EPA-542-X-95-001
May 1995
FEASIBILITY STUDY ANALYSIS, VOLUME I:
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
April 21, 1995
Prepared for:
Technology Innovation Office
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
410 M Street, S.W.
Washington D.C. 20460
by:
Environmental Management Support, Inc.
8601 Georgia Ave., Suite 500
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
Table of Contents
MAJOR FINDINGS OF FEASIBILITY STUDY ANALYSIS F-l
SUMMARY OF FEASIBILITY STUDY ANALYSIS . S-l
S-l. Purpose S-l
S-2. Introduction S-l
S-3. Overview of the Sites S-2
S-4. Source Control Technologies Considered for Site Cleanup S-3
S-5. Technologies Selected for Source Control S-6
S-6. Reasons for Selection of Technologies S-10
S-7. Reasons for Elimination of Innovative Technologies S-l4
S-8. Reasons for Innovative Technology Selection Versus Elimination S-21
S-9. Treatability Studies S-22
S-10. Remedy Changes S-24
FEASIBILITY STUDY ANALYSIS 1
1. Purpose 1
2. Introduction 1
3. Overview of the sites 3
3.1 Section Summary 3
3.2 Regions 4
3.3 Site Leads 4
3.4 Site Types 4
3.5 Site Contaminants 5
3.6 Volume of Contaminated Media 12
4. Source Control Technologies Considered for Site Cleanup 14
4.1 Section Summary 14
4.2 Technology Selection Process 15
4.3 Innovative Technologies Considered 16
5. Technologies Selected for Source Control 19
5.1 Section Summary 19
5.2 Innovative and Standard Technologies Selected 22
5.3 Innovative"Technologies Selected by Region 25
5.4 Technologies Selected by Site Leads 25
5.5 Technologies Selected by Site Types 26
5.6 Technologies Selected by Contaminants 31
5.7 Media and Volume 35
6. Reasons for Selection of Technologies 37
6.1 Section Summary 37
6.2 Overview of Reasons given for Technology Selection 40
6.3 Comparison of Reasons by Category for Innovative and Standard Technologies 42
-------
6.4 Technology-Specific Reasons for Selection of Innovative Technologies 43
6.4.1 Soil Vapor Extraction . i 43
6.4.2 Low Temperature Thermal Desorption 46
6.4.3 In Situ Biodegradation 47
6.4.4 Soil Flushing 49
6.4.5 Ex Situ Biodegradation 50
6.4.6 Biodegradation 52
6.4.7 Soil Washing 53
6.4.8 Dechlorination 55
6.4.9 Chemical Treatment (Ex Situ) 56
6.4.10 Solvent Extraction 56
6.4.11 In Situ Vitrification 56
6.4.12 In Situ Heating 57
6.4.13 Metallurgical Processes 57
6.5 Reasons for Selection of Standard Technologies 57
6.5.1 Capping 57
6.5.2 Disposal 59
6.5.3 Solidification/Stabilization 61
6.5.4 Incineration 63
6.5.5 In Situ Solidification/Stabilization 65
6.5.6 Institutional Controls 66
6.5.7 Recycling 68
6.6 Selection of Capping at Non-Landfill Sites ; 68
7. Reasons for Elimination of Innovative Technologies 76
7.1 Section Summary 76
7.2 Overview of Reasons for Elimination of Innovative Technologies 81
7.3 Technology-Specific Reasons for Elimination 87
7.3.1 Ex Situ Biodegradation 87
7.3.2 In Situ Vitrification 89
7.3.3 Soil Flushing 92
7.3.4 Other Thermal (ex situ) 94
7.3.5 Soil Vapor Extraction 96
7.3.6 In Situ Biodegradation 99
7.3.7 Soil Washing 101
7.3.8 Solvent Extraction 104
7.3.9 Low Temperature Thermal Desorption 106
7.3.10 Biodegradation 108
7.3.11 In Situ Heating Ill
7.3.12 Dechlorination 113
7.3.13 Chemical Treatment (in situ) 115
7.3.14 Chemical Treatment (ex situ) 118
7.3.15 Metallurgical Processes 120
7.3.16 Electrokinetics 122
7.3.17 Other Technologies 124
7.4 Reasons for Eliminating Soil Washing and Soil Flushing at Metals-Contaminated Sites . 126
7.5 Most Important Categories of Reasons for Eliminating Each Innovative Technology ... 126
8. Comparison of Reasons for Innovative Technology Selection and Elimination 127
8.1 Section Summary 127
8.2 Comparison by Category 128
ii
-------
9. Treatability Studies 128
9.1 Section Summary 128
9.2 Overview of Treatability Studies 129
9.3 Results of Treatability Studies 134
10. Remedy Change 136
10.1 Section Summary 137
10.2 Overview of the Sites 138
10.3 Bioremediation, Ex Situ 141
10.4 Dechlorination 142
10.5 Physical Separation/Acid Extraction 144
10.6 Soil Flushing 144
10.7 Soil Washing 145
10.8 Solvent Extraction 146
10.9 Low Temperature Thermal Desorption 147
10.10 In Situ Vitrification 148
Appendix A. Site Data A-l
Appendix B. Technology Definitions B-l
Appendix C. Reasons for Selection of Remedial Technologies C-l
Appendix D. Reasons for Elimination of Innovative Technologies D-l
Appendix E. Technology-Specific Reasons for Elimination of Innovative Technologies E-l
Appendix F. Reasons for Eliminating Soil Flushing and Soil Washing at Metals Sites F-1
Appendix G. Description of Sites Where Innovative Remedy was Changed G-l
List of Tables
Table S-l. Summary of innovative technologies considered for site remediation S-4
Table S-2. Innovative technologies selected as site remedy S-7
Table S-3. Summary of most important reasons given for selection of remedial technologies. . S-l2
Table S-4. Summary of when innovative technologies were eliminated S-l5
Table S-5. Summary of most important reasons given for eliminating each innovative
technology S-16
Table S-6. Summary of information-related reasons for eliminating innovative technologies. . . S-20
Table S-7. Number of times innovative technologies were eliminated because of need to treat
residuals S-21
Table S-8. Reasons for remedy change by selected innovative technology S-24
Table 1. Summary of contaminants found at the 205 sites 6
Table 2. Summary of innovative technologies considered for site remediation 16
Table 3. Average number of innovative technologies considered at each stage of selection
process 19
Table 4. Innovative and standard technologies selected at each type of site 29
Table 5. Summary of most important reasons given for selection of remedial technologies 39
in
-------
Table 6. Reasons given once for selecting soil vapor extraction 45
Table 7. Reasons given once for selecting low temperature thermal desorption 47
Table 8. Reasons given once for selecting in situ biodegradation 48
Table 9. Reasons given once for selecting soil flushing 50
Table 10. Reasons given once for selecting ex situ biodegradation 51
Table 11. Reasons given once for selecting biodegradation 53
Table 12. Reasons given once for selecting soil washing 54
Table 13. Reasons given once for selecting dechlorination 55
Table 14. Reasons given once for selecting chemical treatment (ex situ) 56
Table 15. Reasons given once for selecting solvent extraction 56
Table 16. Reasons given once for selecting in situ vitrification 56
Table 17. Reasons given once for selecting in situ heating 57
Table 18. Reasons given once for selecting metallurgical processes 57
Table 19. Reasons given once for selecting capping 59
Table 20. Reasons given once for selecting disposal 61
Table 21. Reasons given once for selecting solidification/stabilization 62
Table 22. Reasons given once for selecting incineration 64
Table 23. Reasons given once for selecting in situ solidification/stabilization 66
Table 24. Reasons given once for selecting institutional controls 67
Table 25. Reasons given once for selecting an unspecified standard technology 68
Table 26. Description of non-landfill sites where capping was selected as a primary remedy. . . 69
Table 27. Summary of most important reasons given for eliminating each innovative technology. 78
Table 28. Summary of when innovative technologies were eliminated 83
Table 29. Categories and subcategories of reasons for elimination of innovative technologies. . . 84
Table 30. Categories that were most important in the selection of innovative technologies .... 127
Table 31. Summary of innovative technology treatability tests 130
Table 32. Summary of standard technology treatability tests 133
Table 33. Activities at sites where selected innovative technologies were changed 138
Table 34. Innovative technologies selected versus changed (1982-1992) 139
Table 35. Reasons for remedy change by selected innovative technology 139
List of Figures
Figure S-l. Number of innovative technologies considered S-4
Figure S-2. Innovative technologies selected as site remedy S-7
Figure S-3. Results of innovative technology treatability tests S-23
Figure S-4. Results of standard technology treatability tests S-23
Figure 1. Number of sites from each Region 4
Figure 2. Summary of site leads 5
Figure 3. Summary of site types 5
Figure 4. Ten most commonly found inorganic contaminants 9
Figure 5. Ten most commonly found organic contaminants 10
Figure 6. Ten highest concentrations of inorganics 11
Figure 7. Ten highest concentrations of organics 11
Figure 8. Ten highest concentrations of groups of organics 12
Figure 9. Volume of contaminated soils 13
Figure 10. Volume of contaminated waste material 13
Figure 11. Total volume of contaminated materials 14
Figure 12. Number of innovative technologies considered 17
IV
-------
Figure 13. Number of innovative technologies at each stage of the remedy selection process . 18
Figure 14. Innovative technologies selected as site remedies 23
Figure 15. Standard technologies selected as site remedies 24
Figure 16. Number of innovative technologies selected by Region 25
Figure 17. Selected technology by site leads 26
Figure 18. Selected technologies by most common site types 27
Figure 19. Selected technologies by moderately common site types 28
Figure 20. Selected technologies by least common site types 28
Figure 21. Selected technologies for inorganic and organic contaminated sites 32
Figure 22. Selected technologies for organic contaminated sites 33
Figure 23. Selected technologies for inorganic contaminated sites 33
Figure 24. Selected technologies for PCB contaminated sites 34
Figure 25. Selected technologies for TCE/PCE contaminated sites 34
Figure 26. Selected technologies by volume of contaminated soils 35
Figure 27. Selected technologies by volume of contaminated wastes 36
Figure 28. Selected technologies by volume of contaminated soils and wastes 36
Figure 29. Reasons for selection of standard and innovative technologies by category 41
Figure 30. Reasons for selection of innovative technologies by category 42
Figure 31. Reasons for selection of standard technologies by category 42
Figure 32. Reasons given more than once for selection of soil vapor extraction 44
Figure 33. Reasons by category for selection of soil vapor extraction 45
Figure 34. Reasons given more than once for selection of low temperature thermal desorption . . 46
Figure 35. Reasons by category for selection of low temperature thermal desorption 47
Figure 36. Reasons given more than once for selection of in situ biodegradation 48
Figure 37. Reasons by category for selection of in situ biodegradation 49
Figure 38. Reasons given more than once for selection of soil flushing 49
Figure 39. Reasons by category for selection of soil flushing 50
Figure 40. Reasons given more than once for selection of ex situ biodegradation 51
Figure 41. Reasons by category for selection of ex situ biodegradation 52
Figure 42. Reasons given more than once for selection of biodegradation 52
Figure 43. Reasons by category for selection of biodegradation 53
Figure 44. Reasons given more than once for selection of soil washing 54
Figure 45. Reasons by category for selection of soil washing 54
Figure 46. Reasons by category for selection of dechlorination 55
Figure 47. Reasons given more than once for selection of capping 58
Figure 48. Reasons by category for selection of capping 59
Figure 49. Reasons given more than once for selection of disposal 60
Figure 50. Reasons by category for selection of disposal 61
Figure 51. Reasons given more than once for selection of solidification/stabilization 62
Figure 52. Reasons by category for selection of solidification/stabilization 63
Figure 53. Reason's given more than once for selection of incineration 64
Figure 54. Reasons by category for selection of incineration 65
Figure 55. Reasons given more than once for selection of in situ solidification/Stabilization .... 65
Figure 56. Reasons by category for selection of in situ solidification/stabilization 66
Figure 57. Reasons given more than once for selection of institutional controls 67
Figure 58. Reasons by category for selection of institutional controls 67
Figure 59. Reasons by category for selection of recycling 68
Figure 60. Reasons for elimination of innovative technologies 82
Figure 61. Most common reasons for elimination of ex situ biodegradation 88
Figure 62. Reasons for elimination of ex situ biodegradation grouped by category. . 89
Figure 63. Reasons for elimination of ex situ biodegradation grouped by subcategory 89
-------
Figure 64. Most common reasons for elimination of in situ vitrification 90
Figure 65. Reasons for elimination of in situ vitrification grouped by category 91
Figure 66. Reasons for elimination of in situ vitrification grouped by subcategory 91
Figure 67. Most common reasons for elimination of soil flushing 92
Figure 68. Reasons for elimination of soil flushing grouped by category 93
Figure 69. Reasons for elimination of soil flushing grouped by subcategory 94
Figure 70. Most common reasons for elimination of other thermal (ex situ) 95
Figure 71. Reasons for elimination of other thermal (ex situ) grouped by category 95
Figure 72. Reasons for elimination of other thermal (ex situ) grouped by subcategory 96
Figure 73. Most common reasons for elimination of soil vapor extraction 97
Figure 74. Reasons for elimination of soil vapor extraction grouped by category 98
Figure 75. Reasons for elimination of soil vapor extraction grouped by subcategory 98
Figure 76. Most common reasons for elimination of in situ biodegradation 99
Figure 77. Reasons for elimination of in situ biodegradation grouped by category 100
Figure 78. Reasons for elimination of in situ biodegradation grouped by subcategory 101
Figure 79. Most common reasons for elimination of soil washing 102
Figure 80. Reasons for elimination of soil washing grouped by category 103
Figure 81. Reasons for elimination of soil washing grouped by subcategory 103
Figure 82. Most common reasons for elimination of solvent extraction 104
Figure 83. Reasons for elimination of solvent extraction grouped by category 105
Figure 84. Reasons for elimination of solvent extraction grouped by subcategory 105
Figure 85. Most common reasons for elimination of low temperature thermal desorption 107
Figure 86. Reasons for elimination of low temperature thermal desorption grouped by category. 107
Figure 87. Reasons for elimination of low temperature thermal desorption grouped by
subcategory 108
Figure 88. Most common reasons for elimination of biodegradation 109
Figure 89. Reasons for elimination of Biodegradation grouped by category 110
Figure 90. Reasons for elimination of Biodegradation grouped by subcategory 110
Figure 91. Most common reasons for elimination of in situ heating Ill
Figure 92. Reasons for elimination of in situ heating grouped by category 112
Figure 93. Reasons for elimination of in situ heating grouped by subcategory 113
Figure 94. Most common reasons for elimination of dechlorination 114
Figure 95. Reasons for elimination of dechlorination grouped by category 114
Figure 96. Reasons for elimination of dechlorination grouped by subcategory 115
Figure 97. Most common reasons for elimination of chemical treatment (in situ) 116
Figure 98. Reasons for elimination of chemical treatment (in situ) grouped by category 117
Figure 99. Reasons for elimination of chemical treatment (in situ) grouped by subcategory .... 117
Figure 100. Most common reasons for elimination of chemical treatment (ex situ) 118
Figure 101. Reasons for elimination of chemical treatment (ex situ) grouped by category 119
Figure 102. Reasons for elimination of chemical treatment (ex situ) grouped by subcategory . . 120
Figure 103. Most common reasons for elimination of metallurgical processes 121
Figure 104. Reasons for elimination of metallurgical processes grouped by category 121
Figure 105. Reasons for elimination of metallurgical processes grouped by subcategory 122
Figure 106. Most common reasons for elimination of electrokinetics 123
Figure 107. Reasons for elimination of electrokinetics grouped by category 123
Figure 108. Reasons for elimination of electrokinetics grouped by subcategory 124
Figure 109. Results of innovative technology treatability tests 135
Figure 110. Results of standard technology treatability tests 135
Figure 111. Number of times successful tests resulted in selection of innovative technologies. 136
Figure 112. Number of times successful tests resulted in selection of standard technologies. . . 136
VI
-------
MAJOR FINDINGS OF FEASIBILITY STUDY ANALYSIS
This is a summary of the principal findings of an analysis of information obtained from Records of
Decision (RODs) and Feasibility Studies (FSs) regarding the selection and elimination of source control
technologies at Superfund sites. The documentation examined in the study consisted of 205 source
control RODs signed during FY91 and FY92 and their associated FSs.
The overall goal of the feasibility study analysis is to identify opportunities for action to encourage
greater use of innovative technologies. Information on the selection and elimination of site remedial
technologies were obtained to examine: why innovative technologies are not being selected more often
at Superfund sites; where further research and demonstrations of innovative technologies are needed; and
whether certain technologies are being selected more often for particular site types. This report is not
intended as an evaluation of the Superfund technology selection process, the efficacy of technologies
selected, or previous EPA studies of site data.
Primary Findings
Technology Selection Process
• A large number of technologies were considered at the 205 sites. Standard and innovative
technologies together were considered a total of 4,765 times at the sites. Although the number of
technologies considered at the sites varied widely, on average, 23.2 technologies were considered
per site. Of the technologies considered, an average of 16.0 were standard technologies and 7.2
were innovative technologies.
• An average of 1.78 technologies were selected per site; 0.52 innovative technologies were selected
per site (a total of 107 innovative technologies were selected) and 1.26 standard technologies were
selected per site (a total of 258 standard technologies were selected).
• The average number of innovative technologies considered by three different site leads were: Fund-
lead sites, 7.51 technologies per site; PRP-lead sites, 7.38 technologies per site; and Federal
Facilities, 6.0 technologies per site. The average number of innovative technologies selected were:
PRP-lead, 0.57 technologies per site; Fund-lead, 0.48 technologies per site; and Federal Facilities,
0.46 technologies per site. Although more innovative technologies were considered at Fund-lead
sites, more innovative technologies were actually selected at PRP-lead sites. However, an analysis
of variance shows no statistically significant differences between the number of innovative
technologies considered or selected by the three site leads.
• Innovative technologies were most often eliminated as a potential site remedy during the initial
screening of technologies developed in the FSs. 1,036 (70 percent) of the 1,487 innovative
technologies evaluated were eliminated during the initial screening. It was apparent that many of
the innovative technologies considered during the initial screening were inappropriate to
contaminants or conditions found at the sites. Examples include consideration of soil vapor
extraction at sites contaminated only by metals and consideration of treatment technologies requiring
excavation at landfill sites and then elimination of the technologies due to high cost in comparison
to capping. The frequency with which this occurred could have skewed the results of this analysis.
F-l
-------
Reasons for Selection of Innovative Technologies
• The reasons cited for selection of innovative technologies were most commonly related to reducing
risk. In general, reasons given for selection of site remedies were much more related to the nine
NCP criteria than to the technical capabilities of selected technologies. Reasons cited for elimination
of innovative technologies were most commonly related their to implementability at the particular
site. Reasons related to the ability of technologies to meet regulatory requirements were cited
infrequently for both the selection and elimination of innovative technologies.
• At sites contaminated only with organics, by far the most commonly selected technology was soil
vapor extraction. At sites contaminated only with inorganics, by far the most commonly selected
technology was solidification/stabilization. At sites contaminated with both organics and inorganics,
by far the most commonly selected technology was capping. (This includes only those sites where
only one technology was selected as the site remedy.)
Reasons for Elimination of Innovative Technologies
• A lack of information on technology cost and performance was often cited as a reason for
eliminating innovative technologies. The information-related reasons that were most often cited as
the cause for eliminating innovative technologies were:
Need for further development of the technology was a reason for eliminating ex situ thermal
technologies other than incineration (22 times), in situ vitrification (12 times), and electrokinetics
(3 times);
Need for more demonstrations of the technology was a reason for eliminating ex situ thermal
technologies other than incineration (20 times), in situ vitrification (17 times), ex situ
biodegradation (13 times), solvent extraction (12 times), in situ heating (9 times), and in situ
chemical treatment (5 times);
Need for site-specific testing, such as treatability and pilot-scale studies, prior to full-scale
implementation was a reason for eliminating soil washing (25 times), solvent extraction (14
times), biodegradation (14 times), ex situ biodegradation (10 times), and dechlorination (7 times).
Uncertainty about the full-scale effectiveness of the technology was a reason for eliminating soil
flushing (10 times), metallurgical processes (6 times), electrokinetics (3 times), and soil
cooling/freezing (2 times).
• High cost was cited frequently as a reason for eliminating a number of technologies. Innovative
technologies most frequently eliminated because of high cost included in situ vitrification (44 times),
ex situ thermal technologies other than incineration (35 times), solvent extraction (25 times), soil
washing (22 times), in situ heating (22 times), and dechlorination (13 times).
• There often was an apparent reluctance to use technologies in treatment trains. The need for post-
treatment of residuals was cited 119 times as a reason for eliminating innovative technologies. The
technologies most often eliminated because of the need for post-treatment included soil washing (25
times), solvent extraction (21 times), ex situ thermal technologies other than incineration (15 times),
ex situ biodegradation (13 times), and soil flushing (12 times). The need for pre-treatment of
contaminated materials was cited 24 times as a reason for eliminating innovative technologies. The
technology most often eliminated because of the need for pre-treatment was ex situ thermal
technologies other than incineration (10 times). In addition, innovative technologies often were
eliminated because they would be applicable to some, but not all, of the contaminants at a site (79
times).
F-2
-------
Special Analyses
• A special analysis was conducted to examine why capping was selected at non-landfill sites.
Capping was selected at 26 non-landfill sites as a primary remedy and at 22 non-landfill sites for
containment of residuals. The selection of capping as a primary remedy was most closely related
to the volume of contaminated material and the types of contaminants present. The volume of
contaminated material at 19 of the 26 sites exceeded 50,000 cubic yards. Metals or other inorganics
were present at 24 of the 26 sites.
• An analysis was conducted to examine why soil flushing and soil washing were not selected at sites
contaminated with metals. Soil flushing was eliminated most often at metals-contaminated sites
because of its potential to contaminate groundwater. Other frequently cited reasons for not selecting
soil flushing were difficulty in recovering flushed products from groundwater, low permeability of
site soils, and the heterogeneous nature of the wastes to be treated. Soil washing was eliminated
most often at metals-contaminated sites because it would require post-treatment of soil fines or
wastewater. Other frequently cited reasons for not selecting soil washing were high cost, the need
to perform pilot or treatability tests prior to full-scale use, the need for complicated or multiple
washing fluids, and presence of fine-grained soils.
Role of Treatability Studies in Selection Process
• The need to conduct treatability studies or pilot-scale tests on contaminated materials from the site
was often cited as a reason for eliminating innovative technologies. The need for such site-specific
testing was cited most often as a reason for eliminating soil washing (25 times), solvent extraction
(14 times), biodegradation (14 times), ex situ biodegradation (10 times), dechlorination (7 times),
and chemical treatment (in situ) (4 times).
• Treatability studies were conducted at only 47 sites, less than a quarter of the 205 sites examined.
A total of 85 treatability tests were conducted at these sites; 57 of the tests were considered
successful in terms of meeting cleanup goals. A total of 37 of the technologies tested successfully
were subsequently selected as part of the site remedy.
Analytical Considerations and Caveats
• A limitation of the data in this study is its timeliness. The study included FY91 and FY92 source
control RODs, which makes the source data at least two and a half years old. The Feasibility
Studies associated with these RODs were conducted even earlier. Therefore, the source data reflects
technology evaluations conducted as long as five years ago.
• Another limitation of the data is related to how technologies were evaluated. Multiple reasons were
cited for selecting or eliminating many technologies as sites remedies. Based on the source material,
there was no objective way to select which of the reasons was considered to be the most important
reason. Therefore, all reasons were compiled and weighted equally regardless of whether they were
considered to be equally important by technology evaluators.
• Technology names were not standardized. Many different names were used in different FSs to refer
to the same innovative technology. For example, 15 different names were used to refer to in situ
biodegradation. In addition, the same name often was used to refer to different technologies. For
example, enhanced volatilization was used in different FSs to refer to in situ heating, soil vapor
extraction, and low temperature thermal desorption.
F-3
-------
SUMMARY OF FEASIBILITY STUDY ANALYSIS
S-1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to examine information obtained from Records of Decision (RODs) and
Feasibility Studies (FSs) on the selection and elimination of source control technologies at Superfund
sites. The data compiled in this report are used to examine: 1) why innovative technologies are not
being selected more often at Superfund sites; 2) where further research and demonstrations of innovative
technologies are needed; and 3) whether certain technologies are being selected more often for particular
site types. This report is not intended as an evaluation of the Superfund technology selection process,
the efficacy of technologies selected, or previous EPA studies of site data, but to provide a baseline for
an analysis of the reasons underlying technology selection and elimination as site remedies. The overall
goal of the study is to identify opportunities for action to encourage greater use of innovative
technologies.
This is a summary of the highlights of a 300-page report resulting from the analysis of 205 source
control. RODs signed during FY91 and FY92 and their associated FSs. The following sections
summarize, and are organized in the same order as, the full report.
S-2. INTRODUCTION
This analysis was conducted by the Technology Innovation Office (TIO) of the Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response. TIO was established to foster the development and use of innovative
technologies for remediating contaminated sites. Part of TIO's mission is to collect information on the
use of innovative technologies, examine why innovative technologies are not used more frequently, and
remove barriers to their use. Information needed to address these questions may be contained in RODs
and FSs.
In order to better analyze the information, this project provided for the preparation of abstracts of FSs
that summarize pertinent information on why technologies are being selected for site cleanups, why
innovative technologies are eliminated from consideration as remedial technologies, and conditions at
Superfund sites that may affect the selection of innovative technologies for site remediation. The FS
abstracts were compiled from information in 205 source control RODs signed during FY91 and FY92
and their associated FSs. The site abstracts are contained in a companion report, entitled Feasibility
Study Analysis, Volume II: Site Summaries.
Source control RODs address the remediation of contaminant sources at Superfund sites, such as soils,
sediments, sludges, solid wastes, and other solid (non-aqueous) media. Many of the RODs included in
this analysis also address contaminated groundwater and surface water; however, information on water
treatment technologies was not examined in this analysis. It does not include sites where only
groundwater was addressed, where "no action" was selected as the site remedy, and where an interim
source control remedy addressed only the removal of drums or surface debris. Contaminant sources
found entirely in the saturated zone, such as pools of DNAPLs, were not included in the analysis
because they generally are addressed using groundwater treatment methods. In addition, technologies
for decontaminating buildings were not included.
Data from the FS abstracts, RODs, and FSs were compiled into a database to enhance analysis of the
large amounts of data. Database fields and the appendices in which the data can be found are:
S-1
-------
• Site Name including operable unit. Because they often have aliases, the site names used in this
report were taken from the October, 1992, National Priorities List. (See Appendix A. Site Data.)
• Region in which the site is located. (See Appendix A. Site Data.)
• State in which the site is located. (See Appendix A. Site Data.)
• Site Lead, either EPA Fund, Potentially Responsible Party (PRP), or Federal Facility. (See Appendix
A. Site Data.)
• Type of Site, the activity that caused most of the contamination at the site (See Appendix A. Site
Data).
• Contaminants found at the site that were reported in either the FS or ROD. (See Appendix A. Site
Data.)
• Maximum Concentrations of the contaminants. (See Appendix A. Site Data.)
• Volume of Wastes to be addressed, including municipal wastes, industrial wastes, and sludges. (See
Appendix A. Site Data.)
• Volume of Soils to be addressed, including surface soils, vadose zone soils, and sediments. (See
Appendix A. Site Data.)
• Technology Selected to remediate contaminated soils and wastes, including both standard and
innovative technologies. (See Appendix A. Site Data.)
• Reasons for Selection of innovative and standard technologies. (See Appendix C. Reasons for
Selection of Remedial Technologies.)
• Innovative Technologies Eliminated from consideration as a final site remedy. The elimination of
standard technologies was not examined. (See Appendix A. Site Data.)
• Reasons for Elimination of innovative technologies. Reasons for elimination of standard
technologies were not examined. (See Appendix D. Reasons for Elimination of Innovative
Technologies.)
• Stage When Innovative Technologies were Eliminated from consideration as a site remedy (the stages
of the technology selection process are discussed further below). (See Appendix D. Reasons for
Elimination of Innovative Technologies.)
• Treatability Studies conducted on technologies being considered for site remediation.
• Results of Treatability Studies, including whether the treatability test was considered successful,
whether the tested technology was selected as a site remedy, and brief comments on test results.
An innovative technology is defined as a treatment technology where routine selection is inhibited at
hazardous waste sites by the lack of adequate data on cost and performance. Appendix B. Technology
Definitions includes definitions and names or aliases used in the FSs to refer to innovative and standard
technologies.
S-3. OVERVIEW OF THE SITES
This section of the report provides an overview of basic data compiled on the 205 sites in the analyses,
including the site name, Region and state in which the site is located, site lead, type of site,
contaminants, and volume of contaminated material. A number of sites are included more than once
because RODs for more than one source control operable unit at the same site were signed during FY91
and FY92. Data used in this section can be found in Appendix A. Site Data.
The sites are distributed unevenly across the Regions, ranging from a high of 42 sites in Region 5 to
a low of eight sites in both Region 1 and Region 10. Approximately half of the 205 sites are PRP-lead
sites, 37 percent are EPA Fund-lead sites, and 13 percent are Federal Facilities.
S-2
-------
Because there is no commonly accepted list of site types, the "type" of each site was determined based
on the activity at the site that appeared to contribute the most to site contaminant problems. Twenty
different site types were identified. Landfills were the most common site type. Together, municipal
landfills (38 sites) and industrial landfills (28 sites) accounted for almost one third of the 205 sites.
Data on contaminants and their concentrations at the sites were collected from FSs and RODs to provide
a baseline of site contaminant problems against which to compare technology selection. This analysis
may not contain a complete listing of all contaminants found at the 205 sites, but it does capture the
major contaminant problems. A total of 197 different contaminants or contaminant groups (such as total
PAHs) were found at the sites. The three most commonly found contaminants were lead (found at 81
sites), arsenic (found at 74 sites), and trichloroethene (found at 56 sites). The highest reported maximum
concentration of any contaminant was a concentration of lead measured at 860,000 mg/kg (86 percent).
Although there appeared to be little difference in how often organic contaminants were found versus how
often inorganic contaminants were found, overall, the maximum reported concentrations of inorganic
contaminants were substantially higher than the maximum concentrations of organic contaminants.
Data collected on the volume of contaminated media has been divided into soil volumes (including
surface soils, subsurface soils, and sediments) and waste volumes (including solid wastes, sludges, drum
contents, and debris). Total volumes are the sum of wastes and soils at each site. At a number of sites,
a single volume was reported that included both soils and wastes. In these cases, the entire volume is
included under the predominant media. The volume of contaminated media varies widely among the
205 sites. Contaminated soil volumes range from 20 to 2,956,000 cubic yards, waste volumes range
from six to 81,400,800 cubic yards, and total volumes range from 37 to 81,400,800 cubic yards. Waste
volumes tend to be significantly larger than soil volumes. Waste sites comprise the 11 largest sites in
terms of the volume of contaminated media; most of these sites are municipal landfills or mining sites.
Only three sites (two percent of sites with known volumes of soil) contain more than 500.000 cubic
yards of contaminated soil, but 30 sites (42 percent of sites with known volumes of wastes) contain more
than 500,000 cubic yards of contaminated wastes.
S-4. SOURCE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES CONSIDERED FOR SITE CLEANUP
This section presents an overview of the source control technologies that were considered for cleaning
up Superfund sites at which RODs were signed during FY91 and FY92. Data on the technologies
selected and innovative technologies eliminated at each site can be found in Appendix A. Site Data.
The process of evaluating the ability of technologies to achieve site cleanup goals and selecting remedies
at Superfund sites typically consists of three steps:
• Initial screening. A wide range of potential technologies are examined, and those that are not
considered technically feasible for remediating the site are eliminated. Usually, this is followed by
development of Remedial Action Alternatives (RAAs), which include all of the actions necessary
to clean up a site, including institutional controls, debris removal, excavation, treatment (in situ, on-
site, or off-site), containment, and disposal of treatment residues.
• Three-criteria screening. RAAs are examined based upon the three criteria of implementability,
effectiveness, and cost. Those alternatives that will not meet the remedial action objectives are
eliminated. In some cases, individual technologies are examined based on the three criteria, and
RAAs subsequently are developed that undergo detailed evaluation.
S-3
-------
• Detailed evaluation. RAAs are examined based upon their ability to satisfy the nine criteria
established by the NCP: protectivehess of human health and the environment; compliance with
ARARs; long-term, effectiveness and permanence; short-term effectiveness; reduction in contaminant
mobility, toxicity, or volume; implementability; cost; state/support agency acceptance; and
community acceptance.
A preferred remedy may be proposed either in the FS or Proposed Plan. In some cases, the preferred
remedy in the FS or Proposed Plan is altered in the Record of Decision. The final remedy for the site
is selected in the ROD; however, this subsequently may be changed through an Amended ROD (AROD)
or an Explanation of Significant Difference (BSD) if a change is determined to be necessary based on
new information collected during the remedial design or remedial action phases.
Figure S-l presents the 20 innovative technologies that were considered at the 205 sites. In addition,
an "unspecified" innovative technology, to be determined during remedial design, was selected at one
site. Technologies that use essentially the same process for treating contaminants are grouped together
so that the reasons for selecting or eliminating the technology can be directly related to a specific, core
treatment process. For example, low temperature thermal desorption includes a number of vendor-
specific techniques for heating contaminated media to volatilize and separate contaminants. Because
some FSs did not distinguish between in situ biodegradation and ex situ biodegradation, the term
"biodegradation" is a more general group of biologically based remedial technologies.
Figure S-l. Number of innovative technologies
considered in FY91 and FY92 source control RODs.
UV radiation 11
Vegetative uptake
Soil vapor extraction (ex situ)
Soil cooling/freezing
Electrokinetics
Metallurgical processes
Chemical treatment (ex situ)
Chemical treatment (in situ)
Dechlorination
In situ heating
Biodegradation
Low temperature thermal desorption
Solvent extraction
Soil washing
In situ biodegradation
Soil vapor extraction
Other thermal (ex situ)
Soil (lushing
In situ vitrification
Ex situ biodegradation
40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Number of innovative technologies
S-4
-------
Table S-l lists the 20 innovative technologies that were considered during each phase of the technology
selection process at the sites. Because of the grouping of innovative technologies, more than one
individual technology, within the same technology group may be considered at a single site. For
example, solid phase biodegradation and slurry phase biodegradation often are considered at the same
site, with the result that ex situ biodegradation was counted as having been considered twice at the same
site. Therefore, the second column of Table S-l, number of times innovative technologies were
considered, does not necessarily reflect the number of sites at which particular technologies were
considered.
Table S-l. Summary of innovative technologies considered for site remediation in FY91 and FY92
source control RODs.
Number of Times Eliminated by Phase
Technologies Considered
Ex situ biodegradation
In situ vitrification
Soil flushing
Ex situ thermal (other than standard
incineration)
Soil vapor extraction
In situ biodegradation
Soil washing
Solvent extraction
Low temperature thermal desorption
Biodegradation
In situ heating
Dechlorination
Chemical treatment (in situ)
Chemical treatment (ex situ)
Metallurgical processes
Electrokinetics
Soil cooling/freezing
Soil vapor extraction (ex situ)
Vegetative uptake
UV radiation
Unspecified innovative technology*
Innovative Totals
*At the Brown's Battery Breaking site,
No. of Times
Evaluated
148
140
138
138
125
124
118
103
94
90
77
50
47
42
21
10
9
6
5
1
1
1,487
Initial
Screening
110
97
96
111
59
89
73
69
50
71
61
33
42
35
13
8
9
4
5
1
0
1,036
an unspecified innovative technology would
3-Criteria
Screening
19
28
24
22
7
13
24
18
12
10
13
6
3
6
3
2
0
1
0
0
0
211
Detailed
Evaluation
11
14
9
5
9
12
16
15
22
3
2
8
2
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
133
be selected during the remedial
No. of Times
oCiCClGQ
8
1
9
0
50
10
5
1
10
6
1
3
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
107
design phase.
S-5
-------
Eight innovative technologies were considered over 100 times at the 205 sites. The most often
considered technology was ex situ biodegradation (148 times), followed by in situ vitrification (140
times), soil flushing (138 times), ex situ thermal (other than standard incineration) (138 times), in situ
soil vapor extraction (125 times), in situ biodegradation (124 times), soil washing (118 times), and
solvent extraction (103 times). Four innovative technologies were considered between 50 and 100
times—low temperature thermal desorption, biodegradation, in situ heating, and dechlorination. Four
innovative technologies were considered between 10 and 49 times—chemical treatment (in situ),
chemical treatment (ex situ), metallurgical processes, and electrokinetics. Four technologies were
considered less than ten times—soil cooling/freezing, ex situ soil vapor extraction, vegetative uptake,
and UV radiation.
Standard and innovative technologies together were considered a total of 4,765 times at the 205 sites;
1,487 of these were innovative technologies and 3,278 were standard technologies, including institutional
controls, excavation, treatment, and containment technologies. On average, 23.2 technologies were
considered per site, and of these, 16.0 were standard technologies and 7.2 were innovative technologies.
Of the 1,487 times innovative technologies were considered at the 205 sites, they were eliminated 1,380
times: 1,036 during the initial screening; 211 during the three-criteria screening; and 133 during the
detailed evaluation. Innovative technologies were selected to be part of the site remedy 107 times.
Table S-2 shows the average number of
innovative technologies considered per site by
site leads at each stage of the technology
selection process. More innovative technolo-
gies were examined per site at Fund-lead
sites during the initial screening, three-criteria
screening, and detailed evaluation stages. A
higher average number of innovative technol-
ogies were actually selected at PRP-lead sites
(0.57 innovative technologies per site) than at
Fund-lead (0.48 innovative technologies per
site) or Federal Facility lead sites (0.46
innovative technologies per site). However,
an analysis of variance indicated that there
were no statistically significant differences
between the number of innovative tech-
nologies either considered or selected by the
three site leads.
Table S-2. Average number of innovative
technologies considered at each stage of selec-
tion process (FY91-92 source control RODs).
Technology PRP Fund Fed. Fac. Total
Selection (102 sites) (77 sites) (26 sites)
Phase
Initial
screening
3-critena
screening
Detailed
evaluation
Selected
7.38
2.10
1.19
0.57
751
245
1.26
600 7.25
185 2.20
1.04 1.17
048 046 0.52
S-5. TECHNOLOGIES SELECTED FOR SOURCE CONTROL
This section summarizes the standard and innovative technologies selected at the 205 sites and examines
factors at Superfund sites that may affect the selection of source control technologies. The factors
examined are site leads, site types, contaminants and their maximum concentrations, and volume of
contaminated material. Data on the standard and innovative technologies selected at each site can be
found in Appendix A. Site Data.
Figure S-2 presents the 14 innovative technologies that were selected for site remediation (including the
one "unspecified" innovative technology selected at one site) and the number of times each technology
was chosen. Of the 20 different innovative technologies considered, seven were not selected as a final
S-6
-------
remedy at any site. The most selected innovative technology was soil vacuum extraction, which was
selected at 50 sites. Low temperature thermal desorption was selected at 10 sites, in situ biodegradation
also was selected at 10 sites, and soil flushing was selected at nine sites. Other innovative technologies
selected more than once include ex situ biodegradation selected at eight sites, biodegradation selected
at six sites, soil washing selected at five sites, and dechlorination selected at three sites. Innovative
technologies selected at only one site include chemical treatment (ex situ), solvent extraction, in situ
vitrification, in situ heating, and metallurgical processes.
Figure S-2. Innovative technologies selected as site remedy
for FY91 and FY92 source control RODs.
Unspecified innovative technology
Metallurgical processes
In situ heating
In situ vitrification
Solvent extraction
Chemical treatment (ex situ)
Dechlorination
Soil washing
Biodegradation
Ex situ biodegradation
Soil flushing
In situ biodegradation
Low temp, thermal desorption
Soil vapor extraction
D If Needed
H Residuals
• Primary
20 30
Number of sites
40
50
Eight different standard technologies were selected at the 205 sites, including unspecified technologies
that would be determined during the remedial design phase. The standard technology selected most
frequently was capping, which was selected at 101 sites. Disposal was selected 70 times; solidification/
stabilization was selected 48 times; incineration was selected 22 times; in situ solidification/stabilization
was selected nine times; institutional controls were selected as the only site remedy at three sites;
recycling/recovery was selected at one site; and an unspecified treatment was selected at four sites.
Standard technologies were selected for treatment of residuals and as contingent remedies far more often
than innovative technologies.
In general, the Regions with more sites selected more innovative technologies. Across all Regions, the
overall average number of innovative technologies selected per site was 0.52 innovative technologies.
The individual Regional averages ranged fairly closely around this the overall average. Region 4, with
22 sites, selected 0.91 innovative technologies per site, which was the highest average number of
innovative technologies selected by a Region. This high average for Region 4 primarily reflects the
eight innovative technologies selected at the two Ciba-Geigy sites. Region 3, with 30 sites, selected 0.37
innovative technologies per site, which was the lowest average number of innovative technologies
selected by a Region. The average for Region 3 was lowered by six landfill sites where capping was
selected as the only site remedy.
S-7
-------
A variety of standard and innovative technologies were selected by each of the three types of site leads
—Fund-lead, PRP-lead, and Federal Facility. Eleven different innovative technologies and six different
standard technologies were selected at 77 Fund-lead sites. Ten different innovative technologies and
eight different standard technologies were selected at 102 PRP-lead sites. Five different innovative
technologies and five different standard technologies were selected at 26 Federal Facilities.
For each of the 20 site types the following technologies were selected:
• Municipal landfills (38 sites). Eight different technologies were selected at an average of 1.3
technologies per site. Capping was by far the most commonly selected technology. Capping was
selected 37 times compared to 13 times for the selection of all other technologies combined.
• Industrial landfills (28 sites). Ten different technologies were selected at an average of 1.7
technologies per site. Capping (16 times) was the most commonly selected technology, followed
by one-site and off-site disposal (11 times), soil vapor extraction (five times), solidification/
stabilization (four times), and in situ solidification/stabilization (four times).
• Chemicals/allied products (21 sites). Fourteen different technologies were selected at an average of
2.2 technologies per site. Soil vapor extraction (nine times) was the most commonly selected
technology, followed by disposal (seven times), solidification/stabilization (five times), capping (four
times), and soil flushing (four times).
• Uncontrolled waste sites (17 sites). Eleven different technologies were selected at an average of 1.5
technologies per site. Soil vapor extraction (six times) was the most commonly selected technology,
followed by disposal (five times), capping (five times), and soil flushing (two times).
• Electrical equipment (14 sites). Eight different technologies were selected at an average of 1.6
technologies per site. Soil vapor extraction (seven times) was the most commonly selected
technology, followed by capping (four times), disposal (three times), and solidification/stabilization
(three times).
• Recycling (14 sites). Ten different technologies were selected at an average of 2.7 technologies per
site. Solidification/stabilization (10 times) was the most commonly selected technology, followed
by disposal (eight times), capping (six times), soil vapor extraction (five times), and low temperature
thermal desorption (three times).
• Lumber and wood products (nine sites). Eleven different technologies were selected at an average
of 2.4 technologies per site. Disposal (seven times) was the most commonly selected technology,
followed by solidification/stabilization (four times), capping (two times), and biodegradation (two
times).
• Mining (nine sites). Two different technologies were selected at an average of 1.2 technologies per
site. Capping was selected eight times and solidification/stabilization was selected three times.
• Fabricated metal products (eight sites). Four different technologies were selected at an average of
1.4 technologies per site. Soil vapor extraction (six times) was the most commonly selected
technology, followed by disposal (three times).
• Primary metal products (eight sites). Five different technologies were selected at an average of 2.1
technologies per site. Capping (five times) and solidification/stabilization (five times) were the most
commonly selected technologies, followed by disposal (four times) and biodegradation (two times).
S-8
-------
• Electroplating (six sites). Three different technologies were selected at an average of 1.7
technologies per site. Disposal (five times) was the most commonly selected technology, followed
by soil vapor extraction (three times), and solidification/stabilization (two times).
• Waste oil (six sites). Seven different technologies were selected at an average of 2.0 technologies
per site. Disposal (three times) and capping (three times) were the most commonly selected
technologies, followed by solidification/stabilization (two times).
• Agricultural chemicals (five sites). Seven different technologies were selected at an average of 2.4
technologies per site. Solidification/stabilization (four times) was the most commonly selected
technology, followed by capping (three times).
• Coal products (four sites). Five different technologies were selected at an average of 2.0
technologies per site. Disposal (two times), in situ biodegradation (two times), and incineration (two
times) were the most commonly selected technologies.
• Energetics/ordnance (four sites). Five different technologies were selected at an average of 2.0
technologies per site. Disposal (three times) was the most commonly selected technology, followed
by incineration (two times).
• Petroleum refining (four sites). Eight different technologies were selected at an average of 2.7
technologies per site. Capping (two times), in situ biodegradation (two times), and disposal (two
times) were the most commonly selected technologies.
• Radiological disposal (four sites). Two different technologies were selected at an average of once
per site. Capping (two times) and soil vapor extraction (two times) were the only technologies
selected.
• Construction (two sites). Three different technologies were selected at an average of 1.5 tech-
nologies per site. Disposal, capping, and solidification/stabilization were each selected once.
• Dry cleaning (two sites). One technology were selected at an average of once per site. Soil vapor
extraction (two times) was the only technology selected.
• Transportation (two sites). Four different technologies were selected at an average of 2.0
technologies per site. Disposal, capping, solidification/stabilization, and soil flushing were each
selected once.
The widest variety of technologies were selected at chemicals and allied products sites, lumber and wood
products sites, uncontrolled waste sites, and industrial landfills. Relatively few different technologies
were selected at municipal landfills, mining sites, electroplating sites, radiological disposal sites, and dry
cleaning sites.
At sites contaminated with both organics and inorganics (and where only one technology was selected),
by far the most commonly selected technology was capping (22 times). Five other technologies were
selected more than twice at these sites: soil Vapor extraction (nine times), solidification/stabilization
(seven times), disposal (six times), low temperature thermal desorption (four times), and institutional
controls (three times). Technologies selected to address high concentrations of mixed organic and
inorganic contaminants included capping, solidification/stabilization, disposal, and soil vapor extraction.
S-9
-------
At sites contaminated only with organics (and where only one technology was selected), by far the most
commonly selected technology was soil vapor extraction (19 times). The only other technology selected
more than twice for these sites was capping (six times). Technologies selected to address high
concentrations of organic contaminants include incineration, soil vapor extraction, and soil washing.
At sites contaminated only with inorganics (and where only one technology was selected), by far the
most commonly selected technology was solidification/stabilization (12 times). Capping (five times) and
disposal (three times) were the only other technologies selected more than once for these sites.
Technologies selected to address high concentrations of inorganics include solidification/stabilization,
metallurgical processes, capping, and soil washing.
At sites contaminated by PCBs (and where only one technology was selected), capping (seven times)
was the most commonly selected remedy. Soil vapor extraction (five times), solidification/stabilization
(four times), low temperature thermal desorption (three times), incineration (three times), and disposal
(three times) were the only other technologies selected more than once for these sites. Technologies
selected to address high concentrations of PCBs were low temperature thermal desorption,
biodegradation, and incineration.
At sites contaminated by TCE or PCE (and where only one technology was selected), soil vapor
extraction (eight times) was the only technology selected more than once. Soil vapor extraction also was
selected to address the highest concentrations of TCE and PCE.
At sites where the only contaminated media was soils (126 sites), soil vapor extraction (36 times).
solidification/stabilization (30 times), disposal (30 times), and capping (20 times) were most commonly
selected. At sites where the only contaminated media was wastes (51 sites), capping (35 times) was by
far selected most often. Only capping and disposal were selected at sites where the volume of
contaminated wastes was greater than ten million cubic yards. A wide variety of technologies were
selected at sites where the contaminated media included both soils and wastes (28 sites). Disposal was
selected most often (nine times), followed by capping (eight times), solidification/stabilization (five
times), and incineration (five times). Soil vapor extraction, low temperature thermal desorplion. and ex
situ biodegradation were each selected three limes at these sites.
S-6. REASONS FOR SELECTION OF TECHNOLOGIES
This section summarizes the reasons given for remedial technology selection at the 205 sites. The most
common reasons and the number of times each was used for selecting a technology are presented. The
reasons for selection of standard and innovative source control technologies have been grouped into nine
categories to enhance data interpretation:
• Contaminant: the technology would be effective in treating or containing contaminants or groups
of contaminants found at the site.
• Media: the technology would be effective in treating or containing contaminated media (soil,
sediment, solid waste, sludge) found at the site.
• Site condition: a particular site condition favored the use of one technology over alternative
technologies.
• Implementation: the technology would be easier or faster to implement than alternative technologies.
• Exposure/risk: the technology would reduce contaminant exposures and risk to the public, site
workers, and equipment operators.
• Regulatory: the technology would be able to meet regulatory requirements or achieve public
acceptance.
S-10
-------
• Cost: the technology would be cost-effective.
• Information: adequate information is available on the technology's cost and performance.
• Unspecified or Other: at sites where more than one technology was selected, the reasons given for
selection of a Remedial Action Alternative could not always be associated with a specific
technology.
The most common reasons, by category, for the selection of remedial technologies were related to
exposure/risk (801 occurrences). The next most common reasons for technology selection were related
to implementability (345 occurrences), regulations (209 occurrences), cost-effectiveness (172
occurrences), availability of information (87 occurrences), contaminants (63 occurrences), and site
conditions (26 occurrences). No reasons were given for selecting a technology because of its ability to
treat or contain specific media.
In general, each category of reasons were cited with similar frequency for both innovative and standard
technologies. Reasons related to contaminants and information were emphasized more for selection of
innovative technologies than for standard technologies. Information reasons were cited 9.0 percent of
the time for innovative technology selection and only 2.4 percent of the time for standard technology
selection. Reasons related to the ability of a technology to effectively treat contaminants were cited 7.4
percent of the time for innovative technologies and 2.4 percent of the time for standard technologies.
Reasons related to controlling exposure/risk were emphasized more for selection of standard technologies
(49.2 percent of the time) than for innovative technologies (37.1 percent of the time). Reasons related
to implementability, regulations, cost-effectiveness, site condition, and ability to treat specific media
were cited at about the same frequency for selecting standard and innovative technologies.
A total of 147 different individual reasons were given for the selection of remedial technologies. The
147 different reasons were cited 1,791 times for the selection of 365 remedial technologies (average of
4.9 reasons per technology) at the 205 sites. The most common reasons cited for technology selection
(accounting for 896, or 50 percent of the reasons cited) were:
• Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume, 118 times;
• Cost-effective, 110 times;
• Provides long-term protectiveness, 104 times;
• Complies with all ARARs, 99 times;
• Easy to implement, 84 times;
• Prevents direct human contact with contaminants, 79 times;
• Eliminates or reduces leachate and runoff from site, 57 times;
• Minimizes mobility of contaminants, 56 times;
• Negligible short-term risks to humans, 49 times;
• Equipment is readily available, 47 times;
• Short remediation time, 47 times; and
• Prevents contamination of groundwater, 46 times.
Table S-3. presents the most commonly cited individual reasons for the selection of each innovative and
standard technology.
S-ll
-------
Table S-3. Summary of most important reasons given for selection of remedial technologies.
Technology
Reasons for Elimination
Total Times Given
Ex Situ Biodegradation
In situ vitrification
Soil (lushing
Soil vapor extraction
In situ biodegradation
Soil washing
Solvent extraction
Low temperature thermal desorption
Biodegradation
In situ heating
Dechlorination
Chemical treatment (ex situ)
Metallurgical processes
Capping
Demonstrated effectiveness
Provides long-term protectiveness
Various reasons related to ease of implementation
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, and volume
Reduces risk posed by the site
Satisfies regulatory requirements
Cost effective
Reduces contamination of groundwater
Ability to comply with all ARARs
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, and volume
Cost effective
Prevents contamination of groundwater
Effective for VOCs
Easy to implement
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, and volume
Does not disrupt surface activities
Ability to comply with all ARARs
Demonstrated effective for site contaminants
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, and volume
Cost effective
Ability to comply with all ARARs
Prevents contamination of groundwater
Reduces nsk posed by the site
Effective for target contaminants
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, and volume
Demonstrated effectiveness
Vanous reasons related to ease of implementation
Ability to attain cleanup goals
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, and volume
Satisfies preference for treatment
Provides long-term protectiveness
Demonstrated effectiveness
Reduces risk posed by the site
Reduces risk posed by the site
Effective for target contaminants
Reduces risk posed by the site
Effective for target contaminants
Implementability
Prevents direct human contact with contaminants
Reduces leachate and runoff from site
Cost effective
Minimizes mobility of contaminants
Provides long-term protectiveness
Easy to implement
6
5
5
4
4
3
6
6
4
30
22
21
20
19
4
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
2
2
7
6
6
3
4
4
3
3
54
41
34
30
26
26
S-12
-------
Table S-3. Most important reasons given for selection of innovative technologies, continued.
Technology
Disposal
Solidification/Stabilization
Incineration
In Situ Solidification/Stabilization
Institutional Controls
Recycling
Reasons for Elimination
Provides long-term protectiveness
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, and volume
Ability to comply with all ARARs
Various reasons related to ease of implementation
Provides long-term protectiveness
Minimizes mobility of contaminants
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, and volume
Prevents direct human contact with contaminants
Easy to implement
Cost effective
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, and volume
Satisfies LDRs and other ARARs
Short remediation time
Provides long-term protectiveness
Various reasons related to ease of implementation
Satisfies preference for treatment
Provides long-term protectiveness
Minimizes mobility of contaminants
Cost effective
Reduces risk posed by the site
Easy to implement
Reduces nsk posed by the site
Easy to implement
Total Times Given
20
18
15
15
22
18
17
14
13
13
13
8
6
5
4
3
3
3
3
6
2
4
2
A special analysis was conducted to examine the reasons for selection of capping as a remedy 101 times
at the 205 sites. Capping of municipal and industrial landfills is accepted practice at Superfund sues
where the cost of treatment is prohibitive. After removing landfill sites from the case study, there were
26 sites at which capping was selected as a primary remedy and 22 sites where capping was selected
for containment of residuals. Capping for residuals management included: 1) construction of temporary
caps to improve soil vapor extraction efficiency; 2) capping of residuals left in the soils after implemen-
tation of an in situ process, such as biodegradation or soil vapor extraction, for treating organic
contaminants; or 3) capping after implementation of ex situ treatment processes, usually solidification/
stabilization, and disposal of residuals in a landfill or containment cell.
The selection of capping as a primary remedy at these sites appears to be most closely related to the
volume of contaminated material and the types of contaminants present at the sites. The volume of
contaminated material at 14 of the 26 sites was greater than 100,000 cubic yards, and the volume at 19
of the sites exceeded 50,000 cubic yards. Most striking was the presence of metals or other inorganics
at 24 of the 26 sites. Twelve of the sites included both inorganic and organic contaminants and twelve
sites included only inorganic contaminants. The organics included PCBs at six of the sites and TCE at
five of the sites; both are DNAPLs. Both of the sites where only organic contaminants were present
included PCBs.
S-13
-------
S-7. REASONS FOR ELIMINATION OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
This section examines, why and when innovative technologies were eliminated during the technology
selection process. This analysis is not intended to be an evaluation of the technology selection process.
All of the different reasons for the elimination of innovative technologies at the 205 sites are listed in
Appendix D. Reasons for Elimination of Innovative Technologies.
The reasons for elimination of innovative source control technologies have been grouped into nine
categories that are similar to the categories for selection of remedial technologies. Because of the large
number of reasons given for technology elimination within each category, subcategories were developed
to make more discrete, easier to examine, data groups. The categories are:
• Contaminant: the technology would not effectively treat specific contaminants found at the site.
• Media: the technology would not effectively treat the contaminated media (soil, sediment, solid
waste, sludge) at the site.
• Site condition: site conditions would make the use of a particular technology difficult or ineffective.
• Implementation: the technology would be more difficult or take longer to implement than an
alternative technology at the site.
• Exposure/risk: the use of a technology would not reduce, or would create, contaminant exposures
and risk to the public, site workers, and equipment operators.
• Regulatory: the technology would not be able to meet regulatory requirements or achieve public
acceptance.
• Cost: the technology would not be cost-effective.
• Information: not enough information was available on the cost or performance of a technology to
determine its effectiveness at the site.
• Other: No reason was given for the elimination of an innovative technology or no treatment was
determined to be necessary at the site.
By category, the most common reasons for elimination of innovative technologies' were related to their
implementability (887 occurrences), ineffectiveness on site contaminants (639 occurrences), ineffective-
ness on contaminated media (511 occurrences), and lack of information on cost and performance (470
occurrences). Innovative technologies also were eliminated because of high cost (338 occurrences), site
conditions that precluded their effective use (335 occurrences), exposure- or risk-related reasons (267
occurrences), and lack of public acceptance or ability to meet regulatory requirements (95 occurrences).
The contaminant and media categories were cited a higher percentage of the time during the initial
screening phase than other categories. In addition, the exposure/risk category was cited a higher
percentage of the time during the three-criteria and detailed evaluation phases than other categories.
Table S-4 presents the number of times each innovative technology was eliminated from consideration
as a site remedy, the number of reasons cited for eliminating each technology at each of the three phases
of technology selection, and the total number of reasons cited for eliminating each technology. A total
of 616 unique reasons were cited 3,577 times for eliminating the 1,380 innovative technologies. Of the
3,577 times reasons were given for eliminating innovative technologies, 2,391 reasons were given during
the initial screening, 740 reasons were given during the three-criteria screening, and 446 reasons were
given during the detailed evaluation.
'More than one reason was often cited within the same category for elimination of a particular
technology. For example, the reasons given for eliminating soil washing could have included the
need for pre-treatment and the need for post-treatment, both of which are related to implementation.
S-14
-------
The greatest number of reasons cited for eliminating a single individual technology were the 414 reasons
given for eliminating in situ vitrification. The most reasons cited for eliminating an innovative
technology during the.initial screening were the 257 reasons cited for eliminating soil flushing. The
most reasons cited for eliminating an innovative technology during the three-criteria screening were the
106 reasons cited for eliminating in situ vitrification. The most reasons cited for eliminating an
innovative technology during the detailed evaluation were the 76 reasons cited for eliminating low
temperature thermal desorption.
Table S-4. Summary of when innovative technologies were eliminated in FY91 and FY92 RODs.
Number of Reasons for Elimination by Phase
Technologies Considered Number of Times
Eliminated
Ex situ biodegradation
In situ vitrification
Soil flushing
Ex situ thermal (other than standard
incineration)
Soil vapor extraction
In situ biodegradation
Soil washing
Solvent extraction
Low temperature thermal desorption
Biodegradation
In situ heating
Dechlonnation
Chemical treatment (in situ)
Chemical treatment (ex situ)
Metallurgical processes
Electrokinetics
Soil cooling/freezing
Soil vapor extraction (ex situ)
Vegetative uptake
UV radiation
Innovative Totals
140
139
129
138
75
114
113
102
84
84
76
47
47
41
20
10
9
6
5
1
1,380
Initial
Screening
234
256
257
238
111
239
176
151
81
157
138
70
112
79
41
19
15
7
7
3
2,391
3-Criteria
Screening
59
106
99
62
20
54
84
73
31
44
41
22
12
19
9
3
0
2
0
0
740
Detailed
Evaluation
31
52
25
9
21
41
64
60
76
6
6
26
2
0
25
0
0
2
0
0
446
Total Number
of Reasons
324
414
381
309
152
334
324
284
188
207
185
118
126
98
75
22
15
11
7
3
3,577
Of the 616 unique reasons cited for eliminating innovative technologies, 252 of the reasons were cited
only during the initial screening phase. Another 72 reasons were cited only during the three-criteria
screening, and 56 reasons were cited only during the detailed evaluation. The remaining 236 different
reasons were cited in a combination of two or three phases of technology selection. The most common
S-15
-------
reasons given for eliminating individual innovative technologies tended to be cited during both the initial
screening phase and the later two phases of the technology selection process. The 12 most common
reasons cited for innovative technology elimination account for 787 (22 percent) of the total number of
reasons given for the elimination of innovative technologies:
• Not applicable to metals/inorganics, 144 times;
• High cost, 122 times;
• Not applicable to all site contaminants, 79 times;
• Heterogeneous wastes, 75 times;
• Requires treatability studies, 62 times;
• Limited availability of vendors/technology, 47 times;
• Difficult to implement, 46 times;
• May contaminate groundwater, 44 times;
• Not demonstrated on a large/full scale, 44 times;
• Success/effectiveness uncertain, 44 times
• Not effective for site contaminants, 41 times; and
• Not fully developed technology, 39 times.
Table 5-5 presents the most important reasons for the elimination of each of the 20 innovative
technologies based on an examination of individual reasons, subcategories of reasons, and categories of
reasons cited for elimination of each technology.
Table S-5. Summary of most important reasons given for eliminating each innovative technology.
Technology
Reasons lor Elimination
Ex Situ Biodegradation
Presence of metals and inorganics
Various problems with implementation and matenals handling
Inefficiency as compared to other technologies, such as SVE
Need for further demonstrations
Need to treat or dispose of treatment residuals
Limitations on the space available for on-site treatment
Needs testing at the site
Long time required for remediation
In situ vitrification
High cost
Ineffectiveness on saturated soils
High energy needs
Limited availability of vendors
Depth of contaminated soils either too deep or too shallow
Concern over air emissions
Need for further demonstrations
Need for further development
Ni
Total Times
Given
36
19
15
13
13
12
10
9
44
33
22
21
20
17
17
12
imber of Times
3-Crtteria
SCPMHinQ
33
16
9
8
10
B
5
5
21
25
15
10
15
11
9
9
GrvenbyPhaj
Detailed
Evaluation
3
3
5
0
1
4
3
3
17
8
6
6
5
4
6
2
e
Initial
Screening
0
0
1
5
2
0
2
1
6
0
1
5
0
2
2
1
S-16
-------
Table S-5. Most important reasons given for elimination of innovative technologies, continued.
Technology
Reasons for Elimination
Soil flushing
Potential to contaminate groundwater
Low soil permeability
Presence of heterogeneous soils and wastes
Difficulty in recovering reaction by-products
Difficulty in controlling an in situ process
• Uncertain performance
Ex situ thermal (other than standard incineration)
High cost
Inapplicability to metals and inorganics
Need for further development
Limited availability
Need for further demonstrations
Inapplicability to soils
Need for post-treatment or disposal of residuals
Need for pre-treatment of contaminated materials
Soil vapor extraction
Inapplicability to metals and inorganics
Inapplicability to SVOCs and low vapor pressure contaminants
Presence of low permeability soils
Presence of heterogeneous soils and wastes
Ineffectiveness for saturated soils
In situ bwdegradatoon
Inapplicability to metals/inorganics
Difficulty in controlling an in situ process
Inapplicability to heterogeneous wastes
Potential to form more toxic or mobile by-products
Ineffectiveness on low permeability soils
Potentially long remediation times
Potential to contaminate groundwater
Inapplicability to chlorinated compounds
Presence of metals or organics that inhibit biological activity
Soil washing
Need for post-treatment or disposal of residuals
High costs
Difficulty in extracting contaminants from soils
Presence of fine-grained soils
Need for treatability testing due to uncertain effectiveness
Contaminated material volumes that were too small or too large
Inapplicability to site contaminants
Solvent extraction
High cost
Inapplicability to metals and inorganics
Need for post-treatment or disposal of treatment residuals
Need for testing at the site
Need for further demonstrations
Limited availability
Potential short-term risks to site workers from solvent solutions
Number of Times Given by Phase
Total Times 3-Criteria Detailed Initial
Given Screening Evaluation Screening
47
27
25
23
18
10
35
23
22
21
20
20
15
10
20
23
11
7
6
20
19
16
15
15
12
11
11
9
25
22
18
16
14
12
10
25
21
21
14
12
9
9
29
23
19
15
15
6
26
19
17
14
17
17
13
9
18
20
6
5
4
20
15
12
13
10
8
9
7
9
13
11
15
13
5
10
8
15
17
6
3
11
4
3
12
4
6
8
3
3
8
4
4
6
3
3
2
1
1
2
3
1
1
0
2
2
1
4
1
1
2
0
8
9
3
3
3
2
2
7
4
9
5
0
2
4
6
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
1
0
2
2
1
1
3
1
2
0
4
2
0
0
6
0
0
3
0
6
6
1
3
2
S-17
-------
Table S-5. Most important reasons given for elimination of innovative technologies, continued.
Technology
Reasons for Elimination
Low temperature thermal desorption
• High cost in comparison to other treatment technologies
• Inapplicability to metals/inorganics
• Short-term risks to site workers
• Uncertainty in achieving cleanup goals
• Disruption of existing site activities
• Need for post-treatment or disposal of treatment residuals
• Need to control off gases
Biodegradation
• Inapplicability to metals/inorganics
• Presence of metals or organics that inhibit biological activity
• Need for testing at the site
• Inapplicability to SVOCs
• Potential to form more toxic or mobile by-products
• Concentrations of organics that were too low
In situ heating
• High cost
• Inapplicability to metals/inorganics
• Limited availability
• Need tor further demonstrations
• Ineffectiveness for low permeability soils
• Inapplicability to SVOCs
Dechlonnation
• High cost
• Inapplicability to VOCs and other volatile contaminants
• Need for post-treatment or disposal of residuals
• Need for testing at the site
• Inapplicability to metals/inorganics
• Potential to form more toxic or mobile by-products
Chemical treatment (in situ)
• Difficulty in controlling an in situ process
• Not applicable to site contaminants
• Potential to form more toxic or mobile by-products
• Difficult to implement
• Needs further demonstration
• Need for testing at the site
Chemical treatment (ex situ)
• Not applicable to site contaminants
• Potential to form more toxic or mobile by-products
• Inapplicability to metals/inorganics
• Inapplicability to organics
• Difficult to implement
• Volumes of contaminated material too large
Number of Times Given by Phase
Total Times 3-Criteria Detailed Initial
Given Screening Evaluation Screening
15
13
11
7
7
6
6
31
15
14
12
8
8
22
18
9
9
9
6
13
7
7
7
4
4
18
9
8
6
5
4
12
10
8
8
6
3
2
12
1
0
1
2
3
27
11
9
6
7
6
11
17
8
6
8
5
9
7
2
1
4
2
17
9
5
5
5
3
10
8
8
7
5
3
4
1
0
3
0
2
0
4
4
5
6
1
1
11
1
0
2
1
1
3
0
3
2
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
2
2
0
1
1
0
9
0
10
4
6
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
2
4
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S-18
-------
Table S-5. Most important reasons given for elimination of innovative technologies, continued.
Technology
Reasons for Elimination
Metallurgical processes
Unproven technology
Low concentrations of metals in material to be treated
High cost in comparison to other technologies
Limited availability
Need for post-treatment or disposal of residuals
Less effective than solidification/stabilization
Potential adverse environmental effects
Electrokinetics
Unproven technology
Need for testing at the site
Needs further development
Ineffective for soils with low soil moisture content
Inapplicable to site contaminants
Soil cooling/freezing
• It is not a long-term solution
• High energy costs
• High installation and operational costs
• Unproven technology
Soil vapor extraction (ex situ)
• Less effective than in situ soil vapor extraction
• More costly than m situ soil vapor extraction
Vegetative uptake
• Not applicable to all site contaminants
• Suitable only for surface and near-surface contaminated sols
UV radiation
• Requires pre-treatment to slurry soils
• Not a fully developed technology
• Uncertain success
Number of Times Given by Phase
Total Times 3-Criteria Detailed Initial
Given Screening Evaluation Screening
6
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
0
2
3
3
3
0
2
3
2
2
2
1
0
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
2
2
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
A lack of information on the cost and performance of innovative technologies contributed to the
elimination of many innovative technologies (see Table 5-6). The information-related reasons cited for
eliminating innovative technologies have been grouped into several subcategories, including a need for
further development (cited a total of 91 times), a need for more field demonstrations (cited a total of 119
times), a need for testing on site materials (cited a total of 110 times), and uncertainty about whether
the technology would be effective at the site due to a lack of information on full-scale cost and
performance (cited a total of 118 times). The need for further development was cited as a reason for
eliminating ex situ thermal technologies2 (22 times), in situ vitrification (12 times), and electrokinetics
(three times). The need for more demonstrations of the technology was cited as a reason for eliminating
2Other thermal (ex situ) technologies encompass a range of innovative thermal treatment
processes (other than standard incineration processes), such as pyrolysis, wet air oxidation, steam
extraction, molten salt and molten glass incineration, supercritical oxidation, ex situ vitrification, and
high temperature thermal desorption.
S-19
-------
ex situ thermal technologies (other than standard incineration, 20 times), in situ vitrification (17 times),
ex situ biodegradation (13 times), solvent extraction (12 times), in situ heating (9 times), and in situ
chemical treatment (five times). The need for testing on site materials (treatability and pilot-scale
studies) was a reason for the elimination of soil washing (25 times), solvent extraction (14 times),
biodegradation (14 times), ex situ biodegradation (10 times), dechlorination (seven times), in situ
chemical treatment (four times), and electrokinetics (three times). Uncertainty about whether the
technology would be effective at full-scale was a reason for the elimination of soil flushing (10 times),
metallurgical processes (six times), electrokinetics (three times), and soil cooling/freezing (two times).
Table S-6. Summary of information-related reasons for eliminating innovative technologies.
Reason for Elimination
Technology
Need for further development
• Ex situ thermal technologies
• In situ vitrification
« Electrokinetics
Need for more field demonstrations
Ex situ thermal technologies
In situ vitrification
Ex situ biodegradation
Solvent extraction
In situ heating
In situ chemical treatment
Need for treatability or pilot-scale studies
Soil washing
Solvent extraction
Biodegradation
Ex situ biodegradation
Dechlonnation
In situ chemical treatment
Electrokinetics
Lack of information on full-scale cost and performance
• Soil flushing
• Metallurgical processes
• Electrokinetics
• Soil cooling/freezing
Times
Eliminated
22 times
12 times
3 times
20 times
17 times
13 times
12 times
9 times
5 times
25 times
14 times
14 times
10 times
7 times
4 times
3 times
10 times
6 times
3 times
2 times
A number of innovative technologies produce treatment residuals that must be either treated further or
disposed of in an acceptable manner (see Table 5-7). Avoidance of using a treatment train to deal with
residuals caused the elimination of a number of potentially effective innovative technologies. The need
for post-treatment or disposal of treatment residuals was cited as a reason for eliminating soil washing
(25 times), solvent extraction (21 times), ex situ thermal (other than standard incineration, 15 times), ex
situ biodegradation (13 times), dechlorination (seven times), and low temperature thermal desorption (six
times).
S-20
-------
Table S-7. Number of times innovative technologies were eliminated
because of a need to treat residuals.
Innovative Technology
Soil washing
Solvent extraction
Ex situ thermal (other than incineration)
Ex situ biodegradation
Dechlorination
Low temperature thermal desorption
Times Eliminated
25 times
21 times
15 times
13 times
7 times
6 times
A special analysis was conducted to examine why soil flushing and soil washing were not selected at
sites contaminated with metals. Soil flushing or soil washing were eliminated as a remedy at 101 sites
contaminated by metals or other inorganics. Appendix F lists all of the reasons given for eliminating
soil flushing and soil washing at metals sites, and includes the sites at which they were eliminated and
the phase of the selection process during which they were eliminated.
A total of 239 reasons were cited for eliminating soil flushing at metals-contaminated sites. The most
common reason cited was its potential to contaminate groundwater. Other frequently cited reasons for
not selecting soil flushing were difficulty in recovering flushed products from groundwater, low
permeability of site soils, and the heterogeneous nature of the wastes to be treated. By category of
reasons, soil flushing was most often eliminated because of difficulty in implementation (64 reasons
cited). The next most commonly cited categories of reasons were site conditions (44 reasons), risk (38
reasons), media (33 reasons), contaminants (22 reasons), and information (20 reasons). Regulatory (8
reasons) and cost-related (9 reasons) were cited infrequently.
A total of 244 reasons were cited for eliminating soil washing at metals-contaminated sites. It was
eliminated most often because it would require post-treatment of soil fines or wastewater. Other
frequently cited reasons for not selecting soil washing were high cost, the need to perform pilot or
treatability tests prior to full-scale use, the need for complicated or multiple washing fluids, and the
presence of fine-grained soils. By category of reasons, soil washing was most often eliminated because
of difficulty in implementation (88 reasons cited). The next most commonly cited categories of reasons
were lack of information (45 reasons), media (32 reasons), cost (27 reasons), contaminants (21 reasons),
and site conditions (16 reasons). Risk (7 reasons) and regulatory-related (6 reasons) were cited
infrequently.
S-8. REASONS FOR INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SELECTION VERSUS ELIMINATION
This section briefly compares the reasons cited for elimination of innovative versus standard technologies
within the nine categories of reasons.
The greatest emphasis in the selection of innovative technologies is on controlling exposure and risk.
Overall, the reasons cited in the Feasibility Studies for selection of innovative technologies tend to
reflect the nine criteria in the NCP rather than the ability of specific technologies to effectively treat or
contain contaminants under the constraints of site conditions. The greatest emphasis in the elimination
of innovative technologies is on their implementability. Reasons related to the effectiveness of an
S-21
-------
innovative technology in addressing the contaminants, media, and conditions at the site also are cited
frequently for eliminating innovative technologies. These categories, however, are cited the least often
in the selection of innovative technologies. The availability of information also is relatively important
in the elimination of innovative technologies, though it is only moderately important in the selection of
innovative technologies. Cost was of only moderate importance for both the selection and elimination
of innovative technologies, and regulatory reasons were of minor importance.
The reasons cited for the selection of innovative technologies appear to be less varied than the reasons
cited for the elimination of innovative technologies. There were far fewer different reasons cited for the
selection of technologies (147 different reasons) than for the elimination of innovative technologies (616
different reasons). The reasons for selecting technologies were used an average of 12.2 times each (147
reasons used 1,791 times), while the reasons for eliminating innovative technologies were used an
average of 5.8 times each (616 reasons used 3,598 times). In addition, the 13 most common reasons
cited for technology selection accounted for 55 percent of the selection reasons cited, while the 13 most
common reasons cited for innovative technology elimination accounted for only 24 percent of the
elimination reasons cited.
S-9. TREATABILITY STUDIES
This section presents information on treatability tests of standard and innovative technologies that were
considered as part of source control remedies at Superfund sites. The data is examined to determine
how often treatability tests are conducted at Superfund sites and the influence of treatability tests on
technology selection.
A total of 85 treatability tests of standard and innovative technologies were conducted at 47 of the 205
sites. No treatability studies were conducted at the other 158 operable units included in this analysis.
Of the 85 treatability tests conducted, 57 were considered successful and 28 were considered
unsuccessful. Of the 57 successful tests, 35 of the tested technologies were subsequently selected to
remediate the sites. Two other technologies were selected as part of the site remedy, even though the
treatability test was not successful. Therefore, 37 of the 85 technologies tested were eventually selected
as part of the site remedy.
Figure S-3 presents the results of treatability testing of innovative technologies. Thirteen innovative
technologies were tested a total of 53 times. Of the total, 31 tests were considered successful and 22
were not considered successful (overall success rate of 58 percent). Innovative technologies with the
highest rates of success were soil vapor extraction (89 percent), low temperature thermal desorption (71
percent), biodegradation (60 percent), ex situ biodegradation (100 percent), in situ vitrification (100
percent), and ex situ soil vapor extraction (100 percent). Innovative technologies with the lowest rates
of success were soil washing (33 percent), metallurgical processes (33 percent), solvent extraction (50
percent), soil flushing (33 percent), in situ biodegradation (50 percent), dechlorination (0 percent), and
ex situ thermal (other than standard incineration, 0 percent).
Six of the 11 innovative technologies that were tested successfully were subsequently selected as part
of the site remedy: soil vapor extraction was selected 87 percent of the time a test was successful;
biodegradation was selected 67 percent of the time a test was successful; ex situ biodegradation was
selected 67 percent of the time a test was successful; in situ vitrification was selected 50 percent of the
time a test was successful; and soil washing was selected 33 percent of the time a test was successful.
S-22
-------
Figure S-3. Results of innovative technology treatability tests
(FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
Other thermal (ex situ)
Ex situ soil vapor extraction
Dechtorination
In situ vitrification
In situ biodegradation
Soil flushing
Ex situ biodegradation
Solvent extraction
Biodegradation
Metallurgical processes
Low temp, thermal desorption
Soil washing
Soil vapor extraction
0 Unsuccessful (22 times)
• Successful (31 times)
I
4 6
Number of tests
In comparison, many innovative technologies were eliminated from consideration as a site remedy
because of the need to conduct a treatability study or pilot test on contaminated materials from the site.
The need for treatability testing was a reason for the elimination of soil washing (25 times), solvent
extraction (14 times), biodegradation (14 times), ex situ biodegradation (10 times), dechlorination (seven
times), chemical treatment (in situ) (four times), and electrokinetics (three times).
Figure S-4. Results of standard technology treatability tests
(FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
Capping 11
Commercial smelter K512
Incineration ^K& 3
Solidification/stabilization
E3 Unsuccessful (6 times)
• Successful (26 times)
10 20
Number of tests
Figure S-4 presents the results of standard technology treatability tests. Four standard technologies were
tested a total of 32 times. Of these, 26 tests were considered successful and 6 tests were not considered
successful (success rate of 81 percent). Standard technology success rates were: solidification/stabiliza-
tion, 85 percent; incineration, 61 percent; commercial smelting, 50 percent; and capping, 100 percent.
Three of the four standard technologies that were tested successfully were subsequently selected as part
of the site remedy: incineration was selected 100 percent of the time a test was successful; capping was
selected 100 percent of the time a test was successful; and solidification/stabilization was selected 73
percent of the time a test was successful.
S-23
-------
S-10. REMEDY CHANGES
This section analyzes the factors that resulted in changing an innovative source control technology as
a selected site remedy to another remedial technology. The purpose of analyzing changes to selected
innovative technologies is to identify research needs and barriers to field applications of innovative
technologies. The sites were identified primarily using the Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual
Status Report, Fifth Edition, September, 1993, and OERR's ROD Annual Reports. Remedial Project
Managers (RPMs) provided additional information, such as RODs, ARODs, and ESDs.
Table S-8 summarizes the innovative technologies selected at each site, primary site contaminants,
reasons for replacing the innovative technology, and the new site remedy selected, where known. Two
sites are listed twice; soil washing followed by ex situ biodegradation were selected at both the
American Creosote Works, Inc. and Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving Co. sites.
Table S-8. Reasons for remedy change by selected innovative technology.
Site/Location
Leetown Pesticide,
Region 3, WV
American Creosote
Works, Inc.
(Pensacola), Region 4,
FL
Coleman-Evans Wood
Preserving Co., Region
4,FL
Re-Solve, Inc., Region
1.MA
Sol Lynn/Industrial
Transformers, Region
6,TX
Tenth Street Dump/
Junkyard, Region 6,
OK
Idaho Nat. Engineering
Lab. (Warm Waste
Pond), Region 10, ID
Harvey and Knott
Drum, Inc., Region 3,
DE
Selected Innovative
Remedy (ROD)
Bioremediation ex situ (land
treatment & others)
Bioremediation (ex situ)
after soil washing (see soil
washing)
Slurry phase braremediation
of wash water from soil
wash (see soil washing)
Dechlonnation following
thermal desorpton
Dechlonnation
Dechlonnation
Physical separation/Acid
extraction
Soil flushing
Primary
Contaminants
DDT and
metabolites
PAHs, PCP
PCP
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
Cesium-137
VOCs, SVOCs,
heavy metals
New Remedy
No further action
Undecided
Undecided
Thermal
desorption with
incineration of
residuals
Landfill off site
Cap
Excavate,
consolidate, cap
Disposal, cap, or
both
Reason for Remedy Change
Failure of ex situ treatability
studies, revised risk
assessment— risk not sufficient
for action
Failure of bioremediaton and
soil washing treatability studies
Dioxms discovered recently on
site
Failure of pilot dechlonnation
study (much higher than
expected waste volumes)
Multiple implementation
problems
Problems with technology at
Sol Lynn site, high cost,
possibility of increased risk
Failure of pilot-scale treatability
study
Concentrations of target
contaminants below action
levels, ineffective on metals
and target SVOCs, absence of
widespread inorganic
contamination
S-24
-------
Site/Location
U.S. Avtex, Region 5,
Ml
American Creosote
Works, Inc.
(Pensacota), Region 4,
FL
Coteman-Evans Wood
Preserving Co., Region
4.FL
Pinette's Salvage Yard,
Region 1, ME
Caldwell Trucking Co.,
Region 2, NJ
Marathon Battery
Corp., Region 2, NY
University of Minnesota
(Rosemount), Region
5, MN
Crystal Chemical Co.,
Region 6, TX
Northwest Transformer,
Region 10, WA
Selected Innovative
Remedy (ROD)
Soil flushing
Soil washing;
Bioremediation (ex situ)
(see bioremediation)
Soil washing with slurry
phase bioremediation of
wash water (see
bioremediation)
Solvent extraction
Thermal desorption
Enhanced volatilization ex
situ (thermal desorption)
Thermal desorption
In situ vitrification
In situ vitrification
Primary
Contaminants
VOCs, SVOCs
PAHs, PCP
PCP
PCBs
VOCs
VOCs
PCBs
Arsenic
PCBs
New Remedy
No action
Undecided
Undecided
Incineration, land
disposal
Incineration;
stabilization
No action for soil
VOCs
Incineration
Cap
Incineration and
disposal, soil cap
Reason for Remedy Change
Cleanup levels reached by
natural attenuation
Failure of bioremediation and
soil washing treatability studies
Dioxins discovered recently on
site
Mechanical and process
problems during implementa-
tion of full-scale unit
Failed LDR treatment
standards
VOC levels below action levels
PRP considers incineration
more cost effective
Commercial availability
delayed
Increased cost estimate, lower
contamination, commercial
availability delayed, PRP
reluctance
Selected innovative remedies have been changed at only 15 Superfund sites. The innovative tech-
nologies that have been selected and then replaced most often are in situ vitrification (66%),
dechlorination (60%), chemical treatment (33%), and solvent extraction (20%). Innovative technologies
that have been replaced less frequently include soil flushing (10%), soil washing (10%), thermal
desorption ((9%), and ex situ bioremediation (9%). Innovative technologies that have been selected but
not replaced include soil vapor extraction and in situ bioremediation. It should be noted that many sites
are still in the pre-design and design remedial stages, during which additional data may cause
reconsideration of selected remedies.
The number of innovative technology changes at Superfund sites may be greater than indicated in this
report because site managers often stipulate contingency remedies in the ROD depending on the results
of treatability studies and other investigations conducted during remedial design and remedial action.
Thus, innovative remedies may be set aside without having to prepare an amended ROD or BSD. An
example of this case is the Sangamo/Crab Orchard site, where in situ vitrification and incineration were
selected and incineration was implemented without the need for further documentation.
Polychlorinated biphenyls were the major contaminants at six of the sites in this analysis, where
dechlorination (three sites), solvent extraction, thermal desorption with vapor incineration, and in situ
S-25
-------
vitrification were selected. However, the reasons for removing these technologies as the selected
remedies were not all related directly to the contaminant. Had adequate performance data been
available, the major implementation problems that hampered performance of a full-scale dechlorination
unit at Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformer and solvent extraction at Pinette's Salvage Yard might have been
prevented. Use of a dechlorination system at the Re-Solve, Inc. site revealed technical problems with
the full-scale unit that resulted in changing the site remedy at the Re-Solve, Inc. and Tenth Street Dump
sites. The availability of an on-site incinerator at the University of Minnesota site caused the PRP to
request incineration rather than thermal desorption to lower remedial costs. In situ vitrification, which
was pilot-tested successfully at the Northwest Transformer site, was changed as the site remedy primarily
because the only manufacturer removed the technology from the market for an undetermined time.
The interval between the initial assessment of contamination levels and remedial design may have
contributed to remedy changes at several sites. VOCs and SVOCs in soil were the major contaminants
of concern at four sites. Soil flushing or thermal desorption were selected to remediate these sites.
However, during the remedial design, EPA found that concentrations of the target contaminants at three
of these sites had decreased to below action levels. As a result, treatment with soil flushing (two sites)
and thermal desorption (one site) could not be justified. At one of the sites, dioxins were discovered
about five years after the original ROD was signed.
Regulations that specify the use of certain technologies for specific waste categories may force the use
of proven technologies, creating barriers for innovative technologies. At the Caldwell Trucking Co. site,
EPA discovered after the ROD was signed that the wastes were more hazardous than previously
expected and were regulated under the Land Disposal Restrictions, which specified a standard remedy.
Treatability studies often are performed after the ROD is signed. Failure of a technology during a
treatability study influenced the remedy change at several sites. For example, at two sites treatability
studies of soil washing followed by ex situ bioremediation failed to demonstrate the efficacy of these
technologies on PAHs and PCP. Land treatment to degrade mainly DDT-contaminated soil failed in a
treatability study at the Leetown Pesticide site. The activity of cesium-137 in sediments at the Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory could not be reduced adequately in treatability studies by physical
separation/acid extraction.
S-26
-------
FEASIBILITY STUDY ANALYSIS
1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to examine information obtained from Records of Decision (RODs) and
Feasibility Studies (FSs) on the selection and elimination of source control technologies at Superfund
sites. The data compiled in this report are used to examine: 1) why innovative technologies are not
being selected more often at Superfund sites; 2) where further research and demonstrations of innovative
technologies are needed; and 3) whether certain technologies are being selected more often for particular
site types. This report is not intended as an evaluation of the Superfund technology selection process
or the efficacy of technologies selected, but to provide a baseline for an analysis of the reasons
underlying technology selection and elimination as site remedies. Further, this analysis is not intended
to repeat any previous EPA studies of site data, but rather to identify barriers to the use of innovative
technologies.
2. INTRODUCTION
This analysis was conducted by the Technology Innovation Office of the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response established the Technology
Innovation Office (TIO) to foster the development and use of innovative technologies for remediating
contaminated sites. Part of TIO's mission is to collect information oh the use of innovative technologies,
examine why innovative technologies are not used more frequently, and remove barriers to their use.
Much of the information needed to address these questions may be contained in RODs and FSs.
Abstracts of FSs have been prepared to summarize pertinent information on why technologies are being
selected for site cleanups, why innovative technologies are eliminated from consideration as remedial
technologies, and conditions at Superfund sites that may affect the selection of innovative technologies
for site remediation. The FS abstracts were compiled from information in 205 source control RODs
signed during FY91 and FY92 and their associated FSs.
Source control RODs address the remediation of contaminant sources at Superfund sites, such as soils,
sediments, sludges, solid wastes, and other solid (non-aqueous) media. Many of the RODs included in
this analysis also address contaminated groundwater and surface water; however water treatment
technologies have not been examined. This analysis does not include sites where only groundwater was
addressed, where "no action" was selected as the site remedy, and where an interim source control
remedy addressed only the removal of drums or surface debris. Contaminant sources found entirely in
the saturated zone, such as pools of DNAPLs, were not included in the analysis because they generally
are addressed using groundwater treatment methods. In addition, technologies for decontaminating
buildings were not included.
Data from the FS abstracts, RODs, and FSs were compiled into a database to enable rapid analysis of
the large amounts of data. Database fields and the appendices in which the data can be found are:
• Site Name including operable unit. Because they often have aliases, the site names used in this
report were taken from the October, 1992, National Priorities List. (See Appendix A. Site Data.}
• Region in which the site is located. (See Appendix A. Site Data.)
• State in which the site is located. (See Appendix A. Site Data.)
-------
• Site Lead, either EPA Fund, Potentially Responsible Party (PRP), or Federal Facility. (See Appendix
A. Site Data.)
• Type of Site, the activity that caused most of the contamination at the site. In many cases, more than
one activity resulted in site contamination, such as where multiple manufacturing plants are located
at the same site. In these cases, the type of site was determined based on the activity that appeared
to cause the most contamination. (See Appendix A. Site Data.)
• Contaminants found at the site that were reported in either the FS or ROD. (See Appendix A. Site
Data.)
• Maximum Concentrations of the contaminants. (See Appendix A. Site Data.)
• Volume of Wastes to be addressed, including municipal wastes, industrial wastes, and sludges. (See
Appendix A. Site Data.)
• Volume of Soils to be addressed, including surface soils, vadose zone soils, and sediments. (See
Appendix A. Site Data.)
• Technology Selected to remediate contaminated soils and wastes, including both standard and
innovative technologies. (See Appendix A. Site Data.)
• Reasons for Selection of innovative and standard technologies. (See Appendix C. Reasons for
Selection of Remedial Technologies.)
• Innovative Technologies Eliminated from consideration as a final site remedy. The elimination of
standard technologies was not examined. (See Appendix A. Site Data.)
• Reasons for Elimination of innovative technologies. Reasons for elimination of standard
technologies were not examined. (See Appendix D. Reasons for Elimination of Innovative
Technologies.)
• Stage When Innovative Technologies were Eliminated from consideration as a site remedy (the stages
of the technology selection process are discussed further below). (See Appendix D. Reasons for
Elimination of Innovative Technologies.)
• Treatability Studies conducted on technologies being considered for site remediation.
• Results of Treatability Studies including whether the treatability test was considered successful.
whether the tested technology was selected as a site remedy, and brief comments on test results.
An innovative technology is defined as a treatment technology where routine selection is inhibited at
hazardous waste sites by the lack of adequate data on cost and performance. Appendix B. Technology
Definitions includes definitions and names or aliases used in the FSs to refer to innovative and standard
technologies.
The database was used to prepare a series of reports that explored various aspects of why innovative
technologies were, or were not, selected for remediating Superfund sites during FY91 and FY92. These
reports subsequently were combined to create this final report:
• Overview of Site Data, which summarized basic site information in the FS database, including site
type, site lead, contaminants, and volume of contaminants found at the sites.
• Phase of the Technology Selection Process in which Innovative Technologies were Eliminated, which
compared reasons given for eliminating innovative technologies during the initial screening, three-
criteria screening, and detailed evaluation.
• Reasons for Elimination of Innovative Technologies, which examined the reasons given for
eliminating innovative technologies to determine the most important reasons for not selecting
individual innovative technologies.
• Reasons for Selection of Source Control Technologies, which examined the most important reasons
for selecting individual innovative technologies.
• Analysis of the Factors most Important to Remedy Selection, which examined the effects of
contaminants, volumes, site types, and other factors on the selection of innovative technologies.
-------
Analysis of Treatability Studies, which examined treatability tests conducted, whether they were
considered successful, and whether tested technologies were selected for site remediation.
Analysis of Changes to Innovative Technologies that were Selected for Site Remediation, which
examined the reasons why selected remedies that included innovative technologies were subsequently
(post-ROD) changed to a different remedy utilizing a different technology (i.e., why a selected
innovative technology was later considered inappropriate for the site).
3. OVERVIEW OF THE SITES
This section provides an overview of basic data compiled on the 205 sites in the analyses, including the
site name, Region and state in which the site is located, site lead, type of site, contaminants, and volume
of contaminated material. A number of sites are included more than once because RODs for more than
one source control operable unit were signed during FY91 and FY92. Data used in this section can be
found in Appendix A. Site Data.
3.1 Section Summary
The 205 sites are distributed unevenly across the Regions, ranging from a high of 42 sites in Region 5
to a low of eight sites in both Region 1 and Region 10. Approximately half of the 205 sites are PRP-
lead sites, 37 percent are EPA Fund-lead sites, and 13 percent are Federal Facilities.
Because there is no commonly accepted list of site types, the "type" of each site was determined based
a the activity at the site that appeared to contribute the most to site contaminant problems. Twenty
afferent site types were identified. Landfills were the most common site type. Together, municipal
landfills (38 sites) and industrial landfills (28 sites) accounted for almost one third of the 205 sites.
Data on contaminants and their concentrations found at the 205 sites were collected from FSs and RODs
to provide a baseline of site contaminant problems against which to compare technology selection. This
analysis may not contain a complete listing of all contaminants found at the 205 sites, but it does capture
the major contaminant problems. A total of 197 different contaminants or contaminant groups (such as
total PAHs) were found at the sites. The three most commonly found contaminants were lead (found
at 81 sites), arsenic (found at 74 sites), and trichloroethene (found at 56 sites). The highest reported
maximum concentration of any contaminant was a concentration of lead measured at 860,000 mg/kg (86
percent). Although there appeared to be little difference in how often organic contaminants were found
versus how often inorganic contaminants were found, the maximum reported concentrations of inorganic
contaminants were substantially higher than the maximum concentrations of organic contaminants.
Data collected on the volume of contaminated media has been divided into soil volumes (including
surface soils, subsurface soils, and sediments) and waste volumes (including solid wastes, sludges, drum
contents, and debris). Total volumes are the sum of wastes and soils at each site. At a number of sites,
reported volumes included both soils and wastes. In these cases, the entire volume is included under
the predominant media. The volume of contaminated media varies widely among the 205 sites.
Contaminated soil volumes range from 20 to 2,956,000 cubic yards, waste volumes range from six to
81,400,800 cubic yards, and total volumes range from 37 to 81,400,800 cubic yards. Waste volumes
tend to be significantly larger than soil voluntes. Waste sites comprise the 11 largest sites in terms of
the volume of contaminated media; most of these sites are municipal landfills or mining sites. Only
three sites (two percent of sites with known volumes of soil) contain more than 500,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil, but 30 sites (42 percent of sites with known volumes of wastes) contain more than
500,000 cubic yards of contaminated wastes.
-------
3.2 Regions
Figure 1 presents the number of sites in each Region for which data has been compiled. The most sites
per Region are in Region 5 (42 sites) and Region 2 (41 sites); together they account for 40 percent of
the 205 sites in this analysis. The fewest number of sites per Region are in Region 1 (eight sites),
Region 10 (eight sites), and Region 6 (nine sites).
Figure 1. Number of sites from each Region (FY91 and FY92
source control RODs).
19
41
10
i
15
I I
20 25
Number of Sites
30
35
40 45
3.3 Site Leads
Figure 2 shows the distribution of site leads among EPA Fund, PRP, and Federal Facilities.
Approximately half of the sites are PRP-lead sites, 37 percent are EPA Fund-lead sites, and 13 percent
are Federal Facilities. At PRP-lead sites, typically, the PRP conducts the Feasibility Study and
recommends a remedy, while EPA approves or changes the remedy and prepares the ROD. At EPA
Fund-lead sites, EPA conducts the Feasibility Study using Fund monies, selects a remedy, and prepares
the ROD. At Federal Facility sites, typically, the agency that owns the site prepares the Feasibility
Study and ROD under the direction of EPA's Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement.
3.4 Site Types
Figure 3 shows the number of each type of site included in this report. Because there is no commonly
accepted list of site types, the type of each site was determined based on the activity at the site that
appeared to contribute the most to site contaminant problems. Twenty different site types were
identified. Municipal landfills are the most common site type, accounting for 38 (19 percent) of the
sites. Some industrial wastes were disposed of at many of these landfills. The next most common site
types are industrial landfills (28 sites, some of which were combined municipal and industrial landfills),
chemicals and allied product sites (21 sites engaged in the manufacture, storage, and distribution of a
-------
variety of chemicals), and uncontrolled waste sites (17 sites where spills and uncontrolled dumping
occurred). The least common site types are transportation (railroad repair and maintenance facilities),
dry cleaning (two adjacent businesses in New Jersey), and construction (portland cement production
facilities).
Figure 2, Summary of site leads (FY91 and FY92
source control RODs).
Federal Facility
PRP-Lead
EPA Fund-lead
0
20
40 60 80
Number of sites
Figure 3. Summary of site types (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
Transportation
Dry Cleaning
Construction
Radiological Disposal
Petroleum Refining
Energetics (ordnance)
Coal Products
Agricultural Chemicals
Waste Oil
Electroplating
Primary Metal Products
Fabricated Metal Products
Mnng
Lumber/Wood Products
Recycling
Electrical Equipment
Uncontrolled Waste Site
Chemicals/Allied Products
Industrial Landfill
Municipal Landfill
10
15
20 25
Number of sites
30
35
40
3.5 Site Contaminants
Table 1 presents a summary of contaminants found in soils or wastes at the 205 sites. The table
includes each contaminant for which a concentration was reported in the ROD or FS, the number of sites
at which each contaminant was found, and the range of concentrations measured for each contaminant.
Concentrations are in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). This table may not contain a complete listing
-------
of all contaminants found at the 205 sites for which FY91 and FY92 source control RODs were signed.
The information in the table was obtained from FSs and RODs, and emphasizes the major contaminants
found at the sites. Other documentation in the administrative record, such as Remedial Investigations
(RIs), would need to be consulted to obtain a complete listing of all contaminants at the sites. The
purpose is to provide baseline information on the major contaminant problems at the sites against which
to compare technology selection.
The table includes 197 different contaminants or contaminant groups, such as total PAHs. Of these, 120
contaminants were found at more than one site and 77 contaminants were found at only one site. No
contaminants were reported in the FSs or RODs at 19 (9.3 percent) of the sites.
Table 1. Summary of contaminants found at the 205 sites (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
Contaminant
1,1,1-Chloroform
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 -Ethyl, 2-methylbenzene
2,4,6-Tnnrtrophenylmethyt-
mtramine
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2-Amino~4,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Hexanone
2-Methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
4-Methylnaphthalene
4-Nitrophenol
Acetone
Aldrin
Alpha-chlordane
Americium
Anthracene
Arsenic
Atrazine
No. of
Sites
1
4
11
3
8
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
16
4
3
1
6
74
1
Concentration
Range (mg/kg)
0.6
0.09 - 830
0.018-47
1.2-240
0.015-490
70 - 207
180
1
6,940
30.768
0.016-1,180
300
5.7
0.43-1,700
0.356
0.11
0.05
0.0002 - 2,540
0.21 - 170
0.045 - 520
100
0.062 - 280
0.005 - 264,000
1,809
Contaminant
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethene
1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
2.4,5-Tnchlorophenoxyacetic acid
2,4,6-Tnmtrotoluene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,6-Dmitrotoluene
2-Butanone
2-Methytnaphthalene
3,3-Dichlorabenzidine
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
4-Methylphenol
Acenaphthene
Adamsite
Alpha-BHC
Aluminum
Aniline
Antimony
Asbestos
BTEX
No. of
Sites
23
4
10
3
27
1
4
1
4
4
1
9
12
1
7
6
7
1
3
9
1
21
4
3
Concentration
flange (mg/kg)
0.01 - 23,000
0.056 - 33
0.005-1,630
0.14-752
0.015-350
0.047
3-12
1.111
87 - 500.000
0.13 - 2,000
680
0.28 - 250
0.24 - 2,000
6
7.4-1,100
0.39 - 5,400
0.037-310
134
21 - 4,370
17.9 - 355,000
72
0.01-19,000
10-1,000
20 - 10,000
-------
Table 1. Contaminants, continued.
Contaminant
Barium
Benzo(a)anthracene.
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(f)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Beryllium
Beta-PHC
Bismuth
Butytbenzylphthalate
Calcium
Carbon bisulfide
Carbonate
Chlordane
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloromethane
Chromium VI
Cobalt
Cyanide
DDE
DEHP
Delta-BHC
Di-n-octylphthalate
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Dichlorobenzene
Dichloromethane
Diethylphthalate
Dinitrotoluene
Dlsyston
Endosulfan
Endrin aldehyde
Ethyl benzene
Fluoranthrene
No. of
Sites
19
23
17
1
19
17
1
1
6
3
1
1
2
12
1
1
7
4
12
11
1
3
5
9
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
33
1
Concentration
Range (mg/kg)
0.111-47,800
0.35 - 8,000
0.757 - 30,000
280
0.5 - 30,000
0.0005 - 13.6
0.026
3,220
0.29 - 22
78,000-175,000
0.033
6,190
8.7 - 390
0.0001-414
5.9
2.5
0.7 - 87
0.3 - 81
0.011-4,520
0.003 - 8,410
4,000
19-315
5
0.046 - 500
0.75 - 242
990
0.12-0.15
20
280
0.006 - 3,000
0.013
0.017 - 18,000
18
Contaminant
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b/k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzoic add
Beta-BHC
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bladex
Cadmium
Carbazole
Carbon tetrachloride
Cesium-137
Chloroacetophenone
Chlorobenzilate
Chloroform
Chromium
Chrysene
Copper
ODD
DDT
DNOP
Di-n-butylphthalate
Diazinon
Dibenzofuran
Dichloroethene
Dieldrin
Dimethoate
Dioxin
EDB
Endrin
Endrin ketone
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
No. of
Sites
32
24
2
9
7
3
24
1
40
1
3
1
1
1
9
42
23
33
11
15
1
12
2
3
1
7
1
9
1
1
1
13
4
Concentration
Range (mg/kg)
0.001 - 5,650
0.092 - 2,337
1.4-31
0.19 - 5.3
0.0013 - 66
1.3-751
0.001 - 29,000
23
0.007-127,000
77.3
3.8 - 18,000
0.8
3
650
0.003 - 19,000
0.025 - 328,000
0.081 - 6.051
0.075 - 467.000
0.0042 - 8,590
0.004 - 3,780
720
0.014 - 280
720 - 786
0.804 - 7.325
0.072
0.2 - 100
24
0.0033 - 42.7
6.7
70
0.28
0.4 - 280
4.2 - 250
-------
Table 1. Contaminants, continued.
Contaminant
Fluoride
Gamma-BHC
HMX
Heptachlor epoxide
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Lead
Manganese
Methanol
Methylene chloride
Mustard
Naphthalene
None specified
Ortho-nitroaniline
PHC
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Plutonium
Potassium
Pyrene
Radium-226
Silver
Sodium
Sulfate
Tetrachlorobenzene
Thallium
?-
Tin
Total PAHs
Total SVOCs
Total aromatic hydrocarbons
Total chlorinated benzenes
Total chlorinated ethenes
Total dioxins/furans
No. of
Sites
1
4
1
4
18
4
81
11
1
18
1
23
19
1
1
7
7
1
1
19
1
8
2
1
2
2
1
21
3
1
1
1
2
Concentration
Range (mg/kg)
510,000
3.2 - 753
0.1
0.002 - 20
0.2-500
0.246 - 6.5
0.083 • 860,000
0.843 - 68,100
60
0.023 - 480
5,000
0.11 -17,000
0
95,000
2,100
0.39 • 8,600
3.2-11,000
457
4,900
0.064 - 17,861
570
0.013 - 290
2,900 - 23,300
405,000
200-1,600
0.002 - 0.9
224
0.323 - 104,600
1.2-74,032
4,800
11
1,110
0.001 - 0.0015
Contaminant
Freon113
Gamma-chlordane
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Iron
Isopropene
Magnesium
Mercury
Methyl ethyl ketone
Molybdenum
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Nickel
0,p-dichlorobenzene
PCB
Pentachlorobenzene
Phenanthrene
Phorate
Polymethyl methacrylate
Prometryn
RDX
Selenium
Simazine
Styrene
Sulfur
Tetrachloroethene
Thiodiglycol
Toluene
Total PNAs
Total VOCs
Total chlorinated VOCs
Total chlorinated ethanes
Total chromium
Total fuel hydrocarbons
No. of
Sites
1
2
6
4
8
1
3
21
3
3
5
20
1
45
2
15
1
1
1
2
9
1
6
1
43
1
41
3
6
1
1
7
1
Concentration
Range (mg/kg)
230
0.049 - 890
0.011-920
2.2 - 66
54.9 - 620,000
0.24
7,900-81,000
0.27 - 4,130
0.22 - 405
. 43 - 48,800
0.12-170
0.033 - 218,000
97
0.011-49,000
60-700
0.073 • 14.000
2.000
1,900
4,029
0.66-1.3
0.002 - 7,980
321
0.015-3,800
164,000
0.004-2,100
120
0.002 - 6,360
270 - 880
1.7-3,991
4,030
11
27.5 - 49,000
11,000
-------
Table I. Contaminants, continued.
Contaminant
Total hydrocarbons
Total metals
Total pesticides
Total phenols
Total xylenes
Trichlorobenzene
Trichloromethane
Tritium
Vinyl chloride
No. of
Sites
1
1
1
4
42
1
1
1
4
Concentration
Range (mg/kg)
43,000
13,000
0.014
0.13 - 20,000
0.0028-11,000
80
0.4
560,000
0.11-1.7
Contaminant
Total ketones
Total organics
Total petroleum hydrocarbons
Total phthalates
Toxaphene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Vanadium
Zinc
No. of
Sites
1
1
5
2
3
56
1
7
37
Concentration
Range (mg/kg)
0.7
140,000
4.031 - 700,000
0.15 - 5,600
0.52-15,000
0.004 - 8,300
12,000
0.052 - 100
0.244 - 754,000
Figure 4 presents the ten most commonly found inorganic contaminants at the 205 sites, and Figure 5
presents the ten most commonly found organic contaminants. The most common contaminant in the
soils/wastes at the 205 sites is lead, which was reported at 81 (40 percent) of the sites. The next most
common contaminant is another inorganic contaminant, arsenic, which was found at 74 (36 percent) of
the sites. The most common organic contaminant is trichloroethene, which was found at 56 (27 percent)
of the sites.
Figure 4. Ten most commonly found inorganic contaminants
(FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
(May not represent all contaminants at the 205 sites.)
10
T
50 60
Number of sites
i
70
I
80
90
The ten most common organic contaminants are found at an average of 36.7 sites, while the ten most
common inorganic contaminants are found at an average of 39.5 sites out of the 205 sites studied. There
-------
appears to be little difference in frequency of occurrence between the most common organic and
inorganic contaminants.
Figure 5. Ten most commonly found organic contaminants
(FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
(May not represent all contaminants at the 205 sites.)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Benzo(a)pyrene
1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Tetrachloroethene
PCB
Trichloroethene
I
20 30 40
Number of sites
50
GO
Figure 6 presents the ten inorganic contaminants that were found at the highest maximum
concentrations, and Figure 7 presents the ten organic contaminants that were found at the highest
maximum concentrations. Figures 6 and 7 do not include contaminants measured at only one site. The
inorganic contaminant found at the highest maximum concentration is lead, measured at 860,000 mg/kg.
Contaminants at concentrations of 10,000 mg/kg account for one percent of the weight of a sample.
Therefore, the lead measurement of 860,000 mg/kg is equivalent to 86 percent lead. The organic
contaminant found at the highest maximum concentration is 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene, which was measured
in one sample at 500,000 mg/kg.
All ten of the inorganic contaminants in Figure 6 are found at maximum concentrations of greater than
100,000 mg/kg. However, only one of the organic contaminants in Figure 7 is found at a maximum
concentration greater than 100,000 mg/kg. It appears that the inorganic contaminants are found at
substantially higher maximum concentrations than organic contaminants.
Contaminants were measured at a number of sites as groups of contaminants, such as total PAHs or total
VOCs, rather than individual contaminants. Figure 8 presents the maximum concentrations of the ten
groups of organic contaminants found at the highest levels. The organic contaminant group found at
the highest concentration was total petroleum hydrocarbons, which was measured at 700,000 mg/kg.
In general, groups of organic contaminants were found at higher maximum concentrations than individual
organic contaminants, but at lower levels th'ari individual inorganic contaminants.
10
-------
Figure 6. Ten highest concentrations of inorganics for FY91 and FY92
source control RODs (contaminants found at more than one site).
(May not represent all contaminants at the 205 sites.)
600
Concentration (in 1,000 mg/kg)
800
1000
Figure 7. Ten highest concentrations of organics for FY91 and FY92
source control RODs (contaminants found at more than one site).
(May noi represent all contaminants at the 205 silo. )
Pyrenell75
Ethy1benzenell8
Carbon tetrachloridellS
Chloroform 119
1,1,1-TrichloroethaneH23
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
PCB
f.
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene
l~~ i i
300 400
Concentration (in 1,000 mg/kg)
11
-------
Figure 8. Ten highest concentrations of groups of organics for
FY92 and FY92 source control RODs.
(May not represent all contaminants at the 205 sites.)
Aromatic hydrocarbons
Phthalates
BTEXllO
Fuel hydrocarbons 111
Phenols |20
Hydrocarbons H43
SVOCs
PAHs
Organics
Petroleum hydrocarbons
I i i
300
Concentration (in 1,000 mg/kg)
3.6 Volume of Contaminated Media
Data on contaminated media has been divided into soils (surface soils, subsurface soils, sediments) and
wastes (solid wastes, sludges, drum contents, debris). Contaminant concentrations in wastes and sludges
typically are higher than concentrations in contaminated soils. Total volumes are the sum of wastes and
soils at each site. At a number of sites, reported volumes of contaminated materials included both soils
and wastes. In these cases, the entire volume is included under the predominant media.
The volume of contaminated media varies widely among the 205 sites. Contaminated soil volumes
range from 20 cubic yards at the Wrigley Charcoal Plant to 2,956,000 cubic yards at the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory. Waste volumes range from 6 cubic yards at the Industrial Latex Corp.
(OU-1) to 81,400,800 cubic yards at Torch Lake (OU-1 & OU-3). Total volumes range from 37 cubic
yards at Advanced Micro Devices to 81,400,800 cubic yards at Torch Lake (OU-1 & OU-3).
Figure 9 presents the volume of contaminated soils at each site. Volumes are in cubic yards and are
grouped into ranges. No contaminated soil will be addressed at 53 of the sites and an unknown volume
of soil will be addressed at 10 sites. Of the 142 sites at which a known volume of soil will be
addressed, the most common volume (46 sites) lies within the range of 10,001 to 50,000 cubic yards.
The next most common volume (24 sites) of contaminated soil lies within the range of 1,001 to 5,000
cubic yards. The volume of soil to be addressed at 104 (73 percent) of the sites is less than 50,000
cubic yards.
Figure 10 presents the volume of contaminated waste material at each site. No waste material will be
addressed at 126 of the operable units and an unknown volume of waste material will be addressed at
seven of the sites. Of the 72 sites at which a known volume of waste will be addressed, the most
common volume (19 sites) lies within the range of 1,000,001 to 10,000,000 cubic yards. The next most
12
-------
common volume of waste material (16 sites) lies within the range of 100,001 to 500,000 cubic yards.
The volume of waste to be addressed at 49 (68 percent) of the sites is greater than 50,000 cubic yards.
Figure 9. Volume of contaminated soils for FY91 and FY92
source control RODs (soil volume at 10 sites unknown).
> 10,000,000 |o
1,000,001 to 10,000,000
500,001 to 1,000,000 |1
100,001to500,000
50,001 to 100,000
10,001 to 50,000
5,001 to 10,000
1,001 to 5,000
••"«•
None
I i T
0 10 20
Number of sites
Figure 10. Volume of contaminated waste material for FY91 and FY92
source control RODs (waste volume at 7 sites unknown).
> 10,000,000
1,000,0011010,000,000
500,001 to 1,000,000
100,001 to 500,000
50,001 to 100,000
10,001 to 50,000
5,001 to 10,000
1,001 to 5,000
yat »*> 1,000
None
20
40 60 83
Number of sites
13
-------
Figure 11 presents the total volume of contaminated material to be addressed at each site. The volume
of soil and waste to be addressed was riot specified in the RODs or FSs of 16 sites. Of the 189 sites
at which a known volume of contaminated material will be addressed, 55 sites (29 percent) contain
volumes of contaminated material less than 10,000 cubic yards, and 134 sites (71 percent) contain
volumes of contaminated material greater than 10,001 cubic yards.
Sites at which waste material will be addressed clearly tend to be larger than sites at which only soil
will be addressed. Waste sites comprise the 11 largest sites in terms of the volume of contaminated
media; most of these sites are municipal landfills or mining sites. Only three sites (two percent of sites
with known volumes of soil) contain more than 500,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil, but 30 sites
(42 percent of sites with known volumes of wastes) contain more than 500,000 cubic yards of
contaminated wastes.
Figure 11. Total volume of contaminated materials for FY91 and
FY92 source control RODs (volume at 16 sites unknown).
> 10,000,000 • 2
1,000,001 to 10,000,000
500,001 to 1,000,000
100,001 to 500,000
50,001 to 100,000
10,001to 50,000
5,001 to 10,000
1,001 to 5.000
0 to 1,000
Cube
yards
None
30
Number of sites
I
40
50
4. SOURCE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES CONSIDERED FOR SITE CLEANUP
This section presents an overview of the source control technologies that were considered for cleaning
up Superfund sites at which RODs were signed during FY91 and FY92. Data on the technologies
selected and innovative technologies eliminated at each site can be found in Appendix A. Site Data.
4.1 Section Summary
The process of evaluating the ability of technologies to achieve site cleanup goals and selecting remedies
at Superfund sites typically consists of three steps: an initial screening to determine which technologies
are technically feasible; a three-criteria screening to determine which technologies can satisfy the three
14
-------
criteria of implementability, effectiveness, and cost; and a detailed evaluation to determine which
technologies can best satisfy the nine criteria established by the NCP.
Technologies that use essentially the same process for treating contaminants are grouped together so that
the reasons for selecting or eliminating the technology can be directly related to a specific, core
treatment process. Twenty different innovative technologies were considered during the technology
selection process at the 205 sites. Eight innovative technologies were considered over 100 times, four
were considered between 50 and 100 times, four were considered between 10 and 49 times, and four
were considered less than ten times.
Standard and innovative technologies together were considered a total of 4,765 times at the 205 sites;
1,487 of these were innovative technologies and 3,278 were standard technologies, including institutional
controls, excavation, treatment, and containment technologies. On average, 23.2 technologies were
considered per site, and of these, 16.0 were standard technologies and 7.2 were innovative technologies.
Of the 1,487 times innovative technologies were considered at the 205 sites, they were eliminated 1,380
times: 1,036 during the initial screening; 211 during the three-criteria screening; and 133 during the
detailed evaluation. Innovative technologies were selected to be part of the site remedy 107 times.
More innovative technologies were evaluated per site at Fund-lead sites during the initial screening,
three-criteria screening, and detailed evaluation stages. However, a higher number of innovative
technologies per site were actually selected at PRP-lead sites (0.57 innovative technologies per site) than
at Fund-lead (0.48 innovative technologies per site) or Federal Facility lead sites (0.46 innovative
technologies per site).
4.2 Technology Selection Process
The process of evaluating the ability of technologies to achieve site cleanup goals and selecting remedies
at Superfund sites typically consists of three steps:
• Initial screening. A wide range of potential technologies are examined, and those that are not
considered technically feasible for remediating the site are eliminated. Usually, this is followed by
development of Remedial Action Alternatives (RAAs), which include all of the actions necessary
to clean up a site, including institutional controls, debris removal, excavation, treatment (in situ, on-
site, or off-site), containment, and disposal of treatment residues.
• Three-criteria screening. RAAs are examined based upon the three criteria of implementability,
effectiveness, and cost. Those alternatives that will not meet the remedial action objectives are
eliminated. In some cases, individual technologies are examined based on the three criteria, and
RAAs subsequently are developed that undergo detailed evaluation.
• Detailed evaluation. RAAs are examined based upon their ability to satisfy the nine criteria
established by the NCP: protectiveness of human health and the environment; compliance with
ARARs; long-term effectiveness and permanence; short-term effectiveness; reduction in contaminant
mobility, toxicity, or volume; implementability; cost; state/support agency acceptance; and
community acceptance.
A preferred remedy may be proposed either in the FS or Proposed Plan. In some cases, the preferred
remedy in the FS or Proposed Plan is altered in the Record of Decision. The final remedy for the site
is selected in the ROD; however, this subsequently may be changed through an Amended ROD (AROD)
15
-------
or an Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) if a change is determined to be necessary based on
new information collected during the remedial design or remedial action phases.
4.3 Innovative Technologies Considered
Table 2 lists the 20 innovative technologies that were considered during the technology selection process
at the 205 sites. In addition, an "unspecified" innovative technology, to be determined during remedial
design, was selected at one site. Technologies that use essentially the same process for treating
contaminants are grouped together so that the reasons for selecting or eliminating the technology can
be directly related to a specific, core treatment process. For example, low temperature thermal
desorption includes a number of vendor-specific techniques for heating contaminated media to volatilize
and separate contaminants. Because some FSs did not distinguish between in situ biodegradation and
ex situ biodegradation, the term "biodegradation" is a more general group of biologically based remedial
technologies. Definitions for each technology and the different names by which each technology is
referred to in the FSs and RODs are included in Appendix B. Technology Definitions.
One result of this grouping of innovative technologies is that more than one individual technology within
the same technology group may be considered at a single site. For example, solid phase biodegradation
and slurry phase biodegradation often are considered at the same site, with the result that ex situ
biodegradation was counted as having been considered twice at the same site. Therefore, the second
column of Table 2, number of times innovative technologies were considered, does not necessarily
reflect the number of sites at which particular technologies were considered.
Table 2. Summary of innovative technologies considered for site remediation in FY91 and FY92
source control RODs (see Appendix B for technology definitions).
Number of Times Eliminated
Technologies Considered
Ex situ biodegradation
In situ vitrification
Soil flushing
Other thermal (ex situ)
Soil vapor extraction
In situ biodegradation
Soil washing
Solvent extraction
Low temperature thermal desorption
Biodegradation
In situ heating
Dechlorination
Chemical treatment (in situ)
Chemical treatment (ex situ)
No of Times
Evaluated
146
140
138
138
125
124
118
103
94
90
77
50
47
42
Initial
Screening
110
97
96
111
59
89
73
69
50
71
61
33
42
35
3-Cntena
Screening
19
28
24
22
7
13
24
18
12
10
13
6
3
6
by Phase
Detailed
Evaluation
11
14
9
5
9
12
16
15
22
3
2
8
2
0
No of Times
Selected
8
1
9
0
50
10
5
1
10
6
1
3
0
1
16
-------
Number of Times Eliminated by Phase
Technologies Considered .•
Metallurgical processes
Electrokinetics
Soil cooling/freezing
Soil vapor extraction (ex situ)
Vegetative uptake
UV radiation
Unspecified innovative technology*
Innovative Totals
*At the Brown's Battery Breaking site,
No. of Times
Evaluated
21
10
9
6
5
1
1
1,487
an unspecified innovative
Initial
Screening
13
8
9
4
5
1
0
1,036
technology would
3-Criteria
Screening
3
2
0
1
0
0
0
211
be selected
Detailed No. of Times
Evaluation Selected
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
133
during the remedial design
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
107
phase.
Figure 12 presents the 20 innovative technologies that were considered at the 205 sites. Eight
innovative technologies were considered over 100 times at the 205 sites. The most often considered
Figure 12. Number of innovative technologies considered
in FY91 and FY92 source control RODs.
UV radiation 11
Vegetative uptake
Soil vapor extraction (ex situ)
Soil coding/freezing
Electrokinetics
Metallurgical processes
Chemical treatment (ex situ)
Chemical treatment (in situ)
Dechlorination
In situ heating
Biodegradation
Low temperature thermal desorption
Solvent extraction
Soil washing
In situ biodegradation
Soil vapor extraction
Other thermal (ex situ)
Soil flushing
In situ vitrification
Ex situ biodegradation
118
40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Number of innovative technologies
17
-------
technology was ex situ biodegradation (148 times), followed by in situ vitrification (140 times), soil
flushing (138 times), other thermal (ex situ) (138 times), in situ soil vapor extraction (125 times), in situ
biodegradation (124 times), soil washing (118 times), and solvent extraction (103 times). Four
innovative technologies were considered between 50 and 100 times—low temperature thermal
desorption, biodegradation, in situ heating, and dechlorination. Four innovative technologies were
considered between 10 and 49 times—chemical treatment (in situ), chemical treatment (ex situ),
metallurgical processes, and electrokinetics. Four technologies were considered less than ten times—soil
cooling/freezing, ex situ soil vapor extraction, vegetative uptake, and UV radiation.
A total of 4,765 technologies were considered at the 205 sites; 1,487 of these were innovative
technologies and 3,278 were standard technologies, including institutional controls, excavation, treatment,
and containment technologies. On average, 23.2 technologies were considered per site, and of these,
16.0 were standard technologies and 7.2 were innovative technologies.
Of the 1,487 times innovative technologies were considered, they were selected to be part of the site
remedy 107 times. Therefore, innovative technologies were eliminated 1,380 times at the 205 sites:
1,036 during the initial screening; 211 during the three-criteria screening; and 133 during the detailed
evaluation.
Figure 13 presents the total number of innovative technologies at each stage of the selection process and
breaks out the total by Fund-lead, PRP-lead, and Federal Facility sites. During the initial screening,
1,487 innovative technologies were considered at the 205 sites. During the three-criteria screening, 451
innovative technologies were evaluated (30.3 percent of the total number of innovative technologies
Figure 13. Number of innovative technologies at each stage of the remedy
selection process (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
37 12
Selected
Detailed evaluation
Three criteria screening
Initial screening
O Fed facility
Q Fund
• PRP
1,487
I
200
T
400
I
600
I
800
I
1000
I
1200
1400
1600
Number of innovative technologies
18
-------
considered). During the detailed evaluation, 240 innovative technologies were evaluated (16.1 percent
of the innovative technologies considered). One hundred and seven innovative technologies (7.7 percent
of the innovative technologies considered) were selected for use in site cleanups.
Table 3 shows the average number of innova- Table 3. Average number of innovative tech-
tive technologies considered by the three nologies considered at each stage of selection
different site leads at each stage of the process (FY91-92 source control RODs).
technology selection process. More
innovative technologies were examined per
Technology PRP Fund Federal Total
Selection Phase Facility
Initial screening 7.38 7.51 6.00 7.25
3-criteria screening 2.10 2.45 1.85 2.20
Detailed evaluation 1.19 1.26 1.04 1.17
Selected 0.57 0.48 0.46 0.52
site at Fund-lead sites during the initial
screening, three-criteria screening, and
detailed evaluation stages. However, a
higher number of innovative technologies per
site were actually selected at PRP-lead sites
(0.57 innovative technologies per site) than at
Fund-lead (0.48 innovative technologies per
site) or Federal Facility lead sites (0.46
innovative technologies per site).
No innovative technologies were considered at 21 of the 205 sites. Of these 21 sites, seven were Federal
Facility sites (26.9 percent of all Federal Facility sites), eight were Fund-lead sites (10.4 percent of all
Fund-lead sites), and six were PRP-lead sites (5.9 percent of all PRP-lead sites). The higher percentage
of Federal Facility sites that did not consider any innovative technologies probably resulted in the
relatively lower average number of technologies considered per Federal Facility site.
5. TECHNOLOGIES SELECTED FOR SOURCE CONTROL
This section summarizes the standard and innovative technologies selected at the 205 sites and examines
factors at Superfund sites that may affect the selection of source control technologies. The factors
examined are site leads, site types, contaminants and their maximum concentrations, and volume of
contaminated material. Data on the standard and innovative technologies selected at each site can be
found in Appendix A. Site Data.
5.1 Section Summary
Of the 20 different innovative technologies considered at the 205 sites, seven of the innovative
technologies were not selected as a final remedy at any site. The most selected innovative technology
was soil vacuum extraction, which was selected at 50 sites. Low temperature thermal desorption was
selected at 10 sites, in situ biodegradation also was selected at 10 sites, and soil flushing was selected
at nine sites. Other innovative technologies selected more than once include ex situ biodegradation
selected at eight sites, biodegradation selected at six sites, soil washing selected at five sites, and
dechlorination selected at three sites. Innovative technologies selected at only one site include chemical
treatment (ex situ), solvent extraction, in situ vitrification, in situ heating, and metallurgical processes.
Eight different standard technologies were selected at the 205 sites, including unspecified technologies
that would be determined during the remedial design phase. The standard technology selected most
frequently was capping, which was selected at 101 sites. Disposal was selected 70 times; solidification/
stabilization was selected 48 times; incineration was selected 22 times; in situ solidification/stabilization
was selected nine times; institutional controls were selected as the only site remedy at three sites;
19
-------
recycling/recovery was selected at one site; and an unspecified treatment was selected at four sites.
Standard technologies were selected for treatment of residuals and as contingent remedies far more often
than innovative technologies.
In general, the Regions with the most sites selected the most innovative technologies. Across all
Regions, the overall average number of innovative technologies selected per site is 0.52 innovative
technologies. The individual Regional averages ranged fairly closely around this the overall average.
Region 4, with 22 sites, selected 0.91 innovative technologies per site, which was the highest average
number of innovative technologies selected by a Region. This high average for Region 4 primarily
reflects the eight innovative technologies selected at the two Ciba-Geigy sites. Region 3, with 30 sites,
selected 0.37 innovative technologies per site, which was the lowest average number of innovative
technologies selected by a Region. The average for Region 3 was lowered by six landfill sites where
capping was selected as the only site remedy.
A variety of standard and innovative technologies were selected by each of the three types of site leads
—Fund-lead, PRP-lead, and Federal Facility. Eleven different innovative technologies and six different
standard technologies were selected at Fund-lead sites. Ten different innovative technologies and eight
different standard technologies were selected at PRP-lead sites. Five different innovative technologies
and five different standard technologies were selected at Federal Facilities.
Because there is no commonly accepted list of site types, site types were determined for this analysis
based on the activity at the site that appeared to contribute the most to site contaminant problems. For
each of the site types the following technologies were selected:
• Municipal landfills (38 sites). Eight different technologies were selected at an average of 1.3
technologies per site. Capping was by far the most commonly selected technology. Capping was
selected 37 times compared to 13 times for the selection of all other technologies combined.
• Industrial landfills (28 sites). Ten different technologies were selected at an average of 1.7
technologies per site. Capping (16 times) was the most commonly selected technology, followed
by disposal (11 times), soil vapor extraction (five times), solidification/stabilization (four times), and
in situ solidification/stabilization (four times).
• Chemicals/allied products (21 sites). Fourteen different technologies were selected at an average of
2.2 technologies per site. Soil vapor extraction (nine times) was the most commonly selected
technology, followed by disposal (seven times), solidification/stabilization (five times), capping (four
times), and soil flushing (four times).
• Uncontrolled waste sites (17 sites). Eleven different technologies were selected at an average of 1.5
technologies per site. Soil vapor extraction (six times) was the most commonly selected technology,
followed by disposal (five times), capping (five times), and soil flushing (two times).
• Electrical equipment (14 sites). Eight different technologies were selected at an average of 1.6
technologies per site. Soil vapor extraction (seven times) was the most commonly selected
technology, followed by disposal (four times), capping (four times), and solidification/stabilization
(three times).
• Recycling (14 sites). Ten different technologies were selected at an average of 2.7 technologies per
site. Solidification/stabilization (10 times) was the most commonly selected technology, followed
by disposal (eight times), capping (six times), soil vapor extraction (five times), and low temperature
thermal desorption (three times).
• Lumber and wood products (nine sites). Eleven different technologies were selected at an average
of 2.4 technologies per site. Disposal (seven times) was the most commonly selected technology,
followed by solidification/stabilization (four times), capping (two times), and biodegradation (two
times).
20
-------
• Mining (nine sites). Two different technologies were selected at an average of 1.3 technologies per
site. Capping was selected nine times and solidification/stabilization was selected three times.
• Fabricated metal products (eight sites). Four different technologies were selected at an average of
1.4 technologies per site. Soil vapor extraction (six times) was the most commonly selected
technology, followed by disposal (three times)..
• Primary metal products (eight sites). Five different technologies were selected at an average of 2.1
technologies per site. Capping (six times) was the most commonly selected technology, followed
by solidification/stabilization (five times), disposal (four times), and biodegradation (two times).
• Electroplating (six sites). Three different technologies were selected at an average of 1.7
technologies per site. Disposal (five times) was the most commonly selected technology, followed
by soil vapor extraction (three times), and solidification/stabilization (two times).
• Waste oil (six sites). Seven different technologies were selected at an average of 2.0 technologies
per site. Disposal (three times) was the most commonly selected technology, followed by capping
(three times), and solidification/stabilization (two times).
• Agricultural chemicals (five sites). Seven different technologies were selected at an average of 2.4
technologies per site. Solidification/stabilization (three times) was the most commonly selected
technology, followed by capping (three times).
• Coal products (four sites). Five different technologies were selected at an average of 2.0
technologies per site. Disposal (two times), in situ biodegradation (two times), and incineration (two
times) were the most commonly selected technologies.
• Energetics/ordnance (four sites). Five different technologies were selected at an average of 2.0
technologies per site. Disposal (three times) was the most commonly selected technology, followed
by incineration (two times).
• Petroleum refining (four sites). Eight different technologies were selected at an average of 2.7
technologies per site. Capping (two times), in situ biodegradation (two times), and disposal (two
times) were the most commonly selected technologies.
• Radiological disposal (four sites). Two different technologies were selected at an average of 1.0
technology per site. Capping (two times) and soil vapor extraction (two times) were the only
technologies selected.
• Construction (two sites). Three different technologies were selected at an average of 1.5
technologies per site. Disposal (two times) was the most common!) selected technology.
• Dry cleaning (two sites). One different technologies were selected at an average of 1.0 technology
per site. Soil vapor extraction (two times) was the only technology selected
• Transportation (two sites). Four different technologies were selected at an average of 2.0
technologies per site. Disposal (two times) was the most commonly selected technology.
The widest variety of technologies were selected at chemicals and allied products sites (14 different
technologies selected at 21 sites), lumber and wood products sites (12 different technologies selected at
nine sites), uncontrolled waste sites (11 different technologies selected at 17 sites), and industrial
landfills (11 different technologies selected at 28 sites). Relatively few different technologies were
selected at municipal landfills (mostly capping), mining sites (two different technologies selected at nine
sites), electroplating sites (three different technologies selected at six sites), radiological disposal sites
(two different technologies selected at four sites), and dry cleaning sites (a single technology selected
at both sites).
Information on site contaminants was compared to technologies selected at sites contaminated by: both
organic and inorganic contaminants; only organic contaminants; only inorganic contaminants; PCBs; and
trichloroethylene (TCE) or tetrachloroethylene (PCE). Technologies selected for treatment of residuals
are not included because information on contaminant concentrations in treatment residuals will only be
available during remedial action. Technologies selected as a contingent remedy are not included in the
tables because contingent remedies may not be invoked at the sites.
21
-------
At sites contaminated with both organics and inorganics, by far the most commonly selected technology
was capping (22 times). Five other technologies were selected more than twice at these sites: soil vapor
extraction (nine times), solidification/stabilization (seven times), disposal (six times), low temperature
thermal desorption (four times), and institutional controls (three times). Technologies selected to address
high concentrations of mixed organic and inorganic contaminants include capping, solidification/
stabilization, disposal, and soil vapor extraction.
At sites contaminated only with organics, by far the most commonly selected technology was soil vapor
extraction (19 times). The only other technology selected more than twice for these sites was capping
(six times). Technologies selected to address high concentrations of organic contaminants include
incineration, soil vapor extraction, and soil washing.
At sites contaminated only with inorganics, by far the most commonly selected technology was
solidification/stabilization (12 times). Capping (five times) and disposal (three times) were the only
other technologies selected more than once for these sites. Technologies selected to address high
concentrations of inorganics include solidification/stabilization, metallurgical processes, capping, and soil
washing.
At sites contaminated by PCBs, capping (seven times) was the most commonly selected remedy. Soil
vapor extraction (five times), solidification/stabilization (four times), low temperature thermal desorption
(three times), incineration (three times), and disposal (three times) were the only other technologies
selected more than once for these sites. Technologies selected to address high concentrations of PCBs
were low temperature thermal desorption, biodegradation, and incineration.
At sites contaminated by TCE or PCE, soil vapor extraction (eight times) was the only technology
selected more than once. Soil vapor extraction also was selected to address the highest concentrations
of TCE and PCE.
Data on contaminated media was divided into soils (surface soils, subsurface soils, and sediments) and
wastes (solid wastes, sludges, drum contents, and debris). Total volumes are the sum of wastes and soils
at each site. Technologies selected were compared to sites with only contaminated soils, sites with onl>
contaminated wastes, and sites with both contaminated soils and wastes. Technologies selected for
treatment of residuals are not included because information on volumes of treatment residuals will only
be available during remedial action. Technologies selected as a contingent remedy are not included in
the tables because contingent remedies may not be invoked at the sites.
At sites where the contaminated media is soils, soil vapor extraction (36 times), solidification/
stabilization (30 times), disposal (30 times), and capping (20 times) were most commonly selected. At
sites where the contaminated media is wastes, capping (35 times) was by far selected most often. Only
capping and disposal were selected at sites where the volume of contaminated wastes was greater than
ten million cubic yards. A wide variety of technologies were selected at sites where the contaminated
media included both soils and wastes. Disposal was selected most often (nine times), followed by
capping (eight times), solidification/stabilization (five times), and incineration (five times). Soil vapor
extraction, low temperature thermal desorption, and ex situ biodegradation were each selected three times
at these sites.
5.2 Innovative and Standard Technologies Selected
A total of 365 technologies were selected to clean up the 205 sites, including 107 innovative
technologies (at 82 sites) and 258 standard technologies. On average, 1.26 standard technologies (not
including excavation and institutional controls) and 0.52 innovative technologies were selected per site.
22
-------
A single technology was selected at 101 of the sites, two technologies were selected at 64 sites, three
technologies were selected at 30 sites, four technologies were selected at six sites, and five technologies
were selected at three sites. Seven technologies, including three contingent technologies, were selected
at one site.
More than one technology was selected at sites where: 1) different technologies were selected for
primary treatment or containment of different contaminant sources; 2) a "treatment train" approach was
employed where a primary treatment technology would produce residuals to be treated by a second
technology; and 3) a contingent technology was specified in the ROD to be used if the selected
technology fails to meet cleanup objectives.
Typically, when more than one technology was selected at a site, the additional technologies (innovative
or standard) were intended for primary treatment or containment of different contaminant sources at the
same site, rather than for treating residuals. Innovative technologies were selected 97 times (90 percent)
for primary treatment, five times for treatment of residuals, and five times as a contingent (or "if
needed") remedy. Standard technologies were selected 189 times (73 percent) for primary treatment/
containment, 57 times (22 percent) for treatment/containment of residuals, and 12 times (5 percent) for
use if needed.
Figure 14 presents the innovative technologies that were selected for site remediation and the number
of times each was chosen. Thirteen different innovative technologies were selected and an additional,
unspecified, innovative technology was selected at the Brown's Battery Breaking site. Of the 20
different innovative technologies considered at the 205 sites, seven of the innovative technologies were
not selected as a final remedy at any site.
Figure 14. Innovative technologies selected as site remedy for
FY91 and FY92 source control RODs.
Unspecified innovative technology
Metallurgical processes
In situ heating
In situ vitrification
Solvent extraction
Chemical treatment (ex situ)
Dechlorination
Soil washing
Biodegradation
Ex situ biodegradation
Soil flushing
In situ biodegradation
Low temp, thermal desorption
Soil vapor extraction
D IfNeeded
E3 Residuals
• Primary
0
10
20 30
Number of sites
40
23
-------
Of the 20 different innovative technologies considered at the 205 sites, seven of the innovative
technologies were not selected as a final remedy at any site. The most selected innovative technology
was soil vacuum extraction, which was selected at 50 sites. Low temperature thermal desorption was
selected at 10 sites, in situ biodegradation also was selected at 10 sites, and soil flushing was selected
at nine sites. Other innovative technologies selected more than once include ex situ biodegradation
selected at eight sites, biodegradation selected at six sites, soil washing selected at five sites, and
dechlorination selected at three sites. Innovative technologies selected at only one site include chemical
treatment (ex situ), solvent extraction, in situ vitrification, in situ heating, and metallurgical processes.
Figure 15 presents the standard technologies selected for site remediation and the number of times each
was chosen. Seven different standard technologies were selected and an unspecified technology was
selected at four sites. Incineration and disposal include both on-site and off-site use.
Figure 15. Standard technologies selected as site remedy for FY91 and
FY92 source control RODs.
(* Institutional controls selected as only site remedy.)
Recycling/recovery
'Institutional controls
Unspecified treatment
In situ solidification/stabil.
Incineration
Solidification/stabilization
Disposal
Capping
D If Needed
E2 Residuals
• Primary
GO
Number of sites
The standard technology selected most frequently was capping, which was selected at 101 sites; 70 times
as a primary technology and 31 times for containing residuals. Disposal was selected 70 times; 41 times
as the primary remedy, 23 times for containing or treating residuals, and six times as a contingent
remedy. Solidification/stabilization was selected 48 times; 42 times as the primary remedy, three times
for treatment of residuals, and three times as a contingent remedy. Incineration was selected 22 times;
20 times as a primary remedy and twice as a contingent remedy. In situ solidification/stabilization was
selected nine times, all as a primary remedy. Institutional controls were selected as the only site remedy
at three sites (however, institutional controls are selected in combination with a treatment or containment
technology at almost every site). Recycling/recovery was selected at one site as a primary technology.
An unspecified treatment was selected at four sites, where a specific technology would be selected
subsequent to treatability testing at the site.
24
-------
5.3 Innovative Technologies Selected by Region
Figure 16 presents the number of innovative technologies selected by each Region and the average
number of innovative technologies selected per site by each Region. Region 4 and Region 5 both
selected 20 innovative technologies and Region 2 selected 18 innovative technologies. Only three
innovative technologies were selected by Region 10.
Figure 16. Number of innovative technologies selected by Region
for FY91 and FY92 source control RODs.
8 (0.53 per site)
5 (0.45 per site)
5 (0.56 per site)
20 (0.48 per site)
3D (0.91 per site)
5 10 15
Number of innovative technologies
In general, the Regions with the most sites selected the most innovative technologies. Across all
Regions, the overall average number of innovative technologies selected per site is 0.52 innovative
technologies. The individual Regional averages ranged fairly closely around the overall average. Region
4, with 22 sites, selected the highest average number of innovative technologies at 0.91 innovative
technologies per site. The high average for Region 4 primarily reflects the eight innovative technologies
selected at the two Ciba-Geigy sites. Region 3, with 30 sites, selected the lowest average number of
innovative technologies at 0.37 innovative technologies per site. The average for Region 3 was lowered
by six landfill sites where capping was selected as the only site remedy.
5.4 Technologies Selected by Site Leads
Figure 77 presents the number and type of innovative and standard technologies selected by each of the
three types of site leads—Fund-lead, PRP-lead, and Federal Facility. Eleven different innovative
technologies and six different standard technologies were selected at Fund-lead sites. Ten different
innovative technologies and eight different standard technologies were selected at PRP-lead sites. Five
different innovative technologies and five different standard technologies were selected at Federal
Facilities.
25
-------
Figure 17. Selected Technologies by Site Leads
(FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
Soil Vapor Extraction
Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
Soil Flushing
Ex Situ Biodegradation
In Situ Biodegradation
Biodegradation
Soil Washing
Dechlorination
Chemical Treatment Ex Situ
Solvent Extraction
In Situ Vitrification
In Situ Heating
Metallurgical Processes
Capping
Disposal
Solidification Stabilization
In Situ Solidification/Stabilization
Incineration
Institutional Control
Recovery/Recycling
Federal Facility
PRP-lead
Fund-lead
I ' ' ' r
40 60
Number of Times Selected
5.5 Technologies Selected by Site Types
Twenty different site types, and the number of each site type in this analysis, are presented in Section
3.4. Because there is no commonly accepted list of site types, site types were determined based on the
activity at the site that appeared to contribute the most to site contaminant problems.
Figure 18 presents the standard and innovative technologies selected at the six most common site types:
municipal landfills (38 sites); industrial landfills (28 sites); chemicals and allied products (21 sites);
uncontrolled waste sites (17 sites); electrical equipment (14 sites); and recycling (14 sites). The most
common combinations of technologies and site types are capping selected at municipal landfills, capping
selected at industrial landfills, disposal selected at industrial landfills, soil vapor extraction selected at
chemicals and allied product sites, soil vapor extraction selected at electrical equipment sites, and
solidification/stabilization selected at recycling sites.
Figure 19 presents the standard and innovative technologies selected at the seven next most common
site types: lumber and wood products (nine sites), mining (nine sites), fabricated metal products (eight
sites), primary metal products (eight sites), electroplating (six sites), waste oil (six sites), and agricultural
chemicals (five sites). The most common combinations of technologies and site types are capping
selected at mining sites, soil vapor extraction selected at fabricated metal products sites, disposal selected
at lumber and wood products sites, and solidification/stabilization selected at primary metal product sites.
Figure 20 presents the standard and innovative technologies selected at the seven least common site
types: coal products (four sites), energetics/ordnance (four sites), petroleum refining (four sites),
radiological disposal (four sites), construction (two sites), dry cleaning (two sites), and transportation
26
-------
(two sites). The most common combination of technologies and site types is disposal selected at
energetics sites.
Figure 18. Sele
(FV
Soil Vapor Extraction
Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
Soil Rushing
Ex Situ Biodegradation
In Situ Biodegradation
Biodegradation
Soil Washing
Dechlorination
Chemical Treatment Ex Situ
Solvent Extraction
In Situ Vitrification
In Situ Heating
Metallurgical Processes
Capping
Disposal
Solidification Stabilization
In Situ Solidification/Stabilization
Incineration
Institutional Control
Recovery/Recycling
C
cted Technologies by Most Common Site Types
91 and FY92 source control RODs).
• IsNNNNKXXEWfl 134
2ffl5
02
03 3
M
H
H
|1
r,
• KVsXKXXIM
• KNSHM I26
i n?
1 IXlttl 114
JJ2
]1
D Recycling
H Electrical Equipment
H Uncontrolled Waste Site
El Chemical/Allied Products
D Industrial Landfill
• Municipal Landfill
IXMXDO&BI 172
|38
) 10 20 30 40 50 60 7D 80
Number of Times Selected
27
-------
Figurel9. Selected Technologies by Moderately Common Site Types
(FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
Soil Vapor Extraction k\\X\\NK"Ml |11
Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
Soil Flushing
Ex Situ Biodegradation
In Situ Biodegradation
Biodegradation
Soil Washing
Dechlorination
Chemical Treatment Ex Situ JO
Solvent Extraction |o
In Situ Vitrification
In Situ Heating
Metallurgical Processes |0
Capping
Disposal
Solidification Stabilization
In Situ Solidification/Stabilization
Incineration
Institutional Control
Recovery/Recycling |0
H
D
H
El
Agricultural Chemicals
Waste Oil
Electroplating
Primary Metal Products
Fabricated Metal Products
D Mining
• Lumber/Wood Products
Number of Times Selected
Figure 20. Selected Technologies by Least Common Site Types
(FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
Soil Vapor Extraction
Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
Soil Rushing
Ex Situ Biodegradation
In Situ Biodegradation
Biodegradation
Soil Washing
Dechlonnation
Chemical Treatment Ex Situ
Solvent Extraction
In Situ Vitrification
In Situ Heating
Metallurgical Processes
Capping
Disposal
Solidification Stabilization
In Situ Solidification/Stabilization
Incineration
Institutional Control
Recovery/Recycling
ptXH' Is
P_
His
•ESH
J 1
m
0
0
0
0
0
KX10CKH7
•04
0
0
EB Transportation
D Dry Cleaning
Q Construction
E3 Radiological Disposal
E3 Petroleum Refining
D Energetics (ordnance)
• Coal Products
10 20
Number of Times Selected
30
40
28
-------
Table 4 presents the number and type of each standard and innovative technology selected at each of
the 20 site types. The widest variety of technologies were selected at chemicals and allied products sites
(14 different technologies selected at 21 sites), lumber and wood products «ites (12 different technologies
selected at nine sites), uncontrolled waste sites (11 different technologies selected at 17 sites), and
industrial landfills (11 different technologies selected at 28 sites). Relatively few different technologies
were selected at municipal landfills (mostly capping), mining sites (two different technologies selected
at nine sites), electroplating sites (three different technologies selected at six sites), radiological disposal
sites (two different technologies selected at four sites), and dry cleaning sites (a single technology
selected at both sites).
Table 4. Innovative and standard technologies selected at each type of site.
Site Type
Technologies Selected (# of times)
Municipal Landfill
38 sites
50 technologies selected
(1.3 per site)
Industrial Landfill
28 sites
47 technologies selected
(1.7 per site)
Chemicals/Allied Products
21 sites
47 technologies selected
(2.2 per site)
Uncontrolled Waste Sites
17 sites
25 technologies selected
(1.5 per site)
Electrical Equipment
14 sites
23 technologies selected
(1.6 per site)
Recycling
14 sites
38 technologies selected
(2.7 per site)
Capping (37)
Disposal (4)
Solidification/stabilization (3)
Soil vapor extraction (2)
Capping (16)
Disposal (11)
Soil vapor extraction (5)
Solidification/stabilization (4)
In situ solidification/stabilization (4)
Soil vapor extraction (9)
Disposal (7)
Solidification/stabilization (5)
Capping (4)
Soil flushing (4)
Incineration (3)
In situ biodegradation (3)
Soil vapor extraction (6)
Disposal (5)
Capping (5)
Soil flushing (2)
In situ biodegradation (1)
Biodegradation (1)
Soil vapor extraction (7)
Capping (4)
Disposal (3)
Solidification/stabilization (3)
Solidification/stabilization (10)
Disposal (8)
Capping (6)
Soil vapor extraction (5)
Low temperature thermal desorption (3)
Incineration (1)
Metallurgical processes (1)
In situ solidification/stabilization (1)
Unspecified treatment (1)
Incineration (3)
Low temperature thermal desorption (1)
Soil washing (1)
Institutional controls (1)
Unspecified treatment (1)
Ex situ biodegradation (3)
Low temperature thermal desorption (3)
In situ solidification/stabilization (2)
Soil washing (1)
Biodegradation (1)
Dechlonnation (1)
In situ vitrification (1)
Soil washing (1)
Solidification/stabilization (1)
Incineration (1)
Institutional controls (1)
Unspecified treatment (1)
Incineration (3)
Solvent extraction (1)
Low temperature thermal desorption (1)
Chemical treatment (ex situ) (1)
Incineration (3)
In situ biodegradation (1)
Unspecified innovative technology (1)
Recycling (1)
29
-------
Site Type
Lumber/Wood Products .-
9 sites
22 technologies selected
(2.4 per site)
Mining
9 sites
1 1 technologies selected
(1.2 per site)
Fabricated Metal Products
8 sites
11 technologies selected
(1.4 per site)
Primary Metal Products
8 sites
17 technologies selected
(2.1 per site)
Electroplating
6 sites
10 technologies selected
(1.7 per site)
Waste Oil
6 sites
12 technologies selected
(2.0 per site)
Agricultural Chemicals
5 sites
12 technologies selected
(2.4 per site)
Coal Products
4 sites
8 technologies selected
(2.0 per site)
Energetics (ordnance)
4 sites
8 technologies selected
(2.0 per site)
Petroleum Refining
4 sites
1 1 technologies selected
(2.7 per site)
Radiological Disposal
4 sites
4 technologies selected
(1 .0 per site)
Technologies Selected (# of times)
Disposal (7)
Solidification/stabilization (4)
Capping (2)
Biodegradation (2)
Low temperature thermal desorption (1)
Dechlorination (1)
Capping (8)
Soil vapor extraction (6)
Disposal (3)
Capping (5)
Solidification/stabilization (5)
Disposal (4)
Disposal (5)
Soil vapor extraction (3)
Disposal (3)
Capping (3)
Solidification/stabilization (2)
Soil vapor extraction (1)
Solidification/stabilization (4)
Capping (3)
Incineration (1)
Disposal (1)
Disposal (2)
In situ biodegradation (2)
Incineration (2)
Disposal (3)
Incineration (2)
Capping (1)
Capping (2)
In situ biodegradation (2)
Disposal (2)
Ex situ biodegradation (1)
Soil vapor extraction (2)
Capping (2)
Incineration (1)
Ex situ biodegradation (1)
Soil f lushing (1)
In situ biodegradation (1)
Unspecified treatment (1)
Solidification/stabilization (3)
Capping (1)
Institutional controls (1)
Biodegradation (2)
Incineration (1)
Solidification/stabilization (2)
Incineration (1)
In situ solidification/stabilization (1)
Ex situ biodegradation (1)
Low temperature thermal desorption (1)
Soil washing (1)
Dechlorination (1)
Ex situ biodegradation (1)
In situ heating (1)
Ex situ biodegradation (1)
Soil washing (1)
In situ solidification/stabilization (1)
Soil flushing (1)
Soil vapor extraction (1)
Biodegradation (1)
30
-------
Site Type Technologies Selected (# of times)
Construction .• Capping (1) Solidification/stabilization (1)
2 sites Disposal (1)
3 technologies selected
(1.5 per site)
Dry Cleaning Soil vapor extraction (2)
2 sites
2 technologies selected
(1.0 per site)
Transportation Solidification/stabilization (1) Capping (1)
2 sites Disposal (1) Soil flushing (1)
4 technologies selected
(2.0 per site)
5.6 Technologies Selected by Contaminants
Information on site contaminants was obtained from FSs and RODs and emphasizes the major
contaminants found at the sites. Other documentation in the administrative record, such as Remedial
Investigations (RIs), would need to be consulted to obtain a complete listing of all contaminants at the
sites. The purpose is to provide baseline information on the major contaminant problems at the sites
against which to compare technology selection. The 197 different contaminants and contaminant groups
(such as total PAHs) and their maximum concentrations in soils and wastes can be found in Section 3.5.
Figures 21-25 present the number and type of technologies selected at sites contaminated by: both
organic and inorganic contaminants; only organic contaminants; only inorganic contaminants; PCBs; and
trichloroethylene (TCE) or tetrachloroethylene (PCE). Concentrations are in milligrams per kilogram
of soil or waste (mg/kg). These tables include only sites where one primary technology was selected.
Technologies selected for treatment of residuals are not included in the tables because information on
contaminant concentrations in treatment residuals will only be available during remedial action.
Technologies selected as a contingent remedy are not included in the tables because contingent remedies
may not be invoked at the sites. Technologies selected at sites where more than one primary technology
was selected are not included in the tables because of the difficulty of determining which technology
would address which contaminant.
For sites contaminated with both organics and inorganics, by far the most commonly selected technology
was capping (22 times). Five other technologies were selected more than twice at these sites: soil vapor
extraction (nine times), solidification/stabilization (seven times), disposal (six times), low temperature
thermal desorption (four times), and institutional controls (three times). Technologies selected to address
high concentrations of mixed organic and inorganic contaminants include capping, solidification/
stabilization, disposal, and soil vapor extraction.
For sites contaminated only with organics, by far the most commonly selected technology was soil vapor
extraction (19 times). The only other technology selected more than twice for these sites was capping
(six times). Technologies selected to address high concentrations of organic contaminants include
incineration, soil vapor extraction, and soil washing.
For sites contaminated only with inorganics, by far the most commonly selected technology was
solidification/stabilization (12 times). Capping (five times) and disposal (three times) were the only
31
-------
other technologies selected more than once for these sites. Technologies selected to address high
concentrations of inorganics include solidification/stabilization, metallurgical processes, capping, and soil
washing.
For sites contaminated by PCBs, capping (seven times) was the most commonly selected remedy. Soil
vapor extraction (five times), solidification/stabilization (four times), low temperature thermal desorption
(three times), incineration (three times), and disposal (three times) were the only other technologies
selected more than once for these sites. Technologies selected to address high concentrations of PCBs
were low temperature thermal desorption, biodegradation, and incineration.
For sites contaminated by TCE or PCE, soil vapor extraction (eight times) was the only technology
selected more than once. Soil vapor extraction also was selected to address the highest concentrations
of TCE and PCE.
Figure 21. Selected Technologies for Inorganic and Organic Contaminated Sites
where only one primary technology was selected (FY91-92 source control RODs).
Soil Vaoor Extraction ^••\!\\Xx\jxX>(^j0g 9
Low Temperature Thermal Desorption _J223ffl4
Soil Rushing jl^2
Ex Situ Biodegradation 0
In Situ Biodegradation 3 1
Biodegradation 0
Soil Washing 0
Dechlorination 0
Chemical Treatment Ex Situ 0
Solvent Extraction 0
In Situ Vitrification o
In Situ Heating ^ 1
Metallurgical Processes 0
Capping •^••B
Disposal kxXXX*M«
Solidification Stabilization iK^xCK'.V
In Situ Solidification/Stabilization E53 2
Incineration KJH 2
Institutional Control jjl^fei 3
Recovery/Recycling ^1
0 5
In mg/kg
Q >50,000
E 10,001-50,000
H 1,001-10,000
m 100-1,000
• <100
Hi " • J>l'99£VJK>MC«5&&«iW 22
36
£iSI7
10 15 20 25
Number of Times Selected
32
-------
Figure 22. Selected Technologies for Organic Contaminated Sites where
only one primary technology was selected (FY91-92 source control RODs).
Soil Vapor Extraction
Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
Soil Flushing
Ex Situ Biodegradation
19
^ . 1 _
In Situ Biodegradation 0
Biodegradation [pi
Soil Washing H3 2
Dechlorination 0
Chemical Treatment Ex Situ 0
Solvent Extraction 0
In Situ Vitrification 0
In Situ Heating 0
Metallurgical Processes 0
Capping pBHBB
Disposal •CIllISl
Solidification Stabilization 0
In Situ Solidification/Stabilization 0
Incineration IE3E3 3
Institutional Control 0
Recoverv/Recvclina 0
0
Inmg/kg
H >50,000
13 10001-50000
a 1,001-10,000
IB 100-1,000
» <100
ilSSJfi
4
5 10 15 2
Number of Times Selected
)
Figure 23. Selected Technologies for Inorganic Contaminated Sites where
only one primary technology was selected (FY91-92 source control RODs).
Soil Vapor Extraction (0
Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
Soil Rushing
Ex Situ Biodegradation
In Situ Biodegradation
Biodegradation
Soil Washing
Dechlorination
Chemical Treatment Ex Situ
Solvent Extraction
In Situ Vitrification
In Situ Heating
Metallurgical Processes
Capping
Disposal
Solidification Stabilization
In Situ Solidification/Stabilization
Incineration
Institutional Control
Recovery/Recycling
Number of Times Selected
1°
0
0
0
o
0
3i
0
0
A
J
0
0
Inmg/kg
H >50,000
Q 10,001-50,000
d 1,001-10,000
E> 100-1,000
• <100
^1^56635
0
0
0
1 , , . . 1 .
D 5
M^S12
llllllllllli IIIIII
10 15 20 Z
33
-------
Figure 24. Selected Technologies for PCS Contaminated Sites where only
one primary technology was selected
Soil Vapor Extraction H^IK^S
Low Temperature Thermal Desorption >66&>13
Soil Flushing 0
Ex Situ Biodegradation 0
In Situ Biodegradation 0
Biodegradation *31
Soil Washing 0
Dechlorination 0
Chemical Treatment Ex Situ 0
Solvent Extraction 0
In Situ Vitrification 0
In Situ Heating o
Metallurgical Processes 0
Capping ••••I
Disposal UQQ3
Solidification Stabilization ••ES34
In Situ Solidification/Stabilization fiT__
Incineration KScsKX 3
Institutional Control [o~
Recovery/Recycling fc3 1
p i i i I i
0 5
(FY91-92 source control RODs).
Inmg/kg
O >50,000
0 10,001-50,000
Q 1,001-10,000
H 100-1,000
• <100
§7
i i i I i i i i I i i i i I i i i i
10 15 20 25
Number of Times Selected
Figure 25. Selected Technologies for TCE/PCE Contaminated Sites where
only one primary technology was selected (FY91-92 source control RODs).
Soil Vapor Extraction
Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
Soil Flushing
Ex Situ Biodegradation
In Situ Biodegradation
Biodegradation
Soil Washing
Dechlorination
Chemical Treatment Ex Situ
Solvent Extraction
In Situ Vitrification
In Situ Heating
Metallurgical Processes
Capping
Disposal
Solidification Stabilization
In Situ Solidification/Stabilization
Incineration
Institutional Control
Recovery/Recycling
(
mousm
Hi
•1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
) 5
Be
Inmg/kg
EQ >50,000
H 10,001-50,000
Q 1,001-10,000
m 100-1,000
• <100
10 15 20 2
Number of Times Selected
5
34
-------
5.7 Media and Volume
Data on contaminated media has been divided into soils (surface soils, subsurface soils, and sediments)
and wastes (solid wastes, sludges, drum contents, and debris). Total volumes are the sum of wastes and
soils at each site. Information on the volumes of contaminated materials present at the 205 sites can be
found in Section 3.6.
Figures 26-28 present the number and type of technologies selected for remediating six volume ranges
at sites with contaminated soils, contaminated wastes, and a combination of contaminated soils and
wastes. Volumes are in cubic yards. These tables include only technologies selected as the primary
remedy. Technologies selected for treatment of residuals are not included in the tables because
information on volumes of treatment residuals will only be available during remedial action.
Technologies selected as a contingent remedy are not included in the tables because contingent remedies
may not be invoked at the sites.
At sites where the contaminated media is only soils, four technologies were most commonly selected:
soil vapor extraction (36 times), solidification/stabilization (30 times), disposal (30 times), and capping
(20 times). At sites where the contaminated media is only wastes, capping (35 times) was by far
selected most often. Only capping and disposal were selected at sites where the volume of contaminated
wastes was greater than ten million cubic yards. A wide variety of technologies were selected at sites
where the contaminated media included both soils and wastes. Disposal was selected most often (nine
times), followed by capping (eight times), solidification/stabilization (five times), and incineration (five
times). Soil vapor extraction, low temperature thermal desorption, and ex situ biodegradation were each
selected three times at these sites.
Figure 26. Selected Technologies by Volume of Contaminated Soils
(primary technologies from FY91 and FY 92 source control RODs).
Cnil V/opnr prfrj^inn ^^^Jf~~~~""
Low Temperature Thermal Desorption . t\\\^T:>l7
Soil Rushing IE 3
Ex Situ Biodegradation hN4
In Situ Biodegradation 35544
Biodegradation 0\t6635
Soil Washing 3ES35
Dechlorination 31
Chemical Treatment Ex Situ 3 1
Solvent Extraction 31
In Situ Vitrification 0
In Situ Heating N1
Metallurgical Processes |0
Capping ^'^^^V^-^
Disposal !••• '*i'fl«**»
Solidification Stabilization E ^'^W-L\\X\\X
In Situ Solidification/Stabilization^^^^!?
Incineration pMULsiX^hc
Institutional Control B 1
Recovery/Recycling 0
0 5 10
t\\\X\\V^V\>s\RS56^XX^ti **fi
In Cubic Yards
0 > 10,000,000
D 1,000,001-10,000,000
B 100,001-1,000,000
E 10,001-100,000
B 1,001-10,000
• 0-1,000
1555553^20
f^»«s*»^%|k\\\N^XxK5] 30
\\\\\\\\\\VKXXX>0<] an
313
15 20 25 30 35 40
Number of Times Selected
35
-------
Figure 27. Selected Technologies by Volume of Contaminated Wastes
(primary technologies from FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
Soil Vapor Extraction
Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
Soil Rushing
Ex Situ Biodegradation
In Situ Biodegradation
Biodegradation
Soil Washing
Dechlorination
Chemical Treatment Ex Situ
Solvent Extraction
In Situ Vitrification
In Situ Heating
Metallurgical Processes
Capping
Disposal
Solidification Stabilization
In Situ Solidification/Stabilization
Incineration
Institutional Control
Recovery/Recycling
31
0
n
In Cubic Yards
D > 10,000,000
H 1,000,001-10,000,000
H 100,001-1,000,000
El 10,001-100,000
m 1,001-10,000
• 0-1,000
J35
I .... I TTH , I , , , , [T^ T T J I . . . -prr-I ryi
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Number of Times Selected
40
Figure 28. Selected Technologies by Volume of Contaminated Soils and Wastes
(primary technologies from FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
Soil Vapor Extraction
Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
Soil Rushing
Ex Situ Biodegradation
In Situ Biodegradation
Biodegradation
Soil Washing
Dechlorination
Chemical Treatment Ex Situ
Solvent Extraction
In Situ Vitrification
In Situ Heating
Metallurgical Processes
Capping
Disposal
Solidification Stabilization
In Situ Solidification/Stabilization
Incineration
Institutional Control
Recovery/Recycling
333
322
ZE3
302
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
pKM9y«QW8
L i^xxsjjfifl Q
£
g
liiiiiiiiiiii
D 5 10
In Cube Yards
D > 10,000,000
H 1.000,001-10,000,000
H 100,001-1,000,000
C3 10,001-100,000
B 1,001-10,000
• 0-1,000
.. 1 , ... 1 .,..,.... 1 .... 1 ....
15 20 25 30 35 4
Number of Times Selected
36
-------
6. REASONS FOR SELECTION OF TECHNOLOGIES
This section summarizes the reasons given for remedial technology selection at the 205 sites. The
individual reasons and the number of times each was used for selecting a technology are presented. In
addition, the reasons for remedy selection were categorized into nine groups to provide a means of
summarizing reasons for technology selection. A case study also was conducted on the reasons for
selecting capping at non-landfill sites.
6.1 Section Summary
The reasons for selection of standard and innovative source control technologies have been grouped into
nine categories to enhance data interpretation:
• Contaminant: the technology would be effective in treating or containing contaminants or groups
of contaminants found at the site.
• Media: the technology would be effective in treating or containing contaminated media (soil,
sediment, solid waste, sludge) found at the site.
• Site condition: a particular site condition favored the use of one technology over alternative
technologies.
• Implementation: the technology would be easier or faster to implement than alternative technologies.
• Exposure/risk: the technology would reduce contaminant exposures and risk to the public, site
workers, and equipment operators.
• Regulatory: the technology would be able to meet regulatory requirements or achieve public
acceptance.
• Cost: the technology would be cost-effective.
• Information: adequate information is available on the technology's cost and performance.
• Unspecified or Other: at sites where more than one technology was selected, the reasons given for
selection of a Remedial Action Alternative could not always be associated with a specific
technology.
A total of 147 different reasons were given for the selection of remedial technologies. Of these, 46
reasons were cited only once, 61 reasons were cited between two and nine times, 31 reasons were cited
between 10 and 50 times, and nine reasons were cited more than 50 times. The 147 different reasons
were cited 1,791 times for the selection of 365 remedial technologies (average of 4.9 reasons per
technology) at the 205 sites (average of 9.6 reasons per site). The most common reasons cited for
technology selection (accounting for 896, or 50 percent of the reasons cited) were:
• Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume, 118 times;
• Cost-effective, 110 times;
• Provides long-term protectiveness, 104 times;
• Complies with all ARARs, 99 times;
• Easy to implement, 84 times;
• Prevents direct human contact with contaminants, 79 times;
• Eliminates or reduces leachate and runoff from site, 57 times;
• Minimizes mobility of contaminants, 56 times;
• Negligible short-term risks to humans, 49 times;
• Equipment is readily available, 47 times;
• Short remediation time, 47 times; and
• Prevents contamination of groundwater, 46 times.
37
-------
The most common reasons, by category1, for the selection of remedial technologies were related to the
exposure/risk category (801 occurrences). The next most common reasons for technology selection were
related to implementability (345 occurrences), regulations (209 occurrences), cost-effectiveness (172
occurrences), availability of information (87 occurrences), contaminants (63 occurrences), and site
conditions (26 occurrences). No reasons were given for selecting a technology because of its ability to
treat or contain specific media. Of the 365 selected technologies, no specific reason could be ascribed
to the selection of 88 technologies.
Overall, the relative number of times reasons were cited in these categories were similar for both
innovative and standard technologies. Reasons related to contaminants and information were emphasized
more for selection of innovative technologies than for standard technologies. Information reasons were
cited 9.0 percent of the time for innovative technology selection and only 2.4 percent of the time for
standard technology selection. Reasons related to the ability of a technology to effectively treat
contaminants were cited 7.4 percent of the time for innovative technologies and 2.4 percent of the time
for standard technologies. Reasons related to controlling exposure/risk were emphasized more for
selection of standard technologies (49.2 percent of the time) than for innovative technologies (37.1
percent of the time). Reasons related to implementability, regulations, cost-effectiveness, site condition,
and ability to treat specific media were cited at about the same frequency for selecting standard and
innovative technologies.
A case study was conducted to examine the reasons for selecting capping as a remedy 101 times at the
205 sites. Capping of municipal and industrial landfills is accepted practice at Superfund sites where
the cost of treatment is prohibitive. After removing landfill sites from the case study, there were 26 sites
at which capping was selected as a primary remedy and 22 sites where capping was selected for
containment of residuals. Capping for residuals management included: 1) construction of a temporary
cap to improve soil vapor extraction efficiency; 2) capping residuals left in the soils after implementation
of an in situ process, such as biodegradation or soil vapor extraction, for treating organic contaminants;
or 3) capping after implementation of an ex situ treatment process, usually solidification/stabilization,
and disposal of residuals.
The selection of capping as a primary remedy at these sites appear to be most closely related to the
volume of contaminated material and the types of contaminants present at the sites. The volume of
contaminated material at 14 of the 26 sites was greater than 100,000 cubic yards, and the volume at 19
of the sites exceeded 50,000 cubic yards. Most striking was the presence of metals or other inorganics
at 24 of the 26 sites. Twelve of the sites included both inorganic and organic contaminants and twelve
sites included only inorganic contaminants. The organics included PCBs at six of the sites and TCE at
five of the sites; both are DNAPLs. Both of the sites where only organic contaminants were present
included PCBs.
Table 5. presents the most commonly cited reasons for the selection of each innovative and standard
technology.
'More than one reason was often cited within the same category for elimination of a particular
technology. For example, the reasons given for eliminating soil washing could have included the need
for pre-treatment and the need for post-treatment, both of which are related to implementation.
38
-------
Table 5. Summary of most important reasons given for selection of remedial technologies.
Technology
Ex Situ Biodegradation
In situ vitrification
Soil flushing
Soil vapor extraction
In situ biodegradation
Soil washing
Solvent extraction
Low temperature thermal desorption
Biodegradation
In situ heating
Dechlorination
Chemical treatment (ex situ)
Metallurgical processes
Capping
Reasons for Elimination
Provides long-term protectiveness
Various reasons related to ease of implementation
Demonstrated effectiveness
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, and volume
Reduces risk posed by the site
Satisfies regulatory requirements
Cost effective
Reduces contamination of groundwater
Ability to comply with all ARARs
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, and volume
Cost effective
Prevents contamination of groundwater
Effective for VOCs
Easy to implement
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, and volume
Does not disrupt surface activities
Ability to comply with all ARARs
Demonstrated effective for site contaminants
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, and volume
Cost effective
Ability to comply with all ARARs
Prevents contamination of groundwater
Reduces nsk posed by the site
Effective for target contaminants
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, and volume
Demonstrated effectiveness
Various reasons related to ease of implementation
Ability to attain cleanup goals
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, and volume
Provides long-term protectiveness
Demonstrated effectiveness
Satisfies preference for treatment
Reduces risk posed by the site
Reduces risk posed by the site
Effective for target contaminants
Reduces risk posed by the site
Effective for target contaminants
Implementability
Prevents direct human contact with contaminants
Reduces leachate and runoff from site
Cost effective
Minimizes mobility of contaminants
Provides long-term protectiveness
Easy to implement
Total Times Given
5
5
6
4
4
3
•6
6
4
30
22
21
20
19
4
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
2
2
7
6
6
3
4
3
3
4
4
4
2
5
2
3
54
41
34
30
26
26
39
-------
Technology Reasons for Elimination Total Times Given
Disposal .- Provides long-term protectiveness 20
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, and volume 18
Ability to comply with all ARARs 15
Various reasons related to ease of implementation 15
Solidification/Stabilization Provides long-term protectiveness 22
Minimizes mobility of contaminants 18
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, and volume 17
Prevents direct human contact with contaminants 14
Easy to implement 13
Cost effective 13
i
Incineration Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, and volume 13
Short remediation time 6
Provides long-term protectiveness ' 5
Satisfies LDRs and other ARARs 8
In Situ Solidification/Stabilization Satisfies preference for treatment 3
Provides long-term protectiveness 3
Minimizes mobility of contaminants 3
Various reasons related to ease of implementation 4
Cost effective 3
Institutional Controls Reduces risk posed by the site 6
Easy to implement 2
Recycling Reduces risk posed by the site 4
Easy to implement 2
6.2 Overview of Reasons given for Technology Selection
The reasons for selection of standard and innovative source control technologies have been grouped into
nine categories that were created to enhance data interpretation:
• Contaminant: the technology would be effective in treating or containing contaminants or groups
of contaminants found at the site.
• Media: the technology would be effective in treating or containing contaminated media (soil,
sediment, solid waste, sludge) found at the site.
• Site condition: a particular site condition favored the use of one technology over alternative
technologies.
• Implementation: the technology would be easier or faster to implement than alternative technologies.
• Exposure/risk: the technology would reduce contaminant exposures and risk to the public, site
workers, and equipment operators.
• Regulatory: the technology would be able to meet regulatory requirements or achieve public
acceptance.
• Cost: the technology would be cost-effective.
• Information: adequate information is available on the technology's cost and performance.
• Unspecified or Other: at sites where more than one technology was selected, the reasons given for
selection of a Remedial Action Alternative could not always be associated with a specific
technology.
Figure 29 presents the number of times that reasons within each category were given for the selection
of remedial technologies. A total of 1,791 reasons were given for the selection of 365 remedial
technologies (average of 4.9 reasons per technology) at the 205 sites (average of 9.6 reasons per site).
40
-------
Figure 29. Reasons for selection of standard and innovative technologies
by category (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
Other
Information
Cost
Regulatory
Exposure/Risk
Implementation
Site condition! 26
Media |0
Contaminant
I i i
300 400 500 600
Number of occurrences
The most common reasons for the selection of remedial technologies were related to the exposure/risk
category (801 occurrences). The next most common reasons for technology selection were related to
implementability (345 occurrences), regulations (209 occurrences), cost-effectiveness (172 occurrences),
availability of information (87 occurrences), contaminants (63 occurrences), and site conditions (26
occurrences). No reasons were given for selecting a technology because of its ability to treat or contain
specific media. About 85 percent of the reasons given for selecting an innovative or standard technology
were related to exposure/risk, implementation, regulations, or cost. Of the 365 selected technologies,
no specific reason could be ascribed to the selection of 88 technologies.
All of the different reasons, grouped by category, for the selection of remedial technologies at the 205
sites are listed in Appendix C. Reasons for Selection of Remedial Technologies, along with the number
of times each reasons was given. A total of 147 different reasons were given for the selection of
remedial technologies. Of the total, 46 reasons were cited only once, 61 reasons were cited between two
and nine times, 31 reasons were cited between 10 and 50 times, and nine reasons were cited more than
50 times. The most common reasons cited for technology selection were:
• Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume, 118 times;
• Cost-effective, 110 times;
• Provides long-term protectiveness, 104 times;
• Complies with all ARARs, 99 times;
• Easy to implement, 84 times;
• Prevents direct human contact with contaminants, 79 times;
• Eliminates or reduces leachate and runoff from site, 57 times;
• Minimizes mobility of contaminants, 56 times;
• Negligible short-term risks to humans, 49 times;
• Equipment is readily available, 47 times;
• Short remediation time, 47 times; and
• Prevents contamination of groundwater, 46 times.
41
-------
Together, these 12 reasons account for 896 (50 percent) of the total of 1,791 reasons given for the
selection of remedial technologies at the 205 sites.
6.3 Comparison of Reasons by Category for Innovative and Standard Technologies
Figure 30 presents the categories of reasons for selecting innovative technologies and the number of
times the reasons were used in each category. Figure 31 presents the categories of reasons for selecting
standard technologies and the number of times the reasons were used in each category.
Figure 30. Reasons for Selection of Innovative Technologies by Category.
(from FY91 and FY92 Source Control RODs)
Contaminant
Media
Site Condition
Implementation
Exposure/Risk
Regulatory
Cost
Information
Unspecified
50
100 150 200
Number of Occurrences
250
300
Figure 31. Reasons for Selection of Standard Technologies by Category.
(from FY91 and FY92 Source Control RODs)
Contaminant
Media
Site Condition
Implementation
Exposure/Risk
Regulatory
Cost
Information
Unspecified
^^^^•^^^^^^^^^^^^ I •
200 300 400
Number of Occurrences
Overall, the relative number of times reasons were cited in these categories were similar for both
innovative and standard technologies. Reasons related to contaminants and information were emphasized
more for selection of innovative technologies than for standard technologies. Reasons related to
42
-------
controlling exposure/risk were emphasized more for selection of standard technologies than for
innovative technologies. Reasons related to implementability, regulations, cost-effectiveness, site
condition, and ability, to treat specific media were cited at about the same frequency for selecting
standard and innovative technologies.
Controlling exposure or risk to communities, site workers, or site equipment operators was the main
emphasis for selecting both innovative and standard source control technologies. However, risk-related
reasons were cited 49.2 percent of the time for selecting a standard technology as compared to only 37.1
percent of the time for selecting an innovative technology. Information reasons, related to the
availability of cost and performance data, were cited relatively fewer times than risk or implementation
reasons. However, information-related reasons were cited much more often for the selection of
innovative technologies than standard technologies. Information reasons were cited 9.0 percent of the
time for innovative technology selection and only 2.4 percent of the time for standard technology
selection. Reasons related to the ability of a technology to effectively treat contaminants were cited
infrequently but more often for innovative technology selection (7.4 percent of the time) than for
standard technology selection (2.4 percent of the time). The contaminant reasons used for selecting
innovative technologies tended to be more contaminant specific than those given for selecting standard
technologies.
6.4 Technology-Specific Reasons for Selection of Innovative Technologies
The reasons cited to justify selection of individual innovative technologies are presented below in order
of their frequency of selection, with the most frequently chosen technologies presented first. Appendix
C. Reasons for Selection of Remedial Technologies contains a list of these reasons.
6.4.1 Soil Vapor Extraction
Seventy-one different reasons were given to support the selection of soil vapor extraction, which was
selected 50 times. More than half of the reasons were cited less than three times; 13 reasons were given
twice and 25 reasons were given only once. "Permanently reduces toxicity. mobility, or volume" was
cited most often (nine percent of the time). "Cost effective," "prevents contamination of groundwater,"
"effective for VOCs," and "easy to implement" each were given six percent of the time. "Complies with
ARARs" was used five percent of the time, and "no excavation—minimizes short-term risk" was given
four percent of the time. Figure 32 presents all of the reasons cited more than once for selecting soil
vapor extraction. Table 6 presents all of the reasons cited only once.
43
-------
Figure 32. Reasons Given More than Once for Selection of Soil Vapor Extraction.
(from FY91 and FY92 Source Control RODs)
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, volume
Cost-effective
Prevents contamination of groundwater
Effective for VOCs
Easy to implement
Complies with all ARARs
No excavation - minimizes short-term risk
Short remediation time
Equipment is readily available
Anticipated to attain cleanup goals
Provides long-term protectiveness
Avoids removal/damage of surface structures
Reduces future exposure to humans
Removes source of contamination
Negligible short-term risks to humans
Satisfies preference for treatment
Successful full-scale remediations
Qualified contractor/vendors available
Reduces major contamination threat to groundwater
Demonstrated at other sites
System is reliable
Well established construction methods
Negligible or no emissions
Successful pilot test at the site
No excavation required - avoids LDRs
No adverse cross-media impacts expected
More cost-effective than other treatments
Can incidentally enhance biodegradation of SVOCs
No long-term O&M
Reduces groundwater contamination
Least costly of treatment alternatives
No excavation required
Demonstrated to be effective for site contaminants
Successful SITE demonstration
Successful treatability study at the site
Is an in situ technology
Prevents direct contact with contaminants
Minimal or no disturbance of site conditions
Technically feasible to construct for site
Effective for site conditions
Effective for site conditions - permeability
Commercially available
Indirectly enhances bipdegradatipn of other contaminants
High operational flexibility to adjust to changes
Will not mobilize residual contamination
Less costly than off-site treatment options
Primary
Residual
If Needed
I
10
15 20 25
Number of occurrences
I
30
35
44
-------
Table 6. Reasons Given Once for Selecting Soil Vapor Extraction
Contaminant
Effective for TCE
Effective for FHCs
Effective for SVOCs
Demonstrated to be effective for PCBs
Site Conditions
Effective for site conditions—homogeneous soils
Implementation
Operates without noise
Simple to operate
Accelerates remediation process
System can be easily monitored
Proven technology
Risk
Reduces short-term risk from waste handling and accidents
No unacceptable short-term risks
Risk, continued
Minimal risk from construction
Disposes contaminated waste off site
Leaves no hazardous residuals
Reduces volume more than other alternatives
Reduces carcinogenic risk
Reduces noncarcinogenic risk
Will not mobilize radionuclides
Potential to treat contamination outside area of concern
Regulatory
Avoids LDRs
Information
Selected at other NPL sites
Successful implementation at the site
Successful treatability studies at similar sites
Will provide data for future remedial actions
Figure 33 summarizes the number of times (total 351) that reasons were cited in each category for
selecting soil vapor extraction. Most of the reasons used for selecting soil vapor extraction were related
to exposure or risk (37 percent of the time). About 23 percent of the time they were related to
implementation. Regulatory reasons were cited 11 percent of the time, cost reasons nine percent of the
time, and information and contaminant reasons each about eight percent of the time. Site conditions
were cited three percent of the time.
Figure 33. Reasons by Category for Selection of Soil Vapor Extraction.
(from FY91 and FY92 Source Control RODs)
Contaminant
Media
Site Condition
Implementation
Exposure/Risk
Regulatory
Cost
Information
Unspecified
20
40 60 80 100
Number of Occurrences
120 140
45
-------
6.4.2 Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
Thirty-eight different reasons were used in selecting low temperature thermal desorption 10 times. Only
six reasons were given more than twice. The most frequently cited reason was "permanently reduces
toxicity, mobility, or volume," given 10 percent of the time. Four percent of the time the following
reasons were used: "cost-effective," "anticipated to attain cleanup goals," "reduces future exposure to
humans," "provides long-term protectiveness," and "prevents contamination of groundwater." Figure 34
presents all of the reasons cited more than once for selecting low temperature thermal desorption. Table
7 presents all of the reasons cited once.
Figure 34. Reasons Given More than Once for Selection of Low Temperature
Thermal Desorption. (from FY91 and FY92 Source Control RODs)
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
Anticipated to attain cleanup goals
Cost-effective
Reduces future exposure to humans
Provides long-term protectiveness
Prevents contamination of groundwater
Successful SITE demonstration for similar contaminants
Demonstrated to be effective for site contaminants
Complies with all ARARs
Starts up and shuts down faster than incineration
Short remediation time
No long-term O&M
Equipment is readily available
Easy to implement
Effective for VOCs
Effective for PCP
Demonstrated to be effective for PCBs
I I I I
23456
Number of occurrences
46
-------
Table 7. Reasons Given Once for Selecting Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
Contaminant
Can segregate PCBs from soils
Effective for pesticides
Implementation
Commercially available
Qualified contractors/vendors are available
Risk
Disposes contaminated waste off site
Reduces off-site transport of waste
Short-term risks lower than incineration
Negligible short-term risks to humans
Reduces short-term risk from waste handling and accidents
Reduces risk more than other on-site treatment options
Minimal risks from treatment system mobilization/startup
Risk (continued)
No expected risks from PICs
Removes source of contamination
Reduces major contamination threat to groundwater
Regulatory
Complies with directive encouraging innovative technology
Satisfies preference for treatment
Satisfies LDRs
Cost
Less costly than incineration
Less costly than off-site treatment options
Information
Successful full-scale remediations
Successful treatability study at the site
Figure 35 summarizes the number of times (total 69) that reasons were cited in each category for
selecting low temperature thermal desorption. The most frequently used reasons for selecting low
temperature thermal desorption were those related to exposure or risk, given 37 percent of the time.
Implementation reasons were used 17 percent of the time, information reasons were given 13 percent
of the time, and contaminant reasons were given 12 percent of the time. Cost related reasons were used
seven percent of the time.
Figure 35. Reasons by Category for Selection of Low Temperature
Thermal Desorption. (from FY91 and FY92 Source Control FSs and RODs)
Contaminant
Media
Site Condition
Implementation
Exposure/Risk
Regulatory
Cost
Information
Unspecified
10 15 20
Number of Occurrences
6.4.3 In Situ Biodegradation
Twenty-three different reasons were used in selecting in situ biodegradation 10 times. Only three
reasons were cited more than twice and 15 reasons were used once. The most frequently used reasons
47
-------
were "permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume," given 11 percent of the time, and "cost-
effective" and "complies with all ARARs," each given eight percent of the time. Figure 36 presents
all of the reasons cited, more than once for selecting in situ biodegradation. Table 8 presents all of the
reasons cited once.
Figure 36. Reasons Given More than Once for Selection of In Situ Biodegradation.
(from FY91 and FY92 Source Control RODs)
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
Cost-effective
Complies with all ARARs
Demonstrated to be effective for site contaminants
Satisfies preference for treatment
No adverse cross-media impacts expected
Avoids removal/damage of surface structures
Effective for site conditions
I
01234
Number of occurrences
Table 8. Reasons Given Once for Selecting In Situ Biodegradation
Site Condition
Technically feasible to construct tor site conditions
Implementation
Short remediation time
NO specialized equipment required
Is an in situ technology
Allows continued operation of facility/plant
Risk
Negligible short-term risks to humans
No excavation required—minimizes short-term risks
Risk (continued)
Reduces future exposure to humans
Provides long-term protectrveness
Reduces groundwater contamination
Treats and replenishes groundwater supplies
Regulatory
BOAT for K061 waste with 15% or more zinc
Anticipated to attain cleanup goals
Information
Successful bench-scale test(s)
Has reasonable expectation of success
Figure 37 presents the number of times (total 38) that reasons were cited in each category for selecting
in situ biodegradation. About one-third of the reasons given for selecting in situ biodegradation were
related to exposure^or risk. Regulatory reasons were given 18 percent of the time, implementation
reasons were given 16 percent of the time, and information reasons were given 11 percent of the time.
Cost and site condition reasons each were cited eight percent of the time.
48
-------
Figure 37. Reasons by Category for Selection of In Situ Biodegradation.
(from FY91 and FY92 Source Control RODs)
Contaminant 0
Media
Site Condition
Implementation
Exposure/Risk
Regulatory
Cost
Information
Unspecified
468
Number of Occurrences
10
12
6.4.4 Soil Flushing
Twenty-one of the 27 different reasons used in selecting soil flushing, the nine times it was chosen, were
selected only once. The most frequently cited reasons were related to cost effectiveness, used 15 percent
of the time, and "prevents contamination of groundwater" and "compliance with all ARARs," each used
10 percent of the time. Four additional reasons, each cited only once, also concerned groundwater
protection. Many of the reasons used only once were related to the ease and speed with which soil
flushing could be implemented. Figure 38 presents all of the reasons cited more than once for selecting
soil flushing. Table 9 presents all of the reasons cited once.
Figure 38. Reasons Given More than Once for Selection of Soil Flushing.
(from FY91 and FY92 Source Control RODs)
Cost-effective
Prevents contamination of groundwater
Complies with all ARARs
Anticipated to attain cleanup goals
>- Removes source of contamination
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
2345
Number of occurrences
49
-------
Table 9. Reasons Given Once for Selecting Soil Flushing
Contaminant
Removes metals and SVOCs
Site Conditions
Effective for site conditions
Implementation
Allows continued operation of facility/plant
Avoids removal/damage of surface structures
Accelerates remediation process
Short remediation time
Easy to implement
Enhances biological activity
Indirectly enhances biodegradation of other contaminants
System is reliable
Risk
Reduces groundwater contamination
Treats and replenishes groundwater supplies
Reduces major contamination threat to groundwater
Halts migration of contaminated groundwater
Prevents contamination of surface water
Negligible short-term risks to humans
No adverse cross-media impacts expected
Reduces future environmental harm
Reduces future exposure to humans
Regulatory
State preference-acceptance/satisfies state regulations
Information
Successful implementation at the site
Figure 39 presents the number of times (total 43) that reasons were cited in each category for selecting
soil flushing. Reasons related to exposure or risk were given 40 percent of the time in selecting soil
flushing. The next most frequently used reasons were those related to implementation, given 19 percent
of the time. Regulatory reasons were given 16 percent of the time, and cost reasons were used 14
percent of the time.
Figure 39. Reasons by Category for Selection of Soil Flushing.
(from FY91 and FY92 Source Control RODs)
^
Contaminant
Media |0
Site Condition
Implementation
Exposure/Risk
Regulatory
Cost
Information
Unspecified
I • I • i • i •
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Number of Occurrences
6.4.5 Ex Situ Biodegradation
Twenty-seven different reasons were used in selecting ex situ biodegradation eight times. Nineteen
reasons were cited once. "Provides long-term protectiveness" was used most often (12 percent of the
time). "Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume" was given nine percent of the time, and
"cost-effective," "demonstrated to be effective for site contaminants," and "easy to implement," each
50
-------
were used seven percent of the time. Figure 40 presents all of the reasons cited more than once for
selecting ex situ biodegradation. Table 10 presents all of the reasons cited once.
Figure 40. Reasons Given More than Once for Selection of Ex Situ Biodegradation.
(from FY91 and FY92 Source Control RODs)
Provides long-term protectiveness
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
Demonstrated to be effective for site contaminants
Easy to implement
Cost-effective
Negligible short-term risks to humans
Demonstrated at other sites
Successful treatability study at the site
3 4
Number of occurrences
Table 10. Reasons Given Once for Selecting Ex Situ Biodegradation
Contaminant
Landfarmmg effective lor xylene and toluene
Implementation
No long-term O&M
System is reliable
Equipment is readily available
Qualified contractors/vendors are available
Short remediation time
More reliable than other innovative treatment technologies
Reaches cleanup goals taster than other innovative technologies
Risk
Reduces future exposure to humans
No adverse cross-media impacts expected
Risk (continued)
Will contain mobile intermediates
Will not mobilize residual contaminants
Regulatory
Complies with all ARARs
Has met community acceptance at other sites
Satisfies preference lor treatment
Satisfies preference for use of innovative technology
Cost
More cost-effective than other treatment options
Information
Selected at other NPL sites
Successful SITE demonstration for similar site
Figure 41 presents the number of times (total 44) that reasons were cited in each category for selecting
ex situ biodegradation.The most frequently used reasons for selecting ex situ biodegradation were those
related to exposure or risk, given about one-third of the time. The next most often used reasons were
those related to implementation, given 23 percent of the time. Information reasons were given 20
percent of the time, and regulatory and cost reasons each were used nine percent of the time.
51
-------
Figure 41. Reasons by Category for Selection of Ex Situ Biodegradation.
(from FY91 and FY92 Source Control RODs)
Contaminant
Media
Site Condition
Implementation
Exposure/Risk
Regulatory
Cost
Information
Unspecified
I J 1 * I ' I ^
024 6 8 10 12
Number of Occurrences
6.4.6 Biodegradation
Biodegradation includes both in situ or ex situ processes; information in the FS was not sufficient to
clearly determine whether the process under consideration was in situ or ex situ. Twenty-two different
reasons were used in selecting biodegradation six times. Only two reasons were given more than twice.
Cited most often were "permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume" (12 percent of the time) and
"provides long-term protectiveness" (nine percent of the time). Figure 42 presents all of the reasons
cited more than once for selecting biodegradation. Table 11 presents all of the reasons cited once.
Figure 42. Reasons Given More than Once for Selection of Biodegradation.
(from FY91 and FY92 Source Control RODs)
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
Provides long-term protectiveness
Demonstrated at other sites
Cost-effective
State preference-acceptance/satisifes State regulations
Satisfies preference for treatment
Complies with directive encouraging innovative technology
Complies with all ARARs
234
Number of occurrences
52
-------
Table 11. Reasons Given Once for Selecting Biodegradation
Contaminant
Effective for PAHs at high concentrations (>100 mg/kg)
Feasible for PAHs at low concentrations
Implementation
Commercially available
Easy to implement
Simple to operate
Risk
No unacceptable short-term risks to humans
Negligible short-term risks to humans
Regulatory
Indian tribe preference
Anticipated to attain cleanup goals
Cost
Least costly of treatment alternatives
More cost-effective than other treatment options
Information
Successful bench-scale test(s)
Successful full-scale remediations
Successful treatability study at the site
Figure 43 presents the number of times (total 35) that reasons were cited in each category for selecting
biodegradation. The most often used reasons for selecting biodegradation were those related to risk and
regulations, each given 29 percent of the time. Information reasons were used 14 percent of the time,
cost reasons 11 percent of the time, and implementation reasons nine percent of the time.
Figure 43. Reasons by Category for Selection of Biodegradation.
(from FY91 and FY92 Source Control RODs)
Contaminant
Media
Site Condition
Implementation
Exposure/Risk
Regulatory
Cost
Information
Unspecified
468
Number of Occurrences
10
12
6.4.7 Soil Washing
Sixteen different reasons were used in selecting soil washing five times. Four reasons were given more
than twice, while 10 reasons were used only once. Used most often were "permanently reduces toxicity,
mobility, or volume" and "cost-effective," each given 13 percent of the time. Figure 44 presents the
all of the reasons cited more than once for selecting soil washing. Table 12 presents all of the reasons
cited once.
53
-------
Figure 44. Reasons Given More than Once for Selection of Soil Washing.
(from FY91 and FY92 Source Control RODs)
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
Cost-effective
Prevents contamination of groundwater
Complies with all ARARs
Has reasonable expectation of success
Provides long-term protectiveness
1234
Number of occurrences
Table 12. Reasons Given Once for Selecting Soil Washing
Implementation
Equipment is readily available
Short remediation time
Is an in situ technology
Risk
Reduces major contamination threat to groundwater
Reduces volume more than other alternatives
Removes source of contamination
Risk (continued)
Disposes contaminated waste off site
Negligible short-term risks to humans
Regulatory
Complies with directive encouraging innovative technology
Cost
More cost-effective than other treatment options
Figure 45 presents the number of times (total 28) that reasons were cited in each category for selecting
soil washing. Reasons related to exposure or risk were used about 50 percent of the time in selecting
soil washing. The next most frequently used category of reasons was cost, given 18 percent of the time.
Figure 45. Reasons by Category for Selection of Soil Washing.
(from FY91 and FY92 Source Control RODs)
Contaminant
Media
Site Condition
Implementation
Exposure/Risk
Regulatory
Cost
Information
Unspecified 0
4 6 8 10 12
Number of Occurrences
14 16
54
-------
Regulatory reasons were used 14 percent of the time, and implementation reasons were given 11 percent
of the time. Information reasons were used seven percent of the time.
6.4.8 Dechlorination
Ten different reasons were used in selecting dechlorination three times. Table 13 presents those reasons,
all of which were cited once.
Table 13. Reasons Given Once for Selecting Dechlorination
Contaminant
Effective for PCP
Expected to be effective for dioxin/furans
Implementation
Easy to implement
Risk
Disposes contaminated waste off site
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
Risk (continued)
Prevents contamination of groundwater
Removes source of contamination
Regulatory
Complies with all ARARs
Anticipated to attain cleanup goals
Cost
Cost-effective
Figure 46 presents the number of times (total 12) that reasons were cited in each category for selecting
dechlorination. The most often cited reasons for selecting dechlorination were related to exposure or
risk, given about one-third of the time. Two reasons (17 percent) were contaminant and regulatory
related.
Figure 46. Reasons by Category for Selection of Dechlorination.
(from FY91 and FY92 Source Control RODs)
Contaminant
Media
Site Condition
Implementation
Exposure/Risk
Regulatory
Cost
Information
Unspecified
12345
Number of Occurrences
55
-------
6.4.9 Chemical Treatment (Ex Situ)
Nine different reasons were used in selecting chemical treatment (ex situ) at the only site for which it
was chosen, the JFD Electronics/Channel Master site, in North Carolina. Table 14 presents all of the
reasons given for selecting chemical treatment (ex situ); each reason was given only once.
Table 14. Reasons Given Once for Selecting Chemical Treatment (ex situ)
Contaminant Risk (continued)
Destroys inorganics Negligible short-term risks to humans
Proven effective for cyanide Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
Prevents contamination of groundwater
implementation Provides long-term protectiveness
Qualified contractors/vendors are available
Cost
Risk Cost-effective
Leaves no hazardous residuals
6.4.10 Solvent Extraction
Six different reasons were used to support selecting solvent extraction at the only site for which it was
chosen, the Carolina Transformer Co. site in North Carolina. Table 15 presents all of the reasons given
for selecting solvent extraction; each reason was given only once.
Table 15. Reasons Given Once for Selecting Solvent Extraction
Contammanl Risk (continued)
Demonstrated to be effective for PCBs Reduces future environmental harm
Expected to be effective for dioxirvturans Reduces future exposure to humans
Risk Regulatory
Minimizes mobility of contaminants Satisfies preference for treatment
6.4.11 In Situ Vitrification
Ten different reasons were used to support selecting in situ vitrification at the only site for which it was
chosen, the Wasatch Chemical Company site in Utah. Table 16 presents all of the reasons given for
selecting in situ vitrification; each reason was given only once.
Table 16. Reasons Given Once for Selecting In Situ Vitrification
Implementation Regulatory
Commercially available Complies with all ARARs
Satisfies preference for treatment
Risk Satisfies preference for use of innovative technology
No excavation required—minimizes short-term risks
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume Cost
Reduces carcinogenic risk More cost-effective than other treatment options
Removes source of contamination
Information
Successful treatability study at the site
56
-------
6.4.12 In Situ Heating
Six different reasons were used to support selecting in situ heating at the only site for which it was
chosen, the Brodhead Creek, OU-1 site, a coal products site in Pennsylvania. Table 17 presents all of
the reasons given for selecting in situ heating; each reason was given only once.
Table 17. Reasons Given Once for Selecting In Situ Heating
Contaminant Risk (continued)
Removes DNAPLs Prevents contamination of groundwater
Provides long-term protectiveness
Risk
No excavation required—minimizes short-term risks Cost
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume Cost-effective
6.4.13 Metallurgical Processes
Six different reasons were used to support selecting metallurgical processes at the only site for which
it was chosen, the Dixie Caverns County Landfill OU-1 site, a municipal landfill in Virginia. Table 18
presents all of the reasons given for selecting metallurgical processes; each reason was given only once.
Table 18. Reasons Given Once for Selecting Metallurgical Processes
Implementation Risk
Easy to implement Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
Proven technology
Well established construction methods Regulatory
BOAT or K061 waste with 15% or more zinc
Complies with all ARARs
6.5 Reasons for Selection of Standard Technologies
The reasons cited to justify selection of individual standard technologies are presented below in order
of their frequency of selection, with the most frequently chosen technologies presented first. Appendix
C. Reasons for Selection of Remedial Technologies contains a list of these reasons.
6.5.1 Capping
Fifty-nine different reasons were given in selecting capping 101 times. Eighteen of these reasons were
used once. "Prevents direct human contact with contaminants" was given most often (12 percent of the
time). "Eliminates or reduces leachate and runoff from the site" was used nine percent of the time, and
"cost-effective" was used eight percent of the time. "Minimizes mobility of contaminants" was used
seven percent of the time, and "easy to implement" and "provides long-term protectiveness" each were
used six percent of the time. Figure 47 presents all of the reasons cited more than once for selecting
capping. Table 19 presents the reasons cited once.
57
-------
Figure 47. Reasons Given More than Once for Selection of Capping.
(from FY91 and FY92 Source Control RODs)
Prevents direct Human contact with contaminants
Eliminates or reduces leachate and runoff from site
Cost-effective
Minimizes mobility of contaminants
Easy to implement
Provides long-term protectiveness
Complies with all ARARs
Negligible short-term risks to humans
Reduces major contamination threat to groundwater
Equipment is readily available
Short remediation time
Proven technology
More cost-effective than other treatment options
Least costly of treatment alternatives
Appropriate for large waste volume
Prevents land erosion
Reduces groundwater contamination
System is reliable
State preference-acceptance/satisfies State regulations
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
No excavation required-minimizes short-term risks
Minimizes impact to wetlands
Technically feasible to construct for site conditions
No identified hot spots of contamination
Consistent with Superfund NCP policy for low risk areas
Prevents contamination of groundwater
No adverse cross-media impacts expected
Demonstrated at other sites
Reduces future environmental harm
Qualified contractors/vendors are available
No excavation required
Reduces short-term nsk from waste handling and accidents
No unacceptable short-term risks
Satisfies preference for treatment
No unacceptable short-term risks
Commercially available
Treatment not practical for landfill waste
Community preference or acceptance
Reduces carcinogenic risk
Well established construction methods
Does not disrupt metal containers _____
I ' T
20 30 40
Number of occurrences
50
60
58
-------
Table 19. Reasons Given Once for {Selecting Capping
Contaminant
Expected to be effective for dioxin/furans
Implementation
Commercial landfills will not accept the waste
Improves efficiency of innovative technology
Increases effectiveness of in situ SVE
Simple to operate
Allows continued operation of facility/plant
Risk
Produces no residuals requiring further treatment
Reduces non-carcinogenic risk
Reduces off-site transport of waste
Short-term risks lower than incineration
Risk, continued
Minimizes impact to wetland
Regulatory
Expected to attain ARARs
Qualifies for an ARAR waiver
Satisfies LDRs
Appropriate for RCRA-listed K071 waste
Cost
Less costly than incineration
Information
Successful full-scale remediations
Demonstrated to be effective for site contaminants
Figure 48 presents the number of times (total 476) that reasons were cited in each category for selecting
capping. The most often used reasons for selecting capping were related to exposure or risk, cited over
half (54 percent) of the time. Implementation reasons, the next most frequently used category of
reasons, were cited 20 percent of the time, cost reasons 11 percent of the time, and regulatory reasons
eight percent of the time. The remaining reasons were cited three percent or less of the time.
Figure 48. Reasons by Category for Selection of Capping.
(from FY91 and FY92 Source Control RODs)
Contaminant
Media
Site Condition
Implementation
Exposure/Risk
Regulatory
Cost
Information
Unspecified
50 100 150 200
Number of Occurrences
250 300
6.5.2 Disposal
Forty different reasons were given in selecting disposal 70 times. Only nine of these reasons were used
just once. "Provides long-term protectiveness" given 12 percent of the time and "permanently reduces
toxicity, mobility, or volume" given 11 percent of the time were used most frequently as reasons for
selecting disposal. "Complies with all ARARs" was used nine percent of the time. Figure 49 presents
all of the reasons cited more than once for selecting disposal. Table 20 presents the reasons cited once.
59
-------
Figure 49. Reasons Given More than Once for Selection of Disposal.
(from FY91 and FY92 Source Control RODs)
Provides long-term protectiveness
Permanently reduces loxicity, mobility, or volume
Complies with all ARARs
Easy to implement
More cost-effective than other treatment options
No long-term O&M
Cost-effective
Reduces future environmental harm
No adverse cross-media impacts expected
Prevents direct human contact with contaminants
Reduces major contamination threat to groundwater
Negligible short-term risks to humans
Short remediation time
Anticipated to attain cleanup goals
State preference-acceptance/satisfies State regulations
Removes source of contamination
Minimizes mobility of contaminants
Minimizes impact to wetlands
Eliminates or reduces leachate and runoff from site
Well established construction methods
Equipment is readily available
Proven technology
Does not require treatability studies
Less costly than incineration
Satisfies LDRs
Reduces non-carcinogenic risk
Reduces carcinogenic risk
Prevents contamination of groundwater
No unacceptable short-term risks
System is reliable
Technically feasible to construct for site conditions
~~ T
10 15
Number of occurrences
25
60
-------
Table 20. Reasons Given Once for Selecting Disposal
Contaminant
Treatment not practical for landfill waste
Implementation
Qualified contractors/vendors are available
Commercially available
Risk
Appropriate for small waste volume
Leaves no hazardous residuals
Risk (continued)
Immobilizes contaminants
Regulation
Avoids LDRs
Cost
Least costly of treatment alternatives
Less costly than in situ vitrification
Figure 50 presents the number of times (total 214) that reasons were cited in each category for selecting
disposal. Exposure or risk reasons were used 44 percent of the time. Implementation reasons were
given 16 percent of the time, regulatory reasons 11 percent of the time, and cost reasons nine percent
of the time.
Figure 50. Reasons by Category for Disposal.
(from FY91 and FY92 Source Control RODs)
Contaminant 11
Media
Site Condition
Implementation
Exposure/Risk
Regulatory
Cost
Information
Unspecified
20
40 60 80
Number of Occurrences
100
6.5.3 Solidification/Stabilization
Forty-nine different reasons were given in selecting solidification/stabilization 48 times. Thirty-four
reasons were used more than twice, and 15 reasons were used once. The most frequently cited reasons
for selection were "provides long-term protectiveness," given nine percent of the time, and "minimizes
mobility of contaminants" and "permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume," each given seven
percent of the time. "Prevents direct human contact with contaminants" was used six percent of the
time. Figure 51 presents all of the reasons cited more than once for selecting solidification/stabilization.
Table 21 presents the reasons cited once.
61
-------
Figure 51. Reasons Given More than Once for Selection of Solidification/Stabilization.
(from FY91 and FY92 Source Control FSs and RODs)
Provides long-term protectiveness
Minimizes mobility of contaminants
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
Prevents direct human contact with contaminants
Cost-effective
Easy to implement
Complies with all ARARs
Reduces major contamination threat to groundwater
Proven technology
Equipment is readily available
Eliminates or reduces leachate and runoff from site
More cost-effective than other treatment options
Satisfies preference for treatment
Qualified contractors/vendors are available
Satisfies LDRs
Short remediation time
Successful treatability study at the site
Anticipated to attain cleanup goals
Negligible short-term risks to humans
Immobilizes contaminants
Well established construction methods
Reduces carcinogenic risk
Reduces risk more than other on-site treatment options
Reduces off-site transport of waste
Community preference or acceptance
Expected to attain ARARs
Reduces short-term risk from waste handling and accidents
Reduces future exposure to humans
Prevents contamination of groundwater
No unacceptable short-term risks
No adverse cross-media impacts expected
System is reliable
No long-term O&M
Allows continued operation of facility/plant
II I I
25
T
10 15
Number of occurrences
I
20
Table 21. Reasons Given Once for Selecting Solidification/Stabilization
Contaminant
Effective for residual organics and inorganics
Site Condition -
Minimal or no disturbance of site operations
Implementation
BOAT for lead-contaminated soil
Does not rely on off-site treatment or disposal
Enhances biological activity
Risk
Reduces non-carcinogenic risk
Halts migration of contaminated groundwater
Risk (continued)
Minimizes impact to wetlands
Negligible or no emissions
Reduces future environmental harm
Removes source of contamination
Regulation
State preference-acceptance/satisfies State regulations
Information
Demonstrated to be effective tor site contaminants
Does not require pilot-scale studies
Successful full-scale remediations
62
-------
Figure 52 presents the number of times (total 260) that reasons were cited in each category for selecting
solidification/stabilization. The most often used reasons for selecting solidification/stabilization were
related to exposure or risk, cited approximately half (48 percent) of the time. Implementation reasons
were the next most frequently used category of reasons, given 23 percent of the time. Regulatory
reasons were given 12 percent of the time, cost reasons nine percent of the time, and information reasons
three percent of the time.
Figure 52. Reasons by Category for Selection of Solidification/Stabilization.
(from FY91 and FY92 Source Control RODs)
Contaminant
Media
Site Condition
Implementation
Exposure/Risk
Regulatory
Cost
Information
Unspecified
40 60 80 100
Number of Occurrences
120 140
6.5.4 Incineration
Forty-seven different reasons were given in selecting incineration 22 times. Eleven reasons were cited
more than twice. "Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume" was cited most often (14 percent
of the time) for selection of incineration. "Short remediation time" was used six percent of the time,
and "provides long-term protectiveness" was given five percent of the time. Figure 53 presents all of
the reasons given more than once for selecting incineration. Table 22 presents the reasons cited once.
63
-------
Figure 53. Reasons Given More than Once for Selection of Incineration.
(from FY91 and FY92 Source Control RODs)
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
Short remediation time
Provides long-term protectiveness
Cost-effective
Satisfies preference for treatment
Satisfies LDRs
Complies with all ARARs
Prevents contamination of groundwater
Demonstrated to be effective for site contaminants
Easy to implement
Reduces off-site transport of waste
State preference-acceptance/satisfies State regulations
No unacceptable short-term risks
No adverse cross-media impacts expected
Negligible short-term risks to humans
Destroys organics, PCBs, and pesticides
Appropriate for small waste volume
Qualified contractors/vendors are available
Equipment is readily available
i • I
4 6 8 10
Number of occurrences
i
12
14
Table 22. Reasons Given Once for Selecting Incineration
Contaminant
Demonstrated to be effective lor PCBs
Only proven technology for full-scale destruction ot dioxm
Site Condition
Minimal or no disturbance of site operations
Technically feasible to construct for site conditions
Implementation
Accepts wastes with minimal pretreatment
No long-term O&M
Proven technology
System is reliable
Risk
Eliminates or reduces leachate and runoff from site
Negligible short-term risks to humans
Produces no residuals requiring further treatment
Reduces major contamination threat to groundwater
Does not restrict future land use
High concentrations of contaminants
Risk (continued)
Reduces carcinogenic nsk
Reduces noncarcmogenic nsk
Removes source of contamination
Significant nsk reduction until final remedy developed
Regulation
Approved by DoD Explosives Safety Board
Satisfies LDRs
Satisfies TSCA
Anticipated to attain cleanup goals
Cost
Cost-effective
Less costly than off-site treatment options
More cost-effective than other treatment options
Information
Demonstrated at other sites
Successful treatability study at the site
Successful implementation at the site
Figure 54 presents the number of times (total 94) that reasons were cited in each category for selecting
incineration. The most often used reasons for selecting incineration were related to exposure or risk,
used 42 percent of the time. Regulatory reasons, the next most frequently used category of reasons,
64
-------
were given 18 percent of the time, and implementation reasons 17 percent of the time. The remaining
reasons were used seven percent or less of the time.
Figure 54. Reasons by Category for Selection of Incineration.
(from FY91 and FY92 Source Control RODs)
Contaminant
Media 10
Site Condition ri 2
Implementation
Exposure/Risk
Regulatory
Cost
Information
Unspecified
0
10
15 20 25 30 35
Number of Occurrences
40 45
6.5.5 In Situ Solidification/Stabilization
Twenty-eight different reasons were given in selecting in situ solidification/stabilization nine times.
However, only four of the reasons were cited more than twice: "cost-effective," "satisfies preference
for treatment," "provides long-term protectiveness," and "minimizes mobility of contaminants," each
constituting seven percent of the times a reason was given. Figure 55 presents the most frequently cited
reasons for selecting in situ solidification/stabilization. Table 23 presents all of the reasons cited once.
Figure 55. Reasons Given More than Once for Selection of In Situ Solidification/
Stabilization, (from FY91 and FY92 Source Control RODs)
Cost-effective
Satisfies preference for treatment
Provides long-term protectiveness
Minimizes mobility of contaminants
Reduces major contamination threat to groundwater
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
Negligible short-term risks to humans
Eliminates or reduces leachate and runoff from site
Easy to implement
Anticipated to attain cleanup goals
i
0123
Number of occurrences
65
-------
Table 23. Reasons Given Once for Selecting In Situ Solidification/Stabilization
Implementation
Proven technology
System is reliable
Equipment is readily available
Qualified contractors/vendors are available
Risk
No excavation required—minimizes short-term risks
Prevents contamination of groundwater
Prevents direct human contact with contaminants
Reduces future exposure to humans
Reduces carcinogenic risk
Reduces noncarcinogenic risk
Reduces future environmental harm
Risk (continued)
Reduces off-site transport of waste
Regulation
Complies with all ARARs
Expected to attain ARARs
Satisfies LDRs
Cost
Least costly of treatment alternatives
More cost-effective than other treatment options
Information
Demonstrated at other sites
Figure 56 presents the number of times (total 45) that reasons were cited in each category for selecting
in situ solidification/stabilization. The most often used reasons for selecting in situ solidification/
stabilization were related to exposure or risk, cited approximately half of the time. The next most
frequently used categories of reasons were regulatory reasons given 18 percent of the time and
implementation reasons given 13 percent of the time. The remaining reasons were given 11 percent or
less of the time.
Figure 56. Reasons by Category for Selection of In Situ Solidification/
Stabilization, (from FY91 and FY92 Source Control FSs and RODs)
Contaminant
Media
Site Condition
Implementation
Exposure/Risk
Regulatory
Cost
Information
Unspecified
r~r • • ••"" i • • • •
0 5 10 15 ' 20 25
Number of Occurrences
6.5.6 Institutional Controls
Twelve different reasons were given in selecting institutional controls the three times it was chosen as
the only site remedy. Ten of the reasons were used only once. "No excavation required—minimizes
short-term risks" and "easy to implement" each were used twice, and each reason constituted 14 percent
of the time a reason was given. Figure 57 presents the most frequently cited reasons for selecting
institutional controls. Table 24 presents all of the reasons cited once.
66
-------
Figure 57. Reasons Given More than Once for Selection of Institutional Controls.
(from FY91 and FY92 Source Control RODs)
No excavation required-minimizes short-term risks
Easy to implement
0 1 2
Number of occurrences
Table 24. Reasons Given Once for Selecting Institutional Controls
Site Condition
Effective for site conditions
Implementation
Short remediation time
Risk
Low contaminant concentrations
Prevents direct human contact with contaminants
Reduces future exposure to humans
Risk (continued)
Provides long-term protectiveness
Regulation
Complies with all ARARs
Expected to attain ARARs
Cost
Cost-effective
Least costly of treatment alternatives
Figure 58 presents the number of times (total 34) that reasons were cited in each category for selecting
institutional controls as the only site remedy. The most often used reasons for selecting institutional
controls were those related to exposure or risk, given 43 percent of the time. Implementation reasons
were given 21 percent of the time, and regulatory and cost reasons were each used 14 percent of the
time.
Figure 58. Reasons by Category for Selection of Institutional Controls.
(from FY91 and FY92 Source Control RODs)
Contaminant
Media
Site Condition
Implementation
Exposure/Risk
Regulatory
Cost
Information
Unspecified
12345
Number of Occurrences
67
-------
6.5.7 Recycling
Seven different reasons were given in selecting recycling at one site. Four of the reasons were related
to reducing risks posed by the site and two of the reasons were related to ease of implementation. None
of the reasons were cited more than once. Table 25 presents all of the reasons cited once.
Table 25. Reasons Given Once for Selecting an Unspecified Standard Technology
Implementation
Easy to implement
Equipment is readily available
Risk
Minimizes mobility of contaminants
- -armanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
Risk (continued)
Prevents direct human contact with contaminants
Provides long-term protectiveness
Cost
More cost-effective than other treatment options
Figure 59 presents the number of times (total 7) that reasons were cited in each category for selecting
recycling. Exposure or risk related reasons, cited 57 percent of the time, were used most often in
selecting recycling. Implementation reasons were given 29 percent of the time.
Figure 59. Reasons by Category for Selection of Recycling.
(from FY91 and FY92 Source Control RODs)
Contaminant
Media
Site Condition
Implementation
Exposure/Risk
Regulatory
Cost
Information
Unspecified
234
Number of Occurrences
6.6 Selection of Capping at Non-Landfill Sites
Capping was selected as a remedy 101 times at the 205 sites. This section examines why capping was
selected so often, in particular, why a containment technology was selected so often rather than a
treatment technology. Capping of municipal land industrial landfills is accepted practice at Superfund
sites where the cost of treatment is prohibitive. After removing landfill sites, there were 26 sites at
which capping was selected as a primary remedy and 22 sites where capping was selected for
containment of residuals.
68
-------
Capping for residuals management included: 1) construction of a temporary cap to improve soil vapor
extraction efficiency; 2) capping residuals left in the soils after implementation of an in situ process,
such as biodegradatiqn or soil vapor extraction, for treating organic contaminants; 3) capping after
implementation of an ex situ treatment process, usually solidification/stabilization, and on-site disposal
of residuals; 4) capping following on-site consolidation of contaminated materials; or 5) capping after
excavation of hot spots.
Table 26 provides a description of the 26 non-landfill sites at which capping was selected as a primary
remedy. The reasons cited in the RODs for selecting capping at these sites primarily reflects the NCP's
nine criteria and do not shed much light on the conditions at the site that resulted in the selection of
capping. The 26 sites were spread out over nine Regions. There also appeared to be no relation
between the site type and selection of capping at these sites. The 26 sites included eleven different site
types: mining (six sites); primary metal fabrication (four sites); uncontrolled waste sites (four sites);
electrical equipment (two sites); recycling (two sites); lumber and wood products (two sites); radiological
disposal (two sites); petroleum refining (one sites); chemicals and allied products (one site); construction
(one site); and agricultural chemicals (one site).
The selection of capping at these sites appear to be most closely related to the volume of contaminated
material and the types of contaminants present at the sites. The volume of contaminated material at 14
of the 26 sites was greater than 100,000 cubic yards, and the volume at 19 of the sites exceeded 50,000
cubic yards. Most striking was the presence of metals or other inorganics at 24 of the 26 sites. Twelve
of the sites included both inorganic and organic contaminants and twelve sites included only inorganic
contaminants. The organics included PCBs at six of the sites and TCE at five of the sites; both are
DNAPLs. Both of the sites where only organic contaminants were present included PCBs.
Table 26. Description of non-landfill sites where capping was selected as a primary remedy.
Site Site Type
Reasons Given for Selection
Technology
Selected
Remedy Description
Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Contaminants
General Motors (Central
Foundry Division), OU-2
(Reg. 2)
Primary Metal
Products
Short remediation time
Easy to implement
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
No unacceptable short-term risks
Reduces short-term rjsk from waste handling
State preference-acceptance/satisfies State regs.
Indian tribe preference
Least costly of treatment alternatives
Successful bench-scale test(s)
Successful full-scale remediations
Biodegradation
Capping
598,000
Organics
PCB
TCE
Active aluminum casting plant, this OU addresses a lagoon that
received wastewaters and a disposal area containing sludge from
the lagoon. Remedy selected: excavation and on-site biological
treatment of highly contaminated soils, and capping of moderately
contaminated areas.
69
-------
Site Site Type
Reasons Given for Selection
Technology
Selected
Remedy Description
Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Contaminants
Roebling Steel Co., OU-2
(Reg. 2)
Primary Metal
Products
Capping
Disposal
S/S
160 1,458,000 Organics
PCB
TCE/PCE
Metals
No long-term O&M
Reduces future exposure to humans
Provides long-term protectiveness
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
Satisfies preference for treatment
Complies with all ARARs
More cost-effective than other treatment options
Inactive steel wire and cable manufacturing facility. Remedy
selected: excavation of contaminated soil and disposal of the soil,
excavation of slag hot spots, solidification/stabilization of excavated
slag, and capping the entire 34-acre slag area using a soil cover.
Petroleum Refining Capping
Sinclair Refinery, OU-2
(Reg. 2)
Easy to implement
Proven technology
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
Provides long-term protectiveness
Minimizes mobility of contaminants
Satisfies preference for treatment
Cost-effective
51,710
Organics
Metals
Former refinery, this OU addresses remediation of contaminated on-
site soils and off-site tank farm soils. Remedy selected: excavation
of contaminated soils, consolidation in an on-site landfill, and
capping the landfill and restoring excavated areas.
Hellertown Manufacturing Electrical
Co. (Reg. 3) Equipment
Easy to implement
Prevents direct human contact with contaminants
Eliminates/reduces leachate and runoff from site
Negligible short-term risks to humans
Consistent with Superfund policy for low risk areas
Cost-effective
Capping
76,000
Organics
TCE
Metals
Inactive spark plug manufacturing facility including 3.5 acres of
former lagoons that had been backfilled with contaminated
materials. Remedy selected: capping of the former lagoon area
with an impermeable asphalt and clay cover.
Mid-Atlantic Wood
Preservers, Inc. (Reg. 3)
Lumber and Wood
Products
Capping
Disposal
S/S
5,200
Metals
Short remediation time
Easy to implement
Prevents direct human contact with contaminants
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
Provides long-term protectiveness
Negligible short-term risks to humans
Cost-effective
Wood treating facility using chromate copper arsenate. Remedy
selected: excavation and stabilization of hot spots followed by
disposal; capping of remaining arsenic contaminated soil with an
asphalt/concrete cap.
70
-------
Site Site Type
Reasons Given for Selection
Technology
Selected
Remedy Description
Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Contaminants
Tonolli Corp. (Reg. 3)
Recycling
Capping
Disposal
S/S
39,000
118,000 Metals
Easy to implement
Equipment is readily available
System is reliable
Provides long-term protectiveness
Minimizes mobility of contaminants
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
Satisfies LDRs
Complies with all ARARs
Cost-effective
Successful treatability study at the site
Inactive battery recycling facility and secondary lead smelter.
Remedy selected: excavation and disposal of debris and
moderately contaminated soils; excavation and stabilization of hot
spots and sludge and consolidation in an on-site landfill; capping
landfill with low permeability cap.
Whitmoyer Laboratories,
OU-3 (Reg. 3)
Chemicals and
Allied Products
Biodegradation
Capping
Disposal
S/S
116,000
Organics
TCE/PCE
Metals
Proven technology
Enhances biological activity
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
Provides long-term protectiveness
Negligible short-term risks to humans
Minimizes mobility of contaminants
Immobilizes contaminants
Complies with all ARARs
Cost-effective
Successful treatability study at the site
Inactive laboratory facility that produced organic arsenicals.
Remedy selected: excavation, fixation, and disposal of some soils:
excavation, biological treatment, and disposal of some soils;
excavation and consolidation of moderately contaminated soils;
capping of consolidated soils and other remaining contaminated
areas.
Interstate Lead Co. (ILCO), Primary Metal
OU-1 (Reg. 4) Products
Prevents direct human contact with contaminants
Minimizes mobility of contaminants
Reduces major contamination threat to GW
Negligible short-term risks to humans
Reduces off-site transport of waste
Satisfies LDRs
More cost-effective than other treatment options
Anticipated to attain cleanup goals
Capping
S/S
123,700
Metals
Secondary lead smelter that used lead bearing scrap metals,
including batteries. Furnace slag was disposed of at seven
subsites, including the municipal landfill. Remedy selected:
excavation and solidification/stabilization of contaminated materials
at six of the subsites; capping of contaminated soils at the municipal
landfill.
71
-------
Site Site Type
Reasons Given for Selection
Technology
Selected
Remedy Description
Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Contaminants
Marine Corps Logistics
Base, OU-3 (Reg. 4)
Uncontrolled Waste
Site
Capping
Disposal
330
Organics
PCB
Metals
No excavation required
Commercially available
Proven technology
No long-term O&M
Prevents contamination of groundwater
Prevents contamination of surface water
Prevents direct human contact with contaminants
Provides long-term protectiveness
Reduces future environmental harm
Does not restrict future land use
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
Complies with all ARARs
Satisfies LDRs
Active military facility, this OU addresses a former leaking
transformer area and a chrome plating waste spill area. Remedy
selected: capping transformer location with a multi-layer cap;
excavation and disposal of soils from chrome plating spill area.
Maxey Flats Nuclear
Disposal (Reg. 4)
Radiological
Disposal
Capping
176,000
Organics
TCE
Metals
Radionuclides
Does not disrupt metal containers
Minimizes mobility of contaminants
Inactive low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. This OU
addresses soil, debns, and leachate from a tank farm from which a
number of tanks had been removed earlier. Remedy selected:
consolidation of solidified leachate and debns in on-site trenches,
capping a 50-acre area with a clay and synthetic liner, and replacing
the cap every 20-25 years.
Oak Ridge Reservation
(USDOE), OU-2 (Reg. 4)
Radiological
Disposal
Capping
3,204
1,958
Nitrite
Strontium-90
Easy to implement
Equipment is readily available
Reduces groundwater contamination
Reduces major contamination threat to GW
Eliminates/reduces leachate and runoff from site
Negligible short-term risks to humans
Demonstrated at other sites
Inactive uranium recovery facility; this OU addresses a disposal
area the received contaminated sludge, soil, and debris. Remedy
selected: capping the disposal area with a multi-layer cover.
72
-------
Site Site Type
Reasons Given for Selection
Technology
Selected
Remedy Description
Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Contaminants
Carter Industrials, Inc. Recycling
(Reg. 5)
Can segregate PCBs from soils
Reduces off-site transport of waste
Reduces short-term risk from waste handling
Reduces risk more than other treatment options
Provides long-term protectiveness
Less costly than off-site treatment options
Cost-effective
Successful pilot test at the site
Capping
LTTD
Disposal
S/S
46,000
Organics
PCB
Metals
Former scrap metal storage and salvage operation. Remedy
selected: excavation of PCB contaminated soil; low temperature
thermal desorption of the more highly contaminated soil and
solidification of residuals if needed; disposing of less contaminated
soil in an on-site containment cell and capping with a clay and soil
cover; and disposal of a storage tank and its contents.
Fadrowski Drum Disposal
(Reg. 5)
Uncontrolled Waste
Site
Capping
Unspecified
treatment
142,025
Organics
Metals
Easy to implement
Prevents direct human contact with contaminants
Eliminates/reduces leachate and runoff from site
Minimizes mobility of contaminants
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
Reduces major contamination threat to GW
Negligible short-term risks to humans
Cost-effective
Unregulated industrial landfill allowed to accept only clean fill and
debris, but at which hazardous wastes were buried. Remedy
selected: excavation of drums and contaminated soils; on-site
treatment of soils; off-site treatment or disposal of drums;
construction of landfill cap.
Torch Lake, OU-1 & OU-3
(Reg. 5)
Pnmary Metal
Products
Capping
Disposal
81 4X800
Organics
Metals
Prevents direct human contact with contaminants
No excavation required-min. short-term risks
Reduces future environmental harm
Provides long-term protectiveness
Complies with all ARARs
Copper milling and smelting facility nciudng tailings and slag.
Remedy selected: disposal of debns and capping with a soil cover.
Petro-Chemical Systems,
Inc. (TB), OU-2 (Reg. 6)
Uncontrolled Waste
Site
Capping
Soil vapor extraction
302,800
Organics
Metals
Improves efficiency of innovative technology
No excavation required-min. short-term risks
Negligible or no emissions
Reduces groundwater contamination
Reduces major contamination threat to GW
No excavation required-avoids LDRs
Cost-effective
Successful treatability studies at similar sites
Grazing and farming land used for illegal dumping of petrochemical
wastes. Remedy selected: treatment of organic contaminated soils
using soil vapor extraction with use of a synthetic liner cap to
control vertical air movement: excavation and consolidation of lead
contaminated soil and capping of consolidated soils.
73
-------
Site Site Type
Reasons Given for Selection
Technology
Selected
Remedy Description
Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Contaminants
Lehigh Portland Cement
Co. (Reg. 7)
Construction
Capping
439,000
Cement kiln
dust
Short remediation time
Proven technology
Equipment is readily available
Provides long-term protectiveness
Minimizes mobility of contaminants
Reduces major contamination threat to GW
Prevents contamination of surface water
Least costly of treatment alternatives
Cement production facility. Remedy selected: excavation and
consolidation of cement kiln dust from selected areas and capping
with a clay cap.
Central City-Clear Creek Mining
(Reg. 8)
Short remediation time
Provides long-term protectiveness
Minimizes mobility of contaminants
Complies with all ARARs
Cost-effective
Capping
1,170,800 Metals
Active gold mining facility. Remedy selected: construction of a cap
and other physical barriers for mine waste piles to reduce loading to
surface waters.
Denver Radium Site, OU-9 Mining
(Reg. 8)
No excavation required
Short remediation time
Easy to implement
Prevents direct human contact with contaminants
Complies with all ARARs
Cost-effective
Capping
16,540
Metals
Former radioactive mining site including a former bnck plant.
Remedy selected: constructing a multi-media cap over
contaminated soil, and upgrading an asphalt parking lot with a liner
and an additional six inches of asphalt.
Hill Air Force Base, OU-3
(Reg. 8)
Uncontrolled Waste
Site
Capping
unknown
Sodium
hydroxide
Equipment is readily available
System is reliable
Prevents direct human contact with contaminants
Minimizes mobility of contaminants
Provides long-term protectiveness
Eliminates/reduces leachate and runoff from site
More cost-effective than other treatment options
Active Air Force base, this OU includes two underground storage
tanks holding a sodium hydroxide solution used in wastewater
treatment. This is an interim remedial action. Remedy selected:
removal of underground storage tanks, backfilling with clean soil,
and capping with a temporary asphalt cap.
Atlas Asbestos Mine, Mine Mining
Area OU (Reg. 9)
Short remediation time
Eliminates/reduces leachate and runoff from site
Prevents land erosion
Provides long-term protectiveness
No adverse cross-media impacts expected
Negligible short-term risks to humans
Cost-effective
Capping
3,000,000 Asbestos
Open pit asbestos mines, inactive mill building, and asbestos waste
material. Remedy selected: construction of stream diversions,
sediment trapping dams, and other slope stabilization elements.
74
-------
Site Site Type
Reasons Given for Selection
Technology
Selected
Remedy Description
Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Contaminants
Iron Mountain Mine, Mining
Boulder Creek OU (Reg. 9)
Proven technology
Equipment is readily available
Qualified contractors/vendors are available
Eliminates/reduces leachate and runoff from site
Prevents contamination of surface water
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
Prevents land erosion
Negligible short-term risks to humans
Reduces off-site transport of waste
Qualifies for an ARAR waiver
Demonstrated at other sites
Capping
50,000 Metals
A collection of underground and open pit mines, numerous waste
piles, and associated mining facilities. Remedy selected:
excavating, consolidating on site, and capping seven waste piles
that are eroding and discharging hazardous substances.
Rhone-Poulenc Inc.
(Zoecon) Sandoz, OU-1
(Reg. 9)
Agricultural
Chemicals
Capping
S/S
91,000
Metals
Prevents direct human contact with contaminants
Reduces carcinogenic risk
Provides long-term protectiveness
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
Complies with all ARARs
Cost-effective
The site is composed of a dozen separately owned parcels,
including a former pesticide manufacturing plant, sludge pond,
chemical storage facility, and a hazardous waste drum storage site.
Remedy selected: excavation of off-site and highly contaminated
on-site soils and treatment using solidification/stabilization;
constructing a cap and liner on other arsenic-contaminated soils.
Westinghouse Electric
Corp. (Sunnyvale Plant)
(Reg. 9)
Electrical
Equipment
Capping
Incineration
400
Organics
PCB
Demonstrated to be effective for PCBs
Technically feasible to construct for site conditions
Proven technology
No unacceptable short-term risks
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
Complies with all ARARs
Satisfies preference for treatment
Satisfies LDRs
Cost-effective
Active industrial facility manufacturing steam generators, marine
propulsion systems, and missile launching systems. Remedy
selected: excavation and incineration of soils containing high levels
of PCBs; installing an asphalt cap over excavated areas and other
PCB-contaminated areas.
Bunker Hill Mining &
Metallurgical, OU-1 (Reg.
10)
Mining
Capping
640,000
Metals
Technically feasible to construct for site conditions
Easy to implement
System is reliable
Negligible short-term risks to humans
Cost-effective
This is a 21 square mile area including mining, milling, and smelting
facilities that have produced sludge, tailings, flue dust, and other
wastes. This OU addresses contaminated residential soil within
populated areas of the site. Remedy selected: excavating soil with
high levels of lead, disposing of the soil in an on-site repository, and
capping the repository.
75
-------
Site Site Type
Reasons Given for Selection
Technology
Selected
Remedy Description
Soil Vol. Waste Vol. -Contaminants
Bunker Hill Mining &
Metallurgical, OU-2 (Reg.
10)
Mining
Capping
18,000,000 Organics
PCB
Metals
Prevents direct human contact with contaminants
Minimizes mobility of contaminants
This is a 21 square mile area including mining, milling, and smelting
facilities that have produced sludge, tailings, flue dust, and other
wastes. This OU addresses contaminated soil within non-populated
areas of the site. Remedy selected: excavation and consolidation
of contaminated soils, capping the consolidated soils, installing
erosion control and other engineering controls to prevent further
discharges.
Wyckoff Co./Eagle Harbor,
OU-3 (Reg. 10)
Lumber and Wood
Products
Capping
Disposal
S/S
80,325
0
Organics
Metals
Short remediation time
Easy to implement
Short remediation time
Negligible short-term risks to humans
Minimizes mobility of contaminants
Reduces future environmental harm
Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
Cost-effective
Inactive wood treating facility, the adjacent Eagle Harbor, and other
upland sources of contamination to the harbor, including a former
shipyard. This OU addresses sediments and upland sources of
contamination. Remedy selected: excavating and dewatering
intertidal sediment, treating some of the sediment using
solidification/stabilization, disposal of the rest of the sediment,
capping areas of concern including the excavated areas with a one
meter thick layer of clean sediment
7. REASONS FOR ELIMINATION OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
This section examines why and when innovative technologies are being eliminated during the technology
selection process. The reasons given for eliminating innovative technologies are examined to determine
barriers to the selection of 20 innovative technologies for remediating Superfund sites. This analysis
is not intended to be an evaluation of the technology selection process, but focuses on barriers to the
use of innovative technologies at Superfund sites. All of the different reasons, grouped by category and
subcategory, for the elimination of innovative technologies at the 205 sites are listed in Appendix D.
Reasons for Elimination of Innovative Technologies, along with the number of times each reasons was
given.
7.1 Section Summary
?-
The reasons for elimination of innovative source control technologies have been grouped into nine
categories that are similar to the categories created for organizing the reasons for selection of remedial
technologies. Because of the large number of reasons given for technology elimination within each
category, subcategories were developed to make more discrete, easier to examine, data groups. The
categories are:
• Contaminant: the technology would not effectively treat specific contaminants found at the site.
• Media: the technology would not effectively treat the contaminated media (soil, sediment, solid
waste, sludge) at the site.
• Site condition: site conditions would make the use of a particular technology difficult or ineffective.
76
-------
• Implementation: the technology would be more difficult or take longer to implement than an
alternative technology at the site.
• Exposure/risk: the use of a technology would not reduce, or would create, contaminant exposures
and risk to the public, site workers, and equipment operators.
• Regulatory: the technology would not be able to meet regulatory requirements or achieve public
acceptance.
• Cost: the technology would not be cost-effective.
• Information: not enough information was available on the cost or performance of a technology to
determine its effectiveness at the site.
• Other: No reason was given for the elimination of an innovative technology or no treatment was
determined to be necessary at the site.
Twenty innovative technologies were considered a total of 1,487 times at the 205 sites. The number of
times an individual innovative technology was considered at the 205 sites ranged from a high of 148
times for ex situ biodegradation to a low of one time for UV radiation. Eight innovative technologies
were considered over 100 times, and four innovative technologies were considered less then 10 times.
Of the 1,380 times an innovative technology was eliminated from consideration as a site remedy, the
elimination occurred during the initial screening 1,036 times, during the three-criteria screening 211
times, and during the detailed evaluation 133 times. The newer, less mature technologies, such as in
situ heating, soil cooling/freezing, and vegetative uptake, tended to be eliminated more often during the
initial screening than the more mature technologies, such as low temperature thermal desorption and soil
vapor extraction.
A total of 616 unique reasons were cited 3,577 times for eliminating the 1.380 innovative technologies
(average of 2.6 reasons per technology). Of the 616 unique reasons cited for eliminating innovative
technologies, 252 of the reasons were cited only during the initial screening phase. Another 72 reasons
were cited only during the three-criteria screening, and 56 reasons were cited only during the detailed
evaluation. The remaining 236 different reasons were cited in a combination of two or three phases of
technology selection. The most common reasons given for eliminating individual innovative
technologies tended to be cited during both the initial screening phase and the later two phases of the
technology selection process.
Of the 3,577 times reasons were given for eliminating innovative technologies, 2,391 reasons were given
during the initial screening, 740 reasons were given during the three-criteria screening, and 446 reasons
were given during the detailed evaluation. The 12 most common reasons cited for innovative technology
elimination account for 787 (22 percent) of the total number of reasons given for the elimination of
innovative technologies:
• Not applicable to metals/inorganics, 144 times;
• High cost, 122 times;
• Not applicable to all site contaminants, 79 times;
• Heterogeneous wastes, 75 times;
• Requires treatability studies, 62 times;
• Limited availability of vendors/technology, 47 times;
• Difficult to implement, 46 times;
• May contaminate groundwater, 44 times;
• Not demonstrated on a large/full scale, 44 times;
• Success/effectiveness uncertain, 44 times
• Not effective for site contaminants, 41 times; and
• Not fully developed technology, 39 times.
77
-------
By technology, the total number of reasons cited for eliminating individual technologies ranged from
414 times for ex situ biodegradation to three times for UV radiation. The most reasons cited for
eliminating an individual technology during the initial screening was 257 reasons cited for eliminating
soil flushing. The most reasons cited for eliminating an individual technology during the three-criteria
screening was 106 reasons cited for eliminating in situ vitrification. The most reasons cited for
eliminating an individual technology during the detailed evaluation was 76 reasons cited for eliminating
low temperature thermal desorption.
By category, the most common reasons for elimination of innovative technologies were related to their
implementability (887 occurrences), ineffectiveness on site contaminants (639 occurrences),
ineffectiveness on contaminated media (511 occurrences), and lack of information on cost and
performance (470 occurrences). Innovative technologies also were eliminated because of high cost (338
occurrences), site conditions that precluded their effective use (335 occurrences), exposure- or risk-
related reasons (267 occurrences), and lack of public acceptance or ability to meet regulatory
requirements (95 occurrences). The contaminant and media categories were cited a higher percentage
of the time during the initial screening phase than other categories. In addition, the exposure/risk
category was cited a higher percentage of the time during the three-criteria and detailed evaluation
phases than other categories.
Table 27. presents the most important reasons for the elimination of each innovative technology based
on an examination of individual reasons, subcategories of reasons, and categories of reasons cited for
elimination of each technology.
Table 27. Summary of most important reasons given for eliminating each innovative technology.
Technology
Reasons for Elimination
Ex Situ Biodegradation
Presence of metals and inorganics
Various problems with implementation and matenals handling
Limitations on the space available for on-site treatment
Need for further demonstrations
Inefficiency as compared to other technologies, such as SVE
Need to treat or dispose of treatment residuals
Long time required for remediation
Needs testing at the site
In situ vitrification
High cost
High energy needs
Ineffectiveness on saturated soils
Depth of contaminated soils either too deep or too shallow
Limited availability of vendors
Need for further development
Concern over air emissions
Need for further demonstrations
Number of Times
Total Times 3-Criteria
Given Screening
36
19
12
13
15
13
9
10
44
22
33
20
21
12
17
17
33
16
B
8
9
10
5
5
21
15
25
15
10
9
11
9
Given by Phase
Detailed Initial
Evaluation Screening
3
3
4
0
5
1
3
3
17
6
8
5
6
2
4
6
0
0
0
5
1
2
1
2
6
1
0
0
5
1
2
2
78
-------
Technology
Reasons for Elimination
Soil flushing
Potential to contaminate groundwater
Difficulty in controlling an in situ process
Difficulty in recovering reaction by-products
Low soil permeability
Presence of heterogeneous soils and wastes
Uncertain performance
Other thermal (ex situ)
• Inapplicability to metals and inorganics
• High cost
• Limited availability
• Need for further development
• Need for post-treatment or disposal of residuals
• Inapplicability to soils
• Need for pre-treatment of contaminated materials
• Need for further demonstrations
Soil vapor extraction
• Inapplicability to metals and inorganics
• Inapplicability to SVOCs and low vapor pressure contaminants
• Presence of low permeability soils
• Presence of heterogeneous soils and wastes
• Ineffectiveness for saturated soils
In situ biodegradation
• Inapplicability to metals/inorganics
• Inapplicability to chtonnated compounds
• Presence of metals or organics that inhibit biological activity
• Difficulty in controlling an in situ process
• Potential to form more toxic or mobile by-products
• Inapplicability to heterogeneous wastes
• Ineffectiveness on low permeability soils
• Potentially long remediation times
• Potential to contaminate groundwater
Soil washing
• Difficulty in extracting contaminants from soils
• Need for post-treatment or disposal of residuals
• High costs
• Need for treatability testing due to uncertain effectiveness
• Presence of fine-grained soils
• Inapplicability to site contaminants
• Contaminated material volumes that were too small or too large
Solvent extraction
• Inapplicability to metals and inorganics
• Need for post-treatment or disposal of treatment residuals
• Need for testing at the site
• High cost
• Limited availability
• Potential short-term risks to site workers from solvent solutions
• Need for further demonstrations
Number of Times Given by Phase
Total Times 3-Criteria Detailed Initial
Given Screening Evaluation Screening
47
18
23
27
25
10
23
35
21
22
15
20
10
20
20
23
11
7
6
20
11
9
19
15
16
15
12
11
18
25
22
14
16
10
12
21
21
14
25
9
9
12
29
15
15
23
19
6
19
26
14
17
13
17
9
17
18
20
6
5
4
20
7
9
15
13
12
10
8
9
15
13
11
5
13
8
10
17
6
3
15
4
3
11
12
3
8
4
6
3
4
8
6
4
2
3
1
3
1
2
3
1
1
0
2
0
2
1
2
4
1
1
3
8
9
3
3
2
2
4
9
5
7
2
4
0
6
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
1
0
2
0
2
1
2
1
3
1
0
4
2
6
0
0
0
0
6
6
3
3
2
1
79
-------
Technology
Reasons for Elimination
Low temperature thermal desorption
• Inapplicability to metals/inorganics
• High cost in comparison to other treatment technologies
• Short-term risks to site workers
• Uncertainty in achieving cleanup goals
• Disruption of existing site activities
• Need for post-treatment or disposal of treatment residuals
• Need to control off gases
Biodegradation
• Inapplicability to metals/inorganics
• Inapplicability to SVOCs
• Need for testing at the site
• • Presence of metals or organics that inhibit biological activity
• Potential to form more toxic or mobile by-products
• Concentrations of organics that were too low
In situ heating
• Inapplicability to metals/inorganics
• Inapplicability to SVOCs
• High cost
• Limited availability
• Need for further demonstrations
• Ineffectiveness for low permeability soils
Dechlonnation
• Inapplicability to VOCs and other volatile contaminants
• Inapplicability to metals/inorganics
• High cost
• Need for post-treatment or disposal of residuals
• Need for testing at the site
• Potential to form more toxic or mobile by-products
Chemical treatment (in situ)
• Difficulty in controlling an in situ process
• Not applicable to site contaminants
• Difficult to implement
• Potential to form more toxic or mobile by-products
• Need for testing at the site
• Needs further demonstration
Chemical treatment (ex situ)
• Not applicable to site contaminants
• Inapplicability to metals/inorganics
• Inapplicability to organics
• Potential to form more toxic or mobile by-products
• Difficult to implement
• Volumes of contaminated material too large
Metallurgical processes
• Unproven technology
• Need for post-treatment or disposal of residuals
• . Less effective than solidification/stabilization
• Low concentrations of metals in material to be treated
• Limited availability
• Potential adverse environmental effects
• High cost in comparison to other technologies
Number of Times Given by Phase
Total Times 3-Crrteria Detailed Initial
Given Screening Evaluation Screening
13
15
11
7
7
6
6
31
12
14
15
8
8
18
6
22
9
9
9
7
4
13
7
7
4
18
9
6
8
4
5
12
8
8
10
6
3
6
3
3
5
4
3
4
12
2
1
0
1
2
3
27
6
9
11
7
6
17
5
11
8
6
8
7
4
9
2
1
2
17
9
5
5
3
5 •
10
8
7
8
5
3
2
1
0
3
1
2
1
1
4
0
3
0
2
0
4
6
5
4
1
1
1
1
11
0
2
1
0
0
3
3
2
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
2
1
0
1
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
9
10
4
6
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
2
4
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
3
0
2
1
3
80
-------
Technology
Reasons for Elimination
Electrokinetics
Unproven technology
Ineffective for soils with low soil moisture content
Need for testing at the site
Inapplicable to site contaminants
Needs further development
Soil cooling/freezing
• It is not a long-term solution
• High energy costs
• High installation and operational costs
• Unproven technology
Soil vapor extraction (ex situ)
• Less effective than in situ soil vapor extraction
• More costly than in situ soil vapor extraction
Vegetative uptake
• Not applicable to all site contaminants
• Suitable only for surface and near-surface contaminated soils
UV radiation
• Requires pre-treatment to slurry soils
• Not a fully developed technology
• Uncertain success
Number of Times Given by Phase
Total Times 3-Criteria Detailed Initial
Given Screening Evaluation Screening
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
0
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
1
0
2
2
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
7.2 Overview of Reasons for Elimination of Innovative Technologies
The reasons for elimination of innovative source control technologies have been grouped into nine
categories that are similar to the categories created for organizing the reasons for selection of remedial
technologies:
• Contaminant: the technology would not effectively treat specific contaminants found at the site.
• Media: the technology would not effectively treat the contaminated media (soil, sediment, solid
waste, sludge) at the site.
• Site condition: site conditions would make the use of a particular technology difficult or ineffective.
• Implementation: the technology would be more difficult or take longer to implement than an
alternative technology at the site.
• Exposure/risk: the use of a technology would not reduce, or would create, contaminant exposures
and risk to the public, site workers, and equipment operators.
• Regulatory: the technology would not be able to meet regulatory requirements or achieve public
acceptance.
• Cost: the technology would not be cost-effective.
• Information: not enough information was available on the cost or performance of a technology to
determine its effectiveness at the site.
• Other: No reason was given for the elimination of an innovative technology or no treatment was
determined to be necessary at the site.
Figure 60 presents the number of times that reasons within each category were cited for the elimination
of innovative technologies, including reasons cited in the initial screening, 3-criteria screening, and
81
-------
detailed evaluation. A total of 3,577 reasons were given for the elimination of 1,380 innovative
technologies (average of 2.6 reasons per technology) at the 205 sites (average of 17.6 reasons per site).2
Figure 60. Reasons for elimination of innovative technologies
by category (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
Other 135
Information
Cost
Regulatory
Exposure/Risk
Implementation
Site condition
Media
Contaminant
600
Number of occurrences
800
1000
The most common reasons for elimination of innovative technologies were related to their implement-
ability (887 occurrences), ineffectiveness on site contaminants (639 occurrences), ineffectiveness on
contaminated media (511 occurrences), and lack of information on cost and performance (470 occur-
rences). Innovative technologies also were eliminated because of high cost (338 occurrences), site
conditions that precluded their effective use (335 occurrences), exposure- or risk-related reasons (267
occurrences), and lack of public acceptance or ability to meet regulatory requirements (95 occurrences).
Of the 56 reasons in the "Other" category, no reason was given for the elimination of 30 innovative
technologies and five innovative technologies were eliminated because no remedial action was
determined to be necessary at the sites.
Table 28 presents the number of times each innovative technology was eliminated from consideration
as a site remedy, the number of reasons cited for eliminating each technology at each of the three phases
of technology selection, and the total number of reasons cited for eliminating each technology. A total
of 3,577 reasons were cited for eliminating 1,380 innovative technologies as part of the sites remedies:
2,391 reasons were cited for eliminating 1,036 innovative technologies during the initial screening; 740
reasons were cited for eliminating 211 innovative technologies during the three-criteria screening; and
446 reasons were cited for eliminating 133 innovative technologies during the detailed evaluation.
The greatest total number of reasons cited for eliminating an individual technology was the 414 reasons
given for eliminating in situ vitrification. The most reasons cited during the initial screening was the
257 reasons cited for eliminating soil flushing. The most reasons cited during the three-criteria screening
was the 106 reasons for eliminating in situ vitrification. The most reasons cited during the detailed
evaluation was the 76 reasons for eliminating low temperature thermal desorption.
2More than one reason was often cited within the same category for elimination of a particular
technology. For example, the reasons given for eliminating soil washing could have included the need
for pre-treatment and the need for post-treatment, both of which are related to implementation.
82
-------
Table 28. Summary of when innovative technologies were eliminated in FY91 and FY92 RODs.
Number of Reasons for Elimination by Phase
Technologies Considered Number of Times
Eliminated
Ex situ biodegradation
In situ vitrification
Soil flushing
Other thermal (ex situ)
Soil vapor extraction
In situ biodegradation
Soil washing
Solvent extraction
Low temperature thermal desorption
Biodegradation
In situ heating
Dechlorination
Chemical treatment (in situ)
Chemical treatment (ex situ)
Metallurgical processes
Electrokinetics
Soil cooling/freezing
Soil vapor extraction (ex situ)
Vegetative uptake
UV radiation
Innovative Totals
140
139
129
138
75
114
113
102
84
84
76
47
47
41
20
10
9
6
5
1
1,380
Initial
Screening
234
256
257
238
111
239
176
151
81
157
138
70
112
79
41
19
15
7
7
3
2,391
3-Criteria
Screening
59
106
99
62
20
54
84
73
31
44
41
22
12
19
9
3
0
2
0
0
740
Detailed
Evaluation
31
52
25
9
21
41
64
60
76
6
6
26
2
0
25
0
0
2
0
0
446
Total Number
of Reasons
324
414
381
309
152
334
324
284
188
207
185
118
126
98
75
22
15
11
7
3
3,577
The 12 most common reasons cited for innovative technology elimination account for 787 (22 percent)
of the total number of reasons given for the elimination of innovative technologies:
• Not applicable to metals/inorganics, 144 times;
• High cost, 122 times;
• Not applicable to all site contaminants, 79 times;
• Heterogeneous wastes, 75 times;
• Requires treatability studies, 62 times;
• Limited availability of vendors/technology, 47 times;
• Difficult to implement, 46 times;
• May contaminate groundwater, 44 times;
• Not demonstrated on a large/full scale, 44 times;
• Success/effectiveness uncertain, 44 times;
83
-------
• Not effective for site contaminants, 41 times; and
• Not fully developed technology, 39 times.
A total of 616 different reasons were given for the elimination of innovative technologies. Of the total,
250 reasons were cited only once, 276 reasons were cited between two and nine times, 84 reasons were
cited between 10 and 50 times, and six reasons were cited greater than 50 times. Of the 616 different
reasons cited for eliminating innovative technologies, 252 of the reasons were cited only during the
initial screening phase. Another 72 reasons were cited only during the three-criteria screening, and 56
reasons were cited only during the detailed evaluation. The remaining 236 different reasons were cited
in a combination of two or three of the three phases of technology selection.
Because of the large number of different reasons for technology elimination within each category,
subcategories were developed to make more discrete, easier to examine, data groups. Table 29 presents
the subcategories, subcategory definitions, and the total number of reasons cited that fall within each
subcategory. All of the different reasons, grouped by category and subcategory, for the elimination of
innovative technologies at the 205 sites are listed in Appendix D. Reasons for Elimination of Innovative
Technologies, along with the number of times each reasons was given.
Table 29. Categories and subcategories of reasons for elimination of innovative technologies (FY91
and FY92 source control RODs).
Category/Subcategory and Definition Number of Occurrences
CATEGORY 1. CONTAMINANT 639
Subcategory 1.1. Metals/inorganics. Technology is unproven or not applicable for 205
metals/inorganics.
Subcategory 12. VOCs. Technology is unproven or not applicable for VOCs. 38
Subcategory 1.3. SVOCs. Technology is unproven or not applicable for SVOCs. 76
Subcategory 1.4. Pesticides. Technology is unproven or not applicable for pesticides. 13
Subcategory 1.5. Dioxins/Furans. Technology is unproven or not applicable for dioxins and 18
furans.
Subcategory 1.6. Radiological. Technology is unproven or not applicable for radiological 4
contaminants.
Subcategory 1.7. Other Classifications. Technology is unproven or not applicable for 64
specific contaminant classes.
Subcategory 1.8. Contaminant Characteristics. Technology is unproven or not applicable for 40
contaminants with specific characteristics, such as low volatility.
Subcategory 1.9. General. FS stated generalized contaminant-related reasons for 181
eliminating a technology from consideration as a site remedy.
CATEGORY! MEDIA 511
Subcategory 2.1. Soils. Technology is unproven or not applicable for treating contaminated 39
soils and sediments.
Subcategory 2.2. Sludges. Technology is unproven or not applicable for treating 14
contaminated sludges and tars.
84
-------
Category/Subcategory and Definition Number of Occurrences
Subcategory 2.3. Solid Wastes. Technology is unproven or not applicable for treating solid 59
wastes.
Subcategory 2.4. Aqueous Wastes. Technology is unproven or not applicable for treating 2
aqueous wastes.
Subcategory 2.5. Volume. Technology is unproven or not applicable for treating the volume 94
of contaminated media found at a site.
Subcategory 2.6. Concentration. Technology is unsuitable to the site because of the 68
concentration of contaminants.
Subcategory 2.7. Media Characteristics. Technology is unsuitable for media with specific 59
characteristics, such as fuel value or biodegradability.
Subcategory 2.8. Contaminated Media Location. Technology is unsuitable to the site 77
because of the location of contaminated media.
Subcategory 2.9. General. FS stated generalized media-related reasons for eliminating a 99
technology from consideration as a site remedy.
CATEGORY 3. SITE CONDITIONS 335
Subcategory 3.1. Subsurface Characteristics. Technology is unsuitable to the site because 84
of subsurface processes or conditions.
Subcategory 3.2. Surface Characteristics. Technology is unsuitable to the site because of 53
surface conditions or environments.
Subcategory 3.3. Soil Characteristics. Technology is unproven or not applicable for soils 140
with specific characteristics, such as porosity or moisture content.
Subcategory 3.4. Structures/Activities. Technology is unsuitable to the site because of 33
building, structures, or activities on the site.
Subcategory 3.5. General. FS stated generalized reasons related to site conditions for 25
eliminating a technology from consideration as a site remedy.
CATEGORY 4. IMPLEMENTATION 887
Subcategory 4.1. Availability. Technology was eliminated because of a lack of availability of 96
equipment or personnel.
Subcategory 4.2. Remediation Time. Technology was eliminated because it would take too 47
long to attain cleanup goals.
Subcategory 4.3. Monitoring/Verification. Technology was eliminated because of difficulty in 26
monitoring or verifying treatment results.
Subcategory 4.4. Post-treatment/Disposal. Technology was eliminated because the treated 119
material would require subsequent additional treatment or disposal.
Subcategory 4.5. Pre-treatment. Technology was eliminated because the contaminated 24
material would require pre-treatment.
Subcategory 4.6. Process Limitations/Materials Handling. Technology was eliminated 161
because of difficulty in implementing the core process at the site (not including requirements
for pre- and post-treatment).
Subcategory 4.7. Specific Technology Comparisons. Technology was eliminated because a 50
specific alternative technology was considered more effective or less difficult to implement.
85
-------
Category/Subcategory and Definition Number of Occurrences
Subcategory 4.8. General. Technology Comparisons. Technology was eliminated because it 63
did not compare favorably with general alternative technologies.
Subcategory 4.9. Interference Factors. Technology was eliminated because contaminants 53
or other factors present at the site would interfere with implementation.
Subcategory 4.10. In Situ Control. Technology was eliminated because of difficulties in 93
controlling in situ processes or reactions.
Subcategory 4.11. Off-Gas Control. Technology was eliminated because of difficulties in 51
controlling off-gases.
Subcategory 4.12. Treated Material Problems. Technology was eliminated because of 10
undesirable qualities of the treated material.
Subcategory 4.13. General. FS stated generalized implementability problems for eliminating 94
a technology from consideration as a site remedy.
CATEGORY 5. EXPOSURE/RISK 267
Subcategory 5.1. Short-term Risk. Technology was eliminated because its implementation 68
would create short-term risk for the public or site workers.
Subcategory 5.2. Long-term Risk. Technology was eliminated because its implementation 46
would result in long-term risks to human health or the environment.
Subcategory 5.3. Toxic or Mobile Residuals. Technology was eliminated because it would 69
create more toxic or mobile residuals.
Subcategory 5.4. Cross-Media Contamination. Technology was eliminated because its use 84
may result in contamination of other media.
CATEGORY 6. REGULATORY 95
Subcategory 6.1. RCRA. Technology was eliminated because it would not meet or probably 28
would not meet RCRA regulations.
Subcategory 6.2. Public Acceptance. Technology was eliminated because it was considered 6
unacceptable to the public.
Subcategory 6.3. Other. Technology was eliminated due to a variety of regulation-related 61
reasons, such as State or CERCLA requirements.
CATEGORY?. COST 338
Subcategory 7.1. Capital Costs. Technology was eliminated because of high capital costs. 33
Subcategory 7.2. Operation and Maintenance Costs. Technology was eliminated because 95
of high operation and-maintenance costs.
Subcategory 7.3. Technology Comparisons. Technology was eliminated because another 74
technology was considered more cost-effective.
Subcategory 7.4. General. FS stated generalized cost-related reasons for eliminating a 136
technology from consideration as a site remedy.
CATEGORY 8. INFORMATION 470
Subcategory 8.1. Needs Further Development. Technology was eliminated because it was 91
not considered to be fully developed.
86
-------
Category/Subcategory and Definition Number of Occurrences
Subcategory 8.2. Needs Demonstration. Technology was eliminated because further 119
demonstrations were needed to determine its effectiveness.
Subcategory 8.3. Needs Testing at Site. Technology was eliminated because testing was 110
required to determine its effectiveness on site contamination.
Subcategory 8.4. Unsuccessful Application. Technology was eliminated because it was 32
unsuccessfully tested or applied at a site.
Subcategory 8.5. Unproven/Uncertain Application. Technology was eliminated because it 118
was considered to be unproven or its effectiveness on site contamination was considered
uncertain.
CATEGORY 9. OTHER 35
Subcategory 9.1. No Reason Given. The technology was eliminated from consideration 35
without a specified reason.
7.3 Technology-Specific Reasons for Elimination
This section analyzes the reasons for elimination of 20 innovative technologies. The data collected on
reasons for elimination are presented in three figures for each of the 16 most commonly considered
technologies: 1) one figure presenting the most common reasons cited for eliminating the technologies;
2) one figure presenting all of the reasons for eliminating the technologies grouped into the categories;
and 3) one figure presenting the most common reasons cited for eliminating the technologies grouped
into the most often cited subcategories. All of these figures indicate which phase of the technologs
selection process the reasons were cited. These figures were not prepared for four technologies—soil
cooling/freezing, ex situ soil vapor extraction, vegetative uptake, and UV radiation—because of the few
number of times they were considered at the 205 sites. Complete lists of all the reasons cited for
eliminating each innovative technology, along with the number of times each reason was cued, are
presented in Appendix E. Technology Specific Reasons for Elimination of Innovative Technologies
7.3.1 Ex Situ Biodegradation
Ex situ biodegradation was considered 148 times at the 205 sites and was selected eight times. It was
eliminated from consideration 110 times during the initial screening, 19 times during the three-criteria
screening, and 11 times during the detailed evaluation. A total of 324 reasons were given for the 140
times that ex situ biodegradation was eliminated as a site remedy, including 234 times reasons were cited
during the initial screening, 59 times reasons were cited during the three-criteria screening, and 31 times
reasons were cited during the detailed evaluation. All of the reasons given for eliminating ex situ
biodegradation are presented in Appendix E, Table E-].
Figure 61 shows the 13 individual reasons cited most often for eliminating ex situ biodegradation.
Together, these account for 107 (33 percent) of the total of 324 times reasons were cited for eliminating
this technology. Most of these 13 individual reasons were cited during both initial screening and the
later phases of technology selection. Only two of these individual reasons were given during the initial
screening alone.
The most common individual reason given for eliminating ex situ biodegradation was that it is not
applicable to metals/inorganics (21 times). The next most common individual reasons were limitations
of space at the site (12 times), inapplicability to site contaminants (11 times), the presence of metals that
87
-------
may inhibit biodegradation (9 times), and uncertainty in meeting land disposal restriction requirements
(8 times). The 13 individual reasons cited most often for eliminating ex situ biodegradation encompass
all nine of the categories of reasons for eliminating innovative technologies—contaminants, media, site
conditions, implementation, exposure/risk, regulatory, cost, information, and other.
Figure 61. Most common reasons for elimination of Ex Situ Biodegradation
(FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
No reason given
Requires treatment/disposal of residuals
Heterogenous wastes
Not applicable to municipal solid waste
Not demonstrated for site contaminants/matrix
Excavation results in short-term risk to humans
Requires treatability studies
High cost
May not meet LDRs
Metals may inhibit biodegradation
Not applicable to all site contaminants
Space limitations at the site
Not applicable to metals/inorganics
D Detailed Evaluation
0 3-Criteria Screening
• Initial Screening
10 15
Number of occurrences
Figure 62 shows the reasons for elimination of ex situ biodegradation grouped by category. The
category most often cited for eliminating ex situ biodegradation was implementation. The second most
important category of reasons for eliminating ex situ biodegradation was inapplicability to contaminants
at the sites. Ineffectiveness on contaminated media and a lack of information on the performance of ex
situ biodegradation were also important factors in eliminating this technology as a site remedy. Cost
was the least important factor in eliminating ex situ biodegradation.
Figure 63 shows the reasons for elimination of ex situ biodegradation grouped by subcategory. The
subcategory most often cited for elimination of ex situ biodegradation was its inapplicability to metals/
inorganics. Reasons related to the difficulty of implementing ex situ biodegradation included process
limitations, inefficiency compared to other technologies, the need to treat or dispose of residuals, factors
interfering with biological activity, and the length of remediation time. Site conditions that contributed
to eliminating ex situ biodegradation included space limitations at the site. Information-related reasons
for elimination included a need for demonstrations of the technology and a need for testing at the site.
In summary, the most important factors in the elimination of ex situ biodegradation as a site remedy are:
• Presence of metals and inorganics
• Various problems with implementation and materials handling
• Limitations on the space available for on-site treatment
• Need for further demonstrations
• Inefficiency as compared to other technologies, such as SVE
• Need to treat or dispose of treatment residuals
88
-------
Long time required for remediation
Needs testing at the site
Other
Information
Cost
Regulatory
Exposure/Risk
Implementation
Site Condition
Media
Contaminants
Figure 62. Reasons for elimination of Ex Situ Biodegradation
grouped by Category (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
D Detailed Evaluation
0 3-Criteria Screening
• Initial Screening
99
20
T
40 60
Number of occurrences
100
Figure 63. Most common reasons for elimination of Ex Situ Biodegradation
grouped by Subcategory (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
6.3 Other (regulatory)
1 7 Other classifications
4.8 General technology comparisons
4.2 Remediation time
2.5 Volume
1.3 SVOCs
8.3 Needs testing at site
6.1 RCRA
8.2 Needs demonstration
4.9 Interference factors
4.4 Post-treatment/disposal
4.7 Specific technology comparisons
1.9 General (contaminants)
3.2 Surface characteristics
4.6 Process limitations/materials handling
1.1 Metals/inorganics
I I I I I I T I I I
10 15 20
Number of occurrences
U Detailed Evaluation
3-Cntena Screening
Initial Screening
7.3.2 In Situ Vitrification
In situ vitrification was considered 140 times at the 205 sites and was selected once. It was eliminated
from consideration 97 times during the initial screening, 28 times during the three-criteria screening, and
14 times during the detailed evaluation. A total of 414 reasons were given for the 139 times that in situ
vitrification was eliminated as a site remedy, including 256 times reasons were cited during the initial
89
-------
screening, 106 times reasons were cited during the three-criteria screening, and 52 times reasons were
cited during the detailed evaluation. All of the reasons given for eliminating in situ vitrification are
presented in Appendix E, Table E-2.
Figure 64 shows the 15 individual reasons cited most often for eliminating in situ vitrification.
Together, these account for 161 (39 percent) of the total of 414 times reasons were cited for eliminating
this technology. All of the 15 individual reasons were cited during both initial screening and the later
phases of technology selection.
The most common individual reason given for eliminating in situ vitrification was its high cost (30
occurrences). The next most common individual reasons were its high energy costs (22 times), limited
availability of vendors (14 times), existence of a shallow water table at the site (13 times), depth of the
contamination (10 times), and lack of demonstrations on a large or full scale (10 times). The 15
individual reasons cited most often for eliminating in situ vitrification encompass five of the nine
categories of reasons for eliminating innovative technologies—media, site conditions, implementation,
cost, and information. No reasons related to the contaminant, exposure/risk, regulatory, or other
categories are included in the 15 most common individual reasons for eliminating in situ vitrification.
Figure 64. Most common reasons for elimination of In Situ Vitrification
(FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
Not fully developed technology
High capital cost
Not applicable to site conditions
Less appropnate for very shallow soils
Success/effectiveness uncertain
May result in air emissions
Heterogenous wastes
Saturated soils
High soil moisture content
Not demonstrated on a large/full scale
Not considered feasible for depth of waste
Shallow water table
Limited availability of vendors/technology
High energy costs
High cost
D Detailed Evaluation
B 3-Criteria Screening
• Initial Screening
35
Number of occurrences
Figure 65 shows the reasons for elimination of in situ vitrification grouped by category. The categories
most often cited for eliminating in situ vitrification were implementation, cost, and site conditions. The
next most important categories of reasons for eliminating in situ vitrification were a lack of information
on its performance and inapplicability to contaminated media at the sites. Reasons related to
ineffectiveness on contaminants and increasing exposures/risks were of relatively minor importance in
eliminating in situ vitrification as a site remedy. Regulatory-related problems were the least important
category in eliminating in situ vitrification.
Figure 66 shows the reasons for elimination of in situ vitrification grouped by subcategory. The
subcategories most often cited for elimination of in situ vitrification were high cost and high operation
90
-------
and maintenance cost. Reasons related to implementing in situ vitrification included limited availability,
need to control off-gases, process limitations, and materials handling difficulties. Reasons related to site
conditions included soil characteristics, subsurface characteristics, and the presence of structures on the
site. Information-related reasons for elimination included uncertainty in its effectiveness, a need for
demonstrations of the technology, a need for further development, and a need for testing at the site.
Media-related reasons for eliminating in situ vitrification included the location and volume of
contaminated materials. Only one contaminant related subcategory and no exposure/risk or regulatory
subcategories were among the most commonly cited reasons for eliminating in situ vitrification.
Other
Information
Cost
Regulatory
Exposure/Risk
Implementation
Site Condition
Media
Contaminants
Figure 65. Reasons for elimination of In Situ Vitrification
grouped by Category (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
75
54
D Detailed Evaluation
H 3-Cntena Screening
• Initial Screening
20
40 GO
Number of occurrences
60
100
Figure 66. Most common reasons for elimination of In Situ Vitrification
grouped by Subcategory (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
8.3 Needs testing at site I
2.5 Volume I
8.1 Needs further development
7.3 Technology comparisons I
1.9 General (contaminants)
4.6 Process limitations/materials handling I
3.4 Structures/activitied
4.11 Off-gas control
8.2 Needs demonstration I
8.5 Unproven/uncertam application
4.1 Availability I
3.1 Subsurface characteristics I
2.8 Contaminanted media location
3.3 Soil characteristics I
7.2 Operation & maintenance costs I
7.4 General (cost) I
310
111
D Detailed Evaluation
H 3-Critena Screening
• Initial Screening
10
15 20
Number of occurrences
25
91
-------
In summary, the most important factors in the elimination of in situ vitrification as a site remedy are:
• High cost
• High energy needs
• Ineffectiveness on saturated soils
• Depth of contaminated soils either too deep or too shallow
• Limited availability of vendors
• Need for further development
• Concern over air emissions
• Need for further demonstrations
7.3.3 Soil Flushing
Soil flushing was considered 138 times at the 205 sites and was selected nine times. It was eliminated
from consideration 96 times during the initial screening, 24 times during the three-criteria screening, and
9 times during the detailed evaluation. A total of 381 reasons were given for the 129 times that soil
flushing was eliminated as a site remedy, including 257 times reasons were cited during the initial
screening, 99 times reasons were cited during the three-criteria screening, and 25 times reasons were
cited during the detailed evaluation. All of the reasons given for eliminating soil flushing are presented
in Appendix E, Table E-3.
Figure 67 shows the 13 individual reasons cited most often for eliminating soil flushing. Together, these
account for 136 (37 percent) of the total of 381 times reasons were cited for eliminating this technology.
Twelve of the 13 individual reasons were cited during both initial screening and the later phases of
technology selection. Only one of these individual reasons were given during the initial screening alone.
Figure 67. Most common reasons for elimination of Soil Flushing
(FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
High cost
Difficult to control process
Not possible to uniformly distribute solutions in situ
Low hydraulic conductivity
Success/effectiveness uncertain
High clay content of soils
Not applicable to all site contaminants
Variable/heterogenous geology
Difficult to recover chemicals/products from ground water
Low soil permeability
Heterogenous wastes
Potential migration of contaminants
May contaminate ground water
D Detailed Evaluation
E3 3-Cnteria Screening
• Initial Screening
10 15 20
Number of occurrences
The most common individual reason given for eliminating soil flushing was its potential to contaminate
ground water (28 occurrences). The next most common individual reasons were its potential to cause
migration of contaminants (19 times), heterogeneous wastes (17 times), low soil permeability (10 times),
difficulty of recovering treatment chemicals and products from groundwater (9 times), and the variable
92
-------
geology at the site (8 times). The 13 individual reasons cited most often for eliminating soil flushing
encompass seven of the nine categories of reasons for eliminating innovative technologies—contaminant,
media, site conditions, implementation, exposure/risk, cost, and information. No reasons related to the
regulatory or other categories are included in the 13 most common individual reasons for eliminating
soil flushing.
Figure 68 shows the reasons for elimination of soil flushing grouped by category. The category most
often cited for eliminating soil flushing was implementation. The next most important categories of
reasons for eliminating soil flushing were inapplicability to site conditions and potential increase in
exposures/risks. Reasons related to ineffectiveness on contaminated media and contaminants at the sites
and a lack of information on performance were of moderate importance in eliminating soil flushing as
a site remedy. Regulatory and cost-related problems were the least important categories in eliminating
soil flushing.
Figure 68. Reasons for elimination of Soil Flushing
grouped by Category (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
Other
Information
Cost
Regulatory
Exposure/Risk
Implementation
Site Condition
Media
Contaminants
D Detailed Evaluation
E 3-Criteria Screening
• Initial Screening
Number of occurrences
Figure 69 shows the reasons for elimination of soil flushing grouped by subcategory. The subcategory
most often cited for elimination of soil flushing was the potential for cross-media contamination of
groundwater. A number of implementation reasons were cited that were related to the difficulty in
controlling an in situ process, such as mixing effective flushing solutions, uniformly distributing flushing
solutions, recovering by-products from groundwater, and treating recovered groundwater. Subcategories
related to site conditions that were cited often for eliminating soil flushing included surface and
subsurface soil characteristics, such as low permeability and heterogeneity. Information-related reasons
for eliminating soil flushing included a need for further demonstrations and uncertain application of the
technology. Only one contaminant, cost, and regulatory-related subcategory were among the most
commonly cited reasons for eliminating in situ vitrification.
In summary, the most important factors in the elimination of soil flushing as a site remedy are:
• Potential to contaminate groundwater
• Difficulty in controlling an in situ process
• Difficulty in recovering reaction by-products
• Low soil permeability
93
-------
Presence of heterogeneous soils and wastes
Uncertain performance
Figure 69. Most common reasons for elimination of Soil Flushing
grouped by Subcategory (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
7.4 General (cost)
6.3 Other (regulatory)
4.2 Remediation time
2.5 Volume
2.3 Solid wastes
5.2 Long-term risk
8.5 Unproven/uncertain application
8.2 Needs demonstration
4.4 Post-treatment/disposal
1.9 General (contaminants)
4.13 General (implementation)
4.6 Process limitations/materials handling
2.9 General (media)
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.1 Subsurface characteristics
4.10 In situ control
5.4 Cross-media contamination
D Detailed Evaluation
3-Criteria Screening
Initial Screening
20 30
Number of occurrences
7.3.4 Other Thermal (ex situ)
Other thermal (ex situ) encompasses a number of innovative thermal treatment processes, such as
pyrolysis, wet air oxidation, steam extraction,- molten salt and molten glass incineration, supercritical
oxidation, ex situ vitrification, and high temperature thermal desorption Other thermal (ex situ) was
considered 138 times at the 205 sites but was not selected as a site remed> It was eliminated from
consideration 111 times during the initial screening, 22 times during the three-criteria screening, and 5
times during the detailed evaluation. A total of 309 reasons were given for the 138 times that other
thermal (ex situ) was eliminated as a site remedy, including 238 times reasons were cited during the
initial screening, 62 times reasons were cited during the three-criteria screening, and 9 times reasons
were cited during the detailed evaluation. All of the reasons given for eliminating other thermal (ex situ)
are presented in Appendix E, Table E-4.
Figure 70 shows the 14 individual reasons cited most often for eliminating other thermal (ex situ).
Together, these account for 111 (36 percent) of the total of 309 times reasons were cited for eliminating
this technology. Twelve of the 14 individual reasons were cited during both initial screening and the
later phases of technology selection. Two of the reasons were given during the initial screening alone.
The most common individual reason given for eliminating other thermal (ex situ) was its high cost (20
occurrences). The next most common individual reasons were its inapplicability to metals/inorganics
(13 times), it is not a fully developed technology (13 times), limited availability of vendors (11 times),
and inapplicability to soils (7 times). The 14 individual reasons cited most often for eliminating other
thermal (ex situ) encompass six of the nine categories of reasons for eliminating innovative technologies
94
-------
—contaminant, media, implementation, exposure/risk, cost, and information. No reasons related to the
site condition, regulatory, or other categories are included in the 14 most common individual reasons
for eliminating other thermal (ex situ).
Figure 70. Most common reasons for elimination of Other Thermal (ex situ)
(FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
Success/effectiveness uncertain
Not demonstrated on a large/full scale
Excavation results in short-term risk to humans
Most applicable to liquids/sludges
Not applicable to soil with high ash content
Not applicable to all site contaminants
Unproven applicability to volatile metals
High energy costs
Requires post-treatment of char/ash
Not applicable to soils
Limited availability of vendors/technology
Not fully developed technology
Not applicable to metals/inorganics
High cost
U Detailed Evaluation
3-Criteria Screening
Initial Screening
10 15
Number of occurrences
Figure 71 shows the reasons for elimination of other thermal (ex situ) grouped by category. The
category most often cited for eliminating other thermal (ex situ) was implementation. The next most
important categories of reasons for eliminating other thermal (ex situ) were a lack of information on
performance, inapplicability to contaminated media, cost, and inapplicability to contaminants at the sites.
Site conditions, potential to increase exposure/risk, and regulatory-related reasons were of relatively
minor importance in eliminating other thermal (ex situ).
Other
Information
Cost
Regulatory
Exposure/Risk
Implementation
Site Condition
Media
Contaminants
Figure 71. Reasons for elimination of Other Thermal (ex situ)
grouped by Category (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
LJ Detailed Evaluation
3-Criteria Screening
Initial Screening
40 50
Number of occurrences
95
-------
Figure 72 shows the reasons for elimination of other thermal (ex situ) grouped by subcategory. The
subcategory most often cited for elimination of other thermal (ex situ) was its inapplicability to
metals/inorganics. This was followed closely by limited availability of the technology, need for further
development, high cost, and a need for demonstrations of other thermal (ex situ) technologies. A
number of implementation-related subcategories were cited often, including need for pre-treatment, need
for post-treatment, and various process and material handling difficulties. Other subcategories that
contributed to the elimination of other thermal technologies included inapplicability to soils, high cost
in comparison to other technologies, and need for off-gas control. There were no subcategories related
to site conditions, exposure/risk, or regulations among the most commonly cited reasons for eliminating
other thermal (ex situ).
Figure 72. Most common reasons for elimination of Other Thermal (ex situ)
grouped by Subcategory (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
4.11 Off-gas control
7.3 Technology comparisons
2.9 General (media)
2.5 Volume
1.9 General (contaminants)
4.6 Process limitations/materials handling
4.5 Pre-treatment
8.5 Unproven/uncertam application
72 Operation & maintenance costs
2.1 Soils
4.4 Post-treatment/disposal
8.2 Needs demonstration
7.4 General (cost)
8 1 Needs further development
4 t Availability
t 1 Metals/inorganics
I i i i i [ i i i r
10 15
Number of occurrences
D Detailed Evaluation
E2 3-Criteria Screening
• Initial Screening
In summary, the most important factors in the elimination of other thermal (ex situ) technologies as site
remedies are:
• Inapplicability to metals and inorganics
• High cost
• Limited availability
• Need for further development
• Need for post-treatment or disposal of residuals
• Inapplicability to soils
• Need for pre-treatment of contaminated materials
• Need for further demonstrations
7.3.5 Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil vapor extraction was considered 125 times at the 205 sites and was selected 50 times as a site
remedy. It was eliminated from consideration 59 times during the initial screening, 7 times during the
three-criteria screening, and 9 times during the detailed evaluation. A total of 152 reasons were given
96
-------
for the 75 times that soil vapor extraction was eliminated as a site remedy, including 111 times reasons
were cited during the initial screening, 20 times reasons were cited during the three-criteria screening,
and 21 times reasons were cited during the detailed evaluation. All of the reasons given for eliminating
soil vapor extraction are presented in Appendix E, Table E-5.
Figure 73 shows the 13 individual reasons cited most often for eliminating soil vapor extraction.
Together, these account for 78 (51 percent) of the total of 152 times reasons were cited for eliminating
this technology. Seven of the 13 individual reasons were cited during both initial screening and the later
phases of technology selection. Six of these individual reasons were given during the initial screening
alone.
Figure 73. Most common reasons for elimination of Soil Vapor Extraction
(FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
Saturated soils
Less appropriate lor very shallow soils
Not considered feasible (or depth of waste
Not applicable to municipal solid waste
Most applicable to VOCs
Not applicable to all site contaminants
Heterogenous wastes
Not effective for site contaminants
Low vapor pressure contaminants
Not applicable to PCBs
Not applicable to SVOCs
Low soil permeability
Not applicable to metals/inorganics
U Detailed Evaluation
El 3-Criteria Screening
• Initial Screening
6 8 10 12
Number of occurrences
The most common individual reason given for eliminating soil vapor extraction was that it is not
applicable to metals/inorganics (17 occurrences). The next most common individual reasons were low
soil permeability (9 times), inapplicability to SVOCs (8 times), inapplicability to PCBs (6 times), low
vapor pressure contaminants (6 times), ineffectiveness for site contaminants (6 times), and heterogeneous
wastes (6 times). The 13 individual reasons cited most often for eliminating soil vapor extraction
encompass three of the nine categories of reasons for eliminating innovative technologies—contaminant,
media, and site conditions. No reasons related to the implementation, exposure/risk, regulatory, cost,
information, or other categories are included in the 13 most common individual reasons for eliminating
soil vapor extraction.
Figure 74 shows the reasons for elimination of soil vapor extraction grouped by category. The category
most often cited for eliminating soil vapor extraction was inapplicability to contaminants at the sites.
The next most important categories of reasons for eliminating soil vapor extraction were its inapplic-
ability to contaminated media and adverse site conditions. Reasons related to cost and implementation
were of moderate importance in eliminating soil vapor extraction as a site remedy. Regulatory,
exposure/risk, and information-related problems were the least important categories in eliminating soil
vapor extraction.
97
-------
Figure 74, Reasons for elimination of Soil Vapor Extraction
grouped by Category (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
Other BJ3
Informational 3
Cost
Regulatory
Exposure/Risk
Implementation
Site Condition
Media
Contaminants
D Detailed Evaluation
E 3-Criteria Screening
• Initial Screening
10
20
r
30 40
Number of occurrences
Figure 75 shows the reasons for elimination of soil vapor extraction grouped by subcategory. The
subcategory most often cited for elimination of soil vapor extraction was its inapplicability to metals and
inorganics. A number of other contaminant-related problems also were of importance in eliminating soil
vapor extraction, including inapplicability to SVOCs, PCBs, and low vapor pressure contaminants.
Reasons for eliminating soil vapor extraction related to media included inefficiency for very shallow
soils and heterogeneous soils/wastes. Site condition-related problems included the presence of low
permeability soils and saturated soils. There were no subcategories related to information, exposure/risk.
or regulations among the most commonly cited reasons for eliminating soil vapor extraction.
Figure 75. Most common reasons for elimination of Soil Vapor Extraction
grouped by Subcategory (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
7.4 General (cost)
4.6 Process limitations/materials handling
3.1 Subsurface characteristics
1.7 Other classifications
4.13 General (implementation)
7.3 Technology comparisons
2.3 Solid wastes
2.5 Volume
2.9 General (media)
2.8 Contaminanted media location
1.8 Contaminant characteristics
1.9 General (contaminants)
1.3 SVOCs
3.3 Soil characteristics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
D Detailed Evaluation
H 3-Cntena Screening
• Initial Screening
10 15
Number of occurrences
20
25
98
-------
In summary, the most important factors in the elimination of soil vapor extraction as a site remedy are:
• Inapplicability to metals and inorganics
• Inapplicability to SVOCs and low vapor pressure contaminants
• Presence of low permeability soils
• Presence of heterogeneous soils and wastes
• Ineffectiveness for saturated soils
7.3.6 In Situ Biodegradation
In situ biodegradation was considered 124 times at the 205 sites and was selected 10 times as a site
remedy. It was eliminated from consideration 89 times during the initial screening, 13 times during the
three-criteria screening, and 12 times during the detailed evaluation. A total of 334 reasons were given
for the 114 times that in situ biodegradation was eliminated as a site remedy, including 239 times
reasons were cited during the initial screening, 54 times reasons were cited during the three-criteria
screening, and 41 times reasons were cited during the detailed evaluation. All of the reasons given for
eliminating in situ biodegradation are presented in Appendix E, Table E-6.
Figure 76 shows the 15 individual reasons cited most often, for eliminating in situ biodegradation.
Together, these account for 113 (34 percent) of the total of 334 times reasons were cited for eliminating
this technology. Eight of the 15 individual reasons were cited during both initial screening and the later
phases of technology selection. Seven of these individual reasons were given during the initial screening
alone.
Figure 76. Most common reasons for elimination of In Situ Biodegradation
(FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
Unlikely to achieve cleanup goals
Difficult to monitor in situ
Not applicable to all site contaminants
Not effective for site contaminants
Unproven effectiveness lor chlorinated compounds
May contaminate ground water
May form more toxic/mobile products
Low soil permeability
Waste not biodegradable
Requires treatability studies
Metals may inhibit biodegradation
Difficult to control process
Difficult to uniformly distribute nutrients and oxygen
Not applicable to metals/inorganics
Heterogenous wastes
D Detailed Evaluation
E3 3-Cntena Screening
• Initial Screening
4 6 8 10
Number of occurrences
12
14
The most common individual reason given for eliminating in situ biodegradation was the existence of
heterogeneous wastes (14 occurrences). The next most common individual reasons were its
inapplicability to metals/inorganics (13 times), difficulty in uniformly distributing nutrients and oxygen
(12 times), difficulty in controlling the process (10 times), the presence of metals that may inhibit
99
-------
biodegradation (8 times), and the need for treatability studies (7 times). The 15 individual reasons cited
most often for eliminating in situ biodegradation encompass seven of the nine categories of reasons for
eliminating innovative technologies—contaminant, media, site conditions, implementation, exposure/risk,
regulatory, and information. No reasons related to the cost or other categories are included in the 15
most common individual reasons for eliminating in situ biodegradation.
Figure 77 shows the reasons for elimination of in situ biodegradation grouped by category. The
category most often cited for eliminating in situ biodegradation was implementation. The next most
important categories of reasons for eliminating in situ biodegradation were its inapplicability to
contaminants and contaminated media at the sites. Reasons related to site conditions, exposure/risk, and
a lack of information were of moderate importance in eliminating in situ biodegradation as a site
remedy. Cost and regulatory-related problems were the least important categories in eliminating in situ
biodegradation.
Figure 77. Reasons for elimination of In Situ Biodegradation
grouped by Category (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
Other
Information
Cost
Regulatory
Exposure/Risk
Implementation
Site Condition
Media
Contaminants
D Detailed Evaluation
3-Criteria Screening
Initial Screening
40 60
Number of occurrences
Figure 78 shows the reasons for elimination of in situ biodegradation grouped by subcategory. The
subcategories most often cited for elimination of in situ biodegradation were its inapplicability to
metals/inorganics and the presence of metals, toxic organics, and other factors that inhibit biological
activity. Other implementation-related reasons included difficulty in controlling an in situ process,
potentially long remediation times, and a variety of process and materials handling problems. Other
contaminant related reasons included ineffectiveness with chlorinated compounds and general
ineffectiveness on site contaminants. Reasons related to increasing exposures/risks included the potential
to form more toxic or mobile by-products and the potential to contaminate groundwater. Media-related
reasons included the presence of heterogeneous wastes and a lack of effectiveness for very shallow soils.
Site conditions of importance in eliminating in situ biodegradation included low permeability soils. Only
one information-related subcategory and no cost or regulatory subcategories were among the most
commonly cited reasons for eliminating in situ biodegradation.
In summary, the most important factors in the elimination of in situ biodegradation as a site remedy are:
• Inapplicability to metals/inorganics
• Inapplicability to chlorinated compounds
100
-------
Presence of metals or organics that inhibit biological activity
Difficulty in controlling an in situ process
Potential to form more toxic or mobile by-products
Inapplicability to heterogeneous wastes
Ineffectiveness on low permeability soils
Potentially long remediation times
Potential to contaminate groundwater
Figure 78. Most common reasons for elimination of In Situ Biodegradation
grouped by Subcategory (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
8.5 Unproven/uncertain application
2.8 Contaminanted media location
4.6 Process limitations/materials handling
5.4 Cross-media contamination
4.2 Remediation time
1.7 Other classifications
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.1 Subsurface characteristics
2.9 General (media)
2.7 Media characteristics
1.9 General (contaminants)
5.3 Toxic or mobile residuals
4.13 General (implementation)
4.10 In situ control
4.9 Interference factors
1.1 Metals/inorganics
T
10 15
Number of occurrences
D Detailed Evaluation
0 3-Criteria Screening
• Initial Screening
7.3.7 Soil Washing
Soil washing was considered 118 times at the 205 sites and was selected five times as. a site remedy.
It was eliminated from consideration 73 times during the initial screening. 24 times during the three-
criteria screening, and 16 times during the detailed evaluation. A total of 324 reasons were given for
the 113 times that soil washing was eliminated as a site remedy, including 176 times reasons were cited
during the initial screening, 84 times reasons were cited during the three-criteria screening, and 64 times
reasons were cited during the detailed evaluation. All of the reasons given for eliminating soil washing
are presented in Appendix E, Table E-7.
Figure 79 shows the 14 individual reasons cited most often for eliminating soil washing. Together, these
account for 112 (35 percent) of the total of 324 times reasons were cited for eliminating this technology.
Thirteen of the 14 individual reasons were cited during both initial screening and the later phases of
technology selection. Only one of these individual reasons was given during the initial screening alone.
The most common individual reason given for eliminating soil washing was high cost (12 occurrences).
The next most common individual reasons were the need for treatability studies (11 times), uncertain
effectiveness (11 times), fine grained soils at the site (9 times), need for post-treatment of wastewater
(9 times), difficulty in implementation (8 times), and unsuccessful treatability studies (8 times). The 14
101
-------
individual reasons cited most often for eliminating soil washing encompass five of the nine categories.
of reasons for eliminating innovative technologies—media, site conditions, implementation, cost, and
information. No reasons related to the contaminant, exposure/risk, regulatory, or other categories are
included in the 14 most common individual reasons for eliminating soil washing.
Figure 79. Most common reasons for elimination of Soil Washing
(FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
Less certain effectiveness than selected alternative
Difficult to formulate washing fluids for complex mixtures
Requires multiple solvents/extraction steps
Requires post-treatment of waste stream
Heterogenous wastes
Requires treatment/disposal of residuals
High clay content of soils
Unsuccessful treatability study
Difficult to implement
Requires post-treatment/disposal of wastewater
Fine grained soil
Success/effectiveness uncertain
Requires treatability studies
High cost
D Detailed Evaluation
3-Criteria Screening
Initial Screening
5 10
Number of occurrences
15
Figure 80 shows the reasons for elimination of soil washing grouped by category. The category most
often cited for eliminating soil washing was implementation. The next most important category of
reasons for eliminating soil washing was a lack of information on its performance. Reasons related to
ineffectiveness on contaminants and media at the sites, site conditions, and cost were of moderate
importance in eliminating soil washing as a site remedy. Regulatory and exposure/risk-related problems
were the least important category in eliminating soil washing.
Figure 81 shows the reasons for elimination of soil washing grouped by subcategory. The subcategory
most often cited for elimination of soil washing was process limitations/material handling problems, such
as difficulty in formulating washing fluids, need for multiple extraction steps, need for excavation, and
need for specialized equipment. Other reasons related to implementation included the need for post-
treatment or disposal of treatment residuals, inefficiency in comparison to other technologies, and
difficulty in implementing the process. Reasons related to information included uncertainty in its
effectiveness, the need for testing on site materials, and unsuccessful treatability studies. Media-related
problems included ineffectiveness on fine-grained soils or clays. High cost, inapplicability to site
contaminants, and contaminated material volumes that were too small or too large also were
subcategories cited often for eliminating soil washing. Only one exposure/risk-related subcategory and
no regulatory subcategories were among the most commonly cited reasons for eliminating soil washing.
In summary, the most important factors in the elimination of soil washing as a site remedy are:
• Difficulty in extracting contaminants from soils
• Need for post-treatment or disposal of residuals
102
-------
High costs
Need for treatability testing due to uncertain effectiveness
Presence of fine-grained soils
Inapplicability to site contaminants
Contaminated material volumes that were too small or too large
Other) |2
Information
Cost
Regulatory
Exposure/Risk
Implementation
Site Condition
Media
Contaminants
Figure 80. Reasons for elimination of Soil Washing
grouped by Category (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
D Detailed Evaluation
3-Criteria Screening
Initial Screening
Number of occurrences
Figure 81. Most common reasons for elimination of Soil Washing
grouped by Subcategory (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
7.3 Technology compansons
5.1 Short-term nsk
4.7 Specific technology compansons
2.7 Media characteristics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
7.2 Operation & maintenance costs
8.4 Unsuccessful application
4.13 General (implementation)
2.5 Volume
4.8 General technology comparisons
7.4 General (cost)
1.9 General (contaminants)
8.5 Unproven/uncertain application
3.3 Soil characteristics
8.3 Needs testing at site
4.4 Post-treatment/disposal
4.6 Process limitations/materials handling
D Detailed Evaluation
B 3-Cnteria Screening
• Initial Screening
10
15 20 25
Number of occurrences
30
40
103
-------
7.3.8 Solvent Extraction
Solvent extraction was considered 103 times at the 205 sites and was selected five times as a site
remedy. It was eliminated from consideration 69 times during the initial screening, 18 times during the
three-criteria screening, and 15 times during the detailed evaluation. A total of 284 reasons were given
for the 102 times that solvent extraction was eliminated as a site remedy, including 151 times reasons
were cited during the initial screening, 73 times reasons were cited during the three-criteria screening,
and 60 times reasons were cited during the detailed evaluation. All of the reasons given for eliminating
solvent extraction are presented in Appendix E, Table E-8.
Figure 82 shows the 11 individual reasons cited most often for eliminating solvent extraction. Together,
these account for 79 (28 percent) of the total of 284 times reasons were cited for eliminating this
technology. Ten of the 11 individual reasons were cited during both initial screening and the later
phases of technology selection. Only one of these individual reasons was given during the initial
screening alone.
Figure 82. Most common reasons for elimination of Solvent Extraction
(FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
Not demonstrated on a large/full scale
High operational cost
High capital cost
Difficult to recover all solvents/washing fluids from soil
Requires post-treatment ol waste stream
Heterogenous wastes
Not applicable to all site contaminants
Requires treatabilrty studies
Limited availability of vendors/technology
High cost
Not applicable to metals/inorganics
D Detailed Evaluation
B 3-Criterta Screening
• Initial Screening
i • ^ r
5 K
Number of occurrences
15
The most common individual reason given for eliminating solvent extraction was its inapplicability to
metals/inorganics (13 occurrences). The next most common individual reasons were its high cost (11
times), limited availability of vendors (9 times), need for treatability studies (8 times), inapplicability
to all site contaminants (6 times), heterogeneous wastes (6 times), and need for post-treatment of the
waste stream (6 tirnes). The 11 individual reasons cited most often for eliminating solvent extraction
encompass five of the nine categories of reasons for eliminating innovative technologies—contaminant,
media, implementation, cost, and information. No reasons related to the site conditions, exposure/risk,
regulatory, or other categories are included in the 11 most common individual reasons for eliminating
solvent extraction.
Figure 83 shows the reasons for elimination of solvent extraction grouped by category. The category
most often cited for eliminating solvent extraction was implementation. The next most important
categories of reasons for eliminating solvent extraction were inapplicability to contaminants and
contaminated media at the sites, a lack of information on its performance, and cost. Reasons related to
104
-------
increasing exposures/risks were of moderate importance in eliminating solvent extraction as a site
remedy. Regulatory and site condition-related problems were the least important category in eliminating
solvent extraction.
Other
Information
Cost
Regulatory
Exposure/Risk
Implementation
Site Condition
• Media
Contaminants
Figure 83. Reasons for elimination of Solvent Extraction
grouped by Category (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
30 40 50
Number of occurrences
D Detailed Evaluation
0 3-Criteria Screening
• Initial Screening
60
70
80
Figure 84 shows the reasons for elimination of solvent extraction grouped by subcategory The
subcategories most often cited for elimination of solvent extraction were inapplicability to metals/
inorganics and the need for post-treatment or disposal of treatment residuals. Other implementation-
related reasons for eliminating solvent extraction included a variety of process/material handling
problems, such as multiple extraction steps, limited availability of the technology, and its complexity
Figure 84. Most common reasons for elimination of Solvent Extraction
grouped by Subcategory (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
5.1 Short-term risk
4.1 Availability
2.5 Volume
2.1 Soils
6.3 Other (regulatory)
2.6 Concentration
4.8 General technology comparisons
8.2 Needs demonstration
7.4 General (cost)
8.3 Needs testing at site
4.6 Process limitations/materials handling
4.4 Post-treatment/disposal
1.1 Metals/inorganics
D
Detailed Evaluation
3-Critena Screening
Initial Screening
10 15
Number of occurrences
20
25
105
-------
in comparison to other technologies. Media-related reasons included inapplicability to heterogeneous
wastes, uncertain effectiveness for treating soils, and volumes of contaminated material to be treated that
were too large or too small. Information-related reasons included a need for further demonstrations and
a need for testing at the site. High cost and potential short-term risks to site workers also were cited
often in eliminating solvent extraction. Regulatory related reasons for eliminating solvent extraction
included unlikeliness of achieving cleanup goals for soils at the site and uncertainties in gaining approval
to dispose of treatment residuals off site. No site condition subcategories were among the most
commonly cited reasons for eliminating solvent extraction.
In summary, the most important factors in the elimination of solvent extraction as a site remedy are:
• Inapplicability to metals and inorganics
• Need for post-treatment or disposal of treatment residuals
• Need for testing at the site
• High cost
• Limited availability
• Potential short-term risks to site workers from solvent solutions
• Need for further demonstrations
7.3.9 Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
Low temperature thermal desorption was considered 94 times at the 205 sites and was selected ten times
as a site remedy. It was eliminated from consideration 50 times during the initial screening, 12 times
during the three-criteria screening, and 22 times during the detailed evaluation. A total of 188 reasons
were given for the 84 times that low temperature thermal desorption was eliminated as a site remedy.
including 81 times reasons were cited during the initial screening, 31 times reasons were cited during
the three-criteria screening, and 76 times reasons were cited during the detailed evaluation. All of the
reasons given for eliminating low temperature thermal desorption are presented in Appendix E, Table
£-9.
Figure 85 shows the 18 individual reasons cited most often for eliminating low temperature thermal
desorption. Together, these account for 75 (40 percent) of the total of 188 times reasons were cited for
eliminating this technology. Fifteen of the 18 individual reasons were cited during both initial screening
and the later phases of technology selection. Three of these individual reasons were given during the
initial screening alone.
The most common individual reason given for eliminating low temperature thermal desorption was its
inapplicability to metals/inorganics (10 occurrences). The next most common individual reasons were
short-term risk resulting from excavation (7 times), high cost (6 times), disruption of existing operations/
residents at the site (5 times), unlikeliness of achieving cleanup goals (5 times), heterogeneous wastes
(4 times), possible air emissions (4 times), and need for treatability studies (4 times). The 18 individual
reasons cited most often for eliminating low temperature thermal desorption encompass eight of the nine
categories of reasons for eliminating innovative technologies—contaminant, media, site conditions,
implementation, exposure/risk, regulatory, cost, and information. No reasons related to the other
category are included in the 18 most common individual reasons for eliminating low temperature thermal
desorption.
Figure 86 shows the reasons for elimination of low temperature thermal desorption grouped by category.
The category most often cited for eliminating low temperature thermal desorption was implementation.
The next most important categories of reasons for eliminating low temperature thermal desorption were
106
-------
cost and inapplicability to contaminants and contaminated media at the sites. Reasons related to
increasing exposures/risks, a lack of information on performance, and regulations were of moderate
importance in eliminating low temperature thermal desorption as a site remedy. Site condition-related
problems were the least important category in eliminating low temperature thermal desorption.
Figure 85. Most common reasons for elimination of Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
(FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
More costly than selected remedy
More costly without substantial increase in benefit
More costly than soil vapor extraction
Would not volatilize many organics
Involves excavation/treatment on-site
Requires treatment/disposal of residuals
Not applicable to soils
Unproven effectiveness on target compounds
Not applicable to all site contaminants
Low vapor pressure contaminants
Requires treatability studies
May result in air emissions
Heterogenous wastes
Unlikely to achieve cleanup goals
Would disrupt existing operations/residents
High cost
Excavation results in short-term risk to human
Not applicable to metals/inorganics
n
H
Detailed Evaluation
3-Criteria Screening
Initial Screening
468
Number of occurrences
10
12
Figure 86. Reasons for elimination of Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
grouped by Category (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
Other
Information
Cost
Regulatory
Exposure/Risk
Implementation
Site Condition
Media
Contaminants
D Detailed Evaluation
3-Criteria Screening
Initial Screening
20 25
Number of occurrences
107
-------
Figure 87 shows the reasons for elimination of low temperature thermal desorption grouped by
subcategory. The subcategory most often cited for elimination of low temperature thermal desorption
was its high cost in comparison to other technologies. Reasons related to contaminants included
inapplicability to metals, inorganics, and SVOCs. Reasons related to implementing low temperature
thermal desorption included process limitations and materials handling difficulties, limited availability,
need for post-treatment or disposal of residuals, and need for off-gas control. Media-related reasons for
eliminating low temperature thermal desorption included volumes that were too large and inapplicability
to soils and heterogeneous wastes. Reasons related to potentially increasing exposures/risks included
the need for excavation, which would increase risks to site workers. Regulatory-related reasons for
elimination included unlikeliness in meeting site cleanup goals and uncertainty in meeting RCRA land
disposal restrictions. Only one information and one site condition-related subcategory was among the
most commonly cited reasons for eliminating low temperature thermal desorption.
Figure 87. Most common reasons for elimination of Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
grouped by Subcategory (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
8.3 Needs testing at site
6.1 RCRA
2.9 General (media)
4.11 Off-gas control
4.4 Post-treatment/disposal
4.1 Availability
25 Volume
1.3 SVOCs
3.4 Structures/activities
7.4 General (cost)
6.3 Other (regulatory)
1.9 General (contaminants)
5.1 Short-term nsk
4.6 Process limitations/materials handling
1.1 Metals/inorganics
7.3 Technology comparisons
Q Detailed Evaluation
E3 3-Criteria Screening
• Initial Screening
Number of occurrences
In summary, the most important factors in the elimination of low temperature thermal desorption as a
site remedy are:
• Inapplicability to metals/inorganics
• High cost in comparison to other treatment technologies
• Short-term risks to site workers
• Uncertainty in achieving cleanup goals
• Disruption of existing site activities
• Need for post-treatment or disposal of treatment residuals
• Need to control off gases
7.3.10 Biodegradation
Biodegradation includes both in situ and ex situ processes. Biodegradation was considered 90 times at
the 205 sites and was selected six times as a site remedy. It was eliminated from consideration 71 times
108
-------
during the initial screening, 10 times during the three-criteria screening, and 3 times during the detailed
evaluation. A total of 207 reasons were given for the 84 times that biodegradation was eliminated as
a site remedy, including 157 times reasons were cited during the initial screening, 44 times reasons were
cited during the three-criteria screening, and 6 times reasons were cited during the detailed evaluation.
All of the reasons given for eliminating biodegradation are presented in Appendix E, Table E-10.
Figure 88 shows the 10 individual reasons cited most often for eliminating biodegradation. Together,
these account for 83 (40 percent) of the 207 reasons that were cited for eliminating this technology.
Eight of the 10 individual reasons were cited during both initial screening and the later phases of
technology selection. Two of the individual reasons were given during the initial screening alone.
Figure 88. Most common reasons for elimination of Biodegradation
(FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
Extended remediation time
Requires bench-scale testing
Heterogenous wastes
Unproven applicability to PCBs
Low levels of contaminants
Not effective for site contaminants
Requires pilot testing
Not applicable to all site contaminants
Metals may inhibit biodegradation
Not applicable to metals/inorganics
D Detailed Evaluation
E3 3-Criteria Screening
• Initial Screening
10 15 20
Number ol occurrences
The most common individual reason given for eliminating biodegradation was its inapplicability to
metals/inorganics (25 occurrences). The next most common individual reasons were the presence of
metals that may inhibit biodegradation (13 times), inapplicability to all site contaminants (7 times), need
for pilot testing (7 times), ineffectiveness for site contaminants (6 times), and low levels of contaminants
at the site (6 times). The 10 individual reasons cited most often encompass four of the nine categories
of reasons for eliminating innovative technologies—contaminant, media, implementation, and
information. No reasons related to the site conditions, exposure/risk, regulatory, cost, other categories
are included in the 10 most common individual reasons for eliminating biodegradation.
Figure 89 shows the reasons for elimination of biodegradation grouped by category. The category most
often cited for eliminating biodegradation was inapplicability to contaminants. The next most important
categories of reasons for eliminating biodegradation were implementation problems, a lack of informa-
tion on its performance, and inapplicability to contaminated media at the sites. Reasons related to
increasing exposures/risks and cost were of relatively minor importance in eliminating biodegradation
as a site remedy. Site conditions and regulatory-related problems were the least important categories
in eliminating biodegradation.
Figure 90 shows the reasons for elimination of biodegradation grouped by subcategory. The
subcategories most often cited for elimination of biodegradation were its inapplicability to
metals/inorganics, chlorinated compounds, SVOCs, and other contaminants found at the sites. Reasons
related to implementing biodegradation included the presence of metals and organics that could inhibit
109
-------
biological activity, potentially long remediation times, need for off-gas controls, and a variety of process/
materials handling problems. Media-related reasons for eliminating biodegradation included low
concentrations of organics, volumes that were either too low or too high, and heterogeneous wastes.
Information-related reasons for elimination included a need for further demonstrations or testing at the
sites. Reasons related to exposure/risk included the potential to form more toxic or mobile by-products
and short-term risks to site workers. No cost or site condition subcategories were among the most
commonly cited reasons for eliminating biodegradation.
Other |0
Information
Cost
Regulatory
Exposure/Risk
Implementation
Site Condition
Media
Contaminants
Figure 89. Reasons for elimination of Biodegradation
grouped by Category (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
10
20
30 40 50
Number ot occurrences
D Detailed Evaluation
0 3-Criteria Screening
• Initial Screening
GO
70
80
Figure 90. Most common reasons for elimination of Biodegradation
grouped by Subcategory (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
8.5 Unproven/uncertam application
5.1 Short-term risk
4.11 Off-gas control
2.7 Media characteristics
4.2 Remediation time
2.9 General (media)
2.5 Volume
B.2 Needs demonstration
1.7 Other classifications
5.3 Toxic or mobile residuals
4.6 Process limitations/materials handling
2.6 Concentration
1.3 SVOCs
8.3 Needs testing at site
4.9 Interference factors
1.9 General (contaminants)
1.1 Metals/inorganics
D Detailed Evaluation
E 3-Criteria Screening
• Initial Screening
1 I ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' '
10 15 20
Number of occurrences
r r '
25
1 I '
30
35
110
-------
In summary, the most important factors in eliminating biodegradation as a site remedy are:
• Inapplicability to metals/inorganics
• Inapplicability to SVOCs
• Need for testing at the site
• Presence of metals or organics that inhibit biological activity
• Potential to form more toxic or mobile by-products
• Concentrations of organics that were too low
7.3.11 In Situ Heating
In situ heating was considered 77 times at the 205 sites and was selected once as a site remedy. It was
eliminated from consideration 61 times during the initial screening, 13 times during the three-criteria
screening, and 2 times during the detailed evaluation. A total of 185 reasons were given for the 76
times that in situ heating was eliminated as a site remedy, including 138 times reasons were cited during
the initial screening, 41 times reasons were cited during the three-criteria screening, and 6 times reasons
were cited during the detailed evaluation. All of the reasons given for eliminating in situ heating are
presented in Appendix E, Table £-77.
Figure 91 shows the 11 individual reasons cited most often for eliminating in situ heating. Together,
these account for 69 (37 percent) of the 185 times reasons were cited for eliminating this technology.
Nine of the 11 individual reasons were cited during both initial screening and the later phases of
technology selection. Two of the individual reasons were given during the initial screening alone.
Figure 91. Most common reasons for elimination of In Situ Heating
(FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
Success/effectiveness uncertain
Requires pilot testing
Not considered feasible lor depth of waste
Not applicable to PCBs
Not demonstrated on a large/full scale
High operational cost
No more effective than soil vapor extraction
Low soil permeability
More costly than soil vapor extraction
High cost
Not applicable to metals/inorganics
O D«w«J Evaluation
B 3 O«ena Screening
• iruta. Screening
Number of occurrences
The most common individual reason given for eliminating in situ heating was its inapplicability to
metals/inorganics (15 occurrences). The next most common individual reasons were its high cost (12
times), cost compared to soil vapor extraction (6 times), low soil permeability (5 times), effectiveness
compared to soil vapor extraction (5 times), high operational cost (5 times), and lack of demonstrations
on a large scale (5 times). The 11 individual reasons cited most often for eliminating in situ heating
encompass six of the nine categories of reasons for eliminating innovative technologies—contaminant,
media, site conditions, implementation, cost, and information. No reasons related to the exposure/risk,
111
-------
regulatory, or other categories are included in the 11 most common individual reasons for eliminating
in situ heating.
Figure 92 shows the reasons for elimination of in situ heating grouped by category. The category most
often cited for eliminating in situ heating was related to contaminants. The next most important
categories of reasons for eliminating in situ heating were a lack of information on its performance,
implementation difficulties, high cost, and site conditions. Reasons related to inapplicability to
contaminated media at the sites were of moderate importance in eliminating in situ heating as a site
remedy. Exposure/risk and regulatory-related problems were the least important categories.
Other |1
Information
Cost
Regulatory
Exposure/Risk
Implementation
Site Condition
Media
Contaminants
Figure 92. Reasons for elimination of In Situ Heating
grouped by Category (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
31
D Detailed Evaluation
E3 3-Criteria Screening
• Initial Screening
20 25
Number of occurrences
i
30
35
40
45
Figure 93 shows the reasons for elimination of in situ heating grouped by subcategory. The subcategory
most often cited for elimination of in situ heating was inapplicability to metals and inorganics. Other
contaminant related reasons included inapplicability to SVOCs, highly volatile contaminants, and
contaminants with low vapor pressures. Cost-related reasons for eliminating in situ heating included
high cost, high operation and maintenance costs, and high cost in comparison with other technologies.
Reasons related to information included uncertain effectiveness and a need for further development and
demonstrations. Implementation problems included limited availability and a variety of process/material
handling difficulties. Site condition related reasons for eliminating in situ heating included ineffective-
ness for variable subsurface geology and low soil permeability. Only one media-related subcategory and
no exposure/risk or regulatory subcategories were among the most commonly cited reasons for
eliminating in situ heating.
In summary, the most important factors in the elimination of in situ heating as a site remedy are:
• Inapplicability to metals/inorganics
• Inapplicability to SVOCs
• High cost
• Limited availability
• Need for further demonstrations
• Ineffectiveness for low permeability soils
112
-------
Figure 93. Most common reasons for elimination of In Situ Heating
grouped by Subcategory (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
4.6 Process limitations/materials handling
2.8 Contaminanted media location
1.8 Contaminant characteristics
1.3 SVOCs
8.1 Needs further development
7.3 Technology comparisons
8.2 Needs demonstration
4.1 Availability
8.5 Unproven/uncertain application
7.2 Operation & maintenance costs
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.1 Subsurface characteristics
7.4 General (cost)
1.1 Metals/inorganics
D Detailed Evaluation
3-Criteria Screening
Initial Screening
5 10
Number of occurrences
7.3.12 Dechlorination
Dechlorination was considered 50 times at the 205 sites and was selected three times as a site remedy.
It was eliminated from consideration 33 times during the initial screening, 6 times during the three-
criteria screening, and 8 times during the detailed evaluation. A total of 118 reasons were given for the
47 times that dechlorination was eliminated as a site remedy, including 70 times reasons were cited
during the initial screening, 22 times reasons were cited during the three-criteria screening, and 26 times
reasons were cited during the detailed evaluation. All of the reasons given for eliminating dechlorination
are presented in Appendix E. Table E-12.
Figure 94 shows the 11 individual reasons cited most often for eliminating dechlorination. Together,
these account for 43 (36 percent) of the total of 118 times reasons were cited for eliminating this
technology. Six of the 11 individual reasons were cited during both initial screening and the later phases
of technology selection. Five of the individual reasons were given during the initial screening alone.
The most common individual reason given for eliminating dechlorination was its inapplicability to all
site contaminants (6 occurrences). The next most common individual reasons were its being most
applicable to PCBs (5 times), high cost (5 times), inapplicability to metals/inorganics (4 times),
inapplicability to VOCs (4 times), and need for treatability studies (4 times). The 11 individual reasons
cited most often for eliminating dechlorination encompass four of the nine categories of reasons for
eliminating innovative technologies—contaminant, implementation, cost, and information. No reasons
related to the media, site conditions, exposure/risk, regulatory, or other categories are included in the
11 most common individual reasons for eliminating dechlorination.
Figure 95 shows the reasons for elimination of dechlorination grouped by category. The category most
often cited for eliminating dechlorination was related to contaminants. The next most important
categories of reasons for eliminating dechlorination were implementation problems, a lack of information
on its performance, and cost. Reasons related to inapplicability to contaminated media at the sites and
increasing exposures/risks were of moderate importance in eliminating dechlorination as a site remedy.
113
-------
Site conditions and regulatory-related problems were the least important categories in eliminating
dechlorination.
Figure 94. Most common reasons for elimination of Dechlorination
(FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
High operational cost
High capital cost
Difficult to implement
Most applicable to chlorinated organics
Not effective for site contaminants
Requires testability studies
Not applicable to VOCs
Not applicable to metals/inorganics
High cost
Most applicable to PCBs
Not applicable to all site contaminants
D Detailed Evaluation
EJ 3-Criteria Screening
• Initial Screening
10
Number of occurrences
Other
Information
Cost
Regulatory [
Exposure/Risk I
Implementation I
Site Condition
Media
Contaminants
Figure 95. Reasons for elimination of Dechlorination
grouped by Category (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
2
D Detailed Evaluation
E 3-Critena Screening
• Initial Screening
Number of occurrences
Figure 96 shows the reasons for elimination of dechlorination grouped by subcategory. The subcat-
egories most often cited for elimination of dechlorination were inapplicability to VOCs and other
contaminants found at the sites and that it is most applicable to PCBs and chlorinated compounds.
Implementation-related reasons for eliminating dechlorination were a need for post-treatment or disposal
of residuals and complexity of the process. Reasons related to cost were its high capital, operation, and
maintenance costs. Information-related reasons included a need for testing at the site and needs for
further development and demonstrations. Exposure/risk-related reasons for eliminating dechlorination
were the potential to form more toxic or mobile by-products and short-term risks to site workers. Only
114
-------
one media-related subcategory and no site condition or regulatory subcategories were among the most
commonly cited reasons for eliminating dechlorination.
Figure 96. Most common reasons for elimination of Dechlorination
grouped by Subcategory (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
8.2 Needs demonstration
8.1 Needs further development
7.1 Capital costs
5.1 Short-term risk
4.13 General (implementation)
2.5 Volume
5.3 Toxic or mobile residuals
1.1 Metals/inorganics
7.2 Operation & maintenance costs
1.3 SVOCs
7.4 General (cost)
8.3 Needs testing at site
4.4 Post-treatment/disposal
1.7 Other classifications
1.2VOCs
1.9 General (contaminants)
D Detailed Evaluation
3-Criteria Screening
Initial Screening
Number of occurrences
In summary, the most important factors in the elimination of dechlorination as a site remed\ are
• Inapplicability to VOCs and other volatile contaminants
• Inapplicability to metals/inorganics
• High cost
• Need for post-treatment or disposal of residuals
• Need for testing at the site
• Potential to form more toxic or mobile by-products
7.3.13 Chemical Treatment (in situ)
Chemical treatment (in situ) was considered 47 times at the 205 sites but was not selected as a site
remedy. It was eliminated from consideration 42 times during the initial screening, 3 times during the
three-criteria screening, and 2 times during the detailed evaluation. A total of 126 reasons were given
for the 47 times that chemical treatment (in situ) was eliminated as a site remedy, including 112 times
reasons were cited during the initial screening, 12 times reasons were cited during the three-criteria
screening, and 2 times reasons were cited during the detailed evaluation. All of the reasons given for
eliminating chemical treatment (in situ) are presented in Appendix E, Table E-13.
Figure 97 shows the 11 individual reasons cited most often for eliminating chemical treatment (in situ).
Together, these account for 40 (32 percent) of the total of 126 times reasons were cited for eliminating
this technology. Four of the 11 individual reasons were cited during both initial screening and the later
phases of technology selection. Seven of the individual reasons were given during the initial screening
alone.
115
-------
Figure 97. Most common reasons for elimination of Chemical Treatment (in situ)
(FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
High cost
Difficult to monitor in situ
Difficult to control process
Not possible to uniformly distribute solutions in situ
Difficult to adjust in situ
Heterogenous wastes
Not effective for site contaminants
Requires treatability studies
Not applicable to all site contaminants
May form more toxic/mobile products
Difficult to implement
D Detailed Evaluation
12 3-Criteria Screening
• Initial Screening
r
4 6
Number of occurrences
10
The most common individual reason given for eliminating chemical treatment (in situ) was its difficult
implementation (6 occurrences). The next most common individual reasons were that it may form more
toxic or mobile products (5 times), inapplicability to all site contaminants (4 times), and need for
treatability studies (4 times). The 11 individual reasons cited most often for eliminating chemical
treatment (in situ) encompass six of the nine categories of reasons for eliminating innovative
technologies—contaminant, media, implementation, exposure/risk, cost, and information. No reasons
related to the site conditions, regulatory, or other categories are included in the 11 most common
individual reasons for eliminating chemical treatment .(in situ).
Figure 98 shows the reasons for elimination of chemical treatment (in situ) grouped by category. The
category most often cited for eliminating chemical treatment (in situ) was implementation. The next
most important categories of reasons for eliminating chemical treatment (in situ) were inapplicability to
contaminants and contaminated media at the sites, and a lack of information on performance. Reasons
related to site conditions and increasing exposures/risks were of moderate importance in eliminating
chemical treatment (in situ) as a site remedy. Cost and regulatory reasons were the least important
categories in eliminating chemical treatment (in situ).
Figure 99 shows the reasons for elimination of chemical treatment (in situ) grouped by subcategory.
The subcategory most often cited for elimination of chemical treatment (in situ) was difficulty in
controlling an in situ process. The technology often was considered generally difficult to implement.
Contaminant-related reasons were that it was generally not applicable to many of the contaminants found
at the sites. Media related reasons for eliminating chemical treatment (in situ) were that it is not
applicable to heterogeneous or aqueous wastes. The technology often was considered unproven with
a need for demonstrations and testing at the sites. Site condition related reasons for eliminating chemical
treatment (in situ) were that it would not be effective in low permeability soils. Reasons related to
exposure/risk included the potential to form more toxic or mobile by-products. Only one cost-related
subcategory and no regulatory subcategories were among the most commonly cited reasons for
eliminating chemical treatment (in situ).
116
-------
Figure 98. Reasons for elimination of Chemical Treatment (in situ)
grouped by Category (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
Other 0
Information I
Cost
Regulatory
Exposure/Risk I
Implementation I
Site Condition
Media
Contaminants I
17
I ' ' ' ' I
15 20
Number of occurrences
D Detailed Evaluation
H 3-Criteria Screening
• Initial Screening
37
Figure 99. Most common reasons for elimination of Chemical Treament (in situ)
grouped by Subcategory (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
8.3 Needs testing at site
7.4 General (cost)
4.6 Process limitations/materials handling
3.4 Structures/activities
3.3 Soil characteristics
2.5 Volume
8.5 Unproven/uncertam application
8.2 Needs demonstration
3 1 Subsurface characteristics
2.9 General (media)
5.3 Toxic or mobile residuals
4.13 General (implementation)
1.9 General (contaminants)
4.10 In situ control
D Detailed Evaluation
E3 3-Cnleria Screening
• Initial Screening
20
Number of occurrences
In summary, the most important factors in the elimination of chemical treatment (in situ) as a site
remedy are:
• Difficulty in controlling an in situ process
• Not applicable to site contaminants
• Difficult to implement
• Potential to form more toxic or mobile by-products
• Need for testing at the site
• Needs further demonstration
117
-------
7.3.14 Chemical Treatment (ex situ)
Chemical treatment (ex situ) was considered 42 times at the 205 sites and was selected once as a site
remedy. It was eliminated from consideration 35 times during the initial screening, 6 times during the
three-criteria screening, and 0 times during the detailed evaluation. A total of 98 reasons were given
for the 41 times that chemical treatment (ex situ) was eliminated as a site remedy, including 79 times
reasons were cited during the initial screening and 19 times reasons were cited during the three-criteria
screening. All of the reasons given for eliminating chemical treatment (ex situ) are presented in
Appendix E, Table E-14.
Figure 100 shows the 11 individual reasons cited most often for eliminating chemical treatment (ex situ).
Together, these account for 37 (38 percent) of the 98 times reasons were cited for eliminating this tech-
nology. Four of the 11 individual reasons were cited during both initial screening and the later phases
of technology selection. Seven of the individual reasons were given during the initial screening alone.
Figure 100. Most common reasons for elimination of Chemical Treatment (ex situ)
(FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
High cost
May form more toxic/mobile products
Not selected as representative process option
Most applicable to aqueous waste streams
Not applicable to municipal solid waste
Not effective for site contaminants
Unproven applicability to organics
Limited effectiveness for metals/inorganics
Not applicable to organics
Not applicable to metals/inorganics
Not applicable to all site contaminants
D Detailed Evaluation
E3 3-Criteria Screening
• Initial Screening
Number of occurrences
The most common individual reason given for eliminating chemical treatment (ex situ) was that it was
not applicable to all site contaminants (9 occurrences). The next most common individual reasons were
its inapplicability to metals/inorganics (5 times), and its inapplicability to organics (5 times). The 11
individual reasons cited most often for eliminating chemical treatment (ex situ) encompass five of the
nine categories of reasons for eliminating innovative technologies—contaminant, media, implementation,
exposure/risk, and cost. No reasons related to the site conditions, regulatory, information, or other
categories are included in the 11 most common individual reasons for eliminating chemical treatment
(ex situ).
Figure 101 shows the reasons for elimination of chemical treatment (ex situ) grouped by category. The
category most often cited for eliminating chemical treatment (ex situ) was related to contaminants. The
next most important category of reasons for eliminating chemical treatment (ex situ) was inapplicability
to contaminated media at the sites. Implementation problems, potential to increase exposures/risks, and
a lack of information on its performance were of moderate importance in eliminating chemical treatment
118
-------
(ex situ) as a site remedy. Site conditions, costs, and regulatory-related problems were the least
important categories in eliminating chemical treatment (ex situ).
Other
Information
Cost
Regulatory
Exposure/Risk
Implementation
Site Condition
Media
Contaminants
Figure 101. Reasons for elimination of Chemical Treatment (ex situ)
grouped by Category (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
10
20
Number of occurrences
D Detailed Evaluation
£3 3-Criteria Screening
• Initial Screening
30
40
Figure 102 shows the reasons for elimination of chemical treatment (ex situ) grouped by subcategory.
The subcategory most often cited for elimination of chemical treatment (ex situ) was its general
ineffectiveness for contaminants found at the sites. Other contaminant-related reasons for eliminating
chemical treatment (ex situ) were inapplicability to metals/inorganics and unproven effectiveness for
organics. The second most often cited subcategory was the potential to form more toxic or mobile by-
products. Media-related reasons for eliminating chemical treatment (ex situ) were volumes of
contaminated material to be treated that was too large, it is not applicable to municipal sohd waste.
concentrations of contaminated material were too high, and this technology is most applicable to aqueous
waste streams. Implementation-related reasons for eliminating chemical treatment (ex situ) were general
difficulties in controlling the reactions. Only one cost- or information-related subcategories and no site
condition or regulatory subcategories were among the most commonly cited reasons for eliminating
chemical treatment (ex situ).
In summary, the most important factors in the elimination of chemical treatment (ex situ) as a site
remedy are:
• Not applicable to site contaminants
• Inapplicability to metals/inorganics
• Inapplicability to organics
• Potential to form more toxic or mobile by-products
• Difficult to implement
• Volumes of contaminated material too large
119
-------
Figure 102. Most common reasons for elimination of Chemical Treament (ex situ)
grouped by Subcategory (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
8.5 JJnproven/uncertain application
7.4 General (cost)
4.10 In situ control
4.8 General technology comparisons
2.5 Volume
4.6 Process limitations/materials handling
2.6 Concentration
2.3 Solid wastes
2.9 General (media)
1.7 Other classifications
1.1 Metals/inorganics
5.3 Toxic or mobile residuals
1.9 General (contaminants)
D Detailed Evaluation
0 3-Criteria Screening
• Initial Screening
Number of occurrences
7.3.15 Metallurgical Processes
Metallurgical processes were considered 21 times at the 205 sites and selected once as a site remedy.
It was eliminated from consideration 13 times during the initial screening, 3 times during the three-
criteria screening, and 4 times during the detailed evaluation. A total of 75 reasons were given for the
20 times that metallurgical processes were eliminated as a site remedy, including 41 times reasons were
cited during the initial screening, 9 times reasons were cited during the three-criteria screening, and 25
times reasons were cited during the detailed evaluation. All of the reasons given for eliminating
metallurgical processes are presented in Appendix £, Table E-15.
Figure 103 shows the 12 individual reasons cited most often for eliminating metallurgical processes.
Together, these account for 25 (33 percent) of the total of 75 times reasons were cited for eliminating
this technology. Six of the 12 individual reasons were cited during both initial screening and the later
phases of technology selection. Six of the individual reasons were given during the initial screening
alone.
The most common individual reason given for eliminating metallurgical processes was its potential
adverse environmental effects (3 occurrences). The next most common individual reasons were that the
volume of material was too small (2 times), a large volume of material needed to be excavated (2 times),
inapplicability to materials with low lead content (2 times), low concentrations of metals (2 times),
unfavorable mineral composition (2 times), space limitations at the site (2 times), uncertain implement-
ability (2 times), high capital cost (2 times), high cost compared to solidification/stabilization (2 times),
less than fully developed technology (2 times), and lack of performance data (2 times). The 12 reasons
cited most often for eliminating metallurgical processes encompass six of the nine categories of reasons
for eliminating innovative technologies—media, site conditions, implementation, exposure/risk, cost, and
information. No reasons related to the contaminant, regulatory, or other categories are included in the
11 most common individual reasons for eliminating metallurgical processes.
Figure 104 shows the reasons for elimination of metallurgical processes grouped by category. The
category most often cited for eliminating metallurgical processes was implementation. The next most
120
-------
important categories of reasons for eliminating metallurgical processes were a lack of information on
its performance and inapplicability to contaminated media at the sites. Reasons related to costs and
increasing exposures/risks were of moderate importance in eliminating metallurgical processes as a site
remedy. Contaminants, site conditions, and regulatory-related problems were the least important
categories in eliminating metallurgical processes.
Figure 103. Most common reasons for elimination of Metallurgical Processes
(FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
No performance data for site contaminants III
Not fully developed technology l^|
More costly than solidification and stabilization
Mineral composition
High capital cost $$$
Uncertain implementability
Space limitations at the site IJ
of tailing not favorable for copper removal HH
Low concentrations of metals |^|
^•2
•""" D Detailed Evaluation
QQoJ2
1 „ • Initial bcreenmg
ZD2
H2
HI2
IH2
Not applicable to low lead content materials |&§88888 2
Large volume of material to be excavated tf^
Volume of material too small |H
Potential adverse environmental effects |m
^-
0
H2
IH2
HLTZl3
i • i • i • i *
2 4 6 8 10
Number of occurrences
Figure 104. Reasons for elimination of Metallurgical Processes
grouped by Category (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
Other JO
Information ^1
CoslB|
Regulatory [
Exposure/Risk •
Site Condition ^1
c
Contaminants ^M
0
^•l^B^HH-:::-':-
H9 |9
1
^••:-:;l IB
:>>:»>;•
I2
^^••^^••^•••^••I^^Hl
HI3
D Detailed Evaluation
1 0 3-Criteria Screening
• Initial Screening
ii^^^^^H
Hjjl^^^^^^^j
5 10 15 20 25
Number of occurrences
Figure JOS shows the reasons for elimination of metallurgical processes grouped by subcategory. The
subcategory most often cited for elimination of metallurgical processes was uncertain effectiveness.
Other information-related reasons were the need for further development and demonstrations.
Implementation-related reasons for eliminating metallurgical processes included limited availability, need
for post-treatment or disposal of treatment residuals, less effectiveness than solidification/stabilization,
121
-------
and uncertain implementability. Media-related reasons included volumes of material to be treated that
were either too small or too large, inapplicability to materials with low concentrations of metals, and
ineffectiveness for removing metals due to mineral composition of material to be treated. In addition,
metallurgical processes were eliminated due to potential adverse environmental effects and high cost in
comparison to other technologies. No contaminant, site condition, or regulatory subcategories were
among the most commonly cited reasons for eliminating metallurgical processes.
Figure 105. Most common reasons for elimination of Metallurgical Processes
grouped by Subcategory (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
8.2 Needs demonstration L^^___^__, _ „ ., Jr. , ..
... , . .. ,C^5=====io D Delated Evaluation
4.13 General (implementation) JBBB_ 13
4.7 Specific technology comparisons | 13 E3 3-Criteria Screening
4.4 Post-treatment/disposal |m^ ~|3 g Initial Screening
8.1 Needs further development "™
7.3 Technology comparisons
5.2 Long-term risk
2.7 Media characteristics
2.5 Volume
4.1 Availability
2.6 Concentration
8.5 Unproven/uncertain application _
0 2 4 6 8 10
Number o( occurrences
In summary, the most important factors in the elimination of metallurgical processes as a site remedy
are:
• Unproven technology
• Need for post-treatment or disposal of residuals
• Less effective than solidification/stabilization
• Low concentrations of metals in material to be treated
• Limited availability
• Potential adverse environmental effects
• High cost in comparison to other technologies
7.3.16 Electrokinetics
Electrokinetics was considered 10 times at the 205 sites but not selected as a site remedy. It was
eliminated from consideration 8 times during the initial screening, 2 times during the three-criteria
screening, and 0 times during the detailed evaluation. A total of 22 reasons were given for the 10 times
that electrokinetics was eliminated as a site remedy, including 19 times reasons were cited during the
initial screening and 3 times reasons were cited during the three-criteria screening. All of the reasons
given for eliminating electrokinetics are presented in Appendix E, Table E-16.
Figure 106 shows the four individual reasons cited most often for eliminating electrokinetics. Together,
these account for 10 (45 percent) of the total of 22 times reasons were cited for eliminating this
technology. One of the four individual reasons were cited during both initial screening and the later
phases of technology selection. Three of the individual reasons were given during the initial screening
alone.
122
-------
Figure 106. Most common reasons for elimination of Electrokinetics
(FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
Unproven technology
Low soil moisture content
Requires treatability studies
Not fully developed technology
D Detailed Evaluation
K2 3-Criteria Screening
• Initial Screening
4 6
Number of occurrences
8
10
The most common individual reasons given for eliminating electrokinetics were that it is not a fully
developed technology (3 occurrences) and the need for treatability studies (3 times). The next most
common individual reasons were low soil moisture content (2 times) and that it is an unproven
technology (2 times). The four individual reasons cited most often for eliminating electrokinetics
encompass two of the nine categories of reasons for eliminating innovative technologies—site conditions,
and information. No reasons related to the media, contaminant, implementation, exposure/risk,
regulatory, cost, or other categories are included in the four most common individual reasons for
eliminating electrokinetics.
Figure 107 shows the reasons for elimination of electrokinetics grouped by category. The category most
often cited for eliminating electrokinetics was lack of information. The next most important categories
of reasons for eliminating electrokinetics were inapplicability to contaminants and contaminated media
at the sites, site conditions, and implementation problems. Cost, exposure/risk, and regulatory-related
problems were the least important categories in eliminating electrokinetics.
Figure 107. Reasons for elimination of Electrokinetics
grouped by Category (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
Other 0
Information
Cost
Regulatory
Exposure/Risk
Implementation
Site Condition
Media
Contaminants
D Detailed Evaluation
E3 3-Criteria Screening
• Initial Screening
4 6
Number of occurrences
10
Figure 108 shows the reasons for elimination of electrokinetics grouped by subcategory. The
subcategories most often cited for elimination of electrokinetics were that it is an unproven technology
that needs further development and testing at the sites. Site condition-related reasons for eliminating
electrokinetics were that it is not effective for coarse soils or soils with a low soil moisture content.
123
-------
Contaminant-related reasons for eliminating electrokinetics were that the technology is most applicable
to metals and not applicable to VOCs. Other reasons for eliminating electrokinetics were high cost and
limited availability.
Figure 108. Most common reasons for elimination of Electrokinetics
grouped by Subcategory (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
7.4 General (cost)
4.9 Interference factors
4.1 Availability
3.5 General (site conditions)
2.5 Volume
2.3 Solid wastes
1.2 VOCs
8.5 Unproven/uncertain application
8.3 Needs testing at site
8.1 Needs further development
3.3 Soil characteristics
1.9 General (contaminants)
D Detailed Evaluation
E9 3-Criteria Screening
• Initial Screening
i • i
4 6
Number of occurrences
10
In summary, the most important factors in the elimination of electrokinetics as a site remedy are:
• Unproven technology
• Ineffective for soils with low soil moisture content
• Need for testing at the site
• Inapplicable to site contaminants
• Needs further development
7.3.17 Other Technologies
Four innovative technologies report were considered as a site remedy fewer than 10 times—soil cooling/
freezing, ex situ soil vapor extraction, vegetative uptake, and UV radiation. A brief analysis of these
technologies is presented below.
Soil Cooling/Freezing
Soil cooling/freezing was considered nine times at the 205 sites but not selected as a site remedy. It was
eliminated from consideration 9 times during the initial screening, 0 times during the three-criteria
screening, and 0 times during the detailed evaluation. A total of 15 reasons were given for the 9 times
that soil cooling/freezing was eliminated as a site remedy; all were cited during the initial screening.
Appendix E, Table E-l 7 presents all of the reasons cited for elimination and the number of times each
was given during the three phases of technology selection.
A total of 12 individual reasons were cited 'for eliminating soil cooling/freezing. The most common
individual reasons given for eliminating soil cooling/freezing were that it is not a long-term solution (3
occurrences) and high energy costs (2 times). In summary, the most important factors in the elimination
of soil cooling/freezing as a site remedy are:
124
-------
• It is not a long-term solution
• High energy costs
• High installation and operational costs
• Unproven technology
Ex Situ Soil Vapor Extraction
Ex situ soil vapor extraction was considered six times at the 205 sites but not selected as a site remedy.
It was eliminated from consideration four times during the initial screening, once during the three-criteria
screening, and once during the detailed evaluation. A total of 11 reasons were given for the six times
that ex situ soil vapor extraction was eliminated as a site remedy, including seven times reasons were
cited during the initial screening, two times reasons were cited during the three-criteria screening, and
two times reasons were cited during the detailed evaluation. Appendix E, Table E-18 presents all of the
reasons cited for elimination and the number of times each was given during the three phases of
technology selection.
A total of nine individual reasons were cited for eliminating ex situ soil vapor extraction, and of these,
six were given only during the initial screening. The most common individual reasons given for
eliminating ex situ soil vapor extraction were that it is less effective than in situ soil vapor extraction
(2 occurrences) and it is more costly than in situ soil vapor extraction (2 times). In summary, the most
important factors in the elimination of ex situ soil vapor extraction as a site remedy are:
• Less effective than in situ soil vapor extraction
• More costly than in situ soil vapor extraction
Vegetative Uptake
Vegetative uptake was considered five times at the 205 sites but not selected as a site remedy. It was
eliminated from consideration five times during the initial screening, 0 times during the three-criteria
screening, and 0 times during the detailed evaluation. A total of seven reasons were given for the five
times that vegetative uptake was eliminated as a site remedy; all were cited during the initial screening.
Appendix E, Table E-19 presents all of the reasons cited for elimination and the number of times each
was given during the three phases of technology selection.
A total of seven individual reasons were cited for eliminating vegetative uptake, and all seven of these
were given only during the initial screening. None of the seven reasons were cited more than once. The
most important factors in the elimination of vegetative uptake as a site remedy are:
• Not applicable to all site contaminants
• Suitable only for surface and near-surface contaminated soils
UV Radiation
UV radiation was considered once at the 205 sites but not selected as a site remedy. Appendix E, Table
E-20 presents all of the reasons cited for elimination and the number of times each was given during
the three phases of technology selection. A total of three individual reasons were cited for eliminating
UV radiation, and all of these were given only during the initial screening. The reasons for eliminating
UV radiation were that it requires pre-treatment, is not fully developed, and its effectiveness is uncertain.
In summary, the factors cited for the elimination of UV radiation as a site remedy are:
125
-------
• Requires pre-treatment to slurry soils
• Not a fully developed technology
• Uncertain success
7.4 Reasons for Eliminating Soil Washing and Soil Flushing at Metals-Contaminated
Sites
A special analysis was conducted to examine why soil flushing and soil washing were not selected at
sites contaminated with metals. Soil flushing or soil washing were eliminated as a remedy at 101 sites
contaminated by metals or other inorganics. Appendix F lists all of the reasons given for eliminating
soil flushing and soil washing at metals sites, and includes the sites at which they were eliminated and
the phase of the selection process during which they were eliminated.
A total of 239 reasons were cited for eliminating soil flushing at metals-contaminated sites. The most
common reason cited was its potential to contaminate groundwater. Other frequently cited reasons for
not selecting soil flushing were difficulty in recovering flushed products from groundwater, low
permeability of site soils, and the heterogeneous nature of the wastes to be treated.
By category of reasons, soil flushing was most often eliminated because of difficulty in implementation
(64 reasons cited). The next most commonly cited category of reasons were site conditions (44 reasons),
risk (38 reasons), media (33 reasons), contaminants (22 reasons), and information (20 reasons).
Regulatory- (8 reasons) and cost-related (9 reasons) were cited infrequently.
A total of 244 reasons given for eliminating soil washing at metals-contaminated sites. It was eliminated
most often because it would require post-treatment of soil fines or wastewater. Other frequently cited
reasons for not selecting soil washing were high cost, the need to perform pilot or treatability tests prior
to full-scale use, the need for complicated or multiple washing fluids, and the presence of fine-grained
soils.
By category of reasons, soil washing was most often eliminated because of difficulty in implementation
(88 reasons cited). The next most commonly cited category of reasons were lack of information (45
reasons), media (32 reasons), cost (27 reasons), contaminants (21 reasons), and site conditions (16
reasons). Risk- (7 reasons) and regulatory-related (6 reasons) were cited infrequently.
7.5 Most Important Categories of Reasons for Eliminating Each Innovative Technology
Table 30 summarizes the importance of each category of reasons in the elimination of each innovative
technology included in this analysis.
126
-------
Table 30. Categories that were most important in the selection of innovative technologies;
"H" most important, "M" moderately important, and "L" least important (shaded cells indicate
the most frequently cited category).
Ex Situ Biodegradation
In Situ Vitrification
Soil Flushing
Other Thermal (ex situ)
Soil Vapor Extraction
In Situ Biodegradation
Soil Washing
Solvent Extraction
Low Temp. Thermal Desorption
Biodegradation
In Situ Heating
Dechtonnation
Chemical Treatment (in situ)
Chemical Treatment (ex situ)
Metallurgical Processes
Electrokinetics
Soil Cooling/Freezing
Ex Situ Soil Vapor Extraction
Vegetative Uptake
UV Radiation
Contaminants
H
M
M
M
H
H
M
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
L
M
L
M
H
L
.5
M
M
M
M
M
H
M
H
H
M
M
M
M
H
H
M
M
M
H
L
Site Condition
M
H
H
L
M
M
M
L
L
L
M
L
M
L
L
M
M
L
L
L
}
;.--^,>:,
; ':if':-
m
• 41 '
M
H
H
H
H
H
H
M
H
M
H
M
M
H
L
M
Exposure/Risk
M
M
H
L
L
M
L
M
M
M
L
L
M
M
M
L
H
M
L
L
o
1
en
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
1
L
«
H
M
M
L
M
M
H
L
H
M
L
L
M
L
H
M
L
L
ro
M
H
M
H
L
M
H
M
M
M
H
M
M
M
H
H
M
L
M
H
8. COMPARISON OF REASONS FOR INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SELECTION AND
ELIMINATION
This section briefly compares the reasons cited for elimination of innovative and standard technologies
within the nine categories of reasons.
8.1 Section Summary
Selection of innovative technologies emphasizes the ability to reduce exposures and risk. Overall, the
reasons cited for selection of innovative technologies tended to reflect the nine criteria in the NCP rather
127
-------
than the ability of specific technologies to effectively treat or contain contaminants under the constraints
of site conditions. Reasons for elimination of innovative technologies emphasize their implementability
and effectiveness on contaminants, media, and conditions found at the sites. Cost was of only moderate
importance for both the selection and elimination of innovative technologies, and regulatory reasons were
of minor importance.
8.2 Comparison by Category
A comparison of Figure 30 (page 42) on the reasons for innovative technology selection by category
with Figure 60 (page 82) on the reasons for innovative technology elimination by category shows
significant differences in the categories that are emphasized.3 The greatest emphasis in the selection of
innovative technologies is on controlling exposure and risk. Overall, the reasons cited for selection of
innovative technologies tend to reflect the nine criteria in the NCP rather than the ability of specific
technologies to effectively treat or contain contaminants under the constraints of site conditions. The
greatest emphasis in the elimination of innovative technologies is on their implementability. Reasons
related to the effectiveness of an innovative technology in addressing the contaminants, media, and
conditions at the site also are cited frequently for eliminating innovative technologies. These categories,
however, are cited the least often in the selection of innovative technologies. The availability of
information also is relatively important in the elimination of innovative technologies, though it is only
moderately important in the selection of innovative technologies. Cost was of only moderate importance
for both the selection and elimination of innovative technologies. Regulatory-related reasons were of
minor importance in eliminating innovative technologies, and only of moderate importance in the
selection of innovative technologies.
The reasons cited for the selection of innovative technologies appear to be less varied than the reasons
cited for the elimination of innovative technologies. There were far fewer different reasons cited for the
selection of technologies (147 different reasons) than for the elimination of innovative technologies (616
different reasons). The reasons for selecting technologies were used an average of 12.2 times each (147
reasons used 1,791 times), while the reasons for eliminating innovative technologies were used an
average of 5.8 times each (616 reasons used 3,598 times). In addition, the 13 most common reasons
cited for technology selection accounted for 55 percent of the selection reasons cited, while the 13 most
common reasons cited for innovative technology elimination accounted for only 24 percent of the
elimination reasons cited.
9. TREATABILITY STUDIES
This section presents information on treatability tests of standard and innovative technologies that were
considered as part of source control remedies at Superfund sites. The data is examined to determine
how often treatability tests are conducted at Superfund sites and the influence of treatability tests on
technology selectiBn.
*
9.1 Section Summary
A total of 85 treatability tests of standard and innovative technologies were conducted at 47 of the 205
sites. No treatability studies were conducted at the other 158 operable units included in this analysis.
3More than one reason was often cited within the same category for elimination of a particular
technology. For example, the reasons given for eliminating soil washing could have included the
need for pre-treatment and the need for post-treatment, both of which are related to implementation.
128
-------
Of the 85 treatability tests conducted, 57 were considered successful and 28 were considered
unsuccessful. Of the 57 successful tests, 35 of the tested technologies were subsequently selected to
remediate the sites. Two other technologies were selected as part of the site remedy, even though the
treatability test was not successful. Therefore, 37 of the 85 technologies tested were eventually selected
as part of the site remedy.
Thirteen innovative technologies were tested a total of 53 times. Of the total, 31 tests were considered
successful and 22 were not considered successful (overall success rate of 58 percent). The innovative
technologies that were tested successfully most often were soil vapor extraction (eight successful tests)
and low temperature thermal desorption (five successful tests). Two of the innovative technologies were
never successfully tested: dechlorination and other thermal (wet air oxidation). Six of the 11 innovative
technologies that were tested successfully were subsequently selected as part of the site remedy: soil
vapor extraction was selected 87 percent of the time a test was successful (eight tests); biodegradation
was selected 67 percent of the time a test was successful (three tests); ex situ biodegradation was
selected 67 percent of the time a test was successful (three tests); in situ vitrification was selected 50
percent of the time a test was successful (two tests); and soil washing was selected 33 percent of the
time a test was successful (three tests).
Four standard technologies were tested a total of 32 times. Of these, 26 tests were considered successful
and 6 tests were not considered successful (overall success rate of 81 percent). The standard technology
that was tested most often was solidification/stabilization, which was tested 26 times. Three of the four
standard technologies that were tested successfully were subsequently selected as part of the site remedy:
incineration was selected 100 percent of the time a test was successful (two tests); capping was selected
100 percent of the time a test was successful (one test); and solidification/stabilization was selected 73
percent of the time a test was successful (22 tests).
9.2 Overview of Treatability Studies
Table 31 presents the treatability tests conducted on innovative technologies, and Table 32 presents the
treatability tests conducted on standard technologies. Tables 31 and 32 include the sites at which the
tests were conducted, whether the test was considered successful, whether the tested technology was
subsequently selected for site remediation, and brief comments on the test results Both tables are
organized by technology. Treatability tests were conducted at a total of 47 of the 205 sites. No
treatability studies were conducted at the other 158 operable units included in this analysis.
There were a total of 85 treatability tests of standard and innovative technologies; 57 were considered
successful and 28 were considered unsuccessful. Thirty-seven of the tested technologies were eventually
selected to remediate the sites. In two cases, once for an innovative technology and once for a standard
technology, a treatability test was not considered successful but the technology still was selected as part
of the site remedy. At the Applied Environmental Services site, a treatability test of biodegradation was
found to be ineffective on BTEX in unsaturated soils. However, biodegradation was very successful on
BTEX in saturated soils, and in situ biodegradation was selected as part of the site remedy for saturated
soils. At the Silresim Chemical Corporation site, a treatability test of solidification/stabilization was
terminated because the soil samples provided for testing were not representative of contaminated soils
at the site. However, solidification/stabilization still was examined during the detailed evaluation and
selected as part of the site remedy.
In five cases (indicated by an asterisk in Tables 31 and 32), a treatability test was considered successful
even though the test results showed that the technology did not meet remedial objectives. In these cases,
129
-------
it was felt that the technology could meet remedial objectives with minor adjustments to the treatment
process parameters.
Table 31. Summary of innovative technology treatability tests for FY91 and FY92 source control
RODs (asterisk indicates a test was considered successful but would require minor modifications).
Site
Broderick Wood Products,
OU-2 (R-8)
Paoli Rail Yard (R-3)
PSC Resources (R-1)
Saunders Supply Co. (R-3)
Swope Oil & Chemical Co.,
OU-2 (R-2)
Petro-Chemical Systems,
Inc. (TB), OU-2 (R-6)
Prewitt Abandoned Refinery
(R-6)
Umatilla Army Depot
(Lagoons). OU-1 (R-10)
Applied Environmental
Services (R-2)
City Disposal Corp Landfill
(R-5)
Paoli Rail Yard (R-3)
Denver Radium Site, OU-8
(R-8)
Wasatch Chemical Co. (Lot
6) (R-8)
Anaconda Co. Smelter,
OU-11 (R-8)
Anaconda Co. Smelter,
OU-11 (R-8)
Bunker Hill Mining &
Metallurgical, OU-2 (R-10)
Denver Radium Site, OU-8
(R-8)
Technology
Biodegradation
Biodegradation
Biodegradation
Biodegradation
Biodegradation
Ex situ biodegradation
Ex situ biodegradation
Ex situ biodegradation
In situ biodegradation
In situ biodegradation
Dechlorination
In situ vitrification
In situ vitrification
Metallurgical processes
Metallurgical processes
Metallurgical processes
Metallurgical processes
Success
yes
no
yes*
no
yes
yes
yes*
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
Selected
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
Test Comments
Effective for PAHs and VOCs, less
effective for PCP
Reduced fuel oil, immobilizing, but not
removing, PCBs
Promising results from limited tests,
but pilot test needed
PCP potentially toxic to
microorganisms
Reduced levels of SVOCs (selected to
treat SVE residuals)
Treatment bed system effectively
degraded BTEX and PNAs
Landfarming would reduce hydro-
carbons by 90% with addition of water
and nutrients
Composting reduced concentrations of
explosives in soil
Not entirely effective for BTEX in
unsaturated soils, but very effective for
saturated soils
Removed VOCs and SVOCs, but soils
tested may not be representative of
contaminated site soils
Reduced PCBs but had material
handling problems
Immobilized heavy metals and
radionuclides, pilot-scale test needed
ORE met for all contaminants,
including dioxin
Three hydrometallurgical processes
tested; two showed promise
Pyrometallurgical process volatilized
insufficient arsenic
In situ leaching did not recover metals
Hydrometallurgical process removed
uranium but not other metals, very
hazardous solutions were required that
could contaminate groundwater
130
-------
Table 31. Innovative technology treatability tests, continued.
Site
Central City-Clear Creek
(R-8)
Central City-Clear Creek
(R-8)
Carter Industrials, Inc. (R-5)
Industrial Latex Corp., OU-1
(R-2)
Letterkenny Army Depot (SE
Area), OU-1 (R-3)
Paoli Rail Yard (R-3)
Purity Oil Sales, Inc., OU-2
(R-9)
Sacramento Army Depot,
OU-3 (R-9)
Van Waters & Rogers (R-10)
Whitmoyer Laboratones,
OU-3 (R-3)
Cannelton Industries, Inc.
(R-5)
PSC Resources (R-1)
Swope Oil & Chemical Co.,
OU-2 (R-2)
Van Waters & Rogers (R-9)
29th & Mead GW
Contamination, OU-2 (R-7)
Applied Environmental
Services (R-2)
Chemical Sales Co., OU-1
(R-8)
Letterkenny Army Depot (SE
Area), OU-1 (R-3)
Nascolite Corp. (R-2)
Raymark, OU-1 (R-3)
Silresim Chemical Corp.
(R-1)
Technology
Metallurgical processes
Metallurgical processes
Low temperature thermal
desorption
Low temperature thermal
desorption
Low temperature thermal
desorption
Low temperature thermal
desorption
Low temperature thermal
desorption
Low temperature thermal
desorption
Low temperature thermal
desorption
Other thermal (ex situ)
Soil flushing
Sal flushing
Soil flushing
Ex situ soil vapor extraction
Soil vapor extraction
Soil vapor extraction
Soil vapor extraction
Soil vapor extraction
Soil vapor extraction
Soil vapor extraction
Soil vapor extraction
Success
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
Selected
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
Test Comments
Froth flotation reduced base metal and
sulfur content
Pyrometallurgical process increased
mobility of lead
Reduced PCBs by 99.7%
Reduced Aroclor 1260 to target level
Removed VOCs by 97% to 99.9%
May not reach cleanup levels where
PCBs levels are high
Residuals failed TCLP for lead
Removed 99.9% of volatiles
Reduced VOC and alcohol levels to
near detection limits
Wet air oxidation did not extract
arsenic to remedial objectives
Had little effect on major compounds
of concern
VOCs could be flushed in column
studies
Did not remove arsenic and mercury,
but could mobilize contaminants to the
groundwater
Removed VOCs from soils, but
because of excavation limitations in
situ SVE was selected
Successfully removed organics
Rapidly reduced VOC levels
Rapidly recovered VOCs from the
subsurface
Soil permeability too low
Removed methylmethacrylate and
VOCs
Effectively removed VOCs
Removed over 90% of VOCs
131
-------
Table 31. Innovative technology treatability tests, continued.
Site
Swope Oil & Chemical Co.,
OU-2 (R-2)
Van Waters & Rogers (R-9)
Brown's Battery Breaking,
OU-2 (R-3)
Halby Chemical Co., OU-1
(R-3)
Nascolite Corp. (R-2)
Rhone-Poulenc lnc.(Zoecon)
Sandoz, OU-1 (R-9)
Sacramento Army Depot,
OU-3 (R-9)
Sacramento Army Depot,
OU-4 (R-9)
Standard Auto Bumper
Corp., OU-1 (R-4)
Tonolli Corp (R-3)
Whitmoyer Laboratories,
OU-3 (R-3)
Geigy Chemical Corp.
(Aberdeen Plant) (R-4)
Paoh Rail Yard (R-3)
Petro-Chemical Systems,
Inc. (TB), OU-2 (R-6)
Purity Oil Sales, Inc., OU-2
(R-9)
Technology
Soil vapor extraction
Soil vapor extraction
Soil washing
Soil washing
Soil washing
Soil washing
Soil washing
Soil washing
Soil washing
Soil washing
Soil washing
Solvent extraction
Solvent extraction
Solvent extraction
Solvent extraction
Success
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
no
yes-
no
yes
no
yes
no
Selected
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
Test Comments
Recovered significant amounts of
VOCs
Capable of removing VOCs from
vadose zone
Removed lead, but low permeability
impeded filtration and high natural
organic levels created large amounts
of residual sludge
Did not remove arsenic, copper, zinc
Removed methylmethacrylate,
cadmium, and lead
Removed arsenic, but was costly and
generated large volume of sludge
Did not remove cadmium and lead to
STLC limits
Removed cadmium and lead to
cleanup levels
Sal carbonates reacted with acid used
to remov* cnromium
Witt1 mine* adjustments TCLP levels
t
-------
Table 32. Summary of standard technology treatability tests for FY91 and FY92 source control
RODs (asterisk indicates a test was considered successful but would require minor modifications).
Site
Torch Lake, OU-1 & OU-3
(R-5)
Anaconda Co. Smelter, OU-11
(R-8)
Tonolli Corp. (R-3)
Gulf Coast Vacuum Services,
OU-1 (R-6)
Purity Oil Sales, Inc., OU-2
(R-9)
Whitmoyer Laboratories, OU-2
(R-3)
Agrico Chemical Co., OU-1
(R-4)
Anaconda Co. Smelter, OU-11
(R-8)
Berlin & Farro (R-5)
Brown's Battery Breaking.
OU-2 (R-3)
Bunker Hill Mining &
Metallurgical, OU-2 (R-10)
C & D Recycling (R-3)
Cannelton Industries, Inc.
(R-5)
Central City-Clear Creek (R-8)
Denver Radium Site, OU-8
(R-8)
Dixie Caverns County Landfill,
OU-1 (R-3)
Double Eagle Refinery Co.,
OU-1 (R-6)
Interstate Lead Co. (ILCO),
OU-1 (R-4)
Halby Chemical Co., OU-1
(R-3)
Technology
Capping
Commercial smelter
processes
Commercial smelter
processes
Incineration
Incineration
Incineration
Solidification/stabilization
Solidification/stabilization
Solidification/stabilization
Solidification/stabilization
Solidification/stabilization
Solidification/stabilization
Solidification/stabilization
Solidification/stabilization
Solidification/stabilization
Solidification/stabilization
Solidification/stabilization
Solidification/stabilization
Solidification/stabilization
Success
yes
no
yes*
yes
no
yes*
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Selected
yes
no
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
Test Comments
Soil column tests showed significantly
reduced infiltration
Two processes tested; one did not
separate copper or lead
Can process battery case material with
some minor modifications
Destroyed organics in soil/sludge, ash
passed TCLP
Ash failed TCLP for lead
Destroyed organics, but requires post-
treatment by S/S to reduce arsenic
mobility
Stabilized fluoride and other inorganics
to target levels
Four processes tested, two
cement-based were acceptable
Fixed metals and SVOCs. voiatiit/eo
VOCs could be managed
Reduced lead teachability
Stabilized copper dross flue dust
passed TCLP test
Effectively stabilized lead and copper
Had little effect in immobilizing metals
Seven fixative agents were effective lor
metals
Immobilized radionuclides and reduced
radon emissions
Met EP Toxicity levels for lead and
cadmium
Stabilized lead and low levels of
SVOCs (this test was conducted for this
site and the Fourth Street Abandoned
Refinery, OU-1 site)
Successful on lead-contaminated soils
Asphalt-based S/S was effective for
arsenic, copper, zinc
133
-------
Table 32. Standard technology treatability tests, continued.
Site
Technology
Success Selected Test Comments
H. Brown Co., Inc. (R-5)
Paoli Rail Yard (R-3)
Pester Refinery Co. (R-7)
PSC Resources (R-1)
Solidification/stabilization
Solidification/stabilization
Solidification/stabilization
Solidification/stabilization
Purity Oil Sales, Inc., OU-2 Solidification/stabilization
(R-9)
Rhone-Poulenc Inc.(Zoecon) Solidification/stabilization
Sandoz, OU-1 (R-9)
Sacramento Army Depot,
OU-4 (R-9)
Solidification/stabilization
Silresim Chemical Corp. (R-1) Solidification/stabilization
Swope Oil & Chemical Co., Solidification/stabilization
OU-2 (R-2)
Tonolli Corp. (R-3)
Solidification/stabilization
Whitmoyer Laboratories. OU-3 Solidification/stabilization
(R-3)
Whitmoyer Laboratories, OU-2 Solidification/stabilization
(R-3)
Whitmoyer Laboratories, OU-3 Solidification/stabilization
(R-3)
yes yes A number of methods met TCLP tests
for lead
yes yes Effectively reduced PCBs
yes no Reduced leachability of cadmium and
lead, but there was a large volume
increase and treated material had poor
load bearing properties
yes yes Two S/S mixtures stabilized metals and
PCBs, because of uncertainty about
whether VOCs were stabilized or
volatilized more tests are needed (in
situ S/S was selected at this site)
yes no Met TCLP standard for lead
yes yes Reduced arsenic leaching to target
levels
no no Failed compressive strength and
cadmium solubility tests
no yes Test terminated, samples provided were
not representative
yes no Fixed arsenic and mercury, but not
tested for site orgamcs
yes yes Four agents tested Successfully
stabilized lead in soils
no no Clay pelletizing/smtenng process
volatilized significant amounts of
arsenic, another S/S was selected at
the site
yes yes Reduced arsenic leachability
yes yes Reduced arsenic leachability to target
levels
9.3 Results of Treatability Studies
Figure 109 presents the results of treatability testing of innovative technologies. Thirteen innovative
technologies were tested a total of 53 times. Of the total, 31 tests were considered successful and 22
were not considered successful (overall success rate of 58 percent). Innovative technologies with the
highest rates of success were soil vapor extraction (89 percent), low temperature thermal desorption (71
percent), biodegradation (60 percent), ex situ biodegradation (100 percent), in situ vitrification (100
percent), and ex situ soil vapor extraction (100 percent). Innovative technologies with the lowest rates
of success were soil washing (33 percent), metallurgical processes (33 percent), solvent extraction (50
percent), soil flushing (33 percent), in situ biodegradation (50 percent), dechlorination (0 percent), and
other thermal (0 percent).
134
-------
Figure 110 presents the results of standard technology treatability tests. Four standard technologies were
tested a total of 32 times. Of these, 26 tests were considered successful and 6 tests were not considered
successful (success rate of 81 percent). Standard technology success rates were: solidification/stabiliza-
tion 85 percent; incineration 67 percent; commercial smelting 50 percent; and capping 100 percent.
Figure 109. Results of innovative technology treatability tests
(FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
Other thermal (ex situ)
Ex situ soil vapor extraction
Dechlorination
In situ vitrification
In situ biodegradation
Soil flushing
Ex situ biodegradation
Solvent extraction
Biodegradation
Metallurgical processes
Low temp, thermal desorption
Soil washing
Soil vapor extraction
E3 Unsuccessful (22 times)
• Successful (31 times)
4 6
Number of tests
Figure 110. Results of standard technology treatability tests
(FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
Capping
Commercial smelter
Incineration
Solidification/stabilization
Unsuccessful (6 times)
Successful (26 times)
10 20
Number of tests
30
Figure 111 presents all of the successful tests of innovative technologies and how often those innovative
technologies were subsequently selected as part of the remedy at the site where the treatability test was
conducted. Six innovative technologies were tested successfully and then selected as part of the site
remedy: soil vapor extraction was selected 87 percent of the time a test was successful; biodegradation
was selected 67 percent of the time a test was successful; ex situ biodegradation was selected 67 percent
of the time; in situ vitrification was selected 50 percent of the time; and soil washing was selected 33
percent of the time. Innovative technologies that were not selected as part of the site remedy even
though a treatability test was considered successful were solvent extraction, ex situ soil vapor extraction,
soil flushing, metallurgical processes, and in situ biodegradation.
135
-------
Figure 112 presents all of the successful tests of standard technologies and how often those innovative
technologies were subsequently selected as part of the remedy at the site where the treatability test was
conducted. Three of the four standard technologies that were tested successfully were then selected as
part of the site remedy: incineration was selected 100 percent of the time a test was successful; capping
was selected 100 percent of the time a test was successful; and solidification/stabilization was selected
73 percent of the time. The one standard technologies that was not selected as part of the site remedy
even though a treatability test was considered successful was a commercial smelter process.
Figure 111. Number of times successful tests resulted in selection of innovative
technologies as site remedies (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
Solvent extraction
Soil washing
Soil vapor extraction
Ex situ soil vapor extraction
Soil flushing
Low temperature thermal desorption
Metallurgical processes
In situ vitrification
In situ biodegradation
Ex situ biodegradation
Biodegradation
0 Not Selected
• Selected
K)
Number of tests
Figure 112. Number of times successful tests resulted in selection of standard
technologies as site remedies (FY91 and FY92 source control RODs).
Solidification/stabilization
Incineration H 2
Commercial smelter
Capping B1
E2 Not selected
• Selected
10 15
Number of tests
20
25
10. REMEDY CHANGE
This section analyzes the factors that resulted in changing an innovative source control technology as
a selected site remedy to another remedial technology. Typically, site remedy changes are documented
136
-------
in Amended RODs (ARODs) or Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs). The purpose of
analyzing changes to selected innovative technologies is to identify research needs and barriers to field
applications of innovative technologies that EPA may be able to modify. The sites analyzed for this
report were identified primarily using the Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report,
Fifth Edition, September, 1993, and OERR's ROD Annual Reports. Remedial Project Managers (RPMs)
provided additional information, such as RODs, ARODs, and ESDs.
10.1 Section Summary
Selected innovative remedies have been changed at only 15 Superfund sites. The innovative tech-
nologies that have been selected and then replaced most often are in situ vitrification (66%),
dechlorination (60%), chemical treatment (33%), and solvent extraction (20%). Innovative technologies
that have been replaced less frequently include soil flushing (10%), soil washing (10%), thermal
desorption ((9%), and ex situ bioremediation (9%). Innovative technologies that have been selected but
not replaced include soil vapor extraction and in situ bioremediation. It should be noted that many sites
are still in the pre-design and design remedial stages, during which additional data may cause
reconsideration of selected remedies.
The number of innovative technology changes at Superfund sites may be greater than indicated in this
report because site managers often stipulate contingency remedies in the ROD depending on the results
of treatability studies and other investigations conducted during remedial design and remedial action.
Thus, innovative remedies may be set aside without having to prepare an amended ROD or ESD. An
example of this case is the Sangamo/Crab Orchard site, where in situ vitrification and incineration were
selected and incineration was implemented without the need for further documentation.
Polychlorinated biphenyls were the major contaminants at six of the sites in this analysis, where
dechlonnation (three sues), solvent extraction, thermal desorption with vapor incineration, and in situ
vitrification were selected. However, the reasons for removing these technologies as the selected
remedies were not all related directly to the contaminant. Had adequate performance data been
available, the major implementation problems that hampered performance of a full-scale dechlorination
unit at Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformer and solvent extraction at Pinette's Salvage Yard might have been
prevented. Pilot-scale treatability studies of dechlorination at the Re-Solve, Inc. site revealed some
technical problems before the site managers invested in a full-scale unit. Cost-related issues raised by
the PRP affected the decision to use incineration rather than thermal desorption with fume incineration
of residuals. In situ vitrification, which was pilot-tested successfully at the Northwest Transformer site,
was eliminated from the remedy primarily because the only manufacturer removed the technology from
the market for an undetermined time.
The interval between the initial assessment of contamination levels and remedial design may have
contributed to remedy changes at several sites. VOCs and SVOCs in soil were the major contaminants
of concern at four sites. Soil flushing or thermal desorption were selected to remediate these sites.
However, during the remedial design, EPA found that concentrations of the target contaminants at three
of these sites had decreased to below action levels. As a result, treatment with soil flushing (two sites)
and thermal desorption (one site) could not be justified. At one of the sites, dioxins were discovered
about five years after the original ROD was signed.
Regulations that specify the use of certain technologies for specific waste categories may force the use
of proven technologies, creating barriers for innovative technologies. At the Caldwell Trucking Co. site,
EPA discovered after the ROD was signed that the wastes were more hazardous than previously
expected and were regulated under the Land Disposal Restrictions, which specified a standard remedy.
137
-------
Treatability studies are often performed after the ROD is signed. Failure of a technology during a
treatability study influenced the remedy change at several sites. For example, at two sites treatability
studies of soil washing followed by ex situ bioremediation failed to demonstrate the efficacy of these
technologies on PAHs and PCP. Land treatment to degrade mainly DDT-contaminated soil failed in a
treatability study at the Leetown Pesticide site. The activity of cesium-137 in sediments at the Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory could not be reduced adequately in treatability studies by physical
separation/acid extraction.
10.2 Overview of the Sites
Fifteen Superfund sites were analyzed, representing a variety of service, manufacturing, and agricultural
activities. Table 33 presents the activities at sites where selected innovative technologies were changed.
Site activities noted more than once include electrical transformer salvaging sites, municipal/industrial
landfills, and wood preserving sites. Activities at the other sites ranged broadly. Descriptions of these
sites are provided in Appendix G. Description of Sites where Innovative Remedy was Changed.
Table 33. Activities at sites where selected innovative technologies were changed.
Site Type
Electrical Transformer Salvaging
Landfill (Municipal. Industrial, or Both)
Wood Preserving
Pesticide Application
Chemical Reclamation
Wastewater Evaporation Area
Auto Fluid Manufacturing
Auto Salvaging
Sewage Dump
Battery Manufacturing
Laboratory Chemical Pit
Herbicide Manufacturing
Site Name/ROD Date
Northwest Transformer 9-15-89
Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers 3-25-88
Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard 9-27-90
University of Minnesota (Rosemount) 6-11-90
Caldwell Trucking Co. 9-25-86
Harvey and Knott Drum, Inc. 9-30-85
Leetown Pesticide 3-31-86
Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard 9-27-90
American Creosote Works (Pensacola) 9-28-89
Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving Co. 9-26-90
Leetown Pesticide 3-31-86
Re-Solve, Inc. 9-24-87
Idaho National Engineering Lab. 12-5-91
U.S. Aviex 9-7-88
Pinette's Salvage Yard 5-30-89
Caldwell Trucking Co. 9-25-86
Marathon Battery Corp. 9-30-88
University of Minnesota (Rosemount) 6-11-90
Crystal Chemical Co. 9-27-90
Site Location
Region 10, WA
Region 6, TX
Region 6, OK
Region 5, MN
Region 2, NJ
Region 3, DE
Region 3, WV
Region 6, OK
Region 4, FL
Region 4, FL
Region 3, WV
Region 1 , MA
Region 10, ID
Region 5, Ml
Region 1 , ME
Region 2, NJ
Region 2, NY
Region 5, MN
Region 6, TX
The analysis includes innovative source control remedies selected in 1982 to 1992 RODs, although the
RODs in which innovative remedies have been changed date only from 1985 to 1991. The original
source control remedies that have changed include ex situ bioremediation, dechlorination, acid extraction,
soil flushing, soil washing, solvent extraction, thermal desorption, and in situ vitrification.
138
-------
Table 34 compares the number of innovative
technologies that were selected as part of a site
remedy versus the number of times the tech-
nologies were replaced with a different tech-
nology. Figures on the number of times each
innovative technology was selected were taken
from the Annual Status Report. "Other" innova-
tive technologies include air sparging, contained
recovery of oily wastes, limestone barriers, and
fuming gasification. The innovative technolo-
gies that have been selected and then replaced
most often are in situ vitrification (66%),
dechlorination (60%), chemical treatment (33%),
and solvent extraction (20%). Innovative tech-
nologies that have been replaced less frequently
include soil flushing (10%), soil washing (10%),
thermal desorption (9%), and ex situ
bioremediation (9%). Innovative technologies
that have been selected but not replaced include
soil vapor extraction, in situ bioremediation, and
"other" innovative technologies. These figures
may be misleading in that many sites are still in
the remedial pre-design and design stages,
during which additional data may cause
reconsideration of the selected remedies.
Table 34. Innovative Technologies
Selected Versus Changed (1982-1992)
Technology
Ex Situ Bioremediation
Dechlorination
Chemical Treatment
Soil Flushing
Soil Washing
Solvent Extraction
Thermal Desorption
In Situ Vitrification
Soil Vapor Extraction
In Situ Bioremediation
Other
Times
Selected
34
5
3
20
20
5
32
3
107
26
8
Times
Changed
3
3
1
2
2
1
3
2
0
0
0
Table 35 summarizes the innovative technologies selected at each site, pnmar> site contaminants,
reasons for replacing the innovative technology, and the new site remeds selected, where known. Two
sites are listed twice; soil washing followed by ex situ biodegradation were selected at both the
American Creosote Works, Inc. and Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving Co sites The acid extraction
technology selected at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory is listed in Table 34 under chemical
treatment.
Table 35. Reasons for remedy change by selected innovative technology.
Site/Location
Leetown Pesticide,
Region 3, WV
American Creosote
Works, Inc.
(Pensacola), Region 4,
FL
Coleman-Evans Wood
Preserving Co., Region
4,FL
Selected Innovative
Remedy (ROD)
Bioremediation ex situ (land
treatment & others)
Bioremediation (ex situ)
after soil washing (see soil
washing)
Slurry phase bioremediation
of wash water from soil
wash (see soil washing)
Primary New Remedy
Contaminants
DDT and No further action
metabolites
PAHs, PCP Undecided
PCP Undecided
Reason for Remedy Change
Failure of ex situ treatability
studies, revised risk
assessment— risk not sufficient
for action
Failure of bioremediation and
soil washing treatability studies
Dioxins discovered recently on
site
139
-------
Site/Location
Re-Solve, Inc., Region
1.MA
Sol Lynn/Industrial
Transformers, Region
6,TX
Tenth Street Dump/
Junkyard, Region 6,
OK
Idaho Nat. Engineering
Lab. (Warm Waste
Pond), Region 10, ID
Harvey and Knott
Drum, Inc., Region 3,
DE
U.S. Aviex, Region 5,
Ml
Amencan Creosote
Works, Inc.
(Pensacola), Region 4.
FL
Coleman-Evans Wood
Preserving Co., Region
4, FL
Pinette's Salvage Yard,
Region 1, ME
Caldwell Trucking Co.,
Region 2, NJ
Marathon Battery
Corp., Region 2, NY
University of Minnesota
(Rosemount), Region
5, MN
Crystal Chemical Co.,
Region 6, TX
Northwest Transformer,
Region 10, WA
Selected Innovative •
Remedy (ROD)
Dechlorination following
thermal desorption
Dechlorination
Dechlorination
Physical separation/Acid
extraction
Soil flushing
Soil flushing
Soil washing:
Bioremediation (ex situ)
(see bioremediation)
Soil washing with slurry
phase bioremediation of
wash water (see
bioremediation)
Solvent extraction
Thermal desorption
Enhanced volatilization ex
situ (thermal desorption)
Thermal desorption
In situ vitrification
In situ vitrification
Primary
Contaminants
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
Cesium-137
VOCs, SVOCs,
heavy metals
VOCs, SVOCs
PAHs. PCP
PCP
PCBs
VOCs
VOCs
PCBs
Arsenic
PCBs
New Remedy
Thermal
desorption with
incineration of
residuals
Landfill off site
Cap
Excavate,
consolidate, cap
Disposal, cap, or
both
No action
Undecided
Undecided
Incineration, land
disposal
Incineration;
stabilization
No action for soil
VOCs
Incineration
Cap
Incineration and
disposal, soil cap
Reason for Remedy Change
Failure of pilot dechlorination
study (increased waste volume
requires incineration and
higher cost)
Multiple implementation
problems
Problems with technology at
Sol Lynn site, high cost,
possibility of increased risk
Failure of pilot-scale treatability
study
Concentrations of target
contaminants below action
levels, ineffective on metals
and target SVOCs, absence of
widespread inorganic
contamination
Cleanup levels reached by
natural attenuation
Failure of bioremediation and
soil washing treatability studies
Dioxins discovered recently on
site
Mechanical and process
problems during implementa-
tion of full-scale unit
Failed LDR treatment
standards
VOC levels below action levels
PRP considers incineration
more cost effective
Commercial availability
delayed
Increased cost estimate, lower
contamination, commercial
availability delayed, PRP
reluctance
140
-------
10.3 Bioremediation, Ex Situ
Leetown Pesticide
EPA selected anaerobic bioremediation in on-site treatment beds for the primary treatment of an
estimated 3,600 cubic yards of contaminated soil at the Leetown Pesticide site (documented in a 1986
ROD). These soils were from a former pesticide pile area, mixing shed, and from under an orchard
packing shed. However, a treatability study conducted by EPA in May, 1986, to determine the effective-
ness of anaerobic biodegradation in treatment beds failed to meet the cleanup levels for DDT identified
in the ROD. As result of this failure, EPA conducted treatability studies on two other bioremediation
technologies from April, 1989, to January, 1990. These tests on a white-rot fungus process and an
aerobic/anaerobic biodegradation process also failed to degrade DDT and its metabolites to cleanup
levels specified in the ROD.
When EPA discovered as part of the second phase of treatability studies that the methodology used in
the 1986 risk assessment was no longer used, it revised the risk assessment. The 1986 risk assessment
was based on worst-case exposure scenarios rather than on reasonable maximum exposure scenarios.
After revising the risk assessment in 1989, EPA concluded that the levels of contaminants in soil at the
site did not require further action. EPA documented this change in an April, 1992, Amended ROD.
American Creosote Works
EPA selected ex situ bioremediation of soil-washed residuals at the American Creosote Works site
(documented in a 1989 ROD). EPA commissioned two twelve-week bench-scale treatability studies to
generate performance data on solid-phase bioremediation and slurry-phase bioremediation to degrade
PCP- and creosote-contaminated surface soil and sediment (material beneath the solidified sludge).
Neither approach, which used indigenous microorganisms, resulted in extensive degradation of the more
recalcitrant contaminants. Investigators determined the percent biodegradation by solid-phase
bioremediation for PCP and individual components of creosote and corrected for cumulative loss by
volatilization (overall less than 0.01%). Solid-phase bioremediation degraded lower molecular weight
contaminants (PAHs and phenols) more readily than the higher molecular weight molecules, which
included carcinogenic PAHs and PCP. The carcinogenic PAHs showed less than 30% biodegradation
by week 12 (benzo(a)pyrene, 25%; benzo(a)anthracene, 29%; benzo(b)fluoranthene, 3%; benzo(k)-
fluoranthene, 3%; and indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene, 2%). Pentachlorophenol showed a 62% biodegradation
by week 12. In the absence of inorganic supplements, the first week of solid-phase bioremediation did
not result in a significant loss of monitored creosote constituents.
Although biodegradation occurred more quickly with slurry-phase bioremediation (14 days versus 12
weeks), relatively high concentrations of the higher molecular weight PAHs, including the carcinogenic
PAHs and PCP, were found in the bioreactor sludge and residues. After 14 days of incubation, only 35
to 50% of the high molecular weight PAHs containing four or more fused rings were biodegraded. With
continued incubation (21 and 30 days), only benzo(b)fluorene underwent further degradation. EPA
published the report of these tests in March, 1991 (EPA/600/9-90/049).
Because of the failure of these and the soil washing treatability studies, EPA is reassessing treatment
alternatives. According to the Remedial Project Manager, as of May 6, 1994, a new technology will
be selected and a ROD signed during the summer of 1994.
141
-------
Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving Company
EPA selected ex situ bioremediation for degradation of PCPs in soil-washed residuals at the Coleman-
Evans Wood Preserving Company site (documented in a 1990 Amended ROD). The PCP remedy
included soil washing followed by solidification and stabilization of residual soil fines or sludges that
exceeded cleanup criteria, and slurry-phase bioremediation of residual soil wash water. Treatability
studies on the performance of slurry-phase bioremediation to degrade residual contamination in soil wash
water demonstrated that the treatment train would satisfy EPA's requirement for source control. EPA
stopped implementation of the selected remedy when dioxins were discovered during the remedial
design. EPA also found approximately 52,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil, rather than the 27,000
cubic yards previously estimated. According to the Remedial Project Manager, as of May 25, 1994, a
new technology will be selected and a ROD signed during the summer of 1994.
Analysis of Remedy Changes at Ex Situ Bioremediation Sites
Factors affecting the decisions to replace ex situ biodegradation include failure of post-ROD treatability
tests, revision of the method for assessing risk, discovery of dioxins during remedial design, and an
increase in the estimated volume of contaminated material. Slurry-phase bioremediation was
unsuccessful for the carcinogenic PAHs at American Creosote Works, but achieved treatment objectives
for PCP-contaminated wastes at the Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving Company. Factors affecting the
success of the technology include differences in treatment objectives, soil conditions, indigenous
microorganisms, and design factors.
10.4 Dechlorination
Re-Solve, Inc.
At the Re-Solve, Inc. site, EPA selected on-site dechlorination in a mobile facility to treat 22,500 cubic
yards of PCB-contaminated soils and 3,000 cubic yards of PCB-contaminated sediments (documented
in a 1987 ROD). EPA also chose low temperature thermal desorption to concentrate the PCBs for
dechlorination.
EPA initiated pilot-scale treatability studies of dechlorination in 1992 to determine whether it could be
implemented successfully on a full scale. During the pilot test, the dechlorination process satisfactory
demonstrated operational reliability and the capability of achieving the performance standard of 500
mg/kg PCB set as the maximum target PCB concentration for the process. However, the pilot test had
the unanticipated result of increasing by 5-6 times the volume of liquid wastes that had to be disposed
off site. This increased the reagents required and the cost of disposal. The problems that contributed
to the increased residual volume involved the reaction batches, which required more vigorous reaction
conditions, such as higher reaction temperature, longer residence time, and higher reagent ratio, than
were anticipated to achieve the 500 mg/kg PCB performance standard.
In the 1993 BSD, EPA eliminated the dechlorination process because it produced a significant increase
in the volume of liquids requiring off-site treatment/disposal. The off-site disposal of the increased
volume of dechlorinated liquids was considered undesirable due to cost, additional materials handling,
and safety concerns. Further, the success of low temperature thermal desorption in removing PCBs from
the soil and concentrating them in liquid form made the subsequent dechlorination process unnecessary
for achieving cleanup goals. EPA proposed continuing to use low temperature thermal desorption to
concentrate PCB liquids and shipping these and other residuals off site to a permitted commercial
hazardous waste incinerator.
142
-------
Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers
EPA selected dechlorination to treat approximately 2,400 cubic yards of PCB-contaminated soil to a
level of 25 mg/kg PCS (documented in a 1988 ROD). The PCBs were confined mainly to the top two
feet of soil and averaged slightly greater than 50 mg/kg. Following remedial design and treatability
testing in 1991, the vendor began mobilizing the dechlorination unit. However, within the first year of
operation, the vendor asked EPA for permission to discontinue treating the soil. The contractor cited
low production rates (1-2 tons/day rather than 20 tons/day previously estimated by the contractor), about
a 100 percent increase in the volume of treated soil, leaching of residual reagent from treated soil,
offensive odor problems, and the need to stabilize the treated soil. An EPA Office of Research and
Development (ORD) investigation corroborated the contractor's concerns and concluded that it was not
possible to set a reliable completion schedule for dechlorination remediation. Based on the ORD's
conclusion that chemical dechlorination was no longer feasible at the site, EPA changed the remedy in
a September, 1992, AROD from chemical dechlorination to off-site landfilling at a TSCA approved
facility.
Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard
EPA selected dechlorination (KPEG) to treat an estimated 9,800 cubic yards of soil contaminated with
PCBs at or above 25 mg/kg (documented in a 1990 ROD). The average PCB concentration at the site
was 110 mg/kg. A treatability study conducted prior to the ROD indicated that the KPEG chemical
dechlorination process would be capable of destroying PCB contamination.
When the remedial design contractor proposed a schedule and cost estimate of over $8 million in 1991.
EPA issued a stop work order, suspending the remedial design. EPA then discovered that remediation
costs at the Tenth Street site could exceed $10 million. In addition, technical difficulties in
implementing dechlorination at the Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformer site in Houston, Texas, raised
concerns about increasing the risk at the Tenth Street site if KPEG were to proceed there. As a result
of experience at the Sol Lynn site, EPA changed the remedy for the Tenth Street Site from chemical
dechlorination to capping in place and documented the change in a September, 1993. Amended ROD
Analysis of Remedy Changes at Dechlorination Sites
Factors affecting the decisions to replace dechlorination include the large volume of dechlorination
residuals that required further treatment/disposal, cost of off-site treatment/disposal, safety concerns
relating to handling hazardous materials, cost of reagents, low production rates, leaching of residual
reagent from treated soil, and offensive odor problems. The problems that contributed to the increased
residual volume involved the reaction batches, which required more vigorous reaction conditions, such
as higher reaction temperature, longer residence time, and a higher reagent ratio than were anticipated.
EPA selected dechlorination to treat polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in soil and sediment at the
Re-Solve, Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers, and Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard sites. After successful
treatability studies in 1991 at the Sol Lynn site, the vendor began mobilizing a unit estimated by the
vendor to be able to treat 20 tons of soil/day. However, within the first year of operation, the vendor
asked EPA for permission to discontinue treatment due to a number of technical implementation
problems. Some of these same problems also ensued during pilot-scale treatability studies in 1992 at
the Re-Solve site. Consequently, EPA dismissed dechlorination from the treatment train at all three
sites.
143
-------
10.5 Physical Separation/Acid Extraction
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (Warm Waste Pond)
EPA selected physical separation/chemical extraction of site soil and sediment contaminated with
cesium-137 (documented in a December, 1991, ROD). EPA considered this treatment train innovative
for remediating contaminants in the Warm Waste Pond sediments; thus, the ROD required that the
remedy undergo a pilot-scale treatability study to determine if it could achieve the treatment goals. In
the event the treatability study failed, the ROD provided for a soil cover as a contingent remedy.
The pilot-scale treatability tests involved sample characterization, which included particle size
distribution, radionuclide activity, elemental distributions, scanning electron micrograph analysis, and
crystalline analysis of the samples. Acid extraction testing and treatment with other extraction liquids
followed by precipitation, ion exchange, complexation/precipitation, and reverse osmosis were performed.
The findings summarized in the 1993 ESD showed that to meet the goal of reducing cesium-137 activity
to less than 690 pCi/g, the volume of treatment residuals that could not be returned to the pond would
be much larger than anticipated. Residuals not returned to the pond would have to be stored long term,
significantly increasing project costs above the original estimates. Further, acid extraction was only
marginally effective and then only under extremely rigorous conditions (boiling acid and long retention
times), raising the question of implementability. Thus, the innovative remedy failed in the pilot study
to achieve removal efficiency goals, and its implementability was questioned.
Based on the results of the treatability study, EPA dispensed with physical separation/acid extraction and
decided in 1993 to apply a soil cover. An ESD was not required to document the change from the
innovative remedy to the contingency soil cover because the cover was specified in the 1991 ROD if
acid extraction proved inadequate. However, EPA prepared an ESD in 1993 to address the transfer of
contaminated sediment (11,000 square yards) from one cell for consolidation into other cells in order
to reduce the overall surface area of contamination that needed a cover.
Analysis of Remedy Changes at Physical Separation/Acid Extraction Sites
Factors affecting the decision to replace physical separation/chemical extraction included the large
volume of treatment residuals, high cost of long-term storage of treatment residuals, and difficult
implementation due to the extremely rigorous conditions required. It appears, on the basis of this one
site, that no technologies currently are available to readily treat sediments contaminated with cesium-137.
10.6 Soil Flushing
Harvey and Knott Drum, Inc.
EPA decided to use treated groundwater to flush VOCs and SVOCs from surface and subsurface soils
containing mainly heavy metals (documented in a 1985 ROD). The results of a post-ROD soil flushing
treatability study indicated that flushing with clean water would be effective only on VOCs. It would
have no effect on target SVOCs, such as bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and no effect on metals.
Sampling results prior to beginning a soil flushing treatability study showed significant levels of heavy
metals, but target VOCs and SVOCs had decreased to below detection limits. Due to the absence of
widespread organic contamination in groundwater and soil, and the inability of soil flushing to remove
metals and target SVOCs, EPA eliminated the soil flushing component from the remedy and documented
the change in a 1992 ESD. EPA proposed to replace soil flushing with either excavation and off-site
disposal, an earth cap, or a combination of both.
144
-------
U.S. Aviex
EPA selected soil flushing of VOC- and SVOC-contaminated site soils (documented in a 1988 ROD).
However, pre-design studies, which included a soil gas investigation to delineate the boundaries of
known contamination, indicated that levels of soil contamination were much lower than previously
reported. Soil sampling and analysis conducted during remedial construction confirmed the diminished
levels of soil contamination. EPA concluded that biodegradation of the organic solvents and natural
flushing of the soils through infiltration of precipitation had significantly reduced soil contamination to
levels that do not represent a current or future threat to groundwater. Therefore, EPA could no longer
justify applying soil flushing. A 1993 BSD documented the remedy change from soil flushing to "no
action" for soil.
Analysis of Remedy Changes at Soil Flushing Sites
Factors affecting the decisions to replace soil flushing included post-ROD sampling that demonstrated
a decline in contaminant concentrations to below action levels, and failure of one treatability study to
remove SVOCs and heavy metals. The primary reason for removing soil flushing as the selected remedy
at these two sites was related to site conditions (natural attenuation of contaminant concentrations) rather
than limitations of the technology.
10.7 Soil Washing
American Creosote Works, Inc.
EPA selected soil washing as the initial step in a treatment train to remove PCP and creosote in soils
and sediments (documented in a 1989 ROD). The purpose of soil washing in the treatment train was
to physically desorb PAHs, PCP, and dioxin from about 22,060 cubic yards of surficial soil (black, silty
sands) for subsequent biological treatment. EPA initiated bench-scale treatability testing in 1991 to
evaluate the effect of surfactant-enhanced solutions on the removal of contamination from surficial and
subsurface soils (brown, medium to fine sands) at the site. These tests expanded abbreviated studies
conducted by EPA in May, 1990, in conjunction with bioremediation treatability studies.
The efficiency of three surfactants were evaluated on surficial soil at ambient and elevated, 110°F (43°C)
temperatures. The contractor selected one of the surfactants based on its superior performance in
solubilizing PAHs.
The results of the treatability tests showed that soil washing did not adequately remove creosote
agglomerates (PAHs) or dioxins from surficial soils, which were more heavily contaminated with PAHs
than subsurface soil. Results indicated that subsurface soil probably would be more amenable to soil
washing than surficial soil. The treatability study report suggested that if soil washing had successfully
removed the creosote agglomerates it also would have effectively desorbed the dioxins. The treatability
study report also indicated that desorption could be achieved with a more aggressive soil washing
scheme, a different surfactant or combination of surfactants, or supplemental treatment such as solvent
extraction. None of these possibilities was tested. According to the Remedial Project Manager, EPA
has not chosen a new remedy for this site, but an Amended ROD may be available by the end of 1994.
Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving Company
A 1986 ROD recommended use of an on-site mobile incinerator for destroying approximately 9,000
cubic yards of soil and sediment contaminated with PCP and diesel fuel. However, additional studies,
conducted during the remedial design phase, tripled the 1986 soil and sediment volume estimate.
145
-------
Further, according to the Remedial Project Manager, there was substantial community resistance to
incineration. Because of the high cost of incinerating approximately 27,000 cubic yards of soil and
sediment, EPA abandpned incineration and, in 1988, initiated treatability studies.
EPA selected soil washing as the initial remedy in a treatment train to remove PCP and creosote-related
contaminants in soil and sediment at the site (documented in a 1990 Amended ROD). The selected
remedy included soil washing with slurry phase bioremediation of wash water and solidification and
stabilization of residual soil fines or sludges that exceeded cleanup criteria. The purpose of the soil
washing was to reduce soil volume by separating clean fractions from contaminated fine-grained soils.
Results of the treatability studies confirmed that these technologies would satisfy EPA's requirement for
source control.
However, during the remedial design, EPA discovered dioxins in the soil at 270 mg/kg concentrations
after it had published the 1990 Amended ROD. EPA also discovered that contaminated soil volumes
documented in the 1990 Amended ROD were underestimated. Approximately 52,000 cubic yards rather
than 27,000 cubic yards appeared to be contaminated. Consequently, EPA has abandoned the remedy
published in the 1990 Amended ROD and is preparing a FS and another ROD, which are expected in
1994. Thermal treatment (possibly high or low temperature thermal desorption) or containment (due to
the cost of remediating large soil volumes with high dioxin contamination) are being considered, but no
documentation is available for release at this time.
Analysis of Remedy Changes at Soil Washing Sites
Factors affecting the decisions to replace soil washing included limited effectiveness in removing
creosote agglomerates (PAHs) and dioxins and increases in the estimated volume of contaminated
material.
10.8 Solvent Extraction
Pinette 's Salvage Yard
EPA selected off-site incineration of PCB-contaminated soils greater than 50 mg/kg and on-site solvent
extraction of PCB-contaminated soils between 5 and 50 mg/kg (documented in a 1989 ROD). At that
time, the ability of individual vendors to achieve cleanup objectives with solvent extraction had been
based on bench-scale or pilot-scale treatability testing. The vendor hired to treat the Pinette's Salvage
Yard committed to delivering a full-scale unit, but incurred fabrication delays. In addition, a larger
volume of highly contaminated soil than originally estimated was found during excavation for off-site
incineration at the site. The first vendor failed to meet EPA's construction schedule for solvent
extraction.
EPA found a second vendor that delivered a unit in 1992, as scheduled. The unit was claimed to be able
to treat 42 tons of soil per day. Although the unit could successfully treat small volumes of soil,
material handling problems occurred, including repeated breakage of soil conveyance mechanisms.
Additionally, fine-grained soil particles clogged solvent lines and interfered with the soil drying system.
The unit was continually being shut down, repaired, and modified. During a three-week shut down in
1992, the vendor changed the mechanical devices to pre-sort soil particles prior to treatment, improved
soil conveyance mechanisms, added a settling tank to remove fine soil particles, and improved the soil
dryer. However, even after these major design changes, the vendor advised EPA that the maximum
treatment rate would be 6 tons/day. By the end of the second construction season, less than one percent
of soils containing between 5 and 50 mg/kg PCB had been successfully treated. Major design and
146
-------
fabrication changes were again required and the vendor advised EPA of its lack of confidence in
completing the cleanup.
As a result of the difficulties experienced in implementing solvent extraction at the Yard, EPA amended
the ROD in 1993, selecting: 1) off-site incineration of PCB-contaminated soils greater than 500 mg/kg;
2) off-site land disposal at a federally permitted TSCA landfill of all soils containing PCS greater than
or equal to 50 mg/kg and less than 500 mg/kg; and 3) off-site disposal at a state or TSCA permitted
landfill of all soils contaminated with PCBs between 5 and 50 mg/kg.
Analysis of Remedy Changes at Solvent Extraction Sites
Factors affecting the decisions to replace solvent extraction at the above site included fabrication delays,
a larger volume of highly contaminated soil than originally estimated, repeated breakages of soil
conveyance mechanisms, clogging of solvent lines and interference with the soil drying system by fine-
grained soil particles, and lower than anticipated through-put rates. In general, the system was difficult
to implement and experienced unacceptable performance and reliability.
10.9 Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
Caldwell Trucking Company
EPA selected excavation and on-site low temperature thermal desorption of approximately 28,000 cubic
yards of VOC-contaminated soil and sludge followed by containment of residuals in an on-site landfill
(documented in a 1986 ROD). However, during the remedial design, investigators determined that the
volume of sludge was greater than originally estimated. They also obtained new information about the
levels and combinations of contaminants in the sludges and soil. Some of the combinations, which
included halogenated organic compounds exceeding 1,000 mg/kg and lead over 100,000 mg/kg, were
classified as California List wastes. The RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (40 CFR 268) prescribe that
such wastes be incinerated before land disposal. In addition, some of the soils with high lead levels
(10.000 mg/kg) were reclassified as RCRA characteristic hazardous wastes because their lead leachate
values were greater than 5 mg/kg.
EPA changed the selected remedy in a 1993 ESD from thermal desorption to off-site incineration at a
RCRA/TSCA approved facility to meet LDRs for approximately 1,650 cubic yards of California List
waste. With the California List waste removed from the site, the remaining VOCs will be captured in
pollution control equipment during stabilization of the remaining contaminated soils. Stabilized soil will
be placed in the on-site landfill. There is no Amended ROD.
Marathon Battery Corporation
EPA selected excavation, chemical fixation, and off-site disposal of metals-contaminated soils, and low
temperature thermal desorption of excavated hot spots to remove volatile organics (documented in a
1988 ROD). However, soil gas testing during remedial design showed that the levels of volatile organics
in the site soils had decreased to below action levels. As a result, EPA dispensed with low temperature
thermal desorption in a 1993 ESD and selected "no action" for soils contaminated with VOCs.
University of Minnesota (Rosemount)
EPA selected on-site low temperature thermal desorption of approximately 6,300 cubic yards of soil with
PCBs greater than 25 mg/kg and consolidation of 14,800 cubic yards of soil with 10-25 mg/kg PCB in
one area where it could be covered with soil and fenced (documented in a 1990 ROD). Vapors collected
147
-------
from the thermal desorption chamber were to be destroyed at high temperatures in an approved mobile
hazardous waste incinerator. EPA specified that lead contaminated soil (2,620 cubic yards) be trans-
ported off site to a RCRA landfill.
After the 1990 ROD was signed, the University determined that use of its own on-site incinerator,
without thermal desorption, would be more cost effective than thermal desorption followed by fume
incineration. Therefore, the University requested that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency allow
the University to decide which thermal treatment it preferred. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
with EPA's concurrence, accepted the University's request and documented the remedy change in a 1991
BSD. The BSD also allowed the University to leave the soil with 10-25 mg/kg PCBs in place and fence
each area of contamination rather than consolidate them all in one location.
Analysis of Remedy Changes at Low Temperature Thermal Desorption Sites
Factors affecting the decisions to replace thermal desorption at these sites include the ready availability
of an on-site incinerator, decreased levels of contaminant concentrations, increased estimates of the
volume of contaminated material, and LDR requirements for incineration of certain waste types prior
to land disposal. Although thermal desorption was changed at three sites, it was not eliminated because
of failure to meet treatment objectives. New sampling data obtained during the remedial design led to
its elimination from the selected remedy at two of the sites and the ready availability, and therefore cost-
effectiveness, of an incinerator led to its replacement at a third site. In addition, compliance with the
RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions, which regulates the treatment and disposal of certain wastes,
contributed to the elimination of thermal desorption from the selected remedy at the Caldwell Trucking
Company site.
10.10 In Situ Vitrification
Crystal Chemical Company
EPA selected in situ vitrification of approximately 16,500 cubic yards of on-site soil and sediment
contaminated with arsenic at levels greater than 300 mg/kg (documented in a 1990 ROD). The source
control remedy also included excavating arsenic-contaminated soil above 30 mg/kg from off site,
depositing it on site, and installing a multi-layer cap over the entire site.
Because of problems encountered by the only vendor of the technology in February, 1991, while testing
a full-scale in situ vitrification apparatus, the vendor notified EPA in July, 1991, that the technology
would be commercially unavailable for an undetermined time. The vendor stated its intention to do
additional analytical and experimental work on the technology. As a result, EPA reviewed alternative
remedies and selected a cap for all contaminated soils and sediments. EPA documented the remedy
change in the June, 1992, Amended ROD.
Northwest Transformer
EPA selected in situ vitrification to treat approximately 1,200 cubic yards of soil contaminated with
PCBs at concentrations greater than 10 mg/kg (documented in a 1989 ROD). Following vitrification,
the remedy specified that the entire site be covered with approximately two feet of clean fill.
During a 1990 pilot-scale treatability test of in situ vitrification, EPA revised down the PCB
concentration and soil volume estimates. The sampling confirmed that PCB concentrations generally
did not exceed 100 mg/kg. Less than 70 cubic yards of soil contained 50 mg/kg or more PCBs, 350
148
-------
cubic yards contained 10-50 mg/kg PCB (less than half that estimated in the 1989 ROD), and 1,000-
4,000 cubic yards contained 1-10 mg/kg PCS.
Although the treatability study demonstrated that in situ vitrification could destroy PCBs at the site, the
vendor doubled the estimated cost of full-scale remediation from the 1989 ROD estimate of $771,000
to $1.6 million. In February 1991, the manufacturer of the full-scale in situ vitrification unit encountered
problems while testing the apparatus, and notified EPA in July, 1991, that the technology would be
unavailable for an undetermined time.
EPA removed in situ vitrification as the selected remedy in a 1991 Amended ROD as a result of
decreased soil volume and contamination estimates, increased treatment cost estimates, delayed
commercial availability of in situ vitrification, and PRP reluctance to use the technology. In situ
vitrification was replaced with off-site incineration of soils contaminated with PCBs equal to or greater
than 50 mg/kg, off-site landfilling of soils contaminated with PCBs at levels between 1 and 50 mg/kg,
and placement of a clean soil cover over the entire site.
Sangamo/Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge
The selected remedy for OU2 specified either incineration in a mobile incinerator or in situ vitrification
(documented in a 1990 ROD). The ROD stipulated that the innovative technology could be
implemented only if it could be demonstrated to achieve remediation goals. Because the PRP preferred
incineration, incineration was selected, which according to the Remedial Project Manager for the site,
is the reason in situ vitrification was not implemented. Because the implemented remedy, mobile
incineration, was selected in the ROD, Sangamo/Crab Orchard has not been included as a site where an
innovative technology was changed.
Analysis of Remedy Changes at In Situ Vitrification Sites
Factors affecting the decisions to replace in situ vitrification at these sites include decreased soil volume
estimates; decreases in PCB concentrations; increased cost estimates for full-scale remediation; problems
encountered by the only vendor of the technology in February, 1991, while testing a full-scale unit;
delayed commercial availability of in situ vitrification; and PRP reluctance to use the technology.
Treatability studies have shown that in situ vitrification can meet treatment objectives for PCB-
contaminated soils. However, in situ vitrification has been replaced as the remedy at all three of the
sites at which it was originally chosen.
149
-------
Appendix A. Site Data
This Appendix presents most of the information obtained for the 205 sites in the analyses, including
the site name, Region and state in which the site is located, site lead, type of site, volume of
contaminated material, contaminants and their maximum concentrations, technologies selected for
site cleanup, and innovative technologies eliminated at each site. A number of sites are included
more than once because RODs for more than one source control operable unit were signed during
FY91 and FY92. The 205 sites are ordered alphabetically by Region in the following table. All
volumes are in cubic yards. All concentrations are in mg/kg of soil or waste.
Technologies selected for remediation of five of the sites include "unspecified" technologies. An
unspecified innovative technology was selected at Brown's Battery Breaking, OU-2 (Region 3). The
specific innovative technology to be used for site remediation will be determined during the remedial
design phase based on treatability testing. An unspecified technology was selected at First Piedmont
Corp. Rock Quarry (Region 3), Fadrowski Drum Disposal (Region 5), G&H Landfill (Region 5), and
Joseph Forest Products (Region 10). The specific technology to be used for site remediation will be
determined during the remedial design phase based on treatability testing.
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected Site Lead
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Brunswick Naval Air Station, Capping Federal Facility
OU-1(R-1,ME)
Industrial Landfill 0 300,000 300,000
No innovative technologies eliminated
Dover Municipal Landfill (R-1, Capping PRP-iead
NH)
Municipal Landfill 1,300 3,500,000 3,501,300
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Low temperature
thermal desorption, Solvent extraction, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ),
Dechlorination, Biodegradation
Iron Horse Park, OU-2 Capping Fund-lead
(R-1, MA)
Municipal Landfill 0 5,000,000 5,000,000
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorption, In situ
biodegradation, Biodegradation
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Mercury
Total PAHs
Arsenic
Cadmium
Methyl ethyl ketone
Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Toluene
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
4.7
24
210
3.31
1.7
0.4
0.1
0.74
0.04
0.63
0.22
3.3
4.2
2.2
11
4.5
5.3
A-l
-------
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Mottolo Pig Farm (R-1 , NH) Soil vapor extraction Fund-lead
Capping (residuals)
Uncontrolled Waste Site 4,000 0 4,000
Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Chemical treatment (in situ), Low temperature
thermal desorption, Ex situ biodegradation, Solvent extraction, In situ biodegradation,
Vegetative uptake, Soil cooling/freezing, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ),
Dechlorination, In situ heating, Ex situ soil vapor extraction
PSC Resources (R-1, MA) In situ solidification/stabilization Fund-lead
Capping (residuals)
Waste Oil 12,695 0 12,695
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ
biodegradation, Solvent extraction, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Other
thermal (ex situ), Dechlorination, Biodegradation
Silresim Chemical Corp. Soil vapor extraction PRP-lead
(R-1 , MA) Solidification/stabilization (residuals)
Capping (residuals)
Recycling 137,000 0 137,000
.
Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorption, Solvent extraction, Soil washing, In
situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), In situ heating, Biodegradation
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
Total xylenes
PCB
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethene
Total PAHs
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Methytene chloride
Benzene
1,1.1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
Acetone
Arsenic
Lead
Carbon tetrachlonde
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1,1-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
Methylene chloride
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Toluene
Total xylenes
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Dtoxin
Hexachlorobenzene
PCB
Total PAHs
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethene
Arsenic
Lead
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
140
47
0.06
0.36
270
65
390
63
190
104,600
580
20
340
1,700
10
43
22
50,100
450
260
50
146
490
70
480
830
1,900
33
1,900
115
630
3,800
1,200
400
470
752
0.010
44
1,500
2,255
240
13
640
7,850
A-2
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected Site Lead
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Sullivan's Ledge, OU-2 Capping Fund-lead
(R-1 , MA) Soil vapor extraction (if needed)
Incineration (if needed)
Industrial Landfill 5,220 0 5,220
Solvent extraction, In situ biodegradation, Biodegradation
Union Chemical Co., Inc. Low temperature thermal desorption PRP-lead
(R-1, ME) Disposal
Chemicals and Allied 1,500 0 1,500
Products
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Ex situ biodegradation, Solvent extraction, Soil
cooling/freezing, In situ vitrification, In situ heating, Biodegradation
A.O. Polymer (R-2, NJ) Soil vapor extraction Fund-lead
Chemicals and Allied 7,500 0 7,500
Products
Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ biodegradation, Solvent
extraction, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Dechlorination, In situ heating,
Biodegradation
Applied Environmental In situ biodegradation PRP-lead
Services (R-2, NY) Soil vapor extraction
Chemicals and Allied 105,000 0 105,000
Products
Chemical treatment (in situ), Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ
biodegradation, Other thermal (ex situ), Biodegradation
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
PCB
1,1-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Total xylenes
Tetrachloroethene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethene
Toluene
Total xylenes
Ethytbenzene
Chlorobenzene
Phenanthrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Chrysene
Fluorene
Pyrene
Naphthalene
Acenaphthene
Fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Butyl benzylphthalate
Dibenzofuran
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Methylene chloride
Benzene
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
97
4
46
600
3,600
2.6
32
27
5.1
61
34
15
1.5
5.8
9.6
0.56
4.2
0.74
16
2.6
0.96
0.88
0.88
0.59
0.52
0.29
0.26
41
0.26
0.29
4.6
0.12
20
0.01
A-3
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected Site Lead
Site Type - Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Asbestos Dump, OU-2 In situ solidification/stabilization Fund-lead
(R-2, NJ) Capping (residuals)
Industrial Landfill 37,000 0 37,000
In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), Biodegradation
C & J Disposal Leasing Co. Disposal Fund-lead
Dump (R-2, NY)
Industrial Landfill 1,250 0 1,250
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (in situ), Low temperature
thermal desorption, Ex situ biodegradation, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ
vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), In situ heating
Circuitron Corp. (R-2, NY) Soil vapor extraction Fund-lead
Incineration
Electrical Equipment 418 0 418
Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (in situ), Low temperature thermal desorption, Solvent
extraction, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification
Colesville Municipal Landfill Capping PRP-lead
(R-2, NY)
Municipal Landfill 0 468,000 468,000
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ
biodegradation, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Other thermal
(ex situ), In situ heating
Conklin Dumps (R-2, NY) Capping PRP-lead
Municipal Landfill " 0 104,400 104,400
No innovative technologies eliminated
Cosden Chemical Coatings In situ solidification/stabilization Fund-lead
Corp. (R-2, NJ) Disposal
Chemicals and Allied 8,000 0 8,000
Products
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Solvent extraction, Soil washing, In situ vitrification,
Other thermal (ex situ), Dechlorination, Biodegradation
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Asbestos
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Butylbenzytphthalate
4-Methylphenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Total xylenes
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
2-Butanone
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Lead
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,1,1-Tnchloroethane
Tetrachtoroethene
Bis(2-ethy!hexyl)phthalate
Benzene
Cadmium
Copper
Mercury
Not specified
Not specified
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total xylenes
Trichloroethene
Lead
Cadmium
Total chromium
Beryllium
PCB
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
400
29,000
220
110
19
17
0.21
6
190
650
560
1,100
250
8
3
637
0.01
0.65
0.01
100
0.1
. 20
0.01
2.8
23,900
6.6
_
—
1,600
1,600
7,900
1.6
6,580
2.6
36,000
0.6
120
A-4
-------
Site Type - Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Curtio Scrap Metal, OU-1 Incineration PRP-lead
(R-2, NJ)
Recycling 1,800 0 1,800
Soil flushing, In situ vitrification, In situ heating, Biodegradation
Ellis Property (R-2, NJ) Disposal Fund-lead
Incineration
Uncontrolled Waste Site 1,080 0 1,080
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ
biodegradation, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Dechlorination, In
situ heating
Endicott village Well Field, Capping PRP-lead
OU-2 (R-2, NY)
Municipal Landfill 0 unknown unknown
Soil vapor extraction
Facet Enterprises, Inc. Solidification/stabilization PRP-lead
(R-2, NY) Disposal
Industrial Landfill 8,174 0 8,174
Low temperature thermal desorption. Soil washing, Biodegradation
Fibers Public Supply Wells Capping PRP-lead
(R-2, PR) Disposal
Chemicals and Allied 9,010 0 9,010
Products
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification, In situ
heating, Biodegradation
Fort Dix (Landfill Site) Capping Federal Facility
(R-2, NJ)
Municipal Landfill 0 unknown unknown
Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (in situ), In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification
Frontera Creek (R-2, PR) Disposal PRP-lead
Electrical Equipment 550 0 550
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Low temperature
thermal desorption, Ex situ biodegradation, Soil washing, In situ vitrification, Other
thermal (ex situ), Biodegradation, Metallurgical processes
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
PCB
Lead
Arsenic
Lead
PCB
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chromium
Trichloroethene
BTEX
Trichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
PCB
Arsenic
Chromium
Chromium
PCB
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Asbestos
Not specified
Mercury
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
4,500
39,300
31.8
3,790
23
2.3
123
5.4
20
110
15
8,000
30,000
30,000
130
28
320
3.920
2,110
1.88
65
67
40
535
1
A-5
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected She Lead
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Garden State Cleaners Co. Soil vapor extraction Fund-lead
(R-2, NJ)
Dry Cleaning 200 0 200
Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorption, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation,
In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ)
General Motors (Cen. Biodegradation PRP-lead
Foundry Div.), OU-1 (R-2, Capping (residuals)
NY) Incineration (if needed)
Primary Metal Products 253,000 0 253,000
In situ biodegradation
General Motors (Cen. Biodegradation PRP-lead
Foundry Div.), OU-2 (R-2, Capping
NY)
Primary Metal Products 0 598,000 598,000
Low temperature thermal desorption, Solvent extraction, Dechlorination
Genzale Plating Co. (R-2, Soil vapor extraction Fund-lead
NY) Disposal (residuals)
Electroplating 2,173 0 2,173
Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (in situ), Low temperature thermal desorption, Solvent
extraction, Soil washing, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), Dechlorination,
Biodegradation
Global Sanitary Landfill, Solidification/stabilization Fund-lead
OU-1 (R-2, NJ) Disposal
Capping
Municipal Landfill 0 2,400,000 2,400,000
Soil flushing, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification
Hertel Landfill (R-2, NY) Capping Fund-lead
Municipal Landfill 0 300,000 300,000
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Ex situ biodegradation, Soil washing, in situ
biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Dechlorination, In situ heating
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Tetrachbroethene
Trichloroethene
PCB
Phenol
PCB
Phenol
Trichloroethene
Barium
Chromium
Nickel
Not specified
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Arsenic
Chromium
Manganese
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
1,300
6.1
31,000
5,000
41,000
11,000
53
36,400
37,300
58.000
—
2
0.8
1
0.9
2
109
64
68,100
A-6
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Industrial Latex Corp., OU-1 Low temperature thermal desorption
(R-2, NJ)
Chemicals and Allied 34,700 6
Products
Site Lead
Total Vol.
Fund-lead
34,706
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Ex situ biodegradation, Solvent extraction, In situ
biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Dechlorination, In situ heating
Islip Municipal Sanitary Capping
Landfill (R-2, NY)
Municipal Landfill 0 unknown
No innovative technologies eliminated
Juncos Landfill, OU-1 Capping
(R-2, PR)
Municipal Landfill 0 870,000
PRP-lead
unknown
PRP-lead
870,000
Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (in situ), Ex situ biodegradation, Solvent extraction, Soil
washing, In situ biodegradation, Other thermal (ex situ)
Kin-Buc Landfill, OU-2 Disposal
(R-2, NJ) Disposal (if needed)
Municipal Landfill 2,200 0
PRP-lead
2,200
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Heptachlor epoxide
Arsenic
Beryllium
Lead
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chyrsene
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Total VOCs
PCB
Total phthalates
Total metals
Not specified
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Total phenols
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
PCB
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
0.22
49.4
2.2
89.9
13
11
13
5.1
280
21
6
6.4
11
2,800
22,000
5,600
13,000
_
3
0.5
17
3
168
41
63
49
165
290
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorption, Solvent
extraction, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex
situ), Dechlorination, In situ heating, Biodegradation
A-7
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected Site Lead
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Mattiace Petrochemical Co., Soil vapor extraction Fund-lead
Inc., OU-1 (R-2, NY)
Chemicals and Allied 17,557 0 17,557
Prnrii if*tc
riuuuuio
Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorptkm, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation,
In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), In situ heating
NL Industries, OU-2 (R-2, Solidification/stabilization Fund-lead
NJ)
Primary Metal Products 0 10,000 10,000
Soil washing, Other thermal (ex situ), Metallurgical processes
Nascolite Corp. (R-2, NJ) Solidification/stabilization PRP-lead
Disposal
Chemicals and Allied 8,000 0 8,000
Products
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Ex situ biodegradation, Soil washing, Other thermal
(ex situ), Dechlorination, In situ heating, Biodegradation
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Tetrachloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Methylene chloride
Trichloroethene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Total xylenes
Aldrin
Alpha-chlordane
Heptachlor epoxide
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Chromium
Arsenic
Beryllium
Antimony
Lead
Cadmium
Arsenic
Antimony
Lead
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Lead
Acetone
Trichloroethene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
Styrene
Total xylenes
2-Methylnaphthalene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Butyl benzylphthalate
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Benzoic acid
Polymethyl methacrylate
Cadmium
Mercury
Copper
Selenium
Zinc
Max. Cone.
(mgflcg)
410
4.2
3.8
35
37
210
2,600
0.21
9.1
0.93
12
101
16
2
22
204
1,460
3,580
19,000
437,000
0.4
10.700
5
5
2
13
71
29
2
15
76
19
130
33
1,900
58
1.4
174
6
868
A-8
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected Site Lead
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Naval Air Engineering Soil flushing Federal Facility
Center, OU-1 (R-2, NJ) In situ biodegradation (residuals)
Uncontrolled Waste Site unknown 0 unknown
No innovative technologies eliminated
Naval Air Engineering Soil flushing Federal Facility
Center, OU-2 (R-2, NJ)
Uncontrolled Waste Site unknown 0 unknown
No innovative technologies eliminated
Pasley Solvents & Chemical, Soil vapor extraction PRP-lead
Inc. (R-2, NY) Soil flushing (if needed)
Chemicals and Allied - 13,000 0 13,000
Products
Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Biodegradation
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Toluene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Phenanthrene
Beta-PHC
Total petr. hydrocarbons
2-Butanone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total xylenes
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthrene
ODD
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Vanadium
Zinc
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total xylenes
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
4-Chloroanihne
Isophorone
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Total petr. hydrocarbons
Total PAHs
DDT
ODD
DDE
Chromium
Zinc
1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Total xylenes
Di-n-butylphthalate
Naphthalene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Ruoranthene
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
0.01
220
0.41
0.03
14,097
6
29
34
13
139
91
18
1.4
3.8
49
1,270
870
1.4
100
427
0.38
0.8
2.4
4.78
1.76
0.36
0.25
81
515
357
4.03
0.88
2.7
12
0.31
130
385
82
470
120
270
470
35
150
43
120
110
A-9
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected She Lead
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Pittsburgh Air Force Base, Capping Federal Facility
OU-1 (R-2, NY)
Municipal Landfill 0 524,000 524,000
No innovative technologies eliminated
Pittsburgh Air Force Base, Capping Federal Facility
OU-3 (R-2, NY)
Municipal Landfill 0 406,000 406,000
No innovative technologies eliminated
Preferred Plating Corp., Solidification/stabilization Fund-lead
OU-2 (R-2, NY) Disposal (residuals)
Electroplating 7,200 0 7,200
Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Soil washing, In situ vitrification
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
ODD
DDE
DDT
Lead
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
PHC
Aluminum
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Manganese
Silver
Sodium
Zinc
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluorene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
PCB
Silver
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Cyanide
Chloroethane
1,1-Dichloroelhane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
16
0.86
3.51
974
18,000
19,000
1,700
2,100
128,000
151
412
5,150
130,500
7,365
18
23,300
33,300
122.5
2.73
2.13
12.83
7.33
144
25.7
105.5
36.5
35
37
212
4.65
2.8
12.33
3.85
0.19
0.01
2.5
1
468
1,890
151
158
7,900
141
14.9
243
678
5.9
20
270
15
5.4
5
A-10
-------
She Name and Region Technologies Selected Site Lead
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Ramapo Landfill (R-2, NY) Capping PRP-lead
Municipal Landfill 0 2,000,000 2,000,000
Soil flushing, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification
Roebling Steel Co., OU-2 Disposal Fund-lead
(R-2, NJ) Solidification/stabilization
Capping (residuals)
Primary Metal Products 160 1,458,000 1,458,000
Soil flushing, Solvent extraction, Soil washing, In situ vitrification, Biodegradation
Rowe Industries GW Disposal PRP-lead
Contamination (R-2, NY)
Fabricated Metal Products 365 0 365
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Ex situ biodegradation, Solvent extraction, Soil
washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), In situ
heating, Biodegradation
Sinclair Refinery, OU-2 Capping PRP-lead
(R-2, NY)
Petroleum Refining 51,710 0 51,710
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Ex situ biodegradation, Soil washing, In situ
biodegradation, Biodegradation
South Jersey Clothing Co. Soil vapor extraction Fund-lead
(R-2, NJ)
Dry Cleaning 1,400 0 1,400
Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorption, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation,
In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ)
Swope Oil & Chemical Co., Soil vapor extraction PRP-lead
OU-2 (R-2, NJ) In situ biodegradation (residuals)
Recycling 153,000 0 153,000
Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorption, Soil washing, In situ vitrification,
Other thermal (ex situ), Dechlorination, In situ heating, Biodegradation
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Not specified
Arsenic
Total PAHs
Total chromium
Tetrachloroethene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethene
Total xylenes
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Acetone
Methylene chloride
Freon 113
Lead
Arsenic
Benzene
Total xylenes
Naphthalene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Acetone
2-Butanone
Ethylbenzene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Total xylenes
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Phenol
Total VOCs
Total SVOCs
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
—
64
35
2,210
67
5.3
27
2.4
28
20
27
2.3
19
0.44
230
1,190
88
1
26
3
0.82
3.9
230
41
320
150
360
490
620
1,900
15
1
85
52
3,991
275
A-ll
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected
Site Type - Soil Vol. Waste Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Warwick Landfill, OU-1 Capping
(R-2, NY)
Municipal Landfill 0 1,000,000
No innovative technologies eliminated
Aberdeen Proving Ground Capping
(Michaelsville) (R-3, MD)
Municipal Landfill 1 unknown
No innovative technologies eliminated
Abex Corp., OU-1 (R-3, VA) Solidification/stabilization
Disposal (residuals)
Primary Metal Products 49,000 0
Soil washing, Other thermal (ex situ)
Arrowhead Associates/ Soil vapor extraction
Scoville Corp. (R-3, VA)
Electroplating 1,000 0
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorption,
vitrification
Brodhead Creek, OU-1 In situ heating
(R-3, PA) Disposal (residuals)
Coal Products 27,767 0
Site Lead
Total Vol.
Fund-Jead
1,000,000
Federal Facility
unknown
PRP-lead
49.000
PRP-lead
1,000
In situ
PRP-lead
27,767
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Low temperature
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Total xylenes
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Lead
Acetone
DDD
DDE
DDT
Endosulfan
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Methylene chloride
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
Lead
Antimony
Nickel
Tin
Copper
Zinc
Cadmium
Total PAHs
PCB
Not specified
Ethylbenzene
Total xylenes
Total PAHs
Arsenic
Total phenols
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
0.01
0.03
0.22
0.05
0.01
0.11
0.03
0.18
41
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.81
19.7
12.5
44.4
58.000
10
23
224
1.200
1.175
21
32
12
0.06
0.1
450
4.1
0.13
thermal desorption, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification, In situ
heating, Biodegradation
Brown's Battery Breaking, Unspecified innovative technology
OU-2 (R-3, PA) Disposal (residuals)
Solidification/stabilization (if
needed)
Recycling 67,000 0
Soil flushing, Soil washing, In situ vitrification
Fund-lead
67,000
Lead
Antimony
Cadmium
Cyanide
Mercury
170,000
13.3
0.7
5.3
1.9
A-12
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected Site Lead
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
C & D Recycling (R-3, PA) Disposal PRP-lead
Solidification/stabilization
Disposal (residuals)
Recycling 29,397 165 29,562
Soil washing, Metallurgical processes, Electrokinetics
CryoChem, Inc., OU-3 Soil vapor extraction Fund-lead
(R-3, PA)
Fabricated Metal Products 70 0 70
No innovative technologies eliminated
Defense General Supply Institutional controls Federal Facility
Center, OU-1 (R-3, VA)
Uncontrolled Waste Site 27,700 0 27,700
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (in situ), Soil washing, In situ
biodegradation, Other thermal (ex situ), In situ heating, Biodegradation
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Zinc
Antimony
PCB
Total dioxins/furans
Lead
Tetrachloroethene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium VI
Acetone
Carbon disulfide
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Total xylenes
Benzole acid
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Di-n-octylphthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
4-Nitrophenol
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
DDD
DDE
DDT
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
13,800
2,030
3.6
0.01
706,666
0.46
22
4
6.6
88
5
0.71
0.27
0.033
0.013
0.063
0.006
0.003
0.055
0.062
0.35
0.3
1.5
0.22
0.5
0.87
0.98
0.046
1.4
0.23
1
0.2
0.05
0.17
1
0.13
0.004
0.04
0.22
A-13
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected Site Lead
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Defense General Supply Soil vapor extraction Federal Facility
Center, OU-5 (R-3, VA)
Uncontrolled Waste Site 1,000 0 1,000
Chemical treatment (in situ), Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ
biodegradation, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ heating
Dixie Caverns County Metallurgical processes Fund-lead
Landfill, OU-1 (R-3, VA)
Municipal Landfill 0 9,000 9.000
No innovative technologies eliminated
Eastern Diversified Metals, Incineration PRP-lead
OU-1 & OU-2 (R-3, PA) Disposal (residuals)
Solidification/stabilization (if
needed)
Recycling 600 5,660 6,260
Soil flushing, Solvent extraction, In situ vitrification
Eastern Diversified Metals, Recycling/recovery PRP-lead
OU-3 (R-3, PA)
Recycling 0 239,000 239,000
Soil flushing, Solvent extraction
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Arsenic
Benzene
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Total xylenes
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-butyiphthalate
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Diethylphthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
2-Methylnaphthalene
4-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
PCB
Lead
DNOP
Dioxin
Copper
Cadmium
DEHP
Zinc
Iron
Aluminum
PCB
Lead
Dioxin
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
81
0.001
0.003
0.015
1.5
0.002
0.036
0.003
0.81
0.24
0.14
0.12
0.41
0.58
0.11
0.11
0.073
0.064
14
76
30
1,600
420
1.7
49.500
3.1
200
1.5
31
0.9
220,000
5,560
40,000
720
0.071
108,000
7
4,000
7,850
54,800
30,500
5,560
40,000
0.019
A-14
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
First Piedmont Corp. Rock Capping
Quarry (Route 71 9) (R-3, VA) Unspecified treatment
Disposal (residuals)
Industrial Landfill 3,000 65,110
Solvent extraction, Biodegradation
Halby Chemical Co., OU-1 Solidification/stabilization
(R-3, DE) Capping (residuals)
Chemicals and Allied 10,300 0
Products
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorption,
biodegradation, Solvent extraction, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation,
vitrification, In situ heating
Hellertown Manufacturing Co. Capping
(R-3, PA)
Electrical Equipment 76,000 0
Site Lead
Total Vol.
PRP-lead
68,110
Fund-lead
10,300
Ex situ
In situ
PRP-lead
76,000
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
Arsenic
Chromium
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Trichloroethene
Total PAHs
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
135
9,900.
34.5
39.5
145
66
23
713
872
170
17,861
5,334
6,051
3,597
3,155
2,337
0.56
108
Soil vapor extraction, Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ biodegradation, Soil
washing, In situ biodegradation, Other thermal (ex situ), Biodegradation
Industrial Lane, OU-2 Capping
(R-3, PA)
Municipal Landfill 0 3,000,000
Soil flushing, In situ biodegradation
Letterkenny Army Depot (SE Low temperature thermal desorption
Area), OU-1 (R-3, PA)
Industrial Landfill 8,000 0
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Ex situ biodegradation, Soil washing,
vitrification, Biodegradation
LJndane Dump (R-3, PA) Capping
Industrial Landfill 0 1,200,000
Soil flushing, Ex situ biodegradation, Solvent extraction, Soil washing, In
Fund-lead
3,000,000
Federal Facility
8,000
In situ
PRP-lead
1,200,000
situ
biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), Dechlorination
Not specified
Trichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
Gamma-BHC
Delta-BHC
DDT
DDE
I"M"M"\
DDD
Phenol
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
_
779
131
517
1.3
206
296
236
2
3.6
6
37
1,380
707
1,220
1.5
11,800
5
3,680
A-15
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected Site Lead
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Mid-Atlantic Wood Capping PRP-lead
Preservers, Inc. (R-3, MD) Solidification/stabilization
Disposal (residuals)
Lumber and Wood Products 5,200 0 5,200
Soil flushing, Solvent extraction, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ),
Biodegradation
Modem Sanitation Landfill Capping PRP-lead
(R-3, PA)
Municipal Landfill 0 unknown unknown
In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification
Old City of York Landfill (R-3, Disposal PRP-lead
PA) Capping
Municipal Landfill 1,120 1,700,000 1,701,120
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorption, Solvent
extraction, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Biodegradation
Paoli Rail Yard (R-3, PA) Solidification/stabilization PRP-lead
Transportation 43,785 0 43,785
Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorption, Solvent extraction, In situ vitrification,
Other thermal (ex situ), Dechlorination, Biodegradation, UV Radiation
Raymark, OU-1 (R-3, PA) Soil vapor extraction Fund-lead
Capping (residuals)
Fabricated Metal Products unknown 0 unknown
V
Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Solvent extraction, Soil washing, In situ
biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), In situ heating, Biodegradation
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Arsenic
Chromium VI
Total chromium
Copper
r r
Not specified
Total pesticides
PCB
Total SVOCs
Total VOCs
Lead
Silver
Iron
Acetone
Chlorobenzene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Benzoic acid
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
PCB
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Chrysene
PCB
DDE
nnT
UUi
Cadmium
Nickel
Arsenic
Beryllium
Vanadium
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
1,200
0.7
865
1,280
_
0.014
2.1
1.2
26.8
1,930
15.9
453.
0.001
0.001
0.014
0.001
0.001
6,000
3,100
0.18
0.15
6.9
5.1
6.3
6.6
3.4
2.5
3.7
9.6
9.1
5.4
2.1
0.076
6!)(\
*rcO
78.6
755
7.9
1.7
40.4
A-16
-------
She Name and Region Technologies Selected
She Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Resin Disposal, OU-1 Capping
(R-3, PA)
Industrial Landfill 23,000 92,000
Site Lead
Total Vol.
PRP-lead
115,000
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (in situ), Low temperature
thermal desorption, Ex situ biodegradation, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ
vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), In situ heating
Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump, Disposal
OU-2 (R-3, VA)
Uncontrolled Waste Site 1,125 0
No innovative technologies eliminated
Saunders Supply Co. Low temperature thermal desorption
(R-3, VA) Dechlorination
Disposal (residuals)
Lumber and Wood Products 20.566 0
Soil flushing, Ex situ biodegradation, Solvent extraction, Soil washing
Fund-lead
1,125
Fund-lead
20,566
In situ
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Acetone
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Dibenzofuran
Di-n-butylphthalate
Methylene chloride
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Zinc
Arsenic
Total chromium
Copper
Chromium VI
Pentachlorophenol
Dioxin
Total petr. hydrocarbons
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
2.046
0.916
0.804
0.778
0.031
1.75
9.397
0.912
0.775
0.757
0.733
0.808
1.556
2.113
1.176
2,880
266
252
158
1.836
230
0.003
797
biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), In situ heating, Biodegradation
Strasburg Landfill, OU-3 Capping
(R-3, PA)
Industrial Landfill 0 3,000,000
No innovative technologies eliminated
Tonolli Corp. (R-3, PA) Capping
Disposal
Solidification/stabilization
Recycling 39,000 118,000
Soil flushing, Soil washing, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ),
processes, Electrokinetics
Fund-lead
3,000,000
PRP-lead
157,000
Metallurgical
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethene
Toluene
4-Methylphenol
Benzole acid
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Iron
Manganese
Chromium
Nickel
Mercury
Lead
Arsenic
Copper
0.085
0.039
0.023
0.39
0.054
34
53
903
3.4
425,000
2,090
192
33.5
0.27
317,000
34
33.3
A-17
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected Site Lead
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Whitmoyer Laboratories, Incineration Fund-lead
OU-2 (R-3, PA) Solidification/stabilization
Disposal (residuals)
Chemicals and Allied 0 28,500 28,500
Products
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorption, Solvent
extraction, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), Dechlorination, In situ heating,
Biodegradation
Whitmoyer Laboratories, Capping Fund-lead
OU-3 (R-3, PA) Biodegradation
Solidification/stabilization
Disposal (residuals)
Chemicals and Allied 116,000 0 116,000
Products
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Low temperature
thermal desorption, Solvent extraction, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Other
thermal (ex situ), Dechlorination, In situ heating, Biodegradation
Agrico Chemical Co., OU-1 Solidification/stabilization PRP-lead
(R-4, FL) Capping (residuals)
Agricultural Chemicals 453,300 0 453,300
Soil washing, Biodegradation
Alabama Army Ammunition Disposal Federal Facility
Plant, OU-1 (R-4, AL) Incineration
Disposal (if needed)
Energetics (Ordnance) 25,650 2,700 28,350
Solvent extraction, Other thermal (ex situ)
Arlington Blending & Solidification/stabilization Fund-lead
Packaging (R-4, TN) Low temperature thermal desorption
Dechlorination (residuals)
Agricultural Chemicals 24,000 0 24,000
Soil flushing, Ex situ biodegradation, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ
vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ)
Benfield Industries, Inc. (R-4, Soil washing Fund-lead
NC) Ex situ biodegradation (residuals)
Chemicals and Allied 4,600 0 4,600
Products
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Chemical treatment (in
situ), Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ biodegradation, Solvent extraction,
Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ)
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Arsenic
Total organics
Arsenic
Aniiine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Lead
Fluoride
Arsenic
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2,4,6-Trinitrophenylmethyln
itramine
Lead
Asbestos
Arsenic
Chlordane
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Pentachlorophenol
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(Wk)fluoranthene
Chrysene
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Pentachlorophenol
Max. Cone.
(mgflcg)
157,000
140,000
28,200
72
170
14
0.87
0.84
0.85
25
74
84
75
46,000
510,000
58
6,060
1,180
680
6.940
6,940
185,000
10
370
390
70
920
20
130
33
14
31
23
5.1
120
19
A-18
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected Site Lead
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Carolina Transformer Co. Disposal Fund-lead
(R-4, NC) Solidification/stabilization
Solvent extraction
Disposal (residuals)
Electrical Equipment 15,345 0 15,345
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Ex situ biodegradation,
Solvent extraction, In situ biodegradation, Soil cooling/freezing, In situ vitrification, Other
thermal (ex situ), Dechlorination, Biodegradation
Carrier Air Conditioning Co. Soil vapor extraction PRP-lead
(R-4.TN)
Fabricated Metal Products 76,500 0 76,500
Chemical treatment (in situ), Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ
biodegradation, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Ex situ soil vapor
extraction
Charles Macon Lagoon & Soil vapor extraction PRP-lead
Drum Storage (R-4, NC) Ex situ biodegradation
Disposal
Capping (residuals)
Waste Oil 2,300 0 2.300
Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ
biodegradation, Solvent extraction, Soil washing, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex
situ), Biodegradation
Ciba-Geigy Corp. (Mclntosh Incineration PRP-lead
Plant), OU-2 (R-4, AL) Soil flushing
In situ biodegradation
Soil vapor extraction
Solidification/stabilization
Chemicals and Allied 127,300 0 127,300
Products
Ex situ biodegradation
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
PCS
Total dioxins/furans
Toluene
Dichlorobenzene
Chtorobenzene
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Copper
Trichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Lead
Zinc
Tetrachloroethene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
DDT
ODD
DDE
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
Delta-BHC
Gamma-BHC
Chlorobenzilate
Diazinon
Chloroform
Toluene
Benzene
Chtorobenzene
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
2,100
0.001
2.4
0.75
0.048
0.004
0.004
130
1,200
0.2
0.011
21.4
77.8
31
310
160
150
140
120
120
140
30
200
250
47
3,100
1,300
410
3,780
8,590
8,410
4,370
751
315
753
650
786
16,600
6,360
5,650
414
A-19
-------
Site Name and Region
Site Type
Technologies Selected Site Lead
Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Ciba-Geigy Corp. (Mclntosh
Plant), OU4 (R-4, AL)
Chemicals and Allied
Products
Low temperature thermal desorption PRP-lead
In situ solidification/stabilization
Incineration
Soil flushing
Soil vapor extraction (if needed)
In situ biodegradation (if needed)
Dechlorination (if needed)
63,000 46,000 109,000
Chemical treatment (ex situ), Ex situ biodegradation, Other thermal (ex situ),
Dechlorination, Biodegradation
Florida Steel Corp., OU-1
(R-4, FL)
Recycling
Solidification/stabilization PRP-lead
Capping (residuals)
26,600 10,700 37,300
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Total xylenes
Toluene
Gamma-BHC
DDD
DDE
DDT
Atrazine
Bladex
Diazinon
Prometryn
Simazine
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Cyanide
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
PCB
1.04
1.98
0.372
3,610
3,150
422
42
27
47.8
1,809
23
720
4,029
321
150
1,490
22.5
180
10.5
956
27,600
242,000
1,100
In situ vitrification, Biodegradation
Geigy Chemical Corp.
(Aberdeen Plant) (R-4, NC)
Agricultural Chemicals
Incineration PRP-lead
Disposal
1,000 0 1,000
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ
biodegradation, Solvent extraction, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ
vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ)
Aldnn
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
Delta-BHC
Gamma-BHC
DDD
DDE
DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin ketone
Alpha-chlordane
Gamma-chlordane
Toxaphene
14
21
4.1
19
3.2
26
11
54
9.7
0.28
0.045
0.049
450
A-20
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected Site Lead
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Golden Strip Septic Tank Solidification/stabilization PRP-lead
Service (R-4, SC)
Uncontrolled Waste Site 28,000 0 28,000
Soil vapor extraction, Ex situ biodegradation, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ
vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), In situ heating
Interstate Lead Co. (ILCO), Solidification/stabilization Fund-lead
OU-1 (R-4, AL) Capping
Primary Metal Products 123.700 0 123,700
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Soil washing, In situ
biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Biodegradation
JFD Electronics/Channel Chemical treatment (ex situ) PRP-lead
Master (R-4, NC) Solidification/stabilization
Capping (residuals)
Electrical Equipment 3,000 0 3,000
Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorption, Solvent extraction, Soil washing, In
situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), In situ heating, Biodegradation
Marine Corps Logistics Base, Disposal Federal Facility
OU-3 (R-4, GA) Capping
Uncontrolled Waste Site" 330 0 330
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (in situ), Solvent extraction, Soil
washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Acetone
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2-Butanone
Chlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Total xylenes
1,2-Dichloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Styrene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Arsenic
Chromium
Lead
Antimony
Chromium
Nickel
Antimony
Trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
Tetrachlorobenzene
PCB
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b/k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Pyrene
Total chromium
Chromium VI
Lead
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
1,940
76
12,000
97,200
69,900
4,520
5,290
13.8
6,140
77,600
2
130
0.28
38
18
12
11
0.077
1.9
21
0.19
0.15
1,500
71
130,000
1,600
24,000
11,000
120
80
2.2
60
200
310
0.62
1.4
0.68
1.4
49,000
87
3,900
A-21
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected Site Lead
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Maxey Flats Nuclear Capping PRP-lead
Disposal (R-4, KY)
Radiological Disposal 176,000 0 176,000
Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (ex situ), In situ biodegradation, Soil cooling/freezing,
In situ vitrification
Medley Farm Drum Dump, Soil vapor extraction PRP-lead
OU-1 (R-4, SC)
Uncontrolled Waste Site 53,000 0 53,000
Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ
biodegradation, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification
Oak Ridge Reservation Capping Federal Facility
(USDOE), OU-2 (R-4, TN)
Radiological Disposal 3,204 1,958 5,162
Chemical treatment (ex situ), Soil washing, Biodegradation
Robins AFB (LF #4/Sludge Soil vapor extraction Federal Facility
Lagoon), OU-1 (R-4, GA) In situ solidification/stabilization
Capping (residuals)
Industrial Landfill 15,000 unknown 15,000
Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (in situ), Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ
biodegradation, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Toluene
Di-n-octylphthalate
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Tritium
Cesium-137
Cobalt
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,2-Dtchloroethane
Ethytbenzene
Methytene chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Butyl benzylphthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Toxaphene
PCB
Chloroform
1.2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Not specified
1,2-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Arsenic
Cadmium
Lead
Chromium
Max. Cone.
(mgfcg)
0.25
1.8
0.51
0.41
0.38
560,000
0.8
0.3
0.16
0.091
0.2
0.033
0.023
0.069
0.07
0.21
1.2
1.1
1.1
5.4
3.3
0.52
1.9
0.06
3.7
0.56
—
100
59
2,500
0.11
45
599
972
52
A-22
-------
Gfta Uoma anH Ranlnn Torhnnlrwiiac Q*kirtari Qtta load
One n&lTiG and negiufi iccnnuiugieo omcwusu one UMU
She Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Sangamo Weston, lnc/12 Low temperature thermal desorption PRP-lead
Mite Creek, OU-1 (R-4, SC)
Electrical Equipment 48,200 25,900 74,100
Soil vapor extraction, Ex situ biodegradation, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ
vitrification, Dechlorination, In situ heating
Standard Auto Bumper Disposal Fund-lead
Corp., OU-1 (R-4, FL)
Electroplating 2,500 0 2,500
Soil flushing, Solvent extraction, Soil washing, In situ vitrification
Wngley Charcoal Plant Disposal Fund-lead
(R-4, TN) Incineration
Lumber and Wood Products 20 190 210
Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ biodegradation, Soil washing, In situ
vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), Dechlorination
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Acetone
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Aluminum
Arsenic
PCB
Tetrachtoroethene
Trichloroethene
Total xylenes
Phenol
Benzoic add
Chloroform
2-Hexanone
Isophorone
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Cyanide
1,2-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Chromium
Nickel
Copper
Lead
Cyanide
Zinc
Lead
Chromium
Total phenols
Total PAHs
Total VOCs
Total SVOCs
Copper
Manganese
Zinc
Cobalt
Barium
Aluminum
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
100
99
355,000
230
49,000
910
8,300
5,200
56
66
0.062
5.7
6.5
36
22
40
721
0.14
7.9
510
960
9,100
9,700
4,700
520
12
400
1,600
270
20,000
737
1,750
74,032
69,000
3,100
42,000
81
640
9,400
A-23
-------
tita Mama and Raninn Tarhnnlnniae RttUirteH <%lta 1 Mrf
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Soil vapor extraction PRP-lead
Inc. (Mor. Plant), OU-2 Low temperature thermal desorption
(R-5, IL) Capping (residuals)
Solidification/stabilization (if
needed)
Disposal (if needed)
Recycling 9,100 6,000 15,100
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Chemical treatment (in
situ), Ex situ biodegradation, Solvent extraction, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In
situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), Dechlorination, In situ heating, Ex situ soil vapor
extraction
Allied Chemical & Ironton In situ biodegradation PRP-lead
Coke, OU-2 (R-5, OH) Ex site biodegradation
Incineration
Coal Products 190,000 579,000 769,000
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ
biodegradation, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification
American Chemical Service, Soil vapor extraction PRP-lead
Inc. (R-5, IN) Low temperature thermal desorption
Solidification/stabilization
Disposal
Recycling 135,000 0 135,000
Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Chemical treatment (in situ), Low temperature
thermal desorption, Ex situ biodegradation, Solvent extraction, Soil washing, In situ
biodegradation, Vegetative uptake, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ),
Dechlorination, In situ heating, Ex situ soil vapor extraction, Biodegradation
Berlin & Farro (R-5, Ml) Solidification/stabilization PRP-lead
Disposal (residuals)
Industrial Landfill 48,000 0 48,000
Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (in situ), Low temperature thermal desorption, In situ
biodegradation, Soil cooling/freezing, In situ vitrification, Dechlorination, In situ heating
Buckeye Reclamation, OU-1 Capping PRP-lead
(R-5, OH)
Municipal Landfill 1,300,000 0 1,300,000
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Chemical treatment (in
situ), Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ biodegradation, Soil washing, In situ
biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), Dechlorination
contaminants
(cubic yards)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Naphthalene
PCB
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Naphthalene
Arsenic
BTEX
Total chlorinated ethenes
Total ketones
Total phthalates
Total PAHs
Total phenols
PCB
Arsenic
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
Total xylenes
Lead
Hexachlorobenzene
PCB
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
Total xylenes
Chromium
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
0.01
44
31
4.5
7.4
320
290
17.9
0.021
1.19
14.5
54.9
52.5
4.44
8
2,000
17.000
0.026
3,002
1,110
0.7
0.15
121
2
26
68
1
23
21
240
118
7
5.2
19
142
303
907
0.276
A-24
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected Site Lead
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Butterworth #2 Landfill Capping PRP-lead
(R-5, Ml)
Municipal Landfill . 0 5,000,000 5,000,000
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Solvent extraction, Soil washing, In situ
biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Dechlorinatkm, Biodegradation
Cannelton Industries, Inc. Disposal Fund-lead
(R-5, Ml)
Industrial Landfill 199,700 0 199,700
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (in situ), Low temperature
thermal desorption, Ex situ biodegradation, Soil washing, In situ vitrification,
Biodegradation
Carter Industrials, Inc. Disposal Fund-lead
(R-5, Ml) Capping
Low temperature thermal desorption
Solidification/stabilization
Recycling 46,000 0 46,000
Solvent extraction, In situ vitrification
Central Illinois Public Service Disposal PRP-lead
Co. (R-5, IL)
Coal Products 12,000 0 12,000
No innovative technologies eliminated
Chem Central (R-5, Ml) Soil vapor extraction PRP-lead
Chemicals and Allied 6,200 0 6,200
Products
Soil flushing, In situ biodegradation, Biodegradation
City Disposal Corp. Landfill Soil vapor extraction PRP-lead
(R-5,WI) Capping (residuals)
Municipal Landfill 0 700,000 700,000
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, In situ biodegradation, Ex situ soil vapor extraction
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Arsenic
Beryllium
Chromium
PCB
Dieldrin
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Total PAHs
PCB
Arsenic
Lead
Cadmium
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Total xylenes
Chlorobenzene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Pyrene
1 ,2,4-Tnchlorobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
Tetrachlorobenzene
1 -Ethyl, 2-methylbenzene
Copper
Zinc
Total xylenes
Fluoranthene
Oibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Total PAHs
1,1-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
PCB
Toluene
Arsenic
Zinc
Acetone
Methytene chloride
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
43
8.5
43,000
72
5
3,600
10,300
341
328,000
10,100
25
17
12,000
5
28,000
34
180
3
36
36
5
11
11
700
1.600
1
17,000
8,500
0.005
1.57
1.489
2.6
0.02
0.22
81
57
0.32
15
4.3
66
20.25
0.082
A-25
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected Site Lead
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Clare Water Supply, OU-2 Soil vapor extraction PRP-lead
(R-5, Ml)
Uncontrolled Waste Site 54,800 0 54,800
Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ biodegradation, Solvent
extraction, In situ biodegradation, Vegetative uptake, In situ vitrification, Other thermal
(ex situ), In situ heating
Dakhue Sanitary Landfill, Capping Fund-lead
OU-1 (R-5, MN)
Municipal Landfill 0 1,500,000 1,500,000
No innovative technologies eliminated
Etectrovoice, OU-1 (R-5, Ml) Soil vapor extraction PRP-lead
Solidification/stabilization
Capping (residuals)
Electrical Equipment 60,000 0 60,000
Soil vapor extraction, Ex situ biodegradation, Solvent extraction, In situ biodegradation,
In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), Dechlorination
Fadrowski Drum Disposal Unspecified treatment PRP-lead
(R-5, Wl) Capping
Uncontrolled Waste Site 142,025 0 142,025
In situ vitrification
Folkertsma Refuse (R-5, Ml) Capping Fund-lead
Industrial Landfill 13,600 57,000 70,600
Soil vapor extraction, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Low temperature thermal desorption,
Ex situ biodegradation, Solvent extraction, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation,
Vegetative uptake, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), Dechlorination
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Benzene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Methylene chloride
1,2-Dichloroethane
Total xylenes
Ethyl benzene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethene
Styrene
Not specified
,
Arsenic
Beryllium
Benzene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
PCB
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perlyene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Toluene
Total xylenes
Lead
Cadmium
Toluene
Total PAHs
DDT
PCB
Not specified
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
0.027
0.056
1,100
40
6
0.019
120
26
510
350
0.015
_
0.014
0.001
1.6
14
0.375
3.4
14
0.42
0.85
2
2
0.91
0.37
0.38
0.15
0.34
95
14
330
0.006
0.083
0.735
1.8
180
0.31
1.9
_
A-26
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Fultz Landfill, OU-1 (R-5, Capping
OH)
Municipal Landfill 0 770,000
Site Lead
Total Vol.
Fund-lead
770,000
Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Soil washing, In situ vitrification, In situ
heating, Biodegradation
G&H Landfill, OU-1 (R-5, Ml) Capping
Incineration
Unspecified treatment (if needed)
Municipal Landfill 0 800,000
Fund-lead
800,000
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
1,1-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Toluene
Pentachlorophenol
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Total xylenes
Antimony
Barium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Selenium
Thallium
Methylene chloride
PCB
BTEX
Total PNAs
Total chlorinated VOCs
Total chlorinated VOCs
Total chlonnated VOCs
Max. Cone.
(mg*g)
0.018
0.017
0.15
0.39
0.077 .
0.002
0.007
0.163
0.073
0.086
0.017
0.014
0.01
0.265
0.037
68.5
14.3
0.002
0.002
0.056
180
10,000
880
4,030
4,030
4.030
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (in situ), Low temperature
thermal desorption, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification
H. Brown Co., Inc. (R-5, Ml) Solidification/stabilization
Capping (residuals)
Recycling 180,000 0
Fund-lead
180,000
Soil vapor extraction, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification,
Biodegradation
Kentwood Landfill (R-5, Ml) Capping
Municipal Landfill 0 2,000,000
PRP-lead
2,000,000
Lead
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Chrysene
Isopropene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
PCB
Not specified
649,000
4,980
463
13.6
120
0.24
15.95
6
15.7
10.9
3.9
4.3
120
2.5
9.6
._
Ex situ biodegradation, Solvent extraction, Other thermal (ex situ), Dechlorination
A-27
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected Site Lead
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Kohler Co. Landfill, OU-1 Capping PRP-lead
(R-5, Wl)
Municipal Landfill 0 unknown unknown
Soil vapor extraction, Soil Hushing, Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ
biodegradation, Solvent extraction, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ
vitrification
LaQrand Sanitary Landfill Capping Fund-lead
(R-5, MN) Solidification/stabilization
Capping (residuals)
Municipal Landfill 0 500,000 500,000
No innovative technologies eliminated
Lemberger Landfill, Inc., Capping Fund-lead
OU-1 (R-5, Wl)
Municipal Landfill 0 479,000 479,000
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Low temperature
thermal desorption, Ex situ biodegradation, Solvent extraction, Soil washing, In situ
biodegradation, In situ vitrification. Other thermal (ex situ)
Main Street Well Field, OU-2 Soil vapor extraction Fund-lead
(R-5, IN) Disposal
Fabricated Metal Products 24,000 0 24,000
Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ biodegradation, Solvent
extraction, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, Soil cooling/freezing, In situ vitrification,
Other thermal (ex situ), Dechiorination, In situ heating, Biodegradation, Metallurgical
processes, Electrokinetics
Michigan Disposal Service Capping PRP-lead
(Cork St. LF) (R-5, Ml)
Municipal Landfill 0 1,800,000 1,800,000
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Low temperature
thermal desorption, Ex situ biodegradation, Solvent extraction, In situ biodegradation,
Soil cooling/freezing, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), In situ heating
Motor Wheel, Inc. (R-5, Ml) Capping PRP-lead
Industrial Landfill 0 210,000 210,000
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorption, Solvent
extraction, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
4-Methylphenol
PCB
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
Arsenic
Manganese
Aldrin
Benzo(a)pyrene
Dieldrin
Barium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
Trichloroethene
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Manganese
Dieldrin
DDT
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Total PAHs
Heptachlor
7inp
£inc
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
1.5
'4.3
110
194
207
5.3
12.4
525
0.24
0.092
0.2
0.118
0.075
0.011
0.485
0.843
0.033
0.052
0.699
570
20
126
15
292
0.737
0.05
1.308
0.323
0.059
0944
U.t"t*»
A-28
-------
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Muskego Sanitary Landfill Soil vapor extraction PRP-tead
(R-5, Wl) Capping
Municipal Landfill 0 2,500,000 2,500,000
No innovative technologies eliminated
Pagel's Pit, OU-1 (R-5, IL) Capping PRP-lead
Municipal Landfill 0 4,700,000 4,700,000
No innovative technologies eliminated
Peerless Plating Co. (R-5, Soil vapor extraction Fund-lead
Ml) Solidification/stabilization
Disposal (residuals)
Electroplating 15,630 0 15,630
Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ biodegradation, Solvent
extraction, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex
situ), Dechlorination, In situ heating, Biodegradation
Rasmussen's Dump, OU-1 Capping Fund-lead
(R-5, Ml)
Industrial Landfill 24,900 0 24,900
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ
biodegradation, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Dechlorination,
Biodegradation
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total xylenes
Acetone
2-Butanone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Isophorone
Phenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Benzoic acid
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Chrysene
Benzo(a)pyrene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Butytbenzylphthalate
Diethylphthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Bis(2-ethy1hexyl)phthalate
PCB
Not specified
Arsenic
Cadmium
Benzene
Chloroform
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Toluene
Total xylenes
Ethylbenzene
Chtorobenzene
2-Butanone
Naphthalene
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
13
130
24
100
7.1
13
29
3.6
3.2
0.43
0.55
0.17
5.6
1.3
0.11
0.082
0.081
0.14
0.21
0.23
0.19
1
0.15
0.31
0.44
0.17
—
14
11,000
0.073
0.028
16.6
1.7
71
9.1
2.4
3.7
74
35
A-29
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected Site Lead
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Savanna Army Depot Incineration Federal Facility
Activity, OU-1 (R-5, IL)
Energetics (Ordnance) 18,230 0 18,230
Soil flushing, Ex situ biodegradation, Solvent extraction, Soil washing, In situ
biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ)
South Andover Site, OU-2 Biodegradation Fund-lead
(R-5, MM) Disposal
Uncontrolled Waste Site 11,400 0 11,400
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ
biodegradation, Solvent extraction, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ
vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), In situ heating, Biodegradation
Spickter Landfill, OU-1 Solidification/stabilization PRP-lead
(R-5, Wl) Capping (residuals)
Municipal Landfill 0 136,600 136,600
Chemical treatment (ex situ), Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ
biodegradation, Solvent extraction, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ
vitrification
Stoughton City Landfill Capping Fund-lead
(R-5, Wl)
Municipal Landfill 0 218,000 218,000
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (in situ), Low temperature
thermal desorption, Solvent extraction, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification
Sturgis Municipal Wells (R-5, Soil vapor extraction Fund-lead
Ml) Disposal
Fabricated Metal Products 10,890 0 10,890
Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (in situ), Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ
biodegradation, Solvent extraction, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ
vitrification, Biodegradation
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene
2,4-Dinitratoluene
2-Amino-4,6-Dinitrotoluene
Lead
Antimony
Total PAHs
PCB
Mercury
Chromium
Benzoic acid
Cadmium
Lead
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Cyanide
Total PAHs
PCB
Max. Cone.
(mpAg)
500,000
94
300
1,980
76
30
15
30
40
2.8
27
460
600
99
260
0.188
61.2
5.59
A-30
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected Site Lead
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Tar Lake, OU-1 (R-5, Ml) Disposal PRP-lead
Lumber and Wood Products 30,000 40,000 70,000
Low temperature thermal desorption, Biodegradation
Thermo-Chem, Inc., OU-1 Soil vapor extraction Fund-lead
(R-5, Ml) Incineration
Recycling 157,000 0 157,000
Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorption, In situ biodegradation, In situ
vitrification
Torch Lake, OU-1 & OU-3 Capping Fund-lead
(R-5, Ml) Disposal
Primary Metal Products 0 81,400,800 81,400,800
Metallurgical processes
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Styrene
Total xylenes
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(f)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Pyrene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Benzene
Toluene
Total xylenes
Naphthalene
2-Methyinaphthalene
PCB
Heptachlor
Dieldnn
DDT
Arsenic
Chromium
Lead
Cyanide
Arsenic
Antimony
Beryllium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Chrysene
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
1.2
100
100
2.3
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
100
340
280
2,000
1,100
1,400
19
270
770
3
3
1
0.2
0.2
0.03
10
978
1,050
599
118
164
2
745
13,500
113
0.17
0.24
0.037
0.4
0.39
0.41
A-31
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected Site Lead
She Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Tri-County Landfill CoTWaste Capping Fund-lead
Mgmt. IL (R-5, IL)
Municipal Landfill 1,000 3,500,000 3,501,000
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (in situ), Soil washing, In situ
vitrification, Biodegradation
Twin Cities AF Reserve Base Institutional controls Federal Facility
(SARL) (R-5, MM)
Industnal Landfill 0 17,000 17,000
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (in situ), Ex situ biodegradation,
Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification, In situ heating
Verona Well Field, OU-2 Soil vapor extraction Fund-lead
(R-5, Ml)
Industrial Landfill 62,000 0 62,000
Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (in situ), Ex situ biodegradation, In situ biodegradation,
In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ)
Zanesville Well Field (R-5, Soil washing PRP-lead
OH) Soil vapor extraction
Industrial Landfill 37,800 0 37,800
Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (in situ), Solvent extraction, In situ biodegradation, In
situ vitrification
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)flouranthene
Benzojkjfluoranthene
Chrysene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Trichloroethene
Beryllium
Lead
Nickel
Antimony
Chromium
Copper
Magnesium
Zinc
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Iron
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Antimony
Arsenic
2-Butanone
Magnesium
Nickel
Selenium
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Total xylenes
Lead
Trichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethene
Barium
Copper
Cadmium
Manganese
Zinc
Mercury
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
1.5
1.3
2.3
2'.3
1.6
0.6
0.03
1.3
2,200
260
59
58
3,800
81,000
2,300
14,000
380
2,600
97,000
620,000
4,900
2,900
70
26
13
25
10,800
191
161
2.4
0.69
0.75
1.4
2,100
0.43
0.62
1,100
2.4
5,660
170
16
604
384
11
1,730
4,310
4,130
A-32
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected Site Lead
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Cimarron Mining Corp., OU-2 Solidification/stabilization Fund-lead
(R-6, NM)
Mining 570 0 570
Soil flushing, Soil washing, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), Biodegradation,
Metallurgical processes
Double Eagle Refinery Co., Solidification/stabilization Fund-lead
OU-1 (R-6, OK) Disposal (residuals)
Waste Oil 42,000 0 42,000
Soil vapor extraction, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Low temperature thermal desorption,
Ex situ biodegradation, Solvent extraction, Soil washing, In situ vitrification,
Biodegradation
Fourth Street Abandoned Solidification/stabilization Fund-lead
Refinery, OU-1 (R-6, OK) Disposal (residuals)
Waste Oil 40,200 0 40,200
Soil vapor extraction, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Low temperature thermal desorption,
Ex situ biodegradation, Solvent extraction, Soil washing, In situ vitrification,
Biodegradation
Gulf Coast Vacuum Services, Incineration Fund-lead
OU-1 (R-6, LA) In situ solidification/stabilization
Industrial Landfill 34,650 0 34.650
Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ biodegradation, Soil washing, Other thermal
(ex situ), Biodegradation
Gulf Coast Vacuum Services, Capping Fund-lead
OU-2 (R-6, LA)
Industrial Landfill 9,000 0 9,000
No innovative technologies eliminated
Mosley Road Sanitary Capping PRP-lead
Landfill (R-6, OK)
Industrial Landfill 0 10,420 10,420
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (in situ), Ex situ biodegradation,
Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Biodegradation
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Lead
Lead
Lead
Arsenic
Banum
Benzene
Total PAHs
Total petr. hydrocarbons
Benzene
Arsenic
Barium
Total PAHs
Not specified
Max. Cone.
(mg*g)
46,400
20,000
15,000
74
47,800
529
773
700,000
529
73.7
47,800
773
A-33
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected Site Lead
Site Type - Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Oklahoma Refining Co. (R-6, Biodegradation Fund-lead
OK) In situ biodegradation
In situ solidification/stabilization
Capping (residuals)
Petroleum Refining 120,000 0 120,000
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (in situ), Low temperature
thermal desorption, Ex situ biodegradation, Solvent extraction, Soil washing, In situ
vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ)
Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc. Soil vapor extraction Fund-lead
(TB), OU-2 (R-6, TX) Capping
Uncontrolled Waste Site 302,600 0 302,800
Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ biodegradation, Solvent
extraction, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), In situ
heating
Prewitt Abandoned Refinery Ex situ biodegradation PRP-lead
(R-6, NM) Soil vapor extraction
Disposal
Petroleum Refining 2,165 100 2,265
Ex situ biodegradation, Solvent extraction, Soil washing
29th & Mead GW Contam- Soil vapor extraction PRP-lead
ination, OU-2 (R-7, KS)
Fabricated Metal Products 452,800 0 452,800
In situ biodegradation
E.I. Dupont DeNemours & Disposal PRP-lead
Co. (Road X23) (R-7, IA) Solidification/stabilization
Capping (residuals)
Industrial Landfill 14,200 0 14,200
Soil vapor extraction, Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ biodegradation,
Solvent extraction, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Other thermal
(ex situ), Dechlorination, In situ heating, Metallurgical processes, Electrokinetics
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Arsenic
Benzene
Chromium
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Naphthalene
Beryllium
Lead
Chrysene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzene
Lead
Naphthalene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Lead
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Ethylbenzene
Benzene
Trichloroethene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Tetrachtoroethene
1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dfchloroethene
Toluene
Lead
Selenium
Cadmium
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
236
25
24,020
1,700
5,400
300
280
120
84
190
23
350
1.4
19,390
456
2,000
1,100
4,200
200
40
28
24
320
265
129,000
215
146
146
220
4.2
0.23
13
6.1
0.041
0.52
0.37
140
38,950
177
510
A-34
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected Site Lead
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Ellisville Site (R-7, MO) Incineration Fund-lead
Waste Oil 7,000 0 7,000
Solvent extraction, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), Dechlorination, In situ
heating, Biodegradation
Hastings GW Contamination, Capping Fund-lead
OU-10&OU-2(R-7,NE)
Municipal Landfill 0 250,000 250,000
Soil vapor extraction, In situ biodegradation
John Deere (Ottumwa Works Institutional controls PRP-lead
Landfill) (R-7, IA)
Fabricated Metal Products 0 670,000 670,000
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Ex situ biodegradation,
In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification
Lee Chemical (R-7, MO) Soil flushing PRP-lead
Chemicals and Allied unknown 0 unknown
Products
In situ biodegradation
Lehigh Portland Cement Co. Capping PRP-lead
(R-7, IA)
Construction 0 439,000 439,000
No innovative technologies eliminated
Mid-America Tanning Co. In situ solidification/stabilization Fund-lead
(R-7, IA) Capping (residuals)
Disposal
Solidification/stabilization
Disposal (residuals)
Industrial Landfill 56,500 0 56,500
Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ
biodegradation, Solvent extraction, Soil washing, In situ vitrification, Biodegradation
People's Natural Gas Co., In situ biodegradation PRP-lead
OU-1 (R-7, IA) Incineration
Coal Products 24,200 0 24,200
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (in situ), Low temperature
thermal desorption, Ex situ biodegradation, Soil washing, In situ vitrification,
Electrokinetics
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Dioxin
Total xylenes
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
PCB
Total PAHs
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Beryllium
Lead
Aluminum
Zinc
Copper
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Nickel
Tnchloroethene
1,1,1-Tnchloroethane
Not specified
Chromium
Benzene
Total PAHs
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Cyanide
Max. Cone.
(mgfcg)
0.087
0.42
0.013
0.049
0.51
0.011
84.5
1.2
26
3
810
7,500
860
24
6.7
1.2
3.5
8.5
11
2
—
43,000
55
9,800
110
29
1,100
A-35
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected Site Lead
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Pester Refinery Co. (R-7, Disposal Fund-lead
KS) In situ biodegradation
Soil flushing
Petroleum Refining 70,000 20,000 90,000
Low temperature thermal desorption
Shaw Avenue Dump, OU-1 In situ solidification/stabilization PRP-lead
(R-7, IA) Capping (residuals)
Municipal Landfill 0 370 370
Soil vapor extraction, Low temperature thermal desorption, Solvent extraction, Soil
washing, In situ vitrification, Biodegradation
Anaconda Co. Smelter, Solidification/stabilization PRP-lead
OU-11 (R-8, MT) Disposal (residuals)
Primary Metal Products 0 316,500 316,500
Soil flushing, In situ biodegradation, Other thermal (ex situ), Metallurgical processes
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total xylenes
Chromium
Lead
Arsenic
Ortho-nitroaniline
Total PAHs
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Bismuth
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Silver
Selenium
Zinc
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
78
150
75
7
220
160
4
121
157
264,000
95,000
200
6,300
2,120
80,000
0.35
3,220
3,590
78,000
30
71.6
244.000
175,000
32.300
500
218
1.150
110
290
49
49,000
A-36
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Broderick Wood Products, Biodegradation
OU-2 (R-8, CO) Solidification/stabilization
Disposal (residuals)
Lumber and Wood Products 60,020 0
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorption,
biodegradation, Solvent extraction, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation
Central City-Clear Creek Capping
(R-8, CO)
Mining 0 1,170,800
Site Lead
Total Vol.
PRP-lead
60,020
Ex situ
PRP-lead
1,170,800
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Carbazote
Naphthalene
Pnenanthrene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzene
Toluene
Total xylenes
Pentachlorophenol
Dioxin
Arsenic
Cadmium
Lead
Arsenic
Lead
Max. Cone.
(mgflcg)
77.3
11,000
14,000
7,800
1,200
2,200
200
500
500
500
500
0.625
25
160
8,600
42.7
187
193
7,140
630
2,810
Soil flushing, Soil washing, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), Biodegradation,
Metallurgical processes
Chemical Sales Co., OU-1 Soil vapor extraction
(R-8, CO)
Chemicals and Allied 225,000 0
Products
PRP-lead
225,000
1,1,1-Tnchloroethane
Tnchloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
1
0.95
80
Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ biodegradation, Soil washing,
in situ biodegradation, In situ heating
Denver Radium Site, OU-8 Solidification/stabilization
(R-8, CO) Capping (residuals)
Mining 49,000 0
PRP-lead
49,000
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ),
Biodegradation, Metallurgical processes
Denver Radium Site, Ou-9 Capping
(R-8, CO)
Mining 16,540 0
In situ vitrification
Hill Air Force Base, OU-3 Capping
(R-8.UT)
Uncontrolled Waste Site unknown 0
No innovative technologies eliminated
Fund-lead
16,540
Federal Facility
unknown
Arsenic
Lead
Molybdenum
Selenium
Radium-226
Lead
Arsenic
Zinc
Not specified
598
1,260
48,800
7,980
570
35,800
490
32,050
A-37
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected Site Lead
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Idaho Pole Co. (R-8, MT) Ex situ biodegradation Fund-lead
Soil flushing
In situ biodegradation (residuals)
Lumber and Wood Products 41,987 0 41,987
Soil vapor extraction, Ex situ biodegradation, Solvent extraction, In situ biodegradation,
In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), Dechlorination, Ex situ soil vapor extraction
Ogden Defense Depot, OU-1 Disposal Federal Facility
(R-8.UT)
Industrial Landfill 4,000 0 4,000
Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Chemical treatment (in situ), Low temperature
thermal desorption, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Other
thermal (ex situ), Dechlorination, In situ heating, Biodegradation, Electrokinetics
Ogden Defense Depot, OU-3 Disposal Federal Facility
(R-8, UT) Incineration
Industrial Landfill 530 0 530
Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Chemical treatment (in situ), Low temperature
thermal desorption, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Other
thermal (ex situ), In situ heating, Biodegradation, Electrokinetics
Ogden Defense Depot, OU-4 Disposal Federal Facility
(R-8, UT)
Industrial Landfill 4,500 0 4,500
Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Chemical treatment (in situ), Low temperature
thermal desorption, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Other
thermal (ex situ), Dechlorination, In situ heating, Biodegradation, Electrokinetics
Portland Cement (Kiln Dust 2 Solidification/stabilization PRP-lead
& 3), OU-2 (R-8, UT) Disposal (residuals)
Construction 27,000 120 27,120
Soil washing, Other thermal (ex situ), Metallurgical processes
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Pentachlorophenol
Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Chrysene
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Dioxin
PCB
Lead
Zinc
Arsenic
Barium
Lead
Mercury
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Trichloroethene
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Zinc
Mustard
Adamsite
Thiodiglycol
Chloroacetophenone
Lead
Total VOCs
PCB
Total hydrocarbons
Dioxin
Arsenic
Cadmium
Total chromium
Chromium VI
Lead
Molybdenum
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
380
12
4.8
8.1
5.8
13
6.7
2.2
10
2.7
46
20
0.034
3.6
1,000
11,000
559
248
44
9.8
0.75
0.21
0.13
74.5
5.000
134
120
3
1,400
193
15
43,000
0.067
13.92
1.9
27.5
1.25
772
43
A-38
-------
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Rocky Rats Plant (USDOE), Soil vapor extraction Federal Facility
OU-2 (R-8, CO)
Radiological Disposal unknown 0 unknown
Chemical treatment (in situ), In situ biodegradation
Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area, Solidification/stabilization PRP-lead
OU-12 (R-8, MT) Capping (residuals)
Mining 0 3,400,000 3,400,000
Chemical treatment (ex situ), Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ
biodegradation, Solvent extraction, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, Soil
cooling/freezing, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), Dechlorination, Ex situ soil
vapor extraction, Biodegradation, Electrokinetics
Wasatch Chemical Co. (Lot Ex situ biodegradation PRP-lead
6) (R-8, UT) In situ vitrification
Chemicals and Allied 2,328 2,370 4,698
Products
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Low temperature
thermal desorption, Ex situ biodegradation, Solvent extraction, Soil washing, In situ
biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), Dechlorination, In situ heating
Advanced Micro Devices, Incineration PRP-lead
Inc. (R-9, CA)
Electrical Equipment 37 0 37
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, In situ biodegradation, In situ heating, Biodegradation
Atlas Asbestos Mine, Mine Capping Fund-lead
Area OU (R-9, CA)
Mining 0 3,000,000 3,000,000
In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ)
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Total VOCs
Plutonium
Americium
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Iron
Mercury
Manganese
Lead
Antimony
Vanadium
Zinc
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Zinc
ODD
DDE
DDT
Alpha-chlordane
Gamma-chlordane
Heptachlor
Dioxin
Hexachlorobenzene
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
2,4-Dichlorophenoxy-
acetic acid
Pentachlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophen-
oxyacetic add
Dichlorobenzene
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Dichloroethene
Asbestos
Max. Cone.
("HP/Kg)
1.7
457
100
25,300
30.8
216
6.2
175,000
42,700
0.33
1,080
22.8
115
50.5
65.8
1,850
66
9,390
1,920
9,320
7,900
04
6.3
8.1
520
890
5.3
0.011
66
1.8
22
30.768
250
1.111
242
80
35
0.072
1,000
A-39
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
FMC (Fresno Plant) (R-9, Soil washing
CA) Solidification/stabilization (residuals)
Capping (residuals)
Agricultural Chemicals 19,000 0
Site Lead
Total Vol.
PRP-iead
19,000
Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (in situ), Ex situ biodegradation, Solvent extraction, In
situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), Dechlorination
Hassayampa Landfill (R-9, Soil vapor extraction
AZ) Capping (residuals)
Industrial Landfill 91,400 12,670
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorption,
situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification, In situ heating, Biodegradation
Indian Bend Wash Area, Soil vapor extraction
OUs-1.4,5,6(R-9,AZ)
Electrical Equipment unknown 0
PRP-lead
104,070
Soil washing, In
PRP-lead
unknown
Chemical treatment (ex situ), Chemical treatment (in situ), Solvent extraction, Soil
washing, In situ biodegradation, Biodegradation
Iron Mountain Mine, Boulder Capping
Creek OU (R-9, CA)
Mining 0 50,000
Metallurgical processes
Fund-lead
50,000
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Toxaphene
DDT
Chlordane
EndosuKan
EDB
Heptachlor
Disyston
Phorate
Dimethoate
0,p-dichlorobenzene
1,1-Dichloroethane
Benzene
1,1-Dichloroethene
Dichloromethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
Total xylenes
Acetone
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Tetrachloroethene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Tnchloroethane
Tnchloroethene
Tnchlorotrifluoroethane
Tnchloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethene
Tnchloroethene
1,1,1 -Chloroform
Not specified
Max. Cone.
(mgflcg)
170
100
15,000
1,700
8.7
3,000
6.7
1.3
280
2,000
24
97
47
1
1,630
990
207
350
2,540
57
510
405
600
23.000
20
590
12.000
10
4.9
1.6
0.14
0.6
_
A-40
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected Site Lead
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Jasco Chemical Corp. Ex situ biodegradation PRP-lead
(R-9, CA) Disposal (if needed)
Chemicals and Allied 2,159 0 2,159
Products
Soil vapor extraction, Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ biodegradation, Soil
washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ),
Dechbrination
Lawrence LJvermore Nat. Soil vapor extraction Federal Facility
Lab. (USDOE) (R-9, CA)
Radiological Disposal 2,956,000 0 2,956,000
Ex situ biodegradation, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification, In situ heating
Monolithic Memories, OU-1 Soil vapor extraction PRP-lead
(R-9, CA)
Electrical Equipment unknown 0 unknown
Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Low temperature thermal desorption, Solvent
extraction, Soil washing, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), Dechbrination, In
situ heating, Biodegradation
National Semiconductor Soil vapor extraction PRP-lead
Corp., OU-1 (R-9, CA)
Electrical Equipment unknown 0 unknown
Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Low temperature thermal desorption, Solvent
extraction, Soil washing, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), Dechtorination, In
situ heating, Biodegradation
Purity Oil Sales, Inc., OU-2 Soil vapor extraction Fund-lead
(R-9, CA) Capping (residuals)
Waste Oil 0 172,000 172,000
Chemical treatment (in situ), Solvent extraction, In situ biodegradation, Biodegradation
•
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dfchloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Acetone
Benzene
Total petr. hydrocarbons
Ethylbenzene
Methanol
Methytene chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Total xylenes
Trichloroethene
Total fuel hydrocarbons
Total aromatic hydro-
carbons
Tetrachloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Total xylenes
Ethylbenzene
Total PNAs
Tetrachloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,1 ,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Total xylenes
Ethylbenzene
Total PNAs
Lead
Ethylbenzene
Chlorobenzene
Tnliiono
i muci iv
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Total xylenes
2-Butanone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Methytene chloride
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
3
1.7
0.015
61
100
3
6,700
1.2
60
21
4
110
0.05
37
6
11,000
4,800
9.6
0.93
150
4.6
3,300
18,000
270
9.6
0.93
150
4.6
3,300
18,000
270
34,000
19
2.9
0.01
3.2
120
8.7
9.1
0.62
A-41
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected Site Lead
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Voi. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Rhone-Poulenc Inc. (Zoecon) Solidification/stabilization PRP-lead
Sandoz, OU-1 (R-9, CA) Capping
Agricultural Chemicals 91,000 0 91,000
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, in situ
vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), In situ heating, Biodegradation
Sacramento Army Depot, Soil vapor extraction Federal Facility
OU-3 (R-9, CA)
Uncontrolled Waste Site 1,000 0 1,000
Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorption, Ex situ biodegradation, Soil washing,
In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ), In situ heating,
Biodegradation
Sacramento Army Depot, Soil washing Federal Facility
OU-4 (R-9, CA) Disposal (residuals)
Uncontrolled Waste Site 15,500 0 15,500
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Low temperature
thermal desorption, Vegetative uptake, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ),
Biodegradation
Signetics (R-9, CA) Soil vapor extraction PRP-lead
Electrical Equipment unknown 0 unknown
Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, Biodegradation
Spectra Physics, Inc. (R-9, Soil vapor extraction PRP-lead
CA)
Electrical Equipment 6,000 0 6,000
Ex situ biodegradation, Soil washing, In situ vitrification, In situ heating, Biodegradation
Valley Wood Preserving, Inc. Solidification/stabilization PRP-lead
(R-9, CA) Disposal (if needed)
Lumber and Wood Products 15,000 0 15,000
Soil flushing, Soil washing, In situ vitrification
Van Waters & Rogers Soil vapor extraction PRP-lead
(R-9, CA) Capping (residuals)
Chemicals and Allied 54,100 0 54,100
Products
Soil flushing, Low temperature thermal desorption, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation,
Other thermal (ex situ), In situ heating
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Ethylbenzene
Total xylenes
Tetrachloroethene
2-Butanone
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Not specified
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Toluene
Arsenic
Chromium VI
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Acetone
1,1-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Methytene chloride
Vinyl chloride
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
54,000
1,500
13,000
1,900
1,000
2,100
11,000
39
15
397
40
1,960
2,340
23
1,230
1,460
3.46
416
54
10,900
—
0.5
18
2.2
1
232
68
250
37
997
500
24
7.5
210
1
A-42
-------
Site Name and Region Technologies Selected Site Lead
Site Type Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Westinghouse Electric Corp. Incineration PRP-lead
(Sunnyvale Plant) (R-9, CA) Capping
Electrical Equipment 400 0 400
Soil flushing, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Chemical treatment (in situ), Solvent
extraction, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Dechlorination, Biodegradation
Bangor Ordnance Disposal, Soil washing Federal Facility
OU-1 (R-10, WA) Disposal
Energetics (Ordnance) 7,100 0 7,100
Soil vapor extraction, Soil flushing, Ex situ biodegradation, Soil washing, In situ
biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ)
Bunker Hill Mining & Capping Fund-lead
Metallurgical, OU-1 (R-10,
ID)
Mining 640,000 0 640,000
Soil flushing, Soil washing, In situ vitrification
Bunker Hill Mining & Capping PRP-lead
Metallurgical, OU-2 (R-10,
ID)
Mining 0 18,000,000 18,000,000
Soil flushing, Solvent extraction, In situ vitrification, Metallurgical processes
Joseph Forest Products Unspecified treatment Fund-lead
(R-10, OR)
Lumber and Wood Products 2,796 0 2,796
Soil vapor extraction, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Chemical treatment (in situ), Solvent
extraction, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ vitrification, Other thermal (ex
situ), Biodegradation, Electrokinetics
Umatilla Army Depot Ex situ biodegradation Federal Facility
(Lagoons), OU-1 (R-10, OR) Capping (residuals)
Energetics (Ordnance) 30,000 0 30,000
Soil vapor extraction, Chemical treatment (ex situ), Low temperature thermal desorption,
Ex situ biodegradation, Solvent extraction, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation, In situ
vitrification, Other thermal (ex situ)
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
PCB
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene
Dinitrotoluene
RDX
Lead
Lead
Arsenic
Arsenic
Cadmium
Lead
Carbonate
Sulfate
Sulfur
PCB
Zinc
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene
RDX
HMX
1 ,3,5-Trinitrobenzene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Max. Cone.
(mg*g)
42,000
300
20
1.3
2,400
17,800
267
160,000
127,000
860,000
6,190
405,000
164,000
218
754,000
104,000
46,100
34,400
87
0.66
0.1
0.047
0.016
A-43
-------
Site Name and Region
Site Type
Technologies Selected Site Lead
Soil Vol. Waste Vol. Total Vol.
Contaminants
(cubic yards)
Max. Cone.
(mg/kg)
Innovative Technologies Eliminated as a Remedial Technology
Union Pacific Railroad Co.
(R-10, ID)
Transportation
Soil vapor extraction, Chemical
Disposal PRP-lead
Soil flushing
Capping (residuals)
4,200 0 4,200
treatment (ex situ), Chemical treatment (in situ), Solvent
extraction, In situ biodegradation, Soil cooling/freezing, In situ vitrification, Other thermal
(ex situ), Dechlorination, In situ
Wyckoff CoTEagle Harbor,
OU-3 (R-10, WA)
Lumber and Wood Products
Ex situ biodegradation, Solvent
Dechlorination
Yakima Plating Co. (R-10,
WA)
Electroplating
heating, Biodegradation
Capping Fund-lead
Solidification/stabilization
Disposal (residuals)
80,325 0 80.325
extraction, Soil washing, In situ biodegradation,
Disposal Fund-lead
540 0 540
Soil flushing, Soil wasting, Other thermal (ex situ)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(a)pyrene
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Arsenic
Beryllium
Tetrachloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
Methytene chloride
Trichloroethene
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Chloromethane
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
Antimony
Vanadium
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Lead
Mercury
Arsenic
Total chromium
Chromium VI
Lead
Nickel
ODD
DDT
DDE
Dieldrin
Copper
Barium
Cadmium
Selenium
Cyanide
33
23
23
17
12
27.4
1.2
56
8.3
86
51
54
10
0.99
2.5
40.2
136
242
1,530
3.3
45.8
107
1,460
95
32.7
7,870
7.04
7,580
218,000
4.3
19.4
18
0.9
467,000
595
14.6
10.1
495
A-44
-------
Appendix B. Technology Definitions
The innovative and standard technologies considered in FY91 and FY92 source control Feasibility
Studies and RODs are defined below. Beneath each definition are the many names, or aliases, used
in the FSs to refer to each technology. The FSs are frequently ambiguous in the terminology used to
describe technologies under evaluation. In cases where the FSs do not distinguish between in situ
and ex situ biodegradation, such as using the term microbial degradation, a general technology
grouping was created, called simply "Biodegradation."
Most of the technology groups defined below include a variety of closely related (often vendor-
specific) technologies that have a common process at its core. For example, the technology "low
temperature thermal desorption" includes a number of processes that are intended to volatilize
organic contaminants to separate them from soils without incinerating them. The technology
groupings below strike a balance between: 1) the need to limit the number of technologies to be
analyzed; and 2) the need to preserve distinctive treatment processes so that the reasons for selection
and elimination of technologies can be directly related to specific, unique processes.
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
None. No reason was given for the elimination of an innovative technology, or no treatment was
determined to be necessary at the site.
Unspecified Innovative Technology. The FS/ROD considered innovative technologies as a
group or selected a number of innovative technologies that will undergo post-ROD testing at the
site to determine whether they will be used.
Physical/Chemical Processes
Soil Flushing. Large volumes of water, at times supplemented with treatment compounds to
enhance contaminant solubility, are applied to the soil or injected into the groundwater to raise
the water table into the contaminated soil zone to flush hazardous contaminants from contami-
nated soils. Contaminants are leached into the groundwater, which is then extracted and treated.
The injected water must be isolated effectively within the aquifer and recovered.
Soils may be flushed with a solvent, which is mixed with contaminated soils in situ, dissolving
organic contaminants into the solvent. The organic contaminants and solvent are then extracted
from the soil/waste and placed in a separator, where the contaminants and solvent are separated
for treatment and further use. The solvent to be used varies depending on the waste to be
treated.
Leach bed biodegradation involves percolating water through wastes in a sand bed to leach out
contaminants. Perforated pipes placed in the bed collect the water, which is pumped to an on-
site bioreactor for treatment. Treated leachate also can be reapplied to the waste bed through an
overhead irrigation system, which is used to add supplemental nutrients and microorganisms that
keep the system operating properly.
Other names: In situ soil washing; In situ sediment washing; In situ soil flushing/washing; In
situ surfactant enhanced soil washing; In situ chemical flushing; In situ soil leaching; Solution
B-l
-------
mining; Flushing; In situ leaching; In situ solution mining; In situ leaching; Solvent flushing;
Leach beds; On-site leach beds.
Soil Washing. Contaminants sorbed onto soil particles (typically clay and silt fines) are
separated from the soil in an aqueous-based system. Agitation of the soil particles physically
separates the smaller-diameter, more highly contaminated fines from the larger soil particles, thus
reducing the volume of material for subsequent treatment. Multiple washings may be required to
achieve acceptable contamination levels in the course fraction. The wash water may be
augmented with basic leaching, surfactant, pH, or chelating agents to help remove organics and
heavy metals.
Other names: Soil washing and extraction; Ex situ soil flushing; Soil washing (chemical);
Ex situ soil washing; Aqueous surfactant; Detergent extraction; Water/solvent leaching; On-site
solids washing/leaching (BOM process, ETUS, Inc.); Soil washing (Canonie process); Soil
washing (Bureau of Mines process); BOM process; Modified leaching process; Soil washing with
Excaliber treatment.
Ex Situ Soil Vapor Extraction. Excavated soils are placed on an impermeable surface and a
vacuum is applied to piping spaced evenly throughout the soil. The vacuum reduces vapor
pressure and increases volatilization. Emissions are vented to the atmosphere or to a collection
and treatment system. Biodegradation may be stimulated incidentally.
Other names: Ex situ vapor extraction; Ex situ vacuum vapor extraction; Vacuum heap
extraction; Air stripping.
Soil Vapor Extraction. Vacuum is applied through extraction wells, sometimes combined with
air injection wells, to encourage volatilization and induce gas-phase volatiles to diffuse through
soil to extraction points. The process includes a system for handling off-gases.' Biodegradation
may be stimulated incidentally.
Other names: In situ vacuum extraction; Vacuum extraction; In situ passive venting; In situ
vapor extraction; In situ soil vapor extraction; Vapor extraction; In situ vacuum extraction/soil
aeration; Soil aeration; In situ soil venting; In situ volatilization; Enhanced volatilization; Soil
vacuum extraction; In situ vacuum vapor extraction; In situ air stripping; Vacuum-induced
venting; Soil gas extraction; air sparging; In situ aeration; gas injection/gas extraction.
Solvent Extraction. Waste and soil and solvent are mixed in an extractor, dissolving the
organic contaminant into the solvent. The extracted organics and solvent are then extracted from
the soil and separated for treatment and further use. A variety of solvents are used depending on
the waste to be treated. Solvent extraction includes the Basic Extraction Sludge Treatment
(BEST), which uses aliphatic amines, usually triethylamine (TEA), to extract oily contaminants
and break down suspensions and emulsions in sludges and contaminated soils.
Supercritical extraction is a chemical process in which certain gases (typically butane, carbon
dioxide, or propane) are liquefied under high temperature and pressure to form an extraction fluid
that exhibits the properties of a non-polar solvent. Typical systems operate at 70-100°F and 200-
1,000 psi. Organic contaminants are extracted from the soil by the supercritical liquid solvent
and recovered when the solvent volatilizes. Contaminants generally can be concentrated into a
much smaller volume than the original soil volume.
B-2
-------
Other names: Contaminant extraction; Extraction technologies; Chemical extraction; Solvent
leaching; Soilex process; Acurex process; O.H. materials process; Solvent washing; On-site
solvent extraction; Solid/liquid extraction; Basic extraction sludge; Supercritical fluid extraction;
Critical fluid solvent extraction; Critical fluid extraction; Supercritical carbon dioxide extraction;
Liquified gas solvent extraction; Liquid gas extraction.
Dechlorination. A chemical reaction is used to replace the chlorine atoms in chlorinated
aromatic compounds (such as PCB, PCP, dioxins, and furans) with an ether or hydroxyl group.
By stripping the chlorine atoms, the toxicity of the chlorinated aromatic compounds is reduced or
eliminated. The technology includes Glycolate and BCD processes. In Glycolate processes, an
alkaline-metal-containing a polyethylene glycolate (APEG) reagent is mixed with soil and heated
in a batch reactor to dehalogenate halogenated aromatic compounds. The most common alkali
metal used in APEGs is potassium polyethylene glycolate (KPEG). However, sodium (NaPEG)
also is frequently used. The process usually consists of drying, mixing, and heating the soil to
catalyze the reaction, decanting the excess reagent, washing, and dewatering. The residual wash
water requires treatment. In the BCD processes, contaminated soil is screened, processed with a
crusher and pug mill, and mixed with sodium bicarbonate. The mixture is heated in a rotary
reactor to decompose and partially volatilize the contaminants.
Other names: Dehalogenation; Alkali metal dechlorination; APEG dechlorination; KPEG
dechlorination; NaPEG dechlorination; Glycolate dechlorination; DCR dechlorination; Organic
chemical dechlorination; Chemical dehalogenation; Dehydrochlorination; Radiolytic dechlorina-
tion.
Chemical treatment (ex situ). Oxidation, reduction, or hydrolysis agents are applied to or
injected into the contaminated soil to chemically convert hazardous contaminants to non-
hazardous or less toxic compounds that are more stable, less mobile, or inert. Base-catalyzed
hydrolysis is preferred because acid catalysis can result in mobilization of trace metals.
Commonly used oxidizing agents are ozone, hydrogen peroxide, hypochlorites, chlorine, and
chlorine dioxide. Reducing agents include sodium borohydride and catalyzed metal powders.
Other names: Hydrolysis, ex situ; Chemical hydrolysis; Oxidation-reduction, ex situ; Oxidation,
ex situ; Catalytic oxidation; Chemical oxidation; Organic chemical dechlorination; Reduction, ex
situ; Chemical reduction.
Chemical treatment (in situ). Oxidation, reduction, or hydrolysis agents are mixed with
contaminated soils to chemically convert hazardous contaminants to non-hazardous or less toxic
compounds that are more stable, less mobile, or inert. Base-catalyzed hydrolysis is preferred
because acid catalysis can result in mobilization of trace metals. Commonly used oxidizing
agents are ozone, hydrogen peroxide, hypochlorites, chlorine, and chlorine dioxide. Reducing
agents include sodium borohydride and catalyzed metal powders.
In situ dechlorination involves mixing dechlorination reagents with contaminated soils in situ.
Reagents create chemical reactions to replace the chlorine atoms in chlorinated aromatic
compounds (such as PCP, dioxins, and furans) with an ether or hydroxyl group. By stripping the
chlorine atoms, the toxicity of the chlorinated aromatic compounds is reduced or eliminated.
Other names: Hydrolysis, in situ; Chemical hydrolysis; oxidation-reduction, in situ; In situ
chemical treatment; In situ chemical oxidation; oxidation, in situ; In situ chemical oxidation;
B-3
-------
Reduction, in situ; In situ chemical detoxification; In situ chemical dechlorination; In situ
dehalogenation.
Metallurgical Processes. A variety of hydrometallurgical recovery processes are used to treat
materials by chemically reacting them in an aqueous or solvent-based medium. These processes
are typically used to extract and recover metals from ores, concentrates, and other metal-bearing
materials. Some hydrometallurgical processes also chemically react to fix or stabilize certain
toxic constituents. Basic unit operations include feed preparation, leaching/digestion, liquid/solid
separation, and metal recovery. In chemical heap leaching, a heap of material is constructed on
an impervious pad with a leachate recycling system and inorganics are leached from the heap
with a suitable reagent.
Pyrometallurgical processes involve a variety of recovery processes for treating materials by
exposing them to elevated temperatures under controlled conditions. Typically, specific metals
are separated at high temperature and extracted for recycling. Organics in waste material can be
used to supplement furnace fuel requirements.
Other names: Hydrometallurgical process (Kennecott); Hydrometallurgical process (ammonium
leach); Hydrometallurgical process (U.S. Bureau of Mines alkaline leach); Hydrometallurgical
process (Metallhute Carl Fabusch); Hydrometallurgical process (chloride leach); Hydrometal-
lurgical process (Dowa); Hydrometallurgical process (sulfide precipitation); Hydrometallurgical
reprocessing (chemical leaching); Hydrometallurgical reprocessing (froth flotation); Hydrometal-
lurgic extraction; Hydrometallurgical leaching; Dissolution with precipitation and recovery of
metal; Acid leaching; Sulfuric acid leaching/sulfate conversion; Resource recovery-extraction/
electrolytic recovery; Resource recovery-leaching/microfiltration; Pyrometallurgical process
(PLASMADUST); Pyrometallurgical process (cyclone smelting); Pyrometallurgical process
(arsenic volatilization); High temperature slagging; Flame reactor; Flame smelting;
Fuming/gasification furnace.
UV Radiation. Wastes are exposed to ultraviolet light as the waste stream passes through a
reaction vessel. The UV radiation enhances the action of oxidizing or reducing agents by direct
dissociation of the contaminant molecule or excitation of the reagent. Flow patterns and
configurations in the reaction chamber are designed to maximize exposure of the total volume of
waste to UV light. Organic compounds can be broken down to carbon dioxide and water.
Other names', none.
Electrokinetics. This includes a variety of processes that use electric fields to separate
contaminants from, or concentrate contaminants in, soils. An electromembrane reactor is an
electromembrane process employing a chelating agent for recovery of lead from contaminated
soils. Electroacoustic soil decontamination is an in situ process that uses the application of a
direct current electric field and an acoustic field to facilitate the transport of liquids through soils.
Electrokinetic removal consists of a series of wells used as anodes and cathodes in which a
direct current is utilized in conjunction with groundwater pumping to expedite ion migration and
removal from saturated soil.
Other names: Electrokinetic removal; Electroacoustical soil decontamination; Electrokinetics
technology; In situ electroreclamation; Electrical/acoustic (in situ); Electrical/acoustic (ex situ).
B-4
-------
Thermal Treatment
Low Temperature Thermal Desorption. Solid wastes are heated to 200°-600°F (93°-315°C) in
a controlled environment to volatilize water and organic contaminants. Various types of
incineration or indirect-fired equipment may be used. An inert carrier gas or vacuum system
transports volatilized wat^r and organics to an off-gas treatment system.
Other names: Thermal desorption; Thermal volatilization; Low temperature thermal stripping or
LTTS; Low temperature thermal aeration or LTTA; Low temperature aeration; Heat enhanced
aeration; Low temperature thermal treatment or LT3; Low temperature thermal extraction; Low
temperature thermal separation; X*TRAX system; Low temperature thermal volatilization or
LTV; Enhanced volatilization; Enhanced thermal volatilization; Low temperature volatilization;
Infrared thermal desorption; Soil aeration; Heat enhanced aeration; Thermal extraction (Taciuk
process).
In Situ Vitrification. Contaminated soil is treated in place at temperatures of approximately
3,000°F (1,000°C). Electrodes for applying electricity, or joule heating, are used to melt
contaminated soils and sludges, producing a glass and crystalline structure with very low
leaching characteristics. Metals are encapsulated in the glass-like structure of the melted silicate
compounds. Organics may be treated by combustion.
Other names: Vitrification.
Other Thermal (ex situ). This technology group encompasses a number of innovative thermal
treatment processes. In ex situ steam extraction, steam or heated air is passed through excavated
soils in an above-ground reactor to strip organic contaminants. Gases are condensed and treated
to remove contaminants.
Pyrolysis involves the thermal conversion of organic waste constituents into solid, liquid, and
gaseous compounds occurs in an oxygen-deficient environment at temperatures of 900-1,600°F.
Gaseous pyrolysis products are incinerated at 1,800-3,000°F in a second-stage fume incinerator.
Wet air oxidation involves the use of elevated temperature (350-650°F) and pressure (300-3,000
psi) to oxidize organics. The technology is used mainly for treating pumpable aqueous and
sludge wastes that are too dilute (less than 5 percent organics) to treat economically by
incineration.
Molten salt incineration involves the injection of wastes and air into a bed of molten alkali metal
salts in an insulated reactor at temperatures of 1,000-1,200°F. Contaminants are destroyed by a
combination of incineration, absorption, and chemical reaction. Ash is incorporated in the
molten salt bath.
Supercritical oxidation is a process in which organic contaminants are oxidized in a water
medium at temperatures and pressures that are supercritical for water (705°F and 3200 psi).
When pumpable organic wastes are mixed with the supercritical water, organics are oxidized and
inorganic salts are precipitated. The oxidation process proceeds rapidly, transforming organic
compounds to carbon dioxide and water.
Ex situ vitrification involves melting contaminated soils and sludges in a container by an electric
pyrolyzer, pyrolytic centrifugal reactor, or other combustor to form a glass and crystalline
B-5
-------
structure with very low leaching characteristics. Temperatures of approximately 1,650°C in the
reactor reduce organic compounds to carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and carbon. Off-gases are
treated before discharge to the atmosphere.
High-temperature thermal desorption involves heating solid wastes to 600-1,000°F (315-538°C)
to volatilize water and organic contaminants. Desorption typically is carried out in indirect-fired
rotary kilns. A carrier gas or vacuum system transports volatilized water and organics to the gas
treatment system.
Molten glass incineration uses a pool of molten glass as the media for heat transfer. The molten
glass is maintained by electrodes near the bottom of the chamber. In the combustion space
above the molten pool, organics are destroyed. Ash, inorganics, and all residues are captured by
the molten glass. The residual is a stable, non-breaking glass. Acid gas and particulates are
emitted, requiring treatment using air pollution control equipment.
Other names: Steam enhanced extraction; On-site steam stripping; Heated stripping; Pyrolytic
incineration; Pyrolytic combustion; Plasma arc torch pyrolysis; Plasma arc pyrolysis; Advanced
electric reactor (AER); Electric pyrolyzer; Plasma systems pyrolysis; Wet oxidation; Molten salt;
Molten salt destruction; Molten salt combustion; Molten salt reaction; Supercritical water
oxidation; Ex situ vitrification; Batch vitrification; Plant processing vitrification; Centrifugal
reactor; High temperature thermal stripping; Molten glass; Molten glass method.
In Situ Heating. This is a general term used in FSs to refer to a variety of in situ thermal
processes, such as steam/hot air injection, steam extraction, or electromagnetic heating that
increase the mobility of volatiles and facilitate extraction. The process includes a system for
handling off-gases.
In situ steam extraction involves forcing steam into an aquifer through injection wells to vaporize
volatile and semivolatile contaminants. Vaporized components are removed from the unsaturated
zone by vacuum extraction and then treated. This variety of processes includes Contained
Recovery of Oily Waste (CROW), Steam Injection and Vacuum Extraction (SIVE), In Situ
Steam Enhanced Extraction (ISEE), and Steam Enhanced Recovery Process (SERF).
Electromagnetic heating involves using electromagnetic wave energy (typically radio waves or
microwaves) to heat soil in situ, increasing soil permeability and the rate of volatilization of
contaminants. Effectiveness has been demonstrated for compounds with boiling points less than
500°F.
Other names: In situ heating; In situ low temperature thermal stripping; Vacuum/steam
extraction; In situ vacuum/steam extraction; Enhanced volatilization; Steam stripping; In situ
steam stripping"; In situ air/steam stripping; Thermal stripping; Heated air stripping; Enhanced
recovery; Steam enhanced extraction; Steam injection; Steam injection and sparging; In situ
supercritical extraction (steam); Steam flushing/thermal stripping; In situ steam enhanced vacuum
extraction; Radiofrequency heating; In situ radiofrequency; Radiofrequency enhanced extraction;
Microwave volatilization; In situ thermal evaporation (radiofrequency); Radiofrequency
volatilization; Radiofrequency decontamination; In situ radio heating; Electromagnetic heating.
Soil Cooling/Freezing. Soils are frozen or cooled to immobilize contaminants for a period of
time compatible with the waste characteristics. Typically, freezing loops are placed in the
ground to freeze the media surrounding the hazardous waste.
B-6
-------
Other names: Soil cooling; Ground, freezing; Cryogenic freezing; Freeze crystallization.
Biological Processes
In Situ Biodegradation. The activity of naturally occurring microbes is stimulated by
circulating water-based solutions through contaminated soils to enhance in situ biological
degradation of organic contaminants. Nutrients, oxygen, or other amendments may be used to
enhance biodegradation and contaminant desorption from subsurface materials. In situ
bioremediation techniques include oxygen enhancement with hydrogen peroxide, co-metabolic
enhancement with dissolved methane and oxygen, and nitrate enhancement.
Other names: In situ bioreclamation; Bioreclamation; In situ aerobic biodegradation; In situ
anaerobic biodegradation; In situ aerobic degradation; In situ anaerobic degradation; In situ
bioremediation; Bioremediation; In situ enhanced biodegradation; Enhanced biodegradation;
Enhanced bioremediation; Enhanced aerobic biodegradation; In situ biological processes;
Bioreclamation/aerobic respiration; In situ biological treatment.
Biodegradation. This is a general term referring to the in situ or ex situ use of microorganisms
to degrade organic contaminants on soil, sludge, and solids. The microorganisms break down the
contaminants by using them as an energy source, with end products typically CO2 and H2O.
These processes include in situ and ex situ biodegradation methods.
Other names: In situ and ex situ biodegradation; Microbial degradation; Bacteria; Ex situ
biodegradation; On-site biodegradation; Bioremediation in general; Aerobic biodegradation;
Aerobic processes; Anaerobic biodegradation; Anaerobic biotreatment; Anaerobic processes;
Anaerobic suspended growth biological treatment; Enhanced biodegradation; Biological
treatment; On-site biological treatment; Bioremediation; Moving bed or rotary drum; Bio-Chem
process; Sybron Bi-Chem 1006 process.
Ex Situ Biodegradation. This is a general term referring to a variety of aqueous and non-
aqueous biological treatments. Slurry-phase biodegradation is an ex situ process in which an
aqueous slurry is created within a "bioreactor" by combining soil or sludge with water and other
additives. The slurry is mixed to keep solids suspended and microorganisms in contact with the
soil contaminants. Nutrients, oxygen, and pH in the bioreactor may be controlled to enhance
biodegradation. Upon completion of the process, the slurry is dewatered leaving treated soil for
disposal.
Solid phase biodegradation involves mixing excavated soils with soil amendments and placed in
above-ground enclosures that have leachate collection systems and some form of aeration.
Moisture, heat, nutrients, oxygen, and pH may be controlled to enhance biodegradation.
Processes include prepared treatment beds, biotreatment cells, soil piles, and composting in
windrows or in an engineered composting unit.
Land treatment involves spreading contaminated soils over a treatment area and periodically
turned over or tilled into the soil to ensure good aeration.
Emerging biotechnologies refers to a number of originating biological treatment processes, such
as white rot fungus, co-oxidation, enzymatic degradation, and genetically engineered
microorganisms. White rot fungus treatment uses enzymes produced by the fungus to degrade
contaminants. Co-oxidation (co-metabolism) is the microbial degradation of a compound
B-7
-------
indirectly during direct use of another substrate, such as methane. Enzymatic degradation
involves injection of synthetic purified enzymes into the ground, which decompose or transform
waste constituents. Genetically modified microorganisms may be applied to soils to oxidize
specific organic compounds.
Other names: Anaerobic digestion bioreactor; Slurry reactor; Slurry phase soil bioremediation;
Soil slurry; Slurry biotreatment; Bioreactor; Bioslurry; Soil/slurry bioreactor; Batch biodegrada-
tion; Slurry bioreactor; Slurry phase bioremediation; Slurry phase treatment; Biological slurry
reactor; Biological slurry treatment; Biological reactor; Liquid/solid slurry; Ex situ
bioremediation; Ex situ slurry phase biological treatment; Augmented bioreclamation;
Composting; Composting/windrowing; Nutrient enhancement; Solid phase treatment; Ex situ
solid phase biotreatment; Bioremediation-heap leaching; Addition of agricultural products;
Bioremediation in lined beds; Bioremediation in waste piles; Biological treatment; Ex situ
contained solid phase aerobic degradation; Biodegradation with X-19 treatment; Landfarming;
Thin spreading; Land application; Bioremediation; Soil aeration; Enzymatic degradation; Liquid-
solid contact digestion; White rot fungus; New biotechnologies; Co-oxidation; Recombinant
microorganisms and enzymes.
Vegetative Uptake. The uptake and translocation of ionized contaminants from soils to growing
plants is followed by harvesting and disposal of the plants. A number of growth and harvesting
cycles are generally required.
Other names: Bioharvesting.
STANDARD TECHNOLOGIES
Capping. Waste or contaminated soil is covered by a barrier constructed to reduce direct
contact with contaminated material and usually to reduce infiltration of rainwater and
contaminant mobility. Caps can vary in the type of construction materials, complexity, and cost;
however, they typically include a gas collection system, grading, vegetative cover, leachate
collection system, and surface water drainage as part of the design.
Other names: Native soil; Soil cap; Clay cap; Single layer cap; Bentonite cap; Synthetic
membranes; Sprayed asphalt; Asphaltic concrete; Asphalt surface pavement; Concrete cap;
Multilayered cap; Chemical sealants/stabilizers; RCRA cap; Multimedia cap; Solid waste cap;
Hazardous waste cap; Geotextile liner with rip-ra stone; Clay-geomembrane cap; Composite
clay/synthetic cap.
Incineration (on-site and off-site). Hazardous materials are excavated and thermally oxidized
in a controlled, oxygen-sufficient environment resulting in the reduction of volume and toxicity
of contaminated material. Generally, products include carbon dioxide, water, and ash. Many
types of incinerators with varying capabilities exist. On-site incinerators can be installed on a
permanent basis; however, mobile units typically are used for shorter term projects.
Other names: Rotary kiln incineration; Circulating bed incineration; Infrared incineration; Liquid
injection incineration; Fluidized bed incineration; Multiple hearth incineration; Commercial
incineration; TSCA incinerator.
Disposal (on-site and off-site). Contaminated materials are excavated and consolidated in an
on-site facility or transported to an off-site treatment or disposal facility. For oss-site disposal,
B-8
-------
wastes could be taken to a commercial secure landfill (RCRA facility) for disposal or to a
commercial treatment facility. In some cases, off-site disposal includes pre-treatment at a RCRA
facility prior to disposal. For on-site disposal, contaminated materials are excavated and placed
in a landfill that already exists, or is constructed, on the site. Hazardous and non-hazardous
wastes disposed on site generally must conform to RCRA requirements and guidelines to reduce
contaminant mobility and the possibility of direct exposures.
Other names: RCRA landfill; Non-RCRA landfill; Surface impoundments; Sanitary landfill;
Treatment and disposal facility; RCRA/TSCA facility; TSD facility; RCRA Subtitle C facility;
RCRA permitted cell, Containment cell; On-site RCRA landfill; On-site waste piles; On-site
disposal in RCRA cells.
Solidification/Stabilization. Stabilization is the conversion of a waste to a more chemically
stable form; solidification is the conversion of a waste to a more solid form.
Solidification/stabilization (S/S) is designed to reduce waste solubility, mobility, or toxicity;
improve handling characteristics; and limit the potential for migration by reducing the exposed
surface area. Most S/S processes involve the excavation of contaminated material followed by
addition of cement, lime, or thermoplastic material that increases the total waste volume.
Other names: Fixation; Encapsulation; Stabilization; Lime based pozzolan; Portland cement
pozzolan; Sorption; Microencapsulation; Polymerization; Silica base CHEMFIX process;
HAZCON process; Thermoplastic fixation; Thermoset fixative; Cement/silicate fixative;
Immobilization; Clay pelletizing; Clay pelletizing/sintering; Surface encapsulation; Quicklime
treatment.
Recycling/Recovery. This includes a variety of commercial processes for recycling or reusing
waste materials.
Other names: Resource recovery facility; Resin recovery; Bulk processing; Salvage.
In Situ Solidification/Stabilization. Stabilization is the conversion of a waste to a more
chemically stable form; solidification is the conversion of a waste to a more solid form.
Solidification/stabilization (S/S) is designed to reduce waste solubility, mobility, or toxicity;
improve handling characteristics; and limit the potential for migration by reducing the exposed
surface area. Solidification/stabilization agents are mixed with soil in situ, typically with
specialized drilling augers.
Other names: In situ fixation; In situ immobilization.
Institutional Controls. These are legal and physical methods for reducing or eliminating
exposures to contaminants at a site.
Other names: Deed restrictions; Land use restrictions; Zoning restrictions; Permits; Access
controls; Fences; Postings; Alternative drinking water source; Cisterns or tanks; Bottled water;
Deeper or upgradient wells; Relocation of intake; Municipal water supply; Relocation of
residents; Point-of-use water supply; Site security; Fishing restrictions; Conservation easement.
Unspecified Treatment. The FS/ROD considered standard technologies as a group or selected a
number of standard technologies that will undergo post-ROD testing at the site to determine
whether they will be used.
B-9
-------
Other names: none.
B-10
-------
Appendix C. Reasons for Selection of Remedial Technologies
The list below includes all of the reasons for selection of site remedial technologies given in the FSs
and RODs for the 205 sites included in this analysis. The number of times each reason was given
for all sites is shown to the right. The "code" at the left is the database code assigned each reason,
which was used to simplify data entry and database analysis.
Code Reasons for Technology Selection Number of Occurrences
CATEGORY 1. CONTAMINANT
014 Effective for VOCs 22
015 Can incidentally enhance biodegradation of SVOCs 4
017 Removes metals and SVOCs 1
021 Removes DNAPLs 1
023 Provides for maximum reuse/recycling of metals 1
032 Effective for pesticides 1
033 Effective for PCP 3
039 Demonstrated to be effective for PCBs 5
042 Expected to be effective for dioxin/furans 3
048 Proven effective for cyanide 1
051 Destroys inorganics 1
057 Can segregate PCBs from soils 1
061 Effective for PAHs at high concentrations (>100 mg/kg) 1
062 Feasible for PAHs at low concentrations 1
073 Effective for TCE 1
087 Effective for SVOCs 1
096 Effective for FHCs 1
109 Landfarming effective for xylene and toluene 2
117 No identified hot spots of contamination 5
138 Only proven technology for full-scale destruction of dioxin 1
140 Effective for residual organics and inorganics 1
141 Destroys organics, PCBs, and pesticides 2
142 Treatment not practical for landfill waste 3
Category 1 Total 63
CATEGORY 2. MEDIA
No media-related reasons given.
Category 2 Total 0
CATEGORY 3. SITE CONDITIONS
010 Limited space on-site for other treatment methods 1
012 Effective for site conditions 6
043 Effective for site conditions-permeability 2
070 Effective for site conditions-homogeneous soils 1
089 Technically feasible to construct for site conditions 12
091 Minimal or no disturbance of site operations 4
Category 3 Total 26
C-l
-------
Code Reasons for Technology Selection . Number of Occurrences
CATEGORY 4. IMPLEMENTATION
005 Easy to implement 84
006 Well established construction methods 15
007 Equipment is readily available 47
008 Qualified contractors/vendors are available 22
011 Commercially available 8
016 No excavation required 6
020 Operates without noise 1
025 System can be easily monitored . 1
026 No long-term O&M 18
028 System is reliable 20
029 Simple to operate 3
030 Starts up and shuts down faster than incineration 2
037 More reliable than other innovative treatment technologies 1
038 Reaches cleanup goals faster than other innovative technologies 1
052 Short remediation time 47
059 Avoids removal/damage of surface structures 11
077 High operational flexibility to adjust to changes • 2
078 Is an in situ technology 4
082 Allows continued operation of facility/plant 5
088 Indirectly enhances biodegradation of other contaminants 3
092 No specialized equipment required 1
102 Accelerates remediation process 2
104 Enhances biological activity 2
125 Proven technology 31
127 Does not disrupt metal containers 2
135 Commercial landfills will not accept the waste 1
136 Improves efficiency of innovative technology 1
144 Does not rely on off-site treatment or disposal 1
145 BOAT for lead-contaminated soil 1
148 Accepts wastes with minimal pretreatment 1
150 Increases effectiveness of in situ SVE 1
Category 4 Total 345
CATEGORY 5. EXPOSURE/RISK
001 No excavation required-minimizes short-term risks 25
002 Prevents contamination of groundwater 46
003 Permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume 118
009 Reduces future exposure to humans 19
013 Provides long-term protectiveness 104
019 Negligible or no emissions 6
022 Reduces future environmental harm 14
031 Short-term risks lower than incineration 2
034 No expected risks from PICs 1
040 Minimizes mobility of contaminants 56
046 Will contain mobile intermediates 1
049 Leaves no hazardous residuals 3
050 Negligible short-term risks to humans 49
053 Reduces off-site transport of waste 9
054 Reduces short-term risk from waste handling and accidents 7
055 Reduces risk more than other on-site treatment options 5
C-2
-------
Code Reasons for Technology Selection . Number of Occurrences
058 Prevents contamination of surface water 7
060 Will not mobilize residual contaminants 3
064 Reduces volume more than other alternatives 2
072 Reduces PCB toxicity and volume 1
074 Removes source of contamination 19
076 Reduces groundwater contamination 13
081 Treats and replenishes groundwater supplies 2
084 Reduces major contamination threat to groundwater 43
086 Disposes contaminated waste off site 4
090 No adverse cross-media impacts expected 24
098 No unacceptable short-term risks 12
100 Minimal risk from treatment system mobilization/startup 1
101 Halts migration of contaminated groundwater 2
106 Minimal risk from construction 2
108 Will not mobilize radionuclides 1
112 Potential to treat contaminants outside area of concern 1
113 Reduces carcinogenic risk 11
114 Reduces non-carcinogenic risk 7
115 Prevents direct human contact with contaminants 79
116 Appropriate for large waste volume 8
118 High concentrations of contaminants 1
120 Appropriate for small waste volume 3
121 Prevents land erosion 7
122 Minimizes impact to wetlands 9
123 Eliminates or reduces leachate and runoff from site 57
124 Immobilizes contaminants 5
126 Does not restrict future land use 4
128 Significant risk reduction until final remedy developed 2
129 Produces no residuals requiring further treatment 3
133 Low contaminant concentrations 1
146 Provides short-term protection 2
Category 5 Total 801
CATEGORY 6. REGULATORY
027 No excavation required-avoids LDRs 4
041 Satisfies preference for treatment 30
063 Complies with directive encouraging innovative technology use 4
066 State preference-acceptance / satisfies State regulations 15
069 Anticipated to attain cleanup goals 27
083 Has met community acceptance at other sites 1
094 Avoids LDRs 2
095 Complies with all ARARs 99
097 Indian tribe preference 1
099 Satisfies LDRs 14
110 Satisfies preference for use of innovative technology 2
119 Satisfies TSCA . 1
130 Consistent with Superfund (NCP) policy for low risk areas 4
139 Qualifies for an ARAR waiver 1
147 Approved by DOD Explosives Safety Board 1
C-3
-------
Code Reasons for Technology Selection Number of Occurrences
149 Appropriate for RCRA-listed K071 waste 1
151 BOAT for K061 waste with 15% or more zinc 2
Category 6 Total 209
CATEGORY?. COST
004 Cost-effective 110
056 Less costly than off-site treatment options 4
071 More cost-effective than other treatment options 35
085 Least costly of treatment alternatives 18
093 Less costly than incineration 4
137 Less costly than in situ vitrification 1
Category 7 Total 172
CATEGORY 8. INFORMATION
018 Successful pilot test at the site 7
024 Has reasonable expectation of success 4
035 Demonstrated to be effective for site contaminants 15
036 Successful SITE demonstration for similar contaminants/conditions 5
044 Successful full-scale remediations 11
045 Selected at other NPL sites 2
047 Demonstrated at other sites 15
065 Successful treatability study at the site 12
068 Successful implementation at the site 3
079 Successful treatability studies at similar sites 1
080 Successful bench-scale test(s) 2
107 Will provide data for future remedial actions 1
131 Does not require treatability studies 2
132 Community preference or acceptance 5
134 Best alternative based on nine evaluation criteria 1
143 Does not require pilot-scale studies 1
Category 8 Total 87
CATEGORY 9. OTHER
000 N/A 88
Category 9 Total 88
C-4
-------
Appendix D. Reasons for Elimination of Innovative Technologies
The following table contains each of the unique reasons cited for eliminating innovative technologies
from consideration as a remedy at the 205 sites. The reasons have been organized by category and
subcategory, and the number of occurrences for each reason are divided into the phases of the
remedial process in which the reason was cited.
Code
Reason for Technology Elimination
Subcateqorv1.1. Metals/inorganics. Technology is not applicable or
Total
"1, iiL I
205
Number of Occurrences
Initial 3-Criteria
Screening Screening
185
19
Detailed
Evaluation
••\, -^ ";- 1
1
unproven for metals/inorganics.
054
062
099
128
129
175
179
202
274
293
315
373
517
522
527
Limited effectiveness for metals/inorganics
Not applicable to metals/inorganics
Unproven applicability to lead
Not applicable to arsenic
Not applicable to high sodium content
Unproven applicability to volatile metals
Not applicable to cyanide
Not applicable to cadmium
Not applicable to arsenic present as a complex compound
Unproven applicability to arsenic
Unproven applicability to metal hydroxides
Limited effectiveness to cadmium
Unproven effectiveness for mercury
Not applicable to asbestos
Unproven applicability to metals/inorganics
Subcategon/1.2. VOCs. Technology is not applicable or unproven for VOCs.
008
009
020
221
280
305
466
583
584
Not applicable to VOCs
Not applicable to aromatic VOCs
Unproven applicability to VOCs
Not applicable to non-chlorinated VOCs
Not applicable to TCE
Not applicable to PCE
Not applicable to chlorinated VOCs
Unproven applicability to PCE
Unproven applicability to TCE
Subcategory 1.3. SVOCs. Technology is not applicable or unproven for
SVOCs.
136
139
141
143
144
155
Unproven applicability to PAHs
Not applicable to PAHs
Not applicable to four and five ring PAHs
Not applicable to SVOCs
Unproven applicability to four and five ring PAHs
Unproven applicability to PCBs
23
144
2
8
1
6
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
1
38
11
5
12
2
1
2
2
1
2
76
6
3
1
14
2
18
21
135
2
5
0
3
6
1
1
1
0
0
1
8
1
32
11
4
9
2
1
1
2
1
1
57
5
3
1
12
0
11
2
8
0
3
1
3
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
4
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
1
0
0
1
2
5
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
1
0
2
D-l
-------
Code Reason for Technology Elimination
201 Not applicable to PCBs
209 Limited effectiveness with SVOCs
222 Not applicable to non-chlorinated SVOCs
31 2 Unproven applicability to SVOCs
359 Not applicable to all PAHs
397 Limited effectiveness with complex PAHs
Subcateaorv 1.4. Pesticides. Technology is not applicable or unproven for
pesticides.
022 Unproven applicability to DDT
135 Unproven applicability to pesticides
171 Not applicable to pesticides
172 Limited effectiveness with pesticides
639 Unproven applicability to herbicides
Subcateaorv 1.5. Dioxins/Furans. Technology is not applicable or unproven
for dioxins and furans.
207 Not applicable to dioxins/furans
208 Unproven applicability to dioxins/furans
265 Not applicable to tetrahydrofuran (THF)
Subcateaorv 1 .6. Radiological. Technology is not applicable or unproven for
radiological contaminants.
186 Not applicable to radiological contaminants
627 Unproven applicability to mixed waste
Subcateaorv 1.7. Other Classifications. Technology is not applicable or
unproven for specific contaminant classes.
034 Unproven applicability to haloaliphatic compounds
1 1 1 Unproven applicability to chlorinated biphenyls
123 Limited effectiveness with arsenic in organic form
138 Unproven applicability to organics
226 Unproven effectiveness for chlorinated compounds
239 Unproven applicability to C-series compounds
340 Not applicable to non-chlorinated organics
389 Not applicable to heavier weight petroleum compounds
392 Effectively destroys organics
474 Limited effectiveness to heterocyclic organics
483 Unproven applicability to explosives
495 Unproven effectiveness for chlorinated cyclic aliphatics
525 Limited effectiveness for chlorinated solvents
526 Not applicable to organics
628 Unproven applicability to highly chlorinated organics
632 Unproven applicability to halogenated organics
641 Limited effectiveness for highly halogenated compounds
642 Unproven applicability to dichlorobenzene
643 Not applicable to dichlorobenzene
Total
18
1
2
1
8
2
13
1
6
4
1
1
18
5
12
1
4
3
1
64
2
1
1
10
10
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
8
15
2
1
2
2
1
Number of Occurrences
Initial 3-Criteria
Screening Screening
15
1
2
0
6
1
10
1
4
4
1
0
15
5
10
0
4
3
1
43
2
1
0
5
6
0
1
2
0
1
0
1
7
15
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
1
2
1
2
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
15
0
0
1
5
3
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
1
D-2
-------
Code Reason for Technology Elimination
Subcateaorv 1.8. Contaminant Characteristics. Technology is not applicable
or unproven for contaminants with specific characteristics, such as solubility or
volatility.
161 Limited effectiveness for adsorbed organics
183 Not applicable to contaminants with very low solubilities
213 Not applicable to hydrophobic contaminants
214 Not effective for extracting organics dissolved in oil
215 Not applicable to contaminants with high soil adsorption affinity
336 Not applicable to base and add extractable organics
374 Highly volatile contaminants
398 Low vapor pressure contaminants
421 Limited effectiveness due to solubility of contaminants
462 Not applicable to nonvolatile organics
477 Low volatility contaminants
547 Not applicable to compounds containing nitrogen
599 Not effective for contaminant boiling points
653 Not applicable to refractory compounds
Subcateaorv 1.9. General. FS stated Generalized contaminant-related reason
for eliminating a technology from consideration as a site remedy.
004 Most applicable to metals/inorganics
01 1 Most applicable to esters
015 Most applicable to radioactive wastes
032 Most applicable to PCBs
052 Not effective for site contaminants
061 Most applicable for pre-treating complex organics
077 Most applicable to medium solubility organics
086 Most applicable to chlorinated organics
1 56 Not applicable to all site contaminants
236 Most applicable to mobile compounds/elements
264 Most applicable to VOCs
286 Unproven effectiveness on target compounds
395 Limited effectiveness for target contaminants
412 Most applicable to highly toxic organics
413 Most applicable to less mobile inorganic or mixed wastes
660 Most applicable to arsenic
661 Most applicable to chromium
Subcateaorv 2.1. Soils. Technology is not applicable or unoroven for treatina
contaminated soils and sediments.
036 Not applicable to soils
103 Not been used to treat soils
115 Not applicable to sediments
163 Soil solids interfere with reaction
353 Not widely applied to sediments
Total
40
5
3
2
2
4
1
3
11
2
1
3
1
1
1
181
7
1
1
6
41
1
1
3
79
2
7
20
4
2
2
2
2
'' " '(•• I ••''&''*., ft
39
18
1
3
3
1
Number of Occurrences
Initial 3-Criteria Detailed
Screening Screening Evaluation
33
3
3
2
2
4
1
2
9
1
1
3
1
0
1
154
5
1
1
5
40
1
1
3
73
2
6
10
2
2
2
0
0
;• '>< ' .; ,
33
16
1
2
3
1
6
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
24
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
6
0
1
8
2
0
0
2
2
5
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
D-3
-------
Code Reason for Technology Elimination
386 Not proven for soils
399 Not applicable to soil with high ash content
600 Not effective for soil type
Subcateaorv 2.2. Sludges. Technology is not applicable or unproven for
treating contaminated sludges and tars.
091 Not applicable to coal tars
092 Unproven applicability to coal tars
180 Not applicable to sludges
387 • Not proven for sludges
546 Not applicable to sludges with high ash content
Subcateaorv 2.3. Solid Wastes. Technology is not applicable or unproven for
treating solid wastes.
075 Not applicable to municipal solid waste
098 Contaminants adsorbed to, or component of, solid waste
106 Loosely packed solid wastes
125 Numerous components of solid waste
176 Not applicable to combustible solids
444 Unproven effectiveness for municipal solid waste
445 Limited effectiveness to slag
471 Commingling of hazardous with nonhazardous wastes
Subcategory 2.4. Agueous Wastes. Technology is not applicable or unproven
for treating aqueous wastes.
407 Developed for controlled industrial wastes only
618 Not applicable to aqueous waste
Subcateqorv 2.5. Volume. Technology is not applicable or unproven for
treating the volume of contaminated media found at a site.
049 Large amounts of soil with small amounts of contaminants
147 Second option if soil volume much larger than estimated in FS
212 Large volume of material to be treated
260 Volume of contaminants too small for in situ methods
269 Volume of material too small
271 Large volume of material to be excavated
486 Insufficient information about amount of contamination at site
492 Not applicable to large quantities of sandy (inert) soil
582 Small volume with high concentrations
617 Waste volumes too large
Subcateaorv 2.6. Concentration. Technology is unsuitable to the site
because of the concentration of contaminants.
019 Most applicable to heavily contaminated soils
030 Most applicable to concentrated wastes
033 Most applicable to concentrated haloaromatic compounds
122 Contaminants highly concentrated
126 Limited effectiveness with low organic concentrations
268 Low levels of contaminants
Total
6
5
2
14
4
3
4
2
1
59
30
14
1
3
2
5
2
2
2
1
1
94
17
1
28
1
25
12
1
1
1
7
68
5
1
1
12
15
18
Number of Occurrences
Initial 3-Criteria
Screening Screening
5
4
1
13
4
3
4
2
0
51
28
12
1
0
1
5
2
2
2
1
1
70
15
0
24
0
16
8
0
1
1
5
51
5
1
1
7
12
14
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
6
1
2
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
2
1
3
0
8
1
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
4
3
2
Detailed
Evaluation
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
1
1
1
3
1
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
1
0
2
D-4
-------
Code
391
401
442
511
518
596
604
633
635
Reason for Technology Elimination
High quantity of organic wastes
Limited to waste with organic content in excess of 200 ppm
Not applicable to tow lead content materials
Unproven effectiveness with tow inorganic concentrations
Low concentrations of metals
Soil contains more than 10 percent organics
Contaminant concentrations too high
Most applicable to high oil content waste
Variable concentrations of TCL chemicals
Subcateqory 2.7. Media Characteristics. Technology is unsuitable for media
Total
5
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
59
Number of Occurrences
Initial 3-Criteria
Screening Screening
2
1
0
1
2
1
2
1
1
48
3
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
with specific characteristics, such as fuel value or biodegradability.
016
105
205
210
211
272
285
294
346
358
362
390
426
458
463
480
491
536
543
544
563
578
597
Most applicable to highly toxic wastes
Waste not biodegradable
Poor long-term effectiveness for unsaturated soils
Waste matrix not amenable to phase separation by this technique
Complex organic mixture/matrix
Mineral composition of tailing not favorable for copper removal
No fuel value to soils
Potential incompatibility to chemical composition of flue dust
Media not pumpable
Highly variable quality and chemistry of fill material
Contaminated objects too large to be suspended
Combined organic and metal wastes
Weathered materials may not respond to treatment
Contaminants exist as large aggregates
Wastes are fully hydrolysed
Wastes have good fuel value
Not applicable to waste characteristics
Metals may be in crystalline matrix
Sludge hardness makes addition of reagents difficult
Sludge too dense
High proportion of non-asbestos materials
Waste contains organic matter and debris
Soil does not contain oil
647 Low natural microbial activity
Subcateqorv 2.8. Contaminated Media Location. Technoloqv is unsuitable to
1
12
2
1
4
2
2
1
2
2
1
3
2
3
1
1
8
1
1
3
2
1
2
1
77
1
12
0
1
3
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
0
7
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
64
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
10
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
the site because of the location of contaminated media.
005
012
084
107
157
326
Suitable only for surface and near-surface soils
Not applicable for in situ application
Not considered feasible for depth of waste
Waste below water table/saturated waste
Less appropriate for very shallow soils
Contaminants too shallow for effective electrode placement
3
1
35
5
17
2
3
1
31
3
14
1
0
0
3
1
3
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
D-5
-------
Code Reason for Technology Elimination
334 No contaminant hot spots
365 Contaminated soil below water table
41 6 Most appropriate for hot spots of contamination
432 Applicable only for soils below water table
557 Waste located in small isolated pits
560 Would not address soil beneath waste
562 Variable depth of waste
576 Not feasible for above-ground waste
601 Difficult to identify affected area
607 Not effective for treating soil under day layers
Subcateaorv 2.9. General. FS stated generalized media-related reason for
eliminating a technology from consideration as a site remedy.
026 Most applicable to wastewater treatment sludge
031 Most applicable to aqueous waste streams
037 Most applicable to liquids/sludges
040 Most applicable to aqueous waste streams with <5% organics
074 Heterogenous wastes
248 More applicable to soils
331 Non-uniform waste stream
344 Variable waste composition
594 Not applicable to entire landfill
Total
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
99
2
8
7
1
75
2
1
2
1
CATEGORY 3. SITE CONDITIONS
Subcateaorv3.1. Subsurface Characteristics. Technology is unsuitable to the 84
site because of subsurface processes or conditions.
002 Low hydraulic conductivity
071 No underlying confining layer
093 Shallow water table
121 Fractured bedrock
131 Downward groundwater gradient
132 Variable/heterogenous geology
177 Subsurface obstructions
1 90 Uncertain pathways/direction of groundwater flow
191 Deep water table
31 1 Fluctuating water table
382 Groundwater at the site
455 High hydraulic conductivity
561 Remote from power sources
570 Subsurface day/silt layers
Subcateaorv 3.2. Surface Characteristics. Technoloqv is unsuitable to the
site because of surface conditions or environments.
059 Space limitations at the site
151 Warm dimate
173 Uneven topography
12
6
20
5
1
19
8
4
1
1
2
1
2
2
53
29
1
8
Number of Occurrences
Initial 3-Criteria
Screening Screening
1
0
3
1
1
0
2
2
0
1
83
2
7
7
1
61
2
1
2
0
61
11
5
17
3
0
13
4
2
0
1
1
1
2
1
38
21
1
7
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
13
0
1
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
23
1
1
3
2
1
6
4
2
1
0
1
0
0
1
12
6
0
1
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
0
0
D-6
-------
Code Reason for Technology Elimination
352 Long shallow stretches of sediment
423 Used for flood storage
425 Adjacent to a major river
440 Would impact wetlands
482 Located in flood plain
553 Desert environment
649 Site access constraints
656 Large area to be treated
Subcateqory 3.3. Soil Characteristics. Technology is not applicable or
unproven for soils with specific characteristics, such as porosity or moisture
content.
079 Saturated soils
096 Fine grained soil
097 High carbon content of soil
1 34 High clay content of soils
168 High soil moisture content
196 High percentage of soil organic material
228 High soil permeability
279 Sandy soils
364 Low soil permeability
394 Low soil moisture content
438 Low porosity soils
439 Dense organic silt
659 Coarse soils
Subcateoory 3.4. Structures/Activities. Technoloov is unsuitable to the site
because of building, structures, or activities on the site.
072 Would disrupt existing operations/residents
1 1 4 May damage underground utilities
181 Proximity to surface structures
244 May interfere with potential future remedial actions
309 Would disrupt existing buildings and structures
503 Would require bracing and building support
652 Might adversely affect building foundations
Subcateqory 3.5. General. FS stated generalized reason related to site
conditions for eliminating a technology from consideration as a site remedy.
153 Not applicable to site conditions
61 5 Subject to site specific variations
Subcateqory 4.1 . Availability. Technology was eliminated because of a lack
of availability of equipment or personnel.
023 Available reactor designs not suitable for soils
035 Mobile units are not available
065 Limited availability of vendors/technology
164 No full-scale system has been built
Total
1
1
1
4
5
1
1
1
140
13
20
1
29
12
7
4
7
34
7
2
3
1
33
8
6
7
1
9
1
1
25
24
1
VJjPSS'i
96
1
1
47
4
Number of Occurrences
Initial 3-Criteria Detailed
Screening Screening Evaluation
1
0
1
2
2
1
1
1
100
8
18
1
18
10
5
2
5
26
5
1
1
0
21
3
6
4
0
8
0
0
20
20
0
'^XwW'JH^hCl' fH^'ltn'
49
1
1
18
3
0
1
0
1
3
0
0
0
36
5
1
0
11
2
2
2
2
6
2
0
2
1
3
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
2
2
0
29 ~
0
0
17
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
9
5
0
1
1
0
1
1
3
2
1
18
0
0
12
0
D-7
-------
Code
167
231
233
318
337
347
349
403
508
523
528
585
603
620
624
650
657
Reason for Technology Elimination
Limited number of full-scale systems
No commercial systems presently available
No known vendor is available
Several vendors have stopped using the technology
No vendor available to reactivate dioxin/PCB in carbon
Not available in US for treating hazardous waste
Available units have limited processing capacity
Technology for required post-treatment may not be available
Difficult to find corrosion-resistant material for equipment
Specialized equipment would have to be imported from Puerto Rico
Requires auxiliary equipment that is not available
Other effective treatment options available
Treatment facility available only overseas
Difficult to construct equipment with adequate throughput
Pilot test equipment not available
Less available than other technologies
Milling/refining facilities not available
658 Disposal site not available
Subcateaorv 4.2. Remediation Time. Technology was eliminated because it
Total
4
16
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
47
Number of Occurrences
Initial 3-Criteria
Screening Screening
4
10
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
4
1
0
1
0
0
0
20
0
4
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
11
Detailed
Evaluation
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
16
would take too long to attain cleanup goals.
001
010
100
324
332
360
385
572
Extended remediation time-chlorinated solvents
Extended remediation time-chlorinated VOCs
Extended remediation time
Uncertain remediation time
Requires long retention times
Not possible to predict final results or time required
Takes too long to implement
May be delays in optimizing process
Subcateaorv 4.3. Monitoring/Verification. Technology was eliminated
3
4
22
7
1
4
4
2
26
3
4
6
3
1
2
0
1
16
0
0
5
3
0
2
1
0
2
0
0
11
1
0
0
3
1
8
because of difficulty in monitoring or verifying treatment results.
069
216
249
321
325
431
567
Requires long-term O&M
Difficult to monitor in situ
Would require air monitoring
Verification requires collection of many soil samples
Difficult to verify attainment of cleanup goals throughout site
Requires long-term monitoring
Difficult to measure effectiveness
Subcateaorv 4.4. Post-treatment/Disposal. Technology was eliminated
2
15
2
1
1
3
2
119
2
12
0
0
0
0
2
67
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
33
0
3
2
0
1
2
0
19
because the treated material would require subsequent additional treatment or
disposal
003
087
116
117
Requires treatment of recovered groundwater
Requires post-treatment of air emissions
Requires post-treatment of dust/particulates
Requires post-treatment of soil fines
5
13
2
4
4
10
1
1
0
1
1
2
1
2
0
1
D-8
-------
',
Code Reason for Technology Elimination
1 50 Requires post-treatment of char/ash
246 Requires post-treatment/disposal of large volumes of solids
253 Requires post-treatment of waste stream
288 Requires post-treatment of teachate
314 Requires post-treatment-dewatering
371 Requires treatment/disposal of residuals
372 Requires post-treatment of cadmium
441 Must replace natural organics in wetland soils
529 Requires post-treatment to control metals
552 Requires post-treatment/disposal of wastewater
558 Requires post-treatment of collected organics
569 Requires post-treatment of PAHs
614 Some off-site disposal required
621 Requires post-treatment of PCB extracts
625 Requires post-treatment of heavy metal sludge
Subcateqory 4.5. Pre-treatment. Technoloav was eliminated because the
contaminated material required pre-treatment.
029 Requires pre-treatment of chlorinated solvents
060 Requires pre-treatment of soils
094 Requires in situ pre-treatment using enhanced recovery
112 Requires pre-treatment-soils must be made into a slurry
142 Requires pre-treatment-sorting/sizing of contaminated material
229 Requires dewatering/capping prior to treatment
310 Requires pre-treatment to separate contaminants
414 Requires significant soil preparation
535 Requires pre-treatment of insoluble metals by oxidation
Subcateqorv 4.6. Process Limitations/Materials Handling. Technoloav was
eliminated because of difficulty in implementing the core process at the site
(does not include requirements for pre- and post-treatment).
025 Insufficient organics to sustain biodegradation
028 Requires secondary containment
041 May require supplemental fuel
050 Requires a lot of oxygen to create aerobic conditions
051 Requires excavation of bulky wastes/debris
057 Requires specialized equipment
058 Requires highly trained personnel
064 Requires multiple solvents/extraction steps
082 Involves excavation/treatment on-site
109 Generated heat could oxidize municipal waste materials
119 Would require sequential aerobic and anaerobic treatments
127 Would not volatilize many organics
170 Requires anaerobic conditions for reductive dechlorination
187 Presence of metal containers would pose problems
Total
6
2
18
2
1
30
1
1
4
22
1
1
3
1
2
24
1
4
1
5
3
3
1
5
1
161
8
3
1
3
6
12
5
13
7
1
4
4
1
4
Number of Occurrences
Initial 3-Criteria
Screening Screening
4
1
12
1
0
15
0
0
4
13
1
0
0
0
0
17
1
3
1
5
2
0
1
3
1
104
6
1
1
3
3
2
1
10
4
1
3
3
1
3
2
0
5
1
1
7
1
0
0
7
0
1
2
0
2
3
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
37
2
1
0
0
3
5
2
2
2
0
1
1
0
1
Detailed
Evaluation
0
1
1
0
0
8
0
1
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
20
0
1
0
0
0
5
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
D-9
-------
Code
193
203
232
235
245
256
258
261
276
330
338
339
351
361
363
378
409
420
427
433
435
437
447
448
451
454
469
472
494
504
505
531
559
580
587
593
608
609
630
634
638
654
Reason for Technology Elimination
Washing fluids would solubilize chemicals impeding treatment
Difficult to formulate washing fluids for complex mixtures
Treatment augers could puncture confining clay layer
Biodegradation would be incomplete
May be difficult to implement in cold weather
Difficult to treat waste uniformly
Washing fluids would require constant adjustment
Not possible to excavate all soils/waste
Effective only during warm weather
Difficult maintenance
Requires continuous ash removal
Requires continuous change of molten salt
Requires extensive surface water control
Requires excavation and spreading materials over site
Requires dose supervision/monitoring
Would require large quantities of solutions to treat
Difficult to recover surfactants/washing fluid for recycling
Difficult to recover precipitated metal sludges
Target cannot be separated by partide size separation
Need appropriate microbial population
Requires excavation and stockpiling
Excessive washing required
Requires three years of testing prior to implementation
Difficult to dewater
Temperature not high enough for target contaminants
Requires mobile equipment
Large volume of surfactant needed
Extraction not needed
Not feasible to produce specialized enzymes for treatment
Must complete all treatment once started
Must be used in conjunction with other treatment technology
Requires anaerobic treatment
Would not address soil gas contamination
Complex to construct/operate
Difficult to maintain suitable environment
Requires addition of substrate for microbial development
Requires construction of slurry walls
Requires closely spaced injection/extraction wells
Requires tow suspended solids concentration
Reaction may be incomplete
Difficult to deliver reagent
Requires other VOC migration control
Total
1
10
1
1
6
9
1
6
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
3
1
4
1
1
2
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
Number of Occurrences
Initial 3-Criteria
Screening Screening
0
7
0
1
2
7
0
6
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
4
0
0
1
0
0
3
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
6
1
1
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
3
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D-10
-------
Code Reason for Technology Elimination
Subcateoorv 4.7. Specific Technology Comparisons. Technology was
eliminated because a specific alternative technology was considered more
effective or less difficult to implement.
043 Less reliable than soil vapor extraction
044 Less effective than soil vapor extraction
089 Less effective than incineration
145 Less effective than slurry phase biodegradation
146 Longer remediation time than slurry phase biodegradation
159 More monitoring required than land treatment
160 More maintenance required than land treatment
198 Noisier than in situ treatment
257 Incineration selected to represent high-temperature treatment
296 Longer remediation time than S/S
297 Less certain success than S/S
298 Maintenance would be more difficult than S/S
341 Not as amenable to soil as bacteria
343 No more effective than soil vapor extraction
354 Less applicable than APEG dechlorination
357 No more effective than incineration
379 Less certain than on-site soil washing
459 No advantage over low-temperature thermal desorption
460 No advantage over thermal treatment
464 Not as easy to implement as S/S
487 Less effective than solvent extraction
488 Less effective than biological treatment
500 Easier to treat soils under buildings with soil vapor extraction
564 Incineration would produce a more acceptable waste product
575 Less effective than solid phase biodegradation
Subcateqory 4.8. General Technology Comparisons. Technology was
eliminated because it did not compare favorably with general alternative
technologies.
067 More complex than other technologies
080 More difficult to implement than selected alternative
081 Less certain effectiveness than selected alternative
242 Remediation time longer than selected alternative
291 Not selected as representative process option
31 9 Other technologies better suited for site contaminants
405 Less long-term effectiveness/permanence than alternative
489 Not as effective and protective as chosen alternative
592 Other technologies more certain
Subcateqory 4.9. Interference Factors. Technology was eliminated because
contaminants or other factors present at the site would interfere with
implementation.
070 Metals may inhibit biodegradation
Total
50
1
8
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
4
1
2
7
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
63
9
8
15
3
12
6
5
1
4
53
30
Number of Occurrences
Initial 3-Criteria
Screening Screening
24
0
3
2
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
2
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
0
1
0
35
6
1
7
0
12
6
0
0
3
39
24
17
1
5
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
9
3
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
6
Detailed
Evaluation
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
19
0
5
4
3
0
0
5
1
1
3
0
D-ll
-------
Code
108
388
402
457
571
636
646
Reason for Technology Elimination
Chlorinated compounds may inhibit biodegradation
Metals may interfere
Pentachlorophenol greater than 500 ppm toxic to microorganisms
Some contaminants might inhibit or be toxic to microorganisms
Variable temperatures may inhibit biodegradation
Pesticides may inhibit biodegradation
Subsurface debris would inhibit biodegradation
Subcateqorv 4.10. In Situ Control. Technology was eliminated because of
difficulties
018
073
184
217
218
219
223
254
262
263
283
308
320
329
367
406
410
446
450
467
468
591
651
in controlling in situ processes or reactions.
Difficult to recover all solvents/washing fluids from soil
Difficult to recover chemicals/products from groundwater
Requires large volumes of water to flush contaminants
Difficult to adjust in situ
Not possible to ensure sufficient contact in situ
Not possible to uniformly distribute solutions in situ
Difficult to uniformly distribute nutrients and oxygen
Potential to clog injection system or aquifer formation
Not possible to inject nutrients into landfill
Not possible to flush landfill
May require in situ soil mixing with a catalyst
Difficult to maintain anaerobic conditions in situ
Requires injection of chemicals into potable aquifer
Site geology could impede flushing
May reduce groundwater pH
Difficult to recover leachate
Difficult to achieve proper mixing in situ
Flushing solution cannot be captured
Would require precise groundwater control
Precipitation of metals/inorganics clog delivery system
Collection of flushing solution difficult
Difficult to recover groundwater
Basement dewatering systems would interfere with flushing
Subcateqorv 4.11. Off-Gas Control. Technology was eliminated because of
Total
5
8
2
4
2
1
1
93
14
12
2
3
6
9
13
3
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
6
2
4
4
1
1
1
1
51
Number of Occurrences
Initial 3-Criteria
Screening Screening
3
6
2
2
0
1
1
73
12
8
2
3
5
7
10
2
2
4
0
1
1
1
1
4
2
2
3
1
1
1
0
39
2
1
0
0
2
0
0
16
2
' 4
0
0
1
2
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
2 -
0
0
0
0
0
5
Detailed
Evaluation
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
7
difficulties in controlling off-gases.
013
017
227
240
301
328
333
384
417
Contaminants would volatilize
May result in air emissions
High organic levels may overload off-gas treatment system
Saturated soils may overload the off-gas treatment system
Would volatilize arsenic
Difficult to control volatilized organics
Produces methane gas
Problem with off-gas collection
Difficult to control products of incomplete combustion
11
24
1
1
2
1
1
3
2
11
16
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
- 0
6
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
D-12
-------
Code Reason for Technology Elimination Total
516 Difficult to remove volatilized metals
51 9 May form toxic gases
555 May be fugitive vapor loss
Subcateqorv 4.12. Treated Material Problems. Technology was eliminated
because of undesirable qualities of the treated material.
088 Lack of load-bearing capacity of treated sand
1 1 3 Uncertain load-bearing capacity of treated mass
289 May create unpleasant odor
493 May reduce natural organics in soil decreasing sorption capacity
534 Difficult to dispose of generated slag
577 Waste not acceptable to nearest lead smelter operator
648 Difficult to handle treated mass
Subcateqorv 4.13. General. FS stated generalized implementability problems
for eliminating a technology from consideration as a site remedy.
120 Not independently applicable
195 Difficult to implement
259 Difficult to control process
300 Uncertain implementability
501 Requires excavation
507 Inefficient method
CATEGORY 5. EXPOSURE/RISK
Subcateqorv 5.1. Short-term Risk. Technology was eliminated because its
implementation would create short-term risk for the public or site workers.
046 Excavation results in short-term risk to humans
101 Implementation would cause short-term risk to site workers
241 Consolidation of soils results in short-term risk to community
411 Might cause fires
429 Requires handling hazardous waste
479 Potentially explosive
497 Risk of transporting hazardous waste off-site
541 Excavation would expose highly contaminated soil
606 Flammable organics may cause safety problems
626 Potential for spills
Subcateqorv 5.2. Long-term Risk. Technology was eliminated because its
implementation would result in long-term risks to human health or the
environment.
133 Potential adverse environmental effects
152 Not a long-term solution
243 Leaves contaminated material on site
277 Would interfere with future use of site
327 Long-term leaching uncertain
366 Integrity of cap will be compromised
393 Long-term risks to site workers and community
481 Residuals may persist in environment
1
2
2
10
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
94
3
46
29
12
3
1
68
29
16
1
5
7
4
2
1
2
1
46
13
3
4
3
1
1
4
8
Number of Occurrences
Initial 3-Criteria
Screening Screening
1
2
2
10
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
60
3
26
20
8
2
1
25
11
1
0
5
4
2
0
1
1
0
22
7
3
2
3
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
11
6
0
0
0
15
2
6
1
0
1
2
1
0
1
1
14
5
0
1
0
0
1
2
3
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
9
3
4
1
0
28
16
9
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
10
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
4
D-13
-------
Code Reason for Technology Elimination
533 Solvent loss could contaminate environment
537 Would only reduce contaminant mobility and volume
542 Permanence uncertain
574 Extracted contaminants may pose residual risk
579 Long-term effectiveness uncertain
Subcateqorv 5.3. Toxic or Mobile Residuals. Technology was eliminated
because it would create more toxic or mobile residuals.
006 May increase mobility of metals
007 May form more toxic/mobile products-chlorinated solvents
024 May form more toxic/mobile products-chlorinated VOCs
118 May form more toxic/mobile products-halogenated aliphatics
137 May form more toxic/mobile products-PAHs
154 Would sdubilize currently immobile contaminants
225 May form more toxic/mobile products-chlorinated compounds
237 May form more toxic/mobile products
251 May form more toxic/mobile products-metals
307 May form more toxic/mobile products-PCE
323 Residue would contain metal in mobile form
408 Would not reduce toxicity of contaminants
419 May increase organic contaminant levels
449 May form more toxic/mobile products-arsine
496 DMSO in the process might decompose to hydrogen sulfide
510 Excavation would increase mobility of contaminants
568 May form more toxic/mobile products-dioxin
623 Uncertain residuals produced
629 May form more toxic/mobile products-lead
631 May increase radionuclide mobility
Subcateqorv 5.4. Cross-Media Contamination. Technology was eliminated
because its use may result in contamination of other media.
053 May contaminate groundwater
056 Potential migration of contaminants
41 8 Adding nutrients may compromise water quality
530 Microbes may infiltrate into aquifer
538 May contaminate surface water
Subcateqorv 6.1 . RCRA. Technology was eliminated because it would not
meet, or would be difficult to meet, RCRA regulations.
199 May not meet LDRs
266 LDRs would require post-treatment by incineration
270 May not meet RCRA regulations on degradation in treatment zone
434 Requires RCRA permits
470 Would be subject to TCLP
502 Difficult to meet LDRs
Total
1
1
2
1
4
69
4
4
7
3
2
2
1
28
4
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
84
44
37
1
1
1
28
17
6
1
1
1
1
Number of Occurrences
Initial 3-Criteria Detailed
Screening Screening Evaluation
1
0
1
0
2
49
2
4
7
3
2
2
0
21
2
1
1
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
50
30
17
1
1
1
12
8
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
13
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
6
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
21
8
13
0
0
0
6
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
t)
0
1
0
1
0
2
13
6
7
0
0
0
10
3
2
1
1
1
1
D-14
-------
Code Reason for Technology Elimination
640 Residuals may require delisting prior to remediation
Subcateaorv 6.2. Public Acceptance. Technology was eliminated because it
was considered unacceptable to the public.
149 May not be acceptable in a residential area
513 Negative public reaction to restricted land use during operation
514 Aesthetically unacceptable
548 Not acceptable to the public
Subcateaorv 6.3. Other. Technology was eliminated due to a variety of
regulation-related reasons, such as State or CERCLA requirements.
124 Unlikely to achieve cleanup goals
148 Extensive permitting/performance requirements may preclude use
158 May not comply with TSCA regulations on PCBs
284 Requires permission from the State to inject nutrients/substrates
313 Must meet State air regulations
396 Failure to meet ARARs
415 Requires numerous approvals to construct and operate
453 DOT regulatory requirements
478 Stringent requirements on detonatable concentrations
484 Must meet CERCLA off-site disposal policy
485 Difficult to obtain preacceptance approvals from off-site facility
532 Difficult to obtain regulatory agency approval
539 State requires treatment zone to be 3 ft above high water table
566 Administrative difficulties with innovative technologies
573 Requires planning with local government
589 Use of flushing agents could cause regulatory problems
590 Prohibition of injection wells in Wisconsin
61 1 No regulatory basis for selection
655 Institutional constraints of off-site treatment
CATEGORY 7, COST
Subcateqorv7.1. Capital Costs. Technoloav was eliminated because of hiah
capital costs.
066 High capital cost
185 High installation cost
Subcategory 7.2. Operation and Maintenance Costs. Technology was
eliminated because of high operation and maintenance costs.
014 High energy costs
042 High operational cost
255 High maintenance costs
267 Post-treatment by incineration too costly
278 High excavation/consolidation costs
375 Treatability studies too costly
436 Labor intensive
598 Solvent mixture may be prohibitively costly
602 High transportation costs
Total
1
6
2
2
1
1
61
32
1
1
1
1
4
6
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
33
27
6
95
33
31
21
2
2
1
3
1
1
Number of Occurrences
Initial 3-Criteria
Screening Screening
0
4
1
2
1
0
18
8
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
19
17
2
59
22
19
15
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
18
12
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
11
9
2
32
10
12
6
0
0
1
2
1
0
Detailed
Evaluation
1
0
0
0
0
0
25
12
0
1
1
1
2
3
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
1
2
4
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
D-15
-------
Code
Reason for Technology Elimination Total
Subcateaorv 7.3. Technology Comparisons. Technoloqv was eliminated
74
Number of Occurrences
Initial 3-Criteria
Screening Screening
23
26
Detailed
Evaluation
25
because another technology was considered more cost-effective.
045
083
090
162
176
197
247
376
381
430
452
475
520
549
550
556
605
610
More costly than soil vapor extraction
More costly than soil flushing
More costly than incineration
Other options more cost effective for limited soil volumes
Other options more cost effective for level of risk reduction
As costly as demonstrated technologies
More costly than low temperature thermal desorption
Comparable in cost to preferred in situ technologies
More costly without substantial increase in benefit
More costly than solidification and stabilization
More costly than off-site landfilling
More costly than off-site disposal
More costly than selected remedy
More costly than ex situ vapor extraction
More costly than ex situ bioremediation
More costly than other available technologies
More costly than other in situ options
More costly than passive gas collection system
Subcateqorv 7.4. General. FS stated generalized cost-related reasons for
13
3
2
7
7
1
2
1
17
5
1
1
5
2
2
3
1
1
136
4
1
1
5
2
0
1
0
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
71
6
2
1
1
4
1
0
1
4
0
1
0
0
2
2
0
0
1
39
3
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
9
4
0
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
26
eliminating a technology from consideration as a site remedy.
038
299
316
322
348
428
509
High cost
Cost could vary greatly
No cost information
Correcting failure of technology would be very costly
Use on hot spots not cost effective
No market for process by-products could increase costs
Not cost effective
CATEGORY 6. INFORMATION
Subcateqorv 8.1 . Needs Further Development. Technoloqv was eliminated
122
2
2
2
1
1
6
91
70
0
0
0
1
0
0
70
34
0
2
1
0
0
2
18
18
2
0
1
0
1
4
3
because it was not considered to be fully developed.
027
102
104
182
234
238
281
292
304
512
Application to hazardous waste in early R&D stage
Not fully developed technology
Not fully developed for site contaminants
Considered an innovative technology
Considered experimental for small volumes
Considered pilot-scale technology
Considered an emerging technology
Level of development questionable
Proven only at laboratory scale
More research needed
14
39
8
6
1
4
10
3
4
2
11
32
6
2
1
3
6
3
4
2
3
6
2
2
0
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
D-16
-------
Code Reason for Technology Elimination
Subcateqory 8.2. Needs Demonstration. Technology was eliminated because
further demonstrations were needed to determine its effectiveness.
076 Not demonstrated on a large/full scale
085 Limited successful full-scale demonstrations
1 40 No full-scale demonstrations for site contaminants
165 No full-scale demonstration for use on soils
174 Not demonstrated for site contaminants/matrix
204 Technical implementability not demonstrated
206 No successful demonstrations
355 Effectiveness not demonstrated on sediment
506 Demonstrated only at pilot scale
540 Not demonstrated as an in situ process
554 Not demonstrated on a wide range of wastes
586 Effectiveness not demonstrated
588 Not widely tested
Subcateqorv 8.3. Needs Testinq at Site. Technology was eliminated because
testing was required to determine its effectiveness on site contamination.
048 Requires pilot testing
068 Requires bench-scale testing
078 Requires treatability studies
200 May require treatability testing
295 Could not pilot-test process
622 Toxicity testing required prior to implementation
637 Could not conduct treatability test of dioxin
Subcateqory 8.4. Unsuccessful Application. Technology was eliminated
because it was unsuccessfully tested or applied at a site.
095 Unsuccessful treatability study
166 Not effective at a Superfund site with similar contaminants
194 Unsuccessful EPA demonstration
404 Unsuccessful pilot study
Subcateqorv 8.5 Unproven/Uncertain Application. Technology was eliminated
because it was considered to be unproven or its effectiveness on site
contamination was considered uncertain.
047 Success/effectiveness uncertain
055 Not proven effective at a Superfund site
169 Unproven technology
186 No long-term performance record
189 Not been used at a similar site
273 No performance data for site contaminants
287 Success in combination with soil washing is uncertain
302 Unproven at full scale
317 No full-scale applications
342 Limited performance data
380 Used at only one other Superfund site for target contaminants
Total
119
44
13
13
2
26
7
2
3
1
1
1
3
3
110
32
11
62
2
1
1
1
32
22
3
3
4
118
44
5
27
2
3
6
1
4
8
9
1
Number of Occurrences
Initial 3-Criteria
Screening Screening
82
23
12
10
2
19
6
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
45
13
7
23
0
1
0
1
17
9
3
2
3
71
23
3
19
2
2
5
0
3
4
8
1
19
10
1
2
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
32
12
3
17
0
0
0
0
9
7
0
1
1
30
14
0
6
0
0
1
1
0
3
1
0
Detailed
Evaluation
18
11
0
1
0
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
33
7
1
22
2
0
1
0
6
6
0
0
0
17
7
2
2
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
D-17
-------
Code
383
422
565
619
Reason for Technology Elimination
Not actively used at Superfund sites
Limited short- or long-term effectiveness
Difficult to prove effectiveness
Uncertain reliability
;^'^?*,v:" -' -^'^?f?^^'|^IMfii^i^Kii
Subcateqory 9.1 . N/A or No Reason Given. An innovative technology was
Total
3
2
1
2
35
Number of Occurrences
Initial 3-Criteria
Screening Screening
0
0
1
0
s^s^ssdJfeiXJ&jsvsy
17
3
1
0
0
6
Detailed
Evaluation
0
1
0
12
eliminated from consideration without a specified reason.
000
443
N/A or no reason given
No remedial action considered necessary
30
5
16
1
5
1
9
3
D-18
-------
Appendix E. Technology-Specific Reasons for Elimination of Innovative Technologies
The following tables contain all of the reasons cited for eliminating each of the 20 innovative
technologies from consideration as a site remedy. The reasons have been organized by category and
subcategory, and the number of occurrences of each reason are divided into the phase of the
remedial process in which the reason was cited.
Table E-l. Reasons cited in FY91 and FY92 RODs for elimination of Ex Situ Biodegradation.
Category/Subcategory
"• !/••£"'" ' '
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.2 VOCs
1.2 VOCs
1.2 VOCs
1.3SVOCS
1.3SVOCS
1.3SVOCS
1.3SVOCS
1.4 Pesticides
1.5Dioxins/Furans
1.7 Other classifications
1 .7 Other classifications
1.7 Other classifications
1.9 General
1.9 General
1.9 General
1.9 General
Code
Reason for Technology Elimination
Total
Category t. Contaminants «9
054
062
009
020
280
144
155
201
359
135
208
138
226
525
052
156
264
395
Limited effectiveness for metals/inorganics
Not applicable to metals/inorganics
Not applicable to aromatic VOCs
Unproven applicability to VOCs
Not applicable to TCE
Unproven applicability to four and five ring
PAHs
Unproven applicability to PCBs
Not applicable to PCBs
Not applicable to all PAHs
Unproven applicability to pesticides
Unproven applicability to dioxins/furans
Unproven applicability to organics
Unproven effectiveness for chlorinated
compounds
Limited effectiveness for chlorinated solvents
Not effective for site contaminants
Not applicable to all site contaminants
Most applicable to VOCs
Limited effectiveness for target contaminants
Category 2. Media
2.3 Solid wastes
2.3 Solid wastes
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.6 Concentration
2.6 Concentration
2.6 Concentration
075
098
049
147
212
271
019
030
126
Not applicable to municipal solid waste
Contaminants adsorbed to, or component of,
solid waste
Large amounts of soil with small amounts of
contaminants
Second option if soil volume much larger
than estimated in FS
Large volume of material to be treated
Large volume of material to be excavated
Most applicable to heavily contaminated
soils
Most applicable to concentrated wastes
Limited effectiveness with low organic
concentrations
4
21
1
3
1
2
2
1
4
3
3
2
3
3
3
11
1
1
39
5
2
2
1
4
2
2
1
2
Initial
Screening
59
4
20
0
3
1
0
2
1
2
2
3
0
3
3
3
10
1
1
34
5
2
2
0
3
0
2
1
1
3-Criteria
Screening
8
0
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
Detailed
Evaluation
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
E-l
-------
Table E-l. Ex Situ Biodegradation, continued.
Category/Subcategory
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.8 Cont. media location
2.8 Cont. media location
2.9 General
2.9 General
2.9 General
Code
105
362
084
416
026
037
074
Reason for Technology Elimination
Waste not biodegradable
Contaminated objects too large to be
suspended
Not considered feasible for depth of waste
Most appropriate for hot spots of
contamination
Most applicable to wastewater treatment
sludge
Most applicable to liquids/sludges
Heterogenous wastes
Category 3. Site Condition
3.2 Surface
characteristics
3.2 Surface
characteristics
3.2 Surface
characteristics
3.2 Surface
characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.4 Structures/activities
3.5 General
059
173
440
482
096
134
196
279
394
072
615
Space limitations at the site
Uneven topography
Would impact wetlands
Located in flood plain
Fine grained soil
High clay content of soils
High percentage of soil organic matenal
Sandy soils
Low soil moisture content
Would disrupt existing operations/residents
Subject to site specific variations
Category 4. Implementation
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.2 Remediation time
4.2 Remediation time
4.2 Remediation time
4.2 Remediation time
4.2 Remediation time
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
023
065
231
585
010
100
324
360
385
087
253
Available reactor designs not suitable for
soils
Limited availability of vendors/technology
No commercial systems presently available
Other effective treatment options available
Extended remediation time-chlorinated
VOCs
Extended remediation time
Uncertain remediation time
Not possible to predict final results or time
required
Takes too long to implement
Requires post-treatment of air emissions
Requires post-treatment of waste stream
Total
4
1
4
2
1
1
5
25
12
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
99
1
1
1
2
1
3
3
1
1
1
3
Initial
Screening
4
1
4
2
1
1
5
28
8
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
74
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
0
1
3
3-Criteria
Screening
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
... . *.'..,..
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"' 'X' ;
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
7
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
E-2
-------
Table E-l. Ex Situ Biodegradation, continued.
Category/Subcategory
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.5 Pre-treatment
4.5 Pre-treatment
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
matenals handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
matenals handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
Code
371
529
552
029
142
025
028
050
051
119
170
245
330
361
363
427
494
580
044
145
146
159
160
341
Reason for Technology Elimination
Requires treatment/disposal of residuals
Requires post-treatment to control metals
Requires post-treatment/disposal of
wastewater
Requires pre-treatment of chlorinated
solvents
Requires pre-treatment--sorting/sizing of
contaminated material
Insufficient organics to sustain
biodegradation
Requires secondary containment
Requires a lot of oxygen to create aerobic
conditions
Requires excavation of bulky wastes/debris
Would require sequential aerobic and
anaerobic treatments
Requires anaerobic conditions for reductive
dechlorination
May be difficult to implement in cold weather
Difficult maintenance
Requires excavation and spreading
materials over site
Requires close supervision/monitoring
Target cannot be separated by partide size
separation
Not feasible to produce specialized enzymes
for treatment
Complex to construct/operate
Less effective than soil vapor extraction
Less effective than slurry phase
biodegradation
Longer remediation time than slurry phase
biodegradation
More monitoring required than land
treatment
More maintenance required than land
treatment
Not as amenable to soil as bacteria
Total
5
3
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
1
1
2
Initial
Screening
2
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
0
0
1
1
2
3-Criteria
Screening
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
Detailed
Evaluation
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E-3
-------
Table E-l. Ex Situ Biodegradation, continued.
Category/Subcategory
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.9 Interference factors
4.9 Interference factors
4.9 Interference factors
4.9 Interference factors
4.10 In situ control
4.11 Off-gas control
4.11 Off-gas control
4. 12 Treated material
problems
4. 13 General
4.13 General
Code
459
460
488
575
081
291
319
405
592
070
108
388
571
223
013
017
289
195
259
Reason for Technology Elimination
No advantage over low-temperature thermal
desorption
No advantage over thermal treatment
Less effective than biological treatment
Less effective than solid phase
biodegradation
Less certain effectiveness than selected
alternative
Not selected as representative process
option
Other technologies better suited for site
contaminants
Less long-term effectiveness/permanence
than alternative
Other technologies more certain
Metals may inhibit biodegradation
Chlorinated compounds may inhibit
biodegradation
Metals may interfere
Variable temperatures may inhibit
biodegradation
Difficult to uniformly distribute nutrients and
oxygen
Contaminants would volatilize
May result in air emissions
May create unpleasant odor
Difficult to implement
Difficult to control process
Category 5. Exposure/Risk
5.1 Short-term risk
5.1 Short-term risk
5.2 Long-term risk
5.2 Long-term risk
5.2 Long-term risk
5.2 Long-term risk
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
046
101
133
393
481
542
024
237
Excavation results in short-term risk to
humans
Implementation would cause short-term risk
to site workers
Potential adverse environmental effects
Long-term risks to site workers and
community
Residuals may persist in environment
Permanence uncertain
May form more toxic/mobile
products-chlorinated VOCs
May form more toxic/mobile products
Total
1
2
1
1
1
3
2
1
2
9
1
2
1
1
1
4
4
1
3
2t
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
Initial
Screening
1
2
1
0
0
3
2
0
2
7
0
2
0
1
1
3
4
1
1
7
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
3-Criteria
Screening
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
5
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
9
4
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
E-4
-------
Table E-l. Ex Situ Biodegradation, continued.
Category/Subcategory
5.4 Cross-media cont.
5.4 Cross-media cont.
5.4 Cross-media cont.
1fllb:-fe;& • - '?'',C*r ::*
6.1 RCRA
6.1 RCRA
6.1 RCRA
6.3 Other
6.3 Other
6.3 Other
6.3 Other
Code
053
056
538
ry 6. Regulatory — - - — ~ ~* ••-
May not meet LDRs
LDRs would require post-treatment by
incineration
May not meet RCRA regulations on
degradation in treatment zone
Unlikely to achieve cleanup goals
Failure to meet ARARs
State requires treatment zone to be 3 feet
above high water table
Institutional constraints of off-site treatment
Category?. Cost
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.4 General
014
436
045
381
038
High energy costs
Labor intensive
More costly than soil vapor extraction
More costly without substantial increase in
benefit
High cost
Category 8. Information
8.1 Needs further
development
8.1 Needs further
development
8.1 Needs further
development
8.1 Needs further
development
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.3 Needs testing at site
8.3 Needs testing at site
027
102
104
304
076
085
140
174
204
048
078
Application to hazardous waste in early R&D
stage
Not fully developed technology
Not fully developed for site contaminants
Proven only at laboratory scale
Not demonstrated on a large/full scale
Limited successful full-scale demonstrations
No full-scale demonstrations for site
contaminants
Not demonstrated for site
contaminants/matrix
Technical implementability not demonstrated
Requires pilot testing
Requires treatability studies
Total
1
3
1
:^8;..,r
8
1
1
4
1
1
2
12
1
2
1
1
7
36
2
2
1
2
3
1
1
6
2
3
7
initial
Screening
0
1
1
-„.,:«;,,;
6
1
0
2
0
1
0
7
1
0
0
1
5
22
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
3
2
1
4
3-Criteria
Screening
0
1
0
• 6 ,'
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
5
0
2
1
0
2
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
Detailed
Evaluation
1
1
0
':',,:;J2';' •'
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
2
E-5
-------
Table E-l. Ex Situ Biodegradation, continued.
Category/Subcategory
8.4 Unsuccessful
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
9.1 N/A or no reason
given
Code
095
169
Cah
000
Reason for Technology Elimination
Unsuccessful treatability study
Unproven technology
sgoryS. Other *
N/A or no reason given
Total
2
4
5
5
Initial
Screening
1
1
1
3-Criteria
Screening
0
3
:*- ;*K'
4
Detailed
Evaluation
1
0
0
E-6
-------
Table E-2. Reasons cited in FY91 and FY92 RODs for elimination of In Situ Vitrification.
Category/Subcategory
|f« •',•"•'''•
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.2 VOCs
1.2 VOCs
1.2 VOCs
1.3SVOCS
1.5Dioxins/Furans
1 .7 Other dassifications
1.7 Other classifications
1.7 Other dassifications
1.9 General
1.9 General
1.9 General
1.9 General
1.9 General
1.9 General
Code
Categor
062
129
175
202
008
466
584
155
208
392
483
526
004
015
052
156
286
413
Reason for Technology Elimination
yl. Contaminants
Not applicable to metals/inorganics
Not applicable to high sodium content
Unproven applicability to volatile metals
Not applicable to cadmium
Not applicable to VOCs
Not applicable to chlorinated VOCs
Unproven applicability to TCE
Unproven applicability to PCBs
Unproven applicability to dioxins/furans
Effectively destroys organics
Unproven applicability to explosives
Not applicable to organics
Most applicable to metals/inorganics
Most applicable to radioactive wastes
Not effective for site contaminants
Not applicable to all site contaminants
Unproven effectiveness on target
compounds
Most applicable to less mobile inorganic or
mixed wastes
Category 2. Media
2.3 Solid wastes
2.3 Solid wastes
2.3 Solid wastes
2.3 Solid wastes
2.3 Solid wastes
2.3 Solid wastes
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.6 Concentration
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.8 Cont. media location
2.8 Cont. media location
2.8 Cont. media location
2.8 Cont. media location
075
106
125
178
444
471
212
269
617
604
016
563
005
084
107
157
Not applicable to municipal solid waste
Loosely packed solid wastes
Numerous components of solid waste
Not applicable to combustible solids
Unproven effectiveness for municipal solid
waste
Commingling of hazardous with
nonhazardous wastes
Large volume of material to be treated
Volume of material too small
Waste volumes too large
Contaminant concentrations too high
Most applicable to highly toxic wastes
High proportion of non-asbestos materials
Suitable only for surface and near-surface
soils
Not considered feasible for depth of waste
Waste below water table/saturated waste
Less appropriate for very shallow soils
Total
28
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
3
1
3
2
54
3
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
10
3
6
Initial
Screening
19
1
0
0
1
4
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
3
1
1
2
41
2
1
0
0
1
1
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
9
2
3
3-Criteria
Screening
•9
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
12
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
3
Detailed
Evaluation
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E-7
-------
Table E-2. In Situ Vitrification, continued.
Category/Subcategory
2.8 Cont. media location
2.8 Cont. media location
2.9 General
2.9 General
2.9 General
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.2 Surface
characteristics
3.2 Surface
characteristics
3.2 Surface
charactenstics
3.2 Surface
characteristics
3.2 Surface
characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.4 Structures/activities
3.4 Structures/activities
3.4 Structures/activities
3.4 Structures/activities
3.4 Structures/activities
3.5 General
Code
326
562
074
248
344
Category
093 ,
121
132
177
382
561
570
059
173
425
482
656
079
096
134
168
196
228
279
072
114
181
244
309
153
Reason for Technology Elimination
Contaminants too shallow for effective
electrode placement
Variable depth of waste
Heterogenous wastes
More applicable to soils
Variable waste composition
r 3. Site Condition
Shallow water table
Fractured bedrock
Variable/heterogenous geology
Subsurface obstructions
Groundwater at the site
Remote from power sources
Subsurface clay/silt layers
Space limitations at the site
Uneven topography
Adjacent to a major river
Located in flood plain
Large area to be treated
Saturated soils
Fine grained soil
High clay content of soils
High soil moisture content
High percentage of soil organic material
High soil permeability
Sandy soils
Would disrupt existing operations/residents
May damage underground utilities
Proximity to surface structures
May interfere with potential future remedial
actions
Would disrupt existing buildings and
structures
Not applicable to site conditions
Total
2
1
7
1
1
... J*'
13
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
8
1
1
9
1
4
1
1
4
4
1
4
6
Initial
Screening
1
1
6
1
1
'•E/: «;•,.•/•
11
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
0
1
4
1
1
8
0
2
1
1
4
3
0
3
6
3-Criteria
Screening
1
0
1
0
0
,;•.'• 14V; ; 'r
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
0
0
0
, V1 ' a' ' ':
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
E-8
-------
Table E-2. In Situ Vitrification, continued.
Category/Subcategory
Code
Reason for Technology Elimination
\ • . Category 4. Implementation .
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.2 Remediation time
4.2 Remediation time
4.3 Monitoring/
verification
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.5 Pre-treatment
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
matenals handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.8 General technology "
comparisons
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.9 Interference factors
4.10 In situ control
065
167
231
523
528
100
385
431
087
371
552
229
057
058
187
245
580
587
464
067
080
081
242
405
388
073
Limited availability of vendors/technology
Limited number of full-scale systems
No commercial systems presently available
Specialized equipment would have to be
imported from Puerto Rico
Requires auxiliary equipment that is not
available
Extended remediation time
Takes too long to implement
Requires long-term monitoring
Requires post-treatment of air emissions
Requires treatment/disposal of residuals
Requires post-treatment/disposal of
wastewater
Requires dewatering/capping prior to
treatment
Requires specialized equipment
Requires highly trained personnel
Presence of metal containers would pose
problems
May be difficult to implement in cold weather
Complex to construct/operate
Difficult to maintain suitable environment
Not as easy to implement as S/S
More complex than other technologies
More difficult to implement than selected
alternative
Less certain effectiveness than selected
alternative
Remediation time longer than selected
alternative
Less long-term effectiveness/permanence
than alternative
Metals may interfere
Difficult to recover chemicals/products from
groundwater
Total
H
14
1
4
1
1
2
1
1
5
1
1
2
4
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
Initial
Screening
; 41 •-
5
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
4
1
0
0
1
1
3
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
3-Criteria
Screening
,,-•-18 ;
5
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
Detailed
Evaluation
' - -3 ' ' ':'
4
0
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
0
E-9
-------
Table E-2. In Situ Vitrification, continued.
Category/Subcategory
4.11 Off-gas control
4.11 Off-gas control
4.11 Off-gas control
4.11 Off-gas control
4.11 Off-gas control
4.11 Off-gas control
4.11 Off-gas control
4.11 Off-gas control
4.11 Off-gas control
4.12 Treated material
problems
4.1 2 Treated material
problems
4.1 3 General
4.13 General
4.1 3 General
Code
013
017
227
240
301
328
384
519
555
113
648
195
259
300
Reason for Technology Elimination
Contaminants would volatilize
May result in air emissions
High organic levels may overload off-gas
treatment system
Saturated soils may overload the off-gas
treatment system
Would volatilize arsenic
Difficult to control volatilized organics
Problem with off-gas collection
May form toxic gases
May be fugitive vapor loss
Uncertain load-bearing capacity of treated
mass
Difficult to handle treated mass
Difficult to implement
Difficult to control process
Uncertain implementability
Category 5. Exposure/Risk
5.1 Short-term risk
5.1 Short-term risk
5.1 Short-term risk
5.1 Short-term risk
5.2 Long-term risk
5.2 Long-term risk
5.2 Long-term risk
5.2 Long-term risk
5.2 Long-term risk
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.4 Cross-media cont.
, '' ""• •'- ' ' ',' •'"'
6.2 Public acceptance
6.2 Public acceptance
6.2 Public acceptance
6.3 Other
101
241
411
479
277
327
393
537
579
237
449
056
Categi
149
513
514
611
Implementation would cause short-term risk
to site workers
Consolidation of soils results in short-term
risk to community
Might cause fires
Potentially explosive
Would interfere with future use of site
Long-term leaching uncertain
Long-term risks to site workers and
community
Would only reduce contaminant mobility and
volume
Long-term effectiveness uncertain
May form more toxic/mobile products
May form more toxic/mobile products-arsine
Potential migration of contaminants
My 6 Regulatory '","''„ "'7, ' 1* ". •
May not be acceptable in a residential area
Negative public reaction to restricted land
use during operation
Aesthetically unacceptable
No regulatory basis for selection
;SS^^Wvv:~~- *^w* Co® ; ' ' '; :.'/.- .'"'• \;;
7.1 Capital
066
High capital cost
Total
2
7
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
22
2
1
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
5
4
1
1
1
1
80
6
Initial
Screening
2
5
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
12
0
0
3
1
2
1
0
0
1
2
1
1
' ' " 4
1
1
1
1
*- .** '"•
3
3-Criteria
Screening
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
,^,,?
0
0
0
0
-'• "3W&
3
Detailed
Evaluation
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
T7||r';53
0
0
0
0
lJ|'V;5t|^|
0
E-10
-------
Table E-2. In Situ Vitrification, continued.
Category/Subcategory
7.1 Capital
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.4 General
7.4 General
7.4 General
Code
185
014
042
255
090
162
176
197
247
381
520
556
605
038
322
348
Reason for Technology Elimination
High installation cost
High energy costs
High operational cost
High maintenance costs
More costly than incineration
Other options more cost effective for limited
soil volumes
Other options more cost effective for level of
risk reduction
As costly as demonstrated technologies
More costly than low temperature thermal
desorption
More costly without substantial increase in
benefit
More costly than selected remedy
More costly than other available
technologies
More costly than other in situ options
High cost
Correcting failure of technology would be
very costly
Use on hot spots not cost effective
Category 8. Information
8.1 Needs further
development
8.1 Needs further
development
8.1 Needs further
development
8.1 Needs further
development
8.1 Needs further
development
8.1 Needs further
development
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
027
102
182
281
304
512
076
085
Application to hazardous waste in early R&D
stage
Not fully developed technology
Considered an innovative technology
Considered an emerging technology
Proven only at laboratory scale
More research needed
(
Not demonstrated on a large/full scale
Limited successful full-scale demonstrations
Total
2
22
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
30
1
1
64
1
6
2
1
1
1
10
1
Initial
Screening
0
15
2
2
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
14
0
1
35
1
5
1
0
1
1
4
1
3-Criteria
Screening
1
6
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
11
0
0
19
' 0
1
0
1
0
0
4
0
Detailed
Evaluation
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
5
1
0
10
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
E-ll
-------
Table E-2. In Situ Vitrification, continued.
Category/Subcategory
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
.demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.3 Needs testing at site
8.3 Needs testing at site
.8.3 Needs testing at site
8.4 Unsuccessful
application
8.4 Unsuccessful
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
Code
140
174
554
586
588
048
068
078
166
404
047
055
169
186
273
302
317
342
383
Reason for Technology Elimination
No full-scale demonstrations for site
contaminants
Not demonstrated for site
contaminants/matrix
Not demonstrated on a wide range of
wastes
Effectiveness not demonstrated
Not widely tested
Requires pilot testing
Requires bench-scale testing
Requires treatability studies
Not effective at a Superfund site with similar
contaminants
Unsuccessful pilot study
Success/effectiveness uncertain
Not proven effective at a Superfund site
Unproven technology
No long-term performance record
No performance data for site contaminants
Unproven at full scale
No full-scale applications
Limited performance data
Not actively used at Superfund sites
Category 9, Other
9.1 N/A or no reason
given
9.1 N/A or no reason
given
000
443
N/A or no reason given
No remedial action considered necessary
Total
1
3
1
1
1
5
2
3
1
2
7
1
4
1
1
2
2
1
2
6
5
1
Initial
Screening
0
3
1
0
1
2
1
0
1
2
3
1
2
1
0
1
1
1
0
3
3
0
3-Criteria
Screening
1
0
0
1
0
2
1
1
0
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
2
1
1
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1 •.
1
0
E-12
-------
Table E-3. Reasons cited in FY91 and FY92 RODs for elimination of Soil Flushing.
Category/Subcategory
Code
Reason for Technology Elimination
'';,•',, :; Category*. Contaminants
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.2VOCS
1.2 VOCs
1.3SVOCs
1.3SVOCs
1.4 Pesticides
1.7 Other classifications
1.7 Other classifications
1.8 Cont. characteristics
1. 8 Cont. characteristics
1.8 Cont. characteristics
1.8 Cont. characteristics
1.9 General
1 .9 General
1.9 General
1 .9 General
054
062
128
522
020
584
155
201
172
526
642
183
213
214
215
052
077
156
236
Limited effectiveness for metals/inorganics
Not applicable to metals/inorganics
Not applicable to arsenic
Not applicable to asbestos
Unproven applicability to VOCs
Unproven applicability to TCE
Unproven applicability to PCBs
Not applicable to PCBs
Limited effectiveness with pesticides
Not applicable to organics
Unproven applicability to dichlorobenzene
Not applicable to contaminants with very low
solubilities
Not applicable to hydrophobic contaminants
Not effective for extracting organics
dissolved in oil
Not applicable to contaminants with high soil
adsorption affinity
Not effective for site contaminants
Most applicable to medium solubility
organics
Not applicable to all site contaminants
Most applicable to mobile
compounds/elements
Category 2. Media
2.1 Soils
2.1 Soils
2.3 Solid wastes
2.3 Solid wastes
2.3 Solid wastes
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.6 Concentration
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.7 Media
characteristics
115
600
075
098
445
049
212
269
271
122
105
211
Not applicable to sediments
Not effective for soil type
Not applicable to municipal solid waste
Contaminants adsorbed to, or component of,
solid waste
Limited effectiveness to slag
Large amounts of soil with small amounts of
contaminants
Large volume of material to be treated
Volume of material too small
Large volume of material to be excavated
Contaminants highly concentrated
Waste not biodegradable
Complex organic mixture/matrix
Total
34
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
7
2
47
1
1
5
2
1
3
3
1
1
2
1
1
Initial
Screening
27
1
2
2
1
0
0
1
1
1
2
0
2
1
1
2
2
1
5
2
41
1
0
5
2
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
3-Criteria
Screening
5
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
6
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Detailed
Evaluation
2" .
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E-13
-------
Table E-3. Soil Flushing, continued.
Category/Subcategory
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.8 Cont. media location
2.8 Cont. media location
2.8 Cont. media location
2.8 Cont. media location
2.8 Cont. media location
2.9 General
Code
597
005
084
157
576
607
074
Reason for Technology Elimination
Soil does not contain oil
Suitable only for surface and near-surface
soils
Not considered feasible for depth of waste
Less appropriate for very shallow soils
Not feasible for above ground waste
Not effective for treating soil under clay
layers
Heterogenous wastes
Category 3. Site Condition
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.2 Surface
characteristics
3.2 Surface
characteristics
3.2 Surface
characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
002
071
093
121
131
132
177
190
191
455
059
352
482
079
096
134
279
364
394
438
439
Low hydraulic conductivity
No underlying confining layer
Shallow water table
Fractured bedrock
Downward groundwater gradient
Vanable/heterogenous geology
Subsurface obstructions
Uncertain pathways/direction of groundwater
flow
Deep water table
High hydraulic conductivity
Space limitations at the site
Long shallow stretches of sediment
Located in flood plain
Saturated soils
Fine grained soil
High clay content of soils
Sandy soils
Low soil permeability
Low soil moisture content
Low porosity soils
Dense organic silt
Total
1
1
1
3
1
1
17
64
6
3
2
2
1
8
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
5
10
1
1
2
Initial
Screening
0
1
1
3
1
1
14
47
6
2
2
1
0
5
0
2
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
5
4
9
1
1
1
3-Criteria
Screening
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
16
0
1
0
1
1
3
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
1
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
• ' 1 - -
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E-14
-------
Table E-3. Soil Flushing, continued.
Category/Subcategory
3.4 Structures/activities
3.5 General
. ,';"-tf • , "' "
,*'.'' .?-" , '• V:T ''• ^'- »•*"'*,'
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.2 Remediation time
4.2 Remediation time
4.2 Remediation time
4.2 Remediation time
4.3 Monitoring/
verification
4.3 Monitoring/
verification
4.3 Monitoring/
verification
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
Code
309
153
Safest
065
231
585
010
100
324
360
216
321
567
003
288
371
552
625
050
064
193
203
256
351
378
447
043
Reason for Technology Elimination
Would disrupt existing buildings and
structures
Not applicable to site conditions
IP,4 Implementation
Limited availability of vendors/technology
No commercial systems presently available
Other effective treatment options available
Extended remediation time-chlorinated
VOCs
Extended remediation time
Uncertain remediation time
Not possible to predict final results or time
required
Difficult to monitor in situ
Verification requires collection of many soil
samples
Difficult to measure effectiveness
Requires treatment of recovered
groundwater
Requires post-treatment of leachate
Requires treatment/disposal ol residuals
Requires post-treatment/disposal of
wastewater
Requires post-treatment of heavy metal
sludge
Requires a lot of oxygen to create aerobic
conditions
Requires multiple solvents/extraction steps
Washing fluids would solubilize chemicals
impeding treatment
Difficult to formulate washing fluids for
complex mixtures
Difficult to treat waste uniformly
Requires extensive surface water control
Would require large quantities of solutions to
treat
Requires three years of testing prior to
implementation
Less reliable than soil vapor extraction
Total
1
4
i»
3
1
1
1
5
1
1
4
1
1
4
1
2
4
1
1
3
1
3
4
1
1
1
1
Initial
Screening
1
2
68
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
2
0
1
3
1
2
3
0
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
0
0
3-Criteria
Screening
0
1
36
3
1
0
0
3
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
Detailed
Evaluation
0
1
«
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
E-15
-------
Table E-3. Soil Flushing, continued.
Category/Subcategory
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.10 In situ control
4.10 In situ control
4.10 In situ control
4.10 In situ control
4.10 In situ control
4.10 In situ control
4. 10 In situ control
4.10 In situ control
4.10 In situ control
4.10 In situ control
4.10 In situ control
4.10 In situ control
4.10 In situ control
4.13 General
4.13 General
4. 13 General
4.13 General
4. 13 General
Code
044
379
500
067
081
018
073
184
218
219
254
263
329
367
406
446
450
468
120
195
259
300
507
Reason for Technology Elimination
Less effective than soil vapor extraction
Less certain than on-site soil washing
Easier to treat soils under buildings with soil
vapor extraction
More complex than other technologies
Less certain effectiveness than selected
alternative
Difficult to recover all solvents/washing fluids
from soil
Difficult to recover chemicals/products from
groundwater
Requires large volumes of water to flush
contaminants
Not possible to ensure sufficient contact in
situ
Not possible to uniformly distnbute solutions
in situ
Potential to clog injection system or aquifer
formation
Not possible to flush landfill
Site geology could impede flushing
May reduce groundwater pH
Difficult to recover leachate
Flushing solution cannot be captured
Would require precise groundwater control
Collection of flushing solution difficult
Not independently applicable
Difficult to implement
Difficult to control process
Uncertain implementability
Inefficient method
Category 5. Exposure/Risk
5.1 Short-term risk
5.1 Short-term risk
5.2 Long-term risk
5.2 Long-term risk
5.2 Long-term risk
5.2 Long-term risk
5.2 Long-term risk
101
606
133
243
393
481
533
Implementation would cause short-term risk
to site workers
Flammable organics may cause safety
problems
Potential adverse environmental effects
Leaves contaminated material on site
Long-term risks to site workers and
community
Residuals may persist in environment
Solvent loss could contaminate environment
Total
3
1
1
1
1
5
9
1
3
6
2
2
1
1
4
4
2
1
1
4
6
3
1
61
2
1
3
1
1
2
1
Initial
Screening
0
1
0
1
1
4
6
1
2
4
2
2
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
2
4
2
1
37
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
3-Criteria
Screening
3
0
1
0
0
1
3
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
17
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
E-16
-------
Table E-3. Soil Flushing, continued.
Category/Subcategory
5.2 Long-term risk
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.4 Cross-media cont.
5.4. Cross-media cont.
"'\ ,"''
6.2 Public acceptance
6.3 Other
6.3 Other
6.3 Other
6.3 Other
6.3 Other
7.1 Capital
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.4 General
7.4 General
7.4 General
8.1 Needs further
development
8.1 Needs further
development
8.1 Needs further
development
8.1 Needs further
development
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.3 Needs testing at site
• Code Reason for Technology Elimination
579 Long-term effectiveness uncertain
154 Would solubilize currently immobile
contaminants
237 May form more toxic/mobile products
053 May contaminate groundwater
056 Potential migration of contaminants
Category 6. Regulatory
513 Negative public reaction to restricted land
use during operation
124 Unlikely to achieve cleanup goals
396 Failure to meet ARARs
532 Difficult to obtain regulatory agency approval
589 Use of flushing agents could cause
regulatory problems
590 Prohibition of injection wells in Wisconsin
Category?. Cost
066 High capital cost
042 High operational cost
255 High maintenance costs
038 High cost
316 No cost information
322 Correcting failure of technology would be
very costly
Category 8. Information
102 Not fully developed technology
104 Not fully developed for site contaminants
281 Considered an emerging technology
512 More research needed
076 Not demonstrated on a large/full scale
085 Limited successful full-scale demonstrations
1 74 Not demonstrated for site
contaminants/matrix
586 Effectiveness not demonstrated
588 Not widely tested
048 Requires pilot testing
Total
1
1
1
28
19
9
1
4
1
1
1
1
13
1
1
3
6
1
1
40
2
1
2
1
3
3
2
1
2
1
Initial
Screening
0
1
1
19
10
' 5 •-
1
1
0
1
1
1
8
1
1
3
3
0
0
23
1
0
1
1
2
2
1
0
2
0
3-Criteria
Screening
1
0
0
5
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
2
1
1
13
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
0
4
2
4
0
3
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
E-17
-------
Table E-3. Soil Flushing, continued.
Category/Subcategory
8.3 Needs testing at site
8.4 Unsuccessful
application
8.4 Unsuccessful
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
Code
078
095
194
047
302
342
380
Reason for Technology Elimination
Requires treatability studies
Unsuccessful treatability study
Unsuccessful EPA demonstration
Success/effectiveness uncertain
Unproven at full scale
Limited performance data
Used at only one other Superfund site for
target contaminants
Category 9. Other
9.1 N/A or no reason
given
000
N/A or no reason given
Total
4
4
1
7
1
2
1
3
3
Initial
Screening
2
3
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
3-Criteria
Screening
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
2
2
Detailed
Evaluation
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
E-18
-------
Table E-4. Reasons cited in FY91 and FY92 RODs for elimination of Other Thermal (ex situ).
Category/Subcategory
Code
Reason for Technology Elimination
Category 1. Contaminants
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.3SVOCs
1.5Dioxins/Furans
1.7 Other classifications
1 .8 Cont. characteristics
1.9 General
1 .9 General
1.9 General
1.9 General
054
062
128
175
179
143
208
138
547
052
061
156
412
Limited effectiveness for metals/inorganics
Not applicable to metals/inorganics
Not applicable to arsenic
Unproven applicability to volatile metals
Not applicable to cyanide
Not applicable to SVOCs
Unproven applicability to dioxins/furans
Unproven applicability to organics
Not applicable to compounds containing
nitrogen
Not effective for site contaminants
Most applicable for pre-treating complex
organics
Not applicable to all site contaminants
Most applicable to highly toxic organics
Category 2. Media
2.1 Soils
2.1 Soils
2.1 Soils
2.2 Sludges
2.2 Sludges
2.3 Solid wastes
2.3 Solid wastes
2.3 Solid wastes
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
^
2.5 Volume
2.6 Concentration
2.6 Concentration
2.6 Concentration
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.7 Media
characteristics
036
386
399
180
546
075
125
444
049
212
269
271
492
617
122
126
633
285
346
Not applicable to soils
Not proven for soils
Not applicable to soil with high ash content
Not applicable to sludges
Not applicable to sludges with high ash
content
Not applicable to municipal solid waste
Numerous components of solid waste
Unproven effectiveness for municipal solid
waste
Large amounts of soil with small amounts of
contaminants
Large volume of material to be treated
Volume of material too small
Large volume of material to be excavated
Not applicable to large quantities of sandy
(inert) soil
Waste volumes too large
Contaminants highly concentrated
Limited effectiveness with low organic
concentrations
Most applicable to high oil content waste
No fuel value to soils
Media not pumpable
Total
m
3
13
1
5
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
5
2
47
7
1
5
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
Initial
Screening
33 ;• •;
3
12
0
3
1
1
3
0
1
1
1
5
2
37
6
1
4
1
0
1
0
2
1
2
1
0
1
1
0
2
1
1
1
3-Criteria
Screening
-",-.< I'; •
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
10
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
Detailed
Evaluation
• 8 a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E-19
-------
Table E-4. Other Thermal (ex situ), continued.
Category/Subcategory
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.8 Cont. media location
2.8 Cont. media location
2.9 General
2.9 General
2.9 General
,;'; [ ' ; ' ' , '•
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.2 Surface
characteristics
3.2 Surface
characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.5 General
Code
458
563
084
562
031
037
040
Reason for Technology Elimination
Contaminants exist as large aggregates
High proportion of non-asbestos materials
Not considered feasible for depth of waste
Variable depth of waste
Most applicable to aqueous waste streams
Most applicable to liquids/sludges
Most applicable to aqueous waste streams
with <5% organics
Category 3. Site Concflticm
561
059
173
096
168
279
394
153
Remote from power sources
Space limitations at the site
Uneven topography
Fine grained soil
High soil moisture content
Sandy soils
Low soil moisture content
Not applicable to site conditions
Category 4. Implementation
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal •
4.5 Pre-treatment
4.5 Pre-treatment
035
065
164
231
349
508
603
087
150
246
253
371
060
112
Mobile units are not available
Limited availability of vendors/technology
No full-scale system has been built
No commercial systems presently available
Available units have limited processing
capacity
Difficult to find corrosion-resistant material
for equipment
Treatment facility available only overseas
Requires post-treatment of air emissions
Requires post-treatment of char/ash
Requires post-treatment/disposal of large
volumes of solids
Requires post-treatment of waste stream
Requires treatment/disposal of residuals
Requires pre-treatment of soils
Requires pre-treatment-soils must be made
into a slurry
Total
1
1
1
1
2
5
1
16
1
3
2
1
1
1
3
4
81
1
11
3
4
1
1
1
4
6
1
1
3
4
3
Initial
Screening
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
16
1
3
2
1
1
1
3
4
68
1
6
2
3
1
1
1
4
4
1
1
3
3
3
3-Criteria
Screening
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
.'•£;• «~]
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
4
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
',::jl?8: ,,- '-•
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E-20
-------
Table E-4. Other Thermal (ex situ), continued.
Category/Subcategory
4.5 Pre-treatment
4.5 Pre-treatment
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.9 Interference factors
4.1 1 Off-gas control
4.1 1 Off-gas control
4.1 1 Off-gas control
4.11 Off-gas control
4.11 Off-gas control
4.1 3 General
4.1 3 General
M%i^& >.;. * ,-w '<:;-•• *,i; -•».. 4'jy
Excavation results in short-term risk to
humans
Implementation would cause short-term risk
to site workers
Potential adverse environmental effects
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
4
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
4
1
114-!-™--.--
•*• > >*.*'*. ^$'1^ J
5
1
1
1
2
1
0
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
4
2
0
2
1
1
2
1
3
1
'?*;'4?r'-
2
0
0
3-Criteria
Screening
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
'.'"•* -,•;-•
- ,:;' ; •, - '*
1
1
1
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
; .'hi; .*" '"•
%«",;-,;^*:, ,-t
2
0
0
E-21
-------
Table E-4. Other Thermal (ex situ), continued.
Category/Subcategory
5.2 Long-term risk
5.2 Long-term risk
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.4 Cross-media cont.
'; > • ., -"• :'A '
6.1 RCRA
6.1 RCRA
6.2 Public acceptance
6.3 Other
6.3 Other
6.3 Other
•Code
393
579
237
449
056
Categ
199
266
149
148
415
453
Reason for Technology Elimination
Long-term risks to site workers and
community
Long-term effectiveness uncertain
May form more toxic/mobile products
May form more toxic/mobile products-arsine
Potential migration of contaminants
ory6. Regulatory
May not meet LDRs
LDRs would require post-treatment by
incineration
May not be acceptable in a residential area
Extensive permitting/performance
requirements may preclude use
Requires numerous approvals to construct
and operate
DOT regulatory requirements
Category?. Cost
7.1 Capital
7.1 Capital
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.4 General
^ ,, . *f- V _' '•' ••;• 1::>j£
Application to hazardous waste in early R&D
stage
Not fully developed technology
Total
1
1
2
2
1
9
1
2
1
1
3
1
43
2
1
6
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
20
-•'•SI.''
>'>•>', '
3
13
Initial 3-Criteria Detailed
Screening Screening Evaluation
0
1
2
1
0
',• •"$. ' "-", ••
1
2
0
0
2
1
28
2
1
3
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
15
•^'--is'Slii ;S
'<- ,* y. - -• „.' ?&y\- ~ i>
1
11
1
0
0
1
1
"t.
0
0
1
1
1
0
13
0
0
3
1
0
1
2
0
1
1
0
4
i^tjT^
''?*&*. '$%
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
" ' - .- '* - ' -
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
f;IJsSlt*;-s!
Jf'OSf's t>^j.)f \ %?/$?'"'••'••.•,•• '!
0
0
E-22
-------
Table E-4. Other Thermal (ex situ), continued.
Category/Subcategory
8.1 Needs further
development
8.1 Needs further
development
8.1 Needs further
development
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.3 Needs testing at site
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
Code
182
281
292
076
085
140
165
174
204
355
078
047
169
342
Reason for Technology Elimination
Considered an innovative technology
Considered an emerging technology
Level of development questionable
Not demonstrated on a large/full scale
Limited successful full-scale demonstrations
No full-scale demonstrations for site
contaminants
No full-scale demonstration for use on soils
Not demonstrated for site
contaminants/matrix
Technical implementability not demonstrated
Effectiveness not demonstrated on sediment
Requires testability studies
Success/effectiveness uncertain
Unproven technology
Limited performance data
Category 9. Other
9.1 N/A or no reason
given
9.1 N/A or no reason
given
000
443
N/A or no reason given
No remedial action considered necessary
Total
2
3
1
5
2
4
2
4
2
1
2
5
4
3
4
3
1
Initial
Screening
1
3
1
3
2
4
2
3
2
1
0
3
3
3
1
1
0
3-Criteria
Screening
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
1
0
1
1
0
Detailed
Evaluation
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
1
E-23
-------
Table E-5. Reasons cited in FY91 and FY92 RODs for elimination of Soil Vapor Extraction.
Category/Subcategory
Code
Reason for Technology Elimination
C -./ ?,".',';- ' / ';• Catejjoryl^So^pliwirt
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.2VOCS
1.3SVOCs
1.3SVOCS
1.3SVOCS
1.4 Pesticides
1.5Dioxins/Furans
1.5Dioxins/Furans
1.6 Radiological
1 .7 Other classifications
1.7 Other classifications
1.8 Cont. characteristics
1.8 Cont. characteristics
1.8 Cont. characteristics
1.9 General
1.9 General
1.9 General
054
062
522
305
143
201
359
171
207
265
188
389
643
336
398
477
052
156
264
Limited effectiveness for metals/inorganics
Not applicable to metals/inorganics
'Not applicable to asbestos
Not applicable to PCE
Not applicable to SVOCs
Not applicable to PCBs
Not applicable to all PAHs
Not applicable to pesticides
Not applicable to dioxins/furans
Not applicable to tetrahydrofuran (THF)
Not applicable to radiological contaminants
Not applicable to heavier weight petroleum
compounds
Not applicable to dichlorobenzene
Not applicable to base and acid extractable
organics
Low vapor pressure contaminants
Low volatility contaminants
Not effective for site contaminants
Not applicable to all site contaminants
Most applicable to VOCs
Category 2. Media
2.1 Soils
2.2 Sludges
2.3 Solid wastes
2.3 Solid wastes
2.3 Solid wastes
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.6 Concentration
2.6 Concentration
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.8 Cont. media location
2.8 Cont. media location
163
091
075
098
444
049
212
269
486
122
268
426
544
084
107
Soil solids interfere with reaction
Not applicable to coal tars
Not applicable to municipal solid waste
Contaminants adsorbed to, or component of,
solid waste
Unproven effectiveness for municipal solid
waste
Large amounts of soil with small amounts of
contaminants
Large volume of material to be treated
Volume of material too small
Insufficient information about amount of
contamination at site
Contaminants highly concentrated
Low levels of contaminants
Weathered materials may not respond to
treatment
Sludge too dense
Not considered feasible for depth of waste
Waste below water table/saturated waste
Total
JS7
2
17
1
1
8
6
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
6
2
6
5
3
33
1
1
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
Initial
Screening
5*
2
15
1
0
7
5
1
2
1
0
1
2
0
1
5
2
6
5
2
25
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
0
0
1
1
0
1
3
1
3-Criteria
Screening
• • -«, ?•:
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Detailed
Evaluation
• i^fv?
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
E-24
-------
Table E-5. Soil Vapor Extraction, continued.
Category/Subcategory
2.8 Cont. media location
2.8 Cont. media location
2.9 General
2.9 General
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.5 General
4.2 Remediation time
4.3 Monitonng/
verification
4.3 Monitonng/
verification
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.5 Pre-treatment
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.10 In situ control
4.13 General
4.13 General
4.13 General
5.1 Short-term risk
5.2 Long-term risk
6.3 Other
•' •-•• ^ : ,-,, ;; ;^ •;-•-
7.3 Technology
comparisons
•Code Reason for Technology Elimination
157 Less appropriate for very shallow soils
365 Contaminated soil below water table
074 Heterogenous wastes
594 Not applicable to entire landfill
Category 3. Site Condition
002 Low hydraulic conductivity
121 Fractured bedrock
132 Variable/heterogenous geology
079 Saturated soils
096 Fine grained soil
134 High clay content of soils
279 Sandy soils
364 Low soil permeability
438 Low porosity soils
153 Not applicable to site conditions
Category 4. Implementation
324 Uncertain remediation time
21 6 Difficult to monitor in situ
325 Difficult to verify attainment of cleanup goals
throughout site
087 Requires post-treatment of air emissions
229 Requires dewatering/capping prior to
treatment
256 Difficult to treat waste uniformly
609 Requires closely spaced injection/extraction
wells
218 Not possible to ensure sufficient contact in
situ
120 Not independently applicable
195 Difficult to implement
300 Uncertain implementability
Category 5, Exposure/Risk
41 1 Might cause fires
366 Integrity of cap will be compromised
Category 6. Regulatory
124 Unlikely to achieve cleanup goals
Category 7. Cost
176 Other options more cost effective for level of
risk reduction
Total
3
1
6
1
21
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
9
1
1
13
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
' x;2 '.
2
8
2
Initial
Screening
3
0
5
0
13
1
1
0
3
1
1
0
5
0
1
8
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
fl '.
0
1
1
3-Criteria
Screening
0
1
0
0
6
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
3
0
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
4
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
... ^
1
4
1
E-25
-------
Table E-5. Soil Vapor Extraction, continued.
Category/Subcategory
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.4 General
7.4 General
7.4.General
8.1 Needs further
development
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
Code
381
610
038
299
509
Catego
102
076
047
Reason for Technology Elimination
More costly without substantial increase in
benefit
More costly than passive gas collection
system
High cost
Cost could vary greatly
Not cost effective
ry8. information
Not fully developed technology
Not demonstrated on a large/full scale
Success/effectiveness uncertain
Category 9. Other
9.1 N/A or no reason
given
9.1 N/A or no reason
given
000
443
N/A or no reason given
No remedial action considered necessary
Total
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
2
1
Initial
Screening
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
1
2
2
0
3-Criteria
Screening
1
1
1
0
0
8
0
0 •
0
0
0
0
Detailed
Evaluation
1
0
0
1
1
e
0
0
0
1
0
1
E-26
-------
Table E-6. Reasons cited in FY91 and FY92 RODs for elimination of In Situ Biodegradation.
Category/Subcategory
Code
Reason for Technology Elimination
Category 1. Contaminants
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.2VOCS
1.2VOCS
1.2VOCs
1.2VOCS
1.3SVOCs
1.3SVOCs
1.3SVOCs
1.3SVOCs
1.4 Pesticides
1.6 Radiological
1.6 Radiological
1 .7 Other classifications
1 .7 Other classifications
1 .7 Other classifications
1.7 Other classifications
1 .7 Other classifications
1 .8 Cont. characteristics
1.8 Cont. characteristics
1.9 General
1 .9 General
1.9 General
054
062
128
522
008
020
305
466
155
201
359
397
135
188
627
034
226
525
632
641
161
421
052
156
286
Limited effectiveness for metals/inorganics
Not applicable to metals/inorganics
Not applicable to arsenic
Not applicable to asbestos
Not applicable to VOCs
Unproven applicability to VOCs
Not applicable to PCE
Not applicable to chlorinated VOCs
Unproven applicability to PCBs
Not applicable to PCBs
Not applicable to all PAHs
Limited effectiveness with complex PAHs
Unproven applicability to pesticides
Not applicable to radiological contaminants
Unproven applicability to mixed waste
Unproven applicability to haloaliphatic
compounds
Unproven effectiveness for chlonnated
compounds
Limited effectiveness tor chlorinated
solvents
Unproven applicability to halogenated
organics
Limited effectiveness for highly halogenated
compounds
Limited effectiveness for adsorbed organics
Limited effectiveness due to solubility of
contaminants
Not effective for site contaminants
Not applicable to all site contaminants
Unproven effectiveness on target
compounds
Category 2. Media
2.1 Soils
2.1 Soils
2.2 Sludges
2.3 Solid wastes
2.3 Solid wastes
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
163
386
091
075
098
049
260
Soil solids interfere with reaction
Not proven for soils
Not applicable to coal tars
Not applicable to municipal solid waste
Contaminants adsorbed to, or component
of, solid waste
Large amounts of soil with small amounts of
contaminants
Volume of contaminants too small for in situ
methods
Total
84
4
13
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
5
3
1
2
1
1
5
5
4
56
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
Initial
Screening
--S3 •
4
13
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
0
2
1
0
5
5
1
43
1
1
1
3
1
1
0
3-Criteria
Screening
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Detailed
Evaluation
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
E-27
-------
Table E-6. In Situ Biodegradation, continued.
Category/Subcategory
2.5 Volume
2.6 Concentration
2.6 Concentration
2.6 Concentration
2.6 Concentration
2.6 Concentration
2.6 Concentration
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.8 Cont. media location
2.8 Cont. media location
2.8 Cont. media location
2.8 Cont. media location
2.8 Cont. media location
2.9 General
Code
269
019
122
126
268
604
635
105
205
211
358
458
480
647
084
157
334
416
432
074
Reason for Technology Elimination
Volume of material too small
Most applicable to heavily contaminated
soils
Contaminants highly concentrated
Limited effectiveness with low organic
concentrations
Low levels of contaminants
Contaminant concentrations too high
Variable concentrations of TCL chemicals
Waste not biodegradable
Poor long-term effectiveness for unsaturated
soils
Complex organic mixture/matrix
Highly variable quality and chemistry of fill
material
Contaminants exist as large aggregates
Wastes have good fuel value
Low natural microbial activity
Not considered feasible for depth of waste
Less appropriate for very shallow soils
No contaminant hot spots
Most appropriate for hot spots of
contamination
Applicable only for soils below water table
Heterogenous wastes
Category 3. Site Condition
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.1 Subsurface -
characteristics
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
002
093
132
177
190
311
570
Low hydraulic conductivity
Shallow water table
Variable/heterogenous geology
Subsurface obstructions
Uncertain pathways/direction of groundwater
flow
Fluctuating water table
Subsurface clay/silt layers
Total
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
6
2
1
1
2
1
1
4
2
1
1
1
14
32
4
2
4
1
1
1
1
Initial
Screening
1
1
0
1
3
1
1
6
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
2
1
1
1
11
20
4
1
3
0
0
1
0
3-Criteria
Screening
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
10
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E-28
-------
Table E-6. In Situ Biodegradation, continued.
Category/Subcategory
3.2 Surface
characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.4 Structures/activities
3.5 General
Code
482
134
168
196
364
439
181
153
Reason for Technology Elimination
Located in flood plain
High clay content of soils
High soil moisture content
High percentage of soil organic material
Low soil permeability
Dense organic silt
Proximity to surface structures
Not applicable to site conditions
Category 4. Implementation
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.2 Remediation time
4.2 Remediation time
4.2 Remediation time
4.2 Remediation time
4.2 Remediation time
4.2 Remediation time
4.3 Monitoring/
verification
4.3 Monitoring/
verification
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.5 Pre-treatment
4.5 Pre-treatment
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
065
585
603
001
010
100
324
360
572
216
567
003
094
414
025
050
109
119
235
245
256
Limited availability of vendors/technology
Other effective treatment options available
Treatment facility available only overseas
Extended remediation time-chlorinated
solvents
Extended remediation time-chlorinated
VOCs
Extended remediation time
Uncertain remediation time
Not possible to predict final results or time
required
May be delays in optimizing process
Difficult to monitor in situ
Difficult to measure effectiveness
Requires treatment of recovered
groundwater
Requires in situ pre-treatment using
enhanced recovery
Requires significant soil preparation
Insufficient organics to sustain
biodegradation
Requires a lot of oxygen to create aerobic
conditions
Generated heat could oxidize municipal
waste materials
Would require sequential aerobic and
anaerobic treatments
Biodegradation would be incomplete
May be difficult to implement in cold
weather
Difficult to treat waste uniformly
Total
1
3
1
3
6
1
1
2
97
3
1
1
3
1
4
1
2
1
5
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
Initial
Screening
0
2
1
2
4
0
1
1
71
0
1
0
3
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
3-Criteria
Screening
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
12
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
14
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
E-29
-------
Table E-6. In Situ Biodegradation, continued.
Category/Subcategory
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.9 Interference factors
4.9 Interference factors
4.9 Interference factors
4.9 Interference factors
4.9 Interference factors
4.9 Interference factors
4.9 Interference factors
4.9 Interference factors
4.10 In situ control
4.10 In situ control
4.10 In situ control
4.10 In situ control
4.10 In situ control
4.10 In situ control
4.11 Off-gas control
4.13 General
4.13 General
4.13 General
Code
531
580
081
319
489
592
070
108
388
402
457
571
636
646
218
223
262
308
406
450
017
195
259
300
Reason for Technology Elimination
Requires anaerobic treatment
Complex to construct/operate
Less certain effectiveness than selected
alternative
Other technologies better suited for site
contaminants
Not as effective and protective as chosen
alternative
Other technologies more certain
Metals may inhibit biodegradation
Chlorinated compounds may inhibit
biodegradation
Metals may interfere
Pentachlorophenol greater than 500 ppm
toxic to microorganisms
Some contaminants might inhibit or be toxic
to microorganisms
Variable temperatures may inhibit
biodegradation
Pesticides may inhibit biodegradation
Subsurface debris would inhibit
biodegradation
Not possible to ensure sufficient contact in
situ
Difficult to uniformly distribute nutrients and
oxygen
Not possible to inject nutrients into landfill
Difficult to maintain anaerobic conditions in
situ
Difficult to recover leachate
Would require precise groundwater control
May result in air emissions
Difficult to implement
Difficult to control process
Uncertain implementability
Category 5. Exposure/Risk
5.1 Short-term risk
5.1 Short-term risk
5.2 Long-term risk
5.2 Long-term risk
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
429
606
133
481
006
Requires handling hazardous waste
Flammable organics may cause safety
problems
Potential adverse environmental effects
Residuals may persist in environment
May increase mobility of metals
Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
4
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
12
2
1
1
2
1
4
10
2
33
1
1
2
1
1
Initial
Screening
1
1
0
1
0
1
8
3
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
9
2
1
1
1
1
2
8
2
25
1
0
0
0
1
3-Criteria
Screening
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
'• *Z:\.
0
1
2
1
0
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
;, > ff f I _ ^" '
0
0
0
0
0
E-30
-------
Table E-6. In Situ Biodegradation, continued.
Category/Subcategory
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.4 Cross-media cont.
5.4 Cross-media cont.
5.4 Cross-media cont.
5.4 Cross-media cont.
6.1 RCRA
6.1 RCRA
6.3 Other
6.3 Other
6.3 Other
7.1 Capital
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.4 General
8.1 Needs further
development
8.1 Needs further
development
8.1 Needs further
development
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
Code Reason for Technology Elimination
007 May form more toxic/mobile
products-chlorinated solvents
024 May form more toxic/mobile
products-chlorinated VOCs
1 1 8 May form more toxic/mobile
products-halogenated aliphatics
225 May form more toxic/mobile
products-chlorinated compounds
237 May form more toxic/mobile products
307 May form more toxic/mobile products-PCE
053 May contaminate groundwater
056 Potential migration of contaminants
418 Adding nutrients may compromise water
quality
530 Microbes may infiltrate into aquifer
Category 6. Regulatory
199 May not meet LDRs
266 LDRs would require post-treatment by
incineration
124 Unlikely to achieve cleanup goals
284 Requires permission from the State to inject
nutnents/substrates
396 Failure to meet ARARs
Category?. Cost
066 High capital cost
042 High operational cost
255 High maintenance costs
038 High cost
Category 8. information
234 Considered experimental for small volumes
281 Considered an emerging technology
304 Proven only at laboratory scale
076 Not demonstrated on a large/full scale
140 No full-scale demonstrations for site
contaminants
174 Not demonstrated for site
contaminants/matrix
Total
1
4
2
1
6
1
6
4
1
1
10
1
1
5
1
2
9
2
2
2
3
29
1
1
1
1
2
2
Initial
Screening
1
4
2
0
5
1
6
2
1
1
6
0
1
3
0
2
4
1
1
1
1
15
1
0
1
0
0
1
3-Criteria
Screening
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
3
1
1
1
0
8
0
0
0
1
1
1
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
2
6
0
1
0
0
1
0
E-31
-------
Table E-6. In Situ Biodegradation, continued.
Category/Subcategory
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.3 Needs testing at site
8.3 Needs testing at site
8.4 Unsuccessful
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
Code
204
586
048
078
166
047
169
189
287
317
422
Reason for Technology Elimination
Technical implementability not demonstrated
Effectiveness not demonstrated
Requires pilot testing
Requires testability studies
Not effective at a Superfund site with similar
contaminants
Success/effectiveness uncertain
Unproven technology
Not been used at a similar site
Success in combination with soil washing is
uncertain
No full-scale applications
Limited short- or long-term effectiveness
Category 9. Other
9.1 N/A or no reason
given
000
N/A or no reason given
Total
2
1
1
7
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
4
4
Initial
Screening
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
0
2
0
2
2
3-Criteria
Screening
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
Detailed
Evaluation
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
E-32
-------
Table £-7. Reasons cited in FY91 and FY92 RODs for elimination of Soil Washing.
Category/Subcategory
, vVJ-< ™"J1;, ;-v,- • • :
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.3SVOCS
1.3SVOCs
1.3SVOCS
1.3SVOCS
1.5Dioxins/Furans
1.7 Other classifications
1 .8 Cont. characteristics
1 .8 Cont. characteristics
1 .8 Cont. characteristics
1.8 Cont. characteristics
1.8 Cont. characteristics
1.9 General
1.9 General
1.9 General
1.9 General
1.9 General
1 .9 General
Code
Catogor
054
062
128
179
315
517
136
139
155
209
208
526
161
183
213
214
215
004
052
156
264
286
395
Reason for Technology Elimination
yt. Contaminants
Limited effectiveness for metals/inorganics
Not applicable to metals/inorganics
Not applicable to arsenic
Not applicable to cyanide
Unproven applicability to metal hydroxides
Unproven effectiveness for mercury
Unproven applicability to PAHs
Not applicable to PAHs
Unproven applicability to PCBs
Limited effectiveness with SVOCs
Unproven applicability to dioxins/furans
Not applicable to organics
Limited effectiveness for adsorbed organics
Not applicable to contaminants with very low
solubilities
Not applicable to hydrophobic contaminants
Not effective for extracting organics
dissolved in oil
Not applicable to contaminants with high soil
adsorption affinity
Most applicable to metals/inorganics
Not effective for site contaminants
Not applicable to all site contaminants
Most applicable to VOCs
Unproven effectiveness on target
compounds
Limited effectiveness for target contaminants
Category 2. Media
2.1 Soils
2.1 Soils
2.1 Soils
2.2 Sludges
2.3 Solid wastes
2.3 Solid wastes
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.6 Concentration
2.6 Concentration
036
115
600
180
075
098
049
212
269
271
019
268
Not applicable to soils
Not applicable to sediments
Not effective for soil type
Not applicable to sludges
Not applicable to municipal solid waste
Contaminants adsorbed to, or component of,
solid waste
Large amounts of soil with small amounts of
contaminants
Large volume of material to be treated
Volume of material too small
Large volume of material to be excavated
Most applicable to heavily contaminated
soils
Low levels of contaminants
Total
M '
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
5
1
2
1
42
1
1
1
1
2
2
4
2
4
2
1
1
Initial
Screening
27
0
2
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
5
1
1
0
28
0
0
1
1
2
2
3
2
3
2
1
1
3-Criteria
Screening
,. ><8 •
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
13
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
Detailed
Evaluation
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
t
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E-33
-------
Table E-7. Soil Washing, continued.
Category/Subcategory
2.6 Concentration
2.6 Concentration
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.8 Cont. media location
2.8 Cont. media location
2.8 Cont. media location
2.9 General
Code
391
511
211
358
390
426
491
536
084
560
601
074
Reason for Technology Elimination
High quantity of organic wastes
Unproven effectiveness with low inorganic
concentrations
Complex organic mixture/matrix
Highly variable quality and chemistry of fill
material
Combined organic and metal wastes
Weathered materials may not respond to
treatment
Not applicable to waste characteristics
Metals may be in crystalline matrix
Not considered feasible for depth of waste
Would not address soil beneath waste
Difficult to identify affected area
Heterogenous wastes
Category 3. Site Condition
3.2 Surface
characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.4 Structures/activities
3.4 Structures/activities
3.4 Structures/activities
3.5 General
059
096
097
134
196
072
181
652
153
Space limitations at the site
Fine grained soil
High carbon content of soil
High clay content of soils
High percentage of soil organic material
Would disrupt existing operations/residents
Proximity to surface structures
Might adversely affect building foundations
Not applicable to site conditions
Category 4. implementation
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.2 Remediation time
4.2 Remediation time
4.3 Monitoring/
verification
4.3 Monitoring/
verification
065
233
318
337
403
100
385
216
249
Limited availability of vendors/technology
No known vendor is available
Several vendors have stopped using the
technology
No vendor available to reactivate dioxin/PCB
in carbon
Technology for required post-treatment may
not be available
Extended remediation time
Takes too long to implement
Difficult to monitor in situ
Would require air monitoring
Total Initial
Screening
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
24
2
9
1
7
1
1
1
1
1
114
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
3
18
2
8
1
5
1
1
0
0
0
62
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3-Criteria
Screening
3
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
5
0
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
25
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
27
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
E-34
-------
Table E-7. Soil Washing, continued.
Category/Subcategory
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
matenals handling
4.6 Process limitations/
matenals handling
4.6 Process limitations/
matenals handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
matenals handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
matenals handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
Code
117
253
314
371
552
051
057
058
064
082
203
258
261
409
427
437
454
469
505
559
654
044
296
297
Reason for Technology Elimination
Requires post-treatment of soil fines
Requires post-treatment of waste stream
Requires post-treatment-dewatering
Requires treatment/disposal of residuals
Requires post-treatment/disposal of
wastewater
Requires excavation of bulky wastes/debris
Requires specialized equipment
Requires highly trained personnel
Requires multiple solvents/extraction steps
Involves excavation/treatment on-site
Difficult to formulate washing fluids for
complex mixtures
Washing fluids would require constant
adjustment
Not possible to excavate all soils/waste
Difficult to recover surfactants/washing fluid
for recycling
Target cannot be separated by particle size
separation
Excessive washing required
Requires mobile equipment
Large volume of surfactant needed
Must be used in conjunction with other
treatment technology
Would not address soil gas contamination
Requires other VOC migration control
Less effective than soil vapor extraction
Longer remediation time than S/S
Less certain success than S/S
Total
2
6
1
7
9
3
3
1
6
3
6
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
Initial
Screening
1
3
0
3
6
2
0
0
6
3
5
0
1
2
3
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
3-Criteria
Screening
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Detailed
Evaluation
0
1
0
2
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
E-35
-------
Table E-7. Soil Washing, continued.
Category/Subcategory
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.9 Interference factors
4.10 In situ control
4.10 In situ control
4.10 In situ control
4.10 In situ control
4.10 In situ control
4.11 Off-gas control
4.12 Treated matenal
problems
4.13 General
4.13 General
4.13 General
4.1 3 General
Code
459
487
067
080
081
319
405
388
184
254
406
591
651
017
088
195
259
300
501
Reason for Technology Elimination
No advantage over low-temperature thermal
desorption
Less effective than solvent extraction
More complex than other technologies
More difficult to implement than selected
alternative
Less certain effectiveness than selected
alternative
Other technologies better suited for site
contaminants
Less long-term effectiveness/permanence
than alternative
Metals may interfere
Requires large volumes of water to flush
contaminants
Potential to clog injection system or aquifer
formation
Difficult to recover leachate
Difficult to recover groundwater
Basement dewatenng systems would
interfere with flushing
May result in air emissions
Lack of load-bearing capacity of treated
sand
Difficult to implement
Difficult to control process
Uncertain implementability
Requires excavation
Category 5. Exposure/Risk
5.1 Short-term risk
5.1 Short-term risk
5.2 Long-term risk
5.2 Long-term risk
5.2 Long-term risk
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
046
101
133
243
481
408
419
Excavation results in short-term risk to
humans
Implementation would cause short-term risk
to site workers
Potential adverse environmental effects
Leaves contaminated material on site
Residuals may persist in environment
Would not reduce toxicity of contaminants
May increase organic contaminant levels
Category 6. Regulatory
6.1 RCRA
6.3 Other
199
124
May not meet LDRs
Unlikely to achieve cleanup goals
Total
1
1
2
3
6
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
8
1
1
1
12
5
2
1
1
1
1
1
9 ..'
3
5
Initial
Screening
1
1
2
1
1
1
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
2
1
4
1
1
1
4
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
o
0
0
3-Criteria Detailed
Screening Evaluation
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
5'l'J~-'-f~f
2
3
0
0
0
2
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
6
3
2
0
0
0
1
0
% 4g,r : , v;
1
2
E-36
-------
Table E-7. Soil Washing, continued.
Category/Subcategory
, < ,
7.1 Capital
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.4 General
7.4 General
Code
066
042
255
436
602
083
083
162
376
381
430
038
316
Reason for Technology Elimination
egory7. Cost • ^ ' .„' -• , '." " -
High capital cost
High operational cost
High maintenance costs
Labor intensive
High transportation costs
More costly than soil flushing
More costly than soil flushing
Other options more cost effective for limited
soil volumes
Comparable in cost to preferred in situ
technologies
More costly without substantial increase in
benefit
More costly than solidification and
stabilization
High cost
No cost information
Category 8. Information
8.1 Needs further
development
8.1 Needs further
development
8.1 Needs further
development
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.3 Needs testing at site
8.3 Needs testing at site
8.3 Needs testing at site
8.3 Needs testing at site
8.4 Unsuccessful
application
8.4 Unsuccessful
application
8.4 Unsuccessful
application
102
104
281
076
085
355
048
068
078
200
095
166
194
Not fully developed technology
Not fully developed for site contaminants
Considered an emerging technology
Not demonstrated on a large/full scale
Limited successful full-scale demonstrations
Effectiveness not demonstrated on sediment
Requires pilot testing
Requires bench-scale testing
Requires treatability studies
May require treatability testing
Unsuccessful treatability study
Not effective at a Superfund site with similar
contaminants
Unsuccessful EPA demonstration
Total
32
3
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
12
1
56
1
2
1
3
1
1
5
2
11
1
8
1
1
Initial
Screening
15 -
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
8
0
22
0
1
0
1
1
0
2
2
3
0
3
1
1
3-Criteria
Screening
•~i"tt -. • .
2
3
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
1
16
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
3
0
2
0
0
Detailed
Evaluation
• x-,/f .
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
18
1
0
1
1
0
0
2
0
5
1
3
0
0
E-37
-------
Table E-7. Soil Washing, continued.
Category/Subcategory
8.4 Unsuccessful
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
Code
404
047
169
273
317
Reason for Technology Elimination
Unsuccessful pilot study
Success/effectiveness uncertain
Unproven technology
No performance data for site contaminants
No full-scale applications
Category 9. Other
9.1 N/A or no reason
given
9.1 N/A or no reason
given
000
443
N/A or no reason given
No remedial action considered necessary
Total
1
11
3
1
2
2
1
1
Initial
Screening
0
3
2
1
1
0
0
0
3-Criteria Detailed
Screening Evaluation
1
5
0
0
1
, . o,',,,"l.
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
2 :\
1
1
E-38
-------
Table E-8. Reasons cited in FY91 and FY92 RODs for elimination of Solvent Extraction.
Category/Subcategory
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.2VOCS
1.2VOCS
1.3SVOCs
1 .4 Pesticides
1.4 Pesticides
1.5Dioxins/Furans
1.7 Other classifications
1.7 Other classifications
1.8Cont. characteristics
1. 8 Cont. characteristics
1. 8 Cont. characteristics
1 .9 General
1.9 General
1.9 General
Code
Oategpr
054
062
099
179
373
527
009
020
155
022
135
208
123
138
161
215
421
032
156
286
Reason for Technology Elimination
y1, Contaminants
Limited effectiveness for metals/inorganics
Not applicable to metals/inorganics
Unproven applicability to lead
Not applicable to cyanide
Limited effectiveness to cadmium
Unproven applicability to metals/inorganics
Not applicable to aromatic VOCs
Unproven applicability to VOCs
Unproven applicability to PCBs
Unproven applicability to DDT
Unproven applicability to pesticides
Unproven applicability to dioxins/furans
Limited effectiveness with arsenic in organic
form
Unproven applicability to organics
Limited effectiveness for adsorbed organics
Not applicable to contaminants with high soil
adsorption affinity
Limited effectiveness due to solubility of
contaminants
Most applicable to PCBs
Not applicable to all site contaminants
Unproven effectiveness on target
compounds
Category 2, Media
2.1 Soils
2.1 Soils
2.1 Soils
2.2 Sludges
2.3 Solid wastes
2.3 Solid wastes
2.3 Solid wastes
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.6 Concentration
2.6 Concentration
2.6 Concentration
036
103
386
387
075
098
125
049
212
269
617
019
122
126
Not applicable to soils
Not been used to treat soils
Not proven for soils
Not proven for sludges
Not applicable to municipal solid waste
Contaminants adsorbed to, or component of,
solid waste
Numerous components of solid waste
Large amounts of soil with small amounts of
contaminants
Large volume of material to be treated
Volume of material too small
Waste volumes too large
Most applicable to heavily contaminated
soils
Contaminants highly concentrated
Limited effectiveness with low organic
concentrations
Total
44
3
13
2
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
6
1
48
4
1
4
2
1
2
1
1
4
3
1
1
2
3
Initial
Screening
m '
2
13
0
1
0
1
1
3
1
1
1
0
0
1
2
1
1
1
5
0
38
4
1
3
2
1
0
0
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
3-Criteria
Screening
,"""'*., -
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
9
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
Detailed
Evaluation
- -1, -- '
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E-39
-------
Table E-8. Solvent Extraction, continued.
Category/Subcategory
2.6 Concentration
2.6 Concentration
2.6 Concentration
2.6 Concentration
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.9 General
2.9 General
Code
268
391
401
596
210
211
346
491
544
597
074
344
Reason for Technology Elimination
Low levels of contaminants
High quantity of organic wastes
Limited to waste with organic content in
excess of 200 ppm
Soil contains more than 10 percent organics
Waste matrix not amenable to phase
separation by this technique
Complex organic mixture/matrix
Media not pumpable
Not applicable to waste characteristics
Sludge too dense
Soil does not contain oil
Heterogenous wastes
Variable waste composition
Category 3. Site Condition
3.2 Surface
characteristics
3.2 Surface
characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.4 Structures/activities
3.5 General
059
440
096
134
364
181
153
Space limitations at the site
Would impact wetlands
Fine grained soil
High clay content of soils
Low soil permeability
Proximity to surface structures
Not applicable to site conditions
Category 4. Implementation
4.1 Availability
4.2 Remediation time
4.2 Remediation time
4.3 Monitoring/
verification
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
065
100
572
249
087
117
246
253
371
Limited availability of vendors/technology
Extended remediation time
May be delays in optimizing process
Would require air monitoring
Requires post-treatment of air emissions
Requires post-treatment of soil fines
Requires post-treatment/disposal of large
volumes of solids
Requires post-treatment of waste stream
Requires treatment/disposal of residuals
Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
6
1
12
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
74
9
1
1
1
2
1
1
6
4
Initial
Screening
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
6
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
26
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
3-Criteria
Screening
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
5
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
24
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
2
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
24
3
0
1
1
2
0
1
0
0
E-40
-------
Table E-8. Solvent Extraction, continued.
Category/Subcategory
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.5 Pre-treatment
4.5 Pre-treatment
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
matenals handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.8 General technology
comparisons
Code
372
441
552
614
621
625
112
142
028
051
057
058
064
082
203
245
261
448
472
580
593
067
080
242
Reason for Technology Elimination
Requires post-treatment of cadmium
Must replace natural organics in wetland
soils
Requires post-treatment/disposal of
wastewater
Some off-site disposal required
Requires post-treatment of PCB extracts
Requires post-treatment of heavy metal
sludge
Requires pre-treatment-soils must be made
into a slurry
Requires pre-treatment-sorting/sizing of
contaminated material
Requires secondary containment
Requires excavation of bulky wastes/debris
Requires specialized equipment
Requires highly trained personnel
Requires multiple solvents/extraction steps
Involves excavation/treatment on-site
Difficult to formulate washing fluids for
complex mixtures
May be difficult to implement in cold weather
Not possible to excavate all soils/waste
Difficult to dewater
Extraction not needed
Complex to construct/operate
Requires addition of substrate for microbial
development
More complex than other technologies
More difficult to implement than selected
alternative
Remediation time longer than selected
alternative
Total
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
Initial
Screening
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
3-Criteria
Screening
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
Detailed
Evaluation
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
E-41
-------
Table E-8. Solvent Extraction, continued.
Category/Subcategory
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.10 In situ control
4.11 Off-gas control
4.13 General
4.13 General
4.13 General
Code
291
319
405
592
018
017
195
259
300
Reason for Technology Elimination
Not selected as representative process
option
Other technologies better suited for site
contaminants
Less long-term effectiveness/permanence
than alternative
Other technologies more certain
Difficult to recover all solvents/washing fluids
from soil
May result in air emissions
Difficult to implement
Difficult to control process
Uncertain implementability
Category S. Exposure/Risk
5.1 Short-term risk
5.1 Short-term risk
5.1 Short-term risk
5.1 Short-term risk
5.1 Short-term risk
5.1 Short-term risk
5.2 Long-term nsk
5.2 Long-term nsk
5.2 Long-term risk
5.2 Long-term risk
5.2 Long-term risk
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.4 Cross-media cont.
6.3 Other
6.3 Other
6.3 Other
6.3 Other
6.3 Other
046
101
429
479
497
626
133
243
481
574
579
154
237
056
Categt
124
478
484
485
573
Excavation results in short-term risk to
humans
Implementation would cause short-term risk
to site workers
Requires handling hazardous waste
Potentially explosive
Risk of transporting hazardous waste off-site
Potential for spills
Potential adverse environmental effects
Leaves contaminated material on site
Residuals may persist in environment
Extracted contaminants may pose residual
risk
Long-term effectiveness uncertain
Would solubilize currently immobile
contaminants
May form more toxic/mobile products
Potential migration of contaminants
»y 6. Regulatory
Unlikely to achieve cleanup goals
Stringent requirements on detonatable
concentrations
Must meet CERCLA off-site disposal policy
Difficult to obtain preacceptance approvals
from off-site facility
Requires planning with local government
Category?, Cost
7.1 Capital
7.1 Capital
066
185
High capital cost
High installation cost
Total
1
1
2
1
5
1
3
3
1
21
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
10
4
1
2
2
1
39
5
2
Initial
Screening
1
1
0
0
4
0
1
0
0
6
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
4
0
3-Criteria
Screening
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
6
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
10
1
1
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
2
1
9
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
1
1
0
0
2
8
3
0
2
2
1
:': "if," „••
0
1
E-42
-------
Table E-8. Solvent Extraction, continued.
Category/Subcategory
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.4 General
7.4 General
Code
042
255
375
162
176
247
381
520
038
509
Reason for Technology Elimination
High operational cost
High maintenance costs
Treatability studies too costly
Other options more cost effective for limited
soil volumes
Other options more cost effective for level of
risk reduction
More costly than low temperature thermal
desorption
More costly without substantial increase in
benefit
More costly than selected remedy
High cost
Not cost effective
Category 8. Information
8.1 Needs further
development
8.1 Needs further
development
8.1 Needs further
development
8.1 Needs further
development
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.3 Needs testing at site
8.3 Needs testing at site
8.3 Needs testing at site
8.3 Needs testing at site
8.4 Unsuccessful
application
8.4 Unsuccessful
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
027
102
104
281
076
085
140
174
048
068
078
637
095
404
047
055
Application to hazardous waste in early R&D
stage
Not fully developed technology
Not fully developed for site contaminants
Considered an emerging technology
Not demonstrated on a large/full scale
Limited successful full-scale demonstrations
No full-scale demonstrations for site
contaminants
Not demonstrated for site
contaminants/matrix
Requires pilot testing
Requires bench-scale testing
Requires treatability studies
Could not conduct treatability test of dioxin
Unsuccessful treatability study
Unsuccessful pilot study
Success/effectiveness uncertain
Not proven effective at a Superfund site
Total
5
2
1
1
1
1
4
1
11
1
40
1
3
1
2
5
2
4
1
4
1
8
1
2
1
2
1
Initial
Screening
4
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
6
0
23
1
2
1
2
4
2
4
1
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
1
3-Criteria
Screening
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
3
0
9
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
'0
2
0
1
0
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
2
1
8
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
3
0
0
0
1
0
E-43
-------
Table E-8. Solvent Extraction, continued.
Category/Subcategory -Code Reason for Technology Elimination Total Initial 3-Criteria Detailed
Screening Screening Evaluation
8.5 Unproven/uncertain 169 Unproven technology 1 1
application
E-44
-------
Table E-9. Reasons cited in FY91 and FY92 RODs for elimination of Low Temperature
Thermal Desorption.
Category/Subcategory
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.3SVOCs
1.3SVOCs
1.3SVOCs
1.3SVOCs
1.3SVOCs
1 .5 Dioxins/Furans
1. 8 Cont. characteristics
1 .8 Cont. characteristics
1.9 General
1.9 General
1.9 General
1.9 General
Code
Categor
054
062
128
179
141
143
201
359
397
207
398
462
052
156
264
286
Reason for Technology Elimination
ft Contaminants
Limited effectiveness for metals/inorganics
Not applicable to metals/inorganics
Not applicable to arsenic
Not applicable to cyanide
Not applicable to four and five ring PAHs
Not applicable to SVOCs
Not applicable to PCBs
Not applicable to all PAHs
Limited effectiveness with complex PAHs
Not applicable to dioxins/furans
Low vapor pressure contaminants
Not applicable to nonvolatile organics
Not effective for site contaminants
Not applicable to all site contaminants
Most applicable to VOCs
Unproven effectiveness on target
compounds
Category 2. Media
2.1 Soils
2.1 Soils
2.2 Sludges
2.3 Solid wastes
2.3 Solid wastes
2.3 Solid wastes
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.6 Concentration
2.6 Concentration
2.8 Cont. media location
2.8 Cont. media location
2.9 General
2.9 General
036
115
091
075
098
178
049
212
269
271
617
122
268
084
557
074
248
Not applicable to soils
Not applicable to sediments
Not applicable to coal tars
Not applicable to municipal solid waste
Contaminants adsorbed to, or component of,
solid waste
Not applicable to combustible solids
Large amounts of soil with small amounts of
contaminants
Large volume of material to be treated
Volume of material too small
Large volume of material to be excavated
Waste volumes too large
Contaminants highly concentrated
Low levels of contaminants
Not considered feasible for depth of waste
Waste located in small isolated pits
Heterogenous wastes
More applicable to soils
Category 3. Site Condition
3.2 Surface
characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
059
096
Space limitations at the site
Fine grained soil
Total
33
1
10
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
2
3
26
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
4
1
11
2
1
Initial
Screening
28
1
10
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
2
1
1
3
2
2
20
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
2
1
3
1
2 :
1
0
3-Criteria
Screening
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
'• -1-
0
0
Detailed
Evaluation
' '. 2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
9 '-
1
1
E-45
-------
Table E-9. Low Temperature Thermal Desorption, continued.
Category/Subcategory
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.4 Structures/activities
3.4 Structures/activities
3.4 Structures/activities
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.5 Pre-treatment
4.6 Process limitations/
matenals handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.7 Specific technology ^
comparisons
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.1 1 Off-gas control
4.11 Off-gas control
4.11 Off-gas control
Code
134
072
309
503
Category
065
167
231
620
650
116
371
529
558
414
057
082
127
261
435
451
504
089
198
343
081
013
017
555
Reason for Technology Elimination
High clay content of soils
Would disrupt existing operations/residents
Would disrupt existing buildings and
structures
Would require bracing and building support
4, Implementation
Limited availability of vendors/technology
Limited number of full-scale systems
No commercial systems presently available
Difficult to construct equipment with
adequate throughput
Less available than other technologies
Requires post-treatment of dust/particulates
Requires treatment/disposal of residuals
Requires post-treatment to control metals
Requires post-treatment of collected
organics
Requires significant soil preparation
Requires specialized equipment
Involves excavation/treatment on-site
Would not volatilize many organics
Not possible to excavate all soils/waste
Requires excavation and stockpiling
Temperature not high enough for target
contaminants
Must complete all treatment once started
Less effective than incineration
Noisier than in situ treatment
No more effective than soil vapor extraction
Less certain effectiveness than selected
alternative
Contaminants would volatilize
May result in air emissions
May be fugitive vapor loss
Total
1
5
1
1
' ' 42
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
3
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
4
1
Initial
Screening
0
0
1
0
16
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
3-Criteria
Screening
1
0
0
0
9
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
Detailed
Evaluation
0
5
0
1
ir
1
0
0
1
1
0
2
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
E-46
-------
Table E-9. Low Temperature Thermal Desorption, continued.
Category/Subcategory
4.13 General
4.13 General
5.1 Short-term risk
5.1 Short-term risk
5.1 Short-term risk
5.1 Short-term risk
5.2 Long-term risk
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.4 Cross-media cent.
5.4 Cross-media cont.
6.1 RCRA
6.1 RCRA
6.1 RCRA
6.1 RCRA
6.1 RCRA
6.2 Public acceptance
6.3 Other
6.3 Other
6.3 Other
7.1 Capital
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
Code Reason for Technology Elimination
195 Difficult to implement
501 Requires excavation
Category 5. Exposure/Risk
046 Excavation results in short-term risk to
humans
101 Implementation would cause short-term risk
to site workers
429 Requires handling hazardous waste
541 Excavation would expose highly
contaminated soil
133 Potential adverse environmental effects
006 May increase mobility of metals
251 May form more toxic/mobile
products-metals
510 Excavation would increase mobility of
contaminants
053 May contaminate groundwater
056 Potential migration of contaminants
Category 6. Regulatory
199 May not meet LDRs
266 LDRs would require post-treatment by
incineration
434 Requires RCRA permits
470 Would be subject to TCLP
502 Difficult to meet LDRs
548 Not acceptable to the public
124 Unlikely to achieve cleanup goals
31 3 Must meet State air regulations
41 5 Requires numerous approvals to construct
and operate
Category 7. Cost
066 High capital cost
014 High energy costs
042 High operational cost
255 High maintenance costs
267 Post-treatment by incineration too costly
045 More costly than soil vapor extraction
090 More costly than incineration
Total
2
2
1?
7
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
2
28
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
Initial
Screening
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
3-Criteria
Screening
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
5
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
Detailed
Evaluation
1
1
12
6
2
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
10
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
2
15
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
E-47
-------
Table E-9. Low Temperature Thermal Desorption, continued.
Category/Subcategory
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.4 General
7.4 General
Code
162
381
520
549
550
556
038
509
Reason for Technology Elimination
Other options more cost effective for limited
soil volumes
More costly without substantial increase in
benefit
More costly than selected remedy
More costly than ex situ vapor extraction
More costly than ex situ bioremediation
More costly than other available
technologies
High cost
Not cost effective
Category 8. information
8.1 Needs further
development
8.1 Needs further
development
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.3 Needs testing at site
8.3 Needs testing at site
8.4 Unsuccessful
application
8.4 Unsuccessful
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
9.1 N/A or no reason
given
102
292
076
506
078
200
095
194
169
619
Cab
000
Not fully developed technology
Level of development questionable
Not demonstrated on a large/full scale
Demonstrated only at pilot scale
Requires treatability studies
May require treatability testing
Unsuccessful treatability study
Unsuccessful EPA demonstration
Unproven technology
Uncertain reliability
sgoryS. Other
N/A or no reason given
Total
2
3
3
1
1
1
6
2
15
1
1
2
1
4
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
Initial
Screening
1
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
4
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
3-Criteria
Screening
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
Detailed
Evaluation
1
3
3
0
0
0
3
2
«
0
0
2
0
4
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
E-48
-------
Table E-10. Reasons cited in FY91 and FY92 RODs for elimination of Biodegradation.
Category/Subcategory
• ""' '".';,''''" -
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.2VOCs
1.2VOCS
1.3SVOCS
1.3SVOCS
1.3SVOCS
1.3SVOCs
1.7 Other classifications
1 .7 Other classifications
1.7 Other classifications
1.7 Other classifications
1.7 Other classifications
1 .8 Cont. characteristics
1.9 General
1.9 General
1.9 General
1.9 General
Code
Sategof
054
062
128
179
522
020
583
136
155
201
312
111
226
474
525
526
653
052
156
286
395
Reason for Technology Elimination
y1. Contaminants
Limited effectiveness for metals/inorganics
Not applicable to metals/inorganics
Not applicable to arsenic
Not applicable to cyanide
Not applicable to asbestos
Unproven applicability to VOCs
Unproven applicability to PCE
Unproven applicability to PAHs
Unproven applicability to PCBs
Not applicable to PCBs
Unproven applicability to SVOCs
Unproven applicability to chlorinated
biphenyls
Unproven effectiveness for chlorinated
compounds
Limited effectiveness to heterocyclic
organics
Limited effectiveness for chlorinated solvents
Not applicable to organics
Not applicable to refractory compounds
Not effective for site contaminants
Not applicable to all site contaminants
Unproven effectiveness on target
compounds
Limited effectiveness for target contaminants
Category 2. Media
2.2 Sludges
2.3 Solid wastes
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.6 Concentration
2.6 Concentration
2.6 Concentration
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.7 Media
characteristics
091
471
212
269
271
582
122
126
268
105
491
Not applicable to coal tars
Commingling of hazardous with
nonhazardous wastes
Large volume of material to be treated
Volume of material too small
Large volume of material to be excavated
Small volume with high concentrations
Contaminants highly concentrated
Limited effectiveness with low organic
concentrations
Low levels of contaminants
Waste not biodegradable
Not applicable to waste characteristics
Total
;VTt' '
1
25
2
1
2
1
1
3
5
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
6
7
3
2
31
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
6
1
2
Initial
Screening
58
1
22
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
0
1
0
1
2
2
1
6
7
2
1
27
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
4
1
2
3-Criteria
Screening
•'• 13 ' ' ™
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
1
3
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Detailed
Evaluation
•T 0 '_.. - :
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
E-49
-------
Table E-10. Biodegradation, continued.
Category/Subcategory
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.8 Cont. media location
2.8 Cont. media location
2.9 General
2.9 General
' " ,',"?'. " "
3.2 Surface
characteristics
3.2 Surface
characteristics
3.2 Surface
characteristics
3.2 Surface
characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
Code
544
578
084
157
074
331
Category
059
423
440
553
096
Reason for Technology Elimination
Sludge too dense
Waste contains organic matter and debris
Not considered feasible for depth of waste
Less appropriate for very shallow soils
Meterogenous wastes
Non-uniform waste stream
f 3. Site Condition
Space limitations at the site
Used for flood storage
Would impact wetlands
Desert environment
Fine grained soil
Category 4. Implementation
4.1 Availability
4.2 Remediation time
4.2 Remediation time
4.2 Remediation time
4.3 Monitoring/
verification
4.3 Monitonng/
verification
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.9 Interference factors
065
100
324
332
069
431
371
552
025
119
245
261
433
067
291
070
Limited availability of vendors/technology
Extended remediation time
Uncertain remediation time
Requires long retention times
Requires long-term O&M
Requires long-term monitoring
Requires treatment/disposal of residuals
Requires post-treatment/disposal of
wastewater
Insufficient organics to sustain
biodegradation
Would require sequential aerobic and
anaerobic treatments
May be difficult to implement in cold weather
Not possible to excavate all soils/waste
Need appropriate microbial population
More complex than other technologies
Not selected as representative process
option
Metals may inhibit biodegradation
Total
1
1
2
1
5
1
'-* •;;
1
1
1
1
1
46
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
2
1
2
1
13
Initial
Screening
0
1
2
1
4
1
:'~- .. 2 •' '":
0
0
0
1
1
31
0
3
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
1
1
2
0
1
1
9
3-Criteria
Screening
1
0
0
0
1
0
'.' .'.^VV.-.iv.
1
1
1
0
0
14
2
1
1 .
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
4
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
0
0
0
0
-.y";^ ^» ^
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*
0
0
0
0
E-50
-------
Table E-10. Biodegradation, continued.
Category/Subcategory
4.9 Interference factors
4.9 Interference factors
4.11 Off-gas control
4.11 Off-gas control
4.11 Off-gas control
4.1 3 General
5.1 Short-term risk
5.1 Short-term risk
5.1 Short-term risk
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
6.1 RCRA
6.1 RCRA
6.3 Other
7.1 Capital
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.4 General
8.1 Needs further
development
Code Reason for Technology Elimination
402 Pentachlorophenol greater than 500 ppm
toxic to microorganisms
457 Some contaminants might inhibit or be toxic
to microorganisms
013 Contaminants would volatilize
333 Produces methane gas
384 Problem with off-gas collection
195 Difficult to implement
Category 5. Exposure/Risk
046 Excavation results in short-term risk to
humans
101 Implementation would cause short-term risk
to site workers
429 Requires handling hazardous waste
007 May form more toxic/mobile
products-chlorinated solvents
024 May form more toxic/mobile
products-chlorinated VOCs
1 1 8 May form more toxic/mobile
products-halogenated aliphatics
237 May form more toxic/mobile products
251 May form more toxic/mobile
products-metals
Category 6. Regulatory
199 May not meet LDRs
266 LDRs would require post-treatment by
incineration
124 Unlikely to achieve cleanup goals
Category?. Cost
066 High capital cost
042 High operational cost
255 High maintenance costs
267 Post-treatment by incineration too costly
278 High excavation/consolidation costs
045 More costly than soil vapor extraction
038 High cost
Category 8. Information
027 Application to hazardous waste in early R&D
stage
Total
1
1
3
1
1
2
13
2
2
1
1
2
1
3
1
3
2
1
1
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
30
3
Initial
Screening
1
1
3
1
1
1
to
2
0
1
1
2
1
3
0
1
1
0
1
6
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
22
2
3-Criteria
Screening
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
1
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
8
0
E-51
-------
Table E-10. Biodegradation, continued.
Category/Subcategory
8.1 Needs further
development
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.3 Needs testing at site
8.3 Needs testing at site
8.3 Needs testing at site
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
Code
104
076
174
204
355
048
068
078
047
169
302
317
422
Reason for Technology Elimination
Not fully developed for site contaminants
Not demonstrated on a large/full scale
Not demonstrated for site
contaminants/matrix
Technical implementability not demonstrated
Effectiveness not demonstrated on sediment
Requires pilot testing
Requires bench-scale testing
Requires treatability studies
Success/effectiveness uncertain
Unproven technology
Unproven at full scale
No full-scale applications
Limited short- or long-term effectiveness
Total
1
2
3
1
1
7
5
2
1
1
1
1
1
Initial
Screening
1
2
3
1
1
4
3
2
1
1
1
0
0
3-Criteria
Screening
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E-52
-------
Table E-ll. Reasons cited in FY91 and FY92 RODs for elimination of In Situ Heating.
Category/Subcategory
Code
Reason for Technology Elimination
\ Category I/ Contaminants
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.2VOCs
1.3SVOCS
1.3SVOCS
1 .5 Dioxins/Furans
1.5Dioxins/Furans
1.7 Other classifications
1 .7 Other classifications
1 .8 Cont. characteristics
1.8Cont. characteristics
1.8 Cont. characteristics
1.8 Cont. characteristics
1.9 General
1 .9 General
062
179.
522
020
143
201
207
208
628
642
374
398
477
599
052
156
Not applicable to metals/inorganics
Not applicable to cyanide
Not applicable to asbestos
Unproven applicability to VOCs
Not applicable to SVOCs
Not applicable to PCBs
Not applicable to dioxins/furans
Unproven applicability to dioxins/furans
Unproven applicability to highly chlorinated
organics
Unproven applicability to dichlorobenzene
Highly volatile contaminants
Low vapor pressure contaminants
Low volatility contaminants
Not effective for contaminant boiling points
Not effective for site contaminants
Not applicable to all site contaminants
Category 2. Media
2.1 Soils
2.2 Sludges
2.3 Solid wastes
2.3 Solid wastes
2.5 Volume
2.6 Concentration
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.8 Cont. media location
2.8 Cont. media location
2.9 General
036
092
075
098
049
126
390
084
157
074
Not applicable to soils
Unproven applicability to coal tars
Not applicable to municipal solid waste
Contaminants adsorbed to, or component of,
solid waste
Large amounts of soil with small amounts of
contaminants
Limited effectiveness with low organic
concentrations
Combined organic and metal wastes
Not considered feasible for depth of waste
Less appropriate for very shallow soils
Heterogenous wastes
Category 3. Site Condition
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
002
071
093
121
132
Low hydraulic conductivity
No underlying confining layer
Shallow water table
Fractured bedrock
Variable/heterogenous geology
Total
43
15
1
2
2
2
4
3
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
2
15
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
1
25
1
1
2
1
3
Initial
Screening
37
14
1
2
1
2
3
3
2
1
0
2
1
1
0
2
2
14
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
20
0
1
2
0
2
3-Criteria
Screening
5 •' -
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
5
1
0
0
1
1
Detailed
Evaluation
• '.. j . .
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E-53
-------
Table E-ll. In Situ Heating, continued.
Category/Subcategory
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.2 Surface
characteristics
3.2 Surface
characteristics
3.2 Surface
characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.4 Structures/activities
3.5 General
Code
177
059
173
649
079
096
134
168
364
309
153
Reason for Technology Elimination
Subsurface obstructions
Space limitations at the site
Uneven topography
Site access constraints
Saturated soils
Fine grained soil
High clay content of soils
High soil moisture content
Low soil permeability
Would disrupt existing buildings and
structures
Not applicable to site conditions
Category 4. Implementation
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.3 Monitoring/
verification
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
4.8 General technology
comparisons
065
164
167
231
233
624
216
288
552
058
127
232
245
363
608
343
080
Limited availability of vendors/technology
No full-scale system has been built
Limited number of full-scale systems
No commercial systems presently available
No known vendor is available
Pilot test equipment not available
Difficult to monitor in situ
Requires post-treatment of leachate
Requires post-treatment/disposal of
wastewater
Requires highly trained personnel
Would not volatilize many organics
Treatment augers could puncture confining
clay layer
May be difficult to implement in cold weather
Requires close supervision/monitoring
Requires construction of slurry walls
No more effective than soil vapor extraction
More difficult to implement than selected
alternative
Total
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
5
1
1
31
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
Initial
Screening
2
1
1
1
0
1
2
0
5
1
1
20
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
3-Criteria
Screening
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
3
1
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
- o
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
E-54
-------
Table E-ll. In Situ Heating, continued.
Category/Subcategory
4.10 In situ control
4.11 Off-gas control
4.13 General
4.13 General
4.13 General
4.13 General
5.1 Short-term risk
5.1 Short-term risk
5.1 Short-term risk
5.4 Cross-media cont.
5.4 Cross-media cont.
6.1 RCRA
6.3 Other
7.1 Capital
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.4 General
8.1 Needs further
development
8.1 Needs further
development
8.1 Needs further
development
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
Code Reason for Technology Elimination
018 Difficult to recover all solvents/washing fluids
from soil
017 May result in air emissions
120 Not independently applicable
195 Difficult to implement
259 Difficult to control process
300 Uncertain implementability
Category 5. Exposure/Risk
101 Implementation would cause short-term risk
to site workers
41 1 Might cause fires
479 Potentially explosive
053 May contaminate groundwater
056 Potential migration of contaminants
Category 6. Regulatory
199 May not meet LDRs
124 Unlikely to achieve cleanup goals
Category?. Cost
066 High capital cost
014 High energy costs
042 High operational cost
255 High maintenance costs
598 Solvent mixture may be prohibitively costly
045 More costly than soil vapor extraction
381 More costly without substantial increase in
benefit
038 High cost
Category 8, information
027 Application to hazardous waste in early R&D
stage
102 Not fully developed technology
238 Considered pilot-scale technology
076 Not demonstrated on a large/full scale
085 Limited successful full-scale demonstrations
140 No full-scale demonstrations for site
contaminants
Total
1
2
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
2
30
1
1
5
3
1
6
1
12
31
1
3
3
5
1
1
Initial
Screening
1
2
1
0
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
15
1
1
2
1
0
3
1
6
25
1
3
3
3
1
1
3-Criteria
Screening
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
15
0
0
3
2
1
3
0
6
4
0
0
0
1
0
0
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
E-55
-------
Table E-ll. In Situ Heating, continued.
Category/Subcategory
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.3 Needs testing at site
8.3 Needs testing at site
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
Code
174
048
078
047
169
189
273
342
565
Reason for Technology Elimination
Not demonstrated for site
contaminants/matrix
Requires pilot testing
Requires treatability studies
Success/effectiveness uncertain
Unproven technology
Not been used at a similar site
No performance data for site contaminants
Limited performance data
Difficult to prove effectiveness
Category 9. Other
9.1 N/A or no reason
given
000
N/A or no reason given
Total
2
4
1
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Initial
Screening
1
2
0
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3-Criteria
Screening
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Detailed
Evaluation
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E-56
-------
Table E-12. Reasons cited in FY91 and FY92 RODs for elimination of Dechlorination.
Category/Subcategory
Code
Reason for Technology Elimination
Total
'"""' Category 1. Contaminants ; 44
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.2 VOCs
1.2 VOCs
1.2 VOCs
1.3SVOCS
1.3SVOCS
1.3SVOCs
1 .4 Pesticides
1.4 Pesticides
1 .5 Dioxins/Furans
1.7 Other classifications
1.7 Other classifications
1.7 Other classifications
1 .7 Other classifications
1 .7 Other classifications
1.7 Other classifications
1 .9 General
1.9 General
1.9 General
1.9 General
1.9 General
062
008
009
221
139
155
222
171
639
208
034
239
340
495
526
628
032
052
086
156
286
Not applicable to metals/inorganics
Not applicable to VOCs
Not applicable to aromatic VOCs •
Not applicable to non-chlorinated VOCs
Not applicable to PAHs
Unproven applicability to PCBs
Not applicable to non-chlorinated SVOCs
Not applicable to pesticides
Unproven applicability to herbicides
Unproven applicability to dioxins/furans
Unproven applicability to haloaliphatic
compounds
Unproven applicability to C-series
compounds
Not applicable to non-chlorinated organics
Unproven effectiveness for chlorinated cyclic
aliphatics
Not applicable to organics
Unproven applicability to highly chlorinated
organics
Most applicable to PCBs
Not effective for site contaminants
Most applicable to chlorinated organics
Not applicable to all site contaminants
Unproven effectiveness on target
compounds
Category 2. Media
2.1 Soils
2.1 Soils
2.3 Solid wastes
2.4 Aqueous wastes
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.6 Concentration
2.8 Cont. media location
2.9 General
036
353
075
618
269
271
617
033
084
031
Not applicable to soils
Not widely applied to sediments
Not applicable to municipal solid waste
Not applicable to aqueous waste
Volume of material too small
Large volume of material to be excavated
Waste volumes too large
Most applicable to concentrated
haloaromatic compounds
Not considered feasible for depth of waste
Most applicable to aqueous waste streams
J J Category 3. Site Condition
3.2 Surface
characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
059
134
Space limitations at the site
High clay content of soils
4
4
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
5
3
3
6
1
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
• 2",'
1
1
Initial
Screening
36
4
4
1
2
1
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
2
0
4
3
3
6
0
8
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
'.' -1 ....
1
0
3-Criteria
Screening
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Detailed
Evaluation
6
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
fl
0
0
E-57
-------
Table E-12. Dechlorination, continued.
Category/Subcategory
Code
Reason for Technology Elimination
;;:!,:*'^,;;, / =; Category 4. implementation • ,- ' '"
4.1 Availability
4.2 Remediation time
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.10 In situ control
4.11 Off-gas control
4.13 General
620
100
117
253
371
552
569
614
057
354
291
018
013
195
Difficult to construct equipment with
adequate throughput
Extended remediation time
Requires post-treatment of soil fines
Requires post-treatment of waste stream
Requires treatment/disposal of residuals
Requires post-treatment/disposal of
wastewater
Requires post-treatment of PAHs
Some off-site disposal required
Requires specialized equipment
Less applicable than APEG dechlorination
Not selected as representative process
option
Difficult to recover all solvents/washing fluids
from soil
Contaminants would volatilize
Difficult to implement
Category 5. Exposure/Risk
5.1 Short-term risk
5.1 Short-term risk
5.1 Short-term risk
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
'„"'• ~'.'^".:V<, •
6.1 RCRA
6.3 Other
6.3 Other
046
101
429
237
496
568
623
, . Categ*
640
158
566
Excavation results in short-term risk to
humans
Implementation would cause short-term risk
to site workers
Requires handling hazardous waste
May form more toxic/mobile products
DMSO in the process might decompose to
hydrogen sulfide
May form more toxic/mobile products-dioxin
Uncertain residuals produced
»y 6. Regulatory ,\, J:"\_ '^,/ :s;<; •
Residuals may require delisting prior to
remediation
May not comply with TSCA regulations on
PCBs
Administrative difficulties with innovative
technologies
Total
18
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
'-li'*'..
1
1
1
Initial
Screening
7 "
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
.-. •'.'*••'',
0
0
0
3-Criteria
Screening
"•- * '.
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
.'•' :•*':.'.,.
0
0
0
Detailed
Evaluation
• , 5"" ;•'
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
3 :
1
1
1
E-58
-------
Table E-12. Dechlorination, continued.
Category/Subcategory
E?1t'"\/jv
7.1 Capital
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.4 General
7.4 General
8.1 Needs further
development
8.1 Needs further
development
8.1 Needs further
development
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.3 Needs testing at site
8.3 Needs testing at site
8.3 Needs testing at site
8.4 Unsuccessful
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
,;„ ,
9.1 N/A or no reason
given
9.1 N/A or no reason
given
• Code Reason for Technology Elimination
:\ Category r. Colt • ^ ' ;'_,;' '_ ;;
066 High capital cost
042 High operational cost
255 High maintenance costs
381 More costly without substantial increase in
benefit
452 More costly than off-site landfilling
038 High cost
509 Not cost effective
Category 8, Information
102 Not fully developed technology
182 Considered an innovative technology
238 Considered pilot-scale technology
076 Not demonstrated on a large/full scale
085 Limited successful full-scale demonstrations
206 No successful demonstrations
048 Requires pilot testing
078 Requires treatability studies
622 Toxicity testing required pnor to
implementation
095 Unsuccessful treatability study
047 Success/effectiveness uncertain
619 Uncertain reliability
Category 9. Other
000 N/A or no reason given
443 No remedial action considered necessary
Total
16
3
3
2
1
1
5
1
«
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
1
1
1
1
a
1
1
Initial
Screening
.'. "T '.';'
2
2
2
0
0
3
0
3
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
3-Criteria
Screening
:€
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
5
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
9 .
0
0
Detailed
Evaluation
" 1 ' , '
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
8
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
2
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
E-59
-------
Table E-13. Reasons cited in FY91 and FY92 RODs for elimination of Chemical Treatment (in
situ).
Category/Subcategory
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.2VOCs
1.3SVOCs
1.3SVOCS
1.3SVOCS
1.4 Pesticides
1.7 Other classifications
1.7 Other classifications
1.9 General
1.9 General
1.9 General
1 .9 General
1.9 General
1.9 General
1.9 General
Code
Categor
062
009
136
143
155
171
138
226
004
011
052
156
286
660
661
Reason for Technology Elimination
ft. Contaminants
Not applicable to metals/inorganics
-Not applicable to aromatic VOCs
Unproven applicability to PAHs
Not applicable to SVOCs
Unproven applicability to PCBs
Not applicable to pesticides
Unproven applicability to organics
Unproven effectiveness for chlorinated
compounds
Most applicable to metals/inorganics
Most applicable to esters
Not effective for site contaminants
Not applicable to all site contaminants
Unproven effectiveness on target
compounds
Most applicable to arsenic
Most applicable to chromium
Category 2. Media
2.2 Sludges
2.3 Solid wastes
2.4 Aqueous wastes
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.6 Concentration
2.6 Concentration
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.8 Cont. media location
2.9 General
2.9 General
' :-:<;;;: ;':•';;;•;_,;
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
180
098
407
049
212
269
126
268
463
543
012
031
074
Not applicable to sludges
Contaminants adsorbed to, or component of.
solid waste
Developed for controlled industrial wastes
only
Large amounts of soil with small amounts of
contaminants
Large volume of material to be treated
Volume of material too small
Limited effectiveness with low organic
concentrations
Low levels of contaminants
Wastes are fully hydrolysed
Sludge hardness makes addition of reagents
difficult
Not applicable for in situ application
Most applicable to aqueous waste streams
Heterogenous wastes
Category 3. Site Condition
071
093
No underlying confining layer
Shallow water table
Total
24
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
4
2
1
1
19
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
3
13
2
1
Initial
Screening
2!
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
3
4
2
0
0
18
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
3
13
2
1
3-Criteria
Screening
-. . &.>-.:,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
':'' -"IfS
0
0
Detailed
Evaluation
' I* .*".:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
••^^TrS
0
0
E-60
-------
Table E-13. Chemical Treatment (in situ), continued.
Category/Subcategory
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.4 Structures/activities
3.4 Structures/activities
Code
132
177
134
196
364
114
309
Reason for Technology Elimination
Variable/heterogenous geology
Subsurface obstructions
High clay content of soils
High percentage of soil organic material
Low soil permeability
May damage underground utilities
Would disrupt existing buildings and
structures
Category 4. Implementation
4.2 Remediation time
4.3 Monitoring/
verification
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.10 In situ control
4.10 In situ control
4.10 In situ control
4.10 In situ control
4.10 In situ control
4.10 In situ control
4. 10 In situ control
4.10 In situ control
4.10 In situ control
4.11 Off-gas control
4. 12 Treated material
problems
4.13 General
4.1 3 General
010
216
371
614
057
256
420
319
073
217
218
219
263
283
320
410
467
013
493
195
259
Extended remediation time-chlorinated
VOCs
Difficult to monitor in situ
Requires treatment/disposal of residuals
Some off-site disposal required
Requires specialized equipment
Difficult to treat waste uniformly
Difficult to recover precipitated metal sludges
Other technologies better suited for site
contaminants
Difficult to recover chemicals/products from
groundwater
Difficult to adjust in situ
Not possible to ensure sufficient- contact in
situ
Not possible to uniformly distribute solutions
in situ
Not possible to flush landfill
May require in situ soil mixing with a catalyst
Requires injection of chemicals into potable
aquifer
Difficult to achieve proper mixing in situ
Precipitation of metals/inorganics clog
delivery system
Contaminants would volatilize
May reduce natural organics in soil
decreasing sorption capacity
Difficult to implement
Difficult to control process
Total
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
37
1
3
1
1
1
. 2
1
1
1
3
1
3
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
6
3
Initial
Screening
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
33
1
3
1
0
0
2
1
1
1
3
1
3
2
0
1
2
1
1
1
5
3
3-Criteria
Screening
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E-61
-------
Table E-13. Chemical Treatment (in situ), continued.
Category/Subcategory
;" - ' ' -
5.2 Long-term risk
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.4 Cross-media cont.
5.4 Cross-media cont.
Code
Category
542
137
237
631
053
056
Reason for Technology Elimination
r 5. Exposure/Risk
Permanence uncertain
May form more toxic/mobile products-PAHs
May form more toxic/mobile products
May increase radionuclide mobility
May contaminate groundwater
Potential migration of contaminants
Category?. Cost
7.4 General
7.4 General
038
509
High cost
Not cost effective
Category 8. Information
8.1 Needs further
development
8.1 Needs further
development
8.2 Needs
demonstration
B.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.3 Needs testing at site
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
027
104
076
085
174
540
078
055
169
273
Application to hazardous waste in early R&D
stage
Not fully developed for site contaminants
Not demonstrated on a large/full scale
Limited successful lull-scale demonstrations
Not demonstrated for site
contaminants/matrix
Not demonstrated as an in situ process
Requires treatability studies
Not proven effective at a Superfund site
Unproven technology
No performance data for site contaminants
Total
12
1
1
5
2
2
1
4
3
1
17
2
1
2
1
1
1
4
2
2
1
Initial
Screening
i
1
1
4
0
2
1
2
2
0
16
2
1
2
1
1
1
3
2
2
1
3-Criteria
Screening
r ;
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Detailed
Evaluation
• ,;2; ;"•;
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E-62
-------
Table E-14. Reasons cited in FY91 and FY92 RODs for elimination of Chemical Treatment (ex
situ).
Category/Subcategory
- ^
s " " ' ,X •.-*"' - " " -.- - '
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.2VOCS
1.3SVOCs
1.3SVOCS
1.6 Radiological
1 .7 Other classifications
1 .7 Other classifications
1.9 General
1 .9 General
1.9 General
1.9 General
2.1 Soils
2.2 Sludges
2.3 Solid wastes
2.3 Solid wastes
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.6 Concentration
2.6 Concentration
2.6 Concentration
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.8 Cont. media location
2.9 General
2.9 General
2.9 General
3.1 Subsurface
characteristics
3.2 Surface
characteristics
3.3 Soil characteristics
3.5 General
•~ ,~ > ::>v-' «-„./'
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
Code Reason for Technology Elimination
Category 1. Contaminants
054 Limited effectiveness for metals/inorganics
-062 Not applicable to metals/inorganics
008 Not applicable to VOCs
136 Unproven applicability to PAHs
155 Unproven applicability to PCBs
188 Not applicable to radiological contaminants
138 Unproven applicability to organics
526 Not applicable to organics
052 Not effective for site contaminants
156 Not applicable to all site contaminants
660 Most applicable to arsenic
661 Most applicable to chromium
Category 2. Media
163 Soil solids interfere with reaction
092 Unproven applicability to coal tars
075 Not applicable to municipal solid waste
444 Unproven effectiveness for municipal solid
waste
212 Large volume of material to be treated
271 Large volume of material to be excavated
617 Waste volumes too large
122 Contaminants highly concentrated
268 Low levels of contaminants
391 High quantity of organic wastes
491 Not applicable to waste characteristics
084 Not considered feasible for depth of waste
026 Most applicable to wastewater treatment
sludge
031 Most applicable to aqueous waste streams
074 Heterogenous wastes
Category 3. Site Condition
177 Subsurface obstructions
173 Uneven topography
134 High clay content of soils
153 Not applicable to site conditions
Category 4. Implementation
253 Requires post-treatment of waste stream
Total
34
3
5
1
1
1
1
3
5
3
9
1
1
21
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
4
1
1
1
1
13
1
Initial
Screening
29
3
5
1
1
1
1
2
5
3
7
0
0
20
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
3
1
f
0
0
0
1
11
1
3-Criteria
Screening
s/v
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
1
0
- *:-..-
0
Detailed
Evaluation
• "8;* ..'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
8
0
E-63
-------
Table E-14. Chemical Treatment (ex situ), continued.
Category/Subcategory
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.10 In situ control
4.10 In situ control
4.13 General
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.3 Toxtc/mobile
residuals
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.4 Cross-media cont.
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.4 General
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.3 Needs testing at site
8.4 Unsuccessful
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
% " " ^ '' •• '
9.1 N/A or no reason
given
•Code Reason for Technology Elimination
630 Requires low suspended solids
concentration
634 Reaction may be incomplete
638 Difficult to deliver reagent
291 Not selected as representative process
option
018 Difficult to recover all solvents/washing fluids
from soil
073 Difficult to recover chemicals/products from
groundwater
195 Difficult to implement
Category 5. Exposure/Risk
006 May increase mobility of metals
007 May form more toxic/mobile
products-chlorinated solvents
137 May form more toxic/mobile products-PAHs
237 May form more toxic/mobile products
251 May form more toxic/mobile
products-metals
629 May form more toxic/mobile products-lead
053 May contaminate groundwater
Category?. Cost
083 More costly than soil flushing
038 High cost
Category 8. Information
174 Not demonstrated for site
contaminants/matrix
078 Requires treatability studies
095 Unsuccessful treatability study
169 Unproven technology
342 Limited performance data
Category 9. Other '_ ', '. ' '--/-'
000 N/A or no reason given
Total
1
1
2
3
2
1
2
12
1
2
1
3
2
1
2
4
1
3
8
1
2
2
1
2
"7*'.'.'
2
Initial
Screening
0
1
2
3
2
1
1
8
1
2
1
2
2
0
0
2
0
2
6
1
2
0
1
2
/I'i.cf
2
3-Criteria
Screening
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
2
1
1
2
0
0
2
0
0
•\--tf-1 -£
0
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'•'•"'"••<'%'??; C
0
E-64
-------
Table E-15. Reasons cited in FY91 and FY92 RODs for elimination of Metallurgical Processes.
Category/Subcategory
.'• ;• - - -,,;
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.1 Metals/inorganics
1.9 General
Code
274
293
156
Reason for Technology Elimination
rl'. CoiteroriHwte
Not applicable to arsenic present as a
complex compound
Unproven applicability to arsenic
Not applicable to all site contaminants
Category 2. Media
2.5 Volume
2.5 Volume
2.6 Concentration
2.6 Concentration
2.6 Concentration
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.8 Cont. media location
269
271
268
442
518
272
285
294
576
Volume of material too small
Large volume of material to be excavated
Low levels of contaminants
Not applicable to low lead content materials
Low concentrations of metals
Mineral composition of tailing not favorable
for copper removal
No fuel value to soils
Potential incompatibility to chemical
composition of flue dust
Not feasible for above ground waste
Category 3. Site Condition
3.2 Surface
characteristics
059
Space limitations at the site
Category 4. Implementation
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.1 Availability
4.3 Monitoring/
verification
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/
disposal
4.4 Post-treatment/ „
disposal
4.5 Pre-treatment
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.6 Process limitations/
materials handling
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
065
231
347
657
658
431
116
371
552
535
064
276
296
Limited availability of vendors/technology
No commercial systems presently available
Not available in US for treating hazardous
waste
Milling/refining facilities not available
Disposal site not available
Requires long-term monitoring
Requires post-treatment of dust/particulates
Requires treatment/disposal of residuals
Requires post-treatment/disposal of
wastewater
Requires pre-treatment of insoluble metals
by oxidation
Requires multiple solvents/extraction steps
Effective only during warm weather
Longer remediation time than S/S
Total
3 '.'
1
1
1
14
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
22
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Initial
Screening
. ,.•}. ;-..*.
1
1
1
".-' 12
2
2
1
0
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
9
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
3-Criteria
Screening
.••'f-ir: :
0
0
0
•*
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Detailed
Evaluation
•. > * \
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
E-65
-------
Table E-15. Metallurgical Processes, continued.
Category/Subcategory
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
4.8 General technology
comparisons
4.11 Off-gas control
4.1 2 Treated material
problems
4.12 Treated material
problems
4. 13 General
4.1 3 General
5.1 Short-term risk
5.1 Short-term risk
5.2 Long-term risk
5.2 Long-term risk
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
5.3 Toxic/mobile
residuals
6.3 Other
7.1 Capital
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.3 Technology
comparisons
7.4 General
7.4 General
'„:". ,>'••}•':'• ' <••";• :
8.1 Needs further
development
8.1 Needs further
development
8.1 Needs further
development
•Code Reason for Technology Elimination
297 Less certain success than S/S
298 Maintenance would be more difficult than
S/S
291 Not selected as representative process
option
519 May form toxic gases
534 Difficult to dispose of generated slag
577 Waste not acceptable to nearest lead
smelter operator
195 Difficult to implement
300 Uncertain implementability
Category 5. Exposure/Risk
101 Implementation would cause short-term risk
to site workers
429 Requires handling hazardous waste
133 Potential adverse environmental effects
277 Would interfere with future use of site
006 May increase mobility of metals
323 Residue would contain metal in mobile form
Category 6. Regulatory
415 Requires numerous approvals to construct
and operate
Category?. Cost
066 High capital cost
278 High excavation/consolidation costs
176 Other options more cost effective for level of
risk reduction
430 More costly than solidification and
stabilization
475 More costly than off-site disposal
299 Cost could vary greatly
428 No market for process by-products could
increase costs
.Category 8. Information i
102 Not fully developed technology
182 Considered an innovative technology
292 Level of development questionable
Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
8
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
9
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
«
2
1
1
Initial
Screening
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
4
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
f
1
0
1
3-Criteria
Screening
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
' -3 ;
1
1
0
Detailed
Evaluation
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
6
1
0
0
2
1
1
1
4 :v;
0
0
0
E-66
-------
Table E-15. Metallurgical Processes, continued.
Category/Subcategory Code Reason for Technology Elimination
Total Initial 3-Criteria Detailed
Screening Screening Evaluation
8.2 Needs
demonstration
8.2 Needs 174
demonstration
8.2 Needs 206
demonstration
8.3 Needs testing at site 068
8.3 Needs testing at site 295
8.4 Unsuccessful 095
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain 047
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain 055
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain 189
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain 273
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain 383
application
076 Not demonstrated on a large/full scale
Not demonstrated for site
contaminants/matrix
No successful demonstrations
Requires bench-scale testing
Could not pilot-test process
Unsuccessful treatability study
Success/effectiveness uncertain
Not proven effective at a Superfund site
Not been used at a similar site
No performance data for site contaminants
Not actively used at Superfund sites
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
E-67
-------
Table E-16. Reasons cited in FY91 and FY92 RODs for elimination of Electrokinetics.
Category/Subcategory
•-:''
-------
Table E-17. Reasons cited in FY91 and FY92 RODs for elimination of Soil Cooling/Freezing.
Category/Subcategory
s
2.7 Media
characteristics
2.9 General
3.2 Surface
characteristics
3.5 General
4.3 Monitoring/
verification
4.5 Pre-treatment
5.2 Long-term risk
7.1 Capital
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
7.2 Operation/
maintenance
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
Code Reason for Technology Elimination
Category 2. Media
491 Not applicable to waste characteristics
037 Most applicable to liquids/sludges
Category 3. Site Condition
151 Warm climate
153 Not applicable to site conditions
Category 4. Implementation
069 Requires long-term O&M
31 0 Requires pre-treatment to separate
contaminants
Category 5. Exposure/Risk
152 Not a long-term solution
Category?. Cost
185 High installation cost
014 High energy costs
042 High operational cost
Category 8. Information
169 Unproven technology
186 No long-term performance record
Total
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
3
3
4
1
2
1
2
1
1
Initial
Screening
2
1
1
•• 2
1
1
2
1
1
3
3
4
1
2
1
2
1
1
3-Criteria
Screening
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Detailed
Evaluation
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E-69
-------
Table E-18. Reasons cited in FY91 and FY92 RODs for elimination of Ex Situ Soil Vapor
Extraction.
Category/Subcategory
1. 8 Cont. characteristics
'" ' '' , '• ':/, "<«*™,.,
',
2.6 Concentration
2.7 Media
characteristics
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
4.7 Specific technology
comparisons
4.11 Off-gas control
5.1 Short-term risk
7.3 Technology
comparisons
9.1 N/A or no reason
given
Code Reason for Technology Elimination
Category 1, Contaminants
398 Low vapor pressure contaminants
- Category 2, Media -' . .:..
126 Limited effectiveness with low organic
concentrations
491 Not applicable to waste characteristics
Category 4. Implementation
044 Less effective than soil vapor extraction
459 No advantage over low-temperature thermal
desorption
017 May result in air emissions
Category 5. Exposure/Risk
046 Excavation results in short-term risk to
humans
Category?. Cost
045 More costly than soil vapor extraction
Category 9. Other
000 N/A or no reason given
Total
1
1
Jt
1
1
;•*'
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
Initial
Screening
1
1
2
w
1
1
3
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
3-Criteria
Screening
'<*•
0
o
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
E-70
-------
Table E-19. Reasons cited in FY91 and FY92 RODs for elimination of Vegetative Uptake.
Category/Subcategory
1.3SVOCS
1.9 General
1.9 General
2.6 Concentration
2.8 Cont. media location
2.8 Cont. media location
8.1 Needs further
development
•Code Reason for Technology Elimination
Category 1, Contaminants
139 Not applicable to PAHs
004 Most applicable to metals/inorganics
156 Not applicable to all site contaminants
Category 2. Media
122 Contaminants highly concentrated
005 Suitable only for surface and near-surface
soils
084 Not considered feasible for depth of waste
Category 8, Information
027 Application to hazardous waste in early R&D
stage
Total
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
Initial
Screening
3
1
1
1
•3 -
1
1
1
1
1
3-Criteria
Screening
"••-0- '
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
fl
0
Detailed
Evaluation
6
0
0
0
e
0
0
0
0
0
E-71
-------
Table E-20. Reasons cited in FY91 and FY92 RODs for elimination of UV Radiation.
Category/Subcategory
Code
Reason for Technology Elimination
Category 4. Implementation
4.5 Pre-treatment
, , „„ .«
8.1 Needs further
development
8.5 Unproven/uncertain
application
112
Catego
102
047
Requires pre-treatment-soils must be made
into a slurry
ry 8, Information ,
Not fully developed technology
Success/effectiveness uncertain
Total
1
1
,2,
1
1
Initial
Screening
1
1
2
1
1
3-Criteria
Screening
0
0
0
0
0
Detailed
Evaluation
0
0
0
0
0
E-72
-------
Appendix F. Reasons for Eliminating Soil Flushing and Soil Washing at Metals Sites
The following two tables present all of the reasons given for eliminating soil flushing and soil
washing at sites contaminated by metals only. Along with each unique reason are the phase of the
technology selection process during which the technology was eliminated and the site where the
technology was eliminated.
Table F-l. Reasons for Eliminating Soil Flushing at Metals Sites
Subcat. Reason for Elimination
When Eliminated Site Name
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.1
2.3
2.3
Limited effectiveness for
metals/inorganics
Not applicable to arsenic
Not applicable to asbestos
Not applicable to metals/inorganics
Unproven applicability to VOCs
Not applicable to PCBs
Unproven applicability to PCBs
Not applicable to contaminants with
very low solubilities
Most applicable to medium solubility
organics
Most applicable to mobile
compounds/elements
Not applicable to all site contaminants
Not effective for site contaminants
Not effective for soil type
Contaminants adsorbed to, or
component of, solid waste
Limited effectiveness to slag
Initial screening Curcio Scrap Metal, OU-1
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Rhone-Poulenc Inc.(Zoecon) Sandoz, OU-1
Fibers Public Supply Wells
Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Inc. (Mor. Plant),
OU-2
Hertel Landfill
John Deere (Ottumwa Works Landfill)
Sinclair Refinery, OU-2
Marine Corps Logistics Base, OU-3
Industrial Latex Corp., OU-1
John Deere (Ottumwa Works Landfill)
Maxey Flats Nuclear Disposal
Initial screening Hertel Landfill
Initial screening
Initial screening
Berlin & Farro
South Andover Site, OU-2
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Denver Radium Site, OU-8
Fultz Landfill, OU-1
Motor Wheel, Inc.
PSC Resources
3-criteria screening Sacramento Army Depot, OU-4
Initial screening Stoughton City Landfill
Initial screening Cannelton Industries, Inc.
3-criteria screening Eastern Diversified Metals, OU-1 & OU-2
3-criteria screening Preferred Plating Corp., OU-2
Initial screening C & J Disposal Leasing Co. Dump
Initial screening Tonolli Corp.
F-l
-------
Subcat. Reason for Elimination
When Eliminated Site Name
2.3
Not applicable to municipal solid waste
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.9
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
Large amounts of soil with small
amounts of contaminants
Large volume of material to be treated
Volume of material too small
Contaminants highly concentrated
Waste not biodegradable
Less appropriate for very shallow soils
Not effective for treating soil under clay
layers
Not feasible for above-ground waste
Suitable only for surface and
near-surface soils
Heterogenous wastes
Downward groundwater gradient
Fractured bedrock
High hydraulic conductivity
Low hydraulic conductivity
No underlying confining layer
Initial screening Butterworth #2 Landfill
Initial screening Hertel Landfill
Initial screening Lemberger Landfill, Inc., OU-1
Initial screening Old City of York Landfill
Initial screening Twin Cities AF Reserve Base (SARL)
Initial screening Juncos Landfill, OU-1
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Allied Chemical & Ironton Coke, OU-2
Butterworth #2 Landfill
Tri-County Landfill CoTWaste Mgmt. IL
Roebling Steel Co., OU-2
Rhone-Poulenc Inc.(Zoecon) Sandoz, OU-1
C & J Disposal Leasing Co. Dump
Cimarron Mining Corp., OU-2
Defense General Supply Center, OU-1
Rhone-Poulenc Inc.(Zoecon) Sandoz, OU-1
Mattiace Petrochemical Co., Inc., OU-1
Cimarron Mining Corp., OU-2
Motor Wheel, Inc.
Anaconda Co. Smelter, OU-11
Butterworth #2 Landfill
JFD Electronics/Channel Master
Michigan Disposal Service (Cork St. LF)
Motor Wheel, Inc.
Old City of York Landfill
PSC Resources
Robins AFB (LF #4/Sludge Lagoon), OU-1
Roebling Steel Co., OU-2
Stoughton City Landfill
Tonolli Corp.
Tri-County Landfill CoTWaste Mgmt. IL
3-criteria screening Arlington Blending & Packaging
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Whitmoyer Laboratories, OU-2
Whitmoyer Laboratories, OU-3
Initial screening Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp.
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Lindane Dump
Maxey Flats Nuclear Disposal
Standard Auto Bumper Corp., OU-1
Circuitron Corp.
Eastern Diversified Metals, OU-3
Genzale Plating Co.
F-2
-------
Subcat.
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.3
Reason for Elimination
Shallow water table
Subsurface obstructions
Uncertain pathways/direction of
groundwater flow
Variable/heterogenous geology
Space limitations at the site
Dense organic silt
High clay content of soils
Low porosity soils
Low soil moisture content
Low soil permeability
Sandy soils
Saturated soils
Would disrupt existing buildings and
structures
Not applicable to site conditions
Limited availability of
vendors/technology
Extended remediation time
Difficult to measure effectiveness
Difficult to monitor in situ
When Eliminated
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Detailed evaluation
3-criteria screening
3-criteria screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Detailed evaluation
Detailed evaluation
Initial screening
Initial screening
Site Name
Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp.
Sinclair Refinery, OU-2
Broderick Wood Products, OU-2
Industrial Latex Corp., OU-1
Arlington Blending & Packaging
Interstate Lead Co. (ILCO), OU-1
Silresim Chemical Corp.
Whitmoyer Laboratories, OU-3
Yakima Plating Co.
Peerless Plating Co.
Sacramento Army Depot, OU-4
Yakima Plating Co.
Berlin & Farro
Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp.
Interstate Lead Co. (ILCO), OU-1
Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc. (TB), OU-2
Saunders Supply Co.
Yakima Plating Co.
Oklahoma Refining Co.
Tonolli Corp.
Bangor Ordnance Disposal, OU-1
Buckeye Reclamation, OU-1
Oklahoma Refining Co.
Rhone-Poulenc Inc.(Zoecon) Sandoz, OU-1
Saunders Supply Co.
Silresim Chemical Corp.
Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp.
Preferred Plating Corp., OU-2
Standard Auto Bumper Corp., OU-1
Ellis Property
Marine Corps Logistics Base, OU-3
Ogden Defense Depot, OU-3
Standard Auto Bumper Corp., OU-1
Valley Wood Preserving, Inc.
Eastern Diversified Metals, OU-1 & OU-2
Eastern Diversified Metals, OU-3
Eastern Diversified Metals, OU-3
Halby Chemical Co., OU-1
Thermo-Chem, Inc., OU-1
Whitmoyer Laboratories, OU-3
Ogden Defense Depot, OU-4
Ogden Defense Depot, OU-1
F-3
-------
Subcat.
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.7
4.7
4.8
4.10
4.10
4.10
4.10
4.10
4.10
Reason for Elimination
Verification requires collection of many
soil samples
Requires post-treatment of heavy metal
sludge
Requires post-treatment of leachate
Requires post-treatment/disposal of
wastewater
Requires treatment of recovered
groundwater
Requires treatment/disposal of
residuals
Difficult to formulate washing fluids for
complex mixtures
Difficult to treat waste uniformly
Requires multiple solvents/extraction
steps
Requires three years of testing prior to
implementation
Would require large quantities of
solutions to treat
Less certain than on-site soil washing
Less effective than soil vapor
extraction
More complex than other technologies
Collection of flushing solution difficult
Difficult to recover all solvents/washing
fluids from soil
Difficult to recover chemicals/products
from groundwater
Difficult to recover leachate
Flushing solution cannot be captured
May reduce groundwater pH
When Eliminated
3-criteria screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Detailed evaluation
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
'initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Site Name
Zanesville Well Field
Bunker Hill Mining & Metallurgical, OU-2
Marine Corps Logistics Base, OU-3
Allied Chemical & Ironton Coke, OU-2
Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp.
Industrial Latex Corp., OU-1
Juncos Landfill, OU-1
Standard Auto Bumper Corp., OU-1
Saunders Supply Co.
Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp.
Michigan Disposal Service (Cork St. LF)
Silresim Chemical Corp.
Sinclair Refinery, OU-2
Denver Radium Site, OU-8
Roebling Steel Co., OU-2
Whitmoyer Laboratories, OU-3
Standard Auto Bumper Corp., OU-1
Standard Auto Bumper Corp., OU-1
Sinclair Refinery, OU-2
Standard Auto Bumper Corp., OU-1
Silresim Chemical Corp.
Broderick Wood Products, OU-2
Preferred Plating Corp., OU-2
Twin Cities AF Reserve Base (SARL)
Arlington Blending & Packaging
Broderick Wood Products, OU-2
Buckeye Reclamation, OU-1
Eastern Diversified Metals, OU-1 & OU-2
Eastern Diversified Metals, OU-3
Maxey Flats Nuclear Disposal
Marine Corps Logistics Base, OU-3
Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp.
Tonolli Corp.
Whitmoyer Laboratories, OU-3
Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers, Inc.
F-4
-------
Subcat. Reason for Elimination
When Eliminated Site Name
4.10 Not possible -to ensure sufficient
contact in situ
4.10 Not possible to flush landfill
4.10 Not possible to uniformly distribute
solutions in situ
4.10 Potential to clog injection system or
aquifer formation
4.10 Requires large volumes of water to
flush contaminants
4.10 Would require precise groundwater
control
4.13 Difficult to control process
4.13 Difficult to implement
4.13 Inefficient method
4.13 Not independently applicable
4.13 Uncertain implementability
5.1 Flammable organics may cause safety
problems
5.1 Implementation would cause short-term
risk to site workers
5.2 Leaves contaminated material on site
5.2 Long-term risks to site workers and
community
5.2 Potential adverse environmental effects
5.2 Residuals may persist in environment
5.2 Solvent loss could contaminate
environment
5.3 Would solubilize currently immobile
contaminants
Initial screening Frontera Creek
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
John Deere (Ottumwa Works Landfill)
Stoughton City Landfill
Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp.
Dover Municipal Landfill
Sacramento Army Depot, OU-4
Initial screening Michigan Disposal Service (Cork St. LF)
Initial screening Maxey Flats Nuclear Disposal
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Detailed evaluation
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
3-criteria screening
Detailed evaluation
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Ogden Defense Depot, OU-1
Ogden Defense Depot, OU-4
Anaconda Co. Smelter, OU-11
Ellis Property
Ogden Defense Depot, OU-1
Preferred Plating Corp., OU-2
Chem Central
Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp.
Fultz Landfill, OU-1
Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc. (TB), OU-2
Whitmoyer Laboratories, OU-2
Broderick Wood Products, OU-2
Bunker Hill Mining & Metallurgical, OU-1
Mattiace Petrochemical Co., Inc., OU-1
Eastern Diversified Metals, OU-3
PSC Resources
Whitmoyer Laboratories, OU-3
Twin Cities AF Reserve Base (SARL)
Arlington Blending & Packaging
Broderick Wood Products, OU-2
Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers, Inc.
Twin Cities AF Reserve Base (SARL)
Central City-Clear Creek
Initial screening Carolina Transformer Co.
F-5
-------
Subcat. Reason for Elimination
When Eliminated Site Name
5.4
May contaminate groundwater
5.4
6.2
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
7.1
7.2
7.2
Potential migration of contaminants
Negative public reaction to restricted
land use during operation
Difficult to obtain regulatory agency
approval
Failure to meet ARARs
Prohibition of injection wells in
Wisconsin
Unlikely to achieve cleanup goals
Use of flushing agents could cause
regulatory problems
High capital cost
High maintenance costs
High operational cost
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Detailed evaluation
Detailed evaluation
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
3-criteria screening
Broderick Wood Products, OU-2
Brown's Battery Breaking, OU-2
Circuitron Corp.
Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp.
Curcio Scrap Metal, OU-1
Defense General Supply Center, OU-1
Eastern Diversified Metals, OU-1 & OU-2
Halby Chemical Co., OU-1
Michigan Disposal Service (Cork St. LF)
Mid-America Tanning Co.
Nascolite Corp.
Preferred Plating Corp., OU-2
Raymark, OU-1
Whitmoyer Laboratories, OU-3
Yakima Plating Co.
Zanesville Well Field
Carolina Transformer Co.
Eastern Diversified Metals, OU-3
Ellis Property
Genzale Plating Co.
Maxey Flats Nuclear Disposal
Mid-America Tanning Co.
Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers, Inc.
Sacramento Army Depot, OU-4
Standard Auto Bumper Corp., OU-1
Whitmoyer Laboratories, OU-3
Zanesville Well Field
Initial screening Bunker Hill Mining & Metallurgical, OU-1
Initial screening Central City-Clear Creek
Detailed evaluation
Initial screening
Initial screening
Detailed evaluation
Detailed evaluation
Valley Wood Preserving, Inc.
Kohler Co. Landfill, OU-1
Peerless Plating Co.
Thermo-Chem, Inc., OU-1
Valley Wood Preserving, Inc.
Initial screening Kohler Co. Landfill, OU-1
Initial screening Roebling Steel Co., OU-2
Initial screening Michigan Disposal Service (Cork St. LF)
Initial screening Roebling Steel Co., OU-2
Initial screening Roebling Steel Co., OU-2
F-6
-------
Subcat. Reason for Elimination
When Eliminated Site Name
7.4
High cost
8.1
8.1
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.3
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.5
8.5
9.1
More research needed
Not fully developed technology
Effectiveness not demonstrated
Limited successful full-scale
demonstrations
Not widely tested
Requires pilot testing
Requires treatability studies
Unsuccessful treatability study
Limited performance data
Success/effectiveness uncertain
Used at only one other Superfund site
for target contaminants
N/A or no reason given
Detailed evaluation
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Chem Central
Dover Municipal Landfill
Eastern Diversified Metals, OU-3
Juncos Landfill, OU-1
Ogden Defense Depot, OU-1
Initial screening Bunker Hill Mining & Metallurgical, OU-1
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Detailed evaluation
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Broderick Wood Products, OU-2
Eastern Diversified Metals, OU-3
Valley Wood Preserving, Inc.
Dover Municipal Landfill
Broderick Wood Products, OU-2
Kohler Co. Landfill, OU-1
3-criteria screening Eastern Diversified Metals, OU-1 & OU-2
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Detailed evaluation
Initial screening
Initial screening
Detailed evaluation
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Juncos Landfill, OU-1
Sinclair Refinery, OU-2
Valley Wood Preserving, Inc.
Cannelton Industries, Inc.
Denver Radium Site, OU-8
Whitmoyer Laboratories, OU-3
Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Inc. (Mor. Plant),
OU-2
Brodenck Wood Products, OU-2
Bunker Hill Mining & Metallurgical, OU-1
Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp.
Kohler Co. Landfill, OU-1,
Initial screening Standard Auto Bumper Corp., OU-1
3-criteria screening Brodhead Creek, OU-1
F-7
-------
Table F-2. Reasons for Eliminating Soil Washing at Metals Sites
Subcat. Reason for Elimination
When Eliminated Site Name
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.5
2.5
Limited effectiveness for
metals/inorganics
Not applicable to arsenic
Not applicable to cyanide
Not applicable to metals/inorganics
Unproven applicability to metal
hydroxides
Unproven effectiveness for mercury
Limited effectiveness with SVOCs
Unproven applicability to PCBs
Unproven applicability to dioxins/furans
Limited effectiveness for adsorbed
organics
Limited effectiveness for target
contaminants
Most applicable to metals/inorganics
Not applicable to all site contaminants
Not effective for site contaminants
Unproven effectiveness on target
compounds
Not applicable to sediments
Not applicable to sludges
Contaminants adsorbed to, or
component of, solid waste
Not applicable to municipal solid waste
Large amounts of soil with small
amounts of contaminants
Large volume of material to be
excavated
3-criteria screening E.I. Dupont DeNemours & Co. (Road X23)
Initial screening Rhone-Poulenc Inc.(Zoecon) Sandoz, OU-1
Initial screening JFD Electronics/Channel Master
Initial screening Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area, OU-12
Initial screening Wyckoff Co./Eagle Harbor, OU-3
3-criteria screening Facet Enterprises, Inc.
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Frontera Creek
Wrigley Charcoal Plant
Silresim Chemical Corp.
Silresim Chemical Corp.
3-criteria screening Facet Enterprises, Inc.
3-criteria screening C & D Recycling
Initial screening
Detailed evaluation
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp.
Preferred Plating Corp., OU-2
Fultz Landfill, OU-1
Ogden Defense Depot, OU-3
Portland Cement (Kiln Dust 2 & 3), OU-2
Sinclair Refinery, OU-2
Spickler Landfill, OU-1
Cannelton Industries, Inc.
Shaw Avenue Dump, OU-1
3-criteria screening C & D Recycling
Initial screening JFD Electronics/Channel Master
Initial screening C & J Disposal Leasing Co. Dump
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Lemberger Landfill, Inc., OU-1
Twin Cities AF Reserve Base (SARL)
Juncos Landfill, OU-1
Raymark, OU-1
Twin Cities AF Reserve Base (SARL)
Fultz Landfill, OU-1
Twin Cities AF Reserve Base (SARL)
F-8
-------
Subcat. Reason for Elimination
When Eliminated Site Name
2.5 Large volume of material to be treated
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.4
3.4
3.5
Volume of material too small
High quantity of organic wastes
Unproven effectiveness with low
inorganic concentrations
Combined organic and metal wastes
Metals may be in crystalline matrix
Not applicable to waste characteristics
Weathered materials may not respond
to treatment
Difficult to identify affected area
Heterogenous wastes
Space limitations at the site
Fine grained soil
High carbon content of soil
High clay content of soils
High percentage of soil organic
material
Proximity to surface structures
Would disrupt existing
operations/residents
Not applicable to site conditions
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
3-criteria screening
3-criteria screening
Butterworth #2 Landfill
Portland Cement (Kiln Dust 2 & 3), OU-2
Cimarron Mining Corp., OU-2
Facet Enterprises, Inc.
Prewitt Abandoned Refinery
Roebling Steel Co., OU-2
Double Eagle Refinery Co., OU-1
Fourth Street Abandoned Refinery, OU-1
H. Brown Co,, Inc.
Initial screening Bunker Hill Mining & Metallurgical, OU-1
3-criteria screening Double Eagle Refinery Co., OU-1
3-criteria screening Fourth Street Abandoned Refinery, OU-1
Initial screening Central City-Clear Creek
Initial screening Rhone-Poulenc Inc.(Zoecon) Sandoz, OU-1
Initial screening NL Industries, OU-2
Detailed evaluation Preferred Plating Corp., OU-2
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
H. Brown Co., Inc.
Lindane Dump
Old City of York Landfill
South Andover Site, OU-2
Wrigley Charcoal Plant
Wyckoff Co./Eagle Harbor, OU-3
Genzale Plating Co.
Mattiace Petrochemical Co., Inc., OU-1
Brown's Battery Breaking, OU-2
Facet Enterprises, Inc.
Mid-America Tanning Co.
Oklahoma Refining Co.
Initial screening Brown's Battery Breaking, OU-2
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Arlington Blending & Packaging
Gulf Coast Vacuum Services, OU-1
Oklahoma Refining Co.
Raymark, OU-1
Wrigley Charcoal Plant
Initial screening Sangamo Weston, lnc./12 Mile Creek, OU-1
3-criteria screening Raymark, OU-1
Initial screening Valley Wood Preserving, Inc.
3-criteria screening Interstate Lead Co. (ILCO), OU-1
F-9
-------
Subcat. Reason for Elimination
When Eliminated Site Name
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.6
4.6
4.6
Limited availability of
vendors/technology
No known vendor is available
Several vendors have stopped using
the technology
Technology for required post-treatment
may not be available
Extended remediation time
Takes too long to implement
Difficult to monitor in situ
Would require air monitoring
Requires post-treatment of soil fines
Requires post-treatment of waste
stream
Initial screening Valley Wood Preserving, Inc.
3-criteria screening H. Brown Co., Inc.
3-criteria screening Facet Enterprises, Inc.
3-criteria screening Saunders Supply Co.
Detailed evaluation Standard Auto Bumper Corp., OU-1
Detailed evaluation H. Brown Co., Inc.
Detailed evaluation Standard Auto Bumper Corp., OU-1
Detailed evaluation Marine Corps Logistics Base, OU-3
Detailed evaluation Agrico Chemical Co., OU-1
3-criteria screening Facet Enterprises, Inc.
Initial screening Sangamo Weston, lnc./12 Mile Creek, OU-1
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
3-criteria screening
Detailed evaluation
Carrier Air Conditioning Co.
Cimarron Mining Corp., OU-2
Ellis Property
South Andover Site, OU-2
Standard Auto Bumper Corp., OU-1
Requires post-treatment-dewatering 3-criteria screening Facet Enterprises, Inc.,
Requires post-treatment/disposal of
wastewater
Requires treatment/disposal of
residuals
Difficult to formulate washing fluids for
complex mixtures
Difficult to recover surfactants/washing
fluid for recycling
Excessive washing required
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Detailed evaluation
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Detailed evaluation
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Detailed evaluation
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Detailed evaluation
Initial screening
Initial screening
Circuitron Corp.
Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp.
Genzale Plating Co.
Golden Strip Septic Tank Service
Nascolite Corp.
Sinclair Refinery, OU-2
C & D Recycling
Juncos Landfill, OU-1
Kohler Co. Landfill, OU-1
Marine Corps Logistics Base, OU-3
Raymark, OU-1
Spickler Landfill, OU-1
Tonolli Corp.
Circuitron Corp.
Peerless Plating Co.
Sangamo Weston, lnc./12 Mile Creek, OU-1
Sinclair Refinery, OU-2
South Andover Site, OU-2
Tonolli Corp.
Marine Corps Logistics Base, OU-3
Peerless Plating Co.
Silresim Chemical Corp.
Initial screening Sinclair Refinery, OU-2
F-10
-------
Subcat. Reason for Elimination
When Eliminated Site Name
4.6 Involves excavation/treatment on-site
4.6 Large volume of surfactant needed
4.6 Must be used in conjunction with other
treatment technology
4.6 Requires excavation of bulky
wastes/debris
4.6 Requires highly trained personnel
4.6 Requires mobile equipment
4.6 Requires multiple solvents/extraction
steps
4.6 Requires specialized equipment
4.6 Target cannot be separated by particle
size separation
4.6 Washing fluids would require constant
adjustment
4.7 Less certain success than S/S
4.7 Less effective than soil vapor
extraction
4.7 Less effective than solvent extraction
4.7 Longer remediation time than S/S
4.7 No advantage over low-temperature
thermal desorption
4.8 Less certain effectiveness than
selected alternative
4.8 Less long-term effectiveness/
permanence than alternative
4.8 More complex than other technologies
4.8 More difficult to implement than
selected alternative
4.8 Other technologies better suited for site
contaminants
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Detailed evaluation
Detailed evaluation
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Detailed evaluation
Detailed evaluation
Initial screening
Initial screening
Tri-County Landfill Co./Waste Mgmt. IL
Silresim Chemical Corp.
Buckeye Reclamation, OU-1
Lemberger Landfill, Inc., OU-1
Raymark, OU-1
Twin Cities AF Reserve Base (SARL)
Yakima Plating Co.
Yakima Plating Co.
Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp.
Genzale Plating Co.
Hertel Landfill
NL Industries, OU-2
Roebling Steel Co., OU-2
H. Brown Co., Inc.
Standard Auto Bumper Corp., OU-1
Yakima Plating Co.
NL Industries, OU-2
Oklahoma Refining Co.
3-criteria screening South Andover Site, OU-2
Detailed evaluation
Detailed evaluation
Standard Auto Bumper Corp., OU-1
Tonolli Corp.
Initial screening Carrier Air Conditioning Co.
Initial screening
Detailed evaluation
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Detailed evaluation
3-criteria screening
Broderick Wood Products, OU-2
Tonolli Corp.
Carrier Air Conditioning Co.
Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp.
H. Brown Co., Inc.
Nascolite Corp.
Wyckoff Co./Eagle Harbor, OU-3
Detailed evaluation Joseph Forest Products
Initial screening
Initial screening
Detailed evaluation
Initial screening
Detailed evaluation
Cimarron Mining Corp., OU-2
Sinclair Refinery, OU-2
Agrico Chemical Co., OU-1
Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp.
Nascolite Corp.
Initial screening Broderick Wood Products, OU-2
F-ll
-------
Subcat. Reason for Elimination
When Eliminated Site Name
4.9
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.13
5.1
5.1
5.2
5.3
6.1
6.3
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.3
Metals may interfere
May result in air emissions
Lack of load-bearing capacity of
treated sand
Difficult to implement
Requires excavation
Excavation results in short-term risk to
humans
Implementation would cause short-term
risk to site workers
Leaves contaminated material on site
Would not reduce toxicity of
contaminants
May not meet LDRs
Unlikely to achieve cleanup goals
High capital cost
High maintenance costs
High operational cost
High transportation costs
Labor intensive
Comparable in cost to preferred in situ
technologies
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
NL Industries, OU-2
Tonolli Corp.
Carrier Air Conditioning Co.
Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp.
H. Brown Co., Inc.
Initial screening Abex Corp., OU-1
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Detailed evaluation
E.I. Dupont DeNemours & Co. (Road X23)
Fultz Landfill, OU-1
H. Brown Co., Inc.
Sinclair Refinery, OU-2
Yakima Plating Co.
Initial screening Kohler Co. Landfill, OU-1
Detailed evaluation
Detailed evaluation
Initial screening
Detailed evaluation
Agrico Chemical Co., OU-1
Defense General Supply Center, OU-1
Juncos Landfill, OU-1
Yakima Plating Co.
Detailed evaluation Joseph Forest Products
Initial screening
Detailed evaluation
3-criteria screening
Detailed evaluation
3-criteria screening
Detailed evaluation
3-criteria screening
Detailed evaluation
3-criteria screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
3-criteria screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Detailed evaluation
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Silresim Chemical Corp.
Marine Corps Logistics Base, OU-3
E.I. Dupont DeNemours & Co. (Road X23)
H. Brown Co., Inc.
Saunders Supply Co.
H. Brown Co., Inc.
Saunders Supply Co.
Standard Auto Bumper Corp., OU-1
E.I. Dupont DeNemours & Co. (Road X23)
Ellis Property
Roebling Steel Co., OU-2
E.I. Dupont DeNemours & Co. (Road X23)
H. Brown Co., Inc.
Roebling Steel Co., OU-2
E.I. Dupont DeNemours & Co. (Road X23)
Ellis Property
H. Brown Co., Inc.
Roebling Steel Co., OU-2
Preferred Plating Corp., OU-2
Sinclair Refinery, OU-2
Raymark, OU-1
F-12
-------
Subcat. Reason for Elimination
When Eliminated Site Name
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.4
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.2
8.2
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
More costly than soil flushing
More costly than solidification and
stabilization
High cost
No cost information
Considered an emerging technology
Not fully developed for site
contaminants
Not fully developed technology
Effectiveness not demonstrated on
sediment
Not demonstrated on a large/full scale
May require treatability testing
Requires bench-scale testing
Requires pilot testing
Requires treatability studies
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Detailed evaluation
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Detailed evaluation
Detailed evaluation
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Detailed evaluation
Initial screening
Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Inc. (Mor. Plant),
OU-2
Portland Cement (Kiln Dust 2 & 3), OU-2
Tonolli Corp.
Abex Corp., OU-1
Bangor Ordnance Disposal, OU-1
Butterworth #2 Landfill
Cimarron Mining Corp., OU-2
Defense General Supply Center, OU-1
Joseph Forest Products
Juncos Landfill, OU-1
Ogden Defense Depot, OU-1
Shaw Avenue Dump, OU-1
Valley Wood Preserving, Inc.
Facet Enterprises, Inc.
Agrico Chemical Co., OU-1
Lindane Dump
Detailed evaluation Yakima Plating Co.
3-criteria screening Wyckoff Co./Eagle Harbor, OU-3
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Detailed evaluation
Broderick Wood Products, OU-2
H. Brown Co., Inc.
Yakima Plating Co.
Detailed evaluation Standard Auto Bumper Corp., OU-1
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Detailed evaluation
Initial screening
Detailed evaluation
Detailed evaluation
Detailed evaluation
3-criteria screening
Detailed evaluation
Initial screening
Initial screening
Initial screening
Detailed evaluation
3-criteria screening
Detailed evaluation
Cimarron Mining Corp., OU-2
Roebling Steel Co., OU-2
Cimarron Mining Corp., OU-2
H. Brown Co., Inc.
Kohler Co. Landfill, OU-1
Marine Corps Logistics Base, OU-3
Agrico Chemical Co., OU-1
Defense General Supply Center, OU-1
E.I. Dupont DeNemours & Co. (Road X23)
Joseph Forest Products
Juncos Landfill, OU-1
Ogden Defense Depot, OU-1
Ogden Defense Depot, OU-4
Preferred Plating Corp., OU-2
Wyckoff Co./Eagle Harbor, OU-3
Yakima Plating Co.
8.4
8.4
Unsuccessful EPA demonstration
Unsuccessful pilot study
Initial screening NL Industries, OU-2
3-criteria screening Saunders Supply Co.
F-13
-------
Subcat. Reason for Elimination
When Eliminated Site Name
8.4 Unsuccessful treatability study
8.5
8.5
No full-scale applications
Success/effectiveness uncertain
8.5
9.1
9.1
Unproven technology
N/A or no reason given
No remedial action considered
necessary
Initial screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
3-criteria screening
Detailed evaluation
Detailed evaluation
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
3-criteria screening
3-criteria screening
Detailed evaluation
Initial screening
3-criteria screening
Detailed evaluation
Detailed evaluation
Initial screening
Brown's Battery Breaking, OU-2
Cannelton Industries, Inc.
Halby Chemical Co., OU-1
Interstate Lead Co. (ILCO), OU-1
Standard Auto Bumper Corp., OU-1
Tonolli Corp.
Facet Enterprises, Inc.
Sinclair Refinery, OU-2
Bangor Ordnance Disposal, OU-1
Central City-Clear Creek
Defense General Supply Center, OU-5
Ellis Property
Facet Enterprises, Inc.
Standard Auto Bumper Corp., OU-1
Tonolli Corp.
Wyckoff Co./Eagle Harbor, OU-3
Yakima Plating Co.
Joseph Forest Products
Rhone-Poulenc Inc.(Zoecon) Sandoz, OU-1
Detailed evaluation Brodhead Creek, OU-1
Detailed evaluation Defense General Supply Center, OU-1
F-14
-------
Appendix G. Description of Sites Where Innovative Remedy was Changed
This appendix contains brief descriptions of the 15 sites at which a remedy that included an
innovative technology was changed. Reasons for the change are explained in the body of the report.
American Creosote Works, Inc. OU-1
Pensacola, Florida
Region 4
ROD Date: 9-28-89
Selected Remedy (ROD): Soil washing followed by ex situ bioremediation
Reason for Change: Failure of treatability studies on bioremediation and soil washing
New Remedy: Undecided (Amended ROD expected by end of 1994; no BSD)
American Creosote Works is an 18-acre abandoned wood-preserving facility bordered by moderately
dense commercial and residential districts. The plant used creosote as a wood preservative from
1902 until 1950. After that time, the company began using a mixture of creosote, pentachlorophenol
(PCP), and copper-chromium-arsenic until its closure in December, 1981. Improper disposal of
creosote- and PCP-contaminated waste resulted in extensive contamination of surface soil and
groundwater. Sampling confirmed carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), PCP, and dioxin in the soil.
Documentation:
Alternative Biological Treatment Processes for Remediation of Creosote- and PCP-Contaminated
Materials, Bench-Scale Treatability Studies, EPA/600/9-90/049, March 1991.
Remedial Planning Units Activities at Selected Uncontrolled Hazardous Substance Disposal Sites
Region IV. Supplemental Site Characterization Sampling and Treatability Testing Report,
Volume 1, American Creosote Works Site, Pensacola, Florida. EBASCO Services Incorporated,
EPA Contract 68-W9-0048, November 1991.
Personal communication: Mark File, U.S. EPA Remedial Project Manager (404) 347-2643,
January 4, 1994.
Caldwell Trucking Company
Fairfield Township, New Jersey
Region 2
ROD Date: 9-25-86
Selected Remedy (ROD): Low temperature thermal desorption, on-site landfill
Reason for Change: Failed LDR treatment standards
New Remedy: Incineration of California List wastes; stabilization of RCRA
characteristic hazardous soils prior to disposal in on-site RCRA landfill
The Caldwell Trucking Company was a sewage hauling firm located on an 11-acre site approxi-
mately 200 feet from a regional high school. The nearest major residential district is approximately
1,000 feet from the site, and several small businesses are within one mile of the site. Caldwell
disposed of residential and commercial septic waste and industrial waste in unlined lagoons from the
early 1950s to about 1973. Sampling studies detected metals (primarily lead, cadmium, and
mercury), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and poly-
G-l
-------
chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in subsurface soils and sludge; and lead, PCBs, and PAHs in surface
soils. Lead is the primary metal of concern at this site. Groundwater is contaminated with VOCs.
Documentation:
Explanation of Significant Differences, Caldwell Trucking Company Site, Fairfield Township,
New Jersey. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response. 1993.
Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving Company
Coleman Evans, Florida
Region 4
ROD Date: 9-25-86; AROD 9-26-90
Selected Remedy (AROD): Soil washing with slurry-phase biotreatment of wash water, solidi-
fication of fine organic/wood residuals (1986 ROD: incineration)
Reason for Change: Dioxins discovered on site
New Remedy: Undecided (high or low thermal desorption or containment are among the
options being considered)
The 11 -acre Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving Site was a wood treatment facility, which operated
from 1954 to the late 1980s. Within one mile of the site, land use is primarily residential and light
commercial and industrial. Operations at the facility involved mainly steaming and pressure soaking
wood products with pentachlorophenol (PCP) in #2 diesel fuel. Process effluents prior to 1970 were
precipitated, sand filtered, and discharged on site. The company also had a landfill on site for
disposal of wood chips and other facility wastes. In 1986, PCP contamination of on-site soil and
sediment was found, generally limited to the upper 10 feet of soils. In addition, soil samples
contained 4 mg/kg tetrachlorophenol; 30 mg/1 polychlorinated biphenyls; and some naphthalenes,
alkanes, and xylenes associated with the fuel oil. Groundwater also was contaminated.
Documentation:
Personal communication: Tony Best, U.S. EPA Remedial Project Manager (404) 347-2643,
January 5, 1994.
Superfund Record of Decision, Coleman Evans, Florida. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. EPA/ROD/R04-86/019, September 25, 1986.
Superfund Record of Decision Amendment, Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving, Florida. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
EPA/ROD/R04-90/066, September 26, 1990.
Crystal Chemical Company
Houston, Texas
Region 6
ROD Date: 9-27-90
Selected Remedy (ROD): In situ vitrification, cap
Reason for Change: Commercial availability delayed
New Remedy: Cap
The 24-acre Crystal Chemical Company site, which is temporarily capped, is an abandoned herbicide
manufacturing facility. Eighteen acres of the 24-acre site consist of off-site areas contaminated by
G-2
-------
periodic flooding of what was the major operations area of the site. The land immediately surround-
ing the site is vacant commercial and industrial property. An estimated 20,000 people live within a
one-mile radius. Crystal Chemical Company manufactured arsenic-based herbicides and a wide
spectrum of phenolic- and amine-based herbicides from 1968 to 1981. On-site soil was
contaminated by herbicides spilled from drums during off-loading operations. The primary
contaminant of concern affecting the soil, sediment, and groundwater is arsenic. The results of the
1989 FS indicated an estimated 55,000 cubic yards of off-site soils contaminated with greater than
30 mg/kg arsenic. On-site arsenic soil contamination was estimated to be 101,000 cubic yards of 30
mg/kg or greater and 16,500 cubic yards of soil contaminated with greater than 300 mg/kg arsenic.
Documentation:
Superfund Record of Decision: Crystal Chemical, Texas. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. EPA/ROD/R06-90/062. September 27, 1990.
Amended Record of Decision, Crystal Chemical Site. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. June 1992.
Harvey and Knott Drum, Inc.
New Castle County, Delaware
Region 3
ROD Date: 9-30-85
Selected Remedy (ROD): Soil flushing
Reason for Change: Target contaminants below action levels, ineffective on metals and target
SVOCs, absence of widespread inorganic contamination
New Remedy: Disposal, cap, or both
The 2.2-acre Harvey and Knott Drum site, which is in a remote rural area previously used for
farming, was an open dump and burning ground between 1963 and 1969. The facility accepted
sanitary, municipal, and industrial wastes such as sludges, paint, pigments, and solvents. Harvey and
Knott Trucking emptied wastes onto the ground, into excavated trenches, or left it in drums (some of
which were buried). The Company burned some of the wastes to reduce its volume and allowed
some wastes to seep into the soil. Soil, surface water, and groundwater were contaminated.
Contaminants of concern are benzene, ethylbenzene, methylene chloride, toluene, xylenes, bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate, PCBs, cadmium, chromium, and lead.
Documentation:
Superfund Record of Decision: Harvey-Knott, Delaware. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. EPA/ROD/R03-85/017. September 30, 1985.
Explanation of Significant Differences for the Harvey and Knott Drum Site New Castle County,
Delaware. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response. December 1992.
G-3
-------
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Warm Waste Pond
Idaho
Region 10
ROD Date: 12-5-91
Selected Remedy (ROD): Physical separation/chemical extraction of pond sediments; contingency
soil cover
Reason for Change: Failure of pilot-scale treatability study
New Remedy: Transfer contaminated sediment in one cell of pond and consolidate it
into one or two other cells and cover with soil
The Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) Warm Waste Pond is a 4-acre wastewater
infiltration/evaporation area for the INEL test reactor 32 miles west of Idaho Falls, Idaho. The
primary contaminants and their average concentrations found in the upper two feet of the Warm
Waste Pond sediments are cesium-137 (11,500 pCi/g), cobalt-60 (4,620 pCi/g), chromium (338
mg/kg), zinc (143 mg/kg), and sulfide (28 mg/kg).
Documentation:
Explanation of Significant Difference for the Warm Waste Pond Sediments Record of Decision
at the Test Reactor Area at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. 1993.
Personal communication: Linda Meyer, U.S. EPA Remedial Project Manager (206) 553-6636,
January 10, 1994.
Leetown Pesticide
Leetown, West Virginia
Region 3
ROD Date: 3-31-86
Selected Remedy (ROD): On-site land treatment
Reason for Change: Failure of treatability studies, revised risk assessment showing risk not
sufficient for action
New Remedy: No further action
The Leetown Pesticide site consists of the Bell Spring Run and Blue and Gray Spring Run
watersheds. Several areas in the watersheds were contaminated by landfills, surface disposal, or
agricultural use of pesticides. Land use in the area is predominantly agricultural and dedicated to
dairy operations. However, four of the highly contaminated areas are associated with DDT use in
orchards until 1972. Two other contaminated areas were the result of alleged disposal of pesticide-
contaminated debris from a fire in 1975, and two areas are active landfills. The contaminants of
concern in the surface soil are pesticides, including DDT, its metabolites ODD and DDE, and the
alpha, beta, delta, and gamma isomers of hexachlorocyclohexane (HCCH). Gamma HCCH is also
known as Lindane.
Documentation:
Superfund Record of Decision, Leetown Pesticides, West Virginia. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. EPA/ROD/R03-86/022.
March 31, 1986.
Amendment to the Record of Decision, Leetown Pesticides. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. April 1992.
G-4
-------
Marathon Battery Corporation
Village of Cold Spring, New York
Region 2
ROD Date: 9-30-88
Selected Remedy (ROD): Enhanced volatilization ex situ (thermal desorption)
Reason for Change: VOC levels below action levels
New Remedy: No action for volatile organics
The 11-acre Marathon Battery Corporation site is a former battery manufacturing plant,
approximately 40 miles north of New York City. The surrounding land use includes the Hudson
River, wetlands, and residential areas. The Company produced military and commercial batteries
from 1952 to 1979. Surface and subsurface soils contain cadmium, cobalt, nickel, trichloroethylene,
toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene, and chloroform. Several pesticides and pesticide breakdown products
also were found in the soil samples. Metal contamination is limited to the upper 2-3 feet (60-90 cm)
of soil. Groundwater also is contaminated.
Documentation:
Superfund Record of Decision: Marathon Battery, New York. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. EPA/ROD/R02-88/064. September 30,
1988.
Explanation of Significant Differences, Marathon Battery Company Site. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. August 1993.
Northwest Transformer
Mission Pole, Washington
Region 10
ROD Date: 9-15-89
Selected Remedy (ROD): In situ vitrification, soil cover
Reason for Change: Less contamination, increased cost, commercial availability delayed, PRP
reluctance
New Remedy: Incineration, disposal in landfill, soil cap
The 1.6-acre Northwest Transformer site is a former electrical transformer storage and salvage
facility. Farmland and low-density residential areas border the site. During operations at the facility
dielectric fluids containing PCB frequently spilled or leaked onto the ground. PCB-laden oil also
was dumped directly into an on-site seepage pit, contaminating soil and possibly groundwater. PCBs
are the only contaminants of concern at the site. Sampling studies between 1977 and 1985 identified
PCB concentrations as high as 38,000 mg/kg.
Documentation:
Superfund Record of Decision: Northwest Transformer, Washington. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. EPA/ROD/R10-89/018.
September 15, 1989.
Superfund Record of Decision Amendment: Northwest Transformer-Mission Pole, Washington.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
EPA/ROD/R10-91/031. September 30, 1991.
G-5
-------
Pinette's Salvage Yard
Washburn, Maine
Region 1
ROD Date: 5-30-89
Selected Remedy (ROD): Incineration, solvent extraction
Reason for Change: Implementation problems
New Remedy: Incineration, land disposal
Pinette's Salvage Yard is about a 9.5-acre motor vehicle repair and salvage yard. Adjacent land is
zoned predominately for residential and agricultural use. Land use within a one mile radius of the
yard consists of residential, general industrial, agricultural, and undeveloped forest and wetlands.
Approximately 900-1,000 gallons of dielectric fluid spilled directly on the ground in 1979 when
electrical transformers were being removed from delivery vehicles at the yard. Soil and groundwater
were contaminated. The major contaminants of concern are PCBs. Other organics in the soil
included benzene, chlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, chloromethane, and 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene.
Documentation:
Record of Decision Amendment, Pinette's Salvage Yard Site. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. June 2, 1993.
Re-Solve, Inc.
North Dartmouth, Massachusetts
Region 1
ROD Date: 9-24-87
Selected Remedy (ROD): Low temperature thermal desorption, dechlorination
Reason for Change: Implementation problems with dechlorination
New Remedy: Low temperature thermal desorption, disposal of residuals
The 6-acre Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site is a former waste chemical reclamation facility, bordered
by wetlands and land that is zoned for residential use. Approximately 326 people live within 150
yards of the site. During the 24 years before its closure in 1980, Re-Solve handled a variety of
hazardous materials such as PCBs, solvents, and waste oils. In the 1980s, 15,000 cubic yards of
PCB-contaminated soils and sediments were disposed off site. Nevertheless, the contamination that
remained included some hot spots and involved the soil, sediment, groundwater, and surface water.
Soils contained, for example, PCB, methylene chloride, 2-butanone, trans-1 and 2-dichloroethylene,
trichloroethylene, 4-methyl-2-pentanone, tetrachloroethylene, acetone, and toluene.
Documentation:
Explanation of Significant Differences (BSD) Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site, North Dartmouth,
Massachusetts. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response. June 9, 1992.
Soil Treatment Activities Begin. Superfund Program Fact Sheet, Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site,
North Dartmouth, Massachusetts. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1. July 1993.
Letter from Richard Cavagnero, U.S. EPA, to Michael Last regarding EPA's Written Notice of
Decision on the Implementability of the Dechlorination Technology Based on the Performance of
Source Control Pre-design Pilot Testing. October 15, 1992.
G-6
-------
Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformer
Houston, Texas
Region 6
ROD Date: 3-25-88
Selected Remedy (ROD): Chemical dechlorination
Reason for Change: Implementation problems
New Remedy: Off-site landfill
The 0.75-acre Sol Lynn site operated as an electrical transformer salvage and recycling company
between 1971 and 1978, and as a chemical recycling and supply company from 1979 through 1980.
The site is surrounded by residential, commercial, and light industrial districts. The Astrodome and
Astroworld sports facilities are approximately 4,000 feet from the site. Polychlorinated biphenyls
were the only contaminants found above health based levels in site soil and groundwater during the
remedial investigation, although some residual trichloroethylene was found in surface soil. The
PCBs, which were confined mainly to the top two feet of soil, averaged slightly greater than 50
mg/kg.
Documentation:
Superfund Record of Decision: Sol Lynn, Texas. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response. EPA/ROD/R06-88/029. March 25, 1988.
Amended Record of Decision, Industrial Transformer/Sol Lynn Site. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. September 1992.
Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Region 6
ROD Date: 9-27-90
Selected Remedy (ROD): Dechlorination
Reason for Change: Cost, implementation problems at another site, possibly increased risk
New Remedy: Cap
The Tenth Street Site is a 3.5-acre automobile salvage yard. Although the site is in an area of mixed
residential and industrial land use, it is surrounded on three sides by active automobile salvage yards.
Between 1951 and 1959 the site was a municipal solid waste landfill. Then for 20 years after that it
operated as a salvage yard, receiving used electrical transformers and other materials such as old
tires and paint thinners. Substantial quantities of dielectric fluid containing PCBs spilled on the
ground during salvage operations. Polychlorinated biphenyls are the contaminants of concern for the
site. EPA estimates 9,800 cubic yards of soil are contaminated at or above 25 mg/kg. Although
concentrations ranged up to 1,700 mg/kg, the average PCB level in soil was 110 mg/kg. Ground-
water appeared unaffected by PCB, which appears to bind strongly with soil.
Documentation:
Amended Record of Decision, Tenth Street Site, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. September 1993.
G-7
-------
U.S. Aviex
Niles, Michigan
Region 5
ROD Date: 9-7-88
Selected Remedy (ROD): Soil flushing
Reason for Change: Cleanup levels reached by natural attenuation
New Remedy: No action
*
The 6-acre U.S. Aviex facility produced non-lubricating automotive fluids from the early 1960s until
late 1978. A residential district in the immediate vicinity of the site consists of mainly single family
homes, some of which are within 100 feet of the site. Minor agricultural and horticultural activities
are nearby. Releases of chlorinated hydrocarbons and diethyl ether had occurred during operations
before 1978 when a fire at the plant released more chemicals to soil and groundwater. The remedial
investigation identified 25 volatile and semivolatile organic chemicals including trichloroethene and
tetrachloroethene in the on-site subsurface soils and groundwater.
Documentation:
Explanation of Significant Difference, U.S. Aviex Site, Niles, Howard Township, Cass County,
Michigan. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response. September 23, 1993.
University of Minnesota—Rosemount Research Center
Rosemount, Minnesota
Region 5
ROD Date: 6-11-90
Selected Remedy (ROD): On-site low temperature thermal desorption with fume incineration
Reason for Change: Incineration considered more cost effective
New Remedy: Incineration
Originally developed as a federal ammunition manufacturing plant in the early 1940s, the 12 square
mile University of Minnesota—Rosemount Research Center is primarily an agricultural research
station, although some light manufacturing and service companies utilize the site. From the 1960s to
1974, the University discarded and burned waste laboratory chemicals in a pit. Three businesses on
the site reconditioned or salvaged electrical equipment and burned, discarded, and spilled PCBs from
electrical transformers. The principal contaminants in the soil at these locations are PCBs. Another
business on the site reclaimed lead batteries and wire. Lead and copper are the principal
contaminants in soil at this business. Other contaminants such as volatile organic compounds—
chloroform, PAHs, dioxin—and some metals have been detected in site soil at various locations but
do not represent a threat to public health or the environment. Groundwater sampling detected only
chromium. Soil sampling prior to the 1990 ROD found concentrations of PCB as high as 63,000
mg/kg, lead 40,000 mg/kg, and copper 310,000 mg/kg.
Documentation:
Superfund Record of Decision: University of Minnesota, Minnesota. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. EPA/ROD/R05-90/141. June
11, 1990.
G-8
-------
Explanation of Significant Differences in the Approved Remedy for Soil Contamination with
PCBs at the University of Minnesota - Rosemount Research Center in Rosemount, Minnesota.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN. 1991.
G-9
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floof
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
------- |