EPA-542-R-96-010
Number 8
November 1996
Innovative Treatment Technologies:
Annual Status Report
(Eighth Edition)
Applications of New Technologies
at Hazardous Waste Sites
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NOTICE m
FOREWORD iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v
ABSTRACT vl
OVERVIEW l
Introduction
Sources of Information for this Report *•
What are Established and Innovative Treatment Technologies 1
Definitions of Specific Innovative Treatment Technologies 2
Source Control Technologies 2
Groundwater Treatment Technologies 3
Contents of this Report 4
SECTION 1: SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS 5
Overview of RODs ^
Source Control RODs 5
Source Control Technologies 7
Status of Innovative Treatment Technology Projects 11
Contaminants Addressed 12
Quantity of Soil Addressed 12
Treatment Trains 12
Soil Vapor Extraction "
Thermal Desorption 1^
Bioremediation '"
On-Site Incineration ^
Groundwater Remediation Technologies 19
SECTION 2: SUPERFUND REMOVAL ACTIONS 20
SECTION 3: ACTIONS UNDER OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS 21
APPENDICES
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Appendix F:
Treatment Technologies by Fiscal Year
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Treatment Trains with Innovative Treatment Technologies
Innovative Technologies: Summary of Status Report Updates, Changes, and Deletions
On-Site Incineration: Summary of Status Report Updates, Changes, and Deletions
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Superfund Remedial Actions: RODs Signed by Fiscal Year 5
Figure 2: Superfund Remedial Actions: Source Control RODs by Fiscal Year 6
Figure 3: Superfund Remedial Actions: Overview of Source Control RODs Through
Fiscal Year 1995 6
Figure 4: Superfund Remedial Actions: Treatment and Disposal Decisions
for Source Control 7
Figure 5: Superfund Remedial Actions: Summary of Source Control Treatment
Technologies Selected Through Fiscal Year 1995 8
Figure 6: Superfund Remedial Actions: Number of Established Versus Innovative
Treatment Technologies for Source Control 9
Figure 7: Superfund Remedial Actions: Trends for Three Most Frequently Selected
Established Technologies for Source Control 10
Figure 8: Superfund Remedial Actions: Trends for Three Most Frequently Selected
Innovative Technologies IQ
Figure 9: Superfund Remedial Actions: Project Status of Innovative Treatment
Technologies as of August 1996 11
Figure 10: Superfund Remedial Actions: Applications of Innovative Treatment Technologies 12
Figure 11: Superfund Remedial Actions: Estimated Quantities of Soil to be Treated by
Innovative Technologies 13
Figure 12: Superfund Remedial Actions: Number of Innovative Treatment Technologies
Versus Corresponding RODs 13
Figure 13: Superfund Remedial Actions: Treatment Trains with Innovative
Treatment Technologies 14
Figure 14: Superfund Remedial Actions: Contaminants Treated by Thermal Desorption 15
Figure 15: Superfund Remedial Actions: Bioremediation Methods 16
Figure 16: Superfund Remedial Actions: Contaminants Treated by Bioremediation 17
Figure 17: Superfund Remedial Actions: Types of Sites Addressed by Bioremediation 17
Figure 18: Superfund Remedial Actions: Project Status of On-Site Incineration Projects 18
Figure 19: Superfund Remedial Actions: Groundwater Remedies Through Fiscal Year 1995 19
Figure 20: Superfund Removal Actions: Project Status of Innovative Treatment Technologies
as of August 1996 20
Figure 21: Sample of Projects Under Other Federal and RCRA Corrective Action Programs:
Status of Innovative Treatment Technologies as of August 1996 21
u
-------
NOTICE
This material has been funded wholly or in part by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
under Contract Number 68-W5-0055 to PRC Environ-
mental Management, Inc. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use. The Innovative Treatment Tech-
nologies: Annual Status Report (ASR), Eighth Edition
(EPA-542-R-96-010) and tine Innovative Treatment Tech-
nologies: Annual Status Report Database (ITT Database)
Version 2.0 (EPA-542-C-96-002)* are available free of
charge. Order by fax or mail from:
U.S. EPA/ National Center for Environmental
Publications and Information (NCEPI)
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Fax Number: (513) 489-8695
Phone Verification: (513) 489-8190 or
(800) 490-9198
Allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. The most current ITT
Database is also available for downloading from the fol-
lowing sources:
• Cleanup Information Bulletin Board System (CLU-
INBBS). Internet Address: http://clu-in.com. Using
Modem: (301) 589-8366 (8 Data Bits, 1 Stop Bit, No
Parity, VT-100 or ANSI). Voice help: (301) 589-8368.
• Alternative Treatment Technology Information Cen-
ter (ATTIC). Using modem: (703) 908-2138 (8 Data
Bits, 1 Stop Bit, No Parity, VT-100 or ANSI). Voice
help: (703) 908-2137.
* The ITT Database, Version 2.0 will be available in
Spring 1997.
111
-------
FOREWORD
This report documents the status of application of inno-
vative treatment technologies and on-site incineration in
the Superfund program. It presents information on some,
but not all, projects applying innovative treatment tech-
nologies at non-Superfund sites such as those subject to
corrective action under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), and those being addressed by the
Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of
Energy (DOE). We have expanded the report to include
many new innovative projects selected by the EPA in fis-
cal year 1995 and many graphics and tables to assist the
reader in understanding the data. In addition, more de-
tailed information on the status of on-site incineration
projects has been added to the report. A software version
of the report also is available.
The software version of the report, called the Innovative
Treatment Technologies Annual Status Report Database
(ITT Database), is a Windows™-based system that con-
tains all of the site-specific information as well as all of
the text and graphics found in the hard copy version. In-
formation provided about each site includes site type,
technology selected or used, target contaminants, con-
taminated matrix, project status, and site contact names
and telephone numbers. Additional information about
completed projects includes periods of operation, typical
pre- and post-treatment concentrations of key contami-
nants treated, cleanup goals, operating parameters (such
as retention time and additives), materials handling re-
quired, and management of residuals. The database is
searchable and can generate statistics and reports tailored
to the user's specifications. Ordering information for the
database and the hard-copy report is on the preceding
page. If you have access, we encourage you to download
the database from one of the sources listed.
We intend this information to improve communication
between experienced technology users and those who are
considering innovative technologies to clean up contami-
nated sites. The information will enable technology
vendors to evaluate the market for possible application
of innovative treatment technologies at Superfund sites
and other contaminated sites for the next several years.
Our goal with this report is to increase the application of
new, less costly, and more effective technologies to ad-
dress the problems at Superfund sites as well as other
contaminated sites.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This document was prepared for the EPA's Technology
Innovation Office.
information in this document. Their cooperation and
willingness to share their expertise on innovative treat-
ment technologies encourages the application of those
Specialacknowledgementisdueto the federal and state technologies at other sites.
staff and other remediation professionals listed as con-
tacts for individual sites. They provided the detailed
-------
ABSTRACT
This yearly report documents and analyzes the selec-
tion and use of innovative treatment technologies in the
EPA Superfund Program and at some non-Superfund
sites subject to corrective action under the RCRA
Program, and those sites being addressed by DoD and
DOE. The report updates the status of all the projects
and includes 36 projects for which innovative technolo-
gies were selected in Superfund Records of Decision
(RODs) signed during fiscal year 1995. Also new in
this year's report is the addition of detailed status infor-
mation for 43 on-site incineration projects at Superfund
remedial sites. The information will improve commu-
nication between experienced technology users and those
who are considering innovative technologies or on-site
incineration to clean up contaminated sites. In addition,
the information will enable technology vendors to evalu-
ate the market for innovative technologies and on-site
incineration at Superfund sites for the next several years.
Alternative treatment technologies are alternatives to land
disposal or containment. Innovative treatment technolo-
gies are alternative treatment technologies for which use
is inhibited by lack of data on cost and performance. This
report documents the use of the following innovative treat-
ment technologies to treat groundwater (in situ), soils,
sediments, sludge, and solid-matrix wastes:
Soil Technologies
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Contained Recovery of Oily Wastes (CROW™)
Cyanide oxidation
Dechlorination
• Hot air injection
• In situ flushing
• Vitrification
• Physical separation
• Plasma high temperature metals recovery
• Soil vapor extraction
• Soil washing
• Solvent extraction
• Thermal desorption
Groundwater Technologies
Air sparging
Bioremediation (in situ)
Dual-phase extraction
In situ oxidation
In situ well aeration
Passive treatment walls
This document includes a list of sites and analysis of 345
applications of innovative treatment technologies for
remedial actions, 32 applications for removal actions, 10
applications under RCRA corrective actions, and 32
applications under other federal programs. The analysis
includes the number of applications by technology, types
of contaminants treated, quantities of soil treated, and sta-
tus of the project. The information for these sections was
collected through analyses of RODs; review of 68 RCRA
corrective action statements of basis; review of EPA's Of-
fice of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
tracking systems; and interviews with EPA regional staff,
as well as with DoD and DOE staff.
VI
-------
OVERVIEW
• Information 'on 18 comptefed-
'Superfundr innovative projects "
'JJjs' .» -»j;a. . ,<""' •>!,
I, UttcftuS on 43 Superfund on-site
~ ?# -* -, * *
^incineration projects "' s* -*
*^Jpdated searchable database,
:'-/«> V , . .r
system „_ ' / - - - ~
INTRODUCTION
The Technology Innovation Office (TIO) of the U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) has prepared
this Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status
Report, Eighth Edition, to document the use of innova-
tive treatment technologies to _ ^_
remediate contaminated hazardous
waste sites. The report contains a list
and an analysis of Superfund sites
(both remedial and removal actions),
Resource Conservation and Recov-
ery Act (RCRA) corrective action
sites, and other non-Superfund sites
(that is, sites addressed under other
federal programs) at which innova-
tive treatment technologies are being
used. Site managers can use this re-
port to evaluate cleanup alternatives
for similar sites. Innovative technology vendors can use
it to identify potential markets. TIO also uses the infor-
mation to track progress in the application of innovative
treatment technologies.
The report is updated annually. This Eighth Edition of
the report updates and expands information provided in
the September 1995 report. Information added to this
update includes 36 innovative treatment technologies se-
lected for remedial actions in fiscal year (FY) 1995
Superfund Records of Decision (RODs) — a ROD is the
decision document used to specify the way a site, or part
of a site, will be remediated — and information on 16
additional projects that have been completed. In addi-
tion, detailed information on 43 on-site incineration
projects has been added to the report. Also added is
information about two innovative technologies selected
in statements of basis (SBs) for implementation at RCRA
corrective action sites.
This report does not address sites that use nontreatment
remedies, such as landfilling and capping. It contains
only minimal information about sites that use solidifica-
tion/stabilization, pump-and-treat remedies, off-site
incineration, or natural attenuation. More information
about RODs that specify such remedies is presented in
the series of ROD annual reports published by the Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR). For more
information about those reports, call the Superfund Hot-
line at (800) 424-9346 (outside the Washington, D.C.
Efoter s
36" innovative technologies
metropolitan calling area) or (703) 412-9810 (inside the
Washington, D.C. metropolitan calling area).
SOURCES OF INFORMATION FOR THIS REPORT
EPA initially used RODs for individual sites to compile
information on remedial action, and pollution reports,
on-scene coordinators'(OSC) reports,
and the OSWER Removal Tracking
System to compile data on emergency
response actions. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Hazard-
ous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
(HTRW) Mandatory Center of Exper-
tise in Omaha, Nebraska and RCRA
corrective action SBs were consulted
to compile information on projects un-
der other federal programs. EPA then
verified and updated the draft informa-
' - -j tion through interviews with remedial
project managers (RPM), OSCs, and
other contacts for each site. The data on project status
supplements data in the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Information Sys-
tem (CERCLIS), EPA's Superfund tracking system, by
providing more detailed information on the specific por-
tion of the remedy that involves an innovative technology.
In addition, information about technologies and sites iden-
tified here might differ from information found in the ROD
annual reports and the RODs database. Such differences
are the result of changes 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 [BSD]).
WHAT ARE ESTABLISHED AND INNOVATIVE
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES?
Treatment technologies are alternatives to land disposal.
Established treatment technologies are those for which
cost and performance information is readily available. The
most frequently used established technologies are incin-
eration, solidification/stabilization, and pump-and-treat
technologies for groundwater. Treatment of groundwa-
ter after it has been pumped to the surface often resembles
traditional water treatment; therefore, in general,
pump-and-treat groundwater remedies are considered
established technologies.
-------
OVERVIEW
Innovative treatment technologies are alternative treatment
technologies for which routine use at Superfund and simi-
lar sites is inhibited by lack of data on performance and
cost. In general, a treatment technology is considered
innovative if it has had limited full-scale application.
Often, it is the application of a technology or process to
soils, sediments, sludge, and solid-matrix waste (such as
mining slag) or groundwater that is innovative. This re-
port documents the use of the following innovative
treatment technologies to treat groundwater, soils, sedi-
ments, sludge, and solid-matrix waste:
Soil Technologies
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Contained Recovery of Oily Wastes (CROW™)
Cyanide oxidation
Dechlorination
Hot air injection
In situ flushing
Physical separation
Plasma high temperature metals recovery
Soil vapor extraction
Soil washing
Solvent extraction
Thermal desorption
Vitrification
Groundwater Technologies
Air sparging
Bioremediation (in situ)
Dual-phase extraction
In situ oxidation
In situ well aeration
Passive treatment walls
Over the past several years, a number of remedial tech-
nologies that are considered innovative have seen
increased use at Superfund and other contaminated sites.
In particular, an increasing number of soil vapor extrac-
tion and thermal desorption projects have been completed.
Although those technologies have become accepted more
generally, this report continues to track soil vapor extrac-
tion and thermal desorption as innovative technologies
because the results of most of the projects are not widely
known.
DEFINITIONS OF SPECIFIC INNOVATIVE TREAT-
MENT TECHNOLOGIES
This document reports on the use of the innovative reme-
diation technologies listed above, on-site incineration,
and, to a lesser extent, on the use of other established
technologies. The technologies reported in the following
sections treat contaminants in very different ways. This
section provides brief definitions of the 14 types of source
control (primarily soil) innovative technologies, six types
of innovative in situ groundwater technologies as they
are used in this document.
Source Control Technologies
EX SITU BIOREMEDIATION uses microorganisms to de-
grade organic contaminants in excavated soil, sludge, and
solids. The micro-organisms break down the contaminants by
using them as a food source. The end products typically are
CO2 and Hf). Ex situ bioremediation includes slurry phase
bioremediation, in which the soils are mixed in water to form
a slurry, and solid-phase bioremediation, in which the soils
are placed in a cell or building and tilled with added water and
nutrients. Land farming and composting are types of solid-
phase bioremediation.
In applications of IN SITU SOIL BIOREMEDIATION,
an oxygen source and sometimes nutrients are pumped
under pressure into the soil through wells, or they are
spread on the surface for infiltration to the contaminated
material. Bioventing is a common form of in situ
bioremediation. Bioventing utilizes extraction wells to
circulate air with or without pumping air into the ground.
The CONTAINED RECOVERY OF OILY WASTES
(CROW™) process displaces oily wastes with steam and
hot water. The contaminated oils are swept into a more
permeable area and are pumped out of the soil.
In CYANIDE OXIDATION organic cyanides are oxidized
to less hazardous compounds through chemical reactions.
DECHLORINATION is a chemical reaction which re-
moves or replaces chlorine atoms contained in hazardous
compounds, rendering them less hazardous.
For IN SITU FLUSHING, large volumes of water, at times
supplemented with treatment compounds, are introduced
into soil or waste, to flush hazardous contaminants from
a site. Injected water must be isolated effectively within
the aquifer and recovered.
-------
OVERVIEW
With HOT AIR INJECTION, heated air is injected and
circulated through the subsurface. The heated air volatil-
izes volatile organic compounds so they can be extracted
and captured for further treatment or recycling.
PHYSICAL SEPARATION removes contaminants from
a medium in order to reduce the volume of material re-
quiring treatment.
PLASMA HIGH TEMPERATURE METALS RECOV-
ERY is a thermal treatment process that purges
contaminants from solids and soils as metal fumes and
organic vapors. The organic vapors can be burned as fuel
and the metal fumes can be recovered and recycled.
SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION (SVE) removes volatile
organic compounds from the soil in situ through the use
of vapor extraction wells, sometimes combined with air
injection wells, to strip and flush the contaminants into
the air stream for further treatment.
SOIL WASHING is used for two purposes. First, the
mechanical action and water (sometimes with additives)
physically remove the contaminants from the soil par-
ticles. Second, agitation of the soil particles allows the
more highly contaminated fine particles to separate from
the larger ones, thus reducing the volume of material re-
quiring further treatment.
SOLVENT EXTRACTION operates on the principle that,
in the correct solvent, organic contaminants can be solu-
bilized preferentially and removed from the waste. The
solvent used will vary, depending on waste type.
For THERMAL DESORPTION, the waste is heated in a
controlled environment to cause organic compounds to
volatilize. The operating temperature for thermal des-
orption is usually less than 1,000°F (550°C). The
volatilized contaminants usually require further control
or treatment.
VITRIFICATION melts contaminated soil at temperatures
of approximately 3,000°F (1,600°C). Metals are encap-
sulated in the glass-like structure of the solidified silicate
compounds. Organics may be treated by combustion.
Groundwater Treatment Technologies
AIR SPARGING involves injecting air or oxygen into
the aquifer to strip or flush volatile contaminants as the
, air bubbles up through the groundwater and is captured
by a vapor extraction system. The entire system acts as
an in situ air stripper. Stripped or volatilized contami-
nants usually will be removed through soil vapor extrac-
tion wells and usually require further treatment.
Air sparging often is combined with IN SITU GROUND-
WATER BIOREMEDIATION, in which nutrients or an
oxygen source (such as air) are pumped under pressure
into the aquifer through wells to enhance biodegradation
of contaminants in the groundwater.
MODEL OF AN AIR SPARGING SYSTEM
Vapor Extraction Well
Vapor Extraction Well
Air Sparger Well
1
?o° o
rrr
o o 0
Ground Surface
Vo'^P"
V
DUAL-PHASE EXTRACTION removes contaminants
simultaneously from both the saturated and the unsatur-
ated zone soils in situ. This new technology applies soil
vapor extraction techniques to contaminants trapped in
saturated zone soils, which are more difficult to extract
than those in the unsaturated zone. In some instances,
this result may be achieved by sparging the groundwater
section of a well that penetrates the groundwater table.
Other methods also may be employed.
IN SITU OXIDATION oxidizes contaminants that are
dissolved in groundwater, converting them into insoluble
compounds.
PASSIVE TREATMENT WALLS act like chemical treat-
ment zones. Contaminated groundwater comes into
contact with the wall, which is permeable, and a chemical
reaction takes place. Limestone treatment zones increase
the pH, which effectively immobilizes dissolved metals
in the saturated zone. Another type of passive treatment
wall contains iron filings that dechlorinate compounds.
SURFACTANT FLUSHING of non-aqueous phase liq-
uids (NAPL) increases the solubility and mobility of
contaminants in water, so that the NAPL can be biode-
graded more easily in the aquifer or recovered for
treatment aboveground by a pump-and-treat system.
-------
OVERVIEW
CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT
The following sections contain summary information
about and analysis of sites at which innovative treatment
technologies are being or have been applied. Section 1:
Superfund Remedial Actions covers all Superfund sites
at which an innovative treatment technology or on-site
incineration is being or has been implemented under a
remedial action. Such actions usually are documented in
a ROD. Soil and groundwater technologies are discussed
separately. Section 2: Superfund Removal Actions pro-
vides information on Superfund removal action sites.
Removal actions are usually conducted in response to a
more immediate threat caused by a release of hazardous
substances than threats addressed by remedial actions.
Section 3: Actions Under Other Federal Programs cov-
ers non-Superfund sites being addressed under RCRA and
other federal programs.
-------
SECTION 1: SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
OVERVIEW OF RODs
As of June 1996, there are 1,227 sites on the National
Priorities List (NPL), excluding 82 sites deleted from the
NPL. An additional 52 sites are proposed for the NPL.
As of the end of FY 1995, 1,569 RODs (including ROD
amendments) had been signed. Most RODs for remedial
actions address the source of contamination, such as soil,
sludge, sediments, and solid-matrix wastes. Such RODs
are referred to as "source control" RODs. In addition to
the source, source control RODs may address remedial
action required for groundwater. Other, non-source con-
trol RODs address groundwater only or specify that no
action is necessary. Figure 1 shows the number of source
control RODs compared with the total number of RODs
for each fiscal year since 1982.
Based on RODs available as of August 1996, a total of
188 RODs (including ROD amendments) were signed in
FY 1995, an increase of 23 from the number signed in
FY 1994. The number of source control RODs increased
by 19 during FY 1995. The percentage of source control
RODs relative to the total number of RODs increased
slightly from 59 percent in FY 1994 to 62 percent in FY
1995.
SOURCE CONTROL RODs
Source control RODs can be classified by the general
type of technology selected: (1) RODs specifying some
alternative treatment, (2) RODs specifying containment
or disposal only, and (3) RODs specifying institutional
controls or other actions (such as restrictions on land use,
monitoring, or relocation of the affected community).
Figure L Superfund Remedial Actions: RODs Signed by Fiscal Year
220
200
180
160
140
120
Number 100
of
RODS SO
60
40
20
0
•Total RODs
o Source Control RODS
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91
Fiscal Year
93
94
95
The difference between the total number of Records of Decision (RODs) (1,669) and the number of
source control RODs (1,126) is the number of "groundwater treatment only" or "no action
needed" RODs (total of 543).
Source: USEPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, 1996. Fiscal year 1995 data are
preliminary.
5
-------
SECTION 1: SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Figure 2 shows the number of source control RODs that
fall under each category. RODs in which some treatment
is selected may include containment of treatment resi-
dues or waste from another part of the site. Overall, for
63 percent of all source control RODs (from FY 1982 to
FY 1995) at least one treatment technology for source
control was selected (Figure 3).
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 (SARA) expressed a preference for permanent rem-
edies (that is, alternative treatment) over containment or
disposal to remediate Superfund sites. From FY 1988
through FY 1993, at least 70 percent of source control
RODs provided provisions for treatment of wastes
(Figure 4). The increase was most dramatic in FY 1988.
Figure 2. Superfund Remedial Actions:
Source Control RODs by Fiscal Year
Number of 10°
Source Control
RODS
60
Other (Institutional Controls,
Monitoring, Relocation)
^(Containment/Disposal Only
I [Treatment
57 61 56
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
Source: USEPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, 1996. Fiscal year 1995 data are preliminary.
FigureS. Superfund Remedial Actions:
Overview of Source Control RODs Through Fiscal Year 1995
Containment or Disposal
Only (384) 34%
Institutional controls, monitoring,
or relocation (34) 3%
Some Treatment (708) 63%
( ) Number of Records of Decision (RODs).
Source: USEPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; includes preliminary fiscal year 1995 data.
-------
SECTION 1: SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Figure 4. Superfund Remedial Actions:
Treatment and Disposal Decisions for Source Control
Percent of
Source Control 50
RODs
40
Containment or Disposal Only
Some Treatment
Some Innovative Treatment
00
82
83
84
88 89 90
Fiscal Year
* Preliminary data.
Note: Data for innovative technologies are derived from Records of Decision (RODs) for fiscal years (FY) 1982-
1995 and anticipated design and construction activities as of August 1996. Remaining data (containment
of disposal only and some treatment) based on FY 1982-1995 RODs.
In 50 percent of RODs signed in 1987, some treatment
for source control was selected, while some treatment
was selected in 72 percent of those signed in FY 1988.
However, the percentage in FY 1994 and FY 1995 de-
creased to 59 and 53 percent respectively.
Correspondingly, in the last two years there was an in-
crease in the number of source control RODs that specify
containment or disposal only, compared with RODs un-
der which some treatment of the source material was
selected. Figure 4 also illustrates the percentage of
RODs in which at least one innovative technology was
selected, as updated by current project status informa-
tion. Innovative technologies were selected and still
are being considered or used under about 23 percent of
the 1,126 source control RODs. Overall, innovative
technologies have been selected in 17 percent of all
1,569 RODs signed since 1982.
SOURCE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
This section discusses the number and kinds of treat-
ment technologies selected and used for source control
in the Superfund remedial program. Most of the rest of
the information in this section focuses on technologies,
rather than RODs. In each ROD in which treatment
was specified, more than one type of treatment tech-
nology may have been selected.
Figure 5 gives an overview of the established and inno-
vative treatment technologies selected for source
control. Through FY 1995, a total of 690 treatment
technologies *were selected in 708 source control RODs
specifying some treatment. The selection of multiple
technologies results from the use of treatment trains or
from the treatment of different wastes or areas of the
site. Figure 5 illustrates that, through FY 1995,43 per-
-------
SECTION 1: SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Figure 5. Superfund Remedial Actions:
Summary of Source Control Treatment Technologies Selected Through Fiscal Year 1995
Established Technologies (390) 57%
Off-Site Incineration (125) 18%
On-Site Incineration (43) 6%
Solidification/Stabilization (206) 30%
Innovative Technologies (300) 43%
Soil Vapor Extraction* (139) 20%
Thermal Desorption (50) 7%
Ex Situ Bioremediation (43) 6%
In Situ Bioremediation (26) 4%
Situ Flushing (16) 2%
-SoilWashing (9)1%
- Solvent Extraction (5) < 1%
Other Established" (16) 2% J '— Dechlorination (4) < 1 %
-Other Innovative" (8)1%
Note:
**
Data for off-site incineration, solidification/stabilization, and other established technologies based on
Records of Decision (RODs) for fiscal years 1982-1995. Data for innovative technologies and on-site
incineration based on anticipated design and construction activities as of August 1996. A site may use
more than one technology.
Number of times this technology was selected or used.
Includes three dual-phase extraction projects also listed as in situ groundwater technologies.
"Other" established technologies are soil aeration, open detonation, and chemical neutralization. "Other"
innovative technologies are hot air injection, physical separation, contained recovery of oily wastes
(CROW™), cyanide oxidation, vitrification, and plasma high temperature metals recovery.
cent of the 690 treatment technologies selected were
innovative and 57 percent were established. Soil vapor
extraction and thermal desorption are indicated as a
separate wedge on Figure 5 because of the large num-
ber of applications of those two technologies. Appendix
A provides data on the selection of the 690 source con-
trol treatment technologies by fiscal year.
Appendix B, Innovative Technology Summary Matrix,
lists each of the innovative and treatment technology
projects for source control at remedial sites. (The sum-
mary matrix also includes innovative groundwater
projects, removal actions, and non-Superfund projects that
will be discussed in later sections.) Appendix C contains
a matrix of established source control technologies. The
ITT Database (see Notice) contains detailed information
on specific sites at which innovative technologies or on-
site incineration are being implemented. Information on
established treatment technologies other than on-site in-
cineration is based on a review of RODs rather than
interviews of regional or state staff. Therefore, the only
information provided for sites using established tech-
nologies other than on-site incineration is the name of
the site and the year in which the ROD was signed.
The list of sites does not reflect any changes in the rem-
edy that may have occurred in the design phase of the
cleanup and does not report the status of the projects.
-------
SECTION 1: SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Figure 6 compares the total number of established and
innovative technologies for source control selected by
fiscal year. The figure shows that more innovative tech-
nologies than established technologies were selected
in RODs signed during FY 1993, FY 1994, and FY
1995. Figure 7 shows selection trends for the major
established technologies, on-site and off-site incinera-
tion and solidification/stabilization. The selection of
solidification/stabilization exhibited the most signifi-
cant change, decreasing from 13 in FY 1994 to five in
FY 1995. The selection of this technology has de-
creased steadily since peaking at 37 RODs in FY 1992.
Figure 8 graphically depicts, by fiscal year, the fre-
quency of selection for the three most often selected
innovative treatment technologies: soil vapor extraction,
thermal desorption, and bioremediation. These three
technologies are discussed in more detail in later sec-
tions. Appendix A gives the number of established and
innovative treatment technologies for both source con-
trol and groundwater by fiscal year.
Figure 6. Superfund Remedial Actions:
Number of Established Versus Innovative Treatment Technologies for Source Control
Number of 40
Treatment
Technologies so
Selected
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
(1) Data based on Records of Decision (RODs), except on-site incineration data, which
are based on anticipated design and construction activities as of August 1996.
(2) Data based on anticipated design and construction activities as of August 1996.
Note: A site may use more than one technology.
-------
SECTION 1: SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Figure?. Superfund Remedial Actions:
Trends for Three Most Frequently Selected Established Technologies for Source Control
Number of 25
Treatment
Technologies 20
Selected
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
(1 ) Data based on anticipated design and construction activities as of August 1996.
(2) Data based on Records of Decision (RODs).
Figures. Superfund Remedial Actions :
Trends for Three Most Frequently Selected Innovative Technologies
Number of
Treatment
Technologies
Selected
Soil Vapor Extraction
Bioremediatiom
Thermal Desorption
84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
* Includes soil and in situ groundwater treatment.
10
-------
SECTION 1: SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Status of Innovative Treatment
Technology Projects
An increasing number of innovative treatment technol-
ogy projects are being implemented at remedial Superfund
sites. In the past year, 21 additional innovative treatment
technology projects for source control and in situ ground-
water treatment have been implemented, and 16 source
control projects have been completed. Appendix B gives
the status of each project, and Figure 9 provides a sum-
mary of their status by technology type. The design of
such projects typically takes one to three years. The ITT
Database presents some brief performance and operat-
ing data on remedial, removal, and non-Superfund projects
that have been completed. Data provided include peri-
ods of operation, typical pre- and post-treatment
concentrations of key contaminants treated, cleanup goals,
operating parameters (such as retention time and addi-
tives), materials handling required, and management of
residuals.
Figure 9. Superfund Remedial Actions:
Project Status of Innovative Treatment Technologies as of August 1996
Predesign/ Design Complete/
Technology In Design Being Installed
Source Control Technologies & '&• ir*,^-"'
Soil Vapor Extraction* ^~ ?3& "".""" ,
Thermal Desorption jC~14s ,«•
Bioremediation (Ex Situ) 5*^1*6
Bioremediation (In Situ) > 4S-9 * •* ,. ,
In Situ Flushing *t&-.\*t ,"
Soil Washing iSL^M?- ' '-'C
Solvent Extraction J£ 2?- „* '*>•
Dechlorination ,^?\»1 * - v
Vitrification F" £& ',- ~"
Cyanide Oxidation *'^" 1 ' » -
Hot Air Injection JR^f" t . -h - ,
CROW ^-#0 _;s *"J"
Physical Separation * , #* 0 " %
Plasma High Temperature ^S^ ,f ,tl",
Metals Recovery K * 21, ! y" ' f '
TOTAL '^^C(|2%}"
f #•' 'Jt***?' '
In Situ Groundwater Technologies /, ,-j* ^',1 =f
Air Sparging !F'^6< 5*" "^
Bioremediation (In Situ) T ^.?3^'*> ' *" "
Passive Treatment Wall rv*~-%" . " > t
Dual-Phase Extraction ^-*S'1 »sr '*
In Situ Well Aeration ^ .1 '."^^
In Situ Oxidation if 2r ^^ , " „/<
TOTAL ^-t*ls|4p%") ^
33
8
8
5
2
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
61 (20%)
8
5
0
2
0
1
16 (36%)
Operational Completed
^Osa "* '"* is *
:,.£"4 ", " 24
» ». 14 -j* - 5 jjf
^t> *|^,| ^. 2
f:i^6sr -~ 1 iM
TJ*- Os_. -i 1 r«
*,"& , ^ 1 t
^^ ft *" "^ i" 2 ^^
iS*. 5-1' * 1 ^
** SO' 0 $
' * •o:--rf* o i
», >"-j5 '>• - -• 1 ^J
" ^~(f ^ 1 Kf
"jif" " *~ '£*• *
•fk, T* ^ y* «J
i^,^— -j o p
r>*8$5^)1 57 (1 9%) (-
f-:^^ /- p
S^^* rf'1* f"1 4 f\ $4,
* *X & V jj,
L,.^3 . ir, 0 F
f _ 0 " ,< 1 0 ^
*V"'cr r ~. o g
- <"¥*o • - - o 5
^** ^6 -x ^ 3 o *;
^^1^1^). 0(0%) P
Total I
••^:
f -« 33* .
J^^6M;
^*" 1Q.
•r'vj'3 a^
$$£ 5,
" 5»JS^ * "
t^^S
i»> -1' "**
-------
SECTION 1: SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
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. Figure 10 pro-
vides that information, by technology, for three major
groups of contaminants: volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and
metals. For this report, compounds are categorized as
VOCs or SVOCs, according to the lists provided in EPA's
SW-846 test methods 8240 and 8270, respectively. The
UT Database contains information about specific con-
taminants treated at each site at which an innovative
technology or on-site incineration is being used.
Quantity of Soil Addressed
EPA analyzed the quantity of soil treated at 241 remedial
action sites at which innovative treatment technologies
are being used, and for which data on the quantity of media
treated are available (Figure 11). Typically, in situ tech-
nologies are used to address larger quantities of soil, while
ex situ technologies are used to treat smaller quantities.
Because quantities for in situ projects cannot be accu-
rately determined and many projects are not completed,
the quantities in Figure 11 should be considered estimates.
Treatment Trains
Figure 12 compares the number of innovative technolo-
gies selected for both source control and in situ
groundwater treatment with the number of RODs in which
these technologies were selected. The graph shows that
some sites use more than one innovative technology, of-
ten together in treatment trains. Twenty-nine remedial sites
use treatment trains for source control.
Figure 10. Superfund Remedial Actions:
Applications of Innovative Treatment Technologies
Number of
Applications
Soil Vapor Thermal Bioremedlation Bioremediation Soil
Extraction Desorptlon (Ex Situ) (In Situ)* Washing
Innovative Technology
In Situ
Flushing
Solvent
Extraction
Note: Data are derived from Records of Decision (RODs) for fiscal years 1982-1995 and anticipated
design and construction activities as of August 1996.
* Does not include in situ groundwater bioremediation.
12
-------
SECTION 1: SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Figure 11. Superfund Remedial Actions:
Estimated Quantities of Soil To Be Treated By Innovative Technologies
Technology '
Total Dumber Sites
of Sites • . with Data
Quantity (Cubic Yards)
I Average H
Bioremediation (In Situ Soil)
Note: Data are derived from Records of Decision (RODs) forfiscal years 1982-1995 and anticipated design and
construction activities as of August 1996.
* Does not include sites conducting ex situ SVE or treating sediment or sludge.
Figure 12. Superfund Remedial Actions:
Number of Innovative Treatment Technologies Versus Corresponding RODs
for Source Control
Number of
Treatment
Technologies
or ROD
—n—Technologies
—O—RODs
84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
Note: Data are derived from Records of Decision (RODs) for fiscal years 1982-1995.
and anticipated design and construction activities as of August 1996.
13
-------
SECTION 1: SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Figure 13 identifies specific treatment trains used in re-
medial actions. Appendix D provides the names of the
sites that use treatment trains. Innovative treatment tech-
nologies may be used with established technologies or
with other innovative technologies. The most common
treatment trains are soil washing followed by aboveground
bioremediation (usually slurry-phase treatment) and ther-
mal desorption or bioremediation followed by stabiliza-
tion/solidification. Technologies may be combined to
reduce the volume of material that requires further treat-
ment, as in the example given above, to prevent the
emission of volatile contaminants during excavation and
mixing, or to treat multiple contaminants in a single me-
dium.
Figure 13. Superfund Remedial Actions:
Treatment Trains with Innovative Treatment Technologies
Total Treatment Trains = 32
Bioremediation
fctowd (3 sites)
by
Solidification/
Stabilization Incineration
(2sites) „„ (late)
Soil Washing
(1 site)
Solidification/
Stabilization
(3 sites)
Solidification/
Stabilization
(3 sites)
Solidification/Stabilization
(5 sites)
Note: Data are derived from Records of Decision (RODs) forfiscal years 1982-1995 and
anticipated design and construction activities as of August 1996.
14
-------
SECTION 1: {SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Soil Vapor Extraction
SVE is the most frequently selected innovative technol-
ogy for treating soil. Currently 139 projects are planned,
ongoing, or completed.
At some sites, several areas are being treated with SVE.
This report counts and tracks each project separately.
Only 18 SVE remedial projects have been completed, but
an additional 85 are underway. Duration varies from one
month to five years or more. Most projects target chlori-
nated or nonchlorinated VOCs for treatment; a few target
semivolatiles, such as phenols and naphthalene. Most
applications are vertical wells with activated carbon used
to treat off-gases. Unusual applications include horizon-
tal wells such as at the SMS Instruments site, New York
and an aboveground (ex situ) project at the Valley Park
trichloroethylene (TCE) site, Wainwright operable unit
(OU), in Missouri.
Thermal Desorption
Currently, 50 thermal desorption projects are being imple-
mented. Twenty-three of these projects are completed;
another 12 are operating. Thermal desorption projects
typically take less time to implement than SVE: from
one to 22 months for the 23 remedial projects completed
thus far. Contaminants treated are shown in Figure 14.
This technology is used to treat SVOCs, such as poly-
chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), as well as VOCs.
Figure 14. Superfund Remedial Actions:
Contaminants Treated by Thermal Desorption
Number
of Sites
Other
VOCs
BTEX
Other
SVOCs
Contaminant
PCBs
PAHs
Note: Data are derived from Records of Decision (RODs) for fiscal years 1982-1995 and anticipated design
and construction activities as of August 1996. At some sites, treatment is for more than one
contaminant. Treatment may be planned, ongoing, or completed.
15
-------
SECTION 1: SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Bioremediation
Currently, 69 projects are implementing different forms
of bioremediation for source control. Figure 15 illustrates
the different types of bioremediation being used. Land treat-
ment is the most common form of ex situ bioremediation,
followed by slurry-phase treatment. Based on available
data, bioventing has been specified for at least nine of the
26 in situ soil bioremediation remedies. Contaminants
treated by bioremediation for source control and in situ
groundwater treatment are shown in Figure 16. The con-
taminants treated most often by bioremediation are PAHs.
Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) com-
pounds are the VOCs addressed most frequently;
halogenated VOCs are being treated at 14 sites. Available
information at 10 sites indicates the halogenated VOCs
are chlorinated. Figure 17 indicates the types of sites ad-
dressed by bioremediation. Wood preserving sites are
addressed most frequently by bioremediation.
Figure 15. Superfund Remedial Actions: Bioremediation Methods
In Situ Lagoon
Aeration (4)
Slurry-phase Tank
Treatment (5)
In Situ Groundwater
Treatment (15)
In Situ Soil Treatment (13)
Bioventing (9)
Composting (3)
Excavation with On-site
Treatment to be
Determined (8)
Excavation Followed by
Land Treatment (27)
Note: Data are derived from Records of Decision (RODs) for fiscal years 1982-1995 and anticipated design and
construction activities as of August 1996. Some RODs specify multiple remedies.
TBD: Specific treatment method to be determined.
16
-------
SECTION 1: SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Figure 16. Superfund Remedial Actions:
Contaminants Treated by Bioremediation*
60
50
: 40
30
Number
of Sites 20
10
Other VOCs
Contaminant
* Includes in situ groundwater innovative treatment technologies.
Note: Data are derived from Records of Decision (RODs) for fiscal years 1982-1995 and anticipated design and
construction activities as of August 1996. At some sites, treatment is for more than one contaminant.
Treatment may be planned, ongoing, or completed.
Figure 17. Superfund Remedial Actions:
Types of Sites Addressed by Bioremediation
Vehicle Maintenance/
Fuel Lines/Storage/
Spills (6)
Wood Preserving (30)
Pesticide Manufacturing (1)
Paint/Ink Formulation (1)
Ordnance Disposal (1)
r Agricultural (2)
Coke Manufacturing/
Coal Gasification (5)
Chemical Blending/
Manufacturing (7)
Machine Shop (2)
Petroleum Refining
and Reuse (8)
Fire Training Area (3)
Waste Oil Disposal/
Recycling (6)
Landfill/Waste Disposal
or Management (12)
Note: Data are derived from Records of Decision (RODs) for fiscal years 1982-1995 and anticipated design and
construction activities as of August 1996.
17
-------
SECTION 1: SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
On-Site Incineration
Currently, 43 on-site incineration projects are planned,
ongoing, or completed. Twenty-four of the projects have
been completed; another three are operating. Figure 18
provides a summary of the status for all on-site incinera-
tion projects. The duration of on-site incineration projects
varies from one month to more than four years. The most
frequently targeted contaminants are PCBs (13 sites),
dioxins and furans (4 sites). Many projects involve sev-
eral types of organic compounds. The quantity of material
treated ranges from 1,150 cubic yards to 384,600 cubic
yards.
Technology
On-site Incineration
Figure 18. Superfund Remedial Actions:
Project Status of On-Site Incineration Projects
Predesign/ Design Complete/
In Design Being Installed
Operational Completed
Note: Data are derived from Records of Decision (RODs) for fiscal years 1982-1995 and anticipated design and
construction activities as of August 1996.
18
-------
SECTION 1: SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES
Groundwater treatment remedies include conventional
pump-and-treat and in situ treatment or a combination of
both. Figure 19 shows each type of groundwater treat-
ment remedy selected. Groundwater treatment remedies
have been selected for 603 sites. Of these, 562 sites are
implementing pump-and-treat systems alone. In the case
of another 32 sites, pump-and-treat systems and in situ
treatment are being used, either for the same area of the
site or for different areas. Nine sites have selected in situ
treatment only to treat groundwater contamination.
EPA has selected in situ treatment of groundwater 45 times
at 43 remedial sites. EPA selected in situ treatment of
groundwater for eight remedial sites in FY 1995, includ-
ing the first selection of in situ well aeration for VOCs in
groundwater. Completion of these projects is expected
to require five to 20 years. Figure 9 shows the overall
status of in situ groundwater projects.
Appendix A gives the number of in situ groundwater treat-
ment technologies selected each year. The summary
matrix in Appendix B provides the site names, technolo-
gies, and project status.
Figure 19. Superfund Remedial Actions:
Groundwater Treatment Remedies Through Fiscal Year 1995
Total sites with groundwater treatment remedies = 603
Sites with Pump-and-
Treat Remedy and
In Situ Treatment (32) 5%
In Situ Treatment Remedies
Include*:
• Air Sparging (22)
• Bioremediation (15)
• Passive Treatment Wall (3)
• Dual-Phase Extraction (3)
• In Situ Well Aeration (1)
• In Situ Oxidation (1)
Sites with Pump-and-
Treat Remedy Only
(562) 93%
Note: Pump-and-treat remedy data based on Records of Decision (RODs) for fiscal years 1982-1995; in situ
treatment data based on anticipated design and construction activities as of August 1996.
* The total numbers of in situ treatment remedies exceeds the total number of sites implementing treatment
remedies because some sites are implementing more than one technology.
19
-------
SECTION 2: SUPERFUND REMOVAL ACTIONS
Removal actions are usually conducted in response to
a more immediate threat caused by a release of hazard-
ous substances than threats addressed by remedial
actions. To date, innovative treatment technologies have
been used in relatively few removal actions. The innova-
tive technologies addressed in this report have been used
32 times in 27 removal actions (Figure 20). In addition,
infrared incineration, no longer considered innovative,
was used first at two removal actions. Since removal ac-
tions are responses to an immediate threat, and often
involve smaller quantities of hazardous wastes than re-
medial activities, the implementation of the technology
may progress faster at a removal site than at a remedial
site. Figure 20 indicates that 87 percent of removal
projects that involve innovative treatment technologies
have been completed.
Many removal actions involve small quantities of waste
or immediate threats that require quick action to alleviate
the hazard. Often, such activities do not lend themselves
to on-site treatment. In addition, SARA does not estab-
lish the same preference for innovative treatment for
removal as it sets forth for remedial actions.
The ITT Database provides more detailed information
for each application of an innovative technology at a re-
moval site. The summary matrix in Appendix B lists each
removal site and innovative technology.
Figure 20. Superfiind Removal Actions:
Project Status of Innovative Treatment Technologies as of August 1996
Technology
Source Control Technologies
Soil Vapor Extraction
Predesign/
In Design
Design Complete/
Being Installed
Operational
Completed
Thermal Desorption
"SsS-
Bloremedlation (Ex Situ)
Blorernedlation (In Situ)
Soil Washing
Dechlorination
Solvent Extraction
In Situ Vitrification
Chemical Treatment
6
TOTAL
Groundwater Technologies
Air Sparging
0 (0%)
27 (87%)
Bloremodlation (In Situ)
TOTAL
0 (0%)
1 (50%)
Note: Data based on a survey of EPA Superfund Removal Branch Chiefs and On-Scene Coordinators
for each region.
20
-------
SECTION 3: ACTIONS UNDER OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Innovative technologies also are being conducted under
federal programs other than the Superfund program.
Many of those projects are conducted at DoD and DOE
facilities. The sites were identified through various
sources of information, including discussions with DoD
and DOE personnel and should not be considered exhaus-
tive. The RCRA corrective action sites using an innovative
technology were identified through the review of 68 state-
ments of basis (SBs), which are decision documents
prepared for some actions at corrective action sites. Be-
cause innovative technologies likely have been used at
other RCRA sites, but not documented in SBs, the list in
this report should not be considered complete. Figure 21
summarizes the types of innovative treatment technolo-
gies and the number of projects, and indicates the status
of each. The summary matrix in Appendix B lists the
name of each site, the technology selected, and the status
of the project. The ITT Database provides more infor-
mation on each application.
Figure 21. Sample Projects Under Other Federal and RCRA Corrective Action
Programs: Status of Innovative Treatment Technologies as of August 1996
Technology
Other Federal Programs
Soil Vapor Extraction
Predesign/ Design Complete/
In Design ' Being Installed •
Operational ^Completed
Bioremediation (Ex Situ)
Bioremediation (In Situ)*
Soil Washing
Dechlorination
Vitrification
Air Sparging
TOTAL
RCRA Corrective Action
Soil Vapor Extraction
1 (3%)
10(30%)
Thermal Desorption
TOTAL
1 (10%)
0 (0%)
Note:
*
Data based on a survey of EPA RCRA Corrective Action, DoD, and DOE points of contact for each site.
Includes in situ groundwater treatment.
21
-------
-------
Appendix A
Treatment Technologies by Fiscal Year
-------
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
-------
Appendix B
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
-------
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not installed; I = Installed; BI = Being Installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Action: Remedial = Superfund Remedial Action; Removal = Superfund Removal Action; DoD = Actions under Department of Defense; DOE = Actions under Department ot
Energy; RCRA = RCRA Corrective Action
B-l
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
Source Control
Groundwater Remedies
Region 2
A 0 Polymer. Soil treatment phase
Dayco ComJL.E, Carpenter Co.
FAA Technical Center
FAA Technical Center
oarden State Cleaners
Industrial Latex, OU1
King of Prussia
Lipari Landfill Marsh Sediment. OU 3
Lipari Landfill, OU
letaltec/Aerosvstems. OU 1 -!
Naval Air Engineering Center, OU 23
meland Chemical
/ineland Chemical. OU 1, OU 3 and OU 4
aldick Aerospace Devices, OU 1
schiegner Refining Company
Lmencan Thermostat (Phase 1)
ican Thermostat (Phase 2
yron Barrel & Drum, OU
ihemical - Soil Remed
jCL Tie & Treating, OU 1
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I
Acfton:
Designed but not installed; I = InstaUed; BI = Being Installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
= Superrund Removal Action; DoD = Actions under Department of Defense; DOE
B-2
= Actions under Department of
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
Region 2
(Continued)
1 Motors/Central Foundry Div. OU 1 & 2
ff'>,
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
Source Control
Groundwater Remedies
Region 3
Delaware Sand and Gravel, OU 4 and 5
Dover AFB. Target Area 2 of 6
Dover AFB, Target Area 3 of 6
Standard of Chlorine of Delaware. Inc
Andrews Air Force Base
Southern Maryland Wood Treating
Brodhead Creek, OU 1
Brown's Battery Breaking Site, OU 2
Cryochem, OU 3
Lord-Shope Landfill
Merck & Company, Inc.
North Penn Area 6
Kevere Chemical Site, OU1
Saegertown Industrial Area Site
aupenor lube Co.
Tonolli Corporation
U.S.A. Letterkenny SE Area, OU1
Uniform Tubes, Inc.
Whitmoyer Laboratories, OU 3
William Dick Lagoons, OU 3
Atlantic Wood Industry, OU 1
Defense General Supply Center, OU 5
BM (Manassas)
Langley AFB, IRP Site 28
)rdnance Works Disposal Areas
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not installed; I = Installed; BI = Being Installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Action: Remedial = Superfund Remedial Action; Removal = Superftmd Removal Action; DoD = Actions under Department of Defense- DOE
Energy; RCRA = RCRA Corrective Action
B-4
=Actions under Department of
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
Site Name
Ciba-Geigy (Macintosh Plant), OU 3
Stauffer Chemical Company, Cold Creek Plant, OU 2
Airco Plating Company, OU 10
American Creosote Works, OU 2
Brown Wood Preserving
Cabot Carbon/Koppers
Dubose Oil Products
Hollingsworth Solderless
Homestead Air Reserve, OU 6, Site SS-3
Jacksonville NAS, OU 2
Naval Air Station, Cecil Field Site 17, OU 2
Naval Air Station, Cecil Field Site 5, OU 2
Peak Oil/Bay Drums, OU 1
Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits (amended ROD)
Basket Creek Surface Impoundment
General Refining
Marzone Inc./Chevron Co. Superfund Site, OU 1
Mathis Brothers - South Marble Top Road Landfill
Robins AFB, Landfill and Sludge Lagoon, OU 1
Smith's Farm Brooks, OU 1
Southeastern Wood Preserving
ABC One Hour Cleaners Site
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps, OU 1 and OU 4
Benfield Industries
Cape Fear Wood Preserving
Carolina Transformer
Charles Macon Lagoon, Lagoon #7, OU 1
FCX-Statesville,OU2
State
AL
AL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
KY
MS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Status
PD
D
0
PD
C
PD
C
C
PD
C
C
O
PD
PD
C
C
D/I
D
D
C
C
D/I
D
D/I
BI
D/I
O
D/I
Action
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Removal
Removal
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Removal
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
WPP/ffWfW*/W/9/*/f/*/*/*/f/f/4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
O
•
•
•
•
•
•
«
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
9 /£
/
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not installed; I = Installed; BI = Being Installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Action: Remedial = Superfund Remedial Action; Removal = Superfund Removal Action; DoD = Actions under Department of Defense; DOE = Actions under Department of
Energy; RCRA = RCRA Corrective Action
B-5
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
Source Control
Groundwater Remedies
Region 4
(Continued)
PCX-Washington Site
General Electric Company, ShepardFann Site
JADCO-Hughes
JFD Electronics/Channel Master
Potter's Septic Tank Service Pits
USMC Camp Lejeune Military Base, OU 2
USMC Camp Lejeune Military Base, Site 35, OU 10
CSX McCormick Derailment Site
CSX McCormick Derailment Site
Hinson Chemical
Medley Farm. OU 1
Rochester Property
angamo/Twelve-Mile/Hartwell PCB, OU 1
avannah River (TNX Area)
Savannah River, M Area Settling Basin
Savannah River-Defense Waste Processing Facility
SCRDI Bluff Road
urlington Blending & Packaging Co., OLTI
Carrier Air Conditioning
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not installed; I = Installed; BI = Being Installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Action: Remedial = Superfund Remedial Action; Removal = Superfund Removal Action; DoD = Actions under Department of Defense; DOE = Actions under Department of
Energy; RCRA = RCRA Corrective Action
B-6
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
Region 5
Source Control
Groundwater Remedies
V
&**.
Site Name
Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Inc., OU 3
Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Inc., OU 6
Galesburg/Koppers
Outboard Marine/Waukegan Harbor, OU 3
American Chemical Services
Conrail Rail Yard, OU 2
Env. Conservation and Chemical (ROD Amendment)
Fisher Calo
Indiana Wood Treating
Main Street Well Field
MIDCO I
MIDCO II
Ninth Avenue Dump
Ninth Avenue Dump
Reilly Tar and Chemical
Seymour Recycling
Seymour Recycling
Wayne Reclamation and Recycling
Anderson Development (ROD Amendment)
Chem Central
Clare Water Supply
Duell-Gardner Landfill
Electro- Voice, OU 1
Kysor Industrial Corp.
Parsons Chemical (ETM Enterprise)
PBM Enterprises (Van Dusen Airport Service)
Peerless Plating
Rasmussen Dump
State
IL
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
Status
C
0
D
C
PD
PD
D
D
C
O
PD
PD
O
C
O
C
O
O
C
O
PD
PD
O
I
C
C
D/I
O
Action
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Removal
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Removal
Removal
Remedial
Remedial
Jft
e
•
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
Source Control
Groundwater Remedies
Region 5
(Continued)
Saginaw Bay Confined Disposal Facility
Springfield Township Dump
Sturgis Municipal Well Reid
ThermoChem, Inc., OU 1
Verona Well Field (Thomas Solvent/Raymond Road)
Verona Well Field, OU 2 (Paint shop area)
Verona Well Field, OU 2 (Annex area)
Arrowhead Refinery Co.
Burlington Northern Railroad Tie Treating Plant
Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Co.
Koppers Coke Site, Groundwater OU
Long Prairie Groundwater Contamination
Ritan Post and Pole. OU 1
South Andover Salvage Yards, OU 2
Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant
Allied Chem & Ironton Coke, OU 2
Allied Chem & Ironton Coke, OU 2a
Miami County Incinerator
Ormet Corporation
Pristine (ROD Amendment)
Pristine (ROD Amendment)
USuOE Feed Materials Production Center, OU 4
Zanesville Well Field
Hagen Farm Source Control OU
Moss-American
Muskego Sanitary Landfill, Interim Action, OU 1
Onalaska Municipal Landfill
Refuse Hideaway Landfill
wausau Groundwater Contamination
Allied Chem & Ironton Coke, OU2 is conducting two types of bioremediation ex situ: land farming and magnetically enhanced land farming
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not installed; I = Installed; BI = Being Installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Action: Remedial = Superfund Remedial Action; Removal = Superfund Removal Action; DoD = Actions under Department of Defense; DOE
Energy; RCRA = RCRA Corrective Action
B-8
=Actions under Department of
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
Source Control
Groundwater Remedies
MacMillan Ring Free Oil Company
American Creosote Works, Inc.(Winnfield Plant)
Gulf Coast Vacuum Services, OU 1
Old Inger Oil Refinery
Pab Oil & Chemical Services
Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Clovis/Santa Fe
Holloman AFB, BX Service Station
Holloman AFB, Main POL Area
Prewitt Abandoned Refinery
Oklahoma Refining Co.
Traband Warehouse
Baldwin Waste Oil
French Limited
Kelly AFB, Site 1100
Long Horn Army Ammunition Plant Burning
Ground No. 3
Matagorda Island AF Range
North Cavalcade Street
Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc., OU 2
Sheridan Disposal Services
South Cavalcade Street
United Creosotmg
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not installed; I = Installed; BI = Being Installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Action: Remedial = Superfund Remedial Action; Removal = Superfund Removal Action; DoD = Actions under Department of Defense; DOE = Actions under Department of
Energy; RCRA = RCRA Corrective Action
A: Arkwood is classified as soil washing; however, the specific technology used at Arkwood was physical separation.
B-9
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
State Status Action
Chemplex, OU 2
McGraw Edison
People's Natural Gas
Vogel Paint & Wax
29th and Mead (Coleman PIT)
Pester Refinery Co. (Burn Pond Site, OU 1)
Pester Refinery Co.
Strother Field Industrial Park
Valley Park TCE Site.Wainwright OU
Hastings GW Contamination (Colorado Ave)
Hastings GW Contamination (Far-Mar Co.), OU 3
Hastings GW Contamination (Well No. 3)
Lindsay Manufacturing
Sherwood Medical
Waverly Groundwater Contamination
NE O Remedial
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not installed; I = Installed; BI = Being Installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Action: Remedial = Superfund Remedial Action; Removal = Superfund Removal Action; DoD = Actions under Department of Defense; DOE = Actions under Department of
Energy; RCRA = RCRA Corrective Action
B-10
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
Source Control
Groundwater Remedies
Brodenck Wood Products. OU 2
Chemical Sales Company, OU 1
Martin Marietta Corp., W C Astronautics Facility
Rocky Flats, OU 2, Interim Remedial Action Plan
Rocky Mountain Arsenal, OU 18, Interim Response
Sand Creek Industrial OU 1
Sand Creek Industrial, OU 4
Sand Creek Industrial, OU 5
Burlington Northern (Somers Plant)
Former Glasgow AFB
Idaho Pole Company
Idaho Pole Company
Libby Ground Water Contamination
Montana Pole and Treating Plant (Soil)
Montana Pole and Treating Plant (Groundwater)
Ellsworth Air Force Base, OU 1
Hill Air Force Base, OU 3
Hill Air Force Base, OU 4
Utah Power and Light/American Barrel
Wasatch Chemical
Mystery Bridge Road/Highway 20, OU 2
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not installed; I = Installed; BI = Being Installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Action: Remedial = Superfund Remedial Action; Removal = Superfund Removal Action; DoD = Actions under Department of Defense; DOE = Actions under Department of
Energy; RCRA = RCRA Corrective Action
B-ll
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
Source Control
Groundwaler Remedies
Region 9
Site Name
State
Status
Action
Aua Fuel Farm, Aua Village, American Samoa
AZ
O
DoD
Davis Monthan AFB
AZ
D
DoD
Davis Monthan AFB
AZ
DoD
Davis Monthan AFB, Site 35
AZ
C
DoD
Davis Monthan Air Force Base, Site 35
AZ
O
DoD
Gila River Indian Reservation
AZ
Removal
Hassayampa Landfill
AZ
BI
Remedial
Indian Bend Wash, North Area (Area 12)
AZ
BI
Remedial
Indian Bend Wash, North Area (Area 6)
AZ
PD
Remedial
Indian Bend Wash, North Area (Area 7)
AZ
O
Remedial
Indian Bend Wash, North Area (Area 8)
AZ
D/I
Remedial
Indian Bend Wash, South Area, RD 1 of OU 7
AZ
BI
Remedial
Luke AFB
AZ
DoD
Luke Air Force Base, OU2
AZ
O
Remedial
Motorola 52nd Street
AZ
D
Remedial
Navajo Toxaphene
AZ
O
Removal
Phoenix-Goodyear Airport Area (North Facility)
AZ
O
Remedial
Phoenix-Goodyear Airport Area (South Facility)
AZ
O
Remedial
Sanders Aviation
AZ
O
Removal
Stanford Pesticide #1
AZ
Removal
Williams AFB, OU 2
AZ
PD
Remedial
Williams AFB, OU 2
AZ
Remedial
Pairchild Semiconductor (San Jose)
CA
Remedial
Fort Ord Marina, Fritzche AAF Fire Drill Area
CA
DoD
Fort Ord, OU 4
CA
O
Remedial
Hewlett-Packard (620-640 Page Mill Rd)
CA
O
Remedial
IBM (San Jose)
CA
O
Remedial
Intersil/Siemens (Siemins)
CA
O
Remedial
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not installed; I = Installed; BI = Being Installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Action: Remedial = Superfund Remedial Action; Removal = Superfund Removal Action; DoD = Actions under Department of Defense; DOE = Actions under Department of
Energy; RCRA = RCRA Corrective Action
B-12
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
Region 9
(continued)
Source Control
Groundwater Remedies
Site Name
Intersil/Siemins (Intersil)
J.H. Baxter
Jasco Chemical Co.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab., Site 300 Bldg. 834
Lorentz Barrel and Dram, OU 1
Marine Corps., Mountain Warfare Center
McClellan AFB, OU D
MEW- Fairchild Semiconductor (369 N. Whisman)
MEW- Fairchild Semiconductor (401 National Ave.)
MEW-Fairchild Semiconductor (515 N. Whisman)
MEW-General Instrument Corp.
MEW-Siemins/Sobrato
Monolithic Memories/AMD- Arques, OU 1, Subunit 2
National Semiconductor Corp., OU 1, Subunit 2
Norton Air Force Base, CBA OU
Pacific Coast Pipeline
Purity Oil Sales, OU 2
Raytheon, MV (305 Ellis Street/415 Middlefield Rd.)
Roseville Drums
Sacramento Army Depot, Burn Pits OU
Sacramento Army Depot, Tank 2 OU
Seal Beach Navy Weapons Station BR Site 14
Signetics (AMD 901) (TRW), Signetics OU .
1 165 E. Arques Ave.
Solvent Service
Southern California Edison,
Visalia Pole Yard (groundwater)
State
CA
TA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
Status
C
D
BI
O
PD
PD
C
O
0
O
D/I
BI
O
O
O
O
O
D/I
O
C
C
C
O
O
O
PD
Action
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
DoD
DoD
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Removal
Remedial
Remedial
DoD
Remedial
RCRA
Remedial
Jft
•
•
•
=SA
'A
•
•
•A
f/6
%
SV '
/>$
7*
*/*
y*
V / •
Ac
•
•
•
y$
r
VG
/*
•
»/*
•
"4
?/
/^
•y / <•
/
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
Groundwater Remedies
Region 9
(continued)
Southern California Edison, Visalia Pole Yard (soil)
Spectra Physics, OU1
U. S. Public Works Center, Guam
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not installed; I = InstaUed; BI = Being Installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Action: Remedial = Supertad Remedial Action; Removal = Superfimd Removal Action; DoD = Actions under Department of Defense; DOE = Actions under Department of
clergy; KUKA = KCKA Corrective Action
B-14
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
ex,
Site Name
Eielson Air Force Base OU 1 (refueling loop)
Eielson Air Force Base, OU 1 (power plant)
Eielson Air Force Base, OU 2 (fuel area)
Elmendorf Air Force Base, OU 2
Elmendorf Air Force Base, OU 4
Elmendorf Air Force Base, OU 5
FAA Huslia Station
FAA Northway Station
FAA Strawberry Point Station
Fort Wainwright
Tdahn National Engineering Lab, Pit 9, OU 7 - 10
Idaho National Engineering Lab., OU 7-08, WAG 7
Evanite Fiber Corporation
Umatilla Army Depot (Lagoons), OU 3
Umatilla Army Depot Activity, Soil OU
United Chrome Products
Advance Electroplating
Rangor Naval Sub. Base. OU 6 Site D & OU 2 Site F
Bonneville Power Administration, OU A
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma Field OU
Commencement Bay/S. Tacoma Channel/Well 12A
Drexler - RAMCOR
Fairchild AFB, Priority 1 OUs (OU 2) FT-1
Fairchild AFB, Priority 1 OUs (OU 2) FT-1
Fort Lewis Military Reservation Solvent Refined
Fort Lewis Military Reservation, Landfill 4
Harbor Island (Soil and groundwater OU)
State
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
ID
ID
OR
Ok
OR
OR
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
Status
PD
O
O
O
O
O
I
O
O
O
C
D
O
O
0
O
O
C
O
C
PD
O
C
O
D/I
BI
BI
PD
Action
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
DoD
DoD
DoD
DoD
Remedial
Remedial
RCRA
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Removal
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Removal
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
74
j
•
•
•
•
•
•
V-!
A
•
•
9
•
•
•
•
/&
/o
74
i'/ *•
/<$
•
•
*/£
•
v£
ft
7*4
73
•
•
•
•
•
•
7*
/*
•
•
y#
f j
•
•
•
•
/*,
•
•
•
/,
/
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
i
'
Source Control
Groundwater Remedies
Region 10
(Continued)
Lockheed Shipyard Facility/Harbor Island. OUI
Naval Submarine Base, Bangor Site A, OU 1
Naval Communication Station, Scotland
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not installed; I = Installed; BI = Being Installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Action: Remedial = Superfund Remedial Action; Removal = Superfund Removal Action; DoD = Actions under Department of Defense; DOE = Actions under Department of
Energy; RCRA = RCRA Corrective Action
fi-16
-------
Appendix C
Established Technology Summary Matrix
-------
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Technology Type
Region 1
Beacon Heights Landfill
Baird & McGuire, OU 2
Baird & McGuire, OU 3 (sediments)
Cannon Engineering/Plymouth
Charles George Land Reclamation
PSC Resources
Rose Disposal Pit
Silresin Chemical
Sullivan s Ledge
Sullivan s Ledge
W.R. Grace (Acton Plant)
Pinette's Salvage Yard
Pinette's Salvage Yard
Union Chemical
Kearsarge Metallurgical
Davis Liquid Waste
Davisville Naval Construction Battalion Center
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not installed; I = Installed; BI = Being Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
Note: The list of sites does not reflect any changes in off-site incineration, solidification/stabilization, mechanical soil aeration, neutralization,
or open detonation that may have occurred in the design phase of the cleanup and the status of the project.
C-l
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Region 2
£ f
Technology Type
Site Name
American Cyanamid
Asbestos Dump
Jtfog Creek Farm, OU1
Bog Creek Farm, OU 2
Bridgeport Rental & Oil
Caldwell Trucking (Amendment)
Chemical Control
Cosden Chemical Coatings
Curcio Scrap Metal
De Rewal Chemical
bins Property
Jtiwan Property
Fried Industries
NascoliteCorp.
ML Industries, Inc. (OU 1)
INL Industries, Inc.
Keich Farms
Roebling Steel
Roebling Steel
Sayreville Landfill
Swope Oil & Chemical
SwopeOil
\Vhite Chemical Corp.
Williams Property
State
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
FY
1993
1991
1985
198$
1984
1995
1987
1992
1991
1989
1992
1988
1994
1991
1994
1991
1988
1990
1991
1990
1985
1991
1991
1987
1991
1987
Status
c
c
c
/<
/ ^
•
•
•
V /
*/*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*&/
&/•
'/ ^
•
•
•
•
•
• 1
•
•
•
^
//
/ -^
//
y/,4
/
f
$
-
•^
,
vc
*
*>F
f*
^
'
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Technology Type
Region 2 (Continued)
Hooker Chemical-Ruco Polymer
Hooker (102nd Street LandfilD-Amendment
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not Installed; I = Installed; BI = Being Installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Note: The list of sites does not reflect any changes in off-site incineration, solidification/stabilization, mechanical soil aeration, neutralization,
or open detonation that may have occurred in the design phase of the cleanup and the status of the project.
C-3
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Technology Type
am* j=^--^--jj»..-aMfaMBn»i»^j==a^---j i • ;B. ,TT
Site Name
JDover Air Force Base. Lindane Source Area
Dover Gas Light Superfund Site
Halbv Chemical
Wildcat Landfill
Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers
Alladin Plating
Bendix Flight System
Berks Sand Pit
Brodhead Creek
Bruin Lagoon
Bruin Lagoon
C & D Recycling
Craig Farm
Douglassville Disposal
Douglassville Disposal
Douglassville Disposal
Drake Chemical/Phase H
Drake Chemical/Phase ffl
Eastern Diversified Metals
Hebelka Auto Salvage Yard
Hebelka Auto Salvage Yard
Hunterstown Road
M.W. Manufacturing
Paoli Rail Yard
Seagertown Industrial
Tonolli
U.S.A. Letterkenny SE
Westline
State
DE
DE
DE
DE
MD
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
FY
1995
1994
1991
1988
1991
1988
1988
1988
1991
1982
1986
199?,
1989
1988
1989
1989
1986
1988
1991
1989
1991
1993
1995
1992
1993
1992
1991
1986
Status
D/I
I
•
9
&/
V*
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
9
•
•
•
•
"v/
•*s> /
& / •
/*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
K
•
//
yy
%
t
A
1
1
i
9!
aw
W
•
m
m
mi.
m
m
m
m
m
•
•
E
•
m
m
«
m
m
m
"i*
f
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not Installed; I = Installed; BI = Being Installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Note: The list of sites does not reflect any changes in off-site incineration, solidification/stabilization, mechanical soil aeration, neutralization,
or open detonation that may have occurred in the design phase of the cleanup and the status of the project.
C-4
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Technology Type
Region 3 (Continued)
Whitmoyer Laboratories, OU 2
Whitmoyer Laboratories, OU 3
Whitmoyer Laboratories
Dixie Cavern County Landfill
RentoMl Virginia Wood Preserving
Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump
Saunders Supply, OU 1
Ordnance Works Disposal
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not Installed; I = Installed; BI = Being Installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Note: The list of sites does not reflect any changes in off-site incineration, solidification/stabilization, mechanical soil aeration, neutralization,
or open detonation that may have occurred in the design phase of the cleanup and the status of the project.
C-5
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Technology Type
Site Name
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant, Area B
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant, OU 1
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant, OU 2
Ciba Geigy Corp. (Mclntosh Plant), OU 2
Ciba-Geigy Corp. (Mclntosh Plant), OU 4
Ciba-Geigy Corp. (Mclntosh Plant), OU 4
Interstate Lead Co.
Mowbrav Engineering
62nd Street Dump
Agrico Chemical
Anodyne
Brown Wood Preserving
Cabot/Koppers
Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving (Amendment)
Davie Landfill
Florida Steel Corp.
Florida Steel Corp.
Gold Coast
Jacksonville Naval Air Station, OU 2
Jacksonville Naval Air Station OU 2
Kassouf-Kimerling Battery
Kassourf-Kimerling Battery Disposal
NAS Cecil Field Site 1 1, OU 6
Peak Oil/Bay Drum, OU 1
Peak Oil/Bay Dram, OU 3
Pepper's Steel & Alloy
Reeves Southeastern Galvanizing, OU 1
State
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FY
1995
1992
1994
1991
1992
1992
1991
1986
1990
1992
1993
1988
1990
1990
1985
1992
1994
1987
1994
1995
1989
1990
1994
1993
1993
1986
1993
Status
o
c
c
D/I
D/I
'/•
/ ./•
/ 0*
•
•
•
•
•
F /
?/ <
' / &
/ &
. •
,V /
*/*
/ &
r/f
/ •$
r/*
/ ^
r/t
/ &
—
\ 6*
f r 9 ^^ * +
<* 4 '*" *•** - .
% \**
» i - *"
^ «. x> /" •*
f <*" ^ f
/ ~5*« .? ** )W«V«ta
,y{^,^.;.
J ' „ -iVgr y
'". * * 1,
^^V- -^^^ ^
^ ^^ ^ i *^r
*' ^ * A*3?
J* *
•^ vfe > <
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Region 4 (Continued)
Technology Type
Site Name
Sapp Battery Salvage
Schuvlkill Metal
Tower Chemical
Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits (Amendment)
Yellow Wate Road
Zellwood Groundwater Contamination (Amendment)
Cedartown Industries
Hercules 009 Landfill
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Mathis Brothers Landfill (South Marble Top Road)
USAF Robins Air Force Base
Howe Valley Landfill
Maxev Flats Nuclear Disposal
Smith's Farm Brooks
Flowood
Newsom Brothers Old Reichold
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps (Amendment)
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination (Amendment)
Cape Fear Wood Preserving
Carolina Transformer
Celanese
Celanese
Chemtronics
JFD Electronics/Channel Masters
Koppers (Morrisville Plant)
State
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
KY
KY
KY
MS
MS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
FY
1986
1990
1987
199?,
1990
1990
1993
199?
199?,
1993
1991
1990
1991
1989
1988
1989
1991
1993
1993
1989
1991
1989
1989
1988
199?,
1993
Status
D/T
C
W/7////////A
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
•
O
•
•
1
|Wp
r
:MjjjJ3'
m
m
m
1
it
I
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; I = Installed; BI = Being Installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Note: The list of sites does not reflect any changes in off-site incineration, solidification/stabilization, mechanical soil aeration, neutralization,
or open detonation that may have occurred in the design phase of the cleanup and the status of the project.
C-7
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Technology Type
Region 4 (Continued) /
/f
Geiger/(C&M Oil) (Amendment)
Kalama Specialty
Savannah River (USDOE), OU 1
Amnicola Dump
Arlington Blending and Packaging Co.
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not Installed; I = Installed; BI = Being Installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Note: The list of sites does not reflect any changes in off-site incineration, solidification/stabilization, mechanical soil aeration, neutralization,
or open detonation that may have occurred in the design phase of the cleanup and the status of the project.
Co
-o
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Technology Type
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not Installed; I = Installed; BI = Being Installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Note: The list of sites does not reflect any changes in off-site incineration, solidification/stabilization, mechanical soil aeration, neutralization,
or open detonation that may have occurred in the design phase of the cleanup and the status of the project.
C-9
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
P*;**-, l {/ /
I f;/Region 5 (Continued)./
, r* ih/ JT
Technology Type
Site Name
Forest Waste Products
Forest Waste Products
H. Brown Company
Liquid Disposal
Metamora Landfill
Peerless Plating
Rose Township Dump
Spiegelberg Landfill
Springfield Township Dump
Tar Lake
Thermo Chem
MacGillis and Gibbs/Bell Lumber and Pole, OU 1
MacGillis and Gibbs/Bell Lumber and Pole, OU 3
MacGillis and Gibbs/Bell Lumber and Pole, OU 3
New Brighton/Arden Hills
Ritari Post and Pole, OU 1
University of Minnesota
Waite Park Wells, OUs 1,2, & 3
Allied Chem & Ironton Coke
State
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
OH
FY
1986
1988
1992
1987
1986
1992
1987
1986
1990
1992
1991
1993
1994
1994
1989
1994
1990
1994
1991
Status
PD
PD
D
Alsco Anaconda
OH
1989
Big D Campground
OH
1989
Fields Brook
OH
1986
Laskin/Poplar Oil
OH
1984
Laskin/Poplar Oil
OH
1987
Laskin/Poplar Oil
OH
1989
Ormet Corp.
OH
1994
Summit National Liquid Disposal
OH
1988
C
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not Installed; I = Installed; BI = Being Installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Note: The list of sites does not reflect any changes in off-site incineration, solidification/stabilization, mechanical soil aeration, neutralization,
or open detonation that may have occurred in the design phase of the cleanup and the status of the project.
C-10
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Technology Type
Region 5 (Continued)
Summit National Liquid Disposal Service (Amendment)
Mid-State Disposal Landfill
Northern Engraving
Oconomowoc Electroplating
Spickler Landfill
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not Installed; I = Installed; BI = Being Installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Note: The list of sites does not reflect any changes in off-site incineration, solidification/stabilization, mechanical soil aeration, neutralization,
or open detonation that may have occurred in the design phase of the cleanup and the status of the project.
C-ll
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Technology Type
Region 6
Industrial Waste Control
Jacksonville Municipal Landfill
Mid-South Wood
Old Midland Products
Rogers Road Municipal Landfill
South 8th Street Landfill, OU 1
American Cresote Works (Winnfield Plant)
Bayou Bonfouca
Bayou Bonfouca, Source Control OU (Amendment)
Gulf Coast Vacuum Services, OU 1
Pab Oil & Chemical Services
Cal West Metals
Cimarron Mining Corp.
Double Eagle Refinery
Fourth Street Abandoned Refinery
Hardage/Criner (Amendment)
Oklahoma Refining
Sand Springs Petrochemical Complex
Bailey Waste Disposal
Bioecology Systems
TX 1988 PD
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not Installed; I = Installed; BI = Being Installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Note: The list of sites does not reflect any changes in off-site incineration, solidification/stabilization, mechanical soil aeration, neutralization
or open detonation that may have occurred in the design phase of the cleanup and the status of the project
C-12
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Technology Type
Region 6 (Continued)
Petrochemical (Turtle-Bayou)
Texarkana Wood Preserving
Triangle Chemical
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not Installed; I = Installed; BI = Being Installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Note: The list of sites does not reflect any changes in off-site incineration, solidification/stabilization, mechanical soil aeration, neutralization,
or open detonation that may have occurred in the design phase of the cleanup and the status of the project.
C-13
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
" -r!'" ^""^f^Ir
Technology Type
/ Region 7 ~/!-:
EI Dupont de Nemours & Co. Inc.
Fairfield Coal Gasification Plant
Mid-America Tanning
Midwest Manufacturing/North Farm
Peoples Natural Gas
Shaw Avenue Dump
Vogel Paint & Wax
Arkansas City Dump
Ellisville Area (Amendment)
Minker/Stout/Romaine Creek (R&S)
V/eldon Spring Ouarrv/Plant/Pits (USDOE)
Former Nebraska Ordnance Plant, OU 1
Hastings Groundwater Contamination (East Industrial')
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not Installed; I = Installed; BI = Being Installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Note: The list of sites does not reflect any changes in off-site incineration, solidification/stabilization, mechanical soil aeration, neutralization,
or open detonation that may have occurred in the design phase of the cleanup and the status of the project.
C-14
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Technology Type
Broderick Wood Products
Broderick Wood Products
Denver Radium. OU 8
Martin Marietta (Denver Aerospace)
Rockv Flats fUSDOE). OU 4
Rocky Mountain Arsenal. OU 17
Rocky Mountain Arsenal, OU 28
Rocky Mountain Arsenal, OU 29
Sand Creek Industrial
Summitville Mine, OU 0
Summitville Mine, OU 1
Woodbury Chemical
Woodbury Chemical
Anaconda Co. Smelter
Montana Pole and Treating
Portland Cement (Kiln Dust #2 )
North/
Utah Power & Light/American Barrel
Status- PD - Predesign- D = Design; D/I = Designed but not Installed; I = Installed; BI = Being Installed; O = Operational; C
§2?' Thelist ofS'does not reflect any chanfes in off-site incineration, solidification/stabilization, mechanical soil aeration,
' or open detonation that may have occurred in the design phase of the cleanup and the status of the project.
Complete
neutralization,
C-15
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Technology Type
Region 9
Advanced Micro Devices Inc
FMC (Fresno Planrt
Raytheon. Mountain View
Sacramento Army Depot
Selma Pressure Treating
Valley Wood Preserving
Westinghoiise Electric (Sunnyvale Plant
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not Installed; I = Installed; BI = Being Installed- O = Operational- C - Comnlete
Note: The bst of sites does not reflect any changes in off-site incineration, soHdffication/stabiLtLTm^^^ n3£tion
or open detonation that may have occurred in the design phase of the cleanup and the status of the pro™ neutralization,
C-16
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Technology Type
Region 10
Fort Wainwright, Chemical Agent Dump, OU1
Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical Complex
Pacific Hide & Fur Recycling
Pacific Hide & Fur Recycling (Amendment)
U.S. DOE Idaho National Engineering Lab, OU 23
Teledyne Wan Chang Albany (TWCA)
Umatilla Army Depot, OU 1
UmatiUa Army Depot (Lagoons)
Umatilla Army Depot (Lagoons), OU 4
Umatilla Army Depot (Lagoons), OU 7
American Crossarm & Conduit
Commencement Bay, Nearshore/Tideflats
Commencement Bay, Nearshore/Tideflats, OU 3
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma Field OU
Northwest Transformer - Mission Pole
Western Processing/Phase n
Status- PD - Predesien- D = Design- D/I = Designed but not Installed; I = Installed; BI = Being Installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
S2T' tteliSSoes noSct any changes in off-site incineration, solidification/stabilization, mechamcal sod aeration, neutrahzation,
or open detonation that may have occurred in the design phase of the cleanup and the status of the project.
C-17
-------
-------
Appendix D
Treatment Trains With Innovative
Treatment Technologies
-------
-------
SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS: ON-SITE TREATMENT TRAINS
WITH INNOVATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
November 1996
Dechlorination Followed by
Soil Washing Myers Property
Ex Situ Bioremediation Followed by
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization
In Situ Flushing Followed by
In Situ Bioremediation
In Situ Bioremediation
In Shu Bioremediation
Peak Oil/Bay Drums, OU1
Pester Burn Pond
Montana Pole Company
Soil Vapor Extraction Followed by
In Situ Flushing
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization
Soil Washing
Bioventing
Soil Washing Followed by
Bioremediation
Bioremediation
Bioremediation
Incineration
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization
NJ
Gulf Coast Vacuum Services, OU 1 LA
J. H. Baxter CA
Oklahoma Refining Co. OK
PABOil LA
FL
KS
MT
JADCO-Hughes NC
Genzale Plating Company, OU 1 NY
MBDCOI IN
MIDCOn IN
Zanesville Well Field OH
Williams AFB,OU 2 AZ
Cabot Carbon/Koppers FL
Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits FL
Moss-American WI
Arkwood AR
Vineland Chemical OU 1 and OU 2 NJ
Cape Fear Wood Preserving NC
Solvent Extraction Followed by
Incineration
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization
Vitrification
United Creosoting
Arrowhead Refinery Co.
Arctic Surplus
Carolina Transformer
Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory, Pit 9
TX
MN
AK
NC
ID
Thermal Desorptioa Followed by
Dechlorination
Dechlorination
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization
Smith's Farm Brooks, OU 1 KY
PCX Statesville, OU 2 NC
Waldick Aerospace Devices NJ
USA Letterkenny (SE Area, OU1) PA
Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Inc., OU 2 IL
In Situ Bioremediation Followed by
Soil Vapor Extraction
Solidification/Stabilization
Delaware Sand and Gravel, OUs 4 & 5 DE
Oklahoma Refining Co. OK
-------
-------
Appendix £
Innovative Technologies: Summary of Status Report Updates,
Changes, and Deletions
-------
-------
Innovative Technologies: Summary of Status Report Updates, Changes, and Deletions
Each edition of this report has contained new information on the applications of innovative technologies at Superfund sites and has updated the status of
existing innovative projects. The information from Records of Decision (RODs) that was deleted or changed in each edition (from the first edition of the
report, published in January 1991, through this eighth edition) is listed below to allow tracking of specific projects from edition to edition.
Eighth Edition (November 1996): Additions, Changes, and Deletions from the Seventh Edition (September 1995)
The eighth edition of the report adds information about 38 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial actions in FY 1995 RODs, two
treatment technologies at non-Superfund DoD and DOE sites, and two innovative treatment technologies selected for two RCRA corrective actions.
Other changes are listed below.
^^^
v;3£eggni.JT
1
1
2
2
^&s^&^~-t-&^*'^''^*%-.
?/V,>a^^-*4-^5-V»;&fcs * -!'»^S^t
;<»<:.->•„',.&-/&*•: /4S$-' '^j^ ?|sit-
Norwood PCBs, MA
(09/29/89)
Wells G&H.OU1, MA
(09/14/89)
Applied Environmental Services,
OU1.NY
(06/24/91)
Circuitron Corporation, OU 1, NY
(03/29/91)
Solvent extraction
Soil vapor extraction
Bioventing
Soil vapor extraction
•^•^/f^^fl-C%*%D^^.I^;^^^-'%sV
Soil vapor
extraction and
air sparging
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
r.»^,;>^?-s;;-i*r'<
C- €Mn$ujtf9.i*
fg"-;.,? "Sp^p'i --T^K -•?. - ,:••? ;:» •' -?•;%,**;:-;*
%>^ v^i-va- ?4v:i? & rftv>? •:
LVi-S;. >|/-f«-S'&:-'""\'r,.'*- ;••; , ,,">-
:K^,J^|p^%^;^f^
Remedy not implemented because of
space constraints on-site and cost.
Site will be capped instead.
Adding air sparging to existing S VE
project to enhance pump-and-treat.
Conducting SVE on a new area
(New England Plastics). BSD to be
issued.
Misinterpretation of ROD.
Further investigation indicated that
VOCs were below action levels.
^filBi^SS
!;4ff||^fiS
Bob Cianciarulo
617-573-5778
Mary Garren
617-573-9613
Maria Jon
212-637-3967
Gerald Ridder
(NY)
518-457-0927
Miko Fayon
212-637-4250
Thomas Simmons
(USAGE)
816-426-2296
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
£-1
-------
Eighth Edition (November1996) (continued)
:,"
° =i. "'
1 Regtoa
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
Sllc Name, State (ROD Date)
RentoMl, VA
(06/22/93)
Saunders Supply Co., OU 1, VA
(09/30/91)
Ciba-Geigy (Mclntosh Plant), OU 2,
AL
(09/30/91)
Ciba-Geigy (Mclntosh Plant), OU 2,
AL
(09/30/91)
Ciba-Geigy (Mclntosh Plant), OU 4,
AL
(07/14/92)
Ciba-Geigy (Mclntosh Plant), OU 4,
AL
(07/14/92)
American Creosote Works, Inc.,
OU2.FL
(02/03/94)
Para-Chem Southern, Inc., SC
(09/27/93)
TcdnnalogyflUsted
in 7tb Edition)
Thermal desorption
Dechlorination and
Thermal desorption
Thermal desorption
In situ flushing
Thermal desorption
In situ flushing
Surfactant flushing
-groundwater
Bioremediation
(ex situ)
slurry-phase
SaWtftra » :
Added
Deleted
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Changed to
Off-site
incineration
On-site
incineration*
On-site
incineration
- -i ~ =-t =:
Comments
Groundwater modeling indicated
that there would be no further
groundwater contamination if source
soils were left in place. Site will be
capped.
Remedy changed to off-site
incineration due to implementability,
long and short-term effectiveness.
Issuing amended ROD.
Treatability study showed that
incineration was more cost-effective.
Treatability study showed
percolation from precipitation was
just as effective. Minimal benefit
would be gained from soil flushing.
Treatability study showed that
incineration was more cost-effective.
Treatability study showed
percolation from precipitation was
just as effective. Minimal benefit
would be gained from soil flushing.
Determined that pump-and-treat
alone would be effective.
Remedy canceled because of
concerns about feasibility,
performance, and treatment time.
Will excavate and dispose off-site.
-i '
f " -
Contacts/Phone
Andrew Palestini
215-597-1286
Andrew Palestini
215-597-1286
Charles L. King, Jr.
404-562-8931
Charles L. King, Jr.
404-562-8931
Charles L. King, Jr.
404-562-8931
Charles L. King, Jr.
404-562-8931
Mark File
404-562-8927
Judy Canova
803-896-4046
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
* Technology listed in the seventh edition
E-2
-------
Eighth Edition (November 1996) (continued)
4
5
5
5
5
5
|<^^^|^^lf|
SS^^^^KS^
Cape Fear Wood Preserving, NC
(06/30/89)
Ott/Story/Cordova Chemical, MI
(09/27/93)
Thermo-Chem, Inc., OU 1, MI
(09/30/91)
Skinner Landfill OU 2, OH
(06/04/93)
Van Dale Junkyard, OH
(03/31/94)
Zanesville Well Field, OH
(09/30/91)
y^jUffyji
Bioremediation (ex
situ) slurry-phase
Thermal desorption
Soil vapor extraction
Soil vapor extraction
Bioremediation (in
situ) - soil
Soil vapor extraction
SiSiK'
Air sparging
Air sparging
filtelS
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
?tKS18
^SSy^
?St|||;f^Sf?>t%l
S^%!l^^felilSS
Original remedy called for soil
washing followed by slurry-phase
bioremediation of fines, based on an
80% reduction in volume of
contaminated soil achieved by soil
washing. Soil washing bidders
claimed a 96% reduction in volume
of contaminated soil, thus making
slurry-phase bioremediation too
costly for the 0.4% of contaminated
fines remaining.
The state revised the cleanup goals.
Consequently, the amount of soils
requiring remediation was reduced.
Also shallow groundwater present at
the site would continue to
contaminate clean backfilled soil.
Cost was also a factor. No
alternative remedy has been selected
at this time.
Added to enhance SVE system.
Further investigation through a
feasibility study indicated that the
site conditions would not be
amenable to SVE. Will cap instead.
Predesign sampling indicated that
contaminant levels had decreased.
No active bioremediation is
occurring. The site will be capped
and will rely on natural attenuation
with monitoring.
Implemented by PRPs to accelerate
groundwater remediation.
'^SfSKK^
S^^Sil
Jon Bomholm
404-562-8820
John Fagiolo
312-886-0800
Jim Hahnenberg
312-353-4213
Jamey Bell
312-886-6436
Lawrence Schmitt
312-353-6565
James Campbell
412-351-6132
Dave Wilson
312-886-1476
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
E-3
-------
Eighth Edition (November 1996) (continued)
Region
5
5
5
6
7
7
7
Site Name, State (ROD Date)
Zanesville Well Field, OH
(09/30/91)
City Disposal Corporation Landfill,
WI
(09/28/92)
Hagen Farm, Groundwater Control
OU,WI
(09/30/92)
Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc. OU 2,
TX
(09/06/91)
People's Natural Gas, IA
(06/16/91)
Sherwood Medical, ME
(09/28/93)
Valley Park ICE Site, Wainwright
OU,MO
(09/29/94)
Tectaolog? (Listed
In 7th Edition)
Soil washing
Soil vapor extraction
Bioremediation (in
situ) - groundwater
Air Sparging
Bioremediation (in
situ) - soil
Thermal desorption
Air sparging
8 th Edition
Added
Air sparging
Deleted
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Changed to
Bioremediation
(in situ)
groundwater
Soil vapor
extraction (ex
situ)
Comments
Will excavate and dispose off-site
because soil volume was much
smaller that originally projected.
Rise in groundwater table prevented
implementation of SVE. Remedy
changed to capping with gas
collection.
Treatability studies indicated that
bioenhancement would not provide
any additional benefit. Relying on
natural attenuation. Explanation of
Significant Differences (BSD)
signed on 08/27/96.
Bioremediation thought to be more
effective.
Soil vapor extraction (ex situ) will
be more cost-effective. ESD issued
09/05/95.
Air sparging would be difficult to
implement and nearby residences
might be adversely affected. Will do
pump-and-treat instead. ESD issued
on 04/02/96.
Contacts/Phone
Dave Wilson
312-886-1476
Russ Hart
312-886-4844
Mike Schmoller
(WI) 608-275-3303
Steve Padovani
312-353-6755
Chris Villarreal
214-665-6758
Diana Engeman
913-551-7797
Steve Auchterlonie
913-551-7778
Steve Auchterlonie
913-551-7778
Dave Mosby (MO)
573-751-1288
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
E-4
-------
Eighth Edition (November 1996) (continued)
^¥|0i
sK*62'*;!x-
f~~,'"" "tl--, .<
.•.>>;v;4-^
7
8
8
8
9
9
'•>' Ja^^'^^^Vv ^*s.^"^- '£.' /|^,' ' * "•* or'Vvf*^.""A ^
'^$V* W^^^*?*''^
,"B*/* -? •/% '.'&<*•?,'' <2'"~- ""VV -^Z^"' ""*" ff-'Kf'f+f'^ *">
fV;;0% -|£*^; -C^<'.?l/:4? *y ^^r;
Valley Park TCE Site, Wainwright
OU,MO
(09/24/94)
Lockheed/Martin
(Denver Aerospace), CO
(Remedial Action)
(09/24/90)
Idaho Pole Company, MT
(09/28/92)
Summitville Mine, OU 1, CO
(12/15/94)
Motorola 52nd Street, AZ
(09/30/88)
Seal Beach Navy Weapons Station,
IR Site 14, CA (DoD Action)
\' -^ - V^XH-
Thermal desorption
Soil vapor extraction
and thermal
desorption
In situ flushing
This is a FY 1995
ROD and was not
listed in the seventh
edition. The FY 1995
ROD specified
bioremediation (in
situ)
Soil vapor extraction
Soil vapor extraction
^^*^vv^ ^^^A^ '£\ ,£-**Z.^-& ^^•?-~"^,:, fz, *( _t ' f-.'ij, , •, — . *• •.")*'" Qy f £,;
y-'s\^-, "^u";^
Air sparging
Jt^l/*1 '" VV '^v" v/J* "V
x'^m&Kk
Listing as a
Superfund
remedial
action has
been deleted.
Yes
Yes
.-/'-. "SV ^•"t'J^'^'J-1, ^ 'j^ ^*;
wSSte'^v
Soil vapor
extraction (ex
situ)*
Bioremediation
(ex situ) - land
treatment*
¥4-^^^\^^'^-.'^^y^-
^%^^f5fh^:s^;®f?
^^31^M-S€^^'^W
fy^;i;j*^&|sia^:i;s&;^V?*
Soil vapor extraction (ex situ) more
cost-effective. BSD issued on
04/02/96.
Remedial action being handled as a
RCRA corrective action.
Further investigation indicated
flushing would not be effective.
Soils were excavated and will be
treated as part of the land treatment
remedy. BSD issued on 05/21/96
When heap leach pad rinsed with
water, contaminant concentrations
were reduced and bioremediation
was not necessary.
Research project, not a full-scale
cleanup.
i V? '•>>*$. ^M, &' f-
•'•"^ <<-?-$£?>&'*tyty
W&&.AS, '* '*$•? ^f'-
rf'ff j^J"''*' -fy- -.-• ^''tv. •.'•'' -y'-y^f
Steve Auchterlonie
913-551-7778
Dave Mosby (MO)
573-751-1288
George Dancik
303-312-6935
Charles Johnson
(CO)
303-692-3348
Jim Harris
406-441-1150
James Hanley
303-312-6725
Victor
Ketellepepper
303-312-6578
Fred Schauffler
415.744-2359
Mana Font
602-207-4194
Ken Reynolds
619-532-2912
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
* Technology listed in the seventh edition
E-5
-------
Eighth Edition (November 1996) (continued)
Region
9
9
9
9
9
9
Site Name, State (ROD Date)
Hexcel, CA
(09/21/93)
Intel Mountain View (355
MiddlefieldRoad),CA
(06/09/89)
Koppers Company, Inc. (Oroville
Plant), CA
(09/13/89)
Koppers Company, Inc. (Oroville
Plant), CA
(09/13/89)
Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman (MEW)
- Siemins/Sobrato (455 & 487
MiddlefieldRoad),CA
(06/30/93)
Van Waters and Rogers, CA
(09/30/91)
Technology (listed
in 7th Edition)
Air sparging,
bioremediation (in
situ) - groundwater,
soil vapor extraction
Soil vapor extraction
Soil washing
Bioremediation
(in situ) - soil
Soil vapor extraction
Soil vapor extraction
8th Edition
Added
Air sparging
Deleted
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Changed to
Comments
Hexcel was removed from the
National Priorities List (NPL) on
November 1, 1993.
Groundwater table rose, leaving too
little unsaturated soil to warrant
S VE. Soils were excavated and
aerated.
Further analysis determined soil
washing would be ineffective. Soil
will be disposed of in a landfill with
the potential for two percent of the
most contaminated soil treated
through solidification/stabilization.
ROD amendment being prepared.
Presence of metals and dioxins made
bioremediation infeasible. Soil will
be disposed of in a landfill with the
potential for two percent of the most
contaminated soil treated by
solidification/stabilization. ROD
amendment being prepared.
Site was proposed for listing on the
NPL but has been removed.
Responsibility was picked up under
RCRA and subsequently dropped
from RCRA authority.
Contacte/Pfeooe
Mark Johnson
510-286-0305
Elizabeth Adams
415-744-2235
Michael Maley
510-450-6159
Fred Schauffler
415-744-2359
Fred Schauffler
415-744-2359
Elizabeth Adams
415-744-2235
Belinda Wei
415-744-2280
Duazo Ricco
510-268-0837
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
E-6
-------
Eighth Edition (November 1996) (continued)
* V /
Region
10
10
10
* \* x
^ ^ ^ <" „ V "J"v'
Stt^NaBB^ State! (ROB Itete): .
Eielson AFB, OUs 3, 4, and 5, AK
(9/22/95)
Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory, Pit 9 (OU7-10), ID
(09/23/93)
USDOE Hanford 100 Area, OUs
100-BC-l, 100-DR-l, 100-HR-l,
WA
(9/27/95)
' r" - ,
' Sedkel<^
-------
Seventh Edition (September 1995): Additions, Changes, and Deletions from the Sixth Edition (September 1994)
The seventh edition of the report added information about 42 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial actions in FY 1994 RODs and eight
innovative treatment technologies selected for seven RCRA corrective actions.
Region
1
2
2
2
2
3
Site Name, State (ROD Date)
Linemaster Switch Corporation,
CT
(07/21/93)
American Thermostat, NY
(06/29/90)
GCL Tie and Treating, NY
(Removal Action)
General Motors Central Foundry
Division (OU 1 and OU 2), NY
(12/17/90) & (03/31/92)
Pasley Solvents and Chemicals,
Inc., NY
(04/24/92)
Bendix, PA
(09/30/88)
Technology listed in
6th edition
Soil vapor extraction
Thermal desorption
Composting
Bioremediation
(slurry phase)
Soil flushing and soil
vapor extraction
Soil vapor extraction
7th edition
Added
Thermal
Desorption
(phase 2)
Air sparging
Deleted
Yes
Changed to
Dual-phase
extraction
Thermal
desorption
(being
implemented as
a remedial
action with the
ROD signed
09/30/94)
Thermal
desorption
Soil vapor
extraction and
air sparging
Comments
Groundwater also is being
treated with this technology.
Project is being conducted in
two phases. Phase 1 has
been completed and is listed
Site is not amenable to
composting because of the
presence of long-chain PAHs
and the time constraints of
the removal process. A
treatability study achieved
over 90% reduction but little
degradation of long chain
carcinogenic hydrocarbons
Both OUs were combined
under the thermal desorption
remedy. ROD amended to
combine both OUs under a
SVE, in combination with
air sparging, will eliminate
the need for soil flushing.
ROD amendment was signed
05/22/95.
It was determined that SVE
was not a viable remedy; soil
was too tightly compacted.
No alternative has been
Contacts/Phone
Elise Jakabhazy
617-573-5760
Christo Tsiamis
212-637-4257
Joe Cosentino
908-906-6983
Lisa Jackson
212-637-4274
Sherrel Henry
212-637-4273
Jim Harper
215-597-6906
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
E-8
-------
Seventh Edition (September 1995) (continued)
•o^trw-.
*"& £.,•«&•£
^•fci'^yj
£> ^VV-'Sy
;^&p»h^
3
4
5
5
5
5
5
^k^S^^^sl^E^il??C
e- Vj .g'/iiMK? '-'4' • yV-*4«j> ;s-i :5sC'*4»K *
£Z^^%&0&K^t
.•SsfeM^Mfe^iHQi^i^
Brown's Battery Breaking Site, OU
2 PA
(07/02/92)
Helena Chemical, SC
(09/08/93)
Carter Industries, MI
(09/18/91)
Cliffs/Dow Dump, MI
(09/27/89)
Electro-Voice, OU 1, Ml
.(06/23/92)
Ionia City Landfill, MI
(09/29/89)
Seymour Recycling, IN
(09/30/86)
4'^^^Hfc*?^
Fuming gasification
Bioremediation (ex
situ) and
Thermal desorption
Bioremediation (ex
situ)
Soil vapor extraction
Vitrification
(in situ)
Bioremediation (in
situ groundwater)
^•'f^&i:/^^
&&&$&&:• -ff$,:.k.
fifliW?
Air sparging
SfSiiS
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
f'fr f-J-^S./^ '"A*^ -'l^ if/"' "^ '^~
Plasma high-
temperature
metals recovery
Off-site
incineration
i^^ifeWf€j;%^
&&j^x»?j&$??ij~$f'~''i ; t.'^K"~k •ii-*^*'*.-?,'-. '•
Richard Watman
215-566-3219
Bernie Hayes
404-562-8822
Jon Peterson
312-353-1264
Ken Glatz
312-886-1434
Eugenia Chow
312-353-3156
Michael Gifford
312-886-7257
Jeff Gore
312-886-6552
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
E-9
-------
r
Seventh Edition (September 1995) (continued)
Region
5
5
6
6
8
8
9
Site Name, State (ROD Date)
Verona Well Field OU 2, MI
(06728/91)
Wayne Reclamation and
Recycling, IN
(03/30/90)
Koppers/Texarkana, TX
(09/23/88)
Koppers/Texarkana, TX
(09/23/88)
Chemical Sales Company (OU 1),
CO (06/27/91)
Mouat Industries, MT (Removal
Action)
Phoenix-Goodyear Airport Area
(North and South Facilities), AZ
(09/26/89)
Technology listed in
6th edition
Soil vapor extraction
Soil vapor extraction
Soil washing
In situ flushing
Soil vapor extraction
Chemical treatment
Soil vapor extraction
7th edition
Added
Soil vapor
extraction
Air sparging
Air sparging
Soil vapor
extraction
Deleted
Yes
Yes
Yes
Changed to
Comments
Conducting soil vapor
extraction at two separate
sites under this ROD: Annex
area and Paint shop area.
Projects are listed as separate
entries in the ASR seventh
edition.
Air sparging was added
under the existing ROD to
treat groundwater.
Volume of soil was not as
large as originally had been
projected. The small volume
did not warrant bringing a
soil washing unit on-site.
Will excavate and dispose of
soil off-site.
In situ flushing was never
intended as a treatment at the
site. Misinterpretation of the
ROD during ROD analysis.
Air sparging was added
under the existing ROD to
treat groundwater.
Reducing chromium VI to
chromium HI not considered
innovative.
Site is divided into 2 areas:
North area & South area.
Each area is listed as an
individual project in the
seventh edition ASR.
Contacts/Phone
Janice Bartlett
312-886-5438
Duane Heaton
312-886-6399
Ursula Lennox
214-665-6743
Ursula Lennox
214-665-6743
Armando Saenz
303-312-6559
Ron Bertran
406-449-5720
Craig Cooper
415.744-2370
Rusty Harris-Bishop
415-744-2365
Nancy Moore (AZ)
602-207-4180
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
E-10
-------
Seventh Edition (September 1995) (continued)
t <
*-fc c
' Region •
9
9
9
9
10
10
\""-> * V ** „ " >' / ' °%<
^ ' ' *V "
SftemMaatfefROfiBate)
Fairchild Semiconductor, CA
(06/30/89)
Indian Bend Wash, AZ
(09/27/93)
Intersil, CA
(09/27/90)
Solvent Service, CA
(09/27/93)
Fairchild AFB Priority 1 OUS (OU
1) Craig Rd Landfill, WA
(02/13/93)
Gould, Inc., OR (03/31/88)
"* «'s ••» ' •> /•
Technology Listed in
" 6th edition
2 listings for soil
vapor extraction
Soil vapor extraction
Soil vapor extraction
Soil vapor extraction
Soil vapor extraction
Soil washing
I " s
- 7th edition , '•>
/ ^
Added
3 more SVE
projects
4 distinct areas
using soil
vapor
extraction
n
deleted .
Yes
Yes
~ ' ;
Changed to
Soil vapor
extraction under
RCRA
corrective action
•• , ;
^ >^ " •
Comments c - ;
Soil vapor extraction
systems are being
implemented at 5 different
areas at the site.
SVE is being conducted at
four distinct areas;
areas 6, 7, 8, and 12, at the
site. Each site is considered
as an individual project.
Site renamed to
Intersil/Siemens (Intersil)
Project was changed from a
Superfund remedial action to
a RCRA corrective action.
Remedy was not
implemented because of the
following concerns:
• Generation of
combustible gases
• Heterogeneous
stratigraphy
• Reluctance to put holes
into the landfill, which
could lead to leaching of
contaminants
Will cap the landfill and
conduct pump-and-treat
operations.
Remedy was shown to be
ineffective due to varying
site conditions and problems
with the technology.
s
f
' Contacts/Phone
Elizabeth Adams
415-744-2235
Emily Roth
415-744-2247
Belinda Wei
415-744-2280
TonyMancini
510-286-0825
Cami Grandinetti
206-553-8696
Chip Humphries
503-326-2678
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
E-ll
-------
Seventh Edition (September 1995) (continued)
™Kigiiin*i
10
10
10
10
«. -StelWiM^St»fe!(ROD'DateJ1W!
Naval Submarine Base, Bangor
SiteA,OUl,WA
(12/10/91)
Union Pacific Railroad Sludge Pit,
ID
(09/10/91)
Fort Lewis Military Res. Landfill 4
and Solvent Refined Coal Plant,
WA
(09/24/93)
Eielson Air Force Base, AK
(9/29/92)
3-
gTeCllBp^lg^Cj^ffedjlB1 ;
•:* ' '-• 'wth edition T
Soil washing
Soil flushing
Soil washing
Bioventing and soil
vapor extraction
If:
Added
Deleted
Yes
Soil vapor
extraction
- H^U = !ii si;;;^ ;i is :
If:- '- ..-.=="- I
-ii] ".-'
Changed to
Soil flushing (ex
situ)
Thermal
Desorption
ip
,- •
CoBuasnb i
Will excavate and place soil
in a lined pit. Soil will be
sprayed with water and
leachate and will be
collected and treated.
Remedy was not
implemented. Excavation of
sludge did not indicate that
contaminants were present
Amended ROD was signed
9/94. Will excavate and
treat off-site, in addition to a
pump-and-treat operation.
ROD specified soil washing
or thermal desorption as the
remedy. Thermal desorption
was selected based on the
results of a treatability study.
Soil vapor extraction written
into ROD as a contingency.
— —
- 'Otratacts/Pfcone
Harry Craig
503-326-3689
Craig Thompson
(WA)
360-407-7234
Chris Drury (Navy)
206-396-0062
Ann Williamson
206-553-2739
Clyde Cody (ID)
208-334-0556
Bob Kievit
206-753-9014
Mary Jane Nearman
206-553-6642
Rielle Markey (AK)
907-451-2117
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
E-12
-------
Sixth Edition (September 1994): Additions, Changes, and Deletions from the Fifth Edition (September 1993)
The sixth edition of the report added information about 53 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial actions in FY 1993 RODs. Other
changes are listed below.
%m.
&&*?•
i
i
2
2
2
3
1W;W$«®OT
1*4 #>• '*ffff -S^ll- -i *i'~??' ^^f >5tr A
o^i^^|flf}^^i@
Union Chemical Co., OU 1, ME
(12/27/90)
Tibbetts Road, NH
(09/29/92)
Ewan Property, OU 2, NJ
(09/29/88)
Naval Air Engineering Center,
OU 7, Interim Action, NJ
(03/16/92)
Solvent Savers, NY
(09/28/90)
U.S. Titanium, VA
(11/21/89)
^i^Wj^ggf^
Thermal desorption
In situ
soil flushing
Soil washing and
solvent extraction
In situ flushing
Soil vapor extraction
In situ flushing
^<$fei"Hw->^v^i'^\^S&i%4feiit^;^^^'V'$?-; %V:
£Kfe&W^'*''
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Soil vapor
extraction
Neutralization
with lime
(ex situ)
'fi^lg^^^M*-*®?**
W^Sl*:^*|^^:^|^,:
^^^^fe^^'^K^^-
^f^t»yi^^
It was determined that SVE would
be the more cost-effective of the
two. BSD was signed April 1994.
Misinterpretation of ROD during
ROD analysis. Soil was not
targeted for treatment.
Reevaluation of site found
significantly less contaminated soil
than originally had been estimated.
Soil will be disposed of off-site.
BSD was signed July 1994.
Misinterpretation of the ROD
during ROD analysis.
Soil vapor extraction is a
secondary remedy that may be used
instead of thermal desorption, the
primary remedy, if treatability
studies show it to be effective.
Treatability studies indicated that
the technology was not feasible.
ESD is under preparation.
&&'-J^\if'-^,"-^
Terry Connelly
617-573-9638
Christopher Rushton
(MEDEP)
207-287-2651
Darryl Luce
617-573-5767
Mike Robinette (NH)
603-271-2014
Kim O'Connell
212-637-4399
(temporary)
JeffGratz
212-637-4320
Robert Wing
212-264-8670
Lisa Wong
212-637-4267
Vance Evans
215-597-8485
Jeff Howard (VA)
804-762-4203
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
E-13
-------
Sixth Edition (September 1994) (continued)
Region
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
Site Name, Slate (ROD Date)
L.A. Clarke & Sons, OU 1 (Soils),
VA
(03/31/88)
LA Clarke & Sons, OU 1 (Soils),
VA
(03/31/88)
LA. Clarke & Sons,
Lagoon Sludge OU, VA
(03/31/88)
Henderson Road, PA
(06/30/88)
Cabot Carbon/Koppers
(Ground-water), FL
(09/27/90)
Benfield Industries, NC
(07/31/92)
Charles Macon Lagoon,
Lagoon #10, NC
(09/31/91)
Palmetto Wood Preserving, SC
(09/30/87)
Technology Listed
in 5th Edition
Bioremediation
(in situ)
In situ flushing
Bioremediation
(ex situ)
Soil vapor extraction
Bioremediation
(in situ groundwater)
Soil washing and
bioremediation
(slurry phase)
Bioremediation
(ex situ)
Chemical treatment
6th Edition
Added
Deleted
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Changed to
Reuse off-site
as fuel
Land treatment
Comments
Facility is no longer in operation,
and excavation can be done.
Remedies being considered include
thermal desorption.
Facility is no longer in operation,
and remedies being considered
include thermal desorption.
Technology changed because of
uncertainty about the ability of
bioremediation to reach treatment
goals. BSD was signed on 3/94.
Conducted air injection only to
facilitate pump-and-treat system.
Vapors were not extracted. Further
investigation revealed that the
vadose zone was not an area of
concern.
Groundwater is not being treated;
only soil is being treated.
Land treatment was determined to
be a more cost-effective
technology.
Treatability study indicated that the
technology could not treat the
contaminants of concern because
of materials problems. Will
excavate and dispose of wastes off-
site. ROD amendment was signed
in 3/94.
Waste will be disposed of more
cost-effectively off-site.
Coataet^Ptooae
AndyPalestini
215-597-1286
AndyPalestini
215-597-1286
Andy Palestini
215-597-1286
Joe McDowell
215-566-3192
Patsy Goldberg
404-562-8543
Jon Bornholm
404-562-8820
Geizelle Bennett
404-562-8824
David Lown (NC)
919-733-2801
Al Cherry
(404)342-7791
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
E-14
-------
Sixth Edition (September 1994) (continued)
* *
* •*> 5
/
Regfok-
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
* * " \ <. r° ' ~ >~ i- ' >
'», «'•,'* •- . „.
f t
.' -Site Name, State (EQB iNte)
Arlington Blending & Packaging Co.,
OU1,TN
(06/28/91)
South Andover Salvage Yard, OU 2,
MN
(12/24/91)
Allied Chem & Ironton Coke, OU 2,
OH
(12/28/90)
Allied Chem & Ironton Coke, OU 2,
OH
(12/28/90)
United Scrap Lead/SIA, OH
(09/30/88)
MacGillis and Gibbs Co./Bell Lumber
and Pole Co., MN
(12/31/92)
Fruitland Drum, NM
(09/08/90)
Holloman AFB, Main POL Area, NM
Tecfiad0gfIJs| 0 ^ ' j,
' Contacts/Phone
Derek Matory
404-562-8800
Bruce Sypniewski
312-886-6189
Tom Alcamo
312-886-7278
Tom Alcamo
312-886-7278
Anita Boseman
312-886-6941
Timothy Hull (OH)
513-285-6357
Daryl Owens
312-886-7089
Gregory Fife
214-655-6773
Ron Stirling
(USAGE)
402-221-7664
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
E-15
-------
Sixth Edition (September 1994) (continued)
Region
6
6
6
8
8
9
9
9
Site Name, Sfatte (ROD Date)
Holloman AFB, Main POL Area, NM
South Valley, NM
(09/30/88)
Tinker AFB (Soldier Creek Bldg.
3001), OK
(08/16/90)
Rocky Mountain Arsenal, M-l Basins
(OU 16), CO
(02/26/90)
Portland Cement Co. (Kiln Dust No. 2
andNo.3)OU2,UT
(03/31/92)
Mesa Area Groundwater
Contamination, AZ
(09/27/91)
Castle Air Force Base, OU 1, CA
(08/12/91)
Teledyne Semiconductors (Spectra
Physics), CA (03/22/91)
f
TecteologiTSSed
in 5th Edition
Air sparging
Soil vapor extraction
Soil vapor extraction
In situ
vitrification
Chemical treatment
Soil vapor extraction
Bioremediation
(in situ groundwater)
Soil vapor extraction
;: »f<te-*- : - ;
Added
Deleted
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Changed to
Pump and treat
with air
stripping
Comments
Groundwater remediation is not
planned for this area.
Determined there was insignificant
concentration to warrant
remediation. No further action.
Determined that SVE was not
viable. No alternative has been
selected.
Remedy has been canceled because
of problems with the contractor.
New ROD is being negotiated.
Technology is not considered
innovative.
Site has been removed from
National Priorities List (NPL),
referred to the state
Bench-scale test indicated that the
technology did not work. No BSD
or ROD amendment is being
issued.
ROD was misinterpreted. SVE
was intended only for Spectra
Physics, the adjacent site.
-: ^ ' \ _- ^ t -
Confact^Ftae
Ron Stirling (USAGE)
402-221-7664
Bert Gorrod
214-655-6779
Susan Webster
214-655-6784
Major Richard
Ashworth (USAF)
405-734-3058
Connally Mears
303-293-1528
Mike McCeney
303-293-1526
Maurice Chait
602-962-2187
Richard Oln
602-207-4176
David Roberts
415-744-1487
Brad Hicks (USAF)
209-726-4841
Sean Hogan
415-744-2233
Carla Dube
510-286-1041
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
E-16
-------
Sixth Edition (September 1994) (continued)
Jv.-,,:? '- IJ^V"
v!r,\#% ^
•fe&tffe
9
9
9
10
P%iAf*ir^;^^'^^
FMC (Fresno), CA
(06/28/91)
Signetics (Advanced Micro Devices
901), CA
(09/11/91)
Sacramento Army Depot, Oxidation
Lagoons, OU 4, CA
(09/30/92)
McChord AFB Washrack Treatment
Area, AK
(09/28/92)
«*' S?-'<\~ ^'"^fa'^l'^''^' -4 '
Jivfe-St >€iif* '&!/•?,
Soil washing
Soil vapor extraction
Soil washing
Bioremediation
(ex situ)
^$= ,- ?~J/''', »^S*?- '. •^'•&*S,V;.-J>J*''.x J?° "'^IfeS-'-fl*^?^?^
tiaii^s
SMi^
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
t|^:^:^fei^^fefr
Soil washing did not work because
the soil contained too many fines.
Thermal desorption and
solidification and stabilization are
being considered as possible
remedies.
Site is subject to a combined ROD
for Signetics, AMD 901/902 and
TRW Microwave site. SVE is not
being done at the TRW OU. ROD
was misinterpreted.
Technology canceled because of
cost; solidification is being
considered as an alternative.
Additional studies showed that
treatment is not needed.
?;^|i^ti:^4^*'f:^:
? / '^J.'f4/'.-;'^ 5&?%$%j$f' ', J^'"'1*' *•'
Tom Dunkelman
415-744-2296
MikePfister(CA)
209-297-3934
Darrin Swartz-Larson
415-744-2233
Kevin Graves (CA)
510-286-0435
Marlin Mezquita
415-744-2393
Marie Jennings
206-553-1173
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
E-17
-------
FifthEdition (September 1993): Additions, Changes, and Deletions from the Fourth Edition (October 1992)
The fifth edition of the report added information about 49 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial action under FY 1992 RODs and 15
innovative treatment technologies used in removal actions. Other changes are listed below.
Region
i
i
2
2
2
2
3
4
Site Name, State (ROD Date)
Re-Solve, MA
(09/24/87)
Pinette's Salvage Yard, ME
(05/30/89)
Naval Air Engineering Center, OU 1,
NJ (02/04/91)
Naval Air Engineering Center, OU 2,
NJ (02/04/91)
Naval Air Engineering Center, OU 4,
NJ (09/30/91)
Caldwell Trucking, NJ
(09/25/86)
Tobyhanna Army Depot, PA
(Non-Superfund project)
Smith's Farm Brooks, KY
(09/30/91)
Technology Listed
in 4th Edition
Dechlorination
Solvent extraction
In situ flushing
In situ flushing
In situ flushing
Thermal desorption
Bioremediation
(in situ)
Dechlorination
5th Edition
Added
Thermal
desorption
Deleted
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Changed to
Comments
Pilot study showed that
dechlorination increased the volume
and that the waste still required
incineration. An BSD to incinerate
residuals off-site is in peer review.
Will incinerate off-site.
Remedy involves pump-and-treat
system, with on-site discharge. Soil
is not being targeted.
Remedy involves pump-and-treat
system, with on-site discharge. Soil
is not being targeted.
Remedy involves pump-and-treat
system, with on-site discharge. Soil
is not being targeted.
Thermal desorption is not necessary
because highly contaminated soil
will be incinerated off-site.
Remainder of soil will be stabilized.
BSD issued.
Will conduct ex situ passive
volatilization.
Will alter chemistry to achieve
dechlorination during thermal
desorption.
Contacts/Phone
Joe Lemay
617-573-9622
Ross Gilleland
617-573-5766
JeffGratz
212-637-4320
JeffGratz
212-637-4320
JeffGratz
212-637-6320
Ed Finnerty
212-637-4367
Drew Lausch
215-597-3161
Ross Mantione
(Tobyhanna)
717-894-6494
Tony DeAngelo
404-562-8826
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
E-18
-------
Fifth Edition (September 1993) (continued)
4
Region
4
4
4
5
6
7
8
> , xo '
f , * /° 0
V ^ ^ t V ^ 3 *'
• -•' ' * J * *
Site Name, State (ROD Date)
American Creosote Works, FL
(09/28/89)
American Creosote Works, FL
(09/28/89)
Hollingsworth Solderless, FL
(04/10/86)
Clifis/Dow Dump, MI
(09/27/89)
Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard, OK
(09/27/90)
Fairfield Coal & Gas, IA
(09/21/90)
Sand Creek Industrial OU 5, CO
(09/28/90)
<- 5«, " >~*
* Changed to
Thermal
desorption
' /, " ' '" ''\ " "
' ''i ' 'Comifeails
Bench-scale study of soil washing
showed that the concentrations of
carcinogenic P AHs were not
reduced adequately. Dioxins also
were discovered at much higher
concentrations.
Bench-scale study of bioremediation
(ex situ) showed that the
concentrations of carcinogenic
PAHs were not reduced adequately.
Dioxins also were discovered at
much higher concentrations.
Listed as soil aeration in the third
edition.
Bioremediation (in situ) was a
misinterpretation of the ROD. All
soil will be excavated and treated by
bioremediation (ex situ).
Remedy has been suspended
because of difficulties in
implementation and escalating cost;
Actual cost was double the cost
projected in ROD. ROD
amendment to cap in place is being
issued.
Pilot study showed in situ
bioremediation was too costly. It
appears that the present pump-and-
treat system will achieve cleanup
levels.
Soil washing did not meet
performance standards and was
expensive. ROD amendment was
issued in earlv September 1993.
j
/
Contacts/Phone
Mark File
404-562-8927
Mark File
404-562-8927
John Zimmerman
404-562-8936
Ken Glatz
312-886-1434
Mike Overbay
214-655-8512
Bruce Morrison
913-551-7755
Erna Acheson
303-312-6753
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
E-19
-------
Fifth Edition (September 1993) (continued)
Region
9
9
9
10
10
Site Name, State (ROD Date)
Koppers Company (Oroville), CA
(04/04/90)
Signetics (AMD 901) TRW OU, CA
(09/11/91)
Teledyne Semiconductors, CA
(03/22/91)
IDEL Warm Waste Pond, ID
(12/05/91)
IDEL Warm Waste Pond, ID
(12/05/91)
Technology listed
in 4th Edition
Biorcmediation (ex
situ)
None
None
Acid extraction
Soil washing
Stb Edition
Added
Soil vapor
extraction
Soil vapor
extraction
Deleted
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cbangedto
Comments
Misinterpretation of ROD during
ROD analysis.
Remedy added.
Dropped by mistake from fourth
edition.
Treatability study of acid extraction
did not achieve good extraction
rates. Did not reduce the volume of
waste. Will excavate, consolidate,
and cap.
Treatability study of soil washing
did not achieve acceptable results.
Did not reduce the volume of waste.
Will excavate, consolidate, and cap.
CootactsflPboae
Fred Schlauffler
415-744-2359
Joe Healy
415-744-2331
Kevin Graves
(CA)
510-286-0435
Sean Hogan
415-744-2233
Linda Meyer
206-553-6636
Nolan Jenson
(DOE)
208-526-0436
Linda Meyer
206-553-6636
Nolan Jenson
(DOE)
208-526-0436
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
E-20
-------
Fourth Edition (October 1992): Additions, Changes, and Deletions from the Third Edition (April 1992)
The fourth edition of the report added information about 10 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial action under FY 1992 RODs and 21
innovative treatment technologies implemented at non-Superfund sites. Other changes are listed below.
•»»C"^l*.,
V\' os Vt'J» rtt
',£>'%£;?• <.™\>'V
;fr^
W8&&B0
2
2
5
6
6
9
9
10
l&^^^m^^?
Bi^
Lipari Landfill Marsh Sediment, NJ
(07/11/88)
GE Wiring Devices, PR
(09/30/88)
University of Minnesota, MN
(06/11/90)
Sol Lynn/Industrial Dechlorination
Transformers, XX
(03/25/88)
Koppers/Texarkana, TX
(09/23/88)
Poly Carb, NV (Removal)
Teledyne Semiconductors, CA
(03/22/91)
Gould Battery, OR
(03/31/88)
;;ffx^fr^"-?4^/||>{
None
Thermal desorption
Thermal desorption
Dechlorination
Soil washing
Bioremediation
(in situ)
Soil vapor extraction
Soil washing
£i~w? •'/;*&?
&~£ttfc-&
Thermal
desorption
In situ
flushing
Soil washing
' ,,,'•.'-. ~. 4*'*f*WX'-'V
J/'V ,>' v '' , v<, fft^'*
Yes
Yes
Yes
?jg "v°v%-&y.v "•%•ifeJ'.0^S':^;K^:~
:f^5SlS?P$'^;5Mfefe^
^HC^^p^S^4;%3;g-?!^5
Missed during original ROD
analysis.
An ESD was issued in August 1991
to change remedy to thermal
desorption or incineration.
Incineration was chosen because it
was the less expensive of the two.
Discontinued because of difficulties
in implementation.
Remedy added by ROD amendment.
Reclassified technology.
Mistakenly deleted from report.
Missed during original ROD
analysis.
^?^^:^v
K ' ™C V Y" •-# ^l?^*},' j^ %-{ »*'*
Tom Graff
816-426-2296
Caroline Kwan
212-637-4275
Darrel Owens
312-886-7089
John Meyer
214-667-6742
Ursula Lennox
214-655-6735
Bob Mandel
415-744.2290
Sean Hogan
415-744-2233
Chip Humphries
503-326-2678
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
E-21
-------
ThirdEdition (April 1992): Additions, Changes, and Deletions from the Second Edition (September 1991)
The third edition of the report added information about 70 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial actions under FY 1991 RODs. Other
changes are listed below.
Region
2
2
" 2
4
5
5
5
6
6
9
9
Site Name, State (ROD Date)
Marathon Battery, NY
(09/30/88)
Goose Farm, NJ
(09/27/85)
GE Wiring Services, PR
(09/30/88)
Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving, FL
(09/26/90)
Sangamo/Crab Orchard National
Wildlife Refuge, IL
(08/01/90)
Anderson Development, MI
(09/28/90)
U.S. Aviex, MI
(09/07/88)
Atchison/Santa Fe/Clovis, MM
(09/23/88)
Crystal Chemical, TX
(09/27/90)
Solvent Service, CA
(09/27/90)
Poly Carb, NV (Removal)
Technology (Listed
in 2nd Edition)
Thermal desorption
In situ soil flushing
Soil washing
Soil washing
In situ vitrification
In situ vitrification
In situ flushing
Bioremediation
(ex situ)
In situ vitrification
Bioremediation
(in situ)
Bioremediation
(ex situ)
3rd Edition
Added
Deleted
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Changed to
Thermal
desorption
Incineration
Thermal
desorption
Bioremediation
(in situ)
Comments
During design, soil gas
concentration at hot spots was below
state standards. Groundwater
monitoring will continue.
Incorrectly classified. A pump-and -
treat system with reinjection of
treated water is being used.
Possible pre-wash of debris with
surfactants.
Problems due to the presence of
furans; incineration is likely.
ROD specified the remedy as in situ
vitrification or incineration;
incineration was chosen.
Because of concern on the part of
the community, the remedy was
changed. A ROD amendment was
signed on 9/30/91, and an BSD was
signed on 10/2/92.
Cleanup levels were reached by
natural attenuation.
Remedy was reconsidered after
commercial availability of the
technology was delayed. Revised
remedy will consist of capping and
off-site disposal and consolidation
of soils.
ROD was misinterpreted during
ROD analysis.
Reclassified technology.
Contacts/Phone
Pam Tames
212-264-1036
Laura Lombardo
212-264-6989
Caroline Kwan
212-637-4275
Tony Best
404-347-2643
Nan Gowda
312-353-9236
Jim Hahnenberg
312-353-4213
Robert Whippo
312-886-4759
Ky Nichols
214-655-6783
Lisa Price
214-655-6735
Kevin Graves
510-286-0435
Steve Morse (CA)
570-286-0304
Bob Mandel
415-744-2290
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
E-22
-------
Second Edition (September 1991): Additions, Changes, and Deletions from the First Edition (January 1991)
The second edition of the report added information about 45 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial actions in RODs signed during fiscal
year (FY) 1990 and 18 innovative treatment technologies used in removal actions. Other changes are listed below.
iRegfop
3
3
2
1
2
6
10
- ^' '*" "* ,' " "-
Site1 Hape. State (RQP Bate)
Leetown Pesticides, WV
(03/31/86)
Harvey-Knott Drum, DE
(09/30/85)
SMS Instruments (Deer Park), NY
(09/29/89)
Re-Solve, MA
(09/24/87)
GE Wiring Services, PR
(09/30/88)
Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers, TX
(03/25/88) ^
Northwest Transformer, WA
Technology (Listed
^ulst&litiioiif
Bioremediation
In situ soil flushing
Thermal desorption
Chemical treatment
Chemical extraction
Chemical treatment
In situ vitrification
"" v "\ '-.. Sadiron / "° r-C. ..„'.'.
Added *
•f
Deleted
Yes
Yes
Yes (changed
to soil vapor
extraction in
third edition)
Yes
Changed to
Dechlorination
Soil washing
Dechlorination
/. " t f " '
*• ° Comments' ' °
No further action. Risk was re-
evaluated and it was determined that
risk was not sufficient for remedial
action.
During remedial design, sampling
indicated VOCs were no longer
present in the soils. Heavy metals
remained at the surface. An BSD
was issued in December 1992.
Remedy will consist of capping the
site.
ROD was misinterpreted during
ROD analysis.
Reclassified technology.
Reclassified technology.
Reclassified technology.
Technology dropped because
commercial availability was delayed.
"*" ^ •*
J> ^
^CcaOactsfPtivm
Andy Palestini
215-597-1286
Philip Rotstein
215-566-3232
Kate Lose
215-566-3240
Miko Fayon
212-637-4250
Lorenzo Thantu
212-637-4240
Caroline Kwan
212-637-4275
John Meyer
214-665-6742
Christine Psyk
206-553-6519
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
£-23
-------
-------
Appendix F
On-site Incineration: Summary of Status Report Updates,
Changes, and Deletions
-------
-------
On-Site Incineration: Summary of Status Report Updates, Changes, and Deletions
Eighth Edition (November 1996): Additions, Changes, and Deletions In On-Site Incineration
Applications From the Seventh Edition (September 1995)
This eighth edition of the report contains new information on the application of on-site incineration remedies at Superfund sites. Changes from the
seventh edition to this edition are listed below.
^x:^
•'¥.!-J'r-
'•'Rc|pojft
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
New Bedford, MA
(04/06/90)
Wells G&H, MA
(09/14/89)
Davis Liquid Waste, RI
(09/29/87)
Brook Industrial Park, OU 1, NJ
(09/30/94)
De Rewal Chemical, NJ'
(09/29/89)
Lipari Landfill, NJ
(07/11/88)
Love Canal, NY
(09/26/88)
Sarney Farm, NY
(09/27/90)
V- " v <>«£ " f ' fJf "*f "' >?/ ^ "&•.'&%?
^^IH^^s||
On-site incineration
«
On-site incineration
On-site incineration
On-site incineration
On-site incineration
On-site incineration
On-site incineration
On-site incineration
vv T" '^"'^"^"rffs- -~- ' i/»u' ^'^r&jv*^"'^ '^'-^ ^'£C'V'>
•&^^&:mi^c^^^
^-V^5'^9:V:?>rv-
&$$«»*£:*
/"^"'-"•fi^??'
&Sfca8fe$&<'
Yes
Yes
Yes
^ ^> > ':-' A^,^^u ^-^
Off-site
incineration
Thermal
desorption
Thermal
desorption*
Off-site
incineration
Thermal
desonrtion*
Ti''"'^-f~^*^v~>v^' ^V"-''"''s'^ . -^/^"^^/^V^
t%sa^i%fe --'.- -^-s:- v*!^?;-a^
^ -.;:,',; i&^l'^s*?!*;^^ / _j!V. ^"^
Remedy canceled because of
community concerns. No
alternative selected at this time.
Remedy changed to off-site
incineration because of community
concerns. Explanation of
significant difference (BSD) signed
04/25/91.
Thermal desorption more cost-
effective. BSD signed 6/96.
Misinterpretation of ROD. Will
conduct off-site incineration or
disposal.
Remedy changed to off-site
disposal because more cost-
effective. Much less volume of
contaminated material than
originally projected.
ROD specified thermal treatment of
marsh sediments. Thermal
desorption was selected as the
treatment.
PRP was conducting on-site
incineration at another site. Waste
was transported to that site for
incineration.
Misinterpretation of the ROD.
>K-, "^:>^> *i^.,~~s*'*-«"»?;?
vm^'^&-
David Dickerson
617-573-9632
Mary Garren
617-573-9613
Paula Fitzsimmons
(MA)
617-223-5572
Neal Handler
617-543-9636
Donna Vizian
212-637-4295
Romona Pezzella
212-637-4385
Fred Cataneo
212-637-4428
Damian Duda
212-637-4269
Doug Carbarini
212-637-4263
Kevin Willis
212-637-4271
* Technology listed in the seventh edition
F-l
-------
Eighth Edition (November 1996) (continued)
Region
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
i- * . -. -- 1
: : Site Nam*, State (ROD Date)
Delaware Sand & Gravel, DE
(04/22/88)
Southern Maryland Wood Treating,
MD (06/29/88)
Eastern Diversified Metals, PA
(03/29/91)
MW Manufacturing, PA
(06/29/90)
Sagertown Industrial, PA
(01/29/93)
Whitmoyer Laboratories, OU 2, PA
(12/17/90)
Ordnance Works Disposal, WV
(03/31/88)
Tedn»Io§y(LLrtedi
_ in 7tt Edition)
On-site incineration
On-site incineration
On-site incineration
On-site incineration
On-site incineration
On-site incineration
On-site incineration
Added
8th Edition
Deleted
Yes
Yes
Changed (o
Soil vapor
extraction* and
bioremediation
(in situ)*
Thermal
desorption
Off-site
incineration
Off-site
incineration
Off-site
incineration
Bioremediation
(ex situ)*
Comments
Remedy was revised to address
previously unrecognized site
conditions. ROD amendment
signed on 09/30/93. SVE
subsequently changed to
bioventing.
Remedy changed to thermal
desorption, because of cost and
community concerns. ROD issued
on 09/08/95.
ROD specified on or off-site
incineration. Off-site being
conducted because of reduced
amount of material to be treated.
Pilot-scale trial bum could not
achieve emission standards.
Remedy to be determined;
considering solidification/
stabilization at this time.
Remedy changed because of cost
and faster treatment time. ESD
signed on 03/09/95.
Remedy changed because the
volume of wastes was less than
originally projected. ESD signed
on 12/28/94.
Remedy changed because of
community concerns. ROD
amended in 1/89.
-
CoBtacftfflfen*
Eric Newman
215-566-3237
Stephanie
Dehnhard
215-566-3234
Steven Donohue
215-566-3215
Bhupi Khona
215-566-3213
Steven Donohue
215-566-3215
Chris Corbet
215-566-3220
Melissa
Whittington
215-566-3235
Technology listed in the seventh edition
F-2
-------
Eighth Edition (November 1996) (continued)
f If,
^ '^
<,
Region
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
•>*''* ^ ;. ^
( -» « -" '
Site Nfttti4 State (&QI* Hate) > i
Mowbray Engineering, AL
(09/25/86)
Zellwood Groundwater, FL
(12/17/87)
Mathis Brothers Landfill (South
Marble Top Road), GA
(03/24/93)
Smith's Farm
Brooks, KY
(09/29/89) ,
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump
Fairway, NC
(06/30/89)
Geiger/C&M Oil, SC
(06/01/87)
American Creosote Works (Jackson
Plant), TN
(01/05/89)
'*' '*• >', i
T«chnpIogyAifeJ° '
Deleted
Yes
v y
' Changed to
Solidification/
stabilization
Solidification/
stabilization*
Off-site
incineration and
bioremediation
(ex-situ)*
Dechlorination*,
thermal
desorption* and,
Solidification/
Stabilization*
Thermal
desorption *
Solidification/
stabilization*
- :.\ '/ "'*- ^ :' ^
f ~ 1 ^ - ~> "
, '* Comments . «
Remedy changed because of cost.
Remedy changed because of
community concerns and because
the state would not concur with
incineration. ROD amendment
issued on 03/01/90.
Remedy changed because of
community concerns and cost
effectiveness. Bioremediation will
treat dicamba wastes. Off-site
incineration will treat all other
wastes.
Remedy changed because of
community concerns. Amended
remedy is dechlorination and
thermal desorption followed by
solidification/stabilization. ROD
amendment issued on 09/30/91.
Remedy changed because of
community concerns, cost, and a
preference for using an innovative
technology. ROD amendment
signed on 09/30/91.
Further investigation found that
organics were not present at their
previous levels. ROD amendment
issued 07/13/93.
Action completed as a removal by
excavating and disposing off site.
BSD issued in 1992.
. • >•
Tim Woolheater
404-347-2643
Pam Scully
404-347-6246
Charles L. KingJr.
404-562-8931
Antonio DeAngelo
404-562-8826
Kay Crane
404-562-8795
Randy McElveen
(NC)
919-733-2801
Sherry Panabaker
404-562-8810
Femi Akindale
404-347-7791
Technology listed in the seventh edition
F-3
-------
r
Eighth Edition (November 1996) (continued)
Region
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Site Name, State (ROD Date)
Acme Solvent Reclaiming, EL
(09/27/85)
Fort Wayne Reduction, IN
(08/26/88)
Ninth Avenue Dump, IN
(06/30/89)
Bofors Nobel, MI
(09/17/90)
Forest'Waste Products, MI
(03/31/88)
Springfield Township Dump, MI
(09/29/90)
Arrowhead Refinery Co., MN
(09/30/86)
Tedinology (Listed
to 7th Edition)
On-site incineration
On-site incineration
On-site incineration
On-site incineration
On-site incineration
On-site incineration
On-site incineration
8th Edition
Added
Deleted
Yes
Yes
Yes
Changed to
Off-site
incineration
Soil vapor
extraction
Off-site
incineration
Solvent
extraction*
Comments
PRPs excavated and disposed of
soil off-site.
Remedy changed to ROD
contingency off-site incineration
because of community concerns,
cost, and implementability.
Remedy changed because of cost.
Soil vapor extraction will treat
larger area than soil flushing
remedy that was completed in 1994.
Soil flushing removed most of the
heavier contaminants. ROD
amendment signed on 9/13/94.
Remedy changed from on-site
incineration to disposal in an on-
site landfill because of cost.
Volume of material to be treated
much greater than expected. ROD
amendment signed on 07/22/92.
Now proposing containment via
slurry wall because of cost.
Original ROD specified either on-
site or off-site incineration as the
remedy. BSD signed on 05/04/93.
Remedy canceled because of
community concerns. ROD
amendment projected to be issued
in Fall 1996. Remedy to be
determined.
Remedy was changed to solvent
extraction because of cost-
effectiveness and short-term
effectiveness. ROD amendment
signed on 02/09/94.
Contacts/Phone
Deborah Orr
312-886-7576
Fred Mickey
312-886-5123
Bernard Schorle
312-886-4746
John Fagiolo
312-886-0800
Beth Reiner
312-886-6337
Kashual Khanna
312-353-2663
Edwin Smith
312-353-6571
Technology listed in the seventh edition
F-4
-------
Eighth Edition (November 1996) (continued)
fLCT?-*
'^'/^ ^ Vs
f^$^\ "*,; j"S\. ^'-rf
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
P^ilt ^ S--^?:}t?;^ fn$s?i
fe-'V/'^'1^ <.•*"'' '"^fT'"' '- ^^1^5^ %X ^ ^l"V^V^'',v
•?/;'f--:Ct:?f^fe-iiA:r$ ;-iiM-^>r/|l's'
:^M»el»-:te»»4W
Ritari Post and Pole, OU 1, MN
(06/30/94)
Fields Brook, OH
(09/30/86)
Pristine, OH
(12/31/87)
Pristine, OH
(03/30/90) (Amendment)
Gulf Coast Vacuum Services, OU 1,
LA
(09/30/92)
Vertac, AR
(09/27/90)
MOTCO.TX
(03/15/85)
Jspfe?; *«"• ;*j$5>/>s '"'SK.
^fji&iii^ttftl
On-site incineration
On-site incineration
On-site incineration
On-site incineration
On-site incineration
On-site incineration
On-site incineration
^^^feejfc
Yes
*VVj^,>. •&'<&#«&' *> ;"^
-*, -,-fe*.s< r^KH'ftsf';
K;-'^:^^;'*
^a^-^v,;;;^:^
Off-site
incineration
Off-site
incineration
Soil vapor
extraction* and
thermal
destruction*
Thermal
desorption*
Bioremediation
(Land
Treatment)
Off-site
incineration
'"iJjJ? ^-ST*? / «-f4l"'A;>S'l?^'"^4-1
^^ 1^ ^ ,.^ 51^,-i j x ^^ ,
I "k--*i^W''- ^-*;* :/M€fi*^^,*!,?-t
^'M^>-;M«i^fe¥?5'>:^:r>
Misinterpretation of ROD. Remedy
now being reconsidered. Capping is
a contingency.
Remedy changed because of cost
and community concerns. BSD will
be issued in 1997.
Misinterpretation of ROD specified
in situ vitrification. This remedy
was changed to SVE and thermal
destruction. Thermal desorption
was selected as the thermal
destruction technology. ROD
amendment issued on 03/30/90. (see
below)
1990 ROD amendment specified
thermal destruction. Thermal
desorption selected as the thermal
destruction technology.
Agreement between PRPs and EPA
to meet the treatment standards
using bioremediation.
Incinerator would not function
properly. Will dispose on-site.
ROD amendment will be issued in
Fall 1996.
Remedy changed because of
contractor problems and cost. BSD
has been issued.
•:•••£> j&t'*- Jb" *38":-,?iW'«
v"5T"-^4 I/-H.'' :""4t°j£"^
Ramon Torres
312-886-3010
Ed Hanlon
312-353-9228
Tom Alcamo
312-886-7278
Tom Alcamo
312-886-7278
Kathleen Aisling
214-665-8509
Phillip Allen
214-665-8516
Mary Ann
Abramson
214-665-6754
* Technology listed in the seventh edition
F-5
-------
Eighth Edition (November 1996) (continued)
Region
7
8
Site Name, State (ROD Date)
Hastings Groundwater Contamination
(East Industrial), ME
(09/28/90)
Broderick Wood Projects, CO
(06/30/88)
Technology (listed
in 7th Edition)
On-site incineration
On-site incineration
8tli Mdltfini
Added
Deleted
Yes
Changed to
Off-site
incineration
Off-site
incineration*
Comments
Remedy changed because volume of
soil was less than originally
projected. More cost-effective to
incinerate off-site. ROD amendment
issued 02/28/95.
Remedy canceled based on new
technical data and cost. Will
excavate and recycle and incinerate
off-site. ROD amendment signed on
09/24/91.
Contacts/Phone
Ron King
913-551-7063
Armando Saenz
303-312-6559
Technology listed in the seventh edition
F-6
------- |