PB95-963302 ^
EPA540/B.-94/080
93 56 .'0-01
FEASIBILITY STUDY
ANALYSIS FOR
CERCLA SITES WITH
VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS IN
SOIL
August 1994
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Ian now
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
FEASIBILITY STUDY ANALYSIS FOR CERCLA SITES WITH VOLATILE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN SOIL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
J^US*^^%V*C ••••••••••••••••••• •«••••••••««••••••••••««••»• •«•«••••••••••••••••••••••»•••«••«•••••••••••••»••*»•••••••••»•••••••••••« 1U
I. OVERVIEW OF ANALYSE H
A. INTRODUCTION ............... ... 1-1
B. BACKGROUND 1-2
1. NFL SITES WITH VOC-CONTAMINATED SOIL 1-2
2. PRESUMPTIVE REMEDY DESCRIPTION — 1-2
3. REMEDY SELECTION PROCESS 1-3
C METHODOLOGY ~ 1-4
I. IDENTIHCATION OF VOC-CONTAMINATED SITES 1-5
2. TECHNOLOGY SCREENING AND REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE
ANALYSIS 1-6
D. RESULTS 1-6
E. CONCLUSIONS 1-7
n. SUMMARY ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR NON-PRESUMPTIVE
REMEDY TECHNOLOGIES „ n-i
A. CONTAINMENT — —n-2
i. CAPPING n-2
2. VERTICAL/HORIZONTAL BARRIERS n-6
B. LANDFILL DISPOSAL . n-9
l. OFFSITE HAZARDOUS LANDFILL n-io
2. OFFSTTE NONHAZARDOUS LANDFILL n-12
3. ONSTTE HAZARDOUS LANDFILL n-14
4. ONSITE NONHAZARDOUS LANDFILL n-15
C BIOREMEDIATION - „. 11-17
l. IN-STTU BIOREMEDIATION n-17
2. Ex-srru BIOREMEDIATION n-20
3. BIOREMEDIATION (UNSPECIFIED) „ n-24
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
PAGE
D. CHEMICAL DESTRUCTOR/DETOXIFICATION ----------------------------------------- n-26
i. OXIDATION /REDUCTION _________________________________________________________ n-26
2. NEUTRALIZATION ____________________________________________________________________ n-30
3. DEHALOGENATfON ___________________________________ ~ _____ . ______ - _______ 11-32
4. CHEMICAL DESTRUCTION/DETOXIFICATION (UNSPECIFIED) ------- n-35
5. iN-SnuHYDROLYSE ---------------------------------------------------- H-37
E. THERMAL TREATMENT _______ .......... _____________________________________________ 11-39
l. iN-snu VITRIFICATION ___________________________________________________ n-39
2. WET AIR OXIDATION -------------------------------------------------------- n-42
3. PYROLYSS ______________________________________________________________________ n-44
4. RADIO FREQUENCY VOLATILIZATION --------------------------------------- n-46
5. OTHER THERMAL TREATMENT _______________________________________________ n-48
F. CHEMICAL/PHYSICAL EXTRACTION ____________________________________________________ n-50
1. IN-STTU son. FLUSHING ________________________________________________________ ____ n-50
2. Ex-snu son. WASHING _________________________________________________________ n-53
3. OTHER PHYSICAL EXTRACTION ................. ------------------------------- n-56
4. OTHER CHEMICAL EXTRACTION --------------------------------------------- n-58
G. IMMOBILIZATION ............................. __________________________________________________ n-60
l. STABILIZATION /SOLIDIFICATION -------------------------------------------- n-60
2. FIXATION ___ .............................. „ .............................. _________________ n-63
3. ENCAPSULATION _______________________________________________________________ n-€5
H. OTHER .................................................. _ .......... .......
• i. Son. AERATION ____________________________________________________________________ n-68
REFERENCES ......................... _______________________________________________________________________ n-7i
APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF SCREENING AND DETAILED ANALYSIS FOR
VOC Sms ........................ _______________________________ _________________________ A-i
APPENDIX B: TECHNOLOGY-SPECIFIC SUMMARY TABLES --------------------------------- B-I
APPENDDC C SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORMS ............................. -------------- C-i
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
TABLE l VOCs IN SOILS AMENABLE TO PRESUMPTIVE REMEDIES 1-3
TABLE 2 INDEX OF SITE NAME CODES - n-2
-n-
-------
FEASIBILITY STUDY ANALYSIS FOR CERCLA SITES WITH VOLATILE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN Son,
PREFACE
Feasibility Study Analysis For CERCLA Sites With Volatile Organic Compounds In Soils is an
evaluation of technologies considered in the feasibility studies (FSs) of 21 volatile
organic compound (VOOcontaniinated soil sites. This evaluation analyzed technical
literature and the results of the remedy selection process from the FSs and Records of
Decisions (RODs) to formulate general conclusions about the application of these
technologies at mis site type. The evaluation concluded that certain technologies were
routinely screened out based on effectiveness, implementabflity, or excessive costs. It
therefore provides the basis for limiting the analysis of technologies and alternatives
when applying the presumptive remedy approach. Because the presumptive remedy
approach for VOC sites is outlined in guidance that is non-binding (Le., Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9355.0-48FS entitled Presumptive
Remedies: Site Characterization And Technology Selection For CERCLA Sites With Volatile
Organic Compounds in Soils), and not a rule, the administrative record must contain
information which provides the basis for limiting the analysis to only those technologies
outlined in the OSWER directive. This document provides the necessary technical
basis. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) intends for mis document to
replace the analysis of the other technologies that would normally be found in a
feasibility study. As such, this document is a key element of the administrative record
for any site where the presumptive remedy approach is used.
The presumptive remedy approach, however, does not entirely eliminate the analysis of
technologies and alternatives for several reasons. First, the VOC presumptive remedy
includes three technologies—soil vapor extraction (SVE), thermal desorption, and
incineration—that may be recommended for consideration and, thus, analyzed. Second,
even where only one technology is recommended, mere are often various process
options or applications of that technology that must be further evaluated. Third, before
choosing the presumptive remedy approach, unusual site conditions might justify
consideration of a non-presumptive remedy technology. In that case, the presumptive
remedy approach could be used, except that the additional potentially suitable
technology would be included. It would not be necessary to do a site-specific analysis
of all other technologies. Finally, this document does not address innovative or
developing technologies. The use of presumptive remedies does not preclude the
consideration of such technologies.
This document contains information on non-presumptive remedy technologies,
whereas the OSWER directive contains information on those mat were selected as
presumptive remedies. Parti contains a general overview of the presumptive remedy
process and the analysis. It includes a description of the:
• VOC-contaminated soil sites
• Remedy selection process
-iii-
-------
• Presumptive remedies for VOC-contaminated soil sites
• Nature, results/ and general conclusions of the analysis.
Part n reviews the individual technologies. In each case, the discussion:
• Describes the technology's strengths and weaknesses
• Identifies factors mat may limit its usefulness
• Presents a statistical review of how often the technology was
considered and ho wit fared in the screening and detailed analysis
phases in past feasibility studies
• Draws conclusions regarding its general suitability for VOC-
contaminated sofl sites in the context of the National Contingency
Plan (NCP) criteria
• Identifies technical references for its findings.
Appendix A summarizes the findings as to the number of cases in which each
technology was screened out in past feasibility studies, and the criteria on which it was
screened out (for seven of me nine NCP criteria). Appendix B describes in greater detail
the reasons given in past PSs and RODs for screening out each technology. Appendix C
presents a summary of the remedy selection process in the FS and ROD study for each
site mat was analyzed.
Users of this document should familiarize themselves with all of its contents including
its appendices. Much information relevant to justifying the exclusion of non-preferred
technologies can be found in the appendices. However, for a complete, detailed
discussion of a technology, the user must refer to the FS, ROD, or technical reference.
It is not anticipated that this document will fully address all the questions about the
screening and elimination of particular technologies. At some sites, more sophisticated
questions may be raised that may require a more detailed response than mis document
provides. In mat case, a greater amount of site-specific analysis wfll be required.
Nevertheless, it is expected mat this document will provide an adequate basis for
responding to general questions and comments on the presumptive remedy approach
to the remedy selection process.
-IV-
-------
FEASIBILITY STUDY ANALYSIS FOR CERCLA SITES WITH VOLATILE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN SOIL
| L OVERVIEW OF ANALYSIS |
EPA analyzed 21 sites with soil contaminated with VOCs on the National Priorities List
(NPL), promulgated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and UabiUty Act as amended (CERCLA). The analysis was based on PS
data, ROD data, and.technical references on treatment of sites with VOCs in the soil
The analysis determined which technologies are consistently included in remedies
selected, and which are consistently screened out and the basis for this elimination.
Based on this analysis, the Agency has determined mat the treatment technologies
included in this report can be eliminated from consideration in PSs at sites where the
presumptive remedy of SVE, thermal desorption, or incineration will be appropriate.
Therefore, this document can be used as a reference when the technology identification
and screening steps of theFS are abbreviated or eliminated at NFL sites with VOC-
contaminated soil implementing the presumptive remedy.
Presumptive remedies are preferred technologies for common categories of sites
selected on the basis of historical patterns of remedy selection and EPA's scientific and
engineering evaluation of performance data on technology implementation. The
objective of the presumptive remedies initiative is to use the program's past experience
to streamline site investigation and speed up selection of cleanup actions. Over time,
presumptive remedies are expected to ensure consistency in remedy selection and
reduce the cost and time required to dean up similar types of sites. Presumptive
remedies are expected to be used at all appropriate sites except under unusual site-
specific circumstances. Site-specific conditions (e.g., soil types, ground-water
contamination) must be addressed, as they may make the presumptive remedy
approach more or less appropriate at a given site. Conditions at a site also may justify
considering other technologies along with the presumptive remedy. These potential
alternatives may then be combined with other components of the presumptive remedy
to develop a range of alternatives suitable for site-specific conditions.
Note mat this document does not address some innovative or developing technologies.
Asdiscussed in Presumptive Remedies: Policy and Procedures, (OSWER Directive 9355.0-
47FS), the use of presumptive remedies does not preclude considering such
technologies.
1-1
-------
Since 1980, the Superfund program has found that certain categories of sites have
similar characteristics, such as types of contaminants present, or how environmental
media are affected. Based on information acquired from evaluating and cleaning up
these sites, EPA has undertaken an initiative to develop "presumptive remedies" to
accelerate future cleanups at these types of sites. Selecting presumptive remedi
patterns of remedy selection and EPA's scientific and engineering evaluation of
performance data on technology implementation.
NPL SITES WITH VOC-CONTAMINATED SOIL j
A VOC is any carbon compound that dissipates into me air under normal
environmental conditions. Table 1 lists VOCs mat are amenable to presumptive
remedies. Sources of VOC contamination indude industrial sol vents, dry
fluids, and by-products of chemical processes. The chemical properties of VOCs make
mem especially difficult to control when released into the environment m a relatively
loose soil matrix (such as loamy to sandy soil), VOCs can migrate fairly rapidly, thus
increasing the potential for human and environmental receptor exposures. VOCs may
migrate through the vadose zone—the soil above the water table and below the
ground surface — and contaminate the underlying ground water. Also, because of their
high volatility (i.e., ability to dissipate into the air), disturbing VOCsxntaminated soil
by chemical, thermal, and/or physical action may cause the VOCs to dis
readily. Potentially harmful concentrations of VOCs may be released to the
surrounding air at the site and pose significant risk to human health, especially workers,
and the environment
PRESUMPTIVE REMEDY DESCRIPTION |
The primary presumptive remedy for VOC-contaminated soil is SVE. SVE has been
selected most frequently in the past to address VOC contamination at NPL sites, and
initial performance data indicate mat it effectively treats contaminated media in place at
a relatively low cost If SVE wiUnc>t worker if contaniinant concentrations are high,
thermal desorption may be more appropriate. ma limited number of situations,
incineration may be more appropriate. Although these technologies are the preferred
technologies, remedy selection still depends upon specific site conditions. Nevertheless,
the lead agency can use the presumptive remedy approach to streamline die
development of alternatives. The lead agency can still consider the variety of options
within that technology.
1-2
-------
Table!, vocs IN SOU/SLUDGE AMENABLE
TO PRESUMPTIVE REMEDIES
Liquid SohrertK
GasSohrents:
Cubon TetndJoride
Chlocofonn
1,1-Dfchlanethene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dfchloroethyfene
U-Dichloroethytene
IjZ-Dicnloxopfopvie
Chloroethane
Chlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Acetone
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Benzene
Ethyl Benzene
Styrene
Tohiene
EthykneDfcra
MethyleneChk
nide
ride
1,1^2-Tctndiloioedune
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,1-TYfchioioethane
U^-Tridiloroethane
TtachloroelhyKne
Vinyl Chloride
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Methyl Isobutyi Ketone
nvXylene
o-Xylene
p-Xyiene
REMEDY SELECTION PROCESS
The components of the remedy selection process pertinent to mis analysis are the
remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS), proposed plan, and ROD. The RI,
which is generally conducted concurrently with the FS, is designed to determine the
nature and extent of contamination. The FS describes and analyzes the potential
cleanup alternatives for a site and provides the basis for considering and eliminating
technologies.
The FS consists of three major phases: identification and initial screening of
technologies, development of alternatives, and detailed analysis of alternatives. During
ihe initial screening, the full range of available technologies is evaluated based on cost,
effectiveness, and implementabiUty. Technologies passing mis screening step are
combined into remedial alternatives, taking into account the scope, characteristics, and
complexity of the site problem^) being addressed. During the detailed analysis,
alternatives that appear viable are assessed against each of the nine National Oil and
Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR Part 300) evaluation
criteria. The detailed analysis also compares the relative performance of each
alternative against these criteria.
1-3
-------
The nine NCP criteria are categorized into three groups: threshold (2), primary
balancing (5), and modifying C) criteria. The threshold criteria are first used when
evaluating a technology option. The technology must meet these criteria to be eligible
forsetection. The threshold criteria are:
• Overall protection of human health and the environment, and
• Compliance wife applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs).
During the next step, the major tradeoffs between alternative technologies are evaluated
using me five primary balancing criteria:
Long-term effectiveness and permanence
Reduction of tenacity, mobility, or volume through treatment
Short-term effectiveness
Lnplementability, and
Cost
The initial screening draws preliminary conclusions as to die maximum extent to which
permanent solutions and treatment can be practicably utilized in a cost-effective
manner. The alternative mat is protective of human health and the environment,
complies with ARARs, and affords the best combination of attributes is identified as the
preferred alternative in me proposed plan.
After public review of the proposed plan, the two modifying criteria, State and
community acceptance, are then factored into the final determination of the remedy.
The lead agency men selects the technology considered most effective, given the
constraints of the site, and documents the decision in the ROD.
EPA studied PS and ROD data from VOC-contaminated sites. The data supported SVE,
thermal desorption, and incineration as the presumptive remedies for NFL sites with
VOC-contaminated soil. The study:
• Identified me popuhtion of VOC^xmtanunated sites arul determined the
frequency of technology selection for VOC sites, and
• Identified sites for the analysis and conducted the FS and ROD analysis.
These analyses, along with the scientific and engineering analysis of the performance
data on technology application, support the decision to eliminate the initial alternatives
identification and screening step for this site type. These technical reviews found mat
1-4
-------
certain technologies are appropriately screened out based on review of technologies
against the first seven NCP criteria.
ji. IDENTIFICATION OF VOC-CONTAMPJATED SITES "j
Hie analysis involved generating a list of RODs signed after the passage in October 1986
c^ the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorizatkm Act (SARA). The analysis
documented VOC contamination, providing data for subsequent analyses. An analysis
of the ROD Information Directory database determined that of die 821 RODs signed in
FY86-FY91,418 contained VOCs in source material This list of RODS was subsequently
divided into two fists:
• RODs where VOCs were the only contaminants of concern identified in
the source material,
• RODs containing VOCs, as well as other contamination, in source
material.
For RODs involving VOC plus other contaminants, EPA reviewed the ROD to identify
cases where only VOCs were driving the selection of remedy. A review of the Remedial
Response Objectives and Selected Remedy sections of the ROD identified specific
language indicating mat the remedial action was designed to address only the VOCs at
the site. In addition, if cleanup goals were specified only for VOCs, VOCs were
assumed to be driving me remedy. This analysis identified 88 RODs of me 418 as VOC-
only RODs or RODs where VOCs were dearly driving the selection of remedy. The
three presumptive remedies were selected in more than 93 percent of these 88 RODs.
The purpose of the analysis was to statistically review and document me technology
screening steps in FSs and RODs for VOC-contaminated soil sites and identify
technologiesTnost often used to remediate these sites. Also, the analysis documents the
principal reasons given for eliminating technologies from further consideration. To
achieve a representative sample of FSs, sites were selected using ROD data according to
the following criteria:
• Sites were chosen, based on the selected remedy, to ensure an even
distribution among the treatment technologies for VOCs in soil
• Whenever possible, both VOGonly sites and VOC and other
contamination sites were represented under each technology.
In addition, sites were selected to ensure an even geographic distribution, ROD
signature date, and site size.
1-5
-------
12. TECHNOLOGY SCREENING AND REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS [
The analysis involves a review of the technology screening phase/ including any pre-
screening steps, followed by a review of the detailed analysis and comparative analysis
phases in each PS and ROD. Information derived from each review was documented on
site-specific data collection forms (Appendix C).
For the screening phase, the data collection forms (Appendix Q listed me full range of
technologies considered, including different process options for a given technology,
along with the key reasons given for eliminating technologies from further
consideration. These reasons were categorized according to three of the balancing
criteria: short-term effectiveness, implementability, and cost The frequency with
which specific reasons were given for eliminating a technology from further
consideration was then tallied and compiled into a screening phase summary table
(Appendix B). In cases where more than one process option was considered in the FS
for a given technology, the technology was counted only once in the summary table in
Appendix B.
For the detailed analysis and comparative analysis, information on the relative
performance of each technology/alternative with respect to the first seven NCP criteria
was documented on the site-specific data collection forms. The advantages and
disadvantages associated with each cleanup option were highlighted. In some cases, a
VOC technology was combined with one or more technologies that address minor site
contaminants into one or more alternatives. Only the component of me alternative mat
addressed VOC contamination was evaluated in this analysis. The disadvantages of a
technology/alternative were men compiled into a detailed analysis/comparative
analysis summary table (Appendix B), under the assumption mat these disadvantages
contributed to non-selection.
The analysis of 21 sites (approximately 25 percent of the 88 studied) has been compiled
and summarized. Additional site analyses will be provided when available. The
technology screening and remedial alternative analyses (Appendix A) demonstrate mat
SVE, thermal desorption, or incineration are frequently selected to address VOCs in soil
at NFL sites. The analysis demonstrates that technologies other man the presumptive
remedies are consistently eliminated from further consideration in the screening phase
due to short-term effectiveness, implementability, or costs. In addition, the analysis
indicates mat although certain technologies routinely passed the screening phase, they
were selected infrequently because they did not provide the best overall performance
with respect to the nine criteria. In addition, at least one of the three presumptive
remedies was considered in the 21 FSs and selected in 15 RODs (71 percent).
1-6
-------
The results reported above, along with die scientific analysis of performance data
(Contaminants and Remedial Options at Solvent Sites, EPA, in progress), support SVE,
thermal desorption, and incineration as the presumptive remedy for sites with soil
contaminated by VOCs and support die decision to eliminate the initial technology
identification and screening step. Most supporting materials are found in the Regional
files; others can be provided by Headquarters as needed. Technologies other man me
presumptive remedy, however, may be considered on a site-specific basis.
1-7
-------
n. SUMMARY ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
FOR NON-PRESUMPTIVE REMEDY TECHNOLOGIES
This analysis examined the technical literature and the technology screening and
remedy selection processes for 21 VOC-contaminated sites. Characteristically,, these
sites contain VOCs as the major soil contaminants, but may contain other contaminants
as well A variety of VOCs are amenable to the presumptive remedies (Table 1). far
sites containing a mixture of VOCs and other contaminants, the presumptive remedies
should be considered only if they also can be effective in removing the non-VOC
contaminants or combined with other, non-presumptive remedies hi a treatment train,
assuming the presumptive remedies do not exacerbate the problems presented by the
non-VOCs.
This study supports that the presumptive remedies for these sites—SVE, thermal
desorption, and incineration—are the technologies "of choice" for this type of site. In
addition, this study concludes mat most other technologies (or classes of technologies)
are consistently screened out due to the various reasons presented below.
The following sections describe each technology mat is not a presumptive remedy for
VOC-contaminated soiL Each section is further divided into six parts:
• A general narrative describing the technology.
* Any limits to its applicability and effectiveness.
• The target contaminant groups for the treatment method. Target
contaminants are those contaminants that a specific technology aims or
targets to treat The major contaminant groups used are:
(1) Halogenated vdatiles
(2) Halogenated semivolatiles
. (3) Non-halogenated volatiles
(4) Non-halogenated semivolatiles
(5) Fuel hydrocarbons
(6) Pesticides
(7) Inorganics
A list of examples of contaminants encountered at many sites can be
found in Appendix B of the reference document Remediation Technologies
Screening Matrix, Reference Guide, Version I, US EPA & US Air Force, July
1993. (Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix, 1993, p. 139.)
• Discussion of results from the analysis of the 21 FSs studied. This section
summarizes the specific reasons for screening a particular technology
during the initial screening.
n-i
-------
• Disciission of results from the analysis of the 21 RODs studied. This
section summarizes the specific reasons for screening a particular
technology during the detailed analysis.
• G^r^ral cc^dusions as to why the technology may be elimiriated from
consideration at VOC-contaminated soil sites.
Site names are coded from 1 through 21, as shown in Table 2. The codes identify sites
where the specific reasons were used for eliminating the technology from further
consideration in the PS or ROD.
2 OarenxmtPorychemicaLNY
3 Da vis Liquid Waste, RI
4 Fisher Cato Chemical, IN
5 Genzate Plating, NY
6 HbechstCelanese Facility, NC
7 Indian Bend Wash Area, AZ
8 Kearaarge,NH
9 Keefe Environmental NH
10 Long Prairie, MN
11 Lord Shone, PA
12 Mottoto,NH
13 Newsom Brothers, MS
14 SMS,NY
15 Solvent Service, CA
16 South Jersey Clothing, NJ
17 South Municipal Well, NH
18 Stamina Mflb,RI
)9 USA Letterkenny Army Depot MD
20 Vogd Paint* Wax, IA
21 Waldick Aerospace Devices, NJ
CAPPING j
Technology Description
Capping encompasses a set of process options in which caps/covers perform one or
more of the following functions: isolate contaminated media to prevent human or
animal exposure; prevent vertical infiltration of water into the contaminated media;
contain the soil while treatment is being applied; control gaseous emissions from
underlying contaminated media; and create a land surface that can support vegetation
and/or be used for other purposes.
Covers may be interim (temporary) or final. Contaminated media masses that are so
large that other treatment is impractical also can be capped.
H-2
-------
Limitations
Effectiveness of covers is defined as their ability to function over the long term without
being damaged by the underlying soil. The following factors may limit the applicability
and effectiveness of mis process:
• A cover, by itself, cannot prevent the horizontal flow of ground water
through the contaminated media, only the vertical entry of water.
• Air temperature, seasonal variations, and other site-spedfic conditions
may affect the integrity of the cap by causing cracking, settling, erosion, or
ground-water intrusion.
• Once a cover is installed, it may be difficult to monitor or evaluate its
performance.
The capping technology does not lessen toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminated
soil. However, when properly designed and maintained, caps can isolate contaminated
media, thereby preventing exposure of humans and the environment for very king
periods of time.
I ** iint Groups
Capping is applicable and effective for the complete range of contaminant groups. Gas
emissions from VOC compounds may require a gas collection system to prevent
accumulation and escape.
Initial Screening
The capping technologies considered in the FSs included asphalt, clay, concrete, multi-
layer, and synthetic caps, as well as chemical sealants, soil covers, and vegetative
covers. Capping was considered in 21 FSs. The complete set of capping options was
screened out seven times (33 percent). One or more capping options passed the
screening and were considered as a primary component of a remedial alternative
(detailed analysis and comparison) eight times (38 percent). One or more capping
options passed screening but were not considered as a primary component of a
remedial alternative six times (29 percent).
The predominant factor for screening out capping was a lack of effectiveness, most
often due to susceptibility to cracking, weathering, and erosion (6 FSs: 1, 6, 7, 11, 16, 17),
and failure to prevent downward migration of contaminants to ground water, resulting
in a potential for leachate generation (5 FSs: 1, 6, 8, 16, 17).
H-3
-------
No. PS» Where
Technology
Considered
21
Site Name Code
Detailed Analysis
No. FSs Technology
Pasted Screening
8
4,9,10,12,13,15,19,21
No. PSs Technology
Not Primary
Component of
Alternative
6
2,3,5,14,18,20
No. PSs Technology
Screened Out
7
1,6,7,8,11,16,17
Of die eight times capping options were retained for consideration in a remedial
alternative, none were sealed as me final remedy. The predominant criteria were no
reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume; long-term effectiveness and permanence; and
short-term effectiveness.
The reasons provided most often were no reduction of toxicity or volume (7 RODs: 4,9,
10,12,13,15,19); lack of long-term effectiveness due to untreated contaminated media
remaining in place (4 RODs: 4,9,10,15); and the potential for community or worker
exposure to dust and fugitive emissions during installation (6 RODs: 4,9,10,12,15,19).
No. ESs Technology Passed
Screening
No. RODs Technology
Selected
No. RODs Technology Not
Selected
8
Site Name Code:
4,9,10,12,13,15,19,21
Conclusion
Capping is generally an ineffective remediation method for VOC-cantaminated soil, as
it is simply a containment technology. Capping alone does not reduce the toxicity or
volume of VOC-contaminated soil. Cracking, weathering, and erosion compromise cap
integrity, making it ineffective in containing soil VOCs. Furthermore, capping cannot
prevent the horizontal flow of ground water through the contaminated media,
increasing die potential for leachate generation.
H-4
-------
The following table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to
the elimination of this technology.
Capping wfll only control direct contact
Capping may not comply with Federal AKAKs.
Reduction of Tooddty,
Mobility, or Volume
• Tins technology does not reduce toaddty or volume.
• This tecnnologyrnayrediicemobiHty, but oiuy by preventiiig of vertical
infiltration of water.
Long-term
Effectiveness and
Permanence
Long-tenn effectiveness relies on proper cap maintenance.
Once a cover is installed, ft may be difficult to monitor or evaluate its
Capping leaves untreated contaminated media in place.
Site conditions such as flooding or shallow ground water may decrease
effectiveness of technology.
Effectiv
Capping may allow potential for community or worker exposure during
excavation and construction.
This technology can require a longer period of time to implement or
achieve site goals uun other applicable technologies
[mptementability
State and community support may affect imptementabfliry.
Air temperature, seasonal variations, and other site-specific conditions
may affect cap integrity or sub-surface conditions.
Cost*
* Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
D-5
-------
j 2. VERTICAL/HORIZONTAL BARRIERS |
Technology Description
Vertical/horizontal barriers encompasses a set of process options in which systems are
used to contain contaminated media and prevent contaminants from moving into the
surrounding media. Vertical barriers are wall-like systems installed vertically around
the contaminated media. Several types of vertical barriers are commonly used,
including slurry walls, grout curtains, and geomembrane curtains. Horizontal barrier
techniques usually involve injecting grout under the contaminated media.
The vertical/horizontal barrier technology does not lessen toxidiy or volume of
contaminated media but effectively reduces the overall mobility of the contaminated
media. (Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix, 1993, p. 81.) When properly designed
and installed, systems contain the contaminated media and prevent contaminants from
moving into the surrounding soil and water.
Limitations
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of this process:
• Vertical/horizontal barriers do not lessen me toxicity or volume of die
contaminated soiL
• Vertical barriers should intercept a continuous impervious horizontal
layer below me contaminated media. These natural layers may not be .
present at every site.
• ' Horizontal barriers are very difficult to inspect
• Test excavations and exploratory borings may be necessary.
Target Contaminant Groups
The vertical/horizontal barrier technology is applicable to the complete range of
contaminant groups with no particular target group. (Remediation Technologies Screening
Matrix, 1993, p. 81.)
Initial Screening
Vertical/horizontal barriers were considered in six FSs. The complete set of
vertical/horizontal barriers options was screened out five times (83 percent). It passed
screening but was not considered as a primary component of a remedial alternative one
time (17 percent).
n-6
-------
The predominant factor for screening out vertical/horizontal barriers was lack of
effectiveness. The technology was most often noted as not applicable due to subsurface
conditions (e.g., fractured bedrock, porous limestone). Also noted was inapplicability
to vadose zone contamination.
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
6
Site Name Code:
No. FSs Technology
Fused Scieciui^
0
No. FSs Technology
NotPrimaiy
Component of
Alternative
1
21
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
5
1,7,17,18,19
Detailed Analysis
Vertical/horizontal barriers were not considered in any remedial alternatives.
Conclusion
Vertical/horizontal barriers are generally an ineffective remediation method for VOC-
contaminated soil, as they are only containment techniques and do not reduce the
toxidty or volume of VOC-contaminated soil. Also, site-specific reasons, including
subsurface conditions such as fractured bedrock or porous limestone, can make
vertical/horizontal barriers ineffective. Furthermore, construction of vertical/
horizontal barriers poses significant difficulty due to the volatility of VOCs. The
resultant releases as fugitive emissions may pose serious risks to human health and the
environment Potential impacts to ground water and difficulty in inspecting the barrier
(horizontal) are other reasons for screening these technologies.
D-7
-------
The following table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to
die elimination of this technology.
Compliance with
ARARs*
Reduction of Toaddty,
Mobility, or Volume
Longterm
EffectrfeneM
-------
Technology Description
Landfill disposal encompasses a set of process options for the removal of contaminated
material to permitted onsite or offsite disposal facilities. Somepre-treatmentofthe
contaminated media usually is required to meet Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs). The mobility of the contaminated
media is reduced, however, by moving the media from the unsecured site to a disposal
facility mat will physically contain it The process options discussed in mis study are
disposal to offette hazardous, offeite nonhazardous, onsite hazardous, and onsite
nonhazardous landfills.
Limitations
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of these options:
• Fugitive emissions may be generated during excavation and pose
potential health and safety risks to site workers. Personal protective
equipment at a level commensurate with the contaminants is normally
required.
• Most hazardous wastes still must be treated to meet either RCRA or non-
RCRA treatment standards prior to land disposal. Compliance with
applicable RCRA LDRs may be difficult
• Adverse site conditions may hinder construction of onsite facilities.
For offsite facilities, the following factors apply:
• Landfill disposal alleviates the contaminant problem at the site but
transfers the risk offeite without treatment of the contaminants.
• Transportation to an offeite facility introduces a potential risk to the
community via accidental releases.
• Long distances from the contaminated site to the nearest disposal facility
may increase costs.
Overall costs associated witih landfill disposal are relatively high. Although the process
is relatively simple with proven procedures, it is a labor-intensive practice with little
potential for further automation. Once disposal is completed and no operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs are incurred, no capital investment is required. (Remediation
Technologies Screening Matrix, 1993, p. 71.)
H-9
-------
Landfill disposal is applicable to the complete range of contaminant groups with no
particular target group. (Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix, 1993, p. 71J
OFPSITE HAZARDOUS LANDFILL j
Initial Screening
Offsite hazardous landfill was considered in 18 FSs. It was screened out four times (22
percent), Itpassedtheso^eenmgandwasccciskieiedasaprimaryonnponentofa
remedial alternative (detailed analysis and comparison) 12 times (67 peroenQi It passed
screening but was not considered as a primary component of a remedial alternative two
times (11 percent).
The predominant factors for screening out offsite hazardous landfill were lack of
effectiveness and implementability. Specific reasons were ineffectiveness in reducing
toxicityorvohime(2FSs: 3,12), and difficulties in implementation, mainly due to
compliance with LDRs (2 FSs: 15,20).
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
18
Site Name Code
No. E5s Technology
Fused Screening
12
1,4,5,6,8,9,10,13,14,
16,17,21
No. FSs Technology
Not Primary
Component of
Alternative
2
2,18
No. R* Technology
SoRGCBCo ^> r^ir
4
3,12,15,20
Detailed Analysis
Of the 12 times offsite hazardous landfill was retained for consideration in a remedial
alternative, 10 times it was not selected as the final remedy (83 percent)- The
predominant criteria were compliance with ARARs; reduction of toxicrty, mobility, or
volume; short-term effectiveness, cost, and implementability.
The reasons noted most often were mat the offsite RCRA landfill technology would
have difficulty complying with LDRs (5 RODs 1,6,10,14,16); the potential for
exposure to fugitive dusts from excavation and transportation (9 RODs: 1, 4,5,6,9,10,
14,16,17); and high costs (6 RODs: 4, 9,10,14,16,21). Also noted were that the
technology results in no reduction of toxkity and volume (6 RODs: 1,5,9,10,14,17)
and the difficulties in implementation due to site conditions (3 RODs: 1,5,17).
n-io
-------
No. ESs Technology Passed
Screening
No. RODs Technology
Selected
No. RODs Technology Not
Selected
12
10
1,4,5,6,9,10,14,16,17,21
Site Name Code:
8,13
The conclusion for offeite hazardous landfill has been combined with oflsite
nonhazardous landfill.
n-ii
-------
2. OFFSHE NONHAZARDOUS LANDFILL
Initial Screening
Offsite nonhazardous landfill was considered in four FSs. It was screened out two
times (50 percent). It passed screening but was not considered as a primary component
of a remedial alternative two times(50 percent).
The predominant factor for screening out offsite nonhazardous landfill was lack of
effectiveness. Specifically, ineffectiveness in protection against chemical migration was
noted (2 FSs: 1,14).
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
4
Site Name Code
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
0
No. FSs Technology
Not Primary
Component of
Alternative
2
2,8
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
2
I,"
Detailed Analysis
Offsite nonhazardous landfill disposal was not considered as a primary component of
any remedial alternatives.
Conclusion
Offsite disposal, including offsite hazardous and nonhazardous landfills, is generally an
inadequate remediation method for VOC-contaminated soil due to lack of effectiveness
and implementability. Offsite te«4PU disposal fails to prevent migration of dissipating
VOCs, as weH as reduce toxidty and volume, accounting for screening. More .
importantly, because VOCs readily dissipate in air, the potential to generate fugitive
emissions during excavation and transportation increases the associated health and
safety risks.
H-12
-------
The following table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to
the elimination of this technology.
>wim
ARARs
• O£bite disposal inay not cranky widiftdenl ARARs, or widi die intent
of SARA.
Reduction of Tcodcity,
Mobmty, or Volume
wen as reduce tenacity and volume.
Long-term
••**- --•
ciiecu veness
Permanence
The risks posed by hazardous substances are only transferred offsite,
! is not treated.
Short term
Effectiveness
safety risk posed to worlci
during excavation and transportation.
omptouased by the potential health and
t through exposure to fugitive emissions
ImptementahDity
Offsite disposal may not be imptementable due to LDRs, limited disposal
capacity, and other site conditions (depth, volume of waste).
Logistical difficulties associated with oftsite transportation such as travel
distances may affect implementation.
Cost
1
.High costs are associated with mis technology.
J
* Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
H-I3
-------
3. ONSTTE HAZARDOUS LANDFILL
Initial Screening
Disposal in an onsite hazardous landfill was considered in 14 ESs. Ofthose,itwas
screened out 11 times (79 percent). One time (7 percent), it passed the screening and
was considered as a primary component of a remedial alternative (detailed analysis and
comparison). Two times, it passed screening but was not considered as a primary
component of a remedial alternative (14 percent).
The predominant factors for screening out an onsite hazardous landfill were lack of
effectiveness, specifically in controlling VOCs (3 FSs: 2,5,19), and difficulties in
implementation, especially due to adverse site conditions or restriction of future use of
the site (8 FSs: 2,5,8,9,10,16,17,21).
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
14
Site Name Code
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
1
4
No. FSs Technology
Not Primary
fV.— .— r,— — .1 -J
N*WUI|AMmu \A
Alternative
2
6,18
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
11
2,3,5,8,9,10,11,1^17,
19,21
Detailed Analysis
The one time onsite hazardous landfill was retained for consideration in a remedial
alternative, it was not selected as the final remedy. The predominant criteria were
ineffectiveness in reducing toxicity or volume, the potential for exposure during
excavation, and high costs.
No. FSs Technology Passed
Screening
No. RODs Technology
Selected
No. RODs Technology Not
Selected
1
Site Name Code:
Conclusion
The conclusion for onsite hazardous landfill has been combined with onsite
nonhazardous landfill.
H-14
-------
4. ONSITE NONHAZARDOUS LANDFILL
Disposal in an onsite nonhazardous landfill was considered in two ESs. It was screened
out in one FS (50 percent). One time (50 percent)/it passed screening but was not
considered as a primary component of a remedial alternative.
The reasons provided were lack of effectiveness due to the inability to meet standards
(1FS II).
No. PSs Where
Technology
Considered
2
file Name Code:
No. FSs Technology
0
No. FSs Technology
Not Primary
f*j\MinjLi-rLJi_iiMT.I ft/
^WUKMMBCBM, M
Alternative
1
2
No. FS» Technology
Screened Out
1
11
Detailed Analysis
Onsite nonhazardous landfill disposal was not considered as a primary component of
any remedial alternatives.
Conclusion
Onsite disposal, including onsite hazardous and nonhazardous landfills, is generally
not an effective remedial method for VOC-contaminated soil. Lack of effectiveness and
difficultes in implementation are the two primary reasons noted in the screening of
onsite disposal. Controlling VOCs and the increased potential for generation of fugitive
emissions and the associated potential health and safety risks make onsite landfills
ineffective for contaminated soil.
H-15
-------
The following table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to
the elimination of this technology.
Gofwtianoe wtth
ARARs
Redaction of Toxidty,
Mobility, or Volume
Lon^-tcfin
w^j^-^j-^^—^^^ --.j
ufocaveMM «na
IVtimngim
Short-term
TTffoj-Hinmi^M
Implementabflity
Cost
- UK icaiiMnugjr uwjr nauii in • |«u«cna« IKBIUI mna JMIUJT IDK n>
workenfromejqxMaretofugHiWaniaiionsdtiiingexcKvatkm.
• Onsitedispoal may not axnplywidt ARARs or wiOittie intent of SARA.
• unsue luunii ilijtpOMt uuis lu pi went nugmion of aisaiptang VULJ^ AS
fugitive emissions daring excavation.
• Depth, composition, and volume of media requiring excavation may
affect impkmentability.
• High costs are associated with this technology.
n-ie
-------
IN-STTUBIOKEMEDIATION
Technology Description
In-situ biological remediation (bioremediation) encompasses a set of process options
which involves stimulating and enhancing the activity of naturally occurring microbes
by circulating water-based solutions through contaminated soil. Nutrients, oxygen, or
other amendments may be used to enhance microbial activity and contaminant
desorption from subsurface materials. Generally, me process includes above-ground
treatment and conditioning of the infiltration water with nutrients and an oxygen (or
other electron acceptor) source. In-situ bioremediation is a full-scale technology.
Limitations
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of this process:
• Bioremediation may not be applicable at sites with high concentrations of
heavy metals, highly chlorinated organics, or inorganic salts.
• The system should not be used for day, highly layered, or heterogeneous
subsurface environments.
• Extensive treatability studies and site characterization may be necessary.
• Contaminant mobility may increase, and the processed water may require
treatment prior to re-injection or disposal.
• - Bioremediation relies on the adaptability of naturally occurring
microorganisms. It is not recommended that other microorganisms be
injected into the subsurface.
Target Contaminant Groups
Target contaminants for in-situ bioremediation are non-halogenated VOCs, non-
halogenated SVOCs, and fuel hydrocarbons. Halogenated VOCs, halogenated SVOCs,
and pesticides also can be treated, but the process may be less effective and may only be
applicable to some compounds within these contaminant groups. (Remediation
Technologies Screening Matrix, 1993, p. 21.)
D-17
-------
Initial Screening
In-situ bioremediatkm was considered in II FSs. It was screened out II times (100
percent) and the predominant factors for screening out in-situ bioremediation were
effectiveness and implementability. Specifically, mis technology lacks effectiveness in
treating halogenated VOCs (4 FSs: 1,8,17,18). Difficulties m implementing the process
also were noted (4 FSs: 8,16,20,21), including general difficulties in controlling die
technology and verifying effectiveness.
No. PS. Where
Technology
Gonsidcrad
«* •
11
Site Name Code
No. FSs Technology
T^B^MM'1 ^,-|^^0»X»rt
*. •»_* •£
0
No. FSs Technology
Not Primary
f*,—n—nn~*A ../
Alternative
0
Na FSs Technology
Screened Out
11
1,3,4,7,8,15,16,17,18,
20,21
Detailed Analysis
In-situ bioremediation was not considered in any remedial alternativ
Although this process is effective for some organic compounds, there are serious
limitations to its effectiveness with halogenated (including chlorinated) VOCs. This
process requires extensive treatability studies, which increase time and cost Also, some
soil types are not amenable to the process. The addition of water-based solutions may
increase the mobility of the contaminants, thereby increasing the chance for ground-
water contamination and future exposure risks. Finally, due to varying subsurface
environments, maintaining advantageous conditions for biological degradation
throughout the area of contamination is not ensured, thus reducing the amount of
contaminated soil that is effectively treated.
H-18
-------
The following table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of die factors contributing to
the elimination of this technology.
Overall Protective
Nutrients injected into fee ground during treatment may adversely
impact ground water.
Compliance with
Reduction of Toxfctty,
Mobility, or Volume
• This technology may i
luninant nohuhy during treatment
Long-term
Effect! veneM and
Permanence
• This technology may not be effective for she contaminants and
conditions.
Veri&atkm of effectrm>ess and reliability is difficult
Effectiveness
• Nutrients injected into the ground during treatment may degrade
ground water or surface water.
• Processed water must be treated prior to re-injection or disposal
EmpiementaDuity
The technology may be difficult to control or not feasible to implement
• Extensive pilot studies may be required. The technology should not be
used for day, highly layered, or heterogeneous subsurface environments.
Cost
* High costs may be associated with mis technology.
* Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
D-19
-------
2. EX-SITU BIOREMEDIATION |
Technology Description
Ex-situ biological remediation (bioremediation) eiKompasses a set of process options in
which die contaminated media are excavated or removed and treated using the
bictogical processes of naturaUyc«x^irr^ There are thrc
categories of ex-situ bioremediation in this analysis: slurry-phase treatment, solid-
phase treatment and landfarming. Each is described below.
Slurry-phase biological treatment involves the use of an aqueous slurry created by
combining soil or sludge with water and other additives in a bioreactor. The slurry is
mixed to keep solids suspended and microorganisms in contact with the soil
contaminants. Nutrients, oxygen, and pH in the bioreactor are controlled to enhance
bioremediation. Upon completion of the process, the slurry is dewatered and the
treated soil is disposed. (Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix, 1993, p. 37.)
Solid-phase biological treatment mixes excavated soil with soft amendments and places
them in above-ground enclosures mat include leachate collection systems and some
form of aeration. Controlled solid-phase processes include prepared treatment beds,
biotreatment cells, soil piles, and composting. Moisture, heat, nutrients, oxygen, and
pH can be controlled to enhance bioremediation. (Remediation Technologies Screening
Matrix, 1993, p. 37.)
Landfarming applies contaminated soil onto the soil surface, which periodically is
turned over or tilled to aerate the waste. Although landfarming usually requires
excavation of contaminated soil, surface-contaminated soil may sometimes be treated in
place without excavation. Landfarming systems are increasingly incorporating liners
and other methods to control leaching of contaminants. (Remediation Technologies
Screening Matrix, 1993, p. 41.)
Limitations
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of ex-situ
' bioremediation;
• Contaminated soil usually is excavated which may volatilize
contaminants. Contaminant concentrations may be reduced more by
volatilization than bioremediation.
• Conditions advantageous for biological degradation of contaminants may
be difficult to control, increasing the time to complete remediation.
n-20
-------
• Extensive treatability testing conducted to determine die biodegradability
of contaminants and appropriate oxygenation and nutrient loading rates,
may increase time and cost of implementation.
Target Onfr"iinynt Groups
Ex-situ bioremediation is primarily designed to treat non-halogenated VOCs and fuel
hydrocarbons. Halogenated VOCs and SVOCs, non-halogenated SVOCs, and
pesticides also can be treated, but me process may be less effective and may only be
applicable to some compounds within these contaminant groups. Many chlorinated
organics and pesticides are not very biodegradable, reducing mis technology's
applicability.
(Note: For mis analysis, when a process option was not identified, the term ex-situ
bioremediation was used.)
Initial Screening
Ex-situ bioremediation, in its various process options, was considered in 15 FSs. Of
those, it was screened out 13 times (87 percent). It passed the screening and was
considered as a primary component of a remedial alternative (detailed analysis and
comparison) two times (13 percent). (Ex-situ bioremediation one time and composting
onetime.)
Ex-situ bioremediation was most often screened out because of lack of effectiveness and
unknown reliability hi treating all the contaminants found hi soil contaminated with
VOCs, especially halogenated VOCs (ex-situ bioremediation - 4 FSs: 7,8,13,15;
composting - 2 FSs: 3,13; land farming - 2 FSs: 6,13).
Ex-srru BIOREMEDIATION
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
8
Site Name Code
No. FSs Technology
1
20
No. FSs Technology
Not Primary
Component of
Alternative
0
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
7
1,3,7,8,10,13,15
n-2i
-------
COMPOSTING
No. ESs Where
Technology
Considered
4
Site Name Code
Ktn 'DCd* T«l**V.utlMtaM»
No. Rss Technology
Passed Screening
1
6
No. FSs Technology
Not Primary
Component ot
Alternative
0
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
3
3,4,13
LANDFARMING
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
3
SUe Name Code
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
0
No. FSs Technology
Not Primary
^«j»v«MS%*WM»fr f^f
VA>UljpUltt9U Oft
Alternative
0
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
3
3,6,13
Detailed Analysis
The one time ex-situ bioremediation was retained for consideration in a remedial
alternative, it was selected as the final remedy.
The one time composting was retained for consideration in a remedial alternative, it
was not selected as the final remedy. The predominant criterion was short-term
effectiveness. The reasons given were risk from mixing and handling, possible
emissions of fugitive dusts, and possible leachate generation during operations.
Ex-srru BIOREMEDIATION
No. FSs Technology Passed
Screening
No. RODs Technology
Selected
No. RODs Technology Not
Selected
Site Name Code
20
H-22
-------
COMPOSTING
No. FSs Technology Fused
Screening
1
Site Name Code:
No. RODs Technology
C_J__*_«4
xtectsa
0
No. RODs Technology Not
^_m ._ j
3B1OC5OO
1
6
Condusion
Although this process is effective for some organic compounds, there are serious
limitations to its effectiveness with halogenated (chlorinated) organics, most
importantly halogenated VOCs. This process requires extensive treatability studies,
which increase time and cost In addition, some soil types are not amenable to die
process, and maintaining advantageous conditions for biological degradation may be
difficult to control, thereby increasing the remediation time. Also, excavation of the
contaminated soil prior to treatment increases the risk of exposure of workers and the
public to fugitive emissions.
The following table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to
the elimination of mis technology.
Compliance with
ARARs*
Reduction of Toxidty,
Mobility, or Volume
• This techndogy may decre3eo3ntan«nanto3
-------
3. BIOREMEDIATION (UNSPECIFIED)
Technology Description
In six FSs, bioremediation (unspecified) was considered as a
However, these FSs did not specify ex-situ or in-situ bior
1 technology.
Therefore, a
separate bioremediation (unspecified) treatment category was 1111 ABihr ri See
discussion on in-situ biprnnediatfon ?™* g*-at*u hioremgdiarinn far more detailed
information.
Limitations
This discussion does not apply to this category.
This discussion does not apply to this category.
Initial Screening
Bioremediation (unspecified) was considered in six FSs. Of time, it was screened out
six times (100 percent).
The predominant factors for screening out bioxemediatkm (unspecified) were lack of
effectiveness and difficulties in implementation. Specifically, tfaeoncertain effectiveness
and reliability of bioremediation (unspecified) in treatment of VOC-oxitaminated soil
was noted (3 FSs: 5,18,19). Difficulties in implementation also woe noted (3 FSs: 2,
11,14) because implementation of the technology was not feasUeaad difficult to
control
No. FSs Where
Technology
f*nmi ml !••• if
uxoKxrea
6
Site Name Code
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
0
IMh TCiTprfimlfwv
NotPiixnvy
UUIpMIBU Of
Alternative
0
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
6
2,5,11,14,18,19
Detailed Analysis
Bioremediation (unspecified) was not considered in any remedol alternatives.
H-24
-------
Conclusion
Although mis process is effective for some organic compounds, there are serious
limitations to its effectiveness with halogenated (chlorinated) organics, most
importantly halogenated VOCs. The use of mis process requires extensive treatabflity
studies, which increase time and cost For in-situ treatment, some soil types are not
amenable. The addition of water based solutions increases the mobility of the
contaminants, thereby increasing the chance for ground-water contamination and
future exposure risks. Due to varying subsurface environments, maintaining
advantageous conditions for in-situ biological degradation throughout the area of
contamination is not ensured, thus reducing the amount of contaminated soil that is
treated. Forex-situ treatment, excavation of the contaminated sofl increases the risk of
exposure of workers and the public to fugitive emissions.
The following table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to
the elimination of this technology.
Overall lYotecliveiiess
Unreliability of the technology in beating halogenated VOCs limits its
overall protectiveness.
Compliance with
ARARs*
Reduction of Tenacity,
Mobility, or Vohnne
The degree of expected reductions in toxicity, mobility, or volume is
uncertain. For in-situ proem, mobility iray
* For ex-situ processes, contaminant concentrations may be reduced more
byvolatflizaabnthanbioRmediation.
Long-term
Effectiveness and
Permanence
• This technology has uncertain effective
halogenated VOCs.
tor is not reliable in treating
Short-term
Conditions advantageous for biological degradation may be difficult to
control, increasing the time to complete remediation.
Excavation and processing for ex-situ processes may increase risk of
exposure of workers and fee public to fugitive emissions.
Implementabflity
• The technology is not feasible or requires extensh
feasibility.
• The technology is difficult to control
ng to determine
Cost
• High costs imy be associated with this technology.
• Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
n-25
-------
L OXIDATION/REDUCTION
Technology Description
Oxidation/reduction encompasses a set of process options in which contaminants are
chemically converted to non-hazardous or less hazardous compounds that are more
stable, lest mobile, and/or inert The oxidizing/reducing agents most commonly used
to treat hazardous contaminants are ozone, hydrogen peroxide, hypochlorites, chlorine,
and chlorine dioxide. A combination of these reagents, or combining them with
ultraviolet (UV) oxidation, makes the process more effective. Oxidation/reduction is a
full-scale technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of this process:
• The process is not cost-effective for highly contaminated materials due to .
the large amounts of oxidizing/reducing agents required.
• Oil and grease in the media can reduce efficiency of the process.
• Incomplete oxidation or formation of intermediate contaminants that are
more toxic man the original contaminants may occur depending upon the
contaminants and oxidizing agents used.
As an ex-situ remedy, the associated excavation poses a potential risk to site workers
through skin contact and air emissions. Personal protective equipment, at a level
commensurate with the contaminants involved, is normally required during excavation
operations.
The target contaminant group for oxidation/reduction is inorganics. The technology
can be used but may be less effective against non-halogenated VOCs, SVOCs, fuel
-hydrocarbons, and pesticides. Oxidation/reduction is a well-established technology
used for disinfecting drinking water and waste water, and is a common treatment for
cyanide wastes. Enhanced.systems are now being used more frequently to treat
hazardous wastes in soil. (Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix, 1993, pp. 53-54.)
(Note: In the site documents, the process options were generally characterized as either
oxidation or reduction processes. In this study, the data were collected accordingly;
0-26
-------
thus, the results of initial screening and detailed analysis for oxidation and reduction
are presented separately. The conclusions, however, are discussed together.)
OXIDATION
Initial Screening
Oxidation was considered in seven FSs. It was screened out five times (72 percent). It
passed the screening and was considered as a primary component of a remedial
alternative (detailed analysis and comparison) one time (14 percent). It passed
screening but was not considered as a primary component of a remedial alternative one
time (14 percent).
The predominant factor for screening out oxidation was lack of effectiveness in the
treatment of site contaminants and/or due to site conditions (4 FSs: 7,15,17,21).
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
7
Site Name Code:
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
1
1
No. FSs Technology
Not Primary
Component of
Alternative
1
18
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
5
3,7,15,17,21
Detailed Analysis
The one time oxidation was retained for consideration in a remedial alternative, it was
not selected as the final remedy. The predominant criteria were short-term
effectiveness, imptementability, and cost. The reasons provided were possible risk of
exposure during excavation, the treatability tests required to ensure effectiveness, and
high costs.
No. FSs Technology Passed
She Name Code:
No. RODs Technology
Selected
No. KODs Technology Not
Selected
D-27
-------
Initial Screening
REDUCTION
Reduction was considered in seven FSs. It was screened out six times (86 percent) and
passed screening but was not considered as a primary component of a remedial
alternative one time (14 percent).
The predominant factor for screening out reduction was lack of effectiveness in the
treatment of site contaminants (5 FSs: 1,7,17,19,21).
No. PS. Where
Technology
Considered
7
Site Name Code
No. FS» Technology
Paiiatid Sueening
0
No. FSs Technology
NotPHmaiy
C. mill nt
Alternative
1
18
No. F5» Technology
Screened Oat
6
1,3,7,17,19,21
Detailed Analysis
Reduction was not considered as a primary component of any remedial alternatives.
Oxidation/reduction processes are not effective on a large scale in the treatment of non-
halogenated VOCs, SVOCs, and fuel hydrocarbons, and therefore, may not be effective
for VOC-contaminated soil Other reasons, including the potential for formation of
intermediate, more toxic contaminants during treatment also may be applicable in
screening. In addition, as an ex-situ remedy, the excavation of VOC-contaminated soil
may present a risk to human health and the environment if the VOC contaminants
dissipate into the air.
n-28
-------
The following table provides a breakdown, by NCP criteria, of the factors contributing
to the elimination of this technology.
The potential for residuals r
protect! veneas of flub technology.
C\nii| Jianoe with
ARAKS'
Reduction of Touchy,
Mobfflty, or Volume
The type of residuals after treatment (Le., more toxic than original
contaminants) limits reduction of toxktty.
Long-term
Effectiveness and
Per
Oxidation/reduction generally is used to treat inorganics and is less
effective for treatment of VOCs.
• Treatment residuals may be more toxic man original contaminants.
Short-term
Effectiveness
Oxidatkm/reduc&xin^ allow pc4ential for commimity or worker
exposure to fugitive emissions during excavation.
Impkmentability
To operate the process efficiently, specific site conditions must be met
(e.g., minimize oil and grease in the media).
Cost
• High costs arc associated with me technology.
* Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
H-29
-------
2. NEUTRALIZATION
Technology Description
Neutralization is the process of decreasing the acidity or alkalinity by adding alkaline or
acidic materials, respectively. One example of neutralization used as a remedial
alternative is lime neutralization, in which acidic soil is neutralized by the addition of
Hme (denary of Environmental Terms and Acronym List, EPA 19K-10Q2, December 1989,
p. 12.)
Limitation*
Neutralization is not considered an effective treatment for VOC contamination.
Target Contaminant Groups
There are no particular target groups for this technology, m many cases, neutralization
is used as part of a treatment train to prepare a medium for further treatment by
bringing it to a more suitable pR
Initial Screening
Neutralization was considered in six FSs and screened out six times (100 percent).
The predominant factor for screening out neutralization was lack of effectiveness.
Specifically, neutralization was ineffective or had uncertain effectiveness in treating the
VOCs(5FSK 1,7,15,18,21).
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
6
Site Name Code
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
0
No. FSs Technology
Not Primary
^VtMMMnM** «*£
\_juixipoii6nc of
Alternative
0
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
6
1,3,7,15,18,21
Detailed Analysis
Neutralization was not considered in any remedial alternatives.
Conclusion
Neutralization was screened from appropriate remedial alternatives primarily due to its
ineffectiveness in the treatment of VOC-contaminated soil. Other site-specific reasons,
H-30
-------
such as a neutral ground-water pH of the region, also may be valid in screening
neutralization.
The following table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to
the elimination of this technology.
UimilaineifecliveufBi in treating VOCtltaito thcovtull
it provides.
ARARs*
Redaction of Tooddty,
Mobility, or Vohnne
*. The degree or expected Moucttoh in toxicity, mobility, or volume it
uncertain.
Long term
Effectiveness and
Permanence
• The technology is not effective or the effectiveness is i
VOCs.
ftun
Short lenn
Efiectivcnea
• Neutralization may allow potential for community or worker
during excavation.
[uiplcinpntabiHty
• To operate the process efficiently, specific conditions must be met (eg.,
minimize oil and grease in the media).
Goat*
* Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
H-31
-------
a. DEHALOGENATION j
Technology Description
Dehalogenation encompasses a set of process options in which soil with halogenated
contaminants is mixed in a reactor with chemical reagents and then heated, llie
resultant reaction removes and replaces the halogen molecules on die contaminants,
thereby rendering them less or non-hazardous. There are two process options included
in this study: base-catalyzed decomposition (BCD) and glycolate dehalogenation.
BCD dehalogenation involves screening contaminated sofl, followed by processing die
soil with a crusher and pug mill, and mixing it with sodium bicarbonate. Hie mixture is
heated at 630°F (333°Q in a rotary reactor to decompose and partially volatilize the
contaminants. BCD dehalogenation is a full-scale technology; however, it has had very
limited use.
Qycolate dehalogenation uses an alkaline polyethylene glycolate (APEG) reagent to
dehalogenate halogenated aromatic compounds in a batch reactor. Potassium
polyethylene glycolate CKPEG) is the most common APEG reagent In the APEG
process, the polyethylene glycol replaces halogen molecules and renders the compound
non-hazardous. For example, the reaction between chlorinated organks and KPEG
replaces a chlorine molecule and results in a reduction in toxicity. Glycolate
dehalogenation is a full-scale technology.
Limitations
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of BCD
dehalogenation:
• If the influent matrix includes heavy metals and certain non-halogenated
VOCs, they will not be destroyed by the process.
• High day and moisture content will increase treatment costs.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of glycolate
dehalogenation:
• Concentrations of chlorinated organics greater than five percent require
large volumes of reagent
• The technology is generally not cost-effective for large volumes of waste.
• The resultant soil has poor physical characteristics.
n-32
-------
As an ex-situ remedy, excavation poses a potential health and safety risk to site workers
through skin contact and air emissions. Personal protective equipment; at a level
commensurate with the contaminants involved, is normally required during excavation
operations. (Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix, 1993, p. 47 - 49.)
jdUR&t Cvfitr**** **ijtnf Groups
Hie target contaminant groups for dehalogenation are halogenated SVOCs (including
PCBs) and pesticides. The technology is not applicable to some contaminants within the
halogenated VOCs group. The dehalogenation process was developed as a dean,
inexpensive way to remediate soil and sediments contaminated with chlorinated
organic compounds, especially PCBs.
Initial Screening
Dehalogenation was considered in five FSs, and it was screened out five times (100
percent).
The predominant factors for screening out dehalogenation were lack of effectiveness
and difficulties in implementation. Specifically, ineffectiveness in treating VOCs (4 FSs:
1,2,3,5) and difficulties in implementation primarily due to site conditions (e.g., too
small an area for onsite treatment) (3 FSs: 3,5,18).
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
5
Site Name Code:
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
0
No. FSs Technology
Not Primary
fii.inniriai^il ftS
^•AJUIIA/llCcll UK
Alternative
0
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
5
1,2,3,5, 18
Detailed Analysis
Dehalogenation was not considered in any remedial alternatives.
Dehalogenation is not applicable to many contaminants found in VOC-contaminated
soil (e.g., non-halogenated VOCs, some halogenated VOCs). This limited applicability
and other reasons, including variable contaminant concentrations and large volumes of
waste, make dehalogenation generally ineffective and provide reasons for screening. In
addition, as an ex-situ remedy, the excavation associated with this technology poses
potential risks to site workers through skin contact and air emissions.
H-33
-------
The following table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to
the elimination of this technology.
Overall PlotecliveiMss
The limited effectiveness of this technology in treating certain VOCs
1
SV1_niM]l__uM. upjiL
kjOinpiiwioc wun
ARAKS'
Reduction of Toxidty,
MnMitv fwVnhnne
Effectiveness And
Pieiimngngg
Short-term
EffixlivisHUS
ImplempntahiHty
Co*
reduces me overall pnxecavenesB n proviaes.
• As an ex-situ remedy, this technology may allow the potential lor
community or worker exposure during excavation.
• Does not reduce toxicity, mobflHy or volume of certain coplafninants
(ft » imii_tulnnnti-il
-------
4. CHEMICAL DESTRucnoN/DEioxincATiON (UNSPECIFIED)
Technology Description
In five additional FSs, chemical destruction/detoxification also was considered as a
remedial technology. However, these FSs did not specify the method of chemical
destruction/detoxificatkm. Therefore, a separate chemical destruction/detoxification
(unspecified) treatment category was established for data compilation purposes.
This discussion does not apply to this category.
Target Contaminant Groups
This discussion does not apply to this category.
Initial Screening
Chemical destruction/detoxification (unspecified) was considered in five FSs. Of those,
it was screened out five times (100 percent).
The predominant factor for screening out chemical destruction/detoxification
(unspecified) was ineffectiveness or uncertain effectiveness in treating site contaminants
(4 FSs: 4,7,15,21).
No. ESs Where
Technology
Considered -
5
Site Name Code:
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
0
No. FSs Technology
Not Primary
^**MMMMM«Mft ~£
ljUUI|XHM3ll Ol
Alternative
0
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
5
1,4,7.15,21
Detailed Analysis
Chemical destruction/detoxification (unspecified) was not considered in any remedial
alternatives.
Conclusion
Chemical destruction/detoxification (unspecified) was screened out primarily due to its
ineffectiveness in the treatment of VOC-contaminated soil. Additional reasons
applicable to other chemical destruction/detoxification techniques, such as
n-35
-------
oxidation/reduction, dehalogenation, and neutralization, also may be valid in
screening. These may include variable contaminant concentrations and large volumes
erf soil.
The fallowing table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to
the elimination of this technology.
1 WCWI 1 1MELUVCMM
Compliance with
ARARs*
Redaction of Toxicity,
iiobOHy, or Volume
Long-term
Effectiveness and
^ _•*«»«•*«•»
• •••IK tm 1
Short-term
T?fTi jt
elKCUveneu
unpMSDieiiuunuiy
CM*
• The de^im of expecled reductions in fcHticity/ mobfli^ or volume, aaiit
the amount of hazardous matenal treated or destroyed is oncerttBL
uncertain in treating VOCs.
community or worker exposure.
* Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
n-36
-------
5. IN-STU HYDROLYSIS
Technology Description
In-situ hydrolysis is the breakdown of organic molecules to simpler, less toxic
compounds. Rates of reaction can be accelerated by adjusting the pR
Limitation*
The following factors may limit me applicability and effectiveness of this process:
• Uncontrolled migration of treatment reagents may occur if
vertical/horizontal barriers are not present
• Unknown by-products of the reaction may be more toxic man the initial
compound.
Although hydrolysis is generally applicable to organics, it is not effective in treatment of
VOCs. (Clarmmi Fob/chemical Site FS, July 1990, pp. 2-16.)
Initial Screening
In-situ hydrolysis was considered in four FSs and screened out four times (100 percent).
The predominant factors for screening out in-situ hydrolysis were lack of effectiveness
and difficulties in implementation. Ineffectiveness m treating site contaminants was
most often noted (3 FSs: 1,2,5). Also noted was technical infeasibility because of no
existing vertical/horizontal barriers to limit contaminant and reagent migration (2 FSs:
2,5).
No. FSs Where
T-oj-iji-T-rilj
lecnnowgy
Considered
4
Site Name Code:
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
0
No. FSs Technology
NotFMmuy
Alternative
0
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
4
1,2,3,5
Detailed Analysis
In-situ hydrolysis was not considered in any remedial alternatives.
D-37
-------
In-situ hydrolysis is not effective in the treatment of VOCs. In addition, without
vertical/horizontal barriers, uncontrolled migration of treatment reagents may occur
during the process. Therefore, in-situ hydrolysis can be screened out as a remedial
alternative for VOC-contaminated soiL
The following table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to
the elimination of fids technology.
vsvCtfnl rnjlEcUVcnca*
<~f)fnnli»no» ivMft
ARARs*
Reduction of Toodcity,
Mobility, or Volume
Long-term
Effectiveness and
Permanence
Short-term
EffeUlvmes**
Implementabffity
Cost*
• lias naumogy WOUIQ nui piwMc |»I*BLIMJH ui i •» ••.••n •-• ••
environment because it » not effective in mating VOG.
• The type of residuals that may remain after treatment (Le., more toxic
man original contaminants) limits the reduction of towdty.
• In-situ hydrolysis is not effective in treating VOCs.
• Unknown by-products may be created that are more toxic than original
contaminants.
• Implementotkm of in-sim hydrolysis is not teduwallyfeasibie if ttiere
are no vertical/horizontal barriers at the site.
• Possible uncontrolled migration of treatment reagents may occur if these
barriers are not present.
K Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
D-38
-------
IN-STTU VmoncATiON j
Technology Description
In-situ vitrification is a relatively complex, high-energy technology requiring a high
degree of skill and training. In-situ vitrification uses electrodes lor applying electricity
or heat to melt contaminated soil and sludges, producing a glass and crystalline
structure with very low leaching characteristics. It is predicted that the vitrified mass
will resist leaching for geologic time periods. A vacuum hood placed over the treated
area collects off-gases, which are treated before release. In-situ vitrification is currently
in pilot-scale development (Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix, 1993, p. 33.)
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of this pr
• In-situ vitrification is effective only to a depth of approximately 30 feet
(9 meters).
• In-situ vitrification is limited in the vadose zone above the ground-water
table.
• Community acceptability of mis technology is very low.
The high voltage used in in-situ vitrification, as well as control of the off-gases, present
some health and safety risks. Recent operational problems involving a sudden gas
release at a large-scale test posed technical concerns.
Target Contaminant Groups
While it is used primarily to encapsulate non-volatile inorganic contaminants,
temperatures of approximately 3,000°F (1/600°C) achieved in the process destroy
organic contaminants by pyrolysis.
Initial Screening
In-situ vitrification was considered in 13 FS. It was screened out 12 times (92 percent).
It passed screening but was not considered as a primary component of a remedial
alternative one time (8 percent).
H-39
-------
The predominant factors for screening out in-situ vitrification were lack of effectiveness
and difficulties in implementation. In particular, the types of contaminants found in
VOC-contaminated sofl precluded the use of vitrification in the majority of FSs analyzed
(8 FSs: 2,5,8,13,16,17,18,19). Difficulties in implementation also were cited as
primary reasons (6 FSs: 1,3,4,5,8,14).
No. PS* When
Technology
Om littered
13
Site Name Code
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
0
No. PSs Technology
NotPrimuY
Component of
Alterative
1
21
ML P&tT«4>mkwv
C^>^^^^^M| ^^^^
9cre6HEBwis
12
1,2, 3, 4, 5, 413,14, 16,
17,1*19
Detailed Analysis
In-situ vitrification was not considered as a primary component of any remedial
alternatives.
Conclusion
In-situ vitrification is applicable to non-volatile inorganic contaminants and generally is
ineffective in treating VOC-contaminated soil. The high-temperature process rapidly
volatilizes VOCs and makes the emissions difficult to control. The control of these off-
gases, as well as the high voltage used in mis technology, present potential health and
safety risks, m general, the process is highly complex and has not been proven to be
effective on a large scale. Implementation is difficult; especially when site-specific
conditions, such as topography and depth of contaminated soil, are considered.
The following table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to
the elimination of mis technology.
H-40
-------
OveraO Protectiveness
The limited effect™
overall protective™
s of this technology in treating VOC* reduce* the
Compliance with
ARARs*
Reduction of Toxicily/
Mobility, or Volume*
Long-tei in
ETfeUivenets and
Vitrification is not an applicable technology lew ocatmg VOC*.
TOs technology needs further development to ensure t
Effectiveness
• The me of high voltage and the generation of off-gi
and safety risks.
ahh
Ifnptementabtlity
• Vitrifkation is difficult to implement and control
• The in-«tu process may interfere with current site activities.
Cost
• High costs are associated with this technology.
* Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
n-41
-------
2. WET Am OXIDATION
Technology Description
Wet air oxidation is a process in which contaminated media are excavated and mixed in
an oxidation unit with water and air. At elevated temperature and pressure, aqueous
phase oxidation occurs mat destroys many of the contaminants, thereby reducing
potential hazards. In addition, the effluent from the process should be biodegradable.
Limitation*
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of mis process:
• Excavation of contaminated source material is required which may pose
potential risks to workers and the community.
• The effluent requires additional treatment prior to discharge.
• High costs are associated with mis process.
• Transportation of the contaminated media can pose additional risks.
Target O>T|tai"*T1 a" t Groups
Wet air oxidation is an effective technology in the treatment of most organic, however,
its effectiveness is limited in the treatment of chlorinated VOCs.
Initial Screening
Wet air oxidation was considered in six FSs. It was screened out five tunes (83 percent)
and passed the screening and was considered as a primary component of a remedial
alternative (detailed analysis and comparison) one time (17 percent).
The predominant factor for screening out wet air oxidation was lack of effectiveness.
The reason provided most often was ineffectiveness in the treatment of the waste type
(4 FSs: 2,4,5,16).
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
6
Site Name Code
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
1
6
No. FSs Technology
Not Primary
f*rannr««il nt
T^vnipjiKtn \M
Alternative
0
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
5
1,2,4,5,16
n-42
-------
Detailed Analysis
The one tune wet air oxidation was retained for consideration in a remedial alternative
it was not selected as the final remedy. Reasons provided include ineffectiveness on
chlorinated VOCs and high costs.
No. FSs Technology Passed
Screening
1
Site Name Code
No. RODs Technology
Selected
0
KT»t VfY^ T* • Am jil- ••• KU»ft
IMO.MUUI i ecniKNOgy INCH
i* . i , j _ *
oetectco
I
6
Conclusion
Wet air oxidation is generally effective in treating most organics. However, because of
its ineffectiveness in treating chlorinated VOCs, it is screened out as a remedial
alternative. In addition, as an ex-situ remedy, the associated excavation poses potential
risks to site workers through skin contact and air emissions.
The following table provides a breakdown by NCR criteria of the factors contributing to
the elimination of this technology.
Overall Protective*
The limited effectiveness of this technology in treating chlorinated VOCs
reduces the overall protect! veness.
Compliance with
ARARs*
Reduction of Toxkity,
Mobffity, or Volume
The type of residuals remaining after treatment (Lfc, effluent) is
biodegradable but requires additional treatment prior to discharge.
Long-tenn
Effectiveness and
Wet air oxidation is not an applicable treatment for chlorinated VOCs.
Effluent requires further treatment
Short-tenn
Effccnvenes
As an ex-situ process, this technology may allow potential tor emissions
of fugitive dust
Risks are associated with waste handling and transportation.
Imptementabflhy
Implementation of mis technology requires mat the sofl be shxrried to
make it pumpaWe.
Cost
High costs an? associated with Bus technology.
* Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
n-43
-------
3. PVKOLYSIS
Technology Description
Pyrolysis is an ex-situ process that induces chemical decomposition by heat in the
absence of oxygen. Organic materials are transformed into gaseous components and a
solid residue (coke) containing fixed carbon and ash. Pyrolysis is currently pilot scale.
Limitations
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of this process;
• Specific feed size and materials handling requirements may impact
applicability or cost
• The technology requires low-moisture soiL
• Highly abrasive feed may damage the processing unit
As an ex-situ remedy, the associated excavation poses a potential risk to site workers
through skin contact and air emissions. Personal protective equipment; at a level
commensurate with the contaminants involved, normally would be required during
excavation operations. The overall cost for pyrolysis is relatively high. (Remediation
Technologies Screening Matrix, 1993, p. 65.)
Taiget Contaminant Groups
The target contaminant groups for pyrolysis are all halogenated and non-halogenated
SVOCs and pesticides. The technology also may be used to treat halogenated and non-
halogenated VOCs and fuel hydrocarbons but may be less effective.
Initial Screening
Pyrolysis was considered in three FSs. It was screened out three times (100 percent).
The predominant factors for screening out pyrolysis were lack of effectiveness and high
costs. Hie reasons provided most often were its lack of demonstrated effectiveness
compared to omer thermal treatments (2 PS: 4,16) and high capital and O&M costs
(1 PS: 1).
n-44
-------
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
3
Site Name Code:
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
0
No. FSs Technology
Not Primary
Component of
Alternative
0
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
3
1,4,16
Detailed Analysis
Pyrolysis was not considered in any remedial alternatives.
The lack of demonstrated effectiveness and high overall costs are the primary reasons
for screening out pyrolysis as a remedial alternative, especially compared with more
effective thermal processes. An additional reason for screening includes the variable
moisture content in VOC-contaminated soils. In addition, as an ex-situ remedy, the
associated excavation poses potential health and safety risks to site workers through
skin contact and air emissions.
The following tabte provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to
the elimination of this technology.
Overall Protective!*
• As an ex-situ remedy, pyrolysis poses a potential risk from exposure to
fugitive emissions dining excavation and treatment
Compliance with
ARARs*
Redaction of Tcoddty,
Mobility, or Volume*
Long-term
Effectiveness and
Pyrolysis is less effective in the treatment of halogenated and non-
halogenatedVOCs.
Effectiveness
• The technology poses potential risks fri
during excavation and treatment
s to fugitive emissions
Imptementabflhy
Specific feed size and materials handling requirements may impact
impfementability.
Other conditions such as high-moisture soils and highly abrasive feed
may interfere with implementation.
Cost
High costs are associated wife technology.
* Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
n-45
-------
4. RADIO FREQUENCY VOLATIUZATION |
Technology Description
Radio frequency yolatilization is an in-situ process that uses electromagnetic energy.
Electrodes embedded in the contaminated soil heat the soil, thereby volatilizing
organics and removing them from the vadose zone. The recovered organic vapors are
captured with a vapor barrier and treated. (Innovative Treatment Technologies: Overview
and Guide to Information Sources, EPA/540/9-91/002, October 1991, pp. 8-32.)
Limitations
Radio frequency volatilization is an experimental technology. As of the date of the
reference, the technology had not been demonstrated in clay soils.
Target Contaminant Groups
Radio frequency volatilization is applicable to both VOCs and SVOCs.
Initial Screening
Radio frequency volatilization was considered in three FSs. Of those, it was screened
out three times (100 percent).
A factor for screening out radio frequency volatilization was lack of demonstrated
effectiveness. The technique was noted to be experimental (IPS: 14) and to have
unknown effectiveness for treatment of site contaminants (1FS: 4).
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
3
Site Mum Code:
No. FSs Technology
rassea screening
0
No. FSs Technology
Not Primary
fimtnnnml nt
Alternative
0
No PJhTWJMMJogv
Screened ^xift
3
1,4.14
Detailed Analysis
Radio frequency volatilization was not considered in any remedial alternatives.
Conclusion
As radio frequency volatilization is still an experimental technology, its effectiveness in
treatment of VOC-contaminated soil on a large scale has not been proven. Also, the
n-46
-------
high temperatures associated with radio frequency volatilization, and resultant vapors,
pose potential risk for workers and die community.
The following table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of die factors contributing to
the elimination of this technology.
isvenu r nnecnvcness •
f^mfm|JM|fy MfMk
ARAB**
Reduction of Tenacity,
Mobffity, or Volume-
Long-term
Effectiveness and
Penninenoi!
M .
loiptanentabihty*
Cost-
,
• This technology is still experim
• This technology is still experim
workers and me community.
ratal a«u4 KM mtlnwHm «Cb
U-tlvg"*^
•ntal and poses potential risks for
* Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
n-47
-------
5. OTHER THERMAL TREATMENT j
Technology Description
In five FSs, other thermal treatment options were considered as remedial alternatives.
This thermal treatment category includes flaring, supercritical water oxidation, and in-
situ heating. This category was established for data compilation purposes.
This discussion does not apply to mis category.
This discussion does not apply to this category.
Initial Screening
Other thermal treatments were considered in five FSs. They were screened out five
times (100 percent).
The predominant factors for screening out other thermal treatments were high cost and
lack of effectiveness and implementability. The reasons provided most often were that
the technology was not applicable to site conditions (2 FSs: 3, 15) and mat the particular
form of thermal treatment being considered was difficult to control (2 FSs: 3, 21).
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
5
Site Name Code
No. FSs Technology
0
No. FSs Technology
Not Primary
fjMVMvw«nM» nf
v_ODiponeni ot
Alternative
0
Nn RsTprhtM^w
Screened CM
5
1,3,15,19,21
Detailed Analysis
Other thermal treatment was not considered in any remedial alternatives.
Conclusion
Other thermal treatment can be screened out primarily due to high costs and she
conditions, such as depth of contaminated soil and topography. In addition, as an ex-
situ remedy, the associated excavation poses potential risks to site workers through skin
contact and air emissions.
n-48
-------
Tlie following fable provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to
the elimination of this technology.
Overall Protectiveness*
ARARs*
Reduction of Toodcity,
Mobility, or Votame
• Mobility rfcontannnantsiray not be reduced if there is no art^^
confining layer tin-ami heating).
Long-term
• Thermal treatment may not be applicable tor site conditions fog, depth
of contaminated soil).
Short-term
Effectiveness
• Thermal treatment technologies pose potential risks of exposure to
fugitive emissions during excavation and treatment
• Ground water may be contaminated if mere is no continuous confining
layer (in-situ heating).
toptementabflity
Thermal treatment processes are difficult to control
Cost
• High costs are often associated with the technology.
* Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
D-49
-------
L iN-Srru Son. FLUSHING |
Technology Description
In in-situ soil flushing, water or water containing an additive to enhance contaminant
solubility is applied to the soil or injected into the ground water to raise the water table
into the contaminated soil zone. Contaminants are leached into the ground water. The
process includes extraction of the ground water and capture/treatment/removal of me
leached contaminants before the ground water is re-circulated. Soil flushing is a pilot--
scale technology.
Limitations
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of this process:
• The technology is applicable only to sites with favorable hydrology, where
flushed contaminants and soil flushing fluid can be contained and
recaptured.
• Low-permeability soil is difficult to treat.
• Surfactants can adhere to soil and reduce soil porosity.
• Solvent reactions with soil can reduce contaminant treatability.
• . Soil flushing does introduce potential hazardous materials (e.g., the
flushing solution) into the soil, which also may alter the
physical/chemical properties of the soil system. (Remediation Technologies
Screening Matrix, 1993, p. 27.)
Taiget Contaminant Groups
The target contaminant groups for soil flushing are halogenated and non-halogenated
VOCs and inorganics. The technology also can be used to treat halogenated and non-
halogenated SVOCs, fuel hydrocarbons, and pesticides. Compatible surfactants may be
added to increase the solubility of some compounds. The technology offers the
potential for recovery of metals and can clean a wide range of organic and inorganic
contaminants from coarse-grained soil.
n-50
-------
Initial Screening
Soil flushing was considered in 15 FSs. It was screened out II times, (73 percent). Four
times (27 percent), it passed the screening and was considered as a primary component
of a remedial alternative (detailed analysis and comparison).
The predominant factors for screening out soil flushing were lack of effectiveness and
imptementability. The reason provided most often was ineffectiveness or uncertain
effectiveness in treating site contaminants (5 FSs: 2,3,7,14,18). Risks associated with
possible migration of contaminants into ground water also were noted (4 ESs: 8,14,18,
21), as was technical infeasibaity due to site conditions (5 FSs: 1,3,5,8,20).
No. PSs Where
Technology
Considered
15
Site Name Code:
No- FSs Technology
»•***••»• **»•* *••*-•«• -T&
4
4,10,16,17
No. FSs Technology
Not Primary
/•»„__„___• „/
t^umpuneiu 01
Alternative
0
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
11
1,2,3,5,7,8,14,15,18,
20,21
Detailed Analysis
Of the four times soil flushing was retained for consideration in a remedial alternative,
three times it was not selected as the final remedy. The predominant criteria were long-
and short-term effectiveness and implementability. Specifically, added risks due to
flushing the contaminants into the ground water were noted (2 RODs: 10,16), as were
difficulties in implementation due to site conditions and compliance with LDRs
(1 ROD: 10).
No. FSs Technology Passed
Screening
No. RODs Technology
Selected
No. RODs Technology Not
Site Name Code:
10,16,17
Conclusion
Ineffectiveness was the reason most often noted for screening out soil flushing as a
remedial alternative. Soil flushing may not be an appropriate treatment for
contaminants found in VOC-contaminated soil because of the potential risks associated
with the migration of contaminants into ground water. Other site-specific conditions,
including the hydrology of the region, also may contribute to screening out of soil
flushing.
n-51
-------
The following tabte provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors
the elimination of this technology.
ntributing to
rWraKftivw with
ARARs
Rwinctfon of Toridty
Mobility, or Volume
Long-term
Effectiveness and
Short-term
Impfcmentability
Go**
recaptured.
• Ihc technology may not meet treatment standards.
water.
• Additional risks are posed due to the flashing of contaminants into
ground water during treatment.
A T|M i-nKnij-Miji •!•» MimiSv^ Irfenm term f\LlLf
* i ne (ecnnique aisu rec|uues tong-term V/BUM.
• The technology may adversely affect ground water during treatment;
• Soil flushing may not be implementable during winter months.
lecnndogy requires generally ponHis sous o> «: einxuw.
• Required monitoring of flushing may be difficult.
• Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
H-52
-------
2. EX-SITU son. WASHING \
Technology Description
Sofl washing is an ex-situ process in which contaminants sorbed onto soil particles are
separated from the soil with wash water. The water may be augmented with a basic
leaching agent, surfactant, pH adjusting agent, or dictating agent to help remove
organks or heavy metals. Sofl washing is a full-scale technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of mis process:
• Fine soil particles (i.e., silts, days) are difficult to remove from the wash
water.
• High humus content in soil inhibits desorption.
• Presence of additives in washed soil and waste water treatment sludge can
be difficult to dispose.
• Complex waste mixtures (e.g., metals with organics) make it difficult to
formulate the wash water.
As an ex-situ remedy, the associated excavation poses a potential risk to site workers
through skin contact and air emissions. Personal protective equipment; at a level
commensurate with the contaminants involved, is normally required during excavation
operations. (Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix, 1993, p. 43.)
Target Contaminant Groups
The target contaminant groups for soil washing are halogenated and non-halogenated
SVOCs, fuel hydrocarbons, and inorganics. The technology can be used but may be less
effective against halogenated and non-halogenated VOCs and pestiddes. The
technology offers the potential for recovery of metals and can dean a wide range of
organic and inorganic contaminants from coarse-grained soil.
Initial Screening
Soil washing was considered in 14 FSs. Of those, it was screened out 11 times
(79 percent). Three times (21 percent), it passed the screening and was considered as a
primary component of a remedial alternative (detailed analysis and comparison).
H-53
-------
The predominant factors for screening out soil washing were lack effectiveness and
difficulties in implementation. The primary reason noted was ineffectiveness of
treatment due to site contaminants (5 FSs: 3,5,8,13,21). Difficulties in implementation
also were noted (4 FSs: 5,8,13,20) as was me generation of large volumes of waste
water (6 FSs: 2,3,5,8,16,21).
Nd PS* Where .
Technology
Comidemd
14
Site Name Code
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
3
1,4,9
No. FSs Technology
NotPrimuy
Crmrm^tti*
Aicernauwe
0
No. FS* Technology
Screened Out
11
2,3,5.7,8,10,13,1*19.
20,21
Detailed Analysis
Of the three times soil washing was retained for consideration in a remedial alternative,
three times it was not selected as the final remedy. The predominant criteria were lack
of short-term effectiveness and costs. Specifically, the potential for worker or
lunity exposure to fugitive dusts and vapors during excavation was noted
(3 RODs: 1,4,9), as were high costs (2 RODs: 1,4).
No. FSs Technology Passed
Screening
3
Site Name Code
No. RODs Technology
Selected
0
No. RODs Technology Not
Selected
3
1,4,9
Conclusion
Soil washing is not as effective in removing VOCs as it is with other types of
contaminants (e.g., SVOCs, fuel hydrocarbons, and inorganics). The drawbacks of
implementation (i.e., complex formulation of wash water, generation of large volumes
at waste water) outweigh its benefits when compared to its limited effectiveness on
VOCs. Additional reasons for screening out include relatively high costs compared to
other alternatives, varying effectiveness on different soil types, and the health risks
associated with soil excavation.
H-54
-------
The following table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to
the elimination of this technology.
Compliance with
ARARs*
Reduction of TconcHy,
Mobility, or Volume
The praam of additives in wished nfl and waste wattr treat
sludge may cauae the re»kiual waste to be cUffkult to dispose.
Long-term
• Limited effectiveness on VOC-contaminated scdl.
Pamanence
Short-term
Effectives
• The tectocrfogy poses a potential risk of conunuirity and worker
exposure to contaminants duringexcavationand treatment
Imfdementabfliry
• High humus content in the soil may limit desorpUon and fine sofl
particles are difficult to remove from wash water.
• Generates large volumes of waste water.
Cost
• High costs are associated with this technology.
* Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
H-55
-------
3. OTHER PHYSICAL EXTRACTION
Technology Description
In six FSs, other physical extraction options were considered as remedial alternatives.
This physical extraction category includes pressure filtration, evaporation, membrane
separation, oil-water separation, screens and sieves, and drying beds. This category
was established for data compilation purposes.
• .MH ifj| T lOUff
This discussion does not apply to this category.
Target Contaminant Groups
This discussion does not apply to this category.
Initial Screening
Other physical extraction methods were considered in six FSs. Of those, it was screened
out six times (100 percent).
The predominant factor for screening out other physical extraction methods was the
lack of effectiveness in treating site contaminants (4 FSs: 1,4,7,21).
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
6
Site Name Code
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
0
No. FSs Technology
Not Primary
Component of
Alternative
0
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
6
1,3,4,7,18,21
Detailed Analysis
Other physical extraction was not considered in any remedial alternatives.
Conclusion
Ineffectiveness in the treatment of VOC-contaminated soil is the primary criterion for
screening out physical extraction methods as a remedial alternative. In addition, as an
ex-situ remedy, associated excavation poses potential risks to site workers through skin
contact and air emissions.
n-56
-------
The following table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to
the elimination of this technology.
Overall Protective)
Physkal extraction methods are not effective or have
1 Crmr*i*nr+ with
AltARs*
Reduction of Toodoty,
Mobility, or Volume*
Lon£atEnit
Effectiveness and
Permanence
Snort"tenn
bimltfimiiLiil lililu '
effectiveness in treatment of VOCs thereby, limiting die protectiveness
provided.
• Physical extraction methods a« not effective or have uncertain
effectiveness in treatment of VOCs.
• The technology poses a potential risk of community and worker
exposure to contaminants during excavation.
Cost* 1
* Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
n-57
-------
4. OTHER CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
Technology Description
Other chemical extraction processes were considered as remedial technologies. These
other processes include supercritical fluid extraction, solvent extraction (BJLS.T. ™9,
liquefied gas applications, and precipitation. This category was established for date
compilation purposes.
This discussion does not apply to mis category.
Target Contaminant Groups
This discussion does not apply to this category.
Initial Screening
Other chemical extraction processes were considered in seven FSs. Of those, it was
screened out six times (86 percent). One time (14 percent), it passed screening but was
not considered as a primary component of a remedial alternative
The predominant factors for screening out other chemical extraction processes were
poor implementability and lack of effectiveness. The reasons provided most often were
that the particular process being considered was difficult to obtain (2 ESs: 2, 4) or that it
did not apply to the contaminated soil at the site (3FSs: 1, 7, 21).
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
7
Site Name Code:
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
0
No. FSs Technology
Not Primary
^* riL i-inn. nil I fjf
SvWUUAMICHi Wft
Alternative
1
18
No. FSs Technology
SocdtoOut.
6
1,2,4,5,7,21
Detailed Analysis
Other chemical extraction was not considered as a primary component of any remedial
alternatives.
H-58
-------
Qmduflkm
Chemical extraction is a difficult technology to implement in VCXZ-contaminated soil
and, therefore, is generally ineffective
The following table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to
die elimination of this technology.
Overall PkotactfvtMM*
Gompbftnce with
ARARs*
Reduction of Tenacity,
Mobility, or Volume*
Long-term
Effectiveness ftnd
Permanence*
Short-term
ImpfementabOity
Cost
• The technology (precipitation) applies to liquid waste only.
methods* due to such rasoiis AS sptce limilAtoons.
i ne particular process is oiicfiaiiiiciut to oouin.
* Moderate to high coate are associated with these processes.
* Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
H-59
-------
l. STABILIZATION/SOLIDIFICATION j
Technology Description
SttMHzatJon/Boiidtflcatkin process involves physically binding or enclosing
contaminants within a stabilized mass (solidification), or inducing chemical reactions
hefween tho «*ahJH73ng agon* ^ prtnhiTninanh; tn roduop frhoir tnnfrflfty (yfrHljyafifm)
Ex-situ solidification/stabilization is relatively simple, uses readily available
equipment and has high throughput rates compared to other technologies.
Limitations
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of this process:
• Some processes significantly increase the volume (up to double the
original volume).
• Certain wastes are incompatible with different processes. Treatability
studies may be required.
• Depending on the original contaminants and the chemical reactions that
take place in the solidification/stabilization process, the resultant
stabilized mass may still have to be treated as a hazardous waste.
• Environmental conditions may affect the long-term immobilization of
contaminants.
As an ex-situ remedy, the excavation associated poses a potential risk to site workers
through skin contact and air emissions. (Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix, 1993,
p. 45.)
Target Contaminant Groups
The target contaminant group for ex-situ solidification/stabilization is inorganics. The
technology has limited effectiveness on halogenated and non-halogenated SVOCs and
pesticides.
Initial Screening
Stabilization/solidification was considered in 13 FSs. It was screened out seven times
(54 percent). It passed the screening and was considered as a primary component of a
remedial alternative (detailed analysis and comparison) two times (15 percent). Four
n-60
-------
times (31 percent), it passed screening but was not considered as a primary component
of a remedial alternative.
The predominant factor for screening out stabilization/solidification was
ineffectiveness. The reason provided most often was lack of effectiveness or uncertain
effectiveness in treating site contaminants (6 FSs: 1,2,8,11,17,21).
No. FSs When
Technology
Conwknd
13
Site None Code
No. FSs Technology
Fused Screening;
2
4,13
No. FSs Technology
Not Primary
Alternative
, 4
5,6,18,20
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
7
1,2,3,8,11,17,21
Detailed Analysis
Both times stabilization/solidification was retained for consideration in a remedial
alternative, it was not selected as the final remedy. The predominant criteria were
reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume; long-term effectiveness and pennanence; and
short-term effectiveness. Specific reasons were ineffectiveness in reducing toxicity or
volume (1 ROD: 4), unproven effectiveness for site contaminants (1 ROD: 13), and the
potential for community or worker exposure to fugitive dusts and vapors during
excavation (1 ROD: 4).
No. FSs Technology Passed
Screening
No. RODs Technology
Selected
No. RODs Technology Not
Selected
Site Name Code
4,13
Conclusion
Stabilization/solidification was screened from potential remedial alternatives because
of its limited applicability in treating VOC-contaminated soil. Additional reasons for
screening may include the potential for a significant increase in volume and the
potential that stabilized mass may still have to be managed as a hazardous waste. In
addition, as an ex-situ remedy, the associated excavation poses potential risks to site
workers through skin contact and air emissions.
H-61
-------
The following table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to
the elimination of this technology.
Gmpiium with
ARARs*
^^liii Hi ill n/TVrLij-ihr
MoMtty, or Volume
*•*»- -* ••**!
EnBCuvcnaB •IKI
IteimiiBKje
*3rat term
EBcctiveMss
unpKmaiUDiuiy
Co*
sjytiikjmt incrcMC in volume.
contaminants.
_.|- »tJ Ll 1L i t* fl
• raiiure 01 cemeni ooims otay cause proweins wncn treating 9ws»
talcing place during treatment
•Otfterkm did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
n-62
-------
2. FIXATION
Technology Description
Fixation, or in-situ stabilization/solidification, uses reagents to immobilize organic and
inorganic compounds to produce a cement-like mass.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of mis process:
• Some processes result in a significant increase In volume (up to a 10
percent increase).
Performance of the process with regard to metals, PCBs, and other organic
compounds is still uncertain. Treatability studies are recommended.
TargetO
Groups
The fixation technology can be applied to organic compounds and metals in wet or dry
soil However, immobilization of PCBs, VOCs and SVOCs has not been fully
determined. (The Supafund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles, Fourth Edition, EPA/54C/S-91/008, November 1991, pp. 98-99.)
Initial Sc
Bin
Fixation was considered in seven FSs. Of those, it was screened out six times
(83 percent). One time (17 percent), it passed the screening and was considered as a
primary component of a remedial alternative (detailed analysis and comparison).
The predominant factor for screening out fixation was lack of effectiveness. Specifically,
fixation was most often noted to be inapplicable to site contaminants (5 FSs: 6,10,14,
16,19).
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
7
ate Name Code:
No. FSs Technology
Pnvrl 4-manino
1
12
No. FSs Technology
Not Primary
fVmlM-ILPi.lLJLl M/
VAM*i|Mmciu m
Alternative
0
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
6
3,6,10,14,16,19
n-63
-------
Detailed Analysis
The one time fixation was retained for consideration in a remedial alternative, it was not
selected as the final remedy. The predominant factors were no reduction of tcodcHy,
mobility, or volume; unreliable long-term effectiveness; uncertain implementabflity;
and high costs.
No. FSs Technology Fused
**._-,-, 1 1, 1,
jOpfTUng
1
Site Name Code
No. RODs Technology
Selected
0
No. HDDs Technology Not
Selected
1
12
Conclusion
Fixation was screened from potential remedial alternatives because it has not been
found to be an effective process in controlling VOCs in soil, and high costs are often
associated with its use. In addition, this technology has the potential to increase die soil
volume.
The following table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to
the elimination of this technology.
Overall Protective!
• The uncertain effectiveness of this technology in treating VOCs limits the
overall protectiveness.
Compliance with
ARARs*
Reduction of Tcodtity,
Mobility, or Volume
• Fixation does not reduce toxkity and increases volume.
Long-term
Effectiveness and
Permanence
• Thelong-ta
erfe
ceD for the treated waste.
i of fixation is uncertain as it relies on a secure
Effectivi
determined.
t of the immobilization of VOCs by fixation is stm yet to be
Short-term
Effectivenea
Implementabflity*
Cost
• High costs are associated with the technology.
* Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
H-64
-------
3. ENCAPSULATION |
Technology Description
Encapsulation encompasses a set of process options which stabilize contaminated debris
using agents that reduce the teachability. Macroencapsulation is the application of
surface coating materials (eg., resins and plastics) or the use of a jacket of inert
inorganic materials to reduce surface exposure to potential leadiate.
Microencapsulation is stabilization of contaminated soil with Portland cement or
lime/pozzolans (eg., fly ash and cement kfln dust), reducing teachability.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of mis process:
• The encapsulating material must completely surround the debris.
• The encapsulating material must be resistant to degradation by the debris,
its contaminants, and materials it may contact after placement (leachate,
other wastes, microbes).
• Free liquids cannot be present in the encapsulated debris.
• The debris surf ace must be free of caked soil, waste, or other non-debris
material, thus it does not specifically address VOC-contaminaied soil.
Target Contaminant Groups
The encapsulation technique is generally used to stabilize solid debris, reducing
teachability of the contaminants. (Engineering Bulletin: Landfill Covers, EPA/540/S-
93/500, February 1993.)
Initial Screening
Encapsulation was considered in three FSs. Of those, it was screened out two times (67
percent). It passed the screening and was considered as a primary component of a
remedial alternative (detailed analysis and comparison) one time (33 percent).
The predominant factors for screening out encapsulation were high cost and lack of
effectiveness. The specific reasons provided were: higher cost than capping with no
added benefit (IPS: 10) and not applicable to site contaminants (1 FS: 18).
n-65
-------
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
3
Site Name Code
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
1
13
No. FSs Technology
Not Primary
Component ot
Alternative
0
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
2
10,18
Detailed Analysis
The one time encapsulation was retained for consideration in a remedial alternative, it
was not selected as the final remedy. The predominant criterion was reduction of
toxicity, mobility, or volume. The specific reason provided was mat it does not reduce
soil contamination (1 ROD: 13).
No. FSs Technology Passed
Screening
1
Site Name Code
No. RODs Technology
Selected
0
No. RODs Technology Not
Selected
1
13
Conclusion
Encapsulation simply stabilizes contaminated debris to reduce the teachability of the
hazardous contaminants. The technology has litde applicability to VOC-contaminated
soil because me surface of the debris must be free of soil Thus, the remedy does not
address the contaminated medium of concern.
n-66
-------
The following table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to
the elimination of this technology.
Overall Protective!
Encapsulating agent must be resistant to degradation by die debris, to
contaminants, and materials it may contact after placement.
Compliance with
Reduction of Toockity,
Mobimy, or Volume
• Reduces le«ch«bflity (mobility) of debris or waste only.
Long-term
Effectiveness and
Permanence
• Encapsulation is not applicable to site contaminants.
• Technology is generally used to sUhitirr solid debris, reducing
Short-term
Effectivenes
Imptementability
free liquids cannot be present in die waste for the technology to be
imptementabte.
• The debris surface must be free of caked soil, waste, or other non-debris
material.
Cost
• Capital cost are higher than capping with no added benefit
* Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
n-67
-------
Son. AERATION |
Technology Description
Soil aeration is a process that takes advantage of the volatility of the contaminants that it
is addressing. Endosed mechanical soil aeration, both ex-situ and in-situ, uses air
stripping to detoxify soil contaminated with VOCs. Aerated (in-situ) or excavated
(ex-situ) soil is mixed, increasing air/soil contact; which allows for the release of VOCs
from the soil VOC emissions are captured as air is forced through the system and
carried to an air pollution control device (e.g., scrubber, vapor phase carbon adsorption)
for treatment.
Limitations
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of this process:
• Further pilot testing will be required to determine the effectiveness of this
method.
• Excavation of soil may increase air emissions and the potential for
associated health risks.
Target Contaminant Groups
Target contaminants for soil aeration are VOCs and SVOCs. The process has uncertain
effectiveness in the removal of VOCs to desired cleanup levels and is not effective for
FCBsanddioxins. (Feasibility Study: Cork Street Landfill Superfund Site, April 1991.)
(Note: In the site documents, the process options were generally characterized as either
ex-situ or in-situ aeration; thus the results of initial screening and detailed analysis for
ex-situ and in-situ are presented separately. The conclusions, however, are discussed
together.)
EX-STTU Son. AERATION
Initial Screening
Ex-situ soil aeration was considered in seven FSs. It was screened out six times (86
percent); and passed the screening and was considered as a primary component of a
remedial alternative (detailed analysis and comparison) one time (14 percent).
The predominant factor for screening out ex-situ soil aeration was lack of effectiveness.
Specifically, soil aeration was noted as unsuitable for treating wastes to desired cleanup
H-68
-------
levels (3 FSs: 2,3,19). Also noted was the potential for exposure to emissions of
fugitive dusts during excavation (1FS: 15).
No. FSs Where.
Technology
Conadered
7
Site Name Code
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
1
17
No. FSs Technology
NotPrimaiy
^UUUUIKill UK
Alternative
0
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
6
2,3,5,15,19,21
Detailed Analysis
The one time ex-situ soil aeration was retained for consideration in a remedial
alternative, it was not selected as the final remedy. The reasons provided were
uncertain effectiveness, potential risk to community and workers, and difficulties in
implementation due to site conditions.
No. FSs Technology Pissed
Screening
No. RODs Technology
Selected
No. RODs Technology Not
Site Name Code:
17
IN-STTU Son. AERATION
Initial Screening
In-situ soil aeration was considered in six FS. It was screened out five times, (83
percent). It passed screening and was considered as a primary component of a remedial
alternative (detailed analysis and comparison) one time (17 percent).
The predominant factor for screening out in-situ soil aeration was lack of effectiveness.
The technology was noted to have uncertain effectiveness in the removal of VOCs to die
desired cleanup levels (2 FSs: 4,14). A potential for exposure to fugitive dust emissions
during treatment also was noted (2 FSs: 9,14).
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
6
Site Name Code:
No. FSs Technology
ITtranrl Crmaninn
1
10
No. FSs Technology
NotPrimaiy
f jum_ 1 «f
XAJUO^HKlll ill
Alternative
0
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
5
1,3,4,9,14
-------
Detailed Analysis
The one time in-situ soil aeration was retained for consideration in a remedial
alternative, it was selected as the final remedy.
No. FSs Technology Passed
ScKflun£
i
Site Name Code
No. RODs Technology
Selected
1
10
No. RODs Technology Not
Selected
0
Conclusion
Soil aeration, both in-situ and ex-situ, may not remove VOCs to the desired cleanup
levels. Other reasons, including the potential for exposure to fugitive dust emissions
during treatment, also may limit the applicability and effectiveness of soil aeration as a
remedial alternative for VOC-contaminated soil In addition, as an ex-situ remedy, the
associated excavation poses potential risks to site workers through skin contact and air
emissions.
The following table provides a breakdown by NCR criteria of the factors contributing to
the elimination of ex-situ and in-situ soil aeration.
Overall Protectiveness*
Compliance with
ARABs*
Reduction of Toxitity,
Mobility, or Volume*
Long, lei in
EnecbvencM and
Technology may not achieve VOC cleanup levels.
Sooft-tem
Effciliveimg
• Ex-situ aofl aeration, as with other ex-situ technology, poses potential
risks to the community and workers from air emissions during
excavation.
hnplementabflity
• Ex-situ soil aeration may not be imptementabte due to site conditions.
Cost*
* Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
H-70
-------
REFERENCES
Engineering Bulletin: Landfill Covers, EPA/540/S-93/500, February 1993.
Glossary of Environmental Terms and Acronym list, EPA 19K-10Q2, December 1989.
Innovative Treatment Technologies: Overview and Guide to Information Sources,
EPA/540/9-91/002, October 1991.
Presumptive Remedies: Policy and Procedures US EPA OSWER 9355.O47FS,
Presumptive Remedies: Site Characterization and Technology Selection for Volatile Organic
Compounds in Soil/Sludge, US EPA OSWER 9355.4-04FS, February 1993.
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix, Reference Guide, Version I, US EPA & US Air
Force, July 1993.
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology Profiles,
EPA/540/S-89/013, November 1989.
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology Profiles, Fourth
Edition, EPA/540/S$1/008, November 1991.
H-71
-------
SUMMARY OF SCREENING AND DETAILED ANALYSIS FOR MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS ®
Technology
Or
Treatment®
IFSiWhtft
CrttMtonConMbuM
ToScrHnbtgOu«3>
f ROM Whm Criterion Contributed to
I
A-l
-------
SUMMARY OE SCREENING AND DETAILED ANALYSIS FOR MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS ®
f ROOt Wtom CrHMton Contributed to
To Screwing Out <$
RtfMdtal
Ttcknotogy
(unapecMed)
OlWtoNon-
hazartouiLand*
hazardous LandM
Chemical DwJruc/
Detoxificatton
(unspedted)
A-2
-------
SUMMARY OF SCREENING AND DETAILED ANALYSIS FOR MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS (D
Remedial
Technology
Or
Treatment®
IFSe Where
Criterion Contributed
To Screening Out <3>
I
1
f ROOe Where Criterion Contributed to
II
S
A-3
-------
SUMMARY OF SCREENING AND DETAILED ANALYSIS FOR MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS (D
Technology
Or
Treatment®
I
^£G» IMlMaM
•raewnsi*
Criterion ConMbutid
8
i
1
f HOOs Wlwv CrMMton Contributed to
I
This category does not Include the no-action or institutional control only alternatives. No RODs selected either of these as remedies.
<3> FSs and RODs may contain more than one criterion for screening or non-selection of a technology. Also, some FSs did not fully explain the criteria
for screening out a technology, thus, the totals for screening and non-selection criteria are not equal to the number of FSs and RODs considered.
® This column Includes RODs In which more than one technology may have been selected in the final remedy. Thus, the total for this column is
greater than the number of sites analyzed.
Informationon State andcommunlty concerns was not included in this analystebecaiiser^ do not comamthtetaiformation and RODs generally
only reference supporting documentation (La. State concurrence letter and responsiveness summary).
(D This remedy was selected for disposal of drums found at the site. Asan overall remedy for all site wastes, it was screened out
<2) This remedy was selected for disposal of sediments found at the site. As an overall remedy for all site wastes, it wa« screened out.
A-4
-------
APPENDIX B
Technology-Specific Summary Tables
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
L SCREENING PHASE
CAPPING.. [[[ .......... ____ ..................................................B-l
VERTICAL/HORIZONTAL BARRIERS _________________________________________________________________ B-2
LANDFILL DISPOSAL.... _______________________ . ____________________________ ~ _____ ~ _______ . ____________ B-4
CHEMIOaDESTRUCnON/DETOXIHCATION --------------------------------------------- B-7
THERMAL TREATMENT. ________________________________________________________________________ . ___________ B-9
CHEMICAL/PHYSICAL EXTRACTION --------------------------------------------------------------- B-12
THERMAL DESORPTION .............................................. ----------------------------------------------- B-13
IMMOBILIZATION ............................................ _ [[[ B-14
OTHER ............. - [[[ _______________________ ............................ B-14
n. DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE
CAPPING [[[ ______ ..................... ~ ..................... B-15
VERTICAL/HORIZONTAL BARRIERS ......................... .. ................................................ B-15
LANDFILL DISPOSAL [[[ .B-16
BIOREMEDIATION [[[ „ .................................... B-16
CHEMICAL DESTRUCnON/DETOXIHCATION .................................. . ........................ .B-16
THERMAL TREATMENT..™ ............................................ ................................................ B-16
CHEMICAL/PHYSICAL EXTRACTION ..................................... _______________ .................... B-17
-------
TECHNOLOGY-SPECIFIC SUMMARY TABLES
I. SCREENING PHASE • VOCs
TECHNOLOGY
;
il
SCREENING CRITERIA AND REASONS FOR SCREENING OUT
Cost
fFSs
EffectivencM
«FS*
ImplcmenUbility
#FSs
Asphalt Cap
10 1 2 7
Does not meet RCRA
requirements
Susceptible to erosion,
cracking, settling
Cap material susceptible to
degradation by VOCs
Long-term viability unproven
1
3
1
Cannot be effectively
Implemented
Capping
(unspecified)
High costs
Cap already Installed
Potential for leachate to
contaminant ground water
Significant maintenance 1
requirements
Uncertain design lite 1
Chemical Sealants
Does not meet RCRA
requirements
Additives may contribute to
ground water contamination
Susceptible to damage
Extensive installation
procedures
Restricts future land use
Not viable due to dense
development
CiayCap
10
Susceptible to cracking or
erosion
Does not meet ARAR
requirements
Not effective for site
contaminants
2
2
2
Not practical for an 1
Industrial she
Capping not viable due 1
to dense development
B-l
-------
I. SCREENING PHASE • VOCs (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
Concrete Cap
GeoimmbnM
RCRA Cover
Soil Cover
Synthetic
Membrane
*1
I*
i-
6
1
12
1
9
10
1
1
-
4
I
1
- .
4
1
2
h
11
4
1
4
11
8
8
SCREENING CRITERIA AND REASONS FOR SCREENING OUT
Cort
Higher oott than other caps
fFSt
1
2
EtfectivewM
Subject to erosion, cracking,
or weathering
Potential for damage
Other capping method* more
effective
Not applicable to VOC
Not effective in controlling
contaminant migration
Susceptible to settling or
damage
Does not meet RCRA
requirements
Not applicable to VOC
contamination
«FSi
4
1
2
1
6
2
2
1
1
Imptanentability
Capping not viable due
Not practical for small
ate area
Restricts future land use
Technically infeaslble due
to lite layout
Not consistent with
current site use
Difficult to effectively
Implement and maintain
Restricts future site use
Asphalt layer already
exists over most of site
area
Special installation
requirements
Cannot be effectively
implemented
Restricts future land use
#FS«
•^mMMBBB^
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
B-2
-------
I. SCREENING PHASE • VOCs (Continued)
SCREENING CRITERIA AND REASONS FOR SCREENING OUT
TECHNOLOGY
May cause leachate and gas
infiltration
Waste components may kin or
damage vegetation
Slurry Wall
Not applicable to vadose zone
contamination
Sheet Pile
Not applicable because of
subsurface conditions
Not applicable to vadose zone
contamination
Not reliable
Grout Curtain
Not applicable because of
subsurface conditions
Not applicable to vadose zone
contamination
3
1
Bottom Sealing
Not applicable because of
subsurface conditions
Cannot be applied to deep soil
contamination
Vibrating Beam
Not applicable to vadose zone
contamination
Not applicable because of
subsurface conditions
B-3
-------
I. SCREENING PHASE • VOCs (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
I
1
i»
ill
Jl
SCREENING CRITERIA AND REASONS FOR SCREENING OUT
fFSi
Effectiveness
MPSt
Implementabillry
•FS*
Grout Injection
Unproven technology
Not applicable because of
subsurface conditions
Block
Displacement
OfMte
Nonhazardous
LandflU
Not appUcable bacauae of
subsurface condUlo
DOM not provide effective
protection against chemical
migration
Does not comply with ARARs
Not administratively
ifflpwinentable
Offiite Hazardous
Landfill
16
12
Potential for future liability
Does not reduce tcoddty or
volume
Potential for releases during
excavation and transportation
1
2
May not be
implementable due to
LDRs
Need to close down site
operations
Onto
Nonhaeardou*
LandflU
UnabUtomattstandardt
Tachnotogyincompatlbte
with waste type
B-i
-------
I. SCREENING PHASE • VOCs (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
Onslte Hazardous
Landfill
•UfliiiHffliBSiTSBBS
jgjgg£2££2E2£SS£Si&S3B3&H
Bforemedlatton
(unspecified)
Btoremediation
I
i
14
mm
jm
6
8
i
I
1
I
2
1
!i
11
]HB188|B8Bc!BiBBBBj8ffl
-™i™-Ti|-T-™-™ii-irr-oifT
1
""
7*
n. -
SCREENING CRITERIA AND REASONS FOR SCREENING OUT
Cost
'
ffFSs
SBPfflB^B^^^fflliBffiiBMffiiMM^BIBB^B
BllCCCIVCfiCflv
Not effective for site wastM/
condiHons
Increased exposure risk while
excavating
Does not comply with ARARs
Does not comply with intent
of SARA
No reduction In toxidty or
fFS*
3
2
2
1
2
InptanentaMllty
Buffer zone restrictions
within site area
Restricts future use of site
volume
^ — • • i
'•••^•••••••^^^•^^••••••••ii -*-•• *— —
IQIIBgBBIgHW
lUnoertaterellaMlttylnd 1 3 1 Technology notfe-We"
1 \ effectlveitess | | difficult to control
higher cost than uvsitu
technology
2
Not applicable for waste
type/soil
Excavation may have adverse
Impact on local businesses
rw proven emcuve Mr site
contaminants/conditions
Potential for exposure during
excavation
Some residual contamination
2
1
S
2
2
remaim
Requires extensive
testing to determine
fcwlbility
SMe operations would
need to shut down
during excavation
Sofl removal not feasible
fFS.
•••••••••••
2
4
mi
3
1
1
1
B-5
-------
I. SCREENING PHASE • VOCs (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
In-cttu
Btoramediation
Compoitlng
Und Fanning
i^§BflUHBBHE]BH8BBEBffl
In-*ltu Hydrolysis
Dehalogemtion
!
I
I
it
4
3
baa
4
S
1
1
nn
I
mi
!i
n
3
3»
mUsHI
5
SCREENING CRITERIA AND REASONS FOR SCREENING OUT
COM
High cost*
•FSi
1
mm
Not proven effective for iito
Injected nutrient* may
degrade ground water or
surface water
Degradation product* may be
more toxic
Difficult to verify
•ftant !••*•!••• /•^l«tJIU*>
Not applicable for waste
types/Mil
Unknown reliability and
Not applicable for watte type
or site condition*
Unknown reliability and
effectivenen
^^^m^ffiSMIBBBB9Sffi!M8B8HSffi!lBBffl
j|flmilffifffflffm||]lM^B8BS88BB|HffiBII|ffMIIBIBB8
Not effective for site
contaminants
Not effective tor site
fftSs
5
2
1
4
2
2
i
4
1
ImptraienUbUity
Technology not
foMlMe/dlincultto
oontrui
Require* extensive pilot
studies
jgB^BB^^^fflSEBBBBB^BJIjjffij^B
Not technlcaUy feasible
because no
vertical/horizontal
barrier*
Site area too small for
onstte treatment
Difficult to
hnptemtnt/unaHeto
control site conditions
Permit requirement*
iFSs
4
1
E&S^&SS
K&SauSKSs
HHSSSSS
2
1
2
1
-------
I. SCREENING PHASE • VOCs (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
Reduction
Neutralization
Oxidation
Chemical
Destruction/
Detoxification
(unspecified)
t.
t
7
6
7
5
I
••••^•MH
1
I
••MM^MBH
1
1
Ij
iJ
6»
6»
5*
5
SCREENING CRITERIA AND REASONS FOR SCREENING OUT
Cost
WSt
Effectiveness
2nd products may be more
toxic than original
XMitaminants
Mot effective for site
Risk of exposure during
excavation
Not effective or uncertain
effectiveness for site
effectiveness for
contaminants /site conditions
Possible hazardous by -
products
Risk of exposure during
excavation
-ff- -•• f - -!•-
effectiveness tor sue
contaminants
Risk of exposure during
excavation
fFSi
1
S
1
5
4
1
1
4
1
Implemcntablllty
Requires extensive
testing to determine
feasibility
iFSs
1
B-7
-------
I. SCREENING PHASE • VOCs (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
••••••••••••
HJBBJBBHMBB
HBBBPKftlliliHM
aB^BBBBBBBBBBllllllll^K^^^^^^
OfUte
Incineration
/!._.. .^ilfUrtt
On^ Incineration
(unspecified)
Radio Frequency
Volatilization
FlutdizedBed
j
m'
i
^^
•
17
1
7
3
5
!!I
li!
••••••
7
1
I
i!'
1
I
1
9
.'
3
4»
SCREENING CRITERIA AND REASONS FOR SCREENING OUT
Co*
High or moderate costs
Ex-sttu technology hit
higher capital com than In-
titu technology without
added benefit
higher capital coti than in-
situ technology without
added benefit
High corf*
High costs ~
ifS»
M
1
3
EffecthrcMM
Excavation may have ad veive 1
impact on local businesses
Not effective for waste
type/mobility
Potential for exposure during
excavation or transportation
Specific reason not provided
impact on local DuwMtMS
Generates treatment residuals
Risk of exposure from
excavation and treatment
potentially dangerous
Unknown effectiveness for
site contaminants
Specific reason not provided
to community
tFS«
1
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
r~i
ImplementabUtty
^•^
Limited offstte capacity
Specific raMon not
provided
onstte treatment
reaction
Not impwmentable
unit on small site
Mobile treatment unit
may not be available
Permit requirements
»FS»
2 |
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
-------
I. SCREENING PHASE • VOCs (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
Infrared
Multiple Hearth
Pyrolysis
Rotary Kiln
Other Incineration
j
*'
|
5
5
3
11
4
1
1
7
1
I
1
1
!!
4
4
3
3
3
SCREENING CRITERIA AND REASONS FOR SCREENING OUT
Cost
High capital cost
High costs
High costs
High costs
High costs .
fFSl
2
3
1
3
2
Effectiveness
,, . L1 t , .
to community
Not applicable for site
condition*
In full scale operations
Unacceptable short-term risk
to community
Not applicable to waste type/
site conditions
Not appropriate for waste
type/mobility
Few full scale applications to-
date
Unacceptable short-term risk
to community /potential for
exposure
Unacceptable short-term risks
to community
Not applicable to site
conditions
fFSi
i
i
i
i
2
1
1
2
1
1
ImplenwnUbility
Difficult to set up mobile
unit on small site
Limited availability of
Permit racjulretncnts
Difficult to set up mobile
unit on small site
Lengthy approval process
Specific reason not
provided
Lengthy approval process
Difficult to set up mobile
unit on small site
May experience public
VBSjstance
Difficult to set up mobile
unit on small site
«FSf
^•^^^•^•a
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
B-9
-------
I. SCREENING PHASE • VOCs (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
In-sttu Vitrification
Wet Air Oxidation
Other Thermal
Treatment
SSE^SJSJSJSS^^^S^^.Eil
£u|HBHjUi£s]BIDDnl
jjgjSggggggjggggggjggjjjg
Low Temperature
Thermal
Desorption/
Stripping
hvtttu Steam
Stripping
J
»'
|
i
13
6
5
| 13
3
1
1
-
2
I
1
I -
*
!'
!j
12»
5
5
3
1
SCREENING CRITERIA AND REASONS FOR SCREENING OUT
Cod
High costs
High coats
High coats
Specific reason not provided
Bx-altu technology has
higher capital cost than In-
situ technology without
added benefit
tFSi
2
1
1
1
1
EffcctivencH
Not applicable for waste type
Uncertain effectiveness/needs
further development
Not applicable for waste
types/mobility/volume
Risk of exposure from
excavation and treatment
Not applicable for site
conditions
Lack of continuous confining
layer would permit ground
water contamination
^fyfM/^^^ym^^^p^^^^^^Wsw^^^^^^^m
Excavation may have advene
Impacts on local businesses
Not applicable to site
conditions
Specific reason not provided
iFSs
8
2
4
1
2
-
1
Imptawntablltty
Difficult to
implement/control
In-sttu process would
operations
Restricts future site use
Soil will have to be
sluniedtomakeit
pumpable
Site area too small for
onsite treatment
Specific reason not
provided
Difficult to control
Specific reason not
provided
IBBBBMfflBfHBMP|ffPj{BBE8S9BE!
•™™«*^P^B(ffff^^
Site area too small for
»FSs
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
nnnm
i
B-10
-------
I. SCREENING PHASE • VOCs (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
RMPHMHHHHHBHIHH
IIHBHlMlilP
In-sKuSoll
Flushing
Ex-sttuSoil
Washing
|
• '
i
1
BB
15
14
1
4|
3
I
!il
•P
!
n
11
SCREENING CRITERIA AND REASONS FOR SCREENING OUT
Cost
M«««W1
higher capital cost than in-
sttu technology
ffFSt
•
1
Effectiveness
Not effective or uncertain |
effeeUvowsa/dlffleullto
verify
Risk associated wHh
mlgratbn of contaminants
Into ground water
effectiveness for waste types
Excavation may have adverse
impacts on local businesses
End products may be more
ftnvk? thati nttotvtal
fFSs
•OH
4
5
1
1
ImplemenUbilfty
Requires treatment of |
targe volumes of flushing
Not technically
feasible/testing required
Difficult to control
Cannot be effectively
bnokmented/dlfftcuU to
unptenicnt
voluttl9
Difficult to combine with
other technologies
Ske area too small for
#FSt
2 I
5
3
4
6
1
1
B-ll
-------
I. SCREENING PHASE • VOCs (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
In-sltu Soil Vapor
Extraction (SVE)
Other Chemical
Extraction
Other Physical
Extinction
j
i
i
18
7
6
1
m
13
i
i
!i
s
6
61
SCREENING CRITERIA AND REASONS FOR SCREENING OUT
CfMt
tFSs
MMHMH
Effectiveness
Not eivKtlVt Oi" UtuUnrtvn
effectl vneeM for tome site
contaminant?
provide more effective
removal
Will not meet response
objectives
only
contaminants or waste type
iFSl
4
1
1
5
Implementablllty
Soil permeability too low
Difficult to implement
due to shallow water
table/site condition!
Technology difficult to
obtainappllcatloM to date
Space limitation* make
technology not
lliml*i»ia«il alili
unpmncntBDic
ffFSf
i
2
2
1
Fixation
Not effective for WMte types
(mobile and VOCs)
Stabilization/Solid
ificatton
13
Not effective or uncertain
effectiveness in treating VOCs
Increases volume
Restricts future land use
Difficult to
impleinent/cennot
ensure adequate mixing
Encapsulation
Higher capital cost than
capping with no added
benefit
B-12
Not applicable to site
contaminants
-------
I. SCREENING PHASE • VOCs (Continued)
SCREENING CRITERIA AND REASONS FOR SCREENING OUT
TECHNOLOGY
Imptanentability
May not remove VOCt to
CMMlUp KV6U)/U1wnoWn
effectiveneaB
Unable to control
tnvironment under
which proeeai occurs.
In-sKuSoll
Aeration
Potential for exposure during
traflftrncnt
Spedflc reason not provided
Potential for exposure during
excavation and treatment
Site area too small for
onstte treatment
Ex-sttuSoll
Aeration
Not effective for site
contaminants/ will not meet
response objectives
3 Site operations would
I need to be shut down
during excavation
4 One FS did not provide general or specific screening information.
B-13
-------
IL DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE • VOCs
1CGHHOUMV
ill!
NCPCMIWkMOMMHMNIINOTMLMnM
A^tukOv
KCIA
NcnfecttenW
taddfeMWIMr
tnm
-------
II. DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE • VOCs (Continued)
MCPCmmiMPIIUMNiflMNOTMUCTM
B-15
-------
II. DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE • VOC» (Continued)
ncmotwv
i!
«n
IKMilOTMUCTI
TMMV.IMNr.
SET""
CnwlwiMil*
hMl*«iul
HI*
tavUMiiMlMi
KM Hum
EiuiMliiii
•Mfctr
T55T
B-16
-------
II. DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE • VOCs (Continued)
NCFCMTIMAANOMMONBKMNOTKUCTMa
B-17
-------
II. DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE • VOCs (Continued)
One ROD ideded SVB In conjunction wtth tod fluihlng.
B-18
-------
APPENDIX C
Site-Specific Data Collection Forms
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CLAREMONT FOLYCHEMICAL, NY ....C-7
DAVIS LIQUID WASTE, Rl...... ........ ~ .. c-il
FISHER CALO CHEMICAL, IN .~......................~..~..............~-........~~~....-~-..~..-~~..~..- ..c-18
GENZALE PLATING, NY ..^.~«»..«M c-23
HOECHST CELANESE FACUJTY, NC .... [[[ c-28
INDIAN BEND WASH AREA, AZ. .C-32
KEARSARGE, NH~.~ . ..c-37
KEEFE ENVIRONMENTAL, NH C-41
LONG PRAIRIE, MN c-45
LORDSHOPE, PA C-48
MOTTOLO,MA c-so
NEWSOM BROTHERS, MS „ .c-54
SMS, NY. .C-57
SOLVENT SERVICE, CA ,. c-62
SOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING, Nj .C-66
SOUTH MUNICIPAL WELL, NH .C-69
STAMINA MILLS, Rl C-73
USA LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT, MD C-77
VOGEL PAINT & WAX, IA C-si
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Acme Solvents, IL
SCREENING PHASE
Some of the alternatives that passed the initial screening are recorded as "Not Retained" because they address site
contaminants other than VOCs, as explained on pg. 30 of the PS.
TECHNOLOGY
PS NAME
TECH..
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Retained only for non-
VOC contaminant*.
Clay Cap
Multi-layer Cap
N
Retained only for non-
VOC contaminants.
Soil Cover
Slurry Wall
N
Not effective because
continued fain water
infiltration could cause
chemicals to migrate to
ground water.
Retained only for non-
VOC contaminants.
Not applicable because
of fractured bedrock*
Sheet Pile
N
Not applicable because
of fractured bedrock.
Grout Curtain
N
Not applicable because
of fractured bedrock.
Bottom Sealing
Synthetic Uner
N
Not applicable because
I of fractured bedrock.
'Some FSs contained mulHple screening steps. Ph. I (Phase I) provides the results of the first screening conducted. Ph. II (Phase II)
provides the results of the first step if multiple steps occurred.
C-l
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME- Acme Solvents, IL
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
FBCH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.H
TECHNOLOGY
BFFBCTIVENBSS
IMPLEMENT.
Ofibite Hazardous
Landfill
Offtit*
Nonhazardous
Landfill
Dow not provide
effective protection
against chemical
Not
administratively
Implemenuble.
In-ritu
BioremediatJon
N
High cost
Slower and lew effective
than other VOC removal
technologies.
Ex-situ
Bioremediation
Aerobic/
Anaerobic/
Facultative
Blodegradation
N
Concentrations of
chemicals in soil/sludge
preclude technology use.
Dehatogenatton
Oxidation
Dechtorinatlon
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Not applicable to VOC
watte.
contaminants.
contaminants.
contaminants.
Not applicable to site
contaminants.
ma^muuBaumuwm
C-2
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Acme Solvents, IL
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAMB
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.il
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Offsite
incineration
(unspecified)
Advanced Elect.
Reactor
Circulating Bed
FlukUzed Bed
Industrial Boilers
Infrared
Liquid Injection
Multiple Hearth
Raima Arc.
Pyrolyiia
Radio Frequency
Volatilization
Rotary Kiln
At-tea
Incineration
Incineration in
Conventional
Boiler*
PyroBtk
Combustion
Heating
N
N
Y
N
'N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Specific reason
not provided.
Specific reason
not provided.
not provided.
Specific reason
not provided.
Specific reason
not provided.
— -. f.^y.rifi^.f,
nOC pfOVKUQ.
Specific reason
not provided.
Specific reaton
not provided*
provided.
Specific reason not
provided.
Specific reason not
provided.
Specific reason not
provided.
Specific reason not
provided.
Specific reason not
provided.
^^B^g^^m^gHgHUgggygggg^
Assumed high cost for
purposes of summary
analysis.
Assumed high cost for
purposes of summary
analysis.
Appendix D, which provides
Phase II screening
information, was not
provided.
C-3
-------
SITE-SPEanC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Acme Solvents, IL
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
Wet Air Oxidation
In-iltu Vitrification
Supercritical
Water Oxidation
FS NAME
Raring
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
N
N
N
N
COST
Specific reaaon
not provided.
High cost.
Specifk reaion
not provided.
EFFECTIVENESS
Specific reaion
not provided. J
IMPLEMENT.
Specific reason not
provided. •
Not feasible for
treating above-
grade material
mound found at
the site.
Specific reaaon not
provided.
COMMENTS
Specific reason not 1
provided. |
Low Temperature
Thermal
Desorptton/
Stripping
Documented as
Volatilization in Phase HI.
In-tUu Steam
Stripping
N
Specific reason not
provided.
Appendix D, which provides
Phase II screening
Information, was not
provided.
In-alruSoU
Flushing
Not
implementable
due to site physical
features (I A,
fractured bedrock,
mound of
material).
C-4
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Acme Solvents, IL
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
Solvent Extraction
Ex-tltuSott
Washing
n-sltu Vacuum
Extraction (SVE)
Activated Carbon
Adsorption
Precipitation/
Flocculation
Air Stripping
(liquids)
Evaporation
Filtration
Screening
Supercritical
Extraction
Ion Exchange
Membrane
Separation
FS NAME
Vacuum
Extraction
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.O
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N .
N
N
N
. N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
COST
High costs.
EFFECTIVENESS
•••••••^^•^••^•^"^^••••""•••"•^"•"•i
Applicable to liquid and
us wastes only.
Applicable to liquid
wastes only.
Applicable to liquid
wMtesoniy*
Applicable to liquid
wastes only*
Applicable to Uquk) and
gM wastes only.
NO* •fwcnvB IOT waste
thai hat saturated or
fXMfrMJ nuvlU nf different
size.
Implement.
Specific reason not
provided.
provided.
IMPLEMENT.
-
Specific reason not
provided.
Specific reason not
provided.
COMMENTS
Combined with soil washing
as one alternative in Phase
II.
Combined with solvent
extraction as one alternative
in Phase III.
Documented as In-situ
Volatilization in Phase HI.
C-5
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Acme Solvents, IL
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
F8NAMB
RETAIN1
Fh.I/Ph.n
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Retained only for non-
VOC contaminants.
Stabilization/
Solidification
Specific reason not
provided.
Appendix D, which provide*
Phase II screening
information, was not
provided.
Aeration
(In-situ)
C-6
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Acme Solvents, IL
DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE
Comments^
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
Volatilization
(SVE)
Oxidation
Ex-tituSoil
Washing/
Solvent
Extraction
Offiite
Hazardous
DitpoMl
Temperature
Thermal
Stripping
SELECTED
(Y/N)
N
N
N
N
Y
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARAM
treatabillty
variance to
comply with
LDR*.
REDUCTION
OFTOJdCrrY,
MOBIUTY
OR VOLUME
oftoiddty,
mobility, or
volume.
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
^••••••••••M
Potential risk of
exposure to
workers and
community
during
excavation.
Potential risk of
exposure to
workers and
community
during
excavation.
Potential risk of
exposure to
workers and
community
during
excavation.
IMPLEMENTABIUTY
•"••••••••^^••M
Requires treatability
tests to ensure
effectiveness.
Requires treatability
tests to ensure
effectiveness.
Requires treatability
tests to .ensure
effectiveness.
Umited available
capacity.
COST
Higher
cost
than
selected
remedy.
Higher
cost
than
selected
remedy.
C-7
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Acme Solvents, IL
DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
Onsite
Incineration
(Circulating
Bed or Infrared)
Offsite
Incineration
(Rotary Kiln)
SELECTED
(Y/N)
N
N
OVERALL
noncnoN
COMPLIANCE
WnrHARARS
REDUCTION
OFTOXKm,
MOBIUIY
OR VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
Potential risk of
exposure to
worker* and
community
during
excavation.
Potential risk of
exposure to
workers and
community
during
excavation.
MFtEMENTAMLTTY
Limited available
capacity.
Limited available
capacity.
COST
Higher
cost
than
selected
remedy.
Higher
cost
than
selected
remedy.
DRAFT
C-8
August 18,1994
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: aanmont Polychemical, NY
SCREENING PHASE
Comments.'
TECHNOLOGY
FS NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Fh.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Asphalt Cap
Susceptible to settling.
Does not meet RCRA
requirements.
Chemical Sealants
N
Does not meet RCRA
requirements.
Extensive
installation
procedures.
Clay Cap
N
Susceptible to erosion.
Does not meet RCRA
requirements*
MuM-layer Cap
Fused screening but not i
primary component of
remedy.
Synthetic
Offsite Hazardous
Landfill
N
^^M«^M^|W|A AM •^AftltauB
auscepnvie to settling.
Does not meet RCRA
requirements.
Special installation
methods.
Fused screening but not as
primary component of
remedy.
Offsite
Nonhazardout
Landfill
Fused screening but not as
primary component of
remedy.
Onsite Hazardous
Landfill
N
I
VOCs not effectively
controlled.
Buffer zone
restrictions.
C-9
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: CUremont Folychemical, NY
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
F8 NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.Il
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Onstte
Nonhazardous
Landfill
Pasted (creating but not i
primary component of
remedy.
I BioremedUHon
I (unspecified)
Unreliable.
Technology
difficult to control.
I Dehatogenatton I Alkal Metal
I Not been tho Wn to be
In-situ Hydrolysis
Dechlorination
N
effective in treating
VOCs.
Not applicable for PCE.
Not technically
feasible, because
no vertical/
horizontal barrien.
lOffsite
Indneratton
(unspecified)
Wet Air Oxidation
Y
N
Not recommended for
aromatic or hatogenated
compounds, or for large
volumes.
SoU will have to be
(lurried to make It
pumpable.
Low Temperature
Thermal
Detorptkm/
Stripping
Y
C-10
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Claremont Polychemical, NY
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FS NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Fh.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
In-sltu Soil
Fluihing
Uncertain efficiency.
Difficult to
implement.
Requite treatment
of large volume of
flushing solution.
Ex-situSotl
Washing
N
Generates large
waste volume.
In-situ Vacuum
Extraction (SVE)
Supercritical Fluid
Extraction
N
Technology
available from
only one vendor-
difficult to obtain.
Not effective for VOCs
(PCB).
May not remove VOCs to
required cleanup levels.
C-ll
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: duremont Polychemlcal, NY
DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE
Coounenta
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
OfMto
Incineration/
Backfill
Temperature
Thermal
Detorptlon/
Onsile
Redepoiltton
ln->itu Vacuum
Extraction
8EUCIBD
(Y/N)
N
Y
N
OVERALL
numcnoN
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARAKS
OfTOXKm,
MOHUIY
ORVOUAA
LONG-TEXM
EmCTIVBNESS
Permanent
removit but
may leave PCE»
above target
level* in tome
areas.
SHORT-TEKM
EmCTIVBNESS
Potential for
direct contact
with wor ken.
Inhalation of
fugitive du*t.
Potential for
inhalation of
VOC» while
boring.
OMPLEMENTAMLITY
•••^••••^•••^^^
May not be
implemmtable.
Not widely u*ed.
Uncertainty that
target levels will be
reached.
COST
High
cost.
C-12
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Davis Liquid Waste, RI
SCREENING ANALYSIS
Onsite Storage is only short term to facilitate a phase approach to remediation.
Capping is inconsistent with the mandate for banning of land disposal of solvent-contaminated soils under the EPA's 1984 RCRA
Amendment. Also, capping does not satisfy {he bias for permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies of SARA.
Screening of the technologies were contained in Appendix A of the Feasibility Study but was not available at die time of the review.
CBD refers to reasons for screening that Could not Be Determined because they were contained in the Appendix. CBD refers to
technologies screened in Phase II.
TECHNOLOGY
Hj^^^^B^^^8^B^MH8B868j
pfc^Hi^miSim
Multi-layer Cap
Multi-layer Cap
Soil Cover
Soil Cover
Synthetic
FS NAME
BBB
Multi-layered
Systems
Multi-layered
Systems
(Above-Ground
Landfill)
Surrkial
Stabilization
Surrkial
Stabilization
(Above-Ground
Landfill)
Liner (Above-
Ground
Landfill)
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.lI
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
COST
MwwPJnrafflPffl
Mfflagmj^^jgjgga
EFFECTIVENESS
!BBBB|||^BfflS|BnTO|S|||
IMPLEMENT.
•"•I
COMMENTS
BBffi^BBBii
mUJKmS&mimmm
Cannot be implemented as
technology, but may be used
for disposal of side streams.
Cannot be Implemented as
primary source control
technology, but may be used
for disposal of side streams.
Cannot be Implemented as
primary source control
technology, but may be uwd
for disposal of side streams.
Cannot be implemented as
primary source control
technology, but may be used
for disposal of side streams.
Cannot be implemented as
primary source control
technology, but may be used
for disposal of side streams.
C-13
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Davis Liquid Waste, RI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
F8NAMB
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.l/Th.n
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Of hit* Hazardoue
Landfill
Ontlte Hazardous
Landfill
Y
Y
N
N
Do« not provide for any
treatment of
contamination.
Does not provide for any
treatment of
mntamlna tlnn .
not
Btoremediation
Comporting
(Onrite)
Land fanning
(Onrite)
In-aitu
Btoremediation
Dige»Hon/
Enzymatic
Degradation
Aerobic
Btodegradation
(In-«ttu)
Y
Y
N
N
N
.....
Uncertainty of the
proona particularly when
aoite contain high metal*
concentration*.
See Fixation.
See Fixation.
provided.
Specific reaaont were not
provided.
Specific reaaon* were not
provided.
C-14
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Davis Liquid Waste, RI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
Neutralization
(Onsite)
litU)
Reduction
iMltu Hydrolysis
^iSSBMBBBSSSSMS
sjfllBBHBsMKinMEinBtll
£j9^fflgHj5gggggggg|gggj
Offsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
Flukiized Bed
Infrared
Multiple Hearth
Rotary Kiln
In-situ Vitrification
Vitrification
High Temperature
Fluid Wall
In-situ Heating
PS NAME
Onsite
BJjjjjjSj^jggjjjflKaBHBBBB
H8ffi«^SJffi»||y3EflI9jSjjjjlS8|
Offsite RCRA
Incineration
Vitrification
(In-situ)
Vitrification
(Ex-situ)
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.il
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
^JS838SJS5
m
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
COST
^^SH^^^^^^^^^S
8^^^^^^^^^^»^^^^^^
aammaasai^ami
EFFECTIVENESS
See Fixation.
WiBMijfSSIl!&S&S$Slit
HIHBHailaiiMliiiiifflt^^S
Not applicable to she
conditions.
Not applicable to she
conditions.
See Fixation.
Not applicable to site
conditions.
See Fixation.
IMPLEMENT.
Soft Fixation. .
^^^H^^i^i^^HB^&BBsffll^Hl
iiiiimMi
See Fixation.
See Fixation.
COMMENTS
provided.
Specific reasons were not
provided.
Specific reasons were not
provided.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^fflmBBBHSS^^^^
•HHBl^
Specific retions were not
provkwd*
provided.
C-15
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Davis Liquid Waste, RI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
PS NAME
TECH.
RETAIN *
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Low TemperatuK
Thermal Stripping
Ex-situSoil
Washing
(On»H«)
N
Uncertainty of procew.
Potential problems
for leacnate
produced from the
proceu.
In-situ Vacuum
Extraction (SVH)
(In-situ)
N
See Fixation.
See Fixation.
In-situ Vacuum
Extraction (SVE)
(Onaite)
N
Stabilization/
Solidification
(Offslte)
See Fixation.
See Fixation.
Specific reasons were not
provided.
Stabilization/
Solidification
Onaite
Absorbents
N
Specific reasons were not
provided.
Fixation
Cement Based
Immobiliza-
tion/Fixation
N
Inability to assure contact
between reagents.
Difficult to maintain
effectiveness with depth.
Inability to control
the environment
under which
process occurs.
C-16
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME; Davis Liquid Waste, RI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
F3 NAME
TECH.
RETAIN l
Ph.I/Ph.lI
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
fixation
Cement and
Silicate Based
Fixatives/
Grouting
Oralte
N
Specific reasons were not
provided*
Thermoset
Fixative*/
Polymerization
(In-situ)
N
See Fixation.
See Fixation.
Thermoset
Fixatives/
Polymerization
(Onsite)
N
Specific w
pVOVMMd*
snot
Artificial
Ground
Freezing
N
See Fixation.
See Fixation.
Thermo Plastic
Onsite
N
Specific reasons were not
provided*
Encapsulation
Onsite Surface
Macro-
encapsulation
N
Specific reas
provided.
ere not
PCE requires a more
thorough contact system.
Onsite
Mechanical
Aeration
C-17
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME* Davit Liquid Waste, RI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN *
Ph.I/Ph.f!
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Physic*! Extraction
Watte Pile
Storage Bags
Storage
Powdered
Active Carbon
or Resin
Addition
Onsite
Classification:
Screens and
Sieves
Clanifien
Pressure
Filtration
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
-
Onsite storage is only
short term to facilitate a
phase approach to
remediation.
Onsite storage is only
short term to facilitate a
phase approach to
remediation.
Onsitt storage Is only short
term to facilitate a phase
approach to remediation.
Not primary component of
remedy.
Specific reasons were not
provided.
provided.
Specific reasons were not
provided.
Specific reasons were not
provided.
Specific reasons were not
provided.
Specific reasons were not
provided.
Specific reasons were not
provided.
Specific reason* were not
provided.
C-18
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Davis Liquid Waste, RI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN *
Ph.I/Ph.lI
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Rllratlon
Drying Beds
Y
Y
N
N
Specific reason* were not
provided.
Specific reasons were not
provided.
C-19
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Davis Liquid Waste, RI
DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE
Conunente Low temperature thermal stripping does not specify a technology but rather a process for treatment. Also, this
technology includes of fsite thermal destructions* 2,500 cubic yards of waste.
Thermal Destruction (Onsite) considers three technologies: rotary kiln, infrared, and fluidized wall. Infrared and fluidized wall are
efficient for waste of a specific and uniform size. Since site conditions do not apply to these criteria, rotary kiln was chosen as the
technology.
Thermal Destruction (Offsite) includes the transportation and handling of 25,000 cubic yards of waste. The selection of an offsite
commercial incineration facility is dependent on the available capacity at the time of site remediation. Therefore the technology used
cannot be determine until a facility with handling capacity is chosen.
Principal difference among alternative are the cost and the protectiveness associated with treating raw waste and managing
hazardous treatment residuals.
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
Low
Temperature
Thermal
Stripping
Treatment
Thermal
Destruction
(Onsite Rotary
Kiln)
Thermal
Destruction
(Offsfte)
SELECTED
(Y/N)
N
Y
N
OVEIALL
PROTECTION
Increased
opportunity for
offsite exposure.
Same at above.
COMPLIANCE
WITHARARS
BEDUCnON
OFTOHOTY,
MOMUTY
OK VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
Increased traffic
consideration*.
Potential threat
associated with
the amount of
hazardous
material that
must be shipped
offsite for
treatment or
disposal.
Same as above.
EMPLEMENTAMLTrY
Offsite incineration
could be faced with
extensive delays due
to the limited
commercial
incinerator capacity
nationwide.
Same as above.
COST
High
cost.
Very
high
cost.
C-20
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Davis Liquid Waste, RI
PHASE III ANALYSIS (Continued)
TECHNOLOGIES'
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
nuynxmoN
COMTUANCE
ARAM
REDUCTION
opToxicnx
MOBILITY
OR VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
MFUMBNTAMUry
COST
C-21
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Ftoher Calo Chemical, IN
SCREENING ANALYSIS
Comments:
FBCH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
EFFECTIVENESS
TECHNOLOGY
IMPLEMENT
Susceptible to weathering
and cracking.
Subject to cracking.
Multi-layer Cap
Limited long-term
experience.
Offeite Hazardous
Landfill
Onslte Hazardous
Landfill
N HighOfcM
In-sltu
Bloremediation
Good for aqueous *ludge>
not ilte Mils.
AppHcaMt for inorganic
contaminated soils.
Chemical
Detoxification
Ottsite
Incineration
(unipadfM)
Advanced Elect.
Reactor
i
Y
n |
N
rngnvuw.
High capital
coat.
accidents.
*
unutea capacity.
C-22
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Fisher Calo Chemical, IN
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
n NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
FlukHzed Bed
Infrared
Liquid Injection
Multiple Hearth
Plasma Arc.
Pyrolysis
Radio Frequency
Volatilization
Rotary Kiln
Wet Air Oxidation
In-Mtu viiniicauon
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
High OfcM
cost.
High capital
coat.
Limited operating
experience In Urge scale
operation*.
Not applicable to site
WAStCS.
Best suited for sludge
destruction.
Not applicable for site
soils.
Few hill scale applications
to -date.
Not known if highly
chlorinated organic* can
be treated.
Not applicable for
hafagcnated wastes, large
volumes and non-
Needs ffuftltef
development.
Lengthy approval
process.
Lengthy approval
process.
Requires
sophisticated
equipment and
highly trained
personnel.
C-23
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Fisher Calo Chemical, IN
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAMB
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.H
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
n-sltuSoU
Flushing
Technology was screened out
in Phase I, but retained In
selected remedy in response
to public comments.
Ex-sttuSott
Washing
lit-situ Vacuum
Extraction (SVB)
Technology was screened out
in Phase I, but retained in
selected remedy in response
to public comments.
B.BS.T Process
N
Suited for difficult to
handle oily sludges.
Not effective for site soils.
Liquified Gas
N
Moderate to
high capital
cost.
Limited
applications to
date.
Soil Slurries
N
Effective for removal of
oils and grease.
Not effective for site soils.
C-24
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Fisher Calo Chemical, IN
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FS NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.tl
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Doe* not remediate semi
volatile contamination
also at the site.
C-25
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Fisher Calo Chemical, IN
DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE
Continents!
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
RCRACap
(Multl-Uyer
cap)
Solidification/
Stabilization
SVBorSoU
Flushing to
Address
VOCs/LJmited
Onilte
Incineration to
address other
organic*
Hazardous
Landfill
*
Washing
SELECTED
(Y/N)
N
N
Y
N
N
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WfTHARARS
comply with
chemical
ARARs.
OFTOXKTTY,
MOBILITY
OK VOLUME
mobility only.
mobility only.
mobility only.
mobility and
toxldtyonly.
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
Leaves
untreated waste
in place.
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
l^H^HBHMMBB
Potential
community or
worker exposure
from excavation.
Potential
community or
worker exposure
from excavation.
Potential
community or
worker exposure
from excavation.
community or
worker exposure
from excavation.
OMFUMENTABILrrY
•••••••^•MM^MM
COST
Higher
PW
cost
than
selected
Higher
PW
COM
than
selected
C-26
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Fisher Calo Chemical, IN
DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
Extensive
Otulle
Incineration
(FluMized Bed)
BXtWIMVQ
Offsite
Hazardous
LandAH
SELECTED
(Y/N)
N
N
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITHARAR8
REDUCTION
OFTOXtOTY.
MOMUTY
OR VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
IfrMbk 1 1 VENEAtt
Potential
community or
worker exposure
InHiV QXCttVMIOIIi
Potential
community or
worker exposure
from excavation.
Also, potential
exposure from
transportation.
MPLEMBNTANLITY
COST
Higher
PW
cost
than
selected
remedy.
Higher
PW
cost
than
selected
remedy.
C-27
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Genzale Plating, NY
SCREENING ANALYSIS
Comnenta
TECHNOLOGY
F8 NAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.l/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Asphalt Cap
•owning but not
primary component of
remedy.
Chemical Sealant*
N
Additive* may contribute
to ground water
contamination.
StuceptiMe to damage.
Restrict* future
land me.
day Cap
Faxed tcreening but not
primary component of
remedy.
Multi-layer Cap
N
Would raiM aite
elevation,
therefore, not
practical for •mall
area became
limited *pace to
construct
adequate drainage
•yitem.
Would restrict
future lite u*e.
Synthetic
N
Higher coet*
than day cap.
Susceptible to damage.
Restrict* future
land use.
OfMte Hazardous
Landfill
OfWteRCRA
Treatment and
Disposal
Facility
C-28
-------
SUE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Genzale Plating, NY
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.l/Ph.tl
IMPLEMENT.
EFFECTIVENESS
TECHNOLOGY
Buffer ZOM along
property
Would no* effectively
control VOC».
Oiulte Hazardous
Undflll
LDR» would prohibit
dUpoM) of untreated
waste.
uncertain effectiveness
in remediating
chlorinated site
contaminants.
Bioremedlatlon
unspecified)
Metals contamination
may have adverse affect
on treatment process.
Not demonstrated to be
effective in tfnHng
chlorinated VOCs.
Site area Is too
small for onstte
treatment.
Dehatogenatkm APEG
Not applkable for VOCs
and metals at the site.
Not feasible
because
Impossible to
Isolate
contaminated
areas.
In-situ Hydrolysis
Metals would require
additional treatment.
Offsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
VOCs may volatlzs during
transport to offsite facility.
C-29
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Genzale Plating, NY
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FS NAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Oniite
Incineration
(unspecified)
N
Sterna to too
•null for omit*
treatment.
Wet Air Oxidation
N
Not recommended for
waste type.
Not recommended for
large volumes of dry
material*.
Site area to too
•mall for omite
treatment.
In-»itu Vitrification
N
Not effective for VOC*.
ln-*itu proceM
would interfere
with facility
operation*.
Site area it too
•mall for ontite
treatment.
Low Temperature
Thermal
Desorption/
Stripping
ln-*itu Soil
Flushing
Not technically
feasible; no
horizontal barrier
for complete
ground water
Isolation.
C-30
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Genzale Plating, NY
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
PS NAME
TECH.
RETAIN
!>h.I/Ph.tl
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Ex-*UuSoi!
Washing
N
Site area is too
small for onsite
treatment.
Generates large
volumes of
contaminated
waste water.
Variety of
contaminants
require multiple
washings and
solvents.
In-sltu Vacuum
Extraction (SVE)
Supercritical Fluid
Extraction
N
Space limitations
make this
technology
unimplementable. I
Stabilization/
Solidification
retained as primary
component of remedy
Site area is too
small for onsite
C-31
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Gcnzale Plating, NY
DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
Offslte
Hazardous
Waste
Treatment and
Disposal
Facility/
Asphalt Cap
Vacuum
Extraction/
Offsite
Treatment and
Disposal
SELECTED
(Y/N)
' N
Y
OVERALL
PROTECTION
Protective •
however, reUes on
cap integrity.
COMPLIANCE
WltHARARS
OPTOXICITY,
MOBILITY
OR VOLUME
Reduction in
mobflltyonly.
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
Least effective
because leaves
some untreated
contaminants.
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
Greatest
potential for
exposure from
excavation and
transportation
(untreated
waste).
MFUMENTARIUTY
Some construction
difficulty due to
limited site area.
COST
C-32
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Hoechst Celanese Facility, NC
SCREENING PHASE
Comments: Need to verify the VOCs are driving remedy selection.
TECHNOLOGY
F8 NAME
Capping
(unspecified)
TECH.
RETAIN1
Fh.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
N
Potentially high
cost*
associated with
obtaining
proper aoil and
drainage
materials.
Infiltration may penetrate
the cap with time and
continue to leach
contaminants to the
ground water.
Potentially
significant
maintenance
requirements.
Uncertain design
life.
Vegetative Cover
Offsite Hazardous
Landfill
N
High PW cost.
Improperly vented gases
and soluble phytotoxic
waste components may
kill or damage vegetation.
Roots of shrubs or trees
may penetrate waste
cover and cause water
infiltration and gas
exffltntlon.
Periodic
maintenance of
revegetated
for liming,
fcrtflfemg, mowing,
replanting, or
regradlng eroded
slopes to required.
Onsite Hazardous
Landfill
Composting
Fused screening, but not as
primary component of
Primary component of two
alternatives in Phase HI (U.,
static pile and windrow
methods).
C-33
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Hocdist Celanese Facility, NC
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
F8 NAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.H
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Land Fanning
Fixation
N
N
Ui
i due
to existing she condition*,
contaminant levelt
prevent, and available
land area.
Doe* not effectively treat
•lie contaminant*.
Offsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
Wet Air Oxidation
Low volatility of some
contaminants at site.
Air
Stripping/SVE
In-titu Vacuum
Extraction (SVE)
Stabilization/
Solidification
Passed screening, but not >
primary component of
remedy.
C-34
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Hoechst Celanesc Facility, NC
DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE
Comments:
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
Offslte
Incineration
Kiln
Incineration
with Chemical
Fixation
Wet Air
Oxidation
Static Pile
Method
SELECTED
-------
n
«.
8
3
M
a.
83
8*1
gji
ijji
IPs
ii
I
ail
•§
I
II
;l,
i
•S2J!
I M * «
,3 i -c
•I
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Indian Bend Wash Area, AZ
SCREENING PHASE
Commenta This is the second action related to this site. The first action, (Scottsdale Operable Unit, 1968) was concerned with
remediation of the two tower levels of ground.water (Middle and Lower Alluvial Units). This PS/ROD deals with contamination in
the vadose zone and the upper level of ground water (Upper Alluvial Unit). The success of this action depends on the successful
remediation of the 1988 ROD because the different levels of ground water overlap and are connected m ways that contamination of one
level can affect another level.
There is no Phase II Analysis. All technology options were eliminated in Phase I except for soil vapor extraction. Soil vapor
extraction was not evaluated according to effectiveness, Implementability or cost.
TECHNOLOGY
F8 NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.l/Ph.Il
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Long-term viability not
proven.
Capping not viable
duetodenae
development in
Chemical Sealant*
N
Cover I* temporary.
Limited history and
vuccess.
Capping not viable
due to
development in
area.
Clay Cap
N
Capping not viable
due to dense
development in
area.
Concrete
N
Susceptible to cracking.
Capping not viable
duetodertM
development in
area.
Multi-layer Cap
N
Capping not viable
duetodenw
development In
C-37
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Indian Bend Wash Area, AZ
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
PS NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Soil Cover
Synthetic
Atphaltk
Concrete
Native Soil
N
N
N
Not effective in reducing
Infiltration due to high
permeability.
Capping not viable
duetodenie
development in
area.
Capping not viable
duetodenie
area.
Capping not viable
duetodenae
development to
area.
«RmBKOIffii1BHH
iSl^SB^BeiiSi^iHienHHHN
Shiny Wall
Sheet Pile
Grout Curtain
Vibrating Beam
Slurry Wall
HBBH
Cement-
Bentonite
Slurry Wall
SoU-Bentonite
Slurry WaU
N
N
N
N
N
-
—
maamaesm
Not applicable to vadoie
zone contamination.
Not applicable to vadoae
zone contamination.
Not applicable to vadoae
tone contamination.
Not applicable to vadoae
COM contamination.
Used to reatrkt ground
water flow or gaa
migration. Not for
containment.
Not applicable to vadote
zone contamination.
— —
ij^iBM^^BBjaMi|y|g|jjjiiaiMaM|MagaaBigp
••HBBi^flHHB^HHHBBBSBSBEiGai
C-38
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Indian Bend Wash Area, AZ
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
F3 NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.l/Ph.Il
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Cannot be applied to
deep toil contamination
Unproven technology;
may not provide teal in
sandy soil.
Grout Injection
Process unproven
Soil ramoval to not
feasible because
of inadequate
access to
contaminated
soils.
Aerobic/
Anaerobic
Biological
Treatment
Ex-situ
Bioremediation
Unproven technology for
the major wastes at the
site.
In-situ N
Bioreclamation
In-situ
Bioremediation
Unproven technology for
eliminating contaminants
of concern.
Possible hazardous by-
products.
Will not eliminate
cofrtttRtliuutts of concern.
Unsuitable for removal of
• wide variety of organic*
and Inorganics.
Chemical
Reduction
C-39
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Indian Bend Wash Area, AZ
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
P8 NAME
TECH.
•ETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.U
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
In-situSoU
Flushing
Water
Leaching
N
Not applicable due to the
waste characteristics of
the soil.
In-eituSoil
Ftuthing
Solvent
Latching
N
Not applicable due to the
waste characteristics of
the toil.
Ex-aituSoil
Washing
N
Soil removal U not
feasible because
of inadequate
access to
contaminated soil.
In-situ Vacuum
Extraction (SVE)
Soil Vapor
Extraction
Ion Exchange
N
Unsuitable for waste
characteristics.
Precipitation
N
Unsuitable for waste
characteristics; waste is
not aqueous.
Oil-Water
Separation
N
Unsuitable for removal of
organic*.
Flotation
N
Unsuitable for removal of
soluble wastes.
Media Filtration
N
Unsuitable for removal of
soluble wastes.
C-40
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Indian Bend Wash Area, AZ
DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE
Comments: Phase III Analysis for source control/soil remediation (the vadose zone, as presented in the ROD) consisted only of no
action alternative and soil vapor extraction. Furthermore, there were 13 areas examined by EPA and different areas have different
alternatives, according to site contamination. Five of the thirteen areas required no action, and two of the thirteen areas required soil
vapor extraction. Six of the thirteen areas required further characterization, with a possibility of soil vapor extraction if
contamination is found.
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
Alternative 2
Soil Vapor
Extraction
MUCTBD
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Keawarge Metallurgical, NH
SCREENING PHASE
TECHNOLOGY
FS NAME
TECH.
RETAIN*
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Soli Cover
Difficult to
Implement.
Mounding of
waste In one-«cf«
area would create
on-going cap
maintenance
difficulties.
Restricts lite use.
Impermeable Cap
N
Does not prevent
contaminant releases to
ground water.
Offsite Hazardous
Landfill
Offsite
Nonhaiardous
Landfill
Solid Waste
Landfill
Y Y
Retained to address only
nonhazardous waste from the
waste pile.
Onsite Hazardous
Landfill
N
No reduction in toxtdty or
volume.
Restricts future
site use.
Difficult to locate
onsite without
impacting
wetlands.
C-42
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Keanarge Metallurgical, NH
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
men.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
Ex-situ
Btoremedlatlon
Mora applicable for semi-
volatile compound!.
Degradation products
nay be more toxic.
May
chance for
airborne
contaminant*
during lengthy
biodegradation
process.
In-situ
Bioremediation
Biodegradation
N
Complete treatment of
source material cannot be
confirmed.
Degradation products
may be more toxic.
Offsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
Difficult to
implement due to
large ground water
fluctuation! and
shallow ground
water table.
Onsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
Mobile
Incineration
N
Mobilization
costs are
disproportion-
ately high for
relatively small
volume of
waste.
Potential for
advene
community
reaction.
Pg.3-21.
C-43
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME- Keatwuge Metalluigical, NH
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FS NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.H
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
ln-»ttu Vitrification
N
Complete treatment of
source material cannot be
confirmed.
Difficult to control
air emissions.
Restrict* future
site use.
Difficult to
Implement due to
ground water
fluctuation* and
source material
below ground
water table.
Vitrification (ex-
situ)
N
In-sHuSott
Rushing
Uncertain long-term
effectiveness.
Not appropriate for site
contaminants.
Difficult to control
air emissions.
Restricts future
site use.
Thermal Temperature
Dasorption/ I Thermal
Stripping I Aeration
contaminant mobility and
migration.
would Emit ability
to contain ground
water.
Site soils have low
permeability.
C-44
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Kearsarge Metallurgical, NH
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
F8 NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.tl
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Ex-»ituSoll
Washing
N
Generates extract which
may be of grater volume
and toxfcity.
Disposal of
contaminated
extract requires
handling,
transport, and
disposal.
Soil type wiU
reduce
effectiveness.
Uncertain long-term
effectiveness.
Difficult to control
volatilization of
VOCs.
In-sKu Soil Vapor
Extraction
(SVE)/Vacuum
Extraction
Vacuum
Extraction
N
Stabilization/.
Solidification
In-situ
Solidification
N
High organic content of
soil limits effectiveness.
Difficult to
implement due to
shallow ground
water table.
Complete treatment of all
source material cannot be
confirmed.
Restricts future
land use.
Difficult to
implement due to
ground water
fluctuations and
source material
below ground
water table.
C-45
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Kcanaigc Metallurgical, NH
DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE
Comments: The technologies listed below address the hazardous waste pile and leach field soils. There are other technologies
associated with each alternative, however, they are designed to address non-hazardous constituents or are common to all alternatives.
These technologies were unique to each alternative.
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SC-3
Low
Temperature
Thermal
Desorptton
SC-5
Offsite
Incineration
SC-6 and 13
Offsite
Hazardous
Landfill
SELECTED
(Y/N)
IM^HMMl^MHM
N
N
Y
OVERALL
ntOTBCnON
MSiMMillHMIBBMiBBBBBIMIMMM
COMPLIANCE
WITHARARS
••••••••••••••••••••I
REDUCTION
OFTOXtOTY,
MORamr
OR VOLUME
•^•••••••••••••••MSMI
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
^••••••••••••••^••••m
Some residual
contamination
win remain.
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
Potential for
release of vapon
during
excavation and
treatment.
Potential for
release of vapon
during
excavation and
transportation.
MFLRMENTARILrrV
Limited space for
onsite treatment.
COST
High
cost.
C-46
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Keefe Environmental, NH
SCREENING PHASE
Comments: Phase I screening data (Appendix A) were not available. Therefore, included information from Phase II only. Did not
include soil flushing because it is retained as a management of migration alternative not source control.
TECHNOLOGY
FS NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Permeable Cap
N
Doe* not prevent
infiltration into
contaminated *ollt and
therefore limit
contaminant migration.
PS. 346.
Surfldal
Stabilization (Soil
Cover)
Offclte
Incineration
(unspecified)
Onsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
N
Extends period of poor
ground water by allowing
continued release of
contaminants from soil.
Pg.3-66.
Potential for release of air
emissions due to
excavation.
N
Excessive cost.
N
Potential for releases due
to excavation.
Potential for releases and
safety concerns due to
extensive handling and
transportation.
Generates residuals after
treatment.
Advene
community
reaction.
C-47
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME* Kecfe Environmental, NH
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FS NAME
RETAIN1
Pk.Wh.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Low Temperature
Thermal
DewrpHon/
Stripping
Ex-tituSoil
Wuhing
In-sttu Vacuum
Extraction (SVE)
Air emUtioM are too
difHcuh to control.
C-48
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Keefe Environmental, NH
DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE
Comments:
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SC-2
Multi-layer Cap
RODpg.33.
SC-3A
In-sltu Vacuum
Extraction
SC-4A
Low
Temperature
Thermal
Stripping
(LTTD)
RODpg.38
SELECTED
(Y/N)
N
Y
N
OVERALL
PROTECTION
protection.
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARABS
comply with
RCRA264
SubpartF.
Doe* not
comply wkh
intent of SARA.
OFToxicmr.
MOMLrrv
OR VOLUME
mobility only.
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
•M^wnainM
failure due to
•oil settlement.
Contaminants
remain oraite.
Possibility for
site
contaminants to
come in contact
with high
seasonal water
table.
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
•«•••••••••••
Potential
exposure of
workers and
residents to
emissions during
implementation.
Potential
exposure of
workers and
residents to
emissions during
treatment.
Potential for
fugitive dust and
vapors during
excavation.
IMKEMENTABIUTY
COST
C-49
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Kcefe Environmental, NH
DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARARS
REDUCTION
OFTOXIOTY,
MOHIJTY
OR VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
MFUMBNTABIUrY
COST
Ex-dtuSoll
Washing
RODpg.38
Offslte
Hazardous
Undflll
RODpg.41
N
N
•
DOM not
comply with
intent of SARA
for treatment.
DOM not
reduce
toxidtyor
volume.
No treatment of
WaStM*
Potential for
tsiture or future
response work at
the landfill.
Potential
exposure of
workers and
residents to
emissions during
treatment.
Potential for
fugitive dusts and
vapors during
excavation.
Potential for
fugitive dust and
vapors during
excavation.
Potential for
public exposure
due to
transportation
accidents.
Logistical problems
associated with
transportation to
other parts of the
country.
High
costs.
C-50
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Long Prairie, MN
SCREENING PHASE
TECHNOLOGY
FS NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.l/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Offsite Hazardous
Landfill
Oitsite Hazardous
Landfill
N
Not
Implementable
within the back lot
area.
Inconsistent with
current site urban
land usage.
Ex-sltu
Bloremediation
Ex-situ
technology
(which includes
ration) has
higher cost
than in-sltu
technology.
Excavation may have
adverse impact on local
busir
C-51
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Long Prairie, MN
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FS NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
th.vn.ii
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Offtite
ndneration
[unspecified)
N | Ex-situ
technology
(which include*
excavation) has
higher cod
than in-*itu
technology.
Excavation may nave
advene Impact on local
btUiMMM.
Onsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
N
Ex-sltu
technology
(which include.
excavation) has
higher cost
than in-situ
technology.
Excavation may have
advene impact on local
businesses.
Excavation may have
advene Impact on local
businesses.
Ex-situ
technology
(which includes
excavation) ha*
higher cost
than in-ritu
technology.
Low Temperature
Thermal
Desorption/
Stripping
Solvent
Flushing
ln-»ltu Soil
Flushing
C-52
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Long Prairie, MN
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
F8 NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Ex-ritu Soil
Washing
Fixation
N
Ex-aitu
technology
(which include*
excavation) has
higher cost
than in-situ
technology.
Excavation may have
adverse impact on local
businesses.
Not proven effective on
VOCsinsoiL
Encapsulation
Aeration
(In-situ)
N
Higher cost
than capping
with no
additional
beenflt.
C-53
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Long Prairie, MN
DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
Capping
(unspecified)
In-tituSoil
Aeration
Solvent
Flushing
Offsite
Hazardous
Disposal
SELECTED
IY/N)
N
Y
N
N
OVERALL
PROTECTION
Protective if
property
maintained.
Soil
contaminants
remain.
Temporary
impact on ground
water equality.
COMPLIANCE
WnHARARS
Necessary hot
spot excavation
andoffsite
disposal
component
may not
comply with
i nu«
LiLsKli
May not
comply with
LDRi.
REDUCTION
or TOXICITY,
MOBILITY
OR VOLUME
No reduction
of toxicity or
volume.
No reduction
of toxicity,
mobility, or
volume.
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
Questionable
long-term
effectiveness.
Lesser degree of
permanence
because no
treatment.
Requires landfill
disposal of hot
spots.
Transfers risk
offsite.
Effective in the
long-term but no
treatment of
contaminant*;
therefore.
transfer of risk.
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
Possible short-
term effects on
ground water
quality. Transfers
risk offsite.
Possible air
Impacts from
implementation
and
transportation.
IMFLEMBNTABILrrY
Implementation time
dependent on
permits.
May not be
iraptementable
because of frozen
ground surface
during winter months.
May not be
implementable
because offsite
disposal of hot spots
may not comply with
LDRs.
May not be
Implementable
because of LDRs.
COST
PW
cost
higher
than
selected
remedy.
SHghtry
higher
PW
cost
than
selected
remedy.
Hlghmt
FWoosl
due to
trans-
portation
and
landfill
COMB.
C-54
-------
SITE-SPECIFICE DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: LordShope,PA
SCREENING PHASE
Continents:
TECHNOLOGY
FS NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.H
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Onsite Hazardous
Landfill
N
Increased exposure risk
while excavating.
Would have to
construct landfill.
Onsite
Nonhazardous
Landfill
Stabilization/
Solidification
N
Unable to meet
standards.
Questionable
performance standards.
Technology
incompatible with
waste type.
Not a feasible
technology.
Bioremediation
(unspecified)
Both onsite and offstte use of
rotary kiln technology was
considered.
In-ritu Vacuum
Extraction (SVB)
I Inappropriate for wastes
I at this site.
C-55
-------
SITE-SPEaFlC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: LordShope,PA
DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE
Comment*
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
In-iku Vacuum
Extraction (SVB)
(forsoiD
On»ite
Incineration
(Rotary Kiln)
SELECTED
(Y/N>
Y
N
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WTTKARARS
•EDUCTION
OPTOnOTY,
MORfUTY
OK VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
Significant risk to
excavation.
tMrUMBNTARUJTY
Difficult to conttruct
and permit hazardous
Excavation difficult.
COST
Higher
PW
cost
than
•elected
remedy.
C-56
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Mottoto,NH
SCREENING PHASE
Comments:
TECHNOLOGY
PS NAME
TECH.
RETAIN)
Ph.l/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Oflsite Hazardous SC-9
Undfill
Does not reduce toxicity
or volume.
May require treatment
prior to disposal.
Potential for releases due
to excavation and
transportation.
Identified cm pg. 3-21.
w^^BBUfflmr^ffl
Pgs. 3-34,35.
OfMM
Incineration
(unspecified)
Rotary Kiln
(Onsite)
SC-7
N
High costs.
Potential for emissions
during treatment.
Moderately
difficult to
implement due to
large amount of
onslte equipment
needed and
necessary site
preparation.
May experience
public resistance.
Pgs. 3-29,30.
C-57
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Mottolo,NH
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FS NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.H
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Low Temper*!
Thermal
Deaorption/
Stripping
In-»itu Soil Vapor
Extraction/
Vacuum
Extraction (SVE)
SC-3
Pg.3-23.
Ex-situ Vapor
Extraction
SC-4
Onslte
Aboveground
Vapor
Extraction
Pg.3-25.
C-58
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: MottoIo,NH
DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE
±T^t^^
Comments;
the selected remedy (Alternative 3 - In-situ Vapor Extraction).
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
Alternative 2
Multimedia
Cap
In-situ Vapor
Extraction
Ex-*itu Vapor
Extraction
"Aboveground
Vapor
Extraction"
SELECTED
(Y/N)
N
OVERALL
PROTECTION
Protectivenes*
depends on cap
integrity and
institutional
controls.
COMPLIANCE
WrTHARARS
REDUCTION
OFTOnOTY,
MOHLTTY
OR VOLUME
Does not
reduce
toxkityor
volume.
Increase in
volume of
excavated
and treated
Mils could
occur due to
bulking.
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
••M^^B^^^BBB
Requires long-
term
maintenance.
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
^••••••VMWMaMMMIMM.
Potential for
exposure of
workers and
residents to
VOCs during
excavation.
Potential for
exposure of
workers and
residents to
VOCs during
excavation and
construction.
— — — — — _^__
IMPUMBNTABILITY
^•••••••••^••ml
....
-
^WWMM.
COST
^^•••J
Slightly
higher
cost
than
selected
Higher
cost
ftl»_
selected
remedy.
C-59
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Mottolo,NH
DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Newsome Brothers, MS
SCREENING PHASE
Comments*
TECHNOLOGY
FS NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.l/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Land Farming
Unknown reliability and
effectiveness.
Not applicable to waste
characteristics (I.e.,
halogenated).
Activated Sludge
N
Unknown reliability and
effectiveness.
Not applicable to waste
characteristics.
Composting
Onslte
Incineration
(unspecified)
N
Unknown reHaWllty and
effectiveness.
Not applicable to waste
characteristics.
In-situ Vitrification
N
Not applicable due to
high level of organic
contamination.
C-61
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Newsome Brothers, MS
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FS NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Fh.I/Ph.lI
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Difficult to apply for
contaminant* with low
solubility.
Difficult to
combine with
other technologic*.
C-62
-------
SITB-«SPECinC DATA CQLLEOTON FORM
VOC SITE NAME; Newsome Brothers, MS
DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
Offsite DUpoMl
of Soils/
Incineration
Onslte
Incineration
Capping
(unspeclfled)
DitpOMl/
Encapsulation
Subflizatlon/
Solidification
SELECTED
(Y/N)
Y
N
N
N
N
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITHARARS
OFTOXlCmr,
MOMUTY
OR VOLUME
reduce soil
con-
tamination.
reduce toil
con-
tamination.
than
incineration.
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
••••••••MM
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
••••••^•^•^
Potential for
problems during
treatment.
Potential risk to
community.
Potential for cap
to fail.
Failure of cement
bond nay cause
problems.
IMFUMENTABILTTY
^^^^^^^•^•••••••i
TreatabUity study
required for
otherwise,
Implemen table.
.COST
••HM
^•^^••••M
Highest
PW
cost.
C-63
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: SMS, NY
SCREENING PHASE
Comments*
TECHNOLOGY
FS NAME
TECH.
RETAIN*
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Asphalt Cap
Carried through to represent
«H capping technologies.
Clay Cap
Asphalt cap was carried
through to represent all
capping technologies. Not
retained as primary
component of remedy.
Concrete
Asphalt cap was carried
through to represent all
capping technologies. Not
retained as primary
component of remedy.
Multi-layer Cap
Multimedia
Cap
Asphalt cap was carried
through to represent all
capping technologies. Not
retained as primary
component of remedy.
Soil Cover
N
Would allow VOCs to
migrate to atmosphere
and would not prevent
infiltration of
precipitation.
Asphalt layer
already exists over
most of site.
Synthetic
Asphalt cap was carried
through to represent all
capping technologies. Not
retained as primary
component of remedy.
C-64
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: SMS, NY
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
TECHNOLOGY
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.lI
technically
InfeMiUe -
proximity to
buildings add* to
design and
Implementation
difficulties.
Not consistent
wkn current site
use.
Offslte Hazardous
Landfill
Would present
significant risk due to
potential migration from
landfill.
Sanitary
Undflil
Offsite
Nonhazardous
Landfill
Does not comply with
ARARs.
Technically
infeasible-large
flow rate and
application area
requirements and
small source area
make
Implementation
and control
difficult.
Low organic content and
nutrient level of soil.
Bioremediation
(unspecified)
C-65
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: SMS, NY
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
F8 NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Offsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
Blast Furnace
N
Contaminated
media cannot be
usedai
supplemental fuel
source.
Circulating Bed
N
Relatively high
costs.
Unacceptable short-term
risk to community.
Difficult to
transport and set
up mobile
incinerator on
small site.
Rotary kiln was carried
through Phase I to represent
all oruhe incineration
technologies then screened
out In Phase II. Reasons
given for screening are those
given for rotary kiln
Fluldlzed Bed
N
Relatively high
costs.
Unacceptable short-term
risk to community,
Difficult to
transport and set
up mobile
incinerator on
small site.
Rotary kiln was carried
through Phase I to represent
all onsite incineration
technologies then screened
out in Phase II. Reasons
given for screening are those
given for rotary kttn
Industrial Boilers
N
Contaminated
media cannot be
used as
supplemental fuel
source.
C-66
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: SMS, NY
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FS NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.l/PhJl
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
COMMENTS
Infrared
N
Relatively high
costs.
Unacceptable short-term
risk to community.
Difficult to
traniport and tet
up mobile
incineration on
small sitt.
Rotary kiln was carried
through Phase I to represent
an onshe incineration
technologies then screened
out in Phase II. Reasons
given for screening and those
given for rotary kiln
Multiple Hearth
N
Relatively high
costs.
Unacceptable short-term
risk to community.
Difficult to
transport and set
up mobile
incineration on
small site.
Rotary kiln was carried
through Phase I to represent
all onsite incineration
technologies then screened
out in Phase H. Reasons
given for screening and those
given for rotary kiln
Radio Frequency
Volatilization
N
Too experimental and
potentially dangerous.
Rotary Kiln
N
Relatively high
costs.
Unacceptable short-term
risk to community.
Difficult to
transport and set
up mobile
incinerator on
small site.
Carried through Phase I to
represent other onsite
Incineration technologies.
In-situ Vitrification
N
Difficult to
implement.
Low Temperature
Thermal
Desorption/
Stripping
C-67
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: SMS, NY
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
t» NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.U
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
In-sttu Steam
Stripping
Flushing
Uncertain effectiveness.
High degree of risk
associated with migration
of contaminants to
ground water.
In-situ Vacuum
Extraction (SVB)
N
Unknown effectiveness.
Steam stripping expected
to provide more effective
removal.
Potential significant
worker exposure.
C-68
-------
SITE-SPEaFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: SMS, NY
DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE
Comments*
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
Hazardous
Landfill
(A*phalt
Capping)
Offsite
Incineration
Temperature
Thermal
Oesorption/
Stripping
Stripping
SELECTED
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Solvent Sccvicc, CA
SCREENING PHASE
Conmente
TECHNOLOGY
FS NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.l/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
CUy cap would not
be practical for the
industrial site.
Not at effective in the
long-term at other caps.
Higher cost
than other
caps.
Potential for future
liability if waste is moved
offslle.
Restrictions on
land disposal may
prevent
implementation.
Offstte Hazardous
Landfill
Site operations
would need to be
closed down
during excavation
Some residual
contaminants remain.
Site operations
would need to shut
down during
excavation.
N High costs
Aerobic
Biological
Treatment
Ex-situ
Bioremediation
Effective for only some
organic*.
Potential for exposure
during excavation.
C-70
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Solvent Service, CA
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
In-eitu
Bioremediatkm
Oxidation
dictation
Neutralization
FS NAME
Biological In-
sttu Treatment
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.l/Ph.II
N
N
N
N
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
Difficult to verify.
Injected nutrient* may
degrade surface water.
Field effectiveness Is
uncertain.
Risk of contaminant
exposure during
excavation.
Field effectiveness is
uncertain.
Risk of contaminant
exposure during
excavation.
Field effectiveness is
uncertain.
Risk of contaminant
exposure during
excavation.
IMPLEMENT.
-
COMMENTS
Pg.8-20.
Pg.8-20.
.
Pg.8-20.
Offsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
No offsite
incinerators
currently In the
state.
C-71
-------
SUE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Solvent Service, CA
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FS NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.11
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Onsitc
ncineratlon
[unspecified) •
N
Ritk of contaminant
expoMtra during
excavation and
treatment.
RMuhing ash may be
hazardous.
Strong public
opposition.
Thermal
Treatment
Soli Cooker
N
High cost*.
Potential for exposure of
community and workers
during excavation and
treatment.
Site operation*
would need to be
closed during
excavation.
Steam
Injection with
Vacuum
Extraction
In-situ Steam
Stripping
Difficult to verify
effectiveness.
In-situ Soil
Flushing
Solvents may contribute
to pollution.
In-situ Vacuum
Extraction (SVE)
Potential for limited
exposure during
excavation and
treatment.
Site operations
would need to be
shut down during
excavation.
Physic*!
Treatment (Bx-
situ)
Aeration
(Ex-situ)
C-72
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME; Solvent Service, CA
DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE
Asphalt cap and SVE are pail of the selected remedy but not as the primary component.
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
Alternative 2
Asphalt Op
Alternatives
Concrete Cap
Alternative 4
Vapor Recovery
(SVE)
Alternatives
In-sltu Steam
Stripping
SELECTED
(Y/N)
N
N
N
Y
OVERALL
FROTECnON
Protective
through
prevention of
direct contact
only.
Protective
through
prevention of
direct contact
only.
Waste remains
onsite.
COMPLIANCE
WITHARARS
.
OFTOWOTY,
MOMLTTY
OR VOLUME
No active
reduction of
toxfcfey.
mobility, or
volume.
No active
reduction of
toxfctty,
mobility, or
volume.
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
•^••••••••B
Long-term
effectiveness
relies on cap
maintenance.
Untreated waste
remains onsite.
Long-term
effectiveness
relies on cap
maintenance.
Untreated waste
remains onsite.
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
•••••••••••••i
Possible
exposure to dust
and volatile*
during
excavation.
Longer time to
achieve
remediation
goals than
selected remedy.
Possible
exposure to dust
and volatile*
during
excavation.
Longer time to
achieve
remediation
goals than
••I jni* .» — •
•electee remedy.
Longer time to
achieve
remediation
goals than
•elected remedy.
IMFLEMENTAnUTY
••••••^^^^^^^^
^"^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^•^i^^^^^H
.
COST
••IMBsaWi
•WBMWM^HWB
•H^BMMBMM
*-m~m^mm
•MIMBHMiSSSaiSM
C-73
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: South Jersey Clothing, NJ
SCREENING PHASE
Comments:
TECHNOLOGY
FS NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Concrete
Subject to cracking.
Multi-layer Cap
N
Other capping method*
mora effective.
Soil Cover
Offslte
Incineration
(unspecified)
N
Not effective in
controlling leachate
generation.
Technology to
difficult to control
Usually used for less
mobile or mixed waste.
Pyrolytto
N
Usually used for less
mobile or mixed watte.
Wet Air Oxidation
N
Usually used for lets
mobile or mixed waste.
In-situ Vitrification
N
Usually used for lets
mobile or mixed waste.
C-74
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: South Jersey Clothing, NJ
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
F8 NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS .
Low Temperature
Thermal
DesorpUon/
Stripping
!n-»Itu Soil
Flushing
Ex-thuSoil
Washing
N
Not preferred for VOC
removal.
Generates
relatively large
volume of waste.
In-situ Vacuum
Extraction (SVE)
Not effective for mobile
wastes and VOCs.
C-75
-------
SFTB-SPECinC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: South Jersey Clothing, NJ
DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE
Commenta
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
Soil Vapor
ixtractkm (SVE)
Low
Temperature
Thermal
Desorption
(LTTD)/
Stripping
In-situSoil
Flushing
Offsite
Hazardous
Waite
Treatment and
Disposal
SELECTED
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: South Municipal Well, NH
SCREENING PHASE
Ground water, soils and sediments were looked at separately in the FS, and alternatives were developed separately
(although all under the same ROD). Only soils have VOC contamination.
TECHNOLOGY
FS NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Chemical Sealant*
Surface
Mlcroencapsu-
latkm
N
Nature of contaminants
(solvents) may Interfere
wtth binding process.
Permeable Cap
N
Not effective in
preventing downward
migration of
contaminants from soils
to ground water below.
Impermeable Cap
N
Not effective in
preventing downward
migration of
contaminants from wilt
to ground water below.
Not effective due to site
geologic conditions and
large area of
contamination.
Not affective due to site
geologic conditions and
Unpredictable integrity
as a ground water barria
C-77
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: South Municipal Well, NH
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.lI
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT
TECHNOLOGY
Not effective due to lite
geologic condition* «nd
huge MM of
contamination.
Offsite Hazardous
Landfill
Site is in a 100-year
floodpUIn., whkh
Is prohibited by
RCRA.
Onsite Hazardous
Landfill
Level of VOC
contamination it likely to
inhibit Motemediation.
Extensive pilot
studies would be
required.
In-situ
Bioremediation
treatment not readily
used on site
contaminants.
treatment used primarily
for reduction of metals.
Significantly
high
transportation
costs.
Offsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
C-78
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: South Municipal Well, NH
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FS NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Fluidized Bed
Infrared
Rottry Kiln
In-situ Vitrification
!^5Sfflffiyajasj5jiMttgg^BSE!
jEHBHiiBHiKElllJHSBjE
|«SM^S£»E^5jffigffiffiseSMMj
In-eituSoil
Flushing
In-situSoil
Flushing
In-situSoil
Flushing
ln-»ltu
ESSSfflSSSSffiSagjaaiiimlfflBB
In-situ Soil
Flushing
(Water)
In-situSoil
Flushing (Acid
Solutions)
In-situ Soil
Flushing
(Surfactants)
Y
Y
Y
N
.
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
High cost.
High capital
cost.
Very high cost.
Used mostly for
radioactive and highly
toxic waste.
BBBBBBffifflSSSJMBSiSJSSS
Can increase toxkiry of
soils.
Used mostly for metals
contamination.
Air emissions
permit required.
Mobile treatment
unit may not be
available.
Air emissions
permit required.
Mobil treatment
unit may not be
available.
pjpM|pHnm-8
•
Pilot testing would
be necessary to
determine
feasibility at the
site.
C-79
-------
»11 B-M'UUFHJ UAIA (JULLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: South Municipal Well, NH
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
FECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
TECHNOLOGY
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT
In-sltu Vacuum
Extraction (SVE)
rnatment not readily
used on site
contaminants.
Cement-Bated
Solidification
and
Thermoplastic
Nature of contaminants
can interfere with
cement-based
solidification. Used
primarily for metals.
Stabilization/
Solidification
Enclosed
Mechanical
Aeration
Aeration
(Bx-sltu)
Pneumatic
Conveyor
System
Aeration
(Ex-situ)
No precise reasons for
elimination in Phase II.
Alternate form of mechanical
aeration chosen instead.
C-80
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: South Municipal Well, NH
DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE
Comments; Two main reasons added to the selection of Alternative 7 as the soil remedy. All other alternatives (except alternative
8) involved excavation. Excavation has a high cost but was not seen as being providing significant benefit for the additional cost.
Also, excavation presents some technical difficulties and safety concerns. (Alternative 8 was not chosen because of its higher cost and
its tow short-term effectiveness.)
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
Alternative 3
Offsite
Hazardous
Disposal
Alternatives
Onslte
Incineration
(Rotary Kiln)
Alternative*
Onslte Enclosed
Mechanical
Aeration
f mimtmmfm
yywmH
A *| ^••al%»^ *f
AirariUKivv /
Itvritu Vacuum
Extraction
SELECTED
(Y/N)
•••^•••••^••••H
N
N
N
Y
OVERALL
PROTECTION
Overall
protection is
uncertain
because the long-
term
effectiveness of
RCRA disposal is
uncertain.
COMPLIANCE
WfTHARARS
REDUCTION
opToxicrrx
MOHOTY
OR VOLUME
No reduction
intoxldty,
mobility or
volume.
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
Testing required
to determine
effectiveness.
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
Increased risk
due to excavation
and possibility of
release during
transportation.
Potential risks to
community and
treatment.
Potential risks to
community and
workers from air
emissions.
DMPLEMENTANUTY
disposal permits
required.
Serious problems with
imptementability
because site
characteristics make
excavation difficult.
Serious problems with
imptementability
because site
characteristics make
excavation difficult.
imptementability
because site
characteristics make
excavation difficult.
COST
C-81
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: South Municipal Well, NH
PHASE III ANALYSIS (Continued)
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
Alternatives
In-tihiSon
Flushing
SELECTED
(Y/N)
N
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARARS
REDUCnON
OFTOXJOTY,
MOKLTTY
OK VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
Require* long-
term operation,
•nd monitoring
to ensure
effectiveness.
SHORT-TOM
EFFECTIVENESS
Uncertain how
«ff«Hiv«thU
technology wfll be
in the short-twin.
It may require*
30-year treatment
period.
MFlEMENTABOirY
Some tatting
required to ensure
maximum removal
efficiency.
COST
C-82
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME- Stamina Mill*, RI
SCREENING PHASE
Comnmtos
TECHNOLOGY
FS NAME
TECH.
RETAIN'
Ph.I/Ph.H
COST
EFFECT
Asphalt Cap
Clay Cap
Clay and Soil
Cap
Susceptible to weathering
and cracking.
Retained for non-VOC
contamination.
-oncn
N
Susceptible to weathering
and cracking.
Slurry Wall
,
[Sheet Pile
Grout Curtain
Vibrating Beam
Block
Displacement
Liners
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Not applicable due to site!
conditions (!«., fractured
bedrock).
Not applicable due to site
conditions (U, fractured
bedrock).
Not applicable due to site
conditions (I*., fractured
bedrock).
Not applicable due to site
conditions (I*., fractured
bedrock).
Not applicable due to
subsurface conditions.
Retained for non-VOC
contamination.
Retained for non-VOC
contamination.
C-83
-------
SUB-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Stamina Mills, RI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FS NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Not applicable due to
subsurface conditions.
Grout Infection
Retained for non-VOC
contamination.
Offste Hazardous
Landfill
Retained for non-VOC
contamination
Onilte Hazardous
Landfill
Not proven effective
Bioremedlation I Btodegradatton Y N
(unspecified) lln-situor
Not applicable to
contaminant or site
conditions.
Surface
Btoreclamation
In-situ
Btoremedlation
Difficult to
implement.
Permit required
Clycolate
DechlorinaHon
Dehalogenation
Not applicable to site
contaminants.
Lime
Neutralization
Not proven for in-situ
applications.
In-sttu Chemical
Treatment
Retained for non-VOC
contamination.
Chemical
Reduction/
Oxidation
C-84
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
_ VOC SITE NAME: Stamina Mills, RI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FS NAME
TECH. '
RETAIN1
Ph.l/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Retained for non-VOC
contamination.
Offsite
ndneratlon
unspecified)
Not effective for non-
homogeneous site
conditions or VOCs.
n-situ Vitrification
Not applicable to all soil
conditiont • partial
treatment.
x>w Temperature
rtiermal
>sorption/
Stripping
May not meet objective!
for soil.
Cannot ensure
complete capture
of flushing agent.
In-ettuSoil
Flushing
May cause migration of
contaminants.
Not applicable to
subsurface conditions.
with Electro
Kinetics
In-situSoil
Flushing
In-situSoll
Venting
In-sHu Vacuum
Extraction (SVE)
Not applicable to soil
characteristics.
Belt Filter
Press
Retained for non-VOC
contamination.
Chemical
Extraction
C-85
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Stamina Mills, RI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FS NAME
RETAIN1
Ph.l/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Stabilization/
Solidification
Retained for non-VOC
contamination.
Immobilization
Retained for non-VOC
contamination.
Encapsulation
Micro-
encapsulation
N
Not applicable due to
contaminant* onstte.
Encapsulation
Macro-
encapsulation
N
Not applicable'due to
contaminants onslte.
C-86
-------
SITE-SPEaFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Stamina Mills, RI
DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE
Comments: The TCE Spill Area was the only area where remediation was driven by VOC-contrfminated soils, therefore, only
those alternatives are addressed.
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
BnomBBMa«m>viHi>*>*«B
fl
Omite
Incineration
(Rotary Kiln)
*3
Soil Vacuum
Extraction
SELECTED1
(Y/N)
N
Y
OVERALL
ntOTBCTION
More risk to
human health
and environment
during
construction and
operation than
either alternative.
Generates more
waste streams.
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARAKS
OFTOMOTY,
MOMUTY
OR VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
^^M^BMMMH^H^^^^B^HM
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
Poses more
potential for
advene impact
than other
alternative.
MrUMENTAMUTY
More difficult to
implement.
COST
Higher
cost.
C-87
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: USA Utterkenny Army Depot, MD
SCREENING PHASE
Comments; Did not include low temperature incineration in this analysis because of inconsistent information in Phase I and II.
Phase I passes mis technology; Phase II never Addresses it
TECHNOLOGY
FS NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Atphalt Cap
N
Cap material to
susceptible to
degradation by VOCs.
Table 33-1.
Clay Cap
N
Allows ARAR»
exceedances.
Not at effective a* multi-
media cap.
Table 3.3-1, pg.89.
Concrete
N
Susceptible to freezing
•nd thawing ttretse*.
Table 3.3-1, pg.89.
Multi-layer Cap
Table 3.3-1, pg.89.
Soil Cover
N
Does little or nothing to
prevent leaching to the
ground water.
Table 33-1.
Synthetic
Synthetic
Membrane
N
AUow»ARARi
exceedances.
Not at effective as multi-
media cap.
TaWe 3.3-1, pg.89.
Not applicable since
bedrock is porous
HniMtOM.
Not applicable since
bedrock Is porous
limestone.
C-88
-------
SUE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: USA Letterkenny Anny Depot, MD
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
TECHNOLOGY
Not applicable since
bedrock it porous
limestone.
Not applicable since
bedrock is porous
limestone.
Membrane Wall
Soils contaminated wUh
VOCs an prohibited from
landfilling per RCRA.
Landfillmgfar
Hazardous
Waste
Onsite Hazardous
Undflll
Would require
hre testing
Not demonstrated
effective on full scale.
Bioremediation iMIcroblal I N
(unspecified) | Degradation
to determine If
feasible.
Not demonstrated
effective on fun scale.
Would require
extensive testing
to determine If
feasible.
Sodium
Fluxing
Pg.90. Not information on
Phase 1.
Off.lt. High | Y I N | Excessive costs.
Temperature
Offsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
Assumed pass Phase 1 since
addressed In Phase 11.
High
Temperature
Incineration
Rotary Kiln
(onsite)
C-89
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: USA Letterkenny Army Depot, MD
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FS NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Not applicable foi
chlorinated VOCs.
n-sltu Vitrification
Used on contaminated
toil/waste of UXO.
Flaming/Plashing
.AW Temperature
rhermal
Desorption/
Stripping
Not as effective u other
Ex-situSotl
Washing
development
required to
implement.
Pilot study demonstrated
Soil* permeability
Fable 33-1, pg». 77,89
In-»itu Vacuum I In-*ltu
Extraction (SVE) Volatilization
that technology will not
meet response objectives.
Not generally compatible
with chlorinated VOCs.
Table 35-1, pg. 76.
Not generally compatible
with chlorinated VOC*.
Thermoplastic
Solidification
Table 33-1, pgs. 76,90.
Will not meet response
objectives.
Aeration
(Ex-situ)
C-90
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: US A Letterkenny Army Depot, MD
DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
2C
Multi-media
Cap
3D
RotaiyKIln
Incineration
4A
Low
Temperature
Thermal
Treatment
SELECTED
(Y/N)
N
N
Y
OVERALL
PROTECTION
Level of
protection to
undetermined;
further testing
needed.
COMPLIANCE
WITHARARS
•••••^MM^HSMBMSMBMBMH
Unknown
whether or not
will meet
ARARs.
OFTOXKJTY,
MOHUTY
OR VOLUME
Will not
reduce
toxicityor
volume.
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
•••^^•••^•••i^BMMHMBM
Long-term
effectiveness
relies on cap
integrity.
Unknown long-
term
effectiveness
because
reduction of
contaminants in
ground water
also unknown.
Contaminants •
remain onsite.
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
Site workers may
be exposed to
VOCs during
clearing of area.
Longer
implementation
time than
selected remedy.
Site workers may
be exposed to
VOCs during
excavation and
incineration.
Longer
implementation
time than .
(elected remedy.
IMPLEMENTABIUTY
Additional work may
be require d to gain
community and
agency support.
COST
Higher
costs
than
•i A! *-— *-j«.-j
wiccica
remedy.
C-91
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Vogel Paint & Wax, IA
SCREENING PHASE
Comments: Specific reasons for eliminating technologies in Phase I were not available because of pages missing from the FS.
Therefore, used the general pre-screening criterion "technical implementability'' as the reason for elimination (i*., cannot be
effectively implemented).
TECHNOLOGY
FS NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Fh.l/Ph.H
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Asphalt Cap
N
Cannot be
effectively
implemented.
Hg.4.1.
Clay Cap
Potential for long-term
hazards may develop If
cap is not inspected or
maintained.
Potential for public
health and
environmental
effects during cap
construction.
Hg. 4.1, Table 4.1.
Not retained as a primary
component of a remedy.
Soil Cover
N
Cannot be
effectively
implemented.
Hg.4.1.
Synthetic
N
Cannot be
effectively
implemented.
Hg.4.1.
Geomembrane
N
Higher cost
than day cap.
Potential for punctures,
and maintenance
requirements make
membrane caps less
desirable than clay caps.
Table 4.1.
Offslte Hazardous
Landfill
Difficult to
implement
because of
prohibitions and
restrictions on
land disposal.
C-92
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Vogel Paint & Wax, IA
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FS NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Fig. 4.1, Table 4.1
Ix-situ
Bioremediation
Cannot be
effectively
implemented.
n-shu
Bioremediation
Offsite
incineration
[unspecified)
Cannot be
effectively
implemented.
Onsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
Rg.4.1,TaMe4.1
Low Temperature I Thermal
Thermal Stripping
Desorptlon/
Stripping
Cannot be
effectively
impwowntod
In-situSott
Flushing
Cannot be
effectively
implemented
Bx-situ Soil
Washing
C-93
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Vogel Paint & Wax, IA
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FB NAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Stabilization/
Solidification
I Hg. 4.1, Table 4.1.
Not retained at primary
[component of a remedy.
C-94
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Vogel Paint & Wax, IA
DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE
Comments:
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
S-l
Offslte
Incineration
S-2
Oiwite Thermal
Desorption
Onslte
Bioremedlation
(Ex-sltu)
SELECTED
IY/N)
N
N
Y
OVERALL
ntOTECIlON
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARAKS
REDUCTION
OFTOXKTTY,
MORum
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
Potential for
emissions/
exposure during
excavation and
transportation.
Potential for
emissions during
excavation and
treatment.
Longer
implementation
time than
selected remedy.
MPLEMENTABIUrV
Difficult to
implement because
mechanically
complex with
stringent monitoring
requirements.
COST
Higher
cost
than
selected
remedy.
C-95
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Waldick Aerospace Devices, RI
SCREENING PHASE
Comments:
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
IMPLEMENT
EFFECTIVENESS
TECHNOLOGY
Retained in conjunction with
offslteRCRA disposal.
Capping
(unspecified)
Retained in conjunction with
offoiteRCRA disposal.
Not considered reliable
due to questions on the
integrity of seals between
sheets.
Offslte Hazardous
Landfill
Site conditions are not
suitable for a hazardous
waste facility.
Onsite Hazardous
Landfill
Lack of local confining
layer would allow vertical
migration of
contaminants.
Aerobic/
Anaerobic
In-sltu
Bioremedlation
May mobilize
contaminants.
C-%
-------
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.lI
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Waldick Aerospace Devices, RI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
Reduction
Applicability erf
technology for treatment
of organic* has not been
demonstrated.
Products may be more
toxic than original
contaminants.
Neutralization
N
Not applicable to site
contaminants.
Oxidation
No complete
homogeneity between
agent and soil.
Polymerization
N
Multiple Hearth
Rotary Kiln
May be effective for only
high concentrations.
Most effective for liquid
wastes.
Retained to address non-
VOC contaminants.
Retained to address non-
VOC contaminants.
In-altu Vitrification
N
Vitrification
Ex-situ
Vitrification
High temperature limits
applicability at she.
Requires piloting.
Retained to address non-
VOC contaminants.
C-97
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Waldick Aerospace Dcvkes, RI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FS NAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Heating (In-titu)
N
Lack of continuous
confining layer would
allow for transport of
contaminants to ground
Generates large volume
of waste and requires
further treatment.
Requires air emission
controls.
N I Higher cost
than air
stripping.
Thermal
Treatment
Thermal
Desorption
Offers no advantages
over air-stripping.
In-situ Soil
Flushing
N
Not a proven technology,
Lack of local confining
layer would allow
migration of
contaminants into ground
water.
Waste water
generated has to
be treated and
disposed.
Ex-situSoil
Washing
N
May not be applicable to
organ ks.
Not demonstrated as full-
scale operation.
Generates large
volume of
wastewater that
requires further
treatment.
In-situ Vacuum
Extraction
In-situ Air
Stripping
C-98
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Waldick Aerospace Devices, RI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAMB
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.H
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
No technical or
environmental
advantages over in-situ
treatment.
No economical
advantages
over m-sttu
treatment.
Ex-situAir
Stripping
More applicable to liquid
waste*.
Cannot assure complete
effectiveness.
Applicable to liquid
wastes only.
Does not manage VOCs.
Increase* volume.
Difficult to ensure
adequate mixing.
Stabilization/
Solidification
Requires a large land
area and air emission
controls.
Mechanical
Aeration
Aeration
(Bx-sltu)
Energy intensive.
Offers only temporary
remediation.
Site soil* lack pore
WMMT IWCM
for fratzing*
C-99
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
VOC SITE NAME: Waldlck Aerospace Devices, RI
DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE
Comments: Alternatives below address Area 1, VOC contaminated soils, because VOCs do not drive remedhktion in Areas 2.
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
Slurry Wall;
Capping
In-tituAir
Stripping (SVE)
Bx-sfeuAir
Stripping;
Offslte Disposal
SELECTED
-------
Reston, VA
July 24, 2002
8-HOUR REFRESHER COURSE FOR
HAZARDOUS WASTE WORKERS
Welcome and Introduction:
Program Update
Topics to be covered:
Toxicology and Review of Exposure Limits
Respiratory Protection - Regulatory Review
Fit Testing
HazComm Review
Recognizing Confined Spaces
Drilling Safety
Job Hazard Analysis
BACK- Posture, Mechanics, Exercise - video
Hearing Conservation - video
Eye Safety - video
American Red Cross Adult CPR
Instructor: Judy Wagner, CHMM
Tetra Tech EM Inc., Arlington Hts, IL
Direct Telephone: 847-818-7192
------- |