&EFK
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Researc
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA-600/S2-81-246 Jan. 1982
Project Summary
Survey of On-Going and
Completed Remedial Action
Projects
N. Neely, D. Gillespie, F. Schauf, and J. Walsh
During the summer of 1980, a
nationwide survey was conducted to
determine the status of remedial mea-
sures applied at uncontrolled hazard-
ous waste disposal sites. Over 130
individuals were contacted to obtain
information on remedial action pro-
jects. A total of 169 sites were subse-
quently identified as having had some
kind of corrective measures.
Remedial actions had been imple-
mented at many kinds of hazardous
waste disposal facilities including
drum storage areas, incinerators, and
injection wells, but most frequently at
landfills/dumps and surface impound-
ments. At the sites receiving such
remedial actions, groundwater was
the most commonly affected media.
followed closely by surface water.
Although several types of technolo-
gies were identified, remedial activi-
ties usually consisted of containment
and/or removal of the wastes. Suffi-
cient money was often not available
for complete environmental cleanup
(e.g., groundwater extraction and
treatment). A lack of sufficient funds
and/or improper selection of correc-
tive technologies were responsible for
remedial actions having been applied
effectively at only a portion of the
uncontrolled hazardous waste dispo-
sal sites. Where applied, remedial
actions were completely effective only
16 percent of the time.
Nine sites were studied in detail to
document typical pollution problems
and remedial actions at uncontrolled
hazardous waste disposal sites. Of the
nine sites, remedial actions were
completely effective at two and par-
tially effective at the other seven.
Technologies used represented (1) con-
tainment, (2) removal of waste for
incineration or secure burial, (3) insti-
tution of surface water controls,
and/or (4) institution of groundwater
controls.
This Project Summary was develop-
ed by EPA's Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory. Cincinnati, OH.
to announce key findings of the research
project that is fully documented in a
separate report of the same title (see
Project Report ordering information at
back).
Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), other government agen-
cies, and private citizens have become
increasingly aware of environmental
problems involving the unsound disposal
or transport of hazardous materials. It
has been estimated that up to 90 percent
of all hazardous waste has been dis-
posed of in an unsound manner. Uncon-
trolled hazardous waste sites are those
at which unsound disposal practices have
led to immediate and/or long term envi-
ronmental hazards.
In an effort to determine the status of
past corrective technology applied at
uncontrolled sites, a nationwide survey
of on-going and, completed remedial
action projects at uncontrolled hazard-
-------
ous waste sites was implemented in the
summer of 1980. The purpose of the
survey was to provide information and
examples of applied remedial action
technologies. Examples provided in the
form of case histories identify typical
environmental problems and the
technology's effectiveness and costs.
During the initial phase of the survey,
a list was compiled of disposal sites
where remedial actions had been or
were being implemented. Remedial
action sites were identified based on file
and literature review and face-to-face
discussions with federal and state
personnel. In identifying hazardous
waste disposal facilities that had under-
gone remedial measures, emphasis
was placed on landfills, surface
impoundments, drum storage facilities,
incinerators, and deep well injection
facilities. Although the intent of the
survey did not include hazardous mate-
rial spill sites, if such a site was
identified from the above sources and
remedial actions had been performed,
these facilities were also recorded.
After the remedial action sites were
identified, all were prioritized to
determine candidate sites where case
histories would be conducted. Subse-
quently, a total of nine high-priority
sites were investigated in detail as case
history sites.
Survey Findings
As a result of the nationwide survey,
169 sites were identified as having
some form of remedial action. Remedial
measures included a variety of technol-
ogies such as containment onsite,
chemical treatment, biological treat-
ment, incineration, burial in a secure
landfill, and ocean disposal. Chemical
treatment included neutralization of
acids and bases using weak bases and
acids, respectively, and precipitation of
heavy metal ions. Biological treatment
included land spreading, oxidation
ponds, and enhancement of native
microbes using fertilizers. Hazardous
substances were sometimes removed
from their location and incinerated or
buried in a secure landfill. In one case,
ocean disposal was used to dispose of a
recovered hazardous substance.
The most common remedial action,
containment, was often approved based
upon the concept that it is better to deal
with the problem in-place rather than to
relocate. When a hazardous material
was contained in its original location,
surface water controls (grading,
diversion, revegetation, and surface
sealing) were generally constructed.
In most instances where groundwater
was contaminated, a major portion of
the waste was removed and sent to a
secure landfill or incinerator, and
surface water controls were construc-
ted to secure the remaining contami-
nants. If groundwater controls were
implemented, then one of the following
remedial measures would be installed:
bentonite slurry-trench cutoff wall,
grout curtain, or groundwater pumping.
Groundwater pumping, using barrier
wells, was the most often applied
groundwater control at remedial action
disposal sites whereas other remedial
measures were more frequently
encountered at spill sites.
Survey findings were analyzed to
determine the major types of disposal
facilities experiencing cleanup, the
location of remedial action sites,
affected media, funding sources, and
pollution status upon completion of
remedial actions. Surface impound-
ments and landfills were identified as
experiencing remedial measures more
often than other types of disposal
facilities. Geographically speaking, a
preponderance of remedial action sites
were found in the states of Pennsylvania,
New York, Michigan, New Jersey, and
Tennessee. These concentrations
appeared to be a function of (1) the
number of uncontrolled hazardous
waste sites in the state, (2) the length of
time since such uncontrolled sites had
been known to be problems, and (3) the
environmental consciousness of the
people involved with the site including
regulators, local government officials,
and nearby residents.
The survey indicated that ground-
water was the most often affected
media at a site that had received
remedial measure. Surface water was
the next most often affected media,
followed by soil, air, and the food chain.
Frequently a site would contaminate
more than one media.
Remedial activities were funded by a
variety of sources. Generally, the state,
county, and/or municipal governments
attempted to persuade the operator/
owner of the uncontrolled facility to
voluntarily remedy problems at the site.
If this effort failed, legal proceedings
were instituted against the "responsible"
party. Depending on the magnitude and
type of endangerment presented by the
uncontrolled site, various government
agencies funded the remedial activities
while legal responsibility was deter-
mined by the courts.
Table 1 indicates survey findings with
regard to improvement at sites that had
undergone remedial actions. At the time
of the survey, a total of 180 separate
remedial action efforts had been
initiated at the 169 sites. The last
column in Table 1 indicates that correc-
tive actions were totally ineffective
(unimproved) 46 percent of the time;
partially effective (improved) 38 percent
of the time; and completely effective
(remedied) only 16 percent of the time.
Case Study Findings
Case study sites included in the report
were selected based on a desire to
represent a wide range of facility type,
pollution type and media, and remedial
action technology. Tables 2 and 3
present an overview of the nine case
histories, including two remedied and
seven improved sites. Remedial action
applied at the seven improved sites
showed varying degrees of effective-
ness. The combination of all nine sites
covered contamination of all media
including groundwater, surface water,
soil, air, and the food chain. Waste
involved included mercury, arsenic,
solvents, oil, tires, inorganic and,
organic waste, and septic waste. The
types of facilities examined included
surface impoundments, landfills, drum
storage, and incinerators. The
technology used consisted mainly of
containment, removal of waste for
incineration or secure burial, and insti-
tution of surface water and/or ground-
water controls.
Conclusions
The survey and case histories indi-
cated that remedial measures were
usually confined tocontainmentand/or
removal of the hazardous wastes with a
primary goal being to prevent further
contamination of the environment
rather than complete cleanup.
Complete environmental cleanup of
groundwater or surface water can
require sophisticated technologies,
large sums of money, and/or long
periods of time. Therefore, a responsible
party with sufficient funds and expertise
must be located to effect complete
cleanup. In most cases, sufficient funds
have not been available for effective
remedial action. The EPA is able to
provide only limited remedial funding
under Section 311 of the Clean Water
Act. Further, state and local govern?
-------
Table 1. Pollution and Remedial Action Status of 169 Sites
Number of Remedial Actions
Pollution Status
Unimproved
Improved
Remedied
Planned
Actions
16
12
0
On-Going
Actions
49
36
3
Completed
Actions
17
21
26
Total
82
69
29
Total
28
88
64
/SO*
*A total of 180 remedial activities were identified at the 169 sites.
merits cannot typically provide sufficient
money for total cleanup since any one
site may require millions of dollars to
correct its problems.
Based on the case studies and survey,
the present state-of-the-practice for
remedial actions does not look favorable
when considering that the applied
remedial action was ineffective 46
percent of the time and only a portion of
all uncontrolled sites have received
some form of remedial action. In
addition, remedial action applied at a
site experiencing problems was totally
effective only 16 percent of the time.
The full report is based on work per-
formed pursuant to Contract No. 68-01 -
Table 2. Case Study Site Identification
Site
No. Name
Location
Waste Type
Remedial Action Technology
A Olin Corporation Saltville, PA
B Firestone Tire and Pottstown, PA
Rubber
C Anonymous East Central. NY
Mercury
Tires, SOz scrubber waste,
organic waste, pigments,
PVC sludge
So/vents, oils, paint
waste with PCB
D Destructo/
Carol awn
Kernersville. NC Volatile/flammable waste
E Whitmoyer Myerstown, PA
Laboratories
F Western Sand and Burrillville, Rl
Gravel
G Ferguson Property Rock Hill, SC
Arsenic compounds
Septic plus hazardous
wastes
Solvents, heavy metals
H 3M Company
Woodbury, MN Spent solvents, acid sludge
I Whitehouse/Allied Jacksonville, FL Oil, PCB
Petroleum
Graded and constructed erosion control structures.
Removed contaminants. Planning extensive remedial
action ($23 million).
Recovery wells intercepted polluted ground water
and recycled it through their plant. Expected to be
100 percent effective.
Lagoons filled and capped. Divers/on ditches and
test wells installed.
Two Phases: 1. Waste removed, incinerated or land-
filled. Contaminated soil removed
and landfilled.
2. Waste removed, incinerated, land-
filled, and deep well injected.
Removed arsenic waste from lagoon, treated and
discharged. Waste piles of arsenic placed in concrete
vault. Ground water treated using purging wells.
Some contaminated soil remains.
Four lagoons pumped, dried, and contents stored off-
and on-site. Monitoring wells installed. Future
remedial action planned.
Two Phases: 1. Contained with polyethylene and
and clay cap. Installed surface water
diversion ditches and vent pipes in
contained area.
2. Since Phase 1 ineffective, removed
liquid. Still some sludge and drums
left.
Pits emptied and contents burned. Barrier wells
installed to stop spread of contaminated ground water.
Mobile activated carbon unit dewatered pit, oil
absorbed using solid waste and earth. Future
remedial action planned.
-------
Table 3. Case Study Site Background
Pollution
Facility Type Status Affected Media Status
Remedial Action
Funding Status
Litigation
Site
No.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
Landfill
X
X
X
X
_.
I
Q
1
£
0)
E
•5
c
QJ 3 ^
5, o TR
Drum Stora>
Surface Imp
Injection Wi
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Incineration
Spill
X X
X
Active
Inactive
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
^
0}
Ground Wat
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x^
0)
I
V
u
X
X
X X
X X
X
X X
X
=5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.c
to
6
T3
0
X
X
X
Remedied
X
X
| Unimproved
Improved
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Federal
State
X
X X
X
X X
County
Municipal
X
Private
X
X
X
X
X
Completed
X
X
X
X
X
X
5
c
O
X
X
X
X
X
Planned
X
X
X
X
Current
X
X
No
Expected
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4885, Directive of Work No. 13, by SCS
Engineers under the sponsorship of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
This report has also been printed as
"Remedial Actions at Hazardous Waste
Sites: Survey and Case Studies" (EPA-
430/9-81-05) by the Oil and Special
Materials Control Division, EPA,
Washington, DC.
J. Neely, D. Gillespie. F. Schauf, andJ. Walsh are with SCS Engineers, Coving-
ton, KY 41017.
D. Banning and S. Jamas are the EPA Project Officers (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Survey of On-Going and Completed Remedial
A ction Projects," (Order No. PB 82-134 115; Cost: $19.50, subject to change)
will be available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield. MA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officers can be contacted at:
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
Postage and
Fees Paid
Environmental
Protection
Agency
EPA 335
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED
Third-Class
Bulk Rate
------- |