hazardous waste treatment technologies

Hazardous Waste Treatment TechnologiesAuthor(s): Byung J. Kim, Chai Sung Gee, John T. Bandy and Ching-San HuangSource: Research Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 63, No. 4, 1991:Literature Review (Jun., 1991), pp. 501-509Published by: Water Environment FederationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25044031 .

Accessed: 03/11/2013 16:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Water Environment Federation is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toResearch Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 196.200.142.112 on Sun, 3 Nov 2013 16:59:33 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wef

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25044031?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Hazardous Wastes

Hazardous waste

treatment

technologies Byung J. Kim, Chai Sung Gee, John T. Bandy, Ching-San Huang

This review emphasizes hazardous waste treatment technol

ogies in general. Separate reviews on hazardous waste treatment

technologies relative to specific industries may be found else where in this volume.

BOOKS AND PROCEEDINGS

Major and Fitcho1 identified emerging hazardous waste treat ment technologies and provided evaluation of feasibility and cost of selected technologies. Freeman and Sferra2 edited a three volume reference summarizing innovative hazardous waste

treatment technologies. It included thermal processes (vol. 1),

physical/chemical processes (vol. 2), and biological processes

(vol. 3). Ma?anan3 published a hazardous waste chemistry text

book and included hazardous waste treatment technologies with reference to basic chemistry and toxicology. Lynman et al.4 pre

sented a methodology to evaluate the effectiveness of cleanup technologies at petroleum product contaminated sites, including a site assessment, selection of technologies, monitoring, and fol

low-up. Testa and Winegardener5 presented information on re

storing aquifers contaminated by petroleum products, including groundwater and soil treatment technologies. Noonan and

Curtis6 presented the petroleum-contaminated groundwater

treatment technologies including air stripping, granular activated

carbon, and biorestoration and costs data. ICF, Inc.7 prioritized

and discussed hazardous solvent waste management techniques.

The highest priority was minimization, followed by recycling, incineration, chemical and biological treatment, landfill, and

deep-well injection. Arozarena et al* provided general guidance on solidification/stabilization (S/S) technology, including back

ground, test methods, equipment, costs, and detailed description

of each S/S technology. Nunno9 identified international tech

nologies that could be used for hazardous waste remediation and treatment. Tedder and Pohland10 edited an American Chemical Society (ACS) symposium series book, which included

chapters on biological and chemical treatment of soils and sludges and solid immobilization. The U. S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA)11 summarized in situ treatment technologies for hazardous waste contaminated soils. The United Nations En

vironmental Program12 published guidelines for handling, treat

ment, and disposal of hazardous wastes.

Several proceedings from major conferences on hazardous

material and waste treatment were published during 1990. The

proceedings of the 44th Industrial Waste Conference13 at Purdue

University included many papers on hazardous waste treatment

technologies. At the 83rd Annual Meeting of the Air and Waste

Management Association,14 many papers on incineration tech

nology were presented. At the Solid/Liquid Separation Confer

ence,15 the 22nd Mid-Atlantic Industrial Waste Conference,16 and the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research Center Con

ference,17 many papers were presented on hazardous waste re

mediation and S/S technologies. Proceedings from the following EPA-sponsored conferences

included many papers on hazardous waste treatment technol

ogies: the Second Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies,18 the 15th and 16th Annual Hazardous

Waste Research Symposiums,19'20 and the A&WMA Interna tional Symposium.21 Proceedings from Department of Energy (DOE) sponsored conferences discussed hazardous waste treat

ment technologies, including the Mixed Waste Regulation Con

ference,22 the Annual Waste Management Symposium Working Towards a Clean Environment (16th),23 Incineration Conference

'90,24 Annual DOE Low Level Waste Management Conference,25

and Environmental Restoration and Waste Management

Workshop.26 At the Western Regional Symposium on Mining and Mineral Processing Wastes,27 the American Electroplaters and Surface Finishers Conference,28 and the National Petroleum Refiners Association Annual Meeting,29 many industrial haz ardous waste treatment technology related papers were presented.

GENERAL

Chambers et al.30 compiled state-of-the-art information on in

situ treatment technologies for hazardous waste, focusing on

contaminated soil, and provided extensive references. Pheiffer

et al.31 studied European technologies to treat contaminated soils,

including vacuum extraction, in situ washing, in situ steam

stripping, and land farming. Sims32 reviewed current issues, ap

proaches, and soil remediation technologies to identify deficien cies and recommend improvement at uncontrolled hazardous

waste sites. Young et al.33 presented nine case studies with in

novative technology process descriptions and performance and cost data at ongoing and completed Superfund sites. Technol

ogies included incineration of explosives and contaminated soils, air stripping, soil vacuum extraction, and soil flushing. An EPA

report34 to Congress summarized the progress in implementing the Superfund in the fiscal year 1988 and included an evaluation of newly developed feasible and achievable permanent treatment

technologies. Another EPA report35 to Congress summarized the progress, accomplishments, and results of the Superfund In

novative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program through 1989. James36 pointed out that the demonstration and evaluation of a hazardous waste treatment technology should be conducted

with the purpose of characterizing performance, need for pre

and postprocessing of the waste feed, identification of waste type and constituents applicable to the technology, system through put, problems and limitations of the technology, and costs.

An EPA directive37 summarized the effectiveness of treatment

technologies for contaminated soil and debris and provided sup

port for decisions by the regions to use treatability variances for complying with the Resource Conservation and Recovery

June 1991 501



Hazardous Wastes_

Act (RCRA) land ban disposal restrictions. Loehr et al3% pre sented information on the quantitative evaluation of mobility and persistence of organic and inorganic waste constituents that

had accumulated over a long-term period in soil treatment sys

tems. The information was useful in the development of soil treatment closure decisions. Schomaker and Zunt39 explained

that technical guidance documents provided best documented available technology (BDAT) to meet the needs of RCRA and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,

and Liability Act. The areas of research were related to cover

and liner systems, waste leaching and solidification, in situ treat

ment, S/S combustion, and BDAT. Ahlert and Kosson40 eval

uated dispersed and fixed-film aerobic and anaerobic systems,

flocculation/precipitation, ultrafiltration, and reverse osmosis on

a laboratory scale for treating high-strength hazardous waste site

and leachate. The resulting effluent could be polished by ultra

filtration, reverse osmosis, and ion exchange to meet the permit

standards. Lyman and Noonan41 presented a methodology to

effectively select contaminated soil at underground storage tank sites and evaluated five technologies: soil venting, biorestoration, soil flushing, hydraulic barrier, and excavation. Factors affecting implementation of each technology were presented. Fuhr and

des Rosiers42 described technical methods of degradation, de

struction, detoxification, and disposal of wastes containing chlo

rinated dibenzo-/xlioxins and dibenzofurans using incineration,

ultraviolet (UV) photolysis, and supercritical oxidation and pre sented actual field test data. Woodyard43 pointed out that recent

polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) treatment focused on mobile or in situ application resulting in unacceptable liability for the

generators and evaluated soil remediation technologies including thermal, chemical, and biological treatment and physical sep

aration. Maunsell44 pointed out that landfill capacity is a critical

resource in the hazardous waste industries in Australia. Man

agement trends include allowing more sewer discharge, creating

and enforcing more stringent regulations, and performing more

treatment. Reviewed treatment technologies included inciner

ation and other new technologies. Corbett45 described how re

fineries and petrochemical industries have been changing the

way hazardous wastes are managed. Technologies of concern

included dewatering oily sludge, on-site incineration to meet

BDAT standards, selective catalytic and noncatalytic NOx re

duction systems, and catalyst-recycling technology. The Canada

Center for Mineral and Energy Technology46 studied mineral

industry sludge treatment technologies. Treatment alternatives

included sludge dewatering, effluent treatment by ion exchange with subsequent metal recovery, and reprocessing of sludges ei

ther on-site by the use of solvent extraction or in mineral industry smelters or refineries. Talion et al47 examined the technologies

that treat gas industry wastes and remediation sites. Candidate

technologies were evaluated for their specific applications and available performance and cost data were compiled on a com

puter database system.

EPA published a 24-volume final BDAT background document48; a 19-volume BDAT background document, treat

ment standards, an amendment to the final BDAT background document49; and a 19-volume final response to BDAT-related

comments document.50 The background documents provided the U. S. EPA with technical support and rationale for the de

velopment of treatment standards for the constituents to be reg

ulated.

BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT

Safferman and Bhattacharya51 investigated the treatability and fate of 28 organic RCRA compounds in a combined organic removal and nitrification process and by secondary effluent

gravity filtration. At a total concentration of 1.5 mg/L of organics in the aeration basin, most of the compounds were removed to

below the detectable limit by secondary treatment. Bhattacharya et al.52 compared two pilot-scale activated sludge plant perfor

mances. One was operated with distributed RCRA compound loading and the other one with spiked loading. The selected

compounds did not cause any adverse effects on chemical oxygen

demand (COD) and suspended solid removals. Chlorinated ali

phatic solvents were volatilized and aromatic volatile benzenes

were degraded. Dieneman et al.53 used serial anaerobic/aerobic

packed bed reactor to biodegrade organic contaminants in leachate from a Superfund site, resulting in 80 to 90% priority

pollutant removal. Mass balances for the anaerobic and aerobic

subsystems were attempted.

Kuhn and Suflita54 examined the anaerobic biod?gradation of nitrogen-substituted and sulfonated benzene contaminants

by aquifer microorganisms. The results indicated which hazard

ous waste constituents persisted and which favored anaerobic

biotransformation. Trattner and Lawson55 reviewed the biolog

ical technologies for hazardous waste treatment including land

composting, aerobic treatment, and anaerobic biod?gradation.

Hazardous wastes included PCB, trichloroethylene (TCE), poly nuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH), pentachlorophenol (PCP), aniline, and chlorophenol. Cheremisinoff56 presented an over

view of biological treatment and detoxification of water and wastewater. Efficient systems included aerobic and anaerobic

fluidized bed and membrane biological reactor.

Steegmans and Brunswig57 examined removal efficiencies of

COD, biochemical oxygen demand, and organics halogenated from waste disposal site leachate using an adsorption resin fol

lowed by a biological treatment. Brenner et al5* investigated

the feasibility of using the sequencing batch reactor (SBR) as a

key component of treating contaminated soil and leachates. The

SBRs removed most of soil and leachate constituents while pro

ducing cyanide-resisting bacteria. Darnall and Hosea59 success

fully conducted laboratory tests and on-site pilot-scale demon

stration of AlgaSORB technology for the removal and recovery of mercury-contaminated groundwater under the U. S. EPA's

SITE program. The appendices to the report included the lab

oratory results of AlgaSORB technology demonstration.

Zitrides60 discussed three general bioremediation techniques: biostimulation for contaminated groundwater and soils, bioslurry for sludges and highly contaminated soils, and biofarming for

lightly contaminated soils. Golueke and Diaz61 discussed ad

vantages, disadvantages, and technologies for two approaches

to enriching degradation of toxic wastes: mass inoculation of

organisms and biostimulation to encourage these microorgan

isms. Sims et al62 discussed an in situ and prepared bed system using natural microorganisms to treat contaminated soils. System

development steps were discussed: site/soil/waste characteriza

tion, treatability studies, and design and implementation of the

bioremediation plan. Finlayson63 pointed out that the practicality of bioremediation of waste is based on its speed and cost effec

tiveness. Bewley et al}4 argued that biological treatment of con

taminated soil offers a workable and responsible alternative and

502 Research Journal WPCF, Volume 63, Number 4



Hazardous Wastes

described a successful project in detail. April et al65 evaluated in situ soil bioremediation processes, including degradation and

detoxification, for wood-preserving, petroleum-refining wastes

at high concentrations in an acclimated soil. The soil solid phase, water soluble fraction of soil, and column leachates were eval

uated.

Topp and Hanson66 examined soil slurries to analyze the ef

fects of soil type, supplementation with carbon or inorganic nu

trients, creosote, and copper/chromate/arsenate mixtures on vi

ability and PCP degradation by inoculant of flavobacterium sp.

Wang et al61 examined the effectiveness of biostimulation to treat diesel oil contaminated soils. The contaminated soil ap

proached the background level of uncontaminated soil after 12 weeks of bioremediation. Lewandowski et al.6* explored various

nutrient media and reactor configurations to effectively treat hazardous wastes by white rot fungus. Preliminary results in

dicated that immobilization improves the biod?gradation rate

substantially. Lamar and Dietrich69 studied the ability of white rot fungus to remove PCP from soil. A PCP removal efficiency of 88-91% was achieved in 6.5 weeks converting most of PCPs to nonextractable soil-bound products. Sharp-Hansen70 inves

tigated organic air pollutant emission from bioremediation pro cesses and identified and evaluated air emission models for each

bioremediation process.

CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL TREATMENT

A fact sheet from the U. S. EPA71 provided the technology description of Glycolate dehalogenation as being a potentially effective technology in detoxifying specific types of aromatic or

ganic contaminants, particularly dioxins and PCBs. Tiernan et

al.72-73 studied the various operating parameters of dehaloge

nation by using KPEG-potassium hydroxide and polyethylene

glycol: duration of treatment; temperature; the presence of water,

volatile materials, and carbon matrix; and the quantity of reagent.

Dechlorination of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (PCDD) and

polychlorinated dibenzofuran (PCDF) sorbed on activated car

bon was also discussed. Barkley74 reported a pilot-scale study

for the efficacy of PCB removal from concrete surface by using alkali metal/PEG mixture. He also tried a shotblasting technique in which contaminated concrete surface was cut away. Jones75

compiled the possible mechanisms of interference between par ticular waste components and commercially available waste

binding systems through literature review and available infor

mation on Portland cement and pozzolan chemistry. He also

addressed the effects of admixtures and the effect of typical or

ganic waste components on the treated product. Suprenant et

al.76 observed that treatment of oil-contaminated soil by mixing

cementitious materials limited the solubility of the hazardous

constituents, decreased the surface area exposed to the environ

ment, and improved the handling characteristics. The pH in

crease, in the range of 9-11, by the addition of cement and fly ash, immobilized most multivalent cations as insoluble hydrox ides.

Soundararajan et al77 conducted research on S/S employing modified organophilic clay binder to chemically stabilize organic contaminants. The evaluation using leaching and extraction

showed chemical bonding between the clay and the waste and

retention of organic compounds. Barth78,79 reported on the

CHEMFIX S/S process as a SITE demonstration project. The

process was applied on a hazardous waste site containing lead,

copper, and PCBs. Substantial reduction of leachable lead and

copper was achieved as tested by TCLP protocol by the U. S. EPA. Physical testing results indicated durability in exposed conditions. Grube80"82 described Soliditech technology, which was another stabilization process demonstrated through the SITE

program at a Superfund site in New Jersey. PCBs, lead, oil, and

grease were the target contaminants. Three types of waste-con

taminated soil, waste filter cake material and oily sludge and sand were treated. Physical stability was high and contaminant

leaching was low. Proprietary mixing reagent and additives were

used. Sawyer83"85 reported that S/S, by combining two compa

nies' technologies (one for mixing additive and the other for

deep-soil-mixing equipment), was demonstrated for waste on

site cleanup. The conclusions were that immobilization of PCBs was likely, heavy metals could be immobilized, volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) could be reduced to a lower concentration, and a small volume increase on the order of magnitude of 5

10% was expected. Razzell86 reported a field experience of fix ation of pesticide, paints or organic solvents, and waste oils by

fly ash and cement kiln dust. Fixation was performed in cells

dug in solid clay. Spence et al}7 undertook a study to answer the question of the fate of VOCs in the process of S/S, which

was an exothermic cementitious reaction that would vaporize

the VOC. They used lightly contaminated groundwater for the mass balance, and it indicated that more than 50% was retained

in the S/S sample. Stagemann and Cote88 summarized the test methods for so

lidified waste evaluation. Seven physical tests, five leachate tests, and four micromorphological characterization methods were

applied to solidified products. Bostick et al%9 treated mixed, technetium, and chemically hazardous waste by conventional

cement-based grout. The S/S was effective for hydrolyzable met

als?lead, cadmium, uranium, and nickel?but not for retention

of radioactive Tc-99. The addition of ground blast furnace slag to the grout was shown to reduce the leachability of technetium

by several orders of magnitude. Kalb et al90,91 reported a com

parison of encapsulation of mixed waste in modified sulfur ce

ment and hydraulic cement. They found that the sulfur cement

achieved greater waste loading because of its thermoplastic property. Van Beek and Wodrich92 reported the grout treatment

facility for processing liquid radioactive and hazardous tank wastes into a cement-based solid designed by Westinghouse Hanford Co. to dispose of 227 000 m3 of grouted mixed waste.

The report by DiLiberto93 dealt with defense liquid tank waste at Hanford Site nuclear fuel reprocessing. The waste would be

separated into high-level, transuranic, and low-level fractions

and then vitrified or immobilized in grout. Eckert et al.94 pre sented the chemical kinetics of supercritical water oxidation and

the detailed design procedure of a mobile unit. The design con

sisted of four tasks: a flow sheet, material and energy balances,

size and costs of major equipment, and associated costs. The

system was shown to be cost effective and maintained steady

operation conditions for a wide range of feed concentrations.

Hall et al95 presented an overview of solvent extraction treat

ment technologies including those in the development stage as

well as field-applied systems. Those introduced were the CF sys

tem, New York University's LEEP (low energy extraction pro

cess), BP Oil's system, Resource Conservation Company's BEST

(basic extractive sludge treatment), Envirite Field Services' Ac

June 1991 503



Hazardous Wastes_

curex process, and Sanexen International's Extraksol process.

Valentinetti96"98 reported on the SITE demonstration project by CF system for organic extraction. The process used liquefied propane successfully to extract PCBs from contaminated sedi ments. Sudell99 conducted a test to determine the suitability of the BEST process for application as a spill and waste site cleanup.

The process separated oily sludges into their components: oil,

water fraction, and solids. Raghavan et al 10?

reviewed the clean

ing of excavated soil using extraction agents: water washing aug

mented with a basic or surfactant agent, water washing with an

acidic or chelating agent, organic-solvent washing, and air or

stream stripping. Technical feasibility of the technique with na

tional priority list sites was mentioned. Hutzler et alm presented a soil vapor extraction as a cost-effective technique for VOC

removal from contaminated soil. They discussed the factors and

components of the system and claimed that the design and op eration of the system was flexible enough to allow for rapid changes in operation, which will optimize contaminant removal.

Arri?la et al102 studied in situ treatment of arsenic contam

inated soil. They found the possibility of adding amorphous ion oxide to stabilize arsenic and adding ferrous sulfate to reduce

the solubility of arsenic. Porras103 presented the recycling of virgin petroleum product contaminated soils as the aggregate com

ponent of conventional asphalt products. Lewis et al.104 and

Welshans and Topudurti105 reported a SITE program employing the UV/oxidation technology. The efficiency of the process for

VOC removal was greater than 90% by chemical oxidation, but for a few VOCs stripping, also contributed toward removal. Lewis et al106 also evaluated the UV/oxidation technology at a site of contaminated groundwater. Employing hydraulic retention time of 40 minutes, an ozone dose of 110 mg/L, hydrogen peroxide dose of 13 mg/L, and 24 U V lamps (intensity of the lamp was not given), the groundwater met the discharge standards for dis

posal into a receiving waterway. Buckley et al.107 evaluated ul

trafiltration for dissolved heavy metals after polyelectrolyte treatment under SITE program. The result showed the separation

of soluble heavy metal ions?cadmium, lead, and mercury in

the presence of toluene.

Williams et al108 examined reverse-osmosis (RO) membranes

for the concentration and separation of selected chlorophenols

and chloroethanes with and without feed preozonation. The

separation of dilute organics by composite polyamide membrane was shown to be effective with improvement by preozonation.

Walker et al.m presented the RO system employed to reduce chromium in the effluent from a plating facility. The full-scale

RO/evaporator system resulted in a substantial reduction of the

quantity of chromium exiting the facility. Cole and Fields1,0 reviewed in situ vitrification (ISV) system, including a basic de

scription of system components. Campbell and Buelt111 simu

lated ISV of an underground steel tank containing hazardous material by using a 30-cm diameter buried steel and concrete

tank containing tank sludge. The steel tank was converted to

ingots and the concrete walls were dissolved into the resulting glass and crystalline block. Campbell et al112 performed ISV tests on soils spiked with heavy metal and organic compounds as well as radioactive simulants. Tests showed successful binding

of hazardous and radioactive simulants in the vitrified product and nearly complete destruction of the organics. Farnsworth et

?/.113114 conducted a bench-scale ISV test to demonstrate the

potential of electrode feeding in soils with a high concentration

of metals and crucible melts test to evaluate the effect of various chemical additives on soil-melting temperature and other char

acteristics. Five metals from the EP toxicity list of various VOCs

including CC14, TCE, PCE, and asbestos were included in ISV tests.

Timmerman and Peterson115 tested pilot-scale ISV for soil contaminated with fuel oils and heavy metals from fire-training exercise. They demonstrated the destruction of organics and the

retention of inorganics in the vitrified product. Off-gas treatment

systems were also addressed. Timmons et al.116 tried ISV on

waste contaminated with high levels of mercury and arsenic and

low levels of aldrin and dieldrin. The destruction and volatil ization of contaminants were continuously monitored, and the

results were discussed. Treatment technologies for wastes from

metal-finishing operations were discussed by PEI Associate, Inc.,117 including alkaline chlorination, wet-air oxidation, UV/

ozonation, electrolytic oxidation, S/S, and precipitation. Con

clusions were presented regarding the effectiveness of the various

technologies for selected electroplating and metal-finishing wastes. Eyal et al.11* reported a new technique, called SEPROS,

for treating acid-containing industrial waste streams. It was re

ported that the technology is especially valuable in the treatment of waste streams from titanium dioxide industry, pickling liquors, and bleed streams from electrolytic zinc plants. Leak119 designed a precipitation and clarification system that could be used by small radiator repair shops. The system was targeted to reduce

the most commonly used hot caustic solution to clean a radiator

contaminated with dissolved lead, zinc, copper, and tin in ad

dition to dirt, rust, paint flakes, and other particles. Crim and Brown120 conducted chemical treatment process options for ex

plosive-contaminated soils. The process was also included in an

economic feasibility analysis. The options were caustic hydro

lysis/peroxidation, shock plasma, microwave/hydrolysis/oxi

dation, microwave/sonic/hydrolysis/oxidation, nitric acid/heat,

and supercritical fluids. Piccinno et al.121 introduced wet air oxidation (WAO) at re

duced operating conditions?atmospheric pressure and boiling

temperature?by using metallic catalyst and hydrogen peroxide.

WAO was applied to conventional wastewater containing toxic

organic compounds to verify the feasibility. Hu et al.122 studied and mathematically modeled an affinity dialysis process for

wastewater treatment for the recovery of useful metals and the

removal of toxic metals. The technique involved a solution of macromolecular agent (polymer) that rapidly complexed metal

ions. Operation and the polymer solution regeneration was dis

cussed. Osteen and Bibler123 reported an ion-exchange resin for

the removal of dissolved mercury from Savannah River Labo

ratory. A polystyrene/divinylbenzene with thiol functional

groups, Duolite GT-73, was shown effective in mercury removal.

Stanley124 discussed a plasma reactor in which gases are ionized

by passing through an electric field strong enough to strip elec trons from the molecules of the gas for hazardous waste decon

tamination. The potential and advantages of the reactor were

also included. Lovo et al125 presented a mathematical model of

the deep well reactor for hazardous waste oxidation that described the behavior when it is operated in the subcritical region. Varma et al.126 reported microwave-assisted fluid-bed oxidation to treat

TCE, which they found to be significantly more efficient than

conventional oxidation. The oxidation products were also more

oxidated species than products of conventional oxidation.




_^____^___Hazardous Wastes

Alpert et al127 reported solar detoxification of hazardous wastes: a low-temperature photocatalytic process and a high

temperature thermal/chemical process that destroys organic

compounds by steam reforming over a metal catalyst. Skocypec

and Hogan128 described a direct catalytic absorption reactor that absorbs solar energy for hazardous waste destruction. A nu

merical model for destruction of TCE was presented. Tseng and

Huang129 presented photocatalytic oxidation, using titanium oxide and UV light, of phenol in aqueous solution. Parameters

studied were oxygen, temperature, pH, concentrations of pho

tocatalysts, and phenol. York and Aamodt130 introduced heap

leach mining technology conducted by Los Alamos National

Laboratory, which was a process that could treat hazardous

chemical and radioactive wastes that will chemically, physically, or biologically react with selected reagents. Machin and

Ehresmann131 reported a fire that created asbestos-containing

waste and its treatment with sulfate and alkalinity amendment

agents. Loehr et al.132 discussed an important topic of the mo

bility and degradation of residue at hazardous waste land treat

ment sites at closure. The report presented information pertain

ing to the quantitative evaluation of mobility and persistence of

organic and inorganic waste constituents under various closure

scenarios that could be useful in the development of soil treat

ment closure decisions.

THERMAL TREATMENT

Tillman et al133 gave a comprehensive description of a rotary

kiln as a hazardous solid waste incinerator. Hall134 described

rotary kiln incineration of specific wastes, creosote, and penta

chlorophenol wood preservative sludge. Waterland et al135 and

Fournier et a/.136137 studied the fate of metals in a rotary kiln

incinerator with pilot-scale tests. The effect of chlorine in the feed was also addressed. Stumbar et al13* reported the field demonstration activities of the U. S. EPA's Mobile Incineration

System. It included trial burn of RCRA and Toxic Substance

Control Act (TSCA) wastes, accomplishments, problems en

countered, and solutions implemented. Canadian Council of

Ministers of the Environment139 published guidelines for mobile PCB destruction systems, including generic technologies of high temperature incineration (rotary kiln, liquid injection) and other

thermal degradation techniques (pyrolysis, thermal radiation, and plasma arc). Corry and Rasmussen140 examined incineration

as an alternative to dispose of refinery biotreatment sludge on

land as the U. S. EPA had banned land treatment. Fluidized

bed incinerators were found effective in eliminating hazardous

organic constituents and disposing of inorganic metals.

Dellinger et al141 described research results regarding the minimization and control of hazardous combustion byproducts from operations in which hazardous waste is thermally destroyed.

Kissel142 critiqued the proposed cofiring of municipal refuse and

PCBs at Bloomington, Ind., contaminated by past industrial ac

tivities. He also discussed the technological viability, costs, scope,

and local control of cleanup operations. Peters et al143 presented

a treatise on the implications for destruction of toxicants and

PIC generation. Secondary reactions of newly formed volatiles

that can contribute to desired and undesired effects were dis

cussed. They showed that incinerator design, operation, and

performance monitoring will benefit from better quantitative

understanding of devolatilization (pyrolysis) related phenomena.

Sethi and Biswas144 made an effort to model the formation and

dynamics of metallic particles in a flame incinerator. Silcox and

Pershing145 studied incineration of hazardous waste by using a

mathematical model of heat transfer in a directly fired rotary kiln. The moisture level of the feed was predicted to be a key operating parameter. Tsang146 described the temporal behavior

of chloroaromatics during pyrolytic decomposition by using fundamental chemical kinetics of OH radicals and H-atoms.

Altwicker147 proposed a global kinetic model of the formation of PCDD and PCDF in incinerators in terms of homogeneous and heterogeneous mechanisms. Also discussed were the quan

tities of these pollutants and the low-temperature, surface-cat

alyzed reactions relevant to the formation of PCDD and PCDF. Bruce et al148 proposed a scheme for controlling the formation of PCDD/PCDF during incineration by using sorbent materials to remove the source of chlorine. Helsel et al149 performed an

experimental remediation of the contaminated soil at manufac

tured gas plants (MGP) by thermal desorption treatment tech

nology. Treatment conditions?temperature, residence time, and

soil type?and total PAH concentrations were examined. Lighty et al150 investigated the rate-limiting steps in the desorption of contaminants from MGP site soils and found that temperature

was the most important parameter. Lighty et al151 also presented

a research effort of thermal desorption of contaminants from soils. They studied intra- and interparticle phenomena and sug

gested that local thermal environment and gas-phase contami

nant concentration were the most important process variables.

Taylor et al152 developed a thermal stability based ranking of hazardous organic compound incinerability by evaluating the

temperatures for 99% decomposition of organic compounds.

Thurnau153 also devised an incinerability index to measure

performance of an incinerator by using principal organic haz

ardous components and varying temperature and oxygen con

centrations. Lemieux et al.154 developed a simple indicator?

unsaturated oxygen demand?for measuring the performance

of thermal devices burning hazardous waste. They discussed the

advantages, such as uniform and easy-to-measure, of this simple

indicator compared with the currently used destruction and re

moval efficiency. Fournier et al155 performed a test for thermal

destruction of chemical warfare munitions residue remaining

on the metal parts using a metal parts furnace. Ragaini156 dis

cussed mixed radioactive and hazardous waste incineration and

the destruction of chemical munitions in conjunction with the

land disposal restrictions by U. S. EPA. He observed that the

choice of treatment technology was a regulatory one. Dempsey

and Thurnau157 tested incineration of wastes from specific sources, specifically the K-wastes in RCRA regulations, using a

rotary kiln system to develop standards of BDAT. The pilot scale testing of four wastes showed no detectable amounts of

principle organic hazardous constituents in either the kiln ash or scrubber blowdown. Tabery and Dangtran158 discussed a dis

posal of waste from the smelting of aluminum. Alternative to

land disposal was incineration using fluidized bed combustion

showing competitiveness for a 20 000 ton/yr plant. Uberoi and Shadman159 presented the chemical equilibrium

of lead in chlorine-containing waste incineration and suggested

passing the lead-laden flue gas through a fixed bed of an appro

priate sorbent to remove lead compounds. Elliot et al 16? defined

the conditions and steps required to completely incinerate ex

haust gas of arsine and phosphine from the semiconductor in

June 1991 505



Hazardous Wastes

dustry. Ross and Deitz161 introduced the Whetlerite ads?rbate, charcoals impregnated with metals and used for retention of toxic airborne chemicals. They presented the thermal desorption and tandem mass spectrometry of the adsorbates. Chopey162 de

scribed oxygen combustion processes for organic wastes devel

oped by Union Carbide that could be used at Superfund sites. Davis and Miranda163 introduced Texaco Petroleum's entrained

bed gasifier to generate usable gas from hazardous waste. The

slag was classified as nonhazardous, and the synthesized gas was

used for hydrogen production or electric power generation.

Holloway164 evaluated the Marine Shale Processors' (MSP) rotary kiln system for hazardous waste combustion, and Rukavina165

reported on the MSP as a recycling processor that produces a

glass-like construction aggregate from waste combustion. The

Solar Energy Research Institute166167 published a solar thermal

program summary in which solar thermal technology for the destruction of hazardous waste was discussed.

Byung J. Kim, Chai Sung Gee, and John T. Bandy are with the U. S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory.

Ching-San Huang is with the U. S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency. Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Byung Kim, USACERL, P.O. Box 4005, Champaign, IL 61824-4005.

REFERENCES

1. Major, D. W., and Fitcho, J., "Emerging On-Site and In Situ Haz

ardous Waste Treatment Technologies." Pudvan Publishing Co.,

Northbrook, 111. (1990). 2. "Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technology Series, Vol

ume 1 : Thermal Processes; Volume 2: Physical/Chemical Processes;

Volume 3: Biological Processes." H. M. Freeman and P. R. Sferra

(Eds.), Technomic Publishing Co., Inc., Lancaster, Pa. (1990). 3. Manahan, S. E., "Hazardous Waste Chemistry: Toxicology and

Treatment." Lewis Publishers, Inc., Boca Raton, Fla. (1990). 4. Lynman, W. J., et al, "Clean Up of Petroleum Contaminated

Soils at Underground Storage Tanks." Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, N.J. (1990).

5. Testa, S. M., and Winegardener, D. W., "Restoration of Petroleum

Contaminated Aquifers." Lewis Publishers, Inc., Boca Raton, Fla.

(1990). 6. Noonan, D. C, and Curtis, J. T., "Groundwater Remediation and

Petroleum: A Guide for Underground Storage Tanks." Lewis Pub

lishers, Inc., Boca Raton, Fla. (1990). 7. ICF Inc., "Solvent Waste Reduction." Noyes Data Corporation,

Park Ridge, N.J. (1990).

8. Arozarena, M. M., et al, "Stabilization and Solidification of Haz

ardous Wastes." Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, N. J. (1990). 9. Nunno, T., "International Technologies for Hazardous Waste Site

Cleanup." Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, N. J. (1990). 10. "Emerging Technologies in Hazardous Waste Management." D.

W. Tedder and F. G. Pohland (Eds.), Am. Chem. Soc, Washington, D. C. (1990).

11. U. S. EPA, "Handbook on In Situ Treatment of Hazardous Waste

Contaminated Soils." EPA-540-2-90-002, U. S. EPA, Cincinnati,

Ohio (1990). 12. United Nations Environmental Program, "Environmental Guide

lines for Handling, Treatment, and Disposal of Hazardous Wastes."

United Nations (1990). 13. Bell, J. M. (Ed.), Proc. 44th Ind. Waste Conf, Purdue Univ., West

Lafayette, Ind. (1990). 14. 83rd Annu. Meeting Air Waste Manage. Assoc., Air Waste Manage.

Assoc, Pittsburgh, Pa. (1990).

15. "Solid/Liquid Separation: Waste Management and Productivity Enhancement." H. S. Muralidhara (Ed.), Battelle Press, Columbus, Ohio (1990).

16. Martin, J. P., et al (Eds.), "Hazard. Ind. Wastes?Proc. Twenty Second Mid-Atlantic Ind. Waste Conf." Technomic Publishing Co.,

Inc., Lancaster, Pa. (1990). 17. Cawley, W. A. (Ed.), "Proceedings of the Gulf Coast Hazardous

Substance Research Center Second Annual Symposium: Mecha

nisms and Applications of Solidification and Stabilization." J.

Hazard. Mater., 24, 103 (1990). 18. "Second Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Tech

nologies: Domestic and International, Philadelphia, Pa." Abstr.

Proc, EPA-540-2-90-009 (1990). 19. "Remedial Action, Treatment, and Disposal of Hazardous Waste."

Proc. Fifteenth Annu. Hazard. Waste Res. Symp., EPA-600-9-90

006, U. S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio (1990). 20. "Remedial Action, Treatment, and Disposal of Hazardous Waste."

Proc. Sixteenth Annu. Risk Reduction Eng. Lab. Hazard. Waste

Res. Symp., EPA-600-9-90-037, U. S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio

(1990). 21. Proc. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. Int. Symp. Hazard. Waste Treat.

Treat. Contamin. Soils, Air Waste Manage. Assoc., Cincinnati, Ohio (1990).

22. Mixed Waste Regulation Conf, U. S. Dep. Energy, Washington, D. C. (1990).

23. Annu. Waste Manage. Symp. Working Towards a Cleaner Envi

ronment (16th), U. S. Dep. Energy, Tucson, Ariz. (1990). 24. Annu. Int. Symp. Incineration Radioactive, Hazardous, Mixed and

Medical Wastes: Incineration Conf. (9th), U. S. Dep. Energy, San

Diego, Calif. (1990).

25. Annu. Dep. Energy Low Level Waste Manage. Conf. (12th), U. S.

Dep. Energy, Chicago, 111. (1990). 26. Proc. U. S. Dep. Energy Office Environ. Restoration Waste Man

age.?Waste Reduction Workshop (4th), DOE/HWP-99, U. S. Dep.

Energy, Washington, D. C. (1990). 27. Proc. Western Reg. Symp. Mining and Miner. Process. Wastes,

Soc. Min., Metallurgy Exploration, Inc, Littleton, Colo. (1990). 28. Proc. 77th Am. Electroplaters Surface Finishers (AESF) Annu. Tech.

Conf, Am. Electroplaters Surface Finishers Soc, Inc., Orlando, Fla.

(1990). 29. Nati. Pet. Refiners Assoc. (NPRA) Annu. Meeting, Nati. Pet. Re

finers Assoc, Washington, D. C. (1990). 30. Chambers, C. D., et al, "Handbook on In Situ Treatment of Haz

ardous Waste-Contaminated Soils." EPA-540-2-90-002, U. S. EPA,

Cincinnati, Ohio (1990). 31. Pheiffer, T. H., et al, "EPA's Assessment of European Contami

nated Soil Treatment Techniques." Environ. Prog., 9, 79 (1990). 32. Sims, R. C, "Soil Remediation Techniques at Uncontrolled Haz

ardous Waste Sites: A Critical Review." / Air Waste Manage.

Assoc, 40, 704(1990). 33. Young, C, et al, "Innovative Operational Treatment Technologies

for Application to Superfund Site: Nine Case Studies." EPA-540

2-90-006, U. S. EPA, Washington, D. C. (1990). 34. U. S. EPA, "Progress Toward Implementing Superfund. Fiscal Year

1988." EPA-540-8-90-004, U. S. EPA, Washington, D. C. (1990). 35. U. S. EPA, "Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program:

Progress and Accomplishments, Fiscal Year 1989. A Third Report to Congress." EPA-540-5-90-001, U. S. EPA, Washington, D. C.

(1990). 36. James, S. C, "Guidance for the Field Demonstration of Remedia

tion Technologies." / Air Waste Manage. Assoc, 40, 801 (1990).

37. U. S. EPA, "Analysis of Treatability Data for Soil and Debris:

Evaluation of Land Ban Impact on Use of Superfund Treatment

Technologies." EPA-9380.3-04, U. S. EPA, Washington, D.C.

(1990). 38. Loehr, R. C, et al, "Mobility and Degradation of Residues at




_Hazardous Wastes

Hazardous Waste Land Treatment Sites at Closure." EPA-600-2

90-018, U. S. EPA, Washington, D. C. (1990). 39. Schomaker, N. B., and Zunt, D. A., "Guidance Documents Relating

to Landfill and Contaminants." EPA-600-D-90-088, U. S. EPA,

Cincinnati, Ohio (1990). 40. Ahlert, C. R., and Kosson, S. D., "Treatment of Hazardous Landfill

Leachates and Contaminated Groundwater." EPA-60O-S2-88-064, U. S. EPA, Washington, D. C. (1990).

41. Lyman, W. J., and Noonan, D. C, "Assessing UST Corrective

Action Technologies: Site Assessment and Selection of Unsaturated

Zone Treatment Technologies." EPA-600-2-90-011, U. S. EPA,

Cincinnati, Ohio (1990). 42. Fuhr, H. S., and des Rosiers, P. E., "Pilot Study on International

Information Exchange on Dioxins and Related Compounds: Methods of Degradation, Destruction, Detoxification, and Disposal of Dioxins and Related Compounds." EPA-600-6-90-012, U. S.

EPA, Washington, D. C. (1990). 43. Woodyard, J. P., "PCB Detoxification Technologies: A Critical

Assessment." Environ. Prog., 9, 131 (1990).

44. Maunsell, M. S., "Emerging Technologies for Hazardous Waste

Management." Chem. Eng. Aust, 15, 15 (1990).

45. Corbett, R. A., "Refiners, Petrochem Plants Focus on New Waste

Challenges." Oil Gas J, 88, 33 (1990).

46. Canada Center for Mineral and Energy Technology, "Minimiza

tion/Utilization of Mineral Industry Effluent Treatment Sludges." Can. Cent. Miner. Energy TechnoL, Department of the Army, Ot

tawa, Ontario (1990).

47. Talion, J. T., et al, "Evaluation of Treatment Technologies in the

Natural Gas Industry: Production Water/Waste Management and

Site Remediation, Volume 2: Topical Report, September 1988?

October 1989." GR1-89 026312, Gas Res. Inst, Chicago, 111. (1990).

48. U. S. EPA, "Final Best Demonstrated Available Technology

(BDAT) Background Document for K0131, K084, K101, K102, Characteristic Arsenic Wastes (D004), Characteristic Selenium

Wastes (DO 10), and P and U Wastes Containing Arsenic and Se

lenium Listing Constituents: Volume 1." In "Final BDAT Back

ground Document." EPA-530-SW-90-059A-EPA-530-SW-90

059X, U. S. EPA, Washington, D. C. (1990).

49. U. S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT)

Background Document for Wastes From the Production of Chlo

rinated Aliphatics F025: Volume 1." In "BDAT Background Doc

ument." EPA-530-SW-90-060A-EPA-530-SW-90-060S, U. S. EPA,

Washington, D.C.( 1990).

50. U. S. EPA, "Final Response to BDAT Related Comments Docu

ment: Volume la-1. General BDAT Issues." In "Final Response to BDAT Related Comments Document." EPA-530-SW-90-061A

EPA-530-SW-90-061S, U. S. EPA, Washington, D. C. (1990).

51. Safferman, S. I., and Bhattachara, S. K., "Treatability of RCRA

Compounds in a BOD/Nitrification Wastewater Treatment System With Duel Media Filtration." EPA-600-2-90-013, U. S. EPA, Cin

cinnati, Ohio (1990).

52. Bhattacharya, et al, "Removal and Fate of RCRA and CERCLA

Toxic Organic Pollutants in Wastewater Treatment." EPA-600

S2-89-026, U. S. EPA, Washington, D. C. (1990).

53. Dieneman, E. A., et al, "Evaluation of Serial Anaerobic/Aerobic Packed Bed Bioreactors for Treatment of a Superfund Leachate."

J. Hazard. Mater., 23, 21 (1990).

54. Kuhn, E. P., and Suflita, J. M., "Anaerobic Biodegradation of Ni

trogen-Substituted and Sulfonated Benzene Aquifer Contami

nants." EPA-600-J-89-190, Robert Kerr Environ. Res. Lab., Ada,

Okla. (1990).

55. Trattner, R., and Lawson, B. K., "Biological Degradation of Haz

ardous Wastes." Adv. Env. Tech. Manage., 1, 137 (1990).

56. Cheremisinoff, P. N., "Biological Treatment of Hazardous Wastes,

Sludges and Wastewater." Pollut Eng, 22, 87 (1990).

57. Steegmans, R., and Brunswig, W. D., "Biological Treatment of

Waste Disposal Site Leachate Contaminated With Organic Harmful

Substances, in Combination with Adsorption Resins: Final Report." Technische Hochschule Aschen, Forschungsinstitut fuer Wasser

technologie, Forschungsbericht (Ger.), 15 (1990). 58. Brenner, A., et al, "Treatability Studies for On-site Biological Re

mediation of Soils and Leachates Contaminated by Coal Conversion

Residuals and By-products." /. Hazard. Mater., 22, 377 (1989). 59. Darnall, D. W., and Hosea, J. M., "Emerging Technologies: Bio

Recovery Systems Removal and Recovery of Metal Ions From

Groundwater." EPA-540-5-90-005A/B, U. S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio (1990).

60. Zitrides, T. G, "Bioremediation Comes of Age." Pollut. Eng., 22,

57(1990). 61. Golueke, C. G, and Diaz, L. F., "Bioremediation for Hazardous

Wastes." BioCycle, 31, 54 (1990). 62. Sims, J. L., et al, "Approach to Bioremediation of Contaminated

Soil." Hazard. Waste Hazard. Mater., 7, 117 (1990). 63. Finlayson, G, "Microbial Cleanup of Toxic Wastes May Provide

Alternative Solution." Occup. Health Saf, 59, 36 (1990). 64. Bewley, R., et al, "Microbial Clean-up of Contaminated Soil."

Chem. Ind. (London), 23, 778 (1989). 65. April, W., et al, "Assessing Detoxification and Degradation of

Wood Preserving and Petroleum Wastes in Contaminated Soil."

Waste Manage. Res., 8, 45 (1990). 66. Topp, E., and Hanson, R. S., "Factors Influencing the Survival

and Activity of a Pentachlorophenol-Degrading Flavobacterium

sp. in Soil Slurries." Can. Soil Sei., 70, 83 (1990). 67. Wang, X., et al, "Effect of Bioremediation on Polycyclic Aromatic

Hydrocarbon Residues in Soil." Environ. Sei. Technol, 24, 1086

(1990). 68. Lewandowski, G. A., et al, "Reactor Design for Hazardous Waste

Treatment Using a White Rot Fungus." Water Res. (G. B.), 24, 75 (1990).

69. Lamar, R. T., and Dietrich, D. M., "In Situ Depletion of Penta

chlorophenol from Contaminated Soil by Phanerochaete spp." Appl. Environ. Microbiol, 56, 3093 (1990).

70. Sharp-Hansen, S., "Available Models for Estimating Emissions

Resulting from Bioremediation Processes: A Review." EPA-600

3-90-031, U. S. EPA, Environ. Res. Lab., Athens, Ga. (1990).

71. U. S. EPA, "Innovative Technology: Glycolate Dehalogenation."

EPA-9200.5-254-FS, U. S. EPA, Washington, D. C. (1990).

72. Tiernan, T. F., et al, "Dechlorination of Organic Compounds Contained in Hazardous Wastes." In "Emerging Technologies in

Hazardous Waste Management." D. W. Tedder and F. G. Pohland

(Eds.), Am Chem. Soc, Washington, D. C), 236 (1990).

73. Tiernan, T. F., et al, "Dechlorination of PCDD and PCDF Sorbed

on Activated Carbon Using the KPEG Regent." Chemosphere

(G. B.), 19, 573(1989).

74. Barkley, N. P., "Update on Building and Structure Decontami

nation," J Air Water Manage. Assoc, 40, 1174 (1990).

75. Jones, L. W., "Interference Mechanisms in Waste Stabilization/ Solidification Processes." EPA-600-2-89-067, U. S. EPA, Wash

ington, D. C. (1990).

76. Suprenant, B. A., et al, "Oilcrete." Civ. Eng, 60, 61 (1990).

77. Soundararajan, R., et al, "Using an Organophilic Clay to Chem

ically Stabilize Waste Containing Organic Compounds." Hazard.

Mater. Control, 3, 42 (1990).

78. Barth, E. F., "SITE Demonstration of the CHEMFIX Solidification/ Stabilization Process at the Portable Equipment Salvage Company Site." EPA-600-J-90-021, U. S. EPA, Washington, D. C. (1990).

79. Barth, E. F., "Technology Evaluation Report CHEMFIX Tech

nologies, Inc., Solidification/Stabilization Process, Clackamas,

Oregon: Volume 2." EPA-540-5-89-01 IB, U. S. EPA, Washington,

D.C. (1990).

June 1991 507



Hazardous Wastes_

80. Grube, W. E., "Technology Evaluation Report: SITE Program

Demonstration Test, Soliditech, Inc., Solidification/Stabilization

Process: Volume 1." EPA-540-5-89-005A, U. S. EPA, Washington,

D.C.(1990).

81. Grube, W. E., "Technology Evaluation Report: SITE Program

Demonstration Test, Soliditech, Inc., Solidification/Stabilization

Process: Volume 2." EPA-540-5-89-005B, U. S. EPA, Washington, DC. (1990).

82. Grube, W. E., "Evaluation of Waste Stabilized by the Soliditech

SITE Technology." J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc, 40, 310 (1990).

83. Sawyer, S., "International Waste Technologies/Geo-Con In Situ

Stabilization/Solidification: Application Analysis Report." EPA

540-A5-89-004, U. S. EPA, Washington, D. C. (1990).

84. Sawyer, S., "Technology Evaluation Report: International Waste

Technologies/Geo-Con In Situ Stabilization/Solidification, Volume

4: Update Report." EPA-540-A5-89-004D, U. S. EPA, Washington,

DC. (1990). 85. Sawyer, S., "Technology Evaluation Report, International Waste

Technologies/Geo-Con In Situ Stabilization/Solidification, Volume

3: Update Report." EPA-540-A5-89-004C, U. S. EPA, Washington,

DC. (1990). 86. Razzell, W. E., "Chemical Fixation, Solidification of Hazardous

Waste." Waste Manage. Res., 8, 105 (1990).

87. Spence, R. D., et al, "Stabilization/Solidification of Wastes Con

taining Volatile Organic Compounds in Commercial Cementitious

Waste Forms." CONF-900-525-2, U. S. Dep. Energy, Washington,

DC. (1990). 88. Stagemann, J. A., and Cote, P. L., "Summary of an Investigation

of Test Methods for Solidified Waste Evaluation." Waste Manage.,

10,41(1990). 89. Bostick, W. D., et al, "Solidification/Stabilization of Technetium

in Cement-Based Grouts." CONF-900256-1, U. S. Dep. Energy,

Washington, DC. (1990).

90. Kalb, P. D., et al, "Encapsulation of Mixed Radioactive and Haz

ardous Waste Contaminated Incinerator Ash in Modified Sulfur

Cement." BNL-43691, U. S. Dep. Energy, Washington, D. C.

(1990). 91. Kalb, P. D., et al, "Comparison of Modified Sulfur Cement and

Hydraulic Cement for Encapsulation of Radioactive and Mixed

Wastes." BNL-45163, U. S. Dep. Energy, Washington, D. C. (1990).

92. Van Beek, J. E., and Wodrich, D. D., "Grout Disposal System for

Hanford Site Mixed Waste." WHC-SA-0694, U. S. Dep. Energy,

Washington, D. C. (1990).

93. DiLiberto, A. J., "Defense Waste Tank Storage at the Hanford

Site." WHC-SA-0891, U. S. Dep. Energy, Washington, D. C. (1990).

94. Eckert, C. A., et al, "Homogeneous Catalysis for Wet Oxidation:

Design and Economic Feasibility of a Mobile Detoxification Unit."

Hazard. Mater. Control, 3, 20 (1990).

95. Hall, D. W., et al, "An Overview of Solvent Extraction Treatment

Technologies." Environ. Prog., 9, 98 (1990).

96. Valentinetti, R., "Technology Evaluation Report: SITE Program,

CF Systems Organics Extraction System, New Bedford, Massa

chusetts: Volume 1." EPA-540-5-90-002, U. S. EPA, Washington,

DC. (1990).

97. Valentinetti, R., "Technology Evaluation Report: SITE Program,


chusetts: Volume 2." EPA-540-5-90-002, U. S. EPA, Washington,

DC. (1990). 98. Valentinetti, R., "Applications Analysis Report: SITE Program,


chusetts." EPA-540-A5-90-002, U. S. EPA, Washington, D. C.

(1990). 99. Sudell, G. W., "Evaluation of B.E.S.T. Solvent Extraction Sludge

Treatment Technology Twenty-Four Hour Test." J. Hazard. Ma

ter., 23, 245 (1990).

100. Raghavan, R., et al, "Cleaning Excavated Soil Using Extraction

Agents: A State-of-the-Art Review/' EPA-600-S2-89-034, U. S.

EPA, Washington D. C. (1990). 101. Hutzler, N. J., ?tal, "Vaporizing VOCs." Civ. Eng., 60,57 (1990).

102. Artiola, J. F., et al, "In Situ Treatment of Arsenic Contaminated

Soil from Hazardous Industrial Site Laboratory Studies." Waste

Manage., 10,73(1990). 103. Porras, A. J., "Remedial Alternatives for Virgin Petroleum Con

taminated Soils." Annu. Meeting Air Waste Manage. Assoc, 14

(1990). 104. Lewis, N., et al, "A Field Demonstration of the UV/Oxidation

Technology To Treat Ground Water Contaminated with VOCs."

/ Air Waste Manage. Assoc, 40, 540 (1990).

105. Welshans, G, and Topudurti, K., "Technology Evaluation Report:

SITE Program Demonstration of the Ultrox International Ultra

violet Radiation/Oxidation Technology." EPA-540-5-89-012,

U. S. EPA, Washington, D. C. (1990). 106. Lewis, N., et al, "A Field Evaluation of the UV/Oxidation Tech

nology To Treat Ground Water." Hazard. Mater. Control, 3, 42

(1990). 107. Buckley, L. P., et al, "Selective Removal of Dissolved Toxic Metals

from Groundwater by Ultrafiltration in Combination with Chem

ical Treatment." Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Pinawa,

Manitoba, N 10030 (1989). 108. Williams, M., et al, "Separation of Hazardous Organics by Reverse

Osmosis Membranes." Environ. Prog., 9, 118 (1990).

109. Walker, J. F., et al, "Minimization of Chromium-Contaminated

Wastewater at a Plating Facility in the Eastern United States."

CONF-891113-2, U. S. Dep. Energy, Washington, D. C. (1990). 110. Cole, L. L., and Fields, D. E., "In Situ Vitrification: A Review."

ORNL/TM-11293, U. S. Dep. Energy, Washington, D. C. (1990).

111. Campbell, B. E., and Buelt, J. L., "In Situ Vitrification of Soil from

the Savannah River Site." PNL-7421, U. S. Dep. Energy, Wash

ington, D. C. (1990). 112. Campbell, B. E., et al, "Underground Tank Vitrification: Engi

neering-Scale Test Results." PNL-7295, U. S. Dep. Energy, Wash

ington, D. C. (1990).

113. Farnsworth, R. K., et al, "Initial Tests on In Situ Vitrification

Using Electrode Feeding Techniques." PNL-7355, U. S. Dep. En

ergy, Washington, D. C. (1990).

114. Farnsworth, R. K., et al, "Crucible Melts and Bench-Scale ISV

(In Situ Vitrification) Tests on Simulated Wastes in INEL Soils."

PNL-7344, U. S. Dep. Energy, Washington, D. C. (1990).

115. Timmerman, C. L., and Peterson, M. E., "Pilot-Scale Testing of

In Situ Vitrification of Arnold Engineering Development Center

Site 10 Contaminated Soils." ORNL/SUB-89-14384/2, U. S. Dep.

Energy, Washington, D. C. (1990).

116. Timmons, D. M., et al, "Vitrification Tested on Hazardous

Wastes." Pollut. Eng., 22, 76 (1990). 117. PEI Associates, Inc., "Characterization and Treatment of Wastes

from Metal-Finishing Operations." EPA-600-2-90-055, U. S. EPA,

Washington, DC. (1990).

118. Eyal, A. M., et al, "A New Approach for Treatment of Acid-Con

taining Waste Streams." In "Emerging Technologies in Hazardous

Waste Management." D. W. Tedder and F. G. Pohland (Eds.),

Am. Chem. Soc, Washington, D. C, 214 (1990).

119. Leak, V. G, "Metal Recovery/Removal Using Non-Electrolytic

Metal Recovery." EPA-600-2-90-035, U. S. EPA, Washington,

DC. (1990). 120. Crim, M. C, and Brown, C. W., "Economic Feasibility Analysis

for Development of Low-Cost Chemical Treatment Technology

for Explosive Contaminated Soils." CETHA-TE-CR-90053, Tenn.

Valley Authority (1990). 121. Piccinno, T., et al, "Treatment of Toxic and Noxious Organic

Wastes by Use of Wet Oxidation Process at Boiling Temperature

(Applications in Nuclear Field)." ENEA-RT-COMB-89-18 (It.)

(1989). 122. Hu, S., et al, "Selective Removal of Metals from Wastewater Using




_Hazardous Wastes

Affinity Dialysis." In "Emerging Technology in Hazardous Waste

Management" D. W. Tedder and F. G. Pohland (Eds.), Am. Chem.

Soc., Washington, D. C, 187 ( 1990). 123. Osteen, A. B., and Bibler, J. P., "Treatment of Radioactive Lab

oratory Waste for Mercury Removal." WSRC-RP-89-731, U. S.

Dep. Energy, Washington, D. C. (1990).

124. Stanley, L. J., "Hazardous Waste Decontamination with Plasma

Reactors." Hazard. Mater. Control, 3, 67 (1990).

125. Lovo, M., et al., "Modeling and Simulation of Aqueous Hazardous

Waste Oxidation in Deep Well Reactors." Chem. Eng. Set, 45,

2703 (1990). 126. Varma, R., et al, "Detoxification of Hazardous Waste Streams

Using Microwave-Assisted Fluid-Bed Oxidation." LA-UR-90-3159,

U. S. Dep. Energy, Washington, D. C. (1990).

127. Alpert, D. J., et al, "Sandia National Laboratories' Work in Solar

Detoxification of Hazardous Wastes." SAND-90-0935C, U. S. Dep.

Energy, Washington, D. C. ( 1990).

128. Skocypec, R. D., and Hogan, R. E., "Investigation of a Direct Cat

alytic Absorption Reactor for Hazardous Waste Destruction."

SAND-89-1811C, U. S. Dep. Energy, Washington, D. C. (1990).

129. Tseng, J., and Huang, C. P., "Mechanistic Aspects of the Photo

catalytic Oxidation of Phenol in Aqueous Solution." In "Emerging

Technologies in Hazardous Waste Management." D. W. Tedder

and F. G. Pohland (Eds.), Am. Chem. Soc., Washington, D. C,

12(1990). 130. York, D. A., and Aamodt, P. L, "Remedation of Contaminated

Soil Using Heap Leach Mining Technology." LA-UR-90-701,

U. S. Dep. Energy, Washington, D. C. (1990). 131. Machin, J. L., and Ehresmann, J., "Remediating a Fire Site." Civ.

Eng., 60, 55 (1990). 132. Loehr, R. C, et al, "Mobility and Degradation of Residues at

Hazardous Waste Land Treatment Sites at Closure." EPA-600-2

90-018, U. S. EPA, Washington, D. C. (1990).

133. Tillman, D. A., et al, "Rotary Incineration Systems for Solid Haz

ardous Wastes." Chem. Eng. Prog, 86, 19 (1990).

134. Hall, F. D., "Incineration of Creosote and Pentachlorophenol

Wood-Preserving Wastewater Treatment Sludges." EPA-600-2-89

060, U. S. EPA, Washington, D. C. (1990). 135. Waterland, L. R., et al, "Trace Metal Fate in a Rotary Kiln In

cinerator with an Ionizing Wet Scrubber." EPA-600-D-90-059,

U. S. EPA, Washington, D. G (1990).

136. Fournier, D. J., et al, "Fate of Metals in a Rotary Kiln Incinerator

With a Venturi/Packed Column Scrubber, Volume 1 : Technical

Results." EPA-600-2-90-043A, U. S. EPA, Washington, D C.

(1990). 137. Fournier, D. J., et al, "Fate of Metals in a Rotary Kiln Incinerator

With a Venturi/Packed Column Scrubber, Volume 2: Appendices."

EPA-600-2-90-043B, U. S. EPA, Washington, D. C. (1990).

138. Stumbar, J. P., et al, "EPA Mobile Incineration System Modifi

cations, Testing and Operations, February 1986 to June 1989."

EPA-600-2-90-042, U. S. EPA, Washington, D. C. (1990).

139. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Ottawa, On

tario, "Guidelines for Mobile Polychlorinated Biphenyl Treatment

Systems." SSC-EN108-3/1-12E (1990).

140. Cony, R. G., and Rasmussen, "Design Considerations and Metals

Disposition in Fluidized-Bed Incineration of Refinery Wastes."

Environ. Prog, 90, 57 (1990). 141. Dellinger, B., et al, "Minimization and Control of Hazardous

Combustion Byproducts." EPA-600-S2-90-039, U. S. EPA, Wash

ington, D. C. (1990). 142. Kissel, J. C, "Proposed Co-Firing of Municipal Refuse and PCBs:

A Second Look at the Bloomington, Indiana Consent Decree."

Environ. Professional, 12, 60 (1990).

143. Peters, W. A., et al, "Solids Pyrolysis and Volatiles Secondary

Reactions in Hazardous Waste Incineration: Implications for Tox

icants Destruction and PIC's Generation." Hazard. Waste Hazard.

Mater., 7, 89 (1990).

144. Sethi, V., and Biswas, P., "Modeling of Particle Formation and

Dynamics in a Flame Incinerator." / Air Waste Manage. Assoc,

40,42(1990). 145. Silcox, G. D., and Pershing, D. W., "The Effects of Rotary Kiln

Operating Conditions and Design on Burden Heating Rates as De

termined by a Mathematical Model of Rotary Kiln Heat Transfer."

J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc, 40, 337 (1990).

146. Tsang, W., "Fundamental Processes in the Incineration of Chlo

roaromatic Compounds." Waste Manage., 10, 217 (1990). 147. Altwicker, E. R., et al, "Polychlorinated Dioxin/Furan Formation

in Incinerators." Hazard. Waste Hazard. Mater., 7, 73 (1990). 148. Bruce, K. R., et al, "Role of Gas-Phase Cl2 in the Formation of

PCDD/PCDF in Municipal and Hazardous Waste Combustion."

EPA-600-D-90-023, U. S. EPA, Washington, D. C. (1990). 149. Helsel, R., et al, "Engineering-Scale Evaluation of Thermal De

sorption Technology for Manufactured Gas Plant Site Soils, Tech

nology Report July 1988-August 1989." GRI-89/0271, Gas Res.

Inst., Chicago, 111. (1990). 150. Lighty, J. S., et al, "Fundamentals for the Thermal Remediation

of Contaminated Soils, Particle and Bed Desorption Models." En

viron. Sei. TechnoL, 24, 750 (1990).

151. Lighty, J. S., et al, "Investigation of Rate Processes in the Thermal

Treatment of Contaminated Soils, Final Report November 1986

November 1989." GRI-90/0112, Gas Res. Inst., Chicago, 111. (1990). 152. Taylor, P. H, et al, "Development of a Thermal Stability Based

Ranking of Hazardous Organic Compound Incinerability." Envi

ron. Sei. TechnoL, 24, 316 (1990). 153. Thurnau, R. C, "Incinerability Index, A Measure of Incinerator

Performance." Waste Manage., 10, 185 (1990). 154. Lemieux, P. M., et al, "Development of a Simple Indicator for

Measuring the Performance of Incinerators, Industrial Furnaces,

and Boilers Burning Hazardous Waste." EPA-600-D-90-055,

U. S. EPA, Washington, D. C. (1990).

155. Fournier, R. L., et al, "Analysis and Testing of the Metal Parts

Furnace for the Deimitarization of Chemical Warfare Munitions."

J. Hazard Mater., 23, 1 (1990).

156. Ragaini, R. C, "Treatment and Destruction of Hazardous Chemical

Wastes." UCRL-102785, U. S. Dep. Energy, Washington, D. C.

(1990). 157. Dempsey, C. R., and Thurnau, R. C, "Pilot-Scale Evaluation of

Incinerating Listed Wastes from Specific Sources." EPA-600-D

90-141, U. S. EPA, Washington, D. C. (1990).

158. Tabery, R. S., and Dangtran, K., "Fluidized Bed Combustion of

Aluminum Smelting Waste." Environ. Prog., 9, 61 (1990).

159. Uberoi, M., and Shadman, F., "Sorbents for Removal of Lead

Compounds From Hot Flue Gases." /. Am. Inst Chem. Eng., 36,

307 (1990). 160. Elliot, B., et al, "Exhaust Gas Incineration and the Combustion

of Arsine and Phosphine." Solid State TechnoL, 33, 89 (1990).

161. Ross, M. M., and Deitz, V. R., "Thermal Desorption/Tandem

Mass Spectrometry of Whetlerite Adsorbates." Cabon, 28, 229

(1990). 162. Chopey, N. P., "The Tops in Chemical Engineering Achievement."

Chem. Eng, 96, 12, 79 (1989). 163. Davis, L. A., and Miranda, J. E., "Texaco Hazardous Waste Gas

ification." Environ. Professional, 12, 40 (1990).

164. Holloway, B., "Technical Evaluation of the Combustion System

of the Marine Shale Processors." EPA-530-SW-90-086, U. S. EPA,

Washington, DC. (1990). 165. Rukavina, M., "Waste Recycled Into Aggregate." Rock Prod., 93,

134(1990). 166. Solar Energy Res. Inst., Golden, Colo., "Solar Thermal Program

Summary, Fiscal Year 1989, Volume 1: Overview." DOE/CH/

10093-60, U. S. Dep. Energy, Washington, D. C. (1990).

167. Solar Energy Res. Inst., Golden, Colo., "Solar Thermal Program

Summary, Fiscal Year 1989, Volume 2: Research Summaries."

DOE/CH/10093-61, U. S. Dept. Energy, Washington, D. C. (1990).

June 1991 509



hazardous waste treatment technologies

Documents

hazardous waste remediation

soil treatment technologies

biological treatment

selection of technologies

cost of selected technologies

jstor terms

jstor archive

information technology