-EZZC-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZC-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZC-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZC-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZC-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZC-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZC-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZC-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZC-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZC-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQD-1
980-TS1-RT-FCNU-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZC-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZC-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZC-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZC-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZC-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZC-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZC-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZC-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZC-1
980-TS1-RT-FCNU-1
2
4
2
3
4
3
2
3
4
4
5
5
3
1
4
5
2
4
5
2
3
4
5
3
3
1
1
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Treatability Group: W02
Technology Group:
DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Page: 10
Date: 01/30/1990
CO
tnk
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
Removal
Efficiency
0.999974
0.999973
0.999970
0.999964
0.999960
0.999960
0.999947
0.999941
0.999940
0.999930
0.999920
0.999910
0.999900
0.999880
0.999852
0.999840
0.999820
0.999810
0.999810
0.999800
0.999800
0.999800
0.999760
0.999700
0.999700
0.999700
0.999700
0.999700
0.999700
0.999700
0.999636
0.999600
0.999600
0.999600
0.999530
0.999460
0.999400
0.999400
Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt
2.30100
30.00000
0.35800
11.00000
0.28000
0.23800
15.00000
3.40000
0.34000
0.29200
0.12100
0.11500
0.10600
0.17400
5.40000
0.31500 J
0.22700
0.15600
0.10900
0.05000
0.09800
0.09000
0.12800
0.08000
0.03530
0.03600
0.04100
0.03300
0.04200
0.03800
1100.00000
0.05800
0.20200
0.02700
0.12900
740.00000
0.01700
0.05400
0.00006
0.00080 ND
0.00001
0.00040 ND
0.00001
0.00001
0.00080 ND
0.00020 ND
0.00002
0.00002
0.00001
0.00001 ND
0.00001
0.00002
0.00080 ND
0.00005 J
0.00004 ND
0.00003 ND
0.00002
0.00001 ND
0.00002
0.00002
0.00003
0.00002
0.00001 ND
0.00001 ND
0.00001 ND
0.00001 ND
0.00001 ND
0.00001 ND
0.40000 ND
0.00002
0.00008
0.00001 ND
0.00006
0.40000 ND
0.00001 ND
0.00003
Sea Test
Treatment Technology Contaminant Name Media le Document Number Num
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
OCTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS SOIL P
TETRACHLOROBIPHENYLS SOIL P
OCTACHLORODIBENZOFURANS SOIL P
DICHLOROBIPHENYLS SOIL P
HEPTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS SOIL P
HEPTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS SOIL P
PENTACHLOROBIPHENYLS SOIL P
MONOCHLOROBIPHENYL SOIL P
HEPTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS SOIL P
HEPTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS SOIL P
HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS SOIL P
HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS SOIL P
HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURANS SOIL P
HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURANS SOIL P
HEXACHLOROBIPHENYLS SOIL P
2.3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO SOIL P
-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO SOIL P
-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO SOIL P
-P-DIOXIN
HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS SOIL P
HEPTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS SOIL P
HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURANS SOIL P
HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS SOIL P
HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURANS SOIL P
HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURANS SOIL P
OCTACHLORODIBENZOFURANS SOIL P
PENTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS SOIL P
PENTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS SOIL P
TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS SOIL P
TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS SOIL P
TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS SOIL P
TRICHLOROBIPHENYLS SOIL P
HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURANS SOIL P
OCTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS SOIL P
PENTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS SOIL P
HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURANS SOIL P
DICHLOROBIPHENYLS SOIL P
HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS SOIL P
HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURANS SOIL P
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZC-
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-
980-TS1-RT-EZZC-
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-
980-TS1-RT-EZZC-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZC-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZC-1
980-TS1-RT-FCNU-1
980-TS1-RT-EUTR-1
980-TS1-RT-EUTR-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZC-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZC-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
2
1
2
1
4
5
5
5
2
3
2
3
5
3
3
1
1
2
4
1
2
5
4
5
1
3
4
3
4
5
6
2
1
5
4
6
1
3
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Treatability Group: W02
Technology Group:
DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Page: 11
Date: 01/30/1990
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul Sea Test
ink Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name Media le Document Number Num
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
0.999400
0.999400
0.999300
0.999012
0.999000
0.998660
0.998600
0.998500
0.998500
0.998300
0.998000
0.998000
0.998000
0.998000
0.997500
0.997000
0.997000
0.995500
0.995000
0.995000
0.992900
0.992593
0.987000
0.974000
0.961000
0.825000
SOIL = 91
0.01800
0.05300
0.01460
810.00000
0.00940
0.60000
0.04900
0.03400
0.03300
0.01200
0.00630
0.00670
0.00600
0.06700
0.04400
0.00400
0.00310
0.03800
0.03400
160.00000
0.02400
27.00000
0.00400
0.00670
0.00440
0.00120
data points
0.00001 ND
0.00003 -
0.00001 ND
0.80000 ND
0.00001 ND
0.00080 ND
0.00007
0.00005
0.00005
0.00002
0.00001 ND
0.00001 ND
0.00001 ND
0.00013
0.00011
0.00001 ND
0.00001 ND
0.00017 ND
0.00017 ND
0.80000 ND
0.00017 ND
0.20000 ND
0.00005
0.00017 ND
0.00017 ND
0.00021
SLUDGE
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
(SLUD) =
PENTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS SOIL P
PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURANS SOIL P
HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURANS SOIL P
TETRACHLOROBIPHENYLS SOIL P
HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURANS SOIL P
PENTACHLOROBIPHENYLS SOIL P
TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURANS SOIL P
PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURANS SOIL P
TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURANS SOIL P
TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURANS SOIL P
OCTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS SOIL P
TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS SOIL P
TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS SOIL P
TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURANS SOIL P
PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURANS SOIL P
PENTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS SOIL P
PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURANS SOIL P
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO SOIL P
-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO SOIL P
-P-DIOXIN
PENTACHLOROBIPHENYLS SOIL P
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO SOIL P
-P-DIOXIN
MONOCHLOROBIPHENYL SOIL P
PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURANS SOIL P
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO SOIL P
-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO SOIL P
-P-DIOXIN
OCTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS SOIL P
0 data points
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZC-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZC-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-FREV-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZC-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZC-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQD-1
980-TS1-RT-EWQD-1
980-TS1-RT-FREV-1
2
2
1
6
1
1
5
5
3
2
1
1
2
4
4
1
1
4
5
6
3
6
3
1
2
1
0.919355 62.00000
SOIL = 0 data points
5.00000 CRITICAL WATER OXIDA TOTAL PCB'S
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 1 data points
SLUD B 980-TS1-RT-FBZZ-2
1.000000 3000.00000
0.00050
PYROLYSIS
PCB-1260
SOIL P 980-TS1-RT-EXPD-1 1
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 12
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group:
Technology Group:
W02
DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
cn
Rnk
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Remova I
Efficiency
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
0.999830
0.999640
0.999640
0.999400
0.999200
0.998600
0.996000
0.990000
0.982000
0.980000
SOIL =
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
0.999999
0.999997
0.999997
0.999997
0.999994
0.999981
0.999981
0.999981
0.996438
0.993302
Untreated Qul
Concen (PPM) Um
============ ==:
3000.00000
.3000.00000
3000.00000
3000.00000
0.24000
0.11100
0.11300
0.01880
0.01270
0.07900 J
0.00270
0.00320
0.00110
0.00065
15 data points
11000.00000 E3
12000.00000
11000.00000
9800.00000
11000.00000
12000.00000
12000.00000 E3
12000.00000
12000.00000
11000.00000
9800.00000
9800.00000
9800.00000
20.00000
47.00000
a
n
ted
(PPM)
Qul
Trt Treatment Technology
======= === ====================
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.00050
.00060
.00100
.00050
.00004
.00004
.00004
.00001
.00001
.00011
.00001
.00003
.00002
.00001
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SLUDGE
0
0
0
.00349
.00530
.00350
0.00320
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.00350
.00990
.03327
.03300
.03300
.06600
.18590
.18600
.18600
.07125
.31480
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
(SLUD) = 0
CIRCULATING
CIRCULATING
CIRCULATING
CIRCULATING
CIRCULATING
CIRCULATING
CIRCULATING
CIRCULATING
CIRCULATING
CIRCULATING
CIRCULATING
CIRCULATING
CIRCULATING
CIRCULATING
CIRCULATING
Contaminant Name Media
==========================
PCB-1260
PCB-1260
PCB-1260
TOTAL PCB'S
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
2,3, 7, 8- TETRACHLOROD I BENZO
-P-DIOXIN
TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS
PENTACHLOROD I BENZOFURANS
TETRACHLOROD I BENZOFURANS
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
2,3, 7, 8-TETRACHLOROD I BENZO
FURAN
PENTACH LOROD I BENZOD I OX I NS
HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS
HEXACH LOROD I BENZOFURANS
====
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
Sea Test
le Document Number Num
•»•».
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
= =s^=:==ssss:s==s=s==
980-TS1-RT-EXPD-1
980- TS1-RT- EXPO -1
980-TS1-RT-EXPD-1
980-TS1-RT-FCFR-4
980-TS1-RT-FCSS-1
980-TS1-RT-EURE-1
980-TS1-RT-EURE-1
980-TS1-RT-EURE-1
980-TS1-RT-EURE-1
980-TS1-RT-FCFR-4
980-TS1-RT-EURE-1
980-TS1-RT-EURE-1
980-TS1-RT-EURE-1
980-TS1-RT-EURE-1
===
2
3
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
data points
BED
BED
BED
BED
BED
BED
BED
BED
BED
BED
BED
BED
BED
BED
BED
COMB
COMB
COMB
COMB
COMB
COMB
COMB
COMB
COMB
COMB
COMB
COMB
COMB
COMB
COMB
PCB-1260
PCB-1260
TOTAL PCB'S
TOTAL PCB'S
TOTAL PCB'S
TOTAL PCB'S
PCB-1260
TOTAL PCB'S
TOTAL PCB'S
TOTAL PCB'S
PCB-1260
TOTAL PCB'S
TOTAL PCB'S
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
980-TS1-RT-EUXM-
980-TS1-RT-EUXM-
980-TS1-RT-EWHC-
980-TS1-RT-EWHC-
980-TS1-RT-FCFR-3
980-TS1-RT-EWHC-
980-TS1-RT-EUXM-
980-TS1-RT-EWHC-1
980-TS1-RT-FCFR-3
980-TS1-RT-EWHC-1
980-TS1-RT-EUXM-1
980-TS1-RT-EWHC-1
980-TS1-RT-FCFR-3
980-TS1-RT-EUXM-1
980-TS1-RT-EUXM-1
1
5
1
3
1
2
2
2
2
1
3
3
3
6
7
SOIL
15 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 13
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W02
Technology Group:
DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
O)
Removal Untreated Qul
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0.999370
0.999360
0.999340
0.999280
0.998200
0.997850
0.997810
0.996620
0.996580
0.996440
0.994390
0.992150
0.27200
0.26600
0.26000
0.23600
0.27200
0.23300
0.24200
0.24900
0.24900
0.25600
0.23200
0.24200
Treated
Concen (PPM)
0.00017
0.00017
0.00017
0.00017
0.00049
0.00050
0.00053
0.00084
0.00085
0.00091
0.00130
0.00190
Qul
Trt
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Treatment Technology
THERMAL
THERMAL
THERMAL
THERMAL
THERMAL
THERMAL
THERMAL
THERMAL
THERMAL
THERMAL
THERMAL
THERMAL
DESOP/UV
DESOP/UV
DESOP/UV
DESOP/UV
DESOP/UV
DESOP/UV
DESOP/UV
DESOP/UV
DESOP/UV
DESOP/UV
DESOP/UV
DESOP/UV
PHO
PHO
PHO
PHO
PHO
PHO
PHO
PHO
PHO
PHO
PHO
PHO
Sea Test
Contaminant Name Media le Document Number Num
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
980-TS1-RT-EUGI-1
980-TS1-RT-EWGE-1
980-TS1-RT-EWGE-1
980-TS1-RT-EWGE-1
980-TS1-RT-FCSS-2
980-TS1-RT-EWGE-1
980-TS1-RT-FCSS-2
980-TS1-RT-FCSS-2
980-TS1-RT-FCSS-2
980-TS1-RT-FCSS-2
980-TS1-RT-FCSS-2
980-TS1-RT-FCSS-2
2
4
1
3
4
5
3
2
2
5
1
3
SOIL = 12 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 14
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group:
Technology Group:
U02
DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
DECKLORINAT ION
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Oul
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0.999660
0.999500
0.999500
0.999500
0.999500
0.999500
0.999250
0.998720
0.992500
0.990345
0.990000
0.988500
0.982000
0.979828
0.978723
0.969940
0.964138
0.959655
0.945455
0.940862
0.940179
0.937069
0.912987
0.757790
0.510000
0.460000
0.450000
0.430000
2900.00000
2.00000
2.00000
2.00000
2.00000
2.00000
2.00000
1800.00000
2.00000
116.00000
0.15000
2.00000
2.00000
116.00000
47.00000
0.35600
116.00000
116.00000
77.00000
116.00000
112.00000
116.00000
77.00000
0.15400
0.03300
0.02800
0.02800
0.03300
1.00000 ND
0.00100 ND
0.00100 ND
0.00100 ND
0.00100 ND
0.00100 ND
0.00150 ND
2.30000
0.01500
1.12000
0.00150
0.02300
0.03600
2.34000
1.00000 ND
0.01070
4.16000
4.68000
4.20000
6.86000
6.70000
7.30000
6.70000
0.03730
0.01617
0.01512
0.01540
0.01881
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
Contaminant Name
TOTAL PCB'S
1,2,3,4-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,4-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,4-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,4-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,4-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,4-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
TOTAL PCB'S
1,2,3,4-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
TOTAL PCB'S
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,4-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,4-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
TOTAL PCB'S
TOTAL PCB'S
TOTAL DIOXINS AND FURANS
TOTAL PCB'S
TOTAL PCB'S
TOTAL PCB'S
TOTAL PCB'S
TOTAL PCB'S
TOTAL PCB'S
TOTAL PCB'S
TOTAL DIOXINS AND FURANS
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
Sea
Media le
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL P
SLUD B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SLUD B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
1
Document Number
980-TS1-RT-FDBA-1
980-TS1-RT-FCLC-2
980-TS1-RT-FCLC-2
980-TS1-RT-FCLC-2
980-TS1-RT-FCLC-2
980-TS1-RT-FCLC-2
980-TS1-RT-FCLC-2
980-TS1-RT-FBZZ-1
980-TS1-RT-FCLC-2
980-TS1-RT-FCLC-1
980-TS1-RT-FCFR-6
980-TS1-RT-FCLC-2
980-TS1-RT-FCLC-2
980-TS1-RT-FCLC-
980-TS1-RT-EUZD-
980-TS1-RT-FCLC-2
980-TS1-RT-FCLC-
980-TS1-RT-FCLC-
980-TS1-RT-FCLC-
980-TS1-RT-FCLC-1
980-TS1-RT-FCLC-1
980-TS1-RT-FCLC-1
980-TS1-RT-FCLC-1
980-TS1-RT-FCLC-2
980-TS1-RT-FCFR-6
980-TS1-RT-FCFR-6
980-TS1-RT-FCFR-6
980-TS1-RT-FCFR-6
rest
Nun
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
9
6
1
10
11
4
1
2
5
2
8
3
9
1
7
1
4
3
6
5
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS Page: 15
Ranked by Removal Efficiency Date: 01/30/1990
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated SoiI TCA - Treated SoiI TCA
Treatability Group: W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
Technology Group: DECHLORINATION
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul Sea Test
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name Media le Document Number Nun
=============S==== ===
980-TS1-RT-EUTY-1 1
980-TS1-RT-FCFR-6 2
980-TS1-RT-EUTY-1 1
OXIN
SOIL = 29 data points SLUDGE (SLUD) = 2 data points
29
30
31
0.328200
0.250000
0.167700
0.06550
0.03300
0.07690
0.04400
0.02475
0.06400
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO SOIL B
-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO SOIL B
-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO SOIL B
-P-DIOXIN
00
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS Page: 16
Ranked by Removal Efficiency Date: 01/30/1990
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
TTestability Group: U02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
Technology Group: BIOREMEDIATION
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul Sea Test
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name Media le Document Number Hum
1 0.999940 2000.00000 0.12000 AEROBIC TOTAL PCB'S SLUD P 980-TS1-RT-FCQP-1 1
SOIL = 0 data points SLUDGE (SLUD) = 1 data points
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 17
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W02
Technology Group:
DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION AND SOIL WASHING
CO
o
Rnk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
3
4
Removal
Efficiency
0.971680
0.968700
0.950000
0.941430
0.926970
0.923990
0.889710
0.884956
0.876300
0.867360
0.843750
0.683000
0.484380
0.373330
0.238280
0.207030
0.206670
0.113330
SOIL =
0.999670
0.999450
0.997840
0.163380
Untreated Out
Concen
0
0
300
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
3
100
25600
3000
25600
25600
3000
3000
(PPM) Unt
.67100
.67100
.00000
.68300
.67100
.67100
.67100
.30000
.67100
.67100
.20000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
Treated Qul
Concen
0
(PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name Media
.01900
0.02100
15
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
31
13200
1880
19500
20300
2380
2660
18 data points
33641.00000
32508
32914
33021
.00000
.00000
.00000
11
18
71
27626
.00000
.04000
.04900
.05100
.07400
.30000
.08300
.08900
.50000
.70000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
SLUDGE
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
(SLUD) = 0 data
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
TOTAL PCB'S
TOTAL PCB'S
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
TOTAL PCB'S
2,3,7, 8-TETRACHLOROD I BENZO
-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO
-P-DIOXIN
TOTAL PCB'S
TOTAL, PCB'S
TOTAL PCB'S
TOTAL PCB'S
TOTAL PCB'S
TOTAL PCB'S
TOTAL PCB'S
TOTAL PCB'S
points
PCB-1260
PCB-1260
PCB-1260
PCB-1260
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
Sea
le
B
B
P
F
B
B
B
F
B
B
F
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Test
Document Number
980-TS1-RT-FRET-1
980-TS1-RT-FRET-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUJ-1
980-TS1-RT-EVAR-1
980-TS1-RT-FRET-1
980-TS1-RT-FRET-1
980-TS1-RT-FRET-1
980-TS1-RT-EVAR-1
980-TS1-RT-FRET-1
980-TS1-RT-FRET-1
980-TS1-RT-EVAR-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZU-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-1
980-TS1-RT-EWGX-1
980-TS1-RT-EWGX-1
980-TS1-RT-EWGX-1
980-TS1-RT-EWGX-1
Num
8
7
1
2
5
6
2
3
3
4
1
1
34
30
33
32
29
31
1
1
1
1
SOIL = 4 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Treatability Group: W03 HAL PHENOLS. CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS
Technology Group: THERMAL DESTRUCTION
ro
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
0.999982
0.999981
0.999978
0.999977
0.999976
0.999976
0.999976
0.999976
0.999976
0.999975
0.999972
0.999969
0.999967
0.999960
0.999958
0.999943
0.999861
0.999861
0.999849
0.999849
0.999826
2700.00000
2600.00000
2300.00000
2600.00000
2100.00000
2100.00000
2100.00000
2100.00000
2100.00000
2000.00000
1800.00000
1600.00000
1500.00000
2000.00000
1900.00000
1400.00000
360.00000
360.00000
330.00000
330.00000
460.00000
0.05000
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.06000
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.08000 ND
0.08000 ND
0.08000
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.08000 ND
Treatment Te
~s=========:=
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
Contaminant Name
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFONE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFONE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFONE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFONE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
Sci
Media le
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
Page: 18
Date: 01/30/1990
a
Document Number
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
Test
Nun
•••
18
17
5
19
6
7
8
10
16
11
3
12
4
1
2
9
4
18
16
17
2
-------
ro
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Treatability Group: W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS. & THIOLS
Technology Group: THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
Contaminant Name
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
0.999821
0.999750
0.999750
0.999737
0.999706
0.999688
0.999677
0.999667
0.999546
0.999500
0.999500
0.999495
0.999490
0.999474
0.999451
0.999429
0.999405
0.999353
0.999333
0.999239
280.00000
200.00000
200.00000
190.00000
170.00000
160.00000
310.00000
150.00000
110.00000
100.00000
100.00000
99.00000
490.00000
95.00000
91.00000
140.00000
84.00000
1700.00000
120.00000
460.00000
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.10000
0,05000
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.25000
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.08000 ND
0.05000 ND
1.10000
0.08000 ND
0.35000
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
SU
P-
su
p-
CM 1
SU
p-
Ol 1
SU
p.,
At 1
SU
p-
Af 1
SU
p-l
Al I
SU
p-l
CI 1
OU
P-i
CI 1
OUi
p-l
CI II
OUI
p-l
CI II
SU
P-l
O| ||
OUI
p-l
01 ||
OUI
p-l
Oil
OU
p-l
Oil
OU
p-l
01 J|
OUI
p-l
CM
OUI
p-l
0(||
OUI
P-i
01 1
OUI
p-l
SUI
wUI
p-l
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFONE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFONE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFONE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFONE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFONE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFONE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFONE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFONE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFOXIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFOXIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFOXIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFOXIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFONE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFOXIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFOXIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFOXIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFOXIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFOXIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFONE
SCi
Media le
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
Page: 19
Date: 01/30/1990
3 1
Document Number
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
rest
Nun
19
5
6
12
7
8
13
9
18
15
16
17
1
4
19
2
13
13
1
3
-------
APPENDIX D
Treatability Group: W03
Technology Group:
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 20
Date: 01/30/1990
HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
CO
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul
>nk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
0.999123
0.999057
0.999057
0.999020
0.998936
0.998913
0.998723
0.998529
0.998387
0.998077
Q. 997727
Q. 997727
0.997619
0.997500
0.997368
0.997368
0.997059
0.996875
0.996667
0.996667
0.996520
0.996154
0.995455
0.994286
0.994118
0.993846
0.993590
0.992286
0.992273
0.985185
57.00000
53.00000
53.00000
51.00000
47.00000
46.00000
47.00000
34.00000
31.00000
26.00000
22.00000
22.00000
21 ..00000
20.00000
19.00000
19.00000
17.00000
16.00000
15.00000
15.00000
250.00000
13.00000
11.00000
14.00000
17.00000
13.00000
7.80000
350.00000
2200.00000
270.00000
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.06000
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.87000
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.08000 ND
0.10000
0.08000 ND
0.05000 ND
2.70000
17.00000
4.00000
Treatment Technology Contaminant Name
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFOXIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFOXIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFOXIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFOXIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFOXIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFOXIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFOXIDE
SUPONA
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFOXIDE
SUPONA
SUPONA
SUPONA
SUPONA
SUPONA
SUPONA
SUPONA
SUPONA
SUPONA
SUPONA
SUPONA
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFONE
SUPONA
SUPONA
SUPONA
SUPONA
SUPONA
SUPONA
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFONE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
Sea
Media le
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
Document Number
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
Test
Num
6
10
11
5
8
12
7
19
9
18
8
17
16
13
5
6
10
11
3
7
11
4
12
2
15
1
9
15
15
10
-------
APPENDIX D
Treatability Group:
Technology Group:
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 21
Date: 01/30/1990
W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Rnk Efficiency Concen Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
Contaminant Name
Sea Test
Media le Document Number Nun
72 0.974546 110.00000
73 0.222222 18.00000
SOIL = 73 data points
2.80000 INCINERATION
14.00000 INCINERATION
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
SULFONE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL
SULFOXIDE
SUPONA
SOIL B 980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1 3
SOIL B 980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1 14
2
3
4
5
6
0.997460 630.00000
0.818182
0.719298
0.567567
0.555555
0.108110
SOIL =
8.80000
5.70000
3.70000
3.60000
0.37000
6 data points
.60000 ND ROTARY KILN
.60000 ND
.60000 ND
.60000 ND
.60000 ND
0.33000 ND
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
PENTACHLOROPHENOL SOIL P
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL SOIL
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL SOIL
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL SOIL
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL SOIL
3,4-DICHLOROPHENOL SOIL
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZH-
980-TS1-RT-EUZH-
980-TS1-RT-EUZH-
980-TS1-RT-EUZH-
980-TS1-RT-EUZH-
2
4
5
2
3
5
1
2
0.981818
0.900000
55.00000
10.00000
SOIL = 2 data points
1.00000 ND
1.00000 ND
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
SLUDGE (SLUD)
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL SOIL P
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL SOIL P
0 data points
980-TS1-RT-EURE-1
980-TS1-RT-EURE-1
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 22
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W03
Technology Group:
HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS
DECHLORINATION
Remova I
ik Efficiency
1 0.996350
2 0.990360
3 0.980500
4 0.976660
5 0.957180
6 0.954180
7 0.945340
8 0.918390
Untreated
Concen (PPM)
61.59000
61.59000
242.67000
242.67000
85.00900
85.00900
3.97000
3.97000
Qul Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
0.22500 DECHLORINATION
0.59400 DECHLORINATION
4.73200 DECHLORINATION
5.66500 DECHLORINATION
3.64000 DECHLORINATION
3.89500 DECHLORINATION
0.21700 DECHLORINATION
0.32400 DECHLORINATION
Contaminant Name
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
Media
i ====
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
Sea
le
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Document Number
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
Test
Num
3
7
1
5
4
8
6
2
SOIL
8 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS Page: 23
Ranked by Removal Efficiency Date: 01/30/1990
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Treatability Group: W03 HAL PHENOLS. CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS
Technology Group: BIOREMEDIATION
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul Sea Test
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name Media le Document Number Num
1 0.845865 133.00000 20.50000 BIOREMEDIATION PENTACHLOROPHENOL SOIL P 980-TS1-RT-EWGC-1 3
2 0.837500 80.00000 13.00000 BIOREMEDIATION PENTACHLOROPHENOL SOIL P 980-TS1-RT-EWGC-1 2
3 0.550000 36.00000 16.20000 BIOREMEDIATION PENTACHLOROPHENOL SOIL P 980-TS1-RT-EUGC-1 1
SOIL = 3 data points SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Treatability Group: U03
Technology Group:
HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS
LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION
Page: 24
Date: 01/30/1990
Removal Untreated
nk Efficiency Concen (PPM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
0.999475
0.994751
0.971129
0.895013
0.842520
0.803150
0.717241
0.675862
0.672414
0.662069
0.655172
0.475066
0.396326
0.278215
381.00000
381.00000
381.00000
381.00000
381.00000
381.00000
29.00000
29.00000
29.00000
29.00000
29.00000
381.00000
381.00000
381.00000
Qul
reat
cen
0.
2.
11.
40.
60.
ed
(PPM)
20000
00000
00000
00000
00000
Qul
Trt
ND
75.00000
8.
9.
9.
9.
10.
200.
230.
275.
20000
400CO
50000
80000
00000
00000
00000
00000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Treatment Technology
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
Contaminant Name Media
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
Sea
le
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Document Number
Test
Num
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1 8
ORD-TS1-RT-E2YQ-1 10
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1 9
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1 3
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1 1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
2
14
15
17
13
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1 16
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1 4
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1 5
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1 6
SOIL = 14 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 25
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W03
Technology Group:
HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION AND SOIL WASHING
ink
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Removal
Efficiency
0.981890
0.966929
0.897638
0.895625
0.888636
0.876667
0.768182
. 0.742126
0.718750
0.712500
0.700000
0.693333
0.690909
0.647727
0.577273
0.577273
0.555000
0.520000
0.512500
0.481250
Untreated
Concen (PPM)
254.00000
254.00000
254.00000
80.00000
22.00000
30.00000
22.00000
254.00000
80.00000
80.00000
30.00000
30.00000
22.00000
22.00000
22.00000
22.00000
30.00000
80.00000
80.00000
80.00000
Qul Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
Contaminant Name
4.60000
8.40000
26.00000
8.35000
2.45000
3.70000
5.10000
65.50000
22.50000
23.00000
9.00000
9.20000
6.80000
7.75000
9.30000 J
9.30000 J
13.35000
38.40000
39.00000
41.50000
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
Sc;
Name Media le
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
Document Number
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZU-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
rest
Num
8
7
2
49
25
37
20
1
50
43
1
31
14
26
13
19
38
55
44
56
SOIL
20 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 26
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W04
Technology Group:
HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS.
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Removal Untreated Qul
Treated
:nk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0.999898
0.999896
0.999881
0.999861
0.999857
0.999849
0.999839
0.999828
0.999821
0.999805
0.999783
0.999773
0.999750
0.999706
0.999667
0.999615
0.999583
0.999574
0.960833
49.00000
48.00000
42.00000
36.00000
35.00000
33.00000
31.00000
29.00000
28.00000
41.00000
23.00000
22.00000
20.00000
17.00000
15.00000
13.00000
12.00000
47.00000
24.00000
0.00500
0.00500
0.00500
0.00500
0.00500
0.00500
0.00500
0.00500
0.00500
0.00800
0.00500
0.00500
0.00500
0.00500
0.00500
0.00500
0.00500
0.02000
0.94000
Qul
Trt
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Sea Test
Treatment Technology
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
1,
E
1.
E
1.
E
1.
E
1.
E
1.
E
1.
E
1.
E
1.
E
1.
E
1,
E
1,
E
1.
E
1.
E
1,
E
1.
E
1.
E
1.
E
1.
E
Contaminant Name Media
2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPAN
2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPAN
2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPAN
2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPAN
2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPAN
2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPAN
2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPAN
2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPAN
2-D I BROMO-3-CHLOROPROPAN
2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPAN
2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPAN
2-D I BROMO-3-CHLOROPROPAN
2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPAN
2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPAN
2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPAN
2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPAN
2-D I BROMO-3-CHLOROPROPAN
2-D I BROMO-3-CHLOROPROPAN
2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPAN
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
le
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Document Number
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
Nun
•• — j»
19
18
17
5
3
4
6
8
7
1
10
11
13
15
12
9
16
2
14
SOIL = 19 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD)
0 data points
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Treatability Group: W04
Technology Group:
HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Page: 27
Date: 01/30/1990
Ink
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Remova I
Efficiency
0.999989
0.999986
0.999985
0.999981
0.999964
0.999927
0.999915
0.999912
0.999861
0.999828
0.999762
0.999667
0.999643
0.999615
0.999412
0.999000
0.998936
0.998750
0.998571
SOIL =
0.999961
0.999961
0.999953
0.999953
0.999942
0.999942
0.999884
0.999884
0.999875
0.999875
0.999872
0.999872
0.999853
0.999853
0.999849
0.999844
0.999844
Untreated Qu
Concen (PPM) Un
450.00000
350.00000
340.00000
260.00000
140.00000
68.00000
59.00000
57.00000
36.00000
29.00000
21.00000
15.00000
28.00000
13.00000
8.50000
5.00000
4.70000
4.00000
3.50000
19 data points
128.00000
128.00000
106.00000
106.00000
86.00000
86.00000
43.00000
43.00000
40.00000
40.00000
39.00000
39.00000
34.00000
34.00000
33.00000
32.00000
32.00000
;ated Qul
in (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.01000
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500
SLUDGE
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
Contaminant Name
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
Sea
Media le
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
Test
Document Number
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPC-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPC-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPC-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPC-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPC-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPC-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPC-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPC-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
Num
1
3
3
2
2
1
4
4
6
4
1
4
6
4
5
4
1
1
5
(SLUD) = 0 data points
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
1,1,2, 2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2, 2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
TRICHLOROETHENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
1
2
7
8
1
2
1
2
5
6
1
2
3
4
2
5
6
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Treatability Group: W04
Technology Group:
HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Page: 28
Date: 01/30/1990
Removal Untreated
:nk Efficiency Concen (PPM)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
0.999839
0.999839
0.999821
0.999821
0.999688
0.999688
0.999397
0.999397
0.999350
0.999350
0.998750
0.998750
0.998606
0.998276
0.998276
0.997826
0.997826
0.997826
0.997826
0.997222
0.997222
0.996875
0.996875
0.996666
0.996666
0.996666
0.996666
0.996666
0.994560
0.994560
0.992310
0.992310
0.991380
0.991380
0.990000
0.990000
0.977333
31.00000
31.00000
28.00000
28.00000
16.00000
16.00000
8.30000
8.30000
7.70000
7.70000
4.00000
4.00000
33.00000
2.90000
2.90000
2.30000
2.30000
2.30000
2.30000
1 .80000
1 .80000
1.60000
1.60000
1 .50000
1.50000
1.50000
3.00000
3.00000
0.92000
0.92000
0.65000
0.65000
0.58000
0.58000
0.50000
0.50000
1.50000
Qul Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
Contaminant Name
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.04600 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.01000 ND
0.01000 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.03400 ND
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROFORM
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROFORM
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
Sea
Media le
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
1
Document Number
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
rest
Hum
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
4
7
8
7
8
1
7
8
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
2
1
2
5
6
7
8
7
8
7
8
1
SOIL = 54 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 29
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: U04
Technology Group:
HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
DECHLORINATION
nk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Remova I
Efficiency
1.000000
0.999980
0.999880
0.999860
0.999760
0.999750
0.999450
0.998830
0.998540
0.997380
0.996980
0.980390
0.953310
0.917100
0.905960
0.864250
Untreated
Concen (PPM)
584.00000
151.00000
1265.00000
584.00000
585.00000
27.20000
23.50000
585.00000
1265.00000
151.00000
6.63000
6.63000
27.20000
0.19300
23.50000
0.19300
Qul Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
Contaminant Name
0.00180 ND
0.00300 ND
0.15600
0.08450 ND
0.14000
0.00680
0.01290
0.68400
1.85000
0.39500 ND
0.02000 ND
0.13000
1.27000
0.01600
2.21000
0.02620 ND
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
Media
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
Sea
le
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Document Number
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-'
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-'
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-'
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-'
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-'
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-'
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-'
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-'
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-'
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
Test
Num
1
4
I 4
5
I 1
I 3
I 2
I 5
I 8
8
7
3
7
2
6
1 6
CO
SOIL = 16 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Treatability Group: W04
Technology Group:
HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
BIOREMEDIATION
Page: 30
Date: 01/30/1990
Co
U
Removal Untreated Qul
nk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
0.999927
0.999927
0.999898
0.999754
0.999610
0.999391
0.999338
0.999298
0.999269
0.999269
0.999205
0.999205
0.999126
0.998930
0.998716
0.998576
0.998526
0.997527
0.996770
0.996346
0.996273
0.995722
0.994941
0.994276
0.993540
0.992973
0.988198
SOIL = 27
68.77500
68.77500
68.77500
36.63000
51.25000
16.42500
7.55000
51.25000
16.42500
16.42500
7.55000
7.55000
36.63000
4.67500
4.67500
51.25000
36.63000
14.15000
4.02500
3.55800
4.02500
4.67500
3.55800
14.15000
4.02500
3.55800
14.15000
data points
Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00700 ND
0.00900 ND
0.02000 ND
0.01000
0.00500
0.03600
0.01200
0.01200
0.00600 ND
0.00600
0.03200
0.00500
0.00600
0.07300
0.05400
0.03500
0.01300
0.01300
0.01500
0.02000
0.01800
0.08100
0.02600
0.02500
0.16700
SLUDGE
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
(SLUD) =
Sea
Technology Contaminant Name Media le
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
(DICHLOROMETHANE)
1 ,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
(DICHLOROMETHANE)
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
(DICHLOROMETHANE)
-DICHLOROETHANE
' -DICHLOROETHANE
,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
' 1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
(DICHLOROMETHANE)
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
(DICHLOROMETHANE)
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
(DICHLOROMETHANE)
1 , 1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
(DICHLOROMETHANE)
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
(DICHLOROMETHANE)
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
(DICHLOROMETHANE)
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
0 data points
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
Document Number
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
Test
Num
2
2
2
4
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
4
1
1
2
4
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 31
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W04
Technology Group:
HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
LOU TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION
Remova I
Jnk Efficiency
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
1.000000
0.999995
0.999988
0.999988
0.999988
0.999988
0.999988
0.999987
0.999985
0.999984
0.999984
0.999984
0.999980
0.999980
0.999980
0.999978
0.999976
0.999976
0.999974
0.999967
0.999967
0.999965
0.999957
0.999950
0.999946
0.999939
0.999936
0.999918
0.999905
0.999892
0.999867
0.999857
0.999833
0.999830
0.999810
0.999698
0.999640
0.999565
0.999500
0.999412
0.999350
Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Concen Unt Concen (PPM) Trt
1500.00000
950.00000
423.00000
423.00000
423.00000
423.00000
423.00000
304.00000
330.00000
304.00000
304.00000
304.00000
304.00000
3300.00000
1000.00000
1000.00000
210.00000
210.00000
304.00000
304.00000
150.00000
423.00000
423.00000
423.00000
423.00000
650.00000
314.00000
61.00000
304.00000
304.00000
150.00000
140.00000
120.00000
2400.00000
210.00000
430.00000
19000.00000
115.00000
40.00000
34.00000
7.70000
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500
0.00500
0.00400
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500
0.00600
0.07900
0.02000 ND
0.02200
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00800
0.01000
0.00500 ND
0.01500
0.01800
0.02100
0.02300
0.04000
0.02000 ND
0.00500 ND
0.02900
0.03300 ND
0.02000 ND
0.02000 ND
0.02000 ND
0.42000
0.04000
0.13000
6.90000
0.05000 ND
0.02000 ND
0.02000 ND
0.00500 ND
Treatment Technology
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
Contaminant Name
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
Sea
Media le
sisissts =:==
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL P
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL.
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL P
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL F
SOIL F
SOIL P
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL F
SOIL F
SOIL P
Document Number
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-"
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-'
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-'
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-'
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-'
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-'
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-'
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-'
980-TS1-RT-EUGS-'
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-'
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-'
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-'
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-'
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-'
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-'
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-'
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-'
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-'
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-'
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
980-TS1-RT-FCSF-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
Test
Nun
16
5
I 1
I 2
I 3
I 9
I 10
I 2
I 5
I 1
I 3
I 10
I 5
I 18
I 1
I 18
I 17
1 16
I 6
4
16
8
6
5
4
1
1
14
9
8
1
1
1
18
1
28
5
1
1
1
17
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 32
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W04
Technology Group:
HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION
Removal
Untreated Qul
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt
mw ^««H^«« WH^VBM *H™^™^««««fc.— ___
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
CO 59
Oi 60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
0.999091
0.999070
0.999000
0.998947
0.998947
0.998863
0.998636
0.998615
0.998182
0.997954
0.997750
0.997727
0.997674
0.997468
0.997368
0.997260
0.997237
0.996829
0.996721
0.996666
0.996563
0.996154
0.996110
0.995384
0.995349
0.994820
0.994786
0.994615
0.994444
0.993846
0.993240
0.993103
0.992592
0.992500
0.991148
0.990952
0.990910
0.990769
0.990714
0.990375
0.989455
• ™^»-«p-"-p«-"—p"«""«"«»»^i mmmmmm
4.40000
1500.00000
20.00000
19.00000
19.00000
4.40000
4.40000
1300.00000
4.40000
4.40000
120.00000
8.80000
8.60000
7.90000
19.00000
7.30000
760.00000
410.00000
6.10000
6.00000
320.00000
1 .30000
1800.00000
1 .30000
4.30000
11000.00000
140.00000
1 .30000
3.60000
1 .30000
0.74000
2.90000
2.70000
28.00000
61.00000
210.00000
0.55000
1 .30000
1 .40000
80.00000
55.00000
Treated
Concen (PPM)
0.00400
1 .40000
0.02000
0.02000
0.02000
0.00500
0.00600
1 .80000
0.00800
0.00900
0.27000
0.02000
0.02000
0.02000
0.05000
0.02000
2.10000
1 .30000
0.02000
0.02000
1.10000
0.00500
7.00000
0.00600
0.02000
57.00000
0.73000
0.00700
0.02000
0.00800
0.00500
0.02000
0.02000
0.21000
0.54000
1.90000
0.00500
0.01200
0.01300
0.77000
0.58000
Qul
Trt
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Sea
Treatment Technology Contaminant Name
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TRANS- 1 , 2-D I CHLOROETHENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRANS- 1 , 2-D I CHLOROETHENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
TRANS- 1, 2-D I CHLOROETHENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TRANS- 1 , 2-D I CHLOROETHENE
TRANS- 1, 2-D I CHLOROETHENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRANS- 1 , 2-D I CHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
Media le
SOIL B
SOIL P
SOIL F
SOIL F
SOIL F
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL P
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL P
SOIL F
SOIL F
SOIL F
SOIL P
SOIL F
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL F
SOIL F
SOIL P
SOIL B
SOIL P
SOIL B
SOIL F
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL B
SOIL F
SOIL B
SOIL P
SOIL F
SOIL F
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL B
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
Document Number
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-FCSF-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
Test
Num
16
10
1
1
1
14
15
10
13
17
27
1
1
1
1
1
11
11
1
1
15
16
15
17
1
6
10
15
1
14
20
1
1
14
13
6
1
13
3
14
13
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 33
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: U04
Technology Group:
HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
LOU TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION
Rnk
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
Contaminant Name
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
0.989365
0.989149
0.988400
0.988205
0.987500
0.986567
0.985714
0.982192
0.981818
0.977390
0.977108
0.976190
0.975000
0.968085
0.957447
0.956140
0.950000
0.946067
0.945455
0.942424
0.935000
0.934409
0.926761
0.925920
0.916981
0.890000
0.882609
0.857140
0.850850
0.846150
0.843700
0.838700
0.833300
0.828600
0.818180
0.816327
0.794440
0.792680
0.786670
0.777800
0.750000
63.00000
47.00000
2500.00000
3.90000
0.40000
6.70000
70.00000
73.00000
1.10000
2300.00000
83.00000
0.21000
1600.00000
470.00000
47.00000
57.00000
0.40000
890.00000
220.00000
495.00000 E1
0.07700
930.00000
1420.00000 E2
0.54000
265.00000 E1
30.00000
230.00000
0.14000
5900.00000
0.13000
0.03200
0.03100
0.03000
0.07000
0.11000
98.00000
0.18000
0.41000
1500.00000
0.09000
0.02000
0.67000
0.51000
29.00000
0.04600
0.00500 ND
0.09000
1.00000
1 .30000
0.02000 ND
52.00000
1 .90000
0.00500 ND
40.00000
15.00000
2.00000
2.50000
0.02000 ND
48.00000
12.00000
28.50000
0.00500 ND
61.00000
104.00000 E1
0.04000
22.00000
3.30000
27.00000
0.02000 ND
880.00000
0.02000 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.01200
0.02000 ND
18.00000
0.03700
0.08500
320.00000
0.02000 ND
0.00500 ND
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
Sea
Media le
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL B
SOIL F
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL B
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL B
SOIL F
SOIL B
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL F
SOIL P
SOIL F
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL F
SOIL B
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL F
SOIL P
Document Number
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-'
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-'
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-'
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-'
980-TS1-RT-FCMK-'
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-'
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-'
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-'
980-TS1-RT-FCMK-'
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-'
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-'
980-TS1-RT-FCMK-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
980-TS1-RT-FCMK-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
980-TS1-RT-FCMK-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
Test
Num
2
13
15
3
20
28
6
11
1
26
27
1
2
9
12
3
1
26
12
4
1 3
1 9
1 4
1
4
26
12
1
8
1
1
4
21
21
1
3
4
7
2
1
I 21
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 34
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W04
Technology Group:
HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION
Removal Untreated Qu
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Un
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
0.720000
0.684200
0.666600
0.663265
0.634920
0.569893
0.500000
0.433330
0.272727
125.00000 E1
0.01900 J
0.03300 J
98.00000
0.63000
930.00000
0.04000
0.30000
220.00000
Contaminant Name
35.00000
0.00600 J
0.01100 J
33.00000
0.23000
400.00000
0.02000 ND
0.17000
160.00000
LOU TEMP DESORPTION TRICHLOROETHENE
LOU TEMP DESORPTION TETRACHLOROETHENE
LOU TEMP DESORPTION TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
LOU TEMP DESORPTION TETRACHLOROETHENE
LOU TEMP DESORPTION TRICHLOROETHENE
LOU TEMP DESORPTION TETRACHLOROETHENE
LOU TEMP DESORPTION 1.1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
LOU TEMP DESORPTION TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
LOU TEMP DESORPTION TRANS-1.2-DICHLOROETHENE
S(
le Media U
SOIL B
SOIL B
HENE SOIL B
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
IE SOIL F
HENE SOIL P
HENE SOIL P
:a 1
i Document Number
980-TS1-RT-FCMK-1
980-TS1-RT-FCMK-1
980-TS1-RT-FCMK-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-1
rest
Num
3
1
1
9
7
8
1
7
8
SOIL = 132 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 35
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: U04
Technology Group:
HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION AND SOIL WASHING
CO
CO
Ink
~——
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Remova I
Efficiency
0.999996
0.999993
0.999991
0.999978
0.999947
0.999944
0.999943
0.999900
0.999857
0.999842
0.999796
0.999790
0.999737
0.999737
0.999737
0.999701
0.999700
0.999684
0.999600
0.999600
0.999588
0.999571
0.999515
0.999486
0.999428
0.999388
0.999286
0.999286
0.999286
0.999204
0.999096
0.998781
0.998408
0.998393
0.998015
0.997450
0.995200
0.993200
0.992000
0.988500
Untreated
Concen (PPM)
490.00000
902.00000
902.00000
408.00000
902.00000
354.00000
490.00000
20.00000
7.00000
19.00000
490.00000
19.00000
19.00000
19.00000
19.00000
408.00000
20.00000
19.00000
5.00000
5.00000
354.00000
7.00000
408.00000
354.00000
7.00000
490.00000
7.00000
7.00000
7.00000
490.00000
354.00000
902.00000
490.00000
902.00000
408.00000
902.00000
5.00000
5.00000
20.00000
20.00000
Qul
Treated Qul
oncen (PPM) Trt
0.00200
0.00600
0.00800
0.00900
0.04800
0.02000
0.02800
0.00200
0.00100
0.00300
0.10000
0.00400
0.00500 J
0.00500 J
0.00500 J
0.12200
0.00600
0.00600 J
0.00200
0.00200
0.14600
0.00300
0.19800
0.18200
0.00400
0.30000
0.00500 J
0.00500 J
0.00500 J
0.39000
0.32000
1.10000
0.78000
1.45000
0.81000
2.30000
0.02400
0.03400
0.16000
0.23000
Treatment Technology Contaminant Name
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
Sea Test
Media le Document Number Hum
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
===
49
49
43
1
55
1
43
31
14
14
55
20
13
19
25
2
37
26
31
37
7
20
7
2
26
56
13
19
25
44
8
56
50
50
8
44
32
38
32
38
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS Page: 36
Ranked by Removal Efficiency Date: 01/30/1990
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Treatability Group: W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
Technology Group: CHEMICAL EXTRACTION AND SOIL WASHING
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul Sea Test
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name Media le Document Number Num
SOIL = 40 data points SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
CO
CD
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 37
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W05
Technology Group:
HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Rnk E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Removal
Efficiency I
0.999994
0.999994
0.999994
0.999993
0.999992
0.999992
0.999989
0.999988
0.999987
0.999987
0.999987
0.999983
0.999982
0.999982
0.999981
0.999980
0.999978
0.999977
0.999975
0.999962
0.999962
0.999960
0.999960
0.999955
0.999952
0.999950
0.999950
0.999947
0.999944
0.999944
0.999944
0.999943
0.999929
0.999923
0.999919
0.999918
0.999917
0.999909
0.999905
0.999900
0.999900
Untreated
:oncen (PPM)
1600.00000
1800.00000
1800.00000
2800.00000
3900.00000
3700.00000
1800.00000
2400.00000
2300.00000
3700.00000
2300.00000
1800.00000
1700.00000
1100.00000
3600.00000
1500.00000
2300.00000
2200.00000
1600.00000
2100.00000
2100.00000
1500.00000
250.00000
220.00000
210.00000
1600.00000
200.00000
190.00000
180.00000
180.00000
180.00000
350.00000
1400.00000
130.00000
3100.00000
610.00000
1800.00000
110.00000
1900.00000
1000.00000
500.00000
Qul Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
0.01000 ND
0.01000 ND
0.01000 ND
0.02000 ND
0.03000 ND
0.03000 ND
0.02000 ND
0.03000 ND
0.03000
0.05000
0.03000 ND
0.03000
0.03000 ND
0.02000 ND
0.07000
0.03000
0.05000
0.05000 ND
0.04000
0.08000 ND
0.08000
0.06000
0.01000 ND
0.01000 ND
0.01000 ND
0.08000 ND
0.01000 ND
0.01000 ND
0.01000 ND
0.01000 ND
0.01000 ND
0.02000 ND
0.10000
0.01000 ND
0.25000
0.05000 ND
0.15000
0.01000 ND
0.18000
0.10000
0.05000 ND
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
Contaminant 1
DIELDRIN
DIELDRIN
DIELDRIN
DIELDRIN
ALDRIN
ALDRIN
DIELDRIN
ALDRIN
ALDRIN
ALDRIN
ALDRIN
DIELDRIN
ALDRIN
DIELDRIN
ALDRIN
DIELDRIN
ALDRIN
ALDRIN
DIELDRIN
ALDRIN
ALDRIN
DIELDRIN
ISODRIN
ISODRIN
ISODRIN
DIELDRIN
ISODRIN
ISODRIN
ISODRIN
ISODRIN
ISODRIN
ENDRIN
DIELDRIN
ISODRIN
ALDRIN
ENDRIN
DIELDRIN
ISODRIN
ALDRIN
DIELDRIN
ENDRIN
Sci
lame Media le
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
) 1
Document Number
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
•est
Num
5
6
8
19
18
19
18
5
6
11
12
11
4
12
13
3
8
1
13
2
3
16
3
13
18
2
4
17
11
16
19
2
7
8
16
19
1
12
7
9
18
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 38
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W05
Technology Group:
HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
Contaminant Name
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
0.999900
0.999888
0.999884
0.999875
0.999872
0.999865
0.999865
0.999849
0.999844
0.999839
0.999833
0.999833
0.999833
0.999815
0.999808
0.999792
0.999790
0.999769
0.999750
0.999742
0.999706
0.999667
0.999615
0.999546
0.999419
0.999280
0.999230
0.999167
0.999026
0.998500
0.998444
0.995152
0.993867
0.970300
0.969800
0.789744
0.484849
0.200000
100.00000
89.00000
430.00000
400.00000
390.00000
1700.00000
370.00000
330.00000
320.00000
310.00000
1200.00000
300.00000
300.00000
270.00000
260.00000
240.00000
190.00000
3500.00000
200.00000
310.00000
170.00000
240.00000
130.00000
110.00000
1600.00000
0.14000
0.13000
3600.00000
390.00000
180.00000
1800.00000
3300.00000
1500.00000
0.06400
0.06300
390.00000
3300.00000
200.00000
0.01000 ND
0.01000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.23000
0.05000 ND
- 0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.20000
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.04000
0.81000
0.05000 ND
0.08000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.08000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.93000
0.00010 ND
0.00010 ND
3.00000
0.38000
0.27000
2.80000
16.00000
9.20000
0.00190 ND
0.00190 ND
82.00000
1700.00000
160.00000
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
ISODRIN
ISODRIN
ENDRIN
ENDRIN
ENDRIN
ALDRIN
ENDRIN
ENDRIN
ENDRIN
ENDRIN
DIELDRIN
ENDRIN
ISODRIN
ENDRIN
ENDRIN
ENDRIN
ISODRIN
ALDRIN
ENDRIN
ENDRIN
ENDRIN
ISODRIN
ISODRIN
ISODRIN
DIELDRIN
GAMMA-BHC (LINDANE)
GAMMA-BHC (LINDANE)
ALDRIN
ENDRIN
ISODRIN
DIELDRIN
ALDRIN
DIELDRIN
CHLORDANE
CHLORDANE
ENDRIN
ALDRIN
ISODRIN
Sea
Media le
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
Document Number
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-EZYN-1
980-TS1-RT-EZYN-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-EZYN-1
980-TS1-RT-EZYN-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
Test
Num
7
9
8
17
13
9
16
6
11
5
4
10
2
3
7
4
10
17
12
1
9
1
6
5
17
1
1
10
15
15
10
15
15
1
1
14
14
14
SOIL
79 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) =
0 data points
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Treatability Group: W05
Technology Group:
HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Page: 39
Date: 01/30/1990
ro
Removal
Untreated Qu
tnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Un
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
0.999996
0.999994
0.999991
0.999991
0.999989
0.999988
0.999988
0.999987
0.999985
0.999981
0.999979
0.999978
0.999976
0.999957
0.999922
0.999905
0.999762
0.999761
0.999724
0.999719
0.999502
0.998480
0.998480
0.998480
0.998480
0.998480
0.998480
0.996970
0.996970
0.996970
0.996970
0.996970
0.996970
0.993940
0.993940
0.993940
0.993940
0.993940
0.993940
131.80000 E1
78.21500
198.90000 E1
54.89500
45.28200
206.80000 E1
40.72600
39.12700
34.26900
26.05400
23.61700
22.71100
20.82500
11.75600
12.74000
26.39300
4.20600
4.18700
7.24100
3.56700
2.00800
0.33000
0.33000
0.33000
0.33000
0.33000
0.33000
0.33000
0.33000
0.33000
0.33000
0.33000
0.33000
0.33000
0.33000
0.33000
0.33000
0.33000
0.33000
;a
:n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ted
-------
APPENDIX 0
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS Page: 40
Ranked by Removal Efficiency Date: 01/30/1990
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Treatability Group: W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES
Technology Group: THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul Sea Test
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name Media le Document Number Hum
SOIL = 39 data points SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Treatability Group: U06
Technology Group:
NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Page: 41
Date: 01/30/1990
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
0.30000 ND INCINERATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.999998
.999995
.999995
.999995
.999995
.999995
.999995
.999995
.999995
.999995
.999995
.999995
.999995
.999994
.999994
0.999994
0.999994
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.999994
.999994
.999994
.999994
.999994
.999994
.999994
.999994
.999994
.999981
158000.00000
424000
424000
424000
424000
424000
424000
424000
424000
424000
424000
424000
424000
159000
159000
159000
159000
159000
159000
159000
159000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
159000.00000
159000
159000
159000
159000
15800
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
El
E1
E1
E1
El
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
El
2.00000 ND
2.00000 ND
2.00000 ND
2.00000 ND
2.00000 ND
2.00000 ND
2.00000 ND
2.00000 ND
2.00000 ND
2.00000 ND
2.00000 ND
2.00000 ND
1.00000 ND
1.00000 ND
1.00000 ND
1.00000 ND
1.00000 ND
1.00000 ND
1.00000 ND
1.00000 ND
1.00000 ND
1.00000 ND
1.00000 ND
1.00000 ND
1.00000 ND
0.30000 ND
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
Contaminant Name f
TR I N I TROPHEN L YMET H YLN I TRAM
INE (TETRYL)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
1 ,3,5-TRINITROHEXAHYDRO-l ,
3,5-TRIAZINE
1 ,3,5-TRINITROHEXAHYDRO- 1 ,
3,5-TRIAZINE
1,3,5-TRINITROHEXAHYDRO-1,
3,5-TRIAZINE
1 ,3,5-TRINITROHEXAHYDRO-1 ,
3,5-TRIAZINE
1,3,5-TRINITROHEXAHYDRO-1,
3,5-TRIAZINE
1,3,5-TRINITROHEXAHYDRO-1,
3,5-TRIAZINE
1,3,5-TRINITROHEXAHYDRO-1f
3,5-TRIAZINE
1 , 3 , 5 - TR I N I TROHEXAHYDRO- 1 ,
3,5-TRIAZINE
1 , 3 , 5 - TR I N I TROHEXAHYDRO- 1 ,
3,5-TRIAZINE
1,3,5-TRINITROHEXAHYDRO-1,
3,5-TRIAZINE
1,3,5-TRINITROHEXAHYDRO-1,
3,5-TRIAZINE
1,3,5-TRINITROHEXAHYDRO-1,
3,5-TRIAZINE
1,3,5-TRINITROHEXAHYDRO-1,
3,5-TRIAZINE
TRINITROPHENLYMETHYLNITRAM
Sc:
ledia le
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
1
Document Number
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-
980-TS1-RT-EUUW-
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-
980-TS1-RT-EUHW-
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUUW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUUW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWU-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUUW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWU-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUUW-1
Test
Num
13
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
2
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 42
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W06
Technology Group:
NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
0.999981
0.999981
0.999981
0.999981
0.999981
0.999981
0.999981
0.999981
0.999981
0.999981
0.999981
0.999979
0.999937
0.999937
0.999857
0.999857
0.999857
0.999857
0.999686
0.999619
0.999577
0.999571
15800.00000
15800.00000
15800.00000
15800.00000
15800.00000
15800.00000
15800.00000
15800.00000
15800.00000
15800.00000
15800.00000
47300.00000
47300.00000
15900.00000
2100.00000
2100.00000
2100.00000
2100.00000
15900.00000
2100.00000
47300.00000
2100.00000
0.30000 ND
0.30000 ND
0.30000 ND
0.30000 ND
0.30000 ND
0.30000 ND
0.30000 ND
0.30000 ND
0.30000 ND
0.30000 ND
0.30000 ND
1.00000 ND
. 3.00000
1.00000 ND
0.30000 ND
0.30000 ND
0.30000 ND
0.30000 ND
5.00000
0.80000
20.00000
0.90000
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
Sea
Contaminant Name Media le
INE (TETRYL)
TRINITROPHENLYMETHYLNITRAM SOIL B
INE (TETRYL)
TRINITROPHENLYMETHYLNITRAM SOIL B
INE (TETRYL)
TRINITROPHENLYMETHYLNITRAM SOIL B
INE (TETRYL)
TRINITROPHENLYMETHYLNITRAM SOIL B
INE (TETRYL)
TRINITROPHENLYMETHYLNITRAM SOIL B
INE (TETRYL)
TRINITROPHENLYMETHYLNITRAM SOIL B
INE (TETRYL)
TRINITROPHENLYMETHYLNITRAM SOIL B
INE (TETRYL)
TRINITROPHENLYMETHYLNITRAM SOIL B
INE (TETRYL)
TRINITROPHENLYMETHYLNITRAM SOIL B
INE (TETRYL)
TRINITROPHENLYMETHYLNITRAM SOIL B
INE (TETRYL)
TRINITROPHENLYMETHYLNITRAM SOIL B
INE (TETRYL)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT) SOIL B
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT) SOIL B
1,3,5-TRINITROHEXAHYDRO-1, SOIL B
3,5-TRIAZINE
TRINITROPHENLYMETHYLNITRAM SOIL B
INE (TETRYL)
TRINITROPHENLYMETHYLNITRAM SOIL -B
INE (TETRYL)
TRINITROPHENLYMETHYLNITRAM SOIL B
INE (TETRYL)
TRINITROPHENLYMETHYLNITRAM SOIL B
INE (TETRYL)
1,3,5-TRINITROHEXAHYDRO-1, SOIL B
3,5-TRIAZINE
TRINITROPHENLYMETHYLNITRAM SOIL B
INE (TETRYL)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT) SOIL B
TRINITROPHENLYMETHYLNITRAM SOIL B
Document Number
98Q-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUUU-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWU-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUUW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWU-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
Test
Num
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
27
26
12
22
24
26
27
26
25
22
23
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 43
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group:
Technology Group:
W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Removal Untreated Qul
Ink Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
0.999556 47300.00000
0.999371 15900.00000
0.999371 15900.00000
0.999371 15900.00000
0.999366 47300.00000
0.999260 47300.00000
0.999154 47300.00000
0.998742 15900.00000
0.998742 15900.00000
0.998113 15900.00000
0.997143 2100.00000
0.996816 424000.00000 E1
0.996462 424000.00000 E1
0.996237 47300.00000
0.996237 47300.00000
0.992785 15800.00000
0.990818 15900.00000
0.976415 424000.00000 E1
0.975264 47300.00000
0.972727 47300.00000
0.969182 15900.00000
0.969182 15900.00000
0.969182 15900.00000
0.966667 2100.00000
0.966667 2100.00000
0.966667 2100.00000
Treated Qul sea Test
Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name Media le Document Number Num
21.00000
10.00000
10.00000
10.00000
30.00000
35.00000
40.00000
20.00000
20.00000
30.00000
6.00000
1350.00000
1500.00000
178.00000 ND
178.00000 ND
114.00000
146.00000
10000.00000
1170.00000
1290.00000
490.00000 ND
490.00000 ND
490.00000 ND
70.00000 ND
70.00000 ND
70.00000 ND
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INE (TETRYL)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT) SOIL B
1,3,5-TRINITROHEXAHYDRO-1, SOIL B
3,5-TRIAZINE
1,3,5-TRINITROHEXAHYDRO-1, SOIL B
3,5-TRIAZINE
1,3,5-TRINITROHEXAHYDRO-l, SOIL B
3,5-TRIAZINE
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT) SOIL B
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT) SOIL B
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT) SOIL B
1,3,5-TRINITROHEXAHYDRO-1, SOIL B
3,5-TRIAZINE
1,3,5-TRINITROHEXAHYDRO-1, SOIL B
3,5-TRIAZINE
1,3,5-TRINITROHEXAHYDRO-1, SOIL B
3,5-TRIAZINE
TRINITROPHENLYMETHYLNITRAM SOIL B
INE (TETRYL)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT) SOIL B
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT) SOIL B
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT) SOIL B
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT) SOIL B
TRINITROPHENLYMETHYLNITRAM SOIL B
INE (TETRYL)
1,3,5-TRINITROHEXAHYDRO-1, SOIL B
3,5-TRIAZINE
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT) SOIL B
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT) SOIL B
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT) SOIL B
1,3,5-TRINITROHEXAHYDRO-1, SOIL B
3,5-TRIAZINE
1,3,5-TRINITROHEXAHYDRO-1, SOIL B
3,5-TRIAZINE
1,3,5-TRINITROHEXAHYDRO-1, SOIL B
3,5-TRIAZINE
TRINITROPHENLYMETHYLNITRAM SOIL B
INE (TETRYL)
TRINITROPHENLYMETHYLNITRAM SOIL B
INE (TETRYL)
TRINITROPHENLYMETHYLNITRAM SOIL B
= ==================
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUUW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUUW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWM-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWU-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWU-1
980-TS1-RT-EUUW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
= = =
23
22
23
24
25
24
21
21
25
27
21
3
2
19
20
1
18
1
18
17
17
19
20
17
18
19
-------
APPENDIX 0
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 44
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W06
Technology Group:
NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Removal
nk Efficiency
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
0.966667
SOIL =
0.999998
0.999996
0.999996
0.999993
0.999993
0.999992
0.999990
0.999989
0.999989
0.999988
0.999984
0.999982
0.999930
0.999913
0.999837
0.999797
0.999498
0.998305
0.998241
0.997826
0.997561
0.996552
0.996296
0.996154
0.996154
0.996000
0.995833
0.995238
0.994118
0.993750
0.992308
0.992308
0.991667
0.990909
Untreated Qul
Concen (PPM) Unt
2100.
00000
76 data points
406000.
264000.
263000.
150000.
142000.
121000.
99500.
88100.
92500.
81100.
60600.
55200.
142000.
115000.
61200.
98500.
59700.
590.
108000.
460.
410.
290.
270.
260.
260.
250.
240.
210.
00000
00000
00000
00000
00000
00000
00000
00000
00000
00000
ooooo
00000
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
170.00000
160.00000
130.00000
130.00000
120.00000
110.00000
Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology . Contaminant Name Media
70.00000 ND
INCINERATION
SLUDGE (SLUD) =
1.00000 ND
1.00000
1.00000 ND
1.00000
1.00000 ND
1.00000 ND
1.00000 ND
1.00000 ND
1.00000 ND
1.00000 ND
1.00000
1.00000 ND
10.00000
10.00000
10.00000
20.00000
30.00000
1.00000 ND
190.00000
.00000 ND
.00000 ND
.00000 ND
.00000 ND
.00000 ND
.00000
.00000 ND
.00000 ND
.00000 ND
.00000 ND
1.00000 ND
1.00000 ND
1.00000 ND
1.00000 ND
1.00000 ND
ROTARY
•ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
INE (TETRYL)
TRINITROPHENLYMETHYLNITRAM
INE (TETRYL)
SOIL
Sea ,
le Document Number
B
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
Test
Num
20
0 data points
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
2-AMINO-4.6-DINITROTOLUENE
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
2-AMINO-4,6-DINITROTOLUENE
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
2-AMINO-4.6-DINITROTOLUENE
2-AMINO-4.6-DINITROTOLUENE
2-AMINO-4.6-DINITROTOLUENE
2-AMINO-4.6-DINITROTOLUENE
TRI NITROBENZENE
TRI NITROBENZENE
TRI NITROBENZENE
TRI NITROBENZENE
2-AMINO-4.6-DINITROTOLUENE
2-AMINO-4.6-DINITROTOLUENE
TRINITROBENZENE
TRINITROBENZENE
TRINITROBENZENE
TRINITROBENZENE
TRINITROBENZENE
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1
7
5
9
2
12
6
1
4
16
15
14
18
10
3
17
13
12
11
11
17
13
14
16
5
10
7
16
18
15
9
2
8
3
6
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Treatability Group: W06
Technology Group:
NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Page: 45
Date: 01/30/1990
oo
nk
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
Removal
Efficiency
0.990000
0.988889
0.988889
0.988889
0.988889
0.988889
0.988816
0.987500
0.985714
0.985714
0.983333
0.983333
0.983333
0.983333
0.975000
0.975000
0.975000
0.966667
0.950000
0.950000
0.950000
0.950000
0.950000
0.950000
0.950000
0.666667
SOIL =
0.999560
0.997600
0.995998
0.995663
0.994536
0.976776
Untreated Qu
Concen (PPM) Un
100.00000
90.00000
90.00000
90.00000
90.00000
90.00000
228000.00000
40.00000
70.00000
70.00000
30.00000
30.00000
30.00000
60.00000
20.00000
20.00000
20.00000
30.00000
10.00000
10.00000
10.00000
10.00000
10.00000
10.00000
10.00000
30.00000
60 data points
25000.00000
25000.00000
867000.00000
867000.00000
732.00000
732.00000
Treated
>ncen (PPM)
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
2550.00000
0.50000
1.00000
1.00000
0.50000
0.50000
0.50000
1.00000
0.50000
0.50000
0.50000
1.00000
0.50000
0.50000
0.50000
0.50000
0.50000
0.50000
0.50000
10.00000
Qul
Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name Media
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SLUDGE
11.00000
60.00000
3470.00000
3760.00000
4.00000
17.00000
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
ROTARY
(SLUD) =
AQUEOUS
AQUEOUS
AQUEOUS
AQUEOUS
AQUEOUS
AQUEOUS
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
KILN
TRINITROBENZENE
TRINITROBENZENE
TRINITROBENZENE
TRINITROBENZENE
TRINITROBENZENE
TRINITROBENZENE
TRINITROTOLUENE
D I NITROBENZENE
TRINITROBENZENE
TRINITROBENZENE
DINITROBENZENE
D I NITROBENZENE
, DINITROBENZENE
TRINITROBENZENE
DINITROBENZENE
DINITROBENZENE
DINITROBENZENE
(TNT)
2-AMINO-4,6-DINITROTOLUENE
DINITROBENZENE
DINITROBENZENE
DINITROBENZENE
DINITROBENZENE
DINITROBENZENE
DINITROBENZENE
DINITROBENZENE
1,3,5-TRINITROHEXAHYDRO-1,
3,5-TRIAZINE
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
Sea Test
le Document Number Num
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
980-TS1-RT-EURP-
980-TS1-RT-EURP-
980-TS1-RT-EURP-
980-TS1-RT-EURP-
980-TS1-RT-EURP-
980-TS1-RT-EURP-
980-TS1-RT-EURP-
980-TS1-RT-EURP-
980-TS1-RT-EURP-
980-TS1-RT-EURP-
980-TS1-RT-EURP-
980-TS1-RT-EURP-
980-TS1-RT-EURP-
980-TS1-RT-EURP-
18
1
4
11
12
15
8
5
13
17
7
9
10
14
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1 13
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1 14
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1 18
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1 7
980-TS1-RT-EURP-1 2
980-TS1-RT-EURP- 4
980-TS1-RT-EURP- 6
980-TS1-RT-EURP- 8
980-TS1-RT-EURP- 11
980-TS1-RT-EURP- 15
980-TS1-RT-EURP- 17
980-TS1-RT-EURP- 1
0 data points
THERMAL
THERMAL
THERMAL
THERMAL
THERMAL
THERMAL
DECO TRINITROTOLUENE
DECO TRINITROTOLUENE
DECO TRINITROTOLUENE
DECO TRINITROTOLUENE
DECO TRINITROTOLUENE
DECO TRINITROTOLUENE
(TNT)
(TNT)
(TNT)
(TNT)
(TNT)
(TNT)
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
B
B
B
B
B
B
980-TS1-RT-EURN- 1
980-TS1-RT-EURN- 2
980-TS1-RT-EURN- 6
980-TS1-RT-EURN- 5
980-TS1-RT-EURN- 4
980-TS1-RT-EURN-1 3
SOIL = • 0 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) =
6 data points
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Treatability Group: W06
Technology Group:
NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
BIOREMEDIATION
Page: 46
Date: 01/30/1990
Removal Untreated Qul
nk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt
:== ============ ========^=== ===
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
0.999172
0.999172
0.999141
0.999141
0.997036
0.993651
0.977353
0.962839
0.936585
0.932432
0.905836
0.888889
0.864351
0.832402
0.777778
0.733765
0.718261
0.659957
0.644589
0.631084
0.458997
0.049896
SOIL =
20404.00000
20404.00000
19678.00000
19678.00000
8433.00000
31500.00000
7065.00000
46178.00000
2255.00000
7400.00000
1508.00000
900.00000
9414.00000
3580.00000
1800.00000
39236.00000
575.00000
9240.00000
9240.00000
6698.00000
9414.00000
962.00000
8 data points
Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Tei
16.90000 ND
16.90000 ND
16.90000 ND
16.90000 ND
25.00000 ND
200.00000
160.00000
1716.00000
143.00000
500.00000
142.00000
100.00000
1277.00000
600.00000
400.00000
10446.00000
162.00000
3142.00000
3284.00000
2471.00000
5093.00000
914.00000
SLUDGE
COMPOSTING
COMPOSTING
COMPOSTING
COMPOSTING
COMPOSTING
COMPOSTING
COMPOSTING
COMPOSTING
COMPOSTING
COMPOSTING
COMPOSTING
COMPOSTING
COMPOSTING
COMPOSTING
COMPOSTING
COMPOSTING
COMPOSTING
COMPOSTING
COMPOSTING
COMPOSTING
COMPOSTING
COMPOSTING
(SLUD) = 14
Contaminant Name I
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
NITROCELLULOSE
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
NITROCELLULOSE
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
TR I N I TROPHENLYMETHYLN I TRAM
INE (TETRYL)
1,3,5-TRINITROHEXAHYDRO-1,
3,5-TRIAZINE
TRINITROPHENLYMETHYLNITRAM
INE (TETRYL)
TRINITROPHENLYMETHYLNITRAM
INE (TETRYL)
1 , 3 , 5 - TR I N I TROHEXAHYDRO- 1 ,
3,5-TRIAZINE
1,3,5-TRIN1TROHEXAHYDRO-1,
3,5-TRIAZINE
HMX
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
HMX
1 ,3,5-TRINlTROHEXAHYDRO-1 ,
3,5-TRIAZINE
1 ,3,5-TRINITROHEXAHYDRO-1 ,
3,5-TRIAZINE
1,3,5-TRINITROHEXAHYDRO-1,
3,5-TRIAZINE
1 ,3,5-TRINITROHEXAHYDRO-1 ,
3,5-TRIAZINE
HMX
Sea
ledia le
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SOIL P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SLUD P
SOIL P
SLUD P
T
Document Number
980-TS1-RT-EURT-2
980-TS1-RT-EURT-2
980-TS1-RT-EURT-2
980-TS1-RT-EURT-2
980-TS1-RT-EURS-
980-TS1-RT-EURS-
980-TS1-RT-EURS-
980-TS1-RT-EURS-
980-TS1-RT-EURS-
980-TS1-RT-EURS-1
980-TS1-RT-EURS-1
980-TS1-RT-EURS-1
980-TS1-RT-EURT-2
980-TS1-RT-EURS-1
980-TS1-RT-EURS-1
980-TS1-RT-EURS-1
980-TS1-RT-EURS-1
980-TS1-RT-EURT-2
980-TS1-RT-EURT-2
980-TS1-RT-EURS-1
980-TS1-RT-EURT-2
980-TS1-RT-EURS-1
est
Hum
_==
2
2
1
1
4
3
5
1
1
3
2
3
4
1
3
2
1
3
3
2
4
2
data points
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS Page: 47
Ranked by Removal Efficiency Date: 01/30/1990
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Ttestability Group: W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
Technology Group: CHEMICAL EXTRACTION AND SOIL WASHING
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul Sea Test
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name Media le Document Number Num
1 0.999640 19300.00000 E1 7.00000 CHEMICAL EXTRACTION TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT) SLUD B 980-TS1-RT-EURU-1 2
2 0.995161 1240.00000 6.00000 CHEMICAL EXTRACTION TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT) SLUD B 980-TS1-RT-EURU-1 1
3 0.983333 60.00000 1.00000 ND CHEMICAL EXTRACTION TRINITROBENZENE SLUD B 980-TS1-RT-EURU-1 3
SOIL = 0 data points SLUDGE (SLUD) = 3 data points
in
o
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 48
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W07
Technology Group:
HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Oi
:nk 1
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
1
2
3
4
5
Removal
Efficiency
0.999473
0.998000
0.997500
0.943478
0.867500
SOIL =
0.999999
0.999999
0.999999
0.999999
0.999994
0.999994
0.999992
0.999992
0.999991
0.999967
0.999962
0.999961
0.999960
0.999941
0.999925
0.999908
0.999902
0.999886
0.999688
0.999019
0.998648
SOIL =
0.999969
0.999969
0.999964
0.999964
0.999643
Untreated Qul
Concen (PPM) Uni
9.50000
500.00000 J
400.00000 J
4.60000
4.00000
5 data points
3600.00000
4000.00000
5800.00000
6000.00000
770.00000
810.00000
2400.00000
4000.00000
580.00000
240.00000
520.00000
330.00000
150.00000
84.00000
67.00000
120.00000
51.00000
44.00000
16.00000
5.10000
3.70000
21 data points
160.00000
160.00000
140.00000
140.00000
14.00000
1.00000 J INCINERATION
Contaminant Name
XYLENES (TOTAL)
BENZENE, TOLUENE,
ETHYLBENZENE, XYLENES
BENZENE, TOLUENE,
ETHYLBENZENE, XYLENES
Sea Test
Media le Document Number Num
0.26000
0.53000
SLUDGE
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.01900
0.03400
0.00500 ND
0.00800
0.02000
0.01300
0.00600
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.01100
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
SLUDGE
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
(SLUD) = 0
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
(SLUD) « 0
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
TOLUENE
TOLUENE
data points
ETHYLBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
STYRENE
STYRENE
ETHYLBENZENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
STYRENE
ETHYLBENZENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
ETHYLBENZENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
STYRENE
TOLUENE
STYRENE
TOLUENE
BENZENE
data points
ETHYLBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
STYRENE
ETHYLBENZENE
SOIL B
SOIL F
SOIL F
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FCQC-1
980-TS1-RT-FCQC-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
980-TS1-RT-FDBP-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPC-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPC-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPC-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
21
2
1
21
20
1
3
1
3
1
3
2
2
2
4
6
6
5
5
6
4
4
1
5
4
1
1
2
1
2
7
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Treatability Group: W07
Technology Group:
HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Page: 49
Date: 01/30/1990
Removal Untreated Qul
nk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0.999643
0.999500
0.999500
0.999500
0.999500
0.999324
0.999324
0.998936
0.998936
0.979166
0.974444
14.00000
10.00000
10.00000
10.00000
10.00000
7.40000
7.40000
4.70000
4.70000
3.60000
3.60000
Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Trt
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.07500
0.09200
Treatment Technology Contaminant Name
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
ETHYLBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
STYRENE
ETHYLBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
STYRENE
BENZENE
BENZENE
Sea
Media le
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
Test
Document Number Num
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
8
3
4
7
8
5
6
5
6
2
1
SOIL = 16 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
01
N>
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 50
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: U07
Technology Group:
HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
DECHLORINATION
in
CO
Removal Untreated Qul
nk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
0.999980
0.999970
0.999950
0.999730
0.999640
0.999560
0.999540
0.999510
0.999440
0.998650
0.997550
0.997470
0.996030
0.988110
0.986970
0.983780
0.981970
0.981090
0.980480
0.975700
0.973670
0.971090
0.968940
0.967350
2916.00000
7451.00000
721.00000
3917.00000
10063.00000
827.00000
123.00000
188.00000
500.00000
40.50000
101.00000
28.40000
123.00000
7451.00000
2916.00000
188.00000
721.00000
40.50000
500.00000
3917.00000
10063.00000
101.00000
28.40000
827.00000
Treated Qul Sea
Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name Media le
0.06230
0.21600
0.03490
1.05000
3.67000
0.36700
0.05680
0.09180
0.28000
0.05470
0.24700
0.07180
0.48800
88.60000
38.00000
3.05000
13.00000
0.76600
9.76000
95.20000
265.00000
2.92000
0.88200
27.00000
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
•DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
ETHYLBENZENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
STYRENE
ETHYLBENZENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
STYRENE
STYRENE
ETHYLBENZENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
STYRENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
ETHYLBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
STYRENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
ETHYLBENZENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
Test
Document Number Num
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
4
4
4
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
2
2
6
8
8
7
8
7
7
5
5
6
6
5
SOIL = 24 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Treatability Group: W07
Technology Group:
HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
BIOREMEDIATION
Page: 51
Date: 01/30/1990
C7I
ink
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Removal
Efficiency
0.999993
0.999979
0.999979
0.999975
0.999971
0.999969
0.999965
0.999965
0.999960
0.999952
0.999943
0.999939
0.999939
0.999939
0.999936
0.999933
0.999915
0.999915
0.999897
0.999895
0.999895
0.999863
0.999852
0.999808
0.999790
0.999782
0.999753
0.999743
0.999731
0.999724
0.999709
0.999673
0.999630
0.999613
0.999568
0.999538
0.999461
0.999431
0.999384
0.999322
0.999213
Untreated Qu
Concen (PPM) Un
2257.50000 E2
285.75000 E1
285.75000 El
2257.50000 E2
104.70000 E1
128.25000 E1
593.58800 E1
285.75000 E1
226.25000 E1
2257.50000 E2
104.70000 El
593.58800 E1
65.21800
65.21800
94.32500
104.70000 E1
94.32500
94.32500
19.47500
38.12200
38.12200
226.25000 E1
593.58800 E1
26.00000
38.12200
27.51200
16.20000
19.47500
26.00000
65.21800
27.51200
27.51200
16.20000
10.32500
16.20000
12.97500
12.97500
128.25000 E1
6.50000
10.32500
6.35200
>a ted Qul
•n (PPM) Trt
0.01600 ND
0.00600 ND
0.00600 ND
0.05700 ND
0.00300 ND
0.00400 ND
0.02100 ND
0.01000 ND
0.00900 ND
0.10900 ND
0.00600 ND
0.03600 ND
0.00400 ND
0.00400 ND
0.00600 ND
0.00700 ND
0.00800 ND
0.00800 ND
0.00200 ND
0.00400 ND
0.00400 ND
0.03100
0.08800 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00800 ND
0.00600 ND
0.00400 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00700 ND
0.01800 ND
0.00800 ND
0.00900 ND
0.00600 ND
0.00400 ND
0.00700 ND
0.00600 ND
0.00700
0.07300
0.00400
0.00700
0.00500
Sea Test
Treatment Technology Contaminant Name Media le Document Number Num
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
ETHYLBENZENE
TOLUENE
TOLUENE
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
ETHYLBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
TOLUENE
ETHYLBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
ETHYLBENZENE
TOLUENE
TOLUENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
STYRENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
TOLUENE
STYRENE
STYRENE
ETHYLBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
TOLUENE
STYRENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
BENZENE
TOLUENE
TOLUENE
TOLUENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
BENZENE
STYRENE
BENZENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
STYRENE
BENZENE
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
2
2
2
2
2
1
4
2
3
2
2
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
3
4
4
3
4
1
4
4
2
3
1
4
4
4
2
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
4
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 52
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W07
Technology Group:
HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
BIOREMEDIATION
Removal Untreated Qu
nk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Un
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
0.999134
0.999127
0.999089
0.999089
0.999077
0.999055
0.999055
0.999000
0.998907
0.998459
0.998307
0.997232
0.996610
226.25000 E1
19.47500
5.49000
5.49000
6.50000
6.35200
6.35200
26.00000
5.49000
12.97500
6.50000
128.25000 E1
10.32500
0.19600
0.01700 ND
0.00500
0.00500
0.00600
0.00600
0.00600
0.02600
0.00600 ND
0.02000
0.01100
0.35500
0.03500
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
Contaminant Name
ETHYLBENZENE
TOLUENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
STYRENE
BENZENE
BENZENE
TOLUENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
STYRENE
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
Sea
Media le Document Number
Test
Nun
==== === ================== ===
SOIL P 980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
3
3
3
3
3
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1 4
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1 4
SOIL P 980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1 1
SOIL P 980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1 3
SOIL P 980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1 1
SOIL P 980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1 3
SOIL P 980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1 1
SOIL P 980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1 1
SOIL = 54 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) =
0 data points
Oi
en
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 53
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W07
Technology Group:
HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION
ink
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Removal
Efficiency
.000000
.000000
.000000
.000000
.000000
.000000
0.999992
0.999992
0.999992
0.999992
0.999992
0.999992
0.999992
0.999990
0.999990
0.999990
0.999989
0.999980
0.999978
0.999960
0.999960
0.999898
0.999870
0.999870
0.999870
0.999850
0.999850
0.999740
0.999636
0.999588
0.999588
0.999523
0.999467
0.999426
0.999374
0.999305
0.999201
0.999097
0.999040
0.998826
0.998810
Untreated
Concen (PPM)
3116.00000
3116.00000
3116.00000
3116.00000
5277.00000
5277.00000
651.00000
651.00000
651.00000
651.00000
651.00000
651.00000
651.00000
3116.00000
5277.00000
5227.00000
651.00000
5227.00000
230.00000
3116.00000
5227.00000
49.00000
3116.00000
3116.00000
5277.00000
3116.00000
5277.00000
5277.00000
82.50000
82.50000
82.50000
155.00000
82.50000
155.00000
155.00000
59.00000
651.00000
155.00000
2800.00000
23.00000
840.00000
Qul
;a
>n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
ted
(PPM)
.00600
.01100
.00900
.01500
.02000
.02600
.00500
.00500
.00500
.00500
.00500
.00500
.00500
.03500
.03000
.04000
.00700
.08200
.00500
.12000
.22000
.00500
.41000
.39000
.71000
.48000
.77000
.37000
.03000
.03400
.03400
.07400
.04400
.08900
.09700
.04100
.52000
.14000
.70000
.02700
.00000
Qul
Trt
Treatment Technology Contaminant Name Media
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOU
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOW
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
LOU
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
ETHYLBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
STYRENE
STYRENE
STYRENE
STYRENE
STYRENE
STYRENE
STYRENE
ETHYLBENZENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
STYRENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
BENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
ETHYLBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
ETHYLBENZENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
ETHYLBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
ETHYLBENZENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
STYRENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
TOLUENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SLUD
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SLUD
SOIL
SOIL
Sea Test
le Document Number Num
•••
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
B
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
B
P
P
F
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
1
2
3
10
1
3
1
2
3
5
6
'9
10
9
2
10
8
9
2
8
8
28
5
6
5
4
4
6
15
14
16
16
13
15
14
14
4
13
4
27
1
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 54
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W07
Technology Group:
HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION
Ol
Removal
Untreated
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM)
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
0.998360
0.998154
0.997930
0.997833
0.997820
0.997818
0.997478
0.997464
0.997429
0.997217
0.996786
0.996778
0.996679
0.996323
0.996122
0.996111
0.995783
0.995417
0.995357
0.995333
0.995000
0.993750
0.993333
0.992857
0.992308
0.992308
0.991111
0.988333
0.988095
0.986429
0.986111
0.985507
0.984375
0.984286
0.983871
0.979211
0.978438
0.978261
0.977273
0.976991
0.973684
2800.00000
13.00000
2800.00000
180.00000
2800.00000
82.50000
230.00000
280.00000
280.00000
230.00000
280.00000
180.00000
280.00000
155.00000
49.00000
180.00000
230.00000
120.00000
280.00000
180.00000
280.00000
160.00000
180.00000
140.00000
130.00000
130.00000
180.00000
180.00000
84.00000
280.00000
72.00000
69.00000
160.00000
280.00000
62.00000
380.00000
320.00000
23.00000
44.00000
56.50000
38.00000
Qul Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
Contaminant Name
;==
4.
0.
5.
0.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
3.
1.
1.
2.
4.
1.
7.
6.
0.
1.
1.
1.
60000
02400
80000
39000
10000
18000
58000
71000
72000
64000
90000
58000
93000
57000
19000
70000
97000
55000
30000
84000
40000
00000
20000
00000
00000
00000
60000
10000
00000
80000
00000
00000
50000
40000
00000
90000
90000
50000
00000
30000
00000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
TOLUENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
TOLUENE
ETHYLBENZENE
TOLUENE
ETHYLBENZENE
BENZENE
M-XYLENE
O&P XYLENE
BENZENE
O&P XYLENE
ETHYLBENZENE
M-XYLENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
ETHYLBENZENE
BENZENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
M-XYLENE
STYRENE
O&P XYLENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
STYRENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
ETHYLBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
ETHYLBENZENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
M-XYLENE
ETHYLBENZENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
STYRENE
O&P XYLENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
Sc
Media le
SLUD P
SOIL P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SOIL B
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SOIL B
SOIL P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SOIL P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SOIL F
SLUD P
SOIL F
SOIL F
SOIL F
SLUD P
SLUD P
SOIL F
SLUD
SOIL
SOIL
SLUD
SLUD
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL F
SOIL B
SOIL F
a . T
Document Number
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-1
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-1
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-1
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-1
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-1
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-1
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-1
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
980-TS1-RT-FCSF-
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-FCMK-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
est
Num
3
20
1
4
2
17
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
17
11
1
1
10
1
t.
1
3
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
6
5
13
1
4
1
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 55
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W07
Technology Group:
HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION
Rnk
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
Removal
Efficiency
0.971429
0.970588
0.964444
0.964286
0.959756
0.959183
0.953060
0.950000
0.950000
0.947368
0.945946
0.943836
0.939394
0.933333
0.924200
0.922481
0.900000
0.866666
0.850000
0.846154
0.800000
0.775000
0.773333
0.750000
0.733333
0. 629629
0.500000
0.444444
0.333330
Untreated
Concen (PPM)
35.00000
34.00000
180.00000
28.00000
8.20000
4.90000
0.49000
20.00000
20.00000
19.00000
3.70000
73.00000
3.30000
87.00000
0.06600
12.90000
2.00000
1.50000
50.00000
1.30000
18.00000
0.16000
1.50000
4.00000
240.00000
2.70000
2.00000
1.80000
0.30000
Qul Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
Contaminant Name
1
1
6
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
4
0
5
0
1
0
0
7
0
3
0
0
1
64
1
1
1
0
.00000
.00000
.40000
.00000
.33000
.20000
.02300
.00000
.00000
.00000
.20000
.10000
.20000
.80000
.00500
.00000
.20000
.20000
.50000
.20000
.60000
.03600
.34000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.20000
ND
ND
ND
J
ND
J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LOU
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
TOLUENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
ETHYLBENZENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
ETHYLBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
ETHYLBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
ETHYLBENZENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
TOLUENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
BENZENE
TOLUENE
ETHYLBENZENE
TOLUENE
Sea
Media le
SOIL F
SOIL F
SOIL P
SOIL F
SOIL B
SOIL F
SOIL B
SOIL F
SOIL F
SOIL F
SOIL F
SOIL P
SOIL F
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL F
SOIL F
SOIL F
SOIL P
SOIL F
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL B
SOIL F
SOIL P
SOIL F
SOIL P
SOIL F
SOIL F
Document Number
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-FCMK-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-FCMK-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
980-TS1-RT-FCMK-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
980-TS1-RT-EUQS-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
980-TS1-RT-FCSF-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
Test
Num
1
1
15
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
16
1
26
3
1
1
1
12
1
2
21
2
1
8
1
1
1
1
SOIL
87 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD)
24 data points
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 56
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W07
Technology Group:
HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION AND SOIL WASHING
Removal
Untreated Qul
Treated Qul
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Conceji (PPM) Trt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
_* 17
cn 18
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 57
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W07
Technology Group:
HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION AND SOIL WASHING
ink
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Removal
Efficiency
0.996285
0.995880
0.995550
0.995430
0.995380
0.994610
0.992000
0.991429
0.990833
0.988923
0.985764
0.982813
0.982188
0.812500
Untreated
Concen (PPM)
144.00000
5576.00000
5576.00000
5576.00000
2708.00000
2708.00000
325.00000
630.00000
144.00000
325.00000
144.00000
32.00000
32.00000
240.00000
Qul Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
0.53500
23.00000
24.80000
25.50000
12.50000
14.60000
2.60000
5.40000
1 .32000
3.60000
2.05000
0.55000
0.57000
45.00000
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
io logy Contaminant Name
ETHYLBENZENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
XYLENES (TOTAL)
ETHYLBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
STYRENE
ETHYLBENZENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
STYRENE
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
Sci
Media le
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SLUD F
3 1
Document Number
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUTT-3
rest
Num
37
50
44
56
50
44
32
44
32
38
38
38
32
1
SOIL = 54 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 1 data points
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 58
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W08
Technology Group:
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
,k
:=
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Removal
Efficiency
============
0.999996
0.999937
0.997000
0.996590
0.993750
0.993620
0.972730
0.956500
0.945400
SOIL =
0.999961
0.999947
0.999938
0.999313
0.999250
0.999214
SOIL =
0.999975
SOIL =
0.999207
0.999207
0.998764
0.998764
0.997643
0.997643
0.993529
0.993529
Untreated Qu
Concen (PPM) Uni
============ ==:
227.00000 E1
31.80000
1000.00000 J
0.88000
0.32000
0.47000
0.11000
0.06900
0.05500
9 data points
8500.00000
6200.00000
5300.00000
480.00000
440.00000
420.00000
6 data points
4000.00000 J
1 data points
416.00000
416.00000
267.00000
267.00000
140.00000
140.00000
51.00000
51.00000
Contaminant Name
Sea
Media le
Test
Document Number Nun
0.00100 ND INCINERATION
0.00200 ND INCINERATION
3.00000 J INCINERATION
0.00300 ND
0.00200 ND
0.00300 ND
0.00300 ND
0.00300 ND
0.00300 ND
SLUDGE
0.33000 ND
0.33000 ND
0.33000 ND
0.33000 ND
0.33000 ND
0.33000 ND
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
(SLUD) = 0
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
NAPHTHALENE
NAPHTHALENE
TOTAL POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC
HYDROCARBONS
ACENAPHTHENE
PHENANTHRENE
FLUORENE
ACENAPHTHENE
FLUORENE
PHENANTHRENE
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL F
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
data points
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
0.10000 J FLUIDIZED BED COMBUS TOTAL POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC
HYDROCARBONS
SLUDGE (SLUD)
0 data points
0.33000 ND
0.33000 ND
0.33000 ND
0.33000 ND
0.33000 ND
0.33000 ND
0.33000 ND
0.33000 ND
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
PHENANTHRENE
PHENANTHRENE
PHENANTHRENE
PHENANTHRENE
NAPHTHALENE
NAPHTHALENE
PHENANTHRENE
PHENANTHRENE
980-TS1-RT-EZYN-1 1
980-TS1-RT-EZYN-1 1
980-TS1-RT-FCQC-1 1
980-TS1-RT-EZYN-1 1
980-TS1-RT-EZYN-1 1
980-TS1-RT-EZYN-1 1
980-TS1-RT-EZYN-1 1
980-TS1-RT-EZYN-1 1
980-TS1-RT-EZYN-1 1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1 2
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1 1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1 3
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1 4
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1 6
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1 5
SOIL F 980-TS1-RT-FCQC-2 1
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
1
2
3
4
1
2
7
8
SOIL = 8 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD)
0 data points
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 59
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W08
Technology Group:
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
DECHLORINATION
RemovaI
Rnk Efficiency
Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
Contaminant Name
Sea
Media le
Test
Document Number Num
0.970320
0.963310
0.960240
0.913160
0.755720
SOIL =
4210.04000
4554.42000
4210.04000
4554.42000
227.54000
5 data points
124.96000
167.10000
167.38000
395.50000
55.58300
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1 8
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1 5
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1 4
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1 1
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1 2
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
O>
ro
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
TreatabiIity Group:
Technology Group:
W08
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
BIOREMEDIATION
Page: 60
Date: 01/30/1990
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
Contaminant Name
Sea Test
Media le Document Number Num
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
0.999837
0.999326
0.995392
SOIL =
0.997752
0.997663
0.997199
0.995606
0.994427
0.994141
0.992891
0.991716
0.986834
0.986834
0.981464
0.962233
0.938600
0.930452
0.925938
0.921875
0.860206
0.841712
0.821332
0.794435
0.783457
0.568223
0.526888
0.463793
0.454897
0.353680
0.327320
2143.00000
519.00000
651.00000
3 data points
50.70000
46.65000
50.70000
46.65000
46.65000
12.80000
12.80000
50.70000
9.95000
9.95000
8.63200
8.63200
8.63200
9.95000
12.80000
73.60000
19.40000
73.60000
73.60000
27.85000
24.36000
27.85000
24.36000
24.36000
19.40000
27.85000
19.40000
0.35000
0.35000
3.00000
SLUDGE
0.11400
0.10900
0.14200
0.20500
0.26000
0.07500
0.09100
0.42000
0.13100
0.13100
0.16000 ND
0.32600
0.53000
0.69200
0.94800
5.75000
2.71200
11.65000
13.15000
5.72500
5.27500
12.02500
11.52500
13.06200
10.57500
18.00000
13.05000
BIOREMEDIATION
BIOREMEDIATION
BIOREMEDIATION
(SLUD) = 0 data
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
TOTAL POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC
HYDROCARBONS
TOTAL POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC
HYDROCARBONS
TOTAL POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC
HYDROCARBONS
points
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
NAPHTHALENE
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
NAPHTHALENE
NAPHTHALENE
NAPHTHALENE
NAPHTHALENE
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
NAPHTHALENE
NAPHTHALENE
NAPHTHALENE
NAPHTHALENE
NAPHTHALENE
NAPHTHALENE
NAPHTHALENE
PHENANTHRENE
PHENANTHRENE
PHENANTHRENE
PHENANTHRENE
PHENANTHRENE
PHENANTHRENE
PHENANTHRENE
PHENANTHRENE
PHENANTHRENE
PHENANTHRENE
PHENANTHRENE
PHENANTHRENE
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
980-TS1-RT-EWGC-1
980-TS1-RT-EWGC-1
980-TS1-RT-EWGC-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT.-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-
3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
1
1
4
4
4
1
3
2
3
2
2
1
4
1
4
4
3
1
3
SOIL = 27 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 61
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group:
Technology Group:
W08
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
BIOREMEDIATION
Removal Untreated Qul
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0.994737
0.994444
0.990580
0.990000
0.983333
0.956701
0.891892
19.00000
18.00000
138.00000
20.00000
30.00000
97.00000
37.00000
Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Trt
0.10000 ND
0.10000 ND
1 .3.0000
0.20000
0.50000
4.20000
4.00000
Treatment Technology Contaminant Name
COMPOSTING
COMPOSTING
COMPOSTING
COMPOSTING
COMPOSTING
COMPOSTING
COMPOSTING
1-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
NAPHTHALENE
PHENANTHRENE
ACENAPHTHENE
FLUORENE
ANTHRACENE
FLUORANTHENE
Sea Test
Media le Document Number Num
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
980-TS1-RT-EUQX-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQX-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQX-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQX-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQX-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQX-1
980-TS1-RT-EUQX-1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SOIL = 7 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 62
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W08
Technology Group:
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION
nk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Removal
Efficiency
0.998760
0.998710
0.998570
0.997390
0.997250
0.995320
0.992979
0.992979
0.992979
0.984286
0.976571
0.973143
0.972000
0.971429
0.968628
0.952381
0.939869
0.934286
0.874684
0.848101
0.838120
0.821210
0.779950
0.765013
0.725000
0.659574
0.654321
0.609524
0.594937
0.592590
0.587500
0.587500
0.582280
0.560000
0.532164
0.486487
0.469231
0.469231
0.459459
0.407407
0.333333
Untreated Qul
Concen (PPM) Unt
7271.00000
7271.00000
7271.00000
7271.00000
7271.00000
7271.00000
47.00000
47.00000
47.00000
21.00000
350.00000
350.00000
350.00000
350.00000
765.00000
21.00000
765.00000
350.00000
790.00000
790.00000
7271.00000
7271.00000
7271.00000
766.00000
1.20000
47.00000
40.50000
21.00000
790.00000
0.81000
0.80000
0.80000
0.79000
0.75000
85.50000
37.00000
13.00000
13.00000
37.00000
40.50000
21.00000
Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Trt
9.00000
9.40000 ND
10.40000
19.00000 ND
20.00000 ND
34.00000
0.33000 ND
0.33000 ND
0.33000 ND
0.33000 ND
8.20000 ND
9.40000 ND
9.80000 ND
10.00000 ND
24.00000
1.00000
46.00000
23.00000
99.00000
120.00000
1177.00000
1300.00000
1600.00000
180.00000
0.33000 ND
16.00000
14.00000
8.20000
320.00000
0.33000 ND
0.33000 ND
0.33000 ND
0.33000 ND
0.33000 ND
40.00000
19.00000
6.90000
6.90000
20.00000
24.00000
14.00000
Treatment Technolog
««««««— ««*—™— ——— ———;
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOU TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
Contaminant Name
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
ACENAPHTHENE
ACENAPHTHENE
ACENAPHTHENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
NAPHTHALENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
NAPHTHALENE
ANTHRACENE
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
NAPHTHALENE
ANTHRACENE
ACENAPHTHENE
PYRENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
ANTHRACENE
FLUORANTHENE
NAPHTHALENE
ANTHRACENE
NAPHTHALENE
FLUORENE
DIBENZOFURAN
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE
DIBENZOFURAN
PYRENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
Sc
Media le
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SOIL B
SLUD P
SLUD P
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SLUD P
SOIL F
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SOIL f
SOIL F
SOIL F
SOIL F
SOIL F
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD P
Document Number
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-1
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-1
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-1
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-1
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-1
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-1
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-1
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-1
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-1
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-1
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-1
Test
Nun
10
1
9
2
3
8
2
3
4
2
14
15
13
16
4
3
3
17
4
3
6
4
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
4
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Treatability Group: U08
Technology Group:
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION
Page: 63
Date: 01/30/1990
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Contaminant Name
0.320261
0.297297
0.274854
0.251462
0.189189
0.164557
0.150000
0.111111
0.100000
0.029412
0.022222
765.00000
37.00000
85.50000
85.50000
37.00000
790.00000
20.00000
225.00000
20.00000
0.34000
225.00000
520.00000
26.00000
62.00000
64.00000
30.00000
660.00000
17.00000
200.00000
18.00000
0.33000 ND
220.00000
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
NAPHTHALENE
DIBENZOFURAN
FLUORENE
FLUORENE
DIBENZOFURAN
:s=:
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
ANTHRACENE
PHENANTHRENE
ANTHRACENE
FLUORANTHENE
PHENANTHRENE
Media
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SOIL
SLUD
Sea
le
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
F
P
Document Number
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-'
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-'
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
Test
Num
2
2
3
2
4
2
1
2
2
I 1
1 3
SOIL = 21 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 31 data points
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 64
Date: 01/30/1990
Ttestability Group: W08
Technology Group:
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION AND SOIL WASHING
nk
,__
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
2
Removal
Efficiency
============
0.999380
0.998790
0.998720
0.995326
0.992818
0.990935
0.990608
0.985420
0.981340
0.980556
0.978910
0.975213
0.949153
0.903566
0.866071
0.645892
0.635420
0.533670
0.504249
0.412420
0.410765
0.036460
SOIL =
0.952632
0.941379
Untreated Qu
Concen (PPM) Um
____________ __.
5361.00000
5361.00000
1920.00000
353.00000
181.00000
353.00000
181.00000
1920.00000
1779.40000
36.00000
1920.00000
353.00000
295.00000
947.80000
728.00000
353.00000
1920.00000
5361.00000
353.00000
5361.00000
353.00000
1920.00000
20 data points
190.00000 J
290.00000 J
Treated
mcen (PPM)
3.30000
6.50000
2.45000
1.65000
1.30000
3.20000
1.70000
28.00000
33.20000
0.70000
40.50000
8.75000
15.00000
91.40000
97.50000
125.00000
700.00000
2500.00000
175.00000
3150.00000
208.00000
1850.00000
Qul
Sea Test
Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 2 data
9.00000
17.00000
J CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
J CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
TOTAL POLYCYCLIC
HYDROCARBONS
TOTAL POLYCYCLIC
HYDROCARBONS
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
TOTAL POLYCYCLIC
HYDROCARBONS
TOTAL POLYCYCLIC
HYDROCARBONS
TOTAL POLYCYCLIC
HYDROCARBONS
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRACENE
points
TOTAL POLYCYCLIC
HYDROCARBONS
TOTAL POLYCYCLIC
Name Media le
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
AROMATIC SOIL F
AROMATIC SLUD F
SOIL B
SOIL B
AROMATIC SLUD F
AROMATIC SOIL F
AROMATIC SOIL F
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
AROMATIC SOIL F
AROMATIC SOIL F
Document Number
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
980-TS1-RT-EVAR-1
980-TS1-RT-EUTT-2
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUTT-3
980-TS1-RT-EVAR-1
980-TS1-RT-EVAR-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
980-TS1-RT-FCQC-3
980-TS1-RT-FCQC-3
Num
7
1
55
25
31
13
37
43
2
1
49
19
1
3
1
26
50
8
14
2
20
56
2
1
HYDROCARBONS
SOIL = 2 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 65
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W09
Technology Group:
OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Removal
Ink Efficiency
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
2
3
0.999982
0.999864
0.999850
0.999761
0.999750
0.999730
0.999612
0.999188
0.997200
0.996590
0.930130
0.857143
SOIL -
0.999930
0.999867
0.999836
0.999767
0.999721
0.999664
0.999632
0.999429
0.997370
0.997074
0.996724
SOIL =
0.999744
0.999744
0.999217
Untreated Qu
Concen (PPM) Un
170.00000 E1
22.00000
20.00000
280.00000 El
12.00000
74.00000
85.00000
16.00000
5.00000
0.88000
0.73000
1.40000
12 data points
6000.00000
3300.00000
3300.00000
2700.00000
680.00000
2200.00000
570.00000
2800.00000
270.00000
270.00000
290.00000
11 data points
39.00000
39.00000
120.00000
Contaminant Name
0.00300 ND
0.00300 ND
0.00300 ND
0.06700
0.00300 ND
0.02000
0.03300
0.01300 ND
0.01400 ND
0.00300 ND
0.05100
0.20000
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
SLUDGE (SLUD)
0.42000
0.44000
0.54000
0.63000
0.19000
0.74000
0.21000
1.60000
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
0.71000
0.79000
0.95000
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ISOPHORONE
ISOPHORONE
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL>
PHTHALATE
PHENOL
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
BISC2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
BUTYLBENZYL PHTHALATE
BUTYLBENZYL PHTHALATE
PHENOL
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
0 data points
ACETONE
ACETONE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
ACETONE
ACETONE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
ACETONE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL>
PHTHALATE
ACETONE
BISC2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
0.01000 ND INFRARED
0.01000 ND INFRARED
0.09400 INFRARED
ACETONE
ACETONE
ACETONE
SCJ
Media le
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
I
Document Number
980-TS1-RT-EZYN-1
980-TS1-RT-EZYN-1
980-TS1-RT-EZYN-1
980-TS1-RT-EZYN-1
980-TS1-RT-EZYN-
980-TS1-RT-EZYN-
980-TS1-RT-EZYN-
980-TS1-RT-EZYN-
980-TS1-RT-EZYN-
980-TS1-RT-EZYN-
980-TS1-RT-EZYN-
980-TS1-RT-EZYN-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-1
Test
Hum
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
4
3
5
1
5
6
4
7
8
2
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 66
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W09
Technology Group:
OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Removal Untreated Qul
nk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.999123
0.999123
0.998000
0.998000
0.992583
0.990380
0.903800
5.70000
5.70000
2.50000
2.50000
120.00000
0.52000
0.05200
Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Trt
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.89000
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
Treatment Technology Contaminant Name
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON DISULFIDE
ACETONE
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON DISULFIDE
Sea
Media le
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
Test
Document Number Num
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-
980-TS1-RT-EZZB-
1
2
3
4
1
6
5
SOIL = 10 data points
1 0.705882 3.40000
SOIL = 1 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
1.00000 ND PYROLYSIS
SLUDGE (SLUD) =
PHENOL
0 data points
SOIL P 980-TS1-RT-EURE-1 1
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 67
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W09
Technology Group:
OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
DECHLORINATION
Removal
:nk Efficiency
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0.999560
0.998900
0.990390
0.990200
0.975540
0.975250
0.970720
0.968550
0.964200
0.955900
0.946630
0.937220
0.930660
0.928730
0.918270
0.908060
Untreated Qul
Concen (PPM) Unt
7885.00000
3059.00000
7885.00000
496.00000
539.68000
936.56000
936.56000
496.00000
212.00000
40.20000
62.24000
539.68000
212.00000
62.24000
3059.00000
40.20000
Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant
3.46000
3.35000
75.80000
4.86000
13.20000
23.18000
27.42000
15.60000
7.59000
1.77300
3.32200
33.88000
14.70000
4.43600
250.00000
3.69600
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
ACETONE
ACETONE
ACETONE
ACETONE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL>
PHTHALATE
ACETONE
ACETONE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PhTHALATE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
ACETONE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
ACETONE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
Sea Test
Media le Document Number Num
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1
1
4
5
3
5
8
4
7
2
2
7
1
6
3
8
6
SOIL = 16 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD)
0 data points
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated SoiI TCA - Treated SoiI TCA
Treatability Group: W09
Technology Group:
OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
BIOREMEDIATION
Page: 68
Date: 01/30/1990
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name
6.50000 BIOREMEDIATION PHENOL
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
Sea Test
Media le Document Number Num
1 -0.992529 870.00000
SOIL = 1 data points
SOIL P 980-TS1-RT-EURK-1 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
0.999760
0.999667
0.999640
0.999549
0.999429
0.999351
0.999143
0.999135
0.999049
0.999020
0.998893
0.998689
0.998489
0.998179
0.997793
0.997793
0.997570
0.997044
0.996351
0.996216
0.995000
50.00000
42.00000
50.00000
24.40000
42.00000
23.12500
42.00000
23.12500
23.12500
50.00000
24.40000
24.40000
15.22500
18.12500
18.12500
18.12500
15.22500
15.22500
7.40000
7.40000
7.40000
0.01200 ND
0.01400 ND
0.01800 ND
0.01100 ND
0.02400
0.01500
0.03600
0.02000
0.02200
0.04900
0.02700
0.03200
0.02300
0.03300
0.04000
0.04000
0.03700
0.04500
0.02700
0.02800
0.03700
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
AEROBIC
ACETONE
2-BUTANONE
ACETONE
2-BUTANONE
2-BUTANONE
ACETONE
2-BUTANONE
ACETONE
ACETONE
ACETONE
2-BUTANONE
2-BUTANONE
ACETONE
2-BUTANONE
2-BUTANONE
2-BUTANONE
ACETONE
ACETONE
ACETONE
ACETONE
ACETONE
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
980-TS1-RT-EZZA-1
2
2
2
4
2
4
2
4
4
2
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
SOIL = 21 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 69
Date: 01/30/1990
TTestability Group: U09
Technology Group:
OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION
Removal
Untreated Qul Treated
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PQ
30
0.999850
0.999600
0.999540
0.998750
0.998750
0.996280
0.995650
0.992480
0.992090
0.992090
0.989150
0.988910
0.986610
0.982220
0.981250
0.981143
0.963050
0.945333
0.937333
0.934667
0.933333
0.844186
0.767442
0 767442
0 744186
0 720930
0.640000
0 582280
0 554050
0.445980
4330.00000
2527.00000
4330.00000
4330.00000
4330.00000
2527.00000
2527.00000
2527.00000
2527.00000
2527.00000
4330.00000
4330.00000
4330.00000
4330.00000
17.60000
17.50000
4330.00000
150.00000
150.00000
150.00000
150.00000
430.00000
430.00000
430.00000
430.00000
430.00000
150.00000
0.79000
0.74000
2527.00000
0.67000
1.00000
2.00000
5.40000
5.40000
9.40000
11.00000
19.00000
20.00000
20.00000
47.00000
48.00000
58.00000
77.00000
0.33000
0.33000
160.00000
8.20000
9.40000
9.80000
10.00000
67.00000
100.00000
100.00000
110.00000
120.00000
54.00000
0.33000
0.33000
1400.00000
Qul
Trt
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Treatment Technology
LOW TEMP
LOU TEMP
LOU TEMP
LOU TEMP
LOU TEMP
LOU TEMP
LOU TEMP
LOU TEMP
LOU TEMP
LOU TEMP
LOU TEMP
LOU TEMP
LOU TEMP
LOU TEMP
LOU TEMP
LOU TEMP
LOU TEMP
LOU TEMP
LOU TEMP
LOU TEMP
LOU TEMP
LOU TEMP
LOU TEMP
LOW TEMP
LOW TEMP
LOW TEMP
LOW TEMP
LOW TEMP
LOW TEMP
LOW TEMP
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
Contaminant Name
ACETONE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
ACETONE
ACETONE
ACETONE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
ACETONE
ACETONE
ACETONE
ACETONE
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
ACETONE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
ACETONE
ACETONE
ACETONE
ACETONE
ACETONE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
ISOPHORONE
ISOPHORONE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL>
Media
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SLUD
SLUD
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
Sr.a
le
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
F
F
B
Document Number
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-1
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
Test
Num
10
10
9
3
8
1
9
2
3
8
4
1
6
5
1
2
2
14
15
13
16
13
15
17
16
14
17
1
1
5
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Treatability Group: W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Technology Group: LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION
Page: 70
Date: 01/30/1990
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name
31
32
33
34
0.378710
0.366840
0.266660
0.250000
2527.00000
2527.00000
0.45000
0.44000
1570.00000
1600.00000
0.33000
0.33000
PHTHALATE
LOU TEMP DESORPTION BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
LOU TEMP DESORPTION BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
0.33000 ND LOU TEMP DESORPTION ISOPHORONE
0.33000 ND LOU TEMP DESORPTION BUTYLBENZYL PHTHALATE
Sea Test
Media le Document Number Nun
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL f
SOIL F
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-1
6
4
1
1
SOIL = 32 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 2 data points
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 71
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W09
Technology Croup:
OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION AND SOIL WASHING
Rnk 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Removal
Efficiency
0.999550
0.999280
0.999280
0.999129
0.998880
0.998708
0.998582
0.998357
0.998190
0.998160
0.998142
0.998130
0.998060
0.997960
0.997933
0.997893
0.997680
0.997420
0.997332
0.996770
0.995251
0.994830
0.994530
0.992598
0.991022
0.985062
0.980702
0.978050
0.969737
0.959752
0.952760
0.946594
Untreated Qul
Concen (PPM) Un1
4353.00000
8030.00000
8030.00000
356.00000
1958.00000
356.00000
356.00000
356.00000
8030.00000
4353.00000
646.00000
8030.00000
8030.00000
1958.00000
358.00000
356.00000
4353.00000
8030.00000
358.00000
356.00000
358.00000
4353.00000
585.00000
358.00000
646.00000
646.00000
114.00000
48300.00000
114.00000
646.00000
1958.00000
646.00000
. Treated C
t Concen (PPM) 1
1 .95000
5.80000
5.80000
0.31000
2.20000
0.46000
0.50500
0.58500
14.50000
8.00000
1.20000
15.00000
15.55000
4.00000
0.74000
0.75000
10.10000
20.75000
0.95500
1.15000
1.70000
22.50000
3.20000
2.65000
5.80000
9.65000
2.20000
1060.00000
3.45000
26.00000
92.50000
34.50000
lul
Frt Treatment Tei
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
Contaminant
ACETONE
ACETONE
ACETONE
ACETONE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
ACETONE
ACETONE
ACETONE
ACETONE
ACETONE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
ACETONE
ACETONE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
ACETONE
ACETONE
ACETONE
ACETONE
ACETONE
ACETONE
ACETONE
ACETONE
PHENOL
ACETONE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
PHENOL
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
Sea
Name Media le
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL F
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
Document Number
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
980-TS1-RT-EVAR-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
Test
Nun
2
43
44
14
7
25
13
19
55
8
55
56
49
1
1 31
1 26
1 1
1 50
1 37
20
32
7
2
38
43
1 49
1 31
1 7
1 37
1 56
1 2
1 44
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: 72
Date: 01/30/1990
TTestability Group: W09
Technology Group:
OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION AND SOIL WASHING
Removal Untreated Qul
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
0.946370 1958.00000
0.939130 115.00000
0.935088 114.00000
0.927950 48300.00000
0.927950 48300.00000
0.910970 48300.00000
0.910970 48300.00000
0.910970 48300.00000
0.890867 646.00000
0.883930 452300.00000
0.878050 48300.00000
0.863636 165.00000
0.822910 452300.00000
0.795930 452300.00000
0.795930 452300.00000
0.778020 452300.00000
0.769231 117.00000
0.760684 117.00000
0.730769 117.00000
0.720980 452300.00000
0.715900 452300.00000
0.676980 452300.00000
0.653846 117.00000
0.619658 117.00000
0.602564 117.00000
0.444737 114.00000
Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name
105.00000
7.00000
7.40000
3480.00000
3480.00000
4300.00000
4300.00000
4300.00000
70.50000
52500.00000
5890.00000
22.50000
80100.00000
92300.00000
92300.00000
100400.00000
27.00000
28.00000
31.50000
126200.00000
128500.00000
146100.00000
40.50000
44.50000
46.50000
63.30000
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
PHTHALATE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
PHENOL
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
PHENOL
PHENOL
PHENOL
PHENOL
PHENOL
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
PHENOL
PHENOL
PHENOL
PHENOL
PHENOL
PHENOL
PHENOL
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
PHENOL
PHENOL
PHENOL
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
Sea
Media le Document Number
SOIL B
SOIL F
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL F
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
980-TS1-RT-EVAR-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-1
980-TS1-RT-EVAR-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
Test
Num
8
1
32
1
6
2
3
5
50
12
4
3
11
10
13
16
13
25
26
9
14
15
19
20
14
38
SOIL
58 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
-------
(INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE)
176
-------
APPENDIX E
EXTRACTION PROTOCOL
WASTE TREATMENT RESULTS FOR INORGANICS
This appendix tabulates the data used to develop the conclusions in the report for chemical extraction
and soil washing and immobilization of inorganics. The untreated and treated extraction protocol
concentrations in the wastes are reported, as well as the corresponding reductions in mobility. The
data are sorted by treatability group, technology group, and contaminant. Not all treatability groups
have data for all technology groups.
177
-------
APPENDIX E
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Reduction in Mobility
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil Extract - Treated Soil Extract
Page: 1
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W10
Technology Group:
NON-VOLATILE METALS
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION AND SOIL WASHING
Mobility Untreated
tnk Reduction Concen (PPM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
0.989931
0.987867
0.985750
0.983643
0.982776
0.981176
0.963060
0.960448
0.955050
0.954105
0.946286
0.943820
0.938211
0.934420
0.928000
0.924571
0.920818
0.910857
0.905970
0.901640
0.900000
0.887640
0.887640
0.851850
0.851850
0.833300
0.833300
0.833300
0.833300
0.777780
0.725000
0.704920
0.700000
0.625000
159.90000
159.90000
80.70000
80.70000
80.70000
159.90000
26.80000
26.80000
0.89000
26.80000
17.50000
0.89000
159.90000
0.61000
17.50000
17.50000
80.70000
17.50000
26.80000
0.61000
0.40000
0.89000
0.89000
0.27000
0.27000
0.06000
0.06000
0.06000
0.06000
0.27000
0.40000
0.61000
0.40000
0.40000
Qul
sated
en (PPM)
.61000
.94000
.15000
.32000
.39000
3.01000
0.99000
1.06000
0.04000
1.23000
0.94000
0.05000
9.88000
0.04000
1.26000
1 .32000
6.39000
1.56000
2.52000
0.06000
0.04000
0.10000
0.10000
0.04000
0.04000
0.01000
0.01000
0.01000
0.01000
0.06000
0.11000
0.18000
0.12000
0.15000
Qul
Trt Treatment Technology
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
Contaminant Name
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
NICKEL
NICKEL
COPPER
NICKEL
NICKEL
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
NICKEL
NICKEL
COPPER
NICKEL
NICKEL
COPPER
NICKEL
COPPER
COPPER
NICKEL
NICKEL
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
NICKEL
NICKEL
COPPER
NICKEL
NICKEL
Sea
Media le
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B '
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
Test
Document Number Num
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW- 52
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
58
40
34
41
46
52
58
16
46
41
28
53
4
34
40
35
35
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1 53
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1 10
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1 22
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1 22
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1 23
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1 4
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1 10
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1 46
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1 52
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW- 53
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW- 58
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW- 11,
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW- 23
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW- 11
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW- 28
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW- 16
SOIL = 34 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD)
0 data points
-------
APPENDIX E
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Reduction in Mobility
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil Extract - Treated Soil Extract
Page: 2
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: U10
Technology Group:
NON-VOLATILE METALS
IMMOBILIZATION
(O
Mobility Untreated Qul Treated Qul Sea Test
ik Reduction Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name Media le Document Number Num
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1
2
0.440000
0.250000
0.200000
0.070000
SOIL = 4
0.901640
0.859340
0.851850
0.300000
SOIL = 4
0.999885
0.999885
0.999868
0.999091
0.998636
0.998507
0.998026
0.989556
0.980000
0.980000
0.966290
0.900000
0.900000
0.898870
SOIL = 6
0.997143
0.967906
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
data points
0.61000
0.22750
0.27000
0.05000
data points
87.00000
87.00000
76.00000
22.00000
22.00000
26.80000
76.00000
159.90000
3.50000
3.50000
0.89000
0.40000
0.40000
0.89000
data points
17.50000
80.70000
0.56000 STABILIZATION CHROMIUM
0.75000 STABILIZATION CHROMIUM
0.80000 STABILIZATION CHROMIUM
0.93000 STABILIZATION CHROMIUM
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
0.06000 CEMENT SOLIDIFICATIO COPPER
0.03200 CEMENT SOLIDIFICATIO COPPER
0.04000 CEMENT SOLIDIFICATIO NICKEL
0.03500 CEMENT SOLIDIFICATIO CHROMIUM
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
0.01000 ND FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO NICKEL
0.01000 ND FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO NICKEL
0.01000 ND FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO NICKEL
0.02000 FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO CHROMIUM
0.03000 FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO CHROMIUM
0.04000 FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO NICKEL
0.15000 FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO NICKEL
1.67000 FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO COPPER
0.07000 FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO CHROMIUM
0.07000 FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO CHROMIUM
0.03000 FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO COPPER
0.04000 FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO NICKEL
0.04000 FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO NICKEL
0.09000 FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO COPPER
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 8 data points
0.05000 CARBONATE IMMOBILIZA NICKEL
2.59000 CARBONATE IMMOBILIZA COPPER
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SOIL B
SLUD P
SOIL B
SLUD P
SLUD P
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
• H ~^~~iijl~mi~^u±-^*UM^mii^vm^vit
980-TS1-RT-FCAK-1
980-TS1-RT-FCAK-1
980-TS1-RT-FCAK-1
980-TS1-RT-FCAK-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
980-TS1-RT-EUXT-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
980-TS1-RT-EUXT-1
980-TS1-RT-FAAP-1
980-TS1-RT-FAAP-1
980-TS1-RT-FAAP-1
980-TS1-RT-FAAP-1
980-TS1-RT-FAAP-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
980-TS1-RT-FAAP-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
980-TS1-RT-FAAP-1
980-TS1-RT-FAAP-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
linn? mil
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
5
4
5
4
3
3
SOIL
2 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
-------
APPENDIX E
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Reduction in Mobility
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil Extract - Treated Soil Extract
Treatability Group: W11
Technology Group:
VOLATILE METALS
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION AND SOIL WASHING
Page: 3
Date: 01/30/1990
oo
o
Mobility Untreated Qul
Rnk Reduction Concen (PPM) Unt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
0.995028
0.994318
0.992898
0.992466
0.971233
0.967808
0.958900
0.954108
0.948630
0.935045
0.934801
0.931500
0.931500
0.925244
0.921712
0.921608
0.915581
0.914280
0.913928
0.907608
0.904348
0.904110
0.902174
0.901879
0.899843
0.898747
0.896439
0.892650
0.889124
0.871130
0.865415
0.862040
0.860530
0.852441
0.850453
0.843060
0.800626
0.800202
0.785710
0 785710
0.785710
70.40000
70.40000
70.40000
14.60000
14.60000
14.60000
0.73000
35.30000
14.60000
33.10000
70.40000
0.73000
0.73000
358.50000
9.58000
19.90000
35.30000
0.70000
6.39000
9.20000
9.20000
0.73000
9.20000
9.58000
6.39000
9.58000
395.90000
395.90000
33.10000
358.50000
6.39000
35.30000
358.50000
358.50000
33.10000
35.30000
9.58000
395.90000
0.70000
0.70000
0.70000
Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant
0.35000
0.40000
0.50000
0.11000
0.42000
0.47000
0.03000
1 .62000
0.75000
2.15000
4.59000
0.05000
0.05000
26.80000
0.75000
1.56000
2.98000
0.06000
0.55000
0.85000
0.88000
0.07000
0.90000
0.94000
0.64000
0.97000
41.00000
42.50000
3.67000
46.20000
0.86000
4.87000
50.00000
52.90000
4.95000
5.54000
1.91000
79.10000
0.15000
0.15000
0.15000
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
ZINC
CADMIUM
LEAD
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
ZINC
ARSENIC
LEAD
CADMIUM
LEAD
ARSENIC
ZINC
ZINC
CADMIUM
ZINC
ARSENIC
ARSENIC
ARSENIC
ZINC
ZINC
CADMIUM
ZINC
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
ZINC
ZINC
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
ARSENIC
ZINC
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
Sea
Name Media le
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
Test
Document Number Num
m ™™™3SEE3tS"Sp""«""2pElp33-" —
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
46
52
58
28
22
16
28
52
23
41
53
22
23
41
52
41
46
16
41
10
4
16
11
46
40
58
52
58
40
40
34
58
34
35
34
53
53
46
22
23
28
-------
APPENDIX E
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Reduction in Mobility
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil Extract - Treated Soil Extract
Page: 4
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: U11
Technology Group:
VOLATILE METALS
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION AND SOIL WASHING
Mobility Untreated
nk Reduction Concen (PPM)
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
0.773580
0.764653
0.735176
0.726134
0.716980
0.693880
0.693880
0.693880
0.675377
0.666660
0.654206
0.509430
0.413568
0.53000
33.10000
19.90000
6.39000
0.53000
0.49000
0.49000
0.49000
19.90000
0.15000
395.90000
0.53000
19.90000
Qul Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
Contaminant Name
0.12000
7.79000
5.27000
1.75000
0.15000
0.15000
0.15000
0.15000
6.46000
0.05000
136.90000
0.26000
11.67000
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
LEAD
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
ARSENIC
ZINC
CADMIUM
LEAD
Sea
Media le
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
Document Number
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQU-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
Test
Num
10
35
40
35
4
4
10
11
34
10
53
11
35
SOIL
54 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD)
0 data points
00
-------
APPENDIX E
00
ro
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Reduction in Mobility
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil Extract - Treated Soil Extract
Page: 5
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W11 VOLATILE METALS
Technology Group:
Rnk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mobility
Reduction
0.999823
0.999774
0.999516
0.999387
0.998990
0.998990
0.998773
0.998569
0.995092
0.990184
0.948979
0.948979
0.795918
0.632653
SOIL =
0.999689
0.998721
0.981130
0.976500
0.946739
0.693880
SOIL =
0.999717
0.998630
0.990477
0.986300
0.986300
0.971816
0.946575
0.785710
0.696023
0.471430
: IMMOBILIZATION
Untreated Qul
Concen (PPM) Unt
6200.00000
6200.00000
6200.00000
16.30000
59.40000
59.40000
16.30000
59.40000
16.30000
16.30000
9.80000
9.80000
9.80000
9.80000
14 data points
123.70000
12.11500
0.53000
0.01700
9.20000
0.49000
6 data points
35.30000
14.60000
395.90000
0.73000
0.73000
9.58000
14.60000
0.70000
70.40000
0.70000
Treated
Concen (PPM)
1.10000
1 .40000
3.00000
0.01000
0.06000
0.06000
0.02000
0.08500
0.08000
0.16000
0.50000
0.50000
2.00000
3.60000
Qul
Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name
STABILIZATION LEAD
STABILIZATION LEAD
STABILIZATION LEAD
STABILIZATION LEAD
ND STABILIZATION LEAD
ND STABILIZATION LEAD
STABILIZATION LEAD
STABILIZATION LEAD
STABILIZATION LEAD
STABILIZATION LEAD
STABILIZATION LEAD
STABILIZATION LEAD
STABILIZATION LEAD
STABILIZATION LEAD
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
0.03850
0.01550
0.01000
0.00040
0.49000
0.15000
CEMENT SOLIDIFICATIO ZINC
CEMENT SOLIDIFICATIO LEAD
CEMENT SOLIDIFICATIO CADMIUM
CEMENT SOLIDIFICATIO CADMIUM
CEMENT SOLIDIFICATIO ZINC
CEMENT SOLIDIFICATIO LEAD
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
0.01000
0.02000
3.77000
0.01000
0.01000
0.27000
0.78000
0.15000
21.40000
0.37000
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO CADMIUM
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO ZINC
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO ZINC
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO CADMIUM
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO CADMIUM
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO ARSENIC
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO ZINC
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO LEAD
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO LEAD
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO LEAD
Sea
Media le
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
T
Document Number
980-TS1-RT-FCAK-2
980-TS1-RT-FCAK-2
980-TS1-RT-FCAK-2
980-TS1-RT-FCAK-3
980-TS1-RT-EURY-1
980-TS1-RT-EURY-1
980-TS1-RT-FCAK-3
980-TS1-RT-EURY-1
980-TS1-RT-FCAK-3
980-TS1-RT-FCAK-3
980-TS1-RT-FCAK-1
980-TS1-RT-FCAK-1
980-TS1-RT-FCAK-1
980-TS1-RT-FCAK-1
980-TS1-RT-EUXT-1
980-TS1-RT-EUXT-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
980-TS1-RT-EUXT-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
est
Num
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
SOIL = 10 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD)
0 data points
-------
APPENDIX
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Reduction in Mobility
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil Extract - Treated Soil Extract
Page: 6
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W11
Technology Group:
VOLATILE METALS
IMMOBILIZATION
Mobility Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Rnk Reduction Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
Contaminant Name
Sea
Media le
Test
Document Number Num
1
2
3
0.999396
0.988926
0.876369
33.10000
358.50000
6.39000
SOIL = 3 data points
0.02000
3.97000
0.79000
CARBONATE
CARBONATE
CARBONATE
IMMOBILIZA CADMIUM
IMMOBILIZA ZINC
IMMOBILIZA ARSENIC
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 3
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 3
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 3
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
00
CO
-------
(INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE)
184
-------
APPENDIX F
EXTRACTION PROTOCOL
WASTE TREATMENT RESULTS FOR ORGANICS
This appendix tabulates the data used to develop the conclusions in the report for immobilization of
organics. Data used to develop the conclusions on thermal destruction, dechlorination, bioremedia-
tion, low temperature thermal desorption, and chemical extraction and soil washing treatment tech-
nologies are presented in Appendix D. The untreated and treated extraction protocol concentrations
in the wastes are reported, as well as the corresponding reductions in mobility. The data are sorted
by treatability group, technology group, and contaminant. Not all treatability groups have data for all
technology groups.
185
-------
APPENDIX F
00
0>
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Reduction in Mobility
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil Extract - Treated Soil Extract
Treatability Group: U01
Technology Group:
HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC COMPOUNDS
IMMOBILIZATION
Page: 1
Date: 01/30/1990
Mobility Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Rnk Reduction Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name
1 0.746154 5.20000
SOIL - 1 data points
1.32000 CEMENT SOLIDIFICATIO CHLOROBENZENE
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
Sea Test
Media le Document Number Num
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 1
1
2
0.811940
0.800000
SOIL =
6.70000
0.05000
2 data points
1.26000
0.01000
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO CHLOROBENZENE
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO CHLOROBENZENE
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 2
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 5
1 0.947370 0.38000
SOIL = 1 data points
0.02000 CARBONATE IMMOBILIZA CHLOROBENZENE
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 3
-------
APPENDIX F
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Reduction in Mobility
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil Extract - Treated Soil Extract
Treatability Group: W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS
Technology Group: IMMOBILIZATION
Page: 2
Date: 01/30/1990
Mobility Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Rnk Reduction Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
Contaminant Name
Sea Test
Media le Document Number Num
1 0.503846 7.80000
SOIL = 1 data points
3.87000 CEMENT SOLIDIFICATIO PENTACHLOROPHENOL
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 1
1 0.955550
2 0.877780
0.90000
0.90000
SOIL = 2 data points
0.04000
0.11000
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO PENTACHLOROPHENOL
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO PENTACHLOROPHENOL
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 4
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 5
1 0.117650 0.34000
SOIL - 1 data points
0.30000 CARBONATE IHHOBILIZA PENTACHLOROPHENOL
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 3
00
-------
APPENDIX F
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Reduction in Mobility
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil Extract - Treated Soil Extract
Page: 3
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: U04
Technology Group:
HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
IMMOBILIZATION
Mobility Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Rnk Reduction Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name
5E55SSS
Sea
Media le
Document Number
Test
Hum
._ _
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
0.994211
0.781818
SOIL =
0.998462
0.800000
0.800000
0.800000
0.786666
SOIL =
0.980000
0.939390
76.00000
3.30000
2 data points
13.00000
0.05000
0.05000
0.05000
4.50000
5 data points
0.50000
0.33000
0.44000
0.72000
CEMENT SOLIDIFICATIO 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
CEMENT SOLIDIFICATIO TETRACHLOROETHENE
SLUDGE (SLUD)
0 data points
0.02000 FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
0.01000 FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
0.01000 FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
0.01000 FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO TETRACHLOROETHENE
0.96000 FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO TETRACHLOROETHENE
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
0.01000
0.02000
CARBONATE IMMOBILIZA 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
CARBONATE IMMOBILIZA TETRACHLOROETHENE
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 1
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 1
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 2
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 4
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 5
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 5
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 2
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 3
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 3
SOIL =
2 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD)
0 data points
-------
APPENDIX F
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Reduction in Mobility
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil Extract - Treated Soil Extract
Page: 4
Date: 01/30/1990
TTestability Group: W07
Technology Group:
HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
IMMOBILIZATION
00
CD
Rnk
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
Mobility
Reduction
0.777419
0.691111
0.618519
SOIL =
0.759000
0.750000
0.712766
0.700000
0.627273
0.333330
SOIL =
0.963636
0.943478
0.880000
Untreated Qul
Concen (PPM) Uni
62.00000
9.00000
27.00000
3 data points
100.00000
0.12000
47.00000
0.30000
11.00000
0.30000
6 data points
11.00000
4.60000
0.50000
Contaminant Name
K===r=s==ns=:=:s:sss=======
13.80000
2.78000
10.30000
SLUDGE
24.10000
0.03000
13.50000
0.09000
4.10000
0.20000
SLUDGE
0.40000
0.26000
0.06000
CEMENT SO
CEMENT SO
CEMENT SO
(SLUD) =
FLYASH SO
FLYASH SO
FLYASH SO
FLYASH SO
FLYASH SO
FLYASH SO
(SLUD) =
CARBONATE
CARBONATE
CARBONATE
0 data points
SOLIDIFICATIO XYLENES (TOTAL)
SOLIDIFICATIO ETHYLBENZENE
SOLIDIFICATIO ETHYLBENZENE
SOLIDIFICATIO XYLENES (TOTAL)
SOLIDIFICATIO STYRENE
SOLIDIFICATIO XYLENES (TOTAL)
0 data points
IMMOBILIZA XYLENES (TOTAL)
IMMOBILIZA ETHYLBENZENE
IMMOBILIZA STYRENE
Sc
Media le
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
a 1
Document Number
= ==sr=s=s===rs===s=
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMT-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
est
Num
1
1
1
2
4
2
4
2
5
3
3
3
SOIL = 3 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD)
0 data points
-------
APPENDIX F
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Reduction in Mobility
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil Extract - Treated Soil Extract
Page: 5
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W08
Technology Group:
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
IMMOBILIZATION
Mobility Untreated Qul Treated Out
Rnk Reduction Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Na
Sea Test
Media le Document Number Num
0.988461 2.60000
SOIL = 1 data points
0.991176 3.40000
SOIL = 1 data points
0.03000 CEMENT SOLIDIFICATIO ANTHRACENE
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
0.03000 FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO ANTHRACENE
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 1
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 2
CD
O
-------
APPENDIX F
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS Page: 6
Ranked by Reduction in Mobility Date: 01/30/1990
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil Extract - Treated Soil Extract
TTestability Group: U09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Technology Group: IMMOBILIZATION
Mobility Untreated Qul Treated Qul Sea Test
Rnk Reduction Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name Media le Document Number Nun
Baa as=sasaasa== saasaasaaasa aa'a asssaaaaaasa a== sassssaasaaaaassaaaaa aaaasasssaaaaassaaaaasasas =aaa aaa aa=aa=a=xa=a=s=a=s aaa
1 0.556522 2.30000 1.02000 CEMENT SOLIDIFICATIO BIS(2-ETNYLHEXYL) SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHHF-1 1
PHTHALATE
SOIL - 1 data points SLUDGE (SLUG) = 0 data points
1 0.954540 0.22000 0.01000 FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 5
PHTHALATE
2 0.910000 3.00000 0.27000 FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 2
PHTHALATE
3 0.772730 0.22000 0.05000 FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO BIS(Z-ETHYLHEXYL) SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 4
PHTHALATE
4 0.729231 130.00000 35.20000 FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO ACETONE SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 2
SOIL = 4 data points SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
Jo 1 0.777800 0.09000 0.02000 CARBONATE IMMOBILIZA BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHHF-1 3
-»• PHTHALATE
2 0.676056 7.10000 2.30000 CARBONATE IMMOBILIZA ACETONE SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 3
SOIL = 2 data points SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
-------
(INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE)
192
-------
APPENDIX G
OTHER WASTE TREATMENT RESULTS
This appendix tabulates the data reported by both total constituent analyses and extraction protocols
which were not indicative of the "best" performance. These data passed the initial screens, but not
the secondary screens described in Appendix C. The data are sorted by treatability group, technology
group, and contaminant. Not all treatability groups have data for all technology groups.
193
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: A1
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W01
Treatment Technology:
HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC COMPOUNDS
IMMOBILIZATION
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
Contaminant Name
Sea Test
Media le Document Number Nun
0.712120 330.00000
SOIL = 1 data points
95.00000 CEMENT SOLIDIFICATIO CHLOROBENZENE
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 1
1
2
3
0.999350
0.992500
0.944440
9.20000
9.20000
270.00000
SOIL = 3 data points
0.00600 FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO CHLOROBENZENE
0.06900 FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO CHLOROBENZENE
15.00000 FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO CHLOROBENZENE
SLUDGE (SLUD)
0 data points
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 4
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 5
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 2
1 0.964050 8.90000
SOIL = 1 data points
0.32000 CARBONATE IMMOBILIZA CHLOROBENZENE
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS Page: A2
Ranked by Removal Efficiency Date: 01/30/1990
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Treatability Group: W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
Treatment Technology: IMMOBILIZATION
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul Sea Test
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name Media le Document Number Num
1 0.783330 6000.00000 1300.00000 STABILIZATION TOTAL PCB'S SOIL F 980-TS1-RT-EWFQ-1 2
SOIL = 1 data points SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
CO
01
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: A3
Date: 01/30/1990
TTestability Group: W03
Treatment Technology:
HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION AND SOIL WASHING
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
Contaminant Name
Sea
Media le
Document Number
Test
Num
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.992490
0.686790
0.496400
0.456160
0.371470
0.369070
SOIL =
333.00000
333.00000
333.00000
333.00000
333.00000
333.00000
6 data points
2.50000 J
104.30000 J
167.70000 J
181.10000 J
209.30000 J
210.10000 J
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
SOIL B 125-RI1-RT-CLMS-
SOIL B 125-RI1-RT-CLMS-
SOIL B 125-RI1-RT-CLMS-
SOIL B 125-RI1-RT-CLMS-
SOIL B 125-RI1-RT-CLMS-
SOIL B 125-RI1-RT-CLMS-
2
1
3
4
6
5
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
CO
O)
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: A4
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W03
Treatment Technology:
HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS
IMMOBILIZATION
ik I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Removal
Efficiency
___________ ,
0.999340
0.995190
0.994180
0.994180
0.975440
0.903800
0.870890
0.868350
0.865820
SOIL =
Untreated Qul
Concen (PPM) Unt
395.00000
395.00000
395.00000
395.00000
395.00000
395.00000
395.00000
395.00000
395.00000
9 data points
0.26000
1.90000
2.30000
2.30000
9.70000
38.00000
51.00000
52.00000
53.00000
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
Contaminant Name
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
Sea Test
Media le Document Number
SOIL 980-TS1-RT-EWFQ-1
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
980-TS1-RT-EWFQ-1
980-TS1-RT-EWFQ-1
980-TS1-RT-EWFQ-1
980-TS1-RT-EWFQ-1
980-TS1-RT-EUFQ-1
980-TS1-RT-EUFQ-1
980-TS1-RT-EWFQ-1
980-TS1-RT-EUFQ-1
Num
6
6
5
6
5
4
5
4
4
SLUDGE (SLUD)
0 data points
CD
-4
1 0.629630 135.00000
SOIL = 1 data points
1 0.209680
2 0.179490
62.00000
78.00000
50.00000 CEMENT SOLIDIFICATIO PENTACHLOROPHENOL
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
49.00000
64.00000
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO PENTACHLOROPHENOL
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO PENTACHLOROPHENOL
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
SOIL B
SOIL B
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
SOIL
2 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD)
0 data points
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Treatability Group: W04
Treatment Technology:
HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
IMMOBILIZATION
Page: AS
Date: 01/30/1990
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul Sea
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name Media le
Document Number
Test
Num
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
0.971050
0.860000
SOIL =
1.000000
0.997940
0.995640
0.990360
0.975930
0.971800
SOIL =
0.983080
0.935480
380.00000
600.00000
2 data points
16.00000
16.00000
3.90000
830.00000
540.00000
3.90000
6 data points
13.00000
3.10000
11.00000
84.00000
CEMENT SOLIDIFICATIO 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
CEMENT SOLIDIFICATIO TETRACHLOROETHENE
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
0.00500 ND FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO TETRACHLOROETHENE
0.03300 FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO TETRACHLOROETHENE
0.01700 FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
8.00000 FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
13.00000 FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO TETRACHLOROETHENE
0.11000 FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
0.22000
0.20000
CARBONATE IMMOBILIZA TETRACHLOROETHENE
CARBONATE IMMOBILIZA 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 1
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 1
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 4
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF- 5
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF- 4
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF- 2
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF- 2
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF- 5
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 3
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 3
SOIL
2 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: A6
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: U07
Treatment Technology:
HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
IMMOBILIZATION
>k
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
Removal
Efficiency
0.719400
0.690140
0.662650
SOIL =
0.999620
0.999590
0.999230
0.994620
0.991430
0.987160
0.932000
0.929730
0.916670
SOIL =
0.965000
0.950000
0.947330
Untreated Qu
Concen (PPM) Uni
3350.00000
710.00000
4150.00000
3 data points
210.00000
74.00000
26.00000
26.00000
210.00000
74.00000
2500.00000
3700.00000
540.00000
9 data points
100.00000
24.00000
150.00000
Contaminant Name
940.
220.
1400.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
170.
260.
45.
3.
1.
7.
00000
00000
00000
SLUDGE
08000
03000
02000
14000
80000
95000
00000
00000
00000
SLUDGE
50000
20000
90000
CEMENT
CEMENT
CEMENT
(SLUD) =
FLYASH
FLYASH
FLYASH
FLYASH
FLYASH
FLYASH
FLYASH
FLYASH
FLYASH
(SLUD) =
SOUDIFICATIO
SOLIDIFICATIO
SOLIDIFICATIO
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
XYLENES
(TOTAL)
0 data points
SOLIDIFICATIO
SOLIDIFICATIO
SOLIDIFICATIO
SOLIDIFICATIO
SOLIDIFICATIO
SOLIDIFICATIO
SOLIDIFICATIO
SOLIDIFICATIO
SOLIDIFICATIO
XYLENES
(TOTAL)
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
STYRENE
XYLENES
(TOTAL)
ETHYLBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
XYLENES
STYRENE
(TOTAL)
0 data points
CARBONATE IMMOBILIZA
CARBONATE IMMOBILIZA
CARBONATE IMMOBILIZA
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
XYLENES
(TOTAL)
Sea
Media le
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
1
Document Number
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
rest
Num
1
1
1
4
4
4
5
5
5
2
2
2
3
3
3
SOIL
3 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: A7
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W08
Treatment Technology:
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION
Removal Untreated Qul
ik Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.575000
0.509090
0.494740
0.468750
0.450000
0.258820
0.142860
0.031250
1.20000
1.10000
19.00000
32.00000
14.00000
0.85000
14.00000
32.00000
Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
SS-5EESSS3E™-— — I 3™™" ~ ^ ™ •"""-"•"• ^ ™ m™ "im ™ ™ — — — — i — —
0.51000
0.54000
9.60000
17.00000
7.70000
0.63000
12.00000
31.00000
• ^ mmm*mmm
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
•i«*^« — -
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
TEMP
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
Contaminant Name
PHENANTHRENE
PHENANTHRENE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
CHRYSENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
PHENANTHRENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
CHRYSENE
Media
SOIL
SOIL
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SOIL
SLUD
SLUD
Sea
le
F
F
P
P
P
F
P
P
Test
Document Number Num
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-
980-TS1-RT-EXPE-
1
1
1
1
1
1
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-1 2
980-TS1-RT-FCSP-1 2
SOIL =
3 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 5 data points
(V)
o
o
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Treatability Group: W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
Treatment Technology: IMMOBILIZATION
Page: A8
Date: 01/30/1990
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPN) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name
1 0.010640 940.00000
SOIL = 1 data points
930.00000 CEMENT SOLIDIFICATIO ANTHRACENE
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
Sea Test
Media le Document Number Num
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 1
1
2
0.720000
0.490910
SOIL =
275.00000
275.00000
2 data points
77.00000
140.00000
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO ANTHRACENE
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO ANTHRACENE
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
5
4
1 0.245280 -265.00000
SOIL = 1 data points
200.00000 CARBONATE IMMOBILIZA ANTHRACENE
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
ro
o
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS Page: A9
Ranked by Removal Efficiency Date: 01/30/1990
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Treatability Group: W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Treatment Technology: CHEMICAL EXTRACTION AND SOIL WASHING
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul Sea Test
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name Media le Document Number__ Num
1 0.910970 48300.00000 4300.00000 SOIL WASHING ' PHENOL SOIL B 980-TS1-RT-EUZE-1 8
SOIL = 1 data points SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
8
ro
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: A10
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: U09
Treatment Technology:
OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
IMMOBILIZATION
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Rrik Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name
Sea Test
Media le Document Number Num
1
1
2
3
4
5
0.822220
SOIL =
0.986150
0.981740
0.752170
0.647060
0.176470
SOIL =
3150.00000
1 data points
13000.00000
230.00000
230.00000
34.00000
34.00000
5 data points
560.
180.
4.
57.
12.
28.
00000
SLUDGE
00000
20000
00000
00000
00000
SLUDGE
CEMENT
(SLUD) =
FLYASH
FLYASH
FLYASH
FLYASH
FLYASH
(SLUD) =
SOLIDIFICATIO ACETONE ,
0 data points
SOLIDIFICATIO ACETONE
SOLIDIFICATIO ACETONE
SOLIDIFICATIO ACETONE
SOLIDIFICATIO BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
SOLIDIFICATIO BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
0 data points
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
B
B
B
B
B
B
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 2
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 4
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 5
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 5
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 4
ro
8
1 0.542860 140.00000
2 0.363640 220.00000
SOIL = 2 data points
64.00000
140.00000
SLUDGE (SLUD)
CARBONATE IMMOBILIZA BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
CARBONATE IMMOBILIZA ACETONE
0 data points
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 3
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 3
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
FOP Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Treatability Group: W10
Treatment Technology:
Page: A11
Date: 01/30/1990
NON-VOLATILE METALS
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
SOIL = 13 data points
ro .
O '
S 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
0.884615
0.740741
0.692308
0.675000
0.629630
0.600000
0.600000
0.592593
0.583333
0.576000
0.575758
0.571429
0.571429
0.556738
0.545082
0.505618
0.500000
0.390805
0.364706
0.256757
0.097561
1040.00000
27.00000
39.00000
28.00000
27.00000
30.00000
30.00000
27.00000
24.00000
250.00000
33.00000
28.00000
28.00000
282.00000
244.00000
267.00000
30.00000
261.00000
255.00000
740.00000
820.00000
Treated
icen
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS Page: A12
Ranked by Removal Efficiency Date: 01/30/1990
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Treatability Group: W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS
Treatment Technology: THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul Sea Test
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name Media le Document Number Nun
1 0.064516 6.20000 5.80000 PYROLYSIS COPPER SOIL P 980-TS1-RT-EURE-1
SOIL = 1 data points SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
ro
o
01
-------
APPENDIX G
I
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Treatability Group: U10
Treatment Technology:
NON-VOLATILE METALS
DECHLORINATION
Page: A13
Date: 01/30/1990
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
Contaminant Name
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0.529410
0.528570
0.423190
0.347550
0.329600
0.303030
0.300000
0.289770
0.280800
0.141560
0.122340
0.047390
68.00000
70.00000
11678.00000
1407.00000
2409.00000
33.00000
30.00000
1163.00000
349.00000
10928.00000
376.00000
2448.00000
32.00000
33.00000
6736.00000
918.00000
1615.00000
23.00000
21.00000
826.00000
251.00000
9381.00000
330.00000
2332.00000
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
NICKEL
NICKEL
COPPER
CHROMIUM
NICKEL
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
NICKEL
Sea
Media le
=S== ===
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
Document Number
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
Test
Num
zss ===
1
2
3
4
3
2
1
3
1 1
1 4
1 2
1 4
SOIL = 12 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: A14
Date: 01/30/1990
TTestability Group: W10
Treatment Technology:
NON-VOLATILE METALS
LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Out
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
Contaminant Name
SS ESSES* SSSSSS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0.169060
0.097120
0.080000
0.079UO
0.068350
0.053731
0.044440
0.016667
0.002985
278.00000
278.00000
30.00000
278.00000
278.00000
33.50000
225.00000
30.00000
33.50000
SOIL
9 data points
231 .00000
251 .00000
27.60000
256.00000
259.00000
31.70000
215.00000
29.50000
33.40000
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
LOW TEMP DESORPTION
COPPER
COPPER
NICKEL
COPPER
COPPER
CHROMIUM
COPPER
NICKEL
CHROMIUM
Sea
Media le
:«•••••• HHHH
••PMIKP-* •• •
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
Document Number
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
Test
Mum
15
14
17
17
16
17
1
15
15
SLUDGE (SLUD)
0 data points
8
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: A15
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W10
Treatment Technology:
NON-VOLATILE METALS
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION AND SOIL WASHING
ro
o
00
ink
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Remova I
Efficiency
0.997349
0.996852
0.995750
0.995510
0.995129
0.994140
0.993990
0.992470
0.992378
0.992330
0.990534
0.988550
0.988247
0.987508
0.986883
0.985910
0.981061
0.980545
0.979851
0.977321
0.971659
0.970930
0.968571
0.968390
0.968093
0.964981
0.954113
0.952197
0.948918
0.942857
0.939300
0.937500
0.915790
0.904888
0.903571
0.900000
0.894737
0.889474
0.878571
0.875000
0.875000
Untreated
Concen (PPM)
1207.00000
1207.00000
9082.00000
1314.00000
1314.00000
1314.00000
10503.00000
9082.00000
1207.00000
10503.00000
1479.00000
9082.00000
1489.00000
1489.00000
1479.00000
10503.00000
1489.00000
257.00000
1479.00000
1314.00000
1489.00000
9082.00000
28.00000
10503.00000
257.00000
257.00000
231.00000
1479.00000
231.00000
28.00000
257.00000
24.00000
38.00000
1207.00000
28.00000
32.00000
38.00000
38.00000
28.00000
24.00000
24.00000
Qul Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
Contaminant Name
3.20000
3.80000
38.60000
5.90000
6.40000
7.70000
63.10000
68.40000
9.20000
80.60000
14.00000
104.00000
17.50000
18.60000
19.40000
148.00000
28.20000
5.00000
29.80000
29.80000
42.20000
264.00000
0.88000
332.00000
8.20000
9.00000
10.60000
70.70000
11.80000
1 .60000
15.60000
1.50000
3.20000
114.80000
2.70000
3.20000
4.00000
4.20000
3.40000
3.00000
3.00000
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOU WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
COPPER
CHROMIUM
COPPER
NICKEL
COPPER
NICKEL
NICKEL
NICKEL
COPPER
NICKEL
COPPER
NICKEL
CHROMIUM
NICKEL
COPPER
CHROMIUM
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
NICKEL
COPPER
CHROMIUM
COPPER
CHROMIUM
NICKEL
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
NICKEL
NICKEL
NICKEL
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
Media
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
Sea
le
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Document Number
=ss==:«======~===:
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQU-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQU-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
Test
Num
:= ===
40
34
40
58
52
46
58
34
41
52
58
41
40
34
1 52
1 46
1 41
1 16
1 46
1 53
1 35
1 35
1 16
1 53
1 22
1 28
1 4
1 53
1 10
1 22
1 23
1 4
1 28
35
28
4
16
22
1 23
1 10
1 11
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: A16
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W10
Treatment Technology:
NON-VOLATILE METALS
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION AND SOIL WASHING
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name
Sea
Media le
Document Number
Test
Hum
42
43
44
45
0.850217
0.840625
0.815790
0.787500
SOIL
231.00000
32.00000
38.00000
32.00000
45 data points
34.60000
5.10000
7.00000
6.80000
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SLUDGE (SLUD)
COPPER
NICKEL
NICKEL
NICKEL
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1 11
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1 10
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1 23
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1 11
0 data points
1 0.916667 900.00000 J
SOIL = 1 data points
75.00000 J CHEMICAL EXTRACTION NICKEL
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
SOIL F 980-TS1-RT-FCQC-3
ro
8
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Treatability Group: W10
Treatment Technology:
Page: A17
Date: 01/30/1990
NON-VOLATILE METALS
IMMOBILIZATION
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
Contaminant Name
Sea Test
Media le Document Number Num
1 0.150260 193.00000
SOIL = 1 data points
164.00000 CEMENT SOLIDIFICATIO COPPER
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
SOIL B ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1 1
ro
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
0.687270
0.674640
0.634590
0.592310
0.486490
0.411540
0.375000
0.270270
SOIL =
0.851750
0.827980
0.765550
1650.00000
1380.00000
13300.00000
260.00000
37.00000
260.00000
32.00000
37.00000
8 data points
1140.00000
9650.00000
1190.00000
516.00000
449.00000
4860.00000
106.00000
19.00000
153.00000
20.00000
27.00000
SLUDGE
169.00000
1660.00000
279.00000
FLYASH SO
FLYASH SO
FLYASH SO
FLYASH SO
FLYASH SO
FLYASH SO
FLYASH SO
FLYASH SO
(SLUD) =
CARBONATE
CARBONATE
CARBONATE
SOLIDIFICATIO CHROMIUM
SOLIDIFICATIO NICKEL
SOLIDIFICATIO COPPER
SOLIDIFICATIO COPPER
SOLIDIFICATIO CHROMIUM
SOLIDIFICATIO COPPER
SOLIDIFICATIO NICKEL
SOLIDIFICATIO CHROMIUM
0 data points
IMMOBILIZA NICKEL
IMMOBILIZA COPPER
IMMOBILIZA CHROMIUM
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
2
2
2
5
5
4
5
4
1 3
1 3
1 3
SOIL = 3 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Treatability Group: W11
Treatment Technology:
Page: A18
Date: 01/30/1990
VOLATILE METALS
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
ro
Removal
nk Efficiency
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
0.930667
0.760000
0.615384
0.615384
0.419355
0.387097
0.338461
0.323077
0.322581
0.322581
0.276923
0.276923
0.169231
0.161290
0.161290
0.123077
0.096774
0.064516
0.013333
0.013333
SOIL =
0.992308
0.992308
0.992308
0.992308
0.992308
0.992000
0.950000
0.818182
0.785441
0.750831
0.708609
0.668919
0.633562
0.608268
0.588022
0.563107
0.554878
Untreated Qu!
Concen (PPM) Uni
75.00000
75.00000
6.50000
6.50000
31.00000
31.00000
6.50000
6.50000
31.00000
31.00000
6.50000
6.50000
6.50000
31.00000
31.00000
6.50000
31.00000
31.00000
75.00000
75.00000
20 data points
26.00000
26.00000
26.00000
26.00000
26.00000
25.00000
1.00000
11.00000
261.00000
301.00000
302.00000
296.00000
292.00000
508.00000
551.00000
1030.00000
328.00000
Treated Qul
cen (PPM) Trt
5.20000
18.00000
2.50000 ND
2.50000 ND
18.00000
19.00000
4.30000
4.40000
21.00000
21.00000
4.70000
4.70000
5.40000
26.00000
26.00000
5.70000
28.00000
29.00000
74.00000
74.00000
Treatment Technology
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
Contaminant Name
LEAD
LEAD
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
LEAD
LEAD
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
LEAD
LEAD
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
LEAD
LEAD
CADMIUM
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
Sea
Media le
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
Document Number
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUUW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWU-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUWU-1
Test
Num
14
15
14
15
18
19
6
10
25
27
4
5
9
23
26
7
17
20
4
6
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
0.20000 ND
0.20000 ND
0.20000 E3
0.20000 ND
0.20000 ND
0.20000 ND
0.05000 ND
2.00000 ND
56.00000 E3
75.00000 E3
88.00000 E3
98.00000 E3
107.00000 E3
199.00000 E3
227.00000 E3
450.00000
146.00000 E3
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
LEAD
ARSENIC
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
ZINC
ZINC
LEAD
LEAD
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
980-TS1-RT-FCNN-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPC-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPC-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
1
3
4
5
6
2
1
4
1
5
6
2
3
5
2
4
4
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Treatability Group: W11
Treatment Technology:
Page: A19
Date: 01/30/1990
VOLATILE METALS
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Rnk
===
18
19
20
21
1
2
Removal
Efficiency
0.540146
0.524715
0.518847
0.252595
SOIL =
0.493333
0.114286
SOIL =
Untreated Qu
Concen (PPM) Un
548.00000
526.00000
451.00000
2890.00000
21 data points
15.00000 J
70.00000
2 data points
Treated
mcen (PPM)
252.00000
250.00000
217.00000
2160.00000
Qul
Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name Media
mm m i
UIWW 1
SLUDGE
7.60000
62.00000
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
(SLUD) = 0
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
LEAD
data points
LEAD
ZINC
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
Sea
le
P
P
P
P
P
P
Test
Document Number Num
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
980-TS1-RT-EXPC-1
980-TS1-RT-EURE-1
980-TS1-RT-EURE-1
4
3
1
1
1
1
SLUDGE (SLUD)
0 data points
IN)
ro
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: AZO
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W11 VOLATILE METALS
Treatment Technology: DECHLORINATION
Rnk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Removal
Efficiency
0.959900
0.753150
0.595000
0.565000
0.554090
0.533330
0.521400
0.502960
0.487470
0.427830
0.423730
0.370630
0.358550
0.264350
0.214590
0.210310
Untreated Qul
Concen (PPM) Unt
24262.00000
3488.00000
20.00000
20.00000
379.00000
45.00000
1028.00000
338.00000
359.00000
17175.00000
59.00000
23414.00000
304.00000
1725.00000
14451.00000
6148.00000
Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Trt
973.00000
861.00000
8.10000
8.70000
169.00000
21 .00000
492.00000
168.00000
184.00000
9827.00000
34.00000
14736.00000
195.00000
1269.00000
11350.00000
4855.00000
Treatment Technology
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
Contaminant Name
ZINC
CADMIUM
ARSENIC
ARSENIC
LEAD
CADMIUM
ZINC
ARSENIC
ARSENIC
LEAD
CADMIUM
ZINC
LEAD
ZINC
LEAD
CADMIUM
Sea
Media le
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
Test
Document Number Nun
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORO-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-
3
3
1
2
2
1
1
4
3
4
2
4
1
2
3
4
CO
SOIL = 16 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) =
0 data points
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: A21
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W11
Treatment Technology:
VOLATILE METALS
LOU TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION
Rnk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name
0.083916
0.078292
0.058824
0.052190
0.031532
0.029412
0.013986
14.30000
28.10000
13.60000
594.00000
222.00000
13.60000
14.30000
13
25
12
563
215
13
14
.10000
.90000
.80000
.00000
.00000
.20000
.10000
1
iiiiiii
rn rn TO rn rn m rn
ii??ii?
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
DESORPTION
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
ARSENIC
ZINC
LEAD
ARSENIC
ARSENIC
Media
i
i
t
8888888 ;
Sea
le
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Document Number
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ-1
Test
Num
17
17
5
17
9
4
14
SOIL
7 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) - 0 data points
ro
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Treatability Group: W11
Treatment Technology:
VOLATILE METALS
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION AND SOIL WASHING
Page: A22
Date: 01/30/1990
PO
«L
cn
Rnk
— — —
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Removal
Efficiency
0.995360
0.993150
0.993080
0.991480
0.988610
0.988060
0.986799
0.984310
0.983720
0.982930
0.982490
0.981560
0.979538
0.979380
0.971947
0.968220
0.967740
0.967290
0.966800
0.965710
0.959813
0.958416
0.957203
0.955919
0.954090
0.952966
0.948670
0.943865
0.942160
0.940000
0.931035
0.929040
0.925860
0.924770
0.924680
0.923160
0.921779
0.920720
0.919350
0.916258
0.915170
Untreated Qul
Concen (PPM) Unt
============ ===
14748.00000
14318.00000
14748.00000
14318.00000
14748.00000
14318.00000
303.00000
31871.00000
31871.00000
27060.00000
31871.00000
14748.00000
303.00000
27060.00000
303.00000
31871 .00000
27060.00000
642.00000
97300.00000
14318.00000
642.00000
303.00000
236.00000
642.00000
5750.00000
236.00000
2260.00000
652.00000
3631.00000
500.00000
29.00000
5750.00000
3790.00000
44400.00000
3850.00000
3631.00000
652.00000
44400.00000
3670.00000
652.00000
3631.00000
Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Trt
68.40000
98.10000
102.00000
122.00000
168.00000
171.00000
4.00000
500.00000
519.00000
462.00000
558.00000
272.00000
6.20000
558.00000
8.50000
1013.00000
873.00000
21.00000
3230.00000
491.00000
25.80000
12.60000
10.10000
28.30000
264.00000
11.10000
116.00000
36.60000
210.00000
30.00000
2.00000
408.00000
281.00000
3340.00000
290.00000
279.00000
51.00000
3520.00000
296.00000
54.60000
308.00000
Treatment Technology
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
Contaminant Name
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
LEAD
LEAD
ZINC
LEAD
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
LEAD
LEAD
ZINC
LEAD
LEAD
ZINC
LEAD
LEAD
CADMIUM
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
CADMIUM
ARSENIC
LEAD
LEAD
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
Sea
Media le
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
Document Number
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
980-TS1-RT-EXNH-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
980-TS1-RT-EXNH-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
980-TS1-RT-EXNH-
980-TS1-RT-EXNH-
980-TS1-RT-EXNH-
980-TS1-RT-EXNH-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
980-TS1-RT-EXNH-1
980-TS1-RT-EXNH-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
Test
Nun
= ===
58
40
52
34
46
41
16
40
41
58
34
53
22
52
28
35
46
16
8
35
28
23
10
22
7
4
41
40
53
58
22
5
5
8
5
52
41
9
7
34
58
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: A23
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W11
Treatment Technology:
VOLATILE METALS
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION AND SOIL WASHING
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
Contaminant Name
to
_A
05
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
0.911350
0.908570
0.907438
0.904160
0.901033
0.900935
0.892670
0.891892
0.877880
0.873200
0.871680
0.869286
0.862069
0.854000
0.853378
0.853333
0.852941
0.850000
0.848830
0.844172
0.835400
0.834483
0.833784
0.833333
0.830085
0.825200
0.823710
0.823529
0.816600
0.810000
0.810000
0.793103
0.791322
0.786487
0.777330
0.770588
0.750000
0.750000
0.750000
0.748000
0.741177
3790.00000
3850.00000
484.00000
3631.00000
484.00000
642.00000
1500.00000
1480.00000
2260.00000
500.00000
2260.00000
1400.00000
29.00000
1500.00000
1480.00000
750.00000 R
17.00000
5000.00000
3850.00000
652.00000
2260.00000
29.00000
1480.00000
18.00000
236.00000
27060.00000
3670.00000
17.00000
500.00000
5000.00000
5000.00000
29.00000
484.00000
1110.00000
1500.00000
17.00000
5000.00000
18.00000
100.00000 J
500.00000
17.00000
336.00000
352.00000
44.80000
348.00000
47.90000
63.60000
161.00000
160.00000
276.00000
63.40000
290.00000
183.00000
4.00000
219.00000
217.00000
110.00000
2.50000
750.00000
582.00000
101 .60000
372.00000
4.80000
246.00000
3.00000
40.10000
4730.00000
647.00000
3.00000
91.70000
950.00000
950.00000
6.00000
101.00000'
237.00000
334.00000
3.90000
1250.00000
4.50000
25.00000 J
126.00000
4.40000
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
LEAD
LEAD
ZINC
CADMIUM
ZINC
ZINC
LEAD
LEAD
CADMIUM
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
LEAD
CADMIUM
LEAD
LEAD
ARSENIC
ARSENIC
ARSENIC
LEAD
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
LEAD
ARSENIC
LEAD
ZINC
LEAD
ARSENIC
ARSENIC
ARSENIC
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
ZINC
LEAD
LEAD
ARSENIC
ARSENIC
ARSENIC
LEAD
ARSENIC
ARSENIC
SC£
Media le
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SLUD F
SOIL B
SOIL B
j 1
Document Number
980-TS1-RT-EXNH-1
980-TS1-RT-EXNH-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
980-TS1-RT-EXNH-
980-TS1-RT-EXNH-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
980-TS1-RT-EXNH-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
980-TS1-RT-EXNH-1
980-TS1-RT-EXNH-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-1
980-TS1-RT-EXNH-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
980-TS1-RT-EXNH-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQU-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
980-TS1-RT-EXNH-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
980-TS1-RT-EXNH-1
980-TS1-RT-EXNH-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQU-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
980-TS1-RT-EUTT-2
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-1
rest
Num
7
6
4
46
10
23
3
3
35
52
40
1
23
1
4
17
16
23
7
35
34
28
1
4
11
53
5
28
53
25
26
16
11
1
2
22
28
10
1
46
23
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: A24
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W11
Treatment Technology:
VOLATILE METALS
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION AND SOIL WASHING
PO
Removal
nk Efficiency
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
1
2
3
4
0.723571
0.716216
0.686364
0.677778
0.668182
0.666667
0.620000
0.613333
0.586667
0.570000
0.500000
0.480000
0.439865
0.426667
0.426667
SOIL =
0.998570
0.963410
0.925000
0.857143
Untreated Qul
Concen (PPM) Unt
1400.00000
1110.00000
22.00000
18.00000
22.00000
81.00000
5000.00000
750.00000
750.00000
5000.00000
22.00000
750.00000
1480.00000
750.00000
750.00000
95 data points
1750.00000 J
2050.00000 J
2000.00000 J
1400.00000 J
Treated Qul Sea
Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name Media le
387.00000
315.00000
6.90000
5.80000
7.30000
27.00000
1900.00000
290.00000
310.00000
2150.00000
11.00000
390.00000
829.00000
430.00000
430.00000
SLUDGE
2.50000 J
75.00000 J
150.00000 J
200.00000 J
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
(SLUD) = 2 data
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
LEAD
LEAD
CADMIUM
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
ZINC
ARSENIC
ARSENIC
ARSENIC
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
ARSENIC
LEAD
ARSENIC
ARSENIC
points
CADMIUM
LEAD
LEAD
ZINC
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SLUD F
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL B
SOIL F
SOIL F
SOIL F
SOIL F
Test
Document Number Num
980-TS1-RT-EXNH-
980-TS1-RT-EXNH-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
980-TS1-RT-EUTT-2
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-1
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-
ORD-TS1-RT-EUQW-
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-
980-TS1-RT-EXNH-
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-
980-TS1-RT-EUZE-1
980-TS1-RT-FCQC-3
980-TS1-RT-FCQC-3
980-TS1-RT-FCQC-3
980-TS1-RT-FCQC-3
2
2
10
11
4
1
24
20
21
27
11
19
2
18
22
1
3
1
2
SOIL =
4 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) =
0 data points
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: AZ5
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W11 VOLATILE METALS
Treatment Technology: IMMOBILIZATION
Rnk
1
2
3
Removal
Efficiency
0.183670
0.166670
0.005260
Untreated Qul
Concen (PPM) Unt
392.00000
18.00000
190.00000
Treated
Concen (PPM)
320.00000
15.00000
189.00000
Qul
Trt
Treatment Technology
CEMENT
CEMENT
CEMENT
SOLIDIFICATIO
SOLIDIFICATIO
SOLIDIFICATIO
Contaminant
ZINC
ARSENIC
LEAD
Name Media
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
Sea
le
B
B
B
Document Number
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-1
Test
Num
1
1
1
SOIL = 3 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
IV)
00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
0.692900
0.665430
0.657340
0.574390
0.521740
0.492650
0.441670
0.257350
0.195830
0.166670
0.130430
16900.00000
810.00000
1430.00000
28900.00000
23.00000
544.00000
240.00000
544.00000
240.00000
18.00000
23.00000
5190.00000
271.00000
490.00000
12300.00000
11.00000
276.00000
134.00000
404.00000
193.00000
15.00000
20.00000
FLYASH
FLYASH
FLYASH
FLYASH
FLYASH
FLYASH
FLYASH
FLYASH
FLYASH
FLYASH
FLYASH
1
2
3
4
SOIL = 11 data points
0.909550
0.817110
0.803910
0.800880
53400.00000
15200.00000
1280.00000
904.00000
SOLIDIFICATIO LEAD
SOLIDIFICATIO ARSENIC
SOLIDIFICATIO CADMIUM
SOLIDIFICATIO ZINC
SOLIDIFICATIO CADMIUM
SOLIDIFICATIO ZINC
SOLIDIFICATIO LEAD
SOLIDIFICATIO ZINC
SOLIDIFICATIO LEAD
SOLIDIFICATIO ARSENIC
SOLIDIFICATIO CADMIUM
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
4830.00000 CARBONATE IMMOBILIZA ZINC
2780.00000 CARBONATE IMMOBILIZA LEAD
251.00000 CARBONATE IMMOBILIZA CADMIUM
180.00000 CARBONATE IMMOBILIZA ARSENIC
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF-
2
2
2
2
5
5
1 5
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
SOIL =
4 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD)
0 data points
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Removal Efficiency
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil TCA
Page: A26
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W11
Treatment Technology:
VOLATILE METALS
OTHER
Removal
Rnk Efficiency
Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
Contaminant Name
Sea
Media le
Document Number
Test
Nun
1
2
3
4
0.977360
0.962500
0.958330
0.945950
53000.00000
24000.00000
24000.00000
18500.00000
SOIL = 4 data points
1200.00000 CHELATION AND EXTRAC LEAD
900.00000 CHELATION AND EXTRAC LEAD
1000.00000 CHELATION AND EXTRAC LEAD
1000.00000 CHELATION AND EXTRAC LEAD
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
SOIL B 980-TS1-RT-EXNJ-1 1
SOIL B 980-TS1-RT-EXNJ-1 2
SOIL B 980-TS1-RT-EXNJ-1 2
SOIL B 980-TS1-RT-EXNJ-1 1
PO
CO
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS Page: B1
Ranked by Reduction in Mobility Date: 01/30/1990
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil Extract - Treated Soil Extract
TTestability Group: W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC COMPOUNDS
Treatment Technology: THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Mobility Untreated Qul Treated Qul Sea Test
Rnk Reduction Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name Media le Document Number Num
1 0.993817 6.47000 0.04000 J ROTARY KILN CHLOROBENZENE SOIL P ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1 7
2 0.873420 0.79000 0.10000 ND ROTARY KILN CHLOROBENZENE SOIL P ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1 8
SOIL = 2 data points SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
ro
IV)
o
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Reduction in Mobility
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil Extract - Treated Soil Extract
Page: B2
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W04
Treatment Technology:
HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Mobility Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Rnk Reduction Concen .(PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
Contaminant Name
Sea
Media le
Document Number
Test
Hum
1
2
3
4
0.994709
0.988858
0.852940
0.791660
SOIL =
18.90000
3.59000
0.68000
0.48000
4 data points
0.10000 ND
0.04000 J
0.10000 ND
0.10000 ND
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
SOIL P ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1 7
SOIL P ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1 7
SOIL P ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1 8
SOIL P ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1 8
SLUDGE (SLUD)
0 data points
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS Page: B4
Ranked by Reduction in Mobility Date: 01/30/1990
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil Extract - Treated Soil Extract
Treatability Group: W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Treatment Technology: THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Mobility Untreated Out Treated Qul Sea Test
Rnk Reduction Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name Media le Document Number Num
1 0.997376 282.00000 0.74000 ROTARY KILN ACETONE SOIL P ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1 7
2 0.994636 26.10000 0.14000 ROTARY KILN ACETONE SOIL P ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1 8
SOIL = 2 data points SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
ro
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Reduction in Mobility
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil Extract - Treated Soil Extract
Page: B3
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W07
Treatment Technology:
HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Rnk
Mobility
Reduct i on
Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
Contaminant Name
Sea
Media le
Test
Document Number Nun
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.987589
0.986922
0.985443
0.974008
0.947619
0.827580
SOIL =
84.60000
49.70000
15.80000
7.31000
2.10000
0.58000
6 data points
1.05000
0.65000
0.23000
0.19000
0.11000
0.10000 ND
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
XYLENES (TOTAL)
ETHYLBENZENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
STYRENE
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
P
P
P
SOIL P
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM- 7
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM- 7
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM- 8
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM- 8
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM- 7
ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1 8
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
IN)
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Reduction in Mobility
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil Extract - Treated Soil Extract
Page: B5
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W10
Treatment Technology:
NON-VOLATILE METALS
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Mobility Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Rnk Reduction Concen (PPM) Unt Concen
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT RESULTS
Ranked by Reduction in Mobility
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil Extract - Treated Soil Extract
Page: B6
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W11
Treatment Technology:
VOLATILE METALS
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
R
01
Mobility Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Rnk Reduction Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
Contaminant Name
Sea
Media le
Document Number
Test
Hum
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.879520
0.771900
0.722890
0.444400
SOIL =
0.996231
0.987010
0.983870
0.963704
0.913793
0.673910
SOIL
0.83000
0.05700
0.83000
0.01800
4 data points
7.96000
0.77000
0.62000
13.50000
1.74000
0.46000
6 data points
0.10000 ND INCINERATION
0.01300 INCINERATION
0.23000 INCINERATION
0.01000 INCINERATION
SLUDGE (SLUD)
0.03000 ND .ROTARY KILN
0.01000 ND
0.01000 ND
0.49000
0.15000 ND
0.15000 ND
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
SLUDGE (SLUD)
LEAD
CADMIUM
LEAD
CADMIUM
0 data points
ZINC
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
ZINC
LEAD
LEAD
SOIL B 980-TS1-RT-EZYN-1
SOIL B 980-TS1-RT-EZYN-1
SOIL B 980-TS1-RT-EZYN-1
SOIL B 980-TS1-RT-EZYN-1
SOIL P ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
SOIL P ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
SOIL P ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM.-1
SOIL P ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
SOIL P ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
SOIL P ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM-1
0 data points
7
8
7
8
8
7
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATEMENT RESULTS Page: C1
FOP Individual Treatment Technologies Date: 01/30/1990
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil Extract
Treatability Group: W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
Treatment Technology: IMMOBILIZATION
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul Sea Test
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name Media le Document Number Num
1 N/A 6000.00000 0.00008 STABILIZATION TOTAL PCB'S SOIL F 980-TS1-RT-EWFQ-1 2
SOIL = 1 data points SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
ro
a>
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATEMENT RESULTS Page: C2
For Individual Treatment Technologies Date: 01/30/1990
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil Extract
Treatability Group: W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
Treatment Technology: THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul Sea Test
Rnk Efficiency Concen
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATEMENT RESULTS Page: C3
For Individual Treatment Technologies Date: 01/30/1990
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil Extract
Treatability Group: W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
Treatment Technology: THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul Sea Test
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name Media le Document Number Num
1 N/A 25.70000 0.02500 ND PYROLYSIS TOLUENE SOIL P 980-TS1-RT-EUXQ-1 1
SOIL = 1 data points SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATEMENT RESULTS
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil Extract
Page: C4
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W07
Treatment Technology:
HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
IMMOBILIZATION
Rnk
1
2
3
4
5
6
Removal
Efficiency
Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
7.00000
43.00000
41.00000
1.50000
0.76000
10.00000
SOIL = 0 data points
0.00500 ND
0.10000 ND
0.10000 ND
0.00500 ND
0.00500 ND
0.10000 ND
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
Contaminant Name
XYLENES (TOTAL)
O&P XYLENE
M-XYLENE
TOLUENE
ETHYLBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
Sea
Media le
ssss .........
SLUD P
SLUD F
SLUD F
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD F
Document Number
=ss==s===sr=:r===:
980-TS1-RT-FBTR-
980-TS1-RT-EWFQ-
980-TS1-RT-EWFQ-
980-TS1-RT-FBTR-
980-TS1-RT-FBTR-
980-TS1-RT-EUFQ-
Test
Num
=S —~S
2
7
7
2
2
7
SLUDGE (SLUD)
6 data points
ro
tv>
CO
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATEMENT RESULTS
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil Extract
Page: C5
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W08
Treatment Technology:
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
IMMOBILIZATION
Removal
Untreated Qul
Rnk Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
320.00000
158.00000
53.00000
150.00000
29.00000
79.00000
19.00000
48.00000
45.00000
Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Trt
0.10000 ND
0.10000 ND
0.10000 ND
0.33000 ND
0.10000 ND
0.33000 ND
0.10000 ND
0.33000 ND
0.33000 ND
Treatment Ted
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
Contaminant Name
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
PHENANTHRENE
NAPHTHALENE
CHRYSENE
CHRYSENE
PHENANTHRENE
ANTHRACENE
PYRENE
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
S
Media 1
=a== s
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD F
SLUD (
ica
e
:==
>
>
Document Number
=================
980-TS1-RT-EWFQ-
980-TS1-RT-EUFQ-
980-TS1-RT-EWFQ-
980-TS1-RT-FBTR-
980-TS1-RT-EWFQ-
980-TS1-RT-FBTR-
980-TS1-RT-EWFQ-
980-TS1-RT-FBTR-
980-TS1-RT-FBTR-
Test
Num
== ===
7
7
7
2
7
2
7
2
1 2
SOIL
0 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD)
9 data points
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATEMENT RESULTS
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil Extract
Page: C6
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W09
Treatment Technology:
OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
IMMOBILIZATION
Rnk
1
2
3
4
5
6
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Efficiency Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
SOIL =
120.00000
2.80000
59.00000
120.00000
5.00000
150.00000
0 data points
0.13000
0.01000 ND
0.50000
1.50000
0.10000
3.90000
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
Contaminant Name
ORGANIC CYANIDE
2-HEXANONE
ACROLEIN
ACRYLONITRILE
PROPANOIC ACID.2-METHYL
ACETONITRILE
Sea
Media le
SLUD F
SLUD P
SLUD F
SLUD F
SLUD F
SLUD F
Document Number
980-TS1-RT-EWFQ-
980-TS1-RT-FBTR-
980-TS1-RT-EWFQ-
980-TS1-RT-EWFQ-
980-TS1-RT-EUFQ-
980-TS1-RT-EWFQ-
Test
Nun
=z sszs
8
2
8
8
8
8
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 6 data points
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATEMENT RESULTS
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil Extract
Treatability Group: W10
Treatment Technology:
NON-VOLATILE METALS
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Page: C7
Date: 01/30/1990
10
CO
ro
ik
:=
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
Removal
Efficiency
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
SOIL =
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Untreated Qu
Concen (PPM) Un
1040.00000
820.00000
740.00000
65.00000
55.00000
46.00000
23.00000
12.00000
8 data points
540.00000
520.00000
500.00000
360.00000
410.00000
390.00000
;ated Qul
in (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name Media
0.33000
0.32000
0.45000
0.10000 ND
0.10000 ND
0.10000 ND
0.10000 ND
0.17000
SLUDGE
0.01400
0.02100
0.04600
0.03400
0.05100
0.20200
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
(SLUD) = 0
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
BARIUM
CHROMIUM
data points
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
Sea
le
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Document Number
Test
Num
980-TS1-RT-EXPC-1 1
980-TS1-RT-EXPC-
980-TS1-RT-EXPC-
980-TS1-RT-EXPC-
980-TS1-RT-EXPC-
980-TS1-RT-EXPC-
980-TS1-RT-EXPC-
980-TS1-RT-EXPC-
4
2
4
2
1
3
3
980-TS1-RT-EUXQ-1 3
980-TS1-RT-EUXQ-1 4
980-TS1-RT-EUXQ-1 1
980-TS1-RT-EUXQ-1 4
980-TS1-RT-EUXQ-1 3
980-TS1-RT-EUXQ-1 1
SOIL = 6 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATEHENT RESULTS
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil Extract
Treatability Group: W10
Treatment Technology:
NON-VOLATILE METALS
IMMOBILIZATION
Page: C8
Date: 01/30/1990
CO
CO
nk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Removal
Efficiency
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Untreated
Concen (PPM)
33700.00000
630.00000
33700.00000
33700.00000
33700.00000
33700.00000
33700.00000
33700.00000
33700.00000
33700.00000
33700.00000
33700.00000
33700.00000
33700.00000
33700.00000
33700.00000
33700.00000
103.50000
534.00000
534.00000
534.00000
534.00000
534.00000
534.00000
534.00000
534.00000
534.00000
33700.00000
33700.00000
33700.00000
33700.00000
33700.00000
33700.00000
534.00000
534.00000
33700.00000
33700.00000
33700.00000
103.50000
33700.00000
33700.00000
534.00000
Qul Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
Contaminant Name
0.10000
0.00004
0.35000
0.40000
0.46000
0.46000
0.48000
0.35000
0.50000
0.42000
0.51000
0.62000
0.55000
0.60000
1.21000
1 .53000
2.60000
0.00900
0.05000
0.05000
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000 ND
0.05000
0.05000
3.48000
3.32000
3.48000
3.50000
3.59000
3.59000
0.06000
0.06000 ND
4.04000
4.00000
4.50000
0.01400
5.00000
5.25000
0.10000
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
COPPER
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
Media
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
Sea
le
B
F
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
B
B
Document Number
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EUFQ-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-FBTR-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-FBTR-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
Test
Num
Smm £££S£S£
1 26
1 7
1 2
3
4
5
6
9
28
1 30
1 7
1 8
1 10
28
27
13
29
1
2
3
6
7
8
1 9
1 10
1 27
1 30
1 17
22
23
29
14
21
4
5
15
20
28
1
28
16
28
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATEHENT RESULTS
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil Extract
Page: C9
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: U10
Treatment Technology:
NON-VOLATILE METALS
IMMOBILIZATION
Removal Untreated Qul Treated Qul
Rnk _Efficiency_ Concen^(PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology Contaminant Name
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
534.00000
534.00000
534.00000
534.00000
534.00000
410.00000
410.00000
410.00000
410.00000
410.00000
410.00000
410.00000
410.00000
410.00000
410.00000
410.00000
410.00000
534.00000
33700.00000
33700.00000
410.00000
33700.00000
410.00000
534.00000
534.00000
534.00000
534.00000
33.50000
33.50000
33.50000
33.50000
534.00000
410.00000
534.00000
534.00000
68.00000
33700.00000
33700.00000
534.00000
33700.00000
68.00000
534.00000
0.11000
0.20000
0.20000
0.25000
0.25000
0.20000
0.20000
0.20000
0.20000 ND
0.20000 ND
0.20000 ND
0.20000 ND
0.20000 ND
0.20000
0.20000
0.20000
0.20000
0.35000
24.90000
29.50000
0.39000
33.00000
0.45000
0.63000
0.73000
0.75000
0.75000
0.05000
0.05000
0.05000
0.05000
0.83000
0.64000
0.84000
0.84000
0.11400
57.80000
57.80000
0.98000
62.90000
0.13200
1.05000
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
Contaminant Name
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
NICKEL
NICKEL
NICKEL
NICKEL
NICKEL
NICKEL
NICKEL
NICKEL
NICKEL
NICKEL
NICKEL
NICKEL
COPPER
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
NICKEL
CHROMIUM
NICKEL
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
CHROMIUM (HEXAVALENT)
CHROMIUM (HEXAVALENT)
CHROMIUM (HEXAVALENT)
CHROMIUM (HEXAVALENT)
COPPER
NICKEL
COPPER
COPPER
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
Sea
Media le
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
Document Number
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-'
980-TS1-RT-EURH-'
980-TS1-RT-EURH-'
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-'
980-TS1-RT-EURH-'
980-TS1-RT-EURH-'
980-TS1-RT-EURH-'
980-TS1-RT-EURH-'
980-TS1-RT-EURH-'
980-TS1-RT-EURH-'
980-TS1-RT-EURH-'
980-TS1-RT-EURH-'
980-TS1-RT-EURH-'
980-TS1-RT-EURH-'
980-TS1-RT-EURH-'
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EZUT-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EZUT-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
Test
Num
26
28
28
28
29
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
26
I 28
I 28
I 30
I 29
I 24
I 28
I 27
I 28
I 29
21
19
13
22
13
14
20
21
15
29
12
18
2
12
18
16
19
2
14
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATEHENT RESULTS
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil Extract
Page: C10
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W10
Treatment Technology:
NON-VOLATILE METALS
IMMOBILIZATION
Rnk
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
ro 102
co 103
01 104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
Remova I
Efficiency
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Untreated
Concen (PPM)
534.00000
534.00000
534.00000
78.00000
534.00000
534.00000
33.50000
33.50000
33.50000
534.00000
534.00000
33.50000
410.00000
33.50000
33.50000
41.00000
131.00000
33700.00000
410.00000
33.50000
410.00000
410.00000
410.00000
33.50000
410.00000
410.00000
131.00000
410.00000
33.50000
33.50000
33.50000
410.00000
33.50000
33.50000
410.00000
33.50000
410.00000
33.50000
410.00000
33.50000
410.00000
410.00000
Qul Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
Contaminant Name
1.07000
1.30000
1.30000
0.20000
1 .46000
1.59000
0.10000
0.10000
0.10000
1 .60000
1.70000
0.11000
1 .40000
0.14000
0.14000
0.20000 ND
0.70000
199.00000
2.44000
0.22000
2.70000
2.70000
2.83000
0.24000
2.96000
2.96000
0.95000
3.03000
0.28000
0.28000
0.29000
3.90000
0.40000
0.40000
5.20000
0.62000
9.28000
0.78000
10.00000
0.84000
11.40000
11.40000
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
COPPER
CHROMIUM
NICKEL
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
NICKEL
BARIUM
CHROMIUM
NICKEL
CHROMIUM
NICKEL
NICKEL
NICKEL
CHROMIUM
NICKEL
NICKEL
BARIUM
NICKEL
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
NICKEL
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
NICKEL
CHROMIUM
NICKEL
CHROMIUM
NICKEL
CHROMIUM
NICKEL
NICKEL
(HEXAVALENT)
(HEXAVALENT)
(HEXAVALENT)
(HEXAVALENT)
(HEXAVALENT)
(HEXAVALENT)
(HEXAVALENT)
(HEXAVALENT)
(HEXAVALENT)
(HEXAVALENT)
(HEXAVALENT)
(HEXAVALENT)
(HEXAVALENT)
(HEXAVALENT)
(HEXAVALENT)
(HEXAVALENT)
Media
===£
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
Sea
le
B
B
B
F
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Document Number
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EWFQ-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EZUT-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EZUT-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
Test
Nun
1 24
1 17
1 23
1 8
1 20
1 25
1 12
1 18
1 19
1 28
1 28
1 22
1 13
1 4
1 5
1 7
1 2
1 25
1 21
1 3
1 17
1 23
1 20
1 2
1 16
1 22
2
14
17
23
16
28
7
9
28
6
24
10
28
8
12
18
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATEHENT RESULTS
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil Extract
Page: C11
Date: 01/30/1990
Treatability Group: W10
Treatment Technology:
NON-VOLATILE METALS
IMMOBILIZATION
Rnk
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
Removal
Efficiency
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
SOIL =
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Untreated Qu
Concen (PPM) Un
410.00000
410.00000
33.50000
410.00000
41.00000
33.50000
6.09000
6.09000
0.25000
0 data points
35.60000
35.60000
35.60000
79.10000
79.10000
79.10000
Contaminant Name
11.40000
13.00000
1.25000
21 .60000
2.57000
23.70000
5.01000
5.39000
0.23000
SLUDGE
0.01000 NO
0.05000
0.05000 ND
0.20000 ND
0.34000
0.43000
STABILIZATION NICKEL
STABILIZATION NICKEL
STABILIZATION CHROMIUM (HEXAVALENT)
STABILIZATION NICKEL
STABILIZATION NICKEL
STABILIZATION CHROMIUM (HEXAVALENT}
STABILIZATION NICKEL
STABILIZATION NICKEL
STABILIZATION CHROMIUM (HEXAVALENT)
(SLUD) = 135 data points
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO CHROMIUM
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO CHROMIUM
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO CHROMIUM
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO BARIUM
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO BARIUM
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO BARIUM
Sea
Media le
: ==== ass
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
Test
Document Number
==================
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EZTZ-1
980-TS1-RT-EZTZ-1
980-TS1-RT-EZTZ-1
980-TS1-RT-EZTZ-1
980-TS1-RT-EZTZ-1
980-TS1-RT-EZTZ-1
Num
===
19
28
15
25
15
24
11
11
11
3
3
3
3
3
3
SOIL = 6 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD) = 0 data points
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATEMENT RESULTS
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil Extract
Treatability Group: U11
Treatment Technology:
VOLATILE METALS
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Page: C12
Date: 01/30/1990
ro
nk
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Removal
Efficiency
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
SOIL =
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Untreated Qu
Concen (PPM) Un
2890.00000
760.00000
1030.00000
46.00000
4 data points
4.00000
74.00000 .
180.00000
54.00000
1 .70000
150.00000
67.00000
1 .40000
120.00000
56.00000
44.00000
52.00000
Contaminant Name
Sea
Media le
Test
Document Number Num
0.23000
0.10000 ND
1.00000 ND
0.10000 ND
SLUDGE
0.00020 ND
0.00700
0.02000 ND
0.00600 ND
0.00020 ND
0.02000 ND
0.00900
0.00022 ND
0.02000 ND
0.06000
0.05400
0.18500
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
(SLUD) = 0
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
data points
MERCURY
SILVER
LEAD
SILVER
MERCURY
LEAD
SILVER
MERCURY
LEAD
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
SOIL P 980-TS1-RT-EXPC-1 1
SOIL P 980-TS1-RT-EXPC-1 2
SOIL P 980-TS1-RT-EXPC-1 4
SOIL P 980-TS1-RT-EXPC-1 3
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
SOIL P
980-TS1-RT-EUXQ-1
980-TS1-RT-EUXQ-1
980-TS1-RT-EUXQ-1
980-TS1-RT-EUXQ-1
980-TS1-RT-EUXQ-1
980-TS1-RT-EUXQ-1
980-TS1-RT-EUXQ-1
980-TS1-RT-EUXQ-1
980-TS1-RT-EUXQ-1
980-TS1-RT-EUXQ-1
980-TS1-RT-EUXQ-1
980-TS1-RT-EUXQ-1
4
3
4
1
3
3
4
1
1
3
4
1
SOIL
12 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD)
0 data points
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATEHENT RESULTS
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil Extract
Treatability Group: W11
Treatment Technology:
VOLATILE METALS
IMMOBILIZATION
Page: C13
Date: 01/30/1990
ink
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Removal
Efficiency
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Untreated
Concen (PPM)
291.00000
880.00000
880.00000
880.00000
880.00000
880.00000
880.00000
880.00000
880.00000
880.00000
880.00000
880.00000
11.80000
11.80000
880.00000
880.00000
880.00000
0.34950
880.00000
880.00000
0.34950
8.40000
8.40000
265.00000
265.00000
13.20000
13.20000
1450.00000
0.40500
0.40500
3.85000
3.85000
880.00000
880.00000
1450.00000
880.00000
880.00000
880.00000
880.00000
880.00000
880.00000
7.50000
Qul Treated Qul
Concen (PPM) Unt Concen (PPM) Trt Treatment Technology
Contaminant Name
0.00005
0.02000
0.02000
0.02000 ND
0.02000 ND
0.02000 ND
0.02000 ND
0.02000 ND
0.02000
0.04000
0.06000
0.06000
0.00100 ND
0.00100 ND
0.10000
0.10000
0.21000
0.00020
0.63000
0.84000
0.00040
0.01000 ND
0.01000 ND
0.50300
0.50300
0.02800
0.02800
3.18000
0.00100 ND
0.00100 ND
0.01000 ND
0.01000 ND
2.45000
2.96000
5.36000
3.44000
4.07000
4.08000
4.08000
4.23000
4.36000
0.03800
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
LEAD
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
ARSENIC
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
MERCURY
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
MERCURY
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
LEAD
LEAD
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
LEAD
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
ARSENIC
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
LEAD
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
SILVER
Sea
Media le
SLUD F
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD P
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD P
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
SLUD B
Document Number
980-TS1-RT-EWFQ-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-'
980-TS1-RT-EURH-'
980-TS1-RT-EZUT-'
980-TS1-RT-EZUT-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EZUT-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EZUT-
980-TS1-RT-FBTR-
980-TS1-RT-FBTR-
980-TS1-RT-EZUT-
980-TS1-RT-EZUT-
980-TS1-RT-EZUT-
980-TS1-RT-EZUT-
980-TS1-RT-FBTR-
980-TS1-RT-FBTR-
980-TS1-RT-FBTR-
980-TS1-RT-FBTR-
980-TS1-RT-FBTR-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-FBTR-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EURH-
980-TS1-RT-EZUT-
Test
Num
7
2
3
6
7
8
9
10
30
26
4
I 5
I 2
2
28
28
27
2
29
29
2
1
1 1
1 2
1 2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
12
13
1
15
16
17
23
21
24
2
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATEMENT RESULTS
For Individual Treatment Technologies
Untreated Soil TCA - Treated Soil Extract
Page: C14
Date: 01/30/1990
PO
CO
CD
Treatability Group: U11 VOLATILE METALS
Treatment Technology: IMMOBILIZATION
Removal Untreated Qul Treated
Rnk Efficiency
^MM ^^iim mm^^^« ••»
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
SOIL =
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Concen (PPM) Unt Concen
880.00000
880.00000
7.50000
880.00000
880.00000
880.00000
880.00000
880.00000
880.00000
880.00000
0.08000
880.00000
13.00000
0.08000
11.90000
0 data points
32496.00000
32496.00000
52.40000
52.40000
7.50000
52.40000
32496.00000
4.00000 J
7.50000
0.34000
0.34000
0.34000
4.00000 J
4.00000 J
0.32600
0.32600
7.50000
0.32600
4
4
0
5
6
12
15
16
16
18
0
22
0
0
7
(PPM)
.50000
.83000
.04800
.97000
.09000
.20000
.60000
.20000
.65000
.50000
.00200
.40000
.70000
.00500
.84000
Qul
Trt Treatment Technology
ND
ND
SLUDGE
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.03000
.40000
.02000
.03000
.00500
.05000
.00000
.00500
.01000
.00080
.00080
.00080
.02000
.02000
.00200
.00200
.06000
.00300
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
STABILIZATION
Contaminant Name Media
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
SILVER
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
MERCURY
CADMIUM
ANTIMONY
MERCURY
CADMIUM
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
SLUD
Sea
le
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
F
P
B
Test
Document Number
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EZUT-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-FBTR-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
980-TS1-RT-EWFQ-1
980-TS1-RT-FBTR-1
980-TS1-RT-EURH-1
Num
22
20
2
25
14
28
19
28
18
28
1
28
8
1
11
(SLUD) = 57 data points
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO
FLYASH SOLIDIFICATIO
LEAD
LEAD
ARSENIC
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
ARSENIC
LEAD
SILVER
CADMIUM
MERCURY
MERCURY
MERCURY
SILVER
SILVER
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
CADMIUM
SELENIUM
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
980-TS1-RT-EZTZ-1
980-TS1-RT-EZTZ-1
980-TS1-RT-EZTZ-1
980-TS1-RT-EZTZ-1
980-TS1-RT-EZTZ-1
980-TS1-RT-EZTZ-1
980-TS1-RT-EZTZ-1
980-TS1-RT-EZTZ-1
980-TS1-RT-EZTZ-
980-TS1-RT-EZTZ-
980-TS1-RT-EZTZ-
980-TS1-RT-EZTZ-
980-TS1-RT-EZTZ-
980-TS1-RT-EZTZ-
980-TS1-RT-EZTZ-
980-TS1-RT-EZTZ-1
980-TS1-RT-EZTZ-1
980-TS1-RT-EZTZ-1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
SOIL
18 data points
SLUDGE (SLUD)
0 data points
-------
(INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE)
240
-------
APPENDIX H
TREATABILITY STUDY SUMMARIES
This appendix contains summaries of the 68 treatability studies which contain quantitative data and
form the basis of the data base discussed in this report.
Refer to Superfund Treatability Clearinghouse Abstracts for additional information on these referenced
documents (U.S. EPA, 1989, EPA/540/2-89-001).
241
-------
Treatment Process: Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
Media: Soil/Sandy and Silty
Document Reference: Roy F. Weston, Inc. "Pilot Investigation of Low-Temperature Stripping
of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) From Soil: Volume 1 -
Technical Report and Volume II - Appendices." Technical report
prepared for USATHAMA 123 pp. June 1986
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contract: Wayne Sisk
U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
301-571-2054
Site Name: Letterkenney Army Depot, Chambersburg, PA (NPL - Federal facility)
Location of Test: West Chester, PA
BACKGROUND: The U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency (USATHAMA) is
investigating technologies to treat soils contaminated with solvents. A pilot study of low temperature
thermal stripping was conducted at Letterkenny Army Depot (LEAD) near Chambersburg,
Pennsylvania, from 8/5/85 to 9/16/85.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: Soils from two lagoons at LEAD that were used for the disposal
of organic liquids were chosen for treatment. The total VOC concentrations in feed soils were
approximately 3503 ppm. The soils were sandy and treated at 10 pounds per feed cycle. The unit
was designed for processing 385 pounds per hour. Soils were treated in a thermal processor, an
indirect heat exchanger which was used to heat and consequently dry the contaminated soil and
volatilize the contaminants. Contaminants in the off-gases were thermally destroyed in an afterburner.
The pilot investigation was completed in two phases. Phase I consisted of 18 test runs completed
to evaluate the effect on VOC removal efficiency of varying operating conditions (i.e., soil discharge
temperature, soil residence time, and air inlet temperature). The 18 test runs were designed in a
matrix format to investigate three levels of soil discharge temperature: 50°C, 100°C and 150°C; three
levels of soil residence time: 30 minutes, 45 minutes, and 60 minutes; and two levels of air inlet
temperature: ambient and 90°C. Phase II of the Pilot study consisted of 10 "optimization" test runs.
There were four primary purposes for the optimization runs: 1) to evaluate the effect on VOC
removal efficiency of varying operating conditions beyond the limits set for Phase I of the investigation
(i.e., maximum soil discharge temperature and maximum soil residence time); 2) to evaluate the VOC
removal rate along the length of the unit; 3) to evaluate the VOC removal efficiency associated with
three "duplicate" test runs; and 4) to evaluate the VOC removal efficiency associated with
reprocessing soils.
PERFORMANCE: The study concludes that process variables can be manipulated to achieve
desired effluent concentrations (i.e., 100 ppm, 10 ppm, 1 ppm, etc.) As conducted, VOCs were
removed to concentrations below 100 ppm. The level of removal was a direct and predictable function
of VOC feed concentration, residence time, moisture content, heat input, and generating temperature.
242 Document Number: EUQS
-------
VOC removal efficiencies associated with an elevated air inlet temperature were generally lower than
those associated with ambient air inlet temperature. The appendices provide extensive analytical
methods information and other QA/QC information.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of the
contaminants by treatability group Is:
Treatability Group
W04-Halogenated Aliphatic
Compounds
W07-Heterocyclics
and Simple Non Halogenated
Aromatics
W13-Other Organics
CAS Number
127-18-4'
156-60-5
79-01-6
1330-20-7
TOT-VOC
Contaminants
Tetrachlorethene
Trans-1,2-dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Xylenes (Total)
Total Volatile Organics
243
Document Number: EUQS
-------
Treatment Process: Chemical Extraction and Soil Washing
Media: Soil/Generic
Document Reference: PEI Associates, Inc. "CERCLA BOAT SARM Preparation and Results
of Physical Soils Washing Experiments (Final Report)." Prepared for
U.S. EPA. Approximately 75 pp. October 1987.
Document Type: EPA ORD Report
Contract: Richard Traver, Staff Engineer
U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-Releases Control Branch
Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
201-321-6677
Site Name: BDAT SARM - Manufactured Waste (Non-NPL)
Location of Test: ORD - Edison, NJ
BACKGROUND: This study reports on the results of work preparing 30,000 Ibs of SARM or
synthetic analytical reference matrix, a surrogate soil containing a wide range of contaminants. It also
reports the results of bench scale treatability experiments designed to simulate EPA's mobile soil
washing system, where SARM samples were washed to determine the efficiency of using chelating
reagent and surfactants to remove contaminants from the SARMs.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: SARMs were developed to support testing of various cleanup
technologies in support of the Superfund BDAT program. Superfund sites were surveyed to evaluate
- the type of soils present and the concentrations of contaminant in the soils. The final soil composition
selected consists of 30% clay, 25% silt, 20% sand, 20% topsoil and 5% gravel. A prescribed list of
chemicals were added to the soils. The contaminants include volatile and semi-volatile organics,
chlorinated organic compounds and the metals Pb, Zn, Cd, As, Cu, Cr and Ni. Four different SARM
formulations were prepared containing high and low levels of metals and organics. They will be used
by the EPA in subsequent treatability studies.
Different solutions containing SARM samples were tested in bench scale shaker tests to determine
the ability of a chelant (EDTA), a surfactant (TIDE) and plain water solvent to remove various
contaminants from the fine and coarse fractions of soils. The degree of contamination in both the
coarse and fine fraction was determined by TCLP tests and total waste analysis (SW-846,3rd edition).
A QA/QC discussion is contained in the report and a complete QA/QC plan is appended.
PERFORMANCE: After samples were treated on the bench scale shaker table the SARM soils
were put through a wet sieve to separate fine from coarse materials and the fractions were analyzed
using TCLP tests and total analysis. Tap water was as effective in removing the VOC as the other
solutions. PH and temperature had very little effect on VOC reduction. The semi-volatile organics
were removed slightly better by the 0.5% TIDE than plain tap water. A chelant concentration of 3
moles of EDTA to total metals was most effective in removing metals. Chelant reaction time for
removal was 15 to 30 minutes. Arsenic and chromium showed the poorest removal efficiencies while
Cd, Zn, Cu and Ni were easily chelated by EDTA. The soil is divided into three particle size classes
> 2 mm, 2 mm to 250 urn and < 250 urn. The washes removed contaminants from the 2 larger
244 Document Number: EUQW
-------
classes of soils to levels below the proposed TCLP limits. These soil classes comprise 42% by weight
of the SARM and could potentially be classified as non-hazardous and be returned to the site. The
contaminated fines could be stabilized and treated further. This study revealed the SARM could be
cleaned by soils washing and the contaminated soil volume could be reduced.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of the
contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatabilitv Groups
CAS Number
Contaminants
W01-Halogenated Nonpolar
Aromatic Compounds
W03-Halogenated Phenols,
Cresols, Ethers, and Thiols
W04-Halogenated Aliphatic
Compounds
W07-Heterocyclics and
Simple Non-Hal.
Aromatics
108-90-7
87-86-5
107-06-2
127-18-4
100-42-5
1330-30-7
100-41-4
Chlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
1,2-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Styrene
Xylenes
Ethylbenzene
W08-Polynuclear Aromatics
W09-Other Polar Organic
Compounds
W10-Non-Volatile Metals
W11-Volatile Metals
120-12-7
117-18-7
67-64-1
7440-50-8
7440-02-0
7440-47-3
7439-92-1
7440-66-6
7440-43-9
7440-38-2
Anthracene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Acetone
Copper
Nickel
Chromium
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
Arsenic
245
Document Number: EUQW
-------
Treatment Process: Bioremediation - Composting/Biodegradation
Media: Soil/Sandy
Document Reference: Portier R., et al. "Field Plot Test Report, Phase III Engineering Design, Old
Inger Superfund Site, Darrow, Louisiana." Approximately 250 pp.
November 1986.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contract: Timothy Mahon
U.S. EPA - Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
12th Floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
214-655-6444
Site Name: Old Inger Site, LA (NPL)
Location of Test: Ascension Parish, LA
BACKGROUND: This project report describes the results of biodegradation with indigenous
microorganisms on soils at an oil reclamation plant. The site occupied about 16 acres including a 7.5 acre
swamp. The wastes were oily sludges found in lagoons, diked tank containment areas, buried waste
areas and in the swamp. Wastes identified at the site were consistent with hazardous materials used at
an oil reclamation plant. Benzene, toluene and PAHs were present; no PCBs were found and very low
levels of chlorinated hydrocarbons and heavy metals were detected. Numerous PAHs such as
naphthalene, methyl naphthalene, anthracene and fluorene were detected in lagoon soils and buried waste
soils. The concentrations of PAH compounds ranged from less than 100 ppm to approximately 5700 ppm
for phenanthrene.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The purpose of the study was to determine microorganism loading
rate on the silt and sandy clay soils. Task I was a screening test to determine the maximum toxicant
loading rates. After selection of the loading rate, Task II included mesocosm tests in the laboratory where
loading, nutrients and other parameters could be controlled. This included evaluation of commercially
available bacterial cultures. Field verification studies (Task III) were conducted on special plots set off at
the site and the plots were loaded sequentially with different waste types. The volume of soil which was
treated was not reported. The duration of the treatment was 35 days. The report contains a discussion
of the mechanism of biodegradation and an appendix showing the actual chemical reaction pathways
associated with the biodegradation of various PAH compounds.
PERFORMANCE: Optimal loading rates of the various contaminants were shown to induce microbial
biotransformations. All of the compounds studied decreased in concentration over time, but no specific
correlations were presented or discussed by the authors. Data that was generated only indicated gross
trends and no contaminant destruction efficiencies were reported. Also there was no analysis for toxic
intermediates in this study and the authors suggested that toxic intermediate production needed to be
evaluated further. No specific QA/QC procedures were reported. The authors state that microbial
degradation and detoxification of the site is scientifically verifiable and economically feasible although no
discussion of the economics was contained in the study. Post closure monitoring of soils and leachate
from the site was recommended for 30 years.
246 Document Number: EUQX
-------
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the testability study report. The breakdown of the
contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatment Group
W08-Polynudear Aromatics
CAS Number
120-12-7
91-20-3
85-01-8
208-96-8
86-73-7
206-44-0
Contaminants
Anthracene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Acenaphthylene
Fluorene
Fluroanthene
247
Document Number: EUQX
-------
Treatment Process: Thermal Destruction - Incineration
Media: Soil/generic
Document Reference: EG&G Idaho, Inc. "High-Temperature Fluid-Wall Reactor Technology
Research Test and Evaluation Performed at Naval Construction Battalion
Center, Gulfport, MS, for the USAF Installation Restoration Program."
Vols. I and II. Document No. ELS-TR-87-06, approximately 550 pp.
Prepared for AFESC, Tyndall Air Force Base. March 1987.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contract: Major Terry Stoddart
U.S. DOD/AFESC
Bldg 1117
Tyndall Air Force Base, FL 32403
904-283-2949
Site Name: Naval Construction Battalion Center (NCBC)
Location of Test: Gulfport, MS
BACKGROUND: In June 1985, the J.M. Huber Advanced Electric Reactor (AER) mobile pilot plant, a
high-temperature fluid wall reactor, was successfully used to treat 1,100 pounds of soil contaminated with
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) at the Naval Construction Battalion Center (NCBC) in Gulfport,
Mississippi. The contamination resulted from earlier spills at an Herbicide Orange storage area at NCBC.
Since this pilot plant was mobile, it was a quick and inexpensive means of demonstrating AER technology
under field conditions as part of the research, test, and evaluation phase of the U.S. Air Force Installation
Restoration (AFIRM) Program.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The AER process, which operated in a nitrogen atmosphere at a
temperature of 3600 to 4100T, destroys dioxins, furans, and other organic compounds by pyrolysis. The '
AER is lined with electrode-heated graphite, which has an inside diameter of 3 inches and a heated length
of 36 inches. Screw-fed soil feedstock falls by gravity flow through the reactor, and the treated soil is
collected in an enclosed bin. A gaseous blanket of nitrogen separates the graphite from the reactants.
Gas effluent is passed through a particulate filter and two activated carbon filters before emission from a
stack. A detailed analytical section is contained in the report.
PERFORMANCE: After AER demonstration testing was completed, samples of the NCBC feedstock and
test-treated soil were sent to two laboratories to determine dioxin concentrations. NCBC Soil feedstock
was analyzed and found to contain 193 ppb and 111 ppb of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, based on two composite
samples. Treated soil was analyzed and found to have a total dioxin/furan concentration of less than 1
ppb, which met test criteria.
Concentrations of inorganics in the treated soil were sufficiently low to be not considered hazardous
according to the EPA delisting criteria. Because the AER test operating temperature was 3650°F,
inorganics, especially lead and zinc, were volatilized from the soil. They were then transported in the
exhaust stream and collected in a baghouse filter. The costs to restore 20,000 tons of contaminated soil
at the NCBC site using a full-scale AER is estimated to be 14.3 million dollars.
248 Document Number EURE-1
-------
The AER process demonstrated the capability to treat dioxin-contaminated soil to meet Air Force test
criteria, and may be considered for full scale soil restoration of dioxin-furan contaminated soils.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of the
contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability
W02-Dioxins/Furans/PCBs
W03-Halogenated Phenols,
Cresols, Ethers, and Thiols
W09-Other Polar Organic
Compounds
W10-Non-Voiatile Metals
CAS Number
1746-01-6
F1746-01-6
PCDF
HEXCDD
HEXCDF
PCDD
TCDD
TCDF
120-83-1
88-06-2
108-95-2
7440-50-8
Contaminants
2,3,7,8-Tetrachloro-
dibenzo-p-dioxin
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodi-
benzofurans
Pentachlorodibenzo-
furans
Hexachlorodibenzo-
dioxins
Hexachlorodibenzo-
furans
Pentachlorodibenzo-
dioxins
Tetrachlorodibenzo
dioxins
Tetrachlorodibenzo-
furans
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Phenol
Copper
W11-Volatile Metals
W12-Other Inorganics
7439-92-1
7440-66-3
74-9-8
Lead
Zinc
Hydrocyanic Acid
249
Document Number EURE-1
-------
Treatment Process: Thermal Destruction- Aqueous Thermal Decomposition
Media: Sediment
Document Reference: Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. "Final Report:
Development of Optimum Treatment System for Wastewater Lagoons,
Phase II, Aqueous Thermal Decomposition Laboratory Testing."
Prepared for USATHAMA. January 1985.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contract: Wayne Sisk
U.S. DOD/USATHMA
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
21010-5401
301-671-2054
Site Name: USATHAMA
Location of Test: Gainesville, Fla.
BACKGROUND: This study of innovative treatment techniques was for the restoration of hazardous-
waste lagoons. The study was conducted by Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. (ESE) for
the U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency (USATHAMA). The results are detailed in a
four-volume report (DRXTH-TE-83232, September 1983). The primary objective of the study was to
identify and evaluate cost-effective restoration methods, implementable by the late 1980s, which would
be both applicable to similar problems at a number of locations and easily transportable. Broad
applicability of treatment was required, because lagoons at different installations are of various sizes,
depths, and configurations and contain various amounts of water and sediments with a diverse range
of contaminants.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: This report distinguishes organic and inorganic-ladened lagoons,
and concentrates on the former. Organic-ladened lagoons contain primarily reactive organic residues
that may be converted into nonreactive compounds. The state-of-the-art treatment technology for
hazardous organic materials is incineration; therefore, incineration serves as a baseline for evaluating
treatment alternatives. The ESE report identified two promising alternative treatment methods:
aqueous thermal decomposition and solvent extraction. Aqueous thermal decomposition involves the
heating of sediment in an aqueous medium, under pressure, to temperatures of 200" - 250°C.
This laboratory-scale study was conducted to test the technical feasibility of aqueous thermal
decomposition for the treatment of explosives-ladened lagoon sediments. Aqueous thermal
decomposition involves heating explosives-ladened material to temperatures of 200 to 250°C in
aqueous media, under pressure. The experimental approach was to determine individual explosive
chemical kinetic parameters in dilute aqueous solution, then to determine chemical kinetic parameters
of mixed explosives in dilute aqueous solution. After kinetic parameters were determined,
experiments were run using aqueous thermal decomposition of actual lagoon sediments.
PERFORMANCE: The conclusion of the report is that the data generated in this study will be used
by USATHAMA for further evaluation for scale-up design.
250 Document Number: EURN-1
-------
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatabilitv
W06-Nitrated Aromatic
and Aliphatic Compounds
CAS Number
118-96-7
Contaminant
Trinitrotoluene (TNT)
251
Document Number: EURN-1
-------
Treatment Process: Chemical Extraction and Soil Washing
Media: Soil/Lagoon Sediment
Document Reference: Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. "Final Report:
Development of Optimum Treatment System for Wastewater Lagoons
Phase II - Solvent Extraction Laboratory Testing". Prepared for
USATHMA, 85 pp. October 1984.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contract: Wayne Sisk
U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
301-671-2054
Site Name: Ft. Wingate, NM; Navajo, AZ; and Shreveport, LA (NPL - Federal
facility)
Location of Test: Gainsville, FL
BACKGROUND: The U.S. Army surveyed innovative treatment techniques for restoration of
hazardous waste lagoons and selected solvent extraction as cost-effective restoration for further study.
This treatability study focuses on treatment of organic (explosive) contaminated lagoon sediments
which are the result of munitions production operations. Primary contaminants of concern included
the following explosives: TNT, DNT, RDX and Tetryl. This was a laboratory study of solid extraction
where the solvent is used in excess and the effectiveness of a single contact is limited by the ability
to physically separate the liquid and soil fractions. The treatability goal is to reduce explosive
contaminant level to 10 mg/kg.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: Sediments tested were obtained from Navajo Army Depot (AD),
AZ (predominantly volcanic cinders); Ft. Wingate AD, NM (mostly clay); and Louisiana Army
Ammunition Plant. Explosive content of sediments ranged from 0.1-99% and moisture content ranged
from 23.8-42.8%. (Report provides characteristics information on sediments.) Acetone was selected
as the leaching agent based on the solubility of contaminants, cost, and availability. Laboratory tests
included: solubility, leaching efficiencies, and settling tests. Solubility tests evaluated water/acetone
ratios to determine optimum operational range for individual contaminants and mixtures. Leaching
tests evaluated effectiveness of countercurrent extraction to determine contact time required for
equilibrium of explosives between leachate and the sediments. Multiple leaching tests were performed
by shaking sediment with acetone/water mixture in 1-liter graduated cylinders for 30 minutes followed
by solid-liquid separation. Settling tests were performed on two soils with significant solid content to
determine settling rate to aid in design of waste water treatment unit.
Report provides a discussion of sampling and analysis methods and provides limited QA/QC
information.
PERFORMANCE: Laboratory teachability studies Indicated that wet, explosive-ladened sediments
can be effectively decontaminated by leaching with an acetone/water mixture. In general, three to four
contact stages of 30 minutes each were required to reduce the explosives level to less than 10 mg/kg.
A fifth contact stage with a 50% efficiency would have been required to achieve the goal for the
Louisiana sediment. Solubility tests demonstrated a non-linear solubility of explosives with
252 Document Number: EURU
-------
acetone/water. Saturated solutions between 50 and 90% acetone form a two-phase liquid solution
which should be avoided since this could hinder penetration of solvent through sediment. A
conceptual treatment system design is provided based on results of tests. Calculated 4 stage removal
efficiencies are shown in the bottom table.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group
WO6-Nitrated Aromatics
Compounds
CAS Number
118-96-7
99-35-4
121-82-4
Contaminants
Trinitrotolune (TNT)
Trinitrobenzene (TNB)
Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1A5*iazhe
(RDX)
TABLE 1
INITIAL SEDIMENT EXPLOSIVES CONCENTRATION, FINAL SEDIMENT
EXPLOSIVES CONCENTRATION, AND CALCULATED 4-STAGE
REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
Sediment
Ft. Wingate AD
Navajo AD
Louisiana
Initial
Explosives
Concentrations
(mg/kg)
1,200
19,000
420,000
Final
Explosives
Concentrations
(mg/kg)
6.0
7.0
17.0
4-Stage
Removal
Efficiency
(M
99.6
99.96
99.996
Note: This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for more information
253
Document Number: EURU
-------
Treatment Process: Bioremediation - Combine Biological
Media: Soil/Generic
Document Reference: GCA Corp. "Endangerment Assessment and Feasibility Study, Picillo
Site, Coventry, Rhode Island." Vol. I, III. Prepared for U.S. EPA,
OFfice of Waste Programs Enforcement. 15pp. March 1985.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contract: Kenneth Wrenger
Enforcement Project Manager
U.S. EPA - Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg.
Room 2003
Boston, MA 02203
617-565-3637
Site Name: Picillo Site, Rl (NPL)
Location of Test: Coventry, Rl
BACKGROUND: This treatability study report consists of limited pages from the GCA Corp.
Endangerment Assessment and Feasibility Study on the Picillo Site, Coventry, R.I. which reported on
the change in contaminant concentrations in several stockpiles of soils. One stockpile containing
phenol concentrations up to 870 ppm was landfarmed by spreading and irrigating the waste with
microorganisms. Other stockpiles are mentioned but insufficient details are provided to determine
treatment methods or results.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: Excavated soils were stockpiled in three impoundments. The
soils in the area are mainly sand and gravel till. The largest pile (3500 cubic yards) has PCB
contamination. A second stockpile (2000 cubic yards) which was contaminated with phenols was
landfarmed by spreading the soil on an underdrain and liner system, and irrigating the soil. No details
are provided on the microorganisms or other facts related to this irrigation.
PERFORMANCE: Concentrations of PCBs, phenols, and volatile organics were reduced by the
treatment. In the large impoundment, concentrations of PCBs were decreased from approximately
700 ppm to an average of 37 ppm after 3 1/2 years by the use of landfarming. Several volatile
organics were also present in this stockpile, although the concentrations were not discussed.
Landfarming in the second impoundment reduced phenol concentrations from approximately 900 ppm
to 70 ppm.
The limited data available does not allow the treatment performance to be accurately assessed.
There is no one-to-one correspondence in the analysis of the influent and effluent concentrations.
Some contaminants reported effluent concentrations greater than the influent concentrations.
There is no QA/QC information, however, a laboratory working for the state provided the analytical
services.
254 Document Number EURK
-------
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of the
contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminant
W09-Other Polar Organic 108-95-2 Phenol
Compounds
255 Document Number EURK
-------
Treatment Process: Thermal Destruction - Rotary Kiln
Media: Soil/Generic
Document Reference: Roy F. Weston, Inc. "Incineration Test of Explosives Contaminated
Soils at Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois." Prepared for
USATHAMA. Approximately 200 pp. April 1984.
Document Type: ContractorVendor Treatability Study
Contract: Wayne Sisk
U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
301-671-2054
Site Name: Savanna Army Depot (NPL - Federal facility)
Location of Test: Savanna, IL
BACKGROUND: The primary objective of these tests was to demonstrate the effectiveness of
incineration as a decontami-nation method for explosives contaminated soils. A pilot-scale rotary kiln
incinerator, manufactured by ThermAII, Inc., was used to treat both sandy and clayey soils which had
been contaminated by waste-water from explosives production and demilitarization. The test was
performed at Savanna Army Depot Activity (SADA), Illinois, the sandy soils came from SADA and the
clayey soils were shipped in from the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant (LAAP), Louisiana.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The feed soil TNT concentrations ranged from 88,100 ppm to
406,000 ppm. The SADA soil was purposely excavated from more concentrated regions of the lagoon
so that a higher destruction removal efficiency (DRE) could be achieved. There were 19 daily tests
completed in 20 consecutive days. After the initial run at 500 Ib/hr. and 800°F, elevated levels of
explosives were detected in the ash, fabric filter ash, and flue gas. Therefore, subsequent runs were
conducted on feed rates no higher than 400 Ib/hr. and afterburner temperatures no lower than 1200°F.
Each run was with approximately 1000 pounds of soil. Primary chamber temperatures of greater than
1400°F were not required.
In addition to these trial burns 25,000 pounds of soil were treated in a six day steady-state production
run. This run was at 400 Ib/hr, a primary chamber temperature of 1400°F and secondary chamber
temperature of 1800°F. These conditions had consistently demonstrated complete destruction of
explosives in the stack gas and kiln, ash and successfully disposed of all excavated test materials.
PERFORMANCE: The soil residence times could not be measured in the field, so they were
estimated from the ash production rate. The residence time averaged 83 minutes for the SADA runs
and 72 minutes for the LAAP runs.
TNT concentrations in the soil ash ranged from 2.55 to 26.9 ppm. Only RDX and TNB were detected
on one occasion, each as a residual explosive or a combustion by-product in the ash. Ash residues
were not hazardous due to the characteristics of EP Toxicity or reactivity.
256 Document Number EURP
-------
The document concludes that this incineration system is transportable and can operate under a wide
range of conditions. It also demonstrated that ash residues are non-hazardous and stack emissions
measured were in compliance with all Federal and state regulations.
OA/QC procedures are included in the report and detailed in an appendix.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of the
contaminants by treatability group was:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminant
W06-Nitrated Aromatics 135-HMX 1,3,5,7-Tetranitro-octahydro-
& Aliphatics 1,3,5,7-tetracyclo-octane (HMX)
121-82-4 Hexahydro-1,2,5-trinitro-
1.3.5-triazine(RDX)
99-35-4 Triunitrobenzene
118-96-7 Trinitrotoluene (TNT)
25154-54-5 Dinitrobenzene
T99-55-8 2-Amino-4,6-dinitrotoluene
257 Document Number EURP
-------
Treatment Process: Bioremediation - Composting
Media: Soil/Lagoon Sediment
Document Reference: Atlantic Research Corp. "Composting Explosives/Organics
Contaminated Soils." Technical report prepared for USATHAMA. 198
pp. May 1986.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contract: Wayne Sisk
U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
301-671-2054
Site Name: Badger Army Ammunition Plant (Non-NPL - Federal facility) and
Louisiana AAP (NPL - Federal facility)
Location of Test: Baraboo, Wl and Shreveport, LA
BACKGROUND: Laboratory scale and pilot scale studies were conducted to evaluate composting
to treat sediments and soils containing explosive and organic compounds. Sediment and soil from
lagoons at Army ammunition plants, located in Louisiana, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania contained high
concentrations of TNT, nitrocellulose, and RDX, and moderate levels of HMX and tetryl. Laboratory
experiments using 14C-labeled tracers were used to follow the fate of each explosive. Two types of
composts (hay-horse feed and sewage sludge-wood shavings) and three rates of sediment/soil
addition to the compost were utilized in these studies.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: Six 488 gallon tanks 5 feet in diameter and 4 feet in height were
used as composters. These were placed in greenhouses. Two drums of contaminated sediment from
a dredging mound were used. The composts were incubated at 60°C with continuous aeration for
6-10 weeks. Offgasses from the composts were monitored for 14C and at the completion of the
incubation, composts were analyzed for the explosives, extractable 14C-labeled degradates and
unextracted residual 14C.
PERFORMANCE: TNT degraded rapidly in all the sewage sludge composts but breakdown in
a hay-horse feed compost was adversely affected by the higher rates of sediment addition. Cleavage
of the benzene ring during TNT breakdown did not appear to be significant.
RDX was almost completely degraded in composts amended with sediment during 10 weeks of
incubation. Increased rates of sediment addition significantly decreased the rate of RDX breakdown
in both hay-horse feed and to a lesser extent in sewage sludge composts. Substantial losses of 14C
from the composts as 14CO2 demonstrated that RDX is completely metabolized to natural products.
HMX did not degrade in the hay-horse feed composts, but levels were reduced by 30-50% during 10
weeks of incubation in the sewage sludge composts. HMX losses were lowest In the composts with
the higher rates of sediment addition.
Tetryl was highly susceptible to degradation by composting. 90-100% tetryl was lost after composting
for 44 days. Apparent rates of tetryl breakdown were not strongly influenced by the sediment loading
apf+lf*. **
rates.
258 Document Number EURS
-------
The half-lives for TNT, RDX, and HMX using the hay-horse feed compost were 1.6, 3.0, and 4.7
weeks, respectively. No loss of explosives in the sewage sludge compost was observed during 7
weeks of composting. Half-lives of TNT, RDX, HMX, and tetryl in the compost of manure mixed with
hay and saw dust were 1.0, 2.5, 3.3, and 1.2 weeks, respectively. In the sewage sludge composts
92-97% degradation of cellulose occurred within 4 weeks. Leaching of explosives and heavy metals
from the composts was minimal. The economics of full scale composting are presented.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability CAS Number Contaminant
W06-Nitrated Aromatics 118-96-7 Trinitrotoluene (TNT)
AAliphatics 121-82-4 Hexahydro-1,3,5-Trinitro-
1,3,5,-triazine (RDX)
135-HMX 1,3,5,7-Tetranitro-
octahydro-1,3,5,7-
tetracyclooctane (HMX)
479-45-8 Tetryl
9004-70-0 Nitrocellulose
259 Document Number EURS
-------
Treatment Process: Bioremediation - Composting
Media: Soil/Sandy
Document Reference: Atlantic Research Corp. "Composting of Explosives." Prepared for
USATHAMA. 107 pp. September 1982.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contract: Wayne Sisk
U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
301-671-2054
Site Name: Manufactured Waste (NPL - Federal facility)
Location of Test: Aberdeen, MD (USATHAMA)
BACKGROUND: This treatability study was conducted by Atlantic Research Corporation for the U.S.
Army Toxic and Hazardous Material Agency. The objective of this bench-scale study was to
determine the extent to which TNT and RDX concentrations were reduced by composting for a six
week period. A second objective was to determine if bench-scale composting studies accurately
simulate the activity of larger composts by comparison of parallel studies monitoring TNT and RDX
reductions in laboratory studies (50g dry weight) and pilot-scale greenhouse composts (10kg dry
weight). A final objective of the study was to determine the teachability of TNT and RDX from the
compost.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: Labeled 14C-TNT or 14C-RDX were used in the laboratory
studies. Radio tracer compounds were utilized to determine the amount of explosives degraded and
the mechanism of degradation by composting. Sandy soils were spiked with production grade
explosives and a compost consisting of hay and horse feed. This mixture was incubated at
approximately 55°C under aerobic conditions.
In the greenhouse studies, pilot-scale composts of approximately 10,000 g of sandy soil containing
production grade TNT (2% by weight) RDX (1% by weight) were composted for four to six weeks.
Aerobic conditions were maintained in these composts by a forced aeration system and frequent
mixing. No external heat source was utilized.
PERFORMANCE: In the laboratory, TNT concentrations were reduced by 82.6% at the end of six
weeks of composting. No significant quantities of 14CO2 were evolved, indicating that composting
did not result in cleavage of the ring structure of the TNT molecule. Trace quantities of reduction
products (4-amino-2, 6-dinitrotoluene and 2-amino-4, 6-dinitrotoluene) were found in one of three
replicate composts after six weeks of composting. The RDX laboratory composts showed a reduction
in the RDX concentration of 78.3% after six weeks of composting. Significant amounts of 14CO2 were
produced by the RDX compost, indicating that cleavage of the RDX molecule occurred.
The greenhouse compost studies demonstrated a very rapid decrease in the TNT concentration. At
the three week sampling time, the initial TNT concentration of 2% had been reduced by 99.9%.
Analysis of the four week TNT compost extract confirmed that the TNT concentration in the composed
material was below the detection limit of 16.9 ppm. Greenhouse composting of RDX resulted in a
61% reduction in the RDX concentration after three weeks from an initial concentration of 1%, with
260 Document Number EURT
-------
total reduction of 82% following six weeks of composting. Reduction of RDX and TNT in the leachate
to 13 ppm and 1.4 ppm respectively paralleled the above results.
QA/QC procedures for the study are not stated; however, the document does report several standard
operational procedures for the laboratory analysis.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
WO6-Nitrated 118-96-7 Trintrotoluene (TNT)
Aromatic and Aliphatics 121-82-4 Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-
Aliphatics 1,3,5-triazine (RDX)
261 Document Number EURT
-------
Treatment Process: Immobilization - Cement and Fly Ash Solidification
Media: Soil/Clay
Document Reference: Ecology and Environment, Inc. "Summary Report on the Field
Investigation of the Sapp Battery Site." Jackson County, Florida.
Approximately 170 pp. in two volumes. Technical report prepared for
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER). November
1986.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contract: Kristen Teepen
U.S. EPA - Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
404-347-4727
Site Name: Sapp Battery Site, Jackson County, FL (NPL)
Location of Test: Jackson County, FL
BACKGROUND: This treatability study presents the results of field investigations at the Sapp
Battery site in Florida, an abandoned battery recycling operation. The site is estimated to contain
14,300 cubic yards of soils with lead levels in excess of 1,000 ppm. The soils in the immediate
vicinity of the site are a mixture of brown sand and yellow-brown sandy loam to a depth of five feet.
A detailed QA/QC plan and analytical protocols are described in the second volume to the study. A
sampling program and fixation study was conducted to evaluate cementitious and pozzolanic
cementation technologies for leachate minimization potential. This abstract will focus on the fixation
study and the ability of the processes evaluated to immobilize heavy metals.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The cement base solidification process involves sealing the
contaminated soil in a Portland cement matrix. The pozzolanic process involves sealing the
contaminated soil in a matrix of lime and fly ash. Soil samples from 0 to 5 and 5 to 10 foot depth
intervals were composited and used. Analysis of the composite sample showed 7100 mg/kg of lead.
Soil samples were mixed with varying percentages of solidification agent and water and allowed to
set.
PERFORMANCE: Three pozzolanic, three cementitious solidification mixes and one control were
prepared for the EP Toxicity leaching test. The results of the chemical fixation analysis are shown
in the table on the next page. The results indicate that the cementitious mixture was much more
effective in binding lead than the pozzolanic cement mixture (fly ash and lime). The portland cement
mixture exhibited excellent binding capacity for all samples (1126A through C). Compared to the
maximum allowable concentration of 5 mg/liter (EP Toxicity), the analysis of the fixed samples were
at or near the lead detection limit. Lead concentrations in the leachate from the pozzolanic mixture
were much higher than in the portland cement mixture. The authors offer no explanation for the
difference but did indicate that the soils can be solidified to reduce lead concentrations in the leachate
to acceptable levels. It is anticipated that cement requirements could be reduced and heavy metal
control increased through process optimization.
262 Document Number EURY
-------
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of the
contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
W11-Volatile Metals 7439-92-1 Lead
NOTE: This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for more information.
263 Document Number EURY
-------
TABLE 1
RESULTS OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF EXTRACTS
FROM EP TOXICITY TESTS
Samples
Maximum
Allowable EP
Samples Toxicity
Concentrations
(mg/l)
Pozzolanic
E&E Lab Number 86-*
Soil Identity
Lead (mg/l)
1126D
Ash: Lime: Soil
76.4
1126D
Ash: Lime: Soil
0.25 0.25:1
<0.067.17
1126D
Ash: Lime: Soil
0.5:0.5:1
7.17
Blank
0.75:0.75:1
<0.06
5.0
Cementitious
E&E Lab Number 86-*
Sample Identity
Lead (mg/l)
1126A
Concrete: Soil
0.085
1126B
Concrete: Soil
0.5:1
<0.06
1126C
Concrete: Soil
1:1
<0.06
1.5:1
5.0
86-1126 is a composite of 9 samples. The untreated composite sample has a lead concentration of 71,000 mg/kg.
The EP Toxicity Test on the control sample (untreated composite soils material) yielded 59.4 mg/l.
Document Number EURY
-------
Treatment Process: Thermal Destuction - Infrared Incineration
Media: Soil/generic
Document Reference: Shirco Infrared Systems. "Final Report: Qn-Site Incineration of Shirco
Infrared Systems Portable Pilot Test Unit, Times Beach Dioxin
Research Facility, Times Beach, Missouri". Technical report prepared
for U.S. EPA. Approx. 200 pp. November 1985
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: U.S. EPA - Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
913-236-2800
Site Name: Times Beach Dioxin Research Facility, MO (NPL)
Location of Test: Times Beach, MO
BACKGROUND: During the period of July 8 - July 12, 1985, the Shirco Infrared Systems Portable
Pilot Test Unit was in operation at the Times Beach Dioxin Research Facility to demonstrate the
capability of Shirco's infrared technology to decontaminate silty soil laden with 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) at a concentration range of 156 to 306 ppb. Emissions sampling
and final analysis was performed by Environmental Research & Technology, Inc. (ERT), while
laboratory analysis of the emissions and soil samples was performed by Roy F. Weston Inc. Shirco
Infrared Systems prepared the testing procedure protocol and operated the furnace system.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: A single 55 gallon drum of contaminated road bed soil which
had been screened through 1/2 inch mesh and homogenized in a mixer was used. Two primary
furnace solid phase residence times were evaluated: 30 minutes and 15 minutes. Emissions and soil
sample testing accompanied both of these tests. A consistent furnace feed rate averaging 47.7 Ib/hr
at a 1 inch bed depth was maintained during the 30 minute residence time test. The feed rate during
the 15 minute residence time test averaged 48.1 Ib/hr with a 0.75 inch bed depth.
An important process parameter during testing was chamber temperature, in both the primary and
secondary chambers. Over the effective process length of the primary chamber, temperature was
controlled in two equal length zones. During the 30 minute residence time test, the feed end zone
maintained a nominal temperature of 1560°F and the discharge end zone maintained a nominal
1550°F. For the 15 minute residence time test, the respective temperatures were both 1490°F. The
secondary combustion chamber was heated by a propane burner and its temperature was maintained
above 2200°F during both tests. The nominal secondary chamber temperatures were 2250°F and
2235°F, respectively, for the 30 and 15 minute primary chamber residence time tests.
PERFORMANCE: For both tests, the soil discharge concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD was less than
38 parts per trillion. Based upon the expected detection limit of 50 picograms of 2,3,7,8-TCDD as
measured by the Weston GC/MS system and the sampling volume capability of the ERT emissions
test equipment, the feed rates were more than adequate to confirm the required 99.9999% Destruction
Removal Efficiency (DRE). Particulate emissions were well below the standard of .08 gi/SCF @ 7%
02. Laboratory QA/QC procedures are discussed in the report.
265 Document Number: EUTR
-------
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
WO2-Dioxlns/Furans/PCBs 1746-01-6 Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin (TCDD)
266 Document Number: EUTR
-------
Treatment Process: Chemical Extraction and Soil Washing
Media: Soil/Si I ty
Document Reference: Assink, J.W. "Extractive Methods for Soil Decontamination, A General
Survey and Review of Operational Treatment Installations."
Apeldoorn, Netherlands. Technical Report. 13 pp. November 1985.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL
Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837-3579
212-264-2525
Site Name: HWZ Bodemsanering, BV (Non-NPL)
Location of Test: Netherlands
BACKGROUND: The two primary purposes of this document were (1) to present a general overview
of extractive methods and their techniques for treating contaminated soil and (2) to review briefly
several full scale extraction operations and to present some results of test runs at several sites in the
Netherlands. In particular, the results of the tests performed at HWZ Bodemsanering, BV are
discussed in the document. Only a general discussion and brief process description and schematic
are presented.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The soil washing process is described by the following steps:
(1) Separation of coarse materials (>10 mm)
(2) Intensive mixing of soil and water in order to disperse all soil particles and to scour off the
contaminants (scrubbing)
(3) Washing of the soil with a suitable extracting agent in up-flow column (jet-sizing). The bottom
stream consists of sand particles larger than approximately 100 urn
(4) Dewatering of the cleaned soil
(5) Separation of coarse, low-density materials, e.g., cokes
(6) Separation of silt (approximately 50-100 urn) by hydrocyclones. (This fraction is normally fed to
the dewatering of sieve, but may also be handled separately.)
(7) The spent extracting agent is cleaned in a number of steps. Cleaning is carried out by pH-
adjustment, coagulation, flocculation, sludge separation in a tillable plate separator, removal of
the surplus of added iron by aeration and flotation and finally a pH-adjustment. The cleaned
extracting agent is recirculated to a great extent.
No QA/QC procedures, sampling and analysis procedures, or conclusions are reported.
267 Document Number: EUTT-2
-------
PERFORMANCE: All types of contaminants may be removed from the soil by extraction if they can
be dissolved in the extracting agent or dispersed in the extraction phase. Extraction is especially
suitable for sandy soil, low in humus and clay content, because of the sand particles' (50-80 um)
relatively high settling velocity. Sludge residue from this process generally has to be disposed of.
The operational soil washing installations have proven successful for removing cyanides; PNAs
(polynuclear aromatics) and mineral oil; heavy metals; halogenated hydrocarbons and other
contaminants with efficiencies exceeding 80% (see Table 1).
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
WO8-Polynuclear Aromatics TOT-PAH Total Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
W11 -Volatile Metals 7439-92-1 Lead
7440-66-6 Zinc
W12-Other Inorganics 57-12-5 Cyanide
W13-Other Organics TOX Total Organic Halogens
TABLE 1
CONTAMINANT REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
Final Removal
Initial Concentration Efficiency
Concentration After %,
Concentration ppm Treatment ppm (approximate)
CN 100-200 approx 10 approx 95
PNA 36 0.7 98
EOC1 20-24 0.3-0.5 98-99
Zn 81 27 67
Pb approx 100 approx 25 approx 75
Note: This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for more information.
268 Document Number: EUTT-2
-------
Treatment Process: Chemical Extraction and Soil Washing
Media: Soil/Silty
Document Reference: Assink, J.W. "Extractive Methods for Soil Decontamination, A General
Survey and Review of Operational Treatment Installations."
Apeldoorn, Netherland. Technical Report. 13 pp. November
1985.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL
Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837-3579
212-264-2525
Site Name: HWZ Bodemsanering, BV (Non-NPL)
Location of Test: Netherlands
BACKGROUND: The two primary purposes of this document were (1) to present a general overview
of extractive methods and their techniques for treating contaminated soil and (2) to review briefly
several full-scale extraction operations and to present some results of test runs at several sites in the
Netherlands. In particular, the results of the tests performed at HWZ Bodemsanering, BV are
discussed in the document. Only a general discussion and brief process description and schematic
are presented.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The soil washing process is described by the following steps:
(1) Separation of coarse materials (>10 mm)
(2) Intensive mixing of soil and water in order to disperse all soil particles and to scour off the
contaminants (scrubbing)
(3) Washing of the soil with a suitable extracting agent in up-flow column (jet-sizing). The bottom
stream consists of sand particles larger than approximately 100 urn
(4) Dewatering of the cleaned soil
(5) Separation of coarse, low-density materials, e.g., cokes
(6) Separation of silt (approximately 50-100 urn) by hydrocyclones. (This fraction is normally fed
to the dewatering of sieve, but may also be handled separately)
(7) The spent extracting agent is cleaned in a number of steps. Cleaning is carried out by pH-
adjustment, coagulation, flocculation, sludge separation in a tillable plate separator, removal
of the surplus of added iron by aeration and flotation and finally a pH-adjustment. The
cleaned extracting agent is recirculated to a great extent.
No QA/QC procedures, sampling and analysis procedures, or conclusions are reported.
PERFORMANCE: All types of contaminants may be removed from the soil by extraction if they can
be dissolved in the extracting agent or dispersed in low in humas and clay content, because of the
sand particles' (50-80 urn) relatively high settling velocity. Sludge residue from this process generally
has to be disposed of. The operational soil washing installation have proven successful for removing
cyanides; PNAs (polynuclear aromatics) and mineral oil; heavy metals; halogenated hydrocarbons and
other contaminants with efficiencies exceeding 80% (see Tables 1).
269 Document Number: EUTT
-------
CONTAMINANTS:
Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of the contaminants by
treatability group is:
Treatability Group
W08-Polynuclear Aromatics
Aromatic
W11 -Volatile Metals
W12-Other Inorganics
W13-Other Organics
CAS Number
TOT-PAH
7439-92-1
7440-66-6
57-12-5
TOX
Contaminants
Total Polycyclic
Hydrocarbons
Lead
Zinc
Cyanide
Total Organic Halogens
Contaminant
CN
PNA
EOC1
Zn
Pb
Initial
Concentration
ppm
100-200
36
20-24
81
approx. 100
TABLE 1
CONTAMINANT REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
Final Concentration
After Treatment
approx. 10
0,7
0,3-0,5
27
approx. 25
Removal
Efficiency
%
(approximate)
approx. 95
98
98-99
67
approx. 75
Note: This a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for more information.
270
Document Number: EDIT
-------
Treatment Process: Chemical Extraction and Soil Washing
Media: Soil/Silty
Document Reference: Assink, J.W. "Extractive Methods for Soil Decontamination, A General
Survey and Review of Operational Treatment Installations."
Apeldoorn, Netherlands. Technical Report. 13 pp. November 1985.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL
Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837-3579
212-264-2525
Site Name: Bodemsanering, Netherland, BV (Non-NPL)
Location of Test: Netherlands
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this document is two fold. One is to give a general overview of
extractive methods and their techniques for treating contaminated soil. The other is to briefly review
several extraction operations and present some results of test runs performed at these sites. All sites
are located in the Netherlands. The results of the Bodemsanering Netherland BV are discussed here.
These operations are considered full scale. The installation of Bodemsanering Netherland (BSN) has
been in operation since 1983 and was originally developed to separate oil from sandy soil. Its
capacity is approximately 20 tons per hour, and the mobile installation is easy to transport to a
contaminated site.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The oil separation is based on a high pressure water jet curtain
loosening the contaminants from the sand particles. The process is comprised of the following steps:
(1) Separation of coarse materials (>100 mm)
(2) High pressure washing
(3) Separation of coarse sand by sieves and hydrocylcones (>63 urn)
(4) Separation of silt by sedimentation (30-63 urn)
(5) Separation of process water, oil and fine mineral fraction (<30 um)
(6) Dewatering of the treated soil
Step 4 and 5 may be enhanced by coagulants and flocculants. The process usually uses water
without any additives. This fact offers the option of additional microbiological treatment of the spent
process water and/or the treated sand. The process water is recirculated to the high pressure
separator.
No conclusions, QA/QC procedures, or sampling and analysis procedures are given; only a brief
process description and process diagram.
PERFORMANCE: The operational soil washing installations have proven successful for removing
cyanides; PNAs (polynuclear aromatics) and mineral oil; heavy metals; halogenated hydrocarbons and
other contaminants with efficiencies exceeding 80% (see Table 1).
271 Document Number EUTT-3
-------
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
W07-Heterocyclics and Simple TOT-AR Aromatic
Non-Hal. Aromatics Hydrocarbons
W08-Polynuclear Aromatics TOT-PAH Total Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
W13-Other Organics CRUDE Crude Oil
TABLE 1
CONTAMINANT REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
Removal
Initial Efficiency
Concentration Final Concentration %
Contaminant ppm After Treatment (approximate)
Aromatics 240 41 81
PNAs 295 15 95
Crude Oil 79 2.3 97
Note: This a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for more information.
272 Document Number EUTT-3
-------
Treatment Process: Dechlorination
Media: Soil/generic
Document Reference: U.S. EPA. "Project Summary Report on the Feasibility of APEG
Detoxification of Dioxin-Contaminated Soils." Technical report
prepared by U.S. EPA ORD Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, 5 pp. Cincinnati, OH. April 1984.
Document Type: EPA ORD Report
Contact: Charles Rogers
U.S. EPA, ORD HWERL
26 W. St. Clair St.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7757
Site Name: Denny Farm and Timberline Stables, MO
Location of Test: Shenandoah Stables, MO
BACKGROUND: A pilot scale field study was conducted at Shenandoah Stables in Moscow Mills,
Missouri, to evaluate the potential for alkali polyethylene glycolate (APEG) to dechlorinate 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,37,8-TCDD). This document is a summary of the study.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The experimental design for the field study employed a Latin
Square to compare five levels of treatments. The treatments were designated (1) APEG-treated and
covered soils, (2) APEG-treated and uncovered soils, (3) not treated and covered soils, (4) not treated
and uncovered soils, and (5) methoxypolyethylene glycol (MPEG) control and uncovered soils. In
addition to this field study, two sections of arena bleachers were tested with APEG to determine the
ability of the chemical reagent to decontaminate dust-covered surfaces. It is this data that is reported
in the database.
No QA/QC procedures are mentioned in the document; however, it is reported that all analyses of the
soil and bleacher samples for 2,3,7,8-TCDD were performed under the auspices of the Superfund
National Dioxin Study.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
W02-Dioxins/Furans/PCBs 1746-01-6 2,3,7,8-Tetra-chloro-dibenenzo-p-
dioxin (TCDD)
273 Document Number EUTY
-------
Treatment Process: Dechlorination
Media: Soil/Generic
Document Reference: "Herman, T.O., Ph.D., "Development of Treatment Data on the KPEG
Process for CERCLA/BDAT Standards" Approximately 60 pp.
Prepared for U.S. EPA, HWERL. January 1988.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: C. Rodgers
U.S. EPA, HWERL
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7757
Site Name: BDAT SARM - Manufactured Waste (Non-NPL)
Location of Test: Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio
BACKGROUND: This report describes the results of laboratory studies on KPEG treatment of
synthetic soils contaminated with a variety of compounds, both organic and inorganic. The U.S. EPA
provided soils to Wright State University to conduct the KPEG study. Problems were encountered in
obtaining homogeneous soil samples and in the analysis of contaminants in the soils and in the
analysis for VOCs in the reaction products of the KPEG treatment tests.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: EPA provided 50 pounds each of four different standard
analytical reference matrix (SARM) samples which were prepared under a separate work assignment.
Each of the soil samples were spiked with different concentrations of known volatile organic
compounds (ethylbenzene, xylene, tetrachloroethylene, chlorobenzene, styrene, 1,2-dichloroethane
and acetone), three semi-volatiles (anthracene, bis (2-ethylphenyl) phthalte and pentachlorophenol)
and seven metals (Cd, Ca, Cr, Pb, As, Ni and Zn). The authors found the SARM soil samples to be
non-homogenous with condensation and pooling of the liquid contaminants occurring in the soil
samples. Samples could not be homogenized due to the high moisture content of the sample. 500
gram aliquots of the SARM soils were removed, placed in a two liter reaction vessel and reacted with
KPEG for 1 hour at 100°C to observe if the KPEG process effectively removed certain contaminants.
The KPEG reagent was provided by the U.S. EPA. Samples before and after treatment were
measured by purge/trap GC/MS. The analytical procedures had to be extensively modified due to the
high levels of contaminants present in the reaction products. The author attributed the substantial
scatter in the results to the problem of the non-homogenous SARM that were used. Heavy metal
analyses were performed by an EPA CLP Laboratory.
PERFORMANCE: The metal analysis in treated and untreated samples revealed that KPEG
treatment and subsequent water washing did not reduce the metal concentrations. Overall metal
materials balance was poor. The volatile and semi-volatile organic data also exhibited very poor mass
balance and a large scatter in results. However, the KPEG appears to have reacted with and
essentially completely destroyed dichloroethane and tetrachloro-ethylene. The other two chlorinated
organics were not destroyed since temperatures higher than 100°C are required to dechlorinate these
compounds.
274 Document Number: EUTV
-------
The other organic compounds, xylene, ethylbenzene and styrene do not appear to be destroyed by
this treatment. The acetone data is suspect due to volatility problems, instrument saturation, etc. A
QA review could not be conducted due to the enormous concentrations of the analyte present in the
various samples and the inapplicability of EPA analytical methods. The analytical data obtained are
believed to be, at best, semi-quantitative indicators of the KPEG processes ability to treat
contaminated soils.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of the
contaminates by treatability group is:
Treatability Group
W01-Halogenated Aromatic
Compounds
WO3-Halogenated Phenols,
Cresols and Thiols
WO4-Halogenated Aliphatic
Solvents
W07-Heterocyclics and
Simple Aromatics
WO8-Polynuclear Aromatics
WO9-Other Polar Organic
Compounds
W10-Non-Volatile Metals
W11-Volatile Metals
CAS Number
108-90-7
87-86-5
107-06-2
127-18-4
100-41-4
100-42-5
1330-20-7
120-12-7
67-64-1
117-81-7
7440-47-3
7440-50-8
7440-02-0
7440-38-2
7440-43-9
7439-92-1
7440-66-6
Contaminants
Chlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
1,2-dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Xylene (total)
Anthracene
Acetone
bis (2-ethyl hexyl)
phthalate
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Arsenic
Cadium
Lead
Zinc
275
Document Number: EUTV
-------
Treatment Process: Thermal Destruction - Incineration
Media: Soil/Lagoon Sediment
Document Reference: Atlantic Research Corp. "Engineering and Development Support of
General Decon Technology for the U.S. Army's Installation/Restoration
Program." Prepared for USATAHMA under contract DAAK11-80-
C0027. Four volumes with a total of approximately 500 pp. April-June
1982.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: Wayne Sisk
U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
301-671-2054
Site Name: Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant (NPL - Federal facility)
Location of Test: Atlantic Research Corp., Alexandria, VA
BACKGROUND: This document reports on the results of bench scale tests of treatment
technologies for explosive-containing sediment located in lagoons at Army ammunition plants. A
companion literature search identified the appropriate explosives remediation technologies to be
evaluated. Cost estimates for various treatment technologies were made based on the laboratory
data.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: Sediment samples contaminated with the explosives TNT, RDX,
tetryl and nitro cellulose from the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant were used in the laboratory tests.
Explosive levels in lagoon #4 sediments were at or below 1000 ug/g. Samples from lagoons 9 and
11 had much higher RDX and TNT levels (1000 to 109,000 ug/gm of soil). The report contains a
detailed QA/QC plan and analytical protocol.
PERFORMANCE: Incineration tests were conducted by placing approximately 4g of sediment in
a crucible and placing the crucibles in a muffle furnace for varying amounts of time. Residues were
analyzed for contaminants of interest. Table 1 shows the results of the incineration tests. Incineration
at temperatures as low as 300-500°C for 30 minutes time can remove all the contaminants from the
sediments. While all of the explosives can be reduced to their detection limits at the lower
temperatures, it is possible that some toxic decomposition products may remain. It is, therefore,
important to use temperatures which reduce the total organic contents as measured by chemical
oxygen demand (COD) to acceptable levels. This can be accomplished at temperatures of
500°-700°C and reaction times of 30 minutes. Since explosive volatilization may occur, it will be
important in a pilot scale study to determine whether any vaporized explosivescan be detected in the
exhaust gases. Costs for treatment can vary from $100,000/year to $2,000,000/year depending on
the water content of the slurry that Is incinerated. In addition to incineration, acetone extraction,
gamma irradiation, wet air oxidation, and water extraction tests were conducted and results reported
in this document. Of the five procedures tested only incineration and acetone extraction proved
effective in removing contaminants from sediments. Incineration equipment is available and pilot tests
were recommended.
276 Document Number: EUWW
-------
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data Is provided In the treatability study report. The breakdown of the
contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group
WO6-Nitrated Aromatics and
Aliphatics
W10-Non-Volatile Metals
WH-Volatile Metals
W12-Other Inorganics
CAS Number
121-82-4
118-96-7
479-45-8
7440-47-3
7439-92-1
7440-43-9
COD
Contaminants
Hexahydro-1,3,5-trlnitro-
1,3,5-triazine (RDX)
Trinitrotolune (TNT)
Trinitrophenylmethyl-
nitramine (tetryl)
Chromium
Lead
Cadmium
Chemical Oxygen Deman
277
Document Number: EUWW
-------
TABLE 1
INCINERATION OF LAGOON 9 SEDIMENT - EXPLOSIVES LEVELS
Concentration in Dry Sediment
Temperature Time
°C (min)
No heat
200 5
30
60
300 5
30
60
500 5
30
60
700 5
30
60
900 5
30
60
TNT
(ug/g)
424,000
10,000
1,500
1,350
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
RDX Tetryl
(ug/g) (ug/g)
159,000 15,800
<1 114
<1 <0.3
<1 <0.3
<1 <0.3
<1 <0.3
<1 <0.3
<1 <0.3
<1 <0.3
<1 <0.3
<1 <0.3
<1 <0.3
<1 <0.3
<1 <0.3
<1 <0.3
<1 <0.3
COD
(ug/g)
206,000
124,500
116,500
149,000
55,200
52,300
30,000
5,900
2,190
1,280
8,720
1,310
2,320
12,200
2,410
1,670
Note:
This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document
for more information.
278
-------
Treatment Process: Thermal Destruction - Circulating Bed Combustion (CBC)
Media: Soil/generic
Document Reference: GA Technologies, Inc. "PCB Destruction Facility Circulating Bed
Combustcr." Technical report prepared for U.S. EPA. 24 pp.;
December 1985.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: Hiroshi Dodohara
Ogden Environmental Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 85178
San Diego, CA 92138-5178
619-455-2383
Site Name: Gulf Oil Corp., Berkley Heights, NJ (Non-NPL)
Location of Test: Berkley Heights, NJ
BACKGROUND: This treatability study reports on an evaluation of a pilot-scale, transportable,
circulating bed combustor (CBC) for the incineration of PCB contaminated soils. This May 1985 test
was a demonstration to support a permit application for operation In California.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The CBC demonstration utilized a spiked soil (10,000 ppm PCB
concentration) at a feed rate of 400 pounds per hour and a CBC operating temperature of 1800°F.
No information was provided on the soil. Three four-hour runs were completed; however, because
problems occurred in the sampling of particulates in the initial test, a fourth abbreviated run of two
hours was conducted solely for collecting a particulates sample. Three supplementary runs were
conducted to evaluate low combustion temperatures (1625°F) and to incinerate PCB-contaminated
soil. Feed soil, fly ash, and bed ash were sampled and analyzed. Stack emissions samples were
collected for particulates, semi-volatile organics, and volatile organics.
PERFORMANCE: Destruction Removal Efficiencies (DREs) ranged from 99.9999% to 99.995% for
PCB except for 1 run which resulted in a 99.82% efficiency. No significant PCB stack emissions were
indicated. Particulate stack emissions during one test did not meet the standard for stationary air point
sources. High particulate emissions were attributed to a high process air supply inadvertently applied
to the air bag filtration unit. Another significant test value was the residual dioxin and furan in the
treated soil. High values of 1.33 ppb for dioxins and furans were indicated in the fly ash.
Several operational problems were reported. The damp, irregularly shaped soil feed material used
during the trials clogged the transfer ducts in the unit. Agglomeration of the soil also occurred in the
combustor bed, affecting mixing efficiency with direct reduction in the combustion efficiency.
Other problems occurred with the stack sampling method. During one stack sampling sequence, fly
ash was inadvertently dispersed throughout the operating bay, resulting in the evacuation of the entire
office/pilot plant building. Siloxanes were present in the stack gas stream and interfered in the
laboratory procedures to analyze the stack gas samples. However, the siloxanes may have been from
silicone sealant which was used to install an in-line oxygen monitor, or from silicone rubber sealants
in the sampling trains or similar sources. The demonstration trial runs and the supplementary tests
indicated that the formation of agglomerates affected the combustion efficiency of the CBC unit, and
Increased the emission of products of incomplete combustion (PICs).
279 Document Number EUXM
-------
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group
W01-Halogenated Aromatic
Compounds
W02-Dioxins/Furans/PCBs
CAS Number
TOT-TCB
11096-82-5
12672-29-6
Contaminant
Total Trichlorobenzenes
PCB-1260
PCB-1248
280
Document Number EUXM
-------
Treatment Process: Immobilization - Cement Solidification
Media: Soil/Sand and Slit
Document Reference: Firestone Resource, Inc. (Three Documents). "Soil Stabilization Pilot
Study, United Chrome NPL Site, Corvallis, Oregon" and "Quality
Assurance/Quality Control Plan United Chrome NPL Site Pilot Study"
and "Health and Safety Program, United Chrome NPL Site Pilot
Study." Technical reports prepar4ed for U.S. EPA - Region 10 and
DEP of Oregon. Approximately 45 pages. February 1987
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: John Barich
U.S. EPA - Region X
Hazardous Waste Division
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
206-442-8562
Site Name: United Chrome, OR (NPL)
Location of Test: Corvallis, OR
BACKGROUND: This document is a project plan for a pilot study at the United Chrome NPL site,
Corvallis, Oregon and includes the health and safety and quality assurance/quality control plans. The
plan reports results of a bench scale study of the treatment process as measured by the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test. The purpose of this study, conducted by Firestone
Resources Inc., was to evaluate the effectiveness of soil stabilization technologies to reduce the
leaching of heavy metals and to "pretreat" contaminated soils for subsequent off-site management.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The data available from this 1985 study are bench scale data
involving 1400 pounds of soil from the Western Processing NPL site which was generated to support
the proposal/work plan for the United Chrome NPL site. Three commercial soil stabilization vendors
submitted to EPA 14 stabilized soil cylinders representing the "best achievable performance" of their
technology. One of the bench tests was performed by Firestone Resources, Inc. (FRI). The FRI
treatment process consisted of using an inorganic polymer with cement that was applied to the
excavated site soil. The extraction protocol used in the analysis was TCLP, and both treated and
untreated soil were analyzed. Region 10 confirmed with these bench tests that soil stabilization as
performed by these vendors is effective in reducing leach rate of heavy metals in sands/silt matrices
with little organic co-contamination.
Contained in the document is site description data, work plan description data, and a proposed
sample analysis plan.
The QA/QC plan for the pilot test is an attachment to the first volume of the study, and is extensive
in the referenced methodology.
281 Document Number: EUXT
-------
PERFORMANCE: The bench tests indicated reduction of heavy metal leachate concentrations to
low levels as measured by TCLP procedures. The results of the FRI test are shown in the bottom
table. Through groundwater modeling using as inputs the reductions in leachate strength as
measured by these tests, soils stabilization was demonstrated to be capable of achieving water quality
criteria at the Western Processing test site. Pilot demonstration of this treatment process is planned
for the United Chrome NPL site.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
W10-Non-Volatile 7440-39-3 Barium
Metals 7440-47-3 Chromium
7440-50-8 Copper
7440-02-0 Nickel
W11-Volatile Metals 7440-43-9 Cadium
7439-92-1 Lead
7440-66-6 Zinc
TABLE 1
TCLP LEACHATES FROM THE WESTERN PROCESSING NPL SITE
Contaminant Soil Leachate Stabilized Soil Percent Reduction
Zinc 123,700 38.5 99.97%
Lead 12,115 15.5 99.87%
Barium 1,165 ND 100.00%
Copper 227.5 32 85.93%
Nickel 107 ND 100.00%
Chromium 50 35 30.00%
Cadium 17 0.4 97.65%
Notes: a) All concentration in ug/1
b) ND - Not Detectable
c) This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for more information.
282 Document Number: EUXT
-------
Treatment Process: Dechlorination
Media: Soil/Generic
Document Reference: U.S. ' EPA. "Preliminary Report on Treatment/Detoxification
Alternatives for PCBs and Chlorinated Organics." U.S. EPA ORD,
HWERL. Cincinnati, Ohio. 31 pp. September 1985.
Document Type: EPA ORD Report
Contact: Charles Rogers
U.S. EPA, ORD-HWERL
26W St. Clair Street
Cincinnati, OH 45268
315-569-7757
Site Name: Manufactured Waste (Non-NPL)
Location of Test: Buffalo, NY
BACKGROUND: The EPA Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory (HWERL) report
summarizes the development of systems to dechlorinate polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and chlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) using a series of reagents
prepared from alkali metals and polyethylene glycols (KPEG).
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The data for this document are pilot-scale data for the
KPEG-350 slurry process and bench-scale data with various reagents for the slurry.
The pilot-scale slurry process was tested on a Buffalo, NY PCB contaminated site on July 15-20,
1985. The slurry reactor was a 55-gallon metal drum equipped with a lid, electric heating tape and
a rocking mechanism that mixed reagent into soil. The original PCB concentration in soil ranged from
22-66 ppm. Approximately 150 Ibs. of soil were added to the reactor along with 50 Ibs. of reagent.
The treatment time ranged from 2-2.5 hours at temperatures of 75°-100°C. PCBs were reduced from
22-66 ppm to less than 1 ppm after 2.5 hours of reaction with more than 90% of the reagent
recovered for reuse.
The bench scale data included several of the tests conducted on the effects of radio-frequency (RF)
heating on the in-situ process. The document reports that RF heating of the soil was effective.
PERFORMANCE: The report indicates PCBs and dioxin concentrations can be reduced to less than
1 ppm and 1 ppb respectively by the slurry process. The document concludes that the in-situ process
under ambient conditions is not as effective as the slurry process in the destruction of PCB- or
PCDD-contaminated soils. It should also be noted that the document does not report any analysis
on transformation products. This needs to be addressed, because when chemically altering PCBs,
it is necessary to know what the transformation products are and their potential toxicities.
283 Document Number: EUZD
-------
Costs of the process are estimated at $100 to $300/ton with the in-situ cost being higher due to
reagent loss. The document reports on some methodology, procedures, and QA/QC protocols and
indicates gas chromatograph/mass spectroscopy as the primary method of analysis. Laboratory
QA/QC is not discussed in detail.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
W02-Dioxins/Furans/PCBs 1336-36-3 Total PCBs
284 Document Number: EUZD
-------
Treatment Process: Chemical Extraction and Soil Washing
Media: Soils
Document Reference: Brugger, John, et al, "Development of a Mobile System for Extracting
Spilled Hazardous Material from Soil." U.S. EPA. Risk Reduction
Engineering laboratory, Edison, NJ.
Document Type: Journal Paper
Contact: Dr. J. Brugger
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Site Name: Not Applicable - Treatability Studies
Location of Test: Edison, New Jersey; Milwaukee, Wl; Northbrook, IL
BACKGROUND: This treatability study was conducted by the U.S. EPA Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory. The purpose of the work was to establish the feasibility of extraction for removal of
hazardous chemicals from soil and then to design and construct a mobile unit (soil scrubber) for
treating hazardous chemical spills onto soil.
The project was approached in three phases. Phase 1 involved establishing the feasibility of the
extraction approach. Phase 2 was to include detailed design and construction and Phase 3 tested
the unit. This study focused on the results obtained during Phase 1.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: Various equipment types were reviewed and their advantages
and disadvantages were listed. A water knife system was chosen to provide physical stripping and
lump breakdown. A counter-current extraction procedure using hydrocylcone separators was chosen
because of cost and capacity constraints. The testing approach was developed with this equipment
basis.
Soil types were chosen to represent a range of adsorption capacities and soil structures. Therefore,
an organic peat soil with a high organic and water content and an inorganic sand with silt and clay
were chosen.
Phenol, a water soluble organic was chosen to establish the basic effectiveness of the scrubbing
technique. PCBs were chosen to represent a low-water soluble organic with a high affinity for soils,
and arsenic trioxide was used to define the limitations with an inorganic metal having strong affinity
for soils.
Tests were set up to simulate a spill situation. Plexiglas columns were packed with clean soils, dosed
with chemicals, and allowed to stand for twenty-four hours. This contaminated soil was then treated
using laboratory scale procedures by using a water knife and counter current extraction with various
water solutions. The resultant solutions were then analyzed for contaminants. No discussion of
analytical techniques is contained in the paper. Extraction solution additive concentration and wash
solution contact time were varied in the tests.
PERFORMANCE: The lab results indicate that soil scrubbing can be an effective treatment
technique in certain circumstances. The contaminants which have the highest potential for effective
treatment are those with high water solubility and greater affinity for water than for soil. Phenol
remove efficiency from an inorganic soil reached 99% using the procedure. Arsenic removal efficiency
ranged from 29 to 59% while PCB efficiency was relatively low, 21 to 28%. The effectiveness of the
285 Document Number: EUZE
-------
extraction can be increased by using additives, such as surfactant and salts, in the wash solutions.
Arsenic can be removed to about 50 percent of its original amounts, however, remaining
concentrations are still too high for reuse or disposal by alternate methods. PCBs were difficult to
remove. Further testing would be desirable to establish the system applications.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
W02-Dioxins/Furans/PCB 1336-36-3 Total PCBs
W09-Other Polar Organic 108-95-2 Phenol
Compounds
W11-Volatile Metals 7440-38-2 Arsenic
286 Document Number: EUZE
-------
Treatment Process: Thermal Destruction - Rotary Kiln Incineration
Media: Soil/Sandy
Document Reference: AFESC, Tyndall AFB. "Full Scale Rotary Kiln Incinerator Field Trial:
Phase I, Verification Trial Burn on Dioxin/Herbicide Orange
Contaminated Soil." Internal technical report. 21 pp. Undated.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: Major Terry Stoddart
U.S. DOD/AFESC
Bldg. 1117
Tyndall Air Force Base, FL 32403
904-283-2949
Site Name: Naval Construction Battalion Center, Gulfport, MS (Non-NPL- Federal
facility)
Location of Test: Gulfport, MS
BACKGROUND: This treatability study reports on the results of one of a series of field trials using
various remedial action technologies that may be capable of restoring Herbicide Orange (HO)/Dioxin
contaminated sites. A full-scale field trial using a rotary kiln incinerator capable of processing up to
6 tons per hour of dioxln contaminated soil was conducted at the Naval Construction Battalion Center,
Gulfport, MS.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: Concentrations of HO on the site range from less than 0.1 ppb
to over 500 ppb. It was estimated that a total of 11,000 tons of sandy or sandy loam soils
contaminated with HO could be excavated and treated. The ENESCO mobile incinerator used in the
test was capable of treating 100 tons of dioxin contaminated soil daily. The system successfully
demonstrated 99.9999% Destruction Removal Efficiency (DRE) for PCB and Dioxin surrogates. In the
incinerator, the soil was heated to 1000-1 SOOT In the rotary kiln which burned or volatilized all the
gases. The gases were then drawn into a secondary combustion chamber (SCC) operated at
2000-2400°F for 2.2 seconds in an excess O2 atmosphere to ensure complete combustion. The
residence time of the contaminated soil in the rotary kiln could be varied from 30 to 60 minutes by
altering the kilns' rotation speed and/or the angle of attack. Air pollution control equipment on the
system included cyclones for particulate control, a packed tower, a scrubber and a 35 foot stack. The
packed tower removed HCI from the gas stream. The scrubber was designed to remove additional
HCI and larger particulates (>3 um).
PERFORMANCE: The trial burns were structured to evaluate system performance at various feed
rates to ensure the mobile incinerator could be operated over a range of conditions with minimal
environmental impacts. A total of five individual tests were conducted with contaminated soil feed
rates ranging from 2.6 to 6.3 tons/hour. The unit would be brought to steady state temperatures and
the sampling of the feedstock, treated soil and stack gases would be initiated. The "running time" of
each test was dictated by the time required to collect a stack gas sample. The results of five different
trial runs revealed that the incinerator is capable of removing dioxin and HO from the soil matrix to
concentrations not detectable at 10 ug/kg (10 ppb). The results of a test run are shown in the table
on the following page. The only operational problem resulted from wet soil from heavy rains. Soil
drying should solve the problem.
287 Document Number: EUZH
-------
EPA dioxin protocols from SW 846 were followed. These tests were consideredsuccessful and
follow-up tests on incinerator reliability, maintainability, and cost effectiveness are planned. The
treated soils should be delistable under RCRA based on the data.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group
W02-Dioxins/Furans/PCBs
W03-Halogenated Phenols,
Cresols and Thiols
CAS Number
93-76-5
94-75-7
1746-01-6
F1746-01-6
OCDD
95-95-4
34DCP
Contaminants
2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid
(2,4,5-T)
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
(2,4-D)
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodlbenzo-p-
dioxin
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
furan
Octachlorobenzodioxins
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
3,4-Dichlorophenol
3,4-Dichlorophenol
Note: This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for more information.
288
Document Number: EUZH
-------
Treatment Process: Chemical Extraction and Soil Washing
Media: Soil/Sandy
Document Reference: Science Applications International Corporation. "Treatment of
Contaminated Soils with Aqueous Surfactants (Interim Report)" and
"Project Summary: Treatment of Contaminated Soils with Aqueous
Surfactants." Prepared for U.S. EPA, HWERL, ORD. 46 pp. December
1985.
Document Type: EPA ORD Report
Contact: Richard Traver
U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL - Release Control Branch
Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
201-321-6677
Site Name: Manufactured Waste (Non-NPL)
Location of Test: NWERL/EPA ORD Cincinnati, OH
BACKGROUND: This treatability study reports on the results, conclusions and recommendations
of a project performed to develop a technical base for decisions for the use of surfactants in aqueous
solutions to wash soils in-situ. The study reports on the selection of soil and contaminants, the test
equipment and methods, the results of the various surfactant concentrations tested and the results
of tests to remove the surfactants from the leachate.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: Aqueous nohionic surfactants, high boiling point crude oil, PCBs
and chlorophenols were selected for testing. A fine to coarse loamy soil with 0.12 percent TOC by
weight and permeability of 10-3cm/s was selected for testing. Shaker table partitioning experiments
were conducted to determine the minimum surfactant concentration required to accomplish acceptable
soil cleanup. This was done for each of the selected contaminants. The soil was spiked and packed
in a 3 inch by 5 ft. column for washing. Recycling of washing solution was tested and cleaning of the
contaminants from the surfactant solution was tested.
PERFORMANCE: The extent of contaminant removal from the soil was 92 percent for the PCBs,
using 0.75 percent each of Adsee 799 (Witco Chemical) and Hyonic NP-90 (Diamond Shamrock) in
water. For the petroleum hydrocarbons, the removal with a 2 percent aqueous solution of each
surfactant was 93 percent. Water alone removed all but 0.56 percent chlorophenol after the tenth
pore volume of water. Leachate treatment alternatives of foam fractionations, sorbent adsorption,
ultrafiltration and surfactant hydrolysis were tested in the laboratory. The tests were able to
concentrate the contaminants in the wastewater to facilitate disposal, and clean the water enough to
allow for reuse or disposal in a publicly owned treatment works. The study recommends further tests
on other surfactants, in particular their amenability to separation and reuse. Report concludes that
the use of aqueous surfactants is a potentially useful technology for in-situ cleanup of hydrophobic
and slightly hydrophilic organic contaminants in soil.
289 Document Number: EUZU
-------
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group Is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
W02-Dioxins, Furans, PCBs 1336-36-3 Total PCBs
W03-Halogenated 87-86-5 Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
Phenols, Cresols and Thiols
290 Document Number: EUZU
-------
Treatment Process: Thermal Destruction - Rotary Kiln
Media: Soil/Generic
Document Reference: PEI Associates, Inc. "BOAT Incineration of CERCLA SARMS at the
John Zink Company Test Facility (Final Project Report)." Technical
report prepared for U.S. EPA, ORD, HWERL, Cincinnati, OH 375 pp.
November 1987.
Document Type: EPA ORD Report
Contact: Robert Thurnau
U.S. EPA-ORD
26 W. St. Clair Street
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7629
Site Name: BOAT SARM-Manufactured Waste (Non-NPL)
Location of Test: ORD-Edison, NJ
BACKGROUND: This report presents the results of a treatability study of rotary kiln incineration of
a synthetic "Superfund soil" bearing a wide range of chemical contaminants typically occurring at
Superfund sites. This surrogate soil is referred to as a synthetic analytical reference matrix (SARM),
and was composed of clay, sand, silt, topsoil, and gravel. Two concentrations of contaminants were
added to this material to produce SARM I and SARM II; volatile and semivolatile organics (3000 ppm
in SARM II and 30,000 ppm in SARM I), and metals (1000 ppm in SARM I and II).
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: Three 4-hour test burns were conducted on each SARM at the
John Zink pilot plant facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma using a rotary kiln incineration system capable of
handling 1000 Ib/hr of low BTU solids. The runs were conducted on September 16-18, 1987. The
temperature and feed rates were reasonably close to the goals of 1800°F in the kiln, 2000°F in the
secondary chamber, and nominal feed rates of 1000 Ib/hr. Excess air was maintained at about 3%
in the kiln and about 5% in the secondary. Emissions of O2, CO2, and CO were steady throughout the
tests.
PERFORMANCE: The contaminant concentrations in the ash, scrubber water, and flue gas were
measured to evaluate the performance of the treatment. Little or no volatiles were measured in the
ash, except for acetone and phthalate, and these appear to be due to sample contamination. Metal
concentrations in the ash were unexpectedly low (50 to 80% lower than in the feed). As expected,
cadmium was at least 99.9% lower in the ash, due to volatilization. Only arsenic concentrations
increased in the ash (more than double the concentrations in the feed). The scrubber water was
essentially free of all organics, and contained only low ppm concentrations of metals. Critical
emission parameters (oxygen, HCI, and CO) were within RCRA allowable limits. The ORE
performance standard of 99.99% was achieved for the designed critical principal volatile organic
contaminants for each SARM type. The ORE for the principal semi-volatile organic contaminants
show that anthracene was effectively destroyed. DRE data for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate showed
three runs meeting the 99.99% criteria.
The document discusses QA/QC procedures in detail.
291 Document Number: EUZM
-------
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number
W01-Halogenated 108-90-7
Aromatic Compounds
W03-Halogenated 87-86-5
Phenols, Cresols and Thiols
W04-Halogenated Aliphatic 107-06-2
Solvents 127-18-4
WO7-Heterocyclics and 100-41-4
Simple Aromatics 100-42-5
1330-20-7
WO8-Polynuclear 120-12-7
Aromatics
WO9-Other Polar 67-64-1
Organic Compounds 117-81-7
W10-Non-Volatile 7440-02-0
Metals 7440-47-3
7440-50-8
W11-Halogenated 7439-92-1
Non-Polar Aromatic 7440-43-9
Compounds 7440-66-6
Contaminants
Chlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
1, 2-Dichloroethan
Tetrachloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Xylenes
Anthracene
Acetone
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Nickel
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Cadmium
Zinc
292
Document Number: EUZM
-------
Treatment Process: Chemical Extraction and Soil Washing
Media: Soil/Sandy
Document Reference: Summary report. "Harbauer Soil Cleaning System." 10 pp. Received
at U.S. EPA Headquarters on November 10, 1987
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: W. Werner, President
Harbauer, Inc.
Berlin, West Germany
Site Name: Pintsch Oil Site (Non-NPL)
Location of Test: Berlin, West Germany
BACKGROUND: This document reports on the use of a soil cleaning system to remove
contaminants from various types of soils by washing and concurrently vibrating the soils to force the
contaminant into the liquid phase. The system was developed by Harbauer and is being used in
Berlin, Germany at a site contaminated with waste oils.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The contaminated soil is mixed with the extractant liquid and
introduced into a decontamination chamber. The chamber contains a device resembling a giant auger
to which mechanical energy is applied axially in the form of vibrations. Separation is achieved
continuously as the contaminated soil is moved through the system. A vibrating system was utilized
as it allows for control of process conditions. The two most important parameters affecting system
performance are residence time and the energy density of the vibrations. Residence time is varied
by controlling the rotation speed of the auger which moves the material through the chamber. Energy
density is controlled by altering the frequency and amplitude of the vibrations. There are four basic
process parameters that must be optimized or controlled for a successful cleanup. They are: 1)
producing a stable soil/liquid suspension, 2) extraction of the pollutants through the use of mechanical
energy, 3) separation of the soil/liquid phases after extraction and 4) separation of the pollutant from
the water phase and reuse of the extractant. The system is closed but no information was provided
on system capacity. No QA/QC plan is contained in the document. No site specific information on
the amount of soils requiring treatment or contaminant levels was provided. Dirty water from the soil
washing operation at the Berlin site is incorporated into the overall groundwater cleanup process.
This water meets effluent standards and may be released directly into neighboring waterways.
PERFORMANCE: The current state of the art allows for use of this technique in 0.06 mm to 0.6
mm particle size range. Research is being conducted to extend the technique down to the 0.006 mm
particle size range to clean clay and other fine materials. Tests were conducted on a variety of
different soils (sandy, silt and clay) contaminated with organic petroleum product, phenol chloride,
PAH, PCB and cyanides. Removal efficiencies ranged from 84% to 100%. Clay soil had the lowest
removal efficiency. The bottom table shows the results of tests on contaminated clay soil. The
technique appears to remove various contaminants from the soil, however, no information is provided
on the amount of contaminant the water extraction process alone removes versus the amount of
contaminant removed by the energy introducedinto the system. No results were provided on the effect
of increasing the energy density on contaminant removal efficiency.
293 Document Number: EVAR
-------
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of the
contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
W02-Dioxins/Furans/ 1336-36-3 Total PCBs
PCBs
WO8-Polynuclear TOT-PAH Phenol
Aromatics
WO9-Other Polar 108-95-2 Total Polycyclic
Compounds Aromatic Hydrocarbons
W13-Other Organics TEH Total Extractable Hydro-
carbons
TOC Total Organic Carbon
TABLE 1
RESULTS OF SOIL WASHING ON A CLAY SOIL
Input Remaining Washing Success
Pollutants Pollutant Level Pollutant Level % Removed
(mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Total
Organics 4440 159 96.4
Petroleum
Extract
Total Phenol 165 22.5 86.4
PAH 948 91.4 90.4
EOX
(mgCI-kg) 33.5 ND 100
PCB 11.3 1.3 88.3
ND = None Detected
Note: This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for more information.
294 Document Number: EVAR
-------
TABLE 1
API SEPARATOR SLUDGE TESTS
Joxlc Total ppm Leach Value-ppm
Chromium 630 0.03-0.04
Lead 250-332 .05
Ethyl benzene 10 N.D.
Xylenes, m 40 N.D.
Xylenes, o & p 43 N.D.
Anthracene 19 N.D.
Chrysene 29 N.D.
Mehtylnaphthalene 170-470 N.D.
Napthalene 13-93 N.D.
Phenathrene 110-206 N.D.
N.D. = Not Detectable Detection Limit 100 ppb
TABLE 2
Toxic Total ppm Leach ppm
Acrylonitrile 120 1.5
Acrylic Acid 5 .1
Acrolein 59 0.5
Acetonitrlle 150 3.9
Copper 78 0.2
Antimony 13 0.7
Organic cyanide 120 0.13
Free cyanide 10 0.10
Note: This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for more information.
295 Document Number: EVAR
-------
Treatment Process: Immobilization - Stabilization
Media: Soil/Sandy, Silty and Clays
Document Reference: "Presentation of the HWT Chemical Fixation Technology and
Japanese in Place Treatment Equipment" International Waste
Technologies, 807 North Waco, Suite 31, Wichita, KS 67203
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: Ms. Joehanna Miller
EPA Region IX
215 Freemont St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-974-7728
Site Name: Not Applicable (Treatability Study)
Location of Test: Not Reported
BACKGROUND: This report provides information on the stabilization of various hazardous wastes
by a special formulation marketed by International Waste Technologies. The process stabilizes the
waste and produces an inert polymeric substance which resists leaching of both organic and inorganic
contaminants. The report also contains information on Japanese injection and blending equipment
which can be used to deliver and blend the HWT stabilizing agents with hazardous constituents
located underground.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The HWT treatment compounds affect various forms of chemical
change by ion exchange, substitution reactions, intermolecular forces and by molecular displacement
of the toxic organic and inorganic components of the waste. The HWT process imparts a cement-like
stabilization to hazardous constituents in addition to encapsulating and reacting with the hazardous
constituents. The compounds are formulated in acid solution at pH 3 and once solidified are highly
acid resistant. The solidified HWT compound is made up of selected polyvalent inorganic elements
that contain branches and cross linked polymers that produce an interpenetrating polymer network.
The solidified mass containing the trapped contaminants transitions from a sol to a gel to a three
dimensional inorganic polmer which should pass the required leaching tests within seven to twenty-
eight days. Certain special mixtures such as surfactants are used to disperse the polymer producing
reagents.
This report provided only very generic information on what was taking place. No information on the
strength of the matrix, teachability test procedures or the ratios of constituents used to produce the
stable matrix were provided. No QA/QC procedures are discussed in the document.
PERFORMANCE: The following is a summary of test results on organic toxics and heavy metals:
(1) The untreated PCB concentration in soil averaged 1140 ppm. The sample was treated at
15% by weight with HWT-20. Using the TCLP leach test, after two weeks curing time, the
average leach PCB level of three samples was 6 ppb.
(2) The untreated PCB concentration in soil averaged 6,000 ppm. The sample was treated at
25% by weight with HWT-20 to cause solidification. Leach values after four weeks using the
EP Toxicity test procedure with glass fiber filter was 80 ppt (parts per trillion).
296 Document Number: EWFQ
-------
(3) Soil contaminated with 11,000 ppm, of pentachlorophenol was solidified using the HWT-20
compound at 15% by weight. There was only 450 ppm of pentachlorophenol (POP) leached
out by methylene chloride extraction of the solid sample.
(4) A sample of K051 AP1 separator bottoms contaminated by oil and grease contained the toxic
inorganic and organics shown in Table 1. The TCLP leaching procedure was used. The
sludge was treated with 15% to 25% by weight of HWT. The reduction In contaminant levels
leached out after solidification is significant.
(5) A sludge sample containing 70% water with the toxic components listed in Table 2 was
treated at 15% by weight of HWT-20. Leaching procedure was TCLP except for cyanide.
Cyanide was leached by deionized water. The reduction in contaminant levels leached out
after solidification is significant. HWT-20 immobilizes a variety of hazardous wastes in the
form of soils or sludges and does not allow any appreciable leaching of organics or heavy
metals.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group
W02-Dioxins/Furans/PCBs
W03-Hal. Phenols, Cresols,
Ethers, and Thiols
W07-Hetrocyclics and Simple
Aromatics
W08-Polynuclear Aromatics
W09-Other Polar Organic
Compounds
W10-Non-Volatile Metals
W11-Volatile Metals
W12-Other Inorganics
CAS Number
1336-36-3
87-86-5
100-41-4
108-38-3
95-47-6
120-12-7
218-01-9
85-01-8
91-20-3
91-57-6
107-02-8
107-37-1
74381-40-1
75-05-8
C57-12-5
7440-47-3
7440-50-8
7439-92-1
7440-36-0
74-90-8
Contaminants
Total PCBs
Pentachlophenol
Ethylbenzene
M-Xylene
O&P Xylene
Anthracene
Chrysene
Phenanthrene
Naphthalene
2-Methylnapthalene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Propanoic Acid, 2- Methyl
Acetonitrile
Organic Cyanide
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Antimony
Hydrocyanic Acid
297
Document Number: EWFQ
-------
TABLE 1
API SEPARATOR SLUDGE TESTS
Toxic Total ppm Leach Value-ppm
Chromium 630 0.03-0.04
Lead 250-332 .05
Ethyl benzene 10 N.D.
Xylenes, m 40 N.D.
Xylenes.o&p 43 N.D.
Anthracene 19 N.D.
Chrysene 29 N.D.
Methylnaphthalene 170-470 N.D.
Napthalene 13-93 N.D.
Phenanthrene 110-206 N.D.
N.D. = Not Detectable Detection Limit N.D.
100ppb N.D.
TABLE2
IMMOBILIZATION OF METALS IN SLUDGE
Toxic Total ppm Leachableppm
Acrylonitrile 120 1.5
Acrylic Acid 5 .1
Acrolein 59 0.5
Acetonitrile 150 3.9
Copper 78 0.2
Antimony 13 0.7
Organic cyanide 120 0.13
Free cyanide 10 0.10
Note: This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the documentfor more information.
298 DocumentNumber EWFQ
-------
Treatment Process: Bioremediation - Aerobic
Media: Soil/generic
Document Reference: Koppers Co., Inc. "Evaluation of an Engineered Biodegradation System
at the Nashua, N.H. Site." Technical report prepared for Keystone
Environmental Resources, Inc. Approximately 106 pages. April 1987
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: Ann Hegnauer
Keystone Environmental Resources, Inc.
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
202-429-6552
Site Name: Nashua Site NH (NPL)
Location of Test: Nashua, NH
BACKGROUND: The treatability study report presents the results of both laboratory and field
studies conducted by Koppers on soils from the Nashua, N.H., NPL site. The purpose of these
studies was to provide the necessary data to evaluate a full-scale design for the Engineered
Biodegradation System (EBDS) to treat wood preservative residues found in the soils at this site.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The laboratory bench scale studies consisted of a soil pan study
and a soil column study. The soil pan study evaluated the influence of soil moisture, nutrients, and
level of waste application on biodegradation. The soil column study evaluated the mobility of waste
constituents in soil, air, and water.
In the pilot-scale field study, which was performed onsite, the treatment unit with an area of 10,000
sq ft was loaded with 1 foot of contaminated soil. The soil from the Nashua site was not
characterized. Cow manure, lime, water, and fertilizer were added, and the mixture was rototilled to
maintain aerobic conditions. The test was run for approximately 6 months.
PERFORMANCE: Highest initial contaminant concentrations were 7707 ppm for oil and grease,
2143 ppm for PAH, and 133 ppm for PCP. In the field investigation, over 80% of PCP and
napthalene, and 90% of the PAHs were chemically/biologically degraded by the pilot scale EBDS.
The pilot-scale aerobic design was applied to the soils utilizing operating parameters (i.e., moisture
content, additive agents like fertilizer and lime) established from the bench scale study. The EBDS
unit promotes the growth of unspecified indigenous microorganisms to biodegrade contaminants.
Both the potential problems of fugitive emissions and leachate run-off were addressed in the pilot
study design. Tests results for both of the potential problems showed that negligible amounts of
runoff and fugitive emissions were generated. Bench scale data and pilot scale data is available in
the document.
The study does not report the analysis for potential toxic intermediates (transformation products) that
may be produced from the microbial degradation. Further, no QA/QC protocols are reported in the
document. The document reports total waste analysis and toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
299 Document Number: EWGC
-------
(TCLP) extract analysis data. There were no influent TCLP analyses to match the effluent TCLP
concentrations remaining in the soil.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number
W03-Halogenated 87-86-5
Phenols, Cresols and Thiols
WO8-Polynuclear TOT-PAH
Anomalies
W13-Other Organics TOT-OIL
Contaminants
Pentachlorophenols
Total Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Oil and Grease
300
Document Number: EWGC
-------
Treatment Process: Thermal Destruction - UV Photolysis
Media: Soil/Generic
Document Reference: International Technology Corp., AFESC, EG&G Idaho, Inc.
"Technology Demonstration of a Thermal Desorption/UV Photolysis
Process for Decontaminating Soils Containing Herbicide Orange."
Prepared for EG&G Idaho. 14 pp. Technical report.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: Major Terry Stoddart
U.S. DOD/AFESC
BLDG 1117
Tyndall Air Force Base, FL 32403
904-283-2949
Site Name: NCBC Gulfport, MS; Johnston Island; and Guam (Non-NPL)
Location of Test: Gulfport, MS and Guam
BACKGROUND: This treatability study report presents the results of laboratory and field tests on
the effectiveness of a new decontamination process for soils containing 2,4-D/2,4,5-T and traces of
dioxin. The process employs three operations, thermal desorption, condensation and absorption of
contaminants into a solvent and photo decomposition. Bench scale tests were conducted to establish
the relationships between time and temperature and treatment efficiency. A pilot scale (100 Ibs/hr)
system evaluation was conducted at two sites to evaluate system performance and develop scale-up
information.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The intent of the laboratory and pilot scale tests was to reduce
the combined dibenzo dioxin and furan constituents, which originate from Herbicide Orange (HO), to
less than 1 ng/g. This level represents the anticipated soil cleanup criteria. The soils used had
similar concentrations of HO contaminants, but were different types of soil. In the laboratory the
contaminated soil is passed through thermal desorber and the off gases from the soils, including the
contaminants, are passed through a scrubber that uses a hydrocarbon solvent.
Contaminants dissolve in the solvent and the solvents are passed through a flow reactor which
subjects the contaminant to UV radiation to decompose the contaminant molecules. Testing was
conducted on soil samples from three HO contaminated sites; Johnson Island, Eglin AFB and NCBC
in Biloxi, MS. The soils tested had 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations greater than 100 ng/g of soil and
2,4,-D/2,4,5-T levels greater than 1000 ng/g soil. Tests were run at three different temperatures and
two different power levels using high Intensity UV quartz mercury vapor lamps.
Pilot tests were conducted at the NCBC site using a rotary indirect calciner as the desorber, an off
gas transfer and scrubber system and a photochemical reactor to irradiate the contaminants contained
in the scrubber solution. A 1200-watt high intensity mercury vapor lamp was used to irradiate the
contaminated scrubber solution. No QA/QC plan was contained in the document. No discussion of
analytical techniques utilized to detect HO and associated compounds is contained in the paper. A
detailed list of soil properties (particle size distribution, surface area, organic matter, etc.) from the
three different sites is contained In the document.
301 Document Number: EWGE
-------
PERFORMANCE: Laboratory studies revealed that thermal desorption/UV photolysis destroyed all
compounds to below their analytical detection limit (which was generally less than 0.1 ng/g). The
concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD was reduced from 200 ng/g to less than 1 ng/g. Insoluble brown tars
(presumably phenolic tars) were deposited on the surfaces of the reactor vessel and lamp
well. Reaction kinetics quantum yields and rate constants were determined. Pilot tests also produced
soil containing less than 1 ng/g of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The bottom table shows the results of the tests.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
W02-Dioxins/Furans/ 1746-01-6 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-
PCBs p-dioxin (TCDD)
TABLE 1
EFFECT OF TREATMENT CONDITIONS ON RESIDUAL 2.3,7,8-TCDD
DURING NBC PILOT THERMAL DESORPTION TESTS
Test No.
1
2
3
4
5
Notes: a)
b)
Soil Feed
Rate
(kg/hr)
13.6
13.6
25
44
20
Soil residence
Detection level
Residence
Time"
(min)
40
40
19
10.5
24
Soil
Temperature
2,3,7,8-TCDDD
(ng/g)
(°C) Initial Residual
560
560
560
560
460
260
272
236
266
233
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.5
time in heated zone.
for 2,3,7,8-TCDD
was generally
less than 0.1 ng/g
with a range of
0.018 to 0.51 ng/g.
c) This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for more information.
302 Document Number: EWGE
-------
Treatment Process: Chemical Extraction and Soil Washing
Media: Sediments/sludges
Document Reference: "Development and Evaluation of a Low Energy Process Technology for
Extraction and Chemical Destruction of Polychlorinated Biphenyls from
Contaminated Sediments and Sludges." Barry Rugg, Walter Brenner,
Principal Investigators, NYU/DAS 87-165, April 1987.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: Mr. Bill Smith
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Edison, NJ
201-321-6740
Site Name: Not Applicable
Location of Test: New York University
Department of Applied Science
New York, New York
BACKGROUND: This study has resulted in the development of a process concept for the
decontamination of soils and sediments containing organic solvents, PCBs and other undesirable
compounds. PCB-contaminated soils and sludges are effectively extracted from soils and sludge in
a solvent and then destroyed by incineration or by chemical reaction.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The extraction process is accomplished in the following major
steps: (1) a solid/liquid separation for sediments (which is not necessary for contaminated soils); (2)
a solvent leaching with a hydrophilic solvent, usually carried out in counter-current stages (the number
of stages is determined by the required degree of decontamination); and (3) the transfer and
simultaneous concentration of the organic contaminant from the hydrophilic solvent to a hydrophobic
solvent, ready for final treatment and disposal. The system is designed so that all solvents can be
recycled internally and only decontaminated soil and water are returned to the environment.
Exploratory studies were conducted on the solvent extraction of PCBs from contaminated sediments
obtained from Waukegan Harbor, IL. This research led to a process scheme for the extraction of
PCBs which offers significant technical and cost advantages over currently available technology.
The survey of solvent extraction and support equipment comprised investigations of the major
industrially available types of chemical processing equipment for the extraction of PCBs from
contaminated sediments and sludges. Specific industrial equipment for solvent extraction includes
both continuous and batch type contactors. Type of contactors studied were agitated columns, pulsed
columns, rotary agitation columns, reciprocating plate columns, perforated plate columns, various
mixer settlers and centrifugal extractors, the sampling and analysis and the resulting data were
obtained in accordance with the QA/QC protocol of EPA. Third party sampling and analysis
contractors were used (along) with on-site and in-lab observation by EPA.
PERFORMANCE: Destruction and removal efficiencies (DREs) were greater than 99.9999% and
PCB levels in combustor ash were less than 200 ppb (see Table 1). no chlorinated dioxins or furans
were detected in the stack gas, bed ash, or fly ash. In addition, no significant concentrations of the
303 Document Number: EWGX
-------
Products of Incomplete Combustion (PICs) were detected. Combustion efficiencies were greater than
99.9% with CO concentrations less than 50 ppm an NO concentrations less than 75 ppm. Particulate
emissions were generally below 0.08 grain/dscf and HCL emissions were maintained below 4.0 1b/hr
by introducing limestone directly into the combustor. It is noted that PCB test data led to the first
TSCA permit for transportable PCB incinerator in all 10 EPA regions.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
W02-Dioxins, Furans, PCBs 1336-36-3 Total PCBs
Note: This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for more information.
304 Document Number: EWGX
-------
Treatment Process: Thermal Destruction - Circulating Bed Combustion (CBC)
Media: Soil/Clay
Document Reference: Ogden Environmental Services, Inc. "BOAT Treatability Data for Soils,
Sludges and Debris From the Circulating Bed Combustion (CBC)
Process." Technical report prepared for U.S. EPA. 31 pp. June 1987.
Document Type: Memo and Conference Paper
Contact: Major Terry Stoddart
U.S. DOD/AFESC
Bldg. 1117
Tyndall Air Force Base, FL 32403
904-283-2949
Site Name: Circulating Bed Combustion Demonstration Facility (Non-NPL)
Location of Test: California
BACKGROUND: The two papers provide a general overview of the Ogden circulating bed
combustion and summary data of both PCB laden soils for EPA-TSCA and a test on RCRA liquid
organic wastes for the California Air Resources Board (CARB). This abstract will discuss the results
of the PCB test, which was planned, monitored and approved by the EPA.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The primary CBC components are the combustion chamber, hot
cyclone collector, flue gas cooler, baghouse, and stack. Auxiliary systems include feeders (solids,
liquids, sludges), forced-draft and induced-draft fans, ash conveyer, compressed air, cooling tower,
and building ventilation. Operating parameters, schematic diagram and cost estimates are provided.
Atmospheric primary air is pumped into the lower portion of the combustion chamber where the bed
material is fluidized by turbulent mixing of the air and solids. Larger solids gravitate downward to form
a more dense fluidized bed in the lowest combustor zone. The forced-draft primary air carries smaller
solids up to the top of the combustor.
Secondary air is supplied to various locations in the combustion chamber to ensure complete
combustion and minimize formation of nitrogen oxides (NOx).
Auxiliary fuel and pressurized contaminated soil feed are individually introduced into the lower
combustion chamber. Capability also exists to feed liquid wastes. Dry limestone sorbent is added
to control gaseous emissions of sulfur, phosphates, chlorines, or other halogens.
Elutriated solids are separated from the flue gas by a hot cyclone and reinjected into the lower
combustor using a proprietary non-mechanical seal. Injection, burning and reaction of fuel,
contaminated soil feed, sorbent, and ash components are the inputs and outputs of a continuing
chemical process which destroys the hazardous wastes.
A trial burn of PCB-contaminated soils was completed in GA Technologies transportable Circulating
Bed Combustor (CBC). Over 4000 pounds of soil containing 1% PCB were treated in three identical
4-hour runs at 1800° F. The sampling and analysis and the resulting data were obtained in
305 Document Number. EWHC
-------
accordance with the QA/QC protocol of EPA. Third party sampling and analysis contractors were
used (along) with on-site and in-lab observation by EPA.
PERFORMANCE: Destruction and removal efficiencies (DREs) were greater than 99.9999% and
PCB levels in combustor ash were less than 200 ppb (see the table on the following page). No
chlorinated dioxins or furans were detected in the stack gas, bed ash, or fly ash. In addition, no
significant concentrations of the Products of Incomplete Combustion (PICs) were detected.
Combustion efficiencies were greater than 99.9%, with CO concentrations less than 50 ppm and NOx
concentrations less than 75 ppm. Particulate emissions were generally below 0.08 grain/dscf and HCL
emissions were maintained below 4.0 Ib/hr by introducing limestone directly into the combustor. It
is noted that PCB test data led to the first TSCA permit for transportable PCB incinerator operation
in all 10 EPA regions.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of the
contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
W02-Dioxins/Furans/ 1336-36-3 Total PCBs
PCBs
306 Document Number: EWHC
-------
TABLE 1
PCB TRIAL BURN OPERATIONAL DATA AND TEST RESULTS
Parameter
Test Duration, hr
Operating Temperature, °F
Soil Feed Rate, Ib/hr
Total Soil Feed, Ib
PCB Concentration In Feed.
DRE%
PCB Concentration
- Bed Ash, ppm
- Fly Ash, ppm
Dioxin/Furan Concentration
- Stach Gas, ppm
- Bed Ash, ppm
- Fly Ash, ppm
Combustion Efficiency, %
Acid Gas Release, Ib/hr
Participate Emissions, grain/scf (dry)
Excess Oxygen, %
CO, ppm
C02, %
NO., ppm
TSCA
Requirement
4
-
-
-
ppm
>99.9999
<2
<2
-
-
-
>99.9
<4.0
<0.08
>3.0
-
-
1
4
1800
328
1592
11,000
99.999995
0.0035
0.066
ND1
ND
ND
99.94
0.16
0.0952
7.9
35
6.2
26
Test Number
2
4
1800
412
1312
12,000
99.999981
0.033
0.0099
ND
ND
ND
99.95
0.58
0.043
6.8
28
6.0
25
3
4
1800
324
1711
9,800
99.999977
0.186
0.0032
ND
ND
ND
99.97
0.70
0.0024
6.8
22
7.5
76
1 ND - Not Detected
2 Derived from 2-hour makeup test
Note: This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for more information.
307
Document Number: EWHC
-------
Treatment Process: Thermal Destruction - Infrared
Media: Soil/Generic
Document Reference: Shirco Infrared System, Inc. "Abstract On-Site Incineration Testing of
Shirco Infrared Systems Portable Demonstration Unit-Contaminated
Soils Treatability Study." Prepared for Dakonto Gmbh Hamburg and
Ingelheim, West Germany, 3 pp. June 1987
Document Type: Abstract
Contact: Scott P. Berdine
Ecova Corporation (formerly Shirco)
14145 Whitlock Lane
Suite 100
Carrollton, TX 7506
214-404-7540
Site Name: Boehringer's Lindane Facility (Non-NPL)
Location of Test: West Germany
BACKGROUND: In August of 1986, Shirco was contracted by Dekonta GmbH, a West German
hazardous waste treatment company, to perform treatability studies at one of the largest
dioxin-contaminated sites in the world. The Shirco Infrared process was selected by Dekonta after a
two year study and evaluation of existing and emerging technologies for soils decontamination.
The West German hazardous waste management regulations, which are established and enforced on
a state by state basis, differ somewhat from those in the U .S. Transportation of dioxin-bearing
wastes, for instance, is strictly prohibited. Hence, mobile technologies offer distinct advantages for
multiple site remediation.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: Tests were conducted using the Shirco Portable Demonstration
Unit during the months of November 1986 and February 1987. Over 3000 kg of contaminated soil
were processed in 100 hours of testing. Various operating condition's including soil contaminant level,
feed rate, primary chamber temperature and residence time, co-flow and counterflow operation, and
gas atmosphere (air vs. nitrogen) were tested to determine the effect on soils decontamination levels
and exhaust gas emissions. The organic contaminants in the soils included dioxins, furans,
chlorobenzenes, chlorophenols, 2,4,5-T, and hexachlorocyclohexanes. Contaminant concentrations
on soils ranged from 4 to 7500 ppb for dioxins, 3 to 5700 for furans and from 33 to 16,600 ppm for
chlorobenzenes. No QA/QC data was presented.
PERFORMANCE: Results of approximately 20 tests Indicate exhaust gas concentrations of
2,3,7,8-TCDD from less than 20 pg/m3 to 88 pg/m3, whereas field "blanks" showed concentrations
ranging from 33 pg/m3 to 73 pg/m3. The source of the high blank concentrations is currently under
Investigation, therefore, the validity of the reported values cannot be established at present. A brief
summary of the data is on the attached table.
308 Document Number: EWQD
-------
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group
W01-Halogenated
Compounds
W02-Dioxins/Furans/PCBs
CAS Number
108-90-7
HEPCDD
OCDF
OCDD
PCDD
HEXCDD
TCDF
1746-01-6
TCDD
HEPCDD
PCDF
HEXCDF
HEPCDF
Contaminants
Total Chlorobenzenes
Total Heptachlorodibenzo-dioxin
Octachlorodibenzofurans
Octachlorodibenzodioxin
Total Hexachlorodibenzo-dioxin
Total Hexachlorodibenzo-dioxin
TotalTetrachlorodibenzo-furan
2,3,7,8 Tetrachlorodibenzop-dtaxin
(TCDD)
Total Tetrachlorodibenzo-dioxins
Total Heptachlorodibenzo-dioxin
Total Pentachlorodibenzo-furans
Total Hexachlorodibenzo-furans
Total Heptachlorodibenzo-furans
NOTE: This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for
more information.
309
Document Number: EWQD
-------
CO
o
SOIL
IDBNTIFICanCN
2 Feed (ppb)
2 Ash
2 Feed (ppb)
2 Ash (ppt)
1 Feed (ppb)
1 Ash (ppt)
4 Feed (ppb)
4 Ash (ppt)
6 Feed (ppb)
6 Ash (ppt)
2 Feed (ppb)
2 Ash (ppt)
1 Feed (ppb)
1 Ash (ppt)
NOTE: ND = Not Detectable
Primary Charter Temperature: 1550-1650°F
Solid Phase Residence Time: 15 minutes
WEST (SBMANY DIOXTN TEST SCMRRY
SOIL FEED AND ASH QOALTIY DATA
DIOXINS FURANS
2,3,7,8
TCED TdD
6.7
ND
4.4
ND
24
ND
38
ND
34
ND
NOT
NOT
6.7
ND
6.0
ND
33
ND
42
ND
38
ND
PCDD
4.0
ND
18
ND
36
ND
41
ND
27
ND
HXCDD
17
ND
121
5.1
115
ND
109
17
90
15
HPCDD OCDD
50
ND
340
18
292
15
280
6.8
238
9.2
202
ND
2301
60
7458
50
5940
15
5160
20
TCDF PCDF
ND
12
15
33
52
67
125
49
70
3.1
ND
53
27
41
45
44
111
34
54
HXODF
9.4
ND
58
20
54
26
129
58
80
24
HPCDF
14.6
ND
98
24
174
23
128
34
106
13
OCDF
35.3
ND
358
12
3151
12
5660
12
4700
6.2
YET AVAILABLE
YET AVAILABLE
Detection
Limits:
a.
b.
2,3,7,8 TCDD
All others
rurnpTRBim^Ri
58,000
1,200
169,000
9,600
242,000
4,700
33,000
16,000
40,000
4,600
16,612,000
11,000
16,526,000
7,400
1-2 ppt
5 ppt
-------
Treatment Process: Thermal Destruction - Rotary Kiln
Media: Soil/Clay
Document Reference: Acurex Corp., Environmental Systems Divisions, Combustion Research
Facility. "CRF Test Burn of PCB-Contaminated Wastes from the
BROS Superfund Site." Approximately 300 pp. Prepared for U.S.
EPA Office of Research and Development. March 1987.
Document Type: EPA ORD Report
Contact: Donald Lynch
U.S. EPA - Region I
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
212-264-8216
Site Name: BROS Superfund Site (NPL)
Location of Test: Jefferson, AR
BACKGROUND: This report provides results of test burns at the EPA Combustion Research Facility
on waste from Bridgeport Rental and Oil Service (BROS) Superfund site, NJ. The purpose of the
study was to: (1) determine if waste could be incinerated safely; (2) comply with the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) regulations governing PCB-contaminated waste; and (3) determine if residuals
could be classified as non-hazardous.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: Rotary kiln was cocurrent propane fired and had a maximum
design capacity of 900°C (1650°F) with a gaseous residence time of 1.7 seconds for 10% excess O2
in flue gas. Containerized solvents were fed in 1.5 gallon fiber packs using a ram feeder. Liquids
and sludge were fed using a progressive cavity pump through a water-cooled lance. Air pollution
control (APC) equipment included a venturi scrubber/quench with a 30 inch. W.D. pressure drop
followed by a packed tower scrubber. A backup dry air pollution control system was utilized to ensure
ultimate emissions would be within the applicable regulatory limits. Scrubber system blowdown was
directed to a chemical sewer, if non-hazardous, or stored in tanks for management at a RCRA facility,
if hazardous. Waste included: lagoon surface oil, lagoon sludge, and soil. Average composition:
210-600 ppm PCB, low to 38% water, 23.2-10,000 Btu/lb. The soil was a clay mud containing rocks,
grass, roots, and twigs.
Twelve tests were performed during 7/21/88 through 9/4/88 (test time was five weeks). Tests involved
variation of: waste feed, kiln temperature, excess O2, rotation time (solid retention time). The report
provides specific information on unit design (schematic diagram included) and provides test data.
Sampling and analysis and QA information is also provided.
PERFORMANCE: The PCB emission results are summarized in the table on the following page.
The test failed to meet the TSCA regulations for 99.9999 percent destruction efficiency (DE) at the
stack gas effluent as measured after the scrubber discharge flue gas. DE results ranged from 99.992
to 99.9998. On average DEs were highest for surface oil and lowest for the soil sludge mixtures.
Data indicated no clear correlation between key process parameters and DE. Analysis indicates that
311 Document Number: EXPC
-------
a gas residence time of 2.0 seconds in the afterburner and a temperature of 1200oC would be
required for this unit to achieve TSCA requirements. This is twice the residence time achieved in this
test.
Scrubber blowdown PCB content was below detection levels (<1 ug/L). Kiln ash was below detection
level for PCBs except for ash from surface oil which tested at 2.55 ug/g. Particulate and HCL
emissions were within regulatory limits. Metal concentrations in leachate samples from ash were
below the EP toxicity limit.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
WO4-Halogenated Aliphatic 75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethene
Solvents 78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane
56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride
79-01-6 Trichloroethene
75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane
WO7-Heterocyclics and 71-43-2 Benzene
Simple Aromatics 108-88-3 Toluene
71-43-2 Benzene
W10-Non-Volatile Metals 7440-39-3 Barium
7440-47-3 Chromium
W11-Volatile Metals 7439-92-1 Lead
7440-38-2 Arsenic
W13-Other Organics 110-54-3 Hexane
Note: This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for more information.
312 Document Number: EXPC
-------
TABLE 1
PCS EMMI SSION RATE AND DE SUMMARY
G>
Feed
(Arochlor 1254)
Waste Type
Lagoon surface
oil
soil
Sludge
Soil plus
sludge
Test
No.
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Concentration
(nig/kg >
282
296
280
67.3
167
95.4
250
250
250
78.6
120
170
Rate
(mg/s)
1.38
1.68
1.85
0.834
2.02
1.20
2.77
2.46
2.27
0.913
1.39
2.04
Emission (Arochlor 1254)
at scrubber discharge
Concentration
(ng/dscm)
207
212
180
32
39
52
9
42
82
49
73
109
Rate
(ug/s)
0.097
0.12
0.060
0.0093
0.011
0.021
0.0039
0.019
0.037
0.021
0.031
0.041
DE
(percent)
99.9930
99.9929
99.9968
99.9989
99.9995
99.9983
99.99986
99.99923
99.9984
99.9977
99.9978
99.9980
Weighted
average DE
(percent)
99.9944
99.9990
99.9992
99.979
Document Number: EXPC.TAB
-------
Treatment Process: Thermal Destruction - Pyrolysis
Media: Soil/Sandy
Document Reference: J. M. Huber Corp. "Advanced Electric Reactor (AER) for the
Treatment of Dioxin-Contaminated Soils." 14 pp. February 1984.
Document Type: Memo
Contact: James Boyd
J.M. Huber Corporation
P.O. Box 2831
Borgen, TX 79007
806-274-6331
Site Name: J.M. Huber Corp. - Borgen, TX (Non-NPL)
Location of Test: Borgen, TX
BACKGROUND: This newsletter reports on the Huber Technology Groups (HTG) high temperature
advanced hazardous waste treatment technology capable of very high destruction and removal
efficiencies of various hazardous wastes. This newsletter addresses the destruction of PCBs in an
EPA certification test of the HTG Advanced Electric Reactor.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The Advanced Electric Reactor of HTG is a high temperature
electrically heated low gas flow reactor, capable of attaining temperatures of 4,000°F to 4,500°F under
low flow conditions, which allows for relatively long residence times; i.e., 5 seconds. For comparison
purposes, a rotary kiln has only a one to two second residence time. Soils can also be treated and
after removal of contaminants they can be landfilled. The reactor can be connected to off-the-shelf
stack gas cleaning equipment to ensure high removal of all pollutants. The reactor vessel uses
nitrogen gas. Oxygen is absent from the combustion process thus preventing the formation of
unwanted oxygen containing by-products, such as dioxin and furans. The system is mobile and was
used in a PCB destruction test witnessed by the U.S. EPA and Texas Air Board. There is no
discussion of the analytical techniques used to measure PCBs. No QA/QC discussion is included.
PERFORMANCE: The results of a trial burn run of the HTG Advanced Electrical Reactor in
removing PCBs are shown in the table on the following page. Initial concentration of Arochlor 1260
was 3000 ppm. The Destruction Efficiencies were 99.9999% in all but one of the tests. Solid phase
soil PCB concentrations were well below the 50 ppm level after treatment. No HCI, CI2, dioxins or
furans were observed at the stack. Only trace NOX and particulate levels were observed. Chlorine
removal efficiency in the scrubber and carbon beds were greater than 99.999%. An accompanying
document indicated that the reactor technique could also destroy dioxin contaminated material to
below current detection levels. However, there were no detailed results of dioxin tests reported in the
newsletter.
314 Document Number. EXPO
-------
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
WO2-Dioxins/Furans/PCBs 11096-82-5 PCB-1260
Note: This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for more information.
315 Document Number: EXPO
-------
OS
0>
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF RESULTS: EPA CERTIFICATION TEST
Run
#
1
2
3
4
Date
9/27/83
9/28/83
9/29/83
9/29/83
Feed
#/Min
15.1
15.7
15.7
15.8
R. Temp.
<°F>
4100
4100
4100
4100
Total N2
(scfm)
147.2
147.2
147.2
147.2
% Gas - Phase
Cyclone (DE)
99.99992
99.99992
99.99960
99.99995
Control
Stack (ORE)
99.9999950
99.9999994
99.9999980
99.9999940
Solid Phase
PCBs, PPM
Treated Feed
0.0005
<0.0005
0.0006
0.0010
Documber Number: EXPO.TAB
-------
Treatment Process: Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
Media: Soil/Generic
Document Reference: Canonie Environmental Services Corp. "Soil Remediation and Site
Closure McKin Superfund Site", Gray, Maine. Technical report of
approximately 250 pp. prepared for U.S. EPA. July 1987.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: U.S. EPA - Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg.
Room 2203
Boston, MA 02203
617-565-3715
Site Name: McKin Superfund Site, Gray, ME (NPL)
Location of Test: Gray, ME
BACKGROUND: This treatability study report describes soil remediation and site closure activities
conducted at the McKin Superfund site in Maine. The work described in this report involves the
removal of volatile organic compounds and petroleum residues from contaminated soils by low
temperature thermal aeration in an enclosed environment. The report discusses the enclosed aeration
process, impact of the operation on ambient air quality, effectiveness of the system, cleanup costs,
and disposal of accumulated on-site materials used in the project.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The soil aeration system utilized during the site cleanup
consisted of a thermal dryer, a baghouse for control of particulate matter, a scrubber to remove water
soluble gases, and a vapor phase carbon treatment system to remove organics from the vapor phase.
Soils were screened to remove boulders and debris, and fed through the system a number of times
via a conveyer to ensure complete aeration. Soil temperatures were maintained at 250 - 400°F to
facilitate volatilization of organics. Soil was solidified with concrete after treatment. 11,500 cubic yards
of soil were processed at the site. Soil types are discussed in reports on previous studies conducted
on the site. Organic vapor concentrations were monitored at the site boundaries, periodic air quality
monitoring was conducted at 10 nearby residences and high volume particulate sampling was
conducted at the site. Ambient hydrocarbon levels were well below (between 0.002 to 0.01 ppm) the
level established as a health standard (2 ppm).
During the pilot study, ambient particulate standards were exceeded on three occasions. Changes
in the material handling system reduced fugitive dust emissions and allowed for the processing of
10,000 cubic yards of soils without further exceedences of the air quality standard for total solid
particles. Various references are made to QA/QC and to the EPA standard methods for VOC
analysis.
PERFORMANCE: The excavated/aerated soils from the site satisfy the performance standard
specified in the site Record of Decision (ROD)(0.1 ppm of TCE). Concentrations of VOCs and
petroleum products before and after treatment of soils are shown in the table on the following page.
Significant reduction in the levels of various contaminants before and after treatment are noted.
Groundwater modeling demonstrated that groundwater criteria specified in the ROD were met. A
317 Document Number: EXPE
-------
detailed cost breakdown of the use of aeration to remediate soils contaminated with VOC and
petroleum hydrocarbons is provided. Based on this data, the average cost for treating the soils at this
Superfund site is $252 per cubic yard. Aeration was utilized to remediate contaminated soil and not
violate ambient air quality criteria at this site.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group
WO1-Halogenated Aromatic
Compounds
WO4-Halogenated Aliphatic
Solvents
WO7-Heterocyclics and
Simple Non Halogenated
Aromatics
WO8-Polynuclear Aromatics
WO9-Other Polar Organic
Compounds
W13-Other Organics
CAS Number
95-50-1
71-55-6
75-35-4
127-18-4
79-01-6
71-43-2
100-41-4
108-88-3
1330-20-7
120-12-7
91-20-3
206-44-0
85-01-8
85-68-7
78-59-1
TEH
Contaminants
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
Xylene
Anthracene
Naphthalene
Fluoranthene
Phenanthrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Isophorone
Total Extractable Hydrocarbons
318
Document Number: EXPE
-------
TABLE 1
Pretreatment Soil Post-treatment
Concentration Soil Concentration
Compound (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
trans 1,1,-dichloroethane
0.11 ND.02
trichloroethene (TCE)
7.3 ND .02
1,1,1 ,-trichloroethene
0.13 NO .02
Toluene
35 ND 1.0
Xylenes
84 ND 1.0
ND - None detected at 0.02 or 1.0 ppm
Note: This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for more information.
319 Document Number: EXPE
-------
Treatment Process: Chemical Extraction and Soil Washing
Media: Soil/generic
Document Reference: Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. "Removal of PCB from Soil
Using Solvent Leaching." Technical report. 8 pp. April 1985.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: Robert W. Schede
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box Y
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
615-576-5454
Site Name: Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, TN
Location of Test: Oak Ridge, TN
BACKGROUND: This document is a brief description of the Oak Ridge Y-12 Pilot Plant's ability to
remove PCBs from soils. The report was written for the U.S. Department of Energy by Martin Marietta
Energy Systems.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: A process was developed for the removal of polychlorinated
biphenyl (PCB) from contaminated soils. A pilot plant was operated to determine the optimum
component ratios (soil-water-kerosene) and the optimum mixing time. A solvent composed of water
and kerosene is used to extract PCB from soil. The water-kerosene mixture leaving the extraction
system is phase separated and both components are reused. The kerosene containing the
concentrated PCB is steam distilled to further concentrate the PCB. The distilled kerosene is reused.
The PCB concentrate from the distillation must be discarded using other methods, such as
incineration. Pilot plan experience on the process is discussed. No conclusions, QA/QC procedures,
or sampling and analysis procedures are given.
PERFORMANCE: Soil-to-water ratios of 3 to 5 and soil-to-kerosene ratios of 3 to 5 were found to
be best. A three-stage batch pilot plant operating with a 6 to 1 volume ratio experienced soil feed
PCB concentrations of 300 mg/l and discharged soil contaminant levels of 10-15 mg/l. No difference
was found between the 15 and 30 minute mixing times. Results from only one test run were
presented in the test. The document, however, comments that "lower soil contaminant values could
be obtained using additional stages." It also states that about 25-30% of the kerosene was absorbed
into the leached soils. This appears to create additional contamination. The kerosene was later
steam-stripped.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
W02-Dioxins/Furans/PCBs 1336-36-3 Total PCBs
320 Document Number: EZUJ
-------
Treatment Process: Bioremedlation - Aerobic and Anaerobic
Media: Soil/Generic
Document Reference: NUS Corporation. "Leetown Pesticide Site Treatability Study." Four
progress reports in internal memorandum form. 62 pp. (total).
Written under EPA Contract. July 1986 - January 1987
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contract: William Hagel
Regional Project Manager
U.S. EPA - Region III
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
215-597-9800
Site Name: Leetown Pesticide Site, Leetown, WV (NPL)
Location of Test: NUS, Pittsburgh, PA
BACKGROUND: This document is composed of a series of progress reports pertaining to a bench
scale treatability study which utilized biodegradation to remediate pesticide contaminated soils (DDT
and DDE) at the Leetown Pesticide NPL site. Treatment consisted of aerobic, anaerobic and fungal
processes to biodegrade the DDT and DDE.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: Nutrients such as manure, sewage sludge and wood chips were
added to the soils to promote the growth of microbes capable of degrading the pesticides. More than
400 biodegradation cells were used over four test periods. Efforts to control temperature, pH and
moisture content were attempted during the study. One report states that DDT degradation appears
to take place at 35° under anaerobic conditions and that DDE degradation takes place in acidic media.
The microbes used in the test were not specified but are indigenous to the site. Baseline DDT and
DDE levels were approximately 7,000 ug of DDT per Kg soil and 1000 ug of DDE per Kg of soil.
An extraction procedure with hexane done on the soil to analyze for DDT was criticized for being a
quick and dirty extraction with no cleanup of the extract. Other concerns reported were strongly
sorbed compounds may not be detected, interference from naturally occurring organic matter could
skew the results and lack of standard analytical protocols could introduce extraneous variables into
the data. Specific information pertaining to the quantity or type of contaminated soils was not included
in the report.
PERFORMANCE: In December of 1986 an analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the results was
conducted to determine if there is any statistically significant difference between the various samples
collected from each of the different treatment cells and to determine if there is a significant difference
in DDT and DDE concentrations from one cell treatment to the next. The ANOVA indicated there is
no significant difference between the various cell configurations. Hence the average concentration
calculated for each cell configuration is representative of the population mean. A review of the
sampling data reported in the December 30th progress report suggests that anaerobic vessels
operating under incubated conditions represented the best method of degrading DDT in the soils. The
authors report that the indigenous microbial populations can be used to degrade DDT at the Leetown
Pesticide Site. A preliminary estimate of the time for this process to reduce DDT plus DDE to desired
321 Document Number: EZUU
-------
Pesticide Site. A preliminary estimate of the time for this process to reduce DDT plus DDE to desired
action levels of 300 ug/kg of under anaerobic conditions, and anaerobic vessels operating under
incubated conditions represent the best method of degrading DDT. Further work was recommended
on the toxicity and environmental mobility of the metabolites present from the recommended
composting scheme as well as controlled bench and pilot testing.
No QA/QC procedures were reported; however, quality control issues were discussed and this work
was done under an EPA contract.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminant
W01-Halogenated Non- 50-29-3 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis
polar Aromatic (4-chlorophenyl)ethane
Compounds (4,4-DDT)
72-55-91,1-dichloro-2,2-bis
(4-chlorophenyl)ethene
(4,4-DDE)
322 Document Number: EZUU
-------
Treatment Process: Thermal Destruction - Rotary Kiln
Media: Soil/Generic
Document Reference: Vesta Technology, Ltd. "Trial Burn Test Report, Part I - Data
Summaries." Draft report of approximately 25 pp. Prepared for U.S.
EPA, Region IV, March 1987.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: Ned Jessup
U.S. EPA - Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE.
Atlanta, GA 30365
404-347-4727
Site Name: Aberdeen, NC, Superfund Site (NPL)
Location of Test: Aberdeen, NC
BACKGROUND: This treatability study summary reports on the results of a trial burn of
pesticide-contaminated soil from the Aberdeen, NC Superfund site. The trial burn using the Vesta
mobile rotary kiln incinerator was designed to demonstrate that this system can destroy the pesticides
in a manner consistent with RCRA standards.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The soil was fed to the incinerator at rates of 960 to 1023
pounds per hour. There were three trial runs completed, each for approximately 3 hours. No details
are provided on the soil matrix or QA/QC accomplished. Since this Trial Burn Test Report is a
summary of analytical results, additional operational information is not presented.
PERFORMANCE: The primary standards of performance were:
1. Destruction of the pesticides from the soil fed to the incinerator.
2. Destruction/removal of the designated principal organic hazardous pollutants (POHC's).
3. Particulate stack emissions.
4. Hydrogen chloride stack emissions.
Secondary standards included:
1. Other pesticide stack emissions.
2. Carbon monoxide emissions.
3. Dioxin, furan and other chlorinated organic emissions.
323 Document Number: EZUY
-------
The soil treated had initial concentrations of P.P-DDT and alpha-BHC of greater than 131 and 29 ppm,
respectively. The pesticides in the soil fed to the incinerator were effectively removed, as evidenced
by the removal of the principal organic hazardous pollutants, P, P-DDT and alpha-BHC (99.993% and
99.998% removal efficiency, respectively). All other pesticides found in the contaminated soil were
not detected in the treated soil. TCDD (dioxins) and TCDF (furans) were not found in the treated soil.
The destruction and removal efficiency, of 99.993 percent particulate stack emissions to .02
grains/dscf and hydrogen chloride stack emissions of 99.2 percent removal were in compliance with
RCRA criteria for particulate stack emissions of .08 grains/dscf and hydrogen chloride stack emissions
removal of 99 percent. Carbon monoxide stack emissions and combustion efficiency were indicative
of good combustion, except for one test run which experienced startup difficulties. Other stack
emission parameters (flow.temperature, moisture, oxygen, and carbon dioxide) indicated successful
operation. Quality control field blanks were collected and described.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group
W01-Halogenated Aromatic
Compounds
W05-Halogenated Cyclic
Aliphatics/Ethers/
Esters/Ketones
CAS Number
72-55-9
72-54-8
50-29-3
1024-57-3
1031-07-8
309-00-2
319-85-7
33213-65-9
58-89-9
60-57-1
72-20-8
7421-93-4
76-44-8
959-98-8
319-86-8
Contaminants
1,1-Dichloro-2-2-bis
(4-chlorophenyl)ethene (4,4-DDE)
1,1-Dichloro-2,2-bis
(4-chlorophenyl)ethane (4,4-DDD)
1,1,1-Trichloro-2,2-bis
(4-chlorophenyl)ethane (4,4-DDT)
Heptachlor Epoxide
Endosulfan Sulfate
Aldrin
Beta-BHC
Endosulfan II
Gamma-BHC
Dieldrin
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde
Heptachlor
Endosulfan I
Delta-BHC
324
Document Number: EZUY
-------
Treatment Process: Thermal Destruction - Incineration
Media: Soil/Generic
Document Reference: Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. "Final Report, Phase I -
Immediate Assessment, Acme Solvents Site." Technical report of
approximately 40 pp. submitted to the Acme Solvents Technical
Committee. November 1985.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: David Favero
U.S. EPA - Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
312-386-4749
Site Name: Acme Solvents Site (NPL)
Location of Test: Rockford, IL
BACKGROUND: This is a site assessment and feasibility study of incineration alternatives at the
ACME Solvents Site at Rockford, Illinois. The document contains laboratory results that are reported
to simulate incineration conditions but no details on test methods were provided.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The document summarizes the geophysical investigation, the
delineation of the contaminated zones and their volumes and the sampling locations. Out of 43
samples taken at 18 locations, 20 were selected to be sent to an environmental laboratory for analysis
of percent moisture (volatiles), percent ash, total chloride, total sulfur, Btu value and total PCBs. Two
samples were analyzed for organic priority pollutants, pesticides and PCBs. No details on test
methods were provided. Details on the soil matrix of each sample were summarized (the majority are
silty soil). The ash from each of the 20 samples was analyzed for EP toxic metals. The data from
these 20 samples is summarized as well as the more complete analysis results from the two samples.
This basic data was used in an analysis of feasibility, costs and relative merits of off-site and onsite
incineration of the contaminated site material. Specific alternatives are costed for an onsite rotary kiln
and an off-site rotary kiln.
PERFORMANCE: The laboratory test on the soil for EP toxicity showed the resulting
ash/decontaminated soil was consistently well below EPA limits for hazardous wastes classification.
Heavy metal levels in the decontaminated ash ranged from a high of 2.26 mg/l for Cr to a low of less
than .009 mg/l for Se. All were well below the EP toxicity levels defined in 40 CFR 261.4 except for
chromium which is about 50% of the allowed EP toxicity level of 5 mg/l. PCBs were reduced from
3600 to less than 4 ug/kg (dry weight). There are no details provided on the laboratory incineration
process, sampling protocols, QA/QC protocols or conclusions.
The economic analysis comparing onsite and off-site incineration showed on-site incineration could
be accomplished at one-third the cost and with the same implementation time as the off-site
incineration.
325 Document Number: EZYN
-------
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group
WO2-Dioxins/Furans/PCBs
WO5-Halogenated Cyclic
Aliphatics/Ethers/
Esters/Ketones
WO8-Polynuclear Aromatics
Compounds
WO9-Other Polar Organic
Compunds
W10-Non-Volatile Metals
W11-Volatile Metals
CAS Number
12674-11-2
11096-82-5
57-74-9
58-89-9
83-32-9
91-20-3
85-01-8
86-73-7
117-81-7
85-68-7
84-74-2
117-84-0
78-59-1
108-95-2
7440-39-3
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7440-22-4
7440-43-9
Contaminants
PCB-1016
PCB-1260
Chlordane
Gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Fluorene
Bis (2-ethyl hexyl)
phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Isophorene
Phenol
Barium
Lead
Mercury
Silver
Cadmium
326
Document Number:
-------
Treatment Process: Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
Media: Soil/Generic
Document Reference: PEI Associates, Inc. "Low Temperature Treatment of CERCLA Soils
and Debris Using the IT Laboratory Scale Thermal Desorption
Furnaces." Prepared for U.S. EPA, HWERL, Cincinnati, OH; 120 pp.;
October 1987
Document Type: EPA ORD Report
Contact: Robert Thurnau
U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL
26 W. St. Clair Street
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-596-7692
Site Name: BOAT SARM-Manufactured Waste (Non-NPL)
Location of Test: ORD - Edison, NJ
BACKGROUND: This study report laboratory experiments on low temperature treatment of soils
using thermal desorption. The purpose of the study was to determine if thermal desorption could
remove volatile and semi-volatile contaminants from a synthetically prepared soil spiked with
predetermined quantities of contaminants. This study supports the U.S. EPA's program to
demonstrate various technologies for treating contaminated soils for the purposes of CERCLA/SARA
compliance with the proposed 1988 banning of land disposal of wastes.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The laboratory testing program consisted of 15 separate bench
scale tests. The EPA synthetic soil had two levels of contaminants which are shown in the table on
the next page. Thermal desorption tests were conducted at three temperatures 150°C, 350°C and
500°C for 30 minutes to determine the effect of temperature on thermal desorption efficiency. The
surrogate soil or synthetic analytical reference matrix (SARM) is similar to Superfund site soils and
is 30% by volume clay, 25% silt, 20% sand, 20% topsoil and 5% gravel. The SARMs were air dried
to minimize moisture. Approximately 80 gms of SARM soil were used in the tests in the tray furnace.
The tray furnace interior space is approximately 10 cm wide, 14 cm high and 21 cm deep. A QA/QC
plan is contained in the study. Gas bags were utilized to collect off gas samples from the furnace and
THC, CO, CH4 and C2H6 were analyzed by GC. Soils were analyzed for the remaining SARM
constituents using GC/MS.
PERFORMANCE: Thermal desorption of volatile and semi-volatile contaminants from soils at
moderate temperatures can be achieved with reasonable success. At 550°C most of the volatile
constituents are removed to below the one/ppm level. Acetone appeared to remain in the matrix
possibly due to bound water in the soil. Semivolatile constituents are also removed to a large extent
except for pentachorophenol. Anthracene and phthalate are removed to levels near the detection
limit. At 350°C temperature most of the volatile contaminants are removed down to the 1 ppm level
except for acetone. Semivolatiles are reduced at 350°C, though not significantly. The author cautions
not to place quantitative credence in the results since the precision of duplicate samples indicated that
the data is only useful in a qualitative manner.
327 Document Number: EZYQ
-------
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group
W01-Halogenated Non-Polar
Aromatic Compounds
WO3-Halogenated
Phenols, Cresols,
and Thiols
WO4-Halogenated
Aliphatic Compounds
CAS Number
108-90-7
87-86-5
107-06-2
127-18-4
Contaminants
Chlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
1,2-dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
WO7-Heterocyclics and
Simple Non-Halogenated
Aromatics
WO8-Polynuclear
Aromatics
WO9-Other Polar
Organic Compounds
W10-Non-Volatile
Metals
W11-Volatile Metals
100-42-5
100-41-4
1330-20-7
120-12-7
67-64-1
117-81-7
7440-02-0
7440-47-3
7440-50-8
7440-38-2
7440-43-9
7439-92-1
7440-66-6
Styrene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Anthracene
Acetone
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Nickel
Chromium
Copper
Arsenic
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
328
Document Number: EZYQ
-------
TABLE 1
SARM CONTAMINANTS UTILIZED IN
THERMAL DESORPTION TEST AND THEIR CONCENTRATIONS IN THE SOIL
(ppm)
High Low
Volatlles
Ethylbenzene 3200 320
Xylene 8200 820
Tetrachloroethylene 600 60
Chlorobezene 400 40
Styrene 1000 100
1,2 Dichloroethane 600 60
Acetone 6800 680
Semivolatiles
Anthracene 6500 650
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 2500 250
Pentachlorophenol 1000 100
Metals
Lead 280
Zinc 450
Cadmium 20
Arsenic 10
Copper 190
Nickel 30
Chromium 30
Note: This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for more information
329 Document Number: EZYQ
-------
Treatment Process: Bioremediation - Aerobic
Media: Soil/Generic
Document Reference: ECOVA Corporation. "Final Report: Soil Treatment Pilot Study
Brio/DOP Site." Technical Report No. 861014/1 (Ecova No.) prepared
for U.S. EPA Brio Site Task Force. Approximately 130 pp. June
1987.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: Louis Barinka
U.S. EPA-Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
12th Floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
212-655-6735
Site Name: Brio OOP Site (NPL)
Location of Test: Friendswood, TX
BACKGROUND: Bench and pilot scale studies were conducted to demonstrate the feasibility of
using solid-phase biodegradation for destroying portions of organic constituents present in the soil.
The predominant constituents at the BRIO DOP site located in Texas were volatile compounds such
as: methylene chloride, 15-17,000 ppb; 1,2-dichloroethane, 25-195,000 ppb; 1,1,2- trichloroethane,
25-195,000 ppb. Semivolatile compounds were present in lower concentrations: phenanthrene,
1,392-15,083 ppb; anthracene and fluorene, 440-563 ppb (single samples only).
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: Aerobic microorganisms present in soil samples removed from
the site ranged from 103 to 105 colony forming units per gram weight of wet soil, indicating the site
contained a diverse microbial population. Bench scale and pilot scale tests were conducted. The pilot
scale solid phase treatment facility consisted of a lined soil treatment area with a leachate collection
system, water/nutrient distribution system, emission control system, a microbiological management
system, and greenhouse enclosure and support facilities. The pilot facility was operated for 94 days
commencing in January of 1987. Two hundred cubic yards of soil removed from the site were placed
in the pilot facility, inoculated with microorganisms, nutrients were added (inorganic N&P), and the
soils were tilled daily to ensure contact and aeration. Tilling also facilitated air stripping of the more
volatile organics. Volatile compounds were trapped by activated carbon absorbers at the pilot facility.
PERFORMANCE: The pilot scale treatment facility demonstrated, under field conditions, that a
solid-phase treatment process could be used to successfully treat the organic constituents present
In the site soil. The process removed the volatile organic compounds by air stripping, and destroyed
semivolatile organic compounds by biodegradation. More than 99% of the volatile organic compounds
were removed within the first 21 days of operation. However, the biodegradation of the semivolatile
organic constituents was much slower. It was estimated that approximately 131 days would be
required to reduce the phenanthrene concentrations to non-detectable levels in the treatment facility.
The time required to treat affected soils and materials (volatile/ semivolatile organics) in a solid phase
treatment process might be unacceptably long if rapid remediation is required.
330 Document Number:
-------
No actual tests were conducted on a full scale facility. However, the authors discuss the feasibility
of full scale tests and postulate that aqueous phase biodegradation could enhance the rate of removal
of the organic components by improving the contact between microorganisms, nutrients, and oxygen.
No treatment cost data was provided. Numerous references to the biodegradation of specific organic
compounds are contained in this document. EPA analytical methods were utilized to analyze for
volatile organics. A QA/QC plan is contained in the document along with a statistical analysis of the
data.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group
WO1-Halogenated Non-Polar
Aromatic Compounds
WO4-Halogenated
Aliphatic Compounds
WO7-Heterocyclics and
Simple Non-Halogenated
Aromatics
W08-Polynuclear
Aromatics
WO9-Other Polar Organic
Compounds
CAS Number
108-90-7
79-34-5
79-00-5
75-09-2
75-34-3
100-41-4
100-42-5
71-43-2
108-88-3
1330-20-7
91-20-3
85-01-8
91-57-6
67-64-1
78-93-3
Contaminants
Chlorobenzene
1,1,2,2,-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,-Trichloroethane
Methylene Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethane
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acetone
2-Butanone
331
Document Number: EZZA
-------
Treatment Process: Thermal Destruction - Infrared
Media: Soil/Clay
Document Reference: Shirco Infrared Systems. "Final Report, Onsite Incineration Testing at
Brio Site, Friendswood, Texas" Final Technical Report No. 8467-87-1
prepared for the U.S. EPA Brio Task Force. Approximately 750 pp.
February 1987.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: U.S. EPA - Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Room 2203
Boston, MA 02203
617-565-3715
Site Name: Brio Refinery Superfund Site (NPL)
Location of Test: Friendswood, TX
BACKGROUND: Shirco Infrared Systems, operated a pilot-scale infrared unit on-site at the Brio
Refinery Site in Texas. Eight tests were run over a four day period with various soil compositions,
including clay-like soils from four pits.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The objectives of these thermal pilot treatment tests on
excavated pit material were as follows:
1. To determine the incinerator ash chemical composition.
2. To demonstrate that the incinerator feed system can reliably provide a continuous, blended feed
to the incinerator and deposit this feed material in a uniform manner on the incinerator belt.
3. To demonstrate that the incinerator can meet the RCRA required >99.99% destruction efficiency
for Principal Organic Hazardous Constituents (POHCs).
4. To provide design information and economic data required to evaluate the feasibility of
incinerating certain Brio Site pit wastes.
The feed analyses targeted approximately 120 priority pollutants. However, only 18 were usually found
above the detection limits. Each sample tested was about 50 pounds and was spiked with carbon
tetrachloride as the principal organic hazardous constituent. The soil was mechanically worked and
screened to break up clay lumps. The destruction of the spiked contaminant was used to measure
the success of the testing. Other analyses performed included analysis of the scrubber inlet and
outlet, stack flow, and ash. The ash analyses included a mass and volume reduction analysis.
PERFORMANCE: Removal efficiency under all test conditions with 12 or 18 minute primary
chamber residence time at 1600°F was greater than 99.9997%. The cost of treatment with their largest
mobile unit, which will process 67,000 tons per year, was estimated at $119 per ton. This does not
include costs of feed excavation, feed preparation, interest and taxes. The document details each
aspect of the tests, which lends much credibility to its data. QA/QC and sampling protocol are given
332 Document Number: EZZB
-------
along with details of the testing procedures, test equipment, materials, and results. Sections are
devoted entirely to results, safety procedures, an economic analysis and conclusions and
recommendations.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group
WO1-Halogenated Non-Polar
Aromatic Compounds
WO4-Halogenated
Aliphatic Compounds
WO7-Heterocyclics and
Simple Non-Halogenated
Aromatic
WO8-Polynuclear
Aromatics
WO9-Other Polar Organic
Compounds
CAS Number
108-90-7
71-55-6
79-34-5
75-35-4
107-06-2
56-23-5
67-66-3
127-18-4
79-01-6
75-01-4
71-43-2
100-41-4
91-20-3
85-01-8
91-57-6
67-64-1
75-15-0
Contaminants
Chlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2,-Tetrachloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
100-42-5Styrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acetone
Carbon Disulfide
333
Document Number: EZZB
-------
Treatment Process: Thermal Destruction - Infrared
Media: Sludge
Document Reference: Shirco Infrared Systems Portable Test Unit. "Final Report -
Demonstration Test On-Site PCB Destruction, Shirco Infrared Portable
Unit at Florida Steel Indiantown Mill Site, Indiantown, Florida."
Technical report of approximately 180 pp. prepared for internal use by
Shirco. September 1986.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: John Kroske
U.S. EPA - Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30336
Site Name: Florida Steel Indiantown Mill Site, FL (NPL)
Location of Test: Shirco, Joplin, MO
BACKGROUND: This document reports on the results of a Florida Steel Corporation study to
develop and evaluate cleanup alternatives for onsite treatment of PCB contaminated soils. The
results of this study aided in the selection of an approach to remediate the site. Demonstration tests
on incinerating PCBs were conducted at the site May 13-15, I986 by Shirco Infrared Systems of
Dallas, Texas. The purpose of the tests was to demonstrate the capability of the Shirco System to
meet the requirements of 40 CFR Part 761 while detoxifying the soil.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: Soils at the Florida Steel Corporation Site were contaminated
with PCBs in the concentration range of 76 to 2970 ppm. The report does not provide any specific
details on the amount of site soil contaminated, or the types of soils undergoing treatment. The
Shirco Portable Pilot Test Unit used in the tests is a three stage system; infrared furnace, propane
fired afterburner, and scrubber. The waste materials are weighed in batches and placed on a
conveyer belt which feeds the material to the furnace. The soil is heated in the infrared furnace for
a minimum residence time of 15 to 25 minutes, soil/ash is discharged and the exhaust gas passes
into the propane-fired afterburner. The afterburner operates at temperatures from 1900 to 2200°F.
Minimum afterburner residence time is two seconds. The afterburner exhaust gases are analyzed for
various contaminants associated with PCB degradation products, as required by 40 CFR 761.
Additionally the afterburner exhaust is continuously monitored for O2, CO2, CO and NOX levels. A
QA/QC plan is contained in this report.
PERFORMANCE: Six tests were conducted to determine the Destruction Removal Efficiencies
(DRE) for PCBs. In four of six tests the DRE of 99.9999% was achieved. The remaining two tests
achieved a slightly lower DRE than required; 99.999 and 99.998. The author believes this was due
in one instance to low concentrations of PCB in the waste feed stream, and in the second instance,
to a low level of excess O2. This low excess 02 level indicates that for the Shirco unit the minimum
permissible 02 level in the afterburner exhaust should be increased from that level used in the
program. The tests that met the DRE had afterburner O2 from 9 to 13%. Test five, the low PCB DRE
test, had an O2 concentration of 6.9%. Concentrations of particulates in the flue gas were well within
334 Document Number: EZZC
-------
the limit of 0.08 g/scf. HCI emissions for each test were less than 4 Ibs/hr. Also, scrubber effluent
and flue gases were analyzed for dioxins and furon in one test run. None were found within detection
limits.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group
WO2-Dioxins/Furans/PCBs
CAS Number
APCB
BPCB
CPCB
DPCB
EPCB
FPCB
Contaminants
Monochloroblphenyl
Dichlorobiphenyl
Trichlorobiphenyl
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
Pentachlorobiphenyl
Hexachlorobiphenyl
335
Document Number: EZZC
-------
Treatment Process: Immobilization - Flyash Solidification
Media: Sludge/Metal Finishing
Document Reference: VeriTec Corp. Case Study, Hazardous Waste Management Utilizing
Lime. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Lime
Association, Phoenix, Arizona. 13 pp. April 9, 1987.
Document Type: Conference Paper
Contact: Andre DuPont
National Lime Asociation
3601 North Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22201
703-243-LIME
Site Name: VeriTec Corp. (Non-NPL)
*
Location of Test: Knoxville, TN
BACKGROUND: This report presents the results of treating a plating sludge having high levels of
Cu, Ni and Cr with a lime fly ash additive. The pozzolonic reaction solidified the sludge. The results
of various leaching tests are presented and discussed. An economic analysis suggests that the
mixture used was more cost effective than other types of solidifying agents and processes. Various
additive sludge ratios are recommended and a conceptual system design along with costs is
presented.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The sludge that was investigated was a Cu-Ni-Cr hydroxide
sludge from alkaline pH precipitation of a plating-rinse wastewater. The untreated sludge contains
35 g/kg of Cu, 65 g/kg Ni and 72 g/kg of Cr. Sludge density is 1.133 g/cc. Lab tests revealed that
solidification was feasible and that the solidified samples displayed considerable unconfined
compressive strength. The structural strength was reported to be between 100-125 psi. Lab tests
were followed with field tests to determine the effect of leaching on the solid samples. At 21 days
treated samples were subject to the EPA-RCRA EP toxicity procedures, deionized water leaching
procedures, and the Multiple Extraction Procedure (MEP) leaching test. Detailed explanation of the
leaching procedures are given along with methods of analysis used to determine heavy metal
concentrations. No QA/QC information is contained in the report.
PERFORMANCE: Laboratory simulation studies revealed that the fixation process could reduce the
EP toxicity. EP toxicity tests for Cr, Ni and Cu with initial concentrations of 73.0, 65.6 and 22.0 mg/l,
respectively, were reduced by treatment to 2.9,1.0 and 1.0 mg/l, respectively. Field tests reveal that
levels of Ni, Cr and Cu can all be reduced by the fixation process. The following tables show results
from the various leaching tests. Cyanide (CN) is not used in the plant, however, CN was found at
0.13 and 0.05 ppm in the raw sludge leachate samples. CN was <0.01 in all treated sludge samples
showing this fixation process also retards low level leaching of cyanides. Total chromium was
reduced from 22 ppm to .02 - .05 ppm in one set of samples and from 3.5 ppm to 0.4 - 0.1 ppm in
another set of samples. Nickel was reduced from 87 to 0.01 ppm with treatment. The authors state
that they believe the wastes no longer violate hazardous waste criteria and recommend that the
treated wastes be delisted.
336 Document Number: FAAP
-------
An economic analysis of the costs associated with fixing one ton of sludge using a 1:1 mass ratio of
fixing agent and sludge was conducted. Pozzolonic process is the cheapest of those evaluated.
Cement costs $70 per ton whereas pozzolonic costs as low as $12.50 per ton depending on the type
of fly ash used (bulk or bagged). Total disposal costs increase as the mass ratio of fixing agent to
dry weight sludge increases. The authors provide a conceptual design of a process along with
estimated costs to construct a one ton per day system. Total system capital/construction costs are
estimated to be $65,000.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
W10-Non-Volatile Metals 7440-47-3 Chromium
7440-02-0 Nickel
W11 -Volatile Metals 7440-43-9 Cadium
W12-Other Inorganics 57-12-5 Cyanide
TABLE 1
LEACHING STUDIES OF RAW AND LFA FIXATED (2:1) CYLINDERS
Untreated Treated Untreated Treated
EPA - RCRA EPA - RCRA D.I. H20 D.I. H20
Cr 73.0* 2.9 0.63 <0.01
Ni 65.6 1.0 0.61 0.04
Cu 22.0 1.0 0.24 0.07
337 Document Number: FAAP
-------
TABLE 2
EPA-RCRA ELACH TESTING OF LFA TREATED AND UNTREATED SLUDGES
Metals Untreated Treated
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selentium
Nickel
Copper
*AII values in mg/1
<0.001*
0.23
O.001
7.4
<0.01
<0.001
<0.001
3.9
2.4
of leachate.
TABLE 3
PLATING SLUDGE LEACHATE
Raw Unreacted
Fixated #1
Fixated #2
Raw Unreacted
Fixated #3
Fixated #4
CN1
0.13
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
(mg/liter)
CjJ
0.001
0.004
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.09
O.001
0.81
<0.01
<0.001
0.002
4.8
0.02
LEVELS
M
87.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
76.0
0.15
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
QL
22.0
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.05
3.5
0.10
0.04
0.07
0.07
*AII values in mg/1 of leachate.
1CN - Cyanide
Note: This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for more information.
338 Document Number: FAAP
-------
Treatment Process: Dechlorination
Media: Soil/Generic
Document Reference: Research Triangle Institute. "PCB Sediment Decontamination
Process-Selection for Test and Evaluation," and slide presentation on
"Effective Treatment Technologies for the Chemical Destruction of
PCB." Approximately 200 pp. Prepared for U.S. EPA, HWERL. May
1987.
Document Type: EPA ORD Report
Contact: Dr. Clark Allen
Research Triangle Institute
P.O. Box 12194
Research Traiangle Park, NC 27709
919-541-5826
Site Name: Guam (Non-NPL)
Location of Test: Research Triangle Park, NC
BACKGROUND: This document is a report describing the assessment of seven alternative
treatment processes that show potential for decontaminating polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCB)-contaminated sediments. The processes are KPEG, MODAR Supercritical Water Oxidation,
Bio-Clean, Ultrasonics/UV, CFS Extraction, B.E.S.T., and Low Energy Extraction. Each process was
evaluated using five criteria: the probability of cleaning sediments to 2 ppm or less; the availability
of a test system; the test and evaluation effort required; the time required for future availability of a
commercial treatment process; and the probable cost of treatment using the process. The evaluation
of the criteria for each process was carried out by engineering analysis of available data and site visits
to developers' facilities. This report deals with the KPEG process for the destruction of PCBs.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The KPEG process was demonstrated in the treatment of
contaminated soil on Guam by way of the Galson Terraclean-CI process. This destroys PCBs by
nucleophilic substitution. Potassium hydroxide is reacted with polyethylene glycol (PEG) to form an
alkoxide. The alkoxide reacts to produce an ether and potassium chloride.
Addition of an RO-group enhances the solubility of the molecule and makes it less toxic. The reaction
may continue until several chlorine atoms are removed from the PCB molecule. The reagent consists
of a mixture of PEG, potassium hydroxide, and dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO).
Contaminated soil or sediment is fed to the reactor from 55-gallon drums. An equal volume of reagent
is added to the soil in the reactor. The reagent is blended with the soil using a stainless steel bladed
mixer.
During operation of the system, contaminated reagent is mixed with make-up reagent in the reagent
storage tank and recirculated into the reaction vessel containing contaminated soil. The reaction
vessel is heated (150°C) and the soil and reagent are kept mixed until the reaction is complete.
Volatilized material from the bulk storage tank and the reaction vessel are vented through a charcoal
adsorption unit. Water vapor is condensed and used as wash water. The reagent is decanted,
339 Document Number: FBZZ-1
-------
weighed, and stored for reuse. The soil is washed twice with water to remove excess reagent, and
the wash water is held for analysis and possible treatment with activated carbon.
The treated soil is held for analysis. If PCB concentration is greater than 2 ppm, the soil is retreated.
QA/QC procedures are not discussed.
PERFORMANCE: It was found that all of the processes assessed have merit. In selecting the most
promising ones, a ranking system was used based on the five criteria mentioned in the background
section. The processes were ranked comparatively as to the desirability for thorough testing and
evaluation. The KPEG process was ranked 5th with a score of 0.58, within a range of scores from
0.49 to 0.62. Laboratory-scale KPEG treatments were applied and there was a reduction of PCB
levels to 17.5 ppm by treating the soil 5 hours at 115° to 120°C. Residual PCBs were qualitatively
identified as penta- and hexa-chloro biphenyl. These congeners had been reduced 75% and 60%
respectively, by the treatment. Galson reported reduction from 1800 to 2.3 ppm by treatment at 150°C
for 2 hours.
CONTAMINANTS:
Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of the contaminants by
treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
WO2-Dioxins/Furans/PCBs 1336-36-3 Total PCBs
11096-82-5 PCB-1260
340 Document Number: FBZZ-1
-------
Treatment Process: Thermal Destruction - Critical Water Oxidation
Media: Soil/Generic
Document Reference: Research Triangle Institute. "PCB Sediment Decontamination
Process-Selection for Test and Evaluation," and slide presentation on
"Effective Treatment Technologies for the Chemical Destruction of
PCB." Approximately 200 pp. Prepared for U.S. EPA, HWERL. May
1987.
Document Type: EPA ORD Report
Contact: Dr. Clark Allen
Research Triangle Institute
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
919-541-5826
Site Name: Guam (Non-NPL)
Location of Test: Research Triangle Park, NC
BACKGROUND: This document is a report describing the assessment of seven alternative
treatment processes that show potential for decontaminating polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCB)-contaminated sediments. The processes are KPEG, MODAR Supercritical Water Oxidation,
Bio-Clean, Ultrasonics/UV, CFS Extraction, B.E.S.T., and Low Energy Extraction. Each process was
evaluated using five criteria: the probability of cleaning sediments to 2 ppm or less; the availability
of a test system; the test and evaluation effort required; the time required for future availability of a
commercial treatment process; and the probable cost of treatment using the process. The evaluation
of the criteria for each process was carried out by engineering analysis of available data and site visits
to developers' facilities. This report deals with the evaluation of a critical water oxidation process to
destroy PCBs.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The MODAR Supercritical Water Oxidation process utilizes water
above critical conditions (374°C and 22.1 MPa) to increase the solubility of organic materials and
oxygen to effect a rapid oxidation, destroying organic contaminants. The PCBs are found in a slurry
or sludge type material. The report attempts to evaluate systems available from C.F. System and
Enseco. However, the source of the bench-scale study is not given, neither are sampling procedures,
QA/QC procedures, or conclusions.
PERFORMANCE: It was found that all of the processes assessed have merit. In selecting the most
promising ones, a ranking system was used based on the five criteria mentioned in the background
section. The processes were ranked comparatively as to the desirability for thorough testing and
evaluation. The MODAR supercritical water system was ranked 6th with a score of 0.57, within scores
which ranged from 0.49 to 0.62. The destruction efficiency for PCB is given in the bottom table.
341 Document Number: FBZZ-2
-------
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data Is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
WO2-Dioxins/Furans/PCBs 1336-36-3 Total PCBs
TABLE 1
WASTE DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY MODAR/CECOS
DEMONSTRATION ORGANIC WASTE TEST
Liquid Gaseous Destruction
Contaminant Feed rate effluent effluent efficiency %
(g/min) rate (g/min) rate (g/mln)
PCB 9.1x10* <3.1x10"7 <4.4x10"6 >99.9995
Note: This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for more information.
342 Document Number: FBZZ-2
-------
Treatment Process: Immobilization - Stabilization
Media: Soil/Generic
Document Reference: Lopat Enterprises, Inc. "Representative Selection of Laboratory
Experiments and Reports of Full-Scale Commercial Use Which
Demonstrate the Effectiveness of K-20 Lead-in Soil Control System in
Physical/Chemical Solidification, Fixation, Encapsulation & Stabilization
of Certain Soil, Ash, Debris and Similar Wastes." Technical data
report. Approximately 60 pp. Assembled for COM. August 1987
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: Lou Parent
Lopat Enterprises, Inc.
1750 Bloomsbury Avenue
Wanamassa, NJ 07712
201-922-6600
Site Name: Confidential
Location of Test: Lopat Enterprises, Inc., Wanamassa, NJ
BACKGROUND: The report consists of brief summaries of seven bench-scale tests conducted by
Lopat Enterprises for their clients. Lopat Enterprises report that their technique will stabilize solids
contaminated with inorganic volatile and non-volatile metals (Cd, Zn, Hg.Pb, Cr, Ni, Cu), non-metallic
toxic elements (As), and certain organics (PCBs).
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: Lopat Enterprises uses a proprietary technology called K-20tm
Lead-in-Soil Control System (K-20/LSC) for the physical/chemical fixation, solidification, encapsulation,
and stabilization of contaminated soil and soil-like matrices. In the K-20/LSC system, two liquid
components are blended and diluted prior to application to dry waste. Dry fixative materials are then
added to the wetted waste material, and the dry waste are mixed with the K-20/LSC system
components and allowed to cure for a day or more. The formulation of these components is site
specific and proprietary. The volume of wastes treated varied with each project and was not reported.
EP toxicity tests were performed on treated and untreated sludge. Waste weight increase was about
38% due to an immobilization admixture treatment. The document also reports that the waste volume
increase resulting from treatment was between 100% to 151%.
PERFORMANCE: Lopat Enterprises reports that the K-20/LSC system is capable of reducing
leachate concentrations by 90%. The document presents EP Toxicity test results before and after
fixation of data are presented for Pb, and Cr. Initial concentrations of lead ranged from 9.8 ppm to
6200 ppm, although they are generally between 10 and 500 ppm. The initial concentrations and the
percent reductions in metal concentrations in the leachate are summarized in the Table 1. The
percent reductions were highest for lead and lowest for chromium. Costs reported were in the range
of $15 to $20 per ton. QA/QC was not reported. "
343 Document Number FCAK-1
-------
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
W10-Non-Volatile Metals 7440-47-3 Chromium
W11-Volatile Metals 7439-92-1 Lead
Note: This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for more information.
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE DATA
The following data is provided by Lopat Enterprises for their K20/LSC stabilization treatment. The
upper number is the concentration in the leachate prior to treatment, as determined by the EP Toxicity
test. The lower number is the percent reduction in leachate concentration following treatment.
Waste P_b_ C_E
Paint manufacturing sludge 9.8 ppm 1 ppm
63->95% 7-44%
344 Document Number FCAK-1
-------
Treatment Process: Immobilization - Stabilization
Media: Soil/Generic
Document Reference: Lopat Enterprises, Inc. "Representative Selection of Laboratory
Experiments and Reports of Full-Scale Commercial Use Which
Demonstrate the Effectiveness of K-20 Lead-in Soil Control System in
Physical/Chemical Solidification, Fixation, Encapsulation &
Stabilization of Certain Soil, Ash, Debris and Similar Wastes."
Technical data report. Approximately 60 pp. Assembled for COM.
August 1987.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: Lou Parent
Lopat Enterprises, Inc.
1750 Bloomsbury Avenue
Wanamassa, NJ 07712
201-922-6600
Site Name: Confidential
Location of Test: Lopat Enterprises, Inc., Wanamassa, NJ
BACKGROUND: The report consists of brief summaries of seven bench-scale tests conducted by
Lopat Enterprises for their clients. Lopat Enterprises report that their technique will stabilize solids
contaminated with volatile and non-volatile metals (Cd, Zn, Hg, Pb, Cr, Ni, As, Cu) and certain
organics (PCBs). This bench scale demonstration was performed on blasting sand contaminated with
lead.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: Lopat Enterprises uses a proprietary technology called K-20tm
Lead-in-Soil Control System (K-20/LSC)for the physical/chemical fixation, solidification, encapsulation,
and stabilization of contaminated soil and soil-like matrices. In the K-20/LSC system, two liquid
components are blended and diluted prior to application to dry waste. Dry fixative materials are then
added to the wetted waste material, and the dry waste are mixed with the K20/LSC system
components and allowed to cure for a day or more. The formulation of these components is site
specific and proprietary. The volume of wastes treated varied with each project and was not reported.
EP Toxicity tests were performed on both the untreated and treated sand. Waste weight increase due
to treatment was reported to be 55%, and the resulting volume increase varied between 60% to 80%.
A blender or similar equipment for batch processing was required along with a spray apparatus
chamber and hopper. No conclusions or operating conditions were reported in the document.
PERFORMANCE: Lopat Enterprises reports that the K-20/LSC system is capable of reducing
leachate concentrations by 90%. The document presents EP Toxicity test results before and after
fixation of blasting sand. Data are presented for lead. Initial concentrations of lead ranged from 9.8
ppm to 6200 ppm, although they are generally between 10 and 500 ppm. The initial concentration
of lead was 6200 ppm and the percent reduction in metal concentration in the leachate was 99%.
Of all the bench-scale tests performed by Lopat, the percent reductions were highest for lead. Costs
reported were in the range of $15 to $20 per ton. QA/QC was not reported and fugitive emissions
generated during soil fixation are not discussed.
345 Document Number: FCAK-2
-------
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
W11-Volatile Metals 7439-92-1 Lead
346 Document Number: FCAK-2
-------
Treatment Process: immobilization - Stabilization
Media: Soil/Generic
Document Reference: Lopat Enterprises, Inc. "Representative Selection of Laboratory
Experiments and Reports of Full-Scale Commercial Use Which
Demonstrate the Effectiveness of K-20 Lead-in Soil Control System in
Physical/Chemical Solidification, Fixation, Encapsulation & Stabilization
of Certain Soil, Ash, Debris and Similar Wastes." Technical data
report. Approximately 60 pp. Assembled for COM. August 1987.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: Lou Parent
Lopat Enterprises, Inc.
1750 Bloomsbury Avenue
Wanamassa, NJ 07712
201-922-6600
Site Name: Confidential
Location of Test: Lopat Enterprises, Inc., Wanamassa, NJ
BACKGROUND: The report consists of brief summaries of seven bench-scale tests conducted by
Lopat Enterprises for their clients. Lopat Enterprises report that their technique will stabilize solids
contaminated with volatile and non-volatile metals (Cd, Zn, Hg, Pb, Cr, Ni, As, Cu) and certain
organics (PCBs). This data was from a bench scale design experiment on a soil contaminated with
engine oil which had lead in it.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: Lopat Enterprises uses a proprietary technology called K-20tm
Lead-in-Soil Control System (K-20/LSC)forthe physical/chemical fixation, solidification, encapsulation,
and stabilization of contaminated soil and soil-like matrices. In the K-20/LSC system, two liquid
components are blended and diluted prior to application to dry waste. Dry fixative materials are then
added to the wetted waste material, and the dry waste are mixed with the K20/LSC system
components and allowed to cure for a day or more. The formulation of these components is site
specific and proprietary. The volume of wastes treated varied with each project and was not reported.
The lead concentrations were reported at 16.3 mg/l. Waste weight increase after treatment was
between 22% and 30%. The reported volume increase, resulting from treatment, ranged from 43%
to 86%. No conclusions or operating conditions were reported in the document.
PERFORMANCE: Lopat Enterprises reports that the K-20/LSC system is capable of reducing
leachate concentrations by 90%. The document presents EP Toxicity test results before and after
fixation of oil-soaked soil. Data are presented for lead. Initial concentrations of lead for all tests
ranged from 9.8 ppm to 6200 ppm, although they are generally between 10 and 500 ppm. The initial
concentration of lead in the soil contaminated with engine oil was 16.3 ppm and the percent reduction
in metal concentration in the leachate was 99%. Of all the bench-scale tests performed by Lopat, the
percent reductions were highest for lead. Costs reported were in the range of $15 to $20 per ton.
QA/QC was not reported and fugitive emissions generated during soil fixation are not discussed.
347 Document Number: FCAK-3
-------
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group Is:
Treatability Group
W11-Volatile Metals
CAS Number
7439-92-1
Contaminants
Lead (total)
348
Document Number: FCAK-3
-------
Treatment Process: Thermal Destruction - Circulating Bed Combustion
Media: Soil/Generic
Document Reference: Alliance Technologies Corp. "Technical Resource Document:
Treatment Technologies for Dioxin/Containing Wastes." Technical
Report EPA/600/2-86/096. 244 pp. October 1986.
Document Type: EPA ORD Report
Contact: Harold Freeman
U.S. EPA, ORD
26 W. St. Clalr Street
HWERL-Thermal Destruction Branch
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7529
Site Name: Denny Farm Site, MO (Non-NPL)
Location of Test: Denny Farm, MO
BACKGROUND: GA Technologies conducted the circulating bed combustor (CBC) pilot scale tests
using PCB-contaminated soils. This treatability study compiles available information on those
technologies for dioxin containing solids, liquids and sludges, many of which are in early stages of
development. Discussion of the CBC pilot test is contained in this abstract. Other technologies in
this document are discussed in Document Numbers FCFR-4 and FCFR-6. Technologies evaluated
were those that destroy or change the form of dioxin to render it less toxic. Those technologies not
tested on dioxin-containing wastes had been tested on PCB-containing wastes. The report divides
the technologies into thermal and non-thermal groups for discussion. It was noted that incineration
was the only sufficiently demonstrated technology for treatment of dioxin containing wastes (51 FR
1733) and RCRA Performance Standards for Thermal Treatment require 99.9999 percent destruction
removal efficiency (DRE) of the principal organic hazardous constituent (POHC). Factors which affect
the selection/use of a particular technology are discussed. Technical performance for treating a
specific waste type and costs are both considered in this discussion. A summary of dioxin treatment
processes, their performance/destruction achieved, and estimated costs are provided in Table 1.
QA/QC is not discussed.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: GA Technologies conducted trial burns on PCB-contaminated
soil with 9800 to 12,000 ppm of PCB. Auxiliary fuel was used to maintain the bed temperature at
1600° to 1800°F. A soil feed rate of 325 to 410 pounds per hour was used.
PERFORMANCE: A destruction efficiency exceeding six nines (99.9999 percent) was achieved.
Costs of fluidized bed treatment are dependent on fuel requirements, scale and site conditions. Cost
estimates of from $27/ton to $150/ton are provided for various assumptions.
349 Document Number: FCFR-3
-------
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group
WO2-Dioxins/Furans/PCBs
CAS Number
1336-36-3
Contaminants
Total PCBs
Note: This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for more information.
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF DIOXIN TREATMENT PROCESSES
Process Name
Stationary Rotary Kiln
Incineration
Mobile Rotary Kiln
Incineration
Liquid Injection
Incineration
Fluidized-bed Incineration
Infrared Incinerator
(Shirco)
High Temperature Fluid
Wall (Huber AER)
Molten Salt (Rockwell
Unit)
Supercritical Water
Oxidation
Plasma Arc Pyrolysis
In-Situ Vitrification
Performance/Destruction Achieved
Greater than 99.999 DRE demonstrated on
dioxin at combustion research facility
Greater than 99.999 DRE for dioxin by EPA
unit; process residuals delisted
Ocean incinerators only demonstrated 99.9
on dioxin-containing herbicide orange
Greater than 99.9999 DRE demonstrated on
PCBs
Greater than 99.9999 DRE on TCDD-
contaminated soil
Greater than 99.999 DRE on TCDD-
contaminated oil
Up to eleven nines DRE on
hexachlorobenzene
99.9999 DRE on dioxin-containing waste
reported by developer
Greater than 99.9999 destruction of PCBs
and CC14
Greater than 99.9% destruction on PCB-
contaminated soil
Cost
$0.25 - $0.70/lb for
PCB solids
NA
$200 - $500/ton
$60 - $320/ton
$200-$1,200 per ton
$300 - $600/ton
NA
$0.32 - $2.00/gallon
$300 - $1,400/ton
$120 - $250/M3
350
Document Number: FCFR-3
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF DIOXIN TREATMENT PROCESSES
Process Name
Solvent Extraction
UV Photolysis
Performance/Destruction Achieved
Still bottom extraction: 340 ppm TCDD
reduced to 0.2 ppm; 60-90% removal from
soils
Greater than 98.7% reduction of TCDD
Cost
NA
Stabilization/Fixation
Test using cement
decreased leaching of
TCDDNA
$250 -$1,200/ton
Chemical Dechlorination
APEG processes
Biological in situ addition
of microbes
Degradation using
Ruthemium Tetroxide
Degradation using
Chloroiodides
Reduction of 2,000 ppb TCDD to below 1
ppb for slurry (batch process)
50-60% metabolism of 2,3,7,8-TCDD using
white rot fungus
Reduction of 70 ppb TCDD to below 10 ppb
in 1 hr
Up to 92% degradation on solution of TCDD
in benzene
$296/ton for in situ,
$91/ton for slurry
NA
NA
NA
351
Document Number: FCFR-3
-------
Treatment Process: Thermal Destruction - Pyrolysis
Media: Soil/Generic
Document Reference: Alliance Technologies Corp. "Technical Resource Document:
Treatment Technologies for Dioxin-Containing Wastes." Technical
Report EPA/600/2-86/096. 244 pp. October 1986.
Document Type: EPA ORD Report
Contact: Harold Freeman
U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-Thermal Destruction Branch
26 W. St. Clair Street
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7529
Site Name: Times Beach, MO (NPL)
Location of Test: Times Beach, MO
BACKGROUND: This report focuses on the pilot scale Advanced Electric Reactor (AER). This
treatability study compiles available information on those technologies for dioxin containing solids,
liquids and sludges, many of which are in early stages of development. A discussion of the AER pilot
test is contained in this abstract. Other technologies in this document are discussed in Document
Numbers FCFR-3 and FCFR-6. Technologies evaluated were those that destroy or change the form
of dioxin to render it less toxic. Those technologies not tested on dioxin-containing wastes had been
tested on PCB-containing wastes. The report divides the technologies into thermal and non-thermal
groups of discussion. It was noted that incineration was the only sufficiently demonstrated technology
for treatment of dioxin containing wastes (51 FR1733) and RCRA Performance Standards for Thermal
Treatment require 99.9999 percent destruction removal efficiency (DRE) of the principal organic
hazardous constituent (POHC). Factors which affect the selection/use of a particular technology are
discussed. Technical performance for treating a specific waste type and costs are both considered
in this discussion. A summary of dioxin treatment processes, their performance/destruction achieved,
and estimated costs are provided in Table 1. OA/QC is not discussed.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The AER, owned and operated by J.M. Huber Corporation, was
used to treat, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD). It was also used in other tests including
tests at Gulfport, Mississippi, but these tests reported only removal efficiencies. Only two data points
are present from the Times Beach trials, one from the treated soil and one from the baghouse catch.
The AER was operated at 3500°F-4000°F. Heating was accomplished using electrically heated carbon
electrodes. A nitrogen purge gas provided the reaction atmosphere. Since oxygen was not present,
it was run in a pyrolytic manner.
PERFORMANCE: High DREs could not be demonstrated due to the low amount of contamination
(79 ppb in the influent soil). One limitation of the AER is that it cannot handle two-phase materials
such as sludge. Soils should be dried and sized (smaller than 10 mesh) before being fed into the
reactor. Another limitation is that other types of incineration processes are more cost effective for
high BTU content material. Since no supplementary fuels are required, this process is better suited
352 Document Number: FCFR-4
-------
for low BTU material. A cost estimate guideline is included. Recently the U.S. EPA and the Texas
Water Commission jointly issued J.M. Huber Corporation a RCRA permit which authorizes the
incineration of any non-nuclear RCRA hazardous waste in the AER.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
WO2-Dioxins/Furans/PCBs 1746-01-6 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin
1336-36-3 Total PCBs
Note: This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for more information.
353 Document Number: FCFR-4
-------
Process Name
Stationary Rotary Kiln
Incineration
Mobile Rotary Kiln
Incineration
Liquid Injection
Incineration
Fluidized-bed Incineration
Infrared Incinerator
(Shirco)
High Temperature Fluid
Wall (Huber AER)
Molten Salt (Rockwell
Unit)
Supercritical Water
Oxidation
Plasma Arc Pyrolysis
In-Situ Vitrification
Solvent Extraction
Stabilization/Fixation
UV Photolysis
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF DIOXIN TREATMENT PROCESSES
Performance/Destruction Achieved
Greater than 99.999 ORE demonstrated on
dioxin at combustion research facility
Greater than 99.999 ORE for dioxin by EPA
unit; process residuals delisted
Ocean incinerators only demonstrated 99.9
on dioxin-containing herbicide orange
Greater than 99.9999 ORE demonstrated on
PCBs
Greater than 99.9999 ORE on TCDD-
contaminated soil
Greater than 99.999 ORE on TCDD-
contaminated oil
Up to eleven nines ORE on
hexachlorobenzene
99.9999 ORE on dioxin-containing waste
reported by developer
Greater than 99.9999 destruction of PCBs
and CC14
Greater than 99.9% destruction on PCB-
contaminated soil
Still bottom extraction: 340 ppm TCDD
reduced to 0.2 ppm; 60-90% removal from
soils
Tests using cement decreased leaching of
TCDD
Greater than 98.7% reduction of TCDD
Cost
$0.25 - $0.70/lb for
PCB solids
NA
$200 - $500/ton
$60 - $320/ton
$200 -$1,200 per ton
$300 - $600/ton
NA
$0.32 - $2.00/gallon
$300-$1,400/ton
$120 - $250/M3
NA
NA
$250-$1,200/ton
Chemical Dechlorination
APEG processes
Biological in situ addition
of microbes
Reduction of 2,000 ppb TCDD to below 1
ppb for slurry (batch process)
50-60% metabolism of 2,3,7,8-TCDD using
white rot fungus
$296/ton for in situ,
$91/ton for slurry
NA
354
Document Number: FCFR-4
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
SUMMARY OF DIOXIN TREATMENT PROCESSES
Process Name Performance/Destruction Achieved Cost
Degradation using Reduction of 70 ppb TCDD to below 10 ppb NA
Ruthemium Tetroxide in 1 hr
Degradation using Up to 92% degradation of solution of TCDD NA
Chloroiodides in benzene
355 Document Number: FCFR-4
-------
Treatment Process: Dechlorinatlon
Media: Soil/Generic
Document Reference: Alliance Technologies Corp. "Technical Resource Document:
Treatment Technologies for Dioxin/Containing Wastes." Technical
Report EPA/600/2-86/096. 244pp. October 1986.
Document Type: EPA ORD Report
Contact: Harold Freeman
U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-Thermal Destruction Branch
26 W. St. Clair Street
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7529
Site Name: Denny Farm Site, MO (Non-NPL)
Location of Test: Denny Farm, MO
BACKGROUND: This document summarizes several case studies on the applications of the Alkali
Polyethylene Glycolate (APEG) treatment process applied to dioxin-contaminated soil. This treatability
study compiles available information on those technologies for dioxin containing solids, liquids and
sludges, many of which are in early stages of development. A discussion of the APEG technology
Is contained in this abstract. Other technologies are discussed in Document Numbers FCFR-3 and
FCFR-4. Technologies evaluated were those that destroy or change the form of dioxin to render it
less toxic. Those technologies not tested on dioxin-containlng wastes had been tested on PCB-
containing wastes. The report divides the technologies into thermal and non-thermal groups for
discussion. It was noted that incineration was the only sufficiently demonstrated technology for
treatment of dioxin containing wastes (51 FR 1733) and RCRA Performance Standards for Thermal
Treatment require 99.9999 percent destruction removal efficiency (DRE) of the principal organic
hazardous constituent (POHC). Factors which affect the selection/use of a particular technology are
discussed. Technical performance for treating a specific waste type and costs are both considered
in this discussion. A summary of dioxin treatment processes, their performance/destruction achieved,
and estimated costs are provided in Table 1. OA/QC is not discussed.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: This document summarized several case studies on the
applications of the Alkali Polyethylene Glycolate (APEG) treatment process applied to dioxin-
contaminated soil. All data are either bench or pilot scale. Two different molecular weight APEG
reagents were used. Three tests were K-400 (potassium-based reagent and polyethylene glycol of
average molecular weight of 400) and two tests were K-120. It is unclear whether the waste matrix
was a solvent, soil, or contaminated debris. All analyses reported were total waste analyses.
PERFORMANCE: The document concludes that this technology has a potential for treating soil
contaminated with dioxins. Efficiencies Improve with increased temperature. Costs for the slurry
process is estimated at $91/ton and for the in situ process $296/ton.
356 Document Number: FCFR-6
-------
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
WO2-Dioxins/Furans/PCBs 1336-36-3 Total PCBs
1746-01-6 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dtoxins
Note: This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for more information.
357 Document Number: FCFR-6
-------
Process Name
Stationary Rotary Kiln
Incineration
Mobile Rotary Kiln
Incineration
Liquid Injection
Incineration
Fluidized-bed Incineration
Infrared Incinerator
(Shirco)
High Temperature Fluid
Wall (Huber AER)
Molten Salt (Rockwell
Unit)
Supercritical Water
Oxidation
Plasma Arc Pyrolysis
In-Situ Vitrification
Solvent Extraction
Stabilization/Fixation
UV Photolysis
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF DIOXIN TREATMENT PROCESSES
Performance/Destruction Achieved
Greater than 99.999 ORE demonstrated on
dioxin at combustion research facility
Greater than 99.999 ORE for dioxin by EPA
, unit; process residuals delisted
Ocean incinerators only demonstrated 99.9
on dioxin-containing herbicide orange
Greater than 99.9999 DRE demonstrated on
PCBs
Greater than 99.9999 DRE on TCDD-
contaminated soil
Greater than 99.999 DRE on TCDD-
contaminated oil
Up to eleven nines DRE on
hexachlorobenzene
99.9999 DRE on dioxin-containing waste
reported by developer
Greater than 99.9999 destruction of PCBs
and CC14
Greater than 99.9% destruction on PCB-
contaminated soil
Still bottom extraction: 340 ppm TCDD
reduced to 0.2 ppm; 60-90% removal from
soils
Tests using cement decreased leaching of
TCDD
Greater than 98.7% reduction of TCDD
Cost
$0.25 - $0.70/lb for
PCB solids
NA
$200 - $500/ton
$60 - $320/ton
$200-$1,200 per ton
$300 - $600/ton
NA
$0.32 - $2.00/gallon
$300 - $1,400/ton
$120 - $250/M3
NA
NA
$250-$1,200/ton
Chemical Dechlorination
APEG processes
Biological in situ addition
of microbes
Reduction of 2,000 ppb TCDD to below 1
ppb for slurry (batch process)
50-60% metabolism of 2,3,7,8-TCDD using
white rot fungus
$296/ton for in situ,
$91/ton for slurry
NA
358
Document Number: FCFR-6
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
SUMMARY OF DIOXIN TREATMENT PROCESSES
Degradation using Reduction of 70 ppb TCDD to below 10 ppb NA
Ruthemium Tetroxide in 1 hr
NA
Degradation using Up to 92% degradation on solution of TCDD
Chloroiodides in benzene
359 Document Number: FCFR-6
-------
Treatment Process: Dechlorination
Media: Sludge/Generic
Document Reference: Galson Research Corp. "Bengart and Memel (Bench-Scale), Gulfport
(Bench and Pilot-scale), Montana Pole (Bench-scale), and Western
Processing (Bench-scale) Treatability Studies." 10 pp. July 1987.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: Timothy Geraets
Galson Research Corp.
6601 Klrkville Road
E. Syracuse, NY 13057
315-463-5160
Site Name: Bengart and Memel, Buffalo, NY (Non-NPL)
Location of Test: Galson Technical Services, Syracuse, NY
BACKGROUND: This document presents summary data on the results of various treatability studies
(bench and pilot scale), conducted at four different sites where soils were contaminated with dioxins
or PCBs. The synopsis is meant to show rough performance levels under a variety of different
conditions.
This summary discusses the Bengart-Memel site in Buffalo, NY. Information available in the
document consists of parts of two tables containing data on the performance of dechlorination on
PCBs. The study was performed on a bench-scale and pilot-scale. No detailed site descriptions were
provided.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The APEG process for dechlorinating hydrocarbons was utilized
and the amount of reagents/time and temperature were varied. Two different reagent loading rates
were used. The soil was tested as a slurry and in-situ. The scope of work for the Bengart & Memel
treatability study was to determine if PCB contaminated soils could be treated. Unit cost estimates
for soil treatment are not provided. The pilot study treated 50 drums filled with soil; however, the
numerical data were not supplied with this document. There was no discussion of laboratory analysis
procedures, QA/QC plan, or the amount of soils used in bench scale tests.
PERFORMANCE: The results of the Bengart & Memel study indicate the PCB concentrations could
be reduced to less than 50 ppm by adding reagent to the soil, mixing and heating the soil/reagent
mass to 120°C for 12-24 hours. However, no significant correlation appears to exist between
performance as measured by the amount of contaminant remaining and reagents used, reagent ratios,
time, temperature, or reagent loading.
CONTAMINANTS:
Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of the contaminants by
treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
WO2-Dioxins/Furans/PCBs 1336-36-3 Total PCBs
360 Document Number: FCLC-1
-------
Treatment Process: Dechiorination
Media: Sludge/Generic
Document Reference: Galson Research Corp. "Bengart and Memel (Bench-Scale), Gulfport
(Bench and Pilot-scale), Montana Pole (Bench-scale), and Western
Processing (Bench-scale) Treatability Studies." 10 pp. July 1987.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: Timothy Geraets
Galson Research Corp.
6601 Kirkville Road
E. Syracuse, NY 13057
315-463-5160
Site Name: NCBC Gulfport, MS (Non-NPL)
Location of Test: Galson Technical Services, Syracuse, NY
BACKGROUND: This document presents summary data on the results of various treatability studies
(bench and pilot scale), conducted at four different sites where soils were contaminated with dioxins
or PCBs. The synopsis is meant to show rough performance levels under a variety of different
conditions.
This summary discusses the NCBC site in Gulfport, MS. Information available in the document
consists of parts of two tables containing data on the performance of dechlorination on PCBs. The
study was performed on a bench-scale and pilot-scale. No detailed site descriptions were provided.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The APEG process for dechlorinating hydrocarbons was utilized
and the amount of reagents/time and temperature were varied. Two different reagent loading rates
were used. Tests were conducted in slurry form and in-situ. Unit cost estimates for soil treatment
are not provided. Costs for each bench-scale test run are estimated at $1,000 for PCBs and $2,000
for dioxin. Dioxin tests are more costly due to the complicated analytical procedures. The scope of
work at the NCBC site was to determine the kinetics of processing dioxin contaminated soil using 30
kg batches in a modified 55-gallon drum reactor unit. There was no discussion of laboratory analysis
procedures, QA/QC plan, or the amount of soils used in bench scale tests.
PERFORMANCE: The results of the NCBC study showed that the soil from Gulfport, MS could be
decontaminated by mixing the soil with APEG reagent and heating to 120oC for 7 hours. However,
no significant correlation appears to exist between performance as measured by the amount of
contaminant remaining and reagents used, reagent ratios, time, temperature, or reagent loading.
351 Document Number: FCLC-2
-------
CONTAMINANTS:
Analytical data Is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of the contaminants by
treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
WO2-Dioxins/Furans/PCBs TOT-DF Total Dioxins and Furans
30746-58-8 1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin
Note: This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for more information.
362 Document Number: FCLC-2
-------
BENCH SCALE DATA ON NCBC (GULFPORT)
Concentration
CO
O)
CO
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
BENCH
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Source
Gulf port
Gulf port
Gulfport
Gulf port
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
SCALE DATA ON
Buffalo
Buffalo
Buffalo
Buffalo
Buffalo
Buffalo
Buffalo
Com-
pound
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
BENGART & MEMEL
PCB
PCB
PCS
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
Process
Slurry
Slurry
Slurry
Slurry
Slurry
Slurry
Slurry
Slurry
Slurry
In-Situ
In-Situ
In-Situ
In-Situ
In-Situ
In-Situ
In-Situ
In-Situ
In-Situ
In-Situ
In-Situ
(BUFFALO)
Slurry
Slurry
Slurry
In-Situ
In-Situ
In-Situ
In-Situ
Reagent
9:9:2-P.D.K.
9:9:2-M.D.K.
9:9:2-M.D.K.
9:9:2-M!D!lc!
9:9:2-M.D.K.
9:9:2-M.D.K.
9:9:2-M.D.K.
2:2:2:1-M.D.K.W.
2:2:2:1-M.D.K.U.
2:2:2:1-M.D.K.u.
2:2:2:1-M.D.K.W.
9:9:2:1-M.D.K.U.
9:9:2:1-M.S.K.U.
1:1:2:2:1-P.T.S.K.W.
2:2:2:1-H.D.K.W.
2:2:2:1-H.S.K.W.
1:1:2:2:1-P.T.D.K.W.
1:1:2:2:1-P.T.D.K.U.
REAGENT COMPONENTS KEY
D = DMSO = dimethyl sulfoxide
K = KOH = potassium hydroxide
H = MEE = methyl carbitol = methoxy-ethoxy-ethanol
P - PEG = polyethylene glycol, avg. molecular weight of 400
S = SFLN = Sulfolane = tetrahydrothiophene 1.1-dioxide
T = TMH = triethylene glycol methyl ether and highers
W = water
Loading
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
50%
20%
50%
100%
100%
100%
20%
20%
100%
100%
Temp.
°C
250
160
150
100
70
70
70
50
25
25
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
100
100
150
70
70
150
150
Time
Before
4 hours
2 hours
2 hours
2 hours
2 hours
2 hours
0.5 hrs
2 hours
2 hours
7 days
1 day
7 days
1 day
2 days
4 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2 hours
2 hours
2 hours
7 days
7 days
3 days
1 day
77 ppm
77 ppm
112 ppm
77 ppm
77 ppm
112 ppm
83 ppm
After
<1 ppb
<1 ppb
<1 ppb
<1 ppb
<1 ppb
<1.5 ppb
<15 ppb
<23 ppb
<36 ppb
1000 ppb
8.5 ppb
<1 ppb
3.3 ppb
2.0 ppb
2.5 ppb
<1 ppb
3.2 ppb
2.7 ppb
43 ppb
14 ppb
4.2 ppb
6.7 ppb
6.7 ppb
3.7 ppb
4.0 ppb
<0.1 ppb
<0.1 ppb
TOXIC COMPOUNDS KEY
TCDD = 1.2.3.4-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
PCB = polychorinated biphenyls
Loading (%) = 100 x (reagent mass/soil mass)
Document Number: FCLC-2
-------
Treatment Process: Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
Media: Soil/Generic
Document Reference: McDevitt, N., J. Noland, and P. Marks. "Contract DAAK 11-85-C-0007
(Task Order 4) Bench Scale Investigation of Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC's) from Soil." Technical Report AMXTH-TE-CR-
86092 prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., for USATHAMA (U.S. Army).
120 pp. January 1987.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: Eric Kaufman
U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21009
301-671-2270
Site Name: Letterkenny Army Depot (NPL - Federal facility)
Location of Test: Chambersburg, PA
BACKGROUND: The U.S. Army is investigating technologies to effectively treat soil contaminated
by organic compounds. Low temperature thermal stripping is one alternative which couples two
mechanisms: a) removal by volatilization and b) removal by aeration. Two individual studies were
conducted to separate the effects of each mechanism. This treatability study evaluates the effects
of aeration on VOC removal efficiency.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: Soils at the site are gravelly sand fill, and native material
consisting of sandy clay and sandy silt. Soils contaminated with VOCs were taken from Area K of
Letterkenney Army Depot and is a mixture of these soils. Average concentration of 1,2 trans
dichloroethylene, trichloroethylene (TCE), and tetrachloroethylene were 115, 222 and 95 ppm,
respectively. Samples of 4.5 liters each were used in the bench-scale tests. Soils were analyzed for
their VOC content and then aerated in a bench scale aeration unit. The target residence time was
260 minutes. Total VOC were analyzed at the aeration unit outlet. In this manner, the input/output
VOC concentration could be determined.
Sampling and analytical techniques are explained for soils, moisture content, temperatures and other
variables in the experiments. QC measures in the report include explanations of equipment calibration
procedures, analyses of blanks and duplicate samples.
PERFORMANCE: The effect of total VOC concentrations in the soils, air temperature, and soil
temperature on the VOC removal efficiency were investigated. Results indicated that VOC removal
efficiency is directly proportional to the total concentration of contaminants in the soil. Table 1 shows
the results of increasing contaminant concentration on the removal efficiency of VOCs. The same
table shows no correlation between soil bed temperature and removal efficiency. As the inlet air
temperature decreased, there was an increase in removal efficiency. However, this increase may be
due to the corresponding increase in total VOC contaminant levels. There appears to be a correlation
between the moisture content of the air streams and the removal efficiency, but the authors suggest
additional testing prior to drawing conclusion from the currently available data.
A conclusion in the report is a comparison of VOC removal efficiencies associated with aeration
element to the thermal element VOC removal efficiencies. The authors claim that the role of aeration
In thermal stripping is minimal (a separate June 86 report is referenced). No data is presented from
364 Document Number: FCMK
-------
the companion report concerning the thermal element VOC removal efficiencies. The authors also
qualify their statement indicating that their conclusions apply to the conditions evaluated in this study
(i.e., inlet air temperature, etc.).
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group
WO4-Halogenated Aliphatic
Solvents
WO7-Heterocyclics and
Simple Aromatics
W13-Other Organics
CAS Number
127-18-4
156-60-5
79-01-6
1330-20-7
TOT-VAC
Contaminants
Tetrachloroethene
Trans-1,2-dichlorethene
Trichloroethene
Total Xylenes
Total Volatile Organics
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF OPERATING DATA
Test
Run#
1
2
3
4
Total VOC
Concen-
tration
ug/kq
^B^P^Ad^^
647
1,538
291,940
2,256,100
Average
Soil Bed
Temo (R
105
90
115
102
Average
Inlet
Temp
-------
Treatment Process: Thermal Destruction - Infrared
Media: Sludge/Generic
Document Reference: des Rosiers, Paul E. "Trip Report: Boehringer - Ingelheim, FRG,
Test/Evaluation of Shirco Infrared Desorption Process on Dioxin-
contaminated Wastes from 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol Manufacture using
Hexachlorocyclohexane (Lindane) Wastes as Feedstock." Labeled
U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology
Demonstration, Washington, D.C. May 1987.
Document Type: U.S. Government Trip Report
Contact: Paul des Rosiers
Chairman
EPA Dioxin Disposal Advisory Group
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
202-382-2722
Site Name: C.H. Boehringer Chemical Facility
Location of Test: Hamburg, Germany
BACKGROUND: This document reports on the results of tests on the infrared desorption of dioxin
contaminated soils from the C.H. Boehringer Chemical production facility. Dioxin contamination at the
20-acre site was found to be widespread (soils, buildings, groundwater, etc.) due to the past handling
and manufacture of chlorobenzenes, chlorophenols, and pesticides.
Tests on the Shirco unit were conducted from November 1986 through February 1987 at the company
facilities located in Hamburg and Ingelheim, Germany. Contaminant concentrations in the soils ranged
from a maximum of 4400 ppm for hexachlorocyclohexane to a maximum of 18,300 ppm for
hexachlorophenol, from 2 to 315 ppb for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and up to 9500 ppb for OCDD and OCDF.
Approximately 3300 kg and 1300 kg of CDD/CDF contaminated soils were processed, respectively.
OPERATION INFORMATION: The desorption unit consists of a belt-fed desorption train, an
afterburner section for desorbed gases, an emission treatment module, and a packed tower
scrubber/venturi system to neutralize acid gases and remove any particulates produced. The unit is
capable of processing 15-75 kg/hr of contaminated soil. The infrared heating rods are capable of
achieving 500° to 800°C. Retention time is 10-45 minutes. A controlled gas flow (air or N2) carries
the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the afterburner which operates nominally at 1200°C.
Scrubber water generated to date is stored pending government review and approval to delist the
waste. A mobile analytical laboratory using a flame ionization detector was used to analyze for
contaminants. Secondary mixing in the afterburner is necessary to ensure high destruction efficiency
since the 2,3,7,8-TCDD molecule is sorbed on the smallest particles. No QA/QC plans were
contained in this report. Analytical methods were not specified.
PERFORMANCE: Chlorobenzene contaminated soils processed in the Shirco unit were reduced
from a maximum of 16,600 ppm to 5-80 ppb remaining in the soil residue. Hexachlorocyclohexane
and chlorophenol contaminated soils experienced similar reductions. Levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
contaminated soils with concentrations ranging from 2-315 ppb were reduced to between 5-50 parts
per trillion (ppt). OCDD and OCDF contaminated soils containing up to 9500 ppb were reduced to
366 Document Number: FCNU-1
-------
levels between 10-150 ppt using the Shirco unit. Process air emissions data revealed the CO, SO2,
HCL, TOO, particulates and 2,3,7,8-TCDD levels were within permit limits. Minor excursions beyond
permit limits were noted during optimization tests. Heavy metal values were also found to be within
permit limits (1 to 5 mgs/Nm). Scrubber water effluent limits for dioxin were at the nondetectable level
for batch and continuous operations. Other organic scrubber water effluent levels were at the
nondetectable, ppt or ppb level.
The Shirco Infrared Desorber treated dioxin contaminated soils at two different sites in Germany and
removed approximately 99.99% of the contaminants. In addition to destroying dioxin, it can easily
pyroiyze chlorobenzenes and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The German company plans
to scale up the unit to treat 100 tons/day.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group
WO1-Halogenated Aromatic
Compounds
WO2-Dioxins/Furans/PCBs
CAS Number
108-90-7
OCDF
1746-01-6
Contaminants
Chlorobenzenes
Octachlorodibenzofurnas
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin
367
Document Number: FCNU-1
-------
Treatment Process: Thermal Destruction - Fluidized Bed Combustion
Media: Soils (Generic)
Document Reference: Soczo, E.R., E.J.H. Verhagen and C.W. Versluijs. "Review of Soil
Treatment Techniques in the Netherlands." National Institute of Public
Health and Environmental Hygiene, Laboratory for Waste Emission
Research (LAE), The Netherlands.
Document Type: Government Laboratory Report
Contact: National Institute of Public Health & Environmental Research
A. Van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, P.O. Box 1
3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands
Site Name: The Netherlands
Location of Test: Lower Bilthoven, The Netherlands
Media: Sandy Soil
BACKGROUND: This document is a survey of different soil technologies and treatment sites in the
Netherlands. It specifically addresses thermal treatment, bioremediation, and solvent extraction. This
document is only a very general summary of work. This abstract deals with thermal treatment.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The Netherlands has six operational thermal treatment plants.
One is a pilot plant using a fluidized bed combustor. The type of incineration process associated with
the other five plants is not explained in the document. The plants have a capacity ranging from 4000
tons/year for the small pilot plant to 80,000 tons per year for the largest plant. The costs of thermal
treatment range from $40 to $85/ton and depends on the moisture content of the soil and the type
of contaminants.
PERFORMANCE: A table is presented which lists only a range of influent and effluent
concentrations, general classes of contaminants, and soil type. The data was grouped by soil type.
The results are considered to be full scale, because the information was gathered from treatment
plants that were currently in operation. The table reveals that cyanides, BTEX, poly cyclic aromatics
(PCA) and diesel fuel can be removed from various soils with efficiencies ranging from 98 to 99.5%.
Since this is only a survey of work being done in the Netherlands, QA/QC protocol or sampling and
analysis protocol are not given. Therefore, care should be taken when using this data in a
quantitative manner.
368 Document Number: FCQC-1
-------
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group
WO7-Heterocyclics and
Simple Non-Halogenated
Aromatics
WO8-Polynuclear Aromatics
W12-Other Organics
W13-Other Inorganics
CAS Number
BTEX
TOT-PAH
57-12-5
DIESEL
Contaminants
Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene,
Xylene
Total Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
Cyanide
Diesel fuel, oil, petrol
369
Document Number: FCQC-1
-------
Treatment Process:
Media:
Document Reference:
Document Type:
Contact:
Site Name:
Location of Test:
Bioremediation
Sandy Soil
Soczo, E.R., EJ.H. Verhagen and C.W. Versluijs. "Review of Soil
Treatment Techniques in the Netherlands." National Institute of Public
Health and Environmental Hygiene, Laboratory for Waste Emission
Research (LAE), The Netherlands.
Government Laboratory Report
National Institute of Public Health & Environmental Research
A. Van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, P.O. Box 1
3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands
The Netherlands
Lower Bilthoven, The Netherlands
BACKGROUND: This document is a survey of different soil treatment sites and techniques in the
Netherlands. It specifically addresses thermal destruction, biological treatment, and solvent extraction.
This abstract deals with biological treatment.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: Biological treatment techniques are currently being developed.
Seven research projects were initiated in 1985. The research is aimed at: optimizing conditions for
landfarming; establishing what contaminants can be treated by landfarming; and the development of
other types of biological treatment methods such as in-situ biorestoration.
PERFORMANCE: Studies revealed that landfarming can remove pollutants such as fuel oil and
cutting oil within 4-6 months. Table 1 shows the results of tests conducted on a variety of petroleum
products.
Crude oil and mineral oil degradation is very slow. No specific information was available on in-situ
bioremediation or on bioreactors. Research in this area has not been completed. Since this is only
a survey of work being done in the Netherlands, no QA/QC protocol or sampling and analysis protocol
are given. Therefore, care should be taken when using this data in a quantitative manner.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group
WO8-Polynuclear Aromatics
W12-Other Inorganics
CAS Number
TOT-PAH
57-12-5
Contaminants
Total Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
Cyanide
370
Document Number: FCQC-2
-------
TABLE 1
DEGRADATION OF SOIL PRODUCTS BY
MEANS OF LANDFARMING METHODS
(ing/kg dry w. total oil concentrations in the soil)
Concentration Concentration
Initial After 1 Growing After 2 Growing
Concentration Season* Seasons*
Type of Oil
crude oil 35,000 small reduction **
crude oil 8,000 small reduction **
gas oil 1,800 400
fuel oil 6,800 800 300
mineral oil 1,100 small reduction 400
cutting oil 2,400 800
* Growing season: the warmest period of the year (4 to 6 months)
** No results available
Note: This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for more information.
371 Document Number: FCQC-2
-------
Treatment Process: Chemical Extraction and Soil Washing
Media: Sandy Soil
Document Reference: Soczo, E.R., E.J.H. Verhagen and C.W. Versluijs. "Review of Soil
Treatment Techniques in the Netherlands." National Institute of Public
Health and Environmental Hygiene, Laboratory for Waste Emission
Research (LAE), The Netherlands.
Document Type: Laboratory Report
Contact: National Institute of Public Health & Environmental Hygiene Laboratory
for Waste Emission Research
A. Van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, P.O. Box 1
3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands
Site Name: The Netherlands
Location of Test: Lower Bilthoven, The Netherlands
BACKGROUND: This document is a review of soil treatment techniques in the Netherlands. The
various techniques reviewed were thermal treatment, biological, and solvent extraction. This report
focuses on full scale extraction technologies.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: There are five full-scale extraction plants in the Netherlands.
Plant capacity varies from a low of 8,000 tons/year to a maximum of 34,000 tons/year. Cost of
treatment varies between $25 and $100/ton depending on soil type.
PERFORMANCE: Only a summary of different extraction operations is presented. Different
contaminants for different types of soil and a range of influent and effluent concentrations are given.
The data points do not appear to represent specific tests; they are values estimated from the range
given. Each test represents a different soil type. It is estimated that 90-99% of contaminants like oil,
cyanides, and polycyclic aromatics (PCA) can be removed from soil by solvent extraction. Removal
efficiency for heavy metals varies between 70 and 95%.
No sampling and analysis procedures, or QA/QC procedures are given. No discussion of the type of
solvents used in the extraction process is included in the report. Due to this lack of information, care
should be taken when using the data in a quantitative manner. The data was used because it came
from full scale plants in operation.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
372 Document Number: FCQC-3
-------
Treatability Group
WO8-Polynuclear Aromatics
W10-Non-Volatile Metals
W11 -Volatile Metals
W12-Other Inorganics
W13-Other Organics
CAS Number
TOT-PAH
7440-02-0
7439-92-1
7440-43-9
7440-66-6
57-12-5
8020-83-5
Contaminants
Total Pplycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
Nickel
Lead
Cadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Mineral oil
373
Document Number: FCQC-3
-------
Treatment Process: Bioremediation - Aerobic
Media: Sludge/Generic
Document Reference: Detox Industries, Inc. "Work Plan for Biodegradation of Poly-
Chlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) at a Superfund Site." Technical report
of three volumes with a total of about 20 pages and related
correspondence. Work plan prepared for General Motors Corporation,
Massena, New York. September 1986.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: Melvin Hauptman
U.S. EPA - Region II
Emergency & Remedial Response Division
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
212-264-7681
Site Name: Massena, NY (NPL)
Location of Test: Hearne Utilities, Hearne, TX
BACKGROUND: This document is composed of a work plan and additional technical information
which demonstrates the qualifications of Detox Industries, Inc. to conduct remediation of a PCB
contaminated sludge at General Motors (GM) plant in New York. Provided are the results of a field
demonstration conducted on sludge containing PCB at Hearne Utilities in Hearne, TX. Bench scale
biodegradation studies were also conducted by Detox Inc. on samples of sludge provided by GM from
their Massena, NY site. Significant reductions in PCB levels were noted in the tests.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The technical summary provided by Detox Industries, Inc.
provides a description of a field test conducted on approximately 500 Ibs. of a PCB contaminated
sludge at the Hearne Utility site in Hearne, Texas. The sludge was placed into a non-leaking
bioreactor open to ambient air. PCB transformer oil was added to the sludge to bring the total PCB
concentration to approximately 2000 ppm. The mixture was stirred constantly to ensure aerobic
conditions and microbes and nutrients were added to the reactor. Testing time was approximately
two months (September 83 - December 83). Samples were provided to NUS Laboratories in Houston,
Texas for PCB analysis.
Bench tests were conducted by Detox Industries, Inc. on PCB contaminated sludge samples provided
by General Motors from their site in Massena, New York. Samples were inoculated with
microorganisms and agitated in a water bath for 16 days. Aliquots were taken and sent to
Southwestern Laboratories for PCB analysis.
The technical summaries provided very few details on the microbes that Detox Industries, Inc. has
developed for the biodegradation of PCB other than generic statements indicating that oxygen,
moisture and nutrients must be present for the process to occur and that Detox Industries microbes
are not affected by PCB. The work plan refers to QA/QC procedures, but they are not included in the
plan.
PERFORMANCE: The field test at Hearne, Texas showed a significant reduction of PCB from the
initial concentration at 2000 ppm. Final concentrations were as low as 0.12 ppm PCB. Results of
374 Document Number: FCQP
-------
bench scale tests of samples of PCB contaminated sludge taken from the GM site In New York also
showed reductions in PCB levels. Table 1 shows the results after 16 days of treatment.
Results of the various studies revealed that the Detox Industries, Inc. biodegradation process reduced
PCB levels in contaminated materials. The U.S. EPA approved the GM request to conduct a full-scale
pilot study of this process at the GM site in Massena, New York.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatabllity study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group
WO2-Dioxins/Furans/PCBs
CAS Number
1336-36-3
Contaminants
Total PCBs
GM Lagoon #1
GM Digester
GM Activated Sludge
TABLE 1
PCB (1248) BIODEGRADATION
Untreated Soil Treated Soil
338 ppm 107 ppm
110ppm 63 ppm
63 ppm 6.5 ppm
% Reduction
68.3
42.7
89.6
Notes: a) Treatment time -16 days
b) This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for more information.
375
Document Number: FCQP
-------
Treatment Process: Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
Media: Soil/Sandy
Document Reference: Webster, David M. "Pilot Study of Enclosed Thermal Soil Aeration for
Removal of Volatile Organic Contamination at the McKin Superfund
Site." Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association. Volume 36, No.
10, pp. 1156-1163. October 1986.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: David Webster
U.S. EPA - Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg.
Room 2203
Boston, MA 02203
617-565-3715
Site Name: McKin Superfund Site, Gray, ME (NPL)
Location of Test: Gray, ME
BACKGROUND: This paper reports on the results of a pilot study that treated vadose zone soil
contaminated with VOCs in an enclosed thermal aeration system. The McKin site, an NPL site in
Gray, Maine, was the location of the pilot study. The pilot study was chosen to demonstrate the
viability of excavating the soil, treating the soil in a material dryer to aerate the soils and drive off the
VOCs, and treating the vapors to remove contaminants. Results of the pilot study revealed that VOCs
were reduced to non-detectable levels.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The on-site sandy soil is contaminated with high levels of VOCs
including up to 3310 ppm of trichloroethene (TCE) and 1,1,1-trichloroethane. Soils were aerated in
a materials dryer at 150°F and 380°F. Three cubic yards of soils could be treated per run and the
soils passed through the system from 3 to 8 times to ensure adequate volatilization of the
contaminants. Exhaust gases from the materials dryer were treated with a 3-stage process including
a baghouse, a scrubber and vapor phase carbon bed to remove particulates and organic vapors prior
to release. Aerated soils were solidified and returned to the excavated area. An important objective
of the study was to determine whether ambient air quality could be maintained during soil excavation
and aeration. Continuous air quality monitoring for organic vapors was conducted during testing at
the site and on the perimeter of the site. Techniques to minimize uncontrolled volatilization of organic
chemicals from the soil during excavation and aeration and to control dust emissions were
implemented. An pn-site laboratory was utilized to augment off-site analysis of soils for organic
contaminants by gas chromatography. Methods utilized were EPA Method 8010 and a modified EPA
Method 8020. QA/QC is not reported.
PERFORMANCE: Treatability tests were conducted from February to May 1986. During the test,
parameters such as drying temperature, dust control and the number of drying cycles were varied to
test their effect on the VOC removal efficiency. Test results indicated that high drying temperatures
and increasing number of drying cycles produced the greatest amount of VOC reduction. Treated
soils were able to achieve the EPA target of 0.1 PPM TCE. The results of various tests are shown
in Table 1.
376 Document Number: FCSF
-------
The results of air monitoring for organic vapors during the pilot study revealed that on-site activities
had a negligible effect on air quality at the site perimeter. Pilot test results indicated that
concentrations of VOCs can be significantly reduced to non-detectable levels and that thermal soil
aeration can virtually eliminate volatile organic contaminants from the vadose zone.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
WO1-Halogenated Aromatic 95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Compounds
WO4-Halogenated Aliphatic
Solvents
WO7-Heterocyclics and
Simple Aromatics
127-18-4
79-01-6
108-88-3
1330-20-7
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Toluene
Xylene
TABLE 1
PRE-AERATION AND POST-AERATION CONCENTRATIONS OF DETECTED
CONTAMINANTS IN SELECTED SOIL AERATION RUNS (ppm)
Pre-aeration Post-aeration
range concentrations
Trichloroethene (TCE) 17-115 ND 0.05"
Tetrachloroethene 11-19 ND 0.05"
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.11-0.3 ND 0.05"
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 3.5-50 ND 1"
Toluene 1-2 ND 1"
Xylenes 5-69 ND 1b
Notes: a) Not detected at a laboratory detection limit of 0.05 ppm.
b) Not detected at a laboratory detection limit of 1 ppm.
c) This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for more information.
377 Document Number: FCSF
-------
Treatment Process: Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
Media: Sludge/Oily
Document Reference: Research Triangle Institute. Information: "Input/Output Data for
Several Treatment Technologies." Center for Hazardous Material
Research. 10 pp. May 1987.
Document Type: EPA ORD Report
Contact: Dr. Clark Allen
Research Triangle Institute
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
919-541-5826
Site Name: Luwa Corp., Charlotte, NC (Non-NPL)
Location of Test: Charlotte, NC
BACKGROUND: This treatability study is a pilot scale evaluation of a thin-film evaporator (TFE) for
volatile organics (VO) removal from oily sludges such as refinery sludges. TFEs were studied to
evaluate their use to remove and recover VO from these sludges prior to land treatment. This would
reduce the amount of VO available for release during land treatment of the sludges. The process can
also be operated to remove water and low boiling point oils, reducing sludge volume while recovering
oil from the sludges prior to disposal. The organics were recovered as a condensate and recycled
to the petroleum refinery as product.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The pilot test was conducted September 8-12, 1986, on non-
hazardous (as defined by RCRA) refinery wastes, similar to hazardous refinery wastes such as API
separator sludge. The TFE equipment selected included a mechanical agitator device for producing
and agitating the film, permitting the processing of high viscosity liquids and sludges with suspended
solids. The mechanical agitation at the heat transfer surface promotes heat transfer and maintains
precipitated or crystallized solids in manageable suspension without fouling the heat transfer surface.
A total of 22 runs were performed using two different wastes, three temperatures, three flow rates and
under both atmospheric and vacuum conditions. Five 55-gallon drums of emulsion tank sludge were
used on Test 1-18 while the balance of the tests were conducted on oily tank bottoms. Temperatures
used were 150°C, 230°C and 310°C. Flow rates of 70-150 Ib/hr were evaluated. Sampling and
analysis are discussed but no QA/QC is reported.
PERFORMANCE: The fraction of feed removed by the TFE ranged from 11 to 95.7 percent. From
98.5 to 99.5 percent of the VO and 10 to 75 percent of the semi-volatiles were removed from the
sludge. Results for VO for the extremes of feed rate and temperature range are provided in Table
1. The removal efficiency for volatiles was greater at higher temperatures. At 150"C some of the
water In the feed was evaporated along with most of the VO. At 320° C essentially all of the water
and VO was removed along with much of the higher boiling point oils. At this higher temperature, the
amount of bottom sludge produced ranged between 10 and 13 percent of the feed rate, substantially
reducing the amount of material to dispose of. This sludge was still pumpable. The vacuum runs
produced a milky-white emulsion as condensate which would require further processing. At 320°C
the bottoms product was only 4.3 percent of the feed. This would indicate a two stage process to first
remove VO and semi-volatiles at atmospheric pressure and then heavier oils under vacuum operation
could substantially reduce the amount of sludge material requiring disposal.
378 Document Number: FCSP
-------
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group
WO7-Heterocyclics and
Simple Aromatics
WO8-Polynuclear Aromatics
WO9-Other Polar Organic
Organic Compounds
CAS Number
71-43-2
100-41-4
108-38-3
95-47-6
100-42-5
108-88-3
91-57-6
83-32-9
208-96-8
120-12-7
205-99-2
207-08-9
132-64-9
91-20-3
129-00-0
86-73-7
218-01-9
50-32-8
56-55-3
85-01-8
117-84-0
Contaminants
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
M-Xylene
O&P Xylene
Styrene
Toluene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(B)fluoranthene
Benzo(K)fluoranthene
Dibenzofuran
Naphthalene
Pyrene
Flourene
Chrysene
Benzo(A)pyrene
Benzo(A)anthracene
Phenanthrene
Di-n-octylphthalate
379
Document Number: FCSP
-------
TABLE 1
TFE VOLATILE ORGANICS REMOVAL FOR SELECTED COMPOUNDS
Operating Conditions Reduction in concentrations from feed (%)*
Test
NfiL
5
7
8
10
Tempert
ure(!Q
150
150
310
310
Flow
rate
(Ib/hr)
71.6
153.7
68.5
143.4
Benzene
99.58
99.73
99.72
99.76
Toluene
99.61
99.78
99.84
99.90
Ethvl-
benzene
99.48
98.83
99.68
99.78
Oh
Xylene
99.54
98.64
99.67
99.75
Notes: a) Based on GC/MS analysis.
b) This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for more information.
380 Document Number: FCSP
-------
Treatment Process: Thermal Destruction - Incineration
Media: Sandy Soil
Document Reference: Stoddart, Terry L. "Demonstration of Innovative Remedial Action
Technologies at United States Military Dioxin Contaminated Sites."
Chemosphere, Vol. 15, Nos. 9-12, pp 1535-1541, 1986.
Document Type: Journal Article
Contact: Major Terry Stoddart
USDOD/AFESC
Chief Engineering Branch
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-6001
904-283-4628
Site Name: Naval Construction
Batallion Center (NCBC)
Location of Test: Gulfport, MS
BACKGROUND: This document provides an overview of technologies used to treat soils at different
sites containing 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin). The testing reported here was performed using a J.M. Huber
Corp. pilot scale Advanced Electric Reactor (AER).
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The AER uses a technology which rapidly heats feed materials
to the range of 4000-4500T. Feed stock is isolated from the reactor core by means of a nitrogen
blanket. Pyrolysis occurs since there is no O2 present. Solids are gravity fed to the reactor and solid
and gas phase residence times can be varied to achieve desired destructions efficiency. Off gases
are conveyed to a bag filter for removal of particulates. A gas cleaning train removes trace levels or
organics and chlorine. The AER was run at 3700°F with a solids feed rate of 37 Ibs/hr at the NCBC
field test.
PERFORMANCE: Only one data pair is given from the tests performed from May to June, 1985.
Replicate analysis of the feed stock indicated an average 2,3,7,8 TCDD concentration of 240 ppb.
Analysis of the treated soil indicated a concentration of 0.04 ppb 2,3,7,8 TCDD. No sampling or
QA/QC protocol or other information is given. No conclusions are included except that this technology
may be useful for site cleanup. It is believed that this information is the summary of a larger report,
especially since it appears that this summary is from a journal article.
CONTAMINANTS:
Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of the contaminants by
treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
W02-Dioxins/Furans/PCBs 1746-01-6 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-pdfcwi
381 Document Number: FCSS-1
-------
Treatment Process: Thermal Destruction - UV Photolysis
Media: Sandy Soils
Document Reference: Stoddart, Terry L. "Demonstration of Innovative Remedial Action
Technologies at United States Military Dioxin Contaminated Sites."
Chemosphere, Vol. 15, Nos. 9-12, pp 1535-1541, 1986.
Document Type: Journal Article
Contact: Major Terry Stoddart
USDOD/AFESC
Chief Engineering Branch
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-6001
904-283-4628
Site Name: Naval Construction
Batallion Center (NCBC)
Location of Test: Gulfport, MS
BACKGROUND: This document provides an overview of technologies used to treat soils at different
sites containing 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin). This document reports the results of the thermal
desorption/U.V. photolysis tests.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The thermal desorption step involves passing contaminated soil
through a thermal treatment unit operating at approximately 500°C. Dioxin and other volatile organics
evaporate and are collected in an organic solvent and destroyed by UV photolysis.
Contaminated soil is heated to desorb volatiles. Heating and desorption is aided by passing an inert
carrier gassed over the soils to constantly remove volatile organics. This carrier gas enters a high
boiling hydrocarbon solvent where the dioxin and other contaminates dissolve. The hydrocarbon
solvent containing dioxin then undergoes photolysis in a recirculating system for approximately 24
hours.
PERFORMANCE: There were five pilot scale tests performed at different operating conditions from
May to June, 1985, at the Naval Construction Battalion Center. Approximately 2,500 pounds of soil
were treated. Treated soil was analyzed using two different extraction procedures and the feed soil
was analyzed by the standard EPA-CLP extraction procedure. Feed soil dioxin concentration ranged
from 232 to 272 ppb. Soil dioxin levels after treatment ranged from 0.49 to 1.9 ppb.
No sampling or QA/QC protocol or other information is given. No conclusions are included except that
this technology may be useful for site cleanup. It is believed that this information is the summary of
a larger report, since it appears that this summary is from a journal article.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
WO2-Dioxins/Furans/PCBs 1746-01-6 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-pdiodn
382 Document Number: FCSS-2
-------
Treatment Process: Dechlorination
Media: Soil/Sand and Silt
Document Reference: "Treatability Test for APEG Dechlorination of PCBs on Resolve Site
Soil." Letter Report, Edwina Milicic, Galston Research Corp., March
18, 1987.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: Mr. Colin Baker
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
One Center Plaza
Boston, MA 02108
617-742-5151
Site Name: Resolve, MA
Location of Test: Galston Research Corp.
6601 Kirkville Road
E. Syracuse, NY 13057
BACKGROUND: This project report describes the results of treatability studies on contaminated
soils from the Resolve site. The Resolve site soil is a silty sand, almost saturated with water and
contaminated with several chlorinated and non-chlorinated organic solvents and high concentrations
of PCBs. A laboratory treatability study was conducted to determine whether the APEG process can
be used to remove the PCBs from this soil and whether the other contaminants interfere with
processing for PCB removal.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: A composite sample of soil from the Resolve site was received
on March 2, 1987. The sample was sieved through a screen with 0.25" openings, mixed thoroughly,
and returned to its original container. Some of the volatile compounds may have been lost during this
process.
Three hundred grams of the sieved soil were weighed into a metal container with a screened bottom.
This container was designed to fit inside a special reactor. The reactor was fitted with a mechanical
stirrer with glass shaft and paddle, a distillation head, condenser, and receiver, and a thermocouple
probe. A charcoal trap was included between the distillate receiver and the vacuum pump so that
volatile compounds from the soil could be captured and analyzed at some future time.
Reagent consisting of 50 g of PEG 400 (polyethylene glycol with an average molecular weight of 400),
50 g of Dowanol TMH (triethylene glycol methyl ether and higher homologues), 100 g of DMSO
(dimethyl sulfoxide) and 100 g of 66% aqueous potassium hydroxide (KOH) was added to the reactor.
The reactor was heated by circulating heated oil through the reactor jacket. The oil temperature was
adjustable from ambient to 150°C. The reactor was heated slowly in order to observe any distillation
of the low boiling contaminants. No distillate was observed in the receiver until the reaction
temperature exceeded 110°C. Samples were collected periodically throughout the reaction time. After
a total of 8 hours, the circulating heater and stirring motor were turned off and the reactor was allowed
to cool. PCB content was determined by gas chromatography. A detailed explanation of the analysis
procedure is contained in the report as an appendix.
383 Document Number: FDBA
-------
PERFORMANCE: PCB soil content as a function of time reaction and different temperatures are
shown in Table 1. At a temperature greater than 120°C and with three hours reaction time,
essentially all of the PCBs are destroyed by the KPEG reagent.
A cost analysis of treating contaminated soil revealed that cost per ton of contaminated soil would
range from $140/ton to $186/ton depending on cleanup level, amount of soil to be treated, and soil
moisture content. These costs do not include excavation, site support, or permitting costs.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
WO2-Dioxins/Furans/PCBs 1336-36-3 Total PCBs
TABLE 1
RESULTS OF PCB ANALYSIS
Total Hours Temp (°C) Hours over 120°C ppm PCB in soil
0 25 0 2900
1 75 0 600
2 79 0 580
6 126 1 560
8 128 3 <1
Note: This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for more information.
384 Document Number: FDBA
-------
Treatment Process: Thermal Destruction - Incineration
Media: Soil/Generic
Document Reference: EBASCO Services Inc. "Litigation Technical Support and Services,
Rocky Mountain Arsenal (Basis F Wastes)." Six-part technical report
with a total of approximately 600 pp. prepared for U.S. Army Program
Manager's Office for Rocky Mountain Arsenal Cleanup during April and
. September 1986 and March, April, and May 1987.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: Bruce Huenfeld
U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
301-617-3446
Site Name: Rocky Mountain Arsenal, CO (NPL - Federal facility)
Location of Test: Rocky Mountain, CO
BACKGROUND: This report consists of 5 documents which cover incineration tests at the Rocky
Mountain Arsenal (RMA), Denver, CO, ranging from a laboratory test plan and bench scale test to full
scale testing. This abstract reports only on the results of bench scale incineration tests of
contaminants from Basin F of the RMA. Objectives of the study were to: 1) gather information on
properties of the wastes, 2) provide a bench-scale apparatus to determine incinerability characteristics
of the wastes, 3) demonstrate 99.99% destruction removal efficiency (ORE), and 4) determine gas
residence time, temperature and excess O2 necessary for 99.99% DRE.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The types of waste discharged into the Basin F lagoon included
sodium salts of chloride, fluoride, hydroxide, methyl phosphate, acetate, sulfate and pesticides.
Bench scale tests were conducted on pure compounds and field samples. The technical approach
involved using equipment to simulate three of the major incineration mechanisms-pyrolysis, primary
incinerator postflame, and afterburner postflame.
The laboratory bench scale unit was designed to evaluate thermal destruction efficiency up to
1200°F and residence times from 2 to 5 seconds. The unit utilized a batch load system with two
furnaces and a blended carrier gas. The first furnace volatilized the constituents while the carrier gas
moved the constituents to the secondary furnace which added O2 and simulated an afterburner in a
full scale unit.
Residence times in the afterburner were 1 second or 5 seconds. Residence time in the primary
burner was one hour. Temperature parameters for the primary and secondary chambers were based
on the current limitations of operational practices for waste incineration. Primary burner operating
temperatures were 650°, 800° and 900° C. Secondary afterburner operating temperatures were 650°,
900° and 1200°C. O2 concentrations were 5% to 7%. Sixteen successful runs were performed.
The combustion products in the gases were collected by a sampling train for subsequent analysis.
A detailed sampling plan is contained in this study. An outline of QA/QC measures that will be taken
are reported in the "Draft Laboratory Test Plan for Incineration of Basin F Wastes at Rocky Mountain
Arsenal, April 1986." Samples for analysis were collected from soils, sludge and liquid. GC/MS was
385 Document Number: FDBP
-------
employed to analyze for ten semivolatlle compounds in the feed stock.
monitoring was used for contaminant residue and off gas analysis.
GS/MS selective Ion
PERFORMANCE: In all but a few instances, a 99.99% DRE was demonstrated for the ten principal
hazardous organic constituents. Residues were tested for EP Toxicity to determine the teachability
of heavy metals contained in the Basin F wastes. No heavy metals exceeded the EP Toxicity limit.
In summary, Basin F wastes are incinerable and DRE levels were 99.99% under almost all the
conditions investigated.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group
WO1-Halogenated Non-Polar
Aromatic Compounds
WO3-Halogenated Phenols
Cresols and Thiols
WO4-Halogenated Aliphatic
Solvents
WO5-Halogenated Cyclic
Aliphatics/Ethers/
Esters/Ketones
WO7-Heterocyclics and
Simple Aromatics
WO9-Other Polar Organic
Compounds
W13-Other Organics
CAS Number
CPMS
CPMSO2
CPMSO
470-90-6
96-12-8
309-00-2
72-20-8
465-73-6
60-57-1
108-88-3
1330-20-7
109-92-2
110-71-4
T119-36-8 BenzoicAcid
142-82-5
77-73-6
Contaminants
108-90-7Chlorobenzene
P-Chlorophenylmethyl
Sulfide
P-Chlorophenylmethyl
Sulfone
P-Chlorophenylmethyl
Sulfoxide
Supona
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
Aldrin
Endrin
Isodrin
Dieldrin
Toluene
Xylenes
ABCAIkyl Benzene
Ethoxyethylene
Dimethoxyethane
Heptane
Dicyclopentadiene
Note: This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for more information.
386
Document Number: FDBP
-------
TABLE 1
DESTRUCTION AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCY OF TEN PRINCIPAL HAZARDOUS
ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS IN OVERBURDEN SAMPLE
Temp Degrees C
in Secondary
Burner
Temp Degrees C
in Primary
Burner
Gas Residence
Time in Second
Burner (in
seconds)
Oxygen Level
in off-gas (%)
Run Number
ALDRIN
CPUS
CO
CO CPMSO
"^
CPMS02
DBCP
DIELDRIN
ENDRIN
ISODRIN
SUPONA
650
650
2
5.4
14
17
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
99.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
99.74
100.00
650
650
2
7
11
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00--
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
99.38
650
650
5
7
6
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
900
650
2
5.4
18
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
900
800
2
7
20
100.00
100.00
100.00
99.99
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
900
800
5
7
18
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
-
100.00
900
900
2
5.4
12
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
900
900
2
7
3
99.94
99.99
99.41
100.00
100.00
99.97
100.00
99.99
100.00
900
900
5
5.4
9
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
900
900
5
7
7
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
1200
650
5
5.4
8
100.00
100.00
100,00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
1200
900
2
5.4
10
13
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
1200
900
2
7
2
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
1200
900
5
7
5
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Document Number: FDBP.TAB
-------
Treatment Process: Immobilization - Solidification
Media: Soil/Generic
Document Reference: Acurex Corp. "BOAT for Solidification/Stabilization Technology for
Superfund Soils (Draft Final Report)." Prepared for U.S. EPA. 75 pp.
November 17, 1987.
Document Type: EPA ORD Report
Contact: Edwin Earth
U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL
26 W. St. Clair Street
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7669
Site Name: BDAT SARM-Manufactured Waste (Non-NPL)
Location of Test: Acurex Corporation
Environmental Systems Division
485 Clyde Avenue
P.O. Box 7444
Mountain View, CA 94039
BACKGROUND: This report evaluates the performance of solidification as a method for treating
solids from Superfund sites. Tests were conducted on four different artificially contaminated soils
which are representative of soils found at the sites. Contaminated soils were solidified using common
solidification agents or binders. Samples were tested for unconfined compressibility at various times
after solidification and certain samples were subjected to the toxic contaminants/leach procedure
(TCLP) tests and total waste analysis. Volatile organics levels were also measured during
solidification and long term set up the soils.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The testing was done on four different types of Synthetics
Analytical References Mixtures (SARM) prepared under separate contract for the EPA. The SARMs
varied in concentrations from high to low with respect to organics (2,000-20,000 ppm) and metals
(1,000-50,000 ppm). Three different binding agents were used; Portland cement, lime kiln dust and
lime-flyash (50/50 by wt). Mixtures were molded according to ASTM procedure 109-86 and the
Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) was measured at 7, 14, 21, and 28 days after curing
according to ASTM 104-86. Optimal percentage of water in the mixture was determined by cone
penetrometer tests. Volatile organics (VOC) were analyzed after solidification of the samples using
a Gas Chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector. Samples were tested on days 14
and 28 to determine whether VOC levels changed during curing. Total Waste Analysis and Toxic
Contaminants Leach Procedure (TCLP) tests were conducted on samples having unconfined
compressibility greater than 50 psi. This study contains a section on QA/QC procedures.
PERFORMANCE: Compressibility values increased with increasing cure time. The Portland cement
samples had the greatest Unconfined Compressibility Test rating (UCS) followed by kiln dust SARM
and then the lime flyash SARM samples. The lime flyash samples took up to two weeks to set up.
The amount of water in the samples is critical and has as much effect on the final sample properties
as the amount of binder used. Analysis of volatile and semivolatile organics by GC/F1D revealed that
emissions dropped only sightly during the 24 to 28 curing process. This observation is consistent with
388 Document Number: FHMF
-------
earlier work that revealed that VOC emissions occur mostly during the soil mixing period and are
relatively constant during the curing process. The result of the TCLP tests revealed that in certain
instances none of the heavy metals could be leached out, however other TCLP results showed heavy
metal concentrations greater than those in the initial SARM soil samples. The report contained no
analysis or comment on the results of the TCLP tests. The results appear too variable to draw any
definite conclusions regarding the ability of solidification agents to immobilize heavy metals.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group
WO1-Halogenated Aromatic
Compounds
WO3-Halogenated Phenols,
Cresols and Thiols
WO4-Halogenated Aliphatic
Compounds
WO7-Heterocyclics and
Simple Aromatics
WO8-Polynuclear Aromatics
WO9-Other Polar Organic
Compounds
W10-Non-Volatile Metals
W11-Volatile Metals
CAS Number
108-90-7
87-86-5
107-06-2
127-18-4
100-41-4
100-42-5
1330-20-7
120-12-7
67-64-1
117-81-7
7440-47-3
7440-50-8
7440-02-0
7440-43-9
7439-92-1
7440-66-6
7440-38-2
Contaminants
Chlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
1,2-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Xylenes
Anthracene
Acetone
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
Arsenic
389
Document Number: FHMF
-------
Treatment Process: Chemical Extraction and Soil Washing
Media: Soil/Sandy
Document Reference: IT Corporation. "Laboratory Feasibility Testing of Prototype Soil
Washing Concepts." Prepared for U.S. EPA, OHMSB. 47 pp.
December 1983.
Document Type: EPA ORD Report
Contact: Franklin Freestone
U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL - Releases Control Branch
Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837-3579
201-340-6630
Site Name: Clarksburg Soil
OHMSETT, Leonardo, NJ (Non-NPL)
Location of Test: Knoxville, TN
BACKGROUND: This draft document reports on laboratory testing of several washing solutions to
decontaminate soils contaminated with dioxins. The following extractants were evaluated: surfactant
mixtures of 0.5% to 3% Adsee 799 and 0.5% to 3% Hyonic NP90 in distilled water, Freon TF with and
without methanol, and kerosene/diesel fuel-water mixtures. A spiked soil was used for the study.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: One kilogram of soil was spiked with a solution of TCDD and
isooctane. TCDD concentrations were measured using a Soxhlet extraction procedure. The average
starting concentration was 0.671 ug TCDD/g soil with a relative standard deviation of 3.78%. The
spiked soil was placed into a centrifuge tube, and the solvent to be tested was added at a 3 to 1 ratio
of solvent to soil (weight percent). The centrifuge tube was then sealed and placed in the
reciprocating shaker for 4 hours at low speed. After shaking, the tube was placed in a centrifuge for
ten minutes at 2000 rpm. The clear supernatant was decanted and the residue in the tube weighed.
A quantity of solvent equal to the first extract was added to the tube and the procedure repeated until
three solvent extractions and a water wash (where appropriate) were completed. The supernatant
and the residual soil were extracted and analyzed for TCDD, and a material balance was calculated
for the experiment. No analytical QA/QC procedures are described.
PERFORMANCE: The extraction efficiency was measured by Soxhlet extraction of the soil residue
after it had undergone three simple batch extractions with a specific solvent system. The study
summarizes the data for each of the soil washing solutions. The overall material balance for the
extract systems ranged from 94% to 117% with a mean of 101.7% and a relative standard deviation
of 6.6%.
The test results indicated that the Freon and Freon/methanol extraction systems were the most
effective extractants for the removal of TCDD from the soil. After three batch extractions, 7.4% (50
ppb) and 2.9% (20 ppb), respectively, of TCDD remained on the soil. The overall material balances
for these extractions were 101.2% and 96.3%, respectively.
390 Document Number: FRET
-------
Increasing the concentration of the extractant decreased the residual TCDD concentrations
significantly. For example, the residual concentration of TCDD decreased from 27.2% to 13.2% as
the concentration of the Adsee/Hyonic increased from 0.5%/0.5% to 3%/3%.
Other variables which may impact the extraction efficiency include the organic content and the soil
moisture content of the soils. The organic content of the soil will affect the amount of organics that
the soil will absorb, and the ability to desorb these organics. The soil used in this test contained 0.2%
organic matter. The moisture content of the so|| will significantly affect the final process design for
extractants such as methanol which are non-aqueous and have a limited capacity to absorb water.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatabillty study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatabilitv Group CAS Number Contaminants
WO2-Dioxins/Furans/PCBs 1746-01-6 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-pdbfri
(TCDD)
391 Document Number: FRET
-------
Treatment Process: Thermal Destruction - Infrared
Media: Sludge
Document Reference: Enviresponse, Inc. "Peake Oil Site, Tampa, Florida. Project No. 3-60-
47190407." Prepared for U.S. EPA, ERT. October 1986.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: Robert Evangelista
Enviresponse, Inc.
GSA Raritan Depot
Building 209, Bay F
Edison, NJ 88037
201-548-9660
Site Name: Peake Oil, Tampa, FL (NPL)
Location of Test: Livingston, NJ
BACKGROUND: This document summarizes the analytical results of the pilot-scale test burns of
PCB-contaminated soil at Peake Oil in Tampa, Florida, performed by Shirco, Inc. using the Shirco
infrared incinerator. In addition, other site waste streams (i.e., air, scrubber water) were sampled for
cross-media contamination. A number of samples were collected for analysis at the Peake Oil NPL
site on May 21, 1986. These samples were: 10 air tubes, 2 fly ash samples, 2 sludge samples and
1 duplicate scrubber water sample. On the same day, TRC Inc. performed emissions testing on the
Shirco incinerator for: particulates, HCL, PCBs and dioxins, as well as continuous emissions
monitoring for oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The system consists of a feed metering system, infrared primary
chamber, supplemental propane-fired secondary chamber, exhaust gas scrubber, data acquisition and
control systems, and heating element power centers, all enclosed in a 45-foot van trailer. Waste
material is fed to a hopper mounted over a metering conveyer belt. The conveyer is shrouded and
equipped with rubber skirts to minimize infiltration of air or escape of furnace gases. An adjustable
guillotine-type gate is provided at the conveyer discharge. The gate distributes the material across
the width of the metering belt and assists in furnace sealing. Final feed area sealing is provided by
an additional adjustable knife gate in the feed chute into the furnace. The metering belt is
synchronized with the furnace conveyer to control the material feed rate.
The incinerator conveyer, a tightly woven wire belt, moves the waste material through the insulated
heating modules (primary unit) where it is brought to combustion temperature by infrared heating
elements. Rotary rakes gently turn the material to ensure adequate mixing and complete burnout.
When the material (ash) reaches the discharge end of the furnace, it drops off through a chute and
into an enclosed hopper.
Combustion air is supplied to the primary unit through a series of overfire air ports at various points
along the length of the chamber, and flows counter-current to the conveyed waste.
Exhaust gases exit the primary chamber near the feed module to a secondary chamber (afterburner),
where a propane-fired burner is used to ignite any combustible gas present in the exhaust stream,
and burn them at a predetermined set-point temperature. Secondary air is supplied to the afterburner
to ensure adequate excess oxygen levels for complete combustion. Exhaust gases from the
392 Document Number:FREV-1
-------
secondary chamber then gas through a venturi scrubber/spray tower to the exhaust stack. QA/QC
procedures and tests are reported in the document; however, no conclusions are discussed in the
report.
PERFORMANCE: Laboratory results make up the bulk of this report and are too numerous and
varied to summarize. The four sample media and the tests performed are listed below:
Sludge - PCBs and Dioxins
Flyash - PCBs, Dioxins, EP Tox Metals
Air Tubes - Inorganic Acids, PCBs, Total Organic Halogens
Scrubber Waters - PCBs and Dioxin
In addition, emissions were measured by various methods. Three methods for emission quantification
are used; the EPA methods for source particulates, a modified Method 5 and a 3 1/2 hour continuous
monitoring method. Eleven tables of sample results are presented in the report. In fewer than 30 of
the 120 sample tests did the concentration rise above the detection limit.
CONTAMINANTS: Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown of
the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
WO2-Dioxins/Furans/PCBs OCDD Octachlorodibenzo-
dioxlns
11096-82-5 PCB-1260
393 Document Number:FREV-1
-------
(INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE)
394
-------
APPENDIX I
BIBLIOGRAPHY
More than 550 documents have been reviewed for this study. Some documents contain information
on more than one treatment technology. In this bibliography, these documents are listed with each
of the treatment technologies that are discussed in the document.
395
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 1
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
THERMAL DESTRUCTION - INCINERATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EURX INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: LEE, C.C. AND G.L. HUFFMAN. "AN OVERVIEW OF PILOT-SCALE RESEARCH IN HAZARDOUS WASTE THERMAL DESTRUCTION." FIRST
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON NEW FRONTIERS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT. PITTSBURGH, PA. MARCH 1985.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUWW-1 INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ATLANTIC RESEARCH CORPORATION. "ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT OF GENERAL DECON TECHNOLOGY FOR THE U.S. ARMY'S
INSTALLATION/RESTORATION PROGRAM." EPA-DRXTH-TE-CR. PREPARED FOR USATHMA.(4 VOLUMES). APRIL 1982.
CONTACT NAME: WAYNE SISK
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
PHONE: 301-671-2054
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUZP INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA AND IT CORPORATION. "THE EPA-ORD MOBILE INCINERATION SYSTEM: PRESENT STATUS." FROM PROC. OF THE 1982 HAZ.
WASTE MATS. SPILLS' CONF. "RESULTS OF THE INITIAL TRIAL BURN OF THE EPA-ORD MOBILE INCINERATION SYSTEM." PRESENTED
AT THE 1984 NAT. WASTE PROCESSING CONFERENCE. "THE EPA-ORD MOBILE INCINERATION SYSTEM TRIAL BURN." PUBLISHED IN THE
1984 HAZ. MAT. SPILLS CONF. PROCEEDINGS (APRIL 1984).
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
,, HWERL, WOODBRIDGE AVENUE, EDISON, NJ 08837-3579
co PHONE: 212-264-2525
0>
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWGL INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: IT CORPORATION. "THERMAL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR SITE REMEDIATION." PRESENTED AT THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT, CHATTANOOGA, TN. JUNE 1987.
CONTACT NAME: GAYLER BRUBAKER, Ph.D. TITLE: DIRECTOR OF TECHNOLOGY
ORGANIZATION: IT CORP.
PHONE: 609-452-8412
DOCUMENT'NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWGM INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: TRENHOLM, A., P. GORMAN, G. JUNGCLAUS. "PROJECT SUMMARY; PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF FULL-SCALE HAZARDOUS WASTE
INCINERATORS!" EPA/600/S2^84/181. PREPARED FOR u.s. EPA, ORD. MAY 1984.
CONTACT NAME: DONALD OBERACKER
ORGANIZATION: Jjw|gL^NICIPAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH LAB, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT
Documents Sorted by Technology
THERMAL DESTRUCTION - INCINERATION
Page:
Date:
01/26/1990
CO
to
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWGR INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: LIM, K., R. DeROSIER, R. LARKIN, R. McCORMICK. "PROJECT SUMMARY; RETROFIT COST RELATIONSHIPS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE
INCINERATION." EPA-600/S2-84-008. PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA, ORD. MARCH 1984.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZUQ INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: BLACK & VEATCH ENGINEERS-ARCHITECTS. FINAL REPORT. "PHASED FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR REMEDIATION OF PCB CONTAMINATION
AT THE LASALLE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES SITE." PREPARED FOR ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. AUGUST 1986.
CONTACT NAME: DAN CAPLICE
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION V
230 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET, CHICAGO, IL
PHONE: 312-866-0397
60601
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZYN INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, INC. "FINAL REPORT PHASE I IMMEDIATE ASSESSMENT ACME SOLVENTS SITE."
SUBMITTED TO THE ACME SOLVENTS TECHNICAL COMMITTEE. NOVEMBER 1985.
CONTACT NAME: DAVID FAVERO
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION V
230 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET, CHICAGO, IL
PHONE: 312-886-4749
60604
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCBR INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: LEE, C.C. AND G.L. HUFFMAN. U.S. EPA. "AN OVERVIEW OF 'WHO IS DOING WHAT1 IN LABORATORY- AND BENCH-SCALE HAZARDOUS
WASTE INCINERATION RESEARCH." THE 5TH NAT'L CONFERENCE ON MANAGEMENT OF UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES.
.WASHINGTON, DC. NOVEMBER 1984.
CONTACT NAME: C.C. LEE
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCFS INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: FREEMAN, H.M.; R.A. OLEXSEY, D.A. OBERACKER AND R.E. MOURNIGHAN. "THERMAL DESTRUCTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE--A
STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW." JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, ELSEVIER SCIENCE PUBLISHERS B.V., AMSTERDAM. SEPTEMBER
1986.
CONTACT NAME:
ORGANIZATION:
NOT REPORTED
JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCNK INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: CCMA WORKSHOP TRANSCRIPT: "DETOXIFYING FOUNDRY SAND." DECEMBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: ALAN T. INGHAM, P.E. TITLE: SENIOR WASTE MANAGEMENT ENGINEER
ORGANIZATION: STATE OF CALIF - DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION, 714-744 P STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
PHONE: 916-324-1807
COMMENTS: TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIV. ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY SECTION
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 3
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
THERMAL DESTRUCTION - INCINERATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCQC-1 INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: SOCZO, E.R., E.J.H. VERHAGEN, AND C.W. VERSLUTJS. "REVIEW OF SOIL TREATMENT TECHNIQUES IN THE NETHERLANDS."
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE, LABORATORY FOR WASTE IN EMISSION RESEARCH (LAE>, THE
NETHERLANDS
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: NTL. INST. OF PUB. HEALTH & ENV. HYGIENE
LABORATORY FOR WASTE EMISSION RESEARCH, A. VAN LEEUWENHOEKLAAN 9, P.O. BOX 1, 3720 BA BILTHOVEN, THE NETHERLANDS
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCQD INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: NATO-CCMS PILOT STUDY ON DEMONSTRATION OF REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES FOR CONTAMINATED LAND AND GROUNDWATER.
DRAFT. "PROJECT: EVALUATION OF TREATMENT RESULTS OF THE THERMAL PLANT OF ECOTECHNIEK."
CONTACT NAME: JANETTE HANSEN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE, RMS-263D/WH-563, 401 M STREET S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
PHONE: 202-382-4754
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCQE INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: NATO-CCMS PILOT STUDY ON DEMONSTRATION OF REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES FOR CONTAMINATED LAND AND GROUNDWATER.
DRAFT. "PROJECT: THERMAL TREATMENT OF SOIL CONTAMINATED WITH HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE."
CONTACT NAME: JANETTE HANSEN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE, RMS-263D/WH-563, 401 N STREET S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
PHONE: 202-382-4754
\£J HBBVMKHAMaavvvvvKVMKKBH_K^nwvwmwMMmBBImMmmB1,MmMMMHBBBVKVVHHMVV|•••H••••••••M*MM•*•••W««•»«V••4••HW«•••»«•v««•««B««••«•••v.•«OTV••w•*••••••••
00 DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCQK INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY. "DESTROYING TOXIC WASTES BY INCINERATION." PUBLICATION FOR UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY. NO DATE.
CONTACT NAME: RICHARD GENUNG
ORGANIZATION: DOE - ORNL
WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY CENTER, P.O. BOX P, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: 615-574-6830
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCTH INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: CHEMICAL RESEARCH LABORATORIES. "ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM THE TRIAL BURN AT MARTINEZ CALIFORNIA." PRESENTED TO A&S
METALS. OCTOBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: RONALD E. LEWIS TITLE: ASSOCIATE WASTE MANAGEMENT ENGINEER
ORGANIZATION: STATE OF CALIF - DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION, 714-744 P STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
PHONE: 916-322-3670
COMMENTS: STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPT. OF HEALTH SERVICES TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
SECTION
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT
Documents Sorted by Technology
THERMAL DESTRUCTION - INCINERATION
Page:
Date:
01/26/1990
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCTU INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: LEE, C.C., G.L. HUFFMAN AND D.A. OBERACKER. "AN OVERVIEW OF HAZARDOUS/TOXIC WASTE INCINERATION." PREPARED FOR
"JAPCA JOURNAL OF THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ASSOCIATION.11 VOLUME 36. NUMBER 8. AUGUST 1986.
CONTACT NAME: C.C. LEE
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH
PHONE: 513-684-7537
45268
CO
to
CO
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FDAU INFORMATION TYPE:
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. "K001 SUMMARY SHEET AND TABLES."
NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
CONTACT NAME: RONALD TURNER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-THERMAL DESTRUCTION BRANCH, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7775
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FDBP INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED. "LITIGATION TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND SERVICES ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL (BASIN F WASTES).
[6 DOCUMENTS]. PREPARED FOR U.S. ARMY PROGRAM MANAGER'S OFFICE FOR ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL CLEANUP. APRIL, APRIL,
AND SEPTEMBER 1986. MARCH, APRIL, AND MAY 1987.
CONTACT NAME:
ORGANIZATION:
PHONE:
BRUCE HUENEFELD
U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
301-617-3446
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FHYJ INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. "SITE SUMMARY. TIBBETTS ROAD SUPERFUND SITE. BARRINGTON, NH." SEPTEMBER 1987.
CONTACT NAME: (CATHERINE DALY
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION I
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, 60 WESTVIEW STREET, LEXINGTON, MA
02173
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 5
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
THERMAL DESTRUCTION - ROTARY KILN
ncct0rru^ „ 980-TS1-RT-EURP INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ROY F. WESTON, INC. "INCINERATION TEST OF EXPLOSIVES CONTAMINATED SOILS AT SAVANNA ARMY DEPOT ACTIVITY, SAVANNA,
ILLINOIS." PREPARED FOR USATHMA. APRIL 1984.
CONTACT NAME: WAYNE SISK
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
PHONE: 301T671-2054
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUZH INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: AFESC, TYNDALL AFB. "FULL SCALE ROTARY KILN INCINERATOR FIELD TRIAL: PHASE I, VERIFICATION TRIAL BURN ON
DIOXIN/HERBICIDE ORANGE CONTAMINATED SOIL."
CONTACT NAME: MAJOR TERRY STODDART
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/AFESC
PHONE: 904-283-2949
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EVAM INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: CH2M HILL. "PONDERS CORNER REMEDIAL DESIGN--EVALUATION OF SOILS UNIT ALTERNATIVES." PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA, REGION
10. APRIL 1987.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION X
1200 SIXTH AVENUE, SEATTLE, WA 98101
PHONE: 206-442-5810
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EVAP INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
£ REFERENCE: MARTIN MARIETTA ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC. "TEST BURNS AT THE C-E RAYMOND PILOT FACILITY."PREPARED FOR U.S. DOE. JUNE
O 1985.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
COMMENTS: OAK RIDGE NATIONAL RESEARCH LABS OR IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABS OR HANFORD/RICHLAND, WASHINGTON. NO
SINGLE CONTACT PERSON
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWFU INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: VOC TESTING, INC. "ROTARY KILN ASPHALT AGGREGATE DRYER USED TO DECONTAMINATE SOIL AT SOUTH COAST ASPHALT PRODUCTS
COMPANY, INC. CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA." PREPARED FOR MOBIL OIL CORPORATION. JUNE 1986.
CONTACT NAME: RICHARD ERIKSSON
ORGANIZATION: STATE OF CALIF - DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION, 714-744 P STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
PHONE: 919-322-3670
DOCUMENT"NUMBERi""9aO-Tsi-RT-EWGU INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE- GORMAN P., K. ANANTH. "PROJECT SUMMARY; TRIAL BURN PROTOCOL VERIFICATION AT A HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATOR."
EPA-600/S2-84-048. PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA, ORD. MAY 1984.
CONTACT NAME: DONALD OBERACKER
ORGANIZATION: HHl^uNlCIPAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH LAB, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT
Documents Sorted by Technology
THERMAL DESTRUCTION - ROTARY KILN
Page: 6
Date: 01/26/1990
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EXNG INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA AND IT CORPORATION. "EVALUATION OF ON-SITE INCINERATION FOR CLEANUP OF DIOXIN-CONTAMINATED MATERIALS."
"DESTRUCTION OF DIOXIN CONTAMINATED SOLIDS AND LIQUIDS BY MOBILE INCINERATION."1986 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPILLS
CONFERENCE. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. MAY 5-8, 1986.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HUERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EXPC INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ACUREX CORPORATION, ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS DIVISIONS, COMBUSTION RESEARCH FACILITY. "CRF TEST BURN OF
PCB-CONTAMINATED WASTES FROM THE BROS SUPERFUND SITE." PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA. MARCH 1987.
CONTACT NAME: DONALD LYNCH
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION II
26 FEDERAL PLAZA, NEW YORK, NY ' 10278
PHONE: 212-264-8216
COMMENTS: BRIDGEPORT, GOOSE FARM
TITLE: EPA REGIONAL PROJECT MANAGER
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZUY INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: RECON SYSTEMS INC. "TRIAL BURN TEST REPORT PART I - DATA SUMMARIES FROM MOBILE INCINERATOR AT ABERDEEN, NORTH
CAROLINA SITE." PREPARED FOR VESTA TECHNOLOGY. FEBRUARY 1987.
CONTACT NAME:
ORGANIZATION:
2 PHONE:
NED JESSUP
U.S. EPA - REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET, NE, ATLANTA, GA
404-347-4727
30365
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCFR-1 INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. "TECHNICAL RESOURCE DOCUMENT: TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR DIOXIN-CONTAINING WASTES." EPA/600/2-86/096.
OCTOBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: HAROLD FREEMAN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-THERMAL DESTRUCTION BRANCH, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7529
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCNN INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ERIKSSON, D. MEMORANDUM TO FILE. "GASOLINE CONTAMINATED DIRT, ASPHALT KILN RESULTS IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY." PREPARED
FOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES. SEPTEMBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: RICHARD ERIKSSON
ORGANIZATION: STATE OF CALIF - DE.PT OF HEALTH SERVICES
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION, 714-744 P STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA
PHONE: 919-322-3670
95814
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 7
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
THERMAL DESTRUCTION - ROTARY KILN
DOCUMENT NUMBER: ORD-TS1-RT-EUZM INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: PEI ASSOCIATES, INC. "BOAT INCINERATION OF CERCLA SARMS AT THE JOHN ZINK COMPANY TEST FACILITY (FINAL PROJECT
REPORT).11 PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA, ORD, HWERL, CINCINNATI, OH. NOVEMBER 1987.
CONTACT NAME: ROBERT THURNAU
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 U. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7692
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT
Documents Sorted by Technology
THERMAL DESTRUCTION - FLUIDIZED BED COMBUSTION
Page:
.Date:
8
01/26/1990
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCFR-2 INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. "TECHNICAL RESOURCE DOCUMENT: TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR DIOXIN-CONTAINING WASTES.11 EPA/600/2-86/096.
OCTOBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: HAROLD FREEMAN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-THERMAL DESTRUCTION BRANCH, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7529
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCLH INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: MCFEE, J.N.; G.P. RASMUSSEN AND C.M. YOUNG. "THE DESIGN AND DEMONSTRATION OF A FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR FOR THE
DESTRUCTION OF HAZARDOUS ORGANIC MATERIALS IN SOILS." JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, 12(1985)129-142.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: WASTE-TECH SERVICES, INC
18400 U. 10TH AVENUE, GOLDEN, CO 80401
PHONE: 303-279-9712
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCQC-2 INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: SOCZO, E.R., E.J.H. VERHAGEN, AND C.W. VERSLUTJS. "REVIEW OF SOIL TREATMENT TECHNIQUES IN THE NETHERLANDS."
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE, LABORATORY FOR WASTE IN EMISSION RESEARCH (LAE), THE
NETHERLANDS.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: NTL. INST. OF PUB. HEALTH & ENV. HYGIENE
LABORATORY FOR WASTE EMISSION RESEARCH, A. VAN LEEUWENHOEKLAAN 9,
P.O. BOX 1, 3720 BA BILTHOVEN, THE NETHERLANDS
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 9
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
THERMAL DESTRUCTION - INFRARED
r«« 980-TS1-RT-EUTR INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: SHIRCO INFRARED SYSTEMS. "FINAL REPORT: ON-SITE INCINERATION TESTING OF SHIRCO INFRARED SYSTEMS PORTABLE PILOT TEST
UNIT TIMES BEACH DIOXIN RESEARCH FACILITY, TIMES BEACH, MISSOURI." PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA. EPA-815-85-2. NOVEMBER
ITOJ.
CONTACT NAME: DR. RALPH HAZEL TITLE: SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO REGIONAL ADMIN.
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION VII
WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION, 726 MINNESOTA AVENUE, KANSAS CITY, KS 66101
PHONE: 913-236-2800
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUXR INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: SHIRCO INFRARED SYSTEMS. "FINAL REPORT: ON-SITE INCINERATION TESTING OF SHIRCO INFRARED SYSTEMS PORTABLE PILOT TEST
UNIT AT INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY WOOD TREATMENT PLANT - JOPLIN, MISSOURI." PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA. MAY 1986.
CONTACT NAME: DR. RALPH HAZEL TITLE: SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO REGIONAL ADMIN.
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION VII
WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION, 726 MINNESOTA AVENUE, KANSAS CITY, KS 66101
PHONE: 913-236-2800
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWFM INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE. "TOTAL MASS EMISSIONS FROM A HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATOR." PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA,
HAZARDOUS WASTE ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORY.
CONTACT NAME: ROBERT THURNAU
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7692
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWQD INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: SHIRCO INFRARED SYSTEMS INC. "ABSTRACT ON-SITE INCINERATION TESTING OF SHIRCO INFRARED SYSTEMS PORTABLE
DEMONSTRATION UNIT- CONTAMINATED SOILS TREATABILITY STUDY." PREPARED FOR HAMBURG, WEST GERMANY, INGELHEIM, WEST
GERMANY. JUNE 1987.
CONTACT NAME: SCOTT P. BERDINE
ORGANIZATION: ECOVA CORPORATION (FORMERLY SHIRCO)
1415 WHITLOCK LANE, SUITE 100, CARROLLTON TX 75005
PHONE: 214-404-7540
COMMENTS: SHIRCO NOW PART OF ECOVA CORP.
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZUX-1 INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ARCO PETROLEUM PRODUCTS COMPANY. "INTERIM REPORT - ACID SLUDGE TREATABILITY EVALUATION - SAND SPRINGS PETROCHEMICAL
COMPLEX." JULY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: PAUL SIEMINSKI
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION VI
1445 ROSS AVENUE, 12TH FLOOR, SUITE 1200, DALLAS, TX 75202
PHONE: 214-655-6444
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 10
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
THERMAL DESTRUCTION - INFRARED
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZZB INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: SHIRCO INFRARED SYSTEMS PORTABLE TEST UNIT. "FINAL REPORT: ON-SITE INCINERATION TESTING AT BRIO SITE, FRIENDSWOOD,
TEXAS." PREPARED FOR-BRIO SITE TASK FORCE. FEBRUARY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION I
JOHN F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING, ROOM 2203, BOSTON, MA 02203
PHONE: 617-565-3715
COMMENTS: DOCUMENS TAKEN FROM FILE ROOM
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZZC INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: REPORT NUMBER 821-86-1. "FINAL REPORT - DEMONSTRATION TEST ON-SITE PCB DESTRUCTION SHIRCO INFRARED PORTABLE UNIT AT
FLORIDA STEEL IND1ANTOWN MILL SITE, INDIANTOUN, FLORIDA." SEPTEMBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: JOHN KROSKE
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET, NE, ATLANTA, GA 30365
PHONE: 404-347-4727
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCFR-5 INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. "TECHNICAL RESOURCE DOCUMENT: TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR DIOXIN-CONTAINING WASTES." EPA/600/2-86/096.
OCTOBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: HAROLD FREEMAN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-THERMAL DESTRUCTION BRANCH, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7529
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCNU INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: DES ROSIERS, PAUL E. "TRIP REPORT: BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM, FRG, TEST/EVALUATION OF SHIRCO INFRARED DESORPTION PROCESS
ON DIOXIN-CONTAMINATED WASTES FROM 2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL MANUFACTURE USING HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE (LINDANE) WASTES
AS FEEDSTOCK." LABELED "FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY." MAY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: PAUL des ROSIER TITLE: CHAIRMAN
ORGANIZATION: EPA DIOXIN DISPOSAL ADVISORY GROUP
401 M STREET, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
PHONE: 202-382-5747
COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED BY MAJOR TERRY STODDART
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCNX INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: SLIDE PRESENTATION. "PEAK OIL, TAMPA, FLORIDA."
CONTACT NAME: JOHN GILBERT
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, EMRGENCY RESPONSE TEAM, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-621-2412
COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED BY JAN ROGERS. PEAK OIL SITE. (NO CONTACT MADE TO DATE 7-18-87)
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 11
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
THERMAL DESTRUCTION - INFRARED
««un tf,8°-TS1-RT-FCRG INFORMATION TYPE: QWimivE~WAiYTICAL~DATA
REFERENCE: SHIRCO INFRARED SYSTEMS, INC. "FLORIDA STEEL SITE SITE INFORMATION AND DATA PACKAGE."
CONTACT NAME: SCOTT P. BERDINE
ORGANIZATION: ECOVA CORPORATION (FORMERLY SHIRCO)
1415 WHITLOCK LANE, SUITE 100, CARROLLTON TX 75005
PHONE: 214-404-7540
COMMENTS: SHIRCO NOW PART OF ECOVA CORP.
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCSK INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: SHIRCO INFRARED SYSTEMS PORTABLE TEST UNIT. "SUMMARY REPORT. ON-SITE INCINERATION TESTING AT TIMES BEACH DIOXIN
RESEARCH FACILITY. TIMES BEACH, MISSOURI." REPORT #815-85-1. JULY 1985.
CONTACT NAME: SCOTT P. BERDINE
ORGANIZATION: ECOVA CORPORATION (FORMERLY SHIRCO)
1415 WHITLOCK LANE, SUITE 100, CARROLLTON TX 75005
PHONE: 214-404-7540
COMMENTS: SHIRCO NOW PART OF ECOVA CORP.
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCSM INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: SHIRCO INFRARED SYSTEMS, INC. "TESTIMONY OF JIM WELSH, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER." BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY,
ENVIRONMENT AND SAFETY OF THE SMALL BUSINESS COMMITTEE. U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. SEPTEMBER 1985.
CONTACT NAME: JAMES WELCH
ORGANIZATION: SHIRCO INFRARED SYSTEMS, INC
1195 EMPIRE CENTRAL, DALLAS, TX 75247-4301
£ PHONE: 214-630-7511
0> COMMENTS: SHIRCO NOW PART OF ECOVA CORP.
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCUA INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: SHIRCO INFRARED SYSTEMS, INC. (SLIDE PRESENTATION). "THERMAL TREATABILITY TESTING USING THE SHIRCO INFRARED
PROCESS."
CONTACT NAME: SCOTT P. BERDINE
ORGANIZATION: ECOVA CORPORATION (FORMERLY SHIRCO)
1415 WHITLOCK LANE, SUITE 100, CARROLLTON TX 75005
PHONE: 214-404-7540
COMMENTS: SHIRCO NOW PART OF ECOVA CORP.
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FHMC INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: TECHNOLOGY CONSULTING, INC. "A REVIEW OF THE PEAK OIL SITE CLEAN-UP PROGRAM."(4 DOCUMENTS) ("SHIRCO INFRARED
INCINERATION SYSTEM"). PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA. BY R.A. CARNES.
CONTACT NAME: JOHN GILBERT
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, EMRGENCY RESPONSE TEAM, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
COMMENTS: "RECOMMENDED BY JAN ROGERS. PEAK OIL SITE. (NO CONTACT MADE TO DATE 7-18-87)
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: _-,4JS
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
THERMAL DESTRUCTION - CRITICAL WATER OXIDATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUTM INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: THE ENERGON COMPANY. "CLOSED-LOOP DETOXIFICATION OF THE LOURY LANDFILL." PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA. DECEMBER 1985.
CONTACT NAME: EDWARD HOFFMAN TITLE: PRESIDENT
ORGANIZATION: ENERGON CO.
PHONE: 307-742-3458
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FBZZ-2 INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE. "PCB SEDIMENT DECONTAMINATION PROCESS-SELECTION FOR TEST AND EVALUATION." AND SLIDE
PRESENTATION: "EFFECTIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE CHEMICAL DESTRUCTION OF PCB." PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA, HWERL.
MAY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: DR. CLARK ALLEN
ORGANIZATION: RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE
P.O. BOX 12194, RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27709
PHONE: 919-541-5826
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 13
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
THERMAL DESTRUCTION - PYROLYSIS
980-TS1-RT-EURE INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: INCHIGHEFLUID-WAU REACTOR^TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH. TEST AND EVALUATION." VOL. I.,,. PREPARED FOR
CONTACT NAME: MAJOR TERRY STODDART
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/AFESC
PHONE: 904-283-2949
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUXQ INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: JONES & BEACH ENGINEERS, INC. "THERMAL STABILIZATION PROCESS EVALUATION." PREPARED FOR CITY OF NEWBURYPORT,
MASSACHUSETTS. MARCH 1987.
CONTACT NAME: BRADFORD H. JONES
ORGANIZATION: JONES & BEACH ENGINEERS, INC
85 PORTSMOUTH AVENUE, P.O. BOX 219, STRATHAM, NH 03885
PHONE: 605-772-4746
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUZR INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION. "ELECTRIC PYROLYZER." LETTER AND TREATMENT BROCHURE. AUGUST 1987.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - HEADQUARTERS
401 M STREET, S.U., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWGF INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: HUBER CORP., EG&G IDAHO, INC., AFESC. "DESTRUCTION OF DIOXIN CONTAMINATION BY ADVANCED ELECTRIC REACTOR."
CONTACT NAME: MAJOR TERRY STODDART
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/AFESC
PHONE: 904-283-2949
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EXPD INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: J.M. HUBER CORPORATION. "ADVANCED ELECTRONIC REACTOR (AER) FOR THE TREATMENT OF DIOXIN-CONTAMINATED SOILS."
FEBRUARY 1984.
CONTACT NAME: JAMES BOYD
ORGANIZATION: J.M. HUBER CORPORATION
P.O. BOX 2831, BORGER, TX 79007
PHONE: 806-274-6331
COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED BY MAJOR TERRY STODDART. INFO ON THE HUBER ADVANCED ELECTRIC REACTOR
DOCUMENT~NUMBERi~ ~980-TSl-RT-FCFR-4 INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE- U S. EPA. "TECHNICAL RESOURCE DOCUMENT: TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR DIOXIN-CONTAINING WASTES." EPA/600/2-86/096.
OCTOBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: HAROLD FREEMAN
ORGANIZATION: J^J^^ DESTRUCTION BRANCH, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7529
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 14
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/Z6/1990
THERMAL DESTRUCTION - PYROLYSIS
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCSS-1 INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: STODDART, TERRY L. "DEMONSTRATION OF INNOVATIVE REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES AT UNITED STATES MILITARY DIOXIN
CONTAMINATED SITES." PREPARED FOR AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS. ENGINEERING AND SERVICES CENTER. ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING BRANCH (HQ AFESC/RDU). TYNDALL AFB, FLORIDA.
CONTACT NAME: MAJOR TERRY STODDART
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/AFESC
PHONE: 904-283-2949
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 15
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
THERMAL DESTRUCTION - CIRCULATING BED COMBUST.
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EURQ INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD."EVALUATION OF A PILOT-SCALE CIRCULATING BED COMBUSTOR AS A POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS
WASTE INCINERATOR." PREPARED FOR SACRAMENTO, CA.
CONTACT NAME: ROBERT ADRIAN TITLE: SENIOR ENGINEER
ORGANIZATION: STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PHONE: 916-322-6025
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUXM INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: GA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. "PCB DESTRUCTION FACILITY CIRCULATING BED COMBUSTOR." PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA. DECEMBER 1985.
CONTACT NAME: HIROSHI DODOHARA
ORGANIZATION: OGDEN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC
P.O. BOX 85178, SAN DIEGO, CO 92138-5178
PHONE: 619-455-2383
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUHC INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: OGDEN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. "BOAT TREATABILITY DATA FOR SOILS, SLUDGES AND DEBRIS FROM THE CIRCULATING BED
COMBUSTION (CBC) PROCESS." PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA. JUNE 1987.
CONTACT NAME: HAROLD DIOT
ORGANIZATION: OGDEN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC
P.O. BOX 85178, SAN DIEGO, CA 92138-5178
PHONE: 619-455-2383
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCFR-3 INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. "TECHNICAL RESOURCE DOCUMENT: TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR DIOXIN-CONTAINING WASTES." EPA/600/2-86/096.
OCTOBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: HAROLD FREEMAN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-THERMAL DESTRUCTION BRANCH, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7529
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 16
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
THERMAL DESTRUCTION - AQUEOUS THERMAL DECOMP
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EURN INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING. INC. "FINAL REPORT: DEVELOPMENT OF OPTIMUM TREATMENT SYSTEM FOR WASTEUATER
LAGOONS - PHASE II - AQUEOUS THERMAL DECOMPOSITION LABORATORY TESTING." PREPARED FOR USATHMA. JANUARY 1985.
CONTACT NAME: WAYNE SISK
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
PHONE: 301-671-2054
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 17
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
THERMAL DESTRUCTION - THERMAL DESOP/UV PHOTOLYS
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWGE INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, AFESC, EG&G IDAHO, INC. "TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION OF A THERMAL DESORPTION/UV
PHOTOLYSIS PROCESS FOR DECONTAMINATING SOILS CONTAINING HERBICIDE ORANGE."
CONTACT NAME: MAJOR TERRY STODDART
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/AFESC
PHONE: 904-283-2949
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCSS-2 INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: STODDART, TERRY L. "DEMONSTRATION OF INNOVATIVE REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES AT UNITED STATES MILITARY DIOXIN
CONTAMINATED SITES." PREPARED FOR AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS. ENGINEERING AND SERVICES CENTER. ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING BRANCH (HQ AFESC/RDVW}. TYNDALL AFB, FLORIDA.
CONTACT NAME: MAJOR TERRY STODDART
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/AFESC
PHONE: 904-283-2949
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 18
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
THERMAL DESTRUCTION - RF/MICROWAVE INSITU .
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUZA INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: DEV, H., J.E. BRIDGES, G.C. SRESTY AND C. ROGERS. "IN-SITU DECONTAMINATION OF SPILLS AND LANDFILLS BY RADIO
FREQUENCY HEATING." DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTRY, AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY. CHICAGO, IL. SEPTEMBER 1985.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268 *
PHONE: 513-684-7537
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUZB INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: DEV, H. AND P.CONDORELLI. "IN-SITU RADIO FREQUENCY HEATING PROCESS FOR DECONTAMINATION OF SOIL." DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTRY, AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY. NEW YORK, NY. APRIL 1986.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HUERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUZC INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: DEV, H. "RADIO FREQUENCY ENHANCED IN-SITU DECONTAMINATION OF SOILS CONTAMINATED WITH HALOGENATED HYDROCARBONS."
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTRY, AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY. NEW YORK, N.Y. APRIL 1986.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
^ PHONE: 513-684-7537
CO DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCFN INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: I IT RESEARCH INSTITUTE. FINAL REPORT. "HIGH TEMPERATURE THERMAL TREATMENT OF SOILS WITH RADIO FREQUENCY HEATING."
EPA GRANT NO. CR-811529-01-0. PREPARED FOR DOUG DOWNEY, HQ AFESC/RDV, TYNDALL AFB. JANUARY 1986.
CONTACT NAME: CHARLES ROGERS
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7757
COMMENTS: INFO ON KPEG. ALSO CONTACT GALSON RESEARCH. RECOMMENDED BY MAJOR TERRY STODDART.
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 19
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
THERMAL DESTRUCTION - VITRIFICATION
™ 980-TS1-RT-EURF INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE^NALYTicAL DATA
REFERENCE: ROY F. WESTON, INC."INTERIM TECHNOLOGY REPORT, HEAVY METAL CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT: CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT."
EPA-11-85-D-0007. PREPARED FOR USATHMA. FEBRUARY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
PHONE: 301-278-5201
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWGD INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABORATORY. "IN SITU VITRIFICATION-A CANDIDATE PROCESS FOR IN SITU DESTRUCTION OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE." PRESENTED AT THE SEVENTH SUPERFUND CONFERENCE, WASHINGTON, D.C. DECEMBER 1986. (INCLUDES SLIDE
PRESENTATION).
CONTACT NAME: J.L. BUELT
ORGANIZATION: BATELLE PACIFIC NW LABORATORY
BATELLE BOULEVARD, RICHLAND, WA 99352
PHONE: 509-376-3926
COMMENTS: INFO ON IN SITU VITRIFICATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWVS INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: "IN-SITU VITRIFICATION (1SV)." SLIDE PRESENTATION RECEIVED FROM DR. LES DOLE, ORNL, U.S. DOE.
CONTACT NAME: LESLIE DOLE TITLE: PROGRAM MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: UMTC, DOE, ORNL
P.O. BOX P, BUILDING K 1000 MS-183, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: 615-576-7421
COMMENTS: INFO ON THE PEPPER STEEL SITE AND OTHERS
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCBY INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: BATTELLE. "IN SITU VITRIFICATION OF TRANSURANIC WASTE: AN UPDATED SYSTEMS EVALUATION AND APPLICATIONS ASSESSMENT."
PREPARED FOR U.S. DOE. PNL-4800 SUPPL. 1. MARCH 1987.
CONTACT NAME: R. L. TREAT TITLE: PROGRAM MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: CHEMICAL PROCESS ENGINEERING SECTION
BATTELLE-PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABORATORIES, BATTELLE BOULEVARD, RICHLAND,WASHINGTON 99352
PHONE: 509-376-0330
COMMENTS: IN SITE VITRIFICATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCSC INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: HAYWARD, DAVID. "GLASS CASE DISARMS BASE WASTE." JOURNAL (GREAT BRITAIN). "NEW CIVIL ENGINEER." INQUIRY CARD 843.
OCTOBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: DONALD SANNING
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-CONTAINMENT BRANCH, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7875
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT
Documents Sorted by Technology
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL - DECMLORINATION
Page:
Date:
20
01/26/1990
01
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUTY INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. "PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF APEG DETOXIFICATION OF DIOXIN-CONTAMINATED SOILS." ORD
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY. CINCINNATI, OH. EPA-600/S2-84-071. APRIL 1984.
CONTACT NAME: CHARLES ROGERS
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 U. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7757
COMMENTS: INFO ON KPEG. ALSO CONTACT GALSON RESEARCH. RECOMMENDED BY MAJOR TERRY STODDART.
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUZD INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. "PRELIMINARY REPORT ON TREATMENT/DETOXIFICATION ALTERNATIVES FOR PCBS AND CHLORINATED ORGANICS." ORD,
HWERL. CINCINNATI, OHIO. SEPTEMBER 1985.
CONTACT NAME: CHARLES ROGERS
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7757
COMMENTS: INFO ON KPEG. ALSO CONTACT GALSON RESEARCH. RECOMMENDED BY MAJOR TERRY STODDART.
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUZF INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. "PROJECT SUMMARY: INTERIM REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF USING UV PHOTOLYSIS AND APEG REAGENT FOR TREATMENT
OF DIOXIN CONTAMINATED SOILS." HWERL, ORD. CINCINNATI, OH. DECEMBER 1985.
CONTACT NAME: CHARLES ROGERS
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7757
COMMENTS: INFO ON KPEG. ALSO CONTACT GALSON RESEARCH. RECOMMENDED BY MAJOR TERRY STODDART.
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWFP INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: PEI ASSOCIATES, INC. "COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON KPEG, TECHNOLOGY/FIELD TESTS OF THE NEW KPEG, REACTOR ON PCB/PCDD
CONTAMINATED SOILS, QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FOR THE MOREAU, NY SITE." PREPARED BY PEI ASSOCIATES, INC. JUNE
1987.
CONTACT NAME: JOHANNA MILLER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION IX
215 FREMONT STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
PHONE: 415-974-8071
COMMENTS: TELECON 980-TS1-RT-FASZ
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWGN INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: IACONIANNI, F. "PROJECT SUMMARY; DESTRUCTION OF PCBs- ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATIONS OF ALKALI METAL POLYETHYLENE
GLYCOLATE COMPLEXES." EPA/600/S2-85/108. PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA, ORD. DECEMBER 1985.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH
PHONE: 513-684-7537
45268
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT
Documents Sorted by Technology
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL - DECHLORINATION
Page: 21
Date: 01/26/1990
E«ccDnCru INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: KPEG DECHLORINATION PROCESS (6 DOCUMENTS). RECEIVED FROM CHARLIE ROGERS, U.S. EPA, HUERL, CINCINNATI, OHIO.
SEPTEMBER, 1987.
CONTACT NAME: CHARLES ROGERS
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7757
COMMENTS: INFO ON KPEG. ALSO CONTACT GALSON RESEARCH. RECOMMENDED BY MAJOR TERRY STODDART.
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWHD INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: TETRA TECH, INC. "IN-SITU TREATMENT OF PESTICIDE CONTAMINATED SOILS."
CONTACT NAME: RICHARD MARTYN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION IX
215 FREMONT STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
PHONE: 415-974-8071
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZYP INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. "DESTRUCTION OF PCB'S ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATIONS OF ALKALI METAL POLYETHYLENE GLYCOLATE COMPLEXES."
EPA/600/2-85/108 SEPTEMBER 1985.
CONTACT NAME:
ORGANIZATION:
PHONE:
NOT REPORTED
U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL. 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
11 n t iv ^ • fav n •
513-684-7537
0) DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZZD INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ROGERS, CHARLES J. ABSTRACT. "CHEMICAL TREATMENT OF PCBS IN THE ENVIRONMENT." U.S. EPA. INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH LABORATORY. CINCINNATI, OH.
CONTACT NAME: WILLIAM SMITH
ORGANIZATION: COM - EDISON, NJ
RARITAN PLAZA I, RARITAN CENTER, EDISON, NJ
PHONE: 201-225-7000
08817
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FBTQ INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA AND GALSON RESEARCH CORPORATION. (PREPRINT EXTENDED ABSTRACT) "COMPARISON OF LABORATORY AND FIELD TEST
DATA IN THE CHEMICAL DECONTAMINATION OF DIOXIN CONTAMINATED SOILS USING THE GALSON PKS PROCESS." PRESENTED BEFORE
THE DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTRY, AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY. APRIL 1986.
CONTACT NAME: CHARLES ROGERS
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7757
COMMENTS: INFO ON KPEG. ALSO CONTACT GALSON RESEARCH. RECOMMENDED BY MAJOR TERRY STODDART.
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT
Documents Sorted by Technology
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL - DECHLORINATION
Page:
Date:
22
01/26/1990
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FBZZ-1 INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE. "PCB SEDIMENT DECONTAMINATION PROCESS-SELECTION FOR TEST AND EVALUATION." AND SLIDE
PRESENTATION: "EFFECTIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE CHEMICAL DESTRUCTION OF PCB." PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA, HWERL.
MAY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: DR. CLARK ALLEN
ORGANIZATION: RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE
P.O. BOX 12194, RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27709
PHONE: 919-541-5826
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCBT INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE. "APPLICATION OF A HEATED IN-SITU APEG TREATMENT PROCESS TO DECONTAMINATE PCB
CONTAMINATED SOIL -- A CASE STUDY FINAL REPORT." FOR U.S. EPA HWERL, CINCINNATI, OH, CONTRACT NO. 68-02-3992. JULY
1987.
CONTACT NAME:
ORGANIZATION:
PHONE:
DAVID FERGUSON
U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH
f InwIVk • C*v n •
513-684-7537
45268
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCBU INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE. DRAFT REPORT. "INTERIM REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF USING U.V. PHOTOLYSIS AND APEG
REAGENT FOR TREATMENT OF DIOXIN CONTAMINATED SOILS." FOR U.S. EPA HWERL, CINCINNATI, OH, CONTRACT NO. 68-03-3149.
JUNE 1985.
CONTACT NAME: CHARLES ROGERS
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7757
COMMENTS: INFO ON KPEG. ALSO CONTACT GALSON RESEARCH. RECOMMENDED BY MAJOR TERRY STODDART.
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCFM INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. (PRELIMINARY: SUBJECT TO REVIEW). "DETERMINATION OF THE EFFICACY OF SELECTED CHEMICALS TO DESTROY
2,3,7,8-TCDD AND OTHER HALOORGANICS IN CONTAMINATED SOILS." ENERGY POLLUTION CONTROL DIV., INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH LAB., ORD HWERL, CINCINNATI, OH. FEBRUARY 1982.
CONTACT NAME: CHARLES ROGERS
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7757
COMMENTS: INFO ON KPEG. ALSO CONTACT GALSON RESEARCH. RECOMMENDED
MAJOR TERRY STODDART.
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCFR-6 INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. "TECHNICAL RESOURCE DOCUMENT: TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR DIOXIN-CONTAINING WASTES." EPA/600/2-86/096.
OCTOBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: HAROLD FREEMAN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-THERMAL DESTRUCTION BRANCH, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7529
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 23
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL - DECHLORINATION
D««uccu 98°-TS1-RT-FCLC-1 INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTiTATivE'ANALYTicAL'DATA
REFERENCE: GALSON RESEARCH CORPORATION. "BENGART AND MEMEL (BENCH-SCALE), GULFPORT (BENCH AND PILOT-SCALE), MONTANA POLE
(BENCH-SCALE), AND WESTERN PROCESSING (BENCH-SCALE) TREATABILITY STUDIES." JULY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: TIMOTHY GERAETS
ORGANIZATION: GALSON RESEARCH CORPORATION
PHONE: 315-463-5160
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCLC-2 INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: GALSON RESEARCH CORPORATION. "BENGART AND MEMEL (BENCH-SCALE), GULFPORT (BENCH AND PILOT-SCALE), MONTANA POLE
(BENCH-SCALE), AND WESTERN PROCESSING (BENCH-SCALE) TREATABILITY STUDIES." JULY 1987
CONTACT NAME: TIMOTHY GERAETS
ORGANIZATION: GALSON RESEARCH CORPORATION
PHONE: 315-463-5160
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCSW INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: SUMMARY PAPER. "APEG TREATMENT OF DIOXIN-CONTAMINATED WASTE IN KENT, WASHINGTON." NOVEMBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: CHARLES ROGERS
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7757
COMMENTS: INFO ON KPEG. ALSO CONTACT GALSON RESEARCH. RECOMMENDED BY MAJOR TERRY STODDART.
. DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FDBA INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
ft REFERENCE: GALSON RESEARCH CORPORATION. "TREATABILITY TEST FOR APEG DECHLORINATION OF PCBs IN RESOLVE SITE SOIL." MARCH 1987.
00
CONTACT NAME: EDWINA MILICIC
ORGANIZATION: GALSON RESEARCH CORP
6601 KIRKVILLE ROAD, E. SYRACUSE, NY 13057
PHONE: 315-432-0506
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FHMD INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. "PROJECT SUMMARY: DESTRUCTION OF PCBS - ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATIONS OF ALKALI METAL POLYETHYLENE GLYCOLATE
COMPLEXES." HWERL, ORD CINCINNATI, OH EPA 600/S-2/108 DECEMBER 1985.
CONTACT NAME: FRANK J. IACONIANNI
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FREN INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: GALSON RESEARCH CORPORATION. "OPERATING AND QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES - LABORATORY STUDY FOR APEG CLEANUP OF MGM
BRAKE SUPERFUND SITE." SEPTEMBER 1987.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: GALSON RESEARCH CORPORATION
6601 KIRKVILLE ROAD, E. SYRACUSE, NY 13057
PHONE: 315-432-0506
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 24
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL - DECHLORINATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FYRC INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: GALSON RESEARCH CORP. "TREATABILITY TEST FOR APEG DECHLORINATION OF PCBS IN RESOLVE SITE SOIL." MARCH 18,1987
CONTACT NAME: EDWINA MILICIC
ORGANIZATION: GALSON RESEARCH CORP
6601 KIRKVILLE ROAD, E. SYRACUSE, NY 13057
PHONE: 315-432-0506
"•-—•"-—-—------—------•'--—----•----•-----------------•_-_____•---•«_--•«««--_____-----«•----------__-.-----------—----•------—-
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 982-TS3-RT-GKXJ INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: "APPENDIX B, TREATABILITY STUDY" COLEMAN EVANS WOOD PRESERVING SITE, WHITEHOUSE, FLORIDA. PP.13.
CONTACT NAME: CAROLINE ROE
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - HEADQUARTERS
HAZARDOUS SITE CONTROL DIVISION, WH548E, 401 M STREET, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
PHONE: 201-475-9754
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 982-TS3-RT-GKXM INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: GALSON CORP., "SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT ON RESOLVE SITE SOIL TREATABILITY TEST." APRIL 1987.
CONTACT NAME: CAROLINE ROE
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - HEADQUARTERS
HAZARDOUS SITE CONTROL DIVISION, WH548E, 401 M STREET, S.U., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
PHONE: 201-475-9754
DOCUMENT NUMBER: ORD-TS1-RT-EUTV-1 INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
. REFERENCE: (3 DOCS) (DTIERNAN, THOMAS, WRIGHT STATE. STATUS REPORT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF TREATMENT DATA ON THE KPEG PROCESS
± FOR SARA/BDAT STANDARDS FOR THE U.S. EPA. (2)FINAL REPORT- DEVELOPMENT OF TREATMENT DATA ON THE KPEG PROCESS FOR
CD CERCLA/BDAT STANDARDS." PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA. DECEMBER 1987. (3)JAMES KINARD, ANALYTICAL ENTERPRISES, INC. "REPORT
ON METAL ANALYSES TO DEVELOPMENT OF TREATMENT DATA ON THE KPEG PROCESS FOR SARA/BDAT STANDARDS."
CONTACT NAME: THOMAS 0. TIERNAN TITLE: Ph.D. - PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY
ORGANIZATION: WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUQH INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION."IN-SITU BIOLOGICAL DEGREDATION TEST AT KELLY AIR FORCE BASE, VOLUME
I: SITE CHARACTERIZATION, LABORATORY STUDIES AND TREATMENT DESIGN AND INSTALLATION: FINAL REPORT."ESL-TR-85-52.
PREPARED FOR AFESC, TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE. APRIL 1986.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/AFESC
COMMENTS: AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EURK INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: GCA CORPORATION. "ENDANGERMENT ASSESSMENT AND FEASIBILITY STUDY, PICILLO SITE, COVENTRY, RHODE ISLAND." VOL. I,III.
PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA, OFFICE OF WASTE PROGRAMS ENFORCEMENT. MARCH 1985.
CONTACT NAME: KENNETH WRENGER TITLE: ENFORCEMENT PROJECT MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION I
JOHN F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING, ROOM 2203, BOSTON, MA 02203
PHONE: 617-565-3637
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 25
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
BIOREMEDIATION
«Dc,T, 98°-TS
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 26
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
BIOREMEDIATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZUU INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: NUS CORPORATION. "LEETOWN PESTICIDE SITE TREATABILITY STUDY - PROGRESS REPORTS IN MEMO FORM." JULY 1986 - JANUARY
1987.
CONTACT NAME: WILLIAM HAGEL TITLE: REGIONAL PROJECT MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION III
841 CHESTNUT STREET, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
PHONE: 215-597-9800
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZZA INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ECOVA CORPORATION. "FINAL REPORT: SOIL TREATMENT PILOT STUDY BRIO/DOP SITE." PREPARED FOR BRIO SITE TASK FORCE.
JUNE 1987.
CONTACT NAME: LOUIS BARINKA
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION VI
1445 ROSS AVENUE, 12TH FLOOR, SUITE 1200, DALLAS, TX 75202
PHONE: 214-655-6735
COMMENTS: EPA REGION 6 ALLIED BANK TOWER AT FOUNTAIN PLACE
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZZF INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: BIO-ENGINEERING CORPORATION. "DEMONSTRATION OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE CLEANUP." TECHNICAL
PROPOSAL. RFP SITE-002. PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA HWERL, CINCINNATI, OHIO. MARCH 1987.
CONTACT NAME: ROBERT DOGGETT TITLE: PRESIDENT & CEO
ORGANIZATION: BIO-ENGINEERING CORP.
PHONE: 214-586-3045
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCBS INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTNAT'L CORP. FINAL REPORT. "FIELD DEMONSTRATION OF IN SITU BIOLOGICAL DEGRADATION." FOR
ENGINEERING AND SERVICES LAB., AIR FORCE ENGINEERING AND SERVICES CENTER AND U.S. EPA HWERL. SEPTEMBER 1985
CONTACT NAME: CAPT. EDWARD HEYSE TITLE: CAPT. & ENGINEER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/AFESC/RDV
PHONE: 904-283-4628
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCEW INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: LEE, M.D., J.T. WILSON AND C.H. WARD. (CHAPTER 47) "MICROBIAL DEGRADATION OF SELECTED AROMATICS IN A HAZARDOUS
WASTE SITE." PREPARED FOR NATIONAL CENTER FOR GROUND WATER RESEARCH, DEPT. OF ENV. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, RICE
UNIVERSITY.
CONTACT NAME: ALLAN HANCOCK
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION VII
726 MINNESOTA STREET, KANSAS CITY, KS 66101
PHONE: 916-236-2891
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCFA INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: NORRIS, R.D. AND R.A. BROWN. "IN SITU BIORECLAMATION - A COMPLETE ON-SITE SOLUTION." PREPARED FOR FMC CORP. AQUIFER
REMEDIATION SYSTEMS.
CONTACT NAME: ALLAN HANCOCK
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION VII
726 MINNESOTA STREET, KANSAS CITY, KS 66101
PHONE: 916-236-2891
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 27
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
BIOREMEDIATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCLE INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL~DATA
REFERENCE: ECOVA. TABLES. "GULF COAST PILOT STUDY LAND TREATMENT." MAY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: DAVID ASHCOM TITLE: DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS
15555 NE 33RD, REDMOND, WA 98052
PHONE: 206-881-6485
*"™" — ~™™" — ™""""""""*^™™*""fc™™™"*™™~*i*B"""""""""'"~™"™" — ™»™™™™»» — ••••• — *^™™^ — •••••• — *• — ^•••••••^••^^ — •^•••••••••• — »fc»^™^™™^™™™^^^™ — « — — — — •»••»•«•
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCNY INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: NATO-CCMS PILOT STUDY ON DEMONSTRATION OF REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES FOR CONTAMINATED LAND AND GROUNDWATER.
"PLANNING QUESTIONNAIRE: THE NETHERLANDS." FEBRUARY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: NTL. INST. OF PUB. HEALTH & ENV. HYGIENE
LABORATORY FOR WASTE EMISSION RESEARCH, A. VAN LEEUWENHOEKLAAN 9, P.O. BOX 1, 3720 BA BILTHOVEN, THE NETHERLANDS
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCQF INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: NATO-CCMS PILOT STUDY ON DEMONSTRATION OF REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES FOR CONTAMINATED LAND AND GROUNDWATER.
"PROJECT: IN SITU BIORESTORATION OF SOIL, CONTAMINATED WITH PETROL."
CONTACT NAME: JANETTE HANSEN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE, RMS-263D/WH-563, 401 M STREET S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
PHONE: 202-382-4754
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCTE INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
J5 REFERENCE: GEOSCIENCE CONSULTANTS, LTD. SOIL TREATMENT STUDIES. "EXCERPTS FROM THE GIANT BLOOMFIELD REFINERY REPORT."
ro
CONTACT NAME: CLAUDE SCHLEYER TITLE: PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
ORGANIZATION: GEOSCIENCE CONSULTANTS, LTD.
500 COPPER, NW, SUITE 200, ALBEQUERQUE, NM 87102
PHONE: 505-842-0001
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCUB INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: DETOX INDUSTRIES, INC. COMPANY PROFILE AND ASSORTED DETOX-RELATED ARTICLES.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: DETOX INDUSTRIES, INC.
12919 DAIRY ASHFORD, SUGARLAND, TX 77478
PHONE: 713-240-0892
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FDAX INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. "BENCH SCALE BIOREMEDIATION STUDY AT THE FRENCH LIMITED SITE, IN CROSBY, TX."
CONTACT NAME: MARILYN PLITNICK
AiR'AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISION, 1201 ELM STREET, DALLAS, TX 75270
PHONE: 214-655-6715
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 28
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
BIOREMEDIATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FHYK INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY, INC. (ERT). "TREATMENT DEMONSTRATION REPORT. CREOSOTE CONTAMINATED SOILS."
PREPARED FOR BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD. DOCUMENT D245. APRIL 1985.
CONTACT NAME: MARY GADE
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION V
EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL RESPONSE BRANCH, 230 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET, CHICAGO, IL 60604
PHONE: 312-353-2000
COMMENTS: R.WYER LETTER TO REGIONS SENT 7/21/87
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FRDK INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: EXNER, JURGEN H.-EDITOR - INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION. "SOLVING HAZARDOUS WASTE PROBLEMS - LEARNING FROM
DIOXINS. BIODEGRADATION OF CHLORINATED ORGANIC COMPOUNDS BY PHANEROCHAETE CHRYSOSPORIUM, A WOOD-ROTTING FUNGUS."
PREPARED FOR AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY. APRIL 1986.
CONTACT NAME: STEVEN D. AUST
ORGANIZATION: UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
BIOTECHENOLOGY CENTER, UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY, LOGAN, UTAH 84322-4430
PHONE: 801-750-2753
COMMENTS: FORMERLY OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY . CONTACT ABOUT FUNGAL DEGRADATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FRDL INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: THREE ARTICLES FROM HAZTECH NEWS. "BIOREMEDIATION BEING STUDIED FOR TEXAS SUPERFUND CLEANUP.11 "FIRM TO MARKET
PEROXYGEN FORMULATION FOR ENHANCEMENT OF BIODEGRADATION." "EPA SELECTS DECHLORINATION TO CLEAN SOIL AT
MASSACHUSETTS SUPERFUND SITE." SEPTEMBER 10, 1987.
& CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
CO ORGANIZATION: HAZTECH
7820 PROFESSIONAL PLACE, TAMPA, FL 33637
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FRDS INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: BUMPUS, TIEN, WRIGHT, AUST - "BIODEGRADATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTANTS BY THE WHITE ROT FUNGUS PHANEROCHAETE
CHRYSOSPORIUM" - DEPARTMENT OF BIOCHEMISTRY, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
CONTACT NAME: STEVEN D. AUST
ORGANIZATION: UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
BIOTECHENOLOGY CENTER, UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY, LOGAN, UTAH 84322-4430
PHONE: 801-750-2753
COMMENTS: FORMERLY OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY . CONTACT ABOUT FUNGAL DEGRADATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FRDX INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: HAEMMERLI, LEISOLA, SANGLARD, AND FIECHTER. "OXIDATION OF BENZO(A)PYRENE BY EXTRACELLULAR LIGNINASES OF
PHANEROCHAETE CHRYSOSPORIUM - VERATRYL ALCOHOL AND STABILITY OF LIGNINASE." THE JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY,
VOL. 261, NO.15, MAY 25, 1986.
CONTACT NAME: MATT I S.A. LEISOLA
ORGANIZATION: SWISS FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 29
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
BIOREMEDIATION - AEROBIC
DcccDcurMr ^nnc^o ?80'TS1 -RT'EWFS-1 INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: (COPPERS COMPANY, INC. "CHARACTERIZATION/TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT-KOPPERS COMPANY, INC., FEATHER RIVER PLANT." JULY
Woo.
CONTACT NAME: JOHN KEMMERER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION IX
215 FREMONT STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
PHONE: 415-974-8071
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZUD-2 INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: CH2M HILL. "IN SITU TREATMENT PROCESS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM."VOLUMES I - IV. PREPARED FOR UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD.
JUNE 1987.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: CH2M HILL
ROCKY MOUNTAIN OFFICE, P.O BOX 22508, DENVER, CO 80222
PHONE: 303-771-0900
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCQP INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: DETOX INDUSTRIES, INC. "WORK PLAN FOR BIODEGRADATION OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBS) AT A SUPERFUND SITE." (3
VOLUMES). PREPARED FOR GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, MASSENA, NEW YORK. SEPTEMBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: MELVIN HAUPTMAN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION II
EMERGENCY & REMEDIAL RESPONSE DIVISION, 26 FEDERAL PLAZA, NEW YORK, NY 10278
PHONE: 212-264-7681
COMMENTS: MOREAU DRAGSTRIP SITE, NY. CALL HAUPTMAN JULY '87 ABOUT THIS SITE
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCRY INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: O.K. MATERIALS CO. "PROPOSAL FOR BIODEGRADATION OF PHENOLS IN WASTE SOIL AT THE PICILLO SITE. WEST COVENTRY, RHODE
ISLAND." SUBMITTED TO RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVITONMENTAL MANAGEMENT JULY 1982
CONTACT NAME: DIANE BADOREK
ORGANIZATION: RHODE ISLAND DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT
204 CANNON BLDG., 75 DAVIS STREET, PROVIDENCE, RI 02908
PHONE: 401-277-2797
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FRAH INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: PAMELA S. ZURER, C&EN WASHINGTON. "FUNGUS SHOWS PROMISE IN HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT." CHEMICAL AND ENGINEERING
NEWS MAGAZINE. SEPTEMBER 14, 1987.
CONTACT NAME: PAMELA S. ZURER TITLE: WASHINGTON OFFICE
ORGANIZATION: CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING NEWS
1155 16th STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
PHONE: 202-872-4495
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 982-TS3-RT-GKWP INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ERT, PREPARED FOR FRENCH LIMITED TASK GROUP, "IN SITU BIODEGRADATION DEMONSTRATION REPORT, VOLUME I - EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY, FRENCH LIMITED SITE." PUBLICATION FOR THE U.S. EPA. OCTOBER 1987.
CONTACT NAME: CAROLINE ROE
ORGANIZATION: JJJ^^s'sJJ^-coMTROi! DIVISION, WH548E. 401 M STREET, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
PHONE: 201-475-9754
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 30
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
BIOREMEDIATION - AEROBIC
(NO DATA ON THIS PAGE)
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT
Documents Sorted by Technology
BIOREMEDIATION - ANAEROBIC
Page:
Date:
31
01/26/1990
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWHH INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: RADIAN CORPORATION. "FINAL REPORT REMEDIATION OF TOXAPHENE-CONTAMINATED SOILS AT THE BELL ROAD SITE IN SURPRISE,
AZ." PREPARED FOR BILL ROSE, UNIVESITY FINANCIAL INVESTORS. DECEMBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: RICHARD MARTYN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION IX
215 FREMONT STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA
PHONE: 415-974-8071
94105
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWHJ INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: RADIAN CORPORATION. "RESULTS OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF THE TAXAPHENE TREATMENT PIT AT THE BELL ROAD SITE IN
SURPRISE, AZ." PREPARED FOR MR. WILLIAM ROSE, UNIVERSITY FINANCIAL INVESTORS. JULY 1986.
CONTACT NAME: RICHARD MARTYN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION IX
215 FREMONT STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA
PHONE: 415-974-8071
94105
ft
O>
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 32
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
BIOREMEDIATION - COMPOSTING
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUQX INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: LOUSIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, BATON ROUGE, LA. "FIELD PLOT TEST REPORT-PHASE III ENGINEERING
DESIGN, OLD INGER SUPERFUND SITE, 0ARROW, LA." NOVEMBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: TIMOTHY MAHON
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION VI
1445 ROSS AVENUE, 12TH FLOOR, SUITE 1200, DALLAS, TX 75202
PHONE: 214-655-6444
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EURS INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ATLANTIC RESEARCH CORPORATION. "COMPOSTING EXPLOSIVES/ORGAN ICS CONTAMINATED SOILS." PREPARED FOR USATHMA. MAY 1986.
CONTACT NAME: WAYNE SISK
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
PHONE: 301-671-2054
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EURT-1 INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ATLANTIC RESEARCH CORPORATION. "COMPOSTING OF EXPLOSIVES." PREPARED FOR USATHMA. SEPTEMBER 1982.
CONTACT NAME: WAYNE SISK
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
PHONE: 301-671-2054
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUQS INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ROY F. WESTON, INC."PILOT INVESTIGATION OF LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL STRIPPING OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC'S)
^ FROM SOIL: VOLUME I-TECHNICAL REPORT AND VOLUME 11-APPENDICES." AMXTH-TE-CR-86074. PREPARED FOR USATHMA. JUNE 1986.
" CONTACT NAME: WAYNE SISK
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
PHONE: 301-671-2054
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUQT INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ROY F. WESTON, INC. "ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL STRIPPING OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FROM
SOIL." AMXTH-TE-CR-86085. PREPARED FOR USATHMA. AUGUST 1986.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
PHONE: 301-278-5201
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EXPE INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: CANONIE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CORP. "SOIL REMEDIATION AND SITE CLOSURE McKIN SUPERFUND SITE." PREPARED FOR
POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTIES. JULY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION I
JOHN F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING, ROOM 2203, BOSTON, MA 02203
PHONE: 617-565-3715
COMMENTS: DOCUMENS TAKEN FROM FILE ROOM
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 33
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION
2«™J!LNUI!BER: 980-TS1-RT-FCFL INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: KOLJUNIAK, D.L. "TREATMENT OF VOC CONTAMINATED SOILS." JOURNAL. ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION MAGAZINE.
MARCH"APRIL 1986.
CONTACT NAME: TIMOTHY TRAVERS TITLE: REGIONAL PROJECT MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION III
841 CHESTNUT STREET, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
PHONE: 215-597-8751
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCMK INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ROY F. WESTON, INC. "CONTRACT DAAK 11-85-C-0007 (TASK ORDER 4) BENCH-SCALE INVESTIGATION OF AIR STRIPPING OF
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC'S) FROM SOIL." TECHNICAL REPORT. PREPARED FOR USATHAMA. JANUARY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: ERIC KAUFMAN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
PHONE: 301-671-2270
COMMENTS: INFO. ON LETTERKENNY SITE
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCSF INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: WEBSTER, DAVID M. "PILOT STUDY OF ENCLOSED THERMAL SOIL AERATION FOR REMOVAL OF VOLATILE ORGANIC CONTAMINATION AT
THE McKIN SUPERFUND SITE." "JOURNAL OF THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ASSOCIATION." VOLUME 36, NO. 10. OCTOBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: DAVID WEBSTER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION I
JOHN F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING, ROOM 2203, BOSTON, MA 02203
^ PHONE: 617-565-3715
00 DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCSP INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE. INFORMATION: "INPUT/OUTPUT DATA FOR SEVERAL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES." CENTER FOR
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RESEARCH. MAY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: DR. CLARK ALLEN
ORGANIZATION: RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE
P.O. BOX 12194, RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27709
PHONE: 919-541-5826
DOCUMENT NUMBER: ORD-TS1-RT-EZYQ INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: PEI ASSOCIATES, INC. "LOW TEMPERATURE TREATMENT OF CERCLA SOILS AND DEBRIS USING THE IT LABORATORY SCALE THERMAL
DESORPTION FURNACES." PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA, HWERL, CINCINNATI, OH. OCTOBER 1987.
CONTACT NAME: ROBERT THURNAU
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7692
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUTT-2 INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE- ASSINK J.W. "EXTRACTIVE METHODS FOR SOIL DECONTAMINATION, A GENERAL SURVEY AND REVIEW OF OPERATIONAL TREATMENT
INSTALLATIONS." APELDOORN, NETHERLAND. NOVEMBER 1985.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: Jj^Hfo,*;^ AVENUE, EDISON/ NJ 08837.3579
PHONE: 212-264-2525
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 34
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION AND SOIL WASHING - SOIL WASHING
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUTT-3 INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ASSINK J.W. "EXTRACTIVE METHODS FOR SOIL DECONTAMINATION, A GENERAL SURVEY AND REVIEW OF OPERATIONAL TREATMENT
INSTALLATIONS." APELDOORN, NETHERLAND. NOVEMBER 1985
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, WOODBRIDGE AVENUE, EDISON, NJ 08837-3579
PHONE: 212-264-2525
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUYQ INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: ELLIS W.D. AND J.R. PAYNE. "THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHEMICAL COUNTERMEASURES FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTAMINATED SOIL."
1984 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SPILLS CONFERENCE. NASHVILLE, TN. APRIL 1984.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUZE INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. "DEVELOPMENT OF A MOBILE SYSTEM FOR EXTRACTING SPILLED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS FROM SOIL." ORD, HWERL, OIL
AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPILLS BRANCH, EDISON, NJ.
CONTACT NAME: -DR. JOHN BRUGGER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-RELEASES CONTROL BRANCH, WOODBRIDGE AVENUE, EDISON, NJ 08837-3579
PHONE: 201-340-6634
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUZN INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA AND AIR FORCE (AFESC). "INSITU TREATMENT OF JP-4 CONTAMINATED SOIL." PREPARED FOR WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES. MAY 1985. (2 VOLUMES AND 4 APPENDIX DOCUMENTS).
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/AFESC
COMMENTS: AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUZT INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION. "TREATMENT OF SOILS CONTAMINATED WITH HEAVY METALS." PROJECT
SUMMARY, EPA AND INTERIM REPORTS. PREPARED FOR U.S EPA, HWERL, ORD. SEPTEMBER 1985.
CONTACT NAME: ANTHONY TAFURI
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-RELEASES CONTROL BRANCH, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-6604
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUZU INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION. "TREATMENT OF CONTAMINATED SOILS WITH AQUEOUS SURFACTANTS (INTERIM
REPORT)." AND "PROJECT SUMMARY: TREATMENT OF CONTAMINATED SOILS WITH AQUEOUS SURFACTANTS .» PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA,
HWERL, ORD.
CONTACT NAME: RICHARD TRAVER TITLE: STAFF ENGINEER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-RELEASES CONTROL BRANCH, WOODBRIDGE AVENUE, EDISON, NJ 08837
PHONE: 201-321-6677
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 35
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION AND SOIL WASHING - SOIL WASHING
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUZW INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: SCIENCE APPLICATION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION. "TREATMENT OF SOILS CONTAMINATED WITH HEAVY METALS."1984 HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS SPILLS CONFERENCE. NASHVILLE, TN. APRIL 1984.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUZX INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: NASH J., AND R.P. TRAVER. "FIELD EVALUATION OF IN SITU WASHING OF CONTAMINATED SOILS WITH WATER/SURFACTANTS." 1984
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPILLS CONFERENCE. NASHVILLE, TN. APRIL 1984.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUZZ INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. DRAFT RESEARCH PROJECT PLAN. "REMOVING LEAD WITH EDTA CHELATING AGENT FROM CONTAMINATED SOIL AT THE
MICHAEL BATTERY COMPANY." U.S. EPA, HWERL, ORD. DECEMBER 1985.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EVAB INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. "PROJECT SUMMARY: MOBILE SYSTEM FOR EXTRACTING SPILLED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS FROM EXCAVATED SOILS." ORD,
HWERL. CINCINNATI, OHIO.
CONTACT NAME: RICHARD TRAVER TITLE: STAFF ENGINEER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-RELEASES CONTROL BRANCH, WOODBRIDGE AVENUE, EDISON, NJ 08837
PHONE: 201-321-6677
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EVAR INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: SUMMARY REPORT. "HARBAUER SOIL CLEANING SYSTEM." RECEIVED U. S. EPA HEADQUARTERS, NOVEMBER 20, 1987.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - HEADQUARTERS
401 M STREET, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EXNH INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ENVIRESPONSE, INC. "SOIL WASHING TREATABILITY STUDY FOR SAPP BATTERY SITE, JACKSON COUNTY, FLORIDA."
CONTACT NAME: ROBERT EVANGELISTA
ORGANIZATION: ^JUJji^DEPOT, WOODBRIDGE AVE, BUILDING 209, BAY f, EDISON, NJ 88037
PHONE: 201-548-9660
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 36
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION AND SOIL WASHING - SOIL WASHING
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZUD-1 INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: CH2M HILL. "IN SITU TREATMENT PROCESS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM."VOLUMES I - IV. PREPARED FOR UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD.
JUNE 1987.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: CH2M HILL
ROCKY MOUNTAIN OFFICE, P.O BOX 22508, DENVER, CO 80222
PHONE: 303-771-0900
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZUJ INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: MARTIN MARIETTA ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC. "REMOVAL OF PCS FROM SOIL USING SOLVENT LEACHING." APRIL 1985.
CONTACT NAME: ROBERT W. SCHEDE TITLE: TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS REPRESENTATIVE
ORGANIZATION: MARTIN MARIETTA ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC
P.O. BOX Y. OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: 615-576-5454
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCPZ INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: HEIMHARD, HANS-JURGEN. KLOCKNER OECOTEC GMBH. "HIGH PRESSURE SOIL WASHING. A PROCESS FOR CLEANING POLLUTED SOIL."
DUISBURG, 26.01.87. [JANUARY 1987].
CONTACT NAME: JANETTE HANSEN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE, RMS-263D/WH-563, 401 M STREET S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
PHONE: 202-382-4754
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCRK INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: TRAVER, RICHARD P. "IN SITU FLUSHING & SOILS WASHING TECHNOLOGIES FOR SUPERFUND SITES." PRESENTED AT RCRA/SUPERFUND
ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SYMPOSIUM. U.S. EPA. ORD HWERL.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCUW INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. "FACILITY DECONTAMINATION - FIELD DEMONSTRATION OF IN SITU SOIL-WASHING." RELEASES CONTROL BRANCH,
EDISON, NJ AND HQ AFESC ENVIRONICS DIVISION. (SCHEDULE OF WORK SUMMARY FOR VOLK AIR FIELD DEMONSTRATION).
CONTACT NAME: DOUG DOWNEY
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/AFESC
PHONE: 904-283-2942
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FRET INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: IT CORPORATION. "LABORATORY FEASIBILITY TESTING OF PROTOTYPE SOIL WASHING CONCEPTS." PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA , OHMSB.
DECEMBER 1983.
CONTACT NAME: FRANKLIN FREESTONE
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-RELEASES CONTROL BRANCH, WOODBRIDGE AVENUE, EDISON, NJ 08837-3579
PHONE: 201-340-6634
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 37
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION AND SOIL WASHING - SOIL WASHING
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FREU INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: MASON & HANGER-SILAS MASON CO., INC. "LABORATORY STUDY OF AQUEOUS WASHING OF SOIL FROM POLYCARB SITE, WELLS,
NEVADA." MARCH 1987
CONTACT NAME: RICHARD TRAVER TITLE: STAFF ENGINEER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-RELEASES CONTROL BRANCH, WOODBRIDGE AVENUE, EDISON, NJ 08837
PHONE: 201-321-6677
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 982-TS3-RT-GKXL INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. DEPT OF THE INTERIOR, LETTER REPORT UNDER INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT FOR THE UNITED SCRAP LEAD SUPERFUND SITE.
SEPTEMBER 1987.
CONTACT NAME: CAROLINE ROE
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - HEADQUARTERS
HAZARDOUS SITE CONTROL DIVISION, WH548E, 401 M STREET, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
PHONE: 201-475-9754
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 38
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION AND SOIL WASHING - CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 125-RI1-RT-CLMS INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: CAMP, DRESSER, AND MCKEE, INC. "COLEMAN EVANS WOOD PRESERVING SITE - REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION FINAL REPORT."
(APPENDIX B - TREATABILITY STUDY.) PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA. APRIL 1986.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET, NE, ATLANTA, GA 30365
PHONE: 404-347-4727
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EURU INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, INC. "FINAL REPORT: DEVELOPMENT OF OPTIMUM TREATMENT SYSTEM FOR WASTEWATER
LAGOONS - PHASE II - SOLVENT EXTRACTION LABORATORY TESTING." PREPARED FOR USATHAMA. OCTOBER 1984.
CONTACT NAME: WAYNE SISK
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
PHONE: 301-671-2054
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUYV INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, INC. "SUPERCRITICAL FLUID TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION STUDY." PREPARED FOR
USATHMA. OCTOBER 1982.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
PHONE: 301-278-5201
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWGX INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: RUGG, B. AND W. BRENNER. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY. "DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF A LOW ENERGY PROCESS TECHNOLOGY FOR
EXTRACTION AND CHEMICAL DESTRUCTION OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS FROM CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS AND SLUDGES." NYU/DAS
87-165. SPONSORED UNDER EPA GRANT NO. CR-812123-01-0. APRIL 1987.
CONTACT NAME: WILLIAM SMITH
ORGANIZATION: CDM - EDISON, NJ
RARITAN PLAZA I, RARITAN CENTER, EDISON, NJ 08817
PHONE: 201-225-7000
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCAE INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: O.K. MATERIALS CORP. "DRAFT: INTERIM TECHNOLOGY REPORT OF SOLVENT EXTRACTION OF PCBS FROM CONTAMINATED SOIL AT THE
SCHAFFER EQUIPMENT SITE - MINDEN, WEST VIRGINIA." PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA. JANUARY 1986.
CONTACT NAME: ROBERT CARON
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION III
841 CHESTNUT STREET, 6TH FLOOR, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
PHONE: 215-597-2771
COMMENTS: ON SCENE COORDINATOR FOR THE MINDEN SITE IN W.VA
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCPW INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: NATO-CCMS PILOT STUDY ON DEMONSTRATION OF REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES FOR CONTAMINATED LAND AND GROUNDWATER.
"PLANNING QUESTIONNAIRE: FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY." MARCH 1987.
CONTACT NAME: JANETTE HANSEN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE, RMS-263D/WH-563, 401 M STREET S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
PHONE: 202-382-4754
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 39
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION AND SOIL WASHING - CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
««cnr 980-TS1-RT-FCQC-3 INFORMATioN"TYPEi"QUAiJTiTATivE"ANALYTicAL"DATA
REFERENCE: SOCZO, E.R., f.J.H. VERHAGEN, AND C.W. VERSLUIJS. "REVIEW OF SOIL TREATMENT TECHNIQUES IN THE NETHERLANDS."
«AJi™AL.INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE, LABORATORY FOR WASTE EN EMISSION RESEARCH (LAE), THE
NETHERLANDS.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: NTL. INST. OF PUB. HEALTH & ENV. HYGIENE
LABORATORY FOR WASTE EMISSION RESEARCH, A. VAN LEEUWENHOEKLAAN 9, P.O. BOX 1, 3720 BA BILTHOVEN, THE NETHERLANDS
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCQM INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: SAVANNAH LABORATORIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. "B.E.S.T. PROCESS ANALYTICAL RESULTS." LOG NO. 86-2101.
AUGUST 1986.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: HAZTECH
7820 PROFESSIONAL PLACE, TAMPA, FL 33637
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCQN INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: RESOURCES CONSERVATION CO. SOILS/SLUDGES/DEBRIS TREATMENT. "B.E.S.T.(tm) SLUDGE PROCESSING SYSTEM STATUS REPORT."
JUNE 1987.
CONTACT NAME: PAUL McGOUGH
ORGANIZATION: RESOURCES CONSERVATION CO.
PHONE: 206-828-2455
COMMENTS: CONTACT PERSON FOR INFO ON THE "BOX" OF B.E.S.T. DATA
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCQT INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: VAN LUIN, B. AND H. WARMER. "TREATMENT OF POLLUTED WATER FROM THE CLEAN-UP OF CONTAMINATED SOIL." LELYSTAD,
NETHERLANDS.-
CONTACT NAME: RICHARD TRAVER TITLE: STAFF ENGINEER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-RELEASES CONTROL BRANCH, WOODBRIDGE AVENUE, EDISON, NJ 08837
PHONE: 201-321-6677
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FYRB INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. DEPT. OF INTERIOR-BUREAU OF MINES. PROGRESS REPORT ON LAB STUDIES USING EDTA AND FLUOSILICIC ACID TO EXTRACT
LEAD FROM LEAD-CONTAMINATED SOIL. SUBMITTED TO US EPA SEPTEMBER, 1987
CONTACT NAME: WILLIAM SCHMIDT
ORGANIZATION: US DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR/BUREAU OF MINE
BUREAU OF MINES, 2401 E STREET, NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20241
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FYRK INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: GENERAL REFINING, SAVANNAH, GA. - SITE REPORT AND LOG BOOK OF SITE CLEANUP USING B.E.S.T. - HAZTECH AND RESOURCES
CONSERVATION CO. INVOLVED. 9/11/85-2/7/87
CONTACT NAME: PAUL McGOUGH
ORGANIZATION: RESOURCES CONSERVATION CO.
PHONE: 206-828-2455
COMMENTS: CONTACT PERSON FOR INFO ON THE "BOX" OF B.E.S.T. DATA
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 40
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION AND SOIL WASHING - CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
— **•"••""•••••••*••••••••••••••••»••••••»••••• 4«««<**«VV«V~«««*««VB>-»MM
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 41
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
IMMOBILIZATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FYRD INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: KENNEDY/JENKS/CHILTON. "WORKPLAN FOR THE FIXATION PILOT STUDY AT THE MGM BRAKES SITE IN CLOVERDALE, CALIFORNIA."
CONTACT NAME: JOHN WONDOLLECK
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION IX
215 FREMONT STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
PHONE: 415-974-8071
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 982-TS3-RT-GKXE INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: "SECTION 7.0, BENCH STUDIES" MARATHON BATTERY SITE.
CONTACT NAME: CAROLINE ROE
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - HEADQUARTERS
HAZARDOUS SITE CONTROL DIVISION, UH548E, 401 M STREET, S.U., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
PHONE: 201-475-9754
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 982-TS3-RT-GKXN INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: SAIC & CALIFORNIA DHS, "PRELIMINARY DRAFT REPORT, STRINGFELLOU FACILITY REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY.
TASK XIII: TREATABILITY STUDIES TREATMENT BY ENCAPSULATION/FIXATION TECHNIQUES." PREPARED FOR CALIFORNIA DEPT OF
HEALTH SERVICES. JUNE 1987.
CONTACT NAME: CAROLINE ROE
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - HEADQUARTERS
HAZARDOUS SITE CONTROL DIVISION, WH548E, 401 M STREET, S.U., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
PHONE: 201-475-9754
& DOCUMENT NUMBER: ORD-TS1-RT-FHMF INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
0> REFERENCE: ACUREX CORPORATION. "DRAFT FINAL REPORT: BOAT FOR SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION TECHNOLOGY FOR SUPERFUND SOILS."
PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA, HWERL, CINCINNATI, OH. NOVEMBER 1987.
CONTACT NAME: EDWIN BARTH
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7931
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT
Documents Sorted by Technology
IMMOBILIZATION - STABILIZATION
Page:
Date:
42
01/26/1990
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 106-RI1-RT-CXRK INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: ROY F. WESTON, INC. "REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT BRUIN LAGOON SITE, BRUIN, PENNSYLVANIA."
VOLUME 1,11,111. JUNE 30, 1986.
CONTACT NAME: JEFFREY PIKE
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION III
841 CHESTNUT STREET, PHILADELPHIA, PA
PHONE: 215-597-0517
TITLE: REGIONAL PROJECT MANAGER
19107
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUQY INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. "TREATMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE WITH SOLIDIFICATION/STABALIZATION." LAND POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION, HWERL,
ORD. CINCINNATI, OH.
CONTACT NAME: CARLTON WILES, Ph.D.
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-CONTAINMENT BRANCH, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7795
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EURH INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: CENTEC CORPORATION. "AN INVESTIGATION OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR HAZARDOUS SLUDGE REDUCTION AT AFLC INDUSTRIAL WASTE
TREATMENT PLANTS." VOL. 1,11,111. PREPARED FOR AFESC, TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FL. DECEMBER 1983.
CONTACT NAME:
ORGANIZATION:
PHONE:
MAJOR TERRY STODDART
U.S. DOD/AFESC
904-283-2949
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EURY INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, INC."SUMMARY REPORT ON THE FIELD INVESTIGATION OF THE SAPP BATTERY SITE, JACKSON COUNTY,
FLORIDA." VOL. 1 AND 2. PREPARED FOR FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION. NOVEMBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: KRISTEEN TEEPEN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET, NE, ATLANTA, GA
PHONE: 404-347-4727
30365
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWFQ INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: INTERNATIONAL WASTE TECHNOLOGIES. "PRESENTATION OF THE HWT CHEMICAL FIXATION TECHNOLOGY AND JAPANESE IN-PLACE
TREATMENT EQUIPMENT."
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: INTERNATIONAL WASTE TECHNOLOGIES
807 NORTH WACO, SUITE 31, WICHITA, KS
PHONE: 316-262-1338
67203
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWVQ INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY. "INTERRELATIONSHIP OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OBTAINED BY SEVERAL DIFFERENT LEACHING
TESTS ON SPECIMENS OF THE SAME MATERIAL." PRESENTED AT 4th INTERNATIONAL WASTE SYMPOSIUM ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS
OF STABILIZATION/SOLIDIFICATION OF HAZARDOUS AND RADIOACTIVE WASTES. OCTOBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME:
ORGANIZATION:
PHONE:
COMMENTS:
TITLE: PROGRAM MANAGER
LESLIE DOLE
WMTC, DOE, ORNL
P.O. BOX P, BUILDING K 1000 MS-183, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
615-576-7421
INFO ON THE PEPPER STEEL SITE AND OTHERS
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 43
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
IMMOBILIZATION - STABILIZATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWWB INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY. "RADWASTE GROUTING TECHNOLOGIES APPLICABLE TO HAZARDOUS HASTE MANAGEMENT." PRESENTED
AT 2ND CONFERENCE ON MUNICIPAL, HAZARDOUS, AND COAL WASTES MANAGEMENT. DECEMBER 1983.
CONTACT NAME: LESLIE DOLE TITLE: PROGRAM MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: UMTC, DOE, ORNL
P.O. BOX P, BUILDING K 1000 MS-183, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: 615-576-7421
COMMENTS: INFO ON THE PEPPER STEEL SITE AND OTHERS
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWWC INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: WASTE IMMOBILIZATION TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT SECTION, CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION, ORNL. "DESIGN OF
PUMPABLE CEMENT-BASED GROUTS FOR THE IMMOBILIZATION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS." PRESENTED AT WORLD CONGRESS III OF
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING, TOKYO, JAPAN. SEPTEMBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: LESLIE DOLE TITLE: PROGRAM MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: WMTC, DOE, ORNL
P.O. BOX P, BUILDING K 1000 MS-183, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: 615-576-7421
COMMENTS: INFO ON THE PEPPER STEEL SITE AND OTHERS
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EXNW INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ENVIRONMENT CANADA, ZENON ENVIRONMENTAL LTD. "AN APPROACH FOR EVALUATING LONG-TERM LEACHABILITY FROM MEASUREMENT OF
INTRISTIC WASTE PROPERTIES." HAZARDOUS AND INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE TESTING AND DISPOSAL: SIXTH VOLUME. 1986.
CONTACT NAME: PIERRE COTE
ORGANIZATION: ENVIRONMENT CANADA
WASTEWATER TECHNOLOGY CENTRE, P.O. BOX 5050, 867 LAKESHORE ROAD, BURLINGTON, ONTARIO L7R 4A6
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EXNZ INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ENVIRONMENT CANADA, U.S. EPA, ALBERTA ENVIRONMENT, CANADIAN AND U.S. RESEARCH FACILITIES, VENDORS OF COMMERCIAL
SOLIDIFICATION PROCESSES. "INVESTIGATION OF TEST METHODS FOR SOLIDIFIED WASTE CHARACTERIZATION."
CONTACT NAME: CARLTON WILES, Ph.D.
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-CONTAINMENT BRANCH, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7795
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZTV INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT CO. "SOILS FIXATION AND STABILIZATION AND REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVE." PREPARED FOR
PEPPER'S STEEL AND ALLOYS SITE LOCATED AT MEDLEY, FLORIDA.
CONTACT NAME: JOHN KROSKE
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET, NE, ATLANTA, GA 30365
PHONE: 404-347-4727
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 44
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
IMMOBILIZATION - STABILIZATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZUA INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: GENERAL ELECTRIC."BENCH SCALE TESTING PROGRAM EVALUATION OF SOLIDIFICATION/FIXATION AGENT." DECEMBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: RONALD UNTERMAN
ORGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
CORPORATE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, P.O. BOX 8, SCHENECTADY, NY 12301
PHONE: 518-387-5803
COMMENTS: NOW WORKING FOR JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 181 CHERRY VALLEY ROAD PRINCETON, NJ 08540 609-924-3420
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZUB INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: GE SERVICE SHOP. "REMEDIAL ACTION WORK PLAN." DECEMBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
CORPORATED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, P.O. BOX 8, SCHENECTADY, NY 12301
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZUK INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED. "TREATABILITY TESTS REMEDIAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING SERVICES BURNT FLY
BOG SITE, MARLBORO TOWNSHIP, MONMOUTH COUNTY, NJ." PREPARED FOR NJ DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. OCTOBER
1984.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - HEADQUARTERS
401 M STREET, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
.. DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZUT INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
CO REFERENCE: HAZCON, INC. "SITE - 001. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL FOR DEMONSTRATION OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE
CO CLEANUP." PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA. IN RESPONSE TO RFP SITE - 001.
CONTACT NAME: DAVID FAVERO
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION V
230 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET, CHICAGO, IL 60604
PHONE: 312-886-4749
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZUX-2 INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ARCO PETROLEUM PRODUCTS COMPANY. "INTERIM REPORT - ACID SLUDGE TREATABILITY EVALUATION - SAND SPRINGS PETROCHEMICAL
COMPLEX." JULY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: PAUL SIEMINSKI
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION VI
1445 ROSS AVENUE, 12TH FLOOR, SUITE 1200, DALLAS, TX 75202
PHONE: 214-655-6444
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZVA INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS. "REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS, BIO-ECOLOGY SITE GRAND PRAIRIE, TEXAS." PREPARED FOR
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES AUSTIN, TEXAS. JULY 1983.
CONTACT NAME: DONALD WILLIAMS
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION VI
1445 ROSS AVENUE, 12TH FLOOR, SUITE 1200, DALLAS, TX 75202
PHONE: 214-655-6444
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 45
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
IMMOBILIZATION - STABILIZATION
DPECpcnr r 9?2;T?1"!?T"EZZG INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE'ANALYnCAL'DATA .................................
REFERENCE: SUCH, C. AND C. LEROUX. ABSTRACT. "TREATMENT OF WASTES FROM OIL SPILLS." SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY LETTERS 1981. APRIL
CONTACT NAME: ANDRE DuPONT
ORGANIZATION: NATIONAL LIME ASSOCIATION
PHONE: 703-243-LIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FBTR INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: SEPARATION AND RECOVERY SYSTEMS, INC. "THE SRS/EIF OILY SLUDGE FIXATION PROCESS." CONSULTING ASSISTANCE BY
MITTELHAUSER CORPORATION.
CONTACT NAME: JERRY CLARK
ORGANIZATION: MITTELHAUSER CORPORATION
23272 MILL CREEK ROAD, SUITE 300, LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653
PHONE: 714-472-2444
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCAA INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, HUGO NEU-PROLER COMPANY, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, AND LOPAT ENTERPRISES,
INC. "FIELD EXPERIENCES WITH SILICATE -BASED SYSTEMS FOR THE TREATMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTES."
CONTACT NAME: DAVID J. LEU, Ph.D. TITLE: CHIEF
ORGANIZATION: STATE OF CALIF - DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION, 714-744 P STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
PHONE: 916-322-2822
COMMENTS: STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPT. OF HEALTH SERVIVES TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
SECTION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCAD INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA, ORD, HWERL. "AN ASSESSMENT OF MATERIALS THAT INTERFERE WITH STABILIZATION/SOLIDIFICATION PROCESSES."
FEBRUARY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: ROBERT THURNAU
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7692
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCAK-1 INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: LOPAT ENTERPRISES, INC. "REPRESENTATIVE SELECTION OF LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS & REPORTS OF FULL-SCALE COMMERCIAL USE
WHICH DEMONSTRATE EFFECTIVENESS OF K-20 LEAD-IN SOIL CONTROL SYSTEM IN PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL SOLIDIFICATION, FIXATION,
ENCAPSULATION & STABILIZATION OF CERTAIN SOIL, ASH, DEBRIS AND SIMILAR WASTES." AUGUST 1987.
CONTACT NAME: LOU PARENT TITLE: PRESIDENT OF LOPAT ENTERPRISES
ORGANIZATION: LOPAT ENTERPRISES, INC.
PHONE: 201-922-6600
DOCUMENT "NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCAK-2 INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: LOPAT ENTERPRISES, INC. "REPRESENTATIVE SELECTION OF LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS & REPORTS OF FULL-SCALE COMMERCIAL USE
WHICH DEMONSTRATE EFFECTIVENESS OF K-20 LEAD-IN SOIL CONTROL SYSTEM IN PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL SOLIDIFICATION, FIXATION,
ENCAPSULATION & STABILIZATION OF CERTAIN SOIL, ASH, DEBRIS AND SIMILAR WASTES." AUGUST 1987
CONTACT NAME: LOU PARENT TITLE: PRESIDENT OF LOPAT ENTERPRISES
ORGANIZATION: LOPAT ENTERPRISES, INC.
PHONE: 201-922-6600
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 46
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/Z6/1990
IMMOBILIZATION - STABILIZATION
Avww««««nvwB.KAMHMMBBtvlBKWMMHWBKHMHHHVVAKVHHHHHmmmmMMMMMM^MV4VWMBMAaAK_HAteH^^HBHHHHHH^AUMWBBBBM44n4BB|BkHBHBJBB|BBBBH|MHBAVVVB4VHKVBHV^AHBBBHMM
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCAK-3 INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: LOPAT ENTERPRISES, INC. "REPRESENTATIVE SELECTION OF LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS & REPORTS OF FULL-SCALE COMMERCIAL USE
WHICH DEMONSTRATE EFFECTIVENESS OF K-20 LEAD-IN SOIL CONTROL SYSTEM ON PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL SOLIDIFICATION, FIXATION,
ENCAPSULATION & STABILIZATION OF CERTAIN SOIL, ASH, DEBRIS AND SIMILAR WASTES." AUGUST 1987
CONTACT NAME: LOU PARENT TITLE: PRESIDENT OF LOPAT ENTERPRISES
ORGANIZATION: LOPAT ENTERPRISES, INC.
PHONE: 201-922-6600
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCCC INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: IDAHO NAT'L ENGINEERING LAB. EG&G. EGG-WM-7225. INFORMAL REPORT. "HAZARDOUS AND MIXED WASTE SOLIDIFICATION
DEVELOPMENT CONDUCTED AT THE IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY." DOE CONTRACT DE-AC07-761D01570. APRIL 1986
CONTACT NAME: ANN M. BOEHMER TITLE: CHEMICAL ENGINEER
ORGANIZATION: INEL
EG&G IDAHO. INC., P.O. BOX 1625, IDAHO FALLS, ID 83415
PHONE: 208-526-9105
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCFZ INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ENVIROSPHERE COMPANY. "DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY OF THE TACOMA HISTORICAL COAL GASIFICATION SITE." SUBMITTED TO
WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS COMPANY, JOSEPH SIMON AND SON, INC., HYGRADE FOOD PRODUCTS CORP., AND BURLINGTON NORTHERN
RAILROAD COMPANY. JULY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: WAYNE GROTHEER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION X
1200 SIXTH AVENUE, SEATTLE, WA 98101
PHONE: 206-442-2723
COMMENTS: TACOMA TAR PITS SITE
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCST INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS. "REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES, BIO-ECOLOGY SITE." REPORT RECEIVED JULY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: DONALD WILLIAMS
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION VI
1445 ROSS AVENUE, 12TH FLOOR, SUITE 1200, DALLAS, TX 75202
PHONE: 214-655-6444
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCTA INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: MCLAUGHLIN ENTERPRISES INC. REPORT. "SUMMARY OF THE TEST RESULTS OF THE TREATED FLUFF FROM ORANGE COUNTY STEEL
SALVAGE." JUNE 1987.
CONTACT NAME: RONALD E. LEWIS TITLE: ASSOCIATE WASTE MANAGEMENT ENGINEER
ORGANIZATION: STATE OF CALIF - DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION, 714-744 P STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
PHONE: 916-322-3670
COMMENTS: STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPT. OF HEALTH SERVICES TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
SECTION
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 47
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
IMMOBILIZATION - STABILIZATION
™rC»r,, 9j|°-TS1-RT-FCTR INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATivE~ANALYTlcAL~DATA
REFERENCE: ACUREX CORPORATION. "DRAFT FINAL REPORT. VOLATILE EMISSIONS FROM STABLIZED WASTE IN HAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILLS."
PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA. AIR AND ENERGY ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORY. RTP. PROJECT 8186. JANUARY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: PAUL F. de PERCIN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-CONTAINMENT BRANCH, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7787
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCUE INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ROSENCRANCE, ALAN B. AND RAMCHANDRA K. KULKARNI, PH.D. "FIXATION OF TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT ELECTROPLATING WASTE
SAMPLES BY ASPHALT ENCAPSULATION PROCESS." PREPARED FOR U.S. ARMY MEDICAL BIOENGINEERING RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
LABORATORY, FORT DETRICK, FREDERICK, MD. JANUARY 1979.
CONTACT NAME: DAVID ENEGESS ~ TITLE: ENGINEER
ORGANIZATION: UASTECHEM CORPORATION
ONE KALISA WAY, PARAMUS, NJ 07652
PHONE: 201-599-2900
COMMENTS: NOW WORKING FOR JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 181 CHERRY VALLEY ROAD PRINCETON, NJ 08540 609-924-3420
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCUT INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: PEI ASSOCIATES, INC. "TABLE 3. ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SITE NOS. 1 AND 1a." AUGUST 1987.
CONTACT NAME: EDWIN BARTH
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7931
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCUV INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
-------
APPENDIX 1: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 48
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
IMMOBILIZATION - STABILIZATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FDBC INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: EG&G IDAHO, INC. "RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT COMPLEX (RWMC). SMALL SCALE SOIL GROUT TEST REPORT." SEPTEMBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - HEADQUARTERS
401 M STREET, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FDBG INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: EG&G IDAHO, INC. ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE. "RWMC. CONTAMINATED SOIL GROUT BENEFIT-COST STUDY." SEPTEMBER 1985.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - HEADQUARTERS
401 M STREET, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FDEE INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: EG&G IDAHO, INC. "RADIOACTIVE WASTE-MANAGEMENT COMPLEX (RWMC). SOIL GROUT SMALL SCALE TESTING PROGRAM.11 JANUARY
1986.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - HEADQUARTERS
401 M STREET, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FREW INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: 3M, INDUSTRIAL CHEMICAL PRODUCTS DIVISION. PRODUCT DATA ON 3M BRAND FOAM CONCENTRATE FX-9162. 12 SEPARATE
DOCUMENTS. MAY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: KEITH BROBST
ORGANIZATION: 3M
INDUSTRIAL CHEMICAL PRODUCTS DIVISION, 3M CENTER, ST. PAUL, MINN 55144-1000
PHONE: 612-733-1110
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FREX INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: RADIAN CORP. "3M TEMPORARY FOAM FX9162 AND STABILIZED FOAM FX9161/9162 EVALUATION FOR VAPOR HITIGAION AT 29 PALMS,
CALIFORNIA." PREPARED FOR 3M. JUNE 1987.
CONTACT NAME: KEITH BROBST
ORGANIZATION: 3M
INDUSTRIAL CHEMICAL PRODUCTS DIVISION, 3M CENTER, ST. PAUL, MINN 55144-1000
PHONE: 612-733-1110
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 49
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
IMMOBILIZATION - MICROENCAPSULATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZUX-3 INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ARCO PETROLEUM PRODUCTS COMPANY. "INTERIM REPORT - ACID SLUDGE TREATABILITY EVALUATION - SAND SPRINGS PETROCHEMICAL
COMPLEX." JULY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: PAUL SIEMINSKI
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION VI
1445 ROSS AVENUE, 12TH FLOOR, SUITE 1200, DALLAS, TX 75202
PHONE: 214-655-6444
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCRX INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: SOLIDITECH, INC. "GMS ANALYSIS OF ORIGINAL WASTE SAMPLE - K051 (RMA SAMPLE NO. 63009-02)." AUGUST 1987.
CONTACT NAME: EDWIN BARTH
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7931
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 50
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
IMMOBILIZATION - CEMENT SOLIDIFICATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUQU INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: JACA CORPORATION."CRITICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND PROPERTIES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION."
PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA, ORD, WATER ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORY, CINCINNATI, OHIO.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUWW-2 INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ATLANTIC RESEARCH CORPORATION. "ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT OF GENERAL DECON TECHNOLOGY FOR THE DORCOM
INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM. TASK 4. GENERAL TECHNOLOGY LITERATURE SEARCHES (II) SOLIDIFICATION TECHNIQUES FOR
LAGOON WATER." PREPARED FOR USATHAMA. DECEMBER 1980
CONTACT NAME: WAYNE SISK
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
PHONE: 301-671-2054
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUXS INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY. "FIXATION/STABILIZATION FINAL REPORT PEPPER'S STEEL & ALLOYS SITE; MEDLEY, FLORIDA."
NOVEMBER 1985.
CONTACT NAME: JOHN KROSKE
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET, NE, ATLANTA, GA 30365
PHONE: 404-347-4727
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUXT INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: FIRESTONE RESOURCES, INC. (3 DOCUMENTS). "SOIL STABILIZATION PILOT STUDY, UNITED CHROME NPL SITE, CORVALLIS,
OREGON." AND "QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL PLAN UNITED CHROME NPL SITE PILOT STUDY" AND "HEALTH AND SAFETY
PROGRAM UNITED CHROME NPL SITE PILOT STUDY." PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA - REGION 10 AND DEQ - OREGON. FEBRUARY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: JOHN BARICH *
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION X
HAZARDOUS WASTE DIVISION, 1200 SIXTH AVENUE, SEATTLE, WA 98101
PHONE: 206-442-8562
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWFL INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION & CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT SECTION. "PRELIMINARY DRAFT REPORT: STRINGFELLOW FACILITY REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY
STUDY- TASK XIII: TREATABILITY STUDIES TREATMENT BY ENCAPSULATION/FIXATION TECHNIQUES." PREPARED FOR CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES -TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION. JUNE 1987.
CONTACT NAME: MICHAEL HIGGINS
ORGANIZATION: STATE OF CALIF - DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION, 714-744 P STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
PHONE: 916-324-1807
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 51
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
IMMOBILIZATION -, CEMENT SOLIDIFICATION
DeE«eu,.E „.„ „, 980-TS1-RT-EWUZ INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY, CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION. "TESTING PROTOCOLS FOR EVALUATING MONOLITHIC WASTE
FORMS CONTAINING MIXED WASTE." ADVANCES IN CERAMICS. VOL. 20: NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT II. 1986.
oSfzAT'tofi ^0^ '"*' ™°™ »*»™*
P.O. BOX P, BUILDING K 1000 MS-183, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
COMMENTS: INFO ON THE PEPPER STEEL SITE AND OTHERS
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWVG ' INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: WASTE IMMOBILIZATION TECHNOLOGIES, OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY. "LEACH TESTING OF HYDROFRACTURE GROUTS CONTAINING
HAZARDOUS WASTE." PUBLISHED IN "UNDERGROUND INJECTION PRACTICES COUNCIL." VOL.1. 1986.
CONTACT NAME: PAUL McGOUGH
ORGANIZATION: RESOURCES CONSERVATION CO.
PHONE: 206-828-2455
COMMENTS: CONTACT PERSON FOR INFO ON THE "BOX" OF B.E.S.T. DATA
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWVJ INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION, ORNL. "SYSTEMATIC APPROACH FOR THE DESIGN OF PUMPABLE CEMENT-BASED GROUTS FOR
IMMOBILIZATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES." PRESENTED AT ASTM 4th INTERNATIONAL HAZARDOUS WASTE SYMPOSIUM. MAY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: LESLIE DOLE TITLE: PROGRAM MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: WMTC, DOE, ORNL
P.O. BOX P, BUILDING K 1000 MS-183, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: 615-576-7421
COMMENTS: INFO ON THE PEPPER STEEL SITE AND OTHERS
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUVT INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: MATERIALS AND CHEMISTRY TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, PROCESS SUPPORT DIVISION, MARTIN MARIETTA ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC.
"CEMENT FIXATION STUDIES AT OAK RIDGE GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT." PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA. FEBRUARY 1986.
CONTACT NAME: LESLIE DOLE TITLE: PROGRAM MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: WMTC, DOE, ORNL
P.O. BOX P. BUILDING K 1000 MS-183, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: 615-576-7421
COMMENTS: INFO ON THE PEPPER STEEL SITE AND OTHERS
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWW INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY. "DEVELOPMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE AND PERFORMANCE TESTING FOR THE PROCESS
EXPERIMENTAL PILOT PLANT." PREPARED FOR U.S. DOE. AUGUST 1984.
CONTACT NAME: LESLIE DOLE TITLE: PROGRAM MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: WMTC, DOE, ORNL
P.O. BOX P, BUILDING K 1000 MS-183, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: 615-576-7421
COMMENTS: INFO ON THE PEPPER STEEL SITE AND OTHERS
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 52
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
IMMOBILIZATION - CEMENT SOLIDIFICATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWVY INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY. "GROUT FORMULATION STUDIES WITH HANFORD FACILITIES WASTE: AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY."
PREPARED FOR U.S. DOE.
CONTACT NAME: LESLIE DOLE TITLE: PROGRAM MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: WMTC, DOE, ORNL
P.O. BOX P, BUILDING K 1000 MS-183, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: 615-576-7421
COMMENTS: INFO ON THE PEPPER STEEL SITE AND OTHERS
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWVZ INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: WASTE IMMOBILIZATION TECHNOLOGIES, ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT SECTION, CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION, ORNL. "WASTE
IMMOBILIZATION IN CEMENT-BASED GROUTS." PRESENTED AT INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON INDUSTRIAL AND HAZARDOUS WASTE.
JUNE 1985.
CONTACT NAME: LESLIE DOLE TITLE: PROGRAM MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: WMTC, DOE, ORNL
P.O. BOX P, BUILDING K 1000 MS-183, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: 615-576-7421
COMMENTS: INFO ON THE PEPPER STEEL SITE AND OTHERS
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWWE INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. DOE, ORNL. "LEACHABILITY STUDIES OF HYDROFRACTURE GROUTS.11 NOVEMBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: LESLIE DOLE TITLE: PROGRAM MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: WMTC, DOE, ORNL
P.O. BOX P, BUILDING K 1000 MS-183, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: 615-576-7421
COMMENTS: INFO ON THE PEPPER STEEL SITE AND OTHERS
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EXNY INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ENVIRONMENT CANADA. "LONG-TERM LEACHING SCENARIOS FOR CEMENT-BASED WASTE FORMS." WASTE MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH (1987)
CONTACT NAME: PIERRE COTE
ORGANIZATION: ENVIRONMENT CANADA
WASTEWATER TECHNOLOGY CENTRE, P.O. BOX 5050, 867 LAKESHORE ROAD, BURLINGTON, ONTARIO L7R 4A6
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZUZ INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: "WASTE HANDLING SECTION OF BIOECOLOGY CONTRACT FOR CYANIDE TREATMENT AND FIXATION OF METALS."
CONTACT NAME: DONALD WILLIAMS
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION VI •
1445 ROSS AVENUE, 12TH FLOOR, SUITE 1200, DALLAS, TX 75202
PHONE: 214-655-6444
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZYT INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. DOE. "STABILIZATION OF MIXED WASTE AT THE INEL." IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY, EG & G IDAHO, INC.
IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO.
CONTACT NAME: ANN M. BOEHMER TITLE: CHEMICAL ENGINEER
ORGANIZATION: INEL
EG&G IDAHO, INC., P.O. BOX 1625, IDAHO FALLS, ID 83415
PHONE: 208-526-9105
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 53
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
IMMOBILIZATION - CEMENT SOLIDIFICATION
««rCr,o 9,80-TS1-RT-FCAS INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTnATivE'ANALYTICAL'DATA
REFERENCE: PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABORATORY OPERATED BY BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE. "PILOT-SCALE GROUT PRODUCTION TEST WITH A
SIMULATED LOW-LEVEL WASTE." PREPARED FOR U.S. DOE. MAY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: R. L. TREAT TITLE: PROGRAM MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: CHEMICAL PROCESS ENGINEERING SECTION
BATTELLE-PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABORATORIES, BATTELLE BOULEVARD, RICHLAND,WASHINGTON 99352
COMMENTS: IN SITE VITRIFICATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCBX INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: KOBRAN, M.J. AND W.J. GUARINI. 10CFR61 WASTE FORM CONFORMANCE PROGRAM FOR ASPHALTED RADWASTE." ENGINEERING AND
PLANT BETTERMENT, AND UASTECHEM CORPORATION.
CONTACT NAME: DAVID ENEGESS TITLE: ENGINEER
ORGANIZATION: WASTECHEM CORPORATION
ONE KALISA WAY, PARAMUS, NJ 07652
PHONE: 201-599-2900
COMMENTS: NOW WORKING FOR JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 181 CHERRY VALLEY ROAD PRINCETON, NJ 08540 609-924-3420
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCSB INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: BOSTOCK HILL & RIGBY. LONDON. "ASBESTOS." ARTICLE FOR "BUILDING TECHNOLOGY." BUILDING 7. NOVEMBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: DONALD SANNING
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-CONTAINMENT BRANCH, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7875
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCSX INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: "DATA BASE FOR SILICATE-BASED TREATMENT SYSTEM."
CONTACT NAME: RONALD LEWIS
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-CHEM. AND BIOL. DETOX. BRANCH, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7856
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCUG INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: MCLAUGHLIN ENTERPRISES INC. "ACME GALVANIZING COMPOSITE SOIL SAMPLES." MAY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: FREDERICK A. TORNATORE TITLE: ASSOCIATE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPECIALIST
ORGANIZATION: STATE OF CALIF - DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION, 714-744 P STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
PHONE: 916-324-1807
COMMENTS- STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DEPT. OF HEALTH SERVICES TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY &
POLICY DEVEL. SECTION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCUX INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE. (6 DOCUMENTS). "NYANZA SOLIDIFICATION TREATABILITY STUDY." JUNE 1987.
CONTACT NAME: MARY SANDERSON
ORGANIZATION: u.s. fPA^REGi^ ^^ ^ ^ ^^ HA
PHONE: 617-656-3715
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 54
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
IMMOBILIZATION - CEMENT SOLIDIFICATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FDBL INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: WADSWORTH/ALERT LABORATORIES, INC. "ANALYTICAL REPORT. PROJECT NO. 2321-87-0701. MOWBRAY ENGINEERING." PRESENTED TO
DOUG DRIVER. HAZTECH. JULY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: NED JESSUP
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET, NE, ATLANTA, GA 30365
PHONE: 404-347-4727
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FREP INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY. T. TAMURA, R.D. SPENCE, O.K. TALLENT, O.M. SEALAND. "IN SITU GROUTING OF AN ORNL
TRENCH USING A PARTICULATE-TYPE GROUT." PREPARED FOR U.S. DOE. AUGUST 1987.
CONTACT NAME: MIKE GILLIAN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
ORNL, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: FTS 574-6820
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FREO INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY- ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES DIVISION. T. TAMURA & U.J. BOEGLY, JR. "IN SITU GROUTING OF
URANIUM MILL TAILINGS PILES: AN ASSESSMENT." PREPARED FOR U.S. DOE. MAY 1983.
CONTACT NAME: MIKE GILLIAN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
ORNL, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: FTS §74-6820
-------
APPENDIX !: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 55
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
IMMOBILIZATION - FLYASH SOLIDIFICATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZTZ INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY. "FIXATION/STABILIZATION FINAL REPORT - PEPPER'S STEEL & ALLOYS SITE, MEDLEY,
FLORIDA." VOLUMES I & II. NOVEMBER, 1985.
CONTACT NAME: JOHN KROSKE
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET, NE, ATLANTA, GA 30365
PHONE: 404-347-4727
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZUF INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS. "INNOVATIVE SOLIDIFICATION TECHNIQUES FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES AT ARMY
INSTALLATIONS." PREPARED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY. NOVEMBER 1985.
CONTACT NAME: TOMMY MYERS
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FAAP INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: VERITEC CORPORATION. "CASE STUDY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT UTILIZING LIME." PRESENTED AT THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE
NATIONAL LIME ASSOCIATION. PHOENIX, ARIZONA. APRIL 1987.
CONTACT NAME: ANDRE DuPONT
ORGANIZATION: NATIONAL LIME ASSOCIATION
PHONE: 703-243-LIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCUJ INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
^ REFERENCE: CALIFORNIA ANALYTICAL LAB. "LAB RESULTS ON LASSEN COLLEGE TREATABILITY TESTS." MARCH 1987.
O CONTACT NAME: FREDERICK A. TORNATORE TITLE: ASSOCIATE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPECIALIST
ORGANIZATION: STATE OF CALIF - DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION, 714-744 P STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
PHONE: 916-324-1807
COMMENTS: STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DEPT. OF HEALTH SERVICES TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY &
POLICY DEVEL. SECTION
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 56
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
IMMOBILIZATION - CARBONATE IMMOBILIZATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUWW-3 INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ATLANTIC RESEARCH CORPORATION. "ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT OF GENERAL DECON TECHNOLOGY FOR THE DARCOM
INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM. TASK 2. GENERAL TECHNOLOGY LITERATURE SEARCHES (II) SOLIDIFICATION TECHNIQUES FOR
LAGOON WATER." PREPARED FOR USATHAMA. DECEMBER 1980
CONTACT NAME: WAYNE SISK
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
PHONE: 301-671-2054
--_ — _ — -•- — >•_________>•_•________«•____<__.___________*.____•_.______.___.____._____....__•___•___•_«_*_----_•---••--•-••--••--- — ---
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWFX INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: EARTH METRICS INCORPORATED. "EXCESS SOIL TREATMENT PILOT STUDY AND SOILS ABATEMENT ACTION ALTERNATIVES FOR THE BAY
CENTER CONSTRUCTION SITE IN EMERYVILLE, CALIFORNIA." PREPARED FOR ALAMEDA COUNTY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS UNIT. FEBRUARY
1987.
CONTACT NAME: RONALD E. LEWIS TITLE: ASSOCIATE WASTE MANAGEMENT ENGINEER
ORGANIZATION: STATE OF CALIF - DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION, 714-744 P STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
PHONE: 916-322-3670
COMMENTS: STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPT. OF HEALTH SERVICES TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
SECTION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWVC INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION, WASTECHEM CORPORATION. "LEACHING AND COMPREHENSIVE REGULATORY PERFORMANCE TESTING OF
EXTRUDED BITUMEN CONTAINING A SURROGATE, SODIUM NITRATE-BASED, LOW-LEVEL WASTE." PRESENTED AT ASTM 4th
INTERNATIONAL HAZARDOUS WASTE SYMPOSIUM. MAY 1987. (PRESENTATION OF RELATED DOCUMENT 980-TS1-RT-EWVE).
CONTACT NAME: LESLIE DOLE TITLE: PROGRAM MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: WMTC, DOE, ORNL
P.O. BOX P. BUILDING K 1000 MS-183, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: 615-576-7421
COMMENTS: INFO ON THE PEPPER STEEL SITE AND OTHERS
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT
Documents Sorted by Technology
IMMOBILIZATION - IN-SITU SOLIDIFICATION
Page:
Date:
57
01/26/1990
01
ro
£™IN,LNUMI!?:,. 980-TS1-RT-EURA INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: SPALDING, B.P. AND L. HYDER AND I. MUNRO."GROUTING AS A REMEDIAL TECHNIQUE FOR BURIED LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE."
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. VOL. 14. NO. 3. JULY-SEPTEMBER 1985.
CONTACT NAME: BRIAN SPALDING
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOE/WMTC
U.S. DEPT. OF ENERGY, ORNL, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: FTS 574-7265
COMMENTS: INFO ON INSITU VITRIFICATION, CHEMICAL GROUTS
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWGB INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. PROJECT SUMMARY. "SYSTEMS TO ACCELERATE IN SITU STABILIZATION OF WASTE DEPOSITS." EPA ORD HWERL,
CINCINNATI, OH. EPA/540/S2-86/002. MARCH 1987.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH
PHONE: 513-684-7537
45268
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWVH INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE DIVISION, OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY. "IN SITU GROUTING OF
SHALLOW LANDFILL RADIOACTIVE WASTE TRENCHES." PRESENTED AT ASTM 4th INTERNATIONAL HAZARDOUS WASTE SYMPOSIUM. MAY
1987.
CONTACT NAME:
ORGANIZATION:
PHONE:
COMMENTS:
TITLE: PROGRAM MANAGER
LESLIE DOLE
WMTC, DOE, ORNL
P.O. BOX P, BUILDING K 1000 MS-183, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
615-576-7421
INFO ON THE PEPPER STEEL SITE AND OTHERS
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWWA INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION, ORNL. "WELDON SPRING, MISSOURI, RAFFINATE PITS 1, 2, 3, & 4: PRELIMINARY GROUT
DEVELOPMENT SCREENING STUDIES FOR IN SITU WASTE IMMOBILIZATION." PREPARED FOR U.S. DOE, APRIL 1987.
CONTACT NAME:
ORGANIZATION:
PHONE:
COMMENTS:
TITLE: PROGRAM MANAGER
LESLIE DOLE
WMTC, DOE, ORNL
P.O. BOX P, BUILDING K 1000 MS-183, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
615-576-7421
INFO ON THE PEPPER STEEL SITE AND OTHERS
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZTY INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: SANWA KIZAI CO., LTD. "INSTANTANEOUS SOIL CONSOLIDATION - JST METHOD."
CONTACT NAME: EL 10 ARNIELLA
ORGANIZATION: COM - ATLANTA, GA
2100 RIVER EDGE PARKWAY, ATLANTA, GA 30328
PHONE: 404-952-8643
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 58
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
IMMOBILIZATION - IN-SITU SOLIDIFICATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZUL INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. "FIXATION/SOLIDIFICATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE AT CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT'S VICKERY,
OHIO FACILITY."
CONTACT NAME: ANDRE DuPONT
ORGANIZATION: NATIONAL LIME ASSOCIATION
PHONE: 703-243-LIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZYU INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: EG & G, INC. "RWMC - SOIL GROUT PROGRAM." (SLIDE PRESENTATION). RECEIVED AUGUST 1987.
CONTACT NAME: ROBERT M. BROWN TITLE: WASTE MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST
ORGANIZATION: INEL
EG&G IDAHO. INC., P.O. BOX 1625, IDAHO FALLS, ID 83415
PHONE: 208-526-2747
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCAP INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL. "DEVELOPMENT OF EQUIPMENT FOR STABILIZATION AND ISOLATION OF LOW-LEVEL LIQUID WASTE
DISPOSAL CRIBS: A DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY." PREPARED FOR U.S. DOE. DECEMBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: STEVEN J. PHILLIPS
ORGANIZATION: DOE/ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL
ROCKWELL HANFORD OPERATIONS, P.O. BOX 800, RICHLAND, WASHINGTON 99352
PHONE: 509-373-3468
. DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCAQ INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
tri REFERENCE: ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL. "STABILIZATION AND ISOLATION OF LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL SITES." PREPARED FOR U.S. DOE.
05 APRIL 1987.
CONTACT NAME: STEVEN J. PHILLIPS
ORGANIZATION: DOE/ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL
ROCKWELL HANFORD OPERATIONS, P.O. BOX 800, RICHLAND, WASHINGTON 99352
PHONE: 509-373-3468
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCCG INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. (SUPERFUND) "SYSTEMS TO ACCELERATE IN SITU STABILIZATION OF WASTE DEPOSITS." ORD HWERL, CINCINNATI, OH.
EPA/540/2-86/002. SEPTEMBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26-W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCGE INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: McDANIEL, E.W. ORNL-CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION. "GROUTING AS A WASTE IMMOBILIZATION/DISPOSAL METHOD." "WASTE
MANAGEMENT FOR THE ENERGY INDUSTRIES CONFERENCE." GRAND RAPIDS, NORTH DAKOTA. APRIL 1987.
CONTACT NAME: EARL W. McDANIEL
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOE/WMTC
U.S. DEPT. OF ENERGY, ORNL, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: FTS 574-0439
COMMENTS: INFO ON GROUT FORMULATION DATA
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 59
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
IMMOBILIZATION - IN-SITU SOLIDIFICATION
c,. 980-TS1-RT-FCGJ INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY. "DEVELOPMENT OF CEMENTITIOUS GROUTS FOR THE INCORPORATION OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES.
PART 1: LEACH STUDIES." PREPARED FOR U.S. DOE. ORNL-4962. APRIL 1975.
CONTACT NAME: RICHARD GENUNG
ORGANIZATION: DOE - ORNL
WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY CENTER, P.O. BOX Pf OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: 615-574-6830
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCUN INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: TECHNOLOGY/ECONOMICS. "NEW TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE FOR IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT." THE HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSULTANT.
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: GREGORY LACY TITLE: CHEMIST
ORGANIZATION: CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORP.
PHONE: 703-968-0900
COMMENTS: BOAT TEAM MEMBER
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FDBM INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY. "DEVELOPMENT OF CEMENTITIOUS GROUTS FOR THE INCORPORATION OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES.
PART 2: CONTINUATION OF CESIUM AND STRONTIUM LEACH STUDIES." ORNL-5142. (PART 2 OF ORNL-4962). SEPTEMBER 1976.
CONTACT NAME: RICHARD GENUNG
ORGANIZATION: DOE - ORNL
WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY CENTER, P.O. BOX P, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: 615-574-6830
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUXL INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: STEVENS, DR. R.D. SAMUEL. (SOLARCHEM). "SOLVOLOX-AN EFFECTIVE, LOW COST, ON-SITE SOIL/SEDIMENT DECONTAMINATION
PROCESS." PRESENTED AT THE HAZMAT CANADA '87 CONFERENCE. TORONTO, ONTARIO. SEPTEMBER 1987.
CONTACT NAME: SAMUEL STEVENS
ORGANIZATION: SOLAR CHEM
516 GORDON BAKER RD., WILLOWDALE, ONTARIO, CANADA. M2H 3B4
PHONE: 416-495-9905
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUYR INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: HUIBREGTSE, K.R., J.P. LAFORNARA, AND K.H. KASTMAN, "IN PLACE DETOXIFICATION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPILLS IN
SOIL." HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SPILLS CONFERENCE. NASHVILLE, TN. APRIL 1984.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUYZ INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE- U.S. EPA. "LABORATORY AND FIELD TESTS Of CHEMICAL REAGENTS FOR IN-SITU DETOXIFICATION OF CHLORINATED DIOXINS IN
SOILS." (REPRINT EXTENDED ABSTRACT). PRESENTED BEFORE THE DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTRY, AMERICAN CHEMICAL
SOCIETY. CHICAGO, IL. SEPTEMBER 1985.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: u.|. EPA, ORD^ ^ ^^ ^^ QH
PHONE: 513-684-7537
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT
Documents Sorted by Technology
OTHER - PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL
Page:
Date:
60
01/26/1990
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUZK INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. "ATTACHMENT A TREATABILITY STUDY SCOPE OF SERVICES UNITED SCRAP LEAD." REGION V.
CONTACT NAME: ALLEN UOJTAS
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION V
230 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET, CHICAGO, IL
PHONE: 312-886-6941
60601
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EVAC INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON. "TECHNICAL WORK PLAN FOR FIELD TESTING AND QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT: TREATMENT OF
WASTE-CONTAMINATED GROUND BY ELECTRO-KINETICS -- A FIELD EVALUATION." PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA.
CONTACT NAME:
ORGANIZATION:
PHONE:
NOT REPORTED
U.S. EPA, ORD
HUERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH
lln^lXb • bv Iff •
513-684-7537
45268
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWHE INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: "ON-SCENE COORDINATOR REPORT, IMMEDIATE REMOVAL ACTION PESTICIDE CONTAMINATION, GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY." JULY
1984 TO OCTOBER 1985.
CONTACT NAME: RICHARD MARTYN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION IX
215 FREMONT STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA
PHONE: 415-974-8071
94105
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCLP INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES. "FACT SHEET: SAN PEDRO TERMINAL ANNEX SITE, PORT OF LOS ANGELES,
CALIFORNIA. SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR DRAFT REMEDIAL ACTION
PLAN." MARCH/APRIL 1987.
CONTACT NAME: CAROLYN MEJIA
ORGANIZATION: STATE OF CALIF - DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTOL DIVISION, 107 SOUTH BROADWAY, ROOM 7011, LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
PHONE: 213-620-2380
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 982-TS3-RT-GKXP INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: SAIC, "DRAFT REPORT, STRINGFELLOW FACILITY, REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY. TASK XIII: A TREATABILITY
STUDY, REVERSE OSMOSIS TREATMENT OF CONTAMINATED GROUNDUATER." JULY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: CAROLINE ROE
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - HEADQUARTERS
HAZARDOUS SITE CONTROL DIVISION, WH548E, 401 M STREET, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C.
PHONE: 201-475-9754
20460
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 61
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - AIR STRIPPING
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUQR INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: ROY F. WESTON, INC. FINAL REPORT. "IN SITU AIR STRIPPING OF SOILS PILOT STUDY." PREPARED FOR USATHMA. OCTOBER 1985.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
PHONE: 301-278-5201
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EYTK INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: BVER ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. "INSITU SOIL & GROUNDHATER REMEDIATION PROCESS AND SOIL AIR SAMPLING PROCEDURES." JULY
1987.
CONTACT NAME: CHARLES ASKINS TITLE: SALES MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: BVER ENVIRONMENTAL INC.
PHONE: 304-387-3225
O)
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT
Documents Sorted by Technology
OTHER - VACUUM EXTRACTION
Page:
Date:
62
01/26/1990
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FQSP INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: "VAPOR EXTRACTION AS AN IN SITU METHOD TO REMOVE VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FROM THE SOIL - EVALUATION OF RESULTS"
SUBMITTED TO EPA REGION IV FROM HARREB GEOTECHNIK
CONTACT NAME: HORST GUDEMANN
ORGANIZATION: HARREB GEOTECHNIK
PHONE: 0203/34-3474
COMMENTS: EUROPEAN VAPOR EXTRACTION TESTS
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT
Documents Sorted by Technology
OTHER - EVAPORATION
Page:
Date:
63
01/26/1990
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCBV INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: WASTECHEM CORP. MISC. DOCUMENT. (NO TITLE). CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS REGARDING "THE VRS SYSTEM: 1. SYSTEM
ADVANTAGES; 2. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION; 3. ADVANTAGES OVER EXISTING COMPARABLE TECHNOLOGIES; 4. HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT;
5. APPLICATION TO HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE CLEANUP; 6. COMPLETION OF FIELD TESTS."
CONTACT NAME: DAVID ENEGESS TITLE: ENGINEER
ORGANIZATION: WASTECHEM CORPORATION
ONE KALISA WAY, PARAMUS, NJ 07652
PHONE: 201-599-2900
COMMENTS: NOW WORKING FOR JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 181 CHERRY VALLEY ROAD PRINCETON, NJ 08540 609-924-3420
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 64
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - PHASE SEPARATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EURW INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: HART CROWSER. "SITE REMEDIATION DOCUMENTATION REPORT SOURCE CONTROL REMEDIAL ACTION, QUEEN CITY FARMS, WASHINGTON."
EPA-J-1264-08. PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA REGION 10. JANUARY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION X
1200 SIXTH AVENUE, SEATTLE, WA 98101
PHONE: 206-442-5810
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EXNU INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA. "A HOT WATER FLUIDIZATION PROCESS FOR CLEANING
OIL-CONTAMINATED BEACH SAND."
CONTACT NAME: PAUL G. MIKOLAJ
ORGANIZATION: UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA, CA
CO
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 65
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - PRECIPITATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EVAF INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: TWIDUELL, L.G. "METAL VALUE RECOVERY FROM METAL FINISHING HYDROXIDE SLUDGES: SELECTIVE REMOVAL OF IRON AND RECOVERY
OF CHROMIUM." CR-8122533-01-0. PREPARED FOR MONTANA COLLEGE OF MINERAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. JULY 1986.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZUR INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA, OFFICE OF RADIATION PROGRAMS. "INTERIM RADIUM-326 EFFLUENT GUIDANCE FOR PHOSPHATE CHEMICALS AND PHOSPHATE
FERTILIZER MANUFACTURING, STATEMENT OF CONSIDERATIONS." AUGUST 1974.
CONTACT NAME: ANDRE DuPONT
ORGANIZATION: NATIONAL LIME ASSOCIATION
PHONE: 703-243-LIME
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: A< .„.,-£{
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - SOIL GAS VAPOR EXTRACTION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUQV INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: REDRAFT PREDESIGN REPORT, PONDERS CORNER, WASHINGTON." EPA-62-ON22. PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA. JANUARY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION X
1200 SIXTH AVENUE, SEATTLE, UA 98101
PHONE: 206-442-5810
O)
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 67
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - CHELATION AND EXTRACTION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EXNJ INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ENVIRESPONSE, INC. "LEAD EXTRACTION PROCESS." JULY 1986.
CONTACT NAME: ROBERT EVANGEL ISTA
ORGANIZATION: ENVIRESPONSE
GSA RARITAN DEPOT, UOODBRIDGE AVE, BUILDING 209, BAY F, EDISON, NJ 88037
PHONE: 201-548-9660
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: „.._,.,,'?
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MECHANICAL AERATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUYY INFORMATION TYPE: QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ROY F. WESTON, INC. "PILOT STUDY REPORT, TRIANGLE CHEMICAL COMPANY, BRIDGE CITY, TX." PREPARED FOR TEXAS WATER
COMMISSION AND U.S. EPA. MARCH 1986.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION VI
1445 ROSS AVENUE, 12TH FLOOR, SUITE 1200, DALLAS, TX 75202
PHONE: 214-655-6444
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 69
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - INSITU SOIL AIR STRIPPING
22™1HLNUM.!S;R: ITS-PDI-RT-CBYB INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE, INC. "REVISED DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT, SOUTH TACOMA WELL 1ZA."175-PD1-RT-CBYB-1. PREPARED FOR
U.S. EPA. JANUARY 1986.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION X
1200 SIXTH AVENUE, SEATTLE, WA 98101
PHONE: 206-442-5810
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUTN INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS. "PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND SPECIFICATIONS—MODIFICATION AND EXPANSION OF EXISTING SOIL GAS
VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM, TIME OIL CO. PROPERTY--S. TACOMA CHANNEL, WELL 12A PROJECT." DECEMBER 1985.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
PHONE: 301-278-5201
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUTQ INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS. "PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PILOT SCALE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION SOIL GAS VAPOR
EXTRACTION SYSTEM,TIME OIL COMPANY SITE." PREPARED FOR US ARMY CORP. OF ENGINEERS. DECEMBER 1985.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
PHONE: 301-278-5201
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EVAL INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: MURPHY, D. "CONTAMINANTS WILL BE STEAM-CLEANED FROM POLLUTED SOIL." LOS ANGELES TIMES. THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 1987.
CONTACT NAME: DEAN MURPHY TITLE: STAFF WRITER
ORGANIZATION: LOS ANGELES TIMES NEWPAPER
L.A. TIMES, LOS ANGELES, CA
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWHF INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: CANONIE ENVIRONMENTAL. "CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTATION IN-SITU SOIL AERATION PILOT STUDY, FAIRCHILD SAN JOSE FACILITY."
PREPARED FOR FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION.
CONTACT NAME: LEO LEVENSON
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION IX
215 FREMONT STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
PHONE: 415-974-8071
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWHG INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: CANONIE ENVIRONMENTAL. "REVISED PROPOSED PILOT STUDY IN-SITU SOIL AERATION, FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION,
SAN JOSE SITE." PREPARED FOR FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION.
CONTACT NAME: LEO LEVENSON
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION IX
215 FREMONT STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
PHONE: 415-974-8071
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 70
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - INSITU SOIL AIR STRIPPING
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EXNK INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: "SCOPE OF WORK-FIELD EVALUATION OF 'TERRA-VAC1 CORRECTIVE ACTION TECHNOLOGY AT A FLORIDA L.U.S.T. SITE." JULY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - HEADQUARTERS
401 M STREET, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZYK INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: CH2M HILL. "OPERABLE UNIT FEASIBILITY STUDY. PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT. VERONA WELL FIELD, THOMAS SOLVENT COMPANY,
RAYMOND ROAD FACILITY, BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN." PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA HAZARDOUS SITE CONTROL DIVISION. REM/FIT.
ZONE II. JUNE 1985.
CONTACT NAME: TOM THOMAS TITLE: REGIONAL PROJECT MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION V
230 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET, CHICAGO, IL 60604
PHONE: 312-886-1434
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCAH INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: TOXIC TREATMENT, LTD.-SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA."ENGINEERING ASSMT. OF ATW'S IN SITU SOIL DETOXIFICATION SYSTEM
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AT PACIFIC COMMERCE CENTER, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA." (NUS PROJECT NO. Y707). AUGUST 1986.
CONTACT NAME: MICHAEL RIDOSH TITLE: VICE PRESIDENT
ORGANIZATION: TOXIC TREATMENTS (USA) INC.
901 MARINERS ISLAND BLVD, SUITE 315, SAN MATED, CALIFORNIA 94404
PHONE: 213-428-8864
£ DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCBN INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
01 REFERENCE: WILSON, D.J., DEPT. OF CHEM., VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY. DRAFT TECHNICAL REPORT. "MATHEMATICAL MODELING OF SOIL
CLEAN-UP BY IN-SITU AERATION." FOR AWARE INCORPORATED. JUNE 1987.
CONTACT NAME: TIMOTHY TRAVERS TITLE: REGIONAL PROJECT MANAGER
* ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION III
841 CHESTNUT STREET, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
PHONE: 215-597-8751
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCBP INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: TERRA VAC, INC. "VACUUM EXTRACTION PILOT TEST TYSON'S SUPERFUND SITE - UPPER MERION TOWNSHIP, PENNSYVANIA." JUNE
1987.
CONTACT NAME: TIMOTHY TRAVERS TITLE: REGIONAL PROJECT MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION III
841 CHESTNUT STREET, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
PHONE: 215-597-8751
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCFK INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: WILSON, D.J. "PREDICTION OF UPPER BOUNDS TO THE TIME REQUIRED TO REACH A MEAN SOIL CONCENTRATION OF VOLATILES OF 50
PPB AT THE TYSON SITE." PREPARED FOR AWARE INCORPORATED. JULY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: TIMOTHY TRAVERS TITLE: REGIONAL PROJECT MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION III
841 CHESTNUT STREET, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
PHONE: 215-597-8751
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 71
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - INSITU SOIL AIR STRIPPING
««T INFORMATION TYPE:""iNFORMATioN/DATA"oN"iN-siTU
REFERENCE: ASSORTED ARTICLES. "THE TOXIC TREATMENTS BULLETIN." VOLUME 1, NUMBER 1. SPRING 1987.
CONTACT NAME: MICHAEL RIDOSH TITLE- VICE PRESIDENT
ORGANIZATION: TOXIC TREATMENTS (USA) INC.
,>„,«..- 291 MA.!SIN.ERS ISLAND BLVD' SUITE 315' SAN MATE°. CALIFORNIA 94404
PHONE: 213-428-8864
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCLK INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: LA MORI, P.N. AND M. RIDOSH. SUMMARY PAPER. "IN SITU TREATMENT PROCESS FOR REMOVAL OF VOLATILE HYDROCARBONS FROM
SOILS: RESULTS OF PROTOYPE TEST." PRESENTED AT THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON NEW FRONTIERS FOR HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT.
CONTACT NAME: MICHAEL RIDOSH TITLE: VICE PRESIDENT
ORGANIZATION: TOXIC TREATMENTS (USA) INC.
901 MARINERS ISLAND BLVD, SUITE 315, SAN MATED, CALIFORNIA 94404
PHONE: 213-428-8864
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCLL INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: TOXIC TREATMENTS (USA) INC. "DETOXIFIER POTENTIAL CAPABILITIES."NEWSLETTER, NOVEMBER 1985.
CONTACT NAME: MICHAEL RIDOSH TITLE: VICE PRESIDENT
ORGANIZATION: TOXIC TREATMENTS (USA) INC.
901 MARINERS ISLAND BLVD, SUITE 315, SAN MATED, CALIFORNIA 94404
PHONE: 213-428-8864
£ DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCLM INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
05 REFERENCE: TOXIC TREATMENTS (USA) INC. "THE IN SITU DETOXIFIER."
CONTACT NAME: MICHAEL RIDOSH TITLE: VICE PRESIDENT
ORGANIZATION: TOXIC TREATMENTS (USA) INC.
901 MARINERS ISLAND BLVD, SUITE 315, SAN MATED, CALIFORNIA 94404
PHONE: 213-428-8864
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCLN INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: TOXIC TREATMENTS (USA) INC. "DETOXIFIER PERFORMANCE HISTORY PRIOR TO ACQUISITION BY TTUSA INC."
CONTACT NAME: MICHAEL RIDOSH TITLE: VICE PRESIDENT
ORGANIZATION: TOXIC TREATMENTS (USA) INC.
901 MARINERS ISLAND BLVD, SUITE 315, SAN MATED, CALIFORNIA 94404
PHONE: 213-428-8864
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCLQ INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: M. GHASSIMI. "INNOVATIVE IN SITU TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR CLEANUP OF CONTAMINATED SITES." PRESENTED AT THE THIRD
ANNUAL HAZARDOUS WASTE LAW AND MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. OCTOBER 1986. PORTLAND, OREGON. NOVEMBER
1986.
CONTACT NAME: MICHAEL RIDOSH TITLE: VICE PRESIDENT
ORGANIZATION: TOXIC TREATMENTS (USA) INC.
901 MARINERS ISLAND BLVD, SUITE 315, SAN MATED, CALIFORNIA 94404
PHONE: 213-428-8864
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 72
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/36/1990
OTHER - INSITU SOIL AIR STRIPPING
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCML INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: ROY F. WESTON, INC. "TASK ORDER 4. LABORATORY STUDY OF IN SITU VOLATILIZATION (ISV) TECHNOLOGY APPLIED TO FORT
CAMPBELL SOILS CONTAMINATED WITH JP-4." FINAL REPORT. PREPARED FOR USATHMA. MAY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: ERIC KAUFMAN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
PHONE: 301-671-2270
COMMENTS: INFO. ON LETTERKENNY SITE
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCMN INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: DYNAMAC CORPORATION. "LITERATURE REVIEW OF FORCED AIR VENTING TO REMOVE SUBSURFACE ORGANIC VAPORS FROM AQUIFERS AND
SOILS. SUBTASK STATEMENT NO. 3." SUBMITTED TO LT. EDWARD HEYSE, SUBTASK MONITOR, HQ AFESCK/RDV, TYNDALL AFB,
FLORIDA. REVISED JULY 1986.
CONTACT NAME: PAUL F. de PERCIN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-CONTAINMENT BRANCH, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7787
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCNE INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: ROY F. WESTON, INC. FINAL REPORT AND APPENDICES (2 VOLUMES). "TASK 11. IN ISTU SOLVENT STRIPPING FROM SOILS PILOT
STUDY." PREPARED FOR U.S. ARMY TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AGENCY. MAY 1985.
CONTACT NAME: ERIC KAUFMAN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
PHONE: 301-671-2270
COMMENTS: INFO. ON LETTERKENNY SITE
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCNV INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: SLIDE PRESENTATION. "VERONA WELL FIELD, THOMAS SOLVENT RAYMOND OPERABLE UNIT, SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION V
230 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET, CHICAGO, IL 60604
PHONE: 312-353-2000
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCRV INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: LIST OF REFERENCES. "IN SITU SOIL VENTING."
CONTACT NAME: CAROL RUSHIN TITLE: SITE MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION X
HAZARDOUS WASTE DIVISION, 1200 SIXTH AVENUE, SEATTLE, WA 98101
PHONE: 206-442-2709
COMMENTS: PONDERS CORNERS SITE
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCRZ INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: RIEDEL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CO. AND RADIAN CORPORATION. "SUBSURFACE VENTING OF HYDROCARBON VAPORS FROM AN
UNDERGROUND AQUIFER." PREPARED FOR AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE. API PUBLICATION NO. 4410. SEPTEMBER 1985.
CONTACT NAME: PAUL F. de PERCIN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-CONTAINMENT BRANCH, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7787
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 73
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - INSITU SOIL AIR STRIPPING
c«ri:nu !S«I?1;RT,~,FCSD INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMAnON/DATA"oN~lN-SITU
REFERENCE: BOWMAN, ROBERT S. "MANIPULATION OF THE VADOSE ZONE TO ENHANCE TOXIC ORGANIC CHEMICAL REMOVAL." PRESENTED AT THE
SECOND INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON: BEHAVIOR OF POLLUTANTS IN POROUS MEDIA. BET DAGAN, ISRAEL. JUNE 1987.
CONTACT NAME: DR. THOMAS SPITTLER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION I
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, 60 WESTVIEW STREET, LEXINGTON, MA 02173
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCSG INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: MALOT, JAMES AND P.R. WOOD.."LOW COST, SITE SPECIFIC TOTAL APPROACH TO DECONTAMINATION."
CONTACT NAME: DR. THOMAS SPITTLER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION I
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, 60 WESTVIEW STREET, LEXINGTON, MA 02173
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCSH INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: HOAG, GEORGE E. REPORT. "INDUCED SOIL VENTING."
CONTACT NAME: DR. THOMAS SPITTLER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION I
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, 60 WESTVIEW STREET, LEXINGTON, MA 02173
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCSJ INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS. "INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEMS TO REMOVE VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS FROM SOILS." SEPTEMBER 1986.
m CONTACT NAME: DR. THOMAS SPITTLER
& ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION I
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, 60 WESTVIEW STREET, LEXINGTON, MA 02173
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCSN INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: KOLTUNIAK, DONNA L. "IN-SITU AIR STRIPPING CLEANS CONTAMINATED SOIL." JOURNAL. "CHEMICAL ENGINEERING." AUGUST 1986.
CONTACT NAME: DONNA KOLTUNIAK
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
USATHAMA, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MD 21009
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCTM INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: TEXAS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. "FORCE VENTING TO REMOVE GASOLINE VAPOR FROM A LARGE-SCALE MODEL AQUIFER." PREPARED
FOR AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE. JANUARY 1984.
CONTACT NAME: PAUL F. de PERCIN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-CONTAINMENT BRANCH, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7787
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCTN INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE- AWARE INCORPORATED. FINAL REPORT. "PHASE I. ZONE I SOIL DECONTAMINATION THROUGH IN-SITU VAPOR STRIPPING PROCESSES."
" PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA. SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM. CONTRACT NO. 68-02-4446. APRIL 1987.
CONTACT NAME: PAUL F. de PERCIN
ORGANIZATION: jjJ^J^T°^HENT BRANCHf 26 w. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7787
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 74
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - INSITU SOIL AIR STRIPPING
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCUC INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: SCIENCE ASSOCIATES. FIELD REPORT FOR "INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE SURVEY re MCCALL LAND FILL ACTIVITY ON NOVEMBER 22, 1983."
NOVEMBER 1983.
CONTACT NAME: RONALD E. LEWIS TITLE: ASSOCIATE WASTE MANAGEMENT ENGINEER
ORGANIZATION: STATE OF CALIF - DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION, 714-744 P STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
PHONE: 916-322-3670
COMMENTS: STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPT. OF HEALTH SERVICES TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
SECTION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCUU INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: STERRETT, R.J.; G.D. BARNHILL; AND M.E. RANSOM. ABSTRACT. "SITE ASSESSMENT AND ON-SITE TREATMENT OF A PESTICIDE
SPILL IN THE VADOSE ZONE."
CONTACT NAME: CAROL RUSHIN TITLE: SITE MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION X
HAZARDOUS WASTE DIVISION, 1200 SIXTH AVENUE, SEATTLE, WA 98101
PHONE: 206-442-2709
COMMENTS: PONDERS CORNERS SITE
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTANINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 75
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MAGNETIC SEPARATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWDS INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. DOE, ORNL. "DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORT ON MAGNETIC SEPARABILITY OF URANIUM FROM SAND."
CONTACT NAME: ALLEN PORELL
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOE/HAZWRAP
DOE HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM, OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY, P.O. BOX Y, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: 615-576-0518
COMMENTS: INFO ON PARAMAGNETIC SEPARATION
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 76
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MULTIPLE TECHNOLOGIES
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUOZ INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. DOE. "DOE HAZARDOUS UASTE REMEDIAL ACTIONS PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT FOR FY 1986." HAZWRAP SUPPORT CONTRACTOR
OFFICE. MAY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
COMMENTS: OAK RIDGE NATIONAL RESEARCH LABS OR IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABS OR HANFORD/RICHLAND, WASHINGTON. NO
SINGLE CONTACT PERSON
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWFU INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: DAMES & MOORE. "DRAFT-ALTERNATIVES SCREENING REPORT." PREPARED FOR THE KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.
CONTACT NAME: JOHN KEMMERER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION IX
215 FREMONT STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
PHONE: 415-974-8071
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWGZ INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: BRETON,M.,M. ARIENTI, P. FRILLICI, M. KRAVETT, S. PALMER, A. SHAYER, N. SURPRENANT. "PROJECT SUMMARY; TECHNICAL
RESOURCE DOCUMENT TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR SOLVENT CONTAINING WASTES." EPA/600/S2-86/095. PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA,
ORD. FEBRUARY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EXNL INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ARTHUR D. LITTLE, INC. "REMEDIAL MEASURES INITIATION DECISION REPORT: VOLUME 11-REMEDIAL MEASURES TECHNOLOGIES."
PREPARED FOR NAVAL CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORY. JUNE 1987.
CONTACT NAME: NICHOLAS J. OLAH TITLE: CHEMICAL ENGINEER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. NAVY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIV.
NAVAL CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORY, BUILDING 560, ROOM 242 B. PORT HUENEME, CA 93043
PHONE: 805-982-4191
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZYR INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ROY F. WESTON, INC. "ENGINEERING EVALUATION/COST ANALYSIS CARTER INDUSTRIAL SITE, DETROIT, MICHIGAN." PREPARED FOR
U.S. EPA. DECEMBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: WILLIAM SIMES
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION V
EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM, 230 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET, CHICAGO, IL 60601
PHONE: 312-353-2000
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCCD INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: IDAHO NAT'L ENGINEERING LAB., EG&G. EGG-HWM-7796. INFORMAL REPORT. "EVALUATION OF TECHNOLOGIES TO TREAT SOILS
CONTAMINATED WITH HAZARDOUS WASTE." U.S. DOE CONTRACT DE-AC07-761D01570. AUGUST 1987
CONTACT NAME: ANN M. BOEHMER TITLE: CHEMICAL ENGINEER
ORGANIZATION: INEL
EG&G IDAHO. INC., P.O. BOX 1625, IDAHO FALLS, ID 83415
PHONE: 208-526-9105
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 77
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MULTIPLE TECHNOLOGIES
2™S!!!LMUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCCF INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL "DATA"
REFERENCE: NUS CORPORATION. "DRAFT EVALUATION OF SOURCE CONTROL.TECHNOLOGIES." FOR EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED. MAY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: VIC JENOSIK
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION HI
841 CHESTNUT STREET, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
PHONE: 215-597-9800
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCFQ INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. "RECLAMATION AND REDEVELOPMENT OF CONTAMINATED LAND: VOLUME 1. U.S. CASE STUDIES." ORD HWERL.
EAP/600/2-86/066. AUGUST 1986.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCMM INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: CH2M HILL. "BAYOU BONFOUCA SITE FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR SOURCE CONTROL." AND "BAYOU BONFOUCA SITE DRAFT PHASE
II FREASIBBILITY STUDY, MAY 8, 1986; REVISED JUNE 2, 1986." PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA, HAZARDOUS SITE CONTROL DIVISION.
CONTACT NAME: GARRETT BANDY
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION VI
1445 ROSS AVENUE, DALLAS, TX 75202
PHONE: 215-655-6444
*i DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCMZ INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
l\3 REFERENCE: LAMBERT, U.P.; L.J. BOVE AND W.E. SISK. "EVALUATION OF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES FOR TREATMENT OF CONTAMINATED SOILS.
[JOURNAL?] ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY."
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: ROY F. WESTON, INC
WESTON WAY, WEST CHESTER, PA 19380
PHONE: 215-692-3030
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCUD INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ROY F. WESTON, INC. "WESTERN STATES REFINING." SPILL PREVENTION & EMERGENCY RESPONSE DIVISION.
CONTACT NAME: MATTHEW MONSEES
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION IX
215 FREMONT STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
PHONE: 415-947-8071
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 78
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-EP-EVTE INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION. "FINAL TRIP REPORT FOR DATA COLLECTION VISITS TO U.S. EPA REGION IV AND TYNDALL
AIR FORCE BASE - BDAT WORK ASSIGNMENT." JULY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: JOAN 0. KNAPP TITLE: WORK ASSIGNMENT MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORP.
PHONE: 703-968-0900
COMMENTS: BDAT TEAM MEMBER - REM CONTRACTOR
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-EP-EXQX INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION. "FINAL TRIP REPORT FOR DATA COLLECTION FIELD VISIT TO BOLLING AIR FORCE BASE -
BDAT WORK ASSIGNMENT." JULY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: JOAN 0. KNAPP TITLE: WORK ASSIGNMENT MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORP.
PHONE: 703-968-0900
COMMENTS: BDAT TEAM MEMBER - REM CONTRACTOR
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-EP-EXSC INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION. "FINAL TRIP REPORT FOR DATA COLLECTION FIELD VISITS TO OAK RIDGE NATIONAL
LABORATORY - BDAT WORK ASSIGNMENT." JULY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: JOAN 0. KNAPP TITLE: WORK ASSIGNMENT MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORP.
PHONE: 703-968-0900
COMMENTS: BDAT TEAM MEMBER - REM CONTRACTOR
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-EP-EXUK INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION. "FINAL TRIP REPORT FOR DATA COLLECTION FIELD VISITS TO NEESA, NCEL, CDHS, AND
U.S. EPA REGION IX - BDAT." JULY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: JOAN 0. KNAPP TITLE: WORK ASSIGNMENT MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORP.
PHONE: 703-968-0900
COMMENTS: BDAT TEAM MEMBER - REM CONTRACTOR
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-EP-FALR INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION. "FINAL TRIP REPORT FOR DATA COLLECTION FIELD VISITS TO U.S. EPA REGION II, NEW
YORK, NY, U.S. EPA REGION II, EDISON, NJ, AND SARM REVIEW MEETING AT OHMSETT, NJ - BDAT WORK ASSIGNMENT." AUGUST
1987.
CONTACT NAME: JOAN 0. KNAPP TITLE: WORK ASSIGNMENT MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORP.
PHONE: 703-968-0900
COMMENTS: BDAT TEAM MEMBER - REM CONTRACTOR
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-EP-FBSB INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION. "DRAFT TRIP REPORT FOR DATA COLLECTION FIELD VISITS TO U.S. EPA REGION X.
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, U.S. DOE - HAMFORD, RICHLAND, WASHINGTON, AND U.S. DOE - INEL, IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO - BDAT WORK
ASSIGNMENT." AUGUST 1987.
CONTACT NAME: JOAN 0. KNAPP TITLE: WORK ASSIGNMENT MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORP.
PHONE: 703-968-0900
COMMENTS: BDAT TEAM MEMBER - REM CONTRACTOR
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 79
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
™«cn« INFORMATION TYPE: ~NO QUMTi™ivE~ANALYnCAL~DATA .................................
REFERENCE: COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION. "FINAL TRIP REPORT FOR THE DATA COLLECTION FIELD VISIT TO U.S. EPA REGION III.
PENNSYLVANIA. ' SEPTEMBER 1987.
™r.T™ °- KNAPP TITLE: UORI( ASSIGNMENT MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORP.
PHONE: 703-968-0900
COMMENTS: BOAT TEAM MEMBER - REM CONTRACTOR
™~fc*"™~~™™"™**-*'"'"*~™™~~~™™™ — »••••••••<••*• — — •" — • V V • ^ MVWHHMWWWMH *••••• WK»KMWVW«WWWWWWMM_ • • 4 • • «MH_A«q.VVH««*H_ to « VVVVV««B «VHKKW*3«l»«*»a>«M««H«W«
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-EP-FGQP INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION. "DRAFT TRIP REPORT FOR THE DATA COLLECTION FIELD VISIT TO U.S. EPA REGION V,
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS - BOAT WORK ASSIGNMENT." OCTOBER 1987.
CONTACT NAME: JOAN 0. KNAPP TITLE: WORK ASSIGNMENT MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORP.
PHONE: 703-968-0900
COMMENTS: BOAT TEAM MEMBER - REM CONTRACTOR
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-EP-FQKE INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION. "FINAL TRIP REPORT FOR DATA COLLECTION FIELD VISIT TO U.S. EPA REGION I IN BOSTON
AND LEXINGTON, MA - BOAT WORK ASSIGNMENT." DECEMBER, 1987
CONTACT NAME: JOAN 0. KNAPP TITLE: WORK ASSIGNMENT MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORP.
PHONE: 703-968-0900
COMMENTS: BDAT TEAM MEMBER - REM CONTRACTOR
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-EP-FQYN INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORP. "FINAL TRIP REPORT FOR THE DATA COLLECTION FIELD VISITS TO U.S. EPA REGION VII, KANSAS
CITY, KS AND U.S. EPA REGION VI, DALLAS, TX. -BDAT WORK ASSN." DECEMBER, 1987
CONTACT NAME: JOAN 0. KNAPP TITLE: WORK ASSIGNMENT MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORP.
PHONE: 703-968-0900
COMMENTS: BDAT TEAM MEMBER - REM CONTRACTOR
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-EP-FQYQ INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION. "FINAL TRIP REPORT FOR THE DATA COLLECTION FIELD VISIT TO U.S. EPA REGION V,
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS-BOAT WORK ASSIGNMENT." DECEMBER, 1987
CONTACT NAME: JOAN 0. KNAPP TITLE: WORK ASSIGNMENT MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORP.
PHONE: 703-968-0900
COMMENTS: BDAT TEAM MEMBER - REM CONTRACTOR
DOCUMENT'NUMBER: 980-TS1-EP-FRBQ INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION. "REVISED FINAL TRIP REPORT FOR DATA COLLECTION FIELD VISITS TO SHIRCO INFRARED
SYSTEMS, INC. AND U.S. EPA HWERL-BDAT WORK ASSIGNMENT." DECEMBER, 1987
CONTACT NAME: JOAN 0. KNAPP TITLE: WORK ASSIGNMENT MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORP.
PHONE: 703-968-0900
COMMENTS: BOAT TEAM MEMBER - REM CONTRACTOR
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 80
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EURB INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: CH2M HILL. "FINAL WORK PLAN FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY, PONDERS CORNER, WASHINGTON." EPA-112-OL22. PREPARED FOR U.S.
EPA, HAZARDOUS SITE CONTROL DIVISON. APRIL 1984.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION X
1200 SIXTH AVENUE, SEATTLE, WA 98101
PHONE: 206-442-5810
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EURC INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: CH2M HILL." FINAL WORK PLAN WELLWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES PONDERS CORNER, LAKEWOOD." EPA-112-0-22. PREPARED FOR
U.S HAZARDOUS SITE CONTROL DIVISION. MAY 1984.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION X
1200 SIXTH AVENUE, SEATTLE, WA 98101
PHONE: 206-442-5810
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EURD INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: CH2M HILL." PUBLIC COMMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY PONDERS CORNER, WASHINGTON."EPA-112-OL22. PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA
HAZARDOUS SITE CONTROL DIVISION. JULY 1985.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION X
1200 SIXTH AVENUE, SEATTLE, WA 98101
^ PHONE: 206-442-5810
,g
01 DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EURR INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: AFESC, ENGINEERING & SERVICES LABORATORY. "FINAL REPORT: SOIL CHARACTERIZATION STUDY OF FORMER HERBICIDE STORAGE
SITE AT JOHNSTON ISLAND." OCTOBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: EG&G IDAHO, INC
P.O. BOX 1625, IDAHO FALLS, ID 83415
PHONE: 208-526-4225
COMMENTS: RECOMMEDED BY MAJOR TERRY STODDART
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUTL INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: AFESC, ENVIRONICS DIVISION. "HERBICIDE ORANGE MONITORING PROGRAM." PREPARED FOR AFESC, TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE.
APRIL 1984.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/AFESC
COMMENTS: AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUUC INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: EG&G IDAHO, INC."HERBICIDE ORANGE SITE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY EGLIN AFB." PREPARED FOR AFESC, TYNDALL AIR FORCE
BASE. JANUARY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/AFESC
COMMENTS: AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS DOCUMENT
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 81
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
22™!I!LNUMB!R: 980-TS1-RT-EUUE INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: EG&G IDAHO, INC. "HERBICIDE ORANGE SITE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY NAVAL CONSTRUCTION BATTALION CENTER." PREPARED FOR
AFESC, TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE. JANUARY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/AFESC
COMMENTS: AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUXP INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: MASON, B.J. "STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF FIXED SOILS DATA FROM THE WESTERN PROCESSING SITE IN KENT WASHINGTON."
PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LAB, ORD, LAS VEGAS, NV. JANUARY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: KENNETH BROWN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOE, ORD
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LAB, LAS VEGAS, NV 89114
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUYU INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: PEER CONSULTANTS, INC. "REPORT OF THE DOD/EPA/DOE WORKING GROUP TO EXPLORE HAZARDOUS WASTE TECHNOLOGY COOPERATIVE
EFFORTS." PREPARED FOR EPA/DOD/DOE. DECEMBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: JOHN KINGSCOTT
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - HEADQUARTERS
401 M STREET, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EVAG INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: MEDLIN, W.E., S. SHEALY AND J.A. BROSCIOUS. "REMEDIAL MEASURES INITIATION DECISION REPORT(IDR) LITERATURE REVIEW."
PREPARED FOR NAVAL CIVIL ENGINEERING LAB (NCEL). JANUARY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWFY INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, INC. "REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY AT SHARPE ARMY DEPOT (SHAD)."
PREPARED FOR U.S. ARMY TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AGENCY, INSTALLATION RESTORATION DIVISION. MAY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: NICK MORGAN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION IX
TOXIC AND WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION, 215 FREMONT STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
PHONE: 415-454-8603
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWGQ INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: SHAREEF, G., A. MILES, B. POST. "PROJECT SUMMARY; HAZARDOUS/TOXIC AIR POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY: A LITERATURE
REVIEW." EPA-600/S2-84-194. PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA, ORD. JANUARY 1985.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 82
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWGT INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: WOLBACH, C., R. WHITNEY, U. SPANNAGEL. "PROJECT SUMMARY; DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF A HAZARDOUS WASTE REACTIVITY
TESTING PROTOCOL." EPA-6600/S2-84-057. PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA, ORD. APRIL 1984.
CONTACT NAME: NAOMI BARKLEY
ORGANIZATION: PEI ASSOCIATES, INC
11499 CHESTER ROAD, CINCINNATI, OH 45246
COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED BY DONALD SANNING.
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWVP INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES DIVISION & ENGINEERING DIVISION, ORNL, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. "THE OAK
RIDGE ABOVE-GRADE DISPOSAL FACILITY DEMONSTRATION: BARRIERS TO GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION."
CONTACT NAME: LESLIE DOLE TITLE: PROGRAM MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: WMTC, DOE, ORNL
P.O. BOX P. BUILDING K 1000 MS-183, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: 615-576-7421
COMMENTS: INFO ON THE PEPPER STEEL SITE AND OTHERS
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWVR INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: TRABALKA, J.R. "OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM."
CONTACT NAME: LESLIE DOLE TITLE: PROGRAM MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: WMTC, DOE, ORNL
P.O. BOX P, BUILDING K 1000 MS-183, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: 615-576-7421
COMMENTS: INFO ON THE PEPPER STEEL SITE AND OTHERS
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWWD INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: WASTE IMMOBILIZATION TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT SECTION, CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION, ORNL. "A
REVIEW OF EPA, DOE, AND NRC REGULATIONS REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF SOLID WASTE PERFORMANCE CRITERIA."
CONTACT NAME: LESLIE DOLE TITLE: PROGRAM MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: WMTC, DOE, ORNL
P.O. BOX P, BUILDING K 1000 MS-183, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: 615-576-7421
COMMENTS: INFO ON THE PEPPER STEEL SITE AND OTHERS
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-KT-EXNF INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED. "DRAFT WORK PLAN ADDENDUM; SECOND-PHASE FEASIBILITY STUDY & REMEDIAL DESIGN." APRIL
1987.
CONTACT NAME: RICHARD SCWARTZ
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION II
EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL RESPONSE DIVISION, 26 FEDERAL PLAZA, NEW YORK, NY 10278
PHONE: 212-264-1252
COMMENTS: BOG CREEK SITE. MET AT REGION II, 7/22/87.
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT
Documents Sorted by Technology
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
Page: 83
Date: 01/26/1990
«««nu '8°-TS1-RT-EZUE INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: RADIAN CORPORATION. »3M FOAM EVALUATION FOR VAPOR MITIGATION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM." PREPARED FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
CONTROL PRODUCTS, 3M CENTER. AUGUST 1986.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: RADIAN CORPORATION
10395 OLD PLACERVILLE ROAD, SACRAMENTO, CA 95827
PHONE: 916-362-5332
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZUV INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: ERM-SOUTHWEST, INC. "WORK PLAN FOR FIELD STUDIES SUPPORTING RISK ASSESSMENT AND SOURCE CONTROL FEASIBILITY STUDIES
- SHERIDAN SITE COMMITTEE.11 JUNE 1987.
CONTACT NAME: RUTH ISRAELI
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION VI
1445 ROSS AVENUE, 12TH FLOOR, SUITE 1200, DALLAS, TX 75202
PHONE: 214-655-6444
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZUW INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: ROY F. WESTON, INC. "DRAFT SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT - UNITED CREOSOTING COMPANY SITE CONROE, TEXAS (SECTION 4 -
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AND CONTAMINANT MIGRATION)." MAY 1985.
CONTACT NAME: DONALD WILLIAMS
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION VI
1445 ROSS AVENUE, 12TH FLOOR, SUITE 1200, DALLAS, TX
PHONE: 214-655-6444
75202
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZYW INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: U.S. DOE - IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY. "WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS AT EG&G IDAHO, AN OVERVIEW." RECEIVED
AUGUST 1987.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: EG&G IDAHO, INC
P.O. BOX 1625, IDAHO FALLS, ID 83415
PHONE: 208-526-4225
COMMENTS: RECOMMEDED BY MAJOR TERRY STODDART
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZYX INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION '
REFERENCE: U.S. DOE - PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABORATORY, RICHLAND, WASHINGTON. "NORTHWEST HAZARDOUS WASTE - RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
AND DEMONSTRATION CENTER." (SLIDE PRESENTATION). RECEIVED AUGUST 1987.
CONTACT NAME: R. L. TREAT TITLE: PROGRAM MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: CHEMICAL PROCESS ENGINEERING SECTION
BATTELLE-PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABORATORIES, BATTELLE BOULEVARD, RICHLAND,WASHINGTON 99352
PHONE: 509-376-0330
COMMENTS: IN SITE VITRIFICATION
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 84
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZYY INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: U.S. DOE - HANFORD, WASHINGTON. "WASTE RECEIVING AND PROCESSING (WRAP) FACILITY.11 ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL, ROCKWELL
HANFORD OPERATIONS. RECEIVED AUGUST 1987.
CONTACT NAME: STEVEN J. PHILLIPS
ORGANIZATION: DOE/ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL
ROCKWELL HANFORD OPERATIONS, P.O. BOX 800, RICHLAND, WASHINGTON 99352
PHONE: 509-373-3468
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZZE INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ROY F. WESTON, INC. "CASTLEWOOD REMOVAL ACTION INTERIM REPORT."PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA. JANUARY 1986.
CONTACT NAME: CARL BAILEY
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION VII
726 MINNISOTA STREET, KANSAS CITY, KS 66101
PHONE: 913-236-2891
----------______.--____________,«____.___.__-_____________________-_______«,_________.______.__________.__.____..__..----___.---
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCAL INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL. "PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS FOR A TEST DEMONSTRATION MULTILAYER PROTECTIVE
BARRIER COVER SYSTEM." PREPARED FOR U.S. DOE. MARCH 1985.
CONTACT NAME: STEVEN J. PHILLIPS
ORGANIZATION: DOE/ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL
ROCKWELL HANFORD OPERATIONS, P.O. BOX 800, RICHLAND, WASHINGTON 99352
PHONE: 509-373-3468
£ DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCAM INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
(0 REFERENCE: ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL. "ENGINEERED BARRIER TEST FACILITY STATUS REPORT: 1984." PREPARED FOR U.S. DOE. FEBRUARY
1985.
CONTACT NAME: STEVEN J. PHILLIPS
ORGANIZATION: DOE/ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL
ROCKWELL HANFORD OPERATIONS, P.O. BOX 800, RICHLAND, WASHINGTON 99352
PHONE: 509-373-3468
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCAN INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL. "ESTIMATION OF GEOMECHANICAL SUBSIDENCE AT HANFORD LOW-LEVEL SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES:
EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS BASED ON GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING." PREPARED FOR U.S. DOE. MARCH 1985.
CONTACT NAME: STEVEN J. PHILLIPS
ORGANIZATION: DOE/ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL
ROCKWELL HANFORD OPERATIONS, P.O. BOX 800, RICHLAND, WASHINGTON 99352
PHONE: 509-373-3468
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCAR INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL. "NEAR-FIELD EVALUATION OF SUBSIDENCE AND GEOTECHNICAL REMEDIAL ACTIONS AT HAZARDOUS AND
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS DISPOSAL SITES." PREPARED FOR U.S. DOE. MARCH 1985.
CONTACT NAME: STEVEN J. PHILLIPS
ORGANIZATION: DOE/ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL
ROCKWELL HANFORD OPERATIONS, P.O. BOX 800, RICHLAND, WASHINGTON 99352
PHONE: 509-373-3468
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT
Documents Sorted by Technology
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
Page:
Date:
85
01/26/1990
22S2ISL ^5»?;™ 980-TS1-RT-FCFT INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: APPLIED GEOTECHNOLOGY INC. "VOLUME 1 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION TACOMA TAR PITS, TACOMA, WASHINGTON AGI JOB NO.
14,880.002" FOR WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS CO. JOSEPH SIMON & SONS INC., HYGRADE FOOD PRODUCTS CORP., BURLINGTON
NORTHERN RAILROAD CO. MARCH 1986.
CONTACT NAME: WAYNE GROTHEER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION X
1200 SIXTH AVENUE, SEATTLE, WA
PHONE: 206-442-2723
COMMENTS: TACOMA TAR PITS SITE
98101
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCLD INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. "SUPERFUND TECHNOLOGY. ENGINEERING RESEARCH PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND PLANS." OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION. ORD HWERL. MAY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL. 26 U. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCQQ INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. "PROJECT SUMMARY. GUIDELINES FOR THE USE OF CHEMICALS IN REMOVING HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES DISCHARGES." ORD.
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY. EPA-600S2-81-205. OCTOBER 1981.
CONTACT NAME: DR. JOHN BRUGGER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-RELEASES CONTROL BRANCH, WOODBRIDGE AVENUE, EDISON, NJ 08837-3579
PHONE: 201-340-6634
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCQS INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: EDELMAN, TH. AND M. DE BRUIN. NOTICE OF SAMPLE PREPARATION FOR PROCEDURE. "BACKGROUND VALUES OF 32 ELEMENTS IN
DUTCH TOPSOILS, DETERMINED WITH NON-DESTRUCTIVE NEUTRON ACTIVATION ANALYSIS."
CONTACT NAME: RICHARD TRAVER TITLE: STAFF ENGINEER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-RELEASES CONTROL BRANCH, WOODBRIDGE AVENUE, EDISON, NJ 08837
PHONE: 201-321-6677
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCQV INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: PAGE, R.A. AND E. SUIRES-HENNESSY. "A SAFE LEVEL FOR LEAD IN SOIL AND DUST." WELSH OFFICE UNITED KINGDOM.
CONTACT NAME: RICHARD TRAVER TITLE: STAFF ENGINEER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-RELEASES CONTROL BRANCH, WOODBRIDGE AVENUE, EDISON, NJ 08837
PHONE: 201-321-6677 .
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-Tsi-RT-Fcow INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ABSTRACTS. "1986-1987 AB685 WASTE REDUCTION GRANT PROJECTS." CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES.
CONTACT NAME:
ORGANIZATION:
PHONE:
COMMENTS:
FREDERICK A. TORNATORE TITLE: ASSOCIATE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPECIALIST
STATE OF CALIF - DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION, 714-744 P STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
916-324-1807
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DEPT. OF HEALTH SERVICES TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY &
POLICY DEVEL. SECTION
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 86
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
— -— ».4-_-« — •„•_ — • — «—.. _ _ _ • •.— — .. — _ .. — _ » .. — _ _ •. _ _____• — m _ _ « _ M_ — • • „ _ _ _ _ • _ « _ _ _ ___.« -. . .. _ __ ~ * — » _____ _.* «.«.-,«. — «, — ..••- — -. V - •» •* — ... — -.«.-,«.— -• — — — «• — •• — ••—••
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCQY INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: PROJECT ABSTRACTS. "1985-86 HAZARDOUS WASTE REDUCTION PROJECTS."
CONTACT NAME: FREDERICK A. TORNATORE TITLE: ASSOCIATE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPECIALIST
ORGANIZATION: STATE OF CALIF - DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION, 714-744 P STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
PHONE: 916-324-1807
COMMENTS: STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DEPT. OF HEALTH SERVICES TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY &
POLICY DEVEL. SECTION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCTK INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: CASANOVA, J.N. AND LT. COL. R.F. OLFENBUTTEL. "PERMITTING OF REMEDIAL ACTION RESEARCH AT MILITARY SITES
CONTAMINATED WITH 2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN: PROBLEMS AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS."
CONTACT NAME: MAJOR TERRY STODDART
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/AFESC
PHONE: 904-283-2949
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 87
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
REFERENCE: CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE INC. "HOLLINGSWORTH SOLDERLESS TERMINAL COMPANY FEASIBILITY STUDY, FINAL REPORT."
EPA-119-FS1-RT-CMCF-1. MAY 1986.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET, NE, ATLANTA, GA 30365
PHONE: 404-347-4727
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 180-FS1-RT-DDJX INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE, INC. "PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT BURROWS SANITATION LANDFILL, HARTFORD,
MICHIGAN." PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA. EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL RESPONSE BRANCH. REGION V. 180-FS1-RT-DDJX-1. 80-5L76.5.
AUGUST 1986.
CONTACT NAME: TOM THOMAS TITLE: REGIONAL PROJECT MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION V
230 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET, CHICAGO, IL 60604
PHONE: 312-886-1434
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EURG INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ARTHUR D. LITTLE, INC."EVALUATION/SELECTION OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR TESTING WITH BASIN F MATERIALS."
PREPARED FOR USATHMA. FEBRUARY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
PHONE: 301-278-5201
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EURM INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TECHNICAL CENTER. "US ARMY MATERIAL COMMAND POLLUTION ABATEMENT AND INSTALLATION RESTORATION
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ACTIVITIES." PREPARED FOR USATHAMA. DECEMBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
PHONE: 301-278-5201
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EURV INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: UNIV. OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS, ENGINEERING EVALUATION BRANCH, STATIONARY SOURCE DIV. AND DEPT. OF CIVIL ENG.
"EVALUATION OF COMBUSTION PROCESSES FOR DESTRUCTION OF LIQUID ORGANIC WASTES." PREPARED FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AIR RESOURCES BOARD. OCTOBER 1985.
CONTACT NAME: ROBERT ADRIAN TITLE: SENIOR ENGINEER
ORGANIZATION: STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PHONE: 916-322-6025
DOCUMENT"NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EURZ INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: "TEST METHODS FOR SOLIDIFIED WASTE CHARACTERIZATION." DRAFT 31.10.85. RECEIVED FROM U.S. EPA. HWERL, CINCINNATI,
OHIO.
CONTACT NAME: CARLTON WILES, Ph.D.
ORGANIZATION: ^W|RL!^T^MENT BRANCH, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7795
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 88
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUTW INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. "SPILL CLEAN-UP AT A DEFUNCT INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISPOSAL SITE." THE 1978 NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CONTROL OF
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPILLS. MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA. APRIL 1978.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, WOODBRIDGE AVENUE, EDISON, NJ 08837-3579
PHONE: 212-264-2525
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUXK INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: MEMORANDUM-ERT. "FRENCH LIMITED MONTHLY REPORT." JUNE 1987.
CONTACT NAME: MARILYN PLITNICK
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION VI
AIR AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISION, 1201 ELM STREET, DALLAS, TX 75270
PHONE: 214-655-6715
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUXN INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: ALLIANCE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION. "STACK TESTING OF THE MOBILE PLASMA ARC UNIT." PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA. HWERL,
CINCINNATI, OH. OCTOBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: C.C. LEE
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
CO DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUZL INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
CO REFERENCE: NOYES DATA CORPORATION. (CONTENTS AND SUBJECT INDEX) "TREATMENT, RECOVERY, AND DISPOSAL PROCESSES FOR RADIOACTIVE
WASTES RECENT ADVANCES." 1983
CONTACT NAME: COLLEEN BARNES
ORGANIZATION: INEL
EG&G IDAHO INC., P.O. BOX 1625, IDAHO FALLS, ID 83415
PHONE: 208-526-4225
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EVAE INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: OPATKEN, E.J., H.K. HOWARD, AND J.J. BOND. "STRINGFELLOW LEACHATE TREATMENT WITH RBC." NATIONAL AICHE MEETING.
MIAMI, FL. NOVEMBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EVAH INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: SCHUK, W. AND S. JAMES. "TREATMENT OF LANDFILL LEACHATE AT PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS." NOVEMBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 89
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
2«r»II!LNUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EVAJ INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON~UQUID~WASTES
REFERENCE: SHUCKROW, A.J., A.P. PAJAK, AND C.J. TOUHILL. "GROUNDWATER AND LEACHATE TREATABILITY STUDIES AT FOUR SUPERFUND
SITES." PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA, LAND POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION, HWERL, ORD.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
PHONE:
w . *3 . tr M , ui\u
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
513-684-7537
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EVAS INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: CH2M HILL "FINAL FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY, PONDERS CORNER WELL WATER TREATMENT FACILITY." EPA-112-OL22. PREPARED
FOR U.S. EPA, HAZARDOUS SITE CONTROL DIVISION. MAY 1985.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION X
1200 SIXTH AVENUE, SEATTLE, UA 98101
PHONE: 206-442-5810
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWFN INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: IRVINE,R.L. "PROJECT SUMMARY; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT OF SEQUENCING BATCH REACTORS." EPA/600/S2-85/007. PREPARED FOR
U.S. EPA, ORD.MARCH 1985.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWFV INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. "CATALYTIC HYDRODECHLORINATION OF PCBs." PREPARED FOR
THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES HAZARDOUS WASTE REDUCTION PROGRAM. JUNE 1987.
CONTACT NAME: FREDERICK A. TORNATORE TITLE: ASSOCIATE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPECIALIST
ORGANIZATION: STATE OF CALIF - DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION, 714-744 P STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
PHONE: 916-324-1807
COMMENTS: STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DEPT. OF HEALTH SERVICES TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY &
POLICY DEVEL. SECTION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWGG INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: BRETON, M., M. ARIENTI, P. FRILLICI, M. KRAVETT, S. PALMER, A. SHAYER, N. SURPRENANT. "PROJECT SUMMARY; TECHNICAL
RESOURCE DOCUMENT: TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR DIOXIN-CONTAINING WASTES." EPA/600/S2-86/096. PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA,
ORD. FEBRUARY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 90
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWGK INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: GORMAN, P., R. HATHAWAY, D. WALLACE, A. TRENHOLM. "PROJECT SUMMARY; PRACTICAL GUIDE-TRIAL BURNS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE
INCINERATORS." EPA/600/S2-86/050. PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA, ORD. JULY 1986.
CONTACT NAME: DONALD OBERACKER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL,MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH LAB, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWVE INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY & WASTECHEH CORPORATION. "LABORATORY PERFORMANCE TESTING OF AN EXTRUDED BITUMEN
CONTAINING A SURROGATE, SODIUM NITRATE-BASED, LOW-LEVEL AQUEOUS WASTE." WASTE MANAGEMENT '87. VOL.3: LOW-LEVEL
WASTE. 1987. (EVALUATED WITH 980-TS1-RT-EWVC) pp. 524
CONTACT NAME: LESLIE DOLE TITLE: PROGRAM MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: WMTC, DOE, ORNL
P.O. BOX P, BUILDING K 1000 MS-183, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: 615-576-7421
COMMENTS: INFO ON THE PEPPER STEEL SITE AND OTHERS
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWVW INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: HAHN-MEITNER-INSTITUT FUR KERNOFORSCHUNG. "WASTE ISOLATION PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT AND IN-SITU TESTING." PROCEEDINGS
OF THE U.S./FRG BILATERAL WORKSHOP, BERLIN. OCTOBER 1979.
CONTACT NAME: LESLIE DOLE TITLE: PROGRAM MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: WMTC, DOE, ORNL
P.O. BOX P, BUILDING K 1000 MS-183, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: 615-576-7421
COMMENTS: INFO ON THE PEPPER STEEL SITE AND OTHERS
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWVX INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY. "OVERVIEW OF THE APPLICAIONS OF CEMENT-BASED IMMOBILIZATION TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPED
AT U.S. DOE FACILITIES."
CONTACT NAME: LESLIE DOLE TITLE: PROGRAM MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: WMTC, DOE, ORNL
P.O. BOX P, BUILDING K 1000 MS-183, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: 615-576-7421
COMMENTS: INFO ON THE PEPPER STEEL SITE AND OTHERS
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EXNM INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: SOUTHERN ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC. LABORATORY REPORT. "PEAK OIL COMPANY" PREPARED FOR HAZTECH. HAZTECH PROJECT
NO. 0321-85-0514. MAY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: HAZTECH
7820 PROFESSIONAL PLACE, TAMPA, FL 33637
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 91
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
«=Dc 980-TS1-RT-EXNN INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANnTAnVE^AiYnCAL~DATA
REFERENCE: j^^EPA. "THE EPA-ORD MOBILE INCINERATON SYSTEM." PRESENTED AT THE 1982 ASME NATIONAL WASTE PROCESSING CONFERENCE.
CONTACT NAME: DR. JOHN BRUGGER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-RELEASES CONTROL BRANCH, WOODBRIDGE AVENUE, EDISON, NJ 08837-3579
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EXNQ INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. "IMMEDIATE REMOVAL REQUEST FOR CONSERVATION CHEMICAL, GARY, IN - ACTION MEMROANDUM." REGION V. SOLID
WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE.
CONTACT NAME: WILLIAM SIMES
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION V
EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM, 230 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET, CHICAGO, IL 60601
PHONE: 312-353-2000
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EXNR INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. "FIGURE 6-1 SCHEDULE." TIME LINE GANTT CHART REPORT. ARROWHEAD MATERIAL HANDLING/THERMAL TREATMENT. JULY
1987.
CONTACT NAME: FRED BARTMAN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION V
230 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET, CHICAGO, IL 60601
£ PHONE: 312-353-2000
05 DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EXPA INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: ENVIRONMENT CANADA. "WASTEWATER TECHNOLOGY CENTER - ANNUAL REPORT - FISCAL YEAR 1985/86. 1986.
CONTACT NAME: PIERRE COTE
ORGANIZATION: ENVIRONMENT CANADA
WASTEWATER TECHNOLOGY CENTRE, P.O. BOX 5050, 867 LAKESHORE ROAD, BURLINGTON, ONTARIO L7R 4A6
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZTW INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: CHEMFIX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. "CHEMICAL STABILITY OF METAL SILICATES vs. METAL HYDROXIDES IN GROUND WATER CONDITIONS."
CONTACT NAME: ELIO ARNIELLA
ORGANIZATION: CDM - ATLANTA, GA
2100 RIVER EDGE PARKWAY, ATLANTA, GA 30328
PHONE: 404-952-8643
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZTX INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: CANONIE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CORP. "CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS - REMEDIAL ACTION, PEPPER'S STEEL AND ALLOYS
SITE."
CONTACT NAME: ELIO ARNIELLA
ORGANIZATION: CDM - ATLANTA, GA
2100 RIVER EDGE PARKWAY, ATLANTA, GA 30328
PHONE: 404-952-8643
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 92
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
\
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZUG INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION. "VERIFICATION STUDIES ON THE SOLIDIFICATION OF BASIN F
WASTES ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL." PREPARED FOR U.S. ARMY TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AGENCY. APRIL 1984.
CONTACT NAME: TOMMY MYERS
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZUH INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION. "LABORATORY-SCALE SOLIDIFICATION OF BASIN
F CONCENTRATE, ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL" PREPARED FOR U.S. ARMY TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AGENCY. JULY 1983.
CONTACT NAME: TOMMY MYERS
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZUM INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: ARTHUR D. LITTLE, INC., VERSAR, INC. "INORGANIC HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, II."
CONTACT NAME: ANDRE DuPONT
ORGANIZATION: NATIONAL LIME ASSOCIATION
PHONE: 703-243-LIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZUN INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: DuPONT, ANDRE, NATIONAL LIME ASOCIATION. "LIME TREATMENT OF LIQUID WASTE CONTAINING HEAVY METALS, RADIONUCLIDES,
AND ORGANICS, PART I - PROCESSES FOR TREATMENT." AUGUST 1986.
CONTACT NAME: ANDRE DuPONT
ORGANIZATION: NATIONAL LIME ASSOCIATION
PHONE: 703-243-LIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZUS INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: DuPONT, ANDRE, NATIONAL LIME ASSOCIATION. "LIME SOFTENING FOR DRINKING WATER TREATMENT NEUTRALIZATION -
PRECIPITATION OF HEAVY METALS AND RADIONUCLIDES COMMONLY FOUND IN SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER." APRIL 1986.
CONTACT NAME: ANDRE DuPONT
ORGANIZATION: NATIONAL LIME ASSOCIATION
PHONE: 703-243-LIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZYF INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: AIR FORCE ENGINEERING AND SERVICES CENTER. "ENVIRONICS CUMULATIVE TECHNICAL REPORT LISTING, 1963-1986."
ESL-TR-86-57. JANUARY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: HARI B. BINDAL
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/AFESC
ENVIRONICS DIVISION, ENGINEERING & SERVICES LABORATORY, TYNDALL AFB, FL 32403-6001
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZYG INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: ENGINEERING AND SERVICES LABORATORY, AFESC. "FY 87-R&D PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS ESL ENVIRONICS DIVISION." JULY 1986.
CONTACT NAME: LT COL ROBERT OLFENBUTTEL TITLE: CHIEF, ENVIRONICS DIVISION
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/AFESC
AFESC, ENVIRONICS DIVISION, TYNDALL AFB, FL 32403
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 93
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
980-TS1-RT-EZYH INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: CENTER FOR ECONOMICS RESEARCH, RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE. 1986 SCREENING SURVEY OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, DISPOSAL, AND RECYCLING FACILITIES-SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR TSDR FACILITIES ACTIVE IN 1985. PREPARED FOR
U.S*i EPA* DECEMBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: MICHAEL GRUBER TITLE: DIRECTOR
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - HEADQUARTERS
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE, 401 M STREET, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZYL INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: HDR INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. IN ASSOCIATION WITH ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC. "GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY AND SITE SAMPLING
INVESTIGATION. VOLUMES I & II. SUMMARY REPORT." PREPARED FOR WESTERN PROCESSING FACILITY, KENT, WASHINGTON. JUNE
1987.
CONTACT NAME: JUDY SCHWARTZ TITLE: SITE MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION X
1200 SIXTH AVENUE, SEATTLE, WA 98101
PHONE: 206-442-2684
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZYM INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. "ACME SOLVENT/PAGEL'S PIT." REGION V. SUPERFUND UPDATE. VOLUME I. JUNE 1987.
CONTACT NAME: DAVID FAVERO
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION V
230 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET, CHICAGO, IL 60604
PHONE: 312-886-4749
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZYV INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: U.S. DOE. "PROGRAM BACKGROUNDER: RADIOACTIVE DEFENSE WASTE MANAGEMENT AT HANFORD." AUGUST 1987.
CONTACT NAME: DR. ROBERT J. CASH
ORGANIZATION: WESTINGHOUSE/HANFORD
2401 STEVENS DRIVE, 325 BUILDING, ROOM 27, RICHLAND, WA 99352
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EZYZ INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: U.S.DOE. "BARRIER SYSTEM FOR FINAL DISPOSAL OF WASTE SITES." PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA. AUGUST 1987.
CONTACT NAME: STEVEN J. PHILLIPS
ORGANIZATION: DOE/ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL
ROCKWELL HANFORD OPERATIONS, P.O. BOX 800, RICHLAND, WASHINGTON 99352
PHONE: 509-373-3468
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCAB INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: S. BANERJEE, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON. "ELECTRO-DECONTAMINATION OF CHROME-CONTAMINATED SOILS."
CONTACT NAME: BANERJEE SUNIRMAL
ORGANIZATION: UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 94
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCAF INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: ATW, INC. & ROY F. UESTON, INC. "RECAP REPORT ON IN SITU DETOXIFICATION TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION REMEDIATION
PROJECT AT OVERTON, MOORE & ASSOCIATES. PACIFIC COMMERCE CENTER, LONG BEACH, CA." SEPTEMBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: MICHAEL HIGGINS
ORGANIZATION: STATE OF CALIF - DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION, 714-744 P STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
PHONE: 916-324-1807
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCAJ INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: TETRA TECH. "TREATMENT EVALUATION STUDY PACIFIC COMMERCE CENTER." PREPARED FOR TOXIC TREATMENTS, LTD. SYDNEY,
AUSTRALIA. OCTOBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: TETRA TECH (A HONEYWELL SUBSIDIARY)
TETRA TECH, PASADENA, CA
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCBZ INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: IDAHO NAT'L ENGINEERING LAB.; EG&G IDAHO, INC. EGG-2400, DIST. CATEGORY: UC-70A. FORMAL REPORT. "DEVELOPMENT OF
CRITERIA FOR RELEASE OF IDAHO NAT'L ENGINEERING LAB. SITES FOLLOWING DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING." U.S. DOE
CONTRACT NO. DE-AC07-761D01570. AUGUST 1986.
CONTACT NAME: COLLEEN BARNES
ORGANIZATION: INEL
EG&G IDAHO INC., P.O. BOX 1625, IDAHO FALLS, ID 83415
£ PHONE: 208-526-4225
CD DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCCA INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: IDAHO NAT'L ENGINEERING LAB. EGG-WT-7597. INFORMAL REPORT. "DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FOR THE STABILIZATION OF
INCINERATOR BOTTOM ASH AND SIZING BAGHOUSE DUST MATERIAL." DOE CONTRACT DE-AC07-761D01570. APRIL 1987
CONTACT NAME: ANN M. BOEHMER TITLE: CHEMICAL ENGINEER
ORGANIZATION: INEL
EG&G IDAHO, INC., P.O. BOX 1625, IDAHO FALLS, ID 83415
PHONE: 208-526-9105
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCCB INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: IDAHO NAT'L ENGINEERING LABORATORY. EG&G IDAHO. EGG-WT-7393. INFORMAL REPORT. "DRUM-SCALE FLYASH STABILIZATION
DEVELOPMENT." FOR U.S. DOE CONTRACT DE-AC07-761D01570. NOVEMBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: ANN M. BOEHMER TITLE: CHEMICAL ENGINEER
ORGANIZATION: INEL
EG&G IDAHO, INC., P.O. BOX 1625, IDAHO FALLS, ID 83415
PHONE: 208-526-9105
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCCE INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. "PALMERTON ZINC SUPERFUND SITE, BLUE MOUNTAIN PROJECT." REGION 3. T228-C03-FR-AQQN-1. APRIL 1987.
CONTACT NAME: JEFFERY WINEGAR
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION III
841 CHESTNUT STREET, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
PHONE: 215-597-9800
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT
Documents Sorted by Technology
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
Page:
Date:
95
01/26/1990
CO
o
«« 980-TS1-RT-FCCH INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: US DOE HAZARDOUS WASTE REMEDIAL ACTIONS PROGRAM. DOE/HWP-36. "EPA/DOE HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY DATA
BASE INTERIM STATUS REPORT." JULY 1987
CONTACT NAME: C.C. LEE
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH
PHONE: 513-684-7537
45268
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCCJ INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: MITRE CORPORATION. "A PROFILE OF EXISTING HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATION FACILITIES AND MANUFACTURERS IN THE UNITED
STATES." EPA 600/2-84-052. FOR U.S. EPA ORD, CINCINNATI, OH.
CONTACT NAME: C.C. LEE
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCER
REFERENCE: OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY.
ISLAND." SEPTEMBER 1987.
INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
LISTING OF ABSTRACTS FOR "DOCUMENTS ON THE CLEAN UP OF MAXEY FLATS AND JOHNSTON
CONTACT NAME: MICHAEL R. JUGAN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOE/HAZWRAP
U.S. DEPT. OF ENERGY, P.O. BOX E, OAK RIDGE, TN
PHONE: 615-576-0169
37831
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCES INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO. AND JAMES L. GRANT & ASSOC. "VOLUME 2 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION AND CORRECTIVE MEASURES
PROGRAM TREATED WOOD PRODUCTS PLANT." PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA REGION VII. MARCH 1987.
CONTACT NAME: ALLAN HANCOCK
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION VII
726 MINNESOTA STREET, KANSAS CITY, KS
PHONE: 916-236-2891
66101
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCET INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: KITUNEN, V.H.; R.J. VALO AND M.S. SALKINOJA-SALONEN. (UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI). "CONTAMINATION OF SOIL AROUND
WOOD-PRESERVING FACILITIES BY POLYCHLORINATED AROMATIC COMPOUNDS." JOURNAL. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY 1987,
96-101.
CONTACT NAME: ALLAN HANCOCK
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION VII
726 MINNESOTA STREET, KANSAS CITY, KS 66101
PHONE: 916-236-2891
DOCUMENT"NUMBERr""980-Tsi-RT-FCEU INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: YANIGA, P.M.; C. MATSON AND D.J. DEMKO. "RESTORATION OF WATER QUALITY IN A MULTIAQUIFER SYSTEM VIA INSITU
BIODEGRADATION OF THE ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS." PREPARED FOR GROUNDWATER TECHNOLOGY, CHADDS FORD, PA.
CONTACT NAME: ALLAN HANCOCK
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION VII
726 MINNESOTA STREET, KANSAS CITY, KS
PHONE: 916-236-2891
66101
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT
Documents Sorted by Technology
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
Page:
Date:
96
01/26/1990
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCEV INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: FU, J.K. AND J.R. SMITH. "EVALUTION OF AN ENGINEERED BIODEGRADATION LAND TREATMENT SYSTEM FOR SOIL DECONTAMINATION
AT A WOOD PRESERVING SITE.11 PREPARED FOR KEYSTONE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES.
CONTACT NAME: ALLAN HANCOCK
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION VII
726 MINNESOTA STREET, KANSAS CITY, KS
PHONE: 916-236-2891
66101
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCEX INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: BEDIENT, P.B.; A.C. RODGERS, T.C. BOUVETTE, M.B. TOMSON, AND T.H. WANG. "GROUND-WATER QUALITY AT A CRESOTE WASTE
SITE." JOURNAL. VOL. 22, NO. 3--GROUND WATER. MAY-JUNE 198[4].
CONTACT NAME: ALLAN HANCOCK
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION VII
726 MINNESOTA STREET, KANSAS CITY, KS
PHONE: 916-236-2891
66101
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCEY INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: MISSISSIPPI FOREST PRODUCTS LAB., MSU AND SOUTHERN PRESSURE TREATERS' ASSOC. PROCEEDINGS. "HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL IN THE WOOD PRESERVING INDUSTRY." MARCH 1984.
CONTACT NAME: ALLAN HANCOCK
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION VII
726 MINNESOTA STREET, KANSAS CITY, KS
PHONE: 916-236-2891
66101
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCEZ INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: BRUBAKER, G.R. AND E. O'NEILL. "REMEDIATION STRATEGIES USING ENHANCED BIORECLAMATION." PREPARED FOR FMC CORP.
AQUIFER REMEDIATION SYSTEMS. PRESENTED AT THE FIFTH NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM AND EXPOSITION ON AQUIFER RESTORATION AND
GROUND WATER MONITORING, COLUMBUS, OH. MAY 1985.
CONTACT NAME: ALLAN HANCOCK
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION VII
726 MINNESOTA STREET, KANSAS CITY, KS
PHONE: 916-236-2891
66101
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCFP INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE. "CORBY CASE STUDY. CHAPTER ON EUROPEAN LAND RECLAMATION VOL. II." JULY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: DONALD SANNING
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-CONTAINMENT BRANCH, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7875
DOCUMENT"NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCFU INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ECOTEC & MOTEC. PROPOSAL TO "PERFORM BENCH & PILOT SCALE TREATABILITY STUDIES & ENGINEERING ANALYSIS FOR SUPERFUND
HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES." RESPONSE TO EPA CONTRACT #68-01-6939. MARCH 1987
CONTACT NAME:
ORGANIZATION:
PHONE:
H.D. MILLER
ECOTECH
504-924-0781
TITLE: DIRECTOR
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 97
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
D°£"'JiNT NUHBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCGA INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYnCAL~DATA
REFERENCE: OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY. "EMPIRCAL EQUATION FOR STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF WASTE GROUT DATA."
CONTACT NAME: EARL U. McDANIEL
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOE/WMTC
U.S. DEPT. OF ENERGY. ORNL, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: FTS 574-0439
COMMENTS: INFO ON GROUT FORMULATION DATA
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCGB INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY. "ANALYSIS OF THE INJECTION OPERATION ON THE IN SITU GROUTING OF TRENCH 150."
ORNL/RAP/LTR-87/8. MARCH 1987.
CONTACT NAME: ROGER SPENCE
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOE/WMTC
U.S. DEPT. OF ENERGY, ORNL, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: FTS 574-6782
COMMENTS: INFO ON HYDROFRACTURE POND FIXATION, GROUT DATA
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCGC INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY. "CEMENT TECHNOLOGY FOR BOREHOLE PLUGGING: AN INTERIM REPORT ON PERMEABILITY
MEASUREMENTS OF CEMENTITIOUS SOLIDS." PREPRED FOR U.S. DOE. ORNL/TM-7902. 790924. JANUARY 1980.
CONTACT NAME: EARL W. McDANIEL
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOE/UMTC
,. U.S. DEPT. OF ENERGY, ORNL, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
§ PHONE: FTS 574-0439
N> COMMENTS: INFO ON GROUT FORMULATION DATA
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCGD INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY. "EVALUATION OF BATCH MIXING EQUIPMENT FOR PRODUCING CEMENT-BASED RADIOACTIVE WASTE
HOSTS." PREPARED FOR U.S. DOE. ORNL/TM-8740. JUNE 1984.
CONTACT NAME: EARL W. McDANIEL
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOE/WMTC
U.S. DEPT. OF ENERGY, ORNL, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: FTS 574-0439
COMMENTS: INFO ON GROUT FORMULATION DATA
DOCUMENT~NUMBER:"~980-TS1-RT-FCGF INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE- OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY. OPERATED BY UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION. "ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT OF HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING AS A METHOD FOR PERMANENT DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES." PREPARED FOR THE U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY
COMMISSION. ORNL-4259. AUGUST 1968.
CONTACT NAME: EARL W. McDANIEL
ORGANIZATION: u.j. DOE/WMTC ^^ ^
PHONE: FTS 574-0439
COMMENTS: INFO ON GROUT FORMULATION DATA
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 98
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCGG INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY. "INITIAL FORMULATION RESULTS FOR IN SITU GROUTING OF A WASTE TRENCH AT ORNL SITE NO.
6." PREPARED FOR U.S. DOE. ORNL/TM-10299. JANUARY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: EARL U. McDANIEL
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOE/WMTC
U.S. DEPT. OF ENERGY, ORNL, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: FTS 574-0439
COMMENTS: INFO ON GROUT FORMULATION DATA
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCGH INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY. "GROUT TESTING AND CHARACTERIZATION FOR SHALLOW-LAND BURIAL TRENCHES AT THE IDAHO
NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY." PREPARED FOR U.S. DOE. ORNL/TM-9881. OCTOBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: EARL W. McDANIEL
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOE/WMTC
U.S. DEPT. OF ENERGY, ORNL, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: FTS 574-0439
COMMENTS: INFO ON GROUT FORMULATION DATA
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCGK INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY. "FIXATION OF WASTE MATERIALS IN GROUTS. PART III: EQUATION FOR CRITICAL FLOW RATE."
PREPARED FOR U.S. DOE. ORNL/TM-9680/PIII. DECEMBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: MIKE GILLIAN
K,. ORGANIZATION: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
to ORNL, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
W PHONE: FTS 574-6820
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCGL INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY. "CLEANUP AND TREATMENT OF RADIOACTIVELY CONTAMINATED LAND INCLUDING AREAS NEAR
NUCLEAR FACILITIES. A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY." PREPARED FOR U.S. DOE. ORNL/EIS-199. (NVO/AEIC-243). SEPTEMBER 1982.
CONTACT NAME: CATHY FORE
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOE/HAZWRAP
U.S. DEPT. OF ENERGY, ORNL, OAK'RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: FTS 574-7769
COMMENTS: INFO ON DATA BASES
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCKZ INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: RI/FS REPORT: BOG CREEK FARM SOIL DATA. "SECTION 4.0 HYDORGEOLOGY."
CONTACT NAME: RICHARD SCWARTZ
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION II
EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL RESPONSE DIVISION, 26 FEDERAL PLAZA, NEW YORK, NY 10278
PHONE: 212-264-1252
COMMENTS: BOG CREEK SITE. MET AT REGION II, 7/22/87.
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 99
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
™ 980-TS1-RT-FCLA INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: SLIDE PRESENTATION. "HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY."
CONTACT NAME: C.C. LEE
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCLB INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY. HAZWRAP. "COMMERCIAL TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL VENDORS: A HANDBOOK OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES. VOLUME 3: APPENDIXES." PREPARED FOR U.S. DOE. DOE/HWP-13/V3. APRIL 1986.
CONTACT NAME: CATHY FORE
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOE/HAZWRAP
U.S. DEPT. OF ENERGY, ORNL, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: FTS 574-7769
COMMENTS: INFO ON DATA BASES
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCLF INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. "BACKGROUND MEMORANDUM ON THE NICRO PLATING SITE, LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY." JUNE 1987.
CONTACT NAME: JAMES KOPOTIC
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET, NE, ATLANTA, GA 30365
PHONE: 404-347-4727
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCLR INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: WALKER, T.J. AND F.T. LUBOZYNSKI. SLIDE PRESENTATION. "AIR FORCE DERA SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS."
PRESENTED AT THE DOD IRTCC MEETING. JULY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: LT. COL. THOMAS WALKER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOO/AFESC
PHONE: 904-283-4628
COMMENTS: ARRANGED MEETINGS W/ PREVIOUS CONTACTS FOR FIELD TEAM. SUGGESTED FIELD TEAM CONTACT HIM IF HE COULD BE OF
FURTHER ASSISTANCE.
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCMP INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: "SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION. GURLEY PIT, EDMONDSON, ARKANSAS. SOURCE CONTROL."
CONTACT NAME: TIMOTHY UNDERWOOD
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION VI
1445 ROSS AVENUE, DALLAS, TX 75202
PHONE: 215-655-6444
DOCUMENT'NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCMQ INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: EARTH SCIENCES GROUP. "DIRECT PUSH TECHNOLOGY FOR GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION STUDIES."
CONTACT NAME: PHILIP HILIBAND TITLE: DIRECTOR
ORGANIZATION: EARTH SCIENCES GROUP
PHONE: 305-740-0217
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 100
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCMR INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: ROBERT S. KERR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY. REPORT. (NO TITLE). GROUND WATER POLLUTION RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGIES. MARCH 1987.
CONTACT NAME: WILLIAM LUTHENS
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION VI
1445 ROSS AVENUE, DALLAS, TX 75Z02
PHONE: 215-655-6444
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCNL INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: GENUNG, R.K. CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION "AN OVERVIEW OF MARTIN MARIETTA ENERGY SYSTEMS' WASTE MANAGEMENT
TECHNOLOGY CENTER."
CONTACT NAME: ROBERT JOLLEY
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOE/WMTC
U.S. DEPT. OF ENERGY, ORNL, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: FTS 624-6838
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCNM INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. MEMORANDUM. "FUNDING INCREASE - STANFORD PESTICIDE SITE #1. COCOPAH INDIAN RESERVATION, YUMA COUNTY,
ARIZONA." REGION IX. JULY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: DANIEL SHANE
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION IX
EMERGENCY RESPONCE SECTION, 215 FREMONT STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCNR INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY CENTER. "THE TECHNICAL CENTER FOR IMPLEMENTING THE OAK RIDGE MODEL, THE NEW DOE/ORO
APPROACH FOR APPLICATION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY." U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.
CONTACT NAME: RICHARD GENUNG
ORGANIZATION: DOE - ORNL
WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY CENTER, P.O. BOX P, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: 615-574-6830
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCNZ INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: NAGEL, G.; W. KUEHN, P. WERNER AND H. SONTHEIMER. "SANITATION OF GROUND WATER BY INFILTRATION OF OZONE TREATED
WATER." GWF-WASSER/ABWASSER, 123(8):399-407, 1982. TR-3-029. MARCH 1987.
CONTACT NAME: JANETTE HANSEN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE, RMS-263D/WH-563, 401 M STREET S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
PHONE: 202-382-4754
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCPA INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: (TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH TRIP REPORT - KARLSRUHE GERMANY ON THE SAME SUBJECT BY WALTER KOVALICK). "PART II -
TRIP REPORT - NATO - CCMS PILOT STUDY." MARCH 1987.
CONTACT NAME: JANETTE HANSEN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE, RMS-263D/WH-563, 401 M STREET S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
PHONE: 202-382-4754
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 101
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
««1,u INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: KARLSRUHE. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY. "NATO CCMS PILOT STUDY ON DEMONSTRATION OF REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES FOR
CONTAMINATED LAND AND GROUNDWATER." AGENDA. MARCH 1987.
CONTACT NAME: JANETTE HANSEN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA
PHONE- OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE, RMS-263D/UH-563, 401 M STREET S.U., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCPH INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: KARLSRUHE- FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY. "NATO CCMS PILOT STUDY ON DEMONSTRATION OF REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES FOR
CONTAMINATED LAND AND GROUNDWATER." LIST OF COUNTRIES AND THEIR PROJECTS FOR PRESENTATION. MARCH 1987.
CONTACT NAME: JANETTE HANSEN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE, RMS-263D/WH-563, 401 M STREET S.U., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
PHONE: 202-382-4754
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCPT INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: NATO-CCMS PILOT STUDY ON DEMONSTRATION OF REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES FOR CONTAMINATED LAND AND GROUNDWATER.
"PLANNING QUESTIONNAIRE: CANADA." FEBRUARY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: PIERRE COTE
ORGANIZATION: ENVIRONMENT CANADA
WASTEWATER TECHNOLOGY CENTRE, P.O. BOX 5050, 867 LAKESHORE ROAD, BURLINGTON, ONTARIO L7R 4A6
& DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCPU INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
0) REFERENCE: NATO-CCMS PILOT STUDY ON DEMONSTRATION OF REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES FOR CONTAMINATED LAND AND GROUNDWATER.
PLANNING QUESTIONNAIRE: DENMARK. MARCH 1987.
CONTACT NAME: JANETTE HANSEN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE, RMS-263D/WH-563, 401 M STREET S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
PHONE: 202-382-4754
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCQA INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: NATO-CCMS PILOT STUDY ON DEMONSTRATION OF REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES FOR CONTAMINATED LAND AND GROUNDWATER.
"PLANNING QUESTIONNAIRE: JAPAN." JANUARY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: JANETTE HANSEN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE, RMS-263D/WH-563, 401 M STREET S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
PHONE: 202-382-4754
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCQG INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: SOCZO, E.R. "PROJECT: CLEANUP BY MEANS OF LANDFARMING." PRESENTED AT THE NATO-CCMS PILOT STUDY ON DEMONSTRATION OF
REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES FOR CONTAMINATED LAND AND GROUNDWATER.
CONTACT NAME: JANETTE HANSEN
ORGANIZATION: U.S.JPA^ ^^ ^^ RMS.263D/WH-563, 401 M STREET S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
PHONE: 202-382-4754
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT
Documents Sorted by Technology
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
102
Date: 01/26/1990
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCQH INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. TRIP REPORT. "NATO-CCMS PILOT STUDY OF REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES FOR CONTAMINATED LAND AND
GROUNDWATER. MARCH 16-20, 1987 -- KARLSRUHE, GERMANY." OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE. MARCH 1987.
CONTACT NAME: JANETTE HANSEN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE, RMS-263D/WH-563, 401 M STREET S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
PHONE: 202-382-4754
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCQL INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY. "THE OAK RIDGE MODEL: AN APPROACH FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH,
DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION." PUBLICATION FOR THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY. NO DATE.
CONTACT NAME: RICHARD GENUNG
ORGANIZATION: DOE - ORNL
WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY CENTER, P.O. BOX P, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: 615-574-6830
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCQR INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. SLIDE PRESENTATION FOR RCRA/CERCLA ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY SEMINARS. "SOIL WASHING OF LEAD
CONTAMINATED SOIL. EPA MOBILE SOILS WASHER. LEEDS, AL."
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET, NE, ATLANTA, GA 30365
PHONE: 404-347-4727
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCQZ INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: SLIDE PRESENTATION. "MAJOR REMEDIAL ACTION DEMONSTRATIONS."
CONTACT NAME:
ORGANIZATION:
PHONE:
COMMENTS:
TITLE: PROGRAM MANAGER
LESLIE DOLE
WMTC, DOE, ORNL
P.O. BOX P. BUILDING K 1000 MS-183, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
615-576-7421
INFO ON THE PEPPER STEEL SITE AND OTHERS
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCRA INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: SLIDE PRESENTATION. "PHASE 2 - 3. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TASKS."
CONTACT NAME: JAMES EPLER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOE/HAZWRAP
U.S. DEPT. OF ENERGY, ORNL, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: FTS 624-0841
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCRB INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: SLIDE PRESENTATION. "HAZARDOUS WASTE REMEDIAL ACTIONS PROGRAM RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM."
CONTACT NAME: JAMES EPLER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOE/HAZWRAP
U.S. DEPT. OF ENERGY, ORNL, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: FTS 624-0841
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 103
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
980-TS1-RT-FCRH INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: KENNERLY, J.M. "SUPPORT ACTIVITIES FOR THE LOW-LEVEL SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAMS." SLIDE PRESENTATION FOR THE
CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION INFORMATION MEETING. JUNE 1984.
CONTACT NAME: J.M. KENNERLY
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOE
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: FTS-624-9935
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCRJ INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: ADAMS, R.E. SLIDE PRESENTATION. "HAZARDOUS WASTE REMEDIAL ACTIONS PROGRAM TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM."
PREPARED FOR HAZWRAP - SUPPORT CONTRACTOR OFFICE, ORNL.
CONTACT NAME: ROBERT ADAMS
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOE/HAZWRAP
U.S. DEPT. OF ENERGY, ORNL, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: FTS 626-0556
COMMENTS: INFO ON SLUDGE DEMO PROGRAM, PCB BIODEGRADATION, SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT, MAIN SITE GASOLINE SPILL, CENTRAL
FACILITIES AREA LANDFILL
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCRW INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: JOHN MATHES & ASSOCIATES, INC. " MAP OF SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND TABLES, SAND SPRINGS, OKLAHOMA."
CONTACT NAME: EDWIN BARTH
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
.. HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
& PHONE: 513-569-7931
00
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCSL INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: PPM INC. MEMO. "PPM SOIL WASHING PROCESS FOR PCB'S/STATUS." MAY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: KENT WOODWARD
ORGANIZATION: PPM, INC.
PHONE: 404-934-0902
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCSR INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: CH2M HILL. "PROTECTING THE BISCAYNE AQUIFER. ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN AT THE PEPPER'S STEEL AND ALLOYS SITE." PREPARED
FOR U.S. EPA. JULY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: ELIO ARNIELLA
ORGANIZATION: COM - ATLANTA, GA
2100 RIVER EDGE PARKWAY, ATLANTA, GA 30328
PHONE: 404-952-8643
DOCUMENT'NUMBER: 980-Tsi-RT-Fcsu INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE- CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE INC. LIPARI SAMPLING DATA. "WELL DATA FROM THE LIPARI LANDFILL SITE." PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA.
REGION 2.
CONTACT NAME: KEVIN DATES
ORGANIZATION: ^S. JPA^RJGION^I^ RESPONSE DIVISION, 26 FEDERAL PLAZA, NEW YORK, NY 10278
punuc. 212-264-4425
COMMENTS: MET AT REGION II, 7/22/87. LIPARI LANDFILL SITE.
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 104
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCSY INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: PAPER. "APEG TREATMENT OF DIOXIN-CONTAMINATED SOIL IN BUTTE, MONTANA." NOVEMBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: CHARLES ROGERS
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7757
COMMENTS: INFO ON KPEG. ALSO CONTACT GALSON RESEARCH. RECOMMENDED BY MAJOR TERRY STODDART.
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCTF INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: KOPTIC, J. OSC. FIELD REPORT. "HOLLINGSWORTH SOLDERLESS TERMINAL SITE REMOVAL, FT. LAUDERDALE, FL.» FEBRUARY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: JAMES KOPOTIC
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET, NE, ATLANTA, GA 30365
PHONE: 404-347-4727
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCTG INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES. LABORATORY REPORT. "MOBIL/ENSOTECH, GARFIELD AND NEWMARK, MONTERY PARK,
CA." JUNE 1987.
CONTACT NAME: RONALD LEWIS
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-CHEM. AND BIOL. DETOX. BRANCH, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7856
& DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCTJ INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
<0 REFERENCE: IIT RESEARCH INSTITUTE. "PRE-PILOT SCALE DECONTAMINATION EXPERIMENT SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS
(CONTAMINATED VOLK FIELD SOIL)."
CONTACT NAME: DOUG DOWNEY
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/AFESC
PHONE: 904-283-2942
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCTP INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. "LANDFILL GAS CONTROL AT MILITARY INSTALLATIONS.1' TECHNICAL REPORT N-173. JANUARY
1984.
CONTACT NAME: PAUL F. de PERCIN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-CONTAINMENT BRANCH, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7787
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCTQ INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE- RADIAN RESEARCH CORPORATION. "AIR STRIPPING OF CONTAMINATED WATER SOURCES AIR EMISSIONS AND CONTROLS." PREPARED FOR
AIR TOXICS CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CENTER. U.S. EPA. RTP. JULY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: PAUL F. de PERCIN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-CONTAINMENT BRANCH, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7787
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 105
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
c«Mcn 980-TS1-RT-FCTS INFORMATION TYPE: ~NO^QUANnTATivE"ANAL^TicAL"DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA. SLIDE PRESENTATION. "POTASSIUM POLYETHYLENE GLYCOL (KPEG) CHEMICAL DETOXIFICATION."
CONTACT NAME: DONALD WILHELM
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
ORD LABORATORY, ATHENS, GA
PHONE: 404-382-4847
COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED BY JIM ORBAN
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCTT INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: LEE, C.C. "A MODEL ANALYSIS OF METAL PARTITIONING IN A HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATION SYSTEM." AN ARTICLE FOR THE
PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL, "THE JOURNAL OF THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ASSOCIATION (JAPCA)." NOVEMBER 1986.
CONTACT NAME: C.C. LEE
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCTV INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: ERIKSSON, INGA-MAJ. "RE USE OF DEGRADED LAND IN URBAN AREAS; A STUDY OF LAND USE, ECONOMICAL AND TECHNICAL
FACTORS." (THE ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN).
CONTACT NAME: DONALD SANNING
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-CONTAINMENT BRANCH, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
„, PHONE: 513-569-7875
O DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCTW INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: SPRINGER-VERLAG. "CHEMICAL WASTE HANDLING AND TREATMENT."
CONTACT NAME: DONALD SANNING
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-CONTAINMENT BRANCH, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7875
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCTX INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: MID WEST ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC. LAB REPORTS (7). "PCBs FROM VARIOUS SAMPLE TYPES." PREPARED FOR RIEDEL
ENVIRONMENTAL. SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 1985.
CONTACT NAME: WILLIAM LUTHENS
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION VI
1445 ROSS AVENUE, DALLAS, TX 75202
PHONE: 215-655-6444
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCTY INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES. "DECON PROCEDURE AND ANALYTICAL WIPE SAMPLE
PROCEDURE FOR THE QUAIL RUN SITE, FRANKLIN CITY, MISSOURI." MARCH 1985.
CONTACT NAME: CARL BAILEY
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION VII
726 MINNISOTA STREET, KANSAS CITY, KS 66101
PHONE: 913-236-2891
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 106
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCUF INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES. LABORATORY REPORT. "LASSEN COLLEGE COGENERATION PLANT. SUSANVILLE, CA.»
HML# C1714 TO C1721. MARCH 1987.
CONTACT NAME: FREDERICK A. TORNATORE TITLE: ASSOCIATE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPECIALIST
ORGANIZATION: STATE OF CALIF - DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION, 714-744 P STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
PHONE: 916-334-1807
COMMENTS: STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DEPT. OF HEALTH SERVICES TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY &
POLICY DEVEL. SECTION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCUP INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY. HAZARDOUS WASTE REMEDIAL ACTIONS PROGRAM (HAZWRAP) WASTE INFORMATION NETWORK (WIN)
DATA BASE RESPONSE TO A "REQUEST FOR BEST DEMONSTRATED AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
SUPERFUND WASTES." MAY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: DEAN EYMAN
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
ORNL, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: FTS 574-7299
COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED BY DOUG DOWNEY
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCUQ INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE T.O REGULATION
REFERENCE: U.S. DOD. "SECTION 00005. CHROMIUM WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL." SUMMARY REPORT' RECEIVED FROM U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
THE NAVY, PORT HUENEME, CALIFORNIA.
O CONTACT NAME: JACQUELINE R. FRANCIS TITLE: BIOLOGIST
-1 ORGANIZATION: DOD - NAVY
NAVAL ENERGY AND ENV. SUPPORT ACTIVITY, BLDG. 835, PORT HUENEME, CA 93043-5014
PHONE: 805-982-4980
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCUR INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: SLIDE PRESENTATION. "FUEL OIL BIODEGRADATION NAS PATUXENT RIVER PRODUCTS."
CONTACT NAME: RONALD E. HOEPPEL TITLE: SOIL MICROBIOLOGIST, ENVIR. SCIENTIST
ORGANIZATION: NAVAL CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORY
PHONE: 805-982-5465
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FCUS INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: U.S. DOD. SIXTEEN ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION REPORTS. SEPTEMBER 1986-MAY 1987. RECEIVED FROM U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
NAVY, PORT HUENEME, CALIFORNIA.
CONTACT NAME: JACQUELINE R. FRANCIS TITLE: BIOLOGIST
ORGANIZATION: DOD - NAVY
NAVAL ENERGY AND ENV. SUPPORT ACTIVITY, BLDG. 835, PORT HUENEME, CA 93043-5014
PHONE: 805-982-4980
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT
Documents Sorted by Technology
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
Page:
Date:
107
01/26/1990
cn
o
ro
rr 980-TS1-RT-FDAZ INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: PROPOSED PROJECTS. "ARMY HAZARDOUS WASTE CLEANUP AND ASSOCIATED TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS." PRESENTED AT IRTC
Met TINu•
CONTACT NAME:
ORGANIZATION:
PHONE:
MR. BARTELL
U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
301-671-2054
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FDBH INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA, REGION IV. "IMMEDIATE REMOVAL ACTIVITIES, CITY CHEMICAL, ORLANDO, FL." JUNE 1984.
CONTACT NAME: DIANE HAZAGA
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET, NE, ATLANTA, GA 30365
PHONE: 404-347-4727
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FDBK INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, INC. "SOURCE EMISSIONS AND AMBIENT AIR CONCENTRATIONS FROM THERMAL REMOVAL
TEST - CITY CHEMICAL COMPANY CONTAMINATED SOIL." PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA THROUGH ROY F. WESTON. SEPTEMBER 1984.
CONTACT NAME: DIANE HAZAGA
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET, NE, ATLANTA, GA 30365
PHONE: 404-347-4727
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FHME INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: JBF SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION. "STABALIZATION, TESTING, AND DISPOSAL OF ARSENIC CONTAINING WASTES." PREPARED FOR U.S.
EPA, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, CINCINNATI, OH.
CONTACT NAME: DONALD BANNING
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-CONTAINMENT BRANCH, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7875
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FQSP INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON IN-SITU
REFERENCE: HARRESS GEOTECHNIK. "VAPOR EXTRACTION AS AN IN SITU METHOD TO REMOVE VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FROM THE SOIL -
EVALUATION OF RESULTS." "EXAMPLES FOR VACUUM EXTRACTION IN GERMANY."
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - HEADQUARTERS
401 M STREET, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
DOCUMENT NUMBER- 980-TS1-RT-FRAG INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE- JOHN A. BUMPUS & STEVEN D. AUST - DEPARTMENT OF BIOCHEMISTRY, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY. "MINERALIZATION OF
RECALCITRANT ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTANTS BY A WHITE ROT FUNGUS." PRESENTED AT THE RCRA, 1987.
CONTACT NAME:
ORGANIZATION:
PHONE:
COMMENTS:
STEVEN D. AUST
UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
BIOTECHENOLOGY CENTER, UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY, LOGAN, UTAH 84322-4430
801-750-2753
FORMERLY OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY . CONTACT ABOUT FUNGAL DEGRADATION
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 108
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FRAJ INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: "HAZARDOUS WASTE BIOTREATMENT FIGHTS FOR RECOGNITION." CHEMICAL WEEK MAGAZINE. OCTOBER 29, 1987.
CONTACT NAME: MIMI BLUESTONE TITLE: SEATTLE OFFICE
ORGANIZATION: CHEMICAL WEEK MAGAZINE
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FRAK INFORMATION TYPE: MO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: J.A. BUMPUS, T. FERNANDO, G.J. MILESKI AND S.D. AUST - DEPARTMENT OF BIOCHEMISTRY, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY.
"BIODEGRADATION OF ORGANOPOLLUTANTS BY PHANEROCHAETE CHRYSOSPORIUM: PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS." PRESENTED AT U.S.
EPA THIRTEENTH ANNUAL RESEARCH SYMPOSIUM, HWERL, CINCINNATI, MAY 6-8, 1987.
CONTACT NAME: STEVEN D. AUST
ORGANIZATION: UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
BIOTECHENOLOGY CENTER, UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY, LOGAN, UTAH 84322-4430
PHONE: 801-750-2753
COMMENTS: FORMERLY OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY . CONTACT ABOUT FUNGAL DEGRADATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FRAL INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: JOHN A. BUMPUS AND STEVEN D. AUST - CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF ACTIVE OXYGEN IN BIOLOGY & MEDICINE, DEPARTMENT OF
BIOCHEMISTRY MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY. "STUDIES ON THE BIODEGRADATION OF ORGANOPOLLUTANTS BY A WHITE ROT FUNGUS."
PRESENTED AT THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON NEW FRONTIERS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT. SEPTEMBER 15-18, 1985,
PITTSBURGH, PA, U.S. EPA.
CONTACT NAME: STEVEN D. AUST
ORGANIZATION: UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
... BIOTECHENOLOGY CENTER, UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY, LOGAN, UTAH 84322-4430
8 PHONE: 801-750-2753
CO COMMENTS: FORMERLY OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY . CONTACT ABOUT FUNGAL DEGRADATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FRAM INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: HWERL, CINCINNATI, OHIO. "ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH BRIEF - BIODEGRADATION OF HALOGENATED HYDROCARBONS." PREPARED FOR
U.S. EPA. JUNE 1987.
CONTACT NAME: STEVEN D. AUST
ORGANIZATION: UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
BIOTECHENOLOGY CENTER, UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY, LOGAN, UTAH 84322-4430
PHONE: 801-750-2753
COMMENTS: FORMERLY OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY . CONTACT ABOUT FUNGAL DEGRADATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FRDH INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: T. FERNANDO, J.A. BUMPUS, S.D. AUST - DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY. "CONDITIONS WHICH ENHANCE
BIODEGRADATION OF ORGANIC COMPOUNDS BY WHITE ROT FUNGI."
CONTACT NAME: STEVEN D. AUST
ORGANIZATION: UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
BIOTECHENOLOGY CENTER, UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY, LOGAN, UTAH 84322-4430
PHONE: 801-750-2753
COMMENTS: FORMERLY OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY . CONTACT ABOUT FUNGAL DEGRADATION
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 109
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
««cn . 9£°-TS1-RT-FRDJ INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANmAnVE"ANALYTlcAL~DATA
REFERENCE: U.S.D.A. FOREST PRODUCTS LABORATORY & HUERL, CINCINNATI. OHIO. "GROWTH OF THE WHITE-ROT FUNGUS PHANEROCHAETE
CHRYSOSPORIUM IN SOIL."
CONTACT NAME: JOHN GLASER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HUERL, 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-569-7568
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FRDM INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: BEDARD, HABERL, MAY AND BRENNAN. "EVIDENCE FOR NOVEL MECHANISMS OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL METABOLISM IN
ALCALIGENES EUTROPHUS H850." APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY. MAY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: RONALD UNTERMAN
ORGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
CORPORATE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, P.O. BOX 8, SCHENECTADY, NY 12301
PHONE: 518-387-5803
COMMENTS: NOW WORKING FOR JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 181 CHERRY VALLEY ROAD PRINCETON, NJ 08540 609-924-3420
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FRDN INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: BEDARD, WAGNER, BRENNAN, HABERL, AND BROWN. "EXTENSIVE DEGRADATION OF AROCLORS AND ENVIRONMENTALLY TRANSFORMED
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS BY ALCALIGENES EUTROPHUS H850." APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY. MAY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: RONALD UNTERMAN
ORGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
,n CORPORATE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, P.O. BOX 8, SCHENECTADY, NY 12301
O PHONE: 518-387-5803
•*• COMMENTS: NOW WORKING FOR JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 181 CHERRY VALLEY ROAD PRINCETON, NJ 08540 609-924-3420
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FRDQ INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: UNTERMAN, BEDARD, BRENNAN, BOPP, MONDELLO, BROOKS, MOBLEY, MCDERMOTT, SCHWARTZ, DIETRICH. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY.
"BIOLOGICAL APPROACHES FOR PCB DEGRADATION."
CONTACT NAME: RONALD UNTERMAN
ORGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
CORPORATE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, P.O. BOX 8, SCHENECTADY, NY 12301
COMMENTS: NOW WORKING FOR JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 181 CHERRY VALLEY ROAD PRINCETON, NJ 08540 609-924-3420
DOCUMENT"NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FRDR INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: JOHN A. BUMPUS AND STEVEN D. AUST. "BIODEGRADATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTANTS BY THE WHITE ROT FUNGUS
PHANEROCHAETE CHRYSOSPORIUM: INVOLVEMENT OF THE LIGNIN DEGRADING SYSTEM." BIOESSAYS VOL.6, NO.4. APRIL 1987.
CONTACT NAME: STEVEN D. AUST
ORGANIZATION: UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
BIOTECHENOLOGY CENTER, UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY. LOGAN, UTAH 84322-4430
PHONE: 801-750-2753
COMMENTS: FORMERLY OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY . CONTACT ABOUT FUNGAL DEGRADATION
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 110
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
"---•••---"--------------• — -----------------»-•---.-_-________.__„„--_-„-•_-_„_______«.____.__».---.•-•.-•------------------------
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FRDT INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: BUMPUS, TIEN, WRIGHT & AUST. "OXIDATION OF PERSISTENT ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTANTS BY A WHITE ROT FUNGUS." REPRINT -
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE, JUNE 21, 1985, VOL.228.
CONTACT NAME: STEVEN D. AUST
ORGANIZATION: UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
BIOTECHENOLOGY CENTER, UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY, LOGAN, UTAH 84322-4430
PHONE: 801-750-2753
COMMENTS: FORMERLY OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY . CONTACT ABOUT FUNGAL DEGRADATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FRDU INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: JOHN A. BUMPUS AND STEVEN D. AUST - CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF ACTIVE OXYGEN IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE, DEPARTMENT OF
BIOCHEMISTRY, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY. "BIODEGRADATION OF DDT (1,1,1-TRICHLORO-2,2-BIS<4-CHLOROPHENYL)ETHANE) BY
THE WHITE ROT FUNGUS PHANEROCHAETE CHRYSOSPORIUM." APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY 1987.
CONTACT NAME: STEVEN D. AUST
ORGANIZATION: UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
BIOTECHENOLOGY CENTER, UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY, LOGAN, UTAH 84322-4430
PHONE: 801-750-2753
COMMENTS: FORMERLY OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY . CONTACT ABOUT FUNGAL DEGRADATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FRDV INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: JOHN A. BUMPUS AND STEVEN D. AUST - CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF ACTIVE OXYGEN IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE, DEPARTMENT OF
BIOCHEMISTRY, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY. "BIOLOGICAL OXIDATIONS BY ENZYMES FROM A WHITE ROT FUNGUS." SYMP. OF
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERS 1986.
CONTACT NAME: STEVEN D. AUST
ORGANIZATION: UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
BIOTECHENOLOGY CENTER, UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY, LOGAN, UTAH 84322-4430
PHONE: 801-750-2753
COMMENTS: FORMERLY OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY . CONTACT ABOUT FUNGAL DEGRADATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FRDW INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: EATON, CHANG, JOYCE - DEPT. OF WOOD AND PAPER SCIENCE, NC STATE UNIVERSITY. JEFFRIES & KIRK - U.S.D.A. FOREST
SERVICE, FOREST PRODUCTS LABORATORY. "METHOD OBTAINS FUNGAL REDUCTION OF THE COLOR OF EXTRACTION-STAGE KRAFT BLEACH
EFFLUENTS." TAPPI. JUNE 1982.
CONTACT NAME: HOU-MIN CHANG
ORGANIZATION: NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF WOOD AND PAPER SCIENCE, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, RALEIGH, N.C. 227607
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FRDY INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: MASOOD ARJMAND AND HEINRICH SANDERMANN, JR. "MINERALIZATION OF CHLOROANILINE/LIGNIN CONJUGATES AND OF FREE
CHLOROANILINES BY THE WHITE ROT FUNGUS PHANEROCHAETE CHRYSOSPORIUM." JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD CHEMICALS,
VOL.33, NO.6, 1985.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE & FOOD CHEMICALS
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 111
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
22™ISLNUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FRDZ INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: BROWN, BEDARD, BRENNAN, CARNAHAM, FENG, AND WAGNER. "POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL DECHLORINATION IN AQUATIC SEDIMENTS."
REPRINT FROM THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE. MAY 8, 1987, VOLUME 236, PP. 709-712.
CONTACT NAME: RONALD UNTERMAN
ORGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
CORPORATE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, P.O. BOX 8, SCHENECTADY, NY 12301
PHONE: 518-387-5803
COMMENTS: NOW WORKING FOR JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 181 CHERRY VALLEY ROAD PRINCETON, NJ 08540 609-924-3420
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FREA INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: LAWRENCE H.BOPP, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY. "DEGRADATION OF HIGHLY CHLORINATED PCBS BY PSEUDOMONAS STRAIN LB400."
JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL MICROBIOLOGY. 1986.
CONTACT NAME: RONALD UNTERMAN
ORGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
CORPORATE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, P.O. BOX 8, SCHENECTADY, NY 12301
PHONE: 518-387-5803
COMMENTS: NOW WORKING FOR JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 181 CHERRY VALLEY ROAD PRINCETON, NJ 08540 609-924-3420
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FREB INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: BI LOGICAL SCIENCES BRANCH, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY. "RAPID ASSAY FOR SCREENING AND CHARACTERIZING MICROORGANISMS
FOR THE ABILITY TO DEGRADE POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS." APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICRO BIOLOGY MAGAZINE, APRIL
1987.
,„ CONTACT NAME: RONALD UNTERMAN
H ORGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
05 CORPORATE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, P.O. BOX 8, SCHENECTADY, NY 12301
PHONE: 518-387-5803
COMMENTS: NOW WORKING FOR JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 181 CHERRY VALLEY ROAD PRINCETON, NJ 08540 609-924-3420
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FREC INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: DAVID C. EATON. GENEX CORPORATION. "MINERALIZATION OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS BY PHANEROCHAETE CHRYSOSPORIUM: A
LIGNINOLYTIC FUNGUS." ENZYME MICROBIAL TECHNOLOGY, 1985, RAPID COMMUNICATION, 7:194-196.
CONTACT NAME: DAVID EATON
ORGANIZATION: HERCULES, INC
RESEARCH CENTER, WILMINGTON, DL 19894
DOCUMENT"NUMBERI 980-TS1-RT-FRED INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: KIRK - U.S.D.A. FOREST PRODUCTS LABORATORY & CHANG - N.C. STATE UNIVERSITY. "POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS OF
BIO-LIGNINOLYTIC SYSTEMS." ENZYME MICROS. TECHNOL., 1981, VOL.3, JULY.
CONTACT NAME: HOU-MIN CHANG
ORGANIZATION:
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 112
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FREE INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: EATON & CHANG - DEPT OF WOOD AND PAPER SCIENCE, NC STATE UNIVERSITY. KIRK - U.S. FOREST PRODUCTS LABORATORY.
"FUNGAL DECOLORIZATION OF DRAFT BLEACH PLANT EFFLUENTS." TAPPI, OCTOBER 1980.
CONTACT NAME: HOU-MIN CHANG
ORGANIZATION: NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF WOOD AND PAPER SCIENCE, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, RALEIGH, N.C. 227607
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FREF INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: LARRY J. FORNEY, C. ADINARAYANA REDDY, MING TIEN, AND STEVEN D. AUST - DEPARTMENTS OF MICROBIOLOGY AND PUBLIC
HEALTH AND BIOCHEMISTRY, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY. "THE INVOLVEMENT OF HYDROXYL RADICAL DERIVED FROM HYDROGEN
PEROXIDE IN LIGNIN DEGRADATION BY THE WHITE ROT FUNGUS PHANEROCHAETE CHRYSOSPORIUM." JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL
CHEMISTRY, VOL.257, NO. 19, OCTOBER 10, 1987.
CONTACT NAME: STEVEN D. AUST
ORGANIZATION: UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
BIOTECHENOLOGY CENTER, UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY, LOGAN, UTAH 84322-4430
PHONE: 801-750-2753
COMMENTS: FORMERLY OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY . CONTACT ABOUT FUNGAL DEGRADATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FREG INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION/DATA ON LIQUID WASTES
REFERENCE: CAMPBELL, GERRARD, JOYCE, & CHANG - NC STATE UNIVERSITY. KIRK - U.S. FOREST LABORATORY. "THE MYCOR PROCESS FOR
COLOR REMOVAL FROM BLEACH PLANT EFFLUENT: BENCH SCALE STUDIES." TAPPI. 1982.
CONTACT NAME: HOU-MIN CHANG
,., ORGANIZATION: NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
O DEPARTMENT OF WOOD AND PAPER SCIENCE, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, RALEIGH, N.C. 227607
«sl .- -
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FRER INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY-CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION. "COST ESTIMATE OF GROUTING THE PROPOSED TEST PITS AT
IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY USING THE ORNL-RECOMMENDED GROUTS." PREPARED FOR U.S. DOE. AUGUST 1987.
CONTACT NAME: MIKE GILLIAM
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
ORNL, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: FTS 574-6820
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FRES INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY-CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION. "RHEOLOGY OF SLUDGE-SLURRY GROUTS." PREPARED FOR U.S.
DOE. OCTOBER 1980.
CONTACT NAME: MIKE GILLIAM
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
ORNL, OAK RIDGE, TN 37831
PHONE: FTS 574-6820
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FREV INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ENVIRESPONSE, INC. "PEAKE OIL SITE TAMPA, FLORIDA. PROJECT NO. 3-60-47190407." PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA, ERT. OCTOBER
1986.
CONTACT NAME: ROBERT EVANGELISTA
ORGANIZATION: ENVIRESPONSE
GSA RARITAN DEPOT, WOODBRIDGE AVE, BUILDING 209, BAY F, EDISON, NJ 88037
PHONE: 201-548-9660
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 113
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FREY INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: "REMOVAL OPERATIONS AT HOLLINGSWORTH SOLDERLESS TERMINAL COMPANY, EAST DRAINFIELD, FT. LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA." APRIL
CONTACT NAME: JAMES KOPOTIC
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION IV
345 COURT LAND STREET, NE, ATLANTA, GA 30365
PHONE: 404-347-4727
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FREY INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: "REMOVAL OPERATIONS AT HOLLINGUORTH SOLDERLESS TERMINAL COMPANY/EAST DRAINFIELD - FT. LAUDERDALE, FLA. "SUBMITTED TO
US EPA REGION IV
CONTACT NAME: JAMES KOPOTIC
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET, NE, ATLANTA, GA 30365
PHONE: 404-347-4727
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FYPL INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TECHNICAL CENTER "POLLUTION ABATEMENT AND INSTALLATION RESTORATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMS ACTIVIES." DECEMBER, 1987
CONTACT NAME: ERIK HANGELAND TITLE: ENGINEER
ORGANIZATION: U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
w PHONE: 301-671-2054
00 DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FYPM INFORMATION TYPE: INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO REGULATION
REFERENCE: ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND ITALIAN NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL. "PROCEEDINGS: INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON
METALS SPECIATION, SEPARATION, AND RECOVERY." JULY 27-AUGUST 1, 1986
CONTACT NAME: DR. SANFORD SIEGEL
ORGANIZATION: UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MAMOU
COMMENTS: PAPER PRESENTED AT SYMPOSIUM ON METAL SPECIATION, SEPARATION AND RECOVERY - ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
JULY 27 - AUGUST 1, 1986
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FYRA INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: GALSON RESEARCH CORPORATION. "OPERATING AND QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES - LABORATORY STUDY FOR APEG CLEANUP OF MGM
BRAKE SUPERFUND SITE." SEPTEMBER 16, 1987
CONTACT NAME: EDWINA MILICIC
ORGANIZATION: GALSON RESEARCH CORP
6601 KIRKVILLE ROAD, E. SYRACUSE, NY 13057
PHONE: 315-432-0506
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FYRE INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: NATIONAL SANITATION FOUNDATION, ANN ARBOR, Ml. "LEACHATE TESTING OF HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS FROM STABILIZEDF AUTOMOTIVE
WASTES." JANUARY, 1979
CONTACT NAME: JACQUE DE LISLE
ORGANIZATION: NATIONAL SANATATION FOUNDATION
COMMENTS: LEACH TESTING OF HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS
-------
APPENDIX 1: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 114
Docunents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MISC. TECHNOLOGIES
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FYRF INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: U.S. EPA REGION IV. SAVANNAH LABS, RESOURCE CONSERVATION CO. GENERAL REFINING SITE - B.E.S.T. INFORMATION AND
ANALYSES." AUGUST 1985 - FEBRUARY 1987 "GENERAL REFINING SITE- B.E.S.T. INFORMATION AND ANALYSES." AUGUST 1985 -
FEBRUARY 1987
CONTACT NAME: SHANE HITCHCOCK
ORGANIZATION: EPA REGION IV
EPA REGION IV, 345 CORTLAND ST., NE, ATLANTA, GA 31416
COMMENTS: B.E.S.T. INFORMATION ON THE GENERAL REFINING SITE,IN CONJUNCTION WITH SAVANNAH LABS AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION
CO.
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-FYRJ INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: RMC ENVIRONMENTAL AND ANALYTICAL LABORATIES, INC. - REPORT ON THE NATURE OF CHEMICAL BONDING BETWEEN MODIFIED CLAY
MINERALS AND ORGANIC UASTE MATERIALS. DECEMBER, 1987
CONTACT NAME: R. SOUNDARARAJAN TITLE: DIRECTOR
ORGANIZATION: RMC ENVIRONMENTAL & ANALYTICAL LABS
PHONE: 417-256-1101
COMMENTS: CONTACT ABOUT LEACHING PROCEDURES AND BONDING BETWEEN CLAY MINERALS AND ORGANIC WASTES
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUGS INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: ESPOSITO, M., J. McARDLE, A. CRONE, j. GREBER, R. CLARK, S. BROWN, J. HALLOWELL, A. LANGHAM, C. McCANDLISH.
"PROJECT SUMMARY: GUIDE FOR DECONTAMINATING BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, AND EQUIPMENT AT SUPERFUND SITES."
EPA/600/S2-85/028. PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA, ORD. JUNE 1985.
S01 CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL. 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EWGV INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: WAGNER, K., R. WETZEL, H. BRYSON, C. FURMAN, A. WICKLINE, V. HODGE. "PROJECT SUMMARY- DRUM HANDLING PRACTICES AT
HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES." EPA/600/S2-86/013. PREPARED FOR U.S. EPA, ORD. AUGUST 1986.
CONTACT NAME: NOT REPORTED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL. 26 W. ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI, OH 45268
PHONE: 513-684-7537
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EUVL INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
REFERENCE: CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION, ORNL. "MODULAR DISPOSAL UNIT COMPONENT ISSUES AND TEST PROTOCOLS, SUBTASK II." MAY
1987.
CONTACT NAME: LESLIE DOLE TITLE: PROGRAM MANAGER
ORGANIZATION: WMTC, DOE, ORNL
P.O. BOX P. BUILDING K 1000 MS-183, OAK RIDGE. TN 37831
PHONE: 615-576-7421
COMMENTS: INFO ON THE PEPPER STEEL SITE AND OTHERS
-------
APPENDIX I: CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT Page: 115
Documents Sorted by Technology Date: 01/26/1990
OTHER - MATERIALS HANDLING
£ DOCUMENT NUMBER: 980-TS1-RT-EXPB INFORMATION TYPE: NO QUANTITATIVE ANALYTICAL DATA
0 REFERENCE: ROLLINS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (FS) INC."B.R.O.S. SITE - SUPERFUND PROJECT CONTRACT DACU 41-86-C-0140 VALUE
o ENGINEERING CHANGE PROPOSAL #1."
1 CONTACT NAME: DONALD LYNCH TITLE: EPA REGIONAL PROJECT MANAGER
i ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION II
* 26 FEDERAL PLAZA, NEW YORK, NY 10278
•o PHONE: 212-264-8216
| COMMENTS: BRIDGEPORT, GOOSE FARM
en
O
-------
Executive Summary: Approach and Conclusions
Section 1: Overview
Section 2: Treatability Descriptions and Treatment Recommendations
Section 3: Technology Descriptions and Conclusions
Appendix A: Contaminants Arranged by Waste Treatability Group
Appendix B: Treatment Technology Groups and Individual Treatment Process
Appendix C: Data Screens and Modifications
Appendix D: Total Constituent Analysis - Waste Treatment Results for Organics
Appendix E: Extraction Protocol - Waste Treatment Results for Inorganics
Appendix F: Extraction Protocol - Waste Treatment Results for Organics
Appendix G: Other Waste Treatment Results
Appendix H: Treatability Study Summaries
Appendix I: Bibliography
------- |