Record Display for the EPA National Library Catalog

RECORD NUMBER: 37 OF 90

OLS Field Name OLS Field Data
Main Title Evaluation of Alternative Treatment Technologies for CERCLA Soils and Debris (Summary of Phase 1 and Phase 2).
Author Locke, B. B. ; Arozarena, M. M. ; Chambers, C. D. ; Hessling, J. A. ; Alperin, E. ;
CORP Author PEI Associates, Inc., Cincinnati, OH. ;International Technology Corp., Knoxville, TN. ;Bruck, Hartman and Esposito, Inc., Cincinnati, OH.;Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. Risk Reduction Engineering Lab.
Publisher Sep 91
Year Published 1991
Report Number EPA-68-03-3389; EPA/600/2-91/050;
Stock Number PB91-240572
Additional Subjects Soil treatment ; Waste treatment ; Superfund ; Remedial action ; Soil contamination ; Technology utilization ; Substitutes ; Physical treatment ; Desorption ; Low temperature tests ; Stabilization ; Incineration ; Performance evaluation ; Chemical treatment ; Soil washing
Holdings
Library Call Number Additional Info Location Last
Modified
Checkout
Status
NTIS  PB91-240572 Most EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. Check with individual libraries about paper copy. NTIS 11/26/1991
Collation 71p
Abstract
The study was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, a synthetic soil matrix was prepared as a theoretical composite of Superfund soils nationwide. In the second phase, soils from actual Superfund sites were treated. Three treatment technologies were evaluated in both phases: (1) chemical treatment (KPEG), (2) physical treatment (soils washing), and (3) low-temperature thermal desorption. The Phase I study also included the evaluation of incineration and stabilization. Comparison of results obtained in the treatment of Superfund soils and the synthetic soils reveals that the trend in contaminant removals was similar for both types of soils. The percentage removal, however, was higher for synthetic soils than for actual Superfund soils. This can be attributed to the fact that the synthetic soils were spiked and tested without allowing much time for sorption of the contaminant onto the soils. In contrast, the actual Superfund soils had weathered for long periods of time before treatment was attempted; therefore, contaminant removal was shown to be more difficult on the actual soils.