USVI Public Records

Document text

United States ' Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Directive: 9355.0-48FS ERA 540-F-93-048 PB 93-963346 September 1993 &EPA Presumptive Remedies: Site Characterization and Technology Selection For CERCLA Sites With Volatile Organic Compounds In Soils Office of Emergency and Remedial Response Hazardous Site Control Division 5203G Quick Reference Fact Sheet Since Supetfund's inception in 1980, the remedial and removal programs have found that certain categories of sites have similar characteristics, such as types of contaminants present, types of disposal practices, or how environmental media are affected. Based on information acquired from evaluating and cleaning up these sites, the Superfund program is undertaking an initiative to develop presumptive remedies to accelerate future cleanups at these types of sites. The presumptive remedy approach is one tool of acceleration within the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM). Presumptive remedies are preferred technologies for common categories of sites, based on historical patterns of remedy selection and EPA's scientific and engineering evaluation of performance data on technology implementation. The objective of die presumptive remedies initiative is to use the program's past experience to streamline site investigation and speed up selection of cleanup actions. Over time presumptive remedies are expected to ensure consistency in remedy selection and reduce the cost and time required to clean up similar types of sites. Presumptive remedies are expected to be used at all appropriate sites except under unusual site-specific circumstances. This directive identifies the presumptive remedies for Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) sites with soils contaminated by volatile organic compounds (VOCt). In addition, EPA is developing guidance on presumptive remedies for wood treatment, municipal landfill, PCS, grain storage, coal gasification, and contaminated ground-water sites. EPA has also developed a directive entitled Presumptive Remedies: Policy and Procedures, (Directive 935S.O-47FS) which outlines and addresses the issues common to all presumptive remedies (e.g., role of innovative technologies, consistency with the NCP, State, community involvement). PURPOSE The purpose of mis directive is to provide guidance on selecting a presumptive remedy at sites with soils contaminated with VOCs. Specifically this guidance: • Presents the presumptive remedies for this site type; • Describes the presumptive remedy process in terms of site characterization and technology screening steps; and • Outlines the data required to select these presumptive remedies. Since a presumptive remedy is a technology that EPA believes, based upon its past experience, generally will be the most appropriate remedy for a specified type of site, the presumptive remedy approach will accelerate site-specific analysts of remedies by focusing the feasibility study efforts. Where several presumptive remedies are identified, EPA believes that all deserve substantial consideration before utilizing the presumptive remedy approach. EPA personnel should review the directive entitled Presumptive Remedies: Policy and Procedures (Directive 9355.0-47FS) for general information on the presumptive remedy process. SoU vapor extraction (SVE), thermal desorptfon, and indneratioa are the presumptive remedies for Superfund sites with VOC-contaminated soil assuming the site characteristics meet certain criteria. Table 1 provides abrief description ofeach of these presumptive remedies. The decision to establish these technologies as presumptive remedies for this site type is based on EPA's collective knowledge about site investigation and remedy selection for VOC-contaminated soils. TUT OO7 1395 *65012* 65012 TABLE 1 Presumptive Remedies for VOCs in Soil Soil Vapor Extraction - Soil vapor extraction (SVE) is an in-situ or ex-situ process which physically removes contaminants from vadose zone soils by inducing air flow through the soil matrix. The flowing air strips votatite compounds from the solids and carries them to extraction wells. The recovered vapors may require further treatment In-situ SVE is the primary focus of this document. Thermal Desorption • Thermal desorption is an ex- situ process that uses direct or indirect heat exchange to vaporize organic contaminants from soil, sediment, sludge or other solid and semisoJid matrices. The vapors are then condensed or otherwise collected for further treatment Incineration - Incineration is an ex-situ engineered process that employs thermal decomposition via oxidation at temperatures usually greater than 900 °C to destroy the organic fraction of the waste. The major difference between thermal desorption and incineration is that incineration oxidizes organic compounds, thereby destroying the hazardous material. Thermal desorption volatilizes contaminants, then concentrates them. Thermal desorption reduces the volume of contamination, but the concentrated waste stream still requires treatment Disposal or treatment of residual waste stream, ash, and concentrated VOC effluent is not covered by this directive. Options such as off-site disposal/regeneration or reuse should be considered. including field experience from tbe Superfund, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and Underground Storage Tank (UST) programs. In addition, EPA conducted an analysis of FY86 to FY91 Records of Decision (RODs) for sites where VOC contamination drove remedy selection. Tbe results of this analysis, which are provided in Appendix A, demonstrate that these three technologies represent over 90% of tbe remedies selected in tbe RODs analyzed. USE OF DOCUMENT This directive is primarily intended for use by Superfund site managers. However, site managers in other programs (such as RCRA corrective action, the UST program. States), and the private sector, may also use this directive. This directive is not a "stand alone" document. To ensure a full understanding of VOC site characterization and remedy selection, site managers should refer to all documents cited in the directive. For assistance in understanding complex site conditions, an experienced site manager, the presumptive remedy expert team, the Superfund Technical Assistance and Response Team (START) team, or the Environmental Response Team should be consulted. ANTICIPATED BENEFITS OF PRESUMPTIVE REMEDIES Use of this directive will reduce cost and time in remedy selection at VOC sites in the following ways: 1. Tbedirectivefacilitatesidentificationofthepresumed or likely remedial options early in tbe investigation process, hence allowing for a more focused collection of data during the remedial investigation (RI) or removal site evaluation. In addition, knowledge of tbe presumptive remedy may facilitate collection of some remedial design data before the ROD or action memo, thereby allowing the action to proceed more quickly after signature of the decision document 2. This directive eliminates tbe need for the initial step of identifying and screening a variety of alternatives during the Feasibility Study. Additionally, it will reduce the number of technologies identified and analyzed in tbe EE/CA. Tbe National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (Section 300.430(e)(l)) states that "the lead agency shall include an alternatives screening step, when needed, (emphasis added) to selecta reasonable number of alternatives for detailed analysis." EPA's analysis of feasibility studies for VOC-conrnminafrd soil sites (see Appendix A) found that certain technologies are routinely screened out based on effectiveness, imptementabUity, or excessive costs, consistent with NCP Section 300.430(e)(7). Accordingly, EPA has determined that, when using presumptive remedies at VOC-contaminated sites, site-specific identification and screening of alternatives is not necessary. However, this directive and supporting documentation (see Teasibility Study Analysis for CERCLA Sites with Volatile Organic Compounds in Soils") should be included in the Administrative Record for all sites that use tbe presumptive remedy(ies) to document tbe basis for eliminating the "site-specific identification and TUT OO7 1896 TABLE 2 Typical VOCs Addressed by this Directive Haloaenated Volatile Organics Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroethane Chloroform 1,1-Dichloroethane 1.1-Dichloroethylene 1.2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethylene 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1.1.1-Trichloroethane 1.1.2-Trichloroethane 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Ethylene Dibromide Methylene Chloride Tetrachloroethylene Trichloroethylene Vinyl Chloride Non-Haloaenated Volatile Organics Ketonea/Furans Acetone Methyl Ethyl Ketone Methyl Isobutyl Ketone Aromatlcs Benzene Ethyl Benzene Styrene Toluene m-Xylene o-Xytene p-Xytene Note: Other compounds that have physical/chemical characteristics similar to the compounds listed may also be addressed by the presumptive remedy process. 3. screening of technologies" section. In addition, other supporting mat^aty (e.g., FS reports included in the analysis, technical reports) will be made available at EPA Headquarters and are available for inclusion in the Administrative Record if needed. Tbisdirective streamlines the detailed analysis portion of the FS. Remedial alternatives developed for a site must be evaluated against the nine criteria (required under NCP Section 300.430(e)(9)). Under this presumptive remedy approach, the detailed analysis I can be limited to the three presumptive remedies (in addition to the no-action alternative), thereby streamlining that portion of the FS. Appendix B provides a generic evaluation of the presumptive remedies for seven of the nine criteria. This evaluation may serve as a basis for each detailed analysis conducted under the presumptive remedy process and should be augmented, as needed, to address site- specific conditions. One of these presumptive remedies is expected to be used for all VOC sites except under unusual circumstances. Such circumstances may include unusual site soil characteristics, demonstration of significant advantages of alternate (or other innovative) technologies over the presumptive remedies, or extraordinary community and state concerns. If such circumstances are encountered, additional analyses may be necessary or a more conventional detailed RI/FS may be performed. PRESUMPTIVE REMEDIES PROCESS This section and the accompanying diagram (Figure 1) describe the sequence of steps involved in the presumptive remedy process (site characterization and technology selection) for sites containing soil contaminated with VOCs. While the process is not mandatory, EPA believes that following the steps outlined below will expedite the clean-up process for this category of sites. SVE is the primary presumptive remedy. SVE has been selected roost frequently to address VOC contamination at Superfund sites and initial performance data indicate that it effectively treats waste in place at a relatively low cost In cases where SVE will not work or where there is very highly concentrated contamination, thermal desorption may be the more appropriate response technology. In a limited number of situations, incineration may be more appropriate. The numbered paragraphs below correspond to the numbered steps in Figure 1 and provide a detailed discussion of each step. 1. Are VOCs Present in the Soil? The first step is to determine whether VOCs are the major contaminant present in soil at the site. Table 2 lists the VOCs that are amenable to the presumptive remedies outlined in this directive. If VOCs are present at levels of concern (see forthcoming guidance on soil screening levels), then the presumptive remedies outlined in this directive may be applicable. However, if it is confirmed (at this point or at any later point during the ' presumptive remedy process) that there are no VOCs present in the soil, then this directive is not applicable for use in technology selection at the site. TUT 007 1897 FIGURE 1 Decision Tree for investigating and Selecting a Remedy at Solvent Sites Initiate •arty PRP. State, and coflwnunity if presumptive remedy approach it appropriate. Conduct tim^cnXal IVfflOVV JdUft. • Ateemble Adjnjrastn- ttve Recofd TUT 007 1898 Most likely, this analysis will occur during scoping of the Rl/FS or EE/CA. However, there may be only limited information available at that time about the site. Therefore, whatever information is available should be used to determine whether VOCs are present or suspected in the soil based on prior use. Chemical use at a site can be ascertained from a number of sources such as facility records, previous sampling efforts by local or State agencies or through Information Request letters. 2. Are Non-VOC Contaminants Present That Preclude the Use of Presumptive Remedies? In addition to determining whether VOCs are present in the soil, it is also necessary to identify other non-VOC contaminants, if any, present in the soil. The site characterization and technology selection procedures outlined in this directive are recommended for use primarily on soil containing VOCs only. See Table 2 for VOCs that are amenable to the presumptive remedies. For sites containing a mixture of VOCs and other contaminants in soil, the presumptive remedies should be considered only if they can also be effective in removing the non-VOC contaminants or combined with other, non-presumptive remedies in a treatment train, assuming the presumptive remedies do not " exacerbate the problems presented by the non-VOCs. For example, sites with VOCs and metals commingled in soil may be effectively remediated by employing SVE to remove VOCs followed by fixation or solidification to address the metal contamination. In contrast, a VOC and polyaromaa'c hydrocarbons (PAHs) contaminant combination may be treated more appropriately with a single biological treatment scheme that would be effective for both the VOCs and PAHs. Note that sites containing mixtures of VOCs and non-VOCs are varied, and, for this reason, remedy selection may be more complicated than the framework presented in this directive; therefore, the presumptive remedy analysis may need to be supplemented or modified on a site-specific basis. 3. Initiate Early Community, State, and Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) Involvement. As early in the clean-up process as possible, EPA should notify the community. State, and any PRPs that apresumptive remedy is being considered for the site. It is important for all stakeholders to understand completely bow the presumptive remedy process varies from the usual clean-up process and the benefits of using the presumptive remedies process. Early identification of State applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) also is a critical part of this process. Because the presumption set forth in this directive is national in scope, it does not take into account State ARARs. For this reason. State ARARs relating to the presumptive remedies should be considered on a site-specific basis. Regions may want to supplement this directive by compiling the requirements of the States in their Regions that are likely to be associated with the use of the presumptive remedies and placing them in the administrative record for a site where presumptive remedies are being considered. This directive along with the "Feasibility Study Analysis for CERCLA Sites with Volatile Organic Compounds in Soils" should be included in the administrative record for the site if one ofthepresumptiveremedies is proposed foraparticular VOC-comaminated site. 4. Review Advantages/Limitations of the Presumptive Remedies. During initial site characterization, Table 3 should be reviewed to consider the advantages and limitations of the presumptive remedies. This information may be useful in preparing for and/or modifying the site characterization or alternatives analysis process. The "Practical Considerations" section of this directive should also be reviewed at this time to ensure a comprehensive site characterization and remedy evaluation. 5. Conduct Site Characterization. Site characterization for sites using VOC presumptive remedies should be designed tot • Positively identify the site type (i*., VOC site); • Obtaindatatodetermine whether the presumptive remedy is feasible for the site; • Focus (and possibly streamline) site characterization by collecting data to support the selection of presumptive remedy(ies) only (e.g., volume and cost information); and, • Collect some design data (i.e., pilot studies to determine radios of influence and flow rates of SVE), thereby streamlining data collection during die remedial design stage. Table 4 lists the data that are required for characterization of sites with soil contaminated with VOCs. This table also includes the rationale for collecting these data and references for established collection methods. Note that bench-scale and pilot/ treatability studies should be performed whenever possible concurrent with site characterization todefine the parameters that will be important to designing the system. In areas with low organic content soil (e.g., alluvial basins), or where there are impediments to obtaining soil samples (e.g., under buildings), soil gas sampling OO7 1899 is highly recommended as a site characterization technique. In addition, the use of soil gas sampling during implementation of S VE and confirmatory soil sampling afterward is less expensive than constantly installing new soil borings, especially for deep contamination If incineration or thermal desorption is under serious consideration, bench-scale treatability studies may be conducted, especially if metals or other inorganic compounds are present. Thermal desorption generally should be considered if concentrations of VOCs are less than 5 to 10 percent; incineration may be appropriate if VOC concentrations exceed 5 to 10 percent Note that excavation and mixing of soil can produce a desorber input of less than 10 percent contaminant concentration and allow thermal desorption to be chosen. Additionally, the feasibility of excavation should be detenninedby evaluating surfaceconditionsanddepth of contaminants as well as the potential for any air emissions associated with the excavation. Test digs should be monitored closely to assure protection of the public and the environment It is important to note that during the site characterization, the volume and concentration of waste constituting the principal threats at the site should be identified. The NCP (Section 300.430<a)(lXmX A) andA Guide to PrincipalThreat and Low Level Threat Wastes, SuperfuodPublication: 9380.3-06FS, November 1991, define principal threats as source materials, including liquids, that are highly toxic or highly mobile wastes which generally cannot be reliably contained or would present a significant risk to human health and or environment should exposure occur. In accordance with NCP expectations, waste constituting "principal threats" posed by a site generally are expected to be treated. The site manager is encouraged to characterize the site in terms of principal and low-level threat areas to determine materials to be targeted for treatment and containment 6. Identify Potential ARARs, To Be Considered (TBCs), andPreliminaryRemediationGoals(PRGs). Potential Federal and State ARARs and pertinent TBCs information should be identified on a chemical-, location-, and action-specific basis concurrent with site characterization. For a more detailed ARARs discussion, refer to the various ARARs fact sheets. (See Compendium of CERCLA ARARs Factskeets and Directives, EPA Publication 9347.3-15, October 1991). At this step, PRGs should also be identified (NCP Section 300.43(XeX2Xc)). Note that different health risk-based PRGs are often set for soils, depending on depth. Shallow soil levels are usually based both on direct contact exposure and protection of ground water, while levels for deeper soils are generally based only on mass transport modeling of effects on ground water. Ecological effects may also be important to consider in setting PRGs. 7. ConductTime-CriticalRemovalAction(ifnecessary). During initial site characterization, data will be gathered to determine whether a time-critical removal action will be needed and to determine whether the contaminants present are amenable to the presumptive remedies. Time-critical removal actions, such as drum removal or actions addressing highly contaminated (typically small volumes)of soil, should be conducted in accordance with current guidance and regulations. The decision to take a time-critical removal action may be made by the Regional Decision Team (RDT) or if time does not permit, by an On- Scene Coordinator (OSC) or a Remedial Project Manager (RPM) in consultation with an OSC. 8. Is Therea Threat Posedby the Site? A risk assessment must be conducted to determine if a sufficient health or environmental threat exists to warrant a removal or remedial action. (Refer to Risk Assessment Guidance forSuperfund, Volumes I and II. EPA/540/1-89/002 andEPA/540/1-89/001). Where it is determined that such a threat exists, site-specific exposure data can be used to modify the PRGs identified in Step 6 (NCP Section 300.430(6X2X0). If it is determined that sucnathreat does not exist, no further action at the site will be required. 9. Proceed With Technology Assessment and Review "Practical Considerations" section. If the analysis described in step 8 confirms that the contaminants are a threat to human health and/or the environment, a proposed remedy should men be identified. If this project is a remedial action, a detailed analysis using the nine criteria will be required under NCP Section 300.430(eX9)) to justify the selection of remedy decision. Appendix B provides an analysis of SVE, thermal desorption, and incineration against seven of the nine selection criteria. In addition to the seven criteria discussed in Appendix B, community, and State acceptance must also be evaluated. Ifanon- time critical removal action is planned, me streamlined analysis described in the EE/CA guidance will be required mat uses the three criteria of effectiveness, imptementability, and cost During the technology assessment, the factors listed in the "Practical Considerations" section of this directive should be reviewed to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of alternatives. TUT C>O7 10. Does the Pilot /Treatability Study Indicate that SVE is Feasible ? SVE is the primary presumptive remedy. Pilot/treatability study testing of SVE should be conducted prior to final remedy selection. Such testing will provide information on the rate of removal of contaminants. EPA/540/2-91/091A cited in the References section of this directive provides guidance on conducting the pilot/treatabUity study. Removal efficiencies and treatment effectiveness must be carefully considered alongside the PRGs identified in the FS to estimate the potential for successful remedial action using SVE. 11. Is Thermal Desorption Feasible ? If SVE will not be sufficiently effective in achieving PRGs due to low permeability, iithology or insufficient removal of contamination during the pilot study, thermal desorption should be considered as the primary ex- situ presumptive remedy. Thermal desorption technologies cover a variety of vendors and processes. However, ample data are available to substantiate remedy selection of thermal desorption for soil contaminated solely with VOCs. 12. Is Incineration Feasible? If contaminant concentrations and bench-scale testing indicate thermal desorption will not achieve desired PRG levels, incineration is the second ex-situ presumptive remedy. If incineration is planned, *"*1 a substantial number of inorganic contaminants are expected to be present based on site characterization data, materials handling problems, or slagging problems are likely. If none of the three presumptive remedies is considered to be feasible at a particular site, it will be necessary to consider other technologies. (For more information, refer to the Practical Considerations section below.) 13. Select Remedy for Remedial/Removal Action. At this point, there should be enough data to identify a preferred remedy in the proposed plan and distribute the plan for public comment Once the remedy has been selected in the ROD, the user can proceed to do a limited design which relies largely on the substantial amount of design-related data collected during the RI. The extent of additional or supplemental data required will be determined on a site-specific basis. Practical Considerations The following factors should be considered prior to taking any remedial action. Enforcement: This directive applies to fund-lead sites as well as to sites where a PRP is conducting the investigation and/or response action. In the event that there is an ongoing PRP-lead RI/FS, the scope of work may be amended to reflect the presumptive remedy approach to site characterization and remedy selection. The potential savings in time and money to be gained by using the presumptive remedy approach are expected to outweigh the burden of modifying the scope of work in many cases. Initial Site Actions: If the VOC material is still in original, intact containers, it may be returned to the manufacturer (if the manufacturer is willing to accept these containers), assuming thisresponseisacost-effective and feasible action as opposed to treating the material. Reuse of material (i.e., process liquids and relocation of equipment to otoer permitted facilities) should also be considered. Furtber,phaseseparaaonsnouldbe conducted and recycling considered depending on the purity of the recovered phase or for any existing liquids that are high enough in-concentran'on. Refer to Appendix C for a list of the currently recognized waste exchanges. Site Characterization: Site characterization should proceed as a single, multi-media activity whenever possible. Field screening methods should be integrated into the sampling and analysis plan in order to accelerate information gathering. Data quality must reflect the ultimate use of the information. Ground Water: The decision maker should consider the ground-water strategy for the site since soil clean-up levels are often set to protect ground-water quality. Therefore, ground-water clean-up levels may have adirect impact on the selected clean-up levels for soil. (See forthcoming guidance on Soil Screening Levels and the directive entitled Presumptive Remedies: Remedial Strategy and Treatment Technologies for CERCLA Sites with Contaminated Ground Water.) It should be noted that, of the VOC-type contaminants, listed in Table 2, the halogenated volatiies are dense nonaqueous phase liquids (dense NAPLs or DNAPLs) and many of me others are light NAPLs (LNAPLs) in their pure liquid form. If LNAPLs are present, it may be possible to address them by lowering the water table, removing free product (ifpresent), and applying SVE. To address DNAPLs contamination, refer to the above mentioned ground-water guidance. Management of Different Soils: A situation may arise where highly contaminated shallow material cannot be addressed by SVE The action to address this contamination may differ from the rest of the soil contamination and will most likely involve incineration or thermal desorption. If it is suspected that soil contamination existing at greater depths will also be treated in this manner, men the excavated shallow material should be staged and stored in order to treat it with the deep material. Another situation may arise where VOCs are mixed with metals, and none of the presumptive remedies can address both sets of contaminants. The action to address this situation may consist of a treatment train where VOCs are TUT OO7 1901 addressed through SVE or thermal desorption and the metals are addressed through fixation. Finally, the site manager should be aware of situations where a mixture of principal and low-level threat wastes call for the use of treatment (i.e.. SVE or thermal treatment) of principal threat waste and containment (capping) of low-level contamination. (See A Guide to Principal Threat and Low-Level Wastes in Reference Section). Off-Site Disposal: In general, it may not be cost-effective to ship quantities of contaminated soil in excess of 5,000 cubic yards for off-site disposal. For this reason, pretreatment of soil and water may be required prior to shipment or discharge to another treatment facility. Capping: Capping alone is not recommended to control the migration of VOCs. However, capping can improve the effectiveness of SVE by decreasing the rate of infiltration of residual VOCs through the vadose zone into the ground water as well as possibly increasing the radius of influence and preventing "short circuiting" of air pathways in the vicinity of the extraction well. Capping can also be used to address non-principal threat waste unless it is more cost-effective to treat this waste along with more highly contamin Patents: SVE is a patented technology. Royalty payments may be required under certain conditions of implementation. Attainment of Remediation Goals: It should be noted that, like other in-situ technologies, it is difficult to ascertain with confidence whether SVE will attain remediation goals until the action is actually implemented. However, the lower cost and ease of SVE implementation will often weigh heavily in its favor, as long as protection of human health and the environment is ensured. Additional Technologies: If for some reason none of the presumptive remedies is applicable to a particular site, the site manager is encouraged to refer to EPA's forthcoming document entitled Contaminants and Remedial Options at Solvent Sites for a discussion of additional VOC treatment technologies. It should be noted that this comprehensive document, which identifies additional VOCs and technologies, may be appropriate to consider on a site- specific basis. Thermal Treatment Technologies: The site manager should refer to EPA's Draft Strategy for Combustion of Hazardous Waste (May 18,1993) when considering any thermal treatment technologies at a particular site. Conclusion For sites containing VOC-contaminated soil and appropriate soil characteristics, SVE is a relatively inexpensive and efficient technology. If material needs to be excavated, thermal desoiption is preferred. In a few cases, incineration may be the most appropriate remedy - - for example, where SVE and thermal desorption will not meet clean-up criteria based oncontaminantconcentrations or composition. As remedies other than SVE, thermal desorption and incineration become more widely used in the future, this directive may be modified to reflect these trends. For further assistance on presumptive remedy related activities consult the Regional Presumptive Remedies contact Notice: The policies set out in this document are intended solely as guidance to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) personnel; they are not final EPA actions and do not constitute rulemaking. These policies are not intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create any rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States. EPA officials may decide to follow the guidance provided in this document or to act at variance with the guidance, based on an analysis of specific site circumstances. EPA also reserves the right to change this guidance at any time without public notice. TUT oo>7 1902 Incineration Thermal Desorption Soil Vapor Extraction § » ft * 8 8 8 — o * * t i l f li; 1 s a a ?-« a 0) c7 m (O *•* 8 cT I CO S" (A TABLE 4 Information Required for Characterization and Technology Selection at VOC Sites INFORMATION RATIONALE FOR COLLECTING INFORMATION REFERENCE All Technologies: SNe Geology SVE Is most effective in porous. permeable, homogeneous sol. Hdjily heterogeneous soil J.e., fractured ponus nek <K sards WerspersedwHh day lenses) may exhibit air flow channelng trough NgNypemeabte soils. Abo. desorptkn IdneHcs may be slow h some stuations (i.e., high organic content or high day content sol). In these cases, mass transfer khetics may reduce tie rate of removal d SVEbebwthatwhbhis expected by catenations wlh a local equilibrium model or pikl scab expermerts earned out tor only a tew days. Often dfluskn kinetics Imitations can be substantial reducedby proper design d tie SVE facility. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and FeasiblHy Studies under CERCLA (pp. 3-3 to 3-20) EPA/540/G-89M4 USQSSdtClassJflcalbn For SVE to be elective, tie sol must have sufficient pneumatic permeablity f>10* on2) to parml at to move trough tiemedum. Sandy, gravely soife are tie most conductive to SVE, white days and silts are bss conductive. However, remedaticns using SVE in chys and site have been successful. Soil permeablity may need to be measured in tie field. ASTMD2487 ASTMD2488 SMMdsture Hjgh moteturecontent h soil may drasficaHy decrease to air permeability and tius, fie effectiveness d SVE Hie site mist be sufficiently wed drahedtopreventtie severe reduction in air permeability, which occurs when the peicent water saturation d tie soil is greater tan 80%. Convesely. oiganics can be stiongty adsorbed onto extremely dry sold, which also impedes SVE The moisture content ot the sol will affect the amount d energy ftojuired to heal the sol, thetarget terrperature and tie handling pnperties d fine-grahed soil. Theimal desoiptton requires ttallhe moWure content of the scH be less tian 30%. ASTMD2216 ASTMD30I7 Depti to Gawd Vfcter SVEisnoteffectrveinsaturaledscH. However.thewatertabtecanbetoweredbypimping. Theimaldesertion and hdneratbn are more expensive for Ngh moisture sod. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasiblity Studies under CERCLA (pp.3-3to 3-20) EPA640/G-89«04____ Ctntamhart ktentty and Properties •£> O BoBngPohl -ThetrialdBsoytkyitaroBttemperaluBlsdependenttincontamhaftbollnQpolrt. VhporPiessuiB- SVE is effective for compounds with a vapor pressure greater tian 0.5 mm Hg al sol temperatures. Dhienstortess Henry's Constant • SVE is effective for compounds wtti a dmenstontess Henry's constant higher ten 0.01 at son temperatures. Water Sdub%- SVE is more successful for compounds wii tower sotubiWes. liquid and Vapor Density-A contaminant wHha density greater tian water may form a DWPL. A contamhant wlh adensrty toss tian water may foirn an LNAPL. The flow characteristics of a compound* vapor for SVE is a function d its vapor densHy. CRCChembal Handbook 1ABLE 4 Information Required for Characterization and Technology Selection at VOC Sites (Continued) INFORMATION RATIONALE FOR COLLECTING INFORMATION REFERENCE Al Technologies: (continued) Contamlnart Concentration, location, Volume, and Depth Presence of Pipes or Subsurface Material These data can be gathered via soil matrix anoYor sod gas sampling Soil gas sampling both shallow and at depths, may bo more appropriate, given depth to ground water and stratigraphy. Thepresenceof water or electrical conduits, sol fracture Ihes.debrfc, or any other objects that are more peimeable than the surrounding soil will be the preferred pathway for the adverting gases. GuUance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasiblity StudesUnderCERCLA (pp 3^3 to 3-20) EPA/540/G 89/004 Geotechnical Techniques SVEOnly: SoMMr Fitted Porosity SoW/Mr PermeabMty Soil Temperature Soil Humic Content Contaminart Soil Soiptton Coellfctort Kd (Sbwe Kd Is less reedryavalabte.Koc.the equlibihim between cortamlnarts sooed onto organic carbon versus the ground water Is used.) Contaminant Adsorption Characteristlcs.on Activated Carbon Porosity shoukJbe less than 40% tor SVE to be effective. SoWalrpermeablltyshouH be greater than 10* en* for air to move thiDugroul the contaminated soil. SVEte potertiaRy effective hi toss permeable soil (le., between 10-6to 10-10 en* ), but further pibl- scale test tog anoYor mathematical modelng b recommended to better predct the tine for cleanup (which is likety to be prolonged for tower permeability soil). Contaminant vapor pressure, dhienstortess Henry's Law cons tart, water solubllty, and phase density are strong functions of temperature. Solvents adhere strongly to soil with high humfc oortenl, which decreases the effectiveness of SVE. Thb parameter describes thetendency of the solvent to sorborto soil or organic matter In the soil. Higher Koc's Indlcatethat a subsurface is more Ikery toblnd tocarbon rich meda (I.e.. soi| than to remain in water. Thb parameter is related to the feasiblHy of removing contamharts from residuals by carbon adsoiptkm TNs parameter b Important since compounds such as MEK becomeuns table as they areadsorbed onto caiboa Gutiance for Conducting Remedial Irvestigalbns and Feasiblity Studes Under CERCLA (pp. 3^3 to 3-20) EPA/540/G-89/004 GuUance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasiblity StudesUnderCERCLA (pp 3-3 to 3-20) EPA/54QVG-89/004 GuUance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasiblity StudesUnderCERCLA (pp 3-3 to 3-20} EPAf5«yG-89/004 GuUance for Con dueling Remedial Irvesttgatbnsand FeasibiHy StudesUnderCERCLA (pp 3-3 to 3-20) EPA/540/G-89/004 RRELTreataUlity Database RREL Treatability Database H O Ui TABLE 4 Information Required for Characterization and Technology Selection at VOC Sites (Continued) INFORMATION RATIONALE FOR COLLECTING INFORMATION REFERENCE Incineration and Thermal Desorptlon Only: Sol Plasticity Sol BTU Content Contaminant Combustion Characteristics SoR Particle Size Distribution AftaNne Metal Salts (e.g..NaS04.KS04) Votote Met ate Content (e.g.,Hg.Pb.Cd.Zn.Sn) Plastic soH, when subjected to compressive forces, can become molded into large particles that are difficult to heat. The sol BTU content determines the fuel requirements for thermal desorptfon and incineration. Information on combustion characteristics of a VOC is required in order to determine the combustion characteristics of the Incinerator. Thermal desorptton usually requires that soil be pretreated to a maximum sofl particle size ranging froml to 2 inches. Afcalne metal sails may cause refractory attack and slagging at high temperatures. High metal content may cause ash teaching and slack emissions problems. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and FeasfciWy Studies under CERCLA (pp. 3-3 to 3-20) EPA/540VG-89/004 ASTMD3286 Bench/Pilot Testing ASTMD422 Percentage of Na, K Heavy Metals Analysis C. BTU. British Thermal Units INAPL . Light Nonaqueous Phase Liquid DNAPL « Dense Nonaqwous Phase Liquid mm Hg«mtNmeters of mercury pressure NAPL * Nonaqueous Phase Liquid PIC * Products of Incomplete Combustion •43 APPENDIX A TECHNICAL BAS5S FOR PRESUMPTIVE REMEDIES This Appendix summarizes the analyses that EPA conducted of Record of Decision (ROD) and Feasibility Study (FS) data from VOC-contaminated sites which led to establishing soil vapor extraction (SVE), thermal desorption, and incineration as the presumptive remedies for Superfund sites with VOC- contaminated soil. The analyses consisted of: • Identifying VOC-contaminated sites • Determining the frequency of technology selection for VOC sites • Identifying sites for the feasibility study (FS) analysis • Conducting the FS analysis. Results of these analyses, along with the scientific and engineering analysis of the performance data on technology application (Primary Reference document), provide a supportforthe decision to eliminate the initial alternatives identification and screening step for this site type. These technical reviews found that certain technologies are appropriately screened out based on effectiveness, implementabitity. or excessive costs. Review of technologies against the nine criteria led to elimination of additional alternatives. Provided below is a discussion of each analysis. identification of VOC-Contaminated Sites The first analysis involved generating a list of signed Records of Decision (RODs) (post-SARA), documenting VOC contamination, from which data could be used for subsequent analyses. The ROD Information Directory database was used for this purpose. Of the 821 signed FY86-FY91 RODs, 418 are identified in the database as containing VOC contamination in. source material. This list of RODs was subsequently divided into two lists: RODs where VOCs were the only contaminants of concern • identified in the source material and RODs containing VOCs, as well as other contamination, in source material. For those RODs involving VOC plus other contaminants, a review of the ROD document was conducted to identify cases where only VOCs were driving the selection of remedy. To make this determination, the Remedial Response Objectives and Selected Remedy sections of the ROD were reviewed to identify specific language indicating that the remedial action was designed to address only the VOCs at the site. In addition, if cleanup goals were specified only for VOCs, the assumption was made that VOCs were driving the remedy. As a result of this analysis, 88 RODs were identified as VOC-only RODs or VOCs plus other contaminants RODs where a clear determination could be made that VOCs were driving the selection of remedy. Frequency of Technology Selection for VOC-Contaminated Sites Table 1 presents the distribution of the 88 FY86-FY91 RODs among the treatment technologies used to address VOCs in soil. This table demonstrates that the three presumptive remedies (SVE, thermal desorption, and incineration) together were selected more often (over 90% of the RODs analyzed) than the other applicable technologies. Presumptive Remedies were also those remedies where a fair amount of performance data on technology implementation was available. Furthermore, SVE, chosen in over two-thirds of the RODs analyzed, was the primary presumptive remedy selected. Identification of Sites for Feasibility Study Analysis The purpose of the FS analysis was to document the technology screening step in FSs of VOC- contaminated soil/sludge sites and identify the principal reasons given for eliminating technologies from further consideration. To achieve a representative sample of FSs for the analysis, sites were selected using ROD data according to the following criteria: 13 TUT OO7 i 90 7 APPENDIX A TECHNICAL BASIS FOR PRESUMPTIVE REMEDIES (Continued) Table 1 Presumptive Remedy VOC Site Treatment Summary Table, FY86-FY91* TECHNOLOGIES USED TO ADDRESS VOCs IN SOIL Bioremediation (1> Incineration Soil Flushing/Washing <"> Soil Vapor Extraction Thermal Treatment <2) Total TOTAL 3 11 3 62 9 88 Source: Notes: ROD Information Directory (RID), FY86 - FY91 (1) Relatively limited amount of performance data available for these technologies versus the presumptive remedies. (2) Thermal treatment includes RODs employing thermal desorptlon, thermal aeration, low-temperature thermal desorption, and the generic remedy "thermal treatment". A population of 418 RODs was identified for this study based on the parameters: FY1986-1991, and VOC contamination of source media. • Sites were chosen, based on the selected remedy, to ensure an even distribution among the five treatment technologies for VOCs in soil (i.e., bioremediation, incineration, SVE, soil flushing, and thermal treatment). • Wheneverpossible, both VOC-only sites and VOC and other contamination sites were represented under each technology. • Sites were selected to ensure an even distribution in geographic location, ROD signature date, and site size. Feasibility Study Analysis The FS analysis involves a review of the technology screening phase, including any ore-screening steps, followed by a review of the detailed analysis and comparative analysis phases in each FS and ROD. Information derived from each review was documented on site-specific data collection forms, which are available for evaluation as part of the Administrative Record for this directive. (See "Feasibility Study Analysis for CERCLA Sites with Volatile Organic Compounds in Soils", September 1993, available at EPA Headquarters and Regional Offices.) 14 TUT 007 APPENDIX A TECHNICAL BASIS FOR PRESUMPTIVE REMEDIES (Continued) Forthe screening phase.the full range of technologies considered wasl.sted on .^ date collection forn^ along with the key reasons given for eliminating technologies from further consideration J^se reasons were categorized according to the screening criteria: cost, effectiveness. or imp i^entebH^ The frequency with which specific reasons weregiven for eliminating a technology from further consideration was then tallied and compiled into a screening phase summary table (Table 2). For the detailed analysis and comparative analysis, information on the relative Pfrfoj^nce of each technology/alternative with respect to the nine NCP criteria was documented on collectiorT forms. The advantages and disadvantages associated with ea highlighted. In some cases, a VOC technology was combined with oneor more minor site contaminants into one or more alternatives. Only the component of the / addressed the VOC contamination was evaluated in this analysis. The disadvantages of a technology/ alternative were then compiled into a detailed analysis/comparative analysis summary table, ".nwrtne assumption that these disadvantages contributed to non-selection. All summary tables are available for review as part of the Administrative Record. The FS analysis has been completed for 21 sites (representing approximately 25% of universe studied). The information from these FSs has been compiled and summarized in TaWe 2. Additional FS analysis is planned and will be added to the Administrative Record, when available. Table 2 demonstrates that technologies, otherthan the presumptive remedies, are consistently eliminated from further consideration in the screening phase due to effectiveness, imptementability, or excessive costs. In addition, the analysis indicates that, although certain technologies routinely passed the screening phase, these .technologies were selected infrequently because they did not provide the best overall Pe"0"??"0® W7 respect to the nine criteria. Together these analyses (Appendix A to this directive and Feasibility Study Analysis for CERCLA Sites with Volatile Organic Compounds in Soils'), along with the sctentfic anahrsis of performance data (USEPA (In Progress) Contaminants and Remedial Options at Solvent Sites) wi» support the decision of using presumptive remedies and bypassing the technology identification ana screening step for a particular site. As previously indicated, this factsheet and accompanying analysis should be part of the Administrative Record for the site. Further supporting materials, not found in the Regional files, can be provided by Headquarters, as needed. 15 TUT 19O9 —\c. o TABLE 2 • SUMMARY OF SCREENING AND DETAILED ANALYSIS FOR VOC SITES 1 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY On TteATMENT* IROOs Where Criterion Contributed to Non-Selection Capping OffsNe Nonhazardous OflstoRCRA Disposal Onsla Encapsulation OnsKa Nonhazardous iaoilil_____ OnsNeRCRA Landffl Sludge Composting Land Farming BtoremedWton (unspecMiad) Ex-sHu In-sRu BkMwnedMton Dachtortnatlon/ APEQ 21 18 14 11 12 11 10 10 -1c "•0 TABLE 2 • SUMMARY OF SCREENING AND DETAILED ANALYSIS FOR VOC SITES (Continued)1 IROOs Where Criterion Contributed to Non-Selection Ottwf CtwniCm Destruction Reduction ilnijrnll^ialliim NeinrBVaWn Oxidation Offsite (unspecified) OnsHe fa»nl«i mtntfatm inCniBialfOn (unspcclflodf FUofeed Bed **. — ». -^t- ryroysis Muttpte Hearth Rotary Kin Other Other Thermal Treatment 16 11 13 12 —1d o ^ H- -0 H-w 00 TABLE 2 • SUMMARY OF SCREENING AND DETAILED ANALYSIS FOR VOC SITES (Continued)1 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY OR iREAIMENT2 Vitrification Wet Air Oxidation Low Temperature Thermal Desoip/ Stripping m-slu Steam Stripping Sol Flushing Sol *••—_*-• — nasTing In-stu Vacuum Extraction B.E.S.T. Process Uquffied Gas Other Physical Fi < Minting txnacnon Fixation StabNnftNV SoWflcatton Aeration 12 6 13 3 15 14 17 1 1 4 7 13 12 0 1 10 2 3 2 11 0 0 0 1 2 2 11 5 3 t 12 12 6 1 1 4 6 7 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 / / iFStWhm rt «*/ Criterion ConMbutod S £<t*X^ ToScratnmgOuaXtfP ^ 8 4 1 1 9 10 6 1 1 3 6 6 9 ^ 5 3 2 0 5 9 2 0 .1 0 0 2 2 ^ 0 0 3 2 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 1 m 0 1 7 0 3 2 2 0 0 0 1 2 1 4% 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 ./ i RODs Where Criterion Contributed to Non-Selection /* 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 & 0 0 t 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 \J^ 0 t 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 *& 0 1 7 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 t Cf* 0 i 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 X 0 0 4 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 & -- -- •- » •- » •- -- •- •- -• - •- «$* •• - - •• '« -- -- -• -- -- •- -• •- H •-D TABLE 2 • SUMMARY OF SCREENING AND DETAILED ANALYSIS FOR VOC SITES (Continued) ' REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY OR TREATMENT 1 In-srru iji— 'rrtfciala nynrorysis SON Slurries 4 1 0 0 _<VI D 4 1 nn>_> 0 0 0 0 f / IFScWhM* rAj#/ Criterion Contributed ./ &/' To Screwing Out) ><*: r 3 1 v>ec> ^ Y^ 2 0 f 0 0 m 0 0 ^ ^V" / <r 0 0 / I RODa Where Criterion Contributed to Non-Selection <? 0 0 • ^ 0 0 x$ 0 0 *$ 0 0 c*» 0 0 ^ ^ 0 0 ^ -- - ^4 <$ •• -- 2 TMs does' not the Include the no-action or tnsttuttonal control only alternatives. No RODs selected either of these as remedies. 3 FSs and RODs may contain more than one criterion for screening or non-selection of technology. Also, some FSs did not fully explain the criteria for screening out a technology. Thus, the totals for screening and non-selection criteria are not equal to the number ol FSs and RODs considered. * Information on State and community concerns was not Included in this analysis because FSs do not contain (Ms information and RODs generally only reference supporting documentation (I.e., State concurrence tetter and responstveness summary). s-<2i t si is fIf S 30 a a- i 5 sr. l 8 . Ill Us1 w S3 I l| i S! 3D a1=3 iT* 5 | i.osifft- ^ 3sa*§9 ||fai« £il!li I t 8 3 id o I o ^>oI CO Sr APPENDIX B Criteria Evaluation for Technologies Used to Treat VOC-Contaminated Soil < (continued) 1 co V) 111o*1 III JE 1 CRITERIA OveraR Protection of Human Health and the Environment • Provides both short- and long -teim protection by eliminating exposure to VOCshsoVshdgi. • Preventsfurther p/oundwater contamination and dfsie migration • Requires measures to protect workers and communiy dump, excavation, handing, and treatment. Compliance With Federal ARARs • Requires compfance with RCRA removal, treatment, transportation (ioffsie treatment), and land dsposal regulations (if a hazardous waste). • &<avalion.constructon, and operation of onsite treatment unit may require compiance win wetlands and other bcation-speclic ARARs. • Treats hazadous waste to BOAT levels; this, there is no LOR problem wBi residuals. • Generally, treels wastes to levels that w» prevent exceedance of ground- water deaiHJp levels. • Bnissbncontiolsare needed to ensure compfance win air quality standards. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence * Effectively removes contamination source. • teaweMemonstrated technique for removing VOCs torn sol/sludge. • hvofves some treatment or disposal of residuals generaly through use of carbon adsorptorV regeneration or dsposal , Reduction of Toxiaty, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment ' Significantly reduces toxbty.moMityor volume ofconbmhants through treatmert. * Generally requires test runs to ensure effective treatment. Short-Term Effectiveness • Presents potential short- term risks to workers and communiy from air release duriig excavation and treatment (1 onsite treatment). • InvcVespdertia) short-term risks from handing and transporting waste (I oftsle treatment). • Retafvety short limefiame to achieve ctean-up levels. Implementability * Construction and substantive permit requirements ol an onsite treatment unit may present somedlficulties. Mobile incineration units br onsite treatment are avaiabl? • UmtodoHsie treatment capacity exists. • Used successful at other Superfund sites to address solvent contamhatioa • Requires engineering measures to control air emissions, fugitive dust. rurvdl. erosion and sedmentaf on. site access, andtransportatxm —— . ——— - — coa"' S200-300/ ton $2SOAon avg. — — — -• H H O ••Q H-cn 1. Note: Actual cost of a remedation technology is hkjHy sire-specif c. I is dependent upon the orignaland taraet clean-up level concentrations of contaminants, soil charaderistics, and the design and operaf on of me remedation technology used. APPENDIX B Criteria Evaluation for Technologies Used to Treat VOC-Contaminated Soil (continued) _i » 2 CRITERIA Overall Protection of Human Health and tie Environment • Provides bolt) shot* and long-term protection by eirinating exposure to solvent contaminants in soil. • Prevents further ground- water contsminatkxi and olsle mlgraf on. • Requlresmeasuresto prolsctwortcersand communly during •icavaHon, handling, and treatment. Compliance With Federal ARAR s • Requires compliance wlti RCRA removal, treatment, Iransportalionfif off site treatment), and land Disposal regulations (la hazardous waste). • Excavetion, constitution. and operation of onste Incinerators may require complance wfc wettands and otier bcatiorwpeclic ARARs • Treats hazardous waste to BOAT levels; HUB, here Is no LOR problem wit) residuals. • Trees wastes to levels that wl prevent exceedance of ground-water dearnip levels. • Emission controls may be needed to ensure complance wii airqually standards during excavation andconsfructjon. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence • Effecfvely destroys source of contam nation. • Is a well-demonstrated technique tor treeing VOCs in soVshidge. • No organic residuals contaminafon wi 1 exist 1 treating sof sludge contaminated only wtti VOCs. Reduction of TorfcHy, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment • Significanly reduces toKidly.mobily.or volume of contaminants throuoji treatment. " t Short-Term Effecfveness » Presents potenlaf short- term risks to workers and communly from air release during excavaf on and treatmert (if onsie treatment). • Involves potential short- term risks from handing and tan sporting waste (iolsKe treatment). . Reblvety short timeframe to achieve dean -up levels. Imptementability • Constiudbn and substanlve permit requirements of an onsile incinerator may be somewhat difficult. Mobile incinerators are readHy available. . LlTiedofsite indneralon capacity exists. . Used successful at otier Superfund sites to address VOC contaminafon. Cost $200-1700/ ton $40tytonavg c oo H- 1. Note: fctualcost da remedttiontechnobw is higMysle-spedic anddBpertsnt upon the origjnal and target clean-up level concentrations of contaminants, sol characteristics, and the design and operation of the remedatton technology used APPENDIX C U.S. Waste Exchanges CALIFORNIA WASTE EXCHANGE Robert McCormick Department of Health Services Toxic Substances Control Division 400 P Street Sacramento, CA 95812 (916)324-1807 INDIANA WASTE EXCHANGE Environmental Quality Control 1220 Waterway Boulevard P.O. Box 1220 Indianapolis, IN 46206 (317)232-8188 INDUSTRIAL MATERIAL EXCHANGE SERVICE Diane Shockey 2200 Churchill Road, #31 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 (217)782-0450 FAX: (217)782-9142 INDUSTRIAL MATERIALS EXCHANGE Bill Lawrence 172 20th Avenue Seattle, WA 98122 (206) 296-4899 FAX: (206)296-0188 PACIFIC MATERIALS EXCHANGE Bob Smee 1522 North Washington Street, Suite 202 Spokane, WA 99205 (905) 325-0551 FAX: (509)325-2086 NATIONAL WASTE EXCHANGE NETWORK 1-800-858-6625 RENEW Hope Castillo Texas Water Commission P.O. Box 13087 Austin. TX 78711 (512)463-7773 FAX: (512)463-8317 INDUSTRIAL WASTE INFORMATION EXCHANGE William E. Payne New Jersey Chamber of Commerce 5 Commerce Street Newark, NJ 07102 (201) 623-7070 MONTANA INDUSTRIAL WASTE EXCHANGE Don Ingles Montana Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 1730 Helena, MT 59624 (406)442-2405 NORTHEAST INDUSTRIAL WASTE EXCHANG Lewis M. Cutter 90 Presidential Plaza, Suite 122 Syracuse, NY 13202 (315) 422-6572 FAX: (315)422-9051 SOUTHEAST WASTE EXCHANGE Max! May Urban Institute Department of Civil Engineering University of North Carolina Charlotte, NC 28223 (704) 547-2307 SOUTHERN WASTE INFORMATION EXCHANGE Gene Jones P.O. Box 960 Tallanassee, FL 32313 (904)644*5516 FAX: (904)574-6704 23 APPENDIX D GLOSSARY Aonlicableor Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARsl - CERCLA Section 121 (d) and the NCP require that onsite remedial actions must attain (or justify a waiver of) requirements of environmental laws thatare determined to be Federal or more stringent State applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements. Dense Non-Aoueous Phase Liquid (DNAPU - DNAPLs are immiscible hydrocarbon liquids that are denser than water, such as chlorinated solvents (either as a single component or as mixtures of solvents), wood preservative wastes, coal tar wastes, PCBs and some pesticides. DNAPLs can sink to great depths, can penetrate into bedrock fractures, can move as a liquid in a direction different from the flow of groundwater and can act as a c ontinual source of groundwater contamination over time. Engineering Evaluation/Cost Assessment (EE/CA) - An analysis of removal alternatives for non-time critical removal actions. Ex-Situ Treatment - Removal of material from the ground for treatment. Feasibility Study (FSt - A description and analysis of the potential clean-up alternatives for a site. It is generally conducted concurrently with the remedial investigation (RI); together the studies are referred to as an RI/FS. {See remedial investigation.) In-Situ Treatment - The treatment or remediation of media occurring in-place. Innovative Treatment Technologies - Technologies that have been tested, selected, or used for treatment of hazardous substances or contaminated materials but lack weU-dcwunMntfid cost and rjerfortnance data underavariety of operating conditions. Restrictions (LDRsl - The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) include specific restrictions on the land disposal of RCRA hazardous wastes. These restrictions, known as LDRs, prohibit the land disposal of restricted RCRA hazardous wastes unless these wastes meet treatment standards specified in 40CFR 268 or other compliance options. Liht Non-Aoueoa< I-tquids fLNAPLl - Like DNAPLs, LN APLs are immiscible liquids, but are lighter than water and therefore float on water. As they are lighter than water, they are most frequently found at the ground- water table/vadoze zone interface. Record of Decision (ROD! - A public document that explains the basis for selecting the clean-up alternative(s) that will be taken or served under CERCLA. Remedial Design (RD) -The remedial action that involves designing and testing to determine whether the remedy will be effective at a site. Remedial Investigation (RI) - An in-depth study designed to gather the data necessary to determine the nature and extent of the threat posed by contamination at a Superfund site. It also helps to establish the preliminary criteria for cleaning up the site in the FS and supports the technical and cost analyses of the alternatives. It is generally completed and combined with the FS and referred to as the RI/FS. Risk Assessment - The qualitative and/or quantitative evaluation performed in an effort to define the risk posed to human health and/or the environment by actual and potential exposures to specific pollutants in air, water, soil or other media. Supgrfund Accelerated Cleanon Model (SACM) • An initiative designed to accelerate all aspects of the SuperfuDd clean-up process. Vadose Zone • The zone in soil that lies above the permanent water table. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) - Any organic compound which readily dissipates into the air. 24 007 riEFERENCES Primary Reference: U.S. EPA (In-Progress). Contaminants and Remedial Options at Solvent Sites. Compound Properties: RREL Treatability Data Base • Available through ATTIC (Contact Glenn Shaul (513) 569-7408) General Site Investigations: U.S. EPA, 1986. A Compendium of Superfund Field Operation Methods. EPA/540/87/001. U.S. EPA. 1988. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA. EPA/540/G-89/004, October. U.S. EPA, 1989. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA, Interim Final. EPA/540-2-89/ 058. U.S. EPA, 1991. Soil Sampling and Analysis for Volatile Organic Compounds. EPA/540/4-91/001. Incineration: Dempsey, C.R. and Oppett, E.T., "Incineration of Hazardous Waste: A Critical Review Update", International Journal of Air Pollution Control and Hazardous Waste Management, Volume 43, January 1993, pp. 25-73. U.S. EPA, 1990. Mobile/Transportable Incineration Treatment Engineering Bulletin. EPA/540/2-90/014, February. Presumptive Remedies: U.S. EPA (In-Progress). Presumptive Remedies: Policy and Procedures. U.S. EPA (In-Progress). Presumptive Remedies: Remedial Strategy and Treatment Technologies for CERCLA Sites with Contaminated Groundwater. Soil Vapor Extraction: U.S. EPA, 1991. Soil Vapor Extraction Technology Reference Handbook. EP A/540/2-91/003, February. U.S. EPA. 1991. In-Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment Engineering Bulletin. EP A/540/2-91/006, May. U.S. EPA, 1991. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: Soil Vapor Extraction. EPA/540/2-91/091A, September. U.S. EPA, 1992. A Technology Assessment of Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging. EPA/600/R- 92/173, September Thermal Desorption: U.S. EPA, 1991. Thermal Desorption Treatment Engineering Bulletin. EPA/540/2-91/008, February. U.S. EPA, 1991. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: Thermal Desorption Remedy Selection - Interim Guidance. EPA/540/R- 92/074A, September. Additional References: U.S. EPA, 1991. A Guide to Principal Threat and Low Level Threat Wastes. Superfund Publication 9380.3-06FS. U.S. EPA, 1991. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Pan A. EP A/540/1-89/002, December. U.S. EPA, 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume II: Environmental Evaluation Manual. EPA/540/1-89/001, March. U.S. EPA, 1991. Compendium of CERCLA ARARs Factsheets and Directives. EPA Publication 9347.3-15, October. 25 O07 f.9! 9 United States Environmental Protection Agency Washington. D.C. 20460 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300