*************************************************************
EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF TECHNOLOGIES          

This file will explain the EPA procedure for evaluating remedial
alternatives at Superfund sites, and will evaluate each major PCB
treatment option in a general way.  It is only partially
implemented at this time, but we expect to complete it this
summer. 


Contents                                        Implemented

Feasibility Study Criteria Defined..............  yes
Generic FS Evaluations for Technology Types
     Thermal Desorption......................... 
     Solvent Extraction......................... 
     Vitrification..............................  yes
     Solidification............................. 
     Soil Washing............................... 
     
NYSDEC Scoring Procedure........................ 

*************************************************************

FEASIBILITY STUDY CRITERIA

The nine criteria defined in the EPA Remedial Investigation /
Feasibility Study guidance document are typically used to assess
the merits of each alternative individually, then relative to the
other alternatives.  The nine criteria are summarized below.

1.   OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Assess whether or not a remedy provides adequate protection and
describes how risks posed through each pathway are eliminated,
reduced or controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or
institutional controls.

2.   COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS

Addresses whether an alternative meets the requirements of
applicable or relevant environmental statutes and guidelines.

3.   LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE

Refers to the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection
of human health and the environment once cleanup goals have been
met.

4.   REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY AND VOLUME THROUGH TREATMENT

considers whether the alternative employs waste treatment, the
amount of material treated or destroyed, the degree of expected
reductions in toxicity, mobility and volume, the degree to which
treatment is irreversible, and the type and quantity of residual
waste remaining.

5.   SHORT TERM EFFECTIVENESS

Considers the risk to the community and the environment during
implementation of the remedy, and the time required to achieve
protection.

6.   IMPLEMENTABILITY

Technical and administrative feasibility of the remedy, including
the availability of services and materials needed to implement a
particular option.

7.   COST

Includes estimated capital, operation and maintenance cost, and
net present worth cost.

8.   AGENCY ACCEPTANCE

Addresses technical and administrative issues and concerns the
support agencies may have regarding each alternative.

9.   COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE

Addresses the issues and concerns the public may have to each of
the alternatives.


Source: MVA Consulting, Inc.


*****************************************************************

GENERIC FS EVALUATIONS OF PCB TREATMENT OPTIONS



IN-SITU VITRIFICATION

1.   OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Provides both short term and long term effectiveness by
destroying organic contaminants and immobilizing inorganic
material.  Remediation can be performed in-situ, reducing the
need for excavation.  Requires off-gas treatment systems to
control airborne emissions.  System can be specifically designed
to handle emissions generated by he contaminants in the media
being treated.  Technology can simultaneously treat a mixture of
waste types.

2.   COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS

Requires compliance with RCRA treatment, storage and land
disposal regulations (for a hazardous waste).  Successfully
treated solid waste may be de-listed or handled as non-hazardous
waste.  Operation of on-site treatment unit may require
compliance with location-specific ARARs.  Emissions controls may
be needed to ensure compliance with air quality standards
depending on local ARARs and test soil components.  Scrubber
water will likely require secondary treatment before discharge to
POTW or surface water bodies.  Disposal requires compliance with
Clean Water Act regulations.

3.   LONG TERM EFFECTIVENESS

Effectively destroys organic contamination and immobilizes
inorganic material.  Reduces the likelihood of contaminants
leaching from treated soil.  In-situ vitrification (ISV)glass is
thought to have a stability similar to volcanic obsidian.  The
vitrified product is conservatively estimated to remain
chemically and physically stable for approximately 1,000,000
years.  May allow re-use of property after remediation.

4.   SHORT TERM EFFECTIVENESS

Effectively destroys organic contamination and immobilizes
inorganic material.  Vitrification of a single 15-foot deep
treatment cell may be accomplished in approximately ten days. 
Treatment times will vary with actual treatment depth and site-
specific conditions.  Presents potential short-term exposure risk
to workers operating process equipment.  Temperature and electric
hazards exist.  Some short-term risks associated with air
emissions are dependent upon test material composition and
off-gas 
treatment system design.  Staging, if required, involves
excavation and construction of treatment areas.  A potential for
fugitive emissions and exposure exists during excavation and
construction.

5.   REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY OR VOLUME THROUGH TREATMENT

Significantly reduces toxicity and mobility of waste through
treatment.  Volume reductions of 20 to 50 percent are typical
after treatment.  Some inorganic contaminants, especially
volatile metals, may escape the vitrification process and require
subsequent treatment by the off-gas treatment system.  Some
treatment residues (i.e., filters, personal protective equipment)
may themselves be treated during subsequent melts.  Residues from
the final application may require special disposal. Volume of
scrubber water generated is highly dependent upon soil moisture
content, ambient air humidity, and soil particulate levels in the
off-gas.

6.   IMPLEMENTABILITY

A suitable source of electric power is required to utilize this
technology.  Equipment is transportable and can be brought to the
site using conventional shipping methods.  Weight restrictions on
tractor/trailers may vary from state to state.  Necessary support
equipment includes earth moving equipment for staging treatment
areas (if required) and covering treated areas with clean soil. 
A crane is required for off-gas hood placement and movement.  The
staging of treatment areas is recommended for areas where the
contamination is limited to shallow depths (less than eight
feet).  The soil oxide composition must provide sufficient
electrical conductivity in the molten state and adequate
quantities of glass formers to produce a vitrified product. 
Oxides can be added to soil to correct for deficiencies. 
Groundwater should be diverted away from treatment areas to
improve economic viability.

7.   COST

The estimated treatment cost when the soil is staged in nine 
15-ft deep cells is approximately $430 per ton ($780 per cubic
yard) based on the Parson's site demonstration.  Costs are highly
site specific.  Treatment is most economical when treating large
sites to maximum depth.  Electric power is a major cost element
associated with ISV.  Other important factors (in order of
significance) include labor costs, startup and fixed costs,
equipment costs, and facility modifications and maintenance
costs.  Moisture content of the waste being treated directly
influences the treatment cost since electric energy must be used
to vaporize water before soil melting occurs.  Sites that require
staging and extensive site preparation will have higher overall
cost.


Source: EPA SITE Technology Capsule, Geosafe Corporation In Situ
Vitrification Technology, November 1994 (EPA 540/R-94/520a)