vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA-542-R-23-001
Office of Land and Emergency Management
January 2023
Superfund Remedy Report
17th Edition
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
Cover Photo Credits:
Top left: Sediment dredging at the Roebling Steel Superfund Site in New Jersey. Photo courtesy of
EPA. http://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/02/3 7 2925
Top right: Injection wells and solar-powered equipment used to treat groundwater contamination
at Lake City Army Ammunition Plant in Missouri. Photo courtesy of EPA.
https://www.epa.gov/ superfund/superfund-success-stories-epa-region-7#lake
Middle left: Walking trails and pollinator sanctuary following cleanup at the Chemical
Commodities Inc. Site in Kansas. Photo courtesy of EPA.
Middle center and right: Air sparging gauges and piping network at the Leonard Chemical Co,
Inc. Superfund Site in South Carolina. Photo courtesy of EPA.
Bottom left: In situ thermal treatment system at Solvent Recovery Systems of New England in
Connecticut. Photo courtesy of EPA. https://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HQ/401621
Bottom right: Restored wetlands at PJP Landfill in New Jersey. Photo courtesy of EPA. Factsheet -
Reuse and the Benefit to Community for the PIP Landfill Site (epa.gov)
January 2023
i
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
Table of Contents
Notice and Disclaimer iv
Acronyms and Abbreviations v
I. Purpose and Introduction 1
II. Scope of this Report 3
III. Overview of Remedy Selection 4
Summary of Sites 4
Trends in Decision Documents 6
IV. Recent Remedy Selection (FY 2018-2020) 8
Source Remedies 9
Soil Remedies 10
Sediment Remedies 11
Groundwater Remedies 12
V. Overview of Contaminants 12
VI. Detailed Contaminant Groups Addressed in Recent Decision Documents
(FY 2018-2020) 13
VII. Vapor Intrusion 16
VIII. Key Findings 16
IX. Sources and Electronic Versions 17
Sources 17
Electronic Versions 20
Appendix A: Treatment Technologies by Fiscal Year A-l
Appendix B: Definitions of Selected Remedies B-l
B. 1 Treatment Technologies B-l
B.2 On-Site Containment Technologies B-10
B.3 Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) B-l 1
B.4 Monitored Natural Recovery (MNR) for Sediment B-l2
B.5 Enhanced Monitored Natural Recovery (EMNR) for Sediment B-12
B.6 Vapor Intrusion Mitigation B-13
B.7 Other or Unspecified Remedies B-14
Appendix C: Individual Contaminants and Assigned Contaminant Groups C-l
January 2023
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
Figures
Figure 1: Decision Document Actions per Fiscal Year (FY 1981-2020) 4
Figure 2: Superfund Sites Addressing Source and Groundwater Media (FY 1981-2020) 5
Figure 3: Remedy Selection at Superfund Sites (FY 1981-2020) 6
Figure 4: Selection Trends for Decision Documents with Source Remedies (FY 1981-2020) 7
Figure 5: Selection Trends for Decision Documents with Groundwater Remedies
(FY 1981-2020) 8
Figure 6: Major Contaminant Groups by Media at Superfund Sites (FY 1981-2020) 13
Figure 7: Detailed Contaminant Groups Addressed in Recent Decision Documents
(FY 2018-2020) 14
Tables
Table 1: Summary of Remedy Categories 2
Table 2: Media Addressed at Superfund Sites with Remedies (FY 1981-2020) 5
Table 3: Source Remedies Selected Most Frequently in Recent Decision Documents
(FY 2018-2020) 9
Table 4: Soil Remedies Selected Most Frequently in Recent Decision Documents
(FY 2018-2020) 10
Table 5: Sediment Remedies Selected Most Frequently in Recent Decision Documents
(FY 2018-2020) 11
Table 6: Groundwater Remedies Selected Most Frequently in Recent Decision Documents
(FY 2018-2020) 12
Table 7: Most Frequently Identified Contaminants of Concern in Recent Decision Documents
(FY 2018-2020) 15
Table 8: Comparison of Remedy Selection Data (FY 2015-2017 and FY 2018-2020) 16
January 2023 iii
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
Notice and Disclaimer
Preparation of this report has been funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
under contract number EP-W-14-001 with ICF. This report is not intended, nor can it be relied
upon, to create any rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States. Mention of
trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
A portable document format version of Superfund Remedy Report (SRR) 1 7th Edition is available for
viewing or downloading from www.epa.gov/remedvtech/superfund-remedv-report. The data that
forms the basis of the analyses contained in SRR 1 7th Edition can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-data-and-reports by downloading Contaminant of
Concern Data for Decision Documents by Media, FY 1981-2020 and Remedy Component Data for
Decision Documents by Media, FY 1981-2020.
January 2023
iv
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ASR Annual Status Report
BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethyl-
benzene, xylenes
CAD Contained aquatic disposal
CDF Confined disposal facility
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
COC Contaminant of concern
DNAPL Dense non-aqueous phase
liquid
EMNR Enhanced monitored natural
recovery
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
ESD Explanation of Significant
Differences
ET Evapotranspiration
FRTR Federal Remediation
Technologies Roundtable
FY Fiscal year
GAC Granular activated carbon
IC Institutional control
ISCO In situ chemical oxidation
ISCR In situ chemical reduction
ISTT In situ thermal treatment
ITRC Interstate Technology Regulatory
Council
MNA Monitored natural attenuation
MNR Monitored natural recovery
MPE Multi-phase extraction
NAPL Non-aqueous phase liquid
NPL National Priorities List
nZVI Nanoscale zero valent iron
P&T Pump and treat
PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl
PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances
PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid
PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
PRB Permeable reactive barrier
ROD Record of Decision
S/S Solidification/ stabilization
SA Superfund alternative
SRR Superfund Remedy Report
SVE Soil vapor extraction
SVOC Semivolatile organic compound
VEB Vertical engineered barrier
VOC Volatile organic compound
ZVI Zero valent iron
LNAPL Light non-aqueous phase liquid
January 2023
v
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
I. Purpose and Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology
Innovation prepared this Superfund Remedy Report (SRR)
1 7th Edition to share analyses of remediation technologies
selected to address contamination at Superfund sites.
EPA is particularly interested in documenting and
disseminating information on treatment technologies to advance its mission of protecting human
health and the environment. The report focuses on treatment as the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) establishes a statutory
preference for treatment.1
The remedy and site information provided in this report informs stakeholders in Superfund
communities about the program's remedy decisions, and helps federal, state, and tribal
remediation professionals select future remedies. Analyzing the trends in remedy decisions
provides an indication of the future demand for remedial technologies, which helps technology
developers and consulting and engineering firms evaluate cleanup markets. The trends also
indicate program needs for expanded technical information and support related to specific
technologies or site cleanup challenges.
Selected remedial actions for Superfund sites, including National Priorities List (NPL) and
Superfund Alternative (SA) approach sites, are recorded in a decision document, such as a Record
of Decision (ROD), ROD Amendment, or Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD). The SRR
1 7th Edition builds upon the SRR 16th Edition (data through fiscal year [FY] 2017) and adds remedy
and contaminant information from decision documents issued during FYs 2018, 2019, and 2020.
EPA used decision document data from the Superfund Enterprise Management System as of July
2022 to compile information about remedy selection for all years (FYs 1981 to 2020) with a focus on
the most recent three years (FYs 2018, 2019, and 2020).2 The data used include remedies selected
in decision documents (RODs, ROD amendments, and select ESDs). Only ESDs with additions or
changes to remedy components are included in the remedy analyses. ESDs with a contaminant of
concern (COC) addition or change, whether or not they added or changed a remedy component,
are included in the COC analysis.
The SRR remedy analysis distinguishes between remediation of contaminated source materials and
groundwater. EPA defines groundwater as "non-source material" and defines "source material" as
"material that includes or contains hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants that act as a
reservoir for migration of contamination to ground water, to surface water, to air, or acts as a
source for direct exposure" (EPA, 1991a). This includes contaminated soil, sludge, sediment, solid
waste, debris, drummed waste, leachate, and any non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) both light
(LNAPL) and dense (DNAPL).
1 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 and the amendments made by
subsequent enactments (42 U.S.C. 9601-9675).
2 The data that forms the basis for the analyses contained in SRR 17* Edition is available for download at
httos:/ Avww.epa.gov/superfund/ superfund-data-and-reports.
What* s New in this Edition?
Analysis of 379 decision document
actions for FYs 2018 to 2020
Breakout of soil remedies
Most common contaminants for
soil, sediment, and groundwater
January 2023
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
This report includes remedies selected in the Superfund remedial program, grouped into major
categories including treatment, containment, and other remedial components indicated by the
green bars in Table 1. The table describes remedies related to source, groundwater or vapor
intrusion based on the media addressed.
Table I: Summary of Remedy Categories
Source
Treatment
Alters the composition of a hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant through chemical,
biological, or physical means to reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminated source media3
May be either in situ or ex situ
Examples include chemical treatment and thermal treatment
On-site Containment
Examples include the use of caps, liners, covers, and landfilling on site
Off-site Disposal
Includes excavation and disposal at an off-site facility
Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)
Reliance on natural processes to reduce mass, toxicity, mobility, volume, or concentration of contaminants
Natural attenuation processes may include physical, chemical, and biological processes
Monitored Natural Recovery (MNR)
Reliance on natural processes to reduce risk from sediments
Natural recovery processes may include physical, chemical, and biological processes
Enhanced Monitored Natural Recovery (EMNR)
Combines natural recovery with an engineered approach for sediments
Typically includes placing a thin layer of clean sediment to accelerate the recovery process
Institutional Controls (ICs)
Non-engineered instruments, such as administrative and legal controls, that help minimize the potential
for human exposure to contamination and protect the integrity of the remedy
Examples for source media include land use restrictions and access agreements
Other
Source remedies that do not fall into the categories of source treatment, on-site containment, off-site
disposal, MNA, MNR, EMNR, or ICs
Examples include wetlands replacement and habitat restoration
3 Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, sec 300.5. www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/CFR-200l-title40-vol24/odf/CFR-2001-
title40-vol24-sec300-5.pdf.
January 2023
2
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
Groundwater
In Situ Treatment
Vertical Engineered Barrier (VEB)
Containment of groundwater using a vertical, engineered, subsurface, impermeable barrier
Institutional Controls (ICs)
Non-engineered instruments, such as administrative and legal controls, that help minimize the potential
for human exposure to contamination and protect the integrity of the remedy
Examples for groundwater include drilling restrictions and water supply use restrictions
Alternative Water Supply
Examples include installing new water supply wells, providing bottled water or extending a municipal water
supply
Other
Groundwater remedies that do not fall into the categories of in situ treatment, P&T, MNA, VEB, ICs,
or alternative water supply
Examples include drainage/erosion control and wetlands restoration
Vapor Intrusion
Mitigation
II. Scope of this Report
This report discusses decision documents for final and deleted NPL sites that have had at least one
decision document issued by the end of FY 2020. In addition, the SRR analysis includes decision
documents that selected remedies to address contamination at sites with SA approach agreements
as of June 2022.4
There are 1,649 sites that have at least one decision document, which form the basis for the SRR
and its analyses. Because some decision documents may track multiple actions (such as remedy
4 "One of EPA's non-NPL Superfund pathways is referred to as the Superfund Alternative (SA) approach. The SA
approach uses the same process and standards for investigation and cleanup as sites on the NPL. Sites using the SA
approach are not eligible for federal remedial cleanup funds. Cleanup funding for sites with SA agreements is
provided by the potentially responsible parties." (EPA, 2008b). To be considered an official SA approach site, there
needs to be a Superfund Alternative approach agreement per Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance policy
(see: www.epa.gov/enforcement/superfund-alternative-approach). The list of sites with a SA approach agreement is as
of June 20, 2022.
January 2023
3
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
decisions for more than one operable unit at the site), the data in Figure 1 and throughout this
report count each decision document action separately. For purposes of this report, the number of
decision documents refers to the number of decision document actions.
A total of 5,994 decision documents, consisting of 4,061 RODs, 516 ROD amendments, and
1,417 ESDs have been issued through FY 2020 (Figure 1). More than 35 percent of decision
documents are for federal facilities.
Figure I: Decision Document Actions per Fiscal Year (FY 1981-2020)
*-ir>jm':3-u">'sDr'>ooer\o*-irNro<3-u")v£>r-.cocfto*-ir\ico<=j-i/'>i£>r--cociOT-irNjro<3-iJ")ifirvoocrio
OOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOO^OICTlCftClC'lC^C'lCncnOOOOOOOOOOT-lT-lx-lT-lT-lT-lT-iT-lT-lT-irvl
c^cyicncricicnc^cyicncicicicyicyicncricicnc^ooooooQoooooooooooooQ
rlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrllMfMNNNNNNlMNlNNtMfMMfMNNtMNCM
Although all ESDs are shown in Figure 1, only ESDs with a remedy component are included in
the subsequent remedy analysis (729 of 1,417). This report evaluates remedy selection trends
historically and cumulatively through FY 2020. It also provides a more detailed analysis of the
decision documents issued in FYs 2018, 2019, and 2020. For FYs 2018 to 2020, 278 of the 379
decision documents have remedy components and are included in this report's remedy analysis.
III. Overview of Remedy Selection
Of the 1,649 Superfund sites with decision documents, remedies were selected at 1,548 sites, and
no action or no further action only was specified at 101 sites.
Summary of Sites
As shown below, of the 1,548 sites with remedies, source media and groundwater are addressed at
89 percent (1,385 sites) and 83 percent (1,289 sites), respectively (Figure 2). Nearly three-quarters
(73 percent) have remedies that address both source and groundwater. This figure highlights that
Superfund sites are complex and typically have multiple media and multiple remedies.
January 2023
4
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
Figure 2: Superfund Sites Addressing Source and Groundwater Media
(FY 1981-2020)
Sites with a
Groundwater Remedy
Only (162)
10%
Sites with a Source
Remedy Only (258)
17%
Sites with a Source Remedy
(1,385) 89%
Number of Superfund sites with a remedy selected in a decision document = 1,548.
Does not include 101 sites with only no action or no further action selected in all decision documents.
One site with only vapor intrusion remedies is not shown in the figure.
Note that although 1,385 of 1,548 equals 89%, the "Sites with a Source and Groundwater Remedy" and
"Sites with a Source Remedy Only" slices add up to 90% when combined because of rounding.
Sites may have only a groundwater remedy selected for a variety reasons, including (1) groundwater
is being addressed first and a source action has not yet been selected, (2) source was addressed
during a removal action and groundwater is being addressed under a remedial action, and (3) the
site is a "groundwater only" site, such as a municipal well field in an industrial area where the
source of contamination is being addressed by other sites or programs.
EPA further analyzed the media addressed by selected remedies at Superfund sites (Table 2).
Groundwater is addressed most frequently (83 percent), followed by soil (81 percent). Selected
remedies also frequently addressed sediments (31 percent) and solid waste (30 percent). Although
NAPL is considered a source medium, it is not included in Table 2 as EPA has only recently
tracked NAPL as a separate medium when reviewing remedy decisions.
Table 2: Media Addressed at Superfund Sites with Remedies (FY 1981-2020)
Media
Number of Sites
Percentage of Sites
Groundwater
1,289
83%
Soil
1,255
81%
Sediment
474
31%
Solid Waste
460
30%
Source (1,385 Sites)
Debris
222
14%
89%
Buildings/Structures
184
12%
Sludge
155
10%
Leachate
139
9%
Liquid Waste
115
7%
Number of Superfund sites with a remedy selected in a decision document = 1,548.
Sites with a Groundwater Remedy
(1,289)83%
Sites with a Source
and Groundwater
Remedy
(1,127)
73%
January 2023
5
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
Figure 3 shows that 83 percent of Superfund sites with remedies (1,290 of 1,548) had at least one
treatment remedy selected for source, groundwater, or both. This figure demonstrates that remedy
selection is generally consistent with CERCLA's preference for treatment.
Figure 3: Remedy Selection at Superfund Sites (FY 1981-2020)
Non-Treatment (258) 17% Treatment (1,290) 83%
Sites with Non-Treatment
Remedies (258)
17%
Sites with Groundwater
Treatment Only (281)
18%
Sites with Source
Treatment Only (308)
20%
Sites with Source and
Groundwater
Treatment (701)
45%
Number of Superfund sites with a remedy selected in a decision document = 1,548.
Does not include 101 sites with only no action or no further action selected in all decision documents.
Trends in Decision Documents
EPA evaluated the 5,994 decision documents from FYs 1981 to 2020 for remedy selection trends,
finding 3,409 decision documents with source remedies at 1,385 sites and 2,668 decision
documents with groundwater remedies at 1,289 sites.
Figure 4 shows the selection of treatment, on-site containment, and off-site disposal has remained
relatively stable on average for source remedies over the last 20 years. IC remedies increased in the
early 2000s before also leveling off to become stable. The selection of MNA, MNR, and EMNR as
source remedies continues to be low. Further analysis determined two-thirds of all source
documents selected multiple remedy types, which include a combination of treatment, on-site
containment, off-site disposal, ICs, MNA/MNR/EMNR, and other remedial components.
January 2023
6
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
Figure 4: Selection Trends for Decision Documents with Source Remedies
(FY 1981-2020)
4. Treatment ¦ On-site Containment - Off-site Disposal
O Institutional Controls *3 MNA, MNR, EMNR
Number of source decision documents = 3,409.
Decision documents are included in more than one remedy category when they select multiple remedies.
The selection of source treatment, either by itself or in combination with non-treatment remedies
for sources, has increased from 42 percent of source decision documents in the previous three-year
period (FYs 2015 to 2017) to 50 percent in the most recent three-year period (FYs 2018 to 2020).
Figure 5 shows in situ treatment was selected in 47 percent of groundwater decision documents in
the most recent three years, down slightly from 51 percent in FYs 2015 to 2017. The selection of
P&T remains low, at an average of 31 percent, but has increased from an average of 20 percent in
FYs 2015 through 2017. Approximately 30 percent of recent decision documents for groundwater
selected MNA, which is up from 20 percent during the previous three years (FYs 2015 to 2017).
Approximately three quarters of recent groundwater decision documents continue to include ICs.
Additionally, EPA determined that sites with recent groundwater decision documents that did not
include ICs typically had selected ICs for the groundwater in a previous or subsequent decision
document. Overall, 55 percent of decision documents with groundwater remedies select multiple
remedial approaches, including various combinations of treatment, VEBs, MNA, and ICs.
January 2023
7
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
Figure 5: Selection Trends for Decision Documents with Groundwater Remedies
(FY 1981-2020)
c
r 1*° * £Vq.
₯ ~
i j
P
\ / ~ n fl *--¦ ¦ ; r
( \ ' v
? r
i 1
\ A H 0 #-1
VC S _ H » i;
)tA. '«' P-m '¦ a *
p. a*
[ a 1
' 1
~
( Ia >
I * A
.'V
1/ \ 1
d-9 r? \r
ro^Ln^r^oocriOTHfMm^ii^^rvOocri
OOOOOOCOOOMOOfflCyifflfflOlffimfflCJIffl
o o o o o o o
ooooooooooo
____ ______ _____QQOOOO
fMfMfMfNl
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
Source Remedies
Of the 278 recent documents (FYs 2018 to 2020), 172 (62 percent) address source contamination
at 138 sites. Table 3 provides further analysis of these 172 documents. The percentage of decision
documents addressing sources is consistent with the previous period evaluated (FYs 2015 to 2017).
Fifty percent of recent source decision documents selected treatment, and 67 percent of
documents selected containment/disposal remedies.
Table 3: Source Remedies Selected Most Frequently in Recent Decision
Documents (FY 2018-2020)
Selected Remedy
Number
Percent
Treatment
86
50%
In Situ Treatment
58
34%
Thermal Treatment
18
10%
Soil Vapor Extraction
13
8%
Solidification/Stabilization
13
8%
Chemical Treatment
10
6%
Bioremediation
9
5%
Amended Caps
4
2%
Ex Situ Treatment
46
27%
Physical Separation
24
14%
Solidification/Stabilization
12
7%
Recycling
5
3%
Source P&T
4
2%
Thermal Treatment
2
1%
Containment/Disposal
115
67%
Disposal (off-site)
89
52%
Containment (on-site)
67
39%
MNA/MNR/EMNR
4
2%
Institutional Controls
119
69%
Other
35
20%
Percentages based on 172 source decision documents issued in FYs 2018 through 2020.
The selection of in situ treatment has increased from 20 percent in FYs 2015 to 2017 to 34
percent in the most recent three years. Thermal treatment was the in situ technology selected most
frequently and has increased from 5 percent (FYs 2015 to 2017) to 10 percent (FYs 2018 to 2020).
The selection of ex situ treatment stayed relatively the same, at 29 percent in FYs 2015 to 2017
and 27 percent in FYs 2018 to 2020.
January 2023
9
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
Soil Remedies
One hundred thirty-one (131) of the 172 source decision documents for FYs 2018 to 2020
address soil at 106 sites. Table 4 summarizes the specific types of soil remedies selected in these
decision documents. Forty-eight documents (37 percent) selected treatment, and 90 documents
(69 percent) selected containment/disposal.
Table 4: Soil Remedies Selected Most Frequently in Recent Decision Documents
(FY 2018-2020)
Selected Remedy
Number
Percent
Treatment
48
37%
In Situ Treatment
37
28%
Thermal Treatment
14
11%
Soil Vapor Extraction
13
10%
Solidification/Stabilization
8
6%
Chemical Treatment
5
4%
Bioremediation
3
2%
Flushing
2
2%
Multi-phase Extraction
2
2%
Soil Amendments
2
2%
Ex Situ Treatment
17
13%
Solidification/Stabilization
7
5%
Physical Separation
6
5%
Thermal Treatment
2
2%
Containment/Disposal
90
69%
Disposal (off-site)
69
53%
Containment (on-site)
46
35%
Monitored Natural Attenuation
1
1%
Institutional Controls
98
75%
Other
21
16%
Percentages based on 13 I soil decision documents issued in FYs 2018 through 2020.
The recent most frequently selected in situ technologies for soil are in situ thermal treatment
(ISTT), soil vapor extraction (SVE), solidification/stabilization (S/S), and chemical treatment
(including in situ chemical oxidation [ISCO] and in situ chemical reduction [ISCR]).
S/S and physical separation are the most frequently selected remedies for the ex situ treatment of
soil. Of the six recent decision documents that selected physical separation, five selected
dewatering and one selected screening of soil.
On-site source containment was selected in 35 percent of soil documents and consists primarily of
caps and cover systems. More than half of the documents addressing soil include off-site disposal.
Although some waste sent for off-site disposal is treated prior to disposal in accordance with waste
disposal regulations, if the treatment is not specified in the decision document, it is not included
as treatment in this analysis.
January 2023
10
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
Sediment Remedies
Twenty-seven (27) of the 172 source decision documents for FYs 2018 to 2020 address sediment at
27 sites (Table 5). Most (81 percent) include dredging, disposal, or containment, while 63 percent
include treatment. More than half (56 percent) include ICs, and more than half (56 percent)
include other remedies, such as revegetation, wetlands restoration, habitat restoration, fencing,
and shoreline stabilization. Physical separation was the most common treatment method selected
(30 percent), which often includes dewatering of sediments. Sediments are most frequently treated
in situ with amendments, either as part of a cap (11 percent) or applied to the sediment directly (7
percent).
Table 5: Sediment Remedies Selected Most Frequently in Recent Decision
Documents (FY 2018-2020)
Selected Remedy
Number
Percent
Treatment
17
63%
In Situ Treatment
8
30%
Amended Caps
3
11%
Amendments
2
7%
Solidification/Stabilization
2
7%
Constructed Treatment Wetland
1
4%
Ex Situ Treatment
12
44%
Physical Separation
8
30%
Solidification/Stabilization
3
11%
Bioremediation
1
4%
Phytoremediation
1
4%
Recycling
1
4%
Dredging, Disposal, or Containment
22
81%
Enhanced Monitored Natural Recovery
2
7%
Monitored Natural Recovery
3
11%
Institutional Controls
15
56%
Other
15
56%
Percentages based on 27 sediment decision documents issued in FYs 2018 through 2020.
January 2023
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
Groundwater Remedies
During FYs 2018 to 2020, 118 of the 278 total decision documents (42 percent) address
groundwater contamination at 102 sites. As shown in Table 6, sixty-seven percent (79 documents)
selected treatment remedies.
Table 6: Groundwater Remedies Selected Most Frequently in Recent Decision
Documents (FY 2018-2020)
Selected Remedy
Number
Percent
Treatment
79
67%
In Situ Treatment
55
47%
Bioremediation
29
25%
Chemical Treatment
19
16%
Thermal Treatment
11
9%
Air Sparging
5
4%
Permeable Reactive Barrier
3
3%
Multi-phase Extraction
3
3%
Solidification/Stabilization
2
2%
Vapor Extraction
2
2%
Ex Situ Treatment (P&T)
36
31%
Vertical Engineered Barrier
5
4%
Monitored Natural Attenuation
37
31%
Institutional Controls
89
75%
Alternative Water Supply
11
9%
Other
6
5%
Percentages based on I 18 groundwater decision documents issued in FYs 2018 through 2020.
In situ treatment was selected in 47 percent of the 118 groundwater decision documents with
bioremediation (25 percent) and chemical treatment (16 percent) selected most frequently. For
decision documents that selected bioremediation, 22 (76 percent) specified anaerobic
bioremediation, 13 (45 percent) indicated bioaugmentation, and 6 (21 percent) specified aerobic
bioremediation. When documents selected chemical treatment, 16 (nearly 85 percent) specified
ISCO, while 4 (21 percent) selected ISCR. One document selected both ISCO and ISCR.
P&T and MNA are the next most frequently selected remedies in recent groundwater decision
documents at 31 percent each.
V. Overview of Contaminants
EPA evaluated the types of COCs at Superfund sites based on decision documents at 1,542 sites.
COC data were unavailable for 6 sites of the 1,548 sites with remedies. The COCs at a Superfund
site may be in the same or different media and may be addressed by the same or different
remedies.
For this report, contaminants are categorized in three major groups based on general treatability:
metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs). Any
January 2023
12
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
contaminant that does not fit into one of those groups is categorized as "other." Appendix C lists
individual contaminants and their associated contaminant groups.
The major contaminant groups are defined below:
Metals - Metals; metalloids; explosive metals; radioactive metals; and organometallic
pesticides and herbicides.
VOCs - Halogenated VOCs (primarily chlorinated VOCs); benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, xylene (BTEX); and other nonhalogenated VOCs.
SVOCs - Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs);
organic pesticides and herbicides; phenols; most fuels and distillates; most explosives;
dioxins and furans; and other halogenated and nonhalogenated SVOCs.
Other - nonmetallic inorganics; asbestos; and unspecified organics or inorganics.
EPA analyzed COCs by the three media most frequently targeted for remediation (groundwater,
soil, and sediment) (Figure 6). On a site-wide basis, VOCs, metals, and SVOCs are all common in
groundwater and soil, while metals and SVOCs are the most common COCs in sediment.
Additional analysis concluded that more than 50 percent of Superfund sites with remedies selected
in decision documents contain contaminants from all three groups: VOCs, SVOCs, and metals,
while an additional 25 percent have contaminants from two of these contaminant groups.
Figure 6: Major Contaminant Groups by Media at Superfund Sites (FY 1981-2020)
1,200 1,053
(86%)
Groundwater Soil Sediment
¦ VOCs ¦ Metals ¦ SVOCs BOther
Number of groundwater sites with identified COCs = 1,224.
Number of soil sites with identified COCs = 1, 156.
Number of sediment sites with identified COCs = 398.
VI. Detailed Contaminants Groups Addressed in Recent Decision
Documents (FY 2018-2020)
A further breakdown of contaminants shows which detailed contaminant groups are addressed
most frequently in recent groundwater, soil, and sediment documents (Figure 7). Decision
documents typically identify COCs addressed by selected remedies. ESDs are included in this
contaminant analysis if they revise COCs, even if they do not change a remedial component. Some
January 2023
13
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
decision documents may not include COCs because (1) they are a ROD amendment or ESD that
changes a remedial component but not a COC or (2) the media being addressed does not typically
list COCs, such as a solid waste landfill.
Figure 7: Detailed Contaminant Groups Addressed in Recent Decision Documents
(FY 2018-2020)
80
CO
4->
| 70
§ 60
o
5 50
70
72
40
Dec
¦p*
o
O 30
Q)
f 20
14 16 15
Nui
O O
id
bl
b
50
32
I Groundwater
Soil
Sediment
33
15
19
&
aov
4>
/
43
27
21
13
¦
rs?
_ 9
5 2
1.
I5,
452
¦
6
5
1 1
1
1
1
21
10
I
Number of groundwater decision documents with identified COCs = 108.
Number of soil decision documents with identified COCs =112.
Number of sediment decision documents with identified COCs = 24.
Halogenated VOCs, metals and metalloids, and BTEX are the most common detailed
contaminant groups included in recent groundwater decision documents. Metals and metalloids,
PAHs, and halogenated VOCs are addressed most frequently in soil, while metals and metalloids
and PCBs are most common for sediment.
EPA notes that per- and polytluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), including perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
(PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), are included as "other organics" in Figure 7 and not
its own category, because of the low number of decision documents addressing those
contaminants. EPA anticipates that the number of decision documents addressing PFAS is likely
to increase in the future.
Additional analysis showed many recent decision documents address multiple detailed
contaminant groups. For example, approximately 60 percent of recent groundwater decision
documents with COCs have more than one contaminant group (66 of 108). More than half of
recent documents with soil remedies address more than one contaminant group (63 of 112), and
nearly two-thirds of recent sediment documents address multiple contaminant groups (15 of 24).
The detailed contaminant groups above were further broken down, and the individual
contaminants identified most frequently are shown in Table 7 for groundwater, soil, and
sediment.
January 2023
14
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
Table 7: Most Frequently Identified Contaminants of Concern in Recent Decision
Documents (FY 2018-2020)
Contaminant of Concern
Number
Percent
Groundwater
(108 Decision Documents)
Trichloroethene
59
55%
Tetrachloroethene
44
41%
Chloroethene (vinyl chloride)
40
37%
Cis-l,2-dichloroethene
37
34%
Benzene
36
33%
Arsenic
34
31%
1,1-Dichloroethene
23
21%
1,4-Dioxane
23
21%
Manganese
22
20%
Lead
20
19%
Chromium
19
18%
Toluene
19
18%
Soil
(112 Decision Documents)
Lead
42
38%
Arsenic
40
36%
Benzo[a]pyrene
30
27%
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
26
23%
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
25
22%
Benzo[a]anthracene
24
21%
Trichloroethene
23
21%
Tetrachloroethene
22
20%
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
20
18%
Chromium
19
17%
Naphthalene
17
15%
Polychlorinated biphenyls
17
15%
Sediment
(24 Decision Documents)
Lead
9
38%
Polychlorinated biphenyls
9
38%
Arsenic
7
29%
Cadmium
6
25%
Chromium
5
21%
Manganese
5
21%
Mercury
5
21%
Zinc
5
21%
January 2023
15
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
VII. Vapor Intrusion
Data for remedies that target air and soil gas media to address vapor intrusion have been tracked
since 2009 starting with SRR 14th Edition issued in November 2013. From FYs 2009 to 2020, a
total of 164 decision documents have addressed vapor intrusion at 127 sites. Fifty-four of these
documents have been issued in the last three years (FYs 2018 to 2020) and include a combination
of vapor intrusion mitigation for existing structures (21), along with ICs for both existing
structures (21) and future construction (44).
VIII. Key Findings
Most Superfund sites continue to use multiple remedial approaches to address multiple media and
types of contaminants. Remedy selection through FY 2020 is consistent with CERCLA's
preference for treatment as 83 percent of Superfund sites selected a treatment remedy for source
media, groundwater, or both. Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of the 1,548 sites with a remedy
have selected remedies to address both source media and groundwater. On a site-wide basis,
VOCs, SVOCs, and metals are all common in groundwater and soil at Superfund sites, while
metals and SVOCs are the most common COCs in sediment.
Table 8 presents a comparison of remedies selected in the previous three-year period (FYs 2015 to
2017) with the most recent three years (FYs 2018 to 2020). Most data from FYs 2015 to 2017 are
presented in the SRR 16th Edition, while FYs 2018 to 2020 are shown in Tables 3 and 6 of this
report, respectively. Historical data can be found in the trendlines provided in Figures 4 and 5.
Table 8: Comparison of Remedy Selection Data
(FY 2015-2017 and FY 2018-2020)
Treatment
42%
50%
In Situ Treatment
20%
34%
Ex Situ Treatment
29%
27%
Containment/Disposal
67%
67%
Disposal (off-site)
45%
52%
Containment (on-site)
46%
39%
Institutional Controls
71%
69%
Treatment
65%
67%
In Situ Treatment
51%
47%
Ex Situ Treatment (P&T)
20%
31%
MNA
20%
31%
Institutional Controls
71%
75%
Some key findings based on the most recent data:
Source treatment increased from 42 percent to 50 percent, while in situ source treatment
increased from 20 percent to 34 percent.
Overall treatment for groundwater remained relatively the same (65 and 67 percent), as in
situ treatment decreased slightly from 51 to 47 percent.
P&T and MNA for groundwater both increased from 20 percent to 31 percent.
January 2023
16
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
IX. Sources and Electronic Versions
This section lists the sources of information used in this report and its appendices and provides
information on how to access the electronic version of this report and previous versions of the
SRR and Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report (ASR).
Sources
EPA. 1991a. A Guide to Principal Threat and Low Level Threat Wastes. Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. November. Publication 9380.3-06FS.
https:/ / semspub.epa.gov/src/document/05/382007,pdf
EPA. 199 lb. Remediation of Contaminated Sediments. Office of Research and Development.
April. EPA/625/6-91/028, https://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HO/189668,pdf
EPA. 1996. A Citizen's Guide to Soil Washing. OSWER. April. EPA 542-F-96-002.
https:/ / nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZvPDF.cgi/10002SYY.PDF?Dockev= 10002SYY.PDF
EPA. 1997a. Analysis of Selected Enhancements for Soil Vapor Extraction. OSWER. September.
EPA 542-R-97-007. https://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HQ/134629,pdf
EPA. 1997b. Presumptive Remedy: Supplemental Bulletin Multi-Phase Extraction (MPE)
Technology for VOCs in Soil and Groundwater. OSWER. April. EPA 540-F-97-004.
https:/ / semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HQ/ 174624.pdf
EPA. 1998. Field Applications of In Situ Remediation Technologies: Ground-Water Circulation
Wells. OSWER. October. EPA 542-R-98-009.
https:/ / semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HO/134593,pdf
EPA. 1999. Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation at Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and
Underground Storage Tank Sites. OSWER. April 21. OSWER Directive No. 9200.4-17P.
https://nepis,epa,gov/Exe/ZvPDF,cgi/2000ISUG,PDF?Dockev=2000ISUG.PDF
EPA. 2000. Engineered Approaches to In Situ Bioremediation of Chlorinated Solvents. OSWER.
July. EPA 542-R-00-008. https://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HO/134557.pdf
EPA. 2001. Use of Bioremediation at Superfund Sites. OSWER. September. EPA 542-R-01-019.
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/bioremediation 542r01019.pdf
EPA. 2005. Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites. OSWER.
December. EPA 540-R-05-012. https://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HQ/17447 l.pdf
EPA. 2006. In Situ Treatment Technologies for Contaminated Soil: Engineering Forum Issue
Paper. OSWER. November. EPA 542-F-06-013. www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
04/documents/tsp issue paper 542f06013.pdf
EPA. 2007. The Use of Soil Amendments for Remediation, Revitalization, and Reuse. OSWER.
December. EPA 542-R-07-013. https://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/11/176023,pdf
January 2023
17
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
EPA. 2008a. Engineering Issue: Indoor Air Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Approaches. National Risk
Management Research Laboratory; Office of Research and Development. October. EPA
600-R-08-115. www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/600r08115.pdf
EPA. 2008b. Understanding the Superfund Alternative Approach. OSWER. April. EPA 330-R-08-
001. https://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HQ/189821.pdf
EPA. 2008c. Wetlands Compensatory Mitigation. Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds.
EPA 843-F-08-002. www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
08/documents/compensatory mitigation factsheet.pdf
EPA. 2010. Update on Providing Alternative Water Supply as Part of Superfund Response
Actions. OSWER. September. OSWER Directive No. 9355.3-22.
https:/ / semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HQ/175 200.pdf
EPA. 2011. Fact Sheet on Evapotranspiration Cover Systems for Waste Containment. OSWER.
February. EPA 542-F-l 1-001. https://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HO/153848,pdf
EPA. 2013a. In Situ Amendments. OLEM. April. Infographic.
http:/ /semspub.epa.gov/ src/document/HQ/100000673
EPA. 2013b. Use of Amendments for In Situ Remediation at Superfund Sediment Sites. OSWER
April. OSWER Directive 9200.2-128FS.
https:/ / semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HQ/196704.pdf
EPA. 2015. OSWER Technical Guide for Assessing and Mitigating the Vapor Intrusion Pathway
from Subsurface Vapor Sources to Indoor Air. OSWER. June. Publication 9200.2-154.
https:/ / semspub.epa.gov/ src/document/HQ/ 190145.pdf
EPA. 2021a. Community Guide to Granular Activated Carbon Treatment. Office of Land and
Emergency Management (OLEM). EPA 542-F-21-010. https://clu-in.org/cguides/
EPA. 2021b. Community Guide to Air Stripping. OLEM. EPA 542-F-21-001. https://clu-
in.org/ cguides/
EPA. 2021c. Community Guide to Capping. OLEM. EPA 542-F-21-005. https://clu-
in.org/ cguides/
EPA. 202Id. Community Guide to Fracturing for Site Cleanup. OLEM. EPA 542-F-21-009.
https:/ / clu-in.org/ cguides/
EPA. 202le. Community Guide to In Situ Chemical Reduction. OLEM. EPA 542-F-21-014.
https:/ / clu-in.org/ cguides/
EPA. 2021f. Community Guide to In Situ Thermal Treatment. OLEM. EPA 542-F-21-016.
https:/ / clu-in.org/ cguides/
EPA. 2021g. Community Guide to Incineration. OLEM. EPA 542-F-21-017. https://clu-
in.org/ cguides/
January 2023
18
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
EPA. 2021h. Community Guide to Pump and Treat. OLEM. EPA 542-F-21-021. https://clu-
in.org/ cguides/
EPA. 202li. Community Guide to Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging. OLEM. EPA 542-F-21-
022. https://clu-in.org/cguides/
EPA. 2021j. Community Guide to Solidification and Stabilization. OLEM. EPA 542-F-21-023.
https:/ / clu-in.org/ cguides/
EPA. 2021k. Community Guide to Thermal Desorption. OLEM. EPA 542-F-21-024. https://clu-
in.org/ cguides/
EPA. 20211. Community Guide to Vapor Intrusion Mitigation. OLEM. EPA 542-F-21-025.
https:/ / clu-in.org/ cguides/
EPA. 2021m. Community Guide to Vertical Engineered Barriers. OLEM.EPA 542-F-21-026.
https:/ / clu-in.org/ cguides/
EPA. 2022. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPLs). 2022. CLU-IN I Contaminants >
Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPLs) > Treatment Technologies. September 8.
EPA. 2022b. Thermal Treatment: In Situ. 2022. CLU-IN I Technologies > Remediation > About
Remediation Technologies > Thermal Treatment: In Situ > Overview. December 15.
Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP). 2012. Combining Low-
Energy Electrical Resistance Heating with Biotic and Abiotic Reactions for Treatment of
Chlorinated Solvent DNAPL Source Areas. ESTCP Project ER-200719. December.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR). 2022. Technology Screening Matrix.
http://frtr.gov/matrix/default.cfm. Accessed on September 29.
Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC). 1997. Technical and Regulatory Guidelines
for Soil Washing. Metals in Soil Workgroup. Washington, D.C. December. MIS-1.
http://www.environmentalrestoration.wiki/images/3/3c/ITRC-1997-
Tech %26 Reg Guidelines for Soil Washing.pdf
ITRC. 2003. Technical and Regulatory Guidance Document for Constructed Treatment
Wetlands. Wetlands Work Group. Washington, D.C. December. WTLND-1.
www.itrcweb.org/GuidanceDocuments/WTLND-l.pdf
ITRC. 2007. Technical and Regulatory Guidance Document for Vapor Intrusion Pathway: A
Practical Guideline. Washington, D.C. January. VI-1.
https://semspub.epa.gov/work/01/533755.pdf
ITRC. 2011. Permeable Reactive Barrier: Technology Update. Permeable Reactive Barrier Work
Group. Washington, D.C. June. PRB-5-1.
https:/ / semspub.epa.gov/src/document/09/114223 l.pdf
January 2023
19
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
Karn, Barbara; Kuiken, Todd; and Otto, Martha. 2009. Nanotechnology and in Situ Remediation:
A Review of the Benefits and Potential Risks. Environmental Health Perspectives.
December. Volume 117, Number 12. pp. 1823-1831.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pmc/articles/PMC2799454
Nielsen, K.B. and B. Hvidberg. 2017. Remediation techniques for mitigating vapor intrusion from
sewer systems to indoor air. Remediation. Volume 27, Issue 3. Pages 67-73.
https:/ / doi.org/10,1002/rem. 215 20
Electronic Versions
SRR 1 7th Edition is available electronically at https://www.epa.gov/remedvtech/superfund-remedv-
report.
Appendix A: Treatment Technologies by Fiscal Year (formerly Appendix B in the SRR 16th Edition) lists
the ex situ and in situ source treatment technologies, groundwater in situ treatment technologies,
and groundwater P&T remedies by FY from 1981 to 2020.
Appendix B: Definitions of Selected Remedies defines the specific remedies selected as part of remedial
actions.
Appendix C: Individual Contaminants and Assigned Contaminant Groups lists the individual
contaminants from decision documents and identifies which contaminant groups the individual
contaminants were assigned.
The data that forms the basis of the analyses contained in SRR 1 7th Edition can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-data-and-reports by downloading Contaminant of
Concern Data for Decision Documents by Media, FY 1981-2020 and Remedy Component Data for
Decision Documents by Media, FY 1981-2020.
In addition, previous editions of ASR and SRR can be downloaded from
https://www.epa.gov/ remedvtech/superfund-remedv-report.
January 2023
20
-------
Appendix A
Treatment Technologies by Fiscal Year
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
Appendix A: Treatment Technologies by Fiscal Year
Type
Remedy
81-
85
86-
90
91-
95
96-
00
01-
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Total
Acid Extraction
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
Aeration
1
10
4
6
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
24
Bioremediation
1
24
34
23
9
0
2
0
2
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
100
Chemical Treatment
1
6
13
7
7
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
40
Constructed Treatment Wetland
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
6
Incineration
2
9
8
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
Incineration (off-site)
13
39
55
24
6
1
0
1
0
1
0
5
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
148
C
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
Type
Remedy
81-
85
86-
90
91-
95
96-
00
01-
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Total
¦4' ~0
C
-------
Appendix B
Definitions of Selected Remedies
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
Appendix B: Definitions of Selected Remedies
B. I Treatment Technologies
Most treatment technologies were grouped into one of the four main treatment categories:
biological, chemical, physical or thermal treatment. Ex situ treatment technologies associated with
pump and treat (P&T) systems are included separately as its own treatment category.
B. I. I Biological Treatment
Biological treatment involves 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 in the definition of biological treatment.
Bioaugmentation is "[the] addition of microbes to the subsurface where organisms able to degrade
specific contaminants are deficient. Microbes may be 'seeded' from populations already present at
a site and grown in aboveground reactors or from specially cultivated strains of bacteria having
known capabilities to degrade specific contaminants" (EPA, 2000).
Bioremediation "is a technology that uses microorganisms to treat contaminants through natural
biodegradation mechanisms (intrinsic bioremediation) or by enhancing natural biodegradation
mechanisms through the addition of microbes, nutrients, electron donors, and/or electron
acceptors (enhanced bioremediation). This technology, performed in situ (below ground or in
place) or ex situ (above ground), is capable of degrading organic compounds to less toxic materials
such as carbon dioxide, methane, and water through aerobic or anaerobic processes" (EPA, 2001).
Constructed Treatment Wetlands are "manmade wetlands built to remove various types of
pollutants that may be present in water that flows through them. They are constructed to recreate,
to the extent possible, the structure and function of natural wetlands...They possess a rich
microbial community in the sediment to effect the biochemical transformation of pollutants, they
are biologically productive, and...they are self-sustaining....[Constructed wetlands] utilize many of
the mechanisms of phytoremediation" (ITRC, 2003). Note that the term "constructed wetlands" is
used to refer only to wetlands constructed for the purposes of treatment, and not to wetlands
constructed to compensate for wetlands destroyed by a remedy (such as placement of a cap in a
marsh). Such "compensatory wetlands" are considered as "Wetlands Replacement."
Phytoremediation "uses [macroscopic] plants to extract, degrade, contain, or immobilize
contaminants in soil, groundwater, and other contaminated media. The phytoremediation
mechanisms used to treat contaminated [media]...are phytoextraction, rhizodegradation,
phytodegradation, phytovolatilization, and phytostabilization" (EPA, 2006). Phytoremediation may
be applied in situ or ex situ.
Note that while phytoremediation may include the use of microorganisms in conjunction with
plants, it is distinguished from bioremediation in that bioremediation does not use macroscopic
plants or trees. For purposes of this report, the use of plants to control surface water drainage, to
influence groundwater movement, or to adjust the water table are not considered
January 2023
B-l
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
phytoremediation since the purpose is not to extract the contaminants from the media. Such
remedies are classified as engineering controls.
B. 1.2 Chemical Treatment
Chemical treatment chemically converts hazardous contaminants to non-hazardous or less toxic
compounds or compounds that are more stable, less mobile, inert, or all three. Even though a
chemical reaction is not always involved in chemical precipitation, chemical precipitation is
typically included in this category.
Amended Cap for sediment refers to a subaqueous cover in which "[specialized] materials [are]
used to enhance the chemical isolation capacity...compared to sand caps. Examples
include...reactive/adsorptive materials such as activated carbon, apatite, coke, organoclay, zero-
valent iron and zeolite. Composite geotextile mats containing one or more of these materials (i.e.,
reactive core mats) are becoming available commercially" (EPA, 2005). These caps can also be
applied to address sludge or solid waste contamination (for example, the bottom of a mining waste
pit).
Amendments for sediments are "specialized materials used to reduce risk through in situ
sequestering or destruction of contaminants in sediment" (EPA, 2013a). Examples include
activated carbon, organoclay, and phosphate additives. "Direct amendment of surficial sediment
with sorbents can reduce pollutant bioavailability to the food chain and flux of pollutants into the
water column. Amendments can be spread on the surface of the contaminated sediment as a thin
layer, intended to be mixed with the sediments through natural processes, or mixed into the
surface using equipment similar to a rototiller" (EPA, 2013b). For amendments applied to soil,
refer to Soil Amendments.
Chemical Fixation or Chemical Stabilization See Solidification and Stabilization.
Chemical Oxidation "typically involves reduction/oxidation (redox) reactions that chemically
convert hazardous contaminants to nonhazardous or less toxic compounds that are more stable,
less mobile, or inert. Redox reactions involve the transfer of electrons from one chemical to
another. Specifically, one reactant is oxidized (loses electrons) and one is reduced (gains electrons).
There are several oxidants capable of degrading contaminants. Commonly used oxidants include
potassium or sodium permanganate, Fenton's catalyzed hydrogen peroxide, hydrogen peroxide,
ozone, and sodium persulfate. Each oxidant has advantages and limitations, and while applicable
to soil contamination and some source zone contamination, they have been applied primarily
toward remediating groundwater" (EPA, 2006). Chemical oxidation can be conducted either in
situ or ex situ.
Chemical Reduction "uses chemicals called 'reducing agents' to help change contaminants into
less toxic or less mobile forms...In situ chemical reduction [ISCR] can clean up several types of
contaminants dissolved in groundwater. ISCR is most often used to clean up the metal chromium
and the industrial solvent trichloroethene.
"Common reducing agents include zero valent metals, which are metals in their pure form. The
most common metal used in ISCR is zero valent iron, or 'ZVI.' ZVI must be ground up into small
granules for use in ISCR. In some cases, micro- or nano-scale (extremely small) particles are used.
January 2023
B-2
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
The smaller particle size increases the surface area of iron available to react with contaminants.
Other common reducing agents include polysulfides, sodium dithionite and ferrous iron" (EPA,
202le). ISCR agents are often injected into the subsurface or included in a permeable reactive
barrier (PRB); however, when agents are part of a PRB, the remedy is considered a PRB and not
ISCR
In Situ Chemical Oxidation (ISCO) See Chemical Oxidation.
In Situ Chemical Reduction (ISCR) See Chemical Reduction.
Nanoremediation "methods entail the application of reactive nanomaterials for transformation
and detoxification of pollutants. These nanomaterials have properties that enable both chemical
reduction and catalysis to mitigate the pollutants of concern....Because of their minute size and
innovative surface coatings, nanoparticles may be able to pervade very small spaces in the
subsurface and remain suspended in groundwater, allowing the particles to travel farther than
larger, macro-sized particles and achieve wider distribution....
"Many different nanoscale materials have been explored for remediation...Of these, nanoscale zero-
valent iron (nZVI) is currently the most widely used....nZVI particles range from 10 to 100
[nanometers (nm)j in diameter....The high reactivity of nZVI particles is in part a direct result of
their high specific surface area....nZVI's small particle size also allows more of the material to
penetrate into soil pores, and it can be more easily injected into shallow and deep aquifers, a
property that is particularly beneficial when contamination lies underneath a building" (Karn,
Kuiken, & Otto, 2009).
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 acidic additives.
Permeable Reactive Barriers (PRBs) are "in situ, permeable treatment zone[s] designed to
intercept and remediate a contaminant plume. The term 'barrier' is intended to convey the idea
that contaminant migration is impeded; however, the [permeable reactive barrier] is designed to be
more permeable than the surrounding aquifer media so that groundwater can easily flow through
the structure without significantly altering groundwater hydrology. The treatment zone may be
created directly using reactive materials such as ZVI, or indirectly using materials designed to
stimulate secondary processes (e.g., adding carbon substrate and nutrients to enhance microbial
activity). In this way, contaminant treatment may occur through physical, chemical, or biological
processes" (ITRC, 2011).
B. 1.3 Physical Treatment
Physical treatment uses the physical properties of the contaminants or the contaminated medium
to separate or immobilize the contamination.
Air Sparging "involves drilling one or more injection wells into the groundwater-soaked soil below
the water table. An air compressor at the surface pumps air underground through the wells. As air
bubbles flow through the groundwater, it carries contaminant vapors upward into the soil above
the water table. The mixture of air and vapors is then pulled out of the ground for treatment using
[soil vapor extraction (SVE)]" (EPA, 2021i). Oxygen added to the contaminated groundwater and
January 2023
B-3
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
vadose-zone soils also can enhance biodegradation of contaminants below and above the water
table. The injection of ozone into the aquifer is referred to as ozone sparging and is a form of
chemical treatment.
Electrokinetics "is the process of applying an electrical current to the subsurface to create
movement of ions with the objective of facilitating the removal of contaminants through a variety
of processes. Early applications focused on the direct removal of heavy metals, radionuclides, and
polar or ionizable organic contaminants from soils, sludges, and sediments. More recently,
electrokinetics has been applied to facilitate distribution of various amendments required for in
situ remediation technologies such as in situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) and enhanced reductive
dechlorination [...]. Regardless of the treatment objectives and application methods, all in situ
electrokinetic applications require the installation of several inert electrodes in the aquifer.
Application of a low-voltage direct current [...] is applied to create the voltage gradient and
electrical field to more evenly distribute amendments and remove contaminants from the aquifer
(FRTR, 2022)."
Flushing "involves flooding a zone of contamination with an appropriate solution to remove the
contaminant from the soil. Water or liquid solution is injected or infiltrated into the area of
contamination. The contaminants are mobilized by solubilization, formation of emulsions, or a
chemical reaction with the flushing solutions. After passing through the contamination zone, the
contaminant-bearing fluid is collected and brought to the surface for disposal, recirculation, or on-
site treatment and reinjection....Flushing solutions may be water, acidic aqueous solutions, basic
solutions, chelating or complexing agents, reducing agents, cosolvents, or surfactants" (EPA, 2006).
Free Product Recovery removes either LNAPL or DNAPL contamination from the subsurface.
LNAPL recovery "consists of several technologies ranging from simple hand bailers and passive
skimmer systems to more complex active skimming systems and large-scale total fluids recovery
systems. The objective of these recovery techniques is to remove LNAPL to the extent practicable,
prevent its migration and reduce its impact to dissolved phase contaminants in groundwater"
(FRTR, 2022). "Flowable masses of DNAPL are generally addressed by placing an interception
trench in front of them if they are still moving or by placing an extraction well into the mass. The
flowable material enters the trench where it moves to a sump and is recovered by bailing or
pumping. In the case of a well, the removal of the DNAPL in the well creates an induced gradient
in the DNAPL that causes the flowable mass around the well to move into it. Pumping or bailing
are used to remove the DNAPL depending upon how much DNAPL is present and how fast it will
flow into the well" (EPA, 2022a).
In Situ Geochemical Stabilization See Solidification and Stabilization.
In-Well Air Stripping systems "create a circulation pattern in the aquifer by drawing water into and
pumping it through the wells, and then reintroducing the water into the aquifer without bringing
it above ground....The well is double-cased with hydraulically separated upper and lower screened
intervals within the aquifer....The system can be configured with an upward in-well flow or a
downward in-well flow. The most common configurations involve the injection of air into the
inner casing, decreasing the density of the groundwater and allowing it to rise....Through this
system, volatile contaminants in the ground water are transferred from the dissolved phase to the
January 2023
B-4
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
vapor phase by the rising air bubbles. Contaminated vapors can be drawn off and treated above
ground or discharged into the vadose zone" (EPA, 1998).
Mechanical Soil Aeration agitates contaminated soil, using tilling or other means to volatilize
contaminants.
Multi-Phase Extraction (MPE) "is an enhancement of the traditional SVE system. Unlike SVE,
MPE simultaneously extracts both groundwater and soil vapor. The groundwater table is lowered
in order to dewater the saturated zone so that the SVE process can be applied to the newly exposed
soil. This allows the volatile compounds sorbed on the previously saturated soil to be stripped by
the induced vapor flow and extracted. In addition, soluble VOCs present in the extracted
groundwater are also removed" (EPA, 1997b). "[MPE] systems can be implemented to target all
phases of contamination associated with a typical NAPL spill site. These systems remove residual
vadose zone soil contamination residing in soil gas, dissolved in soil pore-space moisture, and
adsorbed to soil particles. [MPE] also effectively removes dissolved and free-phase (both light and
dense NAPL [LNAPL and DNAPL]) contamination in groundwater" (EPA, 1997a). Dual-phase
extraction and bioslurping are types of MPE.
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. Physical
separation is included as treatment because it reduces the volume of contaminated material.
Recycling is the process of collecting and processing materials that would otherwise require
disposal and turning them into new products. Examples include recycling recovered oil and
solvents.
Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) "extracts vapors from the soil above the water table by applying a
vacuum to pull the vapors out...SVE involves drilling one or more extraction wells into the
contaminated soil to a depth above the water table, which must be deeper than 3 feet below the
ground surface. Attached to the wells is equipment (such as a blower or vacuum pump) that creates
a vacuum. The vacuum pulls air and vapors through the soil and up the well to the ground surface
for treatment" (EPA, 202 li). SVE usually is performed in situ; however, in some cases, it can be
used as an ex situ technology.
Soil Washing "is a process that uses physical and/or chemical techniques to separate contaminants
from soil and sediments. Contaminants are concentrated into a much smaller volume of
contaminated residue, which is either recycled or disposed. Washwater can consist of water only or
can include additives such as acids, bases, surfactants, solvents, chelating or sequestering agents
which are utilized to enhance the separation of contaminants from soils or sediments" (ITRC,
1997). "Hazardous contaminants tend to bind, chemically or physically, to silt and clay. Silt and
clay, in turn, bind to sand and gravel particles. The soil washing process separates the
contaminated fine soil (silt and clay) from the coarse soil (sand and gravel). When completed, the
smaller volume of soil, which contains the majority of the fine silt and clay particles, can be further
January 2023
B-5
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
treated by other methods (such as incineration or bioremediation) or disposed of according to
state and federal regulations" (EPA, 1996).
Solidification and Stabilization (SIS) "refer[s] to a group of cleanup methods that prevent or slow
the release of harmful chemicals from wastes, such as contaminated soil, sediment, and sludge.
These methods usually do not destroy the contaminants. Instead, they keep them from 'leaching'
above safe levels into the surrounding environment...Solidification and stabilization are often used
together to prevent people and wildlife from being exposed to metals, radioactive contaminants,
and some types of organic contaminants, such as PCBs and pesticides....
"Solidification involves mixing a waste with a binding agent, which is a substance that makes loose
materials stick together. Common binding agents include cement, asphalt, fly ash, and clay. Water
must be added to most mixtures for binding to occur; then the mixture dries and hardens to form
a solid block.
"Like solidification, stabilization also involves mixing wastes with binding agents. However, the
binding agents cause a chemical reaction with contaminants to make them less likely to be released
into the environment. For example, when soil contaminated with metals is mixed with water and
lime a white powder produced from limestone a reaction changes the metals into a form that
will not dissolve in water" (EPA, 202 lj). Stabilization remedies are classified as S/S whether or not
they ultimately involve solidification.
S/S may be performed either ex situ or in situ. Note that chemical agents added in situ for the
purpose of binding with contaminants in groundwater is classified as in situ S/S for groundwater.
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.
B. 1.4 Thermal Treatment
Thermal treatment uses heat to separate contaminants from contaminated media by increasing
their mobility. Thermal treatment includes volatility; destroying contaminants or contaminated
media by burning, decomposing, or detonating the contaminants or the contaminated media; or
immobilizing contaminants by melting and solidifying the contaminated media.
Electrical Resistance Heating "uses arrays of electrodes installed around a central neutral electrode
to create a concentrated flow of current toward the central point. Resistance to flow in the soils
generates heat greater than 100°C, producing steam and readily mobile contaminants that are
recovered via vacuum extraction and processed at the surface" (EPA, 2022b). A low-energy
electrical resistance heating approach raises the subsurface temperatures to approximately 30 to
60°C to enhance the rate of biotic and abiotic contaminant dechlorination, respectively (ESTCP,
2012). Electrical resistance heating is a type of In Situ Thermal Treatment.
Incineration "is the process of burning hazardous materials at temperatures high enough to destroy
contaminants. An incinerator is a type of furnace designed for burning hazardous materials in a
combustion chamber...Hazardous materials must be excavated or pumped into containers before
January 2023
B-6
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
incineration. They may require further preparation, such as grinding or removing large rocks and
debris, or removing excess water. The materials are then placed in the combustion chamber of an
incinerator where they are heated to an extremely high temperature for a specified period of time.
The temperature and length of time depend on the types of wastes and contaminants present. Air
or pure oxygen may be added to the chamber to supply the oxygen needed for
burning...Depending on the contaminants present, the target temperature may range from 1,600
to 2,500°F [870 to 1,370 °C]....
"As the wastes heat up, the contaminants volatilize (change into gases) and most are destroyed.
Gases that are not destroyed pass through a secondary combustion chamber for further heating
and destruction. The resulting gases then pass though air pollution control equipment....
"Incinerators can be constructed for temporary use at the site. However, in recent years, it has
been more common for the wastes to be loaded onto trucks for transport to a permanent offsite
facility. EPA requires that an incinerator can destroy and remove at least 99.99 percent of each
harmful chemical in the waste it processes. When some extremely harmful chemicals are present,
EPA requires that an incinerator show it can destroy and remove at least 99.9999 percent of
contaminants in the waste" (EPA, 202 lg).
In Situ Thermal Treatment (ISTT) "methods heat contaminated soil, and sometimes nearby
groundwater, to high temperatures. The heat vaporizes (evaporates) the chemicals and water,
changing them into gases... [which] can move more easily through soil than liquids. High
temperatures also can destroy some chemicals ...Wells pull the chemical and water vapors to the
ground surface for aboveground treatment using one of several cleanup methods available [such as,
SVE]" (EPA, 2021f). Lower energy ISTT (see Electrical Resistance Heating) can enhance biotic or
abiotic contaminant destruction. Specific types of ISTT techniques include conductive heating,
electrical resistive heating, radio frequency heating, hot air injection, hot water injection, and
steam enhanced extraction.
In Situ Thermal Desorption See In Situ Thermal Treatment.
Open Burn and Open Detonation operations "are conducted to destroy excess, obsolete, or
unserviceable munitions and energetic materials. In [open burn] 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 [open detonation] operations, detonatable explosives
and munitions are destroyed by detonation, which is generally initiated by the detonation of an
energetic charge" (FRTR, 2022).
Steam Enhanced Extraction "injects steam underground by pumping it through wells drilled in
the contaminated area. The steam heats the area and vaporizes contaminants" (EPA, 202 If). Steam
enhanced extraction is a type of In Situ Thermal Treatment.
Thermal Conduction Heating "uses heaters placed in underground steel pipes. [Thermal
conduction heating] heats the contaminated area hot enough to vaporize and even destroy some
chemicals" (EPA, 202If). Thermal conduction heating is a type of In Situ Thermal Treatment.
January 2023
B-7
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
Thermal Desorption "removes organic contaminants by heating them so that they un-stick
(desorb) from soil, sludge or sediment. The heating is done in a machine called a thermal
desorber, and causes the contaminants to evaporate. Evaporation changes the contaminants into
vapors (gases) and separates them from the solid material.... A thermal desorber is not the same as
an incinerator, which heats contaminated materials to temperatures high enough to destroy the
contaminants.... Thermal desorption involves excavating soil or other contaminated material for
treatment in a thermal desorber. The desorber may be assembled at the site for onsite treatment,
or the material may be loaded into trucks and transported to an offsite thermal desorption facility.
To prepare the soil for treatment, large rocks or debris first must be removed or crushed....If the
material is very wet, water may need to be removed to improve treatment....
"The prepared soil is placed in the thermal desorber to be heated. Low-temperature thermal
desorption is used to heat the solid material to 200-600°F [90 to 320°C] to treat VOCs. If SVOCs
are present, then the soil is heated to 600-1000°F [320 to 540°C].
"Gas collection equipment captures the vapors, which may require further treatment, such as
removal of dust particles. Organic vapors are usually destroyed using a thermal oxidizer, which
heats the vapors to temperatures high enough to convert them to carbon dioxide and water
vapor...
"Treated soil often can be used to backfill the excavation at the site" (EPA, 2021k). Thermal
desorption is an ex situ treatment process. In situ thermal desorption processes are previously
discussed as In Situ Thermal Treatment.
Thermally-Enhanced SVE See In Situ Thermal Treatment.
Vitrification is a thermal treatment process that converts contaminated soil to stable glass and
crystalline solids. There are two methods for producing heat for melting the contaminated soil.
The older method uses electrodes and electrical resistance to vitrify materials, while the emerging
technique uses plasma arc technology.
"In the electrical resistance method, high voltage is applied to electrodes (typically four) placed in
the soil. Starter frit (generally graphite) is placed on the soil surface and electrical current heats the
soil from the top down to temperatures between 1,400 and 2,000°C [2,550 to 3,650°F].... If the
silica content of the soil is sufficiently high, contaminated soil can be converted into glass. Heating
vaporizes or pyrolyzes organic contaminants. Most inorganic contaminants are encased in the glass-
like monolith that results when the soil cools after treatment" (EPA, 2006). Vitrification may be
conducted in situ or ex situ.
B. 1.5 Pump and Treat (P&T)
Pump and treat "is a common method for cleaning up groundwater [and other aqueous media]
containing chemicals, such as industrial solvents, metals, and fuel oil. [Water is extracted and
conveyed] to an aboveground treatment system that removes the contaminants. [P&T] systems also
help keep the contaminant plume from spreading by pumping contaminated water toward the
wells. This pumping helps prevent contaminants from reaching drinking water wells, wetlands,
streams, and other natural resources" (EPA, 202 lh). For the purpose of this report, all P&T
January 2023
B-8
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
systems are considered treatment, even if designed to only contain, rather than restore, a
contaminated plume.
Activated Carbon Treatment "Activated carbon is a material used to filter harmful chemicals
from contaminated water and air. It is composed of granules of coal, wood, nutshells or other
carbon-rich materials. As contaminated water or air flows through activated carbon, the
contaminants sorb (stick) to the surface of the granules and are removed from the water or air.
Granular activated carbon or 'GAC' can treat a wide range of contaminant vapors including radon
and contaminants dissolved in groundwater, such as fuel oil, solvents, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), dioxins, and other industrial chemicals, as well as radon and other radioactive materials. It
even removes low levels of some types of metals from groundwater." (EPA, 2021a)
Ex situ "[a]ctivated carbon treatment generally consists of one or more columns or tanks filled with
GAC. Contaminated water or vapors are usually pumped through a column from the top down,
but upward flow is possible. As the contaminated water or air flows through the GAC, the
contaminants sorb to the outer and inner surfaces of the granules. The water and air exiting the
container will be cleaner. Regular testing of exiting water or air is conducted to check contaminant
levels. If testing shows that some contaminants remain, the water or air may need to be treated
again to meet the treatment levels.
"The GAC will need to be replaced when the available surfaces on the granules are taken up by
contaminants and additional contaminants can no longer sorb to them. The 'spent' GAC may be
replaced with fresh GAC or 'regenerated' to remove the sorbed contaminants. To regenerate spent
GAC, it is usually sent to an offsite facility where it is heated to very high temperatures to destroy
the contaminants. If a lot of GAC needs to be regenerated, equipment to heat the GAC and
remove the sorbed contaminants can be brought to the site.
"Depending on the site, treated groundwater may be discharged to a nearby stream or river or back
underground through injection wells or trenches. A sprinkler system can distribute treated water
over the ground surface so that it seeps into the soil. The water also may be discharged to the
public sewer system or in some cases, reused for other site activities" (EPA, 2021a).
Air Stripping "is the process of moving air through contaminated water in an aboveground
treatment system to remove chemicals called 'volatile organic compounds' or 'VOCs.' VOCs are
chemicals that easily evaporate, which means they can change from a liquid to a vapor (a gas). The
air passed through contaminated water helps evaporate VOCs faster. The chemical vapors are
collected, and either treated or vented outside if VOC levels are low enough. Air stripping is
commonly used to treat groundwater as part of the pump and treat cleanup method....
"Air stripping uses either an air stripper or aeration tank to force air through contaminated water
and evaporate VOCs...The most common type of air stripper is a packed-column air stripper,
which is a tall tank filled with pieces of plastic, steel, or ceramic packing material. Contaminated
water is pumped into the top of the tank and sprayed over the top of the packing material. The
water trickles downward through the spaces between the materials, forming a thin film of water
that increases its exposure to air blown in at the bottom of the tank. [A]n aeration tank removes
VOCs by bubbling air into a tank containing only contaminated water" (EPA, 2021b).
January 2023
B-9
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
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 its body...Ultrafiltration/microfiltration occurs when particles are separated by forcing fluid
through a semipermeable membrane. Only the particles whose size are smaller than the openings
of the membrane are allowed to flow through" (FRTR, 2022). Other filtration methods include
nanofiltration and reverse osmosis.
Ion Exchange "removes ions from the aqueous phase by the exchange of cations or anions between
the contaminants and the exchange medium. It involves passing contaminated water through an
ion exchange resin so that contaminants exchange on sites on the media, exhausting its capacity.
After the resin capacity has been exhausted, resins can be regenerated for re-use" (FRTR, 2022).
Metals Precipitation "from contaminated water involves the conversion of soluble heavy metal
salts to insoluble salts that will precipitate. The precipitate can then be removed from the treated
water by physical methods such as settling and/or filtration. The process usually requires pH
adjustment, addition of a chemical precipitant, and a flocculant (e.g., polymer). Typically, metals
precipitate from the solution as hydroxides, sulfides, or carbonates, while oils will adhere to the
coagulant...The solubilities of the specific contaminants and the required cleanup standards will
dictate the process used. In some cases, process design will allow for the generation of sludges that
can be sent to recyclers for metal or oil recovery" (FRTR, 2022).
B.2 On-Site Containment Technologies
For the purpose of this report, containment includes several containment technologies, such as
caps, covers, and vertical engineered barriers (VEBs).
Building Sealant refers to "in-place sealing and covering of accessible contaminated building
materials with a high performance coating to prevent release of [contaminants] into the indoor air
of residential, commercial, and industrial structures...The common method of applying an
encapsulant is by brush, roller, or airless sprayer."
Caps and Cover Systems "Capping involves placing a cover over contaminated material such as
landfill waste or contaminated soil.... Caps do not destroy or remove contaminants. Instead, they
isolate them and keep them in place to avoid the spread of contamination....The cap design
selected for a site will depend on several factors, including the types and concentrations of
contaminants present, the size of the site, the amount of rainfall the area receives, and the future
use of the property. One or more layers may be needed. For example, an asphalt cap might be
selected to cover low levels of soil contamination on a property whose future reuse requires a
parking lot. A cap for a hazardous waste landfill, however, might require several layers, including a
vegetative layer, drainage layer, geomembrane, and clay layer to ensure water is kept out of the
waste" (EPA, 2021c).
Cap (In situ) for sediment refers to "the placement of a subaqueous covering or cap of clean
material over contaminated sediment that remains in place. Caps are generally constructed of
granular material, such as clean sediment, sand, or gravel" (EPA, 2005).
January 2023
B-10
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
Containment Cell (subaqueous) for sediment, also referred to as contained aquatic disposal
(CAD), "is a type of subaqueous capping in which the dredged sediment is placed into a natural or
excavated depression elsewhere in the water body. A related form of disposal, known as level
bottom capping, places the dredged sediment on a level bottom elsewhere in the water body,
where it is capped. [CAD] has been used for navigational dredging projects (e.g., Boston Harbor,
Providence River), but has been rarely considered for environmental dredging projects. However,
there may be instances when neither dredging with land disposal nor capping contaminated
sediment in-situ is feasible, and it may be appropriate to evaluate CADs. The depression used in
the case of a CAD should provide lateral containment of the contaminated material, and also
should have the advantage of requiring less maintenance and being more resistant to erosion than
level-bottom capping" (EPA, 2005).
Containment Cell (upland, adjacent) for sediment refers to containment in a confined disposal
facility (CDF) either upland or adjacent to the water body. "CDFs are engineered structures
enclosed by dikes and designed to retain dredged material. They may be located upland (above the
water table), partially in the water near shore, or completely surrounded by water. A CDF may
have a large cell for material disposal, and adjoining cells for retention and decantation of turbid,
supernatant water. A variety of linings have been used to prevent seepage through the dike walls.
The most effective are clay or bentonite-cement slurries, but sand, soil, and sediment linings have
also been used... Caps are the most effective way to minimize contaminant loss from CDFs, but
selection of proper liner material is also an important control in CDFs. Finally, CDFs require
continuous monitoring to ensure structural integrity." (EPA, 1991b).
Evapotranspiration (ET) Covers are alternatives to conventional cap and cover systems. "ET cover
systems are designed to rely on the ability of a soil layer to store the precipitation until it is
naturally evaporated or is transpired by the vegetative cover. In this respect they differ from more
conventional cover designs in that they rely on obtaining an appropriate water storage capacity in
the soil rather than...engineered low hydraulic conductivity [barrier components]. ET cover system
designs are based on using the hydrological processes (water balance components) at a site, which
include the water storage capacity of the soil, precipitation, surface runoff, evapotranspiration, and
infiltration. The greater the storage capacity and evapotranspirative properties are, the lower the
potential for percolation through the cover system" (EPA, 2011).
Repair (pipe/sewer/tank/structure) involves the repair of subsurface structures, such as pipes,
sewer lines, and tanks, to control a source of contamination.
Vertical Engineered Barriers (VEB) are "[walls] built below ground to control the flow of
groundwater. VEBs may divert the flow direction of contaminated groundwater to keep it from
reaching drinking water wells, wetlands or streams. They also may contain and isolate
contaminated soil and groundwater to keep them from mixing with clean groundwater. VEBs
differ from permeable reactive barriers in that they do not clean up contaminated groundwater"
(EPA, 2021m). Common types of VEBs include slurry walls and sheet pile walls.
B.3 Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)
MNA is "the reliance on natural attenuation processes (within the context of a carefully controlled
and monitored site cleanup approach) to achieve site-specific remediation objectives within a
January 2023
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
timeframe that is reasonable compared to 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. When relying on natural attenuation processes for site remediation,
EPA prefers those processes that degrade or destroy contaminants. Also, EPA generally expects
that MNA will only be appropriate for sites that have a low potential for contaminant migration"
(EPA, 1999).
B.4 Monitored Natural Recovery (MNR) for Sediment
Sediment MNR "[relies] on a wide range of naturally occurring processes to reduce risk [from
contaminated sediments] to human and/or ecological receptors. These processes may include
physical, biological, and chemical mechanisms that act together to reduce the risk posed by the
contaminants....Natural processes that reduce toxicity through transformation or reduce
bioavailability through increased sorption are usually preferable as a basis for remedy selection to
mechanisms that reduce exposure through natural burial or mixing-in-place because the
destructive/sorptive mechanisms generally have a higher degree of permanence. However, many
contaminants that remain in sediment are not easily transformed or destroyed. For this reason,
risk reduction due to natural burial through sedimentation is more common and can be an
acceptable sediment management option. Dispersion is the least preferable basis for remedy
selection based on MNR. While dispersion may reduce risk in the source area, it generally
increases exposure to contaminants and may result in unacceptable risks to downstream areas or
other receiving water bodies....
"The key difference between MNA for ground water and MNR for sediment is in the type of
processes most often being relied upon to reduce risk. Transformation of contaminants is usually
the major attenuating process for contaminated groundwater; however, these processes are
frequently too slow for the persistent contaminants of concern in sediment to provide for
remediation in a reasonable timeframe. Therefore, isolation and mixing of contaminants through
natural sedimentation is the process most frequently relied upon for contaminated sediment"
(EPA, 2005).
B.5 Enhanced Monitored Natural Recovery (EMNR) for Sediment
Natural recovery combined with an engineering approach is called Enhanced Monitored Natural
Recovery. "In some areas, natural recovery may appear to be the most appropriate remedy, yet the
rate of sedimentation or other natural processes is insufficient to reduce risks within an acceptable
timeframe. Where this is the case, project managers may consider accelerating the recovery process
by engineering means, for example by the addition of a thin layer of clean sediment. This approach
is sometimes referred to as 'thin-layer placement' or 'particle broadcasting.' Thin-layer placement
normally accelerates natural recovery by adding a layer of clean sediment over contaminated
sediment. The acceleration can occur through several processes, including increased dilution
through bioturbation of clean sediment mixed with underlying contaminants. Thin-layer
placement is typically different than...isolation caps...because it is not designed to provide long-
January 2023
B-12
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
term isolation of contaminants from benthic organisms. While thickness of an isolation cap can
range up to several feet, the thickness of the material used in thin layer placement could be as little
as a few inches....Clean sediment can be placed in a uniform thin layer over the contaminated area
or it can be placed in berms or windrows, allowing natural sediment transport processes to
distribute the clean sediment to the desired areas.
"Project managers might also consider the addition of flow control structures to enhance
deposition in certain areas of a site" (EPA, 2005).
Note that a layer of clean sediment placed as backfill following dredging or excavation is not
considered EMNR.
B.6 Vapor Intrusion Mitigation
Vapor intrusion is the term given to migration of vapor-forming chemicals from any underground
source into a structure (e.g., homes, businesses, schools) (EPA, 2015). For example, vapors can
enter buildings as a component of soil gas by migrating through cracks, seams, interstices, and gaps
in basement floors, walls, or foundations ("adventitious openings") or through intentional
openings (e.g., perforations due to utility conduits, sump pits) (EPA, 2015).
As used in this document, mitigation refers to "interim actions taken to reduce or eliminate
human exposure to vapor-forming chemicals in a specific building arising from the vapor intrusion
pathway" (EPA, 2015frtr). Functionally, mitigation methods can be categorized into two basic
strategies: (i) those that seek to prevent or reduce vapor entry into a building (e.g., active
depressurization technologies, positive building pressurization, sealing cracks and openings); and
(ii) those that seek to reduce or eliminate vapors that have entered into a building (e.g., indoor air
treatment, interior ventilation). Neither strategy entails reducing the level of vapor-forming
contamination in the subsurface source, which refers to remediation.
Active Depressurization Technology "creates a driving force for air flow from the building into
the subsurface by lowering the pressure below the slab, thereby reducing vapor intrusion (soil gas
entry into a building)" (EPA, 2015). This approach is the most thoroughly studied and
demonstrated approach for mitigating vapor intrusion. This approach consists of a group of
methods that site teams can customize to treat different construction features of a building,
including sub-slab depressurization, drain tile depressurization, wall depressurization, baseboard
depressurization, and sub-membrane depressurization (EPA, 2015). Another active
depressurization method involves depressurization of a sewer system. This approach may be
effective when the sewer is determined to be a major intrusion pathway (Nielsen and Hvidberg,
2017).
Interior Ventilation Increasing building ventilation (i.e., increasing the rate at which indoor air
is replaced with outdoor air) can reduce the buildup of vapor-forming chemicals within a structure.
"Natural ventilation may be accomplished by opening windows, doors, and vents. Forced or
mechanical ventilation may be accomplished by using a fan to blow air into or out of the building"
(EPA, 2015). Exhausting air from the building will generally contribute to under-pressurization of
the building, relative to the subsurface, thereby potentially resulting in an increased rate of soil gas
January 2023
B-l 3
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
entry (i.e., vapor intrusion), which could lead to higher levels of vapors in indoor air unless ambient
air entry into the building is increased disproportionately.
Passive Barrier (Impermeable Membrane) Installation involves "placing sheets of 'geomembrane'
or strong plastic beneath a building to prevent vapor entry. Vapor barriers are best installed during
building construction but can be installed in existing buildings that have crawl spaces" (EPA,
20211). Spray-on vapor barriers (rubberized asphalt emulsions or epoxy) may also be used (EPA,
2008a).
Passive Soil Depressurization is designed to achieve lower sub-slab air pressure relative to indoor
air pressure by use of a vent pipe routed through the conditioned space of a building and venting
to the outdoor air, thereby relying solely on the convective flow of air upward in the vent to draw
air from beneath the slab" (EPA, 2008a).
Positive Building Pressurization involves "adjusting the building's heating, ventilation, and air-
conditioning system to make the pressure indoors greater than the sub-foundation pressure" (EPA,
20211). This method is typically used for office buildings and other large structures.
Sealing Cracks and Openings involves filling in adventitious and intentional openings in the
building foundation using products such as synthetic rubbers, acrylics, oil-based sealants,
asphalt/bituminous products, swelling cement, silicon, epoxy or elastomeric polymers (EPA,
2015). In addition, vapor intrusion can be mitigated by "filling cracks in the floor slab and gaps
around pipes and utility lines in basement walls or pouring concrete over unfinished dirt floors"
(EPA, 20211).
Soil Pressurization systems "are used to push air into the soil or venting layer below the slab
instead of pulling it out. The intention is to increase the sub-slab air pressure above ambient levels,
forcing soil gas from the subsurface to the sides of the building." (ITRC, 2007).
Sub-slab Ventilation refers to engineered controls that function by diluting the vapor
concentrations beneath the slab and foundation (EPA, 2008a) by drawing outside air into and
through the sub-slab area. When installed during building construction, sub-slab ventilation
systems "typically consist of: a venting layer (e.g., filled with porous media such as sand or pea
gravel; or suitably fabricated with continuous voids) below a floor slab to allow soil gas to move
laterally to a collection piping system for discharge to the atmosphere; and a sub-slab liner that is
installed on top of the venting layer to reduce entry points for vapor intrusion" (EPA, 2015).
B.7 Other or Unspecified Remedies
Alternative Water Supply Remedy - "In CERCLA, section 101(34) states that '[t]he term
'alternative water supplies' includes, but is not limited to, drinking water and household water
supplies.' Also, CERCLA section 118 states that in taking response actions, the President [EPA]
shall 'give a high priority to facilities where the release of hazardous substances or pollutants or
contaminants has resulted in the closing of drinking water wells or has contaminated a principal
drinking water supply.'...Providing an alternative supply of water to affected users generally is
designed to prevent residents from being exposed to contaminated groundwater...Providing an
alternative water supply may involve furnishing clean, drinkable water on a permanent or
January 2023
B-14
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
temporary basis. For example, providing a permanent supply of drinking water may include
installing a private well, connecting to a municipal water system, drilling of a new community
water supply well, or reinstating a previously contaminated water supply well once the groundwater
has been cleaned up. Examples of providing a temporary supply of water may involve installing
individual treatment units or delivering bottled water. When a [Superfund] response action that
provides an alternative water supply involves connecting hundreds of homes to a municipal system
(i.e., a residential connection to a water purveyor), it generally means that [residents are connected]
to a water supply line that is located relatively close by" (EPA, 2010).
Fracturing for Site Cleanup "Fracturing creates or enlarges openings in rock or dense soil, such
as clay, to help soil and groundwater cleanup methods work better. The openings, called
'fractures,' become pathways through which contaminants in soil and groundwater can be treated
'in situ' (in place) by injection or pumped aboveground for treatment. Although fractures can
occur naturally in soil and rock, they are not always wide or long enough to easily reach
underground contamination using cleanup methods. Fracturing can enlarge the cracks and create
new ones to improve the speed and effectiveness of the cleanup" (EPA, 202 Id).
Fracturing for site cleanup is different from fracturing to recover oil and gas. "Oil and gas
hydraulic fracturing is used to stimulate the recovery of oil or natural gas from underground
geologic formations. Oil and gas hydraulic fracturing works by pumping a mixture of fluids and
other substances into the target formation to create and enlarge fractures. Such operations are
much larger, use different equipment and chemical additives, occur at greater depths, and use
higher volumes of fluid than fracturing for site cleanup. Fracturing to clean up a contaminated site
rarely exceeds a depth of 100 feet, and the affected area around the fracturing well usually is less
than 100 feet in any direction. However, wells to extract oil and gas often are drilled hundreds or
thousands of feet downward and sometimes horizontally into the oil- or gas-bearing rock. Fractures
may extend over 500 feet from these wells" (EPA, 202Id).
Institutional Controls (ICs) are defined by EPA as "non-engineered instruments, such as
administrative and legal controls, that help to minimize the potential for human exposure to
contamination and/or protect the integrity of a response action. ICs typically are designed to work
by limiting land and/or resource use or by providing information that helps modify or guide
human behavior at a site. ICs are a subset of Land Use Controls..., [which] include engineering
and physical barriers, such as fences and security guards, as well as ICs" (EPA, 202 In). Some
common examples of ICs include zoning restrictions, building or excavation permits, well drilling
prohibitions, easements, and covenants.
Soil Amendments "Many soils, particularly those found in urban, industrial, mining, and other
disturbed areas, suffer from a range of physical, chemical, and biological limitations. They include
soil toxicity, too high or too low pH, lack of sufficient organic matter, reduced water-holding
capacity, reduced microbial communities, and compaction. Appropriate soil amendments may be
inorganic (e.g., liming materials), organic (e.g., composts) or mixtures (e.g., lime-stabilized
biosolids). When specified and applied properly, these beneficial soil amendments may limit many
of the exposure pathways and reduce soil phototoxicity. Soil amendments also can restore
appropriate soil conditions for plant growth by balancing pH, adding organic matter, restoring soil
microbial activity, increasing moisture retention, and reducing compaction." (EPA, 2007).
January 2023
B-l 5
-------
Superfund Remedy Report, 17th Edition
Wetlands Replacement "Compensatory mitigation is required to replace the loss of wetland and
aquatic resource functions in [a] watershed. Compensatory mitigation refers to the restoration,
establishment, enhancement, or in certain circumstances preservation of wetlands, streams or
other aquatic resources for the purpose of offsetting unavoidable adverse impacts [from a specific
project (EPA, 2008c). For the purposes of this report, mitigation performed at the site of the
adverse impacts is excluded from the definition of wetlands replacement. For mitigation
performed at the site of adverse impacts, see Wetlands Restoration. For wetlands constructed as a
form of treatment, see Constructed Treatment Wetlands.
Wetlands Restoration is defined as "He-establishment or rehabilitation of a wetland or other
aquatic resource with a goal of returning natural or historic functions and characteristics to a
former or degraded wetland" (EPA, 2008c). For the purposes of this report, restoration conducted
at a location other than the impacted site is excluded from the definition of wetlands restoration
and is instead considered Wetlands Replacement. For wetlands constructed as a form of
treatment, see Constructed Treatment Wetlands.
January 2023
B-l 6
-------
Appendix C
Individual Contaminants and Assigned
Contaminant Groups
-------
Appendix C: Individual Contaminants and Assigned Contaminant Groups
Major Group
Detailed Group
Contaminant
(2-METHYL-2-PROPANYL)BENZENE
X
X
(2Z)-2-BUTENEDIOIC ACID
X
X
(3R)-l-AZABICYCLO[2.2.2]OCTAN-3-YL HYDROXY(DIPHENYL)ACETATE
X
X
(4-CHLORO-2-METHYLPHENOXY)ACETIC ACID
X
X
(E)-l,3-DICHLORO-l-PROPENE
X
X
(Z)-l,3-DICHLORO-l-PROPENE
X
X
[(E)-PROP-l-ENYL] BENZENE
X
X
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
X
X
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
X
X
1,1,2,2-TETRABROMOETHANE
X
X
l,l,2,2-TETRACHLORO-l,2-DIFLUOROETHANE
X
X
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
X
X
l,l,2-TRICHLORO-l,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE
X
X
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
X
X
1,1'-BI PHENYL
X
X
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
X
X
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
X
X
l,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCTACHLORODIBENZO[b,e][l,4]DIOXIN (OCDD)
X
X
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
X
X
l,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZO[b,e][l,4]DIOXIN (HpCDD)
X
X
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
X
X
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
X
X
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZO[b,e][1,4]DlOXIN (HxCDD)
X
X
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN (HxCDF)
X
X
1,2,3,4-TETRACHLOROBENZENE
X
X
1,2,3,6,7,8-H EXACH LORODI BENZO[b,e][l,4]DIOXIN (HxCDD)
X
X
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN (HxCDF)
X
X
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN (HxCDF)
X
X
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-p-DIOXIN (HxCDD)
X
X
l,2,3,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZO[b,e][l,4]DIOXIN (PeCDD)
X
X
1,2,3,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
X
X
1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE
X
X
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
X
X
1,2,3-TRIMETHYLBENZENE
X
X
1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE
X
X
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
X
X
January 2023
C-l
-------
Appendix C: Individual Contaminants and Assigned Contaminant Groups
Major Group
Detailed Group
Contaminant
1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE
X
X
l,2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE
X
X
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE
X
X
l,2-DICHLORO-l,l,2,2-TETRAFLUOROETHANE
X
X
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
X
X
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
X
X
1,2-DICHLOROETHENE (CIS AND TRANS MIXTURE)
X
X
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
X
X
1,2-DIHYDROACENAPHTHYLENE
X
X
1,2-DIMETHYLBENZENE (O-XYLENE)
X
X
1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE
X
X
1,2-ETHANEDIOL (ETHYLENE GLYCOL)
X
X
1,2-PROPANEDIOL
X
X
1,3 (OR 1,4)-DIMETHYLBENZENE (M (OR P)-XYLENE)
X
X
l,3,5,7-TETRANITRO-l,3,5,7-TETRAZOCANE(HMX)
X
X
1,3,5-TRICHLOROBENZENE
X
X
1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE
X
X
1,3,5-TRINITROBENZENE
X
X
1,3-BENZENEDIOL
X
X
1,3-BUTADIENE
X
X
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
X
X
1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE (EZ MIXTURE)
X
X
1,3-DIMETHYLBENZENE (M-XYLENE)
X
X
1,3-DI NITROBENZENE
X
X
l,3-DIOXO-l,3-DIHYDRO-2-BENZOFURAN-5-CARBOXYLIC ACID
X
X
1,4-BENZENEDICARBOXYLIC ACID
X
X
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
X
X
1,4-DIMETHYLBENZENE (P-XYLENE)
X
X
1,4-DI NITROBENZENE
X
X
1,4-DIOXANE
X
X
1,4-DITHIANE
X
X
10-CHLORO-5H-PHENARSAZININE
X
X
10H-PHENOTHIAZINE
X
X
l-BROMO-4-PHENOXYBENZENE
X
X
1-BUTANOL (N-BUTANOL)
X
X
1-BUTOXYBUTANE
X
X
January 2023
C-2
-------
Appendix C: Individual Contaminants and Assigned Contaminant Groups
Major Group
Detailed Group
Contaminant
l-CHLORO-2-[(2-CHLOROETHYL)SULFANYL] ETHANE
X
X
l-CHLORO-2-ETHENOXYETHANE
X
X
l-CHLORO-2-METHYLBENZENE (O-CHLOROTOLUENE)
X
X
l-CHLORO-4-PHENOXYBENZENE
X
X
1H-INDENE
X
X
l-METHYL-2-NITROBENZENE
X
X
l-METHYL-3-NITROBENZENE
X
X
l-METHYL-4-NITROBENZENE
X
X
1-METHYL-4-PROPAN-2-YLBENZENE
X
X
1-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
X
X
1-NITROSOPYRROLIDINE
X
X
1-PHENYLETHANONE
X
X
1-PROPENE
X
X
2-(l-METHYLPROPYL)-4,6-DINITROPHENOL (DINOSEB)
X
X
2-(2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOXY)PROPANOIC ACID
X
X
2-(2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXY)PROPANOIC ACID
X
X
2,2',2"-NITRILOTRIETHANOL
X
X
2,2,2-TRICHLORO-l,l-BIS(4-CHLOROPHENYL)ETHANOL
X
X
2,2,4-TRIMETHYLPENTANE
X
X
2,2-DICHLOROETHENYL DIMETHYL PHOSPHATE
X
X
2,2'-OXYDIETHANOL
X
X
2,3,4,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
X
X
2,3,4,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN (PeCDF)
X
X
2,3,5,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
X
X
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
X
X
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-p-DIOXIN (TCDD)
X
X
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-p-DIOXIN (TCDD) TOXICITY EQUIVALENTS (TEq)
X
X
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
X
X
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOXYACETIC ACID
X
X
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
X
X
2,4,6-TRINITROPHENOL
X
X
2,4,6-TRINITROTOLUENE
X
X
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
X
X
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETIC ACID
X
X
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
X
X
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
X
X
January 2023
C-3
-------
Appendix C: Individual Contaminants and Assigned Contaminant Groups
Major Group
Detailed Group
Contaminant
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE
X
X
2,5-NORBORNADIENE
X
X
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE
X
X
2-[FLUORO(METHYL)PHOSPHORYL]OXYPROPANE (SARIN)
X
X
2-AMINO-4,6-DINITROTOLUENE
X
X
2-AMINOPYRIDINE
X
X
2-BENZOFURAN-l,3-DIONE
X
X
2-BUTANONE (METHYL ETHYL KETONE)
X
X
2-BUTOXYETHANOL
X
X
2-CHLORO-l-PHENYLETHANONE
X
X
2-CHLOROANILINE
X
X
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
X
X
2-CHLOROPHENOL
X
X
2-ETHOXYETHANOL
X
X
2-FLUOROACETIC ACID
X
X
2-HEXANONE
X
X
2-HYDROXY-2,2-DIPHENYLACETIC ACID
X
X
2-METHOXY-2-METHYLPROPANE (MTBE)
X
X
2-METHYL-l,3-BUTADIENE
X
X
2-METHYL-2-PROPANOL
X
X
2-METHYL-4,6-DINITROPHENOL (4,6-DINITRO-O-CRESOL)
X
X
2-METHYLANILINE
X
X
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
X
X
2-METHYLOXIRANE
X
X
2-METHYLPHENOL (O-CRESOL)
X
X
2-METHYLPROP-2-ENENITRILE
X
X
2-NAPHTHALENAMINE
X
X
2-NITROANILINE
X
X
2-NITROPHENOL
X
X
2-PROPAN-2-YLOXYPROPANE
X
X
2-PROPANOL
X
X
2-PROPENENITRILE (ACRYLONITRILE)
X
X
3-(3,4-DICHLOROPHENYL)-l,l-DIMETHYLUREA (DIURON)
X
X
3-(4-CHLOROPHENYL)-l,l-DIMETHYLUREA
X
X
3,5,5-TRIMETHYLCYCLOHEX-2-EN-l-ONE
X
X
3,6-DICHLORO-2-METHOXYBENZOIC ACID
X
X
January 2023
C-4
-------
Appendix C: Individual Contaminants and Assigned Contaminant Groups
Major Group
Detailed Group
Contaminant
3-CHLOROANILINE
X
X
3-METHYLPHENOL (M-CRESOL)
X
X
3-METHYLPHENOL (MIXED MONOCHLORINATED ISOMERS)
X
X
3-NITROANILINE
X
X
4-(2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXY)BUTANOIC ACID
X
X
4-(4-AMINO-3-CHLOROPHENYL)-2-CHLOROANILINE
X
X
4-(4-AMINO-3-METHYLPHENYL)-2-METHYLANILINE
X
X
4,4'-METHYLENEBIS(2-CHLOROANILINE)
X
X
4-AMINO-2,6-DINITROTOLUENE
X
X
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL
X
X
4-CHLOROANIUNE
X
X
4-CYANO-l,2,3,4-TETRAHYDRO-l-NAPHTHALENE-PROPIONITRILE
X
X
4-CYANO-l,2,3,4-TETRAHYDRO-ALPHA-METHYL-l-NAPHTHALENEACETONITRILE
X
X
4-METHOXYPHENOL
X
X
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE (METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE)
X
X
4-METHYLCHRYSENE
X
X
4-METHYLHEPTYL 2-(2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOXY)PROPANOATE
X
X
4-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL)
X
X
4-NITROANILINE
X
X
4-NITROPHENOL
X
X
4-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
X
X
4-PHENYLANILINE
X
X
9H-CARBAZOLE
X
X
9H-FLUORENE
X
X
ACENAPHTHYLENE
X
X
ACETONE
X
X
ACETONITRILE
X
X
ACROLEIN
X
X
ACRYLAMIDE
X
X
ACTINIUM-227
X
X
ACTINIUM-228
X
X
ALACHLOR
X
X
ALDRIN
X
X
ALPHA GROSS
X
X
ALPHA-CHLORDANE
X
X
ALPHA-HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE
X
X
January 2023
C-5
-------
Appendix C: Individual Contaminants and Assigned Contaminant Groups
Major Group
Detailed Group
Contaminant
ALUMINUM
X
X
ALUMINUM OXIDE
X
X
AMERICIUM
X
X
AMERICIUM-241
X
X
AMMONIA
X
X
AMMONIUM HYDROXIDE
X
X
AMMONIUM NITRATE
X
X
AMMONIUM TETRACHLOROZINCATE
X
X
ANILINE
X
X
ANTHANTHRENE
X
X
ANTHRACENE
X
X
ANTIMONY
X
X
ANTIMONY COMPOUNDS
X
X
AROCLOR 1016
X
X
AROCLOR 1221
X
X
AROCLOR 1232
X
X
AROCLOR 1242
X
X
AROCLOR 1248
X
X
AROCLOR 1254
X
X
AROCLOR 1260
X
X
AROCLOR 1262
X
X
AROCLOR 1268
X
X
ARSENIC
X
X
ARSENIC COMPOUNDS
X
X
ASBESTOS
X
X
ATRAZINE
X
X
AZEPAN-2-ONE
X
X
AZOBENZENE
X
X
AZULENE
X
X
BARIUM
X
X
BARIUM CHLORIDE
X
X
BARIUM COMPOUNDS
X
X
BENZALDEHYDE
X
X
BENZENE
X
X
BENZIDINE
X
X
BENZIDINE AND ITS SALTS
X
X
January 2023
C-6
-------
Appendix C: Individual Contaminants and Assigned Contaminant Groups
Major Group
Detailed Group
Contaminant
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
X
X
BENZO(GHI)PERYLENE
X
X
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE
X
X
BENZO[A]ACEANTHRYLENE
X
X
BENZO[A]ANTHRACENE
X
X
BENZO[A]PYRENE
X
X
BENZO[A]PYRENE EQUIVALENTS (BaPEq)
X
X
BENZO[E]PYRENE
X
X
BENZO[J]FLUORANTHENE
X
X
BENZOIC ACID
X
X
BENZONITRILE
X
X
BENZOPHENONE
X
X
BENZOYL BENZENECARBOPEROXOATE
X
X
BENZOYL CHLORIDE
X
X
BERYLLIUM
X
X
BERYLLIUM COMPOUNDS
X
X
BETA GROSS
X
X
BETA-HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE
X
X
BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE
X
X
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER
X
X
BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER
X
X
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) ADIPATE
X
X
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
X
X
BIS(CHLOROMETHYL) ETHER
X
X
BISMUTH
X
X
BISMUTH TEILLURIDE
X
X
BISMUTH-211
X
X
BISMUTH-212
X
X
BISMUTH-214
X
X
BORON
X
X
BORON OXIDE
X
X
BROMACIL
X
X
BROMINE (BR2)
X
X
BROMINE-CONTAINING INORGANIC COMPOUNDS
X
X
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
X
X
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
X
X
January 2023
C-7
-------
Appendix C: Individual Contaminants and Assigned Contaminant Groups
Major Group
Detailed Group
Contaminant
BROMOFORM
X
X
BROMOMETHANE
X
X
BUTAN-2-YLBENZENE
X
X
BUTYL ACETATE
X
X
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
X
X
BUTYLATE
X
X
BUTYLBENZENE
X
X
BUTYLTIN TOXICITY EQUIVALENTS (TEq)
X
X
C.I. ACID GREEN 3
X
X
C.I. BASIC VIOLET 1
X
X
C11-C22 AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
X
X
C13-C18 ALIPHATIC HYDROCARBONS
X
X
C19-C36 ALIPHATIC HYDROCARBONS
X
X
C5-C8 ALIPHATIC HYDROCARBONS
X
X
C9-C10 AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
X
X
C9-C10 AROMATICS
X
X
C9-C12 ALIPHATIC HYDROCARBONS
X
X
C9-C18 ALIPHATIC HYDROCARBONS
X
X
CADMIUM
X
X
CALCIUM
X
X
CALCIUM CARBONATE
X
X
CALCIUM OXIDE
X
X
CAMPHOR
X
X
CARBARYL
X
X
CARBOFURAN
X
X
CARBON DISULFIDE
X
X
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
X
X
CARBON-14
X
X
CARBONYL DICHLORIDE (PHOSGENE)
X
X
CARBOPHENOTHION
X
X
CARCINOGENIC POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (cPAH)
X
X
CESIUM
X
X
CESIUM-134
X
X
CESIUM-137
X
X
CHLORDANE
X
X
CHLORDECONE
X
X
January 2023
-------
Appendix C: Individual Contaminants and Assigned Contaminant Groups
Major Group
Detailed Group
Contaminant
CHLORENDIC ACID
X
X
CHLORIDE
X
X
CHLORINATED DIOXINS AND FURANS
X
X
CHLORINE (CL2)
X
X
CHLOROACETIC ACID
X
X
CHLOROBENZENE
X
X
CHLOROBENZILATE
X
X
CHLOROBENZOIC ACID
X
X
CHLOROETHANE
X
X
CHLOROETHENE (VINYL CHLORIDE)
X
X
CHLOROFORM
X
X
CHLOROMETHANE
X
X
CHLOROMETHYLBENZENE
X
X
CHLOROPHENOXY HERBICIDES
X
X
CHLORPYRIFOS
X
X
CHROMIC ACID
X
X
CHROMIUM
X
X
CHROMIUM (HEXAVALENT COMPOUNDS)
X
X
CHROMIUM (III)
X
X
CHROMIUM COMPOUNDS
X
X
CHROMIUM(III) CHLORIDE
X
X
CHROMIUM(III) SULFATE
X
X
CHROMIUM(VI)
X
X
CHRYSENE
X
X
CIS-1,2-DI CHLOROETHENE
X
X
COBALT
X
X
COBALT-57
X
X
COBALT-60
X
X
COPPER
X
X
COPPER COMPOUNDS
X
X
COUMAPHOS
X
X
CREOSOTE
X
X
CRESOL (MIXED ISOMERS)
X
X
CUMENE
X
X
CURIUM
X
X
CYANIDE
X
X
January 2023
C-9
-------
Appendix C: Individual Contaminants and Assigned Contaminant Groups
Major Group
Detailed Group
Contaminant
CYANIDE COMPOUNDS
X
X
CYANIDES, INORGANIC SALTS
X
X
CYCLOHEXANE
X
X
CYCLOHEXANOL
X
X
CYCLOHEXANONE
X
X
DDT AND METABOLITES
X
X
DELTA-HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE
X
X
DEMEPHION-S
X
X
DIAMINOTOLUENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
X
X
DIAZINON
X
X
DIBENZ[A,H]ACRIDINE
X
X
DIBENZ[A,J]ANTHRACENE
X
X
DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE
X
X
DIBENZO[A,E]PYRENE
X
X
DIBENZO[A,H]PYRENE
X
X
DIBENZOFURAN
X
X
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
X
X
DIBROMOMETHANE
X
X
Dl BUTYL PHTHALATE
X
X
DICHLORO-[(E)-2-CHLOROETHENYL]ARSANE (LEWISITE)
X
X
DICHLOROBENZENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
X
X
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
X
X
DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDE)
X
X
DICHLOROMONOFLUOROMETHANE
X
X
DICHLOROPROPANE (MIXED ISOMERS)
X
X
DICYCLOPENTADIENE
X
X
DIELDRIN
X
X
DIESEL FUEL
X
X
DIESEL RANGE ORGANICS
X
X
DIETHYL ETHER
X
X
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
X
X
DIETHYLBENZENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
X
X
DIMETHOXYM ETHANE
X
X
DIMETHYL ETHYL BENZENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
X
X
DIMETHYL PHENOL (MIXED ISOMERS)
X
X
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
X
X
January 2023
C-10
-------
Appendix C: Individual Contaminants and Assigned Contaminant Groups
Major Group
Detailed Group
Contaminant
DIMETHYL SULFIDE
X
X
DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
X
X
DIMETHYLMERCURY
X
X
DINITROTOLUENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
X
X
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
X
X
DIOXINS (CHLORINATED DIBENZODIOXINS)
X
X
DIOXINS AND DIBENZOFURANS
X
X
DIPHENAMID
X
X
DIPHENYLAMINE
X
X
DISULFOTON
X
X
ENDOSULFAN (1 OR II)
X
X
ENDOSULFAN 1
X
X
ENDOSULFAN II
X
X
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE
X
X
ENDRIN
X
X
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
X
X
ENDRIN KETONE
X
X
ETHANE
X
X
ETHANE-1,2-DI AMINE
X
X
ETHAN ETHIOL
X
X
ETHANOL
X
X
ETHION
X
X
ETHYL ACETATE
X
X
ETHYL CARBONOCHLORIDATE
X
X
ETHYL METHYL BENZENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
X
X
ETHYL PROP-2-ENOATE
X
X
ETHYLBENZENE
X
X
EUROPIUM
X
X
EUROPIUM-152
X
X
EUROPIUM-154
X
X
EUROPIUM-155
X
X
FENSULFOTHION
X
X
FLUORANTHENE
X
X
FLUORIDE
X
X
FLUORINE (F2)
X
X
FONOFOS
X
X
January 2023
C-ll
-------
Appendix C: Individual Contaminants and Assigned Contaminant Groups
Major Grou
3
Detailed Group
to
u
o
to
u
to
c
CO
1
=3
to
u
o
>
to
T3
'_o
"ro
QJ
E
u
o
>
l/l
T3
CD
ro
c
to
u
'c
on
¦a
QJ
ro
c
QJ
U>
_o
>
"a
QJ
ro
c
QJ
U>
_o
to
u
to
QJ
T3
*U
i_
QJ
J=
"a
"a
c
ro
1/1
CD
ro
c
QJ
"a
c
ro
to
u>
_o
ro
j=
U>
i_
o
c
J=
c
o
£=
J=
c
o
£=
c
ro
u>
1
o
ro
to
QJ
CO
svoc
u
CD
X
X
W)
o
ro
QJ
QJ
QJ
QJ
QJ
PCBs
PAHs
Contaminant
o
1
CQ
o
a
ro
X
QJ
5
o
O
o
o
O
QJ
Q_
FORMALDEHYDE
X
X
FORMIC ACID
X
X
FORMOTHION
X
X
FURAN
X
X
GAMMA RADIOACTIVITY EMITTERS
X
X
GAMMA-CHLORDANE
X
X
GAMMA-HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE (LINDANE)
X
X
GASOLINE
X
X
GUTHION
X
X
HALOGENATEDVOCs
X
X
HEAVY METALS
X
X
HEPTACHLOR
X
X
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
X
X
HEPTACHLORODIBENZO[b,e][l,4]DIOXIN (HpCDD) (MIXED ISOMERS)
X
X
HEPTANE
X
X
H EXACH LORO-l,3-BUTADI ENE
X
X
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
X
X
H EXACH LOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
X
X
HEXACHLORODIBENZO[b,e][l,4]DIOXIN (HxCDD) (MIXED ISOMERS)
X
X
HEXACHLOROETHANE
X
X
HEXAHYDRO-l,3,5-TRINITRO-l,3,5-TRIAZINE(RDX)
X
X
HEXANE
X
X
HYDRAZINE
X
X
HYDROCARBONS
X
X
HYDROGEN(H2)
X
X
HYDROGEN CARBONATE
X
X
HYDROGEN CHLORIDE
X
X
HYDROGEN CYANIDE
X
X
HYDROGEN FLUORIDE
X
X
HYDROGEN SULFIDE
X
X
INDENO(l,2,3-CD)PYRENE
X
X
INDIUM
X
X
INORGANICS
X
X
IODINE (12)
X
X
IODINE-129
X
X
IRON
X
X
January 2023
C-12
-------
Appendix C: Individual Contaminants and Assigned Contaminant Groups
Major Group
Detailed Group
Contaminant
ISODRIN
X
X
KEROSENE
X
X
LEAD
X
X
LEAD COMPOUNDS
X
X
LEAD COMPOUNDS (INORGANIC)
X
X
LEAD(II) ACETATE
X
X
LEAD-210
X
X
LEAD-211
X
X
LEAD-212
X
X
LEAD-214
X
X
LINURON
X
X
LITHIUM
X
X
MAGNESIUM
X
X
MALATHION
X
X
MANGANESE
X
X
MANGANESE COMPOUNDS
X
X
MANGANESE-54
X
X
MECOPROP
X
X
MERCURY
X
X
MERCURY COMPOUNDS
X
X
MERCURY(II) CHLORIDE
X
X
METALS
X
X
METHANE
X
X
METHANETHIOL
X
X
METHANOL
X
X
METHIOCARB
X
X
METHOXYCHLOR
X
X
METHYL 2-METHYLPROP-2-ENOATE
X
X
METHYL ACETATE
X
X
METHYL MERCURY
X
X
METHYL PARATHION
X
X
METHYL PROP-2-ENOATE
X
X
METHYLCYCLOHEXANE
X
X
METHYLCYCLOHEXANOL (MIXED ISOMERS)
X
X
METHYLMERCURY DICYANDIAMIDE
X
X
METHYLPHENOL (CRESOL MIXED ISOMERS)
X
X
January 2023
C-13
-------
Appendix C: Individual Contaminants and Assigned Contaminant Groups
Major Group
Detailed Group
Contaminant
METHYLPHOSPHONIC ACID
X
X
MEVINPHOS
X
X
MINERAL OILS
X
X
MIREX
X
X
MOLINATE
X
X
MOLYBDENUM
X
X
MONOCROTOPHOS
X
X
N,N-DIBUTYLNITROUS AMIDE
X
X
N,N-DIETHYLNITROUS AMIDE
X
X
N,N-DIMETHYLANILINE
X
X
N,N-DIPHENYLNITROUS AMIDE
X
X
N,N-DIPROPYLNITROUS AMIDE
X
X
NAPHTHALENE
X
X
NAPHTHENIC ACIDS
X
X
NEODYMIUM
X
X
NEPTUNIUM
X
X
NICKEL
X
X
NICKEL-63
X
X
NITRATE
X
X
NITRATE/NITRITE
X
X
NITRITE
X
X
NITROAROMATICS
X
X
NITROBENZENE
X
X
NITROGEN
X
X
NITROGLYCERIN
X
X
NITROTOLUENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
X
X
N-METHYL-N,2,4,6-TETRANITROANILINE(TETRYL)
X
X
N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE
X
X
NONANE
X
X
0,0,0,0-TETRAETHYL DITHIODIPHOSPHATE
X
X
OCTANE
X
X
O-DINITROBENZENE
X
X
O-ETHYL 0-(4-NITR0PHENYL) PHENYLPHOSPHONOTHIOATE
X
X
O-ETHYL S,S-DIPROPYL PHOSPHORODITHIOATE (ETHOPROP)
X
X
ORGANICS
X
X
OXAMYL
X
X
January 2023
C-14
-------
Appendix C: Individual Contaminants and Assigned Contaminant Groups
Major Group
Detailed Group
Contaminant
P,P'-DDD
X
X
P,P'-DDE
X
X
P,P'-DDT
X
X
PARATHION
X
X
P-CYMENE
X
X
PEBULATE
X
X
PENDIMETHALIN
X
X
PENTACHLOROBENZENE
X
X
PENTACHLORODIBENZO[b,e][l,4]DIOXIN (PECDD) (MIXED ISOMERS)
X
X
PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN (PeCDF)
X
X
PENTACHLOROETHANE
X
X
PENTACHLORONITROBENZENE
X
X
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
X
X
PENTAERYTHRITOLTETRANITRATE (PETN)
X
X
PENTANE
X
X
PERCHLORATE
X
X
PERFLUOROOCTANE SULFONIC ACID
X
X
PERFLUOROOCTANOIC ACID (PFOA)
X
X
PESTICIDES
X
X
PETROLEUM
X
X
PHENACETIN
X
X
PHENANTHRENE
X
X
PHENOL
X
X
PHENYLMETHANOL
X
X
PHORATE
X
X
PHOSPHORIC ACID
X
X
PHOSPHORUS
X
X
PHOSPHORUS (P4)
X
X
PHOSPHORUS COMPOUNDS
X
X
PHOTOMIREX
X
X
PLATINUM
X
X
PLUTONIUM
X
X
PLUTONIUM-238
X
X
PLUTONIUM-239
X
X
PLUTONIUM-239/240
X
X
PLUTONIUM-240
X
X
January 2023
C-15
-------
Appendix C: Individual Contaminants and Assigned Contaminant Groups
Major Group
Detailed Group
Contaminant
PLUTONIUM-241
X
X
PLUTONIUM-242
X
X
PLUTONIUM-244
X
X
POLONIUM-210
X
X
POLYBROMINATED BIPHENYLS (FIREMASTER FF 1)
X
X
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (CONTAINING 60 OR MOREPERCENT CHLORINE BY MOLECULAR WEIGHT)
X
X
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs)
X
X
POLYCHLORINATED TERPHENYLS
X
X
POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAHS)
X
X
POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS, HIGH MOLECULAR WEIGHT (HPAHS)
X
X
POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS, LOW MOLECULAR WEIGHT (LPAHS)
X
X
POTASSIUM
X
X
POTASSIUM CYANIDE
X
X
POTASSIUM HYDROXIDE
X
X
POTASSIUM NITRATE
X
X
POTASSIUM PERMANGANATE
X
X
POTASSIUM-40
X
X
PROMETHIUM-147
X
X
PROMETON
X
X
PROMETRYN
X
X
PROPANEDINITRILE
X
X
PROPYLBENZENE
X
X
PROTACTINIUM-231
X
X
PROTACTINIUM-234
X
X
PYRENE
X
X
PYRIDINE
X
X
QUINOLINE
X
X
RADIOACTIVE
X
X
RADIONUCLIDES
X
X
RADIUM
X
X
RADIUM-223
X
X
RADIUM-224
X
X
RADIUM-226
X
X
RADIUM-228
X
X
RADON
X
X
RADON AND ITS DECAY PRODUCTS
X
X
January 2023
C-16
-------
Appendix C: Individual Contaminants and Assigned Contaminant Groups
Major Group
Detailed Group
Contaminant
RADON-222
X
X
RESIDUAL RANGE ORGANICS (RRO)
X
X
RONNEL
X
X
RUTHENIUM-106
X
X
SELENIUM
X
X
S-ETHYL N,N-DIPROPYLCARBAMOTHIOATE (EPTC)
X
X
SILICON
X
X
SILICON DIOXIDE (AMORPHOUS SILICA)
X
X
SILICONE
X
X
SILVER
X
X
SIMAZINE
X
X
SODIUM
X
X
SODIUM CYANIDE
X
X
SODIUM HYDROXIDE
X
X
SODIUM NITRATE
X
X
SODIUM NITRITE
X
X
SODIUM-22
X
X
STODDARD SOLVENT
X
X
STRONTIUM
X
X
STRONTIUM-90
X
X
STYRENE
X
X
SULFATE
X
X
SULFIDE
X
X
SULFUR
X
X
SULFUR DIOXIDE
X
X
SULFURIC ACID
X
X
TANTALUM
X
X
TECHNETIUM-99
X
X
TETRACHLORODIBENZO[b,e][l,4]DIOXIN (TCDD) (MIXED ISOMERS)
X
X
TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN (TCDF)
X
X
TETRACHLOROETHENE
X
X
TETRAETHYL LEAD
X
X
TETRAHYDROFURAN
X
X
THALLIUM
X
X
THALLIUM CHLORIDE
X
X
THALLIUM COMPOUNDS
X
X
January 2023
C-17
-------
Appendix C: Individual Contaminants and Assigned Contaminant Groups
Major Group
Detailed Group
Contaminant
THALUUM(I) CARBONATE
X
X
THALLIUM-204
X
X
THALUUM-208
X
X
THORIUM-227
X
X
THORIUM-228
X
X
THORIUM-230
X
X
THORIUM-231
X
X
THORIUM-232
X
X
THORIUM-234
X
X
TIN
X
X
TITANIUM
X
X
TITANIUM DIOXIDE
X
X
TOLUENE
X
X
TOLUENE DIISOCYANATE (MIXED ISOMERS)
X
X
TOTAL BENZOFLUORANTHENES
X
X
TOTAL EXTRACTABLE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (TEPH)
X
X
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON -DIESEL
X
X
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON -GASOLINE
X
X
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (TPH)
X
X
TOTAL RECOVERABLE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (TRPH)
X
X
TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANES
X
X
TOXAPHENE
X
X
TRANS-l,2-DICHLOROETHENE
X
X
TRANS-NONACHLOR
X
X
TRIBUTYL PHOSPHATE
X
X
TRIBUTYL(CHLORO)STANNANE
X
X
TRIBUTYLSTANNANYLIUM
X
X
TRIBUTYLSTANNYL BENZOATE
X
X
TRICHLORO(NITRO)METHANE
X
X
TRICHLOROETHANE (MIXED ISOMERS)
X
X
TRICHLOROETHENE
X
X
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
X
X
TRICHLOROPHENOL (MIXED ISOMERS)
X
X
TRIFLURALIN
X
X
TRIMETHYLBENZENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
X
X
TRIPHENYL PHOSPHATE
X
X
January 2023
C-18
-------
Appendix C: Individual Contaminants and Assigned Contaminant Groups
Major Group
Detailed Group
CO
svoc
u
1
QJ
X
to
c
CO
1
=3
4
"a
c
ro
to
C
X
to
U
o
>
"a
CD
ro
c
CD
W)
o
to
T3
'_o
"ro
QJ
E
"a
c
ro
to
ro
ler halogenated SVOCs
to
u
"c
ro
W)
i_
O
c
1
QJ
ler nonhalogenated SVOCs
ler nonhalogenated VOCs
to
u
"c
ro
W)
i_
o
i_
QJ
ticides and herbicides
PCBs
PAHs
Contaminant
o
1
CQ
o
a
ro
X
QJ
5
O
o
o
o
o
QJ
Q_
TRIS(2,3-DIBROMOPROPYL) PHOSPHATE
X
X
TRIS(3-CHLOROPROPYL)PHOSPHATE
X
X
TRITIUM
X
X
TUNGSTEN
X
X
URANIUM
X
X
URANIUM, SOLUBLE SALTS
X
X
URANIUM-233
X
X
URANIUM-234
X
X
URANIUM-234/235/238
X
X
URANIUM-235
X
X
URANIUM-238
X
X
VANADIUM
X
X
VANADIUM PENTOXIDE
X
X
VANADIUM, METAL AND/OR ALLOY
X
X
VERNOLATE
X
X
VINYL ACETATE
X
X
VX
X
X
XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
X
X
ZINC
X
X
ZIRCONIUM
X
X
January 2023
C-19
------- |