Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup:
Annual Status Report (Eleventh Edition)
A"
-«*». X •••
x
Q ^
^ -
e d o;
~ "I fc ^
-------
On the Cover
Top row from left to right:
Model of an in situ chemical treatment system for DNAPLS. See
page 4 for a description of chemical treatment.
Figure 19. Superfund Remedial Actions: Trends in the Selection of
Pump and Treat (FY 1986 - 2002), page 33. See Section 3: croundwater
Remedies for a discussion of this figure.
Middle row from left to right:
Theoretical model of the biodegradation of tetrachloroethene. See
page 4 for a description of bioremediation.
Model of a groundwater pump and treat system, see page 7 for a
description of groundwater pump and treat systems.
Bottom row from left to right:
Figure 7. Superfund Remedial Actions: Source Control Treatment
Projects (FY 1982 - 2002), page 16. See Section 2: Treatment Technologies
for source Control for a discussion of this figure.
Model of a permeable reactive barrier, see page 7 for a description
of a permeable reactive barrier.
-------
EPA-542-R-03-009
Solid Waste and February 2004
Emergency Response www.epa.gov/tio
(5102G) clu-in.org/asr
Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup:
Annual Status Report (Eleventh Edition)
-------
0)
Table of Contents
CD
NOTICE V 9,
ACKNOWLEDGMENT Vi g
LIST OF ACRONYMS .. ..Vii
CD
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
OVERVIEW 1
introduction 1
what Treatment Technologies are Addressed in This Report? 1
Sources of information for This Report 3
ASR Online Components 3
Definitions of Specific Treatment Technologies 4
Source Control Treatment Technologies 4
In Situ Groundwater Treatment Technologies 7
Pump and Treat Technologies 7
Monitored Natural Attenuation for Groundwater 8
In Situ Groundwater Containment 8
SECTION 1: OVERVIEW OF RODS 9
RODS Signed by Fiscal Year 10
Superfund Remediation progress 11
SECTION 2: TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR SOURCE CONTROL 14
Source Control RODS 14
in Situ versus EX Situ Technologies 14
Status of Source Control Treatment Projects 18
Time Between ROD Signature and Project Completion 20
innovative Applications 20
innovative Treatment Trains 22
Contaminants Addressed 24
Quantity of Soil Treated 25
Treatment Trains and Their Effect on Quantity of Soil Treated 27
Cumulative Soil Treatment volumes 27
Remedy Changes 27
SECTION 3: GROUNDWATER REMEDIES 30
Groundwater Sites 30
Groundwater RODS 32
Selection of Groundwater Remedies 32
in Situ Groundwater Treatment Technologies 35
Status of in Situ Groundwater Projects 37
Groundwater Pump and Treat 39
-------
in
Status of Groundwater Pump and Treat Projects 40
Pump and Treat Data Sources 40
Contaminants Treated by Pump and Treat 40
Aboveground Components of Pump and Treat Projects 41
o Pump and Treat Remedy Changes 42
Pump and Treat Remedy Optimization 42
vertical Engineered Barriers 42
SECTION 4: REPORT FOCUS AREAS: CHEMICAL TREATMENT AND
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION 44
Chemical Treatment 44
Construction Completion 48
SECTION 5: REFERENCES AND DATA SOURCES 50
APPENDIX A - SUPERFUND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES BY FISCAL YEAR
APPENDIX B - SUPERFUND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY MATRIX
APPENDIX C - TREATMENT TRAINS WITH INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
APPENDIX D - TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES: SUMMARY OF STATUS REPORT UPDATES,
CHANGES, DELETIONS
APPENDIX E - SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTION RODS: RODS SELECTING NATURAL
ATTENUATION
APPENDIX F - IDENTIFICATION OF REMEDY AND RECORD OF DECISION TYPES FOR
SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
APPENDIX G - REASONS FOR SHUT DOWN OF 63 GROUNDWATER PUMP AND TREAT
SYSTEMS
INDEX
Boxes
BOX 1. New in the Eleventh Edition 1
BOX 2. ROD Selecting Multiple Remedy Types 1
BOX 3. Summary of Remedy Types 2
BOX 4. information in ASR Search System 3
BOX 5. Source Control Remedy Change 9
BOX 6. Definition of Completed Project 12
BOX 7. innovative Source Control Treatment 21
BOX 8. Site with Multiple Groundwater Remedies 31
BOX 9. in Situ Groundwater Chemical Treatment... ...47
-------
Figures
Figure 1. Superfund Remedial Actions: Actual Remedy Types at Sites on the . n
National Priorities List (FY 1982 - 2002) 10 =h
Figure 2. Superfund Remedial Actions: RODS Selecting croundwater and Q
Source Control Remedies (FY 1982 - 2002).. ..11
Irt-
•i
Control and croundwater Treatment Projects by Remedy Type ;+
(FY 1982-2002) 12
Figure 4. Superfund Remedial Actions: Number of Projects Completed by
Technology (FY 1982 - 2002) 13
Figure 5. Superfund Remedial Actions: Source Control RODS (FY 1982 - 2002) ....15
Figure 6. Superfund Remedial Actions: Trends in Types of Source
Control RODS (FY 1982 - 2002) 15
Figure 7. Superfund Remedial Actions: Source Control Treatment Projects
(FY 1982-2002) 16
Figure 8. Superfund Remedial Actions: Source Control Treatment Projects
Selected in FY 2000,2001, and 2002 17
Figure 9. Superfund Remedial Actions: in Situ Technologies for Source
Control (FY 1985 - 2002) 17
Figure 10. Superfund Remedial Actions: Status of in Situ and Ex Situ Source
Control Treatment Projects Comparison Between Tenth and
Eleventh Editions of the ASR (FY 1982 - 2002) 18
Figure 11. Superfund Remedial Actions: innovative Applications of
Source Control Treatment Technologies (FY 1982 - 2002) 21
Figure 12. Superfund Remedial Actions: Established and innovative Projects
(FY 1982-2002) 22
Figure 13. Superfund Remedial Actions: Treatment Trains with innovative
Treatment Technologies (FY 1982 - 2002) 23
Figure 14. Superfund Remedial Actions: Box-and-Whiskers Plot of Cubic
Yards of Soil Treated (FY 1982 - 2002) 26
Figure 15. Superfund Remedial Actions: Percentage of Soil Treated by
Technology Type (FY1982 - 2002) 28
Figure 16. Superfund Remedial Actions: Sites with P&T, in Situ Treatment, or
MNA Selected as Part of a croundwater Remedy (FY 1982 - 2002) 31
Figure 17. Superfund Remedial Actions: RODS Selecting croundwater
Remedies (FY 1982 - 2002) 32
Figure 18. Superfund Remedial Actions: Trends in Croundwater Remedy
Selection (FY 1986 - 2002) 33
Figure 19. Superfund Remedial Actions: Trends in the Selection of Pump
and Treat (FY 1986 - 2002) 33
Figure 20. Superfund Remedial Actions: Trends in the Selection of in Situ
Treatment for Croundwater (FY 1986 - 2002) 34
Figure 21. Superfund Remedial Actions: Trends in the Selection of MNA
(FY 1986-2002) 35
Figure 22. Superfund Remedial Actions: Cumulative Trends for Most
Common in Situ Croundwater Technologies (FY 1988 - 2002) 36
-------
C/)
+•>
I
O
U
fc
O>
Figure 23. Superfund Remedial Actions: Contaminants Treated by in Situ
Croundwater Technologies (FY1982 - 2002) 37
Figure 24. Superfund Remedial Actions: Status of in Situ Croundwater
Treatment Projects (FY1982 - 2002) 38
Figure 25. Superfund Remedial Actions: Status of Croundwater Pump and
Treat Projects (FY 1982 - 2002) 40
Figure 26. Superfund Remedial Actions: Contaminants Treated by Pump and
Treat Systems (FY 1982 -1997) 41
Figure 27. Superfund Remedial Actions: Above Ground Components of
Croundwater Pump and Treat Projects (FY 1982 - 2000) 41
Figure 28. Superfund Remedial Actions: Trend in the Number of Chemical
Treatment Projects (FY1985 - 2002) 45
Figure 29. Superfund Remedial Actions: Most Commonly Treated
Contaminants for Chemical Treatment Projects (FY 1982 - 2002) 48
Figure 30. Superfund Remedial Actions: Technologies Being used at Sites
That Have Achieved Construction complete Status (FY 1983 - 2000) 49
Tables
Table 1. Superfund Remedial Actions: Actual Remedy Types at National
Priorities List Sites (FY 1982 - 2002) 14
Table 2. Superfund Remedial Actions: Status of Source Control Treatment
Projects by Technology (FY 1982 - 2002) 19
Table 3. Superfund Remedial Actions: Average Number of Years from ROD
Signature until Project Completion (FY 1982 - 2002) 20
Table 4. Superfund Remedial Actions: contaminants Treated by Source
Control Technologies (FY 1982 - 2002) 24
Table 5. Superfund Remedial Actions: Estimated Quantities of Soil Treated
by Source Control Technologies (FY 1982 - 2002) 25
Table 6. Superfund Remedial Actions: Number of Most Commonly
Changed Technologies (FY 1982 - 2002) 29
Table 7. Superfund Remedial Actions: Actual Remedy Types at National
Priorities List Sites (FY 1982 - 2002) 30
Table 8. Superfund Remedial Actions: in Situ Croundwater Treatment
Projects Selected in FY 2000,2001, and 2002 36
Table 9. Superfund Remedial Actions: Status of in Situ Croundwater
Treatment Projects by Technology (FY 1982 - 2002) 39
Table 10. Superfund Remedial Actions: Croundwater volumes Being
Treated using Pump and Treat Technologies (FY 1982 -1997) 42
Table 11. Superfund Remedial Actions: Types of vertical Engineered
Barriers at 49 Sites Selecting This Technology (FY 1982 - 2002) 43
Table 12. Superfund Remedial Actions: in Situ Chemical Treatment Projects
(FY 1982 - 2002) 45
Table 13. Superfund Remedial Actions: Status of Close-out
Reports at National Priorities List Sites (FY 1983 - 2002) 49
-------
Notice
Preparation of this report has been funded wholly
or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) under contract number 68-W-02-
034. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use. A limited number of
printed copies of Treatment Technologies for Site
Cleanup: Annual Status Report (ASR), Eleventh
Edition is available free of charge by mail or by
facsimile from:
U.S. EPA/National Service Center for
Environmental Publications (NSCEP)
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419
Telephone: (513) 489-8190 or (800) 490-9198
Fax: (513)489-8695
A portable document format (PDF) version of the
ASR is available for viewing or downloading from
the Hazardous Waste Cleanup Information (CLU-
IN) web site at http://clu-in.org/asr. Printed copies
of the ASR can also be ordered through that web
address, subject to availability.
The data for the ASR are available in a searchable
on-line database (the ASR Search System) at
http://cjpub.epa.gov/asr/. In addition, the data
for the ASR have been incorporated into EPAs
REmediation And CHaracterization Innovative
Technologies (EPA REACH IT) on-line searchable
database at http://www.epareachit.org.
O
CD
03
CD
r-h
03
03
n
o.
o
IQ
03'
en
O3
"O
O
-------
o
Q.
CD
00
"ro
O
O
_
o
CD
CD
-i-i
TO
CD
O>
E
ra
•o
o>
O
Acknowledgment
This document was prepared for EPA's Technology
Innovation Program under contract number 68-
W-02-034. Special acknowledgment is given to the
federal and state staffs and other remediation
professionals for individual sites, for providing the
detailed information presented in this document.
Their cooperation and willingness to share their
expertise on treatment technologies encourages the
application of those technologies at other sites.
-------
List of Acronyms
ASR Annual Status Report
BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and
xylene
CCL Construction Completion List
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System
CLU-IN EPAs CLeanUp INformation system
COR Close-out report
cy Cubic yard
DCA Dichloroethane
DCE Dichloroethene
DNAPL Dense nonaqueous-phase liquid
DRE Destruction and removal efficiency
EOU Excess, obsolete, or unserviceable
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
ESD Explanation of significant differences
FCOR Final close-out report
FRTR Federal Remediation Technologies
Roundtable
FY Fiscal year
GW Groundwater
LNAPL Light nonaqueous-phase liquid
MNA Monitored natural attenuation
NA/NFA No action/no further action
NAPL Nonaqueous-phase liquid
NPL National Priorities List
NSCEP National Service Center for
Environmental Publications
OB Open burn
OD Open detonation
OSC On-Scene Coordinator
OSRTI Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
OU Operable unit
P&T Pump and treat
PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PCB Polychlorinated biphenyls
PCE Tetrachloroethene
PCOR Preliminary close-out report
PDF Portable document format
PRB Permeable reactive barrier
REACH IT EPAs REmediation And
CHaracterization Innovative
Technologies on-line searchable
database
ROD Record of Decision
RPM Remedial Project Manager
RSE Remediation System Evaluation
S/S Solidification/stabilization
SARA Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act
SVE Soil vapor extraction
SVOC Semivolatile organic compound
TCA Trichloroethane
TCE Trichloroethene
UV Ultraviolet
VC Vinyl chloride
VEB Vertical engineered barrier
VOC Volatile organic compound
<
03
CD
r-h
03
03
n
o_
o
(Q
03'
en
Z3
O3
"O
O
Vii)
-------
Executive Summary
This report documents the status and
achievements, as of March 2003, of treatment
technology applications for soil, other solid wastes,
and groundwater at Superfund sites. The data in
this report were gathered from Superfund Records
of Decision (ROD) from fiscal year (FY) 1982 -
2002, Close-out Reports (COR) from FY 1983 -
2002, and project managers at Superfund remedial
action sites. The report examines:
• in situ and ex situ treatment technologies for
sources (e.g., soil, sludge, sediment, other solid-
matrix wastes, and non-aqueous phase liquids
[NAPL]).
• in situ and ex situ (pump and treat [P&T])
groundwater treatment technologies.
• vertical engineered barriers (VEB).
• the selection of monitored natural attenuation
(MNA) remedies for groundwater.
This edition of the Annual Status Report (ASR)
provides a summary of the 1,811 technology
applications identified for Superfund remedial
actions. The Tenth Edition of the ASR included
information on 934 technologies from RODs from
FY 1982-1999.
• This report adds information from FY 2000,
2001, and approximately 70% of 2002 RODs.
• For the first time, this report includes detailed
information regarding 743 groundwater P&T
projects.
• For the most frequently selected technologies
in the Superfund remedial program, the report
analyzes selection trends over time, contaminant
groups treated, quantities of soil and
groundwater treated, and the status of project
implementation.
• The report also focuses on the achievements
made at Superfund remedial action sites
through the application of treatment
technologies, including an analysis of the
numbers and types of completed technology
applications.
• In addition, more detailed information is
provided on the application of chemical
treatment, one of several innovative
technologies whose use has been increasing in
recent years, particularly for the in situ
treatment of dense nonaqueous-phase liquids
(DNAPL), which historically have been
difficult to treat.
Major Findings
Overall use of treatment at Superfund
remedial action sites:
* At almost two-thirds (62%) of sites on the
National Priorities List (NPL), the remedy
already implemented or currently planned
includes treatment of a source or groundwater
(including groundwater P&T remedies).
• The complexity of RODs has been increasing.
The proportion of RODs addressing both soil
and groundwater contamination has increased
from 20% in FY 1997 to 56% in FY 2002.
• Of the 2,610 RODs and ROD amendments
signed from FY 1982 - 2002, 1,505 (58%)
included treatment remedies.
Use of treatment for source control:
• The percentage of RODs selecting source control
treatment as a remedy increased from 40% in
FY2000 to 52% in FY2002 (about 70% of FY
2002 RODs were available for this report).
• In situ technologies make up 42% of all source
control treatments at Superfund remedial action
sites. Since the inception of the Superfund
program in FY 1982, the use of in situ source
control treatments at these sites has been
increasing to the current level of 45% in FY2002.
• In situ soil vapor extraction (SVE) is the most
frequently used source control treatment
technology (25% of source control projects),
followed by ex situ solidification/stabilization
(18%) and off-site incineration (12%).
• The percentage of completed source control
treatment projects increased from 47% in FY
2000 to 54% in FY 2002.
• Innovative applications account for 21% of all
source control treatments. Bioremediation is
the most commonly applied innovative
technology, representing about half of innovative
applications for source control treatment.
• Approximately 75% of the source control
treatment projects address organic
contaminants. Just over 25% address metal or
metalloid contaminants. Some of these projects
address both organics and metals.
• Since FY 1982, nearly three times as much
contaminated soil has undergone remediation
by in situ treatment (40 million cubic yards
[cy]) than by ex situ treatment (13 million cy).
Approximately 42% (24 million cy) of the total
volume of soil undergoing treatment is being
treated by in situ SVE.
m
X
CD
o
CD
C/)
03
CD
r-h
03
Z3
03
n
o.
o
-------
tf
o
Q.
CD
00
"ro
Z3
C
&
Dl
O
O
O
CD
CD
-l-i
TO
CD
E
E
3
(O
o>
o
o»
X
HI
Use of treatment and MNA forgroundwater:
• Groundwater treatment was part of the remedy
at 71% of Superfund sites that selected a
groundwater remedy.
• The percentage of groundwater RODs selecting
in situ treatment as a remedy increased from
none in FY 1986 to 24% in FY2002.
• At 51% of NPL sites, a groundwater treatment
remedy (including in situ groundwater
treatment and P&T) is currently planned or
already being implemented.
• For all remedies selected from FY 1982 - 2001,
P&T was the most frequently selected
groundwater remedy, followed by MNA and
in situ treatment.
• The percentage of RODs selecting only MNA
as a remedy for groundwater rose from 6% in
FY 1986, when MNA was first selected without
another groundwater treatment remedy, to a
peak of 32% in FY 1998. However, this
percentage decreased to 4% in FY 2002.
• The contaminants most commonly treated by
groundwater P&T systems were chlorinated
volatile organic compounds (VOC),
nonchlorinated VOCs, metals, and metalloids.
• More than half of P&T systems use air stripping
as a treatment technology. Other commonly
used technologies include activated carbon
adsorption, filtration, and metals precipitation.
• Most P&T projects (52%) are operational.
Sites achieving construction completion
status:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has prepared CORs for more than half (57%)
of all NPL sites. CORs are prepared for sites
when (1) any necessary physical construction
is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels
or other requirements have been achieved; or
(2) EPA has determined that the response
action should be limited to measures that do
not involve construction; or (3) the site qualifies
for deletion from the NPL.
• The most common technologies used at sites
for which CORs have been prepared are P&T
(32%), SVE (9%), and incineration (9%).
(ES-2
-------
Overview
Introduction
The Eleventh Edition of the Annual Status Report
(ASR) updates and expands information provided
in the Tenth Edition (February 2001) report.
Updated data have been included from the
following sources:
• Fiscal year (FY) 2000 Records of Decision
(ROD)
• FY2001 RODs
• FY 2002 RODs available in March of 2003
(an estimated 70% of the total number of FY
2002 RODs that are expected to be signed)
• Close-out Reports (COR) from FY 1983 - 2002
In addition, the scope of the report has been
expanded to include groundwater pump and treat
(P&T). Information is included on 743 P&T
applications selected in RODs from FY 1982 - 2002.
A list of sites and an analysis of 1,811 applications of
treatment and groundwater containment technologies
under remedial actions are also provided.
Information has been added about 127 applications
of treatment technologies selected by RODs in FY
2000, 75 selected in 2001, and 70 selected in 2002.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
uses RODs to compile baseline information about
Superfund remedial actions. At the time of this
reports publication, only about 70% of RODs from
FY 2002 were available. Therefore, this report does
not include information for all of the RODs
anticipated for FY 2002.
Box 1. NEW IN THE ELEVENTH EDITION
• Information from Close-Out Reports
(COR) regarding the construction
achievements at Superfund sites and
implementation status of treatment
technologies.
• Analysis of 743 Superfund pump and
treat (P&T) projects.
• A detailed look at an innovative
treatment technology, chemical
treatment, and construction completion
at Superfund sites.
What Treatment Technologies are
Addressed in This Report?
Most RODs for remedial actions address the
source of contamination, such as soil, sludge,
sediments, and solid-matrix wastes; such "source
control" RODs select "source control technologies."
Groundwater remedial action, also known as "a
non-source control action," may be a component
of the "source control" ROD and the treatment
technologies chosen for groundwater remediation
are referred to as "groundwater technologies."
Appendix F to this document is a detailed
description of the methodology used to identify
ROD types, including detailed definitions of
"source control," "groundwater technologies," and
other remedy types. An example of a ROD
selecting both source control and groundwater
treatment remedies is summarized in Box 2.
Box 2. ROD SELECTING MULTIPLE
REMEDY TYPES
A Record of Decision (ROD) issued for the
Alaric Inc. site contains both source
control and groundwater remedies for the
1.7-acre site in Tampa, Florida. The
contamination was the result of degreasing
and steam-cleaning processes that used
chlorinated solvents. Tetrachloroethene
(PCE) and trichloroethene (TCE) have been
identified in two areas of the soil.
Groundwater contamination is also
present.
An interim ROD was issued in July 2002 for
remedial action at this site. The ROD
specified both source control and
groundwater treatment remedies. The
treatment portion of the source control
remedy is in situ chemical treatment. The
groundwater treatment remedy consists of
groundwater P&T with air stripping and
carbon adsorption. Long-term
groundwater monitoring was also selected
as part of the groundwater remedy.
For Superfund remedial actions, the ASR
documents and tracks the use of both in situ and
ex situ treatment for source control and
groundwater, as well as groundwater monitored
natural attenuation (MNA) remedies, and
groundwater containment using vertical engineered
barriers (VEB).
The methodology used to determine ROD and
remedy types has evolved over time. As new
technologies are developed and innovative
techniques for site remediation are implemented,
the number of types of remedies has expanded.
The methodology and definitions provided in
Appendix F were used to classify remedies selected
in RODs from FY 1982 - 2002.
o
CD
CD
03
CD
t-h
03
03
O
O_
O
(Q
O3'
en
Z3
GO
O3
"O
O
-------
O. The term "treatment technology" means any unit wastes without treatment (March 8, 1990 Federal
operation or series of unit operations that alters Register [55 FR 8819], see 40 CFR 300.5
the composition of a hazardous substance or "Definitions").
pollutant or contaminant through chemical, Established treatment technologies are those for
biological, or physical means so as to reduce whlch cost and performance information is readily
toxicity, mobility, or volume of the contaminated available. The most frequently used established
materials being treated. Treatment technologies technologies are on_ and off_site incineration,
are an alternative to land disposal of hazardous
)
Box 3. SUMMARY OF REMEDY TYPES
" SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY TYPES*
Source Control Treatment
o3 • Treatment of a contaminant source in situ or ex situ.
• Can include any of the source control treatment technologies described in this report,
such as chemical treatment and thermal desorption.
Source Control Containment
• Containment of a contaminant source.
• Can include the use of caps, liners, covers, and landfilling both on- and off-site.
Source Control Other
• Other remedies for contaminant sources.
• Can include institutional controls, monitoring, and population relocation.
GROUNDWATER REMEDY TYPES*
Pump and Treat (P&T)
• Extraction of groundwaterfrom an aquifer and treatment aboveground.
• Extraction usually is conducted by pumping groundwater from a well or trench.
• Treatment can include any of the P&T technologies described in this report, such as air
stripping and ion exchange.
In Situ Treatment
• Treatment of groundwater in place without extracting it from an aquifer.
• Can include any of the in situ groundwater treatment technologies described in this
report, such as air sparging and permeable reactive barriers.
Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)
• The reliance on natural attenuation processes (within the context of a carefully controlled
and monitored approach to site cleanup) to achieve site-specific remediation objectives
within a time frame that is reasonable compared to other alternatives.
• Natural attenuation processes include a variety of physical, chemical, and biological
processes.
Groundwater Containment
• Containment of groundwater through the use of a vertical, engineered, subsurface,
impermeable barrier.
• Containment of groundwater through a hydraulic barrier created by pumping.
Groundwater Other
• Groundwater remedies that do not fall into the categories of groundwater P&T, in situ
treatment, MNA, or containment remedies.
• Can include a variety of remedies, such as water use restrictions and alternate water supply.
* - See Appendix F-2 for further definitions of Source Control Remedies and F-6 for Groundwater Remedies.
-------
solidification/stabilization (S/S), soil vapor
extraction (SVE), thermal desorption, and P&T
technologies for groundwater. Treatment of
groundwater after it has been pumped to the
surface usually involves traditional water treatment;
as such, P&T groundwater remedies are
considered to be established technologies.
Innovative treatment technologies are alternative
treatment technologies with a limited number of
applications and limited data on cost and
performance. Often, these technologies are established
in other fields, such as chemical manufacturing or
hazardous waste treatment. In such cases, it is the
application of a technology or process at a waste site
(to soils, sediments, sludge, and solid-matrix waste
[such as mining slag] or groundwater) that is
innovative, not the technology itself. Innovative
technologies for source control are discussed in Section
2 and those for the in situ treatment of groundwater
are discussed in Section 3.
Both innovative and established technologies are
grouped as source control treatment or in situ
groundwater treatment technologies on the basis
of the type of application most commonly
associated with the technology. Some technologies
may be used for both source control and in situ
groundwater treatment. These technologies and
their respective groupings are listed in Appendix F.
Sources of Information for This
Report
EPA verifies and updates the draft information
obtained from the RODs through interviews with
Remedial Project Managers (RPMs), On-Scene
Coordinators (OSCs), and other contacts for each
site, along with information from the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS), EPAs Superfund tracking system. For
this edition of the ASR, project information and
status were also updated using information from
Superfund CORs. CORs provide information on
the construction achievements at Superfund sites
and the implementation status of many
technologies tracked in the ASR. For more
information regarding CORs, see Section 4. The
information collected from these sources is stored
and maintained in the ASR Search System. Box 4
summarizes the types of information included in
the ASR Search System.
Information about technologies and sites identified
in this report may differ from information found
in the CERCLIS database. The CERCLIS
database includes information from RODs, ROD
amendments, and explanations of significant
differences (ESDs). This document also includes
additional information gathered from other
sources, including CORs and contacts with RPMs.
Box 4. INFORMATION IN ASR SEARCH
SYSTEM
Site Information
• Site name and location (city and state)
• CERCLIS ID
• Description
Project-Specific Information
• Operable unit name
• Cleanup type
• ROD date
• Lead agency/funding information
Contact Information
• Contact name and affiliation
• Address, phone number, and e-mail
Technology Information
• Technology and type (in situ or ex situ)
• Description of technology
• Treatment of residuals, if applicable
• Details (such as type of additives)
• Indicate whether part of a treatment train
Media and Quantity Information
• Media and quantity
Contaminant Information
• Contaminants treated
• Contaminants not treated
Status Information
• Status
• Date began operation
• Date completion is planned
Completed Project Information
• Cost
• Contaminant concentrations before and
after treatment
ASR Online Components
To allow users of the ASR access to additional
information, EPA maintains several resources
online, including:
• Downloadable Spreadsheets - For Tables 1, 2,
7, and 9, and Figure 25 of this report, EPA
prepared spreadsheets listing the specific sites
o
CD
CD
03
CD
r-h
03
03
O
O_
O
(Q
O3'
en
Z3
GO
O3
"O
O
-------
o
Q.
CD
TO
-l-i
to
"ro
CD
Dl
_0
O
O
CD
CD
-l-i
TO
CD
o>
s
names, locations, CERCLIS ID numbers, and
types of remedies selected in RODs for those
sites. These spreadsheets can be downloaded
from http://clu-in.org/asr.
' Appendices to the ASR - Appendices B, C,
D, and E have expanded over time, and are
not available in the printed version of this
report. These appendices are available on-
line at http://clu-in.org/asr.
' ASR Search System - EPA created a searchable,
on-line system to allow access to the data that
form the basis for this report. See Box 4 for a
list of the types of information available from
the ASR Search System. This system is available
at http://cjpub.epa.gov/asr/.
• EPA REACH IT - The ASR data are also
available on EPA REACH IT. This system,
sponsored by EPAs Technology Innovation
Program, lets environmental professionals use
the power of the Internet to search, view,
download, and print information about
innovative remediation and characterization
technologies. EPA REACH IT provides
information on more than 350 vendors offering
350 remediation and nearly 200 site
characterization technologies. EPA REACH
IT fosters communication between technology
vendors and users by providing information
about the availability, performance, and cost
associated with the application of treatment and
characterization technologies. EPA REACH
IT is available at http://www.epareachit.org.
Definitions of Specific Treatment
Technologies
This section provides definitions of 17 types of
source control (primarily soil) treatment
technologies, 10 types of in situ groundwater
treatment technologies, 8 types of groundwater
P&T technologies, and 1 groundwater containment
technology. Technologies that are applicable to
both source control and groundwater treatment
are described only once under the source control
treatment section. For P&T technologies, the
descriptions focus on the treatment portion of the
technology. Groundwater pumping technologies
are not addressed in this report. Definitions are
based on the Remediation Technologies Screening
Matrix and Reference Guide, Version 4.0, which
can be viewed at the Federal Remediation
Technologies Roundtable (FRTR) web site at http:l
lwww.frtr.gov. Sketches for some of the newer
innovative treatment technologies are provided.
Source Control Treatment Technologies
BIOREMEDIATION uses microorganisms to
degrade organic contaminants in soil, sludge,
solids, and groundwater either in situ or ex situ.
It can also be used to make metals or metalloids
less toxic or mobile. When treating organic
contaminants, the microorganisms break down
contaminants by using them as a food source or
cometabolizing them with a food source.
Aerobic processes require an oxygen source, and
the end-products typically are carbon dioxide
and water. Anaerobic processes are conducted
in the absence of oxygen, and the end-products
can include methane, hydrogen gas, sulfide,
elemental sulfur, and dinitrogen gas. Ex situ
bioremediation technologies for groundwater
typically involve treating extracted groundwater
in a bioreactor or constructed wetland. In situ
techniques stimulate and create a favorable
environment for microorganisms to grow and
use contaminants as a food and energy source,
or to cometabolize them. Generally, this process
involves providing some combination of oxygen,
nutrients, and moisture, and controlling the
temperature and pH. Microorganisms that have
been adapted for degradation of specific
contaminants are sometimes applied to enhance
the process. For the treatment of metals and
metalloids, it involves biological activity that
promotes the formation of less toxic or mobile
species, by either creating ambient conditions
that will cause such species to form, or acting
directly on the contaminant. The treatment may
result in oxidation, reduction, precipitation,
coprecipitation, or another transformation of
the contaminant.
CHEMICAL TREATMENT, also known as
chemical reduction/oxidation, typically involves
reduction/oxidation (redox) reactions that
chemically convert hazardous contaminants to
compounds that are nonhazardous, less toxic,
more stable, less mobile, or inert. Redox
reactions involve the transfer of electrons from
one compound to another. Specifically, one
reactant is oxidized (loses electrons) and one is
reduced (gains electrons). The oxidizing agents
used for treatment of hazardous contaminants
in soil include ozone, hydrogen peroxide,
hypochlorites, potassium permanganate,
Fenton's reagent (hydrogen peroxide and iron),
chlorine, and chlorine dioxide. This method
may be applied in situ or ex situ to soils, sludges,
sediments, and other solids, and may also be
applied to groundwater in situ or ex situ (P&T).
-------
P&T chemical treatment may also include the
use of ultraviolet (UV) light in a process known
as UV oxidation.
MODEL OF IN SITU CHEMICAL TREATMENT
SYSTEM FOR DNAPLs
Injection Treatment
Well Agents
Extraction
Well
ELECTROKINETICS is based on the theory that
a low-density current will mobilize contaminants
in the form of charged species. A current passed
between electrodes is intended to cause aqueous
media, ions, and particulates to move through the
soil, waste, and water. Contaminants arriving at
the electrodes can be removed by means of
electroplating or electrodeposition, precipitation
or coprecipitation, adsorption, complexing with
ion exchange resins, or by the pumping of water
(or other fluid) near the electrode.
For FLUSHING, a solution of water, surfactants,
or cosolvents is applied to the soil or injected into
the subsurface to treat contaminated soil or
groundwater. When treating soil, the injection is
often designed to raise the water table into the
contaminated soil zone. Injected water and
treatment agents are recovered together with
flushed contaminants.
Both on-site and off-site INCINERATION use
high temperatures (870 to 1,200°C or 1,600 to
2,200°F) to volatilize and combust (in the presence
of oxygen) organics in hazardous wastes. Auxiliary
fuels are often employed to initiate and sustain
combustion. The destruction and removal
efficiency (DRE) for properly operated incinerators
exceeds the 99.99% requirement for hazardous
waste and can be operated to meet the 99.9999%
requirement for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)
and dioxins. Off-gases and combustion residuals
generally require treatment. On-site incineration
typically uses a transportable unit; for off-site
incineration, waste is transported to a central
facility.
MECHANICAL SOIL AERATION agitates
contaminated soil, using tilling or other means to
volatilize contaminants.
MULTI-PHASE EXTRACTION uses a vacuum
system to remove various combinations of
contaminated groundwater, separate-phase
petroleum product, and vapors from the
subsurface. The system typically lowers the water
table around the well, exposing more of the
formation. Contaminants in the newly exposed
vadose zone are then accessible to vapor extraction.
Once above ground, the extracted vapors or liquid-
phase organics and groundwater are separated and
treated.
NEUTRALIZATION is a chemical reaction
between an acid and a base. The reaction involves
acidic or caustic wastes that are neutralized (pH
is adjusted toward 7.0) using caustic or acid
additives.
OPEN BURN (OB) and OPEN DETONATION
(OD) operations are conducted to destroy excess,
obsolete, or unserviceable (EOU) munitions and
energetic materials. In OB operations, energetics
or munitions are destroyed by self-sustained
combustion, which is ignited by an external source,
such as a flame, heat, or a detonation wave. In
OD operations, explosives and munitions are
destroyed by detonation, which generally is
initiated by an energetic charge.
PHYSICAL SEPARATION processes use physical
properties to separate contaminated and
uncontaminated media, or separate different types
of media. For example, different-sized sieves and
screens can be used to separate contaminated soil
from relatively uncontaminated debris. Another
application of physical separation is the dewatering
of sediments or sludge.
PHYTOREMEDIATION is a process that uses
plants to remove, transfer, stabilize, or destroy
contaminants in soil, sediment, or groundwater.
The mechanisms of phytoremediation include
enhanced rhizosphere biodegradation (takes place
in soil or groundwater immediately surrounding
plant roots), phytoextraction (also known as
phytoaccumulation, the uptake of contaminants
by plant roots and the translocation/accumulation
of contaminants into plant shoots and leaves),
o
CD
CD
03
CD
r-h
03
03
O
O_
O
(Q
O3'
en
Z3
GO
O3
"O
O
-------
o
Q.
CD
TO
-l-i
to
"ro
CD
Dl
_0
O
O
CD
CD
-l-i
TO
CD
o>
s
phytodegradation (metabolism of contaminants
within plant tissues), and phytostabilization
(production of chemical compounds by plants to
immobilize contaminants at the interface of roots
and soil). Phytoremediation applies to all
biological, chemical, and physical processes that
are influenced by plants (including the rhizosphere)
and that aid in the cleanup of contaminated
substances. Phytoremediation may be applied in
situ or ex situ to soils, sludges, sediments, other
solids, or groundwater.
SOIL VAPOR EXTPvACTION (SVE) is used to
remediate unsaturated (vadose) zone soil. A
vacuum is applied to the soil to induce the
controlled flow of air and remove volatile and some
semivolatile organic contaminants from the soil.
SVE usually is performed in situ; however, in some
cases, it can be used as an ex situ technology.
For SOIL WASHING, contaminants sorbed onto
fine soil particles are separated from bulk soil in a
water-based system on the basis of particle size.
The wash water may be augmented with a basic
leaching agent, surfactant, or chelating agent, or
by adjusting the pH to help remove contaminants.
Soils and wash water are mixed ex situ in a tank or
other treatment unit. The wash water and various
soil fractions are usually separated using gravity
settling.
SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION (S/S)
reduces the mobility of hazardous substances and
contaminants in the environment through both
physical and chemical means. The S/S process
physically binds or encloses contaminants within
a stabilized mass. S/S is performed both ex situ
and in situ. Ex situ S/S requires excavation of the
material to be treated, and the resultant material
must be disposed. In situ S/S uses auger/caisson
systems and injector head systems to add binders
to the contaminated soil or waste without
excavation, leaving the resultant material in place.
SOLVENT EXTRACTION uses an organic
solvent as an extractant to separate contaminants
from soil. The organic solvent is mixed with
contaminated soil in an extraction unit. The
extracted solution then is passed through a
separator, where the contaminants and extractant
are separated from the soil.
For THERMAL DESORPTION, wastes are
heated so that organic contaminants and water
volatilize. Typically, a carrier gas or vacuum
system transports the volatilized water and
organics to a gas treatment system, typically a
thermal oxidation or recovery system. Based on
the operating temperature of the desorber,
thermal desorption processes can be categorized
into two groups: high temperature thermal
desorption (320 to 560°C or 600 to 1000°F) and
low temperature thermal desorption (90 to 320°C
or 200 to 600°F). Thermal desorption is an ex
situ treatment process. In situ thermal desorption
processes are discussed below as in situ thermal
treatment.
IN SITU THERMAL TREATMENT is a
treatment process that uses heat to facilitate
extraction through volatilization and other
mechanisms or to destroy contaminants in situ.
Volatilized contaminants are typically removed
from the vadose zone using SVE. Specific types
of in situ thermal treatment techniques include
conductive heating, electrical resistive heating,
radio frequency heating, hot air injection, hot
water injection, and steam enhanced extraction.
In situ thermal treatment is usually applied to a
contaminated source area but may also be applied
to a groundwater plume.
MODEL OF AN IN SITU
THERMAL TREATMENT SYSTEM
Vapor
Trestmont
Vapor
Alr-
_^_ Steam Contamination.
Water
Liquid
ment
Liqu
Treatm
Liquid
VITRIFICATION uses an electric current to melt
contaminated soil at elevated temperatures
(1,600 to 2,000°C or 2,900 to 3,650°F). Upon
cooling, the vitrification product is a chemically
stable, leach-resistant, glass and crystalline
material similar to obsidian or basalt rock. The
high temperature component of the process
destroys or removes organic materials.
Radionuclides and heavy metals are retained
within the vitrified product. Vitrification may
be conducted in situ or ex situ.
-------
In Situ Groundwater Treatment Technologies
AIR SPARGING involves the injection of air or
oxygen into a contaminated aquifer. Injected air
traverses horizontally and vertically in channels
through the soil column, creating an underground
stripper that removes volatile and semivolatile
organic contaminants by volatilization. The
injected air helps to flush the contaminants into
the unsaturated zone. SVE usually is implemented
in conjunction with air sparging to remove the
generated vapor-phase contamination from the
vadose zone. Oxygen added to the contaminated
groundwater and vadose-zone soils also can
enhance biodegradation of contaminants below
and above the water table.
BIOREMEDIATION - See Source Control
Treatment Technologies.
CHEMICAL TREATMENT - See Source Control
Treatment Technologies.
ELECTROKINETICS - See Source Control
Treatment Technologies.
FLUSHING - See Source Control Treatment
Technologies.
For IN-WELL AIR STRIPPING, air is injected
into a double-screened well, causing the volatile
organic compounds (VOC) in the contaminated
groundwater to transfer from the dissolved phase
to the vapor phase in air bubbles. As the air
bubbles rise to the surface of the water, the vapors
are drawn off and treated by a SVE system.
MULTI-PHASE EXTRACTION - See Source
Control Treatment Technologies.
PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIERS (PRB),
also known as passive treatment walls, are installed
across the flow path of a contaminated groundwater
plume, allowing the water portion of the plume to
flow through the wall. These barriers allow the
passage of water while prohibiting the movement
of contaminants by employing treatment agents
within the wall such as zero-valent metals (usually
zero-valent iron), chelators, sorbents, compost, and
microbes. The contaminants are either degraded
or retained in a concentrated form by the barrier
material, which may need to be replaced
periodically.
PHYTOREMEDIATION - See Source Control
Treatment Technologies.
IN SITU THERMAL TREATMENT - See Source
Control Treatment Technologies.
Pump and Treat Technologies (Ex situ
Treatment)
In ADSORPTION, contaminants concentrate at
the surface of a sorbent, thereby reducing their
concentration in the bulk liquid phase. This
technology is typically applied by passing extracted
groundwater through a column containing granular
adsorbent. The most common adsorbent is
granulated activated carbon. Other natural and
synthetic adsorbents include activated alumina,
lignin adsorption, sorption clays, and synthetic
resins.
AIR STRIPPING partitions volatile organics from
extracted groundwater by increasing the surface
area of the contaminated water exposed to air.
Aeration methods include packed towers, diffused
aeration, tray aeration, and spray aeration.
BIOREMEDIATION - See Source Control
Treatment Technologies.
CHEMICAL TREATMENT - See Source Control
Treatment Technologies.
FILTRATION is the physical process of
mechanical separation based on particle size,
whereby particles suspended in a fluid are
separated by forcing the fluid through a porous
medium. As fluid passes through the medium,
the suspended particles are trapped on the surface
of the medium and/or within the body of the
medium.
ION EXCHANGE removes ions from the
aqueous phase by the exchange of cations or anions
between the contaminants and the exchange
medium. Ion exchange materials may consist of
resins made from synthetic organic materials that
contain ionic functional groups to which
exchangeable ions are attached.
METALS PRECIPITATION transforms dissolved
contaminants into an insoluble solid, facilitating
the contaminant's subsequent removal from the
liquid phase by sedimentation or filtration. The
process usually uses pH adjustment, addition of a
chemical precipitant, and flocculation.
MEMBRANE FILTRATION separates
contaminants from water by passing it through a
semipermeable barrier or membrane. The
membrane allows water and other low molecular
weight chemicals to pass, while blocking
contaminants with a higher molecular weight.
Membrane filtration processes include
microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, and
reverse osmosis.
o
CD
CD
03
CD
r-h
03
03
O
O_
O
(Q
O3'
en
Z3
GO
O3
"O
O
-------
o
Q.
CD
TO
-l-i
to
"ro
CD
Dl
_0
O
O
CD
CD
-l-i
TO
CD
o>
s
MODEL OF A CROUNDWATER PUMP AND TREAT
AIR STRIPPING
Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) for
Groundwater
Groundwater MNA is the reliance on natural
attenuation processes (within the context of a
carefully controlled and monitored approach to
site cleanup) to achieve site-specific remediation
objectives within a time frame that is reasonable,
compared with that offered by other, more active
methods. The "natural attenuation processes"
include a variety of physical, chemical, or
biological processes that, under favorable
conditions, act without human intervention to
reduce the mass, toxicity, mobility, volume, or
concentration of contaminants in soil or
groundwater. These in situ processes include
biodegradation; dispersion; dilution; sorption;
volatilization; radioactive decay; and chemical or
biological stabilization, transformation, or
destruction of contaminants. Guidance on MNA
is available from the document "Use of Monitored
Natural Attenuation at Superfund, RCRA
Corrective Action, and Underground Storage Tank
Sites (OSWER Directive 9200.4-17P, EPA, April
21, 1999.").
In Situ Groundwater Containment
VERTICAL ENGINEERED BARRIERS (VEB)
are subsurface barriers made of an impermeable
material designed to contain or divert groundwater.
VEBs can be used to contain contaminated
groundwater, divert uncontaminated groundwater
from a contaminated area, or divert contaminated
groundwater from a drinking water intake or other
protected resource.
-------
Section 1: Overview of RODS
As of March 2003, a total of 1,499 sites have been
listed on the National Priorities List (NPL). Of
these, 269 sites have been deleted leaving 1,230
sites on the NPL. An additional 54 sites are
proposed for listing. Updated information on site
listings and deletions is available at httf.ll
ww.epd.gov/superfund. Some sites may cover a
large area, include several types of contaminated
media, or include areas in which the types of
contamination differ. To facilitate the
establishment of remedies at a complex site, the
site maybe divided into operable units (OU), with
separate remedies for each. Remedies for NPL
sites are documented in RODs. A separate ROD
may be developed for each OU. In addition, each
OU may require a number of RODs to address
different media within it, or to revise the selected
remedy; therefore, each site may have multiple
RODs.
From fiscal year (FY) 1982 - 2002 (including an
estimated 70% of 2002 RODs), 2,610 RODs and
ROD amendments were signed. In order to permit
an analysis of remedies across the Superfund
program, EPA developed a remedy classification
system, which is described in Appendix F.
Appendix F provides the definitions of the various
ROD types, such as source control treatment ROD
or groundwater in situ treatment ROD, and the
methodology used to categorize each ROD. A
ROD is assigned a type based on the remedies it
contains. Each site is then assigned a type based
on the types of RODs issued for that site. For
sites with multiple RODs, the hierarchy presented
in Appendix F is used to assign a site type. In
general, a ROD and site are placed in the treatment
category if any portion of the remedy includes
treatment.
At almost two-thirds of NPL sites (62%), source
control or groundwater treatment has been
implemented or is planned as a remedy for some
portion of the site. Treatment for both source control
and groundwater has been implemented or is planned
for 24% of sites. For 27% of sites, the selected
remedies do not include treatment. No ROD has
been issued for 11% of sites. Figure 1 summarizes
the number of NPL sites with each type of remedy.
The remedy selected in a ROD may not be the
remedy that is actually implemented at a site.
Examples of where a different remedy may be used
include a treatment technology that was selected
in a ROD based on bench-scale treatability testing
that proves to be ineffective in pilot-scale tests
conducted during the design phase. Additional
contamination may be discovered at the site during
the implementation of a remedy. A particular
remedy may have been included in a ROD only as
a contingent remedy, with future site investigations
revealing that implementation of that contingent
remedy was not necessary. When significant and
fundamental changes are made to remedies selected
in the ROD, the changes usually are documented
in an ESD or ROD amendment. Box 5 describes
a source control remedy that was changed through
a ROD amendment.
Box 5. SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY CHANCE
The source control remedy originally
selected for the Helena Chemical Company
Landfill Superfund Site was changed
through a ROD amendment. The Helena
Chemical Company Landfill Superfund Site
is a 13.5 acre site where pesticides were
formulated from the mid 1960's through
1971. The soil was contaminated with
halogenated organic pesticides, and
groundwater with halogenated and
nonhalogenated volatile organic
compounds as well as halogenated organic
pesticides. This site, located in Fairfax, SC,
is currently being operated as a retail sales
outlet for agricultural chemicals.
A 1993 ROD selected a treatment train of
dechlorination followed by bioremediation
as part of the remedy for contaminated soil.
However, treatability studies showed that
the dechlorination would not achieve
performance standards identified in the
ROD. A ROD amendment in 1995 changed
the source control technology from
dechlorination and bioremediation to off-site
incineration. The incineration of 5,172 cy of
pesticide-contaminated soil was completed
in 1999. The groundwater remedy selected
in the original ROD (1993) included P&T.
The P&T system became operational in
1999 and is expected to treat approximately
250 million gallons of groundwater during its
anticipated 12 years of operation.
Figure 1 reflects the current status of remedial actions
at NPL sites. The information used to develop Figure
1 reflects the remedies selected in RODs and the
remedies actually implemented or currently planned
at those sites. Sources for the information include
the RODs, ROD amendments, and ESDs published
for each site, and contacts with RPMs to identify
the most current remedy selected for each site.
C/)
CD
o
o
03
CD'
TO
o
o
CO
-------
Q
o
.
£
o
u
-------
Figure 2: Superfund Remedial Actions: RODS Selecting
Groundwater and Source Control Remedies
(FY 1982 - 2002)*
Total Number of RODs = 2,610
CH RODs Not Yet Received for FY 2002 - 35
CH RODs Selecting No Action or No Further Action - 349
I I RODs Selecting a Source Control Remedy Only - 937
EH RODs Selecting Both a Groundwater and a Source Control Remedy - 844
I I RODs Selecting a Groundwater Remedy Only - 480
Total 4 13 38 68 84 77 153 145 170197 173 190 166 190 157 169 155 142 159 89 1061
180
•\Rn
140
umkkAV 19O
NUmuei i*w
of RODs
100
RD
BO
40
20
n-
M
23
11
3.
—
36
20
~9
a
„
28
22
5
33
23
15
^
-
53
49
37
[77
12
-
56
53
24
F
bu
66
36
1
R1
74
^^
53
26
~
Rfi
62
30
41
-
.
B7
52
30
28
"
48
-
49
41
41
36
-
84
34
36
26
~
"
36
19
V
34
~
71
33
—
31
2a
~
.
67
15
21
58
47
16
\
TO
~
.
_
bb
—
27
13
19
40
17
53
ft
35
n
15!
40
4
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02*
Fiscal Year
ROD = Record of Decision
*Includes information from an estimated70% of FY2002 RODs. A total of 106 RODs are anticipated for FY2002.
Sources: 3, 4, 5,7, 11. Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 50.
Superfund Remediation Progress
Information collected and analyzed for this report
helps document the progress of remediation
technologies implemented at Superfund sites. EPA
has developed a better picture of the contribution
of remediation technologies to Superfund site
cleanup by using additional data. The new data
include information from CORs and data on P&T
projects. This report also focuses on data collection
efforts relating to technology status and treatment
accomplishments. This section presents an
overview of the progress of treatment technologies
at Superfund remedial action sites. Additional
information on this topic is presented in Section 4.
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 (SARA) expressed a preference for
permanent remedies (that is, treatment) over
containment or disposal in the remediation of
Superfund sites. Some 58% of all RODs analyzed
for the ASR contained provisions for treatment.
EPA currently tracks the status of 1,760 projects
for the application of treatment technologies at
Superfund sites, including in situ and ex situ
treatments for both source control and
groundwater. These applications include 499 ex
situ source control treatments (28% of all projects),
349 in situ source control treatments (20%), 743
P&T (42%), 154 in situ groundwater treatments
C/)
CD
o
o
03
CD'
TO
o
o
CO
-------
Q
o
.
£
o
u
-------
(63%). Ex situ source control projects usually
involve the excavation of contaminated soil and
the application of an aggressive treatment
technology in a controlled environment. Therefore,
this type of remedy typically requires a shorter
amount of time to complete. Additional
information on source control projects is presented
in Section 2. In situ treatments are those that are
applied to contaminated media in place, without
excavation. These projects typically require longer
treatment times because they take place in a less
controlled environment, which may limit the
treatment rate. P&T projects, which represent
the largest number of projects (743), also typically
require longer treatment times, and in fact
represent only 11% of all completed and shut down
projects. The application of P&T is often limited
by environmental factors, including the rate at
which contaminated groundwater can be extracted
from an aquifer and the presence of continuing
sources of groundwater contamination such as
DNAPLs. Additional information on groundwater
projects is provided in Section 3.
Figure 4 shows the number of completed and shut
down projects for the most commonly used
technologies for ex situ source control, in situ
source control, in situ groundwater, and P&T. For
ex situ source control treatments, nearly all
incineration projects have been completed.
Approximately 70% of the S/S and thermal
desorption projects have been completed. For in
situ source control treatments, approximately 70%
of S/S projects have been completed, as compared
to one-third of all SVE projects. Fewer in situ
groundwater projects have been completed as
compared to source control projects. However,
these technologies tend to be innovative, and have
been selected in more recent RODs. For P&T,
8% of projects have been shut down.
C/)
CO
o
03
CD'
TO
o
o
CO
Figure 4: Superf und Remedial Actions:
Number of Projects Completed by Technology (FY1982 - 2002)*
250
200
dl Complete
• Not Complete
Number of
Projects
150
Ex Situ
Source Control
In Situ
Source Control
In Situ
Groundwater
Groundwater
Pump and Treat
*Includes information from an estimated70% of FY2002 RODs.
Sources: 3, 4, 5,7, 11. Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 50.
-------
o
o
CD
O
o
en
CD
Dl
o
O
O
CD
CD
-l-i
TO
CD
CM
E
O
-------
Figure 5: Superfund Remedial Actions:
Source Control RODS (FY1982 - 2002)*
Total RODs = 1,781
160--
140-
• Other (Institutional Controls, Monitoring, Relocation) -134
EZI Containment/Disposal Only - 650
En Treatment - 997
120
Number inn
of RODs
20
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02*
Fiscal Year
ROD = Record of Decision
*Includes information from an estimated70% of FY2002 RODs.
Sources: 3, 4, 5,7, 11. Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 50.
CD
a
o'
3
rO
03
CD
03
03
O
O.
O
(Q
O3'
en
GO
O
8
O
O
Figure 6: Superfund Remedial Actions:
Trends in Types of Source Control RODs (FY 1982 - 2002)*
100%
90%
80%
70%
Percent of 60%
Source
Control RODs
50%
36%
Containment or Disposal Only
Some Treatment
Other (Institutional Controls, Monitoring, Relocation)
0%/N2A%0%0%1%0%2%
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02*
Fiscal Year
ROD = Record of Decision
* Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY2002 RODs.
Sources: 3, 4, 5,7, 11. Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 50.
-------
o
o
CD
O
o
en
CD
Dl
_o
O
O
CD
CD
-l-i
TO
CD
CM
E
O
-------
Figure 8: Superf und Remedial Actions: Source Control Treatment Projects
Selected in FY 2000, 2001, and 2002*
Total Projects = 107
Ex Situ Technologies (56) 52% In Situ Technologies (51) 48%
Incineration (off-site) (9)
8%
Thermal Desorption (12)
11%
Physical Separation (14)
13%
Solidification/
Stabilization (14)
13%
Other (ex situ) (7)
7%
Bioremediation (3)
Chemical Treatment (2)
Neutralization (1)
Open Burn/Open Detonation (1)
Soil Vapor Extraction (18)
17%
Bioremediation (9)
8%
Chemical Treatment (7)
7%
Other (in situ) (17)
16%
Multi-Phase Extraction (5
Neutralization (4
Flushjng (3
Phytoremediation (2
Solidification/Stabilization (1
In Situ Thermal Treatment (1
Vitrification (1
C/)
CO
a
o'
3
K)
03
CD
03
03
O
O.
O
(Q
O3'
en
GO
O
8
O
O
* Includes information from an estimated70% of FY2002 RODs.
Sources: 3, 4, 5,7, 11. Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 50.
Figure 9: Superf und Remedial Actions:
in Situ Technologies for Source Control (FY 1985 - 2002)*
65%
60%
55%
50%
Percentage of Source Control Treatment
Technologies that are In Situ
Percentage
of Source
Control
Treatment
Projects
Linear Trendline (In Situ Projects)
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02*
Fiscal Year
*Includes information from an estimated70% of FY2002 RODs.
Sources: 3, 4, 5,7, 11. Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 50.
-------
o
o
CD
O
o
en
CD
Dl
_o
O
O
CD
CD
-l-i
TO
CD
CM
E
O
-------
• Nine projects selected in this period have also
been completed, including three off-site
incineration projects, two ex situ S/S projects,
two thermal desorption projects, one SVE
project, and one bioremediation project.
• An additional 18 projects selected in the period
became operational.
Table 2 provides a summary of project status for
each technology type. Some 85% of the SVE projects
are in the operational or completed phases. Among
ex situ technologies, bioremediation has the same
number of projects (17) that are operational as S/S,
even though bioremediation is only the fourth most
common ex situ technology (see Figure 7). The high
percentage may be the result of the length of time
required for bioremediation, compared with other
ex situ technologies. Bioremediation enhances the
ability of microorganisms to degrade contaminants
through the addition of nutrients and oxygen. The
time required to reach cleanup goals using
bioremediation is limited by the degradation
processes and depends on many factors such as the
specific contaminant, temperature, and moisture.
Because of those considerations, treatment by
bioremediation (in situ or ex situ) typically requires a
Table 2. Superfund Remedial Actions: Status of
Source Control Treatment Projects by Technology (FY1982 - 2002)*
IPredesign/ Design Complete/
Technology Design Being Installed
Operational
Completed
Total
Soil Vapor Extraction
Bioremediation
Solidification/Stabilization
Chemical Treatment
In Situ Thermal Treatment
Multi-Phase Extraction
Neutralization
Phvtoremediation
Electrical Separation
Percentage of In Situ Technologies
Percentage of All Source Control
Techi
1
0
57
76%
0
0
22
6%
0
73
33
0
123
34%
14%
213
48
48
16
12
8
8
4
4
2
1
364
42%
Ex Situ
Solidification/Stabilization
Incineration (off-site)
Thermal Desorption
Bioremediation
Incineration (on-site)
Physical Separation
Chemical Treatment
Soil Vapor Extraction
Neutralization
Soil Washinq
Mechanical Soil Aeration
Solvent Extraction
Open Burn/Open Detonation
Phvtoremediation
Percentage of Ex Situ Technologies
Percentage of All Source Control
Techi
13
9
1
13
3
0
1
4
0
1
0
0
2%
4
17
1
3
0
105
52
27
40
3
7
6
2
341
68%
39%
157
104
69
54
43
20
10
9
8
8
5
5
3
2
2
499
58%
* Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY 2002 RODs.
Sources: 3, 4, 5,7, 11. Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 50.
Download file containing source data for Table 2.
C/)
CO
a
o'
3
K)
03
CD
03
03
O
O.
O
(Q
O3'
en
GO
O
8
O
O
-------
o
o
CD
O
o
en
CD
Dl
_o
O
O
CD
CD
-l->
TO
CD
CM
E
O
-------
For source control treatment, Figure 11 depicts the
number and types of innovative and established
technologies used. As shown, innovative treatment
technologies represent 21% of all technologies used
for source control. Bioremediation makes up more
than half of the innovative applications (102). In situ
chemical treatment and flushing are the second and
third most frequently selected innovative technologies.
Innovative technologies being used for fewer than 9
projects at Superfund sites are listed under the other
innovative technology category, which includes a total
of 7 technologies and 40 applications.
The number of applications of a technology is not
necessarily indicative of its effectiveness. In some
cases, the technology may have only recently become
available and has not had time to become widely
accepted and used at Superfund sites. In other cases,
the technology may be designed for specific types of
applications, such as certain contaminants or media.
For example, vitrification typically has higher energy
costs than other technologies. However, when
radioactive contaminants are mixed with other
hazardous chemicals, vitrification is often capable of
destroying the hazardous chemicals in addition to
immobilizing the radioactive contaminants. In three
of the four vitrification applications, the contaminants
treated included a mixture of radioactive and other
contaminants.
Box 7. INNOVATIVE SOURCE CONTROL
TREATMENT
An innovative technology, bioremediation,
replaced an established technology,
incineration, at the MacGillis & Gibbs Co./Bell
Lumber and Pole Co. site. This site consists
of two adjacent wood preserving facilities in
New Brighton, MN. Both facilities have been
active since the 1920's. The soil at Operable
Unit (OU) 3 has been contaminated with
halogenated and nonhalogenated semivolatile
organic compounds, including
pentachlorophenol, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, dioxins, and furans. A ROD
issued for OU 3 in 1994 specified on-site
incineration for organic-contaminated soils. In
1999, a ROD amendment was signed, which
changed the remedy from on-site incineration
to bioremediation. A new remedy was
selected because of the high costs associated
with incineration and new risk-based
determinations for future land use. In addition,
EPA issued the document "Presumptive
Remedies for Soils, Sediments, and Sludges
at Wood Treater Sites" in 1995, which
identified bioremediation as a presumptive
remedy. Based on these factors, ex situ
bioremediation was selected for 18,000 cy of
soil. This remedy was completed in
November 2002.
Figure 11. Superfund Remedial Actions: innovative Applications of
Source Control Treatment Technologies (FY1982 - 2002)*
Total Projects = 863
Established Technologies (683) 79%
Other Established Technologies (20) 2%
Neutralization (12)
Mechanical Soil Aeration (5)
Open Burn/Open Detonation (3)
Physical Separation (20)
2%
Thermal Desorption (69)
8%
Incineration (147)
Solidification/
Stabilization (205)
24%
Innovative Technologies
(180) 21%
Chemical Treatment (22)
3%
Flushing (16)
2%
Other Innovative
Technologies (40)
5%
Bioremediation (102)
12%
Soil Vapor
Extraction (222)
25%
*Includes information from an estimated70% of FY2002 RODs.
Sources: 3, 4, 5,7, 11. Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 50.
^ Multi-Phase Extraction
Soil Washing
In Situ Thermal Treatment
Phytoremediation
Solvent Extraction
Vitrification
Electrical Separation
O
n
o
c
c
4
4
C/)
CO
a
o'
3
K)
03
CD
03
03
O
O.
O
(Q
O3'
en
GO
O
8
O
O
-------
o
o
CD
O
o
en
CD
Dl
o
O
O
CD
CD
-l->
TO
CD
CM
E
O
67%
\ 33%
0%
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02*
Fiscal Year
*Includes information from an estimated70% of FY2002 RODs.
Sources: 3, 4, 5,7, 11. Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 50.
(22
-------
leachability of metals. In other cases, a treatment
train might be used to render a medium more easily
treatable by another technology, reduce the amount
of waste that requires further treatment by a more
expensive technology, prevent the emission of
volatile contaminants during excavation and mixing,
or minimize the overall cost of the treatment.
Treatment trains that include one or more
innovative technologies are the selected source
control remedy at 46 Superfund sites. Figure 13
identifies specific treatment trains used in remedial
actions. Innovative treatment technologies may
be used with established technologies or with other
innovative technologies. The most common
treatment trains are air sparging used in
conjunction with SVE, and bioremediation
followed by S/S or SVE. In the case of air sparging
used with SVE, the air sparging is used to remove
contaminants from groundwater in situ, while the
SVE captures the contaminants removed from the
Figure 13. Superfund Remedial Actions: Treatment Trains
with innovative Treatment Technologies (FY1982 - 2002)*
Air Sparging
Soil Vapor Extraction
(15 sites)
Bioremediation
Soil Vapor Extraction Solidification/Stabilization
(3 sites) (4 sites)
and or or
Flushing
(1 site)
Chemical Treatment
and
Neutralization
(1 site)
Solidification/Stabilization Multi Phase Extraction Thermal Desorption
(2 sites) (1 site) (1 site)
or or n^SI or
Multi Phase Extraction
Bioremediation Soil Vapor Extraction
(1 site) (1 site)
and I^BI or
Flushing
Physical Separation
Bioremediation and
Bioremediation Soil Vapor Extraction
(1 site) (1 site)
and P^BI or
Incineration Solidification/Stabilization
(1 site) (1 site)
and I^BI or
Soil Washing
Solvent Extraction
Thermal Desorption and
Bioremediation Chemical Treatment
(1 site) (1 site)
and or
Solidification/Stabilization Incineration
(2 sites) (1 site)
and or or
Vitrification
(1 site)
Thermal Desorption
Chemical Treatment
(2 sites)
Soil Vapor Extraction and
Bioremediation
1 site)
*Includes information from an estimated70% of FY2002 RODs.
Sources: 3, 4, 5,7, 11. Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 50.
C/)
CO
a
o'
3
K)
03
CD
03
03
O
O.
O
(Q
O3'
en
GO
O
8
O
O
-------
O
O
CD
o
O
en
CD
Dl
o
o
o
CD
CD
-l-i
TO
CD
CM
C,
O
-------
halogenated VOCs are treated most often by SVE.
Non-halogenated SVOCs and PAHs are treated
most often by bioremediation. Polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB), organic pesticides/herbicides,
and halogenated SVOCs are treated most often
by incineration. Metals are treated almost
exclusively by S/S. An interesting exception is
the use of bioremediation to treat metals in two
projects. However, these projects are in the design
phase, and the effectiveness of bioremediation for
metals at these sites has not yet been demonstrated.
EPA has developed the Hazardous Waste Cleanup
Information (CLU-IN) Contaminant Focus area
(http://www.clu-in.org/contamincintfocus/), which
bundles information associated with the cleanup of
individual contaminants and contaminant groups.
This information is presented in categories including
Overview, Policy and Guidance, Chemistry and
Behavior, Environmental Occurrence, Toxicology,
Detection and Site Characterization, Treatment
Technologies, Conferences and Seminars, and Other
Resources. Contaminant Focus will be continuously
updated with information from federal cleanup
programs, state sources, universities, nonprofit
organizations, peer-reviewed publications, and
public-private partnerships. New contaminants will
be added on a periodic basis.
Quantity of Soil Treated
Table 5 shows the results of an analysis of the
quantity of soil addressed by the various treatment
technologies. Data on the quantity of treated soil
are available for 217 in situ projects and 325 ex
situ projects for which source control treatment
technologies were selected to treat soil. Typically,
in situ technologies are used to address larger
Table 5. Superfund Remedial Actions: Estimated Quantities of Soil Treated by
Source Control Technologies (FY1982 - 2002)*
Total
Number
of Projects
Number of
Projects
with Data
Minimum
(cubic
yards)
Median
(cubic
yards)
Average
(cubic
yards)
Maximum Total Quantity
(cubic (cubic
yards) yards)
Bioremediation
Chemical Treatment
Incineration (off-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Mechanical Soil Aeration
Phvtoremediation
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Washing
Solidification/Stabilization
Solvent Extraction
Thermal Desorption
Aver
Total
54
10
104
43
5
2
9
8
157
5
69
466
46
7
51
34
3
2
7
7
105
4
59
325
21
760
5
12
2,100
850
540
6,400
18
7,000
250
1,600
12,750
21 ,000
1,000
21 ,000
NC
NC
2,400
13,600
12,700
NC
16,400
12,600
74,000
22,000
4,800
50,000
NC
NC
20,000
26,000
51 ,000
NC
32,400
35,000
1 ,936,000
50,000
23,000
330,000
12,000
10,900
81 ,000
100,000
1,071,000
300,000
137,000
368,300
3,400,000
154,000
247,000
1,714,000
16,600
1 1 ,800
137,000
179,000
5,322,000
329,000
1,913,000
1 ,220,000
13,423,400
Bioremediation
Chemical Treatment
Multi-Phase Extraction
Flushing
Phvtoremediation
Soil Vapor Extraction
Solidification/ Stabilization
In Situ Thermal
Treatment
Aver
Total
Average for
All Technologie
Total for All
Technolo
48
12
8
16
4
213
48
8
-
357
823
26
6
2
9
2
134
31
7
217
542
3,100
2,200
77,000
2,000
60,000
2
180
200
18,100
8,600
24,000
15,800
NC
19,000
NC
31 ,000
21 ,000
23,000
22,300
16,800
313,000
18,700
NC
131,000
NC
176,000
99,000
567,000
217,500
113,000
5,760,000
41 ,000
100,000
1,000,000
101,000
6,100,000
1 ,920,000
3,528,000
2,319,000
1,190,000
8,127,000
112,000
177,000
1,180,000
178,000
23,587,000
3,063,000
3,969,000
5,000,000
40,393,000
2,832,000
53,816,400
gies with data on fewer than two projects were not listed in this table.
* Includes information from an estimated 70% ofFY2002RODs.
Sources: 3,4,5,7, 11. Data sources arelistedin theReferences andData Sources section on page 50.
CO
a
o'
3
K)
03
CD
03
03
O
O.
O
(Q
O3'
en
GO
O
8
O
O
-------
o
o
CD
O
o
en
CD
Dl
_o
O
O
CD
CD
-l-i
TO
CD
CM
E
O
10,000,000
1 000 000
1 00 000
m nnn
Soil iu,uuu
Volume
(Cubic 1000
Yards)
100
10
0
A i .
1
hr
J
o
o
.
± n
_
r nr -i-
T
n^
00°
0
N=45 26 51 34 134 105 31 59
..5N _5^ ..SN _SN x^_ ^_ /^^ /^
«Sr or
.<$• ^
^
*Includes information from an estimated70% of FY2002 RODs.
Sources: 3, 4, 5,7, 11. Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 50.
-------
box. Outliers and extreme values are depicted on
Figure 14 by circles.
With the exception of off-site incineration, the
median volume of soil treated for all technologies
falls between 10,000 and 100,000 cy. The range of
values, as shown by the length of the box and
whiskers, is much greater for SVE than for all other
technologies, ranging from about 100 cy to almost
10 million cy. The 75th percentile value for SVE
and bio remediation (in situ) is above 100,000 cy,
indicating that the volume being treated by these
technologies is above 100,000 cy for 25% of the
projects for which data are available.
Comparing similar technologies that can be
conducted both in situ and ex situ shows that in situ
technologies are typically used to treat larger
volumes of soil. As Figure 14 shows, the median
volume of soil per project for in situ bioremediation
is greater than that for ex situ bioremediation. The
range of soil volumes for bioremediation indicate
that, when applied in situ, it is more applicable to
projects with large volumes of soil. For smaller soil
volumes, ex situ bioremediation is more applicable.
S/S, which has both in situ and ex situ applications,
also tends to treat larger volumes in situ and smaller
volumes ex situ.
Off-site incineration is generally treating the smallest
volume of soil with a median volume of only 1,000
cy. On-site incineration is used to treat larger
volumes, and has a median of 21,000 cy. Off-site
incineration costs are typically based on the volume
treated, with no start-up costs. On-site incineration
typically entails significant start-up costs related to
mobilizing equipment to the site and obtaining
permits. However, once an on-site incinerator has
started up, the treatment cost per unit of material
incinerated is typically lower because costs for off-
site transportation are eliminated. Therefore, on-
site incineration can be more cost-effective than
off-site incineration when treatment of a large
amount of material is necessary.
Treatment Trains and Their Effect
on Quantity of Soil Treated
The ASR Search System contains data on the
volumes of soil treated in 26 treatment trains.
These data were evaluated to identify treatment
trains that may have an effect on the volumes of
soil treated.
At 13 sites where treatment trains were used, the
volume of soil treated by each technology in the
train remained the same. At 10 sites, the volume
of soil decreased from 7% to nearly 100% as it
moved through the treatment train. The initial
technologies with the largest percent decrease were
SVE and bioremediation. Both technologies were
followed by S/S.
At three sites, the volume of soil increased as it
moved through the treatment train. At Robins
Air Force Base in Georgia, the treatment train
consisted of SVE to remove volatile organics
followed by S/S to immobilize metals. The volume
of material increased during the S/S step due to
the binders added in the S/S process.
When in situ technologies are used in a treatment
train, a more aggressive technology may be applied
to remediate areas with high contaminant
concentrations or NAPLs (hot spots), followed by
application of a less aggressive technology to
remediate a larger area that includes the former
hot spot area. This occurred at two of the three
sites where the volume of soil increased between
the first and second technologies in the treatment
train. At the Southern California Edison, Visalia
Pole Yard, in situ thermal treatment was used to
treat 213,500 cy of soil and removed approximately
55,000 pounds of DNAPL (creosote)
contamination. Following the in situ thermal
treatment, bioremediation (biosparging) was
implemented to treat approximately 5,760,000 cy
of soil and residual groundwater contamination.
At the Petro-Chemical Systems Inc. OU 2, in situ
thermal treatment was used to treat 330 cy of soil
to remove BTEX from two hot spots, followed by
the application of SVE to 300,000 cy.
Cumulative Soil Treatment
Volumes
Figure 15 shows the percentage of soil volume
being treated for each technology type, which
indicates SVE treats the largest volume of soil.
SVE is the most frequently selected technology at
25% of all source control treatment projects (see
Figure 7) and, on average, treats the largest volume
of soil (see Figure 14). Those factors explain the
large fraction of soil being treated by this
technology. Figure 15 is based on the 65% of
source control treatments at Superfund remedial
action sites where soil treatment data are available.
C/)
CO
a
o'
3
K)
03
CD
03
03
O
O.
O
-------
o
o
CD
O
o
en
CD
Dl
o
O
O
CD
CD
-l-i
TO
CD
CM
E
O
-------
bioremediation, and thermal desorption were Previous editions of the ASR included an appendix
thermal desorption (replacing incineration and
bioremediation), S/S, SVE, and incineration
(replacing bioremediation and thermal
desorption).
(Appendix D) that listed all the technology changes,
additions, and deletions made since the previous
edition of the ASR. Because the appendix has
expanded over time, it is now available on-line at
http://clu-in.t
CO
a
o'
3
K)
03
CD
03
Table 6. Superfund Remedial Actions:
Number of Most Commonly Changed Technologies (1982 - 2002)*
Technology Initially Selected
New Treatment Technology
Thermal Desorption
Solidification/Stabilization
Bioremediation
Soil Vapor Extraction
Solvent Extraction
Incineration
Air Sparging
Chemical Treatment
Soil Washing
Physical Separation
In Situ Thermal Treatment
Pump and Treat
Total Number of Remedy Revisions
Incineration
Bioremediation
Thermal Desorption
Total
12
11
5
10
1
10
1
2
1
1
1
2
57
03
O
O.
O
(Q
O3'
en
GO
O
8
O
O
*Includes information from an estimated70% ofFY2002 RODs.
Sources: 3, 4, 5,7, 11. Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 50.
-------
CD
CD
CD
&
03
U
-------
plume, they may be used to treat different parts
of the plume. For example, an in situ
groundwater treatment technology may be used
for areas that are difficult to treat using P&T,
such as hot spots, NAPL source zones, tight clays,
fractured rock, and areas with heterogenous
hydrogeology. P&T, in turn, may be used to
control plume migration and remediate other
areas of the plume with lower contaminant
concentrations. MNA may be used to treat areas
of the plume with relatively low contaminant
concentrations that remain above remediation
goals. Box 8 describes a site that has selected
and implemented groundwater P&T, in situ
groundwater treatment, and MNA.
Figure 16 shows the use of P&T, in situ
treatment, and MNA for groundwater, both
alone and in combination with other remedies.
At least one of these three is a remedy at 851
sites. The most common is P&T only, with
556 sites. The second most common is MNA
only at 96 sites. When two types of groundwater
remedies were used at the same site, a P&T
system was used most frequently with MNA (64
sites) and in situ treatment (63 sites). For 30 of
the 851 sites, three types of groundwater
remedies were used. At most sites where one
of these remedies was selected, some form of
groundwater treatment was included. P&T or
in situ treatment was included in the selected
remedy at 89% (755) of the sites, while 11%
(96) of sites selected only MNA.
At many of the sites shown in Figure 16, the
remedy also includes source control treatment.
For example, source control treatment is part of
the remedy at 43% of the 556 sites with P&T
only. At 41% of the 96 sites with MNA only,
source control treatment is also part of the remedy.
C/)
CO
o
o
CL
3
03
Q.
O3'
en
Box 8. SITE WITH MULTIPLE GROUNDWATER
REMEDIES
Groundwater contamination at the Naval Air
Engineering Station site is being addressed
with a combination of P&T, in situ
treatment, and MNA. The US Navy has
used this 7,382 acre site in Lakehurst, NJ
since the 1920's for the development and
testing of fleet support systems. Fuels,
oils, metals, solvents, and other organic
compounds have been disposed on-site,
and contaminated areas include landfills,
open pits, unlined lagoons, and drainage
ditches. Petroleum hydrocarbons and
volatile organic compounds, including
benzene and trichloroethene, have been
identified as contaminants of concern in the
soil and groundwater.
Several areas (Areas A, B, C, E, H, I, and J)
of the site are being remediated with
groundwater remedies. At Areas A, B, C,
E, and H, groundwater P&T was selected
for plume containment through interim
RODs in 1991 and 1992. The P&T system
is currently operational. In 1997, final
RODs were signed, and air sparging was
added to Areas A, B, and E to enhance
remediation of the most contaminated
zone. A ROD was issued in 1999 that
selected MNA and in situ bioremediation for
the higher concentration portions of Areas I
and J. Additional groundwater and source
control remedies have been selected for
other areas at the site.
Figure 16: Superfund Remedial
Actions: Sites with P&T,
in Situ Treatment, or MNA
Selected as Part of a
Croundwater Remedy (FY1982 - 2002)*
Total Number of Sites(a) = 851
P&T Only
(556)
65%/
•*••:
P&T and MNA (64)
P&T and
In Situ (63)
.In Situ Only (31)
A/4%
•» - P&T, In Situ,
and MNA (30)
4%
In Situ and
MNA (11)
Sites with P&T = 713
Sites with In Situ Treatment = 135
Sites with MNA = 201
INA Only (96)
11%
MNA = Monitored natural attenuation
PdrT = Pump and treat
*Includes information from an estimated 70% ofFY
2002 RODs.
(a) NPL sites include current sites and former NPL sites
that were deleted and!or removedfrom the NPL between
FY 1982 and 2002.
Appendix F describes the methodology used to identify
remedy types for each site.
Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11. Data sources are listed in
the References and Data Sources section onpage 50.
-------
CD
CD
CD
&
03
Source control is discussed in more detail in
Section 2 of this report.
U
-------
Figure 18: Superfund Remedial Actions: Trends in croundwater Remedy
Selection (FY1986 - 2002)*
C/)
CO
Percentage of 50%
All Groundwater
RODs
P&T
GW in situ
GWMNA
— a- -GWVEB
- -*• - GW other
40%
24%
5 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02*
Fiscal Year
GW = Groundwater
MNA = Monitored natural attenuation
P&T = Pump and treat
ROD = Record of Decision
VEB = Vertical engineered barrier
* Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY2002 RODs.
Sources: 3, 4, 5, 7, 11. Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 50.
o
o
CL
3
03
Q.
O3'
en
Figure 19. Superf und Remedial Actions: Trends in the Selection of Pump
and Treat (FY 1986 - 2002)*
82% 84%83% 83%
70%
60%
66%
-o- RODs Selecting Only P&T
-o- RODs Selecting P&T and Another
Groundwater Remedy
(MNA or In Situ Treatment
•*• RODs Selecting In Situ Treatment or MNA,
but Not Selecting P&T
3%
Percentage of
All Groundwater
RODs 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
MNA = Monitored natural attenuation
PdrT = Pump and treat
ROD = Record of Decision
* Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY2002 RODs.
Sources: 3, 4, 5, 7, 11. Data sources are listed in the References andData Sources section on page 50.
86 87 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02
-------
CD
CD
CD
&
03
U
-------
volatilization; radioactive decay; and chemical or
biological stabilization, transformation, or
destruction of contaminants.
Cumulatively, 234 RODs have selected MNA; of
those, 124 selected MNA without a groundwater
treatment remedy. Since FY 1986, the fraction of
groundwater RODs selecting MNA, both alone and
in combination with P&T and in situ treatment, has
increased. Figure 21 compares the trends in the
percentage of groundwater RODs selecting only
MNA to MNA in combination with groundwater
treatment (P&T or in situ treatment). The selection
of MNA, both alone and with groundwater treatment
remedies, generally increased through 1998. In that
year, MNA alone was selected in 32% of RODs,
while MNA was selected with P&T or in situ
treatment in 16% of RODs. From FY 1999 - 2001,
MNA alone was half of its peak level, while MNA
with a groundwater treatment remedy remained
relatively constant. In FY2002, both types of RODs
decreased to 4%.
The decrease in MNA only RODs coincided with
the publication of EPA guidance on the use of
MNA in 1999 (see Reference 12 on page 50).
This directive was issued to clarify EPAs policy
regarding the use of MNA for the remediation of
contaminated soil and groundwater at sites
administered by EPAs Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, and contained guidance for
the implementation of MNA. The guidance may
have influenced remedy identification and
selection. For example, the directive provided a
more specific definition of MNA than was
available in the past. Prior to publication of the
directive, some remedies identified as MNA may
not have met the definition provided in the
directive. Authors of FY 1999 RODs may have
identified remedies that they would have previously
identified as MNA as another remedy, such as
monitoring only or NA/NFA.
In Situ Groundwater Treatment
Technologies
In situ technologies for groundwater treatment are
those applications in which the contaminated
groundwater is treated or the contaminant is
removed from the groundwater without extracting,
pumping, or otherwise removing the groundwater
from the aquifer. Implementation of P&T
remedies requires extraction of groundwater from
C/)
CO
o
o
o
CL
3
03
Q.
O3'
en
Figure 21: Superfund Remedial Actions:
Trends in the Selection of MNA (FY 1986 - 2002)*
35%
30%
25%
Percentage of 20/i
All Groundwater
RODs
RODs Selecting Only MNA
—•—RODs Selecting MNA and In Situ Treatment or P&T
/23% \
86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98
Fiscal Year
MNA = Monitored natural attenuation
PdrT = Pump and treat
ROD = Record of Decision
*Includes information from an estimated70% of FY2002 RODs.
Sources: 3, 4, 5, 7, 11. Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 50.
00 01 02*
-------
CD
CD
CD
&
03
U
-------
The selection of a treatment technology for a site
depends on the physical and chemical properties of
contaminants at the site. For example, VOCs are
amenable to air sparging because of their volatility.
Metals, which are not volatile and do not degrade,
are not amenable to this technology.
The selection of groundwater treatment technologies
may also depend on site-specific factors, such as
soil type and hydrogeology. For example, air
sparging may be an effective treatment for VOCs
at a site with sandy soil, but may not be effective at
a site with tightly packed clay soil. As Figure 23
shows, BTEX and halogenated VOCs are treated
most frequently using air sparging. PAHs and other
non-halogenated SVOCs, which are not as volatile
as BTEX and halogenated VOCs, but can be
destroyed through microbial processes, are treated
most frequently by bioremediation. Dissolved-phase
halogenated VOCs may be difficult to remove from
groundwater in low-permeability matrices using air
sparging. Metals and metalloids are typically not
amenable to air sparging, bioremediation, and multi-
phase extraction. One exception is the use of in
situ bioremediation to reduce hexavalent chromium
to its less toxic trivalent form. This technology,
which uses biological activity to create conditions
that result in chemical reduction of chromium, is
being applied at three sites. At one additional site,
bioremdiation to treat arsenic is currently planned.
Metals and metalloids may undergo chemical
reactions with certain substances to form
compounds that are less toxic or mobile. The PRBs
were used most often to treat halogenated VOCs,
metals, and metalloids.
Status of In Situ Groundwater
Projects
A snapshot of the status of in situ groundwater
treatment technologies is presented in Figure 24.
The data in Figure 24 show:
• The total number of in situ groundwater
treatment projects increased by 62%, from 104
to 169 between August 2000 and March 2003.
Figure 23: Superfund Remedial Actions: contaminants Treated by in Situ
Croundwater Technologies (FY1982 - 2002)*
dO
oe
30
Number of
Projects 25
15
m
30
16
n
g
,
33
1 Pi^P
Polycyclic
aromatic
hydrocarbons
I
4
3,
^O00
Other
non-
halogenated e
semivolatiles3
• Air
D Bio
m Chi
D Mu
n ln-\
a Per
• Ph)
Sparging
remediation
smical Treatment
ti-Phase Extraction
Veil Air Stripping
meable Reactive Barrier
rtoremediation
*\
16
11
6
"
6
3
Benzene-
toluene-
:hylbenzene- h
xylene
ll°
2 2
Other
non-
alogenated
volatilesb
7
5J
I
2
Organic
pesticides/
herbicides
4
3,-
5
3
loon
Other
halogenated
semi-
volatiles11
\2
2
3
12
8
!iU:J1
Halogenated Metals and
volatiles metalloids
*Includes information from an estimated70% of FY2002 RODs.
" Does not includepolycydic aromatic hydrocarbons.
b Does not include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene.
c Does not include organic pesticides and herbicides.
Sources: 3, 4, 5, 7, 11. Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 50.
VI
CD
o
o
o
CL
3
03
Q.
O3'
en
-------
CD
CD
CD
&
03
U
-------
information in both the Source section (Section
2) and Groundwater section (Section 3). To make
the August 2000 and March 2003 data
comparable, the data in Figure 24 for August
2000 include technologies treating both sources
and groundwater, and therefore do not match the
information presented for groundwater remedies
presented in the Tenth Edition of the ASR.
The specific types of in situ treatment remedies
and their status at Superfund sites are listed in
Table 9. In situ treatment of groundwater has
been selected 169 times at 135 sites. Among in
situ technologies, air sparging is the most
frequently selected technology, followed by
bioremediation. Both of these technologies have
a large number of projects in the operational
phase. The treatment rate of these technologies
is typically limited by site-specific factors. For
example, air sparging may require long treatment
times when continuing sources of contaminants,
such as light nonaqueous-phase liquid (LNAPL)
and DNAPL, are present. Bioremediation may
be limited by the rate at which microbes can
break down contaminants, which can depend on
a variety of factors such as climate, soil
conditions, contaminant concentrations, and
solubility.
The third most frequently selected technology is
chemical treatment. Although this technology has
approximately half the number of total projects of
air sparging and bioremediation, it has the same
number of completed projects. Chemical
treatment is typically applied as an aggressive
treatment technology that requires a relatively short
treatment time to achieve cleanup goals. It may
also be effective in treating small amounts of
DNAPL and LNAPL. Since the Tenth Edition,
the number of chemical treatment projects has
increased, from only 2 to 21. PRBs rely on natural
groundwater flow to carry contaminants into a
reactive zone, where they are treated; therefore,
this technology does not treat contaminants
upgradient of the reactive zone. Most PRBs (10
of 17) are in the operational phase, and none are
completed.
Groundwater Pump and Treat
P&T is the extraction of groundwater from an
aquifer and treatment aboveground. The
extraction step usually is conducted by pumping
groundwater from a well or trench. The
treatment step can include a variety of
technologies. The technologies used at
Superfund remedial action sites for the
aboveground treatment of contaminated
groundwater are described in the Overview
section at the beginning of this report.
C/)
CO
o
o
CL
3
03
Q.
O3'
en
Table 9. Superfund Remedial Actions: Status of in Situ Groundwater
Treatment Projects by Technology (FY1982 - 2002)*
Predesign/
Technology Design
Design Complete/
Being Installed
Operational
Completed
Total
Air Sparging
Bioremediation
Chemical Treatment
Permeable Reactive Barrier
Multi-Phase Extraction
Phvtoremediation
In-Well Air Stripping
In Situ Thermal Treatment
Percentage of In Situ Technologies
Percentage of All Groundwater
Technologie
40
10
54%
10%
19
11%
2%
58
44
21
17
14
6
5
2
2
169
19%
*Includes information from an estimated70% of FY2002 RODs.
Sources: 3, 4, 5,7, 11. Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 50.
Download file containing source data for Table 9.
-------
CD
CD
CD
&
03
U
-------
Figure 26: Superfund Remedial Actions:
Contaminants Treated by Pump and Treat Systems (FY1982 -1997)
VI
CO
200
180
160
140
120-
Number of
Projects 1QO
*
Contaminant
Pump and treat (Pdr T) projects from FY 1998 through 2002 are not included on this figure, because P&T systems do
not generally become operational within 5 years of signing the ROD.
Sources: 3, 4, 5, 7, 11. Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 50.
o
o
CL
3
03
Q.
O3'
en
Aboveground Components of Pump and
Treat Projects
Data were available for 171 P&T projects using 224
treatment technologies as shown in Figure 27. More
than half of these P&T systems are using air stripping
to remove volatile compounds from groundwater.
Carbon adsorption is the second most common P&T
technology, which also is used to remove organic
compounds, including VOCs. These technologies
are being used to treat chlorinated and non-
chlorinated VOCs, because, as shown in Figure 26,
such contaminants make up 9 of the top 12 most
frequently treated by P&T. The third and fourth
most common technologies are filtration and metals
precipitation, respectively. Three of the top 12
contaminants most frequently treated by P&T are
metals or metalloids that can be effectively removed
using metals precipitation.
Treatment trains are commonly used in P&T
systems. Section 2 contains a detailed description
of treatment trains and reasons for their use. For
the 171 P&T systems for which technology data
were available, 35 used a treatment train. The
most commonly employed treatment train is air
stripping followed by carbon adsorption for the
effluent from the air stripper (18 projects). Figure
27 counts projects that use more than one
technology once for each technology.
Figure 27: Superfund Remedial
Actions: Above Ground Components
of Groundwater Pump and Treat
Projects (FY 1982 - 2000)
Pump and Treat Projects'4 =171
Treat at POTW
Flocculation (1)
•
Air Stripping (121V
55%
Ion Exchange (7)
3%
UV Oxidation (3)
1%
Biological Treatment (10)
4%
Filtration (13)
6%
Metals
Precipitation (11)
5%
Carbon Adsorption (53)
24%
Of743 pump and treat projects, 171 had a technology
selected. Projects may include more than one technology
type. POTW = Publicly-owned treatment works
Sources: 3, 4, 5, 7, 11. Data sources are listed in the
References and Data Sources section on page 50.
-------
CD
CD
CD
&
03
U
-------
VEB is not a treatment technology, it is an
engineered remedy. In addition, VEBs can be
constructed using some innovative methods, such
as deep soil mixing and geosynthetic walls. The
technologies used for VEB construction are also
used for in situ S/S. VEBs are also an integral
part of many PRBs.
VEBs were selected at 49 Superfund remedial
action sites for a total of 51 projects (some sites
have more than one VEB). More than 80% of the
VEBs have been installed (42 of 51). Table 11
indicates the number of each type of VEB. The
types of barriers are:
• Slurry wall — Consists of a vertical trench that
is filled with a low-permeability slurry of
bentonite, soil, or cement.
• Geosynthetic wall - Constructed by placing a
geosynthetic liner into a trench.
• Grout — Constructed by injecting a high
pressure grout mixture into the subsurface. The
grout used is typically cement or a mixture of
cement and bentonite.
• Deep soil mixing - Overlapping columns
created by a series of large-diameter, counter-
rotating augers that mix in situ soils with an
additive, usually bentonite, cement, or grout,
which is injected through the augers.
• Sheet pile — Series of overlapping sheets of
impermeable material, such as metal.
Overwhelmingly, slurry walls are the most
frequently used type of barrier, with 46
applications. For each of the other types of VEBs,
there are fewer than five applications at Superfund
remedial action sites. Some VEBs have more than
one type of barrier.
Additional information on VEBs is available in
the following reports, both of which are available
on-line at http://clu-in.orgi
' Subsurface Containment and Monitoring
Systems: Barriers and Beyond
• Evaluation of Subsurface Engineered Barriers
at Waste Sites (EPA-542-R-98-005)
Table 11. Superfund Remedial
Actions: Types of vertical Engineered
Barriers at 49 Sites Selecting
This Technology (FY1982 - 2002)*
VI
CO
Vertical Engineered
Barrier Type
Slurry Wall
Number of
Barriers
46
Grout
Sheet Pile
Geosynthetic Wall
Deep Soil Mixing
Other - VEB
TOTAL
*Includes information from an estimated 70% ofFY
2002 RODs. Some sites have more than one barrier.
Some barriers have more than one barrier type.
Sources: 3, 4, 5, 7, 11. Data sources are listed in the
References and Data Sources section on page 50.
o
o
CL
3
03
Q.
O3'
en
-------
a
E
o
o
o
'-1-1
o
o
o
--
CD
-l-i
TO
CD
E
CD
TO
2
O
O
LL
tf
Q.
CD
a>
Section 4: Report Focus
Areas: Chemical Treatment
and Construction Completion
Two areas of interest to the remediation
community are the focus of this section: (1) the
application and use of chemical treatment, and
(2) the remediation achievements at sites on the
NPL. As discussed previously, the selection and
application of innovative technologies has been
increasing in the Superfund program. In
particular, the selection and application of chemical
treatment has increased significantly since the
publication of the Tenth Edition of the ASR. This
section provides information on the trends and
usage of chemical treatment. In addition, the data
sources used to compile this edition of the ASR
have expanded to include CORs. This section
presents documentation on the remediation
achievements at Superfund sites using the
information contained in CORs.
Chemical Treatment
Chemical treatment, also known as chemical
reduction/oxidation (redox), typically involves
redox reactions that chemically convert hazardous
contaminants to nonhazardous or less toxic
compounds that are more stable, less mobile, or
inert. Redox reactions involve the transfer of
electrons from one compound to another.
Specifically, one reactant is oxidized (loses
electrons) and one is reduced (gains electrons).
The oxidizing agents used for treatment of
hazardous contaminants in soil and groundwater
include ozone, hydrogen peroxide, hypochlorites,
potassium permanganate, Fenton's reagent
(hydrogen peroxide and iron), chlorine, and
chlorine dioxide. This method may be applied in
situ or ex situ, to soils, sludges, sediments, and
other solids, and may also be applied to
groundwater in situ or ex situ (P&T). P&T
chemical treatment for groundwater may also
include the use of UV light in a process known as
UV oxidation. This section focuses on source
control and in situ groundwater applications of
chemical treatment.
Chemical treatment primarily is used to treat
organic contaminants, and is applicable to both
halogenated and nonhalogenated VOCs and
SVOCs. When organics are treated, these
compounds are typically degraded to simpler and
less toxic compounds. For example, chlorinated
VOCs, such as tetrachloroethene, may be
dechlorinated, and oxidized into chlorides, carbon
dioxide, and water. When used to treat metals
and metalloids, it may be used to change a
contaminants valence state, cause the contaminant
to react with other species in the soil, or cause the
contaminant to precipitate, rendering it less toxic
or mobile. For example, some applications of
chemical treatment have reduced chromium (VI)
to its less toxic chromium (III) form.
The rate and extent of treatment of a target
contaminant are dictated by the properties of the
contaminant, its reactions with the chemicals used,
concentrations of contaminants and treatment
chemicals, and the matrix conditions. Conditions
that can impact the effectiveness of chemical
treatment include pH, temperature, and the
concentration of other chemicals that may react
with the treatment chemicals, such as natural
organic matter, reduced minerals, carbonate, and
free radical scavengers.
Effective in situ application of chemical treatment
also depends on the method of delivery and
distribution of treatment chemicals throughout a
subsurface region. Delivery systems often employ
vertical or horizontal injection wells or air sparge
points with forced advection to rapidly move the
chemicals into the subsurface. Chemical treatment
can also impact the characteristics of the matrix
to be treated. For example, some treatment
chemicals can alter the pH if the system is not
buffered effectively. Other potential effects that
may impact treatment performance include colloid
genesis leading to reduced permeability;
mobilization of redox-sensitive and exchangeable
sorbed metals; possible formation of toxic by-
products; evolution of heat and gas; and
destruction of microorganisms, leading to reduced
potential for future biological treatment.
Chemical treatment is a relatively innovative
technology, which has seen increased application
in recent years, particularly for in situ treatment
of recalcitrant remediation problems, such as
DNAPLs, LNAPLs, and contaminated
groundwater in fractured rock. For in situ
groundwater treatment, chemical treatment had
no more than one project in each year from FY
1988 - 1998. However, the use of this technology
has increased in recent years, averaging four
projects per year in the period from FY 1999 -
2002. Figure 28 plots the number of chemical
treatment projects for source control and in situ
groundwater by the FY for which the ROD was
signed.
(44
-------
Figure 28: Superfund Remedial
Actions: Trend in the Number of
Chemical Treatment Projects
(FY 1985 - 2002)*
Number of
Projects
85-9091 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02*
Fiscal Year
*Includes information from an estimated 70% ofFY
2002 RODs.
Sources: 3, 4, 5, 7, 11. Data sources are listed in the
References and Data Sources section on page 50.
This section presents detailed information on the
in situ chemical treatment projects at Superfund
remedial action sites, and examines the types of
contaminants treated using this technology. Table
12 lists the site name, state, contaminant groups,
media, chemical treatment agents, and
implementation status for in situ source control
and groundwater chemical treatment projects.
This report focuses on in situ chemical treatment
because its use has been increasing in recent years,
whereas the use of ex situ treatment has not.
Historically, chemical treatment has been used for
source control treatment but has recently been
applied for in situ groundwater treatment. Only
four projects selected this technology for in situ
groundwater treatment prior to FY 1998.
However, chemical treatment represented 4 of 16
in situ groundwater treatment projects in FY2002.
Information about chemical agents is available for
implemented projects, because the chemical agents
Table 12. Superfund Remedial Actions: in Situ Chemical Treatment Projects
(FY 1982 - 2002)*
CD
o
CD
•a
o
o
o
c
en
CD
CD
en
O
zr
CD
3
O
CD
CD
r-h
CD
CD
Z3
a.
o
o
Site Name
(Operable Unit),
State Contaminant Group Media Type Technology Description Status
Alaric Inc Superfund
Site OU 1, FL
Battery Tech
Duracell Lexington
OU 1, NC
Brunswick Wood
Preserving Site -
OU 1, GA
Calhoun Park Area -
OU 2, SC
Cooper Drum
Company, CA
Dublin TCE Site
Remediation OU 2,
PA
Eastern Surplus
Company Superfund
Site - Entire Site, ME
Halogenated VOC
BTEX
Halogenated SVOC
Halogenated VOC
Nonhalogenated VOC
PCBs
Solvents
Halogenated SVOC
Nonhalogenated SVOC
Organic pesticides/herbicides
PAHs
BTEX
Nonhalogenated SVOC
Nonhalogenated VOC
PAHs
BTEX
Halogenated VOC
Nonhalogenated SVOC
Nonhalogenated VOC
PAHs
Halogenated VOC
Solvents
Halogenated VOC
Solvents
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Groundwater
(in situ)
DNAPL
(in situ)
Groundwater
(in situ)
Groundwater
(in situ)
DNAPL
(in situ)
Groundwater
(in situ)
Oxidizers may include
potassium permanganate, ozone,
hydrogen peroxide, or Fenton's
Mixture of hydrogen peroxide,
sodium persulfate, iron II catalyst,
sodium permanganate (if needed).
Chemical oxidation.
Oxidizing agents may include
ozone, hydrogen peroxide,
hypochlorites, chlorine, and
chlorine dioxide.
Potassium permanganate and
HRC (a proprietary reductive
dechlorination agent).
Chemical oxidation.
Permanganate.
Pre-design
Designed/
Not
Installed
Pre-design
Design
Design
Pre-design
Operational
o
O
3
•a.
CD
Continued on next page
-------
Table 12. Continued
a
E
o
o
o
'-1-1
o
o
o
--
CD
-l-i
TO
CD
E
CD
TO
2
O
O
LL
tf
Q.
CD
a>
Site Name
(Operable Unit),
State Contaminant Group Media Type Technology Description Status
Eastland Woolen Mill
- OU 1, ME
Ewan Property -
OU 2, NJ
Frontier Hard
Chrome Inc. - OUs 1
and 2, WA
Frontier Hard
Chrome Inc. - OUs 1
and 2, WA
Fruit Avenue Plume
Site, NM
Halby Chemical Co. -
OU 1 , Process Plant
Area, DE
Hanford Site -
100Area-OU2,WA
Hanscom Air Force
Base - OU 1 , Site 1
Source Area, MA
Jacksonville Naval
Air Station - OU 3,
FL
Jones Chemicals,
Inc., NY
New Hampshire
Plating Co. - OU 1,
NH
Odessa Chromium II
Superfund Site, TX
Peterson/Puritan
Inc.- OU 1, PAC
Area, Rl
Rasmussens Dump
Ml
Silver Bow Creek/
Butte Area - Rocker
Timber Framing And
Treatment Plant OU,
MT
BTEX
Halogenated SVOC
Halogenated VOC
Heavy metals
Nonhalogenated SVOC
Nonhalogenated VOC
Solvents
BTEX
Halogenated SVOC
Halogenated VOC
Nonhalogenated SVOC
Nonhalogenated VOC
Solvents
Heavy metals
Heavy metals
Halogenated VOC
Solvents
Nonhalogenated VOC
Solvents
Heavy metals
Halogenated VOC
Solvents
Halogenated SVOC
Halogenated VOC
Nonhalogenated VOC
Solvents
Halogenated VOC
Solvents
Heavy metals
Inorganic cyanides
Heavy metals
Heavy metals
BTEX
Halogenated SVOC
Halogenated VOC
Nonhalogenated VOC
Solvents
Heavy metals
DNAPL
(in situ)
Groundwater
(in situ)
Groundwater
(in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Groundwater
(in situ)
Groundwater
(in situ)
Groundwater
(in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Groundwater
(in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Groundwater
(in situ)
Groundwater
(in situ)
DNAPL
(in situ)
Liquids
Soil (in situ)
Groundwater
(in situ)
Groundwater
(in situ)
Groundwater
(in situ)
Groundwater
(in situ)
Chemical reagents such as
Fenton's reagent or other oxidizing
agents.
Fenton's reagent.
Injection of a reducing chemical to
convert hexavalent chromium to
trivalent chromium.
Injection of a reducing chemical to
convert hexavalent chromium to
trivalent chromium.
Chemical oxidation using
permanganate.
Sodium percarbonate.
In Situ Redox Manipulation involves
injecting sodium dithionite to
reduce the mobility and toxicity of
chromium in groundwater.
Potassium permanganate.
Oxidant such as potassium
permanganate.
Oxidizing agent such as potassium
permanganate or hydrogen
peroxide.
Phosphate-based proprietary
chemical agent addition.
Ferrous sulfate heptahydrate with
hydrochloric acid will be used.
Oxygenated water is injected into
the vadose zone and shallow
groundwater at a rate of 5 gallons
per minute to treat and immobilize
A mixture of ozone/oxygen is
injected into the contaminated
chlorinated hydrocarbon
groundwater plume. Oxidation of
the chlorinated hydrocarbons
occurs in situ.
Contaminated groundwater was
treated with ferrous iron, limestone,
and potassium permanganate.
Design
Pre-design
Design
Pre-design
Design
Completed
Operational
Operational
Pre-design
Pre-design
Design
Operational
Completed
Completed
Completed
Continued on next page
(46
-------
Table 12. Continued
Site Name
(Operable Unit),
State Contaminant Group Media Type Technology Description Status
Southern Solvents
OU 1, FL
Installed
Tex-Tin OU 1 , TX
Townsend Chainsaw
Company, Inc., SC
Trans Circuits Site,
FL
Weldon Spring
Chemical Plant -
OU 2, MO
Wright-Patterson
Air Force Base
Groundwater OU 12,
OH
Halogenated VOC
Solvents
Heavy metals
Heavy metals
Halogenated VOC
Solvents
Halogenated VOC
Solvents
BTEX
Halogenated SVOC
Halogenated VOC
Nonhalogenated VOC
Soil (in situ)
Liquids
Groundwater
(in situ)
Liquids
Groundwater
(in situ)
Groundwater
(in situ)
Groundwater
(in situ)
Groundwater
(in situ)
Oxidizing agent such as hydrogen
peroxide.
Sodium hydroxide and
hydrochloric acid.
Ferrous sulfate.
Perform in situ chemical oxidation
of plume via the injection of
potassium permanganate,
hydrogenperoxide, ozone, or a
combinationthereof through
injection wells in the surficial aquifer.
Permanganate.
Strong oxidizer such as Fenton's
reagent or potassium
permanganate.
Designed/
Not
Installed
Operational
Operational
Pre-design
Completed
Completed
*Includes information from an estimated70% ofFY2002 RODs.
Sources: 3, 4, 5,7, 11. Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 50.
B TEX = Eenzene-toluene-ethylbenzene-xylene
DNAPL = Dense nonaqueous-phase liquid
OU = Operable unit
PAH = Poly cyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyl
SVOC = Semivolatile organic compound
VOC = Volatile organic compound
Box 9. IN SITU GROUNDWATER CHEMICAL
TREATMENT
are usually identified during bench- and pilot-scale
testing. This information is often not available
for projects in the design phase. Box 9 contains
more detailed information about one of the in situ
groundwater projects.
In situ chemical treatment is typically used to treat
the following:
• Contaminants associated with DNAPLs,
including chlorinated VOCs and PAHs
• Contaminants associated with LNAPLs, such
as BTEX
• Metals, metalloids, and inorganics, such as
chromium, arsenic, and cyanide
The eight contaminants most frequently treated
using chemical treatment either in situ or ex situ
are shown in Figure 29. TCE is the most
commonly treated contaminant, followed by PCE,
chromium, and arsenic.
In situ chemical treatment is being used to treat
groundwater contaminated with halogenated
volatile organic compounds at the Eastern
Surplus Company, a 5-acre site located in
Meddybemps, Maine. This site served as a
retail location for army surplus and salvage
items from 1946 to the early 1980's. During an
inspection in 1984, chemical odors, leaking
electrical transformers, hundreds of
deteriorating drums and containers, and
numerous areas of stained soil were observed.
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) was identified as the
main site contaminant. Trichloroethene, 1,2-
dichloroethene, 1,1,2-trichloroethane,
methylene chloride, and xylene were also
detected in site groundwater. A removal action
was conducted, which included soil excavation
(completed in 1999) and a groundwater P&T
system for plume containment, which became
operational in 2001.
A Record of Decision was issued in 2000 for in
situ chemical oxidation to restore the site
groundwater. Design of the system began in
December 2000, and construction was
completed in 2001. Several pilot applications
were conducted, and the full-scale application
began in 2002. This treatment includes
permanganate injection for treating PCE.
CD
o
CD
•a
o
o
o
c
en
CD
CD
en
O
zr
CD
3
O
CD
CD
r-h
CD
CD
Z3
a.
o
o
O
O
3
•a.
CD
-------
a
E
o
o
o
'-1-1
o
o
o
--
CD
-l-i
TO
CD
E
CD
TO
2
O
O
LL
tf
Q.
CD
Figure 29: Superfund Remedial Actions:
Most Commonly Treated Contaminants for
Chemical Treatment Projects (FY1982 - 2002)*
Number of
Projects
*Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY2002 RODs.
Sources: 3, 4, 5,7, 11. Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 50.
DCE = Dichloroethene
PCB = Polychlorinatedbiphenyls
a>
Construction Completion
This edition of the ASR includes information from
close-out reports (COR). CORs are prepared when
physical construction of all cleanup actions is
complete, all immediate threats have been addressed,
and all long-term threats are under control. CORs
contain information on the actions taken at the site
to protect human health and the environment. These
reports are prepared for Superfund sites on EPA's
Construction Completion List (CCL). For long-term
remedies, CORs may be prepared before the remedy
is completed. For example, a site with groundwater
contamination may achieve construction complete
status when a P&T remedy becomes operational.
In such cases, a Preliminary COR (PCOR) is
prepared. When the groundwater cleanup has been
completed, a final close-out report (FCOR) is
prepared. This report incorporates both PCORs
and FCORs. It is important to note that sites with a
COR may not have a completed project, as defined
in this report (i.e., the project may still be operating).
One indicator of remediation progress in the
Superfund Program is the number of CORs
issued. CORs have been prepared for 57% of all
NPL sites. Table 13 shows the number of NPL
sites with CORs through FY 2002. Figure 30
shows technologies included in CORs from FY
1983 - 2000. The most common technology in
CORs is P&T. SVE, S/S, incineration, and
bio remediation are other technologies representing
a large fraction of CORs. The total number of
technologies in Figure 30 exceeds the total number
of CORs because CORs discuss all remedies
implemented at a site, and many sites have more
than one remedy involving a treatment technology.
Construction Complete status is only achieved
when the Construction Complete criteria are met
for all portions of a site. At sites with multiple
areas of contamination, or multiple types of
contaminated media, achieving Construction
Complete status may require a longer time than
simpler sites with fewer contaminated areas or
media. The number of treatment projects tracked
(48
-------
Table 13. Superfund Remedial
Actions: Status of Close-out Reports
at National Priorities List Sites (FY
1983 - 2002)
Status of Close-out
Reports
Sites with a Close-
out Report
Number Percentage of
of Sites Sites
846
56%
Sites without a
Close-out
Report
491
33%
Sites with no ROD
(and no close-
out report)
158
11%
Sites deleted and referred
to another authority
1%
ROD = Record of Decision
Sources: 3, 4, 5, 7, 11. Data sources are listed in the
References and Data Sources section on page 50.
in the ASR were compared for sites with CORs
and sites without CORs. The average number of
projects for sites with CORs is slightly less than
the average number of projects for sites without
them (1.7 compared to 2.2 projects per site). Sites
with fewer treatment projects tend to be less
complex, with fewer contaminants and smaller
volumes of media requiring treatment. These less
complex sites are likely to achieve construction
complete status more quickly, and therefore have
a COR published for them. More complex sites
may take longer to identify and implement
remedies. For example, 182 of the completed
treatment projects identified in this report are at
sites that do not have CORs. At these sites,
construction of another remedy has not yet been
completed.
Figure 30: Superfund Remedial Actions: Technologies Being used at Sites
That Have Achieved Construction complete Status (FY 1983 - 2000)
C/)
CD
o
CD
•a
o
o
o
c
en
CD
CD
en
O
zr
CD
3
O
CD
CD
r-h
CD
CD
Z3
a.
o
o
Number of Reports(a>= 759
Pump and treat
(296)
32%
Incineration
(on-site) (36)
4%
Bioremediation (36)
4%
Incineration
(off-site) (42)
5%
Leachate
treatment (56)
6%
•Other (116)
13%
Soil washing (9)
Chemical treatment (6)
Soil aeration
technologies (11)
Thermal treatment with
on-site placement
of residuals (11)
Thermal desorption (11)
In situ flushing (15)
Neutralization (15)
Removal to off-site locations
after on-site treatment (18)
Vertical engineered
barrier (20)
Air stripping
technologies
(106)
12%
Soil vapor extraction (86)
9%
Removal for off-site
treatment and disposal (64)
7%
Solidification/stabilization,
vitrification, immobilization,
fixation (68)
8%
o
o
3
•a.
CD
(a) Through FY2000, 759 sites had Close-out reports. Technology information was not available for FY2001 and 2002.
Some close-out reports include more than 1 technology.
Source: 18. Data sources are listed in the References andData Sources section on page 50.
49)
-------
CD
CJ
O
en
ro
Q
•a
c
TO
CD
O
CD
CD
•to
in
o
-------
2?
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5102G)
EPA-542-R-03-009
February 2004
www.epa.gov/tio
clu-in.org/asr
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
-------
APPENDIX A
SUPERFUND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
BY FISCAL YEAR
-------
Superfund Remedial Actions:
Treatment Technologies by Fiscal Year
Technology Type
Fiscal Year
Ex Situ Source Control Technologies 1982-85 1986 19871988 1989 1990 1991 19921993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 TOTALS
Solidification/Stabilization 3 3 6 7 11 13 20 22 11 13 3 6 3 14 8 6 2 6 157
Incineration (off-site)
Thermal Desorption
Bioremediation
Incineration (on-site)
Physical Separation
Chemical Treatment
Soil Vapor Extraction
Neutralization
Soil Washing
Mechanical Soil Aeration
Solvent Extraction
Open Burn/Open Detonation
Phytoremediation
TOTALS
2
1
4
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
15
2
1
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
3
4
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
19
9
4
3
7
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
32
9
3
5
6
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
36
15
7
3
4
1
1
0
0
4
1
0
0
0
0
49
12
8
1
3
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
47
6
2
8
3
0
1
0
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
47
9
4
3
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
32
5
4
5
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
31
9
6
6
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
1
32
5
1
5
1
0
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
22
3
5
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
17
3
5
4
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
29
2
1
6
0
2
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
22
6
4
2
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
1
2
1
0
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
2
6
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
18
104
69
54
43
20
10
9
8
8
5
5
3
2
2
499
In Situ Source Control Technologies 1982-85 1986 19871988 1989 1990 1991 19921993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 TOTALS
Soil Vapor Extraction 4 2 1 8 21 17341714 7 10 22 15 8 15 6 8 4 213
Bioremediation
Solidification/Stabilization
Flushing
Chemical Treatment
Multi-Phase Extraction
In Situ Thermal Treatment
Neutralization
Phytoremediation
Vitrification
Electrical Separation
TOTALS
In Situ GroundwaterTechnologies
Bioremediation
Chemical Treatment
Permeable Reactive Barrier
Multi-Phase Extraction
Phytoremediation
In-Well Air Stripping
In Situ Thermal Treatment
TOTALS
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
6
1982-85
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1986
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1987
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
1988
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
1989
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
3
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
25
1990
1
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
6
1
3
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
42
1991
8
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
3
6
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
1992
4
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
8
4
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
1993
3
4
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
5
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
16
1994
0
2
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
5
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
1995
3
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
7
7
5
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
36
1996
7
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
11
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
1997
7
1
1
1
4
0
0
0
0
14
6
4
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
22
1998
6
2
0
3
1
2
0
0
0
14
3
3
1
3
1
1
0
2
0
0
29
1999
7
2
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
13
5
1
1
1
2
1
2
0
1
0
20
2000
4
4
5
3
1
2
2
0
1
22
2
0
1
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
16
2001
4
12
6
3
0
1
1
1
0
28
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
1
0
0
15
2002
2
5
4
1
3
0
0
1
0
16
48
48
16
12
8
8
4
4
2
1
364
TOTA
58
44
21
17
14
6
5
2
2
169
Ex Situ GroundwaterTechnologies 1982-85 1986 19871988 1989 1990 1991 19921993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 TOTAL
Pump and Treat 9 14 9 23 28 28 48 59 73 66 51 51 79 64 45 55 20 21 743
Some projects treat both in situ source control and in situ ground-water. These projects are counted in both sections of this appendix.
A-1
-------
APPENDIX B
SUPERFUND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
SUMMARY MATRIX
-------
Source Control
REGION 1
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix
SITE NAME
ACTION
TECHNOLOGY TYPE
STATUS
Kellogg-Deering V\tell Field
Atlas Tack Corp - OU 1
Baird&Mcguire-OU2(Soil)
Baird & Mcguire - OU 3 (Sediments)
Cannon Engineering - Bridgewater OU
Devens Reserve Forces Training Area (RFTA),
Area of Contamination 57 Areas 2 and 3
GrovelandV\tells
HanscomField/Hanscom Air Force Base-OUl,
Site 1 Source Area
HanscomField/Hanscom Air Force Base-OUl,
Site 1 Source Area
New Bedford Harbor -OU1
New Bedford OU2
Otis Air National Guard (Usaf) - Fuel Spill (FS) 1 2
PSC Resources
Re-Solve, Inc.
Rose Disposal Pit
Silresim Chemical
Silresim Chemical
W.R. Grace (Acton Plant) And Co., Inc.
W.R. Grace (Acton Plant) And Co., Inc.
Wells G&H - OU 1 (New England Plastics)
Wells G&H-OU 1 (Wildwood Conservation Trust)
Wells G&H -OU 1 (Wildwood Conservation Trust)
Eastern Surplus Company Superfund Site
Eastland Woolen Mill -OU1
CT 1989
MA 2000
MA 1986
MA 1989
MA 1988
MA 2001
MA 1988
MA 2001
MA 2001
MA 2001
MA 1999
MA 1995
MA 1992
MA 1987
MA 1988
MA 1991
MA 1991
MA 1989
MA 1989
MA 1989
MA 1991
MA 1989
ME 2000
ME 2002
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
D
C
C
C
PD
0
C
0
PD
C
C
C
C
C
C
PD
C
C
0
C
0
0
D
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-1
-------
Source Control
REGION 1
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
SITE NAME | STATE FY ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Eastland Woolen Mill -OU1
Loring AFB - OU 1 1 , Fuels Tank Farm (FTF)
Loring AFB - OU 8, Fire Training Area
Loring AFB - OU 9, Auto Hobby Shop Area
Loring AFB - OU 9, Power Plant Drainage Pipe (PDDP)/
Former Vehicle Maintenance Motor Pool
MckinCo.
Pinette'S Salvage Yard -Amendment
Union Chemical -OU 1
Fletchers Paint Works & Storage - OU 01
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corp.
Mottolo Pig Farm
New Hampshire Plating Co. - OU 01
Ottati & Goss/Kingston Steel Drum
Ottati & Goss/Kingston Steel Drum - OU 4
Pease AFB - Site 45
Pease AFB - Site 8
Pease AFB. -Zone 2
Savage Municipal Water Supply -OU 1,
Ok Tool Source Area
Sylvester Dump
Tibbetts Road
Tinkham Garage -OU 1
Davis Liquid Waste
Davisville Naval Construction Battalion Center
Naval Station Newport -OU4
ME 2002
ME 1995
ME 1996
ME 1999
ME 1995
ME 1985
ME 1993
ME 1994
NH 1998
NH 1990
NH 1991
NH 1998
NH 1987
NH 1987
NH 1995
NH 1994
NH 1995
NH 1997
NH 1983
NH 1992
NH 1986
Rl 1996
Rl 1993
Rl 2000
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
D
0
C
0
C
C
C
C
PD
C
C
D
C
C
C
0
0
0
C
0
C
C
C
0
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-2
-------
Source Control
REGION 1
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Peterson/Puritan Inc. - OU 1 , CCL Area
Picillo Farm Site
Stamina Mills
Burgess Brothers Landfill -OU 01
Rl 1993
Rl 1993
Rl 1990
VT 1998
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
STATUS
0
Bl
0
0
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-3
-------
Source Control
REGION 2
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix
SITE NAME | STATE FY ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
A 0 Polymer
American Cyanamid Co.- Group 1 Impoundments (11, 13,
19, And 24)
American Cyanamid Co. -Group II Impoundments (15, 16,
17, And 18)
Asbestos Dump- New Vernon Road and White Bridge
Road Cleanup
Bog Creek Farm -OU 1
Bog Creek Farm -OU 2
Bridgeport Rental & Oil Services
Caldwell Trucking -Amendment
Caldwell Trucking -OU1
Caldwell Trucking -OU1
Chemical Control
Ciba-Geigy Chemical Corporation - OU 2
Ciba-Geigy Chemical Corporation - OU 2
Ciba-Geigy Chemical Corporation - OU 2
Cosden Chemical Coatings
Curcio Scrap Metal, Inc.
Dayco Corp./L.E. Carpenter Co., NJ
Ellis Property
Ewan Property -OU 1
FAA Technical Center -Area 20 A (Salvage Yard)
FAA Technical Center -OU 1, Area D- Jet Fuel Farm
Federal Creosote Site -OU1
Fried Industries
Garden State Cleaners
NJ 1991
NJ 1993
NJ 1996
NJ 1991
NJ 1985
NJ 1989
NJ 1985
NJ 1995
NJ 1995
NJ 1993
NJ 1987
NJ 2000
NJ 2000
NJ 2000
NJ 1992
NJ 1991
NJ 1994
NJ 1992
NJ 1988
NJ 1990
NJ 1989
NJ 1999
NJ 1994
NJ 1991
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
0
0
PD
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
PD
PD
C
0
0
C
C
0
D
C
C
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-4
-------
Source Control
REGION 2
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Horseshoe Road Site - OU 1
Industrial Latex -OU1
King Of Prussia
Lipari Landfill
Lipari Landfill -OU 2
Lipari Landfill Marsh Sediment- OU 3
Metaltec/Aerosystems-OU 1
Myers Property
Myers Property
Myers Property
NascoliteCorp.-OU2
Naval Air Engineering Center - OU 23
Naval Air Engineering Center - Site 1 6 Under Area C
Naval Air Engineering Center - Site 1 7 Under Area C
Naval Air Engineering Station, Site 28
Naval Weapons Station Earle (Site A) - OU 03
Nl Industries, Inc.
Nl Industries, Inc. -OU1
Pulverizing Services OU1
Pulverizing Services OU1
Reich Farm
Sayreville Landfill
South Jersey Clothing Company
Swope Oil & Chemical
Swope Oil & Chemical - OU 2
Universal Oil Products
NJ 2000
NJ 1992
NJ 1990
NJ 1985
NJ 1985
NJ 1988
NJ 1986
NJ 1990
NJ 1990
NJ 1990
NJ 1991
NJ 1993
NJ 1996
NJ 1996
NJ 1997
NJ 1998
NJ 1991
NJ 1994
NJ 1999
NJ 1999
NJ 1988
NJ 1990
NJ 1991
NJ 1985
NJ 1991
NJ 1993
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
PD
C
C
0
0
C
C
PD
PD
PD
D/l
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
C
C
C
C
0
C
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-5
-------
Source Control
REGION 2
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Vineland Chemical Co, Inc. - OU 3 & 4
Waldick Aerospace Devices, Inc.
Waldick Aerospace Devices, Inc. -OU 1
Williams Property
Woodland Route 532 Dump-Amendment
Woodland Routes 72 Dump (Amendment)
American Thermostat Co. - Phase 1
American Thermostat Co. - Phase 2
Brewster Well Field -OU 2
Brookhaven National Laboratory (USDOE) - OU 4
Byron Barrel & Drum - OU 1/02
Carroll & Dubies Sewage Disposal
Carroll & Dubies Sewage Disposal
Carroll & Dubies Sewage Disposal
Claremont Polychemical
Facet Enterprises
FMC Corp. (Dublin Road)
Fulton Terminals - Soil Treatment
GCL Tie And Treating -OU 1
GCL Tie And Treating -OU 2
General Motors/Central Foundry Division - OU 1 & OU 2
Genzale Plating Company -OU 1
Genzale Plating Company OU1
Hooker (1 02nd Street Landfill) - Amendment
Hooker Chemical/Ruco Polymer
Hooker Chemical/Ruco Polymer -OU 1
NJ 1989
NJ 1991
NJ 1987
NJ 1987
NJ 1999
NJ 1999
NY 1990
NY 1997
NY 1988
NY 1996
NY 1989
NY 1995
NY 1995
NY 1995
NY 1990
NY 1992
NY 1993
NY 1989
NY 1994
NY 1995
NY 1992
NY 1991
NY 1991
NY 1995
NY 1990
NY 1994
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
Bl
C
C
C
Bl
Bl
C
C
C
0
0
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
0
C
C
0
C
0
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-6
-------
Source Control
REGION 2
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Hudson River PCBs-0112
Jones Chemicals, Inc
Jones Chemicals, Inc.
Lehigh Valley Railroad Derailment -OU2
Love Canal -05
Marathon Battery Corp. -Areas 1, II, And III
Mattiace Petrochemicals -OU 2
Mattiace Petrochemicals - OU 3 and 4
Olean Well Field - OU 2, Alcas Property
Pasley Solvents And Chemicals, Inc.
Preferred Plating Corp. - OU 2
Reynolds Metals Company Study Area, (RMC)
Robintech, Inc./National Pipe Company
Sarney Farm
Sealand Restoration, Inc.
Seneca Army Depot Activity (SEDA) Open Burning
Grounds OU2
Shore Realty (Formerly Applied Environmental Services) -
GroundwaterOU
Shore Realty (Formerly Applied Environmental Services) -
OU1
Sinclair Refinery -OU 2
SMS Instrument
Solvent Savers
Stanton Cleaners Area Groundwater Contamination - OU1
Vestal Water Supply
Wide Beach Development
NY 2002
NY 2000
NY 2000
NY 1999
NY 1997
NY 1986
NY 1990
NY 1991
NY 1996
NY 1992
NY 1992
NY 1993
NY 1997
NY 1990
NY 1990
NY 1999
NY 1991
NY 1991
NY 1991
NY 1989
NY 1990
NY 1999
NY 1990
NY 1985
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
PD
PD
PD
D/l
C
C
C
0
PD
0
C
0
C
C
C
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
C
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-7
-------
Source Control
REGION 2
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
SITE NAME STATE FY ACTION TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Wide Beach Development Site
York Oil Co. - OU 1
York Oil Co. - OU 2
GE Wiring Devices
Janssen Inc.
Upjohn Manufacturing Co.
VegaAlta Public Supply Wells -OU 2,
PRIDCO Industrial Park
Tutu Well Field - Department of Education
Tutu Well Field - Dept of Education
Tutu Well Field -Esso
Tutu Well Field -0' Henry
Tutu Well Field - Texaco
Boiling Air Force Base - OU1 , Southwest Corner Landfill
Delaware Sand & Gravel Landfill
Delaware Sand & Gravel Landfill -OU4andOU5
Dover AFB - Lindane Source Area Within Area 6
NY 1985
NY 1988
NY 1998
PR 1988
PR 1993
PR 1988
PR 1997
VI 1996
VI 1996
VI 1996
VI 1996
VI 1996
DC 2002
DE 1993
DE 1993
DE 1995
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
C
0
D/l
C
0
C
D/l
D/l
1
C
0
0
PD
0
0
C
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-8
-------
Source Control
REGION 3
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix
SITE NAME | STATE FY ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Dover AFB-OU 14
Dover AFB - Target Area 3 Of Area 6
Dover Gas Light Co.
Dover Gas Light Co. -OU 01
Dover Gas Light Co. -OU 01
Halby Chemical Co. - OU 1 , Process Plant Area
NcrCorp.
Standard Chlorine Of Delaware, Inc.
Wildcat Landfill - OU 1 , Landfill Proper And Adjacent Areas
Aberdeen Proving Ground (Edgewood Area) J-Field
Soil OU
Patuxent River Naval Air Station - OU 1 Soils, Pesticide
Shop Site 17
Southern Maryland Wood Treating -Amendment
Bendix Flight Systems Division
Boarhead Farm
Boarhead Farm
Brodhead Creek
Brodhead Creek -OU1
Bruin Lagoon
C&D Recycling
Centre County Kepone Superfund Site
Centre County Kepone Superfund Site
Craig Farm Drum
Douglassville Disposal
Douglassville Disposal
DE 1998
DE 1995
DE 1994
DE 1998
DE 1998
DE 1991
DE 1991
DE 1995
DE 1988
MD 2001
MD 2001
MD 1995
PA 1988
PA 1999
PA 1999
PA 1991
PA 1991
PA 1982
PA 1992
PA 2001
PA 2001
PA 1989
PA 1988
PA 1989
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
C
D/l
C
C
PD
C
0
D
C
0
0
C
C
D/l
D/l
C
C
C
C
Bl
Bl
C
C
C
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-9
-------
Source Control
REGION 3
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Drake Chemical - Phase III, OU 3
Dublin TCE Site Remediation OU-2
Eastern Diversified Metals
Hebelka Auto Salvage Yard
Hunterstown Road
Hunterstown Road
Jacks Creek/Sitkin Smelting And Refining
Letterkenny Army Depot (Se Area) - Former Solvent
Disposal Lagoon/Earthen
Letterkenny Army Depot (Se Area) - OU 1 , K-Area
Lord-Shope Landfill
M.W Manufacturing
MWManuafacturing- Carbon Waste Pile
MWManufacturing-OU05
Palmerton Zinc Pile Superfund Site OU-3
Paoli RailYard
Publicker Industries, Inc. - OU 3
Ray mark
Revere Chemical Co. -OU1
Saegertown Industrial Area - Former Gatx Property
The Crater Resources Superfund Site
TonolliCorp.
Tysons Dump
Westline
Whitmoyer Laboratories -OU 04 and OU 5
Whitmoyer Laboratories -OU 1
PA 1988
PA 2002
PA 1991
PA 1989
PA 1993
PA 1993
PA 1997
PA 1991
PA 1991
PA 1990
PA 1998
PA 1998
PA 1998
PA 2002
PA 1992
PA 1996
PA 1992
PA 1994
PA 1995
PA 2000
PA 1992
PA 1988
PA 1986
PA 1998
PA 1989
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
C
PD
C
C
C
C
D
C
C
0
D
C
D
PD
0
C
C
C
C
D
C
C
C
C
C
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-10
-------
Source Control
REGION 3
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
SITE NAME
ACTION
TECHNOLOGY TYPE
STATUS
Whitmoyer Laboratories - OU 2 (Bldg Structures)
Whitmoyer Laboratories - OU 2 (Bldg Structures,
Vault OU 4 Uvw, And Lagoon Sludges OU 5)
Whitmoyer Laboratories -OU 3
Whitmoyer Laboratories -OU 3
William Dick Lagoons - OU-03/Soil Remediation
Abex Corp.
Abex Corporation OU 1 - Inner Focus Area
Arrowhead Associates/Scovillcorp. - OU 1
Atlantic Wood Industry -OU 1
C&R Battery Co., Inc.
Defense General Supply Center (DLA) - OU 5
Dixie Cavern County Landfill
First Piedmont Rock Quarry (Route 719)
Fort Eustis Directorate of Logistics Storage Yard OU 5
Greenwood Chemical Co. - OU 1
H & H Burn Pit
Naval Surface Warfare - Dahlgren - OU 03
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, Site 1 2 -
Chemical Burn Area
Naval Weapons Station - Yorktown - OU 03
Naval Weapons Station OU2
Naval Weapons Station -Yorktown OU 13
RhinehartTire Fire Dump
Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump
Saunders Supply Co. -Amendment
US Titanium
PA 1991
PA 1995
PA 1991
PA 1991
PA 1993
VA 1992
VA 1994
VA 1991
VA 1995
VA 1990
VA 1992
VA 1991
VA 1991
VA 2001
VA 1990
VA 1999
VA 1998
VA 1997
VA 1998
VA 1999
VA 1999
VA 1999
VA 1992
VA 1996
VA 2002
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
C
C
C
C
D
D/l
0
0
PD
C
C
C
0
PD
C
0
C
C
0
0
0
C
C
C
PD
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-11
-------
Source Control
REGION 3
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Fike Chemical, Inc. - OU 3 - Drum Removal
Ordnance Works Disposal Areas OU 1
Vienna Superfund Site
West Virginia Ordnance (Us Army)
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant -OU 5
WV 1992
WV 1999
WV 2002
WV 1987
AL 1997
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
C
D
PD
C
C
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-12
-------
Source Control
REGION 4
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant -OU 5
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant, Area A, Study Area 12
And D - OU 3
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant, Area B, Stockpile Soil
-OU1
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant, Area B, Study Area 6,
7, 10, 21 -OU 2
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant, Area B, Study Areas 5,
10, 16, 19, OU 6
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant, Area B, Study Areas 5,
10, 16, 19, OU 6
Ciba Geigy (Mcintosh Plant) - OU 2
Ciba Geigy (Mcintosh Plant) - OU 4
Interstate Lead Co.
Mowbray Engineering
Redwing Carriers, Inc. (ROD Amendment)
Redwing Carriers, Inc. (ROD Amendment)
Stauffer Chemical (Cold Creek Plant) - OU2
Stauffer Chemical LeMoyne Plant -OU 2
I H . Agriculture & N utrition (Montgomery - OU 02)
62nd Street Dump
Agrico Chemical
Airco Plating Company, OU 1
Alaric Inc Superfund Site - OU1
American Creosote Works - OU2, Phase 2
Bay Drum - OU 3
Brown Wood Preserving
Cabot/Koppers - Koppers OU
AL 1997
AL 1994
AL 1992
AL 1995
AL 1997
AL 1992
AL 1991
AL 1992
AL 1991
AL 1986
AL 2000
AL 2000
AL 1995
AL 1999
AL 1998
FL 1990
FL 1992
FL 1994
FL 2002
FL 1994
FL 1993
FL 1988
FL 1990
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
C
c
C
c
c
c
c
c
D/l
C
D/l
PD
0
D
0
C
C
C
PD
PD
C
C
PD
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-13
-------
Source Control
REGION 4
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Cabot/Koppers - Koppers OU
Cabot/Koppers - Koppers OU
Cabot/Koppers - Koppers OU
Cecil Field Naval Air Station - OU 2, Site 17
Cecil Field Naval Air Station - OU7, Site 16, SVE
Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving - Amendment
Davie Landfill
Dubose Oil Products Co.
Florida Steel Corp. -OU 2
Helena Chemical Company (Tampa Plant)
Hollingsworth Solderless
Jacksonville Naval Air Station - OU 2 Psc 42
Jacksonville Naval Air Station - OU 2 PSCs 2,41 ,and 43
Jacksonville Naval Air Station - OU3
Jacksonville Naval Air Station - Psc-2
Kassauf-Kimerling Battery -Wetlands Soils
Kassauf-Kimerling Battery Disposal -OU 1 (Landfill Wastes)
MRI Corporation NPL Site -OU1
Normandy Park Apartments
Peak Oil -OU1
Peak Oil/Bay Drum- OU 1
Peak Oil/Bay Drum - OU 2, Site Wide Groundwater
Pepper Steel& Alloys, Inc.
Sanford Gasification Plant Site - OU 5
Sapp Battery Salvage
Schuylkill Metal
FL 1990
FL 1990
FL 1990
FL 1994
FL 1999
FL 1997
FL 1985
FL 1990
FL 1994
FL 1996
FL 1986
FL 1995
FL 1994
FL 2000
FL 1994
FL 1990
FL 1989
FL 2000
FL 2000
FL 1993
FL 1993
FL 1993
FL 1986
FL 2000
FL 1986
FL 1990
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
PD
PD
PD
C
0
0
C
C
C
D
C
C
C
0
C
C
C
D
C
C
D
PD
C
PD
C
C
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-14
-------
Source Control
REGION 4
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
SITE NAME | STATE FY ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Southern Solvents OU 1
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Tarpon Springs) - OU 01
Stauffer Chemical Company
Whitehouse Oil Pits -Amendment
WhitehouseOilPits-OU01
Yellow Water Road Dump
Zellwood Soil Contamination -OU 1 (Amendment)
Brunswick Wood Preserving Site - OU 1
Cedartown Industries, Inc.
Diamond Shamrock Corp. - Liquid Wastes
Hercules 009 Landfill
Hercules 009 Landfill
Mathis Brothers Landfill -South Marble Top Road
Robins Air Force Base - OU 1 , Landfill And Sludge Lagoon
Robins Air Force Base -Sludge Lagoon
Woolfolk Chemical Works, Inc. - OU 03
DOE Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
Howe Valley Landfill
Maxey Flats Nuclear Disposal
Smith's Farm-OU 1 (Amendment)
Smith's Farm-OU 1 (Amendment)
Smiths Farm OU2
Flowood Site
Newsom Brothers/Old Reichold Chemicals
Abe One Hour Cleaners - OU2
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps, OU 1 &OU 4 -Amendment
FL 1999
FL 1998
FL 1996
FL 1998
FL 1998
FL 1990
FL 1990
GA 2002
GA 1993
GA 1994
GA 1993
GA 1993
GA 1996
GA 1991
GA 1991
GA 1998
KY 1998
KY 1990
KY 1991
KY 1991
KY 1991
KY 1993
MS 1988
MS 1989
NC 1994
NC 1991
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
D/l
PD
0
D/l
PD
C
C
PD
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
PD
0
C
0
C
C
0
C
C
0
C
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-15
-------
Source Control
REGION 4
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
SITE NAME | STATE FY ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Battery Tech Duracell Lexington -OU 1
Battery Tech Duracell Lexington -OU 1
Benfield Industries
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination -Amendment
Cape Fear Wood Preserving
Cape Fear Wood Preserving
Carolina Transformer Co.
Celanese-OU2
Celanese-OU2
Charles Macon Lagoon & Drum Storage - OU 1 ,
Lagoon No. 7
Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station - OU 2
Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station - OU 2
Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station - OU 3
FCX-Statesville-OU2
FCX-Statesville-OU2
FCX-Statesville-OU3
Jadco-Hughes Facility
Jadco-Hughes Facility
JFD Electronics/Channel Master
JFD Electronics/Channel Master
Koppers (Morrisville Plant)
Martin-Marietta, Sodyeco, Inc., Area D
North Carolina State University- Lot 86, Farm Unit #1
Potters Septic Tank Service Pits
USMC Camp Lejeune Military Base - OU 2, Site 82
NC 1999
NC 1999
NC 1995
NC 1993
NC 1989
NC 1989
NC 1991
NC 1989
NC 1989
NC 1991
NC 1999
NC 1999
NC 2001
NC 1995
NC 1995
NC 1996
NC 1990
NC 1990
NC 1992
NC 1992
NC 1993
NC 1987
NC 1996
NC 1992
NC 1993
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
D/l
D/l
C
C
C
D/l
0
C
C
C
1
0
PD
C
C
0
C
0
C
C
C
0
C
C
C
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-16
-------
Source Control
REGION 4
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
CalhounParkArea-0112
Geiger (C&M Oil) - Amendment
Golden Strip Septic Tank Service
Helena Chemical Company Landfill -Amendment
Independent Nail Co.
Koppers Co, Inc. (Charleston Plant) - OU 01
Leonard Chemical Company
Medley Farm -OU1
Palmetto Wood Preserving
Palmetto Wood Preserving
Para-Chem Southern, IncOU H400
Sangamo/Twelve-Mile/Hartwell PCB-OU 1
Savannah River Site (USDOE) - C Area Burning/Rubble
Pit - SVE
Savannah River Site (USDOE) - Chemical Metals and
Pesticide Pits OU
Savannah River Site (USDOE) - L-Area Oil And Chemical
Basin And L-Area Acid/Caustic Basin
Savannah River Site (USDOE) - Old F-Area Seepage
Basin, Srs Building Number 904-49g
Savannah River Site (USDOE) - OU 28
Savannah River Site (USDOE) - OU 55,65
Savannah River Site (USDOE) - OU 60
Savannah River Site (USDOE) - OU 66
SCRDI Bluff Road
Wamchem, Inc.
SC 2002
SC 1993
SC 1991
SC 1995
SC 1987
SC 1998
SC 2001
SC 1991
SC 1987
SC 1987
SC 2000
SC 1991
SC 1999
SC 2002
SC 1997
SC 1997
SC 2000
SC 1999
SC 1999
SC 1999
SC 1990
SC 1988
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
D
C
C
C
C
C
PD
0
C
C
C
C
0
PD
Bl
C
PD
0
C
D/l
C
C
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-17
-------
Source Control
REGION 4
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
SITE NAME | STATE FY ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Arlington Blending And Packaging Co. -OU 1
Carrier Air Conditioning
Milan Army Ammunition Plant - OU 3 & 4,
Industrial Soil
Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE) - OU 14, Surface
Impoundments
Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE) - OU 29, Melton
Valley Watershed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE) - OU 29, Melton
Valley Watershed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE) - OU 3, Pond Waste
Management Project
Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE) - OU 40, Burial
Complex 4
Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE) -OU-28
Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE) -OU-28
Ross Metals Inc-OU 1
Tennessee Products -OU1
TN 1991
TN 1992
TN 1996
TN 1997
TN 2000
TN 2000
TN 1991
TN 1996
TN 2002
TN 2002
TN 1999
TN 2002
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
C
0
0
D/l
PD
PD
C
C
PD
PD
D
PD
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-18
-------
Source Control
REGION 5
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Inc.
Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Inc., OU 3
Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Inc., OU 6
Cross Brothers Pail Recycling
Cross Brothers Pail Recycling
Galesburg/Koppers
Jennison Wright Corporation Inc
Jennison Wright Corporation Inc
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant -Soil and Groundwater
(LAP) OU
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant -Soil and Groundwater
(MFC) OU
Lasalle Electrical Utilities (1988-1991)
Lasalle Electrical Utilities (1992-1995)
Lenz Oil Service, lnc-OU1
Outboard Marine Waukegan Coke Plant OU2
Outboard Marine/Waukegan Harbor
Outboard Marine/Waukegan Harbor- OU 3
Sangamo Electric Dump/Crab Orchard National Wildlife
Refuge - Explosives/Munitions Manufacturing Area OU
Sangamo Electric Dump/Crab Orchard National Wildlife
Refuge - Metals Areas OU
Sangamo Electric Dump/Crab Orchard National Wildlife
Refuge - PCB Areas OU
Sangamo Electric Dump/Crab Orchard National Wildlife
Refuge - PCB Areas OU
Sangamo Electric Dump/Crab Orchard National Wildlife
Refuge - PCB Areas OU
IL 1991
IL 1991
IL 1991
IL 1989
IL 1989
IL 1989
IL 1999
IL 1999
IL 1999
IL 1999
IL 1986
IL 1988
IL 1999
IL 1999
IL 1989
IL 1989
IL 1997
IL 1990
IL 1990
IL 1990
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
C
c
0
c
c
c
D/l
D/l
0
0
C
C
PD
D
C
C
PD
C
C
C
PD
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-19
-------
Source Control
REGION 5
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Savanna Army Depot Activity -TNT Washout Lagoon Area
Southeast Rockford Groundwater Contamination - OU 3
Southeast Rockford Groundwater Contamination - OU 3
Southeast Rockford Groundwater Contamination - OU 3
Velsicol Chemical
American Chemical Services, Inc
American Chemical Services, Inc
Bennetts Dump-Stone Quarry
Continental Steel Corp. -OU 02
Enviro. Conservation And Chemical -Amendment
Fisher-Calo
Fort Wayne Reduction Dump
Lemon Lane Landfill -Source Control
Main Street Well Field
Midco 1
Midco 1
Midco 1
Midco II
Midco II
Neals Dump-Owen County
Ninth Avenue Dump
Ninth Avenue Dump -Amendment
Reilly Tar & Chemical (Indianapolis Plant)
Reilly Tar & Chemical (Indianapolis Plant) - OU 2, Fire
Pond at South Landfill
Reilly Tar & Chemical (Indianapolis Plant) - OU 4,
IL 1992
IL 2002
IL 2002
IL 2002
IL 1988
IN 1992
IN 1999
IN 2000
IN 1998
IN 1991
IN 1990
IN 1988
IN 2000
IN 1991
IN 1989
IN 1989
IN 1989
IN 1989
IN 1989
IN 2000
IN 1989
IN 1994
IN 1993
IN 1993
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
C
PD
PD
PD
C
D/l
0
C
PD
C
C
C
C
0
PD
PD
PD
PD
PD
C
C
0
C
C
0
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-20
-------
Source Control
REGION 5
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Reilly Tar & Chemical (Indianapolis Plant) - OU 4,
Hot Spot B
Seymour Recycling Corp.
Seymour Recycling Corp.
Wayne Waste Oil
Anderson Development Co. (Rod Amendment)
Auto Ion Chemicals
Bendix Site, St. Joseph
Bofors Nobel -OU1
Carter Industrials, Inc.
Chem Central
Electrovoice - OU 1
Forest Waste Products
Kysor Industrial Corp.
Liquid Disposal, Inc.
Metamora Landfill
Peerless Plating
Peerless Plating
Petoskey Municipal Well Field - OU 01
Rockwell International Superfund Site - OU2
Rose Township Dump
Rose Township Dump -Amendment
Spartan Chemical Co. -OU 01
Springfield Township Dump
Springfield Township Dump
Sturgis Municipal Well Field
IN 1996
IN 1987
IN 1987
IN 1990
Ml 1991
Ml 1989
Ml 1997
Ml 1999
Ml 1991
Ml 1991
Ml 1992
Ml 1986
Ml 1989
Ml 1987
Ml 1986
Ml 1992
Ml 1992
Ml 1998
Ml 2002
Ml 1987
Ml 1995
Ml 1998
Ml 1990
Ml 1998
Ml 1991
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
C
c
0
0
c
c
0
D
C
0
C
C
0
c
c
c
c
c
PD
C
0
0
0
0
c
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-21
-------
Source Control
REGION 5
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Tar Lake
Thermo-Chem, lnc-OU1
Verona V\tell Field -OU 1 (Thomas Solvent Raymond
Road)
Verona Well Field - OU 2 (Grand Truck Railroad Paint
Shop Area)
Verona V\tell Field - OU 2 (Thomas Solvent Annex Area)
Arrowhead Refinery Co. -Amendment
Burlington Northern Railroad Tie Treating Plant
Joslyn Manufacturing And Supply Co.
Kummer Sanitary Landfill -Soil Phase
Long Prairie Groundwater Contamination
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-1
New Brighton/Arden Hills - PCB Burn OU
New Brighton/Arden Hills/TCAAP (USArmy) - OU 07
New Brighton/Arden Hills/TCAAP (USArmy) - OU 07
New Brighton/Arden Hills/TCAAP (USArmy) - OU 07
Ritari Post And Pole -OU1
South Andover Salvage Yards -OU 2 (Amendment)
St. Louis River/lnterlake/Duluth Tar Site - Soils OU
St. Louis River/lnterlake/Duluth Tar Site -Tar Seep
St. Louis River/lntertake/Duluth Tar Site -Wire Mill Pond
And OU J
University Of Minnesota
WaiteParkWells-OUs1,2,&3
Ml 1992
Ml 1991
Ml 1985
Ml 1991
Ml 1991
MN 1994
MN 1986
MN 1989
MN 1988
MN 1988
MN 1993
MN 1994
MN 1999
MN 1989
MN 1998
MN 1998
MN 1998
MN 1994
MN 1994
MN 1990
MN 1990
MN 1990
MN 1991
MN 1994
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
C
0
C
0
0
C
C
C
C
C
0
C
C
C
C
C
0
D
C
C
C
C
C
0
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-22
-------
Source Control
REGION 5
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Alsco Anaconda
Big D Campground
Feed Materials Production Center (USDOE) - OU 4
Fernald Environmental Management Project -OU 4
Fernald Environmental Management Project -OU 4
Fernald Environmental Management Project -OU 4
Silos 1 and 2 (ROD Amendment)
Fernald Environmental Management Project -OU 4 Silos 1
and 2 (ROD Amendment)
Fernald Environmental Management Project, Formerly
The Feed Materials Production Center, OU 5
Fields Brook
Fields Brook- Sediment and Floodplain/Wetland OU
Fields Brook - Source Control OU
Laskin/PoplarOil(FY87)
Laskin/PoplarOil(FY89)
Miami County Incinerator
Ormet Corporation
Ormet Corporation
Pristine, Inc. -Amendment
Pristine, Inc. -Amendment
Summit National Liquid Disposal Service
United Scrap Lead Company
Zanesville Well Field
Better Brite Chrome And Zinc Shops - Chrome Shop
Hagen Farm -Source Control OU
Moss-American
OH 1989
OH 1989
OH 1995
OH 2000
OH 2000
OH 2000
OH 2000
OH 1996
OH 1997
OH 2001
OH 1997
OH 1987
OH 1989
OH 1989
OH 1994
OH 1994
OH 1990
OH 1990
OH 1988
OH 1997
OH 1991
Wl 1996
Wl 1990
Wl 1990
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
C
c
D
PD
PD
PD
PD
C
0
0
0
C
C
C
C
0
C
0
C
C
0
C
0
PD
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-23
-------
Source Control
REGION 5
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
SITE NAME | STATE FY ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Moss-American
Moss-American(Kerr-Mcgee Oil Co.) - OU 01
Muskego Sanitary Landfill - Interim Action OU 1
N.W.MautheSite
National Presto Industries - Melby Road Disposal Site
Northern Engraving Corporation -Sludge Lagoon
Oconomowoc Electroplating
Onalaska Municipal Landfill
Penta Wood Products - OU 01
Penta Wood Products - OU 01
Wausau Groundwater Contamination
Wl 1990
Wl 1998
Wl 1992
Wl 1994
Wl 1996
Wl 1987
Wl 1990
Wl 1990
Wl 1998
Wl 1998
Wl 1989
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
PD
C
C
C
0
C
C
C
0
0
0
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-24
-------
Source Control
REGION 6
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Arkwood Inc.
Arkwood Inc. (ESD)
Gurley Pit
Industrial Waste Control
Jacksonville Municipal Landfill
Jacksonville Municipal Landfill
Mid-South Wood Products
Monroe Auto Pit (Finch Road Landfill) - Entire Site
Old Midland Products
Rogers Road Municipal Landfill
Rogers Road Municipal Landfill
South 8th Street Landfill -OU1
South 8th Street Landfill -OU1
Vertac, Inc.
Vertac, Inc.-OnsiteOU 1
Vertac, lnc.-OU2,TetrachlorobenzeneSoils
American Creosote Works, Inc. (Winnfield Plant)
American Creosote Works, Inc. (Winnfield Plant)
Bayou Bonfouca
Central Wood Preserving Superfund Site
Cleve Reber
Cleve Reber
Delatte Metals Superfund Site
Delatte Metals Superfund Site
Gulf Coast Vacuum Services -OU 1
AR 1990
AR 1995
AR 1987
AR 1988
AR 1990
AR 1990
AR 1987
AR 2001
AR 1988
AR 1990
AR 1990
AR 1998
AR 1998
AR 1990
AR 1995
AR 1996
LA 1993
LA 1993
LA 1987
LA 2001
LA 1987
LA 1987
LA 2000
LA 2000
LA 1995
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Bl
PD
C
C
C
C
0
C
PD
C
C
Bl
Bl
C
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-25
-------
Source Control
REGION 6
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Gulf Coast Vacuum Services -OU 1
Highway 71/72 Refinery Site
Madisonville Creosote Works - OU 01
Marion Pressure Treating Company
Old IngerOil Refinery
Pab Oil & Chemical Services, Inc.
Petro-Processors Of Louisiana, Inc.
Petro-Processors Of Louisiana, Inc.
Ruston Foundry - OU 1 , Soils
Southern Shipbuilding Corporation
Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Clovis/Santa Fe Lake -
TPH Soil
Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Clovis/Santa Fe Lake -
TPH Lake Sediments
ATSF Albuquerque Superfund Site
ATSF Albuquerque Superfund Site
ATSF Albuquerque Superfund Site
Cal West Metals
Cimarron Mining Corporation, Sierra Blanca OU
Fruit Avenue Plume Site
North Railroad Avenue Plume Superfund Site
North Railroad Avenue Plume Superfund Site
North Railroad Avenue Plume Superfund Site
Prewitt Abandoned Refinery
Prewitt Abandoned Refinery
Double Eagle Refinery Co.
Double Eagle Refinery Co.
LA 1992
LA 2000
LA 1998
LA 2002
LA 1984
LA 1993
LA 1984
LA 1989
LA 2002
LA 1995
NM 1988
NM 1988
NM 2002
NM 2002
NM 2002
NM 1992
NM 1991
NM 2001
NM 2001
NM 2001
NM 2001
NM 1992
NM 1992
OK 1992
OK 1992
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
C
PD
C
D
C
C
C
0
PD
C
C
C
PD
PD
PD
C
C
D
D
D
D
C
0
C
C
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-26
-------
Source Control
REGION 6
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Fourth Street Abandoned Refinery
Fourth Street Abandoned Refinery
Fourth Street Abandoned Refinery
Hardage/Criner- Amendment
Okalahoma Refining Co. - Ex situ Nuetralization
Oklahoma Refining Co.
Oklahoma Refining Co. - Hazardous Landfill
Oklahoma Refining Co. - In situ Nuetralization
Oklahoma Refining Co. - Nonhazardous Landfill
Sand Springs Petrochemical Complex
Sand Springs Petrochemical Complex - Glenn Wynn Facility
Tinker AFB - Soldier Creek And Building 3001
Air Force Plant 4 -Building 181
Air Force Plant 4 - East Parking Lot Groundwater Plume
Bio-Ecology Systems, Inc.
Brio Refining
French Limited
French Limited
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant -Burning Ground No. 3
MOTCO
Motco, Inc. -OU 1
North Cavalcade Street
Pesses Chemical Co.
Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc. - OU 2
Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc. - OU 2
Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc. - OU 2
OK 1992
OK 1992
OK 1992
OK 1990
OK 1992
OK 1992
OK 1992
OK 1992
OK 1992
OK 1987
OK 1987
OK 1990
TX 1996
TX 1996
TX 1984
TX 1988
TX 1988
TX 1988
TX 1995
TX 1985
TX 1993
TX 1988
TX 1989
TX 1991
TX 1998
TX 1998
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
C
c
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
1
0
0
c
PD
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
0
0
0
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-27
-------
Source Control
REGION 6
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
SITE NAME | STATE FY ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Sheridan Disposal Services - Source Lagoon OU
Sikes Disposal Pits
TexarkanaV\food Preserving
Tex-Tin - OU 1
Tex-Tin - OU 1
Tex-Tin -OU 1 (ROD Amendment)
Tex-Tin -OU 1 (ROD Amendment)
Tex-Tin -OU 1 (ROD Amendment)
Triangle Chemical Co.
Triangle Chemical Co.
United Creosoting Co.
United Creosoting Co.
TX 1989
TX 1986
TX 1990
TX 1999
TX 1999
TX 2000
TX 2000
TX 2000
TX 1985
TX 1985
TX 1989
TX 1989
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
PD
C
D/l
C
0
C
0
0
C
C
C
0
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-28
-------
Source Control
REGION 7
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Chemplex-0112
El Dupont De Nemours & Co. Inc.
Fairfield Coal Gasification Plant
General Motors Corporation Former AC Rochester Facility
Site
Iowa Army Ammunition Plant
Iowa Army Ammunition Plant - OU 01
Mcgraw Edison
Mid-America Tanning
Peoples Natural Gas
Shaw Avenue Dump
Vogel Paint &Wax
Vogel Paint &Wax
29th And Mead Ground Water Contamination, Coleman OU
57th and North Broadway Streets OU 1 - Former Wilko
Paint facility
Arkansas City Dump
Pester Refinery Co.
Pester Refinery Co. - OU 1 , Burn Pond Site
Ellisville Site -Amendment
Former Weldon Spring Ordnance Works - OU 1 , Soils And
Pipeline
Former Weldon Spring Ordnance Works - OU 1 , Soils And
Pipeline
Kern-Pest Laboratories
Lee Chemical
Minker/Stout/Romaine Creek (R&S)
IA 1993
IA 1991
IA 1990
IA 2001
IA 1998
IA 1998
IA 1993
IA 1991
IA 1991
IA 1991
IA 1989
IA 1989
KS 1992
KS 1999
KS 1988
KS 1992
KS 1992
MO 1991
MO 1996
MO 1996
MO 1991
MO 1991
MO 1988
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
0
c
c
PD
PD
0
Bl
C
C
C
C
C
0
D
C
0
0
C
C
0
C
C
C
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-29
-------
Source Control
REGION 7
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Missouri Electric Works
Oronogo - Duenweg Mining Bell Site - OU 2 And 3
Shenandoah Stables
Syntex Facility
Times Beach Site
Valley Park TCE Site -OU2
Valley Park Tee Site - Wainwright - OU1
Valley Park Tee Site -Wainwright - OU1
Weldon Spring Quarry/Plant/Pits (USDOE)
10th Street Site -OU 2
Cleburn Street Well
Cleburn Street Well -OU5
Former Nebraska Ordnance Plant -OU 1
Former Nebraska Ordnance Plant -OU 2
Hastings Groundwater Contamination - Colorado Ave, OU 9
Hastings Groundwater Contamination - Far-Mar Co.
Subsite, OU 3
Hastings Groundwater Contamination - Hastings East
Industrial Park Surface Soils, Former Naval Ammunition
Depot
Hastings Groundwater Contamination - Hastings East
Industrial Park Surface Soils, Former Naval Ammunition
Depot
Hastings Groundwater Co ntamination-OU4
Hastings Groundwater Contamination -Well No. 3 Plume 1
Lindsay Manufacturing
Sherwood Medical Co.
Waverly Groundwater Contamination
MO 1990
MO 1996
MO 1990
MO 1988
MO 1988
MO 2001
MO 1996
MO 1996
MO 1993
NE 2001
NE 1996
NE 2001
NE 1995
NE 1997
NE 1988
NE 1988
NE 1990
NE 1995
NE 2002
NE 1989
NE 1990
NE 1995
NE 1990
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
C
c
C
c
c
D
C
1
C
0
0
PD
C
C
0
C
C
C
PD
C
C
C
C
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-30
-------
Source Control
REGION 8
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
BroderickWood Products -OU 1 (Impoundment Sludges)
BroderickWood Products -OU 2 (Groundwater)
BroderickWood Products -OU 2 (Soils)
Chemical Sales Company - OU 1
Denver Radium Site -OU 8
Lockheed/Martin (Denver Aerospace)
Lockheed/Martin (Denver Aerospace)
Rocky Flats Plant (Usdoe) - OU 4, Industrial Areas
Rocky Mountain Arsenal - Onpost OU
Rocky Mountain Arsenal -OnpostOU, Buried M-1 Pits
Rocky Mountain Arsenal - Onpost OU, Former Basin F
Rocky Mountain Arsenal -OnpostOU, Hex Pits
Rocky Mountain Arsenal -OU 18, Motor Pool Area
Rocky Mountain Arsenal - OU 25, Basin F Liquids
Sand Creek Industrial -OU1
Sand Creek Industrial -OU 4
Sand Creek Industrial - OU 5
Summitville Mine -QUO
SummitvilleMine-OU2
Summitville Mine - OU 5
Woodbury Chemical -OU1
Woodbury Chemical -OU2
Anaconda Co. Smelter- Flue Dust
Anaconda Co . Smelter - OU 04
Burlington Northern (Somers Plant)
Idaho Pole Company
CO 1992
CO 1992
CO 1992
CO 1991
CO 1992
CO 1990
CO 1990
CO 1992
CO 1996
CO 1996
CO 1996
CO 1996
CO 1990
CO 1997
CO 1989
CO 1994
CO 1993
CO 1995
CO 1995
CO 2001
CO 1985
CO 1989
MT 1991
MT 1998
MT 1989
MT 1996
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
C
0
0
1
C
C
C
C
PD
C
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
0
C
D
C
C
C
Bl
C
C
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-31
-------
Source Control
REGION 8
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Libby Groundwater Contamination
Montana Pole And Treating Plant
Montana Pole And Treating Plant
Montana Pole And Treating Plant-Area Under Interstate
15/90
Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area - Ex Situ Soil
UpperTenmile Creek Mining Area -AMD
Ellsworth AFB - OU 1
Interim Water Treatment Operations OU-2
Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters- OU 1
Defense Distribution Depot Hill, OU 4 (ROD Amendment)
Hill Air Force Base -OU 2
Hill Air Force Base -OU 2
Hill Air Force Base -OU 3
Jacobs Smelter OU 1
Ogden Defense Depot (Dla)
Ogden Defense Depot (Dla) - OU 3
Portland Cement (Kiln Dust #2 & #3) - OU 2, Chromium
Bearing Bricks And Contaminated Soils
Tooele Army Depot-North Area - OUs 5, 6 ,7, And 10
Utah Power& Light/American Barrel
Utah Power& Light/American Barrel
Wasatch Chemical
Wasatch Chemical
MT 1989
MT 1993
MT 1993
MT 1993
MT 1996
MT 2002
SD 1995
SD 2002
UT 2002
UT 2000
UT 1991
UT 1996
UT 1995
UT 1999
UT 1990
UT 1992
UT 1992
UT 1994
UT 1993
UT 1993
UT 1991
UT 1991
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
0
c
0
0
c
PD
0
PD
PD
PD
0
PD
0
C
C
C
C
C
C
0
C
C
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-32
-------
Source Control
REGION 9
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Apache Powder Co.
Apache Powder Co.
Hassayampa Landfill
Indian Bend Wash Area - North Area (Area 1 2)
Indian Bend Wash Area - North Area (Area 6)
Indian Bend Wash Area - North Area (Area 7)
Indian Bend Wash Area - North Area (Area 8)
Indian Bend Wash Area - South Area (DCE Circuits)
LukeAFB-OU2/Dp23
Luke AFB OU 1
Marine Corps Air Station YumaOU 1
Motorola 52nd Street -OU1
Phoenix-Goodyear Airport Area (North Facility)
Phoenix-Goodyear Airport Area (North Facility)-OU1
Phoenix-Goodyear Airport Area (South Facility)
Tucson International Airport - Sites 1,2,3
Tucson International Airport Area- OU 03 -Soil West of
SiteS
Tucson International Airport Area - Site 4,5,6
Williams AFB - OU 2
Williams AFB - OU 2
Williams AFB - OU 3
WlliamsAFB-OU3
Advanced Micro Devices (Formerly Monolithic Memories) -
OU1,Subunit2
Advanced Micro Devices Inc.
AZ 1994
AZ 1994
AZ 1992
AZ 1991
AZ 1991
AZ 1991
AZ 1991
AZ 1993
AZ 1994
AZ 1999
AZ 2000
AZ 1988
AZ 1989
AZ 2002
AZ 1989
AZ 1997
AZ 1998
AZ 1998
AZ 1993
AZ 1996
AZ 1996
AZ 1996
CA 1991
CA 1991
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
PD
PD
C
C
C
0
C
0
C
C
0
C
C
PD
0
0
0
C
0
0
1
0
C
C
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-33
-------
Source Control
REGION 9
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base - OU 01
Brewster Well Field -OU 2
Cooper Drum Company
DelAmo Facility
El Toro Marine Corps Air Station - Hangar Area, Interim
Rod
Fairchild Semiconductor (Mt. View) - Bldg 19 (369 N.
Whisman Rd)
Fairchild Semiconductor (Mt. View) - Bldg 9 (401 National
Ave.)
Fairchild Semiconductor (Mt. View) -General Instrument
Corp./Siltec Corp (405 National Ave.)
Fairchild Semiconductor (Mt. View) -Siemens/Sobrato
(455&487MiddlefieldRd)
Fairchild Semiconductor (South San Jose)
Fort Ord - Fort Ord Soil Treatment Area (Fdsta), OU 4
George Air Force Base - OU 3 WP-17
George Air Force base OU 3 FT1 9a
George Air Force Base Site FT 19c
Goerge Air Force Base OU 3 OT51
Hewlett-Packard -620-640 Page Mill Road
Ibm (San Jose)
Intersil/Siemens - Intersil OU
Intersil/Siemens - Siemins OU
J.H.Baxter
J.H.Baxter
J.H. Baxter -Area B
CA 1998
CA 1988
CA 2002
CA 1997
CA 1997
CA 1989
CA 1989
CA 1989
CA 1989
CA 1989
CA 1994
CA 1999
CA 1999
CA 1999
CA 1999
CA 1995
CA 1989
CA 1990
CA 1990
CA 1998
CA 1998
CA 1998
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
0
c
D
D
0
C
C
C
0
C
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
C
0
0
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-34
-------
Source Control
REGION 9
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Jasco Chemical Co.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USDOE)
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USDOE) -OU 1
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USDOE) -
Site 300
Lorentz Barrel And Drum - OU 1
March AFB - OU 1 , Area 5, Sites 31 a And 31 b
March AFB - OU 1 , Sites 1 0 and 1 5
Mather AFB -OU 04
Mather AFB -OU 04
Mather AFB -OU 04 (86&87)
Mather AFB - OU 04 (site 1 8,23 & 59)
Mather AFB - Soil And Groundwater OU , Mather Soils
Biofarm
Mather AFB - Soil And Groundwater OU, Site 57
Modesto Groundwater Contamination
National Semiconductor Corp. - OU 1 , Subunit 1
Norton Air Force Base - Cba OU
Pacific Coast Pipelines
Phillips [Formerly Signetics (Amd 901) (Trw)]
Purity Oil Sales, Inc. -OU2
Raytheon, Mountain View (350 Ellis Street/41 5
Middlefield Rd)
Rhone-Poulenc/Zoecon
Rhone-Poulenc/Zoecon
Sacramento Army Depot
Sacramento Army Depot - Burn Pits OU
CA 1992
CA 1992
CA 1997
CA 2001
CA 1993
CA 1996
CA 2000
CA 1998
CA 1998
CA 1998
CA 1998
CA 1996
CA 1996
CA 1997
CA 1991
CA 1994
CA 1992
CA 1991
CA 1992
CA 1989
CA 1992
CA 1992
CA 1993
CA 1993
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
C
0
0
PD
0
0
C
0
PD
C
0
0
0
D/l
0
C
C
0
D/l
0
C
C
C
C
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-35
-------
Source Control
REGION 9
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
SITE NAME | STATE FY ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Sacramento Army Depot - OU 3, Tank 2
Selma Pressure Treating
Sharpe Army Depot - Defense Distribution Region West
(Ddrw)-SharpeSite-OU2
Southern California Edison, Visalia Pole Yard
Southern California Edison, Visalia Pole Yard
Spectra-Physics, Inc. - OU 1 , System No. 1
Spectra-Physics, Inc. - OU 1 , System No. 2
Tracy Defense Depot (USArmy) - OU 01
Valley Wood Preserving, Inc.
Watkins-Johnson
Westinghouse Electric (Sunnyvale Plant)
CA 1992
CA 1988
CA 1996
CA 1994
CA 1994
CA 1991
CA 1991
CA 1998
CA 1991
CA 1990
CA 1992
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
C
0
C
C
0
C
C
0
0
0
C
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-36
-------
Source Control
REGION 10
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Adak Naval Air Station - OU 2
Arctic Surplus
Arctic Surplus
Eielson Air Force Base - OU 1 (Power Plant)
Eielson Air Force Base - OU 1 (Refueling Loop)
Eielson Air Force Base - OU 2 (Fuel Area)
Eislson Air Force Base - OU 3 (Refueling Loop Usts)
ElmendorfAFB-OU2
ElmendorfAFB-OU4
ElmendorfAFB-OU5
Elmendorf AFB - OU 6 And Source Area Ss1 9
Elmendorf AFB - OU 6 And Source Area Ss1 9
Fort Richardson -OU B
Fort Richardson -OU B
FortWainwright
Fort Wainwright-OU 2 -Building 11 68 Leach Well
FortWainwright - OU 2 - Drmo Yard
Fort Wainwright-OU 3
Fort Wainwright-OU 4
Fort Wainwright-OU 5 WQFS1
Fort Wainwright-OU 5 WQFS2
Fort Wainwright-OU 5 WQFS3
Standard Steel And Metal Salvage Yard, (USDOT)
Bunker Hill Mining And Metallurgical Complex
Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical Complex - OU2
AK 2000
AK 1995
AK 1995
AK 1994
AK 1992
AK 1994
AK 1994
AK 1995
AK 1995
AK 1995
AK 1997
AK 1997
AK 1997
AK 1997
AK 1997
AK 1997
AK 1997
AK 1996
AK 1996
AK 1999
AK 1999
AK 1999
AK 1996
ID 1992
ID 2002
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
0
PD
PD
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
C
C
C
C
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
C
PD
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-37
-------
Source Control
REGION 10
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
SITE NAME | STATE FY ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Idaho National Engineering And Environmental Lab
(USDOE)-OU23
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
(USDOE) - OU 1 1 Power Burst Facility and Auxiliary
Reactor Area
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
(USDOE) - OU 1 1 Power Burst Facility and Auxiliary
Reactor Area
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
(USDOE) - OU 1 1 Power Burst Facility and Auxiliary
Reactor Area
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
(USDOE) - OU 3
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
(USDOE) -OU 3-13
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
(USDOE) -OU25
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
(USDOE) -OU25
Idaho National Engineering Lab (USDOE) - OU 21
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (USDOE) - Pit 9,
OU7-10
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (USDOE) - Pit 9,
OU7-10
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (USDOE) - Power
Burst Facility, OU 13
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (USDOE) -Wag 7,
OU7-8
Pacific Hide & Fur Recycling
ID 1992
ID 2000
ID 2000
ID 2000
ID 2000
ID 1999
ID 2002
ID 2002
ID 1998
ID 1993
ID 1993
ID 1995
ID 1995
ID 1988
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
C
PD
PD
PD
PD
D
PD
PD
0
D
D
C
0
C
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-38
-------
Source Control
REGION 10
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Pacific Hide & Fur Recycling -Amendment
East Multnomah County Groundwater Contamination -
Cascade Corporation, Troutdale Gravel Aquifer
Gould, Inc.
Northwest Pipe and Casing Company/Hall Process
Company OU 1
TeledyneWah Chang
Umatilla Army Depot Activity
Umatilla Chemical Depot (Lagoons) - OU 1
Umatilla Chemical Depot (Lagoons) - OU 3
Umatilla Chemical Depot (Lagoons) - OU 4
Umatilla Chemical Depot (Lagoons) - OU 6
Umatilla Chemical Depot (Lagoons) - OU 7
Umatilla Chemical Depot (Lagoons) - Soil OU
Union Pacific Railroad Tie Treatment -Vadose Zone Soils
Union Pacific Railroad Tie Treatment -Vadose Zone Soils
United Chrome Products, Inc.
White King/Lucky Lass Superfund Site
Bonneville Power Administration -QUA
Coal Creek Superfund Site
Commencement Bay, Nearshore/Tideflats-Asarco
Tacoma Smelter
Commencement Bay, Nearshore/Tideflats - OU 3, Tacoma
Tar Pits
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma Channel (Well 12a)
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma Channel (Well 12a)
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma Field
ID 1992
OR 1997
OR 1988
OR 2000
OR 1990
OR 1992
OR 1993
OR 1994
OR 1994
OR 1994
OR 1994
OR 1992
OR 1996
OR 1996
OR 1986
OR 2001
WA 1993
WA 1991
WA 1991
WA 1988
WA 1985
WA 1985
WA 1994
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
0
C
C
0
C
D
PD
0
0
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-39
-------
Source Control
REGION 10
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma Field
Fairchild Air Force Base - Priority 1 OUs (OU 2) Ft-1
Fairchild Air Force Base - Priority 2 Sites - Fuel Truck
Maintenance Facility, Building 1060(Ps-10)
Fairchild Air Force Base - Priority 2 Sites, OU 3, Sub
Area Ps-1
FMC Corp. (Yakima Pit)
Fort Lewis Logistics Center
Fort Lewis Military Reservation - Landfill 4
Fort Lewis Military Reservation - Solvent Refined Coal Plant
Frontier Hard Chrome Inc-OU 1 and 2
Frontier Hard Chrome, Inc.
Hanford1100-Area(USDOE)
Hanford 300 Area (USDOE) 300-FF-2 OU
Hanford 300 Area (USDOE) 300-FF-2 OU
Harbor Island- Soil and Groundwater OU
Jackson Park Housing Complex/Naval Hospital Bremerton -
OU1
Jackson Park Housing Complex/Naval Hospital Bremerton -
OU1
Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island - Ault Field, OU 5,
Areas 1,31, And 52
North Market Street
North Market Street
Northwest Transformer -Mission Pole
Pacific Car And Foundry
Pacific Car And Foundry
WA 1994
WA 1993
WA 1996
WA 1996
WA 1990
WA 1990
WA 1993
WA 1993
WA 2001
WA 1988
WA 1993
WA 2001
WA 2001
WA 1993
WA 2000
WA 2000
WA 1996
WA 2000
WA 2000
WA 1991
WA 1992
WA 1992
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
C
0
C
0
C
D
C
C
D
PD
C
0
0
0
0
PD
C
C
0
C
C
C
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-40
-------
Source Control
REGION 10
Source Control Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE
US Naval Submarine Base Bangor - OU 1, Site A WA 1992
US Naval Submarine Base Bangor - OU 6 Site D & OU 2
Site F WA 1994
US Naval Submarine Base Bangor -OU 8 WA 2000
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor-West HarborOU (Amendment) WA 1996
Wycoff/Eagle Harbor -Soil WA 2000
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
STATUS
C
0
0
C
PD
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
B-41
-------
REGION 1
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME
STATE FY ACTION
TECHNOLOGY TYPE
STATUS
Atlas Tack Corp. - OU 1
Baird & Mcguire
Brunswick Naval Air Station
Burgess Brothers Landfill - OU 01
CHARLES-GEORGE RECLAMATION TRUST LANDFILL
Davis Liquid Waste
DOVER MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
Eastern Surplus Company Superfund Site
Eastern Surplus Company Superfund Site
Eastland Woolen Mill
Eastland Woolen Mill-GUI
Eastland Woolen Mill-GUI
Eastland Woolen Mill-GUI
GROVELAND WELLS
Hanscom Field/Hanscom Air Force Base -OU1 Airfield VOC plume
Hanscom Field/Hanscom Air Force Base -OU1 Sitel Source Area
Hanscom Field/Hanscom Air Force Base - OU 1 , Site 1 Source Area
Hocomonco Pond
Hocomonco Pond
KEARSARGE METALLURGICAL CORP
Keefe Environmental Services
KELLOGG-DEERING WELL FIELD
Laurel Park
Linemaster Switch Corporation
MCKIN CO
MA 2000
MA 1990
ME 1998
VT 1998
MA 1988
Rl 1987
NH 1991
ME 2000
ME 2000
ME 2002
ME 2002
ME 2002
ME 2002
MA 2000
MA 2001
MA 2001
MA 2001
MA 1999
MA 1985
NH 1993
NH 1993
CT 1996
CT 1988
CT 1993
ME 1992
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
D
PD
0
0
PD
PD
D
0
0
PD
D
D
D
0
0
C
0
SD
C
0
0
0
0
0
SD
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-42
-------
REGION 1
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME
STATE FY ACTION
TECHNOLOGY TYPE
STATUS
NATICK LABORATORY ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND
ENGINEERING CENTER
NEW LONDON SUBMARINE BASE
NORWOOD PCBS
NYANZA CHEMICAL WASTE DUMP
0'Connor-OU2
OLD SPRINGFIELD LANDFILL
Otis Air Natioinal Guard - Fuel Spill 1 2
Otis Air National Guard
Ottati & Goss/Kingston Steel Drum
PARKER SANITARY LANDFILL
PEASE AFB
Pease AFB - Site 45
Pease AFB -Zone 2
Peterson/Puritan Inc.
Peterson/Puritan Inc. - OU 1 , PAC Area
Picillo Farm Site
PINETTE'S SALVAGE YARD
Re-Solve Inc
Rose Disposal Pit
Savage Municipal Water Supply
Savage Municipal Water Supply - OU 1 , Ok Tool Source Area
Silresim Chemical
SOLVENTS RECOVERY SERVICE OF NEW ENGLAND
Somersworth Sanitary Landfill
Somersworth Sanitary Landfill
MA 2001
CT 1998
MA 1999
MA 1991
ME 2002
VT 1994
MA 1995
MA 1995
NH 1987
VT 1995
NH 2000
NH 1995
NH 1995
Rl 1993
Rl 1993
Rl 1993
ME 1997
MA 1998
MA 1994
NH 1997
NH 1997
MA 1991
CT 1983
NH 1994
NH 1994
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PD
PD
SD
PD
0
0
C
0
D
PD
0
0
0
0
C
PD
SD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-43
-------
REGION 1
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME
STATE FY ACTION
TECHNOLOGY TYPE
STATUS
South Municipal Water Supply V\tell
STAMINA MILLS, INC
SULLIVAN'S LEDGE
Sylvester
TibbettsRoad-OU01
Tinkham Garage
Union Chemical -OU1
Union Chemical Co Inc-
Wells G&H
Wells G&H - OU 1 (Wildwood Conservation Trust)
West Site/Hows Corner Superfund Site
NH 1995
Rl 2000
MA 2000
NH 1992
NH 1998
NH 1989
ME 2001
ME 1997
MA 1989
MA 1998
ME 2002
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
SD
0
PD
0
0
0
0
PD
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-44
-------
REGION 2
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE STATUS
WINTHROP LANDFILL
A 0 Polymer Ground Water Treatment
A.O. POLYMER
AMERICAN THERMOSTAT CO.
APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
BOG CREEK FARM
Brewster Well Field
BROOK INDUSTRIAL PARK
BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY (USDOE)
Brookhaven National Laboratory (USDOE) -OU 4
Byron Barrel & Drum
Caldwell Trucking
CHEMICAL LEAMAN TANK LINES, INC.
CHEMSOL, INC.
CIBA-GEIGY CORP.
CINNAMISON TOWNSHIP (BLOCK 702) GROUND WATER
CONTAMINATION
CIRCUITRON CORP
Claremont Polychemical
COLESVILLE MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
Combe Fill South Landfill
CONKLIN DUMPS
CORTESE LANDFILL
Cosden Chemical Coatings
Dayco Corp./L.E. Carpenter Co.
De Rewal Chemical
ME 1998
NJ 1991
NJ 1998
NY 1998
NY 1996
NJ 1994
NY 1986
NJ 1994
NY 2001
NY 1996
NY 1989
NJ 1986
NJ 1990
NJ 1991
NJ 1989
NJ 1990
NY 2000
NY 1990
NY 1991
NJ 1986
NY 1992
NY 1994
NJ 1992
NJ 1994
NJ 1989
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
PD
D
PD
0
0
D/l
D
0
PD
PD
0
0
0
PD
PD
PD
PD
PD
PD
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-45
-------
REGION 2
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE STATUS
Diamond Alkali
Dlmperio Property
DOVER MUNICIPAL WELL 4
ELLIS PROPERTY
Ellis Property -Groundwater
ENDICOTT VILLAGE WELL FIELD
EVOR PHILLIPS LEASING
Ewan Property
Ewan Property -OU 2
FAA Technical Center -Area B Navy Fire Testing Facility
FAA Technical Center - OU 1 , Area D - Jet Fuel Farm
Facet Enterprises
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS
Florence Landfill
FMC CORP (DUBLIN ROAD LANDFILL)
FOREST GLEN MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION
Fried Industries
FULTON TERMINALS
GARDEN STATE CLEANERS CO
GCL Tie and Treating
GE Wiring Devices
GEMS LANDFILL
General Motors/Central Foundry Division
Genzale Plating Company
GOOSE FARM
Griffiss Air Force Base, Landfill 1 , OU 5
NJ 1987
NJ 1985
NJ 1992
NJ 2000
NJ 1992
NY 1997
NJ 1992
NJ 1989
NJ 1988
NJ 1996
NJ 1989
NY 1992
PR 1991
NJ 1986
NY 1997
NY 1999
NJ 1994
NY 1999
NJ 1999
NY 1995
PR 1988
NJ 1999
NY 1992
NY 1991
NJ 1993
NY 2000
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
PD
0
D/l
0
0
PD
PD
D
1
PD
PD
0
0
PD
PD
SD
0
Bl
PD
0
D
D
0
PD
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-46
-------
REGION 2
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME
STATE FY ACTION
TECHNOLOGY TYPE
STATUS
HAVILAND COMPLEX
HELEN KRAMER LANDFILL
HERTEL LANDFILL
Higgins Disposal Site
HIGGINS FARM
Hooker (102nd Street Landfill)
HOOKER (HYDE PARK)
Hooker (S Area )
Hooker Chemical/Ruco Polymer -OU 3
IMPERIAL OIL CO., INC./CHAMPION CHEMICALS
ISLIP MUNICIPAL SANITARY LANDFILL
Janssen Inc.
JIS LANDFILL
Johnstown City Landfill
Jones Chemicals, Inc.
KATONAH MUNICIPAL WELL
Kentucky Avenue Wellfield
Kentucky Avenue Wellfield - OU 3
Kin-Buc Landfill
KING OF PRUSSIA
LANG PROPERTY
Liberty Industrial Finishing
LONE PINE LANDFILL
MANNHEIM AVENUE DUMP
MATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL CO., INC
Metaltec/Aerosystems
NY 1997
NJ 1993
NY 1991
NJ 1997
NJ 1998
NY 1990
NY 1986
NY 1990
NY 2000
NJ 1992
NY 1992
PR 1997
NJ 1995
NY 1993
NY 2000
NY 1992
NY 1990
NY 1996
NJ 1988
NJ 1995
NJ 1995
NY 2002
NJ 1994
NJ 1994
NY 2000
NJ 1990
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PD
0
PD
PD
0
0
1
PD
D
D
PD
PD
D
PD
PD
0
0
0
0
0
0
PD
0
SD
0
PD
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-47
-------
REGION 2
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME
STATE FY ACTION
TECHNOLOGY TYPE
STATUS
Mohonk Road Industrial Plant
Mohonk Road Industrial Plant
MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
Myers Property
Nascolite Corp.
Naval Air Engineering Center
Naval Air Engineering Center -Areas A and B Groundwater
Naval Air Engineering Station , Areas 1 and J Groundwater - OU 26
Naval Air Engineering Station, Site 28 - Soil And Groundwater OU
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE (SITE A)
Naval Weapons Station Earle (Site A) - OU 03
NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP (SARATOGA SPRINGS PLANT)
NL Industries, Inc.
OLD BETHPAGE LANDFILL
Olean Well Field
ONONDAGA LAKE
Pasley Solvents And Chemicals, Inc.
PICATIN NY ARSENAL (USARMY)
PLATTSBURGH AIR FORCE BASE
Pollution Abatement Services
PORT WASHINGTON LANDFILL
Price Landfill #1
RADIATION TECHNOLOGY, INC.
RAMAPO LANDFILL
REICH FARMS
Richardson Hill Road Landfill/Pond
NY 2000
NY 2000
NJ 1988
NJ 1990
NJ 1988
NJ 1997
NJ 1997
NJ 1999
NJ 1997
NJ 1998
NJ 1998
NY 1995
NJ 1994
NY 1994
NY 1996
NY 2000
NY 1992
NJ 1989
NY 1997
NY 1993
NY 1989
NJ 1986
NJ 1994
NY 1992
NJ 1998
NY 1997
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PD
D
D
PD
PD
PD
0
0
0
PD
0
0
D
0
PD
PD
0
0
PD
SD
0
D
PD
PD
0
PD
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-48
-------
REGION 2
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME
STATE FY ACTION
TECHNOLOGY TYPE
STATUS
Robintech, Inc./National Pipe Company
Rockaway Borough Well Field
Rockaway Borough Well Field
ROCKAWAY TOWNSHIP WELLS
ROCKY HILL MUNICIPAL WELL
ROWE INDUSTRIES GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
Scientific Chemical Processing
Sealand Restoration. Inc.
SHARKEY LANDFILL
SHIELDALLOYCORP
Shore Realty
Shore Realty (Formerly Applied Environmental Services) - Groundwater OU
Shore Realty (Formerly Applied Environmental Services) -OU 1
SIDNEY LANDFILL
Sinclair Refinery
Sinclair Refinery -OU 2
SMS Instruments
SMS INSTRUMENTS, INC
Solvent Savers
SOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO
Stanton Cleaners Area Groundwater Contamination Site
Syncon Resins
TABERNACLE DRUM DUMP
Tri-Cities Barrel Site
Tutu Well Field
Universal Oil Products
NY 1992
NJ 1991
NJ 1991
NJ 2002
NJ 1988
NY 2002
NJ 1990
NY 1995
NJ 1986
NJ 1996
NY 1991
NY 1991
NY 1991
NY 1995
NY 1991
NY 1991
NY 1989
NY 1996
NY 1990
NJ 1999
NY 1999
NJ 1986
NJ 1993
NY 2000
VI 1996
NJ 1993
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
D
D
PD
D
0
PD
PD
PD
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
PD
0
Bl
PD
SD
PD
PD
SD
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-49
-------
REGION 2
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME
STATE FY ACTION
TECHNOLOGY TYPE
STATUS
UPJOHN FACILITY
Vega Alta Public Supply Wells
Vestal Water Supply
VESTAL WATER SUPPLY WELL 4-2
Vineland Chemical Co., Inc.
VOLNEY MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
Waldick Aerospace Devices, Inc.
WARWICK LANDFILL
WILLIAMS PROPERTY
Woodland Route 532 Dump-Amendment
Woodland Routes 72 Dump (Amendment)
York Oil Co.
PR 1998
PR 1987
NY 1990
NY 1998
NJ 1997
NY 2002
NJ 1991
NY 1991
NJ 1995
NJ 1999
NJ 1999
NY 1988
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
PD
PD
SD
PD
PD
PD
PD
0
Bl
Bl
0
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-50
-------
REGION 3
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME
STATE FY ACTION
TECHNOLOGY TYPE
STATUS
A.I.W. FRANK/MID-COUNTY MUSTANG
Aberdeen Proving Ground
Aberdeen Proving Ground (Edgewood Area) J-Field Soil OU
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND (MICHAELSVILLE LANDFILL)
AMP, INC. (GLEN ROCK FACILITY)
ARMY CREEK LANDFILL
Arrowhead Associates/Scovill Corp
Avco Lycoming
Avco Lycoming
BALLY GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
Bendix Flight Systems Division
Berks Sand Pit
BLOSENSKI LANDFILL
BOARHEAD FARMS
Browns Battery Breaking Site - OU 2
BUTZ LANDFILL
Centre County Kepone Superfund Site
CHEM-SOLV, INC
CHISMAN CREEK
COMMODORE SEMICONDUCTOR GROUP
CROSSLEY FARM
CROYDON TCE
CRYOCHEM, INC
Defense General Supply Center (DLA)
Delaware City PVC
Delaware Sand & Gravel Landfill
PA 2001
MD 1996
MD 2001
MD 2000
PA 1996
DE 1994
VA 2001
PA 2000
PA 2000
PA 1989
PA 1988
PA 1994
PA 1998
PA 1999
PA 1992
PA 1992
PA 1995
DE 1998
VA 1991
PA 2000
PA 2001
PA 1997
PA 1998
VA 1993
DE 1986
DE 1988
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
PD
0
PD
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
PD
0
0
0
SD
0
0
PD
0
0
0
0
PD
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-51
-------
REGION 3
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE STATUS
DELTA QUARRIES & DISPOSAL./STOTLER LANDFILL
Dover AFB
Dover AFB - Target Area 2 Of Area 6
Dover Gas Light Co.
DRAKE CHEMICAL
DUBLIN TCE SITE
E.I. DuPont Newport Superfund Site -South Landfill
Eastern Diversified Metals
ELIZABETHTOWN LANDFILL
Fischer and Porter Co
Greenwood Chemical Co.
H&H INC., BURN PIT
HALBY CHEMICAL CO.
HAVERTOWN PCP
HELEVA LANDFILL
HELLERTOWN MANUFACTURING CO
HENDERSON ROAD
HUNTERSTOWN ROAD
INDUSTRIAL LANE
KEYSTONE SANITATION LANDFILL
KIMBERTON SITE
LINDANE DUMP
LORD-SHOPE LANDFILL
M.W Manufacturing
MALVERN TCE
MCADOO ASSOCIATES
PA 1997
DE 1993
DE 1995
DE 1994
PA 2000
PA 2002
DE 2001
PA 1991
PA 1998
PA 1984
VA 1991
VA 2000
DE 1998
PA 1991
PA 1999
PA 1996
PA 1993
PA 1993
PA 1991
PA 1990
PA 1993
PA 1999
PA 1996
PA 1992
PA 1998
PA 1995
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
PD
0
PD
0
PD
1
PD
PD
0
PD
0
PD
PD
0
0
0
D
0
PD
0
PD
0
PD
PD
SD
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-52
-------
REGION 3
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE STATUS
METAL BANKS
MID-ATLANTIC WOOD PRESERVERS, INC.
MIDDLETOWN AIR FIELD
MILL CREEK DUMP
MODERN SANITATION LANDFILL
NAVAL AIR DEVELOPMENT CENTER (8 AREAS)
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, Site 1 2 - Chemical Burn Area
NCR Corp.
NCR Corp.
NORTH PEN N- AREA 1
NORTH PENN- AREA 12
NORTH PEN N- AREA 6
OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORP/FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CO
OLD CITY OF YORK LANDFILL
Osborne Landfill
PALMERTON ZINC PILE - OU2 & OU4
Paoli Rail Yard
Patuxent River Naval Air Station
RAYMARK
RECTICON/ALLIED STEEL CORP
Rentokil Virginia Wood Preserving
RESIN DISPOSAL
RhinehartTire Fire Dump
Rodale Manufacturing Co. Inc. Site OU 1
Saegertown Industrial Area
SALTVILLE WASTE DISPOSAL PONDS
PA 2001
MD 1991
PA 1996
PA 1986
PA 2001
PA 2000
VA 1997
DE 1991
DE 1991
PA 1998
PA 2000
PA 2000
PA 1993
PA 1996
PA 1990
PA 1988
PA 1992
MD 1996
PA 1995
PA 2000
VA 1996
PA 1991
VA 2000
PA 1999
PA 1993
VA 1995
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PD
PD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
PD
PD
PD
PD
0
0
SD
PD
SD
PD
PD
PD
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-53
-------
REGION 3
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE STATUS
SAND, GRAVEL AND STONE
SAUNDERS SUPPLY CO
SHRIVER'S CORNER
Southern Maryland Wood Treating
Standard Chlorine of Delaware, Inc..
STANLEY KESSLER
STRASBURG LANDFILL
The Crater Resources Superfund Site
TonolliCorp.
Tybouts Corner Landfill
TYSONS DUMP
U.S. TITANIUM
Vienna Superfund Site
Washington Gas Light
West Virginia Ordnance (US Army)
WESTINGHOUSE ELEVATOR CO. PLANT
Whitmoyer Laboratories
William Dick Lagoons - OU 02
YORK COUNTY SOLID WASTE/REFUSE LANDFILL
MD 1985
VA 2000
PA 1995
MD 1995
DE 1995
PA 1999
PA 1989
PA 2000
PA 1992
DE 1986
PA 1998
VA 1997
WV 2002
DC 1999
WV 1988
PA 1998
PA 1991
PA 1991
PA 1995
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
PD
SD
D
0
PD
PD
0
0
0
SD
PD
PD
0
0
0
D
0
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-54
-------
REGION 4
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE STATUS
62nd Street Dump
Abe One Hour Cleaners
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps -OU 5
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps -OU5 and Route 211 Area
AIRCO
AIRCO PLATING CO
Alaric Inc. Superfund Site
ALLEGANY BALLISTICS LABORATORY (USNAVY)
American Creosote Works -OU2 (Phase 1)
American Creosote Works, Inc. - OU 2 (Phase 2)
American Creosote Works, Inc. - Pensacola Pit
ANNISTON ARMY DEPOT - SOUTHEAST INDUSTRIAL AREA
ANODYNE, INC.
Arkwright Dump Site
B.F. GOODRICH
Benfield Industries
Brunswick Wood Preserving Site - OU 1
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination
Cabot/Koppers
CalhounParkArea-OU2
Cape Fear Wood Preserving
Cape Fear Wood Preserving
Cape Fear Wood Preserving
CAROLAWN, INC
Carolina Transformer Co.
FL 1990
NC 1993
NC 1997
NC 1999
NC 1999
KY 1997
FL 1999
FL 2002
WV 1998
FL 1994
FL 1994
FL 1994
AL 1991
FL 1993
SC 2002
KY 1997
NC 1992
GA 2002
NC 1993
FL 1990
SC 2002
NC 2001
NC 2001
NC 1989
SC 1998
NC 1991
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SD
0
0
0
PD
0
0
PD
PD
0
PD
PD
0
PD
PD
0
0
PD
SD
0
D
0
0
0
0
D/l
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-55
-------
REGION 4
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME
STATE FY ACTION
TECHNOLOGY TYPE
STATUS
CARRIER AIR CONDITIONING CO
Cecil Field Naval Air Station - OU 08
Cecil Field Naval Air Station - OU 7, Site 16
CEDARTOWN MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
CELANESE CORP. (SHELBY FIBER OPERATIONS)
CHARLES MACON LAGOON & DRUM STORAGE
CHEMTRONICS, INC
Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station
Chevron Chemical Company
Chevron Chemical Company
CIBA-GEIGY CORP. (MCINTOSH PLANT)
CITY INDUSTRIES, INC
DISTLER BRICKYARD
DISTLER FARM
ELMORE WASTE DISPOSAL
FCX-Statesville- OU1
FCX-Statesville-OU3
FCX- Washington
Fike/Artel Superfund Site
FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CO. (ALBANY PLANT)
Florida Petroleum Reprocessors
FLORIDA STEEL CORP
FORT HARTFORD COAL CO. STONE QUARRY
GEIGY CHEMICAL CORP. (ABERDEEN PLANT)
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO./SHEPHERD FARM
General Electric Company, Shepard Farm Site
TN 1996
FL 1998
FL 1999
GA 1994
NC 1993
NC 1997
NC 1993
NC 1997
FL 1996
FL 1996
AL 2000
FL 1994
KY 1995
KY 1992
SC 1998
NC 1993
NC 1996
NC 1993
WV 2001
GA 1998
FL 2001
FL 1997
KY 1999
NC 1998
NC 2000
NC 1995
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
PD
0
0
0
0
PD
PD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PD
PD
0
PD
0
0
0
0
PD
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-56
-------
REGION 4
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME
STATE FY ACTION
TECHNOLOGY TYPE
STATUS
GOLD COAST OIL CORP
HARRIS CORP. (PALM BAY PLANT)
HARRIS CORP. (PALM BAY PLANT)
Helena Chemical Company
Helena Chemical Company (Tampa Plant)
HIPPS ROAD LANDFILL
HOLLINGSWORTH SOLDERLESS TERMINAL
Interstate Lead Co
Jacksonville Naval Air Station
Jacksonville Naval Air Station - OU3
Jacksonville Naval Air Station - OU3
Jacksonville Naval Air Station - OU3
JADCO-HUGHES FACILITY
JFD ELECTRONICS/CHANNEL MASTER
KALAMA SPECIALTY CHEMICALS
KOPPERS CO. INC. (MORRISVILLE PLANT)
KoppersCo., Inc. (Charleston Plant)
LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE/NASA LANGLEY CNTR OU3
Leonard Chemical Company
Leonard Chemical Company
Leonard Chemical Company
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
MADISON COUNTY SANITARY LANDFILL
MALLORY CAPACITOR CO
Marine Corps Logistics Base - OU 6
MARTIN-MARIETTA, SODYECO, INC
FL 1992
FL 1998
FL 1998
SC 1993
FL 1996
FL 1994
FL 1993
AL 1995
FL 1994
FL 2000
FL 2000
FL 2000
NC 1997
NC 1992
SC 1999
NC 1997
SC 1995
VA 1998
SC 2001
SC 2001
SC 2001
SC 1994
FL 1997
TN 1996
GA 2001
NC 1999
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SD
0
0
0
PD
0
SD
PD
PD
0
PD
PD
0
0
0
0
0
PD
PD
PD
PD
0
0
0
D
0
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-57
-------
REGION 4
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME
STATE FY ACTION
TECHNOLOGY TYPE
STATUS
Marzone Inc/Chevron Chemical Company Site - OU 1
Mathis Brothers Landfill
MEDLEY FARM DRUM DUMP
MEMPHIS DEFENSE DEPOT (DLA) - OU-1
Memphis Depot-Main Installation Functional Unit?
MIAMI DRUM SERVICES
Milan Army Ammunition Plant
MONSANTO CORP. (AUGUSTA PLANT)
MUNISPORT LANDFILL
MURRAY-OHIO DUMP
NATIONAL ELECTRIC COIL/COOPER INDUSTRIES
NATIONAL SOUTHWIRE ALUMINUM CO.
NATIONAL STARCH & CHEMICAL CORP. - OU1
NATIONAL STARCH & CHEMICAL CORP. - OU3
New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Superfund Site
Newport Dump
NORTH BELMONT PCE
North Carolina State University
NORTHWEST 58TH STREET LANDFILL
Oak Ridge Reservation
Oak Ridge Reservation OU-30
OLIN CORP. (MCINTOSH PLANT)
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (USDOE) - NE Plume OU
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (USDOE) - NW Plume OU
PALMETTO WOOD PRESERVING
PARA-CHEM SOUTHERN, INC
GA 2000
GA 1993
SC 1995
TN 1996
TN 2001
FL 1993
TN 2000
GA 1993
FL 1990
TN 1994
KY 1998
KY 1993
AL 1994
AL 1994
NC 2000
KY 1987
NC 1997
NC 1996
FL 1987
TN 2002
TN 2002
AL 1995
KY 1995
KY 1993
SC 1997
SC 2000
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
PD
0
0
PD
0
0
0
PD
PD
0
0
0
0
Bl
PD
PD
PD
PD
PD
PD
0
0
0
0
0
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-58
-------
REGION 4
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME
STATE FY ACTION
TECHNOLOGY TYPE
STATUS
Peak Oil/Bay Drum - OU 2, Site Wide Groundwater
PENSACOLA NAVAL AIR STATION
Perdido Ground Water Contamination
PIPER AIRCRAFT/VERO BEACH WATER & SEWER
Reasor Chemical Company Site
Redwing Carriers, Inc. (Saraland) Site
Robins AFB
Rochester Property
ROCK HILL CHEMICAL CO
SANGAMO WESTON/TWELVE-MILE/HARTWELL PCB
Sapp Battery Salvage
Savannah River Site
Savannah River Site -OU 28
Savannah River Site C Area Rubble Pit
SCHUYLKILL METALS CORP
SCRDI BLUFF ROAD
SCRDI DIXIANA
SHERWOOD MEDICAL INDUSTRIES
Shuronlnc-OU01
SHURON INC.
SOLITRON MICROWAVE
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS, INC.
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS, INC.
Stauffer Chemical -OU1
STAUFFER CHEMICAL CO. (TAMPA PLANT)
SYDNEY MINE SLUDGE PONDS
FL 1993
FL 2000
AL 1988
FL 1998
NC 2002
AL 1993
GA 1995
SC 1993
SC 1997
SC 1999
FL 1986
SC 1996
SC 2000
SC 1999
FL 1998
SC 1998
SC 1992
FL 1997
SC 1998
SC 1998
FL 2001
FL 1999
FL 1999
AL 1989
FL 2000
FL 1999
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PD
PD
0
0
PD
D/l
0
0
0
0
PD
PD
PD
PD
SD
0
0
0
D
PD
PD
D
D/l
0
PD
0
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-59
-------
REGION 4
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE STATUS
T.H. AGRICULTURE & NUTRITION CO. (ALBANY PLANT)
T.H. AGRICULTURE & NUTRITION CO. (MONTGOMERY PLANT)
Townsend Saw Chain Company
Townsend Saw Chain Company
Trans Circuits Inc.
Trans Circuits Site
TRI-CITY DISPOSAL CO
USMC Camp Lejeune Military Base
USMC Camp Lejeune Military Base - OU 10, Site 35
VELSICOL CHEMICAL CORP (HARDEMAN COUNTY)
Wamchem Inc
Whitehouse Oil Pits
Whitehouse Oil Pits OU 1
Woolfolk Chemical Works, Inc.
GA 1993
AL 1998
SC 1997
SC 1997
FL 2001
FL 2001
KY 1996
NC 1995
NC 1995
TN 1998
SC 1997
FL 1992
FL 1998
GA 1994
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
PD
PD
SD
PD
0
0
0
PD
D
PD
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-60
-------
REGION 5
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME
STATE FY ACTION
TECHNOLOGY TYPE
STATUS
ACME SOLVENT RECLAIMING INC
ALGOMA MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
Allied Chemical & Ironton Coke
American Chemical Services, Inc.
ARROWHEAD REF CO
AVENUE "E" GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
BELVIDERE MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
BENDIX CORP/ALLIED AUTOMOTIVE
BETTER BRITE PLATING CHROME & ZINC
BIG D CAMPGROUND
Bofors Nobel
BUCKEYE RECLAMATION
BURROWS SANITATION
CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUBLIC SERVICE CO
CHARLEVOIX MUNICIPAL WELL
CHEM-CENTRAL
CHEM-DYNE CORP
Chemical Operable Unit-OU2
Chemical Operable Unit-OU2
CITY DISPOSAL CORP LANDFILL
Clare Water Supply
Clare Water Supply
Conrail RailYard
CONTINENTAL STEEL CORP.
CROSS BROTHERS PAIL RECYCLING (PEMBROKE)
DELAVAN MUNICIPAL WELL #4
IL 1998
Wl 1990
OH 1991
IN 1992
MN 1997
Ml 2000
IL 1998
Ml 1997
Wl 2000
OH 1995
Ml 1999
OH 1991
Ml 1993
IL 1995
Ml 1984
Ml 1995
OH 1992
Ml 2002
Ml 2002
Wl 2000
Ml 1997
Ml 1997
IN 1994
IN 1998
IL 1985
Wl 2000
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
PD
0
0
0
SD
SD
PD
0
0
0
PD
SD
0
SD
0
0
PD
PD
0
0
PD
D
PD
SD
0
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-61
-------
REGION 5
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME
STATE FY ACTION
TECHNOLOGY TYPE
STATUS
DOUGLAS ROAD UNIROYAL INC LANDFILL
DUELL& GARDNER LANDFILL
DUPAGE COUNTY LANDFILL/BLACKWELL FOREST PRESERVE
EAST BETHEL TOWNSHIP
EAU CLAIRE MUNICIPAL WELL FIELD
Electrovoice
Electrovoice - OU 1
Enviro. Conservation and Chemical
Feed Materials Production Center (USDOE) - Pump & Treat
FIELDS BROOK
FISHER CALO
Fisher-Calo
FMC (Fresno Plant)
FMC CORP
FORT WAYNE REDUCTION DUMP
G & H LDFL
Galesburg/Koppers - Deep aquifer
Galesburg/Koppers Shallow Aquifer
Galesburg/Koppers - Shallow Aquifer OU
HAGEN FARM
HEDBLUM INDUSTRIES
HUNTS DISPOSAL
IONIA CITY LANDFILL
K&L Landfill
KENTWOOD LANDFILL
KOHLER CO. LANDFILL
IN 2000
Ml 1993
IL 1998
MN 2000
Wl 1997
Ml 1992
Ml 1992
IN 1987
OH 1996
OH 1997
IN 1998
IN 1990
MN 1991
MN 1992
IN 1995
Ml 1999
IL 2001
IL 1989
IL 2001
Wl 1996
Ml 1993
Wl 1997
Ml 2000
Ml 1990
Ml 1995
Wl 1996
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SD
PD
SD
0
PD
C
SD
PD
PD
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PD
0
0
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-62
-------
REGION 5
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME
STATE FY ACTION
TECHNOLOGY TYPE
STATUS
Koppers Coke - Groundwater OU
Kummer Sanitary Landfill
Kummer Sanitary Landfill - OU 3 (Amendment)
KYSOR INDUSTRIAL CORP
Lakeland Disposal Service, Inc.
LASALLE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES
Lauer 1 Sanitary Landfill, (Boundary Road)
LEHILLIER MANKATO SITE
LEMBERGER LANDFILL INC
LEMBERGER TRANSPORT & RECYCLING INC
Lenz Oil Services, Inc. OU1
LIQUID DISPOSAL INC
LONG PRAIRIE GROUNDWATER CON
Macgillis and Gibbs/Bell Lumber and Pole
Main Street Well Field
MASTER DSPL SERVICE LANDFILL
MCGRAW-EDISON COMPANY
MIAMI COUNTY INCINERATOR
MICHIGAN DISPOSAL SERVICE (CORK STREET LANDFILL)
Midco I
Midco II
Moss-American Groundwater
MOTOR WHEEL
MOUND PLANT (USDOE)
MUSKEGO SANITARY LANDFILL
MUSKEGON CHEM CO
MN 1994
MN 1990
MN 1996
Ml 1996
IN 1993
IL 1994
Wl 1996
MN 1992
Wl 1996
Wl 1997
IL 1999
Ml 1997
MN 1997
MN 1994
IN 1991
Wl 1997
Ml 1998
OH 1997
Ml 1991
IN 1989
IN 1992
Wl 1997
Ml 1998
OH 1995
Wl 1997
Ml 1997
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
SD
C
0
SD
0
SD
SD
0
0
PD
0
0
0
PD
0
0
0
PD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-63
-------
REGION 5
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE STATUS
NATIONAL PRESTO INDUSTRIES
NATIONAL PRESTO INDUSTRIES
NAVAL INDUSTRIAL RESERVE ORDNANCE PLANT
New Brighton/Arden Hills
New Brighton/Arden Hills
NEW LYME LANDFILL
Ninth Avenue Dump -OU2
NORTH BRONSON INDUSTRIAL AREA
NORTHERNAIRE PLATING
Northside Sanitary Landfill
NUTTING TRUCK & CASTER CO
NWMAUTHE COMPANY, INC.
OAKDALE DUMP SITES
OCONOMOWOC ELECTROPLATING CO INC
OLDMILL
ONALASKA MUNI LANDFILL
ORMET CORP
Ott/Story/Cordova Chemical Co.
Outboard Marine Company/Waukegan Coke Plant
Peerless Plating
PENTA WOOD PRODUCTS INCORPORATED
PERHAM ARSENIC
Powell Road Landfill
Pristine, Inc.
Rasmussens Dump
RASMUSSEN'S DUMP
Wl 1999
Wl 1999
MN 1990
MN 1993
MN 1998
OH 1993
IN 1995
Ml 1998
Ml 1996
IN 1991
MN 1992
Wl 1997
MN 1995
Wl 1996
OH 1991
Wl 1994
OH 1998
Ml 1989
IL 1999
Ml 1992
Wl 2000
MN 1998
OH 1993
OH 1988
Ml 2001
Ml 1995
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
PD
0
PD
SD
0
PD
0
PD
0
0
0
0
0
SD
0
0
PD
0
0
0
PD
0
C
0
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-64
-------
REGION 5
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME
STATE FY ACTION
TECHNOLOGY TYPE
STATUS
REILLYTAR & CHEM (INDIANAPOLIS PLANT)
REILLYTAR & CHEM ST LOUIS PARK
REILLYTAR & CHEMICAL CORP (DOVER PLANT)
Rickenbacker Air National Guard Base
Rickenbacker Air National Guard Base -Site 2
Rockwell International Superfund Site
Rockwell International Superfund Site -OU 2
ROSE TOWNSHIP DUMP
Roto-FinishCo, Inc.
Sangamo Electric Dump/Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge -
OU MISCA
SSangamo Electric Dump/Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge -
PCB Areas OU
Sauget Area 2 Superfund Site
SCHMALZ DUMP
SEYMOUR RECYCLING CORP
SKINNER LANDFILL
South Macomb Disposal Authority
Southeast Rockford Groundwater Contamination
SOUTHWEST OTTAWA COUNTY LANDFILL
Spartan Chemical Co.
Spiegelberg Landfill
SPIEGELBERG LANDFILL
Springfield Township Dump
SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP DUMP
STURGIS MUNICIPAL WELLS
SUMMIT NATIONAL LIQUID DISPOSAL SERVICE
IN 2000
MN 1997
OH 2000
OH 2000
OH 2000
Ml 2002
Ml 2002
Ml 1996
Ml 1997
IL 2002
IL 2000
IL 2002
Wl 1993
IN 1993
OH 1993
Ml 1991
IL 2002
Ml 1994
Ml 1993
Ml 1986
Ml 1995
Ml 1990
Ml 2000
Ml 1997
OH 1995
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
PD
PD
PD
PD
0
PD
PD
D
PD
SD
0
SD
0
PD
0
PD
SD
0
0
0
0
0
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-65
-------
REGION 5
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE STATUS
Tar Lake
Thermo-Chem, Inc.
Thermo-Chem, Inc.- Oil 1
Thomas Solvent Raymond Road -OU 1
TIPPECANOE SANITARY LANDFILL, INC.
TRI-STATE PLATING
TRW INC MINERVA PLT
UNIVERSITY MINNESOTA (ROSEMOUNT RES CEN)
US AIR FORCE WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB
US AVIEX
Velsicol Chemical Corp.
VELSICOL CHEMICAL CORP. (ILLINOIS)
VERONA WELL FIELD
Verona Well Field - Dual Blocking Well/ Annex/ Paint Shop
WAITE PARK WELLS
WASH KING LAUNDRY
WASHINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL
WASTE DSPL ENGINEERING INC
WASTE INC LDFL
WAUSAU GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
Wayne Waste Oil
WAYNE WASTE OIL
WHITTAKER CORP -
WINDOM DUMP
WOODSTOCK MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
Wright-Patterson AFB Groundwater - OU 1 2
Ml 1992
Ml 1991
Ml 1991
Ml 1985
IN 1997
IN 1992
OH 1994
MN 1994
OH 1999
Ml 1993
IL 1982
IL 1994
Ml 1997
Ml 1991
MN 1999
Ml 1993
MN 1991
MN 1995
IN 1998
Wl 1994
IN 1990
IN 1995
MN 1992
MN 1992
IL 1993
OH 1999
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PD
0
0
0
PD
SD
0
SD
PD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SD
0
0
0
0
0
SD
SD
PD
C
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-66
-------
REGION 5
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME
STATE FY ACTION
TECHNOLOGY TYPE
STATUS
ZanesvilleWell Field
ZANESVILLE WELL FIELD
OH 1991
OH 1996
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
0
0
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-67
-------
REGION 6
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME
STATE FY ACTION
TECHNOLOGY TYPE
STATUS
Air Force Plant 4
Air Force Plant 4 -Building 181
Alcoa (Point Comfort)/Lavaca Bay Site
American Creosote Works, Inc. - Wmnfield Plant
American Creosote Works, Inc. - Winnfield Plant
Arkwood Inc.
AT&SF Albuquerque Superfund Site
BAILEY WASTE DISPOSAL
BAYOU BONFOUCA
Brio Refining
CIMARRON MINING CORP
CityofPerrytonWell#2
CRYSTAL CHEMICAL CO.
Delatte Metals Superfund Site
FRENCH, LTD
Fruit Avenue Plume Site
Fruit Avenue Plume Site
GENEVA INDUSTRIES/FUHRMANN ENERGY
HARDAGE/CRINER - Pump and Treat
Highway 71/72 Refinery Site
Highway 71/72 Refinery Site
KoppersCo Inc-Texarkana Plant
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
Marion Pressure Treating Company
Midland Products
Mid-South Wood Products
TX 1996
TX 1996
TX 2002
LA 1993
LA 1993
AR 1990
NM 2002
TX 1997
LA 1997
TX 1997
NM 1992
TX 1999
TX 1997
LA 2000
TX 1994
NM 2001
NM 2001
TX 1993
OK 1997
LA 2000
LA 2000
TX 2002
TX 1995
LA 2002
AR 1988
AR 1987
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
C
PD
0
PD
PD
PD
SD
0
PD
SD
D
0
Bl
SD
D
PD
0
0
PD
PD
0
0
PD
0
0
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-68
-------
REGION 6
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME
STATE FY ACTION
TECHNOLOGY TYPE
STATUS
MOTCO
North Cavalcade Street
North Railroad Avenue Plume Superfund Site
North Railroad Avenue Plume Superfund Site
ODESSA CHROMIUM #1
ODESSA CHROMIUM #2 (ANDREWS HIGHWAY)
Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site
Odessa Chromium II Superfund Site
Odessa Chromium II Superfund Site
Odessa Chromium II Superfund Site
Oklahoma Refining Co.
Old Inger Oil Refinery
Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc.
Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc. -OU 2
Prewitt Abandoned Refinery
PREWITT ABANDONED REFINERY
SOL LYNN/INDUSTRIAL TRANSFORMERS
SOUTH CAVALCADE STREET
South Valley -OU 3
South Valley -OU 6
SOUTHERN SHIPBUILDING
Sprague Road Ground Water Plume
Texarkana Wood Preserving
Tinker AFB
Tinker AFB - Soldier Creek And Building 3001
UNITED NUCLEAR CORP
TX 1989
TX 1988
NM 2001
NM 2001
TX 1994
TX 1994
TX 1988
TX 1988
TX 1994
TX 2000
OK 1992
LA 1984
TX 1998
TX 1998
NM 1992
NM 1996
TX 1993
TX 2000
NM 1996
NM 1996
LA 1997
TX 2000
TX 1993
OK 1990
OK 1990
NM 1998
AR 1996
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PD
0
D
D
0
SD
SD
SD
SD
0
PD
PD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SD
D
PD
PD
1
0
0
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-69
-------
REGION 7
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE STATUS
10th Street N PL Site
10th Street Site -OU 2
29th and Mead Ground Water Contamination
57TH AND NORTH BROADWAY STREETS SITE
57th And North Broadway Streets Site - OU 01
Ace Services
BRUNO CO-OP ASSOCIATION/ASSOCIATED PROPERTIES
CHEROKEE COUNTY
Cleburn Street Well
Cleburn Street Well -OU5
CONSERVATION CHEMICAL CO
CORNHUSKER ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
DES MOINES TCE
ELECTRO-COATINGS, INC
FAIRFIELD COAL GASIFICATION PLANT
Findett
Former Nebraska Ordnance Plant
FORT RILEY
General Motors Corporation, Former AC Rochester Facility Site
Hastings Groundwater Contamination
Hastings Groundwater Contamination- Colorado Ave, OU 1
John Deere
Kern-Pest Laboratories
Lake City Army Ammu. Plant (NW Lagoon) - OU 3
LAKE CITY ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT (NORTHWEST LAGOON)
NE 2001
NE 2001
KS 1992
KS 1998
KS 1999
KS 1999
NE 1998
KS 1997
NE 1996
NE 2001
MO 1991
NE 1994
IA 1998
IA 2000
IA 1995
MO 1989
NE 1997
KS 1997
IA 2001
NE 1993
NE 1991
IA 1989
MO 1991
MO 1998
MO 1999
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PD
0
PD
PD
D
Bl
PD
PD
PD
PD
0
0
0
0
SD
0
PD
PD
PD
PD
1
0
PD
0
PD
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-70
-------
REGION 7
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME
STATE FY ACTION
TECHNOLOGY TYPE
STATUS
LEE CHEMICAL
Lehigh Portland Cement
LINDSAY MANUFACTURING CO
Mason City Coal Gasification Site
Mcgraw Edison
NORTHWESTERN STATES PORTLAND CEMENT CO
OBEE ROAD - Pump & Treat
Ogallala Groundwater Contamination -OU1
ORONOGO-DUENWEG MINING BELT
Peoples Natural Gas
SHERWOOD MEDICAL CO
SOLID STATE CIRCUITS, INC
STROTHER FIELD INDUSTRIAL PARK
Valley Park TCE Site -OU2
Valley Park Tee Site Wainwright - OU1
VOGEL PAINT & WAX CO
WAVERLY GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
Weldon Spring Chemical Plant - OU 2
Well Number 3 Subsite
WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT CO. DUMP
MO 1994
I A 1991
NE 1995
IA 2000
IA 1993
IA 1994
KS 1994
NE 1999
MO 1998
IA 1991
NE 1999
MO 1994
KS 1994
MO 2001
MO 1994
IA 1994
NE 1994
MO 2000
NE 2001
IA 1990
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
PD
PD
0
0
PD
PD
1
0
0
1
D
SD
0
SD
C
1
SD
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-71
-------
REGION 8
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE STATUS
Anaconda Co. Smelter
ARSENIC TRIOXIDE SITE
BAXTER/UNION PACIFIC TIE TREATING
BRODERICK WOOD PRODUCTS
Burlington Northern (Somers Plant)
Burlington Northern (Somers Plant)
CALIFORNIA Gulch
CENTRAL CITY, CLEAR CREEK
CHEMICAL SALES CO
Chemical Sales Company- OU 1
EAGLE MINE
Ellsworth AFB
Ellsworth AFB-OU1
FE. Warren AFB -OU2
FE. WARREN AIR FORCE BASE
Hill AFB
Idaho Pole Company
Idaho Pole Company
Kennecott South Zone Site
LIBBY GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
Libby Groundwater Contamination
Lockheed/Martin (Denver Aerospace)
Lowry Landfill
MARSHALL LANDFILL
Montana Pole and Treating Plant
Montana Pole And Treating Plant- Groundwater OU
MT 1991
ND 1988
WY 1986
CO 1996
MT 1989
MT 1989
CO 1988
CO 1991
CO 2000
CO 1991
CO 1993
SD 1997
SD 1995
WY 1997
WY 2001
UT 1997
MT 1998
MT 1992
UT 2002
MT 1993
MT 1989
CO 1990
CO 1994
CO 1993
MT 1993
MT 1993
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PD
PD
0
0
0
0
PD
0
SD
1
0
PD
0
0
PD
PD
0
0
PD
0
0
PD
PD
0
0
0
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-72
-------
REGION 8
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME
STATE FY ACTION
TECHNOLOGY TYPE
STATUS
MONTICELLO MILL TAILINGS (USDOE)
Monticello Mill Tailings (USDOE) - OU 03
MYSTERY BRIDGE RD/U.S. HIGHWAY 20
OGDEN DEFENSE DEPOT - OU2
Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE)
Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE) - Buffer Zone
Rocky Mountain Arsenal
SAND CREEK INDUSTRIAL
Sand Creek Industrial -OU 4
SHARON STEEL CORP. (MIDVALE TAILINGS)
Silver BowCreek/Butte Area
Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area - Rocker Timber Framing And Treatment
Plant OU
Summitville Mine
URAVAN URANIUM PROJECT (UNION CARBIDE CORP.)
Utah Power& Light/American Barrel
WASATCH CHEMICAL CO. (LOT 6)
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC
UT 1998
UT 1998
WY 1994
UT 1995
CO 1997
CO 1992
CO 1996
CO 1993
CO 1994
UT 1994
MT 1996
MT 1996
CO 2001
CO 1987
UT 1993
UT 1997
CA 1993
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PD
0
SD
0
PD
0
PD
PD
C
PD
PD
C
PD
0
PD
0
0
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-73
-------
REGION 9
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE STATUS
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. - BUILDING 915
Aerojet-General Corporation
ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE OU3
Apache PowderCo.
APPLIED MATERIALS
BARSTOW MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base-OU 01
BECKMAN INSTRUMENTS - PORTERVILLE PLANT
Brown & Bryant
Castle AFB
COAST WOOD PRESERVING
Cooper Drum Company
Cooper Drum Company
Cooper Drum Company
CTS PRINTEX, INC
DEL AMO
Del Norte County Pesticide Storage Area
DEL NORTE PESTICIDE STORAGE
Fairchild Semiconductor (Mt. View) - Siemens/Sobrato (455 & 487
Middlefield Road)
FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORP (MT VIEW)
FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORP (S SAN JOSE)
FIRESTONE TIRE&RUBBER CO. (SALINAS PLANT)
Former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station
FORT ORD
Fort Ord - Basewide Sites 2/1 2
CA 1992
CA 2001
GU 1998
AZ 1994
CA 1993
CA 1998
CA 1998
CA 1993
CA 1994
CA 1997
CA 1989
CA 2002
CA 2002
CA 2002
CA 1992
CA 1999
CA 1986
CA 1992
CA 1989
CA 1999
CA 1992
CA 1992
CA 2002
CA 1997
CA 1997
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
PD
PD
PD
0
PD
0
0
PD
PD
SD
D
D
PD
0
PD
C
SD
0
0
0
0
PD
PD
PD
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-74
-------
REGION 9
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE STATUS
Fort Ord- Oil 1 Fire Drill Area
Fort Ord-OU2 Landfill
FRESNO MUNICIPAL SANITARY LANDFILL
George AFB
Hassayampa Landfill
HEWLETT-PACKARD (620-640 PAGE MILL ROAD)
Hexcel
IBM (San Jose)
Indian Bend Wash Area
INTEL CORP. (MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANT)
INTEL CORP. (SANTA CLARA III)
Intel, Mountain View
INTERSIL INC./SIEMENS COMPONENTS
IRON MOUNTAIN MINE
J.H. Baxter
JASCO CHEMICAL CORP
Jasco Chemical Corp.
Koppers-Oroville Plant
Koppers Company Inc. Site
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USDOE)
LORENTZ BARREL & DRUM CO
March Air Force Base
Marine Corps Air Station
Marine Corps Air Station Yuma-OU 1
Mather AFB
CA 1995
CA 1994
CA 1996
CA 1994
AZ 1992
CA 1997
CA 1993
CA 1989
AZ 2001
CA 1999
CA 1992
CA 1989
CA 1992
CA 1997
CA 1998
CA 1992
CA 1992
CA 1999
CA 1989
CA 1997
CA 1992
CA 1998
CA 1996
AZ 2000
AZ 2000
CA 1996
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
PD
0
0
0
0
PD
PD
0
0
0
0
0
PD
0
PD
0
0
0
PD
PD
0
PD
PD
0
0
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-75
-------
REGION 9
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE STATUS
McClellanAFB
MCCOLL
MCCORMICK & BAXTER CREOSOTING CO.
Mesa Area Ground Water Contamination
MICRO STORAGE/INTEL MAGNETICS
Modesto Superfund site
MOFFETT NAVAL AIR STATION
MONOLITHIC MEMORIES
MONTROSE CHEMICAL CORP.
Motorola 52nd Street
Muscoy
NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR CORP
NEWMARK GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
Norton AFB
PACIFIC COAST PIPE LINES
Phillips [Formerly Siqnetics (Amd 901) (Trw)l
Phoenix Goodyear Airport Area (South Facility) - Subunit A
Phoenix-Goodyear Airport Area (North Facility)
PURITY OIL SALES, INC.
RAYTHEON CORP
Raytheon, Mountain View
Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant
Sacramento Army Depot
SAN FERNANDO VALLEY (AREA 1)
SAN FERNANDO VALLEY (AREA 2)
SAN GABRIEL VALLEY (AREA 2)
CA 1995
CA 1993
CA 1999
AZ 1991
CA 1992
CA 1997
CA 1996
CA 1994
CA 1999
AZ 1994
CA 1995
CA 1998
CA 1995
CA 1994
CA 1996
CA 1991
AZ 1996
AZ 1989
CA 1989
CA 1999
CA 1989
CA 1994
CA 1995
CA 1989
CA 1993
CA 1994
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
PD
PD
PD
0
1
PD
0
PD
PD
1
0
PD
SD
0
PD
0
PD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PD
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-76
-------
REGION 9
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE STATUS
SAN GABRIEL VALLEY (AREA 4)
San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site
Schofield Barracks (US Army)
Selma Pressure Treating
Sharpe Army Depot
SOLA OPTICAL USA, INC
Solvent Service
Southern California Edison, Visalia Pole Yard
SPECTRA-PHYSICS, INC
STRINGFELLOW
SYNERTEK, INC. (BUILDING 1)
TELEDYNE SEMICONDUCTOR
Tracy Defense Depot (US DLA)
Travis AFB
Travis AFB-OU1
TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE
TRW MICROWAVE, INC (BUILDING 825)
Tucson International Airport Property
Valley Wood Preserving, Inc.
Van Waters & Rogers
WATKINS-JOHNSON CO. (STEWART DIVISION)
Western Pacific Railroad Co.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP (SUNNYVALE)
WILLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE
CA 1998
CA 1993
HI 1997
CA 1988
CA 1993
CA 1992
CA 1990
CA 1994
CA 1992
CA 1990
CA 1992
CA 1992
CA 1993
CA 1998
CA 1998
CA 1999
CA 1993
AZ 1997
CA 1991
CA 1991
CA 1994
CA 1997
CA 2000
AZ 1993
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
D
PD
PD
0
0
0
PD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PD
0
0
0
PD
0
PD
0
PD
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-77
-------
REGION 10
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME
STATE FY ACTION
TECHNOLOGY TYPE
STATUS
Adak Naval Air Station
AMERICAN CROSSARM & CONDUIT CO.
AMERICAN LAKE GARDENS/MCCHORD AFB
BANGOR ORDNANCE DISPOSAL
Boomsnub/Airco Superfund Site
Boomsnub/Airco Superfund Site
BUNKER HILL MINING & METALLURGICAL COMPLEX
Cascade Corporation -Troutdale Gravel Aquifer
Colbert Landfill
Commencement Bay, Nearshore/Tideflats
COMMENCEMENT BAY, SOUTH TACOMA CHANNEL
East Multnomah County Groundwater Contamination
East Multnomah County Groundwater Contamination - Cascade
Corporation, Troutdale Gravel Aquifer
EASTERN MICHAUD FLATS CONTAMINATION OU1
ElmendorfAFB
Elmendorf AFB - OU 6 And Source Area Ss1 9, Perched Aquifer
Groundwater at Sd1 5
Fairchild Air Force Base
Fairchild Air Force Base - Priority 1 OUs (OU 2) Ft-1
Fort Lewis Logistics Center
FORT LEWIS LOGISTICS CENTER
Fort Lewis Military Reservation - Landfill 4
Fort Richardson
Fort Richardson -OUB
Fort Richardson -OUB
Fort Wainwright - OU 2 - Building 1 1 68 Leach Well
AK 2000
WA 1993
WA 1994
WA 1999
WA 2000
WA 2000
ID 1992
OR 1997
WA 1997
WA 1991
WA 1999
OR 1997
OR 1997
ID 1998
AK 1992
AK 1997
WA 1993
WA 1993
WA 1990
WA 1990
WA 1993
AK 1997
AK 1997
AK 1997
AK 1997
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PD
PD
0
0
0
PD
PD
PD
0
0
0
PD
C
PD
PD
0
0
0
D
0
C
PD
C
C
0
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-78
-------
REGION 10
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME
STATE FY ACTION
TECHNOLOGY TYPE
STATUS
FortWainwright- OU 2 - DRMOYard
FortWainwright-0113
FortWainwright-0114
FortWainwright-OU5WQFS1
FortWainwright-OU5WQFS2
FortWainwright-OU5WQFS3
Frontier Hard Chrome Inc-OU 1 and 2
Frontier Hard Chrome Inc-OU 1 and 2
Frontier Hard Chrome Inc-OU 1 and 2
Frontier Hard Chrome, Inc.
GOULD, INC.
Hanford 200 Area (USDOE)
Hanford Site -100 Area
Hanford Site -100 Area
Hanford Site -100 Area -OU 2
Harbor Island (Lead)
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (USDOE)
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (USDOE) -
Test Area North OU1-07B
Kaiser Aluminum
LAKEWOOD SITE
MARTIN-MARIETTA ALUMINUM CO.
MCCHORD AFB (WASH RACK/TREATMENT AREA)
MCCORMICK & BAXTER CREOSOTING CO. (PORTLAND PLANT)
NAVAL AIR STATION, WHIDBEY ISLAND (AULT)
NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE ENGINEERING STATION (4
WASTE AREAS)
AK 1997
AK 1996
AK 1996
AK 1999
AK 1999
AK 1999
WA 2001
WA 2001
WA 2001
WA 1988
OR 1997
WA 1995
WA 1996
WA 1996
WA 2000
WA 1993
ID 1995
ID 2001
WA 2002
WA 1992
OR 1988
WA 1992
OR 1996
WA 1997
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
D
PD
PD
PD
0
0
0
0
0
PD
PD
PD
0
0
PD
PD
SD
PD
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-79
-------
REGION 10
Groundwater Treatment Technology
Summary Matrix (continued)
GroundwaterTechnologies
SITE NAME | STATE FY | ACTION | TECHNOLOGY TYPE STATUS
Naval Undersea Warfare Station (4 Areas) -OU 01
North Market Street
NORTHSIDE LANDFILL
NORTHWEST PIPE & CASING/HALL PROCESS COMPANY
Northwest Pipe and Casing Company/Hall Process Company- OU 2
Palermo Wellfield
Reynolds Metal Company
SILVER MOUNTAIN MINE
TeledyneWah Chang
TULALIP LANDFILL
U.S. Naval Submarine Base - OU 8
Umatilla Chemical Depot (Lagoons)
Union Pacific Railroad Tie Treatment
UNITED CHROME PRODUCTS, INC
VANCOUVER WATER STATION #1 CONTAMINATION
VANCOUVER WATER STATION #4 CONTAMINATION
WESTERN PROCESSING CO., INC
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor
Wycoff/Eagle Harbor -Soil
WA 1998
WA 2000
WA 1993
OR 2001
OR 2001
WA 2000
OR 2002
WA 1990
OR 1994
WA 1996
WA 2000
OR 1994
OR 1996
OR 1992
WA 1998
WA 1999
WA 1992
WA 1994
WA 2000
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
PD
PD
PD
PD
PD
0
PD
PD
0
PD
0
PD
0
0
PD
PD
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not Installed; Bl = Being Installed; I = Installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-80
-------
APPENDIX C
TREATMENT TRAINS WITH
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
-------
Superfund Remedial Actions:
Treatment Trains with Innovative Technologies
Air Sparging Followed by
Soil Vapor Extraction Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base — OU 01 CA
Soil Vapor Extraction Burgess Brothers Landfill - OU 01 VT
Cecil Field Naval Air Station - OU7, Site 16, SVE FL
Chemical Sales Company — OU 1 CO
East Multnomah County Groundwater Contamination — OR
Cascade Corporation, Troutdale Gravel Aquifer
PCX - Statesville - OU 3 NC
Fort Lewis Military Reservation - Landfill 4 WA
Fort Wainwright OU 5 WQFS3 AK
Kentucky Avenue Wellfield - OU 3 NY
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, Site 12 - VA
Chemical Burn Area
Otis Air Natioinal Guard - Fuel Spill 12 MA
Pease Air Force Base - Site 45 NH
Southeast Rockford Groundwater Contamination — OU 3 IL
Thermo-Chem, Inc OU1 MI
Vienna Superfund Site WV
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction
Bioremediation Followed
Flushing
Pump and Treat
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction
S olidification/S tab ilization
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization
by
Eastland Woolen Mill - OU1 ME
Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc. - OU 2 TX
Fisher-Calo IN
Shore Realty (Formerly Applied Environmental NY
Services) - Groundwater OU
Wayne Waste Oil IN
French Limited TX
Gulf Coast Vacuum Services — OU 1 LA
Penta Wood Products - OU 01 WI
Vogel Paint & Wax IA
Chemical Treatment Followed by
Multi-Phase Extraction Cooper Drum Company
Neutralization
Solidification/Stabilization
S olidification/S tab ilization
Thermal Desorption
Tex-TinOU 1 (ROD Amendment)
JFD Electronics/Channel Master
Palmetto Wood Preserving
Wide Beach Development Site
CA
TX
NC
sc
NY
Flushing Followed by
Bioremediation
Bioremediation Followed by
Soil Vapor Extraction
Montana Pole And Treating Plant -
Area Under Interstate 15/90
MT
North Railroad Avenue Plume Superfund Site NM
Multi-Phase Extraction Followed by
Bioremediation American Creosote Works OU2
Soil Vapor Extraction Fort Richardson — OU B
Soil Vapor Extraction Followed by
Flushing Jadco-Hughes Facility
Soil Washing Followed by
Bioremediation Cabot/Koppers - Koppers OU
Thermal Desorption
and Chemical Treatment Myers Property
Thermal Desorption Followed by
Chemical Treatment PCX - Statesville - OU 2
Chemical Treatment Smith's Farm - OU 1 (Amendment)
FL
AK
NC
FL
NJ
Solvent Extraction Followed by
Incineration United Creosoting Co. TX
Solidification/Stabilization Arctic Surplus AK
Vitrification Idaho National Engineering Laboratory — ID
Pit 9, OU 7-10
NC
KY
In Situ Thermal Treatment Followed by
Bioremediation Southern California Edison, Visalia Pole Yard CA
Incineration Brodhead Creek PA
Soil Vapor Extraction
and Bioremediation Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc. — OU 2 TX
C-1
-------
APPENDIX D
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES:
SUMMARY OF STATUS REPORT UPDATES,
CHANGES, DELETIONS
-------
Explanation of Appendix D:
Summary of Status Report
Updates, Changes, and Deletions
This Appendix describes the updates, changes, and
deletions made to the database supporting
Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual
Status Report (ASR). The appendix is divided into
ten tables, one for each edition of the ASR
beginning with the Second Edition (September
1991). Within each table is a description of the
updates, changes, and deletions made to the
database supporting the ASR from one edition to
the next.
These updates, changes, and deletions are
generated primarily through contacts with
Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) and review
of earlier Records of Decisions (RODs), ROD
amendments, and Explanations of Significant
Differences (ESDs) to identify changes in
treatment remedies and mistakes in the database.
Due to the large number of new projects based
on information gathered from RODs, ROD
amendments, and ESDs published since the last
edition of the ASR (272 for the 11th edition), the
tables in Appendix D do not describe these new
projects.
The purpose of Appendix D is to document
changes in the ASR database and thereby
document changes in treatment remedies at
Superfund sites. For each updated, changed, or
deleted project, the appendix lists: site identifying
information; the specific update, change, or
deletion; an explanation of why the update,
change, or deletion was made; and a site contact,
usually the remedial project manager (RPM).
When new projects are discovered through site
contacts and have not yet been documented in a
ROD, ROD amendment, or ESD, they are
recorded in Appendix D with the specific
treatment technology listed in the "Added"
column. When a remedy changes from a treatment
remedy to one that does not include treatment,
the project based on that remedy is listed in
Appendix D with a "Yes" in the "Deleted" column.
The non-treatment remedy replacing the treatment
remedy is described in the "Comments" column.
When a remedy changes from one treatment
technology to another treatment technology, the
new technology is listed in the "Changed To"
column.
The database supporting the ASR contains
information on specific projects for the treatment
of contamination sources and contaminated
groundwater at Superfund sites. The database does
not track other types of remedies, such as off-site
disposal in a landfill or monitored natural
attenuation. Therefore, when a remedy is changed
from treatment to non-treatment, the project
created in the database for that treatment remedy
is deleted. Appendix D also shows that project as
being deleted.
Each Superfund site may have multiple waste types
and multiple areas of contamination, requiring
multiple, separate treatments. For each distinct
waste type and each distinct area of contamination
treated, the ASR database contains a separate
treatment project. When a waste is treated through
a treatment train, the ASR database contains a
separate treatment project for each step in the
treatment train. Appendix D reflects this
organization or treatment remedies based on
specific projects, and may contain multiple rows
for the same site. For example, at the Caroll and
Dubies Sewage Disposal site in New York, a 1995
ROD indicated that three separate and distinct
technologies (bioremediation, soil vapor
extraction, and solidification/stabilization
treatments) would be used to treat three distinct
wastes. Therefore, three separate projects were
created in the ASR databse for the Caroll and
Dubies Sewage Disposal site. However, the
remedy was changed for all of these wastes to off-
site disposal. Therefore, all three projects were
deleted from the ASR database, and Appendix D
contains three entries for the Caroll and Dubies
Sewage Disposal site, one for each deleted project.
D-1
-------
The eleventh edition of the report adds information about 272 new treatment projects selected for remedial actions in FY 2000, FY 2001, and FY 2002 Records of Deci-
sion (RODs), ROD Amendments, and Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs). These are not listed in Appendix D.
Changes to projects from the tenth edition are listed below.
Eleventh Edition (September 2003): Additions, Changes, and Deletions from the Tenth Edition (February 2001)
SITE NAME. STATE TECHNOLOGY 11TH EDITION
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 10TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
Linemaster Switch Corporation,
CT (7/21/1 993)
New Bedford Harbor, MA
(4/27/1999)
Otis Air National Guard Area of
Contamination CS1 6 and CS17
OU 11, MA (5/5/1 999)
Otis Air National Guard Fuel
Spill No 9 OU 10, MA (7/6/1 999)
Otis Air Natioinal Guard - Fuel
Spill 12, MA (9/25/1 995)
Otis Air National Guard OU 8,
MA (8/1 6/1 999)
Brewster Well Field -OU 2, NY
(9/29/1988)
Cosden Chemical Coatings, NJ
(9/30/1992)
General Motors/Central Foundry
Division, NY (3/31/1992)
FAA Technical Center- Area B
Navy Fire Testing Facility, NJ
(9/20/1996)
FAA Technical Center- Area B
Navy Fire Testing Facility, NJ
(9/20/1996)
Soil Vapor Extraction
Solidification/stabilization
Solidification/stabilization
Solidification/stabilization
Air Sparging
Solidification/stabilization
Incineration
Solidification/stabilization
Thermal Desorption
Air Sparging (in situ) -
Groundwater
Soil Vapor Extraction
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Physical Separation
Solidification/
stabilization
This remedy is a component of the multi-phase extraction
system at this site. Therefore, this project has been deleted.
The site contact indicated that a ROD Amendment changed the
remedy to dewatering followed by off-site disposal.
The site contact indicated that remedy was changed to
excavation and off-site disposal.
The site contact indicated that remedy was changed to
excavation and off-site disposal.
The site contact indicated that remedy was changed to
excavation and off-site disposal.
AFY1998 ESD changed the remedy to off-site treatment
and/or disposal.
Community relations issues
Based on subsequent investigations, the groundwater plume was
found to be more extensive than initial investigations indicated.
The costs to implement this technology became prohibitive.
Based on subsequent investigations, the groundwater plume was
found to be more extensive than initial investigations indicated.
The costs to implement this technology became prohibitive.
William Lovely
617-918-1240
lovely.william@epa.gov
Jim Brown
617-918-1308
brown.jim@epa.gov
Bob Lim
617-918-1392
lim.robert@epa.gov
Bob Lim
617-918-1392
lim.robert@epa.gov
Bob Lim
617-918-1392
lim.robert@epa.gov
Bob Lim
617-918-1392
lim.robert@epa.gov
Lisa Wong
212-637-4267
wong.lisa@epa.gov
Edward Finnerty
212-637-4367
finnerty.ed@epa.gov
Anne Kelly
212-637-4397
kelly.anne@epa.gov
Bill Roach
212-637-4335
roach.bill@epa.gov
Bill Roach
212-637-4335
roach.bill@epa.gov
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-2
-------
Eleventh Edition (September 2003) (continued)
SITE NAME, STATE TECHNOLOGY
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 10TH EDITION)
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Love Canal, NY (7/1/1 982)
Reynolds Metals Company Study
Area (RMC), NY (9/27/1 993)
Vineland Chemical Co., Inc. -
OU1.NJ (9/29/1 989)
Browns Battery Breaking Site
-OU 2, PA (7/2/1 992)
Brown's Battery Breaking Site -
OU 2, PA (7/2/1 992)
Eastern Diversified Metals, PA
(3/29/1991)
Naval Surface Warfare Center,
Site 1 7, VA (9/30/1 998)
Ordnance Works Disposal Areas,
WV (9/30/1 999)
Revere Chemical, PA
(12/27/1993)
Seagertown Industrial Area, PA
(1/29/1993)
Saegertown Industrial Area, PA
(1/29/1993)
Vertical Engineered Barrier
Incineration (off-site)
Flushing (in situ)
Chemical Treatment
Passive Treatment Wall
Solidification/stabilization
Phytoremediation
Thermal Desorption
Vertical Engineered Barrier
Air Sparging
Soil Vapor Extraction
11TH EDITION I
ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Solidification/
stabilization
Physical Separation
Bioremediation
(in situ) -
Groundwater
Slurry wall was considered but not installed.
Community relations issues
The site contact indicated that the remedy was not implemented
because it was determined that the technology would not be
effective.
The site contact indicated that in situ chemical treatment was
determined to work better.
A FY 2001 ROD was issued changing the remedy to capping.
The site contact indicated that this technology is not actually
phytoremediation but rather an alternative landfill cover.
The site contact indicated that the remedy was not conducted.
The coal tar was removed and used as a fuel (classified as
physical separation).
Following SVE treatment of the soil, it was not necessary to
install a VEB.
The site contact indicated that the technology was changed to
enhanced bioremediation.
The site contact indicated that a ROD Amendment has been
issued that selects bioremediation.
Damian Duda
212-637-4269
duda.damian@epa.gov
Anne Kelly
212-637-4397
kelly.anne@epa.gov
Matthew Westgate
212-637-4422
westgate.matthew@epa.gov
Christopher J.Corbett
215-814-3220
corbett.chris@epa.gov
Christopher J.Corbett
215-814-3220
corbett.chris@epa .gov
John Banks
215-814-3214
banks.john_d@epa.gov
Paul Leonard
215-814-3350
leonard.paul@epa.gov
Christian Malta
215-814-2317
matta.christian@epa.gov
Ruth Scharr
215-566-3191
scharr.ruth@epa.gov
Christopher J.Corbett
215-814-3220
corbett.chris@epa.gov
Christopher J.Corbett
215-814-3220
corbett.chris@epa.gov
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-3
-------
Eleventh Edition (September 2003) (continued)
REGION
SITE NAME, STATE
(ROD DATE)
TECHNOLOGY 11TH EDITION
(LISTED IN 10TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO
COMMENTS
CONTACTS/PHONE
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Standard Chlorine of Delaware,
Inc., DE (3/9/1 995)
TonolliCorp,PA(3/12/1999)
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps
(Amendment), NC (9/30/1991)
Calhoun Park Area - OU 01 , SC
(9/30/1998)
Carolina Transformer Co., NC
(8/29/1991)
Homestead Air Force Base
OU28,FL(8/15/1999)
Homestead Air Force Base -
OU02,FL(7/16/1998)
JFD Electronics/Channel Master,
NC (9/1 0/1 992)
JFD Electronics/Channel Master,
NC (9/1 0/1 992)
Bioremediation (ex situ) -
Other
Bioremediation (ex situ) -
Land Treatment
Thermal Desorption
Chemical Treatment -
Oxidation/Reduction
Solidification/stabilization
Solidification/stabilization
Solidification/stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/stabilization
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Thermal
Desorption
The site contact indicated that the contingent remedy was
implemented because the goals could not be met.
The site contact indicated that the remedy was not implemented
at this site.
This project was listed as a duplicate entry.
The site contact indicated the technology changed to excavation
and off-site disposal.
The site contact indicated that this technology was replaced by
solvent extraction.
The site contact indicated that remedy was changed to
excavation and off-site disposal.
This technology was a contingent remedy and was to be
implemented if excavated soils failed TCLP for lead. This
technology was not necessary since the excavated soil passed
the TCLP for lead.
The estimated volume of contaminated soil decreased from
1 ,250 cubic yards to 650 cubic yards. Treatment is no longer
necessary, and soils will be excavated for off-site disposal.
Hilary Thornton
215-814-3323
thornton .hilary@epa .gov
John Banks
215-814-3214
banks.john_d@epa.gov
Luis E. Flores
404-562-8807
flores.luis@epa.gov
Terry Tanner
404-562-8797
tanner.terry@epa.gov
Luis E. Flores
404-562-8807
flores.luis@epa.gov
Doyle Brittain
404-562-8549
brittain.doyle@epa.gov
Doyle Brittain
404-562-8549
brittain.doyle@epa.gov
Samantha Urquhart-Foster
404-562-8760
urquhartjoster.samantha
@e pa.gov
Samantha Urquhart-Foster
404-562-8760
urquhartjoster.samantha
@e pa.gov
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-4
-------
Eleventh Edition (September 2003) (continued)
SITE NAME. STATE TECHNOLOGY 11™ EDITION
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 10TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
Peak Oil/Bay Drum, FL
(6/21/1993)
Peak Oil/Bay Drum OU 2-
Site Wide Groundwater, FL
(8/9/1993)
Peak Oil/Bay Drum -OU1.FL
(6/21/1993)
Savannah River Site USDOE
OU 66, SC (9/28/1 999)
Savannah River Site - USDOE
-OU 60, SC (9/28/1 999)
Shuronlnc-OU01,SC
(9/9/1998)
Smiths Farm OU2, KY
(9/17/1993)
ALGOMA MUNICIPAL
LANDFILL, Wl (9/29/1 990)
American Chemical Services, Inc,
IN (7/27/1999)
American Chemical Services, Inc.
-offsite, IN (7/27/1 999)
Bioremediation (in situ)
-Other
Bioremediation
Flushing (in situ)
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/stabilization
Bioremediation
Permeable Reactive Barrier
Vertical Engineered Barrier
Soil Vapor Extraction
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Solidification/
stabilization
The site contact indicated that the technology was changed to
solidification/stabilization followed by capping.
A FY2001 ESD deleted this remedy.
Based on the FY 1998 ROD, the cost-effectiveness of this
technology versus excavation and off-site disposal was
determined. Excavation and off-site disposal was selected
as the remedy.
Data entry error. This project was entered as a duplicate.
Data entry error. This project was entered as a duplicate.
Wesley Hardegree
404-562-8938
hardegree.wes@epa.gov
Wesley Hardegree
404-562-8938
hardegree.wex@epa.gov
Wesley Hardegree
404-562-8938
hardegree.wes@epa.gov
Ken Feely
404-562-8512
feely.ken@epa.gov
Ken Feely
404-562-8512
feely.ken@epa.gov
Ralph Howard
404-562-8829
howard.ralph@epa.gov
Antonio Deangelo
404-562-8826
deangelo.antonio@epa.gov
David Linnear
312-886-1841
linnear.david@epa.gov
Kevin Adler
312-886-7078
adler.kevin@epa.gov
Kevin Adler
312-886-7078
adler.kevin@epa.gov
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-5
-------
Eleventh Edition (September 2003) (continued)
SITE NAME, STATE TECHNOLOGY
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 10TH EDITION)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Cliff/Dow Dump, Ml (9/27/1 989)
ConrailRailYard-OU2, IN
(9/9/1994)
Macgillis and Gibbs/Bell Lumber
and Pole -OU1.MN (9/30/1 999)
Macgillis and Gibbs/Bell Lumber
and Pole -OU3.MN (9/30/1 999)
Macgillis and Gibbs/Bell Lumber
and Pole -OU3.MN (9/30/1 999)
Moss-American Groundwater,
Wl (4/29/1 997)
Motor Wheel Disposal Site, Ml
(9/30/1991)
Organic Chemicals, Inc. - OU 2,
Ml (2/5/1997)
Sangamo Electric Dump/Crab
Orchard National Wildlife Refuge
- Explosives/Munitions
Manufacturing Area OU, IL
(2/19/1997)
South Macomb Disposal
Authority, Ml (8/31/1991)
Incineration (off-site)
Air Sparging (in situ) -
Groundwater
Chemical Treatment -
Oxidation/Reduction
Bioremediation (ex situ) -
Biopile
Chemical Treatment -
Oxidation/Reduction
Bioremediation
Vertical Engineered Barrier
Solidification/stabilization
Incineration
Vertical Engineered Barrier
11TH EDITION
ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
This remedy was changed to excavation and off-site disposal.
The site contact indicated that during the remedial investigation,
one hit of contamination was found. However, that one hit has
been found since; therefore, the technology will not be
implemented.
This technology was listed as the preferred remedy in the FY
1 999 ROD. However, no responses (bids) were received to
implement the technology.
Data entry error. This project should not have been listed for
OU3, only for OU1.
Data entry error. This project should not have been listed for
OU3, only for OU1.
Further study indicated the slurry wall was not necessary.
The site contact indicated an ESD was issued that states the
actual volume of soil to be treated was too small to
cost-effectively treat using this technology.
Replaced slurry wall with expaned leachate collection system.
Kenneth Glatz
312-886-1434
glatz.kenneth@epa.gov
Brad Bradley
312-886-4742
bradley.brad@epa.gov
Darryl Owens
312-886-7089
owens.darryl@epa.gov
Darryl Owens
312-886-7089
owens.darryl@epa.gov
Darryl Owens
312-886-7089
owens.darryl@epa.gov
Russell Hart
312-886-4844
hart.russell@epa.gov
Heather Nelson
312-353-0685
nelson.heather@epa.gov
Thomas Williams
312-886-6157
williams.thomas@epa.gov
Nanjunda Gowda
312-353-9236
gowda.nanjunda@epa.gov
David Kline
517-373-8354
klined@state.mi.us
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-6
-------
Eleventh Edition (September 2003) (continued)
SITE NAME, STATE TECHNOLOGY
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 10TH EDITION)
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
Springfield Township Dump, Ml
(9/29/1990)
Springfield Township Dump-
OU 01, Ml (6/1 0/1 998)
Springfield Township Dump -
OU 01, Ml (6/1 0/1 998)
Springfield Township Dump-
90ROD, Ml (9/29/1990)
Tar Lake - Pump & Treat, Ml
(9/29/1992)
Thermo-Chem, IncOlM.MI
(9/30/1991)
Popile.AR (2/1/1993)
Popile.AR (2/1/1993)
Sheridan Disposal Services, TX
(12/29/1988)
Ace Services, KS (5/5/1 999)
Air Sparging
Solidification/stabilization
Thermal Desorption
Solidification/stabilization
Air Sparging
Soil Vapor Extraction
Bioremediation (in situ) -
Groundwater
Bioremediation (ex situ) -
Land Treatment
Bioremediation (ex situ) -
Slurry Phase
Bioremediation (in situ) -
Groundwater
11TH EDITION
ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Solidification/
stabilization
Pump and Treat
The FY 1 998 ROD Amendment listed this technology as a
contingent remedy. However, this technology will not be
implemented.
The FY 1 998 ROD Amendment listed this technology as a
contingent remedy. However, this technology will not be
implemented.
The site contact indicated that a ROD Amendment has been
issued that deleted this technology.
A FY 2001 ROD Amendment deleted this remedy.
A FY 2001 ROD Amendment deleted this remedy.
The site contact indicated that alternatives were to be evaluated
due to the length of time that has passed.
The FY 2001 ROD Amendment changed the remedy due to a
change in the use of the treated water and because of an
increase in the size of the contaminated plume.
Kevin Adler
312-886-7078
adler.kevin@epa.gov
Kevin Adler
312-886-7078
adler.kevin@epa.gov
Kevin Adler
312-886-7078
adler.kevin@epa.gov
Kevin Adler
312-886-7078
adler.kevin@epa.gov
Thomas Bloom
312-886-1967
bloom.thomas@epa .gov
Kenneth Glatz
312-886-1434
glatz.kenneth@epa.gov
Shawn Ghose
214-665-6782
ghose.shawn@epa.gov
Shawn Ghose
214-665-6782
ghose.shawn@epa.gov
Gary A. Baumgarten
214-665-6749
baumgarten.gary@epa.gov
BobStewart
913-551-7654
stewart.robert@epa.gov
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-7
-------
Eleventh Edition (September 2003) (continued)
REGION
SITE NAME, STATE
(ROD DATE)
TECHNOLOGY 11TH EDITION
(LISTED IN 10TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO
COMMENTS
CONTACTS/PHONE
7
7
7
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
Lake City Army Ammunition
Plant Area 180U, MO (4/22/1999)
Peoples Natural Gas, IA
(9/16/1991)
Valley Park Tee Wainwright OU1
Ex-situSVE, MO (4/26/1 996)
Rocky Mountain Arsenal OU 23,
00(5/3/1990)
Southern California Edison,
Visalia Pole Yard, CA (6/10/1994)
Tracy Defense Depot (USArmy)
-OU01,CA(4/14/1998)
Williams Air Force Base - OU 2,
AZ (8/1 6/1 996)
Fort Lewis Logistics Center, WA
(9/25/1990)
Harbor Island -Soil and
GroundwaterOU.WA (9/30/1993)
Harbor Island (Lead) - Soil And
GroundwaterOU.WA (9/30/1993)
Lockheed Shipyard Facility/
Harbor Island -OU 3, WA
(6/28/1994)
Union Pacifice Railroad Tie
Treatment -Vadose Zone Soils,
OR (3/27/1 996)
Multi-Phase Extraction
Bioremediation (in situ) -Other
Soil Vapor Extraction
Vertical Engineered Barrier
Bioremediation
Bioventing
Soil Vapor Extraction
In Situ Thermal Treatment
Soil Vapor Extraction
Thermal Desorption
Thermal Desorption
Bioremediation
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
The site contact indicated that site conditions were identified for
which the technology was not implementable.
The site contact indicated that this remedy has been discontinued.
A ROD signed on 6/1 1/96 eliminated the VEB for groundwater
containment.
The site contact indicated that this technology was not
implemented.
This remedy was changed to excavation and off-site disposal.
This remedy was changed to excavation and off-site disposal.
Scott Marques
913-551-7131
Marquess.scott@epa.gov
Diana Engeman
913-551-7746
engeman.diana@epa.gov
Steve Auchterlonie
913-551-7778
auchtei1onie.steve@epa.gov
Laura Williams
303-312-6660
williams.laura@epa.gov
Shea Jones
415-972-3148
jones.shea@epa.gov
Michael Work
415-972-3024
Michael Wolfram
415-972-3027
wolfram.michael@epa.gov
Bob Kievit
360-753-9014
kievit.bob@epa.gov
Neil Thompson
206-553-7177
thompson.neil@epa.gov
Neil Thompson
206-553-7177
thompson.neil@epa.gov
Neil Thompson
206-553-7177
thompson.neil@epa.gov
Alan Goodman
503-326-3685
goodman.al@epa.gov
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-8
-------
The tenth edition of the report adds information about 133 new treatment projects selected for remedial actions in FY 1998 and FY 1999 Records of Decision (RODs),
ROD Amendments, and Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs). These are not listed in Appendix D.
Tenth Edition (March 2001): Additions, Changes, and Deletions from the Ninth Edition (April 1999)
REGION
SITE NAME, STATE
(ROD DATE)
TECHNOLOGY 10TH EDITION
(LISTED IN 9TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO
COMMENTS
CONTACTS/PHONE
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
New Bedford, MA (04/06/90)
Silresim Chemical, MA
(09/19/91)
Loring Air Force Base - OU
10, Entomology Shop, ME
(removal action, no ROD date
available)
Carroll & Dubies Sewage
Disposal, NY (03/31/95)
Carroll & Dubies Sewage
Disposal, NY (03/31/95)
Carroll & Dubies Sewage
Disposal, NY (03/31/95)
Ellis Property, NJ (09/30/92)
Ewan Property -OU 2, NJ
(09/29/88)
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization
Bioremediation (in situ) -
Bioventing
Bioremediation (in situ) -
Lagoon
Soil Vapor Extraction
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization
Chemical Treatment -
Groundwater
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Soil Vapor
Extraction
RODs from FY 1998 and 1999 changed the remedy from on-
site incineration followed by solidification/stabilization to off-
site disposal due to community concerns. The incineration
portion of the remedy was deleted in the eighth edition based
on information provided by the site contact, and does not
appear in this table.
Specified in a FY 1 991 ROD as a contingent remedy to treat
soils not effectively treated by soil vapor extraction, but never
implemented. Soil vapor extraction treatment is currently
treating soil effectively.
The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed
because bioventing was determined to be unsuitable due to
site hydrogeology.
AFY1998 ESD changed the remedy to off-site treatment and
disposal because additional site investigation revealed that the
waste could be easily separated fromthe underlying soil. The
type of off-site treatment has not been determined.
AFY1998 ESD changed the remedy to off-site treatment and
disposal because additional site investigation revealed that the
waste could be easily separated fromthe underlying soil. The
type of off-site treatment has not been determined.
AFY1998 ESD changed the remedy to off-site treatment and
disposal because additional site investigation revealed that the
waste could be easily separated fromthe underlying soil. The
type of off-site treatment has not been determined.
The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed to
off-site disposal because additional site investigation revealed
that the contaminant levels were lower than expected.
The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed to
groundwater pump-and-treat because treatability studies
indicated that in situ chemical treatment was not effective.
Jim Brown
617-573-5779
brown.jim@epa.gov
Mark Otis
978-318-8895
e-mail address not
available
Mike Napilinski
617-918-1268
napilinski.mike@epa.gov
Maria Jon
212-637-3967
jon.maria@epa.gov
Maria Jon
212-637-3967
jon.maria@epa.gov
Maria Jon
212-637-396
jon.maria@epa.gov
Richard Ho
212-637-4372
ho.richard@epa.gov
Stephen Cipot
212-637-4411
cipot.stephen@epa.gov
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-9
-------
Tenth Edition (March 2001) (continued)
SITE NAME, STATE TECHNOLOGY
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 9TH EDITION)
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
Fried Industries, NJ (6/27/94)
GCL Tie And Treating -OU 2,
NY (3/31/95)
GE Wiring Devices, PR
(9/30/88)
Lipari Landfill, NJ (9/30/85)
Reynolds Metals Company -
Study Area, NY (09/27/93)
Tutu Well Field -VI (8/5/96)
Avco Lycoming, PA (12/30/96)
Brodhead Creek, PA (3/29/91)
Cryochem, Inc. - OU 3, PA
(9/30/91)
Solidification/Stabilization
Thermal Desorption
Soil Washing
Project not in 9th edition of
theASR. Original ROD did
not include this project.
Thermal Desorption
Bioremediation (in situ) -
Other
Chemical Treatment -
Groundwater
Incineration (off-site)
Soil Vapor Extraction
10TH EDITION
ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
Dual-Phase
Extraction
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Incineration
(off-site)
Incineration
(off-site)
Bioremediation
(in situ) -
Groundwater
The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed to off-
site disposal because additional site investigation revealed large
amounts of contaminated debris. The use of solidification/
stabilization on this debris would have been impractical.
The site contact indicated that the sediments of OU 2 have been
combined with the soils of OU 1 for treatment using thermal
desorption. The work is documented in the 1 0th edition of the ASR
as a single project. Therefore, the OU 2 project has been deleted.
A FY 1 999 ROD amendment changed the remedy because the
cost of soil washing was too high.
The site contact indicated that dual-phase extraction was added
at this site to remove insoluble volatile organic compounds.
The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed from
on-site thermal desorption to off-site incineration because the
cost of thermal desorption was too high.
ROD was misinterpreted. The technology used at the site was
soil vapor extraction. This is not a distinct project, it is part of
the Tutu Well Field Esso project, which is already listed in the
ASR database.
ROD was misinterpreted. Technology used stimulates microbes
to create an environment in which hexavalent chromium will be
reduced to its trivalent state. This technology is more
accurately identified as bioremediation.
ROD was misinterpreted. Incineration is of non-aqueous phase
liquids collected through in situ thermal treatment process,
which is considered treatment of residuals, and not source
treatment.
A FY 1 998 ESD eliminated the soil vapor extraction portion of
the remedy because soil sampling showed that contaminant
concentrations were below remediation goals and soil gas
assessment showed that the contaminant levels were below
typical levels for effective soil vapor extraction treatment.
Tom Porucznik
212-637-4370
porucznik.tom@epa.gov
Janet Cappelli
212-637-4270
cappelli.janet@epa.gov
Caroline Kwan
212-637-4275
kwan .caroline@epa .gov
Fred Cataneo
212-637-4428
cataneo.fred@epa.gov
Anne Kelly
212-637-4264
kelly.anne@epa.gov
Caroline Kwan
212-637-4275
kwan .caroline@epa .gov
Jill Lowe
215-814-5336
lowe.jill@epa.gov
John Banks
215-814-3214
banks.john-d@epa.gov
Joseph McDowell
215-566-3192
mcdowell.joseph@epa.gov
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-10
-------
Tenth Edition (March 2001) (continued)
REGION
SITE NAME, STATE
(ROD DATE)
TECHNOLOGY 10TH EDITION
(LISTED IN 9TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO
COMMENTS
CONTACTS/PHONE
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
Delaware Sand & Gravel
Landfill, DE (9/30/93)
Douglassville Disposal, PA
(6/30/89)
Hunterstown Road, PA (8/2/93)
North Penn Area 6, PA
(9/29/95)
Ordnance Works Disposal
Areas, WV (9/29/89)
Ordnance Works Disposal
Areas, WV (9/29/89)
Whitmoyer Laboratories - OU 3,
PA (12/31/90)
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps,
NC (9/30/91)
American Creosote Works -
OU 2 Phase 1,FL (2/3/94)
Incineration (off-site)
Incineration (off-site)
Incineration (off-site)
In Situ Thermal Treatment
(Hot Air Injection)
Bioremediation (ex situ) -
Land Treatment
Solidification/Stabilization
Bioremediation (ex-situ) -
Other
Incineration (off-site)
Project not in 9th edition of
theASR. Original ROD did
not include this project.
Dual-Phase
Extraction
Yes
Yes
Yes
Soil Vapor
Extraction
Thermal
Desorption
Thermal
Desorption
Thermal
Desorption
Thermal
Desorption
The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed
because the cost of incineration was too high.
A FY 1 999 ROD amendment changed the remedy from a
treatment train of incineration followed by solidification/
stabilization to solidification/stabilization only, because this
technology was determined to be as effective and less
expensive.
The site contact indicated that this remedy was not imple-
mented because additional site investigations revealed that
treatment was not required before off-site disposal of the waste.
The site contact indicated that treatability testing revealed that
treatment goals could not be met. A replacement remedy has
not yet been selected.
A FY 1 999 ROD changed the treatment train of bioremediation
followed by solidification/stabilization to thermal desorption
because treatability studies revealed that the remedy could not
meet cleanup goals.
A FY 1 999 ROD changed the treatment train of bioremediation
followed by solidification/stabilization to thermal desorption
because treatability studies revealed that the remedy could not
meet cleanup goals.
The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed
because additional site investigations revealed arsenic
contamination, which could not be effectively treated with
bioremediation.
The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed due to
public protest. The remedy change will be documented in a
future ROD amendment.
ROD was misinterpreted.
Philip Rotstein
215-814-3232
rotstein.phil@epa.gov
Victor J. Janosik
215-814-3217
janosik.victor@epa.gov
John Banks
215-814-3214
banks.john-d@epa.gov
Gregory Ham
215-566-3194
ham.greg@epa.gov
Chris Malta
215-814-2317
matta.christian@epa.gov
Chris Malta
215-814-2317
matta.christian@epa.gov
ChristoperCorbett
215-814-3220
corbett.chris@epa .gov
Randy McElveen
919-733-2801
e-mail address not available
Mark Fite
404-562-8927
fite.mark@epa.gov
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-11
-------
Tenth Edition (March 2001) (continued)
SITE NAME. STATE TECHNOLOGY 10™ EDITION
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 9TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Cape Fear Wood Preserving,
NC (6/30/89)
Cecil Field Naval Air Station -
OU 2, Site 5, FL (6/24/96)
Cecil Field Naval Air Station -
OU 2, Site 5, FL (6/24/96)
Creotox Chemical Products
Fullco Lumber Company, AL
(5/8/95)
Chevron Chemical Company,
FL (5/22/96)
Chevron Chemical Company,
FL (5/22/96)
General Electric Company -
Shepard Farm Site, NC
(9/29/95)
Palmetto Wood Preserving, SC
(9/30/87)
Solidification/Stabilization
Air Sparging (in situ) -
Groundwater
Bioremediation (ex situ) -
Other
Bioremediation (ex situ) -
Land Treatment
Bioremediation (ex situ) -
Other
Air Sparging (in situ) -
Groundwater
Permeable Reactive Barrier
Bioremediation (in situ) -
Groundwater
Project not in 9th edition of
theASR. Original ROD did
not include this project.
Chemical
Treatment
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Incineration (off-
site)
This remedy was part of a treatment train including thermal
desorption. The site contact indicated that this remedy was not
implemented because thermal desorption treatment met the
cleanup goals without solidification/stabilization.
The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed to
monitored natural attenuation because additional site investiga-
tions revealed contaminant concentrations much lower than
expected.
The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed to
monitored natural attenuation because additional site investiga-
tions revealed contaminant concentrations much lower than
expected.
The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed to off-
site incineration because bioremediation could not meet the
cleanup goals.
A report generated for the site indicated that bioremediation
could not meet cleanup goals. A replacement remedy has not
yet been selected.
The site contact indicated that the remedy was unnecessary
because monitored natural attenuation effectively met cleanup
goals.
The site contact indicated that the remedy was unnecessary
because monitored natural attenuation effectively met cleanup
goals.
The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed to
pump-and-treat of groundwater because treatability testing
indicated that bioremediation was not effective.
The site contact indicated that chemical treatment was added to
reduce chromium to its trivalent state prior to treatment by
sol id if icatio n/sta bi lizatio n .
Jon Bornholm
404-562-8820
bornholm.jon@epa.gov
Debbie \£ughn-Wright
404-562-8539
vaughn-
wright.debbie@epa.gov
Debbie Vaughn-Wright
404-562-8539
vaughn-
wright.debbie@epa.gov
Samantha Urquhart-Foster
404-562-8760
urquhart-
foster.samantha@epa.gov
Waynon Johnson
404-562-8769
johnson.waynon@epa.gov
Bill Denman
404-562-8939
denman.bill@epa.gov
Bill Denman
404-562-8939
denman.bill@epa.gov
Giezelle Bennett
404-562-8824
bennett.giezelle@epa.gov
Al Cherry
404-562-8828
cherry.al@epa.gov
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-12
-------
Tenth Edition (March 2001) (continued)
SITE NAME, STATE TECHNOLOGY
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 9TH EDITION)
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Tower Chemical Co., FL
(7/9/87)
American Chemical Services,
Inc., IN (9/30/92)
ConrailRailYard-OU2, IN
(9/9/94)
Tar Lake, Ml (9/29/92)
Koppers Coke - Groundwater
OU.MN (4/21/94)
Macgillis And Gibbs/ Bell
Lumber And Pole -OU 1,MN
(12/30/92)
Macgillis And Gibbs/ Bell
Lumber And Pole -OU 3, MN
(9/22/94)
Moss-American, Wl (9/27/90)
Incineration (on-site)
Thermal Desorption
Soil Vapor Extraction
Solidification/Stabilization
Bioremediation (in situ) -
Groundwater
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Bioremediation (ex situ) -
Slurry Phase
10TH EDITION
ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Thermal
Desorption
Chemical
Treatment
Followed by
Bioremediation
Chemical
Treatment
Followed by
Bioremediation
Thermal
Desorption
The site contact indicated that additional site investigations
revealed different contaminants than expected and that
incineration would not be appropriate. A revised remedy for the
site has not yet been developed.
A FY 1 999 ROD changed the remedy to installation of an
impermeable cap and off-site disposal of some wastes because
additional site investigations revealed additional volumes of
contaminated soil and debris, making thermal desorption
impractical.
The site contact indicated that additional site investigations
revealed that contaminant concentrations were lower than
expected and soil vapor extraction was unnecessary.
The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed to
reduce costs.
The site contact indicated that the remedy was replaced with
monitored natural attenuation because treatability testing
revealed that bioremediation was not increasing the rate of
degradation of contaminants.
A FY 1 999 ROD amendment changed the remedy to a
treatment train consisting of chemical treatment followed by
bioremediation (biopile) because incineration was too expensive
and difficult to implement.
A FY 1 999 ROD amendment changed the remedy to a
treatment train consisting of chemical treatment followed by
bioremediation (biopile) because incineration was too expensive
and difficult to implement.
A FY 1 998 ROD replaced the treatment train of soil washing
followed by slurry phase bioremediation with thermal desorption
because the original remedy could not meet cleanup goals. The
bioremediation project was changed to thermal desorption and
the soil washing project was deleted.
Galo Jackson
404-562-8937
jackson.galo@epa.gov
Kevin Adler
312-886-7078
adler.kevin@epa.gov
Brad Bradley
312-886-4742
bradley.brad@epa.gov
Thomas Bloom
312-886-1967
bloom.thomas@epa .gov
Mark Rys
651-296-7706
mark.rys@pca.state.mn.us
Darryl Owens
312-886-7089
owens.darryl@epa.gov
Darryl Owens
312-886-7089
owens.darryl@epa.gov
Russell Hart
312-886-4844
hart.russell@epa.gov
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-13
-------
Tenth Edition (March 2001) (continued)
SITE NAME, STATE TECHNOLOGY
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 9TH EDITION)
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Moss-American, Wl (9/27/90)
Refuse Hideaway Landfill, Wl
(6/28/95)
Air Force Plant 4 -Building
1 81, TX (8/26/96)
Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe
Clovis/Santa Fe Lake - Tph
Soil, NM (9/23/98)
Baldwin Waste Oil, TX (7/1/92)
Double Eagle Refinery Co, OK
(9/28/92)
Oklahoma Refining Company-
Hazardous Landfill, OK (6/9/92)
TexarkanaWood Preserving,
TX (9/25/90)
United Creosoting Co, TX
(9/29/89)
Soil Washing
Bioremediation (in situ) -
Groundwater
Soil Vapor Extraction
Bioremediation (in situ) -
Other
Bioremediation (in situ) -
Other
Project not in 9th edition of
theASR. Original ROD did
not include this project.
Bioremediation (in situ) -
Other
Incineration (on-site)
Solvent Extraction
10TH EDITION
ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
Neutralization
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Bioremediation (ex
situ) - Land
Treatment
Bioremediation (ex
situ) - Land
Treatment
A FY 1 998 ROD replaced the treatment train of soil washing
followed by slurry phase bioremediation with thermal desorption
because the original remedy could not meet cleanup goals. The
bioremediation project was changed to thermal desorption and
the soil washing project was deleted.
The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed to
monitored natural attenuation because the contaminants are
naturally attenuating.
The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed to dual
phase extraction and combined with another project at the site
already listed in theASR.
The site contact indicated that contaminated soil was combined
with sediments in an existing ex-situ bioremediation unit at the
site. No information is currently available on why this change
occurred.
ROD was misinterpreted.
ROD was misinterpreted.
ROD was misinterpreted.
A FY 1 998 ROD changed the remedy to on-site containment
through capping because of community concerns.
A FY 1 998 ROD amendment changed the remedy from a
treatment train of solvent extraction followed by incineration to
off-site disposal because the cost was too high and the capacity
of the treatment unit was too small.
Russell Hart
312-886-4844
hart.russell@epa.gov
Anthony Rutter
312-886-8961
rutter.anthony@epa.gov
George Walters
937-255-7716
george.walters@wpafb.af.mil
Tetra Sanchez
214-665-6686
sanchez.tetra@epa.gov
GaryGuerra
214-665-3120
guerra.gary@epa.gov
Phillip Allen
214-665-8516
allen.phillip@epa.gov
Earl Hendrick
214-665-8519
hendrick.earl@epa.gov
Earl Hendrick
214-665-8519
hendrick.earl@epa.gov
Earl Hendrick
214-665-8519
hendrick.earl@epa.gov
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-14
-------
Tenth Edition (March 2001) (continued)
REGION
SITE NAME, STATE
(ROD DATE)
TECHNOLOGY 10TH EDITION
(LISTED IN 9TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO
COMMENTS
CONTACTS/PHONE
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
United Creosoting Co., TX
(9/29/89)
Prewitt Abandoned Refinery,
NM (9/30/92)
Hastings Groundwater
Contamination- Colorado Ave.,
OU1.NE (09/30/91)
Hastings Groundwater
Contamination- Colorado Ave.,
OU1.NE (09/30/91)
Midwest Manufacturing/North
Farm, IA (2/28/93)
Sherwood Medical Co., NE
(9/5/1995)
BroderickWood Products, CO
(9/24/91)
Lockheed/Martin - Denver
Aerospace, CO (9/24/90)
Rocky Flats Plant - Buffer
Zone, CO (08/1 0/92)
Rocky Mountain Arsenal -
OnpostOU, Hex Pits, CO
(6/11/96)
Incineration (off-site)
Dual Phase Extraction
Project not in 9th edition of
the ASR.
Project not in 9th edition of
the ASR.
Bioremediation (in situ) -
Other
Soil Vapor Extraction
(ex situ)
Incineration (off-site)
Solidification/Stabilization
Soil Vapor Extraction
Thermal Desorption
Air sparging
(in situ) -
Groundwater
In-Well Air
Stripping
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Air Sparging
Mechanical Soil
Aeration
Permeable
Reactive Barrier
In Situ Thermal
Treatment
A FY 1 998 ROD amendment changed the remedy from a
treatment train of solvent extraction followed by incineration to
off-site disposal because the cost was too high and the capacity
of the solvent extraction treatment unit was too small.
ROD was misinterpreted.
ROD was misinterpreted.
ROD was misinterpreted.
ROD was misinterpreted.
The site contact indicated that, after mechanical soil aeration
was conducted in preparation for ex situ soil vapor extraction,
the contaminant concentrations met cleanup goals and soil
vapor extraction was unnecessary.
ROD was misinterpreted.
The site contact indicated that the remedy was not required
because additional site investigation revealed contaminant levels
were below cleanup goals.
The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed
because additional contamination was found that was not
amenable to soil vapor extraction, including dense non-aqueous
phase liquids.
ROD was misinterpreted.
Earl Hendrick
214-665-8519
hendrick.earl@epa.gov
Gregory Lyssy
214-665-8317
lyssy.gregory@epa.gov
Darrell Sommerhauser
913-551-7711
sommerhauser.darrell@epa.gov
Darrell Sommerhauser
913-551-7711
sommerhauser.darrell@epa.gov
Diane Easley
913-551-7797
easley.diane@epa.gov
Steve Auchterlonie
913-551-7778
auchterlonie.steve@epa.gov
Armando Saenz
313-302-6359
saenz.armando@epa.gov
Charles Johnson
303-692-3348
Johnson.Chaites@State.CO.US
Norma Casaneda
303-966-4226
casaneda.norma@epa.gov
Kerry Guy
303-312-7288
guy.kerry@epa.gov
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-15
-------
Tenth Edition (March 2001) (continued)
SITE NAME. STATE TECHNOLOGY 10™ EDITION
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 9TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
8
8
8
8
9
9
10
Rocky Mountain Arsenal -
OnpostOU,CO(6/11/96)
Sand Creek Industrial, OU 4,
CO (4/2/94)
Summitville Mine - OU 2, CO
(12/15/94)
Utah Power& Light/ American
Barrel, UT (7/7/93)
Navajo Toxaphene, AZ (1/1/95)
Williams Air Force Base - OU
3, AZ (12/30/92)
Queen City Farms, WA (10/24/
86)
Soil Washing
Soil Vapor Extraction
Project not in 9th edition of
the ASR.
Solidification/Stabilization
Bioremediation (in situ) -
Other
Bioventing
Solidification/Stabilization
Neutralization
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Bioremediation (ex
situ) - Other
Soil Vapor
Extraction
The site contact indicated that this remedy was specified as a
contingent remedy, but never implemented.
ROD was misinterpreted.
ROD was misinterpreted.
ROD was misinterpreted.
ROD was misinterpreted.
The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed
because bioventing could not meet cleanup goals.
The site contact indicated that the project was solidification
only, and no stabilization occurred. Solidification only projects
are not currently tracked in the ASR.
Kerry Guy
303-312-7288
guy.kerry@epa.gov
Erna Waterman
303-312-6762
waterman.erna@epa.gov
Victor Ketellaper
303-312-6578
ketellapper.victor@epa.gov
Paula Schmittdiel
303-312-6861
schmittdiel.paula@epa.gov
Robert Mandel
415-744-2290
mandel.bob@epa.gov
Sean Hogan
415-744-2334
hogan.sean@epa.gov
Neil Thompson
206-553-7177
thompson.neil@epa.gov
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-16
-------
Ninth Edition (April 1999): Additions, Changes, and Deletions from the Eighth Edition (November 1996)
The ninth edition of the report adds information about 42 treatment selected for remedial actions in FY 1996 and FY 1997 RODs, — treatment technologies non-Superfund,
and innovative technologies selected for two RCRA corrective actions. Other changes are listed below.
SITE NAME. STATE TECHNOLOGY 9TH EDITION
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 8TH EDITION) ADDED 1 DELETED 1 CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Beacon Heights Landfill, CT
(09/28/90)
Cannon Engineering - Plymouth
OU, MA
(03/31/88)
Charles George Reclamation
Trust Landfill, MA
(09/29/88)
Iron Horse Park - OU 1,MA
(09/15/88)
Salem Acres, MA
(03/25/93)
Sullivan's Ledge, MA
(06/28/89)
Sullivan's Ledge, MA
(09/27/91)
LoringAFB-OU 11, Vehicle
Maintenance Building, ME
(05/20/96)
Incineration
(off site)
Incineration
(off site)
Solidification/
stabilization
Bioremediation
(ex situ) - land treatment
Solidification/
stabilization
Solidification/
stabilization
Solidification/
stabilization
Soil vapor extraction
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
At $20 billion, incineration was considered cost-prohibitive. In
addition, the community was concerned about the safety of
transporting 22 acres of material by truck over switchback
mountain roads.
About 264 tons of soil contaminated with lead and PCBs were
disposed of at the Adams Center Sanitary Landfill in Fort
Wayne, Indiana. Incineration was never used. PRP's
contractor was allowed to put soil in a landfill without ROD
amendment or ESD.
The contaminated area was capped instead of using solidifica-
tion/stabilization. The estimated volume of contaminated media
had decreased; the technology was no longer effective.
Land treatment was changed to asphalt batching off site at a
state-permitted soil recycling facility. Bioremediation was taking
longer than expected; treatment goals could not be met. An
ESD was issued in October 1 997.
Contaminated soils were excavated and hauled from the site
instead of using solidification/stabilization. The estimated
volume of contaminated media had decreased; the technology
was no longer effective.
Stabilization is no longer part of the remedy. An ESD was
issued in 1 996 to eliminate that requirement.
Stabilization is no longer part of the remedy. An ESD was
issued in 1 996 to eliminate that requirement.
Never implemented. Soils were excavated and connected to
the base laundry SVE; soils were put into rolloff containers
with PVC pipe.
Elise Jakabhazy
617-573-5760
Dan Coughlin
617-573-9621
Elaine Stanley
617-223-5515
Don McElroy
617-223-5571
Elaine Stanley
617-223-5515
Dave Lederer
617-573-9665
Dave Lederer
617-573-9665
Mike Nalipinski
617-223-5503
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-17
-------
Ninth Edition (April 1999) (continued)
SITE NAME, STATE TECHNOLOGY
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 8TH EDITION)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
O'Connor, ME
(09/27/89)
O'Connor, ME
(09/27/89)
Union Chemical, ME
(12/27/90)
Union Chemical, ME
(12/27/90)
Ottati & Goss/Kingston Steel
Drum-OU4, NH
(01/16/87)
South Municipal Water Supply
Wells, NH
(09/27/89)
South Municipal Water Supply
Wells, NH
(09/27/89)
Davis Liquid Waste, Rl
(09/29/87)
Incineration
(off site)
Solidification/
stabilization
Incineration
(off site)
Solidification/
stabilization
Incineration
(on site)
Soil vapor extraction
In situ air stripping
(air sparging)
Solidification/
stabilization
9TH EDITION
ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Thermal
desorption
Problems included high cost for implementation of the
technology and equipment or site problems. Contaminated
soil was landfilled off site. An ESD was issued on 07/1 1/94.
The solidification/ stabilization remedy option provided
treatment of lead if incineration was chosen. Incineration was
not selected as a remedy. Contaminated soil was landfilled off
site. An ESD was issued on 07/1 1/94.
Misinterpretation of the ROD. The 1990 ROD selected
thermal desorption. That remedy was subsequently changed
toSVEin1994. An ESD was issued in April 1994. Seepage
D-36 for more information.
Misinterpretation of the ROD. The 1990 ROD selected
thermal desorption. That remedy was subsequently changed
toSVEin1994. An ESD was issued in April 1994. Seepage
D-36 for more information.
A change in cleanup level may be necessary under new risk
guidance issued since the ROD was signed.
Thermal desorption is more cost effective; the volume of
contaminated media had increased. A change in future use from
residential to nonresidential would require a ROD amendment.
A second ESD, issued in February 1997, granted a technical
impracticality waiver. The waiver eliminated SVE because of
the presence of DNAPLs. The SVE system has been shut
down.
The air injection well was not installed deep enough to deliver
air below the water table. Because of installation of deeper air
injection wells would have caused penetration of a confining
layer, that activity was not performed. An ESD was issued on
02/03/97.
Solidification/stabilization was proposed in the ROD as a
treatment for the residues of incineration, but thermal
desorption was used instead of incineration. Therefore,
solidification/stabilization was not used. No ROD amendment
or ESD was needed.
Ross Gilleland
617-573-5766
Ross Gilleland
617-573-5766
Terrence Connelly
617-573-9638
Terrence Connelly
617-573-9638
Richard Goehlert
617-573-5742
Roger Duwart
617-573-9628
Tom Andrews (NHDES)
603-271-2910
Roger Duwart
617-573-9628
Tom Andrews (NHDES)
603-271-2910
Neil Handler
617-573-9636
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-18
-------
Ninth Edition (April 1999) (continued)
REGION
SITE NAME, STATE
(ROD DATE)
TECHNOLOGY 9TH EDITION
(LISTED IN 8TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO
COMMENTS
CONTACTS/PHONE
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cosden Chemical Coatings
Corp, NJ
(09/30/92)
DeRewal Chemical Co, NJ
(09/29/89)
Ellis Property, NJ
(09/30/92)
Kauffman&Minteer, NJ
(09/27/96)
Reich Farms, NJ
(09/30/88)
Renora, Inc., NJ
(09/29/87)
Roebling Steel Co, NJ
(03/29/90)
Roebling Steel Co, NJ
(09/26/91)
Swope Oil & Chemical, NJ
(09/27/91)
Solidification/
stabilization
Solidification/
stabilization
Incineration
(off site)
Incineration
(off site)
Incineration
(off site)
None
Solidification/
stabilization
Solidification/
stabilization
Incineration
(off site)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Solidification/
stabilization
The estimated volume of contaminated media had decreased;
the technology was no longer effective. An ESD is to be
issued in the near future.
The treatability study indicated that leaching inorganics from the
solidified mass would increase contamination of the groundwa-
ter. An ESD, issued on 06/12/97, eliminates solidification/
stabilization and provides for off-site disposal.
Off-site incineration never was used because of high cost;
chemical stabilization was used instead.
No hazardous waste has been detected at this OU. The
nonhazardous waste currently is being excavated and disposed
of with no treatment. Additional characterization currently is
being performed.
This was a contingency in the ROD. The ROD specified
enhanced volatilization followed by either incineration or on-site
disposal. All soil was treated successfully by enhanced
volatilization and thus incineration was not necessary.
Original remedy was not listed in the ASR. The 1987 ROD
selected bioremediation (in situ) for groundwater. It was
cancelled because treatability studies showed bioremedia-
tion to be ineffective in treating PAH-contaminated soils. A
ROD Amendment signed on 09/30/94 changed the remedy
to off-site disposal.
Solidification/stabilization was considered and rejected because
of the high cost of cleaning up a large area of contamination (10
acres). A ROD amendment is expected in December 1998.
Solidification/stabilization was considered and rejected because
of the high cost of cleaning up a large area of contamination (10
acres). A ROD amendment is expected in December 1998.
Remedy included only SVE treatment, and no off-site
incineration was conducted. Misinterpretation of ROD.
Edward Finnerty
212-637-4367
Lawrence Granite
212-637-4423
Richard Ho
212-637-4372
Paolo Pascetta
212-637-4383
Jonathan Gorin
212-637-4361
Jonathan Gorin
212-637-4361
Tamara Rossi
212-637-4368
Tamara Rossi
212-637-4368
Joseph Cowers
212-637-4413
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-19
-------
Ninth Edition (April 1999) (continued)
SITE NAME. STATE TECHNOLOGY 9TH EDITION
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 8TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Waldick Aerospace Devices,
Inc., NJ
(03/29/91)
Waldick Aerospace Devices,
Inc., NJ
(09/29/87)
White Chemical Corp, NJ
(09/26/91)
Brookhaven National
Laboratory (USDOE)-OU 4, NY
(03/25/96)
Circuitron Corp, NY
(03/29/91)
Hooker (102nd Street Landfill),
NY
(09/26/90)
Love Canal -93rd St. School,
NY
(09/26/88)
Marathon Battery Corp, NY
(09/30/88)
Incineration
(off site)
Solidification/
stabilization
Solidification/
stabilization
This is an FY96 ROD
that was not listed in the
eighth edition.
Incineration
(off site)
Incineration
(off site)
Solidification/
stabilization
Solidification/
stabilization
Soil vapor
extraction
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Misinterpretation of the ROD. Off-site incineration never was
implemented. The ROD specified on-site thermal treatment
or thermal desorption.
Misinterpretation of the ROD.
Misinterpretation of the ROD. ROD specified that the site
should be stabilized, referring to the site stabilization process
performed during a previous remedial action. This did not
mean treatment using stabilization/solidification.
Soil vapor extraction was added to enhance the existing in situ
air stripping system.
Misinterpretation of the ROD. Soil was excavated and
transported to an approved RCRA treatment and disposal
facility. Incineration (off site) was selected as the method of
treatment to develop a conservative cost estimate.
Original ROD specified incineration of sediments outside
slurry wall. Slurry has been repositioned to contain any
migration of NAPL plumes. The site will be capped instead.
ROD Amendment issued 06/9/95.
Residents did not want any materials treated on site. Materials
were disposed of off site instead . A ROD amendment was
issued in 05/91 .
All three solidification/ stabilization projects were conducted as
one project, even though three RODs were issued. The work
is documented in the ASR as a single project. Therefore, the
two other projects have been deleted.
Daniel Weissman
212-637-4384
George Buc (USAGE)
908-389-3040
Dave Modricker (USAGE)
717-748-4505
Daniel Weissman
212-637-4384
Betsy Donovan
212-637-4369
Mary Logan
212-637-4321
Sharon Trocher
212-637-3965
PaulOlivo
212-637-4280
Damian Duda
212-637-4269
Pam Tames
212-637-4255
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-20
-------
Ninth Edition (April 1999) (continued)
SITE NAME, STATE TECHNOLOGY
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 8TH EDITION)
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Marathon Battery Corp., NY
(09/30/89)
Mattiace Petrochemicals - OU
1,5, and 6, NY
(06/27/91)
Olean Well Field - OU 2, NY
(09/30/96)
Solvent Savers, NY
(09/30/90)
Delaware Sand & Gravel
Landfill -OU 4 and OU 5, DE
(09/30/93)
E.I. DuPont-Newport Site, DE
(09/23/93)
Halby Chemical Co. -OU 1,
Process Plant Area, DE
(06/28/91)
Aberdeen Proving Ground
(Edgewood Area) J-Field Soil
OU, MD
(09/27/96)
Solidification/
stabilization
Incineration
(off site)
In situ air stripping
(air sparging)
Thermal desorption
Soil vapor extraction
None
Solidification/
stabilization
This is an FY96 ROD that
was not listed in the eighth
edition.
9TH EDITION
ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
Yes
Yes
Yes
Soil vapor
extraction
Bioremediation
(in situ) -
bioventing
Chemical
treatment
Phyto-
remediation
All three solidification/ stabilization projects were conducted
as one project, even though three RODs were issued. The
work is documented in the ASR as a single project.
Therefore, the two other projects have been deleted.
The ROD identified incineration as a possible method of
treatment, but incineration was not the selected remedy.
Air sparging was considered for the dry cleaning. A pilot test
demonstrated that air sparging was not feasible because of site
conditions. Contaminated soil will be excavated instead (a
contingency in the ROD, so no ESD or ROD amendment is
necessary).
SVE is being conducted as a pilot study, but thermal desorption
may be used in the future.
Treating soil with SVE followed by bioventing would not have
enhanced the rate of removal of VOCs from soil. Therefore,
bioventing was used without SVE. The remedy was a
contingency in the ROD.
Original remedy was not listed in the ASR. The 1993 ROD
selected solidification/stabilization (in situ). However, the
waste was much deeper than originally estimated. Due to the
increased volume of waste, the cleanup costs were
significantly higher than cited in the 1993 ROD. On 08/16/95
EPA issued and ESD to change the remedy to containment
with pump-and-treat for groundwater.
Misinterpretation of ROD; in situ chemical oxidation was
used.
Incineration and solidification/stabilization, provided for in the
original ROD, was considered dangerous because of the
presence of unexploded ordnance. A ROD amendment is to
be issued in the near future for a change to phytoremediation.
Pam Tames
212-637-4255
Edward Als
212-637-4272
Thomas Taccone
212-637-4281
Lisa Wong
212-637-4267
Eric Newman
215-814-3237
Lisa Brown
215-814-5528
Eric Newman
215-814-3237
Steven R. Hirsh
215-566-3352
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-21
-------
Ninth Edition (April 1999) (continued)
SITE NAME, STATE TECHNOLOGY
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 8TH EDITION)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers,
MD
(12/31/90)
Aladdin Plating, PA
(09/27/88)
Berks Sand Pit, PA
(09/29/88)
Brown's Battery Breaking Site -
OU 2, PA
(07/02/92)
Douglassville Disposal, PA
(06/30/89)
Drake Chemical -Phase II, PA
(05/13/86)
Hebelka Auto Salvage Yard, PA
(09/30/91)
M.W. Manufacturing, PA
(03/31/89)
Solidification/
stabilization
Solidification/
stabilization
Incineration
(off site)
Plasma high- temperature
recovery
Incineration
(on site)
Incineration
(on site)
Solidification/
stabilization
Incineration
(off site)
9TH EDITION
ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Solidification/
stabilization
and
Thermal
Desorption
The remedy was a contingency in the ROD. Solidification/
stabilization was to be used only if the level of arsenic was
above 1000 mg/kg. Results of soil analysis on all samples at
the site show levels of arsenic below 1 ,000 mg/kg.
A vendor demonstration of electrokinetics to treat contami-
nated groundwater and soils will continue. A subsequent
ROD issued on 12/30/93 requires institutional controls and
monitoring, but no solidification/stabilization.
The source of contamination in sediments is being eliminated
because of lowering of the water table, eliminating the need for
excavation and incineration (off site) of sediments. An ESD
has been proposed and will be made final after a public
comment period of 30 days.
Problems with implementation include high cost and equipment
or site problems.
Community concerns prohibited the use of the technology. A
feasibility study of solidification/stabilization is being
conducted. A ROD amendment is expected in FY99.
This is a duplicate project. Both the 1 986 and the 1 988 ROD
specified incineration. Incineration (on site) was chosen
because of a preference for on-site treatment. The work is
documented as a single project.
The 1 991 ROD refers to solidification/stabilization of lead-
contaminated soils completed under the 1 989 ROD, but the
1 991 ROD specifies monitoring of groundwater only; no
solidification/stabilization of additional sites is specified.
Results of treatability study showed burning fluff caused
potential threat due to emissions of dioxin. Thus, offsite
incineration was not implemented. ROD Amendment issued
12/22/97 selected ex-situ stabilization and low temperature
thermal desorption.
Eric Newman
215-814-3237
Gregory D. Hamm
215-566-3194
Bruce Rundell
215-566-3317
Richard Watman
215-566-3219
Victor J.Janosik
215-566-3217
Gregg Crystall
215-566-3207
Frederick N.Macmillan
215-814-3201
Bhupendra Khona
215-566-3213
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-22
-------
Ninth Edition (April 1999) (continued)
REGION
SITE NAME, STATE
(ROD DATE)
TECHNOLOGY 9TH EDITION
(LISTED IN 8TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO
COMMENTS
CONTACTS/PHONE
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
Publicker Industries, Inc. - OU
3, PA
(12/28/95)
Greenwood Chemical Co., VA
(12/29/89)
Rentokil Virginia Wood
Preserving, VA
(06/22/93)
Rentokil Virginia Wood
Preserving, VA
(06/22/93)
Saunders Supply Co., VA
(09/30/91)
Fike Chemical, Inc. -OU1,
WV
(09/29/88)
Fike Chemical, Inc.-WV
(03/31/92)
Fike Chemical, Inc. - OU 3 -
Drum Removal, VW
(03/31/92)
Ciba Geigy (Mclntosh Plant),
AL
(07/14/92)
Solidification/
stabilization
Solidification/
stabilization
Incineration
(off site)
Solidification/
stabilization
Solidification/
stabilization
Solidification/
stabilization
Neutralization
Solidification/
stabilization
Solidification/
stabilization
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
The remedy was a contingency. Wastes were disposed of in
a landfill.
Solidification/stabilization of soils contaminated with arsenic
would not have been cost-effective for the small volume of
waste present. No ROD amendment or ESD was issued.
Cost too high. A value engineering analysis indicated that
contaminants in soil could successfully be contained with a
slurry wall and cap. A pump and treat system for dewatering
could effectively immobilize contaminants. ROD Amendment
issued 08/27/96.
Cost too high. A value engineering analysis indicated that
contaminants in soil could successfully be contained with a
slurry wall and cap. A pump and treat system for dewatering
could effectively immobilize contaminants. ROD Amendment
issued 08/27/96.
Solidification/stabilization was a contingency that was found to
be unnecessary.
Misinterpretation of the ROD. The ROD called for drainage of
water and liquid from the lagoon (referred to as "stabilization" in
the ROD). Lagoon sludge then was to be sent off site for
incineration.
The excavated drums were damaged and were sent off site for
disposal. ESD issued 05/1 3/93.
Stabilizing in the ROD referred to stabilizing acidic wastes.
The closeout report indicated that all nonhazardous soils were
landfilled and hazardous wastes were incinerated. Solidification/
stabilization was a contingency remedy.
Solidification/stabilization was not implemented because it
would bring about no cost savings.
Frances Costanzi
215-566-3196
Philip Rotstein
215-814-3232
Andrew C.Palestini
215-566-3233
Andrew C.Palestini
215-566-3233
Andrew C.Palestini
215-566-3233
Katherine Lose
215-566-3240
Katherine Lose
215-566-3240
Katherine Lose
215-566-3240
Charles L. King, Jr.
404-562-8931
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-23
-------
Ninth Edition (April 1999) (continued)
SITE NAME. STATE TECHNOLOGY 9TH EDITION
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 8TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Ciba Geigy (Mclntosh Plant) -
OU3.AL
(07/25/95)
Anodyne, Inc., FL
(06/17/93)
Brown Wood Preserving, FL
(04/8/88)
Cecil Field Naval Air Station -
OU 2, Sites 5 and 17, FL
(06/24/96)
Cecil Field Naval Air Station -
OU6,Site11,FL
(09/14/94)
Cecil Field Naval Air Station -
OU 7, FL
(07/17/96)
Cecil Field Naval Air Station -
OU 7, FL
(07/17/96)
Coleman-Evans Wood
Preserving -Amendment, FL
(09/26/90)
Gold Coast Oil Corp, FL
(09/11/87)
Bioremediation
(in situ) - other
Solidification/
stabilization
Solidification/
stabilization
Bioremediation
(in situ) - groundwater
Incineration
(off site)
Bioremediation
(in situ) - groundwater
Soil vapor extraction
Solidification/
stabilization
Solidification/
stabilization
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Incineration
(on site)
Air sparging
Thermal
desorption
The treatability study was unsuccessful; treatment goals could
not be met. Wastes are being incinerated instead.
The amount of contaminated soil was less than anticipated,
and the soil was excavated and landfilled off site.
Contingency. This technology in ROD was to be considered
only if ex situ biodegradation - land treatment did not attain
the desired cleanup levels for the appropriate indicator
chemicals within the two-year time period. Goals were met
within 18 months.
Bioremediation was begun, but the cleanup goals were revised.
A ROD amendment is to be issued soon, and air sparging will
be used.
Wastes were below LDR standards for treatment. Waste was
sent off site to a RCRA subtitle C landfill.
SVE and bioremediation were to be implemented in the
downgradient area, but concentrations of contaminants have
decreased. Therefore, the remedy will not be implemented.
SVE and bioremediation were to be implemented in the
downgradient area, but concentrations of contaminants have
decreased. Therefore, the remedy will not be implemented.
The 1 990 ROD amendment selected a technology train of
bioremediation, soil washing and S/S. Treatability studies
indicated presence of dioxin, which cannot be treated with
bioremediation. So, remedy changed to thermal desorption.
ROD Amendment 9/25/97.
The estimated volume of contaminated media had decreased,
and the technology was no longer effective.
Charles L. King, Jr.
404-562-8931
Brad Jackson
404-562-8925
Rosalind Brown
404-562-8870
Debbie Vaughn-Wright
404-562-8539
Debbie Vaughn-Wright
404-562-8539
Debbie Vaughn-Wright
404-562-8539
Debbie Vaughn-Wright
404-562-8539
Randall Chaffins
404-562-8929
Brad Jackson
404-562-8925
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-24
-------
Ninth Edition (April 1999) (continued)
REGION
SITE NAME, STATE
(ROD DATE)
TECHNOLOGY 9TH EDITION
(LISTED IN 8TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO
COMMENTS
CONTACTS/PHONE
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Homestead Air Reserve - OU
6, Site SS-3, FL
(06/27/95)
Reeves Southeastern
Galvanizing - OU 1, FL
(10/13/92)
Stauffer Chemical Company,
FL
(12/01/95)
Whitehouse Oil Pits -
Amendment, FL
(06/16/92)
Marine Corps Logistics Base -
OU3, PSC16&17, GA
(08/14/92)
Marzone Inc./Chevron Co. - OU
1,GA
(09/30/94)
Mathis Brothers Landfill - South
Marble Top Road, GA
(03/24/93)
Smith's Farm -OU1.KY
(09/29/89)
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps
(Amendment), NC
(09/30/91)
Thermal desorption
Solidification/
stabilization
Bioremediation
(ex situ)
Bioremediation
(ex situ) - slurry-phase
Solidification/
stabilization
Thermal desorption
Bioremediation
(ex situ) - slurry-phase
Solidification/
stabilization
Solidification/
stabilization
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Bioremediation
(ex situ)-
composting
Incineration
(off site)
Excavation, hauling, and landfilling as a non-RCRA solid
waste was less costly, as per the ESD issued on 10/22/97.
One 55-gal. drum and 1 ,350 cu yd of waste were hauled to a
non-RCRA landfill. Data in design showed reduced volume
of soil.
Implementability (equipment problems and site problems).
The PRP could not find a treatment mix that could meet
performance standards. An ESD was issued on 04/17/97.
The change was made to identify a specific type of ex situ
bioremediation.
Treatment goals could not be met. A ROD amendment was to
be issued in mid-September 1 998, and a public comment period
will be conducted.
Misinterpretation of ROD; soil was mixed with clean fill and then
disposed of at a permitted landfill. No solidification/stabilization
was performed.
Remedy was too costly, the community was opposed to the
remedy, and dioxin was discovered. Therefore, the technol-
ogy was not implemented, and the soil was excavated and
disposed of at an off-site landfill. A ROD amendment was
issued on 06/1 8/97.
Excavation, landfilling, and incineration were less costly and
required less time. Soils were excavated and transported off
site for landfilling if nonhazardous, and incinerated if
hazardous.
Solidification/stabilization was planned for the heavy metals
remaining in the treated soils after the thermal desorption, but
the treatment was not necessary.
Arsenic is a contaminant at the site. Because the arsenic was
commingled with pesticide wastes, all soil contaminated with
arsenic was incinerated, and no soil required stabilization.
Patricia Goldberg
404-562-8543
Doyle Brittain
404-562-8549
Randall Chaffins
404-562-8929
Brad Jackson
404-562-8925
Mark Fite
404-562-8927
Robert Pope
404-562-8506
Annie Godfrey
404-562-8919
Charles L. King, Jr.
404-562-8931
Antonio DeAngelo
404-562-8826
Kay Crane
404-562-8795
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-25
-------
Ninth Edition (April 1999) (continued)
SITE NAME. STATE TECHNOLOGY 9TH EDITION
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 8TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Cape Fear Wood Preserving,
NC
(06/30/89)
Chemtronics, Inc., NC
(040/5/88)
Marine Corps Base, Camp
Lejeune-OU 12, Site 3 -The
Old Creosote Plant, NC
(04/03/97)
Sodyeco-AreaC, NC
(09/24/87)
Geiger (C&M Oil), SC
(6/1/87)
Kalama Specialty Chemicals,
SC
(09/28/93)
Kalama Specialty Chemicals,
SC
(09/28/93)
Savannah River (TNX Area),
SC
Soil washing
Solidification/
stabilization
Bioremediation
(ex situ) - solid-phase
Soil vapor extraction
Solidification/
stabilization
Solidification/
stabilization
Mechanical soil aeration
In situ air stripping
(air sparging)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Thermal
desorption
An ESD issued in 1993 changed the remedy from soil
washing to thermal desorption.
The project was canceled during the design phase, and the
site was capped.
Treatment goals could not be met during treatability testing, and
therefore bioremediation (ex situ) - solid-phase will not be
implemented. A ROD amendment that specifies disposal of the
contaminated soils in an off-site landfill is being prepared.
During installation, contaminated drums were encountered,
excavated, and removed. Contamination therefore decreased,
and SVE no longer was required.
A ROD amendment was issued on 07/1 3/93.
The amount of contaminated material was less than originally
estimated, so it was excavated and disposed of off site.
Contingency in ROD.
The amount of contaminated material was less than originally
estimated, so it was excavated and disposed of off site.
Contingency in ROD.
Problems with implementability (equipment problems, on site
problems) arose; development of an air recirculation well was
not possible. Areas of low permeability precluded formation of
the required recirculation cell. An ESD is to be issued in near
the future.
Jon Bornholm
404-562-8820
Jon Bornholm
404-562-8820
Gena Townsend
404-562-8538
Michael Townsend
404-562-8813
Sheri Panabaker
404-562-8810
Steven Sandier
404-562-8818
Steven Sandier
404-562-8818
Joao Cardoso-Neto
(Bechtel)
803-952-6495
Keith A. Collinsworth
(SCDHEC)
803-896-4055
Constance A. Jones
404-562-8551
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-26
-------
Ninth Edition (April 1999) (continued)
SITE NAME. STATE TECHNOLOGY 9TH EDITION
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 8TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
Savannah River (USDOE) - M
Area Settling Basin, SC
Savannah River (USDOE) -
OU1.SC
(06/29/92)
Amnicola Dump, TN
(03/30/89)
Arlington Blending and
Packaging Co. ,TN
(06/28/91)
Wrigley Charcoal, TN
(09/30/91)
Wrigley Charcoal, TN
(09/30/91)
Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Inc.,
IL
(12/31/90)
Belvidere Municipal Landfill -
No. 1,IL
(06/29/88)
Byron/Johnson Salvage Yard,
IL
(03/13/85)
Savanna Army Depot Activity,
IL
In situ air stripping
(air sparging)
Solidification/
stabilization
Solidification/
stabilization
Solidification/
stabilization
Incineration
(off site)
Solidification/
stabilization
Incineration
(off site)
Incineration
(off site)
Incineration
(off site)
Solidification/
stabilization
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
This is a demonstration project, not a full-scale application.
The work was completed as a RCRA project that is not
applicable to the ASR.
The volume of soil was much less than had been indicated in
the ROD, and it was more cost-effective to dispose of the soil
off site.
The estimated volume of contaminated media has decreased;
the technology no longer is effective. An ESD is to be issued in
near future.
The technology was too expensive; disposed of off site in a
landfill. A ROD amendment was issued on 02/02/95.
The technology was too expensive; disposed of off site in a
landfill. A ROD amendment was issued on 02/02/95.
The ROD identifies off-site incineration as a contingency. The
technology was never implemented.
Incineration off site was included in the ROD to be used if the
concentration of PCBs was greater than 50 ppm. Because the
concentration was not, PCBs were disposed of off site.
Excavation, hauling, and landfilling were used instead of off-
site incineration as indicated in the ROD because of high cost.
This project is a RCRA closure - state oversight.
Mike Simmons (DOE)
803-725-1627
Brian Looney (WSRC)
803-725-1627
Mike Simmons (DOE)
803-725-1627
Brian Looney (WSRC)
803-725-3692
Robert West
404-562-8806
Derek Matory
404-562-8800
Lisa Montalvo
404-562-8805
Lisa Montalvo
404-562-8805
David Linnear
312-886-1841
William Ballard
312-353-6083
Bill Bolen
312-353-6316
David Seely
312-886-7058
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-27
-------
Ninth Edition (April 1999) (continued)
REGION
SITE NAME, STATE
(ROD DATE)
TECHNOLOGY 9TH EDITION
(LISTED IN 8TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO
COMMENTS
CONTACTS/PHONE
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Fisher-Calo, IN
(08/07/90)
Main Street Well Field, IN
(03/29/91)
Wayne Waste Oil, IN
(03/30/90)
Wayne Waste Oil, IN
(03/30/90)
Wedzeb, IN
(06/30/89)
Berlin & Farro Liquid Incinera-
tion, Ml
(02/29/84)
Burrows Sanitation, Ml
(09/30/86)
Carter Industrials, Inc., Ml
(09/18/91)
Clare Water Supply, Ml
(09/16/92)
Soil vapor extraction
Incineration
(off site)
Bioremediation
(in situ)
Solidification/
stabilization
Incineration
(off site)
Incineration
(off site)
Solidification/
stabilization
Incineration
(off site)
Thermal desorption
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Bioremediation
(in situ) -
biosparging
Bioremediation
(in situ) -
biosparging
Biosparging was determined to be more effective than SVE;
no ROD amendment or ESD has been issued.
Off-site incineration was never implemented at this site.
The technology has been reclassified.
The technology was determined to be unnecessary. Metals
were the only contaminants of concern, and the site had been
capped already. Consequently, the risk was minimized. No
ROD amendment or ESD was written.
52,000 drums of PCB capacitors were incinerated off site in
1987 at the Apptus facility in Kansas. Soil was excavated and
disposed of off site because the contamination remaining in soil
was low. No ROD amendment or ESD was issued.
Contingency in the ROD. ROD specified transportation of PCB
liquid wastes, if any, to an approved off-site incinerator.
The volume of contamination was smaller than originally had
been estimated. It was more cost-effective to excavate and
dispose of off site under removal authority.
1 991 ROD specified thermal desorption, not incineration off-site.
Misinterpretation of ROD. Amended ROD 2/28/95 canceled
remedy because the cost for off-site disposal dropped, there
was less soil, and restrictions on interstate transport have
decreased.
The remedy should have been listed as SVE. The 1992 ROD
specified SVE, not thermal desorption, but SVE was not
feasible because of the low permeability of soils. A ROD
amendment was issued on 05/15/97.
Jeffrey Gore
312-886-6552
Deborah Orr
312-886-7576
Jeffrey Gore
312-886-6552
Jeffrey Gore
312-886-6552
Kenneth Theisen
312-886-1959
Robert Whippo
312-886-4759
Jeffrey Gore
312-886-6552
Jon Peterson
312-353-1264
Jon Peterson
312-353-1264
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-28
-------
Ninth Edition (April 1999) (continued)
REGION
SITE NAME, STATE
(ROD DATE)
TECHNOLOGY 9TH EDITION
(LISTED IN 8TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO
COMMENTS
CONTACTS/PHONE
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Duell-Gardner Landfill, Ml
(09/07/93)
Electrovoice, Ml
(06/23/92)
Forest Waste Products, Ml
(03/31/88)
H. Brown Company, Inc., Ml
(09/30/92)
Thermo-Chem, Inc. -OU1.MI
(09/30/91)
MacGillisandGibbs/Bell
Lumber and Pole -OU 3, MN
(09/22/94)
Ritari Post and Pole - OU 1 ,
MN
(06/30/94)
Ritari Post and Pole - OU 1 ,
MN
(06/30/94)
Thermal desorption
Solidification/
stabilization
Incineration
(off site)
Solidification/
stabilization
Incineration
(off site)
Bioremediation
(in situ) - groundwater
Incineration
(off site)
Incineration
(off site)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Bioremediation
(ex situ) -
land treatment
The volume of contaminated material was much smaller than
originally had been estimated. Consequently, it was more
cost-effective to excavate and dispose of the material off site.
A ROD amendment was to be issued in FY98.
Solidification/stabilization was identified as a contingency
remedy in the 1992 ROD. If cleanup goals are not achieved
by the SVE system, the soils will be excavated and stabilized.
The SVE system is in operation and its performance will be
reviewed next year.
An ESD is to be issued in the near future.
The site was capped with clay and covered with asphalt so that
the property could be redeveloped. Two ROD amendments
have been issued. The first, issued on 09/29/95, removed
solidification/stabilization from the project.
The concentrations of the contaminants in the soil were low and
it was not cost-effective to treat the soil with incineration. The
metals could not be treated with incineration. The contaminated
soil was excavated and disposed of off site.
The technology is ex situ, not in situ. Groundwater is being
pumped and treated above ground.
Incineration was too expensive.
Incineration was too expensive. Chemical oxidation may be
used to treat highly contaminated soils, and land treatment
will be used for lower concentrations; the use of off site
incineration would move the risk outside the site. An ESD is to
be issued.
Lolita Hill
312-353-1621
Karen Sikora
312-886-1843
Elizabeth Reiner
312-353-6576
Timothy Prendiville
312-886-5122
James Hahnenberg
312-353-4213
Darryl Owens
312-886-7089
Miriam Horneff
(MPCA)
612-296-7228
Ted Smith
312-353-6571
John Moeger (MPCA)
612-296-9707
Ramon Torres
312-886-3010
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-29
-------
Ninth Edition (April 1999) (continued)
REGION
SITE NAME, STATE
(ROD DATE)
TECHNOLOGY 9TH EDITION
(LISTED IN 8TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO
COMMENTS
CONTACTS/PHONE
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
Allied Chem & Ironton Coke,
OH
(12/28/90)
Fields Brook, OH
(09/30/86)
Summit National Liquid
Disposal Service - Amendment,
OH
(11/02/90)
Mid-State Disposal Landfill.WI
(09/30/88)
Onalaska Municipal Landfill, Wl
(08/14/90)
Spickler Landfill, Wl
(06/03/92)
Gurley Pit, AR
(10/06/86)
Popile, AR
(02/01/93)
Incineration
(on site)
None
Incineration
(off site)
Solidification/
stabilization
Bioremediation
(in situ)
Solidification/
stabilization
Incineration
(off site)
Bioremediation
(ex situ)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Bioremediation
(in situ) -
bioventing
Bioremediation
(ex situ) -
land treatment
Contaminated soil volume decreased. A ROD amendment
was to be issued in May or June 1 998. Soil contaminated with
soft tar will be excavated, soil that meets the TCLP limit will be
recycled for alternative fuel, and soil that fails the TCLP limit
will be disposed of at an off-site landfill.
The original remedy in the 1986 ROD was not listed in the
ASR. The 1986 ROD specified solidification of sediments.
EPA issued and ESD on 08/15/97 changed solidification to
disposal.
The 1988 ROD and the 1990 ROD amendment both
specified incineration on site. It is documented as a project
under the 1988 ROD.
Solidification/stabilization was identified as a contingency that
was to be used only to solidify the sludge lagoon so that a cap
could be placed over it. Solidification/ stabilization was
deemed unnecessary. A geomembrane cap was used without
solidification/ stabilization.
The technology was reclassified from bioremediation in situ to
bioventing.
Results of a test of stabilization/solidification showed that the
technology would not provide a significant reduction in the
mobility or hydraulic conductivity of mercury wastes. An
impermeable cap with synthetic liner was used to eliminate
infiltration.
The cost was too high; transportation and safety problems
also arose.
The Rl data is being reviewed to determine whether there is a
more appropriate remedy. The site was capped under a
removal action. FS decisions will be made in 1999.
Matthew Mankowski
312-886-1842
Terese Van Donsal
312-353-6564
Anthony Rutter
312-886-8961
MaryTierney
312-886-4785
George Mickelson
(WIDNR)
608-267-0858
Kevin Adler
312-886-7078
John Fagiolo
312-886-0800
Ernest R. Franke
214-665-8521
Shawn Ghose
214-665-6782
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-30
-------
Ninth Edition (April 1999) (continued)
SITE NAME, STATE TECHNOLOGY
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 8TH EDITION)
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Popile, AR
(02/01/93)
Vertac, lnc.,AR
(06/30/93)
Vertac, Inc. - Onsite OU 1, AR
(05/25/95)
Bayou Bonfouca - Source
Control OU (Amendment), LA
(07/20/95)
Pab Oil & Chemical Services,
Inc., LA
(09/22/93)
Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe
Clovis/Santa Fe Lake - TPH
lake sediments, NM
(09/23/88)
Oklahoma Refining Co., OK
(06/09/92)
Bioremediation
(in situ)
Incineration
(off site)
Incineration
(on site)
Incineration
(off site)
Bioremediation
(ex situ) - other
Bioremediation
(ex situ) - land treatment
Bioremediation
(ex situ) - other
9TH EDITION
ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
Yes
Yes
Yes
Bioremediation
(in situ) -
groundwater
Incineration
(off site)
Solidification/
Stabilization
Bioremediation
(ex situ) -
land treatment
The Rl data is being reviewed to determine whether there is a
more appropriate remedy. The site was capped under a removal
action. FS decisions will be made in 1999. The original remedy
had been composting, but the remedy was changed to
bioremediation in situ - groundwater.
This project has been consolidated with off-site incineration
under the 1 993 ROD for OU 1 . All material specified in that
ROD was incinerated off site according to a 1995ESD. See
information under the listing for incineration off site at OU 1 .
An on-site incinerator was present after use for a previous
removal action. The PRPandthe incinerator operator could not
agree on a price, so EPA allowed the PRP to choose to
incinerate the soils off site. An ESD was issued on 05/25/95.
This ROD amendment (07/20/95) actually covered the off-site
incineration of waste from the Southern Shipbuilding Corpora-
tion site. Therefore, no waste from Bayou Bonfouca was
incinerated off site or addressed by this ROD amendment.
Bioremediation was discontinued because of implementability
problems. An ESD was issued on 03/1 2/1 997.
No information available.
The type of bioremediation was clarified; there was no actual
remedy change.
Shawn Ghose
214-665-6782
Phillip Allen
214-665-8516
MikeArjmandi (ADPCE)
501-682-0852
Phillip Allen
214-665-8516
Mark Hansen
214-665-7548
Caroline Ziegler
214-665-2178
Donald H.Williams
214-665-2197
Kelly Dixon (ODEQ)
405-702-5141
Earl Hendrick
214-665-8519
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-31
-------
Ninth Edition (April 1999) (continued)
REGION
SITE NAME, STATE
(ROD DATE)
TECHNOLOGY 9TH EDITION
(LISTED IN 8TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO
COMMENTS
CONTACTS/PHONE
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Bailey Waste Disposal, TX
(06/28/88)
Brio Refining.TX
(03/31/88)
Kelly Air Force Base -Site
1100, Phase II, TX
Kelly Air Force Base -Site
1100, Phase III, TX
Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc.-
OU 2, TX
(04/30/98)
Petrochemical (Turtle-Bayou),
TX
(09/06/91)
Sheridan Disoposal Services,
TX
(12/29/88)
South Cavalcade Street, TX
(09/26/88)
South Cavalcade Street, TX
(09/26/88)
Solidification/
stabilization
Solidification/
stabilization
This phase is an addition
to the phase listed in the
eighth edition.
This phase is an addition
to the phase listed in the
eighth edition.
This is an FY98 ROD that
was not listed in the eighth
edition.
Incineration
(off site)
Solidification/
stabilization
Incineration
(off site)
Soil washing
Soil vapor
extraction
Bioremediation
(in situ)-
bioventing
Thermal
desorption
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Soil vapor
extraction
Cost too high; treatment goals could not be met; more
contamination than planned. New remedy includes
excavation and offsite disposal of problematic wastes and
installation of a geocomposite cap over mixed industrial and
municipal wastes. ROD Amendment 12/16/96.
Solidification/ stabilization was considered during the RI/FS
stages, but was not included in the ROD because it could not
meet treatment levels. No ROD Amendment or ESD therefore
was necessary.
No information available.
No information available.
Misinterpretation of ROD. SVE currently is being used to
remediate four soil areas at the site.
Misinterpretation of the ROD.
The 09/26/88 ROD listed incineration (off site) for sludges, if
encountered. However, no sludges were not found and
therefore incineration was not performed.
A pilot study of soil washing showed that 40 percent of the
volume could not be washed to meet goals. Soils contaminated
with carcinogenic PAHs at levels higher than 700 ppm will be
sealed and contained beneath a six-inch-thick reinforced
concrete cap. A ROD amendment was issued on 06/27/97.
Chris Villa rreal
214-665-6758
John Meyer
214-665-6742
Bill Mall
210-925-3100
Bill Mall
210-925-3100
Chris Villarreal
214-665-6758
Chris Villarreal
214-665-6758
Gary A. Baumgarten
214-665-6749
Glenn Celerier
214-665-8523
Glenn Celerier
214-665-8523
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-32
-------
Ninth Edition (April 1999) (continued)
SITE NAME. STATE TECHNOLOGY 9TH EDITION
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 8TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
6
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
South Cavalcade Street, TX
(09/26/88)
Midwest Manufacturing/North
Farm (Amendment), IA
(09/30/93)
Strother Field Industrial Park,
KS
(03/31/94)
Ellisville Site - Bliss, MO
(09/29/86)
Missouri Electric Works, MO
(09/28/90)
Shenandoah Stables, MO
(09/28/90)
Broderick Wood Products, CO
(03/24/92)
Fort Carson - Building 9648
OU.CO
Lockheed/Martin- WC
Astronautics Facility, CO
(09/24/90)
Flushing (in situ)
Solidification/
stabilization
Soil vapor extraction
Incineration
(off site)
Incineration
(on site)
Solidification/
stabilization
Bioremediation
(in situ) - groundwater
Bioremediation
(in situ) - other
Soil vapor extraction
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Thermal
desorption
Bioremediation
(in situ) -
bioventing
Bioremedi-ation
(in situ) -
bioventing
Thermal
desorption
Estimated volume of contaminated soil much less than
anticipated, but treatment goals could not be reached anyway.
Will cap the site instead. ROD Amendment issued 6/27/97.
The cost was too high; contaminant levels for both OUs were
lower than before. Site risks were evaluated to determine that
monitoring with institutional controls would effectively address
the contamination at both OUs. The original ROD was issued
in 1988.
The application of SVE technology is impractical at this site
because the soil permeability is too low. The remedy proposed
in the ESD is a pump-and-treat system with monitored natural
attenuation. An ESD was to be issued by 09/30/98.
The 1986 ROD called for interim storage of contaminated soil
on site and incineration at an off-site commercial facility. The
1 991 ROD called for off-site incineration at the Times Beach,
MO site operated by the PRPs. A ROD amendment was
issued on 09/30/91.
On-site incineration was too expensive. A ROD amendment
was issued in September 1 995.
Misinterpretation of the ROD.
The remedy was changed to bioventing in the ESD issued on
03/24/95. The pump-and-treat system did not work with
LNAPLs; therefore, the cost of implementing it would be high.
The technology was reclassified.
SVE will not be used. All soil will be excavated and treated by
thermal desorption. Doing so will allow the site owner to
reduce risk, eliminate the need for post-closure care, and
clean-close the unit.
Glenn Celerier
214-665-8523
Diane Easley
913-551-7797
Paul Roemerman
913-551-7694
Robert Feilds
913-551-7697
Pauletta France-lsetts
913-551-7701
Robert Feild
913-551-7697
Armando Saenz
303-312-6559
John Cloonan
719-526-8004
George Dancik
303-312-6206
Charles Johnson (CDPHE)
303-692-3348
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-33
-------
Ninth Edition (April 1999) (continued)
REGION
SITE NAME, STATE
(ROD DATE)
TECHNOLOGY 9TH EDITION
(LISTED IN 8TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO
COMMENTS
CONTACTS/PHONE
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Rocky Mountain Arsenal - OU
17, CO
(05/14/90)
Rocky Mountain Arsenal - OU
28, CO
(01/15/93)
Rocky Mountain Arsenal - OU
29, CO
(01/15/93)
Sand Creek Industrial, CO
(09/28/90)
Summitville Mine - OU 0, CO
(12/15/94)
Burlington Northern (Somers
Plant) - Soil, Base - OU 4, UT
(06/14/94)
Montana Pole and Treating
Plant- Soil OU.MT
(09/21/93)
Silver BowCreek/Butte Area -
Rocker Timber Framing and
Treatment Plant OU, MT
(06/30/92)
Ellsworth AFB - Abandoned
Fire Protection Area, SD
(05/10/96)
Solidification/
stabilization
Solidification/
stabilization
Incineration
(off site)
Incineration
(off site)
Neutralization
Bioremediation
(in situ) - other
Bioremediation
(in situ) - other
Solidification/
stabilization
Soil vapor extraction
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
The ROD was misinterpreted.
OU 28 was the evaluation of alternatives for treatment of
various future waste streams at RMA. Solidification/
stabilization was considered, but no actions were taken under
OU28.
OU 29 was an interim remedial action to address PCB wastes.
Both off-site incineration and off-site landfilling were selected as
the most preferable alternatives for disposal of PCB wastes.
The PCB wastes were ultimately disposed of by landfilling.
No information is available.
The ROD was misinterpreted.
The ROD was misinterpreted.
The ROD was misinterpreted.
Solidification/stabilization treatment was recommended only if
chemical treatment was not successful. The estimated volume
of contaminated media had decreased; the technology was no
longer effective.
The FY96 ROD only expanded the dual phase system from
the FY95 ROD, but did not add any technologies.
Laura Williams
303-312-6660
Laura Williams
303-312-6660
Laura Williams
303-312-6660
Erna Waterman
303-312-6762
Victor Ketallappet
303-312-6528
James C.Harris
406-441-1150
James C.Harris
406-441-1150
Neil Marsh (MT)
406-444-1420
Mike Bishop
406-441-1150
Peter Ismert
303-312-6665
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-34
-------
Ninth Edition (April 1999) (continued)
REGION
SITE NAME, STATE
(ROD DATE)
TECHNOLOGY 9TH EDITION
(LISTED IN 8TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO
COMMENTS
CONTACTS/PHONE
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Hill Air Force Base - OU 4, UT
(06/14/94)
Utah Power & Light/American
Barrel, UT
(07/07/93)
Fairchild Semiconductor (Mt.
View)-Bldg1-4(515&545N.
WhismanRd./313 Fairchild
Dr.), CA
(06/30/89)
FMC Corp. (Fresno Plant), CA
(06/28/91)
Intel, Mountian View, CA
(06/09/89)
J.H. Baxter, CA
(09/27/90)
Koppers (Oroville Plant), CA
(09/13/89)
March AFB-OU1, Area 5 &
Site 4, CA
(06/20/96)
March AFB-OU1, Area 5 &
Site 4, CA
(06/20/96)
Soil vapor extraction
Incineration
(off site)
Soil vapor extraction
Solidification/
stabilization
Mechanical soil aeration
Bioremediation
(ex situ) - land treatment
Solidification/
stabilization
Bioremediation
(in situ) - bioventing
Thermal desorption
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Bioremediation
(in situ) -
bioventing
The bottom half of the landfill is below the water table, and the
landfill does not have a slurry wall to divert groundwater flow
from it. Therefore, SVE technology could not be implemented.
A series of 3 trenches collects leachate from the landfill.
Off-site incineration was specified as a contingent remedy but
never was implemented.
The water table rose and is now too high for SVE to be
effective. A pump-and- treat system currently is being used.
No ROD amendment or ESD was issued.
Removed from proposed NPL listing.
Soil was excavated and shipped off site.
Ex situ bioremediation was replaced with in situ bioremedia-
tion. Landfarming may be used; biomass culture was added
to contaminated soil. ESD issued 3/27/98.
Treatment goals could not be met. The concentrations of
dioxins were sufficiently high that solidification/ stabilization was
not feasible. A ROD amendment was issued on 08/29/96.
No information available.
No information available.
Dr. Dan Atkins (DoD)
801-775-2559
Rob Stites
303-312-6664
Paula Schmittdiel
303-312-6861
Dennis Curran
Smith Env. Tech. Corp.
415-960-1640
Eugenia Chow
415-744-2258
Cynthia Wetmore
415-744-2234
Eugenia Chow
418-744-2258
Kathy Setian
415-744-2254
Beatriz Bofill
415-744-2235
Charles Berrey
415-744-2223
Richard Russell
415-744-2406
Richard Russell
415-744-2406
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-35
-------
Ninth Edition (April 1999) (continued)
REGION
SITE NAME, STATE
(ROD DATE)
TECHNOLOGY 9TH EDITION
(LISTED IN 8TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO
COMMENTS
CONTACTS/PHONE
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Mather AFB - Soil and
Groundwater Oil/Smaller UST
Sites, CA
McColl, CA
(06/30/93)
Purity Oil Sales, Inc., CA
(09/26/89)
Raytheon, Mountain View, CA
(06/09/89)
Roseville Drums, CA
(03/03/88)
Sacramento Army Depot, CA
(01/17/95)
Southern California Edison,
Visalia Pole Yard, CA
(06/10/94)
Southern California Edison,
Visalia Pole Yard - Groundwa-
ter OU.CA
(06/10/94)
Bioremediation
(in situ)
Solidification/
stabilization
Solidification/
stabilization
Mechanical soil aeration
Bioremediation
(in situ)
Solidification/
stabilization
Bioremediation
(in situ) - groundwater
Bioremediation
(in situ) - groundwater
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Bioremediation
(in situ) -
bioventing
Bioremediation
(in situ) -
bioventing
Thermally
enhanced
recovery
The technology was reclassified from bioremediation in situ to
bioventing.
Technology had implementation problems. EPA selected the
contingency remedy of RCRA-equivalent closure for the sump
wastes. Pilot and full-scale treatability studies were conducted
during 1 994 and 1 995 to determine the feasibility of solidifica-
tion/stabilization.
The reason for deletion of the technology is unknown. An ESD
was issued in 1 995, and capping was performed at the site.
Soil was excavated and shipped off site for disposal.
The technology was reclassified from bioremediation in situ to
bioventing.
The 1995 ROD was a base-wide ROD. It reiterated the S/S
remedy specified in the 3/29/93 ROD. It did not add another
S/S project. Hence there is only one S/S project at SAD.
The remedy was implemented as a contingency. The remedy is
actually "dynamic underground stripping." Treatment goals could
not be met because concentrations were too high for bioreme-
diation to work in a timely manner.
The remedy implemented was a contingency. Concentrations
were too high. Bioremediation could not achieve cleanup
levels in a realistic time frame.
Kathleen Salyer
415-744-2214
Terry Winsor (Montgomery
Watson)
916-231-4430
Patti Collins
415-744-2229
Rosemarie Caraway
415-744-2231
Eugenia Chow
415-244-2258
Bradley Shipley
415-744-2287
Marlon Mezquita
415.744.1499
Richard Procunier
415-744-2219
Emmanuel Mensall
(CADTSC)
916-255-3704
Richard Procunier
415-744-2219
Emmanuel Mensall
(CADTSC)
916-255-3704
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-36
-------
Ninth Edition (April 1999) (continued)
REGION
SITE NAME, STATE
(ROD DATE)
TECHNOLOGY 9TH EDITION
(LISTED IN 8TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO
COMMENTS
CONTACTS/PHONE
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Valley Wood Preserving, Inc.,
CA
(09/27/91)
FAANorthway Station, AK
FAA Strawberry Point Station,
AK
Fort Wainwright- Oil 1 -
Chemical Agent Dump Site, AK
(07/20/95)
U.S. DOE Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental
Lab -OU 23, ID
McCormick and Baxter
Creosoting Company (Portland
Plant), OR
(03/29/96)
Union Pacific Railroad Tire
Treatment, OR
(03/27/96)
American Crossarm & Conduit,
V\A
(06/30/93)
Solidification/
stabilization
Bioremediation
(in situ)
Bioremediation
(in situ)
Neutralization
Solidification/
stabilization
Solidification/
stabilization
Bioremediation
(in situ)
Solidification/
stabilization
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Bioremediation
(in situ) -
groundwater
Bioremediation
(in situ) -
biosparging
Vitrification
Bioremediation
(in situ) -
bioventing
The estimated volume of contaminated media had decreased;
the technology was no longer effective. A ROD amendment is
to be issued in near future.
The technology was reclassified.
The technology was reclassified.
Non-invasive geophysical investigations indicated the presence
of buried chemical agents. However, when excavation was
completed, the agents were undetectable.
Solidification/stabilization was never used at the site.
Treatment goals could not be met. Decided to dispose offsite.
The excavated soil contaminated with F-listed waste will be
disposed offsite at a landfill. ROD Amendment to be issued in
1998.
Reclassified technology.
Excavated and transported contaminated soil to a landfill in
Arlington, OR. Flyash was added to absorb moisture. ROD
called for the material to be solidified off site.
Michelle Lau
415-744-2227
Daniel McKay
603-646-4738
Daniel McKay
603-646-4738
David Williams (USAGE)
907-753-5657
Dianne Soderlund
907-271-3425
Terrell Smith Lockheed
Marietta GW Restoration
Dept.
208-526-5692
Wayne Pierre
206-553-7261
Alan Goodman
503-326-3685
Brian McClure (ORDEQ)
541-298-7255
Alan Goodman
503-326-3685
Lee Marshall
206-553-2723
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-37
-------
Ninth Edition (April 1999) (continued)
REGION
SITE NAME, STATE
(ROD DATE)
TECHNOLOGY 9TH EDITION
(LISTED IN 8TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO
COMMENTS
CONTACTS/PHONE
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Commencement Bay, South
Tacoma Field, WA
(09/29/94)
Commencement Bay, South
Tacoma Field, WA
(09/29/94)
Harbor Island (Lead), WA
(09/30/93)
Queen City Farms, WA
(10/24/85)
Western Processing Co., Inc.,
WA
Western Processing Co., Inc. -
ESD, WA
(12/11/95)
Western Processing Co., Inc. -
Phase I, WA
(08/05/84)
Western Processing Co., Inc. -
Phase II, WA
(09/25/85)
Soil vapor extraction
In situ air stripping
(air sparging)
Incineration
(off site)
None
Thermal desorption
Bioremediation
(in situ) - other
Incineration
(off site)
Solidification/
stabilization
Solidification/
Stabilization
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
The plume was smaller than had been estimated; contamina-
tion levels have decreased. SVE was discussed as an option
but never implemented.
The plume smaller than had been estimated; contamination
levels have decreased. Air sparging was never implemented,
and no ROD amendment or ESD was issued.
Contaminated soil was disposed of at a hazardous waste
disposal facility. The technology was a contingency in the ROD.
This remedy was not listed in the ASR.
Contaminated soil was excavated and transported off site to a
landfill in Arlington, OR. The remedy was contingent and never
implemented.
Natural attenuation already was occurring at site.
Bioremediation would not enhance the degradation of contami-
nants. An ESD will be issued to note the change.
Contaminated soil was excavated and disposed of off site.
Incineration was not required. The specified remedy in the ROD
was off-site disposal or incineration, so no amendment or ESD
was required.
The technology never was specified in the ROD as the
preferred remedy and therefore never was used at the site.
Flyash was added to the soil to absorb moisture for easy
transportation. The soil was excavated and disposed of off site.
Cami Grandinetti
206-553-8696
Cami Grandinetti
206-553-8696
Keith A. Rose
206-553-7721
Neil Thompson
206-553-7177
Lee Marshall
206-553-2723
Lee Marshall
206-553-2723
Lee Marshall
206-553-2723
Lee Marshall
206-553-2723
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-38
-------
Eighth Edition (November 1996): Additions, Changes, and Deletions from the Seventh Edition (September 1995)
The eighth edition of this report added information about 38 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial action under FY 1995 RODs and 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.
SITE NAME. STATE TECHNOLOGY 8TH EDITION
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 7TH EDITION) ADDED 1 DELETED 1 CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
New Bedford, MA
(04/06/90)
Norwood PCBs, MA
(09/29/89)
Wells G&H, MA
(09/14/89)
Wells G&H, OU1, MA
(09/14/89)
Davis Liquid Waste, Rl
(09/29/87)
Brook Industrial Park, OU1,
NJ
(09/30/94)
De Rewal Chemical, NJ
(09/29/89)
Lipari Landfill, NJ
(07/11/88)
Applied Environmental
Services, OU1, NY
(06/24/91)
Incineration (on site)
Solvent extraction
Incineration (on site)
Soil vapor extraction
Incineration (on site)
Incineration (on site)
Incineration (on site)
Incineration (on site)
Bioventing
Soil vapor
extraction and in
situ air sparging
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Incineration
(off site)
Thermal
desorption
Thermal
desorption*
Remedy canceled because of community concerns. No
alternative selected at this time.
Remedy not implemented because of space constraints on-site,
cost, and safety issues. New cleanup goals based on future land
use and changes in risk assessment methodologies. Site will be
capped instead. ROD Amendment issued on 5/1 7/96.
Remedy changed to off-site incineration because of community
concerns. Explanation of significant difference (ESD) signed
04/25/91.
Adding air sparging to existing SVE project to enhance pump-
and-treat. Conducting SVE on a new area (New England
Plastics). ESD to be issued.
Thermal desorption cheaper and more effective based on
performance data. ESD signed on 7/1 9/96.
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.
Misinterpretation of ROD.
David Dickerson
617-573-9632
Bob Cianciarulo
617-573-5778
MaryGarren
617-573-9613
Paula Fitzsimmons (MA)
617-223-5572
MaryGarren
617-573-9613
Neil Handler
617-543-9636
Donna Vizian
212-637-4295
Romona Pezzella
212-637-4385
Fred Cataneo
212-637-4428
Maria Jon
212-637-3967
Gerald Ridder (NY)
518-457-0927
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-39
-------
Eighth Edition (November 1996)(continued)
SITE NAME. STATE TECHNOLOGY 8TH EDITION
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 7TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
Circuitron Corporation, OU 1,
NY
(03/29/91)
Love Canal, NY
(10/1/87)
Sarney Farm, NY
(09/27/90)
Delaware Sand & Gravel, DE
(04/22/88)
Southern Maryland Wood
Treating, MD
(06/29/88)
Eastern Diversified Metals, PA
(03/29/91)
MWManufacturing, PA
(06/29/90)
Sagertown Industrial, PA
(01/29/93)
Whitmoyer Laboratories, OU 2,
PA
(12/17/90)
Soil vapor extraction
Incineration (on site)
Incineration (on site)
Incineration (on site)
Incineration (on site)
Incineration (on site)
Incineration (on site)
Incineration (on site)
Incineration (on site)
Yes
Yes
Incineration
(off site)
Thermal
desorption*
Soil vapor
extraction* and
bioremediation
(in situ)*
Thermal
desorption
Incineration
(off site)
Incineration
(off site)
Incineration
(off site)
Further investigation indicated that VOCs were below action
levels.
PRP was conducting on-site incineration at another site. Waste
was transported to that site for incineration. ESD issued 11/96.
Misinterpretation of the ROD.
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 burn could not achieve emission standards.
Remedy to be determined; considering solidification/ stabiliza-
tion 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.
Miko Fayon
212-637-4250
Thomas Simmons
(USAGE)
816-426-2296
Damian Duda
212-637-4269
Doug Carbarini
212-637-4263
Kevin Willis
212-637-4271
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
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-40
-------
Eighth Edition (November 1996)(continued)
REGION
SITE NAME, STATE
(ROD DATE)
TECHNOLOGY 8TH EDITION
(LISTED IN 7TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO
COMMENTS
CONTACTS/PHONE
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Rentokil.VA
(06/22/93)
Saunders Supply Co., OU 1,VA
(09/30/91)
Ordnance Works Disposal,
WV (03/31/88)
Ciba-Geigy (Mclntosh Plant),
OU2.AL
(09/30/91)
Ciba-Geigy (Mclntosh Plant),
OU2.AL
(09/30/91)
Ciba-Geigy (Mclntosh Plant),
OU4.AL
(07/14/92)
Ciba-Geigy (Mclntosh Plant),
OU4.AL
(07/14/92)
Mowbray Engineering, AL
(09/25/86)
American Creosote Works,
Inc., OU 2, FL
(02/03/94)
Zellwood Groundwater, FL
(12/17/87)
Thermal desorption
Dechlorination and Thermal
desorption
Incineration (on site)
Thermal desorption
Flushing (in situ)
Thermal desorption
Flushing (in situ)
Incineration (on site)
Surfactant flushing -
groundwater
Incineration (on site)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Incineration
(off site)
Bioremediation
(ex situ)*
Incineration
(on site)*
Incineration
(on site)
Solidification/
stabilization
Solidification/
stabilization*
Groundwater modeling indicated that there would be no
further groundwater contamination if source soils were left
in place. Site will be capped. ROD amendment issued on
8/27/96.
Remedy changed to off-site incineration due to
implementability, short-term effectiveness, and cost. ROD
Amendment issued on 9/27/96.
Remedy changed because of community concerns. ROD
amended in 1/89.
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
flushing (in situ).
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
flushing (in situ).
Remedy changed because of cost.
Determined that pump-and-treat alone would be effective.
Remedy changed because of community concerns and because
the state would not concur with incineration. ROD amendment
issued on 03/01/90.
Andrew Palestini
215-597-1286
Andrew Palestini
215-597-1286
Melissa Whittington
215-566-3235
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
TimWoolheater
404-347-2643
Mark Fite
404-562-8927
Pam Scully
404-347-6246
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-41
-------
Eighth Edition (November 1996)(continued)
REGION
SITE NAME, STATE
(ROD DATE)
TECHNOLOGY 8TH EDITION
(LISTED IN 7TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO
COMMENTS
CONTACTS/PHONE
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
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)
Cape FearWood Preserving,
NC
(06/30/89)
Geiger/C&M Oil, SC
(06/01/87)
Para-Chem Southern, Inc., SC
(09/27/93)
American Creosote Works
(Jackson Plant), TN
(01/05/89)
Acme Solvent Reclaiming, IL
(09/27/85)
Fort Wayne Reduction, IN
(08/26/88)
Incineration (on site)
Incineration (on site)
Incineration (on site)
Bioremediation (ex situ) -
slurry-phase
Incineration (on site)
Bioremediation (ex situ) -
slurry-phase
Incineration (on site)
Incineration (on site)
Incineration (on site)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Incineration
(off-site) and
bioremediation
(ex-situ)*
Dechlorination*,
thermal desorp-
tion* and,
Solidification/
stabilization*
Thermal
desorption *
Solidification/
stabilization*
Incineration
(off site)
Remedy changed because of community concerns, cost-
effectiveness, and decreased waste volume from original
ROD. Bioremediation will treat dicamba wastes. Incineration
(off site) 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 .
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.
Further investigation found that organics were not present at
their previous levels. ROD amendment issued 07/1 3/93.
Remedy canceled because of concerns about feasibility,
performance, and treatment time. Will excavate and dispose
off-site.
Action completed as a removal by excavating and disposing off
site. ESD issued in 1992.
PRPs excavated and disposed of soil off-site.
Remedy changed to ROD contingency off-site incineration
because of community concerns, cost, and implementability.
Charles L. King.Jr.
404-562-8931
Antonio DeAngelo
404-562-8826
Kay Crane
404-562-8795
Randy McElveen (NC)
919-733-2801
Jon Bornholm
404-562-8820
Sherry Panabaker
404-562-8810
JudyCanova
803-896-4046
Femi Akindale
404-347-7791
Deborah Orr
312-886-7576
Fred Mickey
312-886-5123
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-42
-------
Eighth Edition (November 1996)(continued)
SITE NAME. STATE TECHNOLOGY 8TH EDITION
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 7TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Ninth Avenue Dump, IN
(06/30/89)
Bofors Nobel, Ml
(09/17/90)
Forest Waste Products, Ml
(03/31/88)
Ott/Story/Cordova Chemical,
Ml
(09/27/93)
Springfield Township Dump, Ml
(09/29/90)
Thermo-Chem, Inc., Oil 1,MI
(09/30/91)
Arrowhead Refinery Co., MN
(09/30/86)
Ritari Post and Pole, OU1.MN
(06/30/94)
Fields Brook, OH
(09/30/86)
Pristine, OH
(12/31/87)
Pristine, OH
(03/30/90) (Amendment)
Incineration (on site)
Incineration (on site)
Incineration (on site)
Thermal desorption
Incineration (on site)
Soil vapor extraction
Incineration (on site)
Incineration (on site)
Incineration (on site)
Incineration (on site)
Incineration (on site)
Air sparging
Yes
Yes
Yes
Soil vapor
extraction
Incineration
(off site)
Solvent extraction*
Incineration
(off site)
Incineration
(off site)
Soil vapor
extraction*
and thermal
destruction*
Thermal
desorption*
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 contami-
nants. ROD amendment signed on 9/1 3/94.
Remedy changed from on-site incineration to disposal in an on-
site landfill because of cost. Volume of material to be treated
much greaterthan 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. ESD signed on 05/04/93.
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.
Remedy canceled because of community concerns. ROD
amendment projected to be issued in Fall 1 996. Remedy to be
determined.
Added to enhance SVE system.
Remedy was changed to solvent extraction because of cost-
effectiveness and short-term effectiveness. ROD amendment
signed on 02/09/94.
Misinterpretation of ROD. Remedy now being reconsidered.
Capping is a contingency.
Remedy changed because of cost, community concerns, and
reduced concentration. ESD issued on 8/1 5/97.
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)
1 990 ROD amendment specified thermal destruction. Thermal
desorption selected as the thermal destruction technology.
Bernard Schorle
312-886-4746
John Fagiolo
312-886-0800
Beth Reiner
312-886-6337
John Fagiolo
312-886-0800
Kashual Khanna
312-353-2663
JimHahnenberg
312-353-4213
Edwin Smith
312-353-6571
Ramon Torres
312-886-3010
Ed Hanlon
312-353-9228
Tom Alcamo
312-886-7278
Tom Alcamo
312-886-7278
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-43
-------
Eighth Edition (November 1996)(continued)
REGION
SITE NAME, STATE
(ROD DATE)
TECHNOLOGY 8TH EDITION
(LISTED IN 7TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO
COMMENTS
CONTACTS/PHONE
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
Skinner Landfill OU 2, OH
(06/04/93)
Van Dale Junkyard, OH
(03/31/94)
Zanesville Well Field, OH
(09/30/91)
Zanesville Well Field, OH
(09/30/91)
City Disposal Corporation
Landfill, Wl
(09/28/92)
Hagen Farm, Groundwater
Control OU.WI
(09/30/92)
Vertac, AR
(09/27/90)
Gulf Coast Vacuum Services,
OU 1 , LA
(09/30/92)
MOTCO, TX
(03/15/85)
Retro-Chemical Systems, Inc.
OU 2, TX
(09/06/91)
Soil vapor extraction
Bioremediation (in situ) -
other
Soil vapor extraction
Soil washing
Soil vapor extraction
Bioremediation (in situ) -
groundwater
Incineration (on site)
Incineration (on site)
Incineration (on site)
Air sparging
Air sparging
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Bioremediation
(ex situ)-
land treatment
Incineration
(off site)
Bioremediation
(in situ)-
groundwater
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.
Wll 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 bioenhance me nt would not
provide any additional benefit. Relying on natural attenuation.
Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) signed on 08/27/96.
Incinerator would not function properly. Community preferred
landfilling and was cheaper. ROD amendment issued
9/17/96.
Agreement between PRPs and EPA to meet the treatment
standards using bioremediation.
Remedy changed because of contractor problems and cost.
ESD has been issued.
Bioremediation thought to be more effective.
Jamey Bell
312-886-6436
Lawrence Schmitt
312-353-6565
James Campbell
412-351-6132
Dave Wlson
312-886-1476
Dave Wlson
312-886-1476
RussHart
312-886-4844
MikeSchmoller(WI)
608-275-3303
Steve Padovani
312-353-6755
Phillip Allen
214-665-8516
Kathleen Aisling
214-665-8509
Mary Ann Abramson
214-665-6754
Chris Villarreal
214-665-6758
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-44
-------
Eighth Edition (November 1996)(continued)
REGION
SITE NAME, STATE
(ROD DATE)
TECHNOLOGY 8TH EDITION
(LISTED IN 7TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO
COMMENTS
CONTACTS/PHONE
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
People's Natural Gas, IA
(06/16/91)
Hastings Groundwater
Contamination (East
Industrial), NE
(09/28/90)
Sherwood Medical, NE
(09/28/93)
Valley Park TCE Site,
WainwrightOU.MO
(09/29/94)
Valley Park TCE Site,
WainwrightOU, MO
(09/24/94)
Broderick Wood Projects, CO
(06/30/88)
Lockheed/Martin
(Denver Aerospace), CO
(Remedial Action)
(09/24/90)
Idaho Pole Company, MT
(09/28/92)
Bioremediation (in situ) -
other
Incineration (on site)
Thermal desorption
In situ air stripping
Thermal desorption
Incineration (on site)
Soil vapor extraction and
thermal desorption
Flushing (in situ)
Air sparging
Yes
Yes
Listing
as a
Superfund
remedial
action has
been
deleted.
Incineration
(off site)
Soil vapor
extraction (ex situ)
Soil vapor
extraction
(ex situ)*
Incineration
(off site)*
Bioremediation
(ex situ) -
land treatment*
Remedy changed because volume of soil was less than
originally projected. More cost-effective to incinerate off-site.
ROD amendment issued 02/28/95.
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.
Soil vapor extraction (ex situ) more cost-effective. ESD issued
on 04/02/96.
Remedy canceled based on newtechnical data and cost. Will
excavate and recycle and incinerate off-site. ROD amendment
signed on 09/24/91 .
Remedial action being handled as a RCRA corrective action.
Further investigation indicated flushing (in situ) would not be
effective. Soils were excavated and will be treated as part of
the land treatment remedy. ESD issued on 05/21/96.
Diana Engeman
913-551-7797
Ron King
913-551-7063
Steve Auchterlonie
913-551-7778
Steve Auchterlonie
913-551-7778
DaveMosby(MO)
573-751-1288
Steve Auchterlonie
913-551-7778
DaveMosby(MO)
573-751-1288
Armando Saenz
303-312-6559
George Dancik
303-312-6935
Charles Johnson (CO)
303-692-3348
Jim Harris
406-441-1150
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-45
-------
Eighth Edition (November 1996)(continued)
REGION
SITE NAME, STATE
(ROD DATE)
TECHNOLOGY 8TH EDITION
(LISTED IN 7TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO
COMMENTS
CONTACTS/PHONE
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Summitville Mine, OU 1,CO
(12/15/94)
Motorola 52nd Street, AZ
(09/30/88)
Seal Beach Navy Weapons
Station, IR Site 14, CA
(Do D Action)
Hexcel, CA
(09/21/93)
Intel Mountain View (355
Middlefield Road), CA
(06/09/89)
Koppers Company, Inc.
(Oroville Plant), CA
(09/13/89)
Koppers Company, Inc.
(Oroville Plant), CA
(09/13/89)
Middlefield-Ellis-Wnisman
(MEW) - Siemins/Sobrato (455
& 487 Middlefield Road), CA
(06/30/93)
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
Air sparging, bioremediation
(in situ) - groundwater, soil
vapor extraction
Soil vapor extraction
Soil washing
Bioremediation
(in situ) - other
Soil vapor extraction
Air sparging
Air sparging
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
When heap leach pad rinsed with water, cyanide concentra-
tions were reduced and bioremediation was not necessary.
ESD issued on 6/4/97.
Research project, not a full-scale cleanup.
Hexcel was removed from the National Priorities List (N PL) on
November 1,1 993.
Groundwater table rose, leaving too little unsaturated soil to
warrant SVE. Soils were excavated and aerated.
Further analysis determined soil washing would be ineffective,
more dioxins discovered and land use scenario changed. 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 issued on 8/29/96.
Presence of metals and dioxins made bioremediation infeasible,
and land use scenario changed. Soil will be disposed of in a
landfill with the potential for two percent of the most contami-
nated soil treated by solidification/stabilization. ROD amend-
ment issued on 8/29/96.
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
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
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-46
-------
Eighth Edition (November 1996)(continued)
SITE NAME. STATE TECHNOLOGY 8TH EDITION
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 7TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
9
10
10
10
Van Waters and Rogers, CA
(09/30/91)
EielsonAFB, Oils 3, 4, and 5,
AK
(9/22/95)
Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory, Pit 9 (OU7-10), ID
(09/23/93)
USDOEHanford 100 Area,
OUs100-BC-1,100-DR-1,100-
HR-1.WA
(9/27/95)
Soil vapor extraction
This is a FY 1995 ROD and
was not listed in the seventh
edition. The FY 1995 ROD
specified bioventing and soil
vapor extraction.
Solvent extraction
This is a FY95 ROD that
was not listed in the seventh
edition. The FY95 ROD
specified thermal desorption
for soil contaminated with
organic compounds
Vitrification
Yes
Yes
Yes
Site was proposed for listing on the NPL but has been
removed. Responsibility was picked up under RCRA and
subsequently dropped from RCRA authority.
Remedy changed to institutional controls because there was
not enough contamination present to warrant active
remediation. Groundwater also was contained, preventing risk
due to groundwater.
Misinterpretation of the ROD.
Remedy changed to on-site disposal because further
investigation did not indicate that organics were present.
Belinda Wei
415-744-2280
Duazo Ricco
510-268-0837
Mary Jane Nearman
206-553-6642
Mary Jane Nearman
206-553-6642
Doug Sherwood
509-376-9529
Audrey Dove
509-376-6865
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-47
-------
Seventh Edition (September 1995): Additions, Changes, and Deletions from the Sixth Edition (September 1994)
The seventh edition of this report added information about 42 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial action under FY 1994 RODs and eight innovative
treatment technologies selected for seven RCRA corrective actions.
SITE NAME, STATE TECHNOLOGY
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 6TH EDITION)
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
5
Linemaster Switch Corpora-
tion, 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
(12/1 7/90) & (03/31/92)
Pasley Solvents and
Chemicals, Inc., NY
(04/24/92)
Bendix, PA
(09/30/88)
Brown's Battery Breaking Site,
OU 2, PA
(07/02/92)
Helena Chemical, SC
(09/08/93)
Carter Industries, Ml
(09/18/91)
Soil vapor extraction
Thermal desorption
Bioremediation (ex situ) -
Composting
Bioremediation (ex situ) -
slurry-phase
Flushing (in situ) and soil
vapor extraction
Soil vapor extraction
Fuming gasification
Bioremediation (ex situ)
and dechlorination
Thermal desorption
7TH EDITION
ADDED 1 DELETED! CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
Thermal
desorption
(phase 2)
Air sparging
Yes
Yes
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
Mechanical
aeration
Plasma high-
temperature
metals recovery
Incineration
(off site)
Groundwater also is being treated with this technology.
Project is being conducted in two phases. Phase 1 has been
completed and is listed as a separate project.
Site is not amenable to composting because of the presence
of long-chain PAHs and the time constraints of the removal
process. Atreatability study achieved over 90% reduction but
little degradation of long chain carcinogenic hydrocarbons
occurred.
Both OUs were combined under the thermal desorption
remedy. ROD amended to combine both OUs under a
thermal desorption remedy.
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 selected. ESD
issued on 11/22/95.
The name of the technology was changed to reflect the
treatment process more accurately.
Technologies could not meet cleanup goal.
Thermal desorption was too costly (approximately $300 per cu
yd). It is less expensive to dispose of the wastes atTSCA
landfill (approximately $186 per Ton).
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
Richard Watman
215-566-3219
Bernie Hayes
404-562-8822
Jon Peterson
312-353-1264
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-48
-------
Seventh Edition (September 1995) (Continued)
REGION
SITE NAME, STATE
(ROD DATE)
TECHNOLOGY 7TH EDITION
(LISTED IN 6TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO
COMMENTS
CONTACTS/PHONE
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
8
8
Cliffs/Dow Dump, Ml
(09/27/89)
Electro-Voice, OU1, Ml
(06/23/92)
Ionia City Landfill, Ml
(09/29/89)
Seymour Recycling, IN
(09/30/86)
Verona Well Field OU 2, Ml
(06/28/91)
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)
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Soil vapor extraction
Vitrification
(in situ)
Bioremediation (in situ
groundwater)
Soil vapor extraction
Soil vapor extraction
Soil washing
Flushing (in situ)
Soil vapor extraction
Chemical treatment
Air sparging
Soil vapor
extraction
Air sparging
Air sparging
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Remedy could not reduce concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene
to acceptable level. Contaminated soil was excavated and
placed in a permitted landfill.
Technology actually is a combination of SVE and air sparging
called the Subsurface Volatilization and Ventilation System™.
Remedy was canceled. Conditions at the site had changed
since 1 989. Project was implemented as a time critical
removal action.
Bioremediation of groundwater was not actively pursued.
Contamination degraded through natural attenuation.
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.
Flushing (in situ) 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 III not considered
innovative.
Ken Glatz
312-886-1434
Eugenia Chow
312-353-3156
Michael Gifford
312-886-7257
Jeff Gore
312-886-6552
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
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-49
-------
Seventh Edition (September 1995) (Continued)
REGION
SITE NAME, STATE
(ROD DATE)
TECHNOLOGY 7TH EDITION
(LISTED IN 6TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO
COMMENTS
CONTACTS/PHONE
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
Phoenix-Goodyear Airport
Area (North and South
Facilities), AZ
(09/26/89)
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
(OU1) Craig Rd Landfill, WA
(02/13/93)
Gould, Inc., OR (03/31/88)
Soil vapor extraction
Two listings for soil vapor
extraction
Soil vapor extraction
Soil vapor extraction
Soil vapor extraction
Soil vapor extraction
Soil washing
Soil vapor
extraction
Three more soil
vapor extraction
projects
Four distinct
areas using soil
vapor extraction
Yes
Yes
Soil vapor
extraction under
RCRA corrective
action
Site is divided into 2 areas: North area & South area. Each
area is listed as an individual project in the seventh edition
ASR.
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 stratigraph
•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.
Craig Cooper
415-744-2370
Rusty Harris-Bishop
415-744-2365
Nancy Moore (AZ)
602-207-4180
Elizabeth Adams
415-744-2235
Emily Roth
415-744-2247
Belinda Wei
415-744-2280
Tony Mancini
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.
D-50
-------
Seventh Edition (September 1995) (Continued)
SITE NAME. STATE TECHNOLOGY 7TH EDITION
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 6TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
10
10
10
10
Naval Submarine Base,
BangorSiteA,OU1,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)
Soil washing
Flushing (in situ)
Soil washing
Bioremediaiton (in situ)-
bioventing and soil vapor
extraction
Yes
Soil vapor
extraction
Flushing (in situ)
Thermal
desorption
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.
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.
D-51
-------
Sixth Edition (September 1994): Additions, Changes, and Deletions from the Fifth Edition (September 1993)
The sixth edition of this report added information about 53 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial action under FY 1993 RODs. Other changes are
listed below.
SITE NAME, STATE TECHNOLOGY
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 5TH EDITION)
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
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)
LA Clarke & Sons, OU 1
(Soils), VA
(03/31/88)
Thermal desorption
(In situ)
Flushing (in situ)
Soil washing and solvent
extraction
Flushing (in situ)
Soil vapor extraction
Flushing (in situ)
Bioremediation
(in situ)
6TH EDITION
ADDED 1 DELETED! CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Soil vapor
extraction
Neutralization
with lime
(ex situ)
It was determined that SVE would be the more cost-effective
ofthetwo. ESD 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. ESD 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.
Facility is no longer in operation, and excavation can be done.
Remedies being considered include thermal desorption.
Terry Connelly
617-573-9638
Christopher Rushton
(ME DEP)
207-287-2651
Darryl Luce
617-573-5767
Mike Robinette (NH)
603-271-2014
Kim O'Connell
212-637-4399
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
Andy Palestini
215-597-1286
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-52
-------
Sixth Edition (September 1994)(continued)
SITE NAME, STATE TECHNOLOGY
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 5TH EDITION)
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
LA Clarke & Sons, OU1
(Soils), VA
(03/31/88)
LA Clarke & Sons,
Lagoon Sludge OU, VA
(03/31/88)
Henderson Road, PA
(06/30/88)
Cabot Carbon/Koppers
(Groundwater), 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)
Arlington Blending &
Packaging Co., OU 1,TN
(06/28/91)
South Andover Salvage Yard,
OU2.MN
(12/24/91)
Allied Chem & Ironton Coke,
OU2.0H
(12/28/90)
Flushing (in situ)
Bioremediation
(ex situ)
Soil vapor extraction
Bioremediation (in situ) -
groundwater
Soil washing and
bioremediation (ex situ)
(slurry-phase)
Bioremediation
(ex situ)
Chemical treatment
Dechlorination
Bioremediation
(ex situ)
Bioremediation
(in situ)
6TH EDITION
ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
Bioremediation
(ex situ) (magneti-
cally enhanced
land farming)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Reuse off-site as
fuel
Bioremediation
(ex situ) -
land treatment
Thermal treatment
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. ESD 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 amend-
ment was signed in 3/94.
Waste will be disposed of more cost-effectively off-site.
Another disposal method is likely to be used.
Technology changed to off-site thermal treatment (either
thermal desorption or incineration) because of reduced
volume of contamination found during RD investigations.
ROD amendment was signed 5/31/94.
Adding technology to treat more highly contaminated soil.
ROD Amendment issued on 9/4/97.
Andy Palestini
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
Derek Matory
404-562-8800
Bruce Sypniewski
312-886-6189
Tom Alcamo
312-886-7278
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-53
-------
Sixth Edition (September 1994)(continued)
SITE NAME, STATE TECHNOLOGY
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 5TH EDITION)
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
8
8
Allied Chem & Ironton Coke,
OU2.0H
(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
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-1
Basins (OU 16), CO
(02/26/90)
Portland Cement Co. (Kiln Dust
No. 2 and No. 3) OU2, UT
(03/31/92)
Bioremediation
(in situ)
Soil washing
Soil washing and
bioremediation (ex situ)
of fines
Dechlorination
Bioremediation (in situ) -
groundwater
Air sparging
Soil vapor extraction
Soil vapor extraction
In situ
vitrification
Chemical treatment
6TH EDITION
ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Incineration
(on site)
Incineration
(off site)
Adding technology to treat more highly contaminated soil.
ROD Amendment issued on 9/4/97.
Determined to be too expensive. Soil disposed off-site if lead
levels above 1 ,550 ppm; containment of soil below this level.
ROD amendment issued on 6/27/97.
Incineration was contingency remedy in ROD. State had
concerns about effective means of soil washing, and cost of
incineration has decreased. ESD will be signed in fall 1994.
Dechlorination is not being pursued because of cost
considerations.
Groundwater remediation is not planned for this area.
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.
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
Ron Stirling (USAGE)
402-221-7664
BertGorrod
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
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-54
-------
Sixth Edition (September 1994)(continued)
SITE NAME, STATE TECHNOLOGY
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 5TH EDITION)
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
Mesa Area Groundwater
Contamination, AZ
(09/27/91)
Castle Air Force Base, OU 1 ,
CA (08/1 2/91)
Teledyne Semiconductors
(Spectra Physics), CA
(03/22/91)
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)
Soil vapor extraction
Bioremediation (in situ) -
groundwater
Soil vapor extraction
Soil washing
Soil vapor extraction
Soil washing
Bioremediation
(ex situ)
6TH EDITION
ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Pump and treat
with air stripping
Site has been removed from National Priorities List (NPL),
referred to the state
Bench-scale test indicated that the technology did not work.
No ESD or ROD amendment is being issued.
ROD was misinterpreted. SVE was intended only for Spectra
Physics, the adjacent site.
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
TRWOU. ROD was misinterpreted.
Technology canceled because of cost; solidification is being
considered as an alternative.
Additional studies showed that treatment is not needed.
Maurice Chait
602-962-2187
Richard Oln
602-207-4176
David Roberts
415-744-1487
BradHicks(USAF)
209-726-4841
Sean Hogan
415-744-2233
Carla Dube
510-286-1041
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.
D-55
-------
Fifth Edition (September 1993): Additions, Changes, and Deletions from the Fourth Edition (October 1992)
The fifth edition of this 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.
SITE NAME, STATE TECHNOLOGY
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 4TH EDITION)
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
4
4
Re-Solve, MA
(09/24/87)
Pinette's Salvage Yard, ME
(05/30/89)
Naval Air Engineering Center,
OU1.NJ
(02/04/91)
Naval Air Engineering Center,
OU2, NJ
(02/04/91)
Naval Air Engineering Center,
OU4, 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)
American Creosote Works, FL
(09/28/89)
Dechlorination
Solvent extraction
Flushing (in situ)
Flushing (in situ)
Flushing (in situ)
Thermal desorption
Bioremediation (in situ)
Dechlorination
Soil washing
5TH EDITION
ADDED 1 DELETED! CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
Thermal
desorption
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Pilot study showed that dechlorination increased the volume
and that the waste still required incineration. An ESDto
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. ESD issued.
Will conduct ex situ passive volatilization.
Will alter chemistry to achieve dechlorination during thermal
desorption.
Bench-scale study of soil washing showed that the concentra-
tions of carcinogenic PAHs were not reduced adequately.
Dioxins also were discovered at much higher concentrations.
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
Mark Fite
404-562-8927
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-56
-------
Fifth Edition (September 1993) (continued)
SITE NAME, STATE TECHNOLOGY
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 4TH EDITION)
4
4
5
6
7
8
9
9
9
American Creosote Works, FL
(09/28/89)
Hollingsworth Solderless, FL
(04/10/86)
Cliffs/Dow Dump, Ml
(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)
Koppers Company (Oroville),
CA
(04/04/90)
Signetics(AMD901)TRWOU,
CA
(09/11/91)
Teledyne Semiconductors, CA
(03/22/91)
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Dechlorination
Bioremediation (in situ)
Soil washing
Bioremediation (ex situ)
5TH EDITION
ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
Soil vapor
extraction
Soil vapor
extraction
Soil vapor
extraction
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Thermal
desorption
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 early September
1993.
Misinterpretation of ROD during ROD analysis.
Remedy added.
Dropped by mistake from fourth edition.
Mark Fite
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
Fred Schlauffler
415-744-2359
Joe Healy
415-744-2331
Kevin Graves (CA)
510-286-0435
Sean Hogan
415-744-2233
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-57
-------
Fifth Edition (September 1993) (continued)
SITE NAME. STATE TECHNOLOGY 5TH EDITION
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 4TH EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
10
10
IDEL Warm Waste Pond, ID
(12/05/91)
IDEL Warm Waste Pond, ID
(12/05/91)
Acid extraction
Soil washing
Yes
Yes
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.
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.
D-58
-------
Fourth Edition (October 1992): Additions, Changes, and Deletions from the Third Edition (April 1992)
The fourth edition of this 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.
SITE NAME. STATE TECHNOLOGY 4TH EDITION
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 3RD EDITION) ADDED 1 DELETED 1 CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
2
2
5
6
6
9
9
10
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 Dechlorina-
tion Transformers, TX
(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)
Thermal desorption
Thermal desorption
Dechlorination
Soil washing
Bioremediation
(in situ)
Soil vapor extraction
Soil washing
Thermal
desorption
In situ flushing
Soil washing
Yes
Yes
Yes
Soil washing
Incineration
(in the fifth edition)
Bioremediation
(ex situ)
Missed during original ROD analysis.
An ESD was issued in August 1 991 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.
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.
D-59
-------
Third Edition (April 1992): Additions, Changes, and Deletions from the Second Edition (September 1991)
The third edition of this report added information to the 70 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial actions under FY 1991 RODs. Other changes are
listed below.
SITE NAME. STATE TECHNOLOGY 3RD EDITION
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 2ND EDITION) ADDED 1 DELETED 1 CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
2
2
2
4
5
5
5
6
6
9
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, Ml
(09/28/90)
U.S.Aviex.MI
(09/07/88)
Atchison/Santa Fe/Clovis, NM
(09/23/88)
Crystal Chemical, TX
(09/27/90)
Solvent Service, CA
(09/27/90)
Thermal desorption
Flushing (in situ)
Soil washing
Soil washing
In situ vitrification
In situ vitrification
Flushing (in situ)
Bioremediation (ex situ)
In situ vitrification
Bioremediation (in situ)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Thermal desorption
Incineration
Thermal desorption
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 incinera-
tion; 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 ESD was signed on 1 0/2/92.
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.
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
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-60
-------
Third Edition (April 1992) (continued)
SITE NAME, STATE TECHNOLOGY
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 2ND EDITION)
9
Poly Carb, NV (Removal)
Bioremediation (ex situ)
3RD EDITION
ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
Bioremediation
(in situ)
Reclassified technology.
Bob Mandel
415-744-2290
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-61
-------
Second Edition (September 1991): Additions, Changes, and Deletions from the First Edition (January 1991)
The second edition of this report added information about 45 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.
REGION
SITE NAME, STATE
(ROD DATE)
TECHNOLOGY 2ND EDITION
(LISTED IN 1ST EDITION) ADDED I DELETED I CHANGED TO
COMMENTS
CONTACTS/PHONE
1
2
2
3
3
6
10
Re-Solve, MA
(09/24/87)
GE Wiring Services, PR
(09/30/88)
SMS Instruments (Deer Park),
NY (09/29/89)
Leetown Pesticides, VW
(03/31/86)
Harvey-Knott Drum, DE
(09/30/85)
Sol Lynn/Industrial
Transformers, TX
(03/25/88)
N o rth we st Tra n sfo rme r, WA
(09/15/89)
Chemical extraction
Chemical treatment
Chemical treatment
Bioremediation
Flushing (in situ)
Thermal desorption
In situ vitrification
Yes
Yes
Yes (changed
to soil vapor
extraction in
third edition)
Yes
Dechlorination
Soil washing
Dechlorination
Reclassified technology.
Reclassified technology.
ROD was misinterpreted during ROD analysis.
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 ESD was issued in December 1992. Remedy will
consist of capping the site.
Reclassified technology.
Technology dropped because commercial availability was
delayed.
Lorenzo Thantu
212-637-4240
Caroline Kwan
212-637-4275
Miko Fayon
212-637-4250
Andy Palestini
215-597-1286
Philip Rotstein
215-566-3232
Kate Lose
215-566-3240
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.
D-62
-------
APPENDIX E
SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS:
RODS SELECTING NATURAL
ATTENUATION
-------
Superfund Remedial Actions:
RODs Selecting Monitored Natural Attenuation
Region Site Name
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Atlas Tack Corp. Superfund Site
Barkhamsted-New Hartford Landfill
BRUNSWICK NAVAL AIR STATION
Brunswick Naval Air Station Site 9 OU6
BURGESS BROTHERS LANDFILL - OU 01
Cannon Engineering
COAKLEY LANDFILL
Dover Municipal Landfill
FLETCHER'S PAINT WORKS & STORAGE - OU 01
FORTDEVENS-OU05
Fort Devens, Areas of Contamination (AOC) 43G and 43J
Natick Laboratory Army Research, Development, and
Engineering Center
NEW HAMPSHIRE PLATING CO. - OU 01
PEASE AIR FORCE BASE - OU 4
PEASE AIR FORCE BASE - OU 4
PEASE AIR FORCE BASE - OU 6
Peterson/Puritan
Picillo Farm
PSC Resources
Saco Municipal Landfill
Savage Municipal Water Supply
TIBBETTSROAD-OU01
Town Garage Radio Beacon
West Site/Hows Corner Superfund Site
Western Sand & Gravel
Carroll and Dubies Sewage Disposal
Conklin Dumps
DUPONT /NECCO PARK - OU 01
Forest Glen Subdivision Ous 2 & 3
Global Sanitary Landfill - OU 2
GOLDISC RECORDINGS, INC. -OU 02
Islip Municipal Sanitary Landfill
Johnstown City Landfill
Jones Chemicals, Inc.
JUNCOS LANDFILL
Kin-Buc Landfill
Malta Rocket Fuel Area
Marathon Battery
State
MA
CT
ME
ME
VT
MA
NH
NH
NH
MA
MA
CT
NH
MA
NH
NH
NH
NH
Rl
Rl
MA
ME
NH
NH
NH
ME
Rl
NY
NY
NY
NY
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
PR
NJ
NY
NY
ROD Date
3/1 0/2000
9/28/2001
9/30/1 994
9/28/1 999
9/25/1 998
3/31/1988
9/30/1 994
9/10/1991
9/30/1998
2/18/1998
10/17/1996
9/30/1997
3/29/1991
9/19/2001
9/28/1 998
6/26/1 995
9/26/1 995
9/18/1995
9/30/1993
9/27/1 993
9/1 5/1 992
9/29/2000
9/27/1991
9/28/1 998
9/30/1 992
9/24/2002
4/16/1991
9/30/1 996
3/29/1991
9/18/1998
9/30/1999
9/29/1 997
9/30/1998
9/30/1 992
3/31/1993
9/27/2000
10/5/1993
9/28/1 992
7/1 3/1 996
9/30/1988
Region Site Name
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
Naval Air Engineerining Station Areas I & J
groundwater OU 26
Naval Weapons Station Earle - OU 2, Site 19
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE (SITE A) - OU 03
PLATTSBURGH AIR FORCE BASE
Preferred Plating Corporation (ROD Amendment)
Ringwood Mines/Landfi
Robintech, Inc. /National Pipe Company
ROSEN BROTHERS SCRAPYARD/DUMP - OU 01
Sarney Farm
Tutu Wellfield
Woodland Routes 72 Dump and 532 Dump
YORK OIL CO. - OU 02
ALLEGANY BALLISTICS LABORATORY (USNAVY) -
OU05
BELL LANDFILL
DOVER AIR FORCE BASE - OU 10
DOVER AIR FORCE BASE - OU 1 1
Dover Air Force Base, Fire Training Area 3,
East Management Unit
Dover Air Force Base, Landfill 13, East Management Unit
Dover Air Force Base, Liquid Waste Disposal Area 14
and Landfill 15, Area 1, East Management Unit
DOVER GAS LIGHT CO
East Mt. Zion
MALVERN TCE - OU 01
Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers
New Castle Spill
OHIO RIVER PARK - OU 03
Old City of York Landfill
OSBORNE LANDFILL - OU 02
Rodale Manufacturing Co. Inc. Site OU 1
The Crater Resources Superfund Site
Tobyhanna Army Depot
Tobyhanna Army Depot - OU OU 1 , Areas A & B
Westline
Woodlawn Landfill Site
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps OU 5
AGRICO CHEMICAL CO.
State
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NY
NY
NJ
NJ
NY
NY
NY
VI
NJ
NY
WV
PA
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
PA
PA
MD
DE
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
MD
NC
FL
ROD Date
1/5/1995
9/27/1 999
9/25/1 997
9/29/1 998
3/31/1995
9/30/1997
9/29/1987
9/29/1 988
7/25/1 997
3/23/1 998
9/27/1 990
8/5/1996
7/1/1999
9/29/1 998
6/30/1998
9/30/1 994
9/26/1 995
9/26/1 995
9/30/1997
9/30/1997
9/30/1997
8/16/1994
6/29/1 990
11/26/1997
12/31/1990
9/28/1 989
9/17/1998
3/31/2000
12/30/1997
9/30/1999
9/27/2000
9/28/2000
9/30/1997
6/29/1 988
9/30/1999
6/4/1 999
8/1 8/1 994
E-1
-------
Superf und Remedial Actions:
RODs Selecting Monitored Natural Attenuation (continued)
Region Site Name
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Arlington Blending and Packaging (ROD Amendment)
B&B CHEMICAL CO., INC.
BMI-TEXTRON
Camp Lejeune Military Reservation
CECIL FIELD NAVAL AIR STATION - OU 06
CECIL FIELD NAVAL AIR STATION - OU 08
Cecil Field Naval Air Station - OU 2
Cecil Field Naval Air Station (Site 8) OU 3
Cecil Field Naval Air Station OU 7
Cedartown Industries
CEDARTOWN MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
Cherry Point Marine Air Corps Station OU 2
Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station
Chevron Chemical Company
DAVIE LANDFILL
DAVIS PARK ROAD TCE - OU 01
Davis Park Road TCE Site
DIAMOND SHAMROCK CORP. LANDFILL
Dubose Oil Products
FCX, Inc. (Statesville Plant) - OU 3
FLANDERS FILTERS INC - OU 01
Florida Petroleum Reprocessors
GEIGER(C&MOIL)-OU01
Hercules 009 Landfill
Homestead Air Force Base Ous 18, 26, 28, & 29
Interstate Lead (ILCO)
INTERSTATE LEAD CO. (ILCO) - OU 3
Jacksonville Naval Air Station
JACKSONVILLE NAVAL AIR STATION - OU 01
Marine Corps Logistics Base
MURRAY-OHIO DUMP
NATIONAL STARCH & CHEMICAL CORP.
Naval Air Station (NAS) Cecil Field
Naval Air Station Cecil Field
Normandy Park Aparments
Potter's Septic Tank Service Pits
Redwing Carriers/Saraland
Reeves Southeastern Galvanizing - OU 2
Sanford Gasification Plant
4 'Savannah River Site
State
FL
TN
FL
FL
NC
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
GA
NC
NC
FL
FL
NC
NC
GA
FL
NC
NC
FL
SC
GA
FL
AL
AL
FL
FL
GA
TN
NC
FL
FL
FL
NC
AL
FL
TN
FL
SC
ROD Date
6/17/1993
7/24/1 997
9/12/1994
8/11/1994
9/26/2000
9/25/1 998
8/27/1 998
6/24/1 996
8/25/1 999
5/12/1999
5/7/1 993
11/2/1993
9/29/1999
1 0/24/2000
5/22/1 996
8/11/1994
9/29/1 998
9/27/2000
5/3/1 994
3/29/1 990
9/30/1 996
9/18/1998
3/1/2001
9/9/1 998
3/25/1 993
3/15/1999
9/30/1991
9/29/1 995
9/28/2000
8/3/1 998
9/19/2001
6/1 7/1 994
10/6/1994
4/24/2001
1/11/2000
5/11/2000
9/27/2000
12/15/1992
9/9/1 993
9/1 7/2002
6/12/2001
6/22/2001
Region Site Name
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
SAVANNAH RIVER SITE (USDOE) - OU 27
Solitron Microwave
STANDARD AUTO BUMPER CORP.
TAYLOR ROAD LANDFILL
Townsend Saw Chain Co.
WHITEHOUSE OIL PITS - OU 01
Wingate Road Municipal Incinerator Dump and Landfill
Yellow Water Road Dump
Zellwood Ground Water Contamination Site
A & F Materials Reclaiming
Adams County Quincy Landfill #2 & #3
AGATE LAKE SCRAPYARD
ALBION SHERIDAN TOWNSHIP LANDFILL
Alsco Anaconda
Bendix Corp/Allied Automotives Site
Charlevoix Municipal Well Field
Cliff/Dow Dump
Dakhue Sanitary Landfill
DUPAGE COUNTY LANDFILL/BLACKWELL FOREST -
OU 01
Electro-Voice OU2
Fadrowski Drum Disposal
GALEN MEYER'S DUMP/DRUM SAL
H.O.D. LANDFILL - OU 01
HECHIMOVICH SANITARY LANDFILL
Industrial Excess Landfill
Ionia City Landfill
Kohler Company Landfill
Metamora Landfill
MIG/DeWane Landfill
Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill
Outboard Marine Company/Waukegan Coke Plant
PENTA WOOD PRODUCTS - OU 01
PETOSKEY MUNICIPAL WELL FIELD - OU 01
PRESTOLITE BATTERY DIV
Rasmussen's Dump
Reilly Tar and Chemical (Indianapolis Plant) - OU 5
Roto-Finish Co, Inc.
Sangamo Electric Dump/Crab Orchard National Wildlife
South-east Rockford groundwater contamination
State
SC
FL
FL
FL
SC
FL
FL
FL
FL
IL
IL
MN
Ml
OH
Ml
Ml
Ml
MN
IL
Ml
Wl
IN
IL
Wl
OH
Ml
Wl
Ml
IL
MN
IL
Wl
Ml
IN
Ml
IN
Ml
IL
IL
ROD Date
8/14/1998
11/1/2000
12/10/1993
9/29/1 995
12/19/1996
9/24/1 998
5/14/1996
6/30/1 992
8/23/2000
8/14/1986
9/30/1993
1/13/1994
3/28/1 995
9/30/1 992
9/30/1997
9/30/1985
9/27/1 989
6/30/1993
9/30/1998
9/21/1999
6/10/1991
9/29/1 995
9/28/1 998
9/6/1995
3/1/2000
9/28/2000
6/26/1 996
9/27/2001
3/30/2000
12/21/1990
9/30/1999
9/29/1 998
9/30/1998
8/23/1 994
7/20/2001
6/30/1997
3/31/1997
6/23/2000
6/11/2002
Tippecanoe Sanitary Landfill, Inc.
IN
9/30/1997
E-2
-------
Superfund Remedial Actions:
RODs Selecting Monitored Natural Attenuation (continued)
Region Site Name
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Twin Cities AF Reserve (SAR Landfill)
Wheeler Pit
WOODSTOCK MUNICIPAL LANDFILL - OU 01
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base - OU 2, Spill Sites 2,
3&10
City of Perryton Well No. 2
DUTCHTOWN TREATMENT PLANT
Fourth Street Abandoned Refinery
French Limited
Gulf Coast Vacuum Services - OU 1
Gulf States Utilities - North Ryan Street Site
Hardage/Criner (Amendment)
Koppers (Texarkana Plant)
Koppers (Texarkana Plant) (Amendment)
KOPPERS COMPANY, INC (TEXARKANA PLANT)
Monroe Auto Pit (Finch Road Landfill)
Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill
PETRO-CHEMICAL SYSTEMS, (TURTLE BAYOU) -
OU02
Sikes Disposal Pit
SOUTH 8TH STREET LANDFILL - OU 01 , 02
United Creosoting
Bee Cee Manufacturing
Cleburn Street Well
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant (CHAAP)
Farmers' Mutual Cooperative
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site
Mason City Coal Gasification Site
Ogallala Ground Water Contamination OU 1
Ralston
ANACONDA CO. SMELTER - OU 04
Chemical Sales Company Superfund Site
Denver Radium - OU 8
HILL AIR FORCE BASE - OU 01
Hill Air Force Base - OU 6
Kennecott South Zone Site
MURRAY SMELTER - OU 00
State
MN
Wl
IL
OH
AR
TX
TX
LA
OK
TX
LA
LA
OK
TX
TX
TX
AR
OK
TX
TX
AR
TX
MO
NE
NE
NE
IA
NE
IA
NE
MO
IA
MT
CO
CO
UT
UT
UT
UT
ROD Date
3/31/1992
9/28/1990
7/15/1998
9/30/1997
9/28/1990
3/31/1988
9/26/2002
6/20/1994
9/30/1993
3/24/1988
9/30/1992
9/27/2000
11/22/1989
9/23/1988
3/4/1 992
8/20/2002
9/26/1996
6/29/1992
4/30/1998
9/18/1986
7/22/1998
9/30/1986
9/30/1997
6/7/1 996
12/14/1999
9/26/2001
9/29/1992
9/28/2000
9/19/2000
4/23/1999
9/28/1999
9/30/1999
9/29/1998
3/27/2000
1/28/1992
9/29/1998
9/30/1997
12/13/2000
4/1/1998
Mystery Bridge at Highway 20
WY 9/24/1990
Region Site Name
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
PORTLAND CEMENT (KILN DUST 2 & 3) - OU 03
Rocky Mountain Arsenal - OU Offpost OU
Rocky Mountain Arsenal - OU Onpost OU
SMELTERTOWN SITE - OU 02
Utah Power & Light/American Barrel
ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE - OU 03
Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, Site 9-41 Area -
OU 1
Del Norte County Pesticide Storage Superfund Site
George Air force Base OU 3
INDIAN BEND WASH AREA - OU 03
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Marine Corps Air Station
Operating Industries, Inc. Landfill
TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE - OU 01
Travis Air Force Base West/Annexes/Basewide OU
(WABOU)
Adak Naval Air Station
EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE - OU 03, 04, 05
Fairchild Air Force Base - OU Priority 2 Sites
Fort Richardson - OU OU A & B
Fort Wainwright-OU 1
Fort Wainwright-OU 2
Fort Wainwright-OU 3
Fort Wainwright - OU 4, Fairbanks
Hanford 1100-Area (DOE)
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory Test Area North (TAN)
Monsanto Chemical Company
Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island - Ault Field - OU
OU 5, Areas 1, 52, and 31
NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE STATION (4 AREAS) -
OU01
North Market Street
Northwest Pipe and Casing Company/Hall Process
U.S. Naval Submarine Base-OU 8 Bangor
USAF EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE - OU 6
USAF ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE - OU 4
USAF ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE - OU 5
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor, (Amendment) - OU West Harbor
OU
State
UT
CO
CO
CO
UT
GU
CA
CA
CA
AZ
CA
AZ
CA
CA
CA
AK
AK
WA
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
WA
ID
ID
WA
WA
WA
OR
WA
AK
AK
AK
WA
ROD Date
8/17/1998
12/19/1995
6/11/1996
6/4/1 998
7/7/1 993
6/16/1998
12/7/1995
8/29/2000
10/5/1998
9/30/1998
2/23/2001
9/8/2000
9/30/1 996
12/3/1997
3/16/1999
3/31/2000
9/29/1 998
12/20/1995
9/15/1997
6/27/1 997
3/27/1 997
4/9/1 996
9/24/1 996
9/24/1 993
9/19/2001
4/30/1997
7/1 0/1 996
9/28/1 998
12/14/1999
9/27/2001
9/27/2000
9/27/1 994
9/26/1 995
12/28/1994
12/8/1995
E-3
-------
APPENDIX F
IDENTIFICATION OF REMEDY AND
RECORD OF DECISION TYPES
FOR SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
-------
F.I BACKGROUND
On December 11, 1980, Congress passed the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
which is known as the "Superfund" act. The act
created the Superfund program, which was
established to clean up abandoned hazardous waste
sites around the United States. Section 105(a)(8)(B)
of CERCLA, as amended, requires that EPA
prepare a list of national priorities among the
known sites throughout the United States at which
releases or threatened releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants may occur.
This list is known as the National Priorities List
(NPL).
The remedies selected for an NPL site are
documented in a record of decision (ROD).
Remedies implemented at NPL sites or NPL
equivalent sites in accordance with RODs are
known as Superfund remedial actions, and such
sites are known as Superfund remedial action sites.
Because selected remedies vary in the type of media
addressed and the methods used to address those
media, confusion can arise when assigning a type
to a particular remedy. Categorizing remedies by
types can facilitate the transfer of experience and
technology by making it easier to identify sites at
which similar remedies are applicable. Establishing
and applying a methodology for classifying remedy
types can provide a consistent and comprehensive
approach for reviewing and comparing remedies
used in RODs. In addition, use of such an
approach can lead to more consistent data
collection and reporting and assist remedial project
managers (RPMs), On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs),
and other regulatory and remediation professionals
in the transfer of experience and technology among
Superfund sites and in identifying sites
implementing similar remedies. This document
describes an approach that can be used to classify
remedies and RODs.
Remedies should be classified by reviewing the
remedies selected in RODs. Although RODs are
written using an overall format that is consistent,
RODs are prepared by individual RPMs and other
staff of the 10 EPA regions. In addition, the
management practices and techniques used to
remediate sites have evolved over time and continue
to evolve. Therefore, the words, phrases, and
descriptions applied to the same or similar
remedies may differ from ROD to ROD. To
facilitate the identification of remedy types, this
document includes both descriptive definitions of
remedy types and lists of key words and phrases
that may be used to refer to each remedy type.
The definitions of remedy types provided in this
document are based on a review of definitions and
lists of media, remedies, and technologies provided
in the following resources:
• The CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS
3) database
• ROD Annual Reports for fiscal years (FY) 1989
through 2002
• The Federal Remediation Technologies
Roundtable (FRTR) Technology Screening Matrix
• Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup:
Annual Status Report (Eleventh Edition) (ASR)
The remedy type definitions were reviewed and
augmented by a working group of personnel of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) who are experienced in site remediation
and ROD preparation and review.
F.2' 'CIASSIFYING REMEDIES AND RODS
Remedy types should be identified by first dividing
remedies into three categories (source control,
groundwater, and no action) based on the media
treated and the type of action. Within each of these
categories, the remedies should then be further
divided into the following 10 specific remedy types:
Source Control Remedies:
1. Source control treatment
2. Source control containment
3. Source control other
4. Source control monitored natural attenuation
Groundwater Remedies:
5. Groundwater in situ treatment
6. Groundwater pump and treat
7. Groundwater containment barriers
8. Groundwater other
9. Groundwater monitored natural attenuation
No A effort Remedies:
10. No action or no further action (NA/NFA)
RODs should be classified using the 10 remedy
types listed above. When more than one remedy
type is selected in the same ROD, the ROD should
be assigned all of the remedy types that are
identified.
-------
The definitions that should be used to identify
each remedy type are provided in the
"Definitions" section below. When definitions
include specific technologies and those
technologies commonly are referred to by more
than one word or phrase, the most commonly used
word or phrase is listed first, followed by
synonyms in parentheses.
F.3' 'DEFINITIONS'USED TO IDENTIFY
REMEDY TYPES
F.3.1 General Definitions
The definitions of treatment technology and the
different types of treatment technologies (physical,
chemical, thermal, and bioremediation treatment)
apply to both source control and groundwater
remedies.
Treatment Technology - Any unit operation or
series of unit operations that alters the
composition of a hazardous substance, pollutant
or contaminant through chemical, biological, or
physical means so as to reduce toxicity, mobility,
or volume of the contaminated materials being
treated. Treatment technologies are an
alternative to land disposal of hazardous wastes
without treatment (Federal Register, volume 55,
page 8819, 40 CFR 300.5: Definitions).
Treatment technologies are grouped into five
categories. The definitions for four of the
categories (physical treatment, chemical
treatment, thermal treatment, and biological
treatment) are based on definitions provided in
the FRTR Technology Screening Matrix. The
fifth category, other or unspecified treatment,
includes those technologies that do not fit into
the first four categories. The five treatment
technology categories are:
Physical Treatment- Uses the physical properties of
the contaminants or the contaminated medium to
separate or immobilize the contamination.
Chemical Treatment- Chemically converts hazardous
contaminants to non-hazardous or less toxic
compounds or compounds that are more stable,
less mobile, and/or inert. Even though a chemical
reaction is not always involved in chemical
precipitation, chemical precipitation is typically
included in this category.
Thermal Treatment - Uses heat to: separate
contaminants from contaminated media by
increasing their volatility; destroy contaminants or
contaminated media by burning, decomposing, or
detonating the contaminants or the contaminated
media; or immobilize contaminants by melting and
solidifying the contaminated media.
Bioremediation Treatment - Includes adding or
stimulating the growth of microorganisms, which
metabolize contaminants or create conditions
under which contaminants will chemically convert
to non-hazardous or less toxic compounds or
compounds that are more stable, less mobile, and/
or inert.
Other or Unspecified Treatment - Treatment that
cannot be classified as physical treatment, chemical
treatment, thermal treatment, or bioremediation
treatment. For example, some RODs select
physical/chemical treatment of a source without
specifying the particular physical/chemical
treatment. In such cases, the ROD should not be
definitively classified as physical or chemical
treatment and should be classified as other or
unspecified treatment, unspecified physical/
chemical treatment.
F. 3.2 Source Control
Source Media - A source medium is defined as a
material that acts as a reservoir, either stationary
or mobile, for hazardous substances. Source
media include or contain hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants that may migrate to
the groundwater, to surface water, to air, (or to
other environmental media) or act as a source
for direct exposure. Contaminated groundwater
generally is not considered to be a source
material although non-aqueous phase liquids
(NAPLs [occurring either as residual- or free-
phase]) may be viewed as source materials. (A
Guide to Principal Threat and Low Level Threat
Wastes, Superfund publication 9355.3-02FS,
USEPA OSWER 1991). Source media include
soil, sediment, sludge, debris, solid-matrix
wastes, surface water, NAPLs, equipment,
drums, storage tanks, leachate, landfill gas, and
any other contaminated media other than
groundwater that can act as a potential source
of contamination.
Source Control Remedy - any removal, treatment,
containment, or management of any contaminant
source or contaminated medium other than
groundwater.
-------
1. Source Control Treatment
Any process meant to separate and remove, destroy, or bind contaminants in a source medium. Key
words used in RODs to identify these processes are listed below. Additional detail about these
technologies can be found in the ASR at http://clu-in.org/asr or on the Federal Remediation
Technologies Roundtable website at http://www.frtr.gov.
Acid extraction
Air stripping
Carbon adsorption (liquid-phase carbon
adsorption)
Clarification (sedimentation)
Decontamination
Dewatering
Electrical separation (electrokinetic separation)
Evaporation
Filtration
Flushing (soil flushing and surfactant
flushing)
Ion exchange
Magnetic separation
Membrane filtration (microfiltration,
nanofiltration, reverse osmosis, ultrafiltration)
Chemical Treatment.
Multi-phase extraction (free product recovery)
Oil/water separation (free product recovery)
Physical separation (component separation and
materials handling)
Soil vapor extraction (vacuum extraction and
vapor extraction)
Soil washing
Solidification/stabilization (asphalt batching,
immobilization, and microencapsulation)
Solid-phase extraction
Solvent extraction (chemical stripping)
Steam stripping
Super-critical fluid extraction
Volatilization (aeration, mechanical soil
aeration, and tilling)
Chemical oxidation (cyanide oxidation,
oxidation, and peroxidation)
Chemical reduction (reduction)
Chemical treatment (chemical reduction/
oxidation and remedy type not further
specified)
Dehalogenation (dechlorination)
Thermal Treatment-
Flaring (gas flaring)
High energy corona
Open burning/open detonation
Plasma high-temperature recovery (fuming
gasification and high-temperature metals
recovery)
Thermal desorption
Thermal destruction (incineration and
pyrolysis)
Bioremediation_
Aeration (for purpose of bioremediation, tilling)
Biopile
Bioreactor
Bioremediation (biological treatment, remedy
type not further specified)
Flocculation
Metals precipitation
Neutralization (pH neutralization)
Permeable reactive barrier (chemical reactive
barrier, chemical reactive wall, leachate
reactive wall, and passive treatment wall)
Ultraviolet (UV) oxidation
Thermal treatment (remedy type not further
specified)
In situ thermal treatment (conductive heating,
Contained Recovery of Oily Wastes [CROW®],
dynamic underground stripping, electrical
resistance heating, hot air injection, in situ
thermal desorption, microwave heating, radio
frequency heating, steam injection, and
thermally enhanced soil vapor extraction)
Vitrification (slagging)
Bioslurping
Bioventing
Co-metabolic treatment
Composting
Controlled solid phase
Continued on next page
-------
Bioremediation (continued)
Fixed film reactors
Landfarming
Microbial injection (addition of microorganisms)
Nitrate enhancement
Nutrient injection
Oxygen enhancement with air sparging
(biosparging)
Other or unspecified Treatment
Air emission treatment
Fracturing (pneumatic fracturing, hydraulic
fracturing)
Gas collection and treatment (off-gas treatment)
Hot gas decontamination
Leachate treatment
Phytoremediation
Oxygen enhancement with hydrogen peroxide
(HA)
Permeable treatment bed (for purpose of
bio remediation)
Slurry-phase bioremediation (bioslurry,
activated sludge)
White rot fungus
Publicly owned treatment works (POTW)
Recycling
Surface water treatment
Treatment of residuals
Unspecified physical/chemical treatment
Unspecified treatment
2. Source Control Containment
Any process or structure designed to prevent contaminants from migrating from a source media into
groundwater, to surface water, to air, (or to other environmental media) or acting as a source for direct
exposure. Key words used in RODs to identify source control containment remedies are listed below:
Capping and Cover.
Cap (impermeable barrier)
Cover material
Evapotranspiration cover
Bottom Liner
Clay
Geosynthetic material
Liner (impermeable barrier)
Drainage and Erosion Control-
Engineering control (remedy type not further
specified)
Hydraulic control
Impermeable barrier
Revegetation
Slope stabilization
Subsurface drain (leachate control)
Surface water control (dike, berm, drainage
controls, drainage ditch, erosion control, flood
protection, and levee)
On-Site Landfilling.
On-site consolidation
On-site disposal
On-site landfilling (remedy type not further
sepcified)
Off-Site Landfilling_
Off-site consolidation
Off-site disposal
Off-site landfilling (remedy type not further
specified)
Vertical Engineered Barrier
(When used as a remedy for a source medium
[including subsurface NAPLs]. Vertical
subsurface engineered barriers used to control
or contain groundwater should not be
considered source control containment.)
Grout (grout curtain)
Impermeable barrier
Sheet piling
Slurry wall
Subsurface barrier
Vertical barrier
Continued on next page
-------
Other or unspecified Containment
Containment (consolidation, disposal,
landfilling, and removal)
Encapsulation (overpacking)
Leachate control (leachate collection, leachate
discharge, leachate recovery wells, leachate
reinjection)
Liquid waste management (liquid waste
collection, liquid waste discharge, liquid waste
recovery wells, liquid waste reinjection)
Permanent storage
Repair (pipe repair, sewer repair, and tank
repair)
Surface water management (surface water
collection, surface water discharge, surface
water recovery wells, surface water
reinjection)
3. Source Control Other
Source control remedies that do not fall into the categories Source Control Treatment or Source
Control Containment.
The classification of institutional controls has been revised based on Institutional Controls: A Site
Manager's Guide to Identifying, Evaluating, andSelecting Institutional Controls at SuperfundandRCRA
Corrective Action Cleanups, OSWER 9355.0-74FS-P, EPA 540-F-00-005, September 2000. The remedy
definitions outlined in this guidance differ from those historically used to classify institutional control
remedies. This classification system groups institutional controls into 4 categories. Listed below are
these four categories. Beneath each category, the terms historically applied to institutional controls
that are most likely to fall under the categories are listed. The list below also adds a fifth category,
"Institutional control (remedy type not further specified)" for cases where the particular institutional
control selected is not recorded in a ROD.
1. Governmental control
Access restriction
Drilling restriction
Fishing restriction
Guard (security)
Recreational restriction
Surface water restriction
Swimming restriction
Water supply use restriction
Engineering Control.
Dust suppression
Engineering control (remedy type not further
specified)
Fencing
Water table adjustment
Wetland replacement
Source Monitoring.
Monitoring
Sampling
2. Proprietary control
Deed notification
Deed restriction
Land use restriction
3.Enforceable agreement
Access agreement
4.Informational device
5. Institutional control (remedy type not further
specified)
Population Relocation.
Population relocation
Surface water Supply Remedies-
Alternate water supply (alternate drinking
water and bottled water)
Carbon at tap
Well-head treatment
-------
4. Source Control Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)
The reliance on natural attenuation processes (within the context of a carefully controlled and monitored
approach to site cleanup) to achieve site-specific remediation objectives within a time frame that is
reasonable, compared with that offered by other, more active methods. The "natural attenuation
processes" that are at work in such a remediation approach include a variety of physical, chemical, or
biological processes that, under favorable conditions, act without human intervention to reduce the
mass, toxicity, mobility, volume, or concentration of contaminants in soil or groundwater. These in
situ processes include biodegradation; dispersion; dilution; sorption; volatilization; radioactive decay;
and chemical or biological stabilization, transformation, or destruction of contaminants (Use of
Monitored Natural Attenuation at Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground Storage
Tank Sites, USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Directive Number 9200.4-17P,
1999).
A remedy should be considered source control MNA if it includes "natural attenuation" or "monitored
natural attenuation" for a source (e.g., contaminated soil).
F.3.3 Groundwater Remedies
Groundwater Remedy - Management of
groundwater. Groundwater remedies can include
in situ treatment, pump and treat, containment
using vertical engineered barriers, MNA, and other
measures to address groundwater.
Groundwater Media - One or more aquifers beneath
or proximal to a source medium, contaminated by
migration of contaminants, such as leachate, or by
other sources.
5. Groundwater In Situ Treatment
Treatment of groundwater without extracting it from the ground. Key words used in RODs to
identify groundwater in situ treatment remedies are listed below:
Air sparging
Electrical separation (electrokinetic separation)
In-well air stripping (well aeration and air
stripping)
Chemical Treatment.
Chemical oxidation (cyanide oxidation,
oxidation, and peroxidation)
Chemical reduction (reduction)
Chemical treatment (chemical reduction/
oxidation and remedy type not further specified)
Multi-phase extraction (free product
recovery)
Surfactant flushing
Vapor extraction
Dehalogenation (dechlorination)
Permeable reactive barrier (chemical reactive
barrier, chemical reactive wall, and passive
treatment wall)
In situ thermal treatment (conductive heating, CROW®, dynamic underground stripping, electrical
resistance heating, hot air injection, hot water or steam flushing and stripping, in-situ thermal
desorption, microwave heating, radio frequency heating, steam injection, and thermally enhanced
soil vapor extraction)
Aeration (for purpose of bioremediation)
Bioremediation (biological treatment, remedy
type not further specified)
Bioslurping
Bioventing
Co-metabolic treatment
Continued on next page
-------
Bioremediation (continued).
Microbial injection (addition of microorganisms)
Nitrate enhancement
Nutrient injection
Other or unspecified Treatment
Fracturing (pneumatic fracturing, hydraulic
fracturing)
Phytoremediation
Oxygen enhancement with air sparging
(biosparging)
Oxygen enhancement with hydrogen
peroxide (HO)
Treatment of residuals
Unspecified physical/chemical treatment
Unspecified treatment
6. Groundwater Pump and Treat
Extraction of groundwater from an aquifer followed by treatment above ground. Key words used in
RODs to identify groundwater pump and treat remedies are listed below:
Aeration (air stripping)
Carbon adsorption (liquid phase carbon
adsorption)
Clarification (sedimentation)
Coagulation
Component separation
Equalization
Chemical Treatment.
Chemical oxidation (cyanide oxidation,
oxidation, and peroxidation)
Chemical reduction
Chemical treatment (chemical reduction/
oxidation and remedy type not further
specified)
Biological Treatment
Biological treatment (remedy type not further
specified)
Bioreactors
Other or unspecified Treatment
Centralized waste treatment facility
Fracturing (pneumatic fracturing, hydraulic
fracturing)
Publicly owned treatment works (POTW)
Pumping and unspecified ex-situ treatment
Evaporation
Filtration
Ion exchange
Membrane filtration (microfiltration,
nanofiltration, reverse osmosis, ultrafiltration)
Oil/water separation (free product recovery)
Flocculation
Metals precipitation
Neutralization (pH neutralization)
Ultraviolet (UV) oxidation
Fixed film reactors
Oxygen enhancement with hydrogen peroxide
Treatment of residuals
Unspecified ex-situ physical/chemical
treatment
Unspecified treatment
The process of removing groundwater from beneath the ground surface, including the following
methods of groundwater extraction:
Continued on next page
-------
Recovery trench (horizontal drain)
Subsurface drain
Croundwater Extraction (continued)
Directional well (horizontal well)
Pumping (recovery well, vertical well)
Groundwater Discharge and Management _
A method of discharging or otherwise managing extracted groundwater, including the following
discharge methods and receptors:
Deep well injection (Class I well)
Recycling
Reuse as drinking water
Reuse as irrigation water
Reuse as process water
Surface drain reinjection (infiltration basin,
infiltration trench)
Surface water discharge (National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System [NPDES]
discharge)
Vertical well reinjection (into contaminated
aquifer)
7. Groundwater Containment
Containment of groundwater, typically through the use of vertical engineered barriers. Key words
used in RODs to identify groundwater containment remedies are listed below:
Deep soil mixing (barrier installation technique)
Geosynthetic wall
Grout (grout curtain)
High-density polyethylene (HDPE) wall
Other or unspecified Containment -
Plume containment (hydraulic containment of plume, plume management, plume migration control)
Impermeable barrier
Sheet piling
Slurry wall
Subsurface vertical engineered barrier
(subsurface barrier, subsurface vertical barrier)
8. Groundwater Other
Groundwater remedies that do not fall into the categories Groundwater In Situ Treatment, Groundwater
Pump and Treat, Groundwater Containment, or Groundwater Monitored Natural Attenuation.
The classification of institutional controls has been revised based on Institutional Controls: A Site
Manager's Guide to Identifying, Evaluating, andSelecting Institutional Controls atSuperfundandRCRA
Corrective Action Cleanups, OSWER 9355.0-74FS-P, EPA 540-F-00-005, September 2000. The remedy
definitions outlined in this guidance differ from those historically used to classify institutional control
remedies. This classification system groups institutional controls into 4 categories. Listed below are
these four categories. Beneath each category, the terms historically applied to institutional controls
that are most likely to fall under the categories are listed. The list below also adds a fifth category,
"Institutional control (remedy type not further specified)" for cases where the particular institutional
control selected is not recorded in a ROD.
1. Governmental control
Access restriction
Drilling restriction
Fishing restriction
Groundwater restriction
Guard (security)
Recreational restriction
Surface water restriction
Swimming restriction
Water supply use restriction
Continued on next page
-------
institutional Control (continued)
2. Proprietary control
Deed notification
Deed restriction
Land use restriction
Engineering Control
Engineering control (berm, dike, drainage
ditch, levee)
Water table adjustment
Wetland replacement
Croundwater Monitoring-
Monitoring
Sampling
3.Enforceable agreement
Access agreement
4.Informational device
5.Institutional control (remedy type not further
specified)
water Supply Remedies
Alternate water supply (alternate drinking water
and bottled water)
Carbon at tap
Extend piping to existing water main
Install new surface water intake
Install new water supply wells
Seal well (close well)
Treat at use location
Well-head treatment
Population Relocation
Population relocation
9. Groundwater MNA
The reliance on natural attenuation processes (within the context of a carefully controlled and monitored
approach to site cleanup) to achieve site-specific remediation objectives within a time frame that is
reasonable, compared with that offered by other, more active methods. The "natural attenuation
processes" that are at work in such a remediation approach include a variety of physical, chemical, or
biological processes that, under favorable conditions, act without human intervention to reduce the
mass, toxicity, mobility, volume, or concentration of contaminants in soil or groundwater. These in
situ processes include biodegradation; dispersion; dilution; sorption; volatilization; radioactive decay;
and chemical or biological stabilization, transformation, or destruction of contaminants (Use of
Monitored Natural Attenuation at Super fund, RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground Storage Tank
Sites, USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Directive Number 9200.4-17P, 1999).
A remedy should be considered groundwater MNA if it includes "natural attenuation" or "monitored
natural attenuation" of groundwater.
F.3.4 No Action Remedies
10. NA/NFA
The designation used for remedies that indicate no action or no further action will be taken. When
determining overall ROD type, the designation should be used only for RODs under which NA/NFA
is the only remedy selected. If a ROD selects NA/NFA for only part of a site and another remedy for
another part of a site, the ROD should be given the classification corresponding to that selected
remedy and should not be given an NA/NFA designation.
F.4 SPECIAL CASES
This subsection provides a list of some special cases
and descriptions of how remedy types should be
assigned in those cases:
Decontamination:
• The remedy type for decontamination of
buildings, equipment, tanks, debris, boulders,
F-9
rocks, or other objects should be considered
source control treatment. For example, abrasive
blasting or scarifying a concrete pad to remove
the contaminated surface layer of the pad should
be identified as source control treatment.
Decontamination of equipment used to clean
up a Superfund site is a normal activity that
-------
occurs at many Superfund sites and should not
be considered a remedy. For example, high-
pressure water washing of a front end loader
used to excavate contaminated soil should not
be considered a remedy and should not be given
a remedy type.
Phyto remediation:
• Phytoremediation involves the use of
macroscopic plants to destroy, remove,
immobilize, or otherwise treat contaminants.
While this technology may include the use of
microorganisms in conjunction with plants, it
is distinguished from bioremediation in that
bioremediation does not use macroscopic
plants. Remedies that used microorganisms
without macroscopic plants should be identified
as bioremediation.
• The use of plants to control surface water
drainage at a site is not phytoremediation. Such
remedies should be identified as engineering
controls (source control other or groundwater
other).
Remedies Based on Site Characteristics - If a ROD
indicates that a certain remedy be implemented
based on certain site characteristics, the ROD
should be considered to have selected the remedy.
For example, a ROD may specify that if soils exceed
a certain level of contamination they will be
incinerated, but if they do not exceed that level,
no further action will be taken. In such a case, the
ROD should be considered to have selected
incineration and therefore should be considered a
source control treatment ROD.
Vertical Engineered Barriers - Some of the
technologies used for vertical engineered barriers
are also used to control surface water and surface
drainage (for example, slurry walls and sheet piles).
Where these remedies are used to contain
groundwater, they should be identified as
groundwater containment.
Solidification/Stabilization - Some of the
technologies used for solidification/stabilization can
be used for either treatment or containment. For
example, "encapsulation" of a waste in plastic drums
is source control containment. "Encapsulation" of
a waste by mixing with a monomer and then causing
it to polymerize, resulting in microencapsulation, is
source control treatment. In general, containment
involves isolating bulk wastes, while solidification/
stabilization involves incorporating the contaminants
into a matrix so that their leachability is reduced.
Water Table Adjustment - Where water table
adjustment is used to prevent the groundwater from
coming into contact with a contaminated source
medium, it should be identified as source control
other, engineering control. Where water table
adjustment is used to treat groundwater, it should
be classified as groundwater other, engineering
control.
Subsurface Drain - When a subsurface drain is
used in order to prevent contact of precipitation
runoff with a source or to prevent erosion, it should
be considered source control containment, drainage
and erosion control. When a subsurface drain is
used to extract groundwater prior to treatment of
the groundwater, it should be classified as
groundwater pump and treat, groundwater
extraction.
Treatment of Residuals - Residuals are the matter
that results from a treatment process. For example,
the residuals from incineration of soil can include
ash, off-gasses, and scrubber blowdown from off-
gas treatment. In the preceding example, treatment
of off-gasses using a scrubber should be classified
as treatment of residuals. Where treatment of
residuals is specified in a ROD, the existence of
residuals treatment should be identified, but
additional information on the treatment of
residuals should not be collected.
Air Media - Air media include sources that are in
a gaseous form, such as landfill gas or hazardous
gasses stored in compressed gas cylinders. When
remedies for air media are selected in a ROD they
should be identified as source control remedies.
For example, collection and treatment of landfill
gas should be classified as source control treatment.
Air emissions from equipment used to treat sources
or groundwater are not air media. For example, a
ROD may specify that groundwater will be
extracted and treated by air stripping, and the off-
gas generated by the air stripping must be treated
by activated carbon adsorption. In such a case,
the ROD would be classified as groundwater pump-
and-treat (both physical treatment, aeration [air
stripping]; and other or unspecified treatment,
treatment of residuals), but would not be classified
as a source control treatment ROD.
(F-IC
-10
-------
APPENDIX G
REASONS FOR SHUT DOWN OF 63
GROUNDWATER PUMP AND TREAT
SYSTEMS
-------
Superfund Remedial Actions:
Reasons for Shut Down of 63 Groundwater Pump and Treat Systems
EPA
Region Site Name, State Reasons for Shut Down
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Hocomonco Pond, MA
McKin Co., ME
Norwood PCBs, MA
Pinnettes Salvage Yard, ME
Sylvester, NH
Fulton Terminals, N
Mannheim Avenue Dump, NJ
Pollution Abatement Services, NY
Tabernacle Drum Dump, NJ
Universal Oil Products, NJ
Vestal Water Supply Well 4-2, NY
Chem-Solv, Inc., DE
McAdoo Associates, PA
Rentokil Virginia Wood Preserving, VA
Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump, VA
Southern Maryland Wood Treating, MD
U.S. Titanium, VA
62nd Street Dump, FL
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination,
NC
Gold Coast Oil Corp., FL
Hollingsworth Solderless Terminal, FL
Schuylkill Metals Corp., FL
Tri-City Disposal Co., KY
Avenue "E" Groundwater Contamination, Ml
Belvidere Municipal Landfill, IL
Burrows Sanitation,
Charlevoix Municipal Well, IV
Cross Brothers Pail Recycling (Pembroke),
IL
Duell & Gardner Landfill, Ml
East Bethel Township, MN
Enviro. Conservation and Chemical, IN
Kummer Sanitary Landfill, MN
Lakeland Disposal Service, Inc., IN
Treatment system shut-off due to
technical problems
Replaced with MNA
Replaced with cap
Replaced with institutional controls
Met project cleanup goals
Met project cleanup goals
Met project cleanup goals
Met project cleanup goals
Met project cleanup goals
Replaced with cap
Met project cleanup goals
Met project cleanup goals
Met project cleanup goals
To be determined
To be determined
Met project cleanup goals
To be determined
Replaced with cap
To be determined
Met project cleanup goals
Met project cleanup goals
Replaced with source treatment
and engineering controls
To be determined
Met project cleanup goals
Met project cleanup goals
Met project cleanup goals
To be determined
Met project cleanup goals
Met project cleanup goals
Met project cleanup goals
Treatment system shut-off due to
technical problems
Replaced with MNA
To be determined
EPA
Region Site Name, State Reasons for Shut Down
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
9
9
9
10
Lauer 1 Sanitary Landfill, (Boundary
Road), Wl
Lehillier Mankato Site, MN
New Lyme Landfill, OH
Onalaska Municipal Landfill,
Schmalz Dump, Wl
Skinner Landfill, OH
Spiegelberg Landfill, Ml
Tri-State Plating, IN
University Minnesota (Rosemount Res
Cen), MN
Washington County Landfill, MN
WhittakerCorp., MN
Windom Dump, MN
Bailey Waste Disposal, TX
Cimmaron Mining Corp., NM
French, Ltd., TX
Odessa Chromium #2 (Andrews
Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site, TX
Odessa Chromium II Superfund Site, TX
Odessa Chromium No 2 Pump and Treat
2nd Unit, TX
Southern Shipbuilding, LA
Fairfield Coal Gasification Plant, IA
Valley ParkTCE Site Wainwright, MO
Waverly Groundwater Contamination, NE
White Farm Equipment Co. Dump, IA
Chemical Sales Co., CO
Mystery Bridge Rd/U.S. Highway 20, WY
Coast Wood Preserving, CA
Del Norte Pesticide Storage, CA
Norton Air Force Base, CA
Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island (AULT),
To be determined
Met project cleanup goals
Treatment system shut-off due to
technical problems
Replaced with MNA
To be determined
To be determined
To be determined
Met project cleanup goals
Met project cleanup goals
Met project cleanup goals
Met project cleanup goals
Met project cleanup goals
Replaced with cap
Treatment system shut-off due to
technical problems
Replaced with MNA
To be determined
To be determined
To be determined
To be determined
Met project cleanup goals
Met project cleanup goals
Treatment system shut-off due to
technical problems
To be determined
Replaced with cap
To be determined
Met project cleanup goals
To be determined
Treatment system shut-off due to
technical problems
Met project cleanup goals
To be determined
MNA = Monitored natural attenuation
C-1
-------
|