United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Wasle
and Emergency Response
(5102W)
ซEPA Innovative Treatment
Technologies:
Annual Status Report
(Seventh Edition)
Applications of New Technologies
at Hazardous Waste Sites
Recycled/Recyclable Printed with Vegetable Based Inks on Recycled Paper {20% Postconsumer)
-------
Innovative Treatment
Technologies:
Annual Status Report
(Seventh Edition)
Applications of New Technologies
at Hazardous Waste Sites
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NOTICE iii
FOREWORD iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v
ABSTRACT vi
OVERVIEW 1
Introduction 1
Sources of Information for this Report 1
What are Established and Innovative Treatment Technologies? 1
Definitions of Specific Innovative Treatment Technologies 2
Source Control Technologies 2
Groundwater Treatment Technologies 3
Contents of this Report 4
SECTION 1: SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS 5
Overview of RODs 5
Source Control RODs 5
Source Control Technologies 7
Status of Innovative Treatment Technology Projects 8
Contaminants Addressed 11
Quantity of Soil Addressed 11
Treatment Trains 12
Soil Vapor Extraction 12
Thermal Desorption 12
Bioremediation 12
Groundwater Remediation Technologies 15
SECTION 2: SUPERFUND REMOVAL ACTIONS 17
SECTION 3: ACTIONS UNDER OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS 19
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Treatment Technologies by Fiscal Year
Appendix B: Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
Appendix C: Established Technology Summary Matrix
Appendix D: Treatment Trains with Innovative Treatment Technologies
Appendix E: Summary of Status Report Updates, Changes, and Deletions
i
-------
LIST OF FIGURES }
Figure 1: Superfund Remedial Actions: RODs Signed by Fiscal Year 5
Figure 2: Superfund Remedial Actions: Source Control RODs by Fiscal Year 6
Figure 3: Superfund Remedial Actions: Overview of Source Control RODs Through
Fiscal Year 1994 6
Figure 4: Superfund Remedial Actions: Treatment and Disposal Decisions
for Source Control 7
Figure 5: Superfund Remedial Actions: Summary of Source Control Treatment
Technologies Selected Through Fiscal Year 1994 8
Figure 6: Superfund Remedial Actions: Number of Established Versus Innovative
Treatment Technologies for Source Control 9
Figure 7: Superfund Remedial Actions: Trends for Three Most Frequently Selected
Established Technologies for Source Control 9
Figure 8: Superfund Remedial Actions: Trends for Three Most Frequently Selected
Innovative Technologies 10
Figure 9: Superfund Remedial Actions: Project Status of Innovative Treatment
Technologies as of August 1995 10
Figure 10: Superfund Remedial Actions: Applications of Innovative Treatment Technologies 11
Figure 11: Superfund Remedial Actions: Estimated Quantities of Soil to be Treated by
Innovative Technologies 12
Figure 12: Superfund Remedial Actions: Number of Innovative Treatment Technologies
Versus Corresponding RODs 13
Figure 13: Superfund Remedial Actions: Treatment Trains with Innovative
Treatment Technologies 13
Figure 14: Superfund Remedial Actions: Contaminants Treated by Thermal Desorption 14
Figure 15: Superfund Remedial Actions: Bioremediation Methods 14
Figure 16: Superfund Remedial Actions: Contaminants Treated by Bioremediation 14
Figure 17: Superfund Remedial Actions: Groundwater Remedies Through Fiscal Year 1994 16
Figure 18: Superfund Removal Actions: Project Status of Innovative Treatment Technologies
as of August 1995 17
Figure 19: Sample of Projects Under Other Federal and RCRA Corrective Action Programs:
Status of Innovative Treatment Technologies as of August 1995 19
ii
-------
NOTICE
This material has been funded wholly or in part
by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) under Contract Number
68-W5-0055. Mention of trade names or com-
mercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use. The Innova-
tive Treatment Technologies: Annual Status
Report (ASR), Seventh Edition (EPA-
542-R-95-008) and the Innovative Treatment
Technologies: Annual Status Report Database
(ITT Database) (EPA-542-C-95-002) are avail-
able free of charge. Order by fax or mail from:
U.S. EPA/ National Center for Environmental
Publications and Information (NCEPI)
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Fax Number: (513) 489-8695
Phone Verification: (513) 489-8190
Allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. The ITT Database
is also available for downloading from the fol-
lowing sources:
Cleanup Information Bulletin Board System
(CLU-IN BBS). Via modem (301) 589-
8366 (8 Data Bits, 1 Stop Bit, No Parity, VT-
100 or ANSI). Voice help (301) 589-8368.
Alternative Treatment Technology Informa-
tion Center (ATTIC). Via modem (703)
908-2138 (8 Data Bits, 1 Stop Bit, No Parity,
VT-100 or ANSI). Voice help (703) 908-
2137.
iii
-------
FOREWORD
This report documents the status of application of innovative treatment technologies in the Superfund
program. It presents information on some, but not all, projects applying innovative treatment tech-
nologies at non-Superfund sites such as those subject to corrective action under the Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and those being addressed by the Department of Defense (DoD),
and the Department of Energy (DOE). We have expanded the report to include many new innovative
projects selected by the EPA in fiscal year 1994 and numerous graphics and tables to assist the reader
in understanding the data.
We are pleased to announce a new, software version of the report, called the Innovative Treatment
Technologies Annual Status Report Database (ITT Database)> which is a Windows-based system
that contains all of the site-specific information that previously was presented in tabular form. In-
formation provided about each site includes site type, technology selected or used, target contami-
nants, contaminated matrix, project status, and site contact names and telephone numbers. Additional
information about completed projects includes periods of operation, typical pre- and post-treatment
concentrations of key contaminants treated, cleanup goals, operating parameters (such as retention
time and additives), materials handling required, and management of residuals. The database is
searchable and can generate statistics and reports tailored to the user's specifications. Ordering in-
formation for the database and the hard-copy report is on the preceding page.
We intend this information to improve communication between experienced technology users and
those who are considering innovative technologies to clean up contaminated sites, as well as enable
technology vendors to evaluate the market for possible application of innovative treatment technolo-
gies at Superfund sites and other contaminated sites for the next several years.
Our goal with this report is to increase the application of new, less costly, and more effective tech-
nologies to address the problems at Superfund sites as well as other contaminated sites.
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D.
Director, Technology Innovation Office
IV
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was prepared under the direction
of Ms. Linda Fiedler, work assignment manager
for the EPA's Technology Innovation Office
(TIO).
Special acknowledgement is due the Federal and
state staff and other remediation professionals
listed as contacts for individual sites. They pro-
vided the detailed information in this document.
Their cooperation and willingness to share their
expertise on innovative treatment technologies
encourages the application of those technologies
at other sites.
v
-------
ABSTRACT
i
This yearly report documents and analyzes the
selection and use of innovative treatment tech-
nologies in the EPA Superfund Program and at
some non-Superfund sites subject to corrective
action under the RCRA Program, and those be-
ing addressed by DoD, and DOE. The report
updates the status of all the projects and includes
projects for which innovative technologies were
selected in Superfund Records of Decision
(ROD) signed during fiscal year 1994. The in-
formation will improve communication between
experienced technology users and those who are
considering innovative technologies to clean up
contaminated sites. In addition, the information
will enable technology vendors to evaluate the
market for innovative technologies at Superfund
sites for the next several years.
Alternative treatment technologies are alterna-
tives to land disposal. Innovative treatment tech-
nologies are alternative treatment technologies
the use of which at Superfund and similar sites is
inhibited by lack of data on cost and perform-
ance. This report documents the use of the fol-
lowing innovative treatment technologies to treat
ground water (in situ), soils, sediments, sludge,
and solid-matrix wastes:
Soil Technologies
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Contained Recovery of Oily Wastes (CROW)
Cyanide oxidation
Dechlorination
In situ flushing
In situ vitrification
Plasma high
temperature metals recovery
Phyto-treatment
Soil vapor extraction
Soil washing
Solvent extraction
Thermal desorption
Groundwater Technologies
Air sparging
Bioremediation (in situ)
Dual-phase extraction
In situ oxidation
Passive treatment walls
Surfactant flushing
This document includes a list of sites and analy-
sis of 332 applications of innovative treatment
technologies for remedial actions, 29 applica-
tions for removal actions, 8 applications under
RCRA corrective actions, and 28 applications
under other federal programs. The analysis in-
cludes the number of applications by technol-
ogy, types of contaminants treated, quantities of
soil treated, and status of the project. The infor-
mation for these sections was collected through
analyses of RODs; review of 50 RCRA corrective
action statements of basis (SB); review of EPA's
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) tracking systems; and interviews with
EPA regional staff, as well as with DoD and DOE
staff.
vi
-------
OVERVIEW
Sources of Information for this
Report
EPA initially used RODs for individual sites to
compile information on remedial action, and
pollution reports, on-scene coordinators' reports,
and the OSWER Removal Tracking System to
compile data on emergency response actions.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste
(HTRW) Mandatory Center of Ex-
pertise in Omaha, Nebraska; Syn-
9 opses of Federal Demonstrations
42 innovative technologies of Innovative Site Remediation
selected in FY 94 RODs Technologies, Third Edition (EPA-
542-B-93-009); and RCRA cor-
8 RCRA corrective actions rective action SBs were consulted
using innovative tecknolo- to compile information on projects
gies under other federal programs.
! EPA then verified and updated the
Now available as a windows- draft information through inter-
platform searchable database views with remedial project man-
system agers (RPM), on-scene coordina-
- - tors (OSC), and other contacts, for
each site. The data on project status supplements
data in the Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation, and Liability Information
System (CERCLIS), EPA's Superfund tracking
system, by providing more detailed information
on the specific portion of the remedy that in-
volves an innovative technology. In addition, in-
formation about technologies and sites identified
here might differ from information found in the
ROD annual reports and the RODs database.
Such differences are the result of changes in the
remedy during the design phase of the project.
The changes may or may not have required offi-
cial documentation (that is, a ROD amendment
or an explanation of significant differences
[ESDI).
Introduction
The Technology Innovation Office (TIO) of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) has prepared this Innovative Treatment
Technologies: Annual Status Report, Seventh
Edition, to document the use of innovative treat-
ment technologies to remediate contaminated
hazardous waste sites. The report contains a list
and an analysis of Superfund sites (both reme-
dial and removal actions), Re-
source Conservation and Recov- New in this Re)
ery Act (RCRA) corrective action
sites, and other non-Superfund
sites (that is, sites addressed under ;
other federal programs) at which ;
innovative treatment technologies j
are being used. Site managers;
can use this report to evaluate ;
cleanup alternatives for similar \
sites. Innovative technology !
vendors can use it to identify j
potential markets. TIO also uses :
the information to track progress
in the application of innovative treatment tech-
nologies.
The report is updated annually. This September
1995 issue of the report updates and expands in-
formation provided in the September 1994 re-
port. Information added to this update includes
42 innovative treatment technologies selected for
remedial actions in fiscal year (FY) 1994 Super-
fund records of decision (RODs)a ROD is the
decision document used to specify the way a site,
or part of a site, will be remediated. In addition,
15 additional projects have been completed since
the last edition of this report. Also added to this
report is information about eight innovative
technologies selected in statements of basis (SBs)
for implementation at RCRA corrective action
sites.
This report does not address sites that use non-
treatment remedies, such as landfilling and cap-
ping. It contains only minimal information
about sites that use incineration, solidification
and stabilization, or pump-and-treat remedies.
More information about RODs that specify such
remedies is presented in the series of ROD an-
nual reports published by the Office of Emer-
gency and Remedial Response (OERR). For
more information about those reports, call the
Superfund Hotline at (800) 424-9346 (outside
the local calling area) or (703) 412-9810 (inside
the local calling area).
What are Established and Inno-
vative Treatment Technologies?
Treatment technologies are alternatives to land
disposal. Established treatment technologies are
those for which cost and performance informa-
tion is readily available. The most frequently
used established technologies are incineration,
solidification and stabilization, and pump-and-
treat technologies for groundwater. Treatment
of groundwater after it has been pumped to the
surface often resembles traditional water treat-
ment; therefore, in general, pump-and-treat
groundwater remedies are considered established
technologies.
1
-------
OVERVIEW
Innovative treatment technologies are alternative
treatment technologies for which routine use at
Superfund and similar sites is inhibited by lack
of data on performance and cost. In general, a
treatment technology is considered innovative if
it has had limited full-scale application. Often, it
is the application of a technology or process to
soils, sediments, sludge, and solid-matrix waste
(such as mining slag) or groundwater that is in-
novative. This report documents the use of the
following innovative treatment technologies to
treat groundwater, soils, sediments, sludge, and
solid-matrix waste:
Soil Technologies
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Contained Recovery of Oily Wastes (CROW)
Cyanide oxidation
Dechlorination
In situ flushing
In situ vitrification
Plasma high temperature metals recovery
Phyto-treatment
Soil vapor extraction
Soil washing
Solvent extraction
Thermal desorption
Groundwater Technologies
Air sparging
Bioremediation (in situ)
Dual-phase extraction
In situ oxidation
Passive treatment walls
Surfactant flushing
Over the past several years, a number of remedial
technologies that are considered innovative have
seen increased use at Superfund and other con-
taminated sites. In particular, an increasing
number of soil vapor extraction and thermal
desorption projects have been completed. Al-
though those technologies have become accepted
more generally, because the results of most of
the projects are not widely known, this report will
continue to track soil vapor extraction and ther-
mal desorption as innovative technologies.
Definitions of Specific Innovative
Treatment Technologies
This document reports on the use of the innova-
tive remediation technologies listed above and, to
a lesser extent, on the use of established tech-
nologies. The technologies reported in the fol-
lowing sections treat contaminants in very differ-
ent ways. This section provides brief definitions
of the 13 types of source control (primarily soil)
innovative technologies and six types of innova-
tive in situ groundwater technologies as they are
used in this document.
Source Control Technologies
EX SITU BIOREMEDIATION uses microor-
ganisms to degrade organic contaminants in ex-
cavated soil, sludge, and solids. The microor-
ganisms break down the contaminants by using
them as a food source. The end products typi-
cally are C02 and H20. Ex situ bioremediation
includes slurry-phase bioremediation, in which
the soils are mixed in water to form a slurry, and
solid-phase bioremediation, in which the soils are
placed in a cell or building and tilled with added
water and nutrients. Land farming and com-
posting are types of solid-phase bioremediation.
In applications of IN SITU SOIL
BIOREMEDIATION, an oxygen source and
sometimes nutrients are pumped under pressure
into the soil through wells, or they are spread on
the surface for infiltration to the contaminated
material. Bioventing is a common form of in
situ bioremediation.
The CONTAINED RECOVERY OF OILY
WASTES (CROW) process displaces oily
wastes with steam and hot water. The contami-
nated oils are swept into a more permeable area
and are pumped out of the soil.
In CYANIDE OXIDATION organic cyanides are
oxidized to less hazardous compounds through
chemical reactions.
DECHLORINATION results in the removal or
replacement of chlorine atoms bonded to haz-
ardous compounds.
For IN SITU FLUSHING, large volumes of wa-
ter, at times supplemented with treatment com-
pounds, are introduced into soil, waste, or
groundwater to flush hazardous contaminants
from a site. Injected water must be isolated ef-
fectively within the aquifer and recovered.
IN SITU VITRIFICATION treats contaminated
soil in place at temperatures of approximately
3000ฐF (1600'C). Metals are encapsulated in the
glass-like structure of the melted silicate com-
pounds. Organics may be treated by combus-
tion.
PLASMA HIGH TEMPERATURE METALS
RECOVERY is a thermal treatment process that
purges contaminants from solids and soils as
metal fumes and organic vapors. The organic
2
-------
OVERVIEW
vapors can be burned as fuel and the metal
fumes can be recovered and recycled.
PHYTO-TREATMENT involves the cultivation
of specialized plants that are capable of taking
up specific soil contaminants into their roots or
foliage. Uptake of contaminants by the plants
reduces concentrations of contaminants in the
soil. Periodic harvesting of the plants may be
necessary.
SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION (SVE) removes
volatile organic constituents from the soil in situ
through the use of vapor extraction wells, some-
times combined with air injection wells, to strip
and flush the contaminants into the air stream for
further treatment.
SOIL WASHING is used for two purposes. First,
the mechanical action and water (sometimes with
additives) physically remove the contaminants
from the soil particles. Second, agitation of the
soil particles allows the more highly contami-
nated fines to separate from the larger soil parti-
cles, thus reducing the volume of material re-
quiring further treatment.
SOLVENT EXTRACTION operates on the prin-
ciple that, in the correct solvent, organic con-
taminants can be solubilized preferentially and
removed from the waste. The solvent used will
vary, depending on the waste to be treated.
For THERMAL DESORPTION, the waste is
heated in a controlled environment to cause or-
ganic compounds to volatilize from the waste.
The operating temperature for thermal desorp-
tion is usually less than lOOO'F (550ฐC). The
volatilized contaminants usually require further
control or treatment.
Groundwater Treatment Technologies
AIR SPARGING involves injecting air or oxygen
into the aquifer to strip or flush volatile contami-
nants as the air bubbles up through the ground-
water and is captured by a vapor extraction sys-
tem. The entire system acts as an in situ air
stripper. Stripped or volatilized contaminants
usually will be extracted through soil vapor ex-
traction wells and usually require further treat-
ment.
Air sparging often is combined with IN SITU
GROUNDWATER BIOREMEDIATION, in
which nutrients or an oxygen source (such as air)
are pumped under pressure into the aquifer
through wells to enhance biodegradation of
contaminants in the groundwater.
Model of an Air Sparging System
vapor Extraction Well
Vapor Extraction Well
Air Spvger Well
0 00
Ground Surface
Contaminated Soil
DUAL-PHASE EXTRACTION extracts con-
taminants simultaneously from both the saturated
and the unsaturated zone soils in situ. This new
technology applies soil vapor extraction tech-
niques to contaminants trapped in saturated zone
soils, which are more difficult to treat than are
those in the unsaturated zone. In some instances,
this result may be achieved by sparging the
groundwater section of a well that penetrates the
groundwater table. Other methods also may be
employed.
PASSIVE TREATMENT WALLS act like
chemical slurry walls. Contaminated groundwa-
ter comes into contact with the barrier and a
chemical reaction takes place. Limestone barri-
ers, one type of treatment wall, increase the pH.
The increase in pH effectively immobilizes dis-
solved metals in the saturated zone. Another
type of passive treatment wall contains iron fil-
ings that dechlorinate chlorinated compounds.
IN SITU OXIDATION oxidizes contaminants
that are dissolved in groundwater, converting
them into insoluble compounds.
SURFACTANT FLUSHING of non-aqueous
phase liquids (NAPL) increases the solubility and
mobility of the contaminants in water, so that the
NAPL can be biodegraded more easily in the
aquifer or recovered for treatment aboveground
via a pump-and-treat system.
3
-------
OVERVIEW
Contents of this Report
The following sections contain summary infor-
mation about and analysis of sites at which inno-
vative treatment technologies are being or have
been applied. Section 1: Superfund Remedial
Actions covers all Superfund sites at which an
innovative treatment technology is being or has
been implemented under a remedial action.
Such actions usually are documented in a ROD.
Soil and groundwater technologies are discussed
separately. Section 2: Superfund Removal Ac-
tions provides information on Superfund re-
moval action sites. Removals are conducted in
response to an immediate threat caused by a re-
lease of a hazardous substance or substances.
Section 3: Actions Under Other Federal Pro-
grams covers non-Superfund sites being ad-
dressed under RCRA and other federal pro-
grams.
4
-------
SECTION 1: SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Overview of RODs
As of August 1995, there are 1,232 sites on the
National Priorities List (NPL), excluding 82 sites
deleted from the NPL. An additional 49 sites are
proposed for the NPL. As of the end of FY
1994, 1,472 RODs (including ROD amendments)
had been signed. Most RODs for remedial ac-
tions address the source of contamination, such
as soil, sludge, sediments, and solid-matrix
wastes. Such RODs are referred to
Source Control RODs
Source control RODs can be classified by the
general type of technology selected: (1) RODs
specifying some alternative treatment, (2) RODs
specifying containment or disposal only, and (3)
RODs specifying institutional controls or other
actions (such as restrictions on land use, moni-
toring, or relocation of the affected community).
Figure 2 shows the number of source control
RODs that fall under each category. RODs in
Figure 1: Superfund Remedial Actions: RODs Signed by Fiscal Year
(Total Number of RODs = 1,472)
200
180
160
Number 140
Of 120
RODS inn
Total RODs
~ Source Control ROOs
Fiscal Year
The difference between the total number of RODs and the number of source control RODs is the number oj
"groundwater treatment remedy" or "no action needed" RODs.
Source: USEPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
as "source control" RODs. In addition to the
source, source control RODs may address reme-
dial action required for groundwater. Other,
non-source control RODs address groundwater
only or specify that no action is necessary. Fig-
ure 1 shows the number of source control RODs
compared with the total number of RODs for
each fiscal year since 1982.
A total of 165 RODs (including ROD amend-
ments) were signed in FY 1994, a decrease of 25
from the number signed in FY 1993. The num-
ber of source control RODs decreased by 19
during that year. However, the percentage of
source control RODs relative to the total number
of RODs remained the same from FY 1993 to FY
1994.
which some treatment is selected may include
containment of treatment residues or waste from
another part of the site. In FY 1994 there was an
increase in the number of source control RODs
that specify containment or disposal, compared
with RODs under which some treatment of the
source material was selected. Overall, for 64 per-
cent of all source control RODs (from FY 1982
to FY 1994) at least one treatment technology
for source control was selected (Figure 3).
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthoriza-
tion Act of 1986 (SARA) required that EPA fa-
vor permanent remedies (that is, alternative
treatment) over containment or disposal to reme-
diate Superfund sites. From FY 1988 through
5
-------
SECTION 1: SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
L_
Figure 2: Superfund Remedial Actions
Source Control RODs by Fiscal Year
Number 100
of
Source
Control
RODs
~ Treatment
~ Containment/Disposal only
Other (Institutional Controls.
Monitoring. Relocation)
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
Fiscal Year
Source: USEPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Figure 3: Superfund Remedial Actions
Overview of Source Control RODs Through Fiscal Year 1994
Containment or
Disposal Only
(343) 34%
Some Treatment
(646) 64%
Other" (25) 2%
* Includes institutional controls, monitoring, and relocation.
() Number of RODs
Source: USEPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
6
-------
SECTION 1: SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Figure 4: Superfund Remedial Actions
Treatment and Disposal Decisions for Source Control
100
90
60
70
Percent of go
Source __
Control au
RODs 40
30
20
10
0
100%
_
A
Some Treatment
/ \
-0-
Some Innovative Treatment
fc74%
69%
75%
^ฆ65%
73%
70%
74%
72%
71%\57%
VmJr'iY D
45%ry
ฆฆ-V 51%
49%\
34% 37%
25%
JL
^33%
30%
30%
J3%
29%
26%pr
28%"^7
970/.
28%
O
W~ 33%
0% /4% 1ฐ% 8%
8%/21%
24%
22%
0% M/ U U
Fiscal Year
Note: Data for innovative technologies are derived from Records of Decision (RODs) for fiscal years
1982 - J 994 and anticipated design and construction activities as of August 1995. A site may
use more than one technology.
Source: USEPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
FY 1993, at least 69 percent of source control
RODs provided provisions for treatment of
wastes (Figure 4). The increase was most dra-
matic in FY 1988. In 49 percent of RODs signed
in FY 1987, some treatment for source control
was selected, while some treatment was selected in
69 percent of those RODs signed in FY 1988.
However, the percentage in FY 1994 decreased to
57 percent. Figure 4 also illustrates the percent-
age of RODs in which at least one innovative
technology was selected, as updated by current
project status information. Of a total of 1,014
source control RODs signed through FY 1994,
innovative technologies were selected and still are
being considered or used under approximately
26 percent of RODs. Overall, innovative tech-
nologies have been selected at 22 percent of the
1,472 RODs signed since FY 1982.
Source Control Technologies
This section discusses the number and kinds of
treatment technologies selected and used for
source control in the Superfund remedial pro-
gram. Most of the rest of the information in this
section focuses on technologies, rather than
RODs. In each ROD in which treatment was
specified, more than one type of treatment tech-
nology may have been selected.
Figure 5 gives an overview of the established and
innovative treatment technologies selected for
source control. Through FY 1994, a total of 697
treatment technologies were selected in 646
source control RODs specifying some treatment.
The selection of multiple technologies results
from the use of treatment trains or from the
treatment of different wastes or areas of the site.
Figure 5 illustrates that, through FY 1994, 43
percent of the 697 treatment technologies se-
lected were innovative and 57 percent were es-
tablished. Soil vapor extraction and thermal
desorption are indicated as a separate wedge on
Figure 5 because of the large number of appli-
cations of those two technologies. Appendix A
provides data on the selection of the 697 source
control treatment technologies by fiscal year.
Appendix B, the Innovative Technology Sum-
mary Matrix, lists each of the innovative and
treatment technology projects for source control
at remedial sites. (The summary matrix also in-
cludes innovative groundwater projects, removals,
and non-Superfund projects that will be dis-
cussed in later sections.) Appendix C contains a
matrix of established source control technolo-
gies. The ITT Database (see Notice) contains
detailed information on specific sites at which
innovative technologies are being implemented.
Information on established treatment technolo-
gies is based on a review of RODs by OERR
rather than interviews of Regional or state staff.
Therefore, the only information provided for
7
-------
SECTION 1: SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Figure 5: Superfund Remedial Actions
Summary of Source Control Treatment Technologies Selected Through Fiscal Year 1994
31 o
Established Technologies (400) 57% Innovative Technologies (297) 43%
Off-Site Incineration
(107) 15%
a?
On-งite
Incineration
(78fl1%
Solidification/
Stabilization
(202) 29%
Soil Vapor Extraction*
(43^ 19%
Thermal Deso
(51) 7%
Ex Situ Bioremediation (40) 6%
2 to
In Situ Bioremediation (2ง) 4%
In Situ Flushing (19) 3%
Other Established (13) 2%
Soil Washing (12) 2%
Solvent Extraction (6) < 1%
Dechlorination (4) < 1%
ฆOther Innovative** {6fl%
Tr
Note: Data are derived from Records of Decision (RODs)for fiscal years 1982 -1994 and anticipated
design and construction activities as of August 1995. A site may use more than one technology.
( ) Number of times this technology was selected or used.
* Includes two dual-phase extraction projects also listed as in situ groundwater technologies.
** "Other" established technologies are soil aeration, open detonation, and chemical
neutralization. "Other" innovative technologies are, phyto-treatment, contained recovery of oily
wastes (CROW ), cyanide oxidation, in situ vitrification, and plasma high temperature metals
recovery.
sites using established technologies is the name
of the site and the year in which the ROD was
signed. The list of sites does not reflect any
changes in the remedy that may have occurred in
the design phase of the cleanup and does not re-
port the status of the projects.
Figure 6 compares the total number of estab-
lished and innovative technologies for source
control selected by fiscal year. The figure shows
that more innovative technologies than estab-
lished technologies were selected in RODs signed
during FY 1993 and FY 1994. Figure 7 shows
selection trends for the major established tech-
nologies, on-site and off-site incineration and
solidification/stabilization. The number of sites
implementing either on-site or off-site incinera-
tion decreased in FY 1994. Solidifica-
tion/stabilization also decreased in FY 1994.
Figure 8 graphically depicts, by fiscal year, the
frequency of selection for the three most fre-
quently selected innovative treatment technolo-
gies, soil vapor extraction, thermal desorption,
and bioremediation. These three technologies
are discussed in more detail in later sections.
Appendix A gives the number of established and
innovative treatment technologies for both
source control and groundwater by fiscal year.
Status of Innovative Treatment Technology
Projects
An increasing number of innovative treatment
technology projects are being implemented at
remedial Superfund sites. In the past year, 51
additional innovative treatment technology proj-
ects have been implemented, and 15 projects
have been completed including both source
control and in situ groundwater. Appendix B
gives the status of each project, and Figure 9
provides a summary of their status by technol-
ogy type. The design of such projects typically
takes one to three years. The ITT Database
8
-------
SECTION 1: SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Figure 6: Superfund Remedial Actions
Number of Established Versus Innovative Treatment Technologies for Source Control
Number of
Treatment
Technologies 3Q
Selected
Established Technologies
(Is) Innovative Technologies
82 83 84 1 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
Fiscal Year
Note: Data for innovative technologies are derived from Records of Decision (RODs)
for fiscal years 1982 -1994 and anticipated design and construction activities as
of August 1995. A site may use more than one technology.
Figure 7: Superfund Remedial Actions
Trends for Three Most Frequently Selected Established Technologies for Source Control
- On-site Incineration
ฆ Off-site Incineration
- Solidification/Stabilization
24
22
Number of
Established
Treatment
Technologies
Selected
77
12
44
Fiscal Year
Source: USEPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
-------
SECTION 1: SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Number of
Times
Selected
Figure 8: Superfund Remedial Actions
Trends for Three Most Frequently Selected Innovative Technologies
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
-0- Soil Vapor Extraction
#- Bioremediation*
M Thermal Desorption
V
fV
V-
A
'
=8=
s=g*=
84
65 86
87
88 89 90
Fiscal Year
* Also includes in situ groundwater treatment.
91
92 93
94
th
Figure 9: Superfund Remedial Actions
Project Status of Innovative Treatment Technologies as of August 1995
Technology
Predesign/
In Design
Design Complete/
Being Installed/
Operational
Project
Completed
Total
Source Control Technologies
Soil Vapor Extraction
52
70
13
135
Thermal Desorption
21
13
17
51
Bioremediation (Ex Situ)
17
19
4
40
Bioremediation (In Situ)
11
12
2
25
Soil Washing
10
1
1
12
In Situ Flushing
11
7
1
19
Dechlorination
2
0
2
4
Solvent Extraction
4
2
0
6
In Situ Vitrification
0
1
0
1
Cyanide Oxidation
0
0
1
Phyto-treatment
0
0
1
CROW
0
1
0
1
Plasma High Temperature Metals
0
0
1
Recovery
Total
131 (44%)
126 (42%)
40 (13%)
297
Groundwater Technologies
Air Sparging
10
6
0
16
Bioremediation (in situ)
6
6
0
12
Passive Treatment Wall
3
0
0
3
Dual Phase Extraction
2
0
0
2
Surfactant Flushing
0
0
1(
In Situ Oxidation
0
0
1
Total
23 (66%)
12 (34%)
0
35
\
ง
Note: Data are derived from Records of Decision (RODs) for fiscal years 1982 - 1994 and anticipated design and
construction activities as of August 1995.
10
-------
SECTION 1: SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
presents some brief performance and operating
data on remedial, removal, and non-Superfund
projects that have been completed. Data pro-
vided include periods of operation, typical pre-
and post-treatment concentrations of key con-
taminants treated, cleanup goals, operating pa-
rameters (such as retention time and additives),
materials handling required, and management of
residuals.
Contaminants Addressed
The data collected for this report form the basis
for an analysis of the classes of contaminants
treated by each technology type at remedial ac-
tion sites. Figure 10 provides that information,
by technology, for three major groups of con-
taminants: volatile organic compounds (VOC),
semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC), and
metals. For this report, compounds are catego-
rized as VOCs or SVOCs, according to the
lists provided in EPA's SW-846 test methods
8240 and 8270, respectively. The ITT Database
contains information about specific contaminants
treated at each site at which an innovative tech-
nology has been or is being used.
Quantity of Soil Addressed
EPA analyzed the quantity of soil treated at 235
remedial action sites at which innovative treat-
ment technologies have been or are being used,
and for which data on the quantity of media
treated were available (Figure 11). Not surpris-
ingly, the tendency is to use in situ technologies
to address larger quantities of soil, while ex situ
technologies are used to treat smaller quantities.
Because quantities for in situ projects cannot be
accurately determined and many ex situ projects
are not completed, the quantities in Figure 11
should be considered estimates.
Figure 10: Superfund Remedial Actions
Applications of Innovative Treatment Technologies
Number
of
Applications
VOCs
syocs
Metals
35 33
Soil Vapor Thermal Bio- Bio- Soil In Situ
Extraction Desorption remediation remediation Washing Flushing
{Ex Situ) (In Situ)*
Innovative Technology
*Does not include in situ groundwater bioremediation
Solvent
Extraction
11
-------
SECTION 1: SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Figure 11: Superfund Remedial Actions
Estimated Quantities of SoU To Be Treated By Innovative Technologies
TECHNOLOGY
TOTAL NUMBER
OF SrTES
SITES
WITH DATA
QUANTITY (CUBIC YARDS)
RANGE
AVERAGE
TOTAL
Soil Vapor Extraction
135
103
70-7,100,000
176,000
18,100,000
Bioremediation (in situ soil)
24
13
5,000 - 484,000
122,000
1,580,000
In situ Flushing
18
12
5200 - 750,000
96,000
1,150,000
Soil Washing
12
12
1,800-200,000
43,000
522,000
Bioremediation (ex situ)
37
34
500-208,000
40,000
1,350,000
Dechlorination
3
3
20,100-48,000
36,000
108,100
Solvent Extraction
6
6
7,000 - 85,000
31,000
184,000
Thermal Desorption
SO
46
95-130,000
20,000
984,000
Cyanide Oxidation
1
1
3,000
Dual-Phase Extraction
2
0
CROW
1
1
200
Phyto-treatment
1
0
Plasma High Temp, Recovery
1
1
65,000
In situ Vitrification
1
1
4,000
TOTAL
292
235
24,100,000
Treatment Trains
Figure 12 compares the number of innovative
technologies selected for both source control and
in situ groundwater treatment with the number of
RODs in which these technologies were selected.
The graph shows that some sites use more than
one innovative technology, often together in
"treatment trains." Twenty-eight remedial sites
use treatment trains for source control. Figure
13 identifies specific treatment trains used in re-
medial actions. Appendix D provides additional
information on the sites that use treatment trains.
Innovative treatment technologies may be used
with established technologies or with other inno-
vative technologies. The most common treat-
ment train is soil washing followed by above-
ground bioremediation (usually slurry-phase
treatment). Technologies may be combined to
reduce the volume of material that requires fur-
ther treatment, as in the example given above; to
prevent the emission of volatile contaminants
during excavation and mixing; or to treat multi-
ple contaminants in a single medium.
Soil Vapor Extraction
SVE is the most frequently selected innovative
technology for treating soil. Currently 135 proj-
ects are being implemented. At some sites, sev-
eral areas are being treated with SVE. Only 13
SVE remedial projects have been completed, but
an additional 70 are underway. Duration varies
from 1 month to 5 years or more. Most projects
target chlorinated or nonchlorinated VOCs for
treatment; a few target semivolatiles, such as phe-
nols and naphthalene. Most applications are
vertical wells with activated carbon used to treat
off-gases. Unusual applications include hori-
zontal wells such as at the SMS Instruments site,
New York.
Thermal Desorption
This technology has been selected 51 times.
Seventeen projects are completed; another 13 are
operating. Thermal desorption projects take less
time to implement than soil vapor extraction:
from 1 to 18 months for the 13 remedial projects
completed thus far. Contaminants treated are
shown in Figure 14. This technology is used to
treat SVOCs, such as polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), as well as VOCs.
Bioremediation
This technology has been selected a total of 65
times, but in a number of different forms. Fig-
ure 15 illustrates the different types of bioreme-
diation being implemented. Land treatment is
the most common form of ex situ bioremedia-
tion, followed by slurry-phase treatment.
Bioventing has been specified for 7 of the 25 in
situ soil bioremediation remedies, although
bioventing approaches may be selected at addi-
tional projects as design proceeds. Contaminants
treated by bioremediation are shown in Figure
16. The contaminants treated most often by
12
-------
SECTION 1: SUPERFVND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Figure 12: Superfund Remedial Actions
Number of Innovative Treatment Technologies Versus Corresponding RODs
70
Number of 40
Treatment
Technologies or
RODs 30
20
10
0
63
57
ROOs
0 Technologies
r
A
43
a
W
Ne
A
Nr'
'IS
V 33
2y
32
/20
6
5
5^
""*ฎ4
84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
Fiscal Year
Figure 13: Superfund Remedial Actions
Treatment Trains with Innovative Treatment Technologies
Total Treatment Trains = 28
Solidification/
Incineration Stabilization
Bloremediation (4 sites) (1 site) (1 site)
Followed ih9 OR
Followed
OR
Solidification/Stabilization Dechlorination
4 sites)^_ (1 site)
Followed IBSB9VI IHsS! IIMMl fSSi! OR
In Situ Solidification/
Flushing Stabilization soil Washing
(1 site) (1 site) (1 site)
Soil Washing
(1 site)
Followed fiSBSVI
Solidification/
Stabilization
(2 sites)
Followed 15^551 on_
Oy
Incineration
(3 sites)
Solidification/Stabilization
(4 sites)
in Situ Bloremediation
(4 sites)
Followed
13
-------
SECTION 1: SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
I.
Number
of
Sites
Figure 14: Superfund Remedial Actions
Contaminants Treated by Thermal Desorption
50
40
30
20
10
0
30
18
15
13
12
Other
VOCs
BTEX
Other
SVOCs
PCBs
PAHs
Dioxins
Contaminant
Note: At some sites, treatment is for more than one contaminant. Treatment may be planned,
ongoing, or completed.
Source: Records of Decision (RODs) for fiscal years 1982 -1994 and anticipated design and
construction activities as of August 1995.
Figure 15: Superfund Remedial Actions
Bioremediation Methods
In Situ Lagoon Aeration (2)
In Situ Ground Water Only Treatment {12)
Slurry-Phase Tank Treatment (6)
Excavation with On-Site
Treatment (TBD) (7)
In Situ Soil Treatment (16)
Excavation Followed by
Land Treatment (24)
Bioventing (7)
Composting (3)
Note: Some RODs specify multiple remedies.
TBD: Specific treatment method to be determined.
Source: Records of Decision (RODs) for fiscal years 1982 -1994 and anticipated design and construction
activities as of August 1995.
14
-------
SECTION 1: SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Figure 16: Superfund Remedial Actions
Contaminants Treated by Bioremediation*
60 rl 1 1 1
Number
of
Sites
PAHs Other SVOCs BTEX Other VOCs
Contaminant
*Includes in situ groundwater innovative treatment technologies.
Note: At some sites, treatment is for more than one contaminant. Treatment may be planned,
ongoing, or completed.
Source: Records of Decision (RODs) for fiscal years 1982 -1994 and anticipated design and
construction activities as of August 1995.
bioremediation are PAHs. Benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) compounds
are the VOCs addressed most frequently; chlo-
rinated VOCs are being treated at 5 sites.
Groundwater Remediation Tech-
nologies
Groundwater treatment remedies include
pump-and-treat and in situ treatment or a
combination of both. Figure 17 shows each
type of groundwater treatment remedy se-
lected. Groundwater remedies have been se-
lected for 573 sites. Of these, 540 sites are
implementing pump-and-treat systems alone.
In the case of another 29 sites, pump-and-treat
systems are being combined with in situ treat-
ment. Four sites have selected in situ treatment
only to treat groundwater contamination.
EPA has selected in situ treatment of ground-
water 35 times at 33 remedial sites. EPA se-
lected in situ treatment of groundwater for
nine remedial sites in FY 1994, including the
first selection of surfactant flushing for dense
NAPLs. Completion of in situ groundwater
cleanup at Superfund sites is predicted to re-
quire 5 to 20 years. Figure 9 shows the overall
status of in situ groundwater projects.
Appendix A gives the number of in situ
groundwater treatment technologies selected
each year. The summary matrix in Appendix
B provides the site names, technologies, and
project status.
15
-------
SECTION 1: SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Figure 17: Superfund Remedial Actions
Groundwater Remedies Through Fiscal Year 1994
Total Sites with Groundwater Remedies = 573
Sites with Pump-and-Treat
in Conjunction with In Situ
Treatment Remedies (29) 5%
Sites with In Situ Treatment
Only (4) < 1%
In Situ Treatment Remedies
Include:
- Air Sparging (16)
- Bioremediation (12)
- Passive Treatment Wall (3)
- Dual Phase Extraction (2)
- Surfactant Flushing (1)
- In Situ Oxidation (1)
\\
Sites with Pump-and-Treat
Remedies Only (540) 94%
Source: USEPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Records of Decision (RODs) for fiscal years 1982 -1994 and anticipated design and construction
activities as of August 1995
16
-------
SECTION 2: SUPERFUND REMOVAL ACTIONS
A removal action under Superfund is conducted
in response to an immediate threat caused by a
release of a hazardous substance or substances.
Removal action decisions are documented in an
action memorandum. To date, innovative treat-
ment technologies have been used in relatively
few removal actions. The innovative technolo-
gies addressed in this report have been used 29
times in 26 removal actions (Figure 18). In ad-
dition, infrared incineration, no longer consid-
ered innovative, was used first at two removal ac-
tions. Since removal actions are responses to an
immediate threat, and often involve smaller
quantities of hazardous wastes than remedial ac-
tivities, the implementation of the technology
may progress faster at a removal site than at a
remedial site. Figure 18 indicates that 90 percent
of removal projects that involve innovative treat-
ment technologies have been completed.
Many removal actions involve small quantities of
waste or immediate threats that require quick ac-
tion to alleviate the hazard. Often, such activities
do not lend themselves to on-site treatment. In
addition, SARA does not establish the same pref-
erence for innovative treatment for removal it
sets forth for remedial actions. However, EPA
expects that innovative treatment technologies
will be used more often in the future for larger
and less time-critical removal actions.
The ITT Database provides more detailed infor-
mation for each application of an innovative
technology at a removal site. The summary ma-
trix in Appendix B lists each removal site and in-
novative technology.
Technology
Predesign/
In Design
Design Complete/Being
Installed/Operational
Project
Completed
Total
Source Control
Soil Vapor Extraction
0
0
4
4
Thermal Desorption
0
1
2
Bioremediation (Ex Situ)
0
4
5
Bioremediation (In Situ)
0
0
3
3
Soil Washing
0
0
2
2
In Situ Flushing
0
0
0
0
Dechlorination
0
0
2
2
Solvent Extraction
0
0
2
2
In Situ Vitrification
0
0
1
1
Chemical Treatment
0
0
6
6
TOTAL
0 (0%)
2 (7%)
25 (93%)
27
Groundwater Technologies
Air Sparging
0
0
1
1
Bioremediation (In Situ)
0
0
1
TOTAL
0
1 (50%)
1 (50%)
2
Note: Data derived from a survey of EPA Superfund Removal Branch Chiefs and
On-Scene Coordinators for each Region.
Figure 18: Superfund Removal Actions
Project Status of Innovative Treatment Technologies as of August 1995
17
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
18
-------
SECTION 3: ACTIONS UNDER OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS
This chapter contains available information on
projects conducted under federal programs other
than the Superfund program. Many of those
projects are conducted at DoD and DOE facili-
ties. The sites were identified through various
sources of information, including discussions
with DoD and DOE personnel. The RCRA cor-
rective action sites using an innovative technol-
ogy were identified through the review of 50
SBs, which are decision documents prepared for
some actions at corrective action sites. Because
innovative technologies have likely been used at
RCRA sites, but not documented in SBs, the list
in this report should not be considered complete.
Figure 19 summarizes the types of innovative
treatment technologies and the number of proj-
ects, and indicates the status of each. The sum-
mary matrix in Appendix B lists the name of
each site, the technology selected, and the status
of the project. The ITT Database provides more
information on each application.
Figure 19: Sample of Projects Under Other Federal and RCRA Corrective Action Programs
Status of Innovative Treatment Technologies as of August 1995
Technology
Predesign/
In Design
Design Complete/Being
Installed/Operational
Project
Completed
Total
Other Federal Programs
Soil Vapor Extraction
2
8
1
11
Bioremediation (Ex Situ)
0
1
4
5
Bioremediation (In Situ) #
0
5
3
8
Soil Washing
0
1
1
2
Dechlorination
0
1
0
1
Air Sparging
0
1
0
1
TOTAL
2 (7%)
17 (61%)
9 (32%)
28
RCRA Corrective Action
Soil Vapor Extraction
3
4
0
7
Thermal Desorption
1
0
0
1
TOTAL
4 (50%)
4 (50%)
0 (0%)
8
Note: Data derived from a survey of EPA RCRA Corrective Action, DoD, and DOE points of
contact for each site.
# Includes in situ groundwater treatment.
19
-------
Appendix A
Treatment Technologies by Fiscal Year
-------
Treatment Technologies by Fiscal Year
leS
Fiscal Year
Source Control Technologies 1
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Totals
Bioremediation (Ex Situ)
"o""""
~~1
0
~1
0
.......
7
..
4
8
6
5
40
Bioremediation (In Situ)
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
3
3
4
7
5
25
Cyanide Oxidation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
Dechlorination
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
4
In Situ Flushing
0
0
0
0
1
3
3
4
2
3
19
In Sllu Vitrification
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
Soil Washing
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
6
1
1
0
0
12
Solvent Extraction
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
6
Thermal Desorption
0
0
0
3
4
2
8
10
5
10
7
51
Soil Vapor Extraction
0
0
0
2
2
1
7
22
17
33
18
22
11
135
Phyto-treatment
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Plasma High Temperature Metals Recovery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
CROW
0
o_
0
0 ___
0_
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1_
Totals
0
0
1
5
5
5
20
39
40
59
42
48
33
297
Groundwater Technologies j
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Totals
Air Sparging
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
3
2
5
3
16
Bioremediation (In Situ)
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
1
2
3
12
Passive Treatment Wall
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
3
Dual Phase Extraction
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
Surfactant Flushing
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
tn Situ Oxidation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Totals
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
4
4
7
9
9
35
Fiscal Year
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
Source Control Technologies
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1994
Totals
1982
1983
107
OFT Site Incineration
On Site Incineration
37
202
Solidifies tiori/Statijllzation
Other
26
400
17
Totals
-------
Appendix B
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
Source Control
Groundwater Remedies
Region 1
S7f
j/f/i
s/n/e
Site Name
State
Status
Action
=> /?/$/$ A A /ฃ/&/?/&/$ AVJVs
/
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
Region 2
Source Control
Groundwater Remedies
W
Of
'*
&
'8* *
fฃV
' A /*ฃ?
Site Name
State
Status
Action
A 0 Polvmer. Soil treatment ohase
NJ
0
Remedial
Davco Coro./L.E. Caroenter Co.
NJ
PD
Remedial
FAA Technical Center
NJ
1
Remedial
FAA Technical Center
NJ
0
Remedial
Garden State Cleaners
NJ
C
Remedial
Industrial Latex. OU 1
NJ
D/I
Remedial
King of Prussia
NJ
C
Remedial
Lipari Landfill Marsh Sediment
NJ
0
Remedial
Lipari Landfill OU 2
NJ
0
Remedial
Metaltec/Aerosvstems. OU I -SoilTmnt
NJ
C
Remedial
Myers Property
NJ
D
Remedial
Naval Air Engineering Center, OU 23
NJ
I
Remedial
Reich Farms
NJ
C
Remedial
South Jersey Clothing
NJ
D
Remedial
Swope Oil & Chem Co., OU 2
NJ
D
Remedial
Universal Oil Products
NJ
PD
Remedial
Vineland Chemical
NJ
C
Removal
Vineland Chemical. OU 1 and OU 2
NJ
D
Remedial
Waldick Aerospace Devices. OU 1
NJ
C
Remedial
Zschiegner Refining Company
NJ
C
Removal
American Thermostat (Phase 1)
NY
C
Remedial
American Thermostat (Phase 2)
NY
D/I
Remedial
Applied Environmental Services(Ground water)
NY
0
Remedial
Applied Environmental Services, OU 1
NY
0
Remedial
Byron Barrel & Drum
NY
PD
Remedial
Circuitron Corporation. OU I
NY
D/I
Remedial
Claremont Polvchemical - Soil Remedv
NY
D/I
Remedial
Fulton Terminals, Soil Treatment
NY
I
Remedial
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not installed; I = Installed or being installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Action: Remedial = Superfiind Remedial Action; Removal = Superfund Removal Action; DoD = Actions under Department of Defense; DOE = Actions under Department of
Energy; RCRA = RCRA Corrective Action
B-2
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
Source Control
Groundwater Remedies
Region 2
(Continued)
&
cy
Site Name
State
Status
Action
AW/&/ฃ/
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
Source Control
Groundwater Remedies
Region 3
5*
'4ฆ/$'
'fcV?
&
Site Name
State
Status
Action
Delaware Sand and Gravel
DE
D
Remedial
Brodhead Creek, OU 1
PA
1
Remedial
Brown's Battery Breaking Site, OU 2
PA
PD
Remedial
Cryochem, OU 3
PA
PD
Remedial
Lord-Shope Landfill
PA
D/I
Remedial
Raymark
PA
0
Remedial
Revere Chemical Site, OU1
PA
PD
Remedial
Saegertown Industrial Area Site
PA
PD
Remedial
Tonolli Corporation
PA
PD
Remedial
Tyson's Dump
PA
0
Remedial
U.S.A. Letterkenny SE Area, OU1
PA
C
Remedial
Uniform Tubes, Inc.
PA
D
RCRA
Whitmoyer Laboratories, OU 3
PA
D
Remedial
William Dick Lagoons, OU 3
PA
PD
Remedial
Arrowhead Associates/Scovill, OU 1
VA
D
Remedial
Avtex Fibers
VA
C
Removal
Defense General Supply Center, OU 5
VA
C
Remedial
General Motors Corporation
VA
PD
RCRA
IBM (Manassas)
VA
0
RCRA
Langley AFB, 1RP Site 28
VA
1
DoD
Rentokil
VA
D
Remedial
Saunders Supply Co, OU 1
VA
D
Remedial
Ordnance Works Disposal Areas
WV
D
Remedial
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not installed; I = Installed or being installed; 0 = Operational; C = Complete
Action: Remedial = Superfund Remedial Action; Removal = Superfund Removal Action; DoD = Actions under Department of Defense; DOE = Actions under Department of
Energy; RCRA = RCRA Corrective Action
B-4
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
Region 4
Source Control
Groundwater Remedies
$
*
$0.
Site Name
State
Status
Action
Ciba-Geiev (Macintosh Plant! OU 2
AL
PD
Remedial
Ciba-Geiev (Macintosh Plant) OU 4
AL
PD
Remedial
Airco Platine Company. OU 10
FL
1
Remedial
American Creosote Works. OU 2
FL
D
Remedial
American Creosote Works. OU 2
FL
PD
Remedial
Brown Wood Preservine
FL
C
Remedial
Cabot Carbon/Koppers
FL
D
Remedial
Dubose Oil Products
FL
C
Remedial
Hollinesworth Solderless
FL
c
Remedial
Jacksonville NAS. OU 2
FL
c
Remedial
Naval Air Station, Cecil Field Sile 17. OU 2
FL
0
Remedial
Naval Air Station, Cecil Field Site 5, OU 2
FL
D/I
Remedial
Peak Oil/Bay Drums, OU 1
FL
PD
Remedial
Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits (amended ROD)
FL
PD
Remedial
Basket Creek Surface Impoundment
GA
c
Removal
General Refining
GA
c
Removal
Marzone Inc./Chevron Co. Superfund Site. OU 1
GA
D
Remedial
Mathis Brothers - South Marble Top Road Landfill
GA
I
Remedial
Robins AFB, Landfill and Sludge Lagoon, OU 1
GA
D
Remedial
Smith's Farm Brooks, OU 1
KY
C
Remedial
Southeastern Wood Preserving
MS
C
Removal
ABC One Hour Cleaners Site
NC
D
Remedial
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps, OU 1 and OU 4
NC
D
Remedial
Benfield Industries
NC
D
Remedial
Cape Fear Wood Preserving
NC
D/I
Remedial
Carolina Transformer
NC
b
Remedial
Charles Macon Lagoon, Lagoon #7, OU 1
NC
DA
Remedial
FCX-Washington Site
NC
0
Removal
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not installed; I = Installed or being installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Action: Remedial = Superfund Remedial Action; Removal = Superfund Removal Action; DoD = Actions under Department of Defense; DOE = Actions under Department of
Energy; RCRA = RCRA Corrective Action
B-5
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
Region 4
(Continued)
Source Control
Groundwater Remedies
r J5- &
Site Name
State
Status
Action
/$/$ fj/&/$/ง /$ /$" /o //?/$/$/?/ฆ$/?/?,
JADCO-Hughes
NC
D/I
Remedial
JFD Electronics/Channel Master
NC
D
Remedial
Potter's Septic Tank Service Pits
NC
0
Remedial
USMC Camp Lejeune Military Base, OU 2
NC
0
Remedial
CSX McCormick Derailment Site
SC
O
Removal
CSX McCormick Derailment Site
SC
C
Removal
Hinson Chemical
SC
c
Removal
Medley Farm, OU 1
SC
0
Remedial
Para-Chem Southern, Inc.
SC
D
Remedial
m
Rochester Property
SC
0
Remedial
Sangamo/Twelve-Mile/Hartwell PCB, OU 1
SC
D/I
Remedial
Savannah River DOE, M Area Settling Basin
SC
O
DOE
SCRDI Bluff Road
SC
0
Remedial
Wamchem
SC
c
Remedial
#
Arlington Blending & Packaging Co., OU 1
TN
I
Remedial
Carrier Air Conditioning
TN
0
Remedial
Status: FD = Hredesign; D = Design; un = Uesignea but not installed; i = installed or ocing installed; u = operational; = complete
Action: Remedial = Superfund Remedial Action; Removal = Superfund Removal Action; DoD = Actions under Department of Defense; DOE = Actions under Department of
Energy; RCRA = RCRA Corrective Action
B-6
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
Region 5
Source Control
Groundwater Remedies
&
/& A#.
&/ฃ
a.
Site Name
State
Status
Action
Acme Solvent Reclaiming. Inc.. OU 3
1L
I
Remedial
Acme Solvent Reclaimine. Inc.. OU 6
IL
I
Remedial
Galesbure/Koppers
IL
D
Remedial
Outboard Marine/Waukegan Harbor. OU 3
IL
C
Remedial
American Chemical Services
IN
PD
Remedial
Conrail Rail Yard. OU 2
IN
PD
Remedial
Enviro. Conservation and Chemical (amended ROD)
IN
D
Remedial
Fisher Calo Chem
IN
D
Remedial
Indiana Wood Treating
IN
C
Removal
Main Street Well Field
IN
0
Remedial
MIDCOI
IN
PD
Remedial
MIDCO II
IN
PD
Remedial
Ninth Avenue Dump
IN
C
Remedial
Reilly Tar and Chemical
IN
D/I
Remedial
Seymour Recycling
IN
C
Remedial
Seymour Recycling
IN
0
Remedial
Wayne Reclamation and Recycling
IN
0
Remedial
Anderson Development (ROD Amendment)
MI
C
Remedial
Chcm Central
Ml
D/I
Remedial
Clare Water Supply
Ml
D
Remedial
Duell-Gardner Landfill
MI
PD
Remedial
Electro-Voice, OU I
MI
D
Remedial
Kysor Industrial Corp.
Ml
D/I
Remedial
Ott/Story/Cordova Chemical
Ml
I
Remedial
Parsons Chemical (ETM Enterprise)
Ml
C
Removal
PBM Enterprises (Van Dusen Airport Service)
MI
C
Removal
Peerless Plating
MI
D
Remedial
Rasmussen Dump
MI
D/I
Remedial
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not installed; I = Installed or being installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Action: Remedial = Superfund Remedial Action; Removal = Superfund Removal Action; DoD = Actions under Department of Defense; DOE = Actions under Department of
Energy; RCRA = RCRA Corrective Action
B-7
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
Region 5
(Continued)
Source Control
Groundwater Remedies
ฎ/f.
Site Name
State
Status
Action
Saginaw Bay Confined Disposal Facility
MI
C
DoD
Springfield Township Dump
MI
D
Remedial
Sturgis Municipal Well Field
MI
D
Remedial
ThermoChem, Inc., OU I
MI
D
Remedial
Verona Well Field (Thomas Solvent/Raymond Road)
MI
C
Remedial
Verona Well Field, OU 2 (Paint shop area)
MI
0
Remedial
Verona Well Field, OU 2 (Annex area)
MI
0
Remedial
Arrowhead Refinery Co.
MN
0
Remedial
Burlington Northern Railroad Tie Treating Plant
MN
c
Remedial
Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Co.
MN
0
Remedial
Koppers Coke Site, Groundwater OU
MN
D
Remedial
Long Prairie Groundwater Contamination
MN
D
Remedial
Ritari Post and Pole, OU 1
MN
D
Remedial
A
South Andover Salvage Yards, OU 2
MN
C
Remedial
ft
Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant
MN
0
DoD
Allied Chem & Ironton Coke, OU 2
OH
D/I
Remedial
Allied Chem & Ironton Coke. OU 2a
OH
D/I
Remedial
Miami County Incinerator
OH
D
Remedial
Ormet Corporation
OH
PD
Remedial
Pristine (ROD Amendment)
OH
C
Remedial
Pristine (ROD Amendment)
OH
1
Remedial
Skinner Landfill, OU 2
OH
D
Remedial
Van Dale Junkyard Site
OH
PD
Remedial
Zanesville Well Field
OH
D
Remedial
City Disposal Corporation Landfill
WI
0
Remedial
Hagen Farm Site, Ground Water Control OU
WI
PD
Remedial
Hagen Farm Source Control OU
WI
0
Remedial
Moss-American
WI
PD
Remedial
a Allied Chem & Ironton Coke, OU2 is conducting two types of bioremediation ex situ: land farming and magnetically enhanced land farming
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not installed; 1 = Installed or being installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Action: Remedial = Superfund Remedial Action; Removal = Superfund Removal Action; DoD = Actions under Department of Defense; DOE = Actions under Department of
Energy; RCRA = RCRA Corrective Action
B-8
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
Source Control
Groundwater Remedies
Region 5
(Continued)
Site Name
Action
State
Status
Muskego Sanitary Landfill, Interim Action, OU 1
Remedial
Wl
Onalaska Municipal Landfill
Wl
Remedial
Wausau Groundwater Contamination
Remedial
Wl
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not installed; I = Installed or being installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Action: Remedial = Superfund Remedial Action; Removal = Superfund Removal Action; DoD = Actions under Department of Defense; DOE = Actions under Department of
Energy; RCRA = RCRA Corrective Action do
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
Source Control
Groundwater Remedies
Region 6
Site Name
State
Status
Action
Arkwood
AR
D
Remedial
MacMillan Ring Free Oil Company
AR
0
Removal
Popile
AR
D/I
Remedial
American Creosote Works, lnc.(Winnfleld Plant)
LA
D/I
Remedial
Old IneerOil Refinery
LA
I
Remedial
Pab Oil & Chemical Services
LA
D
Remedial
Atchison, Topeka, & Santa FeClovis/Santa Fe L
NM
0
Remedial
Holloman AFB, BX Service Station
NM
1
DoD
Holloman AFB, Main POL Area
NM
o
DoD
Prewitt Abandoned Refinery
NM
D
Remedial
Prewitt Abandoned Refinery
NM
D/i
Remedial
Oklahoma Refining Co.
OK.
D
Remedial
Traband Warehouse
OK
C
Removal
Baldwin Waste Oil
TX
C
Removal
French Limited
TX
C
Remedial
Kelly AFB, Site 1100
TX
0
DoD
Matagorda Island AF Range
TX
C
DoD
North Cavalcade Street
TX
D/I
Remedial
Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc., OU 2
TX
D
Remedial
Sheridan Disposal Services
TX
PD
Remedial
South Cavalcade Street
TX
PD
Remedial
United Creosoting
TX
D
Remedial
i-- ฆ . . ฆ <'
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not installed; I = Installed or being installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Action: Remedial = Superfund Remedial Action; Removal = Superfund Removal Action; DoD = Actions under Department of Defense; DOE = Actions under Department of
Energy; RCRA = RCRA Corrective Action
B-10
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
Region 7
Source Control
Groundwater Remedies
So
/So.
& /&/
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
Source Control
Groundwater Remedies
Region 8
&
Site Name
State
Status
Action
Broderick Wood Products, OU 2
CO
D/I
Remedial
Broderick Wood Products, OU 2
CO
0
Remedial
Chemical Sales Company, OU 1
CO
D
Remedial
Fort Carson
CO
0
DoD
Lockheed/Martin (Denver Aerospace)
CO
D
Remedial
Martin Marietta Corp., W C Astronautics Facility
CO
PD
RCRA
Martin Marietta Corp., W C Astronautics Facility
CO
D
RCRA
Rocky Flats, OU 2, Interim Remedial Action Plan
CO
I
Remedial
Rocky Mountain Arsenal, OU 18, Interim Response
CO
C
Remedial
Sand Creek Industrial OU I
CO
C
Remedial
Sand Creek Industrial, OU 4
CO
PD
Remedial
Sand Creek Industrial, OU 5
CO
C
Remedial
Burlington Northern (Somers Plant)
MT
O
Remedial
Former Glasgow AFB
MT
0
DoD
Idaho Pole Company
MT
D
Remedial
Idaho Pole Company
MT
1
Remedial
Libby Groundwater Contamination
MT
0
Remedial
Montana Pole and Treating Plant
MT
D
Remedial
Montana Pole and Treating Plant (Ground water)
MT
D
Remedial
Old Works/ East Anaconda Development Area Site
MT
D
Remedial
Hill Air Force Base, OU 4
UT
PD
Remedial
Utah Power and Light/American Barrel
UT
PD
Remedial
Wasatch Chemical
UT
0
Remedial
Wasatch Chemical
UT
C
Remedial
Mystery Bridge Road/Highway 20, OU 2
WY
c
Removal
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not installed; I = Installed or being installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Action: Remedial = Superfund Remedial Action; Removal = Superfund Removal Action; DoD = Actions under Department of Defense; DOE = Actions under Department of
Energy; RCRA = RCRA Corrective Action
B-12
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
Region 9
Source Control
Groundwater Remedies
&
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
Region 9
(continued)
Source Control
Groundwater Remedies
&
Ao,
Site Name
State
Status
Action
Jasco Chemical Co.
CA
D
Remedial
KoDDers ComDanv. Inc. (Oroville Plant)
CA
PD
Remedial
Koppers Company. Inc. (Oroville Plant)
CA
D/I
Remedial
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
CA
D/I
Remedial
Lorentz Banel and Drum. OU 1
CA
D
Remedial
Marine Corps.. Mountain Warfare Center
CA
C
DoD
McClcllan AFB, OU D
CA
0
DoD
MEW- Fairchild Semiconductor (369 N. Whisman)
CA
0
Remedial
MEW- Fairchild Semiconductor (401 National Ave.)
CA
I
Remedial
MEW-Fairchild Semiconductor (515 N. Whisman)
CA
I
Remedial
MEW-General Instrument Corp,
CA
D/I
Remedial
MEW-Siemins/Sobrato
CA
I
Remedial
Monolithic Memories/AMD - Arques, OU 1
CA
0
Remedial
National Semiconductor Corp., OU 1 -Subunit2
CA
O
Remedial
Norton Air Force Base, CBA OU
CA
D/I
Remedial
Pacific Coast Pipeline
CA
0
Remedial
Purity Oil Sales. OU 2
CA
PD
Remedial
Raytheon. MV (305 Ellis Street/415 Middlefield Rd.)
CA
1
Remedial
Roseville Drums
CA
C
Removal
Sacramento Army Depot, Bum Pits OU
CA
C
Remedial
Sacramento Army Depot, Tank 2 OU
CA
C
Remedial
Seal Beach Navy Weapons Station IR Site 14
CA
0
DoD
Seal Beach Navy Weapons Station IR Site 14
CA
D
DoD
Signetics (AMD 901) (TRW), Signetics OU - 811
CA
0
Remedial
Solvent Service
CA
o
RCRA
Southern California Edison, Visalia Pole Yard (gwou)
CA
PD
Remedial
Southern California Edison, Visalia Pole Yard (scou)
CA
PD
Remedial
Spectra Physics, OU I
CA
0
Remedial
ฆ t? /ฆ<
* <ฃ
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not installed; I = Installed or being installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Action: Remedial = Superfund Remedial Action; Removal = Superfund Removal Action; DoD = Actions under Department of Defense; DOE = Actions under Department of
Energy; RCRA = RCRA Corrective Action _ .
B-14
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
Source Control
Groundwater Remedies
Region 9
(continued)
Site Name
Action
State
Status
CA
Remedial
Van Waters arid Rogers
Watkins-Johnson
CA
Remedial
U. S. Public Works Center, Guam
GU
DoD
NV
Removal
Poly-Carb
Naval Communication Station, Scotland
DoD
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/l = Designed but not installed; I = Installed or being installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Action: Remedial = Superfund Remedial Action; Removal = Superfund Removal Action; DoD = Actions under Department of Defense; DOE = Actions under Department of
Energy; RCRA = RCRA Corrective Action
B-15
-------
Innovative Technology Summary Matrix
Region 10
Source Control
Groundwater Remedies
'J?
JM
V/
Site Name
State
Status
Action
Eielson Air Force Base OU I (refueling loop)
AK
0
Remedial
Eielson Air Force Base, OU ! (power plant)
AK
0
Remedial
Eielson Air Force Base. OU 2 (fuel area)
AK
1
Remedial
Fort Wainwright
AK
C
DoD
Idaho National Engineering Lab, Pit 9 (OU 7 -10)
ID
D
Remedial
Evanite Fiber Corporation
OR
0
RCRA
Umatilla Army Depot (Lagoons), OU 3
OR
D/I
Remedial
Umatilla Army Depot Activity, Soil OU
OR
0
Remedial
United Chrome Products
OR
0
Remedial
Bangor Naval Submarine Base, OU 6 Site D & OU 2
WA
D
Remedial
Bonneville Power Administration, OU A
WA
0
Remedial
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma Field OU
WA
PD
Remedial
Commencement Bay/S. Tacoma Channel/Well 12A
WA
0
Remedial
Drexler - RAMCOR
WA
C
Removal
Fairchild AFB. Priority 1 OUs (OU 2) FT-1
WA
0
Remedial
Fort Lewis Military Reservation Solvent Refined
WA
PD
Remedial
Fort Lewis Military Reservation. Landfill 4
WA
D
Remedial
Harbor Island
WA
PD
Remedial
Lockheed Shipyard Facilitv/Harbor Island. OU 3
WA
D
Remedial
Naval Submarine Base. Baneor Site A. OU 1
WA
O
Remedial
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not installed; I = Installed or being installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
Action: Remedial = Superfund Remedial Action; Removal = Superfund Removal Action; DoD = Actions under Department of Defense; DOE = Actions under Department of
Energy; RCRA = RCRA Corrective Action
B-16
-------
V
Appendix C
Established Technology Summary Matrix
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Region 1
f-
Site Name
State
FY
/$
/
^ X S* / e-F / -V / -A? /
/** / / j/d
Beacon Heights Landfill
CT
1990
Baird & McGuire
MA
1986
Baird & McGuire
MA
1989
Cannon Engineering/Plymouth
MA
1988
Charles George Land Reclamation
MA
1988
New Bedford
MA
1990
PSC Resources
MA
1992
Rose Disposal Pit
MA
1988
Salem Acres
MA
1993
Silresim Chemical
MA
1991
Sullivan's Ledge
MA
1989
Sullivan's Ledge
MA
1991
W.R. Grace (Acton Plant)
MA
1989
Wells G&H
MA
1989
O'Connor
ME
1989
Pinette's Salvage Yard
ME
1989
Pinette's Salvage Yard
ME
1993
Union Chemical
ME
1991
Kearsarge Metallurgical
NH
1990
Ottati & Goss
NH
1987
Davis Liquid Waste
RI
1987
Davisville Naval Construction Battalion Center
RI
1993
C'l
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Region 2
V
Site Name
State
FY
/ ^ ^ / ev / -V / /
/ / .&> / /
/ฃ?/<$/ sv / # / ,
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Region 2 (Continued)/7
&
V
Site Name
State
FY
/ V / V / ^v/ /
/ & / J* / ^ / &
/ & / & / <^/ ^ ^ /<ฃ\
Waldick Aerospace
NJ
1987
White Chemical Corp.
NJ
1991
Williams Property
NJ
1987
Brewster Well Field
NY
1988
Circuitron
NY
1991
Claremont Polychemical
NY
1989
Facet Enterprises
NY
1992
FMC-Dublin Road
NY
1993
Hooker Chemical-Ruco Polymer
NY
1990
Love Canal
NY
1988
Marathon Battery
NY
1986
Marathon Battery
NY
1988
Marathon Battery
NY
1989
Mattiace Petrochemicals
NY
1990
Mattiace Petrochemicals
NY
1991
Preferred Plating
NY
1992
Sarney Farm
NY
1990
Sealand Restoration
NY
1990
York Oil
NY
1988
i:! p,. . ;
C-3
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Region 3
xr
5s4
Site Name
State
FY
/ / \v / / -4? s .s? /
/*&>/ฆ*$>/ is* / / <
/ ^ / ^ / J"/ ^ / &
Delaware Sand & Gravel
DE
1988
Dover Gas Light Superfund Site
DE
1994
Halbv Chemical
DE
1991
Wildcat Landfill
DE
1988
Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers
MD
1991
Southern Maryland Wood Treating
MD
1988
Alladin Plating
PA
1988
Bendix Flight System
PA
1988
Berks Sand Pit
PA
1988
Brodhead Creek
PA
1991
Bruin Lagoon
PA
1982
Bruin Lagoon
PA
1986
C & D Recycling
PA
1992
Craig Farm
PA
1989
Douglassville Disposal
PA
1988
Douglassville Disposal
PA
1989
Drake Chemical/Phase II
PA
1986
Drake Chemical/Phase III
PA
1988
Eastern Diversified Metals
PA
1991
Hebelka Auto Salvage Yard
PA
1989
Hebelka Auto Salvage Yard
PA
1991
Hunterstown Road
PA
1993
M.W. Manufacturing
PA
1989
M.W. Manufacturing
PA
1990
Paoli Rail Yard
PA
1992
Saegertown Industrial
PA
1993
Tonolli
PA
1992
U.S.A. Letterkenny SE
PA
1991
Westline
PA
1986
C-4
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Technology Type
Region 3 (Continued)
Site Name
State
FY
1991
Whitmoyer Laboratories (OU 2)
PA
1991
Whitmoyer Laboratories (OU 3)
PA
1989
Whitmoyer Laboratories
PA
VA
1992
Abex
1990
VA
C&R Battery
VA
1991
Dixie Cavern County Landfill
VA
1991
First Piedmont Quarry 719
VA
1990
Greenwood Chemical
1993
Rentokil Virginia Wood Preserving
VA
1992
VA
Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump
1991
Saunders Supply
VA
1988
Fike Chemical
WV
WV
1992
Fike Chemical
WV
1988
Ordnance Works Disposal
Ordnance Works Disposal
WV
1989
WV
1987
West Virginia Ordnance
C-5
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Technology Type
Region 4
XT
Site Name
State
FY
r / ^ / / cf/ -v / /
/$/*//////r/J
/ & / &/ <$/ <$ / ^
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant (OU 1)
AL
1992
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant (OU 2)
AL
1994
Ciba Geigy Corp.
AL
1991
Ciba-Geigy (Mcintosh Plant)
AL
1992
Interstate Lead Co.
AL
1991
Mowbray Engineering
AL
1986
62nd Street Dump
FL
1990
Agrico Chemical
FL
1992
Anodyne
FL
1993
Brown Wood Preserving
FL
1988
Cabot/Koppers
FL
1990
Colcman-Evans Wood Preserving (Amendment)
FL
1990
Davie Landfill
FL
1985
Florida Steel Corp.
FL
1994
Florida Steel
FL
1992
Gold Coast
FL
1987
Jacksonville Naval Air Station (OU 2)
FL
1994
Kassouf-Kimerling Battery
FL
1989
Kassourf-Kimerling Battery Disposal
FL
1990
NAS Cecil Field Site 11 (OU 6)
FL
1994
Peak Oil/Bay Drum (OU 1)
FL
1993
Peak Oil/Bay Drum (OU 3)
FL
1993
Pepper's Steel & Alloy
FL
1986
Reeves Southeastern Galvanizing (OU 1)
FL
1993
Sapp Battery Salvage
FL
1986
Schuylkill Metal
FL
1990
Tower Chemical
FL
1987
C-6
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Region 4 (Continued
4?
Site Name
State
FY
/ / v S S -.o* / /
/ ^ / <
Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits (Amendment)
FL
1992
Yellow Wate Road
FL
1990
Zellwood Groundwater Contamination fAmendment)
FL
1990
Zellwood Groundwater
FL
1988
Cedartown Industries
GA
1993
General Refining
GA
1985
Hercules 009 Landfill
GA
1993
Marine Corns Loeistics Base
GA
1992
Mathis Brothers Landfill fSouth Marble Tod Road)
GA
1993
USAF Robins Air Force Base
GA
1991
Howe Vallev Landfill
KY
1990
Maxev Flats Nuclear Disposal
KY
1991
Smith's Farm Brooks
KY
1989
Flowood
MS
1988
Newsom Brothers Old Reichold
MS
1989
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumos fAmendment)
NC
1991
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumos/Fairwav
NC
1989
Bvoass 601 Groundwater Contamination fAmendment)
NC
1993
Bvoass 601 Groundwater Contamination
NC
1993
Caoe Fear Wood Preserving
NC
1989
Carolina Transformer
NC
1991
Celanese
NC
1989
Chemtronics
NC
1988
JFD Electronics/Channel Masters
NC
1992
KoDDers fMorrisville Plant)
NC
1993
Sodveco
NC
1987
Geieer/CC&M Oil) fAmendment)
sc
1993
C-7
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Region 4 (Continued)
Site Name
State
FY
/ ,aSV
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Region 5
V
Site Name
State
FY
/ S* X S* / e4P / X
/$///ฆ
/ & / &/ <^/ ** /
Acme Solvent Reclaiming
IL
1985
Acme Solvent Reclaimine
IL
1991
Belvidere Municipal Landfill #1
IL
1988
Bvron/Johnson Salvaee Yard
IL
1985
Cross Brothers Pail
IL
1989
LaSalle Electrical Utilities
IL
1986
LaSalie Electrical Utilities
IL
1988
Outboard Marine/Waukeean Harbor
IL
1989
Saneamo/Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge
IL
1990
Savanna Armv Depot
IL
1992
Velsicol Chemical
IL
1988
American Chemical Services
IN
1992
Fisher Calo
IN
1990
Fort Wavne Reduction
IN
1988
Main Street Wellfield
IN
1991
MIDCO I
IN
1989
MIDCOII
IN
1989
Ninth Avenue Dumo
IN
1989
Reillv Tar& Chemical flndianaoolis Plant)
IN
1993
Wavne Waste Oil
IN
1990
Wedzeb
IN
1989
Auto Ion Chemicals
MI
1989
Berlin & Farro Liauid Incineration
MI
1984
Bofors Nobel
MI
1990
Carter Industries
MI
1991
Cliff/Dow Dumo
MI
1989
Electrovoice
MI
1992
C-9
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Technology Type
Region 5 (Continued) /
$
V
Site Name
State
FY
/ */ / <#/ j& / ฃ /
/&/ &/ <$/4 / ^
Forest Waste Products
MI
1986
Forest Waste Products
MI
1988
H. Brown Company
MI
1992
Liquid Disposal
MI
1987
Metamora Landfill
MI
1986
Peerless Plating
MI
1992
Rose Township Dump
MI
1987
Spiegelberg Landfill
MI
1986
Springfield Township Dump
MI
1990
Tar Lake
MI
1992
Thermo Chem
MI
1991
Arrowhead Refinery
MN
1986
MacGillis and Gibbs/Bell Lumber and Pole (OU 3)
MN
1994
MacGillis and Gibbs/Bell Lumber and Pole
MN
1993
New Brighton/Arden Hills
MN
1989
Ritari Post and Pole (OU 1)
MN
1994
University of Minnesota
MN
1990
Waite Park Wells (OUs 1,2,&3)
MN
1994
Allied Chem & Ironton Coke
OH
1991
Alsco Anaconda
OH
1989
Big D Campground
OH
1989
Fields Brook
OH
1986
Laskin/Poplar Oil
OH
1984
Laskin/Poplar Oil
OH
1987
Laskin/Poplar Oil
OH
1989
Ormet Corp.
OH
1994
Pristine (Amendment)
OH
1990
C-10
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Technology Type
Region 5 (Continued)
Site Name
State
FY
OH
1988
Pristine
Summit National Liquid Disposal Service (Amendment)
OH
1991
OH
1988
Summit National Liquid Disposal
Wl
1988
Mid-State Disposal Landfill
Wl
1994
N.W. Mauthe Site
Wl
1987
Northern Engraving
Wl
1990
Oconomowoc Electroplating
Wl
Spickler Landfill
C'll
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Region 6
$ฆ
V
Site Name
State
FY
/ V / / C
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Technology Type
Region 6 (Continued)/
Site Name
State
FY
MOTCO
TX
1985
1989
Pesses Chemical
TX
Petrochemical (Turtle-Bayou)
S. Calvacade St.
1991
TX
TX
1988
Sheridan Disposal Services
1989
TX
Sikes Disposal Pit
1986
TX
Texarkana Wood Preserving
TX
1990
1985
Triangle Chemical
TX
1989
United Creosoting
TX
C-13
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Region 7
ฃ
Site Name
State
FY
/V/ $/
Fairfield Coal Gasification Plant
IA
1990
IE Dupont de Nemours & Co. Inc.
IA
1991
Mid-America Tanning
IA
1991
Midwest Manufacturing/North Farm
IA
1988
Peoples Natural Gas
IA
1991
Shaw Avenue Dump
IA
1991
Vogel Paint & Wax
IA
1989
Arkansas City Dump
KS
1988
Ellisville Area (Amendment)
MO
1991
Eilisville Area/Bliss
MO
1986
Ellisville Area
MO
1991
K.em-Pest Laboratories
MO
1991
Minker/Stout/Romaine Creek (R&S)
MO
1988
Missouri Electric Works
MO
1990
Shenandoah Stables
MO
1990
Syntex
MO
1988
Times Beach
MO
1988
Weldon Spring Quarry/Plant/Pits (USDOE)
MO
1993
Hastings Groundwater Contamination (East Industrial)
NE
1990
C-14
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Region 8
Site Name
State
FY
/ ..O / / if / ,.os / / <
7/7/7^7/7/7^
Broderick Wood Products
CO
1988
Broderick Wood Products
CO
1991
Broderick Wood Products
CO
1992
Denver Radium (OU 8)
CO
1992
Martin Marietta (Denver Aerosnacel
CO
1990
Rockv Flats (USDOE) (OU 4>
CO
1992
Rocky Mountain Arsenal (OU 17)
CO
1990
Rocky Mountain Arsenal (OU 28)
CO
1993
Rocky Mountain Arsenal (OU 29)
CO
1993
Sand Creek Industrial
CO
1990
Woodbury Chemical
CO
1985
Woodbury Chemical
CO
1989
Anaconda Co. Smelter
MT
1991
Montana Pole and Treating
MT
1993
Silver Bow CreekButte Area
MT
1992
Hill AFB
UT
1991
Oeden Defense Deoot (OU 3)
UT
1992
Oeden Defense Depot
UT
1990
Portland Cement (Kiln Dust #2 & #3)
UT
1992
Tooele Army Depot-North Area (OUs 5,6,7,10)
UT
1994
Utah Power & Light/American Barrel
UT
1993
C-15
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Region 9
XT
$
V
Site Name
State
FY
/ cy / cy / / ^ / > / .
/V/ $Y
-------
Established Technology Summary Matrix
Technology Type
Region 10
f-
V
Site Name
State
FY
/ "V / & / -V / vA? /
/ / .A / / .Os / / <
/ $ / / <&/ J? / $ / j?
1/ & / &/ <$/ ^
Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical Complex
ID
1992
Pacific Hide & Fur Recycling (Amendment)
ID
1992
Pacific Hide & Fur Recycling
ID
1988
U.S. DOE Idaho National Engineering Lab (OU 23)
ID
1992
Gould
OR
1988
Teledyne Wah Chang Albany (TWCA)
OR
1990
Umatilla Army Depot (Lagoons) (OU 4)
OR
1994
Umatilla Army Depot (Lagoons)
OR
1994
Umatilla Army Depot (OU 1)
OR
1993
American Crossarm & Conduit
WA
1993
Commencement Bay (South Tacoma Field OU)
WA
1994
Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats
WA
1991
Commencement Bay/Nearshore/Tideflats (OU 3)
WA
1988
FMC Yakima Pit
WA
1990
Frontier Hard Chrome
WA
1988
Hanford 1100-Area (DOE)
WA
1993
Harbor Island-Lead
WA
1993
Northwest Transformer - Mission Pole
WA
1991
Umatilla Army Depot (Lagoons) OU 7
WA
1994
Western Processing Phase I
WA
1984
Western Processing/Phase II
WA
1985
C-17
-------
Appendix D
Treatment Trains With Innovative
Treatment Technologies
-------
TREATMENT TRAINS WITH INNOVATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
August 1995
Dechlorination Followed by
Soil Washing Myers Property
Ex Situ Bioremediation Followed bv
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization
J. H. Baxter
Cape Fear Wood Preserving
Oklahoma Refining Co.
PAB Oil
In Situ Flushing Followed bv
In Situ Bioremediation
In Situ Bioremediation
In Situ Bioremediation
In Situ Bioremediation
Peak Oil/Bay Drums, OU
Pester Burn Pond
Idaho Pole Company
Montana Pole Company
Soil Vapor Extraction Followed bv
In Situ Flushing
Solidification/Stabilization
Soil Washing
JADCO - Hughes
Genzale Plating Company, OU 1
Zanesville Well Field
NJ
CA
NC
OK
LA
FL
KS
MT
MT
NC
NY
OH
Soil Washine Followed bv
Bioremediation
Cabot Carbon/Koppers
FL
Bioremediation
Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits
FL
Bioremediation
Cape Fear Wood Preserving
NC
Bioremediation
Moss-American
WI
Incineration
Arkwood
AR
Solidification/Stabilization
Vineland Chemical OU 1 and OU 2
NJ
Solvent Extraction Followed bv
Incineration
Incineration
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization
Chemical Leaching and
Incineration
Norwood PCBs
United Cresoting
O'Connor
Carolina Transformer
Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory, Pit 9
MA
TX
ME
NC
ID
Thermal Desorption Followed bv
Dechlorination
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization
Smith's Farm Brooks, OU 1 KY
Waldick Aerospace Devices NJ
USA Letterkenny (SE Area, OU 1) PA
Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Inc., OU 2 IL
Martin Marietta (Denver Aerospace) CO
D-l
-------
Appendix E
Summary of Status Report Updates, Changes, and Deletions
-------
Summary of Status Report Updates, Changes, and Deletions
Each edition of this report has contained new information on the applications of innovative technologies at Superfund sites and has updated the status
of existing innovative projects. The information from records of decision (ROD) that was deleted or changed in each edition (from the first edition
of the report, published in January 1991, through this seventh edition) is listed below to allow tracking of specific projects from edition to edition.
Additions, Changes, and Deletions, From the First Edition of the Report (January 1991) to the Second Edition (September 1991)
lcilmnl lhiMi
Addvd
Med
I lunged I"
Otmimnt*
(.imladS'Tlidnr
3
Leetown Pesticides, WV (03/31/86)
Bioremediation
Yes
No further action. Risk was re-
evaluated and it was determined
that risk was not sufficient for
remedial action.
Andy Palestini
215-597-1286
Philip Rotstein
215-597-9023
3
Harvey-Knott Drum, DE (09/30/85)
In situ soil flushing
Yes
During remedial design, sampling
indicated VOCs were no longer
present in the soils. Heavy metals
remained at the surface. An ESD
was issued in December 1992.
Remedy wilt consist of capping the
site.
Kate Lose
215-597-0910
2
SMS Instruments (Deer Park), NY
(09/29/89)
Thermal desorption
Yes (changed
to soil vapor
extraction in
third edition)
ROD was misinterpreted during
ROD analysis.
Miko Fayon
212-264-4706
1
Re-Solve, MA (09/24/87)
Chemical treatment
Dechlorination
Reclassified technology.
Lorenzo Thantu
617-223-5500
2
GE Wiring Services, PR (09/30/88)
Chemical extraction
Soil washing
Reclassified technology.
Caroline Kwan
212-264-0151
6
Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers,
TX (03/25/88)
Chemical treatment
Dechlorination
Reclassified technology.
John Meyer
214-655-6735
10
Northwest Transformer, WA
(09/15/89)
In situ vitrification
Yes
Technology dropped because
commercial availability was
delayed.
Christine Psyk
206-553-6519
Note: The second edition of the report also added information about 45 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial actions in RODs
signed during fiscal year (FY) 1990 and 18 innovative treatment technologies used in removal actions.
E-l
-------
Additions, Changes, and Deletions, From the Second Edition of the Report (September 1991) to the Third Edition (April 1992)
| Region
Situ Nairn. I>:ite>
i ochitul'^v(Liitid
in 2nd hilitiou)
ti(l 1 ditioil
(.(mirunbi
CtillLiCLs'l'Imni!
Aritlt <1
PUrled
riiJiigiii to
2
Marathon Battery, NY (09/30/88J
Thermal desorption
Yes
During design, soil gas
concentration at hot spots was
below state standards.
Groundwater monitoring will
continue.
Pam Tames
212-264-1036
2
Goose Farm, NJ (09/27/85)
In situ soil flushing
Yes
Incorrectly classified. A pump-and
-treat system with reinjection of
treated water is being used.
Laura Lombardo
212-264-6989
2
GE Wiring Services, PR (09/30/88)
Soil washing
Thermal
desorption
Possible pre-wash of debris with
surfactants
Caroline Kwan
212-264-0151
4
Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving,
FL (09/26/90)
Soil washing
Yes
Problems due to the presence of
furans; incineration is likely.
Tony Best
404-347-2643
5
Sangamo/Crab Orchard National
Wildlife Refuge, IL (08/01/90)
In situ vitrification
Yes
Incineration
ROD specified the remedy as in
situ vitrification or incineration;
incineration was chosen.
Nan Gowda
312-353-9236
5
Anderson Development, MI
(09/28/90)
In situ vitrification
Thermal
desorption
Because of concern on the part of
the community, the remedy was
changed. A ROD amendment was
signed on 9/30/91, and an ESD
was signed on 10/2/92.
Jim Hahnenberg
312-353-4213
5
U.S. Aviex, MI (09/07/88)
In situ flushing
Yes
Cleanup levels were reached by
natural attenuation.
Robert Whippo
312-886-4759
6
Atchison/Santa Fe/Clovis, NM
(09/23/88)
Bioremediation
(ex situ)
Yes
Ky Nichols
214-655-6783
6
Crystal Chemical, TX (09/27/90)
In situ vitrification
Yes
Remedy was reconsidered after
commercial availability of the
technology was delayed.
Vitrification was considered for hot
spots only. Revised remedy will
consist of capping and off-site
disposal and consolidation of soils.
Lisa Price
214-655-6735
Note: The third edition of the report also added information about 70 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial actions under FY
1991 RODs.
E-2
-------
Additions, Changes, and Deletions, From the Second Edition of the Report (September 1991) to the Third Edition (April 1992) (continued)
Kugmri
Situ Niint. Stntt iKOI>
in 2nd tidition)
3rd Dlmmi
('Miiimnb
Cont.u (<. 'Phone
AricM
IK It lid
UiAiigld to
9
Solvent Service, CA (09/27/90)
Bioremediation
(in situ)
Yes
ROD was misinterpreted during
ROD analysis.
Kevin Graves
510-286-0435
Steve Morse (CA)
570-286-0304
9
Poly Carb, NV (Removal)
Bioremediation
(ex situ)
Bioremediation
(in situ)
Reclassified technology.
Bob Mandel
415-744-2290
Note: The third edition of the report also added information about 70 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial actions under FY
1991 RODs.
E-3
-------
Additions, Changes, and Deletions, From the Third Edition of the Report (April 1992) to the Fourth Edition (October 1992)
]fcilm
-------
Additions, Changes, and Deletions, From the Fourth Edition of the Report (October 1992) to the Fifth Edition (September 1993)
lulmuldg* Lifted
m 4tli Mitiun
5rh Filitlim
Hoiiinn
N.wno, Suite tKOn D.itui
Added
[klitrd
Cli.m^'O tu
(.oinniriiK
Cuntiiits/lMiniw
1
Re-Solve, MA (09/24/87)
Dechlorination
Yes
Pilot study showed that
dechlorination increased the
volume and that the waste still
required incineration. An ESD to
incinerate residuals off site is in
peer review.
Joe Lemay
617-573-9622
1
Pinette's Salvage Yard, ME
(05/30/89)
Solvent extraction
Yes
Will incinerate off site.
Ross Gilleland
617-573-5766
2
Naval Air Warfare Center, OU 1,
NJ (02/04/91)
In situ flushing
Yes
Remedy involves pump-and-treat
system, with on-site discharge.
Soil is not being targeted.
Jeff Gratz
212-264-6667
2
Naval Air Warfare Center, OU 2,
NJ (02/04/91)
In situ flushing
Yes
Remedy involves pump-and-treat
system, with on-site discharge.
Soil is not being targeted.
Jeff Gratz
212-264-6667
2
Naval Air Warfare Center, OU 4,
NJ (02/04/91)
In situ flushing
Yes
Remedy involves pump-and-treat
system, with on-site discharge.
Soil is not being targeted.
Jeff Gratz
212-264-6667
2
Caldwell Trucking, NJ (09/25/86)
Thermal desorption
Yes
Thermal desorption is not
necessary because highly
contaminated soil will be
incinerated off site. Remainder of
soil will be stabilized. ESD
issued.
Ed Finnerty
212-264-3555
3
Tobyhanna Anny Depot, PA
(Non-Superftind project)
Bioremediation
(in situ)
Yes
Will conduct ex situ passive
volatilization.
Drew Lausch
215-597-3161
Ross Mantione
(Tobyhanna)
717-894-6494
Note: The fifth edition of the report also added information about 49 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial actions under FY 1992
RODs and 15 innovative treatment technologies used in removal actions.
E-5
-------
Additions, Changes, and Deletions, From the Fourth Edition of the Report (October 1992) to the Fifth Edition (September 1993) (continued)
f Region
">iU' N'riiuv. M.Ul iKOI) Date)
IViclmiiln)!} 1 istnl
in 4eIi Trillion
Stli FriUum
(.'liniments
C'niit.iCtS'1'huiiL
VridiM)
I)rli ted
ChAugi'd fn
4
Smith's Farm Brooks, KY
(09/30/91)
Dechlorination
Thermal
desorption
Will alter chemistry to achieve
dechlorination during thermal
desorption.
Tony DeAngelo
404-347-7791
4
American Creosote Works, FL
(09/28/89)
Soil washing
Yes
Bench-scale study of soil washing
showed that the concentrations of
carcinogenic PAHs were not
reduced adequately. Dioxins also
were discovered at much higher
concentrations.
Mark Fite
404-347-2643
4
American Creosote Works, FL
(09/28/89)
Bioremediation (ex
situ)
Yes
Bench-scale study of
bioremediation (ex situ) showed
that the concentrations of
carcinogenic PAHs were not
reduced adequately. Dioxins also
were discovered at much higher
concentrations.
Mark Fite
404-347-2643
4
Hollingsworth Solderless, FL
(04/10/86)
None
Soil vapor
extraction
Listed as soil aeration in the third
edition.
John Zimmerman
404-347-2643
5
Cliffs/Dow Dump, MI (09/27/89)
Bioremediation (in
situ)
Yes
Bioremediation (in situ) was a
misinterpretation of the ROD. All
soil will be excavated and treated
by bioremediation (ex situ).
Ken Glatz
312-886-1434
6
Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard, OK
(09/27/90)
Dechlorination
Yes
Remedy has been suspended
because of difficulties in
implementation and escalating cost;
Actual cost was double the cost
projected in ROD. ROD
amendment to cap in place, is
being issued.
Mike Overbay
214-655-8512
Note: The fifth edition of the report also added information about 49 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial actions under FY 1992
RODs and 15 innovative treatment technologies used in removal actions.
E-6
-------
Additions, Changes, and Deletions, From the Fourth Edition of the Report (October 1992) to the Fifth Edition (September 1993) (continued)
I itlf d
lit 4th (MliO'nii
5th Uditiun
Ri uiun
&itu .N.mto, S(.itu (ROD Date)
Ailck (1
Drlt ted
Changed to
Comments
CmiLK(ซ> Phum*
7
Fairfield Coal & Gas, IA (09/21/90)
Bioremediation (in
situ)
Yes
Pilot study showed in situ
bioremediation was too costly. It
appears that the present pump-and-
treat system will achieve cleanup
levels.
Bruce Morrison
913-551-7755
8
Sand Creek Industrial OU 5, CO
(09/28/90)
Soil washing
Thermal
desorption
Soil washing did not meet
performance standards and was
expensive. ROD amendment was
issued in early September 1993.
Ema Acheson
303-294-1971
9
Koppers Company (Oroville), CA
(04/04/90)
Bioremediation (ex
situ)
Yes
Misinterpretation of ROD during
ROD analysis.
Fred Schlauffler
415-744-2365
9
Signetics (AMD 901) TRW OU, CA
(09/11/91)
None
Soil vapor
extraction
Remedy added.
Joe Healy
415-744-2331
Kevin Graves
(CA)
510-286-0435
9
Teledyne Semiconductors, CA
(09/30/91)
None
Soil vapor
extraction
Dropped by mistake from fourth
edition.
Sean Hogan
415-744-2233
10
IDEL Warm Waste Pond, ID
(12/05/91)
Acid extraction
Yes
Treatability study of acid extraction
did not achieve good extraction
rates. Did not reduce the volume
of waste. Will excavate,
consolidate, and cap.
Linda Meyer
206-553-6636
Nolan Jenson
(DOE)
208-526-0436
to
IDEL Warm Waste Pond, ID
(12/05/93)
Soil washing
Yes
Treatability study of soil washing
did not achieve acceptable results.
Did not reduce the volume of
waste. Will excavate, consolidate,
and cap.
Linda Meyer
206-553-6636
Nolan Jenson
(DOE)
208-526-0436
Note: The fifth edition of the report also added information about 49 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial actions under FY 1992
RODs and 15 innovative treatment technologies used in removal actions.
E-7
-------
Additions, Changes, and Deletions, From the Fifth Edition of the Report (September 1993) to the Sixth Edition (September 1994)
Resgion
Sili N.uno, State iROl) P.ifci
lirclmoliigy 1 taut)
in 5th Lriitiim
tfth 1 dllinn
Cumim-nti
Omi.ii is PiiuiK'
A(lrU>()
IMvti-ri
i hjitgiMl !n
1
Union Chemical Co., OU 1, ME
(12/27/90)
Thermal desorption
Soil vapor
extraction
It was determined that SVE
would be the more cost-effective
of the two. ESD was signed
April 1994.
Terry Connelly
617-573-9638
Christopher Rushton
(ME DEP)
207-287-2651
1
Tibbetts Road, NH (09/29/92)
In situ
soil flushing
Yes
Misinterpretation of ROD during
ROD analysis. Soil was not
targeted for treatment.
Darryl Luce
617-573-5767
Mike Robinette (NH)
603-271-2014
2
Ewan Property, OU2, NJ (09/29/89)
Soil washing and
solvent extraction
Yes
Reevaluation of site found
significantly less contaminated
soil than originally had been
estimated. Soil will be disposed
of off site. ESD was signed July
1994.
Kim O'Connell
212-264-8127
(temporary)
2
Naval Air Engineering Center,
OU 7, Interim Action, NJ (03/16/92)
In situ flushing
Yes
Misinterpretation of the ROD
during ROD analysis.
Jeff Gratz
212-264-6667
Robert Wing
212-264-8670
2
Solvent Savers, NY (09/30/90)
Soil vapor extraction
Yes
Soil vapor extraction is a
secondary remedy that may be
used instead of thermal
desorption, the primary remedy,
if treatability studies show it to be
effective.
Lisa Wong
212-264-9348
3
U.S. Titanium, VA (11/21/89)
In situ flushing
Neutralization
with lime
(ex situ)
Treatability studies indicated that
the technology was not feasible.
ESD is under preparation.
Vance Evans
215-597-8485
Jeff Howard (VA)
804-762-4203
Note: The sixth edition of the report also added information about 53 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial actions in FY 1993
RODs.
E-8
-------
Additions, Changes, and Deletions, From the Fifth Edition of the Report (September 1993) to the Sixth Edition (September 1994) (continued)
' Region
Mm .Nunir, St.itc iROI) Dote)
'lcohnitl I.iiUil
in 5th Fditinn
6th Lrtitlun
Cnnimeikts
Cojitrfitvf'honi!
tddcri
Deleted
f htinncrf tu
3
L.A. Clarke & Sons, OU 1 (Soils),
VA (03/31/88)
Bioremediation
(in situ)
Yes
Facility is no longer in operation,
and excavation can be done.
Remedies being considered
include thermal desorption.
Andy Palestini
215-597-1286
3
L.A. Clarke & Sons, OU 1 (Soils),
VA (03/31/88)
In situ flushing
Yes
Facility is no longer in operation,
and remedies being considered
include thermal desorption.
Andy Palestini
215-597-1286
3
L.A. Clarke & Sons,
Lagoon Sludge OU, VA (03/31/88)
Bioremediation
(ex situ)
Reuse off site
as fuel
Technology changed because of
uncertainty about the ability of
bioremediation to reach treatment
goals. ESD was signed on 3/94.
Andy Palestini
215-597-1286
3
Henderson Road, PA (06/30/88)
Soil vapor extraction
Yes
Conducted air injection only to
facilitate pump-and-treat system.
Vapors were not extracted.
Further investigation revealed that
(he vadose zone was not an area
of concern.
Joe McDowell
215-597-8240
4
Cabot Carbon/Koppers
(Groundwater), FL (09/27/90)
Bioremediation
(in situ groundwater)
Yes
Groundwater is not being treated;
only soil is being treated.
Patsy Goldberg
404-347-6265
4
Benfield Industries, NC (07/31/92)
Soil washing and
bioremediation
(slurry phase)
Land treatment
Land treatment was determined to
be a more cost-effective
technology.
Jon Bornholm
404-347-7791
4
Charles Macon Lagoon,
Lagoon #10, NC (09/31/91)
Bioremediation
(ex situ)
Yes
Treatability study indicated that
the technology could not treat the
contaminants of concern because
of materials problems. Will
excavate and dispose of wastes
off site. ROD amendment was
signed in 3/94.
Geizelle Bennett
404-347-7791
David Lown (NC)
919-733-2801
Note: The sixth edition of the report also added information about 53 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial actions in FY 1993
RODs.
E-9
-------
Additions, Changes, and Deletions, From the Fifth Edition of the Report (September 1993) to the Sixth Edition (September 1994) (continued)
ludiwIujiY 1 iiti'il
in 5th niilimi
6th Friitiun
Resgion
Nil*. Nairn-, St.itc iROD Date)
\V ' '
I'lHitactvPhotu1 ฆ
4
Palmetto Wood Preserving, SC
(09/30/87)
Chemical treatment
Yes
Waste will be disposed of more
cost-effectively off site.
A1 Cherry
(404) 342-7791
4
Arlington Blending & Packaging
Co,, OU1, TN (06/28/91)
Dechlorination
Yes
Another disposal method is likely
to be used.
Derek Matory
404-347-7791
5
South Andover Salvage Yard, OU 2,
MN (12/24/91)
Bioremediation
(ex xitu)
Yes
Thermal
treatment
Technology changed to off-site
thermal treatment (either thermal
desorption or incineration)
because of reduced volume of
contamination found during RD
investigations. ROD amendment
was signed 5/31/94.
Bruce Sypniewski
312-886-6189 1
5
Allied Chem & Ironton Coke, OU 2,
OH (12/28/90)
Bioremediation
(in situ)
Bioremediation
(ex situ) (land
farming)
Adding technology to treat more
highly contaminated soil.
Tom Alcamo
312-886-7278
5
Allied Chem & Ironton Coke, OU 2,
OH (12/28/90)
Bioremediation
(in situ)
Bioremediation
(ex situ)
(magnetically
enhanced land
farming)
Adding technology to treat more
highly contaminated soil.
Tom Alcamo
312-886-7278
i
5
United Scrap Lead/SIA, OH
(09/30/88)
Soil washing
Yes
Determined to be too expensive.
Other alternatives being
evaluated. ROD amendment
planned.
Anita Boseman
312-886-6941
Timothy Hull (OH)
513-285-6357
5
MacGillis and Gibbs Co./Bell
Lumber and Pole Co., MN
(12/31/92)
Soil washing and
Bioremediation (ex
situ) of fines
Yes
Incineration on
site
Incineration was contingency
remedy in ROD. State had
concerns about effective means of
soil washing, and cost of
incineration has decreased. ESD
will be signed in fall 1994.
Daryl Owens
312-886-7089
Note: The sixth edition of the report also added information about 53 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial actions in FY 1993
RODS.
E-10
-------
Additions, Changes, and Deletions, From the Fifth Edition of the Report (September 1993) to the Sixth Edition (September 1994) (continued)
I Ri^cum
Mtv Nriinc, Sutr rROI) Date)
KJitcd
in 5th Kilitinn
ftth hditloii
Comments
Coiil.iUvf'iumt:
Added
Of U'tcd
(JmitQi'd to
6
Fruilland Drum, NM (09/08/90)
Dechlorination
Incineration
(off site)
Dechlorination is not being
pursued because of cost
considerations.
Gregory Fife
214-655-6773
6
Holloman AFB, Main POL Area,
NM
Bioremediation
(in situ)
(groundwater)
Yes
Groundwater remediation is not
planned for this area.
Ron Stirling
(USACE)
402-221-7664
6
Holloman AFB, Main POL Area,
NM
Air sparging
Yes
Groundwater remediation is not
planned for this area.
Ron Stirling
(USACE)
402-221-7664
6
South Valley. NM (09/30/88)
Soil vapor extraction
Yes
Determined there was
insignificant concentration to
warrant remediation. No further
action.
Bert Gorrod
214-655-6779
6
Tinker AFB (Soldier Creek Bldg.
3001), OK (08/16/90)
Soil vapor extraction
Yes
Determined that SVE was not
viable. No alternative has been
selected.
Susan Webster
214-655-6784
Major Richard
Ashworth (USAF)
405-734-3058
8
Rocky Mountain Arsenal, M-l
Basins (OU 16), CO (02/26/90)
In situ
vitrification
Yes
Remedy has been canceled
because of problems with the
contractor. New ROD is being
negotiated.
Connally Mears
303-293-1528
8
Portland Cement Co. (Kiln Dust No.
2 and No. 3) OU2, UT (03/31/92)
Chemical treatment
Yes
Technology is not considered
innovative.
Mike McCeney
303-293-1526
9
Mesa Area Ground Water
Contamination, AZ (09/27/91)
Soil vapor extraction
Yes
Site has been removed from
National Priorities List (NPL),
referred to the state
Maurice Chait
602-962-2187
Richard Oln
602-207-4176
Note: The sixth edition of the report also added information about 53 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial actions in FY 1993
RODs.
E-ll
-------
Additions, Changes, and Deletions, From the Fifth Edition of the Report (September 1993) to the Sixth Edition (September 1994) (continued)
Region
Site .Nitim*. St.itu iROI) bate)
I Mid
in rlh f-didnu
Mil Miliuit
(.nmnienls
Phono
\ddcd
PeK'tf (1
f han^H (u
9
Castle Air Force Base, OU 1, CA
(09/30/91)
Bioremediation
(in situ groundwater)
Yes
Pump and treat
with air
stripping
Bench-scale test indicated that the
technology did not work. No
ESD or ROD amendment is being
issued.
David Roberts
415-744-1487
Brad Hicks (USAF)
209-726-4841
9
Teledyne Semiconductors, CA
(03/22/91)
Soil vapor extraction
Yes
ROD was misinterpreted. SVE
was intended only for Spectra
Physics, the adjacent site.
Sean Hogan
415-744-2233
Carla Dube
510-286-1041
9
FMC (Fresno), CA (06/28/91)
Soil washing
Yes
Soil washing did not work
because (he soil contained too
many fines. Thermal desorption
and solidification and stabilization
are being considered as possible
remedies.
Tom Dunkelman
415-744-2287
Mike Pfister (CA)
209-297-3934
9
Signetics (Advanced Micro Devices
901), CA (09/11/91)
Soil vapor extraction
Yes
Site is subject to a combined
ROD for Signetics, AMD
901/902 and TRW Microwave
site. SVC is not being done at
the TRW OU. ROD was
misinterpreted.
Darrin Swartz-Larson
415-744-2233
Kevin Graves (CA)
510-286-0435
9
Sacramento Army Depot, Oxidation
Lagoons OU, CA (09/30/92)
Soil washing
Yes
Technology canceled because of
cost; solidification is being
considered as an alternative.
Mariin Mezquita
415-744-2393
George Siller
(USACE)
916-557-7418
Dan Oburn
(Sacramento Army
Depot)
916-388-4344
10
McChord AFB Washrack Treatment
Area, AK (09/28/92)
Bioremediation
(ex situ)
Yes
Additional studies showed that
treatment is not needed.
Marie Jennings
206-553-U73
Note: The sixth edition of the report also added information about 53 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial actions in FY 1993
RODs.
E-12
-------
Additions, Changes, and Deletions, From the Sixth Edition of the Report (September 1994) to the Seventh Edition (September 1995)
I'iH'hnolojzv 1 Mori
in (5th edition
' > -vt; v;
7th iditinn
. K< pun
Sue Nrfinc. State Datcj
\ddud
IV li ted
( h.mui'd to
Ommcnts
(.Qiitjfts't'hom!
1
Linemaster Switch Corporation,
CT (07/21/93)
Soil vapor extraction
Dual phase
extraction
Groundwater also is being
treated with this technology
Glise Jakabhazy
617-573-5760
2
American Thermostat, NY
(06/27/90)
Thermal desorption
Thermal
Desorption
(phase 2)
Project is being conducted
in two phases. Phase 1 has
been completed and is listed
as a separate project.
Christo Tsiamis
212-637-4257
2
GCL Tie and Treating, NY
(Removal Action)
Composting
Thermal
desorption
(being
implemented as
a remedial
action with the
ROD signed
09/30/94)
Site is not amenable to
composting because of the
presence of long-chain
PAHs and the time
constraints of the removal
process. A treatability
study achieved over 90%
reduction but little
degradation of long chain
carcinogenic hydrocarbons
occurred.
Joe Cosentino
908-906-6983
2
General Motors Central Foundry
Division (OU 1 and OU 2), NY
(12/17/90) & (03/31/92)
Bioremediation
(slurry phase)
Thermal
desorption
Both OUs were combined
under the thermal
desorption remedy. ROD
amended to combine both
OUs under a thermal
desorption remedy.
Lisa Jackson
212-637-4274
2
Pasley Solvents and Chemicals,
Inc., NY (02/24/92)
Soil flushing and soil
vapor extraction
Air sparging
Soil vapor
extraction and
air sparging
SVE, in combination with
air sparging, will eliminate
the need for soil flushing.
ROD amendment was
signed 05/22/95.
Sherrel Henry
212-637-4273
Note: The seventh edition of the report also adds information about 42 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial actions in FY 1994
RODs and 8 innovative treatment technologies selected for 7 RCRA corrective actions.
E-13
-------
Additions, Changes, and Deletions, From the Sixth Edition of the Report (September 1994) to the Seventh Edition (September 1995)
(continued)
Region
Sik Numt, Mate lltol) i>''K )
1i!t.hiinloฃ) i Mcri
in Mil edition
7th edition
Cc mn,\.nl.s
( omjiivPhoui
Addid
IMek'l
3
Bendix, PA (09/30/88)
Soil vapor extraction
Yes
It was determined that SVE
was not a viable remedy;
soil was too tightly
compacted. No alternative
has been selected.
Jim Harper
215-597-6906
3
Brown's Batlery Breaking Site,
OU 2, PA (07/02/92)
Fuming gasification
Plasma high-
temperature
metals recovery
The name of the technology
was changed to reflect more
accurately the treatment
process.
Richard Watman
215-597-8996
4
Helena Chemical, SC
(09/08/93)
Bioremediation (ex
situ) and
dechlorination
Yes
Technology could not meet
cleanup goal; will incinerate
off site.
Bernie Hayes
404-347-7791
ext-2048
5
Carter Industries, MI
(09/18/91)
Thermal desorption
Yes
Thermal desorption was too
costly (~$300/yd3). It is
less expensive to dispose of
the wastes at TSCA landfill
(~$186/ton).
Jon Peterson
312-353-1264
5
Cliffs/Dow Dump, MI (09/27/89)
Bioremediation (ex
situ)
Yes
Remedy could not reduce
concentrations of
benzo(a)pyrene to
acceptable level.
Contaminated soil was
excavated and placed in a
permitted landfill.
Ken Glatz
312-886-1434
5
Electro-Voice, OTJ 1, MI
(06/23/92)
Soil vapor extraction
Air sparging
Technology actually is a
combination of SVE and air
sparging called the
Subsurface Volatilization
and Ventilation System.
Eugenia Chow
312-353-3156
Note: The seventh edition of the report also adds information about 42 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial actions in FY 1994
RODs and 8 innovative treatment technologies selected for 7 RCRA corrective actions.
E-14
-------
Additions, Changes, and Deletions, From the Sixth Edition of the Report (September 1994) to the Seventh Edition (September 1995)
(continued)
.Silo iNiuru, MJlv (KOI) Dull I
'li'ilinnlucY I istori
in fith edition
7th edition
< (imnirnis
CnniJUi'Plioitc
Adfhil
DtlulLlI
f ilJ1lฃl
-------
Additions, Changes, and Deletions, From the Sixth Edition of the Report (September 1994) to the Seventh Edition (September 1995)
(continued)
Rijjuhi
'tile Nairn, Male {NOD D.tti)
ItLliunlugv 1 toli'd
in 6th edition
7th edition
(.omnibhts
Cnnlaih Pliouc
\dili it
IlLfctLlI
Changed lo
6
Koppers/Texarkana, TX
(09/23/88)
In situ flushing
Yes
In situ flushing was never
intended as a treatment at
the site. Misinterpretation
of the ROD during ROD
analysis.
Ursula Lennox
214-665-6743
8
Chemical Sales Company (OU 1),
CO (06/27/91)
Soil vapor extraction
Air sparging
Air sparging was added
under the existing ROD to
treat groundwater.
Armando Saenz
303-293-1532
8
Mouat Industries, MT (Removal
Action)
Chemical treatment
Yes
Reducing chromium VI to
chromium III not
considered innovative.
Ron Bertran
406-449-5720
9
Phoenix-Goodyear Airport Area
(North and South Facilities), AZ
(09/26/89)
Soil vapor extraction
Soil vapor
extraction
Site is divided into 2 areas:
North area & South area.
Each area is listed as an
individual project in the
seventh edition ASR.
Craig Cooper
415-744-2370
Rusty Harris-Bishop
415-744-2365
Nancy Moore (AZ)
602-207-4180
9
Fairchild Semiconductor, CA
(6/30/89)
2 listings for soil
vapor extraction
3 more SVE
projects
Soil vapor extraction
systems are being
implemented at 5 different
areas at the site.
Elizabeth Adams
415-744-2235
9
Indian Bend Wash, AZ
(09/27/93)
Soil vapor extraction
4 distinct
areas using
soil vapor
extraction
SVE is being conducted at
four distinct areas;
areas 6, 7, 8, and 12, at the
site. Each site is
considered as an individual
project.
Emily Roth
415-744-2247
9
Intersil, CA (9/27/90)
Soil vapor extraction
Site renamed to
Intersil/Siemens (Intersil)
Belinda Wei
415-744-2280
Note: The seventh edition of the report also adds information about 42 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial actions in FY 1994
RODs and 8 innovative treatment technologies selected for 7 RCRA corrective actions.
E-16
-------
Additions, Changes, and Deletions, From the Sixth Edition of the Report (September 1994) to the Seventh Edition (September 1995)
(continued)
Siiv N.iim. M.ik |Kl)l) IJjttj
*111 himlugv 1 iMcd
ill Mil edition
Till edition
f. fininu nt>
i nnlJiLv'lMiotii:
\il(Ud
Drit'Uri
CliiiiiKul uป
9
Solvent Service, CA
(09/27/93)
Soil vapor extraction
Soil vapor
extraction under
RCRA
corrective
action
Project was changed from a
Superftind remedial action
to a RCRA corrective
action.
Tony Mancini
510-286-0825
10
Fairchiid AFB Priority 1 OUS
(OU 1) Craig Rd Landfill, WA
(02/13/93)
Soil vapor extraction
Yes
Remedy was not
implemented because of the
following concerns:
Generation of
combustible gases
Heterogeneous
stratigraphy
Reluctance to put holes
into (he landfill, which
could lead to leaching of
contaminants
Will cap the landfill and
conduct pump-and-treat
operations.
Cami Grandinetti
206-553-8696
10
Gould, Inc., OR (03/31/88)
Soil washing
Yes
Remedy was shown to be
ineffective due to varying
site conditions and
problems with the
technology.
Chip Humphries
503-326-2678
10
Naval Submarine Base, Bangor
Site A, OU 1, WA (12/06/91)
Soil washing
Soil flushing
(ex situ)
Will excavate and place soil
in a lined pit. Soil will be
sprayed with water and
leachate and will be
collected and treated.
Harry Craig
503-326-3250
Craig Thompson
(WA)
360-407-7234
Chris Drury (Navy)
360-396-0062
Note: The seventh edition of the report also adds information about 42 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial actions in FY 1994
RODs and 8 innovative treatment technologies selected for 7 RCRA corrective actions.
E-17
-------
Additions, Changes, and Deletions, From the Sixth Edition of the Report (September 1994) to the Seventh Edition (September 1995)
(continued)
Region
Silo N.imi. M.ita D.ilt)
Tcihnntocv I Uted
in filh edition
7th edition
CnnmionLs
< uniadi'l'lione
\(U!i ri
IK-kUd
(.'hdiiKiri lo
10
Union Pacific Railroad Sludge
Pit, ID (09/10/91)
Soil flushing
Yes
Remedy was not
implemented. Excavation
of sludge did not indicate
that contaminants were
present. Amended ROD
was signed 9/94. Will
excavate and treat off site,
in addition to a pump-and-
treat operation.
Ann Williamson
206-553-2739
Clyde Cody (ID)
208-334-0556
10
Fort Lewis Military Res. Landfill
4 and Solvent Refined Coal Plant,
WA (09/24/93)
Soil washing
Thermal
Desorption
ROD specified soil washing
or thermal desorption as the
remedy. Thermal
desorption was selected
based on the results of a
treatability study.
Bob Kievit
206-753-9014
10
Eielson Air Force Base, AK
9/29/92
Bioventing and soil
vapor extraction
Soil
vapor
extraction
Soil vapor extraction
written into ROD as a
contingency.
Mary Jane Nearman
206-553-6642
Rielle Markey (AK)
907-451-2117
Note: The seventh edition of the report also adds information about 42 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial actions in FY 1994
RODs and 8 innovative treatment technologies selected for 7 RCRA corrective actions.
E-18
------- |