United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
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
framework.
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).
Introduction
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
programs
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
possible
A standard of comparison during
evaluation and selection of response
measures at sites with similar
problems
Identification of remedial technologies
that may warrant further research
-------
* Quantification and documentation of
the extent and type of remedial
response actions being implemented
nationwide
* Development of data to aid in cost
recovery actions promulgated by the
USEPA.
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
reports.
Site Selection and Case Study
Methodology
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
techniques.
* 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
Investigations
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
12A
8. Taylor Road
Landfill
Bruin Borough,
Pennsylvania
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
report:
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-
nology
Extent of Site Response
VI. Design and Execution of Site
Response
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
activities:
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
information.
Results
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
Remedial
Program
Estimated
Costs
Bruin
Lagoon,
Bruin
Borough,
Pennsylvania
Denney
Farm,
Barry
County,
Missouri
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
appreciably.
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
drains
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
landfill
Installation of synthetic membrane cap over the 16-acre
site
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
pit
Construction of a soil-bentonite slurry trench cutoff wall
around the site
Construction of a sand filter, filter fabric and clay cap
system
Installation of fence around perimeter of site
I
$1.76
million
N/A
$700,000
$2.5
million
$4.96
million
$1.2
million
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
(Continued)
-------
Tabls 2. (Continued)
Site
Site Conditions
Site Response
Status of
Remedial
Program
Estimated
Costs
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
barrier.
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
solution
$948,133
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
$3.56
million
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
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
Official Business t
Penally (or PrivatejUse S300
------- |