Feasibility Study Analysis For Cercla Municipal Landfill Sites


                               PB95-963301
                               EPA540/R-94/081
                               9356.0-03
   FEASIBILITY STUDY
   ANALYSIS FOR
   CERCLA MUNICIPAL
   LANDFILL SITES
   August 1994
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
                      FEASIBILITY STUDY ANALYSIS FOR CERCLA
                               MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS
                                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                             PAGE

      PREFACE	111

I.     OVERVIEW OF ANALYSIS	1-1

      A.     INTRODUCTION	1-1

      B.     BACKGROUND	1-1
            1.     CERCLA MUNICIPAL LANDFILL SITES	1-2
            2.     PRESUMPTIVE REMEDY DESCRIPTION  	1-2
            3.     REMEDY SELECTION PROCESS	1-3

      C.     METHODOLOGY  	1-4
            1.     IDENTIFICATION OF MUNICIPAL LANDFILL SITES	1-4
            2.     TECHNOLOGY SCREENING AND REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE
                  ANALYSIS	1-4

      D.     RESULTS	1-5

      E.     CONCLUSIONS	1-6

II.    SUMMARY ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR NON-PRESUMPTIVE REMEDY
      TECHNOLOGIES	  II-l

      A.     LANDFILL DISPOSAL	  II-2
            1.     OFFSITE DISPOSAL	  II-3
            2.     ONSITE DISPOSAL	  II-7

      B.     BlOREMEDIATION	  II-l 1
            1.     IN-SITU BlOREMEDIATION	  II-l 1
            2.     EX-SITU BlOREMEDIATION	  11-14
            3.     BIOREMEDIATION (UNSPECIFIED)	  11-17

      C.     CHEMICAL DESTRUCTION/DETOXIFICATION	  11-19
            1.     OXIDATION/REDUCTION	  11-19
            2.     DEHALOGENATION 	  11-22
            3.     NEUTRALIZATION	  11-25
            4.     CHEMICAL DESTRUCTION/DETOXIFICATION (UNSPECIFIED) 	  11-27

                                        - i -
   Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
                                                                               PAGE
      D.    THERMAL TREATMENT 	 11-29
            1.     INCINERATION	 11-29
            2.     IN-SITU VITRIFICATION	 11-34
            3.     PYROLYSIS	 11-37

      E.    CHEMICAL/PHYSICAL EXTRACTION 	 11-40
            1 .     IN-SITU SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION (SVE)	 11-40
            2.     IN-SITU SOIL FLUSHING	 11-43
            3.     Ex-SITU SOIL WASHING	 11-46

      F.    THERMAL DESORPTION	 11-49
            1.     Low TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION/STRIPPING	 11-49
            2.     IN-SITU STEAM STRIPPING	 11-52

      G.    IMMOBILIZATION 	 11-54
            1.     STABILIZATION/SOLIDIFICATION	 11-54
            2.     FIXATION 	 11-57

      H.    OTHER	 11-59
            1.     SOIL AERATION	 11-59

      REFERENCES 	 11-61

APPENDIX A:     SUMMARY OF SCREENING AND DETAILED ANALYSIS FOR MUNICIPAL
               LANDFILLS  	 A-l

AppENDixB:     TECHNOLOGY-SPECIFIC DAT A SUMMARY TABLES	 B-l

AppENDixC:     SITE-SPECIFIC DAT A COLLECTION FORMS	 C-l

                                   LIST OF TABLES
                                                                               PAGE

TABLE 1         CONTAINMENT TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS	1-2
TABLE2         INDEX OF SITE NAME CODES	 II-2
                                        -11 -
   Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
FEASIBILITY STUDY ANALYSIS FOR CERCLA
MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS
PREFACE
The Feasibility Study Analysis For CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites is an evaluation of
technologies considered in the feasibility studies (FSs) of 30 municipal landfill (MLF) sites. This
evaluation involved analyzing technical literature and the results of the remedy selection process
from the subject FSs and Records of Decisions (RODs) to formulate general conclusions about
the appropriateness of applying the technologies at this site type. The evaluation concludes that
certain technologies were routinely screened out based on effectiveness, implementability, or
excessive costs, thereby providing a basis for limiting the universe of technologies and
alternatives analyzed when applying the presumptive remedy for MLF sites. Because the
presumptive remedy approach for MLF sites is outlined in guidance that is non-binding (i.e.,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9355.0-49FS entitled
Presumptive Remedy For CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites), 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 this document to replace the
analysis of the other technologies that would normally be found in the alternative identification
and screening steps of 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 MLF presumptive remedy includes
combinations of several technologies—capping, leachate collection and/or treatment, and gas
collection and/or treatment—that may be recommended for consideration and, thus, analyzed.
Second, even where only one technology is recommended, there 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 that were selected as presumptive remedies. Part
I of this document contains a general overview of the presumptive remedy process and supporting
analysis. It includes a description of the:
MLF sites, in general
Remedy selection process
-in -
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
• Presumptive remedies for MLF sites
• Nature, results, and general conclusions of the analysis.

Part II reviews individual technologies. In each case, the discussion:

• Describes the technology's general strengths and weaknesses

• Identifies factors that may limit its usefulness for application at MLF sites

• Presents a statistical review of how often the technology was considered and how it
fared in the screening and detailed analysis phases in past feasibility studies

• Draws conclusions regarding its general suitability for MLF 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 the 30 feasibility studies included in this analysis, and the criteria on which it was
screened out (for seven of the nine NCP criteria). Appendix B describes in greater detail the
reasons given in the FSs and RODs for screening out each technology. Appendix C presents a
summary of the remedy selection process in the FS and ROD for each site that 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 this document provides. In that case, a greater
amount of site-specific analysis will be required. Nevertheless, it is expected that this document
will provide an adequate basis for responding to general questions and comments on the
presumptive remedy approach.
- iv -
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
I. OVERVIEW OF ANALYSIS
A. INTRODUCTION
J
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 the selection
of cleanup actions. Over time, presumptive remedies are expected to ensure consistency in
remedy selection and reduce the cost and time required to clean 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. At
some sites, it will be determined that treatment of hot spots is appropriate. It is expected that the
presumptive remedy of containment also will be implemented at these sites in conjunction with
treatment of some portion of the waste. At sites such as these, a full-scale FS will be required to
identify the most appropriate remedy. This report will not be used in lieu of the technology
identification and screening steps at such sites, although it can be used for informational purposes.
Other presumptive remedy documentation also will be appropriate for use, including OSWER
Directive 9355.0-49FS, Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites, and
Conducting Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites,
EPA/540/P-92-001.

It is important to note that this document does not address some innovative or developing
technologies. As discussed in the directive entitled Presumptive Remedies Policy and
Procedures: (OSWER Directive 9355.0-47FS), the use of presumptive remedies does not
preclude the possibility of considering such technologies.
B. BACKGROUND
J
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 remedies depends upon preferred technologies for common, categories of
sites, based on historical

1-1
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
patterns of remedy selection and EPA's scientific and engineering evaluation of performance data
on technology implementation.
1. CERCLA MUNICIPAL LANDFILL SITES
Approximately 20 percent of the sites on the NPL are MLF sites which typically share similar
characteristics. Waste in these landfills usually is present in large volumes and is a heterogeneous
mixture of municipal waste frequently co-disposed with industrial and/or hazardous waste. The
volume of industrial/hazardous waste co-disposed with the municipal waste varies from site to
site, as does what is known of the disposal history. (It is almost impossible to fully characterize,
excavate, and/or treat the source area of these landfills, so uncertainty about the contents is
expected.) Typically, MLF sites on the NPL can contain a variety of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), as well as a host of inorganic compounds
and metals. Because of the size and heterogeneity of the contents, the preamble to the NCP (found
in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Part 300) identifies MLF sites as a type of site where
treatment of the waste may be impracticable.
2. PRESUMPTIVE REMEDY DESCRIPTION
The presumptive remedy for MLF sites is containment, which may include some or all of the
following components as appropriate, based on site-specific conditions: landfill cap, collection
and/or treatment of landfill gas, control of landfill leachate, affected ground water at the landfill
perimeter, and/or upgradient ground water that is causing saturation of the landfill mass. The
decision to select containment still allows the lead agency to consider a variety of options that fall
within the scope of this technology (Table 1). For example, a variety of capping technologies and
vertical/ horizontal barriers were identified in the FSs for MLF sites. The variety of caps available
ranges from hardened layers (including asphalt and concrete caps) to protective layers (including
clay or synthetic caps and soil covers). In some instances, this technology was used in conjunction
with other remedial technologies. The value of capping technologies is that they minimize surface
water infiltration and prevent exposure to the waste.
Table 1. CONTAINMENT
TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
Capping Techniques
Vertical/Horizontal Barriers
Multi-layer cap
Asphalt cap
Concrete cap
Clay cap
Soil cover
Synthetic cap
Chemical sealants
Slurry Wall
Grout Curtain
Sheet Piling
Grout Injection
Block Displacement
Bottom Sealing
Vibrating Beam
Liners
1-2
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
3. REMEDY SELECTION PROCESS
The components of the remedy selection process pertinent to this 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 the initial screening,
the full range of available technologies is evaluated based on cost, effectiveness, and
implementability. Technologies passing this screening step are combined into remedial
alternatives, taking into account the scope, characteristics, and complexity of the site problem(s)
being addressed. This analysis document constitutes the technology identification and initial
screening steps of the FS for MLF sites implementing the presumptive remedy.

Alternatives that represent viable approaches are assessed against each of the nine NCP
evaluation criteria during the detailed analysis, which also compares the relative performance of
each alternative. The nine NCP criteria are categorized as threshold criteria, primary balancing
criteria, and modifying criteria. The threshold criteria are first used when evaluating a
technology option. The technology must meet these criteria to be eligible for selection. The
threshold criteria include:

! Overall protection of human health and the environment, and

! Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs).

During the next step, the major tradeoffs between alternative technologies are evaluated using
the five primary balancing criteria:

Long-term effectiveness and permanence
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment
Short-term effectiveness
Implementability
Cost.

The initial screening draws preliminary conclusions as to the maximum extent to which
permanent solutions and treatment can be practicably utilized in a cost-effective manner. In the
detailed analysis, the alternative that is protective of human health and the environment, is
ARAR-compliant, and affords the best combination of attributes is identified as the preferred
alternative in the proposed plan.
1-3
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
After public review of the proposed plan, the two modifying criteria, State and community
acceptance, are factored into a final determination of the remedy. The lead agency then selects the
technology considered most effective, given the constraints of the site, and documents the
decision in the ROD.
C. METHODOLOGY
J
The analysis entailed reviewing the technology identification and screening components of the
remedy selection process for a representative sample of MLF sites. The number of times each
technology was either screened out or selected in each remedy was compiled.
1. IDENTIFICATION OF MUNICIPAL LANDFILL SITES
J
Of the 230 MLF sites on the NPL, 149 have had a remedy selected for at least one operable unit.
Of the 149 sites (see Appendix C, Table of Contents), 30 were selected for this study on a random
basis, or slightly greater than 20 percent. The sites range in size from several acres to more than
200 acres and are located primarily in Regions 1, 2, 3, and 5. This geographical distribution
approximates the distribution of MLF sites on the NPL.
2. TECHNOLOGY SCREENING AND REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
J
The analysis involved a review of the technology identification and screening phase, including any
pre-screening steps, followed by a review of the detailed analysis and comparative analysis phases.
Information derived from each review was documented on site-specific data collection forms
(Appendix C) The review focused on the landfill source contamination only; ground-water
technologies and alternatives were not included.

For the screening phase, the full range of technologies considered, including different process
options for a given technology, was listed on the data collection forms, along with the key reasons
given for eliminating technologies from further consideration. These reasons were categorized
according to the screening criteria: cost, effectiveness, or implementability. The frequency with
which specific reasons were given for eliminating a technology from further consideration was
then tallied and compiled into a technology-specific 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 on 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 NCP criteria was
1-4
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
associated with each cleanup option were highlighted. In some cases, a technology was combined
with one or more technologies into one or more alternatives. The disadvantages of a technology/
alternative were then compiled into a technology-specific detailed analysis/comparative analysis
summary table (Appendix B), under the assumption that these disadvantages contributed to
non-selection.
D. RESULTS
J
The technology screening and remedial alternative analyses, summarized in Appendix A,
demonstrate that containment (the presumptive remedy) was chosen as a component of the
selected remedy at all 30 of the sites analyzed. No other technologies were consistently selected
as a remedy or retained for consideration in a remedial alternative.

At eight of the 30 sites, conditions required non-containment technologies in the selected remedy
to address a site-specific concern, such as principal threat wastes. These sites include:

Offsite Disposal

1) Rasmussen's Dump, MI—Installation of a cap and offsite disposal of drums unearthed
during cap construction at a hazardous waste facility.

2) Old City of York, PA—Installation of soil cover and offsite disposal (unspecified) of vault
sediment.

Incineration

3) G&H Landfill, MI—Construction of a landfill cover and a slurry wall around the perimeter
of the landfill areas and oil seeps, excavation of PCB contaminated soil and sediment
outside the slurry wall followed by either consolidation under the landfill cover or offsite
incineration, depending on contaminant concentrations.

4) Fort Wayne Reduction, IN—Installation of a soil cover and excavation and offsite
incineration of drums.

5) Wildcat Landfill, DE—Installation of a soil cover and, if necessary, excavation and offsite
incineration of drums.

Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)

6) Hassayampa Landfill, AZ—Installation of a cap and treatment of contamination in the
vadose zone using soil vapor extraction at all locations where contamination exceeds
clean-up levels.

7) Muskego Sanitary Landfill, WI—Installation of a cap and treatment of soil within the drum
trench and north and south refuse areas using in-situ vapor extraction to remove VOCs.

1-5
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
Bioremediation

8) Onalaska Municipal Landfill, WI—Reconstruction of the landfill cover and in-situ
bioremediation of onsite soil and, if feasible, a portion of the landfill debris.

Leachate collection and gas collection systems also were tracked as part of the detailed analysis
and comparison of remedial alternatives. These types of systems, however, generally were not
considered as remediation technologies during the initial screening phases. At 15 sites, leachate
collection was selected as part of the overall containment remedy. At 17 sites, gas collection was
selected as part of the overall containment remedy.
E. CONCLUSIONS
The results reported above support containment as the presumptive remedy for MLF sites and
support the decision to eliminate the initial technology identification and screening step.
Consideration of technologies other than the presumptive remedy, however, may be appropriate on
a site-specific basis.

These results also are consistent with EPA expectations that containment technologies will
generally be appropriate for waste that poses a relatively low long-term threat or where treatment
is impracticable (55 Federal Register 8846). The Agency also expects treatment to be considered
for identifiable areas of highly toxic and/or mobile material that constitute the principal threat(s)
posed by the site. Both factors make it possible to streamline the RI/FS for MLF sites with respect
to site characterization, risk assessment, and development of remedial action alternatives.
1-6
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
n. SUMMARY ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
FOR NON-PRESUMPTIVE REMEDY TECHNOLOGIES
This analysis examined the technical literature and technology screening and remedy selection
process at 30 MLF sites on the NPL. As discussed in Part I, a containment remedy was chosen at
all 30 sites investigated. Other ancillary technologies were selected to address site-specific
concerns. This study supports the decision that the presumptive remedy—containment—is the
technology "of choice" for this type of site. In addition, this study concludes that most other
technologies (or classes of technologies) are consistently screened out due to the reasons
presented below.

The following sections provide descriptions for each technology that is not a presumptive
remedy for MLF sites. 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 technology. The target contaminants are
those contaminants that a specific technology aims or targets to treat. The major
contaminant groups used are:
(1) Halogenated volatiles (VOCs)
(2) Halogenated semivolatiles (VOCs)
(3) Non-halogenated volatiles (VOCs)
(4) Non halogenated semivolatiles (SVOCs)
(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 referenced document Remediation Technologies Screening
Matrix, Reference Guide, Version I, U.S. EPA & U.S. Air Force, July 1993.
(Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix, 1993, p. 139.)

! Discussion of results from the analysis of the 30 FSs studied. This section
summarizes the specific reasons provided in the 30 FSs for screening a particular
technology during the initial, screening.

! Discussion of results from the analysis of the 30 RODs studied. This section
summarizes the specific reasons for screening a particular technology during the
detailed analysis and comparison of alternatives.

! General conclusions why the technology may be eliminated from consideration at
MLF sites.
II-1
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
Included with these summary results are codes, from 1 through 30, which identify the sites
where the specific reasons were used for eliminating the technology from further consideration
in the FS or ROD. Table 2 is an index of codes for the 30 MLF sites.
Table 2. INDEX OF SITE NAME CODES
Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Site Name Code
Colesville Municipal Landfill, NY
Conklin Dumps, NY
Coshocton City Landfill, OH
Dakhue Sanitary Landfill, MN
Dover Municipal Landfill, NH
Fort Dix Landfill, NJ
Fort Wayne Reduction, IN
G&H Landfill, MI
Global Landfill, NJ
Hassayampa Landfill, AZ
Hertel Landfill, NY
Islip Municipal Sanitary Landfill, NY
Juncos Landfill, PR
K&L Avenue Landfill, MI
Kin-Buc Landfill, NJ
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Site Name
LaGrande Sanitary Landfill, MN
Lemberger Landfill, WI
Mason County Landfill, MI
Michigan Disposal Service (Cork St. Landfill), MI
Mid-State Disposal Landfill, WI
Modern Sanitation Landfill, PA
Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill, OK
Muskego Sanitary Landfill, WI
Old City of York Landfill, PA
Onalaska Municipal Landfill, WI
Ramapo Landfill, NY
Rasmussen's Dump, MI
Stoughton City Landfill, WI
Strasburg Landfill, PA
Wildcat Landfill, DE

A. LANDFILL DISPOSAL
Technology Description

Landfill disposal encompasses a set of process options for the removal of contaminated material
to permitted onsite or offsite disposal facilities. Some pre-treatment of the contaminated media
may be required to meet Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDRs). Landfill disposal reduces mobility of the contaminated media, however, by
moving the media from the unsecured site to a disposal facility that will physically contain it.
The process options discussed in this study are disposal in offsite hazardous, offsite
nonhazardous, onsite hazardous, and onsite nonhazardous landfills.

Limitations

The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of these process 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.
II-2
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
! Depth, composition, and volume of the media requiring excavation must be
considered.

! RCRA hazardous wastes may require treatment to meet LDR treatment standards
prior to land disposal.

For offsite facilities, the following factors apply:

! The distance from the MLF to the nearest disposal facility will affect cost and may
affect community acceptability.

! Transportation to an offsite facility introduces a potential risk to the community
via accidental releases.

! Offsite landfill disposal alleviates the contaminant problem at the site but transfers
the risk offsite.

! The type of contaminant and its concentration level will impact landfill disposal
requirements.

Overall costs associated with offsite 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. (Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix. 1993, p. 71.).

Target Contaminant Groups

Landfill disposal is applicable to the complete range of contaminant groups with no particular
target group. (Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix. 1993, p. 71.)
1. Offsite Disposal
J
OFFSITE HAZARDOUS LANDFILL
Initial Screening

Disposal in an offsite hazardous landfill was considered in 17 FSs. It was screened out 13 times
(76 percent) and passed screening but was not considered as a primary component of a remedial
alternative four times (24 percent).

The predominant factors for screening out offsite hazardous landfill were high costs (8 FSs: 3,4,
5, 9, 10, 17, 18, 21) and difficulties in implementation, including difficulties in treating large
volumes of waste and increased risk to the public and workers (12 FSs: 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18,
21,26,28,30).

II-3
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
17
Site Name Code:

No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
0

No. FSs Technology
Not Primary Component
of Alternative
4
14,19,20,25

No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
13
3,4,5,8,9, 10, 17, 18,
21, 22, 26, 28, 30
Detailed Analysis

Offsite disposal at a hazardous waste landfill was not considered as a primary component of any
remedial alternatives. (Note: At one site—Rasmussen's Dump, MI—offsite hazardous landfill was
screened out as the overall remedy for the site even though offsite disposal was a part of the
remedy for drums located onsite. See Appendix A, footnote 6, and Site-Specific Data Collection
Forms in Appendix C for further clarification.)

Conclusion

The conclusion for offsite hazardous landfill has been combined with offsite landfill unspecified
and offsite nonhazardous landfills.
OFFSITE LANDFILL (UNSPECIFIED)
Initial Screening
Disposal in an offsite landfill (unspecified) was considered in nine FSs. It was screened out eight
times (89 percent), and one time (11 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 offsite landfill (unspecified) were high cost, lack of
effectiveness, and difficulties in implementation. High costs were most often noted (5 FSs:
2,11,13,16, 24). Also noted were the potential for adverse health effects during excavation (3 FSs:
13,16, 24) and the difficulties in implementation due to numerous site restrictions (e.g., storage,
disposal) (3 FSs: 1,13,27).
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
9
Site Name Code:
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
1
15
No. FSs Technology
Not Primary Component
of Alternative
0

No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
8
1,2,7, 11, 13, 16,24,
27
II-4
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
Detailed Analysis

The one time offsite landfill (unspecified) was retained for consideration in a remedial alternative,
it was not selected as the final remedy., The reasons were high costs and no reduction of toxicity,
mobility, or volume through treatment of site contaminants ROD: 15). (Note: At one site—Old
City of York Landfill, PA—offsite landfill (unspecified) was screened out as the overall remedy
for the site even though offsite disposal was a part of the remedy for sediments found in a leachate
collection vault at the site. See Appendix A, footnote 7, and Site-Specific Data Collection Forms
in Appendix C for further clarification.)
No. FSs Technology Passed
Screening
No. RODs Technology
Selected
No. RODs Technology Not
Selected
1
0
1
Site Name Code:
15
Conclusion
The conclusion for offsite landfill (unspecified) has been combined with offsite hazardous landfill
and offsite nonhazardous landfill.
OFFSITE NONHAZARDOUS LANDFILL
Initial Screening
Disposal in an offsite nonhazardous landfill was considered in three FSs. Of those, it was screened
out three times (100 percent).

The predominant factor cited in the FSs for screening out offsite nonhazardous landfill was
difficulty in implementation due to compliance with LDRs (3 FSs: 1, 5, 30).
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
1,5,30
Detailed Analysis

Offsite nonhazardous landfill disposal was not considered in any remedial alternatives.
II-5
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
Conclusion
MLF sites are a heterogeneous mixture of municipal, industrial, and household hazardous wastes.
They are generally large in size, ranging from several acres to more than 200 acres containing
large volumes of waste. Offsite disposal, including offsite hazardous landfills. Offsite
(unspecified) landfills, and offsite nonhazardous landfills is a generally ineffective alternative for
MLF sites due to costs and implementability. LDRs and the large volume of waste to be addressed
account for many of the difficulties in implementation. Other reasons for screening may include
the increased potential for generation of fugitive emissions and associated potential health and
safety risks.

The following table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to the
elimination of this technology.
NCP Criteria
Overall Protectiveness
Compliance with ARARs
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, or Volume
Long-term Effectiveness and
Permanence
Short-term Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
Key Factors
• The technology poses risks to the community and workers from
exposure during excavation and transportation.
• Transportation, storage, and disposal restrictions are all associated with
this technology and must be considered.
• An offsite hazardous landfill also must be in compliance with LDRs.
• Offsite landfill disposal offers no treatment of the contaminated
material.
• Landfill disposal alleviates the contaminant problem at the site but
transfers the risk offsite without treating the contaminants
• The technology poses risks to the community and workers from
exposure during excavation and transportation.
Depth, volume, and composition of waste may affect implementation
and transportation.
Other transportation issues, such as travel distances, also may affect
implementation.
• The technology is labor-intensive, with little potential for further
automation.
High costs are associated with this technology.
II-6
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
2. ONSITE DISPOSAL
This category should not be confused with the containment options discussed earlier. The
processes included in "onsite disposal" entail excavating and redepositing the waste in newly
constructed landfill units. The containment options keep the waste in place and use caps and
barriers to manage the contaminants' migration.
ONSITE HAZARDOUS LANDFILL
Initial Screening
Onsite hazardous landfill was considered in 14 FSs. Of those, it was screened out 11 times (79
percent), passed the screening and was considered as a primary component of a remedial
alternative (detailed analysis and comparison) two times (14 percent), and passed screening but
was not considered as a primary component of a remedial alternative one time (7 percent).

The predominant factor for screening out onsite hazardous landfill was difficulty in
implementation, especially due to adverse site conditions and large volumes of wastes (11 FSs: 1,
3,4,5,10,15,17,19,25,28,30).
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
14
Site Name Code:
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
2
8,18
No. FSs Technology
Not Primary Component
of Alternative
1
14
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
11
1,3,4,5, 10, 15, 17,
19,25,28,30
Detailed Analysis

Of the two times onsite hazardous landfill was retained for consideration in a remedial alternative,
it was not selected as the final remedy one time. The predominant reasons were high costs and
difficult implementation due to waste handling and staging and landfill construction (1 FS: 18). It
was selected for disposal of low level PCB-contaminated soils only at G&H Landfill, MI.
No. FSs Technology Passed
Screening
2
Site Name Code:
No. RODs Technology
Selected
1
8
No. RODs Technology Not
Selected
1
18
II-7
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
Conclusion

The conclusion for onsite hazardous landfill has been combined with onsite landfill (unspecified)
and onsite nonhazardous landfill.
                             ONSITE LANDFILL (UNSPECIFIED)
Initial Screening
Onsite landfill (unspecified) was 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 onsite landfill (unspecified) were high costs (3 FSs: 2,
3, 11) and difficulties in implementation due to site conditions, such as limited site area (3 FSs:
16,19,27).
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
7
Site Name Code:
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
0

No. FSs Technology
Not Primary Component
of Alternative
1
20
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
6
2,3, 11, 16, 19,27
Detailed Analysis

Onsite landfill (unspecified) disposal was not considered as a primary component of any remedial
alternatives.

Conclusion

The conclusion for onsite landfill (unspecified) has been combined with onsite hazardous landfill
and onsite nonhazardous landfill.
                            ONSITE NONHAZARDOUS LANDFILL
Initial Screening
Onsite nonhazardous, landfill was considered in two FSs. Of those, it was screened out two times
(100 percent). The reasons provided were high costs, no reduction of leachate, and site conditions
(wetlands) (2 FSs: 5, 30).
                                          II-8
   Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
2
Site Name Code:
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
0

No. FSs Technology
Not Primary Component
of Alternative
0

No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
2
5,30
Detailed Analysis

Onsite nonhazardous landfill disposal was not considered in any remedial alternatives.

Conclusion

MLF sites are a heterogeneous mixture of municipal, industrial, and household hazardous wastes.
They are generally large in size, ranging from several acres to more than 200 acres containing
large volumes of waste. Onsite disposal, including onsite hazardous landfills, onsite (unspecified)
landfills, and onsite nonhazardous landfills, is a generally ineffective remedial alternative for
addressing MLF sites. High costs and implementation difficulties are the two primary reasons
noted in the screening of onsite disposal. Difficulties in implementation due to the waste
characteristics and site conditions were predominantly noted. Other reasons for screening may
include the increased potential for generation of fugitive emissions and associated potential health
and safety risks.

The following table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to the
elimination of this technology.
                                            II-9
    Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
NCP Criteria
Overall Protectiveness
Compliance with ARARs
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, or Volume
Long-term Effectiveness and
Permanence
Short-term Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
Key Factors
A potential risk of recontamination is associated with onsite landfilling.
• Benefits of onsite landfill disposal may not outweigh the potential risks
associated with the method.
• Applicable LDRs must be considered.
• An onsite hazardous landfill must meet LDR requirements.
No reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment.
• High maintenance is required to ensure effectiveness and reliability.
• A potential risk for recontamination is associated with onsite landfilling.
Short-term effectiveness is compromised by the potential exposure to
fugitive emissions during excavation.
• Onsite disposal may be very difficult to implement due to the large
volume of waste, and handling and construction staging requirements.
Site conditions also may affect implementation (i.e., limited area,
wetlands).
• High costs are associated with this technology.
                                         11-10
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
B. BIOREMEDIATION
1. IN-SITU BIOREMEDIATION
Technology Description

During in-situ bioremediation, the activity of naturally occurring microbes is stimulated by
circulating water-based solutions through contaminated soils to enhance in-situ biological
remediation of organic contaminants. Nutrients, oxygen, or other amendments may be used to
enhance bioremediation and contaminant desorption from subsurface materials. Generally, the
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:

! Extensive treatability studies and site characterization may be necessary.

! The circulation of water-based solutions through the soil may increase contaminant
mobility.

! The injection of microorganisms into the subsurface is not recommended. Naturally
occurring organisms are generally adapted to the contaminants present.

! Preferential flow paths may severely decrease contact between injected fluids and
contaminants throughout the contaminated zones.

! The system should be used only where ground water is near the surface and where
the ground water underlying the contaminated soils is contaminated.

! The system should not be used for clay, highly layered, or heterogeneous subsurface
environments due to oxygen (or other electron acceptor) transfer limitations.

! Bioremediation may not be applicable at sites with high concentrations of heavy
metals, highly chlorinated organics, or inorganic salts.
11-11
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
Target Contaminant Groups

Target contaminants for in-situ bioremediation are non-halogenated VOCs and SVOCs, and fuel
hydrocarbons. Halogenated VOCs and 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.)

Initial Screening

In-situ bioremediation was considered in 15 FSs. Of those, it was screened out 14 times (93
percent). One time (7 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 in-situ bioremediation lack of effectiveness.
Specifically, this technology is ineffective in treating heterogeneous municipal waste and
compounds such as metals, chlorinated solvents and organics (13 FSs: 1, 5, 6, 10, 15, 16, 17, 19,
21, 22, 24, 27, 28). Difficulties in implementing the process also were noted (6 FSs: 6, 10, 21,
22, 26, 27), including general difficulties in controlling the process as well as the possible
production of undesirable intermediates.
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
15
Site Name Code:

No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
1
25

No. FSs Technology
Not Primary Component
of Alternative
0

No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
14
1,5,6, 10, 15, 16, 17,
19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27,
28
Detailed Analysis

The one time in-situ bioremediation was retained for consideration as a remedial alternative, it was
selected in the final remedy at Onalaska Municipal Landfill, WI.
No. FSs Technology Passed
Screening
1
Site Name Code:
No. RODs Technology
Selected
1
25
No. RODs Technology Not
Selected
0

Conclusion

-------
nature of a landfill. Because MLF sites normally contain halogenated VOCs and SVOCs,
bioremediation may be less effective and, therefore, screened. Also, MLF sites may contain
chlorinated organics and pesticides which are not biodegradable, making bioremediation
ineffective. Additional reasons for screening may include oxygen transfer limitations due to the
heterogeneity of the waste and preferential flow paths which may severely decrease contact
between injected fluids and contaminants throughout the contaminated zone.

• The circulation of waste-based solutions through the waste may
increase contaminant mobility.
The treatment may produce undesirable intermediates.
• The technology has unproven effectiveness in treating some
contaminants (i.e., metals, chlorinated organics).
• During treatment, it may be difficult to maintain proper distribution of
reactants.
Nutrients injected into the ground during treatment may degrade
ground water or surface water.
The technology is not readily applied to large hazardous waste areas.
• Treatment may result in oxygenation of the landfill and aquifer, and
process control is poor.
Other site conditions such as depth of fill and the presence of
preferential flow paths may affect implementabiliry.
• The system should not be used for clay, highly layered, or
heterogeneous subsurface environments due to oxygen's transfer
limitations.
Treatabiliry studies and site characterization may be necessary to
determine feasibility.
• High costs are associated with this technology.
Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
11-13
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
2. EX-SITU BIOREMEDIATION
Technology Description

Ex-situ bioremediation encompasses a set of process options in which the contaminated media are
excavated or removed and treated using the biological processes of naturally occurring
microorganisms. There are three general categories of ex-situ bioremediation in this analysis:
slurry phase treatment, solid phase treatment, and landfarming. They are 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 biodegradation. 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 soil amendments and places them in
above-ground enclosures that 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
biodegradation. (Remediation Technolqgies Screening Matrix, 1993, p. 37.)

Landfarming applies the contaminated soils onto the soil surface and periodically turned over or
tilled into the soil to aerate the waste. Although landfarming usually requires excavation of
contaminated soils, surface-contaminated soils may sometimes be treated in place without
excavation. Landfarming systems are increasingly incorporating liners and other methods to
control leaching of contaminants. (Remediation Technology Screening Matrix, 1993, p. 41.)

Limitations

The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of this process:

! Conditions advantageous for biological degradation of contaminants may be difficult
to control, increasing the length of time to complete remediation.

! Reduction of contaminant concentrations may be caused more by volatilization
during excavation than biodegradation.
11-14
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
! Extensive treatability testing, conducted to determine the biodegradability of
contaminants and appropriate oxygenation and nutrient loading rates, may increase
time and cost of implementation

! A large amount of space is required.

Target Contaminant 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 the 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 this technology's applicability.

Initial Screening

Ex-situ bioremediation was considered in 10 FSs. Of those, it was screened out 10 times (100
percent). Ex-situ bioremediation was most often screened out because of its ineffectiveness in
treating all the contaminants found in wastes characteristic of landfills (4 FSs: 10, 14, 17, 18).
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
10
Site Name Code:

No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
0

No. FSs Technology
Not Primary Component
of Alternative
0

No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
10
1, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17,
18,22,26,27
Detailed Analysis

Ex-situ bioremediation was not considered in any remedial alternatives.

Conclusion

-------
conditions for biological degradation and the necessity for excavation of the contaminated soils
prior to treatment.

• The process creates an additional waste stream that must be treated or
incinerated.
Reduction of contaminant concentrations may be caused more by
volatilization (during excavation) than biodegradation.
• This method is not effective due to the nature of landfill waste, as some
contaminants may not be successfully remediated by the process.
• The process creates an additional waste stream that must be treated or
incinerated.
Certain site conditions as well as compaction of the waste, also may
decrease effectiveness.
• If treatment cells are not preserved as distinct zones, they cannot be
removed or disposed, resulting in decreased effectiveness of the
process.
• This technology poses potential risks to the community and workers
from exposure during excavation and treatment.
• The process is extremely sensitive to temperature and other conditions,
making it difficult to control and increasing the length of time to
complete remediation. Site climates may require constant irrigation for
effective landfarming.
• Excavation of a large landfill is not practical as the bioremediation
process requires a long implementation time.
Treatability testing should be conducted to determine the extent of
biodegradation.

Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
11-16
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
 3. BIOREMEDIATION (UNSPECIFIED)
Technology Description

In 13 additional FSs, bioremediation also was considered as a remedial technology. However,
these FSs did not specify ex-situ or in-situ bioremediation. Therefore, a separate bioremediation
(unspecified) treatment category was established. See discussion of in-situ bioremediation and
ex-situ bioremediation for more detailed information.

Limitations

This discussion does not apply to this category.

Target Contaminant Groups

This discussion does not apply to this category.

Initial Screening

Bioremediation (unspecified) was considered in 13 FSs. Of those, it was screened out 13 times
(100 percent).

The predominant factor for screening out bioremediation (unspecified) was the ineffectiveness of
this technology in treating all types of wastes found in MLF sites (13 FSs: 2, 4, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15,
18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27). Difficulty in implementation was another factor noted also (3 FSs: 2, 20,
23), due to the high variability of municipal refuse and subsequent inefficient operations.
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
13
Site Name Code:
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
0

No. FSs Technology
Not Primary Component
of Alternative
0

No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
13
2,4,8, 11, 13, 14, 15,
18, 19,20,23,24,27
Detailed Analysis

Bioremediation (unspecified) was not considered in any remedial alternatives.
                                          11-17
   Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
Conclusion

MLF sites are a heterogeneous mixture of municipal, industrial, and household hazardous wastes.
They are generally large in size, ranging from several acres to more than 200 acres containing
large volumes of waste. Typically, MLF sites can contain a variety of contaminant groups,
including halogenated and non-halogenated VOCs and SVOCs, pesticides, metals, and other
inorganics. MLF sites characteristically contain different types of waste due to the nature of a
landfill. Because MLF sites normally contain halogenated VOCs and SVOCs, bioremediation may
be less effective and, therefore, screened. Also, MLF sites may contain chlorinated organics and
pesticides which are not highly biodegradable, which would make bioremediation ineffective and
provide reasons for screening. Other reasons applicable to both in-situ and ex-situ bioremediation
of MLF sites also may be valid for screening bioremediation (unspecified). These reasons may
include oxygen transfer limitations, preferential flow paths in the waste, difficulties in maintaining
advantageous conditions for biodegradation, and the potential for exposure through excavation of
waste.

Treatment and the circulation of water-based solutions through the
waste may increase contaminant mobility and potentially contaminate
ground or surface water.
The method is not effective due to the nature of municipal waste (i.e,
sensitive to non-uniform waste streams, inappropriate for mixed
refuse).
• Conditions advantageous for biological degradation may be difficult to
control, increasing the time to complete remediation.
Bioremediation may present a threat to ground water due to added
nutrients during treatment.
• This method is not feasible for typical contents of a municipal landfill,
due to the physical characteristics of landfill waste.
Treatment poses a potential for contaminating surface or ground water.
• The method is effective in shallow treatment only, requires a long
retention time, and is not a proven technology.

* Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
11-18
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
C. CHEMICAL DESTRUCTION/DETOXIFICATION
l. OXIDATION/REDUCTION
J
Technology Description

Oxidation/reduction encompasses a set of process options in which hazardous contaminants are
chemically converted to nonhazardous or less hazardous compounds that are more stable, less
mobile, and/or inert. The oxidizing/reducing agents most commonly used for treatment of
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.

Limitations

The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of this process:

! Incomplete oxidation or formation of intermediate contaminants that are more toxic
than the original contaminants may occur depending upon the contaminants and
oxidizing agents used.

! The process is not cost-effective for highly contaminated materials due to the large
amounts of oxidizing/reducing agents required.
I
Oil and grease in the media can reduce efficiency of the process.
As an ex-situ remedy, the associated excavation oxidation/ reduction 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.

Target Contaminant Groups

The target contaminant group for oxidation/reduction is inorganics. The technology can be used
but may be less effective against non-halogenated VOCs and SVOCs, fuel hydrocarbons, and
pesticides. Oxidation/reduction is a well-established technology used for disinfecting drinking
water and wastewater, and is a common treatment for cyanide wastes. Enhanced systems are now
being used more frequently to treat hazardous wastes in soils. (Remediation Technologies
Screening Matrix. 1993, pp. 53-54.)
11-19
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
Initial Screening

Oxidation/reduction was considered in 12 FSs. Of those, it was screened out 12 times (100
percent).

The predominant factors for screening out oxidation /reduction were lack of effectiveness and
difficulties in implementation. The reason noted most often was ineffectiveness in treating all
compounds present in MLF sites due to the heterogeneous nature of landfills (8 FSs: 5, 11, 14,
17, 18, 19, 20, 28). Another reason noted was difficulty in implementation, including such
difficulties as achievement of good mixing (5 FSs: 6, 8, 22, 25, 28).
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
12
Site Name Code:
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
0

No. FSs Technology
Not Primary Component
of Alternative
0

No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
12
5,6,8, 11, 14, 17, 18,
19, 20, 22, 25, 28
Detailed Analysis

Oxidation/reduction was not considered in any remedial alternatives.

Conclusion

MLF sites are a heterogeneous mixture of municipal, industrial, and household hazardous wastes.
They are generally large in size, ranging from several acres to more than 200 acres containing
large volumes of waste. Typically, MLF sites can contain a variety of contaminant groups,
including halogenated and non-halogenated VOCs and SVOCs, pesticides, metals, and other
inorganics. MLF sites characteristically contain different types of waste due to the nature of a
landfill, including solid and odd-sized wastes. Oxidation /reduction is not technically practical for
destruction of all types of contaminants found in MLF sites. Additional reasons for screening may
include the presence of unfavorable components, such as oils and grease, and also the variable
contaminant concentrations present in municipal waste.

The following table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to the
elimination of this technology.
11-20
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
NCP Criteria
Overall Protectiveness
Compliance with ARARs*
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, or Volume
Long-term Effectiveness and
Permanence
Short-term Effectiveness
Lnplementability
Cost
Key Factors
As an ex-situ technology, the process poses a potential risk to the
community and workers from emissions during excavation.
• Treatment may result in the production of hazardous by-products or an
increase in the solubility of some metals thereby limiting the
protectiveness.

Treatment may result in the production of hazardous by-products or an
increase in the solubility of some metals.
This technology is not feasible for landfill waste, as not all compounds
can be treated.
• Treatment may result in the production of hazardous by-products or an
increase in the solubility of some metals.
As an ex-situ technology, the process poses a potential risk to the
community and workers from emissions during excavation.
This technology is not possible due to the heterogeneous nature and
physical characteristics of the landfill.
• This technology is difficult to implement, and ex-situ treatment is not
feasible due to an expected increased risk.
If waste pits are not preserved as distinct zones, they cannot be
treated.
• Increased costs are associated with this technology.
• Treatment may require a large amount of reagent and, therefore, not be
cost-effective.
Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
                                          11-21
  Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
2. DEHALOGENATION
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. The resultant reaction removes and
replaces the halogen molecules on the contaminants, thereby rendering them less or nonhazardous.
There are two process options included in this study: base catalyzed decomposition (BCD) and
glycolate dehalogenation.

BCD dehalogenation involves screening contaminated soil, followed by processing the soil with a
crusher and pug mill, and mixing it with sodium bicarbonate. The mixture is heated at 630°F
(333°C) 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.

Glycolate dehalogenation uses an alkaline polyethylene glycolate (APEG) reagent to dehalogenate
halogenated aromatic compounds in a batch reactor. Potassium polyethylene glycolate (KPEG) is
the most common APEG reagent. Contaminated soils and the reagent are mixed and heated in a
treatment vessel. In the APEG process, the polyethylene glycol replaces halogen molecules and
renders the compound nonhazardous. For example, the reaction between chlorinated organics and
KPEG causes replacement of 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.
i
High clay and moisture content will increase treatment costs.
As an ex-situ remedy, the excavation associated with dehalogenation (BCD) 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. 49.)

The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of glycolate dehalogenation:
11-22
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
I
The technology is generally not cost-effective for large waste volumes.

Media water content above 20 percent requires excessive reagent volume.
! Concentrations of chlorinated organics greater than 5 percent require large volumes
of reagent.
i
The resultant soil has poor physical characteristics.
As an ex-situ remedy, the excavation associated with dehalogenation (BCD and APEG/KPEG)
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.)

Target Contaminant Groups

The target contaminant groups for dehalogenation are halogenated SVOCs (including PCBs) and
pesticides. The technology is not applicable to some contaminants within the halogenated VOCs
groups. The dehalogenation process was developed as a clean, inexpensive way to remediate soil
and sediments contaminated with chlorinated organic compounds, especially PCBs. The
technology is amenable to small-scale applications.

Initial Screening

Dehalogenation was considered in six FSs. Of those, it was screened out five times (83 percent).
One time (17 percent), it passed screening but was not considered as a primary component of a
remedial alternative.

The predominant factor for screening out dehalogenation was ineffectiveness. Specifically, the
reason noted most often was limited applicability to a few contaminants which may not exist in
large quantities onsite (4 FSs: 5,11,14,18).
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
6
Site Name Code:
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
0

No. FSs Technology
Not Primary Component
of Alternative
1
15
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
5
5, 11, 14, 18,27
Detailed Analysis

Dehalogenation was not considered as a primary component any remedial alternatives.
11-23
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
Conclusion

• The resultant soil has poor physical characteristics.
• This technology is not effective for most of the contaminants present.
This technology is not applicable to treatment of waste materials.
As an ex-situ remedy, the process poses a potential risk to the
community and workers from emissions during excavation.
• The technology is difficult to implement, and testing is required to
demonstrate process effectiveness.
Larger volumes of reagent are required for high water content media
and chlorinated organics concentrations greater than 5%.
Other options are more cost-effective, because of the high costs
associated with this process and the handling of by-products.
Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
11-24
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
3. NEUTRALIZATION
J
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 lime. (Glossary of
Environmental Terms and Acronym List. EPA 19K-1002, December 1989, p. 12.)

Limitations
Neutralization is not considered an effective treatment for the wide variety of contaminants found
in MLF sites.

Target Contaminant Groups

There are no particular target groups for this technology. In 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
pH.

Initial Screening

Neutralization was considered in four FSs. Of those, it was screened out three times (75 percent).
One time (25 percent), it passed screening but was not considered as a primary component of a
remedial alternative.

The factors used for screening out neutralization were lack of effectiveness and difficulties in
implementation. Specifically, neutralization was noted to be ineffective for treatment of the site
chemicals (1 FS: 19) and not implementable due to site conditions (1 FS: 22). It also was noted
that the technology was undergoing further research (1 FS: 15).
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
4
Site Name Code:
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
0

No. FSs Technology
Not Primary Component
of Alternative
1
20
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
3
15, 19,22
11-25
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
Detailed Analysis

Neutralization was not considered as a primary component of any remedial alternatives.

Conclusion

The following table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to the
elimination of this technology.
NCP Criteria
Overall Protectiveness*
Compliance with ARARs*
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, or Volume*
Long-term Effectiveness and
Permanence
Short-term Effectiveness*
Lnplementabiliry
Cost*
Key Factors

• Neutralization is undergoing further research.
• The technology may not be applicable to MLF sites, as it is not
effective for all chemicals present in the soil.

Waste pits are not preserved as distinct zones, and cannot be
This technology is not applicable if the pH is already neutral.
treated.

Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
11-26
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
4. CHEMICAL DESTRUCTION/DETOXIFICATION (UNSPECIFIED)
Technology Description

In six additional FSs, chemical destruction/ detoxification also was considered as a remedial
technology. However, these FSs did not specify the method of chemical
destruction/detoxification. Therefore, a separate chemical destruction/ detoxification
(unspecified) treatment category was established for data compilation purposes.

Limitations

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 six FSs. Of those, it was
screened out six times (100 percent).

The predominant factors for screening out chemical destruction/ detoxification (unspecified)
were lack of effectiveness and difficulties in implementation. The reason provided most often was
ineffectiveness due to the heterogeneous nature of waste (4 FSs: 4,13,14,16). Another reason
provided was the impracticality of excavating the waste, most often due to the size of the landfill
(3 FSs: 1, 13,26).
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
1,4, 13, 14, 16,26
Detailed Analysis

Chemical destruction/ detoxification (unspecified) was not considered in any remedial
alternatives.

Conclusion

MLF sites are a heterogeneous mixture of municipal, industrial, and household hazardous wastes.
They are generally large in size, ranging from several acres to more
11-27
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
than 200 acres containing large volumes of waste. Typically, MLF sites can contain a variety of
contaminant groups, including halogenated and non-halogenated VOCs and SVOCs, pesticides,
metals, and other inorganics. Chemical destruction/ detoxification (unspecified) was screened
from remedial alternatives primarily due to ineffectiveness and difficulties in implementation in
the treatment of heterogeneous landfill waste. Additional reasons applicable to other chemical
destruction/ detoxification technologies, such as oxidation/reduction, dehalogenation, and
neutralization, may be valid in screening. These reasons may include variable contaminant
concentrations, unfavorable components such as oils and greases, and large volumes of wastes.

Side reactions during treatment may produce other hazardous
substances.
These technologies are not applicable to all types of contaminants
found onsite.
• During treatment, added chemicals may threaten ground water quality
and side reactions may produce other hazardous substances.
Contaminants of concern concentrations may be too variable for
effective treatment.
• As ex-situ process, these technologies may allow potential for
community or water exposure during excavation.
• The technology may not be technically feasible due to the size of the
landfill, or if excavation of the waste is not feasible.

Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
11-28
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
D. THERMAL TREATMENT
1. INCINERATION
J
Technology Description

Incineration is an ex-situ engineered process that uses high temperatures 1,600°-2,200°F
(871°-1,204°C) to volatilize and combust (in the presence of oxygen) organic constituents in
hazardous wastes. Four common incinerator designs are rotary kiln, liquid injection, fluidized bed,
and infrared incinerators. The destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) for properly operated
incinerators often exceeds the 99.99 percent requirement for hazardous waste and can be operated
to meet the 99.9999 percent requirements for PCBs and dioxins. Incinerators primarily reduce
toxicity through destruction, however, the process also accomplishes volume reductions.
Incineration is one of the most mature remediation technologies and has been used successfully at
full scale.

Limitations

The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of this process:

! There are specific feed size and materials handling requirements that can impact
applicability or cost at specific sites.
i
The presence of volatile metals and salts may affect performance or incinerator life.
! Volatile metals, including lead and arsenic, leave the combustion unit with the flue
gases or in bottom ash and may have to be removed prior to incineration.

! Metals can react with other elements in the feed stream, such as chlorine or sulfur,
forming more volatile and toxic compounds than the original species.

As an ex-situ remedy, the excavation associated with incineration 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. If an offsite incinerator is used, the potential risk of transporting the hazardous waste
through the community must be considered.

The capital expenditures associated with incinerators is relatively expensive. Materials handling
control of bed temperatures and residence times, and system maintenance
11-29
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
make the technology operation and maintenance (O&M) intensive as well. (Remediation
Technologies Screening Matrix, 1993, p. 63.)
Target Contaminant Groups

The target contaminant groups for incineration are all halogenated and non-halogenated SVOCs
and pesticides. The technology also may be used to treat halogenated and non-halogenated VOCs
and fuels but may be less effective.

Initial Screening

A total of 26 FSs considered at least one type of incineration technology. Of those, all
incineration types were screened out 19 times (73 percent). Five times (19 percent) incineration
passed screening as a primary component of a remedial alternative, and two times (8 percent) it
passed screening but was not considered as a primary component of a remedial alternative. The
predominant factors for screening out incineration, including onsite and offsite unspecified
incineration as well as specific types such as rotary kiln, fluidized bed, infrared, and multiple
hearth, were high cost, lack of effectiveness, and difficulties in implementation. Specifically, the
high capital and O&M cost associated with incineration was the reason provided most often (e.g.,
offsite incineration (unspecified) (9 FSs: 3, 4, 8, 10, 15, 17, 18, 19, 24), onsite incineration
(unspecified) (5 FSs: 4, 9, 10, 13,  16), and rotary kiln (6 FSs: 5, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18). The threat of
adverse health effects associated with potential air emissions produced during excavation,
treatment (if onsite) and transportation (if offsite) also was frequently provided (e.g.,  offsite
incineration (unspecified) (3 FSs: 4, 19, 24), and onsite incineration (unspecified) (2  FSs: 4,16).
In addition, the difficulty in implementing this technology  due to the size, shape, and contents
(heterogeneous waste) of much of the waste material as well as difficulty in meeting the technical
permit requirements were reasons provided for screening out incineration.

(Note: For this analysis, when a process option was not identified, the terms onsite or offsite
incineration (unspecified) were used for data compilation purposes).

                            ONSITE INCINERATION (UNSPECIFIED)
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
12
Site Name Code:

No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
3
7, 8, 19

No. FSs Technology
Not Primary Component
of Alternative
1
20

No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
8
4, 9, 10, 13, 16, 24, 27,
30
                                           11-30
   Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
                     OFFSITE INCINERATION (UNSPECIFIED)
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
19
Site Name Code:
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
3
7, 25, 30
No. FSs Technology
Not Primary Component
of Alternative
2
14,20
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
14
1,3,4,8, 10, 15, 17,
18, 19,22,24,26,27,
28
                                ROTARY KILN
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
10
Site Name Code:
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
0

No. FSs Technology
Not Primary Component
of Alternative
1
14
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
9
1,2,5,10,11,13,15,
17, 18
                               FLUIDIZED BED
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
9
Site Name Code:

No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
0


No. FSs Technology
Not Primary Component
of Alternative
0


No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
9
1,2,5, 11, 13, 14, 15,
17, 18
                                  INFRARED
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
8
Site Name Code:
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
0

No. FSs Technology
Not Primary Component
of Alternative
1
14
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
7
1,5, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18
                                    11-31
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
MULTIPLE HEARTH
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
4
Site Name Code:
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
0

No. FSs Technology
Not Primary Component
of Alternative
0

No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
4
5, 14, 17, 18
Detailed Analysis

The predominant factors for screening out both onsite and offsite incineration (unspecified) after
a more detailed analysis include short-term effectiveness and cost Incineration requires many
years to complete treatment and is very costly. The four times incineration passed initial screening
and was retained for consideration as a remedial alternative, it was never selected as a final remedy
for all the site wastes. However, at two sites, Fort Wayne Reduction, EST and Wildcat Landfill,
DE, it was selected for treatment of drums excavated from portions of these sites.

Rotary kiln, fluidized bed, infrared, and multiple hearth were not considered in any remedial
alternatives.
ONSITE INCINERATION (UNSPECIFIED)
No. FSs Technology Passed
Screening
No. RODs Technology
Selected
No. RODs Technology Not
Selected
0
Site Name Code:
7, 8, 19
OFFSITE INCINERATION (UNSPECIFIED)
No. FSs Technology Passed
Screening
No. RODs Technology
Selected
No. RODs Technology Not
Selected
1
Site Name Code:
7,30
25
Conclusion
MLF sites are a heterogeneous mixture of municipal, industrial, and household hazardous wastes.
They are generally large in size, ranging from several acres to more
11-32
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
than 200 acres containing large volumes of waste. Typically, MLF sites can contain a variety of
contaminant groups, including halogenated and non-halogenated VOCs and SVOCs, pesticides,
metals, and other inorganics. The high costs associated with incineration, as well as its
effectiveness and implementability, were the primary reasons incineration was screened out. MLF
sites characteristically contain many different types of waste due to the nature of a landfill.
Incineration has not proven to be effective in treating all types of contaminants found in MLF
sites. Also, a long time period is required to complete treatment by incineration, allowing
potential increases in the short-term risks associated with excavation and air emissions. These
reasons, therefore, are valid for screening incineration, including onsite and offsite unspecified
incineration as well as specific types such as rotary kiln, fluidized bed, infrared, and multiple
hearth, as a remedial alternative.

The following table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to the
elimination of this technology.
NCP Criteria
Overall Protectiveness
Compliance with ARARs
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, or Volume
Long-term Effectiveness
and Permanence
Short-term Effectiveness
Lnplementabiliry
Cost
Key Factors
• This technology provides only limited protection of public health and
environment due to its ineffectiveness in treating non-organic waste
present in MLF sites.
• Emission controls are required to ensure compliance with chemical-
specific air emission standards.
• Metals in the waste may react with other elements and form compounds
that are more volatile and toxic than the original contaminants.
• Residual contaminants may require further treatment or disposal.
• This technology is effective in treating organics but is not effective for
treating other waste types present at MLF sites (i.e., inorganics and
metals).
• Residual risk remains after treatment.
• This technology poses a threat of adverse health effects associated with
potential air emissions produced during excavation, treatment (if onsite)
and transportation (if offsite).
• The time until remedial action objectives are achieved is long due to the
large volume of waste.
• This technology is difficult and impracticable to implement at MLF sites
because of large waste volume, and specific feed size and material
handling requirements.
• High costs are associated with this technology. It is not cost-effective in
treating the large volume of waste present at MLF sites.
11-33
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
2. IN-SITU VITRIFICATION
Technology Description

In-situ vitrification is a relatively complex, high-energy technology, the operation of which
requires a high degree of skill and training. In-situ vitrification uses electrodes for applying
electricity or heat to melt contaminated soil and sludge, 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)

Limitations

The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of this process:

! The process requires homogeneity of the contaminated media.

! In-situ vitrification is only effective to a maximum depth of approximately 30 feet
(9 meters).

! In-situ vitrification is limited to operations in the vadose zone.

! Community acceptability of this technology is very low.

The high voltage used in the in-situ vitrification process, 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 in-situ vitrification is used primarily to encapsulate non-volatile inorganic elements,
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 21 FSs. Of those, it was screened out 21 times (100
percent).

The predominant factors for screening out in-situ vitrification were high cost, lack of
effectiveness, and difficulties in implementation. In particular, the heterogeneity of the landfill
precluded the use of vitrification in the majority of FSs analyzed (14 FSs: 2, 5, 8,
11-34
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 28). In addition, the high capital and O&M costs (8 F5s: 5,
6, 10, 11, 13,21, 22, 24) of vitrification and the lack of demonstrated effectiveness, mainly due to
site-specific conditions (8 FSs: 1, 13, 14, 15, 19, 22, 26, 27), were primary reasons provided.
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
21
Site Name Code:

No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
0

No. FSs Technology
Not Primary Component
of Alternative
0

No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
21
1,2,5,6,8, 10, 11, 13,
14, 15, 17, 18, 19,21,
22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,
28
Detailed Analysis

In-situ vitrification was not considered in any remedial alternatives.

Conclusion

The following table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to the
elimination of this technology.
11-35
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
NCP Criteria
Overall Protectiveness
Compliance with ARARs*
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, or Volume*
Long-term Effectiveness
and Permanence
Short-term Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
Key Factors
• The limited effectiveness of this technology in treating site wastes
reduces the overall protectiveness it provides


• In-situ vitrification has not been routinely demonstrated on a remedial
scale.
• The technology is not applicable to heterogeneous landfill wastes.
• High BTU and metal contents increase the potential risk for fire or short
circuiting.
• Depth and volume of landfill may affect the technology's effectiveness.
• There is a limited availability of this technology.
• Lack of space, shallow landfills, saturated soils and heterogeneous
wastes all affect the implementability of this technology.
• Increased risks, including short circuiting and fires due to metals
contents, are associated with the technology, as is a general materials
handling problem.
• The process is limited to operations in the vadose zone and requires
homogeneity of the media.
• High costs are associated with this technology.
Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
                                          11-36
  Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
3. PYROLYSIS
J
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 excavation associated with pyrolysis 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, normally would be required during excavation
operations. The overall cost for pyrolysis is relatively high. (Remediation Technology Screening
Matrix. 1993. p. 65.)

Target 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 nonhalogenated VOCs and
fuels but may be less effective.

Initial Screening

Pyrolysis was considered in five FSs. It was screened out three times (60 percent), passed the
screening and was considered as a primary component of a remedial alternative (detailed analysis
and comparison) one time (20 percent), and passed screening but was not considered as a primary
component of a remedial alternative one time (20 percent).

The predominant factors for screening out pyrolysis were high costs and ineffectiveness. The
reasons provided included its high capital And O&M costs (2 FSs: 13, 18) and lack of
demonstrated effectiveness compared to other thermal treatment processes (1 FS: 14).
11-37
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
5
Site Name Code:
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
1
19
No. FSs Technology
Not Primary Component
of Alternative
1
20
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
3
13, 14, 18
Detailed Analysis

The one time pyrolysis was retained for consideration in the detailed analysis, it was not selected
as the remedial action. The reasons provided were extremely high capital and O&M costs, difficult
implementation and compliance with LDR treatment standards because pyrolysis lacked
demonstrated effectiveness against site contaminants, and risk of short-term exposure resulting
from waste handling.
No. FSs Technology Passed
Screening
1
Site Name Code:
No. RODs Technology
Selected
0

No. RODs Technology Not
Selected
1
19
Conclusion

The following table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to the
elimination of this technology.
11-38
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
NCP Criteria
Overall Protectiveness *
Compliance with ARARs
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, or Volume
Long-term Effectiveness
and Permanence
Short-term Effectiveness
Lnplementability
Cost
Key Factors

• Compliance with air emissions standards and RCRA LDR treatment
standards may limit use of the technology.
• Additional waste products may be generated during treatment.
• Prolysis lacks demonstrated effectiveness.
• The technology poses potential risks from exposure to fugitive
during excavation and treatment.
• Waste products may be generated during treatment.
• Large volumes or low contaminants of concern concentrations
inhibit effectiveness.
emissions
may
• This technology is technically very difficult to implement.
• Site conditions such as landfill size may affect implementability.
• High costs are associated with this technology.
Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
                                          11-39
  Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
E. CHEMICAL/PHYICAL EXTRACTION
1. IN-SITU SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION (SVE)
J
Technology Description

In-situ soil vapor extraction (SVE) involves applying a vacuum through extraction wells to create a
pressure gradient that induces volatiles to diffuse through the soil to extraction wells. The process
includes a system for handling off-gases. This process also is known as in-situ soil venting, in-situ
volatilization, enhanced volatilization, or soil vacuum extraction. Since SVE is an in-situ remedy
and all contaminants are under vacuum until treatment, the possibility of release is greatly reduced.
(Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix, 1993, p. 25.) In-situ SVE is a full-scale
technology.

Limitations

The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of this process:

! High humic content of soil inhibits contaminant volatilization.

! Heterogeneous soil conditions may result in inconsistent removal rates.

! Low soil permeability limits subsurface air flow rates and reduces process
efficiency.

In-situ SVE generally applies only to the vadose zone. Treatment of the saturated zone is only
possible by artificially lowering the water table.

Target Contaminant Groups

The target contaminant groups for in-situ SVE are halogenated and non-halogenated VOCs, and
some fuel hydrocarbons. The technology is applicable only to volatile compounds with a Henry's
law constant greater than 0.01 or a vapor pressure greater than 0.5 units.

Initial Screening

SVE was considered in 14 FSs. It was screened out 11 times (79 percent), two times (14 percent)
passed the screening and was considered as a primary component of a remedial alternative
(detailed analysis and comparison), and one time (7 percent), it passed screening but was not
considered as a primary component of a remedial alternative.
11-40
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
The predominant factor for screening out SVE was ineffectiveness. The reason provided most
often was ineffectiveness due to the heterogeneity of landfill waste (11 FSs: 1, 5, 8, 14, 15, 18,
19,24,25,27,28).
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
14
Site Name Code:

No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
2
10,23

No. FSs Technology
Not Primary Component
of Alternative
1
20

No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
11
1,5,8, 14, 15, 18, 19,
24, 25, 27, 28
Detailed Analysis

The two times SVE was retained for consideration in a remedial alternative, Hassayampa Landfill,
AZ and Muskego Sanitary Landfill, WI, it was selected in the final remedy.
No. FSs Technology Passed
Screening
No. RODs Technology
Selected
No. RODs Technology Not
Selected
0
Site Name Code:
10,23
Conclusion
MLF sites are a heterogeneous mixture of municipal, industrial, and household hazardous wastes.
They are generally large in size, ranging from several acres to more than 200 acres containing
large volumes of waste. Typically, MLF sites can contain a variety of contaminant groups,
including halogenated and non-halogenated VOCs and SVOCs, pesticides, metals, and other
inorganics. SVE is a generally ineffective treatment method due to the heterogeneity of municipal
landfill wastes. SVE is applicable only to VOCs, and therefore, semi-VOCs and inorganic
contamination would remain after treatment. Additional reasons for screening may include the
high humic content of municipal waste and the variable vapor pressures of the compounds in the
waste.

The following table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to the
elimination of this technology.
11-41
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
NCP Criteria
Overall Protectiveness *
Compliance with ARARs
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, or Volume*
Long-term Effectiveness
and Permanence
Short-term
Effectiveness*
Lnplementability
Cost
Key Factors



• The technology is not effective on municipal landfill waste, where there
and is a wide variety of contaminants in a compacted volume of waste.

• Depth of landfill may affect implementation, as in-situ SVE generally
applies only to the vadose zone.
• High humic contents of soil inhibit contaminant volatilization.
• Heterogeneous soil conditions and low soil permeability reduce process
efficiency
• High costs are associated with implementing this technology at MLF
sites.
* Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
                                            11-42
   Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
2. IN-Srru SOIL FLUSHING
Technology Description

During 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 the leached contaminants before
the ground water is recirculated. 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 mobility.

Soil flushing introduces potential toxins (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.)

Target Contaminant Groups

The target contaminant, groups for soil flushing are halogenated and non-halogenated VOCs, and
inorganics. The technology can be used to treat halogenated and non-halogenated SVOCs, fuels,
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 soils.

Initial Screening

Soil flushing was considered in 16 FSs. Of those, it was screened out 16 times (100 percent).
11-43
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
The predominant factor for screening out soil flushing was ineffectiveness. The reason provided
most often was ineffectiveness due to the heterogeneous nature of landfill waste (11 FSs: 8, 10,
11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28). High costs also were noted (2 FSs: 5, 6).
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
16
Site Name Code:
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
0

No. FSs Technology
Not Primary Component
of Alternative
0

No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
16
1,5,6,8,10,11,13,
17, 1922,23,24,25,
26, 27, 28
Detailed Analysis

Soil flushing was not considered in any remedial alternatives.

Conclusion

The following table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to the
elimination of this technology.
11-44
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
NCP Criteria
Overall Protectiveness*
Compliance with ARARs*
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, or Volume
Long-term
Effectiveness and
Permanence
Short-term
Effectiveness*
Lnplementability
Cost
Key Factors


• The addition of water during treatment may result in an increased
volume and mobility of waste.
• The technology introduces potential toxins into the soil, which may alter
the physical and/or chemical properties of the soil.
• This technology is not effective due to the heterogeneity of waste.
• Technology may adversely affect ground water quality in the short-term.
• Site conditions such as geology of the area may impede effectiveness of
the treatment technology.
• Volume of waste and other site conditions (i.e., large area, depth) may
affect implementability.
• The technology is generally very difficult to implement. The technology is
only applicable to sites with favorable hydrology, where flushed
contaminants and soil flushing fluid can be contained and recaptured.
• High costs are associated with this technology.
Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
                                          11-45
  Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
3. Ex-SITU SOIL WASHING
Technology Description

Soil washing is an ex-situ process in which contaminants sorbed onto soil particles are separated
from soil in an aqueous-based system. The wash water may be augmented with a basic leaching
agent, surfactant, pH adjustment, or chelating agent to help remove organics or heavy metals. Soil
washing is a full-scale technology.

Limitations

The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of this process:

! Fine soil particles (i.e., silts, clays) are difficult to remove from the washing fluid.

! Complex waste mixtures (e.g., metals with organics) make it difficult to formulate
wash water.
i
High humic content in soil inhibits desorption.
! Presence of additives in washed soil and waste water treatment sludge can make
disposal difficult.

As an ex-situ remedy, the excavation associated with soil washing 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. 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 pesticides. The technology offers the potential for
recovery of metals and can clean a wide range of organic and inorganic contaminants from
coarse-grained soil.

Initial Screening

Soil washing was considered in 12 FSs. Of those, it was screened out 11 times (92 percent). One
time (8 percent), it passed screening but was not considered as a primary component of a remedial
alternative.
11-46
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
The predominant factors for screening out soil washing were effectiveness and implementability.
Specifically, one main reason noted was ineffectiveness of treatment due to the heterogeneous
characteristics of municipal landfill waste (7 FSs: 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 24, 27). Difficulties in
implementation also were noted (6 FSs: 1, 5, 6, 13, 15, 27) due to large volumes of waste to treat,
the technical infeasibility of excavation, and other site-specific conditions.
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
12
Site Name Code:
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
0

No. FSs Technology
Not Primary Component
of Alternative
1
10
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
11
1,5,6, 11, 13, 14, 15,
17, 18,24,27
Detailed Analysis

Soil washing was not considered as a primary component of any remedial alternatives.

Conclusion

MLF sites are a heterogeneous mixture of municipal, industrial, and household hazardous wastes.
Typically, MLF sites can contain a variety of contaminant groups, including halogenated and
non-halogenated VOCs and SVOCs, pesticides, metals, and other inorganics. The ineffectiveness
of soil washing in treatment of MLF wastes, as well as difficulties in the implementation of this
technology, are the most often noted reasons for the screening of soil washing as a remedial
alternative. Additional reasons for screening may include the high humic content in landfill soil,
the complex waste mixtures found in municipal waste, and the presence of additives in municipal
waste.

The following table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to the
elimination of this technology.
11-47
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
NCP Criteria
Overall Protectiveness
Compliance with ARARs*
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, or Volume
Long-term
Effectiveness and
Permanence
Short-term
Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
Key Factors
• This technology provides only limited protection of public health and
environment due to its ineffectiveness in treating heterogeneous landfill
waste.

• The washwater may increase volume and mobility of waste.
• Residual additives may be present in washed soil and wastewater.
• This technology is effective in treating SVOCs and inorganics; but less
effective in treating other waste types present at MLF sites (i.e., VOCs
and pesticides).
• Presence of residual additives in washed soil and wastewater may
require further treatment and disposal.
• This technology allows for potential risk to community and workers
during excavation.
• The complex waste mixtures present at MLF sites makes formulating
washing fluid difficult.
• Large waste volumes, as well as certain soil types (i.e., high humic
content) inhibit implementation.
• High costs are associated with this technology.
Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
                                          11-48
  Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
F. THERMAL DESORPTION
1. Low TEMPERATURE THERMAL
DESORPTION/STRIPPING
Technology Description

Low temperature thermal desorption is an ex-situ process that uses direct or indirect heat
exchange to volatilize water and stripping organic contaminants from soil, sediment, sludge, or
other solid and semi-solid matrices. A carrier gas or vacuum system transports volatilized water
and organics to the gas treatment system. Low temperature thermal desorption systems are
physical separation processes and are not designed to destroy organics. The bed temperatures and
residence times designed into these systems will volatilize selected contaminants, but typically
not oxidize them. By volatilizing contaminants and concentrating them, thermal desorption
reduces the volume of contamination, but the concentrated waste stream still requires treatment.
Low temperature thermal desorption is a full-scale technology.

Limitations

The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of this process:

! There are specific feed size and materials handling requirements that can impact
applicability or cost at specific sites.
i
Dewatering may be necessary to achieve acceptable soil moisture content levels.
Soils that are tightly aggregated or largely clay, or soils that consist of non-homogeneous matrices
that contain rock fragments or particles greater than 1 to 1.5 inches can result in poor processing
performance due to caking. Low temperature thermal desorption has relatively high capital and
O&M costs. (Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix, 1993, p. 57.)

Target Contaminant Groups

The target contaminant groups for low temperature thermal desorption systems are halogenated
and non-halogenated VOCs and fuels. The technology can be used to treat halogenated and
non-halogenated SVOCs and pesticides but may be less effective. The technology is not
appropriate for inorganic contaminants, although some metals (i.e., mercury, arsenic) may
volatilize during treatment.
11-49
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
Initial Screening

Low temperature thermal desorption/stripping was considered in 13 FSs. Of those, it was screened
out 10 times (77 percent). One time (8 percent), it passed the screening and was considered as a
primary component of a remedial alternative (detailed analysis and comparison). Two times (15
percent), it passed screening but was not considered as a primary component of a remedial
alternative.

The predominant factor for screening out low temperature thermal desorption/stripping was
ineffectiveness. The reason provided most often was the heterogeneity of the landfill waste which
would result in poor processing performance (7 FSs: 5, 10, 14, 17, 18, 19,24).
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
13
Site Name Code:

No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
1
i <;

No. FSs Technology
Not Primary Component
of Alternative
2
Q 0«

No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
10
1,5,6, 10, 14, 15, 17,
18, 19,24,28
Detailed Analysis

The one time low temperature thermal desorption/stripping was retained for consideration in a
remedial alternative, it was not selected as the final remedy predominantly because of the high
cost.
No. FSs Technology Passed
Screening
1
Site Name Code:
No. RODs Technology
Selected
0

No. RODs Technology Not
Selected
1
15
Conclusion

-------
The following table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to the
elimination of this technology.
NCP Criteria
Overall Protectiveness
Compliance with ARARs*
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, or Volume
Long-term
Effectiveness and
Permanence
Short-term
Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
Key Factors
• This technology provides only limited protection of public health and
environment due to its ineffectiveness in treating heterogeneous waste
present in MLF sites.

• This technology volatilizes and concentrates contaminants, thereby
reducing the volume of contamination but the concentrated waste stream
requires further treatment.
• This technology is not expected to effectively reduce the toxicity,
mobility, or volume of non-volatile contaminants.
• This technology is effective in treating VOCs but is less effective or is
not appropriate for treating other waste types present at sites (i.e.,
SVOCS, pesticides, and inorganics).
• Residual risk remains after treatment.
• This technology allows for potential risk to community and workers
during excavation.
• The large volume of waste at MLF sites as well as specific feed size and
material requirements make implementation difficult and impracticable.
• MLF sites may contain soils that are tightly aggregated or largely clay or
non-homogeneous which can result in poor processing.
• High costs are associated with this technology.
Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
11-51
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
2. IN-Srru STEAM STRIPPING
Technology Description

In the in-situ steam stripping technology, steam is injected through a piping system and heats the
ground, increasing the vapor pressure of volatile contaminants and allowing them to be stripped.
Air and steam then carry the contaminants to the surface where they are collected and sent to a
process train. There, volatile contaminants and water vapor are removed from the off-gas steam by
condensation.

Limitations

The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of this process:

! Generation of fugitive air emissions may be a problem during operation.

! The process is not sufficiently applicable to the treatment of inorganics, heavy
metals, and mixed wastes.

Target Contaminant Groups

This technology is applicable to the treatment of volatile organics, such as hydrocarbons and
solvents, with sufficient vapor pressure in the soil. The process is generally not limited by the soil
particle size, initial porosity, chemical concentration, or viscosity. (The Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation Program: Technology Profiles.EPA/540/S-89/0\ 3. November 1989, pp.
79-80.)

Initial Screening

In-situ steam stripping was considered in five FSs. Of those, it was screened out five times (100
percent).

The predominant factors for screening out in-situ steam stripping were lack of effectiveness and
difficulties in implementation. Specifically, the heterogeneous nature of landfill waste and the
characteristics of the landfill site resulted in the screening of in-situ steam stripping (4 FSs: 1,10,
15,19).
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
5
Site Name Code:
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
0

No. FSs Technology
Not Primary Component
of Alternative
0

No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
5
1, 10, 15, 17, 19
11-52
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
Detailed Analysis

In-situ steam stripping was not considered in any remedial alternatives.

Conclusion

This technology volatilizes and concentrates contaminants, thereby reducing
the volume of contamination but the concentrated waste stream requires
further treatment.
• This technology is not expected to effectively reduce the toxiciry, mobility,
or volume of non-volatile contaminants found at MLF sites.
• This technology is effective in treating VOCs but is not effective in treating
other waste types found at MLF sites (i.e, inorganics, metals, mixed waste).
Residual risk remains after treatment.
• This technology allows for potential threats to community and workers
during treatment.
The potential for ground water contamination may increase due to migration
of the condensed stream.
This technology is difficult and impracticable to implement at MLF sites
because of the large volume and the compacted nature and depth of the
waste.
Ffigh costs are associated with this technology.
Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
11-53
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
G. IMMOBILIZATION
l. STABILIZATION/SOLIDIFICATION
Technology Description

Stabilization/solidification process involves physically binding or enclosing contaminants within a
stabilized mass (solidification), or inducing chemical reactions between the stabilizing agent and
contaminants to reduce their mobility (stabilization). Ex-situ stabilization/solidification is
relatively simple, uses readily available equipment, and has high throughput rates compared to
other technologies.

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 stabilization /solidification 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 with stabilization /solidification poses a potential
health and safety 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 stabilization/solidification is inorganics. The technology
has limited effectiveness on halogenated and non-halogenated SVOCs and pesticides. However,
systems designed to be more effective against organic contaminants are being developed and
tested.

Initial Screening

Stabilization/solidification was considered in 20 FSs. Of those, it was screened out 17 times (85
percent). Three times (15 percent), it passed screening but was not considered as a primary
component of a remedial alternative.

11-54
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
The predominant factors for screening out stabilization / solidification were effectiveness and
implementability. The reasons provided most often were the fact that it was an unproven
technology for municipal wastes (10 FSs: 1,2,4, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24) and was not
implementable on a site-wide basis due to size, volume and depth of waste (4 FSs: 10, 14, 26, 27).
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
20
Site Name Code:
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
0

No. FSs Technology
Not Primary Component
of Alternative
O
8, 19, 20
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
17
1,2,4,6,10,11,14,
15, 16, 17, 18,22,23,
24, 26, 27, 28
Detailed Analysis

Stabilization/solidification was not considered as a primary component of any remedial
alternatives.

Conclusion

MLF sites are a heterogeneous mixture of municipal, industrial, and household hazardous wastes.
They are generally large in size, ranging from several acres to more than 200 acres containing
large volumes of waste. Typically, MLF sites can contain a variety of contaminant groups,
including halogenated and non-halogenated VOCs and SVOCs, pesticides, metals, and other
inorganics. Stabilization/solidification was screened from potential remedial alternatives due to
effectiveness and implementability. The heterogeneity of municipal wastes combined with the
limited applicability of the stabilization /solidification treatment provide sufficient rationale in
this screening. Additional reasons for screening may include the potential for a significant
increase in volume and also the potential that the treated mass may still have to be treated as a
hazardous waste.

The following table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to the
elimination of this technology.
11-55
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
NCP Criteria
Overall Protectiveness
Compliance with
ARARs*
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, or Volume
Long-term
Effectiveness and
Permanence
Short-term Effectiveness
Lnplementability
Cost
Key Factors
• This technology provides only limited protection of public health and
environment due to its ineffectiveness in treating heterogeneous waste
present in MLF sites.

• This technology reduces the mobility of inorganic contaminants only.
• This technology is not expected to reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of
organic contaminants present at MLF sites.
Some processes may result in a significant increase in volume.
• Environmental conditions may affect the long-term immobilization of the
contaminants.
• This technology is effective in treating inorganics but is not effective in
treating other waste types present in MLF sites (i.e., organics, pesticides).
The resultant stabilized mass may still be susceptible to leaching and require
disposal as a hazardous waste.
• As an ex-situ technology, solidification/stabilization allows for potential risks
to community and workers during excavation.
• The large volume of waste at MLF sites as well as the depth and size of
waste materials and the incompatibility of certain wastes with different
processes makes implementation difficult and impracticable.
Increased costs are associated with this technology.
Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
                                          11-56
  Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
2. FIXATION
Technology Description

Fixation, or in-situ stabilization/solidification, uses reagents to immobilize organic and inorganic
compounds to produce a cement-like mass.

Limitations

The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of this process:

! Some processes result in a significant increase in volume (up to a 10 percent
increase).

! Performance of the process with regard to PCBs, metals, and other organic
compounds is still uncertain. Treatability studies are recommended.

Target Contaminant Groups

The fixation technology can be applied to organic compounds and metals in wet or dry soils.
However, immobilization of PCBs, VOCs and SVOCs has not been fully determine. (The
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology Profiles. Fourth Edition.
E'PA/540/8-91/008, November 1991, pp. 98-99.)

Initial Screening

Fixation was considered in seven FSs. Of those, it was screened out four times (57 percent). Three
times (43 percent), it passed screening but was not considered as a primary component of a
remedial alternative.

The predominant factor for screening out fixation was in effectiveness. Specifically, fixation was
most often noted to be inapplicable to site contaminants due to the heterogeneity of waste (3 FSs:
5, 10, 14). Fixation also was noted to be not implementable due to site conditions (1 FS: 19).
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
7
Site Name Code:
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
0

No. FSs Technology
Not Primary Component
of Alternative
O
8, 18,20
No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
4
5, 10, 14, 19
11-57
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
Detailed Analysis

Fixation was not considered as a primary component of any remedial alternatives.

Conclusion

The following table provides a breakdown by NCP criteria of the factors contributing to the
elimination of this technology.
NCP Criteria
Overall Protectiveness*
Compliance with
ARARs*
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, or Volume
Long-term
Effectiveness and
Permanence
Short-term
Effectiveness*
Implementability
Cost*
Key Factors

• Fixation does not reduce toxicity.
• The process may result in a significant increase in volume.
• The technology is not applicable to all site contaminants (i.e., VOCs, PCBs,
metals).

• The technology may not be implementable due to site conditions.
Treatability studies are recommended to determine feasibility.

* Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
11-58
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
H. OTHER
1. SOIL AERATION
J
Technology Description

Enclosed 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:

! Soil aeration is applicable only to volatile and semi-volatile organics, not to PCBs
or dioxins.
i
Further pilot testing will be required to determine the effectiveness of this method.
! Excavation of soil may result in increased air emissions and the potential for
associated health risks.

Target Contaminant Groups

Target contaminants for soil aeration are VOCs and SVOCs. The process is significantly less
effective for PCBs and dioxins. (Feasibility Study: Cork Street Land-fill Superfund Site. April
1991.)

Initial Screening

Soil aeration was considered in seven FSs. Of those, it was screened out seven times (100
percent).

The predominant factors for screening out soil aeration were effectiveness and implementability.
Specifically, soil aeration was most often noted as not applicable for treatment of all landfill
waste materials (5 FSs: 11, 14, 18, 19, 27). Difficulty in implementation due to site-specific
conditions also was noted (2 FSs: 19, 22).
11-59
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
No. FSs Where
Technology
Considered
7
Site Name Code:
No. FSs Technology
Passed Screening
0

No. FSs Technology
Not Primary Component
of Alternative
0

No. FSs Technology
Screened Out
7
5, 11, 14, 18, 19,22,27
Detailed Analysis

Soil aeration was not considered in any remedial alternatives.

Conclusion

• The technology is not suitable for the treatment of heterogeneous waste
materials (i.e., PCBs, dioxins, metals).
• Pilot testing is recommended to determine effectiveness.
Excavation of soil may result in increased air emissions and the potential
associated health risks.
for
• Site restrictions such as size may affect implementability.
If waste pits are not preserved as distinct zones, they cannot be treated

Criterion did not contribute to eliminating the technology.
11-60
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
                                   REFERENCES
Conducting Remedial Investigations /Feasibility Studies for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites.
EPA/540/P-91-001, February 1991.

Glossary of Environmental Terms and Acronym List EPA 19K-1002, 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 9355.0-47FS, September 1993.

Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites. US EPA OSWER 9355.49FS,
September 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-91/008, November 1991.
                                        11-61
   Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
    APPENDIX A
    Summary of Screening and Detailed Analysis
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy

-------
SUMMARY OF SCREENING AND DETAILED ANALYSIS FOR MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS
o8 1
£

Multi-layer Cap
Asphalt Cap
Concrete Cap
CtayCap
Soil Cover
Cap
Chemical
28
17
17
16
16
13
S
25
_
-
7
18
3
_
-
_
_
1
3
_
-
3
17
17
8
5
10
5
2
2
3
2
_
_
«
:^:'^.:W;;^J^
filfi»^l|R^^
Slurry Wai
Grout Curtain
Sheet Ping
Grout
Stock
Displacement

VtoraingBeam
Liners
21
17
17
9
e
5
5
3
5
_
_
-
_
_
_
_
2
-
1
-
_
_
_
_
14
17
16
9
6
5
5
3
2
2
-
_
-
1
3
1
ere
ntribute
3 Out©
•JBBB
•*•*
c
1
"a.
S

2
14
14
8
5
10
4
d
JC
O T3
K s
o U
I* Not
Selected

#RO
M
fl)
11
05 'J
> 0
O ^'
2
a
DsWt-
»
ec
S£
ere Ci
Non-S
>•••••
> c
? 1
I i
o erf
a a
•1

_
5
5
2
1
1
_

r?'J£Wi^f, -'^l*' JW^sJjSW:"",
8
15
13
7
3
3
3
3

Qffsite Hazardous
landfill
UrfS!
17
14
0
2
4
0
13
11
8
3
3
2
6
8
5
4
4
4
-
-
19
-
_
3
6
2
-
6
_
_
4
2
1
-
1
_
_
2
2
1
_

2
-
-
-.
-
_
-
-
3
_
-
_
_
-
-
„
-
-
_
2
_
1
_
it
Sc
erion
lectic
o
£
u
1
3
c
o
Con
»n
-------
SUMMARY OF SCREENING AND

Remedial
Technology
Or
Treatment®

Offsite Landfill
(unspecified)
Onsite Landfill
(unspecified)
Offsite Non-
hazardous Landfill
Onsite Non-
hazardous Landfill

O)
o
o
c
£ "O
0
PE
i |
z °
II
% 1
2 1
* 0
-

o)5
o O
o -o
c
t>
£

5
3
-
1
_•••

0
(D
Q.
E

4
2
-
1

5
6
3
1

m
H 0
tf) Q)
|S

-©

o
fi P

o
€
HI
s
D)
C
5
-

MM.
I
s=
LU
ort-term
j=
w
-

"
1*"^ i"™ ^

o
o

c
0)
0)
D.
E

"
»«; \,«?' r,$£ ;>IS"^S™5^i& ^ib'-"-! & 1-H > /* ^ ^^JwpMffiSSMt "if ; 45t,..'^'-l.,ife J>\'i^...r4.'.k.^^'..^.^' "" '..»...! .»;"
In-situ
Bioremediation
Ex-situ
Bioremediation
Bioremediation
(unspecified)

15
10
13

1
-
-

—
-
-

14
10
13
1
-
-
^ < T 7i i ; n* "& ' "^ *>v' W x&^£v': 3 4 , ^$i$
Oxidation/
Reduction
Dehalogenation
Neutralization
Chemical Destruc/
Detoxification
(unspecified)
12
6
4

-
-
-

—

-
1
1

12
5
3

1
1
-
-
13
8
12
6
5
3

1
-
-

—
-
-
-
-
-

••
-
-

"•
-
-

"*
-
--

"*
-
-
^^^iiM^MB^'0^* " ^S."'^^..^"^ ^'D5fc^A...:.>^ *J..
8
4
2
4
5
2
1
3
-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
- -
-
-
-
-

-
-
-

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
A-2
-------
SUMMARY OF SCREENING AND DETAILED ANALYSIS FOR MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS ©
Remedial
Technology
Or
Treatment®
#FSs Where Technology
Considered
#FSs Tech. Passed
Screening
#FSs Tech Not Primary
Component of Alternative
I#FSs Technology
Screened OUt
#
Crite
ToS
-•MM
1
O
••••;-••;•;•-••--;- v •• ;.--.;;-..;...... ..~.~..-...v~-~
Onsite Incineration
(unspecified)
Offsite Incineration
(unspecified)
Rotary Kiln
Fluidized Bed
Infrared
Multiple Hearth
In-situ Vitrification
Pyrolysis
12
19
10
9
8
4
21
5
3
3
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
2
1
-
1
-
-
1
8
14
9
9
7
4
21
3
FSsWh
rion Co
creenin
r"""1
8)
in

c
0)
t>
£
UJ
's^the
5
9
6
5
6
2
8
2
ere
ntribute
g Out®
_•••
•«-i
c
o
1
'5.
E

4
5
6
5
4
3
15
2
...L.dL...^...^.lLLl..jili&r..tfe
In-situ Soil Vapor
Extraction (SVE)
In-situ Soil
Flushing
Ex-situSoil
Washing
14
16
12
2
«
—
1
—
1
11
16
11
2
2
1
11
11
8
d
I#RODs Tech.
Selected ©
# RODs Tech Not
Selected

iprii " - - "
6
10
5
5
3
2
11
1
-
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
1
-
-
-
-
-
1
#RO[
m
in
V
> 0
O JJ
o
)sWh
|
ere Cr
Non-5
r1"*1"™
> c
If
II
y * - , i<
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
it
3e
arion
lectic
0
HI
E
O)t
c
o
_J
Contr
>n®,(
LU
1
•v
o
in
ibutec
D
IB
o
o
ito
"c
V
a.
E
^ -* •'*" '•fr
f ' > * j / ^ •. %
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
~
-
-
-
3
1
-
-
-
-
-
1
3
1
-
-
-
-
--
1
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
i^iExtmeiteaxiP; , ; . .. ?ii....iJt.?'.:^i ; .-,. i JJL^.:A.
3
8
6
2
—
—
-
—
—
-
—
—
-
—
—
-
~*
—
-
*~
—
-
—
"~
-
*"*
"•
-
—
—
"*, ^ -l^W^'"^^: \/i%£^J3 t^iw &< '••', I'^wpi^BpSf^ins^fi ,, --,\ «^\*9',l,\,, ;i'iilJ,^?^ ,&<.. ' ^1 , '*? ^
Low Temp.
Thermal Desorp/
Stripping
In-situ Steam
Stripping
13
5
1
-
2
-
10
5
2
1
8
4
3
2
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
A-3
-------
SUMMARY OF SCREENING AND DETAILED ANALYSIS FOR MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS
Remedial
Technology
Or
Treatment©
B>
£
O
e
O
o
U-
1*
1
8
IB
CO
tt,
*
O

ll
0. 3
o s>
.« c
h- O
W g-
« E
u. o
* o
o O
O 13
u.
i*
#FSs Where
Criterion Contributed
To Screening Out®
o t>
© ®

(n «

8 «
O at
; B
JK O
I- «
^ §>
O <0

i
*
# RODs Where Criterion Contributed to
Non-Selection ®,®
a>

1
> c
S *
I- E

u
o ^
tS cd
"O O
* i:

20
1?
12
FteBon
(In-^tuorEx-sttu)
SoilAeraion
• This study was conducted on 30 municipal landfill sites

• This category does not include the no-action or institutional control only alternatives. No RODs selected either of these as remedies.

• 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 ROSs 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.

• Information on State and community concerns was not included in this analysis because Fss do not contain this information and RODs generally only

reference supporting documentation (i.e., State concurrence letter and responsiveness summary).
• This remedy was selected for disposal of drums found at the site. As an overall remedy for all site wastes, it was screened out.

• This remedy was selected for disposal of sediments found at the site. As an overall remedy for all site wastes, it was screened out.
A-4
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
APPENDIX B
Technology-Specific Summary Tables
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. SCREENING PHASE
CAPPING B-i
VERTICAL/ HORIZONTAL BARRIERS B-2
LANDFILL DISPOSAL B-4
BIOREMEDIATION B-6
CHEMICAL DESTRUCTION/DETOXIFICATION B-7
THERMAL TREATMENT B-9
CHEMICAL/PHYSICAL EXTRACTION B-12
THERMAL DESORPTION B-l3
IMMOBILIZATION B-14
OTHER B-14

n. DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE
CAPPING B-l5
VERTICAL/HORIZONTAL BARRIERS B-l5
LANDFILL DISPOSAL B-l6
BIOREMEDIATION B-l6
CHEMICAL DESTRUCTION/DETOXIFICATION B-l 6
THERMAL TREATMENT B-l6
CHEMICAL/PHYSICAL EXTRACTION B-l 7
THERMAL DESORPTION B-l7
IMMOBILIZATION B-l7
OTHER B-l7
B-i
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
TECHNOLOGY-SPECIFIC SUMMARY TABLES
J, SCREENING PHASE * MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS

TECHNOLOGY

SCREENING CRITERIA AND REASONS FOR SCREENING OUT
J
|5
s"
£-§
I
"0
as
S
>c
0
.2
u.
*
i c
*g
(2 I >
sis
90 g
5 S"-
*£
>,
•§O
JE '
« 1
»W

Cost

#FS

Effectiveness

#FS

Impiementabiiit}'

#FS

itip|til^^
Multi-layer Cap

Asphalt Cap

Concrete

Clay Cap

Soil Cover

High cost

High maintenance cost

High Q&M cost

High maintenance cost
High cost

1
1

Minimal reduction of
infiltration
Affected by site conditions
Subject to cracking
Not reliable in long term

Subject to cracking
Subject to ioot penetration
Subject to weathering

Susceptible to cracking
Susceptible to root penetration
No protective layer
Questionable due to reliability
Does not meet requirements
Not as effective as other
alternatives
Not effective due to site
conditions (marsh)
1

1
11
2

11
1
2

4
2
2
1
1
S

Future land use
restrictions
Site conditions (slopes)
Special equipment
required
Poor aesthetics
Future restrictions on
land use
Site conditions (slope)
Special handling
Poor aesthetics
Clay not available locally
Clay cap already present/
needs repair
Permitting required
Site conditions (slope)

3
1

1
1

3
1
1
1
1

1
1

B-l
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
I. SCREENING PHASE • MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY

Synthetic Cap

Chemical Sealants

SCREENING CRITERIA AND REASONS FOR SCREENING OUT
£
0}
T3
a) 'jo
is
3°
co ra
!?£
* c
u
13

**iUU*«^.« ivfci ^r. «..-i ' i'lii^-..

O
(0
(f)
£
u
|£
co
*
3

«£»%!!'&£
0 «.
= t:
• O £
3 ^ £
co *= "*
££
-

^
D) ^rf
O 3
0 O
0 C
i=|
W CO
*
10

^5'is'^' &&\t

Cost

#FS

Effectiveness

Likely to degrade
Reliability /integrity a
problem
Settling
Surface water ponding
Does not meet requirements
Not effective alone
No long-term integrity
Waste is too heterogeneous
Not as effective as other
options

#FS

1
5

3
1
1
3
2
1
1

Implementability

Special installation
required

#FS

V'V,' KVV'X?' ""£ «'" C — -jt-jj,-1-' yxv y^— ••jx-'-'^-y •••"<;;•:, "'ii>^' %Jjy ' ' '» ,. '- 5 \J'S 'f *pv; '''^ ' v ^ j'Sj :
jV^WWW^WWCWWft^^WWfl^BS-^^" >•' * ,\-f3O Vi ^^Jfv" •.*""?" *•>' V 5j *' * > «• t^Xf? -''»$'*'/ * " / S , Jv ' »«, < ~k
-------
I. SCREENING PHASE • MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY

SCREENING CRITERIA AND REASONS FOR SCREENING OUT
£

T3
(!) o
is
;gO
« o>
-C
u

o
CO
s.
o
CO
%
0 ^
= c
• 0)
£ C
|2 °- >
£§n
a) O £
« I<
CO .5

^
CD • •
O 3
oO
= -o
,2 §
M £
*

Cost

#FS

Effectiveness

#FS

Implementability

#FS

Grout Curtain
Sheet Piling
Grout Injection
Block
Displacement
Bottom Sealing
17
17
9
6
5

17
16
9
6
5
High cost
High cost

High cost
3
1

1
Site conditions (underlying
rock formations, high water
table)
Not established for site
Difficult to determine
integrity
Questionable reliability
Not chemically resistant
Site conditions (discontinuous
clay layer, ground water)
Does not prevent downward
mobility
May introduce contaminants
Not proven (integrity)
Site conditions (discontinuous
clay layer)
Site conditions (discontinuous
layers, waste matrix)
Effectiveness not
demonstrated
May puncture drums in place
Difficult to establish integrity
11
1
5
3
2
10
2
1
3
5
2
I
1
2
Site conditions
Not implementable in
waste
Toxic grouting materials
may be released
Site conditions (depth too
great)
Driving piles in waste not
feasible
Quality control difficult
Site conditions
(topography, depth,
waste matrix)
Not proven
Highly difficult to
determine integrity
Site conditions
Site conditions (depth)
Need storage for waste
Difficult to implement
5
2
I
3
1
1
4
1
3
2
2
I
I
B-3
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
I. SCREENING PHASE • MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY

Vibrating Beam

Liners

j^^^pma^
Offsite Hazardous
Landfill

SCREENING CRITERIA AND REASONS FOR SCREENING OUT
£

T3
<0 'yi
is
§i o
to D)
"""o
-C
U
|2
5

^jJT;,
17

73
O
tfl
(0
£
u
*~
co
u_
*
-

iv "•
<•< N (,/
-

0 «.
= c
• 0)
.c c
1 I >
s 1 'i
» o =
^ nS
CO .i

*
-

1- >'<
4

>>
D) *j
0 3
oO
* 0
,2 §
M £
W CO

J| ;
13

Cost

#FS

\i..."...^y .fclk.s ./i^"' -^ ' 5.4
High capital
High cost

1
8

Effectiveness

Questionable technology
Site conditions (discontinuous
layers)
Does not prevent downward
migration
Difficult to establish integrity

;-;"!' ;-,;«;« £ ;•;?• y •;, - ;
Waste pits are not preserved
as distinct zones and cannot
be removed or disposed
Would not eliminate ground
water degradation
Waste contamination

#FS

1
1

lt...sys
1

Implementability

Site conditions (depth too
great)
Not implementable in
waste matrix

Requires excavation of
entire landfill (storage
space)
-x - j &x..L <%...-. ..I.L..
Quantity too large (to
transport volume)
Remediation will not be
completed before land
ban goes into effect
Risk to public workers
Difficult to implement
Must pass TCLP
requirements
Regulatory agencies may
not approve
transportation
Leachate

#FS

:..&...,*.$.
8
1

3
3
1

1
B-4
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------

TECHNOLOGY

I. SCREENING PHASE • MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS (Continued)
SCREENING CRITERIA AND REASONS FOR SCREENING OUT
«
=Ss Where
ogy Consii
u
|2
„
«
Q
a.
P
co
u.
*
o *.
= c
£ o '1
» O =
sl*

Technology
;ened Out
w o
*

Cost

#FS

Effectiveness

#FS

Implementability

#FS

Onsite Hazardous
Landfill

Offsite Landfill
(unspecified)

Onsite Landfill
(unspecified)

Offsite
Nonhazardous
LandfiU
Onsite
Nonhazardous
Landfill
14

—

High capital cost
High costs

High cost

1
1

Not classified as RCR A
hazardous waste
Maintenance required for
reliability
Potential risk
(recontamination)

Adverse health effects
Not as effective as alternatives

Requires high maintenance to
ensure effectiveness
Long-term benefits do not
outweigh low potential risks

Does not reduce leachate

3
1

Site topography
(conditions)
Large volume , small
waste
Need imported materials
Not determined if RCRA
waste
Site not likely to be
approved
Difficult to implement
Air emissions
Many restrictions
(storage, disposal)
Volume too great
Difficult if waste
hazardous, large volume
Site conditions (limited
area)
Disposal restrictions
Difficult material
handling problems
Site conditions (wetlands)

1
1

1
1
3

1
3

3
1

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
E-5
-------
I. SCREENING PHASE • MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
SCREENING CRITERIA AND REASONS FOR SCREENING OUT
£
to
T3
tl) 'yi
1|
to °
u
# FSs Tech. Passed
# FSs Where Tech. not
Primary Component
Alternative
#FSs Technology
Screened Out
Cost
#FS
Effectiveness
#FS
Implementability
#FS

jjJifttSBMm&mi i,-- J- ,,,-;,, -*> v '"% "* "tr"."', -" *<$**.' - "- - ^ -V'" xc^v, - ** -\%, ' *
In-situ
Bioremediation

Bioremediation
(unspecified)

High costs

Not effective due to nature of
waste
Difficult to maintain proper
distribution of reactants
Technically not feasible due to
site conditions
Large mass of waste, small
mass of VOCs
Unproven effectiveness for the
treatment for site chemicals
(not all compounds can be
treated, chlorinated solvents
and metals)
Waste pits are not preserved
as distinct zones and cannot
be removed or disposed
Not effective due to nature of
waste (sensitivity to non-
uniform waste streams,
inappropriate for mixed
refuse)
COC contamination too low to
be useful
Long retention time
Shallow treatment only
Added nutrients may present
threat to ground water
Not a proven technology
6
1
1
1
7

8
1

1
2
1
1
Not readily applied to
hazardous waste area
Oxygenation of landfill
and aquifer
Depth of fill required
Process control is poor
May produce undesirable
intermediates
Only laboratory proven

Potential for
contaminating surface or
ground water
Not feasible for typical
contents of sanitary
landfill

1
1
1
2
2
1

1
2

,
B-6
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
I. SCREENING PHASE • MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY

Ex-situ
Bioremediation

SCREENING CRITERIA AND REASONS FOR SCREENING OUT
£
to
T3
tl) 'yi
1|
co oi
Z —
*l
u

o
tfl
(0
£
u
&
co
*

0 „
= c
j= *
l|.I
Son
» O £
& C? ®
« C *£
CO .5

CiHJ^lC&l^Oti:!$X1ft$££^lwCF&$0&ik?lCA')3QN ^ % >
Oxidation/
Reduction

—

O 3
oO
= -o
o c
|2 ®
| 5
*

s f ' ^
12

Cost

,''-,*"- "' <-- <$ *
Increased costs

#FS

Effectiveness

Waste pits are not preserved
as distinct zones and cannot
be removed or disposed
Not effective due to nature of
landfill waste
Compaction of the waste
Creates an additional waste
stream that must be treated or
incinerated
Some contaminants may not
be successfully remediated by
this process
Large mass of waste, small
massofVOCs
Site conditions
,-'-' " ' - M-- /«: c'
Not effective for solids or
solid waste
Not all compounds can be
treated
Not feasible for landfill waste
Could increase solubility of
some metals
Hazardous by-products could
be produced
May require too much reagent

#FS

1
I

1
^ A
1

6
1

Implementability

Shaft breakage and
failure have been chronic
problems
Extremely sensitive to
temperature and difficult
to control
Excavation of large
landfill not practical
Site climate may require
constant irrigation for
effective landfarming
Long implementation
time

' : - ' - \i"-'
Ex-situ treatment not
feasible due to expected
increased risk
Waste pits are not
preserved as distinct
zones and cannot be
treated

Not possible due to
heterogeneous nature of
landfill
Difficult to implement

#FS

~"f f
1

2
B-7
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
I. SCREENING PHASE • MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY

Dehalogenation

Chemical
Destruction/
Detoxification
(unspecified)

Neutralization

SCREENING CRITERIA AND REASONS FOR SCREENING OUT
£

l|
co oi

u"'o
*fc c
o
£
6

O
(0
(0
£
u

*~
co
u_
*
_

0 «.
= c

-C C
1 I >
s 1 'i
a> O £

<5 5
CO .i
u_ *"•
*
_

0 3
oO
^"2
,2 §
M £
W CO
»

Cost

High costs associated with
process and handling of by-
J -»-
products
Other options more cost
effective

#FS

Effectiveness

Not effective for most of the
contaminants present
Not applicable to treatment of
waste materials

Not applicable to all types of
contaminants found onsite
Added chemicals may
threaten ground water
Side reactions may produce
other hazardous substance
Not effective due to
heterogeneous nature of waste
COC concentrations are too
low for effective use
Undergoing further research
Not necessary for the site
Not effective for all chemicals
present in soil

#FS

1
1
1

Implementability

Difficult to implement
Testing is required to
demonstrate process

Not technically feasible
due to size of landfill
Excavation of waste is not
feasible

Waste pits are not
preserved as distinct
zones and cannot be
treated
pH is probably neutral
already

#FS

1
1

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
I. SCREENING PHASE • MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY

SCREENING CRITERIA AND REASONS FOR SCREENING OUT
I
to
•a
g'S
1J
I?
»?

a>
I
Q
OL
JC
|
If!
co
*
0 «.
£ EI
• 0
l|s
£ oU
» O £
^ ™ <
C/3
s£

O 3
o O
= -o
o c
w o
C" (A
*

Cost

#FS

Effectiveness

WMMWmfiX*am^ ,,-AV W4 -^<- 1 , *> . .« W'«A :MS , >-> , v - » -
In-situ Vitrification

—

High costs

Not routinely demonstrated
on remedial scale
Not applicable to landfill
(heterogeneous) wastes
Not effective in treating
chemicals onsite
High Btu and metal
proportions suggest possible
fire/short circuit
Not demonstrated at depth
present at site
May generate waste products
Large volume
No control of emissions

#FS

\<'-"< '
7

1
2
1
. 2

Implementability

; £ . •#
Limited availability
Lack of space requires
pilot demonstration
Materials handling
problem
Metal object short circuit
the process/fire
Increased risks

Heterogeneous nature of
landfill
Areas too shallow (depth)
Saturated soils

#FS

2
2

1
2
1

B-9
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
I. SCREENING PHASE • MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY

Offsite Incineration
(unspecified)

Onsite Incineration
(unspecified)

SCREENING CRITERIA AND REASONS FOR SCREENING OUT
I
®
73
*
jz
o
ff
19

0)
Q
0_
I
co
u.
*
3

o *.
= c
• o>
J= C
£ | 0
£ o 'i
a) O c:
« §<
£*
2

CD -*j
O 3
oO
= "0
H m
0 c
fl
*
14

Cost

High cost
Not cost effective for large
quantity
HighO&M

High cost

#FS

8
1
1

Effectiveness

Potential adverse impact to
human health and
environment
Effective for organic chemicals
Volume too high
Emissions may occur
Effectiveness not
demonstrated at full scale

Waste type not compatible
Air emissions
Potential adverse health
impacts

#FS

2
1
1
2
1

2
2
2

Implementability

High difficulty
Large volume
Material handling
requires size reduction
and control
Mechanically complex
Long time to implement
Waste pits are not
preserved as distinct
zones and cannot be
removed or disposed
Significant administrative
action
Limited vendor accepting
dioxins
Offsite incinerator nearby
Too small volume of
waste
Site conditions (space)
Administrative
requirements
Residuals handling a
problem
Longtime

#FS

4
2
1

I
2
1

1
1

1
B-10
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
I. SCREENING PHASE • MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY

Rotary Kiln

Fluidized Bed

Infrared

SCREENING CRITERIA AND REASONS FOR SCREENING OUT
I
£'S
1|
It
O
.2
10

•o
I
Q
0_
I
co
u.
*
-

o «^
= c
Vhere Tech
ry Compone
ernative
||<
1

Technology
;ened Out
fol
9

Cost

High cost

High capital
High cost

#FS

1
4

1
5

Effectiveness

Limited short-term
effectiveness
Not effective on waste type
(inorganics, metals)
Technically not feasible due to
restrictions
Rotary Kiln better option
Not effective due to
excavation
Not effective due to
heterogeneous nature of waste
Does not address inorganics
May generate waste product
Volume of waste is too great
COC concentration is too low
Technically not feasible due to
restrictions
Rotary Kiln better option
Not effective due to
excavation
Not effective due to
heterogeneous nature of waste
Does not address inorganics
May generate waste product
Volume of waste is too great
COC concentration is too low

#FS

3
3
1
2
1

2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1

1
1
1
1

Implementability

Not feasible due to type
of waste
Permits required
Limited number of
suppliers
Not feasible due to
heterogeneity of wastes
Air permit problems
Site conditions (site size)

Site conditions (not
enough space)
Offgas control (air
permits needed)

#FS

2
3
1
1
2
1

1
2

B-ll
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
I. SCREENING PHASE • MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY

Pyrolysis

Multiple Hearth

Cfm\cM,mf&i£Ai
In-situ Soil
Flushing

In-situ Soil Vapor
Extraction (SVE)
SCREENING CRITERIA AND REASONS FOR SCREENING OUT
*l
% g

lixxfcvq
16

14
!!

*FS*\Mwn Tech. Not
Prinuwy Component of

BOMJ '& :> ^ *

i— 9

,- ^
16

11
Cost

High cost

High costs

High cost

High cost
#FSs

-
2

2
Effectiveness

May generate waste product
Volume of waste too great
COC concentration too low
Not as effective as other
thermal treatments
Not as effective as Rotary Kiln
Not effective due to
excavation
Screening due to
heterogeneous waste
Does not address inorganics
More effective on sludges
#FSs

1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
X X% •, •. •"
"4s V f "• "••&''• f "" ""f
Not effective due to
heterogeneity of waste
Adding water may increase
volume and mobility of waste
Increased risk
Site conditions (geology)
Not effective on this type of
waste (small volume of VOCs,
waste compacted)
11
2
1
1
11
Implementability

Site conditions (site size)

Air permit problems
Shredding would be
required

#FSs

1
1

f'f " •• s V. ""
Too much waste
Site conditions (too large
of area, too deep)
Very difficult

Too deep to be
implemented
Permitting requirements
3
2
1

2
1
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
B-12
-------
I. SCREENING PHASE • MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY

SCREENING CRITERIA AND REASONS FOR SCREENING OUT
1
®
T3
(SI 'yi
!§
tfi IS
cog1
o
o
|2

tfi
Q
0_

|2J
CO
u_
%
o ,M
c c
• 0)
f £1
ff | >
£ o m
a> O c
> £» ®
« 2<
tO .5

CD -*j
O 3
oO
= "0
H m
0 C

Cost

#FS

Effectiveness

#FS

Implementability

#FS

Ex-situ Soil
Washing

—

High cost

Not effective due to
heterogeneity of waste
Residuals pose health problem
Not fully demonstrated
7

1
2
Large waste volume
No vendors for
regeneration of filters
Site conditions (too small)
3
1

1
1to^.p^c^^, c 4^i "fi ,4'fpri-^ ' "*l-t""- ^ f^-— ^'-"J ^ -s< »M ' ;- (v^-* /"> *, >/ "• cf*l-v y - <* -$ c !H
Low Temperature
Thermal
Desorption/
Stripping
Ih-situ Steam
Stripping

High cost
Not cost effective

Higher cost than soil vapor
extraction

1
1

Not effective due to
heterogeneity of waste
Not effective due to
compaction of waste
Compaction of waste
Large mass of waste, small
massofVOCs
Not effective in treating
chemicals at site
Not applicable to site in
general
Potential for increased ground
water contamination due to
migration of condensed steam
7

1
1
1

Risk of explosion
Too much to excavate
Not feasible due to
increased risk
Not applicable due to site
conditions (depth)

1
1
1
2

B-13
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
I. SCREENING PHASE • MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY

SCREENING CRITERIA AND REASONS FOR SCREENING OUT
£
to
T3

III
Son
» O £
3 ^^
to E "*
S£

^
D) ^rf
O 3
0 O
0 C
i=|
W CO
*

Cost

#FS

Effectiveness

#FS

Implementability

#FS

iMMd&iy&tflON 'V v -S -s •."•?' £•* ^ '-<-,'• ' "","%* •.?'-? '"" •• •• , , •••-; •: ", ; ,
^ . „. *• . .^.5.,
Stabilization/
Solidification

Fixation

Qtim'< TV i,';'
Soil Aeration

^?WI>
7

•. " '; * f
-

^T^l-^pp
_

v''
17

> f >"P
7

' •• ^ ..
Increased cost

^ j'-'s'.^ ^ >s. •. *• --^^ A x _.^ ^--^ •••*:
1

\ /5 -' $.''&$!•', ;%!*<' I £^;

Unproven for municipal waste
(not feasible for
heterogeneous waste; not
suitable for treatment of waste
materials)

May be susceptible to leaching
Large volume
Depth of landfill
Not able to obtain acceptable
remediation goals
Waste pits cannot be
treated/cannot be moved
Site conditions
Not applicable to all
contaminants onsite
Not feasible VOCs
Doe not chemically
immobilize contaminants
\ :<«? -'- " * 'Vv '**"
Not suitable for treatment of
waste materials
Ineffective in treating metals
Would not comply (with
established treatment
standards for THOCs)
Pilot testing to determine
effectiveness
10

1
1
1
1

4
2

2
1

Size of waste materials
Increased risk
Not implementable on a
site-wide basis (size,
volume)
Depth of fill

Not applicable due to site
conditions

^'^- <;'" :-»* f.. v,'p s
4

1
1

Site restrictions (size)
Waste pits are not
preserved as distinct
zones and cannot be
treated
Not effective due to
heterogeneous nature of
waste
1
1
3

>V*A -
1
1

,— <
B-14
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------

TECHNOLOGY
U. DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE • MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS
NCP CRITERIA AND REASONS FOR NOT SELECTING
#F5sWtere
Male b DA.
*!
4*
Ovmn
ProtictfViotM
*
F9i
COffipIlBnCQ
wtttiARARt
*
FS»
Reduction of
ToxIcfty.Mobmy,
or Velum*
*
FSi
Longtam
SftctivinMtand
PtrmiMnc*

Caara** .."&
Multi-layer Cap
Asphalt C»p
Concrete
day Cap
Soil Cover
Synthetic Cap
Chemical Sealants
, f
25
-
-
7
8
3
-
19
-
-
3
6
2
-

6
-
-
4
2
1
-
^i$ •• -. Y'
Fill is not dean
fill

Cap integrity
not guaranteed
Ground water
contamination
is possible
Does not
address whole
site
No ground
water
protection
Ecological
damage

2
1
1
1
1

' €• ' ' , sy

Does not meet
State
requirements
Does not comply

Mitigation to
meetARARs
required

1
1

*
FSt
Short-Urn
EH*j*tluA*t*A«
cnvcuviiisn
*
FS»
ImnlafflHitiblty
*
FSi
Coct
#
FSt

5 , •!; " 4% _ ' •«•, & ' f 5^jA , ' ,V
No reduction

No reduction
No reduction
No treatment

1
1
1

Not as effective
as other
alternatives
Fill subject to
cracking

No frost
protective layer
Less effective
alternative
Less effective
than other
alternatives
Contaminant*
remain

1
1

I
1
1
1

Risks during
installation

Potential risk to
workers and
community
during repair

Remedy is
invasive with
many impacts

State may not
allow size of
Type HI fill
(permitting)
More difficult
than other
alternatives

Considerable
handling
involved

Long-term O&M

2
2

High
cost

^iteu^ai»o>ffAtBA3fe}afi«ife« rr- &>. t -<- - '- - \ -, - 1<4- "">•$•» •• ••••••••- ••-• '*-''"•• ••''<••* ••*"-;" '< ^ >"* •••<• - •••• -•>••••"-
Slimy Wall
Grout Curtain
Sheet Piling
Grout Injection
Block
Displacement
Bottom Sealing
Vibrating Beam
Uners
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Not as
protective as
other
Only partial
ground water
protection

2
1

Does not comply

Does not limit
all
contamination
Does not treat

1
2

Contaminants
will remain

May cause
wetland or
advene health
impacts

Depth very great
Long-term
maintenance

1
2

High
cost

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
B-15
-------

TECHNOLOGY
II. DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE • MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS (Continued)
NCP CRITERIA AND REASONS FOfl NOT SELECTING
I#P& Where
Made b DA.
1 #RODs
1 Where Selected
1 # RODs Where
| NotSetected
Ovtrtll

*
FSt
Compll«ne»
wWiARAH*
*
FSi
Raducttonof
ToxIdty.MoblUy,
orVokim*
*
F9i
Long-ttrm
EffKtlvMM* md
*
FSs
Stiott*tofrn
t
F9t
—
*
F9i
CM
*
FSt

IAJWB^SJ^I^ f * K'
Offsite Hazardous
Landfill
Onslte Hazardous
Landfill
Offsite Landfill
(unspecified)
Onsite Landfill
(unspecified)
Offsite
Nonhazardous
Landfill
Onsite
Nonhazardous
Landfill
5}QRMetn*wo
In-situ
Bioremediation
Bioremediation
(unspecified)
Ex-situ
Bioremediation
CHEMICAL DESI
Oxidation/
Reduction
Dehalogenation
Chemical
Destruction/
Detoxification
(unspecified)
Neutralization
—
2
I
—

"
—
i
-
—

"
m - , -- -,
i
-
—
Rycri
—
-

-
l^jmMAtTfteAtMfeNi
In-situ
Vitrification
-
1
-
—
!OMrt)
—
-

-
t
-
—
i
i
•".

'V'«;
—
-
—
terox
—
-

-
-"I- - f v?o -\ ;; " - i- ;

^'J '- I*- --

(FicA-noN I;

' v ;t - ;
-

•ff .
'<. t

;'•.-'

' ' , '^ -

%<^sv»'j^* * "^ .<,*~;, , ,-->- ^ti^^'^si;^;^ ,, , ^/

",^$; ',?, ~ ,"* '

^;*/$ ; - ;

No treatment

-,<- -.^^>T^

'-. 11 0 *'J

' z ,S'

$$ '5

"•? ;••

'<$ ^i'>,£

\ 'f ?/

>', * ^ '

^ *

, f

•."

Very difficult to
Implement due
to handling and
construction
staging
requirements

>\ '' ' ^ %

-&- "V ^~

Most ex-
pensive
High
cost

/"' l"?*:

, ••* *

A ..- '« : •*&,
1

1
1

X .

B-16
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------

TECHNOLOGY

Offiufe
Incineration
(unspecified)
Onslte
Incineration
(unspecified)
Rotary Kiln
FluidizedBed
Infrared
Pyrolysis
Multiple Hearth
QfcMfeayfttfc
In-situ Soil
Flushing
IrMitu Soil Vapor
Extraction (SVE)
Ex-s!tuSoil
Washing
TliERMALiDESfcfl
Low Temperature
Thermal
Desorption/
Stripping
In-»itu Steam
Stripping
iMMOBJyZAtlt)
Stabilization/
Solidification
Fixation
<$&«**'" '-?
Soil Aeration
II. DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE • MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS (Continued)
NCP CRITERIA AND REASONS FOR NOT SELECTING
#F3s Where
Made t> DA.

1
3
-
-
-
1
-
ICft&J
-
2
-
mm
1
-
*
-
-
% 1

-
-
-

-
Sfcpw
-
2
—
*%,

-
^
-
-
y'"^ ' '"t^p
-
-
1 * RODs Where
1 NoCSetected

1
3
-
-
-
1
-
cifof
—
—
—
*»§:
-
Ovwil
PFOMcMnmts

41' * '* T,l

^4^MY'j$

^*^'i^ '

?<^I';il"

lx.

CwnpUmet
wlthARARt

Air emissions

Potential
emissions and
imposing RCRA
LDRslf
hazardous

**^ % •. ',•>'''' S,

*
FSl

-JA

R«0uctlonof
Toxlclty, Mobility,
orVebnM

', * l^tK,

*
FSl

; f -

^- !" 1^ '"VX 5- -i?'^ |j' *

,r$

fin

'••
f, '" ''•',' ; ••'

' *\' V

-^ i <"';*'

;l^1-'c'"f\.' -^'

Long4«m
Efftcthftnss* ind

;; ?Vv v

U -" ^":

i-, . ""..Lf.. ..'...

f
FSt

f«v

^n,

Sl)ott-t»rm
EffKtfwrm*

High adverse
impacts for
comparable
treatment
Air emissions
increase risk
None, due to
long time So
implement

Greatest
potential for
short-term
contamination
exposure due to
increased
handling

'* ', Ik

"•,

* ^ 's*' *' <

$
FSl

1
1
1

»V "

Jjl-S

lmplim»rtibi))ty

Difficult
Permitting
required
High administra-
tive require-
ments

Most difficult
technical
implementation

^ :"'' s'-
* ^ ".

' .

.'.'~ "• £

*
FSt

1
1
1

High
costs
High
costs

Be-
tremely
high
cost

, ••

#
FSl

1
3

,/:

, , '

High
costs

' ' !

\*<*"Q '^"t >«, 'f v,' i " *V '-^jsi< ' '*4 , « * '

B-17
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
H. DETAILED ANALYSIS PHASE • MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS (ConHnued)
TECHNOLOGY
NCP CRITERIA AND REASONS FOR NOT SELECTING
1#FSs Where
Made t> DA.
»#RODs
Where Selected
J# RODs Where
Not Selected
Ovtrtll

1
P3fc
CotnpUtnc*
wWlARABi
*
F8i
Rtducttonof
ToxIcSty, Mobility,
orVolumt
*
FS»
LonsHirm
ElfMthnntMind
Ptmunmei
*
PS«
Shoit-tttm
EUiMtfrtllMS
*
FS»
linpltBicfittbilHy
*
fat
Coat
*
F5*
B-18
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------

APPENDIX C
Site-Specific Data Collection Forms
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. COLESVILLE MUNICIPAL LANDFILL, NY C-l
2. CONKLIN DUMPS, NY C-8
3. COSHOCTON CITY LANDFILL, OH C-12
4. DAKHUE SANITARY LANDFILL, MN C-l 6
5. DOVER MUNICIPAL LANDFILL, NH C-19
6. FORT Dix LANDFILL, NJ C-26
7. FORT WAYNE REDUCTION, IN C-31
8. G&H LANDFILL, MI C-35
9. GLOBAL LANDFILL, NJ C-39
10. HASSAYAMPA LANDFILL, AZ C-43
11. HERTEL LANDFILL, NY C-51
12. ISLIP MUNICIPAL SANITARY LANDFILL, NY C-55
13. JUNCOS LANDFILL, PR C-58
14. K&L AVENUE LANDFILL, MI C-63
15. KIN-BucLANDFILL,NJ C-70
16. LAGRANDE SANITARY LANDFILL, MN C-78
17. LEMBERGERLANDFILL, WI C-81
18. MASON COUNTY LANDFILL, MI C-87
19. MICHIGAN DISPOSAL SERVICE (CORK ST. LANDFILL), MI C-95
20. MID-STATE DISPOSAL LANDFILL, wi C-l02
21. MODERN SANITATION LANDFILL, PA C-108
22. MOSLEY ROAD SANITARY LANDFILL, OK C-113
23. MUSKEGO SANITARY LANDFILL, WI C-l 19
24. OLD CITY OF YORK LANDFILL, PA C-124
25. ONALASKA MUNICIPAL LANDFILL, WI C-130
26. RAMAPO LANDFILL, NY C-136
27. RASMUSSEN'S DUMP, MI C-141
28. STOUGHTON CITY LANDFILL, WI C-148
29. STRASBURGLANDFILL, PA C-l55
30. WILDCAT LANDFILL, DE C-160
C-i
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Colesville Municipal Landfill, NY
SCREENING PHASE
No X
In landfill
TBD
Periphery.
(Page or Section References: Pg.4 ROD.)
Hot Spot Analysis: Are they present? Yes
If yes, where are they located?
Are they subject to separate/different treatment than landfill contents (from ROD or Phase III Analysis)? Yes No TBD

Comments: Phase II evaluates alternatives not technologies. NIA (Not In Analysis) Technologies were considered in Phase I but
were not mentioned in Phase II or anywhere else after.

Capping alone would cut off infiltration but not affect base flow.

Ancillary Processes include regrading, backfilling, dikes, berms, channels, ditches, and trenches.
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Capping
Multi-layer Cap
Soil Cover
Synthetic
Multi-media
Cap
Single Layer
Synthetic
Membrane /
Soil
Y
N
N
Y

Does not meet
requirements.
Not as effective as other
options.
Does not meet
requirements or have
proper stability.

A cap complying with NY
state Part 360 Solid Waste
Regulations.

Vertical/Horizontal Barriers
Slurry Wall
Vitrification
Sheet Piling
Slurry Walls
Vitrified Wall
Barrier
Sheet Piles
Y
N
N
NIA

Requires pilot testing.
Not chemically resistant.
Not completely
impermeable.

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Grout Curtain
Bottom Sealing
Grout Curtains
Bottom Sealing
N
N

Not applicable due to
underlying rock
formation.
Potential for puncturing
intact drums in landfill.

Landfill Disposal
Offsite
Nonhazardous
landfill
Onsite Hazardous
Landfill
Offsite Landfill
(unspecified)

Excavation
Y
N
N
Y
N

Not classified as RCRA
hazardous waste.

Disposal
restrictions.
Difficulties due to
materials handling
problems.

Not feasible to
stage large amount
of waste while
waiting for proper
disposal.
Difficult due to
materials
handling.

Bioremediation
In-situ
Bioremediation

Technically not feasible
due to site conditions.
Large mass of waste and
small mass of VOCs.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-2
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Colesville Municipal Landfill, NY
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Ex-situ
Bioremediation
Ex-situ
Bioremediation
Ex-situ
Bioremediation
Onsite
Composting
Onsite Slurry
Bioreactor
Onsite Leach
Bed
N
N
N

Technically not feasible
due to compaction of
waste.
Large mass of waste and
small mass of VOCs.
Technically not feasible
due to site conditions.
Large mass of waste and
small mass of VOCs.
Technically not feasible
due to site conditions.
Large mass of waste and
small mass of VOCs.

Chemical Destruction/Detoxification
Chemical
Destruction
(unspecified)
In-situ
Chemical
Treatment
N

Not technically
feasible due to
size of landfill.

Thermal Treatment
In-situ
Vitrification
Offsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
Fluidized Bed
Onsite
Vitrification
Off-Site
Commercial
Incineration
Onsite
Fluidized Bed
Y
Y
N
N
MA

Technically not feasible
due to restrictions.
Rotary kiln better option.
Materials
handling problem.

Not provided.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-3
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Colesville Municipal Landfill, NY
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Infrared
Rotary Kiln
Onsite Infrared
Onsite Rotary
Kiln
N
Y

Technically not feasible
due to restrictions.
Rotary kiln better option.

Not provided.
Thermal Desorption
Low Temperature
Thermal
Desorption/
Stripping
In-situ Steam
Stripping
Low Temperature
Thermal
Desorption/
Stripping
Onsite Low
Temperature
Thermal
Stripping
In-situ Steam
Extraction
Onsite High
Thermal
Stripping
N
N
N

Technically not feasible
due to compaction of
waste.
Large mass of waste and
small mass of VOCs.
Technically not feasible
due to compaction of
waste.
Large mass of waste and
small mass of VOCs.
Technically not feasible
due to compaction of
waste.
Large mass of waste and
small mass of VOCs.

Chemical/Physical Extraction
In-situ Soil
Flushing

Technically not
feasible due to
large mass of
waste and small
mass of VOCs.

C-4
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Colesville Municipal Landfill, NY
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Ex-situ Soil
Washing
In-situ Vacuum
Extraction (SVE)

N
N

Technically not feasible
due to compaction of
waste.
Large mass of waste and
small mass of VOCs.
Technically not
feasible due to
large mass of
waste and small
mass of VOCs.

Immobilization
Stabilization/
Solidification
Stabilization/
Solidification
Stabilization/
Solidification
In-situ
Stabilization/
Solidification
Onsite
Stabilization/
Solidification
Offsite
Stabilization/
Solidification
N
Y
Y

MA
MA

Technically not feasible
due to heterogeneity of
waste.

Other

Ancillary
Processes
Y
MA

MA - Not in Analysis
C-5
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Colesville Municipal Landfill, NY
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS
RCRA Subtitle Classification: C D None F/G TBD (Page or Section References: Pg. 12 ROD. See comments. )

Comments: Landfill soils contain RCRA listed hazardous waste, regulations specified in 40 CRF Part 264 Subpart F and G would be
considered, however, NYCRR Part 360 final cover will meet or exceed the performance requirements of P264 Subparts F and G at this
Site.
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITHARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY
OR VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT ABILITY
COST
Multi-layer Cap;
P&T: Down
Gradient;
Existing Water
Supply; LC; GC

Multi-layer Cap;
P&T: Down
Gradient; New
Water Supply;
LQGC
Multi-layer Cap;
P&T: Down
Gradient and
Landfill;
Existing Water
Supply; LC; GC
Multi-layer Cap;
P&T: Down
Gradient and
Landfill; New
Water Supply;
LQGC
N

Compliance
takes longer
than other
alternatives.

Long-term
maintenance and
monitoring.
Not as effective
as other
alternatives.

Long-term
maintenance and
monitoring.

Not as effective
as other
alternatives.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-6
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Colesville Municipal Landfill, NY
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS (Continued)
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITHARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY OR
VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
Multi-layer Cap;
Slurry Wall;
P&T: Down
Gradient' New

Water Supply;
LQGC

Multi-layer Cap;
Slurry Wall;
P&T: Down
Gradient;
Existing Water
Supply; LC; GC
N

Long-term
maintenance and
monitoring.

Not as effective as
other alternatives.

Takes longer for
aquifer clean
up.

Additional
worker protection
measures
required.
Relatively greater
potential
environmental
impact, involving
greater litigation
measures.
More difficult
construction due to
site conditions.

More difficult
construction due to
site conditions.

More
expen-
sive

P&T - alternative includes a pump and treat component for ground water in the remedy
GC - alternative includes gas collection as a component in the remedy
LC - alternative includes leachate collection component in the remedy
C-7
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Conklin Dumps, NY
SCREENING PHASE
Hot Spot Analysis: Are they present? Yes No X
If yes, where are they located? In landfill
TBD
(Page or Section References:
Periphery.
Are they subject to separate/different treatment than landfill contents (from ROD or Phase HI Analysis)? Yes No TBD
Comments:
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Capping
Asphalt Cap
Clay Cap
Concrete
Multi-layer Cap

Clay/Soil Cap

Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y

High O&M.

Susceptible to cracking.
Susceptible to cracking.
Susceptible to cracking.

Clay not readily
available locally.

Consistent with 6 NYCRR
Part 360 (FML).
Landfill Disposal
Offsite Landfill
(unspecified)
Onsite Landfill
(unspecified)
Offsite
Commercial
Landfill

Y
Y
N
N
High Capital.
Extremely high
cost if material
found to be
hazardous.

Not
implementable if
material found to
be hazardous.
Type of landfill required
dependent on analysis of
landfill material.
Onsite landfill includes
combining two areas through
excavation and capping.
Bioremediation
Bioremediation
(unspecified)
Bioremediation
(unspecified)
Aerobic
Anaerobic
N
N

Not feasible for
typical contents of
sanitary landfill.
Not feasible for
typical contents of
sanitary landfill.

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Thermal Treatment
Fluidized Bed
Rotary Kiln
In-situ
Vitrification
Immobilization
Stabilization/
Solidification

Stabilization
N
N
N

Not feasible due
to size, shape, and
contents of much
of the waste
materials.
Not feasible due
to size, shape, and
contents of much
of the waste
materials.
Not feasible due
to the presence of
metal objects in
waste which
would short
circuit the process.

Not feasible due
to size of much of
the waste
materials.

C-9
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Conklin Dumps, NY
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS
RCRA Subtitle Classification: C X D
None
TBD
(Page or Section References: Multi-laver cap under 40 CFR RCRA Part 264.310/ RCRA Part 360 pg.15 ROD.)

Comments: If necessary, a gas collection and treatment plan will be provided. The selected remedy includes offsite discharge or
onsite treatment.
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITHARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY
OR VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
Multi-layer Cap
Both Landfill
Areas; LC; P&T
Multi-layer Cap
Both Landfill
Areas; LC; P&T

Multi-layer Cap
Both Landfill
Areas; LC; P&T
Multi-layer Cap
Both Landfill
Areas; LC; P&T
(Offsite)
Y

Active system of
ground water
extraction would
interfere with
natural
degradation
process and
therefore take
longer in
attaining Class
GA ground water
standards.
Same as above.

Same as above.

Highest
cost.

C-10
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Coshocton City Landfill, OH
SCREENING PHASE
Hot Spot Analysis: Are they present? Yes No X TBD.
If yes, where are they located? In landfill
(Page or Section References:
Periphery
Are they subject to separate/different treatment than landfill contents (from ROD or Phase HI Analysis)? Yes No TBD

Comments: FS not available at time of review. Was not possible to determine Phase I screening details.
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Capping
Asphalt Cap

Clay Cap

Concrete
Multi-layer Cap

Multi-layer Cap

Gravel-Clay

Soil-Clay

N
N

Y
High
Maintenance.

High
maintenance.

High maintenance
required because of:
- Poor weathering,
- Brittleness with age
- Photodegradation
- Settlement.
Maintenance required to:
- Repair erosion damage
- Maintain moisture
content to prevent
failure caused by
cracking.
Very susceptible to
settlement cracking.
Gravel yields:
- Lower vegetative cover
- Lower evapo-
transportation

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Multi-layer Cap
Soil Cap
Multi-layer Cap

Synthetic
Membrane -
Soil

Soil- Synthetic
Membrane -
Clay

N
Y
Y

Useful life undefined.
Membrane puncture
possible in refuse fill.

More difficult to
implement.

Landfill Disposal
Offsite Hazardous
Landfill

Onsite Hazardous
Landfill

Onsite Landfill
(unspecified)

RCRA Type
Landfill

Vault

N
High capital
costs.

Very high
capital costs.

Maintenance required for
reliability.

Maintenance required for
reliability.
Requires large
volume of waste
material to be
transported long
distances.
Implementation
difficult because
of:
- Limited site area
- Need for
imported
materials.
Implementation
difficult because
of large volume of
landfill contents.

C-13
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Coshocton City Landfill, OH
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Thermal Treatment
Offsite
Incineration
(unspecified)

Incineration:
RCRA
Incineration

Very high
capital costs.
High O&M.

Effectiveness not
demonstrated at full
scale.

Implementation
very difficult.
Materials
handling requires
size reduction and
control.
Process is
mechanically
complex and
requires numerous
operators for
refuse fill.

C-14
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Coshocton City Landfill, OH
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS
RCRA Subtitle Classification: C
D X
None
TBD
(Page or Section References: Page 10 ROD.^
Comments: The RCRA regulations which govern Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal facilities did not become
effective until November 19, 1980. The Coshocton Landfill ceased accepting wastes prior to that date. Though RCRA regulations are
not jurisdictionally applicable to the remediation of the site, they are certainly "relevant" to the actions occurring thereon. Though both
subtitle C and D of RCRA are relevant to the remedy for the Coshocton Landfill, the Subtitle D provisions relating to capping /
covering the landfill are deemed more appropriate (pg. 10 ROD).
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITHARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY OR
VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT ABILITY
COST
Soil Filling and
Grading

Soil Cap; GC;
LC; P&T
Multi-layer
(Clay/ Soil/
Sand) Cap; GC;
LC; P&T
(Disposal)
Multi-layer
(Soil/ Synthetic
Membrane/
Clay) Cap; GC;
LC; :P&T
N

Y
N

Does not meet
State solid
waste landfill
closure
regulations.

High
cost.

C-15
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Dakhue Sanitary Landfill, MN
SCREENING PHASE
Hot Spot Analysis: Are they present? Yes No X
If yes, where are they located? In landfill.
TBD
(Page or Section References:
Periphery
Are they subject to separate/different treatment than landfill contents (from ROD or Phase HI Analysis)? Yes No TBD

Comments: Screening analysis eliminated all but "cover" alternatives incorporating elements of clay, membrane and soil cover
components. While multi-layer capping was not specifically referenced, combined analysis and decision for further evaluation of
linked capping components infers screening for multi-layer alternatives.
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Capping
Asphalt Cap
Clay Cap
Concrete
Multi-layer Cap
Soil Cover
Synthetic
Concrete

Asphalt/Soil
Cap

Cement/Soil
Admixture

Synthetic
Membrane
Bentonite
Membrane
Lime Sludge
Admixture
Cover
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
N

Subject to cracking and
differential settlement.

Subject to cracking.

Long-term effectiveness
decreases — uncertain
life-expectancy.
Subject to cracking and
differential settlement.

Limited contractors
available.
High waste content
may make
construction difficult.

'Some FSs contained multiple screening steps. Ph. I (Phase I) provides the results of the first screening conducted. Ph. II (Phase II) provides the results of the
final screening step if multiple steps occurred.
C-16
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Dakhue Sanitary Landfill, MN
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Landfill Disposal
Offsite Hazardous
Landfill
Onsite Hazardous
Landfill
Offsite
Disposal
Onsite Reburial
mRCRA-
Compliant
Landfill
N
N

Excessive fees for
hazardous waste
disposal ($300 M).

Potential for
spills, human
exposure, and air
emissions.
Potential air
emissions during
excavation.
Available land is
insufficient.
Likely that commercial
operators would require
disposal as hazardous waste.

Bioremediation
Bioremediation
(unspecified)
Biological
Treatment
N

Inappropriate for
mixed refuse.

Chemical Destruction/Detoxification
Chemical
Destruction/
Detoxification
(unspecified)
Chemical
Treatment
N

Inappropriate for
mixed refuse.

Thermal Treatment
Offsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
Onsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
Incineration
Incineration
N
N

Excessive costs
above onsite
incineration.
Excessive costs
($330 M).
Short-term risk from
excavation and air
emissions.
Short-term risk from
excavation and air
emissions.
Many years to
complete
treatment.
Many years to
complete
treatment.

Immobilization
Stabilization/
Solidification
Solidification
N

Inappropriate for
mixed refuse.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-17
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Dakhue Sanitary Landfill, MN
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS
RCRA Subtitle Classification: C
D
None X TBD
(Page or Section References: ROD Pages 14. last paragraph - no documentation to support RCRA wastes disposed at Dakhue.^
Comments: All alternatives meet protection, ARARs, short-term effectiveness and implementability criteria, however selected
alternative presents the most cost effective remedy with least chance of damage and long-term O&M costs. Treatment options for air
emissions from gas vents will be considered after constructions of final remedy .
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY OR
VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
MN Mixed
Waste Cover
System - Soil
Cover with Clay
Barrier

MN Mixed
Waste Cover
System - Soil
Cover with Clay
Barrier with
Frost Protection
Multi-layer
(RCRA Subtitle
C) Cover

Alternative is
most likely to fail
due to thickness
of cover and frost
damage due to
barrier layer
above frost-line.

Longest time
requirement for
construction
results in highest
exposure
potential.

Most difficult to
construct due to
Flexible Membrane
Layer design.

Capital
costs
are
higher
than
other
com-
pliant
alterna-
tives.
C-18
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Dover Municipal Landfill, NH
SCREENING PHASE
Hot Spot Analysis: Are they present? Yes
If yes, where are they located?
No X
In landfill
TBD
(Page or Section References: Pg.5. ROD.^
Periphery
Are they subject to separate/different treatment than landfill contents (from ROD or Phase HI Analysis)? Yes No.
TBD
Comments: Chemical wastes were disposed of in drums in the landfill; however, the location or amount is unknown. Because
characterization studies have not revealed amount or location, hot spots are not a consideration at the landfill, despite the presence of
drum chemical waste.
The FS has an unusual Phase n approach. Technology options retained from Phase I were evaluated according to effectiveness,
implementability, cost, and only certain technology options were retained. There is an intermediate phase where technology options
are then placed into media-specific alternatives and evaluated according to effectiveness, implementability, cost (not the nine criteria).
Those that are retained then formed into Alternatives that are given a nine-criteria Phase m analysis.
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Capping
Chemical
Sealants
Multi-layer Cap
Multi-Layer Cap
Multi-layer Cap
Synthetic
Surface
Macroencap-
sulation
Clay and Soil
Clay/FML Cap
Geocomposite/
FMLCap
Single-Layer
Synthetic
N
Y
Y
Y
Y

N
Y
Y
N

High cost.

Waste is too
heterogeneous.
Susceptible to cracking.
Difficult slope stability
problems.

Susceptible to tears from
differential settling of
waste.

Vertical/Horizontal Barriers
Slurry Wall

Y
Y

'Some FSs contained multiple screening steps. Ph. I (Phase I) provides the results of the first screening conducted. Ph. II (Phase II) provides the results of the final screening step
if multiple steps occurred.
C-19
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Dover Municipal Landfill, NH
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Sheet Pile

Grout Curtain

Bottom Sealing

Bottom Seal
Grouting

Interceptor/
Diversion
Trench (with
Potential
Inclusion of
Extraction
Wells)
Y

N/A

High.

Effectiveness depends
on absence of
obstacles in waste and
the ability to make
interlockings work
well.
Not effective because
it is difficult to ensure
overlap.
Very limited
effectiveness due to
the uncertainties of
covering the entire
bottom layer.

Very difficult to
implement.

This technology is not
presented until the end of
Phase II analysis.

Landfill Disposal
Offsite Hazardous
Landfill

Offsite
Nonhazardous
Landfill

Very high costs.

Low
implementability .
Solid waste must
pass TCLP
requirements for
offsite RCRA
disposal.
Nonhazardous
facility cannot
accept any
hazardous waste.

C-20
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Dover Municipal Landfill, NH
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Onsite Hazardous
Landfill

Onsite
Nonhazardous
Landfill

Subtitle D
Solid Waste
Facility

Very high
costs.

Very high costs
associated with
the necessary
disposal of
hazardous solid
waste at an
alternate
facility.

Low effectiveness in
reducing leachate
contamination.

High-water table
may pose
problems.

Bioremediation
In-situ
Bioremediation

Not effective for
chlorinated solvents and
metals.

Chemical Destruction/Detoxification
Dehalogenation

Oxidation/
Reduction
Dechlorination

Wet Air
Oxidation
Y

Not effective for most of
the contaminants present.
Not effective for solids or
solid waste.
Difficult to
implement.

Thermal Treatment
Fluidized Bed

High costs due
to fuel.

Not effective because it
requires:
S Excavation
S Screening due to
heterogeneous nature
of waste.
Does not address
inorganics.
Air permit
problems.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-21
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Dover Municipal Landfill, NH
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Infrared

Multiple Hearth

Rotary Kiln

In-situ
Vitrification

High costs due
to fuel.

High electricity
costs.

Not effective because it
requires:
S Excavation
S Screening due to
heterogeneous nature
of waste.
Does not address
inorganics.
Not effective because it
requires:
S Excavation
S Screening due to
heterogeneous nature
of waste.
Does not address
inorganics.
Does not address
inorganics.

Not yet tested on a full
scale.

Air permit
problems.

Air permit
problems.
Not
implementable
because it requires
excavation, and
screening due to
heterogeneous
nature of waste.
Not
implementable
due to
heterogeneous
nature of landfill.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-22
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Dover Municipal Landfill, NH
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Other Thermal
Treatment

Other Thermal
Treatment
Thermoplastics

Thermosets

Not effective.
VOCs may cause further
leaching problem.
Not effective.
VOCs may cause further
leaching problem.

Thermal Desorption
Low Temperature
Thermal
Desorption/
Stripping

Limited effectiveness due
to the nature of the
COCs.
Risk of explosion.

Chemical/Physical Extraction
In-situ Soil
Flushing

Ex-situ Soil
Washing

In-situ Vacuum
Extraction (SVE)

Solvent
Extraction

Y
N

N
High cost.

Residual solvents pose a
problem.

Effective on VOCs, in
vadosezone only.
Difficult to
implement.
Not
implementable
due to
heterogeneous
nature of waste.
Only for soils.
Difficult to
implement.
Limited success
on a large scale.
Only applicable at
limited depths.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-23
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Dover Municipal Landfill, NH
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS

Immobilization
Fixation
Chemical and
Silicate
Fixatives
N

Not feasible for soils with
VOC contamination.

Other
Aeration

Dewatering of
Waste Below
Ground Water
N
Y

Not effective due
to heterogeneous
nature of waste.

C-24
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Dover Municipal Landfill, NH
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS
RCRA Subtitle Classification: C X D
None
TBD
(Page or Section References: Pg. 67. ROD. 3rd Paragraph.
Comments: Much of the Phase III analysis was discussed in the secondary part of the Phase II analysis. There are two groups of
alternatives to be analyzed in Phase III - On-site, or source control (which includes contaminated ground water under the landfill), and
secondly, contaminated ground water that has migrated from the landfill base. This Phase III analysis is only concerned with source
control alternatives.

Additionally, alternatives presented here have an undecided source control (SC) ground water treatment design, as presented in the
ROD. Alternatives SC-5 and SC-7 have full on-site ground water treatment and subsequent discharge into a nearby river. Alternatives
SC-5A and SC-7A have partial on-site treatment and subsequent discharge to a POTW. Even so, SC and SCA alternatives are analyzed
in Phase III as if they were the same alternative, noting that the ground water treatment decision will be made in the design phase.

Furthermore, it is important to note that although joint alternatives SC-5/SC-5A and SC-7/SC-7A both have multi-layer caps, the caps are
significantly of different composition, even though they have the same low permeability standard. Alternative SC-5/SC-5A has a
clay/FML cap while alternative SC-7/SC-7A has a less bulky geocomposite/FML cap, which is ultimately less costly to use. Also,
alternative SC-5/SC-5A has a slurry wall, which is more expensive than the interceptor/diversion trench used in alternatives SC-7/SC-
7A.
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY
OR VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
SC-5/SC-5A
Clay/FML Cap;
Slurry Wall

SC-7/SC-7A
Geocomposite/
FMLCap
N

Clay FML
multi-layer cap
may suffer
desiccation and
slope instability.

SC-5A involves
construction of a 2.5-
mile sewer line to
POTW.
Clay/FML cap requires
much more fill to be
transported than the
geocomposite/FML cap.
(This means a higher
cost.)

50%
higher
thanSC-
7/7A.
Slurry
wall is
more
costly.

C-25
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Fort Dix Landfill, NJ
SCREENING PHASE
Hot Spot Analysis: Are they present? Yes No X TBD (Page or Section References: )
If yes, where are they located? In landfill Periphery
Are they subject to separate/different treatment than landfill contents (from ROD or Phase III Analysis)? Yes No TBD

Comments: No hot spots are known to exist, but it is possible that the landfill may contain wastes in containers that could rupture at
any time in the future, releasing additional contaminants (page 3, FS). Waste prior to 1980 are unknown. Wastes after 1980 included
waste paints and thinners, pesticides and empty containers, and combined wastes.

THE FS FOR THIS SITE WAS COMPLETED BEFOR SARA, 1987, WHICH SET UP THE PHASED APPROACH FOR THIS SITE. As
a result, the phased approach was not used for this site and the following distinction must be noted:

Excavation for treatment and/or disposal was considered unfeasible for this site, primarily because of excessive costs and increased
risks associated with a large scale operations, especially with the possibility of uncovering buried munitions at the site. Some in-situ
treatment is examined in what could be considered a Phase I analysis.

Source control alternatives (with the exclusion of vertical barriers and some in-situ treatment) were not analyzed at all. This is because
a predetermined source control technology, a multi-layer cap or cover system, was selected because it was "required by both NJDEP
sanitary landfill closure regulations and RCRA disposal regulations," as stated in the FS (page 3-9). This source control alternative is
first presented in the alternative analysis (what could be considered a Phase III analysis) and is a part of each of the alternatives
(excluding no action) in "Phase III".

The nine criteria of Phase III are not used here. First, technology options were initially screened, but not according to any specific
criteria. Then alternatives were developed and "initially screened" (in what might be considered a Phase II analysis) according to
technical feasibility, environmental impacts, and public health concerns. Finally, alternatives were screened (in what could be
considered a Phase III analysis) according to feasibility, cost, and public health and environmental protection criteria.

Only partial capping is to be used at this site. Only a more recently filled 50 out of a total of 120 acres are to be capped. The only
reasons for this, as presented in the FS (pages 3-10, 3-17/18), are that computer modeling indicated no significant benefit, and several
significant disadvantages such as increased risk due to buried munitions, high cost, and preservation of the tree cover on part of the
landfill is highly desirable. It is also expected that any contaminated leachate that originated from the older portion of the landfill would
have already naturally flushed through the ground water system.
C-26
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Fort Dix Landfill, NJ
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Capping
Multi-layer Cap
Multi -layer
Cover System
Y
Y

Vertical/Horizontal Barriers
Slurry Wall
Slurry Wall
Slurry Wall

Sheet Pile

Grout curtain
Upgradient
Circumferen-
tial
Down gradient

N
N
Y

N
High cost.
High cost.
High costs.

Not effective due to site
topography.
Not effective due to site
topography.
May not be effective due
to site topography.
There may be a
constructability problem
associated with
dewatering.
Long-term effectiveness
has not been proven.
Not effective due to
ground water
configuration.
Structure easily damaged.
Not effective - incapable
of forming a reliable
barrier.

Disposal of
excavated material
may be a problem.

Toxic grouting
materials may
present a release
problem.

Most feasible slurry wall
despite its disadvantages.
Ground water wells/
interceptors seen as better
alternative.

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Bioremediation
In-situ
Bioremediation

Not effective due to
heterogeneous nature of
waste.
Difficult to maintain
proper distribution of
reactants.
Only laboratory
proven.

Chemical Destruction/Detoxification
Chemical
Destruction/
Detoxification
(unspecified)
Oxidation/
Reduction
Chelation

N
N

Increased cost.
Increased cost.

Ex-situ treatment
not feasible due to
expected
increased risk.
Ex-situ treatment
not feasible due to
expected
increased risk.

Thermal Treatment
Vitrification

Increased cost.

Ex-situ treatment
not feasible due to
expected
increased risk.

Thermal Desorption
Low Temperature
Thermal
Desorption
Heating
N

Increased cost.

Ex-situ treatment
not feasible due to
expected
increased risk.

C-28
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Fort Dix Landfill, NJ
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Chemical/Physical Extraction
In-situ Soil
Flushing
Ex-situ Soil
Washing
Other
Other
Other
Precipitation
Hydrolysis
Activated
Carbon
Ion Exchange
Freezing
N
N
N
N
N

Increased cost.
Increased cost.
Increased cost.
Increased cost.
Increased cost.

Ex-situ treatment
not feasible due to
expected
increased risk.
Ex-situ treatment
not feasible due to
expected
increased risk.
Ex-situ treatment
not feasible due to
expected
increased risk.
Ex-situ treatment
not feasible due to
expected
increased risk.
Ex-situ treatment
not feasible due to
expected
increased risk.

Immobilization
Stabilization/
Solidification

Increased cost.

Ex-situ treatment
not feasible due to
expected
increased risk.

C-29
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Fort Dix Landfill, NJ
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS
RCRA Subtitle Classification: CX D_
None
TBD
(Page or Section References: Pg. 2-37 of the ROD, p. 1-61 of the FS (RCRA part 264 is Subtitle CU

Comments: The FS for this site was completed in 1987 before the NCP and the nine criteria for the phased analysis approach were
used. As a result, the alternatives were not evaluated according to the nine criteria in the FS; however, because the ROD was completed
in 1991, the alternatives were evaluated according to a nine criteria Phase 3 approach. Furthermore, only one source control was carried
over into the final analysis of the alternatives, this being use of a multi-layer cap.

The selected alternative was a part of all of the other alternatives (excluding No Action) so cost was a major factor.
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITHARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY
OR VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT ABILITY
COST
Alternative 2
Multi-layer Cap
with monitoring
Y

C-30
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Fort Wayne Reduction, IN
SCREENING PHASE
Hot Spot Analysis: Are they present? Yes X
If yes, where are they located?
No
In landfill
TBD.
X
(Page or Section References: ROD.)
Periphery
Are they subject to separate/different treatment than landfill contents (from ROD or Phase III Analysis)? Yes X No
TBD
Comments: FS not available at time of review. Phase I screening cannot be determined without the FS.

The general response actions: removal, disposal, and treatment were addressed as "not applicable for technology screening." It cannot
be determined specifically why these were screened. The general response actions were not counted in the summary tables.

Drum excavation on Western Portion of the site may be considered a Hot Spot.
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Capping
Multi-layer Cap
Soil Cover
Clay Cap

Multi-layer Cap

Single layer

Multi -layer
Cap with
Membrane

Y
Y
N

Low to high
maintenance
cost.

Moderate to
high:
- Capital cost
- Maintenance
cost.

Impermeable layer
susceptible to cracking
due to environmental
conditions and
settlement.

Requires most
time to
implement.

Vertical/Horizontal Barriers
Slurry Wall

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Thermal Treatment
Onsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
Offsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
Drum
Excavation
Area (Hot Spot)
Drum
Excavation
Area (Hot Spot)

Y
Y

Landfill Disposal
Offsite Landfill
(unspecified)
Disposal

Not applicable for
technology
screening.
See comments.
Other

Removal
Treatment

N
N

Not applicable for
technology
screening.
Not applicable for
technology
screening.
See comments.
See comments.
C-32
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Fort Wayne Reduction, IN
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS
RCRA Subtitle Classification: C
D X None
TBD
(Page or Section References: Soil cover complaint with Indiana Subtitle D solid waste landfill closure requirements.)

Comments: Access restrictions, soil cover and ground water program are the major components of all the alternatives for solid
waste landfill closure (pg.18 ROD).

Hot Spot identified in the ROD was the Western Portion of the landfill, drum excavation area.
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY
OR VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
Soil Cover Cap;
Slurry Wall;
P&T

Soil Cover Cap;
Slurry Wall;
P&T (with
Barriers)

Soil Cover Cap;
Slurry Wall;
P&T; Soil
Excavation for
Drum Removal
and Offsite
Incineration
N

Does not
minimize the
major sources
contributing to
the major threat.
Does not
minimize the
major sources
contributing to
the major threat

Difficult to predict
long-term
performance of slurry
wall/trench
technology.
Same as above.

Same as above.

C-33
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Fort Wayne Reduction, IN
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS (Continued)
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITH
FEDERAL
ARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY
OR VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
Multi-layer
(Soil-Clay
Cover) Cap;
Slurry Wall;
P&T; Soil
Excavation for
Drum Removal;
Onsite
Incineration.

Long time before
program is
implemented.

Permitting/approval/
deed restrictions
required for
incineration.
Incineration includes
all around high risk.
Incineration includes

high administrative
implementability .
Same as above.
Most
ex-
pensive.

C-34
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: G & H Landfill, MI
SCREENING PHASE
TBD
Hot Spot Analysis: Are they present? Yes X No
Pgs.D-17. D-23.^
If yes, where are they located? In landfill X
(Page or Section References: Pg.5-6. Pg.3-5. Fig.3-2.

Periphery.
Are they subject to separate/different treatment than landfill contents (from ROD or Phase III Analysis)? Yes No TBD X
Comments: Phase II discussion pgs. 4-4 to 4-11 and Appendix B and D. Hot Spots: Soils and sediments with high concentrations
may be treated (Phase II Analysis: Appendix D). They are located in Phase I Area of landfill. However, treatment of hot spots was not
in selected remedy.
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Capping
Asphalt Cap
Asphalt Cap
Soil Cover
Concrete
Multi-layer Cap
Multi-layer Cap
Synthetic
Asphaltic
Concrete
Sprayed Asphalt
Single-layer Clay
Cap

Soil/Clay Cap
Clay-
Geomembrane
Synthetic
Membranes
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
N

Not likely to provide long-
term integrity.
Not likely to provide long-
term integrity.

Settlement likely to cause
cracks.

Unknown reliability.

Meets Subtitle D closure
regulations.

Meets Subtitle C closure
regulations.
Meets Subtitle C closure
regulations.

Vertical/Horizontal Barriers
Slurry Wall
Sheet Pile

Vertical Barrier
Y
Y
Y
Y

Ground water pumping required.

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Grout Curtain
Bottom Sealing

Vibrating Beam

Horizontal
(unspecified)
Permeability
Reduction
Agents

Y
N
N
Y
N

N
Relatively
high.

Questionable.
Difficult to establish
integrity.
Difficult to establish
integrity.
Questionable.

Need storage for
3. 2 million cubic
yds.
Questionable.

Landfill Disposal
Offsite Hazardous
Landfill
Onsite Hazardous
Landfill

N
Y

Quantity too large
to transport.

Bioremediation
Bioremediation
(unspecified)

Not applicable to
heterogeneous wastes.

Chemical Destruction/Detoxification
Oxidation/
Reduction
Oxidation/
Reduction
Oxidation
Reduction
N
N

Difficult to
implement.
Difficult to
implement.

Thermal Treatment
Offsite
Incineration
(unspecified)

Y
N
Not cost-
effective for
large
quantities.

Pg. D-23, FS.
C-36
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: G & H Landfill, MI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Onsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
In-situ
Vitrification

Vitrification
Y
N
Y

Not applicable to landfill
wastes.

Pg. D-23, FS.

Thermal Desorption
Low Temperature
Thermal
Desorption/
Stripping
Low
Temperature
Volatilization
Y
Y

Chemical/Physical Extraction
In-situ Soil
Flushing
In-situ Vacuum
Extractions (SVE)

N
N

Not applicable to
heterogeneous wastes.
Not applicable to
heterogeneous wastes.

Immobilization
Fixation
Stabilization/
Solidification
Encapsulation
Sorption
Pozzolanic
Agents

Y
Y
N
Y
Y

Not applicable for waste
present.

Combined in Phase II as one
technology with Pozzolanic
Agents.
Combined in Phase II as one
technology, with Sorption.

C-37
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: G & H Landfill, MI
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS
RCRA Subtitle Classification: C X
D
None
TBD
(Page or Section References: Pg. 36.)
Comments: ARAR comparative analysis (pgs. 35-36 of ROD) lists RCRA Subtitle C as ARAR. Selected remedy includes excavation
of PCB-contaminated soils with disposal to an onsite landfill or disposal to an offsite hazardous landfill. Personal communication with
Region 5 on July 27, 1994, indicated that offsite treatment has not and will likely not occur. In such a circumstance, however, the RPM
would decide on appropriate offsite treatment technology.
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY
OR VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
Soil-Clay Cover
Only
(GC, LC&T)
Soil-Clay Cover/
Vertical Barrier
(GC, LC&T)

Soil-Clay Cover/
Vertical Barrier/
Hot Spot
Excavation and
Onsite Disposal
(GC, LC&T, P&T)
Soil-Clay Cover/
Vertical Barrier/
Hot Spot
Excavation and
Incineration
(GC, LC&T, P&T)

Ground water
contaminants
will migrate.
Ground water
contaminants
could continue
to migrate.

Ground water
will continue to
exceed MCLs.
Ground water
will continue to
exceed MCLs.

No reduction of
toxicity, mobility,
or volume.
No reduction of
toxicity, mobility,
or volume

Some VOC
emissions.
Increased risk of
vehicular accidents.

Some VOC
emissions from
excavation and
treatment.
Increased accident
risk.
20 yr. time frame.

May create ground water
mounding.

Air emission permit
required.
Difficult to meet siting
requirements for onsite
landfill.

Moderate

Very high

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-38
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Global Landfill, NJ
SCREENING PHASE
Hot Spot Analysis: Are they present? Yes X No
If yes, where are they located? In landfill.
TBD (Page or Section References: Pg.1-6. FS.1
Periphery X
Are they subject to separate/different treatment than landfill contents (from ROD or Phase III Analysis)? Yes X No TBD
Comments: There are no hot spots within the landfill, but surface water leachate seeps and ponds are present at the periphery of
the landfill. A slope stability problem has added to leachate release at the landfill, and design of a stabilization berm, along with
leachate collection, should mitigate this problem. A leachate collection pond and a leachate collection well were installed at the landfill,
but they are not currently in operation.
There is a Hot Spot consisting of 63 drums in the periphery of the landfill. Many of these drums contained hazardous waste and were
discovered and removed from the site under special action. The special action is not address in this report.

The stabilization berm will not be analyzed here because its primary function is not source control but prevention of slope instability.
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Capping
Multi-layer Cap
Multi-layer Cap
Multi-layer Cap
Multi-layer Cap
Multi-layer Cap
NJDEP Solid
Waste Cap
NJDEP
Hazardous
Waste Cap
EPARCRA
Cap
Bentonite Clay
Cap
Modified
Hazardous
Waste Cap
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Synthetic
Membrane Only

Flexible
Membrane
Caps

Not effective due to
anticipated slope
movement and
settlement, especially on
sideslopes. To be used
only as part of a
composite cap.

Landfill Disposal
Offsite Hazardous
Landfill

High cost

Not
implementable
due to volume of
waste.

Thermal Treatment
Onsite
Incineration
(unspecified)

High cost

Not effective due to
incompatibility of
treatment with volume
and types of waste.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-40
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Global Landfill, NJ
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS
RCRA Subtitle Classification: C X D
None
TBD
(Page or Section References: Pg. 21 of ROD states that RCRA C requirements and NJ Hazardous Waste Closure Regulations are
relevant and appropriate. )

Comments: RCRA Subtitle C regulations are met for the selected remedy. A NJ closure requirement ARAR is waived due to
technical impracticability. Groundwater is addressed under a separate ROD.
TECHNOLOGIE
S EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITHARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY
OR VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
Alternative 2
Multi-layer Cap
(NJDEP Solid
Waste Cap —
clay only; no
synthetic
membrane); GC;
LC

Alternative 3
Multi-layer
(NJDEP
Hazardous
Waste); GC; LC
N

Slightly less
reduction of
surface
infiltration
than other
alternatives.
Less control of
gas migration
due to lack of
synthetic
membrane.
Slightly
greater impact
on wetlands
due to weight
of material.
Slightly
greater impact
on wetlands
due to weight
of material.

No treatment,

No treatment.

Slightly less
reduction of
surface
infiltration than
other
alternatives.

More difficult to
implement due to
heavier weight and
slope instability.

Lowest
cost.

Highest
cost.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-41
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Global Landfill, NJ
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS (Continued)
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY OR
VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
Alternative 4
Multi-layer
(RCRA) Cap;
GC;LC
Alternative 5
Multi-layer
(Bentonite Clay)
Cap (clay only;
no synthetic
membrane); GC;
LC
Alternative 6
Multi-layer
(Modified
NJDEP
Hazardous
Waste) Cap; GC;
LC
N
N

Slightly
greater impact
on wetlands
due to weight
of material.
Less control of
gas migration
due to lack of
synthetic
membrane.

Waiver of state
closure
requirements
needed.

No treatment.
No treatment.

More difficult to
implement due to
heavier weight and
slope instability.

High
cost.
Medium
cost.

C-42
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Hassayampa Landfill, AZ
SCREENING PHASE
Hot Spot Analysis: Are they present? Yes X No TBD (Page or Section References: Pg.l. Section A of the ROD.)
If yes, where are they located? In landfill X Periphery
Are they subject to separate/different treatment than landfill contents (from ROD or Phase III Analysis)? Yes X No TBD
Comments: The hot spot area of the site consists of a 10 acre area (out of a total 47 acre area landfill) where significant amounts of
solid and liquid wastes were dumped in an unlined area. The ROD considers only this 10 acre area as "the site" as well as any areas
where site-related contaminants (contaminants related to hazardous waste disposal) have been located.

The feasibility study does discuss another significant area within the 10 acre area known as "Pit 1," which has the most significant
VOC and SVOC contamination. Wastes in this Pit are subject to separate / different treatment because they are the most hazardous and
because they are liquid, unlike most of the other waste. Pit 1 is also a discrete yet small enough area to make removal and offsite
treatment feasible. Removal and offsite treatment are seen as options for wastes other than Pit 1.

Upon closure of the site, the hazardous waste area was capped with a soil cover to mitigate potential off-site migration.

The phased approach is not outlined clearly in this FS. Technology options are presented initially and are evaluated, at various lengths,
according to "technical feasibility" and " public health and environmental screening." This is clearly a Phase I approach, even though
some technologies are eliminated outright without discussion and some technologies are eliminated after discussion. Effectiveness,
Implementability, and Cost criteria - which are Phase II analysis criteria - are not applied until the technologies have been put together
in eight separate site-wide alternatives. These alternatives are then generally evaluated according to Phase II criteria, and half are
eliminated. The other half are then subjected to detailed analysis, or a Phase III approach. What is significant about this is that
technologies are never really individually analyzed according to e, i, c criteria, so that the Phase II analysis of specific technologies is
not clearly evident, and thus may not be satisfactorily represented in the table.

See FS pgs. 77-79 and Table 2.15, and Table 3.9 for QA.
C-43
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Hassayampa Landfill, AZ
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Capping
Multi-layer Cap RCRA cover
N
Not as cost
effective as the
soil cap, which
exceeds
Arizona landfill
requirements.
RCRA is not applicable to
the site because it was closed
before November, 1980;
however, a RCRA cap is
evaluated in comparison to
the soil cap for this site.
Soil Cover
Y
Y
There may be a problem with
VOCs from soil gas
contaminating the ground
water of this cap is used
without any treatment.
Landfill Disposal
Offsite Hazardous
Landfill
N
High cost.
Incineration required for
the most hazardous
wastes.
RCRA disposal
prohibited due to high
halogenated VOC
concentration.
Transportation of
waste creates
potential
problems.
Approved space
may not be
available.
Onsite Hazardous
Landfill
N
The amount of
contaminated
soils to be
disposed of is too
small for on-site
RCRA disposal to
be feasible.
'Some FSs contained multiple screening steps. Ph. I (Phase I) provides the results of the first screening conducted. Ph. II (Phase II) provides the results of the
final screening step if multiple steps occurred.
C-44
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Hassayampa Landfill, AZ
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Bioremediation
Ex-situ
Bioremediation

In-situ
Bioremediation
Liquid-Solids
Treatment
with
Landf arming

Creates an additional
waste stream that must be
treated or incinerated.
Some contaminants may
not be successfully
remediated by this
process.
In-situ bioremediation
creates a leachate
problem.
Site climate may
require constant
irrigation for
effective
landf arming.

Not readily
applied to the
hazardous waste
area.

Thermal Treatment
Off-site
Incineration
(unspecified)
On- site
Incineration
(See Circulating
Bed and Rotary
Kiln)

N
High cost.

High cost.

More difficult to
implement than
other alternatives.

Not chosen in Phase II
because soil washing of Pit 1
wastes was seen as a more
easily implementable and
less costly technology.
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-45
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Hassayampa Landfill, AZ
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Onsite
Incineration
(unspecified)

Rotary Kiln

Circulating
Bed Combuster
(Onsite)

(Onsite)

Effective only for liquid
waste from Pit 1 . Not
feasible for soils that
need to be removed, (also
no volume reduction for
soils).
Clean backfill may be
required sue to any
volume reduction.
Volume reduction may
increase the
concentration of metals
that remain after
incineration.
Effective only for liquid
waste from Pit 1 . Not
feasible for soils that
need to be removed, (also
no volume reduction for
soils).
Clean backfill may be
required due to any
volume reduction.
Volume reduction may
increase the
concentration of metals
that remain after
incineration.
Permitting
concerns may be a
problem.

Permitting
concerns may be a
problem.

Not chosen in Phase II
because soil washing of Pit 1
wastes was seem as a more
easily implementable and
less costly technology.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-46
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Hassayampa Landfill, AZ
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
In-situ
Vitrification

Very high cost.
Not very cost-
effective
compared to
other forms of
thermal
treatment
Vitrification is more
effective and suitable for
inorganiocs and metals,
which are not the primary
contaminants of concern
at this site..

May require a complex vapor
collection system.

Thermal Desorption
Low Temperature
Thermal
Desorption/
Stripping

In-situ Steam
Stripping

Stem Injection/
Sparging

Less cost-
effective than
other treatment
technologies.

Higher cost
than soil vapor
extraction.

Would require additional
treatment of collected
organics (most likely
through incineration) and
possible solidification of
metals.
Volume of waste from Pit
1 are relatively small for
effective use of this
treatment.
This technology is still in
the developmental stage.
Potential for increased
ground water
contamination due to
migration of condensed
steam.

Site characteristics
(e.g., depth of
landfill) make this
technology
difficult to
implement,
control and
monitor.
This option applies only to
treatment of waste from Pit 1 .

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-47
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Hassayampa Landfill, AZ
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Chemical / Physical Extraction
In-situ Soil
Flushing

Ex-situ Soil
Washing
In-situ Vacuum
Extraction (SVE)
(same as in-situ
soil washing)

Ex-situ

Adding water would
create great potential for
ground water
contamination.

Immobilization
Fixation

Ex-situ

Effective only for
excavated soils from Pit
1 , specifically to be used
after off-site incineration
as a away of containing
metals in the incineration
waste.
Not effective for
contaminated soils that
have VOC, SVOC
contamination because
they can migrate through
a fixed matrix.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-48
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Hassayampa Landfill, AZ
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY

FSNAME

TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II

COST

EFFECTIVENESS

IMPLEMENT.

COMMENTS

Stabilization/
Solidification

Ex-situ

Effective only for
excavated soils from Pit
1 , specifically to be used
after off-site incineration
waste.
Not effective for
contaminated soils that
have VOC, SVOC
contamination because
they can migrate through
a fixed matrix.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-49
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Hassayampa Landfill, AZ
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS
RCRA Subtitle Classification: C
(Page or Section References:
D
None X
TBD
Comments: Capping is included in all of the Alternatives (excluding no action) Only one kind of cap was chosen in the Phase
I/Phase II analysis (soil cover). A RCRA cap was not incorporated into the alternatives because the landfill was closed before RCRA
became applicable. Ground water treatment and monitoring and deed and access restrictions are also part of each alternative.
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY
OR VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT ABILITY
COST
Alternative 2
Cap
(P&T)

Alternative 3
Cap, Soil Vapor
Extraction/
Treatment
(P&T)
Alternative 4
Cap, Soil Vapor
Extraction/
Treatment,
Excavation/Ex-
situ Soil
Washing
(P&T)
N

Less
protective
than
alternatives 3
and 4.

More time to
achieve
ground water
cleanup
standards due
to lack of soil
treatment.

No source
control
treatment.

No soil treatment
to prevent
potential ground
water
contamination

Increased
potential for
short-term risk
due to
excavation.

Highest
cost.

C-50
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Hertel Landfill, NY
SCREENING PHASE
No
TBD X (Page or Section References: Declaration of ROD.)
In landfill Periphery X
Are they subject to separate/different treatment than landfill contents (from ROD or Phase III Analysis)? Yes No TBD X
Hot Spot Analysis: Are they present? Yes
If yes, where are they located?
Comments: Additional soil sampling along the western portion of the disposal area to determine the need to extend the cap or to
consolidate these soils under the caps.
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Capping
Asphalt Cap
Clay Cap
Concrete
Multi-layer Cap
Synthetic

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
N

Susceptible to cracking
and weathering.
Susceptible to cracking.
Susceptible to
weathering.

Susceptible to surface
water ponding.

Vertical/Horizontal Barriers
Slurry Wall

Y
Y

Landfill Disposal
Offsite Landfill
(unspecified)
Onsite Landfill
(unspecified)

Y
Y
N
N
Extremely high
cost.
Very high
capital.
Not as effective as other
options.

Low feasibility.
Difficult to
implement.

Bioremediation
Bioremediation
(Ex-situ)
Landf arming
N

Not applicable to
treatment of waste
materials

'Some FSs contained multiple screening steps. Ph. I (Phase I) provides the results of the first screening conducted. Ph. II (Phase II) provides the results of
the final screening step if multiple steps occurred.
C-51
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Hertel Landfill, NY
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Bioremediation
(unspecified)
Biodegradation
N

Not applicable to
treatment of waste
materials.

Chemical Destruction/Detoxification
Oxidation/
Reduction
Dehalogenation

Dechlorination
N
N

Not applicable to
treatment of waste
materials.
Not applicable to
treatment of waste
materials.

Thermal Treatment
Fluidized Bed
Infrared

In-situ
Vitrification
Rotary Kiln
Fluidized Bed
Incineration
Infrared
Incineration
Radio
Frequency
Heating
Vitrification

Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N

N
N
High capital.
High capital.

High costs.
High costs.

Not applicable to
treatment of waste
materials.
Not previously been
proven.
Not as effective as other
options.
Limited short-term
effectiveness.
Limited number
of suppliers.

Limited
availability.

Potential for underground
fire.

Extraction
In-situ Soil
Flushing

Not applicable to
treatment of waste
materials.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-52
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Hertel Landfill, NY
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Ex-situ Soil
Washing

Not applicable to
treatment of waste
materials.

Immobilization
Solidification/
Stabilization

Cement Based
Pozzolanic
N
N

Not suitable for
treatment of waste
materials.
Not suitable for
treatment of waste
materials.

Other
Aeration

Mechanical/
Thermal
Aeration
Various offsite
treatment
Soil Venting
N
Y
N

High costs.

Not suitable for
treatment of waste
materials.
Not as effective as other
options.
Not applicable to
treatment of waste
materials.

Requires offsite
transportation.

Depends on treatment;
(Incineration chosen for
evaluation).

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-53
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Hertel Landfill, NY
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS
RCRA Subtitle Classification: C
D
None X
TBD
(Page or Section References: Capping in accordance with 6 NYCRB Part 360 closure requirements for New York waste landfills.
Declaration of ROD. No RCRA wastes pg.8 ROD.)

Comments: The innovative treatment may not be as effective as other P&T, although would meet ARARs. Capping with standard ground water
pump and treatment is the contingency Alternative.
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY
OR VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
Multi-layer Cap

Multi-layer Cap;
Slurry Wall

Multi-layer Cap;
P&T

Multi-layer Cap;
P&T (Innovative
Treatment)
N

Y
Not as
protective as
other
alternatives.

Not as
protective as
other
alternatives.

Will not
comply with
ARARs for a
significant
amount of
time.
Will not
comply with
ARARs for a
significant
amount of
time.

Does not limit
all con-
tamination.

Does not provide
the same degree
of protection as
other
alternatives.

Greater risks to
onsite workers
because of
installation.

Higher administration
needs and
implementability .

Higher
costs.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-54
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Islip Municipal Sanitary Landfill, NY
SCREENING PHASE
Hot Spot Analysis: Are they present? Yes ,
If yes, where are they located?
X
No
In landfill
TBD.
X
(Page or Section References:
Periphery
Are they subject to separate/different treatment than landfill contents (from ROD or Phase III Analysis)? Yes No X TBD_
Comments: Hot spot consists of 60-70 drums of dry cleaning waste on an unlined area located beneath an intermediate cap/liner system
and covered with 150 ft. of waste. Two interim measures have been taken: a gas collection system, and an interim landfill cap (begun in July
1992).Based on EPA guidance, neither source treatment nor source removal were seen to be technically feasible. Only capping was examined
for source control, and the same cap was applied in all alternatives in the Phase III analysis.

An experimental capping option has been predetermined for the site. The proposed cap is a synthetic membrane and the use of Rolite-treated
incinerator ash as past of the gas-venting layer, constructed in accordance with the CO and 6NYCRR Part 360. According to the FS, no other
capping options are used in the Phase III because the proposed cap was determined to be "more suitable" for the site.
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Capping
Asphalt Cap
Chemical Sealants
Multi-layer Cap
Concrete
Multi-layer Cap

Additive-
Derived
Clay and Soil

RCRA Cap
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N

High capital
costs.

Not as effective as other
options.
Susceptible to cracking.

No gas venting.
Cracks possible due to
tears and clay shrinkage.
Special equipment
required.

Presents
restrictions on
future and land
use.
Special handling
and applications
required.

'Some FSs contained multiple screening steps. Ph. I (Phase I) provides the results of the first screening conducted. Ph. II (Phase II) provides the results of
the final screening step if multiple steps occurred.
C-55
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Islip Municipal Sanitary Landfill, NY
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Multi-layer Cap

Multi-layer Cap

Modified
6NYCRRPart
360 (using the
experimental
Rolite layer)
Standard
6NYCRRpart
360

May be susceptible to
tearing.
Effective, but it has been
decided that a modified
version using an
experimental "Rolite"
gas-venting layer is to be
used.

Landfill surface
needs to be
properly prepared
so that no tears
occur in the
membrane.
Experiment of
Rolite treated ash
is needed.

Vertical/Horizontal Barriers
Slurry Wall
Sheet Pile
Grout Curtain
Slurry Wall

Block
Displacement.

Diaphragm
Wall, trench
filled with
reinforced
concrete
panels

N
N
N
N

Physical constraints and
construction difficulties.
Physical constraints and
construction difficulties.
Physical constraints and
construction difficulties.

Wall would be
800 ft. deep.

Not
implementable
due to physical
constraints.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-56
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Islip Municipal Sanitary Landfill, NY
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS
RCRA Subtitle Classification: C X
D
None
TBD
(Page or Section References: Pg. 30 of the ROD. According to the ROD, the selected remedy satisfies action specific ARARs regarding federal
hazardous waste management requirements for capping, on-site containment, and general closure standards.)

Comments: The selected source control remedy, which is the only source control alternative presented in the Phase III analysis, was
designed in compliance with Part 360 of the Title of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations (6 NYCRR Part 360), Solid Waste
Management Facilities. See pg. 13 of the ROD for description of the design and discussion of agencies involved on the experiment.

Two interim measures have been taken: a gas collection system, and an interim landfill cap.
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARARS
REDUCTION OF
TOXICITY,
MOBILITY OR
VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
Multi-layer cap
(Synthetic
Membrane
Using the
Experimental
Rolite Gas-
Venting Layer);
P&T
Y

C-57
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Juncos Landfill, PR
SCREENING PHASE
No X TBD (Page or Section References: Pg. 3. FS: pg.17 FS.)
In landfill Periphery
Are they subject to separate/different treatment than landfill contents (from ROD or Phase III Analysis)? Yes No TBD
Hot Spot Analysis: Are they present? Yes
If yes, where are they located?
Comments: It is likely that mercury from thermometers was dumped at the site, but there is no specific hot spot area. According to pg. 2,
second paragraph, in the ROD, locations and concentrations of mercury were not identified. Two Operable Units exist for this site. This ROD
covers OU I, which is concerned with source control measures.
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Capping
Clay Cap
Multi-layer Cap
Soil Cover
Synthetic

Vegetative Cover
Single Layer
Cap
RCRA C Cap
Soil Cap
Single Layer,
Synthetic
Geomembrane
Cap

Y
Y
Y
Y

N
Y
Y
Y
Y

Not effective alone.

Landfill Disposal
Offsite Landfill
(unspecified)
Excavation
and Offsite
Disposal
N

Too costly.
Health risks to neighbors
and workers.
Volume of waste
is too great.

Bioremediation
Bioremediation
(unspecified)

Not effective due to
heterogeneous waste.
COC concentration
levels are too low to be
useful.

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Chemical Destruction/Detoxification
Chemical
Destruction/
Detoxification
(unspecified)
In-situ
Chemical
Treatment
N

COC concentrations are
too low for effective use.
Not effective due to
heterogeneous nature of
waste.
Excavation of
waste is not
feasible.

Thermal Treatment
Onsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
Fluidized Bed
Infrared
(general
incineration)

N
N
N

Cost is
prohibitively
high.
Cost is
prohibitively
high.
Cost is
prohibitively
high.
May generate waste
products.
Volume of waste is too
great.
COC concentration is too
low.
May generate waste
products.
Volume of waste is too
great.
COC concentration is too
low.
May generate waste
products.
Volume of waste is too
great.
COC concentration is too
low.
Lack of space for
incineration and
proximity to
residential area
make onsite
incineration
highly unlikely.
Lack of space for
incineration and
proximity to
residential area
make onsite
incineration
highly unlikely.
Lack of space for
incineration and
proximity to
residential area
make onsite
incineration
highly unlikely.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-59
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Juncos Landfill, PR
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Pyrolysis
Rotary Kiln
In-situ
Vitrification
Pyrolite
Incineration

Vitrification
N
N
N

Chemical/Physical Extraction
In-situ Soil
Flushing

COC concentrations are
too low for effective use.
Not effective due to
heterogeneous nature of
waste.
Excavation of
waste is not
feasible.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-60
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Juncos Landfill, PR
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Ex-situ Soil
Washing

Other

Chemical
Extraction
(unspecified)

COC concentrations are
too low for effective use.
Not effective due to
heterogeneous nature of
waste.
Not effective due to
heterogeneous nature of
waste.
COC concentrations are
too low for effective use.
Excavation of
waste is not
feasible.

Excavation of
waste is not
feasible.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-61
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Juncos Landfill, PR
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS
RCRA Subtitle Classification: C
D X None
TBD
(Page or Section References: Pg. 21 ROD - ARAR Section., pg. 26 ROD. ARAR Section. Chosen remedy also complies with Rule I-
805c Closure and Post Closure of the Puerto Rico Hazardous and Non-Hazardous Solid Waste Regulations.)

Comments: Hazardous waste disposal at this site cannot be proven, therefore RCRA C Closure standards are not applicable. Single-
Barrier cap, the chosen alternative, exceeds RCRA Subtitle D requirements, and meets some relevant and appropriate RCRA Subtitle C
requirements.
For Alternative IV, both a clay and a synthetic single-layer membrane were carried through in the Phase III analysis as Alternative IV,
and a synthetic (30 mil FML) layer was chosen.
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY
OR VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT ABILITY
COST
Alternative III
Multi-layer
RCRA C cap

Alternative IV
Single Layer
Cap (Clay or
Synthetic
Geomembrane)
Alternative V
Soil Cap

Y
(Synthetic
Geomem-
brane)

Less ground
water
protection.

Longer
construction time
may increase
short-term risk
due to exposure,
but not really a
serious concern.

More difficult to
construct than single-
layer and soil caps.
Also requires
re grading.

Highest
cost.

C-62
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: K & L Avenue Landfill, MI
SCREENING PHASE
Hot Spot Analysis: Are they present? Yes
If yes, where are they located?
No X
In landfill
TBD
(Page or Section References: Pg. 5 ROD.)
Periphery.
Are they subject to separate/different treatment than landfill contents (from ROD or Phase III Analysis)?
Yes
No
TBD
Comments: Pg. 7 ROD comments on FS and screening out of alternatives. The FS was not available. Certain remedial alternatives
were eliminated from further consideration due to the technical and administrative infeasibility of implementing the alternative, and/or
due to the grossly excessive cost compared to the overall effectiveness. (ROD pg. 7).
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Capping
Asphalt Cap
Clay Cap
Concrete
Multi-layer Cap
Multi-layer Cap
Multi-layer Cap

Soil-Clay Cap
Soil- Synthetic
Membrane Cap
RCRA
"Model" Cap

N
N
N
Y
Y
Y

Susceptible to frost and
root penetration.

Relief of landfill
would prevent
application on
steep slopes.

Vertical/ Horizontal Barriers
Slurry Wall
Soil-Bentonite
Slurry Wall

Depth of wall
would be too great.

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Shiny Wall
Sheet Piles
Vibrating Beam
Wall
Block
Displacement
Grout Injection
Cement-
Bentonite
Slurry Wall

N
N
N
N
N

Depth of wall
would be too great.
Depth of wall
would be too great.
Depth of landfill is
too great.
Depth of landfill is
too great.
Depth of would be
too great.

Landfill Disposal
Offsite Hazardous
Landfill
Onsite Hazardous
Landfill

Y
Y

Bioremediation
Bioremediation
(unspecified)
Bioremediation
(ex-situ)
Bio-
degradation
Composting

N
N

Shallow treatment only.
Not treatment of
inorganics.
Not a proven technology.
Not effective on all types
of contaminants.

Requires
excavation of
landfill contents.
Intensive
operation.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-64
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: K & L Avenue Landfill, MI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Chemical Destruction/Detoxification
Chemical
Destruction/
Detoxification
(unspecified)

Oxidation/
Reduction

Dehalogenation

Oxidation/
Reduction

Chemical
Reactions

Reduction

Dechlorination
Process

Wet air
Oxidation

Oxidation

Not applicable to all
types of contaminants
found onsite.
Added chemicals may
threaten ground water.
Side reactions may
produce other hazardous
substances.
Not applicable to all
contaminants found
onsite.
Applicable only to
chlorinated organics
contamination.
Not technically practical
on large scale for
destruction of types of
contaminants found
onsite.
Side reactions may
produce other hazardous
substances.
Not suited for treatment
of solids or odd sizes of
materials.

Thermal Treatment
Offsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
RCRA
Incineration

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-65
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: K & L Avenue Landfill, MI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Fluidized Bed
Infrared
Multiple Hearth
Pyrolysis
Rotary Kiln

In-situ
Vitrification

Molten Salt
HTFW Reactor
Vitrification

N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N

Not as effective as rotary
kiln.

Not as effective as rotary
kiln.
Not as effective as other
types of thermal
treatment.

Not as effective as rotary
kiln.
Not demonstrated.
Not applicable to landfill
contents.
Not demonstrated at
depths present at site.

Thermal Desorption
Low Temperature
Thermal
Desorption/
Stripping
Thermal
Volatilization

Not applicable to all
types of contaminants
found onsite.

Chemical/Physical Extraction
SVE
Ex-situ Soil
Washing
Vapor
Extraction

N
N

Not applicable to all
types of contaminants
found onsite.
Not technically
practicable for removal of
organics found in site
soil or landfill contents.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-66
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: K & L Avenue Landfill, MI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS

Solvent
Extraction

Photolysis

Control of migrating
solvents not assured.
Solvent may contaminate
ground water.
Not applicable to all
contaminants found
onsite.
Shallow penetration
depth.
Not applicable to all
contaminants found
onsite.
Large volume makes
impracticable.

Immobilization
Stabilization/
Solidification
Fixation

Fixation

Injection
Grouting

Sorbent
Fixation

N
N

Limited effectiveness due
to depth of landfill.
Not applicable to all
contaminants found
onsite.
Not applicable to all
contaminants found
onsite.
Does not chemically
immobilize
contaminants.

Other
Aeration

Soil Aeration

Not applicable to all
contaminants found
onsite.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-67
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: K & L Avenue Landfill, MI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY

FSNAME

TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II

COST

EFFECTIVENESS

IMPLEMENT.

COMMENTS

Retrievable
Sorbents

Not applicable to all
types of contaminants
found onsite.
Not suited for treatment
of solids or odd sizes of
materials.

C-68
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: K & L Avenue Landfill, MI
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS
RCRA Subtitle Classification: CX D
None
TBD
(Page or Section References: Pg. 13/Pg. 29 ROD.)
Comments: The alternatives were broken down into two sections, ground water and landfill. Only the landfill alternatives are below.
The selected Alternative Multi-layer Cap (RCRA type) does not comply with Michigan Act 64, but does achieve similar or greater
performance.
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY
OR VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
Containment
Multi-layer
(Clay Cap,
Michigan Act
64);P&T;GC

Containment
Multi-layer Cap
(RCRA type);
P&T; GC
Containment
Multi-layer
(Clay Capping
with Synthetic
Liner) Cap;
P&T; GC
N

Less
protective
than other
capping
alternatives

Less long-term
effectiveness
than other
capping
alternatives

More short-term
effects due to
materials for
construction.

Allows more
infiltration,
therefore less
mobility
reduction than
other capping
alternatives.

Slightly more difficult
to install.

Higher
cost.

C-69
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Kin-Buc Landfill, NJ
SCREENING PHASE
Hot Spot Analysis: Are they present? Yes No X
If yes, where are they located? In landfill_
TBD
(Page or Section References:.
Periphery.
Are they subject to separate/different treatment than landfill contents (from ROD or Phase III Analysis)? Yes No TBD .
Comments: This a review of the Kin-Buc Landfill Operable Unit 2, which was intended to address the contaminated sediments
found in the Edmonds Creek marsh area. (pg. 4 ROD) Operable Unit 1 consisted of: 1) a slurry wall around the site, 2) RCRA capping
over areas: Kin-Buc II, low-lying area between Kin-Buc I and Edison Landfill area, and Pool C area, 3) maintenance of Kin-Buc I
landfill cap, 4) leachate collection, 5) treatment of leachate and ground water, and 6) ground water monitoring (ROD pg. 2). The FS
report OU2 Study area consists of Edmonds Creek/Marsh Area, Mound B, and the Low lying Area. The Edmund Creek/Marsh Area
consists of Edmunds Creek, the pool C connecting channel, and approx. 50 acres of wetlands, (pg. ES-1 FS) Technology screening
Phase I found in Section 2, Phase II in Section 3, Phase III in Section 4.
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Capping
Multi-layer Cap
Soil Cover
Synthetic

Composite Cap
(Soil &
Membrane)
Single Layer
Soil Cover
Single Layer
Synthetic
Membrane Cap
Sediment
Accumulation
N
N
Y
N

Not effective due to site
conditions (Marsh Area).
Not effective due to site
conditions (Marsh Area).

Cannot ensure
effectiveness.

Vertical/Horizontal Barriers
Slurry Wall

Y
Y

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Landfill Disposal
Onsite Hazardous
Landfill
Offsite Landfill
(Unspecified)
Onsite RCRA
Vault
Offsite Landfill
Disposal
N
Y

Not determined if
waste
characterized as
RCRA Hazardous
Waste.

Removal must be co-
ordinated with OU1
remediation schedule.

Bioremediation
In-situ
Bioremediation
Bioremediation
(unspecified)

Onsite
Bioremediation
N
N

Method not effective on
present compounds at
landfill.
Method not effective on
present compounds at
landfill.

Chemical Destruction/Detoxification
Dehalogenation
Dehalogenation
Neutralization
Onsite APEG
Onsite APEG
Quicklime
Y
N
N

Used on oils not
sediments.
Undergoing further
research.

Thermal Treatment
Offsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
(Commercial)
N

High cost.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-71
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Kin-Buc Landfill, NJ
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Fluidized Bed

Infrared

Rotary Kiln
Vitrification
Vitrification
Onsite
Fluidized Bed

Onsite Infrared
Incineration

Onsite Rotary
Kiln
In-situ
Vitrification
Onsite
Vitrification
N

N
N
N

Onsite
incineration is
generally not
applied to sites
with less than
8-10,000 cubic
yards of
contaminated
solids.
Onsite
incineration is
generally not
applied to sites
with less than
8- 10,000 cubic
yards of
contaminated
solids.
Same as above.

Site conditions (water)
would limit effectiveness.
Offsite gas emissions.
Technology has not been
demonstrated.
Off gas control
would be a major
operating factor
compared to other
alternatives.

Off gas control
would be a major
operating factor
compared to other
alternatives.

Thermal Desorption
Low Temperature
Thermal
Desorption/
Stripping
Onsite Low
Temperature
Thermal
Desorption
Y
Y

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-72
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Kin-Buc Landfill, NJ
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
In-situ Steam
Stripping
In-situ Steam
Extraction
N

Technology for VOCs
not PCBs.

Chemical/Physical Extraction
Ex-situ Soil
Washing
Soil Washing
In-situ Vacuum
Extaction (SVE)
Other
Other
Other
Onsite
Detergent
Extraction
In-Situ
Sediment
Washing/
Chemical
Extraction

CF Extraction
System/Onsite
Solvent
Extraction
LEEP Onsite
Solvent
Extraction
Onsite Solvent
Extraction
N
N
N
Y

Has not been fully
demonstrated.

Applicable for VOCs not
PCBs.

Site conditions
too small an area
to control
extensive surface
water control
required to
perform the
treatment.

Immobilization
Stabilization/
Solidification
In-situ
Stabilization
Solid
N

Due to site conditions,
highly organic nature of
sediments.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-73
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Kin-Buc Landfill, NJ
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS

Stabilization/
Solidification
Stabilization/
Solidification
Onsite
Stabilization/
Solidification
Offsite
Stabilization/
Solidification
N
N

Due to site conditions,
highly organic nature of
sediments.
Due to site conditions,
highly organic nature of
sediments.

C-74
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Kin-Buc Landfill, NJ
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS
RCRA Subtitle Classification: C
D
None X
TBD
(Page or Section References: Pg. 26 ROD.
Comments: Sediments must be tested to be characterized before any disposal. With remedy chosen, NO RCRA land disposal
restriction are applicable because consolidation within the same area of containment does not constitute placement, (pg. 26 ROD).

Leachate collection, ground water treatment was addressed in previous operable unit.
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITHARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY
OR VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT ABILITY
COST
Sediment
Removal;
Consolidation in
Onsite
Containment
Sediment
Removal;
Offsite Disposal

Does not
involve
treatment of the
principal threats.

High
cost
due to
land
disposa
lin
com-
mercial
chemi-
cal
waste
facility.
C-75
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Kin-Buc Landfill, NJ
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS (Continued)
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY OR
VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT ABILITY
COST
Sediment
Removal;
Onsite
Treatment

Sediment
Capping;
Stream
Relocation

Permanent
ecological
damage.

Involves
greater
displacement
and has
permanent
ecological
damage, a
greater degree
of mitigation/
restoration will
be required to
satisfy state and
federal ARARs.

Does not
involve
treatment of
principal
threats.

Greater loss of
wetlands.
Least effective
Alternative
because of
technical difficulty
of construction
and maintaining
containment. Also,
contaminants will
remain in the
wetlands.

More short term
impacts due to
lengthier
implementation
times and more
complex and
invasive nature of
remedy, (pg. 21
ROD).

Requires long-term
maintenance and
operation of the
containment systems.

Most
ex-
pensive
because
of high
unit
cost
associ-
ated
with
onsite
treat-
ment of
sedi-
ments.
(Pg.23
ROD).

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-76
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Kin-Buc Landfill, NJ
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS (Continued)
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
Sediment
Containment in
Vicinity of Pool
C by (Synthetic)
Capping and
Slurry Wall;
Remaining
Sediment
Consolidation;
Limited Stream
Relocation

SELECTED
(Y/N)
N

OVERALL
PROTECTION
Permanent
ecological
damage.

COMPLIANCE
WITHARARS
Involves
greater
displacement
and has
permanent
ecological
damage, a
greater degree
of mitigation/
restoration will
be required to
satisfy state and
federal ARARs.
(pg. 20 ROD).
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY OR
VOLUME
Does not
involve
treatment of
the principal
threats.

LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
Greater loss of
wetlands.
Least effective
Alternative
because of
technical difficulty
of construction
and maintaining
containment. Also,
contaminants will
remain in the
wetlands.

SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
More short term
impacts due to
lengthier
implementation
times and more
complex and
invasive nature of
remedy, (pg. 21
ROD).

IMPLEMENTABILITY
Requires long-term
maintenance and
operation of the
containment systems.

COST

C-77
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: La Grande Sanitary Landfill, MN
SCREENING PHASE
Hot Spot Analysis: Are they present? Yes
If yes, where are they located?
No X
In landfill
TBD
(Page or Section References:
Periphery.
Are they subject to separate/different treatment than landfill contents (from ROD or Phase III Analysis)?
Yes
No
TBD
Comments: Currently, there is not actual threat to human health and the environment from the landfill. The purpose of the remedial
action is to prevent any potential contamination that may result from the landfill in the future. No known hazardous materials were
dumped at the site, and no hot spots exist in the landfill. The only areas of additional concern for this site are a stability problem in the
western portion of the landfill and a cover erosion problem in the northwest corner of the landfill.
In general, ex-situ treatment of any kind was not retained as an option. This is primarily because removal/excavation of the entire
landfill would be necessary, but would not feasible due to high volume and potential health and safety impacts.
Phase I and II are not given clearly separate analysis. Evaluation criteria of effectiveness, implementability and cost are presented
before any technology options are discussed. Almost all technologies were eliminated, but some technologies were discussed in
somewhat greater depth and are therefore considered to have been analyzed in Phase II.
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Capping
Clay Cap

Landfill
Slope
Stabilization
Capping
(unspecified)
Y
Y
Y
N

Moderate cost;
much higher
than
maintaining the
existing cover.

Does not provide
significant additional
environmental and
public health protection
compared to the existing
cover.

Landfill Disposal
Offsite Landfill
(unspecified)

Y
N
Very high cost
Potential for increased
human exposure.

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Onsite Landfill
(unspecified)

Y
N

Long-term benefits do
not outweigh the current
low risk potential.
Adjacent land for
simultaneous
excavation and
landfill
construction may
be unavailable.

Bioremediation
Ex-situ
Bioremediation
In-situ
Bioremediation

N
N

Hazardous waste is not in
a discrete location, and
therefore cannot be
removed and treated.
Not effective due to the
heterogeneous nature of
the waste.

Thermal Treatment
Onsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
In-situ
Y
N
Very high cost.
Not effective due to high
potential for negative air
impacts.

Chemical Destruction/Detoxification
Chemical
Destruction/
Detoxification
(unspecified)
In-situ
N

Not effective due to
heterogeneous nature of
the waste.

Immobilization
Stabilization/
Solidification
Solidification
(In-situ)
N

Not effective due to
heterogeneous nature of
the waste.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-79
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: La Grande Sanitary Landfill, MN
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS
RCRA Subtitle Classification: C
D
None X
TBD
(Page or Section References: See Federal and State ARARs compliance section in ROD, page 19. Only state regulations are of greatest
concern. There is no mention of RCRA Subtitle D. but the clay/soil cover on the landfill may apply to RCRA Subtitle D. )

Comments: Phase III Analysis is not truly applicable to this study because no technologies were carried over from the Phase II
analysis. As a result, the only action provided in this table is slope stabilization (which is directly related to capping) even though it is
not a "technology." Upon closure, the cap was covered with about two feet of clay and about four inches of topsoil.

TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED

SELECTED
(Y/N)

OVERALL
PROTECTION

COMPLIANCE
WITH ARARS

REDUCTION
OF
TOXICITY,
MOBILITY
OR VOLUME

LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS

SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS

IMPLEMENT ABILITY

COST

Alternative 3
Long-term
Monitoring of
Ground Water
and Gas, Gas
Vent, and Slope
Stabilization of
the Existing
Clay Cover

No treatment;
however,
future
mobility of
contaminants
will be
minimized by
preventing
leaching of
contaminants
into the
environment.

Some mitigation
measures are
required to
minimize impact
of dust emissions
and drainage
during
construction.

Highest
cost, but
still cost-
effective

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-80
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Lemberger Landfill, WI
SCREENING PHASE
Hot Spot Analysis: Are they present? Yes
If yes, where are they located?
No X
In landfill
TBD
(Page or Section References:
Periphery.
Are they subject to separate/different treatment than landfill contents (from ROD or Phase III Analysis)?
Yes
No
TBD
Comments: This is one of two RODs for this site. It covers ground water contamination at LL and LTR and source control at LL.
The second ROD covers source control at LTR, which contains hot spots that need further characterization.
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Capping
Asphalt Cap
Chemical Sealants
Multi-layer Cap
Multi-layer Cap
Concrete
Soil Cover
Synthetic

Chemicals
Sealants/
Stabilizers
Clay and
Solid Waste
Cap

Soil and
Synthetic
Membrane
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N

Y
Y

Subject to cracking.
Easily disturbed.

Subject to cracking.
Does not prevent further
contamination of ground
water.
No long term reliability.
Subject to cracking.
Poor aesthetic
quality.

Poor aesthetic
quality.

Vertical/Horizontal Barriers
Slurry Wall

Y
Y

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Sheet Pile
Grout Curtain
Grout Curtain
Vibrating Beam

Rock Grouting
Vibrating Beam
Grout Curtain
N
Y
N
N

Difficulty in sealing
interlocks.
Dosen't prevent
downward migration.
Dosen't prevent
downward migration.
Unnecessary due to
bedrock geology.
Dosen't prevent
downward migration.

Would require
additional site
investigation.
Quality control
more difficult than
with a slurry wall.

Difficult to
implement and
maintain structural
integrity.

Landfill Disposal
Offsite Hazardous
Landfill
Onsite Hazardous
Landfill

Y
Y
N
N
High cost.

Potential exists for
recontamination.
Regulatory
agencies may not
approve out-of
state
transportation.
Very difficult to
implement

Bioremediation
Ex-situ
Bioremediation
Composting
N

Technology not proven
effective.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-82
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Lemberger Landfill, WI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Ex-situ
Bioremediation
Bioremediation
In-situ
Landf arming
Aerobic
Respiration
N
N

Not applicable to
municipal waste, only to
solid waste and waste
water.
Not feasible for landfill
waste (e.g., metals need
special treatment and can
impede bioremediation).

Chemical Destruction/Detoxification
Reduction/
Oxidation
In-situ
Hydrogen
Reduction/
Oxidation
N

Not feasible for landfill
waste.
Could increase solubility
of some metals.

Thermal Treatment
Offsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
Circulating Bed
Fluidized Bed
Infrared

Y
Y
N
Y
N
N

N
Greater than
onsite
incineration.
Higher cost
than others.

Higher cost
than others.

Disturbing the landfill
may cause unnecessary
risk to workers.
RCRA disposal may be
needed.
Not applicable due to
bulk wastes and high
heavy metal content.
Rejected in favor of
Rotary Kiln.
Scheduling and
transport difficult
due to volume.
Ash may require
RCRA disposal.

Rejected in favor of Rotary
Kiln.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-83
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Lemberger Landfill, WI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Multiple Hearth
Plasma Arc
Rotary Kiln
In-situ
Vitrification
Other
Other

Molten Alkali
Salts
High
Temperature
Wall Reactor
N
N
Y
N
Y
N

Higher cost
than others.

High.

More effective on
sludges.
Only applicable to liquid
organic wastes.
Could create worker risk.
Not applicable due to
drums and large debris
present in landfill.
Technology not currently
available.

Shredding would
be required.

May require
RCRA disposal.

Disturbing the
landfill may cause
unnecessary risk
to workers.
RCRA disposal
may be needed.
More energy
intensive than
other thermal
processes.

Eliminated prior to
consideration in ROD.

Thermal Desorption
Low Temperature
Thermal
Desorption/
Stripping
In-situ Steam
Stripping
Low-
Temperature
Thermal
Separation
In-situ Vapor
Extraction
N
N

Not effective on
municipal waste.

Not applicable;
unsaturated zone
is needed beneath
site.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-84
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Lemberger Landfill, WI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Chemical/Physical Extraction
In-situ Soil
Flushing
Ex-situ Soil
Washing
Supercritical
Fluid Extraction
In-situ Soil-
Flushing

Solvent
Extraction.
N
N
N

Not effective for
municipal wastes.
Only for soils.
Not feasible for
landfill waste.
Only for soils.
Not feasible for
landfill waste.
Only for soils.

Immobilization
Stabilization/
Solidification
Stabilization
(In-situ and Ex-
situ)
N

Not effective on
municipal waste of
variable composition.

Other
Recycling
Processed for
Reusable
Products
N

No reusable products of
worth.

C-85
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Lemberger Landfill, WI
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS
RCRA Subtitle Classification: C
Cap.)
D X
None
TBD_(Eage or Section References: ROD pg. 34: Solid Waste
Comments: Ground water P&T alternatives were considered separately. P&T was selected in the chosen remedy. Gas collection (GC)
system will be installed, if needed.
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITHARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY
OR VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
Alternative 3
Multi-layer
(Clay and Solrd
Waste) Cap
Alternative 4
Multi-Layer Cap
Alternative 5
Multi-layer
(Clay and Solrd
Waste) Cap;
Slurry Wall
N
N
Y

No reduction in
toxicity,
mobility or
volume.
No reduction in
toxicity,
mobility or
volume.

Long-term risk
due to lack of
material
treatment.
Long-term risk
due to lack of
material
treatment.

Noise, dust, and
labor risks.
Noise, dust, and
labor risks.

May require a more
complex design due
to ground water
treatment.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-86
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Mason County Landfill, MI
SCREENING PHASE
Hot Spot Analysis: Are they present? Yes
If yes, where are they located?
No X
In landfill
TBD
(Page or Section References:
Periphery.
Are they subject to separate/different treatment than landfill contents (from ROD or Phase III Analysis)?
Yes
No
TBD
Comments: FS not available at time of review. Phase II screening of technologies not identified. Although the subject of hot spots
was discussed in the ROD, no hot spots were identified.
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Capping
Asphalt Cap

Clay Cap
Concrete

Multi-layer Cap
Multi-layer Cap
Multi-layer Cap

Soil-Clay
Soil- Synthetic
Membrane
Soil- Synthetic
Membrane -
Clay
N

N
N

Y
Y
Y

Y
N
N

High cost.
High cost.

This option addressed by
regrading and
revegetation.

Excessive protection not
as effective as soil/clay
cap.
Site conditions,
relief of landfill
prevents
application to
steep slopes
without extensive
regrading.
Site already has
clay cap.
Site conditions,
relief of landfill
would prevent
installation of slab
to steep slopes.

Contamination does not
warrant extra protection.
'Some FSs contained multiple screening steps. Ph. I (Phase I) provides the results of the first screening conducted. Ph. II (Phase II) provides the results of the
final screening step if multiple steps occurred.
C-87
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Mason County Landfill, MI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Soil Cover

Y
N

Not effective.
1
Vertical/Horizontal Barriers
Slurry Wall
Sheet Pile
Grout Curtain
Vibrating Beam
Wall
Block
Displacement
Soil Bentonite
Slurry Wall

N
N
N
N
N

Site conditions,
discontinuous confining
layers to key into and
strong vertical gradients,
make a hanging wall
ineffective.
Site conditions,
discontinuous confining
layers to key into and
strong vertical gradients,
make a hanging wall
ineffective.
Site conditions,
discontinuous confining
layers to key into and
strong vertical gradients,
make a hanging wall
ineffective.
Site conditions,
discontinuous confining
layers to key into and
strong vertical gradients,
make a hanging wall
ineffective.
Not effective because site
conditions, the absence
of continuous
stratigraphic units
beneath landfill.

Difficult to
determine
integrity of barrier.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-l
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Mason County Landfill, MI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Grout Injection

Difficult to determine
integrity of barrier.
Site conditions, not
effective because of the
absence of continuous
stratigraphic units
beneath landfill.

Landfill Disposal
Offsite Hazardous
Landfill
Onsite Hazardous
Landfill

Onsite RCRA
Type
Y
Y

N
Y

High cost.

Risk to public.

Bioremediation
Bioremediation
(unspecified)

Bioremediation
(ex-situ)
Bioremediation
(ex-situ)

Bioremediation
(ex-situ)
Biodegradation

Bioharvesting
Composting

Licensed Land
Farm
N

N
Y

Shallow treatment only.
Added nutrients may
present threat to ground
water quality.
Not applicable to all
types of contaminants on
site, especially VOCs that
will not accumulate.
Not effective in the
degradation of volatile
orgamcs.
Does not degrade heavy
metals.
Not applicable to wide
variety of contaminants.

Long time for
implementation.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-89
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Mason County Landfill, MI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Chemical Destruction/Detoxification
Dehalogenation

Oxidation/
Reduction
Oxidation/
Reduction
Oxidation/
Reduction
Dechlorination
Process
Chemical
Reactions
Reduction
Wet Air
Oxidation
Oxidation
N
N
N
N
N

Applicability limited to
few contaminant types
that may not exist in
large quantity on site.
Not applicable to all
types of contaminants
found on site.
Added chemicals may
pose a threat to ground
water.
Side reactions may
produce other hazardous
substances.
Applicability limited to
few contaminant types
that may not exist in
large quantity on site.
Not technically practical
on large scale for
destruction of
contaminant types found
on site.
Side reactions may
produce other hazardous
substances.
Not suited for treatment
of solids or odd sizes of
materials.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-90
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Mason County Landfill, MI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Thermal Treatment
Offsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
Fluidized Bed
Infrared

Multiple Hearth
Pyrolysis
Rotary Kiln

In-situ
Vitrification

RCRA
Incineration

Infrared
Volatilization
Liquid
Injection

HTWF Reactor

Molten Salt

Vitrification

Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
N

N
N

N
N
N

High cost.

High cost.
High cost.

High cost.
High cost.
High cost.

Not appropriate,
appropriate only for
liquids and vapor wastes
with low ash content.

Requires very large
electric load.
Not appropriate,
appropriate only for
highly toxic inorganic or
halogenated waste.
Not applicable to the
landfill contents because
of their heterogeneous
nature.
High BTU and metal
proportion of landfill
contents suggests
possibility for fire a short
circuiting, respectively.
Long time to
implement.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-91
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Mason County Landfill, MI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Thermal Desorption
Low Temperature
Thermal
Desorption/
Stripping
Thermal
Volatilization
N

Applicability limited to
few contaminant types
that may not exist in
large quantity on site.

Chemical/Physical Extraction
Ex-situ Soil
Washing
In-situ Vacuum
Extraction (SVE)

Vapor
Extraction
Retrievable
Sorbents
Solvent
Extraction
N
N
N
N

Not technically practical
for removal of organics
found in site soil landfill
contents.
Not suited for treatment
of odd sizes of materials.
Not applicable to all
types of contaminants on
site or drummed waste, if
present.
Not applicable to all
types of contaminants on
site.
Not suited for treatment
of solids or odd sizes of
materials.
Control of mitigating
solvents not assured.
Solvent may become a
ground water
contaminant.
Not applicable to all
types of contaminants on
site.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-92
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Mason County Landfill, MI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Immobilization
Fixation
Stabilization/
Solidification
Fixation
Sorbent
Fixation
Injection
Grouting

N
N
Y

Not applicable to all
types of contaminants on
site.
Does not chemically
immobilize
contaminants.
Not applicable to:
Large volume , and
Variety of landfill
contents.

Other

Aeration

Mechanical
Excavation
Soil Aeration
Photolysis
Y
N
N
Y

Not applicable to all
types of contaminants on
site or drummed waste, if
present.
Shallow penetration
depth.
Not applicable to all
types of contaminants on
site .

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-93
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Mason County Landfill, MI
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS
RCRA Subtitle Classification: C X D_
None
(Page or Section References: RCRA C compliant cap pg.30 ROD.)
Comments: The selected remedy is an operable unit that will address the landfill contents portion of the site by properly capping the
landfill. The operable unit that will directly address the ground water contamination and other offsite contamination, or potential
contamination, shall be addressed after more investigation is done (pg. 1 ROD Declaration).

In 1983, a clay cap was completed and drainage improvements were made (pg. 2 ROD). Also two surface aerators were installed in a
pond and 15 gas vents were placed on top of the landfill.

Phase II analysis were discussed in the ROD beginning on page 16.

The selected alternative will be designed to meet all applicable, or relevant and appropriate requirements of Federal and more stringent
State environmental laws (pg. 31 ROD).
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY OR
VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
Containment
(Surface
Controls)
Containment
Multi-layer
(Soil-Clay) Cap
Removal,
Treatment, and
Disposal

Would not
meet ARARs.

Very difficult to
implement because of
the various waste
types that require
handling and
construction staging
requirements.

Most
ex-
pensive

C-94
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Michigan Disposal Service (Cork St. Landfill), MI
SCREENING PHASE
Hot Spot Analysis: Are they present? Yes X No.
If yes, where are they located? In landfill
TBD (Page or Section References:
Periphery X
Pg. 4 of the Proposed Plan.)
Are they subject to separate/different treatment than landfill contents (from ROD or Phase III Analysis)?
Yes X No
TBD
Comments: This ROD covers the third operable unit for this site. The first ROD was for a leachate system in the southeast corner of
the site that diverted leachate to a sewer system from a creek/river. The second ROD concerns the design of a security fence for the
site, now in the design phase. This ROD is intended to include an expanded leachate collection system to control the "hot spots" - other
leachate seeps - in the western and northeastern borders of the property.
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Capping
Asphalt Cap
Clay Cap
Concrete
Multi-layer Cap
Multi-layer Cap
Synthetic

Multimedia
Type III Solid
Waste/Clay
Cap
Multimedia
Type II Solid
Waste/Clay
Cap
Synthetic
Membrane
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
High cost.

High
maintenance
costs.

Susceptible to
weathering and cracking.

Effective when combined
with other capping
materials.
Imposes
restrictions on
future land use.

Imposes
restrictions on
future land use.

Special tools and
skilled personnel
required.

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Vertical/Horizontal Barriers
Sluny Wall

Sheet Pile

Grout Curtain

Liners

Grout Injection

Ineffective due to
discontinuous clay layer.
Ineffective due to
discontinuous clay layer.
Ineffective due to
discontinuous clay layer.

Not applicable
due to site
topography.
Not applicable
due to site
topography.

Landfill Disposal
Offsite Hazardous
Landfill
Onsite Hazardous
Landfill

Onsite
Unspecified
Landfill

Piles and
Vaults

Backfill of
treated waste.
Y

Not applicable
due to:
- Site
topography
- Large volumes
of waste.
Not applicable
due to limited area
at the site.

C-96
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Michigan Disposal Service (Cork St. Landfill), MI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Bioremediation
Bioremediation
(unspecified)
In-situ
Bioremediation
Nutrient
Enhancement
and
Composting
Enhanced
Aerobic
Biodegradation
N
N

Only effective for
organics, metals may
impede process.
Only effective for
organics, metals may
impede process.

Chemical Destruction/Detoxification
Oxidation/
Reduction
Neutralization
Neutralization

Lime

N
N
N

Undesirable oxidized
compounds may form.
Landfill contents not
homogeneous.
Not necessary for this
site.
Not effective for all
chemicals present in soil.

Thermal Treatment
Offsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
Onsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
Pyrolysis

Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y

Very high cost.

Effective on organic
chemicals only.
Emissions may occur.

Discouraged
under SARA.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-97
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Michigan Disposal Service (Cork St. Landfill), MI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS

In-situ
Vitrification

In-situ Radio
Frequency
Volatilization

Very high cost.

Untested effectiveness for
full scale operation.
Additional treatment of
waste required.
Not effective in treating
chemicals at site.
Not applicable to site in
general.
Field pilot study
required.

Thermal Desorption
Low Temperature
Thermal
Desorption/
Stripping
In-situ Steam
Stripping

Low Temperature
Thermal
Desorption/
Stripping
Low-
Temperature
Thermal
Aeration
In-situ Steam
Flushing

In-situ Thermal
Stripping
N
N

Not effective in removing
PCBs detected in site
leachate.
Not effective in treating
chemicals at site.
Not applicable to site in
general.
Not effective in treating
chemicals at site.
Not applicable to site in
general.

Chemical/Physical Extraction
In-situ Soil
Flushing

In-situ Soil
Flushing

May increase volume of
waste.
Surfactants inhibit
recovery of waste stream.
Not effective due to
heterogeneous nature of
landfill waste.

C-98
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Michigan Disposal Service (Cork St. Landfill), MI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
In-situ Vacuum
Extraction (SVE)

In-situ Soil
Flushing
In-situ Vacuum
Extraction/Soil
Aeration

Liquefied Gas
Solvent
Extraction
In-situ Solvent
Extraction

Freeze
Crystallization
Water/ Solvent
Leaching
Y

N
N

High cost.

Not effective on PCBs.
Effective on organics
only.
Not effective due to
heterogeneous nature of
landfill waste.
Untested technology.

Not effective in treating
chemicals at site.
Not applicable to site in
general.
Not effective for all
chemicals present in soil.
Untested technology.
Ineffective for metals.

Immobilization
Fixation
Stabilization/
Solidification

Chemical
Fixation

In-situ
Polymerization.
N
Y

Not practical for site.
Not effective in treating
all site chemicals.
Not applicable to
site conditions.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-99
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Michigan Disposal Service (Cork St. Landfill), MI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS

Other
Aeration
Ambient
Temperature
Aeration
N

Ineffective in treating
metals.
Small onsite area
precludes effective
treatment of large
volumes.

C-100
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Michigan Disposal Service (Cork St. Landfill), MI
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS
RCRA Subtitle Classification: C X D
None
TBD
(Page or Section References: ROD. Page 46. Federal ARARs. RCRA Subtitle C LDRs are applicable if ground water treatment requires a
pretreatment step and any of the waste products of that process are RCRA hazardous waste.)
Comments: Ground water P&T alternatives were considered separately from source alternatives. P&T was selected in conjunction
with the source control remedy noted below.
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY
OR VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT ABILITY
COST
Alternative 3
Clay Cap
Alternative 4
Multi-layer
(Multimedia
Type III Solid
Waste) Cap

Alternative 5
Hrgh
Temperature
Thermal
Treatment
Immobilization
of Landfill
Residuals and
Associated Soils
Alternative 7
Multi-layer
(Multimedia
Type II Solrd
waste) Cap

Type III fill
may increase
risk because it
is not entirely
clean fill.

Type II fill may
increase risk
because it is
not entirely
clean fill.

Potential
emissions and
imposing of
RCRA LDRs
if hazardous.

No reduction of
toxicity,
mobility or
volume because
no treatment
takes place.

Type III fill may
settle and cause
cap to crack.

Type II fill may
settle and cause
cap to crack.

Greatest potential
for short-term
contamination
exposure due to
increased
handling.

Site-specific State
order to stop dumping
may cause
implementation due
to Type III fill.

Most difficult
technical
implementation.

Site-specific State
order to stop dumping
may cause
implementation due
to Type II fill.

Ex-
tremely
high
cost

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-101
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Mid-State Disposal Landfill, WI
SCREENING PHASE
Hot Spot Analysis: Are they present? Yes No X TBD
If yes, where are they located? In landfill
(Page or Section References: None identified in ROD.)
Periphery
Are they subject to separate/different treatment than landfill contents (from ROD or Phase III Analysis)? Yes No TBD
Comments: FS not available at the time. Technologies that passed initial screening were made in Phase I. Without the FS it cannot
be determined why they were not used in Phase III Alternatives.
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Capping
Asphalt Cap
Concrete
Multi-layer Cap
Multi-layer Cap
Clay Cap

Soil and Clay
Cover
Repair Existing
Cap
N
N
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Susceptible to cracking.
Susceptible to cracking.

Vertical/Horizontal Barriers
Slurry Wall
Sheet Pile
Grout Curtain

N
N
N

Interlocks difficult to
seal.
Leakage may occur.
Difficult to control and
determine integrity.
Unknown depth to
aquilude makes
installation
difficult.
Difficult to install
bedrock.
Difficult to install
in bedrock.

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Block
Displacement
Grout Injection

Difficult to control
through landfill
Difficult to control and
determine integrity.
Difficult to control
through landfill
Difficult to control and
determine integrity.
Still experimental.
Still experimental.

Landfill Disposal
Offsite Hazardous
Landfill
Onsite Landfill
(unspecified)

Y
Y

Bioremediation
Bioremediation
(unspecified)
Bioremediation
(unspecified)
Bioremediation
(unspecified)
Aerobic
Anaerobic
Land
Treatment
N
N
N

Some contaminants
(metal) may not be easily
biodegradable.
Some contaminants
(metal) may not be easily
biodegradable.

Potential for
contaminating
ground surface of
ground water.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-103
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Mid-State Disposal Landfill, WI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Chemical Destruction/Detoxification
Oxidation/
Reduction
Oxidation/
Reduction
Neutralization
Reduction
Oxidation
pH Adjustment
N
N
Y

Waste not homogeneous.
Hazardous by-products
may be produced.
May require too much
reagent.
Waste not homogeneous.
Hazardous by-products
may be produced.
May require too much
reagent.

Thermal Treatment
Offsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
Onsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
Pyrolysis
RCRA
Incinerator

Y
Y
Y
Y

Chemical/Physical Extraction
Other
In-situ Vacuum
Extraction (SVE)
B.E.S.T. Process
Gravity
Thickening

N
Y
Y

Waste in sludge is
too thick.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-104
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Mid-State Disposal Landfill, WI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY

FSNAME

TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II

COST

EFFECTIVENESS

IMPLEMENT.

COMMENTS

Immobilization
Fixation
Stabilization/
Solidification
Stabilization/
Solidification

Sorption
Pozzolanic
Agent
Encapsulation

Y
Y

Volatile organics
present may
vaporize during
process.

C-105
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Mid-State Disposal Landfill, WI
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS
None
TBD
(Page or Section References: Page. 29 ROD.)
RCRA Subtitle Classification: C D X
Comments: A 1979 agreement to properly abandon the site included a leachate collection system, covering of the disposal areas, and
removal of the pond leachate. (There were no technologies that were screen out due to community/State acceptance criteria.) Sludge
solidification is a contingency component of the alternative.
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY OR
VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT ABILITY
COST
Repair Cap;
Alternative
Water Supply;
GQandLC.
Repair Cap;
Ground Water
Remediation;
P&T, GC; and
LC.
Repair Cap;
Sludge
Solidification;
P&T, GC;, and
LC.
Multi-layer
(Soil/Clay) Cap;
Sludge
Solidification;
Alternative
Water Supply;
GQandLC.
Multi-layer
(Soil/Clay) Cap;
Sludge
Solidification;
P&T, GC; and
LC
N
N
N
Y
N

Does not
comply to
ARARs.
Does not
comply to
ARARs.
Does not
comply to
ARARs.

Requires
maintenance of
treatment system.

Potential risk to
community and
workers during
implementation.

Potential risk to
community and
workers.

Operation of
treatment system
requires regular
attention for a long
time.
Difficult to solidify
lagoon because of
considerable materials
handling.

More difficult to
construct.
Operational
requirements.

C-106
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Mid-State Disposal Landfill, WI
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY OR
VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
Multi-layer Cap;
Sludge
Solidification;
P&T, GC; and
LC
N

Potential risk to
community and
workers.

Most difficult
alternative to
construct (liner).
Operational
requirements.
Most ex-
pensive.

C-107
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Modern Sanitation Landfill, PA
SCREENING PHASE
Hot Spot Analysis: Are they present? Yes No
If yes, where are they located? In landfill.
TBD X
(Page or Section References:.
Periphery
Are they subject to separate/different treatment than landfill contents (from ROD or Phase III Analysis)?
Yes
No X TBD
Comments: Site fencing and Township Ordinances (institutional controls) were considered as minimal/no action remedies. May not
be possible to identify hot spots (pg. 2-25).
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Capping
Synthetic

Low
Permeability
Cap

Combined synthetic
membrane on plateau areas
and clay over rest, pg. 2-22.
Vertical/Horizontal Barriers
Slurry Wall

Grout Curtain

High.

Grouting is
more expensive
than existing
ground water
extraction
system.

Wastes remain onsite.
Existing ground water
extraction system more
effective in preventing
offsite migration — does
not remove leachate
constituents and may
actually introduce
contaminants.

Compressive
strength of
bedrock is too
great for remedy
to be feasible.
Construction
would be an
immense task
because perimeter
is large and
bedrock is deep.

21.500ft. long/1 00 ft. deep
to low-perm rock, pg. 2-22.
Eliminated because
technology is not feasible in
this setting, pg. 2-56.
Minimum permeability 10"5
cm/sec. Testing of grout
materials would be required
to evaluate effect of waste on
grout material. Grouts are
typically not intended for
permanent control, pg. 2-23.
Eliminated as technology
because is less effective than
ground water and feasibility
is uncertain due to toxicity
interaction concerns, pg. 2-
56.
'Some FSs contained multiple screening steps. Ph. I (Phase I) provides the results of the first screening conducted. Ph. II (Phase II) provides the results of the final screening step
if multiple steps occurred.
C-108
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Modern Sanitation Landfill, PA
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Landfill Disposal
Offsite Hazardous
Landfill

Offsite Hazardous
Landfill

Total Removal
(excavation of
entire 66-acre
landfill).

Partial
Excavation

Removal,
transportation,
and disposal of
8,000,000
cu/yds of waste
material costs
more than $1.5
billion

Costs
associated with
use of large
volume of
landfill space
for disposal.

Would not eliminate
existing ground water
degradation.

Removal,
transportation,
and disposal of
large amount of
waste material is
impractical.
Potential risks to
workers and
public through
exhumation and
transportation.
Disruption of
removal and
remedial actions
would be required.
Quantity and
location of
material for
removal cannot be
ascertained with
certainty.
Likely that
leachate
constituent waste
sources covered
by large amounts
of overlying
wastes.
May not be
possible to
identify hot spots.
Estimate 8,000,000 cu/yds
of disposal material — 4M
each of waste and cover.
Eliminated because
management of large
volumes of material is
impractical, does not address
existing ground water
contamination and high
costs, pg. 2-57.

Removal of "hot spots" pg.
2-25.
Similar reasons as Total
Excavations with added
complexity based on focus
on high contaminant areas,
pg. 2-58.

C-109
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Modern Sanitation Landfill, PA
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Bioremediation
In-situ
Bioremediation

In-situ
Biological
Treatment

High.

Unproven effectiveness
for this treatment for site
chemicals.

Oxygenation of
landfill would
provide heat
potentially
oxidizing refuse
material.
Oxygenation of
the aquifer would
require shutting
down the
extraction system.

Technology generally
limited to aquifers with high
permeability.
Aquifer under landfill is low
permeable <10"5 cm/sec, pg.
2-28AandB.
Eliminated because of
technical implementation
difficulties and that
technology has not been
shown to be effective on the
combination of chemicals
present at site, pg. 2-59.
Thermal Treatment
In-situ
Vitrification

Very high.

Not proven for low
silicate soils.
Site test required to
determine technical
feasibility.
Typically applied to only
high-hazard wastes.

After treatment, evaluation
of ground water to determine
need for continued
remediation.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-110
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Modern Sanitation Landfill, PA
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS
RCRA Subtitle Classification: C
D
None
TBD X
(Page or Section References: Pgs.3-122/38.)
Comments: All alternatives meet threshold criteria, however, offer increasingly more protectiveness by further reducing precipitation
infiltration and maximizing ground water containment. Selected alternative offers greatest assurance of capturing degraded ground
water at only $153,500 more.
TECHNOLOGIE
S EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY OR
VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
No Further
Action
P&T,GC
(Partial Cap and
Continued
Operation of
Existing Ground
Water and Vapor
Extraction

Systems)
Complete Low
Permeability
Capping and
Addition of New
Extraction Well
P&T,GC

Complies with
goals,
however, it is
possible that
leachate is
escaping at
northwest end
of ground
water
extraction
system.

Complies,
however, if
ground water is
bypassing
extraction
system,
requirements
may be
exceeded on
and off the
property.
Complies,
however, if
ground water
may continue
to bypass
extraction
system,
requirements
may be
exceeded on
and off the
property.

N / A - all phases have
been implemented
except additional
monitoring wells.

TC =
$36. 5M.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-lll
-------
SITE NAME: Modern Sanitation Landfill, PA
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS (Continued)
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY OR
VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT ABILITY
COST
Complete Low
Permeability
Capping and
Expansion of
Extraction Well
System
P&T,GC
Y

C-112
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill, OK
SCREENING PHASE
Hot Spot Analysis: Are they present? Yes No.
If yes, where are they located? In landfill
X TBD
(Page or Section References: ROD, pg.23.)
Periphery.
Are they subject to separate/different treatment than landfill contents (from ROD or Phase III Analysis)? Yes No _ TBD
Comments: 1.7 million gallons of liquid industrial waste were disposed of on top of the landfill, creating three "waste pits."
Following this, an additional 80 ft, of municipal waste was disposed of on top of the waste pits before the landfill was closed. A clay
cap was placed over the landfill upon closure, but it is presently in a state of disrepair. The need for remediation of these waste pits is
what placed the site on the NPL; however, according to the ROD, characterization has shown that the waste pits no longer exist (most
likely they have leached through or throughout the landfill) and they are no longer considered to be "hot spots."

This feasibility study, in general, was already assumed a presumptive remedy in the Phase I/Phase II Analysis. Any kind of ex-situ
treatment - chemical, physical, thermal, etc. - has been eliminated in the Phase I analysis without any real analysis because excavation
and removal of wastes were considered to be unfeasible. Similarly, in-situ treatment of any kind has also been eliminated because the
waste areas to be remediated were not distinct zones. As a result, only two capping options - a clay cap and a composite cap - were
considered for source control (along with a slurry wall). Furthermore, only one capping option - a clay cap - and a slurry wall are
presented in the Proposed Plan/Phase III analysis (see pg. 5-3 for the final comparative analysis of the two capping options). The clay
cap option is broken down into three "sub-options" that include cap repair with additional clay over the waste pit areas, and cap repair
with additional clay over the entire landfill. These three "sub-options" of the same technology are presented as three separate capping
alternatives in the ROD.
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Capping
Asphalt Cap
Clay Cap
Concrete
Multi-layer Cap

Cap repair

Clay and
Synthetic
Membrane
Composite Cap
N
Y
N
Y

Higher cost
than clay alone
without added
benefit.
Susceptible to cracking.

Susceptible to cracking.
Synthetic Layer only
minimally reduces the
amount of infiltration
through cover.

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Vertical/Horizontal Barriers
Sluny Wall
Sheet Pile
Grout Curtain

Sheet Pile
Liners

Y
N
N
Y

Subject to corrosion.
Difficult to maintain a
good seal.
Not effective in
unconsolidated alluvium
or highly penetrated
bedrock.

Landfill Disposal
Offsite Hazardous
Landfill

Waste pits are not
preserved as distinct
zones and cannot be
removed or disposed of.

Bioremediation
Bioremediation
(ex-situ)
Bioremediation
(ex-situ)
Above-Grade
Bioremediation
Landf arming
N
N

Waste pits are not
preserved as distinct
zones and cannot be
removed or disposed of.
Presence of metals may
impede process.
Waste pits are not
preserved as distinct
zones and cannot be
removed or disposed of.
Presence of metals may
impede process.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-114
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill, OK
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
In-situ
Bioremediation

Waste pits are not
preserved as distinct
zones and cannot be
removed or disposed of.
Presence of metals may
impede process.
Process is difficult
to control.
May produce
undesirable
intermediates.

Chemical Destruction/Detoxification
Neutralization

Oxidation/
Reduction

(Ex-situ, In-
situ)

In-situ

Waste pits are not
preserved as
distinct zones and
cannot be treated.
pH is probably
neutral already.
Waste pits are not
preserved as
distinct zones and
cannot be treated.

Thermal Treatment
Offsite
Incineration
(unspecified)

In-situ
Vitrification

Incineration

High costs.

Waste pits are not
preserved as
distinct zones and
cannot be
removed or
disposed of.
Waste pits are not
preserved as
distinct zones and
cannot be treated.
Explosive hazard
due to methane
presence.

C-115
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill, OK
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Chemical/Physical Extraction
In-situ Soil
Flushing
Ex-situ, In-situ
Water/Solvent
Leaching
N

Waste pits are not
preserved as
distinct zones and
cannot be treated.

Immobilization
Stabilization/
Solidification
Stabilization/
Solidification
Stabilization/
Immobilization
Solidification
N
N

Waste pits are not
preserved as
distinct zones and
cannot be treated.
Waste pits are not
preserved as
distinct zones and
cannot be treated.

Other
Aeration

Ex-situ, In-situ
Solids
Processing
N
N

Waste pits are not
preserved as distinct
zones and cannot be
treated.
Not effective due to
heterogeneous nature of
wastes.
Waste pits are not
preserved as
distinct zones and
cannot be treated.

C-116
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill, OK
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS
RCRA Subtitle Classification: C
None
TBD
(Page or Section References: ROD, pg.37. There is no discussions of RCRA classification, but it assumed the selected remedy will
satisfy the solid waste disposal requirements of RCRA Subtitle D. The remedy also meets the Oklahoma Solid Waste Management Act
and the Oklahoma Controlled Industrial Waste Disposal Act.)

Comments: Three capping alternatives of the same technology (clay cap) were analyzed separately from ground water alternatives in
the Phase III analysis. The slurry wall was the only other source control technology that was looked at in the Phase III analysis, and was
examined as part of the ground water alternatives. It is presented here in the Phase III analysis, along with reasons for why it was not
chosen as part of the selected ground water remedy.
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY OR
VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
Capping
Alternative I
Clay Cap
Repair.
Capping
Alternative II
Clay Cap
Repair., with 2
ft. of clay over
Waste Pit areas.
Capping
Alternative III
Clay Cap
Repair., with 2
ft. of clay over
the entire
landfill.
Y

Additional
clay is
unnecessary
because waste
pits don't exist
anymore.
Additional
clay does not
significantly
increase
protection.

No treatment.

Cost
almost
the
same as
selected
remedy.
Cost
almost
double
selected
remedy.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-117
-------
SITE NAME: Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill, OK
PHASE m ANALYSIS (Continued)
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITHARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY OR
VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
Slurry Wall

Does not
greatly
enhance
overall
protection.

May have
negative short-
term impacts on
wetlands due to
draining.
Construction at great
depth is likely to be
difficult.

C-118
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Muskego Sanitary Landfill, WI
SCREENING PHASE
Hot Spot Analysis: Are they present? Yes X No TBD (Page or Section References: Pg.18 ROD, pss.4-2. 3-3 FS.)
If yes, where are they located? In landfill Periphery X
Are they subject to separate/different treatment than landfill contents (from ROD or Phase III Analysis)? Yes X No TBD
Comments: Pg. 4-4 FS Source areas of concern: 1) Old Fill Area 2) Southeast Fill Area 3) Non-Contiguous Fill Areas (pg.4-5 FS).

There was no Phase I screening if technologies. Technologies were immediately screened on cost/effectiveness/implementability. The
Old Fill Area was closed and covered in 1977. In 1980 and 1982, reparative fills No. 1 and No. 2 (respectively) were added to the Old
Fill Area to improve surface grade and reduce infiltration (pg. 2-1 FS).
The Southeast Fill Area was closed, covered with clay and topsoil, and vegetated in 1980 (pg. 2-2 FS).

The hot spot is the Drum Trench in the Non-Contiguous Fill Areas 4.2 acres in size. The Drum Trench was removed in 1990. The
excavation has been backfilled with clean, low permeability sand material and covered with four feet of compacted material (sand and
clay (pg.2-2 FS).

There is no definite evidence that materials subsequently listed as Hazardous Waste under State or Federal Regulations disposed at this
site (pg. 2-2 FS).
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Capping
Soil Cover
Asphalt Cap
Concrete
Clay Cap
Multi-layer Cap
Cover Upgrade

Soil - Clay

Y
N
N
N
Y

Potential for cracking.
Potential for cracking.
Clay alone is not
considered suitable.
Some protective layer
would be required.

Would be effective and
satisfy NR 504 requirements.
'Some FSs contained multiple screening steps. Ph. I (Phase I) provides the results of the first screening conducted. Ph. II (Phase II) provides the results of the final screening step
if multiple steps occurred.
C-119
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Muskego Sanitary Landfill, WI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Multi-layer Cap
Multi-layer Cap
Multi-layer Cap
Gravel - Clay
Cap
Soil - Synthetic
Membrane
Soil - Synthetic
Membrane -
Clay

N
N
N

Gravel over clay would
only be used in some
specialized application,
where drainage or a
trafficable surface was
needed.
Most areas already have
clay of suitably low
permeability.
Not applicable.

An NR 660 cap is not
relevant to the site.
Vertical/Horizontal Barriers
Slurry Wall
Sheet Pile
Grout Curtain

N
N
N

Not feasible due to
loss of slurry in
waste materials.
Driving piles in
waste is not feasible.
Not feasible due to
loss of slurry in
waste materials.
Driving piles in
waste is not feasible.
Not feasible due to
loss of slurry in
waste materials.
Driving piles in
waste is not feasible.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-120
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Muskego Sanitary Landfill, WI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Vibrating Beam
Block
Displacement
Grout Injection

Injection
Grouting

N
N
N

Ability to obtain a
competent barrier
suitable for containing
leachate has not been
demonstrated.
Ability to obtain a
competent barrier
suitable for containing
leachate has not been
demonstrated.
Not feasible due
to loss of slurry in
waste materials.
Driving piles in
waste is not
feasible.

Bioremediation
Bioremediation
(unspecified)
Bioenhance-
ment

Obtaining acceptable
remediation goals
unlikely.
High variability of
municipal refuse
makes efficient
operation
difficult.

Thermal Treatment
In-situ
Vitrification
Vitrification

High variability of
municipal refuse makes:
Efficient operation
difficult
Obtaining acceptable
remediation goals
unlikely.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-121
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Muskego Sanitary Landfill, WI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Chemical/Physical Extraction
In-situ Soil
Flushing

In-situ Vacuum
Extraction (SVE)

Vapor
Extraction

High variability of
municipal refuse makes:
Efficient operation
difficult
Obtaining acceptable
remediation goals
unlikely.

Immobilization
Stabilization/
Solidification

Solidification

High variability of
municipal refuse makes:
Efficient operation
difficult
Obtaining acceptable
remediation goals
unlikely.

Other

Aboveground
Treatment

Aboveground
treatment methods
are not
appropriate for
large quantities of
municipal refuse.

C-122
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Muskego Sanitary Landfill, WI
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS
RCRA Subtitle Classification: C
D
None
TBD
(Page or Section References: Pg. 4-6 FS : pg. 27 ROD.^
Comments: To accelerate the remediation of the sources of contamination, EPA organized the work into two operable units: 1.
Interim Action Source Control Operable Unit and 2. Ground Water Operable Unit (pg. 6 ROD). This ROD deals with the first operable
unit.

The selected remedy was a modified Alternative with the addition of a ground water monitoring program. The selected Alternative
consists of all the components of the other Alternative with the addition of capping in the Non-Contiguous Zone and In-situ vacuum
extraction of the Non-Contiguous Zone (pg. 24 ROD).

In general, issues in the comments were directed toward the inclusion of ground water monitoring for the final remedy, and a delay in
capping the Southeast Fill Area (pg. 31 ROD).
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY
OR VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
Capping-Soil
Cover in
Accordance with
NR 50 WAC in
Some Areas;
GC;LC
Capping- Multi-
Layer; In-situ
Vapor
Extraction
Treatment of
Portions of Non-
Contiguous Area
LQGC
N

Does not
directly
address
contamination
in Non-
Contiguous
Area.

Does not reduce
the mobility and
volume of VOCs
at the Non-
Contiguous
Area.

Less long-term
effectiveness
than the other
alternatives
because of the
Non-Contiguous
Area.

C-123
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Old City of York Landfill, PA
SCREENING PHASE
Hot Spot Analysis: Are they present? Yes X No.
If yes, where are they located? In landfill
TBD
(Page or Section References:
Periphery X
Are they subject to separate/different treatment than landfill contents (from ROD or Phase III Analysis)? Yes X No TBD

Comments: Hot spot identified as vault sediment from a failed leachate collection system. The sediment is to be removed for offsite
disposal. Please note that offsite disposal was eliminated as an option for the whole site.
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Capping
Asphalt Cap
Concrete
Multi-layer Cap
Soil Cover
Synthetic

N
N
Y
Y
N

Y
Y

Subject to cracking and
root penetration.
Subject to cracking and
root penetration.

UV light degradation
Invasion of burrowing
animals;
Uneven setting.

Vertical/ Horizontal Barriers
Slurry Wall
Sheet Piles
Grout Curtains

N
N
N

Technically
unfeasible due to
site conditions.
Technically
unfeasible due to
site conditions.
Technically
unfeasible due to
site conditions.

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Bottom Sealing

Technically
unfeasible due to
site conditions.

Landfill Disposal
Offsite Disposal
(unspecified)
Offsite Disposal
(Hot Spot)

Y
Y
N
Y
Very high
capital.

Potential adverse impact
to human health and
environment.

Bioremediation
In-situ
Bioremediation
Bioremediation
(unspecified)
Bioremediation
Onsite
Biodegradation
N
N

Not applicable due to
heterogeneity of refuse.
Not applicable due to
heterogeneity of refuse

Thermal Treatment
Offsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
Onsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
In-situ
Vitrification

Vitrification
Thermal
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
High costs.

Very high
capital.
Potential adverse impact
to human health and
environment.

Not routinely
demonstrated on remedial
scale.
High difficulty.
Nearby incinerator
makes not
applicable.
Limited
availability;
requires pilot
demonstration.
Low benefit.
Mobile unit on-site.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-125
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Old City of York Landfill, PA
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Thermal Desorption
Low Temperature
Thermal
Desorption/
Stripping
Low
Temperature
Thermal
Stripping
N

Not applicable due to
heterogeneity of refuse.

Chemical/Physical Extraction
In-situ Soil
Flushing
Ex-situ Soil
Washing
In-situ Vacuum
Extraction (SVE)

Contaminant
Extraction

N
N
Y

Not feasible due to
heterogeneity of refuse.
Not feasible due to
heterogeneity of refuse.
Unproven for refuse
material.

Immobilization
Stabilization/
Solidification

Y
N

Unproven for municipal
waste.
May be susceptible to
leaching.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-126
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Old City of York Landfill, PA
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS
RCRA Subtitle Classification: C
D
None
TBD X (Page or Section References: Pg. 36
Comments: An additional alternative was added in the ROD (Alternative 7), pg. 24 ROD.

The selected alternative was a combination of two alternatives (#3 and #7). The selected alternative consisted of 1) restoration of soil
cover in Area #3; 2) diversion swale; 3) revegetation of soil cover; 4) P&T Area # 1 and #3; 5) GC #3 and 6) vault sediment removal
(ROD). The selected alternative was not formally compared on the nine criteria against the other alternatives.

The accumulated sediment from the concrete collection vaults shall be tested (TCLP) and disposed of at an approved facility, pg. 36
ROD. The vault is a failed leachate collection system. It is not labeled as a hot spot but is addressed in every alternative.
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITHARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY
OR VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
Alternative 2
Treatment
Refuse Area #3;
Vault Sediment
Removal; P&T

Alternative 3
Treatment
Refuse Area #3;
Restore Soil
Cover; Vault
Sediment
Removal; P&T,
GC
N

Y
combina-
tion of
Alt. 3
and
Alt. 7

Does not reduce
toxicity,
mobility, or
volume as much
as other
alternatives.

Does not address
ground water
contamination
completely
Not as effective
as other
alternatives.

Risks to workers
who might come
in contact with
contaminated
ground water
during
maintenance.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-127
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Old City of York Landfill, PA
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS (Continued)
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITHARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY
OR VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT ABILITY
COST
Alternative 4
Multi-layer Cap
over Area #1;
Vault Sediment
Removal with
Offsite Disposal;
P&T,GC

Alternative 5
Partial Multi-
layer Cap over
Area #3; Vault
Sediment
Removal; GC
Alternative 6
Multi-layer Cap
over Area #3 ;
(Entire Area);
Vault Sediment
Removal; GC
N

Does not
address
contaminated
ground water.
NoP&T.

Does not reduce
toxicity,
mobility, or
volume as much
as other
alternatives.

Does not reduce
toxicity,
mobility, or
volume as much
as other
alternatives.
Does not reduce
toxicity,
mobility, or
volume as much
as other
alternatives.
Does not address
ground water
contamination
completely.
Not as effective
as other
alternatives.

Does not address
P&T or ground
water
contamination in
Area#l.

Risks to workers
who might come
in contact with
contaminated
ground water
during
maintenance.
Risks to workers
and community
due to
installation of
cap.
Risks to workers
and community
due to
installation of
cap.

Risks to workers
and community
due to
installation of
cap.

Installation problems
due to residents.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-128
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Old City of York Landfill, PA
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS (Continued)
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITHARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY
OR VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT ABILITY
COST
Alternative 7
Multi-layer Cap
Area # land Area
#3; Vault
Sediment
Removal; P&T,
GC
Y
combina-
tion of
Alt. 3
and
Alt. 7

C-129
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Onalaska Municipal Landfill, WI
SCREENING PHASE
Hot Spot Analysis: Are they present? Yes X No _
If yes, where are they located? In landfill X
TBD
(Page or Section References:.
Periphery.
Are they subject to separate/different treatment than landfill contents (from ROD or Phase III Analysis)?

Comments: No FS available at time of review.
Yes X No
TBD
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Capping
Asphalt Cap
Clay Cap
Concrete
Concrete
Multi-layer Cap
Multi-layer Cap
Multi-layer Cap
Soil Cover
Single Layer
Cap: Sprayed
Asphalt
(Cap Repair)
Single Layer
Cap: Clay
Single Layer
Cap: Asphaltic
Concrete
Single Layer
Concrete
Multi -layer
Cap: Clay
Geomembrane
Multi -layer
Cap: Clay
Multi -layer
Cap: Synthetic
Membrane
Native Soil
Cover
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y

Not likely that asphalt
will provide long-term
cap integrity.

Not likely that asphalt
will provide long-term
cap integrity.
High potential for
landfill settlement would
likely crack the concrete.

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Chemical Sealant
Surface Sealing
N

Sealants and stabilizers
not likely to provide
long-term cap integrity.

Vertical/Horizontal Barriers
Grout Injection
Liner
Horizontal
Barriers

N
N

Integrity of grouts and
slurry difficult to
establish.
Integrity of grouts and
slurry difficult to
establish.

Liner installation
would require
excavation of
entire landfill.
Storage space is
not available
onsite.

Landfill Disposal
Offsite Hazardous
Landfill
Onsite Hazardous
Landfill

Y
N

Not applicable
since surrounding
area is in
Mississippi River
100 year
floodplain.

Bioremediation
Bioremediation
(in- situ)
In-situ Bio-
Reclamation
Y

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-131
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Onalaska Municipal Landfill, WI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Thermal Treatment
In-situ
Vitrification

Offsite
Incineration
(unspecified)

Not applicable to
heterogeneous wastes in
landfill.
Would likely cause
landfill fire.

Thermal Desorption
Low Temperature
Thermal
Desorption/
Stripping
Low
Temperature
Volatilization
Y

Chemical/Physical Extraction
In-situ Soil
Flushing
In-situ Vacuum
Extraction (SVE)

Soil Vapor
Extraction

N
N

Not applicable to
landfills due to
heterogeneity of soils
and refuse.
May cause landfill fires
and high air extraction
rate is used.
Vapor extraction
applicable only to VOCs.
Semi-VOCs and
inorganic contamination
would remain.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-132
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Onalaska Municipal Landfill, WI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS

Chemical Destruction/Detoxification
Oxidation
Oxidation/
Reduction

Chemical
Reduction
N
N

Difficult to
implement and
achieve good
mixing in-situ.
Difficult to
implement in
landfill.

C-133
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Onalaska Municipal Landfill, WI
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS
RCRA Subtitle Classification: C X D_
None
TBD
(Page or Section References: Pgs. 48-49 ROD.^
Comments: Landfill was capped with 2 feet, clay in soil layer in 1980 (pg. 24 ROD) 2 operable units. First operable unit deals with
the landfill, the second operable unit deals with ground water contaminated plume and contaminated soil. The ground water alternative
includes pump and treat (P&T). Although the remedial alternatives are discussed separately for each operable unit. In some instances
the implementation of any one remedy for the ground water operable unit may directly influence the selection of a remedy for the
landfill operable unit (pg. 31 ROD).
Remedial technologies for hot sport contaminated soils were evaluated under ground water remedies.
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITHARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY OR
VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT ABILITY
COST
Clay Cap
Cap Repair and
Upgrade

Multi-layer Cap
(Landfill Only); In-
situ Bio-
remediation (Hot
Spot Contaminated
Soils); GC
Multi-layer Cap
(Landfill and
Contaminated Soil
Zone); GW
N

Does not
provide adequate
protection of
human health
and the
environment
since freeze/
thaw, erosion,
and animal
burrowing will
continue to
damage the cap,
pg.32 ROD.

Does not meet the
current section
NR 504.07,
WAC landfill
requirements for
landfill closures.

Does not provide
long-term
effectiveness or
permanence since no
frost protection layer
is provided for the
cap.

C-134
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Onalaska Municipal Landfill, WI
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS (Continued)
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITHARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY OR
VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT ABILITY
COST
Offsite Thermal
Treatment (Hot
Spot
Contaminated
Sorls)
N

High adverse
impacts for
comparable
treatment.

Highest

C-135
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Ramapo Landfill, NY
SCREENING PHASE
Hot Spot Analysis: Are they present? Yes_
If yes, where are they located?
In landfill
No X TBD (Page or Section References.
Periphery
Are they subject to separate/different treatment than landfill contents (from ROD or Phase III analysis)? Yes No TBD_

Comments:
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Capping
Multi-layer Cap
Multi-layer Cap
Multi-layer Cap
Soil Cover
RCRA Cap
Part 360 Cap
Modified Part
360 Cap

Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Highest Cost
capping
option.

New York State Part 360
Solid Waste Regulation.

Vertical/Horizontal Barriers
Slurry Wall
Slurry Wall
Sheet Pile
Sheet Pile
Grout Curtain
Upgradient
Slurry Wall
Down gradient
Slurry Wall
Upgradient
Sheet Pile
Down gradient
Sheet Pile
Upgradient
Grout Curtain

N
Y
N
Y
N

Not effective due to site
conditions.

Not anticipated to
be implementable
to required depth.

'Some FSs contained multiple screening steps. Ph I (Phase I) provides the results of the first screening conducted. Ph. II (Phase II) provides the results of the
final screening step if multiple steps occurred.
C-136
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Ramapo Landfill, NY
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Grout Curtain
Grout Injection
Down gradient
Grout Curtain
Bedrock
Grouting
Y
N
N

Not effective due to site
conditions.
Not anticipated to
be implementable
to required depth.

Landfill Disposal
OffsiteRCRA

Excavation of
large landfill not
practical.

Bioremediation
Ex-situ
Bioremediation
In-situ
Bioremediation
Surficial
Biological
Treatment
Bioreclamation
N
N

Excavation of
large landfill not
practical.
Depth of fill
required makes
treatment not
feasible.

Chemical Destruction/Detoxification
Chemical
Destruction/
Detoxification
(unspecified)
Surficial
Chemical
Treatment (ex-
situ)
N

Excavation of
large landfill not
practical.

Thermal Treatment
Offsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
In-situ
Vitrification

Vitrification
N
N

Depth of fill
makes treatment
not feasible.
Depth of fill
makes treatment
not feasible.

C-137
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Ramapo Landfill, NY
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Chemical/Physical Extraction
In-situ Soil
Flushing

Depth of fill
makes treatment
not feasible.

Immobilization
Stabilization/
Solidification
Stabilization/
Solidification
Ex-situ
Stabilization/
Solidification
In-situ
Stabilization/
Solidification
N
N

Excavation of
large landfill not
practical.
Depth of fill
makes treatment
not feasible.

C-138
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Ramapo Landfill, NY
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS
RCRA Subtitle Classification: C
D
None
TBD (Page or Section References:
Comments: Multi-media cap meeting all requirements of the New York State Part 360 Solid Waste Regulations.

A leachate collection and treatment operation was set up in 1984 and 1985 (pg. 3 ROD).

Landfill gas emissions will be controlled if necessary (pg. 2 ROD).

The contingency alternative for the site includes the other capping option. The landfill side slope will be capped using a multi-media
system without an impermeable membrane, if confirmatory studies demonstrate that this approach meets remedial action objectives (pg.
23 ROD).)
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITHARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY OR
VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
Ground Water
Extraction
Wells; P&T

No provision
for landfill cap
and therefore
does not
reduce the
generation of
leachate,
prevent human
and animal
contact with
contamination,
prevent
erosion of
contaminated
surface soils,
nor provide a
means of
treating
landfill gas
emissions.
Does not meet
New York State
Part 360 action
specific ARAR.

Does not provide
for control or
remediation of site
contamination.

C-139
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Ramapo Landfill, NY
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS(Continued)
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITHARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY OR
VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
Multi-layer
(Landfill) Cap;
P&T; GC; and
LC

Multi-layer
(Landfill) Cap
with Soil Cover
on Side Slopes;
P&T; GC; and
LC
N
Contingency
Alternative

Potential hazard
to the
surrounding
community and
environment may
include airborne
dust and
particulate
emission and an
increased noise
level.

More potential for
design and
construction
problems;
High administrative
requirements, periodic
surveillance and
repairs.

Higher
cost
than
selected
remedy.

C-140
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Rasmussen's Dump, MI
SCREENING PHASE
Hot Spot Analysis: Are they present? Yes_
If yes, where are they located?
No X TBD
(Page or Section References:
In landfill
Periphery.
Are they subject to separate/different treatment than landfill contents (from ROD or Phase III analysis)? Yes No TBD_
Comments: Remedial technologies evaluated for 4 source control areas: 1) Top of Municipal landfill, 2) NE Buried Drum Area, 3)
Industrial Waste Area, 4) Probable Drum Storage/leakage/Disposal Area. Matrix reflects integrated remedies.
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Capping
Clay Cap
Multi-layer Cap

Y
Y
Y
Y

Vertical/Horizontal Barriers
Slurry Wall
Grout Curtain

Block
Displacement
Grouting
Vitrified Wall
Barrier
N
N
N

Ground water does not
flow through waste areas.
Vertical barrier
ineffective in containing
ground water.
Ineffective below water
table.
Ground water does not
flow through waste areas.
Vertical barrier
ineffective in containing
ground water.

Waste areas are
either too shallow
or too deep.
Uncertain geology.
Lack of continuous
clay layer.
Lack of depth to
bedrock.

Experimental process with
mixed success.
Would require cap and
leachate system (pg. 15 PS).
Vertical barriers only
effective if used in
conjunction with removal
and treatment system (pg.
14 PS).
'Some FSs contained multiple screening steps. Ph I (Phase I) provides the results of the first screening conducted. Ph. II (Phase II) provides the results of the
final screening step if multiple steps occurred.
C-141
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Rasmussen's Dump, MI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Landfill Disposal
Offsite Landfill
(unspecified)

Onsite Landfill
(for drums)
Onsite Landfill
(unspecified)
Offsite
Disposal

Onsite Landfill
Y

Y
N

No landfill will
accept waste due
to the nature of
the contaminants.

Insufficient space
to meet set-back
requirements for
facility.

(Pg. 57 PS).
Bioremediation
Bioremediation
(unspecified)
Ex-situ
Bioremediation

Ex-situ
Bioremediation

In-situ
Bioremediation

Anaerobic
Biodegradation
Rotary
Biological
Contractors -
Aerobic
(RBCs)
Trickle Filter
System
(Aerobic)

Sensitivity to non-
uniform waste streams
and long retention times.

Contaminants may be
widely and intermittently
dispersed.
Pilot testing required to
determine effectiveness.

Shaft breakage
and failure have
been chronic
problems.
Extremely
sensitive to
temperature and
difficult to
control.
Process control is
poor.

Final results may take years
to achieve (pg. 21 PS).

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-142
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Rasmussen's Dump, MI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Chemical Destruction/Detoxification
Dehalogenation Dechlorination
N
High costs
associated with
process and
handling of by-
products.
Other options
more cost
effective.
Testing is required
to demonstrate
process.
Thermal Treatment
Offsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
Offsite
Incineration
Y
N
Significant
administrative
actions required.
Limited vendors
accepting dioxin
wastes.
Onsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
Onsite
Incineration
Y
N
Significant
administrative
coordination-
residuals disposal
presents risks to
ground water.
In-situ
Vitrification
Vitrification
N
Long-term leaching of
organics is uncertain
Control of VOCs during
process may be difficult.
Equipment is unproven
on a large scale basis.
Topography of
area is not
appropriate.
Areas are too
shallow for
effective electrode
placement.
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-143
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Rasmussen's Dump, MI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Chemical/Physical Extraction
In-situ Soil
Flushing
Ex-situ Soil
Washing

In-situ Vacuum
Extraction (SVE)

In-situ
Treatment
Vacuum
Extraction
N
Y

Geology may impede
process and create
potential for further
contamination.
Not effective for
drummed or concentrated
wastes.

Not effective for PCBs,
dioxins or other
contaminated wastes.

Risks to
community and
workers due to
fugitive
emissions.
Required
extensive pilot
testing to
establish
effectiveness.
No vendors for
regeneration of
PCB/dioxin
carbon units.
Overlying wastes
must be excavated
and treated by
other methods.
(Pg. 18 PS).

Not retained in lieu of
equally effective and more
comprehensive options
(pg.55PS).
Immobilization
Solidification/
Stabilization
Solidification

Not
implementable on
a site -wide basis.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-144
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Rasmussen's Dump, MI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY

FSNAME

TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II

COST

EFFECTIVENESS

IMPLEMENT.

COMMENTS

Other
Aeration

Soil Aeration

Technology is ineffective
for PCBs and dioxins;
would not comply with
establish treatment
standards for THOCs.
Pilot testing required to
determine effectiveness.

C-145
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Rasmussen's Dump, MI
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS
RCRA Subtitle Classification: C X D
None
TBD
(Page or Section References: Table 9-2. FS: RCRA C is relevant and appropriate.)

Comments: GW remedies considered separately from source control. Site wide remedies derived from detailed screening of
alternative for each of 4 sites areas; the presence of dioxins and lack of vendor equipment influenced the selection of final site-wide
alternatives. Excavated drums sent for offsite disposal at RCRA facility.
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY OR
VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT ABILITY
COST
Clay Cap with
No Further
Excavation and
Restricted
Access; P&T

Clay Cap with
Further
Excavation and
Restricted
Access

Contaminant
located closest
to ground
water table
could be
mobilized.
Potential
future threats
if cap fails.
Clay cap not
as protective
(i.e. reduce
infiltration) as
multimedia.

No toxicity
reduction -
mobility
reduction
dependent of
cap
maintenance.

Same as
above.
NoGWP&T
alternative to
reduce
toxicity or
mobility.

Failure of
alternative could
lead to future risks.
Technology less
effective than
multimedia caps.

Same as above.
Continued ground
water
contamination
migration
technology less
effective than
multimedia caps.

Higher inhalation
exposure during
excavation.

Excavation
alternative is more
costly than those
without.

TPW
S2.99M.

TPW
S4.54M.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-146
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Rasmussen's Dump, MI
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS (Continued)
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITH
FEDERAL
ARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY OR
VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
Multimedia Cap
with No Further
Excavation and
Restricted
Access; Drum
Removal and
Offsite Disposal
atRCRA
Facility; P&T
Multimedia Cap
with Further
Excavation and
Restricted
Access

No ground
water P&T
alternative to
reduce
toxicity or
mobility.

Continued ground
water
contamination
migration.

Higher inhalation
exposure during
excavation.

TPW
$5.29M

C-147
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Stoughton City Landfill, WI
SCREENING PHASE
TBD
Hot Spot Analysis: Are they present? Yes X No
(saturated waste area)
If yes, where are they located? In landfill X
(Page or Section References ROD Declaration.)
Periphery.
TBD
Are they subject to separate/different treatment than landfill contents (from ROD or Phase III analysis)? Yes X No
Comments: The FS was updated by comments that followed one month after the FS publication. These comments are significant
and must be used in conjunction with the FS to get proper effectiveness data for Phase II. The initial remedial action objectives
presented in the FS were not acceptable.
Hazardous waste was dumped at the landfill by an industrial plastics and rubber company.
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Capping
Asphalt Cap
Clay Cap
Concrete
Multi-layer Cap
Multi-layer Cap
Multi-layer Cap
Sprayed, Paved
Asphalt Cap
Single-Layer

Clay and Soil
Synthetic
Geomembrane
Clay and
Geomembrane
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y

Y
N
Y

More
expensive than
cap repair.

More
expensive than
multi-layer cap
repair.

Not likely to maintain
structural integrity over
time.
Susceptible to cracking.
Not effective in meeting
current reliability
standards in Wisconsin.
Cracking over time is
likely.

Permits may be
required.

No added benefits from
added cost.

More expensive than multi-
layer clay cap, but this
option may be needed if
hazardous waste
requirements apply.

'Some FSs contained multiple screening steps. Ph I (Phase I) provides the results of the first screening conducted. Ph. II (Phase II) provides the results of the
final screening step if multiple steps occurred.
C-148
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Stoughton City Landfill, WI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS

Cap Repair/
Upgrade
Y
Y

Vertical/Horizontal Barriers
Slurry Wall
Sheet Pile
Grout Curtain
Liners
Grout Injection

Y
N
N
N
N
Y

Barrier integrity is
unpredictable.
Not applicable due to
unconsolidated deposits.

Not applicable due to
unconsolidated deposits.

Not feasible to
remove all waste
to install liner.

Landfill Disposal
Offsite Hazardous
Landfill
Onsite Hazardous
Landfill

N
N

Not feasible due
to large volume of
soils and waste to
be removed.
Site not likely to
be approved.
Not feasible due
to large volume of
soils and waste to
be removed.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-149
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Stoughton City Landfill, WI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Bioremediation
In-situ
Bioremediation

Not feasible due to
heterogeneous nature of
landfill.
Not all compounds can
be treated.

Chemical Destruction/Detoxification
Oxidation/
Reduction

Not all compounds can
be treated.
Not possible due
to heterogeneous
nature of landfill.

Thermal Treatment
Offsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
In-situ
Vitrification

N
N

Not feasible to
excavate all soils
and incinerate
off site.
Not implement-
able due to
saturated soil
conditions.

Thermal Desorption
Low Temperature
Thermal
Desorption/
Stripping
Low-
temperature
volatilization
N

Not possible to
excavate all soils
and waste.

Chemical/Physical Extraction
In-situ Soil
Flushing
In-situ
N

Not all compounds can
be treated.
Not possible due
to heterogeneous
nature of landfill.

C-150
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Stoughton City Landfill, WI
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS

In-situ Soil vapor
Extraction

Solvent
Extraction

Medium to
High.

Not feasible to excavate
all soils and waste.
Expected to have limited
effect on ground water.
Does not treat all
contaminants of concern.

Substantial
requirements for
air permits must
be met.

Immobilization
Stabilization/
Solidification
Chemical
Stabilization
N

Not likely to be effective
over time.

C-151
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Stoughton City Landfill, WI
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS
RCRA Subtitle Classification: C
D X None
TBD
(Page or Section References: Pg. 35 of the ROD states that RCRA C is not applicable because the landfill was closed before RCRA C
statutes came into effect. It also says, however, that some of the RCRA C requirements are relevant and appropriate. )
Comments: The selected remedy, Alternative 7 A, was added after the original alternatives were presented in the FS. The selected
remedy satisfies RCRA Subtitle D and WAC NR 504.07 ARARs.
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY
OR VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT ABILITY
COST
Alternative 2
Cap Repair and
Upgrade
GC will be

considered
Alternative 3
Multi-layer
(Solid Waste)
Cap; GC

Alternative 4A
Multi-layer
(Solid Waste)
Cap; Physical
Barrier; GC
Alternative 4B
Multi-layer
(Solid Waste)
Cap; Physical
Barrier and
Consolidation of
Waste; GC
N

Is not overall
protective of
human health
and the
environment.

Doesn't
prevent
ground water
contamination

Only partial
prevention of
ground water
contamination

Doesn't meet
chemical-
specific
ground water
ARARS.

Doesn't meet
chemical-
specific
ground water
ARARs.
Doesn't meet
chemical-
specific
ground water
ARARs.
Doesn't meet
chemical-
specific
ground water
ARARs.

No treatment.

Potential long-
term ground
water
contamination.

High
cost.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-152
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Stoughton City Landfill, WI
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS (Continued)
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY
OR VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
Alternate 5
Multi-layer
(Solid Waste)
Cap; GC; P&T
Alternate 6A
Multi-layer
(Solid Waste)
Cap; Physical
Barrier; GC;
P&T
Alternate 6B
Multi-layer
(Solid Waste)
Cap; Physical
Barrier and
Consolidation of
Waste; GC; P&T
Alternate 7
Multi-layer
(Solid Waste)
Cap;
Consolidation of
Waste; GC; P&T
N

Only partial
prevention of
ground water
contamination

Doesn't meet
state water
quality
standards.

No treatment.

Long
construction
period.

Maintenance
problems with barrier.

High
cost.

Medium
cost.

C-153
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Stoughton City Landfill, WI
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS (Continued)
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY
OR VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
Alternative 7A
Multi-layer
(Solid Waste)
Cap;
Consolidation of
Waste;
Contingency
Basis for Ground
Water Pump &
Treat; GC
Y

C-154
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Strasburg Landfill, PA
SCREENING PHASE
Hot Spot Analysis: Are they present? Yes
If yes, where are they located?
No X
In landfill
TBD
(Page or Section References:
Periphery.
Are they subject to separate/different treatment than landfill contents (from ROD or Phase III Analysis)? Yes .
No
TBD
Comments: Over twenty leachate seeps have been identified on the eastern, western and southern slopes of the landfill. This ROD
covers the third Operable Unit for this site. The first OU was concerned with designing a leachate collection system at the site. That
leachate collection system is no longer adequate for the needs of this site. It is also important to note that this site was covered upon its
closure, but the cover has since been torn in many places and is no longer adequate, primarily due to poor construction, and a failure to
place adequate soil over the cover. Furthermore, only a general study of capping was done in the FS, as shown in the Groundwater
"Containment/Diversion" section and the Leachate Collection "Capping and Recapping" section. It appears that a multi-layer cap of
soil, clay and synthetic membrane was predetermined.
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Capping
Asphalt Cap
Chemical Sealants
Clay Cap
Concrete Cap
Multi-layer Cap
Multi-layer Cap

Single Layer
Clay Cap

Multi-Layer Cap
with Loam and
Clay
Loam over Sand
over Synthetic
Membrane
N
N
N
N
Y
Y

N
N

High cost.
High cost.

Only effective in a multi-
layer cap.

Not applicable
due to site
topography.

Not applicable
due to site
topography.
Long-term
maintenance
required.
Time consuming
installation.

No discussion provided in FS.

Self -repairing ability of clay
is lost with this type of multi-
layer cap.
'Some FSs contained multiple screening steps. Ph. I (Phase I) provides the results of the first screening conducted. Ph. II (Phase II) provides the results of the
final screening step if multiple steps occurred.
C-155
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Strasburg Landfill, PA
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Multi-layer Cap

Soil Cover

Synthetic

Loam over
Sand over
Synthetic
Mambrane over
Clay
"RCRA Cap-

Cap Repairs

Only to be used in a
multi-layer cap.

Only to be used in a
multi-layer cap.
Not effective when used
alone.
Unable to locate areas in
need of repair.

Not applicable
due to site
topography.

Vertical/Horizontal Barriers
Slurry Wall

Sheet Pile

Not effective due to
conditions that seriously
impede subsurface
barriers.
Depth of installation is
limited by bedrock.
Not effective due to
conditions that seriously
impede subsurface
barriers.
Depth of installation is
limited by bedrock.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-156
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Strasburg Landfill, PA
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY

FSNAME

TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II

COST

EFFECTIVENESS

IMPLEMENT.

COMMENTS

Grout Curtain

Not effective due to
conditions that seriously
impede subsurface
barriers.
Depth of installation is
limited by bedrock.

C-157
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Strasburg Landfill, PA
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS
RCRA Subtitle Classification: C X D
None
TBD
(Page or Section References: ROD, pg. 39.)
Comments: Different source control technologies were not compared or analyzed in Phase III of the FS. Alternatives differed and
were analyzed and compared according to gas collection systems, leachate collection systems, and leachate treatment systems.
Groundwater is considered to be another operable unit and may be studied in an additional ROD but is not studied in this FS/ROD. In
short, capping with a Multi-Layer synthetic, soil and clay cap, has been chosen in Phase II as the source control for this site. It is
important to note that the community would not accept Alternative 2 because it does not contain a leachate collection system.
Alternative 3 is acceptable as long as a diligent monitoring program is continued. Costs of all alternatives were relatively the same.
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITHARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY
OR VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
Alternative 2
Source
Containment
(SC), and
Landfill Gas
Emissions
Collection
(LGC)

Alternative 3
SC, LGC and
Secondary
Leachate
Collection,
Treatment and
Discharge (LC)
N

Would not
protect human
health and the
environment
due to gas
ventilation
without
treatment.
Landfill
generated
leachate still
threatens
ground water.

No reduction of
toxicity,
mobility or
volume.

Capping may
prevent leachate
contamination in
the long-term but
it is uncertain.
Air exposure
risks due to lack
of gas ventilation
treatment.

Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
C-158
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Strasburg Landfill, PA
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS (Continued)
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY
OR VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT ABILITY
COST
Alternative 4
SC, LGC, and
LGC Treatment

Alternative 5
SC, LGC, and
LGC Treatment,
andLC

Landfill
generated
leachate still
threatens
ground water

Capping may
prevent leachate
contamination in
the long-term but
it is uncertain.

Modeling and field
pilot studies needed
for landfill gas
collection treatment
system.
Modeling and field
pilot studies needed
for landfill gas
collection treatment
system.

C-159
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Wildcat Landfill, DE
SCREENING PHASE
TBD
(Page or Section References:.
Periphery.
Hot Spot Analysis: Are they present? Yes X No
If yes, where are they located? In landfill X
Are they subject to separate/different treatment than landfill contents (from ROD or Phase III Analysis)? Yes X No _ TBD
Comments: FS not available at the time of review. Reasons for technologies that did no pass Phase II screening could not be
identified because the reason for screening was not in the analysis.

From the Background documents, an apparent area of concern or "Hot Spot" is the drum storage area.
TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN1
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Capping
Multi-layer Cap
Soil Cover
Multi-layer Cap
Soil/Clay
Capping
Soil Capping

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N

SeeFS comment.
Vertical/Horizontal Barriers
Slurry Wall

Sheet Pile

Grout Curtain

Vertical
Barrier: Slurry
Wall

Vertical
Barrier: Sheet
Piling
Vertical
Barrier: Grout
Curtain
N

Must be used in
conjunction with multi-
layer cap to avoid
bathtub effect since
organic silt subsoil
exists.
Interlocks difficult to
seal.
Leakage may occur.
Difficult to control and
determine integrity.

TECHNOLOGY
FSNAME
TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT.
COMMENTS
Block
Displacement
Grout Injection
Horizontal
Barrier
Horizontal
Barrier: Grout
Injection
N
N

Still Experimental.
Difficult to
control injection
through landfill
and to determine
integrity.
Still experimental.
Still experimental.

Landfill Disposal
Onsite Hazardous
Landfill
Onsite
Nonhazardous
Landfill
Offsite Hazardous
Landfill
Offsite
Nonhazardous
Landfill
RCRA-Type
Landfill (Drum
Disposal)
Non-RCRA
Landfill (Drum
Disposal)
(Drum
Disposal)
Non-RCRA
Landfill (Drum
Disposal)
N
N
N
N

Wetlands are not
suitable for siting
landfill.
Wetlands are not
suitable for siting
landfill.
Remediation will
not be completed
before Land ban
goes into effect.
Illegal.

Thermal Treatment
Offsite
Incineration
(unspecified)
(Drum
Disposal)
Y
Y

C-161
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Wildcat Landfill, DE
SCREENING PHASE (Continued)

TECHNOLOGY

FSNAME

TECH.
RETAIN
Ph.I/Ph.II

COST

EFFECTIVENESS

IMPLEMENT.

COMMENTS

Onsite
Incineration
(unspecified)

(Drum
Disposal)

RI indicates that
small number of
drums will not
justify this
opinion.

C-162
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Wildcat Landfill, DE
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS
RCRA Subtitle Classification: C D None X TBD (Page or Section References: )

Comments: This ROD addresses the first of two operable units and is made up of the landfill proper and the adjacent areas. The
second operable unit consists only of the pond that is located along the northwestern border of the landfill (pg. ROD).

In accordance with recent EPA guidance, none of the alternatives in the detailed analysis include treatment due to the size of the landfill
(approx. 44 acres) and the absence of any hot spots on the site. These site specific factors make treatment impractical (pg. 21 ROD).

Although the ROD clearly states the absence of any "Hot Spots," the drum storage area would be considered a "Hot Spot" by the
definition of this study.

The State of Delaware Solid Waste Disposal Regulations of 1974 and federal RCRA closure and capping requirements (40 CFR
264.310) are relevant and appropriate. The state solid waste disposal regulations require a cap with a minimum 2-feet of compacted soil
with a minimum 2 per cent slope on the final grade. Alternatives satisfy the slope requirement, but none the 2 feet compacted soil
requirement. However, the soil and soil/clay caps are both 1.5 feet thick with an added thickness provided by the grading fill that ranges
from 0 to 4 feet (pg. 30 ROD).

The soil requirements of the Delaware solid waste regulations may not be practical at the site for three reasons: 1. the weight of the cap
would likely alter the existing site dynamics by causing subsidence of the landfill materials deeper into the underlying wetland
sediments, 2. the intent of the two feet of compacted cover is to reduce infiltration into the waste materials but at the site this is not a
concern since the landfill is already located within a wetlands area, and 3. the on site risks associated with the site from direct contact
with exposed wastes and this risk would be more cost-effectively reduced by a soil cap. The relevant and practicable intents of the
capping option at the site would be better accomplished by a soil cap containing 1.5 feet of compacted soil and 0.5 feet of topsoil. The
essential 2 feet cover requirement is, thus, met (pg. 31 ROD).

Modified Alternative : The major differences in the modified alternative is that only those areas on the site which pose a direct contact
risk will be capped and that the cap will meet the intent of the Delaware solid waste regulations. The two-foot compacted soil
requirement. This alternative was discussed in Chapter six of the FS, which was not available at time of the review, (pg. 34 ROD).

Also, the modified alternative was only mentioned and evaluated on the costs criteria on page 32 of the ROD.
C-163
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA COLLECTION FORM
SITE NAME: Wildcat Landfill, DE
DETAILED PHASE ANALYSIS (Continued)
TECHNOLOGIES
EVALUATED
SELECTED
(Y/N)
OVERALL
PROTECTION
COMPLIANCE
WITH ARARS
REDUCTION
OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY OR
VOLUME
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENT ABILITY
COST
Surface Control;
Drum Removal

Containment
with Soil Cap;
Drum Removal
Containment
with Soil Cap;
Drum Removal
or Offsite
Incineration
Containment
with Soil/Clay
Cap; Drum
Removal
N

N
See
Comments
Y

Does not meet
the landfill
closure
requirements
because it does
not contain a
landfill cover.

Potential exists for
direct contact with
landfill contents.

Highest
cost.
C-164
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------