Full text of "Application of soil remediation technologies in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA)"

See other formats

| APPLICATION OF SOIL 
REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES 
IN THE 
GREATER TORONTO AREA 


AUGUST 1993 


i Ministry of 
Ontario an 
stat 








ISBN 0-7778-1785-3 


APPLICATION OF SOIL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES 
IN THE GREATER TORONTO AREA (GTA) 


AUGUST 1993 


© 


Cette publication technique 
n’est disponible qu’en anglais. 


Copyright: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1993 


This publication may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes 
with appropriate attribution. 


PIBS 2684 


À 


1 


UE i 





APPLICATION OF SOIL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES 
IN THE GREATER TORONTO AREA (GTA) 


Report prepared by: 


Science & Engineering Section 
Waste Management Branch 
Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy 


a 


rc 


CRE rem 
| mai azn re ee = 
= 


a 


PORT ee 


- 


QU 


= 


wwe, 


He sit 


20 





APPLICATION OF SOIL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES 


IN THE GREATER TORONTO AREA (GTA) 


TABLE OF CONTENT 


PAGE 
TASH: Ob ANB Ties. ar tay otter cd ol ote, cits ee dame coscecemememecc ce ele ce 3 
TABIE OF AGCRONYMS 4 <i) <4, 25. Se sensatoe ee en Suse) Sie mi eS SS Does es 4 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2s casicc tees caw severe eb es eee ease te ase ee 5 
LENPRODUCTTION MEN EE Me DT reine de dia wee ie las ea e caste 6 

1. REVIEW OF SOIL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES 
dde Organi CeremedwabtOn: 6.644: tee eee, cues oes oes ooo awew eet 7 
My LBTLOÉeMEdTAE LAON aia soa eme eee ens dorer ee ose sea 7 
1.1.2 Low temperature thermal desorption .......... 14 
1.1.3 High temperature thermal destruction......... 15 
2 14#Chemicals Cxtrackion. rss he semer se oe cud 16 
isd Sh SOid Vapour ÉXÉTACÉLON.:.::- 200 iMac team 17 
Je AG Pe PuSDargingethnlssnnns «Ree 06s res et ss 18 
LES SO PIS MLNO ESS MU nn ess sein ner ac eee 19 
LPAMNnOTganiEs Pemeds at wom cow. We ne Su ee oS 20 
lie2ayStabidaizati]en/Soladafa Cate OM ss snc + Buss sao 2022. 20 
i Zhe) Chem call Gxct BACELOMic 3 6.55.06 ui enr sure 20 
dA 2p oneN deiner CARON pe minus serach stat ies 6% cuss ow oe eo eee 2 

2. DEMONSTRATED SOIL REMEDIATION PROCESSES 
Diode, - GEA ate OR) LS ide students sr as ne 6 Be Sees 22 
2129 DemonsEtrat lon MinACanadiMi en uate is Lames ce re re eo 22 
223° DÉMORBtE dE lON am ERS Uae, voces Ne NS Sn te ee set te 23 

3. APPLICATION TO GTA SITES 

a. - Ontario Remediation Levelsn Mi. fruits. 25 
JA Pietra te es oe Lee Le Sst nes eh cat moi ah ae ge der Seana eae 26 
Jose ~UNCELOM Triangle (26 ses whic ose 6 he Ves Sigete en waa s 26 
34° Port “Industrial, District vss MAR nn Serre ce 26 
3.5. River Sediment 12.6. c'ereccmvivepeheee «ks eeiee se ce eae 28 
4. REVIEW OF CURRENT RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION NEEDS 
4.1 ~Current Research Programs in Ontario «62... . dais. 2. 28 
42° “Adaitional RD&D: Needs) 4-0 ie eee cee s Sas se he 30 


REPERENCES MES ce so lose es coute ec cle Sie see enee docs ces cie es 31 


IE ek » 


ry 


LE 
a 


= 


aes 


=f 1a -1 O4 


as 


_ * = eur ve ren 
. “pr ems oe THRE 





CEE | 7 oe 
ME: Os Se st" 4 i 
‘ages ques ee saute IR L 
Sli" tn. Oe fe: — 6 2 
arr Ge D 7 
Pe eS 
LENS re oo 
a CR _ € 
L DS = sys 
i & ar = @ 
DD GS > oe + 7 . 
' = Jade OR, Dirt AAT © 
Lu 7 . 
oo“ ey 
A - eo 7 te 7) = re 
ct Pim ex 
re ¥ ‘Masa Tt 
q as% Sheu - @ : = 
ie TRS 
à Le 
: © LI L EN 
: Lure 4 
. 8 0 Grand VITE 
-8 1 yn @ eH 0 OO.) » 
= 7 1 san 
: uot RO Re EN 
i * 


LE 


12: 


13% 


LIST OF TABLES 


PAGE 
DESRT Demonstratbed Processes An En MR M Te se soute 34 
CoOSTTe? Demonstrated Processes... Lib. MM mere e ele 35 
SITE (USEPA)» DemonstratedyProcessese 3% MR M ru so stars 36 
Soild, Remediation. Levels (Inorganics) .. ss. de seca eco cos 39 
Soil Remedtation Levels (OrganiLes), os... s.cc's Saco ee ewe es 40 
Ataratiri Site: Soil.Quality (Inorganics): .22-..2¢s 24. <s.sters 41 
Ataratiri Site: SoideOualaty  (Organiies)): Six AL due. ne 42 
Ontario Environmental Research Program Projects ......... 43 
Ontario Environmental Technology Program Projects ....... 44 
Contaminated Sediment Treatment Technology 
Program (CoSETeE ) Meet ewe Se RES M ee re 45 
CCME ’'STDESRT Programs Proyecks! in OnkarLo: aes Es some 47 
DEscriptiony of GASRePrproJectstftor 1992/9304. pees ee eae 48 


SITE: Emerging Technology. Program-Partieipants: .. 54: ones 49 


CoSTTeP 


DESRT 


GASReP 
GTA 


SEDTEC 


SITE 
SVOC 
TCE 


THC 
TOC 
Ton 


Tonne 
USEPA 
VISTTT 


VOC 
WPCP 
WTC 


TABLE OF ACRONYMS 


Canadian Centre for Inland Waters (Burlington, Ont.) 
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment 
Contaminated Sediment Treatment Technology Program 


Development and Demonstration of Site Remediation 
Technology 

Groundwater and Soil Remediation Program (CCIW) 

Greater Toronto Area 


Hydro Carbon 
Less Than 
Mono Aromatic Hydrocarbon 


National Contaminated Sites Remediation Program 
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon 
Poly Chlorinated Biphenyl 


Poly Chlorinated Dibenzo Dioxin (dioxin) 
Poly Chlorinated Dibenzo Furan (furan) 
Poly Chlorinated Phenols (also Penta Chloro Phenol) 


Port Industrial District. (Toronto harbour? front) 
Research, Development and Demonstration 
Sediment Treatment Technologies Database (WTC) 


Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (USEPA) 
Semi Volatile Organic Compound 
Tri Chloro Ethylene 


Toronto Harbour Commissioners 
Total Organic Compound 
Short US ton (2,000 pounds, 907 kilograms) 


Metric tonne (1,000 kilograms, 2,204 pounds) 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment 
Technology (USEPA) 


Volatile Organic Compound 
Water Pollution Control Plant 
Wastewater Technology Centre (Burlington, Ont.) 


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 


This document presents a review of soil remediation technologies 
and a summary of processes which have been demonstrated on a 
commercial scale and which could be applied to site remediation in 
Ontario. Cleanup levels required under provincial/federal 
legislation are summarized. 


Ontario cleanup criteria for inorganic contaminants are defined in 
the Ontario Decommissioning Guidelines (MOE, 1990). These 
guidelines are undergoing a major review under the development of 
a Materials Management Policy. Cleanup levels for organic 
contaminants are under development through the CCME, with MOEE 
participating actively (CCME, 1991). 


Solid waste materials (soils from industrial/commercial sites, lake 
sediments) in the GTA have a wide range of contaminants and 
concentrations. Organics measured at sites affected by petroleum 
industries and related services range typically between 10 and 100 
ppm per organic, with extremes up to 6000-8000 ppm. For other 
industrial sites, metal concentrations are typically near 100 ppm. 


This document is limited to the summary of demonstrated processes. 
Demonstrated processes are those that have been demonstrated at a 
pilot or full-scale operation and whose conclusive results have 
been reviewed by the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE). 
Commercial viability (cost evaluation and service availability) 
must also be documented. 


There are numerous processes demonstrated commercially, and 
available from U.S. and Canadian companies. There are, however, 
more processes currently under development, and even more are 
emerging technologies / processes (i.e. at the stage of bench and 
laboratory testing). Processes are usually specific to remediation 
of either organic or inorganic contaminants. Certain other 
processes may be developed for specific sites. Some processes may 
include multi-phase treatments, where a combination of technologies 
are used. 


Soil washing and volatile organic desorption are the most frequent 
technologies used for organic remediation. Metal extraction and 
Stabilization (solidification) are the most common technologies 
used for inorganic remediation. Costs range in the order of $50 
(Canadian) to $500/tonne for organic remediation, and CND $80 to 
$250/tonne for inorganic remediation. 


Soil bioremediation, although used widely in warm climates (e.g. 
USA), has had limited success in Ontario. Additional research in 
this area is needed to tailor this technology to our climatic 
conditions, and to understand microbial degradation processes under 
various contaminant and soil conditions. 


INTRODUCTION 


The objective of this document is to present a review of soil 
remediation technologies and a summary of selected soil remediation 
processes which have been demonstrated as commercially viable, and 
which can be used at GTA sites. In this document, we make a 
distinction between "technologies" and "processes": a developer 
usually takes a specific technology (e.g. soil vapour extraction) 
and develops a specific application as a process (e.g. AquaDeTox) . 
Processes are often referred to under registered trade names. 


The document is divided into 4 chapters. Chapter 1 reviews the 
different types of soil remediation technologies, and their 
limitations. Chapter 2 reviews the processes demonstrated for 
remediation of the types of contaminated soil identified in the 
GTA. Chapter 3 discusses the technologies that could potentially be 
used in the remediation of GTA sites. In the same chapter, criteria 
for cleanup requirements are reviewed for Ontario compliance. 
Chapter 4 identifies present emerging technologies being researched 
and the need for further research, development and demonstration 
(RD&D) . 


1. REVIEW OF SOIL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES 


Remediation of contaminated soil is done using one of the two major 
groups of technologies: remediation for organic contamination and 
remediation for inorganic (metals) contamination. 


Organic remediation relies on the fact that organics can either be 
volatilized from the soil, or destroyed by biodegradation, 
oxidation or thermal destruction (incineration). 


Inorganic remediation generally involves either removal of the 
metals, or in rare occasions volatilisation. 


Both types of contaminants (organics and inorganics) can be 
Stabilized and/or solidified and made less mobile and less 
available for leaching. Stabilisation and solidification 
technologies are more efficient however for inorganic contaminants. 


Another classification of soil remediation technologies refers to 
either ex situ remediation or in situ (MOE, 1992). Ex situ 
remediation requires that the soil be excavated, sometimes stock 
piled at the site and treated, or removed from the site and 
transported to a suitable treatment site. During in situ 
remediation, the contaminated soil is treated in place without 
being excavated. 


7 


In situ treatment requires that the remediation agents (air, 
chemicals, solvent, biomass or nutrient) be injected in the soil. 


1.1 Organic remediation 


Organic remediation technologies are frequently used because of the 
large number of sites contaminated with petroleum products 
(gasoline or fuel oil). Among these technologies, bioremediation is 
the most economical, although it may not be the most efficient and 
rapid. Other organic remediations include low temperature thermal 
desorption (LTTD), high temperature thermal destruction, chemical 
extraction, soil vapour extraction, air sparging and soil flushing. 


1.1.1 Bioremediation 


Bioremediation is a process by which the organic contaminants are 
destroyed by the action of the naturally occurring soil bacteria or 
by artificially added bacteria. Some bacteria are capable of 
obtaining energy by breaking down organic compounds such as 
petroleum hydrocarbons and converting them into byproducts such as 
carbon dioxide and water. Bioremediation can be applied either in 
Situ or ex situ, and can take place aerobically (with oxygen 
present) or anaerobically (without oxygen). 


In the context of soil remediation, several words with a prefix 
"bio" have been used to describe the action of microorganisms: 


biodegradation: process of decomposition of contaminants 
by bacterial action 


bioreclamation: use of bacteria to destroy contaminants 
in-situ to reclaim contaminated soils or 
groundwater 

biorestoration: removal of contaminants in the soils to 


acceptable levels in order to restore the 
site to previous use 


biotransformation: change or conversion of toxic 
contaminants into innocuous forms through 
the use of bacteria 


biotreatment: use of bacteria to destroy contaminants 
in the soil 


biostimulation: addition of nutrients, moisture and/or 
bacteria to enhance bacterial activity 
for destroying contaminants in the soil 


Bioremediation involves the stimulation of growth and activity of 
these microorganisms in the contaminated soil sometimes by adding 
oxygen and nutrients. The factors considered important in the 
success of this technology focus on 3 elements (Beak, 1992): 
characteristics of the contaminant, soil, and microorganisms. The 
following presents some of the major consideration but appropriate 
references need to be accessed for details. 


1) Characteristics of the contaminant: 


Attributes: 


Unless the chemical has been documented to be biodegradable 
(e.g. benzene, toluene, xylene), there are various chemical 
attributes that would indicate if the contaminant is 
susceptible to biodegradation. The increasing complexity of 
the chemical structure (chain type and length, molecular 
weight, substituents (NO,, OH), and halogenation) generally 
means a decrease in biodegradability. A high solubility of the 
contaminant is favourable since the contaminant uptake is 
through the cellular membrane. Volatilization of the 
contaminant reduce the amount available as nutrient for the 
bioremediation process. Easy sorption of the contaminant to 
various materials in the soil generally has a negative effect 
on biodegradation. Chemical reactions between the contaminant 
and the medium may also effect the nutrient availability for 
the microorganisms or may even reduce the contaminant itself. 


Biodegradability 


In the assessment of the biodegradability of a contaminant, it 
is important to be familiar with the classes of compounds 
which are biodegradable, the metabolic pathways, the concept 
of threshold concentration, knowledge of the kinetics and 
biodegradation rates, and toxicity of the contaminant towards 
the microorganisms. In the absence of this knowledge, 
treatability studies should be undertaken. 


Distribution 


The identification of the source of the contaminant may 
identify "hot spots" which will determine the feasibility of 
the bioremediation project. The estimate of the contaminant 
mass will also be used in the assessment of the duration and 
the cost of the bioremediation project. 


2) Physico-chemical characteristics of the soil: 


Geochemistry 


Most microorganisms prefer near neutral or slightly alkaline 
pH, with a general pH tolerance ranging from 5.5 to 8.5. The 
redox potential (Eh) (proportion of oxidized to reduced 
components in the soil) is also essential, since many 
enzymatic reactions (reactions within the microorganisms) are 
oxidation-reduction reactions. 


All microorganisms have characteristic temperature ranges and 
optimums for growth and reproduction. For most bioremediation 
activities, the optimum temperature is between 20 °C and 30 
°C. Higher temperature, if it does not kill the organisms, 
will result in higher metabolic activities (i.e. increased 
oxygen consumption). However, there can be Significant 
microbial activities at temperatures outside this range: 
psychrophiles will tolerate temperature above 5 °C (optimum 
less than 15 °C) and thermophiles will tolerate temperature up 
EOz:60 °C; 


Microorganisms must cope with osmotic pressure resulting from 
differences in solute concentration on opposite sides of their 
membrane. Although it is not a problem in general 
bioremediation projects, special microbial activities (such as 
reductive dechlorination) may result in increase of chloride 
ions and osmotic pressure. 


Microbial activities in soil generally fluctuate with the 
moisture content: the lower the water content, the lower the 
activity. Tolerable moisture content ranges from 25% to 85%. 
Sudden change in the water content should be avoided, to 
ensure that waterlogging does not occur and that metabolism 
shifts from aerobic to anaerobic. 


Inorganic nutrients, others than the ones provided by the 
organic contaminants, are also essential for the growth and 
maintenance of microorganisms. A ratio of LZ0210e8 (CNP) as 
recommended for carbon, nitrogen and phosphate nutrients. 
Other inorganics such as sulphur, iron, Magnesium, chloride 
ions and trace metals are also essential in low concentrations 
or at trace levels. Nutrients may need to be added at some 
sites. 


10 


Hydrogeology 


Characterization of the hydrogeological environment is 
particularly important for in situ treatment, as it will 
assist in predicting the contaminant transport, nutrient 
distribution and microbial activity. 


The saturated zone occurs below the watertable. Contamination 
of the saturated zone can consist of both soil contamination 
and/or groundwater contamination. The unsaturated zone (also 
referred as vadose zone) is the region extending from the 
ground surface to the upper surface of the first water 
formation. The vadose zone is in contact with the atmosphere 
through its network of pores, and is also in contact with the 
Saturated zone through a capillary action. Contaminants in the 
vadose zone may adsorb to soil particles or may volatilize and 
be retained within the pore spaces. 


Hydraulic conductivity (K) refers to the overall ability of a 
porous medium to conduct water. The variation of K values at 
the treatment site (injection of bioremediation elements, 
bioventing) is an essential parameter for in situ treatment. 
The direction and the magnitude of the hydraulic gradient 
control the movement oof groundwater and associated 
contaminants. The porosity of the soil (percentage of void 
Space in the soil) will determine the amount of liquid that 
may be retained in the soil. The permeability of the soil 
(ability of the soil to allow passage of liquid) will be key 
to the migration of contaminants. 


3) Characteristics of the microorganisms: 


The initial conditions of the contaminants and the 
contaminated soil will determine the group of microorganisms 
and nutrients to be used. The microbial community will change 
in size and composition during bioremediation as some 
organisms will flourish under specific site conditions while 
other organisms will die off. For a successful bioremediation, 
the following microbiological properties should be 
characterized. 


The biomass size should be monitored as it should generally 
increase during active bioremediation and show variations 
between the contaminated and uncontaminated zones. The initial 
determination of the microbial composition will indicate if 
the appropriate degrading microorganisms are present. Analysis 
of the biomass and the microbial composition does not indicate 
however microbial activity. Microbial activity is indicated by 


12 


may be difficult to attain required cleanup levels; 
g large treatment area may be required; 


e may contaminate the soil underneath the treatment area. 


ENHANCED BIOREMEDIATION (COMPOSTING) 


This is a process in which the bacterial action is accelerated by 
controlled treatment conditions with uniform distribution of water, 
oxygen and nutrients, chemicals for pH control, and temperature 
control. In some cases, a special culture of bacteria may be added 
along with soil amendments, such as nutrients, wood chips, sand. 


Contaminated soil is placed in a large pile over a number of 
perforated pipes laid out in parallel. The pile is sprinkled with 
a mixture of water, surfactants and fertilizer. The air is drawn 
through the pile by a vacuum pump connected to the piping. In some 
cases, large wood chips are added as a bulking agent to facilitate 
the flow of air through the pile. 


Applicability 

2 soils contaminated with petroleum fuels (as gasoline, jet 
fuel, diesel); 

9 oil sludges; 

9 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHS including 
naphthalene, anthracene, etc.); 

Q benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX); 

2 some chlorinated solvents. 


Potential Advantages 


minimum labour requirements; 

low costs; 

shorter time of treatment than landfarming; 

more positive control of air emission; 

soils with high contaminant levels can be treated. 


O' 0 :0:.0 0 


Potential Limitations 


2 presence of heavy metals, chlorinated organics, 
pesticides, etc. can be toxic to bacteria; 

9 variable composition of soil may lead to inconsistent 
results; 


: low levels cannot always be achieved. 


alae 


growth (increase in cell numbers), nutritional status 
(utilisation and depletion of the contaminants), stress 
(leading to adaptation or acclimation of the organisms to a 
new site) and metabolic activity and capabilities. Finally the 
more homogenous the microbial distribution, the faster and 
more uniform the bioremediation will proceed. 


Bioremediation can be applied in various forms: surface 
bioremediation, enhanced bioremediation, bioventing, or soil slurry 
bioreactor. These different application are reviewed in the 
following paragraphs. 


SURFACE BIOREMEDIATION 


Surface bioremediation is also called LAND TREATMENT or LANDFARMING 
and involves the tilling and the cultivating of the soils to 
encourage biological degradation of hydrocarbons. 


Excavated contaminated soil is spread over a treatment area ina 
layer usually 15 to 30 cm thick. The treatment area is properly 
designed for positive drainage and is surrounded by a soil berm to 
prevent runoffs, and in some cases covered with a FML (flexible 
membrane liner). Agricultural fertilizer, water, bacteria, and lime 
are added, as required. The soil is cultivated with a tiller, disc 
harrow or some other farm equipment to mix the soil bacteria, air 
and nutrients. In some cases, a road grader is used. 


Applicability 

© petroleum hydrocarbon fuels (gasoline, diesel and heating 
fuels) ; 

9 oil sludges and tank bottoms; 


soils contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. 
Potential Advantages 

low to moderate costs; 

low labour requirements; 


can be effective on some heavier crudes. 


Potential Limitations 


2 temperature dependent ; 
> presence of certain contaminants may be toxic to 
bacteria; 


air emissions control may be needed; 

may require large volumes of water to keep the soil 
moist; 

soil conditions may not be suitable (e.g. dense soils) ; 


13 


BIOVENTING 


Bioventing is an in situ process where air is injected into 
contaminated soil, at a rate low enough to increase soil oxygen 
concentrations and stimulate indigenous aerobic microbial activity. 
In addition to oxygen, other nutrients (soluble nitrogen and 
phosphorous compounds) may be pumped into the soil through the 
injection wells, in amounts appropriate for optimizing the growth 
of microorganisms. 


During bioventing, the soil surface is monitored to detect volatile 
organic compounds (VOC) emission. Such emission indicates that air 
is injected at too high a rate, and that VOCs do not have time to 
biodegrade before escaping at the surface. 


Bioventing may be used in conjunction with soil vapour extraction, 
where extraction wells are used with the injection wells. 


SOIL SLURRY BIO-REACTOR 


The first step in this process is to separate and remove the larger 
soil particles. The soil is then mixed with water to obtain a 
slurry of proper consistency. The slurry is mechanically agitated 
in a bioreactor vessel to keep the solids suspended and to maintain 
an intimate contact with the bacteria. Suitable amounts of 
nutrients, water, surfactants and sugars are added to maintain 
proper levels of active biomass population in the bioreactor. Once 
the treatment is completed, the slurry is dewatered and the water 
is further treated and clarified and the clean soil is disposed of. 


Applicability 

9 petroleum hydrocarbon fuels; 
2 chlorinated organic solvents; 
9 crude oil, oils and grease; 

2 PAHs; 

o 


some pesticides. 


Potential Advantages 


minimum labour requirements; 

treats higher levels of contaminants; 

a wide range of organics can be treated; 
less space requirements; 

air emissions can be controlled. 


ooo © o 


14 


Potential Limitations 


o 


presence of heavy metals, pesticides and chlorinated 
organics may be toxic to the bacteria; 

capital costs for equipment may be expensive; 
contaminants with low solubility are more difficult to 
Exeat; 

low cleanup levels are not always achieved; 

operating temperature must be 20° to 30° C. 


1.1.2 LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION (LTTD) 


The contaminated soil is excavated, screened and heated in a closed 
chamber to temperatures ranging from 200°C to 260°C to volatilize 
the light organic contaminants. The off-gases from the soil are 
then passed through an air emission control system or a recovery 


system. 


In some cases, the gases are passed through to a second 


reactor and incinerated. 


The basic components of the operation are: 


° 


o 


feeder with screening; 

rotary kiln with indirect infrared heating or indirect 
heat exchanger; 

air emission control; 

recovery system with activated carbon or afterburner. 


Applicability 


Soil contaminated with low volatilization temperature such as 
petroleum fuels (gasoline, jet fuel, diesel fuel) and some 
pesticides. 


Potential Advantages 


o 


volatilize a wider range of petroleum products than in- 
situ technologies; 

treatment can be accomplished in a short period of time; 
system is relatively compact and mobile. 


Potential Limitations 


removes only volatile organic compounds (VOCs) ; 
precautions must be taken to avoid explosions within the 


- equipment ; 


high levels of metals (e.g. mercury), fluorides, 
chlorides, and sulphur may cause problems in the air 
emission controls; 

high moisture content may reduce efficiency; 

May not be suitable for soils with high percentage of 
clay and silt; , 


TS 


9 may not be capable of handling soils with greater than 
one percent petroleum hydrocarbon content for some 
designs; 

e chlorinated organics require more elaborate air emission 


control system. 


1.1.3 HIGH TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESTRUCTION 


This technology utilizes high temperatures in the range of 850 to 
1200°C as the principal method of destroying organic contaminants. 
The treatment involves heating excavated soil in a closed chamber 
to volatilize and destroy organic compounds by converting them to 
carbon dioxide and water. The off gases are passed through a 
secondary chamber at higher temperatures to ensure complete 
destruction of all organic constituents and then through the air 
emission control system. The destruction and removal efficiency 
achieved in this treatment exceeds 99.9 percent. 


The types of incineration equipment include: 


rotary kiln; 
fluidized bed; 
infrared thermal; 
pyrolytic: 


ooo o 


Applicability 


practically any type of organic contaminant; 
© not applicable for most metals. 


Potential Advantages 


all organics are completely destroyed; 
2 Destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) is greater than 
99.99% with most organic compounds. 


Potential Limitations 


9 presence of halogenated organics may require special air 
pollution control equipment; 

production of volatile metals, PCB and dioxins; 

feed size limitations for some equipment; 

high fuel requirements; 

high capital costs for incineration equipment; 

high operating costs; 

permits may be difficult to obtain; 

treated soils may be sterile. 


O0 O©O © © © 0 0 


16 


1.1.4 CHEMICAL EXTRACTION 


Chemical extraction, also referred to as SOLVENT EXTRACTION or SOIL 
WASHING, is an ex situ process used to separate the contaminants 
into respective phase fractions: organics, water, inorganics and 
particulate soils. It involves mixing the soil with water or water 
containing a chemical extracting agent to release and remove the 
contaminant from the soil particles. The extracting reagent may be 
any one of the lixiviants (chemical reagent used to extract a 
soluble component from a mixture), such as a solvent, a surfactant, 
a chelating agent, an acid or a base. The reagent may dissolve, 
precipitate or separate the contaminant from the soil. 


To be effective, soil washing must either transfer the contaminants 
to the wash fluids or concentrate the contaminants in a fraction of 
the original volume, using size separation techniques. In either 
case, soil washing must be used in conjunction with other treatment 
technologies, to clean either the washing fluid or the residues. 


The resulting mixture is mechanically aerated, centrifuged or 
filtered to separate the extracting reagent with the contaminant 
from soil. The soil may be washed or aerated to remove residual 
extracting reagent. The recovered extracting agent is then filtered 
to remove particulates and treated to remove contaminants. Some 
extraction chemicals can be reused. 


Applicability 
With the use of appropriate extracting agents this process can 
effectively remove petroleum hydrocarbons and fuel residuals, 


heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides, PCB, cyanides, wood 
preservatives, and creosote. 


Can be used to treat soils contaminated with acids, base and 
heavy metals and soils with high moisture content. 


Potential Advantages 
© wide range of applications. 
Potential Limitations 


9 clay content greater than 20 to 30 percent; 

£ high level of volatile organic carbon may combine with 
the extracting agent; 

not all organic compounds can be removed effectively. 


ah, 


1.1.5 SOIL VAPOUR EXTRACTION 


Soil Vapour Extraction (SVE) involves the removal of volatile 
organic contaminants from the subsurface soils (unsaturated zone) 
by forcing air through the soil matrix, and extracting the organic 
vapour at the surface. 


A variation in the application of this technology involves 
injecting heated steam in the contaminated soil. Often called STEAM 
STRIPPING, this process extend the efficiency of the process by 
including organics not normally volatilized at normal temperature. 


If contamination extends below the unsaturated zone (vadose zone) 
to the saturated zone, SVE is used in series with the air sparging 
method (reviewed in following sections). 


The basic components of the system include: 


2 extraction well; 

9 induced air draft fan or vacuum pump; 

9 screened perforated pipes to direct air flow through the 
soil matrix; 

9 treatment unit such as an activated carbon filter to 
remove contaminants from the air emissions: 

© monitoring system. 


Applicability 


É gasoline, jet and diesel fuels from unsaturated 
subsurface area; 
2 degreasing solvents. 


Potential Advantages 


low costs; 


2 capable of removing hydrocarbon fuels from beneath 
buildings and paved areas without serious disruptions; 
9 low labour requirements. 


Potential Limitations 


removes only volatile organic compounds; 

not effective for soils below water table; 

performance can be affected by soil conditions; 

removal efficiency determined by spacing and depth of 
vents. 


0 © Oo o 


18 


1.1.6 AIR SPARGING 


Air sparging is an in situ treatment technology that injects air 
into the saturated zone, forming bubbles that rise and carry 
trapped and dissolved contaminants into the unsaturated zone. 
Through a subsequent treatment by soil vapour extraction (SVE), the 
contaminants can be removed from the soil. 


At the same time, a biodegradation mechanism may be present during 
air sparging. Aerobic biodegradation of contaminants by indigenous 
microorganisms requires the presence of carbon, nutrients and 
oxygen. Air sparging increases the oxygen content of the 
groundwater and thus enhances aerobic biodegradation. Certain 
organic contaminants, such as petroleum products, serve as a carbon 
source for naturally occurring microorganisms. The rate of 
biodegradation can be enhanced by optimizing the nutrient in the 
system. 


The basic components of the system include: 


© air injection well; 

2 air compressor 

2 screened perforated pipes to direct air flow through the 
soil matrix; 

2 monitoring system/well. 

Applicability 

S gasoline, jet and diesel fuels from saturated subsurface 
area; 

2 degreasing solvents. 


Potential Advantages 


low costs; 


9 capable of removing hydrocarbon fuels from beneath 
buildings and paved areas without serious disruptions; 
C low labour requirements. 


Potential Limitations 


© effective for soils below water table, when combined with 
soil vapour extraction in the unsaturated zone; 

2 removes only volatile organic compounds; 

2 performance can be affected by soil conditions; 

9 removal efficiency determined by type of soil: coarse 


grained soils (sand and gravel) are better than fine 
grained soils (silt and clay). 


19 


1.1.7 SOIL FLUSHING 


Soil flushing (also referred to as SOIL LEACHING) is an in situ 
treatment technology which involves injecting or flushing the soil 
with..a, solution.-to;.leach..out »contaminants ain the «soil. For 
petroleum hydrocarbons, non-toxic or biodegradable surfactants are 
added to the water to improve solubility and possible recovery. 
For heavy metals and inorganic contaminants, chemical reagents are 
added to the water to modify its pH or to enhance the solubility of 
the contaminants. After the leaching, the solution laden with the 
contaminants is sent to an on-site treatment plant for the removal 
of the contaminant. The treated water can be reused. 


Applicability 
Depending on the type of leaching additives and soil 


characteristics, the following chemical contaminants can be 
leached out: : 


2 heavy metals (lead, copper, zinc, chromium) ; 

9 halogenated solvents (trichloroethylene, 
perchloroethylene) ; 

I aromatics (benzene, cresols, toluene, phenols, xylene) ; 

9 gasoline, fuel oils, diesel, crude oil; 

© hydraulic and other viscous oils; 

o 


PCBs and chlorinated phenols; 


Potential Advantages 


© low costs; 
9 minimum labour requirements; 
fo no need for excavation. 


Potential Limitations 


2 difficult to confirm how well the objectives have been 
met ; 

injection of some chemicals into the subsurface may not 
be acceptable; 

soil conditions must be ideal (e.g. low permeability clay 
type soils do not lend themselves to this technology) ; 
increased potential for contaminant migration beyond the 
affected area; 

large volumes of water and chemicals may be required. 


20 


1.2 Inorganic remediation 


1.2.1 STABILIZATION / SOLIDIFICATION 


The main purpose of this technology is to immobilize the 
contaminants in the soil for safe disposal or reuse. The process 
involves the addition of a sufficient quantity of materials that 
combine physically (solidification) and/or chemically 
(stabilization) to decrease the mobility of the contaminants in the 
soil: 


Other purposes include: 


© limit the solubility of contaminants in the soil; 
detoxify contaminants; 
2 decrease the surface area through which the transfer and 


loss of contaminant can occur. 


Applicability 

9 soils contaminated with heavy metals; 

o soils moderately contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbon 
fuels; 

© soils moderately contaminated with refined petroleum 
products: 


Potential Advantages 


© raw materials are inexpensive; 

9 technology is well established and equipment is readily 
available; 

© least expensive of the ex-situ technologies. 


Potential Limitations 


8 restrictions may be imposed on future land use; 

2 long term integrity of solidified materials are not well 
established; 

° no approved test protocols for long term leachability; 

© presence of high levels of organics in the soil 


interferes with process. 


1.2.2 CHEMICAL EXTRACTION 


The same technology presented in Section 1.1.4 for organic 
treatment can be used for inorganics. The reagent is specifically 
selected to extract metals from the soil and then release them from 
the solution by either pH control and precipitation of metal 
oxides, or adsorption of metal complexes on adsorbing medium (e.g. 
resin). | 


21 


1.2.3 VITRTEICATION 


In-situ vitrification is a process by which the in-place 
contaminated soils are converted into a chemically inert stable 
glass and crystalline product through the use of electrical heat. 


Four electrodes are inserted into the contaminated soil in a square 
pattern and a small quantity of a mixture of graphite and glass 
Erit is) placed,in san "X" pattern onthe soil “surface: This 
provides a conductive path for the initial electrical current. 
When the electrical current is applied, heat is generated with the 
temperatures in the soil matrix reaching over 1,700°C. This causes 
the silica and aluminium oxides in the soil to melt. Any organic 
in the soil will be pyrolysed and resulting gases may combust at 
the surface when they come into contact with air. At the end of 
the specified time, all of the organics are destroyed. The 
electrodes are removed from molten mass which is allowed to cool 
into a vitrified mass entrapping remaining contaminants. 


Applicability 


Contaminated soils with a wide range of chemicals: 


2 heavy metals and plating wastes; 

© inorganics (fluorides, nitrates, chlorides and 
sulphates) ; 

2 PCBs; 

© high, -boiling; «organics  (PCBs,’. PAHs, tank bottoms, 


petroleum-based oils, heavy fuel oils, tank bottoms; 


Potential Advantages 


£ process can treat simultaneously soils contaminated with 
mixed classes of chemicals (both  organics and 
inorganics) ; 


treated by-product is not likely to have any environment 
or health impact. 


Potential Limitations 


9 cannot treat soils with high permeability; 

2 not suitable for soils located near groundwater and those 
with high organic content (over 10 percent); 

2 mercury will vaporize when exposed to vitrification 
temperatures; 

2 metal drums buried between electrodes may cause 
electrical short-circuit; 

9 soils with combustible liquids, low boiling liquids; 

9 deépthaupsto"17 im. ; 


2 expensive. 


22 


2. DEMONSTRATED SOIL REMEDIATION PROCESSES 
2.1 Definition 
Complex technologies are normally developed in 3 stages: 


1) bench (lab) testing; 
2) pilot plant testing; 
3) full scale demonstration and process commercialization. 


Once a vendor has tested and demonstrated that a technology can be 
used commercially, we refer to this technology as a process. Other 
vendors can also use that same technology (provided they do not 
infringe on patents), and after different tests and objectives, can 
develop a different process. 


This document is limited to the review of soil remediation 
processes demonstrated on a commercial scale as defined below: 


1) processes that have been submitted to pilot or full scale 
tests, 


and where promising and/or conclusive results have been 
published and reviewed by Canadian agencies, 


and where operation costs have been evaluated during the 
demonstration phase, and the process is commercially 
available from the proponent/vendor or a contractor; 


or 


2) processes that have been accepted for and have completed the 
Demonstration Program of the Superfund Innovative Technology 
Evaluation (SITE) program, under USEPA supervision (see next 
section) . 


2.2 Demonstration in Canada 


There are a number of programs in Canada which support research or 
demonstration of soil remediation technologies. The projects of 
these programs are listed in the Chapter 4. In this section, 
demonstrated processes (as defined in section 2.1) are reviewed. 


DESRT program 


In October 1989, a 5-year ($250 million) National Contaminated 
Sites Remediation Program (NCSRP) was initiated by the Canadian 
Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) to deal with sites 
contaminated by hazardous wastes. A total of $200 million is 


23 


committed to cleanup "orphan" sites, and $50 million to the program 
of Development and Demonstration of Site Remediation Technology 
(DESRT). 


The primary goal of the DESRT program is to work with industry to 
develop and test new methods for assessing and cleaning up 
contaminated sites (CCME, 1992). Proponents are invited to submit 
a demonstration proposal to both levels of government (provincial 
and federal). If the proposal is accepted at both levels, the 
project is funded at 50% (25% by each government) by the 
governments and 50% by the proponent. The report include a 
technical review of the demonstration, and an economic assessment 
of the commercialization of the technology. 


A summary of the demonstrated technologies are presented in Table 
1. Some projects involved more than one specific remediation 
technology. The demonstration of a properly selected combination of 
technologies is considered by DESRT as a new technology. 


CoSTTeP program 


The Contaminated Sediment Treatment Technology Program (CoSTTeP) is 
a demonstration program initiated by Environment Canada’s Great 
Lakes Environment Office and administered by the Wastewater 
Technology Centre (WTC) where a sediment treatment technologies 
database (SEDTEC) is maintained (WTC, 1992). 


A number of projects are still at the stage of bench testing, which 
is considered as emerging technology in this document. Only 
demonstrated projects at the pilot-scale or full demonstration 
levels are included in Table 2. 


2.3 Demonstration in the U.S.A. 


The USEPA demonstration program is part of the Superfund Innovative 
Technology Evaluation (SITE) program. The SITE program was 
developed in 1986 to promote the development and use of alternative 
and innovative technologies for Superfund sites (USEPA, 1986)... 
"Alternative and innovative technologies" are defined to mean 
technologies that permanently alter the composition of hazardous 
wastes through chemical, biological, or physical means, in order to 
Significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of the 
contaminants (Hill et al, 1991). 


The program is therefore not limited to soil remediation 
technology, but includes wastewater and leachate treatment, and 
hazardous waste treatment. Soil remediation technologies identified 
and demonstrated in this program are presented in this document. 


24 


The SITE program includes a systematic evaluation process (USEPA, 
1989), including the following programs: 


1) 


3) 


Emerging Technology Program: 


Before a technology is accepted into this program (through 
Requests for Pre-Proposals), sufficient research data must be 
available to validate its basic concepts. The program involves 
subjecting the technology to a combination of bench-scale and 
pilot-scale testing. The technology performance is documented 
in a report. 


The technologies identified under the Emerging Technology 
Program are not considered as technology demonstrated 
commercially. 


Demonstration Program: 


If bench and pilot test results are encouraging, the 
technology may proceed (after authorization) to a field 
demonstration. In this program, the technology is field-tested 
on hazardous waste materials. Engineering and cost data are 
gathered to assess the technology applicability for site 
cleanup. The Demonstration (Technology Evaluation) Report 
presents information such as: testing procedures, sampling and 
analytical data, quality assurance/quality control and 
Significant results. 


Under the Demonstration Program, new technologies are reviewed 
and results of the program published in annual technological 
profiles (USEPA, 1989, 1991a) and in frequent demonstration 
bulletins (e.g. USEPA, 1992). A summary of these technologies 
(which have completed the Demonstration Program and which are 
applicable to soil, sediment or sludge remediation) is 
presented in the Table 3. 


Table 3 does not include the numerous technologies currently 
at different stages of the demonstration program (site 
selection, pilot testing, data collection and report 
preparation). Some of the comments in the table are based 
either on the site demonstration reports or the VISITT 
database (see next section). 


Technology Transfer Program 


In this program, technical information on technologies is 
exchanged through various activities: SITE publications, 
reports, brochures, videos, public meetings, seminars, 
demonstrations SITE visits, exhibition, etc.. 


25 


Information from VISITT 


An information system has been set up by USEPA to help the distribution of 
new technologies. The VISITT (Vendor Information System for Innovative 
Treatment Technologies) was developed in 1991 by the USEPA (Technology 
Innovation Office) to provide current information on innovative treatment 
technologies (VISITT, 1992a). VISITT contains technology information 
submitted by developers, manufacturers, and suppliers of innovative 
treatment technology equipment and services. 


However, USEPA is quick to point out that the inclusion of specific 
technologies in VISITT does not mean that the Agency approves, recommends, 
licenses, certifies, or authorizes the use of any of the technologies. Nor 
does the Agency certify the accuracy of the data. Inclusion means only 
that the vendor has provided information in early 1992 on a technology 
that USEPA consider to be innovative (VISITT, 1992b). 


3. APPLICATION TO GTA SITES 


The first objective of this document, as mentioned earlier in the 
introduction, is to identify demonstrated processes that could 
remediate contaminated soils to levels dictated by either the 
Ontario decommissioning guidelines or the interim CCME remediation 
levels. The task is not as simple as finding a process with an 
efficiency matching the remediation factor of the contamination and 
cleanup levels. There are a number of factors that may affect the 
efficiency of the demonstrated processes, such as the type of soil 
(fine or coarse), the moisture content, the composition of other 
contaminants in the soil, etc. The use of Tables 1, 2 and 3 may be, 
however, the first screening process which would allow a proponent 
to reduce the number of demonstrated technologies to a manageable 
group. 


3.1 Ontario Remediation Levels 


A number of decommissioning and cleanup criteria for inorganic 
contaminants are set in the Ontario decommissioning guidelines 
(MOE, 1990), and presented in Table 4. For comparison purposes, the 
interim inorganic remediation criteria developed by the Canadian 
Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME, 1991) are also 
included in this table. 


The Ontario decommissioning guidelines do not address the level of 
organic contaminants. Interim remediation levels for organics were, 
however, developed by CCME and these levels are frequently used in 
the development of cleanup programs in Ontario. A Materials 
Management Policy is under development in Ontario: one of the 


26 


purposes of the policy will be to classify any excess material 
under four material categories, leading to four management options. 
Until specific organic criteria are adopted in the Ontario 
guidelines, the CCME levels are considered interim levels in 
Ontario. Table 5 summarizes the main groups of organics. 


3.2- Ataratiri Sate 


The Ataratiri site is a land area of approximately 32.4 hectares, 
adjacent to the West side of the Don River and South of Eastern 
Avenue. A summary of the numerous samples taken during the 
characterization of the site is presented in Tables 6 and 7. 


Average inorganic levels are below decommissioning guidelines, 
although maxima are generally above these guidelines. The average 
concentrations for a number of organics (e.g. naphthalene, 
phenanthrene, PCDD/PCDF and PCB) exceed the residential CCME 
interim guidelines, without exceeding the commercial/industrial 
ones. 


Remediation technologies suitable for inorganics would need an 
efficiency of near 98% for the maximum levels recorded for certain 
metals (zinc, copper, nickel and lead). Organic remediation would 
require technologies near 99.9% for treatment of maximum 
concentrations of naphthalene and PCB. For the average naphthalene 
concentration (23.9 ppm), an efficiency of 80% would be required to 
meet the CCME interim criterion of 5 ppm. 


The site is essentially a landfill where various types of materials 
have been used over the past 80 years as fill and land reclamation 
from the lake front. Because of the heterogeneity of the soil, in 
situ bioremediation can be excluded. The most suitable technologies 
would be chemical extraction or high temperature thermal 
destruction (in order to treat larger organic molecules). Low 
temperature thermal desorption would be applicable only in areas 
where light petroleum products were the only contaminants present. 


Since December 1992, Tallon Metal Technologies Inc. (Guelph) is 
conducting a pilot test on 35 tonnes of contaminated soil from the 
Ataratiri site. The Vitrokele (Trade Name) process uses chemical 
extraction technology, where a synthetic resin adsorbs heavy metals 
from the fine fractions of soil. Metals are later stripped from the 
resin and recovered. This process does not remediate the organics 
however. 


DT 


3.3 Junction Triangle 


The term "Junction Triangle" refers to an area located near the 
intersection of Bloor and Dundas streets, and enclosed by railway 
tracks forming a triangle. The area has a long history of 
industrial and commercial operations with numerous’ cleanup 
operations presently being conducted by individual industries. 


In general the inorganic levels are below the decommissioning 
guidelines, except for some spots where zinc (Zn) has been measured 
at near 800 ppm. Levels of organics measured at the most 
contaminated sites are typically in the 100 ppm range, and can be 
as high as 800 ppm (the general range of interim remediation levels 
for organics is 5-50 ppm; see Table 2). Soil contaminated by 
petroleum products (e.g. diesel fuel and gasoline) could be as high 
as 6,000 ppm in certain areas. 


Inorganic remediation technologies would require in general 95% 
efficiency. The same level of efficiency would be required also for 
treatment of organic contamination. 


The types and levels of contamination are site specific, 
consequently we can only talk in general terms in this document. 
The type of soil in the area is generally clay in the northern 
parts and sandy-gravel type in the southern parts of the site. In 
situ treatment could be feasible in the southern areas, due to the 
type of soil. Other factors to consider are the type and 
concentration of the contaminants found at specific sites. 


3.4... Port._Industrial District 


The Port Industrial District (PID) represents an area of some 300 
hectares bounded to the north by Lakeshore Boulevard East, to the 
south and west by Lake Ontario and to the east by Leslie Street. 
The area has been under the management of the Toronto Harbour 
Commissioners (THC) since 1911. 


In a recent decommissioning strategy study (Beak, 1990), the audit 
identified 4 main potential contaminants (metals, hydrocarbons, 
PCBs and PAHs) in 10 major land use categories ranging from 
residential to industrial applications. The type of soil varies 
from site to site, depending on the type of fill materials used in 
the reclamation of the lakeshore. It can range from silt and clay 
to large aggregates and construction debris. 


From more detailed reports on specific sites (Golder, 1988; Golder 
1989), contamination levels were found to be typical of soil 
contaminated with petroleum operations and spills. Oil and grease 
levels were measured up to 1,000 ppm, other organics up to 100 ppm 
and metals in the 100-500 ppm range (extreme of 17,800 ppm for 


lead). Inorganic remediation technologies would require in general 


28 


95% efficiency (not suitable, however, for "hot spots" of lead 
contamination). The same level of efficiency would be required also 
for treatment of organic contamination. 


3.5 River Sediment 


A comprehensive sediment quality assessment was done in 1985 (MOE, 
1985) for the Toronto waterfront. 


Humber Bay 

Sediments located near the discharge of the Humber River 
are the most contaminated of the Humber Bay sediments: 
inorganics (chromium, copper, lead and zinc) are 
typically near 60 ppm (maxima to 200 ppm, extreme to 580 
ppm). Total organic compounds (TOC) are typically 10-20 


ppm. 


Toronto Island and East Headland 

The source of contaminants for the Island and East 
Headland area is the Main sewage treatment plant. This 
area is relatively clean, however, with some isolated 
contaminated spots: inorganics were measured near 150 ppm 
at a few locations. 


Toronto Harbour 

The Toronto Harbour includes the Island Waterways, the 
main harbour and the Keating Channel. Contamination 
levels by inorganics are typically 200 ppm. 


River sediments would require a lower efficiency of treatment, 
Since their levels of contamination are generally less than 
contaminated soils found in the GTA. 


4. REVIEW OF CURRENT RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION NEEDS 


4.1 Current Research Programs in Ontario 


Current research, development and demonstration (RD&D) projects in 
Ontario can receive governmental support froma number of different 
programs. These include: 


a) Ontario’s Environmental Research Program (Table 8) 


the objective of the Environmental Research Program is to 
encourage excellence in environmental research by 
supporting research in priorities established by the 
Ministry of Environment and Energy’s Research Advisory 
Committee. 


29 


b) Ontario’s Environmental Technologies Program (Table 9) 


the objective of the Environmental Technologies Program 
is to develop new technologies to overcome 
environmentally damaging practices. The program focuses 
on the latter stages of the technology innovation 
process, the development, refinement and 
commercialization of the process. 


c) Environment Canada’s Contaminated Sediment Treatment 
Technology Program: CoSTTeP (see Section 2.2, Table 10). 


d) Canada-Ontario Agreement’s Great Lakes Cleanup Fund. 


e) CCME’s Development and Demonstration of Site Remediation 
Technology: DESRT (see Section 2.2, Table 11). 


£) National Groundwater and Soil Remediation Program 
(GASReP), coordinated by WTC (Table 12). 


These financial support programs usually have co-funding 
requirements between different levels of Canadian industries and 
governments, or even industry and government abroad. Activities 
also interrelate with the WTC’s CoSTTeP program and the USEPA’s 
SITE program (Table 13). 


The majority of the soil remediation RD&D is done in conjunction 
with a private sector company which either has a technology they 
are promoting or the firm has a site that requires cleanup. 
Project areas also overlap in that the cleanup may be for the soil 
and/or the water at a site. The projects do, however, focus 
primarily on either the soil or the water. 


Technologies being investigated cover the full range of chemical, 
physical and biological processes. In addition technologies are 
applied in-situ with the soil remaining in place or ex-situ with 
the soil having been removed from the ground. The same is true of 
contaminated water but ex-situ treatment is more common. 


Types of treatments considered for funding or funded by each of the 
agencies noted above are presented in Tables 8 to 13. Specific 
data from each project are available from the funding organization 
or the private sector company. 


30 


4.2 Additional RD&D Needs 


There is an appreciable amount of RD&D work being done in Ontario 
by private firms but most of it is concentrated in a few firms. 
Most of the University research projects are done by one 
institution. As a result, there is a great potential for other 
firms and universities to become involved with the development of 
soil remediation technologies. 


Table 13 (listing US emerging technologies) illustrates the wide 


range of technologies that are being developed. The wide range 
also shows the benefit of a funding program dedicated to promoting 
RD&D in soil remediation (Lewis et al., 1992). Ontario’s 


environment and green industry development could benefit from more 
emphasis being placed on hazardous waste treatment. 


The overlap of financial support to the same companies for the same 
or related project shows a need for close coordination between the 
support agencies. 


The primary area of emerging technology in the US is 
bioremediation. In view of the wide ranging temperature and soil 
conditions in Ontario that can affect the efficiency of this 
technology, it is recommended that research on applications of 
bioremediation also be emphasized here. To ensure that support 
does not duplicate USEPA efforts, it is recommended that impacts of 
cold weather and remote locations be the primary areas of research. 





=| wel CR à en. D | 
= nine | L sl 


1 oo.) to pane — © : See! . 
ond we er get “asie D es - 4 - po lne-cr ne 





jme n PER SEC = 


D ay . . ass | | 


a een, = tee = = ee) 
- wf 7 oe ct i em = 
À | 2 





F 2: en dl si oi —= 7 —— 
| setae cae | ST mit es 
‘a >» eet] | Lib pre ou ‘© ts : i a # 
e r 7 7 | L - _ 7 = | - 7 A 
fs are ol =~ an ory NC tha) oreo a al 
| | | a n L | 7 . = | 7 = 7 a | | a = at 7 i M À 
7 - nes | | ; 


——— 
ee 


pr 


= a PTE 


53 


JOQUINN VOITENDOS  # 










(10a) YO ‘urmuno; ouais 
*(ouy ‘s201a19S 
[AUSWUONAUX UOULUH 
Ayz2uu0}) ou] ‘s291A12S 

TAUSWUONAUX surely AA 











000+-6L8-+0+ 
ss231ng 114 


LOSL-69S-EIS 
pruqqnH wosysee *S 









Burysu M 110S 


spunodwo) siuv310 AAvoy ojqes1ddy 10N 


















(104) AM ‘SIT 
“ANNSU] 218259 UINS2M 


(+04) XL ‘uorsno 
‘our ‘dnoip 
* Â19A099Y PNpolg UI9IS2M 


sASUM ATIO 
jo 124090 poulmuoT) 





TTOT-ITL-LOE 
iy812dS souref 





TI8L-69S-£TS 
SiUBH quosng 


gonpoidig wn2|oreq 
‘S2ANBALIQ JUL [VOD o1quorddy 10N 


sUOquOIPÂH 
Wn2[01P4 ‘FIU2A]0S ‘BDOA 















[log ‘sUSWIpog 
‘so3pnis 












quouyeoT], PRO!WOYD 
pue pesiskyg V4 


12£6-£6+-EIL 
Ally preuog 


07£9-6€9-91+ 
sd sy) 

689+-9£€-91+ 

11004 qoy 


St9L-69S-EIS 
[21784 ydosor 

















(Zoq) olMUO ‘uourying 
‘gnuap AZojouyqse], Joremase M 


(+04) 
Wopsury pony ‘211USPIOJSUSH 
‘Ksoresoqvy] Zut1ds uaurem 


(pO) Wd ‘2112821109 
‘uormelodiog 200A, 


waisXg uoryesodvalog 
MOLJ-SSOID 


8SLL-69S-EIS 
ur uyof 














uaunus1] 
TIM) pue [8215444 
iq UONBIJENIA 
PUB UOrePIXO 


TTIIPL-8E+-++-10 
POOM 199° 


SSTT-68P-SIT 
TUH sures 
St9L-EYS—90T 


uiurefucg YEN 
ZISP-LLL-€08 


£899-17E-806 
uosung Arey] 


6P6L-69S-E1S 
vospreyory LOL 



































‘suoqresorphH] umejomd 
| 
| same IN 


sy 10N aes UNE 
a LE °N 


ojoonreD XuuzJ | Jo BoITeENIW MIS UT 
i | 


Revu 
Br ase B}U0D ABojouya £8ojouqoe 


sauedisiueq4 weiboig AGojouy9291 Huibsawy 3411S 
(panuijuod) er TGV L 


83390, 















(cod) VA ‘21S 
‘uoSuiysem JO Aus12AluN 


(02) Os ‘BIQuinjoD 
‘BuT[oreD nos Jo Ayssoatuy) 


EN 


S99L-69S-£IS 
SIMI] VULION 


60SL-69S-£IS 
Mom 230% 








uorenqiA 2ANdIOSpy 
1918 M PI9W 

















AU9AIOS poreuljoyD 

pue swWoly ‘soupy 
oneqdiry pue onewory 
*84dOd ‘sddod ‘sdod 
spunodwog 
uogres01pAH{ poTBulJo[yD 
330 pus sqdd 


o1qe211ddy 10N 


aiquorddy 10N 


SolTBWOIBONIN a1quouddy 10N 


Su0qu901PÂH 


2INRIOA poreULJO[YD opquorddy 10N 


Eee) HV EN at as anima “Tes 


ouszucg 
‘VOL ‘AOL ‘sdod 


a 


aiqeorddy 10N 


SEP 
OPTBIOA ‘SUP AAvoy 
Jousydosopysmusg 
‘2030917 

‘AU2A]OS 9IUU210 
‘suoqgus01pÂH Wn2[0rR4 
‘sjousyg porurlonq}) 
*sousyPy poreulJo[YyD 
*s4dod ‘8dddd ‘sdod 


res 


aiqvorddy 10N 


e1quor1ddy 10N 


suo] 
TUNIN ‘auydins ‘opruwsS 


sureang snoonby 
‘o8pnig ‘110$ 


[869-906-806 
uayD UI4D 


8ZEL-69S-E1S 
voNory vs] wry 


9OTL-69S-EIS 
19A00H-SIAUQ Apuam 


87EL-69S-EIS 
UOISTY ws] wry 


S99L-69S-ETS 
SIMI] BULION 


SSEP-ITE-806 
preusy vzuelodsy 


eBpnig ‘110$ 


1978 M “[10S 


so3pnis 
“S\USWIPIg ‘S]!Og 


B8PEL-69S-£15 
S2HON ABW 


9S8L-69S-E1S 


Joyempunolyp SIMS] preuoy 


1978 MA SS29014 
‘Inempunoly 
*JOTBMIISB AA 


EIPL-69S-E1S 
PUvIOI] uyor 


ETYL-69S-EIS 
puejosy uyor 


L69L-69S-EIS 
n°49180 sneuuy 


säuilieL 
OUI ‘110g 


LOSL-69S-EIS 
preqqny uosyour “¢ 


BIP9N 9ISBAA 


(nda) 
AuN uonwrIxOr 
reuLaUoIoUd 


9PST-ETT-EIS 
Bu Aseg 
S[BHAI8M SNOPIEZH 
Jo uormo}rx or 
pasissy AjrIuosenIN 
ss22014 
Teo1Zojorg s1qo1seuy 
3019804 WILJOIg 
stydonoueyr 


TTTE-8TEOIE 
VAIUZSOY oueng 


LOES-+ET-807 
W9P31H oueq 


6p£6-+T9-907 
oosig SU8H 


+OBL-ESY-80+ sS20014 
euosAjg neg]  uonmpixO on4jnouq 


O0IS-TE9-OTS 
Aun Apuey quouneosy AUY-X 


sprjos a7B32133y jo 
UOITBUIUTEUODOG pue 
uonezIlIQOUUT spe 


£000-689-80S 
IBYSBSBAIUIIG SIBAIIS 


LSTS-TET-EOL 
UOSIUSIN preuod 
TE6F-+Tt-6I+ 

39812ç se2n0q 


uolT8Ipouoloig MIS Uy 
2qqnqo1otn u234xO 


WIUNBIT] 1218 M 
onApavsoouq OIL 
quouryeosy, 

ary onApreoooyd ‘OIL 


£96T-LS+-61S 
slonng uBlig 


€967-LSb-61S 
sJonng uvllg 


sso001g 
soreioossy VAHO 


798S—-96S- 107 
INCH Weyzy 


TI1Y-96+-90+ aif 
uBplor aJopooyy | = eBnyinued jjoqdurea 


(sod) HO ‘unkrq 
‘amnsu] 
yoreasoy uo{8q jo AisJaAIuN 


(cod) SA ‘APIA punow 
‘guy ‘so1Zojouyse], 
raueuuonaug AiuriL 


(£0a) AI ‘or21800q 
‘Auedwo) jojdus “y'f 


(som va ‘mms 
“-ouy ‘s2130[ouU92 L UONUIPOUI9Y 


(+04) Wo ‘essor ues 
‘our ‘sning 


(+04) VO ‘oipuesT ues 
‘Quy ‘SŒU9I9S 2S]Nd4 


(Od) WW ‘1240puY 
‘Auedwo ABojouysel, [Sd 


(Sod) Ho ‘Av]pury 
‘uorrmodi07 


S99IA12$ UONBIPOUSY WHO 


(+04) orrmuo ‘uopuoT 
‘FAUSUUOTIAUX U9SINN 


(Sog) ole UO ‘uopuo 
‘TAUSWUOJIAUX YANN 


(£OH) fN “HEMIN 
‘“ÆBojouyæ]L 

Jo amnsuy 42519f MON 

(soa) LW ‘sang 
‘kZojouyso], 2 SOU219S 

[elouly Jo 2321109 BuRUoW] 





RBEUTH 
98} 002 43010 430ç0 ad 


sjuedisiue4 weiboig ABojouy9591 Huibsawy 31IS 
(penujuod)ct 319V1 


DAlL 


ojquot|ddy 10N 
spunodwop 


poyeussopeyuony 
pue parsu230[8H 


soluu310 
21J190dS$-u0N 12410 ‘sd 


sa1u8210 91J190d$-u0N 


soiuv310 21J190d$-u0N 


EE 


heared 
es 


saiuu310 2[qupu132poig 


spunodwo 
oiue810 21q8p8182poig 


Pao | 


aise aqenddy 


SEA uonenusouog-MoT | suonnjog snoonby 


a1quoriddy 10N 


21qu211ddy 10N 


23pnig ‘110S 


ejquoriddy 10N | seg ‘pinbr ‘pros 


ITEM 208JINS 
‘JoremMpuNoIH 


ajquorddy 10N ‘a3pnig ‘Tos 


21qu211ddy 10N 


sAuauIpoS 


ojquoiddy 10N ‘oBpnig ‘Tos 


ES 


T98L-69S-£IS 
SILBH oussng 


L6LL-69S-E1S 
UI91942P [neg 


ILTL-69S-EIS 
Joyreg Apuey 

vp8L-69S-E1S 
2ss01n) se[än0 


9S8L-69S-EIS 
smo] preuoy 


6b6L-69S-EIS 
uospreyory LL 


L69L-69S-E1S$ 
neysrey snouuy 


pS8L-69S-E1S 
Aapyreg worn 


9799-1 ZE-806 


HUULJ ome) 


9S8L-69S-E1S 
Sima] preuoy 


REUEN 
Palo Vda 


TI1+-96+-90+ 
UBPIOf 210POSUL 


87ZZ-BZE-SIP 
SUOWIWIS 1491 


Jo sueuufi M suByy 


TIZE-069-S19 
xo U2qoY 


ITTE-069-S19 
uuad[y pq 


I1T£-069-S19 
xoy u2qoY 


668S-LOS-TIE 
jewysy Jury 


608£-L9S-TIE 
A1 uoqoy 


C%E-LOS-ZIE 
AIS U2q0y 
6¢8S-96S-107 


Burinyos uyor 


L8ET-IL9-OIS 
SHIH preuoy 


Peu) ABojouqra |, 


2u0/945013p4H 
po3reds-11y 


ss2001g 
oueiquiayp dogiods, 


WOITBOTJIXOIOq 
Tog r1#0101g 
pue on4jo1ouq 


sS22014 1U2UrU21] 
ASEM PEXIW 
uonsenxy 

TER pus vorel [sid 
wrens yo 
JOTBIUIOU] 
Zuryes9wo[s3y 
a1u0949 
PS4-P2ZIPINLA 
sS22014 

uonepe139Q [e130101g 
—uonsenxx pinlA 


quounwes] [u21#0|014 
pus peormsy5 


UoreIpowosoig 


fBuinpelJ o1yewnsug 


1129 worrerpowoz01g 
opein-mojeg 


A8o[oug3 L 


sjuedisieq weiboig Afbojouysa| Buibsawy 311S 
(panunuod) et FIGVL 


JOQUINN UOITDI}OG —g 


(€03) LW ‘enng 
‘kBojouyso], 7 0us19¢ 
[JUIN Jo 22821109 eumuo 

(Zod) WO ‘AB CTUOW 
“guy ‘qoressoy 
pue AZojouyso] suBquioyy 


(70d) NL ‘211Axoux 
‘uorre1odi107 LI 


(+04) NL ‘2rrraxoux 
‘uorre1od107 J] 


(Zod) NL ‘2iraxouy 
‘uorm1odio) J] 


(£0a) TI ‘o8wo1yD 
‘ABojouy>L 589 Jo a1mnsu] 


(OA) “TI ‘oBvorg) 
‘ABojouyL #89 Jo a1mnsu] 


(roa) TI ‘o3e1q5 
‘ABojouy>æL #09 Jo oimnsu] 
(pod) [N “HUMoN 

‘ kBojouqoo] 

Jo amnsuy Aosior Mon Te 


INUID Yorvosay 1022 BvVUTIA] 


DOUVIQNS snopsEezey 


(+04) Vo ‘proou0D 


“oul “S2SIARS JUIUIUIZA0D 


SBojouqse] Jayempunoly 





soiu8810 21J190dS-U0N 


suoqI8201PÂH 
wnsjoned ‘sqod 


HS 


so1uu310 o1J190d$-u0N 


SOISUAA PAISULIOIY 2]N8IOA 


SOABIANS( J8L-T809 
‘sonpoid{g wnojoneg 


ime 


ejquorddy 10N 


SdOd ‘sopionsed 
‘S\U2A]0S POTBUIJO[YD 
‘sjousyd poyeulsojya 


aiquorjddy 10N 


aiquorjddy 10N 


suoqresolpAH] 
wnejoned ‘SHVd 


a 


aJS8M a1qmnddy 


soluB8iouy 21190 dS-U0N 


Ds 


ST 21N8I0A 


erquotddy 10N 


ojquorddy 10N 


sa1u8310 
3210 PUB SW AAvoH 


so3pnis 
‘siuauipes ‘SII0S 


so3pnis 
‘auowipos ‘s[!OS 
sa3pnls ‘spi|os 


JOTBMIISB M 
‘Jayempunoin) 


sey ‘pinbry] 


2189897 
‘1918M9ISEM 
‘Ja18mpunoin) 


so3pnig pue 


23uuiu1q 
OU POV 


ILTL-69S-ETS 
Joyreg Apuey 


LOSL-69S-EIS 
pruqqnH uosyouf *S 


66L-69S-E1S 
uospreyory LOL 


9S8L-69S-EIS 
smo] preuoy 


69PL-69S-E1S 
vous 211249!) 


pS8L-69S-E1S 
Aopyreg 1woey 


IE9L-69S-E1S 
Z918A[Y UlPUBIy 


ILTL-69S-EIS 
103184 pus 


8ZEL-69S-E1S 
VOST SIT WHY 


+LLL-69S-ETS 
SI8Y prempy 


€£99-17E-806 
1940Y [aByoyAy 


pS8L-69S-ETS 
Aapyreg 1W08N 


HÉBUEN 
wefoig Vda 


0858-1 9-917 
wsouldg ol 


109L-LT9-TOT 
JOUI2)S JOUI2 M 


IS88-6S8-bIL 
10J48L 2u29 ‘a 


00SS-999-LI9 
Jouog sourer 


OL6L-66L-609 
PIAUT SUSOW 


O197-169-91L 
yAzoums sewoyL 


6POE-BPE-SOE 
124007 wwI]I AA 


766£-88E-POS 
Iwoy UOTE A 


801L09-TH9-+H-10 
ueunysi A LB) 


THI£-ELT-EOE 
UBWISPIIAA SBWOY], 


€779-9LS-LOL 
ZU9[OLJN UBy BUCS 


€779-9LS-LOL 
ZU9JOIN Uy BUCS 


7B) U0_D ABojouyra |, 


Bun°W 
91n9/4 ysnosyL 
UONBOIJINIA 9158 M 


SS99014 UONOUTIXA 
quaajog AS1ou-MOT 


waysis 

Ped POZIPINLA PHQÂH 
uononnseg 2ANBPIXO 
Tesiwey901ouq 
paonpur-1958T 

quow Bol] 
UOTBUIIO[YIeq 
-0]0Ud 2ANONpPoY 
ABojouyse |, 
uon[n38090n9%/4 
au911n) sunsuayly 


UONBIPULI] 
uo192]4 A31ou3-u31H 


uolBIpawoy 
o1eulyo2I09 19 


quoWywoI] [U2IWaUT) 


quowywol], 
P9Su4-SpUuEne M 


quouneas], [U2IWOUD 


Juaun891L 
rIWoyD/fB0101014 


AB0[ouq | 


squedisiue4 weiboig ABojouyoe) Huibsawy 31IS 
(penunuo) et 414V1L 


(£04) Ho ‘ouspusdspu] 
‘uotyelodiog 01124 


(£0H) FN ‘211Au5q 
“oul ‘TUONBUIAIU] LAV 
pus ‘‘ou] ‘S20U919S-OJTAUT 


(£OD) WoO ‘aura 
‘uonu1od107 yoreesoy 


rauewuosaug pue A3Jouq 


(10H) WW ‘23p11que) 1554 
‘guy ‘Sutsooursuq 
pauswuosaug pue A31ou4 


(Sod) fN ‘uorurq 
“oul ‘WIOUANA “TW 


(70d) AN ‘IsJ9qUTY 
‘-quy ‘swiaysXg oing-onse[q 


(€od) Td ‘we 
‘Ie Jo AisioAluN pue 
Ausiaalun peuoneulaiu] BPHOIA 
“ANI98J yoreesoy WU2 U0]}90/F 


(cod) WI ‘23004 uog 
‘Quy ‘SOHOUTAON/A 


(pod) pueldug “pusi24919 
‘pou ‘iuowdo|249Q 
pus yoruosoy {48q 


(104) OD ‘uepio9 
‘SOUIJA] JO 10049S 0p810107 


(SO) Wo ‘Bsoy miuus 
“oul ‘SINDOD 


(Sod) vo ‘Bsoy muss 
‘oul ‘SINDOO 


3340/2493 





*Z66T ‘ISQUEAON ‘UOTITPA yas “seTtzorzq Abo TouyooL 
‘werborq uotjenteag AboTouyoaL eatqjeaouuyl punjzedns seul 
à 991n00S (Z) 


JOqUINN VOIS # 


49 


solue810 21J190d$-u0N 


S9IUUSJOUT 21JI90dS-U0N 


ajqurddy 10N 


s21u0310 WOW 


soiuu810 HOW |  spunodwo) sR] OW] 


spinbrT 
‘Los ‘spr1os 
JSTOMIIST M 


‘oyeyous] 
‘137empunox) 


o3pnig ‘Tos 


ILTL-69S-ETS 
Joyreg Apuvy 


1669-906-806 
unsn3ny yore 


BTEL-69S-EIS 
UONOTY VS] wry 


SLbI-£67-€0E 
Mids praed 


pS8L-69S-EIS 
Aapyreg 1wowN 


6£8L-69S-E1S 


UUVULLISH UBYyTBUOLS 


£98L-69S-ETS 
Aoras joinwy] 


8SLL-69S-EIS 
UIE Uyor 


pS8L-69S-E1S 
Aappeg 1woun 


ESLL-69S-EIS 
spreyory VA 


OZES-978-T1+ 
Bury cong “y 


OTES-978-7I+ 
JJud uoans 


OTES-978-TI+ 
eq uaydns 


SIST-8++-TI9 
su1qq0Q 1720 


SOvO-€7S-SOS 
S12M04 WO] 


TIBb-FTP-H19 
unyneys BATES 


9LSL-6T8-9IT 
Bury 2ou21muT 


ITEE-P8S-E19 
kpiong 077 


ITLE-9T8-TIF 
ayy [ned 


O6T1-T9L-+I+ 
UVI9H UU919 

TI8E-SLE-FIP 
soo] uyor 


uoneziiqnis 
SFR pue 


uononnseg S2IU8810 


wnsÂs ju2urne21]L 
UONSUMEA ploy 


WansÂs 1019831014 


stydonouvyr 


uondiog peo1Zojorg 


uOlyBUIWT]UODEq] [10S 
onsnossonsefy MIS uy 


oovuiny 2U01249 


vorrentyeniy pus 
quoWrTwas], POWYS 


soqqnussolg 


8522014 Tonejnsdvouq 


RUDOUL UIAOI 


(Sod) va ‘y3inqsniq 
‘U9218252Y 


S[BIIOTV SNOPIUZUH 10} JqusD 

(pod) va ‘Y8angsnig 
*yoreosoy 

STBlIayBW SNOPIVZUH 10} HAU2T) 


(com) Wd ‘y3mnqsniq 
‘2102524 
S[BUAIUN SNOPJIVZUH JO} INUIZD 


(€0A) NW ‘ursey) 
‘ouy ‘JO1LOIg 


(104) WN ‘s22m9 sv] 
‘ou ‘swasÂs ÂRA0%Y-014 


(104) HO ‘snquinjoD 
“ANINSU] [HOW 212084 


(Zo) HO ‘auury 
“OD XOIIM 27 1209484 


(104) olsmUO ‘HAN ATBYD 
‘pour 
‘upeuv) Jo Bou 2101 


(€o va ‘Y3snqsnid 
*(‘ouy ‘ABojouyoo], 
suoreredss Boopy [12u110}) 
woowy jo Ausdwop wnuiwnpy 


(€0a) LA “2219 YO 
“Cour ‘sur uapi1og Apouu0}) 
ou] ‘SWASÂS [UJaUIA SITY 


:(€04) WW ‘PIPUSXEM 
9S8L-69S-E1S nig U] Vondsosquy ‘ou ‘S201AI9S 


SIMI] preuoy ouinjg 2u0Z-OM], FAUSUUONAUX HV 


RBTUEN 
peuo ou A3ojoug2a Jodojaa 


; sjuedioieg weiboig Abojouyse| BHuibsawy 311S 
et 419V1L 


ABoyeNg uoure21L 
9099-S+T-L19 
1P204 ures 


AU2AIOS PITULIOTJOUON 


PUY POTUTIOTHS) ejquorddy 1oN | spinbr ‘sprjos 


PIN ASEM 





48 


266} ‘0€ Jequiecaq 


(sueah) 
000$ 
INIL/1S09 


enue ABojouyoa) 18jemeiseM 
Jajayy HAIUEH 


‘pr1 BuuseuIËUZ neelg 
Ajsipsey Ined 


Yyoueasey J8]EMPUNOJE) 0j 81]U8) 0OU8]E AA 
WEUIIO ‘M'H PUE Jayeg “47 


UOJUOUWUP3 Jo AISISAIUN 


enuss Abojouyoa) 18]eMe]seM 
ofejesoy jo1e9 


udjeno jo AlsieAIun 
JEANS USLEM 


(S)LN3NOdOHd 


weirboig uoT}eTpeuley ITOS pue 193eMpunozs S,MIOO 





“ABojouyoe} siyj Jo syuressuoo 

pue sejnquye euyep pue ‘suonesedo Buljuan jlos 
WO SINOÏEA ]E81 0} PasN SJ8]|JOIQ YIM payetosse 
Siejewered Buresedo snouea Jo spaya eu] Apnis 


‘H201p2q 
peinjoes pue snoeuabolajay ui UoleuIWe]Uo) 
Td VN7 JO inoleueq ajeos-eiod pue pjay ay) auiwex3 


‘X31 40 

UoNeIpewasoig NS UI JU819IJ}8 pue SUOINIOS jeIpawal 
jo Aianijap anoidwi 0} jem ajqeawied e yBno1y) 
Suolnjos elpawa: Bunoelui jo anjea ay) ayesjsuoWag 


“saueydoiy) pesuapuco 
pue -\Ayje jeJanas Jo wsijoqejaw jeiqoiolw puejsiepun 
pue ejeBnseaul 0} sjuawuadxe Aojeioqe] jonpuoy 


“07H pue 1y6I| AN Jo en 
eu} SeUIqWOO YoIym anbiuU98] UolepIXo paoueApe 
Buisn sejyejon ojueio ausoquie Jo uoipnusep Apnig 


‘sWe]sÂs 
209-49S Ul |IoS pue sjlo 10} SJU8l91}809 uolNquISIp 
eu PE SJU8H1H209 18/SUEJ} SSEW ay) eUIWA}Eq 


1VSOdOHd 10 AHVHANS/S1VO9 





‘SWE8NS S9-JJO 8ISEM JO UO!}ENINOIg PSouEyUZ 


“Spoyjay 

UoleIpeway Jeal|-pue-duing Uo suo}eo!dwy sji pue yooupag 
painjoes4 pue snoauaboisjay u! uoleulwejUoD ajesuapuoy sed 
Td N71 JO UoNeIpaway pue inoineyag eu} jo Apnjs pasodoig 


‘UOl]eIPaWAIOIg NIIS U] 
10} ABojouyoa 1 voippy juaioyj3 UE ayesjsuowag o} jesodolg 


‘WNa|Ol}aq ul 
Juasald Spunodwog siuaydoly| jo wsijoqejayy [elqouoly 91q01ey 


‘Senbluy8] uonepixo-ojou4 BUISA jlo payeulwejuo7 
wnejoe4 Jo BuueA [10S 10 Buiddujs-siy Wo peonpoig selijeloA 
oIUeÉIO ausoquiy Jo JuaWyeel| Se9-JJO Jo Apis ejeos-youag 


“SUOQIEDOIPAH WNa|ONag 
Aq pelEuIWE]UOS |I0S Jo UoHIeNXA (49S) pin} jeonOIedns 209 


* €6/¢661 YOd LOATOUd deHSv9 40 SNOILdIH9S3q 





x 





47 


Table 11: CCME’s DESRT Program Projects in Ontario 


DEVELOPER 


Ontario Ministry of 
the Environment 


Ontario Ministry of 
the Environment 


Ontario Ministry of 
the Environment 


Ontario Ministry of 
the Environment 


Dearborn Environmental 
Engineering 


EcoLogic International 
ine. 
Beak Consultants Ltd. 


Tallon Metal Technology Ltd. 


(FILE: GC:\TECH\SOILREM\0809TAB. DOC) 


ACTIVITY/TECHNOLOGY 


Clean-up of a tire fire site 
Clean-up of a PCB spill site 
Clean-up of an orphan hazardous 


waste disposal site 


Groundwater treatment for arsenic 
contamination 


Bioremediation of soils containing 
chlorinated phenols 


Thermal/chemical reduction of 
high strength PCBs 


Anaeobic bioremediation of 
chlorinated organic compounds 


Synthetic adsorbent for metals 
removal from harbour sediment 


Table 10 (Continued) : 


46 


Contaminated Sediment Treatment Technology Program 


(CoSTTeP) 


Beak Consultants Ltd. 
Sonofloc Environmental 
Technologies Ltd. 


Tallon Metal Technologies 
Tne. 


Waste Stream Technology Inc. 


Chemical Waste Management 
Inc. 


Sequential chemical leaching of 
metals from a river sediment 


Ultrasonic flocculation of 
suspended solids 


Acid solubilization of metals 
followed by chelation and 
separation for both river and 
harbour sediments 


Ex-situ bioremediation of harbour 
sediment 


Heat vapourization of organics 
followed by condensation 


45 


Table 10: Contaminated Sediment Treatment Technology Program 
(CoSTTeP) 


DEVELOPER 


Alteck Consulting Ltd. 


Umatac Industrial 
Processing 


Alberta Research Council 
Bergmann USA Inc. 


BioGenesis Inc. 


Cognis Inc. 


Dearborn Environmental 
Engineering 


Derrick Environmental 
Services 

Ensotech Inc. 

EcoLogic International 


Institute of Gas Technology 


Toronto Harbour 
Commissioners 


Siallon Technologies Inc. 


SNC Lavalin Inc. 


TECHNOLOGY 


Chemically assisted scrubbing 
followed by flotation separation of 
river sediment 


Heat vapourization and cracking 
of organic contaminants in harbour 
sediments 


Coal stripping of hydrocarbons 
followed by flotation separation of 
harbour sediment 


Soil washing of harbour sediment 
Chemically assisted soil washing 


Leaching and extraction of heavy 
metals from river sediment 


Biological treatment through 
landfarming of hydrocarbons in 
harbour sediments 


Physical and chemical separation of 
river sediments 


Chemical fixation of metals ina 
river sediment 


Thermal reduction of harbour 
sediment organics 


Solvent desorption of organics 
from harbour sediments 


Acidification/chelation/separation 
of heavy metals in harbour 
sediments 


Emulsification followed by 
solidification of hydrocarbons 


Chemical oxidation followed by 
biological treatment of organics in 
harbour sediments 


44 


Table 9: Ontario Environmental Technology Program Projects 


DEVELOPER 





EcoLogic International 
Inc. 


Trojan Technologies Inc. 


Tallon Metal Technologies 
Enc : 


Dearborn Chemical Co. Ltd. 


EcoLogic International 
Inc. 


TECHNOLOGY 





Therml/chemical reduction of 
harbour sediments 


Ultraviolet light destruction of 
organics 


Synthetic adsorbent for metals 
recovery from soils 


Bioremediation of soils Containing 
chlorinated phenols 


Thermal/chemical reduction of 
high strength PCBs 


Contaminated site containment 
system 


Pyrolysis of organic contaminants 


Bioremediation of organic 
contaminated soils 


Reductive dechlorination by 
bioremediation 


In-situ oxidation of organic 
contamination followed by 
bioremediation 





* Developer’s name is confidential at time of report 
preparation as a contract to fund project has not been 


signed. 


43 


Table 8: Ontario Environmental Research Program Projects 


DEVELOPER 


TECHNOLOGY 





Beak Consultants 


University of Waterloo 


Earth Science 
Association 


Earth Science 
Association 


Canviro Consultants 
Ltd. 

University of Guelph 

University of Waterloo 


University of Guelph 


University of Guelph 


Biodegradation of chlorinated 
solvents 


Nutrient delivery for 
bioremediation of chlorinated 
solvents 


Removal of organic 
contaminants from groundwater 


Organic removal by overland 
flow of groundwater 


Various treatment technologies 
for organics in soil 


Biosurfactants to remove 
organics from soil 


Chemical oxidation of coal 
tar residuals 


Bioremediation of polychlorinated 


phenol 


Supercritical carbon dioxide 


extraction of petroleum compounds 


Ecoplastics Ltd. Retractable composite absorbents 





42 


Table 7: Ataratiri Site: Soil Quality (Organics) 


NUMBER OF | AVERAGE MINIMUM 
CONTAMINANT SAMPLES (ppm) (ppm) 


MAXIMUM 
(ppm) 
D |e ee ee ees 
omens ser oies [nd cel os. 
| 















EESTI ERE 


*: expressed as 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents, in ppb. 


Source: Ataratiri Soil Management Report. Volume 1 - Text. Report 
prepared by Trow, Dames and Moore for the City of Toronto 
Housing Department. August 1991. 


41 


Table 6: Ataratiri Site: Soil Quality (Inorganics) 


CONTAMINANT NUMBER OF | AVERAGE MINIMUM 
SAMPLES (ppm) (ppm) 


nd 


Chromium VI 
Cre Total 


14,000 





Source: Ataratiri Soil Management Report. Volume 1 - Text. Report 
prepared by Trow, Dames and Moore for the City of Toronto 
Housing Department. August 1991. 


40 


Table 5: Soil Remediation Levels (Organics) 


(all values in ppm) 


CONTAMINANT MOE! CCME? CCME? 
(Resident. (Resident (Commer. / 
Parkland) Parkland) Indust. ) 


oars Silane Stee iden reamed 
RP CS 
eee Sea PS 


ti 


uo 


Toluene 


Chloropenols ee fe pes fs 


oO ju 


i 


Naphthalene 


Phenanthrene 


Chlorinated 50 
aliphatics 

Poly (3,4,5,6) 

chiorebeszenes 

PCBs 


PCDDs/PCDFs eae EC a aE 


Note: 


H Jui [un 
[=] 


01 





1) There are no cleanup levels for organics in the MOE 
guidelines. Source: Guidelines for the decommissioning and 
cleanup of sites in Ontario. Report prepared by Waste 
Management Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 
February 1989. PIBS 141E. 


2) Source: Interim Canadian Environmental Quality Criteria for 
Contaminated Sites. Report CCME EPC-CS34, August 1991. 


3) PCDDs and PCDFs expressed in 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents. 


39 


Table 4 : Soil Remediation Levels (Inorganics) 


(all values in ppm) 






















CONTAMINANT MOE! MOE! CCME? CCME? 
(Resident. een Hh (Resident (Commer. / 
Parkland) Indust. | Parkland) Indust. ) 


Jantinony i f2s fso tao go 
Re ta 


feat ee 


Se Gale [te Ite tin 
Chromium FE ERP 000 1,000 250 800 
Enter "2 
[cyanide (tot) [-- [2 [50 500 
ae 


Lead 












Molybdenum 






200 500 
Isiiver fs 020 as 


Note: 

1) Criteria for Medium & Fine Textured Soils. 
Source: Guidelines for the decommissioning and cleanup of 
sites in Ontario. Report prepared by Waste Management Branch, 
Ontario Ministry of the Environment. February 1989. PIBS 141E. 

2) Interim remediation criteria for soils. 
Source: Interim Canadian Environmental Quality Criteria for 
Contaminated Sites. Report CCME EPC-CS34, August 1991. 

3) Provisional guidelines (guidelines are tentative: actual 


permissible levels in other situations may vary according to 
site-specific circumstances) . 


38 


Toronto Harbor Soil recycling: soil 

Commission washing, metal 

(Toronto, Ont) dissolution, chemical 
hydrolysis & 
biodegradation 


Wastech Inc Solidification and 
(Oak ridge, TN) Stabilization 


- contam: inorganics, organics 
- efficiency: 75-82% (organics) 
for soil washing; 90% (light 
PAH ) for chemical/biological 
treatment 

- cost: * 


- contam: non specific 
inorganics, radioactives, non 
specific organics 

- efficiency: * 

- cost: * 





*: data not available 


Eli Eco Logic 


International Inc 


(Rockwood, 
Ontario) 


EmTech 
Environmental 
Services 

(Fort Worth, TX) 


ENSITE Inc 
(Tucker, GA) 


NOVATERRA Inc 
(formerly Toxic 
Treatments USA 
Inc) 

(Torrance, CA) 


Risk Reduction 
Engineering 
Laboratory 
(Cincinnati, OH) 


SBP Technologies 
Inc 
(Stone Mountain, 
GA) 


Silicate 
Technology 
Corporation 
(Scottsdale, AZ) 


SoilTech ATP 
Systems Inc 
(Englewood, CO) 


Soliditech Inc 
(Houston TX) 


Terra Vac Inc 


(San Juan, Puerto 


Rico) 


Sy 


Thermal Gas Phase 
Reduction Process 


Chemical Treatment 
and Immobilization 


Biotreatment Process 
(SafeSoil) 


In Situ Steam and 
Air Stripping 


Base-catalysed 
dechlorination 
process 


Membrane Separation 


Solidification and 
Stabilization 
Treatment Technology 


Anaerobic Thermal 
Processor 
(thermal desorption) 


Solidification and 
Stabilization 


In Situ Vacuum 
Extraction 


- contam: PCB, PAH, 
chlorophenols, pesticides 

- efficiency: 99.9999% PAH, PCB 
- cost: CDN $500/tonne 


- contam: heavy metals, non- 
specific organics 

- efficiency: leachate (TCLP) 
reduction by 100x or more. 

- cost: * 


- contam: petroleum HC, TCE, 
PAH, aliphatic solvents 

- efficiency: 86% (PAH), 99.5% 
(TCE) 

- cost: US $50-100/cu. yard 


- contam: VOCs, SVOCSs 

- efficiency: VOC (85%), SVOC 
(55%) 

- cost: US $100-300/cu. yard 


- contam: PCB, PCP 
- efficiency: 99.9999% (PCB) 
- cost: US $245/ton 


- contam: PAH, PCB, TCE, 
organic compounds 

- efficiency: 95% (PAH), 25-30% 
(smaller phenolics) 

- cost: * 


- contam: metals, cyanide, 
ammonia, heavy organics 

- efficiency for TCLP only: PCP 
(97%), arsenic (92%), chromium 
(54%), copper (90%) 

- cost: US $200/cubic yard 


- contam: PCB, VOC, chlorinated 
pesticides, VOCs 

- efficiency: PCB (99.99%), 
VOC/SVOC ( no TCLP leachate) 

- cost: US $120/300/ton 


- contam: metals, non-specific 
organics 

- efficiency: TCLP metals not 
detected, VOC detected 

- cost: US $152/cubic yard 


- contam: VOC and SVOC 

- efficiency: 92% in sandy 
soils, 90% in clays 

- cost: typically US $40/ton, 
range 10-150 depending on gas 
elluent and wastewater 
treatment requirements 





36 


Table 3: SITE (USEPA) Demonstrated Processes 


DEVELOPER TECHNOLOGY / PROCESS COMMENTS 


AWD Technologies 
Inc 
(San Francisco) 


BioTrol Inc 
(Chaska, MN) 


Bioversal USA Inc 
(Des Plaines, IL) 


CF Systems 
Corporation 
(Waltham, MA) 


Chemfix 
Technologies Inc 
(Metairie, LA) 


Chemical Waste 
Management Inc 
(Geneva, IL) 


Dehydro-Tech 
Corporation 
(East Hanover, 
NJ) 


Ecova Corporation 
(Redmond, WA) 


Integrated Vapor - contam.: VOC (6000 ppm), TCE, 
Extraction and Steam PCE 

Vacuum Stripping - efficiency: * 

(AquaDetox) - cost: US $20-50/cu.yard 
In-situ operation 


Soil Washing System - contam.: PAH, PCP, petroleum 
hydrocarbons, pesticides, PCB, 
industrial chemicals, metals 
- efficiency: 88-94% 

- cost: US $168/ton 


BioGenesis Soil - ‘contam: vol./non-vol. oils, 
Cleaning Process chlorinated HC, pesticides, 
(complex surfactant heating oils, diesel fuel, 
and water) gazoline, PCB, PAH 
- efficiency: 95-99% HC (up to 
15,000 ppm) ; sequential washes 
up to 50,000 ppm 
- cost: CND $60-100/tonne 


Solvent extraction - contam: VOC, PCB, dioxins, 

(liquified gases: PCP, refinery wastes’ 

propane) - efficiency: 90-98% (sediments 
360-2575 ppm PCB) 
- cost: PCB (US $150-450/ton), 
relative to job size 


Solidification and - contam: heavy metals, high MW 
stabilization organics 
(mobility reduction) - efficiency: leachate reduced 
by 94-99% 
- cost: US $73/ton 


X-TRAX process - contam: VOC, SVOC, PCB 
(thermal desorption) - efficiency: VOC (LT 1ppm), 
SVOC (LT 10-1 ppm), 120-6000ppm 
PCB reduced to 2-25ppm 
- cost: US $150-250/ton 


Carver-Greenfiled - contam: PCB, PAH, dioxin, 
Process oil-soluble organics 
(extraction of oil- - efficiency: below TCLP limits 
soluble contaminants) (leachate) 
- cost: US $10-300/ton (site 
specific) 


Bio-slurry Reactor - contam: PAH, creosote mostly 
- efficiency: 89% (2 weeks), 
93% (12weeks) 
= Cost: * 





Table 2: 


35 


CoSTTeP Demonstrated Processes 


DEVELOPER/SITE TECHNOLOGY / PROCESS STATUS 


Bergmann USA 
ine 

(Toronto’s 
Inner Harbour) 


Dearborn 
Environmental 
Consulting 
Group (Hamilton 
Harbour) 


Derrick 
Environmental 
Services Corp. 
(Sediment from 
Welland River) 


Eli Eco Logic 
International 
Inc. (Hamilton 
Harbour) 


DeVoe 

Environmental 
Lab. (Toronto 
Harbour Comm. ) 


SNC Lavalin Inc 
(Toronto 
Harbour) 


Tallon Metal 
Technologies 
Inc 

(Hamilton 
Harbour, 
Welland River) 


Water based soils 
washing (pre- 
treatment to SNC 
Bioslurry or 
Metanetix Process) 


DEARBORN 
Bioremediation 


Derrick Solid/Liquid 
Separation 
Technology 


EcoLogic Thermal 
Destructor (high 
temperature thermo- 
chemical reduction) 


Metanetix Technology 
(metal extraction) 


SNC Bioslurry 
Process (biological 
treatment) 


VITROKELE Technology 
(metal extraction) 


*: data not available 


- Pilot-scale test done at Toronto 
Harbour 

- efficiency: 99% in soil 

- cost: CND $50-75 US/tonne 


- contaminants: PAH, 
chlorophenols, pesticides 

- efficiency: 90-99% (depending on 
initial concentration) 

= COSE:. * 


- pilot-scale project completed 
Nov. 91 (Welland, Ont.) 

- efficiency: screening & 
separation system only 

- cost: * 


- contaminant: PCB 
- efficiency: (99.9999% PCB on 
bench-scale 

cost: CND $500 /tonne 


contaminants: heavy metals 
efficiency: 95% 
cost: * 


- contaminants: oils, MAH, PAH 
(pretreatment required for 
screening and metal extraction) 
- efficiency: * 

- cost: CND $50-100/tonne 


- contaminants: inorganics 
- efficiency: 99.9 % of leachable 
metals 


- cost: CND $50-150/tonne 





34 


Table 1: DESRT Demonstrated Processes 


PROJECT SITE TECHNOLOGY / PROCESS STATUS 


Canada Creosote 
(Calgary, Alb.) 


Dearborn 
Environmental 
(Trenton, Ont.) 


Tallon Metal 


Technologies Inc. 


(Toronto, Ont.) 


Biogenie Inc 
(Quebec City, 
Que.) 


Vidangeur de 
Montreal Ltee 


(Montreal, Que.) 


Ville Mercier 
(Que.) 


Dept. of 
Transportation 
(Saint John, NB) 


Soil washing of 


river-bed gravel 


Native bacteria 
biodegradation 


"Vitrokele" process 


(absorbent) 


Enhanced 
bioremediation 


PYROVAC (vacuum 
pyrolysis) 


Soil washing 
(surfactants) 


Washing and 


bioslurry reactor 


treatment 


*: data not available 


- On-site pilot test 
completed in 1991 

- efficiency: * 
COCHE 


- Domtar Inc.’s wood 
treatment facility: PCP soil 
contamination 

- Schedule: Sept.91 - 
Fall’92 

- efficiency: * 

- cost: * 


- Heavy metal contaminants 
from lake sediment (Toronto 
Harbour) 

- efficiency: * 

== COST: “= 


- 500-tonne petroleum 
contaminated soil 

- efficiency: * 

- cost: * 


- petroleum, chlorinated 
solvent contaminated soils 
- efficiency: * 

- cost: * 


- site contaminated with HC 
and chlorinated organics 

- efficiency: * 

= cost: * 


- PCB and heavy metals 
contaminated soil 

- efficiency: *) 

- cost: * 





38 


USEPA, 1991b 
Guide for conducting treatability studies under CERCLA. Soil 
washing: interim guidance. EPA/540/2-91/020A. PB92-170570. 
September 1991. 


USEPA, 1992a 
SITE Demonstration Bulletin. Soil recycling treatment train. 
The Toronto Harbour Commissioners. EPA/540/MR-92/015, November 
1992. 


USEPA, 1992b 
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: 
technology profiles. Fifth Edition. EPA/540/R-92/077, November 
1992" 


VISTTIT,; 11992a 
Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment 
Technologies (VISITT). User manual (VISITT Version 1.0), 
USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 
Technology Innovation Office. EPA/542/R-92/001. June 1992. 


VESTTT, 1992D 
Vendor Information System EOr Innovative Treatment 
Technologies (VISITT). Database available on LAN (Waste 
Management Branch). Updated March 1992. 


WIC, 1992 
Sediment Treatment technologies database (SEDTEC) . Produced by 
Wastewater Technology Centre, Burlington, Ontario. Update 
December 26, 1992. 


(File: GC:\TECH\SOILREM\0809TEX .DOC) 


eal 


REFERENCES 


Beak, 1990 
Strategy for the decommissioning of soils in the Port 
Industrial District, Toronto, Ontario. Report prepared for the 
Toronto Harbour Commissioners by Beak Consultants Limited, 
September 1990. 


Beak, 1992 
A survey of microbial inoculants for bioremediation and 
identification of information requirements suitable for the 
feasibility evaluation and validation of bioremediation. 
Prepared for Hazardous Contaminants Branch, MOEE by Beak 
Consultants Limited. ISBN 0-7778-0322-4. PIBS 2152. November 
1992... 


CCME, 1991 
Interim Canadian Environmental Quality Criteria LoL 
Contaminated Sites. Canadian Council of Ministers of the 
Environment (CCME). Report CCME EPC-CS34, August 1991. 


CCME, 1992 
The national contaminated sites remediation program: 1991-1992 
annual report. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the 
Environment, CCME-EPC-NCSRP 52 E/P, ISBN 0-919074-92-8. 


Golder, 1988 
Testing of specific organic compounds in subsurface soils: EPC 
Ashbridges Bay Property, Toronto. Report prepared by Golder 
Associates to Esso Petroleum Canada. January 1988. 


Golder, 1989 
Management information strategy: Toronto terminal, 
Commissioners Street site, Toronto. Volume 2: appendices. 
Report to Texaco Canada Inc. by Golder Associates, SENES 
Consultants, ZENON Environmental Inc. and The Proctor & 
Redfern Group. January 1989. 


Kendall, P.R.W., 1991 
Identification of potential environmental and health concerns 
of soil remediation technologies. Environmental Protection 
Office, Department of Public Health, City of Toronto, November 
1991. 


Lewis, N.M., N.P. Barkley and Tracie Williams, 1992 
1992 Update of U.S. EPA’s Superfund Innovative Technology 
Evaluation (SITE) Emerging Technology Program. J.Air Waste 
Manage. Assoc., Vol. 42, No. 12 (December 1992), pp 1644-1656. 


MOE, 


MOE, 


MOE, 


MOE, 


Haat; 


32 


1985 

Historical development and quality of the Toronto waterfront 
sediments - Part 1. Report prepared by Water Resources Branch, 
Ontario Ministry of the Environment. May 1985. ISBN 0-7729- 
0493-6. 


1988 

Thirty seven municipal water pollution control plants: pilot 
monitoring study. Volume I: interim report. Volume Il: 
Appendix A. Prepared by Canviro Consultants for Water 
Resources Branch, MOE. December 1988. 


1990 

Guidelines for the decommissioning and cleanup of sites in 
Ontario. Report prepared by Waste Management Branch, Ontario 
Ministry of the Environment. May 1990. 


1992 

Remediation technologies for contaminated soils. Report 
prepared by Technology & Site Assessment Section, Waste 
Management Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment. ISBN 
027779'-0323-2. PIBS-2157.. October 1992. 


Ronald D. and Robert A. Olexsey, 1991 

Overview of the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation 
(SITE) program. Preprint series (RS-16), pp. 2-7. The EPA SITE 
program: innovative remediation technologies for hazardous 
wastes sites. Journal of the Air & Waste Management 
Association, 1991. 


USEPA, 1986 


Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) strategy and 
program plan. United States Environmental Protection Agency 
(USEPA) . EPA/540/G-86/001, OSWER 9380.2-3, December 1986. 


USEPA, 1989a 


The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: 
technology profiles. EPA/540/5-89/013, November 1989. 


USEPA, 1989b 


Guide for conducting treatability studies under CERCLA, 
interim final. EPA/540/2-89/058, 1989. 


USEPA, 1991a 


The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: 
technology profiles. Fourth Edition. EPA/540/5-91/008 November 
1991.
Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Application of soil remediation technologies in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA)"

See other formats
