AND
AND
» / *
v /
The Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
(FRTR) has announced the release of 29 new cost
and performance case study reports describing
the use of remedial technologies and 11 new
reports describing the use of site characterization
and monitoring technologies at hazardous waste
sites. All the reports are accessible at
www.frtr.gov. With these new reports, the FRTR
now has a total of 342 case studies on remedial
technologies and 121 reports on site
characterization and monitoring technologies.
The FRTR leads the federal government's efforts
to promote interagency cooperation to advance the
use of innovative technologies for the remediation
of hazardous waste sites. One of the FRTR's
priorities is to document the cost and performance
of completed and ongoing site remediation projects.
Primary members of the FRTR include the U.S.
Departments of Defense, Energy, and Interior,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). More recently, the FRTR has been working
with states to capture results from their efforts to
document innovative remediation and
characterization technology applications.
Areas of emphasis in previous cost and
performance updates have included in situ
groundwater remediation technologies and cleanup
of dry cleaner sites (2002); treatment of MTBE in
groundwater and drinking water and optimization
of groundwater cleanup systems (2001);
bioremediation of halogenated volatiles and dense
non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) treatment
(2000); groundwater pump and treat and incineration
(1998); and thermal desorption, soil vapor extraction,
and land treatment (1995).
All the case studies on remediation describe actual
applications of technologies at full-scale or large
scale demonstrations. The case studies document
real experiences and lessons learned in selecting
and implementing technologies to treat a wide range
of soil and groundwater contamination at a variety of
sites. The FRTR has seen increasing use of this
information by federal and state project managers,
technology providers, consulting engineers,
academia, and international parties in identifying
smarter solutions for and making better engineering
judgements about site remediation.
EXHIBIT 1. SOIL REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES
Ex Situ Soil Treatment
Thermal Desorption (27)
Incineration (14)
In
Soil Vapor Extraction (43)
Physical/Chemical Treatment {15)-
Physical Separation/Segmented
Gate System (8)
Solvent Extraction (2)
Vitrification (2)
Solidification/Stabilization (1)
Acid Leaching (1)
Soil Washing (1)
Bioremediation (16}
Land Treatment (7)
Composting (6)
Slurry-Phase Bioremediation (3)
Thermal Treatment (15)
Bioventing (7)
Electrokinetics (5)
Other (18)
Phytoremediation (4)
Chemical Oxidation/Reduction (3)
Vitrification (2)
Fracturing (3)
Solidification/Stabilization (3)
Lasagna™(2)
Drilling (1)
-------
Ex
Pump and Treat (52;
Other (27)
In-Well Air Stripping (8) ""===
Monitored Natural Attenuation (8)
Flushing (6)
Phytoremediation (5)
-
The 342 FRTR case study reports now
available cover a wide range of
technology types and contaminants.
Each report (10-40 pages in length)
provides information about site
background and hydrogeology, a
description of the technology design
and operation, data about cost and
performance, information about
lessons learned from the project, and
points of contact. AH the remediation
case studies are accompanied by
abstracts (2 pages in length) that summarize key information
about the site-specific technology application as recommended
in the Guide to Documenting and Managing Cost and
Performance Information for Remediation Projects (EPA-542-
B-98-007, October 1998).
The Guide provides procedures for documenting the matrix
characteristics and technology operation, performance, and
cost for conventional and innovative cleanup technologies. It
includes a set of parameters, organized by technology, that
shows the types of factors that affect technology performance
and cost. By following the Guide's recommended procedures,
the abstracts provide information in a consistent, standardized
manner that helps to increase comparability among projects.
The abstracts can be viewed before accessing the case study
reports in the on-line database system. Abstracts for the new
reports are also available in the seventh volume of Abstracts
of Remediation Case Studies (EPA 542-R-03-011, July 2003).
The 342 reports, along with additional related FRTR resources,
are also available on CD-ROM (EPA 542-C-03-002, July 2003).
The FRTR case study reports include more than 30 types of
technologies for treating soil and groundwater contamination,
with 160 reports addressing soil cleanup and 180 reports
EXHIBIT 2, GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES
In
Bioremediation (39}
Multi-Phase Extraction (14)
Air Sparging (13)
Permeable Reactive Barrier (14)
Chemical Oxidation/Reduction (12)
Thermal Treatment (9)
concerning groundwater. Exhibits 1 and 2 show the specific
soil and groundwater technologies covered by the site
remediation reports, along with the number of reports for each
technology.
Exhibit 3 provides a summary of the contaminants and media
types addressed by the FRTR case studies. This exhibit
shows that a variety of contaminants and media are addressed,
with halogenated volatiles and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
and xylene (BTEX)/total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) being
the contaminants most frequently addressed.
The FRTR has added 11 case study reports about field-based
site characterization technologies in the areas of organic
chemical and explosives characterization, strategies for field-
based site characterization, geophysical techniques, leak
detection methods for bulk fuel tanks and fuel pipelines, and
air emissions characterization. The case studies, totaling 121
reports, cover the full range of activities used to conduct site
characterization and monitoring, with most case studies
focused on technologies used in the investigation stage of
site cleanup.
EXHIBIT 3. SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANTS AND
MEDIA FOR REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES*
• Debris
n Groundwater
H Soil
PP
f=l pjjjju 3 i
Some case studies address more than one type of media and/or contaminant
IN SITU SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION OF PROJECT -
HIGHLIGHT_ OF_ NEW CASE STUDY
Historic wood-preserving operations at the Koppers
Ashley River Superfund Site in South Carolina
generated wastewaters that were released into the river,
causing the sediments to become contaminated with
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). In situ
solidification/stabilization was implemented for 1 acre
of contaminated sediments in a part of the river
containing an active marine area, A slurry of cement-
based grout augmented with proprietary chemicals was
used to solidify the upper two feet of sediment in-place
to create a solid, cohesive layer. The resulting "cap"
was intended to be susceptible to erosion than
natural sediments and decrease the impact of
contamination on the aquatic life. Innovative
construction techniques were used in the project and
the work was completed over a period of 35 days in
2002. There are only a few other projects to that
have used in situ solidification/stabilization to remediate
river sediments.
-------
Over the past thirteen years, the FRTR has made significant
contributions to increasing the supply and availability of cost
and performance information from federal cleanups. The
inventory of reports now encompasses a wide variety of
technologies and contaminants and is continually being expanded
by new case studies from contributing federal agencies. The
FRTR has also been collaborating with states to include their
efforts to prepare case study reports.
More recently, the FRTR has begun an effort to compile multi-
site remediation technology assessment reports prepared by
federal agencies and the Interstate Technology Regulatory
Council (ITRC). As technologies mature, federal agencies and
states are moving beyond documenting individual projects to
providing more comprehensive analyses of technologies used
at multiple sites, including lessons learned based on practical
field experience. Some of these multi-site assessment reports
contain information on the design, implementation, and selection
of a technology. These reports can be used by site managers,
regulators, technology vendors, contractors, and the public to
identify resources to help screen remediation technologies, and
evaluate design. Currently, there are 52 multi-site technology
assessment reports available on www.frtr.gov
In the future, the FRTR will continue to focus on providing
cost and performance case studies about timely topics and
sharing experiences and lessons learned based on actual
field applications of technologies.
LASAGNA™ PROJECT -
HtGHUGHTOF Afew CASE_ STUDY
Disposal of chemicals used in cylinder testing
processes at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
Superfund site in Kentucky caused the surrounding soil
and groundwater to become contaminated with
trichloroethene (TCE). This case study describes
activities under one phase of the cleanup, which
covered soil contaminated with TCE. The average
concentration of TCE in soil was 84 mg/kg with a
maximum concentration greater than 1,500 rng/kg,
indicating the presence of pure phase product. The
mandated cleanup goal for TCE in soil was 5,6 mg/kg,
Lasagna™, which uses an applied direct current electric
field to drive contaminated soil-water through treatment
zones comprised of iron filings and Kaolin clay, was
implemented at the site and operated for two years at
full-scale. Verification sampling after system shutdown
(late 2001) indicated average TCE concentrations of
0.38 mg/kg, with a high of 4,5 mg/kg, thus meeting the
cleanup goal for soil, A cost saving measure
implemented during the project was monitoring the
system remotely using a data acquisition system, which
also had shutdown capabilities for fault conditions,
| The following FRTR documents are available f ree-of-charge from the U.S.
I Publications (NSCEP), while supplies last. To order, mail this complete
| U.S. EPA/National Service Center for Environmental Publications
| P.O. Box 4241 9
| Cincinnati, OH 45242
I or FAX to (5 13) 489-8695. Also, telephone orders may be placed
| at (800) 490-91 98 or (513) 489-81 90.
1 Q FRTR Cost and Performance Remediation Case Studies and Rela
1 2003 (EPA-542-C-03-002)
I Q Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies, Volume?, July 2003 (EPA
1 Q Guide to Documenting and Managing Cost and Performance Informs
I October 1 998 (EPA-542-B-98-007).
I Name:
1 Organization;
I Add K?SS "
i nity/stat**/Zip"
I E-mail Address:
EPA/National Service Center for Environmental
>d form to:
i »-„
| The case studies and case study abstracts
| are available through the FRTR web site at
1 http://www.frtr.gov.
ted Information CD-ROM, Fourth Edition, July
-542-R-03-011)
rtion for Remediation Projects, Revised Version,
Date;
Telephone;
i
-------
"'%
P.O. Box 42419
OH
and
(5102G)
July
www.epa.gov
www.frtr.gov
for Use
------- |