Environmental Protection Agency cleanup technology

U.S. EPA. Assessing UST Corrective Action Technologies Early Screening of Cleanup Technologies for the Saturated Zone, EPA/600/2-90/027, prepared by P. J. Reidy and co-workers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1990. 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has identified several hundred MTBE-contaminated sites that have performed treatment of soil and groundwater to remove or destroy MTBE.1 Many of these sites have also treated other fuel components, primarily benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX), and some have treated fuel oxygenates other than MTBE. Although others have reported about treatment technologies for MTBE cleanup,2 only limited information has been published about cleanup of other oxygenates. These oxygenates include ether compounds, such as ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE), tert-amyl methyl ether (TAME), diisopropyl ether (DIPE), and tert-amyl ethyl ether (TAEE), as well as alcohol compounds, such as tert-butyl alcohol (TBA), tert-amyl alcohol (TAA), ethanol, and methanol. 

U.S. EPA, How to Evaluate Alternative Cleanup Technologies for Underground Storage Tank Sites A Guide for Corrective Action Plan Reviewers, EPA 510-B-95-007, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1995. 

This is a methanol extraction process in which a methanol solution is used to extract organic contaminants from soils. RIMS was unable to contact the vendor, therefore commercial availability is unknown. The technology was demonstrated in 1986 through a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III sponsored cleanup in Minden, West Virginia. 

Operating costs for the Ultrox advanced oxidation system have varied dramatically from 0.15 to 90 per 1000 gal treated, depending on the type of contaminants, their concentration and the desired cleanup standard (D123626, p. 7). A cost estimate prepared during a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (ERA) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) demonstration of Ultrox technology is included in Table 1. 

Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup Annual Status Report, 10th Ed. EPA-542-R-01-004 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC, 2001. 

The opposition to the use of incineration is described in detail in a prior NRC report (NRC, 2002). Reasons for it include the perceived instability of the process, the potential for explosion, and the potential for unplanned releases of undesirable compounds. This public opposition to incineration is also evident in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency s Superfund program for cleanup of hazardous waste sites, where both on-site and off-site incineration were selected less frequently as treatment technologies as the years passed (EPA, 2004). For example, on-site incineration was selected four, seven, six, and four times in 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990, respectively, for source control for remedial... 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup Annual Status Report (11th Edition), EPA-542-R-03-009, February. Available online at . Last accessed February 14, 2006. 

---