Treatment Technologies For Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report (Eleventh Edition)

Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup:
Annual Status Report (Eleventh Edition)

On the Cover
Top row from left to right:
Model of an in situ chemical treatment system for DNAPLs. See

page 4 for a description of chemical treatment.
Figure 19. Superfund Remedial Actions: Trends in the Selection of
Pump and Treat (FY 1986 - 2002), page 33. See Section 3: Groundwater
Remedies for a discussion of this figure.
Middle row from left to right:
Theoretical model of the biodegradation of tetrachloroethene. See

page 4 for a description of bioremediation.
Model of a groundwater pump and treat system. See page 7 for a
description of groundwater pump and treat systems.
Bottom row from left to right:
Figure 7. Superfund Remedial Actions: Source Control Treatment

Projects (FY 1982 - 2002), page 16. See Section 2: Treatment Technologies
for Source Control for a discussion of this figure.
Model of a permeable reactive barrier. See page 7 for a description
of a permeable reactive barrier.
EPA-542-R-03-009
Solid Waste and February 2004
Emergency Response www.epa.gov/tio
(5102G) clu-in.org/asr
Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup:

Annual Status Report (Eleventh Edition)
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
NOTICE ............................................................................................................................. v
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ..................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................... vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. ES-1
OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1
What Treatment Technologies are Addressed in This Report? .................... 1
Sources of Information for This Report ............................................................ 3
ASR Online Components ....................................................................................... 3
Definitions of Specific Treatment Technologies .............................................. 4
Source Control Treatment Technologies ........................................................... 4
In Situ Groundwater Treatment Technologies ................................................... 7
Pump and Treat Technologies ............................................................................ 7
Monitored Natural Attenuation for Groundwater ............................................. 8
In Situ Groundwater Containment ...................................................................... 8
SECTION 1: OVERVIEW OF RODs ................................................................................. 9
RODs Signed by Fiscal Year ................................................................................. 10
Superfund Remediation Progress .................................................................... 11
SECTION 2: TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR SOURCE CONTROL ....................... 14
Source Control RODs ........................................................................................... 14
In Situ Versus Ex Situ Technologies .................................................................. 14
Status of Source Control Treatment Projects ............................................... 18
Time Between ROD Signature and Project Completion ............................... 20
Innovative Applications ....................................................................................... 20
Innovative Treatment Trains .............................................................................. 22
Contaminants Addressed ................................................................................... 24
Quantity of Soil Treated ....................................................................................... 25
Treatment Trains and Their Effect on Quantity of Soil Treated .................. 27
Cumulative Soil Treatment Volumes ................................................................ 27
Remedy Changes .................................................................................................. 27
SECTION 3: GROUNDWATER REMEDIES .................................................................... 30
Groundwater Sites ................................................................................................ 30
Groundwater RODs ............................................................................................... 32
Selection of Groundwater Remedies ............................................................... 32
In Situ Groundwater Treatment Technologies ............................................... 35
Status of In Situ Groundwater Projects ........................................................... 37
Groundwater Pump and Treat ........................................................................... 39
i
Table of Contents
Status of Groundwater Pump and Treat Projects .......................................... 40

Pump and Treat Data Sources .......................................................................... 40
Contaminants Treated by Pump and Treat ..................................................... 40
Aboveground Components of Pump and Treat Projects ............................... 41
Pump and Treat Remedy Changes ................................................................... 42
Pump and Treat Remedy Optimization ............................................................ 42
Vertical Engineered Barriers .............................................................................. 42
SECTION 4: REPORT FOCUS AREAS: CHEMICAL TREATMENT AND
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION ................................................................................... 44
Chemical Treatment ............................................................................................. 44
Construction Completion ................................................................................... 48
SECTION 5: REFERENCES AND DATA SOURCES....................................................... 50
APPENDIX A - SUPERFUND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES BY FISCAL YEAR

APPENDIX B - SUPERFUND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY MATRIX
APPENDIX C - TREATMENT TRAINS WITH INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
APPENDIX D - TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES: SUMMARY OF STATUS REPORT UPDATES,
CHANGES, DELETIONS
APPENDIX E - SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTION RODS: RODs SELECTING NATURAL
ATTENUATION
APPENDIX F - IDENTIFICATION OF REMEDY AND RECORD OF DECISION TYPES FOR
SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
APPENDIX G - REASONS FOR SHUT DOWN OF 63 GROUNDWATER PUMP AND TREAT
SYSTEMS
INDEX
Boxes
Box 1. New in the Eleventh Edition ....................................................................................... 1
Box 2. ROD Selecting Multiple Remedy Types ..................................................................... 1
Box 3. Summary of Remedy Types ....................................................................................... 2
Box 4. Information in ASR Search System ............................................................................ 3
Box 5. Source Control Remedy Change .............................................................................. 9
Box 6. Definition of Completed Project ............................................................................. 12
Box 7. Innovative Source Control Treatment.................................................................... 21
Box 8. Site with Multiple Groundwater Remedies ........................................................... 31
Box 9. In Situ Groundwater Chemical Treatment ............................................................. 47
ii
Table of Contents
Figures
Figure 1. Superfund Remedial Actions: Actual Remedy Types at Sites on the
National Priorities List (FY 1982 - 2002) ......................................................... 10
Figure 2. Superfund Remedial Actions: RODs Selecting Groundwater and
Source Control Remedies (FY 1982 - 2002) ................................................... 11
Figure 3. Superfund Remedial Actions: Percentages of Completed Source
Control and Groundwater Treatment Projects by Remedy Type
(FY 1982 - 2002) ................................................................................................... 12
Figure 4. Superfund Remedial Actions: Number of Projects Completed by
Technology (FY 1982 - 2002) ............................................................................. 13
Figure 5. Superfund Remedial Actions: Source Control RODs (FY 1982 - 2002) .... 15
Figure 6. Superfund Remedial Actions: Trends in Types of Source
Control RODs (FY 1982 - 2002) ......................................................................... 15
Figure 7. Superfund Remedial Actions: Source Control Treatment Projects
(FY 1982 - 2002) ................................................................................................... 16
Figure 8. Superfund Remedial Actions: Source Control Treatment Projects
Selected in FY 2000, 2001, and 2002 ................................................................ 17
Figure 9. Superfund Remedial Actions: In Situ Technologies for Source
Control (FY 1985 - 2002) .................................................................................... 17
Figure 10. Superfund Remedial Actions: Status of In Situ and Ex Situ Source
Control Treatment Projects Comparison Between Tenth and
Eleventh Editions of the ASR (FY 1982 - 2002) ............................................. 18
Figure 11. Superfund Remedial Actions: Innovative Applications of
Source Control Treatment Technologies (FY 1982 - 2002) ........................ 21
Figure 12. Superfund Remedial Actions: Established and Innovative Projects
(FY 1982 - 2002) ................................................................................................... 22
Figure 13. Superfund Remedial Actions: Treatment Trains with Innovative
Treatment Technologies (FY 1982 - 2002) ..................................................... 23
Figure 14. Superfund Remedial Actions: Box-and-Whiskers Plot of Cubic
Yards of Soil Treated (FY 1982 - 2002) ............................................................ 26
Figure 15. Superfund Remedial Actions: Percentage of Soil Treated by
Technology Type (FY 1982 - 2002) ................................................................... 28
Figure 16. Superfund Remedial Actions: Sites with P&T, In Situ Treatment, or
MNA Selected as Part of a Groundwater Remedy (FY 1982 - 2002) ......... 31
Figure 17. Superfund Remedial Actions: RODs Selecting Groundwater
Remedies (FY 1982 - 2002) ................................................................................ 32
Figure 18. Superfund Remedial Actions: Trends in Groundwater Remedy
Selection (FY 1986 - 2002) ................................................................................. 33
Figure 19. Superfund Remedial Actions: Trends in the Selection of Pump
and Treat (FY 1986 - 2002)................................................................................. 33
Figure 20. Superfund Remedial Actions: Trends in the Selection of In Situ
Treatment for Groundwater (FY 1986 - 2002) .............................................. 34
Figure 21. Superfund Remedial Actions: Trends in the Selection of MNA
(FY 1986 - 2002) ................................................................................................... 35
Figure 22. Superfund Remedial Actions: Cumulative Trends for Most
Common In Situ Groundwater Technologies (FY 1988 - 2002) ................. 36
iii
Table of Contents
Figure 23. Superfund Remedial Actions: Contaminants Treated by In Situ
Groundwater Technologies (FY 1982 - 2002) ................................................ 37
Figure 24. Superfund Remedial Actions: Status of In Situ Groundwater
Treatment Projects (FY 1982 - 2002) .............................................................. 38
Figure 25. Superfund Remedial Actions: Status of Groundwater Pump and
Treat Projects (FY 1982 - 2002) ....................................................................... 40
Figure 26. Superfund Remedial Actions: Contaminants Treated by Pump and
Treat Systems (FY 1982 - 1997) ........................................................................ 41
Figure 27. Superfund Remedial Actions: Above Ground Components of
Groundwater Pump and Treat Projects (FY 1982 - 2000) .......................... 41
Figure 28. Superfund Remedial Actions: Trend in the Number of Chemical
Treatment Projects (FY 1985 - 2002) .............................................................. 45
Figure 29. Superfund Remedial Actions: Most Commonly Treated
Contaminants for Chemical Treatment Projects (FY 1982 - 2002) .......... 48
Figure 30. Superfund Remedial Actions: Technologies Being Used at Sites
That Have Achieved Construction Complete Status (FY 1983 - 2000) ..... 49
Tables
Table 1. Superfund Remedial Actions: Actual Remedy Types at National
Priorities List Sites (FY 1982 - 2002) ............................................................... 14
Table 2. Superfund Remedial Actions: Status of Source Control Treatment
Projects by Technology (FY 1982 - 2002) ....................................................... 19
Table 3. Superfund Remedial Actions: Average Number of Years from ROD
Signature until Project Completion (FY 1982 - 2002) ................................. 20
Table 4. Superfund Remedial Actions: Contaminants Treated by Source
Control Technologies (FY 1982 - 2002) .......................................................... 24
Table 5. Superfund Remedial Actions: Estimated Quantities of Soil Treated
by Source Control Technologies (FY 1982 - 2002) ....................................... 25
Table 6. Superfund Remedial Actions: Number of Most Commonly
Changed Technologies (FY 1982 - 2002) ........................................................ 29
Table 7. Superfund Remedial Actions: Actual Remedy Types at National
Priorities List Sites (FY 1982 - 2002) ............................................................... 30
Table 8. Superfund Remedial Actions: In Situ Groundwater Treatment
Projects Selected in FY 2000, 2001, and 2002 ................................................ 36
Table 9. Superfund Remedial Actions: Status of In Situ Groundwater
Treatment Projects by Technology (FY 1982 - 2002) .................................. 39
Table 10. Superfund Remedial Actions: Groundwater Volumes Being
Treated Using Pump and Treat Technologies (FY 1982 - 1997) ................ 42
Table 11. Superfund Remedial Actions: Types of Vertical Engineered
Barriers at 49 Sites Selecting This Technology (FY 1982 - 2002) ............... 43
Table 12. Superfund Remedial Actions: In Situ Chemical Treatment Projects
(FY 1982 - 2002) ................................................................................................... 45
Table 13. Superfund Remedial Actions: Status of Close-out
Reports at National Priorities List Sites (FY 1983 - 2002) .......................... 49
iv
Notice: Treatment Technologies Annual Status Report
A portable document format (PDF) version of the
Notice ASR is available for viewing or downloading from
Preparation of this report has been funded wholly the Hazardous Waste Cleanup Information (CLU-
or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection IN) web site at http://clu-in.org/asr. Printed copies
Agency (EPA) under contract number 68-W-02- of the ASR can also be ordered through that web
034. Mention of trade names or commercial address, subject to availability.
products does not constitute endorsement or
The data for the ASR are available in a searchable
recommendation for use. A limited number of
on-line database (the ASR Search System) at
printed copies of Treatment Technologies for Site
http://cfpub.epa.gov/asr/. In addition, the data
Cleanup: Annual Status Report (ASR), Eleventh
for the ASR have been incorporated into EPA’s
Edition is available free of charge by mail or by
REmediation And CHaracterization Innovative
facsimile from:
Technologies (EPA REACH IT) on-line searchable
U.S. EPA/National Service Center for database at http://www.epareachit.org.
Environmental Publications (NSCEP)
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419
Telephone: (513) 489-8190 or (800) 490-9198
Fax: (513) 489-8695
v
Acknowledgment: Treatment Technologies Annual Status Report
Acknowledgment
This document was prepared for EPA’s Technology
Innovation Program under contract number 68-
W-02-034. Special acknowledgment is given to the
federal and state staffs and other remediation
professionals for individual sites, for providing the
detailed information presented in this document.
Their cooperation and willingness to share their
expertise on treatment technologies encourages the
application of those technologies at other sites.
vi
List of Acronyms: Treatment Technologies Annual Status Report
OB Open burn
List of Acronyms
OD Open detonation
ASR Annual Status Report
OSC On-Scene Coordinator
BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and
OSRTI Office of Superfund Remediation
xylene
and Technology Innovation
CCL Construction Completion List
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Emergency Response
Response, Compensation, and
OU Operable unit
Liability Act
P&T Pump and treat
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Liability Information System PCB Polychlorinated biphenyls
CLU-IN EPA’s CLeanUp INformation system PCE Tetrachloroethene
COR Close-out report PCOR Preliminary close-out report
cy Cubic yard PDF Portable document format
DCA Dichloroethane PRB Permeable reactive barrier
DCE Dichloroethene REACH IT EPA’s REmediation And
DNAPL Dense nonaqueous-phase liquid CHaracterization Innovative
Technologies on-line searchable
DRE Destruction and removal efficiency
database
EOU Excess, obsolete, or unserviceable
ROD Record of Decision
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection
RPM Remedial Project Manager
Agency
RSE Remediation System Evaluation
ESD Explanation of significant differences
S/S Solidification/stabilization
FCOR Final close-out report
SARA Superfund Amendments and
FRTR Federal Remediation Technologies
Reauthorization Act
Roundtable
SVE Soil vapor extraction
FY Fiscal year
SVOC Semivolatile organic compound
GW Groundwater
TCA Trichloroethane
LNAPL Light nonaqueous-phase liquid
TCE Trichloroethene
MNA Monitored natural attenuation
UV Ultraviolet
NA/NFA No action/no further action
VC Vinyl chloride
NAPL Nonaqueous-phase liquid
VEB Vertical engineered barrier
NPL National Priorities List
VOC Volatile organic compound
NSCEP National Service Center for
Environmental Publications
vii
Executive Summary: Treatment Technologies Annual Status Report
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Executive Summary Major Findings

This report documents the status and Overall use of treatment at Superfund
achievements, as of March 2003, of treatment remedial action sites:
technology applications for soil, other solid wastes, • At almost two-thirds (62%) of sites on the
and groundwater at Superfund sites. The data in National Priorities List (NPL), the remedy
this report were gathered from Superfund Records already implemented or currently planned
of Decision (ROD) from fiscal year (FY) 1982 - includes treatment of a source or groundwater
2002, Close-out Reports (COR) from FY 1983 - (including groundwater P&T remedies).
2002, and project managers at Superfund remedial • The complexity of RODs has been increasing.
action sites. The report examines: The proportion of RODs addressing both soil
• in situ and ex situ treatment technologies for and groundwater contamination has increased
sources (e.g., soil, sludge, sediment, other solid- from 20% in FY 1997 to 56% in FY 2002.
matrix wastes, and non-aqueous phase liquids • Of the 2,610 RODs and ROD amendments
[NAPL]). signed from FY 1982 - 2002, 1,505 (58%)
• in situ and ex situ (pump and treat [P&T]) included treatment remedies.
groundwater treatment technologies.
Use of treatment for source control:
• vertical engineered barriers (VEB).
• The percentage of RODs selecting source control
• the selection of monitored natural attenuation
treatment as a remedy increased from 40% in
(MNA) remedies for groundwater.
FY 2000 to 52% in FY 2002 (about 70% of FY
This edition of the Annual Status Report (ASR) 2002 RODs were available for this report).
provides a summary of the 1,811 technology • In situ technologies make up 42% of all source
applications identified for Superfund remedial control treatments at Superfund remedial action
actions. The Tenth Edition of the ASR included sites. Since the inception of the Superfund
information on 934 technologies from RODs from program in FY 1982, the use of in situ source
FY 1982 -1999. control treatments at these sites has been
• This report adds information from FY 2000, increasing to the current level of 45% in FY 2002.
2001, and approximately 70% of 2002 RODs. • In situ soil vapor extraction (SVE) is the most
• For the first time, this report includes detailed frequently used source control treatment
information regarding 743 groundwater P&T technology (25% of source control projects),
projects. followed by ex situ solidification/stabilization
• For the most frequently selected technologies (18%) and off-site incineration (12%).
in the Superfund remedial program, the report • The percentage of completed source control
analyzes selection trends over time, contaminant treatment projects increased from 47% in FY
groups treated, quantities of soil and 2000 to 54% in FY 2002.
groundwater treated, and the status of project • Innovative applications account for 21% of all
implementation. source control treatments. Bioremediation is
• The report also focuses on the achievements the most commonly applied innovative
made at Superfund remedial action sites technology, representing about half of innovative
through the application of treatment applications for source control treatment.
technologies, including an analysis of the • Approximately 75% of the source control
numbers and types of completed technology treatment projects address organic
applications. contaminants. Just over 25% address metal or
• In addition, more detailed information is metalloid contaminants. Some of these projects
provided on the application of chemical address both organics and metals.
treatment, one of several innovative • Since FY 1982, nearly three times as much
technologies whose use has been increasing in contaminated soil has undergone remediation
recent years, particularly for the in situ by in situ treatment (40 million cubic yards
treatment of dense nonaqueous-phase liquids [cy]) than by ex situ treatment (13 million cy).
(DNAPL), which historically have been Approximately 42% (24 million cy) of the total
difficult to treat. volume of soil undergoing treatment is being
treated by in situ SVE.
ES-1
Executive Summary: Treatment Technologies Annual Status Report
Use of treatment and MNA for groundwater: volatile organic compounds (VOC),
• Groundwater treatment was part of the remedy nonchlorinated VOCs, metals, and metalloids.
at 71% of Superfund sites that selected a • More than half of P&T systems use air stripping
groundwater remedy. as a treatment technology. Other commonly
• The percentage of groundwater RODs selecting used technologies include activated carbon
in situ treatment as a remedy increased from adsorption, filtration, and metals precipitation.
none in FY 1986 to 24% in FY 2002. • Most P&T projects (52%) are operational.
• At 51% of NPL sites, a groundwater treatment Sites achieving construction completion
remedy (including in situ groundwater status:
treatment and P&T) is currently planned or
already being implemented. • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has prepared CORs for more than half (57%)
• For all remedies selected from FY 1982 - 2001, of all NPL sites. CORs are prepared for sites
P&T was the most frequently selected
when (1) any necessary physical construction
groundwater remedy, followed by MNA and is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels
in situ treatment. or other requirements have been achieved; or
• The percentage of RODs selecting only MNA (2) EPA has determined that the response
as a remedy for groundwater rose from 6% in action should be limited to measures that do
FY 1986, when MNA was first selected without not involve construction; or (3) the site qualifies
another groundwater treatment remedy, to a for deletion from the NPL.
peak of 32% in FY 1998. However, this
• The most common technologies used at sites
percentage decreased to 4% in FY 2002.
for which CORs have been prepared are P&T
• The contaminants most commonly treated by (32%), SVE (9%), and incineration (9%).
groundwater P&T systems were chlorinated
ES-2
Overview: Treatment Technologies Annual Status Report
control” RODs select “source control technologies.”
Overview Groundwater remedial action, also known as “a
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ non-source control action,” may be a component
Introduction of the “source control” ROD and the treatment
The Eleventh Edition of the Annual Status Report technologies chosen for groundwater remediation
(ASR) updates and expands information provided are referred to as “groundwater technologies.”
in the Tenth Edition (February 2001) report. Appendix F to this document is a detailed
Updated data have been included from the description of the methodology used to identify
following sources: ROD types, including detailed definitions of
“source control,” “groundwater technologies,” and
• Fiscal year (FY) 2000 Records of Decision
other remedy types. An example of a ROD
(ROD)
selecting both source control and groundwater
• FY 2001 RODs treatment remedies is summarized in Box 2.
• FY 2002 RODs available in March of 2003
(an estimated 70% of the total number of FY BOX 2. ROD SELECTING MULTIPLE
2002 RODs that are expected to be signed) REMEDY TYPES
• Close-out Reports (COR) from FY 1983 - 2002
A Record of Decision (ROD) issued for the
In addition, the scope of the report has been Alaric Inc. site contains both source
expanded to include groundwater pump and treat control and groundwater remedies for the
(P&T). Information is included on 743 P&T 1.7-acre site in Tampa, Florida. The
applications selected in RODs from FY 1982 - 2002. contamination was the result of degreasing
A list of sites and an analysis of 1,811 applications of and steam-cleaning processes that used
treatment and groundwater containment technologies chlorinated solvents. Tetrachloroethene
under remedial actions are also provided. (PCE) and trichloroethene (TCE) have been
Information has been added about 127 applications identified in two areas of the soil.
of treatment technologies selected by RODs in FY Groundwater contamination is also
2000, 75 selected in 2001, and 70 selected in 2002. present.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) An interim ROD was issued in July 2002 for
uses RODs to compile baseline information about remedial action at this site. The ROD
Superfund remedial actions. At the time of this specified both source control and
report’s publication, only about 70% of RODs from groundwater treatment remedies. The
FY 2002 were available. Therefore, this report does treatment portion of the source control
not include information for all of the RODs remedy is in situ chemical treatment. The
anticipated for FY 2002. groundwater treatment remedy consists of
groundwater P&T with air stripping and
BOX 1. NEW IN THE ELEVENTH EDITION carbon adsorption. Long-term
groundwater monitoring was also selected
● Information from Close-Out Reports as part of the groundwater remedy.
(COR) regarding the construction
achievements at Superfund sites and
implementation status of treatment For Superfund remedial actions, the ASR
technologies. documents and tracks the use of both in situ and
ex situ treatment for source control and
● Analysis of 743 Superfund pump and groundwater, as well as groundwater monitored
treat (P&T) projects. natural attenuation (MNA) remedies, and
● A detailed look at an innovative groundwater containment using vertical engineered
treatment technology, chemical barriers (VEB).
treatment, and construction completion The methodology used to determine ROD and
at Superfund sites.
remedy types has evolved over time. As new
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ technologies are developed and innovative
What Treatment Technologies are techniques for site remediation are implemented,
Addressed in This Report? the number of types of remedies has expanded.
The methodology and definitions provided in
Most RODs for remedial actions address the
Appendix F were used to classify remedies selected
source of contamination, such as soil, sludge,
in RODs from FY 1982 - 2002.
sediments, and solid-matrix wastes; such “source
1
The term “treatment technology” means any unit wastes without treatment (March 8, 1990 Federal
operation or series of unit operations that alters Register [55 FR 8819], see 40 CFR 300.5
the composition of a hazardous substance or “Definitions”).
pollutant or contaminant through chemical, Established treatment technologies are those for
biological, or physical means so as to reduce which cost and performance information is readily
toxicity, mobility, or volume of the contaminated available. The most frequently used established
materials being treated. Treatment technologies technologies are on- and off-site incineration,
are an alternative to land disposal of hazardous
BOX 3. SUMMARY OF REMEDY TYPES

SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY TYPES*
Source Control Treatment
● Treatment of a contaminant source in situ or ex situ.
● Can include any of the source control treatment technologies described in this report,
such as chemical treatment and thermal desorption.
Source Control Containment
● Containment of a contaminant source.
● Can include the use of caps, liners, covers, and landfilling both on- and off-site.
Source Control Other
● Other remedies for contaminant sources.
● Can include institutional controls, monitoring, and population relocation.
GROUNDWATER REMEDY TYPES*

Pump and Treat (P&T)
● Extraction of groundwater from an aquifer and treatment aboveground.
● Extraction usually is conducted by pumping groundwater from a well or trench.

● Treatment can include any of the P&T technologies described in this report, such as air
stripping and ion exchange.
In Situ Treatment
● Treatment of groundwater in place without extracting it from an aquifer.
● Can include any of the in situ groundwater treatment technologies described in this
report, such as air sparging and permeable reactive barriers.
Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)
● The reliance on natural attenuation processes (within the context of a carefully controlled
and monitored approach to site cleanup) to achieve site-specific remediation objectives
within a time frame that is reasonable compared to other alternatives.
● Natural attenuation processes include a variety of physical, chemical, and biological
processes.
Groundwater Containment
● Containment of groundwater through the use of a vertical, engineered, subsurface,
impermeable barrier.
● Containment of groundwater through a hydraulic barrier created by pumping.
Groundwater Other
● Groundwater remedies that do not fall into the categories of groundwater P&T, in situ
treatment, MNA, or containment remedies.
● Can include a variety of remedies, such as water use restrictions and alternate water supply.
* - See Appendix F-2 for further definitions of Source Control Remedies and F-6 for Groundwater Remedies.
2
solidification/stabilization (S/S), soil vapor in the CERCLIS database. The CERCLIS
extraction (SVE), thermal desorption, and P&T database includes information from RODs, ROD
technologies for groundwater. Treatment of amendments, and explanations of significant
groundwater after it has been pumped to the differences (ESDs). This document also includes
surface usually involves traditional water treatment; additional information gathered from other
as such, P&T groundwater remedies are sources, including CORs and contacts with RPMs.
considered to be established technologies.
Innovative treatment technologies are alternative BOX 4. INFORMATION IN ASR SEARCH
treatment technologies with a limited number of SYSTEM
applications and limited data on cost and Site Information
performance. Often, these technologies are established ● Site name and location (city and state)
in other fields, such as chemical manufacturing or ● CERCLIS ID
hazardous waste treatment. In such cases, it is the
● Description
application of a technology or process at a waste site
(to soils, sediments, sludge, and solid-matrix waste Project-Specific Information
[such as mining slag] or groundwater) that is ● Operable unit name
innovative, not the technology itself. Innovative ● Cleanup type

technologies for source control are discussed in Section ● ROD date
2 and those for the in situ treatment of groundwater
are discussed in Section 3. ● Lead agency/funding information
Both innovative and established technologies are Contact Information

● Contact name and affiliation
grouped as source control treatment or in situ
groundwater treatment technologies on the basis ● Address, phone number, and e-mail
of the type of application most commonly Technology Information
associated with the technology. Some technologies ● Technology and type (in situ or ex situ)
may be used for both source control and in situ ● Description of technology
groundwater treatment. These technologies and
their respective groupings are listed in Appendix F. ● Treatment of residuals, if applicable
● Details (such as type of additives)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Sources of Information for This ● Indicate whether part of a treatment train

Report Media and Quantity Information
● Media and quantity
EPA verifies and updates the draft information
obtained from the RODs through interviews with Contaminant Information
Remedial Project Managers (RPMs), On-Scene ● Contaminants treated
Coordinators (OSCs), and other contacts for each ● Contaminants not treated
site, along with information from the
Status Information
Comprehensive Environmental Response, ● Status
Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS), EPA’s Superfund tracking system. For ● Date began operation
this edition of the ASR, project information and ● Date completion is planned
status were also updated using information from Completed Project Information
Superfund CORs. CORs provide information on ● Cost
the construction achievements at Superfund sites
● Contaminant concentrations before and
and the implementation status of many after treatment
technologies tracked in the ASR. For more ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
information regarding CORs, see Section 4. The ASR Online Components

information collected from these sources is stored
To allow users of the ASR access to additional
and maintained in the ASR Search System. Box 4
information, EPA maintains several resources
summarizes the types of information included in
online, including:
the ASR Search System.
• Downloadable Spreadsheets - For Tables 1, 2,
Information about technologies and sites identified
7, and 9, and Figure 25 of this report, EPA
in this report may differ from information found
prepared spreadsheets listing the specific sites
3
names, locations, CERCLIS ID numbers, and Source Control Treatment Technologies
types of remedies selected in RODs for those BIOREMEDIATION uses microorganisms to
sites. These spreadsheets can be downloaded degrade organic contaminants in soil, sludge,
from http://clu-in.org/asr. solids, and groundwater either in situ or ex situ.
• Appendices to the ASR - Appendices B, C, It can also be used to make metals or metalloids
D, and E have expanded over time, and are less toxic or mobile. When treating organic
not available in the printed version of this contaminants, the microorganisms break down
report. These appendices are available on- contaminants by using them as a food source or
line at http://clu-in.org/asr. cometabolizing them with a food source.
• ASR Search System - EPA created a searchable, Aerobic processes require an oxygen source, and
on-line system to allow access to the data that the end-products typically are carbon dioxide
form the basis for this report. See Box 4 for a and water. Anaerobic processes are conducted
list of the types of information available from in the absence of oxygen, and the end-products
the ASR Search System. This system is available can include methane, hydrogen gas, sulfide,
at http://cfpub.epa.gov/asr/. elemental sulfur, and dinitrogen gas. Ex situ
• EPA REACH IT - The ASR data are also bioremediation technologies for groundwater
available on EPA REACH IT. This system, typically involve treating extracted groundwater
sponsored by EPA’s Technology Innovation in a bioreactor or constructed wetland. In situ
Program, lets environmental professionals use techniques stimulate and create a favorable
the power of the Internet to search, view, environment for microorganisms to grow and
download, and print information about use contaminants as a food and energy source,
innovative remediation and characterization or to cometabolize them. Generally, this process
technologies. EPA REACH IT provides involves providing some combination of oxygen,
information on more than 350 vendors offering nutrients, and moisture, and controlling the
350 remediation and nearly 200 site temperature and pH. Microorganisms that have
characterization technologies. EPA REACH been adapted for degradation of specific
IT fosters communication between technology contaminants are sometimes applied to enhance
vendors and users by providing information the process. For the treatment of metals and
about the availability, performance, and cost metalloids, it involves biological activity that
associated with the application of treatment and promotes the formation of less toxic or mobile
characterization technologies. EPA REACH species, by either creating ambient conditions
IT is available at http://www.epareachit.org. that will cause such species to form, or acting
directly on the contaminant. The treatment may
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
result in oxidation, reduction, precipitation,
Definitions of Specific Treatment coprecipitation, or another transformation of
Technologies the contaminant.
This section provides definitions of 17 types of CHEMICAL TREATMENT, also known as
source control (primarily soil) treatment chemical reduction/oxidation, typically involves
technologies, 10 types of in situ groundwater reduction/oxidation (redox) reactions that
treatment technologies, 8 types of groundwater chemically convert hazardous contaminants to
P&T technologies, and 1 groundwater containment compounds that are nonhazardous, less toxic,
technology. Technologies that are applicable to more stable, less mobile, or inert. Redox
both source control and groundwater treatment reactions involve the transfer of electrons from
are described only once under the source control one compound to another. Specifically, one
treatment section. For P&T technologies, the reactant is oxidized (loses electrons) and one is
descriptions focus on the treatment portion of the reduced (gains electrons). The oxidizing agents
technology. Groundwater pumping technologies used for treatment of hazardous contaminants
are not addressed in this report. Definitions are in soil include ozone, hydrogen peroxide,
based on the Remediation Technologies Screening hypochlorites, potassium permanganate,
Matrix and Reference Guide, Version 4.0, which Fenton’s reagent (hydrogen peroxide and iron),
can be viewed at the Federal Remediation chlorine, and chlorine dioxide. This method
Technologies Roundtable (FRTR) web site at http:/ may be applied in situ or ex situ to soils, sludges,
/www.frtr.gov. Sketches for some of the newer sediments, and other solids, and may also be
innovative treatment technologies are provided. applied to groundwater in situ or ex situ (P&T).
4
a a
P&T chemical treatment may also include the
use of ultraviolet (UV) light in a process known
as UV oxidation.
MODEL OF IN SITU CHEMICAL TREATMENT

SYSTEM FOR DNAPLS
ELECTROKINETICS is based on the theory that

a low-density current will mobilize contaminants
in the form of charged species. A current passed
between electrodes is intended to cause aqueous
media, ions, and particulates to move through the
soil, waste, and water. Contaminants arriving at
the electrodes can be removed by means of
electroplating or electrodeposition, precipitation
or coprecipitation, adsorption, complexing with
ion exchange resins, or by the pumping of water
(or other fluid) near the electrode.
For FLUSHING, a solution of water, surfactants,
or cosolvents is applied to the soil or injected into
the subsurface to treat contaminated soil or
groundwater. When treating soil, the injection is
often designed to raise the water table into the
contaminated soil zone. Injected water and
treatment agents are recovered together with
flushed contaminants.
Both on-site and off-site INCINERATION use
high temperatures (870 to 1,200°C or 1,600 to
2,200°F) to volatilize and combust (in the presence
of oxygen) organics in hazardous wastes. Auxiliary
fuels are often employed to initiate and sustain
combustion. The destruction and removal
efficiency (DRE) for properly operated incinerators
exceeds the 99.99% requirement for hazardous
waste and can be operated to meet the 99.9999%
5
requirement for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)
and dioxins. Off-gases and combustion residuals
generally require treatment. On-site incineration
typically uses a transportable unit; for off-site
incineration, waste is transported to a central
facility.
MECHANICAL SOIL AERATION agitates
contaminated soil, using tilling or other means to
volatilize contaminants.
MULTI-PHASE EXTRACTION uses a vacuum
system to remove various combinations of
contaminated groundwater, separate-phase
petroleum product, and vapors from the
subsurface. The system typically lowers the water
table around the well, exposing more of the
formation. Contaminants in the newly exposed
vadose zone are then accessible to vapor extraction.
Once above ground, the extracted vapors or liquid-
phase organics and groundwater are separated and
treated.
NEUTRALIZATION is a chemical reaction
between an acid and a base. The reaction involves
acidic or caustic wastes that are neutralized (pH
is adjusted toward 7.0) using caustic or acid
additives.
OPEN BURN (OB) and OPEN DETONATION
(OD) operations are conducted to destroy excess,
obsolete, or unserviceable (EOU) munitions and
energetic materials. In OB operations, energetics
or munitions are destroyed by self-sustained
combustion, which is ignited by an external source,
such as a flame, heat, or a detonation wave. In
OD operations, explosives and munitions are
destroyed by detonation, which generally is
initiated by an energetic charge.
PHYSICAL SEPARATION processes use physical
properties to separate contaminated and
uncontaminated media, or separate different types
of media. For example, different-sized sieves and
screens can be used to separate contaminated soil
from relatively uncontaminated debris. Another
application of physical separation is the dewatering
of sediments or sludge.
PHYTOREMEDIATION is a process that uses
plants to remove, transfer, stabilize, or destroy
contaminants in soil, sediment, or groundwater.
The mechanisms of phytoremediation include
enhanced rhizosphere biodegradation (takes place
in soil or groundwater immediately surrounding
plant roots), phytoextraction (also known as
phytoaccumulation, the uptake of contaminants
by plant roots and the translocation/accumulation
of contaminants into plant shoots and leaves),
phytodegradation (metabolism of contaminants organics to a gas treatment system, typically a
within plant tissues), and phytostabilization thermal oxidation or recovery system. Based on
(production of chemical compounds by plants to the operating temperature of the desorber,
immobilize contaminants at the interface of roots thermal desorption processes can be categorized
and soil). Phytoremediation applies to all into two groups: high temperature thermal
biological, chemical, and physical processes that desorption (320 to 560°C or 600 to 1000°F) and
are influenced by plants (including the rhizosphere) low temperature thermal desorption (90 to 320°C
and that aid in the cleanup of contaminated or 200 to 600°F). Thermal desorption is an ex
substances. Phytoremediation may be applied in situ treatment process. In situ thermal desorption
situ or ex situ to soils, sludges, sediments, other processes are discussed below as in situ thermal
solids, or groundwater. treatment.
SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION (SVE) is used to IN SITU THERMAL TREATMENT is a
remediate unsaturated (vadose) zone soil. A treatment process that uses heat to facilitate
vacuum is applied to the soil to induce the extraction through volatilization and other
controlled flow of air and remove volatile and some mechanisms or to destroy contaminants in situ.
semivolatile organic contaminants from the soil. Volatilized contaminants are typically removed
SVE usually is performed in situ; however, in some from the vadose zone using SVE. Specific types
cases, it can be used as an ex situ technology. of in situ thermal treatment techniques include
For SOIL WASHING, contaminants sorbed onto conductive heating, electrical resistive heating,
fine soil particles are separated from bulk soil in a radio frequency heating, hot air injection, hot
water-based system on the basis of particle size. water injection, and steam enhanced extraction.
The wash water may be augmented with a basic In situ thermal treatment is usually applied to a
leaching agent, surfactant, or chelating agent, or contaminated source area but may also be applied
by adjusting the pH to help remove contaminants. to a groundwater plume.
Soils and wash water are mixed ex situ in a tank or
other treatment unit. The wash water and various
soil fractions are usually separated using gravity MODEL OF AN IN SITU
settling. THERMAL TREATMENT SYSTEM
SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION (S/S)
reduces the mobility of hazardous substances and
contaminants in the environment through both
physical and chemical means. The S/S process
physically binds or encloses contaminants within
a stabilized mass. S/S is performed both ex situ
and in situ. Ex situ S/S requires excavation of the
material to be treated, and the resultant material
must be disposed. In situ S/S uses auger/caisson
systems and injector head systems to add binders
to the contaminated soil or waste without
excavation, leaving the resultant material in place.
SOLVENT EXTRACTION uses an organic VITRIFICATION uses an electric current to melt
solvent as an extractant to separate contaminants contaminated soil at elevated temperatures
from soil. The organic solvent is mixed with (1,600 to 2,000°C or 2,900 to 3,650°F). Upon
contaminated soil in an extraction unit. The cooling, the vitrification product is a chemically
extracted solution then is passed through a stable, leach-resistant, glass and crystalline
separator, where the contaminants and extractant material similar to obsidian or basalt rock. The
are separated from the soil. high temperature component of the process
For THERMAL DESORPTION, wastes are destroys or removes organic materials.
heated so that organic contaminants and water Radionuclides and heavy metals are retained
volatilize. Typically, a carrier gas or vacuum within the vitrified product. Vitrification may
system transports the volatilized water and be conducted in situ or ex situ.
6
In Situ Groundwater Treatment Technologies Pump and Treat Technologies (Ex situ
AIR SPARGING involves the injection of air or Treatment)
oxygen into a contaminated aquifer. Injected air In ADSORPTION, contaminants concentrate at
traverses horizontally and vertically in channels the surface of a sorbent, thereby reducing their
through the soil column, creating an underground concentration in the bulk liquid phase. This
stripper that removes volatile and semivolatile technology is typically applied by passing extracted
organic contaminants by volatilization. The groundwater through a column containing granular
injected air helps to flush the contaminants into adsorbent. The most common adsorbent is
the unsaturated zone. SVE usually is implemented granulated activated carbon. Other natural and
in conjunction with air sparging to remove the synthetic adsorbents include activated alumina,
generated vapor-phase contamination from the lignin adsorption, sorption clays, and synthetic
vadose zone. Oxygen added to the contaminated resins.
groundwater and vadose-zone soils also can AIR STRIPPING partitions volatile organics from
enhance biodegradation of contaminants below extracted groundwater by increasing the surface
and above the water table. area of the contaminated water exposed to air.
BIOREMEDIATION - See Source Control Aeration methods include packed towers, diffused
Treatment Technologies. aeration, tray aeration, and spray aeration.
CHEMICAL TREATMENT - See Source Control BIOREMEDIATION - See Source Control
Treatment Technologies. Treatment Technologies.
ELECTROKINETICS - See Source Control CHEMICAL TREATMENT - See Source Control
Treatment Technologies. Treatment Technologies.
FLUSHING - See Source Control Treatment FILTRATION is the physical process of
Technologies. mechanical separation based on particle size,
For IN-WELL AIR STRIPPING, air is injected whereby particles suspended in a fluid are
into a double-screened well, causing the volatile separated by forcing the fluid through a porous
organic compounds (VOC) in the contaminated medium. As fluid passes through the medium,
groundwater to transfer from the dissolved phase the suspended particles are trapped on the surface
to the vapor phase in air bubbles. As the air of the medium and/or within the body of the
bubbles rise to the surface of the water, the vapors medium.
are drawn off and treated by a SVE system. ION EXCHANGE removes ions from the
MULTI-PHASE EXTRACTION - See Source aqueous phase by the exchange of cations or anions
Control Treatment Technologies. between the contaminants and the exchange
medium. Ion exchange materials may consist of
PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIERS (PRB), resins made from synthetic organic materials that
also known as passive treatment walls, are installed contain ionic functional groups to which
across the flow path of a contaminated groundwater exchangeable ions are attached.
plume, allowing the water portion of the plume to
flow through the wall. These barriers allow the METALS PRECIPITATION transforms dissolved
passage of water while prohibiting the movement contaminants into an insoluble solid, facilitating
of contaminants by employing treatment agents the contaminant’s subsequent removal from the
within the wall such as zero-valent metals (usually liquid phase by sedimentation or filtration. The
zero-valent iron), chelators, sorbents, compost, and process usually uses pH adjustment, addition of a
microbes. The contaminants are either degraded chemical precipitant, and flocculation.
or retained in a concentrated form by the barrier MEMBRANE FILTRATION separates
material, which may need to be replaced contaminants from water by passing it through a
periodically. semipermeable barrier or membrane. The
PHYTOREMEDIATION - See Source Control membrane allows water and other low molecular
Treatment Technologies. weight chemicals to pass, while blocking
contaminants with a higher molecular weight.
IN SITU THERMAL TREATMENT - See Source Membrane filtration processes include
Control Treatment Technologies. microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, and
reverse osmosis.
7
a aMODEL OF A GROUNDWATER PUMP AND TREAT

AIR STRIPPING
Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) for

Groundwater
Groundwater MNA is the reliance on natural
attenuation processes (within the context of a
carefully controlled and monitored approach to
site cleanup) to achieve site-specific remediation
objectives within a time frame that is reasonable,
8
compared with that offered by other, more active
methods. The “natural attenuation processes”
include a variety of physical, chemical, or
biological processes that, under favorable
conditions, act without human intervention to
reduce the mass, toxicity, mobility, volume, or
concentration of contaminants in soil or
groundwater. These in situ processes include
biodegradation; dispersion; dilution; sorption;
volatilization; radioactive decay; and chemical or
biological stabilization, transformation, or
destruction of contaminants. Guidance on MNA
is available from the document “Use of Monitored
Natural Attenuation at Superfund, RCRA
Corrective Action, and Underground Storage Tank
Sites (OSWER Directive 9200.4-17P, EPA, April
21, 1999.”).
In Situ Groundwater Containment

VERTICAL ENGINEERED BARRIERS (VEB)
are subsurface barriers made of an impermeable
material designed to contain or divert groundwater.
VEBs can be used to contain contaminated
groundwater, divert uncontaminated groundwater
from a contaminated area, or divert contaminated
groundwater from a drinking water intake or other
protected resource.
Section 1: Overview of RODs
conducted during the design phase. Additional
Section 1: Overview of RODs contamination may be discovered at the site during
As of March 2003, a total of 1,499 sites have been the implementation of a remedy. A particular
listed on the National Priorities List (NPL). Of remedy may have been included in a ROD only as
these, 269 sites have been deleted leaving 1,230 a contingent remedy, with future site investigations
sites on the NPL. An additional 54 sites are revealing that implementation of that contingent
proposed for listing. Updated information on site remedy was not necessary. When significant and
listings and deletions is available at http:// fundamental changes are made to remedies selected
ww.epa.gov/superfund. Some sites may cover a in the ROD, the changes usually are documented
large area, include several types of contaminated in an ESD or ROD amendment. Box 5 describes
media, or include areas in which the types of a source control remedy that was changed through
contamination differ. To facilitate the a ROD amendment.
establishment of remedies at a complex site, the
site may be divided into operable units (OU), with
BOX 5. SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY CHANGE
separate remedies for each. Remedies for NPL
sites are documented in RODs. A separate ROD The source control remedy originally
may be developed for each OU. In addition, each selected for the Helena Chemical Company
OU may require a number of RODs to address Landfill Superfund Site was changed
different media within it, or to revise the selected through a ROD amendment. The Helena
remedy; therefore, each site may have multiple Chemical Company Landfill Superfund Site
is a 13.5 acre site where pesticides were
RODs.
formulated from the mid 1960’s through
From fiscal year (FY) 1982 - 2002 (including an 1971. The soil was contaminated with
estimated 70% of 2002 RODs), 2,610 RODs and halogenated organic pesticides, and
ROD amendments were signed. In order to permit groundwater with halogenated and
an analysis of remedies across the Superfund nonhalogenated volatile organic
program, EPA developed a remedy classification compounds as well as halogenated organic
system, which is described in Appendix F. pesticides. This site, located in Fairfax, SC,
Appendix F provides the definitions of the various is currently being operated as a retail sales
ROD types, such as source control treatment ROD outlet for agricultural chemicals.
or groundwater in situ treatment ROD, and the A 1993 ROD selected a treatment train of
methodology used to categorize each ROD. A dechlorination followed by bioremediation
ROD is assigned a type based on the remedies it as part of the remedy for contaminated soil.
contains. Each site is then assigned a type based However, treatability studies showed that
on the types of RODs issued for that site. For the dechlorination would not achieve
sites with multiple RODs, the hierarchy presented performance standards identified in the
in Appendix F is used to assign a site type. In ROD. A ROD amendment in 1995 changed
general, a ROD and site are placed in the treatment the source control technology from
dechlorination and bioremediation to off-site
category if any portion of the remedy includes
incineration. The incineration of 5,172 cy of
treatment.
pesticide-contaminated soil was completed
At almost two-thirds of NPL sites (62%), source in 1999. The groundwater remedy selected
control or groundwater treatment has been in the original ROD (1993) included P&T.
implemented or is planned as a remedy for some The P&T system became operational in
portion of the site. Treatment for both source control 1999 and is expected to treat approximately
and groundwater has been implemented or is planned 250 million gallons of groundwater during its
for 24% of sites. For 27% of sites, the selected anticipated 12 years of operation.
remedies do not include treatment. No ROD has
been issued for 11% of sites. Figure 1 summarizes Figure 1 reflects the current status of remedial actions
the number of NPL sites with each type of remedy. at NPL sites. The information used to develop Figure
The remedy selected in a ROD may not be the 1 reflects the remedies selected in RODs and the
remedy that is actually implemented at a site. remedies actually implemented or currently planned
Examples of where a different remedy may be used at those sites. Sources for the information include
include a treatment technology that was selected the RODs, ROD amendments, and ESDs published
in a ROD based on bench-scale treatability testing for each site, and contacts with RPMs to identify
that proves to be ineffective in pilot-scale tests the most current remedy selected for each site.
9
Figure 1: Superfund Remedial Actions: Actual Remedy Types
at Sites on the National Priorities List (NPL)
(FY 1982 - 2002)*
ROD = Record of Decision

* Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY 2002 RODs.
(a) NPL sites include current sites and former NPL sites that were deleted or removed from the NPL between FY 1982
and 2002.
Appendix F describes the methodology used to identify remedy types for each site.
Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11. Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 50.
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
RODs Signed by Fiscal Year • Both groundwater and source control remedies
Data from FY 1982 - 2002 RODs are included in • Only groundwater remedies
this report. The total number of RODs expected • NA/NFA remedies
for FY 2002 is 106 (about 70% of the FY 2002 The complexity of RODs has been increasing. The
RODs were available for this report). proportion of RODs addressing both soil and
As defined in Appendix F, RODs may select groundwater contamination has increased from
remedies for the source of contamination, such 20% in FY 1997 to 56% in FY 2002, an indication
as soil, sludge, sediments, nonaqueous-phase of the complexity of sites on the NPL still requiring
liquids (NAPL), leachate, and solid-matrix RODs. Although the number of RODs signed in
wastes; they are referred to as “source control” the last two years has dropped, the greatest decrease
RODs (see Box 3 on page 2). RODs may also has been in RODs addressing single media.
address a contaminated aquifer, and are known From FY 1988 - 2002, the percentage of RODs
as “groundwater” RODs. Because each ROD selecting a source remedy, either alone or in
may include multiple remedies for different combination with a groundwater remedy, ranged
media, some RODs contain remedies for both from a low of 58% in FY 1994 to a peak of 77% in
the source and groundwater. Other RODs FY 2002. The percentages provided are based on
indicate that no action or no further action (NA/ the number of RODs shown in Figure 2.
NFA) is necessary at a site, and are known as
NA/NFA RODs. The percentage of RODs selecting a groundwater
remedy, either alone or in combination with a
For each FY, Figure 2 shows the number of RODs source control remedy, peaked in FY 1991 at 64%.
selecting the following remedies: This percentage decreased to 35% in FY 1996
• Only source control remedies and has since risen again to 64% in FY 2001.
10
Figure 2: Superfund Remedial Actions: RODs Selecting
Groundwater and Source Control Remedies
(FY 1982 - 2002)*

* Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY 2002 RODs. A total of 106 RODs are anticipated for FY 2002.
Sources: 3, 4, 5, 7, 11. Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 50.
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Superfund Remediation Progress The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization

Information collected and analyzed for this report Act of 1986 (SARA) expressed a preference for
helps document the progress of remediation permanent remedies (that is, treatment) over
technologies implemented at Superfund sites. EPA containment or disposal in the remediation of
has developed a better picture of the contribution Superfund sites. Some 58% of all RODs analyzed
of remediation technologies to Superfund site for the ASR contained provisions for treatment.
cleanup by using additional data. The new data EPA currently tracks the status of 1,760 projects
include information from CORs and data on P&T for the application of treatment technologies at
projects. This report also focuses on data collection Superfund sites, including in situ and ex situ
efforts relating to technology status and treatment treatments for both source control and
accomplishments. This section presents an groundwater. These applications include 499 ex
overview of the progress of treatment technologies situ source control treatments (28% of all projects),
at Superfund remedial action sites. Additional 349 in situ source control treatments (20%), 743
information on this topic is presented in Section 4. P&T (42%), 154 in situ groundwater treatments
11
(9%), and 15 in situ source control and in situ systems. In many cases, this appears to be driven
groundwater treatments (1%). Of these projects, by a “treatment train” approach, where P&T is
546 have been completed or shut down (31%). supplemented by a different remedy such as in situ
Completed projects are those where the treatment treatment or MNA (see Box 6, Definition of
has been performed and is no longer ongoing. For Completed Project).
most source control and in situ groundwater Figure 3 shows the number and percentage for
treatment projects that are no longer ongoing, the each type of completed or shut down project at
technologies achieved their treatment goals. These Superfund remedial action sites. For treatment
projects are described as “completed” in this report. technologies, a total of 546 projects (31%) have
The term “completed” has not been used for P&T been completed or shut down and another 698
system projects that are no longer ongoing. (39%) are operational. Most of the completed
Preliminary data indicate that a significant projects are ex situ source control treatments
percentage might not have achieved their treatment
goals. These projects are provisionally described BOX 6. DEFINITION OF COMPLETED PROJECT
as “shut down” in this report. Appendix G lists the Project completion and construction
63 P&T projects that are shut down, and the reasons completion (CC) are different terms used in
that were identified for making that decision. defining progress in Superfund. The first
Information about the reason for shut down was refers to a specific project (ex: a soil vapor
not available for all P&T projects from the data extraction system that is shut down after
sources used for this report. EPA is currently reaching cleanup levels), whereas CC refers
conducting additional data gathering to better to construction of all remedies being
understand, across the Superfund Program, the achieved for an entire site (all remedy
construction is complete).
decisions that result in the shut down of P&T
Figure 3: Superfund Remedial Actions:

Percentages of Completed Source Control and
Groundwater Treatment Projects by Remedy Type (FY 1982 - 2002)*

12
(63%). Ex situ source control projects usually sources of groundwater contamination such as
involve the excavation of contaminated soil and DNAPLs. Additional information on groundwater
the application of an aggressive treatment projects is provided in Section 3.
technology in a controlled environment. Therefore, Figure 4 shows the number of completed and shut
this type of remedy typically requires a shorter down projects for the most commonly used
amount of time to complete. Additional technologies for ex situ source control, in situ
information on source control projects is presented source control, in situ groundwater, and P&T. For
in Section 2. In situ treatments are those that are ex situ source control treatments, nearly all
applied to contaminated media in place, without incineration projects have been completed.
excavation. These projects typically require longer Approximately 70% of the S/S and thermal
treatment times because they take place in a less desorption projects have been completed. For in
controlled environment, which may limit the situ source control treatments, approximately 70%
treatment rate. P&T projects, which represent of S/S projects have been completed, as compared
the largest number of projects (743), also typically to one-third of all SVE projects. Fewer in situ
require longer treatment times, and in fact groundwater projects have been completed as
represent only 11% of all completed and shut down compared to source control projects. However,
projects. The application of P&T is often limited these technologies tend to be innovative, and have
by environmental factors, including the rate at been selected in more recent RODs. For P&T,
which contaminated groundwater can be extracted 8% of projects have been shut down.
from an aquifer and the presence of continuing

Number of Projects Completed by Technology (FY 1982 - 2002)*

13
Section 2: Treatment Technologies for Source Control
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Section 2: Treatment Source Control RODs

Technologies for Source From FY 1988 - 2000, the total number of source
Control control RODs varied between 97 and 135,
Source control treatment technologies are designed decreasing to 59 in FY 2001. However, the
to treat soil, sediment, sludge, or solid-matrix wastes percentage of source control RODs signed in FY
(in other words, the source of contamination) and 2001 and 2002 (66% in FY 2001 and 77% in FY
are not designed to treat groundwater directly. Source 2002) remained similar to that of previous years.
control remedies can be delineated further by the Figure 5 shows the number of source control RODs
general type of remedy specified (see Box 3 or of each type. The information sources used for
Appendix F for more detail). Table 1 contains this report contained only an estimated 70% of
information about the remedy actually implemented RODs signed in FY 2002. Although information
or currently planned at sites addressing source on FY 2002 may change as more RODs become
contamination. At 70% of all NPL sites, a source available, this report includes FY 2002 ROD data
control remedy has been implemented or is currently for comparison purposes. Figure 6 shows the
planned. At over one-third (541) of sites, source percentage of source control RODs of each type
control treatment has been implemented or is planned for each FY.
as a remedy for some portion of the site. A similar As shown in Figure 6, from FY 1988 - 1993,
number of sites (576) has containment or off-site approximately 70% of source control RODs each
disposal of a source. Table 1 includes sites with more year contained provisions for treatment of wastes.
than one type of source control remedy in each From FY 1995 to 2001, the percentage mostly
applicable remedy category. Sites identified in Table decreased with a low of 39% in FY 1999.
1 as having a source control treatment remedy may However, it has recently increased to 52% in FY
also have groundwater remedies. Groundwater 2002. For most of the past 13 years (with the
technologies are discussed in Section 3. exception of FY 1997 and 2000), the percentage
Source Control Remedies of RODs including a source control treatment
remedy has equaled or exceeded the percentage
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDIES with only source control containment.
Treatment Containment Other Cumulatively, 50% of source control RODs are
of the type “treatment,” 43% “containment or
disposal,” and 6% “other source remedy.” From
Table 1. Superfund Remedial Actions: FY 1997 - 2002, the percentage of each type of
Actual Remedy Types at National source control remedy has remained relatively
Priorities List Sites (FY 1982 - 2002)*
constant, with approximate values of 40%
treatment, 40% containment, and 20% other.
Total Numbers of Sites with a From FY 1988 - 1996, the percentage of source
Source Control Remedy = 1,046 control treatment RODs was generally higher,
Remedy Type Number of ranging from 51% to 73%, while the percentage
Sites of containment and other source control remedies
Treatment of a Source 541 was generally lower.
Containment or Off-Site
Disposal of a Source 576 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Other Source Control 650 In Situ Versus Ex Situ Technologies

*Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY In situ technologies for source control are those
2002 RODs. applications in which the contaminated medium
Sites may be included in more than 1 category. is treated or the contaminant is removed without
Appendix F describes the methodology used to identify excavating, pumping, or otherwise moving the
remedy types for each site. contaminated medium to the surface.
Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11. Data sources are listed in Implementation of ex situ technologies requires
the References and Data Sources section on page 50. excavation, dredging, or other processes to remove
Download file containing source data for Table 1. the contaminated medium before treatment either
on site or off site.
Over FY 1982 - 2002, 863 treatment technologies
were selected for source control. Of these, 42%
14
Source Control RODs (FY 1982 - 2002)*


Trends in Types of Source Control RODs (FY 1982 - 2002)*

15
were in situ technologies and 58% were ex situ treatment projects (7 of 12) have been selected
technologies. Figure 7 provides a cumulative during the last three years. The increased use of
overview of in situ and ex situ treatment this technology is discussed in more detail in
technologies selected for source control. Section 4. Bioremediation and thermal desorption
As Figure 7 indicates, SVE (213 projects, 25%), also made up a significantly larger percentage of
bioremediation (48 projects, 6%), and S/S (48 projects in FY 2000 - 2002. Many of the more
projects, 6%) are the most common in situ common conventional technologies were selected
technologies, together making up 85% of all in with less frequency, including incineration (both
situ source control treatment projects. on- and off-site), S/S (both in and ex situ), and
SVE. The number of physical separation projects
The most common ex situ technologies are S/S increased primarily because the definition of the
(157 projects, 18%), incineration (147 projects, technology was expanded to include
17%), thermal desorption (69 projects, 8%), and decontamination of debris and dewatering of
bioremediation (54 projects, 6%). These sediments for this edition of the ASR.
technologies together represent 86% of ex situ
source control treatment projects. Figure 9 presents the number of in situ
technologies as a percentage of all treatment
Since the Tenth Edition of the ASR (ROD data technologies for source control by FY. As shown
through FY 1999), an additional 107 source in Figure 9, in situ treatment technologies display
control treatment projects have been selected. As an increasing trend as a percentage of all treatment
shown in Figure 8, in situ SVE and bioremediation technology projects between FY 1985 - 2002. The
and ex situ S/S, incineration, and thermal figure does not include FY 1982 through 1984
desorption are still the most frequently selected because too few RODs were signed during those
technologies. More than half of all in situ chemical years to develop accurate information about trends
Source Control Treatment Projects (FY 1982 - 2002)*

16
Figure 8: Superfund Remedial Actions: Source Control Treatment Projects
Selected in FY 2000, 2001, and 2002*


In Situ Technologies for Source Control (FY 1985 - 2002)*

17
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
in remedy selection. A 5-year moving average of
Status of Source Control Treatment
the percentage of in situ treatment technologies
shows a generally steady increase from 31% (FY
Projects
1985 - 1989) to 49% (FY 1998- 2002). The factors Figure 10 shows the status of in situ and ex situ
that may play a role in this upward trend include source control treatment projects, comparing the
the following: projects in the Tenth Edition of the ASR (data
collected through August 2000) with the Eleventh
• Because in situ technologies require no
Edition of the ASR (data collected through March
excavation, risk from exposure to contaminated
2003).
media is reduced, compared with levels of risk
associated with ex situ technologies that do Based on the data in Figure 10:
require excavation. • For in situ and ex situ source control projects,
• For large sites where excavation and materials- the number of completed projects increased
handling for ex situ technologies can be by 73% and 23%, respectively. This increase
expensive, in situ technologies are often more indicates that Superfund sites continue to make
cost-effective. progress in treating contaminant sources.
• As in situ treatment technologies are used more • The percentage of completed in situ source
frequently, they are receiving greater acceptance control projects increased from 23% in August
as a reliable technology by site managers, 2000 to 34% in March 2003.
regulators, and other remediation professionals. The status of treatment selected in FY 2000 - 2002
Appendix B contains a list of treatment technology at Superfund remedial action sites includes:
projects for source control at remedial sites by • 107 additional treatment technology projects
EPA Region. The appendix can be accessed at for source control were selected.
http://clu-in.org/asr.
Figure 10: Superfund Remedial Actions: Status of In Situ and Ex Situ

Source Control Treatment Projects Comparison Between
Tenth and Eleventh Editions of the ASR
(FY 1982 - 2002)*

18
• Nine projects selected in this period have also
even though bioremediation is only the fourth most
been completed, including three off-sitecommon ex situ technology (see Figure 7). The high
incineration projects, two ex situ S/S projects,
percentage may be the result of the length of time
two thermal desorption projects, one SVErequired for bioremediation, compared with other
project, and one bioremediation project.ex situ technologies. Bioremediation enhances the
ability of microorganisms to degrade contaminants
• An additional 18 projects selected in the period
became operational. through the addition of nutrients and oxygen. The
time required to reach cleanup goals using
Table 2 provides a summary of project status for
bioremediation is limited by the degradation
each technology type. Some 85% of the SVE projects
processes and depends on many factors such as the
are in the operational or completed phases. Among
specific contaminant, temperature, and moisture.
ex situ technologies, bioremediation has the same
Because of those considerations, treatment by
number of projects (17) that are operational as S/S,
bioremediation (in situ or ex situ) typically requires a
Table 2. Superfund Remedial Actions: Status of
Source Control Treatment Projects by Technology (FY 1982 - 2002)*
Predesign/ Design Complete/
Technology Design Being Installed Operational Completed Total
In Situ
Soil Vapor Extraction 21 10 109 73 213
Bioremediation 10 1 28 9 48
Solidification/Stabilization 7 5 3 33 48
Flushing 3 0 10 3 16
Chemical Treatment 7 2 2 1 12
In Situ Thermal Treatment 2 1 2 3 8
Multi-Phase Extraction 3 1 4 0 8
Neutralization 1 1 2 0 4
Phytoremediation 2 1 1 0 4
Vitrification 1 0 0 1 2
Electrical Separation 0 0 1 0 1
Total 57 22 162 123 364
Percentage of In Situ Technologies 16% 6% 45% 34% —
Percentage of All Source Control
Technologies 7% 3% 19% 14% 42%
Ex Situ
Solidification/Stabilization 27 8 17 105 157
Incineration (off-site) 9 0 7 88 104
Thermal Desorption 13 0 4 52 69
Incineration (on-site) 1 1 1 40 43
Physical Separation 13 1 3 3 20
Soil Vapor Extraction 0 1 4 4 9
Neutralization 1 0 1 6 8
Soil Washing 4 1 1 2 8
Mechanical Soil Aeration 0 1 0 4 5
Solvent Extraction 2 0 2 1 5
Open Burn/Open Detonation 1 0 1 1 3
Vitrification 2 0 0 0 2
Total 85 14 59 341 499
Percentage of Ex Situ Technologies 17% 3% 12% 68% —
Percentage of All Source Control
Download file containing source data for Table 2.
19
longer period of time than other ex situ technologies, cfpub.epa.gov/asr/. See Box 4 for more details on
such as incineration, thermal desorption, or S/S, for the ASR Search System.
which the treatment rate is limited primarily by the
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
capacity and throughput of the equipment used.
Innovative Applications
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
In the Overview section, innovative technologies
Time Between ROD Signature were defined as alternative treatment technologies
and Project Completion that have a limited number of applications and
The amount of time required between signature limited data on cost and performance. Innovative
of a ROD selecting a particular source control technologies have the potential for providing more
treatment technology and completion of the project cost-effective and reliable alternatives for cleanup
depends on many factors, such as the treatment of contaminated soils and groundwater.
rate of the technology, the need for mobilization For example, DNAPLs historically have been
or construction, pilot-scale testing, the amount of difficult to treat because of their behavior in the
media to be treated, contaminant concentrations, environment. Because DNAPLs tend to pool
and the time needed for permits or other approvals. below the groundwater table, they may not contact
Table 3 shows the average amount of time between soil vapor, and therefore are not effectively treated
ROD signature and project completion for by technologies that extract soil vapor, such as SVE,
technologies where completion date information which removes soil vapor from the vadose zone.
are available for more than 15 completed projects. However, innovative technologies such as in situ
Off-site incineration and in situ S/S projects have thermal treatment or in situ flushing can effectively
the shortest duration, at about 4 years. Although treat DNAPLs in some cases. In other cases, an
S/S is an in situ treatment, it is an established innovative technology may be less expensive than
treatment technology, does not require excavation, an established technology. It may be expensive to
and can be completed in relatively short treatment treat soils deep below the ground surface by
times. Ex situ S/S is the technology with the most incineration because of the amount of excavation
completed projects, and averages 4.5 years per required to reach the soil. However, an in situ
project. However, the duration ranges significantly, chemical oxidation process may work effectively
with some projects being completed in the same at that depth, resulting in a lower cost. Other
year as ROD signature, and others requiring up reasons for selecting innovative technologies can
to 10 years. The data presented in Table 3 include include reduction in the exposure of workers to
only completed projects. Ex situ bioremediation contaminated media; reduction in costs for
projects have the longest duration (6 years). This excavation and materials handling (in situ
technology typically requires pilot testing and can technologies); and community concern about off-
be slowed by many site-specific factors, such as site releases of contaminants, noise, or odor. Box
climate and soil and contaminant characteristics. 7 summarizes an example of an established remedy
Operating dates are available for many of the (incineration) that was changed to an innovative
projects from the ASR Search System at http:// one (bioremediation).
Table 3. Superfund Remedial Actions: Average Number of Years

from ROD Signature until Project Completion (FY 1982 - 2002)*
Average Number of Years Number of
from ROD Date until Completed Number of Projects with
Technology Technology Complete Projects Dates of Completion
Incineration (off-site) 4 88 41
Solidification/Stabilization (in situ) 4 33 26
Solidification/Stabilization (ex situ) 4.5 105 84
Thermal Desorption 4.5 52 41
Soil Vapor Extraction (in situ) 5 73 43
Incineration (on-site) 5 40 37
Bioremediation (ex situ) 6 27 15
20
For source control treatment, Figure 11 depicts the
BOX 7. INNOVATIVE SOURCE CONTROL
number and types of innovative and established
TREATMENT
technologies used. As shown, innovative treatment
technologies represent 21% of all technologies used An innovative technology, bioremediation,
for source control. Bioremediation makes up more replaced an established technology,
than half of the innovative applications (102). In situ incineration, at the MacGillis & Gibbs Co./Bell
Lumber and Pole Co. site. This site consists
chemical treatment and flushing are the second and
of two adjacent wood preserving facilities in
third most frequently selected innovative technologies. New Brighton, MN. Both facilities have been
Innovative technologies being used for fewer than 9 active since the 1920’s. The soil at Operable
projects at Superfund sites are listed under the other Unit (OU) 3 has been contaminated with
innovative technology category, which includes a total halogenated and nonhalogenated semivolatile
of 7 technologies and 40 applications. organic compounds, including
The number of applications of a technology is not pentachlorophenol, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, dioxins, and furans. A ROD
necessarily indicative of its effectiveness. In some
issued for OU 3 in 1994 specified on-site
cases, the technology may have only recently become incineration for organic-contaminated soils. In
available and has not had time to become widely 1999, a ROD amendment was signed, which
accepted and used at Superfund sites. In other cases, changed the remedy from on-site incineration
the technology may be designed for specific types of to bioremediation. A new remedy was
applications, such as certain contaminants or media. selected because of the high costs associated
For example, vitrification typically has higher energy with incineration and new risk-based
costs than other technologies. However, when determinations for future land use. In addition,
radioactive contaminants are mixed with other EPA issued the document “Presumptive
hazardous chemicals, vitrification is often capable of Remedies for Soils, Sediments, and Sludges
destroying the hazardous chemicals in addition to at Wood Treater Sites” in 1995, which
identified bioremediation as a presumptive
immobilizing the radioactive contaminants. In three
remedy. Based on these factors, ex situ
of the four vitrification applications, the contaminants bioremediation was selected for 18,000 cy of
treated included a mixture of radioactive and other soil. This remedy was completed in
contaminants. November 2002.
Figure 11. Superfund Remedial Actions: Innovative Applications of
Source Control Treatment Technologies (FY 1982 - 2002)*

21
Figure 12 depicts the percentage of projects selected are available for viewing on-line or for downloading
for innovative and established technologies for both from the FRTR website. The case studies were
source control and groundwater by FY. This figure developed by the EPA, Department of Defense,
includes both source control and groundwater Department of Energy, and National Aeronautics and
projects to provide a broader perspective on the Space Administration for Superfund and non-
overall trends in innovative technology use. The Superfund sites. They present available cost and
figure shows that while established technologies performance information for full-scale remediation
historically have been the most frequently used, the efforts and large-scale demonstration projects. They
frequency of their use relative to innovative also provide information about site background and
technologies has been relatively stable from the mid- setting, contaminants and media treated, technology,
1980s through FY 1997. Since FY 1997, the use cost and performance, and points of contact for the
of innovative technologies has increased and peaked technology application.
in FY 2001 at 48%. In FY 2001, the percentage of
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
projects using innovative technologies was almost
equal to the percentage for established technologies
Innovative Treatment Trains
for the first time. This declining trend for Two or more innovative and established technologies
established technologies is most dramatic for may be used together in treatment trains, which
incineration, which peaked at 18% in FY 1990 and are either integrated processes or a series of
declined to 3% in FY 2002. treatments that are combined in sequence to provide
the necessary treatment. Some treatment trains are
The FRTR case studies web site (http://www.frtr.gov/
employed when no single technology is capable of
costperf.htm) provides detailed information on the
treating all the contaminants in a particular medium.
cost and performance of both innovative and
For example, soil contaminated with organics and
established technologies applied at Superfund sites.
metals may be treated first by bioremediation to
As of June 2003, the FRTR had 342 case studies
remove organics, and then by S/S to reduce the
covering a wide range of treatment technologies that

Established and Innovative Projects (FY 1982 - 2002)*

22
leachability of metals. In other cases, a treatment identifies specific treatment trains used in remedial
train might be used to render a medium more easily actions. Innovative treatment technologies may
treatable by another technology, reduce the amount be used with established technologies or with other
of waste that requires further treatment by a more innovative technologies. The most common
expensive technology, prevent the emission of treatment trains are air sparging used in
volatile contaminants during excavation and mixing, conjunction with SVE, and bioremediation
or minimize the overall cost of the treatment. followed by S/S or SVE. In the case of air sparging
Treatment trains that include one or more used with SVE, the air sparging is used to remove
innovative technologies are the selected source contaminants from groundwater in situ, while the
control remedy at 46 Superfund sites. Figure 13 SVE captures the contaminants removed from the
Figure 13. Superfund Remedial Actions: Treatment Trains

with Innovative Treatment Technologies (FY 1982 - 2002)*

23
groundwater and removes contaminants from the projects in Table 4 exceeds the total number of
soil above the groundwater (the vadose zone). A projects in Figure 7 because some projects involve
detailed discussion of the volumes of soil for these more than one type of contaminant. Therefore,
projects is contained in the Treatment Trains and such projects are listed in Table 4 multiple times,
Their Effects on Quantity of Soil Treated section. once for each contaminant type.
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
The selection of a treatment technology for a site
Contaminants Addressed often depends on the physical and chemical
properties of the contaminants. For example,
Table 4 summarizes the contaminants being
VOCs are amenable to treatment by certain
targeted by specific technologies. Nine major
technologies, such as SVE, because of their
groups of contaminants were analyzed for this
volatility. In other cases, metals, which are not
report. Compounds were categorized as
volatile and do not degrade, are not usually
halogenated VOCs, semivolatile organic
amenable to treatment by SVE and thermal
compounds (SVOC), or polycyclic aromatic
desorption. Because metals form insoluble
hydrocarbons (PAH) according to the lists provided
compounds when combined with appropriate
in EPA’s SW-846 test methods 8010, 8270, and
additives, such as Portland cement, S/S is most
8310, with the exceptions noted in Table 4.
often used for treatment of those contaminants.
Overall, approximately 75% of the source control
treatment projects address organics and more than As Table 4 shows, halogenated VOCs; benzene,
25% of projects address metals. The number of toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX); and non-
Table 4. Superfund Remedial Actions: Contaminants Treated

by Source Control Technologies (FY 1982 - 2002)*
e
o ns til de
s
a i
rb ol ile ic ile
c a iv t r b l at
a
ro em la he vo
ct
s d
s vo i
e hy d d nd em
oj i c t e t e a s ile
f pr at e na sb e- ne ena sc d es ted sd l at ds
d e d i d o n d
ro o m l o g un uen x y l log u n ic a n
en ou d v ou ate d
be ar h a po ol e - ha o
p e st g p e p n an
m ic n - t n n p l o a t r i s
l o om e z e o om ic a om n o m lo id
nu cy
c
r n ic c zen e n er n c c a n r h c c ge ic c ch yls allo
t al l y e i e i o y n t ls
To th n en l b th n O r g th n al n l e e
Po O rga B t h y O r g a O rga H r g a Po iph M eta
Technology o e o o o b m
Soil Vapor Extraction 222 14 31 102 48 3 27 183 0 0
Solidification/
Stabilization 205 16 18 12 13 14 7 14 35 174
Incineration 147 28 41 35 23 36 34 47 37 6
Bioremediation 102 38 49 30 29 25 15 16 1 2
Thermal Desorption 69 20 16 23 15 9 11 30 14 2
Chemical Treatment 22 1 2 3 2 2 2 7 4 11
Physical Separation 20 6 2 1 0 3 0 0 5 7
Flushing 16 3 6 5 4 1 4 10 0 5
Neutralization 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Multi-Phase Extraction 8 1 1 5 2 0 2 5 1 0
Soil Washing 8 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 3
In Situ Thermal
Treatment 8 5 0 2 0 3 2 3 0 0
Phytoremediation 6 1 2 2 2 1 1 3 0 4
Mechanical Soil Aeration 5 0 0 1 1 0 1 4 0 0
Solvent Extraction 5 2 1 0 1 1 0 2 3 1
Vitrification 4 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 2 1
Open Burn/
Open Detonation 3 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Electrical Separation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Total Projects 863 139 172 222 141 100 108 327 103 216

a b
Each project may treat more than 1 contaminant group. Does not include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
c d
Does not include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene. Does not include organic pesticides and herbicides.
24
halogenated VOCs are treated most often by SVE. Behavior, Environmental Occurrence, Toxicology,
Non-halogenated SVOCs and PAHs are treated Detection and Site Characterization, Treatment
most often by bioremediation. Polychlorinated Technologies, Conferences and Seminars, and Other
biphenyls (PCB), organic pesticides/herbicides, Resources. Contaminant Focus will be continuously
and halogenated SVOCs are treated most often updated with information from federal cleanup
by incineration. Metals are treated almost programs, state sources, universities, nonprofit
exclusively by S/S. An interesting exception is organizations, peer-reviewed publications, and
the use of bioremediation to treat metals in two public-private partnerships. New contaminants will
projects. However, these projects are in the design be added on a periodic basis.
phase, and the effectiveness of bioremediation for
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
metals at these sites has not yet been demonstrated.
Quantity of Soil Treated
EPA has developed the Hazardous Waste Cleanup
Table 5 shows the results of an analysis of the
Information (CLU-IN) Contaminant Focus area
quantity of soil addressed by the various treatment
(http://www.clu-in.org/contaminantfocus/), which
technologies. Data on the quantity of treated soil
bundles information associated with the cleanup of
are available for 217 in situ projects and 325 ex
individual contaminants and contaminant groups.
situ projects for which source control treatment
This information is presented in categories including
technologies were selected to treat soil. Typically,
Overview, Policy and Guidance, Chemistry and
in situ technologies are used to address larger
Table 5. Superfund Remedial Actions: Estimated Quantities of Soil Treated by
Source Control Technologies (FY 1982 - 2002)*
Total Number of Minimum Median Average Maximum Total Quantity

Number Projects (cubic (cubic (cubic (cubic (cubic
of Projects with Data yards) yards) yards) yards) yards)
Ex Situ
Bioremediation 54 46 21 12,750 74,000 1,936,000 3,400,000
Chemical Treatment 10 7 760 21,000 22,000 50,000 154,000
Incineration (off-site) 104 51 5 1,000 4,800 23,000 247,000
Incineration (on-site) 43 34 12 21,000 50,000 330,000 1,714,000
Mechanical Soil Aeration 5 3 2,100 NC NC 12,000 16,600
Phytoremediation 2 2 850 NC NC 10,900 11,800
Soil Vapor Extraction 9 7 540 2,400 20,000 81,000 137,000
Soil Washing 8 7 6,400 13,600 26,000 100,000 179,000
Solidification/Stabilization 157 105 18 12,700 51,000 1,071,000 5,322,000
Solvent Extraction 5 4 7,000 NC NC 300,000 329,000
Thermal Desorption 69 59 250 16,400 32,400 137,000 1,913,000
Average - - 1,600 12,600 35,000 368,300 1,220,000
Total 466 325 - - - - 13,423,400
In Situ
Bioremediation 48 26 3,100 24,000 313,000 5,760,000 8,127,000
Chemical Treatment 12 6 2,200 15,800 18,700 41,000 112,000
Multi-Phase Extraction 8 2 77,000 NC NC 100,000 177,000
Flushing 16 9 2,000 19,000 131,000 1,000,000 1,180,000
Phytoremediation 4 2 60,000 NC NC 101,000 178,000
Soil Vapor Extraction 213 134 2 31,000 176,000 6,100,000 23,587,000
Solidification/ Stabilization 48 31 180 21,000 99,000 1,920,000 3,063,000
In Situ Thermal
Treatment 8 7 200 23,000 567,000 3,528,000 3,969,000
Average - - 18,100 22,300 217,500 2,319,000 5,000,000
Total 357 217 - - - - 40,393,000
Average for
All Technologies - - 8,600 16,800 113,000 1,190,000 2,832,000
Total for All
Technologies 823 542 - - - - 53,816,400
Technologies with data on fewer than two projects were not listed in this table.
25
quantities of soil, while ex situ technologies are The volume of soil treated by the 8 technologies
used to treat smaller quantities. Because quantities (for which data on soil volume were available for
for in situ projects often cannot be determined at least 10 projects) were plotted for comparison
accurately and many projects have not been purposes. Figure 14 presents a box-and-whiskers
completed, the quantities in Table 5 should be plot of the volume of soil treated by technology
considered estimates. Based on the 65% of type to show the distribution of the data. Because
projects for which data are available, an estimated of the wide range in volumes of soil treated, the
82 million cy of soil have been treated. soil volumes are plotted on a logarithmic scale.
For ex situ technologies, the median volume of Figure 14 shows the median, 25th, and 75th
soil treated per project ranged from approximately percentiles, as well as the largest and smallest
1,000 cy for off-site incineration to 21,000 cy for nonoutlier values. In a box plot, the 25th and
both on-site incineration and chemical treatment. 75th percentiles are shown as the ends of the box.
After on-site incineration and chemical treatment, The largest and smallest nonoutlier values are
thermal desorption had the next highest median shown by the lines that extend from the ends of
(16,400 cy), followed by bioremediation and soil the box, which are known as the “whiskers.”
washing (both with approximately 14,000 cy). For Outliers represent values that are between one and
in situ technologies, the median volume of soil one-half and three box lengths from the top or
treated per project ranged from almost 16,000 cy bottom of the box. Extreme values are more than
(chemical treatment) to 31,000 cy (SVE). three box lengths from the top or bottom of the
Figure 14. Superfund Remedial Actions:
Box-and-Whiskers Plot of Cubic Yards of Soil Treated (FY 1982 - 2002)*

26
box. Outliers and extreme values are depicted on of soil decreased from 7% to nearly 100% as it
Figure 14 by circles. moved through the treatment train. The initial
With the exception of off-site incineration, the technologies with the largest percent decrease were
median volume of soil treated for all technologies SVE and bioremediation. Both technologies were
falls between 10,000 and 100,000 cy. The range of followed by S/S.
values, as shown by the length of the box and At three sites, the volume of soil increased as it
whiskers, is much greater for SVE than for all other moved through the treatment train. At Robins
technologies, ranging from about 100 cy to almost Air Force Base in Georgia, the treatment train
10 million cy. The 75th percentile value for SVE consisted of SVE to remove volatile organics
and bioremediation (in situ) is above 100,000 cy, followed by S/S to immobilize metals. The volume
indicating that the volume being treated by these of material increased during the S/S step due to
technologies is above 100,000 cy for 25% of the the binders added in the S/S process.
projects for which data are available. When in situ technologies are used in a treatment
Comparing similar technologies that can be train, a more aggressive technology may be applied
conducted both in situ and ex situ shows that in situ to remediate areas with high contaminant
technologies are typically used to treat larger concentrations or NAPLs (hot spots), followed by
volumes of soil. As Figure 14 shows, the median application of a less aggressive technology to
volume of soil per project for in situ bioremediation remediate a larger area that includes the former
is greater than that for ex situ bioremediation. The hot spot area. This occurred at two of the three
range of soil volumes for bioremediation indicate sites where the volume of soil increased between
that, when applied in situ, it is more applicable to the first and second technologies in the treatment
projects with large volumes of soil. For smaller soil train. At the Southern California Edison, Visalia
volumes, ex situ bioremediation is more applicable. Pole Yard, in situ thermal treatment was used to
S/S, which has both in situ and ex situ applications, treat 213,500 cy of soil and removed approximately
also tends to treat larger volumes in situ and smaller 55,000 pounds of DNAPL (creosote)
volumes ex situ. contamination. Following the in situ thermal
Off-site incineration is generally treating the smallest treatment, bioremediation (biosparging) was
volume of soil with a median volume of only 1,000 implemented to treat approximately 5,760,000 cy
cy. On-site incineration is used to treat larger of soil and residual groundwater contamination.
volumes, and has a median of 21,000 cy. Off-site At the Petro-Chemical Systems Inc. OU 2, in situ
incineration costs are typically based on the volume thermal treatment was used to treat 330 cy of soil
treated, with no start-up costs. On-site incineration to remove BTEX from two hot spots, followed by
typically entails significant start-up costs related to the application of SVE to 300,000 cy.
mobilizing equipment to the site and obtaining ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
permits. However, once an on-site incinerator has Cumulative Soil Treatment

started up, the treatment cost per unit of material Volumes
incinerated is typically lower because costs for off-
site transportation are eliminated. Therefore, on- Figure 15 shows the percentage of soil volume
being treated for each technology type, which
site incineration can be more cost-effective than
indicates SVE treats the largest volume of soil.
off-site incineration when treatment of a large
amount of material is necessary. SVE is the most frequently selected technology at
25% of all source control treatment projects (see
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ Figure 7) and, on average, treats the largest volume
Treatment Trains and Their Effect of soil (see Figure 14). Those factors explain the
on Quantity of Soil Treated large fraction of soil being treated by this
The ASR Search System contains data on the technology. Figure 15 is based on the 65% of
volumes of soil treated in 26 treatment trains. source control treatments at Superfund remedial
These data were evaluated to identify treatment action sites where soil treatment data are available.
trains that may have an effect on the volumes of ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
soil treated. Remedy Changes

At 13 sites where treatment trains were used, the As discussed in Section 1, remedies selected for
volume of soil treated by each technology in the Superfund remedial actions are documented in a
train remained the same. At 10 sites, the volume ROD, and changes to the original remedies can
27
Percentage of Soil Treated by Technology Type (FY 1982 - 2002)*

be either formally documented or executed through The Superfund program allows EPA and state
clauses in the original ROD. Remedy changes environmental regulators the flexibility to modify
often occur during the pre-design or design phase remedies as site conditions change. The ASR
of a project when new information about site tracks 863 source control treatment projects, not
characteristics is discovered or treatability studies including the 120 that have been changed to non-
for the selected technologies are completed. treatment remedies. Based on a total of 983 source
Many of the treatment remedies that were control treatment remedies (863 active plus 120
modified involved a change from source control changed), 12% have been changed.
treatment to a remedy that is not source control In 90 instances, one source control treatment
treatment. Source control treatment remedies have technology was replaced with a different treatment
been changed to non-treatment remedies at over technology. Table 6 provides information about
120 Superfund remedial action sites. These the most frequently changed treatment
remedies are often changed to containment, MNA, technologies, and the technologies that replaced
or institutional controls. The most commonly them, as indicated by cumulative data from FY
cited reason for changing source control treatment 1982 - 2002. The source control treatment
to another type of remedy was that further site technologies that were most frequently changed
investigation revealed that the concentration or to another source control treatment technology
extent of contamination was less than expected. were incineration, bioremediation, and thermal
Other frequently cited reasons included rising desorption. These technologies are the third,
groundwater levels making soil treatment fourth, and fifth most frequently selected treatment
impracticable, community concerns about on-site technologies (see Figure 7). The most common
remedies, and high costs. technologies selected to replace incineration,
28
bioremediation, and thermal desorption were Previous editions of the ASR included an appendix
thermal desorption (replacing incineration and (Appendix D) that listed all the technology changes,
bioremediation), S/S, SVE, and incineration additions, and deletions made since the previous
(replacing bioremediation and thermal edition of the ASR. Because the appendix has
desorption). expanded over time, it is now available on-line at
http://clu-in.org/asr.
Table 6. Superfund Remedial Actions:

Number of Most Commonly Changed Technologies (1982 - 2002)*
Technology Initially Selected

New Treatment Technology Incineration Bioremediation Thermal Desorption Total
Thermal Desorption 9 3 - 12
Solidification/Stabilization 7 3 1 11
Bioremediation 5 - 0 5
Soil Vapor Extraction 3 2 5 10
Solvent Extraction 1 0 0 1
Incineration - 5 5 10
Air Sparging 0 1 0 1
Chemical Treatment 1 0 1 2
Soil Washing 0 0 1 1
Physical Separation 0 0 1 1
In Situ Thermal Treatment 0 1 0 1
Pump and Treat 0 2 0 2
Total Number of Remedy Revisions 26 17 14 57

29
Section 3: Groundwater Remedies
water supplies, are not a focus of this report
Section 3: Groundwater because these remedies, while being protective,
Remedies typically do not directly result in a reduction of
In January 2002, EPA published the report contaminant concentrations or a decrease in
Groundwater Remedies Selected at Superfund contaminant mobility.
Sites (EPA 542-R-01-022), which provided
information about trends in the selection of P&T, ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
in situ treatment, and MNA for groundwater in Groundwater Sites

RODs. This edition of the ASR incorporates and A groundwater remedy has been implemented or
updates the information and analyses from that is currently planned at 1,062 sites, 71% of sites
report. This report focuses on groundwater on the NPL. As shown in Table 7, P&T has been
treatment (P&T and in situ treatment) and MNA implemented or is planned at 713 of the sites
remedies because they reduce contaminant addressing groundwater. Many sites have more
concentrations or decrease their mobility1. than one type of groundwater remedy. These sites
Groundwater remedies are delineated by whether are counted in Table 7 once for each type of
the remedy specified: (1) extraction of groundwater remedy they have. Sites may also
groundwater followed by aboveground treatment have source control remedies in addition to
(P&T), (2) in situ treatment, (3) MNA, (4) groundwater remedies. Over 700 sites with
containment using subsurface VEBs, or (5) other groundwater remedies also have a source control
actions (such as alternate drinking water supplies remedy.
or drilling prohibitions), as shown in the box below. For sites at which several types of groundwater
remediation were used, such as a P&T system
and in situ treatment, the remediation may not
Groundwater Remedy Types have occurred in the same aquifer or groundwater
GROUNDWATER REMEDIES plume. When different types of groundwater
remedies are applied to the same contaminant
Pump In Situ Monitored Containment Other
and Treat Treatment Natural
Attenuation Table 7. Superfund Remedial Actions:
Actual Remedy Types at National
Priorities List Sites (FY 1982 - 2002)*
Appendix F defines these remedy types and Total Number of Sites with a
describes how they are identified. Detailed Groundwater Remedy = 1,062
descriptions of the technologies used to perform Remedy Type Number of Sites
groundwater P&T and in situ groundwater
treatment are presented in the Overview at the Groundwater Pump and Treat 713
beginning of this report. In Situ Treatment of Groundwater 135
As shown in Table 7, P&T is the most frequently MNA of Groundwater 201

used groundwater remedy. Because of its Other Groundwater 822
prevalence, EPA began an effort to gather more MNA = Monitored natural attenuation
information about P&T remedies and to track the ROD = Record of Decision
status of P&T projects. For the first time, this *Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY
report presents detailed information on P&T 2002 RODs.
remedies. See page 39 for a detailed description Sites may be included in more than 1 category. Other
groundwater includes sites with groundwater other
of the findings.
remedies, as well as groundwater vertical engineered
This report also provides data collected for specific barriers.
groundwater treatment projects. Detailed Appendix F describes the methodology used to identify
information on the status of MNA projects was remedy types for each site.
not collected because it is not a focus of this report. Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11. Data sources are listed in
Other groundwater remedies (see Overview), such the References and Data Sources section on page 50.
as well-drilling prohibitions and alternate drinking Download file containing source data for Table 7.
1
MNA does not generally satisfy the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) preference for treatment because it is not an engineered technology (see Reference 12, on page 50).
30
plume, they may be used to treat different parts sites. The most common is P&T only, with
of the plume. For example, an in situ 556 sites. The second most common is MNA
groundwater treatment technology may be used only at 96 sites. When two types of groundwater
for areas that are difficult to treat using P&T, remedies were used at the same site, a P&T
such as hot spots, NAPL source zones, tight clays, system was used most frequently with MNA (64
fractured rock, and areas with heterogenous sites) and in situ treatment (63 sites). For 30 of
hydrogeology. P&T, in turn, may be used to the 851 sites, three types of groundwater
control plume migration and remediate other remedies were used. At most sites where one
areas of the plume with lower contaminant of these remedies was selected, some form of
concentrations. MNA may be used to treat areas groundwater treatment was included. P&T or
of the plume with relatively low contaminant in situ treatment was included in the selected
concentrations that remain above remediation remedy at 89% (755) of the sites, while 11%
goals. Box 8 describes a site that has selected (96) of sites selected only MNA.
and implemented groundwater P&T, in situ At many of the sites shown in Figure 16, the
groundwater treatment, and MNA. remedy also includes source control treatment.
Figure 16 shows the use of P&T, in situ For example, source control treatment is part of
treatment, and MNA for groundwater, both the remedy at 43% of the 556 sites with P&T
alone and in combination with other remedies. only. At 41% of the 96 sites with MNA only,
At least one of these three is a remedy at 851 source control treatment is also part of the remedy.
BOX 8. SITE WITH MULTIPLE GROUNDWATER Figure 16: Superfund Remedial

REMEDIES Actions: Sites with P&T,
In Situ Treatment, or MNA
Groundwater contamination at the Naval Air
Engineering Station site is being addressed Selected as Part of a
with a combination of P&T, in situ Groundwater Remedy (FY 1982 - 2002)*
treatment, and MNA. The US Navy has
used this 7,382 acre site in Lakehurst, NJ
since the 1920’s for the development and
testing of fleet support systems. Fuels,
oils, metals, solvents, and other organic
compounds have been disposed on-site,
and contaminated areas include landfills,
open pits, unlined lagoons, and drainage
ditches. Petroleum hydrocarbons and
volatile organic compounds, including
benzene and trichloroethene, have been
identified as contaminants of concern in the
soil and groundwater.
Several areas (Areas A, B, C, E, H, I, and J)
of the site are being remediated with
groundwater remedies. At Areas A, B, C,
E, and H, groundwater P&T was selected
for plume containment through interim
RODs in 1991 and 1992. The P&T system MNA = Monitored natural attenuation
is currently operational. In 1997, final P&T = Pump and treat
RODs were signed, and air sparging was * Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY
added to Areas A, B, and E to enhance 2002 RODs.
remediation of the most contaminated (a) NPL sites include current sites and former NPL sites
zone. A ROD was issued in 1999 that that were deleted and/or removed from the NPL between
selected MNA and in situ bioremediation for FY 1982 and 2002.
the higher concentration portions of Areas I Appendix F describes the methodology used to identify
and J. Additional groundwater and source remedy types for each site.
control remedies have been selected for Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11. Data sources are listed in
other areas at the site. the References and Data Sources section on page 50.
31
Source control is discussed in more detail in but then increased every year until it peaked at 48%
Section 2 of this report. in 1998. It was only about half of its peak level in
the following three years, and then decreased by an
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
additional two-thirds to 9% in FY 2002. RODs
Groundwater RODs selecting in situ groundwater treatment have been
Figure 17 shows the number of groundwater RODs generally increasing, from none in 1986 to 24% in
of each type. RODs that select treatment may also FY 2002. The percentage of RODs selecting VEBs
include MNA, groundwater containment using has remained relatively consistent, below 10% for
VEBs, or other groundwater remedies. The number all years. RODs selecting other remedies were less
of groundwater treatment RODs peaked in FY 1991 than 25% from FY 1986 - 1997, but then increased
at 114 and has been generally decreasing, similar to rapidly. About 90% of RODs selected an other
the behavior observed for source control RODS (see groundwater remedy from FY 2000 - 2002. RODs
Figure 5). This peak matches the peak in the total selecting multiple groundwater remedy types are
number of RODs in FY 1991, as shown in Figure 2. included in each applicable category. Figures 18
From FY 1988 - 1995, the number of groundwater through 21 do not include FY 1982 through 1985
treatment RODs ranged from 55 to 114, while during because of the small number of RODs signed.
the period from FY 1996 - 2001, it was between 31
RODs selecting P&T alone have decreased from
and 42 RODs.
about 80% prior to FY 1993, to an average of 21%
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ over the last 5 years (FY 1998 - 2002), as shown in
Selection of Groundwater Figure 19. In contrast, P&T is being used
Remedies increasingly with in situ treatment or MNA, or not
Figure 18 shows the percentages of RODs selecting at all. RODs selecting P&T with another remedy
groundwater remedies. Nearly 90% of RODs generally ranged from 5% to 10% through FY 1995,
selected P&T from FY 1987 - 1992. This but increased to an average of 14% from FY 1996
percentage decreased to 30% in FY 1998, but has - 2002. Similarly, RODs selecting in situ treatment
since risen to 40% in FY 2002. MNA was selected or MNA and not P&T generally ranged from 5%
in less than 10% of RODs from FY 1986 - 1991, to 10% through FY 1993. However, these RODs
Figure 17: Superfund Remedial Actions: RODs Selecting Groundwater

Remedies (FY 1982 - 2002)*
MNA = Monitored natural attenuation

32
Figure 18: Superfund Remedial Actions: Trends in Groundwater Remedy
Selection (FY 1986 - 2002)*
GW = Groundwater
P&T = Pump and treat
VEB = Vertical engineered barrier
Figure 19. Superfund Remedial Actions: Trends in the Selection of Pump

and Treat (FY 1986 - 2002)*

33
then increased to a peak of 43% in FY 1998, and The percentage of groundwater RODs selecting
have since decreased to 20% in FY 2002. in situ treatment peaked in FY 2001 at 28%. The
The general decrease in the selection of P&T generally upward trend in the selection of in situ
remedies may be due to a variety of factors, treatment, shown in Figure 20, may be due to
including the following: several factors. The development of these
technologies is growing rapidly. They have also
• More widespread acceptance of innovative in begun to be used more frequently in recent years
situ groundwater treatment remedies to treat some media and contaminants that are
• Reduced operation and maintenance costs from difficult to remediate, such as DNAPL, chlorinated
using active in situ treatment technologies solvents, and fractured bedrock. A detailed
• Reduced time to address risk and faster return discussion of one such technology, chemical
of sites to beneficial uses by using active in treatment, is presented in Section 4. Figure 20
situ treatment remedies counts all RODs that selected in situ groundwater
• Reduced costs by using MNA treatment (with or without other remedies).
The general increase in the selection of P&T with Groundwater MNA is the reliance on natural
MNA or in situ treatment may be due to a variety attenuation processes (within the context of a
of factors, including the following: carefully controlled and monitored approach to
• More active in situ treatments can reduce P&T site cleanup) to achieve site-specific remediation
treatment times by remediating hot spots and objectives within a time frame that is reasonable,
contaminant sources compared with that offered by other, more active
methods (see Reference 12 on Page 50). The
• MNA can reduce P&T treatment times by “natural attenuation processes” include a variety
allowing P&T systems to be shut down when of physical, chemical, or biological processes that,
contaminants reach levels that can effectively under favorable conditions, act without human
be treated by MNA intervention to reduce the mass, toxicity, mobility,
• MNA can treat areas of a contaminant plume volume, or concentration of contaminants in soil
with low concentrations, reducing the amount or groundwater. These in situ processes include
of the contaminant plume treated by P&T biodegradation; dispersion; dilution; sorption;
Figure 20: Superfund Remedial Actions: Trends in the Selection of In Situ

Treatment for Groundwater (FY 1986 - 2002)*

34
volatilization; radioactive decay; and chemical or regarding the use of MNA for the remediation of
biological stabilization, transformation, or contaminated soil and groundwater at sites
destruction of contaminants. administered by EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and
Cumulatively, 234 RODs have selected MNA; of Emergency Response, and contained guidance for
those, 124 selected MNA without a groundwater the implementation of MNA. The guidance may
treatment remedy. Since FY 1986, the fraction of have influenced remedy identification and
groundwater RODs selecting MNA, both alone and selection. For example, the directive provided a
in combination with P&T and in situ treatment, has more specific definition of MNA than was
increased. Figure 21 compares the trends in the available in the past. Prior to publication of the
percentage of groundwater RODs selecting only directive, some remedies identified as MNA may
MNA to MNA in combination with groundwater not have met the definition provided in the
treatment (P&T or in situ treatment). The selection directive. Authors of FY 1999 RODs may have
of MNA, both alone and with groundwater treatment identified remedies that they would have previously
remedies, generally increased through 1998. In that identified as MNA as another remedy, such as
year, MNA alone was selected in 32% of RODs, monitoring only or NA/NFA.
while MNA was selected with P&T or in situ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
treatment in 16% of RODs. From FY 1999 - 2001, In Situ Groundwater Treatment

MNA alone was half of its peak level, while MNA Technologies
with a groundwater treatment remedy remained
In situ technologies for groundwater treatment are
relatively constant. In FY 2002, both types of RODs
decreased to 4%. those applications in which the contaminated
groundwater is treated or the contaminant is
The decrease in MNA only RODs coincided with removed from the groundwater without extracting,
the publication of EPA guidance on the use of pumping, or otherwise removing the groundwater
MNA in 1999 (see Reference 12 on page 50). from the aquifer. Implementation of P&T
This directive was issued to clarify EPA’s policy remedies requires extraction of groundwater from

Trends in the Selection of MNA (FY 1986 - 2002)*

35
an aquifer, usually through pumping, and projects have been selected more frequently over
treatment aboveground. This section provides the last three years than in the past. Nearly
additional information about the innovative 50% of the bioremediation projects and 70%
technologies used for in situ groundwater of the chemical treatment projects have been
treatment. selected during the last three years. The number
Figure 22 shows the cumulative trends in the of in situ groundwater treatment projects
selection of in situ groundwater treatment selected in RODs from FY 2000 - 2002 is
technologies over time. The most common are presented in Table 8.
air sparging, bioremediation, permeable reactive Figure 23 shows, by technology, eight major
barriers (PRB), and chemical treatment. Air groups of contaminants treated in groundwater.
sparging decreased from 70% of in situ projects Compounds are categorized as VOCs, SVOCs,
selected in FY 1996 to 9% in FY 2002. or PAHs according to the lists provided in EPA’s
Cumulatively, air sparging continues to represent SW-846 test methods 8010, 8270, and 8310,
over 50% of all in situ groundwater treatment with the exceptions listed in the figure notes.
projects. In situ bioremediation has increased in Overall, VOCs, including both BTEX and
recent years from 8% in FY 1997 to 36% in FY halogenated VOCs, are the contaminants most
2002. PRBs ranged from one to three projects in commonly treated in groundwater using in situ
all years since FY 1996, except 1999, when no technologies. Halogenated SVOCs (including
PRB projects were selected. In situ chemical organic pesticides and herbicides) and metals and
treatment had no more than one project in each metalloids in groundwater are treated least
year from FY 1988 - 1998, with the number of frequently. The number of projects in Figure
projects increasing slightly in recent years to an 23 exceeds the total number of in situ
average of four projects per year in the period groundwater projects because some projects
from FY 1999 - 2002. involve more than one type of contaminant.
The data show that the most commonly selected Such projects, therefore, are repeated in Figure
technologies continue to be selected at high 23 under each contaminant type treated by the
rates. Bioremediation and chemical treatment remedy.
Figure 22: Superfund Remedial Table 8. Superfund Remedial Actions:

Actions: Cumulative Trends for Most In Situ Groundwater Treatment
Common In Situ Groundwater Projects Selected in FY 2000,
Technologies (FY 1988 - 2002)* 2001, and 2002*
Total Projects = 66
Technology Number of New Projects

Bioremediation 21
Chemical Treatment 15
Air Sparging 10
Permeable Reactive Barrier 7
Multi-Phase Extraction 4
In-Well Air Stripping 3
Phytoremediation 3
Flushing 2
In Situ Thermal Treatment 1
* Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY * Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY
2002 RODs. 2002 RODs.
Sources: 3, 4, 5, 7, 11. Data sources are listed in the Sources: 3, 4, 5, 7, 11. Data sources are listed in the
References and Data Sources section on page 50. References and Data Sources section on page 50.
36
The selection of a treatment technology for a site phase extraction. One exception is the use of in
depends on the physical and chemical properties of situ bioremediation to reduce hexavalent chromium
contaminants at the site. For example, VOCs are to its less toxic trivalent form. This technology,
amenable to air sparging because of their volatility. which uses biological activity to create conditions
Metals, which are not volatile and do not degrade, that result in chemical reduction of chromium, is
are not amenable to this technology. being applied at three sites. At one additional site,
The selection of groundwater treatment technologies bioremdiation to treat arsenic is currently planned.
may also depend on site-specific factors, such as Metals and metalloids may undergo chemical
soil type and hydrogeology. For example, air reactions with certain substances to form
sparging may be an effective treatment for VOCs compounds that are less toxic or mobile. The PRBs
at a site with sandy soil, but may not be effective at were used most often to treat halogenated VOCs,
a site with tightly packed clay soil. As Figure 23 metals, and metalloids.
shows, BTEX and halogenated VOCs are treated ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
most frequently using air sparging. PAHs and other Status of In Situ Groundwater
non-halogenated SVOCs, which are not as volatile Projects
as BTEX and halogenated VOCs, but can be
A snapshot of the status of in situ groundwater
destroyed through microbial processes, are treated
most frequently by bioremediation. Dissolved-phase treatment technologies is presented in Figure 24.
halogenated VOCs may be difficult to remove from The data in Figure 24 show:
groundwater in low-permeability matrices using air • The total number of in situ groundwater
sparging. Metals and metalloids are typically not treatment projects increased by 62%, from 104
amenable to air sparging, bioremediation, and multi- to 169 between August 2000 and March 2003.
Figure 23: Superfund Remedial Actions: Contaminants Treated by In Situ

Groundwater Technologies (FY 1982 - 2002)*

a
Does not include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
b
Does not include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene.
c
Does not include organic pesticides and herbicides.
37
• An additional 13 in situ groundwater projects • 66 additional in situ treatment technology
were completed, increasing the percentage of projects for groundwater were selected (see
completed in situ groundwater projects from Table 8 on page 36). Technologies most
6% to 11%. Completed projects included five frequently selected include bioremediation (21
chemical treatment, three air sparging, three projects), chemical treatment (15 projects), air
bioremediation, and two multi-phase extraction sparging (10 projects), and PRB (7 projects).
projects. • Three projects selected in the period have been
• More than half (54%) of in situ groundwater completed, including bioremediation (2
treatment projects are operational. projects) and chemical treatment (1 project).
• Although the percentage of in situ groundwater • An additional 21 projects became operational.
projects that are operational decreased, the total • An additional four projects have progressed
number of operational projects increased from beyond the design phase, and the remedies are
68 to 91. The technologies with the largest being installed.
increase in the number of operational projects For some projects, the technology treats both
were air sparging (8 projects) and PRBs (6 sources and groundwater. For example, in situ
projects). thermal treatment may be applied to treat a
• In situ groundwater treatment projects in the DNAPL source and the groundwater
design phase increased. The technologies with contaminated by that source. In previous
the largest increase in the number of projects editions of the ASR, such applications were
in the design phase were bioremediation (14 described only in the source control section.
projects), chemical treatment (9 projects), and Because remediation professionals may be
PRBs (4 projects). interested in both the source and groundwater
The status of in situ groundwater treatments treatment aspects of technologies applied to both
selected in FY 2000 - 2002 at Superfund remedial contaminant sources and contaminated
action sites include: groundwater, this edition of the ASR presents

Status of In Situ Groundwater Treatment Projects (FY 1982 - 2002)*

38
information in both the Source section (Section approximately half the number of total projects of
2) and Groundwater section (Section 3). To make air sparging and bioremediation, it has the same
the August 2000 and March 2003 data number of completed projects. Chemical
comparable, the data in Figure 24 for August treatment is typically applied as an aggressive
2000 include technologies treating both sources treatment technology that requires a relatively short
and groundwater, and therefore do not match the treatment time to achieve cleanup goals. It may
information presented for groundwater remedies also be effective in treating small amounts of
presented in the Tenth Edition of the ASR. DNAPL and LNAPL. Since the Tenth Edition,
The specific types of in situ treatment remedies the number of chemical treatment projects has
and their status at Superfund sites are listed in increased, from only 2 to 21. PRBs rely on natural
Table 9. In situ treatment of groundwater has groundwater flow to carry contaminants into a
been selected 169 times at 135 sites. Among in reactive zone, where they are treated; therefore,
situ technologies, air sparging is the most this technology does not treat contaminants
frequently selected technology, followed by upgradient of the reactive zone. Most PRBs (10
bioremediation. Both of these technologies have of 17) are in the operational phase, and none are
a large number of projects in the operational completed.
phase. The treatment rate of these technologies ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
is typically limited by site-specific factors. For Groundwater Pump and Treat

example, air sparging may require long treatment
P&T is the extraction of groundwater from an
times when continuing sources of contaminants,
aquifer and treatment aboveground. The
such as light nonaqueous-phase liquid (LNAPL)
extraction step usually is conducted by pumping
and DNAPL, are present. Bioremediation may
groundwater from a well or trench. The
be limited by the rate at which microbes can
treatment step can include a variety of
break down contaminants, which can depend on
technologies. The technologies used at
a variety of factors such as climate, soil
Superfund remedial action sites for the
conditions, contaminant concentrations, and
aboveground treatment of contaminated
solubility.
groundwater are described in the Overview
The third most frequently selected technology is section at the beginning of this report.
chemical treatment. Although this technology has
Table 9. Superfund Remedial Actions: Status of In Situ Groundwater

Treatment Projects by Technology (FY 1982 - 2002)*
Predesign/ Design Complete/

Technology Design Being Installed Operational Completed Total
In Situ
Air Sparging 9 3 40 6 58
Permeable Reactive Barrier 6 1 10 0 17
Multi-Phase Extraction 2 0 9 3 14
In-Well Air Stripping 3 0 2 0 5
In Situ Thermal Treatment 2 0 0 0 2
Flushing 2 0 0 0 2
Total 54 5 91 19 169
Percentage of In Situ Technologies 32% 2% 54% 11% —
Percentage of All Groundwater

Download file containing source data for Table 9.
39
Status of Groundwater Pump and Treat The P&T projects were identified primarily from
Projects RODs, CORs, and the CERCLIS database.
This report contains information on 743 P&T Information collected from these sources on
projects at Superfund remedial action sites. Figure Superfund P&T projects included the
25 shows the status of these projects, and allows contaminants treated, the technologies treating
for the following conclusions: extracted groundwater, the implementation status
of these projects, and remedy changes.
• Most P&T projects (52%) are operational.
Due to the large number of projects, the diverse sources
• Some 39% are in the predesign/design phase.
of information, and the limited resources available
• 63 (8%) of P&T projects are shut down (no for data collection, complete information was not
longer ongoing). Appendix G lists the 63 P&T collected for every project from every data source.
projects that are shut down, and the reason for P&T projects were identified in RODs from FY 1982
the system shut down. Information about the to 2002. RPMs were generally not contacted for P&T
reason for shut down was not available from projects selected in RODs signed after FY 1997,
the data sources used for this report for all P&T because P&T projects typically require five years to
projects. EPA is currently gathering additional progress to the operational stage, and a higher priority
data to better characterize shut down P&T was placed on gathering information on P&T systems
systems (see Box 6, Definition of Completed that were more likely to be operational.
Project on page 12).
Information on the specific technologies applied
Pump and Treat Data Sources in P&T projects was not collected from RODs.
Data on P&T remedies were collected from the Most RODs do not specify the technologies to
following sources: be used for P&T projects, and of those that do
specify technologies, those technologies are
• RODs from FY 1982 - 2002 frequently changed before the P&T project begins
• The CERCLIS database operation. Technology information was gathered
• CORs from FY 1983 - 2002 primarily from CORs, contacts with the RPMs,
• The EPA P&T Optimization Database and the P&T Optimization Database. The
• Contacts with RPMs through March 2003 information on P&T projects presented in this
report is as accurate and complete as possible
given the limitations on the time and resources
available for data collection. Future editions of
Figure 25: Superfund Remedial
the ASR may include additional information on
Actions: Status of Groundwater
more P&T projects.
Pump and Treat Projects
(FY 1982 - 2002)* Contaminants Treated by Pump and Treat
Contaminants treated were identified for 345 P&T
projects. Figure 26 shows the 12 most frequently
treated contaminants. The contaminant treated
most often is trichloroethene (TCE). Other
chlorinated VOCs are also frequently treated using
P&T, including tetrachloroethene (PCE); vinyl
chloride (VC); 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA);
1,1-dichloroethene (DCE); and 1,2-DCE. The
second most frequently treated contaminants are
nonchlorinated VOCs, including benzene, toluene,
and xylene. P&T systems are also frequently used
to treat heavy metals and metalloids, including
* Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY chromium, lead, and arsenic. Projects that treat
2002 RODs. more than one contaminant are counted once for
Sources: 3, 4, 5, 7, 11. Data sources are listed in the each contaminant listed in Figure 26.
References and Data Sources section on page 50.
Download file containing source data for Figure 25.
40
Contaminants Treated by Pump and Treat Systems (FY 1982 - 1997)
Pump and treat (P&T) projects from FY 1998 through 2002 are not included on this figure, because P&T systems do
not generally become operational within 5 years of signing the ROD.
Aboveground Components of Pump and stripping followed by carbon adsorption for the
Treat Projects effluent from the air stripper (18 projects). Figure
Data were available for 171 P&T projects using 224 27 counts projects that use more than one
treatment technologies as shown in Figure 27. More technology once for each technology.
than half of these P&T systems are using air stripping Figure 27: Superfund Remedial
to remove volatile compounds from groundwater. Actions: Above Ground Components
Carbon adsorption is the second most common P&T of Groundwater Pump and Treat
technology, which also is used to remove organic Projects (FY 1982 - 2000)
compounds, including VOCs. These technologies
are being used to treat chlorinated and non-
chlorinated VOCs, because, as shown in Figure 26,
such contaminants make up 9 of the top 12 most
frequently treated by P&T. The third and fourth
most common technologies are filtration and metals
precipitation, respectively. Three of the top 12
contaminants most frequently treated by P&T are
metals or metalloids that can be effectively removed
using metals precipitation.
Treatment trains are commonly used in P&T
systems. Section 2 contains a detailed description Of 743 pump and treat projects, 171 had a technology
of treatment trains and reasons for their use. For selected. Projects may include more than one technology
the 171 P&T systems for which technology data type. POTW = Publicly-owned treatment works
were available, 35 used a treatment train. The Sources: 3, 4, 5, 7, 11. Data sources are listed in the
most commonly employed treatment train is air References and Data Sources section on page 50.
41
Data were collected on the amount of reasons included problems implementing the
groundwater treated by operational and remedy due to site conditions such as
completed P&T projects. Table 10 shows the hydrogeology, implementation of a more effective
volume of groundwater treated for 18 P&T in situ treatment remedy, and high costs.
projects which used air stripping and carbon
adsorption, the two most commonly applied P&T Pump and Treat Remedy Optimization
technologies (see Figure 27). The median Once remediation systems have been functioning
volumes treated by air stripping and carbon for a period of time, opportunities may exist to
adsorption are 500 million and 25 million gallons, optimize the system, particularly if they are long-
respectively. P&T projects with both air term remedies. The purpose of optimization is to
stripping and carbon adsorption had a median identify potential changes that will improve the
volume of 230 million gallons of water treated. effectiveness of a system and reduce operating costs
Sufficient data were not available to analyze without compromising the effectiveness of the
treatment volumes for other technologies. remedy or the achievement of other cleanup
objectives.
Table 10. Superfund Remedial
EPA recognizes that long-term remedial approaches
Actions: Groundwater Volumes Being should not remain static, that conditions change
Treated Using Pump and Treat over time, and that better technologies, tools, and
Technologies (FY 1982 - 1997) strategies evolve, which allow for continuous
improvement of remedy performance. In OSWER
Median Total
Aboveground Number of Volume Volume Directive No. 9200.0-33, Transmittal of Final
P&T Technology Projects (gallons) (gallons) FY00 - FY01 Superfund Reforms Strategy, dated
Air Stripping 11 500 million 14 billion July 7, 2000, EPA outlined a commitment to
Carbon Adsorption 3 25 million 6 billion optimize Superfund-lead P&T systems at
Air Stripping and Superfund sites.
Carbon Adsorption 4 230 million 6 billion Information from Superfund-lead sites has been
P&T = Pump and treat incorporated into the ASR Search System. This
Sources: 3, 4, 5, 7, 11. Data sources are listed in the information was used to select sites for
References and Data Sources section on page 50. Remediation System Evaluations (RSE).
Superfund-lead P&T systems include systems that
are either EPA-lead or state-lead that are funded
Pump and Treat Remedy Changes
from the Superfund Program.
One goal of this report is to compile a current list
EPA performed an RSE on 20 Superfund-lead
of all P&T projects. As discussed in Section 1,
groundwater P&T systems during 2001. The
remedies selected for Superfund remedial actions
results of this initiative are documented in the
are documented through a ROD, and changes to
report Groundwater Pump-and-Treat Systems:
the original remedies may be formally documented.
Summary of Selected Cost and Performance
Remedy changes often occur during the pre-design
Information at Superfund-Financed Sites. EPA is
or design phase of a project when new information
also preparing additional RSEs for Superfund-
about site characteristics is discovered or
financed sites. The report and the RSEs are
treatability studies for the selected technologies
available at http://clu-in.org/rse. Additional
are completed.
information on RSE and optimization of remedies
EPA updated the status of 729 P&T projects, is available at http://www.frtr.gov/optimization.htm.
primarily by contacting RPMs and reviewing This site includes information on optimization
CORs. Of these 729 P&T projects, 80 were tools and techniques, including checklists that can
changed to other groundwater remedies. These be used to identify optimization opportunities for
remedies were most often changed to in situ specific groundwater treatment technologies.
groundwater treatment or non-treatment remedies,
such as institutional controls and MNA. The most ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
commonly cited reason for changing a P&T Vertical Engineered Barriers

remedy was that further site investigation revealed In the Tenth Edition of the ASR, the scope of the
that the concentration or extent of contamination report was expanded to include VEBs, a
was less than expected. Other frequently cited groundwater containment remedy. Although a
42
VEB is not a treatment technology, it is an applications. For each of the other types of VEBs,
engineered remedy. In addition, VEBs can be there are fewer than five applications at Superfund
constructed using some innovative methods, such remedial action sites. Some VEBs have more than
as deep soil mixing and geosynthetic walls. The one type of barrier.
technologies used for VEB construction are also Additional information on VEBs is available in
used for in situ S/S. VEBs are also an integral the following reports, both of which are available
part of many PRBs. on-line at http://clu-in.org:
VEBs were selected at 49 Superfund remedial • Subsurface Containment and Monitoring
action sites for a total of 51 projects (some sites Systems: Barriers and Beyond
have more than one VEB). More than 80% of the
• Evaluation of Subsurface Engineered Barriers
VEBs have been installed (42 of 51). Table 11
at Waste Sites (EPA-542-R-98-005)
indicates the number of each type of VEB. The
types of barriers are: Table 11. Superfund Remedial
• Slurry wall – Consists of a vertical trench that Actions: Types of Vertical Engineered
is filled with a low-permeability slurry of Barriers at 49 Sites Selecting
bentonite, soil, or cement. This Technology (FY 1982 - 2002)*
• Geosynthetic wall – Constructed by placing a
geosynthetic liner into a trench. Vertical Engineered Number of
Barrier Type Barriers
• Grout – Constructed by injecting a high
Slurry Wall 46
pressure grout mixture into the subsurface. The
Grout 4
grout used is typically cement or a mixture of
Sheet Pile 3
cement and bentonite.
Geosynthetic Wall 2
• Deep soil mixing – Overlapping columns
Deep Soil Mixing 2
created by a series of large-diameter, counter-
rotating augers that mix in situ soils with an Other - VEB 1
additive, usually bentonite, cement, or grout, TOTAL 58

which is injected through the augers.
* Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY
• Sheet pile – Series of overlapping sheets of 2002 RODs. Some sites have more than one barrier.
impermeable material, such as metal. Some barriers have more than one barrier type.
Overwhelmingly, slurry walls are the most Sources: 3, 4, 5, 7, 11. Data sources are listed in the
frequently used type of barrier, with 46 References and Data Sources section on page 50.
43
Chemical Treatment and Construction Completion
dechlorinated, and oxidized into chlorides, carbon

Section 4: Report Focus dioxide, and water. When used to treat metals
Areas: Chemical Treatment and metalloids, it may be used to change a
and Construction Completion contaminant’s valence state, cause the contaminant
Two areas of interest to the remediation to react with other species in the soil, or cause the
community are the focus of this section: (1) the contaminant to precipitate, rendering it less toxic
application and use of chemical treatment, and or mobile. For example, some applications of
(2) the remediation achievements at sites on the chemical treatment have reduced chromium (VI)
NPL. As discussed previously, the selection and to its less toxic chromium (III) form.
application of innovative technologies has been
increasing in the Superfund program. In The rate and extent of treatment of a target
particular, the selection and application of chemical contaminant are dictated by the properties of the
treatment has increased significantly since the contaminant, its reactions with the chemicals used,
publication of the Tenth Edition of the ASR. This concentrations of contaminants and treatment
section provides information on the trends and chemicals, and the matrix conditions. Conditions
usage of chemical treatment. In addition, the data that can impact the effectiveness of chemical
sources used to compile this edition of the ASR treatment include pH, temperature, and the
have expanded to include CORs. This section concentration of other chemicals that may react
presents documentation on the remediation with the treatment chemicals, such as natural
Section 4: Report Focus Areas:
achievements at Superfund sites using the organic matter, reduced minerals, carbonate, and
information contained in CORs. free radical scavengers.
Effective in situ application of chemical treatment
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
also depends on the method of delivery and
Chemical Treatment distribution of treatment chemicals throughout a
Chemical treatment, also known as chemical subsurface region. Delivery systems often employ
reduction/oxidation (redox), typically involves vertical or horizontal injection wells or air sparge
redox reactions that chemically convert hazardous points with forced advection to rapidly move the
contaminants to nonhazardous or less toxic chemicals into the subsurface. Chemical treatment
compounds that are more stable, less mobile, or can also impact the characteristics of the matrix
inert. Redox reactions involve the transfer of to be treated. For example, some treatment
electrons from one compound to another. chemicals can alter the pH if the system is not
Specifically, one reactant is oxidized (loses buffered effectively. Other potential effects that
electrons) and one is reduced (gains electrons). may impact treatment performance include colloid
The oxidizing agents used for treatment of genesis leading to reduced permeability;
hazardous contaminants in soil and groundwater mobilization of redox-sensitive and exchangeable
include ozone, hydrogen peroxide, hypochlorites, sorbed metals; possible formation of toxic by-
potassium permanganate, Fenton’s reagent products; evolution of heat and gas; and
(hydrogen peroxide and iron), chlorine, and destruction of microorganisms, leading to reduced
chlorine dioxide. This method may be applied in potential for future biological treatment.
situ or ex situ, to soils, sludges, sediments, and
Chemical treatment is a relatively innovative
other solids, and may also be applied to
technology, which has seen increased application
groundwater in situ or ex situ (P&T). P&T
in recent years, particularly for in situ treatment
chemical treatment for groundwater may also
of recalcitrant remediation problems, such as
include the use of UV light in a process known as
DNAPLs, LNAPLs, and contaminated
UV oxidation. This section focuses on source
groundwater in fractured rock. For in situ
control and in situ groundwater applications of
groundwater treatment, chemical treatment had
chemical treatment.
no more than one project in each year from FY
Chemical treatment primarily is used to treat 1988 - 1998. However, the use of this technology
organic contaminants, and is applicable to both has increased in recent years, averaging four
halogenated and nonhalogenated VOCs and projects per year in the period from FY 1999 -
SVOCs. When organics are treated, these 2002. Figure 28 plots the number of chemical
compounds are typically degraded to simpler and treatment projects for source control and in situ
less toxic compounds. For example, chlorinated groundwater by the FY for which the ROD was
VOCs, such as tetrachloroethene, may be signed.
44
Figure 28: Superfund Remedial This section presents detailed information on the
Actions: Trend in the Number of in situ chemical treatment projects at Superfund
remedial action sites, and examines the types of
Chemical Treatment Projects
contaminants treated using this technology. Table
(FY 1985 - 2002)*
12 lists the site name, state, contaminant groups,
media, chemical treatment agents, and
implementation status for in situ source control
and groundwater chemical treatment projects.
This report focuses on in situ chemical treatment
because its use has been increasing in recent years,
whereas the use of ex situ treatment has not.
Historically, chemical treatment has been used for

source control treatment but has recently been
applied for in situ groundwater treatment. Only
four projects selected this technology for in situ
groundwater treatment prior to FY 1998.
* Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY However, chemical treatment represented 4 of 16
2002 RODs. in situ groundwater treatment projects in FY 2002.
Sources: 3, 4, 5, 7, 11. Data sources are listed in the Information about chemical agents is available for
References and Data Sources section on page 50. implemented projects, because the chemical agents
Table 12. Superfund Remedial Actions: In Situ Chemical Treatment Projects

(FY 1982 - 2002)*
Site Name
(Operable Unit),
State Contaminant Group Media Type Technology Description Status
Alaric Inc Superfund Halogenated VOC Soil (in situ) Oxidizers may include Pre-design
Site OU 1, FL potassium permanganate, ozone,
hydrogen peroxide, or Fenton’s
reagent.
Battery Tech BTEX Soil (in situ) Mixture of hydrogen peroxide, Designed/
Duracell Lexington Halogenated SVOC sodium persulfate, iron II catalyst, Not
OU 1, NC Halogenated VOC sodium permanganate (if needed). Installed
Nonhalogenated VOC
PCBs
Solvents
Brunswick Wood Halogenated SVOC Groundwater Chemical oxidation. Pre-design
Preserving Site - Nonhalogenated SVOC (in situ)
OU 1, GA Organic pesticides/herbicides
PAHs
Calhoun Park Area - BTEX DNAPL Oxidizing agents may include Design
OU 2, SC Nonhalogenated SVOC (in situ) ozone, hydrogen peroxide,
Nonhalogenated VOC Groundwater hypochlorites, chlorine, and
PAHs (in situ) chlorine dioxide.
Solvents
Cooper Drum BTEX Groundwater Potassium permanganate and Design
Company, CA Halogenated VOC (in situ) HRC (a proprietary reductive
Nonhalogenated SVOC dechlorination agent).
Nonhalogenated VOC
PAHs
Solvents
Dublin TCE Site Halogenated VOC DNAPL Chemical oxidation. Pre-design
Remediation OU 2, Solvents (in situ)
PA
Eastern Surplus Halogenated VOC Groundwater Permanganate. Operational
Company Superfund Solvents (in situ)
Site - Entire Site, ME
Continued on next page
45
Table 12. Continued

Site Name
(Operable Unit),
Eastland Woolen Mill BTEX DNAPL Chemical reagents such as Design
- OU 1, ME Halogenated SVOC (in situ) Fenton’s reagent or other oxidizing
Halogenated VOC Groundwater agents.
Heavy metals (in situ)
Nonhalogenated SVOC
Nonhalogenated VOC
Solvents
Ewan Property - BTEX Groundwater Fenton’s reagent. Pre-design
OU 2, NJ Halogenated SVOC (in situ)
Halogenated VOC
Nonhalogenated SVOC
Nonhalogenated VOC
Solvents
Frontier Hard Heavy metals Soil (in situ) Injection of a reducing chemical to Design
Chrome Inc. - OUs 1 Groundwater convert hexavalent chromium to
and 2, WA (in situ) trivalent chromium.
Frontier Hard Heavy metals Groundwater Injection of a reducing chemical to Pre-design
Chrome Inc. - OUs 1 (in situ) convert hexavalent chromium to

and 2, WA trivalent chromium.
Fruit Avenue Plume Halogenated VOC Groundwater Chemical oxidation using Design
Site, NM Solvents (in situ) permanganate.
Halby Chemical Co. - Nonhalogenated VOC Soil (in situ) Sodium percarbonate. Completed
OU 1, Process Plant Solvents
Area, DE
Hanford Site - Heavy metals Groundwater In Situ Redox Manipulation involves Operational
100 Area - OU 2, WA (in situ) injecting sodium dithionite to
reduce the mobility and toxicity of
chromium in groundwater.
Hanscom Air Force Halogenated VOC Soil (in situ) Potassium permanganate. Operational
Base - OU 1, Site 1 Solvents Groundwater
Source Area, MA (in situ)
Jacksonville Naval Halogenated SVOC Groundwater Oxidant such as potassium Pre-design
Air Station - OU 3, Halogenated VOC (in situ) permanganate.
FL Nonhalogenated VOC
Solvents
Jones Chemicals, Halogenated VOC DNAPL Oxidizing agent such as potassium Pre-design
Inc., NY Solvents (in situ) permanganate or hydrogen
Liquids peroxide.
New Hampshire Heavy metals Soil (in situ) Phosphate-based proprietary Design
Plating Co. - OU 1, Inorganic cyanides chemical agent addition.
NH
Odessa Chromium II Heavy metals Groundwater Ferrous sulfate heptahydrate with Operational
Superfund Site, TX (in situ) hydrochloric acid will be used.
Peterson/Puritan Heavy metals Groundwater Oxygenated water is injected into Completed
Inc. - OU 1, PAC (in situ) the vadose zone and shallow
Area, RI groundwater at a rate of 5 gallons
per minute to treat and immobilize
arsenic.
Rasmussens Dump, BTEX Groundwater A mixture of ozone/oxygen is Completed
MI Halogenated SVOC (in situ) injected into the contaminated
Halogenated VOC chlorinated hydrocarbon
Nonhalogenated VOC groundwater plume. Oxidation of
Solvents the chlorinated hydrocarbons
occurs in situ.
Silver Bow Creek/ Heavy metals Groundwater Contaminated groundwater was Completed
Butte Area - Rocker (in situ) treated with ferrous iron, limestone,
Timber Framing And and potassium permanganate.
Treatment Plant OU,
MT
46
Table 12. Continued
Site Name
(Operable Unit),
Southern Solvents Halogenated VOC Soil (in situ) Oxidizing agent such as hydrogen Designed/
OU 1, FL Solvents Liquids peroxide. Not
Installed Groundwater Installed
(in situ)
Tex-Tin OU 1, TX Heavy metals Liquids Sodium hydroxide and Operational
hydrochloric acid.
Townsend Chainsaw Heavy metals Groundwater Ferrous sulfate. Operational
Company, Inc., SC (in situ)
Trans Circuits Site, Halogenated VOC Groundwater Perform in situ chemical oxidation Pre-design

FL Solvents (in situ) of plume via the injection of
potassium permanganate,
hydrogenperoxide, ozone, or a
combinationthereof through
injection wells in the surficial aquifer.
Weldon Spring Halogenated VOC Groundwater Permanganate. Completed
Chemical Plant - Solvents (in situ)
OU 2, MO
Wright-Patterson BTEX Groundwater Strong oxidizer such as Fenton’s Completed
Air Force Base Halogenated SVOC (in situ) reagent or potassium
Groundwater OU 12, Halogenated VOC permanganate.
OH Nonhalogenated VOC
Solvents

BTEX = Benzene-toluene-ethylbenzene-xylene
DNAPL = Dense nonaqueous-phase liquid
OU = Operable unit BOX 9. IN SITU GROUNDWATER CHEMICAL
PAH = Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon TREATMENT
PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyl In situ chemical treatment is being used to treat
SVOC = Semivolatile organic compound groundwater contaminated with halogenated
VOC = Volatile organic compound volatile organic compounds at the Eastern
Surplus Company, a 5-acre site located in
Meddybemps, Maine. This site served as a
retail location for army surplus and salvage
are usually identified during bench- and pilot-scale
items from 1946 to the early 1980’s. During an
testing. This information is often not available inspection in 1984, chemical odors, leaking
for projects in the design phase. Box 9 contains electrical transformers, hundreds of
more detailed information about one of the in situ deteriorating drums and containers, and
groundwater projects. numerous areas of stained soil were observed.
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) was identified as the
In situ chemical treatment is typically used to treat main site contaminant. Trichloroethene, 1,2-
the following: dichloroethene, 1,1,2-trichloroethane,
• Contaminants associated with DNAPLs, methylene chloride, and xylene were also
including chlorinated VOCs and PAHs detected in site groundwater. A removal action
was conducted, which included soil excavation
• Contaminants associated with LNAPLs, such (completed in 1999) and a groundwater P&T
as BTEX system for plume containment, which became
• Metals, metalloids, and inorganics, such as operational in 2001.
chromium, arsenic, and cyanide A Record of Decision was issued in 2000 for in
The eight contaminants most frequently treated situ chemical oxidation to restore the site
using chemical treatment either in situ or ex situ groundwater. Design of the system began in
are shown in Figure 29. TCE is the most December 2000, and construction was
completed in 2001. Several pilot applications
commonly treated contaminant, followed by PCE,
were conducted, and the full-scale application
chromium, and arsenic. began in 2002. This treatment includes
permanganate injection for treating PCE.
47

Most Commonly Treated Contaminants for
Chemical Treatment Projects (FY 1982 - 2002)*

DCE = Dichloroethene
PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Construction Completion One indicator of remediation progress in the

Superfund Program is the number of CORs
This edition of the ASR includes information from
issued. CORs have been prepared for 57% of all
close-out reports (COR). CORs are prepared when
NPL sites. Table 13 shows the number of NPL
physical construction of all cleanup actions is
sites with CORs through FY 2002. Figure 30
complete, all immediate threats have been addressed,
shows technologies included in CORs from FY
and all long-term threats are under control. CORs
1983 - 2000. The most common technology in
contain information on the actions taken at the site
CORs is P&T. SVE, S/S, incineration, and
to protect human health and the environment. These
bioremediation are other technologies representing
reports are prepared for Superfund sites on EPA’s
a large fraction of CORs. The total number of
Construction Completion List (CCL). For long-term
technologies in Figure 30 exceeds the total number
remedies, CORs may be prepared before the remedy
of CORs because CORs discuss all remedies
is completed. For example, a site with groundwater
implemented at a site, and many sites have more
contamination may achieve construction complete
than one remedy involving a treatment technology.
status when a P&T remedy becomes operational.
In such cases, a Preliminary COR (PCOR) is Construction Complete status is only achieved
prepared. When the groundwater cleanup has been when the Construction Complete criteria are met
completed, a final close-out report (FCOR) is for all portions of a site. At sites with multiple
prepared. This report incorporates both PCORs areas of contamination, or multiple types of
and FCORs. It is important to note that sites with a contaminated media, achieving Construction
COR may not have a completed project, as defined Complete status may require a longer time than
in this report (i.e., the project may still be operating). simpler sites with fewer contaminated areas or
media. The number of treatment projects tracked
48
Table 13. Superfund Remedial in the ASR were compared for sites with CORs
Actions: Status of Close-out Reports and sites without CORs. The average number of
at National Priorities List Sites (FY projects for sites with CORs is slightly less than
1983 - 2002) the average number of projects for sites without
them (1.7 compared to 2.2 projects per site). Sites
Status of Close-out Number Percentage of with fewer treatment projects tend to be less
Reports of Sites Sites complex, with fewer contaminants and smaller
Sites with a Close- volumes of media requiring treatment. These less
out Report 846 56% complex sites are likely to achieve construction
Sites without a complete status more quickly, and therefore have
Close-out a COR published for them. More complex sites
Report 491 33%
may take longer to identify and implement
Sites with no ROD
remedies. For example, 182 of the completed

(and no close-
out report) 158 11% treatment projects identified in this report are at
Sites deleted and referred sites that do not have CORs. At these sites,
to another authority 4 1% construction of another remedy has not yet been
completed.
Sources: 3, 4, 5, 7, 11. Data sources are listed in the
References and Data Sources section on page 50.
Figure 30: Superfund Remedial Actions: Technologies Being Used at Sites

That Have Achieved Construction Complete Status (FY 1983 - 2000)
(a) Through FY 2000, 759 sites had Close-out reports. Technology information was not available for FY 2001 and 2002.
Some close-out reports include more than 1 technology.
Source: 18. Data sources are listed in the References and Data Sources section on page 50.
49
Section 5: References and Data Sources
Section 5: References and 11. Groundwater Remedies Selected at Superfund
Data Sources Sites (EPA-542-R-01-022). EPA. OSWER.
1. List of Superfund National Priorities List January 2002.
(NPL) sites that are final. www.epa.gov/ 12. Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation at
superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/nplfina.txt Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and
March 2003. Underground Storage Tank Sites. OSWER
2. List of Superfund NPL sites that have been Directive 9200.4-17P. EPA. April 21, 1999.
deleted. www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/query/ 13. Comprehensive Environmental Response,
queryhtm/npldela.txt March 2003. Compensation, and Liability Information
3. Compilation of Record of Decision (ROD) System (CERCLIS).
abstracts, site summaries, and fact sheets for 14. Institutional Controls: A Site Manager’s Guide
fiscal years (FY) 1982 - 2002. www.epa.gov/ to Identifying, Evaluating and Selecting
superfund/sites/query/advquery.htm March Institutional Controls at Superfund and RCRA
2003. Corrective Action Cleanups (EPA 540-F-00-
4. Records of Decision (RODs), ROD 005). EPA. OSWER. September 2000.
amendments, Explanations of Significant 15. The Role of Cost in the Superfund Remedy
Difference, and ROD abstracts from FY 1982 Selection Process (EPA 540-F-96-018). EPA.
- 2002. OSWER. September 1996.
5. Contacts with remedial project managers, FY 16. Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Selection
1992 - 2002. Process. OSWER Directive 9355.7-04.
6. ROD Annual Reports. EPA Office or EPA. May 1995.
Superfund Remediation and Technology 17. Groundwater Pump-and-Treat Systems:
Innovation (OSRTI). 1998 - 1992. Summary of Selected Cost and Performance
7. Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Information (EPA-542-R-01-0219). EPA.
Status Report (ASR) Tenth Edition (EPA-542- OSWER. December 2001.
R-01-004). EPA. Office of Solid Waste and 18. Close-out Reports (COR). EPA. OSWER.
Emergency Response (OSWER). February 1983 - 2002.
2001. 19. Subsurface Containment and Monitoring
8. Personal communication from Ken Lovelace Systems: Barriers and Beyond. Leslie
of EPA OSRTI to Tetra Tech EM Inc. April Perlman. March 1999.
1998. 20. Evaluation of Subsurface Engineered Barriers
9. Contacts with EPA Superfund Removal at Waste Sites (EPA-542-R-98-005). EPA
Branch Chiefs and On-Scene Coordinators. OSWER. August 1998.15. The Role of
10. Close-Out Procedures for National Priorities Cost in the Superfund Remedy Selection
List Sites (EPA 540-R-98-016). OSWER Process (EPA 540-F-96-018). EPA. OSWER.
Directive 9320.2-09A-P. EPA. OSWER. September 1996.
January 2000.
50
Superfund Remedial Actions:
Treatment Technologies by Fiscal Year
Technology Type Fiscal Year
Ex Situ Source Control Technologies 1982-85 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 TOTALS
Solidification/Stabilization 3 3 6 7 11 13 20 22 11 13 3 6 3 14 8 6 2 6 157
Incineration (off-site) 3 2 3 9 9 15 12 6 9 5 9 5 3 3 2 6 1 2 104
Thermal Desorption 2 1 4 4 3 7 8 2 4 4 6 1 5 5 1 4 2 6 69
Bioremediation 1 1 3 5 3 1 8 3 5 6 5 0 4 6 2 1 0 54
Incineration (on-site) 4 3 4 7 6 4 3 3 1 1 2 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 43
Physical Separation 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 12 3 2 20
Chemical Treatment 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 10
Soil Vapor Extraction 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 9
Neutralization 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8
Soil Washing 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 8
Mechanical Soil Aeration 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5
Solvent Extraction 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
Open Burn/Open Detonation 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3
Phytoremediation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2
Vitrification 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
TOTALS 15 10 19 32 36 49 47 47 32 31 32 22 17 29 22 30 11 18 499
In Situ Source Control Technologies 1982-85 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 TOTALS
Soil Vapor Extraction 4 2 1 8 21 17 34 17 14 7 10 22 15 8 15 6 8 4 213
Bioremediation 0 0 1 2 0 3 1 3 4 5 4 7 0 6 3 5 2 2 48
Solidification/Stabilization 0 2 3 3 3 3 3 6 7 0 2 5 3 4 3 1 0 0 48
Flushing 1 1 0 0 3 1 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 16
Multi-Phase Extraction 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 2 8
In Situ Thermal Treatment 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 8
Neutralization 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 4
Vitrification 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
Electrical Separation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
TOTALS 6 5 5 13 27 25 42 27 26 16 16 36 18 22 29 20 16 15 364
In Situ Groundwater Technologies 1982-85 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 TOTALS
Air Sparging 0 1 0 0 1 1 8 4 3 0 3 7 7 6 7 4 4 2 58
Bioremediation 1 0 0 0 3 3 1 1 4 2 2 1 1 2 2 4 12 5 44
Permeable Reactive Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 1 3 0 3 3 1 17
Multi-Phase Extraction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 4 1 0 1 0 3 14
In-Well Air Stripping 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 5
Flushing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
In Situ Thermal Treatment 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
TOTALS 1 1 0 1 4 6 9 8 9 5 7 11 14 14 13 22 28 16 169
Ex Situ Groundwater Technologies 1982-85 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 TOTAL
Pump and Treat 9 14 9 23 28 28 48 59 73 66 51 51 79 64 45 55 20 21 743
Some projects treat both in situ source control and in situ groundwater. These projects are counted in both sections of this appendix.
A-1
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 1
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
Source Control Treatment Technology
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
Summary Matrix
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
SITE NAME STATE FY ACTION TECHNOLOGY TYPE STATUS
Kellogg-Deering Well Field CT 1989 Remedial ♦ O
Atlas Tack Corp – OU 1 MA 2000 Remedial ♦ D
Baird & Mcguire – OU 2 (Soil) MA 1986 Remedial ♦ C
Baird & Mcguire – OU 3 (Sediments) MA 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Cannon Engineering – Bridgewater OU MA 1988 Remedial ♦ C
Devens Reserve Forces Training Area (RFTA),
Area of Contamination 57 Areas 2 and 3 MA 2001 Remedial ♦ PD
Groveland Wells MA 1988 Remedial ♦ O
Hanscom Field/Hanscom Air Force Base – OU1,
Site 1 Source Area MA 2001 Remedial ♦ C
Hanscom Field/Hanscom Air Force Base – OU1,
Site 1 Source Area MA 2001 Remedial ♦ O
New Bedford Harbor – OU 1 MA 2001 Remedial ♦ PD
New Bedford OU2 MA 1999 Remedial ♦ C
Otis Air National Guard (Usaf) – Fuel Spill (FS) 12 MA 1995 Remedial ♦ C
PSC Resources MA 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Re-Solve, Inc. MA 1987 Remedial ♦ C
Rose Disposal Pit MA 1988 Remedial ♦ C
Silresim Chemical MA 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Silresim Chemical MA 1991 Remedial ♦ PD
W.R. Grace (Acton Plant) And Co., Inc. MA 1989 Remedial ♦ C
W.R. Grace (Acton Plant) And Co., Inc. MA 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Wells G&H – OU 1 (New England Plastics) MA 1989 Remedial ♦ O
Wells G&H – OU 1 (Wildwood Conservation Trust) MA 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Wells G&H – OU 1 (Wildwood Conservation Trust) MA 1989 Remedial ♦ O
Eastern Surplus Company Superfund Site ME 2000 Remedial ♦ O
Eastland Woolen Mill – OU1 ME 2002 Remedial ♦ D
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not Installed; BI = Being Installed; I = Installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
B-1
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 1
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
Summary Matrix (continued)
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Loring AFB – OU 11, Fuels Tank Farm (FTF) ME 1995 Remedial ♦ O
Loring AFB – OU 8, Fire Training Area ME 1996 Remedial ♦ C
Loring AFB – OU 9, Auto Hobby Shop Area ME 1999 Remedial ♦ O
Loring AFB – OU 9, Power Plant Drainage Pipe (PDDP)/
Former Vehicle Maintenance Motor Pool ME 1995 Remedial ♦ C
Mckin Co. ME 1985 Remedial ♦ C
Pinette’S Salvage Yard – Amendment ME 1993 Remedial ♦ C
Union Chemical – OU 1 ME 1994 Remedial ♦ C
Fletchers Paint Works & Storage – OU 01 NH 1998 Remedial ♦ PD
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corp. NH 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Mottolo Pig Farm NH 1991 Remedial ♦ C
New Hampshire Plating Co. – OU 01 NH 1998 Remedial ♦ D
Ottati & Goss/Kingston Steel Drum NH 1987 Remedial ♦ C
Ottati & Goss/Kingston Steel Drum – OU 4 NH 1987 Remedial ♦ C
Pease AFB – Site 45 NH 1995 Remedial ♦ C
Pease AFB – Site 8 NH 1994 Remedial ♦ O
Pease AFB. – Zone 2 NH 1995 Remedial ♦ O
Savage Municipal Water Supply – OU 1,
Ok Tool Source Area NH 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Sylvester Dump NH 1983 Remedial ♦ C
Tibbetts Road NH 1992 Remedial ♦ O
Tinkham Garage – OU 1 NH 1986 Remedial ♦ C
Davis Liquid Waste RI 1996 Remedial ♦ C
Davisville Naval Construction Battalion Center RI 1993 Remedial ♦ C
Naval Station Newport – OU4 RI 2000 Remedial ♦ O
B-2
Status:
Stamina Mills
SITE NAME
Picillo Farm Site
Burgess Brothers Landfill – OU 01

REGION 1
Peterson/Puritan Inc. – OU 1, CCL Area

RI
RI
RI
VT
STATE
1998
1990
1993
1993
FY
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
ACTION
Sol
idifi
cati
Inci on/
ner Sta
a biliz
The tion ( atio
rma o f f - n
l
B-3
D site
Bio eso )
rem rpti
edia on
Inci tion
ner
a
C h e tion (
mic on
a l T -site)
Neu rea
tral tme
izat nt
Soi ion
lW
ash
Mec in
PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not Installed; BI = Being Installed; I = Installed; O = Operational; C = Complete
han g
Soi i c a l So
l Va il A
S o l por Ex era
ven trac tion
t
Ex Situ
tE
Ope x t r a ion
nB ctio
u r n
Vitr n/
i f i c a Open
tion Det
Phy ona
tore tion
Phy m e
TECHNOLOGY TYPE
sica d i a t i o n
♦
♦
♦
♦
l Se
Soi par
atio
l Va
por n
Sol Ext
idifi ract
cati ion
Bio
rem on/Sta
e b
Source Control
Flu di iliza
s h i n ation tion
g
In S
itu
The
Che r ma
mic l Tr
al T eat
Phy rea me
tore tme nt
me nt
Mu diat
lti-P ion
has
Ele
In Situ
ctric e E x t r
al S ac
Vitr epa t i o n
ifica
tion r a tion
Neu
tral
izat
ion
O
O
O
BI
STATUS
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 2
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
Summary Matrix
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
A O Polymer NJ 1991 Remedial ♦ O
American Cyanamid Co. – Group I Impoundments (11, 13,
19, And 24) NJ 1993 Remedial ♦ O
American Cyanamid Co. – Group II Impoundments (15, 16,
17, And 18) NJ 1996 Remedial ♦ PD
Asbestos Dump – New Vernon Road and White Bridge
Road Cleanup NJ 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Bog Creek Farm – OU 1 NJ 1985 Remedial ♦ C
Bog Creek Farm – OU 2 NJ 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Bridgeport Rental & Oil Services NJ 1985 Remedial ♦ C
Caldwell Trucking – Amendment NJ 1995 Remedial ♦ C
Caldwell Trucking – OU 1 NJ 1995 Remedial ♦ C
Caldwell Trucking – OU 1 NJ 1993 Remedial ♦ C
Chemical Control NJ 1987 Remedial ♦ C
Ciba-Geigy Chemical Corporation – OU 2 NJ 2000 Remedial ♦ D
Ciba-Geigy Chemical Corporation – OU 2 NJ 2000 Remedial ♦ D
Ciba-Geigy Chemical Corporation – OU 2 NJ 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
Cosden Chemical Coatings NJ 1992 Remedial ♦ PD
Curcio Scrap Metal, Inc. NJ 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Dayco Corp./L.E. Carpenter Co., NJ NJ 1994 Remedial ♦ O
Ellis Property NJ 1992 Remedial ♦ O
Ewan Property – OU 1 NJ 1988 Remedial ♦ C
FAA Technical Center – Area 20 A (Salvage Yard) NJ 1990 Remedial ♦ C
FAA Technical Center – OU 1, Area D – Jet Fuel Farm NJ 1989 Remedial ♦ O
Federal Creosote Site – OU 1 NJ 1999 Remedial ♦ D
Fried Industries NJ 1994 Remedial ♦ C
Garden State Cleaners NJ 1991 Remedial ♦ C
B-4
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 2
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Horseshoe Road Site – OU 1 NJ 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
Industrial Latex – OU 1 NJ 1992 Remedial ♦ C
King Of Prussia NJ 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Lipari Landfill NJ 1985 Remedial ♦ O
Lipari Landfill – OU 2 NJ 1985 Remedial ♦ O
Lipari Landfill Marsh Sediment – OU 3 NJ 1988 Remedial ♦ C
Metaltec/Aerosystems – OU 1 NJ 1986 Remedial ♦ C
Myers Property NJ 1990 Remedial ♦ PD
Nascolite Corp. – OU 2 NJ 1991 Remedial ♦ D/I
Naval Air Engineering Center – OU 23 NJ 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Naval Air Engineering Center – Site 16 Under Area C NJ 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Naval Air Engineering Center – Site 17 Under Area C NJ 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Naval Air Engineering Station, Site 28 NJ 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Naval Weapons Station Earle (Site A) – OU 03 NJ 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Nl Industries, Inc. NJ 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Nl Industries, Inc. – OU 1 NJ 1994 Remedial ♦ O
Pulverizing Services OU1 NJ 1999 Remedial ♦ O
Pulverizing Services OU1 NJ 1999 Remedial ♦ O
Reich Farm NJ 1988 Remedial ♦ C
Sayreville Landfill NJ 1990 Remedial ♦ C
South Jersey Clothing Company NJ 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Swope Oil & Chemical NJ 1985 Remedial ♦ C
Swope Oil & Chemical – OU 2 NJ 1991 Remedial ♦ O
Universal Oil Products NJ 1993 Remedial ♦ C
B-5
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 2
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Vineland Chemical Co., Inc. – OU 3 & 4 NJ 1989 Remedial ♦ BI
Waldick Aerospace Devices, Inc. NJ 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Waldick Aerospace Devices, Inc. – OU 1 NJ 1987 Remedial ♦ C
Williams Property NJ 1987 Remedial ♦ C
Woodland Route 532 Dump-Amendment NJ 1999 Remedial ♦ BI
Woodland Routes 72 Dump (Amendment) NJ 1999 Remedial ♦ BI
American Thermostat Co. – Phase 1 NY 1990 Remedial ♦ C
American Thermostat Co. – Phase 2 NY 1997 Remedial ♦ C
Brewster Well Field – OU 2 NY 1988 Remedial ♦ C
Brookhaven National Laboratory (USDOE) – OU 4 NY 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Byron Barrel & Drum – OU 1/02 NY 1989 Remedial ♦ O
Carroll & Dubies Sewage Disposal NY 1995 Remedial ♦ C
Claremont Polychemical NY 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Facet Enterprises NY 1992 Remedial ♦ C
FMC Corp. (Dublin Road) NY 1993 Remedial ♦ C
Fulton Terminals – Soil Treatment NY 1989 Remedial ♦ C
GCL Tie And Treating – OU 1 NY 1994 Remedial ♦ C
GCL Tie And Treating – OU 2 NY 1995 Remedial ♦ C
General Motors/Central Foundry Division – OU 1 & OU 2 NY 1992 Remedial ♦ O
Genzale Plating Company – OU 1 NY 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Genzale Plating Company OU1 NY 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Hooker (102nd Street Landfill) – Amendment NY 1995 Remedial ♦ O
Hooker Chemical/Ruco Polymer NY 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Hooker Chemical/Ruco Polymer – OU 1 NY 1994 Remedial ♦ O
B-6
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 2
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Hudson River PCBs – OU2 NY 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
Jones Chemicals, Inc NY 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
Jones Chemicals, Inc. NY 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
Lehigh Valley Railroad Derailment – OU2 NY 1999 Remedial ♦ D/I
Love Canal – 05 NY 1997 Remedial ♦ C
Marathon Battery Corp. – Areas I, II, And III NY 1986 Remedial ♦ C
Mattiace Petrochemicals – OU 2 NY 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Mattiace Petrochemicals – OU 3 and 4 NY 1991 Remedial ♦ O
Olean Well Field – OU 2, Alcas Property NY 1996 Remedial ♦ PD
Pasley Solvents And Chemicals, Inc. NY 1992 Remedial ♦ O
Preferred Plating Corp. – OU 2 NY 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Reynolds Metals Company Study Area, (RMC) NY 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Robintech, Inc./National Pipe Company NY 1997 Remedial ♦ C
Sarney Farm NY 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Sealand Restoration, Inc. NY 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Seneca Army Depot Activity (SEDA) Open Burning
Grounds OU2 NY 1999 Remedial ♦ O
Shore Realty (Formerly Applied Environmental Services) –
Groundwater OU NY 1991 Remedial ♦ O
Shore Realty (Formerly Applied Environmental Services) –
OU 1 NY 1991 Remedial ♦ O
Sinclair Refinery – OU 2 NY 1991 Remedial ♦ O
SMS Instrument NY 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Solvent Savers NY 1990 Remedial ♦ O
Stanton Cleaners Area Groundwater Contamination – OU1 NY 1999 Remedial ♦ O
Vestal Water Supply NY 1990 Remedial ♦ O
Wide Beach Development NY 1985 Remedial ♦ C
B-7
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 2
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Wide Beach Development Site NY 1985 Remedial ♦ C
York Oil Co. – OU 1 NY 1988 Remedial ♦ O
York Oil Co. – OU 2 NY 1998 Remedial ♦ D/I
GE Wiring Devices PR 1988 Remedial ♦ C
Janssen Inc. PR 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Upjohn Manufacturing Co. PR 1988 Remedial ♦ C
Vega Alta Public Supply Wells – OU 2,
PRIDCO Industrial Park PR 1997 Remedial ♦ D/I
Tutu Well Field – Department of Education VI 1996 Remedial ♦ D/I
Tutu Well Field – Dept of Education VI 1996 Remedial ♦ I
Tutu Well Field – Esso VI 1996 Remedial ♦ C
Tutu Well Field – O’ Henry VI 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Tutu Well Field – Texaco VI 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Bolling Air Force Base – OU1, Southwest Corner Landfill DC 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
Delaware Sand & Gravel Landfill DE 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Delaware Sand & Gravel Landfill – OU 4 and OU 5 DE 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Dover AFB – Lindane Source Area Within Area 6 DE 1995 Remedial ♦ C
B-8
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 3
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
Summary Matrix
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Dover AFB – OU 14 DE 1998 Remedial ♦ C
Dover AFB – Target Area 3 Of Area 6 DE 1995 Remedial ♦ D/I
Dover Gas Light Co. DE 1994 Remedial ♦ C
Dover Gas Light Co. – OU 01 DE 1998 Remedial ♦ C
Dover Gas Light Co. – OU 01 DE 1998 Remedial ♦ PD
Halby Chemical Co. – OU 1, Process Plant Area DE 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Ncr Corp. DE 1991 Remedial ♦ O
Standard Chlorine Of Delaware, Inc. DE 1995 Remedial ♦ D
Wildcat Landfill – OU 1, Landfill Proper And Adjacent Areas DE 1988 Remedial ♦ C
Aberdeen Proving Ground (Edgewood Area) J-Field
Soil OU MD 2001 Remedial ♦ O
Patuxent River Naval Air Station – OU 1 Soils, Pesticide
Shop Site 17 MD 2001 Remedial ♦ O
Southern Maryland Wood Treating – Amendment MD 1995 Remedial ♦ C
Bendix Flight Systems Division PA 1988 Remedial ♦ C
Boarhead Farm PA 1999 Remedial ♦ D/I
Boarhead Farm PA 1999 Remedial ♦ D/I
Brodhead Creek PA 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Brodhead Creek – OU 1 PA 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Bruin Lagoon PA 1982 Remedial ♦ C
C&D Recycling PA 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Centre County Kepone Superfund Site PA 2001 Remedial ♦ BI
Centre County Kepone Superfund Site PA 2001 Remedial ♦ BI
Craig Farm Drum PA 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Douglassville Disposal PA 1988 Remedial ♦ C
Douglassville Disposal PA 1989 Remedial ♦ C
B-9
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 3
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Drake Chemical – Phase III, OU 3 PA 1988 Remedial ♦ C
Dublin TCE Site Remediation OU-2 PA 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
Eastern Diversified Metals PA 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Hebelka Auto Salvage Yard PA 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Hunterstown Road PA 1993 Remedial ♦ C
Hunterstown Road PA 1993 Remedial ♦ C
Jacks Creek/Sitkin Smelting And Refining PA 1997 Remedial ♦ D
Letterkenny Army Depot (Se Area) – Former Solvent
Disposal Lagoon/Earthen PA 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Letterkenny Army Depot (Se Area) – OU 1, K-Area PA 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Lord-Shope Landfill PA 1990 Remedial ♦ O
M.W. Manufacturing PA 1998 Remedial ♦ D
MW Manuafacturing – Carbon Waste Pile PA 1998 Remedial ♦ C
MW Manufacturing – OU 05 PA 1998 Remedial ♦ D
Palmerton Zinc Pile Superfund Site OU-3 PA 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
Paoli Rail Yard PA 1992 Remedial ♦ O
Publicker Industries, Inc. – OU 3 PA 1996 Remedial ♦ C
Raymark PA 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Revere Chemical Co. – OU 1 PA 1994 Remedial ♦ C
Saegertown Industrial Area – Former Gatx Property PA 1995 Remedial ♦ C
The Crater Resources Superfund Site PA 2000 Remedial ♦ D
Tonolli Corp. PA 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Tysons Dump PA 1988 Remedial ♦ C
Westline PA 1986 Remedial ♦ C
Whitmoyer Laboratories – OU 04 and OU 5 PA 1998 Remedial ♦ C
Whitmoyer Laboratories – OU 1 PA 1989 Remedial ♦ C
B-10
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 3
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Whitmoyer Laboratories – OU 2 (Bldg Structures) PA 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Whitmoyer Laboratories – OU 2 (Bldg Structures,
Vault OU 4 Uvw, And Lagoon Sludges OU 5) PA 1995 Remedial ♦ C
William Dick Lagoons – OU-03/Soil Remediation PA 1993 Remedial ♦ D
Abex Corp. VA 1992 Remedial ♦ D/I
Abex Corporation OU 1 – Inner Focus Area VA 1994 Remedial ♦ O
Arrowhead Associates/Scovillcorp. – OU 1 VA 1991 Remedial ♦ O
Atlantic Wood Industry – OU 1 VA 1995 Remedial ♦ PD
C&R Battery Co., Inc. VA 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Defense General Supply Center (DLA) – OU 5 VA 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Dixie Cavern County Landfill VA 1991 Remedial ♦ C
First Piedmont Rock Quarry (Route 719) VA 1991 Remedial ♦ O
Fort Eustis Directorate of Logistics Storage Yard OU 5 VA 2001 Remedial ♦ PD
Greenwood Chemical Co. – OU 1 VA 1990 Remedial ♦ C
H & H Burn Pit VA 1999 Remedial ♦ O
Naval Surface Warfare – Dahlgren – OU 03 VA 1998 Remedial ♦ C
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, Site 12 –
Chemical Burn Area VA 1997 Remedial ♦ C
Naval Weapons Station – Yorktown – OU 03 VA 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Naval Weapons Station OU2 VA 1999 Remedial ♦ O
Naval Weapons Station -Yorktown OU 13 VA 1999 Remedial ♦ O
Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump VA 1999 Remedial ♦ C
Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump VA 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Saunders Supply Co. – Amendment VA 1996 Remedial ♦ C
US Titanium VA 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
B-11
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 3
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Fike Chemical, Inc. – OU 3 – Drum Removal WV 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Ordnance Works Disposal Areas OU 1 WV 1999 Remedial ♦ D
Vienna Superfund Site WV 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
West Virginia Ordnance (Us Army) WV 1987 Remedial ♦ C
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant – OU 5 AL 1997 Remedial ♦ C
B-12
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 4
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
Summary Matrix
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant – OU 5 AL 1997 Remedial ♦ C
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant, Area A, Study Area 12
And D – OU 3 AL 1994 Remedial ♦ C
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant, Area B, Stockpile Soil
– OU 1 AL 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant, Area B, Study Area 6,
7, 10, 21 – OU 2 AL 1995 Remedial ♦ C
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant, Area B, Study Areas 5,
10, 16, 19, OU 6 AL 1997 Remedial ♦ C
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant, Area B, Study Areas 5,
10, 16, 19, OU 6 AL 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Ciba Geigy (Mcintosh Plant) – OU 2 AL 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Ciba Geigy (Mcintosh Plant) – OU 4 AL 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Interstate Lead Co. AL 1991 Remedial ♦ D/I
Mowbray Engineering AL 1986 Remedial ♦ C
Redwing Carriers, Inc. (ROD Amendment) AL 2000 Remedial ♦ D/I
Redwing Carriers, Inc. (ROD Amendment) AL 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
Stauffer Chemical (Cold Creek Plant) – OU2 AL 1995 Remedial ♦ O
Stauffer Chemical LeMoyne Plant – OU 2 AL 1999 Remedial ♦ D
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition (Montgomery – OU 02) AL 1998 Remedial ♦ O
62nd Street Dump FL 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Agrico Chemical FL 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Airco Plating Company, OU 1 FL 1994 Remedial ♦ C
Alaric Inc Superfund Site – OU1 FL 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
American Creosote Works – OU2, Phase 2 FL 1994 Remedial ♦ PD
Bay Drum – OU 3 FL 1993 Remedial ♦ C
Brown Wood Preserving FL 1988 Remedial ♦ C
Cabot/Koppers – Koppers OU FL 1990 Remedial ♦ PD
B-13
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 4
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Cecil Field Naval Air Station – OU 2, Site 17 FL 1994 Remedial ♦ C
Cecil Field Naval Air Station – OU7, Site 16, SVE FL 1999 Remedial ♦ O
Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving – Amendment FL 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Davie Landfill FL 1985 Remedial ♦ C
Dubose Oil Products Co. FL 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Florida Steel Corp. – OU 2 FL 1994 Remedial ♦ C
Helena Chemical Company (Tampa Plant) FL 1996 Remedial ♦ D
Hollingsworth Solderless FL 1986 Remedial ♦ C
Jacksonville Naval Air Station – OU 2 Psc 42 FL 1995 Remedial ♦ C
Jacksonville Naval Air Station – OU 2 PSCs 2,41,and 43 FL 1994 Remedial ♦ C
Jacksonville Naval Air Station – OU3 FL 2000 Remedial ♦ O
Jacksonville Naval Air Station – Psc-2 FL 1994 Remedial ♦ C
Kassauf-Kimerling Battery – Wetlands Soils FL 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Kassauf-Kimerling Battery Disposal – OU 1 (Landfill Wastes) FL 1989 Remedial ♦ C
MRI Corporation NPL Site – OU1 FL 2000 Remedial ♦ D
Normandy Park Apartments FL 2000 Remedial ♦ C
Peak Oil – OU 1 FL 1993 Remedial ♦ C
Peak Oil/Bay Drum – OU 1 FL 1993 Remedial ♦ D
Peak Oil/Bay Drum – OU 2, Site Wide Groundwater FL 1993 Remedial ♦ PD
Pepper Steel & Alloys, Inc. FL 1986 Remedial ♦ C
Sanford Gasification Plant Site – OU 5 FL 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
Sapp Battery Salvage FL 1986 Remedial ♦ C
Schuylkill Metal FL 1990 Remedial ♦ C
B-14
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 4
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Southern Solvents OU 1 FL 1999 Remedial ♦ D/I
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Tarpon Springs) – OU 01 FL 1998 Remedial ♦ PD
Stauffer Chemical Company FL 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Whitehouse Oil Pits – Amendment FL 1998 Remedial ♦ D/I
Whitehouse Oil Pits – OU 01 FL 1998 Remedial ♦ PD
Yellow Water Road Dump FL 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Zellwood Soil Contamination – OU 1 (Amendment) FL 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Brunswick Wood Preserving Site – OU 1 GA 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
Cedartown Industries, Inc. GA 1993 Remedial ♦ C
Diamond Shamrock Corp. – Liquid Wastes GA 1994 Remedial ♦ C
Hercules 009 Landfill GA 1993 Remedial ♦ C
Hercules 009 Landfill GA 1993 Remedial ♦ C
Mathis Brothers Landfill – South Marble Top Road GA 1996 Remedial ♦ C
Robins Air Force Base – OU 1, Landfill And Sludge Lagoon GA 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Robins Air Force Base – Sludge Lagoon GA 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Woolfolk Chemical Works, Inc. – OU 03 GA 1998 Remedial ♦ PD
DOE Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant KY 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Howe Valley Landfill KY 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Maxey Flats Nuclear Disposal KY 1991 Remedial ♦ O
Smith’S Farm – OU 1 (Amendment) KY 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Smith’S Farm – OU 1 (Amendment) KY 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Smiths Farm OU2 KY 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Flowood Site MS 1988 Remedial ♦ C
Newsom Brothers/Old Reichold Chemicals MS 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Abc One Hour Cleaners – OU2 NC 1994 Remedial ♦ O
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps, OU 1 & OU 4 – Amendment NC 1991 Remedial ♦ C
B-15
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 4
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Battery Tech Duracell Lexington – OU 1 NC 1999 Remedial ♦ D/I
Battery Tech Duracell Lexington – OU 1 NC 1999 Remedial ♦ D/I
Benfield Industries NC 1995 Remedial ♦ C
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination – Amendment NC 1993 Remedial ♦ C
Cape Fear Wood Preserving NC 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Cape Fear Wood Preserving NC 1989 Remedial ♦ D/I
Carolina Transformer Co. NC 1991 Remedial ♦ O
Celanese – OU 2 NC 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Celanese – OU 2 NC 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Charles Macon Lagoon & Drum Storage – OU 1,
Lagoon No. 7 NC 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station – OU 2 NC 1999 Remedial ♦ I
Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station – OU 2 NC 1999 Remedial ♦ O
Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station – OU 3 NC 2001 Remedial ♦ PD
FCX – Statesville – OU 2 NC 1995 Remedial ♦ C
FCX – Statesville – OU 2 NC 1995 Remedial ♦ C
FCX – Statesville – OU 3 NC 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Jadco-Hughes Facility NC 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Jadco-Hughes Facility NC 1990 Remedial ♦ O
JFD Electronics/Channel Master NC 1992 Remedial ♦ C
JFD Electronics/Channel Master NC 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Koppers (Morrisville Plant) NC 1993 Remedial ♦ C
Martin-Marietta, Sodyeco, Inc., Area D NC 1987 Remedial ♦ O
North Carolina State University – Lot 86, Farm Unit #1 NC 1996 Remedial ♦ C
Potters Septic Tank Service Pits NC 1992 Remedial ♦ C
USMC Camp Lejeune Military Base – OU 2, Site 82 NC 1993 Remedial ♦ C
B-16
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 4
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Calhoun Park Area – OU 2 SC 2002 Remedial ♦ D
Geiger (C&M Oil) – Amendment SC 1993 Remedial ♦ C
Golden Strip Septic Tank Service SC 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Helena Chemical Company Landfill – Amendment SC 1995 Remedial ♦ C
Independent Nail Co. SC 1987 Remedial ♦ C
Koppers Co., Inc. (Charleston Plant) – OU 01 SC 1998 Remedial ♦ C
Leonard Chemical Company SC 2001 Remedial ♦ PD
Medley Farm – OU 1 SC 1991 Remedial ♦ O
Palmetto Wood Preserving SC 1987 Remedial ♦ C
Palmetto Wood Preserving SC 1987 Remedial ♦ C
Para-Chem Southern, Inc OU H400 SC 2000 Remedial ♦ C
Sangamo/Twelve-Mile/Hartwell PCB – OU 1 SC 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Savannah River Site (USDOE) – C Area Burning/Rubble
Pit – SVE SC 1999 Remedial ♦ O
Savannah River Site (USDOE) – Chemical Metals and
Pesticide Pits OU SC 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
Savannah River Site (USDOE) – L-Area Oil And Chemical
Basin And L-Area Acid/Caustic Basin SC 1997 Remedial ♦ BI
Savannah River Site (USDOE) – Old F-Area Seepage
Basin, Srs Building Number 904-49g SC 1997 Remedial ♦ C
Savannah River Site (USDOE) – OU 28 SC 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
Savannah River Site (USDOE) – OU 55,65 SC 1999 Remedial ♦ O
Savannah River Site (USDOE) – OU 60 SC 1999 Remedial ♦ C
Savannah River Site (USDOE) – OU 66 SC 1999 Remedial ♦ D/I
SCRDI Bluff Road SC 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Wamchem, Inc. SC 1988 Remedial ♦ C
B-17
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 4
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Arlington Blending And Packaging Co. – OU 1 TN 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Carrier Air Conditioning TN 1992 Remedial ♦ O
Milan Army Ammunition Plant – OU 3 & 4,
Industrial Soil TN 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE) – OU 14, Surface
Impoundments TN 1997 Remedial ♦ D/I
Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE) – OU 29, Melton
Valley Watershed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory TN 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE) – OU 29, Melton
Valley Watershed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory TN 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE) – OU 3, Pond Waste
Management Project TN 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE) – OU 40, Burial
Complex 4 TN 1996 Remedial ♦ C
Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE) – OU-28 TN 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE) – OU-28 TN 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
Ross Metals Inc – OU 1 TN 1999 Remedial ♦ D
Tennessee Products – OU1 TN 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
B-18
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 5
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
Summary Matrix
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Inc. IL 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Inc., OU 3 IL 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Inc., OU 6 IL 1991 Remedial ♦ O
Cross Brothers Pail Recycling IL 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Cross Brothers Pail Recycling IL 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Galesburg/Koppers IL 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Jennison Wright Corporation Inc IL 1999 Remedial ♦ D/I
Jennison Wright Corporation Inc IL 1999 Remedial ♦ D/I
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant – Soil and Groundwater
(LAP) OU IL 1999 Remedial ♦ O
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant – Soil and Groundwater
(MFG) OU IL 1999 Remedial ♦ O
Lasalle Electrical Utilities (1988-1991) IL 1986 Remedial ♦ C
Lasalle Electrical Utilities (1992-1995) IL 1988 Remedial ♦ C
Lenz Oil Service, Inc – OU1 IL 1999 Remedial ♦ PD
Outboard Marine Waukegan Coke Plant OU2 IL 1999 Remedial ♦ D
Outboard Marine/Waukegan Harbor IL 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Outboard Marine/Waukegan Harbor – OU 3 IL 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Sangamo Electric Dump/Crab Orchard National Wildlife
Refuge – Explosives/Munitions Manufacturing Area OU IL 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
Refuge – Metals Areas OU IL 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Refuge – PCB Areas OU IL 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Refuge – PCB Areas OU IL 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Refuge – PCB Areas OU IL 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
B-19
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 5
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Savanna Army Depot Activity – TNT Washout Lagoon Area IL 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Southeast Rockford Groundwater Contamination – OU 3 IL 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
Velsicol Chemical IL 1988 Remedial ♦ C
American Chemical Services, Inc IN 1992 Remedial ♦ D/I
American Chemical Services, Inc IN 1999 Remedial ♦ O
Bennetts Dump-Stone Quarry IN 2000 Remedial ♦ C
Continental Steel Corp. – OU 02 IN 1998 Remedial ♦ PD
Enviro. Conservation And Chemical – Amendment IN 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Fisher-Calo IN 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Fort Wayne Reduction Dump IN 1988 Remedial ♦ C
Lemon Lane Landfill – Source Control IN 2000 Remedial ♦ C
Main Street Well Field IN 1991 Remedial ♦ O
Midco I IN 1989 Remedial ♦ PD
Midco II IN 1989 Remedial ♦ PD
Midco II IN 1989 Remedial ♦ PD
Neals Dump-Owen County IN 2000 Remedial ♦ C
Ninth Avenue Dump IN 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Ninth Avenue Dump – Amendment IN 1994 Remedial ♦ O
Reilly Tar & Chemical (Indianapolis Plant) IN 1993 Remedial ♦ C
Reilly Tar & Chemical (Indianapolis Plant) – OU 2, Fire
Pond at South Landfill IN 1993 Remedial ♦ C
Reilly Tar & Chemical (Indianapolis Plant) – OU 4,
Hot Spot A IN 1996 Remedial ♦ O
B-20
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 5
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Reilly Tar & Chemical (Indianapolis Plant) – OU 4,
Hot Spot B IN 1996 Remedial ♦ C
Seymour Recycling Corp. IN 1987 Remedial ♦ C
Seymour Recycling Corp. IN 1987 Remedial ♦ O
Wayne Waste Oil IN 1990 Remedial ♦ O
Anderson Development Co. (Rod Amendment) MI 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Auto Ion Chemicals MI 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Bendix Site, St. Joseph MI 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Bofors Nobel – OU1 MI 1999 Remedial ♦ D
Carter Industrials, Inc. MI 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Chem Central MI 1991 Remedial ♦ O
Electrovoice – OU 1 MI 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Forest Waste Products MI 1986 Remedial ♦ C
Kysor Industrial Corp. MI 1989 Remedial ♦ O
Liquid Disposal, Inc. MI 1987 Remedial ♦ C
Metamora Landfill MI 1986 Remedial ♦ C
Peerless Plating MI 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Peerless Plating MI 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Petoskey Municipal Well Field – OU 01 MI 1998 Remedial ♦ C
Rockwell International Superfund Site – OU2 MI 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
Rose Township Dump MI 1987 Remedial ♦ C
Rose Township Dump – Amendment MI 1995 Remedial ♦ O
Spartan Chemical Co. – OU 01 MI 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Springfield Township Dump MI 1990 Remedial ♦ O
Sturgis Municipal Well Field MI 1991 Remedial ♦ C
B-21
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 5
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Tar Lake MI 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Thermo-Chem, Inc – OU1 MI 1991 Remedial ♦ O
Verona Well Field – OU 1 (Thomas Solvent Raymond
Road) MI 1985 Remedial ♦ C
Verona Well Field – OU 2 (Grand Truck Railroad Paint
Shop Area) MI 1991 Remedial ♦ O
Verona Well Field – OU 2 (Thomas Solvent Annex Area) MI 1991 Remedial ♦ O
Arrowhead Refinery Co. – Amendment MN 1994 Remedial ♦ C
Burlington Northern Railroad Tie Treating Plant MN 1986 Remedial ♦ C
Joslyn Manufacturing And Supply Co. MN 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Kummer Sanitary Landfill – Soil Phase MN 1988 Remedial ♦ C
Long Prairie Groundwater Contamination MN 1988 Remedial ♦ C
Macgillis And Gibbs/Bell Lumber And Pole – OU 1 MN 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Macgillis And Gibbs/Bell Lumber And Pole – OU 3 MN 1994 Remedial ♦ C
Macgillis and Gibbs/Bell Lumber and Pole- OU-1 MN 1999 Remedial ♦ C
New Brighton/Arden Hills – PCB Burn OU MN 1989 Remedial ♦ C
New Brighton/Arden Hills/TCAAP (USArmy) – OU 07 MN 1998 Remedial ♦ C
New Brighton/Arden Hills/TCAAP (USArmy) – OU 07 MN 1998 Remedial ♦ C
New Brighton/Arden Hills/TCAAP (USArmy) – OU 07 MN 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Ritari Post And Pole – OU 1 MN 1994 Remedial ♦ D
South Andover Salvage Yards – OU 2 (Amendment) MN 1994 Remedial ♦ C
St. Louis River/Interlake/Duluth Tar Site – Soils OU MN 1990 Remedial ♦ C
St. Louis River/Interlake/Duluth Tar Site – Tar Seep MN 1990 Remedial ♦ C
St. Louis River/Intertake/Duluth Tar Site – Wire Mill Pond
And OU J MN 1990 Remedial ♦ C
University Of Minnesota MN 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Waite Park Wells – OUs 1, 2, & 3 MN 1994 Remedial ♦ O
B-22
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 5
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Alsco Anaconda OH 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Big D Campground OH 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Feed Materials Production Center (USDOE) – OU 4 OH 1995 Remedial ♦ D
Fernald Environmental Management Project – OU 4 OH 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
Fernald Environmental Management Project – OU 4 OH 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
Fernald Environmental Management Project – OU 4
Silos 1 and 2 (ROD Amendment) OH 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
Fernald Environmental Management Project – OU 4 Silos 1
and 2 (ROD Amendment) OH 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
Fernald Environmental Management Project, Formerly
The Feed Materials Production Center, OU 5 OH 1996 Remedial ♦ C
Fields Brook OH 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Fields Brook – Sediment and Floodplain/Wetland OU OH 2001 Remedial ♦ O
Fields Brook – Source Control OU OH 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Laskin/Poplar Oil (FY87) OH 1987 Remedial ♦ C
Laskin/Poplar Oil (FY89) OH 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Miami County Incinerator OH 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Ormet Corporation OH 1994 Remedial ♦ C
Ormet Corporation OH 1994 Remedial ♦ O
Pristine, Inc. – Amendment OH 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Pristine, Inc. – Amendment OH 1990 Remedial ♦ O
Summit National Liquid Disposal Service OH 1988 Remedial ♦ C
United Scrap Lead Company OH 1997 Remedial ♦ C
Zanesville Well Field OH 1991 Remedial ♦ O
Better Brite Chrome And Zinc Shops – Chrome Shop WI 1996 Remedial ♦ C
Hagen Farm – Source Control OU WI 1990 Remedial ♦ O
Moss-American WI 1990 Remedial ♦ PD
B-23
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 5
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Moss-American WI 1990 Remedial ♦ PD
Moss-American(Kerr-Mcgee Oil Co.) – OU 01 WI 1998 Remedial ♦ C
Muskego Sanitary Landfill – Interim Action OU 1 WI 1992 Remedial ♦ C
N.W. Mauthe Site WI 1994 Remedial ♦ C
National Presto Industries – Melby Road Disposal Site WI 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Northern Engraving Corporation – Sludge Lagoon WI 1987 Remedial ♦ C
Oconomowoc Electroplating WI 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Onalaska Municipal Landfill WI 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Penta Wood Products – OU 01 WI 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Penta Wood Products – OU 01 WI 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Wausau Groundwater Contamination WI 1989 Remedial ♦ O
B-24
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 6
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
Summary Matrix
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Arkwood Inc. AR 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Arkwood Inc. (ESD) AR 1995 Remedial ♦ C
Gurley Pit AR 1987 Remedial ♦ C
Industrial Waste Control AR 1988 Remedial ♦ C
Jacksonville Municipal Landfill AR 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Jacksonville Municipal Landfill AR 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Mid-South Wood Products AR 1987 Remedial ♦ C
Monroe Auto Pit (Finch Road Landfill) – Entire Site AR 2001 Remedial ♦ C
Old Midland Products AR 1988 Remedial ♦ C
Rogers Road Municipal Landfill AR 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Rogers Road Municipal Landfill AR 1990 Remedial ♦ C
South 8th Street Landfill – OU1 AR 1998 Remedial ♦ BI
South 8th Street Landfill – OU1 AR 1998 Remedial ♦ PD
Vertac, Inc. AR 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Vertac, Inc. – Onsite OU 1 AR 1995 Remedial ♦ C
Vertac, Inc. – OU 2, Tetrachlorobenzene Soils AR 1996 Remedial ♦ C
American Creosote Works, Inc. (Winnfield Plant) LA 1993 Remedial ♦ C
American Creosote Works, Inc. (Winnfield Plant) LA 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Bayou Bonfouca LA 1987 Remedial ♦ C
Central Wood Preserving Superfund Site LA 2001 Remedial ♦ PD
Cleve Reber LA 1987 Remedial ♦ C
Cleve Reber LA 1987 Remedial ♦ C
Delatte Metals Superfund Site LA 2000 Remedial ♦ BI
Gulf Coast Vacuum Services – OU 1 LA 1995 Remedial ♦ C
B-25
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 6
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Gulf Coast Vacuum Services – OU 1 LA 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Highway 71/72 Refinery Site LA 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
Madisonville Creosote Works – OU 01 LA 1998 Remedial ♦ C
Marion Pressure Treating Company LA 2002 Remedial ♦ D
Old Inger Oil Refinery LA 1984 Remedial ♦ C
Pab Oil & Chemical Services, Inc. LA 1993 Remedial ♦ C
Petro-Processors Of Louisiana, Inc. LA 1984 Remedial ♦ C
Petro-Processors Of Louisiana, Inc. LA 1989 Remedial ♦ O
Ruston Foundry – OU 1, Soils LA 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
Southern Shipbuilding Corporation LA 1995 Remedial ♦ C
Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Clovis/Santa Fe Lake –
TPH Soil NM 1988 Remedial ♦ C
Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Clovis/Santa Fe Lake –
TPH Lake Sediments NM 1988 Remedial ♦ C
ATSF Albuquerque Superfund Site NM 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
Cal West Metals NM 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Cimarron Mining Corporation, Sierra Blanca OU NM 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Fruit Avenue Plume Site NM 2001 Remedial ♦ D
North Railroad Avenue Plume Superfund Site NM 2001 Remedial ♦ D
Prewitt Abandoned Refinery NM 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Prewitt Abandoned Refinery NM 1992 Remedial ♦ O
Double Eagle Refinery Co. OK 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Double Eagle Refinery Co. OK 1992 Remedial ♦ C
B-26
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 6
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Fourth Street Abandoned Refinery OK 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Hardage/Criner – Amendment OK 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Okalahoma Refining Co. – Ex situ Nuetralization OK 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Oklahoma Refining Co. OK 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Oklahoma Refining Co. – Hazardous Landfill OK 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Oklahoma Refining Co. – In situ Nuetralization OK 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Oklahoma Refining Co. – Nonhazardous Landfill OK 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Sand Springs Petrochemical Complex OK 1987 Remedial ♦ C
Sand Springs Petrochemical Complex – Glenn Wynn Facility OK 1987 Remedial ♦ C
Tinker AFB – Soldier Creek And Building 3001 OK 1990 Remedial ♦ I
Air Force Plant 4 – Building 181 TX 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Air Force Plant 4 – East Parking Lot Groundwater Plume TX 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Bio-Ecology Systems, Inc. TX 1984 Remedial ♦ C
Brio Refining TX 1988 Remedial ♦ PD
French Limited TX 1988 Remedial ♦ C
French Limited TX 1988 Remedial ♦ C
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant – Burning Ground No. 3 TX 1995 Remedial ♦ C
MOTCO TX 1985 Remedial ♦ C
Motco, Inc. – OU 1 TX 1993 Remedial ♦ C
North Cavalcade Street TX 1988 Remedial ♦ C
Pesses Chemical Co. TX 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc. – OU 2 TX 1991 Remedial ♦ O
B-27
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 6
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Sheridan Disposal Services – Source Lagoon OU TX 1989 Remedial ♦ PD
Sikes Disposal Pits TX 1986 Remedial ♦ C
Texarkana Wood Preserving TX 1990 Remedial ♦ D/I
Tex-Tin – OU 1 TX 1999 Remedial ♦ C
Tex-Tin – OU 1 TX 1999 Remedial ♦ O
Tex-Tin – OU 1 (ROD Amendment) TX 2000 Remedial ♦ C
Tex-Tin – OU 1 (ROD Amendment) TX 2000 Remedial ♦ O
Tex-Tin – OU 1 (ROD Amendment) TX 2000 Remedial ♦ O
Triangle Chemical Co. TX 1985 Remedial ♦ C
Triangle Chemical Co. TX 1985 Remedial ♦ C
United Creosoting Co. TX 1989 Remedial ♦ C
United Creosoting Co. TX 1989 Remedial ♦ O
B-28
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 7
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
Summary Matrix
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Chemplex – OU 2 IA 1993 Remedial ♦ O
EI Dupont De Nemours & Co. Inc. IA 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Fairfield Coal Gasification Plant IA 1990 Remedial ♦ C
General Motors Corporation Former AC Rochester Facility
Site IA 2001 Remedial ♦ PD
Iowa Army Ammunition Plant IA 1998 Remedial ♦ PD
Iowa Army Ammunition Plant – OU 01 IA 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Mcgraw Edison IA 1993 Remedial ♦ BI
Mid-America Tanning IA 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Peoples Natural Gas IA 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Shaw Avenue Dump IA 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Vogel Paint & Wax IA 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Vogel Paint & Wax IA 1989 Remedial ♦ C
29th And Mead Ground Water Contamination, Coleman OU KS 1992 Remedial ♦ O
57th and North Broadway Streets OU 1 – Former Wilko
Paint facility KS 1999 Remedial ♦ D
Arkansas City Dump KS 1988 Remedial ♦ C
Pester Refinery Co. KS 1992 Remedial ♦ O
Pester Refinery Co. – OU 1, Burn Pond Site KS 1992 Remedial ♦ O
Ellisville Site – Amendment MO 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Former Weldon Spring Ordnance Works – OU 1, Soils And
Pipeline MO 1996 Remedial ♦ C
Former Weldon Spring Ordnance Works – OU 1, Soils And
Pipeline MO 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Kem-Pest Laboratories MO 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Lee Chemical MO 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Minker/Stout/Romaine Creek (R&S) MO 1988 Remedial ♦ C
B-29
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 7
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Missouri Electric Works MO 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Oronogo – Duenweg Mining Bell Site – OU 2 And 3 MO 1996 Remedial ♦ C
Shenandoah Stables MO 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Syntex Facility MO 1988 Remedial ♦ C
Times Beach Site MO 1988 Remedial ♦ C
Valley Park TCE Site – OU2 MO 2001 Remedial ♦ D
Valley Park Tce Site – Wainwright – OU1 MO 1996 Remedial ♦ C
Valley Park Tce Site – Wainwright – OU1 MO 1996 Remedial ♦ I
Weldon Spring Quarry/Plant/Pits (USDOE) MO 1993 Remedial ♦ C
10th Street Site – OU 2 NE 2001 Remedial ♦ O
Cleburn Street Well NE 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Cleburn Street Well – OU5 NE 2001 Remedial ♦ PD
Former Nebraska Ordnance Plant – OU 1 NE 1995 Remedial ♦ C
Former Nebraska Ordnance Plant – OU 2 NE 1997 Remedial ♦ C
Hastings Groundwater Contamination – Colorado Ave, OU 9 NE 1988 Remedial ♦ O
Hastings Groundwater Contamination – Far-Mar Co.
Subsite, OU 3 NE 1988 Remedial ♦ C
Hastings Groundwater Contamination – Hastings East
Industrial Park Surface Soils, Former Naval Ammunition
Depot NE 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Hastings Groundwater Contamination – Hastings East
Industrial Park Surface Soils, Former Naval Ammunition
Depot NE 1995 Remedial ♦ C
Hastings Groundwater Contamination – OU4 NE 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
Hastings Groundwater Contamination – Well No. 3 Plume 1 NE 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Lindsay Manufacturing NE 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Sherwood Medical Co. NE 1995 Remedial ♦ C
Waverly Groundwater Contamination NE 1990 Remedial ♦ C
B-30
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 8
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
Summary Matrix
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Broderick Wood Products – OU 1 (Impoundment Sludges) CO 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Broderick Wood Products – OU 2 (Groundwater) CO 1992 Remedial ♦ O
Broderick Wood Products – OU 2 (Soils) CO 1992 Remedial ♦ O
Chemical Sales Company – OU 1 CO 1991 Remedial ♦ I
Denver Radium Site – OU 8 CO 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Lockheed/Martin (Denver Aerospace) CO 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Lockheed/Martin (Denver Aerospace) CO 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Rocky Flats Plant (Usdoe) – OU 4, Industrial Areas CO 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Rocky Mountain Arsenal – Onpost OU CO 1996 Remedial ♦ PD
Rocky Mountain Arsenal – Onpost OU, Buried M-1 Pits CO 1996 Remedial ♦ C
Rocky Mountain Arsenal – Onpost OU, Former Basin F CO 1996 Remedial ♦ D
Rocky Mountain Arsenal – Onpost OU, Hex Pits CO 1996 Remedial ♦ C
Rocky Mountain Arsenal – OU 18, Motor Pool Area CO 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Rocky Mountain Arsenal – OU 25, Basin F Liquids CO 1997 Remedial ♦ C
Sand Creek Industrial – OU 1 CO 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Summitville Mine – OU 0 CO 1995 Remedial ♦ O
Summitville Mine – OU 2 CO 1995 Remedial ♦ C
Summitville Mine – OU 5 CO 2001 Remedial ♦ D
Woodbury Chemical – OU 1 CO 1985 Remedial ♦ C
Woodbury Chemical – OU2 CO 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Anaconda Co. Smelter – Flue Dust MT 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Anaconda Co. Smelter – OU 04 MT 1998 Remedial ♦ BI
Burlington Northern (Somers Plant) MT 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Idaho Pole Company MT 1996 Remedial ♦ C
B-31
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 8
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Libby Groundwater Contamination MT 1989 Remedial ♦ O
Montana Pole And Treating Plant MT 1993 Remedial ♦ C
Montana Pole And Treating Plant MT 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Montana Pole And Treating Plant – Area Under Interstate
15/90 MT 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area – Ex Situ Soil MT 1996 Remedial ♦ C
Upper Tenmile Creek Mining Area – AMD MT 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
Ellsworth AFB – OU 1 SD 1995 Remedial ♦ O
Interim Water Treatment Operations OU-2 SD 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters- OU 1 UT 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
Defense Distribution Depot Hill, OU 4 (ROD Amendment) UT 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
Hill Air Force Base – OU 2 UT 1991 Remedial ♦ O
Hill Air Force Base – OU 2 UT 1996 Remedial ♦ PD
Hill Air Force Base – OU 3 UT 1995 Remedial ♦ O
Jacobs Smelter OU 1 UT 1999 Remedial ♦ C
Ogden Defense Depot (Dla) UT 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Ogden Defense Depot (Dla) – OU 3 UT 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Portland Cement (Kiln Dust #2 & #3) – OU 2, Chromium
Bearing Bricks And Contaminated Soils UT 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Tooele Army Depot-North Area – OUs 5, 6 ,7, And 10 UT 1994 Remedial ♦ C
Utah Power & Light/American Barrel UT 1993 Remedial ♦ C
Utah Power & Light/American Barrel UT 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Wasatch Chemical UT 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Wasatch Chemical UT 1991 Remedial ♦ C
B-32
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 9
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
Summary Matrix
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Apache Powder Co. AZ 1994 Remedial ♦ PD
Hassayampa Landfill AZ 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Indian Bend Wash Area – North Area (Area 12) AZ 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Indian Bend Wash Area – North Area (Area 7) AZ 1991 Remedial ♦ O
Indian Bend Wash Area – South Area (DCE Circuits) AZ 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Luke AFB – OU 2/Dp23 AZ 1994 Remedial ♦ C
Luke AFB OU 1 AZ 1999 Remedial ♦ C
Marine Corps Air Station Yuma OU 1 AZ 2000 Remedial ♦ O
Motorola 52nd Street – OU 1 AZ 1988 Remedial ♦ C
Phoenix-Goodyear Airport Area (North Facility) AZ 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Phoenix-Goodyear Airport Area (North Facility) – OU1 AZ 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
Phoenix-Goodyear Airport Area (South Facility) AZ 1989 Remedial ♦ O
Tucson International Airport – Sites 1, 2, 3 AZ 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Tucson International Airport Area – OU 03 – Soil West of
Site 5 AZ 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Tucson International Airport Area – Site 4, 5, 6 AZ 1998 Remedial ♦ C
Williams AFB – OU 2 AZ 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Williams AFB – OU 3 AZ 1996 Remedial ♦ I
Advanced Micro Devices (Formerly Monolithic Memories) –
OU 1, Subunit 2 CA 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Advanced Micro Devices Inc. CA 1991 Remedial ♦ C
B-33
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 9
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base – OU 01 CA 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Brewster Well Field – OU 2 CA 1988 Remedial ♦ C
Cooper Drum Company CA 2002 Remedial ♦ D
Del Amo Facility CA 1997 Remedial ♦ D
El Toro Marine Corps Air Station – Hangar Area, Interim
Rod CA 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Fairchild Semiconductor (Mt. View) – Bldg 19 (369 N.
Whisman Rd) CA 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Fairchild Semiconductor (Mt. View) – Bldg 9 (401 National
Ave.) CA 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Fairchild Semiconductor (Mt. View) – General Instrument
Corp./Siltec Corp (405 National Ave.) CA 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Fairchild Semiconductor (Mt. View) – Siemens/Sobrato
(455 & 487 Middlefield Rd) CA 1989 Remedial ♦ O
Fairchild Semiconductor (South San Jose) CA 1989 Remedial ♦ C
Fort Ord – Fort Ord Soil Treatment Area (Fdsta), OU 4 CA 1994 Remedial ♦ C
George Air Force Base – OU 3 WP-17 CA 1999 Remedial ♦ O
George Air Force base OU 3 FT19a CA 1999 Remedial ♦ O
George Air Force Base Site FT 19c CA 1999 Remedial ♦ O
Goerge Air Force Base OU 3 OT51 CA 1999 Remedial ♦ O
Hewlett-Packard – 620-640 Page Mill Road CA 1995 Remedial ♦ O
Ibm (San Jose) CA 1989 Remedial ♦ O
Intersil/Siemens – Intersil OU CA 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Intersil/Siemens – Siemins OU CA 1990 Remedial ♦ O
J.H. Baxter CA 1998 Remedial ♦ C
J.H. Baxter CA 1998 Remedial ♦ O
J.H. Baxter – Area B CA 1998 Remedial ♦ O
B-34
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 9
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Jasco Chemical Co. CA 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USDOE) CA 1992 Remedial ♦ O
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USDOE) – OU 1 CA 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USDOE) –
Site 300 CA 2001 Remedial ♦ PD
Lorentz Barrel And Drum – OU 1 CA 1993 Remedial ♦ O
March AFB – OU 1, Area 5, Sites 31a And 31b CA 1996 Remedial ♦ O
March AFB – OU 1, Sites 10 and 15 CA 2000 Remedial ♦ C
Mather AFB – OU 04 CA 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Mather AFB – OU 04 CA 1998 Remedial ♦ PD
Mather AFB – OU 04 (86&87) CA 1998 Remedial ♦ C
Mather AFB – OU 04 (site 18,23 & 59) CA 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Mather AFB – Soil And Groundwater OU, Mather Soils
Biofarm CA 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Mather AFB – Soil And Groundwater OU, Site 57 CA 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Modesto Groundwater Contamination CA 1997 Remedial ♦ D/I
National Semiconductor Corp. – OU 1, Subunit 1 CA 1991 Remedial ♦ O
Norton Air Force Base – Cba OU CA 1994 Remedial ♦ C
Pacific Coast Pipelines CA 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Phillips [Formerly Signetics (Amd 901) (Trw)] CA 1991 Remedial ♦ O
Purity Oil Sales, Inc. – OU 2 CA 1992 Remedial ♦ D/I
Raytheon, Mountain View (350 Ellis Street/415
Middlefield Rd) CA 1989 Remedial ♦ O
Rhone-Poulenc/Zoecon CA 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Rhone-Poulenc/Zoecon CA 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Sacramento Army Depot CA 1993 Remedial ♦ C
Sacramento Army Depot – Burn Pits OU CA 1993 Remedial ♦ C
B-35
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 9
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Sacramento Army Depot – OU 3, Tank 2 CA 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Selma Pressure Treating CA 1988 Remedial ♦ O
Sharpe Army Depot – Defense Distribution Region West
(Ddrw)-Sharpe Site – OU 2 CA 1996 Remedial ♦ C
Southern California Edison, Visalia Pole Yard CA 1994 Remedial ♦ C
Southern California Edison, Visalia Pole Yard CA 1994 Remedial ♦ O
Spectra-Physics, Inc. – OU 1, System No. 1 CA 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Spectra-Physics, Inc. – OU 1, System No. 2 CA 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Tracy Defense Depot (USArmy) – OU 01 CA 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Valley Wood Preserving, Inc. CA 1991 Remedial ♦ O
Watkins-Johnson CA 1990 Remedial ♦ O
Westinghouse Electric (Sunnyvale Plant) CA 1992 Remedial ♦ C
B-36
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 10
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
Summary Matrix
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Adak Naval Air Station – OU 2 AK 2000 Remedial ♦ O
Arctic Surplus AK 1995 Remedial ♦ PD
Arctic Surplus AK 1995 Remedial ♦ PD
Eielson Air Force Base – OU 1 (Power Plant) AK 1994 Remedial ♦ O
Eielson Air Force Base – OU 1 (Refueling Loop) AK 1992 Remedial ♦ O
Eielson Air Force Base – OU 2 (Fuel Area) AK 1994 Remedial ♦ O
Eislson Air Force Base – OU 3 (Refueling Loop Usts) AK 1994 Remedial ♦ O
Elmendorf AFB – OU 2 AK 1995 Remedial ♦ C
Elmendorf AFB – OU 4 AK 1995 Remedial ♦ O
Elmendorf AFB – OU 5 AK 1995 Remedial ♦ O
Elmendorf AFB – OU 6 And Source Area Ss19 AK 1997 Remedial ♦ C
Elmendorf AFB – OU 6 And Source Area Ss19 AK 1997 Remedial ♦ C
Fort Richardson – OU B AK 1997 Remedial ♦ C
Fort Wainwright AK 1997 Remedial ♦ C
Fort Wainwright – OU 2 – Building 1168 Leach Well AK 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Fort Wainwright – OU 2 – Drmo Yard AK 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Fort Wainwright – OU 3 AK 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Fort Wainwright – OU 5 WQFS1 AK 1999 Remedial ♦ O
Standard Steel And Metal Salvage Yard, (USDOT) AK 1996 Remedial ♦ C
Bunker Hill Mining And Metallurgical Complex ID 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical Complex – OU2 ID 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
B-37
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 10
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Idaho National Engineering And Environmental Lab
(USDOE) – OU 23 ID 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
(USDOE) – OU 11 Power Burst Facility and Auxiliary
Reactor Area ID 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
(USDOE) – OU 3 ID 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
(USDOE) – OU 3-13 ID 1999 Remedial ♦ D
(USDOE) – OU25 ID 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
(USDOE) – OU25 ID 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
Idaho National Engineering Lab (USDOE) – OU 21 ID 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (USDOE) – Pit 9,
OU 7-10 ID 1993 Remedial ♦ D
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (USDOE) – Pit 9,
OU 7-10 ID 1993 Remedial ♦ D
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (USDOE) – Power
Burst Facility, OU 13 ID 1995 Remedial ♦ C
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (USDOE) – Wag 7,
OU 7 – 8 ID 1995 Remedial ♦ O
Pacific Hide & Fur Recycling ID 1988 Remedial ♦ C
B-38
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 10
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Pacific Hide & Fur Recycling – Amendment ID 1992 Remedial ♦ C
East Multnomah County Groundwater Contamination –
Cascade Corporation, Troutdale Gravel Aquifer OR 1997 Remedial ♦ C
Gould, Inc. OR 1988 Remedial ♦ C
Northwest Pipe and Casing Company/Hall Process
Company OU 1 OR 2000 Remedial ♦ C
Teledyne Wah Chang OR 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Umatilla Army Depot Activity OR 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Umatilla Chemical Depot (Lagoons) – OU 1 OR 1993 Remedial ♦ C
Umatilla Chemical Depot (Lagoons) – OU 3 OR 1994 Remedial ♦ O
Umatilla Chemical Depot (Lagoons) – OU 7 OR 1994 Remedial ♦ O
Umatilla Chemical Depot (Lagoons) – Soil OU OR 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Union Pacific Railroad Tie Treatment – Vadose Zone Soils OR 1996 Remedial ♦ D
Union Pacific Railroad Tie Treatment – Vadose Zone Soils OR 1996 Remedial ♦ PD
United Chrome Products, Inc. OR 1986 Remedial ♦ O
White King/Lucky Lass Superfund Site OR 2001 Remedial ♦ O
Bonneville Power Administration – OU A WA 1993 Remedial ♦ C
Coal Creek Superfund Site WA 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Commencement Bay, Nearshore/Tideflats – Asarco
Tacoma Smelter WA 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Commencement Bay, Nearshore/Tideflats – OU 3, Tacoma
Tar Pits WA 1988 Remedial ♦ C
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma Channel (Well 12a) WA 1985 Remedial ♦ C
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma Channel (Well 12a) WA 1985 Remedial ♦ C
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma Field WA 1994 Remedial ♦ C
B-39
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 10
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma Field WA 1994 Remedial ♦ C
Fairchild Air Force Base – Priority 1 OUs (OU 2) Ft-1 WA 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Fairchild Air Force Base – Priority 2 Sites – Fuel Truck
Maintenance Facility, Building 1060 (Ps-10) WA 1996 Remedial ♦ C
Fairchild Air Force Base – Priority 2 Sites, OU 3, Sub
Area Ps-1 WA 1996 Remedial ♦ O
FMC Corp. (Yakima Pit) WA 1990 Remedial ♦ C
Fort Lewis Logistics Center WA 1990 Remedial ♦ D
Fort Lewis Military Reservation – Landfill 4 WA 1993 Remedial ♦ C
Fort Lewis Military Reservation – Solvent Refined Coal Plant WA 1993 Remedial ♦ C
Frontier Hard Chrome Inc – OU 1 and 2 WA 2001 Remedial ♦ D
Frontier Hard Chrome, Inc. WA 1988 Remedial ♦ PD
Hanford 1100-Area (USDOE) WA 1993 Remedial ♦ C
Hanford 300 Area (USDOE) 300-FF-2 OU WA 2001 Remedial ♦ O
Hanford 300 Area (USDOE) 300-FF-2 OU WA 2001 Remedial ♦ O
Harbor Island- Soil and Groundwater OU WA 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Jackson Park Housing Complex/Naval Hospital Bremerton –
OU 1 WA 2000 Remedial ♦ O
Jackson Park Housing Complex/Naval Hospital Bremerton –
OU 1 WA 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island – Ault Field, OU 5,
Areas 1, 31, And 52 WA 1996 Remedial ♦ C
North Market Street WA 2000 Remedial ♦ C
North Market Street WA 2000 Remedial ♦ O
Northwest Transformer – Mission Pole WA 1991 Remedial ♦ C
Pacific Car And Foundry WA 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Pacific Car And Foundry WA 1992 Remedial ♦ C
B-40
Source Control
Ex Situ In Situ
REGION 10
tion
nt
tion
n
ona
trac tion
me
atio
epa t i o n
iliza
eat
tion
era
Det
x t r a ion
ion
)
a l T -site)
biliz
nt
nt
site
n
on
ac
atio
l Tr
tme
n
tme
b
il A
ract
a
sica d i a t i o n
ion
rpti
ctio
ctric e E x t r
i f i c a Open
rem on/Sta
Sta
r
on
r ma
f
par
s h i n ation
tion
rea
rea
l So
o
diat
eso
Ext
ion
ion
S o l por Ex
on/
The tion (
C h e tion (
han g
al S
in
l Se
al T
The
n/
edia
tion
tion
izat
has
izat
me
D
cati
ash
por
cati
di
tE
m
c
g
e
i
l
a
tore
mic
tore
nB
rma
mic
ifica
tral
tral
lti-P
rem
l Va
l Va
ven
itu
idifi
ner
lW
ner
idifi
In S
Che
Mec
Ope
Neu
Neu
Phy
Phy
Ele
Phy
Inci
Inci
Vitr
Vitr
Sol
Mu
Bio
Soi
Bio
Sol
Flu
Soi
Soi
US Naval Submarine Base Bangor – OU 1, Site A WA 1992 Remedial ♦ C
US Naval Submarine Base Bangor – OU 6 Site D & OU 2
Site F WA 1994 Remedial ♦ O
US Naval Submarine Base Bangor – OU 8 WA 2000 Remedial ♦ O
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor – West Harbor OU (Amendment) WA 1996 Remedial ♦ C
Wycoff/Eagle Harbor – Soil WA 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
B-41
Groundwater Technologies
REGION 1
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
Groundwater Treatment Technology
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
Summary Matrix
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
Atlas Tack Corp. – OU 1 MA 2000 Remedial ♦ D
Baird & Mcguire MA 1990 Remedial ♦ PD
Brunswick Naval Air Station ME 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Burgess Brothers Landfill – OU 01 VT 1998 Remedial ♦ O
CHARLES-GEORGE RECLAMATION TRUST LANDFILL MA 1988 Remedial ♦ PD
Davis Liquid Waste RI 1987 Remedial ♦ PD
DOVER MUNICIPAL LANDFILL NH 1991 Remedial ♦ D
Eastland Woolen Mill ME 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
GROVELAND WELLS MA 2000 Remedial ♦ O
Hanscom Field/Hanscom Air Force Base – OU1 Airfield VOC plume MA 2001 Remedial ♦ O
Hanscom Field/Hanscom Air Force Base – OU1 Site 1 Source Area MA 2001 Remedial ♦ C
Hanscom Field/Hanscom Air Force Base – OU1, Site 1 Source Area MA 2001 Remedial ♦ O
Hocomonco Pond MA 1999 Remedial ♦ SD
Hocomonco Pond MA 1985 Remedial ♦ C
KEARSARGE METALLURGICAL CORP NH 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Keefe Environmental Services NH 1993 Remedial ♦ O
KELLOGG-DEERING WELL FIELD CT 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Laurel Park CT 1988 Remedial ♦ O
Linemaster Switch Corporation CT 1993 Remedial ♦ O
MCKIN CO ME 1992 Remedial ♦ SD
Status: PD = Predesign; D = Design; D/I = Designed but not Installed; BI = Being Installed; I = Installed; O = Operational; C = Complete; SD = Shut Down
B-42
REGION 1
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
NATICK LABORATORY ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND
ENGINEERING CENTER MA 2001 Remedial ♦ PD
NEW LONDON SUBMARINE BASE CT 1998 Remedial ♦ PD
NORWOOD PCBS MA 1999 Remedial ♦ SD
NYANZA CHEMICAL WASTE DUMP MA 1991 Remedial ♦ PD
O’Connor – OU2 ME 2002 Remedial ♦ O
OLD SPRINGFIELD LANDFILL VT 1994 Remedial ♦ O
Otis Air Natioinal Guard – Fuel Spill 12 MA 1995 Remedial ♦ C
Otis Air National Guard MA 1995 Remedial ♦ O
Ottati & Goss/Kingston Steel Drum NH 1987 Remedial ♦ D
PARKER SANITARY LANDFILL VT 1995 Remedial ♦ PD
PEASE AFB NH 2000 Remedial ♦ O
Pease AFB – Site 45 NH 1995 Remedial ♦ O
Pease AFB – Zone 2 NH 1995 Remedial ♦ O
Peterson/Puritan Inc. RI 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Peterson/Puritan Inc. – OU 1, PAC Area RI 1993 Remedial ♦ C
Picillo Farm Site RI 1993 Remedial ♦ PD
PINETTE’S SALVAGE YARD ME 1997 Remedial ♦ SD
Re-Solve Inc MA 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Rose Disposal Pit MA 1994 Remedial ♦ O
Savage Municipal Water Supply NH 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Savage Municipal Water Supply – OU 1, Ok Tool Source Area NH 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Silresim Chemical MA 1991 Remedial ♦ O
SOLVENTS RECOVERY SERVICE OF NEW ENGLAND CT 1983 Remedial ♦ O
Somersworth Sanitary Landfill NH 1994 Remedial ♦ O
Somersworth Sanitary Landfill NH 1994 Remedial ♦ O
B-43
REGION 1
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
South Municipal Water Supply Well NH 1995 Remedial ♦ O
STAMINA MILLS, INC RI 2000 Remedial ♦ O
SULLIVAN’S LEDGE MA 2000 Remedial ♦ O
Sylvester NH 1992 Remedial ♦ SD
Tibbetts Road – OU 01 NH 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Tinkham Garage NH 1989 Remedial ♦ PD
Union Chemical – OU 1 ME 2001 Remedial ♦ O
Union Chemical Co Inc – ME 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Wells G&H MA 1989 Remedial ♦ O
Wells G&H – OU 1 (Wildwood Conservation Trust) MA 1998 Remedial ♦ O
West Site/Hows Corner Superfund Site ME 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
B-44
REGION 2
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
Summary Matrix
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
WINTHROP LANDFILL ME 1998 Remedial ♦ O
A O Polymer Ground Water Treatment NJ 1991 Remedial ♦ O
A.O. POLYMER NJ 1998 Remedial ♦ O
AMERICAN THERMOSTAT CO. NY 1998 Remedial ♦ O
APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES NY 1996 Remedial ♦ O
BOG CREEK FARM NJ 1994 Remedial ♦ O
Brewster Well Field NY 1986 Remedial ♦ PD
BROOK INDUSTRIAL PARK NJ 1994 Remedial ♦ D
BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY (USDOE) NY 2001 Remedial ♦ PD
Brookhaven National Laboratory (USDOE) – OU 4 NY 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Byron Barrel & Drum NY 1989 Remedial ♦ O
Caldwell Trucking NJ 1986 Remedial ♦ D/I
CHEMICAL LEAMAN TANK LINES, INC. NJ 1990 Remedial ♦ D
CHEMSOL, INC. NJ 1991 Remedial ♦ O
CIBA-GEIGY CORP. NJ 1989 Remedial ♦ PD
CINNAMISON TOWNSHIP (BLOCK 702) GROUND WATER
CONTAMINATION NJ 1990 Remedial ♦ PD
CIRCUITRON CORP NY 2000 Remedial ♦ O
Claremont Polychemical NY 1990 Remedial ♦ O
COLESVILLE MUNICIPAL LANDFILL NY 1991 Remedial ♦ O
Combe Fill South Landfill NJ 1986 Remedial ♦ PD
CONKLIN DUMPS NY 1992 Remedial ♦ PD
CORTESE LANDFILL NY 1994 Remedial ♦ PD
Cosden Chemical Coatings NJ 1992 Remedial ♦ PD
Dayco Corp./L.E. Carpenter Co. NJ 1994 Remedial ♦ PD
De Rewal Chemical NJ 1989 Remedial ♦ PD
B-45
REGION 2
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
Diamond Alkali NJ 1987 Remedial ♦ O
DImperio Property NJ 1985 Remedial ♦ O
DOVER MUNICIPAL WELL 4 NJ 1992 Remedial ♦ PD
ELLIS PROPERTY NJ 2000 Remedial ♦ O
Ellis Property – Groundwater NJ 1992 Remedial ♦ D/I
ENDICOTT VILLAGE WELL FIELD NY 1997 Remedial ♦ O
EVOR PHILLIPS LEASING NJ 1992 Remedial ♦ O
Ewan Property NJ 1989 Remedial ♦ PD
Ewan Property – OU 2 NJ 1988 Remedial ♦ PD
FAA Technical Center – Area B Navy Fire Testing Facility NJ 1996 Remedial ♦ D
FAA Technical Center – OU 1, Area D – Jet Fuel Farm NJ 1989 Remedial ♦ I
Facet Enterprises NY 1992 Remedial ♦ PD
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS PR 1991 Remedial ♦ PD
Florence Landfill NJ 1986 Remedial ♦ O
FMC CORP. (DUBLIN ROAD LANDFILL) NY 1997 Remedial ♦ O
FOREST GLEN MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION NY 1999 Remedial ♦ PD
Fried Industries NJ 1994 Remedial ♦ PD
FULTON TERMINALS NY 1999 Remedial ♦ SD
GARDEN STATE CLEANERS CO NJ 1999 Remedial ♦ O
GCL Tie and Treating NY 1995 Remedial ♦ BI
GE Wiring Devices PR 1988 Remedial ♦ PD
GEMS LANDFILL NJ 1999 Remedial ♦ O
General Motors/Central Foundry Division NY 1992 Remedial ♦ D
Genzale Plating Company NY 1991 Remedial ♦ D
GOOSE FARM NJ 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Griffiss Air Force Base, Landfill 1, OU 5 NY 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
B-46
REGION 2
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
HAVILAND COMPLEX NY 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
HELEN KRAMER LANDFILL NJ 1993 Remedial ♦ O
HERTEL LANDFILL NY 1991 Remedial ♦ PD
Higgins Disposal Site NJ 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
HIGGINS FARM NJ 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Hooker (102nd Street Landfill) NY 1990 Remedial ♦ O
HOOKER (HYDE PARK) NY 1986 Remedial ♦ I
Hooker (S Area ) NY 1990 Remedial ♦ PD
Hooker Chemical/Ruco Polymer – OU 3 NY 2000 Remedial ♦ D
IMPERIAL OIL CO., INC./CHAMPION CHEMICALS NJ 1992 Remedial ♦ D
ISLIP MUNICIPAL SANITARY LANDFILL NY 1992 Remedial ♦ PD
Janssen Inc. PR 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
JIS LANDFILL NJ 1995 Remedial ♦ D
Johnstown City Landfill NY 1993 Remedial ♦ PD
Jones Chemicals, Inc. NY 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
KATONAH MUNICIPAL WELL NY 1992 Remedial ♦ O
Kentucky Avenue Wellfield NY 1990 Remedial ♦ O
Kentucky Avenue Wellfield – OU 3 NY 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Kin-Buc Landfill NJ 1988 Remedial ♦ O
KING OF PRUSSIA NJ 1995 Remedial ♦ O
LANG PROPERTY NJ 1995 Remedial ♦ O
Liberty Industrial Finishing NY 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
LONE PINE LANDFILL NJ 1994 Remedial ♦ O
MANNHEIM AVENUE DUMP NJ 1994 Remedial ♦ SD
MATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL CO., INC NY 2000 Remedial ♦ O
Metaltec/Aerosystems NJ 1990 Remedial ♦ PD
B-47
REGION 2
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
Mohonk Road Industrial Plant NY 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
Mohonk Road Industrial Plant NY 2000 Remedial ♦ D
MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP HOUSING DEVELOPMENT NJ 1988 Remedial ♦ D
Nascolite Corp. NJ 1988 Remedial ♦ PD
Naval Air Engineering Center NJ 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
Naval Air Engineering Center – Areas A and B Groundwater NJ 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Naval Air Engineering Station, Areas I and J Groundwater – OU 26 NJ 1999 Remedial ♦ O
Naval Air Engineering Station, Site 28 – Soil And Groundwater OU NJ 1997 Remedial ♦ O
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE (SITE A) NJ 1998 Remedial ♦ PD
Naval Weapons Station Earle (Site A) – OU 03 NJ 1998 Remedial ♦ O
NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. (SARATOGA SPRINGS PLANT) NY 1995 Remedial ♦ O
NL Industries, Inc. NJ 1994 Remedial ♦ D
OLD BETHPAGE LANDFILL NY 1994 Remedial ♦ O
Olean Well Field NY 1996 Remedial ♦ PD
ONONDAGA LAKE NY 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
Pasley Solvents And Chemicals, Inc. NY 1992 Remedial ♦ O
PICATINNY ARSENAL (USARMY) NJ 1989 Remedial ♦ O
PLATTSBURGH AIR FORCE BASE NY 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
Pollution Abatement Services NY 1993 Remedial ♦ SD
PORT WASHINGTON LANDFILL NY 1989 Remedial ♦ O
Price Landfill #1 NJ 1986 Remedial ♦ D
RADIATION TECHNOLOGY, INC. NJ 1994 Remedial ♦ PD
RAMAPO LANDFILL NY 1992 Remedial ♦ PD
REICH FARMS NJ 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Richardson Hill Road Landfill/Pond NY 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
B-48
REGION 2
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
Robintech, Inc./National Pipe Company NY 1992 Remedial ♦ O
Rockaway Borough Well Field NJ 1991 Remedial ♦ D
Rockaway Borough Well Field NJ 1991 Remedial ♦ D
ROCKAWAY TOWNSHIP WELLS NJ 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
ROCKY HILL MUNICIPAL WELL NJ 1988 Remedial ♦ D
ROWE INDUSTRIES GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION NY 2002 Remedial ♦ O
Scientific Chemical Processing NJ 1990 Remedial ♦ PD
Sealand Restoration. Inc. NY 1995 Remedial ♦ PD
SHARKEY LANDFILL NJ 1986 Remedial ♦ PD
SHIELDALLOY CORP. NJ 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Shore Realty NY 1991 Remedial ♦ O
Shore Realty (Formerly Applied Environmental Services) – Groundwater OU NY 1991 Remedial ♦ O
Shore Realty (Formerly Applied Environmental Services) – OU 1 NY 1991 Remedial ♦ O
SIDNEY LANDFILL NY 1995 Remedial ♦ D
Sinclair Refinery NY 1991 Remedial ♦ O
Sinclair Refinery – OU 2 NY 1991 Remedial ♦ O
SMS Instruments NY 1989 Remedial ♦ O
SMS INSTRUMENTS, INC NY 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Solvent Savers NY 1990 Remedial ♦ PD
SOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO NJ 1999 Remedial ♦ O
Stanton Cleaners Area Groundwater Contamination Site NY 1999 Remedial ♦ BI
Syncon Resins NJ 1986 Remedial ♦ PD
TABERNACLE DRUM DUMP NJ 1993 Remedial ♦ SD
Tri-Cities Barrel Site NY 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
Tutu Well Field VI 1996 Remedial ♦ PD
Universal Oil Products NJ 1993 Remedial ♦ SD
B-49
REGION 2
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
UPJOHN FACILITY PR 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Vega Alta Public Supply Wells PR 1987 Remedial ♦ PD
Vestal Water Supply NY 1990 Remedial ♦ PD
VESTAL WATER SUPPLY WELL 4-2 NY 1998 Remedial ♦ SD
Vineland Chemical Co., Inc. NJ 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
VOLNEY MUNICIPAL LANDFILL NY 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
Waldick Aerospace Devices, Inc. NJ 1991 Remedial ♦ PD
WARWICK LANDFILL NY 1991 Remedial ♦ PD
WILLIAMS PROPERTY NJ 1995 Remedial ♦ O
Woodland Route 532 Dump-Amendment NJ 1999 Remedial ♦ BI
Woodland Routes 72 Dump (Amendment) NJ 1999 Remedial ♦ BI
York Oil Co. NY 1988 Remedial ♦ O
B-50
REGION 3
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
Summary Matrix
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
A.I.W. FRANK/MID-COUNTY MUSTANG PA 2001 Remedial ♦ O
Aberdeen Proving Ground MD 1996 Remedial ♦ PD
Aberdeen Proving Ground (Edgewood Area) J-Field Soil OU MD 2001 Remedial ♦ O
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND (MICHAELSVILLE LANDFILL) MD 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
AMP, INC. (GLEN ROCK FACILITY) PA 1996 Remedial ♦ O
ARMY CREEK LANDFILL DE 1994 Remedial ♦ O
Arrowhead Associates/Scovill Corp VA 2001 Remedial ♦ O
Avco Lycoming PA 2000 Remedial ♦ C
Avco Lycoming PA 2000 Remedial ♦ O
BALLY GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION PA 1989 Remedial ♦ O
Bendix Flight Systems Division PA 1988 Remedial ♦ O
Berks Sand Pit PA 1994 Remedial ♦ O
BLOSENSKI LANDFILL PA 1998 Remedial ♦ O
BOARHEAD FARMS PA 1999 Remedial ♦ PD
Browns Battery Breaking Site – OU 2 PA 1992 Remedial ♦ O
BUTZ LANDFILL PA 1992 Remedial ♦ O
Centre County Kepone Superfund Site PA 1995 Remedial ♦ O
CHEM-SOLV, INC DE 1998 Remedial ♦ SD
CHISMAN CREEK VA 1991 Remedial ♦ O
COMMODORE SEMICONDUCTOR GROUP PA 2000 Remedial ♦ O
CROSSLEY FARM PA 2001 Remedial ♦ PD
CROYDON TCE PA 1997 Remedial ♦ O
CRYOCHEM, INC PA 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Defense General Supply Center (DLA) VA 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Delaware City PVC DE 1986 Remedial ♦ O
Delaware Sand & Gravel Landfill DE 1988 Remedial ♦ PD
B-51
REGION 3
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
DELTA QUARRIES & DISPOSAL./STOTLER LANDFILL PA 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Dover AFB DE 1993 Remedial ♦ PD
Dover AFB – Target Area 2 Of Area 6 DE 1995 Remedial ♦ O
Dover Gas Light Co. DE 1994 Remedial ♦ PD
DRAKE CHEMICAL PA 2000 Remedial ♦ O
DUBLIN TCE SITE PA 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
E.I. DuPont Newport Superfund Site – South Landfill DE 2001 Remedial ♦ I
Eastern Diversified Metals PA 1991 Remedial ♦ PD
ELIZABETHTOWN LANDFILL PA 1998 Remedial ♦ PD
Fischer and Porter Co PA 1984 Remedial ♦ O
Greenwood Chemical Co. VA 1991 Remedial ♦ PD
H & H INC., BURN PIT VA 2000 Remedial ♦ O
HALBY CHEMICAL CO. DE 1998 Remedial ♦ PD
HAVERTOWN PCP PA 1991 Remedial ♦ PD
HELEVA LANDFILL PA 1999 Remedial ♦ O
HELLERTOWN MANUFACTURING CO PA 1996 Remedial ♦ O
HENDERSON ROAD PA 1993 Remedial ♦ O
HUNTERSTOWN ROAD PA 1993 Remedial ♦ D
INDUSTRIAL LANE PA 1991 Remedial ♦ O
KEYSTONE SANITATION LANDFILL PA 1990 Remedial ♦ PD
KIMBERTON SITE PA 1993 Remedial ♦ O
LINDANE DUMP PA 1999 Remedial ♦ PD
LORD-SHOPE LANDFILL PA 1996 Remedial ♦ O
M. W. Manufacturing PA 1992 Remedial ♦ PD
MALVERN TCE PA 1998 Remedial ♦ PD
MCADOO ASSOCIATES PA 1995 Remedial ♦ SD
B-52
REGION 3
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
METAL BANKS PA 2001 Remedial ♦ PD
MID-ATLANTIC WOOD PRESERVERS, INC. MD 1991 Remedial ♦ PD
MIDDLETOWN AIR FIELD PA 1996 Remedial ♦ O
MILL CREEK DUMP PA 1986 Remedial ♦ O
MODERN SANITATION LANDFILL PA 2001 Remedial ♦ O
NAVAL AIR DEVELOPMENT CENTER (8 AREAS) PA 2000 Remedial ♦ O
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, Site 12 – Chemical Burn Area VA 1997 Remedial ♦ O
NCR Corp. DE 1991 Remedial ♦ O
NCR Corp. DE 1991 Remedial ♦ O
NORTH PENN – AREA 1 PA 1998 Remedial ♦ O
NORTH PENN – AREA 12 PA 2000 Remedial ♦ O
NORTH PENN – AREA 6 PA 2000 Remedial ♦ D
OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORP./FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CO. PA 1993 Remedial ♦ O
OLD CITY OF YORK LANDFILL PA 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Osborne Landfill PA 1990 Remedial ♦ PD
PALMERTON ZINC PILE – OU2 & OU4 PA 1988 Remedial ♦ PD
Paoli Rail Yard PA 1992 Remedial ♦ PD
Patuxent River Naval Air Station MD 1996 Remedial ♦ PD
RAYMARK PA 1995 Remedial ♦ O
RECTICON/ALLIED STEEL CORP PA 2000 Remedial ♦ O
Rentokil Virginia Wood Preserving VA 1996 Remedial ♦ SD
RESIN DISPOSAL PA 1991 Remedial ♦ PD
Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump VA 2000 Remedial ♦ SD
Rodale Manufacturing Co. Inc. Site OU 1 PA 1999 Remedial ♦ PD
Saegertown Industrial Area PA 1993 Remedial ♦ PD
SALTVILLE WASTE DISPOSAL PONDS VA 1995 Remedial ♦ PD
B-53
REGION 3
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
SAND, GRAVEL AND STONE MD 1985 Remedial ♦ O
SAUNDERS SUPPLY CO VA 2000 Remedial ♦ O
SHRIVER’S CORNER PA 1995 Remedial ♦ PD
Southern Maryland Wood Treating MD 1995 Remedial ♦ SD
Standard Chlorine of Delaware, Inc,. DE 1995 Remedial ♦ D
STANLEY KESSLER PA 1999 Remedial ♦ O
STRASBURG LANDFILL PA 1989 Remedial ♦ PD
The Crater Resources Superfund Site PA 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
Tonolli Corp. PA 1992 Remedial ♦ O
Tybouts Corner Landfill DE 1986 Remedial ♦ O
TYSONS DUMP PA 1998 Remedial ♦ O
U.S. TITANIUM VA 1997 Remedial ♦ SD
Vienna Superfund Site WV 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
Washington Gas Light DC 1999 Remedial ♦ PD
West Virginia Ordnance (US Army) WV 1988 Remedial ♦ O
WESTINGHOUSE ELEVATOR CO. PLANT PA 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Whitmoyer Laboratories PA 1991 Remedial ♦ O
William Dick Lagoons – OU 02 PA 1991 Remedial ♦ D
YORK COUNTY SOLID WASTE/REFUSE LANDFILL PA 1995 Remedial ♦ O
B-54
REGION 4
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
Summary Matrix
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
62nd Street Dump FL 1990 Remedial ♦ SD
Abc One Hour Cleaners NC 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps NC 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps – OU 5 NC 1999 Remedial ♦ O
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps – OU5 and Route 211 Area NC 1999 Remedial ♦ PD
AIRCO KY 1997 Remedial ♦ O
AIRCO PLATING CO FL 1999 Remedial ♦ O
Alaric Inc. Superfund Site FL 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
ALLEGANY BALLISTICS LABORATORY (USNAVY) WV 1998 Remedial ♦ PD
American Creosote Works – OU2 (Phase 1) FL 1994 Remedial ♦ O
American Creosote Works, Inc. – OU 2 (Phase 2) FL 1994 Remedial ♦ PD
American Creosote Works, Inc. – Pensacola Pit FL 1994 Remedial ♦ PD
ANNISTON ARMY DEPOT – SOUTHEAST INDUSTRIAL AREA AL 1991 Remedial ♦ O
ANODYNE, INC. FL 1993 Remedial ♦ PD
Arkwright Dump Site SC 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
B.F. GOODRICH KY 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Benfield Industries NC 1992 Remedial ♦ O
Brunswick Wood Preserving Site – OU 1 GA 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination NC 1993 Remedial ♦ SD
Cabot/Koppers FL 1990 Remedial ♦ O
Calhoun Park Area – OU 2 SC 2002 Remedial ♦ D
Cape Fear Wood Preserving NC 2001 Remedial ♦ O
CAROLAWN, INC SC 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Carolina Transformer Co. NC 1991 Remedial ♦ D/I
B-55
REGION 4
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
CARRIER AIR CONDITIONING CO TN 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Cecil Field Naval Air Station – OU 08 FL 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Cecil Field Naval Air Station – OU 7, Site 16 FL 1999 Remedial ♦ O
CEDARTOWN MUNICIPAL LANDFILL GA 1994 Remedial ♦ PD
CELANESE CORP. (SHELBY FIBER OPERATIONS) NC 1993 Remedial ♦ O
CHARLES MACON LAGOON & DRUM STORAGE NC 1997 Remedial ♦ O
CHEMTRONICS, INC NC 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station NC 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Chevron Chemical Company FL 1996 Remedial ♦ PD
Chevron Chemical Company FL 1996 Remedial ♦ PD
CIBA-GEIGY CORP. (MCINTOSH PLANT) AL 2000 Remedial ♦ O
CITY INDUSTRIES, INC FL 1994 Remedial ♦ O
DISTLER BRICKYARD KY 1995 Remedial ♦ O
DISTLER FARM KY 1992 Remedial ♦ O
ELMORE WASTE DISPOSAL SC 1998 Remedial ♦ O
FCX – Statesville – OU1 NC 1993 Remedial ♦ O
FCX – Statesville – OU 3 NC 1996 Remedial ♦ O
FCX – Washington NC 1993 Remedial ♦ PD
Fike/Artel Superfund Site WV 2001 Remedial ♦ PD
FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CO. (ALBANY PLANT) GA 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Florida Petroleum Reprocessors FL 2001 Remedial ♦ PD
FLORIDA STEEL CORP FL 1997 Remedial ♦ O
FORT HARTFORD COAL CO. STONE QUARRY KY 1999 Remedial ♦ O
GEIGY CHEMICAL CORP. (ABERDEEN PLANT) NC 1998 Remedial ♦ O
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO./SHEPHERD FARM NC 2000 Remedial ♦ O
General Electric Company, Shepard Farm Site NC 1995 Remedial ♦ PD
B-56
REGION 4
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
GOLD COAST OIL CORP FL 1992 Remedial ♦ SD
HARRIS CORP. (PALM BAY PLANT) FL 1998 Remedial ♦ O
HARRIS CORP. (PALM BAY PLANT) FL 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Helena Chemical Company SC 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Helena Chemical Company (Tampa Plant) FL 1996 Remedial ♦ PD
HIPPS ROAD LANDFILL FL 1994 Remedial ♦ O
HOLLINGSWORTH SOLDERLESS TERMINAL FL 1993 Remedial ♦ SD
Interstate Lead Co AL 1995 Remedial ♦ PD
Jacksonville Naval Air Station FL 1994 Remedial ♦ PD
Jacksonville Naval Air Station – OU3 FL 2000 Remedial ♦ O
Jacksonville Naval Air Station – OU3 FL 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
Jacksonville Naval Air Station – OU3 FL 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
JADCO-HUGHES FACILITY NC 1997 Remedial ♦ O
JFD ELECTRONICS/CHANNEL MASTER NC 1992 Remedial ♦ O
KALAMA SPECIALTY CHEMICALS SC 1999 Remedial ♦ O
KOPPERS CO. INC. (MORRISVILLE PLANT) NC 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Koppers Co., Inc. (Charleston Plant) SC 1995 Remedial ♦ O
LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE/NASA LANGLEY CNTR OU3 VA 1998 Remedial ♦ PD
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA SC 1994 Remedial ♦ O
MADISON COUNTY SANITARY LANDFILL FL 1997 Remedial ♦ O
MALLORY CAPACITOR CO TN 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Marine Corps Logistics Base – OU 6 GA 2001 Remedial ♦ D
MARTIN-MARIETTA, SODYECO, INC NC 1999 Remedial ♦ O
B-57
REGION 4
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
Marzone Inc/Chevron Chemical Company Site – OU 1 GA 2000 Remedial ♦ O
Mathis Brothers Landfill GA 1993 Remedial ♦ PD
MEDLEY FARM DRUM DUMP SC 1995 Remedial ♦ O
MEMPHIS DEFENSE DEPOT (DLA) – OU-1 TN 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Memphis Depot – Main Installation Functional Unit 7 TN 2001 Remedial ♦ PD
MIAMI DRUM SERVICES FL 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Milan Army Ammunition Plant TN 2000 Remedial ♦ O
MONSANTO CORP. (AUGUSTA PLANT) GA 1993 Remedial ♦ O
MUNISPORT LANDFILL FL 1990 Remedial ♦ PD
MURRAY-OHIO DUMP TN 1994 Remedial ♦ PD
NATIONAL ELECTRIC COIL/COOPER INDUSTRIES KY 1998 Remedial ♦ O
NATIONAL SOUTHWIRE ALUMINUM CO. KY 1993 Remedial ♦ O
NATIONAL STARCH & CHEMICAL CORP. – OU1 AL 1994 Remedial ♦ O
NATIONAL STARCH & CHEMICAL CORP. – OU3 AL 1994 Remedial ♦ O
New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Superfund Site NC 2000 Remedial ♦ BI
Newport Dump KY 1987 Remedial ♦ PD
NORTH BELMONT PCE NC 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
North Carolina State University NC 1996 Remedial ♦ PD
NORTHWEST 58TH STREET LANDFILL FL 1987 Remedial ♦ PD
Oak Ridge Reservation TN 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
Oak Ridge Reservation OU-30 TN 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
OLIN CORP. (MCINTOSH PLANT) AL 1995 Remedial ♦ O
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (USDOE) – NE Plume OU KY 1995 Remedial ♦ O
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (USDOE) – NW Plume OU KY 1993 Remedial ♦ O
PALMETTO WOOD PRESERVING SC 1997 Remedial ♦ O
PARA-CHEM SOUTHERN, INC SC 2000 Remedial ♦ O
B-58
REGION 4
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
Peak Oil/Bay Drum – OU 2, Site Wide Groundwater FL 1993 Remedial ♦ PD
PENSACOLA NAVAL AIR STATION FL 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
Perdido Ground Water Contamination AL 1988 Remedial ♦ O
PIPER AIRCRAFT/VERO BEACH WATER & SEWER FL 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Reasor Chemical Company Site NC 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
Redwing Carriers, Inc. (Saraland) Site AL 1993 Remedial ♦ D/I
Robins AFB GA 1995 Remedial ♦ O
Rochester Property SC 1993 Remedial ♦ O
ROCK HILL CHEMICAL CO SC 1997 Remedial ♦ O
SANGAMO WESTON/TWELVE-MILE/HARTWELL PCB SC 1999 Remedial ♦ O
Sapp Battery Salvage FL 1986 Remedial ♦ PD
Savannah River Site SC 1996 Remedial ♦ PD
Savannah River Site – OU 28 SC 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
Savannah River Site C Area Rubble Pit SC 1999 Remedial ♦ PD
SCHUYLKILL METALS CORP FL 1998 Remedial ♦ SD
SCRDI BLUFF ROAD SC 1998 Remedial ♦ O
SCRDI DIXIANA SC 1992 Remedial ♦ O
SHERWOOD MEDICAL INDUSTRIES FL 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Shuron Inc – OU 01 SC 1998 Remedial ♦ D
SHURON INC. SC 1998 Remedial ♦ PD
SOLITRON MICROWAVE FL 2001 Remedial ♦ PD
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS, INC. FL 1999 Remedial ♦ D
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS, INC. FL 1999 Remedial ♦ D/I
Stauffer Chemical – OU1 AL 1989 Remedial ♦ O
STAUFFER CHEMICAL CO. (TAMPA PLANT) FL 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
SYDNEY MINE SLUDGE PONDS FL 1999 Remedial ♦ O
B-59
REGION 4
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
T.H. AGRICULTURE & NUTRITION CO. (ALBANY PLANT) GA 1993 Remedial ♦ O
T.H. AGRICULTURE & NUTRITION CO. (MONTGOMERY PLANT) AL 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Townsend Saw Chain Company SC 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Townsend Saw Chain Company SC 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Trans Circuits Inc. FL 2001 Remedial ♦ PD
Trans Circuits Site FL 2001 Remedial ♦ PD
TRI-CITY DISPOSAL CO KY 1996 Remedial ♦ SD
USMC Camp Lejeune Military Base NC 1995 Remedial ♦ PD
USMC Camp Lejeune Military Base – OU 10, Site 35 NC 1995 Remedial ♦ O
VELSICOL CHEMICAL CORP (HARDEMAN COUNTY) TN 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Wamchem Inc SC 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Whitehouse Oil Pits FL 1992 Remedial ♦ PD
Whitehouse Oil Pits OU 1 FL 1998 Remedial ♦ D
Woolfolk Chemical Works, Inc. GA 1994 Remedial ♦ PD
B-60
REGION 5
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
Summary Matrix
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
ACME SOLVENT RECLAIMING INC IL 1998 Remedial ♦ O
ALGOMA MUNICIPAL LANDFILL WI 1990 Remedial ♦ PD
Allied Chemical & Ironton Coke OH 1991 Remedial ♦ O
American Chemical Services, Inc. IN 1992 Remedial ♦ O
ARROWHEAD REF CO MN 1997 Remedial ♦ O
AVENUE “E” GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION MI 2000 Remedial ♦ SD
BELVIDERE MUNICIPAL LANDFILL IL 1998 Remedial ♦ SD
BENDIX CORP./ALLIED AUTOMOTIVE MI 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
BETTER BRITE PLATING CHROME & ZINC WI 2000 Remedial ♦ O
BIG D CAMPGROUND OH 1995 Remedial ♦ O
Bofors Nobel MI 1999 Remedial ♦ O
BUCKEYE RECLAMATION OH 1991 Remedial ♦ PD
BURROWS SANITATION MI 1993 Remedial ♦ SD
CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUBLIC SERVICE CO IL 1995 Remedial ♦ O
CHARLEVOIX MUNICIPAL WELL MI 1984 Remedial ♦ SD
CHEM-CENTRAL MI 1995 Remedial ♦ O
CHEM-DYNE CORP OH 1992 Remedial ♦ O
Chemical Operable Unit – OU2 MI 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
Chemical Operable Unit – OU2 MI 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
CITY DISPOSAL CORP LANDFILL WI 2000 Remedial ♦ O
Clare Water Supply MI 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Clare Water Supply MI 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
Conrail Rail Yard IN 1994 Remedial ♦ D
CONTINENTAL STEEL CORP. IN 1998 Remedial ♦ PD
CROSS BROTHERS PAIL RECYCLING (PEMBROKE) IL 1985 Remedial ♦ SD
DELAVAN MUNICIPAL WELL #4 WI 2000 Remedial ♦ O
B-61
REGION 5
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
DOUGLAS ROAD UNIROYAL INC LANDFILL IN 2000 Remedial ♦ I
DUELL & GARDNER LANDFILL MI 1993 Remedial ♦ SD
DUPAGE COUNTY LANDFILL/BLACKWELL FOREST PRESERVE IL 1998 Remedial ♦ PD
EAST BETHEL TOWNSHIP MN 2000 Remedial ♦ SD
EAU CLAIRE MUNICIPAL WELL FIELD WI 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Electrovoice MI 1992 Remedial ♦ PD
Electrovoice – OU 1 MI 1992 Remedial ♦ C
Enviro. Conservation and Chemical IN 1987 Remedial ♦ SD
Feed Materials Production Center (USDOE) – Pump & Treat OH 1996 Remedial ♦ PD
FIELDS BROOK OH 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
FISHER CALO IN 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Fisher-Calo IN 1990 Remedial ♦ C
FMC (Fresno Plant) MN 1991 Remedial ♦ O
FMC CORP MN 1992 Remedial ♦ O
FORT WAYNE REDUCTION DUMP IN 1995 Remedial ♦ O
G & H LDFL MI 1999 Remedial ♦ O
Galesburg/Koppers – Deep aquifer IL 2001 Remedial ♦ O
Galesburg/Koppers Shallow Aquifer IL 1989 Remedial ♦ O
Galesburg/Koppers – Shallow Aquifer OU IL 2001 Remedial ♦ O
HAGEN FARM WI 1996 Remedial ♦ O
HEDBLUM INDUSTRIES MI 1993 Remedial ♦ O
HUNTS DISPOSAL WI 1997 Remedial ♦ O
IONIA CITY LANDFILL MI 2000 Remedial ♦ O
K & L Landfill MI 1990 Remedial ♦ PD
KENTWOOD LANDFILL MI 1995 Remedial ♦ O
KOHLER CO. LANDFILL WI 1996 Remedial ♦ O
B-62
REGION 5
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
Koppers Coke – Groundwater OU MN 1994 Remedial ♦ O
Kummer Sanitary Landfill MN 1990 Remedial ♦ SD
Kummer Sanitary Landfill – OU 3 (Amendment) MN 1996 Remedial ♦ C
KYSOR INDUSTRIAL CORP MI 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Lakeland Disposal Service, Inc. IN 1993 Remedial ♦ SD
LASALLE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES IL 1994 Remedial ♦ O
Lauer 1 Sanitary Landfill, (Boundary Road) WI 1996 Remedial ♦ SD
LEHILLIER MANKATO SITE MN 1992 Remedial ♦ SD
LEMBERGER LANDFILL INC WI 1996 Remedial ♦ O
LEMBERGER TRANSPORT & RECYCLING INC WI 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Lenz Oil Services, Inc. OU1 IL 1999 Remedial ♦ PD
LIQUID DISPOSAL INC MI 1997 Remedial ♦ O
LONG PRAIRIE GROUNDWATER CON MN 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Macgillis and Gibbs/Bell Lumber and Pole MN 1994 Remedial ♦ O
Main Street Well Field IN 1991 Remedial ♦ PD
MASTER DSPL SERVICE LANDFILL WI 1997 Remedial ♦ O
MCGRAW-EDISON COMPANY MI 1998 Remedial ♦ O
MIAMI COUNTY INCINERATOR OH 1997 Remedial ♦ O
MICHIGAN DISPOSAL SERVICE (CORK STREET LANDFILL) MI 1991 Remedial ♦ PD
Midco I IN 1989 Remedial ♦ O
Midco II IN 1992 Remedial ♦ O
Moss-American Groundwater WI 1997 Remedial ♦ O
MOTOR WHEEL MI 1998 Remedial ♦ O
MOUND PLANT (USDOE) OH 1995 Remedial ♦ O
MUSKEGO SANITARY LANDFILL WI 1997 Remedial ♦ O
MUSKEGON CHEM CO MI 1997 Remedial ♦ O
B-63
REGION 5
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
NATIONAL PRESTO INDUSTRIES WI 1999 Remedial ♦ O
NATIONAL PRESTO INDUSTRIES WI 1999 Remedial ♦ O
NAVAL INDUSTRIAL RESERVE ORDNANCE PLANT MN 1990 Remedial ♦ PD
New Brighton/Arden Hills MN 1993 Remedial ♦ O
New Brighton/Arden Hills MN 1998 Remedial ♦ PD
NEW LYME LANDFILL OH 1993 Remedial ♦ SD
Ninth Avenue Dump – OU2 IN 1995 Remedial ♦ O
NORTH BRONSON INDUSTRIAL AREA MI 1998 Remedial ♦ PD
NORTHERNAIRE PLATING MI 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Northside Sanitary Landfill IN 1991 Remedial ♦ PD
NUTTING TRUCK & CASTER CO MN 1992 Remedial ♦ O
NW MAUTHE COMPANY, INC. WI 1997 Remedial ♦ O
OAKDALE DUMP SITES MN 1995 Remedial ♦ O
OCONOMOWOC ELECTROPLATING CO INC WI 1996 Remedial ♦ O
OLD MILL OH 1991 Remedial ♦ O
ONALASKA MUNI LANDFILL WI 1994 Remedial ♦ SD
ORMET CORP OH 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Ott/Story/Cordova Chemical Co. MI 1989 Remedial ♦ O
Outboard Marine Company/Waukegan Coke Plant IL 1999 Remedial ♦ PD
Peerless Plating MI 1992 Remedial ♦ O
PENTA WOOD PRODUCTS INCORPORATED WI 2000 Remedial ♦ O
PERHAM ARSENIC MN 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Powell Road Landfill OH 1993 Remedial ♦ PD
Pristine, Inc. OH 1988 Remedial ♦ O
Rasmussens Dump MI 2001 Remedial ♦ C
RASMUSSEN’S DUMP MI 1995 Remedial ♦ O
B-64
REGION 5
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
REILLY TAR & CHEM (INDIANAPOLIS PLANT) IN 2000 Remedial ♦ O
REILLY TAR & CHEM ST LOUIS PARK MN 1997 Remedial ♦ O
REILLY TAR & CHEMICAL CORP (DOVER PLANT) OH 2000 Remedial ♦ O
Rickenbacker Air National Guard Base OH 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
Rickenbacker Air National Guard Base – Site 2 OH 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
Rockwell International Superfund Site MI 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
Rockwell International Superfund Site – OU 2 MI 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
ROSE TOWNSHIP DUMP MI 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Roto-Finish Co, Inc. MI 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
Sangamo Electric Dump/Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge –
OU MISCA IL 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
5Sangamo Electric Dump/Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge –
PCB Areas OU IL 2000 Remedial ♦ D
Sauget Area 2 Superfund Site IL 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
SCHMALZ DUMP WI 1993 Remedial ♦ SD
SEYMOUR RECYCLING CORP IN 1993 Remedial ♦ O
SKINNER LANDFILL OH 1993 Remedial ♦ SD
South Macomb Disposal Authority MI 1991 Remedial ♦ O
Southeast Rockford Groundwater Contamination IL 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
SOUTHWEST OTTAWA COUNTY LANDFILL MI 1994 Remedial ♦ O
Spartan Chemical Co. MI 1993 Remedial ♦ PD
Spiegelberg Landfill MI 1986 Remedial ♦ SD
SPIEGELBERG LANDFILL MI 1995 Remedial ♦ O
SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP DUMP MI 2000 Remedial ♦ O
STURGIS MUNICIPAL WELLS MI 1997 Remedial ♦ O
SUMMIT NATIONAL LIQUID DISPOSAL SERVICE OH 1995 Remedial ♦ O
B-65
REGION 5
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
Tar Lake MI 1992 Remedial ♦ PD
Thermo-Chem, Inc. MI 1991 Remedial ♦ O
Thermo-Chem, Inc. – OU 1 MI 1991 Remedial ♦ O
Thomas Solvent Raymond Road – OU 1 MI 1985 Remedial ♦ O
TIPPECANOE SANITARY LANDFILL, INC. IN 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
TRI-STATE PLATING IN 1992 Remedial ♦ SD
TRW INC MINERVA PLT OH 1994 Remedial ♦ O
UNIVERSITY MINNESOTA (ROSEMOUNT RES CEN) MN 1994 Remedial ♦ SD
US AIR FORCE WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB OH 1999 Remedial ♦ PD
US AVIEX MI 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Velsicol Chemical Corp. IL 1982 Remedial ♦ O
VELSICOL CHEMICAL CORP. (ILLINOIS) IL 1994 Remedial ♦ O
VERONA WELL FIELD MI 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Verona Well Field – Dual Blocking Well/ Annex/ Paint Shop MI 1991 Remedial ♦ O
WAITE PARK WELLS MN 1999 Remedial ♦ O
WASH KING LAUNDRY MI 1993 Remedial ♦ O
WASHINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL MN 1991 Remedial ♦ SD
WASTE DSPL ENGINEERING INC MN 1995 Remedial ♦ O
WASTE INC LDFL IN 1998 Remedial ♦ O
WAUSAU GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION WI 1994 Remedial ♦ O
Wayne Waste Oil IN 1990 Remedial ♦ O
WAYNE WASTE OIL IN 1995 Remedial ♦ O
WHITTAKER CORP – MN 1992 Remedial ♦ SD
WINDOM DUMP MN 1992 Remedial ♦ SD
WOODSTOCK MUNICIPAL LANDFILL IL 1993 Remedial ♦ PD
Wright-Patterson AFB Groundwater – OU12 OH 1999 Remedial ♦ C
B-66
REGION 5
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
Zanesville Well Field OH 1991 Remedial ♦ O
ZANESVILLE WELL FIELD OH 1996 Remedial ♦ O
B-67
REGION 6
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
Summary Matrix
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
Air Force Plant 4 TX 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Air Force Plant 4 – Building 181 TX 1996 Remedial ♦ C
Alcoa (Point Comfort)/Lavaca Bay Site TX 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
American Creosote Works, Inc. – Winnfield Plant LA 1993 Remedial ♦ O
American Creosote Works, Inc. – Winnfield Plant LA 1993 Remedial ♦ PD
Arkwood Inc. AR 1990 Remedial ♦ PD
AT&SF Albuquerque Superfund Site NM 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
BAILEY WASTE DISPOSAL TX 1997 Remedial ♦ SD
BAYOU BONFOUCA LA 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Brio Refining TX 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
CIMARRON MINING CORP NM 1992 Remedial ♦ SD
City of Perryton Well #2 TX 1999 Remedial ♦ D
CRYSTAL CHEMICAL CO. TX 1997 Remedial ♦ O
FRENCH, LTD TX 1994 Remedial ♦ SD
Fruit Avenue Plume Site NM 2001 Remedial ♦ D
Fruit Avenue Plume Site NM 2001 Remedial ♦ PD
GENEVA INDUSTRIES/FUHRMANN ENERGY TX 1993 Remedial ♦ O
HARDAGE/CRINER – Pump and Treat OK 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Koppers Co Inc – Texarkana Plant TX 2002 Remedial ♦ O
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant TX 1995 Remedial ♦ O
Marion Pressure Treating Company LA 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
Midland Products AR 1988 Remedial ♦ O
Mid-South Wood Products AR 1987 Remedial ♦ O
B-68
REGION 6
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
MOTCO TX 1989 Remedial ♦ PD
North Cavalcade Street TX 1988 Remedial ♦ O
ODESSA CHROMIUM #1 TX 1994 Remedial ♦ O
ODESSA CHROMIUM #2 (ANDREWS HIGHWAY) TX 1994 Remedial ♦ SD
Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site TX 1988 Remedial ♦ SD
Odessa Chromium II Superfund Site TX 1988 Remedial ♦ SD
Odessa Chromium II Superfund Site TX 1994 Remedial ♦ SD
Odessa Chromium II Superfund Site TX 2000 Remedial ♦ O
Oklahoma Refining Co. OK 1992 Remedial ♦ PD
Old Inger Oil Refinery LA 1984 Remedial ♦ PD
Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc. TX 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Prewitt Abandoned Refinery NM 1992 Remedial ♦ O
PREWITT ABANDONED REFINERY NM 1996 Remedial ♦ O
SOL LYNN/INDUSTRIAL TRANSFORMERS TX 1993 Remedial ♦ O
SOUTH CAVALCADE STREET TX 2000 Remedial ♦ O
South Valley – OU 3 NM 1996 Remedial ♦ O
South Valley – OU 6 NM 1996 Remedial ♦ O
SOUTHERN SHIPBUILDING LA 1997 Remedial ♦ SD
Sprague Road Ground Water Plume TX 2000 Remedial ♦ D
Texarkana Wood Preserving TX 1993 Remedial ♦ PD
Tinker AFB OK 1990 Remedial ♦ PD
Tinker AFB – Soldier Creek And Building 3001 OK 1990 Remedial ♦ I
UNITED NUCLEAR CORP NM 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Vertac, Inc. AR 1996 Remedial ♦ O
B-69
REGION 7
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
Summary Matrix
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
10th Street NPL Site NE 2001 Remedial ♦ PD
10th Street Site – OU 2 NE 2001 Remedial ♦ O
29th and Mead Ground Water Contamination KS 1992 Remedial ♦ PD
57TH AND NORTH BROADWAY STREETS SITE KS 1998 Remedial ♦ PD
57th And North Broadway Streets Site – OU 01 KS 1999 Remedial ♦ D
Ace Services KS 1999 Remedial ♦ BI
BRUNO CO-OP ASSOCIATION/ASSOCIATED PROPERTIES NE 1998 Remedial ♦ PD
CHEROKEE COUNTY KS 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
Cleburn Street Well NE 1996 Remedial ♦ PD
Cleburn Street Well – OU5 NE 2001 Remedial ♦ PD
CONSERVATION CHEMICAL CO MO 1991 Remedial ♦ O
CORNHUSKER ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT NE 1994 Remedial ♦ O
DES MOINES TCE IA 1998 Remedial ♦ O
ELECTRO-COATINGS, INC IA 2000 Remedial ♦ O
FAIRFIELD COAL GASIFICATION PLANT IA 1995 Remedial ♦ SD
Findett MO 1989 Remedial ♦ O
Former Nebraska Ordnance Plant NE 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
FORT RILEY KS 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
General Motors Corporation, Former AC Rochester Facility Site IA 2001 Remedial ♦ PD
Hastings Groundwater Contamination NE 1993 Remedial ♦ PD
Hastings Groundwater Contamination- Colorodo Ave, OU 1 NE 1991 Remedial ♦ I
John Deere IA 1989 Remedial ♦ O
Kem-Pest Laboratories MO 1991 Remedial ♦ PD
Lake City Army Ammu. Plant (NW Lagoon) – OU 3 MO 1998 Remedial ♦ O
LAKE CITY ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT (NORTHWEST LAGOON) MO 1999 Remedial ♦ PD
B-70
REGION 7
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
LEE CHEMICAL MO 1994 Remedial ♦ O
Lehigh Portland Cement IA 1991 Remedial ♦ O
LINDSAY MANUFACTURING CO NE 1995 Remedial ♦ O
Mason City Coal Gasification Site IA 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
Mcgraw Edison IA 1993 Remedial ♦ PD
NORTHWESTERN STATES PORTLAND CEMENT CO IA 1994 Remedial ♦ O
OBEE ROAD – Pump & Treat KS 1994 Remedial ♦ O
Ogallala Groundwater Contamination – OU1 NE 1999 Remedial ♦ PD
ORONOGO-DUENWEG MINING BELT MO 1998 Remedial ♦ PD
Peoples Natural Gas IA 1991 Remedial ♦ I
SHERWOOD MEDICAL CO NE 1999 Remedial ♦ O
SOLID STATE CIRCUITS, INC MO 1994 Remedial ♦ O
STROTHER FIELD INDUSTRIAL PARK KS 1994 Remedial ♦ I
Valley Park TCE Site – OU2 MO 2001 Remedial ♦ D
Valley Park Tce Site Wainwright – OU1 MO 1994 Remedial ♦ SD
VOGEL PAINT & WAX CO IA 1994 Remedial ♦ O
WAVERLY GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION NE 1994 Remedial ♦ SD
Weldon Spring Chemical Plant – OU 2 MO 2000 Remedial ♦ C
Well Number 3 Subsite NE 2001 Remedial ♦ I
WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT CO. DUMP IA 1990 Remedial ♦ SD
B-71
REGION 8
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
Summary Matrix
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
Anaconda Co. Smelter MT 1991 Remedial ♦ PD
ARSENIC TRIOXIDE SITE ND 1988 Remedial ♦ PD
BAXTER/UNION PACIFIC TIE TREATING WY 1986 Remedial ♦ O
BRODERICK WOOD PRODUCTS CO 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Burlington Northern (Somers Plant) MT 1989 Remedial ♦ O
Burlington Northern (Somers Plant) MT 1989 Remedial ♦ O
CALIFORNIA Gulch CO 1988 Remedial ♦ PD
CENTRAL CITY, CLEAR CREEK CO 1991 Remedial ♦ O
CHEMICAL SALES CO CO 2000 Remedial ♦ SD
Chemical Sales Company – OU 1 CO 1991 Remedial ♦ I
EAGLE MINE CO 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Ellsworth AFB SD 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
Ellsworth AFB – OU 1 SD 1995 Remedial ♦ O
F.E. Warren AFB – OU2 WY 1997 Remedial ♦ O
F.E. WARREN AIR FORCE BASE WY 2001 Remedial ♦ PD
Hill AFB UT 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
Idaho Pole Company MT 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Idaho Pole Company MT 1992 Remedial ♦ O
Kennecott South Zone Site UT 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
LIBBY GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION MT 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Libby Groundwater Contamination MT 1989 Remedial ♦ O
Lockheed/Martin (Denver Aerospace) CO 1990 Remedial ♦ PD
Lowry Landfill CO 1994 Remedial ♦ PD
MARSHALL LANDFILL CO 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Montana Pole and Treating Plant MT 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Montana Pole And Treating Plant – Groundwater OU MT 1993 Remedial ♦ O
B-72
REGION 8
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
MONTICELLO MILL TAILINGS (USDOE) UT 1998 Remedial ♦ PD
Monticello Mill Tailings (USDOE) – OU 03 UT 1998 Remedial ♦ O
MYSTERY BRIDGE RD/U.S. HIGHWAY 20 WY 1994 Remedial ♦ SD
OGDEN DEFENSE DEPOT – OU2 UT 1995 Remedial ♦ O
Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE) CO 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE) – Buffer Zone CO 1992 Remedial ♦ O
Rocky Mountain Arsenal CO 1996 Remedial ♦ PD
SAND CREEK INDUSTRIAL CO 1993 Remedial ♦ PD
SHARON STEEL CORP. (MIDVALE TAILINGS) UT 1994 Remedial ♦ PD
Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area MT 1996 Remedial ♦ PD
Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area – Rocker Timber Framing And Treatment
Plant OU MT 1996 Remedial ♦ C
Summitville Mine CO 2001 Remedial ♦ PD
URAVAN URANIUM PROJECT (UNION CARBIDE CORP.) CO 1987 Remedial ♦ O
Utah Power & Light/American Barrel UT 1993 Remedial ♦ PD
WASATCH CHEMICAL CO. (LOT 6) UT 1997 Remedial ♦ O
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC CA 1993 Remedial ♦ O
B-73
REGION 9
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
Summary Matrix
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. – BUILDING 915 CA 1992 Remedial ♦ O
Aerojet-General Corporation CA 2001 Remedial ♦ PD
ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE OU3 GU 1998 Remedial ♦ PD
APPLIED MATERIALS CA 1993 Remedial ♦ O
BARSTOW MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE CA 1998 Remedial ♦ PD
Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base – OU 01 CA 1998 Remedial ♦ O
BECKMAN INSTRUMENTS – PORTERVILLE PLANT CA 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Brown & Bryant CA 1994 Remedial ♦ PD
Castle AFB CA 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
COAST WOOD PRESERVING CA 1989 Remedial ♦ SD
Cooper Drum Company CA 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
CTS PRINTEX, INC CA 1992 Remedial ♦ O
DEL AMO CA 1999 Remedial ♦ PD
Del Norte County Pesticide Storage Area CA 1986 Remedial ♦ C
DEL NORTE PESTICIDE STORAGE CA 1992 Remedial ♦ SD
Fairchild Semiconductor (Mt. View) – Siemens/Sobrato (455 & 487
Middlefield Road) CA 1989 Remedial ♦ O
FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORP (MT VIEW) CA 1999 Remedial ♦ O
FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORP (S SAN JOSE) CA 1992 Remedial ♦ O
FIRESTONE TIRE&RUBBER CO. (SALINAS PLANT) CA 1992 Remedial ♦ O
Former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station CA 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
FORT ORD CA 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
Fort Ord – Basewide Sites 2/12 CA 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
B-74
REGION 9
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
Fort Ord – OU1 Fire Drill Area CA 1995 Remedial ♦ O
Fort Ord – OU2 Landfill CA 1994 Remedial ♦ PD
FRESNO MUNICIPAL SANITARY LANDFILL CA 1996 Remedial ♦ O
George AFB CA 1994 Remedial ♦ O
Hassayampa Landfill AZ 1992 Remedial ♦ O
HEWLETT-PACKARD (620-640 PAGE MILL ROAD) CA 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Hexcel CA 1993 Remedial ♦ PD
IBM (San Jose) CA 1989 Remedial ♦ PD
Indian Bend Wash Area AZ 2001 Remedial ♦ O
INTEL CORP. (MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANT) CA 1999 Remedial ♦ O
INTEL CORP. (SANTA CLARA III) CA 1992 Remedial ♦ O
Intel, Mountain View CA 1989 Remedial ♦ O
INTERSIL INC./SIEMENS COMPONENTS CA 1992 Remedial ♦ O
IRON MOUNTAIN MINE CA 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
J.H. Baxter CA 1998 Remedial ♦ O
JASCO CHEMICAL CORP CA 1992 Remedial ♦ PD
Jasco Chemical Corp. CA 1992 Remedial ♦ O
Koppers – Oroville Plant CA 1999 Remedial ♦ O
Koppers Company Inc. Site CA 1989 Remedial ♦ O
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory CA 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USDOE) CA 1992 Remedial ♦ PD
LORENTZ BARREL & DRUM CO CA 1998 Remedial ♦ O
March Air Force Base CA 1996 Remedial ♦ PD
Marine Corps Air Station AZ 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
Marine Corps Air Station Yuma – OU 1 AZ 2000 Remedial ♦ O
Mather AFB CA 1996 Remedial ♦ O
B-75
REGION 9
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
McClellan AFB CA 1995 Remedial ♦ O
MCCOLL CA 1993 Remedial ♦ PD
MCCORMICK & BAXTER CREOSOTING CO. CA 1999 Remedial ♦ PD
Mesa Area Ground Water Contamination AZ 1991 Remedial ♦ PD
MICRO STORAGE/INTEL MAGNETICS CA 1992 Remedial ♦ O
Modesto Superfund site CA 1997 Remedial ♦ I
MOFFETT NAVAL AIR STATION CA 1996 Remedial ♦ PD
MONOLITHIC MEMORIES CA 1994 Remedial ♦ O
MONTROSE CHEMICAL CORP. CA 1999 Remedial ♦ PD
Motorola 52nd Street AZ 1994 Remedial ♦ PD
Muscoy CA 1995 Remedial ♦ I
NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR CORP CA 1998 Remedial ♦ O
NEWMARK GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION CA 1995 Remedial ♦ PD
Norton AFB CA 1994 Remedial ♦ SD
PACIFIC COAST PIPE LINES CA 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Phillips [Formerly Signetics (Amd 901) (Trw)] CA 1991 Remedial ♦ PD
Phoenix Goodyear Airport Area (South Facility) – Subunit A AZ 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Phoenix-Goodyear Airport Area (North Facility) AZ 1989 Remedial ♦ PD
PURITY OIL SALES, INC. CA 1989 Remedial ♦ O
RAYTHEON CORP CA 1999 Remedial ♦ O
Raytheon, Mountain View CA 1989 Remedial ♦ O
Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant CA 1994 Remedial ♦ O
Sacramento Army Depot CA 1995 Remedial ♦ O
SAN FERNANDO VALLEY (AREA 1) CA 1989 Remedial ♦ O
SAN FERNANDO VALLEY (AREA 2) CA 1993 Remedial ♦ O
SAN GABRIEL VALLEY (AREA 2) CA 1994 Remedial ♦ PD
B-76
REGION 9
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
SAN GABRIEL VALLEY (AREA 4) CA 1998 Remedial ♦ D
San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site CA 1993 Remedial ♦ PD
Schofield Barracks (US Army) HI 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
Selma Pressure Treating CA 1988 Remedial ♦ O
Sharpe Army Depot CA 1993 Remedial ♦ O
SOLA OPTICAL USA, INC CA 1992 Remedial ♦ O
Solvent Service CA 1990 Remedial ♦ PD
Southern California Edison, Visalia Pole Yard CA 1994 Remedial ♦ O
SPECTRA-PHYSICS, INC CA 1992 Remedial ♦ O
STRINGFELLOW CA 1990 Remedial ♦ O
SYNERTEK, INC. (BUILDING 1) CA 1992 Remedial ♦ O
TELEDYNE SEMICONDUCTOR CA 1992 Remedial ♦ O
Tracy Defense Depot (US DLA) CA 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Travis AFB CA 1998 Remedial ♦ O
Travis AFB – OU 1 CA 1998 Remedial ♦ O
TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE CA 1999 Remedial ♦ PD
TRW MICROWAVE, INC (BUILDING 825) CA 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Tucson International Airport Property AZ 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Valley Wood Preserving, Inc. CA 1991 Remedial ♦ O
Van Waters & Rogers CA 1991 Remedial ♦ PD
WATKINS-JOHNSON CO. (STEWART DIVISION) CA 1994 Remedial ♦ O
Western Pacific Railroad Co. CA 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP. (SUNNYVALE) CA 2000 Remedial ♦ O
WILLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE AZ 1993 Remedial ♦ PD
B-77
REGION 10
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
Summary Matrix
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
Adak Naval Air Station AK 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
AMERICAN CROSSARM & CONDUIT CO. WA 1993 Remedial ♦ PD
AMERICAN LAKE GARDENS/MCCHORD AFB WA 1994 Remedial ♦ O
BANGOR ORDNANCE DISPOSAL WA 1999 Remedial ♦ O
Boomsnub/Airco Superfund Site WA 2000 Remedial ♦ O
Boomsnub/Airco Superfund Site WA 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
BUNKER HILL MINING & METALLURGICAL COMPLEX ID 1992 Remedial ♦ PD
Cascade Corporation – Troutdale Gravel Aquifer OR 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
Colbert Landfill WA 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Commencement Bay, Nearshore/Tideflats WA 1991 Remedial ♦ O
COMMENCEMENT BAY, SOUTH TACOMA CHANNEL WA 1999 Remedial ♦ O
East Multnomah County Groundwater Contamination OR 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
East Multnomah County Groundwater Contamination – Cascade
Corporation, Troutdale Gravel Aquifer OR 1997 Remedial ♦ C
EASTERN MICHAUD FLATS CONTAMINATION OU1 ID 1998 Remedial ♦ PD
Elmendorf AFB AK 1992 Remedial ♦ PD
Elmendorf AFB – OU 6 And Source Area Ss19, Perched Aquifer
Groundwater at Sd15 AK 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Fairchild Air Force Base WA 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Fairchild Air Force Base – Priority 1 OUs (OU 2) Ft-1 WA 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Fort Lewis Logistics Center WA 1990 Remedial ♦ D
FORT LEWIS LOGISTICS CENTER WA 1990 Remedial ♦ O
Fort Lewis Military Reservation – Landfill 4 WA 1993 Remedial ♦ C
Fort Richardson AK 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
Fort Wainwright – OU 2 – Building 1168 Leach Well AK 1997 Remedial ♦ O
B-78
REGION 10
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
Fort Wainwright – OU 2 – DRMO Yard AK 1997 Remedial ♦ O
Frontier Hard Chrome Inc – OU 1 and 2 WA 2001 Remedial ♦ PD
Frontier Hard Chrome, Inc. WA 1988 Remedial ♦ PD
GOULD, INC. OR 1997 Remedial ♦ PD
Hanford 200 Area (USDOE) WA 1995 Remedial ♦ O
Hanford Site – 100 Area WA 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Hanford Site – 100 Area WA 1996 Remedial ♦ O
Hanford Site – 100 Area – OU 2 WA 2000 Remedial ♦ O
Harbor Island (Lead) WA 1993 Remedial ♦ O
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (USDOE) ID 1995 Remedial ♦ PD
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (USDOE) –
Test Area North OU 1-07B ID 2001 Remedial ♦ PD
Kaiser Aluminum WA 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
LAKEWOOD SITE WA 1992 Remedial ♦ O
MARTIN-MARIETTA ALUMINUM CO. OR 1988 Remedial ♦ O
MCCHORD AFB (WASH RACK/TREATMENT AREA) WA 1992 Remedial ♦ PD
MCCORMICK & BAXTER CREOSOTING CO. (PORTLAND PLANT) OR 1996 Remedial ♦ PD
NAVAL AIR STATION, WHIDBEY ISLAND (AULT) WA 1997 Remedial ♦ SD
NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE ENGINEERING STATION (4
WASTE AREAS) WA 1998 Remedial ♦ PD
B-79
REGION 10
r
rrie
Ba
n
ctio
nt
g
tive
pin
me
tra
l
n
e n rma
atio
trip
eac
t
eat
a
x
n
eE
Tre
a t m he
atio
ir S
eR
edi
l Tr
ing
Tr e Situ T
has
and
edi
ll A
rem
arg
ng
abl
ica
lti-P
rem
shi
We
rme
Sp
em
yto
mp
In
Flu
In-
Ch
Mu
Bio
Ph
Air
Pu
Pe
Naval Undersea Warfare Station (4 Areas) – OU 01 WA 1998 Remedial ♦ O
North Market Street WA 2000 Remedial ♦ O
NORTHSIDE LANDFILL WA 1993 Remedial ♦ O
NORTHWEST PIPE & CASING/HALL PROCESS COMPANY OR 2001 Remedial ♦ PD
Northwest Pipe and Casing Company/Hall Process Company – OU 2 OR 2001 Remedial ♦ PD
Palermo Wellfield WA 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
Reynolds Metal Company OR 2002 Remedial ♦ PD
SILVER MOUNTAIN MINE WA 1990 Remedial ♦ PD
Teledyne Wah Chang OR 1994 Remedial ♦ O
TULALIP LANDFILL WA 1996 Remedial ♦ PD
U.S. Naval Submarine Base – OU 8 WA 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
Umatilla Chemical Depot (Lagoons) OR 1994 Remedial ♦ O
Union Pacific Railroad Tie Treatment OR 1996 Remedial ♦ PD
UNITED CHROME PRODUCTS, INC OR 1992 Remedial ♦ O
VANCOUVER WATER STATION #1 CONTAMINATION WA 1998 Remedial ♦ PD
VANCOUVER WATER STATION #4 CONTAMINATION WA 1999 Remedial ♦ O
WESTERN PROCESSING CO., INC WA 1992 Remedial ♦ O
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor WA 1994 Remedial ♦ PD
Wycoff/Eagle Harbor – Soil WA 2000 Remedial ♦ PD
B-80
Treatment Trains with Innovative Technologies
Air Sparging Followed by Flushing Followed by
Soil Vapor Extraction Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base – OU 01 CA Bioremediation Montana Pole And Treating Plant – MT
Soil Vapor Extraction Burgess Brothers Landfill – OU 01 VT Area Under Interstate 15/90
Soil Vapor Extraction Cecil Field Naval Air Station – OU7, Site 16, SVE FL Bioremediation Followed by
Soil Vapor Extraction Chemical Sales Company – OU 1 CO Soil Vapor Extraction North Railroad Avenue Plume Superfund Site NM
Soil Vapor Extraction East Multnomah County Groundwater Contamination – OR
Multi-Phase Extraction Followed by
Cascade Corporation, Troutdale Gravel Aquifer
Soil Vapor Extraction FCX – Statesville – OU 3 NC Bioremediation American Creosote Works OU2 FL
Soil Vapor Extraction Fort Lewis Military Reservation – Landfill 4 WA Soil Vapor Extraction Fort Richardson – OU B AK
Soil Vapor Extraction Fort Wainwright OU 5 WQFS3 AK Soil Vapor Extraction Followed by
Soil Vapor Extraction Kentucky Avenue Wellfield – OU 3 NY
Flushing Jadco-Hughes Facility NC
Soil Vapor Extraction Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, Site 12 – VA
Chemical Burn Area Soil Washing Followed by
Soil Vapor Extraction Otis Air Natioinal Guard – Fuel Spill 12 MA Bioremediation Cabot/Koppers - Koppers OU FL
Soil Vapor Extraction Pease Air Force Base – Site 45 NH Thermal Desorption
Soil Vapor Extraction Southeast Rockford Groundwater Contamination – OU 3 IL and Chemical Treatment Myers Property NJ
Soil Vapor Extraction Thermo-Chem, Inc OU1 MI
Soil Vapor Extraction Vienna Superfund Site WV Solvent Extraction Followed by
Incineration United Creosoting Co. TX
Bioremediation Followed by Solidification/Stabilization Arctic Surplus AK
Flushing Eastland Woolen Mill – OU1 ME Vitrification Idaho National Engineering Laboratory – ID
Pump and Treat Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc. – OU 2 TX Pit 9, OU 7-10
Soil Vapor Extraction Fisher-Calo IN
Soil Vapor Extraction Shore Realty (Formerly Applied Environmental NY Thermal Desorption Followed by
Services) – Groundwater OU Chemical Treatment FCX – Statesville – OU 2 NC
Soil Vapor Extraction Wayne Waste Oil IN Chemical Treatment Smith’s Farm – OU 1 (Amendment) KY
Solidification/Stabilization French Limited TX
Solidification/Stabilization Gulf Coast Vacuum Services – OU 1 LA In Situ Thermal Treatment Followed by
Solidification/Stabilization Penta Wood Products – OU 01 WI Bioremediation Southern California Edison, Visalia Pole Yard CA
Solidification/Stabilization Vogel Paint & Wax IA Incineration Brodhead Creek PA
Soil Vapor Extraction
Chemical Treatment Followed by and Bioremediation Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc. – OU 2 TX
Multi-Phase Extraction Cooper Drum Company CA
Neutralization Tex-Tin OU 1 (ROD Amendment) TX
Solidification/Stabilization JFD Electronics/Channel Master NC
Solidification/Stabilization Palmetto Wood Preserving SC
Thermal Desorption Wide Beach Development Site NY
C-1
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
The database supporting the ASR contains
Explanation of Appendix D:
information on specific projects for the treatment
Summary of Status Report of contamination sources and contaminated
Updates, Changes, and Deletions groundwater at Superfund sites. The database does
This Appendix describes the updates, changes, and not track other types of remedies, such as off-site
deletions made to the database supporting disposal in a landfill or monitored natural
Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual attenuation. Therefore, when a remedy is changed
Status Report (ASR). The appendix is divided into from treatment to non-treatment, the project
ten tables, one for each edition of the ASR created in the database for that treatment remedy
beginning with the Second Edition (September is deleted. Appendix D also shows that project as
1991). Within each table is a description of the being deleted.
updates, changes, and deletions made to the Each Superfund site may have multiple waste types
database supporting the ASR from one edition to and multiple areas of contamination, requiring
the next.
multiple, separate treatments. For each distinct
These updates, changes, and deletions are waste type and each distinct area of contamination
generated primarily through contacts with treated, the ASR database contains a separate
Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) and review treatment project. When a waste is treated through
of earlier Records of Decisions (RODs), ROD a treatment train, the ASR database contains a
amendments, and Explanations of Significant separate treatment project for each step in the
Differences (ESDs) to identify changes in treatment train. Appendix D reflects this
treatment remedies and mistakes in the database. organization or treatment remedies based on
Due to the large number of new projects based specific projects, and may contain multiple rows
on information gathered from RODs, ROD for the same site. For example, at the Caroll and
amendments, and ESDs published since the last Dubies Sewage Disposal site in New York, a 1995
edition of the ASR (272 for the 11th edition), the ROD indicated that three separate and distinct
tables in Appendix D do not describe these new technologies (bioremediation, soil vapor
projects. extraction, and solidification/stabilization
The purpose of Appendix D is to document treatments) would be used to treat three distinct
changes in the ASR database and thereby wastes. Therefore, three separate projects were
document changes in treatment remedies at created in the ASR databse for the Caroll and
Superfund sites. For each updated, changed, or Dubies Sewage Disposal site. However, the
deleted project, the appendix lists: site identifying remedy was changed for all of these wastes to off-
information; the specific update, change, or site disposal. Therefore, all three projects were
deletion; an explanation of why the update, deleted from the ASR database, and Appendix D
change, or deletion was made; and a site contact, contains three entries for the Caroll and Dubies
usually the remedial project manager (RPM). Sewage Disposal site, one for each deleted project.
When new projects are discovered through site
contacts and have not yet been documented in a
ROD, ROD amendment, or ESD, they are
recorded in Appendix D with the specific
treatment technology listed in the “Added”
column. When a remedy changes from a treatment
remedy to one that does not include treatment,
the project based on that remedy is listed in
Appendix D with a “Yes” in the “Deleted” column.
The non-treatment remedy replacing the treatment
remedy is described in the “Comments” column.
When a remedy changes from one treatment
technology to another treatment technology, the
new technology is listed in the “Changed To”
column.
D-1
The eleventh edition of the report adds information about 272 new treatment projects selected for remedial actions in FY 2000, FY 2001, and FY 2002 Records of Deci-
sion (RODs), ROD Amendments, and Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs). These are not listed in Appendix D.
Changes to projects from the tenth edition are listed below.
Eleventh Edition (September 2003): Additions, Changes, and Deletions from the Tenth Edition (February 2001)
SITE NAME, STATE TECHNOLOGY 11TH EDITION
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 10TH EDITION) ADDED DELETED CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
1 Linemaster Switch Corporation, Soil Vapor Extraction Yes This remedy is a component of the multi-phase extraction William Lovely
CT (7/21/1993) system at this site. Therefore, this project has been deleted. 617-918-1240
lovely.william@epa.gov
1 New Bedford Harbor, MA Solidification/stabilization Physical Separation The site contact indicated that a ROD Amendment changed the Jim Brown
(4/27/1999) remedy to dewatering followed by off-site disposal. 617-918-1308
brown.jim@epa.gov
1 Otis Air National Guard Area of Solidification/stabilization Yes The site contact indicated that remedy was changed to Bob Lim
Contamination CS16 and CS17 excavation and off-site disposal. 617-918-1392
OU11, MA (5/5/1999) lim.robert@epa.gov
1 Otis Air National Guard Fuel Solidification/stabilization Yes The site contact indicated that remedy was changed to Bob Lim
Spill No 9 OU10, MA (7/6/1999) excavation and off-site disposal. 617-918-1392
lim.robert@epa.gov
1 Otis Air Natioinal Guard – Fuel Air Sparging Yes Bob Lim
Spill 12, MA (9/25/1995) 617-918-1392
lim.robert@epa.gov
1 Otis Air National Guard OU 8, Solidification/stabilization Yes The site contact indicated that remedy was changed to Bob Lim
MA (8/16/1999) excavation and off-site disposal. 617-918-1392
lim.robert@epa.gov
2 Brewster Well Field – OU 2, NY Incineration Yes Lisa Wong

(9/29/1988) 212-637-4267
wong.lisa@epa.gov
2 Cosden Chemical Coatings, NJ Solidification/stabilization Yes A FY 1998 ESD changed the remedy to off-site treatment Edward Finnerty
(9/30/1992) and/or disposal. 212-637-4367
finnerty.ed@epa.gov
2 General Motors/Central Foundry Thermal Desorption Solidification/ Community relations issues Anne Kelly
Division, NY (3/31/1992) stabilization 212-637-4397
kelly.anne@epa.gov
2 FAA Technical Center – Area B Air Sparging (in situ) – Yes Based on subsequent investigations, the groundwater plume was Bill Roach
Navy Fire Testing Facility, NJ Groundwater found to be more extensive than initial investigations indicated. 212- 637-4335
(9/20/1996) The costs to implement this technology became prohibitive. roach.bill@epa.gov
2 FAA Technical Center – Area B Soil Vapor Extraction Yes Based on subsequent investigations, the groundwater plume was Bill Roach
Navy Fire Testing Facility, NJ found to be more extensive than initial investigations indicated. 212- 637-4335
(9/20/1996) The costs to implement this technology became prohibitive. roach.bill@epa.gov
Information on the date and issuance of Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and ROD Amendments is not complete.
D-2
Eleventh Edition (September 2003) (continued)
2 Love Canal, NY (7/1/1982) Vertical Engineered Barrier Yes Slurry wall was considered but not installed. Damian Duda
212-637-4269
duda.damian@epa.gov
2 Reynolds Metals Company Study Incineration (off-site) Solidification/ Community relations issues Anne Kelly
Area (RMC), NY (9/27/1993) stabilization 212-637-4397
kelly.anne@epa.gov
2 Vineland Chemical Co., Inc. – Flushing (in situ) Yes The site contact indicated that the remedy was not implemented Matthew Westgate
OU 1, NJ (9/29/1989) because it was determined that the technology would not be 212-637-4422
effective. westgate.matthew@epa.gov
3 Browns Battery Breaking Site Chemical Treatment Yes Christopher J. Corbett

– OU 2, PA (7/2/1992) 215-814-3220
corbett.chris@epa.gov
3 Brown’s Battery Breaking Site – Passive Treatment Wall Yes The site contact indicated that in situ chemical treatment was Christopher J. Corbett
OU 2, PA (7/2/1992) determined to work better. 215-814-3220
3 Eastern Diversified Metals, PA Solidification/stabilization Yes A FY 2001 ROD was issued changing the remedy to capping. John Banks
(3/29/1991) 215-814-3214
banks.john_d@epa.gov
3 Naval Surface Warfare Center, Phytoremediation Yes The site contact indicated that this technology is not actually Paul Leonard
Site 17, VA (9/30/1998) phytoremediation but rather an alternative landfill cover. 215-814-3350
leonard.paul@epa.gov
3 Ordnance Works Disposal Areas, Thermal Desorption Physical Separation The site contact indicated that the remedy was not conducted. Christian Matta
WV (9/30/1999) The coal tar was removed and used as a fuel (classified as 215-814-2317
physical separation). matta.christian@epa.gov
3 Revere Chemical, PA Vertical Engineered Barrier Yes Following SVE treatment of the soil, it was not necessary to Ruth Scharr
(12/27/1993) install a VEB. 215-566-3191
scharr.ruth@epa.gov
3 Seagertown Industrial Area, PA Air Sparging Bioremediation The site contact indicated that the technology was changed to Christopher J. Corbett
(1/29/1993) (in situ) – enhanced bioremediation. 215-814-3220
Groundwater corbett.chris@epa.gov
3 Saegertown Industrial Area, PA Soil Vapor Extraction Yes The site contact indicated that a ROD Amendment has been Christopher J. Corbett
(1/29/1993) issued that selects bioremediation. 215-814-3220
D-3
3 Standard Chlorine of Delaware, Bioremediation (ex situ) – Thermal The site contact indicated that the contingent remedy was Hilary Thornton
Inc., DE (3/9/1995) Other Desorption implemented because the goals could not be met. 215-814-3323
thornton.hilary@epa.gov
3 Tonolli Corp, PA (3/12/1999) Bioremediation (ex situ) – Yes The site contact indicated that the remedy was not implemented John Banks
Land Treatment at this site. 215-814-3214
banks.john_d@epa.gov
4 Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps Thermal Desorption Yes This project was listed as a duplicate entry. Luis E. Flores
(Amendment), NC (9/30/1991) 404-562-8807
flores.luis@epa.gov
4 Calhoun Park Area – OU 01, SC Chemical Treatment – Yes The site contact indicated the technology changed to excavation Terry Tanner
(9/30/1998) Oxidation/Reduction and off-site disposal. 404-562-8797
tanner.terry@epa.gov
4 Carolina Transformer Co., NC Solidification/stabilization Yes The site contact indicated that this technology was replaced by Luis E. Flores
(8/29/1991) solvent extraction. 404-562-8807
flores.luis@epa.gov
4 Homestead Air Force Base Solidification/stabilization Yes The site contact indicated that remedy was changed to Doyle Brittain
OU 28, FL (8/15/1999) excavation and off-site disposal. 404-562-8549
brittain.doyle@epa.gov
4 Homestead Air Force Base – Solidification/stabilization Yes This technology was a contingent remedy and was to be Doyle Brittain
OU 02, FL (7/16/1998) implemented if excavated soils failed TCLP for lead. This 404-562-8549
technology was not necessary since the excavated soil passed brittain.doyle@epa.gov
the TCLP for lead.
4 JFD Electronics/Channel Master, Solidification/Stabilization Yes Samantha Urquhart-Foster
NC (9/10/1992) 404-562-8760
urquhart_foster.samantha
@epa.gov
4 JFD Electronics/Channel Master, Solidification/stabilization Yes The estimated volume of contaminated soil decreased from Samantha Urquhart-Foster
NC (9/10/1992) 1,250 cubic yards to 650 cubic yards. Treatment is no longer 404-562-8760
necessary, and soils will be excavated for off-site disposal. urquhart_foster.samantha
@epa.gov
D-4
4 Peak Oil/Bay Drum, FL Bioremediation (in situ) Solidification/ The site contact indicated that the technology was changed to Wesley Hardegree
(6/21/1993) – Other stabilization solidification/stabilization followed by capping. 404-562-8938
hardegree.wes@epa.gov
4 Peak Oil/Bay Drum OU 2 – Bioremediation Yes Wesley Hardegree
Site Wide Groundwater, FL 404-562-8938
(8/9/1993) hardegree.wex@epa.gov
4 Peak Oil/Bay Drum – OU 1, FL Flushing (in situ) Yes A FY 2001 ESD deleted this remedy. Wesley Hardegree
(6/21/1993) 404-562-8938
hardegree.wes@epa.gov
4 Savannah River Site USDOE Solidification/Stabilization Yes Ken Feely
OU 66, SC (9/28/1999) 404-562-8512
feely.ken@epa.gov
4 Savannah River Site – USDOE Solidification/Stabilization Yes Ken Feely

– OU 60, SC (9/28/1999) 404-562-8512
feely.ken@epa.gov
4 Shuron Inc – OU 01, SC Solidification/stabilization Yes Based on the FY 1998 ROD, the cost-effectiveness of this Ralph Howard
(9/9/1998) technology versus excavation and off-site disposal was 404-562-8829
determined. Excavation and off-site disposal was selected howard.ralph@epa.gov
as the remedy.
4 Smiths Farm OU2, KY Bioremediation Yes Antonio Deangelo

(9/17/1993) 404-562-8826
deangelo.antonio@epa.gov
5 ALGOMA MUNICIPAL Permeable Reactive Barrier Yes David Linnear

LANDFILL, WI (9/29/1990) 312-886-1841
linnear.david@epa.gov
5 American Chemical Services, Inc, Vertical Engineered Barrier Yes Data entry error. This project was entered as a duplicate. Kevin Adler
IN (7/27/1999) 312-886-7078
adler.kevin@epa.gov
5 American Chemical Services, Inc. Soil Vapor Extraction Yes Data entry error. This project was entered as a duplicate. Kevin Adler
– offsite, IN (7/27/1999) 312-886-7078
adler.kevin@epa.gov
D-5
5 Cliff/Dow Dump, MI (9/27/1989) Incineration (off-site) Yes This remedy was changed to excavation and off-site disposal. Kenneth Glatz
312-886-1434
glatz.kenneth@epa.gov
5 Conrail Rail Yard – OU 2, IN Air Sparging (in situ) – Yes The site contact indicated that during the remedial investigation, Brad Bradley
(9/9/1994) Groundwater one hit of contamination was found. However, that one hit has 312-886-4742
been found since; therefore, the technology will not be bradley.brad@epa.gov
implemented.
5 Macgillis and Gibbs/Bell Lumber Chemical Treatment – Yes This technology was listed as the preferred remedy in the FY Darryl Owens
and Pole – OU1, MN (9/30/1999) Oxidation/Reduction 1999 ROD. However, no responses (bids) were received to 312-886-7089
implement the technology. owens.darryl@epa.gov
5 Macgillis and Gibbs/Bell Lumber Bioremediation (ex situ) – Yes Data entry error. This project should not have been listed for Darryl Owens
and Pole – OU3, MN (9/30/1999) Biopile OU3, only for OU1. 312-886-7089
owens.darryl@epa.gov
5 Macgillis and Gibbs/Bell Lumber Chemical Treatment – Yes Data entry error. This project should not have been listed for Darryl Owens
and Pole – OU3, MN (9/30/1999) Oxidation/Reduction OU3, only for OU1. 312-886-7089
owens.darryl@epa.gov
5 Moss-American Groundwater, Bioremediation Yes Russell Hart

WI (4/29/1997) 312-886-4844
hart.russell@epa.gov
5 Motor Wheel Disposal Site, MI Vertical Engineered Barrier Yes Further study indicated the slurry wall was not necessary. Heather Nelson
(9/30/1991) 312-353-0685
nelson.heather@epa.gov
5 Organic Chemicals, Inc. – OU 2, Solidification/stabilization Yes The site contact indicated an ESD was issued that states the Thomas Williams
MI (2/5/1997) actual volume of soil to be treated was too small to 312-886-6157
cost-effectively treat using this technology. williams.thomas@epa.gov
5 Sangamo Electric Dump/Crab Incineration Yes Nanjunda Gowda

Orchard National Wildlife Refuge 312-353-9236
– Explosives/Munitions gowda.nanjunda@epa.gov
Manufacturing Area OU, IL
(2/19/1997)
5 South Macomb Disposal Vertical Engineered Barrier Yes Replaced slurry wall with expaned leachate collection system. David Kline
Authority, MI (8/31/1991) 517-373-8354
klined@state.mi.us
D-6
5 Springfield Township Dump, MI Air Sparging Yes Kevin Adler

(9/29/1990) 312-886-7078
adler.kevin@epa.gov
5 Springfield Township Dump – Solidification/stabilization Yes The FY 1998 ROD Amendment listed this technology as a Kevin Adler
OU 01, MI (6/10/1998) contingent remedy. However, this technology will not be 312-886-7078
implemented. adler.kevin@epa.gov
5 Springfield Township Dump – Thermal Desorption Yes The FY 1998 ROD Amendment listed this technology as a Kevin Adler
OU 01, MI (6/10/1998) contingent remedy. However, this technology will not be 312-886-7078
implemented. adler.kevin@epa.gov
5 Springfield Township Dump – Solidification/stabilization Yes The site contact indicated that a ROD Amendment has been Kevin Adler
90ROD, MI (9/29/1990) issued that deleted this technology. 312-886-7078
adler.kevin@epa.gov
5 Tar Lake – Pump & Treat, MI Air Sparging Yes Thomas Bloom
(9/29/1992) 312-886-1967
bloom.thomas@epa.gov
5 Thermo-Chem, Inc OU1, MI Soil Vapor Extraction Yes Kenneth Glatz

(9/30/1991) 312-886-1434
glatz.kenneth@epa.gov
6 Popile, AR (2/1/1993) Bioremediation (in situ) – Yes A FY 2001 ROD Amendment deleted this remedy. Shawn Ghose
Groundwater 214-665-6782
ghose.shawn@epa.gov
6 Popile, AR (2/1/1993) Bioremediation (ex situ) – Yes A FY 2001 ROD Amendment deleted this remedy. Shawn Ghose
Land Treatment 214-665-6782
ghose.shawn@epa.gov
6 Sheridan Disposal Services, TX Bioremediation (ex situ) – Solidification/ The site contact indicated that alternatives were to be evaluated Gary A. Baumgarten
(12/29/1988) Slurry Phase stabilization due to the length of time that has passed. 214-665-6749
baumgarten.gary@epa.gov
7 Ace Services, KS (5/5/1999) Bioremediation (in situ) – Pump and Treat The FY 2001 ROD Amendment changed the remedy due to a BobStewart
Groundwater change in the use of the treated water and because of an 913-551-7654
increase in the size of the contaminated plume. stewart.robert@epa.gov
D-7
7 Lake City Army Ammunition Multi-Phase Extraction Yes The site contact indicated that site conditions were identified for Scott Marques
Plant Area 18 OU, MO (4/22/1999) which the technology was not implementable. 913-551-7131
Marquess.scott@epa.gov
7 Peoples Natural Gas, IA Bioremediation (in situ) – Other Yes The site contact indicated that this remedy has been discontinued. Diana Engeman
(9/16/1991) 913-551-7746
engeman.diana@epa.gov
7 Valley Park Tce Wainwright OU1 Soil Vapor Extraction Yes Steve Auchterlonie
Ex-situ SVE, MO (4/26/1996) 913-551-7778
auchterlonie.steve@epa.gov
8 Rocky Mountain Arsenal OU 23, Vertical Engineered Barrier Yes A ROD signed on 6/11/96 eliminated the VEB for groundwater Laura Williams
CO (5/3/1990) containment. 303-312-6660
williams.laura@epa.gov
9 Southern California Edison, Bioremediation Yes Shea Jones

Visalia Pole Yard, CA (6/10/1994) 415-972-3148
jones.shea@epa.gov
9 Tracy Defense Depot (USArmy) Bioventing Yes The site contact indicated that this technology was not Michael Work
– OU 01, CA (4/14/1998) implemented. 415-972-3024
9 Williams Air Force Base – OU 2, Soil Vapor Extraction Yes Michael Wolfram
AZ (8/16/1996) 415-972-3027
wolfram.michael@epa.gov
10 Fort Lewis Logistics Center, WA In Situ Thermal Treatment Yes Bob Kievit
(9/25/1990) 360-753-9014
kievit.bob@epa.gov
10 Harbor Island – Soil and Soil Vapor Extraction Yes Neil Thompson
Groundwater OU, WA (9/30/1993) 206-553-7177
thompson.neil@epa.gov
10 Harbor Island (Lead) – Soil And Thermal Desorption Yes This remedy was changed to excavation and off-site disposal. Neil Thompson
Groundwater OU, WA (9/30/1993) 206-553-7177
thompson.neil@epa.gov
10 Lockheed Shipyard Facility/ Thermal Desorption Yes This remedy was changed to excavation and off-site disposal. Neil Thompson
Harbor Island – OU 3, WA 206-553-7177
(6/28/1994) thompson.neil@epa.gov
10 Union Pacifice Railroad Tie Bioremediation Yes Alan Goodman

Treatment – Vadose Zone Soils, 503-326-3685
OR (3/27/1996) goodman.al@epa.gov
D-8
The tenth edition of the report adds information about 133 new treatment projects selected for remedial actions in FY 1998 and FY 1999 Records of Decision (RODs),
ROD Amendments, and Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs). These are not listed in Appendix D.
Tenth Edition (March 2001): Additions, Changes, and Deletions from the Ninth Edition (April 1999)
1 New Bedford, MA (04/06/90) Solidification/Stabilization Yes RODs from FY 1998 and 1999 changed the remedy from on- Jim Brown
site incineration followed by solidification/stabilization to off- 617-573-5779
site disposal due to community concerns. The incineration brown.jim@epa.gov
portion of the remedy was deleted in the eighth edition based
on information provided by the site contact, and does not
appear in this table.
1 Silresim Chemical, MA Solidification/Stabilization Yes Specified in a FY 1991 ROD as a contingent remedy to treat Mark Otis
(09/19/91) soils not effectively treated by soil vapor extraction, but never 978-318-8895
implemented. Soil vapor extraction treatment is currently e-mail address not
treating soil effectively. available
1 Loring Air Force Base - OU Bioremediation (in situ) - Soil Vapor The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed Mike Napilinski
10, Entomology Shop, ME Bioventing Extraction because bioventing was determined to be unsuitable due to 617-918-1268
(removal action, no ROD date site hydrogeology. napilinski.mike@epa.gov
available)
2 Carroll & Dubies Sewage Bioremediation (in situ) - Yes A FY 1998 ESD changed the remedy to off-site treatment and Maria Jon
Disposal, NY (03/31/95) Lagoon disposal because additional site investigation revealed that the 212-637-3967
waste could be easily separated from the underlying soil. The jon.maria@epa.gov
type of off-site treatment has not been determined.
2 Carroll & Dubies Sewage Soil Vapor Extraction Yes A FY 1998 ESD changed the remedy to off-site treatment and Maria Jon
Disposal, NY (03/31/95) disposal because additional site investigation revealed that the 212-637-3967
2 Carroll & Dubies Sewage Solidification/Stabilization Yes A FY 1998 ESD changed the remedy to off-site treatment and Maria Jon
Disposal, NY (03/31/95) disposal because additional site investigation revealed that the 212-637-396
2 Ellis Property, NJ (09/30/92) Solidification/Stabilization Yes The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed to Richard Ho
off-site disposal because additional site investigation revealed 212-637-4372
that the contaminant levels were lower than expected. ho.richard@epa.gov
2 Ewan Property - OU 2, NJ Chemical Treatment - Yes The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed to Stephen Cipot
(09/29/88) Groundwater groundwater pump-and-treat because treatability studies 212-637-4411
indicated that in situ chemical treatment was not effective. cipot.stephen@epa.gov
D-9
Tenth Edition (March 2001) (continued)
2 Fried Industries, NJ (6/27/94) Solidification/Stabilization Yes The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed to off- Tom Porucznik
site disposal because additional site investigation revealed large 212-637-4370
amounts of contaminated debris. The use of solidification/ porucznik.tom@epa.gov
stabilization on this debris would have been impractical.
2 GCL Tie And Treating - OU 2, Thermal Desorption Yes The site contact indicated that the sediments of OU 2 have been Janet Cappelli
NY (3/31/95) combined with the soils of OU 1 for treatment using thermal 212-637-4270
desorption. The work is documented in the 10th edition of the ASR cappelli.janet@epa.gov
as a single project. Therefore, the OU 2 project has been deleted.
2 GE Wiring Devices, PR Soil Washing Incineration A FY 1999 ROD amendment changed the remedy because the Caroline Kwan
(9/30/88) (off-site) cost of soil washing was too high. 212-637-4275
kwan.caroline@epa.gov
2 Lipari Landfill, NJ (9/30/85) Project not in 9th edition of Dual-Phase The site contact indicated that dual-phase extraction was added Fred Cataneo
the ASR. Original ROD did Extraction at this site to remove insoluble volatile organic compounds. 212-637-4428
not include this project. cataneo.fred@epa.gov
2 Reynolds Metals Company - Thermal Desorption Incineration The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed from Anne Kelly
Study Area, NY (09/27/93) (off-site) on-site thermal desorption to off-site incineration because the 212-637-4264
cost of thermal desorption was too high. kelly.anne@epa.gov
2 Tutu Well Field - VI (8/5/96) Bioremediation (in situ) - Yes ROD was misinterpreted. The technology used at the site was Caroline Kwan
Other soil vapor extraction. This is not a distinct project, it is part of 212-637-4275
the Tutu Well Field Esso project, which is already listed in the kwan.caroline@epa.gov
ASR database.
3 Avco Lycoming, PA (12/30/96) Chemical Treatment - Bioremediation ROD was misinterpreted. Technology used stimulates microbes Jill Lowe
Groundwater (in situ) - to create an environment in which hexavalent chromium will be 215-814-5336
Groundwater reduced to its trivalent state. This technology is more lowe.jill@epa.gov
accurately identified as bioremediation.
3 Brodhead Creek, PA (3/29/91) Incineration (off-site) Yes ROD was misinterpreted. Incineration is of non-aqueous phase John Banks
liquids collected through in situ thermal treatment process, 215-814-3214
which is considered treatment of residuals, and not source banks.john-d@epa.gov
treatment.
3 Cryochem, Inc. - OU 3, PA Soil Vapor Extraction Yes A FY 1998 ESD eliminated the soil vapor extraction portion of Joseph McDowell
(9/30/91) the remedy because soil sampling showed that contaminant 215-566-3192
concentrations were below remediation goals and soil gas mcdowell.joseph@epa.gov
assessment showed that the contaminant levels were below
typical levels for effective soil vapor extraction treatment.
D-10
3 Delaware Sand & Gravel Incineration (off-site) Soil Vapor The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed Philip Rotstein
Landfill, DE (9/30/93) Extraction because the cost of incineration was too high. 215-814-3232
rotstein.phil@epa.gov
3 Douglassville Disposal, PA Incineration (off-site) Yes A FY 1999 ROD amendment changed the remedy from a Victor J. Janosik
(6/30/89) treatment train of incineration followed by solidification/ 215-814-3217
stabilization to solidification/stabilization only, because this janosik.victor@epa.gov
technology was determined to be as effective and less
expensive.
3 Hunterstown Road, PA (8/2/93) Incineration (off-site) Yes The site contact indicated that this remedy was not imple- John Banks
mented because additional site investigations revealed that 215-814-3214
treatment was not required before off-site disposal of the waste. banks.john-d@epa.gov
3 North Penn Area 6, PA In Situ Thermal Treatment Yes The site contact indicated that treatability testing revealed that Gregory Ham
(9/29/95) (Hot Air Injection) treatment goals could not be met. A replacement remedy has 215-566-3194
not yet been selected. ham.greg@epa.gov
3 Ordnance Works Disposal Bioremediation (ex situ) - Thermal A FY 1999 ROD changed the treatment train of bioremediation Chris Matta
Areas, WV (9/29/89) Land Treatment Desorption followed by solidification/stabilization to thermal desorption 215-814-2317
because treatability studies revealed that the remedy could not matta.christian@epa.gov
meet cleanup goals.
3 Ordnance Works Disposal Solidification/Stabilization Thermal A FY 1999 ROD changed the treatment train of bioremediation Chris Matta
Areas, WV (9/29/89) Desorption followed by solidification/stabilization to thermal desorption 215-814-2317
because treatability studies revealed that the remedy could not matta.christian@epa.gov
meet cleanup goals.
3 Whitmoyer Laboratories - OU 3, Bioremediation (ex-situ) - Thermal The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed Christoper Corbett
PA (12/31/90) Other Desorption because additional site investigations revealed arsenic 215-814-3220
contamination, which could not be effectively treated with corbett.chris@epa.gov
bioremediation.
4 Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps, Incineration (off-site) Thermal The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed due to Randy McElveen
NC (9/30/91) Desorption public protest. The remedy change will be documented in a 919-733-2801
future ROD amendment. e-mail address not available
4 American Creosote Works - Project not in 9th edition of Dual-Phase ROD was misinterpreted. Mark Fite
OU 2 Phase 1, FL (2/3/94) the ASR. Original ROD did Extraction 404-562-8927
not include this project. fite.mark@epa.gov
D-11
4 Cape Fear Wood Preserving, Solidification/Stabilization Yes This remedy was part of a treatment train including thermal Jon Bornholm
NC (6/30/89) desorption. The site contact indicated that this remedy was not 404-562-8820
implemented because thermal desorption treatment met the bornholm.jon@epa.gov
cleanup goals without solidification/stabilization.
4 Cecil Field Naval Air Station - Air Sparging (in situ) - Yes The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed to Debbie Vaughn-Wright
OU 2, Site 5, FL (6/24/96) Groundwater monitored natural attenuation because additional site investiga- 404-562-8539
tions revealed contaminant concentrations much lower than vaughn-
expected. wright.debbie@epa.gov
4 Cecil Field Naval Air Station - Bioremediation (ex situ) - Incineration (off- The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed to Debbie Vaughn-Wright
OU 2, Site 5, FL (6/24/96) Other site) monitored natural attenuation because additional site investiga- 404-562-8539
tions revealed contaminant concentrations much lower than vaughn-
expected. wright.debbie@epa.gov
4 Creotox Chemical Products Bioremediation (ex situ) - Yes The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed to off- Samantha Urquhart-Foster
Land Treatment site incineration because bioremediation could not meet the 404-562-8760
cleanup goals. urquhart-
foster.samantha@epa.gov
4 Fullco Lumber Company, AL Bioremediation (ex situ) - Yes A report generated for the site indicated that bioremediation Waynon Johnson
(5/8/95) Other could not meet cleanup goals. A replacement remedy has not 404-562-8769
yet been selected. johnson.waynon@epa.gov
4 Chevron Chemical Company, Air Sparging (in situ) - Yes The site contact indicated that the remedy was unnecessary Bill Denman
FL (5/22/96) Groundwater because monitored natural attenuation effectively met cleanup 404-562-8939
goals. denman.bill@epa.gov
4 Chevron Chemical Company, Permeable Reactive Barrier Yes The site contact indicated that the remedy was unnecessary Bill Denman
FL (5/22/96) because monitored natural attenuation effectively met cleanup 404-562-8939
goals. denman.bill@epa.gov
4 General Electric Company - Bioremediation (in situ) - Yes The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed to Giezelle Bennett
Shepard Farm Site, NC Groundwater pump-and-treat of groundwater because treatability testing 404-562-8824
(9/29/95) indicated that bioremediation was not effective. bennett.giezelle@epa.gov
4 Palmetto Wood Preserving, SC Project not in 9th edition of Chemical Yes The site contact indicated that chemical treatment was added to Al Cherry
(9/30/87) the ASR. Original ROD did Treatment reduce chromium to its trivalent state prior to treatment by 404-562-8828
not include this project. solidification/stabilization. cherry.al@epa.gov
D-12
4 Tower Chemical Co., FL Incineration (on-site) Yes The site contact indicated that additional site investigations Galo Jackson
(7/9/87) revealed different contaminants than expected and that 404-562-8937
incineration would not be appropriate. A revised remedy for the jackson.galo@epa.gov
site has not yet been developed.
5 American Chemical Services, Thermal Desorption Yes A FY 1999 ROD changed the remedy to installation of an Kevin Adler
Inc., IN (9/30/92) impermeable cap and off-site disposal of some wastes because 312-886-7078
additional site investigations revealed additional volumes of adler.kevin@epa.gov
contaminated soil and debris, making thermal desorption
impractical.
5 Conrail Rail Yard - OU 2, IN Soil Vapor Extraction Yes The site contact indicated that additional site investigations Brad Bradley
(9/9/94) revealed that contaminant concentrations were lower than 312-886-4742
expected and soil vapor extraction was unnecessary. bradley.brad@epa.gov
5 Tar Lake, MI (9/29/92) Solidification/Stabilization Thermal The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed to Thomas Bloom
Desorption reduce costs. 312-886-1967
bloom.thomas@epa.gov
5 Koppers Coke - Groundwater Bioremediation (in situ) - Yes The site contact indicated that the remedy was replaced with Mark Rys
OU, MN (4/21/94) Groundwater monitored natural attenuation because treatability testing 651-296-7706
revealed that bioremediation was not increasing the rate of mark.rys@pca.state.mn.us
degradation of contaminants.
5 Macgillis And Gibbs/ Bell Incineration (on-site) Chemical A FY 1999 ROD amendment changed the remedy to a Darryl Owens
Lumber And Pole - OU 1, MN Treatment treatment train consisting of chemical treatment followed by 312-886-7089
(12/30/92) Followed by bioremediation (biopile) because incineration was too expensive owens.darryl@epa.gov
Bioremediation and difficult to implement.
5 Macgillis And Gibbs/ Bell Incineration (on-site) Yes Chemical A FY 1999 ROD amendment changed the remedy to a Darryl Owens
Lumber And Pole - OU 3, MN Treatment treatment train consisting of chemical treatment followed by 312-886-7089
(9/22/94) Followed by bioremediation (biopile) because incineration was too expensive owens.darryl@epa.gov
Bioremediation and difficult to implement.
5 Moss-American, WI (9/27/90) Bioremediation (ex situ) - Thermal A FY 1998 ROD replaced the treatment train of soil washing Russell Hart
Slurry Phase Desorption followed by slurry phase bioremediation with thermal desorption 312-886-4844
because the original remedy could not meet cleanup goals. The hart.russell@epa.gov
bioremediation project was changed to thermal desorption and
the soil washing project was deleted.
D-13
5 Moss-American, WI (9/27/90) Soil Washing Yes A FY 1998 ROD replaced the treatment train of soil washing Russell Hart
followed by slurry phase bioremediation with thermal desorption 312-886-4844
because the original remedy could not meet cleanup goals. The hart.russell@epa.gov
bioremediation project was changed to thermal desorption and
the soil washing project was deleted.
5 Refuse Hideaway Landfill, WI Bioremediation (in situ) - Yes The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed to Anthony Rutter
(6/28/95) Groundwater monitored natural attenuation because the contaminants are 312-886-8961
naturally attenuating. rutter.anthony@epa.gov
6 Air Force Plant 4 - Building Soil Vapor Extraction Yes The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed to dual George Walters
181, TX (8/26/96) phase extraction and combined with another project at the site 937-255-7716
already listed in the ASR. george.walters@wpafb.af.mil
6 Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Bioremediation (in situ) - Yes The site contact indicated that contaminated soil was combined Tetra Sanchez
Clovis/Santa Fe Lake - Tph Other with sediments in an existing ex-situ bioremediation unit at the 214-665-6686
Soil, NM (9/23/98) site. No information is currently available on why this change sanchez.tetra@epa.gov
occurred.
6 Baldwin Waste Oil, TX (7/1/92) Bioremediation (in situ) - Bioremediation (ex ROD was misinterpreted. Gary Guerra
Other situ) - Land 214-665-3120
Treatment guerra.gary@epa.gov
6 Double Eagle Refinery Co., OK Project not in 9th edition of Neutralization ROD was misinterpreted. Phillip Allen
(9/28/92) the ASR. Original ROD did 214-665-8516
not include this project. allen.phillip@epa.gov
6 Oklahoma Refining Company - Bioremediation (in situ) - Bioremediation (ex ROD was misinterpreted. Earl Hendrick
Hazardous Landfill, OK (6/9/92) Other situ) - Land 214-665-8519
Treatment hendrick.earl@epa.gov
6 Texarkana Wood Preserving, Incineration (on-site) Yes A FY 1998 ROD changed the remedy to on-site containment Earl Hendrick
TX (9/25/90) through capping because of community concerns. 214-665-8519
hendrick.earl@epa.gov
6 United Creosoting Co., TX Solvent Extraction Yes A FY 1998 ROD amendment changed the remedy from a Earl Hendrick
(9/29/89) treatment train of solvent extraction followed by incineration to 214-665-8519
off-site disposal because the cost was too high and the capacity hendrick.earl@epa.gov
of the treatment unit was too small.
D-14
6 United Creosoting Co., TX Incineration (off-site) Yes A FY 1998 ROD amendment changed the remedy from a Earl Hendrick
(9/29/89) treatment train of solvent extraction followed by incineration to 214-665-8519
off-site disposal because the cost was too high and the capacity hendrick.earl@epa.gov
of the solvent extraction treatment unit was too small.
6 Prewitt Abandoned Refinery, Dual Phase Extraction Air Sparging ROD was misinterpreted. Gregory Lyssy
NM (9/30/92) 214-665-8317
lyssy.gregory@epa.gov
7 Hastings Groundwater Project not in 9th edition of Air sparging ROD was misinterpreted. Darrell Sommerhauser
Contamination- Colorado Ave., the ASR. (in situ) - 913-551-7711
OU 1, NE (09/30/91) Groundwater sommerhauser.darrell@epa.gov
7 Hastings Groundwater Project not in 9th edition of In-Well Air ROD was misinterpreted. Darrell Sommerhauser
Contamination- Colorado Ave., the ASR. Stripping 913-551-7711
OU 1, NE (09/30/91) sommerhauser.darrell@epa.gov
7 Midwest Manufacturing/North Bioremediation (in situ) - Yes ROD was misinterpreted. Diane Easley
Farm, IA (2/28/93) Other 913-551-7797
easley.diane@epa.gov
7 Sherwood Medical Co., NE Soil Vapor Extraction Mechanical Soil The site contact indicated that, after mechanical soil aeration Steve Auchterlonie
(9/5/1995) (ex situ) Aeration was conducted in preparation for ex situ soil vapor extraction, 913-551-7778
the contaminant concentrations met cleanup goals and soil auchterlonie.steve@epa.gov
vapor extraction was unnecessary.
8 Broderick Wood Products, CO Incineration (off-site) Yes ROD was misinterpreted. Armando Saenz
(9/24/91) 313-302-6359
saenz.armando@epa.gov
8 Lockheed/Martin - Denver Solidification/Stabilization Yes The site contact indicated that the remedy was not required Charles Johnson
Aerospace, CO (9/24/90) because additional site investigation revealed contaminant levels 303-692-3348
were below cleanup goals. Johnson.Charles@State.CO.US
8 Rocky Flats Plant - Buffer Soil Vapor Extraction Permeable The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed Norma Casaneda
Zone, CO (08/10/92) Reactive Barrier because additional contamination was found that was not 303-966-4226
amenable to soil vapor extraction, including dense non-aqueous casaneda.norma@epa.gov
phase liquids.
8 Rocky Mountain Arsenal - Thermal Desorption In Situ Thermal ROD was misinterpreted. Kerry Guy
Onpost OU, Hex Pits, CO Treatment 303-312-7288
(6/11/96) guy.kerry@epa.gov
D-15
8 Rocky Mountain Arsenal - Soil Washing Yes The site contact indicated that this remedy was specified as a Kerry Guy
Onpost OU, CO (6/11/96) contingent remedy, but never implemented. 303-312-7288
guy.kerry@epa.gov
8 Sand Creek Industrial, OU 4, Soil Vapor Extraction Yes ROD was misinterpreted. Erna Waterman
CO (4/2/94) 303-312-6762
waterman.erna@epa.gov
8 Summitville Mine - OU 2, CO Project not in 9th edition of Neutralization ROD was misinterpreted. Victor Ketellaper
(12/15/94) the ASR. 303-312-6578
ketellapper.victor@epa.gov
8 Utah Power & Light/American Solidification/Stabilization Yes ROD was misinterpreted. Paula Schmittdiel
Barrel, UT (7/7/93) 303-312-6861
schmittdiel.paula@epa.gov
9 Navajo Toxaphene, AZ (1/1/95) Bioremediation (in situ) - Bioremediation (ex ROD was misinterpreted. Robert Mandel
Other situ) - Other 415-744-2290
mandel.bob@epa.gov
9 Williams Air Force Base - OU Bioventing Soil Vapor The site contact indicated that the remedy was changed Sean Hogan
3, AZ (12/30/92) Extraction because bioventing could not meet cleanup goals. 415-744-2334
hogan.sean@epa.gov
10 Queen City Farms, WA (10/24/ Solidification/Stabilization Yes The site contact indicated that the project was solidification Neil Thompson
86) only, and no stabilization occurred. Solidification only projects 206-553-7177
are not currently tracked in the ASR. thompson.neil@epa.gov
D-16
Ninth Edition (April 1999): Additions, Changes, and Deletions from the Eighth Edition (November 1996)
The ninth edition of the report adds information about 42 treatment selected for remedial actions in FY 1996 and FY 1997 RODs, – treatment technologies non-Superfund,
and innovative technologies selected for two RCRA corrective actions. Other changes are listed below.

1 Beacon Heights Landfill, CT Incineration Yes At $20 billion, incineration was considered cost-prohibitive. In Elise Jakabhazy
(09/28/90) (off site) addition, the community was concerned about the safety of 617-573-5760
transporting 22 acres of material by truck over switchback
mountain roads.
1 Cannon Engineering - Plymouth Incineration Yes About 264 tons of soil contaminated with lead and PCBs were Dan Coughlin
OU, MA (off site) disposed of at the Adams Center Sanitary Landfill in Fort 617-573-9621
(03/31/88) Wayne, Indiana. Incineration was never used. PRP’s
contractor was allowed to put soil in a landfill without ROD
amendment or ESD.
1 Charles George Reclamation Solidification/ Yes The contaminated area was capped instead of using solidifica- Elaine Stanley
Trust Landfill, MA stabilization tion/stabilization. The estimated volume of contaminated media 617-223-5515
(09/29/88) had decreased; the technology was no longer effective.
1 Iron Horse Park - OU 1, MA Bioremediation Yes Land treatment was changed to asphalt batching off site at a Don McElroy
(09/15/88) (ex situ) - land treatment state-permitted soil recycling facility. Bioremediation was taking 617-223-5571
longer than expected; treatment goals could not be met. An
ESD was issued in October 1997.
1 Salem Acres, MA Solidification/ Yes Contaminated soils were excavated and hauled from the site Elaine Stanley
(03/25/93) stabilization instead of using solidification/stabilization. The estimated 617-223-5515
volume of contaminated media had decreased; the technology
was no longer effective.
1 Sullivan’s Ledge, MA Solidification/ Yes Stabilization is no longer part of the remedy. An ESD was Dave Lederer
(06/28/89) stabilization issued in 1996 to eliminate that requirement. 617-573-9665
1 Sullivan’s Ledge, MA Solidification/ Yes Stabilization is no longer part of the remedy. An ESD was Dave Lederer
(09/27/91) stabilization issued in 1996 to eliminate that requirement. 617-573-9665
1 Loring AFB - OU 11, Vehicle Soil vapor extraction Yes Never implemented. Soils were excavated and connected to Mike Nalipinski
Maintenance Building, ME the base laundry SVE; soils were put into rolloff containers 617-223-5503
(05/20/96) with PVC pipe.
D-17
Ninth Edition (April 1999) (continued)
1 O’Connor, ME Incineration Yes Problems included high cost for implementation of the Ross Gilleland
(09/27/89) (off site) technology and equipment or site problems. Contaminated 617-573-5766
soil was landfilled off site. An ESD was issued on 07/11/94.
1 O’Connor, ME Solidification/ Yes The solidification/ stabilization remedy option provided Ross Gilleland
(09/27/89) stabilization treatment of lead if incineration was chosen. Incineration was 617-573-5766
not selected as a remedy. Contaminated soil was landfilled off
site. An ESD was issued on 07/11/94.
1 Union Chemical, ME Incineration Yes Misinterpretation of the ROD. The 1990 ROD selected Terrence Connelly
(12/27/90) (off site) thermal desorption. That remedy was subsequently changed 617-573-9638
to SVE in 1994. An ESD was issued in April 1994. See page
D-36 for more information.
1 Union Chemical, ME Solidification/ Yes Misinterpretation of the ROD. The 1990 ROD selected Terrence Connelly
(12/27/90) stabilization thermal desorption. That remedy was subsequently changed 617-573-9638
to SVE in 1994. An ESD was issued in April 1994. See page
D-36 for more information.
1 Ottati & Goss/Kingston Steel Incineration Thermal A change in cleanup level may be necessary under new risk Richard Goehlert
Drum - OU 4, NH (on site) desorption guidance issued since the ROD was signed. 617-573-5742
(01/16/87) Thermal desorption is more cost effective; the volume of
contaminated media had increased. A change in future use from
residential to nonresidential would require a ROD amendment.
1 South Municipal Water Supply Soil vapor extraction Yes A second ESD, issued in February 1997, granted a technical Roger Duwart
Wells, NH impracticality waiver. The waiver eliminated SVE because of 617-573-9628
(09/27/89) the presence of DNAPLs. The SVE system has been shut
down. Tom Andrews (NHDES)
603-271-2910
1 South Municipal Water Supply In situ air stripping Yes The air injection well was not installed deep enough to deliver Roger Duwart
Wells, NH (air sparging) air below the water table. Because of installation of deeper air 617-573-9628
(09/27/89) injection wells would have caused penetration of a confining
layer, that activity was not performed. An ESD was issued on Tom Andrews (NHDES)
02/03/97. 603-271-2910
1 Davis Liquid Waste, RI Solidification/ Yes Solidification/stabilization was proposed in the ROD as a Neil Handler
(09/29/87) stabilization treatment for the residues of incineration, but thermal 617-573-9636
desorption was used instead of incineration. Therefore,
solidification/stabilization was not used. No ROD amendment
or ESD was needed.
D-18
2 Cosden Chemical Coatings Solidification/ Yes The estimated volume of contaminated media had decreased; Edward Finnerty
Corp., NJ stabilization the technology was no longer effective. An ESD is to be 212-637-4367
(09/30/92) issued in the near future.
2 De Rewal Chemical Co., NJ Solidification/ Yes The treatability study indicated that leaching inorganics from the Lawrence Granite
(09/29/89) stabilization solidified mass would increase contamination of the groundwa- 212-637-4423
ter. An ESD, issued on 06/12/97, eliminates solidification/
stabilization and provides for off-site disposal.
2 Ellis Property, NJ Incineration Solidification/ Off-site incineration never was used because of high cost; Richard Ho
(09/30/92) (off site) stabilization chemical stabilization was used instead. 212-637-4372
2 Kauffman & Minteer, NJ Incineration Yes No hazardous waste has been detected at this OU. The Paolo Pascetta
(09/27/96) (off site) nonhazardous waste currently is being excavated and disposed 212-637-4383
of with no treatment. Additional characterization currently is
being performed.
2 Reich Farms, NJ Incineration Yes This was a contingency in the ROD. The ROD specified Jonathan Gorin
(09/30/88) (off site) enhanced volatilization followed by either incineration or on-site 212-637-4361
disposal. All soil was treated successfully by enhanced
volatilization and thus incineration was not necessary.
2 Renora, Inc., NJ None Original remedy was not listed in the ASR. The 1987 ROD Jonathan Gorin
(09/29/87) selected bioremediation (in situ) for groundwater. It was 212-637-4361
cancelled because treatability studies showed bioremedia-
tion to be ineffective in treating PAH-contaminated soils. A
ROD Amendment signed on 09/30/94 changed the remedy
to off-site disposal.
2 Roebling Steel Co., NJ Solidification/ Yes Solidification/stabilization was considered and rejected because Tamara Rossi
(03/29/90) stabilization of the high cost of cleaning up a large area of contamination (10 212-637-4368
acres). A ROD amendment is expected in December 1998.
2 Roebling Steel Co., NJ Solidification/ Yes Solidification/stabilization was considered and rejected because Tamara Rossi
(09/26/91) stabilization of the high cost of cleaning up a large area of contamination (10 212-637-4368
acres). A ROD amendment is expected in December 1998.
2 Swope Oil & Chemical, NJ Incineration Yes Remedy included only SVE treatment, and no off-site Joseph Gowers
(09/27/91) (off site) incineration was conducted. Misinterpretation of ROD. 212-637-4413
D-19
2 Waldick Aerospace Devices, Incineration Yes Misinterpretation of the ROD. Off-site incineration never was Daniel Weissman
Inc., NJ (off site) implemented. The ROD specified on-site thermal treatment 212-637-4384
(03/29/91) or thermal desorption.
George Buc (USACE)
908-389-3040
Dave Modricker (USACE)

717-748-4505
2 Waldick Aerospace Devices, Solidification/ Yes Misinterpretation of the ROD. Daniel Weissman
Inc., NJ stabilization 212-637-4384
(09/29/87)
2 White Chemical Corp., NJ Solidification/ Yes Misinterpretation of the ROD. ROD specified that the site Betsy Donovan
(09/26/91) stabilization should be stabilized, referring to the site stabilization process 212-637-4369
performed during a previous remedial action. This did not
mean treatment using stabilization/solidification.
2 Brookhaven National This is an FY96 ROD Soil vapor Soil vapor extraction was added to enhance the existing in situ Mary Logan
Laboratory (USDOE) - OU 4, NY that was not listed in the extraction air stripping system. 212-637-4321
(03/25/96) eighth edition.
2 Circuitron Corp., NY Incineration Yes Misinterpretation of the ROD. Soil was excavated and Sharon Trocher
(03/29/91) (off site) transported to an approved RCRA treatment and disposal 212-637-3965
facility. Incineration (off site) was selected as the method of
treatment to develop a conservative cost estimate.
2 Hooker (102nd Street Landfill), Incineration Yes Original ROD specified incineration of sediments outside Paul Olivo
NY (off site) slurry wall. Slurry has been repositioned to contain any 212-637-4280
(09/26/90) migration of NAPL plumes. The site will be capped instead.
ROD Amendment issued 06/9/95.
2 Love Canal - 93rd St. School, Solidification/ Yes Residents did not want any materials treated on site. Materials Damian Duda
NY stabilization were disposed of off site instead. A ROD amendment was 212-637-4269
(09/26/88) issued in 05/91.
2 Marathon Battery Corp., NY Solidification/ Yes All three solidification/ stabilization projects were conducted as Pam Tames
(09/30/88) stabilization one project, even though three RODs were issued. The work 212-637-4255
is documented in the ASR as a single project. Therefore, the
two other projects have been deleted.
D-20
2 Marathon Battery Corp., NY Solidification/ Yes All three solidification/ stabilization projects were conducted Pam Tames
(09/30/89) stabilization as one project, even though three RODs were issued. The 212-637-4255
work is documented in the ASR as a single project.
Therefore, the two other projects have been deleted.
2 Mattiace Petrochemicals - OU Incineration Yes The ROD identified incineration as a possible method of Edward Als
1, 5, and 6, NY (off site) treatment, but incineration was not the selected remedy. 212-637-4272
(06/27/91)
2 Olean Well Field - OU 2, NY In situ air stripping Yes Air sparging was considered for the dry cleaning. A pilot test Thomas Taccone
(09/30/96) (air sparging) demonstrated that air sparging was not feasible because of site 212-637-4281
conditions. Contaminated soil will be excavated instead (a
contingency in the ROD, so no ESD or ROD amendment is
necessary).
2 Solvent Savers, NY Thermal desorption Soil vapor SVE is being conducted as a pilot study, but thermal desorption Lisa Wong
(09/30/90) extraction may be used in the future. 212-637-4267
3 Delaware Sand & Gravel Soil vapor extraction Bioremediation Treating soil with SVE followed by bioventing would not have Eric Newman
Landfill - OU 4 and OU 5, DE (in situ) - enhanced the rate of removal of VOCs from soil. Therefore, 215-814-3237
(09/30/93) bioventing bioventing was used without SVE. The remedy was a
contingency in the ROD.
3 E.I. DuPont-Newport Site, DE None Original remedy was not listed in the ASR. The 1993 ROD Lisa Brown
(09/23/93) selected solidification/stabilization (in situ). However, the 215-814-5528
waste was much deeper than originally estimated. Due to the
increased volume of waste, the cleanup costs were
significantly higher than cited in the 1993 ROD. On 08/16/95
EPA issued and ESD to change the remedy to containment
with pump-and-treat for groundwater.
3 Halby Chemical Co. - OU 1, Solidification/ Chemical Misinterpretation of ROD; in situ chemical oxidation was Eric Newman
Process Plant Area, DE stabilization treatment used. 215-814-3237
(06/28/91)
3 Aberdeen Proving Ground This is an FY96 ROD that Phyto- Incineration and solidification/stabilization, provided for in the Steven R. Hirsh
(Edgewood Area) J-Field Soil was not listed in the eighth remediation original ROD, was considered dangerous because of the 215-566-3352
OU, MD edition. presence of unexploded ordnance. A ROD amendment is to
(09/27/96) be issued in the near future for a change to phytoremediation.
D-21
3 Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers, Solidification/ Yes The remedy was a contingency in the ROD. Solidification/ Eric Newman
MD stabilization stabilization was to be used only if the level of arsenic was 215-814-3237
(12/31/90) above 1000 mg/kg. Results of soil analysis on all samples at
the site show levels of arsenic below 1,000 mg/kg.
3 Aladdin Plating, PA Solidification/ Yes A vendor demonstration of electrokinetics to treat contami- Gregory D. Hamm
(09/27/88) stabilization nated groundwater and soils will continue. A subsequent 215-566-3194
ROD issued on 12/30/93 requires institutional controls and
monitoring, but no solidification/stabilization.
3 Berks Sand Pit, PA Incineration Yes The source of contamination in sediments is being eliminated Bruce Rundell
(09/29/88) (off site) because of lowering of the water table, eliminating the need for 215-566-3317
excavation and incineration (off site) of sediments. An ESD
has been proposed and will be made final after a public
comment period of 30 days.
3 Brown’s Battery Breaking Site - Plasma high- temperature Yes Problems with implementation include high cost and equipment Richard Watman
OU 2, PA recovery or site problems. 215-566-3219
(07/02/92)
3 Douglassville Disposal, PA Incineration Yes Community concerns prohibited the use of the technology. A Victor J. Janosik
(06/30/89) (on site) feasibility study of solidification/stabilization is being 215-566-3217
conducted. A ROD amendment is expected in FY99.
3 Drake Chemical - Phase II, PA Incineration Yes This is a duplicate project. Both the 1986 and the 1988 ROD Gregg Crystall
(05/13/86) (on site) specified incineration. Incineration (on site) was chosen 215-566-3207
because of a preference for on-site treatment. The work is
documented as a single project.
3 Hebelka Auto Salvage Yard, PA Solidification/ Yes The 1991 ROD refers to solidification/stabilization of lead- Frederick N. Macmillan
(09/30/91) stabilization contaminated soils completed under the 1989 ROD, but the 215-814-3201
1991 ROD specifies monitoring of groundwater only; no
solidification/stabilization of additional sites is specified.
3 M.W. Manufacturing, PA Incineration Solidification/ Results of treatability study showed burning fluff caused Bhupendra Khona
(03/31/89) (off site) stabilization potential threat due to emissions of dioxin. Thus, offsite 215-566-3213
and incineration was not implemented. ROD Amendment issued
Thermal 12/22/97 selected ex-situ stabilization and low temperature
Desorption thermal desorption.
D-22
3 Publicker Industries, Inc. - OU Solidification/ Yes The remedy was a contingency. Wastes were disposed of in Frances Costanzi
3, PA stabilization a landfill. 215-566-3196
(12/28/95)
3 Greenwood Chemical Co., VA Solidification/ Yes Solidification/stabilization of soils contaminated with arsenic Philip Rotstein
(12/29/89) stabilization would not have been cost-effective for the small volume of 215-814-3232
waste present. No ROD amendment or ESD was issued.
3 Rentokil Virginia Wood Incineration Yes Cost too high. A value engineering analysis indicated that Andrew C. Palestini
Preserving, VA (off site) contaminants in soil could successfully be contained with a 215-566-3233
(06/22/93) slurry wall and cap. A pump and treat system for dewatering
could effectively immobilize contaminants. ROD Amendment
issued 08/27/96.
3 Rentokil Virginia Wood Solidification/ Yes Cost too high. A value engineering analysis indicated that Andrew C. Palestini
Preserving, VA stabilization contaminants in soil could successfully be contained with a 215-566-3233
(06/22/93) slurry wall and cap. A pump and treat system for dewatering
could effectively immobilize contaminants. ROD Amendment
issued 08/27/96.
3 Saunders Supply Co., VA Solidification/ Yes Solidification/stabilization was a contingency that was found to Andrew C. Palestini
(09/30/91) stabilization be unnecessary. 215-566-3233
3 Fike Chemical, Inc. - OU 1, Solidification/ Yes Misinterpretation of the ROD. The ROD called for drainage of Katherine Lose
WV stabilization water and liquid from the lagoon (referred to as “stabilization” in 215-566-3240
(09/29/88) the ROD). Lagoon sludge then was to be sent off site for
incineration.
3 Fike Chemical, Inc.-WV Neutralization Yes The excavated drums were damaged and were sent off site for Katherine Lose
(03/31/92) disposal. ESD issued 05/13/93. 215-566-3240
3 Fike Chemical, Inc. - OU 3 - Solidification/ Yes Stabilizing in the ROD referred to stabilizing acidic wastes. Katherine Lose
Drum Removal, WV stabilization The closeout report indicated that all nonhazardous soils were 215-566-3240
(03/31/92) landfilled and hazardous wastes were incinerated. Solidification/
stabilization was a contingency remedy.
4 Ciba Geigy (McIntosh Plant), Solidification/ Yes Solidification/stabilization was not implemented because it Charles L. King, Jr.
AL stabilization would bring about no cost savings. 404-562-8931
(07/14/92)
D-23
4 Ciba Geigy (McIntosh Plant) - Bioremediation Incineration The treatability study was unsuccessful; treatment goals could Charles L. King, Jr.
OU 3, AL (in situ) - other (on site) not be met. Wastes are being incinerated instead. 404-562-8931
(07/25/95)
4 Anodyne, Inc., FL Solidification/ Yes The amount of contaminated soil was less than anticipated, Brad Jackson
(06/17/93) stabilization and the soil was excavated and landfilled off site. 404-562-8925
4 Brown Wood Preserving, FL Solidification/ Yes Contingency. This technology in ROD was to be considered Rosalind Brown
(04/8/88) stabilization only if ex situ biodegradation - land treatment did not attain 404-562-8870
the desired cleanup levels for the appropriate indicator
chemicals within the two-year time period. Goals were met
within 18 months.
4 Cecil Field Naval Air Station - Bioremediation Air sparging Bioremediation was begun, but the cleanup goals were revised. Debbie Vaughn-Wright
OU 2, Sites 5 and 17, FL (in situ) - groundwater A ROD amendment is to be issued soon, and air sparging will 404-562-8539
(06/24/96) be used.
4 Cecil Field Naval Air Station - Incineration Yes Wastes were below LDR standards for treatment. Waste was Debbie Vaughn-Wright
OU 6, Site 11, FL (off site) sent off site to a RCRA subtitle C landfill. 404-562-8539
(09/14/94)
4 Cecil Field Naval Air Station - Bioremediation Yes SVE and bioremediation were to be implemented in the Debbie Vaughn-Wright
OU 7, FL (in situ) - groundwater downgradient area, but concentrations of contaminants have 404-562-8539
(07/17/96) decreased. Therefore, the remedy will not be implemented.
4 Cecil Field Naval Air Station - Soil vapor extraction Yes SVE and bioremediation were to be implemented in the Debbie Vaughn-Wright
OU 7, FL downgradient area, but concentrations of contaminants have 404-562-8539
(07/17/96) decreased. Therefore, the remedy will not be implemented.
4 Coleman-Evans Wood Solidification/ Thermal The 1990 ROD amendment selected a technology train of Randall Chaffins
Preserving - Amendment, FL stabilization desorption bioremediation, soil washing and S/S. Treatability studies 404-562-8929
(09/26/90) indicated presence of dioxin, which cannot be treated with
bioremediation. So, remedy changed to thermal desorption.
ROD Amendment 9/25/97.
4 Gold Coast Oil Corp., FL Solidification/ Yes The estimated volume of contaminated media had decreased, Brad Jackson
(09/11/87) stabilization and the technology was no longer effective. 404-562-8925
D-24
4 Homestead Air Reserve - OU Thermal desorption Yes Excavation, hauling, and landfilling as a non-RCRA solid Patricia Goldberg
6, Site SS-3, FL waste was less costly, as per the ESD issued on 10/22/97. 404-562-8543
(06/27/95) One 55-gal. drum and 1,350 cu yd of waste were hauled to a
non-RCRA landfill. Data in design showed reduced volume Doyle Brittain
of soil. 404-562-8549
4 Reeves Southeastern Solidification/ Yes Implementability (equipment problems and site problems). Randall Chaffins
Galvanizing - OU 1, FL stabilization The PRP could not find a treatment mix that could meet 404-562-8929
(10/13/92) performance standards. An ESD was issued on 04/17/97.
4 Stauffer Chemical Company, Bioremediation Bioremediation The change was made to identify a specific type of ex situ Brad Jackson
FL (ex situ) (ex situ)- bioremediation. 404-562-8925
(12/01/95) composting
4 Whitehouse Oil Pits - Bioremediation Yes Treatment goals could not be met. A ROD amendment was to Mark Fite
Amendment, FL (ex situ) - slurry-phase be issued in mid-September 1998, and a public comment period 404-562-8927
(06/16/92) will be conducted.
4 Marine Corps Logistics Base - Solidification/ Yes Misinterpretation of ROD; soil was mixed with clean fill and then Robert Pope
OU 3, PSC 16 & 17, GA stabilization disposed of at a permitted landfill. No solidification/stabilization 404-562-8506
(08/14/92) was performed.
4 Marzone Inc./Chevron Co. - OU Thermal desorption Yes Remedy was too costly, the community was opposed to the Annie Godfrey
1, GA remedy, and dioxin was discovered. Therefore, the technol- 404-562-8919
(09/30/94) ogy was not implemented, and the soil was excavated and
disposed of at an off-site landfill. A ROD amendment was
Yes issued on 06/18/97.
4 Mathis Brothers Landfill - South Bioremediation Excavation, landfilling, and incineration were less costly and Charles L. King, Jr.
Marble Top Road, GA (ex situ) - slurry-phase required less time. Soils were excavated and transported off 404-562-8931
(03/24/93) site for landfilling if nonhazardous, and incinerated if
hazardous.
4 Smith’s Farm - OU 1, KY Solidification/ Yes Solidification/stabilization was planned for the heavy metals Antonio DeAngelo
(09/29/89) stabilization remaining in the treated soils after the thermal desorption, but 404-562-8826
the treatment was not necessary.
4 Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps Solidification/ Incineration Arsenic is a contaminant at the site. Because the arsenic was Kay Crane
(Amendment), NC stabilization (off site) commingled with pesticide wastes, all soil contaminated with 404-562-8795
(09/30/91) arsenic was incinerated, and no soil required stabilization.
D-25
4 Cape Fear Wood Preserving, Soil washing Thermal An ESD issued in 1993 changed the remedy from soil Jon Bornholm
NC desorption washing to thermal desorption. 404-562-8820
(06/30/89)
4 Chemtronics, Inc., NC Solidification/ Yes The project was canceled during the design phase, and the Jon Bornholm
(040/5/88) stabilization site was capped. 404-562-8820
4 Marine Corps Base, Camp Bioremediation Yes Treatment goals could not be met during treatability testing, and Gena Townsend
Lejeune - OU 12, Site 3 - The (ex situ) - solid-phase therefore bioremediation (ex situ) – solid-phase will not be 404-562-8538
Old Creosote Plant, NC implemented. A ROD amendment that specifies disposal of the
(04/03/97) contaminated soils in an off-site landfill is being prepared.
4 Sodyeco - Area C, NC Soil vapor extraction Yes During installation, contaminated drums were encountered, Michael Townsend
(09/24/87) excavated, and removed. Contamination therefore decreased, 404-562-8813
and SVE no longer was required.
4 Geiger (C&M Oil), SC Solidification/ Yes A ROD amendment was issued on 07/13/93. Sheri Panabaker
(6/1/87) stabilization 404-562-8810
4 Kalama Specialty Chemicals, Solidification/ Yes The amount of contaminated material was less than originally Steven Sandler
SC stabilization estimated, so it was excavated and disposed of off site. 404-562-8818
(09/28/93) Contingency in ROD.
4 Kalama Specialty Chemicals, Mechanical soil aeration Yes The amount of contaminated material was less than originally Steven Sandler
SC estimated, so it was excavated and disposed of off site. 404-562-8818
(09/28/93) Contingency in ROD.
4 Savannah River (TNX Area), In situ air stripping Yes Problems with implementability (equipment problems, on site Joao Cardoso-Neto
SC (air sparging) problems) arose; development of an air recirculation well was (Bechtel)
not possible. Areas of low permeability precluded formation of 803-952-6495
the required recirculation cell. An ESD is to be issued in near
the future. Keith A. Collinsworth
(SCDHEC)
803-896-4055
Constance A. Jones
404-562-8551
D-26
4 Savannah River (USDOE) - M In situ air stripping Yes This is a demonstration project, not a full-scale application. Mike Simmons (DOE)
Area Settling Basin, SC (air sparging) 803-725-1627
Brian Looney (WSRC)

803-725-1627
4 Savannah River (USDOE) - Solidification/ Yes The work was completed as a RCRA project that is not Mike Simmons (DOE)
OU 1, SC stabilization applicable to the ASR. 803-725-1627
(06/29/92)
Brian Looney (WSRC)
803-725-3692
4 Amnicola Dump, TN Solidification/ Yes The volume of soil was much less than had been indicated in Robert West
(03/30/89) stabilization the ROD, and it was more cost-effective to dispose of the soil 404-562-8806
off site.
4 Arlington Blending and Solidification/ Yes The estimated volume of contaminated media has decreased; Derek Matory
Packaging Co., TN stabilization the technology no longer is effective. An ESD is to be issued in 404-562-8800
(06/28/91) near future.
4 Wrigley Charcoal, TN Incineration Yes The technology was too expensive; disposed of off site in a Lisa Montalvo
(09/30/91) (off site) landfill. A ROD amendment was issued on 02/02/95. 404-562-8805
4 Wrigley Charcoal, TN Solidification/ Yes The technology was too expensive; disposed of off site in a Lisa Montalvo
(09/30/91) stabilization landfill. A ROD amendment was issued on 02/02/95. 404-562-8805
5 Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Inc., Incineration Yes The ROD identifies off-site incineration as a contingency. The David Linnear
IL (off site) technology was never implemented. 312-886-1841
(12/31/90)
5 Belvidere Municipal Landfill - Incineration Yes Incineration off site was included in the ROD to be used if the William Ballard
No. 1, IL (off site) concentration of PCBs was greater than 50 ppm. Because the 312-353-6083
(06/29/88) concentration was not, PCBs were disposed of off site.
5 Byron/Johnson Salvage Yard, Incineration Yes Excavation, hauling, and landfilling were used instead of off- Bill Bolen
IL (off site) site incineration as indicated in the ROD because of high cost. 312-353-6316
(03/13/85)
5 Savanna Army Depot Activity, Solidification/ Yes This project is a RCRA closure - state oversight. David Seely
IL stabilization 312-886-7058
D-27
5 Fisher-Calo, IN Soil vapor extraction Bioremediation Biosparging was determined to be more effective than SVE; Jeffrey Gore
(08/07/90) (in situ) - no ROD amendment or ESD has been issued. 312-886-6552
biosparging
5 Main Street Well Field, IN Incineration Yes Off-site incineration was never implemented at this site. Deborah Orr
(03/29/91) (off site) 312-886-7576
5 Wayne Waste Oil, IN Bioremediation Bioremediation The technology has been reclassified. Jeffrey Gore
(03/30/90) (in situ) (in situ) - 312-886-6552
biosparging
5 Wayne Waste Oil, IN Solidification/ Yes The technology was determined to be unnecessary. Metals Jeffrey Gore
(03/30/90) stabilization were the only contaminants of concern, and the site had been 312-886-6552
capped already. Consequently, the risk was minimized. No
ROD amendment or ESD was written.
5 Wedzeb, IN Incineration Yes 52,000 drums of PCB capacitors were incinerated off site in Kenneth Theisen
(06/30/89) (off site) 1987 at the Apptus facility in Kansas. Soil was excavated and 312-886-1959
disposed of off site because the contamination remaining in soil
was low. No ROD amendment or ESD was issued.
5 Berlin & Farro Liquid Incinera- Incineration Yes Contingency in the ROD. ROD specified transportation of PCB Robert Whippo
tion, MI (off site) liquid wastes, if any, to an approved off-site incinerator. 312-886-4759
(02/29/84)
5 Burrows Sanitation, MI Solidification/ Yes The volume of contamination was smaller than originally had Jeffrey Gore
(09/30/86) stabilization been estimated. It was more cost-effective to excavate and 312-886-6552
dispose of off site under removal authority.
5 Carter Industrials, Inc., MI Incineration Yes 1991 ROD specified thermal desorption, not incineration off-site. Jon Peterson
(09/18/91) (off site) Misinterpretation of ROD. Amended ROD 2/28/95 canceled 312-353-1264
remedy because the cost for off-site disposal dropped, there
was less soil, and restrictions on interstate transport have
decreased.
5 Clare Water Supply, MI Thermal desorption Yes The remedy should have been listed as SVE. The 1992 ROD Jon Peterson
(09/16/92) specified SVE, not thermal desorption, but SVE was not 312-353-1264
feasible because of the low permeability of soils. A ROD
amendment was issued on 05/15/97.
D-28
5 Duell-Gardner Landfill, MI Thermal desorption Yes The volume of contaminated material was much smaller than Lolita Hill
(09/07/93) originally had been estimated. Consequently, it was more 312-353-1621
cost-effective to excavate and dispose of the material off site.
A ROD amendment was to be issued in FY98.
5 Electrovoice, MI Solidification/ Yes Solidification/stabilization was identified as a contingency Karen Sikora

(06/23/92) stabilization remedy in the 1992 ROD. If cleanup goals are not achieved 312-886-1843
by the SVE system, the soils will be excavated and stabilized.
The SVE system is in operation and its performance will be
reviewed next year.
5 Forest Waste Products, MI Incineration Yes An ESD is to be issued in the near future. Elizabeth Reiner
(03/31/88) (off site) 312-353-6576
5 H. Brown Company, Inc., MI Solidification/ Yes The site was capped with clay and covered with asphalt so that Timothy Prendiville
(09/30/92) stabilization the property could be redeveloped. Two ROD amendments 312-886-5122
have been issued. The first, issued on 09/29/95, removed
solidification/stabilization from the project.
5 Thermo-Chem, Inc. - OU 1, MI Incineration Yes The concentrations of the contaminants in the soil were low and James Hahnenberg
(09/30/91) (off site) it was not cost-effective to treat the soil with incineration. The 312-353-4213
metals could not be treated with incineration. The contaminated
soil was excavated and disposed of off site.
5 MacGillis and Gibbs/Bell Bioremediation Yes The technology is ex situ, not in situ. Groundwater is being Darryl Owens
Lumber and Pole - OU 3, MN (in situ) - groundwater pumped and treated above ground. 312-886-7089
(09/22/94)
Miriam Horneff
(MPCA)
612-296-7228
5 Ritari Post and Pole - OU 1, Incineration Bioremediation Incineration was too expensive. Ted Smith
MN (off site) (ex situ) - 312-353-6571
(06/30/94) land treatment
John Moeger (MPCA)
612-296-9707
5 Ritari Post and Pole - OU 1, Incineration Yes Incineration was too expensive. Chemical oxidation may be Ramon Torres
MN (off site) used to treat highly contaminated soils, and land treatment 312-886-3010
(06/30/94) will be used for lower concentrations; the use of off site
incineration would move the risk outside the site. An ESD is to
be issued.
D-29
5 Allied Chem & Ironton Coke, Incineration Yes Contaminated soil volume decreased. A ROD amendment Matthew Mankowski
OH (on site) was to be issued in May or June 1998. Soil contaminated with 312-886-1842
(12/28/90) soft tar will be excavated, soil that meets the TCLP limit will be
recycled for alternative fuel, and soil that fails the TCLP limit
will be disposed of at an off-site landfill.
5 Fields Brook, OH None The original remedy in the 1986 ROD was not listed in the Terese Van Donsal
(09/30/86) ASR. The 1986 ROD specified solidification of sediments. 312-353-6564
EPA issued and ESD on 08/15/97 changed solidification to
disposal.
5 Summit National Liquid Incineration Yes The 1988 ROD and the 1990 ROD amendment both Anthony Rutter
Disposal Service - Amendment, (off site) specified incineration on site. It is documented as a project 312-886-8961
OH under the 1988 ROD.
(11/02/90)
5 Mid-State Disposal Landfill, WI Solidification/ Yes Solidification/stabilization was identified as a contingency that Mary Tierney
(09/30/88) stabilization was to be used only to solidify the sludge lagoon so that a cap 312-886-4785
could be placed over it. Solidification/ stabilization was
deemed unnecessary. A geomembrane cap was used without
solidification/ stabilization.
5 Onalaska Municipal Landfill, WI Bioremediation Bioremediation The technology was reclassified from bioremediation in situ to George Mickelson
(08/14/90) (in situ) (in situ) - bioventing. (WIDNR)
bioventing 608-267-0858
Kevin Adler
312-886-7078
5 Spickler Landfill, WI Solidification/ Yes Results of a test of stabilization/solidification showed that the John Fagiolo
(06/03/92) stabilization technology would not provide a significant reduction in the 312-886-0800
mobility or hydraulic conductivity of mercury wastes. An
impermeable cap with synthetic liner was used to eliminate
infiltration.
6 Gurley Pit, AR Incineration Yes The cost was too high; transportation and safety problems Ernest R. Franke
(10/06/86) (off site) also arose. 214-665-8521
6 Popile, AR Bioremediation Bioremediation The RI data is being reviewed to determine whether there is a Shawn Ghose
(02/01/93) (ex situ) (ex situ) - more appropriate remedy. The site was capped under a 214-665-6782
land treatment removal action. FS decisions will be made in 1999.
D-30
6 Popile, AR Bioremediation Bioremediation The RI data is being reviewed to determine whether there is a Shawn Ghose
(02/01/93) (in situ) (in situ) - more appropriate remedy. The site was capped under a removal 214-665-6782
groundwater action. FS decisions will be made in 1999. The original remedy
had been composting, but the remedy was changed to
bioremediation in situ - groundwater.
6 Vertac, Inc., AR Incineration Yes This project has been consolidated with off-site incineration Phillip Allen
(06/30/93) (off site) under the 1993 ROD for OU1. All material specified in that 214-665-8516
ROD was incinerated off site according to a 1995 ESD. See
information under the listing for incineration off site at OU1.
6 Vertac, Inc. - Onsite OU 1, AR Incineration Incineration An on-site incinerator was present after use for a previous Mike Arjmandi (ADPCE)
(05/25/95) (on site) (off site) removal action. The PRP and the incinerator operator could not 501-682-0852
agree on a price, so EPA allowed the PRP to choose to
incinerate the soils off site. An ESD was issued on 05/25/95. Phillip Allen
214-665-8516
6 Bayou Bonfouca - Source Incineration Yes This ROD amendment (07/20/95) actually covered the off-site Mark Hansen
Control OU (Amendment), LA (off site) incineration of waste from the Southern Shipbuilding Corpora- 214-665-7548
(07/20/95) tion site. Therefore, no waste from Bayou Bonfouca was
incinerated off site or addressed by this ROD amendment.
6 Pab Oil & Chemical Services, Bioremediation Solidification/ Bioremediation was discontinued because of implementability Caroline Ziegler
Inc., LA (ex situ) - other Stabilization problems. An ESD was issued on 03/12/1997. 214-665-2178
(09/22/93)
6 Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Bioremediation Yes No information available. Donald H. Williams
Clovis/Santa Fe Lake - TPH (ex situ) - land treatment 214-665-2197
lake sediments, NM
(09/23/88)
6 Oklahoma Refining Co., OK Bioremediation Bioremediation The type of bioremediation was clarified; there was no actual Kelly Dixon (ODEQ)
(06/09/92) (ex situ) - other (ex situ) - remedy change. 405-702-5141
land treatment
Earl Hendrick
214-665-8519
D-31
6 Bailey Waste Disposal, TX Solidification/ Yes Cost too high; treatment goals could not be met; more Chris Villarreal
(06/28/88) stabilization contamination than planned. New remedy includes 214-665-6758
excavation and offsite disposal of problematic wastes and
installation of a geocomposite cap over mixed industrial and
municipal wastes. ROD Amendment 12/16/96.
6 Brio Refining, TX Solidification/ Yes Solidification/ stabilization was considered during the RI/FS John Meyer
(03/31/88) stabilization stages, but was not included in the ROD because it could not 214-665-6742
meet treatment levels. No ROD Amendment or ESD therefore
was necessary.
6 Kelly Air Force Base - Site This phase is an addition Soil vapor No information available. Bill Hall
1100, Phase II, TX to the phase listed in the extraction 210-925-3100
eighth edition.
6 Kelly Air Force Base - Site This phase is an addition Bioremediation No information available. Bill Hall
1100, Phase III, TX to the phase listed in the (in situ)- 210-925-3100
eighth edition. bioventing
6 Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc.- This is an FY98 ROD that Thermal Chris Villarreal
OU 2, TX was not listed in the eighth desorption 214-665-6758
(04/30/98) edition.
6 Petrochemical (Turtle-Bayou), Incineration Soil vapor Misinterpretation of ROD. SVE currently is being used to Chris Villarreal
TX (off site) extraction remediate four soil areas at the site. 214-665-6758
(09/06/91)
6 Sheridan Disoposal Services, Solidification/ Yes Misinterpretation of the ROD. Gary A. Baumgarten
TX stabilization 214-665-6749
(12/29/88)
6 South Cavalcade Street, TX Incineration Yes The 09/26/88 ROD listed incineration (off site) for sludges, if Glenn Celerier
(09/26/88) (off site) encountered. However, no sludges were not found and 214-665-8523
therefore incineration was not performed.
6 South Cavalcade Street, TX Soil washing Yes A pilot study of soil washing showed that 40 percent of the Glenn Celerier
(09/26/88) volume could not be washed to meet goals. Soils contaminated 214-665-8523
with carcinogenic PAHs at levels higher than 700 ppm will be
sealed and contained beneath a six-inch-thick reinforced
concrete cap. A ROD amendment was issued on 06/27/97.
D-32
6 South Cavalcade Street, TX Flushing (in situ) Yes Estimated volume of contaminated soil much less than Glenn Celerier
(09/26/88) anticipated, but treatment goals could not be reached anyway. 214-665-8523
Will cap the site instead. ROD Amendment issued 6/27/97.
7 Midwest Manufacturing/North Solidification/ Yes The cost was too high; contaminant levels for both OUs were Diane Easley
Farm (Amendment), IA stabilization lower than before. Site risks were evaluated to determine that 913-551-7797
(09/30/93) monitoring with institutional controls would effectively address
the contamination at both OUs. The original ROD was issued
in 1988.
7 Strother Field Industrial Park, Soil vapor extraction Yes The application of SVE technology is impractical at this site Paul Roemerman
KS because the soil permeability is too low. The remedy proposed 913-551-7694
(03/31/94) in the ESD is a pump-and-treat system with monitored natural
attenuation. An ESD was to be issued by 09/30/98.
7 Ellisville Site - Bliss, MO Incineration The 1986 ROD called for interim storage of contaminated soil Robert Feilds
(09/29/86) (off site) on site and incineration at an off-site commercial facility. The 913-551-7697
1991 ROD called for off-site incineration at the Times Beach,
MO site operated by the PRPs. A ROD amendment was
issued on 09/30/91.
7 Missouri Electric Works, MO Incineration Thermal On-site incineration was too expensive. A ROD amendment Pauletta France-Isetts
(09/28/90) (on site) desorption was issued in September 1995. 913-551-7701
7 Shenandoah Stables, MO Solidification/ Yes Misinterpretation of the ROD. Robert Feild

(09/28/90) stabilization 913-551-7697
8 Broderick Wood Products, CO Bioremediation Bioremediation The remedy was changed to bioventing in the ESD issued on Armando Saenz
(03/24/92) (in situ) - groundwater (in situ) - 03/24/95. The pump-and-treat system did not work with 303-312-6559
bioventing LNAPLs; therefore, the cost of implementing it would be high.
8 Fort Carson - Building 9648 Bioremediation Bioremedi-ation The technology was reclassified. John Cloonan
OU, CO (in situ) - other (in situ) - 719-526-8004
bioventing
8 Lockheed/Martin - W C Soil vapor extraction Thermal SVE will not be used. All soil will be excavated and treated by George Dancik
Astronautics Facility, CO desorption thermal desorption. Doing so will allow the site owner to 303-312-6206
(09/24/90) reduce risk, eliminate the need for post-closure care, and
clean-close the unit. Charles Johnson (CDPHE)
303-692-3348
D-33
8 Rocky Mountain Arsenal - OU Solidification/ Yes The ROD was misinterpreted. Laura Williams
17, CO stabilization 303-312-6660
(05/14/90)
8 Rocky Mountain Arsenal - OU Solidification/ Yes OU 28 was the evaluation of alternatives for treatment of Laura Williams
28, CO stabilization various future waste streams at RMA. Solidification/ 303-312-6660
(01/15/93) stabilization was considered, but no actions were taken under
OU 28.
8 Rocky Mountain Arsenal - OU Incineration Yes OU 29 was an interim remedial action to address PCB wastes. Laura Williams
29, CO (off site) Both off-site incineration and off-site landfilling were selected as 303-312-6660
(01/15/93) the most preferable alternatives for disposal of PCB wastes.
The PCB wastes were ultimately disposed of by landfilling.
8 Sand Creek Industrial, CO Incineration Yes No information is available. Erna Waterman

(09/28/90) (off site) 303-312-6762
8 Summitville Mine - OU 0, CO Neutralization Yes The ROD was misinterpreted. Victor Ketallappet
(12/15/94) 303-312-6528
8 Burlington Northern (Somers Bioremediation Yes The ROD was misinterpreted. James C. Harris
Plant) - Soil, Base - OU 4, UT (in situ) - other 406-441-1150
(06/14/94)
8 Montana Pole and Treating Bioremediation Yes The ROD was misinterpreted. James C. Harris
Plant - Soil OU, MT (in situ) - other 406-441-1150
(09/21/93)
Neil Marsh (MT)
406-444-1420
8 Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area - Solidification/ Yes Solidification/stabilization treatment was recommended only if Mike Bishop
Rocker Timber Framing and stabilization chemical treatment was not successful. The estimated volume 406-441-1150
Treatment Plant OU, MT of contaminated media had decreased; the technology was no
(06/30/92) longer effective.
8 Ellsworth AFB - Abandoned Soil vapor extraction Yes The FY96 ROD only expanded the dual phase system from Peter Ismert
Fire Protection Area, SD the FY95 ROD, but did not add any technologies. 303-312-6665
(05/10/96)
D-34
8 Hill Air Force Base - OU 4, UT Soil vapor extraction Yes The bottom half of the landfill is below the water table, and the Dr. Dan Atkins (DoD)
(06/14/94) landfill does not have a slurry wall to divert groundwater flow 801-775-2559
from it. Therefore, SVE technology could not be implemented.
A series of 3 trenches collects leachate from the landfill. Rob Stites
303-312-6664
8 Utah Power & Light/American Incineration Yes Off-site incineration was specified as a contingent remedy but Paula Schmittdiel
Barrel, UT (off site) never was implemented. 303-312-6861
(07/07/93)
9 Fairchild Semiconductor (Mt. Soil vapor extraction Yes The water table rose and is now too high for SVE to be Dennis Curran
View) - Bldg 1-4 (515 & 545 N. effective. A pump-and- treat system currently is being used. Smith Env. Tech. Corp.
Whisman Rd./313 Fairchild No ROD amendment or ESD was issued. 415-960-1640
Dr.), CA
(06/30/89) Eugenia Chow
415-744-2258
9 FMC Corp. (Fresno Plant), CA Solidification/ Yes Removed from proposed NPL listing. Cynthia Wetmore
(06/28/91) stabilization 415-744-2234
9 Intel, Mountian View, CA Mechanical soil aeration Yes Soil was excavated and shipped off site. Eugenia Chow
(06/09/89) 418-744-2258
9 J.H. Baxter, CA Bioremediation Bioremediation Ex situ bioremediation was replaced with in situ bioremedia- Kathy Setian
(09/27/90) (ex situ) - land treatment (in situ) - tion. Landfarming may be used; biomass culture was added 415-744-2254
bioventing to contaminated soil. ESD issued 3/27/98.
Beatriz Bofill
415-744-2235
9 Koppers (Oroville Plant), CA Solidification/ Yes Treatment goals could not be met. The concentrations of Charles Berrey
(09/13/89) stabilization dioxins were sufficiently high that solidification/ stabilization was 415-744-2223
not feasible. A ROD amendment was issued on 08/29/96.
9 March AFB - OU 1, Area 5 & Bioremediation Yes No information available. Richard Russell
Site 4, CA (in situ) - bioventing 415-744-2406
(06/20/96)
9 March AFB - OU 1, Area 5 & Thermal desorption No information available. Richard Russell
Site 4, CA 415-744-2406
(06/20/96)
D-35
9 Mather AFB - Soil and Bioremediation Bioremediation The technology was reclassified from bioremediation in situ to Kathleen Salyer
Groundwater OU/Smaller UST (in situ) (in situ) - bioventing. 415-744-2214
Sites, CA bioventing
Terry Winsor (Montgomery
Watson)
916-231-4430
9 McColl, CA Solidification/ Yes Technology had implementation problems. EPA selected the Patti Collins
(06/30/93) stabilization contingency remedy of RCRA-equivalent closure for the sump 415-744-2229
wastes. Pilot and full-scale treatability studies were conducted
during 1994 and 1995 to determine the feasibility of solidifica-
tion/stabilization.
9 Purity Oil Sales, Inc., CA Solidification/ Yes The reason for deletion of the technology is unknown. An ESD Rosemarie Caraway
(09/26/89) stabilization was issued in 1995, and capping was performed at the site. 415-744-2231
9 Raytheon, Mountain View, CA Mechanical soil aeration Yes Soil was excavated and shipped off site for disposal. Eugenia Chow
(06/09/89) 415-244-2258
9 Roseville Drums, CA Bioremediation Yes Bioremediation The technology was reclassified from bioremediation in situ to Bradley Shipley
(03/03/88) (in situ) (in situ) - bioventing. 415-744-2287
bioventing
9 Sacramento Army Depot, CA Solidification/ Yes The 1995 ROD was a base-wide ROD. It reiterated the S/S Marlon Mezquita
(01/17/95) stabilization remedy specified in the 3/29/93 ROD. It did not add another 415-744-1499
S/S project. Hence there is only one S/S project at SAD.
9 Southern California Edison, Bioremediation Thermally The remedy was implemented as a contingency. The remedy is Richard Procunier
Visalia Pole Yard, CA (in situ) - groundwater enhanced actually “dynamic underground stripping.” Treatment goals could 415-744-2219
(06/10/94) recovery not be met because concentrations were too high for bioreme-
diation to work in a timely manner. Emmanuel Mensall
(CADTSC)
916-255-3704
9 Southern California Edison, Bioremediation Yes The remedy implemented was a contingency. Concentrations Richard Procunier
Visalia Pole Yard - Groundwa- (in situ) - groundwater were too high. Bioremediation could not achieve cleanup 415-744-2219
ter OU, CA levels in a realistic time frame.
(06/10/94) Emmanuel Mensall
(CADTSC)
916-255-3704
D-36
9 Valley Wood Preserving, Inc., Solidification/ Yes The estimated volume of contaminated media had decreased; Michelle Lau
CA stabilization the technology was no longer effective. A ROD amendment is 415-744-2227
(09/27/91) to be issued in near future.
10 FAA Northway Station, AK Bioremediation Bioremediation The technology was reclassified. Daniel McKay
(in situ) (in situ) - 603-646-4738
groundwater
10 FAA Strawberry Point Station, Bioremediation Bioremediation The technology was reclassified. Daniel McKay
AK (in situ) (in situ) - 603-646-4738
biosparging
10 Fort Wainwright - OU 1 - Neutralization Yes Non-invasive geophysical investigations indicated the presence David Williams (USACE)
Chemical Agent Dump Site, AK of buried chemical agents. However, when excavation was 907-753-5657
(07/20/95) completed, the agents were undetectable.
Dianne Soderlund
907-271-3425
10 U.S. DOE Idaho National Solidification/ Vitrification Solidification/stabilization was never used at the site. Terrell Smith Lockheed
Engineering and Environmental stabilization Marietta GW Restoration
Lab - OU 23, ID Dept.
208-526-5692
Wayne Pierre
206-553-7261
10 McCormick and Baxter Solidification/ Yes Treatment goals could not be met. Decided to dispose offsite. Alan Goodman
Creosoting Company (Portland stabilization The excavated soil contaminated with F-listed waste will be 503-326-3685
Plant), OR disposed offsite at a landfill. ROD Amendment to be issued in
(03/29/96) 1998.
10 Union Pacific Railroad Tire Bioremediation Bioremediation Reclassified technology. Brian McClure (ORDEQ)
Treatment, OR (in situ) (in situ) - 541-298-7255
(03/27/96) bioventing
Alan Goodman
503-326-3685
10 American Crossarm & Conduit, Solidification/ Yes Excavated and transported contaminated soil to a landfill in Lee Marshall
WA stabilization Arlington, OR. Flyash was added to absorb moisture. ROD 206-553-2723
(06/30/93) called for the material to be solidified off site.
D-37
10 Commencement Bay, South Soil vapor extraction Yes The plume was smaller than had been estimated; contamina- Cami Grandinetti
Tacoma Field, WA tion levels have decreased. SVE was discussed as an option 206-553-8696
(09/29/94) but never implemented.
10 Commencement Bay, South In situ air stripping Yes The plume smaller than had been estimated; contamination Cami Grandinetti
Tacoma Field, WA (air sparging) levels have decreased. Air sparging was never implemented, 206-553-8696
(09/29/94) and no ROD amendment or ESD was issued.
10 Harbor Island (Lead), WA Incineration Yes Contaminated soil was disposed of at a hazardous waste Keith A. Rose
(09/30/93) (off site) disposal facility. The technology was a contingency in the ROD. 206-553-7721
10 Queen City Farms, WA None Solidification/ This remedy was not listed in the ASR. Neil Thompson
(10/24/85) Stabilization 206-553-7177
10 Western Processing Co., Inc., Thermal desorption Yes Contaminated soil was excavated and transported off site to a Lee Marshall
WA landfill in Arlington, OR. The remedy was contingent and never 206-553-2723
implemented.
10 Western Processing Co., Inc. - Bioremediation Yes Natural attenuation already was occurring at site. Lee Marshall
ESD, WA (in situ) - other Bioremediation would not enhance the degradation of contami- 206-553-2723
(12/11/95) nants. An ESD will be issued to note the change.
10 Western Processing Co., Inc. - Incineration Yes Contaminated soil was excavated and disposed of off site. Lee Marshall
Phase I, WA (off site) Incineration was not required. The specified remedy in the ROD 206-553-2723
(08/05/84) was off-site disposal or incineration, so no amendment or ESD
was required.
10 Western Processing Co., Inc. - Solidification/ Yes The technology never was specified in the ROD as the Lee Marshall
Phase II, WA stabilization preferred remedy and therefore never was used at the site. 206-553-2723
(09/25/85) Flyash was added to the soil to absorb moisture for easy
transportation. The soil was excavated and disposed of off site.
D-38
Eighth Edition (November 1996): Additions, Changes, and Deletions from the Seventh Edition (September 1995)
The eighth edition of this report added information about 38 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial action under FY 1995 RODs and two treatment
technologies at non-Superfund DoD and DOE sites, and two innovative treatment technologies selected for two RCRA corrective actions. Other changes are listed below.

1 New Bedford, MA Incineration (on site) Yes Remedy canceled because of community concerns. No David Dickerson
(04/06/90) alternative selected at this time. 617-573-9632
1 Norwood PCBs, MA Solvent extraction Yes Remedy not implemented because of space constraints on-site, Bob Cianciarulo
(09/29/89) cost, and safety issues. New cleanup goals based on future land 617-573-5778
use and changes in risk assessment methodologies. Site will be
capped instead. ROD Amendment issued on 5/17/96.
1 Wells G&H, MA Incineration (on site) Incineration Remedy changed to off-site incineration because of community Mary Garren
(09/14/89) (off site) concerns. Explanation of significant difference (ESD) signed 617-573-9613
04/25/91.
Paula Fitzsimmons (MA)
617-223-5572
1 Wells G&H, OU1, MA Soil vapor extraction Soil vapor Yes Adding air sparging to existing SVE project to enhance pump- Mary Garren
(09/14/89) extraction and in and-treat. Conducting SVE on a new area (New England 617-573-9613
situ air sparging Plastics). ESD to be issued.
1 Davis Liquid Waste, RI Incineration (on site) Thermal Thermal desorption cheaper and more effective based on Neil Handler
(09/29/87) desorption performance data. ESD signed on 7/19/96. 617-543-9636
2 Brook Industrial Park, OU 1, Incineration (on site) Yes Misinterpretation of ROD. Will conduct off-site incineration or Donna Vizian
NJ disposal. 212-637-4295
(09/30/94)
2 De Rewal Chemical, NJ Incineration (on site) Yes Remedy changed to off-site disposal because more cost- Romona Pezzella
(09/29/89) effective. Much less volume of contaminated material than 212-637-4385
originally projected.
2 Lipari Landfill, NJ Incineration (on site) Thermal ROD specified thermal treatment of marsh sediments. Fred Cataneo
(07/11/88) desorption* Thermal desorption was selected as the treatment. 212-637-4428
2 Applied Environmental Bioventing Yes Misinterpretation of ROD. Maria Jon

Services, OU 1, NY 212-637-3967
(06/24/91)
Gerald Ridder (NY)
518-457-0927
D-39
Eighth Edition (November 1996)(continued)
2 Circuitron Corporation, OU 1, Soil vapor extraction Yes Further investigation indicated that VOCs were below action Miko Fayon
NY levels. 212-637-4250
(03/29/91)
Thomas Simmons
(USACE)
816-426-2296
2 Love Canal, NY Incineration (on site) Incineration PRP was conducting on-site incineration at another site. Waste Damian Duda
(10/1/87) (off site) was transported to that site for incineration. ESD issued 11/96. 212-637-4269
Doug Carbarini
212-637-4263
2 Sarney Farm, NY Incineration (on site) Thermal Misinterpretation of the ROD. Kevin Willis
(09/27/90) desorption* 212-637-4271
3 Delaware Sand & Gravel, DE Incineration (on site) Soil vapor Remedy was revised to address previously unrecognized site Eric Newman
(04/22/88) extraction* and conditions. ROD amendment signed on 09/30/93. SVE 215-566-3237
bioremediation subsequently changed to bioventing.
(in situ)*
3 Southern Maryland Wood Incineration (on site) Thermal Remedy changed to thermal desorption, because of cost and Stephanie Dehnhard
Treating, MD desorption community concerns. ROD issued on 09/08/95. 215-566-3234
(06/29/88)
3 Eastern Diversified Metals, PA Incineration (on site) Incineration ROD specified on or off-site incineration. Off-site being Steven Donohue
(03/29/91) (off site) conducted because of reduced amount of material to be treated. 215-566-3215
3 MW Manufacturing, PA Incineration (on site) Yes Pilot-scale trial burn could not achieve emission standards. Bhupi Khona
(06/29/90) Remedy to be determined; considering solidification/ stabiliza- 215-566-3213
tion at this time.
3 Sagertown Industrial, PA Incineration (on site) Incineration Remedy changed because of cost and faster treatment time. Steven Donohue
(01/29/93) (off site) ESD signed on 03/09/95. 215-566-3215
3 Whitmoyer Laboratories, OU 2, Incineration (on site) Incineration Remedy changed because the volume of wastes was less than Chris Corbet
PA (off site) originally projected. ESD signed on 12/28/94. 215-566-3220
(12/17/90)
D-40
3 Rentokil, VA Thermal desorption Yes Groundwater modeling indicated that there would be no Andrew Palestini
(06/22/93) further groundwater contamination if source soils were left 215-597-1286
in place. Site will be capped. ROD amendment issued on
8/27/96.
3 Saunders Supply Co., 0U 1, VA Dechlorination and Thermal Incineration Remedy changed to off-site incineration due to Andrew Palestini
(09/30/91) desorption (off site) implementability, short-term effectiveness, and cost. ROD 215-597-1286
Amendment issued on 9/27/96.
3 Ordnance Works Disposal, Incineration (on site) Yes Bioremediation Remedy changed because of community concerns. ROD Melissa Whittington
WV (03/31/88) (ex situ)* amended in 1/89. 215-566-3235
4 Ciba-Geigy (McIntosh Plant), Thermal desorption Incineration Treatability study showed that incineration was more cost- Charles L. King, Jr.
OU 2, AL (on site)* effective. 404-562-8931
(09/30/91)
4 Ciba-Geigy (McIntosh Plant), Flushing (in situ) Yes Treatability study showed percolation from precipitation was Charles L. King, Jr.
OU 2, AL just as effective. Minimal benefit would be gained from 404-562-8931
(09/30/91) flushing (in situ).
4 Ciba-Geigy (McIntosh Plant), Thermal desorption Incineration Treatability study showed that incineration was more cost- Charles L. King, Jr.
OU 4, AL (on site) effective. 404-562-8931
(07/14/92)
4 Ciba-Geigy (McIntosh Plant), Flushing (in situ) Yes Treatability study showed percolation from precipitation was Charles L. King, Jr.
OU 4, AL just as effective. Minimal benefit would be gained from 404-562-8931
(07/14/92) flushing (in situ).
4 Mowbray Engineering, AL Incineration (on site) Yes Solidification/ Remedy changed because of cost. Tim Woolheater
(09/25/86) stabilization 404-347-2643
4 American Creosote Works, Surfactant flushing - Yes Determined that pump-and-treat alone would be effective. Mark Fite
Inc., OU 2, FL groundwater 404-562-8927
(02/03/94)
4 Zellwood Groundwater, FL Incineration (on site) Solidification/ Remedy changed because of community concerns and because Pam Scully
(12/17/87) stabilization* the state would not concur with incineration. ROD amendment 404-347-6246
issued on 03/01/90.
D-41
4 Mathis Brothers Landfill (South Incineration (on site) Incineration Remedy changed because of community concerns, cost- Charles L. King.Jr.
Marble Top Road), GA (off-site) and effectiveness, and decreased waste volume from original 404-562-8931
(03/24/93) bioremediation ROD. Bioremediation will treat dicamba wastes. Incineration
(ex-situ)* (off site) will treat all other wastes.
4 Smith’s Farm Incineration (on site) Dechlorination*, Remedy changed because of community concerns. Antonio DeAngelo
Brooks, KY thermal desorp- Amended remedy is dechlorination and thermal desorption 404-562-8826
(09/29/89) tion* and, followed by solidification/stabilization. ROD amendment
Solidification/ issued on 09/30/91.
stabilization*
4 Aberdeen Pesticide Dump Incineration (on site) Thermal Remedy changed because of community concerns, cost, and Kay Crane
Fairway, NC desorption * a preference for using an innovative technology. ROD 404-562-8795
(06/30/89) amendment signed on 09/30/91.
Randy McElveen (NC)
919-733-2801
4 Cape Fear Wood Preserving, Bioremediation (ex situ) - Yes Original remedy called for soil washing followed by slurry-phase Jon Bornholm
NC slurry-phase bioremediation of fines, based on an 80% reduction in volume of 404-562-8820
(06/30/89) contaminated soil achieved by soil washing. Soil washing
bidders claimed a 96% reduction in volume of contaminated soil,
thus making slurry-phase bioremediation too costly for the 0.4%
of contaminated fines remaining.
4 Geiger/C&M Oil, SC Incineration (on site) Solidification/ Further investigation found that organics were not present at Sherry Panabaker
(06/01/87) stabilization* their previous levels. ROD amendment issued 07/13/93. 404-562-8810
4 Para-Chem Southern, Inc., SC Bioremediation (ex situ) - Yes Remedy canceled because of concerns about feasibility, Judy Canova
(09/27/93) slurry-phase performance, and treatment time. Will excavate and dispose 803-896-4046
off-site.
4 American Creosote Works Incineration (on site) Yes Action completed as a removal by excavating and disposing off Femi Akindale
(Jackson Plant), TN site. ESD issued in 1992. 404-347-7791
(01/05/89)
5 Acme Solvent Reclaiming, IL Incineration (on site) Yes PRPs excavated and disposed of soil off-site. Deborah Orr
(09/27/85) 312-886-7576
5 Fort Wayne Reduction, IN Incineration (on site) Incineration Remedy changed to ROD contingency off-site incineration Fred Mickey
(08/26/88) (off site) because of community concerns, cost, and implementability. 312-886-5123
D-42
5 Ninth Avenue Dump, IN Incineration (on site) Soil vapor Remedy changed because of cost. Soil vapor extraction will Bernard Schorle
(06/30/89) extraction treat larger area than soil flushing remedy that was completed 312-886-4746
in 1994. Soil flushing removed most of the heavier contami-
nants. ROD amendment signed on 9/13/94.
5 Bofors Nobel, MI Incineration (on site) Yes Remedy changed from on-site incineration to disposal in an on- John Fagiolo
(09/17/90) site landfill because of cost. Volume of material to be treated 312-886-0800
much greater than expected. ROD amendment signed on 07/22/
92. Now proposing containment via slurry wall because of cost.
5 Forest Waste Products, MI Incineration (on site) Incineration Original ROD specified either on-site or off-site incineration as Beth Reiner
(03/31/88) (off site) the remedy. ESD signed on 05/04/93. 312-886-6337
5 Ott/Story/Cordova Chemical, Thermal desorption Yes The state revised the cleanup goals. Consequently, the John Fagiolo
MI amount of soils requiring remediation was reduced. Also 312-886-0800
(09/27/93) shallow groundwater present at the site would continue to
contaminate clean backfilled soil. Cost was also a factor. No
alternative remedy has been selected at this time.
5 Springfield Township Dump, MI Incineration (on site) Yes Remedy canceled because of community concerns. ROD Kashual Khanna
(09/29/90) amendment projected to be issued in Fall 1996. Remedy to be 312-353-2663
determined.
5 Thermo-Chem, Inc., OU 1, MI Soil vapor extraction Air sparging Added to enhance SVE system. Jim Hahnenberg
(09/30/91) 312-353-4213
5 Arrowhead Refinery Co., MN Incineration (on site) Solvent extraction* Remedy was changed to solvent extraction because of cost- Edwin Smith
(09/30/86) effectiveness and short-term effectiveness. ROD amendment 312-353-6571
signed on 02/09/94.
5 Ritari Post and Pole, OU 1, MN Incineration (on site) Incineration Misinterpretation of ROD. Remedy now being reconsidered. Ramon Torres
(06/30/94) (off site) Capping is a contingency. 312-886-3010
5 Fields Brook, OH Incineration (on site) Incineration Remedy changed because of cost, community concerns, and Ed Hanlon
(09/30/86) (off site) reduced concentration. ESD issued on 8/15/97. 312-353-9228
5 Pristine, OH Incineration (on site) Soil vapor Misinterpretation of ROD specified in situ vitrification. This Tom Alcamo
(12/31/87) extraction* remedy was changed to SVE and thermal destruction. Thermal 312-886-7278
and thermal desorption was selected as the thermal destruction technology.
destruction* ROD amendment issued on 03/30/90. (see below)
5 Pristine, OH Incineration (on site) Thermal 1990 ROD amendment specified thermal destruction. Thermal Tom Alcamo
(03/30/90) (Amendment) desorption* desorption selected as the thermal destruction technology. 312-886-7278
D-43
5 Skinner Landfill OU 2, OH Soil vapor extraction Yes Further investigation through a feasibility study indicated that Jamey Bell
(06/04/93) the site conditions would not be amenable to SVE. Will cap 312-886-6436
instead.
5 Van Dale Junkyard, OH Bioremediation (in situ) - Yes Predesign sampling indicated that contaminant levels had Lawrence Schmitt
(03/31/94) other decreased. No active bioremediation is occurring. The site 312-353-6565
will be capped and will rely on natural attenuation with
monitoring. James Campbell
412-351-6132
5 Zanesville Well Field, OH Soil vapor extraction Air sparging Implemented by PRPs to accelerate groundwater remediation. Dave Wilson
(09/30/91) 312-886-1476
5 Zanesville Well Field, OH Soil washing Yes Will excavate and dispose off-site because soil volume was Dave Wilson
(09/30/91) much smaller that originally projected. 312-886-1476
5 City Disposal Corporation Soil vapor extraction Yes Rise in groundwater table prevented implementation of SVE. Russ Hart
Landfill, WI Remedy changed to capping with gas collection. 312-886-4844
(09/28/92)
Mike Schmoller (WI)
608-275-3303
5 Hagen Farm, Groundwater Bioremediation (in situ) - Yes Treatability studies indicated that bioenhancement would not Steve Padovani
Control OU, WI groundwater provide any additional benefit. Relying on natural attenuation. 312-353-6755
(09/30/92) Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) signed on 08/27/96.
6 Vertac, AR Incineration (on site) Yes Incinerator would not function properly. Community preferred Phillip Allen
(09/27/90) landfilling and was cheaper. ROD amendment issued 214-665-8516
9/17/96.
6 Gulf Coast Vacuum Services, Incineration (on site) Bioremediation Agreement between PRPs and EPA to meet the treatment Kathleen Aisling
OU 1, LA (ex situ)- standards using bioremediation. 214-665-8509
(09/30/92) land treatment
6 MOTCO, TX Incineration (on site) Incineration Remedy changed because of contractor problems and cost. Mary Ann Abramson
(03/15/85) (off site) ESD has been issued. 214-665-6754
6 Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc. Air sparging Bioremediation Bioremediation thought to be more effective. Chris Villarreal
OU 2, TX (in situ)- 214-665-6758
(09/06/91) groundwater
D-44
7 People’s Natural Gas, IA Bioremediation (in situ) - Air sparging Diana Engeman
(06/16/91) other 913-551-7797
7 Hastings Groundwater Incineration (on site) Incineration Remedy changed because volume of soil was less than Ron King
Contamination (East (off site) originally projected. More cost-effective to incinerate off-site. 913-551-7063
Industrial), NE ROD amendment issued 02/28/95.
(09/28/90)
7 Sherwood Medical, NE Thermal desorption Soil vapor Soil vapor extraction (ex situ) will be more cost-effective. ESD Steve Auchterlonie
(09/28/93) extraction (ex situ) issued 09/05/95. 913-551-7778
7 Valley Park TCE Site, In situ air stripping Yes Air sparging would be difficult to implement and nearby Steve Auchterlonie
Wainwright OU, MO residences might be adversely affected. Will do pump-and-treat 913-551-7778
(09/29/94) instead. ESD issued on 04/02/96.
Dave Mosby (MO)
573-751-1288
7 Valley Park TCE Site, Thermal desorption Soil vapor Soil vapor extraction (ex situ) more cost-effective. ESD issued Steve Auchterlonie
Wainwright OU, MO extraction on 04/02/96. 913-551-7778
(09/24/94) (ex situ)*
Dave Mosby (MO)
573-751-1288
8 Broderick Wood Projects, CO Incineration (on site) Yes Incineration Remedy canceled based on new technical data and cost. Will Armando Saenz
(06/30/88) (off site)* excavate and recycle and incinerate off-site. ROD amendment 303-312-6559
signed on 09/24/91.
8 Lockheed/Martin Soil vapor extraction and Listing Remedial action being handled as a RCRA corrective action. George Dancik
(Denver Aerospace), CO thermal desorption as a 303-312-6935
(Remedial Action) Superfund
(09/24/90) remedial Charles Johnson (CO)
action has 303-692-3348
been
deleted.
8 Idaho Pole Company, MT Flushing (in situ) Bioremediation Further investigation indicated flushing (in situ) would not be Jim Harris
(09/28/92) (ex situ) - effective. Soils were excavated and will be treated as part of 406-441-1150
land treatment* the land treatment remedy. ESD issued on 05/21/96.
D-45
8 Summitville Mine, OU 1, CO This is a FY 1995 ROD and Yes When heap leach pad rinsed with water, cyanide concentra- James Hanley
(12/15/94) was not listed in the seventh tions were reduced and bioremediation was not necessary. 303-312-6725
edition. The FY 1995 ROD ESD issued on 6/4/97.
specified bioremediation Victor Ketellepepper
(in situ) 303-312-6578
9 Motorola 52nd Street, AZ Soil vapor extraction Air sparging Fred Schauffler
(09/30/88) 415-744-2359
Mana Font
602-207-4194
9 Seal Beach Navy Weapons Soil vapor extraction Yes Research project, not a full-scale cleanup. Ken Reynolds
Station, IR Site 14, CA 619-532-2912
(DoD Action)
9 Hexcel, CA Air sparging, bioremediation Yes Hexcel was removed from the National Priorities List (NPL) on Mark Johnson
(09/21/93) (in situ) - groundwater, soil November 1, 1993. 510-286-0305
vapor extraction
9 Intel Mountain View (355 Soil vapor extraction Yes Groundwater table rose, leaving too little unsaturated soil to Elizabeth Adams
Middlefield Road), CA warrant SVE. Soils were excavated and aerated. 415-744-2235
(06/09/89)
Michael Maley
510-450-6159
9 Koppers Company, Inc. Soil washing Yes Further analysis determined soil washing would be ineffective, Fred Schauffler
(Oroville Plant), CA more dioxins discovered and land use scenario changed. Soil will 415-744-2359
(09/13/89) be disposed of in a landfill with the potential for two percent of the
most contaminated soil treated through solidification/stabilization.
ROD amendment issued on 8/29/96.
9 Koppers Company, Inc. Bioremediation Yes Presence of metals and dioxins made bioremediation infeasible, Fred Schauffler
(Oroville Plant), CA (in situ) - other and land use scenario changed. Soil will be disposed of in a 415-744-2359
(09/13/89) landfill with the potential for two percent of the most contami-
nated soil treated by solidification/stabilization. ROD amend-
ment issued on 8/29/96.
9 Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman Soil vapor extraction Air sparging Elizabeth Adams

(MEW) - Siemins/Sobrato (455 415-744-2235
& 487 Middlefield Road), CA
(06/30/93)
D-46
9 Van Waters and Rogers, CA Soil vapor extraction Yes Site was proposed for listing on the NPL but has been Belinda Wei
(09/30/91) removed. Responsibility was picked up under RCRA and 415-744-2280
subsequently dropped from RCRA authority.
Duazo Ricco
510-268-0837
10 Eielson AFB, OUs 3, 4, and 5, This is a FY 1995 ROD and Yes Remedy changed to institutional controls because there was Mary Jane Nearman
AK was not listed in the seventh not enough contamination present to warrant active 206-553-6642
(9/22/95) edition. The FY 1995 ROD remediation. Groundwater also was contained, preventing risk
specified bioventing and soil due to groundwater.
vapor extraction.
10 Idaho National Engineering Solvent extraction Vitrification Misinterpretation of the ROD. Mary Jane Nearman
Laboratory, Pit 9 (OU7-10), ID 206-553-6642
(09/23/93)
10 USDOE Hanford 100 Area, This is a FY95 ROD that Yes Remedy changed to on-site disposal because further Doug Sherwood
OUs 100-BC-1, 100-DR-1, 100- was not listed in the seventh investigation did not indicate that organics were present. 509-376-9529
HR-1, WA edition. The FY95 ROD
(9/27/95) specified thermal desorption Audrey Dove
for soil contaminated with 509-376-6865
organic compounds
D-47
Seventh Edition (September 1995): Additions, Changes, and Deletions from the Sixth Edition (September 1994)
The seventh edition of this report added information about 42 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial action under FY 1994 RODs and eight innovative
treatment technologies selected for seven RCRA corrective actions.
1 Linemaster Switch Corpora- Soil vapor extraction Dual-phase Groundwater also is being treated with this technology. Elise Jakabhazy
tion, CT extraction 617-573-5760
(07/21/93)
2 American Thermostat, NY Thermal desorption Thermal Project is being conducted in two phases. Phase 1 has been Christo Tsiamis
(06/29/90) desorption completed and is listed as a separate project. 212-637-4257
(phase 2)
2 GCL Tie and Treating, NY Bioremediation (ex situ) - Thermal Site is not amenable to composting because of the presence Joe Cosentino
(Removal Action) Composting desorption (being of long-chain PAHs and the time constraints of the removal 908-906-6983
implemented as a process. A treatability study achieved over 90% reduction but
remedial action little degradation of long chain carcinogenic hydrocarbons
with the ROD occurred.
signed 09/30/94)
2 General Motors Central Bioremediation (ex situ) - Thermal Both OUs were combined under the thermal desorption Lisa Jackson
Foundry Division (OU 1 and slurry-phase desorption remedy. ROD amended to combine both OUs under a 212-637-4274
OU 2), NY thermal desorption remedy.
(12/17/90) & (03/31/92)
2 Pasley Solvents and Flushing (in situ) and soil Air sparging Soil vapor SVE, in combination with air sparging, will eliminate the need Sherrel Henry
Chemicals, Inc., NY vapor extraction extraction and for soil flushing. ROD amendment was signed 05/22/95. 212-637-4273
(04/24/92) air sparging
3 Bendix, PA Soil vapor extraction Mechanical It was determined that SVE was not a viable remedy; soil was Jim Harper
(09/30/88) aeration too tightly compacted. No alternative has been selected. ESD 215-597-6906
issued on 11/22/95.
3 Brown’s Battery Breaking Site, Fuming gasification Plasma high- The name of the technology was changed to reflect the Richard Watman
OU 2, PA temperature treatment process more accurately. 215-566-3219
(07/02/92) metals recovery
4 Helena Chemical, SC Bioremediation (ex situ) Yes Incineration Technologies could not meet cleanup goal. Bernie Hayes
(09/08/93) and dechlorination (off site) 404-562-8822
5 Carter Industries, MI Thermal desorption Yes Thermal desorption was too costly (approximately $300 per cu Jon Peterson
(09/18/91) yd). It is less expensive to dispose of the wastes at TSCA 312-353-1264
landfill (approximately $186 per Ton).
D-48
Seventh Edition (September 1995) (Continued)
5 Cliffs/Dow Dump, MI Bioremediation (ex situ) Yes Remedy could not reduce concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene Ken Glatz
(09/27/89) to acceptable level. Contaminated soil was excavated and 312-886-1434
placed in a permitted landfill.
5 Electro-Voice, OU 1, MI Soil vapor extraction Air sparging Technology actually is a combination of SVE and air sparging Eugenia Chow
(06/23/92) called the Subsurface Volatilization and Ventilation SystemTM. 312-353-3156
5 Ionia City Landfill, MI Vitrification Yes Remedy was canceled. Conditions at the site had changed Michael Gifford
(09/29/89) (in situ) since 1989. Project was implemented as a time critical 312-886-7257
removal action.
5 Seymour Recycling, IN Bioremediation (in situ Yes Bioremediation of groundwater was not actively pursued. Jeff Gore
(09/30/86) groundwater) Contamination degraded through natural attenuation. 312-886-6552
5 Verona Well Field OU 2, MI Soil vapor extraction Soil vapor Conducting soil vapor extraction at two separate sites under Janice Bartlett
(06/28/91) extraction this ROD: Annex area and Paint shop area. Projects are listed 312-886-5438
as separate entries in the ASR seventh edition.
5 Wayne Reclamation and Soil vapor extraction Air sparging Air sparging was added under the existing ROD to treat Duane Heaton
Recycling, IN groundwater. 312-886-6399
(03/30/90)
6 Koppers/Texarkana, TX Soil washing Yes Volume of soil was not as large as originally had been Ursula Lennox
(09/23/88) projected. The small volume did not warrant bringing a soil 214-665-6743
washing unit on-site. Will excavate and dispose of soil off-
site.
6 Koppers/Texarkana, TX Flushing (in situ) Yes Flushing (in situ) was never intended as a treatment at the Ursula Lennox
(09/23/88) site. Misinterpretation of the ROD during ROD analysis. 214-665-6743
8 Chemical Sales Company (OU Soil vapor extraction Air sparging Air sparging was added under the existing ROD to treat Armando Saenz
1), CO (06/27/91) groundwater. 303-312-6559
8 Mouat Industries, MT Chemical treatment Yes Reducing chromium VI to chromium III not considered Ron Bertran
(Removal Action) innovative. 406-449-5720
D-49
9 Phoenix-Goodyear Airport Soil vapor extraction Soil vapor Site is divided into 2 areas: North area & South area. Each Craig Cooper
Area (North and South extraction area is listed as an individual project in the seventh edition 415-744-2370
Facilities), AZ ASR.
(09/26/89) Rusty Harris-Bishop
415-744-2365
Nancy Moore (AZ)

602-207-4180
9 Fairchild Semiconductor, CA Two listings for soil vapor Three more soil Soil vapor extraction systems are being implemented at 5 Elizabeth Adams
(06/30/89) extraction vapor extraction different areas at the site. 415-744-2235
projects
9 Indian Bend Wash, AZ Soil vapor extraction Four distinct SVE is being conducted at four distinct areas; Emily Roth
(09/27/93) areas using soil areas 6, 7, 8, and 12, at the site. Each site is considered as an 415-744-2247
vapor extraction individual project.
9 Intersil, CA Soil vapor extraction Site renamed to Intersil/Siemens (Intersil) Belinda Wei
(09/27/90) 415-744-2280
9 Solvent Service, CA Soil vapor extraction Soil vapor Project was changed from a Superfund remedial action to a Tony Mancini
(09/27/93) extraction under RCRA corrective action. 510-286-0825
RCRA corrective
action
10 Fairchild AFB Priority 1 OUS Soil vapor extraction Yes Remedy was not implemented because of the following Cami Grandinetti
(OU 1) Craig Rd Landfill, WA concerns: 206-553-8696
(02/13/93) •Generation of combustible gases
•Heterogeneous stratigraph
•Reluctance to put holes into the landfill, which could lead to
leaching of contaminants
10 Gould, Inc., OR (03/31/88) Soil washing Yes Will cap the landfill and conduct pump-and-treat operations. Chip Humphries
Remedy was shown to be ineffective due to varying site 503-326-2678
conditions and problems with the technology.
D-50
10 Naval Submarine Base, Soil washing Flushing (in situ) Will excavate and place soil in a lined pit. Soil will be sprayed Harry Craig
Bangor Site A, OU 1, WA with water and leachate and will be collected and treated. 503-326-3689
(12/10/91)
Craig Thompson (WA)
360-407-7234
Chris Drury (Navy)

206-396-0062
10 Union Pacific Railroad Sludge Flushing (in situ) Yes Remedy was not implemented. Excavation of sludge did not Ann Williamson
Pit, ID indicate that contaminants were present. Amended ROD was 206-553-2739
(09/10/91) signed 9/94. Will excavate and treat off-site, in addition to a
pump-and-treat operation. Clyde Cody (ID)
208-334-0556
10 Fort Lewis Military Res. Soil washing Thermal ROD specified soil washing or thermal desorption as the Bob Kievit
Landfill 4 and Solvent Refined desorption remedy. Thermal desorption was selected based on the 206-753-9014
Coal Plant, WA results of a treatability study.
(09/24/93)
10 Eielson Air Force Base, AK Bioremediaiton (in situ)- Soil vapor Soil vapor extraction written into ROD as a contingency. Mary Jane Nearman
(9/29/92) bioventing and soil vapor extraction 206-553-6642
extraction
Rielle Markey (AK)
907-451-2117
D-51
Sixth Edition (September 1994): Additions, Changes, and Deletions from the Fifth Edition (September 1993)
The sixth edition of this report added information about 53 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial action under FY 1993 RODs. Other changes are
listed below.
1 Union Chemical Co., OU 1, Thermal desorption Soil vapor It was determined that SVE would be the more cost-effective Terry Connelly
ME (12/27/90) (In situ) extraction of the two. ESD was signed April 1994. 617-573-9638
Christopher Rushton
(ME DEP)
207-287-2651
1 Tibbetts Road, NH Flushing (in situ) Yes Misinterpretation of ROD during ROD analysis. Soil was not Darryl Luce
(09/29/92) targeted for treatment. 617-573-5767
Mike Robinette (NH)

603-271-2014
2 Ewan Property, OU 2, NJ Soil washing and solvent Yes Reevaluation of site found significantly less contaminated soil Kim O’Connell
(09/29/88) extraction than originally had been estimated. Soil will be disposed of 212-637-4399
off-site. ESD was signed July 1994.
2 Naval Air Engineering Center, Flushing (in situ) Yes Misinterpretation of the ROD during ROD analysis. Jeff Gratz
OU 7, Interim Action, NJ 212-637-4320
(03/16/92)
Robert Wing
212-264-8670
2 Solvent Savers, NY Soil vapor extraction Yes Soil vapor extraction is a secondary remedy that may be used Lisa Wong
(09/28/90) instead of thermal desorption, the primary remedy, if 212-637-4267
treatability studies show it to be effective.
3 U.S. Titanium, VA Flushing (in situ) Neutralization Treatability studies indicated that the technology was not Vance Evans
(11/21/89) with lime feasible. ESD is under preparation. 215-597-8485
(ex situ)
Jeff Howard (VA)
804-762-4203
3 L.A. Clarke & Sons, OU 1 Bioremediation Yes Facility is no longer in operation, and excavation can be done. Andy Palestini
(Soils), VA (in situ) Remedies being considered include thermal desorption. 215-597-1286
(03/31/88)
D-52
Sixth Edition (September 1994)(continued)
3 L.A. Clarke & Sons, OU 1 Flushing (in situ) Yes Facility is no longer in operation, and remedies being Andy Palestini
(Soils), VA considered include thermal desorption. 215-597-1286
(03/31/88)
3 L.A. Clarke & Sons, Bioremediation Reuse off-site as Technology changed because of uncertainty about the ability Andy Palestini
Lagoon Sludge OU, VA (ex situ) fuel of bioremediation to reach treatment goals. ESD was signed 215-597-1286
(03/31/88) on 3/94.
3 Henderson Road, PA Soil vapor extraction Yes Conducted air injection only to facilitate pump-and-treat Joe McDowell
(06/30/88) system. Vapors were not extracted. Further investigation 215-566-3192
revealed that the vadose zone was not an area of concern.
4 Cabot Carbon/Koppers Bioremediation (in situ) - Yes Groundwater is not being treated; only soil is being treated. Patsy Goldberg
(Groundwater), FL groundwater 404-562-8543
(09/27/90)
4 Benfield Industries, NC Soil washing and Bioremediation Land treatment was determined to be a more cost-effective Jon Bornholm
(07/31/92) bioremediation (ex situ) (ex situ) - technology. 404-562-8820
(slurry-phase) land treatment
4 Charles Macon Lagoon, Bioremediation Yes Treatability study indicated that the technology could not treat Geizelle Bennett
Lagoon #10, NC (ex situ) the contaminants of concern because of materials problems. 404-562-8824
(09/31/91) Will excavate and dispose of wastes off-site. ROD amend-
ment was signed in 3/94. David Lown (NC)
919-733-2801
4 Palmetto Wood Preserving, Chemical treatment Yes Waste will be disposed of more cost-effectively off-site. Al Cherry
SC (09/30/87) 404-342-7791
4 Arlington Blending & Dechlorination Yes Another disposal method is likely to be used. Derek Matory
Packaging Co., OU 1, TN 404-562-8800
(06/28/91)
5 South Andover Salvage Yard, Bioremediation Yes Thermal treatment Technology changed to off-site thermal treatment (either Bruce Sypniewski
OU 2, MN (ex situ) thermal desorption or incineration) because of reduced 312-886-6189
(12/24/91) volume of contamination found during RD investigations.
ROD amendment was signed 5/31/94.
5 Allied Chem & Ironton Coke, Bioremediation Bioremediation Adding technology to treat more highly contaminated soil. Tom Alcamo
OU 2, OH (in situ) (ex situ) (magneti- ROD Amendment issued on 9/4/97. 312-886-7278
(12/28/90) cally enhanced
land farming)
D-53
5 Allied Chem & Ironton Coke, Bioremediation Yes Adding technology to treat more highly contaminated soil. Tom Alcamo
OU 2, OH (in situ) ROD Amendment issued on 9/4/97. 312-886-7278
(12/28/90)
5 United Scrap Lead/SIA, OH Soil washing Yes Determined to be too expensive. Soil disposed off-site if lead Anita Boseman
(09/30/88) levels above 1,550 ppm; containment of soil below this level. 312-886-6941
ROD amendment issued on 6/27/97.
Timothy Hull (OH)
513-285-6357
5 MacGillis and Gibbs Co./Bell Soil washing and Yes Incineration Incineration was contingency remedy in ROD. State had Daryl Owens
Lumber and Pole Co., MN bioremediation (ex situ) (on site) concerns about effective means of soil washing, and cost of 312-886-7089
(12/31/92) of fines incineration has decreased. ESD will be signed in fall 1994.
6 Fruitland Drum, NM Dechlorination Incineration Dechlorination is not being pursued because of cost Gregory Fife
(09/08/90) (off site) considerations. 214-655-6773
6 Holloman AFB, Main POL Bioremediation (in situ) - Yes Groundwater remediation is not planned for this area. Ron Stirling
Area, NM groundwater (USACE)
402-221-7664
6 Holloman AFB, Main POL Air sparging Yes Groundwater remediation is not planned for this area. Ron Stirling (USACE)
Area, NM 402-221-7664
6 South Valley, NM Soil vapor extraction Yes Determined there was insignificant concentration to warrant Bert Gorrod
(09/30/88) remediation. No further action. 214-655-6779
6 Tinker AFB (Soldier Creek Soil vapor extraction Yes Determined that SVE was not viable. No alternative has been Susan Webster
Bldg. 3001), OK selected. 214-655-6784
(08/16/90)
Major Richard
Ashworth (USAF)
405-734-3058
8 Rocky Mountain Arsenal, M-1 In situ Yes Remedy has been canceled because of problems with the Connally Mears
Basins (OU 16), CO vitrification contractor. New ROD is being negotiated. 303-293-1528
(02/26/90)
8 Portland Cement Co. (Kiln Dust Chemical treatment Yes Technology is not considered innovative. Mike McCeney
No. 2 and No. 3) OU2, UT 303-293-1526
(03/31/92)
D-54
9 Mesa Area Groundwater Soil vapor extraction Yes Site has been removed from National Priorities List (NPL), Maurice Chait
Contamination, AZ referred to the state 602-962-2187
(09/27/91)
Richard Oln
602-207-4176
9 Castle Air Force Base, OU 1, Bioremediation (in situ) - Yes Pump and treat Bench-scale test indicated that the technology did not work. David Roberts
CA (08/12/91) groundwater with air stripping No ESD or ROD amendment is being issued. 415-744-1487
Brad Hicks (USAF)

209-726-4841
9 Teledyne Semiconductors Soil vapor extraction Yes ROD was misinterpreted. SVE was intended only for Spectra Sean Hogan
(Spectra Physics), CA Physics, the adjacent site. 415-744-2233
(03/22/91)
Carla Dube
510-286-1041
9 FMC (Fresno), CA Soil washing Yes Soil washing did not work because the soil contained too Tom Dunkelman
(06/28/91) many fines. Thermal desorption and solidification and 415-744-2296
stabilization are being considered as possible remedies.
Mike Pfister (CA)
209-297-3934
9 Signetics (Advanced Micro Soil vapor extraction Yes Site is subject to a combined ROD for Signetics, AMD 901/ Darrin Swartz-Larson
Devices 901), CA 902 and TRW Microwave site. SVE is not being done at the 415-744-2233
(09/11/91) TRW OU. ROD was misinterpreted.
Kevin Graves (CA)
510-286-0435
9 Sacramento Army Depot, Soil washing Yes Technology canceled because of cost; solidification is being Marlin Mezquita
Oxidation Lagoons, OU 4, CA considered as an alternative. 415-744-2393
(09/30/92)
10 McChord AFB Washrack Bioremediation Yes Additional studies showed that treatment is not needed. Marie Jennings
Treatment Area, AK (ex situ) 206-553-1173
(09/28/92)
D-55
Fifth Edition (September 1993): Additions, Changes, and Deletions from the Fourth Edition (October 1992)
The fifth edition of this report added information about 49 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial action under FY 1992 RODs and 15 innovative
treatment technologies used in removal actions. Other changes are listed below.
1 Re-Solve, MA Dechlorination Yes Pilot study showed that dechlorination increased the volume Joe Lemay
(09/24/87) and that the waste still required incineration. An ESD to 617-573-9622
incinerate residuals off-site is in peer review.
1 Pinette’s Salvage Yard, ME Solvent extraction Yes Will incinerate off-site. Ross Gilleland
(05/30/89) 617-573-5766
2 Naval Air Engineering Center, Flushing (in situ) Yes Remedy involves pump-and-treat system, with on-site Jeff Gratz
OU 1, NJ discharge. Soil is not being targeted. 212-637-4320
(02/04/91)
(02/04/91)
(09/30/91)
2 Caldwell Trucking, NJ Thermal desorption Yes Thermal desorption is not necessary because highly Ed Finnerty
(09/25/86) contaminated soil will be incinerated off-site. Remainder of 212-637-4367
soil will be stabilized. ESD issued.
3 Tobyhanna Army Depot, PA Bioremediation (in situ) Yes Will conduct ex situ passive volatilization. Drew Lausch
(Non-Superfund project) 215-597-3161
Ross Mantione
(Tobyhanna)
717-894-6494
4 Smith’s Farm Brooks, KY Dechlorination Thermal Will alter chemistry to achieve dechlorination during thermal Tony DeAngelo
(09/30/91) desorption desorption. 404-562-8826
4 American Creosote Works, FL Soil washing Yes Bench-scale study of soil washing showed that the concentra- Mark Fite
(09/28/89) tions of carcinogenic PAHs were not reduced adequately. 404-562-8927
Dioxins also were discovered at much higher concentrations.
D-56
Fifth Edition (September 1993) (continued)
4 American Creosote Works, FL Bioremediation (ex situ) Yes Bench-scale study of bioremediation (ex situ) showed that the Mark Fite
(09/28/89) concentrations of carcinogenic PAHs were not reduced 404-562-8927
adequately. Dioxins also were discovered at much higher
concentrations.
4 Hollingsworth Solderless, FL Soil vapor Listed as soil aeration in the third edition. John Zimmerman
(04/10/86) extraction 404-562-8936
5 Cliffs/Dow Dump, MI Bioremediation (in situ) Yes Bioremediation (in situ) was a misinterpretation of the ROD. Ken Glatz
(09/27/89) All soil will be excavated and treated by bioremediation (ex 312-886-1434
situ).
6 Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard, Dechlorination Yes Remedy has been suspended because of difficulties in Mike Overbay
OK implementation and escalating cost; Actual cost was double 214-655-8512
(09/27/90) the cost projected in ROD. ROD amendment to cap in place
is being issued.
7 Fairfield Coal & Gas, IA Bioremediation (in situ) Yes Pilot study showed in situ bioremediation was too costly. It Bruce Morrison
(09/21/90) appears that the present pump-and-treat system will achieve 913-551-7755
cleanup levels.
8 Sand Creek Industrial OU 5, Soil washing Thermal Soil washing did not meet performance standards and was Erna Acheson
CO (09/28/90) desorption expensive. ROD amendment was issued in early September 303-312-6753
1993.
9 Koppers Company (Oroville), Bioremediation (ex situ) Yes Misinterpretation of ROD during ROD analysis. Fred Schlauffler
CA 415-744-2359
(04/04/90)
9 Signetics (AMD 901) TRW OU, Soil vapor Remedy added. Joe Healy
CA extraction 415-744-2331
(09/11/91)
9 Teledyne Semiconductors, CA Soil vapor Dropped by mistake from fourth edition. Kevin Graves (CA)
(03/22/91) extraction 510-286-0435
Sean Hogan
415-744-2233
D-57
Fifth Edition (September 1993) (continued)
10 IDEL Warm Waste Pond, ID Acid extraction Yes Treatability study of acid extraction did not achieve good Linda Meyer
(12/05/91) extraction rates. Did not reduce the volume of waste. Will 206-553-6636
excavate, consolidate, and cap.
Nolan Jenson (DOE)
208-526-0436
10 IDEL Warm Waste Pond, ID Soil washing Yes Treatability study of soil washing did not achieve acceptable Linda Meyer
(12/05/91) results. Did not reduce the volume of waste. Will excavate, 206-553-6636
consolidate, and cap.
Nolan Jenson (DOE)
208-526-0436
D-58
Fourth Edition (October 1992): Additions, Changes, and Deletions from the Third Edition (April 1992)
The fourth edition of this report added information about 10 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial action under FY 1992 RODs and 21 innovative
treatment technologies implemented at non-Superfund sites. Other changes are listed below.

REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 3RD EDITION) ADDED DELETED CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
2 Lipari Landfill Marsh Thermal Missed during original ROD analysis. Tom Graff
Sediment, NJ desorption 816-426-2296
(07/11/88)
2 GE Wiring Devices, PR Thermal desorption Soil washing Caroline Kwan

(09/30/88) 212-637-4275
5 University of Minnesota, MN Thermal desorption Yes Incineration An ESD was issued in August 1991 to change remedy to Darrel Owens
(06/11/90) (in the fifth edition) thermal desorption or incineration. Incineration was chosen 312-886-7089
because it was the less expensive of the two.
6 Sol Lynn/Industrial Dechlorina- Dechlorination Yes Discontinued because of difficulties in implementation. John Meyer
tion Transformers, TX 214-667-6742
(03/25/88)
6 Koppers/Texarkana, TX Soil washing In situ flushing Remedy added by ROD amendment. Ursula Lennox
(09/23/88) 214-655-6735
9 Poly Carb, NV (Removal) Bioremediation Bioremediation Reclassified technology. Bob Mandel

(in situ) (ex situ) 415-744-2290
9 Teledyne Semiconductors, CA Soil vapor extraction Yes Mistakenly deleted from report. Sean Hogan
(03/22/91) 415-744-2233
10 Gould Battery, OR Soil washing Soil washing Missed during original ROD analysis. Chip Humphries
(03/31/88) 503-326-2678
D-59
Third Edition (April 1992): Additions, Changes, and Deletions from the Second Edition (September 1991)
The third edition of this report added information to the 70 innovative treatment technologies selected for remedial actions under FY 1991 RODs. Other changes are
listed below.
SITE NAME, STATE TECHNOLOGY 3RD EDITION

REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 2ND EDITION) ADDED DELETED CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
2 Marathon Battery, NY Thermal desorption Yes During design, soil gas concentration at hot spots was below Pam Tames
(09/30/88) state standards. Groundwater monitoring will continue. 212-264-1036
2 Goose Farm, NJ Flushing (in situ) Yes Incorrectly classified. A pump-and -treat system with Laura Lombardo
(09/27/85) reinjection of treated water is being used. 212-264-6989
2 GE Wiring Services, PR Soil washing Thermal desorption Possible pre-wash of debris with surfactants. Caroline Kwan
(09/30/88) 212-637-4275
4 Coleman-Evans Wood Soil washing Yes Incineration Problems due to the presence of furans; incineration is likely. Tony Best
Preserving, FL 404-347-2643
(09/26/90)
5 Sangamo/Crab Orchard In situ vitrification Thermal desorption ROD specified the remedy as in situ vitrification or incinera- Nan Gowda
National Wildlife Refuge, IL tion; incineration was chosen. 312-353-9236
(08/01/90)
5 Anderson Development, MI In situ vitrification Yes Because of concern on the part of the community, the remedy Jim Hahnenberg
(09/28/90) was changed. A ROD amendment was signed on 9/30/91, 312-353-4213
and an ESD was signed on 10/2/92.
5 U.S. Aviex, MI Flushing (in situ) Yes Cleanup levels were reached by natural attenuation. Robert Whippo
(09/07/88) 312-886-4759
6 Atchison/Santa Fe/Clovis, NM Bioremediation (ex situ) Yes Ky Nichols

(09/23/88) 214-655-6783
6 Crystal Chemical, TX In situ vitrification Yes Remedy was reconsidered after commercial availability of the Lisa Price
(09/27/90) technology was delayed. Revised remedy will consist of 214-655-6735
capping and off-site disposal and consolidation of soils.
9 Solvent Service, CA Bioremediation (in situ) Yes ROD was misinterpreted during ROD analysis. Kevin Graves
(09/27/90) 510-286-0435
Steve Morse (CA)

570-286-0304
D-60
Third Edition (April 1992) (continued)
SITE NAME, STATE TECHNOLOGY 3RD EDITION
REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 2ND EDITION) ADDED DELETED CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
9 Poly Carb, NV (Removal) Bioremediation (ex situ) Bioremediation Reclassified technology. Bob Mandel
(in situ) 415-744-2290
D-61
Second Edition (September 1991): Additions, Changes, and Deletions from the First Edition (January 1991)
The second edition of this report added information about 45 treatment technologies selected for remedial actions in RODs signed during fiscal year (FY) 1990 and 18
innovative treatment technologies used in removal actions. Other changes are listed below.
SITE NAME, STATE TECHNOLOGY 2ND EDITION

REGION (ROD DATE) (LISTED IN 1ST EDITION) ADDED DELETED CHANGED TO COMMENTS CONTACTS/PHONE
1 Re-Solve, MA Chemical extraction Yes Dechlorination Reclassified technology. Lorenzo Thantu

(09/24/87) 212-637-4240
2 GE Wiring Services, PR Chemical treatment Soil washing Reclassified technology. Caroline Kwan
(09/30/88) 212-637-4275
2 SMS Instruments (Deer Park), Chemical treatment ROD was misinterpreted during ROD analysis. Miko Fayon
NY (09/29/89) 212-637-4250
3 Leetown Pesticides, WV Bioremediation Yes No further action. Risk was re-evaluated and it was Andy Palestini
(03/31/86) determined that risk was not sufficient for remedial action. 215-597-1286
Philip Rotstein
215-566-3232
3 Harvey-Knott Drum, DE Flushing (in situ) Yes (changed During remedial design, sampling indicated VOCs were no Kate Lose
(09/30/85) to soil vapor longer present in the soils. Heavy metals remained at the 215-566-3240
extraction in surface. An ESD was issued in December 1992. Remedy will
third edition) consist of capping the site.
6 Sol Lynn/Industrial Thermal desorption Dechlorination Reclassified technology. John Meyer

Transformers, TX 214-665-6742
(03/25/88)
10 Northwest Transformer, WA In situ vitrification Yes Technology dropped because commercial availability was Christine Psyk
(09/15/89) delayed. 206-553-6519
D-62
RODs Selecting Monitored Natural Attenuation
Region Site Name State ROD Date Region Site Name State ROD Date
1 Atlas Tack Corp. Superfund Site MA 3/10/2000 2 NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER NJ 1/5/1995
1 Barkhamsted-New Hartford Landfill CT 9/28/2001 2 Naval Air Engineerining Station Areas I & J
1 BRUNSWICK NAVAL AIR STATION ME 9/30/1994 groundwater OU 26 NJ 9/27/1999
1 Brunswick Naval Air Station Site 9 OU6 ME 9/28/1999 2 Naval Weapons Station Earle – OU 2, Site 19 NJ 9/25/1997
1 BURGESS BROTHERS LANDFILL – OU 01 VT 9/25/1998 2 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE (SITE A) – OU 03 NJ 9/29/1998
1 Cannon Engineering MA 3/31/1988 2 PLATTSBURGH AIR FORCE BASE NY 3/31/1995
1 COAKLEY LANDFILL NH 9/30/1994 2 Preferred Plating Corporation (ROD Amendment) NY 9/30/1997
1 Dover Municipal Landfill NH 9/10/1991 2 Renora NJ 9/29/1987
1 FLETCHER’S PAINT WORKS & STORAGE – OU 01 NH 9/30/1998 2 Ringwood Mines/Landfill NJ 9/29/1988
1 FORT DEVENS – OU 05 MA 2/18/1998 2 Robintech, Inc./National Pipe Company NY 7/25/1997
1 Fort Devens, Areas of Contamination (AOC) 43G and 43J MA 10/17/1996 2 ROSEN BROTHERS SCRAP YARD/DUMP – OU 01 NY 3/23/1998
1 Gallup’s Quarry CT 9/30/1997 2 Sarney Farm NY 9/27/1990
1 Mottolo Pig Farm NH 3/29/1991 2 Tutu Wellfield VI 8/5/1996
1 Natick Laboratory Army Research, Development, and 2 Woodland Routes 72 Dump and 532 Dump NJ 7/1/1999
Engineering Center MA 9/19/2001 2 YORK OIL CO. – OU 02 NY 9/29/1998
1 NEW HAMPSHIRE PLATING CO. – OU 01 NH 9/28/1998 3 ALLEGANY BALLISTICS LABORATORY (USNAVY) –
1 PEASE AIR FORCE BASE – OU 4 NH 6/26/1995 OU 05 WV 6/30/1998
1 PEASE AIR FORCE BASE – OU 4 NH 9/26/1995 3 BELL LANDFILL PA 9/30/1994
1 PEASE AIR FORCE BASE – OU 6 NH 9/18/1995 3 DOVER AIR FORCE BASE – OU 10 DE 9/26/1995
1 Peterson/Puritan RI 9/30/1993 3 DOVER AIR FORCE BASE – OU 11 DE 9/26/1995
1 Picillo Farm RI 9/27/1993 3 Dover Air Force Base, Fire Training Area 3,
1 PSC Resources MA 9/15/1992 East Management Unit DE 9/30/1997
1 Saco Municipal Landfill ME 9/29/2000 3 Dover Air Force Base, Landfill 13, East Management Unit DE 9/30/1997
1 Savage Municipal Water Supply NH 9/27/1991 3 Dover Air Force Base, Liquid Waste Disposal Area 14
1 TIBBETTS ROAD – OU 01 NH 9/28/1998 and Landfill 15, Area 1, East Management Unit DE 9/30/1997
1 Town Garage Radio Beacon NH 9/30/1992 3 DOVER GAS LIGHT CO DE 8/16/1994
1 West Site/Hows Corner Superfund Site ME 9/24/2002 3 East Mt. Zion PA 6/29/1990
1 Western Sand & Gravel RI 4/16/1991 3 MALVERN TCE – OU 01 PA 11/26/1997
2 Carroll and Dubies Sewage Disposal NY 9/30/1996 3 Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers MD 12/31/1990
2 Conklin Dumps NY 3/29/1991 3 New Castle Spill DE 9/28/1989
2 DUPONT /NECCO PARK – OU 01 NY 9/18/1998 3 OHIO RIVER PARK – OU 03 PA 9/17/1998
2 Forest Glen Subdivision Ous 2 & 3 NY 9/30/1999 3 Old City of York Landfill PA 3/31/2000
2 Global Sanitary Landfill – OU 2 NJ 9/29/1997 3 OSBORNE LANDFILL – OU 02 PA 12/30/1997
2 GOLDISC RECORDINGS, INC. – OU 02 NY 9/30/1998 3 Rodale Manufacturing Co. Inc. Site OU 1 PA 9/30/1999
2 Islip Municipal Sanitary Landfill NY 9/30/1992 3 The Crater Resources Superfund Site PA 9/27/2000
2 Johnstown City Landfill NY 3/31/1993 3 Tobyhanna Army Depot PA 9/28/2000
2 Jones Chemicals, Inc. NY 9/27/2000 3 Tobyhanna Army Depot – OU OU 1, Areas A & B PA 9/30/1997
2 JUNCOS LANDFILL PR 10/5/1993 3 Westline PA 6/29/1988
2 Kin-Buc Landfill NJ 9/28/1992 3 Woodlawn Landfill Site MD 9/30/1999
2 Malta Rocket Fuel Area NY 7/13/1996 4 Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps OU 5 NC 6/4/1999
2 Marathon Battery NY 9/30/1988 4 AGRICO CHEMICAL CO. FL 8/18/1994
E-1
RODs Selecting Monitored Natural Attenuation (continued)
4 Anodyne FL 6/17/1993 4 SAVANNAH RIVER SITE (USDOE) – OU 27 SC 8/14/1998
4 Arlington Blending and Packaging (ROD Amendment) TN 7/24/1997 4 Solitron Microwave FL 11/1/2000
4 B&B CHEMICAL CO., INC. FL 9/12/1994 4 STANDARD AUTO BUMPER CORP. FL 12/10/1993
4 BMI-TEXTRON FL 8/11/1994 4 TAYLOR ROAD LANDFILL FL 9/29/1995
4 Camp Lejeune Military Reservation NC 9/26/2000 4 Townsend Saw Chain Co. SC 12/19/1996
4 CECIL FIELD NAVAL AIR STATION – OU 06 FL 9/25/1998 4 WHITEHOUSE OIL PITS – OU 01 FL 9/24/1998
4 CECIL FIELD NAVAL AIR STATION – OU 08 FL 8/27/1998 4 Wingate Road Municipal Incinerator Dump and Landfill FL 5/14/1996
4 Cecil Field Naval Air Station – OU 2 FL 6/24/1996 4 Yellow Water Road Dump FL 6/30/1992
4 Cecil Field Naval Air Station (Site 8) OU 3 FL 8/25/1999 4 Zellwood Ground Water Contamination Site FL 8/23/2000
4 Cecil Field Naval Air Station OU 7 FL 5/12/1999 5 A & F Materials Reclaiming IL 8/14/1986
4 Cedartown Industries GA 5/7/1993 5 Adams County Quincy Landfill #2 & #3 IL 9/30/1993
4 CEDARTOWN MUNICIPAL LANDFILL GA 11/2/1993 5 AGATE LAKE SCRAPYARD MN 1/13/1994
4 Cherry Point Marine Air Corps Station OU 2 NC 9/29/1999 5 ALBION SHERIDAN TOWNSHIP LANDFILL MI 3/28/1995
4 Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station NC 10/24/2000 5 Alsco Anaconda OH 9/30/1992
4 Chevron Chemical Company FL 5/22/1996 5 Bendix Corp/Allied Automotives Site MI 9/30/1997
4 DAVIE LANDFILL FL 8/11/1994 5 Charlevoix Municipal Well Field MI 9/30/1985
4 DAVIS PARK ROAD TCE – OU 01 NC 9/29/1998 5 Cliff/Dow Dump MI 9/27/1989
4 Davis Park Road TCE Site NC 9/27/2000 5 Dakhue Sanitary Landfill MN 6/30/1993
4 DIAMOND SHAMROCK CORP. LANDFILL GA 5/3/1994 5 DUPAGE COUNTY LANDFILL/BLACKWELL FOREST –
4 Dubose Oil Products FL 3/29/1990 OU 01 IL 9/30/1998
4 FCX, Inc. (Statesville Plant) – OU 3 NC 9/30/1996 5 Electro-Voice OU2 MI 9/21/1999
4 FLANDERS FILTERS INC – OU 01 NC 9/18/1998 5 Fadrowski Drum Disposal WI 6/10/1991
4 Florida Petroleum Reprocessors FL 3/1/2001 5 GALEN MEYER’S DUMP/DRUM SAL IN 9/29/1995
4 GEIGER (C & M OIL) – OU 01 SC 9/9/1998 5 H.O.D. LANDFILL – OU 01 IL 9/28/1998
4 Hercules 009 Landfill GA 3/25/1993 5 HECHIMOVICH SANITARY LANDFILL WI 9/6/1995
4 Homestead Air Force Base Ous 18, 26, 28, & 29 FL 3/15/1999 5 Industrial Excess Landfill OH 3/1/2000
4 Interstate Lead (ILCO) AL 9/30/1991 5 Ionia City Landfill MI 9/28/2000
4 INTERSTATE LEAD CO. (ILCO) – OU 3 AL 9/29/1995 5 Kohler Company Landfill WI 6/26/1996
4 Jacksonville Naval Air Station FL 9/28/2000 5 Metamora Landfill MI 9/27/2001
4 JACKSONVILLE NAVAL AIR STATION – OU 01 FL 8/3/1998 5 MIG/DeWane Landfill IL 3/30/2000
4 Marine Corps Logistics Base GA 9/19/2001 5 Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill MN 12/21/1990
4 MURRAY-OHIO DUMP TN 6/17/1994 5 Outboard Marine Company/Waukegan Coke Plant IL 9/30/1999
4 NATIONAL STARCH & CHEMICAL CORP. NC 10/6/1994 5 PENTA WOOD PRODUCTS – OU 01 WI 9/29/1998
4 Naval Air Station (NAS) Cecil Field FL 4/24/2001 5 PETOSKEY MUNICIPAL WELL FIELD – OU 01 MI 9/30/1998
4 Naval Air Station Cecil Field FL 1/11/2000 5 PRESTOLITE BATTERY DIV IN 8/23/1994
4 Normandy Park Aparments FL 5/11/2000 5 Rasmussen’s Dump MI 7/20/2001
4 Potter’s Septic Tank Service Pits NC 9/27/2000 5 Reilly Tar and Chemical (Indianapolis Plant) – OU 5 IN 6/30/1997
4 Redwing Carriers/Saraland AL 12/15/1992 5 Roto-Finish Co, Inc. MI 3/31/1997
4 Reeves Southeastern Galvanizing – OU 2 FL 9/9/1993 5 Sangamo Electric Dump/Crab Orchard National Wildlife
4 Ross Metals, Inc. TN 9/17/2002 Refuge Site IL 6/23/2000
4 Sanford Gasification Plant FL 6/12/2001 5 South-east Rockford groundwater contamination IL 6/11/2002
4 Savannah River Site SC 6/22/2001 5 Tippecanoe Sanitary Landfill, Inc. IN 9/30/1997
E-2
RODs Selecting Monitored Natural Attenuation (continued)
5 Twin Cities AF Reserve (SAR Landfill) MN 3/31/1992 8 PORTLAND CEMENT (KILN DUST 2 & 3) – OU 03 UT 8/17/1998
5 Wheeler Pit WI 9/28/1990 8 Rocky Mountain Arsenal – OU Offpost OU CO 12/19/1995
5 WOODSTOCK MUNICIPAL LANDFILL – OU 01 IL 7/15/1998 8 Rocky Mountain Arsenal – OU Onpost OU CO 6/11/1996
5 Wright-Patterson Air Force Base – OU 2, Spill Sites 2, 8 SMELTERTOWN SITE – OU 02 CO 6/4/1998
3 & 10 OH 9/30/1997 8 Utah Power & Light/American Barrel UT 7/7/1993
6 Arkwood AR 9/28/1990 9 ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE – OU 03 GU 6/16/1998
6 Brio Refining TX 3/31/1988 9 Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, Site 9-41 Area –
6 City of Perryton Well No. 2 TX 9/26/2002 OU 1 CA 12/7/1995
6 DUTCHTOWN TREATMENT PLANT LA 6/20/1994 9 Del Norte County Pesticide Storage Superfund Site CA 8/29/2000
6 Fourth Street Abandoned Refinery OK 9/30/1993 9 George Air force Base OU 3 CA 10/5/1998
6 French Limited TX 3/24/1988 9 INDIAN BEND WASH AREA – OU 03 AZ 9/30/1998
6 Gulf Coast Vacuum Services – OU 1 LA 9/30/1992 9 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory CA 2/23/2001
6 Gulf States Utilities – North Ryan Street Site LA 9/27/2000 9 Marine Corps Air Station AZ 9/8/2000
6 Hardage/Criner (Amendment) OK 11/22/1989 9 Operating Industries, Inc. Landfill CA 9/30/1996
6 Koppers (Texarkana Plant) TX 9/23/1988 9 TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE – OU 01 CA 12/3/1997
6 Koppers (Texarkana Plant) (Amendment) TX 3/4/1992 9 Travis Air Force Base West/Annexes/Basewide OU
6 KOPPERS COMPANY, INC (TEXARKANA PLANT) TX 8/20/2002 (WABOU) CA 3/16/1999
6 Monroe Auto Pit (Finch Road Landfill) AR 9/26/1996 10 Adak Naval Air Station AK 3/31/2000
6 Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill OK 6/29/1992 10 EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE – OU 03, 04, 05 AK 9/29/1998
6 PETRO-CHEMICAL SYSTEMS, (TURTLE BAYOU) – 10 Fairchild Air Force Base – OU Priority 2 Sites WA 12/20/1995
OU 02 TX 4/30/1998 10 Fort Richardson – OU OU A & B AK 9/15/1997
6 Sikes Disposal Pit TX 9/18/1986 10 Fort Wainwright – OU 1 AK 6/27/1997
6 SOUTH 8TH STREET LANDFILL – OU 01, 02 AR 7/22/1998 10 Fort Wainwright – OU 2 AK 3/27/1997
6 United Creosoting TX 9/30/1986 10 Fort Wainwright – OU 3 AK 4/9/1996
7 Bee Cee Manufacturing MO 9/30/1997 10 Fort Wainwright – OU 4, Fairbanks AK 9/24/1996
7 Cleburn Street Well NE 6/7/1996 10 Hanford 1100–Area (DOE) WA 9/24/1993
7 Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant NE 12/14/1999 10 Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
7 Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant (CHAAP) NE 9/26/2001 Laboratory Test Area North (TAN) ID 9/19/2001
7 Farmers’ Mutual Cooperative IA 9/29/1992 10 Monsanto Chemical Company ID 4/30/1997
7 Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site NE 9/28/2000 10 Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island – Ault Field – OU
7 Mason City Coal Gasification Site IA 9/19/2000 OU 5, Areas 1, 52, and 31 WA 7/10/1996
7 Ogallala Ground Water Contamination OU 1 NE 4/23/1999 10 NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE STATION (4 AREAS) –
7 Quality Plating MO 9/28/1999 OU 01 WA 9/28/1998
7 Ralston IA 9/30/1999 10 North Market Street WA 12/14/1999
8 ANACONDA CO. SMELTER – OU 04 MT 9/29/1998 10 Northwest Pipe and Casing Company/Hall Process
8 Chemical Sales Company Superfund Site CO 3/27/2000 Company OR 9/27/2001
8 Denver Radium – OU 8 CO 1/28/1992 10 U.S. Naval Submarine Base–OU 8 Bangor WA 9/27/2000
8 HILL AIR FORCE BASE – OU 01 UT 9/29/1998 10 USAF EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE – OU 6 AK 9/27/1994
8 Hill Air Force Base – OU 6 UT 9/30/1997 10 USAF ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE – OU 4 AK 9/26/1995
8 Kennecott South Zone Site UT 12/13/2000 10 USAF ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE – OU 5 AK 12/28/1994
8 MURRAY SMELTER – OU 00 UT 4/1/1998 10 Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor, (Amendment) – OU West Harbor
8 Mystery Bridge at Highway 20 WY 9/24/1990 OU WA 12/8/1995
E-3
Appendix F
Identification of Remedy and
R e c o r d o f D e c i s i o n Ty p e s
f o r S u p e r f u n d R e m e d i a l Ac t i o n s
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
remedy types and lists of key words and phrases
F.1 BACKGROUND
that may be used to refer to each remedy type.
On December 11, 1980, Congress passed the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, The definitions of remedy types provided in this
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), document are based on a review of definitions and
which is known as the “Superfund” act. The act lists of media, remedies, and technologies provided
created the Superfund program, which was in the following resources:
established to clean up abandoned hazardous waste • The CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS
sites around the United States. Section 105(a)(8)(B) 3) database
of CERCLA, as amended, requires that EPA • ROD Annual Reports for fiscal years (FY) 1989
prepare a list of national priorities among the through 2002
known sites throughout the United States at which • The Federal Remediation Technologies
releases or threatened releases of hazardous Roundtable (FRTR) Technology Screening Matrix
substances, pollutants, or contaminants may occur.
• Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup:
This list is known as the National Priorities List
Annual Status Report (Eleventh Edition) (ASR)
(NPL).
The remedy type definitions were reviewed and
The remedies selected for an NPL site are augmented by a working group of personnel of the
documented in a record of decision (ROD). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Remedies implemented at NPL sites or NPL Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
equivalent sites in accordance with RODs are (OSWER) who are experienced in site remediation
known as Superfund remedial actions, and such and ROD preparation and review.
sites are known as Superfund remedial action sites.
Because selected remedies vary in the type of media ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
addressed and the methods used to address those F.2 CLASSIFYING REMEDIES AND RODS
media, confusion can arise when assigning a type Remedy types should be identified by first dividing
to a particular remedy. Categorizing remedies by remedies into three categories (source control,
types can facilitate the transfer of experience and groundwater, and no action) based on the media
technology by making it easier to identify sites at treated and the type of action. Within each of these
which similar remedies are applicable. Establishing categories, the remedies should then be further
and applying a methodology for classifying remedy divided into the following 10 specific remedy types:
types can provide a consistent and comprehensive
approach for reviewing and comparing remedies Source Control Remedies:
used in RODs. In addition, use of such an 1. Source control treatment
approach can lead to more consistent data
collection and reporting and assist remedial project 2. Source control containment
managers (RPMs), On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs), 3. Source control other
and other regulatory and remediation professionals 4. Source control monitored natural attenuation
in the transfer of experience and technology among
Superfund sites and in identifying sites Groundwater Remedies:
implementing similar remedies. This document 5. Groundwater in situ treatment
describes an approach that can be used to classify
remedies and RODs. 6. Groundwater pump and treat
7. Groundwater containment barriers
Remedies should be classified by reviewing the
remedies selected in RODs. Although RODs are 8. Groundwater other
written using an overall format that is consistent, 9. Groundwater monitored natural attenuation
RODs are prepared by individual RPMs and other
staff of the 10 EPA regions. In addition, the No Action Remedies:
management practices and techniques used to 10. No action or no further action (NA/NFA)
remediate sites have evolved over time and continue
to evolve. Therefore, the words, phrases, and RODs should be classified using the 10 remedy
descriptions applied to the same or similar types listed above. When more than one remedy
remedies may differ from ROD to ROD. To type is selected in the same ROD, the ROD should
facilitate the identification of remedy types, this be assigned all of the remedy types that are
document includes both descriptive definitions of identified.
F-1
The definitions that should be used to identify increasing their volatility; destroy contaminants or
each remedy type are provided in the contaminated media by burning, decomposing, or
“Definitions” section below. When definitions detonating the contaminants or the contaminated
include specific technologies and those media; or immobilize contaminants by melting and
technologies commonly are referred to by more solidifying the contaminated media.
than one word or phrase, the most commonly used Bioremediation Treatment - Includes adding or
word or phrase is listed first, followed by stimulating the growth of microorganisms, which
synonyms in parentheses. metabolize contaminants or create conditions
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
under which contaminants will chemically convert
F.3 DEFINITIONS USED TO IDENTIFY to non-hazardous or less toxic compounds or
REMEDY TYPES compounds that are more stable, less mobile, and/
or inert.
F.3.1 General Definitions Other or Unspecified Treatment - Treatment that
The definitions of treatment technology and the cannot be classified as physical treatment, chemical
different types of treatment technologies (physical, treatment, thermal treatment, or bioremediation
chemical, thermal, and bioremediation treatment) treatment. For example, some RODs select
apply to both source control and groundwater physical/chemical treatment of a source without
remedies. specifying the particular physical/chemical
Treatment Technology - Any unit operation or treatment. In such cases, the ROD should not be
series of unit operations that alters the definitively classified as physical or chemical
composition of a hazardous substance, pollutant treatment and should be classified as other or
or contaminant through chemical, biological, or unspecified treatment, unspecified physical/
physical means so as to reduce toxicity, mobility, chemical treatment.
or volume of the contaminated materials being
F.3.2 Source Control
treated. Treatment technologies are an
alternative to land disposal of hazardous wastes Source Media - A source medium is defined as a
without treatment (Federal Register, volume 55, material that acts as a reservoir, either stationary
page 8819, 40 CFR 300.5: Definitions). or mobile, for hazardous substances. Source
Treatment technologies are grouped into five media include or contain hazardous substances,
categories. The definitions for four of the pollutants, or contaminants that may migrate to
categories (physical treatment, chemical the groundwater, to surface water, to air, (or to
treatment, thermal treatment, and biological other environmental media) or act as a source
treatment) are based on definitions provided in for direct exposure. Contaminated groundwater
the FRTR Technology Screening Matrix. The generally is not considered to be a source
fifth category, other or unspecified treatment, material although non-aqueous phase liquids
includes those technologies that do not fit into (NAPLs [occurring either as residual- or free-
the first four categories. The five treatment phase]) may be viewed as source materials. (A
technology categories are: Guide to Principal Threat and Low Level Threat
Wastes, Superfund publication 9355.3-02FS,
Physical Treatment - Uses the physical properties of USEPA OSWER 1991). Source media include
the contaminants or the contaminated medium to
soil, sediment, sludge, debris, solid-matrix
separate or immobilize the contamination.
wastes, surface water, NAPLs, equipment,
Chemical Treatment - Chemically converts hazardous drums, storage tanks, leachate, landfill gas, and
contaminants to non-hazardous or less toxic any other contaminated media other than
compounds or compounds that are more stable, groundwater that can act as a potential source
less mobile, and/or inert. Even though a chemical of contamination.
reaction is not always involved in chemical
Source Control Remedy - any removal, treatment,
precipitation, chemical precipitation is typically
containment, or management of any contaminant
included in this category. source or contaminated medium other than
Thermal Treatment - Uses heat to: separate groundwater.
contaminants from contaminated media by
F-2
1. Source Control Treatment
Any process meant to separate and remove, destroy, or bind contaminants in a source medium. Key
words used in RODs to identify these processes are listed below. Additional detail about these
technologies can be found in the ASR at http://clu-in.org/asr or on the Federal Remediation
Technologies Roundtable website at http://www.frtr.gov.
Physical Treatment
Acid extraction Multi-phase extraction (free product recovery)
Air stripping Oil/water separation (free product recovery)
Carbon adsorption (liquid-phase carbon Physical separation (component separation and
adsorption) materials handling)
Clarification (sedimentation) Soil vapor extraction (vacuum extraction and
Decontamination vapor extraction)
Dewatering Soil washing
Electrical separation (electrokinetic separation) Solidification/stabilization (asphalt batching,
immobilization, and microencapsulation)
Evaporation
Solid-phase extraction
Filtration
Solvent extraction (chemical stripping)
Flushing (soil flushing and surfactant
flushing) Steam stripping
Ion exchange Super-critical fluid extraction
Magnetic separation Volatilization (aeration, mechanical soil
aeration, and tilling)
Membrane filtration (microfiltration,
nanofiltration, reverse osmosis, ultrafiltration)
Chemical Treatment
Chemical oxidation (cyanide oxidation, Flocculation
oxidation, and peroxidation) Metals precipitation
Chemical reduction (reduction) Neutralization (pH neutralization)
Chemical treatment (chemical reduction/ Permeable reactive barrier (chemical reactive
oxidation and remedy type not further barrier, chemical reactive wall, leachate
specified) reactive wall, and passive treatment wall)
Dehalogenation (dechlorination) Ultraviolet (UV) oxidation
Thermal Treatment
Flaring (gas flaring) Thermal treatment (remedy type not further
High energy corona specified)
Open burning/open detonation In situ thermal treatment (conductive heating,
Contained Recovery of Oily Wastes [CROW®],
Plasma high-temperature recovery (fuming
dynamic underground stripping, electrical
gasification and high-temperature metals
resistance heating, hot air injection, in situ
recovery)
thermal desorption, microwave heating, radio
Thermal desorption frequency heating, steam injection, and
Thermal destruction (incineration and thermally enhanced soil vapor extraction)
pyrolysis) Vitrification (slagging)
Bioremediation
Aeration (for purpose of bioremediation, tilling) Bioslurping
Biopile Bioventing
Bioreactor Co-metabolic treatment
Bioremediation (biological treatment, remedy Composting
type not further specified) Controlled solid phase
F-3
Bioremediation (continued)
Fixed film reactors Oxygen enhancement with hydrogen peroxide
Landfarming (H2O2)
Microbial injection (addition of microorganisms) Permeable treatment bed (for purpose of
Nitrate enhancement bioremediation)
Nutrient injection Slurry-phase bioremediation (bioslurry,
activated sludge)
Oxygen enhancement with air sparging
(biosparging) White rot fungus
Other or Unspecified Treatment

Air emission treatment Publicly owned treatment works (POTW)
Fracturing (pneumatic fracturing, hydraulic Recycling
fracturing) Surface water treatment
Gas collection and treatment (off-gas treatment) Treatment of residuals
Hot gas decontamination Unspecified physical/chemical treatment
Leachate treatment Unspecified treatment
Phytoremediation
2. Source Control Containment

Any process or structure designed to prevent contaminants from migrating from a source media into
groundwater, to surface water, to air, (or to other environmental media) or acting as a source for direct
exposure. Key words used in RODs to identify source control containment remedies are listed below:
Capping and Cover On-Site Landfilling
Cap (impermeable barrier) On-site consolidation
Cover material On-site disposal
Evapotranspiration cover On-site landfilling (remedy type not further
sepcified)
Bottom Liner
Clay Off-Site Landfilling
Geosynthetic material Off-site consolidation
Liner (impermeable barrier) Off-site disposal
Off-site landfilling (remedy type not further
Drainage and Erosion Control specified)
Engineering control (remedy type not further
specified) Vertical Engineered Barrier
Hydraulic control (When used as a remedy for a source medium
Impermeable barrier [including subsurface NAPLs]. Vertical
Revegetation subsurface engineered barriers used to control
or contain groundwater should not be
Slope stabilization considered source control containment.)
Subsurface drain (leachate control)
Surface water control (dike, berm, drainage Grout (grout curtain)
controls, drainage ditch, erosion control, flood Impermeable barrier
protection, and levee) Sheet piling
Slurry wall
Subsurface barrier
Vertical barrier
F-4
Other or Unspecified Containment
Containment (consolidation, disposal, Permanent storage
landfilling, and removal) Repair (pipe repair, sewer repair, and tank
Encapsulation (overpacking) repair)
Leachate control (leachate collection, leachate Surface water management (surface water
discharge, leachate recovery wells, leachate collection, surface water discharge, surface
reinjection) water recovery wells, surface water
Liquid waste management (liquid waste reinjection)
collection, liquid waste discharge, liquid waste
recovery wells, liquid waste reinjection)
3. Source Control Other

Source control remedies that do not fall into the categories Source Control Treatment or Source
Control Containment.
Institutional Control
The classification of institutional controls has been revised based on Institutional Controls: A Site
Manager’s Guide to Identifying, Evaluating, and Selecting Institutional Controls at Superfund and RCRA
Corrective Action Cleanups, OSWER 9355.0-74FS-P, EPA 540-F-00-005, September 2000. The remedy
definitions outlined in this guidance differ from those historically used to classify institutional control
remedies. This classification system groups institutional controls into 4 categories. Listed below are
these four categories. Beneath each category, the terms historically applied to institutional controls
that are most likely to fall under the categories are listed. The list below also adds a fifth category,
“Institutional control (remedy type not further specified)” for cases where the particular institutional
control selected is not recorded in a ROD.
1.Governmental control 2.Proprietary control
Access restriction Deed notification
Drilling restriction Deed restriction
Fishing restriction Land use restriction
Guard (security)
3.Enforceable agreement
Recreational restriction
Access agreement
Surface water restriction
4.Informational device
Swimming restriction
5.Institutional control (remedy type not further
Water supply use restriction specified)
Engineering Control Population Relocation

Dust suppression Population relocation
Engineering control (remedy type not further
specified) Surface Water Supply Remedies
Fencing Alternate water supply (alternate drinking
Water table adjustment water and bottled water)
Wetland replacement Carbon at tap
Well-head treatment
Source Monitoring
Monitoring
Sampling
F-5
4. Source Control Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)
The reliance on natural attenuation processes (within the context of a carefully controlled and monitored
approach to site cleanup) to achieve site-specific remediation objectives within a time frame that is
reasonable, compared with that offered by other, more active methods. The “natural attenuation
processes” that are at work in such a remediation approach include a variety of physical, chemical, or
biological processes that, under favorable conditions, act without human intervention to reduce the
mass, toxicity, mobility, volume, or concentration of contaminants in soil or groundwater. These in
situ processes include biodegradation; dispersion; dilution; sorption; volatilization; radioactive decay;
and chemical or biological stabilization, transformation, or destruction of contaminants (Use of
Monitored Natural Attenuation at Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground Storage
Tank Sites, USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Directive Number 9200.4-17P,
1999).
A remedy should be considered source control MNA if it includes “natural attenuation” or “monitored
natural attenuation” for a source (e.g., contaminated soil).
F.3.3 Groundwater Remedies

Groundwater Remedy - Management of Groundwater Media - One or more aquifers beneath
groundwater. Groundwater remedies can include or proximal to a source medium, contaminated by
in situ treatment, pump and treat, containment migration of contaminants, such as leachate, or by
using vertical engineered barriers, MNA, and other other sources.
measures to address groundwater.
5. Groundwater In Situ Treatment

Treatment of groundwater without extracting it from the ground. Key words used in RODs to
identify groundwater in situ treatment remedies are listed below:
Physical Treatment
Air sparging Multi-phase extraction (free product
Electrical separation (electrokinetic separation) recovery)
In-well air stripping (well aeration and air Surfactant flushing
stripping) Vapor extraction
Chemical Treatment
Chemical oxidation (cyanide oxidation, Dehalogenation (dechlorination)
oxidation, and peroxidation) Permeable reactive barrier (chemical reactive
Chemical reduction (reduction) barrier, chemical reactive wall, and passive
Chemical treatment (chemical reduction/ treatment wall)
oxidation and remedy type not further specified)
Thermal Treatment
In situ thermal treatment (conductive heating, CROW®, dynamic underground stripping, electrical
resistance heating, hot air injection, hot water or steam flushing and stripping, in-situ thermal
desorption, microwave heating, radio frequency heating, steam injection, and thermally enhanced
soil vapor extraction)
Bioremediation
Aeration (for purpose of bioremediation) Bioslurping
Bioremediation (biological treatment, remedy Bioventing
type not further specified) Co-metabolic treatment
F-6
Bioremediation (continued)
Microbial injection (addition of microorganisms) Oxygen enhancement with air sparging
Nitrate enhancement (biosparging)
Nutrient injection Oxygen enhancement with hydrogen
peroxide (H2O2)
Fracturing (pneumatic fracturing, hydraulic Treatment of residuals
fracturing) Unspecified physical/chemical treatment
Phytoremediation Unspecified treatment
6. Groundwater Pump and Treat

Extraction of groundwater from an aquifer followed by treatment above ground. Key words used in
RODs to identify groundwater pump and treat remedies are listed below:
Physical Treatment
Aeration (air stripping) Evaporation
Carbon adsorption (liquid phase carbon Filtration
adsorption) Ion exchange
Clarification (sedimentation) Membrane filtration (microfiltration,
Coagulation nanofiltration, reverse osmosis, ultrafiltration)
Component separation Oil/water separation (free product recovery)
Equalization
Chemical Treatment
Chemical oxidation (cyanide oxidation, Flocculation
oxidation, and peroxidation) Metals precipitation
Chemical reduction Neutralization (pH neutralization)
Chemical treatment (chemical reduction/ Ultraviolet (UV) oxidation
oxidation and remedy type not further
specified)
Biological Treatment
Biological treatment (remedy type not further Fixed film reactors
specified) Oxygen enhancement with hydrogen peroxide
Bioreactors (H2O2)

Centralized waste treatment facility Treatment of residuals
Fracturing (pneumatic fracturing, hydraulic Unspecified ex-situ physical/chemical
fracturing) treatment
Publicly owned treatment works (POTW) Unspecified treatment
Pumping and unspecified ex-situ treatment
Groundwater Extraction
The process of removing groundwater from beneath the ground surface, including the following
methods of groundwater extraction:
F-7
Groundwater Extraction (continued)
Directional well (horizontal well) Recovery trench (horizontal drain)
Pumping (recovery well, vertical well) Subsurface drain
Groundwater Discharge and Management

A method of discharging or otherwise managing extracted groundwater, including the following
discharge methods and receptors:
Deep well injection (Class I well) Surface drain reinjection (infiltration basin,
Recycling infiltration trench)
Reuse as drinking water Surface water discharge (National Pollutant
Reuse as irrigation water Discharge Elimination System [NPDES]
discharge)
Reuse as process water
Vertical well reinjection (into contaminated
aquifer)
7. Groundwater Containment
Containment of groundwater, typically through the use of vertical engineered barriers. Key words
used in RODs to identify groundwater containment remedies are listed below:
Vertical Engineered Barrier

Deep soil mixing (barrier installation technique) Impermeable barrier
Geosynthetic wall Sheet piling
Grout (grout curtain) Slurry wall
High-density polyethylene (HDPE) wall Subsurface vertical engineered barrier
(subsurface barrier, subsurface vertical barrier)
Other or Unspecified Containment
Plume containment (hydraulic containment of plume, plume management, plume migration control)
8. Groundwater Other
Groundwater remedies that do not fall into the categories Groundwater In Situ Treatment, Groundwater
Pump and Treat, Groundwater Containment, or Groundwater Monitored Natural Attenuation.
Institutional Control
The classification of institutional controls has been revised based on Institutional Controls: A Site
Manager’s Guide to Identifying, Evaluating, and Selecting Institutional Controls at Superfund and RCRA
Corrective Action Cleanups, OSWER 9355.0-74FS-P, EPA 540-F-00-005, September 2000. The remedy
definitions outlined in this guidance differ from those historically used to classify institutional control
remedies. This classification system groups institutional controls into 4 categories. Listed below are
these four categories. Beneath each category, the terms historically applied to institutional controls
that are most likely to fall under the categories are listed. The list below also adds a fifth category,
“Institutional control (remedy type not further specified)” for cases where the particular institutional
control selected is not recorded in a ROD.
1.Governmental control
Access restriction Recreational restriction
Drilling restriction Surface water restriction
Fishing restriction Swimming restriction
Groundwater restriction Water supply use restriction
Guard (security)
F-8
Institutional Control (continued)
2.Proprietary control 3.Enforceable agreement
Deed notification Access agreement
Deed restriction 4.Informational device
Land use restriction 5.Institutional control (remedy type not further
specified)
Engineering Control Water Supply Remedies

Engineering control (berm, dike, drainage Alternate water supply (alternate drinking water
ditch, levee) and bottled water)
Water table adjustment Carbon at tap
Wetland replacement Extend piping to existing water main
Install new surface water intake
Groundwater Monitoring Install new water supply wells
Monitoring Seal well (close well)
Sampling Treat at use location
Well-head treatment
Population Relocation
Population relocation
9. Groundwater MNA
The reliance on natural attenuation processes (within the context of a carefully controlled and monitored
approach to site cleanup) to achieve site-specific remediation objectives within a time frame that is
reasonable, compared with that offered by other, more active methods. The “natural attenuation
processes” that are at work in such a remediation approach include a variety of physical, chemical, or
biological processes that, under favorable conditions, act without human intervention to reduce the
mass, toxicity, mobility, volume, or concentration of contaminants in soil or groundwater. These in
situ processes include biodegradation; dispersion; dilution; sorption; volatilization; radioactive decay;
and chemical or biological stabilization, transformation, or destruction of contaminants (Use of
Monitored Natural Attenuation at Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground Storage Tank
Sites, USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Directive Number 9200.4-17P, 1999).
A remedy should be considered groundwater MNA if it includes “natural attenuation” or “monitored
natural attenuation” of groundwater.
F.3.4 No Action Remedies

10. NA/NFA
The designation used for remedies that indicate no action or no further action will be taken. When
determining overall ROD type, the designation should be used only for RODs under which NA/NFA
is the only remedy selected. If a ROD selects NA/NFA for only part of a site and another remedy for
another part of a site, the ROD should be given the classification corresponding to that selected
remedy and should not be given an NA/NFA designation.
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
F.4 SPECIAL CASES rocks, or other objects should be considered

This subsection provides a list of some special cases source control treatment. For example, abrasive
and descriptions of how remedy types should be blasting or scarifying a concrete pad to remove
assigned in those cases: the contaminated surface layer of the pad should
be identified as source control treatment.
Decontamination:
• Decontamination of equipment used to clean
• The remedy type for decontamination of up a Superfund site is a normal activity that
buildings, equipment, tanks, debris, boulders,
F-9
occurs at many Superfund sites and should not Water Table Adjustment - Where water table
be considered a remedy. For example, high- adjustment is used to prevent the groundwater from
pressure water washing of a front end loader coming into contact with a contaminated source
used to excavate contaminated soil should not medium, it should be identified as source control
be considered a remedy and should not be given other, engineering control. Where water table
a remedy type. adjustment is used to treat groundwater, it should
be classified as groundwater other, engineering
Phytoremediation: control.
• Phytoremediation involves the use of Subsurface Drain - When a subsurface drain is
macroscopic plants to destroy, remove, used in order to prevent contact of precipitation
immobilize, or otherwise treat contaminants. runoff with a source or to prevent erosion, it should
While this technology may include the use of be considered source control containment, drainage
microorganisms in conjunction with plants, it and erosion control. When a subsurface drain is
is distinguished from bioremediation in that used to extract groundwater prior to treatment of
bioremediation does not use macroscopic the groundwater, it should be classified as
plants. Remedies that used microorganisms groundwater pump and treat, groundwater
without macroscopic plants should be identified extraction.
as bioremediation.
Treatment of Residuals - Residuals are the matter
• The use of plants to control surface water
that results from a treatment process. For example,
drainage at a site is not phytoremediation. Such
the residuals from incineration of soil can include
remedies should be identified as engineering
ash, off-gasses, and scrubber blowdown from off-
controls (source control other or groundwater
gas treatment. In the preceding example, treatment
other).
of off-gasses using a scrubber should be classified
Remedies Based on Site Characteristics - If a ROD as treatment of residuals. Where treatment of
indicates that a certain remedy be implemented residuals is specified in a ROD, the existence of
based on certain site characteristics, the ROD residuals treatment should be identified, but
should be considered to have selected the remedy. additional information on the treatment of
For example, a ROD may specify that if soils exceed residuals should not be collected.
a certain level of contamination they will be
Air Media - Air media include sources that are in
incinerated, but if they do not exceed that level,
a gaseous form, such as landfill gas or hazardous
no further action will be taken. In such a case, the
gasses stored in compressed gas cylinders. When
ROD should be considered to have selected
remedies for air media are selected in a ROD they
incineration and therefore should be considered a
should be identified as source control remedies.
source control treatment ROD.
For example, collection and treatment of landfill
Vertical Engineered Barriers - Some of the gas should be classified as source control treatment.
technologies used for vertical engineered barriers Air emissions from equipment used to treat sources
are also used to control surface water and surface or groundwater are not air media. For example, a
drainage (for example, slurry walls and sheet piles). ROD may specify that groundwater will be
Where these remedies are used to contain extracted and treated by air stripping, and the off-
groundwater, they should be identified as gas generated by the air stripping must be treated
groundwater containment. by activated carbon adsorption. In such a case,
Solidification/Stabilization - Some of the the ROD would be classified as groundwater pump-
technologies used for solidification/stabilization can and-treat (both physical treatment, aeration [air
be used for either treatment or containment. For stripping]; and other or unspecified treatment,
example, “encapsulation” of a waste in plastic drums treatment of residuals), but would not be classified
is source control containment. “Encapsulation” of as a source control treatment ROD.
a waste by mixing with a monomer and then causing
it to polymerize, resulting in microencapsulation, is
source control treatment. In general, containment
involves isolating bulk wastes, while solidification/
stabilization involves incorporating the contaminants
into a matrix so that their leachability is reduced.
F-10
Appendix G
R e a s o n s f o r S h u t D ow n o f 6 3
G r o u n d wa t e r P u m p a n d Tr e a t
Systems
Reasons for Shut Down of 63 Groundwater Pump and Treat Systems
EPA EPA
Region Site Name, State Reasons for Shut Down Region Site Name, State Reasons for Shut Down
1 Hocomonco Pond, MA Treatment system shut-off due to 5 Lauer 1 Sanitary Landfill, (Boundary To be determined
technical problems Road), WI
1 McKin Co., ME Replaced with MNA 5 Lehillier Mankato Site, MN Met project cleanup goals
1 Norwood PCBs, MA Replaced with cap 5 New Lyme Landfill, OH Treatment system shut-off due to
1 Pinnettes Salvage Yard, ME Replaced with institutional controls technical problems
1 Sylvester, NH Met project cleanup goals 5 Onalaska Municipal Landfill, WI Replaced with MNA
2 Fulton Terminals, NY Met project cleanup goals 5 Schmalz Dump, WI To be determined
2 Mannheim Avenue Dump, NJ Met project cleanup goals 5 Skinner Landfill, OH To be determined
2 Pollution Abatement Services, NY Met project cleanup goals 5 Spiegelberg Landfill, MI To be determined
2 Tabernacle Drum Dump, NJ Met project cleanup goals 5 Tri-State Plating, IN Met project cleanup goals
2 Universal Oil Products, NJ Replaced with cap 5 University Minnesota (Rosemount Res Met project cleanup goals
2 Vestal Water Supply Well 4-2, NY Met project cleanup goals Cen), MN
3 Chem-Solv, Inc., DE Met project cleanup goals 5 Washington County Landfill, MN Met project cleanup goals
3 McAdoo Associates, PA Met project cleanup goals 5 Whittaker Corp., MN Met project cleanup goals
3 Rentokil Virginia Wood Preserving, VA To be determined 5 Windom Dump, MN Met project cleanup goals
3 Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump, VA To be determined 6 Bailey Waste Disposal, TX Replaced with cap
3 Southern Maryland Wood Treating, MD Met project cleanup goals 6 Cimmaron Mining Corp., NM Treatment system shut-off due to
3 U.S. Titanium, VA To be determined technical problems
4 62nd Street Dump, FL Replaced with cap 6 French, Ltd., TX Replaced with MNA
4 Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination, To be determined 6 Odessa Chromium #2 (Andrews To be determined
NC Highway), TX
4 Gold Coast Oil Corp., FL Met project cleanup goals 6 Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site, TX To be determined
4 Hollingsworth Solderless Terminal, FL Met project cleanup goals 6 Odessa Chromium II Superfund Site, TX To be determined
4 Schuylkill Metals Corp., FL Replaced with source treatment 6 Odessa Chromium No 2 Pump and Treat To be determined
and engineering controls 2nd Unit, TX
4 Tri-City Disposal Co., KY To be determined 6 Southern Shipbuilding, LA Met project cleanup goals
5 Avenue “E” Groundwater Contamination, MI Met project cleanup goals 7 Fairfield Coal Gasification Plant, IA Met project cleanup goals
5 Belvidere Municipal Landfill, IL Met project cleanup goals 7 Valley Park TCE Site Wainwright, MO Treatment system shut-off due to
5 Burrows Sanitation, MI Met project cleanup goals technical problems
5 Charlevoix Municipal Well, MI To be determined 7 Waverly Groundwater Contamination, NE To be determined
5 Cross Brothers Pail Recycling (Pembroke), Met project cleanup goals 7 White Farm Equipment Co. Dump, IA Replaced with cap
IL 8 Chemical Sales Co., CO To be determined
5 Duell & Gardner Landfill, MI Met project cleanup goals 8 Mystery Bridge Rd/U.S. Highway 20, WY Met project cleanup goals
5 East Bethel Township, MN Met project cleanup goals 9 Coast Wood Preserving, CA To be determined
5 Enviro. Conservation and Chemical, IN Treatment system shut-off due to 9 Del Norte Pesticide Storage, CA Treatment system shut-off due to
technical problems technical problems
5 Kummer Sanitary Landfill, MN Replaced with MNA 9 Norton Air Force Base, CA Met project cleanup goals
5 Lakeland Disposal Service, Inc., IN To be determined 10 Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island (AULT), To be determined
WA
G-1
Solid Waste and EPA-542-R-03-009
Emergency Response February 2004
(5102G) www.epa.gov/tio
clu-in.org/asr
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Treatment Technologies For Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report (Eleventh Edition)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Treatment Technologies For Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report (Eleventh Edition)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Treatment Technologies For Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report (Eleventh Edition)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup:

Annual Status Report (Eleventh Edition)

Top row from left to right:

Model of an in situ chemical treatment system for DNAPLs. See

Middle row from left to right:

Theoretical model of the biodegradation of tetrachloroethene. See

Bottom row from left to right:

Figure 7. Superfund Remedial Actions: Source Control Treatment

Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup:

Status of Groundwater Pump and Treat Projects .......................................... 40

APPENDIX A - SUPERFUND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES BY FISCAL YEAR

Executive Summary Major Findings

BOX 3. SUMMARY OF REMEDY TYPES

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

GROUNDWATER REMEDY TYPES*

● Extraction usually is conducted by pumping groundwater from a well or trench.

innovative, not the technology itself. Innovative ● Cleanup type

Both innovative and established technologies are Contact Information

Sources of Information for This ● Indicate whether part of a treatment train

information regarding CORs, see Section 4. The ASR Online Components

MODEL OF IN SITU CHEMICAL TREATMENT

ELECTROKINETICS is based on the theory that

a aMODEL OF A GROUNDWATER PUMP AND TREAT

Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) for

In Situ Groundwater Containment

ROD = Record of Decision

ROD = Record of Decision

Superfund Remediation Progress The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization

Figure 3: Superfund Remedial Actions:

* Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY 2002 RODs.

Figure 4: Superfund Remedial Actions:

* Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY 2002 RODs.

Section 2: Treatment Source Control RODs

Other Source Control 650 In Situ Versus Ex Situ Technologies

ROD = Record of Decision

Figure 6: Superfund Remedial Actions:

ROD = Record of Decision

* Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY 2002 RODs.

* Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY 2002 RODs.

Figure 9: Superfund Remedial Actions:

* Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY 2002 RODs.

Figure 10: Superfund Remedial Actions: Status of In Situ and Ex Situ

* Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY 2002 RODs.

Table 3. Superfund Remedial Actions: Average Number of Years

* Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY 2002 RODs.

Figure 12: Superfund Remedial Actions:

* Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY 2002 RODs.

Figure 13. Superfund Remedial Actions: Treatment Trains

* Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY 2002 RODs.

Table 4. Superfund Remedial Actions: Contaminants Treated

* Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY 2002 RODs.

Total Number of Minimum Median Average Maximum Total Quantity

* Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY 2002 RODs.

permits. However, once an on-site incinerator has Cumulative Soil Treatment

soil treated. Remedy Changes

* Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY 2002 RODs.

Table 6. Superfund Remedial Actions:

Technology Initially Selected

* Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY 2002 RODs.