906R82101
TECHNOLOGIES FOR REMEDIAL ACTION
AT
UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
By:
Donald E. Sanning
Program Manager
Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites Research
United States Environment Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio
-------
The Fourth National Conference on Waste Management in Canada
was co-sponsored by:
9 The Canadian Public Works Council (APWA)
• The City of Calgary
• Environment Canada
• Governmental Refuse Collection and Disposal
Association (GRCDA): Canadian Prairie Chapter
• The National Solid Wastes Management
Association
• The Province of Alberta
Conference management in Calgary and Lake Louise was provided
by Bissell & Associates Ltd., Calgary, Alberta.
This publication is a collection of the available panelists'
outlines prepared before the conference.
-------
The first step in seeking environmental solutions is research
and development to define the problem, measure its impact, and project
possible remedies. Those who support the philosophy that existing con-
struction techniques, analytical methods, and environmental action
experiences of the past and present are adequate to meet the needs for
a national program to remedy the problems of uncontrolled hazardous
waste sites are ignoring historical fact. The costs of remedial
actions along with the severity of the problem itself, have prompted
the USEPA to initiate research into state-of-the-art and advanced tech-
niques for the purpose of facilitating remedial actions efforts at
hazardous waste sites. One of these efforts has been the development
of the "Handbook for Remedial Actions at Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste
Sites". ' The Handbook explains the nature of contamination at
waste disposal sites and describes some of the remedial actions that
can be applied for the cleanup of each contaminated medium. Remedial
actions are designed to control, contain, treat, or remove contaminants
from uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Remedial actions are divided
into surface controls, groundwater controls, leachate controls, direct
treatment methods, gas migration controls, techniques for contaminated
water and sewer lines, and methods for contaminated sediment removal.
Its availability has been noted in the publication of the National
Contingency Plan in July 1982.*2' An additional effort that was
completed in January 1982 is entitled "Remedial Actions at Hazardous
Waste Sites: Survey and Case Studies", EPA 430/9-81-05.t3* Reme-
dial measures encountered during this survey were usually confined to
containment and/or removal of the hazardous wastes with a primary goal
being the prevention of further contamination of the environment rather
than complete cleanup. Complete environmental cleanup of groundwater
or surface water generally requires sophisticated technology, addition-
al resources, and additional time. Based on survey case studies
reported in (3), the state-of-the-practice in remedial action does not
look favorable when one considers that 46 percent of the time the
applied remedial action was ineffective 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
found to be totally effective only 16 percent of the time.
1
-------
It should be emphasized that the numbers presented in this
section are based on assumptions by the persons performing the survey
and the opinions of those interviewed.
Two case studies of remedial actions that were reported on
' by the author include the Windham, Connecticut and the La
bounty Site in Charles City, Iowa. The conclusions from these two
investigations were that a synthetic capping remedial action at
Windham, under rather ideal hydrological conditions lead to an overall
94.0 percent reduction of the mass loadings between March 1979 and
March 1982. In a complex hydrologic situation such as the La Bounty
site, six months of post remedial action monitoring was inadequate to
determine the effectiveness of a two foot clay cap.
The Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division has several
completed and ongoing efforts in the area of cost of remedial actions.
The first of these is "Cost of Remedial Actions at Uncontrolled
Hazardous Waste Sites. "*5* The objective of this study was to
conceptually design cost data to provide a methodology for various
remedial actions into complete scenarios of site cleanup. The second
effort is "Cost Analysis and Case Studies of Remedial Responses". Up
to 19 sites, where remedial action has already been completed, were
being investigated to determine actual as opposed to conceptual costs
of implemented remedial actions. Several other cost related projects
are being pursued, but they are not advanced enough to report on at
this time.
-------
OUTLINE
I. Available Remedial Action Technologies
1. Containment technologies
a. Surface water control
b. Groundwater control
c. Leachate controls
2. Destruction technologies
a. Thermal
b. Biological
c. Chemical
d. Encapsulation
3. Concentration technologies
a. Liquids
b. Solids/semi-solids
c. Cases
4. Removal technologies
a. Pumping
b. Excavation
II. Survey Study of Remedial actions
1. Project description
2. Survey findings
3. Case study findings
4. Summary and conclusions
-------
IK. Case Studies of Remedial Actions
1. Windham, Connecticut site
a. Situation prior to remedial action
b. Implementation of remedial action
c. Post closure monitoring
d. Conclusions and results
2. La Bounty, Charles City, Iowa Site
a. Situation prior to remedial action
b. Implementation of remedial action
c. Post remedial action monitoring
d. Conclusions and results
IV. Cost Studies of Remedial Action Technologies
1. Cost of remedial actions, conceptual
a. Objectives
b. Approach
c. Unit operations
d. Remedial action scenarios
e. Conclusions and recommendations
2. Cost Analysis and Case Studies of Remedial Responses
a. Summary of cost information for selected sites
b. Detail unit operations of remedial action scenarios
c. Effectiveness of remedial actions
-------
REFERENCES
1. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory. EPA 625/6-82-006.
2. Federal Register/Vol. 47, No. 137, Friday, July 16, 1982. 40 CFR
Part 300 "National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan,"
Pg. 31182, paragraph 300.68 (c).
3. Neeley, N.D., Gillespie, F., Schauf, and J. Walsh, 1982, "Remedial
Actions at Hazardous Waste Sites: Survey and Case Studies,1' U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 430/9-81-05.
4. Sanning, D.E., "Surface Sealing to Minimize Leachate Generation at
Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites," 1981 National Conference on
Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites.
5. Rishel, H., T. Boston, C. and Schmidt, "Costs of Remedial Response
Actions at Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites." Publication
Pending.
------- |