vvEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Emergency and Remedial Response Washington, DC 20460 Office of Research Cincinnati, OH 45268 Superfiind EPA/540/2-91/006 May 1991 Engineering Bulletin In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment Purpose Section 121(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Re- sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) mandates the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to select remedies that "utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maxi- mum extent practicable" and to prefer remedial actions in which treatment "permanently and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous substances, pollut- ants, and contaminants as a principal element." The Engi- neering Bulletins are a series of documents that summarize the latest information available on selected treatment and site remediation technologies and related issues. They provide summaries of and references for the latest information to help remedial project managers, on-scene coordinators, contrac- tors, and other site cleanup managers understand the type of data and site characteristics needed to evaluate a technology for potential applicability to their Superfund or other hazard- ous waste site. Those documents thtit describe individual treatment technologies focus on remedial scoping needs. Addenda will be issued periodically to update the original bulletins. Abstract Soil vapor extraction (SVE) is designed to physically re- move volatile compounds, generally from the vadose or un- saturated zone. It is an in situ process employing vapor extraction wells alone or in combination with air injection wells. Vacuum blowers supply the motive force, inducing air flow through the soil matrix. The air strips the volatile com- pounds from the soil and carries them to the screened ex- traction well. Air emissions from the systems are typically controlled by adsorption of the volatiles onto activated carbon, thermal destruction (incineration or catalytic oxidation), or condensa- tion by refrigeration [1, p. 26].* SVE is a developed technology that has been used in commercial operations for several years. It was the selected remedy for the first Record of Decision (ROD) to be signed under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (the Verona Well Field Superfund Site in Battle Creek, * [reference number, page number] Michigan). SVE has been chosen as a component of the ROD at over 30 Superfund sites [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Site-specific treatability studies are the only means of documenting the applicability and performance of an SVE system. The EPA Contact indicated at the end of this bulletin can assist in the location of other contacts and sources of information necessary for such treatability studies. The final determination of the lowest cost alternative will be more site-specific than process equipment dominated. This bulletin provides information on the technology applica- bility, the limitations of the technology, the technology de- scription, the types of residuals produced, site requirements, the latest performance data, the status of the technology, and sources for further information. Technology Applicability In situ SVE has been demonstrated effective for removing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the vadose zone. The effective removal of a chemical at a particular site does not, however, guarantee an acceptable removal level at all sites. The technology is very site-specific. It must be applied only after the site has been characterized. In general, the process works best in well drained soils with low organic carbon content. However, the technology has been shown to work in finer, wetter soils (e.g., clays), but at much slower removal rates [7, p. 5]. The extent to which VOCs are dispersed in the soil— vertically and horizontally—is an important consideration in deciding whether SVE is preferable to other methods. Soil excavation and treatment may be more cost effective when only a few hundred cubic yards of near-surface soils have been contaminated. If volume is in excess of 500 cubic yards, if the spill has penetrated more than 20 or 30 feet, or the contamination has spread through an area of several hundred square feet at a particular depth, then excavation costs begin to exceed those associated with an SVE system [8] [9] [10, p. 6]. The depth to groundwater is also important. Groundwa- ter level in some cases may be lowered to increase the volume of the unsaturated zone. The water infiltration rate can be Printed on Recycled Paper ------- Table 1 Effectiveness of SVE on General Contaminant Groups For Soil Contaminant Croups X | ° § i 1 1 Halogenated volatiles Halogenated semivolatiles Nonhalogenated volatiles Nonhalogenated semivolatiles PCBs Pesticides Dioxins/Furans Organic cyanides Organic corrosives Volatile metals Nonvolatile metals Asbestos Radioactive materials Inorganic corrosives Inorganic cyanides Oxidizers Reducers Effectiveness Soil m T • • a a a a a a a a a a a a T • Demonstrated Effectiveness: Successful treatability test at some scale completed T Potential Effectiveness: Expert opinion that technology will work LI No Expected Effectiveness: Expert opinion that technology will not work controlled by placing an impermeable cap over the site. Soil heterogeneities influence air movement as well as the loca- tion of chemicals. The presence of heterogeneities may make it more difficult to position extraction and inlet wells. There generally will be significant differences in the air permeability of the various soil strata which will affect the optimum design of the SVE facility. The location of the contaminant on a property and the type and extent of development in the vicinity of the contamination may favor the installation of an SVE system. For example, if the contamination exists beneath a building or beneath an extensive utility trench network, SVE should be considered. SVE can be used alone or in combination with other technologies to treat a site. SVE, in combination with groundwater pumping and air stripping, is necessary when contamination has reached an aquifer. When the contamina- tion has not penetrated into the zone of saturation (i.e., below the water table), it is not necessary to install a ground- water pumping system. A vacuum extraction well will cause the water table to rise and will saturate the soil in the area of the contamination. Pumping is then required to draw the wa- ter table down and allow efficient vapor venting [11, p. 169]. SVE may be used at sites not requiring complete remedia- tion. For example, a site may contain VOCs and nonvolatile contaminants. A treatment requiring excavation might be selected for the nonvolatile contaminants. If the site required excavation in an enclosure to protect a nearby populace from VOC emissions, it would be cost effective to extract the volatiles from the soil before excavation. This would obviate the need for the enclosure. In this case it would be necessary to vent the soil for only a fraction of the time required for complete remediation. Performance data presented in this bulletin should not be considered directly applicable to other Superfund sites. A number of variables such as the specific mix and distribution of contaminants affect system performance. A thorough characterization of the site and a well-designed and conducted treatability study are highly recommended. The effectiveness of SVE on general contaminant groups for soils is shown in Table 1. Examples of constituents within contaminant groups are provided in the "Technology Screen- ing Guide For Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges" [12]. This table is based on the current available information or professional judgment where no information was available. The proven effectiveness of the technology for a particular site or waste does not ensure that it will be effective at all sites or that the treatment efficiencies achieved will be acceptable at other sites. For the ratings used in this table, demonstrated effectiveness means that, at some scale, treatability tests showed that the technology was effective for that particular contami- nant and matrix. The ratings of potential effectiveness, or no expected effectiveness are both based upon expert judgment. Where potential effectiveness is indicated, the technology is believed capable of successfully treating the contaminant group in a particular matrix. When the technology is not applicable or will probably not work for a particular combination of contaminant group and matrix, a no-expected-effectiveness rating is given. Another source of general observations and average removal efficiencies for different treatability groups is contained in the Superfund Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) Guide #6A, "Obtaining a Soil and Debris Treatability Variance for Remedial Actions," (OSWER Directive 9347.3-06FS, July 1989) [13] and Superfund LDR Guide #6B, "Obtaining a Soil and Debris Treatability Variance for Removal Actions," (OSWER Directive 9347.3-07FS, December 1989) [14]. Limitations Soils exhibiting low air permeability are more difficult to treat with in situ SVE. Soils with a high organic carbon content have a high sorption capacity for VOCs and are more difficult to remediate successfully with SVE. Low soil tem- perature lowers a contaminant's vapor pressure, making vola- tilization more difficult [11]. Sites that contain a high degree of soil heterogeneity will likely offer variable flow and desorption performance, which will make remediation difficult. However, proper design of the vacuum extraction system may overcome the problems of heterogeneity [7, p. 19] [15]. Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment ------- It would be difficult to remove soil contaminants with low vapor pressures and/or high water solubilities from a site. The lower limit of vapor pressure for effective removal of a compound is 1 mm Hg abs. Compounds with high water solubilities, such as acetone, may be removed with relative ease from arid soils. However, with normal soils (i.e., mois- ture content ranging from 10 percent to 20 percent), the likelihood of successful remediation drops significantly be- cause the moisture in the soil acts as a sink for the soluble acetone. Technology Description Figure 1 is a general schematic of the in situ SVE process. After the contaminated area is defined, extraction wells (1) are installed. Extraction well placement is critical. Locations must be chosen to ensure adequate vapor flow through the contaminated zone while minimizing vapor flow through other zones [11, p. 170]. Wells are typically constructed of PVC pipe that is screened through the zone of contamination [11 ]. The screened pipe is placed in a permeable packing; the unscreened portion is sealed in a cement/bentonite grout to prevent a short-circuited air flow direct to the surface. Some SVE systems are installed with air injection wells. These wells may either passively take in atmospheric air or actively use forced air injection [9]. The system must be designed so that any air injected into the system does not result in the escape of VOCs to the atmosphere. Proper design of the system can also prevent offsite contamination from entering the area being extracted. The physical dimensions of a particular site may modify SVE design. If the vadose zone depth is less than 10 feet and the area of the site is quite large, a horizontal piping system or trenches may be more economical than conventional wells. An induced air flow draws contaminated vapors and entrained water from the extraction wells through headers— usually plastic piping—to a vapor-liquid separator (2). There, entrained water is separated and contained for subsequent treatment (4). The contaminant vapors are moved by a vacuum blower (3) to vapor treatment (5). Vapors produced by the process are typically treated by carbon adsorption or thermal destruction. Other methods— such as condensation, biological degradation, and ultraviolet oxidation—have been applied, but only to a limited extent. Process Residuals The waste streams generated by in situ SVE are vapor and liquid treatment residuals (e.g., spent granular activated car- bon [GAC]), contaminated groundwater, and soil tailings from drilling the wells. Contaminated groundwater may be treated and discharged onsite [12, p. 86] or collected and treated off- site. Highly contaminated soil tailings from drilling must be collected and may be either cleaned onsite or sent to an offsite, permitted facility for treatment by another technology such as incineration. Site Requirements SVE systems vary in size and complexity depending on the capacity of the system and the requirements for vapor and liquid treatment. They are typically transported by vehicles ranging from trucks to specifically adapted flatbed semitrailers; therefore, a proper staging area for these vehicles must be incorporated in the plans. Figure 1 Process Schematic of the In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction System Clean Air i Extraction Well (1) Air Vent or Injection Well \ r Extracted u___, L Viioor Vapor- • vapor __ , |nii,H •] t 1 (2) [ Separator J f « Air Vent or Injection Well Ground Surface Contaminated Vadose Zone r ™ ^- Process Residual V Liquid b CleanWater Treatment • ^ y Process Residual^ Monitoring Well Water Table Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment ------- Adequate access roads must be provided to bring mobile drilling rigs onsite for construction of wells and to deliver equipment required for the process (e.g., vacuum blowers, vapor-liquid separator, emission control devices, GAC canisters). A small commercial-size SVE system would require about 1,000 square feet of ground area for the equipment. This area does not include space for the monitoring wells which might cover 500 square feet. Space may be needed for a forklift truck to exchange skid-mounted GAC canisters when regeneration is required. Large systems with integrated vapor and liquid treatment systems will need additional area based on vendor-specific requirements. Standard 440V, three-phase electrical service is needed. For many SVE applications, water may be required at the site. The quantity of water needed is vendor- and site-specific. Contaminated soils or other waste materials are hazard- ous, and their handling requires that a site safety plan be developed to provide for personnel protection and special handling measures. Storage should be provided to hold the process product streams until they have been tested to deter- mine their acceptability for disposal or release. Depending upon the site, a method to store soil tailings from drilling operations may be necessary. Storage capacity will depend on waste volume. Onsite analytical equipment, including gas chromato- graphs and organic vapor analyzers capable of determining site-specific organic compounds for performance assessment, make the operation more efficient and provide better infor- mation for process control. Performance Data SVE, as an in situ process (no excavation is involved), may require treatment of the soil to various cleanup levels man- dated by federal and state site-specific criteria. The time required to meet a target cleanup level (or performance ob- jective) may be estimated by using data obtained from bench- scale and pilot-scale tests in a time-predicting mathematical model. Mathematical models can estimate cleanup time to reach a target level, residual contaminant levels after a given period of operation and can predict location of hot spots through diagrams of contaminant distribution [16]. Table 2 shows the performance of typical SVE applica- tions. It lists the site location and size, the contaminants and quantity of contaminants removed, the duration of operation, and the maximum soil contaminant concentrations before treatment and after treatment. The data presented for specific contaminant removal effectiveness were obtained, for the most part, from publications developed by the respective SVE system vendors. The quality of this information has not been determined. Midwest Water Resources, Inc. (MWRI) installed its VAPORTECH™ pumping unit at the Dayton, Ohio site of a spill of uncombusted paint solvents caused by a fire in a paint warehouse [19]. The major VOC compounds identified were acetone, methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, naphtha, xylene, and other volatile aliphatic and alkyl benzene compounds. The site is underlain predominantly by valley-fill glacial outwash within the Great Miami River Valley, reaching a thickness of over 200 feet. The outwash is composed chiefly of coarse, clean sand and gravel, with numerous cobbles and small boulders. There are two outwash units at the site separated by a discontinuous till at depths of 65 to 75 feet. The upper outwash forms an unconfined aquifer with saturation at a depth of 45 to 50 feet below grade. The till below serves as an aquitard between the upper unconfined aquifer and the lower confined to semiconfined aquifer. Vacuum withdrawal extended to the depth of groundwater at about 40 to 45 feet. During the first 73 days of operation, the system yielded 3,720 pounds of volatiles and after 56 weeks of operation, had recovered over 8,000 pounds of VOCs from the site. Closure levels for the site were developed for groundwater VOC levels of ketones only. These soil action levels (acetone, 810 u.g/1; MIBK, 260 u.g/1, and MEK, 450 ng/l) were set so that waters recharging through contaminated soils would result in Table 2. Summary of Performance Data for In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Sfte_ Industrial - CA [1 7] Sheet Metal Plant - Ml [18] Prison Const. Site- Ml [19] Sherwin-Williams Site - OH [19] Upjohn- PR [20][21] UST Bellview - FL [7] Verona Wellfield - Ml [7][22] Petroleum Terminal - Owensboro, KY [19] SITE Program - Groveland MA [7] Size 5,000 cu yds 165,000 cu yds 425,000 cu yds 7,000,000 cu yds 35,000 cu yds 12,000 cu yds 6,000 cu yds Contaminants TCE PCE* TCA Paint solvents CCI4 BTEX TCE, PCE, TCA Gasoline, diesel TCE Quantity removed 30kg 59kg ~ 4,100kg 7,000 kg ?,700 kg 2,700 kg ... Duration of operation 440 days 35 days 90 days 6 mo 3yr 7 mo Over 1 yr 6 mo Soil concentrations (mg/kg) max. before after treatment treatment 0.53 5600 3.7 38 2200 97 1380 >5000 0.06 0.70 0.01 0.04 <0.005 <0.006 Ongoing 1 .0 (target) 590kg 56 days 96.1 4.19 *PCE = Perchloroethylene Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment ------- groundwater VOC concentrations at or below regulatory standards. The site met all the closure criteria by June 1988. A limited amount of performance data is available from Superfund sites. The EPA Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program's Groveland, Massachusetts, dem- onstration of the Terra Vac Corporation SVE process produced data that were subjected to quality assurance/quality control tests. These data appear in Table 2 [7, p. 29] and Table 3 [7, p. 31]. The site is contaminated by trichloroethylene (TCE), a degreasing compound which was used by a machine shop that is still in operation. The subsurface profile in the test area consists of medium sand and gravel just below the surface, underlain by finer and silty sands, a clay layer 3 to 7 feet in depth, and—below the clay layer—coarser sands with gravel. The clay layer or lens acts as a barrier against gross infiltration of VOCs into subsequent subsoil strata. Most of the subsur- face contamination lay above the clay lens, with the highest concentrations adjacent to it. The SITE data represent the highest percentage of contaminant reduction from one of the four extraction wells installed for this demonstration test. The TCE concentration levels are weighted average soil concen- trations obtained by averaging split spoon sample concentra- tions every 2 feet over the entire 24-foot extraction well depth. Table 3 shows the reduction of TCE in the soil strata near the same extraction well. The Groveland Superfund Site is in the process of being remediated using this technology [2]. The Upjohn facility in Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, is the first and, thus far, the only Superfund site to be remediated with SVE. The contaminant removed from this site was a mixture containing 65 percent carbon tetrachloride (CCI4) and 35 percent acetonitrile [20]. Nearly 18,000 gallons of CCI4 were extracted during the remediation, including 8,000 gallons that were extracted during a pilot operation conducted from January 1983 to April 1984. The volume of soil treated at the Upjohn site amounted to 7,000,000 cubic yards. The respon- sible party originally argued that the site should be considered clean when soil samples taken from four boreholes drilled in the area of high pretest contamination show nondetectable levels of CCI4. EPA did not accept this criterion but instead required a cleanup criteria of nondetectable levels of CCI4 in all the exhaust stacks for 3 consecutive months [21]. This re- quirement was met by the technology and the site was con- sidered remediated by EPA. Approximately 92,000 pounds of contaminants have been recovered from the Tyson's Dump site (Region 3) between November 1988 and July 1990. The site consists of two unlined lagoons and surrounding areas formerly used to store chemical wastes. The initial Remedial Investigation identified no soil heterogeneities and indicated that the water table was 20 feet below the surface. The maximum concentration in the soil (total VOCs) was approximately 4 percent. The occurence of dense nonaqueous-phase liquids (DNAPLs) was limited in areal extent. After over 18 months of operation, a number of difficulties have been encountered. Heterogene- ities in soil grain size, water content, permeability, physical structure and compaction, and in contaminant concentrations have been identified. Soil contaminant concentrations of up to 20 percent and widespread distribution of DNAPLs have been found. A tar-like substance, which has caused plugging, has been found in most of the extraction wells. After 18 months of operation, wellhead concentrations of total VOCs have decreased by greater than 90 percent [23, p. 28]. As of December 31,1990, approximately 45,000 pounds of VOCs had been removed from the Thomas Solvent Raymond Road Operable Unit at the Verona Well Field site (Region 5). A pilot-scale system was tested in the fall of 1987 and a full-scale operation began in March, 1988. The soil at the site consists of poorly-graded, fine-to-medium-grained loamy soils under- lain by approximately 100 feet of sandstone. Groundwater is located 16 to 25 feet below the surface. Total VOC concen- trations in the combined extraction well header have de- creased from a high of 19,000 ug/1 in 1987 to approximately 1,500ug/1 in 1990 [22]. Table 3 Extraction Well 4: TCE Reduction In Soil Strata—EPA Site Demonstration (Groveland, MA) [7, p. 31] Depth (ft) Description of strata 0-2 Med. sand w/gravel 2-4 Lt. brown fine sand 4-6 Med. stiff It. brown fine sand 6-8 Soft dk. brown fine sand 8-10 Med. stiff brown sand 10-12 V. stff It. brown med. sand 12-14 V. Stiff brown fine sand w/silt 14-16 M. stff grn-brn clay w/silt 16-18 Soft wet clay 18-20 Soft wet clay 20-22 V. stiff brn mecl-coarse sand 22-24 V. stiff brn mecl-coarse w/gravel Hydraulic Conductivity (cm/s) 10-4 lO^1 10s 10s 10^ 10^ 10-4 10-" io-8 10-8 io-4 103 Soil TCE concentration (mg/kg) Pre-treatment Post-treatment 2.94 29.90 260.0 303.0 351.0 195.0 3.14 ND ND ND ND 6.17 ND ND 39.0 9.0 ND ND 2.3 ND ND ND ND ND ND - Nondetectable level Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment ------- An SVE pilot study has been completed at the Colorado Avenue Subsite of the Hastings (Nebraska) Groundwater Con- tamination site (Region 7). Trichloroethylene (TCE), 1,1,1- trichloroethane (TCA), and tetrachloroethylene (PCE) occur in two distinct unsaturated soil zones. The shallow zone, from the surface to a depth of 50 to 60 feet, consists of sandy and clayey silt. TCE concentrations as high as 3,600 ug/1 were reported by EPA in this soil zone. The deeper zone consists of interbedded sands, silty sands, and gravelly sands extending from about 50 feet to 120 feet. During the first 630 hours of the pilot study (completed October 11,1989), removal of approximately 1,488 pounds of VOCs from a deep zone extraction well and approximately 127 pounds of VOCs from a shallow zone extraction well were reported. The data suggest that SVE is a viable remedial technology for both soil zones [24]. As of November, 1989, the SVE system at the Fairchild Semi-conductor Corporation's former San Jose site (Region 9) has reportedly removed over 14,000 pounds of volatile con- taminants. Total contaminant mass removal rates for the SVE system fell below 10 pounds per day on October 5, 1989 and fell below 6 pounds per day in December, 1989. At that time, a proposal to terminate operation of the SVE system was submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Francisco Bay Region [25, p.3]. Resource Conservation and Recover/ Act (RCRA) LDRs that require treatment of wastes to best demonstrated avail- able technology (BOAT) level:, prior to land disposal may sometimes be determined to be applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements for CERCLA response actions. SVE can produce a treated waste that meets treatment levels set by BOAT but may not reach these treatment levels in all cases. The ability to meet required treatment levels is dependent upon the specific waste constituents and the waste matrix. In cases where SVE does not meet these levels, it still may, in certain situations, be selected for use at the site if a treatability variance establishing alternative treatment levels is obtained. EPA has made the treatability variance process available in order to ensure that LDRs do not unnecessarily restrict use of alternative and innovative treatment technologies. Treatabil- ity variances are justified for handling complex soil and debris matrices. The following guides describe when and how to seek a treatability variance for soil and debris: Superfund LDR Guide #6A, "Obtaining a Soil arid Debris Treatability Variance for Remedial Actions" (OSWER Directive 9347.3-06FS, July 1989) [1 3], and Superfund LDR Guide #6B, "Obtaining a Soil and Debris Treatability Variance for Removal Actions" (OSWER Directive 9347.3-07FS, December 1989) [14]. Another ap- proach could be to use other treatment techniques in series with SVE to obtain desired treatment levels. Technology Status During 1989, at least 1 7 RODs specified SVE as part of the remedial action [5]. Since 1982, SVE has been selected as the remedial action, either alone or in conjunction with other treatment technologies, in more than 30 RODs for Superfund sites [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Table 4 presents the location, primary contaminants, and status for these sites [3] [4] [5]. The technology also has been used to clean up numerous under- ground gasoline storage tank spills. A number of variations of the SVE system have been investigated at Superfund sites. At the Tinkhams Garage Site in New Hampshire (Region 1), a pilot study indicated that SVE, when used in conjunction with ground water pumping (dual extraction), was capable of treating soils to the 1 ppm clean-up goal [26, 3-7] [27]. Soil dewatering studies have been conducted to determine the feasability of lowering the water table to permit the use of SVE at the Bendix, PA Site (Region 3) [28]. Plans are underway to remediate a stockpile of 700 cubic yards of excavated soil at the Sodeyco Site in Mt. Holly, NC using SVE [29]. With the exception of the Barceloneta site, no Superfund site has yet been cleaned up to the performance objective of the technology. The performance objective is a site-specific contaminant concentration, usually in soil. This objective may be calculated with mathematical models with which EPA evaluates delisting petitions for wastes contaminated with VOCs [30]. It also may be possible to use a TCLP test on the treated soil with a corresponding drinking water standard contaminant level on the leachate. Most of the hardware components of SVE are available off the shelf and represent no significant problems of avail- ability. The configuration, layout, operation, and design of the extraction and monitoring wells and process components are site specific. Modifications may also be required as dic- tated by actual operating conditions. On-line availability of the full-scale systems described in this bulletin is not documented. System components are highly reliable and are capable of continuous operation for the duration of the cleanup. The system can be shut down, if necessary, so that component failure can be identified and replacemnts made quickly for minimal downtime. Based on available data, SVE treatment estimates are typically $50/ton for treatment of soil. Costs range from as low as $10/ton to as much as $150/ton [7]. Capital costs for SVE consist of extraction and monitoring well construction; vacuum blowers (positive displacement or centrifugal); vapor and liquid treatment systems piping, valves, and fittings (usu- ally plastic); and instrumentation [31]. Operations and main- tenance costs include labor, power, maintenance, and moni- toring activities. Offgas and collected groundwater treatment are the largest cost items in this list; the cost of a cleanup can double if both are treated with activated carbon. Electric power costs vary by location (i.e., local utility rates and site conditions). They may be as low as 1 percent or as high as 2 percent of the total project cost. Caution is recommended in using these costs out of context, because the base year of the estimates vary. Costs also are highly variable due to site variations as well as soil and contaminant characteristics that impact the SVE process. As contaminant concentrations are reduced, the cost effective- ness of an SVE system may decrease with time. Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment ------- Table 4 Superfund Sites Specifying SVE as a Remedial Action Site Location (Region) Primary Contaminants Status Groveland Weils 1 & 2 Kellogg-Deering Well Field South Municipal Water Supply Well Tinkham Garage Wells G & H FAA Technical Center Upjohn Manufacturing Co. Allied Signal Aerospace- Bendix Flight System Div. Henderson Road Tyson's Dump Stauffer Chemical Stauffer Chemical Sodyeco Kysor Industrial Long Prairie MIDCO 1 Miami County Incinerator Pristine Seymour Recycling Verona Well Field Wausau Groundwater Contamination South Valley/ General Electric Hastings Groundwater Contamination Sand Creek Industrial Fairchild Semiconductor Fairchild Semiconductor/ MTV-1 Fairchild Semiconductor/ MTV-2 Intel Corporation Raytheon Corporation Motorola 52nd Street Phoenix-Goodyear Airport Area (also Litchfield Airport Area) Croveland, Morwalk, CT (1 ) Peterborough, NH(1) Londonderry, NH (1) Woburn, MA(1) Atlantic County, Nj (2) Barceloneta, PR (2) South Montrose, PA (3) Upper Merion Township, PA (3) Upper Merion Township, PA (3) Cold Creek, AL (4) Lemoyne, AL (4) Mt. Holly, NC (4) Cadillac, Ml (5) Long Prairie, MN (5) Gary, IN (5) Troy, OH (5) Cincinnati, OH (5) Seymour, IN (5) Battle Creek, Ml (5) Wausau, Wl (5) Albuquerque, NM (6) Hastings, NE (7) Commerce City, CO (8) San Jose, CA (9) Mountain View, CA (9) Mountain View, CA (9) Mountain View, CA (9) Mountain View, CA (9) Phoenix, A2 (9) GxxJyear, AZ (9) TCE PCE, TCE, and BTX PCE, TCE, Toluene PCE, TCE PCE, TCE BTX, PAHs, Phenols CCI4 TCE PCE, TCE, Toluene, Benzene PCE, TCE, Toluene, Benzene, Trichloropropane CCL4, pesticides CCL4, pesticides TCE, PAHs PCE, TCE,Toluene, Xylene PCE, TCE, DCE, Vinyl chloride BTX, TCE, Phenol, Dichloro- methane, 2-Butanone, Chlorobenzene PCE; TCE; Toluene Benzene; Chloroform; TCE; 1,2-DCA; 1,2-DCE TCE; Toluene; Chloromethane; cis-1, 2-DCE; 1,1,1 -DCA; Chloroform PCE, TCA PCE, TCE Chlorinated solvents CCL4 ,Chloroform PCE, TCE, pesticides PCE, TCA, DCE, DCA, Vinyl chlorides, Phenols, and Freon PCE, TCA, DCE, DCA, Vinyl chlorides, Phenols, and Freon PCE, TCA, DCE, DCA, Vinyl chlorides, Phenols, and Freon PCE, TCA, DCE, DCA, Vinyl chlorides, Phenols, and Freon PCE, TCA, DCE, DCA, Vinyl chlorides, Phenols, and Freon TCA, TCE, CCL4 , Ethylbenzene TCE, DCE, MEK SfTE demonstration complete [2][7] Full-scale Remediation in design Pre-design [3] [5] [6] Pre-design completion expected in the fail of 1991 Pre-design pilot study completed In design In design Project completed in 1988 Pre-design tests and dewatering study completed Pre-design In operation (since 11 /88) [23] Pre-design [5] [6] Pre-design [5] [6] Design approved [29] In design; pilot studies in progress [3] [5] [6] SVE construction expected in the Fall of 1991 [3H6J In Design [3] [5] [6] Pre-design [3] [5] [6] Pre-design [3] [6] Pre-design investigation completed [32] Operational since 3/81 [22] Pre-design [3] [5] [6] Pilot studies scheduled for [4] [6] Summer of 1991 Pilot studies completed for [24] Colorado Ave. fit Far-Marco subsites Pilot study completed [33] Operational since 1988, [25] Currently conducting resaturation studies Pre-design [3] [5] Pre-design [3] [5] Pre-design [3] [5] Pre-design [3] [5] Pre-design [3] [4] [6] North Unit - In design [34] South Unit - pilot study completed Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment ------- EPA Contact Technology-specific questions regarding SVE may be di- rected to: Michael Gruenfeld U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Releases Control Branch Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory 2890 Woodbridge Ave. Building 10(MS-104) Edison, NJ 08837 (FTS) 340-6924 or (908) 321 -6924 Acknowledgements This bulletin was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development (ORD), Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL), Cincinnati, Ohio, by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), and Foster Wheeler Enviresponse Inc. (FWEI) under contract No. 68-C8-0062. Mr. Eugene Harris served as the EPA Technical Project Monitor. Gary Baker was SAIC's Work Assignment Manager. This bulletin was authored by Mr. Pete Michaels of FWEI. The author is especially grateful to Mr. Bob Hillger and Mr. Chi-Yuan Fan of EPA, RREL, who have contributed signifi- cantly by serving as technical consultants during the devel- opment of this document. The following other Agency and contractor personnel have contributed their time and comments by participating in the expert review meetings and/or peer reviewing the docu- ment: Dr. David Wilson Dr. Neil Hutzler Mr. Seymour Rosenthal Mr. Jim Rawe Mr. Clyde Dial Mr. Joe Tillman Vanderbilt University Michigan Technological University FWEI SAIC SAIC SAIC 8 Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment ------- REFERENCES 1. Cheremesinoff, Paul N. Solvent Vapor Recovery and VOC Emission Control. Pollution Engineering, 1986. 2. Records of Decision System Database, Office of Emer- gency and Remedial Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989. 3. Innovative Treatment Technologies: Semi-Annual Status Report. EPA/540/2-91 /001, January 1991. 4. ROD Annual Report, FY 1988. EPA/540/8-89/006, July 1989. 5. ROD Annual Report, FY 1989. EPA/540/8-90/006, April 1990. 6. Personal Communications with Regional Project Managers, April, 1991. 7. Applications Analysis Report — Terra Vac In Situ Vacuum Extraction System. EPA/540/A5-89/003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989. (SITE Report). 8. CH2M Hill, Inc. Remedial Planning/Field Investigation Team. Verona Well Field-Thomas Solvent Co. Operable Unit Feasibility Study. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, Illinois, 1985. 9. Payne, F.C., et al. In Situ Removal of Purgeable Organic Compounds from Vadose Zone Soils. Presented at Purdue Industrial Waste Conference, May 14, 1986. 10. Hutzler, Neil J., Blaine E. Murphy, and John S. Gierke. State of Technology Review — Soil Vapor Extraction Systems. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1988. 11. Johnson, P.C., et al. A Practical Approach to the Design, Operation, and Monitoring of In Situ Soil Venting Systems. Groundwater Monitoring Review, Spring, 1990. 12. Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges. EPA/540/2-88/004, U.S. Environmen- tal Protection Agency, 1988. pp. 86-89. 1 3. Superfund LDR Guide #6A: Obtaining a Soil and Debris Treatability Variance for Remedial Actions. OSWER Directive 9347.3-06FS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989. 14. Superfund LDR Guide #6B: Obtaining a Soil and Debris Treatability Variance for Removal Actions. OSWER Directive 9347.3-07FS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989. 15. Michaels, Peter A., and Mary K. Stinson. Terra Vac In Situ Vacuum Extraction Process SITE Demonstration. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Research Sympo- sium. EPA/600/9-88/021,, U.S. Environmental Protec- tion Agency, 1988. 16. Mutch, Robert D., jr., Ann N. Clarke, and David j. Wilson. In Situ Vapor Stripping Research Project: A Progress Report — Soil Vapor Extraction Workshop. USEPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Releases Control Branch, Edison, New Jersey, 1989. 1 7. Ellgas, Robert A., and N. Dean Marachi. Vacuum Extraction of Trichloroethylene and Fate Assessment in Soils and Groundwater: Case Study in California, joint Proceedings of Canadian Society of Civil Engineers - ASCE National Conferences on Environmental Engineer- ing, 1988. 18. Groundwater Technology Inc., Correspondence from Dr. Richard Brown. 19. Midwest Water Resource, Inc.; Correspondence from Dr. Frederick C. Payne. 20. Geotec Remedial Investigation Report and Feasibility Study for Upjohn Manufacturing Co. Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, 1984. 21. Geotec Evaluation of Closure Criteria for Vacuum Extraction at Tank Farm. Upjohn Manufacturing Company, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, 1984. 22. CH2M Hill, Inc. Performance Evaluation Report Thomas Solvent Raymond Road Operable Unit. Verona Well Field Site, Battle Creek, Ml, April 1991. 23. Terra Vac Corporation. An Evaluation of the Tyson's Site On-Site Vacuum Extraction Remedy Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, August 1990. 24. IT Corporation. Final Report-Soil Vapor Extraction Pilot Study, Colorado Avenue Subsite, Hastings Ground- Water Contamination Site, Hastings, Nebraska, August, 1990. 25. Canonie Environmental. Supplement to Proposal to Terminate In-Situ Soil Aeration System Operation at Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation's Former San Jose Site, December 1989. 26. Malcom Pirnie, Tinkhams Garage Site, Pre-Design Study, Londonderry, New Hampshire - Final Report, July 1988. 27. Terra Vac Corp., Tinkhams Garage Site Vacuum Extrac- tion Pilot Test, Londonderry, New Hampshire, July 20, 1988. 28. Environmental Resources Management, Inc. Dewater- ing Study For The TCE Tank Area - Allied Signal Aero- space, South Montrose, PA, December 1990. 29. Letter Correspondence from Sandoz Chemicals Corpo- ration to the State of North Carolina Department of Environmental Health, and Natural Resources, RE: Remediation Activities in CERCLA C Area (Sodeyco) Superfund Site, March 28, 1991. 30. Federal Register, Volume 50, No. 229, Wednesday, November 27, 1985, pp. 48886-48910. 31. Assessing UST Corrective Action Technologies: Site Assessment and Selection of Unsaturated Zone Treat- ment Technologies. EPA/600/2-90/011, U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency, 1990. 32. Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. Completion Report, Pre-Design Investigation for a Vapor Extraction at the Seymour Site, Seymour, Indiana, February 1990. Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment ------- 33. Groundwater Technology, Inc. Report of Findings - 34. Hydro Ceo Chem, Inc. Results and Interpretation of the Vacuum Extraction Pilot Treatability at the Sand Creek Phoenix Goodyear Airport SVE Pilot Study, Goodyear, Superfund Site (OU-1), Commerce City, Colorado, Arizona, May 1989. March 1990. 10 Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment ftl'.S GOVEKNMKM' PRINTING OFI'ICE: l'J'J2 -648-080/40204 ~- «• *~ ------- |