United States
                   Environmental Protection
Hazardous Waste
Engineer/rig Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
                   Research and Development
                                                     EPA/540/S2-88/001  June 1988
&EPA          Project  Summary
                    Case Studies  Addendum:  1-8
                    Remedial Response at
                    Hazardous  Waste  Sites
                    S. Robert Cockerin and Claudia Furman
                     In response to the threat to human
                   health and the environment posed by
                   numerous  uncontrolled  hazardous
                   waste sites across the country, new
                   remedial action technologies are
                   evolving, and known  technologies
                   are being retrofitted and adapted for
                   use in cleaning up these sites. This
                   report identifies and assesses vari-
                   ous types of site response activities
                   which have been implemented,  are in
                   progress, or have  been proposed to
                   date  at Superfund-financed  and
                   enforcement action hazardous waste
                   sites  in the United States. A nation-
                   wide  survey was conducted in which
                   23 uncontrolled hazardous waste
                   sites  were identified  where either
                   some form of  enforcement action
                   was planned  or where remedial ac-
                   tions  undertaken  were Superfund-
                   financed. Based on an assessment of
                   the 23 sites, eight were selected for
                   detailed investigations. This docu-
                   ment presents case study reports for
                   each  of the eight sites. These reports
                   include extensive discussions of the
                   remedial responses at each of the
                   eight sites with  respect to  tech-
                   nology, cost,  and institutional
                      This Project  Summary  was
                   developed by EPA's Hazardous  Waste
                   Engineering  Research Laboratory,
                   Cincinnati,  OH, to announce key
                   findings of the research project that
                   is fully documented in a separate
                   report of the  same title (see Project
                   Report ordering information at back).

                     As part  of ongoing  research of
                   existing and emerging technologies for
                   remediation  of uncontrolled hazardous
 waste releases, a study was conducted in
 1983-1984. This  study  involved a
 survey of uncontrolled hazardous waste
 sites nationwide. Twenty-three detailed
 case study reports  were prepared. The
 objective of the survey was to identify,
 examine and quantify the different types
 of remedial response actions imple-
 mented or proposed for control 'of these
 23 sites. Compiled into 23 succinct case
 study reports,  the  information can be
 used in planning, selection, design, and
 cost analyses of future remedial actions.
   The final report summarized herein is
 a continuation of the foregoing research.
 Eight new detailed case  studies are
 presented,  utilizing the  results of the
 1983-1984  survey published in March
 1984. The focus of the current eight case
 studies is  on  Superfund-financed en-
 forcement or cleanup actions,  as op-
 posed to  the  previous 23  studies'
 emphasis on private or state activities.
   The case study  reports are intended
 for use by EPA regional officials,  state
 agencies, industry and commerce, and
 local authorities involved in selection,
 evaluation and design of remedial re-
 sponse actions. The case study reports
 provide the following:
 • A systematic method of recording
   detailed results  of  remediation
 • An understanding of the  remediation
   process such that future response
   actions  can  be  developed  and
   implemented in the most  technically
   efficient and cost-effective manner
 • A standard  of  comparison during
   evaluation and selection of response
   measures  at  sites  with similar
 • Identification of remedial technologies
   that may warrant  further research

*  Quantification and  documentation of
   the extent  and type of  remedial
   response actions being implemented
*  Development of  data  to  aid in cost
   recovery actions promulgated by the
   Section 2 of the Executive  Summary
in the final report discusses  the  site
selection and  case study investigation
processes involved  in the completion of
this  research  project.  The results
obtained  from  the eight  case  study
investigations are summarized in Section
3. and the remainder of the document
consists of the eight detailed case study

Site  Selection and Case Study
   Initially a survey was conducted of
Superfund-financed sites  and  enforce-
ment  sites to identify candidate  case
study sites. The survey, conducted  by
regional  EPA Superfund  offices,
identified over 23  sites  where  remedial
responses had been partially or entirely
completed. Eight  sites were selected
from  the candidate list  for  case  study
reports. These sites are listed in Table 1
o( this project summary. The criteria
used for site selection included:
*  Current status with  regard to percent
   completion of the remedial action
•  Availability,  accessibility, and  com-
   pleteness of remedial action, cost and
   engineering data
•  Type of remedial action  technology
   implemented,  resulting  in  the
   investigation  of remedial action
*  Type of waste management practice,
   generating studies of a wide range of
   technologies, commonly  used  in
   hazardous waste management.
•  Types  of  waste and contaminants
   present at the facility to ensure  that a
   variety of waste stream and  pollutants
   were included
*  Hydrogeologic setting, representing a
   variety of settings
•  Enforcement sensitivity.
   Once  the  list  of Superfund and
enforcement sites had been developed,
an in-depth  and  site-specific  data
acquisition effort  was  initiated. All
available background information relative
to each  site's  environmental  setting,
operational history, remedial  actions and
Superfund  involvement  was collected.
Two  readily   available  sources  of
information were used to  complete this
(ask.  The first  source was  site-specific
information  collected  from public
Table 1.     Sites Selected for Case Study
       Site Name           Location
 7.  Bruin Lagoon

 2.  Denney Farm
 3.  Gulf Coast Lead
 4.  Lipari Landfill
 5.  Picillo Farm
 6.  Rose Park
    Sludge Pit
 7.  Tacoma Well
 8.  Taylor Road
Bruin Borough,
Barry County, Missouri
Tampa, Florida  '
Pitman, New Jersey
Coventry, Rhode Island
Salt Lake City, Utah

Tacoma, Washington

Seffner, Florida
information data sources, including the
following:     -          	
•  USGS  topographic  and geologic
   maps,  geologic  and  hydrologic
   reports, soils and climatological maps
   and reports
•  Detailed review of the .remedial action
   data previously  collected,  which
   included pre-remediation and mon-
   itoring activities,  remedial action  and
   treatment  technologies,  implemen-
   tation and  cost details, and remedial
   action design data.
   All sources of information and site-
specific data were carefully referenced in
field logs for  later documentation in the
case  study reports  prepared for each
site.  Photographic  slides or  prints
developed  from the site  visits were
collected and developed to track  the
response history.
   After every site visit, individual case
study reports  were  prepared and
forwarded to  the USEPA Project  Officer,
Task  Managers,  and parties involved in
implementing the  remedial action for
their review. The case study reports have
been  structured so  that  they  provide
detailed  data  on  the  remediation
techniques employed; the circumstances
and  conditions  under which they were
implemented; their  apparent effective-
ness  in  correcting  or  controlling  the
problem; and  their potential uses in other
remedial  action scenarios. The following
is  an outline  of  the  typical  case study

   I.  Introduction
      •  Background
      •  Synopsis of Site Response
   II.  Site Description
      •  Surface Characteristics
      •  Hydrogeology
  III.  Waste Disposal History
  IV.  Description of Contamination
  V.  Planning the Site Response
      •  Initiation of Site Response
     •  Selection  of Response  Tech-
     •  Extent of Site Response
  VI. Design and Execution of Site
 VII. Cost and Funding
     •  Source of Funding
     •  Selection of Contractors
     •  Project Cost
 VIII. Performance Evaluation
  IX. Bibliography
     •  USEPA and state files, including
        site-specific data  on  opera-
        tional  history, superfund  in-
        volvement,  detailed  remedial
        action, engineering design  and
        cost  data,  previously  doc-
        umeated _cost._ _s_tu..die_s.,._ajicL
        litigative case support data.
   The  second source of site-specific
data was direct correspondence with the
USEPA  Superfund on-site coordinators,
the facility operators, and the  parties
primarily responsible  for designing  and
implementing  the site remedial  action.
During correspondence, additional  site-
specific  information was collected,  and
written or verbal approvals for site visits
were obtained. Prior  to any field visits,
collected information  was  throughly
reviewed and  data gaps  identified for
clarification during the site visits.
   A schedule for  all visits was  then
developed.  Follow-up telephone  calls
were made  to appropriate contacts  to
coordinate  field visit activities  and
schedules. Each site visit was two days
in duration and  included  the following
•  Detailed  site  inspection including
   documentation of  layout, evidence of
   environmental  contamination,  and
   observation  of  remedial  action
   technologies being  employed
•  Review of all available remedial acting
   design drawings  and  existing  cost

   The eight final case study  reports
describe an  array   of  remedial  tech-
nologies implemented  at uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites.  In  addition  to
technical discussions,  the case  studies
present  available cost and funding  data
for each site,   and  describe the  more
important institutional issues that affected
the implementation  of  the  response
programs. Table 2  in this project  sum-
mary presents the  site conditions at the
eight  sites prior  to  implementation  of
remedial and/or  response actions,  the
remedial technologies  utilized, and  the
total estimated  costs associated  with
each of the eight response programs.

 Table 2.      Summary of Case Study Investigations
     Site      .             Site Conditions
                                                              Site Response
                                                          Status of
Earthen-diked lagoon constructed in
1930s and used as a repository for oil
production wastes, waste motor oil re-
refining residues, coal fines and fly ash;
began to draw public attention following a
3,000-gallon sludge spill into Bear Creek
which lies adjacent to site.
Estimated 80-90 drums of wastes
containing TCDD or dioxin discarded in a
trench on property known as Denney Farm.
 Gulf Coast   Contaminated rinsewater and battery
 Lead,        casings from lead recovery operations at
 Tampa,      the GCL smelting facility were dumped in
 Florida      unlined surface depression of company
             property. Soil and shallow ground water
             became contaminated with sulfuric acid
             and heavy metals, thus presenting a threat
             to an underlying aquifer.
Lipari        Seven-acre area used for disposal of
Landfill,      industrial and domestic wastes including
Pitman, New  solvents, formaldehyde, paints, phenol and
Jersey       amine wastes; concern focused on
             contamination of two nearby streams, a lake
             and two aquifers.
Pici/lo Farm,  A 7.5-acre area used as a hazardous
Coventry,     waste disposal site during the 1970s; over
Rhode       10,000 drums found containing such
Island       wastes as industrial solvents and oils,
             pesticides, PCBs, paint wastes, and
             explosives were buried in 4 trenches on
             site; leachate migrated through soil into
             nearby swamp, contaminating ground
             water, surface water and soil in vicinity.
Rose Park   Six-acre disposal site located in a public
Sludge Pit,   park; between 1920 and 1957 acid sludges
Salt Lake     were discarded in unlined pits and covered
City, Utah     with lime and soil; the site was covered with
             a soil cap in i960; the site again received
             attention in 1976 when construction
             activities induced the extrusion  of sludge at
             the surface; low concentrations of
             contaminants were  found in ground water
             in immediate area but had not migrated
• Lagoon embankment improvements
• Construction of concrete retaining wall along Bear Creek
• Tank demolition, removal and off-site disposal
• Removal and off-site disposal of liquid supernatant
  contained in lagoon
• Sludge stabilization
• Installation of venting system for acidic gas
• Excavation of waste materials
• Placement of soils without visible contamination in
  microbiological degradation basins (MDBs)
• On-site storage of drummed wastes (solid waste and
  visibly contaminated soils)
• Trench backfilling and capping
• On-site incineration for ultimate destruction and disposal
  of wastes currently under investigation
• Implementation of groundwater monitoring program
• Removal of battery casings from surface depression
• Capping of site
• Installation of retention basin to collect and recycle
  contaminated surface runoff from site
• Installation of underdrain system to collect rainwater runoff
  from uncontaminated areas for discharge to Tampa storm
• Installation of groundwater treatment system
• Subsurface acid reaction barrier to intercept/neutralize
  contaminated ground water that migrated off site was
  under study at time of this writing
• Construction of a soil-bentonite slurry trench cutoff wall
 around a  16-acre area which included the 7-acre
• Installation of synthetic membrane cap over the 16-acre
• Installation of passive gas collection and venting system
• Completion of groundwater treatability study and design of
 a collection and treatment system
• Drum removal and off-site disposal
• Ground and surface water monitoring of swamp and
 contaminated groundwater plume
• Detonation of unidentified materials
• Landfarming of contaminated soils
• Completion of a feasibility study of groundwater recovery,
 treatment and discharge
                                        • Installation of groundwater monitoring wells around sludge
                                        • Construction of a soil-bentonite slurry trench cutoff wall
                                          around the site
                                        • Construction of a sand filter, filter fabric and clay cap
                                        • Installation of fence around perimeter of site
  I  — Incomplete at the time of case study preparation
  C  — Complete at the time of case study preparation
N/A  — Not available at the time of case study preparation

Tabls 2.    (Continued)
                            Site Conditions
                                                                          Site Response
                                                                        Status of
 Tacoma Well Well 12A, the northernmost of 13 wells in a well
 12A,         field in South Tacoma Channel, was taken offline
 Tacoma,     after chlorinated organic solvents were detected
 Washington  in groundwater sample; the source was identified
             as being north of the well field; the spreading of
             contaminants to other wells after 12A was taken
             out of service Indicated that further contamination
             of the well field could be prevented if Well 12A
             remained operational to act as an intercepter or
 Tsytor Road  A 42.5-acre sanitary landfill in which unknown
 Landfill,      quantities of hazardous wastes including solvents,
 Saffner,      paint thinners, insecticides, herbicides, fungi-
 Florida       cides and sludges were deposited; groundwater
             samples collected at the site were found to..--.-—
             contain VOCs and metals in concentrations above
             acceptable safe drinking water standards.	
                        • Installation of an air-stripping system at Well 12A to
                         remove volatile organics (considered an interim
                         remedial measure)
                        • Completion of studies to identify contaminant
                         source, and design and implement a permanent
                        • Upgrading of surface cap
                        • Channelization of surface drainage along eastern
                         and southern site boundaries
                        «Installation of a methane gas collection and control
                        . system __	   •- •---•— -.4.--..-~  --.	 	—
                        • Development of long-term groundwater and
                         methane gas monitoring program	

   I — Incomplete at the time of case study preparation
  C — Complete at the time of case study preparation
 N!A — Not available at the time of case study preparation
  S. Robert Cockerin and Claudia Furman are with SAIC, McClain, VA 22101.
  Donald £ Banning /s the EPA Project Officer (see below).
  The complete  report,  entitled  "Case  Studies  Addendum:  1-8 Remedial
        Response at Hazardous Waste  Sites," (Order No. PB 88-204 2841 AS;
        Cost: $44.95, subject to change) will be available only from:
            National Technical Information Service
            5285 Port Royal Road
            Springfield, VA 22161
            Telephone: 703-487-4650
  The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
            Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory     ~~~   - —	
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
            Cincinnati, OH 45268
United Stales
Environmental Protection
Center for Environmental Research
Cincinnati OH 45268
   PERMIT No. G-35
Official Business t
Penally (or PrivatejUse S300