NCD980602163_19910806_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_EPA Tech Trends-OCR

oEPA
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
EPA/540/M-91/004 No. 6 August 1991 ~nn=-•~ ~ ::!-~ ---- - -..: 11/!!'f --~ ---==--= = - -~ -~ -=== ==---- ----S ft S 1111 tJ
The applied technologies journal for Superfund removals and remedial actions and RCRA corrective actions
Lime-Treated
PCB Test Results
by John Convery,
Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory
A t the request of Region V, the Of-
fice of Research and Development's
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
(RREL) investigated the effects of
quicklime on polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs). The research was prompted by
field observations that suggested sig-
nificant PCB losses after wastes were
solidified with materials containing
quicklime. Additionally, a report from
one project claimed evidence of com-
plete PCB destruction. However, that
report was questioned during peer re-
view. Hence, RREL and the Environ-
mental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
(EMSL) conducted research to clarify
(see PCB-Lime, page 3)
Bioventing/Biodegradation
Remediates Liquid Hydrocarbons
in Unsaturated Zone I Ii I Hydrocarbons
by Don Kampbe/1,
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory
~ Bioventing/ ~ Bioremediation
~ Groundwater
Ttie use of bioremediation for unsat-
urated zones is a relatively new tech-
nique. Assisted by bioventing, biore-
mediation is being used successfully at
the U.S. Coast Guard Air Station in
Traverse City, Michigan. EPA's Rob-
ert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory (RSKERL) and the U.S.
Coast Guard are finding that their pilot
demonstration is confirming earlier
treatability studies that indicated that
bioventing and bioremediation could be
used to clean up the unsaturated zone
contaminated with hydrocarbons from
an aviation gasoline spill. The actual
zone of contamination consists of liq-
uid hydrocarbons in the capillary fringe
on top of the groundwater. The initial
concentrations of hydrocarbons in core
material were as high as 10,000 milli-
grams per kilogram (mg/kg) when the
demonstration started last October.
Subsequent sampling every three
months shows that the bioventing pro-
cess is working and that concentrations
will be reduced to 100 mg/kg by De-
cember 1991. Final benzene levels
(originally 300 milligrams per liter) in
(see Bloventlng, page 2)
Alastracts in the Alternative Treatment Technology
lnfon11atlon Center (ATTIC) Database
Solidification: 208
(13%)
Biological: 272
(17%)
@ Printed on Recycled Paper
Biological Treatment Removes
Both Target & Background
Contaminants from Groundwater
2
by Mary K Stinson /
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory I ■I PCP
A trailer-mounted aerobic bio-
logical treatment system was dem-
onstrated at a wood preserving facil-
ity in New Brighton, Minnesota.
The process, a patented system
called the BioTrol Aqueous Treat-
ment System (BATS), was tested on
pentachlorophenol-contaminated
groundwater under a Superfund In-
novative Technology Evaluation
demonstration. The system success-
fully reduced pentachlorophenol
concentrations from 45 parts per
million (ppm) to 1 ppm or less in a
single pass through the system.
Biotesting done with living organ-
isms showed no acute toxicity of the
treated effluent
The system consists of a mixing
tank, a heat exchanger and a
bioreactor where a patented micro-
bial population specific to penta-
chlorophenol is added to the indig-
enous microbial population in the
wastewater. Here's how it works.
Contaminated water enters a mixing
tank where the pH is adjusted and
inorganic nutrients are added. A
heat exchanger is used to heat the
water to optimize the system. The
water then flows to the submerged
bioreactor chambers where the or-
ganic contaminants will be biode-
graded.
The fixed-film bioreactor has
three chambers that contain a mix-
ture of the indigenous and the pat-
ented microorganisms immobilized
on a support media. The growth of
the microbes has been developed
1~1 Bioremediation
over a one to C2SJ
two week Im Groundwater
period, prior \.._' ______ _,.
to the introduction of the wastewater
from the mixing tank. Air is supplied by
fine bubble membrane diffusers mounted
at the base of each chamber. As the wa-
ter flows through the bioreactor, contami-
nants are degraded and pentachlorophe-
nol is transformed into carbon dioxide,
water and chloride ion. The resulting ef-
fluent may be discharged to a Publicly
Owned Treatment Works, reused onsite
or even discharged directly under a Na-
tional Pollution Discharge Elimination
System permit.
At New Brighton, the system ap-
peared to be unaffected by low concentra-
tions of oil and grease (less than 50 ppm)
and heavy metals in the water. The sys-
tem required minimal operator attention.
The ten gallons per minute (gpm) capac-
ity unit was operated for two weeks (after
the initial two-week acclimation period)
at three different rates: 1 gpm, 3 gpm and
5 gpm. All three throughput rates yielded
the desired reduction.
In addition to groundwater, this tech-
nology is applicable to a wide variety of
wastewaters, including holding ponds and
process effluents. Contaminants found to
be amenable to treatment include penta-
chlorophenol, creosote constituents, gaso-
line and fuel oil, chlorinated hydrocar-
bons, phenolics and solvents.
For more information, call Mary
Stinson at FTS-340-6683 or 908-321-
6683, at EPA's Risk Reduction Engineer-
ing Laboratory Technical Assistance Pro-
gram in Edison, New Jersey.
Blovenllng
(from page 1)
underlying groundwater near the water
table are predicted to meet the state
standard of 5 micrograms per liter.
The bioventing involves a system
that injects air into the contaminated
zone to vaporize the liquid contami-
nants and transport them up through the
soil. By the time the vapor reaches the
surface, practically all of the contami-
nants have been degraded by the soil
microorganisms.
The project was executed in sev-
eral steps. In the first step, grass was
planted on top of the demonstration
area to increase the potential for bio-
logical activity. Studies have found
that much of the biological activity oc-
curs in the top six inches of soil; and,
this activity is associated with root sys-
tems near the surface. Next, a nutrient
solution consisting of 25 mg/kg of ni-
trogen, 5 mg/kg of phosphorus and 2
mg/kg of potassium was dispersed
throughout the unsaturated zone to en-
hance the biodegradation. Fifteen air
injection points, ten feet apart in a 3x5
grid, were placed just above the
groundwater table. Next, a tracer test
with sulfur hexafluoride was conducted
to determine how far the injected air
moved laterally in the soil. A second
system of both injection and extraction
points, ten feet apart, just above the wa-
ter table, is also being evaluated to de-
termine if it is more efficient than injec-
tion points alone. With this second sys-
tem, the extracted airstreams are
rein jected into the soil so that further
biodegradation may occur. Both treat-
ment areas are being monitored for air
emissions which have been negligible.
Performance and economic data
from this pilot demonstration show that
the system will be suitable for applica-
tion to full-scale remediation.
For more information call Don
Kampbell at RSKERL in Ada, OK at
FfS 743-2358 or 405-332-8800.
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
9380.0-1 ?FS
August 1991
&EPA Furthering the Use of Innovative
Treatment Technologies in
OSWER Programs
Introduction
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) is seeking to further the use of innovative
treatment technologies to permanently clean-up contami-
nated sites in the Superfund, RCRA, and Underground
Storage Tank (UST) programs. According to a directive
from OSWER's Assistant Administrator Don Clay, " ... we
must invest the necessary resources and take the risks
now to develop the technologies necessary to fulfill the
long-term needs of our hazardous waste clean-up pro-
grams." The directive, which was signed on June 10,
1991, includes a forwarding memorandum to EPA re-
gions that calls for technological leadership and a sense of
responsible urgency to prevent expenditures in pursuing
less effective or more costly remedies. This fact sheet is
based on OSWER Directive 9380.0-17.
Reasonable risk-taking is encouraged in selecting innova-
tive treatment technologies that are capable of treating
contaminated soils, sludges, and ground water more effec-
tively, less expensively, and in a manner more acceptable
to the public than existing conventional methods.
"Innovative treatment technologies" are newly-developed
technologies that lack sufficient full-scale application data to
ensure their routine consideration for site remediation. They
may be new technologies, or may already be in use for various
industrial applications other than hazardous waste remedia-
tion. As such, innovative technologies are not part of stan-
dard engineering practice or the competitive market process
where available alternatives are routinely presented to the
government and private sector. In functional terms, OSWER
labels as ''innovative" those treatment technologies other
than incineration and solidification/stabilization for EK>urce con-
trol, and other than pumping with conventional treatment for
ground water.
Inherent risks associated with early technology use serve
as very serious impediments. The directive calls on po-
tentially responsible parties, facility owners/operators,
and consulting engineers to constructively work with un-
certainty to further the application of technologies that
are truly innovative. The directive also calls on EPA re-
gional and headquarters managers to support Remedial
1
Project Managers and On-Scene Coordinators in their ef-
forts to use new technologies.
Innovative treatment technologies should be routinely con-
sidered as an option in engineering studies where treat-
ment is appropriate. They should not be eliminated from
consideration solely because of uncertainties in their per-
formance and cost. These technologies may be found to be
cost-effective, despite the fact that their costs are greater
than conventional options, after consideration of potential
benefits including increased protection, superior perfor-
mance, and greater community acceptance. In addition,
future sites will benefit by information gained from the
field experience.
The directive sets forth several initiatives and new proce-
dures that will provide incentives for broader use of inno-
vative technology. Some of these initiatives are directed
toward potentially responsible parties and owner/opera-
tors, since these groups will be assuming a larger share of
the remedial projects in the future. Other new initiatives
are intended to remove impediments to the first-time use
of new equipment. The directive also encourages wider
application of available resources and tools and highlights
some important on-going program efforts.
New Initiatives
1. Superfund Innovative Technology Start-Up Initiative
OERR will be revising its procedures for setting Remedial
Action funding priorities to give more consideration to in-
novative technologies. Expedited funding of Fund-lead re-
medial design and construction projects that involve
innovative treatment technologies will move the agency to-
ward the Superfund program's goals for technology devel-
opment and will provide data to support future Records of
Decision (RODs).
This initiative also provides contract flexibility in the
start-up phase of selected remedial and removal actions to
assist vendors in establishing operations that satisfy per-
formance standards. In an effort to remove some of the
impediments to the use of new full-scale equipment, this
initiative will provide financial support for initial start-up
and shake-down prior to beginning actual remediation.
Funds are not targeted at making the technology "work
at any cost", but in establishing performance adequacy of
the technology prior to the onset of the contracted clean-
up. Contracting strategies are being considered to com-
pensate vendors regardless of whether or not they are
able to meet performance requirements for a portion of
the site remediation.
2. Dual Track RI/FS Initiative (Superfund)
EPA regions may fund additional treatability studies and
engineering analyses for promising treatment technolo-
gies that would otherwise be considered unproven or too
early in the development process. For PRP-lead sites ear-
ly in the planning process, this initiative encourages the
use oftreatability studies to ensure that alternative rem-
edies are thoroughly evaluated and considered in the
ROD. Even if, in a particular case, there may be some
doubt as to EPA's ability to recover the costs for these ad-
ditional studies, they should nonetheless be pursued be-
cause of their value to the overall program.
3. Tandem ROD Evaluatlon Initiative (Superfund)
Primarily applicable to PRP-lead sites (though also to
some Fund-lead sites), this program will enable regional
staff to rapidly evaluate the efficacy of a PRP-proposed in-
novative remedy that is offered in tandem with the pri-
mary one approved in the ROD. Both remedies would be
part of the proposed plan. The alternate solution would
be approved in the ROD on a contingent basis but would
undergo further development and pilot testing during the
design period of the primary technology. Tandem RODs
move the process of cleanup toward closure while leaving
room for PRPs with an interest in innovative technologies
to pursue additional pilot tests to demonstrate an alter-
nate approach that is both innovative and potentially
cost-effective. The OSWER/ORD Technical Support Cen-
ters and the SITE Demonstration Program will provide
RPMs with technical support for evaluation of PRP work.
When considering a tandem ROD, the region should con-
sult with ORD concerning the scope of effort required for
the evaluation.
If, after testing and evaluation, the innovative technology
is chosen for implementation but the process has caused
significant delays to the schedule, the region may consid-
er the engineering problems of making the full-scale unit
operational when assessing stipulated penalties. That is,
in limited cases, stipulated penalties should not be im-
posed if the delays are the unavoidable result of the use of
an innovative process.
4. Removal Program Initiative (Superfund)
It is OSWER policy to further the use of innovative tech-
nologies through the removal program. The relatively
2
small waste volumes and streamlined contracting proce-
dures of the removal program provide an opportunity to
complete clean-up projects and provide documentation on
"lessons learned".
The potential of the removal program for these applica-
tions has not been realized because time constraints often
favor excavation and off-site disposal or treatment and
also because of the absence of clear legislated goals re-
garding the use of new technology. This directive is
meant to clarify EPA's position on this issue and to en-
courage the use of innovative technologies for all actions,
including time-critical actions, where feasible. These
projects are expected to fulfill an important role in adding
to our knowledge on promising new technologies.
5. RCRA Corrective Action and Closure
Innovative Technology Initiative
This initiative encourages the regions to conduct treatabili-
ty or technology demonstration studies at corrective action
and closure sites to gain additional information on the use
of innovative treatment for contaminated soil and debris.
EPA is developing best demonstrated available technology
(BOAT) treatment standards for contaminated soil and de-
bris at CERCLA and RCRA corrective action and closure
sites. These sites present unique treatment problems
that were not considered when developing the current
BOAT standards which were based on data from the
treatment of industrial process wastes. There is general
agreement that wide scale use of incineration is not ap-
propriate for soil and debris and there is a need to explore
alternative approaches.
The current schedule is to promulgate a rule for the treat-
ment of debris in May 1992 and for soil in April 1993.
Prior to publication of these final rules, a site-specific
treatability variance process (40 CFR 268.44 (h)) is avail-
able for contaminated soil and debris to establish an al-
ternative standard for specified waste at individual
sites. The variance process, along with applicable treat-
ment guidance levels, is described in Superfund LDR
Guide #6A (OSWER Directive 9347.3-06FS, July 1989),
and is intended to be used as an interim approach until
final standards are established.
The regions should work with owner/operators to select
pilot-scale projects that can provide data on the capability
of technologies and the treatability of different wastes.
Projects should be carefully selected to maximize the util-
ity of data and likelihood of success.
Authority for issuing site-specific variances for contaminated
soil and debris has been delegated to the regions. The facility
and EPA, in collaboration with the state, can implement vari-
ances for on-site demonstrations through two mechanisms:
temporary authorization under the Permit Modification Rule,
or 3008(h) orders for interim-status facilities.
I
6. Demonstration Projects at Federal Facllltles
(Superfund, RCRA, and UST)
EPA is exploring the use of Federal Facilities for both
site-specific technology demonstrations and as test loca-
tions for evaluation of more widely applicable technolo-
gies. Regions are encouraged to suggest innovative
approaches and to be receptive to proposals for innovation
from Federal Facility managers, e.g., by building timing
and performance flexibility into compliance agreements
in acknowledgment of the uncertainties associated with
innovation. Federal Facilities often have characteristics
that make them desirable for applying innovative ap-
proaches: large area, isolated locations, controlled access,
numerous contamination problems, and increasingly ac-
tive environmental restoration programs.
The Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement (OFFE) and
the Technology Innovation Office (TIO) will work with
the regions to identify locations for test and evaluation
activities and to develop policies and guidance to ensure
that support for innovation is congruent with other pro-
gram and environmental objectives.
7. Federal Technology Transfer Act
During the clean-up planning and implementation pro-
cess, PRPs or owner/operators should be reminded of
the opportunity to engage EPA in evaluation studies or
other arrangements (at their expense) to determine
whether an innovative technology would be operative in
the situation they are facing or other similar situations.
Under the Federal Technology Transfer Act (FTTA) of
1986, cooperative agreements related to research, de-
velopment, and technology transfer will allow the PRP
to reimburse EPA for facilities, support services, and
staff time spent in joint evaluation of early technology
treatability or pilot studies.
Since this program is conducted in the research and de-
velopment arena, it offers an opportunity for non-adver-
sarial interaction outside the regulatory context. This
opportunity should be especially advantageous to
(1) PRPs and owner/operators capable of early planning
for technology options at a few sites and desirous of early
EPA input, as well as (2) PRPs and owner/operators that
will be faced with a number of similar waste sites in the
future-under Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and
the UST program-who want to develop more uniform,
cost-effective technology proposals for such sites.
Implementation
The first six initiatives involve field testing new technolo-
gies that may benefit from technical assistance from
ORD. ORD represents an objective third party that can
easily be accessed through the existing OSWER/ORD
support structure. This structure consists of five labora-
3
tories that constitute the Technical Support Centers (both
for Superfund and newly established for RCRA), the Su-
perfund Technical Assistance Response Team (START)
Program, the Bioremediation Field Initiative, and the Su-
perfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Pro-
gram. OSWER has asked ORD to give priority to
requests for technical assistance under this directive.
Broader Application of Existing
Policies, Available Resources,
and Tools
Furthering Innovative Remediation at Leaking
UST Sites
State and local UST programs have identified 100,000
confirmed leaks, and this number may triple in the next
several years. Most site remediation involves pumping
and treating ground water and excavation and off-site
treatment of contaminated soils. Regional offices should
increase their efforts to make state and local managers
and staff, as well as clean-up consultants and contractors,
more familiar with non-traditional but proven technolo-
gies. Headquarters will continue fostering the develop-
ment of new tools and techniques and should increase its
support of regional efforts to achieve broader use of im-
proved technologies.
Further Enabling State Innovative Technology
Leadership
The CERCLA core funding program provides an opportu-
nity to assist states in establishing innovative technology
advocates. Cooperative agreements with state response
programs may be a vehicle to support and promote the
use of innovative technologies in state CERCLA pro-
grams, with spinoffbenefits for their RCRA and UST pro-
grams as well.
In addition, regions should be open to assisting states in-
terested in furthering technology development and en-
courage state applications for authority for RCRA R&D
permitting, permit modification, treatability exclusion,
and Subpart X permitting. States may also want to work
directly with Federal Facilities in developing pilot sites
for innovative technologies. For the reasons discussed in
the section on Federal Facilities above, these sites are of-
ten good candidates for such development projects.
Model RI/FS Work Plan and PRP Notice Letter
Demand for Innovative Options
Some regions have issued special notices containing a
Statement of Work and administrative order language re-
quiring the responsible party to evaluate the use of inno-
vative technologies at a particular site. This procedure
should receive broader use at Superfund sites where al-
ternatives for remediation are being considered for analy-
sis in the RI/FS and where prerequisite treatability
studies are required. This requirement in the special or
general notice letters will help facilitate the development
and use of innovative treatment technologies by the pri-
vate sector. Specific language for this approach can be
developed from OWPE's guidance document entitled
"Model Statement of Work for RI/FSs Conducted by
PRPs" (OSWER Directive 9835.8).
Advocacy and Funding of Treatablllty Studies
Superfund program policy requires that treatability
studies be conducted to generate data to support the
implementation of treatment technologies. Funds are
budgeted annually in the SCAP based on expected
need. Data and reports should be sent to Glen Shaul at
RREL for inclusion in the ATTIC database. The correct
protocol and format for these reports is in EPA's "Guide
for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA"
(EPN540/2-89/058). Oversight funding for evaluating a
PRP-lead treatability study should also be requested
through the SCAP budget process. Oversight of PRP-
lead treatability studies may be funded through the en-
forcement budget. If a PRP recommends use of an
innovative treatment at a site, but current treatability
study data on the technology are insufficient, EPA poli-
cy allows the Agency to conduct and fund technology-
specific treatability studies. Cost of these studies are
recoverable under Section 107 of CERCLA.
Tracking and Expediting SITE Demonstrations
OSWER is encouraging greater participation in the SITE
program in response to a recent Inspector General audit
of the program that focused on delays in matching Super-
fund sites with technologies. ORD management has also
agreed that SITE demonstration projects must be more
responsive to regional needs for treatability data
The SITE program will make the design of technology eval-
uation sufficiently flexible to meet the regional offices'
needs for treatability studies before remedy selection is
made. Based on an ORD internal management review of
the SITE program, changes are underway to make the
program a more integral component of regional Super-
fund site activities.
Existing Program Efforts
OSWER has several other ongoing efforts directed toward
furthering the application of innovative alternatives. These
represent important resources that should continue to be
used by the UST, RCRA, and Superfund Programs.
Technical Support and Information Management
EPA maintains several computer database that may be
accessed for information on treatment technologies.
4
These databases include the Alternative Treatment Tech-
nology Information Center (ATTIC), the Cleanup Infor-
mation (CLU-IN) Bulletin Board, the ROD Database, the
Hazardous Waste Collection Database, and the Comput-
erized On-Line Information System (COLIS). These sys-
tems include information on the application of innovative
technologies and may be used to aid networking among
OSCs and RPMs.
Technical assistance is available to Superfund and RCRA
staff through ORD's Technical Support Centers and the
Environmental Response Branch of OERR. Part of this
effort involves networking among project managers
through the Engineering and Ground Water Forums. In
addition, as part of an initiative to provide direct techni-
cal support to OSCs and RPMs, the Superfund Technical
Assistance Response Team (ST ART) has been established
to help evaluate the potential use of technologies.
Bloremedlatlon Field Initiative
Begun in the fourth quarter of FY 1990, this program is
intended to provide more real-time information on the
field application of biotechnology for treating hazardous
waste. The major focus of this initiative is to furnish
direct support in evaluating full-scale cleanup
operations and technical assistance for conducting
treatability and pilot-scale studies.
Eliminating Contract Impediments
Under the Federal Acquisition Regulations, firms are
restricted from performing both the design and
construction of a project. EPA has determined that this
applies only to the prime contractor responsible for the
overall design, and not to the subcontractors
performing treatability studies.
Innovative technology is considered a special exception
from general conflict of interest guidelines. EPA will
permit contractors and/or subcontractors who perform
evaluation of innovative technologies for the Agency to
later work for the PRPs in as many instances as
possible.
Additional Information
Copies of the policy (OSWER Directive 9380.0-17) and ad-
ditional copies of this fact sheet are available from:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
Springfield, VA 22161
Phone [phone]
Agency and State employees may obtain copies of the di-
rective or this fact sheet from the Superfund Document
Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room
2514, 401 M Street S.W., Washington, DC 20460. The
telephone number is Fl'S or 202/382-5628.
A"""!!'-.-■ ...
..... !!!■ ... Out of the ATTIC
Photochemical Oxidation Reduces Organics
by Curtis Harlin, Office of Research and Development
f n om series of articles in ''Out of the At-
tic", we try to give you a sense of the kinds
of information you find when you access
the Alternative Treatment Technology In-
fonnation Center (A mC) database.
Ame divides its innovative treatment
technologies into five areas: physical, ther-
mal, oolidification/stabilization, biological
and chemical. In this issue, we highlight
chemical treatment technologies which
make up 17% of the database that now con-
tains more than 1,(JOO abstracts. The
chemical treatment processes included in
A me range from dechlorination to pre-
cipitation to photooxidation.
Currently, Ame contains 25 ab-
stracts with information about innovative
photochemical oxidative destruction tech-
nology. These abstracts may be ob-
tained by searching with keywords such
as oxidation, photomicroelectrochem-
ical, ultraviolet (UV), photolysis and
PCB-Lime
frompage1
quicklime effects. What RREL and
EMSL found is that the PCB losses were
largely due to steam stripping and vola-
tilization.
RREL and EMSL conducted their
tests using a silica matrix spiked with
1,300 parts per million (ppm) each of
three pure PCB congeners and commer-
cial quicklime. Upon addition of water,
heat generated by quicklime slaking
raised the mixture temperature to about
180° C. In open reactors, up to 85% of
the dichlorobiphenol was lost after 24
hours. Steam stripping and volatiliza-
tion were extremely sensitive to experi-
mental conditions such as temperature
and air sweep velocity. However, test-
ing in closed-reactor tests revealed that
significantly less removal was due to
steam stripping and volatilization. The
laser stimulated photochemical. Searching
by these keywords prcxluces abstracts on
projects such as those described below.
One project, reported by the California
DeJmtinent of Health Services, treated aque-
ous waste containing pesticides, herbicides and
halogenated hydrocarlx>ns using ultraviolet
and ozone treatment Total organic carbon
was reduced from 42 parts per million (ppm)
to 4 ppm, including BTX (benrene, toluene
and xylene) and ethylbenzene reduction by
99%. Trichloroethylene was reduced from
69 parts per billion to below detection level.
Photochemical oxidation technology was
used at the Lcrentz Barrel and Drum site in
San Jose, California. Groundwater that con-
tained volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), tri-
chloroethylene (I'CE) and vinyl chloride was
treated by an Ultrox system using a combina-
tion of ultraviolet radiation, ozone and hydro-
gen peroxide. TCE was reduced more than
99% from initial concentration levels of
previous laboratory study did not account
for losses to the atmosphere.
Some decomposition of PCBs by
quicklime was observed, amounting to an
estimated 5% of the starting material.
Products were mainly hydroxy-substituted
PCBs and lesser-chlorinated PCBs; some
methoxy derivatives were also formed. A
tetrachlorodibenzofuran was detected in
the reaction mixtures at concentrations up
to 14 ppm, representing up to 1 % conver-
sion of the hexachlorobiphenyl source
compound to this product.
What does this mean for those of you
in the field? While some limited decom-
position of PCBs by quicklime occurred,
the rates and extent of dechlorination were
low; and, the results of this study refuted
earlier claims. For the next round,
RREL's immediate focus is on key issues
related to the possible deleterious effects
of using quicklime-based materials to so-
lidify PCB wastes for handling in removal
100 µwl,. Vinyl chloride, which had initial
concentrations of 40 µwl,, along with VOCs,
was reduced by 90%. (Note: the Ultrox sys-
tem was a feature article in the December
1990 issue of Tech Trends.)
When you access Ame, abstracts give
you the name and phone nwnber of the
project or site contact For example, the Cali-
fornia Department of Health Services contact
is Mike Vivas at 916-324--0352. The Lcrentz
contacts are David B. Fletcher at 714-545-
5557 and Norma Lewis at 513-569-7fi65 or
FrS-684-7fi65.
There are other examples of innovative
chemical treatment technologies in the AT-
TIC database including ion exchange, electro-
osmosis, high-energy electron radiation and
electro-coagulation. If you would like further
information on these technologies, please
contact the Ame System Operator at 301-
670-6294. To access A me online by mo-
dem, dial 301-670-3808.
actions. This common practice is probably
environmentally safe; but, the possibility
of volatilization and/or chlorinated
dibenzofuran formation needs to be exam-
ined. Current field applications of quick-
lime-based materials typically use less cal
cium oxide (CaO) and a shorter reaction
time. Aged complex mixtures of PCB
congeners that are associated with actual
soils containing organics and clay con-
stituents are less likely to steam strip or
volatilize. Obviously, air monitoring
would be a prudent practice. We will up-
date you on our future research and the
resolution of these issues.
A three-page progress report on the
RREL/EMSL research is available. A fi-
nal report is currently undergoing peer re-
view and will be published by the end of
September 1991. For more information,
call John Convery at RREL on FTS-684-
7896 or on 513-569-7896.
3
4
New for the Bookshelf
Accessing Federal Data Bases for Contaminated Site Clean-Up Technologies. A series of profiles describing EPA, DOD and DOE in-
fonnation systems which contain descriptions of innovative haz.ardous waste treatment technologies. Document No. EPN540/8-91/008.
Bibllography of Federal Reports and Publications Describing Alternative and
Innovative Treatment Technologies for Co"ective Action and Site Remediation.
References with order infonnation for reports produced by Roundtable member Agen-
cies on research concerning the application of innovative and alternative hazardous
waste treatment options. Document No. EPN540/8-91/007.
Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies.
A compendium of abstracts documenting the results of demonstrations of hazardous
waste treatment technologies conducted by Federal Agencies involved in Superfund re-
mediation and RCRA and UST corrective actions. Document No. EPN540/8-91/009.
Slurry Biodegradation. Discusses potential of slurry biodegradation as a cost-effective
technology for aerobic treatment of soils or sludges with high concentrations of soluble
organic contaminants. Document No. EPN540/2-90/016.
Solvent Extraction Treatment. Overview of use of organic chemicals as a solvent for
organic waste. Document No. EPN540/2-90/013.
i~~~Ht ill ~~61111~,lij; ltij <ava11a61e1romo0otstcenter••1of u c1:fo,1r&nffiehta1 Researcri••••ntOr+ > mif19n (G§B') ,p g,nyiQn,i,~ xiµ
P~n pfgijtJ~,m••,J!Ptt91:11p,.1.1y Ptl Jhe P~9d~ ~011ijun t§~r~Iit t .dlr~~tlyJtqm Pl;RM 19 ~9ti!i9' >
•••••••~r~~:~ iintli1!1il11fJ~J••••••••••••••••• You m.usfhave the EPA aocuE > < ment hOmber or the exaciiltl$ fi:k
. .. order·•a. do~umiotW r••··············· //
Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment: APEG Treatment. Presents chemical dehalogenation system applicable to aromatic halogenated
compound treatment and destruction in soils, sediments, sludges or oils. Document No. EPA/540/2-90/015.
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
EP N540/M-91/004
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
* U.S. G.P.O.: 1991 548-187 /40549