United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response 

(5102G)

EPA 542-R-00-004

August 2000

www.epa.gov

clu-in.org

 EPA Potential Applicability of Assembled

Chemical Weapons Assessment

Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams

and Contaminated Media
EPA 542-R-00-004

August 2000

POTENTIAL APPLICABILITY OF ASSEMBLED

CHEMICAL WEAPONS ASSESSMENT TECHNOLOGIES

TO RCRA WASTE STREAMS AND CONTAMINATED MEDIA

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Technology Innovation Office

Washington, DC 20460
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

i

NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER

This document was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Technology Innovation Office with

support under EPA Contract Number 68-W-99-003. It is intended to raise the awareness of the technologies

included in the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA) program, and presents an overview of each

technology, including its applicability, performance, and other factors. Information about the technologies was

obtained from the technology providers. No testing or evaluation was conducted by EPA during preparation of this

document, and an independent assessment of this information was beyond EPA’s scope. Mention of trade names or

commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. For more information about this

project, please contact: John Kingscott, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technology Innovation Office,

Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (MS 5102G), Washington, D.C., 20460; (703) 603-7189;

 e-mail: kingscott.john@epa.gov.

This document may be obtained from EPA’s web site at www.epa.gov/tio, or at clu-in.org. A limited number of hard

copies of this document are available free-of-charge by mail from EPA’s National Service Center for Environmental

Publications (NSCEP), at the following address (please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery): 

U.S. EPA/National Service Center for Environmental Publications

P.O. Box 42419 

Cincinnati, OH 45242

Phone: (513) 489-8190 or (800) 490-9198 

Fax: (513) 489-8695

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Special acknowledgment is given to the ACWA program staff and the technology providers for their thoughtful

suggestions and support in preparing this report. 
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides an evaluation of the potential applicability of Assembled Chemical Weapons

Assessment (ACWA) technologies to RCRA waste streams and contaminated media found at RCRA and

Superfund sites. The information in this report is intended to provide site managers and other technology

users with a better understanding of the potential uses of ACWA technologies and to help technology

providers better understand the potential market for those and similar technologies. Under the ACWA

program, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has established a process for identifying and

demonstrating alternatives to incineration for the demilitarization of chemical weapons. The seven

ACWA technology providers and their technologies evaluated for this report are: 

& AEA Technology PLC’s SILVER IITM Technology

& AlliedSignal Inc.’s Immobilized Cell Bioreactor (ICBTM) Technology (now known as

Honeywell’s ICBTM Technology)

& Commodore Advanced Sciences, Inc.’s Solvated Electron Technology (SETTM)

& Eco Logic Inc.’s Gas Phase Chemical Reduction (GPCR) Technology

& Foster Wheeler Development Corporation’s Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)

Technology

& General Atomic’s Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) Technology

& Startech Environmental Corporation’s Plasma Waste Converter (PWCTM) Technology

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) examined the status of these seven ACWA

technologies and their potential to treat RCRA waste streams and contaminated media typically found at

RCRA and Superfund sites, including those currently treated by incineration. EPA worked with DoD

staff and the technology providers to collect available information about the types of RCRA waste

streams and contaminated media that the ACWA technologies treated or could treat. Table ES-1

provides a summary of the ACWA technologies. 

This report presents an overview of each technology, including its applicability, performance, and other

factors to be considered. Information about the technologies was obtained from the technology providers

and has not been verified independently by EPA. In addition, the report includes information about the

potential for the application of and market for the ACWA technologies to treat RCRA wastes that have

chemical structures similar to ACWA wastes. 
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

iii

Table ES-1. Summary of ACWA Technologies

Vendor and

Technology

Technology Type (all ex situ) Developmental

Status

Contaminants

Treated (Matrix)

AEA Technology

PLC’s SILVER IITM

Electrochemical oxidation - uses

reactive silver that is created by

applying an electric current to a

solution of nitric acid and silver

nitrate

Pilot-scale • Solvents (medical

diagnostic wastes)

AlliedSignal (now

Honeywell) Inc.’s

Immobilized Cell

BioreactorTM

Biological degradation -

combines a high surface area

media with a support matrix in a

bioreactor

Field

demonstration

• Chlorinated solvents

(groundwater)

Commodore

Advanced Sciences,

Inc.’s Solvated

Electron

TechnologyTM

Chemical reduction - uses

solvated electron solutions that

consist of alkali or alkaline earth

metals such as sodium or

calcium dissolved in liquid

anhydrous ammonia

Full-scale;

commercial

treatment of PCBcontaminated

wastes; has

nationwide permit

for treatment of

PCBs

• CFCs (pure wastes)

• DDD, DDE, DDT,

Dieldrin (soil,

wastes)

• Dioxins/furans (oil)

• Explosives (soil)

• PAHs (pure)

• PCBs (soil, oil,

surfaces)

Eco Logic Inc.’s

Gas Phase Chemical

Reduction

Technology

Chemical reduction - uses

hydrogen gas at elevated

temperatures

Full-scale;

commercial

treatment of PCBcontaminated

wastes

• DDT (agricultural

wastes)

• Dioxins/furans

(sediments)

• Hexachlorobenzene

(chemical industry

wastes)

• PAHs (sediments)

• PCBs (soil, oil,

sediments,

groundwater,

concrete, electrical

equipment, process

wastes)
Table ES-1. Summary of ACWA Technologies (continued)

Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

Vendor and

Technology

Technology Type (all ex situ) Developmental

Status

Contaminants

Treated (Matrix)

iv

Foster Wheeler

Development

Corporation’s

Supercritical Water

Oxidation

Technology

Hydrothermal oxidation - treats

organic wastes at a combination

of temperature and pressure

higher than the critical point of

water, where the wastes become

highly soluble and functions as a

fuel

Field

demonstration

• Chlorinated solvents

(wastes typically

found on naval

vessels)

General Atomic’s

Supercritical Water

Oxidation

Technology

Hydrothermal oxidation - treats

organic wastes at a combination

of temperature and pressure

higher than the critical point of

water, where the wastes become

highly soluble and functions as a

fuel

Field

demonstration

• Chlorinated solvents

(soil, groundwater,

wastes typically

found on naval

vessels)

• Explosives (rocket

propellants)

Startech

Environmental

Corporation’s

Plasma Waste

ConverterTM

Thermal plasma - uses plasma

gas which is discharged within a

chamber to produce very high

temperatures

Pilot-scale • Chlorinated solvents

(industrial wastes)

• Explosives (soil,

waste streams)

• Heavy metals (soils,

medical wastes)

Key results for the ACWA technologies; potential applicability to RCRA waste streams and

contaminated media; cost; and potential market include the following.

ACWA Technologies

• The seven ACWA technologies are all operated ex situ and include chemical

oxidation, chemical reduction, biological degradation, or thermal processes. 

SILVER IITM is an electrochemical oxidation process; ICBTM is a biological degradation

process; SETTM and GPCR are chemical reduction processes; the SCWO technologies

are hydrothermal oxidation processes; and PWCTM is a thermal plasma process.

• Two ACWA technologies currently are being used for full-scale, commercial

operations (Commodore’s SETTM facility in the U.S. and Eco Logic’s GPCR facility in

Kwinana, Australia) to treat PCB-contaminated wastes. The others are under

development and have been tested on a number of different waste types at either bench

or pilot and field-demonstration scales. Pilot- and demonstration-scale testing has been

conducted for PCBs in soil (SETTM and GPCR); pesticides in soil (SETTM); chlorinated

solvents in groundwater (ICBTM); PCBs in groundwater (GPCR); chlorinated solvents in

wastes (SETTM, GPCR, and both SCWO technologies); explosives in wastes (SILVER
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

v

IITM and GPCR, and General Atomics’ SCWO); and PCBs in wastes (SETTM and General

Atomics’ SCWO). 

Potential Applicability to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

• Six of the ACWA technologies (AEA’s SILVER IITM; Commodore’s SETTM; Eco

Logic’s GPCR; Foster Wheeler’s SCWO; General Atomic’s SCWO; and Startech’s

PWC) have the capability to treat a wide range of organic compounds (similar to

incineration), while all seven technologies can treat other organic compounds with

chemical structures similar to ACWA chemicals. 

• While ACWA wastes are typically treated in a liquid phase, several of the ACWA

technologies have the capability to treat materials in solid, liquid, or gaseous phases. 

SILVER IITM and PWCTM can treat solid and liquid materials directly, generally without

preprocessing, while the use of other technologies may require some preprocessing. For

the ICBTM, materials must be in an aqueous phase. For SETTM, materials must be

susceptible to penetration by liquid ammonia; some solids must be crushed or shredded;

and wet sludges may need to be dewatered before they are treated. For GPCR, materials

must be volatilized or atomized before they are treated. Solids are generally passed

through a thermal desorber prior to treatment in a GPCR. For SCWO, materials must be

in a liquid phase or converted to a liquid phase. All seven ACWA technologies can treat

aqueous wastes. ACWA technologies that can treat contaminated soil, sludge, or debris

include SILVER IITM, SETTM, GPCR, and PWC. These vendors provide modular

equipment that can be used for pre-or post-processing (before or after the primary

system).

• The ACWA technologies have been tested on various process wastes, such as oil,

organic liquids, and hydraulic fluids, ion exchange resins, nuclear industry wastes, and

fuels; wastes from textile finishers, chemical manufacturers, wood treating facilities, and

beverage and food processors; shredded or crushed concrete and metals; solid surfaces

such as steel, wood, fiberglass, concrete, and rubber; electrical equipment; solid waste

such as paper, cloth, and plastic; and contaminated media, such as soil, sediment, and

groundwater. 

& A number of RCRA waste streams include constituents that have chemical structures

similar to ACWA wastes, including those that are ethers, esters, and nitrated compounds. 

While the technology providers did not provide data on the treatment of specific RCRA

hazardous wastes, the analysis showed that all seven of the ACWA technologies have the

potential to treat RCRA wastes with chemical structures similar to those of the

ACWA wastes. In addition, as mentioned above, six of the ACWA technologies are

capable of treating a wide range of organic compounds and therefore have the potential

to treat a wide range of organic RCRA waste streams. 
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

vi

• The types of constituents tested by various ACWA service providers include

chlorinated solvents, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), dioxins and furans, explosives, PCBs,

and pesticides in such matrices as oil, soil, sediment, groundwater, and sludge. For

example, SETTM has been demonstrated in pilot studies to treat organochlorine pesticides

(DDD, DDE, DDT, and dieldrin) in soil to below detection limits. 

• The values for dioxins and furans measured in the ACWA program were all less

than the emission standard for dioxins and furans from incinerators, 0.20 ng/m3

TEQ (40 CFR 63.1203). All seven ACWA technologies generate off-gases, and the

ACWA program provided limited results on the concentrations of dioxins or furans in

the off-gases from the three treatment technologies included in 1999 demonstration

testing. The ACWA program data showed the following concentrations of dioxins and

furans in the off-gases, measured as toxicity equivalent quotient (TEQ, the international

method of relating the toxicity of various dioxin and furan congeners to the toxicity of

2,3,7,8-TCDD): the AlliedSignal ICBTM was 0.064 ng/m3

 TEQ; the General Atomics’

SCWO ranged from 0.025-0.100 ng/m3

 TEQ; and the Startech PWCTM was 0.100 ng/m3. 

In addition, all seven ACWA technology providers stated that the technologies are

designed and operated so that they will not produce dioxins or dibenzofurans in the offgases, therefore claiming potential as alternatives to incineration. 

Cost

• Except for SETTM, GPCR, and PWCTM, the ACWA technologies are not available on a

commercial scale. In addition, except for projected full-scale costs for SETTM and

GPCR, the technology providers did not provide quantitative cost information for

use of their technologies. EPA requested that all ACWA technology providers identify

the cost for use of their technologies for treatment of RCRA wastes and contaminated

media, and some provided limited information about cost, including projected full-scale

costs. However, these costs were limited to select aspects of a given remediation (such

as costs for electricity) and are not presented here because of concerns about

comparability. The costs for remediation of contaminated sites using the ACWA

technologies would vary based on site-specific factors such as matrix characteristics and

the presence of debris. 

• One of the criteria for accepting technologies into the ACWA program was that their life

cycle costs would be approximately comparable to those for incineration. It is likely

that additional information will be made available in the future about the costs for use of

the ACWA technologies for treatment of RCRA wastes and contaminated media, after

additional testing is completed for the ACWA technologies. Further, the ACWA

technologies are at different scales of development, and it has been generally observed

that it is difficult to accurately predict costs for use of a technology at a full scale until it

is in common use.
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

vii

Potential Market

• The potential market for ACWA technologies includes wastes that currently are

treated by combustion and organic wastes that are treated by other technologies or

are disposed. Approximately 3.3 million tons per year of wastes in the U.S. are

managed by combustion, including wastes from the industrial organic chemicals,

pesticides and agricultural chemicals, organic fibers, medicinal chemicals, and botanical

products sectors. An evaluation of 16 RCRA wastes that have constituents with

chemical structures similar to the ACWA wastes showed that the majority (by mass) of

the RCRA wastes are managed by aqueous organic treatment or disposal (with or

without treatment). For example, approximately 44 million tons per year of F003 spent

solvent are managed by aqueous organic treatment and 23 million tons per year by

disposal. Aqueous organic treatment used for RCRA wastes includes processes such as

air/steam stripping, wet air oxidation, and chemical precipitation.

• Other vendors provide processes that are similar to the ACWA technologies (in

terms of type of process, such as chemical oxidation and reduction, or thermal

processes). Along with the ACWA technologies, they may provide additional options

for treating organic wastes, including those treated by combustion. To identify such

vendors, EPA searched its EPA REmediation And CHaracterization Innovative

Technologies (EPA REACH IT) database, which includes information from 750 vendors

of site remediation technologies. A search of EPA REACH IT identified seven vendors

of similar technologies, including EnSolve Biosystems’ Encell Bioreactor; Dames and

Moore’s Bioinfiltration; High Voltage Environmental Applications’ E-Beam; Delphi

Research’s DETOXSM; G.E.M.’s chemical reaction process; En-Dyn’s Low Temperature

Plasma; and MSE Technology Applications’ electron torch. However, the EPA REACH

IT database likely does not include all vendors that may offer similar technologies

(especially for treatment of wastes, rather than media), and some vendors that offer

similar technologies were not identified in this evaluation. 
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

viii

CONTENTS

Section Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ACWA TECHNOLOGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.1 AEA’s SILVER IITM Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

2.1.1 Technology Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

2.1.2 Available Performance and Cost Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

2.1.3 Results from ACWA Demonstration Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

2.2 AlliedSignal’s Immobilized Cell BioreactorTM (ICBTM) Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

2.2.1 Technology Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

2.2.2 Available Performance and Cost Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

2.2.3 Results from ACWA Demonstration Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10

2.3 Commodore’s Solvated Electron Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11

2.3.1 Technology Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11

2.3.2 Available Performance and Cost Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13

2.3.3 Results from ACWA Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17

2.4 Eco Logic’s Gas Phase Chemical Reduction Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17

2.4.1 Technology Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17

2.4.2 Available Performance and Cost Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18

2.4.3 Results from the ACWA Testing Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23

2.5 Foster Wheeler’s Supercritical Water Oxidation Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23

2.5.1 Technology Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23

2.5.2 Available Performance and Cost Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-25

2.5.3 Results from ACWA Demonstration Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-26

2.6 General Atomics’ SCWO Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-26

2.6.1 Technology Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27

2.6.2 Available Performance and Cost Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-28

2.6.3 Results from ACWA Demonstration Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30

2.7 Startech’s Plasma Waste Converter Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30

2.7.1 Technology Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31

2.7.2 Available Performance and Cost Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-32

2.7.3 Results from ACWA Demonstration Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-34
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

ix

3.0 POTENTIAL FOR APPLICATION OF ACWA TECHNOLOGIES TO TREAT RCRA 

WASTE STREAMS COMPARABLE TO ACWA WASTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

3.1 Applicability to Treating RCRA Wastes Currently Treated by Combustion . . . . . . . . 3-1

3.2 Applicability to Treating RCRA Appendix VIII Wastes with Chemical 

Structures Similar to ACWA Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5

4.0 POTENTIAL FOR APPLICATION OF ACWA TECHNOLOGIES TO TREAT 

CONTAMINATED WASTES AND MEDIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

5.0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

APPENDIX A

A-1 Additional Background on the ACWA Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

A-2 Summary of ACWA Technology Service Providers and Technologies Relevant to EPA Effort . A-3

A-3 Points of Contact at ACWA Technology Service Providers and their Team Members . . . . . . . . A-4

APPENDIX B

B-1 Vendors Listed in EPA REACH IT as Providing Technologies Similar to ACWA 

Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-3

APPENDIX C

C-1 Management Methods for Selected Liquid Wastes Generated and Managed On Site 

and Received from Off Site for Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-2

C-2 Management Methods for Selected Solid and Sludge Wastes

Generated and Managed On Site and Received from Off Site for Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-3

C-3 Management Methods for Selected Liquid Wastes Generated and Managed On Site . . . . . . . . . C-4

C-4 Management Methods for Selected Liquid Wastes Received from Off Site for Management . . . C-5

C-5 Management Methods for Selected Solid and Sludge Wastes Generated and Managed On Site . C-6

C-6 Management Methods for Selected Solid and Sludge Wastes Received from Off Site for

Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-7

C-7 RCRA BRS System Type Codes and Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-8
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

x

EXHIBITS

Exhibit Page

2-1 Summary of Available Performance and Cost Information 

for the Seven ACWA Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2

2.2-1 Concentrations in Groundwater Prior to Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9

2.2-2 Summary of Constituent Concentrations in Southfield, Michigan Field 

Demonstration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10

2.3-1 Advantages and Potential Limitations of Commodore’s SETTM Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12

2.3-2 Summary of Performance Data on the SETTM Process by Contaminant and Matrix Type -

Superfund and RCRA wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13

2.4-1 Summary of Full-Scale GPCR Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-19

2.4-2 Summary of Pilot/Demonstration-Scale GPCR Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-19

2.4-3 Summary of Laboratory-Scale Testing of GPCR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20

2.4-4 Summary of Average Operating Conditions During SITE Demonstration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21

2.4-5 Summary of Key Results from SITE Demonstration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21

2.4-6 Projected Costs for Three Scenarios Using GPCR Technology, Based on 1994 SITE

Demonstration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-22

2.5-1 Summary of DARPA/ONR Testing for Foster Wheeler SCWO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-26

2.6-1 Summary of DARPA/ONR Testing for General Atomics’ SCWO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-29

2.7-1 Emissions of Plasma Converted Gas from Processed Hazardous Medical Waste . . . . . . . . . . 2-33

2.7-2 Composition of Silicate Stone from Processing of Lead Contaminated Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-34

3-1 Summary of Industrial Sectors Generating Combusted RCRA Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

3-2 Unit Cost for Use of Incineration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5

3-3 Commercial Incinerator Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5

3-4 Comparison of Types of ACWA Wastes and RCRA Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6

3-5 Management Methods for Selected Wastes Generated and Managed On Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9

4-1 Summary of the Prior Work Completed by ACWA Technology Service Providers for 

Treatment of Contaminated Wastes and Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

4-2 Summary of Key Technical Factors for Use of the ACWA Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

FIGURES

Figure Page

2.1.1: Process Flow Diagram for AEA’s SILVER IITM Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

2.2.1: Process Flow Diagram for AlliedSignal’s ICBTM Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8

2.2.2: Bioremediation System Used in Field Demonstration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9

2.3.1: Process Flow Diagram for Commodore’s SETTM Process for Liquid Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12

2.4.1: Process Flow Diagram for Eco Logic’s GPCR Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18

2.5.1: Process Flow Diagram of Foster Wheeler’s SCWO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-24

2.5.2: Transpiring Wall Reactor Used in Foster Wheeler’s SCWO Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-25

2.6.1: Process Flow Diagram for General Atomic’s SCWO Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-28

2.7.1: Startech’s PWCTM Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31

2.7.2: Startech’s PWCTM Process Flow Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-32

3-1: RCRA Waste Quantities Managed by Combustion Systems (EPA, 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

3-2: Hazardous Waste Codes Used in this Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Background

The National Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1997 established the Assembled Chemical

Weapons Assessment (ACWA) program within the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to identify and

demonstrate alternatives to incineration for the demilitarization of chemical weapons. As part of the

program, technology providers submitted proposals for demonstrating alternative technologies. 

Technology providers included companies or teams of companies including technology integrators and

technology vendors. In addition, proposals included one or more technologies. Six technology

providers, representing seven technologies used to treat chemical weapons, were selected for

participation in the ACWA program. Three technologies were selected for demonstration testing in 1999

and four technologies for demonstration testing in 2000. The ACWA technology providers and

technologies are (1) AEA Technology PLC (SILVER IITM); (2) Parsons/AlliedSignal, now known as

Honeywell (AlliedSignal’s Immobilized Cell BioreactorTM); (3) Teledyne-Commodore LLC

(Commodore’s Solvated Electron TechnologyTM); (4) Lockheed Martin - Eco Logic and Foster Wheeler

(Eco Logic’s Gas Phase Chemical Reduction and Foster Wheeler’s Supercritical Water Oxidation); (5)

General Atomics (Supercritical Water Oxidation); and (6) Burns and Roe (Startech’s Plasma Waste

ConverterTM). Additional information about the ACWA program is provided in Appendix A-1. 

Because the ACWA technologies have the potential to treat non-chemical weapons wastes, the U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has undertaken an effort to assess whether these technologies

could be used to treat wastes and contaminated media typically found at RCRA and Superfund sites,

including those currently treated by incineration. For example, much of the organic hazardous wastes at

these sites are being treated by incineration to meet the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)

treatment standards. 

In 1999, EPA worked with the ACWA program staff and the technology providers to collect available

and relevant information about the technologies and evaluated the potential applicability of ACWA

technologies to RCRA waste streams and contaminated media. This report presents the results of EPA’s

evaluation of seven ACWA technologies. The report is intended to assist site managers and other

technology users in understanding the potential uses of ACWA technologies and to help technology

providers better understand the potential market for those technologies. 

Information on technology performance and cost provided in this report was obtained from the ACWA

technology providers, and EPA did not perform an independent evaluation of this information.

Information in this report is not intended to revise or update EPA policy or guidance on how to treat

RCRA hazardous waste or clean up sites with contaminated soil and groundwater. In addition,

information presented in this report has no bearing on any of the activities being conducted by the DoD

or the Dialogue on ACWA about the demilitarization of assembled chemical munitions.

Organization of This Report

Section 2 of this report provides a summary of the ACWA technologies, including a description of the

process and a summary of the available performance and cost data. RCRA waste streams that are

potentially comparable to ACWA wastes are described in Section 3, to provide an indication of the types

of RCRA wastes that may potentially be treated by the ACWA technologies. Section 4 discusses the
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

1-2

potential for application of ACWA technologies to treat contaminated wastes and media, and includes a

summary of the prior work.

Appendix A includes additional background information about the ACWA program, and contact

information for the ACWA technology providers. Appendix B provides information about technology

providers other than those in the ACWA program that offer technologies similar to those in the ACWA

program (e.g., chemical oxidation and reduction technologies). These other providers may help

technology users to generalize about the supply of these types of technologies. Appendix C provides a

detailed summary of results from several queries of EPA’s Biennial Reporting System for selected

RCRA wastes.
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-1

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ACWA TECHNOLOGIES

The seven ACWA technologies that were evaluated for this report are: 

& AEA’s SILVER IITM Technology

& AlliedSignal’s Immobilized Cell Bioreactor Technology (now known as Honeywell’s

Immobilized Cell Bioreactor Technology)

& Commodore’s Solvated Electron Technology

& Eco Logic’s Gas Phase Chemical Reduction Technology

& Foster Wheeler’s Supercritical Water Oxidation Technology

& General Atomic’s Supercritical Water Oxidation Technology

& Startech’s Plasma Waste Converter Technology

Exhibit 2-1 provides a summary of the available performance and cost data for these ACWA

technologies. The remainder of this section provides a summary of these technologies, including a

description of the process and a summary of the performance and cost data available for the technology,

including the results from the recent testing conducted under the ACWA program. The information

presented in this section is based on information obtained from the technology providers and has not

been independently verified by EPA. 
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-2

Exhibit 2-1. Summary of Available Performance and Cost Information for the 

Seven ACWA Technologies*

ACWA

Technology

Provider

Technology

Used to Treat

Chemical

Weapons

 Performance Data

Provided

Cost Information

Provided

Technology

Included in 1999

ACWA

Demonstration

Testing (Demo I)

AEA SILVER IITM Bench-scale testing of

two solventcontaining mixtures

Amount of

electricity required

to destroy several

organic compounds

No

AlliedSignal (now

known as

Honeywell)

Biotreatment Field demonstration

of a combined

anaerobic-aerobic

system for treatment

of chlorinated solventcontaminated

groundwater 

General

information on

costcompetitiveness

Yes

Commodore Solvated

Electron

Technology

(SETTM)

Multiple applications

- e.g., for U.S. Navy,

New York State

utility, Federal

Superfund site

Projected full-scale

costs, based on

scale up studies of

batch and

continuous units to

treat solid and

liquid wastes

No

Eco Logic Gas Phase

Chemical

Reduction

(GPCR)

Multiple applications

- e.g., for commercial

operations in

Australia and Canada,

SITE demonstration

Projected full-scale

costs from the

SITE

demonstration, and

factors that affect

project costs

No

Foster Wheeler Supercritical

Water

Oxidation

(SCWO)

Pilot-scale testing of

hazardous wastes for

the U.S. Navy

None No

General Atomics SCWO Multiple pilot-scale

demonstrations for

U.S. Navy, Air Force,

and Army

None ** Yes
Exhibit 2-1. Summary of Available Performance and Cost Information for the 

Seven ACWA Technologies* (continued)

Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

ACWA

Technology

Provider

Technology

Used to Treat

Chemical

Weapons

 Performance Data

Provided

Cost Information

Provided

Technology

Included in 1999

ACWA

Demonstration

Testing (Demo I)

2-3

Startech Plasma Waste

ConverterTM

Pilot and full-scale

testing of hazardous

and non-hazardous

wastes for commercial

and government

clients

None Yes

* EPA requested from each technology provider information about the cost for use of their technology to treat RCRA waste

streams and contaminated media. The technology providers made available to EPA only limited information about the cost for

use of their technology. This information is being provided in this table and the remainder of Section 2 of this report because it

provides a limited indication of the costs of the ACWA technologies. EPA recognizes that these data are not complete nor are

they comparable between the technologies. For example, some vendors provided information such as amount of electricity

required. EPA notes that it is not appropriate at this time to perform a comprehensive cost comparison among these technologies

based on the information in this report. Further, as discussed later in this report, some of the ACWA technologies are still in the

process of being commercialized, and cost data for use of these technologies at a full-scale are not yet available. 

** Although cost data were not provided for this report, General Atomics indicated that projected full-scale costs are available for

ACWA and Newport chemical agent demilitarization applications
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-4

2.1 AEA’s SILVER IITM Technology

SILVER IITM is an electrochemical oxidation process, developed by AEA, based on the use of reactive

silver. The SILVER IITM process was initially developed to destroy organic wastes generated by the

nuclear industry in Great Britain. A 4 kW SILVER IITM demonstration plant, built in Dounreay,

Scotland, in Great Britain, has been used to test the destruction of a variety of waste materials.

An additional 4kW SILVER IITM plant was built at the UK Ministry of Defense chemical weapons base

at Porton Down, England. This plant was used to demonstrate the ability of the SILVER II process to

destroy the chemical warfare agents VX and mustard. The result of these trials, which were conducted in

1996, was that 18 kg of mustard and 15 kg of VX were destroyed to an efficiency level of 99.9999%.

(Boylston, October 1999)

2.1.1 Technology Description

Figure 2.1.1 is a process flow diagram of AEA’s SILVER IITM technology. As shown on this figure, the

technology consists of anolyte and catholyte vessels separated by an electrochemical cell. Organic

material is fed into the anolyte vessel where it is oxidized in a solution of nitric acid to which silver

nitrate has been added. When electric current is applied to the electrochemical cell, the silver is

converted to silver++ ("Silver 2"), which is an extremely active oxidizing agent. This action oxidizes the

organic feed to carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, water, mineral acids, and salts. Materials can be fed by

gravity or by pumping, and can be solid (such as PCB-laced wooden pallets) or liquid. Off gases from

the anolyte vessel are passed through a condenser, with condensed liquid returned to the anolyte vessel,

and off gases passed through a scrubber and potentially through an activated carbon filter before being

discharged to the atmosphere. The SILVER IITM process operates at relatively low temperature and

pressure (up to 90o

C and nominally atmospheric pressure). By-products of the process include salts

(referred to on Figure 2.1.1 as miscellaneous inert solids), nitric acid, spent scrubbing solutions, and off

gases. AEA reports that there are low volumes of by-product streams (gaseous, liquid, and solid), and

that dioxins and dibenzofurans are not produced by the process.
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-5

Figure 2.1.1: Process Flow Diagram for AEA’s SILVER IITM Technology (AEA, Not Dated)
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-6

2.1.2 Available Performance and Cost Data (Boylston, May 1999)

AEA reported that the SILVER IITM process has been used to destroy the following types of organic

compounds: general industrial wastes, such as organic ion exchange resins, chlorinated hydrocarbons,

hydrocarbons, mixed PCBs, and oils and hydraulic fluids; nuclear industry wastes; explosives; and fuels.

AEA provided available data on the use of SILVER IITM technology to treat hazardous constituents

frequently identified at RCRA and Superfund sites, such as chlorinated solvents. This included

information about bench-scale testing of two solvent-containing mixtures, conducted in 1992. The tested

materials were radioactive solvent mixtures, labeled or contaminated with C14 and H3, and were wastes

from the manufacture of medical diagnostic kits and other items. The purpose of the testing (referred to

as “proof of principle”) was to determine if such solvents could be oxidized by SILVER IITM and that the

resulting radioactivity could be retained in the process. The solvent mixtures had the following

compositions:

Mix 1 (volume %) Mix 2 (volume %)

Methanol 18.3 Water 47.5

Ethanol 18.3 Methanol 47.5

Isopropanol 18.3 40/60 petroleum spirits 1.7

Toluene 5 Chloroform 1.7

Chlorobenzene 5 Carbon Tetrachloride 1.7

Dioxan 3.3

Tetrahydrofuran 3.3

Diethylether 3.3

Methylene Chloride 5

Chloroform 5

Cyclohexane 15

The bench-scale tests were conducted on a batch basis using 28 ml portions of the solvent mixtures over

a 12-hour period and were carried out at a 20o

C anolyte temperature. The results from the bench-scale

tests showed that recovery of both C14 and H3 were approximately 98%. The results for the organic

constituents showed that not all the wastes were destroyed during the 12-hour test, based on an analysis

of total organic carbon in the anolyte. However, quantitative information about the specific organic

compounds that remained in the anolyte, and their concentrations, was not provided. The performance

results were attributed to the low bulk concentration and resulting slow oxidation kinetics. However,

AEA reported that their 12 years of development work have shown that when organics react with

SILVER IITM, they are completely mineralized, and that no detectable quantities of organic feed material

remain.

Limited data were provided by AEA about the cost for using the SILVER IITM technology. AEA

indicated that a key factor affecting cost is electrochemical efficiency (affecting cost of electricity), and

provided the following information about the amount of electricity required to destroy several organic

compounds to carbon dioxide:
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-7

Compound Amount of Electricity Required to Destroy Compound 

kW-hrs/kg (to CO2)

Carbon tetrachloride 0 (strictly, CCl4  CO2 is hydrolysis, not oxidation)

Dioxin 12.28

PCB (Aroclor 54) 9.85

Tetrachloroethene 1.61

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 4

Trichloroethene 3.06

2.1.3 Results from ACWA Demonstration Testing

SILVER IITM was one of the six technologies selected for evaluation under the ACWA program for the

investigation of potential non-incineration destruction of chemical weapons and their components.

Funding limitations resulted in three of the six technologies being demonstrated in FY99, with the

remaining four (including SILVER IITM) being demonstrated in FY00.

2.2 AlliedSignal’s Immobilized Cell BioreactorTM (ICBTM) Technology

The AlliedSignal ICBTM is a biological technology for treatment of organic constituents in wastewater

and groundwater. (AlliedSignal is now known as Honeywell.) 

2.2.1 Technology Description (AlliedSignal, 1996)

The ICBTM technology combines a patented high surface area media (foam) with a support matrix to

maximize the distribution of water and air throughout the bioreactor. In addition, reactor medium is

coated with activated carbon, which is deposited by a patented method that promotes regeneration. 

Figure 2.2.1 is a process flow diagram of AlliedSignal’s ICBTM technology. As shown on Figure 2.2.1,

the technology consists of a multi-chambered reactor vessel filled with patented media. Wastewater is

mixed with nutrients and the pH is adjusted prior to entering the reactor. Air is blown into the reactor

through air diffusers, and exhausted from the reactor near the point where treated water effluent is

discharged. Wastewater is pumped over and under baffles to promote biodegradation in the reactor

vessel. According to AlliedSignal, the ICBTM technology requires relatively little space, has relatively

lower O&M costs, and minimizes production of sludge. 

2.2.2 Available Performance and Cost Data (AlliedSignal, Not Dated)

The ICBTM technology has been demonstrated on a wide range of process wastes, including wastes from

textile finishers, chemical manufacturers, wood treating facilities, and beverage/food processors. In

addition, the ICBTM technology has been used to remediate a site with groundwater contaminated by

chlorinated solvents. 

AlliedSignal provided available data on the use of the ICBTM technology to treat hazardous constituents

frequently identified at RCRA and Superfund sites, such as chlorinated solvents, including information

about an AlliedSignal site in Southfield, Michigan, that had chlorinated solvent contamination in the

groundwater. This five-acre site had housed a mechanical engineering laboratory that used

trichloroethene (TCE) as a degreasing solvent. When the site buildings were demolished, the
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-8

groundwater was found to contain TCE, cis-1,2-dichloroethene (DCE), and vinyl chloride, at the

concentrations shown below in Table 2.2-1.

Figure 2.2.1: Process Flow Diagram for AlliedSignal’s ICBTM Technology 

(AlliedSignal, Not Dated)
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-9

Table 2.2-1. Concentrations in Groundwater Prior to Treatment (AlliedSignal, Not Dated)

 Parameter Concentration (mg/L, except for pH)

 TCE 26

 cis-1,2-DCE 1.5

 Vinyl chloride 0.05

 pH 6.8 - 7.2

 TOC 8 - 27

 NH3-N 2.3 - 7.1

 O-PO4 0 - 2.5

AlliedSignal performed a field demonstration of a combined anaerobic-aerobic bioremediation system,

including use of an ICBTM, to remediate the groundwater at this site. Figure 2.2-2 shows the

bioremediation system used in this demonstration. As shown in Figure 2.2-2, AlliedSignal added

molasses to the groundwater just prior to re-injection into the aquifer, to promote the anaerobic

biodegradation of TCE to DCE and vinyl chloride. Groundwater was then extracted from the aquifer and

treated above-ground in a 50-gallon anaerobic bioreactor, to which additional molasses was added, to

further promote the anaerobic biodegradation of TCE to DCE and vinyl chloride. Effluent from the

anaerobic bioreactor was then fed to an aerobic ICBTM, to which oxygen and phenol were added, to

promote the oxidation of DCE and vinyl chloride. Table 2.2-2 shows the concentrations of TCE, DCE,

and vinyl chloride in this treatment system.

Figure 2.2.2: Bioremediation System Used in Field Demonstration (AlliedSignal, Not Dated)
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-10

Table 2.2-2. Summary of Constituent Concentrations in Southfield, Michigan Field Demonstration

(mg/L) (AlliedSignal, Not Dated)

Constituent

Influent to Anaerobic

Bioreactor

Effluent from

Anaerobic Bioreactor

Effluent from

Aerobic ICBTM

Bioreactor

TCE 27.9 1.8 0.2

cis-1,2-DCE 7.4 19.8 0.4

Vinyl chloride <0.1 0.6 <0.1

No information was provided about the cost for using the ICBTM technology at this site. However,

AlliedSignal reported that costs for the ICBTM technology are competitive with other technologies on a

life cycle basis.

In addition, AlliedSignal provided information about use of the ICBTM technology at several sites to treat

industrial wastewater, such as the following:

& Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corp., Central Pennsylvania, a wood treating facility

& Henkel Corporation, Castanea, Pennsylvania, a dye-intermediate facility

2.2.3 Results from ACWA Demonstration Testing (Dialogue on ACWA, August 1999,

SRC, 1999)

As shown on Exhibit 1-1, AlliedSignal’s ICBTM technology was selected for demonstration testing under

the ACWA program. The system that was tested under the ACWA program consisted of an ICBTM unit

followed by a catalytic oxidizer (catox) for treatment of off gases; catox was included because of the

specific concerns related to potential emissions of chemical weapons. According to AlliedSignal, catox

would not be required for all applications of the ICBTM technology.

The following data on the performance and cost of this technology were available from the ACWA

program. The ICBTM technology was found to be capable of demilitarizing mustard-filled assembled

chemical weapons but not nerve agent-filled weapons. It was found to be an “acceptably mature” process

for mustard. The ACWA program data showed a concentration of 0.064 ng/m3

 for dioxin/furan in the

effluent from the catox unit (for processing of nerve agent HD). This was measured as toxicity

equivalent quotient (TEQ, the international method of relating the toxicity of various dioxin/furan

congeners to the toxicity of 2,3,7,8-TCDD). This value for dioxins and furans measured in the ACWA

program was less than the emission standard for incinerators, which is 0.20 ng/m3

 TEQ (40 CFR

63.1203).

Capital costs for the technology were found to be approximately 5 - 10% less than the costs for the

“baseline” technology (incineration), depending on site-specific conditions. The ACWA Supplemental

Report to Congress (September 30, 1999) concluded that the capital cost for ICBTM technology was

approximately equal to that for incineration, given the uncertainties in the predicted values. O&M labor

requirements were found to be comparable to those for the baseline technology, however insufficient
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-11

information was available to complete a comparison of total O&M costs to those for the baseline

technology. 

2.3 Commodore’s Solvated Electron Technology

The Solvated Electron Technology (SETTM) is a patented non-thermal process for the treatment of a wide

range of organics including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, explosives and propellants,

chemical warfare agents, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and chlorinated solvents. The technology can be

used to treat contaminants in a variety of matrices such as soils, sludges, sediments, oils, and shredded or

crushed concrete and metals. The SETTM process also is used to treat solid surfaces including steel,

wood, fiberglass, concrete, and rubber. The SETTM process is modular and can be used on a mobile or

fixed-plant basis. The process is operated at a pressure that is higher than ambient, but relatively less

than that used for the SCWO technologies. (Getman 1999, Financial News 1999, Commodore October

1998)

2.3.1 Technology Description

The SETTM process uses solvated electron solutions to reduce organic compounds to metals salts and the

parent (de-halogenated) molecule. Solvated electron solutions, which are strong reducing agents, are

formed by dissolving alkali or alkaline earth metals such as sodium or calcium in anhydrous liquid

ammonia. Example byproducts from treating PCB-contaminated waste include petroleum hydrocarbons,

sodium chloride, and sodium amide. (Commodore October 1998)

The SETTM process is part of Commodore’s Solvated Electron System that is modular in nature and can

be used in varying configurations to treat different types of wastes. All configurations include the SETTM

treatment module. Depending on the type of waste and/or client-specific needs, front-end modules (for

example, to remove water or extract specific contaminants prior to treatment), and back-end (posttreatment) modules (for example, to recycle ammonia, treat metals, or adjust pH) are added. (Getman

1999)

Figure 2.3-1 presents a diagram of the SETTM process for liquid wastes (including extracts from solid

wastes). Solid sodium is warmed to a liquid state, then pumped to the solvator tank where it is dissolved

in liquid anhydrous ammonia, forming the solvated electron solution. The solution is then pumped to the

reactor vessel, where it is mixed with the waste and reacted to reduce the organics. After the reaction,

the solution is transferred to an ammonia/matrix separator tank. The treated material is removed and sent

to a storage vessel. The ammonia is transferred to another separator tank and heated to approximately

125°F to separate the ammonia vapor from water. The ammonia vapor is sent to a condenser and

returned to the process. Offgases from the process are treated using carbon adsorption or a wet scrubber

prior to discharge to the atmosphere or reused in the system. (Commodore October 1998, Getman 1999)

For solids, the material is first mixed with anhydrous liquid ammonia in a solids flow mixer reactor. The

ammonia washes the contaminant from the substrate. Solid or molten sodium metal is then added and

reacted with the organics. When the reaction is complete, the treated material is removed and sent to

storage. The ammonia is returned to the process. Wet sludges may require a water removal step prior to

treatment. (Commodore October 1998, Getman 1999) 

Advantages and potential limitations identified by Commodore for this technology are summarized in

Table 2.3-1.
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-12

Water

Treated Material

Off gasses

Reactor

Solvated Electron Vessel

Solution

Ammonia

Sodium

Recirculated to

System or

Discharged to

Atmosphere

Waste

Off-gas

Treatment

(carbon or scrubber)

Ammonia/Water

Separator

Ammonia/Matrix

Separator

Solvator

Tank Condenser

Figure 2.3.1: Process Flow Diagram for Commodore’s SETTM Process for Liquid Wastes (Modified

from Teledyne-Commodore, Not Dated)

Table 2.3-1. Advantages and Potential Limitations of Commodore’s SETTM Process

(Commodore October 1998, Getman 1999)

Advantages Potential Limitations

- Applicable to a wide range of organics in a

wide range of matrices

- Non-thermal process; effective as an

alternative to incineration for PCBs, pesticides,

chemical weapons and agents, and other

organics

- Only raw materials required are anhydrous

ammonia and an alkali or alkaline earth metal

which are commodity chemicals

- Reaction byproducts are metals salts and the

dehalogenated parent compound (no toxic

intermediates)

- Applicable only to matrices that can be

penetrated by liquid ammonia; some solids,

such as metal, concrete, and wood, must be

crushed or shredded prior to treatment

- Material with high water content (wet sludges)

are usually dewatered prior to treatment
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-13

2.3.2 Available Performance and Cost Data

The SETTM process has been tested (laboratory and pilot-scale/field demonstrations) on a wide range of

organic compounds in a variety of matrices (described above), and is currently being evaluated for fullscale application at several sites. For example, at a naval facility in Hawaii, the SETTM process is being

evaluated for the remediation of 10,000 cubic yards of PCB-contaminated soil. On a full-scale basis,

Commodore received a nationwide permit from EPA to use SETTM to treat PCBs, as an alternative to

incineration. Commodore recently completed the construction of a commercial PCB processing plant (10

tons/day). In addition, Commodore has constructed a scaled-up version of a SETTM process unit, the

L1200, capable of processing 66 pounds/hour of waste. The unit is currently in operation at Redstone

Arsenal and is scheduled for commercial operation in the near future. (Getman 1999, Commodore

October 1998).

Table 2.3-2 presents data provided by Commodore on the results of tests of wastes that may be found at

Superfund and RCRA sites. Detailed performance data were also provided for studies of the SETTM

process to treat PCBs at a New York utility and at the New Bedford Harbor (Sawyer Street) Superfund

site in Massachusetts. In addition, Commodore provided more detailed performance and cost data about

two pilot-scale studies of the SETTM process to treat PCBs and pesticides in various matrices, one at Port

Hueneme, California and one at Commodore’s facility in Marengo, Ohio. While extensive data also

were provided for the treatment of chemical agents, these are not described for the purposes of this

report.

Table 2.3-2. Summary of Performance Data on the SETTM Process by Contaminant and 

Matrix Type - Superfund and RCRA Wastes (Getman 1999)

Contaminant/

Matrix Matrix Specifics Scale/Location

Results (mg/kg)

Pre-treat Post-treat

%

Reduction/

DRE

PCBs - Soil sand, clay Pilot/Harrisburg PA 777 < 1 NR

sand, silt, clay Pilot/Los Alamos, NM 77 < 2 NR

sand, silt Pilot/NY 1250 < 2 NR

sand, silt, clay Pilot/Monroe, LA 8.8 < 1 NR

PCBs - Surfaces stainless steel Laboratory NR NR 99.999

capacitor foil -

aluminum

Laboratory NR NR 99.4

Mylar Laboratory NR NR 99.4

charcoal Laboratory NR NR 99.98

ground corn cobs Laboratory NR NR 99.7

PCBs - Oil used motor oil Pilot 23,339 < 1 NR

transformer oil Pilot 509,000 20* NR
Table 2.3-2. Summary of Performance Data on the SETTM Process by Contaminant and Matrix

Type - Superfund and RCRA Wastes (Getman 1999) (continued)

Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

Contaminant/

Matrix Matrix Specifics Scale/Location

Results (mg/kg)

Pre-treat Post-treat

%

Reduction/

DRE

2-14

mineral oil Pilot 5,000 < 0.5 NR

hexane Pilot 100,000 0.5 NR

Dioxins/Furans -

Oil

waste oil Pilot/McCormick and Baxter

site, Stockton, CA

dioxin -

418.5

furans - 14.1 

dioxin - 0.0023 

furans - 0.0013

NR

Pesticides - Soil soil Pilot/Barbers Point, HI DDD - 200

DDT - 180

DDE - 69

DDD - < 0.02

DDT - < 0.02

DDE - < 0.02

NR

soil Pilot/Dahlgren, VA DDD - 9

DDT - 1.6

Dieldrin - 15

DDD - < 0.02

DDT - < 0.02

Dieldrin - < 0.02

NR

CFCs Various CFCs,

HFCs, halons

Pilot NR NR 99.99

PAHs- pure Pure compounds Laboratory 1.99 - 2.01 ND - 0.39 99.98 -

99.999

Explosives - soil soil Laboratory/soil from Los

Alamos

HMX - 1,600

RDX - 3,580

DNB - 9.6

HMX - 0.03

RDX - 0.03

DNB - 0.03

99.9999

99.99999

99.99

* - Sodium feed was insufficient

NR - not reported

The more detailed performance information provided by Commodore on the SETTM process is

summarized below. Cost data provided by Commodore are based on studies of scaled-up versions of

batch and continuous units.

New York State Utility PCB Spill

Soil at a utility site in New York was contaminated with PCBs (1,200 mg/kg) as a result of a spill. Other

contaminants in the soil included small amounts of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and metals

(lead and mercury). Commodore performed a treatability study of the contaminated soil using SETTM. 

PCB concentrations in the treated soil were 1.4 mg/kg (a reduction of > 99.88%). Following pH

adjustment, the soil was returned to the site. Data on pre-treatment and post-treatment concentrations in

the soil are presented below. (Getman 1999)
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-15

Contaminant Pre-Treatment (mg/kg) Post-Treatment (mg/kg)

Arochlor 1260 1,200 1.4

Pyrene 1.8 ND

Phenanthrene 1.4 ND

Mercury 0.21 0.08

Lead 433 267

ND - not detected

New Bedford Harbor (Sawyer Street) Superfund Site

A demonstration-scale test of the SETTM process was performed at this Superfund site to treat PCBcontaminated river sediments. The sediments were first washed with diisopropylamine (by the Ionics

RCC B.E.S.T. TM process) to produce an oil concentrate containing PCBs at 32,800 mg/kg,

dioxins/furans at 47 mg/kg, and metals including lead at 73 mg/kg. The concentrate was treated using the

SETTM process. The treated concentrations were 1.3 mg/kg for PCBs and 0.012 mg/kg for

dioxins/furans. In addition, metals were removed during the transport of liquid ammonia from the reactor

vessel and recovered from the ammonia recycling unit for fixation and disposal. Data on pre-treatment

and post-treatment concentrations in the sediments are presented below. (Getman 1999)

Contaminant Pre-Treatment (mg/kg) Post-Treatment (mg/kg)

PCB 32,800 1.3

Dioxin/Furan 47 0.012

Mercury 0.93 0.02

Lead 73 0.20

Selenium 2.5 0.20

Arsenic 2.8 0.10

Port Hueneme

Treatability tests of the SETTM process were conducted at Port Hueneme using the Commodore Mobile

Disposal Unit 2 (CMDU2). The CMDU2 is fully contained in a mobile trailer and is designed to treat

PCBs and pesticides. The process is operated under pressure (up to 200 psig) to maintain the ammonia

as a liquid and can treat solids and liquids (see process description above). The process was tested on

wastes, including PCB-contaminated oil, PCB-contaminated soil, PCB-contaminated activated charcoal,

PCB-contaminated water, and pesticide-contaminated soil. Samples were shipped to an off-site

laboratory for analysis. The results are summarized below. (Commodore October 1998)

Contaminant Matrix Specifics

Pre-treatment

(mg/kg)

Post-treatment

(mg/kg)

PCB-Oil Waste oil spiked with PCB arochlor from a

transformer

160,000 - 410,000 < 1

PCB-Soil PCB-contaminated soil from Port Hueneme - Site 22 777 - 931 < 4.55 - < 20*
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

Contaminant Matrix Specifics

Pre-treatment

(mg/kg)

Post-treatment

(mg/kg)

2-16

PCB-contaminated soil from Navy Public Works

Center, Guam

0.83 11.4 - 12.4**

PCB-Activated

Charcoal

PCB-contaminated charcoal from a solvent recovery

operation

518 < 1 - < 0.03

PCB-Water Water spiked with PCB arochlor from a transformer 3,100 < 0.00053 - < 0.00061

Pesticide-Soil Pesticide contaminated soil from NAS Dahlgren, VA DDD - 3.9

DDE - 0.9

DDT - 1.6

Dieldrin - 15

Chlordane - 1.6

DDD -< 0.02

DDE - < 0.02

DDT - < 0.02

Dieldrin - < 0.02

Chlordane - < 0.02

Pesticide contaminated soil from NAS Barber’s

Point, Pearl Harbor

DDD - 170 - 240

DDE - 50 - 69

DDT - 160 - 180

Chlordane - 52 - 81

DDD -< 0.02

DDE - < 0.02

DDT - < 0.02

Chlordane - < 0.02

* - Interference problems increased method detection limits

** - Reactor vessel contained residual contamination from prior run; although initial field screen indicated soils contained more

than 50 mg/kg PCBs, laboratory tests showed the soil to contain little PCBs

Marengo Ohio Tests

According to Commodore, because of the issues encountered with the Port Hueneme tests on PCBcontaminated soil (the interference and the low-level of PCBs in the sample, as well as no on-site

laboratory to allow fast-turnaround results for use in modifying system parameters), additional

treatability testing was performed at Commodore’s facility in Marengo, Ohio. Soils from the same areas

as used for the Port Hueneme study (PCB-contaminated soil from Site 22 at Port Hueneme, and pesticide

contaminated soil from Barber’s Point, Pearl Harbor) were used. The results are presented below.

(Commodore October 1998) The Marengo Ohio tests also were identified as a completed SITE

demonstration test.

Contaminant Source

Pretreatment

(mg/kg)

Post-treatment

(mg/kg)

PCB-Soil Port Hueneme PCBs - 120 - 183 PCBs - 0.43 - 1.7

Pesticide-Soil Barbers Point DDD - 263 - 512

DDE - 197 - 362 

DDT - 920 - 1,620

Dieldrin - ND

Chlordane - 123 - 156

DDD - ND - 0.135

DDE - 0.172 - 5.55

DDT - ND - 0.072

Dieldrin - ND - 0.0002

Chlordane - 0.15 - 0.68

Cost Data - Projected Costs for Full-Scale Operation

Commodore provided the following information on projected full-scale costs of the SETTM process,

based on scale-up studies of batch and continuous units to treat solid and liquid wastes. (Commodore

October 1998)
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-17

Total treatment cost per ton $400 - 800

Reagent (sodium) cost per pound $1.15 - 1.85

Sodium usage 4% - 8% (by weight)

Ammonia cost per ton $2 - 5

Capital/maintenance costs per ton $80 - 100

2.3.3 Results from ACWA Testing

As discussed in Exhibit 2-1, Teledyne-Commodore LLC was one of the technology service providers

included in the ACWA program. Teledyne-Commodore’s system includes the SETTM process that is

offered for use by non-ACWA clients by Commodore. The SETTM process is used to demilitarize

chemical weapons containing chemical agents, and explosive compounds and fuses (energetics). The

chemical agent or energetic material is first removed from the munition, then destroyed using the SETTM

process (described above) followed by chemical oxidation. Off gases from the chemical oxidation

systems are sent through carbon filters, then reused as supplemental fuel in the system. An ammonia

recovery system is used to capture and recycle all ammonia. Treated materials are stabilized and sent

off-site to a RCRA permitted landfill, along with spent carbon and other solids generated by the process.

(Teledyne-Commodore, undated).

Funding limitations resulted in three of the six ACWA technologies being demonstrated in FY99, with

the remaining four (including the SETTM process) being demonstrated in FY00.

2.4 Eco Logic’s Gas Phase Chemical Reduction Technology

The patented Eco Logic Gas Phase Chemical Reduction (GPCR) technology uses hydrogen gas at

temperatures of 850 to 900 o C to reduce organics including chlorinated hydrocarbons, such as

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, pesticides, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to

hydrogen chloride and methane. The absence of free oxygen in the reactor minimizes dioxin formation

and water acts as a hydrogen donor and heat transfer agent to enhance the reaction. The technology is

suitable for treating organics in a variety of matrices, including soil, sediment, sludges, high strength oils,

watery wastes (contaminated water), and bulk solids. Eco Logic has two portable demonstration units

and one stationary facility (in Australia). (Eco Logic 1999, EPA 1994, Woodland, 1999)

2.4.1 Technology Description

Figure 2.4.1 is a general process flow diagram for a GPCR application. The GPCR reactor is the main

component of the system. Other components are added to the system, including various waste

preparation and feed mechanisms and offgas treatment, depending on the type of waste treated. For

example, a Thermal Reduction Batch Processor (TRBP) is used to volatilize contaminants from solid

materials or to volatilize contaminated liquids prior to injection into the GPCR reactor. Liquid wastes

also may be injected directly into the GPCR reactor through atomizing nozzles (contaminated liquid is

preheated in a Liquid Waste Preheater System (LWPS) prior to being injected into the reactor). System

outputs include clean water, treated solids, and product gas. All outputs are stored and analyzed for

regulatory compliance prior to off-site disposal or reuse. (Eco Logic 1999, EPA 1994, Woodland, 1999)
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-18

Figure 2.4.1: Process Flow Diagram for Eco Logic’s GPCR Technology (Eco Logic, 1999)

Steam (from the steam heater) and hydrogen (bottled or from a hydrogen generation system) are added to

the waste in the reactor, where they form a gas mixture. The gas mixture is heated by 18 vertical radiant

tube heaters in the reactor to a temperature of 850 to 900 o

C. The products of the reaction, which takes

less than one second to complete, include hydrochloric acid (HCl) and methane from the reduction of

chlorinated organics, and lighter hydrocarbons such as methane and ethene from the reduction of

straight-chained and aromatic hydrocarbons. Gas from the reactor is sent to a Gas Scrubbing System

where the gas is quenched, then passed through a scrubber to remove HCl, particulates, and water. The

gas exiting the scrubber contains excess hydrogen, lighter hydrocarbon reduction products such as

methane, and a small amount of water vapor. A portion of the gas (hydrogen-rich) is reheated to 500 o C

and recirculated back into the reactor. The remainder of the gas from the scrubber is sent to product gas

compression and storage where it serves as a supplementary fuel in the process or is compressed and

stored for later use in other parts of the process. The principal waste stream is the scrubber residuals

which include decant water (which is recycled into the process) and scrubber particulate (which is stored

and analyzed and then retreated or shipped off-site for disposal.) (Eco Logic 1999, EPA 1994,

Woodland, 1999)

2.4.2 Available Performance and Cost Data

The GPCR technology has been tested at laboratory and demonstration scales on a wide variety of

organic wastes and marticies. Eco Logic has portable demonstration systems in Japan and at Eco Logic’s

Rockwood, Ontario facility. The process was evaluated by EPA’s SITE program at a demonstration

conducted at Bay City’s Middleground Landfill. On a commercial basis, Eco Logic currently operates

one commercial full-scale stationary system in Australia, and completed a full-scale demonstration of the

system at a General Motors facility in St. Catharines, Ontario. 

Eco Logic provided available data on the use of GPCR technology to treat hazardous constituents

frequently identified at RCRA and Superfund sites, for full-scale treatment (Table 2.4-1), pilot/

demonstration-scale testing (Table 2.4-2) and laboratory-scale testing (Table 2.4-3) including the SITE
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-19

demonstration. More detailed data were also provided in the Applications Analysis Report from the

SITE Program demonstration. These results are summarized below. In addition, Eco Logic provided

data on the destruction of chemical warfare agents; however, these data are not included for the purposes

of this report.

Table 2.4-1. Summary of Full-Scale GPCR Operations (Eco Logic 1999, Woodland, 1999)

Location Type of Waste Summary of Operations/Results

Kwinana, Western

Australia (routine

operations)

Pesticides (DDT)

PCB-contaminated wastes

Began operating in May 1995, initially treating DDT

residuals owned by the Department of Agriculture of

Western Australia. In November 1995, began processing

PCB-contaminated wastes for government and industrial

clients. Currently processing wastes for a variety of clients.

Results: DRE of > 99.9999% based on regulatory testing

during DDT and PCB treatment.

Kwinana, Western

Australia

(hexachlorinated

waste 

Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) wastes The testing involved three trial runs on a total of eight tonnes

of HCB waste. Results indicated a 98% reduction in the

mass input to the TRBP. In excess of 99.9999% of the HCB

and chlorobenzene present in the waste were volatilized in

the TRBP and swept to the reactor for destruction. 

Destruction efficiency measurements indicated at least

99.9999% destruction of HCB and total chlorobenzene.

General Motors

St. Catherine, Ontario 

PCB-contaminated material,

including concrete, soil, electrical

equipment, high-strength oil,

watery wastes, and miscellaneous

process wastes

In the fall of 1997, a full-scale demonstration was conducted

at this site to treat approximately 1,000 tons of PCBcontaminated material. 

Results: DREs of > 99.99999; routine testing confirmed

compliance with all regulatory and discharge

criteria.

Table 2.4-2. Summary of Pilot/Demonstration-Scale GPCR Operations (Eco Logic 1999)

Demonstration

Contaminants/

Matrix Results

Hamilton Harbour,

Ontario 

PCB - Sediment First demonstration of the mobile SE5 unit in 1991 to treat harbour

sediment contaminated with PCBs at concentrations up to 300,000

mg/kg (dry weight).

Results: PCB DRE > 99.9999%

Bay City Michigan (SITE

Program) 

PCB-contaminated

water; high-strength

PCB oil; and PCBcontaminated soil

Demonstration of the SE5 unit under EPA’s SITE Program. PCB

concentrations in untreated water/oil was 4,000 mg/kg.

Results: PCB in water/oil - DRE > 99.9999%

PCB in soil - DE 94% to 98%

See description below for more detail

Warren County Landfill

Soil

PCB-contaminated soil Three tests runs were conducted on PCB-contaminated soil from the

landfill.

Results: PCBs in treated soils were ND with a DRE > 99.99999
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-20

Table 2.4-3. Summary of Laboratory-Scale Testing of GPCR (Eco Logic 1999, EPA 1999)

Testing Type Contaminants/Matrix

Results

Pre-Treatment

(mg/kg)

Post-Treatment

(mg/kg)

DRE

(%)

Research and

Development

PCB-contaminated soil and

sediment

7.3 - 1,200 ND - 0.00097 Stack Gas Not

Analyzed

Commercial Client

Treatability Studies

PCB - Capacitors 360,000 0.00008 - 0.0033 Stack Gas Not

Analyzed

PCB - Canadian Electric

Capacitors

75,000 - 76,000 0.003 - 0.037 Stack Gas Not

Analyzed

Hexachlorinated Waste Hexachlorobenzene

(66%)

Hexachlorobutane

(17%)

Hexachloroethane

(2%)

Not Applicable 99.9999

Dioxins/Furans - Great Lakes

Harbour Sediment

Dioxins/furans - 2

PAHs - 0.80

Dioxins/furans - ND

PAHS - 0.0058

Stack Gas Not

Analyzed

Contaminated Harbor

Sediment 

Eight sediment samples

contaminated with PCBs,

PAHs and other compounds; 

two samples spiked with

trichlorobenzene (Hamilton

Harbour, Sheboygan Harbour,

Thunder Bay Harbour);

Trichlorobenzene -

1,000

Not Provided 99.9999,

100.0000

PCBs - 5 - 7 Not Provided 99.99 - 99.999

PAHs Not Provided 99.99

Chlorophenols Not Provided 99.999 - 100
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-21

The following is additional performance data from the SITE Program demonstration.

SITE PROGRAM DEMONSTRATION (EPA 1994)

A SITE demonstration of the Eco Logic GPCR process was conducted in October and December 1992 at

the Bay City Middleground Landfill in Michigan. Objectives of the demonstration included

demonstrating at least 99.9999% DRE for PCBs, at least 99.99% destruction efficiency for PCE, ensure

than no dioxins or furans were formed, evaluate air emissions, and perform an overall evaluation of the

process. PCB-contaminated oil, water, and soil from the landfill were used for the demonstration. The

first part of the demonstration involved a series of shakedown tests to establish optimum operating

parameters. Data were collected on the composition of the principal process streams, reactor grit,

scrubber residuals, reformed gas, and boiler stack emissions. Following system optimization, two tests

were run - the first on 2.9 tons of wastewater contaminated with PCBs at 3,757 mg/kg and PCE at 3,209

mg/kg; the second on 0.2 tons of waste oil contaminated with PCBs at 254,000 mg/kg (25%) and PCE at

6,203 mg/kg. The key operating parameters (Table 2.4-4) and the results of the evaluation (Table 2.4-5)

are summarized below.

Table 2.4-4. Summary of Average Operating Conditions During SITE Demonstration (EPA 1994)

Equipment Parameter

Reactor Temperature (°C) - 892 to 933

Pressure (in. water) - 1.8

Residence time (sec) - 6.1 to 8

Scrubber Inlet temperature (°C) - 527 to 546

Outlet temperature (°C)- 32 to 33

Water pH - 8.78 to 9.32

Recirculating fan Differential pressure (in. water) - 7.8 to 11.6

Flow rate (cfm) -110

Gas pressure (in. water) - 6.5

Vaporizer Temperature (°C) - 148.3 to 149

Pressure (psi) - 51.4 to 51.8

Table 2.4-5. Summary of Key Results from SITE Demonstration (EPA 1994)

Parameter Summary Results

PCB DRE 99.9999 - 99.99999%

PCE DE 99.99%

Dioxin/furans No net formation

HCl emissions 0.659 - 0.807 mg/dscm; 109.1-197.8 mg/hr; 99.98% removal; met MNDR permit conditions

PIC emissions Benzene - 73 - 113 ug/dscm - exceeded MDNR permit conditions

Other air emissions Except for benzene, met MDNR permit conditions

Scrubber residuals Met TSCA level for PCBs (3 ppb)
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-22

According to Eco Logic, the costs associated with treatment of various waste types is dependent on a

number of factors including contaminants, waste matrix, site configuration, schedule, and scale of

system. Eco Logic has stated that now that the technology is at a commercial scale, the costs for the

technology are better known than they were at the time of the SITE demonstration in 1994. The specific

cost for treatment is calculated on a site-by-site basis, considering these factors, and includes the

execution of a non-disclosure statement. Therefore, Eco Logic was not able to provide specific full-scale

costs for the technology.

Information developed by EPA in 1994 on projected costs for full-scale operation of the technology are

presented below. In addition, a total cost and a unit cost were provided. A range of costs was calculated

based on 60%, 80%, and 90% utilization factors to address unforseen job conditions. Because of the

limited data, the cost estimates presented may range in accuracy from +50% to -30%. These costs are

presented in Table 2.4-6.

Table 2.4-6. Projected Costs for Three Scenarios Using GPCR Technology, Based on 1994 SITE

Demonstration (EPA 1994)

Item

Costs ($)

60% Utilization

(250 Days)

70% Utilization

(214 Days)

80% Utilization

(188 Days)

Actual throughput 500 tons 500 tons 500 tons

Site preparation 127,400 127,400 127,400

Capital equipment 50,400 44,700 37,800

Start-up/mobilization 109,950 104,150 98,350

Labor 564,000 498,000 431,000

Supplies 110,000 106,000 103,000

Utilities 10,500 10,500 10,500

Residuals 2,500 2,500 2,500

Maintenance 4,000 3,500 3,000

Demobilization 20,000 20,000 20,000

Total costs 998,750 916,750 833,550

Cost per ton at actual

throughput

2,000 1,850 1,670

Cost per ton at targeted

throughput

670 620 550
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-23

The largest cost component was operational labor (more than 50%), followed by site preparation (15%),

supplies (12%), and start-up/mobilization (12%). According to EPA, considering the effect of labor costs

on the price and the relative constancy in scale-up of the other categories, there is a potential to reduce

unit cost for commercial scale-up by increasing equipment capacity. Larger capacity would decrease

process time and therefore decrease labor costs.

In addition, no analytical cost were included in these estimates, as they would be dependant on local

regulatory requirements and/or client specifications. EPA notes that analytical requirements could

significantly affect costs.

2.4.3 Results from the ACWA Testing Program

Funding limitations resulted in three of the six ACWA technologies being demonstrated in FY99, with

the remaining four (including GPCR) being demonstrated in FY00.

2.5 Foster Wheeler’s Supercritical Water Oxidation Technology

The Foster Wheeler Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO), also known as hydrothermal oxidation,

treats aqueous organic wastes at elevated temperature and pressure [above the critical point of water

(374o

C and 22.1 Mpa)]. Organic wastes become highly soluble at conditions above the critical point of

water, and the aqueous wastes functions as a fuel in an oxidation reaction. The process has been used in

several demonstration testing programs, but has not yet been implemented at the full-scale (see

discussion about Pine Bluff under Section 2.5.2). The Foster Wheeler SCWO differs from the General

Atomics SCWO technology (discussed in Section 2.6). The Foster Wheeler technology uses a

transpiring wall reactor design that is intended to protect the liner of the pressure vessel from salt

deposition and corrosion and provide a thermal and corrosion barrier for the pressure vessel; the General

Atomics technology uses a solid wall reactor design. 

2.5.1 Technology Description (Foster Wheeler, Not Dated)

Figure 2.5.1 is a process flow diagram of Foster Wheeler’s SCWO technology, as tested recently for the

U.S. Navy. As shown on Figure 2.5.1, hazardous material is mixed with water and fuel, and then

pressurized and partially heated prior to feeding to the reactor. The hazardous material and fuel are

oxidized in the reactor in the presence of air, raising reactant temperature and leading to more efficient

oxidation. Depending on the feed material, sodium carbonate may be added to the hazardous material

feed to neutralize acids. Effluent from the reactor is quenched with water to dissolve salts and to reduce

effluent temperature. After quenching, the pressure of the effluent is reduced and the effluent (treated

material) is discharged. A gas/liquid separator may be used to separate the effluent in some applications.

Reaction by-products from a SCWO process depend on the components of the waste. Organic materials

produce carbon dioxide and water; nitrogen compounds principally produce nitrogen and a relatively

smaller amount of nitrogen oxides; halogens produce their corresponding halogen acids; phosphorus

produces phosphoric acid; and sulfur produces sulfuric acid. These acids are neutralized in the reactor or

immediately downstream, producing inorganic salts.
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-24

Figure 2.5.1: Process Flow Diagram of Foster Wheeler’s SCWO Process (Ahluwalia, 1999)

Important waste characteristics for use of a SCWO process include the heating value; major component

chemical composition; and other waste properties such as fluid specific gravity, fluid viscosity, percent

solids, and solids size distribution. Wastes that have a heating value below a certain level will require

external heating or mixing with a higher heating value fuel or waste, while wastes with a higher heating

value will require dilution. The major component chemical composition is required to estimate oxygen

requirements, which impacts the design of the gaseous effluent system. Large suspended solids in the

feed may be removed by filtration methods prior to the SCWO unit. Wastes with organic solids will

likely require size reduction pretreatment steps such as shredding, cutting, or grinding.

Potential limitations for use of a SCWO process include concerns about corrosion and plugging of

reactors. Knowledge of the halogen, sulfur, and phosphorus content of the waste, as well as the chemical

form of these elements, is important because of their potential to contribute to excessive corrosion in

process equipment or lines. 

Figure 2.5.2 shows a schematic of the transpiring wall reactor used by Foster Wheeler. The reactor uses

transpiring wall platelet technology developed by GenCorp Aerojet. The transpiring wall is based on the

use of platelet devices, which provides an intricate circuitry that meters and repeatedly divides a flow
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-25

stream into thousands of small injection pores, and that forms a protective boundary layer to inhibit salt

deposition and corrosion. Platelet devices are made by diffusion bonding a stack of thin 

plates (or “platelets”), each of which is etched with flow control passages. Platelets differ from porous

liners by providing for precise flow controls. Platelets may be manufactured from a variety of materials,

including Inconel (alloys of nickel and chromium) and platinum.

Figure 2.5.2: Transpiring Wall Reactor Used in Foster Wheeler’s SCWO Technology

 (Foster Wheeler, Not Dated)

2.5.2 Available Performance and Cost Data (Foster Wheeler, August 1999)

Foster Wheeler has performed testing of its SCWO technology on excess hazardous materials typically

found aboard naval vessels for the Office of Naval Research. In addition, the U.S. DOE has discussed

testing of the SCWO technology for mixed hazardous wastes, including organic liquid waste of aromatic

hydrocarbons and mercury; nonchlorinated solvent waste with RCRA hazardous metals and radionuclide

surrogates; solid waste of paper, cloth, and plastic; and highly chlorinated cutting oil.

Foster Wheeler provided available data from recent testing performed for the Defense Advanced

Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Office of Naval Research (ONR) on excess hazardous

materials (EHM) typically found aboard Navy vessels. Three types of EHM were tested in this effort. 

Table 2.5-1 summarizes the composition of the EHM, the operating conditions for each test, and the

results, as shown under effluent concentrations. The goals identified for the tests were to achieve Total

Organic Carbon (TOC) concentrations in the effluent of less than 10 ppm. As shown on the table, these

goals were achieved for all three types of feed materials.
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-26

Table 2.5-1. Summary of DARPA/ONR Testing for Foster Wheeler SCWO 

(Foster Wheeler, August 1999)

Parameter

EHM 1: 1%

Polychlorotrifluoroethene/99% kerosene,

by weight

EHM 2: 10% 1,1,1-

trichloroethane/90%

kerosene, by weight

EHM 3: Photo

Simulant Solution *

Hours 25.8 30 16

Mass Waste Feed (lbs) 2,475 3,554 3,000

Pressure (psig) 3,425 3,500 3,475

Temperature, average

reactor (o

F)

1,250 1,260 1,230

Air Flow Rate (lb/hr) 1,350 1,600 1,300 - 1,700

Waste Throughput

(lb/hr)

80 102 72 - 207

Effluent O2 (%) 3 - 4 2-4 2 - 4

Effluent CO (ppm) 1 - 20 0 - 2 50 - 120

Effluent TOC (ppm) 1.4 1.4 2

* Photo Simulant Solution, by weight: 

85.4% water

10.7% ammonium sulfite

1.9% sodium sulfite

1.0% potassium sulfite

0.4% acetic acid

0.5% pentanol

Foster Wheeler is also in the process of testing their SCWO system for the U.S. Army for destruction of

pyrotechnic smoke-producing mixtures, most of which contain organic dyes, however data are not yet

available from the results of that testing. At Pine Bluff Aresenal, Foster Wheeler is testing a full-scale

unit for destruction of these smokes and dyes. According to Foster Wheeler, after testing, the unit will be

used by the arsenal to destroy their inventory of smokes and dyes. (Ahluwalia, November, 1999)

2.5.3 Results from ACWA Demonstration Testing

Funding limitations resulted in three of the six ACWA technologies being demonstrated in FY99, with

the remaining four (including Foster Wheeler’s SCWO technology) being demonstrated in FY00.

2.6 General Atomics’ SCWO Technology

The General Atomics’ SCWO technology, also known as hydrothermal oxidation, treats organic wastes

at elevated temperature and pressure [above the critical point of water (374o

C and 22.1 Mpa)]. Organic

wastes become highly soluble at conditions above the critical point of water, and the aqueous wastes
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-27

functions as a fuel in an oxidation reaction. The process has been used in several demonstration testing

programs, including those for destruction of neat and hydrolyzed chemical agents, shipboard wastes,

solid propellants, biomass and human wastes, mixed wastes, and industrial wastewaters, but has not yet

been used at the full-scale. General Atomics is currently designing a full-scale system for the Newport

Chemical Agent Disposal Facility at Newport, Indiana, with construction slated to begin in early 2000. 

This system is anticipated to consist of three reactors (2 on-line, 1 spare), each of which will be 15 ft long

and 10-inch diameter, and lined with platinum for this application, the secondary treatment of caustichydrolyzed VX. The General Atomics SCWO technology differs from the Foster Wheeler SCWO

technology (discussed in Section 2.5). The General Atomics technology uses a solid wall reactor design

with a corrosion-resistant liner to protect the pressure vessel wall from salt deposition and corrosion; the

Foster Wheeler technology uses a transpiring wall reactor design.

The General Atomics’ SCWO technology is covered by 10 U.S. patents, including those for organic

gasification, processing methods for the oxidation of organics in supercritical water, a method and

apparatus for solids separation in a wet oxidation process, SCWO with overhead effluent quenching, and

use of zirconium oxide ceramics for surfaces exposed to high temperature water oxidation environments.

2.6.1 Technology Description (General Atomics, Not Dated)

Figure 2.6.1 is a process flow diagram of General Atomics’ SCWO technology, as tested recently for the

ACWA program. As shown on Figure 2.6.1, the General Atomics’ system consists of a reactor and

separate subsystems for feed, preheat, cooldown, and effluent treatment. Organic waste solution (shown

as hydrolysate) is pumped through preheaters (if required) and then mixed with auxiliary fuel and high

pressure air. The mixture is fed to a reactor where organic materials are converted to carbon dioxide,

water, and inorganic salts or acids. Reactor effluent is cooled using heat exchangers and sent to the

effluent treatment system. In the effluent treatment system, gases are separated from liquids and further

treated, depending on project requirements, with a charcoal filter. Liquids are discharged to an effluent

collection tank.

Reaction by-products from a SCWO process depend on the components of the waste. Organic materials

produce carbon dioxide and water; nitrogen compounds principally produce nitrogen, and a relatively

smaller amount of nitrous oxides; halogens produce their corresponding halogen acids or salts;

phosphorus produces phosphoric acid or phosphate salts; and sulfur produces sulfuric acid or sulfate

salts. 

Potential limitations for use of a SCWO process include concerns about corrosion and plugging of

reactors. Knowledge of the halogen, sulfur, and phosphorus content of the waste, as well as the chemical

form of these elements, is important because of their potential to contribute to excessive corrosion in

process equipment or lines. General Atomics indicated that pretreatment steps may be necessary to feed

these compounds. Deposition of salts and pyrolytic chars may result in plugging problems or added

cleaning requirements. Salt deposition may be a concern if salts are present in the feed or if acids in the

feed are neutralized. General Atomics uses its patented engineering designs, including selection of

materials, to help overcome the corrosion and plugging concerns that can occur with a SCWO process.
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-28

Figure 2.6.1: Process Flow Diagram for General Atomic’s SCWO Technology (General Atomics,

August 1999)

2.6.2 Available Performance and Cost Data (General Atomics, October 1997)

General Atomics indicated that the following types of wastes have been treated in their SCWO systems:

organic chemicals, inorganic substances, and complex feeds. These have included the following

common Superfund and RCRA waste site constituents: carbon tetrachloride, chlorinated dibenzo-pdioxins, chlorobenzene, DDT, hexachlorobenzene, polychlorinated biphenyls, tetrachloroethene, tributyl

phosphate, trichloroethene, and trifluoroacetic acid. 

General Atomics provided available data from recent testing performed for the Defense Advanced

Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Office of Naval Research (ONR) on excess hazardous

materials (EHM) typically found aboard Navy vessels. Fourteen types of EHMs were tested in this

effort. Table 2.6-1 summarizes the composition of the EHMs, the operating conditions (system

parameters) for each test, and the results. The goals identified for the testing program were to process

100 lb/hr of EHM (1,000 lb/day), produce nontoxic effluents that meet all regulatory requirements, have

a compact unit size, have very high reliability with minimal maintenance, and be fully automated with a

simple operator interface. No specific goals for Organic Carbon concentrations in the effluent were

identified, however there was a target of 99.99% DRE. As shown on the table, these goals were achieved

for all types of feed materials.
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-29

Table 2.6-1. Summary of DARPA/ONR Testing for General Atomics’ SCWO (General Atomics, November 1999)

Fluorochlorocarbon

Chlorinated Solvent

Glycol / Antioxidant

Motor Oil

Gray Water

Black Water

Paint Waste

Lube Oil

Photographic Solution

Hydraulic Fluid

Category II (Org.)

System Parameters

Steady-State Time (hr) 30 30 30 30 30 30 27 30 30 30 12 Waste Feed Rate (lb/hr) 102 107 191 101 136 135 136 102 105 107 106 Reactor Temperature (C) 638 638 648 648 648 648 648 657 658 658 658 Reactor Pressure (psig) 3250 3430 3430 3430 3430 3430 3430 3430 3430 3430 3430 Cooling Water (gpm) 95 91 91 84 96 96 95 93 91 91 96 Reactor Residence Time (s) 10 11 11 10 15 15 13 11 15 11 10 Airflow Rate (lb/hr) 1690 1660 1650 1670 1650 1650 1690 1710 1650 1710 1720 Feed Water Flow Rate (lb/hr) 721 703 644 744 70 70 322 622 70 569 685 Quench Water Flow Rate (lb/hr) 2240 2290 2360 2020 1710 2460 2780 3020 2430 3120 2120 Kerosene-Startup (lb) 11 9 8 8 15 14 6 11 15 13 7 Kerosene-Steady State (lb/hr) 0 0 0 0 41 45 0 0 40 21 0 Kerosene –Shutdown (lb) 8 -- -- -- 5 -- -- 6 10 20 8 Startup Time (hr) 1.03 0.95 0.73 0.6 1.03 1.03 0.43 1.25 1 -- 0.6 Shutdown Time (hr) 1 0.95 -- -- -- 0.68 -- -- -- -- -- Fully Automated Operation Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes1 Yes 

Results

Waste Carbon DRE (%) >99.998 >99.998 >99.997 >99.998 >97 >99 >99.997 >99.997 >99.7 >99.997 >99.998 >Organic Carbon DRE(%) >99.998 >99.998 >99.997 >99.998 >99.997 >99.996 >99.997 >99.997 >99.994 >99.997 >99.998 >HTO effluent TOC (ppm) <0.52 <0.5 <0.53 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 

Mineral Acids Produced (%) 0.6 8.2 0 0 0 0 0 5.5 7.7 29 4.9 CO (ppm) < 2 < 2 < 2 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 0.2 Phenols (ppm) <0.03 <0.03 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Chromium (ppm) <0.003 <0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.001 0.007 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.003 Volume Reduction (%) 100 ~100 100 ~1004 ~1004 ~1004 52 ~1004 ~1004 100 ~100 

1 The system was operated with single-button control for all steps except one feed ramping step. There was not time for a pretest with this class of feed, so this ramp st

The ramp went smoothly and the control logic will easily be modified to accommodate this class of feed automatically. 2 City water was used (without filtration to remove organic carbon) for the first test only. The quench fluid mixes with the reactor effluent without exposure to the high city water contains 2.6 ppm of organic carbon. The reactor effluent/quench combined TOC was 1.3 ppm. If this value is adjusted for the TOC entering with the quenTOC was <0.5 ppm. 3 The quench fluid contains 2.6 ppm of organic carbon. The reactor effluent/quench combined TOC was 2.7 ppm. If this value is adjusted for the TOC entering with teffluent TOC was <0.5 ppm. 4 The amount of solids in the effluent were too small for an accurate measurement.
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-30

Performance data also are available for use of General Atomics’ SCWO systems for the treatment of

solid propellants, biomass and human wastes, mixed wastes, and industrial wastewater. For example,

under contract to the Air Force Armstrong Laboratory at Tyndall AFB, General Atomics constructed a

pilot plant for the destruction of solid rocket propellants. This plant was operated at a test site in Utah

and demonstrated greater than 99.99% removal of TOC.

2.6.3 Results from ACWA Demonstration Testing (Dialogue on ACWA, August 1999,

SRC, 1999)

As shown on Exhibit 1-1, General Atomics’ SCWO technology was selected for demonstration testing in

1999 under the ACWA program. The system that was tested under the ACWA program consisted of the

process shown in Figure 2.6-1.

The following data on the performance and cost of this technology were available from the ACWA

program. The General Atomics’ SCWO technology was found to destroy constituents in agent and

energetic hydrolysate to levels that were generally below detection limits, and to have demonstrated a

level of maturity feasible for full-scale implementation, with some reservation about the maturity of the

SCWO process. The ACWA program data showed a concentration that ranged from 0.025 - 0.100 ng/m3

for dioxin/furan in the off-gases from the SCWO. This was measured as toxicity equivalent quotient

(TEQ, the international method of relating the toxicity of various dioxin/furan congeners to the toxicity

of 2,3,7,8-TCDD). This value for dioxins and furans measured in the ACWA program was less than the

emission standard for incinerators, which is 0.20 ng/m3

 TEQ (40 CFR 63.1203).

Capital costs for the technology were found to be approximately 5 - 10% less than the costs for the

“baseline” demilitarization technology (incineration), depending on site-specific conditions. The ACWA

Supplemental Report to Congress (September 30, 1999) concluded that the capital cost for SCWO

technology was approximately equal to that for incineration, given the uncertainties in the predicted

values. O&M labor requirements were found to be comparable to those for the baseline technology;

however insufficient information was available to complete a comparison of total O&M costs to those for

the baseline technology.

2.7 Startech’s Plasma Waste Converter Technology

Startech’s Plasma Waste Converter (PWCTM) technology is an electrically-driven machine that produces

an intense field of radiant energy to treat solid, liquid, and gaseous organic and inorganic compounds or

materials. Plasma is discharged within a chamber in a continuous arc to produce temperatures of 30,000

o

F and higher, operating at normal atmospheric pressure.

Recently, Startech announced that it had signed a contract for the sale of a 10-ton per day commercial

Plasma Waste Converter system to process chemical industry hazardous waste in Taiwan. In addition,

Startech reported that it has sold a PWCTM system to a company in South Africa.
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-31

Air infiltration

Mixed bulk

gases Plasma

torch

Plasma at

≈ 15,000°C

Molten slag pool (if present)

Chemical

agent and

steam

≈ 1,100°C product gas

(to pollutant abatement

system)

Plasma feed gas

(Ar, CO2, or N2)

2.7.1 Technology Description (Startech, March 2000)

Figure 2.7.1 illustrates Startech’s PWCTM technology. As shown on Figure 2.7.1, the technology consists

of a plasma torch inside a vessel containing mixed bulk gases. Plasma feed gas (air, argon, carbon

dioxide, or nitrogen) is fed in and product gas removed at the top of the vessel, and chemical agent (or

other contaminated media) and steam are fed through the side. Inorganic portions of feed materials

typically remain in the PWCTM as scrap metal and non-leachable silicate glass. The vessel is cylindrical

and refractory-lined. Argon (later replaced with carbon dioxide and then nitrogen) was used as the feed

gas in the ACWA PWCTM demonstration at Aberdeen Proving Ground.

Figure 2.7.1: Startech’s PWCTM Technology

(Startech, March 2000)

Figure 2.7.2 is a process flow diagram of Startech’s PWCTM system, as recently tested for the ACWA

program. As shown on Figure 2.7.2, the Startech system consists of a feed system, plasma torch,

PWCTM, Plasma Converted GasTM (PCGTM) gas polisher, HEPA filter blower and plasma torch cooling

system. A feed stream of solids, liquids, and/or gases is remotely introduced into the refractory-lined

steel vessel. A water-cooled plasma torch, positioned above the incoming feed stream, generates the

plasma field from plant air traveling past the torch head. The high temperature plasma gas in the oxygendeprived vessel creates an environment for the conversion of waste materials to PCGTM (composed

primarily of H2 and CO, with low concentrations of CO2 and N2), metals, and non-leachable silicate glass. 

If the waste feed composition has insufficient quantities of oxygen, steam is introduced to achieve the
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-32

AUT OMAT IC INFEED

UNIT (CONT INUOUS)

WAS T E

IN

PLAS MA

WAS T E

CONVERT ER

(PWC)

PCG

POLIS HER

FILT ER

P

MOLT EN S OLIDS

QUENCHER & HANDLER INERT S OLIDS

MAKEUP WAT ER

PCG PCG PCG

PCG PCG

P

PCG

PLAS MA CONVERT ED GAS

T EMPORARY S T ORAGE

S YNT HESIS GAS

USE AS:

PLANT HEAT

ELECT RICIT Y

FEED S T OCK

MAKEUP

COOLANT

WAT ER

S T EAM

IF REQ’D

PLANT AIR

PLAS MA MEDIUM

COOLANT

HEAT

EXCHANGER

(OPT IONAL)

ELECT RIC POWER

POWER

S UPPLY

S T ANDARD INDUS T RIAL

ELECT RICAL SERVICE

proper stoichiometric balance. When sufficient quantities of glass and metals have accumulated in the

PWCTM, the vessel can remotely tilt to allow the molten materials to pour out through an access door and

into a charge car. The system operates under a slight negative pressure (-2” to –0.5” of H2O, gage) to

evacuate the PCGTM from the PWCTM to the gas polisher.

The Gas Polisher System consists of several process units in series that process the PCGTM to produce

clean-burning synthesis fuel for beneficial reuse. The first two process units are venturi scrubbers. 

These units cool (quench) the gases as well as remove suspended particulate from the raw PCGTM. The

next process unit is the Gas Polisher Tower. The polishing chamber is an updraft, counterflow vertical

tower filled with polymeric packing to provide adequate surface area for mass transfer. This stage

removes acid gases from the PCGTM. Water used by the venturis and tower are collected in the Gas

Polisher Water Reservoir and recirculated continuously by a centrifugal pump. Caustic is automatically

added to the reservoir to maintain a pH range of 7 to 8.5. A HEPA filter is located after the gas polisher

for final removal of particulate.

The final mechanical component is the Induced Draft Fan (ID Fan). This unit creates the draw that pulls

the PCGTM through the treatment train and maintains the negative pressure in the PWCTM vessel. The ID

Fan incorporates a motor with a variable frequency drive (VFD) to regulate fan RPM and upstream

pressure. Clean, high BTU value PCGTM exiting the blower is ducted to the point of use or disposal.

Figure 2.7.2: Startech’s PWCTM Process Flow Diagram (Startech, March 2000)

2.7.2 Available Performance and Cost Data (Startech, March 2000)

The PWCTM has been tested at a scale of 100-200 pounds per hour on infectious medical waste,

explosives in waste streams, solvent contaminated industrial process wastes, K045 spent carbon, lead

contaminated soils and other waste streams. Full-scale plasma technology also is currently being used to

vitrify ash from municipal solid waste combustors in Japan. The process produces synthesis fuel gas

(PCGTM), non-leachable silicate glass, scrap metal and gas polisher blowdown. Blowdown from the wetscrubbing units of the gas polisher can be evaporated and the solids reintroduced into the PWCTM for
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-33

vitrification. Data from an analysis of PCGTM from the processing of hazardous and infectious medical

waste, when the gas was used as a fuel, are provided in Table 2.7-1. This table shows that emissions of

dioxins, furans, cadmium, lead, mercury, HCl, NO2, SO2, CO, and particulates are all lower than the

identified standards. Data from an analysis of silicate stone from the processing of lead contaminated

soil is provided in Table 2.7-2. This table shows that the concentration of lead in a TCLP extract was

reduced from 310 mg/L in the soil to less than 0.75 mg/L in the silicate stone (product of PWC process).

Table 2.7-1. Emissions of Plasma Converted Gas from Processed Hazardous Medical Waste

(Startech, March 2000)

Parameter

Emissionsa

 Plasma

Waste Converter

MOE REG 346b Air

Quality Standards

EPA Regulated Medical

Waste Standards

PCDD TEQ (dioxin) 0.0000000024 0.00045 0.0006

PCDF TEQ (furan) 0.0000000090 0.00045 0.0006

Cadmium 0.0000415980 5.0 40.0

Lead 0.02254 10.0 70.0

Mercury 0.0000398660 1.5 550.0

HCl 0.65404 100.0 15.0

NO2 0.41730 500.0 250.0

Particulate 1.8737 No Standard Required 34,000.0

SO2 0.0188083 830.0 55.0

CO None Detected 6,000.0 40.0

a

 Maximum ground level concentrations

b

 Max. permitted ground level concentrations

MOE Ontario Ministry of the Environment

PCDD Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins

PCDF Polychlorinated dibenzofurans

HCl Hydrogen Chloride

NO2 Nitrogen Oxide

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide

TEQ Toxicity Equivalent Quotient
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-34

Table 2.7-2. Composition of Silicate Stone from Processing of Lead Contaminated Soil (Startech,

March 2000)

Parameter Soil TCLP Glass 1 TCLP Glass 2 TCLP Glass 3 TCLP

Date 1/12/96 1/24/96 1/24/96 1/24/96

As <DL <DL <DL <DL

Ba 8.80 mg/L <DL <DL <DL

Cd <DL <DL <DL <DL

Cr <DL 0.085 mg/L <DL <DL

Pb 310 mg/L 0.49 mg/L 0.73 mg/L 0.37 mg/L

Hg <DL <DL <DL <DL

Se <DL <DL <DL <DL

Ag <DL <DL <DL <DL

Total Solids 82.7% -- -- --

Total C 58,000 mg/kg -- -- --

DL detection limit

Startech reported that PWCTM processing costs for most wastes vary from $0.07 to $0.10 per pound. 

This figure includes labor, materials, utilities, consumables and capital depreciation. Potential revenues

from the sale of process products are not considered. Startech also has a patented hydrogen separation

process unit, StarcellTM, which isolates valuable pure hydrogen from the PCGTM produced when

processing carbon-based wastes. Startech indicated that the hydrogen is valuable and can provide

positive impact on processing economics.

2.7.3 Results from ACWA Demonstration Testing (Dialogue on ACWA, August 1999)

As shown on Exhibit 1-1, Startech’s PWCTM was selected for demonstration testing in 1999 under the

ACWA program. The system that was tested under the ACWA program is described above.

The following data on the performance and cost of this technology were available from the ACWA

program. The Startech system was found to destroy agent simulant to >99.9999% and energetics to

>99.999%, however actual agent testing was not performed. Leakage of air into the PWCTM during the

demonstration caused an excess of oxygen over the desired level, which caused the PCGTM to be

composed primarily of carbon dioxide and water, rather than carbon monoxide and hydrogen, as had

been planned. The effects from this and other operational concerns are discussed in the ACWA program

Supplemental Report to Congress (September 30, 1999). In response, Startech claimed that the full

capabilities and maturity of the PWCTM were not identified in the ACWA program. According to

Startech, subsequent upgrades of the ACWA PWCTM system have led to reliable, full-scale commercial

operations of that system.

The ACWA program data showed a concentration of 0.100 ng/m3

 for dioxin/furan in the off-gases (for

dunnage and HD hydrolysate processing). This was measured as toxicity equivalent quotient (TEQ, the
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

2-35

international method of relating the toxicity of various dioxin/furan congeners to the toxicity of 2,3,7,8-

TCDD). This value for dioxins and furans measured in the ACWA program was less than the emission

standard for incinerators, which is 0.20 ng/m3

 TEQ (40 CFR 63.1203).

Capital costs for implementation of the technology for chemical demilitarization were found to be

approximately equal to or 5% greater than the costs for the “baseline” technology (incineration),

depending on site-specific conditions. The ACWA Supplemental Report to Congress concluded that the

capital cost for PWCTM technology was approximately equal to that for incineration, given the

uncertainties in the predicted values. O&M labor requirements were found to be 15 to 20% higher than

those for the baseline technology, however insufficient information was available to complete a

comparison of total O&M costs to those for the baseline technology.
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

3-1

3.0 POTENTIAL FOR APPLICATION OF ACWA TECHNOLOGIES TO TREAT RCRA

WASTE STREAMS COMPARABLE TO ACWA WASTES

EPA evaluated the potential applicability of the seven ACWA technologies to treat RCRA wastes by

identifying the ACWA technologies that are capable of treating RCRA wastes currently being treated by

combustion and the ACWA technologies that are capable of treating organic wastes that have chemical

structures similar to the ACWA wastes that were tested. The methodology and results from these

analyses are presented below.

3.1 Applicability to Treating RCRA Wastes Currently Treated by Combustion

Six of the seven ACWA technologies — AEA’s SILVER IITM, Commodore’s SETTM process, Eco

Logic’s GPCR, Foster Wheeler’s SCWO, General Atomics’ SCWO, and Startech’s PWCTM — involve

chemical oxidation, chemical reduction, and thermal processes that the providers indicate are capable of

destroying a wide range of organics, including those currently treated by combustion. Because none of

the ACWA technology firms provided data on treatment of specific RCRA-listed hazardous wastes, EPA

evaluated the potential applicability of these technologies by examining the types and quantities of

wastes that are treated by combustion technologies (combustion includes incineration in commercial and

on-site/captive units, and in commercial kilns).

Available information on the types and quantities of RCRA wastes treated by combustion was obtained

from EPA reports and from the Biennial Reporting System (BRS). As shown in Figure 3-1, from EPA’s

report “Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, & Other Impacts of the Hazardous Waste

Combustion MACT Standards: Final Rule” (July 1999), the total quantity of waste managed in

combustion systems was 3,282,995 tons, based on data in the 1995 Biennial Reporting System (BRS). 

Table 3-1 shows that nearly one-third of the waste that is combusted originates in the industrial organic

chemicals sector, and nearly one-eighth originates in the pesticides and agricultural chemicals sector,

based on 1995 BRS data. 

The cost of using incineration to treat hazardous wastes has been identified by EPA and by a national

trade association representing commercial hazardous waste treatment facilities (the Environmental

Technology Council - ETC). For example, in an economic analysis of an air emissions rule for

hazardous waste combustors, EPA estimated the cost for treatment of wastes by incineration. Those

results show that the cost for incineration vary based on the type of waste treated, as shown on Table 3-2. 

Table 3-2 shows that the costs for use of incineration varied from as low as $70 per ton treated for

relatively less contaminated wastes, to as high as $1,281 per ton for relatively highly contaminated

wastes.

The ETC provided the results from a survey of its member companies on the prices charged for

incineration of various types of wastes in the second half of calendar year 1999. The results from the

ETC survey, shown on Table 3-3, indicate that the price for commercial incineration of bulk pumpable

sludges ranged from $175 to $1,500 per ton, and for bulk contaminated soils from $375 to $1,000 per

ton. These are the only two types of waste for which ETC reported prices on a per ton basis. The prices

for incineration of these two types of wastes are roughly comparable to the range of costs reported by

EPA in the 1999 report cited above.
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

3-2

WASTE QUANTITIES MANAGED BY COMBUSTION SYSTEMS 

(Tons, 1995 Data)

Commercial Kilns 

1,007,380 (31%)

Commercial 

Incinerators 665,615 

(20%)

On-Site/Captive 

Incinerators 

1,610,000 (49%)

Source: U.S. EPA. 1995. Biennial Reporting System (BRS) as reported in RIA for HWC MACT, July 1999

Notes:

1) The on-site/captive incinerator tons data was adjusted to account for a data entry error involving

the Dow facility in Plaquemine, L.A. While available 1995 BRS data indicate that the facility

combusted 2,099,059 tons of waste, the facility actually combusted 22,639 tons.

2) This analysis excludes wastes burned at mobile incinerators.

Total Demand: 3,282,995

Figure 3-1: RCRA Waste Quantities Managed by Combustion Systems (EPA, 1999)
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

3-3

Table 3-1. Summary of Industrial Sectors Generating Combusted RCRA Wastes (EPA, 1999)

INDUSTRIAL SECTORS GENERATING COMBUSTED WASTE, 1995

SIC

Code

Corresponding

NAIC Codes

Quantity

(tons)

% of

Total

Quantity

Industrial Organic Chemicals, N.E.C. 2869 32511, 325188,

325193, 32512,

325199

853,216 31.82

Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals,

N.E.C.

2879 32532 321,869 12.00

Business Services, N.E.C. 7389 51224, 51229,

541199, 81299,

54137, 54141, 54142,

54134, 54149, 54189,

54193, 54135, 54199,

71141, 561421,

561422, 561439,

561431, 561491,

56191, 56179,

561599, 56192,

561591, 52232,

561499, 56199

245,241 9.15

Organic Fibers, noncellulosic 2824 325222 190,209 7.09

Medicinal Chemicals and Botanical

Products

2833 325411 157,520 5.87

Pharmaceutical Preparations 2834 325412 105,881 3.95

Plastics Materials and Resins 2821 325211 93,043 3.47

Petroleum Refining 2911 32411 92,023 3.43

Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, N.E.C. 2819 325998, 331311,

325131, 325188

64,826 2.42

Unknown NA NA 61,487 2.29

Nonclassicfiable Establishents 9999 NA 46,108 1.72

Services, N.E.C. 8999 71151, 51221, 54169,

51223, 541612,

514199, 54162

30,585 1.14

Paints, Varnishes, Lacquers, Enamels 2851 32551 29,837 1.11

Cyclic Organic Crudes and

Intermediates, and Organic Dyes and

Pigments

2865 32511, 325132,

325192

29,667 1.11
Table 3-1. Summary of Industrial Sectors Generating Combusted Wastes (continued)

Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

INDUSTRIAL SECTORS GENERATING COMBUSTED WASTE, 1995

SIC

Code

Corresponding

NAIC Codes

Quantity

(tons)

% of

Total

Quantity

3-4

Air, Water, and Solid Waste

Management

9511 92411 28,033 1.05

Photographic Equipment and Supplies 3861 333315, 325992 27,356 1.02

Scrap and Waste Materials 5093 42193 18,768 0.70

Synthetic Rubber (Vulcanizable

Elastomers)

2822 325212 17,025 0.63

Special Warehousing and Storage,

N.E.C.

4226 49312, 49311, 49319 14,914 0.56

Primary Aluminum 3334 331312 12,648 0.47

Chemicals and Chemical Preparations,

N.E.C.

2899 32551, 311942,

325199, 325998

10,303 0.38

Sanitary Services, N.E.C. 4959 48819, 56291, 56171,

562998

10,089 0.38

Alkalies and Chlorine 2812 325181 9,567 0.36

Local and Suburban Transit 4111 485111, 485112,

485113, 485119,

485999

9,471 0.35

Chemicals and Allied Products, N.E.C. 5169 42269 7,337 0.27

All Other SIC Codes NA NA 201,826 7.53

Total 2,681,509 100.00

Notes:

1) Refuse systems (SIC code 4953) were excluded from the analysis because they are likely to be fuel blenders; the

intent was to characterize the original sources of hazardous waste.

2) The data on tons was adjusted to account for a data entry error involving the Dow facility in Plaquemine, LA. 

While the state-reported data used in the 1995 BRS indicate that the facility combusted 2,099,059 tons of waste, the

facility actually combusted 22,639 tons.

3) The total tons listed does not equal the total in Figure 3-1 because only the 1995 BRS Generation and Management

(GM) forms contained SIC codes, yet the GM forms do not capture data from small quantity generators. (The

information in Figure 3-1 was obtained from the 1995 BRS Waste Received (WR) forms, which list the wastes

received from small and large quantity generators.) In addition, reporting errors on the part of generators and data

entry errors on the part of EPA affect the accuracy of the estimate of tons combusted.

NA - Not applicable

Source: 1995 BRS data, as reported in RIA for HWC MACT, July 1999
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

3-5

Table 3-2. Unit Cost for Use of Incineration (EPA, 1999)

(price per ton in 1996 dollars)

Liquids Sludges Solids

With

Suspended

Solids

Highly

Contaminated

Less

Contaminated

Highly

Contaminated

Less

Contaminated

Highly

Contaminated

$70 $301 $320 $630 $683 $1,281

Table 3-3. Commercial Incinerator Prices, January 2000 * (ETC, 2000)

Type of Waste Low Average High Unit**

Drummed Halogen Liquid Organics $100.00 $192.00 $315.00 Per drum

Drummed Non-Halogen Liquid $50.00 $124.00 $300.00 Per drum

Bulk Non-Halogen Liquid $0.25 $0.59 $1.60 Per gallon

Lab Packs $0.90 $2.42 $10.00 Per pound

Drummed Pumpable Sludge $100.00 $207.00 $400.00 Per drum

Bulk Pumpable Sludge $175.00 $651.00 $1,500.00 Per ton

Bulk Contaminated Soils $375.00 $559.00 $1,000.00 Per ton

Aerosols $0.30 $0.47 $0.75 Per pound

* Survey of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) member companies conducted on sales between July 1, 1999 and

December 31, 1999. Low and High prices are the lowest and highest charged by any facility during the survey period. Average

is the average of the highest and lowest price reported by each facility, summed and divided by the number of facilities reporting. 

The prices shown within a particular waste category (e.g., “Bulk Pumpable Sludges”) may represent a wide range from low to

high for various reasons. For example, wastes from different generators (especially in the case of lab packs) and even from the

same generator, can differ based on BTU value, halogen content, compatibility with other waste, and other factors that affect

pricing. This survey reflects historical prices for treatment services, and should not be construed as price quotations. 

Transportation costs are not included.

** Prices may be converted to a common per ton basis using the following approximate conversion factors: (a) 4 drums/ton; (b)

240 gals/ton; or (c) 2,000 pounds/ton

3.2 Applicability to Treating RCRA Appendix VIII Wastes with Chemical Structures Similar

to ACWA Chemicals

All seven ACWA technology providers indicated that their technologies can treat organic wastes that

have chemical structures similar to the ACWA wastes, but none of these firms provided data on

treatment of specific listed RCRA hazardous wastes. Therefore, the RCRA wastes that include

constituents with chemical structures similar to ACWA wastes were identified, along with the types of
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

3-6

ACWA wastes that were tested in calendar year 1999 (Demo I). In this evaluation, EPA first identified

the type of chemical structure for the ACWA compounds, such as ether, ester, or nitrated aromatic. 

Then, EPA reviewed the chemicals in RCRA Appendix VIII and waste codes for D, F, K, P, and U listed

wastes, and identified those wastes with constituents that have similar chemical structures or structural

elements, and likely similar treatability.

The results from this comparison, shown in Table 3-4, indicate which RCRA waste codes contain

constituents that fall into each of the ACWA waste categories, and which types of ACWA wastes from

those categories were tested. For example, Table 3-4 shows that there are 18 specific RCRA waste codes

that contain ethers, and that these waste codes share structural similarity with HD (distilled mustard), one

of the ACWA wastes tested. This information could be used in conjunction with the results from the

ACWA testing program to help identify specific ACWA technologies that would potentially be

applicable to specific RCRA waste codes.

Table 3-4. Comparison of Types of ACWA Wastes and RCRA Wastes

ACWA Waste

Category RCRA Waste Codes

ACWA Wastes

Tested

ester D016, F003, U017, U028, U038, U069, U088, U102, U118,

U162, U240

dimethyl phthalate,

triacetin

ether D016, D017, F005, K017, P016, U020, U024, U025, U027,

U035, U041, U042, U058, U085, U115, U150, U237, U240

HD (distilled mustard)

nitrated aliphatic F005, P081, U171 Nitrocellulose,

nitroglycerin, RDX,

tetrazene

nitrated aromatic D030, D036, F004, K025, K083, K111, P020, P041, P047, P048,

P077, U105, U106, U169, U170, U181, U234

Lead styphnate, 

2-nitrodiphenylamine,

tetryl, trinitrotoluene

inorganic salt P119, U144 Antimony trisulfide,

barium nitrate, lead

thiocyanate,

potasssium chlorate,

potassium nitrate

organophosphate

ester

D009, K038, K040, P039, P040, P041, P043, P044, P066, P067,

P071, P085, P089, P094, P097, P109, P111, U058, U087

GB (sarin), VX

element/other D008, D010, P056, U151 carbon, lead azide,

sulfur
Table 3-4. Comparison of Types of ACWA Wastes and RCRA Wastes (continued)

Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

ACWA Waste

Category RCRA Waste Codes

ACWA Wastes

Tested

3-7

Figure 3-2.

Hazardous Waste Codes Used in

this Analysis

D016

D017

D030

D036

F003

F004

F005

K017

K025

K038

K040

K083

K111

P020

P089

U240

Notes:

1. ACWA waste testing has not yet been completed for all seven technology service providers, and not all ACWA

technologies have been identified as effective for treating all ACWA wastes.

2. The ACWA wastes include liquid and solid forms, and, for a given site, the corresponding RCRA waste streams may or

may not be present in a similar form. 

3. The ACWA wastes that were considered in this analysis included the following: Composition A5, Composition B and B4,

Tetrytol, black powder, HD, VX, GB, RDX, TNT, tetryl, lead azide, lead styphnate, barium nitrate, potassium nitrate

(saltpeter), potassium chlorate, antimony sulfide, corundum (aluminum oxide), lead thiocyanate, carbon, sulfur, tetrazene,

nitrocellulose (guncotton), nitroglycerin, triacetin, dimethyl phthalate, lead stearate, and 2-nitrodiphenylamine. Composite

materials, such as Composition A5 and the fuze fillings (primer mixtures), were converted into individual chemicals. The

additional breakdowns are:

Composition A5 = RDX

Composition B and B4 = RDX + TNT

Tetrytol = tetryl + TNT

Black powder = potassium nitrate + carbon + sulfur

Specific ACWA chemicals were identified by chemical category for each of the ACWA chemicals (the bold item is the

category).

HD = ether (HD also is a chlorinated hydrocarbon; this analysis did not include address chlorinated hydrocarbons as a

separate chemical category)

VX, GB = organophosphate ester

RDX = 1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine = nitrated triazine (some herbicides are non-nitrated triazines)

TNT = 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene = nitrated aromatic

tetryl = N-methyl-N,2,4,6-tetranitroaniline = nitrated aromatic

lead azide = azide salt

lead styphnate = lead trinitroresorcinate = nitrated aromatic salt

barium nitrate, potassium nitrate (saltpeter), potassium chlorate, antimony sulfide, corundum (aluminum oxide), and lead

thiocyanate = inorganic salts

carbon, sulfur = elements (combustible)

tetracene = tetrazene = tetrazolyl guanyltetrazene hydrate = sui generis

nitrocellulose (guncotton) = nitrated aliphatic

nitroglycerin = glyceryl trinitrate = nitrated aliphatic

triacetin = triglyceride (fatty ester)

dimethyl phthalate = ester

lead stearate = soap (fatty acid salt)

2-nitrodiphenylamine = nitrated aromatic

Methods Used to Manage Similar RCRA Wastes

To provide a general indication of the types of management methods

used for the RCRA wastes shown in Table 3-4 as having structural

elements similar to ACWA wastes, 16 RCRA wastes were selected

from those listed in Table 3-4 for a more detailed evaluation. Figure

3-2 lists the hazardous waste codes used in this evaluation. The 16

wastes were selected as wastes that are believed to be among the
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

3-8

wastes generated in the largest amounts (many “U” and “P” RCRA wastes are generated in relatively

lesser amounts and were not included in this evaluation).

This evaluation was based on data in the 1997 Biennial Reporting System (BRS). The BRS is EPA’s

most comprehensive source of data on the generation and management of RCRA hazardous wastes, and

is updated once every two years (1997 is the most recent year for which data are available). This

evaluation consisted of wastes streams containing selected hazardous waste codes that were reported as

(1) generated and managed on site on the BRS Generation and Management (GM) form, and (2) received

from off site for management on the BRS Waste Received (WR) form. A summary of the background of

the BRS and the methodology used to analyze data in the BRS is shown in Appendix C.

As shown in Appendix C, waste streams were categorized into management methods using the BRS

management system type codes reported. The management categories used were:

• Incineration (system type codes M041, M042, M043, M044, and M049);

• Energy recovery (system type codes M051, M052, M053, and M059);

• Stabilization (system type codes M111, M112, and M119);

• Aqueous organic treatment (system type codes M081, M082, M083, M084, M085,

M089, M091, M092, M093, M094, and M099);

• Disposal (system type codes M131, M132, M133, M134, M135, M136, and M137); and

• Other (all other system type codes).

Results from BRS Queries

Table 3-5 presents a summary of the management methods identified for the selected RCRA hazardous

waste codes generated and managed on site. As shown on Table 3-5, the total quantity of these 16 wastes

managed ranges from 39,665 tons/year (for K040) to 115,057,200 tons/year (for F005), with the majority

of the wastes managed by aqueous organic treatment or disposal. The three spent solvent wastes (F003,

F004, F005) are the wastes (from the list of 16) that have the largest quantity managed. 

The BRS contains data that allows a more detailed understanding of these waste quantities, and these

more detailed data are presented in Appendix C. Appendices C-1 and C-2 presents a summary of the

management methods identified for the selected RCRA hazardous waste codes generated and managed

on site for solids and liquids, respectively. Appendices C-3 and C-4 presents the management of liquids

generated and managed on site and received from off site for management, respectively. Appendices C-5

and C-6 presents the management of solids generated and managed on site and received from off site for

management, respectively. Appendix C-7 provides a summary of the BRS system type codes and their

descriptions.
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

3-9

Table 3-5. Management Methods for Selected Wastes Generated and Managed On Site * (EPA, 1

EPA

Hazardous

Waste Code

Incineration

(tons)

Energy

Recovery

(tons)

Stabilization

(tons)

Aqueous

Organic

Treatment

(tons)

Disposal

(tons)

Other

(tons)

D016 25,959 336 58,548 2,237 87,476 11,781 D017 9,839 336 32,479 193 79,437 4,282 D030 59,328 174,345 60,460 810,779 328,392 124,476 D036 66,697 188,255 62,674 495,188 841,840 51,588 

F003 717,550 570,032 126,262 44,424,998 23,413,134 1,243,317 F004 239,400 222,418 114,745 42,716,729 42,114,625 117,656 F005 611,813 454,619 134,682 44,690,988 68,169,833 995,266 

K017 3,840 61,762 43,103 0 7,068 2,159 K025 8,496 56,697 39,905 0 6,815 1,524 K038 200,986 124 35,437 0 477 429 K040 4,338 366 34,041 160 239 521 K083 11,655 145,227 47,894 180 7,204 7,152 K111 7,915 902 31,772 336,032 3,461,814 442,467 

P020 7,486 232 46,398 93,498 312 759 P089 5,710 262 47,561 160 259 705 

U240 25,751 7,653 47,708 160 33,594 1,677 

* Note that it is not appropriate to sum any of the columns on this table (such as for the total amount of waste treated by incineration). Waste streams code of interest were accounted for under each waste code; therefore, waste quantities could be counted more than once. For example, if 10 tons of a Dinitrotoluene (D030) and Nitrobenzene (D036), those same 10 tons are reported under both D030 and D036.
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

4-1

4.0 POTENTIAL FOR APPLICATION OF ACWA TECHNOLOGIES TO TREAT

CONTAMINATED WASTES AND MEDIA

To evaluate the potential applicability of the seven ACWA technologies to treat contaminated wastes and

media, EPA used data supplied by the ACWA technology providers, including performance data and

information on the key factors that affect use of the ACWA technologies. 

As shown in Table 4-1, the ACWA technologies have previously been tested on or used to treat

contaminated wastes and media. Waste matrices treated include process wastes, and contaminated soil,

groundwater, sludges, and sediments. Process wastes include items such as waste oils, paints, pure or

off-spec products, electrical equipment, concrete, and metals. Prior work has been completed on

contaminants such as chlorinated solvents, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), dioxins/furans, explosives,

PCBs, and pesticides, as well as on chemical weapons (chemical weapons are not described further in

this report). 

The applications that are considered to have been completed at a full-scale include a commercial SETTM

facility in the U.S.; a commercial processing GPCR unit in Kwinana, Western Australia, and a

demonstration GPCR unit at St. Catharines, in Ontario, Canada. The unit in Australia processes mainly

PCB-contaminated electrical equipment such as ballasts, capacitors, and oils, and has also processed

DDT residuals. The unit in Ontario processed PCB-, chlorobenzene-, and dioxin-contaminated soil,

electrical, concrete, and other solid wastes. 

One of the applications discussed above has been completed at a federal Superfund site. A

demonstration-scale test of the SETTM process was used to treat PCB-contaminated sediments at the New

Bedford Harbor (Sawyer Street) Superfund site, in Massachusetts.

As discussed earlier in this report, there are technology providers other than those in the ACWA program

that offer technologies similar to those in the ACWA program (e.g., chemical oxidation and reduction

technologies). Appendix B to this report provides information about these additional service providers.

Key Factors

There are several key factors that are generally considered for use of the ACWA technologies for

treatment of contaminated wastes and media, including those concerning material handling and residuals

(e.g., air emissions), and cost. Table 4-2 provides a summary of the information provided by the

technology service providers relative to material handling and residuals factors. 

Table 4-2 shows that the technologies can handle materials in solid, liquid, or gaseous phases. The

SILVER IITM and PWCTM processes can handle either solid or liquid phases directly, generally without

preprocessing, while the other technologies may require some preprocessing. For example, the SETTM

process may require that solids be crushed or shredded prior to treatment, and that wet sludges be

dewatered; the GPCR process may require that materials be able to be volatilized or atomized prior to

injection, or converted to a liquid phase; and the ICBTM and SCWO processes may require that materials

be in a liquid or slurry phase prior to treatment.
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

4-2

Table 4-1. Summary of the Prior Work Completed by ACWA Technology Service Providers for Treatment o

Wastes and Media (as described in Section 2 of this report)

ACWA Technology Service Provider and Technology

Media/

Contaminant

AEA’s

SILVER II

TM

AlliedSignal’s

ICB

TM

Commodore’s

SET

TM

Eco Logic’s

GPCR

Foster Wheeler

SCWO

Gen

Atomics

Treatment of Contaminated Soil

Chlorinated

solvents 

T B

Explosives B 

PCBs P P B

Pesticides P 

Treatment of Contaminated Groundwater

Chlorinated

solvents 

P T P

PCBs P T P

Treatment of Process Wastes

Chlorinated

solvents 

B P P P P 

Explosives P P* P T P 

PCBs B P F T P 

Pesticides B F T B 

KEY: F - Full-scale applications previously completed

P - Pilot/Demonstration-scale applications previously completed; no F applicationsB - Bench/Laboratory-scale applications previously completed; no P or F applicationsT - Reported as Theoretically applicable; no B, P, or F applications 

* The vendor claims to have performed this demonstration, but no supporting data were provided
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

4-3

Table 4-2. Summary of Key Technical Factors for Use of the ACWA Technologies

ACWA Technology Provider Material Handling Factors Residuals Factor

AEA’s SILVER IITM Materials can be fed by gravity or

by pumping, and can be solids

(such as wooden pallets) or liquids

Residuals include salts, nitric

acid, spent scrubbing

solutions, and off gases

AlliedSignal’s ICBTM Materials must be in a liquid

phase, such as wastewater or

groundwater

Residuals consist of biomass

sludge and off gases; this

process generates relatively

less sludge than similar

biotreatment processes

Commodore’s SETTM Materials must be able to be

penetrated by liquid ammonia;

some solids, such as metal,

concrete, and wood, must be

crushed or shredded prior to

treatment; materials with high

water content (wet sludges) may

need to be dewatered prior to

treatment

Residuals are metals salts, the

dehalogenated parent

compound (no toxic

intermediates), and off gases;

ammonia and other off gases

can be reused in the system 

Eco Logic’s GPCR Materials must be able to be

volatilized or atomized prior to

injection into the GPCR; this

might include use of a desorber

for solid materials

Residuals include treated

solids and off gases such as

hydrogen chloride and

methane

Foster Wheeler SCWO Materials must be in a liquid or

slurry phase, or converted to a

liquid or slurry phase, to be fed to

the SCWO

Residuals include treated

solids, including inorganic

salts, and off gases

General Atomics’ SCWO Materials must be in a liquid or

slurry phase, or converted to a

liquid or slurry phase, to be fed to

the SCWO

Residuals include treated

solids, including inorganic

salts, and off gases

Startech’s PWCTM Materials can be fed by gravity or

mechanical action and can be

solids, liquids, and/or gases; in

general, no size reduction or other

preprocessing is necessary

The PWCTM produces

synthesis fuel-gas, scrap

metal, non-leachable silicate

glass and spent gas scrubbing

solutions
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

4-4

Treatment residuals include solids, liquids, and gaseous materials. All seven ACWA technologies

generate off-gases, and the ACWA program provided limited results on the concentrations of dioxins or

dibenzofurans in the off-gases from the three treatment technologies included in the 1999 demonstration

testing. These values for dioxins and furans measured in the ACWA program were all less than the

emission standard for incinerators. All seven technology providers stated that the technologies are

designed and operated so that they will not produce dioxins or dibenzofurans in the off-gases, therefore

claiming potential as alternatives to incineration. 

EPA requested that all ACWA technology providers identify the cost for use of the ACWA technologies

for treatment of RCRA wastes and contaminated media, and some provided limited information about

cost. However, these costs were limited to select aspects of a given remediation (such as costs for

electricity) and are not presented because of concerns about comparability. The capital and operation

and maintenance (O&M) costs for remediation of contaminated sites using the ACWA technologies

would vary based on site-specific factors such as matrix characteristics and the presence of debris. One

of the criteria for accepting technologies into the ACWA program was that their life cycle costs would be

approximately comparable to those for incineration. It is likely that additional information will be made

available in the future about the costs for use of the ACWA technologies for treatment of RCRA wastes

and contaminated media, and after additional testing is completed for the ACWA technologies.

As discussed in Appendix A of this report, in an effort related to the ACWA program, the DoD is looking

at these same technologies for use in the nonstockpile chemical weapons program. In that program, the

DoD commissioned Mitretek to provide an independent evaluation of the relative costs for using the

ACWA technologies in the nonstockpile program. Mitretek performed this evaluation by reviewing

proprietary information from the proposals prepared by the ACWA vendors in response to the original

solicitation by the Army for the ACWA program, and from the ACWA demonstration study plans. The

results from Mitretek’s evaluation are provided in their report “Assessment of ACWA Technologies and

Equipment for Treatment of Non-Stockpile Wastes and Chemical Material”; MTR 1999-32V1; May

1999. 

While the information in the Mitretek report may provide a general indication of the relative costs for use

of the technologies for treatment of RCRA wastes and contaminated media, it is important to note that

their scope was to make recommendations concerning use of the hardware that had been procured under

the ACWA program. Because the U.S. government had already purchased this hardware, the costs

reflect only the subsequent operation of those specific units, and may not accurately reflect the costs of

similar units designed for processing other waste materials, such as RCRA waste streams or

contaminated media. In addition, subsequent to publication of the Mitretek report, the ACWA program

began demonstrating the four additional ACWA technologies; according to Mitretek, the government’s

procurement of these additional technologies rendered invalid several of the costs used in their analysis. 
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

5-1

5.0 REFERENCES

SILVER IITM Technology

SILVER II, The Safe Alternative for Destruction of the World’s Chemical Weapons. AEA Technology

PLC. Company Literature. Not Dated.

SILVER II, A Total Solution for Chemical Weapons Destruction. AEA Technology and CH2MHill. 

ACWA Brochure. Not Dated.

L. Davidson, Y. Quinn, and D.F. Steele, AEA Technology PLC, Dounreay, Scotland. “RutheniumMediated Electrochemical Destruction of Organic Wastes”. Platinum Metals Review. 42 (3). pp. 90-98. 

1998.

AEA Technology’s SILVER IITM Electrochemical Oxidation Organic Waste Remediation Process. AEA

Technology. Not Dated.

Introducing AEA Technology PLC. Company Literature. Not Dated.

Meeting Summary. Meeting of Bob Boylston, AEA Technologies, Richard Weisman and Mike Berman,

Tetra Tech EM Inc. March 12, 1999. 

Facsimile from Bob Boylston, AEA Technology Engineering Services Inc., to Richard Weisman, Tetra

Tech. Information about Trial Testing of SILVER II. May 3, 1999.

E-mail from Bob Boylston, AEA Technologies, to Richard Weisman, Tetra Tech EM Inc. Comments on

Draft Article. October 13, 1999.

ICBTM Technology

Letter from Brent DeFeo, AlliedSignal, to Richard Weisman, Tetra Tech EM Inc. Biological Treatment

Technology. August 9, 1999.

AlliedSignal Chemicals. Sure Solutions, Partners in World Class Environmental Solutions,

Environmental Systems & Services. Company Literature. 1996.

ICB Biological Treatment System. Bright Solutions to Hot Issues. AlliedSignal Chemicals. Company

Literature. Not Dated.

Case Study: Retrofit of Existing Wastewater Treatment System, Technology: ICB. AlliedSignal. 

Company Literature. Not Dated.

“Immobilized Cell Bioreactor Remediates Groundwater Contaminated with TCE and Other Chlorinated

Solvents”. Advanced Environmental Solutions. AlliedSignal Chemicals. Company Literature. Not

Dated.
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

5-2

“Immobilized Cell Bioreactor Solves Space Problem and Handles Influent Fluctuations for High-BOD

Wastewater Treatment”. Advanced Environmental Solutions. AlliedSignal Chemicals. Company

Literature. Not Dated.

“The Immobilized Cell Bioreactor Effective Wastewater Treatment at a Fraction of the Cost”. Advanced

Environmental Solutions. AlliedSignal Chemicals. Company Literature. Not Dated.

“Immobilized Cell Bioreactor Unique Design Outstrips Other Wastewater-Treatment Systems”. 

Advanced Environmental Solutions. AlliedSignal Chemicals. Company Literature. Not Dated.

E-mail from Brent DeFeo, AlliedSignal, to Richard Weisman, Tetra Tech EM Inc. EPA Effort on

ACWA Technologies. October 22, 1999.

SETTM Technology

Solvated Electron Technology. Company Literature. Not Dated.

Teledyne-Commodore’s Solvated Electron System, A Breakthrough Alternative Chemical Weapons

Destruction System. Company Literature. Not Dated.

Paul L. Miller, Teledyne Brown Engineering, Huntsville, AL. “Demonstration Test Results of the

Solvated Electron Technology”. Not Dated.

Paul L. Miller, Engineering Fellow. “No. 3 - The Effects of Ultrahigh-Pressure Waterjet Impact on High

Explosives”. August 1992.

J.K. Woosley, Ph.D. and the staff of Teledyne-Commodore. “Speciation of the Products of

SETTM/Oxidation Treatment of Energetics”. February 22, 1999.

“Commodore Receives Second Step Contract at Pearl Harbor; Completes S-10, 10-Ton Per Day, Mixed

Waste Processing Equipment”. News Story. 

http://financialnews.netscape.com/financialnews/News.tibco. August 12, 1999.

Dr. Gerry Getman, Commodore Solution Technologies, Inc. “Solvated Electron Chemistry, A Versatile

Alternative for Waste Detoxification”. March 9, 1999.

White Paper, The Uniqueness of Solvated Electron Technology (SET) as an Alternative to Incineration. 

Author Not Identified. Not Dated.

Rapid Commercialization Initiative Treatability Study Series at the Naval Construction Battalion Center,

Port Hueneme, California, September 13-27, 1996, and at the Commodore Engineering Applications

Facility, Marengo, Ohio, August 20, 1997. Performed by Commodore Environmental Services, Inc.,

Columbus, Ohio. October 6, 1998.

Fax from Gerry Getman, Commodore, to Richard Weisman, Tetra Tech EM Inc. EPA Effort on ACWA

Technologies; Comments on Write-up. November 5, 1999.
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

5-3

GPCR Technology

Lockheed Martin Advanced Environmental Systems. Disposal of Assembled Chemical Weapons, A

Fresh Approach. Company Literature. Not Dated.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory. Applications Analysis

Report. “Eco Logic International Gas-Phase Chemical Reduction Process - The Reactor System. 

EPA/540/AR-93/522. September 1994.

Letter from Sherri E. Woodland, ECO LOGIC, to Richard Weisman, Tetra Tech EM Inc. Input for

Report on Potential Applicability of Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment Program Technologies

to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media. August 12, 1999.

ECO LOGIC web site. http://eco-logic-intl.com/indexbod.htm. April 15, 1999.

Fax from Sherri Woodland, Eco Logic, to Richard Weisman, Tetra Tech EM Inc. EPA Report;

Comments on Draft. November 16, 1999.

SCWO Technology

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Engineering Bulletin; Supercritical Water Oxidation. 

EPA/540/S-92/006. September 1992.

Foster Wheeler. DARPA/ONR Hydrothermal Oxidation Testing Summary. August 23, 1999.

Foster Wheeler Corp. Article about hydrothermal oxidation plant. Not Dated.

C.M. Barnes, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Mixed Waste Survey for the Supercritical Water

Oxidation Program. EGG-WTD-10984. November 1993.

Fax from Al Ahluwalia, Foster Wheeler, to Richard Weisman, Tetra Tech EM Inc. Foster Wheeler

SCWO; Comments on Draft Write-up. November 11, 1999.

General Atomics. Supercritical Water Oxidation. Marketing Handout. Not Dated.

General Atomics. General Atomics’ ACWA Program Demonstration; Presentation to the Dialog Group. 

August 1999.

General Atomics. Use of Supercritical Water Oxidation for the On-board Treatment of Naval Excess

Hazardous Materials. Presented at the U.S.-European Workshop on Thermal Treatment for Naval

Vessels. Brussels, Belgium, October 29-31, 1997.

E-mail from Dan Jensen, General Atomics, to Richard Weisman, Tetra Tech EM Inc. GA Comments on

SCWO Evaluation. November 11, 1999.
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

5-4

PWCTM Technology

Startech Environmental Corp. Web site. http://www.startech.net/main.html. August 4, 1999.

Letter from William H. Zdeb, Startech, to John Kingscott, EPA. ACWA Technology Assessment

Report; Comments on Draft Report. March 27, 2000.

General ACWA Program

Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment Program. Annual Report to Congress. December 1997.

Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment Program. Annual Report to Congress. December 1998.

Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment Program. Supplemental Report to Congress. September 30,

1999.

Dialogue on Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment. Results of Vendor Testing. Presented at

Dialogue Meeting, Washington, D.C. August 25-28, 1999.

Arthur Anderson LLP. Executive Summary; Schedule and Cost Risk Assessment of the Alternative

Technologies in the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment. Draft, August 11, 1999.

National Research Council. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of

Assembled Chemical Weapons. National Academy Press. 1999.

George Bizzigotti, Mitretek Systems. Evaluation of ACWA Technologies for PM-NSCM. Briefing to

National Research Council, Non-Stockpile Chemical Material Project. June 16, 1999.

Mitretek Systems. Assessment of ACWA Technologies and Equipment for Treatment of Non-Stockpile

Wastes and Chemical Material. MTR 1999-32V1. May 1999.

U.S. Army Non-Stockpile Chemical Material Project; Non-Stockpile Waste Streams/Inventory

Monitoring. Briefing to National Research Council by John K. Gieseking, Project Officer, NonStockpile Chemical Material Project. June 16, 1999.

Alternative Technologies and Approaches Project Overview. Briefing to National Research Council,

Non-Stockpile Chemical Material Project. Dr. J. Richard Ward. June 1999.

Carl Eissner. ACWA Program and Demonstration Update. Briefing to National Research Council, NonStockpile Chemical Material Project. June 16, 1999.

Joseph M. Cardito, Stone & Webster. Technology Monitoring and Evaluation, Non-Stockpile Program. 

Briefing to National Research Council, Non-Stockpile Chemical Material Project. June 16, 1999.

Engineering News Record. “Chemical Independence; Weapon Destruction Megaproject Lurches

Forward as Costs Climb”. February 15, 1999.
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

5-5

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. “National Analysis, The National Biennial RCRA Hazardous

Waste Report (Based on 1995 Data)”. August 1997.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, & Other Impacts

of the Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT Standards: Final Rule”. Economics, Methods, and Risk

Analysis Division, Office of Solid Waste. Final Draft, July 1999.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Assessment of the Potential Costs and Benefits of the

Hazardous Waste Identification Rule for Industrial Process Wastes, as Proposed”. Economics, Methods,

and Risk Analysis Division, Office of Solid Waste. May 25, 1995.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA REmediation And CHaracterization Innovative

Technologies (EPA REACH IT) Database. October 1999.

Monica Heyl and Raymond McGuire. Analytical Chemistry Associated with the Destruction of

Chemical Weapons. Kluwer Academic Press. 1997.

Environmental Technology Council. <http://www.etc.org/costsurvey2.cfm>. Updated 2/10/00.
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

A-1

APPENDIX A

Exhibit A-1. Additional Background on the ACWA Program

Under the ACWA program, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology submitted

Reports to Congress on the ACWA program in December 1997 and December 1998, and a Supplemental

Report to Congress in September 1999, on the results of their evaluation of ACWA technologies. A

Dialogue on ACWA, comprised of DoD staff from headquarters and the affected sites, EPA staff,

stakeholders from the affected communities, state regulators and tribal representatives, representatives of

national activist organizations, and other concerned entities, contributed to these efforts. These reports,

and other relevant information about the ACWA program, are available on the ACWA web site at

<http://www.pmacwa.org>. 

DoD selected the ACWA technologies to be tested under the ACWA program based on the following

criteria: process efficacy; process performance; effectiveness; waste by-products; sampling and analysis;

process maturity; process operability; process monitoring and control; applicability to chemical weapons;

safety; design or normal facility occupational impacts; facility accidents with worker impact; facility

accidents with public impact; effluent characteristics and impact on human health and the environment;

and completeness of effluent characterization.

The Reports to Congress prepared by DoD address the same technology providers and technologies as

are covered in this report, and focus primarily on the demonstration testing performed on ACWA wastes. 

For example, the most recent Report to Congress (September 1999) discusses demonstration testing

preparations, operations, and results. It provides an overall evaluation and conclusions about the testing

conducted under Demo I, for technologies from Parsons/AlliedSignal, General Atomics, and Burns &

Roe. The ACWA technologies were tested in Demo I on chemical weapons agents (i.e., mustard and

nerve agent), as well as on energetic materials found in chemical weapons (tetrytol, Comp B, and double

base rocket propellant), and on selected secondary wastes, such as wood, fiberglass, Demilitarization

Protective Ensemble (DPE) suits, butyl rubber, and charcoal. Testing of the remaining four ACWA

technologies is planned for testing in 2000. The Report to Congress does not expand on these

technologies’ potential applicability to RCRA waste streams or contaminated media.

Other key milestones for the ACWA program include the following.

& May 1, 1998 - Tasks orders were awarded to six technology service providers (AEA,

Teledyne-Commodore, Lockheed Martin, Parsons/AlliedSignal, General Atomics, and

Burns & Roe) to develop work plans for demonstrating alternatives

& July 29, 1998 - Three technology service providers were selected for demonstration

testing in 1999 (Demo I): Parsons/AlliedSignal, General Atomics, and Burns & Roe

& February 28, 2000 - Technology service providers were selected for demonstration

testing in 2000 (Demo II): AEA, Teledyne-Commodore, Eco Logic, and Foster Wheeler

& July - September, 2000 - Demo II testing to be conducted

& March, 2001 - Final Supplemental Repot to Congress planned to be completed
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

A-2

The National Research Council (NRC) has prepared a report, dated August 1999, on their review and

evaluation of alternative technologies for demilitarization of assembled chemical weapons, which is

available through their web site at <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9660.html>.

DoD also has other programs that are related to the ACWA program, including the Alternative

Technologies (Alt Tech) program, and the nonstockpile program. These programs are also considering

the potential for use of the ACWA technologies for their program needs.
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

A-3

Exhibit A-2. Summary of ACWA Technology Providers and Technologies Relevant to EPA Eff

ACWA Technology

Provider

Technology Provider or

Team Member with

Technology Relevant to

EPA Effort Relevant Technologies Additional Con

AEA Technology PLC AEA SILVER II

TM None

Parsons/AlliedSignal AlliedSignal (now known as

Honeywell)

Immobilized CellBioreactor (ICB

TM)

Parsons is a technology inACWA program; AlliedSimember that was identified technology relevant to the 

Teledyne-Commodore LLC Commodore Solvated Electron

Technology (SET

TM)

Teledyne-Commodore LLTeledyne Brown EngineerCommodore and was formmarket SET to the chemicCommodore provides the Sindustrial applications 

Lockheed Martin (LockheedMartin was a serviceprovider under considerationin Demo I; for Demo II, EcoLogic and Foster Wheelerwere contracted directly byPMACWA)

Eco LogicFoster Wheeler

Gas Phase ChemicalReduction (GPCR)Supercritical WaterOxidation (SCWO)

Lockheed Martin is a techthe ACWA program; Eco Wheeler are the two membMartin team that were identechnologies relevant to th

General Atomics General Atomics SCWO NoneBurns and Roe Startech Plasma Waste Converter

(PWCTM)

Burns & Roe is a technoloACWA program; Startech that was identified as provrelevant to the EPA effort
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

A-4

Exhibit A-3. Points of Contact at ACWA Technology Providers and Their Team Members

Company Point of Contact

AEA Technology PLC

http://www.aeat.co.uk

Bob Boylston

AEA Technology Engineering Services Inc.

241 Curry Hollow Road

Pittsburgh, PA 15236-4696

Telephone: (412) 655-1200

Fax: (412) 655-2928

E-mail: boylston@aeatech.com

AlliedSignal Inc.

http://www.alliedsignal.com/em/envsys.htm

Brent S. DeFeo

AlliedSignal Inc. Environmental Systems and Services

P.O. Box 1053

101 Columbia Road

Morristown, NJ 07962-1053

Telephone: (973) 455-5507

Fax: (973) 455-5722

E-mail: brent.defeo@alliedsignal.com

Burns and Roe

http://www.roe.com

Ralph N. Dechiaro

Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc.

800 Kinderkamack Road

Oradell, NJ 07649

Telephone: (201) 986-4056

Fax: (201) 986-4075

E-mail: rdechiaro@roe.com

Commodore Advanced Sciences, Inc.

http://www.commodore.com

Mack Jones

Commodore Advanced Sciences, Inc.

2340 Menaul Boulevard NE, Suite 400

Albuquerque, NM 87107

Telephone: (505) 872-6803

Fax: (505) 872-6827

E-mail: mjones@commodore.com

ELI Eco Logic Inc.

http://www.eco-logic-intl.com

Sherri E. Woodland, B.Sc.

Eco Logic

143 Dennis Street

Rockwood, ON, Canada N0B 2K0

Telephone: (519) 856-9591 ext. 241

Fax: (519) 856-9235

E-mail: WoodlaS@eco-logic-intl.com

Foster Wheeler

http://www.fwc.com

Al Ahluwalia, P.E.

Foster Wheeler Development Corporation

John Blizard Research Center

12 Peach Tree Hill Road

Livingston, NJ 07039

Telephone: (973) 535-2346

Fax: (973) 535-2242

E-mail: al_ahluwalia@fwc.com
Exhibit A-3. Points of Contact at ACWA Technology Providers and Their Team Members

(continued)

Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

Company Point of Contact

A-5

General Atomics

http://www.gat.com

Dan Jensen, Ph.D.

General Atomics

3550 General Atomics Court

San Diego, CA 92121-1194

Telephone: (858) 455-4158

Fax: (858) 455-4111

E-mail: dan.jensen@gat.com

Lockheed Martin Energy Technologies, Inc.

http://aes.external.lmco.com

Samuel A. Scheer

Lockheed Martin Energy Technologies, Inc.

6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 410

Bethesda, MD 20817

Telephone: (301) 897-7008

Fax: (301) 897-7019

E-mail: sam.a.scheer@lmco.com

Parsons Infrastructure & Technology Group, Inc.

http://www.parsons.com

Martin N. Fabrick

Parsons Infrastructure & Technology Group, Inc.

100 West Walnut Street

Pasadena, CA 91124

(626) 440-2079

Fax: (626) 440-6195

StarTech Environmental Corporation

http://www.startech.net

Joseph F. Longo

Startech Environmental Corporation

15 Old Danbury Road

Wilton, CT 06897-2525

Telephone: (203) 762-2499

Fax: (203) 761-0839

E-mail: starmail@startech.net

Teledyne Commodore LLC

http://www.tbe.com

Jan Roberts

Teledyne-Commodore LLC

300 Sparkman Drive

Huntsville, AL 35805

Telephone: (256) 726-3377

Fax: (256) 726-3330

E-mail: jan.roberts@tbe.com
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

B-1

APPENDIX B

Vendors in EPA REACH IT Providing Technologies Similar to Those From ACWA Vendors

EPA has an ongoing effort to update and maintain a database of characterization and remediation

technologies, known as EPA REACH IT (<http://www.epareachit.org>). This database is used by site

owners, technology providers, and other environmental professionals to better understand the types of

technologies currently available and sites where technologies are being used. 

Searches of the EPA REACH IT database were conducted in October 1999 to find vendors that offer

technologies similar to the ACWA technologies for the cleanup of common RCRA wastes, such as PCBs,

organic pesticides, solvents, and other contaminant groups. Exhibit B-1 lists the vendors along with a

contact, the type of technology (trade name), the number of full scale units that are in design, in

construction, or completed, their claims about technology performance, as well as the specific

mechanisms that the technologies employ (if specified in the database). It is important to note that

information is reported in Exhibit B-1 as provided by the technology vendors in EPA REACH IT, and

was not modified for this report. Some vendors were not included in the exhibit if they did not supply

information about the type of technology they provide. Information in Exhibit B-1 focuses on the

following types of chemical or physical mechanisms that are similar to the ACWA technologies:

ACWA Technology Chemical or Physical Mechanism

SILVER II Electrochemical cell, oxidation reactions

Immobilized Cell Reactor Ex situ Bioreactor, fixed film technologies

Solvated Electron Technology Chemical reduction

Gas Phase Chemical Reduction Chemical reduction

Supercritical Water Oxidation Oxidation reaction

Plasma Waste Converter High temperature destruction
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

B-2

The vendors in Exhibit B-1 were derived from the EPA REACH IT database using an advanced search

completed on September 30, 1999 with the following search criteria.

& Technology type - Bioremediation (ex situ) - other

Chemical treatment - oxidation/reduction

Chemical treatment - other

Plasma high temperature recovery

Vitrification

AND

& Contaminant group Explosives/propellants

Organic pesticides/herbicides

PCBs

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Solvents

The search found 45 vendors with 49 technologies and vendor-supplied performance information on 102

sites. These 45 technologies were then reviewed to identify the primary mechanisms used to treat the

wastes and assess whether or not the technology had an analogous treatment mechanism to the ACWA

technologies. Of the 49 technologies obtained in the search:

& 1 technology was an ACWA technology (EcoLogic)

& 7 technologies were determined to be similar to ACWA technologies 

& 13 did not have adequate descriptions to make a determination

& 28 other technologies in the search contained technologies that did not have treatment

mechanisms similar to ACWA technologies, such as 

6 Fentons reagent - 2

6 Vitrification - 6

6 Extraction technologies - 3

6 Dissolved oxygen - 4

6 Microorganisms - 10

6 Other technologies (phyto-) - 3
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

B-3

EXHIBIT B-1: Vendors Listed in EPA REACH IT as Providing Technologies Similar to ACWA Tech

Vendor Contact Trade Name

No. of Fullscale Units 

Technology

Performance Claims

Specific

Mechanism

Employe

Design

Constr.

Compl. 

ACWA Technology: AEA’s SILVER II TechnologyNoneACWA Technology: AlliedSignal’s Immobilized Cell BioreactorEnSolveBiosystems

Jason CaplanPresident, CEO(919) 755-9788Fax: (919) 832-5980[no email avail.] 

EnCell Bioreactor 50 0 2 & Remediates groundwater,

lagoon, or processedwastewater contaminatedwith petroleumhydrocarbons, alcohols,nitroaromatics, solvents, andsurfactants

& Provides skid-mounted

integrated design for siteinstallations

& Achieves 99 percent removal

for wastewater

SpecializedmicroorganismsProprietary bactesupport media (fifilm)Passive nutrient aadjustment system

Dames and Moore Joseph Tarsavage,

PESenior ChemicalEngineerPhone: (215) 657-5000 X2010Fax: (215) 657-5454

Bioinfiltration 3 5 5 & Treats hydrocarbons,

phenols, chlorinatedcompounds, and alcohols

& Provides greater lateral

influence than otherbioremediation technologies

Combines in-situbioremediation owith ex-situbioremediation ogroundwaterPumps groundwathrough abovegrobio-process train reinjects it througinfiltration gallery contaminated soil
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

Vendor Contact Trade Name

No. of Fullscale Units 

Technology

Performance Claims

Specific

Mechanism

Employe

Design

Constr.

Compl. 

B-4

ACWA Technology: Commodore’s Solvated Electron Technology and Eco Logic’s Gas Phase Chemical ReductioHigh VoltageEnvironmentalApplications

William J. CoopePresidentPhone: (941) 418-4832

E-Beam 3 1 1 & Organic contaminants are

destroyed resulting in theformation of carbon dioxide,water, and halide salts

& Non-selective destruction

process with demonstratedcapability to destroy 140hazardous organics 

& No pre- or post-treatment

required

& No air emissions

Processing of liqustreams containinsuspended solidssediments, or sludUtilizes insulatintransformer electracceleratorsInjects stream ofelectrons into flowstream ofcontaminationproducing a highlreactive species:reducing aqueouselectron, hydrogeatom, and hydroxradical
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

Vendor Contact Trade Name

No. of Fullscale Units 

Technology

Performance Claims

Specific

Mechanism

Employe

Design

Constr.

Compl. 

B-5

ACWA Technology: Foster Wheeler and General Atomics’ Supercritical Water OxidationDelphi Research,Inc.

Terry RodgersPresidentPhone: (505) 243-3111Fax: (505) 243-3188

DETOX (SM) 0 1 0 & Destruction efficiencies

greater than 99.99999percent

& Treats all organic

compounds and concentratesmetals

& Products are carbon dioxide,

water, inert solids in wastestream, and concentratedresidue of toxic metals asoxides or salts

Catalyzed wetoxidation waste sprocess for non-thoxidation of mateContaminated strintroduced to theDETOX solution vesselOff-gas is condenremove water andhydrogen chloridwhile other gases be released or recirculated

G.E.M., Inc. Cleve A. Bond

PresidentPhone: (501) 337-9410Fax: (501) 337-1208

Not identified 1 0 0 & Treats hydrocarbons, PCBs,

PCPs, and possibly dioxins

& Products are non-hazardous

aluminum compounds

Operates as a closystem in whichcontaminants reacaluminum oxide aeither an acid or cTreatment occurs heated pressurechamber with offgasses condensed possibly treated breleasedResiduals can beadsorbed torehydratable alum
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

Vendor Contact Trade Name

No. of Fullscale Units 

Technology

Performance Claims

Specific

Mechanism

Employe

Design

Constr.

Compl. 

B-6

ACWA Technology: Startech’s Plasma Waste ConverterEn-Dyn Randy Brown

PresidentPhone: (701) 775-5325Fax: (701) 775-9587

Low TemperaturePlasma

000 & Treats all organic

contaminants as well asagrichemicals, oils, anddiesel fuel

& Reductions range between 93

and 99 percent

& Products are water, sterile

inorganic material, andgaseous carbon dioxide andwater

Plasma is formed energy iselectromagneticaladded to a gas resin a core tempera10,000 degrees CBulk gas temperadoes no exceed 1degrees CelsiusPlasma promotesoxidation reaction

MSE TechnologyApplications, Inc.

Jeffery W. RuffnerVice President,TechnologyCommercializationPhone: (406) 494-7412Fax: (494-7230

Not identified 0 0 0 & Final product is a nonleachable ceramic slag

& Treats halogenated organics,

solvents, and heavy metals

Electron torch opcontinuously in aoxygen-richenvironmentGases generated (metal fumes, acidNox, and particulare treated before released to theenvironment
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

C-1

APPENDIX C

Results from Queries of EPA’s 1997 Biennial Reporting System for Selected RCRA Wastes

Background and Methodology

Facilities that generate and manage RCRA hazardous waste on site, or generate RCRA hazardous waste

and ship it off site for management, report to EPA’s BRS using the GM form. Facilities receiving RCRA

hazardous waste from off site for management report using the WR form. 

It is possible for a single waste stream that is shipped off site for management to be reported twice to the

BRS – once by the facility that generated the waste and once by the facility managing the waste. For

purposes of this analysis, waste stream information from the management perspective was used. That is,

waste streams reported as (1) generated and managed on site on the GM form or (2) received from off

site for management on the WR form.

In addition to the quantity of waste generated and/or managed, facilities must provide a description of the

waste stream. While generators must provide information on the origin of the waste stream, both

generators and managers must provide (1) RCRA hazardous wastes codes that characterize the waste, (2)

the waste form (i.e., solid, liquid, sludge, gas), and (3) how the waste was managed (i.e., system type

codes). A discussion of how these three descriptions were used in the evaluation is provided below. 

Any waste stream containing the waste code shown in Figure 3-2 was included in the evaluation,

regardless of the number of other waste codes associated with the stream. Waste streams carrying more

than one waste code of interest were accounted for each waste code; therefore, waste quantities could be

counted more than once. For example, if 10 tons of a waste contains both 2,4-Dinitrotoluene (D030) and

Nitrobenzene (D036), those same 10 tons are reported under both D030 and D036.

Waste streams quantities were further classified as liquid or solid/sludge using the BRS form code

reported on the GM or WR form. Waste streams with form codes beginning with B1 or B2 (i.e.,

inorganic liquids or organic liquids, respectively) were classified as liquid. Waste streams with waste

form codes beginning with B3 and B4 (i.e., inorganic and organic solids, respectively) and B5 and B6

(i.e., inorganic and organic sludges, respectively) were classified as solid/sludge. Gases (i.e., waste form

codes beginning with B7 or B8) were also included as solid/sludges. All other waste streams (i.e.,

invalid codes) were excluded from the analysis.
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

C-2

Table C-1. Management Methods for Selected Liquid Wastes Generated and 

Managed On Site and Received from Off Site for Management *

EPA

Hazardous

Waste Code

Incineration

(tons)

Energy

Recovery

(tons)

Stabilization

(tons)

Aqueous

Organic

Treatment

(tons)

Disposal

(tons)

Other

(tons)

D016 16,170 158 2,236 7,632 6,104 D017 4,543 158 0 193 3,842 D030 42,903 148,207 210 810,778 315,051 118,119 D036 49,291 161,687 210 495,180 840,380 44,097 

F003 499,804 496,330 726 44,417,221 23,208,637 1,148,795 F004 52,925 195,403 197 42,716,728 42,003,541 100,930 F005 383,410 380,932 1,033 44,683,282 68,001,282 909,387 

K017 84 61,732 22 6,593 877 K025 4,090 56,667 6,593 283 K038 197,252 124 22 K040 464 158 22 160 0 K083 4,662 108,330 22 180 6,593 5,139 K111 2,029 902 22 336,032 3,461,337 439,518 

P020 2,605 54 93,498 21 P089 2,477 54 160 9 18 

U240 11,770 6,645 160 32,652 60 

* Note that it is not appropriate to sum any of the columns on this table (such as for the total amount of waste treated by incineration). Waste streams code of interest were accounted for under each waste code; therefore, waste quantities could be counted more than once. For example, if 10 tons of a Dinitrotoluene (D030) and Nitrobenzene (D036), those same 10 tons are reported under both D030 and D036.
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

C-3

Table C-2. Management Methods for Selected Solid and Sludge Wastes

Generated and Managed On Site and Received from Off Site for Management *

EPA

Hazardous

Waste Code

Incineration

(tons)

Energy

Recovery

(tons)

Stabilization

(tons)

Aqueous

Organic

Treatment

(tons)

Disposal

(tons)

Other

(tons)

D016 9,789 178 58,548 0 79,843 5,677 D017 5,297 178 32,478 79,437 441 D030 16,426 26,138 60,250 1 13,341 6,357 D036 17,406 26,568 62,465 8 1,460 7,491 

F003 217,745 73,702 125,536 7,777 204,497 94,522 F004 186,476 27,015 114,548 1 111,084 16,725 F005 228,402 73,687 133,650 7,705 168,551 85,879 

K017 3,756 30 43,081 475 1,282 K025 4,406 30 39,905 222 1,241 K038 3,735 35,415 477 429 K040 3,874 208 34,018 239 521 K083 6,993 36,898 47,872 611 2,013 K111 5,887 31,750 477 2,949 

P020 4,881 178 46,398 312 738 P089 3,233 208 47,561 250 687 

U240 13,981 1,008 47,708 942 1,616 

* Note that it is not appropriate to sum any of the columns on this table (such as for the total amount of waste treated by incineration). Waste streams code of interest were accounted for under each waste code; therefore, waste quantities could be counted more than once. For example, if 10 tons of a Dinitrotoluene (D030) and Nitrobenzene (D036), those same 10 tons are reported under both D030 and D036.
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

C-4

Table C-3. Management Methods for Selected Liquid Wastes Generated and Managed On Sit

EPA

Hazardous

Waste Code

Incineration

(tons)

Energy

Recovery

(tons)

Stabilization

(tons)

Aqueous

Organic

Treatment

(tons)

Disposal

(tons)

Other

(tons)

D016 2,087 70 6,327 3,816 D017 2,085 70 3,813 D030 20,107 107 807,002 313,000 85,735 D036 21,105 3,224 492,353 804,461 3,362 

F003 416,449 44,826 1 44,376,958 23,171,480 370,381 F004 15,840 70 8 42,712,995 41,967,473 21,644 F005 311,424 13,257 9 44,659,146 67,961,146 428,142 

K017 41 70 6,327 241 K025 41 70 6,327 241 K038 197,063 70 K040 275 70 K083 427 70 6,327 241 K111 2,014 70 335,996 3,461,071 439,476 

P020 2,272 93,339 0 P089 2,260 9 

U240 2,272 70 32,386 

* Note that it is not appropriate to sum any of the columns on this table (such as for the total amount of waste treated by incineration). Waste streams code of interest were accounted for under each waste code; therefore, waste quantities could be counted more than once. For example, if 10 tons of a Dinitrotoluene (D030) and Nitrobenzene (D036), those same 10 tons are reported under both D030 and D036.
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

C-5

Table C-4. Management Methods for Selected Liquid Wastes Received from Off Site for Managem

EPA

Hazardous

Waste Code

Incineration

(tons)

Energy

Recovery

(tons)

Stabilization

(tons)

Aqueous

Organic

Treatment

(tons)

Disposal

(tons)

Other

(tons)

D016 14,083 88 2,236 1,305 2,287 D017 2,457 88 0 193 28 D030 22,795 148,100 210 3,776 2,051 32,384 D036 28,186 158,463 210 2,828 35,918 40,736 

F003 83,355 451,504 725 40,263 37,157 778,414 F004 37,085 195,333 189 3,733 36,068 79,287 F005 71,986 367,675 1,024 24,136 40,136 481,245 

K017 43 61,662 22 266 636 K025 4,050 56,597 266 42 K038 189 54 22 K040 189 88 22 160 0 K083 4,235 108,260 22 180 266 4,898 K111 14 833 22 35 266 42 

P020 332 54 160 21 P089 217 54 160 18 

U240 9,498 6,575 160 266 60 

* Note that it is not appropriate to sum any of the columns on this table (such as for the total amount of waste treated by incineration). Waste streams code of interest were accounted for under each waste code; therefore, waste quantities could be counted more than once. For example, if 10 tons of a Dinitrotoluene (D030) and Nitrobenzene (D036), those same 10 tons are reported under both D030 and D036.
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

C-6

Table C-5. Management Methods for Selected Solid and Sludge Wastes Generated and Managed O

EPA

Hazardous

Waste Code

Incineration

(tons)

Energy

Recovery

(tons)

Stabilization

(tons)

Aqueous

Organic

Treatment

(tons)

Disposal

(tons)

Other

(tons)

D016 1,689 9 79,227 30 D017 1,648 9 79,227 27 D030 2,188 17,608 1 10,029 1,543 D036 2,133 17,608 1 534 468 

F003 174,694 48,224 34,854 7,660 172,528 7,763 F004 172,467 5,136 33,929 97,887 1,082 F005 185,720 48,224 34,854 7,636 147,355 7,726 

K017 2,446 30 69 226 45 K025 2,318 30 3 K038 2,236 3 K040 2,362 30 3 K083 3,633 23,530 347 1 K111 2,229 7 

P020 2,935 3 2 P089 2,400 30 3 2 

U240 2,513 30 3 

* Note that it is not appropriate to sum any of the columns on this table (such as for the total amount of waste treated by incineration). Waste streams code of interest were accounted for under each waste code; therefore, waste quantities could be counted more than once. For example, if 10 tons of a Dinitrotoluene (D030) and Nitrobenzene (D036), those same 10 tons are reported under both D030 and D036.
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

C-7

Table C-6. Management Methods for Selected Solid and Sludge Wastes Received from Off Site for Ma

EPA

Hazardous

Waste Code

Incineration

(tons)

Energy

Recovery

(tons)

Stabilization

(tons)

Aqueous

Organic

Treatment

(tons)

Disposal

(tons)

Other

(tons)

D016 8,100 178 58,539 0 617 5,647 D017 3,649 178 32,469 210 413 D030 14,238 8,530 60,249 1 3,312 4,814 D036 15,273 8,960 62,464 8 927 7,023 

F003 43,051 25,478 90,683 117 31,968 86,759 F004 14,009 21,879 80,620 1 13,197 15,643 F005 42,682 25,463 98,796 69 21,196 78,153 

K017 1,310 43,013 249 1,237 K025 2,088 39,905 219 1,241 K038 1,499 35,415 474 429 K040 1,512 178 34,018 236 521 K083 3,359 13,367 47,872 263 2,012 K111 3,658 31,750 471 2,949 

P020 1,946 178 46,398 309 736 P089 833 178 47,561 247 685 

U240 11,468 978 47,708 939 1,616 

* Note that it is not appropriate to sum any of the columns on this table (such as for the total amount of waste treated by incineration). Waste streams code of interest were accounted for under each waste code; therefore, waste quantities could be counted more than once. For example, if 10 tons of a Dinitrotoluene (D030) and Nitrobenzene (D036), those same 10 tons are reported under both D030 and D036.
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

C-8

Table C-7. RCRA BRS System Type Codes and Descriptions

System

Type Codes

Description

M011 High temperature metals recovery

M012 Retorting

M013 Secondary smelting

M014 Other metals recovery for reuse: e.g., ion exchange, reverse osmosis, acid leaching 

M019 Metals recovery - type unknown

M021 Fractionation/distillation

M022 Thin film evaporation

M023 Solvent extraction

M024 Other solvent recovery

M029 Solvents recovery - type unknown

M031 Acid regeneration

M032 Other recovery: e.g., waste oil recovery, nonsolvent organics recovery

M039 Other recovery - type unknown

M041 Incineration - liquids

M042 Incineration - sludges

M043 Incineration - solids

M044 Incineration - gases

M049 Incineration - type unknown

M051 Energy recovery - liquids

M052 Energy recovery - sludges

M053 Energy recovery - solids

M059 Energy recovery - type unknown

M061 Fuel blending

M071 Chrome reduction followed by chemical precipitation

M072 Cyanide destruction followed by chemical precipitation

M073 Cyanide destruction only

M074 Chemical oxidation followed by chemical precipitation

M075 Chemical oxidation only

M076 Wet air oxidation

M077 Chemical precipitation

M078 Other aqueous inorganic treatment: e.g., ion exchange, reverse osmosis

M079 Aqueous inorganic treatment - type unknown

M081 Biological treatment

M082 Carbon adsorption

M083 Air/steam stripping

M084 Wet air oxidation

M085 Other aqueous organic treatment

M089 Aqueous organic treatment - type unknown
Table C-7. System Type Codes and Descriptions (continued)

Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media

System

Type Codes

Description

C-9

M091 Chemical precipitation in combination with biological treatment

M092 Chemical precipitation in combination with carbon adsorption

M093 Wet air oxidation

M094 Other organic/inorganic treatment

M099 Aqueous organic and inorganic treatment - type unknown

M101 Sludge dewatering

M102 Addition of excess lime

M103 Absorption/adsorption

M104 Solvent extraction

M109 Sludge treatment - type unknown

M111 Stabilization/chemical fixation using cementitious and/or pozzolanic materials

M112 Other stabilization

M119 Stabilization - type unknown

M121 Neutralization only

M122 Evaporation only

M123 Settling/clarification only

M124 Phase separation (e.g., emulsion breaking, filtration) only

M125 Other treatment

M129 Other treatment - type unknown

M131 Land treatment/application/farming

M132 Landfill

M133 Surface impoundment (to be closed as a landfill)

M134 Deep well/underground injection

M135 Direct discharge to sewer/POTW (no prior treatment)

M136 Direct discharge to surface water under NPDES (no prior treatment)

M137 Other disposal

M141 Transfer facility storage -- waste was shipped off site without any on-site treatment,

disposal, or recycling activity
United States

Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Solid Waste and Emergency ResponseTechnology Innovation Office (5102G)Washington, DC 20460Official Business, Penalty for Private Use $300EPA 542-R-00-004