Treatment Technologies
        Annu
           for Site Cleanupf542™7012
                  tatus Report
         TWELFTH  EDITION
   t* III I it III W
  -a !r MM S •
  :«i SL K:. Tf
18
K

-------

-------
                   Solid Waste and
                   Emergency Response
                   (5203P)
EPA-542-R-07-012
September 2007
www.epa.gov/tio
http://clu-in.org/asr
i reatment Technologies for Site Cleanup:
 Annual Status Report (Twelfth Edition)
                     ~    ^^fc^^^^^^^^-^^^^^^^^^^X^fc^H^^         *

-------
to
•M


-------
APPENDIX A - TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES BY FISCAL YEAR
APPENDIX B - TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY MATRIX
APPENDIX C - DEFINITIONS OF SPECIFIC TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
APPENDIX D - TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES: SUMMARY OF STATUS REPORT ADDITIONS,
CHANGES, AND DELETIONS
APPENDIX E - RODS SELECTING MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION
APPENDIX F - IDENTIFICATION OF REMEDY AND RECORD OF DECISION TYPES FOR
SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
APPENDIX G - REASONS FOR SHUT DOWN OF 73 GROUNDWATER PUMP AND TREAT
SYSTEMS
APPENDIX H - ON-SITE CONTAINMENT REMEDIES
INDEX

Boxes
Box 1.   New in the Twelfth Edition	1-1
Box 2.   In Situ and Ex Situ Treatment	1-2
Box 3.   Summary of Source Control and Groundwater Remedy Types	1-3
Box 4.   NPL Sites and RODS	1-4
Box 5.   Evolution of Treatment Technologies	1-4
Box 6.   Reporting of ROD and Project Data in the ASR	1-6
Box 7.   Classifying the Status of Projects	2-4
Box 8.   Definition of a Completed Project	2-4
Box 9.   Source Control Remedy Types	3-1
Box 10.  In Situ Chemical Treatment at Eastland Woolen Mill, Maine	3-6
Box 11.  Innovative Technologies Selected From FY 2002 Through 2005	3-10
Box 12.  Groundwater Remedy Types	4-1
Box 13.  Sites with both Pump and Treat and Source Control Treatment Remedies .. 4-3
Box 14.  Groundwater MNA	4-7
Box 15.  P&T Optimization	4-14
Box 16.  Information in ASR Search System	6-2

Figures
Figure 1.    Actual Remedy Types at Sites on the NPL (FY 1982-2005)	2-1
Figure 2.    Remedies Selected in RODs (FY 1982-2005)	2-2
Figure 3.    Media Addressed in RODs (FY 1982-2005)	2-3
Figure 4.    Completed Treatment Projects by Remedy Type (FY 1982 -2005)..  .. 2-5
cr
CD
o
-h
O
o
3
rt-
(D

-------
to
       Figures.   Projects Completed for the Most Common Technologies
                  (FY 1982-2005) [[[ 2-6
       Figure 6.   Source Control RODS (FY 1982-2005) [[[ 3-2
       Figure 7.   Trends in Types of Source control RODS (FY 1982-2005) ............ . ............. 3-3
       Figure 8.   Source Control Treatment Projects (FY 1982 - 2005) ................................ 3-4
       Figure 9.   Source Control Treatment Projects (FY 2002 - 2005) ................................ 3-5
       Figure 10.  In Situ Technologies for Source Media (FY 1985-2005) ............................. 3-6
       Figure 11.  Status of in Situ and Ex Situ Source Treatment Projects -
                  Comparison Between Tenth, Eleventh and Twelfth Editions
                  Of the ASR (FY 1982-2005) [[[ 3-7
       Figure 12.  Innovative Applications of Source Treatment Technologies
                  (FY 1982-2005) [[[ 3-9
       Figure 13.  Established and innovative Source Treatment Projects
                  (FY 1982-2005) [[[ 3-10
       Figure 14.  NPL Sites with P&T, In Situ Treatment, or MNA Selected as Part
                  of a Croundwater Remedy (FY 1982 - 2005) ................................................ 4-2
       Figure 15.  RODS Selecting Croundwater Remedies (FY 1982-2005) .......................... 4-4
       Figure 16.  Trends in RODS Selecting Croundwater Remedies (FY 1986-2005) ......... 4-5
       Figure 17.  Trends in Croundwater RODS Selecting Pump and Treat
                  (FY 1986-2005) [[[ 4-6
       Figure 18.  Trends in Groundwater RODS Selecting in Situ Treatment
                  (FY 1986-2005) [[[ 4-7
       Figure 19.  In Situ Groundwater Treatment Projects (FY 1982-2005) ......................... 4-8
       Figure 20.  Contaminant Groups Treated by in Situ Groundwater Projects
                  (FY 1982-2005) [[[ 4-10
       Figure 21.  Status of In Situ Groundwater Treatment Projects - Comparison
                  Between Tenth, Eleventh and Twelfth Editions of the ASR
                  (FY 1982-2005) [[[ 4-11
       Figure 22.  Status of Groundwater Pump and Treat Projects (FY 1982-2005) ........ 4-13
       Figure 23.  Contaminants Most Commonly Treated by Pump and Treat

-------
Tables                                                                           2[
Table 1.    Actual Source Control Remedy Types at NPL Sites (FY1982-2005)	3-1
Table 2.    RODs Selecting Source Control Remedies
           (FY 1982-2005)	3-1      Q
Table 3.    Status of Source Treatment Projects by Technology
           (FY 1982-2005)	3-8      §
Table 4.    Contaminants Treated by Source Treatment Projects
           (FY 1982-2005)	3-11
Table 5.    Most Commonly Changed Source Control Technologies
           (FY 1982 -2005)	3-13
Table 6.    Actual Croundwater Remedy Types at NPL sites (FY 1982-2005)	4-2
Table 7.    Sites with Groundwater Other Remedies (FY 1982-2005)	4-3
Table 8.    RODs Selecting Croundwater Remedies
           (FY 1982-2005)	..4-3
Table 9.    In Situ Croundwater Treatment Projects	 4-9
Table 10.   Status of In Situ Croundwater Treatment Projects
           by Technology (FY 1982-2005)	4-12
Table 11.   Site Types for On-Site Containment Sites	5-2
Table 12.   Types of Hydraulic Barriers for Conventional Caps at
           Landfills/Disposal Units and Surface Contamination Sites	5-4
Table 13.   Types of Vertical Engineered Barriers (FY 1982-2005)	5-8

-------
 o
 Q
 'V
 rv
 IT;
 So
 ro
 j
 c
 c
 <
 en
 cy
 'en
 jD
 O
• c
 u
 Mi
 E
 M
 {-;;
 0)
0>
y
'•4-1
o
2
 Notice
Preparation of this report has been funded wholly
or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) under contract number 68-W-02-
034.  Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute  endorsement or
recommendation for use. A limited number of
printed copies of Treatment Technologies for Site
Cleanup:  Annual Status Report (ASR), Twelfth
Edition (EPA 542-R-07-012) is available free of
charge from:
   U.S.  EPA/National Service  Center  for
   Environmental  Publications  (NSCEP)
   (800)490-9198
   Fax: (301)604-3408
A portable document format (PDF) version of the
ASR is available for viewing or downloading from
the Hazardous Waste Cleanup Information (CLU-
IN) Web site at http://clu-in.orf/asr. Printed copies
of the ASR can also be ordered through that web
address, subject to availability.
The data for the ASR are available in a searchable
online database (the ASR Search System)  at
htto://cft>ub. et>a. vovlasrl.

-------
List of Acronyms

ASR
BTEX

CC
CERCLA


CERCLIS



CFR
CLU-IN
DCE
DNAPL

ORE
EOU
EPA


ESD
FRTR

FY
LNAPL

MNA
MSW
NA/NFA
NAPL
NPL
NSCEP


Annual Status Report
Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and
xylene
Construction completion
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System

Code of Federal Regulations
EPA's CLeanUp INformation system
Dichloroethene
Dense nonaqueous phase liquid

Destruction and removal efficiency
Excess, obsolete, or unserviceable
U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency
Explanation of significant differences
Federal Remediation Technologies
Roundtable
Fiscal year
Light nonaqueous phase liquid

Monitored natural attenuation
Municipal solid waste
No action/no further action
Nonaqueous phase liquid
National Priorities List
National Service Center for .
Environmental Publications
OD
S~~\ O f^~
osc
OSRTI

OSWER

OU
P&T
PAH
PCB
PCF
1 VjJ_i
PCOR
I V_>\^/I\
PDF
PRB
RA
RCRA

ROD

RPM

RSE
S/S
SARA

SVE
svoc

TCA
TCE
UV
VC
VEB
voc
                                                           Open detonation
                                                           On-Scene Coordinator
                                                           Office of Superfund Remediation
                                                           and Technology Innovation
                                                           Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
                                                           Response
                                                           Operable unit
                                                           Pump and treat
                                                           Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
                                                           Polychlorinated biphenyls
                                                           Tetrachloroethene
                                                           Preliminary close-out report
                                                           Portable document format
                                                           Permeable reactive barrier
                                                           Remedial action
                                                           Resource Conservation and Recovery
                                                           Act
                                                           Record of Decision
                                                           Remedial Project Manager
                                                           Remediation System Evaluation
                                                           Solidification/stabilization
                                                           Superfund Amendments and
                                                           Reauthorization Act
                                                           Soil vapor extraction
                                                           Semivolatile organic compound
                                                           Trichloroethane
                                                           Trichloroethene
                                                           Ultraviolet
                                                           Vinyl chloride
                                                           Vertical engineered barrier
                                                           Volatile organic compound
                                                                                                      »
                                                                                                      a
                                                                                                      o
                                                                                                      |
                                                                                                      <
                                                                                                       •
                                                                                                      cu
                                                                                                      <-t
                                                                                                      rt>
                                                                                                       3
                                                                                                      CL
                                                                                                      O
                                                                                                      (Q
                                                                                                        '
OB
Open burn

-------
 tj
 o
 Q
 CU
 iV
 in
 OJ
 'oi
 _g
 o
 u
 0)
 c
 CD
 4-1
 TO
 O
05

E
3
to
O
0>
X
HI
 Executive Summary
The Twelfth Edition of Treatment Technologies for
Site  Cleanup:  Annual Status Report (ASR)
documents the status, achievements, and trends
associated with treatment technologies at National
Priorities List (NPL) sites for remedy decisions
between 1982 and 2005.  Information collected
and analyzed for this report  helps document the
progress and contributions of technologies
implemented at NPL sites.  In addition to
presenting information  about remedy decisions
based solely on  records  of decision (ROD), this
report provides data about projects that relate to
their  operational  status  and  treatment
accomplishments. The report includes information
about:
 • Treatment technologies for source control: In
   situ and ex situ  treatment technologies for
   sources of contamination  (such as soil, sludge,
   sediment, other solid  matrix wastes, and
   nonaqueous phase liquids [NAPL]).
 • Treatment technologies and other remedies for
   groundwater: In situ and ex situ (pump and
   treat   [P&T])   groundwater  treatment
   technologies and monitored natural attenuation
   (MNA) remedies for groundwater.
 • On-site containment remedies:   Vertical
   engineered barriers (VEB), caps, and liners used
   to prevent the migration of contaminants or
   contaminated media.
This edition of the ASR provides:
 • Information about 192 treatment technologies
   selected from fiscal year  (FY)  2002 to 2005
   ("new" for the ASR Twelfth Edition)
 • Updates to more than 1,200 projects from 1982
   to 2002
 • A total of 1,915 treatment technologies and 57
   groundwater VEBs are included with updated
   information
 • Analysis of 133  on-site containment projects
   ("new" analysis for the ASR Twelfth Edition)
The data contained in the report were gathered
from the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act Information
System (CERCLIS) for FY 1982 to 2005 (as
documented as of October 2006), from site-specific
decision   documents,  and  online   U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sources.
Major Findings
Use of Treatment Remedies at NPL Sites
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 (SARA) expressed a preference for
permanent remedies (that  is,  treatment) over
containment or removal and disposal  in  the
remediation of Superfund sites.  As of September
2005, 1,536 sites had been listed on the NPL. Of
those, 307 sites,  had been deleted, leaving 1,229
sites on the NPL.  An  additional  54 sites were
proposed for listing at that time.
 • At nearly two-thirds of NPL sites (63 percent),
   source  control treatment,  groundwater
   treatment, or both, have been implemented or
   are planned as a remedy  for some portion of
   the site.
 • More than a quarter of the sites  (28 percent)
   selected treatment for both source control and
   groundwater.
 • The selected remedies do not  include treatment
   for 24 percent of sites.
 • No ROD has been issued for 13 percent of all
   NPL sites.
Some 56 percent (1,677) of all RODs analyzed for
the ASR (2,976)  contained provisions for treatment
of source media or groundwater.  EPA currently
tracks the status of 1,915 projects for application
of treatment technologies  at  Superfund sites,
including in situ and ex situ treatment projects for
both  source control and groundwater.  These
applications include:
 • 515 ex situ source control treatment projects
   (27 percent of all projects)
 • 421 in situ source control treatment projects
   (22 percent)
 • 725 P&T projects (38 percent)
 • 213 in situ groundwater treatment projects (11
   percent)
 • 41 in situ source control and in situ groundwater
   treatment projects (2 percent)

Use of Treatment for Source Control
A  total  of 977  projects  were  planned  or
implemented for the  1,104  source control
treatment RODs and ROD amendments.  Those
projects include  a wide range of in situ and ex situ
technologies used  to  address many types of
contaminants, and represent various stages of
                                                                    1

-------
design and implementation. Trends and general
observations include:
 • The selection of in situ treatment for source
   control continues to increase.  In situ source
   control treatment  projects represented 60
   percent o( source treatment projects from FY
   2002 to 2005.  Cumulatively, from  FY 1982
   through 2005, in situ source control projects
   make up 47 percent of the projects.
 • From FY 2002 to 2005, projects that used in
   situ technologies of multi-phase extraction and
   chemical treatment are being  selected at an
   increasing rate  compared with soil vapor
   extraction (SVE)  projects that are not being
   selected as frequently as in past years.
 • Historically,  incineration projects have
   represented a high percentage of ex situ source
   treatment projects (29 percent reported in the
   eleventh edition  of the ASR for FY 1982 to
   2005).  During the period from FY 2002 to
   2005, incineration represented only 6 percent
   of ex situ treatment projects.
 • In FY 2004, the  percentage of projects that
   selected innovative technologies reached 47
   percent, nearly equaling the percentage for
   established technologies. This trend continued
   in FY 2005, with partial data indicating 48
   percent of projects  selected  innovative
   technologies.
 • Nearly 80  percent of ex situ source control
   projects are completed and 10  percent are
   operational. Approximately 40 percent of in
   situ source control projects are completed, while
   another 40 percent are operational.

Use of Treatment for Groundwater
Of the RODs that select groundwater treatment,
18 percent (195) used in situ treatment remedies,
whereas more  than 90  percent (958) used P&T
remedies.  A total of 254 in situ treatment projects
and 725 P&T projects are planned or have been
implemented  from those RODs.   Trends and
general observations about groundwater treatment
RODs and projects include:
 • RODs that select in situ groundwater treatment
   have been generally increasing, from none in
   FY 1982 through 1986 to a high of 31 percent
   in FY 2005.
 • RODs that select P&T alone have decreased
   from about 80 percent before FY 1992 to an
   average of 20 percent over the last 5 years (FY
   2001 through 2005).
                                           ES-
 • RODs that select MNA experienced a decline
   from FY 1999 to  2002,  coinciding with
   publication of EPA guidance  on the  use of
   MNA in 1999.  Since FY 2002, RODs that
   select MNA have been increasing, with  almost
   half of all groundwater RODs selecting MNA
   in FY 2005.
 • The most common in situ technologies include
   air sparging, bioremediation,  chemical
   treatment, permeable reactive barriers  (PRB),
   and multi-phase extraction.  Cumulatively, air
   sparging represents almost 30 percent of all in
   situ  groundwater treatment  projects and
   bioremediation represents 27 percent.
 • In situ bioremediation and chemical treatment
   have increased significantly in recent years, with
   approximately 70 to 80 percent of these projects
   selected in the  past six years.
 • More than 70 percent of P&T projects selected
   are currently operational.  Another 10 percent
   have been shut down.   Eighteen percent of in
   situ groundwater projects have been completed,
   and  nearly 50 percent continue to operate.

Project Completion at NPL Sites
A total  of 1,915  treatment remedies have been
planned or implemented at NPL sites.  Of these
treatment remedies:
 • 687 projects (36 percent) have been completed
   or shut down
 • 857 projects (45 percent) are operational
 • 371 projects (19 percent) are being designed or
   constructed
Trends and general observations about completed
projects include:
 « Approximately 60 percent of all source control
   projects are completed.
 • Most of the completed projects are ex situ source
   control treatments (57 percent)  that usually
   involve excavation of  contaminated soil and
   application of  an  aggressive treatment
   technology in a controlled environment.  Nearly
   all incineration projects have been completed.
   Approximately 80 percent of the solidification/
   stabilization (S/S) and thermal desorption
   projects have been completed.
 •  In situ treatments are applied to contaminated
   media in place, without excavation.  These
   projects typically require longer treatment times
   because they take place in  a less controlled
   environment, which may limit  the  treatment
   rate.  In situ treatment technologies represent
X

to
C

3

ft)
n
  ^
O
(Q
CD'
CO
Z3
13
GO
r^
0>
r-t-
CO
7O

-------
 o^                      31 percent of completed projects, with 170 of
                         those 216 projects being in situ source control
                         treatment  only  (with no  groundwater
                         treatment).
                         More in situ source control projects have been
 c                       completed than in situ groundwater projects.
                         For instance, approximately  65 percent of in
 a)                       situ S/S projects and 45 percent of in situ SVE
                         projects have been completed. In contrast, less
 o                       than 30  percent  of air sparging for  in situ
                         groundwater treatment have been completed.
                         P&T projects, which represent the  largest
                         number of treatment projects (725), typically
 r                       require long treatment times and represent only
 ;";                       11 percent of all completed and shut down
                         projects.
                         Ten percent of P&T  projects have been
                         completed or shut down.

£
is
CO

>
CD
X
UJ
                                                                  &

-------
 Section  1:     Introduction
In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund) to address
the dangers of abandoned or  uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites. CERCLA provides the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other
federal agencies the authority to respond to a release
or a substantial threat of a release  of a hazardous
substance into the environment,  or a release or
substantial threat of a release of "any pollutant or
contaminant, which may present an immediate and
substantial danger to public health or welfare."
Since the inception of the Superfund program, EPA
has responded to thousands of actual or potential
releases of hazardous substances through short-term
Or emergency  removal actions and  longer-term
cleanup efforts known as remedial  actions.  These
remedial actions, undertaken to  provide more
permanent solutions to protect human health and
safety, may require years to design, implement, and
complete.
Although remedial options may include a  variety
of possible remedies, ranging from containment of
wastes to treatment to  institutional controls, the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1986 (SARA) expressed a preference for
permanent remedies (that  is, treatment) over
containment  or removal  and disposal  in
remediation of Superfund sites.   EPA currently
tracks the  status of projects where treatment
technologies are applied at National Priorities List
(NPL) sites to collect  and analyze information
about the  progress  and contributions  of
technologies that have  been  implemented. This
report documents the status, achievements, and
trends associated with  treatment technologies at
NPL sites with remedy decisions from fiscal year
(FY)  1982 through 2005.


Reporting   on   the  Status  of
Treatment Technologies
The Twelfth Edition^of Treatment Technologies for
Site Cleanup:  Annual Status Report  (ASR)
documents  treatment technology applications for
soil,  other  solid wastes, liquid wastes, and
groundwater at NPL sites. The report includes
information about:
  Box 1.  NEW  IN THE TWELFTH EDITION
  • Information about 192 treatment
   technologies selected from FY 2002 to
   2005 ("new" for the ASR Twelfth
   Edition).
  • Updates to more than 1,200 treatment
   technologies selected from FY 1982 to
   2002.
  • A total of 1,915 treatment technologies
   and 57 groundwater vertical engineered
   barriers (VEBs) are included with
   updated information.
  • Analysis of 133 on-site containment
   projects ("new" for the ASR Twelfth
   Edition).

 • Treatment Technologies for Source Control -
   In situ and ex situ treatment technologies for
   sources of contamination (such as soil, sludge,
   sediment, other solid matrix wastes, and
   nonaqueous phase liquids [NAPL]).
 • Treatment Technologies and Other Remedies
   for Groundwater - In situ  and ex situ (pump
   and  treat [P&T])  groundwater  treatment
   technologies and monitored natural attenuation
   (MNA) remedies for groundwater.
 • Containment Remedies - Vertical engineered
   barriers (VEB), caps, and liners used to prevent
   the migration of contaminants or contaminated
   media.
The Twelfth Edition of the ASR uses information
from the ASR Eleventh Edition (EPA  542-R-03-
009), published by EPA in February  2004, and
updated data from the following sources:
 • FY 2002 decision documents (e.g., records of
   decision  [ROD],  ROD  amendments, and
   Explanations of Significant Differences [ESD]).
   Data includes  the estimated 30 percent of
   decision documents that were not included in
   the ASR Eleventh Edition.
 • FY 2003 decision documents.
 • FY 2004 decision documents.
 • FY 2005  decision documents available as of
   October 2006  (an estimated 76 percent of the
   total signed decision documents).
 • Other sources of information, including 5-year
   review reports, preliminary close-out reports
   (PCOR),  and online regional site summaries.
                                                                                                            to
                                                                                                            (0
                                                                                                            o
o
o.
c
3

-------
C
o
'•£
O
0)
Information about technologies and sites identified
in this report was  obtained, in part, from the
CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS) as of
October 2006.  Some data may differ from
information found in the CERCLIS database as a
result of review of individual decision documents,
site summaries,  or other sources obtained while
preparing this report.

Treatment  Technologies  Included in this
Report
Remedies selected for NPL sites are documented
in RODs and ROD amendments.  Throughout
the ASR, the term "RODs" is generally used
inclusively  to  mean  both  RODs and ROD
amendments. Many RODs for remedial actions
address the source of contamination, such as soil,
sludge, sediments, and solid-matrix wastes; these
"source control" RODs select "source control
remedies." A groundwater remedial action is also
known as "a non-source control action."  These
actions are described in the report as "groundwater
remedies."  The graphic at the  right illustrates a
remedial site with source media contamination and
groundwater contamination. A ROD may include
both "source  control"  and  "groundwater"
components.  Appendix F to this document is a
detailed description of the  methodology used to
classify RODs, including detailed definitions of
"source  control  remedies,"  "groundwater
remedies," and other remedy types. Box 3 provides
a summary  of the remedy types presented in
Appendix F.
                       Box 2.  IN SITU AND Ex SITU TREATMENT
                       In situ: In its original place; unmoved,
                       unexcavated; remaining at the site or in
                       the subsurface.
                       In situ treatment technologies treat or
                       remove the contaminant from source
                       media without excavation or removal of
                       the source media, or from groundwater
                       without extracting, pumping,  or otherwise
                       removing the groundwater from the
                       aquifer.
                       Ex situ:  Moved, excavated, or removed
                       from the site or subsurface.
                       Implementation of ex situ remedies
                       requires excavation or removal of the
                       contaminated source media or extraction
                       of groundwater from an aquifer before
                       treatment may occur above ground.
                                                                           SITE WITH  SOURCE  MEDIA  AND
                                                                           GROUNDWATER  CONTAMINATION
The term "treatment technology" means any unit
operation or series of unit operations that alters
the composition of a hazardous  substance or
pollutant or contaminant  through  chemical,
biological, or physical means so  as  to reduce
toxicity, mobility, or volume of the  contaminated
materials being treated.  Treatment technologies
are an  alternative to land disposal of hazardous
wastes without treatment (iMarch 8, 1990 Federal
Register [55 FR 8819], see Title 40 Code of Federal
Regulations [CFR] Part 300.5, "Definitions").
Information on cost and performance is often
available for treatment technologies that are
considered "established." The most frequently used
established  technologies are on- and off-site
incineration, solidification/stabilization (S/S), soil
vapor extraction (SVE),  and  thermal desorption
for source control,  and P&T technologies for
groundwater. Treatment of groundwater after it
has been pumped to the surface usually involves
traditional water treatment; as such, groundwater
P&T  remedies are  considered  established
technologies.
Innovative technologies are alternative treatment
technologies with a limited number of applications
and limited data on cost and performance.  Often,
these technologies are established in other fields,
such as chemical manufacturing. In such cases, it
is the application of a technology or process at a
waste site (to soils,  sediments, sludge, and solid-
matrix waste such as mining slag, or groundwater)
that is innovative, and not the technology itself.
Innovative technologies for source control are
discussed in Section 2.   Innovative technologies
for in situ treatment of groundwater are discussed
in Section 3.

-------
                                                                                               o
                                                                                               rt;
                                                                                               o
Box 3.  SUMMARY OF SOURCE CONTROL AND CROUNDWATER REMEDY TYPES

SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY TYPES*

Source Control Treatment
  Treatment of a contaminant source in situ or ex situ.
                                                                                               Q.
  Can include any of the source control treatment technologies described in this                         o
  report, such as chemical treatment and thermal desorption.

Source Control Containment
• Containment of a contaminant source.

• Can include the use of caps, liners, covers, and landfilling, both on and off site.

Source Control Other
• Other remedies for contaminant sources.

• Can include institutional controls, monitoring, and population relocation.


CROUNDWATER REMEDY TYPES*	

In Situ Treatment
• Treatment of groundwater in place without extracting it from an aquifer.

• Can include any of the in situ groundwater treatment technologies identified in this
  report, such as air sparging and permeable reactive barriers.

Pump  and Treat (P&T)
• Extraction of groundwater from  an aquifer and treatment aboveground.

• Groundwater usually is  extracted by pumping from a well or trench.

• Treatment can include any of the P&T technologies described in this report, such as
  air stripping and ion exchange.

Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)
• The reliance on natural  attenuation processes  (within the context of a carefully
  controlled and monitored approach to site cleanup) to achieve site-specific
  remediation objectives on a schedule that is reasonable compared with other
  alternatives.

• Natural attenuation processes include a variety of physical, chemical, and
  biological processes.

Groundwater Containment
• Containment of groundwater through a vertical, engineered, subsurface,
  impermeable barrier.

• Containment of groundwater through a hydraulic barrier created by pumping.

Groundwater Other
• Groundwater remedies that do not fall  into the  categories of groundwater in situ
  treatment, P&T, MNA, or containment remedies.

• Can include a variety of remedies, such as water use restrictions and alternative
  water supply.

* See Appendix F for further definitions of Source Control and Groundwater Remedies.

-------
 c
 3
 -
 —
E
o
'•*3
o
0)
In addition to the remedy types identified in Box
3 and the classifications of remedies discussed in
Appendix F,  specific treatment technologies are
discussed throughout this report. Appendix C
defines 17 types of source control (primarily soil)
treatment technologies, 9  types  of in situ
groundwater treatment technologies, 8 types of
groundwater P&T technologies, and 3 on-site
containment technologies.

Framework  for  Discussion  of Treatment
Technology  Data
From FY  1982 through 2005  (including an
estimated 76 percent of FY  2005 decision
documents), 2,976 RODs and ROD amendments
were signed.  Multiple RODs may be prepared for
some sites to address different areas of the site
known as operable units (OU) and different media
within a site. In addition, each OU may require a
number of RODs  to  address different media or
contaminants, or ROD amendments to revise the
selected  remedy. Box  4 identifies the numbers of
RODs and  ROD  amendments  issued  for NPL
sites. On average,  2.3 RODs are signed for each
NPL site. While a  majority of sites (53 percent of
1,309 sites for which ROD data was available) have
a single  ROD, and 95 percent have 5 or fewer
RODs and  ROD  amendments, some sites may
have a significant  number of RODs and ROD
amendments. The majority of these sites are very
large and complex federal facilities (e.g., Savannah
River [68 RODs and ROD amendments], Oak
Ridge   Reservation  [29],  Idaho  National
Engineering Lab  [25], Naval Air Engineering
Center [25fand Cecil Field [24]).
Box 4. NPL
Number
of Sites
697
360
111
46
33
12
7
5
8
25
4
1
SITES AND RODs
Number of RODs and
Amendments Per Site
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10-18
24-29
68
Box 5.  EVOLUTION OF TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES
Driven by the need for more effective, less
costly approaches (i.e., "smarter
solutions") to clean up contaminated sites,
new remediation technologies are
developed and deployed on a continual
basis.  Since the inception of the
Superfund program, several treatment
technologies have evolved from
"innovative" bench- and pilot-scale
demonstrations to commonly used
"established" technologies.  As
technologies mature, their applications
become better defined and cost and
performance are documented, enabling
them to become established. With the
ongoing use of these technologies, new
needs are identified and new technologies
emerge, continuing the cycle.
For example, in the early 1980s, SVE was
considered innovative and was used
infrequently. Since then, SVE has become
an established technology,  representing
26 percent of the total source control
treatment projects planned or
implemented at NPL sites from 1982 to
2005.  However, data in the ASR Twelfth
Edition now indicate that projects using
innovative in situ technologies like multi-
phase extraction and chemical treatment
are being selected at an increased rate
relative to SVE over the period from 2002
to 2005.
                                                                   Each ROD or ROD amendment issued for a site
                                                                   or  OU may result in one or more projects
                                                                   consisting of treatment, contaminant, or another
                                                                   remedy. Alternatively, multiple RODs and ROD
                                                                   amendments may be issued for a single project over
                                                                   the duration of its operation. As such, the ratio of
                                                                   RODs and ROD amendments to projects varies.
                                                                   The graphic on the following page illustrates an
                                                                   example of a remedial approach at  a site with
                                                                   multiple OUs, RODs, and projects.
                                                                   The remedy selected in a ROD  may not be the
                                                                   remedy that is actually implemented at a site.
                                                                   For example, a different remedy may be used when
                                                                   a treatment technology that was selected in a ROD
                                                                   based on  bench-scale treatability testing proves
                                                                   ineffective in pilot-scale tests conducted during the
                                                                   design phase. Likewise,  additional contamination
                                                                   may be discovered at  the site during the

-------
                           EXAMPLE  REMEDIAL APPROACH AT  A SITE
                                                                                  V)
                                                                                  
-------
a
•p
                         Box 6.  REPORTING OF ROD AND PROJECT  DATA IN THE  ASR
                         ROD Data:

                         ROD data (remedy selection data) are reported:
                         • By media (source control or groundwater), or

                         • Grouped using a hierarchy (each ROD being listed once) under the categories
                           of treatment, containment, and other.

                         ROD data for source control are reported:
                         • With each of the remedies selected in a ROD classified under a specific remedy
                           type* (with more than one remedy identified if appropriate), or

                         • With all remedies selected by a single ROD grouped using a hierarchy (each
                           ROD being listed only once) under the categories of treatment, containment,
                           and other.

                         ROD data for groundwater are reported:
                         • With each of the remedies selected in a ROD classified under a specific remedy
                           type* (with more than one remedy identified if appropriate), or

                         • With all remedies selected by a single ROD grouped using a hierarchy (each
                           ROD being listed only once) under the categories of treatment, MNA,
                           containment, and other.

                         Project Data:

                         Project data portrays information about actual projects planned or underway at
                         NPL sites.

                         Each remedy is considered a single project, for which technology, status,
                         contaminant, and other information is provided.

                         Site Data:

                         These data combine ROD data and project-level  data for all  remedies at a
                         particular site.

                         Site data are reported:

                         • With each of the remedies selected for a site classified under a specific remedy
                           type* (with more than one remedy identified if appropriate), or

                         • With all remedies selected for a site grouped using a hierarchy (each remedy
                           being listed only once) under the categories of treatment,  MNA, containment,
                           and other.  These groupings may be subdivided according to media (source
                           control and groundwater).

                         *See Box 3 and Appendix F for additional information about remedy types.

-------
                                                                                                           (D
Organization of the ASR Twelfth
Edition                                                                                                  5
The ASR Twelfth Edition consists of the following
major sections:
 • Executive Summary - Summarizes the major
   findings of the report.
   Section 1:  Introduction - Provides an
   introduction to the  ASR, the types of data
   contained in the report, and the framework used
   for reporting data.
   Section 2:   Overview of Data -  Presents an
   overview of the remedies selected in decision
   documents and status of projects planned or
   underway at NPL sites.
   Section 3: Treatment Technologies for Source
   Control - Reports data and trends associated
   with remedy decisions and projects to address
   contaminated source  media.
   Section 4:  Treatment Technologies  for
   Groundwater  - Reports data and trends
   associated with  remedy decisions and projects
   to address contaminated groundwater.
   Section 5:   Report Focus Area - On-Site
   Containment Remedies - Provides data and
   analysis for a limited sample of on-site
   containment remedies.
   Section 6: References and Sources of Additional
   Information - Identifies references for data used
   in the development of the ASR and sources of
   additional  data.  Note:  Section 6 contains
   references to online sources of ASR data and
   ASR  appendices not included in the print
   version of the report.

-------
Q
 u
 ^
U
0)
                      Section  2:   Overview  of Data
As of September 2005, 1,536 sites had been listed
on the NPL. Of those, 307 sites had been deleted,
leaving 1,229 sites on the NPL. An additional 54
sites were  proposed for  listing at that time.
Updated information on site listings and deletions
is available at http://www.epa.gov/superfund.
Figure 1 provides a summary of the number of NPL
sites (both current and deleted) by type of remedial
action.  The types of remedies planned or under
way at each site were identified and the sites were
classified based on the most recent information
about the implementation status of the remedies.
At nearly two-thirds of NPL  sites (63 percent),
source control treatment, groundwater treatment,
or both, have been implemented or are planned as
a remedy for some portion of the site.  More than
a quarter of the sites (28 percent) selected treatment
for both source control  and groundwater. The
selected remedies do not include treatment for 24
percent of sites.  No ROD has been issued for 13
percent of all NPL sites.
For the 1,536 sites that were  listed on the NPL
from 1982 through 2005:
 • 2,976 RODs and ROD amendments were signed
 • 1,915  treatment   projects  have  been
   implemented or are planned
As discussed in the Introduction,  each ROD and
ROD amendment, and the remedies they selected,
have been classified by the remedy types identified
in Appendix F. The following text presents a brief
overview of remedies selected  in  RODs and the
status of projects undertaken.
                                      Figure 1:   Actual Remedy Types at  Sites on the NPL
                                                          (FY 1982 - 2005)*
                                                  Total Number of Sites =  1,536
                          Containment and
                          Other (370) 24%
                          No Action or
                          No Further Action (91)
                          6%
                          Non-Treatment
                          Groundwater
                          Remedy Only (47)
                          3%
                          Other Source
                          Control (46)
                          3%
                          Containment or Off-Site
                          Disposal of a Source (186)
                          12%
                                       No Decision
                                       (204) 13%
                               No Remedy Decision (204)
                                         13%
                  Treatment (962) 63%
                         Treatment of a
                      Source Only (178)
                                  12%
                                                                      Treatment of Both
                                                                          a Source and
                                                                     Groundwater (427)
                                                                                  28%
                                                                                     	Treatment of
                                                                                     Groundwater Only (357)
                                                                                                       23%
                                Treatment remedies are planned or implemented at 63 percent of NPL sites.

                      ^Includes final or deleted NPL sices as of September 2005. Also includes information from an estimated 74
                     percent of FY 2005 records of decision and amendments available as of October 2006 and project data available
                      in CERCLIS as of October 2006.
                      Each NPL site is'listed only once using the following hierarchy: treatment, containment, and other.  Sires with
                      treatment remedies may also include containment and other non-treatment remedies. Sites with containment/
                      disposal may include other non-treatment remedies. Other source control (described in Appendix F) includes
                      institutional controls and other non-treatment/non-containment remedies. Non-treatment groundwater remedies
                      include MNA, containment, and other remedies defined in Appendix F.
                      Sources: 1,2,3, 4, 7. Data sources are listed in Section 6.

-------
Remedies Selected in RODs
Superfund remedy decisions are documented in
RODs. ROD amendments are used to document
changes to remedies that occur after a ROD has
been signed.  Figure 2 presents remedy decisions
from FY 1982 to 2005. During that period, 2,976
       RODs and  ROD  amendments  were signed
       documenting groundwater and source control
       remedies (as well as no action and no further
       action).  Since FY 1991, the number of RODs
       signed per year generally decreased.  Recent years
       indicate that the trend may be leveling off or
       beginning to increase.
0>
o
rf
O
3
N)
O
                                                                                                          O
                        Figure 2:  Remedies Selected in RODs
                                   (FY 1982-2005)*
                           Total Number of RODs = 2,976
                     Not Yet Available for FY 2005 - 24
                     Treatment - 1,677
                     MNA (with no treatment) - 139
                     Containment (with no treatment or MNA) - 503
                     Other remedies (with no treatment, MNA, or containment) - 224
                     No Action or No Further Action (with no other remedy) - 433
         [Total 4  13 38  68 84  77 153145 170197 173190166 190 157169155 142 159 89 104 90 129138|
          200

          180

          160

          140

          120

Number
of RODs  100

           80

           60

           40

           20
               82 83  84  85 86  87
89 90  91  92  93  94 95  96 97 98  99 00  01  02 03  04  05*
        Fiscal Year (FY)
 The number of RODs signed each year peaked at 197 in FY 1991, 11 years after CERCLA was enacted.

MNA = Monitored natural a nenuacion
ROD = Record of Decision (Note: Data include ROD amendments)
*Includes information from an estimated 74 percent of FY 2005 RODs and amendments available as of October
2006. The following hierarchy was used tor this figure to count RODs only once: treatment, MNA, containment,
other non-treatment remedies, and no action/no fiirthcr action.
Sources: 3, 4, 7. Data sources are listed in Section 6.

-------
 ,-
 u
 U
(N
C
o
o>
U
Using the previously described hierarchy for
classifying remedies selected, the 2,976 RODs and
ROD amendments signed between FY 1982 and
2005 may be classified as:
 • Treatment remedies - 1,677 (56 percent)
 • MNA for groundwater (widi no treatment) - 139
   (5 percent)
 • Containment remedies (without treatment) - 503
   (17 percent)
 • Other remedies such as institutional controls or
   monitoring (with no treatment, MNA,  or
   containment) - 224 (7 percent)
 • No  action or no  further action (with no
   treatment, MNA, containment, or other remedy)
   -433 (15 percent)
RODs may include a single remedy to address source
control or groundwater or may contain multiple
remedies for both sources and groundwater within
a single OU, for multiple OUs, or across the entire
site.
Figure 3 shows the number of RODs for each fiscal
year that selected:
 •  Only source control remedies
 •  Both groundwater and source control remedies
 •  Only groundwater remedies
 •  No action  or no further action remedies
                                               Figure 3:  Media Addressed in RODs
                                                          (FY 1982-2005)*
                                                  Total Number of RODs = 2,976
                         •  Not Yet Available for FY 2005 - 24
                         ED  No Action or No Further Action - 433
                         S3  Source Control Remedy Only -1,034
                         •B  Both a Source Control and a Groundwater Remedy - 960
                         B3  Groundwater Remedy Only - 549
                      [Total  4   13   38  68  84 77  153 145 170 197 173 190 166 190 157 169 155 142 159 89 104 90 129 1381
                      200n
             Number 120
             of RODs
                          82  83 84  85  86 87  88  89 90  91 92  93  94 95  96  97 98  99  00 01  02  03 04  05
                                                              Fiscal Year (FY)

                                  In most years since FY 1998, many RODs include remedies that address
                                               both source control and groundwater media.
                      ROD = Record of Decision (Noce: Data include ROD amendments)
                      *Includes information from an estimated 74 percent of FY 2005 RODs available as of October 2006. RODs are
                      counted only once in this figure as appropriate.
                      Sources:  3,4,7. Data sources are listed in Section 6.

-------
Status of Superfund Remediation
Projects
Information collected and analyzed for this report
helps document the progress and contributions of
technologies  implemented at  NPL sites.
In addition to presenting information about
remedy decisions based on RODs  and ROD
amendments, this report provides project-related
data concerning operational status and treatment
applications. This section presents a brief overview
of the progress of treatment technologies at
Superfund remedial action  sites.  Box 7 explains
how the status of a project is classified.
Some 56 percent (1,677)  of the 2,976 RODs
analyzed for the ASR contained provisions for
treatment of source media or groundwater.   EPA
currently tracks the status of 1,915 treatment
projects at NPL sites, including in situ and ex situ
treatment projects  for both source control and
groundwater. These applications  include:
 • 515 ex situ source control  treatment projects
   (27 percent of all projects)
 • 421 in situ source control treatment projects (22
   percent)

  Box 7.  CLASSIFYING THE STATUS OF
  PROJECTS

  The Superfund cleanup process  begins
  with Site Discovery followed by NPL
  Listing, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
  Study, ROD, Remedial Design/Remedial
  Action, Construction Completion, and
  NPL Deletion. These stages  are based
  on the site as a whole, not individual
  actions (or projects) at the site.  In
  contrast, the ASR evaluates projects
  individually  based on the following
  classifications. After a remedy is
  selected in a ROD, the project begins in
  the "predesign/dssign" phase where the
  project team is formed and the design of
  the remedy  is developed.  Additional
  data may be collected and bench-scale
  or pilot-scale testing may also be
  conducted during this phase, if
  necessary.  The  next  phase is called
  "design complete/being installed" and
  continues through installation until
  construction is complete. The third
  phase includes the "operational" phase
  where the technology is operating and
  treatment is being conducted. The final
  phase, "completion," occurs  when
  operations are ceased and the treatment
  system is shut down.
 • 725 P&T projects (38 percent)
 • 213 in situ groundwater treatment projects (11
   percent)
 • 41 in situ source control and in situ groundwater
   treatment projects (2 percent)
Figure 4 presents data about 687 completed treatment
projects by media (i.e., projects where treatment is
no longer under way).  The term "completed" does
not necessarily indicate that treatment goals have been
achieved. Although most source control treatment
projects that are  completed have achieved their
treatment goals, groundwater projects may have been
completed or shut down because of issues with the
treatment technology.  These issues can include
technical problems with the equipment, continuing
sources of contamination, or may result because
concentrations have been  reduced significantly but
not to the point of cleanup goals.  It may therefore be
more appropriate  to describe diese projects as "shut
down" rather than "completed" in this report.
Appendix G lists die 73 P&T projects that are shut
down and the teasons that were identified for making
die decision.  EPA is currently gathering additional
data  to better understand, across the Superfund
program, the decisions that result in the shutdown of
P&T systems. In  many cases, this decision appears
to be driven by a "treatment train" approach, where
P&T is supplemented by a different remedy such as
in situ treatment or MNA

For the 1,915 treatment projects:

 •  687 projects (36 percent) have been completed
   or shut down
 •  857 projects (45 percent) are operational
 •  371 projects (19 percent) are being designed or
   constructed
  Box  8.   DEFINITION  OF  A COMPLETED
  PROJECT
  Project completion and construction
  completion (CC) are different terms used
  in defining progress in Superfund. The
  first refers to a specific project (for
  example, a soil vapor extraction system
  that has been shut down after cieanup
  levels have been achieved), whereas CC
  refers to construction of all remedies for
  an entire site (all remedial construction at
  the site has been completed). Note that
  project completion does not always
  indicate that all cleanup goals have been
  achieved, as projects may sometimes be
  shut down for other reasons.
o
rt-
O
3
N)
O
<
ft
g_
O

-------
 Q
 u
 ^
CM
£
O
CO
Most of the completed projects are ex situ source
control treatments (57 percent).  Ex situ source
control  projects usually involve excavation of
contaminated soil and application of an aggressive
treatment technology in a controlled environment.
Therefore, this type of remedy typically requires a
shorter amount of time to complete.  Additional
information on source control projects is presented
in Section 3.
In situ treatments are applied to contaminated
media in place, without excavation. These projects
typically require longer treatment times because
they take place in a less controlled environment,
which  may  limit the treatment rate.  In situ
treatment technologies represent approximately 31
percent of completed projects, with 170 of those
216 projects addressing in situ source control
treatment only (with no groundwater treatment).
P&T projects, which represent the largest number
of treatment projects (725), also typically require
long treatment times, and in fact represent only
11 percent of all completed and shut down projects.
The application of  P&T is often limited  by
environmental  factors,  including  the rate
contaminated groundwater can be extracted from
an aquifer and the presence of continuing sources
of groundwater contamination such as DNAPLs.
Additional information on groundwater projects
is provided in Section 4.
Figure 5 shows the number of completed and shut
down projects  for  the most commonly used
technologies for ex situ source control, in situ source
control, in situ groundwater, and P&T.  Nearly all
incineration projects have been completed.
Additionally, nearly 80 percent of the S/S (ex situ)
and  thermal desorption projects have been
completed.
Approximately 64 percent of S/S projects (in situ)
and  43 percent of SVE projects have been
completed.   Fewer in s/ru groundwater projects
have been completed compared to source control
projects.  However, these technologies tend to be
innovative and have  been selected in more recent
RODs.  Ten percent of P&T projects have been
shut down.
                                  Figure 4:  Completed Treatment Projects by Remedy  Type
                                                          (FY 1982 - 2005)*
                                                 Total Projects Completed = 687
                                   Ex Situ Groundwater
                                   Treatment (P&T) (73)
                                   11%
                              In Situ Groundwater
                              Treatment Only (35)
                              5%
                               In Situ Source Control
                               Treatment Only (170)
                               25%
                                            In Situ Source Control and
                                            Groundwater Treatment (11)
                                            2%
                                                             Ex Situ Source Control
                                                                   Treatment (398)
                                                                               57%
                                  Nearly one-third of completed treatment projects are in situ technologies.
                      ^Includes information from an estimated 74 percent ofFY2005 records of decision and amendments available as
                      or October 2006 and project data available in CERCLIS as of October 2006. Completed does not always
                      indicate that cleanup goals have been met.
                      Sources: 3, 4, 7. Data sources are listed in Section 6.

-------
      Figure 5:  Projects Completed for the Most Common Technologies
                              (FY 1982 - 2005)*
                                                                                    to
                                                                                    (D
                                                                                    o
                                                                                    rt-
               d]  Completed
                   Not Completed
Number of
 Projects
  #

-------
 y
 V
 -j.
 1)

 -
 U
 u
 (_
 -
c
o
0)
in
 Section   3:    Treatment
 Technologies   for   Source
 Control
Source control remedies address soil, sediment,
sludge, solid-matrix wastes, or NAPL (in other
words, the source of contamination) and do not
address groundwater directly.  Source control
remedies can be delineated by the general type of
remedy specified: (1) source control treatment that
is either in situ or ex situ, (2)  source control
containment that uses caps or liners, or (3) other
actions (such as population  relocation  or
institutional  controls). Box 9 delineates source
control remedies by remedy type and provides a
description for each category.

 Box  9.   SOURCE CONTROL  REMEDY TYPES
 Source Control Treatment
 •  Treatment of a contaminant source in situ
   or  ex situ.
 •  Includes any of the source control
   treatment technologies described in this
   report, such as chemical  treatment and
   thermal desorption.
 Source Control Containment
 •  Containment of a  contaminant source.
 •  Includes the use of caps, liners, covers,
   and landfilling both on and off site.
 Source Control Other
 •  Other remedies for contaminant sources.
 •  Includes institutional controls,  monitoring,
   and population relocation.
                     Beyond categorization by remedy type, source
                     control treatment projects may be classified as 1 of
                     17 specific technologies.  Definitions for these
                     remedies are presented in Appendix C.  Specific
                     key words in decision documents  determine the
                     remedy classification into 1 of the 17 technologies.
                     Keywords used to classify source control treatment
                     remedies are listed in Appendix F.  Some of these
                     technologies may also be used in other applications,
                     such as to treat  contaminated  groundwater.
                     Technology  definitions  are  based  on  the
                     Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix  and
                     Reference Guide, Version 4.0, which can be viewed
                     at the  Federal  Remediation  Technologies
                     Roundtable (FRTR) Web site at http://www. tnr.gov.
Of the 1,104 source control treatment RODs, a
total of 977 projects were planned or implemented
at 605 sites.  Tables 1 and 2 provide  breakdowns
of the source control remedies by sites and RODs,
respectively.  The following  section of this report
discusses the latest  data and  historical trends
associated  with these RODs and source control
treatment projects.
     Table 1.  Actual Source Control
       Remedy Types at NPL Sites
             (FY 1982 - 2005)*
      Total Number of Sites with a
    Source Control Remedy = 1,055
                                                                    Remedy Type
                                                                    Treatment of a Source
                                Number of
                                  Sites
                                                                                                      605
 Containment or Off-Site
 Disposal of a Source
632
                                                                    Other Source Control
                                                                                                      682
                                                                   *Includes final or deleted NPL sices as of September
                                                                   2005. Also includes information from an estimated
                                                                   74 percent of FY2005 records of decision and
                                                                   amendments available as of October 2006 and project
                                                                   data available in CERCLIS as of October 2006.
                                                                   No hierarchy is used for this table; sites maybe
                                                                   included in more than one category.
                                                                   Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7. Data sources are listed in
                                                                   Section 6.
                                                                        Table 2.  RODs Selecting Source
                                                                               Control Remedies
                                                                                (FY 1982-2005)*
                                                                         Total Number of RODs with a
                                                                       Source Control Remedy = 1,994
                                               Remedy Type
                                               Treatment of a Source
                               Number of
                                 RODs
                                   1,104
                                               Containment or Off-Site Disposal
                                               of a Source	
                                    953
                                               Other Source Control
                                                                                 507
                                              ROD = Record of Decision (Note: Date include ROD
                                              amendments)
                                              "Includes information from an estimated 74 percent of
                                              FY2005 RODs and amendments available as of
                                              October 2006.
                                              No hierarchy is used for this table; RODs and
                                              amendments may be counted in more than one
                                              category.
                                              Sources: 3, 4, 7. Data sources are listed in Section 6.

-------
 The following subsections provide information
 about (1) the selection of source control remedies
 and (2)  technologies, status, and contaminants
 treated for source control treatment projects.
 Source Control RODs
 Of the 2,976 RODs and amendments signed between
 FY 1982 and 2005, 67 percent (1,994) addressed the
 source of contamination.  Figure 6 delineates source
 control RODs, showing annual  totals for treatment,
 containment and disposal, and other categories. The
 trends exhibited for all source control remedies and
 source control treatment generally track with the trends
 for RODs overall, with the number of source treatment
                                   RODs ranging from 23 to 42 annually over the last 5
                                   years. Figure 7 shows the percentage of source control
                                   RODs of each type for each fiscal year.  For Figures 6
                                   and 7, each ROD, which may select multiple remedies,
                                   is assigned a single remedy type based on  the
                                   classification hierarchy discussed in  the Introduction
                                   (i.e., source control treatment,  source control
                                   containment, and other).  For example, RODs  that
                                   select treatment are considered "source control
                                   treatment RODs" even though they may also have
                                   selected additional remedies including containment or
                                   other remedies. ''Source control containment" includes
                                   those using  containment but  no  treatment.
                                   Containment RODs may also have selected other non-
                                   treatment source control remedies. Other source
                              Figure  6:   Source Control  RODs
                                       (FY 1982 - 2005)*
                              Total Number of RODs = 1,994
o
rt-
O
 H
 o

 I
 3
 -
 3
 0_
 o"
era
                                                                                                    ;
                                                                                                    :
                                                                                                    -
                                                                                                    i
                                                                                                    -
                                                                                                    n
                                                                                                    o
                                                                                                    3
          200
          180
          160
          140
          120
Number
of RODs  10o
•  Other (Institutional Controls, Monitoring, Relocation) -159
Q  Containment/Disposal - 731
   Treatment-1,104
                                                                             Total Number of RODs
               82 83 84  85 86  87  88 89  90 91 92  93 94 95  96 97  98  99 00  01  02 03  04 05*
                                               Fiscal Year (FY)
              For most years, the majority of source control RODs selected treatment.

 ROD = Record of Decision (Note: Dan include ROD amendments)
 "Includes information from an estimated 74percent of FY2005 RODs available as of Octoher 2006. RODs are
 only counted once in this figure using the following hierarchy: source control treatment, source control
 containment or disposal with no treatment, then source control other remedies only.
 Sources: 3, 4, 7. Data sources are listed in Section 6.

-------
 —
 u
 u
 u
 3
 1)
 u
 5
 rt
 v
 U|
 -
c
o
4J
U

                Figure 7:  Trends  in Types of Source Control RODS
                                   (FY 1982 - 2005)*
                           Total  Number of RODs = 1,994
                                  100%
Percentage
of Source  50%
Control
RODs
           40%
                                                                 Treatment
                                                                 Containment or Disposal Only
                                                                 Other (Institutional Controls, Monitoring, Relocation)
                                                                                                                 V5%
                                        82  83 84 85 86  87  88  89 90 91  92  93  94 95 96 97  98  99 00 01 02  03  04 05*
                                                                      Fiscal Year (FY)
                       Since 1986, the percentage of source control RODs selecting treatment usually has been greater
                        than those for containment/disposal without treatment; however, the gap appears to be closing.
                      ROD = Record of Decision (Nocc: Data include ROD amendments)
                      "Includes information from an estimated 74 percent of FY 200$ RODs available as of October 2006.
                      RODs are only counted once in this figure using the following hierarchy: source control treatment, source control
                      containment or disposal with no treatment, then source control otlieronly.
                      Sources:  3, 4, 7. Data sources are listed in Section 6.
                      control remedies (such as institutional controls,
                      relocation, and others) are the only remedy type
                      represented in the other column.
                      As shown in Figure 7, from FY 1987 to 2003 (widi
                      the exception of FY 1997 and 2000), the percentage of
                      RODs including a source control treatment remedy
                      has equaled or exceeded the percentage of RODs with
                      source control containment (and no treatment). Over
                      the last two years, the percentage of source control
                      containment RODs has slightly exceeded those with
                      some treatment.  Cumulatively:
                       • 55 percent of source control RODs use some
                         form of "treatment"
                       • 37 percent are "containment or disposal" RODs
                         that do not include "treatment"
                       • 8 percent are "other source remedy" and use
                         remedies  such  as  institutional controls,
                         monitoring, or population relocation (with no
                         treatment or containment)
                                               From FY 2002 to 2005, the percentage of each
                                               type  of source  control  remedy has remained
                                               consistent with the cumulative percentages, with
                                               approximate values of 51 percent treatment, 37
                                               percent containment, and 12 percent other.  The
                                               percentage of source control treatment RODs was
                                               generally higher from FY 1988 through  1996,
                                               ranging from 51 percent  to 73 percent, while the
                                               percentages  of containment and other source
                                               control remedies were generally lower.


                                               Source Control Treatment Projects
                                               From  FY 1982 through 2005, 977 treatment
                                               projects were selected for  source control.  Figure 8
                                               provides a cumulative overview of these treatment
                                               technologies.
                                                                   3-3

-------
                   Figure 8:  Source Control  Treatment Projects
                                   (FY 1982-2005)*

                           Total Number of Projects = 977
Ex Situ Technologies (515) 53%

Physical Separation (21)
2%

Incineration (on-site) (42)
4%
Bioremediation (60)
6%

Thermal
Desorption (71)
7%
Incineration (off-site)
(105)
11%
        Solidification/
        Stabilization (173)
        18%
    In Situ Technologies (462)  47%
               Soil Vapor Extraction (248)
                                      26%
                                Other Ex Situ (43)
                                4%
                              Chemical Treatment - 9
                                   Neutralization - 7
                             Soil Vapor Extraction - 7
                                    Soil Washing - 6
                          Mechanical Soil Aeration - 4
                       Open Burn/Open Detonation - 4
                               Solvent Extraction - 4
                                Phytorernediation -1
                                     Vitrification -1
                           Bioremediation
                                      (53)
                                       5%

                              Multi-Phase
                           Extraction (46)
                                       5%

                            Solidification/
                         Stabilization (44)
                                       5%

                                Chemical
                           Treatment (20)
                                       2%

                             Flushing (17)
                                       2%

                  ^Thermal Treatment (14)
                                       1%
                 Other In Situ (20)
                	2%
                           Neutralization - 8
                        Phytoremediation - 6
                  Mechanical Soil Aeration - 3
                             Vitrification - 2
                      Electrical Separation -1
o
rt;

O
3

W

H
ft

r
•
a
                                                            o
                                                            O
                                                            CTQ
                                                                                                          •
                                                                                                          C

                                                                                                          n
  Cumulatively, more than half of source control treatment projects have been ex situ, although the

         single most common treatment technology has been in situ soil vapor extraction.

*Includes information from an estimated 74 percent of FY 2005 records of decision and amendments available as

of October 2006 and project data available in CERCLIS as of October 2006.
Sources: 3, 4, 7. Data sources are listed in Section 6.
In Situ Versus Ex Situ  Technologies

In situ treatment technologies for source control

treat or remove the contaminated medium without

excavating, pumping, or  otherwise moving the

contaminated   medium   to   the   surface.

Implementation of ex situ technologies requires

excavation, dredging, or other processes to remove

the contaminated medium before treatment either

on site or off site.
As Figure 8 indicates, the most common in situ

technologies, together making up 85 percent of all

in situ source control treatment projects, are:

 • SVE (248 projects, 26 percent of all source

   control treatment projects)

 • Bioremediation (53 projects, 5 percent)

 • Multi-phase extraction (46 projects, 5 percent)

 • S/S  (44 projects, 5 percent)

-------
 o
 c
 U
 V.
 a
'so
 •j

 c
 u
 E
 -
 u
 •_
 -
fO
 C
 O
u

-------
                 Figure 10:  In Situ Technologies for Source Media
                                  (FY 1985-2005)*
            90%
Percentage
of Source    40% 438%
Treatment
            30%
                         Percentage of Source Treatment
                         Technologies that are In Situ
                         Linear Trendline (In Situ Source
                         Treatment Projects)
                                                                       78%
to
fl>
o
rt;
O*
3
CM
(
:-

n
~
                                                                                                       o
                                                                                                       3"
                                                                                                       >
                                                                                                       rt
                                                                                                       n
            10%
                                      T      I  I   1  I   I   I   I  I

                85 86 87 88 89 90 91  92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05*
                                     Fiscal Year (FY)
         On average, the number of in situ treatment projects has gradually increased.
     In situ remedies can reduce potential risks from waste because there is no excavation,
                  and can be more cost effective than ex situ technologies.

"Includes information from an estimated 74 percent of FY 2005 records of decision and amendmen r.v available ax
of October 2006 and project data available in CERCLISas of October 2006.
Sources: 3, 4, 7. Data sources are listed in Section 6.
  Box 10.  IN SITU CHEMICAL TREATMENT AT EASTLAND  WOOLEN MILL,  MAINE

  In situ chemical treatment is being used to treat soil, DNAPL, and grpundwater
  contamination at the Eastland Woolen Mill site in Maine.  This site served as a textile mill
  from 1909 to 1996 and related activities led to chlorobenzene (mono, di, tri, and tetra)
  contamination in soil, groundwater, and nearby surface water.  DNAPL has also been
  observed at the site. A non-time critical removal action (NTCRA) was conducted between
  1999 and 2003. This action removed all soil contamination above the water table and
  most soil contamination, including the DNAPL, below the water table, and resulted in
  decreasing groundwater contamination levels. However, since contamination would
  remain in a few  areas that were inaccessible to excavation, a ROD was  signed in 2002,
  which selected in situ chemical treatment to reduce the mass of contamination in the soil
  and bedrock fractures to achieve groundwater restoration.  Based on pilot studies that
  were conducted as part of the NTCRA, iron-catalyzed sodium persulfate was determined
  to be the optimal oxidant for use at this site. The in situ chemical treatment system was
  constructed in September 2006 and is currently operational. Following chemical
  oxidation, bioremediation may be conducted if cleanup levels are not achieved.  A ROD
  Amendment was issued in 2006, which eliminated two components of the original ROD
  (P&T to limit the migration of contaminated groundwater and in situ flushing), because it
  was determined these actions were no longer necessary following the success of the
  removal action.

-------
 u
 aa
 —
 a
 u
 -
c
o
'£
u
0)
                       Figure 11:  Status of In Situ and  Ex Situ Source Treatment Projects - Comparison
                                    Between Tenth, Eleventh and Twelfth Editions of the ASR
                                                           (FY 1982-2005)***
                                                 In Situ Source Treatment
                                                       Technologies
                                        100%
                                         60%-
      Percentage
      of Source
      Treatment
      Projects
Completed
Operational
Design Complete/
Being Installed
IPredesign/
Design
                                                10th
                                               Edition
                                                (314
                                              projects)*
                                   11th
                                  Edition
                                   (364
                                 projects)*
   12th
  Edition
   (462
projects)***
                                                           Ex Situ Source Treatment
                                                                  Technologies
  10th
 Edition
  (425
projects)*
  11th
 Edition
  (499
projects)*
   12th
  Edition
 .  (515
projects)**
                               The percentage of projects at the end of the Superfund pipeline, those completed,
                                has increased while the percentage of projects at the beginning of the pipeline,
                                                    in predesign/design,has decreased.
                      ROD = Record of Decision (Noce: Data include ROD amendment*)
                      ""Includes information from RODs through FY 1999 available as of summer 2000.
                      **Includes information from an estimated 70 percent of FY 2002 RODs available as of March 2003.
                      ***lncludcs information from an estimated 74 percent of FY 2005  RODs available as of October 2006 and
                      project data available in CERCLIS as of October 2006.
                      Sources: 3, 4, 7.  Data sources are listed in Section 6.
                       •  In situ technologies are often more cost-effective
                          at large sites where excavation and materials
                          handling for ex situ technologies can be
                          expensive.
                       •  As in situ treatment technologies are used more
                          frequently, site managers, regulators, and other
                          remediation professionals are coming to accept
                          them as a reliable technology.

                       Status of Source Control  Treatment Projects
                       Figure 11 shows the status of in situ and  ex 5/ru
                       source control treatment projects, comparing the
                       projects in the Tenth Edition of the ASR (data
                       collected  through FY 1999) and the Eleventh
                       Edition (data collected through March 2003) with
                       the Twelfth Edition (data collected through
                       October 2006).  Based on the data in Figure 11,
                       in this 3-year period:
                                                  The number of completed in situ source control
                                                  projects increased from 123 to 181 (a 47 percent
                                                  increase), while completed ex situ source control
                                                  projects increased from 341 to 398 (a 17 percent
                                                  increase).
                                                  In situ source control projects completed since
                                                  the  Eleventh Edition included 33 SVE, 10
                                                  bioremediation, 6 S/S, 6 multi-phase extraction,
                                                  4 chemical  treatment,  3  neutralization, 2
                                                  flushing,    1   thermal    treatment,   1
                                                  phytoremediation, and 1 electrical separation
                                                  project.
                                                  Ex situ source control projects completed since
                                                  the  Eleventh Edition included  20 S/S, 7
                                                  bioremediation, 7 incineration (off-site), 7
                                                  physical separation, 4 thermal desorption, 2
                                                  solvent extraction, and 1  soil washing project.

-------
            Table 3.  Status of Source Treatment Projects  by Technology
                                       (FY 1982-2005)*

Predesign/
Technology Design
Design Complete/
Being Installed Operational
Completed Total
In Situ
Soil Vapor Extraction
Bioremediation
Multi-Phase Extraction
Solidification/Stabilization
Chemical Treatment
Flushing
Thermal Treatment
Neutralization
Phytoremediation
Mechanical Soil Aeration
Vitrification
Electrical Separation
Total
Percentage of In Situ Technologies
Percentage of All Source
Treatment Technologies
23
8
8
13
9
1
5
0
2
2
1
0
72
16%
7%
9
1
2
1
3
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
21
5%
2%
110
25
30
2
3
9
3
3
3
0
0
0
188
41%
19%
106
19
6
28
5
5
4
4
1
1
1
1
181
39%
19%
248
53
46
44
20
17
14
8

3
2
1
462
—
47%
Ex Situ
Solidification/Stabilization
Incineration (off-site)
Thermal Desorption
Bioremediation
Incineration (on-site)
Physical Separation
Chemical Treatment
Neutralization
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Washing
Mechanical Soil Aeration
Open Burn/Open Detonation
Solvent Extraction
Phytoremediation
Vitrification
Total
Percentage of Ex Situ Technologies
Percentage of All Source
Treatment Technologies
23
4
10
9
0
3
0
1
0
2
0
2
1

1
56
11%
6%
4
0
1
1
1
2
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
13
3%
1%
10
6
4
16
1
6
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
48
9%
5%
136
95
56
34
40
10
7
5
4
3
3
1
3
1
0
398
77%
41%
173
105
71
60
42
21
9
7
7
6
4
4
4
1
1
515
	
53%
                                                                   0>
                                                                   o
                                                                   rt;
                                                                   O
                                                                   3
                                                                   W
                                                                                                                      r
                                                                                                                      -
                                                                                                                      3
                                                                                                                      -.

                                                                                                                      o
                                                                                                                      o
                                                                                                                      o
                                                                                                                      (TO
                                                                                                                      C/3
                                                                                                                      O
                                                                                                                      c
                                                                                                                      >-t
                                                                                                                      n
                                                                                                                      ft
                                                                                                                      p
                                                                                                                      3
                                                                                                                      •-{
* Includes information from an estimated 74 percent ofFY 2005 records of decision and amendments available as
of October 2006 and project data available in CERCLIS as of October 2006.
Sources: 3, 4, 7. Data sources are listed in Section 6.
Please note that a comparison  of the numbers in
Figure  11  may not be consistent with the ASR
Eleventh and Twelfth Editions because of projects diat
were reclassified during the collection and analysis of
data for the most recent edition.
Table 3 provides a summary of project status for each
technology type.  Of the most  commonly selected
(20 or more selected projects), the highest percentage
of completed projects of in situ technologies was for
S/S, while the highest completion  percentage for ex
situ technologies involved incineration (on site). The
completion percentages for these technologies, along
with incineration (offsite), S/S (exsitu), and thermal
desorption, are high (above 75 percent) because they
often can be completed within months, in contrast
to in situ technologies such as SVE, which may require
years to complete remediation.  In general,  ex situ
projects, which can be implemented more quickly
dian in situ projects, represent a greater percentage of
completed projects.
                                              3-8)

-------
o
B
U
 -
 z
 s

a
u

B
U
E
u
—
c
o
4J
U
(U
10
                            Figure  12:  innovative Applications  of Source  Treatment  Technologies
                                                           (FY 1982  - 2005)*
                                                  Total Number of Projects = 240
                             Multi-Phase Extraction (46)
                             19%
                             Bioremediation (113)
                             47%
                                                                           Chemical Treatment (29)
                                                                                             12%
                                                                                 Flushing (17)
                                                                                          7%
                                                                                 In Situ Thermal Treatment(14)
                                                                                                         6%
                                                                             Other InnovativeTechnologies (21)
                                                                                                         9%
                                                                                    Phytoremediation - 7
                                                                                    Soil Washing - 6
                                                                                    Solvent Extraction - 4
                                                                                    Vitrification - 3
                                                                                    Electrical Separation -1
                        Bioremediation remains the most common innovative technology for source control treatment,
                       making up nearly half of all innovative technologies. In recent years, multi-phase extraction and
                                     chemical treatment projects have been increasing (see  Figure 9).
                      Tnc/lK/es information from an estimated 74 percent ofFY2005 records of decision and amendments available as
                      of October 2006 and project data available in CERCLIS as of October 2006.
                      Sources: 3, 4, 7. Data sources are listed in Section 6.
                      Innovative  Applications
                      Innovative technologies are defined as alternative
                      treatment technologies that have a limited number
                      of applications and limited data on cost and
                      performance.  Innovative technologies  have the
                      potential for providing more cost-effective and reliable
                      alternatives for cleanup, or may offer a solution' to an
                      environmental problem  historically considered
                      impossible to treat.
                      For example, DNAPLs historically have been difficult
                      to treat because of their physical and chemical
                      properties (relatively low  solubility, high specific
                      gravity, and tendency to remain sorbed to organic
                      materials in an aquifer).  They tend to sink in the
                      subsurface and continue to release dissolved
                      contaminants to surrounding media. In addition,
                      DNAPLs may not contact soil vapor, and therefore
                      are not effectively treated by technologies that
                      extract and treat soil vapor, such as in situ SVE.
                      However, innovative technologies such as in sitii
                      thermal treatment  or in situ flushing have been
                      found to effectively treat DNAPLs. In other cases,
                      an innovative technology may be less expensive
                      than an established technology. It may be expensive
                      to treat soils deep  below the ground surface by
                      incineration because of the amount of excavation
                      required to reach  the soil.   However, an in situ
                      chemical oxidation process may work effectively
                                                                     at that depth, while avoiding the cost of excavation
                                                                     to reach the source zone.  Other reasons for
                                                                     selecting innovative technologies can include a
                                                                     reduction in exposure of workers to contaminated
                                                                     media; and community  concern about off-site
                                                                     releases of contaminants, noise, or odor.
                                                                     Figure 12  depicts the number and  types of
                                                                     innovative  technologies used for source control
                                                                     treatment.   Innovative treatment technologies
                                                                     currently account for  25 percent of all source
                                                                     treatment  technologies compared with  the
                                                                     Eleventh Edition of the ASR, where innovative
                                                                     technologies made up only 21 percent.  As with
                                                                     the  Eleventh  Edition, bioremediation still
                                                                     contributes nearly one half of the innovative
                                                                     applications (113 projects, 47 percent).  Multi-
                                                                     phase extraction accounts for nearly 20 percent of
                                                                     innovative technologies.  This  is a significant
                                                                     increase in applications compared with  the
                                                                     Eleventh Edition, up from 8 applications to 46.
                                                                     However, of the 38 projects added since the
                                                                     Eleventh Edition, only 8  projects were newly
                                                                     selected between FY 2002 and 2005.  The
                                                                     remaining 30 projects were selected prior to FY
                                                                     2002 and were either reclassified because of a
                                                                     revision in the categorization of this technology or
                                                                     identified as a  result of a more  refined analysis
                                                                     conducted for this edition of the  report.

-------
As  shown  in  Figure  12,  some innovative
technologies,  such  as solvent  extraction,
vitrification, and electrical separation, have been
applied few times at NPL sites.  A low number of
applications  of a technology does not necessarily
indicate its lack of effectiveness.  In some cases,
the technology  may have only recently become
available and has not had time to become widely
accepted and used at NPL sites.  In other cases,
the technology may be designed for specific types
of applications,  such as certain contaminants or
media. For example, energy costs for vitrification
typically are higher than for  other technologies.
However, vitrification is often capable of destroying
hazardous  chemicals in addition to immobilizing
radioactive contaminants  when  radioactive
contaminants are mixed with other  hazardous
chemicals.  The contaminants treated for one of
the three  vitrification applications  included a
mixture of radioactive and other contaminants.
Figure 13 depicts the percentage of projects selected
for innovative and established technologies for
source control by fiscal year. The figure shows that
although established technologies historically have
been the most frequently used, the frequency of
their use when  compared with innovative
technologies has been gradually decreasing since
the  early 1990s.   The  use  of innovative
            Box 11.   INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
            SELECTED FROM FY  2002 THROUGH 2005
            • Bioremediation - 13 projects
            • Chemical treatment - 13 projects
            • Multi-phase extraction - 13 projects
            • In situ thermal treatment - 5 projects
            • Phytoremediation - 2 projects
            • Flushing - 1  project
          technologies has generally increased during that
          time, with the percentage of projects that used
          innovative technologies becoming nearly equal
          to the percentage for established technologies for
          the first time in 2004. This trend has continued
          into FY 2005.
          The  FRTR  case  studies  Web  site  (htrp://
          www.frtr.gov/costpert.htm)  provides detailed
          information on the cost and  performance of both
          innovative and established technologies applied at
          NPL sites.  As  of October  2006, the FRTR
          included 383 case studies covering a wide range of
          treatment  technologies that are  available for
          viewing on line or for downloading from the FRTR
to
fl>
o
ft;
o'
3
3
n
3
o
3"
                                                                        CTC!
                                                                         n'
j
o
---.
o
3
3
        Figure 13:   Established and Innovative Source Treatment Projects
                                    (FY 1982 - 2005)*
                       90%
                       80%
                       70%
           Percentage 60%
           of Source   50%
           Treatment
           Projects    40% "I
                       30%
                       20%
                       10%
                        0%
Established
Innovative
                           82  84 86  88  90  92 94  96  98 00 02  04
                                          Fiscal Year (FY)

        Recently, the percentage of projects using innovative treatment has become nearly
                 equal to those using more established treatment approaches.
^Includes information from an estimated 74 percent ofFY2005 records of decision and amendments available as
of October 2006 and project data available in CERCL1S as of October 2006.
Sources: 3, 4, 7. Data sources are listed in Section 6.
                                           3-10,

-------
 J
 u
 u
 -_
 -
 3
 y;
 u
 'Si
 e
 -3
 u
 u

 c
 u
 E
 -
 u
 -
c
o
'•*-»
u
(U
t/i
Web site. The case studies wete developed by EPA,
the U.S.  Department of Defense, the U.S.
Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of
the Interior, and the National  Aeronautics and
Space Administration for Superfund and non-
Superfund sites.  They present available cost and
performance information for full-scale remediation
efforts and large-scale demonstration projects.
They also  provide information about site
background and setting, contaminants and media
treated, technology, cost and performance, and
points of contact for the technology application.
Additional information on innovative technologies
can be found at EPA's Hazardous Waste Cleanup
Information (CLU-IN) Technology  Focus area
(hfrp;//vvww.clu-in.org/techfocus/), which bundles
information  for particular technologies that may
be used  in a variety of applications.
          Table 4.  Contaminants Treated
                                     (FY1982
Contaminants   Addressed
Nine major groups  of contaminants targeted by
specific technologies were analyzed for this report,
as summarized in Table 4.  Compounds  were
categorized (with the exceptions noted in Table 4)
as:
 • Volatile organic  compounds (VOC) - either
   halogenated or non-halogenated
 • Semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC) -
   either halogenated  or non-halogenated
 • Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)
 • Benzene,  toluene,  ethylbenzene, and xylene
   (BTEX)
 • Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCS)
 • Organic pesticides/herbicides
 • Metals and metalloids

by  Source Treatment Projects
2005)*
                       Bioremediation
                                          113
                                                       51
                                                              33
                                                                     33
                                                                            24
                                                                                   17
                                                                    22
                       Chemical Treatment    29
                                                                    12
                                                                                     13
                       Multi-Phase Extraction  46
                                                              11
                                                                     18
                       Electrical Separation
                                            1
                       Flushing
                                           17
                                                                                           11
                       Incineration
                                          147
                                                27
                                                       41
                                                              33
                                                                     23
                                                                            36
                                                                                   34
                                                                                          52
                                                                                                  36
                       Mechanical Soil Aeration 7
Neutralization
Open Burn/
Open Detonation
Physical Separation
15
4
21
2
0
4
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
6
0
5
                       Phytoremediation
                                                 1
                       Soil Vapor Extraction  255   15
                                                       31
                                                              107
                                                                     51
                                                                                   33
                                                                                          217
Soil Washing
Solidification/
Stabilization
Solvent Extraction
Thermal Desorption
In Situ
Thermal Treatment
Vitrification
6
217
4
71
14
3
1
17
2
21
5
0
1
18
1
17
0
g
0
13
0
24
2
I
0
13
1
15
u
1
2
16
1
8
3
0
0
7
0
12
3
1
0
20
2
33
8
3
1
35
2
16
0
2
2
180
1
0
0
1
                       Total Projects
                    977   145
                                 175
                                                              238
                                               155
      103   124
410
                                                                            104
229
                                   The contaminants most often addressed by source control treatment are
                                             halogenated VOCs followed by BTEX and metals.
                      •' Each project may treat more than one contaminant group.        h Does not include PAHs.
                      ' Docs not include BTEX.                                ll Does not include organic pesticides and herbicides.
                      * Includes information from an estimated 74 percent ofFY2005 records of decision and amendments available as of
                      October 2006 and project data available in CERCLIS as of October 2006.
                      Sources: 3,4,7. Data sources are listed in Section 6.

-------
It should be noted that projects are listed in Table 4
multiple times, once for each  contaminant type
(resulting in a total number of projects that is greater
than the actual number of projects).  Overall, 42
percent of the source control treatment projects
address halogenated VOCs; while 24 percent address
BTEX; and 23 percent address metals and metalloids.
The selection of treatment technologies for a site often
depends on the physical and chemical properties of
the contaminants. For example, VOCs are amenable
to treatment by certain technologies, such as SVE or
thermal desporption, because of their volatility.
Conversely, metals, which are not volatile and do not
degrade, are not usually amenable to treatment by
those technologies.  S/S is most often  used for
treatment of diese contaminants because metals form
insoluble  compounds when combined with
appropriate additives, such as Portland cement. Some
of the more  common uses of technologies  for
contaminant groups are identified below.
 • Halogenated VOCs, BTEX,  and other non-
   halogenated VOCs are treated most often by SVE.
 • Non-halogenated SVOCs and PAHs are treated
   most often by bioremediation.
 • PCBs, organic  pesticides and herbicides,  and
   halogenated SVOCs are  treated most often by
   incineration.
 • Metals are treated almost exclusively by S/S. An
   interesting exception is the use of bioremediation
   in five projects to treat  metals.  Three of these
   projects are in the predesign or design phase. The
   odier two are operational ex situ projects.
EPA has developed the CLU-IN Contaminant Focus
area (http://www.du-in.org/concamina.ntfocus/). which
bundles information associated with cleanup of
individual contaminants and contaminant groups.
This information is presented in categories that
include Overview, Policy and Guidance, Chemistry
and Behavior, Environmental  Occurrence,
Toxicology, Detection and Site Characterization,
Treatment Technologies, Conferences and Seminars,
and Other Resources.  Contaminant Focus will be
continuously updated with information from federal
cleanup programs, state  sources, universities,
nonprofit organizations, peer-reviewed publications,
and public-private partnerships.  New contaminants
will be added on a periodic basis.

Remedy   Changes
As discussed earlier, remedies selected at NPL sites
are documented in a  ROD, and changes  to the
original remedies  can  be  either  formally
documented  or executed through clauses in the
original ROD. Remedies most often change during
the pre-design or design phase of a project when
new information about site  characteristics  is
discovered or when treatability studies for the
selected technologies are completed. Remedies also
may change throughout the implementation and
operation of the remedy.  Source control treatment
remedies have been changed  to non-treatment
remedies at  approximately  130 sites.  These
remedies are most often changed to excavation with
off-site disposal (and no treatment), containment,
or institutional controls.  The most commonly
cited reason for changing source control treatment
to  another  remedy was  that further  site
investigation revealed that the concentration or
extent of contamination was less than expected.
Other frequently cited  reasons  included  rising
groundwater levels that  made soil  treatment
impracticable, community concerns about on-site
remedies, and high costs. The Superfund program
allows EPA and  state  regulators the  flexibility to
modify remedies as site conditions change.  The
ASR tracks 977 source control treatment projects,
not including the 130 that have been changed to
non-treatment remedies. Based on a total of 1,107
source control treatment remedies (977 active plus
130 changed), 12 percent have been  changed.
In 94 instances, one source control  treatment
technology was replaced with a different treatment
technology.  Table 5 provides information about
the   most  frequently  changed   treatment
technologies  and the  technologies that replaced
them, as indicated by cumulative data from FY
1982 to 2005.  The source control  treatment
technologies  that were most frequently changed
to another treatment technology were incineration,
bioremediation,  and thermal desorption.  These
technologies are the second, fourth, and third most
frequently selected ex situ treatment technologies,
respectively (see Figure 8). The most common
technologies selected to  replace incineration,
bioremediation,  and thermal desorption  were
thermal desorption (replacing incineration  and
bioremediation), S/S, SVE,  and incineration
(replacing bioremediation and thermal desorption).
Previous editions of the ASR included an appendix
(Appendix D) that listed all the technology changes,
additions, and deletions since the previous edition
of the ASR.  Because the appendix has expanded
over time, it is now available online at  http://clu-
in.org/nsr.  For additional  information about
remedy updates, see Updating Remedy Decisions at
Superfund sites - Summary Report FY2004 and FY
2005, February 2007 (EPA 540-R-06-074).
to

-------
 c
 u
 u
 •
Table 5.   Most Commonly Changed Source Contol Technologies
                           (FY 1982 - 2005)*
 e
 .=
 a
 u
 -
 c
 D
 £
 -
 -j
 —

to
 c
 o
4->
 U
 (U

Technology Initially Selected

New Treatment Technology Incineration
Thermal Desorption
Solidification/Stabilization
Soil Vapor Extraction
Incineration
Bioremediation
Chemical Treatment
Pump and Treat
Solvent Extraction
Air Sparging
Soil Washing
Physical Separation
In Situ Thermal Treatment
Total Number of Remedy Revisions
9
7
3
_
5
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
26
Bioremediation
4
3
2
5
_
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
18
Thermal Oesorption
_
1
5
5
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
14
Total
13
11
10
10
5
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
58
                        The most commonly changed source control technologies are incineration, bioremediation, and
                      thermal desorption. Thermal desorption also is the most frequently used "replacement" technology.

                      "Includes information from an estimated 74 percent of FY2005 records of decision and amendments available as
                      of October 2006and project data available in CERCLISas of October 2006.
                      Sources: 3, 4, 7. Data sources are listed in Section 6.
                      Conclusion
                      A total of 977 projects were initiated from the 1,104
                      source control treatment RODs. Those projects
                      consist of a wide range of in  situ and ex situ
                      technologies at  various stages in design and
                      implementation,  being  used to address  a  broad
                      spectrum of contaminants.  Although annual
                      fluctuations occur, some trends and  general
                      observations can be noted:
                       •  The selection of in situ source control projects
                         continues to increase.  In situ source control
                         treatment projects represented 60 percent of
                         source treatment projects from FY 2002 to
                         2005. Cumulatively, from  FY 1982  through
                         2005, in situ source control projects made up
                         nearly 50 percent of the projects.
                       •  From FY 2002 to 2005,  in situ technologies of
                         multi-phase extraction and chemical treatment
                         are being selected at an increasing rate compared
                         with SVE,  which is not being selected as
                         frequently as in previous years.
                                       • Historically,  incineration projects  have
                                         represented a high percentage of ex situ source
                                         treatment projects (29 percent reported in the
                                         eleventh  edition of the ASR for FY 1982 to
                                         2002).  During the period from FY 2002 to
                                         2005, incineration  represented only 6 percent
                                         of ex situ treatment projects.
                                       • In FY 2004, the percentage of projects that
                                         selected innovative technologies  reached 47
                                         percent,  nearly equaling the percentage for
                                         established technologies.  This trend continued
                                         in FY 2005, with available data indicating 48
                                         percent  of projects selected  innovative
                                         technologies.

-------
 Section  4:    Treatment
 Technologies    for
 Groundwater
Groundwater remedies are delineated by the type
of remedy specified:  (1) in situ treatment,  (2)
extraction  of  groundwater  followed  by
aboveground treatment (P&T),  (3) MNA,  (4)
containment using subsurface VEBs, or (5) other
actions (such as alternative drinking water supplies
or drilling prohibitions).  Box 12 delineates
groundwater remedies by type and provides a
description for each category. Remedies for source
media (such as soil, sediment, solids, and NAPL),
discussed in a previous section, fall into similar
categories.
Beyond  categorization   by  remedy   type,
groundwater treatment projects may be classified
as 1 of 17 specific technologies.  Definitions  for
these  remedies are presented in Appendix  C.
Specific  key words  in decision  documents
determine classification  into  1  of the  17
technologies (9 in situ technologies and 8 P&T
technologies).  Key words used to classify
groundwater treatment remedies are listed in
Appendix F.   Definitions are  based on the
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and
Reference Guide, Version 4.0, which can be viewed
at the FRTR Web site at h ttp://www. fnr.gov.
This section focuses on updated information  for
in situ and ex situ (P&T) groundwater treatment
by documenting  the status, achievements, and
trends associated with applications of these
treatment technologies at NPL sites from 1982 to
2005.  The following subsections  provide
information about (1) the selection of groundwater
remedies, (2) the technologies and status of in situ
groundwater treatment projects, and (3) the status
of P&T projects and the most frequently treated
contaminants.
Groundwater Remedy  Decisions
Groundwater remedies have been implemented or
are currently planned at 1,072 sites, nearly 70
percent of sites on the NPL. As shown in Table 6,
P&T remedies have been implemented  or  are
planned at 728 of the sites. More than one type of
groundwater remedy has been implemented at
many sites. These sites are counted in Table 6 once
for  each  type  of groundwater  remedy.
Approximately 900 sites with  groundwater
remedies also have source control remedies.
When different types of groundwater remedies are
applied to the same contaminant plume, they may
be used to treat different parts of the plume. For
example, an  in situ groundwater  treatment
technology may be used for areas that are difficult
to treat using P&T, such as hot spots, NAPL source
zones, tight clays, fractured rock, and areas with
heterogeneous hydrogeology. P&T, in turn, may
be used to control migration of the plume and

 Box 12.   GROUNDWATER REMEDY  TYPES
 In Situ Treatment
 • Treatment of groundwater in place
   without extracting it from an aquifer.
 • Includes any of the in situ groundwater
   treatment technologies described in this
   report, such as air sparging and
   permeable reactive barriers.
 Pump and Treat (P&T)
 • Extraction  of groundwater from an aquifer
   and treatment aboveground.
 • Groundwater usually is extracted by
   pumping groundwater from a well or
   trench.
 • Treatment can include any of the P&T
   technologies described in this report,
   such as air stripping and ion exchange.
 Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)
 • The reliance  on natural attenuation
   processes (within the context of a
   carefully controlled and monitored
   approach to site cleanup) to achieve site-
   specific remediation objectives within a
   time frame that is reasonable compared
   to other alternatives.
 • Natural attenuation includes a variety of
   physical, chemical, and biological
   processes.
 Groundwater Containment
 • Containment of groundwater through a
   vertical, engineered, subsurface,
   impermeable barrier, or;
 • Containment of groundwater through a
   hydraulic barrier created by pumping.
 Groundwater Other
 • Groundwater remedies that do not fall
   into the categories above.
 • Can include a variety of remedies, such
   as restrictions on water use.
in
(0
o
rt;
O
3
-
•--
I
3

"
-
C
-•-
:
-5
O
C
3
C.

K
O

-------

-------
while only MNA was selected for 11 percent (93)
of the sites. The remedy at many of the sites shown
in Figure 14 also includes source control treatment.
For example, source control treatment is part of
the remedy at 45 percent of the 485 sites with P&T
only. Source control treatment is also part of the
remedy at 41 percent of the 93  sites with MNA
only, though this information is  not displayed in
Figure 14.
Although other groundwater remedies, such as
monitoring and institutional controls, are not the
focus of this report, analysis indicates they have
been selected in about 95  percent of RODs in
recent years at NPL sites. These remedies, although
they are protective, typically do not directly reduce
contaminant  concentrations  or  decrease
contaminant mobility and are therefore not
considered treatment.  Table 7 shows the number
of sites where these other groundwater remedies
have been selected.  By far, the most common other
groundwater remedy is monitoring, which has been
selected  at 727 sites (68 percent of sites with a
groundwater remedy) followed  by institutional
controls, which has been selected at 437 sites (41
percent of sites with a groundwater remedy).

RODs  That Select Groundwater  Treatment
More than  1,500  RODs included at least one
groundwater remedy.  Table 8 shows  the number
of RODs that selected these remedies. P&T was
selected most frequently  (958 RODs), while
containment using VEBs was selected  the least (60
RODs).  Each ROD may be counted in more than
one category.


    Table 7.  Sites  with Groundwater
            Other  Remedies
             (FY  1982 - 2005)*
       Total Number of Sites with
  Groundwater  Other Remedies = 786
 Remedy Type
 Engineering Control
Number of Sites
                                 45
 Groundwater Monitoring
      727
 Institutional Control
                                437
 Water Supply Remedies
      106
"Includes final or deleted NPL sites as ot September
2005. Also includes information from an estimated
74 percent ofFY2005 records of decision and
amendments available as of October 2006.
No hierarchy is used for this table; sites may be
included in more than one category.
Sources: 1,2,7. Data sources are listed in Section 6.
                       Box 13.   SITES WITH BOTH PUMP AND
                       TREAT AND SOURCE  CONTROL
                       TREATMENT REMEDIES
                       At 45 percent of sites with P&T (and
                       no in situ groundwater treatment or
                       MNA), source control treatment has
                       also been selected.  One example is
                       ABC One Hour Cleaners in North
                       Carolina. This site is an active dry
                       cleaning facility where chlorinated
                       solvents have contaminated both soil
                       and groundwater.  RODs were signed
                       for groundwater (OU 1)  in 1993 and
                       soils (OU 2) in 1994. Remediation
                       currently is being conducted using
                       P&T for groundwater and SVE for
                       soils. In this case, although different
                       media are  being treated, both
                       technologies are addressing the same
                       contaminants at the same area of the
                       site. At other sites with P&T and
                       source control treatment, it is possible
                       that these technologies are being used
                       to address different contaminants or
                       different areas of the site.
                            Table 8.  RODs Selecting
                            Groundwater Remedies
                                (FY 1982-2005)*
                         Total Number of RODs with a
                        Groundwater Remedy = 1,509
                     Remedy Type
                      Number of RODs
                    Groundwater Pump and Treat
                             958
                                               In Situ Treatment of Groundwater   195
                                               MNA of Groundwater
                                                                           303
                                               Groundwater Containment
                                                60
                                               Other Groundwater
                                                                           579
MNA = Monitored natural attenuation
ROD -- Record of Decision (Note: Data include
ROD amendments)
*Includes information from an estimated 74percent of
FY 2005 RODs and amendments available as of
October 2006.
No hierarchy is used for this table; RODs may be
counted in more than one category.
Sources: 3, 4, 7.  Data sources are listed in Section 6.
                                                                                 CO
                                                                                 (D
                                                                                 o
                                                             re
                                                             3

                                                             --
                                                             •
                                                             3
                                                             3
                                                             _^

                                                             OQ
                                                             n'
                                                             e
                                                             3
                                                             C.
                                                             B!
                                                             FD

-------
 
-------
may also have selected other remedies.  Other
groundwater remedies (such as institutional
controls, engineering controls, and others) are the
only remedy type represented in the "Groundwater
other" column.  Figure 15 indicates that:
 • The  number of groundwater treatment RODs
   (including in situ and ex situ remedy types)
   peaked  in FY  1991 at 114 and has been
   generally decreasing in line with the overall
   number of RODs. This peak matches the crest
   in the total number of RODs in FY 1991.
 • From FY 1988 through 1995, the number of
   groundwater treatment RODs ranged from 55
   to 114,  while the number ranged from 19 to
   42 from FY 1996 through 2005.
The relative perceritages of remedies selected in
RODs from FY  1986 through 2005 are presented
in Figures 16, 17, and 18.  These figures do not
include FY 1982 through 1985 because of the small
                                               number of RODs that were signed during these
                                               years. Figure 16 shows the percentages of RODs
                                               that selected groundwater remedies.  RODs are
                                               counted in each category as appropriate (for each
                                               remedy selected) in the figure.  The combined
                                               percentages for all remedies in a given year total
                                               more than 100 percent because a ROD may select
                                               multiple remedies and may be counted in more
                                               than one category.  Figure 16 shows:
                                                • Nearly 90 percent of RODs selected P&T from
                                                  FY 1987  through 1992.  This percentage
                                                  decreased to 30 percent in FY 1998 and has since
                                                  averaged approximately 35 percent.
                                                • MNA was selected in less than 10 percent of
                                                  RODs from FY 1986 through  1991, but then
                                                  increased every year until it peaked at 48 percent
                                                  in FY 1998. After a decline to 10 percent in FY
                                                  2002, RODs that  select MNA  have increased
                                                  steadily and reached 49 percent in FY 2005.

-------
 o
 -
 —
 e
 c
 u
 SO
 c
 -
 -
 e
 -j
 g
 a
 -_
 -
 o
+J
 u
1/1
 • RODs that select /n s/ru groundwater treatment
   have been generally increasing, from none in FY
   1986 to 31 percent in FY 2005.
 • The percentage of RODs that select groundwater
   treatment using VEBs has remained consistent,
   less than 10 percent for all years.
 • RODs that select other remedies were less than
   25 percent from FY 1986 through 1997, but then
   increased rapidly.  While some of this increase
   may be attributed to changes in program
   guidance, it should be noted that data reporting
   methods used prior to FY 1998 may have resulted
   in under reporting of other remedies in Figure
   16 for those years.  About 90 percent of RODs
   selected other groundwater remedies from FY
   2000 through 2005.
RODs that select P&T alone have decreased from
about 80 percent before FY 1992 to an average of
20 percent over the last 5 years (FY 2001 through
2005), as shown in Figure 17.  In contrast, P&T is
being used increasingly with in situ treatment or
MNA, or not at all. RODs  that select P&T with
another remedy generally ranged from 5  to 10
percent through FY 1995, but increased  to an
average of 17 percent from FY 2001 through 2005.
Similarly, RODs that select in situ treatment or
MNA and not P&T generally ranged from 5 to
10 percent through  FY 1993.  However, these
RODs then increased to a peak of 43 percent in
FY 1998 and again in 2005  after  the percentage
dipped to 16 percent in FY 2002.
The  general decrease in the selection of P&T
remedies may be a result of a variety of factors,
including:
 • More widespread  acceptance of innovative in
   situ groundwater treatment remedies
 • Reduced operation and maintenance costs from
   use of in situ treatment technologies
 • Reduced time to address risk and quicker return
   of sites to beneficial uses by using active in situ
   treatment remedies
 • Reduced costs by using MNA
                              Figure 17:  Trends in Ground water  RODs Selecting Pump  and Treat
                                                           (FY 1986-2005)*
                                           Total Number of Groundwater RODs =  1,458
                      Percentage
                      of All
                      Groundwater  40%
                      RODs
                                                                                RODs Selecting Only P&T
                                                                                (and no In Situ treatment or MNA)
                                                                                RODs Selecting P&T and Another
                                                                                Groundwater Remedy
                                                                                (MNA or In Situ Treatment)
                                                                                RODs Selecting In Situ Treatment or MNA
                                                                                but Not Selecting P&T
                                          87  88  89  90  91   92   93  94  95  96  97   98   99  00  01  02   03   04   OS*
                                                                    Fiscal Year (FY)
                         Since 1995, RODs selecting pump and treat alone have dropped, while RODs selecting in situ
                                      treatment or MNA, with or without pump and treat, have increased.
                      MNA = Monitored natural attenuation
                      P&T = Pump and treat
                      ROD = Record of Decision (Note: Data include ROD amendments)
                      includes information from an estimated 74 percent of FY 2005 RODs available as of October 2006.  RODs are
                      coun ted only once in this figure as appropriate.
                      Sources: 3, 4, 7. Data sources are listed in Section 6.

-------
The general increase in the selection of P&T with
MNA or in situ treatment may in turn be a result
of a variety of factors,  including:
 • More active in situ treatments can reduce P&T
   treatment times by remediating hot spots and
   contaminant sources
 • MNA can reduce  P&T treatment times  by
   allowing P&T systems to be shut down when
   contaminants  reach levels that can effectively
   be treated by MNA
 • MNA can treat areas  of a contaminant plume
   with low concentrations, reducing the amount
   of the contaminant plume treated by P&T
Figure  18  counts all RODs that selected in situ
groundwater treatment (regardless of whether
additional remedies were selected). The percentage
of groundwater RODs that select in situ treatment
peaked in  FY 2005 at 31  percent. The gradual
upward trend in selection of in situ treatment may
be a result of several factors:
                        Box  14.  GROUNDWATER  MNA
                        Groundwater MNA includes a variety of
                        physical, chemical, or biological processes
                        that,  under favorable conditions, act without
                        human intervention to reduce the mass,
                        toxicity, mobility, volume, or concentration
                        of contaminants in soil or groundwater.
                        These in situ processes  include
                        biodegradation; dispersion; dilution;
                        sorption; volatilization; radioactive decay;
                        and chemical or biological stabilization,
                        transformation, or destruction of
                        contaminants.
                         Development of these technologies is growing
                         rapidly
                         They have been more frequently used in recent
                         years to treat some media and contaminants,
                         which are difficult to remediate, such as NAPL,
                         chlorinated solvents, and fractured bedrock
                                                                                   Irt
                                                                                   (D
                                                                                   O
H
•n
CS
Co
~
ft
a
 -
 •-
 =r
 3
 -
 O
fro
 r
 :
3
O.
       Figure 18:  Trends in  Ground water  RODs Selecting in Situ Treatment
                                   (FY 1986 -2005)*
                    Total Number of Groundwater RODs = 1,458
              30%
              25%
              20%
Percentage
of All
Groundwater 15%
RODs
               10%
                 50/
                 /a
-«— RODs Selecting In Situ
    Treatment for Groundwater
    Linear Trend
    (RODs Selecting In Situ
    Treatment for Groundwater)
                                                                                  31
                                     9%X/
                                           **
                 86  87  88 89  90 91  92 93 94  95 96  97 98 99  00 01  02 03  04 05*
                                             Fiscal Year (FY)

         The selection of in situ treatment remedies has generally increased since 1986.
ROD = Record of Decision (Note: Data include ROD amendments)
'Includes information from an estimated 74 percent of FY 2005 RODs and amendments available as of
October2006.
Sources: 3, 4, 7.  Data sources are listed in Section (•>.

-------
 
-------
The number of in situ groundwater treatment
projects selected in RODs from FY 2002 to 2005
is  presented in Table 9.  The table shows that
selection and use of bioremediation and chemical
treatment for in  situ groundwater continue to
increase. Although air sparging represents the most
projects cumulatively,  its use is beginning to
decrease. Bioremediation and chemical treatment
have increased significantly, with approximately 70
and 80 percent of projects, selected in the past six
years.
As shown  in  Figure 20, in  situ groundwater
technologies treat  eight  major  groups  of
contaminants categorized for this report as follows,
with the exceptions listed in  the figure notes:
 • VOCs - either halogenated or non-halogenated
 • SVOCs - either halogenated or non-halogenated
 • PAHs
 • BTEX
 • Organic pesticides/herbicides
 • Metals and metalloids
      Table 9.   in  Situ Croundwater
           Treatment Projects
             ASR 11th Edition   ASR 12th Edition
              Number of New     Number of New
             Projects Selected   Projects Selected
 Technology   in FY 2000-2002*   in FY 2002-2005"
 Bioremediation
                  21
                                    26
 Chemical
 Treatment
15
                 17
Permeable Reactive
Barrier
Air Sparging
Phvtoremediation
Multi-Phase
Extraction
In-Well Air
Stripping
Flushinq
Total
7
10
3
4
3
2
65
6
6
5
5
2
0
67
   In situ groundwater treatment applications of
 bioremediation and chemical treatment are being
   selected more frequently than in prior years.

 *Includes information from an estimated 70percent ot
FY2002 records of decision (ROD) and amendmen ts
available as of March 2003.
 **Indudes information from an estimated 74percent
of FY 2005 RODs and amendments available as of
October 2006 and project data available in CERCL1S
as of October 2006.
Sources: 3, 4, 7. Data sources are listed in Section 6.
Overall, VOCs — including BTEX and halogenated
VOCs — are the contaminants most commonly
treated in groundwater using in situ technologies.
Halogenated SVOCs (including organic pesticides
and herbicides) and  metalloids and metals  in
groundwater are treated least frequently with in situ
remedies. The number of projects in Figure 20
exceeds the  total number  of in situ groundwater
projects because some projects involve more than
one type of contaminant. These projects, therefore,
are repeated in Figure  20 under each contaminant
type treated by the remedy.
The selection of a treatment technology  for a site
depends on the physical and chemical properties of
the contaminants.  For example, VOCs are amenable
to air sparging and in-well air stripping because of
their volatility.  Conversely, metals, which are not
volatile and  do  not  degrade, are nor amenable to
these technologies, and are  most often treated using
chemical treatment and PRBs. As Figure 20 shows,
BTEX and  halogenated VOCs are treated most
frequently using air sparging.  PAHs and other non-
halogenated SVOCs, which  are not as volatile as
BTEX and halogenated VOCs but can be destroyed
through microbial processes,  are treated most
frequently by bioremediation.  Metalloids and metals
are typically not amenable to bioremediation; one
exception is the use of in situ bioremediation  to
reduce hexavalent chromium to its less toxic trivalent
form. This technology, which uses biological activity
to create conditions that result in chemical reduction
of chromium, is being applied at one NPL site.
Bioremediation  to treat arsenic is currently planned
at two additional sites. Metals and metalloids may
undergo chemical reactions widi certain substances
to form compounds that are less toxic or mobile.
The PRBs were used most often to treat halogenated
VOCs, BTEX, and metals  and metalloids.
The selection of groundwater treatment technologies
may also depend on site-specific factors, such as soil
type and hydrogeology.  For  example, air sparging
may be an effective  treatment for VOCs at a site
with sandy soil  but  may not be effective at a site
with tightly packed clay soil.  In addition,  chemical
treatment may be ineffective at sites with low-
permeability soils because  of the resulting uneven
or limited chemical distribution in the subsurface.
                                                                                                to
                                                                                                (D
                                                                                                O
                                                                                                rt-
                                                                                                O
                                                                                                3
                                                                                                -
                                                                                                ta
                                                                                                3
                                                                                                -
                                                                                                3-
                                                                                                3
                                                                                               OQ
                                                                                                n
                                                                                                c
                                                                                                3
                                                                                                O.

-------
                          Figure 20:  Contaminant Croups Treated  by In Situ  Croundwater Projects
                                                          (FY 1982 - 2005)*
 -
 J
 u
£
O
'+J
U
(U
(O
                     Number of
                     Projects
33
so
45
40
•MB
30
25
20-
•15-
in
5




53
• Air Sparging - 72 Projects
D Bioremediation - 70 Pr
E3 Chemical Treatment - C
D Multi-Phase Extraction
a Permeable Reactive B<
D Phytoremediation - 14
ojects
!9 Projects
- 26 Projects
jrrier - 24 Projects
Projects

35


20
r

|


}12

loon
*1VU1 1
Polycyclic Other
aromatic non-
hydrocarbons halogenated e
(PAH) semivolatiles3 x

2



6




66
14
g[3
^ 1
6 '< 0 sffll
f^il^j J;; J


40
7
>

25
;
•
: 16
'
:'
H '•' ' ~ ^
':-.. ,* ^§ •.
t: I jfill
Benzene, Other Organic Other Halogenated Metals and
toluene, non pesticides/ halogenated volatiles metalloids
thylbenzene, halogenated herbicides semi-
ylene (BTEX) volatiles'' volatiles0
                               In situ treatment technologies are usually selected to address halogenated voiatiles
                                and BTEX. Fewer in situ methods are available for other types of contaminants.
                      * Does- nor include PAHs.
                      h Does nor include BTEX.
                      c Does noc include organic pesticides Mid herbicides.
                      ^Includes information from an estimated 74 percent of FY 2005 records ot decision and amendments available as
                      of October 2006 and project data available in CERCLISas of October 2006.
                      Data for in-well air stripping and Hushing are not included.
                      Projects may treat more than one contaminant group.
                      Sources: 3, 4, 7.  Data sources are listed in Section 6.
                                                                 4-10

-------
Status of In Situ Groundwater Projects
A snapshot of the status of in situ groundwater
treatment technologies is presented in Figure 21.
The data in Figure 21 show:
 • The total number of in situ groundwater
   treatment projects increased by 50 percent,
   from  169 to 254, between the Eleventh and
   Twelfth Editions.
 • An additional 27 in situ groundwater projects
   were completed, increasing the percentage of
   completed in situ groundwater projects from
   11 percent to 18  percent.  These completed
   projects   included  14  air  sparging,   5
   bioremediation, 4 chemical treatment, 2 multi-
   phase extraction, and 2 PRBs.
                           Nearly half (47 percent) of in situ groundwater
                           treatment projects are operational.
                           Although the percentage of in situ groundwater
                           projects that are operational decreased, the total
                           number of operational projects increased from
                           91 to 119. The technologies that exhibited the
                           largest  increase in the number of operational
                           projects were phytoremediation (6 projects),
                           bioremediation (6 projects),  multi-phase
                           extraction (5 projects) and PRBs (5 projects).
                           The number of in situ groundwater treatment
                           projects in  the design phase increased.   The
                           technologies with the largest increase in the
                           number of projects in the design phase were
                           bioremediation (11 projects) and chemical
                           treatment (9 projects).
   Figure 21:  Status of In Situ  Groundwater Treatment Projects - Comparison
             Between Tenth, Eleventh and Twelfth  Editions of the ASR
                                    (FY 1982-2005)***
                                                                  o
                                                                  3
                                                                  n
                                                                  -_
                                                                  3
                                                                  •-
                                                                   -
                                                                  H
                                                                  -
                                                                  —
                                                                  a
                                                                  o_
                                                                  o"
                                                                  OQ
                                                                                                              O
                                                                                                              o
                                                                                                              c
                                                                                                              3
                                                                                                              O-
                                                                                       -
                                                                                       '
            100%

             90%

             80%

             70%
             60%
Percentage
of In Situ
Groundwater 50%
Projects
             40%
             30%

             20%

             10%

             0%
 6% (6)
  65%
  (68).
5% (5)
24% (25)
                 In Situ Groundwater
                  Technologies (104)
                    Tenth Edition*
                   11% (19)
54%
(91)
                                          3% (5)
                   32% (54)
             In Situ Groundwater
             Technologies (169)
              Eleventh Edition**
                                    18% (46)
47%
(119)
                                    29% (73)
D Completed
•Operational
• Design Complete/
  Being Installed
• Predesign/Design
            In Situ Groundwater
            Technologies (254)
             Twelfth Edition***
    As with source control treatment projects (see Figure 11), projects addressing contaminated
         groundwater have progressed. The percentage of completed in situ groundwater
           treatment projects has increased by 13 percent since the ASR Tenth Edition.
                                           damcndmcn
** Includes in formation from an estimated 70 percent of FY 2002 RODs and amendments available as of March 2003.
*** Includes information from an estimated 74 percent of FY2005 RODs and amendments available as of October 2006
and project data available in CERCLIS as of October 2006.
Sources: 3,4, 10. Data sources are listed in Section 6.
                                          (4-11

-------
 u
 3
 TT
 B
 3
 u

 c
 u
 E
 -
 u
C
o
+J
U
(D
Between FY 2002 and 2005, 82 in situ treatment
technology projects for groundwater were selected.
Of those,  67 have been added since the Eleventh
Edition of the ASR (see Table 9). Technologies most
frequently selected include bioremediation (26
projects), chemical treatment (17 projects), PRBs (6
projects), and air sparging (6 projects). The status of
in situ groundwater treatment projects selected in F.Y
2002  through 2005 at NPL remedial action  sites
includes:

 • One bioremediation project selected in the period
   has been completed
 • Eighteen  projects selected in the period became
   operational
 • An additional five projects have progressed beyond
   the design phase, and the remedies are being
   installed

The specific  types of in sini treatment technologies
and their status are listed in Table 10.  In s/tu treatment
of groundwater has been  selected 254 times at 190
sites.  Among these technologies,  air sparging and
bioremediation have been the technologies most
frequently  selected; although recent trends  indicate
that bioremediation has  been increasing while air
sparging is decreasing. A large number of projects in
the operational phase use these technologies.  The
treatment rate of these technologies is typically limited
by site-specific factors. For example, air sparging may
require long treatment times when continuing sources
of contaminants, such as light nonaqueous phase
liquids (LNAPL) and DNAPL, are present. Likewise,
bioremediation may be limited by the rate the
microbes can break down contaminants, which can
depend on a variety of factors such as climate, soil
conditions, contaminant  concentrations,  and
solubility.
The third most frequently selected technology is
chemical treatment. Chemical treatment is typically
applied as an  aggressive technology that requires a
relatively short treatment time to achieve cleanup
goals.  It may also be effective in treating small
amounts of DNAPL and LNAPL. The number of
chemical treatment projects has nearly doubled from
21 to 39 since the ASR Eleventh Edition.  PRBs are a
passive technology that relies on natural groundwater
flow to carry contaminants into a reactive zone, where
they are treated; therefore, diis technology does not
treat contaminants upgradient of the reactive zone.
Most PRBs (15 of 24) are in the operational phase,
and two are completed.


Groundwater Pump and Treat
Projects
This section  presents information about P&T
projects.  P&T extracts groundwater from an
aquifer and treats it aboveground. The extraction
step usually is conducted by pumping groundwater
from a well or trench.  The treatment step can
                         Table 10.   Status of in Situ  Croundwater Treatment  Projects by  Technology
                                                            (FY 1982-2005)*
Technology Predesign/ Design Complete/
Design Being Installed
Air Sparging
Bioremediation
Chemical Treatment
Permeable Reactive Barrier
Multi-Phase Extraction
Phvtoremediation
In-Well Air Stripping
Flushing
Total
Percentage of In Situ
Groundwater Technologies
9
29
19
6
6
3
1
0
73
29%
5
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
16
6%
Operational
38
27
9
15
14
10
6
0
119
47%
Completed
20
10
9
2
5
0
0
0
46
1 8%
Total
72
70
39
24
26
14
8
1
254

                                     Almost half of in situ groundwater treatment projects are operational.
                       includes information from ait estimated 74 percent of FY 2005 records of decision and amendments available :ts
                       of October 2006 and project data available in CERCLIS as of October 2006.
                       Sources: 5, 4, 7. Data sources are listed in Section 6.

-------
include a variety of technologies, with the most
common being air stripping and carbon adsorption
(refer  to  Appendix  C for all  technology
descriptions).

Status  of Pump and  Treat Projects
This report contains information about 725 P&T
projects at NPL sites.  Figure 22 shows the status
of these projects and allows for the  following
conclusions:
 • Most  P&T  projects  (72  percent)   are
   operational.
 • Fifteen percent are in the predesign or design
   phase.
 • 73 P&T projects (10 percent) have been shut
   down (no longer operational).
The status "shut down" does not indicate that goals
were met for these projects. Although 38 percent (28
projects) had met the goal of either  restoration or
hydraulic containment  of groundwater, others  were
shut down for various reasons: replaced with another
remedy, such as in situ treatment or MNA; for
monitoring to evaluate  whether goals have been
achieved; or because of technical issues, such as well
fouling or limited pumping capacity. Appendix G lists
73 P&T projects along with their reasons for shutdown.
   Figure 22:  Status  of Groundwater
        Pump  and Treat Projects
             (FY 1982 - 2005)*
     Total Number of Projects  = 725
                i
1 Operational (521)
          72%
                           Shut Down (73)
                                    10%
                           Predesign/Design (107)
                                          15%
                          Design Complete/
                         Being Installed (24)
                                      3%
  Nearly 75 percent of pump and treat projects
    are operational, presenting a continuing
   challenge and opportunity for optimization
             efforts (see Box 15).
includesinformation from 011 estimated 74 percent of FY
2005 records of decision and amendmen K available as of
Occober 2006 and project data available in CERCLlSas
ofOaolxr2006.
Sources: 3,4, 7. Data sources are listed in Section 6.
Contaminants Treated by  Pump  and Treat
Projects
The contaminants treated by 514 P&T projects were
identified, and the  10 most  frequently treated
contaminants are shown in Figure 23.  (Note that
contaminant infotmation was available for 70 percent
of projects.)  Chlorinated VOCs are the most
commonly treated group of contaminants.  The
contaminant treated most often is trichloroethene
(TCE).  Other frequendy  treated chlorinated VOCs
include tetrachloroethene (PCE); 1,1,1 -trichloroethane
(TCA); vinyl chloride (VC);  1,2-dichloroethene
(DCE);  and   1,1 -DCE.   Frequently  treated
nonchlorinated VOCs include benzene, toluene, and
xylene. P&T systems also are frequently used to treat
metals and metalloids, including chromium. Projects
that treat more than one contaminant are counted once
for each contaminant listed in Figure 23.

Pump and  Treat  Remedy  Changes
One goal of this report is to compile a current list of all
P&T  projects. As discussed earlier, remedies selected
for  remedial actions at NPL sites are documented
through a ROD, and changes to the original remedies
may be formally documented. Remedies often change
during the pre-design or design phase of a project when
new information about site characteristics is discovered
or treatability studies for the selected technologies are
completed.
EPA updated the status of 725 P&T projects, primarily
by reviewing site documents, such as 5-year review
reports and PCORs. In addition to these 725 P&T
projects, nearly  100 additional  P&T projects were
changed  to   other  groundwater  remedies.
These remedies  were most often changed to in situ
groundwater treatment or non-treatment remedies,
such as institutional controls and MNA  The most
commonly cited reason for changing a P&T remedy
was that further site investigation revealed that the
concentration or extent of contamination was less than
expected.  Other frequendy cited reasons included
problems in implementing the remedy because of site
conditions such as hydrogeology,  implementation of a
more effective in situ treatment remedy, and high costs.
For additional information about remedy updates, see
Updating RemedyDecisions atSuperiundsites -Summary
Report FY2004 and FY 2005, February 2007 (EPA
540-R-06-074).
                                                                                               c/)
                                                                                               (0
                                                                                               o
                                                                                               rt;
                                                                                               O
                                                                                               3
                                                                                               -
                                                                                               -
                                                                                               —
                                                                                               -,
                                                                                               •
                                                                                               =r
                                                                                               3
                                                                                               3
                                                                                               o
                                                                                               I
                                                                                               O
                                                                                               [
                                                                                               3
                                                                                               a.
                                                                                               3=
                                                                                               P

-------
—
 c:
 3
 -

 -
 U
 E
 u
 -
£
O
4J
U
CD

Figure  23:   Contaminants Most Commonly Treated by Pump and Treat Systems
                                  (FY 1982-2005)*

              300
                                   250 -
     Number of
       Projects
150


100 -|


 50


  0



pQO





















161


















131

















99






i — -

98 90 90 78 77 72
                                                     Contaminant
                                Volatile organic compounds, such as TCE and PCE, are the contaminants
                                          treated most commonly by pump and treat systems.

                     "Includes information from an estimated 74 percent of FY2005 records of decision and amendmen ts available as
                     of October 2006 and project data available in CERCLIS as of October 2006.
                     Only the most common contaminants have been included for the 514projects with contaminant data.
                     Sources: 3, 4, 7. Data sources arc listed in Section 6.
                      Box 15.   P&T OPTIMIZATION
                      Once remediation systems have been
                      functioning for a period of time, opportunities
                      may exist to optimize the system, particularly if
                      they are long-term remedies. The purpose of
                      optimization is to identify potential changes
                      that will improve the effectiveness of a system
                      and reduce operating costs without
                      compromising the effectiveness of the remedy
                      or the achievement of other cleanup
                      objectives.

                      EPA recognizes that long-term remedial
                      approaches should not remain static, that
                      conditions change over time, and that better
                      technologies, tools, and strategies evolve,
                      which allow for continuous improvement of
                      remedy performance. In OSWER Directive No.
                      9200.0-33, Transmittal of Final FYOO - FY01
                      Superfund Reforms Strategy, dated July 7,
                      2000, EPA outlined a commitment to optimize
                      Superfund-lead P&T systems at Superfund
                      sites. Superfund-lead P&T systems include
                      systems that are either EPA-lead or state-lead
                      that are funded from the Superfund Program.
                                             Initially, EPA performed a Remediation System
                                             Evaluation (RSE) on 20 Superfund-lead
                                             groundwater P&T systems during 2000 and
                                             2001. The results of this initiative are
                                             documented in two reports: (1) Groundwater
                                             Pump and Treat Systems: Summary of
                                             Selected Cost and Performance Information at
                                             Superfund-Financed Sites and (2) Pilot Project
                                             to Optimize Superfund-financed Pump and
                                             Treat Systems:  Summary Report and Lessons
                                             Learned. Since the initial set of RSEs, EPA
                                             has prepared 17 RSEs for Superfund-lead
                                             P&T systems and 1 for a responsible-party
                                             site.  EPA is also preparing additional RSEs for
                                             Superfund-financed sites. The summary
                                             reports, RSEs, and other reports are
                                             available at http://clu-in.org/rse. Additional
                                             information on RSE and optimization of
                                             remedies is available at http://www.frtr.gov/
                                             optimization.  This site includes information on
                                             optimization tools and techniques, including
                                             checklists that can be used to identify
                                             optimization opportunities for specific
                                             groundwater treatment technologies.
                                                              4-I4

-------

Conclusion
Several conclusions can be drawn from the analysis
of the latest data and historical trends associated
with in situ and ex situ groundwater treatment
projects.  Of the RODs that select groundwater
treatment, 18 per.cent (195) used in situ treatment
remedies, whereas more than 90 percent (958) used
P&T remedies. A total of 254 in situ treatment
projects and 725 P&T projects were implemented
or planned from  those RODs.  Those projects
consist of a wide  range of technologies  used to
address a broad spectrum of contaminants at
various stages in  design and  implementation.
Although annual fluctuations occur, some trends
and general observations can be noted:
 • RODs that select in situ groundwater treatment
   have been generally increasing, from none in
   1986 to a high of 31 percent in FY 2005.
 • RODs that select P&T alone  have decreased
   from about 80 percent before  FY 1992 to an
   average of 20 percent over the  last 5 years (FY
   2001 through 2005).
 • RODs  that select only  MNA (with  no
   groundwater treatment) experienced a decline
   from  FY  1999  to 2002, coinciding with
   publication of EPA guidance on the use of
   MNA in 1999.  Since FY 2002, RODs that
   select MNA have been increasing.
 • The most common in situ technologies include
   air sparging,  bioremediation, chemical
   treatment, PRBs, and multi-phase extraction.
 • Cumulatively, air sparging represents almost 30
   percent of all in situ groundwater treatment
   projects, with bioremediation representing 27
   percent.
 • In situ bioremediation and chemical treatment
   have increased significantly in recent years, with
   approximately 70 to 80 percent of these projects
   selected in the past 6 years.
 • More  than 70 percent of P&T projects selected
   are currently operational. Another 10 percent
   have been shut down. Eighteen percent of in
   situ groundwater projects have been completed,
   and nearly 50 percent continue to operate.
Selection  and  implementation  of  in  situ
groundwater treatment  technologies have been
increasing and may continue  to do so as their
applicability and performance are demonstrated at
a larger number of sites and a wider variety  of
conditions.  Site owners, remedial project
managers, and other stakeholders may look more
favorably to these options when  they consider
groundwater cleanup alternatives  because these
systems do not require extraction of contaminated
groundwater. Additionally, they generally have
shorter operating periods than P&T remedies.
o
rt-
O

 H
 ro
 o
o
i
I
3
Q.
-

-------
 —
 u
 E
 u
 a!
 c
 u
 B
 -
 5
 U
 u
 X
 c
 -
 u
 _
in
c
o
u
cu
CO
 Section  5:    Report  Focus
 Area      On-Site  Containment
 Remedies
The ASR focuses on the documentation and analysis
of treatment technology applications for Superfund
remedial action sites.  Given the prevalence of on-
site containment remedies, EPA expanded the scope
of the  report beyond treatment technologies to
include information on groundwater containment
remedies, specifically VEBs, in the Tenth Edition.
With this Twelfth Edition, the scope was expanded
further in an effort to understand the state of the
practice of on-site containment  remedies, such as
final cover systems (commonly refetred to as caps),
to prevent the migration of contaminants or
contaminated media.  An initial analysis has been
conducted for source control cover systems.  These
details  are provided for a limited subset of cover
systems at surface contamination sites, landfills, and
disposal units.  In total,  information and analysis
are presented for 112  cover system remedies at 89
NPL sites and 57 VEB remedies at 55 NPL sites.
The information provided in this section, therefore,
only suggests the state of the practice, and is not a
"status report" on these remedies.  This section
provides an overview of the data collected about on-
site containment remedies and presents the findings
derived. Specific types of containment remedies are
identified in Appendix F.
From FY 1982 to 2005,  17 percent (503) of RODs
selected containment without treatment and an
additional 16 percent  (475) of RODs selected
containment in  conjunction with a treatment
remedy. Trends associated with selection of on-site
containment remedies are presented in Figure 24.
Overwhelmingly, the most common type of on-site
containment remedy is a cover system.  Although
RODs selecting other on-site containment remedies,
such as VEBs, have remained constant over time —
with less than 10 selected per year — RODs that
select a cover system as a remedy surged in FY 1990
and reached a peak of 57 in FY 1993. Since then,
the number of RODs  that have selected cover
systems has  been steadily declining  but  still
represents the majority of on-site  containment
remedies selected.
While other sections of the ASR focus on treatment
remedies, information about containment remedies
has also been included (see Figures 1, 2,  6, 7, 15,
and 16 and Tables 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8). The remainder
of this section focuses on the analysis performed on
a limited sample of on-site containment remedies.
                                        Figure 24:   RODs Selecting On-Site Containment
                                                          (FY 1984-2005)*
                               60
                      Number
                      of RODs  30
                               20
                                                          52
                                                                 £57
                                                                           53
                                                              55
                                                       '"     K1    i      -'  '^    ^ -^
                                                                   \    ^'    \    /  \
                                                                   \/47   \  /   \
                                                                    0
                                                                    42
                                                                              39
                                                                                     535
                                  84 ' 85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  00  01  02  03  04  05*
                                                                 Fiscal Year (FY)

                        The number of RODs selecting capping generally tracked the total number of RODs since 1984
                                                             (see Figure 6).
                      "Includes information from a/i estimated 74 percent of FY 2005 records of decision (ROD) and amendments
                      available as of October 2006 and project data available in CERCLIS as of October 2006.
                      Sources: 3, 4. 7. Data sources are listed in Section (i.

-------
Collection of Data  about On-Site
Containment Projects
Detailed project-level information about on-site
containment remedies was collected  for a limited
number of sites  for  this edition  of the ASR.
Sites identified for the survey included:
 • Sites classified as "Fund-Lead," that is, funded
   and implemented  by EPA, and
 • Sites in the remedial action (RA)  phase
These sites were selected because it was expected
that implementation  data would be  more readily
available.  The application of these two criteria
narrowed the list of prospective sites with on-site
containment from 656 to 91 (based on CERCLIS
data as of September 2006).
The breakdown of sites with RODs that select
containment remedies and the relative proportion
of cover systems are as follows:
 • Of 656 sites with on-site containment remedies,
   634 included a cover system
 • Of 439 sites with on-site containment remedies
   in the RA phase, 417 included a cover system
 • Of 228 sites with on-site containment remedies
   and EPA funding,  222 included a cover system
 • Of 91 sites with on-site containment remedies
   in the RA phase and EPA funding, 89 included
   a cover system
As discussed in  previous sections, more than one
treatment remedy can be specified for a site.
Similarly, more than one on-site containment
remedy can be specified.  The 91 sites included in
this  analysis yielded  128 on-site containment
remedies, of which 112 were cover systems at 89
NPL sites. These cover systems are the focus of this
section.  Appendix H  presents a list  that includes
each containment remedy and details of the projects
that were identified during this update.
Data sources used to obtain information about on-
site containment remedies included  PCORs and
5-year reviews.  These sources provided the most
readily available and up-to-date information about
the status of containment remedies  and their
effectiveness at sites.  In addition,  decision
documents, site summaries, and fact sheets also
were reviewed for background information.
Decision documents, which contain pre-design
information, were less reliable than  PCORs and
5-year reviews, which  often provide actual
construction and "as-built" information.  Based on
these sources, a variety of data was  collected on
the remedies and associated sites.
Overview of Sites with  On-Site
Containment
Site types were identified based on activities
conducted at the site, which are the likely sources
of contamination.  Applicable  types for each site
were established according to the data sources
described above. (An NPL site could be classified
as more than one site type if appropriate.)  Table
11 shows the site types that were identified for the
NPL sites with containment remedies. The Other
Site Types category consists of site types with only
a small number of NPL sites  each and  includes
agricultural applications; chemical  distributors;
pesticide manufacturing, use, or storage; and textile
dye manufacturing.
Each remedy also was categorized according to the
source of contaminants contained by the barrier.
(More than one source was selected if appropriate.)
The 220 sources identified for all remedies  and
sites include:
 • 72 (33 percent) contaminated soil
 • 55 (25 percent) hazardous waste
 • 30 (14 percent) municipal solid waste
 •  16 (7 percent) other
 •  12 (5 percent) NAPL
 • 35(16 percent) all other sources (each category
   represented less than  10 sources)
     Table 11.  Site Types for On-Site
           Containment Sites*
       Total Number of Sites = 91
 Site Types
 Municipal Landfills
Number
of Sites
    25
 Industrial Landfills
                                  21
 Wood Preserving
                                   18
 Metal Ore Mining and Smelting
    16
 Other Site Types'*
    64
 Total
                                  144
*Sites can have more than one type of classification.
* *Categoiy includes such sire types as agriculniral
applications, chemical distributors, pesticide
manufacturing, and textile dye manufacturing.
Data included tor a limited sample of Fund-Lead,
remedial action phase sites selected from CERCLIS as
of October 2006. Includes information obtained from
preliminary close-out reports, five-year reviews, and
outer site documcn ts.
Sources: 3,4,7.  Data sources are listed in Section 6.
                                 (D
                                 o
                                 U1

                                 70
                                  ~
                                  :
                                  a
                                 ft
                                 3
                                 73
                                 re
                                 rs
                                 Q.

-------
-
a
E
u
c
u
=
-
-
c
J
•.
 _
 c
 £.
 u
 ^
in
c
O
u
0)
The 91  sites with on-site containment were
grouped  into four general classifications based on
the  results  of the site type and source of
contamination analyses:
1.   Landfills/Disposal units — Sites that are municipal
    or industrial landfills or where the contamination
    was caused by disposal of waste (44 sites).
2.   Surface contamination  sites  — Sites where
    dumped waste contaminated the surface medium
    of the site or where an  industrial process
    contaminated the site.  Examples of surface
    contamination sites are chemical manufacturing
    facilities and wood treating and preserving facilities
    (37 sites).
3.   Sediment sites—Sites where sediments are capped
    in situ (4 sites).
4.   Mine sites — Sites where mining activities
    contaminated on-site media (11 sites).
Because of the diverse nature of some NPL sites, a
site could have multiple site classifications for the
purpose  of the review and be counted more than
once, as appropriate. One example is Wyckoff Co./
Eagle Harbor, which is classified as both a surface
contamination site and a sediment site.
Subsequent  analysis focuses on  cover systems
associated with landfills/disposal units and surface
contamination sites. The majority of cover systems
are associated with these site classifications: 89 cover
systems at 77 sites.  Data collected include details
about the cover system, such  as:  type, layer
components, and size; goals and status; and remedies
used in conjunction with those cover systems.


Cover    Designs   and    Layer
Components
Most cover systems employ a hydraulic barrier layer
to prevent  infiltration of water into the contained
material.  Typical materials used for hydraulic barriers
include compacted clay liners, geosynthetic clay liners,
geomembranes, and combinations of these materials.
A  hydraulic barrier is generally used with additional
components of the cover system, such as a surface
protection layer, a biointrusion layer, a drainage layer,
a gas collection layer, and a foundation layer.  Cover
systems  may include some  or all of these layers
depending  on factors such as site type, regulations,
goal of the cover, and planned reuse of the site.
Additional information  about the design of cover
systems can be found in the EPA report, Design and
construction ofRCRA/CERCLA Final Covers.  This
evaluation of on-site containment remedies classified
                                                                            Example of a Conventional Cap
     Surface
     Protection Layer
     Internal
     Drainage
     Layer
                                                                                                      Hydraulic
                                                                                                      Barrier
                                                                                _    Waste
P=  Precipitation
ET= Evapotranspiration
R=  Runoff
L=  Lateral Drainage
                                                                       cover systems according to the general type of cover
                                                                       design and layer components. The three cover system
                                                                       classifications are as follows:
                                                                       1.   Conventional caps -- Cover systems  that
                                                                            include a hydraulic barrier and  a surface
                                                                            protection layer.  Types of conventional  caps
                                                                            include Resource Conservation and Recovery
                                                                            Act (RCRA) C and D (or similar type caps),
                                                                            Toxic Substances Control Act caps, clay caps,
                                                                            and  other  multilayer caps that include a
                                                                            hydraulic barrier. The graphic above illustrates
                                                                            a multilayer cap with a hydraulic barrier.
                                                                       2.   Soil caps -— Cover systems with a single layer
                                                                            of  soil covering the waste and no  hydraulic
                                                                            barrier.
                                                                       3.   Asphalt/concrete caps —  Cover systems with
                                                                            an  asphalt or concrete surface layer but  no
                                                                            hydraulic barrier underneath.
                                                                       Soil and conventional  caps constitute the most
                                                                       common cover system  types (71  of 89 cover
                                                                       systems). Figure 25 shows the percentages of each
                                                                       cover system type for the landfills and disposal units
                                                                       and surface contamination sites, the two most
                                                                       common site classifications.
                                                                       For the landfills/disposal units (48 cover systems):
                                                                         •  Conventional caps represented 86 percent of
                                                                           the cap remedies
                                                                         •  Soil caps represented 10 percent
                                                                       For surface contamination sites (41 cover systems):
                                                                         •  Conventional caps represented 46 percent of
                                                                           the  cap remedies
                                                                         •  Soil caps represented 15 percent
                                                                         •  Asphalt/concrete caps represented 27 percent

-------
                           Figure 25:  Cover  System  Types for
                               Landfills/Disposal  Units and
                              Surface  Contamination Sites*
                Landfills/Disposal
                    Unit Covers
                (48 Cover Systems)
  Surface Contamination
          Covers
    (41 Cover Systems)
             Soil (5)
             10%
                           Not Specified (2
 Soil (6)
 15%
                               Conventional (41)
                                        86%
Not Specified (5)
         12%
                                                                           Asphat,
                                                                      Concrete (11)
                                                                             27%
                Conventional (19)
                         46%
  Conventional covers are the most common cover type at both landfills/disposal units and surface
       contamination sites reviewed (see section on Cover Designs and Layer Components).
*Data included for a limited sample ofFund-Lead, remedial action phase sices selected from CERCL1S as of October
2006. Includes information obtained from preliminary close-out reports, five-year reviews, and other site documents.
Sources: 3, 4, 7. Data sources are listed in Section 6.
                                                                 c/i
                                                                 
                                                s
                                                n
                                                 :
                                                I
Whereas  landfills/disposal  units  relied more
frequently  on  conventional  caps,  surface
contamination sites employed other cover designs,
primarily  asphalt/concrete as an alternative.  A
possible explanation for this condition might include
the ongoing industrial use of surface contamination
sites mat requires the use of asphalt/concrete surfaces.
Also,  surface contamination sites may  be more
amenable  to excavation and disposal.  When less
contamination remains, an asphalt/concrete  cap,
with no hydraulic barrier, may be appropriate.
Table  12 lists the numbers and types of hydraulic
barriers at landfills/disposal units and surface
contamination sites.   The most frequently used
hydraulic barrier at landfills/disposal units and surface
contamination sites is a compact clay liner, which has
been used  for 17 of 60 cover systems (28  percent).
Thirteen of 41 conventional caps (32  percent)  at
landfills/disposal units used compact cky liners, while
4 of 19 conventional caps  (25 percent) at surface
contamination sites used them.
 Table 12.  Types of  Hydraulic Barriers
  for Conventional Caps at  Landfills/
       Disposal  Units  and Surface
          Contamination  Sites*
 Type(s) of   Landfills/disposal
 Hydraulic         Sites
 Barriers        (41 projects)
                  Surface
               Contamination
              Sites (19 projects)
 Compact Clay
  13
 Geomembrane
 Composite
 Geosynthetic Clay
 Not Documented
                   10
"Composite harriers are hydraulic harriers with
multiple types of components (e.g., compact clay and
geomembrane).
Data included fora limited sample of Fund-Lead,
remedial action phase sites selected from CERCLIS as
of October 2006. Includes information obtained from
preliminary close-out reports, five-year reviews, and
other sice documents.
Sources: 3, 4, 7. Data sources are listed in Section 6.

-------
—
u
E
u
 -
 u
 =
 e
 5
 c
J
y
                           Figure 26:  Cover System Sizes
                                      by Site  Type
                             Total Number of Caps = 26
                              8
 D.
 U
Pi
o
'•p

-------
           Figure 27:  Secondary Coals for Conventional and Soil  Caps at
             Landfills/Disposal Units and Surface  Contamination  Sites*
         Secondary Goals of Conventional Caps
                        (60 Caps)
                          Secondary Goals of Soil Caps
                                    (11 Caps)
Prevent source migration
(including DNAPL or LNAPL) (18)	1
14%
Prevent migration of
contaminated groundwater (7)
5%
Collect Leachate (6)
5%
Provide erosion control (5)
4%
Minimize gas
migration (5)
4%
     Minimize
- infiltration (34)
         27%
Prevent direct —\
contact (7)
46%
                   Not identified - 4
                   Allow future land use - 2
                   Other - 2
                   Collect DNAPL/LNAPL -1
    Prevent direct
      contact (44)
            34%
   Not identified (3)
   20%
                                                  Minimize
                                               infiltration (1)
                                                       7%
                                             Provide erosion
                                                 control (2)
                                                      13%
 Collect DNAPU
      LNAPL (1)
           7%
Allow future
land use (1)
       7%
                     For both conventional and soil caps reviewed, the most
                      common secondary goal is preventing direct contact.
 *Data included for a limited sample of Fund-Lead, remedial action phase sites selected from CERCLIS as of
 Ocmber2006.
 Includes information obtained from preliminary closeout reports, five-year reviews, and other site documents.
 Each cap may have more than one secondary goal.
 Sources: 3, 4, 7.  Data sources are listed in Section 6.
                                                       O
                                                       rh
                                                       O*
                                                       3
                                                       Ul
                                                       93
                                                                                                                 .
                                                                                                                -
                                                                                                                §
                                                                             n
                                                                             I
                                                                             £
                                                                             o
                                                                             O.
Figure 27 shows secondary goals for conventional
and soil caps at landfills/disposal units and surface
containment sites.  The most common secondary
goal  for both types of cover system is to prevent
direct contact with the  contamination or waste
contained.  This is consistent with  the primary
purpose of a cover system to act as a barrier between
contamination and human  and  ecological
receptors.
Gas management and monitoring can be a critical
aspect of cover design and performance and often
depends on the age and type of waste or media
being contained. Of the total 112 cover systems:
 • Gas monitoring was confirmed at 24 sites
 • Of the 24 sites, 16 can be classified as municipal
   solid waste (MSW) landfills.
In addition to monitoring, these remedies also
employed gas management technologies. The two
most common types of gas management at these
sites  were open vents and flares. Eight other sites
in the study can also be classified as MSW landfills,
but it is unclear if gas was  being monitored. For
these eight  sites, there was  either an open vent or
no gas management.
             Another goal of a cover system may be to allow for
             reuse and redevelopment of a site.  Of the
             information available for all the cover systems, the
             most common  planned  reuse for  a site was
             recreational  at 14 sites (10 percent).  Additional
             information about reuse  of Superfund sites is
             available at EPA?s Superfund Redevelopment Web site
             (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recyde/).
             Rarely is on-site containment the only remedy
             selected for  a site.   Additional remedies also are
             implemented at  these sites in conjunction  with
             containment to provide additional  protection or
             to expedite treatment of the contaminated media.
             The selection of other remedies in RODs is
             discussed in  the introduction to this section.  The
             two most common  additional remedies for
             landfills/disposal  units and surface contamination
             sites are institutional  controls and groundwater
             monitoring (at 27 percent and 20  percent of
             landfills/disposal units and 24 percent and 15
             percent   of surface  contamination  sites,
             respectively).  Figure 28  shows the additional
             remedies used with cover systems at landfills/
             disposal units and surface contamination sites.

-------
—
 I
 a
 d
 u
 E
 J
                                  Figure 28:   Additional Remedies  Used with Cover Systems*
 3
 a
 _
in
c
o
(D
U)
                         Number of
                          Projects
                                                              Landfills/Disposal Units
                                                              Surface Contamination
                       For landfills/disposal units and surface contamination sites reviewed, the remedies most commonly
                               used with cover systems were institutional controls and groundwater monitoring.
                       *Data included fora limited sample of Fund-Lead, remedial action phase sites selected from CERCLISasof
                       October 2006. Includes in forma tion obtained rrom preliminary close-out reports, five-year reviews, and other
                      site documents.
                      A coversystem can have multiple additional remedies.
                      Additional remedies are those remedies used in addition of the cover system to remediate the source ma terial.
                      Sources: 3,4, 7. Data sources are listed in Section 6.
                      Vertical Engineered  Barriers
                      VEBs are subsurface barriers made of an
                      impermeable material designed to contain or divert
                      groundwater.  VEBs  can be used to contain
                      groundwater, divert uncontaminated groundwater,
                      or divert contaminated groundwater from reaching
                      resources, such as surface water bodies or drinking
                      water intakes.  In addition, VEBs are an integral
                      part of many PRBs.  The following information
                      presents updates and additions to information first
                      reported in the ASR Tenth Edition. Four VEBs
                      were selected in RODs from FY 2002 through
                      2005.
VEBs for groundwater containment were selected
at 55 Superfund remedial action sites, for a total
of 57 projects.  (Some sites have more than one
VEB.) Nearly 90 percent of the VEBs have been
installed (50 of 57). Table 13 indicates the numbers
and types of VEBs. The types of barriers are:
 • Slurry wall — Consists of a vertical trench that
   is  filled with  a low-permeability slurry  of
   bentonite, soil, or cement.
 • Sheet pile — A series of overlapping sheets of
   impermeable material, such as metal.
 • Geosynthetic wall — Constructed by placing a
   geosynthetic liner into a trench.

-------
 • Grout — Constructed  by injecting a high-
   pressure grout mixture into the subsurface. The
   grout used is typically cement or a mixture of
   cement and bentonite.
 • Deep soil mixing — Overlapping columns
   created by a series of large-diameter, counter-
   rotating augers that mix in situ soils with an
   additive, usually  bentonite, cement,  or grout,
   that is injected through the augers.
Slurry walls are the most frequently planned or
initiated type of VEB.  There are five or fewer
applications at Superfund remedial action sites for
each of the other types of VEBs.   Some VEBs
incorporate more than one type of barrier.
Additional information on VEBs is  available in
Evaluation of Subsurface Engineered Barriers at Waste
Sites (EPA-542-R-98-005),  which  is  available
online at http://clu-in.org.
Table 13.  Types of Vertical  Engineered
         Barriers (FY 1982 - 2005)*
       Total Number of Sites = 55
 Vertical Engineered
 Barrier Type
 Slurry Wall
Number of
Barriers**
    54
 Sheet Pile
 Grout
 Geosynthetic Wall
 Deep Soil Mixing
 Other
 TOTAL
                                   67
'Includes information from an estimated 74percent of
FY2005 records of decision and amendments.
Sources: 5, 4, 7.  Data sources are listed in Section 6.
""Some VEBs incorporate more than one type ot
barrier.
                                  ft)
                                  O
                                  rh
                                  O

                                  Ul
                                 1
                                  T
                                  I
                                  :
                                  y
                                 .3
                                  I
                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                 n
                                                                                                                 Q.

-------
 -
 E
 -
 c
•
—
 -
 :
—
 -.
 u
 •J
 -
 u
 —
J_>
 u
a;
C
o
 Section  6:    References  and
 Sources  of  Additional
 Information
Listed below are references and sources of
additional  information.  The  references identify
sources of data and other information presented
in the ASR Twelfth Edition. Online resources also
are identified to download ASR spreadsheets or
search ASR databases.
References
1.   List of Superfund National Priorities List
    (NPL)  sites that are final,  www.epa.sov/
    super'fund/'sites/query/queryhtm/'nplfina.txt.
    September 2005.
2.   List of Superfund NPL sites that  have been
    deleted.  www.epa.gov/supertund/sites/query/
    queryhtm/npldela.txt. September 2005.
3.   Records  of  Decision  (RODs),  ROD
    Amendments, and Explanations of Significant
    Difference from FY 1982 - 2005.
4.   Innovative Treatment Technologies:  Annual
    Status Report (ASR) Eleventh Edition (EPA-
    542-R-03-009).  EPA. Office of Solid Waste
    and  Emergency  Response  (OSWER).
    February 2004.
5.   Groundwater Remedies Selected at Superfund
    Sites (EPA-542-R-01 -022).  EPA.  OSWER.
    January 2002.
6.   Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation at
    Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and
    Underground Storage Tank Sites.   OSWER
    Directive 9200.4-17P. EPA. April 21, 1999.
7.   Comprehensive Environmental Response,
    Compensation,  and Liability Information
    System (CERCLIS).  http://cfpub.ep-d.sov/
    supercpad/cursites/srclisites.cfni.
8.   The Role of Cost in the Superfund Remedy
    Selection Process (EPA 540-F-96-018).  EPA.
    OSWER. September 1996.
9.   Design and Construction of RCRA/CERCLA
    Final Covers (EPA/625/4-91/025).  EPA.
    Office of Research and  Development.  May
    1991.
Online ASR Resources
EPA maintains several resources online to allow
users of the ASR access to additional information,
including:
 • ASR spreadsheets that can be downloaded from
   http://clu-in. org/asr.
   o Table 1.  Source Control Remedy Types at
     NPL Sites
   o Table 3.  Status of Source Treatment Projects
     by Technology
   o Table 6. Groundwater Remedy Types at NPL
     Sites
   o Table  10.  Status of In  Situ Groundwater
     Treatment Projects  by Technology
   o Figure 22. Status of Groundwater Pump and
     Treat Projects
   For these tables and figures, EPA prepared
   spreadsheets listing the specific sites names,
   locations, CERCLIS identification numbers, and
   types of remedies selected in RODs for the sites.
 • Appendices available online at http://clu-in.org/asr:
   o Appendix A. Treatment Technologies by
     Fiscal Year
   o Appendix B.   Treatment  Technology
     Summary Matrix
   o Appendix C.   Definitions of Specific
     Treatment Technologies
   o Appendix  D.  Treatment Technologies:
     Summary of Status  Report  Additions,
     Changes, and Deletions
   o Appendix E.   RODs  Selecting Natural
     Attenuation
   o Appendix F.  Identification of Remedy and
     Record of Decision Types for Superfund
     Remedial Actions
   o Appendix G.  Reasons tor Shut Down of 73
     Groundwater Pump and Treat Systems
   o Appendix H.   On-Site  Containment
     Remedies
   Some appendices (B, D, E,  and H) have
   expanded over time and are not available in the
   printed version of this report.

-------
ASR Search System — EPA created a searchable,
online system to allow access to the data that form
the basis for this report.  See Box 16 for a list of
the types of information  available from the ASR
Search System.  This system is  available at
http://cfpub. epa. eov/asr/.
Box 16.  INFORMATION IN ASR SEARCH
SYSTEM	
Site Information
•  Site name and location  (city and state)
•  CERCLIS ID
•  Description
Project-Specific Information
•  Operable unit name
•  Cleanup type
•  ROD date
•  Lead agency and funding information
Contact Information
•  Contact name and affiliation
•  Address,  phone number, and e-mail
Technology Information
  Technology and type (in situ or ex situ)
•  Description of technology
  Treatment of residuals, if applicable
•  Details (such as type of additives)
•  Indicate whether part of a treatment train
Media and Quantity Information
•  Media and quantity
Contaminant Information
•  Contaminants treated
•  Contaminants not treated
Status Information
•  Status
•  Date began operation
•  Date completion is planned
Completed Project Information
•  Cost
•  Contaminant concentrations before and
  after treatment
                                                          to
                                                          (D
                                                          O
                                                                                                        70
                                                                                                        n
                                                                                                        -
                                                                                                        a
                                                                                                        -
                                                                                                        n
                                                                                                        O.
                                                                                                        C/5
                                                                                                        O
                                                                                                        -t
                                                                                                        -
                                                                                                        r

                                                                                                         '
                                                                                                        I.
                                                                                                        -

-------

-------
Appendix
Treatment Technologies by Fiscal Year

-------
13 i °l °*
i *r
i-
1 in

1 **"
1 •=>•
8<°
1 CM
8
°
1 N
8-
^E N
|o
1 "
1 o
8-
1 CM

1 O

1 CO

1 N-
80
H i-

• !•
Hi
1 CO
1"
I CM
1"
li
1 C
8~
1 cn
I1"
j l«
a 	
ml 1 r*
1 1 CO o
QJ I 1 cr> °
^— 1 1 T~

o 1 1 *"
CO 1 m
2 *-
1 1 • 1 CM
-^ *
^m <"
_Q I 1 CD
col |

•- 1 i
CD! 1 i
o I g
0 1 1 -
eatment Techr
Ex Situ Source Contr
Bioremediation
m

o


i-

o


o

T-


o



•-

0

o
-

*•
0

o

^>
-

o

o
a


•-
o
^r

0


O

O


3

O


a



0

o

—
'-

CM
-

*-

CO
CO

-r

CO
co


•-T
CO
|

,_








Chemical Treatment

•T








Incineration (on-site)
in
o

0


1-

0


CM

T-


m



CM

CO

-t
in

:
m

CD

co
CO

n

B)
O>


co
CM


r-;








Incineration (off-site)
*

0


0

~>


3

a


o



•-

o

o
0

•-
a

o

o
o

«-

3
,-


O
a


a







c
a
Mechanical Soil Aerati
;"

0


a

o


r-

a


3



O

O

:
o

CM
3

3

K
O

-•

O
,-


3
O


3








Neutralization
^

o


a

0


CO

o


-



o

o

o
o

o
o

c

o
•

o

D
0


-
o


o






o
5
5
"5
Q
c
CD
a
p
c
m
c
CD
a.
O
CM

CM


O




CM

• ;


cn



C\J

-

0
o

o
o

o

o


*-

0
o


3
^.


c








5
'rS
CD
Q
CD
cn
5
1
LL
•"

0


o

o


o

o


o



r

o

•-
O

D
O

0

O
o

o

0
o


o
a


3








Phytoremediation
;~

3


C

0


c

0


3



--

<-

I
CM

O
-

CM

C
•

3

C
.•:


~
C3


0








Soil Vapor Extraction
co

o


o

Q


O

o


o



o

-

o
-

o
o

a

*-
0



'-
O


o
r


;








a
CO
1
o
CO
CO

CO

o


^ o




XI

CM
c


0

o


in



CO

CO

0



0

o

•*

0
:

COJO


'~~

'
CM
-

'-

o
O _
CN;

-r

CO
•


"=
-



-

•-
o


c
0


colo








c
o
Solidification/Stabilizat


Solvent Extraction
p

r-


1-




;;

CO


-



CM

—

in
-

n
-i

-T

CM
00

:

CO
„


-
^


•i








Thermal Desorption
~

o


o

0


o

o


0



o

•

o
3

O
-

«-

c
-



"1
C3


C
C )


O








Vitrification
T—
in

-•i


01

-r


CM

0


•3-
C\i



n
CM

-03
CM

CO
1—
s

cn
CM
O)
CM

PJ
CO

^
' •

in
T

£;
-


cn
r-


T








TOTALS
< in
in
8 °
CM
^
8 ^
CM
1-
CM
CM
8 °°
CM
§ «
CM
o
0 "*


cn

CO

^
1°
(O
in
1 *
I"
CO

CM

r-
0>
O> ^
O

cn
8-
ICN

fs.
s ^
So
T—
in
°? o
CM
CO
V)
g
0
0
c
o
!=
In Situ Source Contrc
Bioremediation
o
CM

CD


T-

o


in

CM


--

0

co


CO




co

„,


-t



CO

•-

-
:

3
-

c

:
-



3
3


'
O


_








Chemical Treatment

CO

CO

m
CM

o
-

*•

-1
, :

0

0
3


0
i—


„








Multi-Phase Extraction
7~

o


0

0


C~J

0


3

! -

O


r-

O


o

,-


r-



0
-

'-

0
O

a
o o

o
•

o

o
o

•

3
0
o
-

|-

*-
-

«-

CO
0


0 0
o




o



r-








Electrical Separation

Flushing
7

T


,-

3


0

0


r-



*-

'-

•^
CM

O
-

C

o
-

-'

o
o


a
:


3








Thermal Treatment
CO

•r-


3

O


•-

0


0



o

o

0
o

o
=

o

o
c

o

o
=,


:
M


,-







C
O
Mechanical Soil Aerati
CO

o


D

O


.

,_


CM



O

'-

o
-

3
-

0

'-
3

-

0
o


o
3


0








Neutralization
10

o


T-

o


r-

,.


O



CM

•-

o
o

o
3

O

o
3

C

0
-J;


O
O


0








Phytoremediation
CO
ct

-r


CO

,_


CO




(n



co

CM

co
CM


CO

-»

O)
CO

:,

T-
CM
CO


'-
CM


-•








Soil Vapor Extraction
^

CO


o

CM

CM

O


O

0


CO

3


r-



CO

-:

CM
*

r-;
o

in

CO
-

-

*
CM


c)
^
0

0


T-



o

o

o
o

C5
o

o

a
-

o

o
o


0
o


o|o







0
Solidification/Stabilizat






Vitrification
CM

CM


in

in


in
;~-i

t-


CM



m
n

CM

s
r-.

r--
m

c3

CM
n
5

CM

cn
cv


in
in


f_








TOTALS
^ C\J
r
in
8-
CM
0
8 "^
CM
8^
°
CM
8-*
CM
T-
CM
O

CM


8-
co
cn o
cn T-
r-

|»
in
05 Tf
T—
CO
t—
CM

I-
O
8-
T—
O
eo
cn ^
1°

i^
»—
cn ^~

in
CO
CM "
CO
(A
CO

O
o
o
£
0
-

CM

in
•-

»-
CM

O

CM
-

O

O]O
o


o
o
o


o

|

o









o








Chemical Treatment
Multi-Phase Extraction
•~

o


0

o


o

^


o



o

o

o
o

o
c

0

o
C3

D

O
O


O
D


O








cr
c
CO
iZ
=0

o


!~




o

,_


CM


s

r-


-5




i-

co


-T



*-

0

«-
c

«-
o

0

o
0

o

o
o


0
o


c








CM

'--i

CM
-

"-
-

0

»~
0

o

o
c


o
o


o






0)
re
In-Well Air Stripping
Permeable Reactive B
2

o


-f




o

,-


'.M



CO

CM

*-
O

o
0

0

o
0

3

O
0


o
o


0








Phytoremediation
in
CN

r-


8

c


5'

CO
CJ


ID
CM



CO

£

CO
CN

01
If]

to

01
^

~r

m
o


0
CM


O








TOTALS
< ""
in
82
CM
q.
§co

8^
CM ""
CM
o co
O CN
CM
82
CM
O
85
CM


cn co
CO
cn in
t*.

cn oo
cn •*
in
cn i
cn •*
cn o
cn r^
m
cn co
cn m
CM
SO)
m
cn co
cn •*
o
O) CO
cn CM
cn
SCO
CO
00 CD
O CNJ

r--
I1"
to
CO (O
cn T-

1-


cn
CO
g>
'5>
0
o
c
£
£
Ex Situ Groundwater
Pump and Treat

-------
Appendicies B, D, E and  H
Appendix B:   Treatment Technology Summary Matrix
Appendix D:
Treatment Technologies:
Summary of Status Report Additions,
Changes, and Deletions
Appendix E:   RODs Selecting Monitorec
              Natural Attenuation
Appendix H: On-Site Containment Remedies
These appendices do not appear in the printed version of
Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status
Report (Twelfth Edition). The appendices are available ir
the online version of this report at http://clu-in.org/asr.

-------

-------
Appendix C
Definitions of Specific Treatment Technologies


-------
This appendix provides definitions of 17 types of
source  control  (primarily  soil)  treatment
technologies, 9 types of in situ groundwater
treatment technologies, 8 types of groundwater
P&T  technologies,   and   3   containment
technologies.  Technologies that are applicable to
both source control and groundwater treatment are
described only once under the  source control
treatment section.  For P&T technologies, the
descriptions focus on the treatment portion of the
technology.  Groundwater pumping technologies
are not addressed in this report.  Definitions are
based on the Remediation Technologies Screening
Matrix and Reference Guide, Version 4.0, which
can be viewed at  the  Federal  Remediation
Technologies Roundtable (FRTR) web site at http:/
/ivww.frtr.yov.
SOURCE   CONTROL  TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES
BIOREMEDIATION uses microorganisms to
degrade organic contaminants in soil, sludge, solids,
and groundwater either in situ or ex situ. It can also
be used to make metals or metalloids less toxic or
mobile. When treating organic contaminants, the
microorganisms break down contaminants by using
them as a food source or cometabolizing them with
a food source.  Aerobic processes require an oxygen
source, and the end-products typically are carbon
dioxide and warer.    Anaerobic processes are
conducted in the absence of oxygen, and the end-
products can include methane, hydrogen gas, sulfide,
elemental sulfur, and dinitrogen  gas.  Ex situ
bioremediation technologies for  groundwater
typically involve treating extracted groundwater in a
bioreactor or constructed wedand. In situ techniques
stimulate and create a favorable environment for
microorganisms to grow and use contaminants as a
food and energy source, or to cometabolize them.
Generally, this process involves providing some
combination of oxygen, nutrients, and moisture, and
controlling   the   temperature    and   pH.
Microorganisms that have been adapted for
degradation of specific contaminants are sometimes
applied to enhance the process. For the treatment
of metals and metalloids, it involves biological activity
that promotes the formation of less toxic or mobile
species, by either creating ambient conditions that
will cause such species to  form, or changing the
chemical form of the contaminant  directly.  The
treatment may  result  in  oxidation, reducrion,
precipitation,  coprecipitation,  or  another
transformation of the contaminant.
CHEMICAL TREATMENT, also known as
chemical reduction/oxidation,  typically involves
reduction/oxidation  (redox) reactions  that
chemically convert hazardous contaminants to
compounds that are nonhazardous, less toxic, more
stable, less mobile, or inert. Redox reactions involve
the transfer of electrons from one compound to
another. Specifically, one reactant is oxidized (loses
electrons) and one is reduced (gains electrons). The
oxidizing agents  used for treatment of hazardous
contaminants in soil  include  ozone, hydrogen
peroxide, hypochlorites, potassium permanganate,
Fenton's reagent (hydrogen peroxide and iron),
chlorine, and chlorine dioxide.  This method may
be applied in situ or ex situ  to soils, sludges,
sediments, and odier solids, and may also be applied
to groundwater  in situ or ex situ (P&T).  P&T
chemical treatment may also include the use of
ultraviolet (UV)  light in a process known as UV
oxidation.
ELECTROKINETICS is based on the theory that
a low-density current will mobilize  contaminants
in the form of charged species.  A current passed
between electrodes is intended to cause aqueous
media, ions, and particulates to move through the
soil, waste, and water.  Contaminants arriving at
the electrodes can be removed by  means of
electroplating or electrodeposition, precipitation or
coprecipitation, adsorption, complexing with ion
exchange resins,  or by the pumping of water (or
other fluid) near the electrode.
For FLUSHING, a solution of water, surfactants,
or cosolvents  is applied to the soil or injected into
the subsurface  to treat contaminated soil or
groundwater. When treating soil, the injection is
often designed  to  raise the water table into the
contaminated soil zone.  Injected water and
treatment agents are recovered together with flushed
contaminants.
Both on-site  and off-site INCINERATION use
high temperatures  (870 to  1,200°C or 1,600 to
2,200°F) to volatilize and combust (in the presence
of oxygen) organics in hazardous wastes.  Auxiliary
fuels are often employed to initiate and sustain
combustion.  The destruction and removal
efficiency (DRE) for properly operated incinerators
exceeds the 99.99% requirement for hazardous
waste and can be operated to meet the 99.9999%
requirement for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)
and dioxins.  Off-gases and combustion residuals
generally require treatment.  On-site incineration
typically uses a transportable unit;  for off-site

-------
incineration, waste is  transported  to a central
facility.
MECHANICAL SOIL AERATION agitates
contaminated soil, using tilling or other means to
volatilize contaminants.
MULTI-PHASE EXTRACTION uses a vacuum
system to remove various  combinations  of
contaminated groundwater, separate-phase
petroleum product, and vapors from die subsurface.
The system typically lowers the water table around
the well, exposing more of the  formation.
Contaminants in the newly exposed vadose zone
are then accessible to vapor extraction.  Once above
ground, the extracted  vapors or liquid-phase
organics and groundwater are separated and treated.
NEUTRALIZATION  is a chemical  reaction
between an acid and a base. The reaction involves
acidic or caustic wastes that are neutralized (pH is
adjusted toward 7.0) using caustic or acid additives.
OPEN BURN (OB) and OPEN DETONATION
(OD) operations are conducted to destroy excess,
obsolete, or unserviceable (EOU) munitions and
energetic materials.  In OB operations, energetics
or munitions are destroyed  by self-sustained
combustion, which is ignited by an external source,
such as a flame, heat, or a detonation wave.  In OD
operations, explosives and munitions are destroyed
by detonation, which generally is initiated by  an
energetic charge.
PHYSICAL SEPARATION processes use physical
properties  to separate contaminated  and
uncontaminated media, or separate different types
of media. For example, different-sized sieves and
screens can be used to separate contaminated soil
from relatively uncontaminated debris.  Another
application of physical separation is the dewatering
of sediments or sludge.
PHYTOREMEDIATION is  a process that uses
plants  to remove, transfer, stabilize, or destroy
contaminants in soil, sediment, or groundwater. The
mechanisms of phytoremediation include enhanced
rhizosphere biodegradation (takes place in soil  or
groundwater immediately surrounding plant roots),
phytoextraction (also known as phytoaccumulation,
the uptake of contaminants by plant roots and the
translocation/accumulation of contaminants into
plant shoots  and  leaves), phytodegradation
(metabolism of contaminants within plant tissues),
and phytostabilization  (production  of chemical
compounds by plants to immobilize contaminants
at the interface of roots and soil). Phytoremediation
applies to all biological, chemical, and physical
processes that are influenced by plants (including
the rhizosphere) and that aid in the cleanup of
contaminated substances. Phytoremediation may be
applied in situ or ex situ to soils, sludges, sediments,
other solids, or groundwater.
SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION (SVE) is used to
remediate unsaturated (vadose) zone soil. A vacuum
is applied to the soil to induce the controlled flow
of air and remove volatile and some semivolatile
organic contaminants from the soil.  SVE usually
is performed in situ; however, in some cases, it can
be used as an ex situ technology.
For SOIL WASHING,  contaminants sorbed onto
fine soil particles are separated from bulk soil in a
water-based system on the basis of particle size. The
wash water may be augmented with a basic leaching
agent, surfactant, or chelating agent, or by adjusting
the pH to help remove contaminants. Soils and wash
water are mixed ex situ in a tank or other treatment
unit. The wash water and various soil fractions are
usually separated using gravity settling.
SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION (S/S)
reduces the mobility of hazardous substances and
contaminants  in the environment through  both
physical and chemical  means.  The S/S process
physically binds or encloses contaminants within a
stabilized mass. S/S is performed both ex situ and
in situ.  Ex situ S/S requires  excavation of the
material to be treated, and  the resultant material
must be disposed. In situ S/S uses auger/caisson
systems and injector head systems to add binders
to the contaminated  soil or waste  without
excavation, leaving the resultant material in place.
SOLVENT EXTRACTION uses an organic
solvent as an extractant to separate contaminants
from soil.  The organic solvent is mixed  with
contaminated soil  in an extraction  unit.  The
extracted solution then is  passed  through  a
separator, where the contaminants and extractant
are separated from the soil.
For THERMAL DESORPTION,  wastes are
heated so that organic contaminants and water
volatilize. Typically,  a carrier gas or vacuum system
transports the volatilized water and organics to a
gas treatment system, typically a thermal oxidation
or recovery system.  Based on the operating
temperature of the  desorber, thermal desorption
processes can be categorized  into two groups:  high
temperature thetmal desorption (320 to 560°C or
600  to 1000°F) and low temperature thermal
desorption (90 to 320°C or 200 to 600°F). Thermal
desorption is an ex situ treatment process.  In situ
                                            C-2)

-------
thermal desorption processes are discussed below
as in situ thermal treatment.
IN SITU THERMAL TREATMENT  is  a
treatment process that uses  heat  to  facilitate
extraction through volatilization and other
mechanisms or to destroy contaminants  in situ.
Volatilized contaminants are typically removed from
the vadose zone using SVE. Specific types of in
situ thermal  treatment techniques include
conductive heating, electrical resistive heating, radio
frequency heating, hot air injection, hot water
injection, and steam enhanced extraction.
VITRIFICATION uses an electric current to melt
contaminated soil at elevated temperatures (1,600
to 2,000°C or 2,900 to 3,650°F). Upon cooling,
the vitrification product is a  chemically stable,
leach-resistant, glass and crystalline material similar
to obsidian or basalt rock. The high temperature
component  of the process destroys or removes
organic materials.  Radionuclides and heavy metals
are  retained  within  the  vitrified  product.
Vitrification may be conducted in situ or ex situ.


'lN 'SITU GROUND WATER  TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES
AIR SPARGING  involves the injection of air or
oxygen into a contaminated aquifer.  Injected air
traverses horizontally and vertically in channels
through the soil column, creating an underground
stripper that removes volatile and semivolatile
organic contaminants by volatilization.  The
injected air helps  to flush the  contaminants into
the unsaturated zone.  SVE usually is implemented
in conjunction with  air sparging to remove the
generated vapor-phase contamination from the
vadose zone.  Oxygen added to the contaminated
groundwater and vadose-zone soils also can enhance
biodegradation of contaminants below and above
the water table.
BIOREMEDIATION  See Source Control
Treatment Technologies.
CHEMICAL TREATMENT - See Source Control
Treatment Technologies.
ELECTROKINETICS  - See Source Control
Treatment Technologies.
FLUSHING - See Source Control Treatment
Technologies.
For IN-WELL AIR STRIPPING, air is injected
into a double-screened well, causing the  volatile
organic compounds (VOC) in  the contaminated
groundwater to transfer from the dissolved phase
to the vapor phase in air bubbles. As the air bubbles
rise to the surface of the water, the vapors are drawn
off and treated by a SVE system.
MULTI-PHASE EXTRACTION - See Source
Control Treatment Technologies.
PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIERS (PRB),
also known as passive trearment walls, are installed
across the flow path of a contaminated groundwater
plume, allowing the water portion of the plume to
flow through the wall.  These barriers allow the
passage of water while prohibiting the movement
of contaminants by employing treatment agents
within the wall such as zero-valent metals (usually
zero-valent iron), chelators, sorbents, compost, and
microbes.  The contaminants are either degraded
or retained in a concentrated  form by the barrier
material, which may  need  to  be replaced
periodically.
PHYTOREMEDIATION   See Source Control
Treatment Technologies.


PUMP AND TREAT TECHNOLOGIES
(EX SITU TREATMENT)
In ADSORPTION, contaminants concentrate at
the surface of a sorbent, thereby reducing their
concentration in the bulk liquid phase.  This
technology is typically applied by passing extracted
groundwater through a column containing granular
adsorbent.  The  most  common adsorbent is
granulated activated carbon.  Other natural and
synthetic adsorbents include activated alumina,
lignin adsorption, sorption clays, and synthetic
resins.
AIR STRIPPING partitions volatile organics from
extracted groundwater by increasing the surface area
of the contaminated water exposed to air.  Aeration
methods include packed towers, diffused  aeration,
tray aeration, and spray aeration.
BIOREMEDIATION  -  See Source  Control
Treatment Technologies.
CHEMICAL TREATMENT - See Source Control
Treatment Technologies.
FILTRATION is the physical process of mechanical
separation based on particle size, whereby particles
suspended in a fluid are separated by forcing the
fluid through a porous medium.  As fluid passes
through the  medium, the suspended particles are
trapped on the surface of the medium and/or within
the body of the medium.

-------
ION EXCHANGE removes ions from the aqueous
phase by the exchange of cations or anions between
the contaminants and the exchange medium. Ion
exchange materials may consist of resins made from
synthetic organic materials that contain  ionic
functional groups to which exchangeable ions are
attached.
METALS PRECIPITATION transforms dissolved
contaminants into an  insoluble solid, facilitating
the contaminant's subsequent  removal  from the
liquid phase by sedimentation  or filtration. The
process usually uses pH adjustment, addition of a
chemical precipitant, and flocculation.
MEMBRANE   FILTRATION   separates
contaminants from water by passing it through a
semipermeable barrier or membrane. The membrane
allows  water and other low molecular weight
chemicals to pass, while blocking contaminants with
a higher molecular weight. Membrane  filtration
processes include microfiltration, ultrafiltration,
nanofiltration, and reverse osmosis.


MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION
(MNA) FOR GROUNDWATER
Groundwater MNA is  the reliance on natural
attenuation  processes (within the  context of a
carefully controlled and monitored approach to site
cleanup) to achieve  site-specific  remediation
objectives within a time frame  that  is reasonable,
compared with that offered by  other, more active
methods.  The "natural attenuation processes"
include a variety of physical, chemical, or biological
processes that, under favorable conditions, act
without human intervention to reduce the mass,
toxicity, mobility, volume, or concentration of
contaminants in soil or groundwater. These in situ
processes include biodegradation; dispersion;
dilution; sorption; volatilization; radioactive decay;
and  chemical or biological  stabilization,
transformation, or destruction  of contaminants.
Guidance on MNA is available from the document
"Use of Monitored  Natural Attenuation at
Superfund, RCRA  Corrective  Action, and
Underground Storage  Tank Sites (OSWER
Directive 9200.4-17P, EPA, April 21, 1999.").
CONTAINMENT TECHNOLOGIES
COVER SYSTEMS, also known as caps or covers,
are surface barriers composed of one of more layers
of impermeable material designed to contain
contaminated source material. COVER SYSTEMS
can be used to prevent direct contact with the source
material or minimize leachate creation by
preventing surface  water infiltration  into the
contained source material.
A BOTTOM LINER is a subsurface impermeable
barrier designed to prevent the spread of leachate
from contaminated source material. They are often
used in conjunction  with COVER SYSTEMS in
the containment of source material.
VERTICAL ENGINEERED BARRIERS (VEB)
are subsurface barriers made of an impermeable
material designed to contain or divert groundwater.
VEBs can  be  used to contain contaminated
groundwater, divert uncontaminated groundwater
from a contaminated area, or divert contaminated
groundwater from a drinking water intake or other
protected resource. VEBs can also be used for the
containment of source material.
                                          C-J)

-------

-------
Append
Identification of Remedy and Record of Decision
Types for Superfund Remedial Actions

-------
f. 7  BACKGROUND
On December  11, 1980,  Congress passed the
Comprehensive  Environmental  Response,
Compensation, and  Liability Act (CERCLA),
which is known as the "Superfund" act.  The act
created the Superfund program, which was
established to clean up abandoned hazardous waste
sites around the United States. Section 105(a)(8)(B)
of CERCLA, as amended,  requires that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prepare a
list of national priorities among the known sites
throughout the United States at which releases or
threatened  releases  of hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants may occur. This list is
known as the National Priorities List (NPL).
The remedies  selected for an  NPL site are
documented in a  record  of decision (ROD).
Remedies implemented at NPL  sites or NPL
equivalent sites in accordance with RODs are known
as  Superfund remedial actions, and such sites are
known as Superfund remedial action sites. Because
selected remedies vary in the type of media addressed
and the methods used to  address those  media,
confusion can  arise when  assigning a type to a
particular remedy.  Categorizing remedies by types
can facilitate  the  transfer of experience and
technology by making it easier to identify sites at
which similar remedies are applicable. Establishing
and applying a methodology for classifying remedy
types can provide a consistent and comprehensive
approach for reviewing and comparing remedies used
in RODs. In addition, use of such an approach can
lead to more consistent data collection and reporting
and assist remedial project managers (RPMs), On-
Scene Coordinators (OSCs), and other regulatory
and remediation professionals in  the transfer of
experience and technology among Superfund sites
and in identifying sites implementing similar
remedies. This Appendix describes the approach used
to  classify remedies and RODs for the ASR.
Remedies were classified by  reviewing the remedies
selected in  RODs.  Although RODs are written
using an overall format that is consistent, RODs
are prepared by individual RPMs and other staff of
the 10 EPA regions. In addition, the management
practices  and techniques used to  remediate sites
have evolved over time and continue to  evolve.
Therefore,  the words, phrases, and descriptions
applied to the same or similar remedies may differ
from ROD to ROD. To facilitate the identification
of remedy  types, this  appendix includes both
descriptive definitions of remedy types and lists of
key words and phrases that may be used to refer to
each remedy type.
The  definitions of remedy types provided in this
document are based on a review of definitions and
lists of media, remedies, and technologies provided
in the following resources:
 • The CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS
   3) database
 • ROD Annual Reports for fiscal years (FY) 1989
   through 2005
 • The  Federal  Remediation  Technologies
   Roundtable (FRTR)  Technology  Screening
   Matrix
 • Treatment  Technologies for  Site Cleanup:
   Annual Status Report (Twelfth  Edition)  (ASR)
The  remedy type definitions were reviewed and
augmented by a working group of personnel of the
EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) who are experienced  in site
remediation and ROD preparation and review.

F.2' CLASSIFYING REMEDIES AND RODs
Remedy types were identified by first dividing
remedies into  three categories (source  control,
groundwater, and no action) based on the  media
treated and the type of action. Within each of these
categories, the remedies were then further divided
into  the following 10 specific remedy types:

Source Control Remedies:
1.  Source control treatment
2.  Source control containment
3.  Source control other
4.  Source control monitored natural attenuation

Groundwater Remedies:
5.  Groundwater in situ treatment
6.  Groundwater pump and treat
7.  Groundwater containment barriers
8.  Groundwater other
9.  Groundwater monitored natural attenuation

No Action Remedies:
10. No action or no further action (NA/NFA)
RODs were classified using the 10 remedy types
listed above. When more than one remedy  type
was  selected in the same ROD, the  ROD was
assigned all of the remedy types that are identified.

-------
The definitions that were used  to identify each
remedy type  are provided in the "Definitions"
section below.  When definitions include specific
technologies and those technologies commonly are
referred to by more than one word or phrase, the
most commonly used word or phrase is listed first,
followed by synonyms in parentheses.

F.3* 'DEFINITIONS  USED  TO  IDENTIFY
REMEDY TYPES
 F.3.1  General Definitions
The definitions of treatment technology and the
different types of treatment technologies (physical,
chemical, thermal, and biological treatment) apply
to both source control and groundwater remedies.
Treatment Technology - Any unit operation or series
of unit operations that alters the composition of a
hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant
through chemical, biological, or physical means so
as to reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume of the
contaminated materials being treated.  Treatment
technologies are an alternative to land disposal of
hazardous  wastes without treatment (Federal
Register, volume 55, page 8819, 40 CFR 300.5:
Definitions). Treatment technologies are grouped
into five categories. The definitions for four of the
categories (physical treatment, chemical treatment,
thermal  treatment, and biological treatment) are
based on definitions provided in the  FRTR
Technology Screening Matrix. The fifth category,
other or unspecified treatment,  includes those
technologies that do not fit into the first four
categories. The five treatment technology categories
are:
Physical Treatment - Uses the physical properties of
the  contaminants or the contaminated medium to
separate or immobilize the contamination.
Chemical Treatment -  Chemically  converts
hazardous contaminants to non-hazardous or less
toxic compounds or compounds that are more
stable, less mobile, and/or inert.  Even though a
chemical reaction is not always involved in chemical
precipitation, chemical precipitation is typically
included in this category.
Thermal Treatment - Uses heat to: separate
contaminants from contaminated  media by
increasing their volatility; destroy contaminants or
contaminated media by burning, decomposing, or
detonating the contaminants or the contaminated
media; or immobilize contaminants by melting and
solidifying the contaminated media.
Biological Treatment - Includes  adding  or
stimulating the growth of microorganisms, which
metabolize contaminants or create conditions under
which contaminants will chemically convert to non-
hazardous or less toxic compounds or compounds
that are more stable, less mobile, and/or inert.
Phytoremediation, the use of plants to remove,
stabilize, or destroy  contaminants,  is included
within the definition of biological treatment.
Other or Unspecified  Treatment -  Treatment that
cannot be classified as physical treatment, chemical
treatment, thermal treatment, or biological
treatment.  For  example,  some RODs select
physical/chemical  treatment of a  source without
specifying the particular physical/chemical
treatment.  In such cases, the  ROD was  not
definitively classified as physical or  chemical
treatment and was classified as other or unspecified
treatment, unspecified physical/chemical treatment.
F.3.2 Source Control Remedies
Source Media - A source medium is defined as a
material that acts as a reservoir, either stationary or
mobile,  for hazardous substances.  Source media
include or contain hazardous substances, pollutants,
ot contaminants  that  may  migrate  to the
groundwater, to surface water, to air,  (or to other
environmental media) or act as a source for direct
exposure. Contaminated groundwater generally is
not considered to be a source material although
nonaqueous phase liquids (NAPLs [occurring either
as residual- or free-phase]) may be viewed as source
materials.  (A Guide to Principal Threat and Low
Level Threat Wastes, Superfund publication
9355.3-02FS, USEPA OSWER 1991).  Source
media include soil, sediment, sludge, debris, solid-
matrix wastes, surface water, NAPLs, equipment,
drums, storage tanks, leachate, landfill gas, and any
other contaminated media other than groundwater
that can act as a potential source of contamination.
Source Control Remedy - any removal, treatment,
containment, or management of any contaminant
source or contaminated medium other than
groundwater.

-------
 1. Source Control Treatment
Any process meant to separate and remove, destroy, or bind contaminants in a source medium.  Key
words used in RODs to identify these processes are listed below. Additional detail about these technologies
can be found in the ASR at http:lldu-in.org/asr or on the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
Web site at http://www.frtr.yov.
Physical Treatment
  Acid extraction
  Air stripping
  Carbon adsorption (liquid-phase carbon
    adsorption)
  Clarification (sedimentation)
  Decontamination
  Dewatering
  Electrical separation (electrokinetic separation)
  Evaporation
  Filtration
  Flushing (soil flushing and surfactant flushing)
  Ion exchange
  Magnetic separation
  Membrane filtration  (microfiltration,
    nanofiltration, reverse osmosis, ultrafiltration)
Multi-phase extraction (free product recovery)
Oil/water separation (free product recovery)
Physical separation (component separation and
  materials handling)
Soil vapor extraction (vacuum extraction and
  vapor extraction)
Soil washing
Solidification/stabilization (asphalt batching,
  immobilization, and microencapsulation)
Solid-phase extraction
Solvent extraction (chemical stripping)
Steam stripping
Super-critical fluid extraction
Volatilization (aeration, mechanical soil
  aeration, and tilling)
Chemical Treatment
  Chemical oxidation (cyanide oxidation,
    oxidation, and peroxidation)
  Chemical reduction (reduction)
  Chemical treatment (chemical reduction/
    oxidation and remedy type not further
    specified)
  Dehalogenation (dechlorination)
Flocculation
Metals precipitation
Neutralization (pH neutralization)
Permeable reactive barrier (chemical reactive
  barrier, chemical reactive wall, leachate
  reactive wall, and passive treatment wall)
Ultraviolet (UV) oxidation
Thermal Treatment
  Flaring (gas flaring)
  High energy corona
  Open burning/open detonation
  Plasma high-temperature recovery (fuming
    gasification and high-temperature metals
    recovery)
  Thermal clesorption
  Thermal destruction (incineration and
    pyrolysis)
Thermal treatment (remedy type not further
  specified)
In situ thermal treatment (conductive heating,
  Contained Recovery of Oily Wastes [CROWcr
  dynamic underground stripping, electrical
  resistance heating, hot air injection, in situ
  thermal desorption, microwave heating, radio
  frequency heating, steam injection, and
  diermally enhanced soil vapor extraction)
Vitrification (slagging)
Biological Treatment
  Aeration (for purpose of bioremediation, tilling)
  Biopile
  Bioreactor
  Bioremediation (biological treatment, remedy
    type not further specified)
  Bioslurping
  Bioventing
  Co-metabolic treatment
  Composting
Controlled solid phase
Fixed film reactors
Landfarming
Microbial injection (addition of
  microorganisms)
Nitrate enhancement
Nutrient injection
Oxygen enhancement with air sparging
  (biosparging)

-------
Biological Treatment (continued)
  Oxygen enhancement with hydrogen peroxide
    (H202)
  Permeable treatment bed (for purpose of
    bioremediation)
  Phyto remediation
                                               Slurry-phase bioremediation (bioslurry,
                                                 activated sludge)
                                               White rot fungus
Other or unspecified Treatment
  Air emission treatment
  Fracturing (pneumatic fracturing, hydraulic
    fracturing)
  Gas collection and treatment (off-gas treatment)
  Hot gas decontamination
  Leachate treatment
                                               Publicly owned treatment works (POTW)
                                               Recycling
                                               Surface water treatment
                                               Treatment of residuals
                                               Unspecified physical/chemical treatment
                                               Unspecified treatment
 2. Source Control Containment
Any process or structure designed to prevent contaminants from migrating from a source media into
groundwater, to surface water, to air, (or to other environmental media) or acting as a source for direct
exposure.  Key words used in RODs to identify source control containment remedies are listed below:

Capping and Cover
  Cap (impermeable barrier)
  Cover material

Bottom Liner
  Clay
  Geosynthetic material
                                               Evapotranspiration cover
                                               Liner (impermeable barrier)
Drainage and Erosion Control
  Engineering control (remedy type not further
    specified)
  Hydraulic control
  Impermeable barrier
  Revegetation
                                               Slope stabilization
                                               Subsurface drain (leachate control)
                                               Surface water control (dike, berm, drainage
                                                 controls, drainage ditch, erosion control,
                                                 flood protection, and levee)
On-Site Landfilling
  On-site consolidation
  On-site disposal
                                               On-site landfilling (remedy type not further
                                                 specified)
Off-Site Landfilling
  Off-site consolidation
  Off-site disposal
                                               Off-site landfilling (remedy type not further
                                                 specified)
Vertical Engineered Barrier
(When used as a remedy for a source medium [including subsurface NAPLs].  Vertical subsurface
engineered barriers used  to control or contain groundwater should not be considered source control
containment.)
Grout (grout curtain)
Impermeable barrier
Sheet piling
                                                 Slurry wall
                                                 Subsurface barrier
                                                 Vertical barrier
                                            F-4

-------
                                                  Repair (pipe repair, sewer repair, .and tank
                                                    repair)
                                                  Surface water management (surface water
                                                    collection, surface water discharge, surface
                                                    water recovery wells, surface water
                                                    reinjection)
Other or unspecified Containment
  Containment (consolidation, disposal,
    landfilling, and removal)
  Encapsulation  (overpacking)
  Leachate control (leachate collection, leachate
    discharge, leachate recovery wells, leachate
    reinjection)
  Liquid waste management (liquid waste
    collection, liquid waste discharge, liquid
    waste recovery wells, liquid waste reinjection)
  Permanent storage

 3.  Source Control Other
Source control remedies that do not fall into the categories Source Control Treatment or Source Control
Containment,

institutional Control
The classification of institutional controls has been revised based on Institutional Controls:   A Site
Manager's Guide to Identifying, Evaluating, and Selecting Institutional Controls at Superfund and RCRA
Corrective Action Cleanups, OSWER9355.0-74FS-P, EPA 540-F-00-005, September 2000. The remedy
definitions outlined in this guidance differ from  those historically used to classify institutional control
remedies. This classification system groups institutional controls into 4 categories.  Listed below are
these tour categories.  Beneath each category, the  terms historically applied to institutional controls that
are most likely to fall under the categories are listed. The list below also adds a fifth category, "Institutional
control (remedy type not further specified)" for cases where the particular institutional control selected
is not recorded in a ROD.
   1.  Governmental control
      Access restriction
      Drilling restriction
      Fishing restriction
      Guard (security)
      Recreational restriction
      Surface water restriction
      Swimming restriction
      Water supply use restriction
                                                  2.  Proprietary control
                                                      Deed notification
                                                      Deed restriction
                                                      Land use restriction
                                                  3.  Enforceable agreement
                                                      Access agreement
                                                  4.  Informational device
                                                  5.  Institutional control (remedy type not
                                                      further specified)
Engineering Control
  Dust suppression
  Engineering control (remedy type not further
    specified)
  Fencing
                                                  Water table adjustment
                                                  Wetland replacement
Source Monitoring
  Monitoring
                                                  Sampling
Population Relocation
  Population relocation
Surface water Supply Remedies
  Alternate water supply (alternate drinking
    water and bottled water)
                                                  Carbon at tap
                                                  Well-head treatment

-------
 4. Source Control Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)
The reliance on natural attenuation processes (within the context of a carefully controlled and monitored
approach to site cleanup) to achieve site-specific remediation objectives within a timeframe that is
reasonable, compared with that offered by other, more active methods. The "natural attenuation processes"
that are at work in such a remediation approach include a variety of physical, chemical, or biological
processes that, under favorable conditions, act without human intervention to reduce the mass, toxicity,
mobility, volume, or  concentration of contaminants in soil or groundwater.  These in situ processes
include biodegradation; dispersion; dilution; sorption; volatilization; radioactive decay; and chemical or
biological stabilization, transformation, or destruction of contaminants (Use  of Monitored Natural
Attenuation at Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and  Underground Storage Tank Sites, USEPA,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Directive Number 9200.4-17P, 1999).
A remedy should be considered source control MNA if it includes "natural attenuation" or "monitored
natural attenuation" for a source (e.g., contaminated soil).
 F.3.3. Groundwater Remedies
Groundwater Remedy - Management of groundwater.
Groundwater remedies can include in situ treatment,
pump and treat,  containment using vertical
Groundwater Media - One or more aquifers beneath
or proximal to a source medium, contaminated by
migration of contaminants, such as leachate, or by
engineered barriers, MNA, and other measures to  other sources.
address groundwater.

 5. Groundwater In Situ Treatment
Treatment of groundwater without extracting it from the ground. Key words used in RODs to identify
groundwater in situ treatment remedies are listed below:

Physical Treatment
  Air sparging                                    Multi-phase extraction (free product recovery)
  Electrical separation (electrokinetic separation)     Surfactant flushing
  In-well air stripping (well aeration and air          Vapor extraction
    stripping)

Chemical Treatment
  Chemical oxidation (cyanide oxidation,            Dehalogenation (dechlorination)
    oxidation, and peroxidation)                    Permeable reactive barrier (chemical reactive
  Chemical reduction (reduction)                     barrier, chemical reactive wall, and passive
  Chemical treatment (chemical reduction/            treatment wall)
    oxidation and remedy type not further
    specified)
Biological Treatment
  Aeration (for purpose of bioremediation)
  Bioremediation (biological treatment, remedy
    type not further specified)
  Bioslurping
  Bioventing
  Co-metabolic treatment
  Microbial injection (addition of
    microorganisms)
  Nitrate enhancement
  Nutrient injection
  Oxygen enhancement with air sparging
    (biosparging)
  Oxygen enhancement with hydrogen peroxide
    (HA)
  Phytoremediation
Other or Unspecified Treatment
  Fracturing (pneumatic fracturing, hydraulic
    fracturing)
  Treatment of residuals
  Unspecified physical/chemical treatment
  Unspecified treatment

-------
 6.  Groundwater Pump and Treat
Extraction of groundwater from an aquifer followed by treatment above ground. Key words used in
RODs to identify groundwater pump and treat remedies are listed below:

Physical Treatment
  Aeration (air stripping)
  Carbon adsorption (liquid phase carbon
    adsorption)
  Clarification (sedimentation)
  Coagulation
  Component separation
  Equalization
Evaporation
Filtration
Ion exchange
Membrane filtration (microfiltration,
  nanofiltration, reverse osmosis,
  ultrafiltration)
Oil/water separation (free product recovery)
Chemical Treatment
  Chemical oxidation (cyanide oxidation,
    oxidation, and peroxidation)
  Chemical reduction
  Chemical treatment (chemical reduction/
    oxidation and remedy type not further
    specified)
Flocculation
Metals precipitation
Neutralization (pH neutralization)
Ultraviolet (UV) oxidation
Biological Treatment
  Biological treatment (remedy type not further
    specified)
  Bioreactors
  Fixed film reactors
Oxygen enhancement with hydrogen peroxide
  (HA)
Wetlands treatment
Other or unspecified Treatment
  Centralized waste treatment facility
  Fracturing (pneumatic fracturing, hydraulic
    fracturing)
  Publicly owned treatment works (POTW)
Pumping and unspecified ex-situ treatment
Treatment of residuals
Unspecified ex-situ physical/chemical treatment
Unspecified treatment
Groundwater Extraction
The process of removing groundwater from beneath the ground surface, including the following methods
of groundwater extraction:
  Directional well (horizontal well)                  Recovery trench (horizontal drain)
  Pumping (recovery well, vertical well)              Subsurface drain
Croundwater Discharge and Management
A method of discharging or otherwise managing extracted groundwater, including the following discharge
methods and receptors:
  Deep well injection (Class 1 well)                  Surface drain reinjection (infiltration basin,
  Recycling                                        infiltration trench)
  Reuse as drinking water                          Surface water discharge (National Pollutant
                                                   Discharge Elimination System [NPDES1
  Reuse as irrigation water
                                                   discharge)
  Reuse as process water                           .,   .      .......
                                                 Vertical well reinjection (into contaminated
                                                   aquifer)

-------
 7. Groundwater Containment
Containment of groundwater, typically through the use of vertical engineered barriers. Key words used
in RODs to identify groundwater containment remedies are listed below:

Vertical Engineered Barrier
  Deep soil mixing (barrier installation               Impermeable barrier
    technique)                                     Sheet piling
  Geosynthetic wall                                Slurry wall
  Grout (grout curtain)                             Subsurface vertical engineered barrier
  High-density polyethylene (HOPE) wall             (subsurface barrier, subsurface vertical barrier)

Other or Unspecified Containment
  Plume containment (hydraulic containment of plume, plume management, plume migration control)

 8. Groundwater Other
Groundwater remedies that do not fall into the categories Groundwater In situ Treatment, Groundwater
Pump and Treat, Groundwater Containment, or Groundwater Monitored Natural Attenuation.

Institutional Control
The classification of institutional controls has been revised based on Institutional Controls:  A Site
Manager's Guide to Identifying, Evaluating, and Selecting Institutional Controls at Superfund and RCRA
Corrective Action Cleanups, OSWER 9355.0-74FS-P, EPA 540-F-00-005, September 2000. The remedy
definitions outlined in this guidance differ from those historically used to classify institutional control
remedies.  This classification system groups  institutional controls into 4 categories. Listed below are
these four categories. Beneath each category, the terms historically applied to institutional controls that
are most likely to fall under the categories are listed. The list below also adds a fifth category, "Institutional
control (remedy type not further specified)" for cases where the particular institutional control selected
is not recorded in a ROD.
   1.   Governmental control
      Access restriction
      Drilling restriction
      Fishing restriction
      Groundwater restriction
      Guard (security)
      Recreational restriction
      Surface water restriction
      Swimming restriction
      Water supply use restriction
 2.  Proprietary control
    Deed notification
    Deed restriction
    Land use restriction
 3.  Enforceable agreement
    Access agreement
 4.  Informational device
 5.  Institutional control (remedy type not
    further specified)
Engineering Control
  Engineering control (berm, dike, drainage
    ditch, levee)
Water table adjustment
Wetland replacement
Groundwater Monitoring
  Monitoring
Sampling
Population Relocation
  Population Relocation
Water Supply Remedies
  Alternate water supply (alternate drinking
    water and bottled water)
  Carbon at tap
  Extend piping to existing water main
  Install new surface water intake
Install new water supply wells
Seal well (close well)
Treat at use location
Well-head treatment

-------
 9.  Groundwater MNA
The reliance on natural attenuation processes (within the context of a carefully controlled and monitored
approach to site cleanup) to achieve site-specific remediation objectives within a time frame that is
reasonable, compared with that offered by other, more active methods. The "natural attenuation processes"
that are at work in such a remediation approach include a variety of physical, chemical, or biological
processes that, under favorable conditions, act without human intervention to reduce the mass, toxicity,
mobility, volume, or concentration of contaminants in soil or groundwater.  These in situ processes
include biodegradation; dispersion; dilution; sorption; volatilization; radioactive decay; and chemical or
biological stabilization, transformation, or destruction of contaminants (Use of Monitored Natural
Attenuation at Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground Storage Tank Sites,  USEPA,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Directive Number 9200.4-17P, 1999).
A remedy should be considered groundwater MNA if it includes "natural attenuation" or "monitored
natural attenuation" of groundwater.
F.3.4  No Action Remedies
 10. NA/NFA
The designation used for remedies that indicate no action or no further action will be taken. When
determining overall ROD type, the designation was used only for RODs under which NA/NFA is the
only remedy selected. If a ROD selected NA/NFA for only part of a site and another remedy for another
part of a site, the ROD was given the classification corresponding to that selected remedy and was not
given an NA/NFA designation.
F.4   SPECIAL CASES
This subsection provides a list of some special cases
and descriptions of how remedy types should be
assigned in those cases:

Decon tamination
 * The remedy type for decontamination of
   buildings, equipment, tanks, debris, boulders,
   rocks, or other  objects was considered source
   control treatment.  For  example, abrasive
   blasting or scarifying a concrete pad to remove
   the contaminated surface layer of the pad was
   identified as source control treatment.
 • Decontamination of equipment used to clean
   up a Superfund site is a normal activity that
   occurs at  many Superfund sites and was not
   considered  a remedy.  For example,  high-
   pressure water washing of a front end loader used
   to excavate contaminated soil was not considered
   a remedy and was not given a remedy type.

Phytoremediation
 * Phytoremediation  involves  che  use  of
   macroscopic plants  to  destroy, remove,
   immobilize, or  otherwise treat contaminants.
   While this technology may include the use of
   microorganisms in conjunction with plants, it
   is  distinguished from  bioremediation in that
   bioremediation does not use macroscopic plants.
   Remedies that used microorganisms without
   macroscopic  plants  were  identified  as
   bioremediation.
 • The  use of plants to control surface water
   drainage at a site is not phytoremediation. Such
   remedies were identified as engineering controls
   (source control other or groundwater other).
Remedies Based on Site Characteristics - It a ROD
indicates that a certain remedy be implemented
based on certain site characteristics,  the ROD
should be considered to have selected the remedy.
For example, a ROD may specify that if soils exceed
a certain level of contamination they will  be
incinerated, but if they do not exceed that level, no
further action  will be taken.  In such a case, the
ROD was considered to have selected incineration
and  therefore  was considered a source control
treatment ROD.
Vertical Engineered  Barriers -  Some of  the
technologies used tor vertical engineered barriers
are also  used to control surface water and surface
drainage (for example, slurry walls and sheet piles).
Where  these  remedies were used to contain
groundwater, they were identified as groundwater
containment.
                                              •9

-------
Solidification/Stabilization -  Some  of  the
technologies used for solidification/stabilization can
be used for either treatment or containment.  For
example, "encapsulation" of a waste in plastic drums
is source control containment. "Encapsulation" of
a waste by  mixing with  a monomer and then
causing  it  to   polymerize,  resulting   in
microencapsulation, is source control.treatment. In
general, containment involves isolating bulk wastes,
while   solidification/stabilization  involves
incorporating  the contaminants  into a matrix so
that their leachability is reduced.
Water  Table Adjustment - Where  water table
adjustment is used to prevent the groundwater from
coming into contact with a contaminated source
medium, it was identified as source control other,
engineering control. Where water table adjustment
was used to  treat groundwater, it was classified as
groundwater other, engineering control.
Subsurface Drain - When  a subsurface drain  was
used in order  to prevent contact of precipitation
runoff with  a source or to prevent erosion, it  was
considered source control containment, drainage
and erosion control. When a subsurface drain  was
used to extract groundwater prior to treatment of
the groundwater, it was classified as groundwater
pump and treat, groundwater extraction.
Treatment of Residuals- Residuals are the matter that
results from a treatment process.  For example, the
residuals from incineration of soil can include ash,
off-gasses, and scrubber  blowdown from off-gas
treatment.  In the preceding example, treatment of
off-gasses using a scrubber was classified as treatment
of residuals.  Where treatment of residuals was
specified in a  ROD, the existence of residuals
treatment was identified, but additional information
on the treatment of residuals was not collected.
Air Media - Air media include sources that are in a
gaseous form, such as landfill gas or hazardous gasses
stored in compressed gas cylinders. When remedies
for air media were selected in a ROD they were
identified as source control remedies. For example,
collection and treatment of landfill gas was classified
as source control treatment.  Air emissions  from
equipment used to treat  sources or groundwater
are not air media.  For example, a ROD may specify
that groundwater will be  extracted and treated by
air stripping, and the off-gas generated by the air
stripping must be treated by activated carbon
adsorption. In such a case, the  ROD was classified
as groundwater pump-and-treat (both physical
treatment,  aeration [air stripping]; and other or
unspecified treatment, treatment of residuals), but
was not classified as  a source control treatment
ROD.

-------

-------
Appendix

Reasons for Shut Down of 73 Groundwater
Pump and Treat Systems

-------
            C
            0
           £
           'I
            s
            o
            CD
            CC
           O
           I en
            re
            I
           8
C
CO
"cc
 Q)



	
li
f C
a> 'm
— 0
CO o
o .
0) £
"o c
CD O
'2 to
^ o
03 CO
2 2







Avenue "E" Groundwater
Contamination, Ml
LO




^_^
ll
.•*± d
CO flj
l§
03 0
CD O
'§.'2
03 CO
2 2




	 |

-~-
Belvidere Municipal Land
LO







<
z
2
I
73
m
o
re
•x>
LC







Big D Campground, OH
LO




^^
ll
.t: c
03 'co
— O
CO Q
O j_
tj c
CD O
'2 '1
o
03 CO
2 2







Burrows Sanitation, Ml
LO




^_ ^
ll

03 'CO
<" 5
|8
O C
CD O
2 '5
o
CD CO
2 2





O)
^c
"o
Cross Brothers Pail Recy
(Pembroke), IL
LO




CO
g
to
CD
Q.
to
o
'c
.c
CD CO
SJ
3 O
Q Q.

—
>
*~~-
CD
H
TJ- CO*
|Delavan Municipal Well #
(Chip Storage Extraction
LO




CO
C
g
to
CD
g
"S
O
'c
.c
o
CD CO
SI
m -O
=> 2
Q Q.



i

CD
-*• TS
Delavan Municipal Well #
(Southeast Extraction 5v:
IO


^
c
o
P
to
13

c
I
73
8
re
CO
DC







1
u_
c
CD
Ol
CO
X
LO

C
03
E
.£:
2
§

o
0 to

'2 ?:
Q. CD
"CD .-K
^ ^3,






-y
Lehillier/Mankato Site, Mf
LO








Cfi
LO





- 1
£ c
^~* CO
— 0
CO Q
o ,
O3 Q
o c
CD O
'2 to
03 to
2 2







Spiegelberg Landfill, Ml
LO




^_^
ll
— .£
,2- CO
co ^
— o
CO o
O3 Q
CD O
11
03 to
2 2







z
O)
C
to
CL
03
S
j?
LO


^_
C
CD
E
CD
^
,"t±
CO
c
'I
73 <
CD f?
O ^
Q- ^i
CD c
CE CO







I-
i
CO
zi
LO

'c
03
E
c
'm
c
o
o

o
1 -
f 1
'2 ^
CL 03
03 ±±
2 -SI


-^
2

5
n\
University of Minnesota
(Rosemount Research C<
LO






Ol
f—

'c
o
£ E
i 1
H
.c 5
CO CD





5_
CD
CO
2
CO
i
J*
CO
o-
03
1
LO

           w r =
            _ I 111 Co
            |2-
~o 1
(~ 1
O5 1
1 "co
<~> IH9 ?,
t: 1 El'l
rT3 1 ^9 S-
^^ 1 ^S^ -2
o3 1 E S
i IP 1 co
IB It
csHr
CO I
^^ 1
. 1 1
o I
_• 1
II
CO 1 ^V^l o
C ^CTI
5) IB
O3 *^E?
dj BiiH
QC •JEJ






<
z
^
1
03
o
re
Q.
O
X






LL
2
d
O
c
tj





•


^
'c
>- CD
03 g
*; C
1/T ^
1 8
03 5
CD O
II
03 to






ia\ Station Newport, Rl
CO








_^_^
c:
IE
•= c
^,'CO
co ^
CO tj
O v
O3 Q
T3 c
.CD, g
B-!
'CD to






•s.
co"
m
o
D.
73
0
O
O
z








CO
c
g
1
to
.c
'I
73
Replace
[controls






UJ
1
CD
O)
§
CO
CO
CO
03
C
Q







^^
c
IE
^ .E
C/) ^
ro 8
O ,_
o c
03 O
'2 'ro
'CD t/5
2 £






cL
Q
to
03
-^
CO










^_
z
£
1
-'
OJ
o
CO
S
X






X
CD
s
re
CD
E
to
z
i-





_ o
S. E
ll
ll
^5
CO 03






LJJ
I
CO
Q.
2
.c
._
5







._.
c
*- CD
S c
03 m
CO C
§8
o) 5
0 C
CD O
2 to
'55 to






ton Terminals, NY
-; —
3
LL

r\i
CM




^_^
c
o3 |
;§ c
03 CO
CO c
§8
0) Q
tj C
CD O
1.2
ll




_J
-7
nnheim Avenue Dump, 1
CO
2

C\l





	 	 ^
'c
i- 03
CD r-
j- h
.t± c
a> co
CO c
§8
03 §
'o c
CD O
2 to
.2" £
^3 to





— }
z
Q.
Q
Q
.CD
O
C
CD
"m
H

C\J





	 	 s
"c
IE
•£• c
f 'co
CO c
S 8
a) 5
03 O
2 to
°- o
1 1






versal Oil Products, NJ
'c


CM








<
Z
1
5
0
o
Q
G
X






<
73
C
CO
1
"o
b
2
b

CO





_
C
IE
.t; c
In c
§8
O3 Q
03 O
'2 '«
1 1
Q
2
O3
C
to
2

Jthern Maryland Wood 1
o
CO

CO


<
z
S
CO 03
§ «
£ .51
03 CD
Q- >
o .E
15
ll
03 CO
il
Q Q.






O
Z
Q.
O
0
CD
LL
CD
1
CO
03
0







.
c
*- (D
;£ c
U) c
TO 8
O
o) 5
03 O
'2"to
Q. §
i'S to
^r 03
•^ >-






LL
Q.
o
O
S
1
o
0
73
O
0










<
z
c
3
73
CD
O
re
g
©
rr
LL
^
CJ
O

"S
re
CL
LQ
E
re
CL
Q
0
0
'j<
re
X

~t








<
Z
r
1
o
0
re
g
CO
X
LL
OJ
CD
g

"E
re
Q.
LLi
E
CL
Q.
0
0
CO
CO
X










j c
^
rf^H
II
<;
Z
2

-------

            cc
            o
Q_



"co

~o
 cz
 33
 O

O

CO
 o
Q
 o
 C/D
 03
 CD
o:
               W S

               a 8
o
            1
   co

   •S <
   w O
   '
CO ^Z


o °
O •§

0 "Z.

•g CM

CO °

5 5


I
                      O
                    CO CO
                    CD m
                    c
                            ffl
                            a
                           Q a
           | o

           o co"
           O 2
           0 <

           'S o>
        0  ii
        Q  CO

                                il
                                 O)
                o  c
                0  o
                'o* ±;

                5 o
                '0  1o
o
o <

-o"
c ^c
O 0
o co

13
0 ,.
co i
   CO
U —j

•— O
,« CO

                     ll
                       '
                  11

                   O) Q

                  "Q C
                   0) O
                  ZT2
                   CD CO
                  •5 CD
                                      o  co

                                      II
                                      :
          11
          .2.'<5
             'c
             Q
                                           £  CO
                                           Q. S
                                           CD  CO
                                           •>  CD
                                           o
                                            :
                                                -
                                                      -
C
o

03


I
CD

.0


I  I

•§  -2
•g  'c

co  I
                                                         o
                                                         CO
                                                        T3
                                                        LL1 <
                                                         to O



                                                        1 1
                                          3
                                       CO >
                                                         -
                                                                '
                                             «  8

                                             O)  5
                                                              CD CO
     LU -•
     O co

     ° §
     co 'ts
                                                                   CO  C
                                                  cc
                                                                                                                      CN

                                                                                                                      6


1 CO ^^
1 -I
CO c- E
S. '5 'i
^ !""T s
8 § 8
C : O) f^
O tj C
CD CO! CD O
||||
pA




i





Z
p
d.
o
O

TO
1
Im






d.
Q
E
o
-o
i
LO


CO
C
g
nj
CD
Q.
"co
o
'c
x:
CD CO
si
Q Q.



^
—7

c"
.0
2
O
o.
o
o
O)
c
'c
o
CO
o
to




-
z
:
c

I
o
.:•
3
r
5
i
-











X
Tp
3
o
ii
it
.


CO
g
CO
CD
Q.
1
CO
o
'c
.c
o
CD CO
ll
Q Q.
X
1—
0)
CD
C
LU
C
C
CO
^r
U-
dustries/
_c
CO
CD
C
CD
CD
CD
:
1
E
S
.
a
-
c
c

i
-
•
c
CO
a
;
OC








X
_
N
hromium
•
ED
i
e
0
c
«
CD
E
to
2
3
'co
^
g
CD
o
CO
Q_
CD
CC
CO
1
O)
±
CO

CD
-^
C
* —
CM
*
hromium
me), TX
0 2
co Q-
0 ^
CD
C
CD
E
ro
2
5
'co
c
x:

'I
0
O
CO
Q.
0
CC
f"
J
O)
±
CO

0
-Q
c

CM
*
E x
.2 H
1 ?
.n ^
" ^
co °-
CO JI
CO t±
§1
CD
c
0
E
CO
2
2
'<0
^

I
"S"73
CC CD


X
1—
CO
0


•2
c
£
ndustrial
"c
c
"o
CO
to


, — .
ll
•= c
-£-'«
<« £
g8
Ol Q
"o c
0 o
'S 13
1 2



^
~
c
CO
CL
C
o

CO
o
1
o
"S
o
O
!ii
1
-


^^
ll
fe c
£,'£
|§
0) o
0 C
CD O
•s'«
5s
ID ti5
2 2



^
i—
(U
,~
'Hi
DC
/^
0
1
O ^;
0 3
£ 0
00



c
*- 0
0 r^
.c t
.*; c
-2-5
1 8
O) Q
0 O
Met proj
restorati










0
O
I
CO
_l
^0
CO
CO
00


CO
c
g
2
0
"5
o
'c
.c
0
0 CO
ll
Q a.



0
CM
^
CO
5
x:
O)
I
§
CO
O
is
^ ^~
CO CO
IS
CO


,—.
ll
^ c
-2-2
— o
0) 5
o c
Q) O
'!'•§
"S to
^> o



0
CM
^
CO
g
^
O)
±
T3 >
CO ~>
O >
CC ^
0 C
>-^r
||
co

-------
 Index
Air sparging	 1-3, 1-5,4-2,4-8,4-9,4-11,
    4-12,4-15
B
Bioremediation	1-5, 3-4, 3-5, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8,
    3-9, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12, 3-13,4-8,4-9,4-11,
    4-12,4-15
c
Chemical treatment	 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 3-2, 3-5.
    3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 3-11, 3-13, 4-8, 4-9, 4-11,
    4-12,4-15
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
    Compensation, and Liability Act
    (CERCLA)	1-2, 2-2, 5-3, 6-1
CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS) 	 1-2,
    1-5,3-2,3-11,3-13,4-1,4-9,4-11, 5-1, 5-2,
    5-3,6-1,6-2
Contaminants	1-2, 1-4, 1-5, 3-2, 3-9, 3-10,
    3-11, 3-12,  3-13, 4-1,4-3,  4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-12,
    4-13,4-15,  5-1, 5-2, 6-2
N
National Priorities List (NPL) .... 1-2, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6,
    1-7, 2-2, 2-4, 3-2, 3-10, 3-12, 4-1,4-3, 4-9,
    4-12,4-13, 5-1, 5-2,5-3,6-1
Neutralization	; 3-7, 3-8, 3-11
o
On-site containment 	  1-2, 1-4, 1-7, 5-1, 5-2,
    5-3,5-6,6-1
Open burn/open detonation	3-8
P
Permeable reactive barrier (PRB	4-9, 4-1 1,
    4-12,4-15, 5-8
Physical separation 	3-7, 3-8, 3-11, 3-13
Phytoremediation ... 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 3-11,4-9, 4-11
Preliminary close-out report (PCOR)	1-2, 1-5,
    4-13,5-1,5-2,5-3
Pump and treat (P&T)	  1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 2-4,
    2-5, 3-6, 4-1,4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8,
    4-12,4-13,4-14,4-15
Dense nonaqueous-phase liquid (DNAPL) 	2-5,
    3-6, 3-9, 4-12
Electrical separation	3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 3-11
F
Federal Remediation Technologies
    Roundtable (FRTR)	3-1, 3-10, 4-1
Flushing... 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 3-11, 4-9, 4-11
Groundwater	 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6,
    1-7, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 3-1, 3-6, 3-12, 4-1,4-2,
    4.3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-11, 4-12,
    4-13, 4-14, 4-15, 5-1, 5-5, 5-6, 5-8, 6-1
H
Hazardous Waste Cleanup Information
    (CLU-1N)	3-11, 3-12
I
In situ thermal treatment	3-9, 3-10, 3-13
In-well air stripping	4-9, 4-11
Incineration	 1-2, 2-5, 3-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9,
    3-12,3-13
Innovative	1-2,  1-4, 3-9, 3-10, 3-11, 3-13

M
Mechanical soil aeration	3-8, 3-11
Monitored natural attenuation (MNA) 	 1-2,
    1-3, 1-6, 2-3, 2-4, 4-1,4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6,
    4-7,4-8, 4-13, 4-15
Multi-phase extraction	 1-4, 3-4, 3-5, 3-7, 3-8,
    3-9, 3-10,  3-11, 3-13, 4-8, 4-11,4-15
Record of Decision (ROD)	1-2, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6,
   2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-5, 3-6, 3-11,
   3-12, 3-13, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9,
   4-13,4-15, 5-1, 5-2, 5-6, 5-8,6-1
Remedial action	1-2, 2-2, 2-4, 4-12, 4-13, 5-1,
   5-2, 5-3, 5-8, 6-1
s
Soil vapor extraction (SVE) 	1-2, 1-4, 2-5, 3-4,
   3-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-12, 3-13, 4-3
Soil washing	.'	3-7, 3-8, 3-11,3-13
Solidification/stabilization (S/S)  	 1-2, 2-5, 3-4,
   3-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-12
Solvent extraction	  3-7, 3-8, 3-10,3-11,3-13
Source control 	1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-6, 1-7, 2-2, 2-3,
   2-4, 2-5, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-7, 3-10,
   3-11, 3-12, 3-13,4-1,4-3, 5-1, 6-1
Status	 1-2, 1-5, 1-6, 2-2, 2-4, 3-2, 3-7, 3-8,
   4-1, 4-11,4-12,4-13, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 6-1, 6-2
Thermal desorption	 1-2, 2-5, 3-2, 3-5, 3-7,
   3-8,3-11,3-12,3-13
Vertical engineered barrier (VEB)	1-2, 4-1,
   4-2,4-3,4-4,4-6, 5-1, 5-8
Vitrification...                  .. 3-8, 3-10,3-11

-------

-------
2     CO
o Is- o -?*
£8f2>-
cp CM 5 q
°F o «? c

sill

£SII
UJCO gl
T3

* 0)
CD CO
to §

£§-
 -
o o>
d) E>
O 0)
;r^ f—

O in

'v
%
K
a
w
?

co
B
as
4_i
CO
s
.ti
D
Q.
75
^— '
cu
'Environm




Q.
CO
o
CM
in
O
ci
c
O
Washingt
                            O
                            O
                            CO
                            *&

                            I


                           ll
                           •g «

                           §«

-------