Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report (Tenth Edition)


&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
(5102G)
EPA-542-R-01-004
February 2001
www.epa.gov/TIO
clu-in.org/asr
                Treatment Technoldgies for Site Cleanup:
                Annual Status Report (Tenth Edition)

-------
On The Cover


Top row from left to right:

Azospirillum brasilense, nitrogen-fixing soil bacterium.

Figure 10. Superfund Remedial Actions: Cumulative Trends for Most
Common Technologies for Source Control (FY 1988 - FY 1999), page 14.
See Section 2: Treatment Technologies for Source control, Most Common
Technologies for Source Control, for a discussion of this figure.


Middle row from left to right:

Model of an Air Sparging System. See page 5 for a description of air
sparging.

Model of Phytoremediation. See page 4 for a description of
phytoremediation.
Bottom row from left to right:

Figure 14. Superfund Remedial Actions: Percentage of soil Treated by
Technology Type (FY 1982 - FY 1999), page 22.  See section 2: Treatment
Technologies for Source control, Quantity of Soil Addressed for a
discussion of this figure.

Haiomonadaceae, bacteria believed to be capable of biodegrading the
herbicide 2,4 - dichlorophenoxyacetic acid.

-------
Table of Contents

List of Acronyms	v
Notice	:	vi
Acknowledgment	vii
Executive Summary	viii
Overview	1
   Introduction	1
   What Treatment Technologies Are Addressed in This Report?	 1
   Sources of Information for This Report	,...2
   Definitions of Specific Treatment Technologies	2
      Source Control Treatment Technologies	3
      In Situ Croundwater Treatment Technologies	5
      In Situ Groundwater Containment Technology	6

Section 1: Overview of RODS	7
   RODs Signed by Fiscal Year	8
   Source Control RODs	9

Section 2: Treatment Technologies for Source Control	10
   source Control RODS	10
   in Situ Versus Ex Situ Technologies	10
   Most common Technologies For source Control	12
   Implementation Status of Treatment
   Technology Projects	,	14
   Contaminants Addressed	17
   Quantity of Soil Addressed	19
      Volumes of Soil Treated in Trains	20
      Cumulative Soil Treatment Volumes	20
   Binders Used for Solidification/Stabilization	20
   Remedy Changes	23

Section 3: Innovative Applications	25
   Bioremediation	25
   Phytoremediation	28
   Innovative Technology Treatment Trains	30

Section 4: Groundwater Remedies	32
   in Situ Croundwater Treatment	32
   Vertical Engineered Barriers	32
   Permeable Reactive Barriers	34
   Monitored Natural Attenuation	34
5
gr
CD
o
o

-------
o
o
•fe
0)
JQ
 t
 1
Section 5: Superfund Removal Actions	37
Section 6: References and Data Sources	38
Appendix A - Superfund Treatment Technologies by Fiscal Year
Appendix B - Superfund Treatment Technology Summary Matrix
Appendix C - Treatment Trains with innovative Technologies
Appendix D - Treatment Technologies: Summary of Status Report Updates,
            Changes, Deletions
Appendix E - Superfund Remedial Actions: RODS selecting Natural Attenuation
Appendix F - Identification of Remedy and Record of Decision Types for Superfund
            Remedial Actions
index
 if
 if
 ii
 s
 1
 1,
 I
 i

 i

-------
Figures

-------
=
O)
4->
O
O
•fe
Tables

Table 1. Superfund Remedial Actions: Project Status of Treatment
Technologies (FY1982 - FY1999) , 16
Table 2. Superfund Remedial Actions: Contaminants Treated by
Technology Type (FY1982 - FY1999) 17
Table 3. Superfund Remedial Actions: Estimated Quantities of Soil
Treated by Source control Technologies (FY 1982 - FY 1999) .18
Table 4. Superfund Remedial Actions: Binders and Reagents Used for
90 Solidification/Stabilization Projects (FY 1982 - FY 1999) 22
Table 5. Superfund Remedial Actions: Number of Most Commonly
Changed Technologies (FY 1982 - FY 1999) 23
Table 6. Superfund Remedial Actions: Phytoremediation Projects
(FY 1982 - FY 1999) 29
Table 7. Superfund Remedial Actions: in Situ Groundwater Treatment
Technologies at 81 Sites Selecting These Technologies
(FY 1982 - FY 1999) : 33
Table 8. Superfund Remedial Actions: Types of vertical Engineered
Barriers at 51 Sites Selecting This Technology (FY 1982 - FY 1999)... 33
Table 9. Superfund Remedial Actions: Permeable Reactive Barrier
Projects (FY 1982 - FY 1999) 35
Table 10. Superfund Removal Actions: Project Status of Treatment
Technologies (FY 1982 - FY 1999) 37
*
i
-------
list of Acronyms
ASR Annual Status Report
BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and
xylene
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System
CLU-IN EPA's CLeanUp INformation system
Cr Chromium
CROW™ Contained Recovery of Oily Waste
cy Cubic yard
DRE Destruction and removal efficiency
EOU Excess, obsolete, or unserviceable
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
ESD Explanation of significant differences
FRTR Federal Remediation Technologies'
Roundtable
FY Fiscal year .
HTTD High temperature thermal desorption
LTTD Low temperature thermal desorption
mg/L Milligrams per liter
MNA Monitored natural attenuation
NAPL Nonaqueous phase liquids
NPL National Priorities List
OB Open burn
OB/OD Open burn/open detonation
OD Open detonation
OERR Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response
OSC On-scene coordinator
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
OU Operable unit
PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PCB Polychlorinated biphenyls
pCi/L Pico curies per liter
PRB Permeable reactive barrier
REACH IT EPA's REmediation And CHaracter-
ization Innovative Technologies on-
line searchable database
ROD Record of Decision
RPM Remedial Project Manager
S/S Solidification/stablilization
SARA Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act
SVE Soil vapor extraction
SVOC Semivolatile organic compounds
TIO Technology Innovation Office
ug/L Micrograms per liter
VEB Vertical engineered barrier
VOC Volatile organic compounds
o
I
<
CD
I
CD
CD
O
rs
o.
o
-------
o
Q.
CO
c
<
in
§>
'at
.o
o
o
4->

I
ro
0>
O
Notice
Preparation of this report has been funded wholly
or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) under contract numbers 68-W-99-
003 and 68-W-99-020. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use. A
limited number of printed copies of Treatment
Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status
Report (ASR), Tenth Edition is available free of
charge by mail or by facsimile from:
U.S. EPA/National Service Center for
Environmental Publications (NSCEP)
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419
Telephone: (513) 489-8190 or (800) 490-9198
Fax: (513)489-8695
An HTML and a PDF version of the ASR are
available for viewing or downloading from the
Hazardous Waste Cleanup Information (CLU-IN)
web site at http://clu-in.org/'asr. Printed copies of
the ASR can also be ordered through that web
address, subject to availability.
The data for the ASR have been incorporated into
EPA's REmediation And CHaracterization
Innovative Technologies (EPA REACH IT) on-line
searchable database at http:llwww.epareachit.org.
EPA REACH IT, sponsored by EPA's Technology
Innovation Office, is a system that lets
environmental professionals use the power of the
Internet to search, view, download, and print
information about innovative remediation and
characterization technologies. EPA REACH IT
provides information about more than 750 service
providers that offer almost 1,300 remediation
technologies and more than 150 characterization
technologies. EPA REACH IT fosters
communication between technology vendors and
users by providing information about the
availability, performance, and cost associated with
the application of treatment and characterization
technologies.
-------
Acknowledgment
This document was prepared for EPA's Technology
Innovation Office under contract numbers 68-W-
99-003 and68-W-99-020.
Special acknowledgment is given to the federal
and state staff and other remediation
professionals for individual sites, for providing
the detailed information presented in this
document. Their cooperation and willingness
to share their expertise on treatment
technologies encourages the application of those
technologies at other sites.
O

CD
Q.
(Q
o.
o
(Q
CD"
CO
sr
r-t-
tn
TO
CD
-------
t!
a
en
3
43
to
"ro
cy
'o»
_o
o
O)
I
£
CO
U)
£
1
o
III
•a
i
i
Exeeutivl :SunffllE?
This report documents the status, as of the summer
of 2000, of treatment technology applications for
soil, other solid wastes, and groundwater at
Superfund sites. The data in this report were
gathered from Superfund Records of Decision
(RODs) from fiscal year (FY) 1982 through 1999
and project managers at Superfund remedial and
removal sites. The report examines both source
control technologies (addressing soil, sludge,
sediment, and other solid-matrix wastes) and
innovative groundwater treatment technologies.
The principal technologies for the treatment of
soil and other solid wastes that are discussed in
the report are:
• on- and off-site incineration
• solidification/stabilization
• soil vapor extraction (SVE)
• thermal desorption
• bioremediation
The innovative groundwater treatment technologies
included in this report are:
• air sparging
• in situ bioremediation
• in situ chemical treatment
• dual-phase extraction (for soil and groundwater)
• thermally enhanced recovery
• surfactant flushing
• permeable reactive barriers (also known as passive
treatment walls).
In addition, one technology for groundwater
containment, vertical engineered barriers (VEB),
is addressed in this report.
This 10th edition provides a summary of the
technology applications identified for Superfund
remedial and removal actions. This report includes
data on 934 treatment technology projects, 834
of which are being carried out under Superfund
remedial actions. For the most frequendy selected
technologies in the Superfund remedial program,
the report analyzes selection trends over time,
contaminant groups treated, quantities of soil
treated (for soil treatment technologies)', and the
status of project implementation.
The major findings of this report on the use of
treatment at Superfund remedial action sites are:
• At over half (58 percent) of Superfund sites, the
remedy already implemented or currendy planned
includes treatment of a source or groundwater
(including groundwater pump-and-treat remedies).
• For treatment technologies (excluding groundwater
pump-and-treat) at Superfund remedial action sites, a
total of'353 projects (42 percent) have been completed
and another 276 (33 percent) are operational.
For the use of treatment technologies for source control:
• The percentage of RODs selecting treatment as a
method of managing sources of contamination .
increased from 40 percent in 1997 to 47 percent in
1999, while the percentage selecting containment has
decreased from 46 percent in 1997 to 32 percent in
1999.
• More than half of all source control treatments at
Superfund remedial action sites (58 percent) are ex
situ.
• More than twice as much contaminated soil is
undergoing remediation by in situ treatment (34
million cubic yards) than by ex situ treatment (14
million cubic yards).
• Approximately 47 percent of source control treatment
projects have been completed.
• In situ SVE is the most frequendy used source control
treatment technology (26 percent of source control
projects), followed by ex situ solidificadon/stabilization
(19 percent) and off-site incineration (13 percent).
• Approximately 57 percent (27 million cubic yards)
of the total volume of soil is being treated by SVE.
Results for contaminants treated at Superfund sites
indicate that:
• More than 80 percent of the Superfund remedial
projects in the report address organic contaminants.
• More dian 20 percent of the remedial projects address
metal contaminants.
Access to more detailed project information has
been made easier by the incorporation of the site-
specific data used as the basis for this report into
EPA's REmediation And CHaracterization
Innovative Technologies (EPA REACH IT) on-line
searchable database at http://www.epareachit.org.
Additionally, an HTML version of this report is
available at EPA's hazardous waste CLeanUp
INformation (CLU-IN) website at http://clu-in.org.
This report also includes a new appendix (Appendix
FJ that describes the classification of remedy types
and RODs. Appendix P provides details on the
methodology for analyzing RODs and the remedies
they select and identifying specific remedy and
ROD types. The procedures contained in Appendix
F are intended to provide a standard methodology
for identifying remedy and ROD types. Establishing
consistent and reproducible remedy and ROD
evaluation procedures will facilitate technology
transfer and data collection and reporting.
-------
Overview
Introduction
The Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup:
Annual Status Report (ASR), Tenth Edition was
prepared by the Technology Innovation Office
(TIO) of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) to document the
use of treatment technologies at hazardous waste
sites. The report presents a list and an analysis
of Superfund sites (both remedial and removal
actions) at which treatment technologies are
being used. Site managers can use this report
to evaluate cleanup alternatives for similar sites,
while technology vendors can use it to identify
potential markets for their products. EPA also
uses the information to track progress in the
application of established and innovative
treatment technologies.
The ASR usually is updated annually. The ninth
edition of this report, published in April 1999,
included data from Superfund Records of Decision
(RODs) through fiscal year (FY) 1997. This tenth
edition updates and expands information
provided in the April 1999 report with the
inclusion of data from FY 1998 and FY 1999
RODs. This document includes a list of sites
and an analysis of 834 applications of treatment
technologies under remedial actions'and 100
applications under removal actions. Added to
the update is information about 66 applications
of treatment technologies selected by RODs in
FY 1998 and 67 selected in FY 1999. A ROD is
die decision document used to specify the way a
site, or part of a site, will be remediated.

What Treatment Technologies
are Addressed in This Report?
Most RODs for remedial actions address the
source of contamination, such as soil, sludge,
sediments, and solid-matrix wastes. Such
"source control" RODs select "source control
technologies." Groundwater remedial action "a
non-source control action" may be a component
of the "source control" ROD and the treatment
technologies chosen for groundwater
remediation are referred to as "groundwater
technologies." Appendix F to this document is
a detailed description of the methodology used
to identify ROD types, including detailed
definitions of "source control," "groundwater
technologies," and odier remedy types.
ENTH EDITION
Apresentation of the actual remedies
- being implemented at Superfund
Trefftedial action sites, on a site-
f specific basis, based on a historical
review of RODs, ROD amendments,
Su I^Sn^JExplanatfonscf Significant
-r, Differences (ESDs),
. more detailed look at two
Jlppuonoyative treatment technologies,
"phyforemediation and permeable
^reactive barriers (PRB).
, Jyspecial analysis of vertical
-.engineered barriers, one type of
^t^Bffidwater containment at
~_ Superfunc[remedial action sites.
The ASR documents and tracks the use of source
control treatment, in situ groundwater treatment,
and groundwater containment remedies at
Superfund remedial and removal action sites. The
ASR also contains some limited information on
other remedies, including groundwater pump-
and-treat, and groundwater monitored natural
attenuation remedies.
The methodology used to determine ROD and
remedy types has evolved over time. As new
technologies are developed and innovative
techniques for site remediation are implemented,
the methodology for identifying ROD and
remedy types has been expanded to
accommodate them. Because the ROD and
remedy type identification methodology has
changed over time, the methodology and
definitions described in Appendix' F may not
be applicable to all RODs issued before FY 1998
and the remedies they contain. However, the
tenth edition of the ASR does use this
methodology for FY 1998 and FY 1999 RODs
and their remedies. The Appendix F
methodology will be modified to account for the
evolving nature of technologies.
The term "treatment technology" means any unit
operation or series of unit operations that alters
the composition of a hazardous substance or
pollutant or contaminant through chemical,
biological, or physical means so as -to reduce
toxicity, mobility, or volume of the contaminated
materials being treated. Treatment technologies
are an alternative to land disposal of hazardous
wastes without treatment. (Federal Register,

03
CO
e-t-
CD
ft-
o
rs
o.
o
eg
CD"
CO
Z3
=3
TO
CD
•a
o
-------
R
&
in
3
43
tn
75
C
S
o
I
CD
ro
0)
*
,2
0)
REMEDY TYPE SUMMARY
I
Source Control Treatment
• Treatment of a contaminant source.
"•" Can "include"any of the source control
" treatmenTtechriologies described in
this report.
Source Control Containment
• Containment of a contaminant source.
• Can include the use of caps, liners,
covers, arid landfilling both on and
off site.
Source Control Other
• Other forms of remediation of a
contaminant source.!
• Can include institutional controls,
monitoring, and population relocation.
Groundwater Remedy
• Remediation of a contaminated aquifer.
i Can include any of the in situ
groundwater treatment technologies
' described in this report, groundwater
• containment using vertical engineered
barriers", groundwater pump-and-treat,
and other groundwater remedies such
as institutional controls, monitoring,
and alternate drinking water supply.
volume 55, page 8819, 40 CFR 300.5:
Definitions).
Established treatment technologies are those for
which cost and performance information is
readily available. The most frequently used
established technologies are on- and off-site
incineration, solidification/stabilization, soil
vapor extraction (SVE), thermal desorption, and
pump-and-treat technologies for groundwater.
Treatment of groundwater after it has been
pumped to the surface usually involves traditional
water treatment and consequently pump-and-treat
groundwater remedies are considered established
technologies.
Innovative treatment technologies are alternative
treatment technologies whose limited number of
applications result in a lack of data on cost and
performance. In general, a treatment technology
is considered innovative if it has had limited
full-scale application. Often, these technologies
are established in other fields, such as chemical
manufacturing or hazardous waste treatment. In
such cases, it is the application of a technology
or process at a waste site (to soils, sediments,
sludge, and solid-matrix waste [such as mining
slag] or groundwater) that is innovative, not the
technology itself. Innovative technologies are
discussed in greater detail in Section 3.
Both innovative and established technologies are
grouped as source control treatment or in .situ
groundwater treatment technologies on the basis
of the type of application most commonly
associated with the technology. Some
technologies may be used for both source control
and in situ groundwater treatment. These
technologies and their respective groupings are
listed in Appendix R

Sources of information for This
Report
EPA initially used RODs to compile information
about Superfund remedial actions and used on-
scene coordinator (OSC) reports and the OSWER
Removal Tracking System to compile data on
removal actions. EPA then verified and updated
the draft information through interviews with
remedial project managers (RPMs), OSCs, and
other contacts for each site. Project status data
in the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS 3), EPA's Superfund tracking system,
provided more detailed information about the
specific portion of the remedy involving a
treatment technology. In addition, information
about technologies and sites identified here may
differ from information found in the CERCLIS
3 database. Such differences occur when changes
are made in the remedy during the design phase
of the project. The changes may not have
required official documentation (that is, a ROD
amendment or an explanation of significant
differences [ESD]), and hence, would not be
recorded in CERCLIS 3.

Definitions of specific Treatment
Technologies
This document reports on the use of the
treatment technologies listed previously and one
groundwater containment technology, VEB. This
section provides brief definitions of the 20 types
of source control (primarily soil) treatment
technologies, five types of in situ groundwater
treatment technologies, and one groundwater
containment technology, as they are discussed
-------
in this document. The definitions are based on
the Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
and Reference Guide, Version 3.0, which can
be viewed at the Federal Remediation
Technologies Roundtable (FRTR) web site at
http://www.frtr.gov. Sketches for some of the
newer innovative treatment technologies are
provided.

Source Control Treatment Technologies
BIOREMEDIATION uses microorganisms to
degrade organic contaminants in soil, sludge, and
solids either excavated or in situ. The
microorganisms break down contaminants by
using them as a food source or cometabolizing
them with a food source. Aerobic processes
require an oxygen source, and the end products
typically are carbon dioxide and water. Anaerobic
processes are conducted in the absence of oxygen,
and the end products can include methane,
hydrogen gas, sulfide, elemental sulfur, and
dinitrogen gas. Ex situ bioremediation includes
slurry-phase bioremediation, in which the soils
are mixed in water to form a slurry to keep solids
suspended and microorganisms in contact with
the soil contaminants, and solid-phase
bioremediation, in which the soils are placed in
a cell or building and tilled with added water and
nutrients. Land farming, biopiles, and
composting are examples of ex situ, solid-phase
bioremediation. In situ bioremediation is
bioremediation in place, rather than ex situ. In
situ techniques stimulate and create a favorable
environment for microorganisms to grow and use
contaminants as a food and energy source.
Generally, this means providing some
combination of oxygen, nutrients, and moisture,
and controlling the temperature and pH.
Sometimes, microorganisms that have been
adapted for degradation of specific contaminants
are applied to enhance the process. Bioventing
is a common form of in situ bioremediation.
Bioventing uses extraction wells to circulate air
through the ground, sometimes pumping air into
the ground.
CHEMICAL TREATMENT, also known as
chemical reduction/oxidation, typically involves
reduction/oxidation (redox) reactions that
chemically convert hazardous contaminants to
nonhazardous or less toxic compounds that are
more stable, less mobile, or inert. Redox reactions
involve the transfer of electrons from one
compound to another. Specifically, one reactant
is oxidized (loses electrons) and one is reduced
(gains electrons). The oxidizing agents most
commonly used for treatment of hazardous
contaminants in soil are ozone, hydrogen peroxide,
hypochlorites, chlorine, chlorine dioxide,
potassium permanganate, and Fentons reagent
(hydrogen peroxide and iron). Cyanide oxidation
and dechlorination are examples of chemical
treatment. This method may be applied in situ or
ex situ, to soils, sludges, sediments, and other
solids, and may also be applied for the in situ
treatment of groundwater.
ELECTRICAL SEPARATION relies upon
application of a low-intensity direct current
through the soil between ceramic electrodes that
are divided into a cathode array and an anode
array. This mobilizes charged species, causing
ions and water to move toward the electrodes.
Metal ions, ammonium ions, and positively
charged organic compounds move toward the
cathode. Anions such as chloride, cyanide,
fluoride, nitrate, and negatively charged organic
compounds move toward the anode. Removal
of contaminants at the electrode may be
accomplished by several means, among which
are: electroplating at the electrode; precipitation
or co-precipitation at the electrode; pumping of
water near the electrode; or complexing with ion
exchange resins.
For IN SITU SOIL FLUSHING, large volumes
of water, at times supplemented with surfactants,
cosolvents, or treatment compounds, are applied
to the soil or injected into the groundwater to raise
the water table into the contaminated soil zone.
Injected water and treatment agents are isolated
within the underlying aquifer and recovered
together with flushed contaminants.
Both on-site and off-site INCINERATION use
high temperatures, 870 to 1,200°C (1,600 to
2,200°F), to volatilize and combust (in the
presence of oxygen) halogenated and other
refractory organics in hazardous wastes. Often,
auxiliary fuels are employed to initiate and sustain
combustion. The destruction and removal
efficiency (DRE) for properly operated
incinerators exceeds the 99.99 percent
requirement for hazardous waste and can be
operated to meet the 99.9999 percent
requirement for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
and dioxins. Off-gases and combustion residuals
generally require treatment. On-site incineration
typically uses a transportable unit; for off-site
incineration, waste is transported to a central
facility.
o
S
CD
CD
t-t-

CD
CD
O

0_
O
XQ
CD"
CO
13
13
O)
ED
r-t-
co
TO
CD
TD
.O
-------
a
&
in
3
Q
to
"to
c
CD
I
£
I
I
o.
MECHANICAL SOIL AERATION agitates
contaminated soil, using tilling or other means
to volatilize contaminants.
NEUTRALIZATION is a chemical reaction
between an acid and a base. The reaction
involves acidic or caustic wastes that are
neutralized (pH is adjusted toward 7.0), using
caustic or acid additives.
OPEN BURN (OB) and OPEN DETONATION
(OD) operations are conducted to destroy excess,
obsolete, or unserviceable (EOU) munitions and
energetic materials. In OB operations,
energetics or munitions are destroyed by self-
sustained combustion, which is ignited by an
external source, such as a flame, heat, or a
detonation wave. In OD operations, explosives
and munitions are destroyed by detonation,
which generally is initiated by an energetic
charge.
PHYSICAL SEPARATION processes use
different size sieves and screens to concentrate
contaminants into smaller volumes. Most
organic and inorganic contaminants tend to
bind, either chemically or physically, to the fine
fraction of the soil. Fine clay and silt particles
are separated from the coarse sand and gravel
soil particles to concentrate the contaminants
into a smaller volume of soil. The smaller volume
then can be treated further or disposed.
PHYTOREMEDIATION is a process that uses
plants to remove, transfer, stabilize, or destroy
contaminants in soil, sediment, and groundwater.
The mechanisms of phytoremediation include
enhanced rhizosphere biodegradation (takes place
in soil or groundwater immediately surrounding
plant roots), phytoextraction (also known as
phytoaccumulation, the uptake of contaminants

Model of Phytoremediation
Photosynthesis
Transpiration
Dark Respiration
Uptake (and
contaminant
removal)
MtoKizaliwi _ " y 2 c^+S^le=
by plant roots and 'the translocation/accumulation
of contaminants into plant shoots and leaves),
phytodegradation (metabolism of contaminants
within plant tissues), and phytostabilization
(production of chemical compounds by plants to
immobilize contaminants at the interface of roots
and soil). Phytoremediation applies to all
biological, chemical, and physical processes that
are influenced by plants (including the rhizosphere)
and that aid in cleanup of the contaminated
substances. Plants can be used in site remediation,
both through the mineralization of toxic organic
compounds and through the accumulation and
concentration of heavy metals and other inorganic
compounds from soil into aboveground shoots.
Phytoremediation may be applied in situ or ex
situ, to soils, sludges, sediments, other solids, or
groundwater.
SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION (SVE) is used to
remediate unsaturated (vadose) zone soil. A
vacuum is applied to the soil to induce the
controlled flow of air and remove volatile and
some semivolatile organic contaminants from the
soil. SVE usually is performed in situ; however,
in some cases, it can be used as an ex situ
technology.
For SOIL WASHING, contaminants sorbed onto
fine soil particles are separated from bulk soil
in a water-based system on the basis of particle
size. The wash water may be augmented with a
basic leaching agent, surfactant, or chelating
agent or by adjustment of pH to help remove
organics and heavy metals. Soils and wash water
are mixed ex situ in a tank or other treatment
unit. The wash water and various soil fractions
are usually separated using gravity settling.
SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION (S/S)
reduces the mobility of hazardous substances and
contaminants in the environment through both
physical and chemical means. The S/S process
physically binds or encloses contaminants within a
stabilized mass. S/S is performed both ex situ and
in situ. Ex situ S/S requires excavation of the
material to be treated, and the resultant material
must be disposed. In situ S/S uses auger/caisson
systems and injector head systems to add binders
to the contaminated soil or waste without
excavation, and the resultant material is left in place.
SOLVENT EXTRACTION uses an organic
solvent as an extractant to separate organic and
metal contaminants from soil. The organic
solvent is mixed with contaminated soil in an
extraction unit. The extracted solution then is
-------
passed through a separator, where the
contaminants and extractant are separated from
the soil. Organically bound metals may be
extracted along with the target organic
contaminants.
For THERMAL DESORPTION, wastes are
heated so that organic contaminants and water
volatilize. Typically, a carrier gas or vacuum
system transports the volatilized water and
organics to a gas treatment system. Based on
the operating temperature of the desorber,
thermal desorption processes can be categorized
into two groups: high temperature thermal
desorption (HTTD) (320 to 560°C or 600 to
1000°F) and low temperature thermal
desorption (LTTD) (90 to 320°C or 200 to
600°F). Thermal desorption is an ex situ
treatment process. In situ thermal desorption
processes are discussed below as thermally
enhanced recovery.
THERMALLY ENHANCED RECOVERY is an
in situ treatment process that uses heat to
increase the volatilization rate of organics and
facilitate extraction. Volatilized contaminants
are typically removed from the vadose zone using
soil vapor extraction. Specific types of thermally
enhanced recovery techniques include Contained
Recovery of Oily Waste (CROW™), radio
frequency heating, conductive heating, steam
heating, in situ steam stripping, hot air injection,
dynamic underground stripping, in situ thermal
desorption, and electrical resistance heating.
Thermally enhanced recovery is usually applied
to contaminated soil but may also be applied to
groundwater.
VITRIFICATION uses an electric current to
melt contaminated soil at elevated temperatures
(1,600 to 2,000°C or 2,900 to 3,650°F). Upon
cooling, the vitrification product is a chemically
stable, leach-resistant, glass and crystalline
material similar to obsidian or basalt rock. The
high temperature component of the process
destroys or removes organic materials.
Radionuclides and heavy metals are retained
within the vitrified product. Vitrification may
be conducted in situ or ex situ.

In Situ Groundwater Treatment
Technologies
AIR SPARGING involves the injection of air or
oxygen through a contaminated aquifer. Injected
air traverses horizontally and vertically in channels
through die soil column, creating an underground
Model of an Air Sparging System
stripper that removes volatile and semivolatile
organic contaminants by volatilization. The
injected air helps to flush the contaminants into
the unsaturated zone. SVE usually is
implemented in conjunction with air sparging
to remove the generated vapor-phase
contamination from the vadose zone. Oxygen
added to the contaminated groundwater and
vadose-zone soils also can enhance
biodegradation of contaminants below and above
the water table.
With IN SITU GROUNDWATER
BIOREMEDIATION, substrates, nutrients, or
an oxygen source (for aerobic processes), are
pumped into an aquifer through wells to enhance
biodegradation of contaminants in groundwater.
Specific types of enhanced in situ groundwater
- bioremediation include biosparging and
bioslurping.
DUAL-PHASE EXTRACTION, also known as
multi-phase extraction, uses a vacuum system
to remove various combinations of
contaminated groundwater, separate-phase
petroleum product, and vapors from the
subsurface. The system lowers the water table
around the well, exposing more of the formation.
Contaminants in the newly exposed vadose zone
are then accessible to vapor extraction. Once
above ground, the extracted vapors or liquid-
phase organics and ground water are separated
and treated.
For IN-WELL AIR STRIPPING, air is injected
into a double-screened well, causing the volatile
organic compounds in the contaminated
groundwater to transfer from the dissolved phase
to the vapor phase in air bubbles. As the air
bubbles rise to the surface of the water, the
vapors are drawn off and treated by a SVE
system.

CD
QJ
ft-
I
•3
o.
o
70
CD
TD
O
-------
a
&
in
in
"ro
c
s
o
I
CD
1

I.
Model of a Permeable Reactive Barrier Model of a vertical Engineered Barrier
*T-%jme
Direction of >—
QrauncJwater Flow i. ".|J>
Porous Treatment
Media
De'crease?! ,
Ctintarninant'-
Cqncentratiori
PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIERS (PRBs)
also known as passive treatment walls, are installed
across the flow path of a contaminated
groundwater plume, allowing the water portion
of the plume to flow through the wall. These
barriers allow the passage of water while
prohibiting the movement of contaminants by
employing agents within the wall such as zero-
valent metals, chelators, sorbents, and microbes.
The contaminants are either degraded or retained
in a concentrated form by the barrier material,
which may need to be replaced periodically.
In Situ Croundwater Containment
Technology
VERTICAL ENGINEERED BARRIERS (VEBs)
are subsurface barriers made of an impermeable
material designed to contain or divert groundwater.
VEBs can be used to contain contaminated
groundwater, divert uncontaminated groundwater
from a contaminated area, or divert contaminated
groundwater from a drinking water intake or other
protected resource.
-------
Section 1: overview of RODS
As of August 2000,1,234 sites were on the National
Priorities List (NPL); 217 sites had been removed
from the NPL. Therefore, 1,451 sites are or have
been listed. An additional 59 sites are proposed
for the NPL. Some sites may cover a large area,
include several types of contaminated media, or
include areas in which the types of contamination
differ. To facilitate the establishment of remedies
at a complex site, the site may be divided into
operable units, with separate remedies for each.
Remedies for NPL sites are documented in Records
of Decision (RODs). A separate ROD may be
developed for each operable unit. In addition, each
operable unit may require a number of RODs to
address different media within that operable unit
or to revise the selected remedy. Therefore, each
site may have multiple RODs.
Through fiscal year (FY) 1999, approximately 2,292
RODs (including ROD amendments) had been
signed. Of them, 1,561 RODs for remedial actions
address the source of contamination, such as soil,
sludge, sediments, nonaqueous phase liquids
(NAPL), leacheate, and solid-matrix wastes; they
are referred to as "source control" RODs. Appendix
F to this report provides the definitions of the
various ROD types and the methodology used to
assign a type to each ROD. A type was assigned to
each ROD based on the remedies in the ROD. A
type was then assigned to each site based on the
types of RODs issued for that site. For sites for
which a number of RODs have been signed, the
hierarchy presented in Appendix F was used to
assign a site type.
At over half of NPL sites (58 percent), source
control or groundwater treatment has been
implemented or is planned as a remedy for some
portion of the site. For another 15 percent of sites,
the remedy does not include source control or
groundwater treatment but does include source
containment or off-site disposal of the source. For
17 percent of sites, no ROD has been issued.
Figure 1 summarizes the number of NPL sites for
each type of remedy.
Previous editions of the ASR quantified the remedy
types at Superfund sites based on the remedies
selected in RODs. However, the remedies selected
in RODs may not be the remedies actually
implemented at a site. For example, a treatment
technology that was selected in a ROD based on
bench-scale treatability testing may prove to be
ineffective in pilot-scale tests conducted during the
design phase; in such a case, a different remedy
Figure 1. Superfund Remedial Actions: Actual Remedy Types
At Sites on The National Priorities List (FY 1982 - FY 1999)
Total Number of Sites = 1,451
No Action Or No Further
Action (103)7%
Non-Treatment Groundwater
Remedy Only (36) 2%
No ROD (242) 17%
Other Source
Control (19) 1%
Containment Or Off-Site
Disposal of a Source (216)
15%
0>
o
c-t;
O
3
_A
O
CD

CD'
Treatment of a Source
or Groundwater (835)
58%
Sources: 1,2,3, 4,5, 6: Data sources are listed in the References and Data, Sources section on page 38.
Note: Appendix F describes the methodology used to indentify remedy types for each site.
-------
g
I
1
a
s
0)
CO
may be substituted. Additional contamination at
the site may be discovered during the
implementation of a remedy; a remedy change
might then be necessary. Further, a particular
remedy may have been included in a ROD only as
a contingent remedy, with future site investigations
revealing that implementation of that contingent
remedy was not warranted. When remedies are
changed, the changes usually are documented in a
ROD amendment or Explanation of Significant
Difference (BSD). However, some remedy changes
are not documented in that manner.
The information used to develop Figure 1 reflects
not only the remedies selected in RODs, but also
the remedies actually implemented or currently
planned at those sites. Sources for the information
include the RODs, ROD amendments, and ESDs
published for each site, and contacts with remedial
project managers (RPM) to identify the most
current remedy selected for each site. Figure 1
therefore reflects the current status of remedial
actions at NPL sites, rather than only the
documented historical decisions.
The HTML version of the tenth edition of the ASR
includes a downloadable spreadsheet to help site
managers, the regulated community, and remediation
professionals identify sites at which particular remedy
types are being implemented. The spreadsheet
contains information for each NPL site where a ROD
has been issued, including the site name, location,
and site type. The HTML version of the ASR can
be found at http:llclu-in.org/asr.

RODS signed by Fiscal Year
Data from FY 1998 and FY 1999 RODs are
included in this tenth edition of the ASR. Since
1988, the total number of RODs signed in each
FYhas fluctuated between 142 and 197. Figure 2
shows the number of source control RODs,
compared with the total number of RODs for each
FY since FY 1982. Non source control RODs are
those selecting groundwater remedies, no action,
or no further action without selecting any source
control remedies. Those RODs that select both a
source control remedy and a groundwater remedy
are considered source control RODs.
Since 1988, the total number of source control
RODs has varied between 97 and 135. Source
control RODs represented between 58 percent and
74 percent of all RODs signed in each of these
years. In FY 1999, source control RODs
represented 74 percent of all RODs signed in that
year. Appendix F presents the definitions of the
various ROD types and the methodology used to
assign a type to each ROD.
As Figure 2 shows, from FY 1996 to FY 1999 there
was little change in the total number of RODs and
the percentage of RODs that specified a source
control remedy.
Figure 2. Superfund Remedial Actions:
RODS signed by Fiscal Year (FY 1982 - FY 1999)
Number 12°
of RODs
Non Source Control RODs
Source Control RODs
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Fiscal Year
Sources: 3, 4,5, 6: Data sources are listed in the References and Data. Sources section on page 38.
-------
Figure 3. Superfund Remedial Actions:
source control RODS (FY1982 - FY 1999)
U)
CD
o

160
140
120
100
Number
of RODs
80
60
40
20
n

_
— i ••••'! Other Sour
(Institution
Monitoring
or Dispose
czi Source Co
ce Control Remed
al Controls,
, Relocation)
ntrol Containment
1
ntrol Treatment

F=
2 38
20 -^
3 0 i US'
Rfl.ffl, "^ ,

-t-
1
^
2®

25
vS
©0

-4-
1
:.^.!i;,,!.,
29
^

21
Mii

2
4Q
m

vi
34

5 2

-i-
_s — ;
zi

•+•
34
J
f?ffl

-t-
^
!
32,
i

•

-r-
^
11
i
47
>|
I

0®

.6.
i
I
4S!
•j
£
.

-I-
3
$
s
/i

-i-
-]
1
39;
m

•+-
T~i
22"
34;
— '
e®

82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Fiscal Year
Sources: 3, 4,5, 6: Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 38.
Source Control RODS
Source control RODs can be delineated further by
the general type of remedy selected: (1) RODs
specifying treatment, (2) RODs specifying on-site
containment or off-site disposal only, and (3) RODs
specifying institutional controls or other actions
(such as monitoring or relocation of the affected
community). Appendix F describes in detail how
remedy and ROD types are identified.
Shown in Figure 3 is the number of source control
RODs of each type. RODs that select treatment
may also include containment of treatment residues
or waste at another part of the site. In FY 1998
and 1999, the number of source control treatment
RODs was 47 and 49, respectively, which is an
increase from the 41 source control treatment
RODs issued in 1997- In all years from FY 1988
through FY 1999, the number of source control
treatment RODs was greater than 41. Figure 3
also shows that, since FY 1991, the number of
RODs specifying other remedies, such as
institutional controls, monitoring, relocation, or
other nontreatment remedies, has increased. In
FY 1998 and FY 1999, the highest number of
RODs specifying other remedies occurred, with
25 such RODs in FY 1988 and 22 in FY 1999.
Cumulatively, 899 source control RODs are of the
type "treatment", 563 "containment or disposal
only", and 99 "other".
O
$
CD"
70
o
o
CO
-------
2
§
o
8
&
I
o

I
CD
CN
o
Jj
Section 2: Treatment
Technologies for Source
Control
Source control treatment technologies are designed
to treat soil, sediment, sludge, or solid-matrix
wastes (in other words, the source of
contamination) and are not designed to treat
groundwater. In this section, source control
RODs are discussed first; however, most of the
information in this section focuses on
technologies, rather than RODs. It is important
to note that in each ROD that specified treatment,
more than one technology may have been selected.
Groundwater technologies are discussed in
Section 4. Some of the figures presented in this
section include information on in situ groundwater
treatment to facilitate comparison of source
control treatment to in situ groundwater'
treatment.
a high of 73 percent (FY 1989, 1991, and 1992) to
the current level of 47 percent (FY 1999). However,
the percentage of source control treatment RODs
each year has exceeded the percentage of source
control containment RODs for the past 13 years,
with the exception of FY 1997.
One notable observation is the increase in source
control RODs that select "other" remedies, such
as institutional controls, monitoring, and relocation
of affected populations. Such "other" remedies
represented less than 10 percent of source control
RODs from FY 1982 through FY 1996, but that
figure has increased to about 20 percent of all source
control RODs in FY 1999. Cumulatively, 57
percent of source control RODs are of the type
"treatment", 36 percent "containment or disposal",
and 6 percent' "other source remedy".
Source Control RODs
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 (SARA) expressed a preference for
permanent remedies (that is, treatment) over
containment or disposal in the remediation of
Superfund sites. From FY 1988 through FY 1993,
approximately 70 percent of source control RODs
contained provisions for treatment of wastes. As
shown in Figure 4, the percentage of RODs that
specify source control treatment has decreased from
in Situ versus Ex Situ
Technologies
In situ technologies for source control are those
applications in which the contaminated medium is
treated or the contaminant is removed from the
contaminated medium without excavating,
pumping, or otherwise moving the contaminated
medium to the surface. Implementation of ex situ
technologies requires excavation, dredging, or other
processes to remove the contaminated medium
before treatment either on site or off site.
Through FY 1999, 739 treatment technologies
have been, are currently being, or are planned to
Figure 4. Superfund Remedial Actions:
Trends in Types of source control RODS (FY 1982 - FY 1999)
Source Control Containment or Disposal
Source Control Treatment
Other Source Control Remedy (Institutional
Controls, Monitoring, Relocation)
Percent
of Source
Control 50%
RODs
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Fiscal Year
Sources: 3,4,5, 6: Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 38.
-------
Figure 5. Superfund Remedial Actions: Summary of Source Control
Treatment Technologies (FY1982 - FY1999)
Ex Situ Technologies (425) 58%
Chemical Treatment (10) 1% ———
Incineration (on-site) (42) 6%
Bioremediation (49) 7%
Thermal Desorption (61)
8%
Incineration (off-site) (94)
13%
Solidification/Stabilization (137)
19%
In Situ Technologies (314) 42%
Soil Vapor Extraction (196)
26%
Other (ex situ) (32) 4%
Neutralization (7
Soil Washing (6
Mechanical Soil Aeration (5
Soil Vapor Extraction (5
Solvent Extraction (4
Open Burn/Open Detonation (2
Vitrificat|on (2
Physical Separation (1
In Situ Solidification/
Stabilization(46)
6%
Situ Bioremediation (35)
5%
In-Situ Soil Flushing (16)
2%
Other (in situ) (21)3%—]
Thermally Enhanced Recovery (6)
Chemical Treatment (5)
Phytoremediation (5)
Dual-Phase Extraction (3)
Electrical Separation (1)
Vitrification (1)
Sources: 3, 4, 5, 6: Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 38.
be implemented for source control. Figure 5
provides a cumulative overview of in situ and ex
situ treatment technologies selected for source
control. The cumulative number of source control
treatment RODs exceeds the total number of
treatment technologies because the remedy at some
sites was changed from one that included a source
control treatment technology to one that does not.
Therefore, the remedies described in RODs do not
always represent what is actually occurring at a site.
As Figure 5 indicates, SVE (196 projects, 26
percent), solidification/stabilization (46 projects,
6 percent), arid bioremediation (35 projects, 5
percent) are the most common in situ
technologies. The most common ex situ
technologies are solidification/stabilization (137
projects, 19 percent); incineration (136 projects,
19 percent), both off-site (94 projects, 13 percent)
and on-site (42 projects, 6 percent); thermal
desorption (61 projects, 8 percent); and
bioremediation (49 projects, 7 percent). Some
42 percent of all treatments selected for source
control at Superfund remedial action sites were
in situ technologies.
The HTML version of the tenth edition of the
ASR includes a downloadable spreadsheet to help
site managers, the regulated community, and
remediation professionals identify sites at which
particular in situ and ex situ treatment technologies
are being employed. The spreadsheet contains
information for each source control treatment
project tracked in the ASR, including the site
name, location, treatment technology, and whether
the treatment is in situ or ex situ. The spreadsheet
can be used by RPMs, OSCs, and remediation
professionals to identify the sites using
technologies similar to their own, and assist in
technology transfer between those sites. The
HTML version of the ASR can be found at
http:\\clu-in.org\asr.
In situ treatment technologies increased as a
percentage of all treatment technology projects
between FY 1985 and FY 1996. While the
percentage of in situ treatment projects decreased
from a peak of 68 percent in FY 1996 to 45
percent in FY 1999, on average they remain at 42
percent .(see Figure 5) of all source control
treatment technologies from FY 1982 through FY
1999. Figure 6 presents the number of in situ
technologies as a percentage of all treatment
technologies for source control by fiscal year.
Over time, use of in situ technologies has been
CD

3
CD
Z5
CD
O
O.
O
CD"
to
O
c:
o
o
-------
8
I
1
I
o
Figures. Superfund Remedial Actions:
in Situ Technologies for Source Control (FY1985 - FY1999)
80%
70% •-
CM
1
60%
Percentage of
Source Control
Treatment cno/
Projects ou/0
40%
30%
20%
Percentage of Source Control Treatment
Technologies that are In Situ
----- Linear Trendline (In Situ Projects)
68%
85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93
Fiscal Year
94 95 96 97 98 99
Sources: 3, 4,5, 6: Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 38.
increasing, as the trendline in Figure 6 shows. A
five-year moving average of the percentage of in
situ treatment technologies shows a generally steady
increase from 28 percent (FY 1985 - 1988) to 51
percent (FY 1995 - 1999).
Several factors may play a role in the upward trend
in the use of in situ treatment technologies. Because
in situ technologies require no excavation, risk from
exposure to contaminated media is reduced,
compared with levels of risk associated with
technologies that do require excavation. Furdier,
for large sites where excavation and materials-
handling for ex situ technologies can be expensive,
in situ technologies are often more cost-effective.
Another factor in the more widespread use of in
situ technologies is their greater acceptance as a
reliable technology by site managers and other
remediation professionals. In situ treatment
traditionally has been considered an innovative
approach. However, as technologies are used more
often, site managers deciding on a treatment
technology can rely on a greater base of experience
to determine whether the technology will remediate
a given site successfully. For example, SVE and
thermal desorption were considered innovative
technologies in the eighth edition of the ASR. After
widespread use (26 percent of all source control
treatment projects are in situ SVE and 8 percent are
thermal desorption), site managers now have better
performance information and have more confidence
in their effectiveness. A significant body of
documentation on the performance of these
technologies already exists. For example, the FRTR
website at http://www.frtr.gov contains 31 and 17 cost
and performance reports on projects employing soil
vapor extraction and thermal desorption, respectively.
Each previous edition of the ASR included an
appendix that listed treatment technology projects
for source control at remedial sites by EPA region.
The printed version of this tenth edition of the
ASR does not include that appendix. However,
the HTML version of the tenth edition, which can
be accessed at http:llclu-in.org/asr, does include the
appendix. (The appendix also lists in situ
groundwater projects and Superfund removal
actions that will be discussed in later sections of
this report.) The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) REmediation And CHaracterization
Innovative Technologies (REACH IT) on-line.
searchable database (see Notice on page iii) provides
detailed information about treatment technologies
and projects sumarized in this report.

Most Common Technologies For
Source Control
For each fiscal year, Figures 7, 8, and 9 graphically
depict the frequency of selection and the percentage
of all projects for the three most frequently selected
treatment technologies for source control: SVE,
solidification/stabilization, and incineration (both
on-site and off-site). For each fiscal year from 1988
through 1999, Figure 10 shows the cumulative
-------
Figure 7. Superfund Remedial Actions: Trends for
Soil Vapor Extraction for Source Control (FY1985 - FY1999)
35
Number of
Projects 15
-D- Soil Vapor Extraction -
Number of Projects
-A-Soil Vapor Extraction -
Percentage of All Projects
60% percentage
of All
Projects
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

Fiscal Year

Sources: 3, 4,5, 6: Data sources are listed in the References andData Sources section on page 38.

-------
s
o
o
I
LJ
s
(Si
E
O
i2
8
CO
Figure 9. Superfund Remedial Actions:
Trends for Incineration for Source Control (FY 1985 - FY 1999)
12
Number of
Projects 10
Incineration -
Number of Projects
Incineration -
Percentage of All Projects
Percentage
50% of All
Projects
40%
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Sources: 3, 4,5, 6: Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 38,
Figure 10. Superfund Remedial
Actions: Cumulative Trends for Most
common Technologies for Source
Control (FY 1988 - FY 1999)
800-
700
600
500
Cumulative
Number of 400
Projects
300
200
100
88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Fiscal Year
Sources: 3,4,5, 6:
Data sources are listed
in the References and
Data Sources section
on page 38.
I I Soil Flushing (In Situ)
P-V-VJ Thermal Desorption
IV 'f '\ Bioremediation
umi Incineration
ETCTl Solidification/Stabilization
l ii Soil Vapor Extraction
Total for all Technologies
number of applications for source control. As the
figure shows, SVE, solidification/stabilization,
incineration, bioremediation, thermal desorption,
and in situ soil flushing continue to represent most
of the applications of source control treatment
remedies at remedial action sites.
Implementation Status of
Treatment Technology Projects
For in situ, ex situ, and groundwater treatment
technologies, Figure 11 shows how the status of
projects has changed since the publication of the
ninth edition of the ASR. Published in April 1999,
the ninth edition included data from FY 1982
through FY 1997 RODs, updated by RPMs through
August 1998. This tenth edition of the ASR includes
data from FY 1982 through FY 1999 RODs,
updated by RPMs through August 2000.
Completed projects are those where the treatment
has been performed and is no longer ongoing.
Projects that are completed may not have met all
cleanup goals.
Some observations on the status of treatment
selected in FY 1998 and FY 1999 at Superfund
remedial action sites are:
• 106 additional treatment technology projects for
source control and 27 projects for in situ
groundwater treatment were selected.
• Six projects selected in the period have been
completed, including three ex situ solidification/
stabilization projects, two off-site incineration
projects, and one thermal desorption project.
The completed projects used established
technologies that generally require relatively
short treatment times.
• An additional 40 projects became operational.
• An additional 15 projects have progressed
-------
Figure 11. Superfund Remedial Actions: Treatment
Technologies status by Technology Type
120%
100%
80%
Percentage
of Projects
60%
40%
20%
August August
1998 2000
Ex Situ Source
Control Technologies
| | Completed
|:;.;.:-.| Operational
D Design Complete/
Being Installed
gjfl Predesign/Design
August August
1998 2000
In Situ Source
ControlTechnologies
August August
1998 2000
In Situ Groundwater
Treatment Technologies
Sources: 3, 4, 5, 6: Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 38.
beyond the design phase, and the remedies are
being installed.
Some observations based on the data in Figure
11 are:
• In August 1998, 51 percent of ex situ source
control projects were completed, and 25 percent
were in the design phase. As of August 2000,
the percentage of ex situ source control projects
that were completed increased to 65 percent,
and the percentage in the design phase decreased
to 17 percent.
• The percentage of completed in situ source
control projects increased from 19 percent in
August 1998 to 23 percent in August 2000.
• The percentage of completed groundwater
projects increased from 4 percent in August 1998
to 5 percent in August 2000.
For each technology type, Table 1 provides a
summary of project status. Among ex situ
technologies, bioremediation represents the largest
number of projects (24) that are operational, even
though it is only the fourth most common ex situ
technology (see Figure 5). That high percentage is
most likely the result of the length of time required
for bioremediation, compared with other ex situ
technologies. For bioremediation, which enhances
the ability of microorganisms to degrade
contaminants, the time required to reach cleanup
goals often is limited by the natural degradation
process. The rate of degradation also varies
depending on the contaminant. Other factors such
as temperature and moisture, which are influenced
by the weather, play a large role in determining
the degradation rate for bioremediation. Because
of those considerations, treatment by
bioremediation typically requires a longer period
of time than other ex situ technologies, such as
incineration, thermal desorption, or solidification/
stabilization, for which the treatment rate is limited
primarily by the capacity and throughput of the
equipment used.
Among in situ technologies, SVE represents the
largest number of projects. About 80 percent of
the SVE projects are in me operational or completed
phase. Among in situ groundwater treatment
projects, air sparging is the most frequendy selected
technology.
a
o
CD
c-t-

CD
CD
O
13
O.
O

-------
I
8
Table 1. Superfund Remedial Actions:
Project Status of Treatment Technologies (FY1982 - FY1999)
o
O)

g
CO

£
• •
-------
Tne HTML version of tiie tenth edition of the ASR
includes a downloadable spreadsheet to help site
managers, the regulated community, and
remediation professionals identify sites at which
particular treatment technologies are being
employed and the status of those projects. The
spreadsheet contains information for each site
tracked in the ASR, including the site name,
location, treatment technology, and treatment
status. The spreadsheets can be used by RPMs,
OSCs, remediation professionals, and the public
to identify the sites using a particular technology
and obtain current implementation status for those
sites. One potential benefit will be to allow RPMs,
OSCs, and remediation professionals to identify
sites similar to their own that are in a similar
implementation phase, and assist in technology
transfer between those sites. The HTML version
of the ASR can be found at httf>:\\clu-m.org\asr.

Contaminants Addressed
The data collected for this report form the basis
for an analysis of the classes of contaminants treated
by each technology type at remedial action sites.
Table 2 provides that information, by technology,
for nine major groups of contaminants.
For this report, compounds are categorized as
halogenated VOCs, SVOCs, or PAHs according
to the lists provided in EPA's SW-846 test methods
Table 2. Supeifund Remedial Actions:
Contaminants Treated by Technology Type (FY1982 - FY1999)
Air Sparging
Bioremediation 1 9
Chemical Treatment 3
Dual-Phase Extraction 11
Electrical Separation 1
Incineration 48
Mechanical Soil Aeration 4
Open Burn/Open Detonation 0
Permeable Reactive Barrier 4
Physical Separation 0
Phytoremediation 3
Soil Flushing (In Situ) 8
Soil Vapor Extraction 171
Soil Washing 0
Solidification/Stabilization 15 .
Solvent Extraction 2
Thermal Desorption 29
38
1
6
0
29
1
0
0
0
2
6
91
0
7
0
20
2(d)
8(8)
0
0
2(f)
0
0
3
0
1
4
0
3
155
0
0
8
4
3
0
63
1
0
0
0
0
4
24
1
35
3
20
39
0
2
0
37
0
, 1
0
0
0
5
25
1
13
1
13
25
2
2
0
23
0
0
0
0
0
5
31
0
11
1
12
42
1
1
0
22
0
0
0
0
0
3
12
1
11
1
14
28
3
1
0
32
0
0 '
0
1
1
1
2
1
12
0
9
1
3
0
0
38
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
30
3
12
Thermally Enhanced
Recovery (in situ)
Vitrification
In-Well Air Stripping
TOTAL PROJECTS
360
225
166
169
141
116
115
94
91
(a) Does not include halogenatedsemivolatilepesticides and herbicides.
(b) Does not includepolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
(c) Does not include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, andxylene.
(d) Bioremediation ofhexavalent chromium. Biological activity resulted in an environment which reduced hexavalent
chromium to a trivalent state.
(e) Chemical reduction of hexavalent chromium to a trivalent state.
(f) Incineration oforganics with high tempertaure metals recovery of lead or mercury.
Sources: 3,4,5, 6: Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 38.

17
-------
£
8
o
4-1
s
CO

-------
Figure 12. Super-fund Remedial Actions: Box-and-Whiskers Plot
of Cubic Yards of soil Treated (FY1982 - FY 1999)

10,000,000 -
1 000 000

•inn nnn
1UU,UUU
_ .. -in nnn
Soil 10»ouu -
Volume
(Cubic ! ooo
Yards) ' ~
100
10
o
1

fc-

4
f

)

4
4

y_-

1
£

-^
-i
3

9
s

£
1

~a
1

7
*

1
1
J

•>

1
f

%
•J
;

0
V

;

C
C

)

• fl
i U pi 11
J3 p.g fc.3
'
,00°
J g
o

26 85 19 50
^ 2v ?\ ^
' iCy *Cy * w
o
N)
i
CD
Z5
O.
O

-------
I
o
"I
TO
(U
IN
c
o
or bottom of the box. Extreme values are more
than three box lengths from the top or bottom of
the box. Outliers and extreme values are depicted
on Figure 12 by circles.
With the exception of off-site incineration, the
median volume of soil treated for all technologies
falls between 10,000 and 100,000 cy. The range of
values, as shown by the length of the box and
whiskers, was much greater for SVE than for all
orner technologies. The 75th percentile value for
SVE, bioremediation (in situ), and solidification/
stabilization (in situ) is about 100,000 cy, indicating
that the volume being treated by these technologies
was about 100,000 cy for 25 percent of the projects
for which data were available. That finding indicates
that those technologies are applicable to sites at
which very large volumes of soil require treatment.
By comparing similar technologies that can be
conducted both in and ex situ, the box plot reaffirms
that in situ technologies are typically used to treat
larger volumes of soil. As Figure 12 shows, the
median and range of volumes of soil per project for
in situ bioremediation were greater than those for
ex situ bioremediation. The range of soil volumes
for in situ bioremediation also appeared to indicate
that it may be more applicable to projects for which
large volumes of soil require treatment.
Similarly, the median and range for volume of soil
per project for in situ solidification/stabilization
were a little greater than those for ex situ
solidification/stabilization. However, the range of
soil volumes treated for in situ solidification/
stabilization appeared to be limited to large projects,
while ex situ solidification/stabilization treatments
were applied to a wider range of soil volumes.

Volumes of Soil Treated in Trains
In some cases, two or more innovative and
established technologies may be used together in
treatment trains, which are either integrated processes
or a series of treatments that are combined in
sequence to provide the necessary treatment. Some
treatment trains are employed when no single
technology is capable of treating all the contaminants
in a particular medium. For example, soil
contaminated with organics and metals may be
treated first by bioremediation to remove organics
and then by soUdification/stabilization to reduce the
leachability of metals. In other cases, a treatment
train might be used to render a medium more easily
treatable by a subsequent technology, reduce the
amount of waste that requires further treatment by
a subsequent and more expensive technology, or
minimize the overall cost of the treatment.
The sites at which treatment trains were used and
for which data are available on the volume of soil
treated by each technology in the treatment train
are shown in Figure 13. The figure does not display
data for trains where data are available for only one
technology in the train. At nine sites where treatment
trains were used, the volume of soil treated by each
technology in the train remained the same.
At two sites, the volume of soil subjected to
subsequent treatment steps decreased by 20 and
50 percent. The initial technologies used in those
treatment trains were solvent extraction and
physical separation, respectively. The data indicate
that the use of solvent extraction in a treatment
train may reduce the volumes of soil that require
treatment in subsequent unit operations of the train.
In this project, solvent extraction was applied to
remove PCB's and solidification/stabilization was
applied to treat metals. The purpose of the physical
separation treatment technology is to concentrate
contaminants into smaller volumes.
At the Petro-Chemical Systems site, thermally
enhanced recovery is being used to treat 330 cy of
soil followed by SVE of 300,000 cy of soil. At this
site, the thermally enhanced recovery unit is treating
areas contaminated with NAPL and areas with high
contaminant concentrations. The thermally
enhanced recovery is expected to treat these areas
more quickly and effectively than SVE.
A detailed discussion of the use of treatment trains
that include innovative technologies is contained
in Section 3: Innovative Applications, Treatment
Trains, on page 30.

Cumulative Soil Treatment Volumes
For each technology type, Figure 14 shows the
percentage of soil volume being treated. As Figure
14 shows, a majority of the soil volume is treated
by SVE. As Figure 5 shows, SVE is also the most
frequently selected technology. Figure 12 shows
that SVE is the selected technology for projects for
which the largest volumes of soil require treatment.
Those factors explain the large fraction of soil being
treated by this technology. Figure 14 is based on
the 63 percent of source control treatments at
Superfund remedial action sites where soil treatment
data are available.
Binders used for Solidification/
Stabilization
The term "solidification/stabilization" is generic
and is applied to a wide range of discrete
technologies that are closely related in that both
use chemical and physical processes to treat a wide
-------
:^
52 >.
if
o
W

O ^
M 55
"O Ol
J= O)
to ^-
3 CM
u oo
c)
w ^
o ">
< £
— TO
E
f!
CD n
10 CD
ra
LL
£2
u
u
v»
a>
s
oo
n^

1
8
.S
41
S
**^
-------
g
8
5?
£
'6>
"o
O)
-------
and clays. Proprietary additives are those that
are considered trade secrets and were not
identified further. The most commonly used
binder or reagent was cement, followed by
proprietary additives, other inorganics, and
phosphate. Each solidification/stabilization
project may use more than one reagent.
Solidification/stabilization is used most commonly
to treat media contaminated with metals (see Table
2). Cement, other inorganics, phosphates, and lime
are probably the most commonly used
solidification/stabilization additives because they
often are used in the solidification/stabilization of
metals.
Additional information on the application of
solidification/stabilization can be found on the
CLU-IN website at http://www.clu-in.org. In
addition to HTML and PDF versions of this
document, the CLU-IN website contains the
following recently published documents on
solidification/stabilization:
• Solidification/Stabilization Resource Guide.
U.S. EPA: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. EPA 542-B-99-0032. 1999.
• Solidification/Stabilization Use at Superfund
Sites. U.S. EPA: Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. EPA-542-R-00-010.2000.
Remedy Changes
As indicated in Section 1. remedies selected for
Superfund remedial actions are documented
through a ROD. When a remedy is changed, the
change can be documented through another ROD,
a ROD amendment, or an BSD. A ROD
amendment also can be used to add a new remedy.
In .some cases, a decision
document is not necessary to
document a change if the new
remedy was included in the original
ROD as a contingency. Remedy
changes often occur during die pre-
design or design phase of a project
when new information about site
characteristics is discovered or
treatability studies for the selected
technologies are completed.
Many of the treatment remedies
that were modified involved a
change from a source control
treatment remedy to a remedy that
is not a source control treatment
remedy. Source control treatment
remedies have been changed to non-
treatment remedies at over 100 Superfund remedial
action sites. These remedies are often changed to
source control containment, groundwater pump-
and-treat, monitored natural attenuation, or
institutional controls. The most commonly cited
reason for changing a source control remedy to
another type of remedy was that further site
investigation revealed that the concentration or
extent of contamination was less than expected.
Other frequently cited reasons included rising
groundwater levels making soil treatment
impracticable, community concerns about on-site
remedies, and high costs. The Superfund program
allows EPA and state environmental regulators the
flexibility to modify remedies as site conditions
change. The frequency of remedy changes suggest
that regulatory officials are using that flexibility.
In 81 instances, one source control or in situ
groundwater treatment technology was replaced
with another treatment technology. Table 5 provides
information about the most frequently changed
treatment technologies, and the technologies that
replaced them, as indicated by cumulative data from
FY 1982 through FY 1999.
The technologies that were most frequently
changed to another technology were incineration,
bioremediation (both in-situ and ex-situ
bioremediation), and thermal desorption. Those
technologies are the third, fourth, and fifth most
frequently selected treatment technologies (see
Figure 5). Table 5 shows the technologies that
replaced 26 incineration treatments, 13
bioremediation treatments, and 12 thermal
desorption treatments. Incineration was replaced
by other commonly selected treatment
technologies, including thermal desorption (9
Table 5. Superfund Remedial Actions:
Number of Most Commonly Changed
Technologies (FY 1982 - FY 1999)

New 1 Technology Initially Selected .
Treatment Incineration Bioremediation Thermal
Technology ; 1 Desorption 1
Thermal Desorption
Solidification/ Stabilization
Bioremediation
Soil Vapor Extraction
Solvent Extraction
Incineration
Air Sparging
Chemical Treatment
Soil Washing
TOTAL NUMBER OF-
REMEDY REVISIONS.
9
6
5
5
1
-
0
0
0
26
4
1
-
2
0
5
1
0
0
13

0
0
5
0
5
0
1
1
12
0)
a
o
to
—I
3
CD
rt-
o
rs
o_
o
(Q
CD"
en
-3
CO
O
o
o
Sources: 3, 4,5, 6: Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources
section on page 38.
-------
§
s
O

I
4->
g
ro
O>
h-

CO
projects), solidification/stabilization (6 projects),
bioremediation (5 projects), and SVE (5 projects).
Bioremediation also was replaced by other
commonly selected treatment technologies,
including incineration (5 projects) and thermal
desorption (4 projects). Thermal desorption was
replaced by other commonly selected treatment
technologies, including incineration (5 projects)
and SVE (5 projects).
Previous editions of the ASR included an appendix
that listed all the technology changes, additions,
and deletions made since the previous edition of
the ASR. The printed version of the tenth edition
of the ASR no longer includes that appendix.
However, the on-line version, which can be
accessed at http://clu-in.org/asr, includes a revised
version of that appendix.
-------
Section 3: innovative
Applications
This section discusses innovative treatment
technologies for source control. In the Overview.
innovative technologies were defined as alternative
treatment technologies whose limited number of
applications result in a lack of data on cost and
performance. In general, a treatment technology is
considered innovative if it has had limited full-scale
application. Innovative technologies are used for a
variety of reasons, and have the potential for
providing more cost-effective and reliable alternatives
for cleanup of contaminated soils and groundwater.
In some cases, it may be difficult to treat a particular
waste or medium using an established technology.
For example, soil containing a high percentage of
large particle sizes, such as cobbles, boulders, and
large debris, may .be difficult to treat using ex situ
diermal desorption because many thermal desorption
units have limitations on the size of materials that
can pass through them. However, in situ
bioremediation may effectively treat the soil
regardless of its particle size distribution. In other
cases, an innovative technology may be less expensive
than an established technology. It may be expensive
to treat soils deep below the ground surface by
incineration because of die amount of excavation
required to reach die soil. However, a diermally
enhanced recovery process may •work effectively at
diat depth, resulting in a lower cost. Odier reasons
for selecting innovative technologies can include
reduction in the exposure of workers to contaminated
media; reduction in costs for excavation and
materials handling (in situ technologies); and
community concern about off-site releases of
contaminants, noise, or smell.
In die ninth edition of the ASR, SVE and thermal
desorption, formerly defined as innovative, were
categorized as established because of the large
number of applications of those technologies. In
addition, several reports and case studies were
published documenting their cost and performance.
In the tenth edition, no changes in technology
classifications are made.
The Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
(FRTR) has published more than 200 case studies
covering a wide range of treatment technologies that
are available for viewing online or downloading from
the FRTR web site at http://www.frtr.gov. Of diose
case studies, 27 discuss SVE and 12 discuss thermal
desorption. The case studies were developed by
EPA, DoD, and DOE. The case studies and abstracts
present available cost and performance information
for full-scale remediation efforts and several large-
scale demonstration projects. They provide
information about site background and setting,
contaminants and media treated, technology, cost
and performance, and points of contact for the
technology application. The levels of detail provided
in the studies vary, reflecting differences in the
availability of data and information.
The FRTR website also contains the North
American Site Demonstrations Database and
Reports. This resource contains information on
demonstrations of site remediation treatment
technologies in North America, and can be accessed
at http://www.frtr.gov/northa/scrguide. htm.
Although SVE and thermal desorption are no longer
included in the innovative category, there are
several innovative enhancements or adaptations of
those technologies. For example, SVE can be
enhanced by pneumatic fracturing or a variety of
thermal methods. Additional information about
enhancements for SVE systems is presented in
EPA's Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Enhancement
Technology Resource Guide (EPA-542-B-95-003)
and EPA's Analysis of Selected Enhancement for Soil
Vapor Extraction (EPA-542-R-97-007), available at
http:/lclu-in. org.
For source control treatment, Figure 15 depicts
the number and types of innovative and established
technologies used. As shown, innovative treatment
technologies represent approximately 20 percent
of all technologies used for source control.
Bioremediation represents most of the innovative
applications (84). Soil flushing (in situ) and
chemical treatment are the second and third most
frequently selected innovative technologies.
Innovative technologies being used for fewer than
nine projects at Superfund sites are listed under
the other innovative technology category, a total of
8 technologies and 29 applicaitons.
The remainder of this section discusses two
innovative treatment technologies in depth,
bioremediation and phytoremediation, and
describes current experiences in jointly applying
several treatment technologies, i.e., treatment
trains. Bioremediation is the most frequently
applied innovative technology. Phytoremediation
is a technology for which there are relatively few,
but a rapidly increasing number, of applications.
The use of a treatment train can render sites with
multiple contaminants or media that are difficult
to treat more amenable to treatment.
0>
a
o
3
CM
1
CD
•a
•a^

I"
o"
in
ij
Bioremediation
Bioremediation uses indigenous or inoculated
microorganisms (that is, fungi, bacteria, or odier
-------
o
I
a
'43
I
0}
CO
Figure 15. Superfund Remedial Actions: innovative Applications
of source control Treatment Technologies (FY1982 - FY 1999)
^m
a
i
I
m
1
I
E
All Technologies

Thermal Desorption (61)
8%
Incineration (136)
18%
Solidification/
Stabilization (183)
25%
Soil Vapor
Extraction (201)
28%
— Other EstablishedTechnologies (14) 2%
Neutralization ('
Mechanical Soil Aeration
Open Burn/Open Detonation
Innovative Technologies
Innovative Technologies (143)
19%
Bioremediation (84)
11%
In Situ Soil
Flushing (16)
2%
Chemical
Treatment (15)
2% '
Other Innoyative
Technologies
(29) 4% —
Soil Washing (6)
Solvent Extraction (4)
Vitrification (3)
Thermally Enhanced Recovery (6)
Phytoremediatjon (5)
Dual-Phase Extractjon (3)
Physical Separation (1)
Electrical Separation (1).
Sources: 3, 4,5, 6: Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 38.
microbes) to degrade (metabolize) organic
contaminants found in soil or groundwater.
Frequently, bioremediation techniques enhance the
activity of the microorganisms and subsequent
contaminant degradation through the use of
nutrients or, in aerobic bioremediation, oxygen,
or by controlling temperature and pH.
Bioremediation may occur through either aerobic
or anaerobic processes. The former involves the
conversion of contaminants, in the presence of
contaminated areas, while in situ groundwater
bioremediation involves engineering of subsurface
conditions to induce or accelerate biodegradation
of contaminants in an aquifer.
Examples of ex situ processes include slurry-phase
treatment and composting. Slurry-phase treatment
combines contaminated soil, water, and other
additives under controlled conditions in
"bioreactors," to create an optimum environment
for microbial degradation. Composting involves
sufficient oxygen, to carbon dioxide, water, and mixing contaminant-laden waste with a bulking
microbial cell mass. The latter involves the
metabolism of contaminants, in the absence of
oxygen, to methane, limited amounts of carbon
dioxide, and trace amounts of hydrogen gas. Under
sulfate-reducing conditions, sulfate may be
converted to sulfide or elemental sulfur. Under
nitrate-reducing conditions, dinitrogen gas
ultimately is produced.
Bioremediation can be conducted in situ or ex, situ.
The information about bioremediation presented
here includes its use on soil, sediment, sludge, or
other solid media, both in situ and ex situ, as well
as on groundwater in situ. Examples of in situ
processes include bioventing and in situ
groundwater bioremediation. Bioventing systems
deliver air from the atmosphere into die soil above
the water table through injection wells placed in
agent, such as straw or hay, to facilitate the delivery
of optimum levels of air and water to the
microorganisms.
Currently, 105 bioremediation projects have been,
are currently being, or are planned to be
implemented for source control and in situ
groundwater treatment. Figure 16 shows the types
of bioremediation for source control and in situ
groundwater treatment. More than half (54 percent)
of the bioremediation projects conducted at
Superfund sites are in situ projects, and 34 percent
are in situ source control projects. Bioventing is
the most common type of bioremediation applied
for in situ source control, with 24 remedies. Land
treatment is the most common form of ex situ
bioremediation, with 33 projects, followed by
composting (8 projects).
(e.
-------
Figure 16. superfund Remedial Actions.- Bloremedlation Methods
For Source Control and in Situ Croundwater Treatment (FY1982 - FY 1999)
In Situ Groundwater
Bioremediation
(Groundwater) -
Other (17) 16%
Bioremediation
(Groundwater) -
Biosparging (3)
3%
Bioremediation
(Groundwater) -
Bioslurping (1) (a) 1%
In Situ Source Control
Bioremediation
(In Situ)-Lagoon (2)
2%
Bioremediation
(In Situ) - Other (9)
9%
Bioventing (In Situ) (24)
23%
Ex Situ Source Control
Bioremediation (Ex Situ)
- Slurry Phase (2) 2%
Bioremediation (Ex Situ)
- Biopile (3) 3%
Bioremediation (Ex Situ)
- Other (3)
3%
Bioremediation (Ex Situ)
- Composting (8)
8%
Bioremediation (Ex Situ)
Land Treatment (33)
30%
(a) Bioslurpingcan be used to treat both soil andgroundwater. Reported data indicate that the one bioslurpingproject
implemented at a Superfund remedial action site treated only groundwater.

Sources: 3, 4,5> 6: Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 38.
Contaminant groups treated by bioremediation are
shown in Figure 17, which lists the number of
projects at Superfund remedial action sites
addressing each of eight groups of contaminants
through bioremediation. At some sites, more than
one contaminant group is addressed. Where
contaminants may fall into more than one group,
the groups have been limited to ensure that
contaminants are not double counted in Figure 17.
For example, some organic pesticides and
herbicides are also non-halogenated SVOCs.
However, the group "non-halogenated SVOCs" in
Figure 17 does not include any chemicals that are
in the "organic pesticides and herbicides" group.
The contaminant groups treated most often are
SVOCs (PAHs and other non-halogenated
SVOCs), it may be difficult to treat them using
technologies that rely on volatility, such as SVE.
In addition, bioremediation treatment often does
not require heating, requires relatively inexpensive
inputs, such as nutrients, and usually does not
generate residuals requiring additional treatment
or disposal. Also, when conducted in situ, it does
not require excavation of contaminated media.
Compared with other technologies, such as thermal
desorption and incineration (which require
excavation and heating), thermally enhanced
recovery (which requires heating), chemical
treatment (which may require relatively expensive
chemical reagents), and in situ soil flushing (which
PAHs, non-halogenated SVOCs (not including m3? require further management of the flushing
t-* v O \ i . j. . . -
PAHs), and BTEX. The types of Superfund sites
most commonly treated by bioremediation have
been contaminated through processes or wastes
associated with wood preserving and petroleum
refining and reuse. Wood preserving commonly
employs creosote, which has a high concentration
of PAHs and other non-halogenated SVOCs.
Similarly, petroleum refining and reuse processes
frequently involve BTEX.
Because the two contaminant groups most
commonly treated using bioremediation are
water), bioremediation may enjoy a cost advantage
in the treatment of nonhalogenated SVOCs.
Lower energy inputs are reflected in longer
remmediation times, as discussed on page 15 and
reflected in Table 1.
Additional,information on the application of
bioremediation can be found on the CLU-IN
website at http://www.clu-in.org. In addition to
HTML and PDF versions of this document, the
CLU-IN website contains the following recently
published documents on bioremediation:
(D
O
££
O
3
CM
CD
o"
!D
r+
o"
-------
to
O
Q.
Q.
CU
1*0
c
O
i,
en
Figure 17. Superfund Remedial Actions: Contaminant Groups
Treated by Bioremediation (FY 1982 - FY1999)

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Non-Halogenated Semivolatile
Organic Compounds (a)
Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene
and Xylene
Organic Pesticides and
Herbicides
Non-Halogenated Volatile
Organic Compounds (b)
Halogenated Volatile
Organic Compounds
Halogenated Semivolatile
Organic Compounds (c)
Explosives/propeilants

.•;•••••;. •-' .:'.. •.•'•:;"-•;; ;; - : : : ,_.;, .,.,., j 42

. . . . i

• ' .. . . - -• .-

.• .. ".; :.'•: ;.:-._..,;. '•'•.••,j

..• ;.... .',.;;.. .,;,i;..^. .,_ ••;...;l

-••'.-• J

] 8

..:„;,., j 7

I9
25
0 5 10 15 20 25

2
8

30 35
tt
39
40 4
(a) Doesnotincludepoly cyclic aromatichydrocarbons.
(b) Does not include benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, andxylene.
(c) Does not include organic pesticides and herbicides.
Sources: 3,4,5, 6: Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 38.
Engineered Approaches to In Situ
Bioremediation of Chlorinated Solvents:
Fundamentals and Field Applications. U.S.
EPA: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. EPA 542-R-00-008.. 2000.
The Bioremediation and Phytoremediation of
Pesticide-contaminated Sites. Chris Frazar.
National Network of Environmental
Management Studies (NNEMS) Fellow. 2000.
Phytoremediation
Phytoremediation is the use of certain features of
plants, such as their biological processes or physical
characteristics, to remediate contaminated media.
It encompasses a number of methods that can
address a variety of contaminants and media.
Phytoremediation can be used either to contain,
remove, extract, or destroy contaminants.
Containment is achieved through phytostabilization,
which immobilizes contaminants in soil. Removal
and extraction techniques may include
phytovolatilization, which is uptake and
volatilization of the contaminant, or rhizofiltration,
which is a process by which contaminants are
adsorbed onto the roots of the plants. Destruction
of the contaminant may be achieved through
phytodegradation or rhizodegradation, the former
being uptake and metabolism within the plant, and
the latter being enhancement of biodegradation in
the root zone.
For optimum effectiveness, the various forms of
phytoremediation require different characteristics
in the plants used. In general, terrestrial plants are
more likely to be effective for phytoremediation
than aquatic plants because their root systems are
larger. Poplar and cottonwood trees commonly are
used because they are fast-growing and have a wide
geographic distribution. Examples of other types
of vegetation used in phytoremediation include
sunflower, Indian mustard, and grasses (such as
ryegrass and prairie grasses).
Phytoremediation is a relatively new technology,
for which there are only a few applications at
Superfund sites. Table 6 lists nine Superfund
-------
Table 6. Superfund Remedial Actions.-
Phytoremediation Projects (FY1982 - FY1999)
I Site Name : Contaminants Media Remediating Flora Status
(Operable Unit) (Target Cleanup Type (a)
Levels)
Aberdeen Pesticide
Dumps (OU5)
Aberdeen Proving
Grounds (Edewood
Area, J-Field Soil OU)
Boarhead Farm
Bofors Nobel (OU1)
Calhoun Park Area
(OU1)
Idaho National
Engineering
Laboratory (USDOE,
OU 21)
Naval Surface Warfare
Center, Dahlgren, Site
17
Naval Undersea
Warfare Station (4
Areas, OU1)
Tibbetts Road
Benzenehexachloride (NR)
Dieldrin (NR)
Hexachlorohexane (NR)
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethene
(NR)
Trichloroethane (NR)
Cadmium (5 ug/L,
Groundwater)
Nickle (100 ug/L,
Groundwater)
Benzene (0.5 mg/kg, Soil)
Trichloroethene (0.4 mg/kg,
Soil)
Benzene (NR)
Benzene (NR)
Toluene(NR)
Ethylbenzene (NR)
Xylene (NR)
Chromium (NR)
Cesium-137 (NR)
Mercury (NR)
Selenium (NR)
Silver (NR)
Zinc (NR)
Mercury (<0.14 ug/L)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane (NR)
Trichloroethene (NR)
Groundwater
Soil and Groundwater
Soil and Groundwater
Soil, Sludge, and
Groundwater
Groundwater
Soil
Soil and Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Hybrid Poplar Trees
Hybrid Poplar Trees
Magnolia Trees
Silver Maple Trees
NR
NR
Hybrid Poplar Tress
Prairie Cascade Willows
Kochia Scoparia
Hybrid Poplar Trees
Evergreen Trees
Poplar Trees
Poplar Trees
Pre-design
Operational
Design
Pre-design
Operational
Operational
Pre-design
Operational
Pre-design
NR-Not Reported
(a) Treatments including both soil and groundwater are ci
Sources: 3, 4,5, 6: Data sources are listed in the References
remedial action projects for which data on
phytoremediation are available. The technology
is being applied to a variety of contaminants,
including halogenated VOCs, BTEX, chlorinated
pesticides, radionuclides, and metals. The most
commonly used flora in phytoremediation projects
are poplar trees, primarily because the trees are
fast- growing and can survive in a broad range of
climates. In addition, poplar trees can draw large
amounts of water (relative to other plant species)
as it passes through soil or directly from an
aquifer. This may draw greater amounts of
dissolved pollutants from contaminated media and
reduce the amount of water that may pass through
soil or an aquifer, thereby reducing the amount
of contaminant flushed though or out of the soil
or aquifer. In many cases, phytoremediation may
have a cost advantage over other treatment
^ 'ort.
and Data Sources section on page 38.
technologies because it relies on the use of the
natural growth processes of plants and often
requires a relatively small investment in both
capital and maintenance costs.
Additional information on the application of
phytoremediation can be found on the CLU-IN
website at http://www.clu-in.org. In addition to
HTML and PDF versions of this document, the
CLU-IN website contains four recently published
documents on phytoremediation:
• An Overview of Phytoremediation of Lead and
Mercury. Jeanna R. Henry. National Network
of Environmental Management Studies
(NNEMS) Fellow. 2000.
• Introduction to Phytoremediation. U.S. EPA:
National Risk Management Research
Laboratories. Office of Research and
o
3
CM
1
£±
CD
2
r£
, O"
Z3
i f>
-------
en
O
•-E3
i
a.
a.
1
c
§
Development. EPA600-R-99-107. 2000.
• Phytoremediation Resource Guide. U.S. EPA:
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
EPA542-B-99-003. 1999.
• The Bioremediation and Phytoremediation of
Pesticide-contaminated Sites. Chris Frazar.
National Network of Environmental
Management Studies (NNEMS) Fellow. 2000.
• The Use of Plants for the Removal of Toxic
Metals from Contaminated Soil. Mitch M.
Lasat. American Association for the
Advancement of Science; Environmental
Science and Engineering Fellow. 2000.

innovative Technology Treatment
Trains
In some cases, more than one innovative or
established technology may be used together in a
treatment train, which is either an integrated
process or a series of treatments that are combined
in sequence to provide the necessary treatment. A
more detailed description of treatment trains is
presented in Section 2. Treatment trains that
include one or more innovative technologies are
the selected source control remedy at 28 Superfund
sites. Figure 18 identifies specific treatment trains
used in remedial actions.
Innovative treatment technologies may be used
with established technologies or with other
innovative technologies. The most common
treatment trains are air sparging used in conjunction
with SVE and bioremediation followed by
solidification/stabilization. Technologies may be
combined to reduce the volume of material that
requires further treatment, prevent the emission
of volatile contaminants during excavation and
mixing, or treat several contaminants in a single
medium. In the case of air sparging used with
SVE, the air sparging is used to remove
contaminants from groundwater in situ, while the
SVE captures the contaminants removed from the
groundwater and removes contaminants from the
soil above the groundwater (the vadose zone).
The treatment train of bioremediation followed by
solidification/stabilization is used at Superfund sites
for media contaminated by both organics and
metals. The organic contaminants are remediated
by bioremediation, while the leachability of the
metals is reduced through solidification/
stabilization.
This report documents 28 treatment trains that
include innovative technologies. The ninth edition
of the ASR documented 17 treatment trains. The
increase is largely the result of classifying air sparging
or bioslurping used in conjunction widi SVE as a
treatment train, as well as changes in or
cancellations of some selected technologies. In
previous editions, when air sparging or bioslurping
was used in conjunction with SVE, only one
technology was identified for the site. However,
they are distinct technologies, are not always used
together, and are applicable to different media (air
sparging and bioslurping are applicable primarily
to groundwater, while SVE is applicable primarily
to soil).
A detailed discussion of the volumes of soil treated
through treatment trains at Superfund remedial
action sites is contained in Section 2: Treatment
Technologies for Source Control, Volumes of Soil
Treated in Treatment Trains on page 20.
-------
Figure 18. Superf und Remedial Actions: Treatment Trains with
innovative Treatment Technologies (FY1982 • FY 1999)
Bioremediation
Solidification/Stabilisation Soil Vapor Extraction
(4 sites) (2 sites)
and or
Soil Vapor Extraction
Bioremediation Solidification/Stabilization
(1 site) (1 site)
and or
Thermally Enhanced Recovery
Soil Vapor Extraction . Bioremediation
(1 site) (1 site)
and and IPTI
Bioremediation Soil Vapor Extraction
(1 site) (1 site)
and ESSH or
In Situ Soil Flushing
(1 site)
Thermal Desorption Chemical Treatment
(1 site) (1 site)
and and \i, -I
Bioremediation
(1 site)
Solidification/Stabilization
(1 site)
and or
or
Solidification/Stabilization
(2 sites)
Chemical Treatment
(2 sites)
Bioremediation
(2 sites)
Materials Handling/Physical Seperation
Incineration
(isite)
o
c*
o

CM
1
Q
Sources: 3, 4, 5, 6: Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 38.
-------
ffi
O)
13

1
O
O
CO,
Section 4: Groundwater
Remedies
This section focuses on three groups of groundwater
treatment remedies: conventional pump-and-treat
systems, monitored natural attenuation (MNA), and
in situ treatment. At least one of those groundwater
remedies has been selected for 749 sites. Pump-
and-treat systems alone were selected for 521 sites,
MNA alone for 92 sites, and in situ groundwater
treatment alone for 16 sites. When several types
of groundwater remedies were used at the same
site, a pump-and-treat approach was used most
frequendy with MNA (5 5 sites). Next in frequency
was a pump-and-treat system with in situ treatment
(48). In addition this section highlights more
detailed information on the use of vertical
engineered barriers (VEB) and permeable reactive
barriers (PRB) at Superfund remedial action sites.
VEBs are highlighted becuase of new developments
in their applications. PRBs are highlighted because
of their innovative use in the treatment of
groundwater in situ.
The data in Figure 19 are presented on a site basis.
At some sites, several applications of the same
type of groundwater remedy may have occurred.
At sites at which several types of groundwater
remediation, such as a pump-and-treat system and
in situ remediation were used, the remediation
may not have occurred in the same aquifer or
groundwater plume. Information about
Superfund sites at which pump-and-treat and
MNA remedies are in use was compiled from a
variety of sources, including EPA's CERCLIS 3
database and RODs, ROD amendments, and
ROD abstracts.

in Situ Croundwater Treatment
The specific types of in situ treatment remedies
for groundwater selected at Superfund sites are
listed in Table 7. EPA has selected in situ
treatment of groundwater 95 times at 81
Superfund sites. Air sparging is the most
frequently selected in situ groundwater treatment
remedy, with 48 projects, followed by
bioremediation with 21 projects.
Information on the status of in situ groundwater
treatment projects is presented in Figure 11 and
Table 1. Table 2 presents information on the types
of contaminants addressed by in situ groundwater
treatment remedies. Figure 16 presents
information on the use of bioremediation for in
situ groundwater treatment.

vertical Engineered Barriers
A groundwater containment remedy, vertical
engineered barriers (VEB), was selected at 51
Superfund remedial action sites. In the past,
the ASR has not included information about
Figure 19. Superfund Remedial Actions:
Groundwater Remedies (FY1982 - FY1999)
Total Sites With Pump-and-Treat, Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA),
and In Situ Groundwater Treatment Remedies = 749
In Situ and MNA (3) MNA Only (92) 12%
In Situ Only (16)
2%
Pump and Treat Only (521)
71%
Pump and Treat,
In Situ, and MNA (14) 2%
Pump and Treat
and MNA (55) 7%

Pump and Treat
and In Situ (48) 6%
Sources: 1,2,3, 4,5, 6, 8: Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 38.
-------
Table 7. Superfund Remedial
Actions: In Situ Groundwater Treatment
Technologies at 81 Sites Selecting
These Technologies (FY1982 - FY1999)
Technology Number of Projects Selected
Air Sparging
48
Bioremediation
21
Dual-Phase Extraction
10
Permeable Reactive Barrier
Phytoremediation
Chemical Treatment
In-Well Air Stripping
TOTAL 95
Sources: 3, 4, 5, 6: Data, sources are listed in the
References and Data Sources section on page 38.
VEBs because a VEB is not a treatment
technology. However, it has been used to contain
groundwater, and some innovative methods of
constructing VEBs, such as deep soil mixing, and
geosynthetic walls have been undertaken. Table
8 indicates the number of each type of VEB. The
types of barriers are:
• Slurry wall - Consists of a vertical trench that is
filled with a bentonite slurry to support the trench
and is subsequently backfilled with a low-
permeability material.
• Geosynthetic wall - Constructed by placing a
geosynthetic liner into a trench.
• Grout - Constructed by grouting or jet-grouting
soils to create a vertical grout curtain.
• Deep soil mixing - Overlapping columns created
by a series of large-diameter, counter-rotating
augers that mix in situ soils with an additive,
usually bentonite, cement, or grout, which is
injected through the augers.
• Sheet pile - Series of overlapping sheets of
impermeable material, such as metal.
Table 8. Superfund Remedial Actions:
Types of Vertical Engineered
Barriers at 51 Sites selecting This
Technology (FY 1982 - FY 1999)
Vertical Engineered!
Barrier Type i
Slurry Wall
Number of
Barriers
44
Geosynthetic Wall
Grout
Deep Soil Mixing
Sheet Pile
Other - VEB
TOTAL
Sources: 3, 4, 5, 6: Data, sources are listed in the
References and Data Sources section on page 38.
55
Definitions of barrier types are from Evaluation of
Subsurface Engineered Barriers at Waste Sites, EPA
OSWER, 542-R-98-005, August 1998, available on
the internet at' http://clu-in.org.
Overwhelmingly, slurry walls are the most frequendy
used type of barrier, widi 44 applications. For each
of the other types of VEBs, diere are fewer than
five applications at Superfund remedial action sites.
The total number of barrier types (55) exceeds the
total number of projects (51) because some projects
use more than one type of barrier.
VEBs may be used for a variety of purposes,
including:
• Preventing uncontaminated groundwater from
flowing into a contaminated area (source
containment upgradient)
• Stopping the migration of a contaminated
groundwater plume at the edge of the plume
(containment at plume edge)
• Completely encircling a site or subsurface
contaminated area (encirclement of site)
• Preventing contaminated groundwater from
flowing out of a contaminated area (source
containment downgradient)
• Preventing a contaminated plume from
migrating off site (containment at the boundary
of the site)
• Protecting an environmentally sensitive feature,
such as surface water or a drinking- water well,
from a contaminated groundwater plume
(resource protection)
Some VEBs can be used for multiple reasons (for
example, a VEB that encircles a site and reaches an
impermeable bed [that is, the aquitard] serves a
number of the purposes listed above). In addition,
at some sites, several VEBs are used; each may
have one or more of those purposes. Figure 20
shows the number of VEB projects that were
constructed for each of the reasons listed above.
The most common purposes for which VEBs are
used include encirclement of a site, as a source
containment downgradient, and for containment
at a plume edge.
Additional information on the application of VEBs
can be found on the CLU-IN website at http://
www.clu-in.org. In addition to HTML and PDF
versions of this document, the CLU-IN website
contains the following recently published
document on VEBs: Subsurface Containment and
Monitoring Systems: Barriers and Beyond. Leslie
Pearlman. National Network of Environmental
Management Studies (NNEMS) Fellow. 1999.

-------
I
•a

I
o
g
1,
CO,
Figure 20. superfund Remedial Actions:
Purpose For vertical Engineered
Barriers (FY1982 - FY1999)

Encircle Site

Source Containment
Downgredient

Containment at
Plume Edge

Source Containment
Upgradient

Containment at Site
Boundary

Resource
Protection

»i

=__

-—

— .

— -

—

' ,.i

1
38

0 10 20 30 40
Sources: 3, 4,5, 6: Data sources are listed in the References
and Data. Sources section on page 38.

Permeable Reactive Barriers
Permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) are installed
across the path of a contaminated groundwater
plume, allowing the plume to move passively through
the barrier while contaminants are precipitated or
degraded. PRBs may contain metal-based catalysts
for degrading organics; chelators for immobilizing
metals; or other reagents for degrading
contaminants into less toxic compounds,
precipitating contaminants, or otherwise rendering
them less mobile.
PRBs may be constructed by excavating a trench of
the appropriate width and backfilling it with a
reactive medium. In some cases, the trench may be
shored up with an appropriate slurry or steel sheet
piling to keep the trench open during construction
and to contain the reactive medium during operation.
The sheet piling or slurry is not intended to present
a barrier to groundwater flow, because the purpose
of a PRB is to treat contaminants as the groundwater
passes through the barrier.
Unlike VEBs, for which a soil-bentonite or cement-
based slurry typically is used, it may be necessary
to use a biodegradable polymer in installing a PRB
to avoid the problem of plugging the barrier with
residual slurry. PRBs also may be used in
conjunction with VEBs, where VEBs guide
groundwater flow into the PRB. That type of
system is referred to as a funnel-and-gate system.
At superfund remedial action sites, PRBs are being
used to treat metals, chlorinated VOCs, and
cyanide. The most commonly used reactants
include reducing agents such as zero-valent iron
and strong bases such as calcium hydroxide,
magnesium hydroxide, and crushed agricultural
limestone. Through reductive reactions, zero-valent
iron can dechlorinate organics and precipitate
anions and oxyanions. Strongly basic reagents may
reduce the solubility of metals or cause them to
precipitate as metal hydroxides, such as converting
chromium (Cr) +6 to insoluble Cr +3 hydroxides.
Table 9 lists all eight Superfund remedial action
sites at which PRBs are being implemented to treat
groundwater.
Additional information on the application of PRBs
can be found on the CLU-IN website at http-.ll
www.clu-in.org. In addition to HTML and PDF
versions of this document, the CLU-IN website
contains the following recendy published documents
on PRBs:
• Field Applications of Remediation Technologies:
Permeable Reactive Barriers. U.S. EPA: Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA
542-R-99-002. 2000.
• Permeable Reactive Barriers for Chlorinated
Solvent, Inorganic, and Radionuclide
Contamination. U.S. EPA: Office of Research
and Development. U.S. EPA: Technology
Innovation Office. 2000.
• Permeable Reactive Barriers for Inorganics.
Nichole-- Ott. National Network of
Environmental Management Studies (NNEMS)
Fellow. 2000.

Monitored Natural Attenuation
Monitored natural attenuation (MNA) is the
reliance on natural attenuation processes (within
the context of a carefully controlled and monitored
approach to site cleanup) to achieve site-specific
remediation objectives within a time frame that is
reasonable compared with that offered by,more
active methods. The "natural attenuation processes"
that are at work in such a remediation approach
include a variety of physical, chemical, or biological
processes that, under favorable conditions, act
without human intervention to reduce the mass,
toxicity, mobility, volume, or concentration of
contaminants in soil or groundwater. The in situ
processes include biodegradation; dispersion;
dilution; sorption; volatilization; radioactive decay;
and chemical or biological stabilization,
transformation, or destruction of contaminants.
EPA does not view MNA to be a "no action"
approach, but rather considers it to be an alternative
means of achieving remediation objectives that may
-------
Table 9. Superfund Remedial Actions.-
Permeable Reactive Barrier Projects (FY1982 - FY1999)
I Site Name | Contaminants Construction Wall Material Status
(Operable unit) (Target Cleanup Levels)
Arrowhead Associates/
Scovill Corporation
Brown's Battery
Breaking Site
RE. Wareen Air Force
Base - OU2
Lake City Army
Ammunition Plant (NW
Lagoon) - OU3
Monticello Mill Tailings
(USDOE) - OU3
Rocky Flats Plant
(USDOE) - Buffer
Zone
Somersworth Sanitary
Landfill
Tonolli Corporation
Chromium (NR)
Cyanide (NR)
Beryllium (1.9x10-" mg/L)
Cadmium (8.8x10-" mg/L)
Lead (<0.003 mg/L)
Manganese (0.05 mg/L)
Nickle (0.0029 mg/L)
Sulfate (0.027 mg/L)
Trichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethene (0.007 mg/L)a
Trichloroethene (0.005 mg/L)a
Vinyl Chloride (0.002 mg/L)a
Arsenic (0.05 mg/L)a
Molybdenum (0.183 mg/L)b
Radium 226 (5 pCi/L)a
Selenium (0.05 mg/L)a
Uranium (1.1 mg/L)b
Carbon Tetrachloride (NR)
Tetrachloroethene (NR)
Trichloroethene (NR)
Trichlorethene (0.005 mg/L)
Vinyl Chloride (0.005 mg/L)
Lead (NR)
Cadmium (NR)
Arsenic (NR)
Zinc (NR)
Copper (NR)
Trench
Trench
NR
Funnel and Gate
Funnel and Gate
Funnel and Gate
Funnel and Gate
Trench
Zero-Valent Iron
Calcium
Hydroxide
Magnesium
Hydroxide
NR
Zero-Valent Iron
Zero-Valent Iron
Zero-Valent Iron
Zero-Valent Iron
Limestone
Design
Design
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
NR-Not Reported
(a)-U.S. Federal DrinkingWater Standards: Maximum Containment Levels, www.epa.gov/safewater/regs/cfrl4l.pdf
(b) - Residential Risk-Based Groundwater Cleanup Levels. Developed based on EPA Human Health Evaluation Manual,
Part B: Development of Risk Based Preliminary Remediation Goals, OSWER Directive 9285.7-0IB, December 13,
1991.
Sources: 3,4,5, 6: Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 38.
be appropriate for specific, well-documented site
circumstances where its use meets the applicable
statutory and regulatory requirements. As with any
other remedial alternative, MNA should be selected
only where it meets all relevant remedy selection
criteria, and where it will meet site remediation
objectives within a time frame that is reasonable
compared to that offered by other methods. MNA
is commonly selected as part of an overall site
remedy that includes remediation of groundwater
contamination sources.
In recent years, an increasing number of RODs
have specified MNA as a remedy for groundwater
contamination. Figure 21 shows the number of
RODs at which MNA was selected for groundwater
remediation at Superfund remedial action sites. As
the figure shows, selection of MNA increased
steadily from FY 1985 through FY 1998. In FY
1998, MNA was selected as a remedy for 39 sites,
but in FY 1999, the number of sites for which MNA
was selected as a remedy decreased to 18.
EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(OERR) analyzed FY 1982 through FY 1997 RODs
in which MNA was selected. Data on MNA for
FY 1998 and FY 1999 were obtained from an
analysis of RODs issued during those years.
The analysis revealed that the most common reason
cited for selecting MNA was low or decreasing
concentrations of contaminants at the site. The
analysis also indicated that the contaminant most
frequently present at such sites was VOCs (including
both chlorinated and non-chlorinated). Appendix
E lists the RODs selecting natural attenuation.
CO
(D
o
3
o
3
t-f-
CD
70
CD

CD
Q.
CD'
-------
I
O)
Q£
s
•o
3
S
o
o
I
1
n
H
i
ma
a
EPA guidelines on the use of MNA to remediate
groundwater can be found in Use of Monitored
Natural Attenuation at Superfund, RCRA
Corrective Action, and Underground Storage Tank
Sites, OSWER Directive Number 9200.4-17,
which can be obtained by telephoning 800-424-
9346 or 703-412-9810 or accessed on the
Internet at http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/directiv/
d92004l7.htm.
Additional information on the application of MNA
can be found on the CLU-IN website at http://
www.clu-in.org. In addition to HTML and PDF
versions of this document, the CLU-IN website
contains the following recently published documents
on MNA:
• Ground Water Issue Paper: Microbial Processes
Affecting Monitored Natural Attenuation of
Contaminants in the Subsurface. Ann Azadpour-
Keeley, Hugh H. Russell, and Guy W. Sewell.
EPA 540-S-99-001. 1999.
• Natural Attenuation of MTBE in the Subsurface
under Methanogenic Conditions. U.S. EPA:
Office of Research and Development. EPA 600-
R-00-006. 2000.
Figure 21. Superfund Remedial Actions: RODS Specifying
Monitored Natural Attenuation for Groundwater (FY1982 - FY1999)
401
Number
of RODs
Monitored Natural Attenuation -
Number of RODs
Monitored Natural Attenuation -
Percentage
of RODS
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Fiscal Year
Sources: 1,2,3, 4,5, 6, 8: Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 38.
II-
1
-------
Section 5: iSuperfund
Removal Actions
Removal actions usually are conducted in response
to a threat caused by a release of hazardous substances
that is more immediate than threats addressed by
remedial actions. Approximately 5,500 removal
actions have been undertaken to address these more
immediate threats. To date, innovative treatment
technologies have been used in relatively few removal
actions. The treatment technologies addressed in
this report have been used 100 times in 54 removal"
actions (Table 10). The ninth edition of the ASR
documented 97 removal actions for which innovative
technologies were used.
The percentage of removal action projects that
involve treatment technologies and have been
completed, as shown in Table 10, is 55 percent.
Since removal actions are responses to an immediate
threat and often involve smaller quantities of
hazardous wastes than those addressed by remedial
activities, implementation of a technology may be
completed more quickly at a removal site than at a
remedial site.
Because removal actions involve immediate threats,
quick action to alleviate the hazard is necessary.
Often, such activities do not lend themselves to
on-site treatment or innovative technologies. In
addition, SARA does not establish the same
preference for innovative treatment for removal
actions as it specifies for remedial actions.
Additional information on Superfund removal
actions can be found in EPA's REmediation And
CHaracterization Innovative Technologies (EPA
REACH IT) on-line searchable database at http://
www. epareachit. org.
Table 10. Superfund Removal Actions:
Project status of Treatment Technologies (FY1982 - FY1999)
^^^•"•^^^^-^
Technology \
Ex Situ Source Control
Bioremediation
Chemical Treatment
Incineration (off-site)
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Washing
Solidification/Stabilization
Solvent Extraction
Thermal Desorption
Total
Percent of Total
In Situ Source Control
Bioremediation
Chemical Treatment
Soil Vapor Extraction
Vitrification
Total
Percent of Total
In Situ Groundwater
Air Sparging
Bioremediation
In-Well Air Stripping
Total
Percent of Total
Predesign/
Design
1
f
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
8%
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
Design Completed/
Being Installed
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
1
0
1
2%
1
0
0
1
13%
Operational
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
5%
17
0
15
0
32
62%
2
3
1
6
75%
Completed
14
4
4
2
• 3
0
2
6
35
88%
5
3
10
1
19
37%
1
0
0
1
13%
Total
15
5
5
Q
3
1
2
6
40

22
3
26
1
52

4
3
1
8

CD
O
rt;
O
O1
CO
•a
CD
=?,
Z5
Q.
CD

5
,o
Sources: 9: Data sources are luted in the References and Data. Sources section on page 38.
-------
i
o
TO

CO
s
'•g
Q) ,
CO,
Section 6: References and
Data Sources
1. List of NPL sites, www.epa.govlsuferfu.nd/siteslqueryl
queryhtmlnplfina. txt (9/2000).
2. List of Superfund National Priority List (NPL) sites
that have been deleted, www.epa.gov/superfu.nd/
sites/query/queryhtm/npldela. txt (9/2000).
3. Compilation of Record of Decision (ROD)
abstracts, site summaries, and fact sheets for fiscal
years (FY) 1982 through 1997. www.epa.gov/
superfundlsiteslqueryladvquery.htm (1/20/2000).
4. Records of Decision (RODs), ROD amendments,
Explanations of Significant Difference, and ROD
abstracts from FY 1982 through FY 1999.
5. Contacts with remedial project managers, FY 1992
through FY 1999.
6. ROD Annual Reports, EPA Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response(OERR), 1998 through
1992.
7. Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status
Report (ASR) Eighth Edition (EPA-542-R-99-
001). EPA. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. April 1999.
8. Personal communication from Ken Lovelace,
OERR, to Tom Sinksi of TetraTech EM Inc., April,
1998.
9. Contacts with EPA Superfund Removal Branch
Chiefs and On-Scene Coordinators.
I
I
3
-------
APPENDIX A
SUPERFUND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
BY FISCAL YEAR
-------
-------
Superfund Remedial Actions:
Treatment Technologies by Fiscal Year
Technology Type
Ex Situ Source Control Technologies
Solidification/Stabilization
Incineration off-site)
Thermal Desorption
Bioremediation
Incineration (on-site)
Chemical Treatment
Neutralization
Mechanica Soil Aeration
Soil Vapor Extraction
Open Burn/Open Detonation
Vitrification
3hysical Separation
In Situ Source Control Technologies
Soil Vapor Extraction
So idification/Stabilization
Bioremediation
Soi Pushing
Thermally Enhanced Recovery
Chemical Treatment
Phytoremediation
Dual-Phase Extraction
Electrical Separation
Vitrification
In Situ Groundwater Technologies
Air Sparging
Dual-Phase Extraction
Permeable Reactive Barrier
Phytoremediation
Chemical Treatment
In-We 1 Air Stripping
Fiscal Year
1982-85
3
3
1
3
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
14
1982 - 85
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
6
1982 - 85
0
1
0
0
Q
0
0
1
1986
3
~1
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
1986
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1986
1
0
0
0
n
0
0
1
1987
6
3
4
0
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
19
1987
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1987
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1988
7
7
4
3
7
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
30
1988
8
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
1988
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1989
9
10
3
6
7
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
1989
21
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
1989
1
3
0
0
0
0
4
1990
13
15
7
2
3
1
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
1
46
1990
17
3
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
1990
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
1991
20
11
9
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
46
1991
32
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1991
8
1
0
0
0
0
0
9
1992
20
7
3
8
3
1
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
1992
16
7
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
• 0
27
1992
3
1
0
3
0
0
0
1993
9
9
5
3
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
31
1993
19
6
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
1993
c
g
1
0
0
1
0
10
1994
11
c
c
4
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
o
0
29
1994
6
0
4
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
14
1994
1
1
_1
0
0
0
E
1995
4
6
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1995
9
3
0-
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
1995
2
1
1
0
0
0
5
1996
g
E
1
4
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
1996
21
6
6
0 '
0
1
0
0
0
36
1996
1
1
0
0
0
0
9
1997 1998
3 15
3 1
0 3
4 0
0
0 Q
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
15 27
1997 1998
18 9
4 3
0 7
1 1
23 24
1997 1998
85
1 2
4 1
1 3
0 3
0 Q
14 15
1999 TOTALS
5 94
1999 TOTALS
2 5
1999 TOTALS

A-1
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
Su PERFuND TREATMENT TECH NOLOGY

SUMMARY MATRIX

; This appendix does not appear in the printed version of Treatment Technologies
for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report (Tenth Edition). This appendix is available
in the on-line version of this report at http://c/L/-/n,Qrg/asr.
-------
-------
APPENDIX G

TREATMENT TRAINS WITH
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
\ v
-------
-------
Superfund Remedial Actions:
Treatment Trains with Innovative Treatment Technologies
Bioremediation Followed by
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction
French Limited TX
Gulf Coast Vacuum Services - OU 1 LA
Penta Wood Products - OU 01 WI
Vogel Paint & Wax IA
Fisher-Calo IN
Wayne Waste Oil IN
Air Sparging Followed by
Soil Vapor Extraction

Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extracdon

Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction
FL
Cecil Field Naval Air Station -
OU 7, Site 16
PCX - Statesville - OU 3
Fort Lewis Military Reservation -
Landfill 4
Kentucky Avenue Wellfield - OU 3 NY
Pease Air Force Base - Site 45 NH
NC
WA
Chemical Treatment Followed by
Bioremediation Macgillis and Gibbs/Bell Lumber MN
and Pole- OU1
Solidification/Stabilization Palmetto Wood Preserving SC

Thermally Enhanced Recovery Followed by
Soil Vapor Extraction followed by
Bioremediation Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc. - OU 2 TX

Dual-Phase Extraction Followed by
Bioremediation (in situ) American Creosote Works FL
OU2-Phase 1
Soil Vapor Extraction Fort Richardson - OU B AK
Soil Vapor Extraction Followed by
Soil Flushing (in situ) Jadco-Hughes Facility NC

Soil Washing Followed by
Solidification/Stabilization Springfield Township Dump MI
Bioremediation Cabot/Koppers - Koppers OU FL
Thermal Desorption Followed by
Dechlorination Myers Property NJ

Solvent Extraction Followed by
Vitrification Idaho National Engineering ID
Laboratory - Pit 9, OU 7-10
Solidification/Stabilization Arctic Surplus . AK
Solidification/Stabilization Carolina Transformer Co. NC

Thermal Desorption Followed by
Dechlorination PCX - Statesville - OU 2 NC
Dechlorination Smith's Farm - OU 1 (Amendment) KY

Soil Flushing (in situ) Followed by
Bioremediation Montana Pole And Treating MT
Plant - Area Under Interstate 15/90
Bioremediation Peak Oil/Bay Drum - OU 1 FL

Physical Separation Followed by
Incineration (off-site) Arkwood Inc. AR
C-1
-------
-------
APPENDIX D

TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES:

SUMMARY OF STATUS REPORT UPDATES,

CHANGES, DELETIONS

This appendix does not appear in the printed version of Treatment Technologies
for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report (Tenth Edition). This appendix is available
in the on-line version of this report at http://clu-in.org/asr.
-------
-------
APPENDIX 1
SUP ERF UND REMEDIAL ACTI ON S
RODS SELECTING NATURAL,
ATTENUATION
-------
-------
Superfund Remedial Actions:
RODs Selecting Natural Attenuation
Region Site Name, State ROD Date
1
1
1 .
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 '
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Brunswick Naval Air Station Site 9 OU6, ME
Brunswick Naval Air Station, ME
BURGESS BROTHERS LANDFILL OU1.VT
Cannon Engineerinq, Ml
Coakley Landfill, NH
Dover Municipal Landfill, NH
FLETCHER'S PAINT WORKS & STORAGE OU1, NH
Fort Devens AOC 43 G & 43 J, MA
FORT DEVENS OU5, MA
Gallups Quarry, CT
Mottolo Pig Farm. NH
NEW HAMPSHIRE PLATING CO. OU1, NH
Pease Air force Base, Zone 1 , NH
Pease Air force Base, Zone 2, NH
Pease Air force Base, Zone 3, NH
Peterson/Puritan, Rl
Picillo Farm, Rl
PSC Resources, MA
Savaqe Municipal Water Supply, NH
TIBBETTSROADOU1.NH
Town Garage/Radio Beacon (Holton Circle Ground
Water Contamination), NH
Western Sand & Gravel, Rl
Carroll and DubiesSewage Disposal, NY
Conklin Dumps, NY
DU PONT /NECCO PARK OU 1 , NY
Forest Glen Subdivision Ous 2 & 3, NY
Global Landfill, OU 2, NJ
GOLDISC RECORDINGS, INC. OU2, NY
Islip Municipal Sanitary Landfill, NY
Johnstown City Landfill, NY
Juncos Landfill, PR
Kin-Buc Landfill. NJ
Malta Rocket Fuel Area, NY
Marathon Batterv. NY
Naval Air Enoineerinq Station, Area I and J, NJ
Naval Air Engineerining Station Areas I & J groundwater
OU26, NJ
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE (SITE A) OUS, NJ
Naval Weapons Station, Earle, OU 2 Site 19, NJ
Plattsbura AFB. OU 2, NY
Preferred Plating Corporation, NY
Renora, NJ
9/28/99
9/30/94
9/25/98
3/31/88
9/30/94
9/10/91
9/30/98
10/17/96
2/18/98
9/30/97
3/29/91
9/28/98
6/26/95
9/18/95
9/26/95
9/30/93
9/27/93
9/15/92
9/27/91
9/28/98
9/30/92
4/16/91
9/30/96
3/29/91
9/18/98
9/30/99
9/29/97
9/30/98
9/30/92
3/31/93
10/5/93
9/28/92
7/13/96
9/30/88
1/5/95
9/27/99
9/29/98
9/25/97
3/31/95
9/30/97
9/29/87
Region Site Name, State
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Rinqwood Mines/Landfill, NJ
Robintech, NY
ROSEN BROTHERS SCRAPYARD/DUMP OU1, NY
Sarney Farm, NY
Tutu Well Field, VI
Woodland Routes 72 Dump and 532 Dump , NJ
YORK OIL CO. OU2, NY
ALLEGANY BALLISTICS LABORATORY (USNAVY)
OU5, WV
Bell Landfill, PA
Dover AFB. Target Area 1 of Area 6, DE
Dover AFB, Target Area 3 of Area 6, DE
Dover Air Force Base, Fire Training Area 3, East
Management Unit. DE
Dover Air Force Base, Landfill 13, East Management
Unit, DE
Dover Air Force Base, Liquid Waste Disposal Area 14
Landfill 15, Area 1, East Management Unit, DE
Dover Gas Liqht, DE
East Mt. Zion, PA
MALVERNTCEOU1.PA
Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers, MD
New Castle Spill, DE
OHIO RIVER PARK OU3, PA
OSBORNE LANDFILL OU2, PA
Rodale Manufacturing Co. Inc. Site OU 1 , PA
Tobyhanna Army Depot, OU 1 (Areas A & B), PA
Westline, PA
Woodlawn Landfill Site, MD
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps OU 5, NC
Aqrico Chemical, FL
Anodyne (OU1), FL
Arlington Blending and Packaging, TN
B & B Chemical, FL
BMI-Textron, FL
Cecil Field Naval Air Station (Site 8) OU 3, FL
Cecil Field Naval Air Station OU 7, FL
CECIL FIELD NAVAL AIR STATION OU6, FL
CECIL FIELD NAVAL AIR STATION OU8, FL
Cecil Field Naval Air Station, OU 2, FL
Cedartown Industries, GA
Cedartown, GA
Cherry Point Marine Air Corps Station OU 2, NC
ROD Date
9/29/88
7/25/97
3/23/98
9/27/90
8/5/96
7/01/99
9/29/98
6/30/98
9/30/94
9/26/95
9/26/95
9/30/97
9/30/97
and 9/30/97
8/16/94
6/29/90
11/26/97
12/31/90
9/28/89
9/17/98
12/30/97
9/30/99
9/30/97
6/29/88
9/30/99
6/4/99
.8/18/94
6/17/93
7/24/97
9/12/94
8/11/94
8/25/99
5/12/99
9/25/98
8/27/98
6/24/96
5/7/93
11/2/93
9/29/99
E-1
-------
Superfund Remedial Actions:
RODs Selecting Natural Attenuation (continued)
1 Region Site Name, State
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5.
5
5' ' • =
5
5
5
Chevron Chemical Company, FL
Davie Landfill, FL
DAVIS PARK ROAD TCE OU1, NC
Diamond Shamrock Landfill, GA
Dubose Oil Products, FL
FCX, Inc. (Statesville Plant), OU 3, NC
FLANDERS FILTERS INC OU1, NC
GEIGER(C& MOIUOU1.SC
Hercules 009 Landfill, GA
Homestead Air Force Base Ous 18, 26, 28, & 29, FL
Insterstate Lead Co. OU 3, AL
Interstate Lead Co. (ILCO), AL
JACKSONVILLE NAVAL AIR STATION OU1, FL
Murray-Ohio Dump, TN
National Starch & Chemical Co, OU 4, NC
Redwing Carriers/Saraland, AL
Reeves Southeastern Galvanizing (OU2), FL
SAVANNAH RIVER SITE (USDOE) OU27, SC
Standard Auto Bumper, FL
Taylor Road Landfill, FL
Townsend Saw Chain Company, SC
WHITEHOUSE OIL PITS OU1 , FL
Wingate Road Municipal Incinerator Dump and Landfill, Fl
Yellow Water Road, FL
A & F Materials Reclaiming. IL
Adams County Quincy Landfill Sites #2 & #3, IL
Agate Lake Scrap Yard, MN
Albion-Sheridan Township, Landfill, Ml
Alsco Anaconda, OH
Bendix Site, St. Joseph, Ml
Charlevoix Municipal Well Field, Ml
Cliff/Dow Dump, Ml
Dakue Sanitary Landfill, MN
DUPAGE COUNTY LANDFILL/BLACKWELL FOREST OU1
Electro-Voice OU2, Ml •
Fadrowski 'Drum Disposal, Wl
Galen Myers Dump.Drum Salvage, IN
H.O.D. LANDFILL OU1JL
Hechimovich Sanitary Landfill, Wl
Kohler Complany Landfill, Wi
Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill, MN
Outboard Marine Company/Waukegan Coke PlantpIL
PENTA WOOD PRODUCTS OU1 , Wl
ROD Date
5/22/96
8/11/94
9/29/98
5/3/94
3/29/90
9/30/96
9/18/98
9/9/98
3/25/93
3/15/99
9/29/95
9/30/91
8/3/98
6/17/94
10/6/94
12/15/92
9/9/93
8/14/98
12/10/93
9/29/95
12/19/96
9/24/98
5/14/96
6/30/92
8/14/86
9/30/93
12/28/93
3/28/95
9/30/92
9/30/97
9/30/85
9/27/89
6/30/93
, IL9/30/98
9/21/99
6/10/91
9/29/95
9/28/98
9/6/95
6/26/96
12/21/90
9/30/99
9/29/98
1 Region Site Name, State
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8=
8
8
8 :
8
8
8 "
8
PETOSKEY MUNICIPAL WELL FIELD OU1, Ml
Prestolite Battery, IN
Reilly Tar and Chemical (Indianapolis Plant), OU 5, IN
Roto-Finish, Ml
Sauk County Landfill, OU 2, Wl
Tippecanoe Sanitary Landfill, Inc., IN
Twin Cities AF Reserve (SAR Landfill), MN
Wheeler Pit, Wl
WOODSTOCK MUNICIPAL LANDFILL, IL
Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OU 2, Spill Sites 2, 3,
and 10, OH
Arkwood, AR
Brio Refining, TX
Dutchtown Treatment, LA
Fourth Street Abandoned Refinery, OK
French, Limited, TX
Gulf Coast Vacuum Services (OU1), LA
Hardage/Criner (Amendment), OK
Koppers (Texarkana Plant) Amendment. TX
Koppers (Texarkana Plant), TX
Monroe Auto Pit (Finsch Road Landfill). AR
Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill, OK
PETRO-CHEMICAL SYSTEMS, (TURTLE BAYOU) OU2.
Sheridan Disposal Services, TX
Sikes Disposal Pit, TX
SOUTH 8TH STREET LANDFILL OUS 1 & 2, AR
United Creosoting, TX
Bee Gee MFG, MO
Cleburn Stree Well, NE
Farmers Mutual Cooperative, IA
Ogallala Ground Water Contamination OU 1. NE
Quality Plating , MO
Ralston, IA
ANACONDA CO. SMELTER OU4, MT
Denver Radium (OUS), CO
HILL AIR FORCE BASE OU1 , UT
Hill Air Force Base, OU 6, UT
MURRAY SMELTER, UT
Mystery Bridge at Highway 20, WY
PORTLAND CEMENT (KILN DUST 2 & 3) OU3, UT
Rocky Mountain Arsenal Offpost OU, CO
Rocky Mountain Arsenal Onpost, OU, CO
SMELTERTOWN SITE OU2, CO
ROD Date
9/30/98
8/23/94
6/30/97
3/31/97
9/28/95
9/30/97
3/31/92
9/28/90
7/15/98
9/30/97
9/28/90
3/31/88
6/20/94
9/30/93
3/24/88
9/30/92
11/22/89
3/4/92
9/23/88
9/26/96
6/29/92
TX 4/30/98
9/27/89
9/18/86
7/22/98
9/30/86
9/30/97
6/7/96
9/29/92
4/23/99
9/28/99
9/30/99
9/29/98
1/28/92
9/29/98
9/30/97
. 4/1/98
-••• 9/24/90
.8/17/98
12/19/95
6/11/96
6/4/98
E-2
-------
Superfund Remedial Actions:
RODs Selecting Natural Attenuation (continued)
Region Site Name, State
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
Utah Power & Liqht/American Barrel. UT
ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE OU3, GU
Camp Pendelton Marine Coprs base, OU 1, Site 9-41,
Area, CA
George^ Air force Base OU 3, CA
INDIAN BEND WASH AREA OU3, AZ
Operating Industries, Inc. Landfill, CA
TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE OU1. CA
Travis Air Force Base West/Annexes/Basewide OU
(WABOU), CA
Eielson Air Force Base (OU6), AK
EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE OUS 3,4,5, AK
Elmendorf AFB, OU 4, AK
Elmendorf AFB, OU 5, AK
ROD Date
1
7/7/93
6/16/98
12/7/95
10/5/98
9/30/98
9/30/96
12/3/97
3/16/99
9/27/94
9/29/98
9/26/95
12/28/94
Region Site Name, State
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Fairchild AFB, Priority 2 sites, AK
Fort Richardson, OU A & B, AK
Fort Wainwright, OU 1.AK
Fort Wainwright, OU 2. AK
Fort Wainwright, OU 3, AK
Fort Wainwright. OU 4. AK
Hanford 1100-Area (DOE), WA
Monsanto Chemical Company, ID
Naval Air Station, Whidbey Isalnd - Ault Field, OU 5
Areas 1,52 and 31, WA
ROD Date
12/20/95
9/15/97
6/27/97
3/27/97
4/9/96
9/24/96
9/24/93
4/30/97
7/10/96
NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE STATION (4 AREAS)
OU1.WA
9/28/98
Wycoff/Eagle Harbor, West Harbor OU, WA
12/8/95
E-3
-------
-------
APPENDIX F
IDENTIFICATION OF REMEDY AND
RECORD OF DECISION TYPES
FOR SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
-------
-------
F.1 BACKGROUND
On December 11, 1980, Congress passed the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
which is known as the "Superfund" act. The act
created the Superfund program, which was
established to clean up abandoned hazardous waste
sites around the United States. Section 105(a)(8)(B)
of CERCLA, as amended, requires that EPA
prepare a list of national priorities among the
known sites throughout the United States at which
releases or threatened releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants may occur.
This list is known as the National Priorities List
(NPL).
The remedies selected for an NPL site are
documented in a record of decision (ROD).
Remedies implemented at NPL sites in accordance
with RODs are known as Superfund remedial
actions, and such sites are known as Superfund
remedial action sites.
Selected remedies vary in the type of media
addressed and the methods used to address those
media. Classifying remedies into types can facilitate
the transfer of experience and technology by making
it easier to identify sites at which similar remedies
are applicable. In addition, identifying remedy
types can streamline the collection of the data
needed to track the progress of the remediation of
sites on the NPL and to identify trends in site
remediation.
Because of the variety of media, contaminants, and
potential remedies, confusion can arise when
assigning a type to a particular remedy. Establishing
and applying a comprehensive methodology for
identifying remedy types can reduce potential
confusion about remedy types and lead to more
consistent data collection and reporting, thereby
assisting in the transfer of experience and
technology among similar sites.
This appendix describes the approach used to
identify remedy and ROD types used in the
document Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup:
Annual Status Report (Tenth Edition) (ASR). The
methodology presented here is intended to provide
a consistent and comprehensive approach to
identifying remedy types, and, based on those
remedy types, identifying ROD types. This
approach can assist in the transfer of experience
and technology among Superfund sites by helping
remedial project managers (RPMs), On-Scene
Coordinators (OSCs), and other regulatory and
remediation professionals identify sites
implementing similar remedies.
Remedy and ROD types are determined by
reviewing the remedies selected in RODs.
Although RODs are written using an overall format
that is consistent, RODs are prepared by individual
RPMs and other staff of the 10 EPA regions. In
addition,'the management practices and techniques
used to remediate sites have evolved over time and
continue to evolve. Therefore, the words, phrases,
and descriptions applied to the same or similar
remedies may differ from ROD to ROD. To
facilitate the identification of remedy types, this
appendix includes both descriptive definitions of
remedy types and lists of key words and phrases
that may be used to refer to each remedy type.
The definitions of remedy types provided in this
appendix were based on a review of definitions
and lists of media, remedies, and technologies
provided in the following resources:
• The CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS
3) database
• ROD Annual Reports for fiscal years (FY) 1989
through 1995
• The Federal Remediation Technologies
Roundtable (FRTR) Technology Screening
Matrix
• The ASR
The remedy type definitions were reviewed and
augmented by a working group of personnel of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Technology Innovation Office (TIO) and Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR)
who are experienced in site remediation and ROD
preparation and review.
This appendix includes remedy types and
technologies that are not discussed in the ASR.
The ASR focuses on source control treatments and
in situ groundwater treatments. Additional remedy
and technology types are described in this appendix
so that it may be used for purposes beyond the
limited scope of the ASR.

F.2 IDENTIFicATioN OF REMEDY AND
ROD TYPES
This appendix describes the methodology used to
classify remedies selected at Superfund remedial
action sites into specific types. Remedy types were
identified by first dividing remedies into three
categories (source control, groundwater, and no
action) based on the media treated and the type of
-------
action. Within each of these categories, the
remedies were then further divided into the
following 12 specific remedy types:

Source Control Remedies:
1. Source control treatment
2. Source control containment
3. Source control other
4. Source control monitored natural attenuation

Groundwater Remedies:
5. Groundwater in situ treatment
6. Groundwater pump and treat
7. Groundwater containment
8. Groundwater other
9. Groundwater monitored natural attenuation
10. Groundwater extraction
11. Groundwater discharge

No Action Remedies:
12. No action or no further action (NA/NFA)

Each ROD may select multiple remedy types.
When multiple remedy types are selected in a single
ROD, the overall ROD type is the one that appears
first in the list above.
The definitions used to identify each remedy type
are provided in the "Definitions" section below.
When definitions include specific technologies and
those technologies commonly are referred to by
more than one word or phrase, the most commonly
used word or phrase is listed first, followed by
synonyms in parentheses.

F.3 DEFINITIONS USED TO IDENTIFY
REMEDY TYPES
Definitions used to identify remedy types are
presented below. The definitions of treatment
technology and the different types of treatment
technologies (physical, chemical, thermal, and
bioremediation treatment) apply to both source
control and groundwater remedies. Because these
definitions apply to both source control and
groundwater remedies, they are presented once
here rather than being duplicated everywhere they
apply.
Treatment Technology - Any unit operation or series
of unit operations that alters the composition of a
hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant
through chemical, biological, or physical means
so as to reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume of the
contaminated materials being treated. Treatment
technologies are an alternative to land disposal of
hazardous wastes without treatment. (Federal
Register, volume 55, page 8819, 40 CFR 300.5:
Definitions). Treatment technologies are grouped
into five categories. The definitions for four of
the categories (physical treatment, chemical
treatment, thermal treatment, and biological
treatment) are based on definitions provided in
the FRTR Technology Screening Matrix. The fifth
category, other or unspecified treatment, includes
those technologies that do not fit into the first four
categories. The five treatment technology
categories are:
Physical Treatment - Uses the physical properties of
the contaminants or the contaminated medium to
separate or contain the contamination.
ChemicalTreatment- Chemically converts hazardous
contaminants to non-hazardous or less toxic
compounds or compounds that are more stable,
less mobile, and/or inert.
Thermal Treatment - Uses heat to: separate
contaminants from contaminated media by
increasing their volatility; destroy contaminants
or contaminated media by burning, decomposing,
or detonating the contaminants or the
contaminated media; or immobilize contaminants
by melting the contaminated media.
Bioremediation Treatment - Stimulates the growth
of microorganisms which metabolize contaminants
or create conditions under which contaminants will
chemically convert to non-hazardous or less toxic
compounds or compounds that are more stable,
less mobile, and/or inert.
Other or Unspecified Treatment - Treatment that
cannot be classified as physical treatment, chemical
treatment, thermal treatment, or bioremediation
treatment.

F.3.1 Source Control
Source control remedy - any removal, treatment,
containment, or management of any contaminant
source or contaminated medium other than
groundwater.
Source Media - "Source material is defined as
material that includes or contains hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants that act as
a reservoir [either stationary or mobile] for
migration of contamination to the groundwater,
to surface water, to air, [or to other environmental
media] or act as a source for direct exposure.
Contaminated ground water generally is not
F-2
-------
considered to be a source material although non-
aqueous phase liquids (NAPLS [occurring either
as residual- or free-phase]) may be viewed as source
materials." (A Guide to Principal Threat and Low
Level Threat Wastes, Superfund publication 9355.3-
02FS, USEPA OERR1991). Source media include
soil, sediment, sludge, debris, solid-matrix wastes,
surface water, non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLS),
equipment, drums, storage tanks, leachate, landfill
gas, and any other contaminated media other than
groundwater that can act as a potential source of
contamination.
1. Source Control Treatment
Any process meant to separate, destroy, or bind contaminants in a source medium. Key words used
n RODs to identify these processes are listed below. More detailed descriptions of most of the
:echnologies can be found in the ASR or at http://www.jrtr.gov.
Physical Treatment =
Acid extraction
Air sparging
Air stripping
Carbon adsorption (liquid-phase carbon
adsorption)"
Clarification
Decontamination
Dewatering
Dual-phase extraction
Electrical separation (electrokinetic separation)
Evaporation
Filtration
Flocculation
Flushing (soil flushing and surfactant flushing)
Ion exchange
Magnetic separation
Oil-water separation
Physical separation (component separation
and materials handling)
Reverse osmosis (membrane separation)
Soil flushing (in situ flushing and surfactant
flushing)
Soil vapor extraction (vacuum extraction and
vapor extraction)
Soil washing
Solidification/stabilization (asphalt batching,
immobilization, and microencapsulation)
Solid-phase extraction
Solvent extraction (chemical stripping)
Super-critical fluid extraction
Volatilization (aeration, mechanical soil
aeration, and tilling)
Chemical Treatment
Chemical treatment
Chemical oxidation (cyanide oxidation,
oxidation, and peroxidation)
Chemical reduction (reduction)
Dehalogenation (dechlorination)
Neutralization
Metals precipitation
Ultraviolet (UV) oxidation
Thermal Treatment
Flaring
Gas flaring
High energy corona
Open burning
Open detonation
Plasma high-temperature recovery (fuming
gasification and high-temperature metals
recovery)
Thermal desorption
Thermal destruction (incineration and
pyrolysis)
Thermally enhanced recovery (conductive
heating, Contained Recovery of Oily Wastes
[CROW®], dynamic underground stripping,
electrical resistance heating, hot air injection,
in situ thermal desorption, microwave heating,
radio frequency heating, and steam injection)
Thermal treatment
Vitrification (slagging)
F-3
-------
1. Spurce Control Treatment (continued)
Bioremediation
Aeration
Bioremediation
Biological treatment
Bioreactor
Bioventing
Biopile
Composting
Controlled solid phase
Fixed film
Other or Unspecified Treatment
Air emission treatment
Gas collection and treatment (off-gas treatment)
Hot gas decontamination
Leachate treatment
Landfarming
Nitrate enhancement
Nutrient injection
Oxidation enhancement with air sparging
Oxidation enhancement with hydrogen
peroxide (H2O2)
Slurry-phase bioremediation (bioslurry,
activated sludge)
White rot fungus
Physical-chemical treatment
Phytoremediation
Recycling
Surface water treatment
2. Source Control Containment
Any process or structure designed to prevent contaminants from migrating from a source media into
groundwater, to surface water, to air, (or to other environmental media) or acting as a source for
direct exposure.
Key words used in RODs to identify source control containment remedies are listed below:
Capping and Cover
Cap
Cover material
Evapotranspiration cover
Revegetation
Bottom Liner
Liner
Clay
Geosynthetic material
Drainage and Erosion Control
Engineering control
Hydraulic control
Impermeable barrier
Subsurface drain
Surface water control (dike, berm, drainage
controls, drainage ditch, erosion control, flood
protection, and levee)
Water table adjustment
On-Site Landfilling —
On-site consolidation
On-site landfilling
On-site disposal
Off -Site Landfilling —
Off-site consolidation
Off-site landfilling
Off-site disposal
Vertical Engineered Barrier
(Must apply to source medium. A vertical subsurface
engineered barrier used to control or contain
groundwater is not source control containment.)
Grout (grout curtain)
Impermeable barrier
Sheet piling
Slurry wall
Subsurface barrier
Vertical barrier

Other or Unspecified Containment
Containment (consolidation, disposal,
landfilling, and removal)
Encapsulation
Leachate control (leachate collection)
Overpacking
Permanent storage
Repair (pipe repair, sewer repair, and tank
repair)
F-4
-------
Source Control Other
Source control, other than treatment or containment.
Institutional Control
Access restriction
Deed restriction
Drilling restriction
Fishing restriction
Guard (security)
Institutional control
Land use restriction
Recreational restriction
Swimming restriction
Engineering Control —
Engineering control
Fencing
Wetland replacement

Source Monitoring—
Monitoring
Sampling
Population Relocation -
Population relocation
4. Source Control Monitored Natural Attenuation (WlfJA)
The reliance on natural attenuation processes (within the context of a carefully controlled and
monitored approach to site cleanup) to achieve site-specific remediation objectives within a time
frame that is reasonable, compared with that offered by other, more active methods. The "natural
attenuation processes" that are at work in such a remediation approach include a variety of physical,
chemical, or biological processes that, under favorable conditions, act without human intervention
to reduce the mass, toxicity, mobility, volume, or concentration of contaminants in soil or
groundwater. These in situ processes include biodegradation; dispersion; dilution; sorption;
volatilization; radioactive decay; and chemical or biological stabilization, transformation, or
destruction of contaminants (Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation at Superfund, RCRA Corrective
Action, and Underground Storage Tank Sites, USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Directive Number 9200.4-17P, 1999).
A remedy is considered .source control MNA if it includes "natural attenuation" or "monitored
natural attenuation" for a source (e.g., contaminated soil)
Groundwater Media - One or more aquifers beneath
or proximal to a source of contamination
contaminated by migration of a contaminant, such
as leachate, or by other sources.
F.3.2 Croundwater Remedies
Groundwater Remedy - Management of
groundwater. Groundwater remedies can include
in situ treatment, pump and treat, containment
using vertical engineered barriers, MNA, and other
measures to address groundwater.
5. Groundwater In Situ Treatment
Treatment of groundwater without extracting it from the ground. Key words used in RODs to
identify groundwater in situ treatment remedies are listed below:
Physical Treatment
Air sparging In-well air stripping (well aeration and air
Dual-phase extraction
Free product recovery
stripping)
Vapor extraction
Chemical Treatment
Chemical oxidation (oxidation and peroxidation)
Chemical reduction
Chemical treatment
Dechlorination
Permeable reactive barrier (chemical
reactive barrier, chemical reactive wall, and
passive treatment wall)
-------
Grouhdwater In Situ Treatment (cbntihiiedY
Thermal Treatment
Thermally enhanced recovery (conductive heating, CROW®, dynamic underground stripping, electrical
resistance heating, hot air injection, hot water or steam flushing and stripping, in-situ thermal
desorption, microwave heating, radio frequency heating, and steam injection)
Bioremediation
Aeration Co-metabolic treatment
Oxygen enhancement with air sparging
Oxygen enhancement with H2O2
Nitrate enhancement
Nutrient injection
Phytoremediation
Biological treatment
Bioremediation
Biosparging
Bioslurping
Bioventing-
Other or Unspecified Treatment •
Physical/chemical treatment
6. Grpufiawater Pump arid Treat
Extraction of groundwater from an aquifer followed by treatment above ground. Key words used in
RODs to identify groundwater pump and treat remedies are listed below:
Physical Treatment
Aeration (air stripping)
Carbon adsorption
Clarification (sedimentation)
Coagulation
Component separation
Equalization
Evaporation
Filtration
Chemical Treatment
Chemical reduction
Chemical oxidation (oxidation, cyanide
oxidation, and peroxidation)
Biological Treatment
Biological treatment
Bioreactors
Other or Unspecified Treatment
Pump and treat
Flocculation
Ion exchange
Oil/water separation
Metals precipitation
Reverse osmosis (microfiltration and
ultrafiltration)
Vapor extraction
Neutralization
Ultraviolet (UV) oxidation
Fixed film
Oxygen enhancement with H2O2
Physical/chemical treatment
7. GroUridwater Containment
Containment of groundwater, typically through the use of vertical engineered barriers. Keywords
used in RODs to identify groundwater containment remedies are listed below:
Vertical Engineered Barrier :
Deep soil mixing Impermeable barrier
Geosynthetic wall Sheet pile
Grout (grout curtain) Slurry wall
High-density polyethylene (HDPE) wall

Other or Unspecified Containment —
Plume containment
Subsurface vertical engineered barrier
(subsurface barrier, subsurface vertical barrier)
F-6
-------
8. Groundwater Other
Groundwater remedies that do not fall into the categories Groundwater In Situ Treatment,
Groundwater Pump and Treat, Groundwater Containment, or Groundwater Monitored Natural
Attenuation, including:
Institutional Control _
Deed restriction
Drilling restriction
Engineering Control
Extended piping
Croundwater Monitoring
Monitoring
Water Supply Remedies
Alternate water supply (alternate drinking water
and bottled water,)
Carbon at tap
Institutional control
Water supply use restriction
Engineering control
Sampling
Seal well (close well)
Treat at use location
"Well-head treatment
9. Groundwater MNA
-^^—«^^—^^^^^^™^^™^^™i^^™ii^^«^^^^^«
The reliance on natural attenuation processes (within the context of a carefully controlled and monitored
approach to site cleanup) to achieve site-specific remediation objectives within a time frame that is
reasonable, compared with that offered by other, more active methods. The "natural attenuation
processes" that are at work in such a remediation approach include a variety of physical, chemical,
or biological processes that, under favorable conditions, act without human intervention to reduce
the mass, toxicity, mobility, volume, or concentration of contaminants in soil or groundwater.
These in situ processes include biodegradation; dispersion; dilution; sorption; volatilization; radioactive
decay; and chemical or biological stabilization, transformation, or destruction of contaminants (Use
of Monitored Natural Attenuation at Superfimd, RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground Storage
Tank Sites, USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Directive Number 9200 4-17P,
1999).
A remedy is considered groundwater MNA if it includes "natural attenuation" or "monitored natural
attenuation" of groundwater.
10. Groundwater Extraction
The process of removing groundwater from beneath the ground surface, including the following
methods of groundwater extraction:
Directional well (horizontal well)
Pumping (vertical well)
Recovery trench (horizontal drain)
11. Groundwater Discharge and Management
A method of discharging or otherwise managing extracted groundwater, including the following discharge
methods and receptors:
Centralized waste treatment facility
Deep well injection
Publicly owned treatment works (POTW)
Recycling
Reuse as drinking water
Reuse as irrigation water
Reuse as process water
Surface drain reinjection
Surface water discharge [National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
discharge]
Vertical well reinjection
-------
F.3.3 No Action Remedies
The designation used for remedies that indicate no action or no further action will be taken. When
determining overall ROD type, the designation is used only for RODs under which NA/NFA is the
only remedy selected. If a ROD selects NA/NFA for only part of a site and another remedy for
another part of a site, the ROD is given the classification corresponding to that selected remedy
and is not given an NA/NFA designation.
F.4 SPECIAL CASES
This subsection provides a list of some special
cases and descriptions of how remedy and ROD
types should be assigned in those cases:
Decontamination:
• Decontamination of buildings, equipment,
tanks, debris, boulders, rocks, or other objects
is considered source control treatment. For
example, abrasive blasting or scarifying a
concrete pad to remove the contaminated
surface layer of the pad would be considered
source control treatment.
• Decontamination of equipment used to clean
up a Superfund site is a normal activity that
occurs at many Superfund sites and is not
considered a remedy. For example, high-
pressure water washing of a front end loader
used to excavate contaminated soil would not
be considered a remedy and would not be given
a remedy type.

Phytoremediation:
• Phytoremediation involves the use of
macroscopic plants to destroy, remove,
immobilize, or otherwise treat contaminants.
The process does not use microorganisms.
Processes that use microorganisms are
bioremediation.
• The use of plants to control water drainage at
a site is not phytoremediation, but is an
engineering control (source control other or
groundwater other).
Conditional Remedies - If a ROD indicates that
a certain remedy will be implemented under
specific conditions, the ROD is considered to have
selected the conditional remedy. For example, a
ROD may specify that, if soils exceed a certain
levels of contamination, they will be incinerated,
but, if they do not exceed that level, no further
action will be taken. In such a case, the ROD is
considered to have selected incineration and
therefore would be considered a source control
treatment ROD.
Vertical Engineered Barriers - Some of the
technologies used for vertical engineered barriers
are also used to control surface water and surface
drainage (for example, slurry walls and sheet piles).
The selected remedy should be analyzed carefully
to determine whether the containment is source
control or groundwater containment.
Solidification/Stabilization - Some of the
technologies used for solidification/stabilization
are used for containment, as well. For example,
encapsulation could mean placing a waste in
plastic drums, an approach that would be
classified as source control containment.
Encapsulation of a waste by mixing it with a
monomer and then causing the mixture to
polymerize, resulting in microencapsulation,
would be classified as source control treatment
(solidification/stabilization). In general,
containment involves isolating bulk wastes, while
solidification/stabilization involves incorporating
the waste into a medium so that the leachability
of the contaminants is reduced. The selected
remedy should be analyzed carefully to determine
whether it is a containment or a treatment
process.
F-8
-------
index
Air sparging 5, 15, 16, 17, 23, 31, 32, 33, 36

B
Bioremediation 3, 5, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25-28, 31, 32, 33, 36
CERCLIS 2,32
Chemical treatment 3, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21,
23, 25, 26, 27, 33, 36
Clu-in 12, 17, 23, 24, 27, 29, 33, 34, 36

D
Dual-phase extraction 5, 11, 16, 17, 18, 26, 33
Electrical separation 3, 11, 16, 17, 18, 26
0
OERR 35, 38
Open burn/open detonation 11, 16, 17, 18

P
Permeable reactive barrier (PRB) 'l, 6, 16, 17,
32, 33, 34, 35
Physical separation 4, 11, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 26
Phytoremediation 1, 4, 11, 16, 17, 18, 25, 26,
28-31, 33
Pump-and-treat 1, 2, 23, 32
R
Remedial action 1, 11, 14, 17, 22, 23, 27, 28,
31, 32, 33, 34, 35
Removal action 1, 37
ROD 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 23, 32, 35, 36, 38
FRTR 3, 12, 25
Groundwater 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14,
15, 16, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32-37
In-well air stripping 5, 16, 17, 33
Incineration (off-site) 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19,
23, 26, 36
Incineration (on-site) 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19,
23, 26
Innovative 1, 2, 3, 12, 20, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32,
33, 37, 38

M
Mechanical soil aeration 3, 11, 16, 17, 18, 26
MNA 32, 34-36

N
Neutralization 4, 11, 16, 18, 26
NPL 7, 8, 38
Soil flushing 3, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21,
25, 27, 29
Soil vapor extraction (SVE) 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13,
15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 36
Soil washing 4, 11, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 26, 36
Solidification/stabilization (S/S) 2, 4, 11, 12,
13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,
26, 31, 36
Solvent extraction 4, 11, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23,
26,36
Source control 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 36
Thermal desorption
2, 5, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24,
25, 26, 27, 36
Thermally enhanced recovery 5, 11, 16, 17, 18,
20, 21, 25, 26, 27

V
Vertical Engineered Barrier (VEB) 2, 6, 32-34
Vitrification 5, 11, 16, 17, 18, 21, 26, 36
-------
-------
-------
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
(5102G)
Washington, D.C. 20460

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

EPA-542-R-01-004
-------