Abstracts of Remediation
Case Studies
Volume 5
Federal
Remediation
Technologies
Roundtable
EPA 542-R-01-008
May 2001
Prepared by the
Member Agencies of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Abstracts of Remediation
Case Studies
Volume 5
Prepared by Member Agencies of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Defense
U.S. Air Force
U.S. Army
U.S. Navy
Department of Energy
Department of Interior
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Tennessee Valley Authority
Coast Guard
May 2001
-------
NOTICE
This report and the individual case studies and abstracts were prepared by agencies of the U.S. Government.
Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of any information,
apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately-owned rights.
Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer,
or otherwise does not imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Government or any agency
thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S.
Government or any agency thereof.
Compilation of this material has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
under EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-020.
-------
FOREWORD
This report is a collection of abstracts summarizing 56 case studies of site remediation applications
prepared primarily by federal agencies. The case studies, collected under the auspices of the Federal
Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR), were undertaken to document the results and lessons
learned from technology applications. They will help establish benchmark data on cost and performance
which should lead to greater confidence in the selection and use of cleanup technologies.
The Roundtable was created to exchange information on site remediation technologies, and to consider
cooperative efforts that could lead to a greater application of innovative technologies. Roundtable
member agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Department of
Defense, and U.S. Department of Energy, expect to complete many site remediation projects in the near
future. These agencies recognize the importance of documenting the results of these efforts, and the
benefits to be realized from greater coordination.
The case study reports and abstracts are organized by technology, and cover a variety of in situ and ex
situ treatment technologies and some containment remedies. The case study reports and abstracts are
available on a CD-ROM, which contains a total of 214 remediation technology case studies (the 56 new
case studies and 218 previously-published case studies). Appendix A to this report identifies the specific
sites, technologies, contaminants, media, and year published for the 274 case studies.
Abstracts, Volume 5, covers a wide variety of technologies, including full-scale remediations and large-
scale field demonstrations of soil and groundwater treatment technologies. Additional abstract volumes
will be prepared as agencies prepare additional case studies.
2001 Series
CD-ROM: FRTR Cost and Performance Case Studies and Related Information, 2nd Edition;
EPA-542-C-01-003; May 2001
Abstracts
Volume 1: EPA-542-R-95-001; March 1995; PB95-201711
Volume 2: EPA-542-R-97-010; July 1997; PB97-177570
Volume 3: EPA-542-R-98-010; September 1998
Volume 4: EPA-542-R-00-006; June 2000
Volume 5: EPA-542-R-01-008; May 2001
-------
Accessing Case Studies
The case studies and case study abstracts also are available on the Internet through the Federal
Remediation Technologies Roundtable web site at: http://www.frtr.gov. The Roundtable web site
provides links to individual agency web sites, and includes a search function. The search function allows
users to complete a key word (pick list) search of all the case studies on the web site, and includes pick
lists for media treated, contaminant types, and primary and supplemental technology types. The search
function provides users with basic information about the case studies, and allows users to view or
download abstracts and case studies that meet their requirements.
Users are encouraged to download abstracts and case studies from the Roundtable web site. Some of the
case studies also are available on individual agency web sites, such as for the Department of Energy.
In addition, a limited number of copies of the CD-ROM and Abstracts - Volume 5 are available free of
charge by mail from NSCEP (allow 4-6 weeks for delivery), at the following address:
U.S. EPA/National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP)
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Phone: (513) 489-8190 or
(800)490-9198
Fax: (513)489-8695
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
FOREWORD i
INTRODUCTION 1
IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT ABSTRACTS 15
Electrokinetic Remediation at Alameda Point, Alameda, California 16
Hydraulic Fracturing of Low Permeability Media at Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant,
X-231A, Piketon, Ohio 18
EX SITU SOIL, TREATMENT ABSTRACTS 21
Incineration at Drake Chemical Superfund Site, Operable Unit 3, Lock Haven, Pennsylvania . 22
Thermal Desorption at the Metaltec Superfund Site, Franklin Borough, New Jersey 24
Thermal Desorption/Gas Phase Chemical Reduction at the New Bedford Harbor
Superfund Site, New Bedford, Massachusetts 26
Thermal Desorption at the Reich Farm Superfund Site, Pleasant Plains, New Jersey 28
Thermal Desorption at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Golden, Colorado . . 30
Thermal Desorption at the Sarney Farm Superfund Site, Amenia, New York 32
ThermoRetec's Segmented Gate System at Brookhaven National Laboratory,
Area of Concern 16, Suffolk County, New York 34
Thermo NUtech's Segmented Gate System at Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory, Auxiliary Reactor Area 23, Idaho Falls, Idaho 36
Solidification/Stabilization at the Massachusetts Military Reservation, Training Range and
Impact Area, Cape Cod, Massachusetts 38
Solidification/Stabilization at the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, New Bedford,
Massachusetts 40
Solvent Extraction/Dechlorination at the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site,
New Bedford, Massachusetts 42
Vitrification at the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, New Bedford, Massachusetts 44
Bioremediation at the Stauffer Management Company Superfund Site, Tampa, Florida 46
DRINKING WATER TREATMENT FOR MTBE ABSTRACTS 49
Ex Situ Advanced Oxidation Processes, Granular Activated Carbon, and Synthetic Resin
Adsorption Treatment at the Charnock Wellfield, California 50
Ex Situ Air Stripping at LaCrosse, Kansas 52
Ex Situ Air Stripping and GAC Treatment of Drinking Water at the Rockaway Township
Site, Rockaway, New Jersey 54
PUMP AND TREAT ABSTRACTS 57
Pump and Treat for at OU1 and OU2 of the Marine Corps Air Station, Camp Lejeune,
North Carolina 58
Pump and Treat for the Campbell Street Fuel Farm at the Marine Corps Air Station,
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina 60
Pump and Treat for the Eastern Groundwater Plume at the Naval Air Station,
Brunswick, Maine 62
Pump and Treat at the Ott/Story/Cordova Superfund Site, North Muskegon, Michigan 64
IN SITU GROUND WATER TREATMENT ABSTRACTS 67
Air Sparging/Soil Vapor Extraction at Eaddy Brothers, Hemingway, South Carolina 68
Air Sparging at Four Sites 70
iii
-------
Air Sparging and Soil Vapor Extraction at the Mound Plant OU 1 Site, Miamisburg, Ohio . . 72
Air Sparging at Former Nu Look One Hour Cleaners, Coral Springs, Florida 74
Air Sparging/Soil Vapor Extraction and Multi-Phase Extraction at Scotchman #94,
Florence, South Carolina 76
In Situ Bioremediation at Brownfield Site, Chattanooga, Tennessee 78
In Situ Bioremediation at Cordray's Grocery, Ravenel, South Carolina 80
In Situ Bioremediation at Contemporary Cleaners, Orlando, Florida 82
In Situ Bioremediation at Gas Station, Cheshire, Connecticut 84
In Situ Bioremediation at Hayden Island Cleaners, Portland, Oregon 86
In Situ Bioremediation at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California 88
In Situ Bioremediation Using ORCฎ at an Active Service Station, Southern California 90
In Situ Bioremediation Using ORCฎ at an Active Service Station, Lake Geneva, Wisconsin . . 92
In Situ Bioremediation at South Beach Marina, Hilton Head, South Carolina 94
In Situ Bioremediation Using Butane 96
In Situ Bioremediation at Port Hueneme, California 98
In Situ Bioremediation at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Lompoc, California 100
Bioslurping of LNAPL at Multiple Air Force Sites 102
Biosparging of Contaminated Groundwater at the T-Dock Site, South Prudence Bay
Island Park, Rhode Island 104
In Situ Chemical Oxidation at Butler Cleaners, Jacksonville, Florida 106
In Situ Chemical Oxidation Using Fenton's Reagent at Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida 108
In Situ Chemical Oxidation Using Fenton's Reagent at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay,
Site 11, Camden County, Georgia 110
In Situ Flushing at Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, Building 25, Camp Lejeune,
North Carolina 112
Mobilization, Extraction, and Removal of Radionuclides at the Fernald Environmental
Management Project, Cincinnati, Ohio 114
In Situ Flushing at Former Sages Dry Cleaners, Jacksonville, Florida 116
Monitored Natural Attenuation at the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant, Area P,
Minden, Louisiana 118
Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents at Multiple Air Force Sites 120
Natural Attenuation of Fuel Hydrocarbons at Multiple Air Force Sites 122
Soil Vapor Extraction and Groundwater Extraction Used at Eight Service Stations
in Maryland 124
Multi-Phase Extraction at Johanssen Cleaners, Lebanon, Oregon 126
Multi-Phase Extraction Using Fluidized Bed Reactor and Granular Activated Carbon
at the Sparks Solvent/Fuel Superfund Site 128
Permeable Reactive Barrier at Monticello Mill Tailings Site, Monticello, Utah 130
CONTAINMENT ABSTRACTS 133
Vertical Engineered Barrier at Dover Air Force Base, Groundwater Remediation Field
Laboratory National Test Site, Dover, Delaware 134
Landfill Cap at Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico 136
APPENDIX A A-l
Tables
1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies 3
2. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data 9
IV
-------
INTRODUCTION
Increasing the cost effectiveness of site remediation is a national priority. The selection and use of more
cost-effective remedies requires better access to data on the performance and cost of technologies used in
the field. To make data more widely available, member agencies of the Federal Remediation
Technologies Roundtable (Roundtable) are working jointly to publish case studies of full-scale
remediation and demonstration-scale projects. Previously, the Roundtable published 13 volumes and a
CD-ROM of case study reports. At this time, the Roundtable is publishing a CD-ROM containing 56
new case study reports (274 reports total), primarily focused on contaminated soil and groundwater
cleanup. The CD-ROM also includes 218 previously published reports.
The case studies were developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD), and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). They were prepared based on
recommended terminology and procedures agreed to by the agencies. These procedures are summarized
in the Guide to Documenting and Managing Cost and Performance Information for Remediation
Projects (EPA 542-B-98-007; October 1998).
The case studies and abstracts present available cost and performance information for full-scale
remediation efforts and several large-scale demonstration projects. They are meant to serve as primary
reference sources, and contain information on site background, contaminants and media treated,
technology, cost and performance, and points of contact for the technology application. The case studies
contain varying levels of detail, reflecting the differences in the availability of data and information about
the application.
The case study abstracts in this volume describe a wide variety of ex situ and in situ soil treatment
technologies for both soil and groundwater. Contaminants treated included chlorinated solvents;
petroleum hydrocarbons and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes; polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons; pesticides and herbicides; methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE); metals; and radioactive
materials.
Table 1 provides summary information about the technology used, contaminants and media treated, and
project duration for the 56 technology applications in this volume. This table also provides highlights
about each application. Table 2 summarizes cost data, including information about quantity of media
treated and quantity of contaminant removed. In addition, Table 2 shows a calculated unit cost for some
1
-------
projects, and identifies key factors potentially affecting technology cost. (The column showing the
calculated unit costs for treatment provides a dollar value per quantity of media treated and contaminant
removed, as appropriate.) The cost data presented in the table were taken directly from the case studies
and have not been adjusted for inflation to a common year basis. The costs should be assumed to be
dollars for the time period that the project was in progress (shown on Table 1 as project duration).
By including a recommended reporting format, the Roundtable is working to standardize the reporting of
costs to make data comparable across projects. In addition, the Roundtable is working to capture
information in case study reports that identify and describe the primary factors that affect cost and
performance of a given technology. Factors that may affect project costs include economies of scale,
concentration levels in contaminated media, required cleanup levels, completion schedules, and matrix
characteristics and operating conditions for the technology.
Appendix A to this report provides a summary of key information about all 274 remediation case studies
published to date by the Roundtable, including information about site name and location, technology,
media, contaminants, and year the project began. The appendix also identifies the year that the case
study was first published. All projects shown in Appendix A are full-scale unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies
Site Name, State (Technology)
Principal
Contaminants*
Chlorinated Solvents
BTEX and/or TPH
Pesticides/Herbicides
MTBE
Metals
Radionuclides
Media
(Quantity
Treated)
Project
Duration
Highlights
Other In Situ Soil Treatment
Alameda Point, CA (Electrokinetics)
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, X-231A Site,
Piketon, OH (Hydraulic Fracturing)
Soil
(38.4 m3)
Soil and
Groundwater
December 1997 to
June 1998
1996 to 1998
Field demonstration of electrokinetic treatment of
chromium in soil
Field demonstration of hydraulic fracturing with
four types of remediation technologies
Incineration
Drake Chemical Superfund Site, Operable Unit 3, Lock
Haven, PA (Rotary Kiln Incineration)
Soil
(273,509 tons)
January 1997 to
April 1999
Use of on-site incineration to treat soil contaminated
with VOCs and SVOCS, including herbicides
Thermal Desorption
Metaltec/Aerosystems Superfund Site, Franklin
Borough, NJ (Thermal Desorption)
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, New Bedford,
MA (Thermal Desorption)
Reich Farm, Pleasant Plains, NJ (Thermal Desorption)
Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Mound
Site, Golden, CO (Thermal Desorption)
Samey Farm, Amenia, NY (Thermal Desorption)
Soil
(4,215yd3)
Sediment
Soil
(14,836 yd3)
Soil
(724.5 yd3)
Soil
(10,514 tons)
December 1994 to
January 1995
November 1996
November 1994 to
March 1995
July to August
1997
August to
December 1997
Use of thermal desorption to treat soil contaminated
with chlorinated volatile organic compounds
Demonstration of thermal desorption/gas phase
chemical reduction to treat PCB-contaminated
sediments
Thermal desorption treatment of soils contaminated
with VOCs and SVOCs
Thermal desorption of soil contaminated with
halogenated volatile organic compounds
Thermal desorption treatment of soils contaminated
with VOCs
Other Ex Situ Soil Treatment
Brookhaven National Laboratory, NY (Physical
Separation/Segmented Gate System)
Soil
(625 yd3)
May to June 2000
Use of a gate system to reduce volume of
radioactive-contaminated soil requiring off-site
disposal
-------
Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies (continued)
Site Name, State (Technology)
Idaho National Environmental and Engineering
Laboratory (INEEL), ID (Physical
Separation/Segmented Gate System)
Massachusetts Military Reservation, Training Range
and Impact Area, Cape Cod, MA
(Solidification/Stabilization)
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, New Bedford,
MA (Solidification/Stabilization)
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, New Bedford,
MA (Solvent Extraction)
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, New Bedford,
MA (Vitrification)
Stauffer Chemical Company, Tampa, FL (Composting)
Principal
Contaminants*
Chlorinated Solvents
BTEX and/or TPH
Pesticides/Herbicides
MTBI
Metals
Radionuclides
Media
(Quantity
Treated)
Soil
(442 yd3)
Soil
(23,168 yd3)
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Soil
(905 yd3)
Project
Duration
May to June 1999
February to June
1998
November to
December 1995
June 1996
July to August
1996
June 1997 to
September 1998
Highlights
Use of a gate system to reduce volume of
radioactive-contaminated soil requiring off-site
disposal
Use of a proprietary stabilization technology to treat
lead in both in situ and ex situ soils
Bench-scale testing of solidification/stabilization to
treat PCB-contaminated sediments
Demonstration of solvent extraction/dechlorination
to treat PCB-contaminated sediments
Demonstration of vitrification to treat PCB-
contaminated sediments
Demonstration of composting technology for
treatment of soil contaminated with chlorinated
pesticides
Drinking Water Treatment
Chamock Wellfield, Santa Monica, CA
Lacrosse, KS
Rockaway, NJ
Drinking
Water
Drinking
Water
Drinking
Water
July 1998 to April
1999
Ongoing, data
from 1997 to
September 1999
Ongoing, data
from 1980 to July
2000
Pilot-scale testing of Advanced Oxidation Processes
(AOP) to treat MTBE and TEA in drinking water
Use of air stripping to treat MTBE in drinking water
Use of air stripping and GAC to treat MTBE in
drinking water
-------
Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies (continued)
Site Name, State (Technology)
Principal
Contaminants*
Chlorinated Solvents
BTEX and/or TPH
Pesticides/Herbicides
MTBI
Metals
Radionuclides
Media
(Quantity
Treated)
Project
Duration
Highlights
Pump and Treat
Marine Corps Base, OU 1 and 2, Camp Lejeune, NC
Marine Corps Base, Campbell Street Fuel Farm, Camp
Lejeune, NC
Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Eastern Groundwater
Plume, ME
Ott/Story/Cordova Superfund Site, North Muskegon,
MI
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
(1.1 billion
gallons)
Ongoing, data
from January 1995
to March 1999
Ongoing, data
from 1996 to May
1999
Ongoing, data
from May 1995 to
May 1999
Ongoing, data
available from
February 1996 to
October 2000
Use of pump and treat system to remediate
groundwater contaminated with organic s and metals
Use of pump and treat system to remediate BTEX
and SVOC groundwater contamination at three sites
Use of pump and treat to treat groundwater
contaminated with chlorinated VOCs
Pump and treat of a multi-aquifer site contaminated
with chlorinated and non-chlorinated VOCs and
SVOCs
In Situ Groundwater Treatment
Brownfield Site, Chattanooga, TN (specific site name
not identified) (Bioremediation)
Butler Cleaners, Jacksonville, FL (Chemical Oxidation
(KMn04))
Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, Bldg 25, Camp
Lejeune, NC (In Situ Flushing (SEAR and PITT))
Contemporary Cleaners, Orlando. FL (Bioremediation
(HRC))
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Ongoing, data
from January to
December 1999
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Use of in situ bioremediation to treat MTBE in
groundwater
Use of in situ oxidation with potassium
permanganate to treat chlorinated solvents in
groundwater at a dry cleaning site
Use of surfactant injection to treat chlorinated
solvents in groundwater at a dry cleaning site
Use of Hydrogen Release Compound (HRC) to treat
chlorinated solvents in groundwater at a dry
cleaning site
-------
Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies (continued)
Site Name, State (Technology)
Cordray's Grocery, Ravenel, SC (Bioremediation
(ORC))
Eaddy Brothers, Hemingway, SC (Air Sparging/SVE)
Eight Service Stations, MD (specific sites not
identified) (Multi-Phase Extraction)
Femald Environmental Management Project, OH (In
Situ Flushing)
Former Nu Look One Hour Cleaners, Coral Springs,
FL (Air Sparging/Recirculation Well)
Former Sages Dry Cleaners, Jacksonville, FL (In Situ
Flushing (Ethanol Co-Solvent))
Four Service Stations (specific site names not
identified) (Air Sparging)
Gas Station, Cheshire, CT (specific site name not
identified) (Bioremediation)
Hayden Island Cleaners, Portland, OR (Bioremediation
(HRC))
Johannsen Cleaners, Lebanon, OR (Multi-Phase
Extraction)
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CA
(Bioremediation)
Principal
Contaminants*
Chlorinated Solvents
BTEX and/or TPH
Pesticides/Herbicides
MTBI
Metals
Radionuclides
Media
(Quantity
Treated)
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Project
Duration
April 1998 to July
2000
Ongoing, data
from July 1999 to
August 2000
1990 to 1997
September 1998 to
September 1999
Not provided
Not provided
1993 to 1995
October 1997 to
March 1999
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Highlights
Use of in situ bioremediation using ORCฎ to treat
MTBE in groundwater
Use of air sparging/soil vapor extraction to treat
MTBE in soil and groundwater
Use of Soil Vapor Extraction and Groundwater
Extraction to treat soil and groundwater
contaminated with MTBE and BTEX
Field demonstration of in situ flushing as an
enhancement to pump and treat technology
Use of proprietary in well stripping technology to
treat chlorinated solvents in groundwater at a dry
cleaning site
Use of surfactant injection to treat chlorinated
solvents in groundwater at a dry cleaning site
Air sparging used to treat MTBE in groundwater
Use of in situ bioremediation to treat MTBE in
groundwater
Use of Hydrogen Release Compound (HRC) to treat
chlorinated solvents in groundwater at a dry
cleaning site
Use of multi-phase extraction to treat chlorinated
solvents in groundwater at a dry cleaning site
Research on microbial organisms to degrade MTBE
in soil and groundwater
-------
Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies (continued)
Site Name, State (Technology)
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant, LA (Monitored
Natural Attenuation)
Miamisburg, OH (Air Sparging/SVE)
Monticello Mill Tailings Site, Monticello, UT
(Permeable Reactive Barrier)
Multiple Sites (Monitored Natural Attenuation of
Chlorinated Solvents)
Multiple Sites (Monitored Natural Attenuation of
Petroleum Hydrocarbons)
Multiple Sites (Bioslurping)
Naval Air Station, Pensacola, FL (In Situ Oxidation)
Naval Submarine Base, Kings Bay, GA (In Situ
Oxidation)
Scotchman #94, Florence, SC (Air Sparging, Pump
and Treat)
Service Station, CA (specific site name not identified)
(Bioremediation (ORC))
Service Station, Lake Geneva, WI (specific site name
not identified) (Bioremediation (ORC))
Principal
Contaminants*
Chlorinated Solvents
BTEX and/or TPH
Pesticides/Herbicides
MTBI
Metals
Radionuclides
Media
(Quantity
Treated)
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Project
Duration
Not provided
Ongoing, data
from December
1997 to May 2000
June 1999
July 1993 to
August 1999
July 1993 to
December 1998
Not provided
November 1998 to
May 1999
February 1999
Ongoing, data
from April 1998 to
March 2000
Not provided
Not provided
Highlights
Field demonstration of MNA for remediation of
explosives
Full-scale treatment of chlorinated solvents using air
sparging and soil vapor extraction
Demonstration of permeable reactive barrier to treat
heavy metals in groundwater
Field demonstrations of monitored natural
attenuation for chlorinated solvents in groundwater
at multiple Air Force sites
Field demonstrations of monitored natural
attenuation for fuel hydrocarbons in groundwater at
multiple Air Force sites
Field demonstrations of bioslurping of LNAPL at
multiple Air Force sites
Use of Fenton's Reagent to remediate chlorinated
solvents in groundwater
Use of Fenton's Reagent to remediate chlorinated
solvents in groundwater
Use of multiphase extraction and air sparging/soil
vapor extraction to treat MTBE in soil and
groundwater
Use of in situ Bioremediation using Oxygen Release
Compound (ORCฎ) to treat MTBE in groundwater
Use of in situ bioremediation using ORCฎ to treat
MTBE in groundwater
-------
Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies (continued)
Site Name, State (Technology)
South Beach Marine, Hilton Head, SC
(Bioremediation)
South Prudence Bay Island Park, T-Dock Site,
Portsmouth, PJ (Biosparging)
Sparks Solvents/Fuel Site, Sparks, NV (Multi-Phase
Extraction)
Specific site name not identified (Bioremediation)
U.S. Navy Construction Battalion Center, Port
Hueneme, CA (Bioremediation)
Vandenberg Air Force Base, Lompoc, CA
(Bioremediation)
Principal
Contaminants*
Chlorinated Solvents
BTEX and/or TPH
Pesticides/Herbicides
MTBI
Metals
Radionuclides
Media
(Quantity
Treated)
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Project
Duration
Ongoing, data
from February
1999 to September
2000
October 1997 to
February 2000
Ongoing, data
from 1995 to
August 1997
Not provided
April to August
1998
Ongoing, data
from 1999
Highlights
Use of in situ bioremediation to treat MTBE in
groundwater
Use of biosparging to treat BTEX-contaminated
groundwater at a relatively remote site without
collecting or discharging treated water
Use of multiphase extraction using fluidized bed
reactor and granular activated carbon to treat MTBE
in groundwater
Bench-scale testing of the Butane Biostimulation
Technologies process to treat MTBE in
groundwater
Laboratory and field testing of in situ
bioremediation using MC-100 to treat MTBE in
groundwater
Use of in situ bioremediation to treat MTBE in
groundwater
Containment
Dover Air Force Base, Groundwater Remediation Field
Laboratory National Test Site, Dover DE (Vertical
Engineered Barrier)
Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM (Cap)
Groundwater
Soil
October 1996 to
September 1998
July 1995 to July
2000
Demonstration of vertical engineered barrier using
thin diaphragm walls
Field demonstration of alternative landfill covers
' Principal contaminants are one or more specific constituents within the groups shown that were identified during site investigations.
-------
Table 2. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data
Site Name, State (Technology)
Technology
Cost (S)1'2
Quantity of
Media Treated
Quantity of
Contaminant
Removed
Calculated Unit
Cost for
Treatment lf
Key Factors Potentially Affecting
Technology Costs
Other In Situ Soil Treatment
Alameda Point, CA (Electrokinetics)
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, X-231A
Site, Piketon, OH (Hydraulic Fracturing)
$194,291
$1,258,700
45yd3
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
D-$4,318/yd3;
P - $90/yd3
Not provided
Not provided
Working within a radiation zone
and use of reactive agents
Incineration
Drake Chemical Superfund Site, Operable Unit
3, Lock Haven, PA (Rotary Kiln Incineration)
$92,930,000
273,509 tons
Not provided
$340/ton
Not provided
Thermal Desorption
Metaltec/Aerosystems Superfund Site, Franklin
Borough, NJ (Thermal Desorption)
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, New
Bedford, MA (Thermal Desorption)
Reich Farm, Pleasant Plains, NJ (Thermal
Desorption)
Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site,
Mound Site, Golden, CO (Thermal Desorption)
Samey Farm, Amenia, NY (Thermal
Desorption)
$998,238
Not provided
$2,205,000
Not provided
$1,932,300
4,215yd3
Not provided
14,836 yd3
724.5 yd3
10,514 tons
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
$237/yd3
P - $617/ton
$147/yd3
Not provided
$184/ton
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Local permit constraints limited
operation to daylight hours
Other Ex Situ Soil Treatment
Brookhaven National Laboratory, NY
(Physical Separation/Segmented Gate System)
Idaho National Environmental and Engineering
Laboratory (INEEL), ID (Physical
Separation/Segmented Gate System)
Massachusetts Military Reservation, Training
Range and Impact Area, Cape Cod, MA
(Solidification/Stabilization)
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, New
Bedford, MA (Solidification/Stabilization)
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, New
Bedford, MA (Solvent Extraction)
Not provided
Not provided
$3,500,000
Not provided
Not provided
625 yd3
442 yd3
23,168 yd3
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
$78/yd3
Not provided
$151/yd3
Not provided
P - $721/ton
Not provided
Not provided
In situ S/S treatment was used when
possible as alternative to ex situ S/S
treatment
Not provided
Not provided
-------
Table 2. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data (continued)
Site Name, State (Technology)
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, New
Bedford, MA (Vitrification)
Stauffer Chemical Company, Tampa, FL
(Composting)
Technology
Cost ($)w
Not provided
Not provided
Quantity of
Media Treated
Not provided
Not provided
Quantity of
Contaminant
Removed
Not provided
Not provided
Calculated Unit
Cost for
Treatment w
P-$l,149/ton
P-$132/yd3
Key Factors Potentially Affecting
Technology Costs
Not provided
Not provided
Drinking Water Treatment
Chamock Wellfield, Santa Monica, CA
Lacrosse, KS
Rockaway, NJ
Not provided
C- $185,000
AO - $30,000
C - $575,000
AO - $300,000
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
P- $1.50 to
$1.75/1 ,000 gallons
of treated water
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Pump and Treat
Marine Corps Base, OU 1 and 2, Camp
Lejeune, NC
Marine Corps Base, Campbell Street Fuel
Farm, Camp Lejeune, NC
Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Eastern
Groundwater Plume, ME
Ott/Story/Cordova Superfund Site, North
Muskegon, MI
OU 1 AO - 148,000
OU 2 C - $4,660,000
AO - $438,000
C - $507,395
AO- $180,000
C -$4,246,3 19
AO- $1,144,031
$32,123,500
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
1.1 billion
gallons
OU 1 - 12 Ibs
OU 2 - 40,000
Ibs
3.5 Ibs
Not provided
Not provided
OU 1 $28,277/lb
removed
OU 2 $49/lb
removed
$95,000/lb
removed
Initial -$ll,000/lb
removed
Most Recent 8
Months - $6,200/lb
removed
$30/1, 000 gallons
treated
OU 1 had removed relatively small
amount of contaminant and was
operating at <9% of design
Relatively small amount of
contaminant removed
System designed to treat water from
two areas, but only one area actually
treated
Not provided
In Situ Groundwater Treatment
Brownfield Site, Chattanooga, TN (specific site
name not identified) (Bioremediation)
Butler Cleaners, Jacksonville, FL (Chemical
Oxidation (KMnO4))
AO - $48,000
C - $230,000
AO - $120,000
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
10
-------
Table 2. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data (continued)
Site Name, State (Technology)
Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, Bldg 25,
Camp Lejeune, NC (In Situ Flushing (SEAR
and PITT))
Contemporary Cleaners, Orlando. FL
(Bioremediation (HRC))
Cordray's Grocery, Ravenel, SC
(Bioremediation (ORC))
Eaddy Brothers, Hemingway, SC (Air
Sparging/SVE)
Eight Service Stations, MD (specific sites not
identified) (Multi-Phase Extraction)
Femald Environmental Management Project,
OH (In Situ Flushing)
Former Nu Look One Hour Cleaners, Coral
Springs, FL (Air Sparging/Recirculation Well)
Former Sages Dry Cleaners, Jacksonville, FL
(In Situ Flushing (Ethanol Co-Solvent))
Four Service Stations (specific site names not
identified) (Air Sparging)
Gas Station, Cheshire, CT (specific site name
not identified) (Bioremediation)
Hayden Island Cleaners, Portland, OR
(Bioremediation (HRC))
Johannsen Cleaners, Lebanon, OR (Multi-
Phase Extraction)
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CA
(Bioremediation)
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant, LA
(Monitored Natural Attenuation)
Miamisburg, OH (Air Sparging/SVE)
Technology
Cost ($)w
Not provided
$127,000
$21,000
$197,515
Not provided
Not provided
$193,000
$440,000
Not provided
Not provided
$46,000
$230,000
Not provided
$4,000,000
$1,439,039
Quantity of
Media Treated
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Quantity of
Contaminant
Removed
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Calculated Unit
Cost for
Treatment w
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
$420/lb removed
Key Factors Potentially Affecting
Technology Costs
Not provided
Not provided
Cleanup conducted as a fixed-price,
lump sum contract
Cleanup conducted as a fixed-price,
lump sum contract
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Cost included site characterization,
monitoring, and modeling, and
development of biomarker
techniques
Not provided
11
-------
Table 2. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data (continued)
Site Name, State (Technology)
Monticello Mill Tailings Site, Monticello, UT
(Permeable Reactive Barrier)
Multiple Sites (Monitored Natural Attenuation
of Chlorinated Solvents)
Multiple Sites (Monitored Natural Attenuation
of Petroleum Hydrocarbons)
Multiple Sites (Bioslurping)
Naval Air Station, Pensacola, FL (In Situ
Oxidation)
Naval Submarine Base, Kings Bay, GA (In Situ
Oxidation)
Scotchman #94, Florence, SC (Air Sparging,
Pump and Treat)
Service Station, CA (specific site name not
identified) (Bioremediation (ORC))
Service Station, Lake Geneva, WI (specific site
name not identified) (Bioremediation (ORC))
South Beach Marine, Hilton Head, SC
(Bioremediation)
South Prudence Bay Island Park, T-Dock Site,
Portsmouth, RI (Biosparging)
Sparks Solvents/Fuel Site, Sparks, NV (Multi-
Phase Extraction)
Specific site name not identified
(Bioremediation)
U.S. Navy Construction Battalion Center, Port
Hueneme, CA (Bioremediation)
Vandenberg Air Force Base, Lompoc, CA
(Bioremediation)
Technology
Cost ($)w
$1,196,000
$122,000/site
(average)
$125,000/site
(average)
Not provided
T - $250,000
M-$100,000/yr
$1,050,000 (first two
phases)
$383,000
Not provided
Not provided
$63,500
$280,946
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Quantity of
Media Treated
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Quantity of
Contaminant
Removed
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Calculated Unit
Cost for
Treatment w
Not provided
P - long-term
monitoring cost of
$22,800
P - long-term
monitoring cost of
192,000
$56/gal recovered
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
P- $150,000
Not provided
Key Factors Potentially Affecting
Technology Costs
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Cleanup conducted as a fixed-price,
lump sum contract
Not provided
Not provided
Cleanup conducted as a fixed-price,
lump sum contract
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
12
-------
Table 2. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data (continued)
Site Name, State (Technology)
Technology
Cost ($)w
Quantity of
Media Treated
Quantity of
Contaminant
Removed
Calculated Unit
Cost for
Treatment w
Key Factors Potentially Affecting
Technology Costs
Containment
Dover Air Force Base, Ground-water
Remediation Field Laboratory National Test
Site, Dover DE (Vertical Engineered Barrier)
Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM
(Cap)
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
P - ranged from
$6.71 to $8.21/ft2
Ranged from
$51.40/m2to
$157.54/m2
Not provided
Type of covers included RCRA
Subtitles C and D, GCL, Capillary,
Anisotropic, and ET
Actual full-scale costs are reported unless otherwise noted.
Cost abbreviation: AO = annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, C = capital costs, M = monitoring costs, D = Demonstration-scale, P = Projected full scale.
13
-------
14
-------
IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT ABSTRACTS
15
-------
Electrokinetic Remediation at Alameda Point, Alameda, California
Site Name: Location:
Alameda Point (formerly Naval Air Station Alameda) Alameda, CA
Period of Operation:
December 1997 - June 1998
Cleanup Authority: EPA Contact:
Not provided Mike Gill
U.S. EPA Region 9
Phone: (415)744-2385
E-mail: gill.michael@epa.gov
Purpose/Significance of Application: Cleanup Type:
Field demonstration of electrokinetic treatment of chromium in soil Field Demonstration
Contaminants: Waste Source:
Heavy Metals (Chromium) Electroplating operations
Chromium concentrations were as high as 2,060 mg/kg
Technology Vendor:
Geokinetics International Inc.
Berkeley, CA
BADCAT Contact:
Robin Truitt
BADCAT ETP Coordinator
Phone: (510)986-0303
E-mail: rctruitt@aol.com
Navy Contacts:
Andrew Drucker
Phone: (805)982-4847
E-mail: druckeras@nfesc.navy.mil
Michael Bloom
Phone: (619)532-0967
E-mail: bloomms@navfac.navy.mil
Technology:
Electrokinetics
Demonstration system used 15 electrodes - three rows of electrodes
positioned one meter apart, with each row consisting of five electrodes spaced
every two meters
Electrodes were installed 2.4 meters bgs for a total soil volume of 38.4 cubic
meters
An acidic solution was maintained at a pH of 4 - 5 in the electrode cells, and
solution was removed for processing and recovery above-ground
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
38.4 cubic meters of alkaline soil
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Reduce chromium concentrations in soil to 30 mg/kg (EPA Region 9's preliminary remediation goal for residential
use)
Results:
In most soil layers, the system met the cleanup goal, however, in the most contaminated layer of soil (the interface
between soil and concrete), the system did not meet the cleanup goal of 30 mg/kg of chromium in soil
Electrokinetics removed 12% of the total chromium based on pre- and post-treated soil data, and only 1% based on total
chromium recovered in the electrode solution
During the demonstration, the water table dropped below design specifications and bentonite seals were used to
maintain the electrode solution; this modification was projected to have decreased system performance by as much as 50
percent
Costs:
The demonstration had a cost of $ 1 94,29 1 , or $4,3 1 8/cubic yard, for vendor-supplied services
It was projected that a full-scale system would have treatment costs of $90/cubic yard
16
-------
Electrokinetic Remediation at Alameda Point, Alameda, California
Description:
Alameda Point had a former aircraft rework facility plating shop that operated from 1942 to 1990. During plating
operations, chromium leaked into the soil beneath the shop. The Navy, in coordination with the Bay Area Defense
Conversion Action Team (BADCAT) Environmental Technology Partnership (ETP), conducted a demonstration of
electrokinetics at this site. The BADCAT is a public-private partnership of several organizations in the San Francisco
area, including the Bay Area Economic Forum, Bay Area Regional Technology Alliance, California EPA, San Francisco
State University, EPA, and Navy.
Electrokinetic remediation was performed for four months using 38.4 cubic meters of soil. Treatment removed 12% of the
total chromium based on pre- and post-treated soil data, and only 1% based on total chromium recovered in the electrode
solution. In most soil layers, the system met the cleanup goal, however, in the most contaminated layer of soil (the
interface between soil and concrete), the system did not meet the cleanup goal. The demonstration had a cost of $194,291,
or $4,318/cubic yard, for vendor-supplied services. It was projected that a full-scale system would have treatment costs of
$90/cubic yard
17
-------
Hydraulic Fracturing of Low Permeability Media at Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion
Plant, X-231A, Piketon, Ohio
Site Name:
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, X-231A
Location:
Piketon, OH
Period of Operation:
1996 to 1998
Cleanup Authority:
Not provided
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Field demonstration of hydraulic fracturing with four types of remediation
technologies
Cleanup Type:
Field Demonstration
Contaminants:
Chlorinated Solvents
Trichloroethene (TCE) and related halocarbons at concentrations as high as
100 mg/kg
Waste Source:
Disposal of waste oils and degreasing
solvents
Technical Contacts:
Robert L. Siegrist
Colorado School of Mines
Phone: (303)273-3490
William W. Slack
FRx, Inc.
Phone: (513)469-6040
Management Contacts:
Tom Houk
Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC
Phone: (740)897-6502
Jim Wright
DOE SRS/SCFA
Phone: (803)725-5608
Technology:
Hydraulic Fracturing
Fractures were created by pushing a 2-inch steel casing and PVC drive point
into the subsurface; dislodging the drive point an additional 1-4 inches,
cutting a horizontal notch into the soil, pressurizing the notch with injected
fluid, and propagating the fracture
Remediation technologies were evaluated in four test cells with hydraulic
fractures: Cell A - steam injection; Cell B - hot air injection; Cell C - iron
metal permeable reactive barrier; and Cell D - potassium permanganate
oxidation
Cells A and B (hot fluid injection) were operated with 60 days in Fall 1996
and 45 days in Summer 1997; Cells C and D (reactive barriers) were operated
passively during a two-year period
Each treatment cell had dimensions of 45 ft length, 45 ft width, and 16 ft
depth
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil and Groundwater
Silty clay soils; depth to groundwater was 11.5 ft bgs, with soil water content
near saturation almost to ground surface
Soil pH 4-5; Eh 200 mV
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Evaluate the effectiveness of hydraulic fracturing with four remediation technologies
No specific cleanup goals were identified
Results:
Four to five fractures were created in each cell (total of more than 25 fractures) at depths from 4-18 ft bgs and at
spacings as little as 2-3 ft
For Cell B, hot air injection increased the rate of contaminants removed by volatilization, with off-gas containing more
than 800 ppmv of TCE and up to 17% methane; in Cell A, a highly heterogeneous distribution of contaminant mass and
low levels of contaminants precluded a thorough evaluation of process efficiency
For Cell C, the iron proppant remained active (30-40% initial degradation of TCE) for up to 27 months after placement,
but with little effect to surrounding soil
For Cell D, the permanganate was more active (>99% degradation of TCE within 2 hours) and created zones of reactive
soil that continued to grow away from the fracture over a 27 month period
18
-------
Hydraulic Fracturing of Low Permeability Media at Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion
Plant, X-231A, Piketon, Ohio
Costs:
The actual costs for the demonstration were $1,258,700, including $715,900 (Phase 1 operation), $76,400 (Phase 2
operation), $157,100 (Pre-demonstration site characterization), and $102,300 (project management)
Costs for sand-propped fractures generally range from $850 to $1,500 per fracture; costs at this site were higher due to
working within a radiation zone and higher costs for reactive agents
Description:
The Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PORTS) is located approximately 80 miles south of Columbus, in south-central
Ohio. The industrialized portion of PORTS is 1,000 acres of a 3,714 acre DOE reservation. PORTS was constructed
between 1952 and 1956 and has operated since 1955 enriching uranium for electrical power generation. The X-231A unit
is located in the southeastern portion of the PORTS site and consists of an old waste oil biodegradation site. The unit, with
an area of 950 ft by 225 ft, was reportedly used for the treatment and disposal of waste oils and degreasing solvents.
Afield demonstration of hydraulic fracturing was conducted in the southeastern portion of the X-231A unit from 1996 to
1998. The demonstration involved construction of four test cells, with each cell testing hydraulic fracturing in conjunction
with a different remediation technology - steam injection, hot air injection, iron PRB, and potassium permanganate. Four
to five fractures were created in each cell (total of more than 25 fractures) at depths from 4-18 ft bgs and at spacings as
little as 2-3 ft. The passive remediation technologies appeared to be more effective than those using fluid injection (steam
or hot air). Of the two passive technologies, permanganate appeared to be more effective than iron.
19
-------
20
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT ABSTRACTS
21
-------
Incineration at Drake Chemical Superfund Site, Operable Unit 3,
Lock Haven, Pennsylvania
Site Name:
Drake Chemical Superfund (DCS) Site, Operable Unit 3
Location:
Lock Haven, Pennsylvania
Period of Operation:
Trial Burn: 1/25/97 to 2/4/97
Full-Scale Operation: 3/4/98 to
4/22/99
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA - Remedial Action
ROD signed 1992
BSD signed 1995
Vendor:
Mr. Frederick Santucci
OHM Remediation Services
180 Myrtle Street
Lock Haven, PA 17745
(570) 748-4102
santucci@ohm.com
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Remediation designed to provide permanent destruction of soil contaminants; no
long-term waste management requirements following on-site backfill of
incinerator ash
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale Remedial Action
Contaminants:
470 to 1,500,000 mg/kgb-Naphthylamine
3.8to8,200mg/kgFenac
Halogenated and non-halogentated VOCs and SVOCs detected in soil
Waste Source:
Two lined and two unlined waste
management lagoons; disposal of
drums of chemical waste, chemical
sludge and demolition debris on the
ground surface and in the shallow
subsurface
Project Management:
Mr. William Werntges
USACE, Harrisburg Area Office
CENAB-COF-HA285
18th Street
DDRE, Bldg S-285
Newcumberland, PA 17070
(717) 782-8750
william.h.werntges@usace.army.mil
Mr. Mike Ogden
USACE, Harrisburg Area Office
CENAB-COF-HA285
18th Street
DDRE, Bldg S-285
Newcumberland, PA 17070
(717) 782-3750
m.odgen@usace.army.mil
Regulatory Contacts
Mr. Gregg Crystal
U.S. EPA Region
31650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
(215) 814-3207
crystall.gregg@epa.gov
Mr. Michael Welch
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection
208 West 3rd Street, Suite 101
Williamsport, PA 17701-6448
(570)321-6518
welch. michael@a 1 .pader. gov
Technology:
On-Site Incineration-
The incineration system consisted of a co-current, rotary kiln and a secondary
combustion chamber (SCC)
The kiln operated at an exit gas temperature above 1599 ฐF and the SCC
operated above 1801 ฐF
Hot gases exiting the SCC passed through an evaporative cooler, a baghouse,
a venturi quench unit, and a caustic scrubber.
Excavated soil was dried and screened to remove oversized organic and
inorganic debris.
Excavated soil and shredded combustible material were fed to the incinerator.
Treated soil and fly ash were stockpiled for compliance sampling.
Treated soil and fly ash that met treatment standards were used as fill material
at the site.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
273,509 tons (180,296 cubic yards) of contaminated soil
Moisture Content: 17.6% average, range of 10 to 25.5%
BTU Value: 274 Btu/lb
22
-------
Incineration at Drake Chemical Superfund Site, Operable Unit 3,
Lock Haven, Pennsylvania
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Destruction and Removal Efficiency (ORE) of 99.99% for POHC.
Treated soil objectives were 55 mg/kg for b-Naphthylamine and 1,000 mg/kg for Fenac.
Treated soil and fly ash with TCLP concentrations in excess 25 times the drinking water standard for any one of eight
metals were stabilized.
Air emission requirements included control of metals, hydrogen chloride, total dioxins and furans, carbon monoxide,
nitrous oxides, and paniculate matter in the stack gas.
Results:
Sampling of treated soil indicated that the cleanup goals were met. Three percent of the soil required re-treatment to
achieve cleanup levels.
Two batches of fly ash required stabilization prior to on-site backfill
Emission data from the trial burn and full-scale operations indicated that all emissions standards were met.
Costs:
The total cost for this project was $112,381,000, with a technology-specific cost of $92,930,000.
The technology-specific unit cost was $340 per ton of soil treated.
Description:
The DCS Site included a chemical manufacturing facility that operated from 1951 to 1982, producing chemical
intermediates used in dye, cosmetic, textile, pharmaceutical, pesticide and herbicide manufacturing. Two lined wastewater
treatment lagoons, a dry unlined sludge lagoon, and an unlined leachate lagoon were constructed at the site during the late
1950s, probably for use as waste impoundments. Drums of chemical waste, chemical sludge, and demolition debris were
disposed on the ground surface and in the shallow subsurface at the site.
Site soil and chemical sludge were contaminated with VOCs, SVOCs including b-naphthylamine, the herbicide Fenac, and
metals. These compounds were detected throughout the site regardless of sampling depth. A ROD was signed in
September 1988, specifying on-site incineration as the remedial technology for addressing soil contamination at the site.
Contaminated soil/sludge/sediment and groundwater were identified as Operable Unit (OU) 3.
Site work for construction of the incinerator commenced in April 1995. Incinerator shake down and a clean burn were
conducted in January 1996. The incinerator was then shut down until September 1996 due to a lawsuit filed to stop the
remediation project. System optimization and preliminary testing were conducted in the Fall of 1996. The trial burn and
risk burns were conducted in January and February 1997. Following approval of the test results, the incinerator was put
into full-scale operation in March 1998. All site soil was excavated down to the water table (about 15 feet below ground
surface) and treated. The total area of the DCS Site is 9.6 acres. The incineration system consisted of a co-current, rotary
kiln followed by a SCC. After confirming that treated soil and fly ash met the cleanup criteria, the materials were
backfilled at the site. Treatment was completed in April 1999.
23
-------
Thermal Desorption at the Metaltec Superfund Site, Franklin Borough, New Jersey
Site Name:
Metaltec Superfund Site
Location:
Franklin Borough, New Jersey
Period of Operation:
December 1994 - January 1995
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
ROD issued June 30, 1986
EPA Remedial Project Manager:
Daniel Weissman
U.S. EPA Region 2
290 Broadway, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212)637-4384
Fax: (212)637-4429
E-mail: weissman.daniel@epa.gov
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of thermal desorption to treat soil contaminated with chlorinated volatile
organic compounds
Cleanup Type:
Remedial
Contaminants:
Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Heavy Metals
Maximum concentrations in soil were trichloroethene (TCE) - 7,600 mg/kg
and 1,2-dichloroethene (DCE) - 6,600 mg/kg
Waste Source:
Disposal in lagoon; spills
USACE Contact:
Ronny Hwee
USACE
214 State Highway 18
East Brunswick, NJ 08816
Telephone: (973) 674-1598
Fax: (973)674-1668
Vendor:
Mark A. Fieri, P.E.
Project Manager
Williams Environmental Services, Inc.
2075 West Park Place
Stone Mountain, GA 30087
Telephone: (800) 892-0992
Fax: (770)879-4831
E-mail: mfleri@wmsgrpintl.com
Technology:
Thermal Desorption - A low temperature enhanced volatilization system
provided by Williams Environmental was used to treat soil at the site
The desorber was a direct-heated, rotary dryer equipped with a gas burner and
operated using countercurrent flow under negative pressure
Soil was heated in the desorber to a temperature of 750ฐF for 15-20 minutes
Emission controls included a baghouse, thermal oxidizer, quench, and
scrubber
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
4,215 yd3 treated
Soil was characterized as stiff sandy clays; silty, sandy clays; and sands and
gravel
Moisture content was <20%
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The ROD specified the following cleanup goals: vinyl chloride - 33 mg/kg; tetrachloroethene (PCE) - 0.05 mg/kg;
trans-l,2-DCE - 33 mg/kg; TCE - 5.6 mg/kg; chloroform - 5.6 mg/kg; 1,1,1-trichloroethane - 0.41 mg/kg; and 1,1-
dichloroethane - 7.2 mg/kg
The ROD required that treated soil that failed to meet the TCLP metals requirements be shipped off-site for stabilization
and disposal at an approved RCRA permitted facility.
Air emissions standards were specified in a NJDEP air permit, including a destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) for
the thermal oxidizer of 99.99%
Results:
All soil met the cleanup goals on the first pass through the desorber and no soil was retreated. Data on the concentration
of individual constituents in the treated soil were not provided
A performance test was performed to demonstrate compliance with soil cleanup requirements and air emissions
standards, and to establish operating parameters for the remainder of the project. During the performance test (three
runs), all treated soil samples were below the detection limit of 0.002 mg/kg for PCE and TCE. All emission results met
the test objectives with the exception of lead and sulfur oxides, which were deemed acceptable by the USACE and EPA.
24
-------
Thermal Desorption at the Metaltec Superfund Site, Franklin Borough, New Jersey
Costs:
The total cost for treatment of 4,215 cubic yards of contaminated soil at this site was $998,238. This included costs for
technology mobilization, setup, and demobilization, planning and preparation, and equipment and appurtenances.
The calculated unit cost for this application was $237 per cubic yard of soil (based on a total of 4,215 cubic yards of soil
treated).
Description:
From 1965 to the mid 1980s, the Metaltec Corporation, a subsidiary of Aerosystems Technology Corporation, operated a
metal-plating facility in Franklin Borough, Sussex County, New Jersey. The facility produced assorted metal parts
including metal ballpoint pen casings, paint spray guns, and lipstick cases. During that time, wastewater from the plating
operations was discharged on-site to an unlined wastewater lagoon. In addition, wastes were spilled and dumped in
various locations at the facility. The unlined wastewater lagoon was abandoned sometime in the 1980s and subsequently
backfilled by the owners. In 1980, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) conducted several
investigations of the former wastewater lagoon and a pile of green material that was stored at the site, and found that soil
and groundwater in these areas were contaminated by VOCs and heavy metals. The site was placed on the National
Priorities List (NPL) in September, 1983.
A thermal desorption system was used at the site to treat soil contaminated with VOCs. This system treated 4,215 yd3 of
contaminated soil to below cleanup goals in less than 2 months, with no soil requiring retreatment. According to the
vendor, the thermal desorption system was operated at a 75% on-stream efficiency despite severe weather conditions. In
addition, the vendor was able to maintain the contract-required schedule despite delays in the air permitting process. The
vendor indicated that developing an active relationship with the community allowed operations to be extended from 12
hours/day to 24 hours/day, which was critical to maintaining the project schedule.
25
-------
Thermal Desorption/Gas Phase Chemical Reduction at the New Bedford Harbor
Superfund Site, New Bedford, Massachusetts
Site Name:
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
Location:
New Bedford, Massachusetts
Period of Operation:
November 1996
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
ROD signed April 1990
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Demonstration of thermal desorption/gas phase chemical reduction to treat PCB-
contaminated sediments
Cleanup Type:
Field demonstration
Contaminants:
PCBs
Maximum concentrations in sediments of more than 200,000 mg/kg
Waste Source:
Discharge of polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCB)-contaminated wastewater from
electronics manufacturing
EPA RPM:
James M. Brown
U.S. EPA Region 1 (MC HBO)
1 Congress Street, Suite 1100
Boston, MA 02114-2023
Telephone: (617) 918-1308
E-mail: brown.jim@epa.gov
Technology Vendor:
Beth Kummling
ELI Eco Logic International, Inc.
143 Dennis Street
Rockwood, Ontario NOB 2KO
Canada
Telephone: (519) 856-9591 (ext. 203)
Fax: (519)856-9235
E-mail: kummlib@eco-logic-intl.com
Technology:
Thermal Desorption/Gas Phase Chemical Reduction (GPCR)
Pilot-scale test of Eco Logic's GPCR process - thermal desorption followed
by gas phase chemical reduction
Three main components - a thermal reduction mill (TRM), a GPCR reactor,
and a gas scrubbing and compression system
TRM - operated with indirect heat, using a molten tin bath (heated by
propane) to transfer heat to the sediments; volatilized organic compounds and
steam were removed from the TRM using hydrogen sweep gas which was
vented to the GPCR reactor
GPCR reactor - operated in a hydrogen atmosphere at a minimum temperature
of 900ฐC. As the gas passed through the reactor (typical residence time of 4
to 10 seconds), the organics were reduced to methane and hydrochloric acid,
which were sent to the gas scrubber
Gas scrubbing and compression system - two-stage caustic scrubbing system;
scrubbed gas compressed and stored before being burned in the Excess Gas
Burner prior to release to the atmosphere
Pilot testing included acclimation runs to provide preliminary data for
optimizing process conditions and performance verification runs to evaluate
the process
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Sediment
Fine sandy silt with some clay-sized particles present; some small shell
fragments present
Moisture content - 50% by weight
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Target goals for demonstration were 50 mg/kg for PCBs and the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
criteria for metals
Results:
TRM reduced PCB concentrations to 28 to 77 mg/kg in treated sediment, with an average of 52 mg/kg; the PCB
desorption efficiency ranged from 98.36 to 99.52%, with an average of 99.06%
GPCR reactor achieved a PCB destruction efficiency ranging from 99.99972% to 100%
TCLP metals concentrations in the treated sediment were below the regulatory criteria
26
-------
Thermal Desorption/Gas Phase Chemical Reduction at the New Bedford Harbor
Superfund Site, New Bedford, Massachusetts
Costs:
Projected full-scale costs for thermal desorption/gas phase chemical reduction of sediments were $11,114,000,
including $5,865,000 in capital costs and $5,249,000 in O&M costs.
Projected full-scale costs were based on treating 18,000 tons of sediment, for a unit cost of $617 per ton
Description:
The New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site is located along the northwestern shore of Buzzards Bay in New Bedford
Massachusetts, approximately 55 miles south of Boston. From the 1940s to 1978, PCB-contaminated wastewater from
electronics manufacturing operations was discharged onto the shoreline and into the harbor. Site investigations determined
that sediments were contaminated with PCBs and heavy metals. The site was listed on the National Priorities List in
September 1983. The ROD for a five acre area known as the "Hot Spot area" included dredging of PCB-contaminated
sediments followed by incineration. However, due to opposition to incineration, EPA postponed the incineration
component of the Hot Spot remedy to explore alternative treatment technologies. EPA evaluated four technologies as
possible alternatives to incineration - solvent extraction/dechlorination, vitrification, thermal desorption/gas phase
chemical reduction, and solidification/stabilization. This report covers the pilot-scale test of a thermal desorption/gas
phase chemical reduction process.
The pilot test was performed using Eco Logic's GPCR process, which consisted of a TRM, a GPCR reactor, and a gas
scrubbing and compression system. During the pilot test, the concentration of PCBs in the treated sediment from the TRM
ranged from 28 to 77 mg/kg, with an average of 52 mg/kg. The TRM PCB desorption efficiency ranged from 98.36 to
99.52%, with an average of 99.06%. The PCB concentrations in treated sediment were higher than Eco Logic expected,
and may be attributed to the treated sediment accumulating in the auger. The GPCR reactor achieved a destruction
efficiency ranging from 99.99972% to 100% for PCBs and an average destruction efficiency for total dioxins and furans of
99.9923 and 99.99959, respectively. TCLP metals concentrations in the treated sediment were below the regulatory
criteria. The pilot-scale TRM unit did not allow for the collection of isokinetic (flow representative) gas samples. The
vendor concluded that the results of the pilot study can be used for a summary assessment of performance, but that
additional data would be needed to draw definitive conclusions regarding dioxin and furan production and the
concentrations of contaminants downstream of the TRM.
27
-------
Thermal Desorption at the Reich Farm Superfund Site, Pleasant Plains, New Jersey
Site Name:
Reich Farm Superfund Site
Period of Operation:
November 1, 1994 to March 10, 1995
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Thermal desorption treatment of soils contaminated with VOCs and SVOCs
Contaminants:
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Semivolatile Organic Compounds
(SVOCs)
EPA Remedial Project Manager
(RPM):
Jonathan Gorin
EPA Region 2
290 Broadway, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212)637-4361
Fax: (212)637-4429
E-mail: gorin.jonathan@epa.gov
PRP Project Lead:
Craig Wilger
Union Carbide Technical Center
P.O. Box 8361
South Charleston, WV 25303
Telephone: (304) 747-3707
Fax: (304)747-3680
E-mail: wilgerca@ucarb.com
Vendor:
Shawn Todaro
Vice President
Four Seasons Environmental, Inc.
3107 South Elm Eugene Street
Greensboro, North Carolina 27416
Telephone: (336)273-2718
Fax: (336)274-5798
Location:
Pleasant Plains, New Jersey
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
ROD signed September 30, 1988
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Waste Source:
Leaking drums and disposal of wastes
in trenches
Technology:
Thermal Desorption
Low temperature volatilization system (LTVS) owned by Four Seasons
Environmental, Inc.
Transportable thermal desorption unit mounted on a trailer; the desorber was
38 feet long and eight feet in diameter and had a maximum throughput of 45
tons/hour
The primary treatment unit was directly heated with a 50 million BTU/hr
burner that used #2 fuel oil
Air pollution control equipment for the system included a multi-cyclone,
thermal oxidizer, heat exchanger, dry scrubber, and baghouse
Residence time - 8 to 12 minutes; soil exit temperature - 650 to 750 ฐF
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
14,836 cubic yards
Primarily coarse sand with small amounts of clay and silt
Moisture Content - < 10%
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The soil cleanup levels specified in the ROD were 1 mg/kg for total VOCs and 10 mg/kg for total SVOCs
Results:
All treated soil met the cleanup goals of 1 mg/kg for total VOCs and 10 mg/kg for total SVOCs, and was backfilled on
site
No information was provided about the specific VOC and S VOC concentrations in the treated soil or whether any soil
required retreatment prior to meeting the cleanup goals
Costs:
The total project cost was $4,1 15,000, including $2,205,000 for the thermal treatment application and $1,910,000 in
other project costs such as excavation sampling, soil excavation, and sheeting and shoring of the excavation
The unit cost for the thermal treatment application was $ 147 per cubic yard of soil treated
28
-------
Thermal Desorption at the Reich Farm Superfund Site, Pleasant Plains, New Jersey
Description:
The Reich Farm Superfund Site (Reich Farm) is a three acre site located in Pleasant Plains, New Jersey. In 1971, the site
was leased by an independent waste hauler and used for a five-month period to dispose of 55-gallon drums containing
organic solvents, still bottoms, residues, and other wastes. In December 1971, the owners of Reich Farm found 4,950
drums at the site (4,500 drums containing waste and 450 empty drums), along with several trenches that had been used for
waste disposal. Labels indicated that the drums belonged to Union Carbide. Results of the Remedial Investigation showed
that groundwater and subsurface soils at the site were contaminated with VOCs and SVOCs, and the site was listed on the
National Priorities List in September 1983. A ROD for the site, signed in September 1988, specified excavation and on-
site treatment using enhanced volatilization of soil.
The thermal treatment system used for this application was a transportable low temperature volatilization system (LTVS)
owned by Four Seasons Environmental, Inc. The primary treatment unit was directly heated and had a maximum
throughput of 45 tons/hour. From November 1, 1994 to March 10, 1995, 14,836 cubic yards of contaminated soil was
treated using the LTVS. All treated soil met the cleanup goals of 1 mg/kg for total VOCs and 10 mg/kg for total SVOCs,
and was backfilled on site. No information was provided about the specific VOC and SVOC concentrations in the treated
soil or whether any soil required retreatment prior to meeting the cleanup goals.
29
-------
Thermal Desorption at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site,
Golden, Colorado
Site Name:
Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site; Mound Site
Location:
Golden, Colorado
Period of Operation:
July - August 1997
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
DOE Final Action Memorandum
3/97
EPA Contact:
Tim Rehder
U.S. EPA Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303)312-6293
E-mail: rehder.timothy@epa.gov
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Thermal desorption of soil contaminated with halogenated volatile organic
compounds
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
Halogenated Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) was the primary VOC, with concentrations as high
as 760 mg/kg
Trichloroethene (TCE), carbon tetrachloride, and methylene chloride were not
detected above their cleanup goals in any soil samples
Waste Source:
Burial of drums of waste
Site Contacts:
Norma Castaneda
U.S. DOE
Rocky Flats Field Office
10808 Highway 93, Unit A
Golden, CO 80403
Phone: (303)966-4226
E-mail: norma.castaneda@rfets.gov
Tom Greengard
SAIC
10808 Highway 93, Unit B
Golden, CO 80403
Phone: (303)966-5635
E-mail: tom.greengard@rfets.gov
Technology Vendor:
Ron Hill
McLaren Hart
9323 Stockport Place
Charlotte, NC 28273
Phone: (704)587-0003
E-mail:
ronnie_hill@mclaren-hart. com
Technology:
Thermal Desorption
The McLaren Hart IRV-150 Batch Thermal Desorption Unit was used,
including four ovens
Each oven is 8-feet wide by 18-feet long by 1.5-feet high, and includes two
removable trays, with a capacity of 2.25 cubic yards of soil per tray
The desorber was operated at 180oF and a soil residence time of 2.5 - 3.5
hours
Off-gases were treated with HEPA filtration, condensation, and vapor-phase
GAC
Condensate was treated using chemical precipitation, microfiltration,
neutralization, dewatering, ultraviolet/peroxide oxidation, ion exchange, and
liquid-phase GAC adsorption
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
724.5 cubic yards of soil from two groups: (1) above clay stone/sandstone
layer; and (2) weathered claystone/sandstone material
Soil in first group consisted of clay (15-50%), silt (10-40%), sand (20-30%),
and gravel (10-40%)
Soil in second group consisted of clay (45-90%), silt (40-85%), and sand
(5-55%)
Moisture content of both groups ranged from 10-18%
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Cleanup goals for treatment of soil were identified for PCE (6.0 mg/kg), TCE (4.0 mg/kg), carbon tetrachloride (2.0
mg/kg), and methylene chloride (5.77 mg/kg)
Based upon air dispersion modeling results, stack monitoring for radionuclides was not required
Results:
Except for two batches, all treated soil samples met the cleanup goals on the first pass, with all results below detection
limits
The two batches that did not meet the treatment goal for PCE were re-treated met the goals after re-treatment
30
-------
Thermal Desorption at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site,
Golden, Colorado
Costs:
A total of $2,316,000 was expended for cleanup of this site, including $580,000 for planning and site preparation,
$210,000 for project management, and $1,526,000 for excavation, treatment, waste disposition, and site restoration.
Information about the portion of the $1,526,000 for excavation, treatment, waste disposition, and site restoration that
was directly attributable to thermal treatment was not available. Therefore, a unit cost for treatment of contaminated
soil was not calculated. DOE considers information about the amount expended for thermal desorption treatment
confidential business information.
Description:
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) used the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS) to fabricate
components for nuclear weapons from 1951 to 1989. Hazardous mixed wastes generated from the associated machining
operations were disposed at various locations at the site, including the Mound Site. Approximately 1,400 drums
containing hazardous mixed waste, including uranium, beryllium, hydraulic oil, carbon tetrachloride and PCE were placed
at the Mound Site between April 1954 and September 1958. These drums were covered with soil thus generating a
"mound". Over time, contamination leaked from these drums into the surrounding soils and groundwater.
Thermal desorption technology was selected to treat contaminated soils from the Mound Site. A batch process design was
selected based on the relatively small volume of soil to be treated, and a desire to minimize size reduction activities
because of the presence of radionuclide contamination. This application included several enhancements to the McLaren
Hart thermal treatment system, including use of trays to hold the soil instead of placing the soil directly into the ovens, and
use of a preheater in the off gas treatment train between the condenser and the HEPA filters to raise the temperature of the
off gas leaving the condenser above its dew point. Treated soil samples met the cleanup goals on the first pass, with results
below detection limits for all but two batches. These two batches were re-treated and met the goals after re-treatment.
Information was not available about the cost for thermal desorption treatment at this site.
31
-------
Thermal Desorption at the Sarney Farm Superfund Site, Amenia, New York
Site Name:
Sarney Farm Superfund Site
Location:
Amenia, New York
Period of Operation:
August through December 1997
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
ROD signed September 27, 1990
EPA Remedial Project Manager
(RPM):
Kevin Willis
EPA Region 2
290 Broadway, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212)637-4252
Fax: (212)637-3966
E-mail: willis.kevin@epa.gov
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Thermal desorption treatment of soils contaminated with VOCs
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
Volatile Organic Compounds
Seven contaminants of concern (COCs) were identified including 1,2-
dichloroethane, 2-butanone, 4-methyl-2-pentanone, chloroform, toluene,
trichloroethene, total xylenes
Waste Source:
Leaking drums and disposal of wastes
in trenches
Vendor:
Mark A. Fieri, P.E.
Project Manager
Williams Environmental Services, Inc.
2075 West Park Place
Stone Mountain, GA 30087
Telephone: (800) 247-4030
Fax: (770)879-4831
E-mail: mfleri@wmsgrpintl.com
Prime Contractor:
Jim Bannon
ESE
410 Amherst Street, Suite 100
Nashua, NH 03063
Telephone: (603) 889-3737
Fax: (603)880-6111
E-mail: jpbannon@mactec.com
Technology:
Thermal Desorption
Low temperature thermal desorption (LTTD) system owned by Williams
Environmental, Inc
System included a desorber unit that consisted of a direct-heated rotary kiln,
feed belt, thermal desorber burner, and discharge screw conveyor; a baghouse
unit; a thermal oxidizer unit; and a control unit
Average system throughput - 27 tons/hr; residence time -15 to 20 minutes;
soil exit temperature - 650 to 750ฐF
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
10,514 tons of soil
Primarily coarse sand with small amounts of clay and silt
Moisture content of <25%
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The ROD specified the following soil cleanup levels: 1,2-dichloroethane - 0.1 mg/kg, 2-butanone - 0.3 mg/kg, 4-methyl-2-
pentanone -1.0 mg/kg, chloroform - 0.3 mg/kg, toluene -1.5 mg/kg, trichloroethene - 0.2 mg/kg, total xylenes - 7.0 mg/kg
Results:
All treated soil met the cleanup goals for the seven COCs on the first pass through the system
Data on concentrations of specific COC contaminants was provided for samples collected between September and
November 1997; these data showed that all seven COCs were at non-detectable levels in the treated soil
Treated soil was backfilled on-site
Costs:
The total project cost was $2,918,600, including $1,932,300 in costs for the thermal treatment application and $986,300
in other project costs such as excavation, compliance sampling, disposal of residuals and miscellaneous costs
Treatment costs included $1,932,300, including $745,600 in capital costs and $1,186,700 in operating costs
The calculated unit cost for treatment was $ 184 per ton based on treating 10,514 tons of soil
32
-------
Thermal Desorption at the Sarney Farm Superfund Site, Amenia, New York
Description:
The Sarney Farm Superfund Site (Sarney Farm) is located in the town of Amenia in Dutchess County New York,
approximately 90 miles north of New York City. The site encompasses 40 acres and includes a five-acre permitted
sanitary landfill that operated from 1968 to 1969. During that time, non-permitted industrial wastes and barrels of waste
solvents were disposed of in and around the landfill, as well as in trenches around the site. Site investigations indicated
that soil and groundwater at the site were contaminated with organics, primarily VOCs. The ROD, signed in September
1990, specified removal of drums and excavation and on-site treatment of contaminated soil using low temperature thermal
desorption for two areas. Removal of drums, which were disposed of off-site, was completed in March 1995.
The thermal treatment system used for this application was a low temperature thermal desorption (LTTD) system owned
by Williams. A total of 10,514 tons of soil were treated from August through December 1997. All treated soil met the
cleanup goals for seven COCs on the first pass through the system. The LTTD system reduced contaminant concentrations
to non-detectable levels based on available data on individual contaminant concentrations. According to ESE, local permit
constraints limited LTTD operation to daylight hours (about 10 to 11 hours per day), five days per week. Had the unit
been allowed to operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week, the thermal treatment likely could be completed at a lower
cost. According to Williams, this project was performed without the benefit of existing site utilities. Electricity was
provided using an on-site generator; water was imported to the site on a daily basis using a tank truck; and soil was
quenched using treated water from the excavation.
33
-------
ThermoRetec's Segmented Gate System at Brookhaven National Laboratory,
Area of Concern 16, Suffolk County, New York
Site Name:
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Area of Concern 16
Location:
Suffolk County, NY
Period of Operation:
May to June 2000
Cleanup Authority:
RCRA Corrective Measure
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of a gate system to reduce volume of radioactive-contaminated soil
requiring off-site disposal
Cleanup Type:
Field Demonstration
Contaminants:
Radionuclides
Cesium 137 levels ranged from background to 348 pCi/g
Waste Source:
Spills of fission products
Site Contact:
James Brower
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Phone: (631)344-7513
Vendor Contacts:
Joseph W. Kimbrell/James M. Brown
ThermoRetec
Phone: (505)254-0955
Technical Contact:
Ray Patteson
Sandia National Laboratories
Phone: (505)844-1904
Technology:
Segmented Gate System (SGS)
SGS is a combination of conveyer systems, radiation detectors (primarily
gamma radiation), and computer control
Contaminated soil on conveyer belt was diverted by segmented gates into
stockpiles
Detectors monitored radioactivity content of soil traveling on belt and
computer opened specified gates to separate portions of soil based on
radioactivity criteria
Operating parameters included a belt speed of 30 ft/min, belt length of 16 -18
ft, soil layer thickness of 2 inches by width of 30.75 inches, and soil density of
1.29g/cm3
Average daily processing time was 2.06 hours, with a total of 22.7 hours over
11 days
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
625 yd3 of soil were processed
Moisture content relatively high; soil contained clumps of grass with root
systems and grass stems
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Reduce the volume of contaminated soil that was above the specified criteria and that would require storage and
disposal
The sorting criterion was 23 pCi/g
Results:
Overall volume reduction was measured as 16%, processing soil from three separate locations
Average activity of above-criteria soil ranged from 26 - 321 pCi/g, and below-criteria soil ranged from 7.17 -18.8 pCi/g
Costs:
The vendor's cost was $373,509, including $52,410 for pre-deployment site characterization, $25,700 for other
pre-deployment activities, $73,300 for mobilization, $147,459 for operations and delays, $49,000 for demobilization,
$18,640 for post-excavation mower survey and $7,000 for the final report and documentation; BNL's costs were
$321,000, including $136,662 for supporting the use of SGS
Overall unit cost was $78/yd3, based only on costs for processing activities
34
-------
ThermoRetec's Segmented Gate System at Brookhaven National Laboratory,
Area of Concern 16, Suffolk County, New York
Description:
Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), located in Suffolk County, New York, approximately 60 miles east of New York
City, encompasses an area of 5,265 acres (approximately 8.21 square miles). The site was formerly occupied by the U.S.
Army as Camp Upton during World Wars I and II, and was transferred to DOE in 1977. In 1980 and 1983, aerial
radiation surveys were conducted at the BNL site and 23 areas of man-made radioactivity were identified. The source of
the radioactive material was believed to be from spills of fission products removed from the hazardous waste management
facility. The material at Area of Concern 16 was 137Cs radionuclide-contaminated landscape surface soil.
A Segmented Gate System (SGS) was used to reduce the volume of contaminated soil that required off-site disposal. SGS
is a combination of conveyer systems, radiation detectors, and computer control, where contaminated soil on a conveyer
belt is diverted by segmented gates into stockpiles. Detectors monitor the radioactivity content of the soil traveling on the
belt and a computer opens specified gates to separate portions of soil based on radioactivity criteria. At this site, the
overall volume reduction was measured as 16%. This relatively low percentage was attributed to differences between
requirements specified in the work plan and actual field conditions. The vendor's cost for the project was $373,509, and
BNL's cost was $321,000. The overall unit cost was $78/yd3, based only on costs for processing activities
35
-------
Thermo NUtech's Segmented Gate System at Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory, Auxiliary Reactor Area 23, Idaho Falls, Idaho
Site Name:
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), Auxiliary
Reactor Area (ARA) 23
Location:
Idaho Falls, ID
Period of Operation:
May to June 1999
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of a gate system to reduce volume of radioactive-contaminated soil
requiring off-site disposal
Cleanup Type:
Field Demonstration
Contaminants:
Radionuclides
Cesium 137 levels greater than 45 pCi/g
Waste Source:
Accidental destruction of reactor
Site Contact:
Frank Webber
INEEL
(208) 526-8507
Vendor Contacts:
Joseph W. Kimbrell
ThermoRetec
(505) 254-0935 ext. 209
Technical Contact:
Ray Patteson
Sandia National Laboratories
(505) 844-1904
Technology:
Segmented Gate System (SGS)
SGS is a combination of conveyer systems, radiation detectors (primarily
gamma radiation), and computer control
Contaminated soil on conveyer belt was diverted by segmented gates into
stockpiles
Detectors monitored radioactivity content of soil traveling on belt and
computer opened specified gates to separate portions of soil based on
radioactivity criteria
Operating parameters included a belt speed of 30 ft/min, belt length of 16 -18
ft, soil layer thickness of 2 inches by width of 30.75 inches, and soil density of
0.95 g/cm3
Actual run time was 4.12 hours for Area A, and 2.98 hours for Area C
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
442 yd3 of soil were processed, consisting of 124 yd3 from Area A (Sediment
Radionuclide Deposition), 219 yd3 from Area C (Windblown Radionuclide
Deposition), and 99 yd3 of oversized material from Areas A and C
Soils generally consisted of fine-grained eolian soil deposits, with some
fluvial gravel and gravelly sands; sieve analysis not performed
Moisture content relatively high; soil contained clumps of grass with root
systems and grass stems
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Reduce the volume of contaminated soil that was above the specified criteria and that would require storage and
disposal, from soil that was below the criteria
The sorting criterion was 23 pCi/g
Results:
Overall volume reduction was measured as 2.7% for Area A soils and 0% for Area C soils
Several additional tests were performed to determine the cause of the relatively poor results, including a set point test,
shine test, and direct haul tests
Costs:
The vendor's cost was $205,800, including $17,000 for pre-deployment activities, $69,000 for mobilization, $77,000 for
processing, $39,000 for demobilization, and $3,800 for final report; INEEL's costs were $365,000
36
-------
Thermo NUtech's Segmented Gate System at Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory, Auxiliary Reactor Area 23, Idaho Falls, Idaho
Description:
INEEL, located 34 miles west of Idaho Falls, Idaho, encompasses an area of 890 square miles. The site was established in
1949 for building and testing a variety of nuclear facilities. INEEL supports the engineering and operations efforts of
DOE and other federal agencies in the areas of nuclear safety research, reactor development, reactor operations and
training, nuclear defense materials production, waste management technology, energy technology, and conservation
programs. Auxiliary Reactor Area 23 is a 41.8 acre CERCLA site at INEEL containing windblown contamination. Most
of the contamination came from the accidental destruction of the SL-1 reactor in 1961. The contaminant of concern at
ARA23is 137Cs.
A SGS was used to reduce the volume of contaminated soil that required off-site disposal. SGS is a combination of
conveyer systems, radiation detectors, and computer control, where contaminated soil on a conveyer belt is diverted by
segmented gates into stockpiles. Detectors monitor the radioactivity content of the soil traveling on the belt and a
computer opens specified gates to separate portions of soil based on radioactivity criteria. At this site, the overall volume
reduction was measured as less than 3%, and several tests were performed to determine the cause of the relatively poor
results. The vendor's cost for the project was $205,800, and INEEL's cost was $365,000.
37
-------
Solidification/Stabilization at the Massachusetts Military Reservation,
Training Range and Impact Area, Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Site Name:
Massachusetts Military Reservation, Training Range and Impact Area
Location:
Cape Cod, MA
Period of Operation:
February 1998 through June 1998
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
Administrative Order issued April
10, 1997
EPA Remedial Project Manager:
Mike Jasinski
U.S. EPA Region 1
1 Congress Street, Suite 1100
Boston, MA 02203-2211
Telephone: (617) 918-1352
Fax: (617)918-1291
E-mail: jasinski.mike@epa.gov
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of a proprietary stabilization technology to treat lead in both in situ and ex
situ soils
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
Heavy Metals
Lead was the primary contaminant, with total lead concentrations in soil
ranging as high as 12,200 mg/kg and TCLP leachable lead as high as 734
ug/L
Waste Source:
Training/firing ranges
Site Lead:
Ben Gregson, Assistant Project Officer
Army National Guard
Building 2816, Room 228
Camp Edwards, MA 02542
Telephone: (508) 968-5821
Fax: 508-968-5286
Technology Vendor:
Mike Lock or Chris Rice
Sevenson Environmental Services, Inc.
8270 Whitcomb Street
Merrillville, IN 46410
Telephone: (219)756-4686
Fax: (219)756-4687
E-mail: sevensonmw@aol.com
Technology:
Stabilization using MAECTITEฎ
MAECTITEฎ is a proprietary technology that applies a liquid reagent to the
soil to react with the lead and produce a geochemically stable synthetic
mineral crystal; information was not provided on the type of chemicals in the
liquid reagent
Contaminated soil from sixteen small arms ranges was treated with
MAECTITEฎ technology in both ex situ and in situ applications
Berm soil was excavated and treated ex situ when a visual analysis showed the
presence of recoverable bullet fragments
Soil remaining in the berms that did not contain bullet fragments but still had
a TCLP lead concentration of greater than 5.0 mg/L was treated in situ.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
23,168 cubic yards of soil; consisting of 17,788 cubic yards treated ex situ
(27,952 tons), and 5,380 cubic yards treated in situ
Soil was classified as sandy and included stones and other oversize materials
captured on 6-inch, 2-inch, and number 4 screens, and had a pH ranging from
5.0 to 6.5
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The Administrative Order contained several requirements, including removing the maximum amount of lead munitions
from the soil; recycling the removed lead munitions, as appropriate; and use of soil modifiers to minimize prospective
bullet corrosion and lead migration
A cleanup goal was established as TCLP leachable lead concentration in soil of <5.0 mg/L
Results:
17,788 cubic yards of soil were treated ex situ in 56 batches (each consisting of 500 tons of soil). All batches met the
cleanup goal, with no retreatment required. In addition, 96% of the samples of ex situ treated soil had a TCLP leachable
lead concentration of <0.5 mg/L (one order of magnitude lower than the cleanup goal).
5,380 cubic yards of soil were treated in situ with 29 samples analyzed after in situ treatment of soil. All locations met
the cleanup goal, with no retreatment required. In addition, 97% of the samples of in situ treated soil had a TCLP
leachable lead concentration of <0.5 mg/L (one order of magnitude lower than the cleanup goal).
38
-------
Solidification/Stabilization at the Massachusetts Military Reservation,
Training Range and Impact Area, Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Costs:
The capital cost for MAECTITEฎ treatment of 23,168 cubic yards of contaminated soil was $3.5 million, with a
calculated unit cost of $ 151 per cubic yard of soil treated
The costs included ex situ and in situ treatment of berms, as well as mobilization, work plan preparation, negotiation
support, meetings and briefings, reports, survey of berms, berm reconstruction, and decontamination
In situ treatment was used at those berms and portions of berms which did not contain recoverable bullet fragments, thus
limiting the amount of soil that was required to be excavated and treated on an ex situ basis.
Description:
The Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR), founded by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1935 as a National
Guard training camp and federalized in 1940 to prepare for World War II, currently houses Otis Air National Guard Base,
U.S. Coast Guard Air Station Cape Cod, and Army National Guard Camp Edwards. MMR covers 34 square miles of
upper Cape Cod (approximately 22,000 acres), and borders the towns of Bourne, Falmouth, Mashpee and Sandwich,
Massachusetts. MMR was placed on EPA's Superfund National Priority List in 1989, and has 78 pollution source areas
currently identified and 10 major groundwater pollution plumes moving at approximately 1.5 to 2 feet per day. The
reservation sits atop the recharge area for the sole source groundwater aquifer from which all of upper Cape Cod draws its
drinking water. The Training Range and Impact Area includes 16 small arms firing ranges (training ranges). Berms
constructed behind targets at the ranges to capture bullets and fragments of bullets behind targets became contaminated with
lead.
MAECTITEฎ, a proprietary stabilization technology, was used on both an ex situ and an in situ basis to treat lead-
contaminated soil in the berms at the 16 small arms ranges. A total of 23,168 cubic yards of soil were treated (17,788
cubic yards ex situ and 5,380 cubic yards in situ). All samples met the cleanup goal of <5.0 mg/L of TCLP leachable lead,
and soil was not required to be retreated. The treatment vendor reported that the factors that affect cost and performance
for the MAECTITEฎ technology include heavy metal constituents of concern, level of heavy metal contamination,
reduction in concentrations of leachable metal, volume of material to be treated, whether in situ or ex situ methods are
used, material sizing requirements, final disposition of treated material (i.e., on site or off site), reporting requirements,
waste matrix complexities, site configuration, prevailing labor rates, and taxes.
39
-------
Solidification/Stabilization at the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site,
New Bedford, Massachusetts
Site Name:
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
Location:
New Bedford, Massachusetts
Period of Operation:
November 30 to December 4, 1995
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
ROD signed April 1990
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Bench-scale testing of solidification/stabilization to treat PCB-contaminated
sediments
Cleanup Type:
Bench-scale
Contaminants:
PCBs
Maximum concentrations in sediments of more than 200,000 mg/kg
Waste Source:
Discharge of polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCB)-contaminated wastewater from
electronics manufacturing
Site Contact:
Helen Douglas
Foster Wheeler Environmental
Corporation
470 Atlantic Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617)457-8263
E-mail: helen_douglas@fwc.com
EPA Contact:
James M. Brown
U.S. EPA Region 1 (MC HBO)
1 Congress Street, Suite 1100
Boston, MA 02114
Telephone: (617) 918-1308
E-mail: brown.jim@epa.gov
Technology:
Solidification/Stabilization
Bench-scale study of seven solidification/stabilization reagents from Foster
Wheeler, MARCOR Environmental (MARCOR), and World Environmental
(WORLD)
Reagents included Foster Wheeler - Portland cement and absorbent clay;
MARCOR - HWT-27 (a sintered calcium silicate material); and WORLD -
LPCII (15% SiO2 and 68% CaO, similar to Portland cement), Clarion SM-
399 (complex of montmorillonite clay and quaternary ammonium compound),
Zoneco-Pl (mixture of some 30 organic and amino acids and other organic
compounds), and OT-P2 (liquid containing 40% active alkoxysilane
emulsified in water)
Reagents were mixed with sediments (proportions and length of mixing times
varied); the mixtures were placed in molds and allowed to air cure for 30 days
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Sediment
Fine sandy silt with some clay-sized particles present; some small shell
fragments present
Moisture content - 50% by weight
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Objectives of the bench-scale study included evaluating the ability of solidification/stabilization to reduce the
teachability of PCBs, SVOCs, and heavy metals in Hot Spot sediments
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) regulatory limits for SVOCs and metals
For TCLP PCBs, no regulatory limit had been established; therefore, results were used for comparison purposes only
Compressive strength of treated material
Results:
TCLP PCBs - concentrations in all batches for the three vendors was found to be higher in the treated sediment than in
the untreated sediment, by a factor of two to four times
TCLP SVOCs - results were mixed, with concentrations generally higher in the treated sediment than in the untreated
sediment; for example, TCLP concentrations for phenols increased in mixtures from all three vendors from 2 ug/L in the
untreated sediment to as much as 4.7 ug/L in the treated material
TCLP metals - concentrations in the untreated sediment used for these tests were below regulatory limits; in most cases,
metals concentrations in the sediment were reduced by solidification/stabilization; however, increases in concentrations
for several metals, including barium, copper, and zinc, were observed in some of the tests
Compressive strength - the Foster Wheeler mixtures had the highest compressive strength, ranging from 195 to 270 psi;
the MARCOR has the lowest compressive strength, ranging from 45 to 80 psi
40
-------
Solidification/Stabilization at the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site,
New Bedford, Massachusetts
Costs:
No cost data were available for the treatability study; and no projections were developed for the full-scale costs for
solidification/stabilization of Hot Spot sediments
Description:
The New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site is located along the northwestern shore of Buzzards Bay in New Bedford
Massachusetts, approximately 55 miles south of Boston. From the 1940s to 1978, PCB-contaminated wastewater from
electronics manufacturing operations was discharged onto the shoreline and into the harbor. Site investigations determined
that sediments were contaminated with PCBs and heavy metals. The site was listed on the National Priorities List in
September 1983. The ROD for a five acre area known as the "Hot Spot area" included dredging of PCB-contaminated
sediments followed by incineration. However, due to opposition to incineration, EPA postponed the incineration
component of the Hot Spot remedy to explore alternative treatment technologies. EPA evaluated four technologies as
possible alternatives to incineration - solvent extraction/dechlorination, vitrification, thermal desorption/gas phase
chemical reduction, and solidification/stabilization. This report covers the bench-scale testing of a
solidification/stabilization process.
The bench-scale test was performed using seven reagents from three vendors - Foster Wheeler, MARCOR, and WORLD.
The reagents were mixed with Hot Spot sediments (in varying proportions and mixed for varying times), placed in
containers, and air cured for 30 days. Samples were analyzed for TCLP PCBs, TCLP SVOCs, and TCLP metals to
evaluate the ability of solidification/stabilization to reduce the leachabiliy of contaminants from Hot Spot sediments. None
of the solidification/stabilization mixtures tested during the bench-scale study was effective in stabilizing PCBs or SVOCs
in the Hot Spot sediments. In many cases, the contaminant concentrations in the treated material were higher than in the
untreated sediment. Specific reasons for the increase in concentrations were not identified, though it is possible that the
process increased the mobility of PCBs and other organics in the aqueous phase. While the concentrations of metals in the
untreated sediment were below the regulatory limits, solidification/stabilization generally reduced the TCLP metals
concentrations in the treated material, and may be appropriate for treating metals in the Hot Spot sediments.
41
-------
Solvent Extraction/Dechlorination at the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site,
New Bedford, Massachusetts
Site Name:
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
Location:
New Bedford, Massachusetts
Period of Operation:
June 1996
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
ROD signed April 1990
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Demonstration of solvent extraction/dechlorination to treat PCB-contaminated
sediments
Cleanup Type:
Field demonstration
Contaminants:
PCBs
Maximum concentrations in sediments of more than 200,000 mg/kg
Waste Source:
Discharge of polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCB)-contaminated wastewater from
electronics manufacturing
EPA Contact:
James M. Brown
U.S. EPA Region 1 (MC HBO)
1 Congress Street, Suite 1100
Boston, MA 02114
Telephone: (617) 918-1308
E-mail: brown.jim@epa.gov
Technology Vendors:
William Heins
Ionics RCC
3006 Northrop Way, Suite 200
Bellvue, WA 98004
Telephone: (425) 828-2400
Gerry Getman
Commodore Advances Sciences, Inc.
2340 Menaul Boulevard ME, Suite
400
Albuquerque, NM 87107
Telephone: (505) 872-6805
Fax: (505)872-6827
E-mail: ggetman@commodore.com
Technology:
Solvent extraction/dechlorination
Basic Extractive Sludge Treatment (B.E.S.T.ฎ) solvent extraction process
followed by Solvated Electron Technology (SETฎ) dechlorination process
B.E.S.T.ฎ process included feed material preparation, extraction, solids
drying, and solvent recovery; diisopropylamine (DIPA) used as the extraction
solvent; PCB-concentrated oil sent to SETฎ process
SETฎ process included a mobile SETฎ unit with a one gallon per day
processing capacity; concentrated oil reacted with liquid anhydrous ammonia
followed by metallic sodium generating the solvated electron solution to
reduce the PCBs
Pilot testing included optimization testing to identify the optimum process
parameters required to maximize extraction of PCBs from the sediment, and
verification testing to collect data from the process operating under optimal
conditions
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Sediment
Fine sandy silt with some clay-sized particles present; some small shell
fragments present
Moisture content - 50% by weight
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Target goals for demonstration were 50 mg/kg for PCBs and the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
criteria for metals
Results:
The B.E.S.T.ฎ process reduced concentrations of PCBs in sediments from as high as 2,515 mg/kg to below the target
treatment goal of 50 mg/kg in as few as five extraction cycles, and PCB concentrations below 10 mg/kg were achieved
after seven extraction cycles; TCLP metals in the treated sediment were below regulatory levels
The SETฎ process reduced concentrations of PCBs in the concentrated oil from the B.E.S.T.ฎ process from 49,000
mg/kg to levels ranging from not detected to 38 mg/kg, below the target treatment goal of 50 mg/kg
42
-------
Solvent Extraction/Dechlorination at the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site,
New Bedford, Massachusetts
Costs:
The projected full-scale cost for treatment of PCB-contaminated sediment using the combined B.E.S.T.ฎ and SETฎ
processes were $12,971,000, including $9,000,000 in capital costs and $3,971,000 in O&M costs
Projected full-scale costs were based on treating 18,000 tons of sediment, for a unit cost of $721 per ton
Description:
The New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site is located along the northwestern shore of Buzzards Bay in New Bedford
Massachusetts, approximately 55 miles south of Boston. From the 1940s to 1978, PCB-contaminated wastewater from
electronics manufacturing operations was discharged onto the shoreline and into the harbor. Site investigations determined
that sediments were contaminated with PCBs and heavy metals. The site was listed on the National Priorities List in
September 1983. The ROD for a five acre area known as the "Hot Spot area" included dredging of PCB-contaminated
sediments followed by incineration. However, due to opposition to incineration, EPA postponed the incineration
component of the Hot Spot remedy to explore alternative treatment technologies. EPA evaluated four technologies as
possible alternatives to incineration - solvent extraction/dechlorination, vitrification, thermal desorption/gas phase
chemical reduction, and solidification/stabilization. This report covers the pilot-scale test of a solvent
extraction/dechlorination process.
The pilot test was performed using the patented Ionics RCC B.E.S.T.ฎ solvent extraction process to remove contaminants
from the sediments, followed by the Commodore SETฎ process to treat the high concentration PCB oil from the B.E.S.T.ฎ
process. During the pilot test, the B.E.S.T.ฎ process reduced concentrations of PCBs from as high as 2,515 mg/kg to 10
mg/kg; TCLP metals in the treated sediment were below regulatory levels. The SETฎ process reduced concentrations of
PCBs in the concentrated oil from 49,000 mg/kg to below the levels ranging from not detected to 38 mg/kg. During the
pilot test, problems were encountered with the feed mechanism for the SETฎ process, requiring modifications to the design
and operation of the unit. These included modifying the feed mechanism design to handle semi-solid, waxy material rather
than liquid and using excess sodium to address problems with untreated material contaminating treated material.
43
-------
Vitrification at the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, New Bedford,
Massachusetts
Site Name:
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
Location:
New Bedford, Massachusetts
Period of Operation:
July - August 1996
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
ROD signed April 1990
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Demonstration of vitrification to treat PCB-contaminated sediments
Cleanup Type:
Field demonstration
Contaminants:
PCBs
Maximum concentrations in sediments of more than 200,000 mg/kg
Waste Source:
Discharge of polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCB)-contaminated wastewater from
electronics manufacturing
EPA Contact:
James M. Brown
U.S. EPA Region 1 (MC HBO)
1 Congress Street, Suite 1100
Boston, MA 02114
Telephone: (617) 918-1308
E-mail: brown.jim@epa.gov
Technology Vendor:
James Hansen
Geosafe Corporation
2952 George Washington Way
Richland, WA 99352
Telephone: (509) 375-0170
Fax: (509)375-7721
Technology:
Vitrification:
Geosafe's pilot-scale vitrification system with a treatment capacity of 2,000
pounds per batch
System included two cylindrical carbon steel test containers (60 inches high
and 50 inches in diameter) set inside carbon steel containment boxes;
electrodes were placed inside each container, along with thermocouples to
monitor the temperature of the melt
Off-gas equipment included desiccant and carbon filters, caustic scrubber,
vapor-phase carbon filter, and thermal oxidizer
Batch No. 1 - power applied for 34 hours with an average melt rate of 0.93
in/hr with a total of 785 kWhr of energy consumed; achieved a melt depth of
31.5 inches based on a reading of 1000ฐC centerline temperature; during this
batch, significant steam was generated causing particulates and organics to be
released in the off-gas; these problems were attributed to the high moisture
content and the fine-grained nature of the sediment
Batch No. 2 - power applied for 22 hours with an average melt rate of 0.9
in/hr with a total of 522 kWhr of energy consumed; achieved a melt depth of
33 inches based on a reading of 1000ฐC centerline temperature; to alleviate
the problems in Batch No. 1, standing water was decanted from the sediments
in the test container prior to the test
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Sediment
Fine sandy silt with some clay-sized particles present; some small shell
fragments present
Moisture content - >50% by weight
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Target goals for demonstration were 50 mg/kg for PCBs and the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
criteria for metals
Results:
During Batch No. 1, operational difficulties were encountered as a result of the high moisture content and fine-grained
nature of the sediment. Geosafe considered this batch to be an optimization test and Batch No. 2 to be the verification
test. Therefore, data from the Batch No. 1 test was not included in the performance analysis
Data from Batch No. 2 showed that PCB concentrations in the melt were reduced from as high as 2,085 mg/kg to below
detectable levels in the treated sediment; the destruction removal efficiency for the process was 99.9905% for PCBs;
TCLP metals concentrations in the melt were below the regulatory criteria
44
-------
Vitrification at the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, New Bedford,
Massachusetts
Costs:
The projected full-scale cost for vitrification of sediments was $20,687,000
Projected full-scale costs were based on treating 18,000 tons sediment, for a unit cost of $1,149 per ton
According to the vendor, this projected full-scale cost was based on treating sediments with a high moisture content;
unit costs for vitrification of dry sludge are generally lower (about $400 per ton)
Description:
The New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site is located along the northwestern shore of Buzzards Bay in New Bedford
Massachusetts, approximately 55 miles south of Boston. From the 1940s to 1978, PCB-contaminated wastewater from
electronics manufacturing operations was discharged onto the shoreline and into the harbor. Site investigations determined
that sediments were contaminated with PCBs and heavy metals. The site was listed on the National Priorities List in
September 1983. The ROD for a five acre area known as the "Hot Spot area" included dredging of PCB-contaminated
sediments followed by incineration. However, due to opposition to incineration, EPA postponed the incineration
component of the Hot Spot remedy to explore alternative treatment technologies. EPA evaluated four technologies as
possible alternatives to incineration - solvent extraction/dechlorination, vitrification, thermal desorption/gas phase
chemical reduction, and solidification/stabilization. This report covers the pilot-scale test of a vitrification process.
The pilot test was performed using Geosafe's vitrification system with a treatment capacity of 2,000 pounds per batch.
Pilot tests were completed for two batches: Batch No. 1, where power was applied for 34 hours, achieving a melt depth of
31.5 inches; and Batch No. 2, where power was applied for 22 hours, achieving a melt depth of 33 inches. During Batch
No. 1, operational difficulties were encountered as a result of the high moisture content and fine-grained nature of the
sediment. As such, only data from Batch No. 2 were used for the performance assessment. To alleviate the operational
problems from Batch No. 1, water was decanted from the sediments prior to testing of Batch No. 2. The results from
Batch No. 2 showed that the vitrification process reduced PCB concentrations from 2,085 mg/kg to below detectable levels
in the treated sediment, with a PCB destruction removal efficiency of 99.9905%. TCLP metals concentrations in the melt
were below the regulatory criteria. According to Geosafe, full-scale in situ vitrification technology is not the technology of
choice for treating soils/sediments with a high moisture content (i.e., fluid media). The first test was performed on
sediments that contained standing water. While the water was decanted from the sediment for the second test, the moisture
content of the sediment tested was above 50 percent. Geosafe indicated that dewatering the sediment to a moisture content
of 10% prior to treatment would address the problem.
45
-------
Bioremediation at the Stauffer Management Company Superfund Site,
Tampa, Florida
Site Name:
Stauffer Management Company Superfund Site, Tampa, Florida
Location:
Tampa, Florida
Period of Operation:
June 1997 - September 1998
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA - ROD issued December
1995
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Demonstration of composting technology for treatment of soil contaminated with
chlorinated pesticides
Cleanup Type:
Field demonstration
Contaminants:
Organochlorine Pesticides - Typical pesticide concentrations in the soil were
chlordane - 47.5 mg/kg; ODD -162.5 mg/kg; DDE -11.3 mg/kg; DDT - 88.4
mg/kg; dieldrin -3.1 mg/kg; molinate -10.2 mg/kg; and toxaphene - 469 mg/kg
Waste Source:
Pesticide manufacturing and
distribution
PRP Project Lead
Frank Peter
SMC
405 Bartram Lane
WestHockessin, DE 19707
(302) 239-6781
jfpeter@aol.com
EPA Remedial Project Manager
Brad Jackson
U.S. EPA Region 4
6IForsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
(404) 562-8925
j ackson.brad@epa. gov
Technology:
Bioremediation (composting)
This technology is registered by SMC as Xenorem
For the field demonstration, excavated soil was passed through a 2" screen
and then mixed and placed in a pile for treatment
Amendments (cow manure and straw) were added to the pile five times over a
period of 48 weeks
Anaerobic and aerobic operating cycles were varied to maximize contaminant
destruction rates
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
905 yd3 for initial pile; total volume of 1,193 yd3 with amendments
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The ROD identified cleanup levels for seven constituents in surface (0-2 ft bgs) soil: chlordane - 2.3 mg/kg; ODD -
12.6 mg/kg; DDE - 8.91 mg/kg; DDT - 8.91 mg/kg; dieldrin - 0.19 mg/kg; molinate - 0.74 mg/kg; and toxaphene - 2.75
mg/kg
Objectives of the field demonstration were to reach ROD levels or achieve 90% reduction in concentrations; evaluate
effects of pile geometry; and evaluate equipment
Results:
Concentrations in the compost pile were measured for the seven constituents with cleanup levels, 14 other chlorinated
pesticides, and 11 thiocarbamate and organo-phosphate compounds
Concentrations were measured at the start of the field demonstration (TO) and at the end (T64) of a 64 week period
The cleanup levels were achieved for 4 of 7 constituents (DDE, DDT, dieldrin, and molinate)
ODD and toxaphene concentrations were reduced by more than 90%; chlordane concentrations were reduced by nearly
90%
Costs:
No data are available about the cost for the field demonstration
SMC provided typical costs for use of this technology for treating chlorinated pesticides; projected costs for treatment
are $132/yd3, with total project costs of $192/yd3
46
-------
Bioremediation at the Stauffer Management Company Superfund Site,
Tampa, Florida
Description:
The Stauffer Management Company (SMC) Superfund site is an inactive pesticide manufacturing/distribution facility in
Tampa, Florida. From 1951 to 1986, the site was used to formulate organochlorine and organophosphate pesticides. From
1953 to 1973, waste materials from the facility were disposed of on site, leading to pesticide contamination in soil, surface
water, sediment, and groundwater.
A ROD, signed in December 1995, specified bioremediation for treatment of pesticide-contaminated surface soils and
sediments at the site. From June 1997 to September 1998, a field demonstration of SMC's Xenorem composting process
was conducted in an enclosed warehouse at the site, using soil taken from "hot spots" at the site. Amendments consisted of
cow manure and straw, and the pile was alternated between anaerobic and aerobic conditions.
The ROD identified cleanup levels for seven constituents in surface soil, and concentrations of these and other constituents
were measured at the start and end of the field demonstration, over a 64 week period. The cleanup levels were achieved
for DDE, DDT, dieldrin, and molinate, but not for chlordane, ODD, or toxaphene. Concentrations of ODD and toxaphene
were reduced by more than 90% and chlordane by nearly 90%. Although no data are available about the cost for the field
demonstration, SMC indicated that typical costs for use of this technology for treating chlorinated pesticides are $132/yd3.
47
-------
48
-------
DRINKING WATER TREATMENT FOR MTBE ABSTRACTS
49
-------
Ex Situ Advanced Oxidation Processes, Granular Activated Carbon, and Synthetic
Resin Adsorption Treatment at the Charnock Wellfield, California
Site Name:
Charnock Wellfield
Location:
Santa Monica, California
Period of Operation:
July 1998 - April 1999
Cleanup Authority:
State of California
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Pilot-scale testing of Advanced Oxidation Processes (AOP) to treat MTBE and
TEA in drinking water
Cleanup Type:
Pilot scale
Contaminants:
MTBE, TEA
Waste Source:
Leaks from gasoline pipelines and
underground storage tanks
Site Contact:
Gil Borboa
City of Santa Monica, Utilities
Division
1212 5th Street, 3rd Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310)458-8230
Fax: (310)393-6697
E-mail: Gil-borboa@ci.santa-
monica.ca.us
Consultant:
Craig E. Dial, P.E.
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
2151 Michelson Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92612-1311
Telephone: (949)261-1577
Fax: (949)261-2134
E-mail:
CraigDial@KennedyJenks.com
EPA Contact:
Steve Linder
U.S. EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street, WST-8
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415)744-2036
Fax: (415)744-1026
E-mail: linder.steven@epa.gov
Technology:
AOP - UV/Peroxide and UV/Peroxide followed by GAC
UV/Peroxide - system included a Calgon Rayox tower configured for
upflow operation equipped with three UV lamps that operatd at 23.5 kilowatts
(kW). Peroxide dosing resulted in peroxide concentrations of 20 to 60 mg/L.
Water retention times for the tower were 2 to 4 minutes for flow rates of 150
to 300 gpm, respectively. To prevent scaling, groundwater was pre-treated by
filtration.
UV/Peroxide followed by GAC - effluent from the Rayox tower was treated
using three 2,000 pound vessels containing Calgon Carbon's Centaur carbon
to remove residual peroxide followed by three 2,000 pound vessels containing
Calgon Carbon's Fitrasorb 300 carbon to remove residual MTBE and by-
products.
UV/Peroxide followed by GAC - Operated in Parallel - three types of GAC
units operated in parallel - Calgon Carbon's Centaur carbon, Calgon Carbon's
Fitrasorb 300, and coconut shells. Each 2,000 pound unit contained an
upflow column (12 inches in diameter and 8.5 feet in length) and a downflow
column (8 inches in diameter and 8.5 feet in length). The flow rate was 2 gpm
through each of the units.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Drinking Water
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The target MTBE treatment goal for the Charnock Treatment Plant is 13 ug/L; risk-based drinking water action level
established by the California Department of Health Services for chemicals for which primary MCLs have not been
adopted.
50
-------
Ex Situ Advanced Oxidation Processes, Granular Activated Carbon, and Synthetic
Resin Adsorption Treatment at the Charnock Wellfield, California
Results:
At the time of this report, only limited data were available on MTBE concentrations in the effluent from the
UV/peroxide process Rayox tower.
According to the PRP's consultant, one reported value for MTBE in the Rayox tower effluent was below the detection
limit of 3 ug/L, based on an influent MTBE concentration of 80 ug/L. In addition, tests run with MTBE-spiked water
at 1,000 ug/L and a flow rate of 210 gpm reduced MTBE effluent concentrations to 2 to 4 ug/L.
Costs:
Projected capital equipment cost for a proposed full-scale UV/peroxide system is approximately $4 to $5 million,
including four 1,200-gpm Rayox towers equipped with 24 30-kW UV lamps. This cost does not include installation,
purchasing suitable property (approximately 40,000 square feet), or installing a pipeline between Arcadia and Charnock
(estimated at $1 million per mile).
Operating costs of the full-scale system are estimated to be $1.50 to $1.75 per 1,000 gallons of treated water.
Description:
The Charnock Sub-basin, located in the Mar Vista section of West Los Angeles, includes the Upper Silverado aquifer
containing two municipal wellfields. In March 1996, MTBE was detected in drinking water at the Charnock Wellfield.
MTBE concentrations in groundwater ranged from 130 micrograms per liter (ug/L) to 610 ug/L. In August 1998, tertiary
butyl alcohol (TEA) was discovered in the shallow groundwater near the Charnock Wellfield. Two intrastate gasoline
pipelines and 24 underground storage tank sites have been identified as possible sources of the groundwater contamination.
The potentially responsible party (PRP) group's engineering consultant, Kennedy/Jenks (KJ), began pilot studies to
evaluate treatment technologies for the removal of MTBE and TEA.
Pilot testing was conducted on UV/peroxide, UV/peroxide followed by GAC units operated in series, and UV/peroxide
followed by three sets of GAC units operated in parallel. Limited data available at the time of this report showed MTBE
concentrations below the detection limit of 3 ug/L in the effluent from the UV/peroxide process Rayox tower, and
MTBE effluent concentrations reduced to 2 to 4 ug/L during tests run with MTBE-spiked water at 1,000 ug/L A 3,500
gpm treatment system is proposed for construction if the pilot studies find that the UV/peroxide system is technically
feasible and cost effective. The projected capital costs for a full-scale system are $4 to $5 million, with operation costs of
$1.50 to $1.75 per 1,000 gallons of water treated.
51
-------
Ex Situ Air Stripping at LaCrosse, Kansas
Site Name:
LaCrosse
Period of Operation:
1997 to present (data available through September 1999)
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of air stripping to treat MTBE in drinking water
Contaminants:
MTBE, BTEX, TPH
MTBE concentrations as high as 1,050 ug/L in public water supply wells
State Contacts:
Bill Reetz/Greg Hatten
Kansas Department of Health and
Environment
Building 740, Forbes Field
Topeka, KS 66620
Telephone: (785)296-3103/5931
Fax: (785)296-6190
E-mail:
breetz@kdhe.state.ks.us/ghattan@kdh
e.state.ks.us
Vendor:
Joe Brown
Industrial Plastics Systems (formerly
Process Equipment and Engineering)
4225 Dranefield Road
Lakeland, FL 338 11
Telephone: (863)646-2010
Fax: (863)644-1534
E-mail: www.ips-frp.com
Site Contractor:
Craig Hofmeister
Handex of Colorado
400 Corporate Circle, Suite T
Golden, CO 80401
Telephone: (303)271-1050x115
Fax: (303)271-0446
E-mail:
chofmeister@handexmail.com
Technology:
Air stripping
Location:
LaCrosse, Kansas
Cleanup Authority:
State of Kansas
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Waste Source:
Leaks from underground storage tanks
Temporary air stripping system was operated from April to September 1997 as
emergency response measure:
Five-tray stripper designed to treat water from the clear well; system flow rate
was 250 gallons per minute (gpm).
Permanent air stripping system was installed in September 1997 and is still in
operation:
- Two packed air stripping towers, each 33 feet tall by 6 feet in diameter,
operated in series
- Packed with 2-inch Jaeger Tri-pack filled to 21 feet; design air to water
ratio of 150: 1; design flow rate is 480 gpm for MTBE influent
concentrations of up to 1,000 ug/L
- First tower is designed to remove MTBE to levels below 20 ug/L; the
second tower is used to polish the water.
- Each tower is equipped with a blower designed to circulate 10,000 cubic
feet per minute (cfm) of air
- Influent to first tower is softened with lime and settled; effluent from the
second tower is pumped through a sand and anthracite filter prior to entering
the distribution system
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Drinking Water
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The treatment goal for MTBE is 10 ug/L in the effluent from the air stripping system
52
-------
Ex Situ Air Stripping at LaCrosse, Kansas
Results:
Temporary Stripper - During five months of operation, MTBE influent levels of 200-600 ug/L were reduced to
concentrations ranging from 17-375 ug/L, an average reduction of 40 percent.
Permanent System - From September 1997 through September 1999, MTBE effluent concentrations were consistently
below the treatment goal of 10 ug/L (about 93% of the time), and were below the detection limit of 0.2 ug/L almost 30
percent of the time. The average percent reduction in MTBE concentrations was 83% after the first stripper tower and
95% after the second stripper tower.
Costs:
The total capital cost for the packed tower system was $185,000. The operation and maintenance costs are $30,000 per
year. The treatment system is operated by city personnel. No costs were provided for the temporary air stripping system.
Description:
The city of LaCrosse operates a drinking water treatment plant that provides water for the city's residents. The plant treats
approximately 300 gallons per minute (gpm) in the winter and 450 gpm in the summer. In April 1997, two LaCrosse PWS
wells were found to be contaminated with MTBE, BTEX, and other petroleum hydrocarbons. The source of the
contamination was determined to be leaking underground storage tanks (UST) at three gasoline service stations, found in
the wells. In April 1997, as an emergency response measure, a temporary air stripping system for treating MTBE was
installed to allow the wells to continue to be used as the city's water supply source. The permanent air stripping system
was installed in September 1997 and is still in operation. The system includes two packed air stripping towers, each 33
feet tall by 6 feet in diameter, operated in series.
During the first two years of operation, the dual packed tower air stripping system at the LaCrosse treatment plant has
consistently reduced MTBE concentrations in the source wells to below the cleanup goal of 10 ug/L. There have been no
exceedances of the cleanup goal during the last 12 months of operation. According to the State, the stripping system
appears to be less efficient during extremely cold weather. Ambient air is pulled from outside the building into the air
stripper blowers with no preliminary heating process. The total capital cost for the packed tower system was $ 185,000,
with annual operation and maintenance costs of $30,000. No significant operation or maintenance problems have been
reported and there have been no problems with fouling or scaling to date.
53
-------
Ex Situ Air Stripping and GAC Treatment of Drinking Water at the Rockaway
Township Site, Rockaway, New Jersey
Site Name:
Rockaway Township
Location:
Rockaway Township, New Jersey
Period of Operation:
1980 to present
Cleanup Authority:
State
NJDEP Administrative Consent
Order
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of air stripping and GAC to treat MTBE in drinking water
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
MTBE, diisopropyl ether (DIPE), TCE, other VOCs, TEA
Concentrations of MTBE in the supply wells ranged from 25 to 40 ug/L;
DIPE concentrations ranged from 70 to 100 ug/L
Waste Source:
Leaks from underground storage tanks
from a gasoline service station
State Contact:
Vincent Monaco
NJ Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP)
Bureau of Safe Drinking Water
P.O. Box 426
401 East State Street, 3rd Floor
Trenton, NJ 08625-0426
Telephone: (609) 292-5550
Fax: (609)292-1654
Site Contact:
Robert Sheard
Rockaway Township
65 Mount Hope Road
Rockaway, NJ 07866
Telephone: (973) 983-2876
Fax: (973)625-7764
E-mail: rsds321@aol.com
Vendor:
Fenton Purcell
Lee T. Purcell Associates
60 Hamilton Street
Paterson, NJ 07505
Telephone: (973) 278-5700
Fax: (973)278-8410
E-mail: purcrfen@galaxy.net
Technology:
Air stripping followed by granular activated carbon (GAC)
GAC system - two downflow pressure contactors (20 feet high and 10 feet in
diameter and containing 20,000 pounds of Calgon F-300 carbon) operated in
parallel; rated capacity of 1,000 gpm
Air Stripping (original) - aluminum, countercurrent packed column (35 feet
high and 9 feet in diameter, packed with 1,640 cubic feet of 3-inch
polyethylene telerettes); design capacity of 1,400 gpm; design air flow rate
was 37,500 cubic feet per minute (cfm) with an air-to-water ratio of 200:1
Air Stripping (1993) - the corroded aluminum column was replaced with a
same size fiberglass air stripper. Because MTBE was no longer observed in
the supply wells, the fiberglass air stripper was redesigned to focus on the
removal of TCE and DIPE, rather than MTBE. The new design uses a 30 hp
blower and 20,000 cfm of air flow
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Drinking Water
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
No specific treatment goals for MTBE were provided.
Results:
GAC-only system (October 1980 to February 1982) - initially, effluent concentrations of contaminants were reduced to
below detectable limits; GAC break through in January 1981 resulted in increases in MTBE and DIPE concentrations;
carbon was replaced in March 1981; subsequent carbon replacement was required once every four to six weeks, until
aeration was added as a pretreatment step
Air Stripping and GAC system (February 1982 to ongoing) - following addition of the air stripper, MTBE and DIPE
concentrations were reduced, falling to 1 ug/L by December 1992. In 1993, MTBE was no longer detected, and the
system was reconfigured (described above) to focus on treatment of TCE and DIPE. As of July 2000, no MTBE or
TEA found in the supply wells; system continuing to operate to treat TCE and other VOCs
54
-------
Ex Situ Air Stripping and GAC Treatment of Drinking Water at the Rockaway
Township Site, Rockaway, New Jersey
Costs:
Air Stripping - capital cost - $375,000, including the column, packing media, blowers, piping, controls, site work, and
booster pumps; annual operating cost (primarily cost for power) - $100,000, based on a cost for electricity of $0.09/kW-hr
GAC - capital cost - $200,000, including the contactors, GAC, piping, site work, and the building; annual operating cost
(primarily carbon replacement) - $200,000 ($0.52/1,000 gallons of water treated)
Description:
The Rockaway Township, located in northern New Jersey, owns and operates a water supply system that provides drinking
water to about half of the township's population. The system supplies groundwater from two wells (wells 6 and 7). The
supply wells were found to be contaminated with MTBE and DIPE at levels ranging from 25 to 40 ug/L, and 70 to 100
ug/L, respectively. TCE and other VOCs were also found in the supply wells. The source of the contamination was
identified as a gasoline service station (Shell Oil). To treat the drinking water from the supply wells, a GAC system was
initially installed in 1980. However, during operation, breakthrough of MTBE and DIPE occurred relatively quickly and
air stripping was added in Ferbruary 1982 to help extend the life of the carbon.
By 1993, MTBE was no longer detected in the supply wells. However, in 1997, a Shell Oil gasoline service station
developed a leak, with MTBE entering the Rockaway Township drinking water supply wells. MTBE levels in the supply
wells were found at concentrations ranging from 1-8 ug/L. Shell Oil installed an off site treatment plant which contained
the MTBE to within minimal levels. In addition, TEA was also detected in the supply wells. According to the Rockaway
Township, as of July 2000, no MTBE or TEA were being found in the supply wells. The air stripper/GAC treatment
system is continuing to remove TCE and other VOCs (1,1-DCE, 1,1-DCA) from the supply wells.
55
-------
56
-------
PUMP AND TREAT ABSTRACTS
57
-------
Pump and Treat for at OU1 and OU2 of the Marine Corps Air Station,
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Site Name:
Marine Corps Air Station - OU1 and OU2
Location:
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Period of Operation:
OU1 - January 1995 to present
OU2 - January 1996 to present
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
ROD for OU1 signed September
1994; OU2 signed September 1993
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of pump and treat system to remediate groundwater contaminated with
organics and metals
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
OU1 - PCBs, pesticides, metals, chlorinated solvents, and BTEX
OU2 - VOCs
Waste Source:
OU1 - disposal of transformer oil,
wastes from pesticide mixing
operations and industrial operations;
OU2 - disposal of PCBs, cleaning
solvents, waste oils, used batteries,
spent ammunition and other wastes
Contact:
Naval Facilities Engineering
Command
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
Technology:
Pump and Treat
OU1 system
Three extraction wells; six-inch diameter stainless steel casing and wire-wrap
screen; 35 feet deep
18 shallow monitoring wells (screened 5-25 ft deep), two intermediate wells
(screened 55-75 ft deep), and two deep wells (screened 130 to 150 feet deep)
Aboveground treatment - oil/water separation, flocculation/filtration, air
stripping, and granular activated carbon adsorption; water discharged to a
sanitary sewer; design flow rate - 80 gpm
OU 2 system
Six shallow extraction wells, each 35 ft deep and four deep extraction wells
ranging in depth from 101-154 ft; six-inch stainless steel casing with 10-slot
wire wrap screen for shallow wells and 20-slot wire wrap screen for deep
wells; shallow well pumping rate ranges from 4-8 gpm per well; deep well
pumping rate ranges from 30 to 150 gpm per well
Aboveground treatment - air stripping, filtration, and granular activated
carbon adsorption; iron removal pretreatment for shallow well water;
discharge to a creek
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
OU1 - water table is 4 to 14 feet bgs; surficial aquifer extends 50 to 100 feet
bgs with a transmissivity of 75 ftVday and is unconfined; deeper water-
bearing deposits comprise the Castle Hayne aquifer with a transmissivity of
4,300 to 7,300 ftVday
OU2 - water table is 2 to 15 ft bgs; surficial aquifer extends to 50 feet bgs
with a transmissivity of 75 ftVday; hydraulic characteristics of Castle Hayne
aquifer underlying OU2 were not characterized
58
-------
Pump and Treat for at OU1 and OU2 of the Marine Corps Air Station,
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
OU1
Groundwater cleanup goals - benzene (1 ug/L), 1,2-dichloroethene (70 ug/L), ethylbenzene (29 ug/L), heptachlor
expoxide (0.2 ug/L), tetrachloroethene (0.7 ug/L), toluene (1,000 ug/L), trichloroethene (2.8 ug/L), vinyl chloride
(0.015 ug/L), xylenes (400 ug/L), arsenic (50 ug/L), barium (1,000 ug/L), beryllium (4 ug/L), chromium (50 ug/L),
manganese (50 ug/L), vanadium (110 ug/L); hydraulic control
Effluent must meet federal and North Carolina standards prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer
OU2
Groundwater cleanup goals - 1,2-dichloroethene (0.38 ug/L), trans-1,2-dichloroethene (70 ug/L), ethlybenzene (29
ug/L), tetrachloroethene (0.7 ug/L), trichloroethene (2.8 ug/L), vinyl chloride (0.015 ug/L), arsenic (50 ug/L), barium
(1,000 ug/L), beryllium (4 ug/L), lead (15 ug/L), chromium (50 ug/L), manganese (50 ug/L), mercury (1.1 ug/L),
vanadium (110 ug/L); hydraulic control
Effluent must meet North Carolina standards prior to discharge to a creek
Results:
OU1
After 2.5 years of operation, cumulative mass removed -12 pounds of total VOCs; six pounds removed during first
three months of operation and six pounds removed during past 27 months - 0.22 pounds/month; monthly total VOC
influent concentrations relatively low (<400 ug/L)
Effluent from treatment plant has consistently met discharge limits; however, low hydraulic conductivity of the shallow
aquifer has resulted in influent treatment plant flow rates of <9% of design capacity
OU2
From January 1997 to March 1999, 41,000 pounds of total VOCs removed; influent VOC concentrations for deep zone
show slight increase, indicating possible presence of DNAPL; influent VOC concentrations for shallow zone relatively
stable
Effluent from treatment plant has consistently met discharge limits with the exception of PCE on three occasions and
mercury on two occasions
Costs:
OU1
Average cost per pound of contaminant removed - $28,277
Monthly O&M costs for the treatment plant were $12,300 during 1999; detailed O&M costs and system capital cost
data were not available
OU2
Average cost per pound of contaminant removed - $49
Capital costs for the treatment plant were $4,660,000 and monthly O&M costs were $36,492 during 1999
Description:
The Marine Corps Air Station is co-located with the Marine Corps Base in Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. A ROD was
signed for two operable units at the installation - OU1 consisting of three sites where pesticides, PCBs, waste oils, and
other industrial waste had been disposed, and OU2 consisting of three sites where solvents, oils, spent ammunition, and
other wastes has been disposed. Soil and groundwater at OU1 and OU2 were determined to be contaminated with organics
and metals. The RODs specified pump and treat to remediate groundwater at these OUs.
An effectiveness evaluation for the pump and treat systems at this site was performed as part of a study by the Remedial
Action Operation/Long Term Monitoring working group led by the Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center. The OU1
system has removed only 12 pounds of VOCs in 2.5 years and the treatment system is operating at less than 9% of design
capacity. The OU2 system has removed more than 40,000 pounds of VOCs in a little more than two years of operation.
The report includes detailed recommendations for each system.
59
-------
Pump and Treat for the Campbell Street Fuel Farm at the Marine Corps Air
Station, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Site Name:
Marine Corps Air Station - Campbell Street Fuel Farm (CSFF), Building AS-
143, and Building AS-4151 sites
Location:
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Period of Operation:
1996 to present
Cleanup Authority:
State of North Carolina UST program
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of pump and treat system to remediate BTEX and SVOC groundwater
contamination at three sites
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
BTEX and SVOCs
Maximum concentrations in groundwater included 2,545 ug/L for benzene;
1,383 ug/L for ethylbenzene; 3,050 ug/L for toluene; and 5,214 ug/L for
xylenes
Waste Source:
Leaks from underground gasoline and
fuel storage tanks and from fuel
pipelines
Contact:
Naval Facilities Engineering
Command
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
Technology:
Pump and Treat
Extraction includes interceptor trenches that began operating in 1996 and
extraction wells, installed in April 1999 to enhance contaminant recovery in
hot spot areas of the plume
CSFF extraction system - one interceptor trench (170 ft long, 3 ft wide, 12 ft
deep) with a geomembrane liner and filled with gravel, and one extraction
well (PVC, 6-inch diameter, 15.5 ft deep) located upgradient of the trench;
estimated pumping rate of well is 0.5 to 1 gpm
AS-143 extraction system - one interceptor trench comprised of two legs (85
ft and 70 ft long) joined at a 130 degree angle; two extraction wells - one each
located upgradient of each leg of the trench; trench and well construction
similar to CSFF
AS-4151 extraction system - one interceptor trench (185 ft long); one
extraction well (28.5 ft deep); trench and well construction similar to CSFF
Extracted water from trenches at all three sites piped to the CSFF treatment
system
Treatment system includes Stripperatorฎ (combination oil/water separation
and air stripping unit); water sent through a bag filter to granular activated
carbon (GAC) units; treated effluent discharges to surface drainage; vapors
from air stripper discharged to atmosphere; recovered oil stored in drums
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil and Groundwater
Soil at site is sand, silt, and clay, underlain by fine gravel, limey clay, and
shell fragments
Water table is 6-7 ft below ground surface (bgs)
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Groundwater cleanup goals for 12 contaminants of concern including benzene (1 ug/L), ethylbenzene (29 ug/L), toluene
(1,000 ug/L), xylenes (400 ug/L), 1,4-dichlorobenzene (1.8 ug/L), ethylene dibromide (0.0004 ug/L), acenaphthene (80
ug/L), acenapthylene (210 ug/L), fluorene (280 ug/L), 1-methylnaphthalene (practical quantification limit), 2-
methylnaphthalene (28 ug/L), naphthalene (21 ug/L); required to treat until these goals are met or until asymptotic levels
are documented
Effluent from the CSFF treatment plant must meet the state water quality standards; NPDES permit requirements
specified for benzene and toluene
60
-------
Pump and Treat for the Campbell Street Fuel Farm at the Marine Corps Air
Station, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Results:
As of May 1999 (2.5 years of operation), the cumulative mass of contaminants removed from the three sites is 3.5
pounds, with less than 0.5 pounds removed since December 1997; installation of extraction wells at each site in April
1999 had not improved mass removal (as of May 1999)
Influent contaminant concentrations in the CSFF and AS-4151 trenches reached asymptotic levels; during the past 20
months of operation, the mean contaminant concentrations in extracted groundwater have been < lug/L in the CSFF
trench and not detected in the AS-4151 trench
For the AS-143 trench, the mean contaminant concentrations in extracted groundwater was 832 ug/L during the initial
months of operation, decreasing to 22 ug/L between April 1997 and March 1999; during the last six months of
operation, concentrations fluctuated from not detect to 440 ug/L, with the peaks representing hot spots in the plume
Treatment plant - from July 1996 to March 1999, the effluent has continuously exceeded discharge limits for total
metals and total dissolved solids and has exceeded the lead limit 11 times
Costs:
The capital costs to construct and prove out the system was $507,395; average annual O&M costs are $180,000
Average cost per pound of contaminant removed is $95,000, based on 3.5 pounds of contaminant removed
Description:
The Marine Corps Air Station, which is co-located with the Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, has three
areas where soil and groundwater are contaminated with BTEX and SVOCs - the CSFF site (an active fuel storage
facility), Building AS-143 (an active gasoline fueling station), and Building AS-4151 (a steam generating plant). Leaks
from underground gasoline and fuel storage tanks and leaks from fuel pipelines resulted in BTEX and SVOC
contamination of soil and groundwater at these sites. Under the State of North Carolina UST program, the corrective
action proposed for the sites included soil removal, free product recovery, pump and treat, and long-term monitoring.
Contaminated soil has been excavated from each of the sites. A pump and treat system began operating at the sites in
1996.
The extraction system includes interceptor trenches and extraction wells at each site, with the extracted groundwater piped
to an above ground treatment plant. The treatment plant includes oil/water separation, air stripping, and filtration. An
effectiveness evaluation for the pump and treat system at this site was performed as part of a study by the Remedial Action
Operation/Long Term Monitoring working group led by the Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center. The working
group concluded that the overall technical performance and cost effectiveness of the system was poor. After 2.5 years of
operation, cumulative mass removal for the system was only 3.5 pounds, and two of the trenches (CSFF and AS-4151)
have reached asymptotic levels and are no longer removing mass. In April 1999, extraction wells were installed at each
site; however, no increase in mass removal has been observed as of May 1999. The average cost per pound of contaminant
removed is $95,000. Recommendations for the system include shutting down the CSFF and AS-4151 trenches; continue
hot spot removal at the AS-143 site; and collect MNA data to confirm the potential for a passive remedial approach for
AS-143 once the remaining hot spots have been removed.
61
-------
Pump and Treat for the Eastern Groundwater Plume at the Naval Air Station,
Brunswick, Maine
Site Name:
Naval Air Station Brunswick, Eastern Plume Site
Location:
New Brunswick, Maine
Period of Operation:
May 1995 to present
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
ROD signed in February 1998
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of pump and treat to treat groundwater contaminated with chlorinated VOCs
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE), 1,1-dichloroethane (DCA), cis-1,2-
dichloroethene (cis-l,2-DCE), trichloroethane (TCA), tetratchloroethene
(PCE), trichloroethene (TCE)
Waste Source:
Disposal of liquid wastes in the
acid/caustic pit disposal area; disposal
of waste fuels, oils, and degreasing
solvents
Contact:
Naval Facilities Engineering
Command
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
Technology:
Pump and Treat
Original extraction well network, installed in 1995, included seven wells; an
eighth well was added in 1998; as of May 1999, five wells are active,
including three located within the plume
Extraction wells constructed of 6-inch diameter stainless steel, screened at
varying depths ranging from 9 to 101 feet below ground surface (bgs); design
pumping rate - 20 gpm per well (total system of 110 gpm)
Monitoring well network includes three groups of wells -13 interior plume
wells; nine perimeter wells located at the edge of the plume; and 12 sentinel
wells located downgradient of the plume
Aboveground treatment - ultraviolet oxidation; metals precipitation followed
by clarification and filtration (not currently in use); from May 1996 to April
1999 - average flow rate was 76 gpm, plant was operational 94-97% of the
time; effluent discharged to a sanitary sewer
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
Two layers: Layer 1 - unconfmed groundwater occurring within the upper
stratified sand/silt unit; Layer 2 - semi-confined groundwater occurring within
a lower coarse sand unit
Hydraulic conductivity - IxlO"8 cm/sec
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The ROD specified cleanup levels for nine contaminants: 1,1-DCE (7 ug/L), 1,1-DCA (5 ug/L), 1,2-DCA (5 ug/L), cis-
1,2-DCE (70 ug/L), trans-1,2-DCE (70 ug/L), 1,1,1-TCA (200 ug/L), 1,1,2-TCA (3 ug/L), TCE (5 ug/L), PCE (5 ug/L)
Hydraulic containment of the plume
Effluent must meet the Brunswick Sewer District discharge limits for 19 parameters, including metals, organics, pH, and
turbidity
Results:
As of May 1999, 536 pounds of VOCs have been removed
In 1998, mass removal had begun to decrease; following installation of the eighth extraction well, VOC mass removal
has remained steady
Actual average annual pumping rates of individual wells ranged from 8 to 18.6 gpm, below the design rate of 20 gpm
Treatment plant - since 1996 - two slight exceedances of discharge limits for VOCs; one exceedance of pH; consistently
exceeded manganese concentrations
Monitoring data indicate that the extent and position of the plume has not changed since the system began operating
62
-------
Pump and Treat for the Eastern Groundwater Plume at the Naval Air Station,
Brunswick, Maine
Costs:
Total capital costs - $4,246,319 (including mobilization, groundwater extraction system, treatment plant, and
demobilization)
Annual O&M costs - $1,144,03 l(including replacement parts, labor, and chemicals)
Average cost per pound of mass removed over time - downward trend from a high of $ 11,000 per pound in September
1996 to $6,200 per pound for the most recent eight months of operation (through May 1999); decrease in unit cost
attributed to installation of the eighth well in a hot spot, which improved system performance
Description:
The Naval Air Station in Brunswick Maine is used to support the operation and maintenance of the P-3 Orion aircraft. The
Eastern Plume of groundwater contamination is located at the eastern edge of the installation. The plume originated from
three sites - the Acid/Caustic Pit (Site 4) where acid and caustic liquid wastes were disposed of in a pit; the former Fire
Training Area (Site 11) where liquid wastes (oils, fuels, degreasing solvents) were used in training exercises; and the
DRMO area (Site 13) where fuels and wastes were stored in USTs - resulted in groundwater contamination. A ROD for
the eastern plume was signed in February 1998 and specified pump and treat as the remedy.
A groundwater pump and treat system for the Eastern Plume began operating in May 1995. The system initially included
seven extraction wells, with an eighth well added in 1998 when VOC mass removal began to decrease. The treatment
plant included ultraviolet oxidation. An effectiveness evaluation for the pump and treat system at this site was performed
as part of a study by the Remedial Action Operation/Long Term Monitoring working group led by the Naval Facilities
Engineering Service Center. As of May 1999, the system had removed 536 pounds of VOCs and the mass removal rate
has been steady. According to the Navy, while the system had not experienced a significant decrease in mass removal
efficiency, the price of operation has been high with an average cost per pound of mass removed of more than $7,000. The
treatment plant was originally designed to handle extracted water from the Eastern Plume and water from a landfill at the
installation. However, the plant was only used to treat the Eastern Plume. As a result, the capital costs significantly
skewed the average cost per pound of contaminant removed, since the system had been overbuilt. Recommendations for
the system include enhancing mass removal; beginning a formal evaluation of MNA; and identifying and evaluating
alternatives for the discharge from the treatment plant.
63
-------
Pump and Treat at the Ott/Story/Cordova Superfund Site, North Muskegon,
Michigan
Site Name:
Ott/Story/Cordova Superfund Site
Location:
North Muskegon, Michigan
Period of Operation:
February 1996 - Ongoing (data
available through October 2000)
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
ROD issued September 29, 1990
(OU2)
EPA Remedial Project Manager:
John Fagiolo
U.S. EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604-3507
(312)886-0800
(312) 886-4071 (FAX)
fagiolo j ohn@epa. gov
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Pump and treat of a multi-aquifer site contaminated with chlorinated and
non-chlorinated VOCs and SVOCs
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale
Contaminants:
Halogenated and non-halogenated VOCs, PCBs, and pesticides
Maximum concentrations detected in groundwater included 1,2-DCA
(110,000 ug/L), 1,1-dichloroethene (DCE) (7,900 ug/L), benzene (3,800
ug/L), PCE (24,000 ug/L), toluene (38,000 ug/L), and vinyl chloride (50,000
ug/L)
Waste Source:
Disposal of industrial wastewaters and
residuals from chemical production in
unlined seepage lagoons
USACE Contact:
David Foster
P.O. Box 629
Grand Haven, Michigan 49417
(616)842-5510x17
(616) 842-6141 (FAX)
david.l.foster@usace.army.mil
Treatment System Operation
Contact:
Jim Susan
Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr, and Huber
6090 East Fulton
Ada, Michigan 49301
(616) 676-3824
(616) 67605991 (FAX)
Technology:
Pump and treat (P&T) using diffused air stripping, sand filtration, and powdered
activated carbon treatment (PACT)
The site has 10 extraction wells and 90 monitoring wells
Since 1999, the average extraction rate has been 800 gpm
Off-gases are treated using thermal oxidation
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
An estimated 1.1 billion gallons of groundwater were treated through October
2000
Two aquifers were identified at the site - an unconfined upper aquifer
containing an upper unit and a lower unit, and a lower aquifer
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The ROD identified cleanup levels for 19 constituents in groundwater, including VOCs and SVOCs
EPA selected TOC as an indicator compound for organic contaminants at the site
Treated groundwater was required to meet discharge criteria in an NPDES permit
Results:
Groundwater monitoring data shows that progress is being made towards meeting the cleanup goals. As of October
2000, cleanup goals have been met for all contaminants in 27 of the 52 wells sampled.
TOC concentrations in the area of highest contamination have decreased in the upper unit of the unconfined upper
aquifer and in the lower aquifer; TOC concentrations have remained relatively constant in the lower unit of the upper
unconfined aquifer.
Available data on the treatment system (through December 1999) showed that NPDES permit limits were being met for
discharge to the river
Costs:
Since startup, 1.1 billion gallons of groundwater have been treated by the remedial system which cost a total (capital
plus operating) of $32,123,500, which is equivalent to $30 per thousand gallons of groundwater treated
64
-------
Pump and Treat at the Ott/Story/Cordova Superfund Site, North Muskegon,
Michigan
Description:
The Ott/Story/Cordova Superfund Site, in North Muskegon, Michigan, was used for manufacturing a variety of organic
chemicals. In the early 1960s, soil and groundwater contamination were discovered at the site, including VOCs and
SVOCs. More than 90 contaminants were identified in the groundwater, including benzene, toluene, chlorobenzene,
methylene chloride, chloroform, 1,1-dichloroethane (DCA), 1,2-DCA, vinyl chloride, and tetrachloroethene (PCE), PCBs,
heptachlor epoxide, zinc, copper, and nickel. A ROD for aquifer restoration at this site (OU 2) was signed September 29,
1990.
Groundwater at the site is treated using pump-and-treat using diffused air stripping, sand filtration, and PACT, and
monitoring data show that progress is being made towards meeting the cleanup goals, however all cleanup goals have not
yet been met. Since startup, 1.1 billion gallons of groundwater have been treated by the remedial system which cost a total
(capital plus operating) of $32,123,500, which is equivalent to $30 per thousand gallons of groundwater treated.
According to the RPM, there is no longer a visible sheen where groundwater flows into a local creek and the groundwater
treatment facility has achieved the NPDES discharge permit limitations throughout its operation.
65
-------
66
-------
IN SITU GROUNDWATER TREATMENT ABSTRACTS
67
-------
Air Sparging/Soil Vapor Extraction at Eaddy Brothers,
Hemingway, South Carolina
Site Name:
Eaddy Brothers
Location:
Hemingway, SC
Period of Operation:
July 1999 - present (data available through August 2000)
Cleanup Authority:
RCRA UST
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of air sparging/soil vapor extraction to treat MTBE in soil and groundwater
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
MTBE, BTEX, Naphthalene
MTBE concentrations as high as 5,110,000 ug/L
BTEX concentrations as high as 301,000 ug/L for toluene
Naphthalene concentrations as high as 2,700 ug/L
Waste Source:
Leaks from an underground gasoline
storage tank
State Contact:
Read S. Miner, P.O.
Hydrogeologist
South Carolina Dept. of Health and
Environmental Control
2600 Bull St.
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 898-4350
Fax: (803)898-4330
E-mail:
minerrs@columb26.dhec. state. sc .us
Contractor:
Consulted! Environmental, Inc.
1800 MacLeod Dr., Suite F
Lawrenceville, GA 30043
Telephone: (678) 377-0400
Fax: (678)377-0051
www.consultechenv.com
Technology:
Air Sparging/Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)
SVE system consists of approximately 230 feet of horizontal SVE piping
installed immediately below the asphalt parking lot surface of the site; piping
is connected to a 20 HP Lamson Blower operating at 12 to 14 inches of
mercury; extracted vapors are treated using a thermal oxidizer.
Air sparging system, which began operating two weeks after the SVE system
was activated, consists of ten vertical air sparging wells, each installed at a
depth of about 26 feet with 5-foot well screens; wells are connected to a
Kaeser SK-26 air sparge compressor operating at 68 to 70 psi.
A total of 28 wells (on-and off-site) are used to monitor groundwater
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil and Groundwater
Soil at the site consists of silty clays with inter-fingered thin clayey-sand
lenses; no confining units identified
Average hydraulic gradient is 0.005 feet/feet with a calculated seepage
velocity of 0.138 feet per year
Depth to groundwater is 2.5 to 17.9 feet below ground surface (bgs)
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Site-specific target levels (SSTLs) were established by SCDHEC for MTBE, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes,
and naphthalene, with 15 monitoring wells used in setting the SSTLs.
Total SSTLs (sum of individual SSTLs for each well) - MTBE - 646 ug/L; benzene -191 ug/L; toluene -11,938 ug/1;
ethylbenzene - 9,426 ug/L; xylenes - 78,496 ug/L; naphthalene -418 ug/L
Results:
As of August 2000, the total mass and maximum concentrations of MTBE, BTEX constituents, and naphthalene in the
groundwater had decreased, with the SSTLs being met for toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes.
Total MTBE concentrations have been reduced by about 99.99 %; BTEX concentrations by more than 99%, and
naphthalene concentrations by about 96%; the SSTLs had not been met for benzene, MTBE, or naphthalene
The system will continue to be operated until all SSTLs have been met; the contractor projects cleanup of the site to be
completed by April 2001
Costs:
The total cost for the cleanup of this site is $197,515.
The South Carolina Petroleum Cleanup Fund awarded the contract for the cleanup at this site as a fixed-price, lump sum
with no change orders; no additional information on cost breakdown was available.
68
-------
Air Sparging/Soil Vapor Extraction at Eaddy Brothers,
Hemingway, South Carolina
Description:
Eaddy Brothers is a gasoline service station located in Hemingway, South Carolina. In September 1998, a release was
reported from the station's underground storage tanks (USTs). Initially, the local fire department was dispatched in an
emergency response because of gasoline vapors that had accumulated in a storm sewer underlying downtown Hemingway.
Soil and groundwater at the site were found to be contaminated with MTBE, BTEX, and naphthalene, and free product
was present in the groundwater. Data from October 1998 showed concentrations of contaminants in groundwater as high
as 5,110,000 ug/L for MTBE, 226,000 ug/L for benzene, 301,000 ug/L for toluene, 280,000 ug/L for ethylbenzene,
278,000 ug/L for xylene, and 2,700 ug/L for naphthalene. A Corrective Action Plan (CAP) was implemented in July 1999
under Subtitle I of the RCPxA program. The CAP included free product recovery and treatment of dissolved-phase
groundwater contamination using air sparging/SVE.
The SVE system, installed in July 1999, consists of a 230-foot horizontal SVE pipe installed immediately below the
asphalt parking lot surface of the site, with extracted vapors treated using a thermal oxidizer. The air sparging system,
which began operating two weeks after the SVE system was activated, consists of ten vertical air sparging wells. After
about a year of operation of the air sparging/SVE system, the SSTLs have been met for toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes.
While MTBE, benzene, and naphthalene levels have been reduced by more than 90%, they remain above the SSTLs. The
system will continue to operate until all SSTLs have been met, with the site contractor estimating completion of the
remediation in April 2001.
69
-------
Air Sparging at Four Sites
Site Names:
Multiple Locations (site names confidential)
Period of Operation:
1993 to 1995
Florida site (3/94 to 7/94); New Mexico site (6/93 to 1/95); Maine site (4/94
to 10/95); Massachusetts site (operated for 21 months; dates not provided)
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Air sparging used to treat MTBE in groundwater
Contaminants:
MTBE, BTEX
MTBE concentrations at the sites ranged from 215 ug/L to 62,000 ug/L in
groundwater
BTEX concentrations at the sites ranged from 64 ug/L to 198,000 ug/L in
groundwater
Vendor:
Nick Hastings/David Bass
IT Corporation
43 1-F Hayden Station Road
Windsor, CT 06095
Telephone: (860)688-1151
Fax: (860)688-8239
E-mail: nhastings@theitgroup.com
Locations:
Service station, Pensacola, Florida
Fuel station, Albuquerque, New
Mexico
Service station, Sebato, Maine
Service station, Massachusetts (city
not provided)
Cleanup Authority:
Not provided
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Waste Source:
Leaks from gasoline storage tanks
Technology:
Air Sparging
Number of air sparging wells at the four sites ranged from 4 to 9, with well
spacings ranging from 25 to 50 feet (ft) and flow rates of wells ranging from 5
to 10 scfm
One of the systems was pulsed on a daily cycle; the others sparged on a
continuous basis
For three sites, the air sparging wells were located over the source area; for
one site, the air sparging wells were arrayed at points located downgradient
from the source
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
Sand to fine sand aquifers at three of the sites (Florida, New Mexico, Maine);
not reported for Massachusetts site
Depth to groundwater about 40 feet below ground surface at New Mexico
site; not reported for other sites
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Information about specific cleanup goals for each site was not provided
Results:
For four sites, the reduction in MTBE concentrations at shutdown ranged from greater than 99% to 46.5%
Post-closure monitoring for MTBE, performed at three sites, showed reductions that ranged from greater than 97.8% to
99.97% ug/L
At the Florida site, air sparging reduced the concentration of MTBE in the groundwater to <5 ug/L, with no rebound
after 6 months of post-closure monitoring
At the New Mexico site, MTBE concentrations were reduced to 27 ug/L, with the concentration further reduced to 8
ug/L after 13 months of post-closure monitoring
At the Maine site, MTBE concentrations were reduced to between 16 and 980 ug/L, and the concentration was further
reduced to ND - 1 15 ug/L after 6.5 months of post-closure monitoring
At the Massachusetts site, MTBE was reduced to 1 15 ug/L (a 46.5% reduction); no rebound was reported for this site
Costs:
No cost data were provided for these sites
70
-------
Air Sparging at Four Sites
Description:
Air sparging was used to treat groundwater contaminated with gasoline from leaking storage tanks at the following four
sites - a service station in Pensacola, Florida, a fuel station in Albuquerque, New Mexico, a service station in Sebato,
Maine, and a service station in Massachusetts. Contaminants found in the groundwater included MTBE and benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) at two sites, MTBE, BTEX, and gasoline at one site, and MTBE and benzene
at one site. The number of air sparging wells at the four sites ranged from 4 to 9, with well spacings ranging from 25 - 50
feet (ft) and flow rates of wells ranging from 5-10 scfm. One of the systems was pulsed on a daily cycle and the others
sparged on a continuous basis. The duration of the projects ranged from 4 to 21 months.
Information on specific cleanup goals for each site was not provided. Air sparging reduced the concentration of MTBE in
the groundwater to <5 ug/L, with no rebound after 6 months of post-closure monitoring at the Florida site; to 27 ug/L at the
New Mexico site, with the concentration further reduced to 8 ug/L after 13 months of post-closure monitoring; to between
16 and 980 ug/L at the Maine site, with the concentration further reduced to ND -115 ug/L after 6.5 months of post-
closure monitoring; and to 115 ug/L at the Massachusetts site, with no rebound reported. According to the vendor, in situ
air sparging also can be applied in combination with bioaugmentation for rapid initial mass removal by volatilization
followed by removal via aerobic biodegradation (where air sparging becomes the oxygen delivery vehicle).
71
-------
Air Sparging and Soil Vapor Extraction at the Mound Plant OU 1 Site,
Miamisburg, Ohio
Site Name:
Mound Plant OU 1 Site
Location:
Miamisburg, OH
Period of Operation:
Ongoing (Data available from December 1997 to May 2000)
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Full-scale treatment of chlorinated solvents using air sparging and soil vapor
extraction
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
Chlorinated Solvents
Primary VOCs in soil (vadose zone) were tetrachloroethene (PCE),
trichloroethene (TCE), cis-l,2-dichloroethene (DCE), toluene, ethylbenzene,
and xylenes
Concentrations in soil generally ranged from 0.001 to 14.4 mg/kg; one well
had a concentration of 8,619 mg/kg
Primary VOCs in groundwater were PCE, TCE, DCE, VC, and
trichloromethane
Concentrations in groundwater ranged from 10 to 1,200 ug/L, with an average
of lOlug/L
Waste Source:
Disposal of wastes in landfills
Site Contact:
Monte Williams
BWXTO Mound OU 1 ER
DOE Miamisburg Environmental
Project Office (MEMP)
Phone: (937)865-4543
Technical Contacts:
Gary Brown
DOE ITRD Program
Sandia National Laboratories
Phone: (505)845-8312
E-mail: gbrown@sandia.gov
Mark Spivey
BWXTO Mound OU 1
Phone: (937)865-3709
Technology:
Air Sparging and Soil Vapor Extraction (AS/SVE)
Equipment included 23 air injection wells, 10 extraction wells, and 5 French
drains
Air was pumped into the aquifer through the injection wells, and removed as
soil vapor from the extraction wells and French drains
The air sparge system operated at 15 cfrn from December 1997 to February
1998, and then shut down due to screen fouling
The SVE system removed soil gas at rates ranging from 475 to 625 scfm, and
operated at a relatively high vacuum (13 inches Hg)
Extracted vapors were treated with carbon prior to release to the atmosphere
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil and Groundwater
Bedrock at the site is overlain by 15-20 ft of glacial outwash materials,
primarily gravel and sandy gravel; the aquifer is contained in the outwash
materials, varies from 0 - 40 ft thick, and is relatively free of fine-grained till
layers
Hydraulic gradients are nearly flat
A surficial deposit ranging from 24 - 31 ft thick, composed of glacial till and
artificial fill, caps the site - the till and fill are silty clay to sandy clay
Vadose zone contamination occurs at a depth of less than 20 ft.
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Objectives included removing chlorinated VOCs from the soil and groundwater, and estimating the time needed to meet
cleanup goals
Specific cleanup goals were not identified
Results:
As of May 2000, 3,43 3 Ibs of VOCs had been removed, and the total VOC concentrations in the unsaturated zone
decreased from 618.1 to 4.54 mg/kg
The site was projected to meet cleanup goals by December 2002
72
-------
Air Sparging and Soil Vapor Extraction at the Mound Plant OU 1 Site,
Miamisburg, Ohio
Costs:
The total cost for AS/SVE was $1,439,039, consisting of $116,773 for pilot testing, $221,591 for design, $398,000 for
construction, $517,958 for operations, and $184,717 for sampling and analysis
As of May 2000, the overall unit cost was $420 per pound of contaminant removed
Description:
The Mound Plant is a government-owned and contractor-operated facility occupying a 306-acre site within the city of
Miamisburg, Ohio. The OU 1 site occupies three acres on the western edge of the developed portion of the facility. The
historic landfill in OU 1 was used between 1948 and 1974 for disposal of general trash and liquid wastes from Mound
Plant operations. The sanitary landfill in OU 1 was constructed partially within and adjacent to the location of the historic
landfill. Both disposal sites have been used for dumping, burning, moving, reworking, and burying various plant wastes.
A periodic water sampling program and a Phase 1 investigation indicated that VOCS were present in the soil and
groundwater at OU 1.
An air sparging and soil vapor extraction (AS/SVE) system began operating at OU 1 in December 1997. The system was
intended to remove chlorinated VOCs from the soil and groundwater at the site. After 2 1A years of operation, 3,433 Ibs of
VOCs had been removed, and the total VOC concentrations in the unsaturated zone decreased from 618.1 to 4.54 mg/kg.
If system performance is maintained, the site was projected to meet cleanup goals by December 2002. The total cost for
AS/SVE at this site was $1,439,039.
73
-------
Air Sparging at Former Nu Look One Hour Cleaners, Coral Springs, Florida*
Remediation Technology
Air Sparging utilizing Recirculation Well (in-well stripping) - NoVOCsTM
Site Description
This is an inactive drycleaning facility that utilized PCE and operated from 1991 -1999. The facility is in a strip shopping
center in a mixed commercial/residential setting.
Site Hydrogeology
Depth to Water: 4 ft. bis.
Unconfined Aquifer
Lithology: surface - 7 ft. bis: organic rich, fine-grained sand & peat
7 -19 ft. bis.: limestone interbedded with shell hash and fine-grained sand
19 - 30 ft. bis.: silty fine-grained sand with minor clay
30 - 55 ft. bis.: fine-grained sand
55 - 58 ft. bis.: dense fine-grained sandstone
Hydraulic Gradient: 0.00095 ft/day
Hydraulic Conductivity: 12.6 ft./day
Seepage Velocity: 0.03 ft./day
Groundwater Contamination
Contaminants Present: PCE, TCE, cis 1,2-DCE, trans 1,2-DCE, vinyl chloride
Highest Concentrations: 1990 |J.g/l PCE, 11,700 |J.g/l TCE, 10,200 |J.g/l cis 1,2-DCE, 5.5 |J.g/l trans 1,2-DCE, 1000 |J.g/l
vinyl chloride
Deepest Contamination: 56 ft. bis.
Contaminant Plume Size: 1.25 acres
Remediation Scenario
A single pilot recirculating well using in-well airlift through a 12 foot stripping column was operated for a period of 30
days. Air was introduced through a diffuser at an average rate of 35 cfrn. and 5 psig. This correlated to a theoretical
groundwater flow rate of approximately 5 gpm.
System was operated in "closed loop" configuration, i.e. air/vapor stream extracted from wellhead is recycled through
carbon treatment system for reuse in airlift stripping column. This minimized the re-injection of oxygen into the
recirculation loop and allowed in-situ contaminants to continue natural degradation in an anaerobic environment.
Results
The single pilot well achieved an average radius of influence of 62 ft. in the surficial aquifer based upon a 75% reduction
of total VOHs based on groundwater sampling from monitor wells. Tracer tests indicated groundwater particles traveled
approximately 20 ft. down-gradient in 130 minutes, 20 ft. up-gradient in approximately 180 minutes and approximately 30
ft. cross-gradient in 360 minutes. The estimated average radius of influence based upon tracer testing was 25 ft.
99% reduction of VOHs in source area after 30 days treatment.
Elimination of 1000 [lg/l contour of dissolved contamination and slight downgradient shift of 100 [ig/l contour of
dissolved contamination. No shift in 1 [ig/l contour of dissolved contaminants.
Slight rebound of PCE concentrations at source well six months after completion of pilot test. Also slight rebound of cis
1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride concentrations at downgradient wells 6-12 months following completion of pilot tests.
74
-------
Air Sparging at Former Nu Look One Hour Cleaners, Coral Springs, Florida*
Costs
Overall Project Cost - $ 193,000
Well Installation Cost - $ 16,000
Lessons Learned
1. No water use permit required since contaminated water is neither pumped nor treated above ground.
2. Vertical gradients induced in recirculation zone appear to enhance physical removal of contaminants from low permeability
zones.
3. Presence of organic rich sand and peat possibly enhanced remediation by circulating naturally occurring organic carbon
(food source) into treatment zone.
4. Iron bacteria fouling of well screens necessitated the incorporation of additional measures aimed at eliminating bio-fouling
at discharge zone. Bio-fouling resulted in major operational and maintenance problems. Assessing the impact of
groundwater geochemistry upon the system is important.
Contacts
Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection: Brent Hartsfield (850) 488-0190
Metcalf & Eddy: Bruce Koenig (954) 450-5201
* This is the complete report provided by the State Coalition of Dry Cleaners (www.drycleancoalition.org) for this project.
A separate abstract for this project is not available.
75
-------
Air Sparging/Soil Vapor Extraction and Multi-Phase Extraction at Scotchman #94,
Florence, South Carolina
Site Name:
Scotchman #94
Location:
Florence, SC
Period of Operation:
April 1998 - present (data available through March 2000)
Cleanup Authority:
RCRA UST
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of multiphase extraction and air sparging/soil vapor extraction to treat
MTBE in soil and groundwater
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
MTBE, BTEX, Naphthalene
MTBE concentrations as high as 87,000 ug/L in groundwater
BTEX concentrations as high as 140,000 ug/L for toluene in groundwater
Naphthalene concentrations as high as 4,600 ug/L in groundwater
Waste Source:
Leaks from an underground gasoline
storage tank
Site Contact:
Worsley Companies, Inc.
P.O. Box 3227
Wilmington, SC 28406
Telephone: (910) 395-5300
State Contact:
Kimberly Wilson, P.O.
Hydrogeologist
South Carolina Dept. of Health and
Environmental Control
2600 Bull St.
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 898-4350
Fax: (803)898-4330
E-mail:
wilsonka@columb26.state.sc.us
Contractor:
CBM Environmental
P.O. Box 411387
Charlotte, NC 28241
Telephone: (800) 743-1226
Fax: (803)548-5892
E-mail: cbni(@celink.net
Technology:
Multi-Phase Extraction (MPE) and Air Sparging/Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)
MPE system consisting of five extraction (recovery) wells
Air sparging/SVE system includes 28 air sparging wells, arranged in seven
groups of air sparging wells
A total of 19 monitoring wells at the site, installed at depths ranging from 14
to 30 feet below ground surface (bgs); each well includes a 10-foot screened
interval, with the depths of the screened intervals ranging from about 10 to
27.5 feet bgs.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil and Groundwater
Soil at the site consists of clayey sands and sandy-clays; hard clay layer is
present at approximately 10 feet bgs
Average hydraulic gradient is 0.004 feet/feet with a calculated seepage
velocity of 4.415 feetperyear
Depth to groundwater is 5.4 to 23 feet bgs
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Site-specific target levels (SSTLs) were established by SCDHEC for MTBE, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and
xylenes, and naphthalene, with seven monitoring wells (MW-1, MW-2, MW-6, MW-11, MW-15, MW-18, MW-19) and
outfall OS-1 used in setting the total SSTLs
Total SSTLs (sum of individual SSTLs for each well) - MTBE - 7,700 ug/L; benzene - 957 ug/L; toluene -119,250 ug/1;
ethylbenzene - 37,082 ug/L; xylenes -187,511 ug/L; naphthalene - 2,808 ug/L
76
-------
Air Sparging/Soil Vapor Extraction and Multi-Phase Extraction at Scotchman #94,
Florence, South Carolina
Results:
MTBE concentrations in the groundwater decreased through December 1999 to 17,736 ug/L, then increased to more
than 192,000 ug/L in March 2000
Similar trends were observed for BTEX constituents and naphthalene, with total mass decreasing through December
1999, then increasing in March 2000
Decreases in the maximum concentrations (as measured in an individual well) were observed for each of the
constituents. For example, maximum MTBE concentrations were reduced from 37,000 ug/L to 9,800 ug/L (about 74%),
and concentrations of benzene from 14,000 ug/L to 1,300 ug/L (91%).
As of March 2000, all constituents remained above the SSTLs; and operations will continue until all SSTLs have been
met.
According to the contractor, cleanup of the site is projected to be completed by March 2001.
Costs:
The total cost for the cleanup of this site is $383,000.
The South Carolina Petroleum Cleanup Fund awarded the contract for the cleanup at this site as a fixed-price, lump sum
with no change orders; no additional information on cost breakdown was available.
Description:
Scotchman #94 is a gasoline service station located in Florence, South Carolina. In December 1991, a release was
reported from the station's underground storage tanks (USTs), and soil and groundwater at the site were found to be
contaminated with MTBE, BTEX, and naphthalene, and free product was present in the groundwater. Contaminants in
groundwater were found to be as high as 87,000 ug/L for MTBE, 23,000 ug/L for benzene, 140,000 ug/L for toluene,
18,000 ug/L for ethylbenzene, 91,000 ug/L for xylenes, and 4,600 ug/L for naphthalene. A Corrective Action Plan (CAP)
was implemented in March 1999 under Subtitle I of the RCRA program, which included free product recovery using MPE
and treatment of dissolved-phase groundwater contamination using air sparging/SVE.
The MPE system consists of five extraction (recovery) wells and the air sparging/SVE system includes 28 air sparging
wells, arranged in seven groups of air sparging wells. MTBE, BTEX, and napthalene levels initially decreased through
December 1999, then increased. After two years of operation, all constituents remained above the SSTLs. The system will
continue to be operated until the SSTLs are met (projected completion in March 2001).
77
-------
In Situ Bioremediation at Brownfield Site, Chattanooga, Tennessee
Site Name:
Brownfield Site (actual site name confidential)
Location:
Chattanooga, TN
Period of Operation:
January 1999 to present (data available through December 1999)
Cleanup Authority:
January 1999 to present (data
available through December 1999)
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of in situ bioremediation to treat MTBE in groundwater
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
MTBE, BTEX, TPH
MTBE concentrations as high as 5,000 ug/L
BTEX concentrations as high as 8,000 ug/L
TPH concentrations as high as 300,000 ug/L
Plume containing MTBE and benzene covers approximately 16,000 square
feet; TPH plume covers approximately 66,000 square feet (1.5 acres)
Waste Source:
Leaks from an underground gasoline
storage tank
Project Contact:
Mark B. Miller, P.O.
Remedial Solutions, Inc.
2733 Kanasita Drive, Suite A
Hixson, TN 37343
Telephone: (423) 870-8888
E-mail: remsol@cdc.net
Vendor:
Brian L. Clark, P.E.
Executive Vice President
Enzyme Technologies, Inc.
5228 NE 158th Avenue
Portland, OR 97230
Telephone: (503)254-4331x11
Fax: (503)254-1722
E-mail: brianc@enzymetech.com
Technology:
In Situ Bioremediation
In situ bioremediation using the Enzyme-Catalyzed In Situ Dissolved Oxygen
Treatment (DO-IT) process; patented process uses a combination of
proprietary multi-enzyme complexes (proteins that are extracted from living
TPH-degrading bacterial cultures), and a consortium of total petroleum
hydrocarbon (TPH) degrading bacteria, with supplemental oxygen; generates
a concentration of dissolved oxygen in water of approximately 40 mg/L
Three horizontal injection wells, two vertical injection wells, and three
extraction/recovery wells were installed within the plume
Groundwater was extracted from down-gradient locations, amended by adding
oxygenated water, nutrients, and the enzyme/bacterial consortium mixture,
and then re-injected using the horizontal and vertical injection wells; layout
provided for both treatment and hydraulic control
Initial inoculation in January 1999 consisted of approximately 75 gallons of
enzymes and 150 gallons of bacteria; each month, 5 gallons of enzymes and
10 gallons of bacteria have been added to the oxygenated water to maintain
the microbial population
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
On-site groundwater is located within a tight clay soil horizon at 5-7 feet
below ground surface (bgs)
Off-site groundwater is located in bedrock consisting of limestone and shale
beds at depths of greater than 10 feet bgs
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The cleanup criteria specified for this site were benzene -100 mg/kg in soil and 70 ug/L in groundwater, and TPH -
1,000 mg/kg in soil and 1,000 ug/L in groundwater
No cleanup levels were specified for MTBE, however MTBE was identified as a contaminant of concern for the site
Results:
Results were available for the first 360 days of operation (January to December 1999) from well MW-2 (the well with
the highest concentrations of contaminants)
MTBE concentrations were reduced from approximately 5,000 ug/L to approximately 200 ug/L
Benzene concentrations were reduced from as high as 8,000 ug/L to less than approximately 1,000 ug/L
TPH concentrations were reduced from as high as 300,000 ug/L to less than approximately 50,000 ug/L
Benzene and TPH concentrations remain above cleanup goals; treatment system operation is ongoing
78
-------
In Situ Bioremediation at Brownfield Site, Chattanooga, Tennessee
Costs:
Start-up costs for this site, including the initial inoculation, were approximately $30,000
Monthly maintenance costs have been approximately $4,000, through December 1999
Description:
As a result of leaking underground storage tanks (USTs), gasoline, diesel fuel, and waste oil releases occurred at an
abandoned gasoline service station located in a mixed-use area in Chattanooga Tennessee. The service station has no
remaining on-site structures or facilities. The releases resulted in contamination of soil and groundwater at the site with
MTBE, BTEX, and petroleum constituents. Concentrations of contaminants measured in groundwater at the site were as
high as MTBE at 5,000 ug/L, benzene at 8,000 ug/L, and total petroleum hydrocarbons at 300,000 ug/L. The vendor
estimated that 1,500 cubic yards of soil at the site were impacted by the contamination. In the mid-1990s, the USTs were
removed and decommissioned.
Beginning in January 1999, in situ bioremediation using the Enzyme-Catalyzed In Situ Dissolved Oxygen Treatment (DO-
IT) process was used to treat groundwater at the site. This process uses a combination of proprietary multi-enzyme
complexes and a consortium of total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) degrading bacteria, with supplemental oxygen, to
biodegrade MTBE, BTEX, and TPH contaminants. At this site, three horizontal injection wells, two vertical injection
wells, and three extraction/recovery wells were installed within the plume. In January 1999, the initial inoculation of
approximately 75 gallons of enzymes and 150 gallons of bacteria was performed. Subsequently, 5 gallons of enzymes and
10 gallons of bacteria have been added to the oxygenated water each month to maintain the microbial population. As of
December 1999, after 360 days of operation, the concentrations of MTBE, BTEX, and TPH have been reduced by more
than 70%. However, cleanup goals were not reached for benzene or TPH in the groundwater during this time, and
treatment is ongoing. The technology vendor reported that this application was aided by the design of injection galleries
that were specific to the low permeability of the soil formation and the intended injection approach.
79
-------
In Situ Bioremediation at Cordray's Grocery, Ravenel, South Carolina
Site Name:
Cordray's Grocery
Location:
Ravenel, SC
Period of Operation:
April 1998 to July 2000 (data available through January 2000)
Cleanup Authority:
RCRA UST
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of in situ bioremediation using ORCฎ to treat MTBE in groundwater
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
MTBE, BTEX, Naphthalene
MTBE concentrations as high as 2,230 ug/L
BTEX concentrations as high as 28,600 ug/L for toluene
Naphthalene concentrations as high as 134 ug/L
Waste Source:
Leaks from an underground gasoline
storage tank (UST)
Site Contact:
Youman's Gas & Oil
P.O. Box 399
Hollywood, SC 29449
Telephone: (843) 889-2212
State Contact:
Scott Mclnnis
South Carolina Dept. of Health and
Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 898-4350
Fax: (803)898-4330
E-mail:
mcinniwa@columb26.dhec.state.sc.us
Vendor:
John Albrecht, President
Director, Assessment/Remediation
Albrecht & Associates
P.O. Box 189
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465
Telephone: (843) 856-8450
Fax: (843)856-8453
E-mail:
JHA@albrechtenvironmental.com
Technology:
In Situ Bioremediation using ORC*
The UST was removed and soil was excavated in two areas at the site prior to
application of ORCฎ
A total of 140 Ibs of ORC* was injected in the excavated areas
The one time application of ORCฎ was performed on August 31, 1998, with
an injection depth of 20 - 25 feet (ft) below ground surface (bgs)
Seven monitoring wells were located around the excavation areas
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
Average depth to groundwater is 9 feet below ground surface (bgs)
Average hydraulic gradient is 0.006 ft/ft with a calculated seepage velocity of
0.473 feet per year
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Site-specific target levels (SSTLs) were established by SCDHEC for MTBE, BTEX constituents (benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylenes), and naphthalene
SSTLs for well MW-0 were: MTBE - 239 ug/L; benzene - 4,150 ug/L; toluene - 21,400 ug/L; ethylbenzene -1,700
ug/L; xylenes -11,700 ug/L; and naphthalene - 557 ug/L
SSTLS for well MW-5 were: MTBE -115 ug/L; benzene - 4,020 ug/L; toluene -2,900 ug/L; ethylbenzene - 460 ug/L;
xylenes - 2,380 ug/L; and naphthalene -170 ug/L
80
-------
In Situ Bio remediation at Cordray's Grocery, Ravenel, South Carolina
Results:
According to SCDHEC, cleanup goals at the site were met in November 1998
Results of the January confirmation sampling event showed that the SSTLs had been met for MTBE, BTEX, and
naphthalene in wells MW-0 and MW-5, with concentrations of MTBE and naphthalene below detection limits in both
wells
Concentrations of BTEX constituents were reduced by 99% in well MW-5, and by as much as 95% (benzene) in well
MW-0
The SCDHEC reported that the corrective action was completed on July 24, 2000.
Costs:
The total cost for the cleanup at this site was $21,000
The South Carolina Petroleum Cleanup Fund awarded the contract for the cleanup at this site as a fixed-price, lump sum
with no change orders; no additional information on cost breakdown was available.
Description:
The Cordray's site is the location of a former gasoline service station. In 1987, leaks from a gasoline underground storage
tank (UST) resulted in contamination of soil and groundwater at the site with MTBE, BTEX, and naphthalene. A 550-
gallon UST was removed in 1987 and a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) was implemented in April 1998 under Subtitle I of
the RCRA program. The CAP included excavation of soil and in situ bioremediation of groundwater using ORCฎ. Soils
were excavated in two areas, with ORCฎ injected into the excavated areas.
On August 31, 1998, a one time application of 140 Ibs. of ORCฎ was performed in the excavated areas, at an injection
depth of 20 - 25 ft bgs. Cleanup goals at the site were met in November 1998, and confirmed during a January 1999
confirmation sampling event. Concentrations of MTBE and naphthalene were reduced to below detection limits in wells
MW-0 and MW-5; concentrations of BTEX constituents were reduced by 99% in well MW-5, and by as much as 95% in
well MW-0. According to SCDHEC, the corrective action was completed on July 24, 2000. In addition, the SCDHEC
indicated that the cleanup was completed within the predicted time, and the use of a fixed price contract (total cost of
$21,000) was less costly than a time and materials contract.
81
-------
In Situ Bioremediation at Contemporary Cleaners, Orlando, Florida*
Remediation Technology
In-Situ Bioremediation - Hydrogen Release Compound (HRC) - Regenesis Bioremediation Products, Inc.
Site Description
This is an active Perchloroethene (PCE) drycleaning facility that has been in operation since 1974. It is located in a
shopping center in a commercial setting.
Site Hydrogeology
Depth to Water: 6-8 ft below land surface (bis)
Upper Surficial Aquifer: 25-30 ft of fine-grained quartz sand
Hydraulic Gradient: 0.01 ft/ft
Hydraulic Conductivity: 1.3 ft/day
Seepage Velocity: 0.04 ft/day
1-12 ft of clay
Lower Surficial Aquifer: 20 - 25 ft of fine-grained silty sand and sandy clay
Hydraulic Gradient: 0.003 ft/ft
Hydraulic Conductivity: 65 ft/day
Seepage Velocity: 1 ft/day
Groundwater Contamination
Contaminants Present: PCE, TCE, cis 1,2-DCE, trans 1,2-DCE, vinyl chloride
Highest Contaminant Concentrations: 3300 [i.g/1 PCE, 4,980 [i.g/1 TCE, 4000 [i.g/1 cis 1,2-DCE, 130 [i.g/1 trans 1,2-DCE,
2,900 (J.g/1 vinyl chloride
Deepest Contamination: 54 ft bis. Plume Size: 3.2 acres (as defined to regulatory MCLs)
Remediation Scenario
Treatment Area: 14,600 ft2 (within PCE 1 mg/L isopleth)- Upper Surficial Aquifer
Quantity: 6,810 Ib of HRC
Injection: By direct push technology at 144 locations, spaced on 10-ft centers. (80 ft x 180 ft grid) at depths from 5 - 30 ft
bis
Volume: 2.45 gal of HRC (22.5 Ib Or 0.9 lb/ft)/per injection point
Results
% Mass Reduction (after 152 days) - based on groundwater monitoring:
PCE - 96% cis 1,2-DCE - 36%
TCE - 51% vinyl chloride - 58%
Costs
Overall Project = $ 127,000
HRC product =$27,197
Lessons Learned
1. Underground Injection Control variance required.
2. Recommend requiring complete delineation of underground utilities prior to injection activities. Use of geophysical survey
(GPR and electrical methods) is very helpful to ensure underground utilities are not encountered or damaged during
injection.
82
-------
In Situ Bioremediation at Contemporary Cleaners, Orlando, Florida*
3. A thorough understanding of site geochemistry is required to understand effect of HRC on groundwater. Acids released
form the breakdown of HRC appeared to lower the pH of groundwater in certain portions of the aquifer to levels that were
not conducive to continued reductive dechlorination of contaminants. The problem appears to be transient, as the pH
continues to increase over time. Reformulation (reduction in concentration) of HRC should minimize this problem. The
buffering capacity of the predominantly quartz sand aquifers is limited in the presence of excess acids produced from HRC.
Aquifers with different sediment composition will respond differently to the HRC.
4. Prior to injection, the containers of HRC were warmed by placing them in the boiler room of the drycleaning facility. This
reduced the HRC viscosity and facilitated injection.
5. Regenesis offers design and onsite assistance and instruction during injection activities. Their guidance was very useful
during the initiation of the project.
Contacts
Florida Department of Environmental Protection: Judie Kean (850) 488-0190
International Technology Corporation: Mike Lodato (813) 626-2336
This is the complete report provided by the State Coalition of Dry Cleaners (www.drycleancoalition.org) for this project.
A separate abstract for this project is not available.
83
-------
In Situ Bioremediation at Gas Station, Cheshire, Connecticut
Site Name:
Gas Station (actual site name confidential)
Location:
Cheshire, CT
Period of Operation:
October 1997 to March 1999
Cleanup Authority:
RCRA UST (Connecticut LUST
Program)
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of in situ bioremediation to treat MTBE in groundwater
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
MTBE, BTEX, TPH
MTBE concentrations as high as 6,000 ug/L
BTEX concentrations as high as 14,000 ug/L
Waste Source:
Leaks from an underground gasoline
storage tank
Project Contact:
David Lis, IEP
Apex Environmental
58H Connecticut Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Telephone: (860) 282-1700
State Contact:
Alan Davis
Connecticut Dept. of Environmental
Protection
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106-5127
Telephone: (860) 424-3342
Vendor:
Brian L. Clark, P.E.
Executive Vice President
Enzyme Technologies, Inc.
5228 NE 158th Avenue
Portland, OR 97230
Telephone: (503) 254-4331 xll
Fax: (503)254-1722
E-mail: brianc@enzymetech.com
Technology:
In Situ Bioremediation
In situ bioremediation using the Enzyme-Catalyzed In Situ Dissolved Oxygen
Treatment (DO-IT) process; patented process uses a combination of
proprietary multi-enzyme complexes (proteins that are extracted from living
TPH-degrading bacterial cultures), and a consortium of total petroleum
hydrocarbon (TPH) degrading bacteria, with supplemental oxygen; generates
a concentration of dissolved oxygen in water of approximately 40 mg/L
Existing horizontal air sparging trench and vertical vapor extraction wells
were retrofitted and used as injection points; groundwater was extracted from
an existing group of wells located down-gradient from the injection points;
layout provided for both treatment and hydraulic control
Oxygen-laden water was injected on a daily basis; nutrients, including
nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, were dissolved in the injection water,
and applied "as necessary"; information was not available about the amount of
amendments added, or the dates for adding amendments.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
Depth to groundwater is less than 10 feet below ground surface (bgs)
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The cleanup criteria specified for groundwater at this site were MTBE - 70 ug/L, benzene -1 ug/L, and TPH - 500 ug/L
Results:
During the first 34 days of operation, MTBE concentrations in a well located within the center of the plume was reduced
from approximately 6,000 ug/L to 1,600 ug/L (a 73% reduction) and from approximately 6,000 ug/L to 200 ug/L (a
97% reduction) in a downgradient well; BTEX concentrations were reduced by 93% from 14,000 ug/L to less than
1,000 ug/L
Data available for BTEX and TPH after 12 months of operation showed a general decrease in concentrations (MTBE
data were not provided)
After 18 months of operation, the vendor reported that the cleanup criteria specified for this site for MTBE, benzene,
and TPH were achieved; information about specific levels achieved was not provided
84
-------
In Situ Bioremediation at Gas Station, Cheshire, Connecticut
Costs:
Information on the costs for use of in situ bioremediation at this site was not provided.
Description:
Releases from underground storage tanks (USTs) at an active gasoline service station located in western Connecticut
resulted in contamination of groundwater at the site with MTBE and BTEX. Concentrations of MTBE and BTEX
measured in groundwater at the site were 6,000 ug/L and 14,000 ug/L, respectively. The vendor estimated that 1,000 cubic
yards of soil and groundwater at the site were contaminated as a result of the release. In the early 1990s, the USTs were
removed and decommissioned. A groundwater extraction and treatment system and an air sparging/soil vapor extraction
(SVE) system were installed to treat soil and groundwater at the site. In 1997, the groundwater treatment and air
sparging/SVE systems were replaced with in situ bioremediation.
The DO-IT process applied at this site by retrofitting an existing horizontal air sparging trench and vertical vapor
extraction wells were retrofitted as injection points for the oxygenated water, nutrients, and enzyme^acterial consortium
mixture. The vendor reported that the cleanup criteria specified for this site for MTBE, benzene, and TPH were achieved
in approximately 18 months of treatment. According to the vendor, this was the first permitted in situ bioremediation
project in the state of Connecticut. The relatively shallow depth to groundwater provided for a greater degree of contact
between the oxygen, nutrients, and biological products with the contaminants of concern.
85
-------
In Situ Bioremediation at Hayden Island Cleaners, Portland, Oregon*
Remediation Technology
Hydrogen Release Compound, Regenesis, Inc.
Site Description
This is an active Perchloroethene (PCE) drycleaning facility that has been in operation since 1975. It is located in a
commercial setting adjacent to the Columbia River.
Site Hydrogeology
Depth to Water: 6-8 feet
Upper Surficial Aquifer: 20-40 feet of silty sand
Hydraulic Gradient: 0.001 ft./ft.
Hydraulic Conductivity: ft/day
Seepage Velocity: ft./day.
Lower Regional Drinking Water Aquifer: n/a
Hydraulic Gradient: n/a
Hydraulic Conductivity: n/a
Seepage Velocity: n/a
Groundwater Contamination
Contaminants Present: PCE, trichloroethene (TCE), and cis 1,2-dichloroethene (cis- DCE)
Highest Contaminant Concentrations: 1,230 mg/1 PCE, 1 mg/1 TCE, and 3.4 mg/1 cis 1,2-DCE.
Deepest Contamination: Chlorinated solvents present in regional groundwater aquifer, though not attributed to site.
Remediation Scenario
Treatment Area: 200 square feet (two "treatment" walls)- Upper Surficial Aquifer
Quantity: 2,310 pounds of HRC
Injection: By direct push technology at 42 locations, spaced on 10-foot centers. (Two 2 x 80 foot grid walls) at depths from
25 - 40 ft. bgs.
Volume: (3.2 lbs./ft)/per injection point
Results
% Mass Reduction (after 1 year, 3 months):
PCE - 87%
Substantial increase of daughter products TCE, cis-1,2-DCE
Costs
Overall Project - $ 46,000
HRC product - $ 14,000 ($6.00/lb)
HRC Install $45,000
HRC Groundwater Monitoring $20,000
HRC Total $65,000
Lessons Learned
1. Location of site next to river complicated the hydrogeology of the site. River stage and tidal fluctuations accounted for
flow reversals at the site. In addition, the timeframe of the injection occurred during the slowest groundwater transport
period which required several months for HRC enhanced remediation to be noticed.
2. HRC was injected along two transects to account for groundwater flow reversals. The injections were designed to provide
an engineered "treatment wall" or zone prior to off-property and surface water discharge migration.
86
-------
In Situ Bioremediation at Hayden Island Cleaners, Portland, Oregon
3. A steam-cleaner is very helpful with clean-up of HRC product. Cleanup should commence the same day as injection
activities. Waiting until the following day or at the end of injection event necessitated additional labor/time.
4. Analysis of acid in water sooner would have helped facilitated the amount of HRC remaining in the subsurface.
5. Regenesis offers onsite assistance and instruction during injection activities. Their guidance was very useful during the
initiation of the project.
Contacts
David Anderson
Oregon DEQ
811 SW6th
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 229-5428
anderson.david@deq.state.or.us
* This is the complete report provided by the State Coalition of Dry Cleaners (www.drycleancoalition.org) for this project.
A separate abstract for this project is not available.
87
-------
In Situ Bioremediation at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California
Site Name:
Not provided
Period of Operation:
Not provided
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Research on microbial organisms to degrade MTBE in soil and groundwater
Contaminants:
MTBE
Point of Contact:
RolfHalden,Ph.D.,P.E.
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (LLNL)
7000 East Ave., P. O. Box 808, L-542
Livermore, CA 94551
Telephone: (925) 422-0655
Fax: (925)423-7998
E-mail: haldenl@llnl.gov
Technology:
Bioremediation
Research on MTBE/TBA Degraders:
Location:
Not provided
Cleanup Authority:
Not identified
Cleanup Type:
Bench scale
Waste Source:
Leaking underground fuel storage
tanks
Methanotrophs Study - study of two methanotrophic microorganisms,
Methylosinus trichosporium OB3b and Methylosinus sporium, grown with
methane as the single carbon source.
Long-term In Situ Enrichment of TEA Degraders - study attempted to isolate
TEA degraders from a chemical manufacturing site where TEA degraders in
the range of 67 to 460,000 degrader per gram of sediment had been reported
over a 10 year period
Cultures Using MTBE as Growth Substrate - tested the Pelorus
Environmental and Biotechnology Corp. (PEL) presumed pure culture (PEL-
Pg) and the PEL consortium culture (PEL-CON); derived from leaking
underground fuel tank (LUFT)-sediment samples and reportedly used MTBE
as the sole carbon and energy source.
Culture Derived from Biofilter - used biomass from an experimental biofilter
from the Joint Water Pollution Control plant in Whittier, California; material
observed to rapidly degrade >90% MTBE after a one year adaptation period.
Palo Alto LUFT Sites Screening Study:
Used soil (sediment) and groundwater samples from a site in Palo Alto
(collected at a depth of 18-26 feet where aqueous MTBE concentrations were
in the low ppm range)
Microcosms constructed from these materials either mimicked the anaerobic
conditions prevailing at the site, or contained various amendments ranging
from nutrients, to oxygen, to microbial biomass
The groundwater used to construct the microcosms was first sparged to drive
off volatile contaminants and then respiked to yield an initial aqueous MTBE
concentration in the microcosm of about 420 |J.g/L; microcosms were
incubated for 3 months at 20ฐC and 6
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil and Groundwater
rpm.
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Studies were conducted to evaluate the potential for difference microbial cultures to degrade MTBE in soil and
groundwater. No specific treatment goals were identified.
88
-------
In Situ Bioremediation at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California
Results:
Research on MTBE/TBA Degraders:
-Methanotrophs Study - in resting cell assays, both organisms failed to degrade detectable amounts of TEA, MTBE, ethyl
tert butyl ether (ETBE), diisopropyl ether (DIPE), and tert amyl methyl ether (TAME).
Long-term In Situ Enrichment of TEA Degraders - no microorganisms were detected that could grow on minimal
medium using TEA as the sole carbon and energy source.
Cultures Using MTBE as Growth Substrate - during testing, the PEL-Pg culture was found to be a consortium of two
different strains; neither of these two isolates nor the PEL-CON culture grew on MTBE/TBA or degraded these
compounds
Culture Derived from Biofilter - MTBE and TEA was degraded; however, microbial growth associated with MTBE
depletion was extremely slow and resulted in undesirable cell clumping, potentially limiting applicability
Palo Alto LUFT Sites Screening Study:
MTBE generally persisted under anaerobic conditions; the addition of ORCฎ and BioPetro did not stimulate MTBE
degradation under anaerobic conditions
MTBE was degraded completely in live, aerobic microcosms; however, the presence of additional carbon sources
(sucrose contained in the BioPetro microcosms, isopropanol, and pasteurized cells) inhibited intrinsic MTBE
biodegradation.
Costs:
No cost data were provided
Description:
Researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) conducted several studies to evaluate the potential of
various microorganisms to degrade MTBE in soil and groundwater. Research studies were performed on MTBE/TBA
Degraders using different microbial cultures, including several that had been observed to degrade MTBE in other settings.
In addition, a study was conducted to assess the potential use of intrinsic and/or engineered in situ bioremediation for the
restoration of MTBE-impacted soils and groundwater at leaking underground fuel tank (LUFT) sites. The study locations,
all situated in Northern California, were identified by the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the San Francisco
California Regional Water Quality Control Board as high risk sites, based on their proximity to public drinking water wells
and/or the presence of extremely high concentrations of MTBE in shallow groundwater. The overall goal of the study was
to provide general conclusions concerning the fate of MTBE at LUFT sites.
The results showed that two methanotrophic microorganisms did not transform MTBE, TEA, ETBE, DIPE, and TAME.
In addition, long-term enrichment under site-specific conditions may fail to produce strains that effectively degrade
TB A/MTBE. According to the researchers, careful selection of experimental media is important to identify "real" MTBE
degraders, and fast-growing MTBE degraders that are needed for bioaugmentation are currently not available. Results of
the Palo Alto study indicate that MTBE may biodegrade naturally at LUFT sites in some instances when conditions are
favorable (e.g., aerobic conditions, no BTEX compounds present).
89
-------
In Situ Bioremediation Using ORCฎ at an Active Service Station,
Southern California
Site Name:
Service Station (actual name confidential)
Period of Operation:
155 days in duration (specific dates were not provided)
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of in situ Bioremediation using Oxygen Release Compound (ORCฎ) to treat
MTBE in groundwater
Contaminants:
MTBE, BTEX
MTBE concentrations as high as 13,000 ug/L
BTEX concentrations as high as 25,000 ug/L
Vendor:
Steve Koenigsberg
Regenesis, Inc.
1011 CalleSombra
San Clemente, CA 92672
Telephone: (949) 366-8000
Fax: (949)366-8090
E-mail: steve@regenesis.com
Location:
Southern California
Cleanup Authority:
State
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Waste Source:
Leaks from gasoline storage tanks
Technology:
In Situ Bioremediation using ORCฎ
A total of 750 pounds of ORC* was injected through 18 direct-push bore
holes located within the source area by pushing hollow rods with removable
tips to a depth of 28 ft, and then pumping ORCฎ-slurry through the rods as
they were raised from a depth of 28 ft to 18 ft.
An additional 150 pounds of ORCฎ was injected through 12 direct-push bore
holes located at the property boundary.
Groundwater samples were collected from representative monitoring wells
prior to injection and then approximately monthly for five months after
injection
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
The direction of groundwater flow at the site is west to southwest at an
average gradient of 0.0037 ft/ft and velocity of 0.067 to 0.24 ft/day
The quality of the groundwater in the area of the site is classified as poor due
to high concentrations of dissolved solids
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
No information about specific treatment goals was provided
Results:
For the first two months following the injection of ORCฎ, MTBE, BTEX constituents, and TPH concentrations in well
MW-14 (located in the source area) decreased and the oxidation/reduction potential increased to a positive value,
indicating an increase in the oxidation conditions in the subsurface
After the second month, concentrations of MTBE, BTEX constituents, and TPH rose to pre-injection levels and the
oxidation/reduction potential decreased to a negative number
By the fifth month (day 155), concentrations of MTBE, BTEX constituents, and TPH were above pre-injection levels
According to the vendor, possible reasons for the increases in concentrations included: 1) actual dissolved fuel
hydrocarbon concentrations may have been higher than expected, exhausting the oxygen before all hydrocarbons were
metabolized; 2) the elevated salinity of the groundwater may have caused the DO to be released at a rate higher than
could be used by existing site microbes; and 3) fuel hydrocarbons which remained adsorbed to the soil particles in the
capillary fringe may have provided a source to reintroduce hydrocarbons in the dissolved phase.
Costs:
No cost information for this application was provided.
90
-------
In Situ Bioremediation Using ORCฎ at an Active Service Station,
Southern California
Description:
The site is an active gasoline service station located on the coast of southern California, at the mouth of San Juan Creek
Valley, about one-third of a mile north of the Pacific Ocean. In the early 1990's, two underground gasoline storage tanks
were replaced and soil contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons was found beneath the tank cavity and one of the
gasoline dispenser islands. TPH concentrations were found in soil at levels up to 9,000 mg/kg. In groundwater, BTEX
compounds were found at levels as high as 25,000 ug/L for benzene, and MTBE was found at levels as high as 13,000
ug/L. There are two dissolved-phase plumes at the site, BTEX and MTBE. In the mid-1990's, soil vapor extraction (SVE)
was used at the site for approximately 13 months. While data on SVE performance was not provided, the technology did
not have a long-term impact on the concentrations of dissolved-phase hydrocarbon in the saturated zone, and fuel remained
adsorbed to soil within the vadose zone. ORCฎ was injected at the site to reduce the dissolved-phase concentrations of
BTEX and MTBE and to contain the contaminant plume.
A total of 750 pounds of ORCฎ was injected through 18 direct-push bore holes located within the source area and sn
additional 150 pounds of ORCฎ was injected through 12 direct-push bore holes located at the property boundary. The
application of ORCฎ initially reduced contaminant concentrations in the groundwater for MTBE, BTEX, and TPH.
However, after two months, contaminant concentrations began to rise and were above the pre-injection levels by the fifth
month. Possible reasons for the increase in concentration included the presence of a continuing source of hydrocarbons
and subsurface conditions that adversely affected the existing microbes at the site.
91
-------
In Situ Bioremediation Using ORCฎ at an Active Service Station,
Lake Geneva, Wisconsin
Site Name:
Service Station (actual name confidential)
Location:
Lake Geneva, Wisconsin
Period of Operation:
280 days in duration (specific dates not provided)
Cleanup Authority:
State
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of in situ Bioremediation using ORCฎ to treat MTBE in groundwater
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
MTBE, BTEX
MTBE concentrations as high as 800 ug/L
BTEX concentrations as high as 14,000 ug/L
Waste Source:
Leaks from gasoline storage tanks
Vendor:
Steve Koenigsberg
Regenesis, Inc.
1011 CalleSombra
San Clemente, CA 92672
Telephone: (949) 366-8000
Fax: (949)366-8090
E-mail: steve@regenesis.com
Technology:
In Situ Bioremediation using Oxygen Release Compound (ORCฎ)
A total of 17,000 pounds of ORCฎ slurry (magnesium peroxide compound)
was injected into the backfill excavation using a Geoprobeฎ (direct push) and
37 injection points
Two monitoring wells, located downgradient of the former UST area, were
used to monitor levels of MTBE and BTEX in the groundwater
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
-The groundwater flow is generally to the east northeast at a velocity of 0.2
ft/day
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
No information about specific treatment goals was provided
Results:
After nine months of operation, concentrations of MTBE in the two wells had been reduced to levels below 2 ug/L, from
initial concentrations of 800 ug/L and 70 ug/L, respectively.
During the first month of operation, MTBE concentrations in one well increased from about 800 ug/L to 1,800 ug/L,
then showed a steady decline over the next eight months. MTBE concentrations in the other well declined rapidly
during the first three months of operation and remained at low levels during the next five months of operation.
Costs:
No cost information for this application was provided.
Description:
Groundwater at a service station, located in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, was found to be contaminated with high levels of
MTBE and BTEX. Concentrations as high as 800 ug/L for MTBE and 14,000 ug/L for BTEX were detected in the
contaminant plume. The source of the contamination was a leaking underground storage tank. Source control activities
included removal of the UST and excavation of contaminated soil. Following the removal of the UST and contaminated
soil, ORCฎ was injected into the groundwater to enhance aerobic biodegradation in the saturated zone.
The application of ORCฎ slurry at the Lake Geneva former UST site reduced MTBE concentrations in groundwater from
initial concentrations as high as 800 ug/L to less than 2 ug/L in nine months. MTBE groundwater concentrations dropped
significantly within the first three months following injection, and remained at low levels throughout the next six months.
According to Regenesis, the site has been submitted to the state for closure.
92
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
93
-------
In Situ Bioremediation at South Beach Marina, Hilton Head, South Carolina
Site Name:
South Beach Marina
Location:
Hilton Head, SC
Period of Operation:
February 1999 - present (data available through September 2000)
Cleanup Authority:
RCRAUST
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of in situ bioremediation to treat MTBE in groundwater
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
MTBE, BTEX, Naphthalene
Waste Source:
Leaks from an underground gasoline
storage tank
State Contact:
Debra L. Thoma
Hydrogeologist
South Carolina Dept. of Health and
Environmental Control
2600 Bull St.
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 898-4362
Fax: (803)898-4330
E-mail:
thomadl@columb26.dhec.state.sc.us
Contractor:
John Collins
NESCO
521 ClemsonRoad
Columbia, SC 29229
Telephone: (803) 699-1976
Fax: (803)699-9863
Technology:
In Situ Bioremediation
Liquid microbial solution, manufactured by The Critter Company (TCC) and
consisting of microbes (Pseudomonas, Bacillus, and Corynebacterium),
oxygen emulsifier, surfactant, encapsulant, and nutrients was injected into the
subsurface through monitoring and injection wells
Five injections to date including: February 1999 -150 gallons injected into
21 monitoring wells and 15 Geoprobeฎ injection points at pressures ranging
from 5 to 20 pounds per square inch; March 1999 - 650 gallons injected into
nine newly installed injection wells; December 1999 - 700 gallons injected
into nine injection wells and three monitoring wells; March 2000 - 700
gallons injected into nine injection wells and four monitoring wells; and May
2000 - 700 gallons injected into nine injection wells and four monitoring wells
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
Depth to groundwater is 4.32 to 6.92 feet below ground surface (bgs)
Average hydraulic gradient is 0.078 feet/feet with a calculated seepage
velocity of 6.42 feet per year
No confining units were identified at the site
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Site-specific target levels (SSTLs) were established by SCDHEC for MTBE, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes,
and naphthalene, with four monitoring wells used in setting the SSTLs.
Total SSTLs (sum of individual SSTLs for each well) - MTBE -120 ug/L; benzene - 20 ug/L; toluene - 2,615 ug/1;
ethylbenzene - l,741ug/L; xylenes - 5,471ug/L; naphthalene -100 ug/L
Results:
As of September 2000, the SSTL for ethylbenzene has been met; however MTBE, benzene, toluene, xylenes, and
naphthalene remain above the SSTLs
MTBE levels decreased by 96% (from 3,310 to 146 ug/L), while benzene decreased by 83% (2,571 ug/L to 435 ug/L);
toluene by 66% (24,330 ug/L to 8,300 ug/L), and naphthalene by 84% (5,377 ug/L to 853 ug/L); xylene levels
decreased following the injections in February and May 1999, then increased and were above pre-operational level as of
September 2000
The system will continue to be operated until all SSTLs have been met; the contractor projects that cleanup of the site
will be completed by February 2001
Costs:
The total cost for the cleanup of this site is $63,500
The South Carolina Petroleum Cleanup Fund awarded the contract for the cleanup at this site as a fixed-price, lump sum
with no change orders; no additional information on cost breakdown was available.
94
-------
In Situ Bioremediation at South Beach Marina, Hilton Head, South Carolina
Description:
South Beach Marina is a gasoline dispensing station located in Hilton Head, South Carolina. In August 1995, a release
was reported from the station's underground storage tank (UST). Groundwater at the site was found to be contaminated
with MTBE, BTEX, and naphthalene. Data from 1998 showed concentrations of contaminants in groundwater as high as
1,320 ug/L for MTBE, 1,250 ug/L for benzene, 21,500 ug/L for toluene, 657 ug/L for ethylbenzene, 3,140 ug/L for
xylenes, and 4,720 ug/L for naphthalene. A Corrective Action Plan (CAP) was implemented in May 1999 under Subtitle I
of the RCRA program. The CAP included in situ bioremediation.
In situ bioremediation at the site was begun in February 1999 and has included five injections of a liquid microbial
solution, manufactured by The Critter Company (TCC). The solution consisted of microbes (Pseudomonas, Bacillus, and
Corynebacterium), oxygen emulsifier, surfactant, encapsulant, and nutrients, and was injected into the subsurface through
monitoring and injection wells in February, March, and December 1999 and in March and May 2000. As of September
2000, the SSTL for ethylbenzene has been met. While reductions in levels have been observed for for MTBE, benzene,
toluene, and naphthalene, these contaminants remain above the SSTLs. Levels of xylenes have increased above pre-
operational levels. The system will continue to be operated until all SSTLs have been met, with the site contractor
projecting completion of the remediation by February 2001.
95
-------
In Situ Bioremediation Using Butane
Site Name:
Not provided
Period of Operation:
Not provided
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Bench-scale testing of the Butane Biostimulation Technologies process to treat
MTBE in groundwater
Contaminants:
MTBE
Vendor:
Felix A. Perriello, CHMM, CPSS,
CPG
Global BioSciences, Inc.
608 Normandy Drive
Norwood, MA 02062
Telephone: (781)762-0590
Fax: (781)762-0590
E-mail: felix@biobutane.com
Location:
Not provided
Cleanup Authority:
Not identified
Cleanup Type:
Bench scale
Waste Source:
Not identified
Technology:
Bioremediation
Global BioSciences, Inc. (GBI) has patented the Butane Biostimulation
Technologies process, involving injecting butane into a contaminated area
using a specially designed delivery system
In a bench-scale test, MTBE cometabolism was evaluated using Butane-
utilizing BacteriaO suspended in 45 milliliters (ml) of sterile mineral salts
medium. The bacteria consisted of groups of cells from the following genera:
Pseudomonas, Variovorax, Nocardia, Chryseobacterium, Comamonas, and
Micrococcus. Bacteria used for this study were isolated from gasoline-
contaminated soil and groundwater.
Growth was monitored in 120 ml serum bottles under a butane, MTBE, and
air mixture (approximate butane MTBE ratio was 28: 1).
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil and Groundwater
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Not identified
Results:
Butane consumption rates between 1.5 and 6.0 mg/hr/L were measured for selected consortia using a gas chromatograph
equipped with a photoionization detector (GC-PID)
MTBE concentrations in the headspace were reduced from as high as 10 mg/L (arbitrary concentration used in study) to
sub-ppb levels within a 48-hour period, as measured using a GC-PID. Byproducts that were measured included carbon
dioxide and dissolved oxygen, although concentrations were not provided in the available materials. - The vendor
reported that these data demonstrated the potential for the bioremediation of MTBE using butane as a cometabolic
substrate
Costs:
No cost data were provided
96
-------
In Situ Bioremediation Using Butane
Description:
GBFs Butane Biostimulation Technologies process involves injecting butane into a contaminated area using a specially
designed delivery system. According to GBI, the injection system is safe, code compliant, and requires little maintenance
and technician oversight. GBFs approach to treating contaminated soil and groundwater relies on the ability of different
bacteria to cooxidize chlorinated solvents, BTEX and MTBE, as well as a variety of other environmental pollutants, while
growing at the expense of butane. Butane is the most soluble of the gaseous alkanes, having four times the solubility of
methane, and more than twice that of propane. Butane injection results in a large radius of influence at injection wellheads
and may be used as a barrier technology. To date, data are available only for bench-scale testing of Butane Biostimulation
Technologies for MTBE.
Results of bench-scale testing showed that MTBE concentrations in the headspace were reduced from as high as 10 mg/L
to sub-ppb levels within a 48-hour period. Byproducts included carbon dioxide and dissolved oxygen. The vendor
reported that these data demonstrated the potential for the bioremediation of MTBE using butane as a cometabolic
substrate. GBI has begun a field demonstration using Butane Biostimulation Technologies to remediate an MTBE
plume at a Sun Oil Company facility. Preliminary data from this test site were not available at the time of this report. Five
additional full-scale technology applications of Butane Biostimulation Technologies are planned to be performed in 6 to
18 months at sites contaminated with MTBE and at sites contaminated with chlorinated solvents. No cost data were
provided for this process.
97
-------
In Situ Bioremediation at Port Hueneme, California
Site Name:
U.S. Navy Construction Battalion Center
Location:
Port Hueneme, California
Period of Operation:
Laboratory testing - April 1998
Pilot testing - June to August 1998
Cleanup Authority:
Not identified
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Laboratory and field testing of in situ bioremediation using MC-100 to treat
MTBE in groundwater
Cleanup Type:
Laboratory and Pilot-scale
Contaminants:
MTBE and TEA
MTBE concentrations ranged from 2,000-8,000 ug/L; plume 4,000 feet (ft)
long and 400 ft wide
TEA concentrations ranged from 50-250 ug/L
Waste Source:
Leaks from gasoline storage tanks
Technology Provider:
Joseph P. Salanitro
Environmental Technology
Westhollow Technology Center
3333 S. Highway 6 (P.O. Box 1380)
Houston, TX 77251-1380
Telephone: (281) 544-7552
Fax: (281)544-8727
E-mail: jpsalanitro@shellus.com
Technology Researcher:
Paul C. Johnson
Arizona State University
Engineering Center, G-wing, Room
252
Tempe, AZ 85287-5306
Telephone: (480)965-9115
Fax: (480)965-0557
E-mail: paul.c.johnson@asu.edu
Technology:
In Situ Bioremediation
Laboratory testing of microbial culture MC-100 (previously referred to as
BC-4) under anoxic conditions and oxygenated conditions in soils augmented
with specific ether degraders
Field test using a MC-100 microbial consortium grown with MTBE as the
sole carbon source; specific MTBE removal rate of 20-30 mg/gm cells/hr;
injected into test plots located within the MTBE plume; test plots were 20 ft
wide and 40 ft long
On-site oxygen generating system (Air-Aep AS-80 pressure swing adsorption
system); intermittent oxygen sparging using a total of 1700L gas delivered to
each plot from 4-8 times/day (started six weeks prior to MC-100 seeding to
increase levels of DO in groundwater)
Monitoring wells were screened over 5-ft intervals -10-15 ft bgs for shallow
wells; 15-20 ft bgs for deep wells
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
Water table is approximately 13 ft below ground surface (bgs)
Aquifer sediments consist of silty loam and fine-medium sandy soils
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Field experiments were designed to implant high densities of MC-100 in an oxygenated biobarrier and to compare the
results with those for an oxygenated zone and a control zone
Cleanup goals for MTBE and TEA are 5 and 10-15 ug/L, respectively, as stated in State of California MCL directives.
98
-------
In Situ Bioremediation at Port Hueneme, California
Results:
Laboratory results
Addition of MC-100 (50 mg cells/L groundwater) reduced MTBE to non-detectable levels within two weeks
Microcosms prepared with soil and oxygenated groundwater from the Port Hueneme site containing gasoline (700
mg/L) also degraded MTBE (70-80 mg/L) and BTEX (45 mg/L) to non-detect levels in 16 weeks when seeded with
MC-100 at 50 and 250 mg cells/kg soil.
Pilot-scale results
DO levels in target treatment zones increased from <1 mg/L to >10 mg/L - >20 mg/L
Oxygen plus MC-100 plot reduced concentrations of MTBE from 1,000 ug/L to < 1 ug/L and TEA from 50-250 ug/L to
<10 ug/L; oxygen-only plot reduced MTBE concentrations to 10 ug/L (where DO was about 20 mg/L), but TEA was
not degraded; in the control plot, the concentration of MTBE remained at approximately 1 mg/L; no TEA data were
provided
Costs:
Full-scale costs for in situ bioremediation of MTBE using the oxygenated biobarrier was projected by the technology
provider to be about $150,000, depending on site-specific conditions.
Description:
From 1984-1985, several thousand gallons of leaded gasoline containing MTBE were released from storage tanks at the
Naval exchange (NEX) gasoline station of the naval base at Port Hueneme, California, resulting in MTBE and BTEX
plumes. Laboratory and field experiments of in situ bioremediation using addition of oxygen and the MC-100 culture were
conducted at Port Hueneme. The MC-100 culture, which is part of the patented "BioRemedy" process developed at the
Westhollow Technology Center, is marketed by Shell Global Solutions. Equilon Enterprises LLC designs and implements
the process, which is expected to be commercially available in early 2000.
Laboratory testing indicated that MTBE and BTEX could be degraded with oxygen in soils augmented with MC-100. For
the field tests, the DO levels in the aquifer were increased from <1 mg/L to between 10 and 20 mg/L, prior to the addition
of MC-100. Results showed that the oxygen plus MC-100 reduced MTBE and TEA concentrations to < 1 ug/L and < 10
ug/L, respectively. The in situ bioremediation of MTBE using the oxygenated biobarrier was estimated by the technology
provider to cost about $150,000 for a full-scale application, depending on site-specific conditions. According to the
technology provider, inoculation of subsoils with specific MTBE-degraders and maintaining adequate oxygenation of the
aquifer will enhance MTBE biodegradation in situ and control the MTBE plume mass from reaching potential downstream
receptors. Additional benefits of inoculated barriers over oxygen-only sparged aquifers is that MTBE-degraders may not
be present in many aquifers or are present in insufficient numbers to sustain MTBE degradation in plumes over long
periods.
99
-------
In Situ Bioremediation at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Lompoc, California
Site Name:
Vandenberg Air Force Base
Location:
Lompoc, California
Period of Operation:
1999 to ongoing (data available through December 1999)
Cleanup Authority:
Not provided
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of in situ bioremediation to treat MTBE in groundwater
Cleanup Type:
Field demonstration
Contaminants:
MTBE
MTBE plume extends about 1,700 feet downgradient
Waste Source:
Leaks from gasoline storage tanks
Technology Researcher:
Dr. Douglas Mackay
University of Waterloo
744 Frenchman's Road
Stanford, CA 94305
Telephone: (650) 324-2809
Fax: (650)324-2259
E-mail: d4mackay@uwaterloo.ca
Site Representative:
Beatrice Kephart
Vandenberg AFB
Lompoc, CA
Telephone: (805) 606-2359
E-mail:
Beatrice.Kephart@vandenberg.af.mil
Technology:
In Situ Bioremediation
Field demonstration conducted within MTBE plume, where MTBE was
identified as the primary contaminant
Three pilot tests were performed - release wells, release panel, and emplaced
MTBE degraders (strain PM1, permeable trench); multi-level monitoring
wells (screened at varying depths) were used for each test
Release Wells - two, 8-inch diameter wells (RW1 and RW2) screened to 8
feet below ground surface (bgs); each well was equipped with an oxygen
emitter
Release Panel - consists of three layers of prefabricated stripdrain material,
each layer 6 feet by 6 feet and about 1 inch thick; continuous lengths of 1/4
inch tubing woven around the internal supports; panel placed in a trench and
backfilled with native soil and pea gravel. During operation, oxygen was
cycled on and off to test the system.
Emplaced MTBE Degraders - test area consisted of a section of pea gravel
(1.5 ft wide, 1.5 ft long, and 12 ft deep); PM1 was injected in slurry form
using three injection wells; solution was extracted from a well located
downgradient
Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) was used as a tracer in each test
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Goal of field demonstrations is to study possible methods for stimulating aerobic in situ bioremediation of MTBE by
increasing the concentration of dissolved oxygen (DO)
No information about specific treatment goals was provided
Results:
Release Wells - No MTBE data were available for this pilot test. After 140 days of operation, DO concentrations were
2.5 mg/L in downgradient wells and a gradual buildup of SF6 in the release wells was observed. According to the
researchers, this indicates that the emitters are working as expected.
Release Panel - During the first "on" cycle (August 1999) DO concentrations were as high as 23 ug/L and MTBE
concentrations were reduced from 417 ug/L to below the detection limit. Data from the end of the first "off cycle
(December 1, 1999) showed that once the oxygen supply was turned off, the DO concentrations decreased to low levels
(1.2 ug/L), and MTBE concentrations increased to 427 ug/L. After the oxygen was turned "on" (December 14, 1999),
MTBE concentrations began to decrease from 427 ug/L to 20 ug/L (as of December 29, 1999)
Emplaced MTBE degraders - No performance data were available at the time of this report
100
-------
In Situ Bioremediation at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Lompoc, California
Costs:
Efforts are underway to develop projected costs for full-scale systems; however, no cost information was available at the
time of this report.
Description:
Site 60 at Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB) is the location of an abandoned service station. Leaks from gasoline tanks
resulted in contamination of the groundwater with MTBE, BTEX, and other petroleum hydrocarbons. The MTBE plume
extends approximately 1,700 feet downgradient from the source area, and the smaller BTEX/TPH plume, located within
the MTBE plume, extends approximately 100 feet downgradient of the source area. A research project to study in situ
bioremediation of MTBE has been underway at Vandenberg AFB since 1998. As part of this project, Site 60 is being used
to study possible methods for stimulating aerobic in situ biodegradation of MTBE using native and non-native microbes.
To achieve aerobic conditions in an otherwise anaerobic plume, researchers are studying the use of diffusive emitters to
introduce oxygen into the subsurface.
Three pilot tests are underway at Site 60 to test in situ bioremediation of MTBE using release wells, a release panel, and
emplaced MTBE degraders. Multi-level monitoring wells (screened at varying depths) are being used to monitor each of
the pilot tests. For the pilot test of the release wells, no MTBE concentration data were available. However, DO
concentrations in groundwater increased to 2.5 mg/L (after 140 days of operation). According to the researchers, these
results indicate that the emitters are working as expected. For the pilot test of the release panel, data show that MTBE
concentrations decrease when oxygen is provided to the groundwater ("on" cycle) and that MTBE levels increase when the
oxygen source is discontinued ("off cycle). According to the researchers, these data suggest that degradation of MTBE is
dependent on oxygen release in the groundwater and also that treatment may easily be reestablished after there has been an
interruption in the supply of oxygen to the groundwater. At the time of this report, performance data were not available for
the emplaced MTBE degrader pilot test. The pilot tests are continuing at Vandenberg Site 60, with the most recent work
focusing on the emplaced MTBE degrader pilot test. Additional investigations are underway to identify the MTBE-
degrading microbes and to better understand enhanced aerobic intrinsic bioremediation of MTBE.
101
-------
Bioslurping of LNAPL at Multiple Air Force Sites
Site Name:
Multiple Air Force Sites (18 total; refer to case study for names and locations of
each site)
Location:
Multiple locations throughout U.S.
Period of Operation:
Periods of operation were not provided for each site
Cleanup Authority:
Not provided
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Field demonstrations of bioslurping of LNAPL at multiple Air Force sites
Cleanup Type:
Field Demonstration
Contaminants:
Light Non-aqueous Phase Liquids (LNAPL); Petroleum Hydrocarbons
LNAPL thickness ranged from 0.12 ft to 3.89 ft; for the 18 sites, 9 had
thickness as less than 1 ft, 3 from 1 - 2 ft, and 6 with more than 2 ft
Fuel types consisted of No. 2 fuel oil, gasoline, jet fuel, aviation gasoline, and
JP-4; 10 of the 18 sites had JP-4
Waste Source:
Not provided
Technical Contact:
Battelle
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201
Management Contact:
Jeff Cornell
Air Force Center for Environmental
Excellence
Technology Transfer Division
Brooks AFB, TX 78235
E-mail:
jeff.cornell@hqafcee.brooks.af.mil
Technology:
Bioslurping
Field demonstration of bioslurping applied vacuum in an extraction well to
recover LNAPL and induce airflow through the unsaturated zone
Equipment included a tube placed in a well with the tip near the water table
level, and operated with a vacuum of up to 20 inches of mercury
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
LNAPL
Depths to groundwater ranged from 8 to 37 ft bgs
Pressure radius of influence ranged from 12 to 250 ft
Hydraulic conductivity ranged from 0.23 to 23.78 ft/day
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Goals of the demonstration included recovering the "maximum quantity" of LNAPL
Bioslurping was evaluated relative to the performance of skimming and drawdown pumping for the 18 sites in the study
Results:
The LNAPL recovery rates for bioslurping ranged from <0.1 to 64.2 gal/day, compared to skimming and drawdown
pumping at 3.1 gal/day and 4.5 gal/day, respectively
The groundwater removal rates for bioslurping ranged from <30 to 4,600 gal/day, compared to drawdown pumping at
1,640 gal/day and <29 gal/day for skimming
The off-gas flow rate from the bioslurper systems was 65 scfm (9 wells, each producing 7.2 scfm), while the skimming
and drawdown systems had negligible off-gas flows
Costs:
Projected costs for a bioslurping system was capital cost of $92,507 and monthly operating cost of $ 12,342; the overall
cost for capital and 6 months of operation was less for the bioslurper than for either the skimming or drawdown systems
identified in the study
Projected costs for a skimming system was capital cost of $110,328 and monthly operating cost of $11,120; projected
costs for a single pump drawdown system was capital cost of $131,172 and monthly operating cost of $11,268
A calculated unit cost for bioslurping was $56/gal LNAPL recovered, which was less than the unit cost for skimming
($339/gal) or drawdown ($260-312/gal)
102
-------
Bioslurping of LNAPL at Multiple Air Force Sites
Description:
The Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE) conducted an engineering evaluation and cost analysis of
vacuum enhanced free product recovery (bioslurping), including a comparison of bioslurping with other free product
recovery techniques skimming and drawdown pumping. Field demonstrations of bioslurping were conducted at 18 Air
Force sites throughout the country.
The sites included in the evaluation showed that bioslurping recovered LNAPL at a higher rate than either skimming or
drawdown pumping. The bioslurping and drawdown systems removed comparable amounts of water, while the skimming
system removed negligible water. The bioslurper had measurable off-gas flow rates, while the other two systems had
negligible flow rates. An analysis of costs showed that the overall cost for capital and 6 months of operation was less for
the bioslurper than for either the skimming or drawdown systems identified in the study.
103
-------
Biosparging of Contaminated Groundwater at the T-Dock Site,
South Prudence Bay Island Park, Rhode Island
Site Name:
T-Dock Site, South Prudence Bay Island Park, Rhode Island
Location:
Portsmouth, Rhode Island
Period of Operation:
Pilot Test - October to January 1997
Full-scale Operation - February 1998
to February 2000
Cleanup Authority:
State (RIDEM)
Regulatory Contacts:
Matthew DeStefano
RIDEM
235 Promenade St.
Providence, RI 02908
Purpose/Significance of Application:
The application treated BTEX-contaminated groundwater in-situ at a relatively
remote site without collecting or discharging treated water.
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale Remedial Action
Contaminants:
Organic Compounds (BTEX)Maximum detected concentrations were:
Benzene at 2,050 ug/L
Toluene at 7,830 ug/L
Ethylbenzene at 3,470 ug/L
Xyleneatll,OOOug/L
Waste Source:
One gasoline UST and a fuel
distribution system were operated at
the site between 1940 and 1985. It is
assumed that periodic leaks and spills
occurred during this span.
Project Management
Christine Johnson-Battista
USACE, New England District
696 Virginia Road
Concord, MA 01742-2751
(978) 772-0148
Christine .M. Johnson@nae02 .usace .ar
my.mil
Technology Expert:
Ian Ogersby
USACE, New England District
696 Virginia Road
Concord, MA 01742-2751
(978)318-8631
Contractor:
Fred Symmes
Roy F. Weston
1 Wall Street
Manchester, NH 03101
(603) 656-5412
Technology:
Biosparging
A pilot test was performed at the site in 1997 and 1998. Results indicated that
biosparging would be an effective technology to remediate the site, and that
addition of SVE would not significantly enhance the performance of the
system.
The biosparging system was installed in 1997 and included 22 sparge wells.
Wells were installed at depths ranging from 15 to 26 feet bgs, and well
screens were installed in the bottom two feet of each well.
Atmospheric air was delivered to the network of sparge wells via an air
compressor, a blower and a distribution manifold. Air flow rates were
adjusted between 0.2 to 9.5 cfm as necessary.
Groundwater concentrations were monitored in thirteen wells installed at the
site.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
The lateral extent of the groundwater plume at the site was estimated to be
35,000 SF
The depth to groundwater at the site is typically 10 to 12 ft bgs, but decreases
to 4 to 6 ft bgs near Narragansett Bay.
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Remedial goals for BTEX compounds in groundwater were:
Benzene below 5 ug/L, Toluene below 1,000 ug/L, Ethylbenzene below 700 ug/L and Xylene below 10,000 ug/L.
The system was required to meet RIDEM air emission requirements for volatile organic compounds.
Results:
Monitoring wells at the site were sampled quarterly from late 1997 through 2000. Results indicate that BTEX
compounds in the groundwater have been treated to acceptable concentrations, with the exception of benzene in one
well. The system has been shut down, and the site is currently in the closure process/ RIDEM air emission
requirements were met throughout operation of the treatment system.
104
-------
Biosparging of Contaminated Groundwater at the T-Dock Site,
South Prudence Bay Island Park, Rhode Island
Costs:
The total cost for this project was $280,946.
Description:
South Prudence Bay Island Park is located in Portsmouth, Rhode Island and is currently used mainly for public recreation.
The T-Dock site is located on a two-acre parcel at the southern edge of the park, and is directly adjacent to Narragansett
Bay. From the 1940s until 1985, fuel storage and distribution operations were conducted at the T-Dock site. In 1985 and
1992, actions were taken to remove one 10,000-gallon gasoline UST and sections of the fuel distribution pipeline at the
site. Investigations conducted at the site in 1996 and 1997 indicated that soil and groundwater contamination was present
in the area of the former UST and pipeline. Contaminants of concern at the site included mainly BTEX compounds.
Contaminated soil was excavated at the site under a separate project performed during 1997.
In 1996 and 1997 a pilot tests were conducted in a small section of the T-Dock site. Testing included installation of one
sparge well, one SVE well and six groundwater monitoring wells. The first test was performed to evaluate the expected
performance of a combination of SVE and sparging. After the first test indicated that the SVE well had a limited area of
influence, a second test was conducted to determine if a low-flow sparging system without SVE could be operated at the
site to treat BTEX in groundwater while not exceeding RIDEM air emission standards. It was determined that a system
operated with pulsed air injection at a rate of 1 cfrn for twenty minutes out of each hour, would meet the requirements of
the project.
The biosparging system was constructed in 1997 and 1998, and included a total of 22 sparge wells and thirteen
groundwater monitoring wells. Ten of the thirteen monitoring wells were five nests of two wells each, one screened at a
shallow depth and one screened deeper. Atmospheric air was delivered to the wells via an air compressor, a blower and a
distribution manifold. After it was determined that air emissions standards would not be violated by increasing flow to the
sparging system, air flow rates were modified as necessary to address areas of the site with higher contaminant
concentrations. Air flow rates to the system were varied from 0.2 to 9.5 cfm during the project. The full-scale system was
operated from February 1998 through February 2000. Quarterly sampling results indicated that BTEX compounds in
groundwater had been treated to the remediation goals, with the exception of one well, which still contained benzene at a
concentration above the goal. The system was shut down in February 2000 and the site is currently in the closure process.
Treatment was completed in April 1999.
105
-------
In Situ Chemical Oxidation at Butler Cleaners, Jacksonville, Florida*
Remediation Technology
In-Situ Chemical Oxidation - Potassium Permanganate (KMnO4)
Site Description
This is an active PCE drycleaning site that has been in operation since 1972. The adjacent property was occupied by a
gasoline station from the 1920s to the 1950s. Three USTs were removed from this site in 1992. The site is located in a
residential/commercial setting.
Site Hydrogeology
Depth to Water: 6 ft below land surface (bis)
Unconfmed Aquifer
Lithology:
Surface - 28 ft bis: very fine - fine-grained sand
28-34 ft bis: sandy clay
Hydraulic Gradient: 0.0036 ft/ft
Hydraulic Conductivity: 8.7 ft/day
Seepage Velocity: 0.1 ft/day
Groundwater Contamination
Contaminants Present: PCE, TCE, cis 1,2-DCE, trans 1,2-DCE, vinyl chloride, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, naphthalene
Highest Contaminant Concentrations: 17,000 (J.g/1 PCE, 830 (J.g/1 TCE, 120 (J.g/1 cis 1,2-DCE, 1170 (J.g/1 vinyl chloride
Deepest Groundwater Contamination: 27 ft bis
Contaminant Plume Size: delineation not yet completed
Remediation Scenario
Treatment Area: approximately 10 ft x 40 ft to a depth of 30 ft
Quantity/Concentration: 3 initial injection events of 5,000 gallons at a concentration of 7.7 g/L KMnO4 (Cams Free
Flowing grade) per injection event.
Injection: 9 well clusters with 5 1-inch diameter monitoring/injection wells screened at 5-10 ft, 10-15 ft, 15-20 ft, 20-25 ft,
and 25-30 ft depth intervals. Two clusters initially utilized as injection wells with other wells converted to injection wells
based upon KmnO4 and contaminant distribution. Periodic injections are ongoing.
Results
Post-pilot test monitoring indicates that, following initial injection of KMnO4, contaminant concentrations decreased in
areas of KMnO4 distribution. However, periodic monitoring indicates that rebound of elevated PCE concentrations is
occurring upon reduction of KMnO4 concentrations within the formation. Rebound of PCE concentrations is likely due to
the existence of residual DNAPL PCE that continues to act as an ongoing source of dissolved phase PCE contamination.
Costs
Approximately $230,000 for design and implementation of the pilot test system and approximately $30,000 per event for
quarterly monitoring and KMnO4 injection (not including reporting costs).
Lessons Learned
1. KMnO4 is effective for the oxidation of dissolved phase PCE contamination
2. Effective remediation of chlorinated solvent contamination using KMnO4 may be confounded by the presence of DNAPL
contamination due to mass transfer limitations of contaminant mass from the DNAPL to dissolved phase. Determination of
the presence of residual DNAPL PCE is integral to the successful application of in-situ chemical oxidation technologies.
106
-------
In Situ Chemical Oxidation at Butler Cleaners, Jacksonville, Florida^
Contacts
Florida Department of Environmental Protection: Douglas Fitton (850) 488-0190
LFR Levine-Fricke: Kevin Warner, P.E. (850) 422-2555
* This is the complete report provided by the State Coalition of Dry Cleaners (www.drycleancoalition.org) for this project.
A separate abstract for this project is not available.
107
-------
In Situ Chemical Oxidation Using Fenton's Reagent at Naval Air Station Pensacola,
Florida
Site Name:
Naval Air Station (NAS) Pensacola
Location:
Pensacola, FL
Period of Operation:
11/98 - 5/99 (for oxidation)
Cleanup Authority:
RCRA Corrective Action
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of Fenton's Reagent to remediate chlorinated solvents in groundwater
Cleanup Type:
Full Scale
Contaminants:
Chlorinated Solvents
Maximum concentrations - 3,600 ug/L for TCE, 520 ug/L for DCE, and 63
ug/L for VC
Waste Source:
Unlined sludge drying beds and surge
pond
Navy Contacts:
Maxie Keisler
SOUTHDIV
Phone: (843)820-7322
Fax: (843)820-7465
E-mail:
keislermr@efdsouth.navfac.navy.mil
Mike Maughon
SOUTHDIV
Phone: (843)820-7422
Fax: (843)820-7465
E-mail:
maughonml@efdsouth.navfac.navy.mi
1
Doug Zillmer
NFESC
Phone: (805)982-1556
Fax: (805)982-4304
E-mail: zillmerda@nfesc.navy.mil
Technology:
In situ Chemical Oxidation Using Fenton's Reagent
In situ chemical oxidation using Fenton's Reagent involved pressurized
injection of concentrated hydrogen peroxide and ferrous iron catalyst to
oxidize organic compounds in groundwater
A two-phase treatment was performed - in the first phase, 6 injectors were
installed in the former sludge drying bed from 11 - 31 ft bgs, and 8 injectors
were installed at 3 5 - 40 ft bgs down-gradient of the bed; a total of 4,089
gallons of 50% hydrogen peroxide and a similar volume of ferrous iron
catalyst were injected over 5 days in December 1998
In the second phase, 6,038 gallons of 50% hydrogen peroxide and a similar
volume of catalyst, along with phosphoric acid, were injected over 6 days in
May 1999
A pump and treat system had been ongoing at the site since February 1987; in
1995, a review of available data showed that contamination was limited to
around monitoring well GM-66, at an intermediate depth, and the number of
recovery wells was reduced from 7 to 3, focused in the area near GM-66; as
of 2000, the Florida DEP was allowing the pump and treat system to be
discontinued and a Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) remedy to be used
for the site
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
Geology characterized as relatively homogeneous fine to medium grained; a
clay layer is located at 40 - 60 ft bgs
Depth to groundwater is generally less than 5 ft, with a flow direction of
generally east
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Evaluate effectiveness of in situ chemical oxidation technology
No specific cleanup goals were identified
Results:
The groundwater monitoring network for the site consisted of 8 point-of-compliance wells, 10 assessment wells, and 1
background well
The results from the first phase of treatment showed that an 81% reduction in concentrations of chlorinated solvents was
achieved in GM-66, and that there was rebound in other wells
The results from the second phase of treatment showed reduction in concentrations of chlorinated solvents, including the
wells that had rebound after Phase 1, and that there had been substantial source reduction
108
-------
In Situ Chemical Oxidation Using Fenton's Reagent at Naval Air Station Pensacola,
Florida
Costs:
The cost for two phases of in situ chemical oxidation and subsequent MNA was $250,000 for treatment and $ 100,000
per year for monitoring; the total cost of this approach was projected as $750,000 over a five year period
The pump and treat system had a cost of $70,000 per year for operation and $ 100,000 per year for monitoring; the total
cost of the pump and treat remedy was projected to be $3.4 million over a 20 year period
The use of in situ chemical oxidation was projected to save several million dollars compared with the continued use of
pump and treat
Description:
Naval Air Station (NAS) Pensacola is a 5,800-acre naval facility located in the western portion of the Florida panhandle.
The former Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant (IWWTP) at the site treated wastewater from operations such as
painting and electroplating, as well as organic solvents and acids, and included an unlined sludge drying bed and surge
pond. In situ chemical oxidation using Fenton's Reagent was evaluated for its ability to reduce concentrations of
chlorinated solvents in the source area, such that natural attenuation would be an effective remedy for down-gradient
groundwater.
In situ oxidation was conducted in two phases, and included a total of 10,127 gallons of hydrogen peroxide and similar
volumes of reagents injected under pressure at a depth of 10-40 ft bgs. Over the two phases, the concentration of TCE was
reduced substantially. Elevated concentrations of ferrous iron in the groundwater limited the effectiveness of the first
phase of injections. In the second phase, phosphoric acid was added to the reagent mix to help stabilize the hydrogen
peroxide in the presence of elevated ferrous iron concentrations.
109
-------
In Situ Chemical Oxidation Using Fenton's Reagent at Naval Submarine Base
Kings Bay, Site 11, Camden County, Georgia
Site Name:
Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Site 1 1
Period of Operation:
February 1999 (for oxidation)
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of Fenton's Reagent to remediate chlorinated solvents in groundwater
Contaminants:
Chlorinated Solvents
Maximum concentrations - 8,500 ug/L for PCE, 550 ug/L for TCE, and 24
ug/Lforcis-l,2-DCE
Facility Contact:
Rhonda Bath
Installation Restoration Coordinator
NSB Kings Bay
Phone: (912) 673-2001 ext. 1217
Fax: (912)673-3639
E-mail: febath@subasekb.navy.mil
Navy Contacts:
Anthony Robinson, RPM
SOUTHDIV
Phone: (843)820-7339
Fax: (843)820-7465
E-mail:
robinsonab@efdsouth.navfac.navy.mil
Clifton C. Casey, P.E.
Technical Support Branch
SOUTHDIV
Phone: (843)820-5561
Fax: (843)820-7465
E-mail:
caseycc@efdsouth.navfac.navy.mil
Doug Zillmer
NFESC
Phone: (805)982-1556
Fax: (805)982-4304
E-mail: zillmerda@nfesc.navy.mil
Location:
Camden County, GA
Cleanup Authority:
RCRA Corrective Action
Cleanup Type:
Full Scale
Waste Source:
Leaks from a landfill
Technology:
In situ Chemical Oxidation Using Fenton's Reagent
In situ chemical oxidation using Fenton's Reagent involved pressurized
injection of concentrated hydrogen peroxide and ferrous iron catalyst to
oxidize organic compounds in groundwater
A two-phase treatment was performed using 23 injectors distributed in two
vertical levels; Phase 1 was in the central portion of the plume and Phase 2
was in down-gradient areas
A pump and treat system had been ongoing at the site since March 1994; as of
July 1998, five recovery wells were operating at a combined flow rate of 55
gpm and a UV light system was added to replace a diffused aeration tank for
treatment of extracted groundwater; the system was shut off in April 1999
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
Geology characterized as fine sands interbedded with silty and/or clayey fine
sands and some medium sands
Depth to groundwater is 6 ft, with a flow direction of generally northwest
An unconfmed surficial aquifer is approximately 90 ft thick, and has a
hydraulic conductivity of 30 ft/day
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
A cleanup objective for total VOCs in the source area was identified as 100 ug/L
Results:
The concentrations of total VOCs were reduced to below cleanup objectives in the central portion and down-gradient
areas of the plume after the two phases of treatment
An additional source of contamination was identified to the north of the treated area; a third phase of treatment using in
situ chemical oxidation was planned to address sources of contamination both up- and down-gradient from the previous
target areas
110
-------
In Situ Chemical Oxidation Using Fenton's Reagent at Naval Submarine Base
Kings Bay, Site 11, Camden County, Georgia
Costs:
The cost for the first two phases of in situ chemical oxidation and UV oxidation treatment was $ 1,050,000, including
$900,000 for implementation, $65,000 for operations and maintenance, $40,000 for monitoring, and $15,000 for
reporting
Phase 3 was estimated to cost $282,000
The pump and treat system had an initial capital cost of $ 1.5 million, with $400,000 expended each year for operations
and maintenance ($12 million total projected cost)
The use of in situ chemical oxidation was projected to save several million dollars compared with the continued use of
pump and treat
Description:
Naval Submarine Base (NSB) Kings Bay is a 16,000 acre facility in Camden County, GA. Site 11 is the location of a
former 25-acre landfill at NSB Kings Bay, known as the Old Camden County landfill, that was operated by the county
during the mid-1970s to 1980. A variety of wastes from the local Kings Bay community and the Navy were disposed of in
the landfill, including solvents and municipal waste. Site investigations found the groundwater in the area to be
contaminated with PCE, as well as TCE and DCE. In 1994, a groundwater pump and treat system began operation. This
system reduced concentrations of chlorinated solvents, however it was projected that it would require at least 50 years of
operation to meet cleanup goals. The Navy proposed use of in situ chemical oxidation using Fenton's Reagent to reduce
groundwater contaminant concentrations, followed by natural attenuation to address residual contamination.
The in situ oxidation remediation was performed in two phases, addressing the central portion and down-gradient areas of
the plume. The concentrations of total VOCs were reduced to below cleanup objectives in these two areas of the plume.
However, an additional source of contamination was identified to the north of the treated area, and a third phase of
treatment using in situ chemical oxidation was planned. The cost for the first two phases of treatment was $1,050,000,
with Phase 3 estimated to cost $282,000.
111
-------
In Situ Flushing at Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, Building 25, Camp Lejeune,
North Carolina*
Remediation Technology
Surfactant-Enhanced Aquifer Remediation (SEAR) with surfactant recycling and Partitioning Interwell Tracer Testing
(PITT) for technology evaluation and site characterization
Site Description
Active perchloroethylene (PCE) drycleaning facility that has been in operation since the 1940s. The drycleaner used
petroleum drycleaning solvent (Varsol) until the 1970s when it was replaced by PCE. The facility is located in the
industrial portion of the Base.
Site Hydrogeology
Depth to Water: 10 -16 ft below land surface (bis)
Upper Surficial Aquifer: 20-60 ft of very fine-grained quartz sand with lenses and discontinuous layers of clay, silt, and
peat.
Hydraulic Gradient: 0.02 ft/ft
Hydraulic Conductivity: 1.4 ft/day
Seepage Velocity: 0.14 ft/day
0-14 ft of clay
Lower Surficial Aquifer: 0-30 ft of fine-grained quartz sand with varying amounts of silt. When clay layer is absent, Upper
and Lower Surficial Aquifer are hydraulically one unit.
Hydraulic Gradient: 0.003 ft/ft
Hydraulic Conductivity: 65 ft/day
Seepage Velocity: 1 ft/day
Upper Castle Hayne Aquifer: Greater than 50 ft of fine-grained quartz sand and silt with shell fragments. This is a
drinking-water aquifer for the Base with most production from limestone beds not intersected by the monitoring wells at
the site.
Hydraulic Gradient: 0.0005 ft/ft
Hydraulic Conductivity: 5.1 ft/day
Seepage Velocity: 0.013 ft/day
Groundwater Contamination
Contaminants Present: PCE, TCE, cis 1,2-DCE, trans 1,2-DCE, vinyl chloride, Varsol
Highest Contaminant Concentrations: 170,000 (J.g/1 PCE (presence of free-phase DNAPL), 3,030 (J.g/1 TCE, 3,725 (J.g/1 cis
1,2-DCE, 38 (J.g/1 trans 1,2-DCE, 4 (J.g/1 vinyl chloride, 7,100 (J.g/1 Varsol
Deepest Contamination: 85 ft bis
Plume Size: 1,500 ft long by up to 500 ft wide (as defined by North Carolina groundwater standards)
Remediation Scenario
Treatment Area: 20 ft x 30 ft to a maximum depth of 20 ft
Quantity Injected: SEAR - 9,718 Ib. Custom surfactant (Alfoterra 145-4-PO sulfate), 38,637 Ib isopropanol and 427 Ib
calcium chloride. 19% (1,800 Ib) of the total surfactant injected was recycled.
PITT: 4,800 and 4,200 gal. Water containing partition tracers (alcohols) were injected into the well field before and after
the SEAR, respectively. Tracer tests required about 40 days each.
Results
% Mass Reduction: DNAPL - 72% (74 to 88 gal DNAPL removed from test zone. 23 to 29 gal remain.
Tracer Test Results: Pre-SEAR PITT did not sweep low permeability zone. Therefore, percent DNAPL removed (above)
represents DNAPL removed from permeable zones only. Post-SEAR PITT unusable.
112
-------
In Situ Flushing at Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, Building 25, Camp Lejeune,
North Carolina*
Costs
Unknown: Several crews onsite from March 15 to August 15, 1999. High-cost surfactant used. Technologies require a
large number of sample analyses, laboratory bench test, and considerable computer simulation.
Lessons Learned
1. SEAR and PITT technologies are ineffective for sediments with permeability of less than 1.4 ft/day.
2. At this test, permeability reduction associated with a downward-fining depositional sequence kept the tracer and surfactants
from reaching all of the DNAPL. The nature and impact of geologic contacts and/or transition zones needs to be evaluated
before selecting technology.
3. An estimated 92 to 96% of the DNAPL swept by the surfactant flood was removed; however, the surfactant flood did not
sweep a significant portion of the DNAPL.
4. There is no evidence of aquifer plugging as a result of surfactant injection.
5. Surfactant apparently biodegraded during the SEAR. Biodegradation was a result of the aquifer conditions (sulfate
reducing) and the time required moving surfactant through low permeability sediments. The impact of surfactant
biodegradation should be considered before applying these technologies.
6. The results of the post-SEAR PITT test were unusable apparently because surfactant degradation products sorbed on the
sediment, then reacted with the tracer during the PITT.
7. The SEAR did not reduce Varsol contamination. Underground Injection Control regulators were told that there would
be a 90% overall reduction in Varsol. This requirement was necessary for regulatory approval of recycled surfactant
re-injection.
8. Detailed borehole data (geotechnical and geologic) are needed to evaluate technologies that rely on aquifer parameters to
be effective. Relying on pump and/or tracer tests without an adequate geologic model can lead to erroneous
interpretations.
9. Expensive, custom-made surfactant was selected to test recycling. New surfactant had to be mixed with recycled surfactant
before it could be injected. The cost-effectiveness of using recycled surfactant was not shown.
Contacts
North Carolina Division of Waste Management: Dave Lown (919) 733-2801
Camp Lejeune Installation Restoration Program: Rick Raines (910) 451-9461
* This is the complete report provided by the State Coalition of Dry Cleaners (www.drycleancoalition.org) for this project.
A separate abstract for this project is not available.
113
-------
Mobilization, Extraction, and Removal of Radionuclides at the Fernald
Environmental Management Project, Cincinnati, Ohio
Site Name:
Fernald Environmental Management Project (FEMP)
Location:
Cincinnati, Ohio
Period of Operation:
September 1998 to September 1999
Cleanup Authority:
Not identified
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Field demonstration of in situ flushing as an enhancement to pump and treat
technology
Cleanup Type:
Field demonstration
Contaminants:
Heavy Metals
Uranium concentrations as high as 490 ug/L
Waste Source:
Nuclear weapons production
operations
Technical Contacts:
Rob Janke
DOE-FEMP
(513)648-3124
Dave Brettschneider
Fluor Fernald
(513)648-5814
Terrall Putnam
Fluor Fernald
(513)648-6363
Terrall.Putnam@fernald.gov
Management Contact:
Lynton Yarbrough
SCFA Manager
DOE Albuquerque
(505) 845-5520
Technology:
In Situ Flushing
Referred to as Mobilization, Extraction, and Removal of Radionuclides
(MERR) technology
The demonstration used 15 extraction wells and 5 injection wells
Groundwater was extracted, treated above-ground to remove uranium
(treatment not identified), and re-injected at a rate of 1,000 gpm (5 wells at
200 gals/well)
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
The Greater Miami Aquifer is an unconfined, anisotopic, heterogeneous
buried valley sand-and-gravel aquifer, ranging up to 200 ft in thickness near
the FEMP
A thin veneer of younger glacial-till deposits (mostly clay) overlay the sand
and gravel unit, which in turn overlays bedrock
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Ohio's re-injection guidelines were used as a design criterion for the re-injection system, with re-injected groundwater
required to meet a final remediation level (FRL) of 20 ug/L of total uranium
The overall goal of the demonstration was to assess the performance and cost of a re-injection system as an
enhancement to the existing pump and treat system
In addition, the demonstration was used to determine if the re-injection system would maintain capture of the 20 ug/L
uranium plume
Results:
Approximately 455 million gallons of treated groundwater were re-injected
The uranium plume (at 20 ug/L) was contained (horizontal and vertical migration)
The system flushed contamination south of the injection wells, but not between the injection wells
Costs:
Information was not provided about the cost of the demonstration
Use of re-injection was predicted by DOE to save $ 14.3 million and reduce the remediation by seven years, compared
with continued use of pump and treat
114
-------
Mobilization, Extraction, and Removal of Radionuclides at the Fernald
Environmental Management Project, Cincinnati, Ohio
Description:
The Fernald Environmental Management Project (FEMP) has been used for nuclear weapons production. Approximately
220 acres of the Great Miami Aquifer at this site are contaminated with uranium at concentrations greater than 20 ug/L. A
Record of Decision (ROD) for O.U. 5 required use of pump and treat for aquifer remediation. Modeling results showed
that a pump and treat remedy would take approximately 27 years to restore the aquifer. As a possible enhancement to the
pump and treat system, an in situ groundwater flushing system was tested, referred to as the Mobilization, Extraction, and
Removal of Radionuclides (MERR) system.
The MERR system was operated for one year along the southern property boundary, using 15 extraction and 5 injection
wells. After removing uranium above-ground, the system re-injected 1,000 gpm of treated groundwater. Results from the
demonstration showed that the system flushed contaminants from south of the injection wells, but not between the wells,
that capture of the uranium plume was maintained, and that the plume was not pushed into deeper regions of the aquifer.
DOE predicted that by re-injection $14.3 million would be saved and the time for remediation would be reduced by seven
years, compared with continued use of pump and treat.
115
-------
In Situ Flushing at Former Sages Dry Cleaners, Jacksonville, Florida*
Remediation Technology
Ethanol Co-Solvent Flushing
Site Description
This is an inactive drycleaning facility that used PCE and operated intermittently from 1968 to 1989. From 1953 to the
mid to late 1960s, the site was occupied by a service station. The site is located in a mixed commercial/residential setting.
Site Hydrogeology
Depth to Water: 8 ft below land surface (bis)
Unconfined Aquifer
Surface - 60 ft bis: silty fine to very fine-grained predominantly quartz sand, thin discontinuous clay present at ~ 35 ft
bis
Hydraulic Gradient: 0.002 ft/ft
Hydraulic Conductivity: 10.35 ft/day
Seepage Velocity: 0.023 ft/day
60 -119 ft bis: clay and sandy, silty clay
119-152 ft bis: clayey silt
Groundwater Contamination
Contaminants Present: PCE, TCE, cis 1,2-DCE, trans 1,2-DCE
Highest Contaminant Concentrations: free-phase PCE was recovered from a monitor well, 34,000 |J.g/l TCE, 19,000 cis
1,2-DCE, 400 (J.g/1 trans 1,2-DCE
Deepest Contamination: 92 ft bis
Plume Size: 0.35 acre (as defined to regulatory MCLs)
Remediation Scenario
Treatment Area: 24 ft x 9 ft elliptical DNAPL source area with a targeted depth interval of 26 - 31 ft bis, maximum depth
of pilot test was 35 ft bis
Quantity: 9,000 gal of 95% ethanol and 5% water co-solvent
Injection: 3 injection wells surrounded by 6 extraction wells with 7 multi-level samplers located between injection and
extraction wells; co-solvent injection rate of 4 gallons per minute (gpm), extraction rate of 8 gpm over four days; ternary
mixture of PCE/ethanoI/water treated with Akzo Nobel Macro Porous Polymer (MPP) system for removal of PCE;
approximately 160,000 gal of ethanol/water mixture disposed of offsite.
Results
Demonstrated successful enhancement of dissolution and solubilization of DNAPL PCE. Recovered approximately 42
liters of DNAPL PCE representing approximately 63% of the estimated DNAPL PCE mass located within the source area.
Costs
Approximately $440,000 including design, construction and operation.
Lessons Learned
1. Efficiency of the co-solvent flushing could be optimized through detailed tracer test evaluation and appropriate adjustments
to the injection/extraction system.
2. Cost savings could be realized through alcohol re-use by limiting the total amount of alcohol necessary to complete
flushing activities and decreasing disposal costs for wastewater with high alcohol concentration.
3. Residual ethanol remaining after co-solvent flushing has significantly enhanced in-situ biological dechlorination processes
for natural attenuation of contaminant mass.
Cosolvent Flushing Pilot Test Report: Former Sages Dry Cleaner
116
-------
In Situ Flushing at Former Sages Dry Cleaners, Jacksonville, Florida^
Contacts
Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection - Doug Fitton (850) 488-0190
LFR Levine-Fricke: Kevin Warner, P.E., (850) 422-2555
* This is the complete report provided by the State Coalition of Dry Cleaners (www.drycleancoalition.org) for this project.
A separate abstract for this project is not available.
117
-------
Monitored Natural Attenuation at the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant, Area P,
Minden, Louisiana
Site Name:
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant, Area P
Location:
Minden, Louisiana
Period of Operation:
Two years (dates not provided)
Cleanup Authority:
Not provided
EPA Contact:
Caroline Ziegler
U.S. EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Ave, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
(214) 665-2178
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Field demonstration of MNA for remediation of explosives
Cleanup Type:
Field demonstration
Contaminants:
Explosives
TNT and RDX (groundwater concentrations as high as 24,000 ug/L)
Waste Source:
Loading, assembling, and packing of
munitions
Principal Investigator:
Dr. Judith C. Pennington
U.S. Army Engr. Waterways Expt.
Station
3 909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
(601) 634-2802
penninj@exl.wes.army.mil
Site Contact:
Doyle Williams
Environmental Officer
LAAP
HwySO
Minden, LA 71055
(318)459-5108
Technology:
Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)
Monitoring was conducted using monitoring wells (11 wells in which most
analytes were consistently detected) and cone penetrometry (51 penetrations
to 40 meters)
Monitoring well samples were collected using a micropurge sampling
technique
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
Geology is a complex stratigraphy of Pleistocene, terraced fluvial deposits
unconformably overlying Eocene, nonmarine, massive sands, silty sands, silty
clays, and occasional lignitic beds
Site has clay lenses and silts, low porosity, and low organic carbon
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The objectives of the demonstration were to: (1) demonstrate that attenuation of explosives can be determined through
appropriate site monitoring, (2) develop guidance for selection of MNA as a remedial alternative, (3) develop guidance
for establishing a site monitoring plan and points of compliance, and (4) gain regulatory acceptance for use of MNA as
an alternative for remediation of explosives
Performance criteria included comparing actual concentrations of TNT and RDX in groundwater to the predicted
concentrations based on site geology and hydrology; and observing transformation/degradation products of TNT and
RDX
Results:
Significant declines in contaminant concentrations were observed in 9 of the 11 monitoring wells over a two year period
Contaminant mass was reduced from 52 to 50 metric tons for TNT, and from 78 to 68 metric tons for RDX
Costs:
Overall cost of the demonstration was approximately $4,000,000, including costs for site characterization ($2,500,000),
site monitoring, modeling, and development of biomarker techniques
Costs for use of MNA in a full-scale application were projected to be 25% less than the costs for in situ bioremediation,
and 50% less than the cost for pump and treat using activated carbon adsorption
118
-------
Monitored Natural Attenuation at the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant, Area P,
Minden, Louisiana
Description:
The Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant, Area P (LAAP), in northwest Louisiana, was used for loading, assembling, and
packing of munitions. Wastes from this site had been disposed of in 16 unlined lagoons. In the late 1980s, the lagoons
had been pumped out and the sediment excavated and incinerated, and the area was capped with clay and topsoil. Site
investigations revealed the presence of TNT and RDX in the groundwater at the site.
This site was selected for a field demonstration of MNA because the source of contamination had been removed, a large
amount of groundwater monitoring data was available, and there were 50 monitoring wells in place. Two years of site
monitoring showed that natural attenuation is occurring at LAAP, with decreases in contaminant concentrations and mass.
Site capacity and biomarker techniques also contributed to the weight of evidence by estimating process rates. Numerical
models predict significant continuing reductions in contaminant masses of TNT and RDX over a 20-year period. The
overall cost of the demonstration was approximately $4,000,000, including costs for site characterization, site monitoring,
modeling, and development of biomarker techniques.
119
-------
Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents at Multiple Air Force Sites
Site Name:
Multiple Air Force Sites (14 total; refer to case study for names and locations of
each site)
Location:
Multiple locations throughout U.S.
Period of Operation:
Field demonstrations conducted between July 1993 and August 1999
Periods of operation were not provided for each site
Cleanup Authority:
Not provided
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Field demonstrations of monitored natural attenuation for chlorinated solvents in
groundwater at multiple Air Force sites
Cleanup Type:
Field Demonstration
Contaminants:
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, including TCE, cis- and trans-l,2-DCE,
1,1-DCE, andVC
TCE was the most pervasive contaminant, followed by cis-l,2-DCE - found at
13 of 14 sites
Waste Source:
Not provided
Technical Contact:
Parsons Engineering Science, Inc.
1700 Broadway, Suite 900
Denver, CO 80290
Management Contact:
Jeff Cornell
Air Force Center for Environmental
Excellence
Technology Transfer Division
Brooks AFB, TX 78235
E-mail:
jeff.cornell@hqafcee.brooks.af.mil
Technology:
Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)
During the demonstrations, groundwater was sampled for contaminant
concentrations, and other parameters including pH, temperature, conductivity,
oxidation/reduction potential, dissolved oxygen, nitrate, nitrite, sulfate,
sulfide, ferrous iron, total iron, and dissolved hydrogen; geochemical trends
and biodegradation rates also were evaluated
Four types of plume behavior were studies - Type 1 (anaerobic groundwater
conditions with anthropogenic carbon); Type 2 (anaerobic groundwater
conditions with native carbon); Type 3 (aerobic groundwater conditions with
anthropogenic and/or native carbon); and mixed (different portions of the
groundwater plume exhibiting different types of behavior)
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
Depths to groundwater ranged from 0 to 60 ft bgs
Plume areas ranged from 1.6 to 210 acres
Average groundwater temperatures ranged from 9.1 to 25.6 oC
Aquifer matrices ranged from clays to coarse sand and gravel
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Goals of the demonstration included evaluating the potential for chlorinated solvents to be naturally attenuated, the type
of attenuation processes taking place, and the effect on plume size
Results:
Chlorinated solvents were undergoing natural attenuation at all 14 Air Force sites
The degree and rate of intrinsic bioremediation was highly site-specific, and depended on the bio- and geo-chemistries
of groundwater at the sites
11 of the sites exhibited mixed behavior, with nine exhibiting Type 1 coupled with either Type 2 or Type 3, and two
sites exhibiting Type 2 behavior coupled with Type 3. Three of the sites exhibited primarily Type 1 behavior.
With respect to plume size, three sites had expanding plumes, six sites had plumes that were either stable or expanding
slowly, and five sites had plumes that were either stable or receding
Costs:
The average cost per site in this demonstration for completing supplemental site characterization using existing
monitoring wells and a Geoprobeฎ, laboratory and data analysis, fate and transport modeling, and reporting was
$122,000
A recommended long-term monitoring program for MNA, including an average network of 17 wells and 3 surface water
stations, has a projected average annual monitoring cost of $22,800
120
-------
Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents at Multiple Air Force Sites
Description:
In June 1993, the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE), in cooperation with EPA/ORD, began an
initiative to evaluate the effectiveness of MNA for remediation of groundwater contaminated with chlorinated solvents
(also, refer to separate report about use of MNA for groundwater contaminated with fuel hydrocarbons). From 1993 to
1999, field demonstrations of MNA were conducted at 14 Air Force sites throughout the country. This included installing
additional sampling points at the sites and collecting and evaluating data over a period of time.
The sites were evaluated for evidence that chlorinated solvents were being naturally attenuated, and to identify the degree
and rate of attenuation. Data showed that chlorinated solvents were undergoing natural attenuation at all 14 Air Force
sites, and that the degree and rate of intrinsic bioremediation was highly site-specific, and depended on the bio- and
geo-chemistries of groundwater at the sites. The effect on plume size varied, with the plume expanding at three sites,
remaining stable or expanding slowly at six sites, and remaining stable or receding at five sites. The study concluded that
use of MNA for remediation of chlorinated solvents is highly site-specific, and that quantifying intrinsic bioremediation is
difficult. The study states that engineered alternatives, such as source reduction, also should be evaluated to determine
how they would limit plume migration and/or accelerate attainment of target cleanup levels.
121
-------
Natural Attenuation of Fuel Hydrocarbons at Multiple Air Force Sites
Site Name:
Multiple Air Force Sites (42 total; refer to case study for names and locations of
each site)
Location:
Multiple locations throughout U.S.
Period of Operation:
Field demonstrations conducted between July 1993 and December 1998
Periods of operation were not provided for each site
Cleanup Authority:
Not provided
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Field demonstrations of monitored natural attenuation for fuel hydrocarbons in
groundwater at multiple Air Force sites
Cleanup Type:
Field Demonstration
Contaminants:
BTEX, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)
BTEX concentrations were measured as high as 46,300 ug/L (benzene),
57,000 ug/L (toluene), 4,410 ug/L (ethylbenzene), and 68,000 ug/L (xylenes)
TPH concentrations were measured as high as 120,000 mg/L
Waste Source:
Not provided
Technical Contact:
Parsons Engineering Science, Inc.
1700 Broadway, Suite 900
Denver, CO 80290
Management Contact:
Jeff Cornell
Air Force Center for Environmental
Excellence
Technology Transfer Division
Brooks AFB, TX 78235
E-mail:
jeff.cornell@hqafcee.brooks.af.mil
Technology:
Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)
Intrinsic bioremediation including sulfate reduction, methanogenesis,
denitrification, and aerobic oxidation
During the demonstrations, groundwater was sampled for contaminant
concentrations, and other parameters including pH, temperature, conductivity,
oxidation/reduction potential, dissolved oxygen, nitrate, nitrite, sulfate,
sulfide, ferrous iron, total iron, methane, carbon dioxide, and alkalinity;
geochemical trends and biodegradation rates also were evaluated
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
Depths to groundwater ranged from 0 to 48 ft bgs
Plume areas ranged from 0.3 to 60 acres
Average groundwater temperatures ranged from 5.5 to 26.9 oC
Aquifer matrices ranged from silty clays to coarse sand and gravel
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Goals of the demonstration included evaluating the potential for fuel hydrocarbons to be naturally attenuated, the type of
biodegradation processes taking place, and the effect on plume size
Results:
Fuel hydrocarbons were undergoing natural attenuation at all 42 Air Force sites
Key biodegradation processes were identified, in decreasing order of assimilative capacity, as sulfate reduction,
methanogenesis, iron reduction, denitrification, and aerobic oxidation; the total BTEX assimilative capacity of
groundwater averaged 64 mg/L
With respect to plume size, 35 sites had plumes that appeared to be stable, 6 sites had plumes that were receding, and 1
site had a plume that was expanding
For sites with measurable free-phase product, the average predicted time frame for dissolved BTEX to naturally
attenuate to below cleanup standards was estimated at approximately 30 years; the addition of engineered source
reduction reduced the estimate to 20 years or less, depending on type of source reduction used
Regulatory authorities have approved the partial or full use of MNA with institutional controls at 17 of the 42 sites
Costs:
The average cost per site in this demonstration for completing site characterization using existing monitoring wells and a
Geoprobeฎ, laboratory and data analysis, fate and transport modeling, and reporting was $125,000
A recommended long-term monitoring program for MNA, including an average network of 11 wells, has a projected
average annual cost of $192,000
122
-------
Natural Attenuation of Fuel Hydrocarbons at Multiple Air Force Sites
Description:
In June 1993, the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE), in cooperation with EPA/ORD, began an
initiative to evaluate the effectiveness of MNA for remediation of groundwater contaminated with fuel hydrocarbons (also,
refer to separate report about use of MNA for groundwater contaminated with chlorinated solvents). From 1993 to 1998,
field demonstrations of MNA were conducted at 42 Air Force sites throughout the country. This included installing
additional sampling points at the sites and collecting and evaluating data over a period of time.
The sites were evaluated for evidence that fuel hydrocarbons were being naturally attenuated, and to identify the degree
and rate of attenuation. Data showed that fuel hydrocarbons were undergoing natural attenuation at all 42 Air Force sites,
and that the degree and rate of intrinsic bioremediation was site-specific, involving processes such as sulfate reduction,
methanogenesis, iron reduction, denitrification, and aerobic oxidation. The effect on plume size varied, with the plume
stable at 35 sites, receding at 6 sites, and expanding at one site. For sites with measurable free-phase product, the average
predicted time frame for dissolved BTEX to naturally attenuate to below cleanup standards was estimated at approximately
30 years; the addition of engineered source reduction reduced the estimate to 20 years or less, depending on type of source
reduction used.
123
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction and Groundwater Extraction Used at Eight Service Stations
in Maryland
Site Name:
Multiple Retail Service Stations (site names confidential)
Location:
Maryland (specific locations not
provided)
Period of Operation:
1990 - 1997; specific period of operation varies by site
Cleanup Authority:
Not identified
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of Soil Vapor Extraction and Groundwater Extraction to treat soil and
groundwater contaminated with MTBE and BTEX
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
MTBE, BTEX
Average MTBE concentration -6,139 ug/L
Average BTEX concentration - 5,511 ug/L
Waste Source:
Leaks from gasoline storage tanks
Site Contact:
Tom Peargin
Chevron Research and Technology
Company
100 Chevron Way
Richmond, CA 94802-0627
Telephone: (510)242-5927
Fax: (510)242-1380
E-mail: TRPE@chevron.com
Technology:
Soil Vapor Extraction and Groundwater Extraction (VE/GE)
Remediation systems combined vapor extraction and groundwater extraction
to treat smear-zone soils through dewatering and volatilization of
contaminants
SVE systems - number of vacuum extraction wells ranged from four to 17 at
each site, with mean vacuums ranging from 22 to 41 inches of water, and air
flow rates ranging from 4.6 to 18.5 scfm
Groundwater extraction systems - number of groundwater extraction wells
ranged from two to eight at each site, with the average pumping rate ranging
from 0.11 to 0.67 gallons per minute
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil and Groundwater
Four of the sites are located in the Coastal Plain Province and are
characterized by alluvial sands, silts, and clay
Four sites are located in the Piedmont Province and are characterized by
saprolites (weathered bedrock) of schist and gneiss
Hydraulic conductivities ranged from 3.4x 10"3 cm/sec to 7. Ix 10"5 cm/sec.
Pre-remediation depth to groundwater was <10 ft at one site, between 5-15 ft
at a second site, and greater than 20 ft for the other 6 sites; water table varies
from 2 to 13ft
Smear zone (located within or below the capillary fringe) is submerged most
of the year; falling water table conditions (late summer and early fall) may
increase NAPL saturation at the capillary fringe as a result of drainage from
the newly formed vadose zone (lateral migration of NAPL)
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
According to Chevron, the objective of the VE/GE systems was smear-zone dewatering and remediation through
volatilization. No specific cleanup goals were established for any of the sites.
Results:
Average MTBE concentrations were reduced from 6,139 ug/L to 791 ug/L; BTEX from 5,511 ug/L to 1,088 ug/L; and
xylene from 8,539 ug/L to 2,859 ug/L
VE system removed approximately 1,300 kg to 95,000 kg of contaminants per site; GE system removed approximately
12 kg to 3,200 kg of contaminants per site
For those sites where system shutdown had occurred, the average post-reduction rebound was -2.87% for MTBE, -
9.12% for benzene, and 22.63% for xylene; while there was variation in rebound by individual wells at each site and
among sites, on average, MTBE and BTEX concentrations did not generally rebound at sites after shutdown, while on
average, there was rebound in xylene concentrations.
124
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction and Groundwater Extraction Used at Eight Service Stations
in Maryland
Costs:
No cost data were provided for these sites
Description:
At eight retail service stations in Maryland, Chevron Research and Technology Company used soil vapor extraction and
groundwater extraction (VE/GE) to treat soil and groundwater contaminated with both MTBE and BTEX. A gasoline
release had occurred at each site and had migrated to the water table and formed a smear zone (a volume of soil in the
saturated aquifer that contains residual NAPL). The remediation systems combined vapor extraction and groundwater
extraction to treat smear-zone soils through dewatering and volatilization of contaminants. The vacuum extraction systems
at each site included vacuum extraction wells (ranging from 4 to 17 wells per site), one to two regenerative vacuum
blowers used to generate an average air flow rate ranging from 4.6 to 18.5 scfm and a mean system vacuum ranging from
22 to 41 inches of water. The groundwater extraction system at each site included extraction wells (ranging from 2 to 8
wells per site) equipped with pneumatic total fluids pumps. The average pumping rate (water yield) ranged from 0.11 gpm
to 0.67 gpm. The sites had an average remediation period of 3.2 years and an average monitoring period of 4.7 years.
The VE and GE systems removed between 1,330 and 95,000 kg and 12 to 3,200 kg of contaminants per site, respectively.
Average contaminant concentrations at the sites were reduced to 791 ug/L for MTBE, 1,088 ug/L for BTEX, and 2,859
ug/L for xylene. For sites where the system had been shutdown, MTBE and BTEX concentrations did not generally
rebound, whereas rebound was observed for xylene. According to the researchers, MTBE removal rates were found to be
similar to those for BTEX, which was inconsistent with their assumptions of local chemical equilibrium for NAPL-liquid
and NAPL-vapor partitioning. The researchers predicted removal rates for MTBE, based on several assumptions about
local chemical equilibrium, were four times faster than benzene and 60 times faster than xylene. According to the
researchers, while the reasons for this discrepancy were not known, it is likely that conventional groundwater remediation
technologies will encounter similar mass removal limitations for MTBE and BTEX in all but ideal hydrogeologic settings.
125
-------
Multi-Phase Extraction at Johanssen Cleaners, Lebanon, Oregon*
Remediation Technology
Multiphase Extraction
Site Description
Johannsen Cleaners began operations in 1955. In 1990, PCE contamination was discovered in an irrigation well in the
area. Additional sampling over the next few years found PCE contamination in a number of private and domestic wells.
From 1993-1995 work at the site indicated soil and groundwater contaminated with PCE.
In late 1998, high levels of PCE soil contamination (to 68 mg/kg) were detected at the rear of the building and beneath the
building along the sewer lines. In June 1999, approximately 37 tons of contaminated soil was removed and transported to a
hazardous waste landfill. Excavation was to a depth of approximately three feet below the ground surface; a deeper
excavation was not possible due to the proximity of the dry cleaner building and several power poles in the vicinity.
Confirmation samples collected from the bottom of the excavation indicate that remaining soil concentrations range to 35
mg/kg in the center of the excavation.
Site Hydrogeology
Alluvium containing gravel and sand with varying amounts of silt and clay.
Vertical gradients in the area appear to be consistently downward. The average gradient between the shallow and deep
aquifers in well clusters is about 20 times greater than the horizontal gradient in either aquifer.
Depth to Water: 10-15 feet
Upper Surficial Aquifer: 20-40 feet of silty sand
Hydraulic Gradient: 0.001 ft./ft.
Hydraulic Conductivity: ft/day
Seepage Velocity: ft./day.
Lower Regional Drinking Water Aquifer: n/a
Hydraulic Gradient: n/a
Hydraulic Conductivity: n/a
Seepage Velocity: n/a
Groundwater Contamination
Contaminants Present: PCE, trichloroethene (TCE), cis 1,2-dichloroethene (cis- DCE), and vinyl chloride (VC)
Highest Contaminant Concentrations: 3,400 mg/1 PCE, 42 mg/1 TCE, 41 mg/1 cis 1,2-DCE and VC 2.7 ug/1.
Deepest Contamination: -120 feet below ground surface (bgs.) in deeper drinking water aquifer. Full characterization not
yet available.
Remediation Scenario
System consists of two horizontal headers with vertical wells to the groundwater table. System removes soil vapor and
groundwater from beneath the building slab. Soil vapor and groundwater are treated via air stripping and/or direct
discharge to the atmosphere.
Results
Discharge Vapor: 14,000-180,000 ug/m3
Discharge water: -1,000 ug/1
Costs
Overall Project - $ 230,000
System design - $ 15-25,000
Build/install - $45-60,000
126
-------
Multi-Phase Extraction at Johanssen Cleaners, Lebanon, Oregon*
Lessons Learned
1. Sewer discharge pipe ruptured. Need for upgrade/construction not realized.
2. Piping runs beneath flooring provided ideal access points to measure vacuum effect of treatment system.
3. 20/20 hindsight. Based on other sites, money may have been better spent on alternative cleanup/remediation (e.g., HRC,
bioremediation) rather than active treatment. However, at the time, HRC was not recommended in a DNAPL zone (1%
rule of thumb) and other delivery methods proved problematic.
Contacts
David Anderson
Oregon DEQ
811 SW6th
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 229-5428
anderson.david@deq.state.or.us
* This is the complete report provided by the State Coalition of Dry Cleaners (www.drycleancoalition.org) for this project.
A separate abstract for this project is not available.
127
-------
Multi-Phase Extraction Using Fluidized Bed Reactor and Granular Activated
Carbon at the Sparks Solvent/Fuel Superfund Site
Site Name:
Sparks Solvent/Fuel Superfund Site
Period of Operation:
1995 to present (performance data available through August 1997)
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of multiphase extraction using fluidized bed reactor and granular activated
carbon to treat MTBE in groundwater
Contaminants:
MTBE, BTEX, PCE, TCE
MTBE concentrations as high as 600 ug/L
BTEX concentrations as high as 1,272 ug/L
PCE concentrations as high as 7.6 ug/L
TCE concentrations as high as 42 ug/L
State Contact:
Eric Noack
Nevada Division of Environmental
Protection
333 West Nye Lane
Carson City, NV 89706-0851
Telephone: (775) 687-4676 x3032
Fax: (775)687-6396
E-mail: enoack@ndep.carson-
city.nv.us
Vendor:
US Filter, Envirex Products
Bob Hines
1901 S. Prairie Avenue
Waukesha, WI 53189-7374
Telephone: (414) 521-8278
Fax: (414)547-4120
E-mail: hinesb@usfilter.com
Contractor:
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
Dirk Cochrum
1331 17th Street, Suite 1200
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 298-1311 ext. 479
Fax: (303)293-8236
E-mail: cochrumdk@cdm.com
Location:
Sparks, Nevada
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Waste Source:
Leaks from bulk petroleum and
gasoline storage tanks
Technology:
Multi-Phase Extraction (MPE) using Fluidized Bed Reactor (FBR) and Granular
Activated Carbon (GAC)
Groundwater extraction system includes 29 multi-phase wells; extracted
groundwater directed to a product/water separator; free product is recovered;
separated water is sent to the FBR system
FBR system includes two U.S. Filter/Envirex GAC FBR reactors operated in
parallel; total design flow is 550 gpm
Influent water enters the bottom of the reactor tank and flows upward through
the GAC/biofilm substrate where organic compounds are absorbed and
degraded
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Not provided
128
-------
Multi-Phase Extraction Using Fluidized Bed Reactor and Granular Activated
Carbon at the Sparks Solvent/Fuel Superfund Site
Results:
At the early portion of system operation, MTBE removal efficiencies were greater than 90%. After six weeks of
operation, removal efficiencies fell to 10%
To accelerate MTBE degradation, 20 gallons of a GAC inoculum were added to one of the reactors (FBR1) in April
1996; the removal efficiency initially increased to about 40% and continued to increase to over the next five months to
about 75%
For the reactor that did not receive the inoculum, the removal efficiency continued to remain low for another month,
then began increasing to similar levels as the reactor that had received the inoculum
As of August 1997 (650 days of operation), the removal efficiency for MTBE was about 90%, and MTBE
concentrations were below 10 ug/L in the effluent from the FBR system.
Data for BTEX, TPH, and chlorinated solvents was provided for the first year of operatioa The removal rate was
>99% for BTEX, 78% for TPH, and about 50% for both PCE and TCE
Costs:
No cost data were provided for this application.
Description:
The Sparks Solvent/Fuel Site is an industrial area in Sparks, Nevada, which contains a rail yard, a bulk petroleum storage
facility, and warehouses. The site is located near the Truckee River, which supplies the majority of the drinking water to
the Reno-Sparks metropolitan area. In 1987, a contaminant plume consisting of petroleum hydrocarbons, MTBE, and
chlorinated solvents (PCE and TCE) was identified as originating beneath the site, and extending more than one mile from
the site. MTBE had been used as an additive to gasoline stored at the site. EPA, in conjunction with the Nevada Division
of Environmental Protection, issued an administrative order requiring cleanup of the site.
In 1995, a groundwater extraction and treatment system was installed at the site. The system began operating in late
October 1995 and operations were ongoing at the time of this report. The groundwater extraction system includes multi-
phase extraction wells designed to provide source control and hydraulic containment. Extracted groundwater is treated
using granulated activated carbon (GAC) and fluidized bed bioreactors (FBRs) to aerobically treat MTBE and other
petroleum contaminants as well as chlorinated aliphatic solvents. MTBE data, available through August 1997, show
MTBE concentrations were below 10 ug/L in the effluent from the FBR system, with a removal rate of 90%. Data for other
contaminants, available for the first year of operation, show a removal rate for BTEX of >99%, TPH of 78%, PCE of 50%,
and TCE of 50%.
129
-------
Permeable Reactive Barrier at Monticello Mill Tailings Site, Monticello, Utah
Site Name: Location:
Monticello Mill Tailings Site Monticello, UT
Period of Operation: Cleanup Authority:
June 1999 CERCLA
Purpose/Significance of Application: Cleanup Type:
Demonstration of permeable reactive barrier to treat heavy metals in Field Demonstration
groundwater
Contaminants: Waste Source:
Heavy Metals Milling activities
Average concentrations in late 1999 were uranium (700 ug/L), vanadium (400
ug/L), selenium (40 ug/L), and arsenic (10 ug/L)
Technical Contacts:
Stanley Morrison, Ph.D.
Principal Geochemist
MACTEC Environmental Restoration
Services, Inc.
Phone: (970)248-6373
Clay Carpenter
Project Manager
MACTEC Environmental Restoration
Services, Inc.
Phone: (970)248-6588
Management Contacts:
Donald Metzler
DOEGJ
Phone: (970)248-7612
Lynton Yarbrough
DOE SCFA
Phone: (505)845-5520
James Wright
DOE SCFA
(803) 725-5608
Technology:
Permeable Reactive Barrier (PRB)
The PRB used a funnel and gate design, with impermeable walls north and
south of a reactive media gate
The gate consisted of three sections: (1) an upstream gravel with a
zero-valent iron (ZVI) pretreatment zone; (2) a middle portion of granular
ZVI; and (3) a downstream gravel pack with an air sparging system
The northern wall was 30 meters (m) long, the southern wall 75 m long, and
the gate 30 m long; the gate had a 0.6 m pretreatment zone and aim granular
ZVI zone, and was 3.5 to 7 m deep
More than 60 groundwater monitoring wells were installed at the site
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
The site has an alluvial, unconsolidated aquifer containing mostly sand with
minor amounts of gravel and clay
Impermeable bedrock is present at 4 to 8 m bgs
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Evaluate changes in concentrations of heavy metals through the PRB
Results:
The concentrations of uranium, vanadium, selenium, and arsenic were reduced to non detectable levels in groundwater
down-gradient of the PRB, after the water had passed through the ZVI-filled gate
Iron and manganese were present in the effluent from the gate at concentrations lower than predicted by treatability
studies
Costs:
Actual cost for the PRB was $1,196,000, consisting of $1,052,000 for construction and $144,000 for media
A projected comparison between PRB and pump and treat technology at this site showed that total life cycle costs are
times less for the PRB than for the pump and treat system
10
130
-------
Permeable Reactive Barrier at Monticello Mill Tailings Site, Monticello, Utah
Description:
In June 1999, a permeable reactive barrier wall, also referred to as a permeable reactive treatment (PeRT) wall, was
installed at DOE's Monticello Mills Tailings Site (MMTS), a former uranium and vanadium ore-processing mill in
Monticello Utah. The MMTS operated from the mid-1940s to 1960, and was placed on the NPL in 1989 because of
contaminated materials from past milling activities. A federal facility agreement specifies DOE as the lead agency for
cleanup, with oversight to EPA and the State.
The PRB used a funnel and gate design, with impermeable walls north and south of a reactive media gate. The gate
consisted of an upstream gravel with a zero-valent iron (ZVI) pretreatment zone; a middle portion of granular ZVI; and a
downstream gravel pack with an air sparging system. The concentrations of uranium, vanadium, selenium, and arsenic
were reduced to non detectable levels in groundwater down-gradient of the PRB, after the water had passed through the
ZVI-filled gate. The researchers attributed the success of the design to the use of a pretreatment zone, consisting of mostly
gravel with minor amounts of ZVI, at the leading edge of the gate. This zone was thought to initiate the reduction
reactions within a very porous media that was not likely to clog.
131
-------
132
-------
CONTAINMENT ABSTRACTS
133
-------
Vertical Engineered Barrier at Dover Air Force Base, Groundwater Remediation
Field Laboratory National Test Site, Dover, Delaware
Site Name:
Dover Air Force Base, Groundwater Remediation Field Laboratory National
Test Site
Location:
Dover, DE
Period of Operation:
10/96 - 9/98
Cleanup Authority:
Not provided
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Demonstration of vertical engineered barrier using thin diaphragm walls
Cleanup Type:
Field Demonstration
Contaminants:
None
Waste Source:
Not applicable - clean test site
Technical Contacts:
Richard Landis
DuPont Engineering
Phone: (302)892-7452
Allen Furth
Hayward Baker, Inc.
Phone: (410)51-1980
Management Contacts:
Skip Chamberlain
DOE SCFA
Phone: (301)903-7248
Scott McMullin
DOE Savannah River Operations
Office, SCFA
Phone: (803)725-9596
Andrea Hart
MSB Technology Applications, Inc.
Phone: (406)494-7410
Technology:
Vertical Engineered Barrier (VEB)
VEB consisted of cement bentonite thin diaphragm walls, installed using
high-pressure jet grouting
Project conducted in two phases - Phase 1 consisted of creating four small
barrier boxes to refine grouting parameters; Phase 2 consisted of creating two
cofferdams, each 34 feet (ft) in diameter, and consisting of 12 interconnecting
thin diaphragm walls (each wall 13 to 16 ft long)
The cofferdams were constructed by jetting a cement/bentonite slurry 7 ft into
the underlying clay confining unit (a total depth of 43 ft bgs); one cofferdam
was covered with a geomembrane to prevent infiltration
The integrity of the cofferdams was tested using pump tests, pulse tests, flood
tests, and geophysical techniques
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
Depth to groundwater 26 ft
The upper aquifer consists of sand with lenses of gravel and clay, and has
hydraulic conductivity ranging from 2.8 x 10"3 to 1.2 x 10"2 cm/sec
Clay confining unit present at 36 ft bgs
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Project objectives were to demonstrate:
Construction of a high-pressure, jet grouted, thin-diaphragm containment barrier
Performance of the barrier using several verification and monitoring methods
Hydraulic conductivity performance goal of 1 x 10"7 cm/sec
Results:
Hydraulic testing showed no defects in the upper 25 ft (unsaturated zone) of the cofferdam; one defect was identified in
the lower 10 ft of the second cofferdam - the defect was associated with a thin zone of higher hydraulic conductivity
Hydraulic testing also showed that the cofferdams met the hydraulic conductivity performance goal, at all except one
location
Costs:
A unit cost of $6.7 I/ft2 was projected for constructing two single-wall cofferdam barriers using thin-diaphragm panels at
a hypothetical site with a depth of 43 ft and a length of 40 ft; this cost did not include cement or bentonite materials,
mobilization/demobilization, spoils disposal, or costs associated with a guidance tool
A unit cost of $8.2 I/ft2 was projected for constructing a thin-diaphragm wall cofferdam at the Dover AFB test site,
including mobilization and demobilization; costs for construction at a low level radioactive waste site were projected to
be significantly higher
134
-------
Vertical Engineered Barrier at Dover Air Force Base, Groundwater Remediation
Field Laboratory National Test Site, Dover, Delaware
Description:
During fall 1997, a demonstration of high-pressure jet grouting to emplace thin-diaphragm walls was conducted at the
Groundwater Remediation Field Laboratory (GRFL) National Test Site at the Dover Air Force Base. Two cofferdams
were constructed, consisting of 12 interconnecting cement bentonite, thin-diaphragm walls. Hydraulic testing also showed
that the cofferdams met the hydraulic conductivity performance goal of 1 x 10"7 cm/sec, at all except one location. A
projected unit cost of $8.2 I/ft2 was identified for constructing a thin-diaphragm wall cofferdam at the Dover AFB test site,
including mobilization and demobilization; costs for construction at a low level radioactive waste site were projected to be
significantly higher.
135
-------
Landfill Cap at Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Site Name:
Sandia National Laboratories
Location:
Albuquerque, NM
Period of Operation:
July 1995 to July 2000
Cleanup Authority:
Not provided
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Field demonstration of alternative landfill covers
Cleanup Type:
Field Demonstration
Contaminants:
None
Waste Source:
None - clean site
Technical Contacts:
Stephen F. Dwyer
Sandia National Laboratories
Phone: (505)844-0595
E-mail: sfdwyer@sandia.gov
Management Contacts:
Skip Chamberlain
DOE SCFA
Phone: (301)903-7248
Scott McMullin
DOE SCFA
Phone: (803)725-9596
JohnB. Jones
DOE CMST
Phone: (702)295-0532
E-mail: jonesjb@nv.doe.gov
Technology:
Cap
Four alternative landfill cover designs were demonstrated: (1) a geosynthetic
clay liner (GCL) cover; (2) a capillary barrier cover; (3) an anisotropic barrier
cover; and (4) an evapotranspiration (ET) soil cover
Design characteristics included
GCL cover: 90 cm thickness, 4 layers
capillary barrier cover: 140 cm thickness, 4 layers
anisotropic barrier cover: 105 cm thickness, 4 layers
ET soil cover: 90 cm thickness, 2 layers
These alternative covers were compared with conventional RCRA Subtitle C
and D covers
Each demonstration plot was 13m wide by 100 m long, with the long
dimension crowned in the middle; all layers had a 5% grade; the western slope
was maintained at ambient conditions, and a sprinkler was installed on the
eastern slope
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The following soil properties were used to evaluate performance: soil moisture, soil temperature, runoff and erosion,
percolation and inter-flow, meteorology, and vegetation
Results:
Preliminary water flux rate data showed that all cover designs, except the RCRA Subtitle D cover, were impermeable;
the anisotropic and ET covers had efficiencies similar to the RCRA Subtitle C cover
Additional findings included:
GCL: did not perform as well as expected
capillary barrier cover: the percolation rate for the first year was higher than expected, and slowed significantly in later
years
anisotropic barrier cover: performed well
ET soil cover: performed well
Costs:
Actual unit construction costs were provided for the six covers; these included mobilization/demobilization, sub-grade
preparation, materials, and labor
Unit costs were: GCL cover - $89.99/m2; capillary barrier cover - $92.64/m2; anisotropic barrier cover - $75.26/m2; ET
cover - $73.89/m2; RCRA Subtitle C cover - $157.54/m2; RCRA Subtitle D - $51.40/m2
136
-------
Landfill Cap at Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Description:
A field demonstration of four alternative landfill covers was conducted at the Sandia National Laboratories in
Albuquerque, New Mexico. The four covers - GCL, capillary barrier, anisotropic barrier, and ET - were compared in a
side-by-side demonstration with RCRA Subtitles C and D covers. Each of the six demonstration plots was 13m wide by
100 m long, and crowned in the middle. Results showed that all cover designs, except the RCRA Subtitle D cover, were
impermeable, and that the anisotropic and ET covers had efficiencies similar to the RCRA Subtitle C cover. Based on the
results from this study, an ET cover was selected to be deployed at the Mixed Waste Landfill at Sandia. The ET cover was
projected to save $7.6 million over a 30 year period when compared with use of a RCRA Subtitle C cover.
137
-------
138
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 274 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES
Site Name, Location
Technology *
Media
Contaminants
Year
Operation
Began
Year
Published
Soil Vapor Extraction (31 Projects)
Basket Creek Surface Impoundment Site,
GA
Camp Lejeune Military Reservation, Site
82, Area A, NC
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma
Channel Well 12A Superfund Site, WA
Davis-Monthan AFB, Site ST-35, AZ
Defense Supply Center Richmond, OU 5,
VA
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation
Superfund Site, CA
Fort Greely, Texas Tower Site, AK
Fort Lewis, Landfill 4, WA
Fort Richardson, Building 908 South, AK
Hastings Groundwater Contamination
Superfund Site, Well Number 3 Subsite,
NE
Holloman AFB, Sites 2 and 5, NM
Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory, ID
Intersil/Siemens Superfund Site, CA
Luke Air Force Base, North Fire Training
Area, AZ
McClellan Air Force Base, Operable Unit
D, Site S, CA
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction (Field
Demonstration)
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction, Air Sparging, In
Situ Bioremediation
Soil Vapor Extraction, Air Sparging
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction (Soil Venting) (Field
Demonstration)
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction (Field
Demonstration)
Soil (ex situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
BTEX (Toluene),
Ketones (MIBK)
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents
BTEX/TPH
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents
BTEX/TPH
Chlorinated Solvents,
Metals
BTEX/TPH
Chlorinated Solvents
BTEX/TPH
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents
BTEX/TPH
Chlorinated Solvents
1992
1995
1992
1995
1992
1989
1994
1994
1995
1992
1994
1996
1988
1990
1993
1997
1998
1995
1998
1998
1995
1998
1998
1998
1995
1998
2000
1998
1995
1995
A-l
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 274 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
NAS North Island, Site 9, CA
Patrick Air Force Base, Active Base
Exchange Service Station, FL
Patrick Air Force Base, Active Base
Exchange Service Station, FL
Rocky Mountain Arsenal Superfund Site
(Motor Pool Area - Operable Unit #18),
CO
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site,
Burn Pits Operable Unit, CA
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site,
Tank 2 (Operable Unit #3), CA
Sand Creek Industrial Superfund Site,
Operable Unit 1, CO
Seymour Recycling Corporation Superfund
Site, IN
Shaw AFB, OU 1, SC
SMS Instruments Superfund Site, NY
Tyson's Dump Superfund Site, PA
U.S. Department of Energy, Portsmouth
Gaseous Diffusion Plant, OH
U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah
River Site, SC
U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah
River Site, SC, and Sandia, NM
Technology *
Soil Vapor Extraction (Photolytic
Destruction) (Field Demonstration)
Soil Vapor Extraction (Biocube) (Field
Demonstration)
Soil Vapor Extraction (Internal
Combustion Engine) (Field Demonstration)
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction, Groundwater
Containment
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction (In Situ Enhanced
Soil Mixing) (Field Demonstration)
Soil Vapor Extraction (Flameless Thermal
Oxidation) (Field Demonstration)
Soil Vapor Extraction (Horizontal Wells)
(Field Demonstration)
Media
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ) and
Groundwater
Contaminants
Chlorinated Solvents
BTEX/TPH
BTEX/TPH
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents -
TCE, PCE, DCE
Chlorinated and Non-
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents -
PCE, TCE
Chlorinated Solvents
BTEX/TPH
Chlorinated and Non-
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents -
TCE, DCE, TCA
Chlorinated Solvents -
TCE, PCE, TCA
Chlorinated Solvents
Year
Operation
Began
1997
1994
1993
1991
1994
1992
1993
1992
1995
1992
1988
1992
1995
1988
Year
Published
1998
2000
2000
1995
1997
1995
1997
1998
1998
1995
1998
1997
1997
2000
A-2
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 274 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Vandenberg Air Force Base, Base
Exchange Service Station, CA
Verona Well Field Superfund Site (Thomas
Solvent Raymond Road - Operable Unit
#1), MI
Technology *
Soil Vapor Extraction (Resin Adsorption)
(Field Demonstration)
Soil Vapor Extraction
Media
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Contaminants
BTEX/TPH
Chlorinated and Non-
Chlorinated Solvents
Year
Operation
Began
1994
1988
Year
Published
2000
1995
Other In Situ Soil Treatment (25 Projects)
Active Power Substation, Confidential
Location
Alameda Point, CA
Argonne National Laboratory - East, IL
Brodhead Creek Superfund Site, PA
Dover Air Force Base, Building 719, DE
Eielson Air Force Base, AK
Ensign-Bickford Company - OB/OD Area,
CT
Former Mare Island Naval Shipyard, CA
Fort Richardson Poleline Road Disposal
Area, OU B, AK
Hill Air Force Base, Site 280, UT
Hill Air Force Base, Site 914, UT
Lowry Air Force Base, CO
Missouri Electric Works Superfund Site,
MO
Multiple Air Force Test Sites, Multiple
Locations
Electrokinetics (Field Demonstration)
Electrokinetics (Field Demonstration)
Phytoremediation (Field Demonstration)
Contained Recovery of Oily Waste
Bioventing (Field Demonstration)
Bioventing (Field Demonstration)
Phytoremediation
In Situ Thermal Desorption (Field
Demonstration)
Six Phase Heating (Field Demonstration)
Bioventing
Bioventing, Soil Vapor Extraction
Bioventing
In Situ Thermal Desorption (Field
Demonstration)
Bioventing (Field Demonstration)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Metals
Metals
Metals
PAHs, Metals
Chlorinated Solvents
BTEX/TPH
Metals
PCBs
Chlorinated Solvents
BTEX/TPH
BTEX/TPH
BTEX/TPH
PCBs
BTEX/TPH
1998
1997
1998
1995
1998
1991
1998
1997
1997
1990
1988
1992
1997
1992
2000
2001
2000
1998
2000
1995
2000
2000
2000
1995
1995
1995
1998
2000
A-3
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 274 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Naval Air Weapons Station Point Mugu,
Site 5, CA
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises
Superfund Site, MI
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, X-
231 A Site, Piketon, OH
Sandia National Laboratories, Unlined
Chromic Acid Pit, NM
Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant, MN
White Sands Missile Range, SWMU 143,
NM
U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site,
WA, Oak Ridge (TN) and Others
U.S. Department of Energy, Multiple Sites
U.S. Department of Energy Paducah
Gaseous Diffusion Plant, KY
U.S. Department of Energy, Portsmouth
Gaseous Diffusion Plant, OH and Other
Sites
U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah
River Site, SC, and Hanford Site, WA
Technology *
Electrokinetics (Field Demonstration)
In Situ Vitrification
Hydraulic Fracturing (Field Demonstration)
Electrokinetics (Field Demonstration)
Phytoremediation (Field Demonstration)
Chemical Reduction/Oxidation (Field
Demonstration)
In Situ Vitrification
Resonant Sonic Drilling (Field
Demonstration)
Lasagna Soil Remediation (Field
Demonstration)
Hydraulic and Pneumatic Fracturing (Field
Demonstration)
Six Phase Soil Heating (Field
Demonstration)
Media
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ) and
Groundwater
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Contaminants
Metals
Pesticides, Metals,
Dioxins
Chlorinated Solvents
Metals
Metals
Metals
Pesticides, Metals,
Dioxins/Furans, PCBs
Not Applicable (not a
contaminated site)
Chlorinated Solvents -
TCE
Chlorinated Solvents,
DNAPLs
Chlorinated Solvents -
TCE, PCE
Year
Operation
Began
1998
1993
1996
1996
1998
1998
Not
Provided
1992
1995
1991
1993
Year
Published
2000
1997
2001
2000
2000
2000
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
A-4
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 274 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Technology *
Media
Contaminants
Year
Operation
Began
Year
Published
Incineration (on-site) (18 Projects)
Baird and McGuire, MA
Bayou Bonfouca, LA
Bridgeport Refinery and Oil Services, NJ
Celanese Corporation Shelby Fiber
Operations, NC
Coal Creek, WA
Drake Chemical
Superfund Site, Operable Unit 3, Lock
Haven, PA
FMC Corporation - Yakima, WA
Former Nebraska Ordnance Plant - OU 1,
NE
Former Weldon Springs Ordnance Works,
OU 1, MO
MOTCO, TX
Old Midland Products, AR
Petro Processors, LA
Rocky Mountain Arsenal, CO
Rotary Kiln Incinerator
Rotary Kiln Incinerator
Rotary Kiln Incinerator
Rotary Kiln Incinerator
Rotary Kiln Incinerator
Rotary Kiln Incinerator
Rotary Kiln Incinerator
Rotary Kiln Incinerator
Rotary Kiln Incinerator
Rotary Kiln Incinerator
Rotary Kiln Incinerator
Horizontal Liquid Injection Incinerator
Submerged Quench Incinerator
Soil, Sediment
Sediment, Other
Material
Soil, Sediment, Sludge,
Debris
Soil, Sludge
Soil
Soil
Soil, Debris
Soil, Debris
Soil
Soil, Sludge, Liquids
Soil, Sludge
Liquids, Fumes
Liquids
PAHs,
Pesticides/Herbicides,
Metals, Dioxins, PCBs
PAHs
BTEX/TPH, Metals,
Dioxins, PCBs
Chlorinated Solvents,
PAHs, Metals
Metals, Dioxins, PCBs
Chlorinated Solvents,
Volatiles -
Nonhalogenated
Pesticides/Herbicides,
Metals
Explosives/Propellants
- TNT, RDX, HMX
Explosives/Propellants
Chlorinated Solvents,
Metals, Dioxins, PCBs
PAHs
Chlorinated Solvents,
BTEX/TPH, PAHs,
Metals
Pesticides/Herbicides,
Metals
1995
1993
1991
1991
1994
1998
1993
1997
1998
1990
1992
1994
1993
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
2001
1998
1998
2000
1998
1998
1998
1998
A-5
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 274 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Rose Disposal Pit, MA
Rose Township Dump, MI
Sikes Disposal Pits, TX
Times Beach, MO
Vertac Chemical Corporation, AR
Technology *
Rotary Kiln Incinerator
Infrared Incinerator
Rotary Kiln Incinerator
Rotary Kiln Incinerator
Rotary Kiln Incinerator
Media
Soil
Soil
Soil, Debris
Soil, Debris
Soil, Waste, Drums
Contaminants
Chlorinated Solvents,
Dioxins, PCBs
BTEX/TPH, Dioxins,
PCBs
Chlorinated Solvents,
PAHs
Dioxins, PCBs
Pesticides/Herbicides,
Dioxins, PCBs
Year
Operation
Began
1994
1992
1992
1996
1992
Year
Published
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
Thermal Desorption (22 Projects)
Anderson Development Company
Superfund Site, MI
Arlington Blending and Packaging
Superfund Site, TN
PCX Washington Superfund Site, NC
Fort Lewis, Solvent Refined Coal Pilot
Plant (SRCPP), WA
Letterkenny Army Depot Superfund Site, K
Areas, OU1, PA
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant,
Burning Ground No. 3, TX
McKin Superfund Site, ME
Metaltec/Aerosystems Superfund Site,
Franklin Borough, NJ
Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Site 17, OU
2,FL
Thermal Desorption
Thermal Desorption
Thermal Desorption
Thermal Desorption
Thermal Desorption
Thermal Desorption
Thermal Desorption
Thermal Desorption
Thermal Desorption
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Semivolatile -
Nonhalogenated
(MBOCA), PAHs
Pesticides/Herbicides,
Metals
Pesticides/Herbicides
PAHs
Chlorinated Solvents,
Metals
Chlorinated Solvents
BTEX/TPH, PAHs
Chlorinated Solvents
BTEX/TPH, PAHs
1992
1996
1995
1996
1993
1997
1986
1994
1995
1995
2000
1998
1998
2000
2000
1995
2001
1998
A-6
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 274 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, New
Bedford, MA
Outboard Marine Corporation Superfund
Site, OH
Port Moller Radio Relay Station, AK
Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site, OH
Reich Farm, Pleasant Plains, NJ
Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site, MA
Rocky Flats Environmental Technology
Site, Mound Site, Golden, CO
Rocky Flats Environmental Technology
Site, Trenches T-3 and T-4, CO
Sand Creek Superfund Site, OU 5, CO
Sarney Farm, Amenia, NY
TH Agriculture & Nutrition Company
Superfund Site, GA
Waldick Aerospaces Devices Superfund
Site, NJ
Wide Beach Development Superfund Site,
NY
Technology *
Thermal Desorption (Field Demonstration)
Thermal Desorption
Thermal Desorption
Thermal Desorption
Thermal Desorption
Thermal Desorption
Thermal Desorption
Thermal Desorption
Thermal Desorption
Thermal Desorption
Thermal Desorption
Thermal Desorption
Thermal Desorption w/Dehalogenation
Media
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Contaminants
PCBs
PCBs
BTEX/TPH
BTEX, PAHs,
Pesticides, Dioxins,
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents,
Other Volatiles and
Semivolatiles (not
specified)
PCBs
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents,
Radionuclides
Pesticides, Metals
Chlorinated Solvents,
Ketones, BTEX
Pesticides
Chlorinated Solvents,
BTEX/TPH, Metals
PCBs
Year
Operation
Began
1996
1992
1995
1993
1994
1993
1997
1996
1994
1997
1993
1993
1990
Year
Published
2001
1995
1998
1995
2001
1998
2001
2000
2000
2001
1995
1998
1995
A-7
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 274 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Technology *
Media
Contaminants
Year
Operation
Began
Year
Published
Other Ex Situ Soil Treatment (31 Projects)
Bonneville Power Administration Ross
Complex, Operable Unit A, WA
Brookhaven National Laboratory, NY
Brown Wood Preserving Superfund Site,
FL
Burlington Northern Superfund Site, MN
Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfund Site,
FL
Envirocare of Utah, UT
Fort Greely, UST Soil Pile, AK
Fort Polk Range 5, LA
French Ltd. Superfund Site, TX
Idaho National Environmental and
Engineering Laboratory (INEEL), ID
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant, IL
King of Prussia Technical Corporation
Superfund Site, NJ
Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM
Lowry Air Force Base, CO
Land Treatment
Physical Separation/Segmented Gate
System
Land Treatment
Land Treatment
Composting
Polyethylene Macroencapsulation (Field
Demonstration)
Land Treatment
Acid Leaching (Field Demonstration)
Slurry-Phase Bioremediation
Physical Separation/Segmented Gate
System
Slurry-Phase Bioremediation(Field
Demonstration)
Soil Washing
Physical Separation; Segmented Gate
System
Land Treatment
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
PAHs
Radionuclides
PAHs
PAHs, Methylene
Chloride Extractable
Hydrocarbons (TPH)
PAHs, BTEX
(Toluene), Chlorinated
Solvents - TCE
Radionuclides
BTEX/TPH
Metals
BTEX, PAHs,
Chlorinated Solvents
Radionuclides
Explosives/Propellants
Metals
Radionuclides
BTEX/TPH
1994
2000
1989
1986
1993
1996
1994
1996
1992
1999
1994
1993
1999
1992
1998
2001
1995
1997
1997
1998
1998
2000
1995
2001
2000
1995
2000
1995
A-8
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 274 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Massachusetts Military Reservation,
Training Range and Impact Area, Cape
Cod, MA
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, New
Bedford, MA
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, New
Bedford, MA
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, New
Bedford, MA
Novartis Site, Ontario, Canada
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN
Pantex Plant, Firing Site 5, TX
RMI Titanium Company Extrusion Plant,
OH
Sandia National Laboratories, ER Site
228A, NM
Sandia National Laboratories, ER Site 16,
NM
Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site,
MO
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfund
Site, MS
Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Station, AK
Stauffer Chemical Company, Tampa, FL
Tonapah Test Range, Clean Slate 2, NV
Technology *
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization (Field
Demonstration)
Solvent Extraction (Field Demonstration)
Vitrification (Field Demonstration)
Land Treatment (Field Demonstration)
Vitrification (Field Demonstration)
Physical Separation; Segmented Gate
System
Solvent Extraction (Field Demonstration)
Physical Separation; Segmented Gate
System
Physical Separation; Segmented Gate
System
Land Treatment
Slurry-Phase Bioremediation
Solvent Extraction
Composting (Field Demonstration)
Physical Separation; Segmented Gate
System
Media
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Contaminants
Metals, Lead
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
Pesticides/Herbicides
Metals, Radionuclides
Radionuclides
Metals, Radionuclides
Radionuclides
Radionuclides
PAHs
PAHs - Naphthalene,
Benzo(a)pyrene
PCBs
Organochlorine
Pesticides
Radionuclides
Year
Operation
Began
1998
1995
1996
1996
1996
1997
1998
1997
1998
1998
1989
1991
1996
1997
1998
Year
Published
2001
2001
2001
2001
1998
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
1995
1997
1998
2001
2000
A-9
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 274 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Umatilla Army Depot Activity, OR
Umatilla Army Depot Activity, OR
Technology *
Windrow Composting (Field
Demonstration)
Windrow Composting
Media
Soil
Soil
Contaminants
Explosives/Propellants
-TNT, RDX, HMX
Explosives/Propellants
-TNT, RDX, HMX
Year
Operation
Began
1992
1994
Year
Published
1995
1997
Drinking Water Treatment (3 Projects)
Charnock Wellfield, Santa Monica, CA
Lacrosse, KS
Rockaway, NJ
Drinking Water Treatment (Field
Demonstration)
Drinking Water Treatment
Drinking Water Treatment
DrinkingWater
DrinkingWater
DrinkingWater
MTBE, VOCs
MTBE, BTEX/TPH
MTBE, Chlorinated
Solvents, Volatiles-
Nonhalogenated
1998
1997
1980
2001
2001
2001
Pump and Treat (42 Projects)
Amoco Petroleum Pipeline, MI
Baird and McGuire Superfund Site, MA
Bofors Nobel Superfund Site, OU 1, MI
City Industries Superfund Site, FL
Coastal Systems Station, AOC 1, FL
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma
Channel Well 12A Superfund Site, WA
Des Moines TCE Superfund Site, OU 1, IA
Former Firestone Facility Superfund Site,
CA
Pump and Treat with GAC
Pump and Treat with Air Stripping,
Chemical Treatment, and Filtration
Pump and Treat with Air Stripping, GAC,
Chemical Treatment, Filtration, and
UV/Oxidation
Pump and Treat with Air Stripping
Chemical Reaction and Dissolved Air
Flotation (Field Demonstration)
Pump and Treat with GAC
Pump and Treat with Air Stripping
Pump and Treat with Air Stripping, GAC,
and Oil/Water Separation
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
BTEX/TPH
BTEX/TPH, PAHs,
Pesticides/Herbicides,
Metals
Chlorinated Solvents,
Semivolatiles
Chlorinated Solvents,
BTEX/TPH
BTEX/TPH, Metals
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents
1988
1993
1994
1994
1997
1988
1987
1986
1995
1998
1998
1998
1998
1995
1998
1998
A-10
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 274 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Ft. Drum, Fuel Dispensing Area 1595, NY
Fort Lewis Logistics Center, WA
JMT Facility RCRA Site (formerly Black
& Decker RCRA Site), NY
Keefe Environmental Services Superfund
Site, NH
King of Prussia Technical Corporation
Superfund Site, NJ
Langley Air Force Base, IRP Site 4, VA
LaSalle Electrical Superfund Site, IL
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
(LLNL) Site 300 - General Services Area
(GSA) Operable Unit, CA
Marine Corps Base, OU 1 and 2, Camp
Lejeune, NC
Marine Corps Base, Campbell Street Fuel
Farm, Camp Lejeune, NC
McClellan Air Force Base, Operable Unit
B/C, CA
Mid-South Wood Products Superfund Site,
AR
Mystery Bridge at Hwy 20 Superfund Site,
Dow/DSI Facility - Volatile Halogenated
Organic (VHO) Plume, WY
Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Eastern
Groundwater Plume, ME
Technology *
Pump and Treat with Air Stripping and
GAC
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat with Air Stripping
Pump and Treat with Air Stripping and
Coagulation/Flocculation
Pump and Treat with Air Stripping, GAC,
and Electrochemical Treatment
Pump and Treat with Air Stripping
Pump and Treat with Air Stripping, GAC,
and Oil/Water Separation
Pump and Treat with Air Stripping and
GAC; SVE
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat with Air Stripping
Pump and Treat with GAC, Filtration, and
Oil/Water Separation
Pump and Treat with Air Stripping; SVE
Pump and Treat
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Contaminants
BTEX/TPH
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents,
BTEX/TPH, Metals
BTEX/TPH
Chlorinated Solvents,
PCBs
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents,
BTEX, Metals
BTEX,
Pesticide/Herbicide
(Ethylene dibromide)
Chlorinated Solvents
PAHs, Metals
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents
Year
Operation
Began
1992
1995
1988
1993
1995
1992
1992
1991
1995
1996
1988
1989
1994
1995
Year
Published
1995
2000
1998
1998
1998
1995
1998
1998
2001
2001
1995
1998
1998
2001
A-ll
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 274 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site, OU 2,
TX
Odessa Chromium IIS Superfund Site, OU
2, TX
Offutt AFB, Site LF-12, NE
Old Mill Superfund Site, OH
Ott/Story/Cordova Superfund Site, North
Muskegon, MI
Pope AFB, Site FT-01,NC
Pope AFB, Site SS-07, Blue Ramp Spill
Site, NC
SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site, SC
Shaw AFB, Site OT-16B, SC
Shaw AFB, Sites SD-29 and ST-30, SC
Solid State Circuits Superfund Site, MO
Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers
Superfund Site, TX
Solvent Recovery Services of New
England, Inc. Superfund Site, CT
Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site, NH
Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant, MN
Technology *
Pump and Treat with Chemical Treatment
and Filtration
Pump and Treat with Chemical Treatment
and Filtration
Pump and Treat with Air Stripping
Pump and Treat with Air Stripping and
GAC
Pump and Treat
Free Product Recovery
Free Product Recovery
Pump and Treat with Air Stripping
Hydraulic Containment Through Pumping
Free Product Recovery with Air Stripping
Pump and Treat with Air Stripping
Pump and Treat with Air Stripping, GAC,
and Filtration
Pump and Treat with GAC, Chemical
Treatment, Filtration, and UV/Oxidation;
Vertical Barrier Wall
Pump and Treat with Air Stripping,
Biological Treatment, Chemical Treatment,
and Filtration; Cap; SVE; Vertical Barrier
Wall
Pump and Treat with Air Stripping
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Contaminants
Metals
Metals
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents,
Non-chlorinated
VOCs, PCBs,
Pesticides, Metals
BTEX/TPH
BTEX/TPH
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents,
BTEX/TPH
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents,
Metals
Chlorinated Solvents,
Metals
Chlorinated Solvents
Year
Operation
Began
1993
1993
1997
1989
1996
1993
1993
1992
1995
1995
1993
1993
1995
1982
1987
Year
Published
1998
1998
1998
1998
2001
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1995
A-12
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 274 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
United Chrome Superfund Site, OR
U.S. Aviex Superfund Site, MI
U.S. Department of Energy Kansas City
Plant, MO
U.S. Department of Energy Savannah River
Site, AM Area, SC
Western Processing Superfund Site, WA
Technology *
Pump and Treat with Chemical Treatment
Pump and Treat with Air Stripping
Pump and Treat with Advanced Oxidation
Processes
Pump and Treat with Air Stripping
Pump and Treat with Air Stripping and
Filtration
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Contaminants
Metals
Chlorinated Solvents,
Diethyl Ether
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents,
PAHs, Metals
Year
Operation
Began
1988
1993
1983
1985
1988
Year
Published
1998
1998
1995
1995
1998
In Situ Groundwater Bioremediation (28 Projects)
Abandoned Manufacturing Facility -
Emeryville, CA
Avco Lycoming Superfund Site, PA
Balfour Road Site, CA; Fourth Plain
Service Station Site, WA; Steve's Standard
and Golden Belt 66 Site, KS
Brownfield Site, Chattanooga, TN (specific
site name not identified)
Contemporary Cleaners, Orlando. FL
Cordray's Grocery, Ravenel, SC
Dover Air Force Base, Area 6, DE
Edwards Air Force Base, CA
French Ltd. Superfund Site, TX
Gas Station, Cheshire, CT (specific site
name not identified)
Bioremediation
Bioremediation
Bioremediation
Bioremediation
Bioremediation (HRC)
Bioremediation (ORC)
Bioremediation (Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation; Pump and Treat with
Activated Sludge
Bioremediation
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Soil and Groundwater
Groundwater
Soil and Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Chlorinated Solvents,
Metals
Chlorinated Solvents,
Metals
BTEX/TPH
MTBE, BTEX/TPH
Chlorinated Solvents -
PCE
MTBE, BTEX, PAHs
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents
MTBE, BTEX/TPH
1997
1997
1995
1999
Not
Provided
1998
1996
1996
1992
1997
2000
2000
1998
2001
2001
2001
2000
2000
1998
2001
A-13
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 274 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Hartford Site, WA
Hayden Island Cleaners, Portland, OR
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
CA
Libby Groundwater Superfund Site, MT
Moffett Field Superfund Site, CA
Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, CA
Pinellas Northeast Site, FL
Savannah River Site, SC
Service Station, CA (specific site name not
identified)
Service Station, Lake Geneva, WI (specific
site name not identified)
Site A (actual name confidential), NY
South Beach Marine, Hilton Head, SC
Specific site name not identified
Texas Gulf Coast Site, TX
U.S. Department of Energy Savannah River
Site, M Area, SC
U.S. Navy Construction Battalion Center,
Port Hueneme, CA
Vandenberg Air Force Base, Lompoc, CA
Watertown Site, MA
Technology *
Bioremediation (Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (HRC)
Bioremediation (Bench Scale)
Bioremediation; Pump and Treat
Bioremediation (Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (ORC)
Bioremediation (ORC)
Bioremediation; Air Sparging; SVE; Pump
and Treat with Air Stripping
Bioremediation
Bioremediation (Bench Scale)
Bioremediation
Bioremediation (Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (Field Demonstration)
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Soil and Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Contaminants
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents -
PCE
MTBE
PAHs
Chlorinated Solvents
BTEX/TPH
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents
MTBE, BTEX
MTBE, BTEX
BTEX/TPH
MTBE, BTEX, PAHs
MTBE
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents
MTBE, Volatiles-
Nonhalogenated
MTBE
Chlorinated Solvents
Year
Operation
Began
1995
Not
Provided
Not
Provided
1991
1986
1997
1997
1992
Not
Provided
Not
Provided
1995
1999
Not
Provided
1995
1992
1998
1999
1996
Year
Published
2000
2001
2001
1998
2000
2000
1998
2000
2001
2001
1998
2001
2001
2000
1997
2001
2001
2000
A-14
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 274 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Technology *
Media
Contaminants
Year
Operation
Began
Year
Published
Other In Situ Groundwater Treatment (45 Projects)
328 Site, CA
Amcor Precast, UT
Butler Cleaners, Jacksonville, FL
Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, Bldg
25, Camp Lejeune, NC
Confidential Manufacturing Facility, JL
Defense Supply Center, Acid
Neutralization Pit, VA
Eaddy Brothers, Hemingway, SC
Eight Service Stations, MD (specific sites
not identified)
Fernald Environmental Management
Project, OH
Former Intersil, Inc. Site, CA
Former Nu Look One Hour Cleaners, Coral
Springs, FL
Former Sages Dry Cleaners, Jacksonville,
FL
Fort Devens, AOCs 43G and 43J, MA
Four Service Stations (specific site names
not identified)
Fry Canyon, UT
Gold Coast Superfund Site, FL
Multi-Phase Extraction
Air Sparging
Chemical Oxidation (KMnO4)
In Situ Flushing (SEAR and PITT)
Six Phase Heating
Multi-Phase Extraction (Field
Demonstration)
Air Sparging/SVE
Multi-Phase Extraction
In Situ Flushing (Field Demonstration)
Permeable Reactive Barrier; Pump and
Treat with Air Stripping
Air Sparging Recirculation Well
(NoVOCs )
In Situ Flushing (Ethanol Co-solvent)
Monitored Natural Attenuation
Air Sparging
Permeable Reactive Barrier (Field
Demonstration)
Air Sparging; Pump and Treat
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Soil and Groundwater
Soil and Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Chlorinated Solvents
BTEX/TPH
Chlorinated Solvents -
PCE
Chlorinated Solvents -
PCE
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents
MTBE, BTEX, PAHs
MTBE, BTEX
Metals (Uranium)
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents -
PCE
Chlorinated Solvents -
PCE
BTEX/TPH
MTBE, BTEX
Metals, Radionuclides
Chlorinated Solvents
1996
1992
Not
Provided
1999
1998
1997
1999
1990
1998
1995
Not
Provided
Not
Provided
1997
1993
1997
1994
2000
1995
2001
2001
2000
2000
2001
2001
2001
1998
2001
2001
2000
2001
2000
1998
A-l 5
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 274 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Hartford Site, 100-H and 100-D Areas, WA
Johannsen Cleaners, Lebanon, OR
Keesler Air Force Base Service Station,
AOC-A (ST-06), MS
Kelly Air Force Base, Former Building
2093 Gas Station, TX
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Gasoline Spill Site, CA
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant, LA
Miamisburg, OH
Milan Army Ammunition Plant, TN
Moffett Federal Airfield, CA
Moffett Field Superfund Site, CA
Monticello Mill Tailings Site, Monticello,
UT
Multiple Air Force Sites
Multiple Air Force Sites
Multiple Air Force Sites
Naval Air Station, Pensacola, FL
Technology *
Chemical Reduction/Oxidation (Field
Demonstration)
Multi-Phase Extraction
Monitored Natural Attenuation
Monitored Natural Attenuation
Dynamic Underground Stripping (Field
Demonstration)
Monitored Natural Attenuation
Air Sparging/Soil Vapor Extraction
Constructed Wetlands (Field
Demonstration)
Permeable Reactive Barrier (Field
Demonstration)
Permeable Reactive Barrier (Field
Demonstration)
Permeable Reactive Barrier (Field
Demonstration)
Monitored Natural Attenuation (Field
Demonstration)
Monitored Natural Attenuation (Field
Demonstration)
Bioslurping (Field Demonstration)
In Situ Oxidation; Monitored Natural
Attenuation
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Soil and Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Contaminants
Metals
Chlorinated Solvents -
PCE
BTEX/TPH, Metals
BTEX/TPH
BTEX/TPH
Explosives
Chlorinated Solvents
Explosives/Propellants
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents
Metals
Chlorinated Solvents
TPH
TPH
Chlorinated Solvents
Year
Operation
Began
1995
Not
Provided
1997
1997
1992
Not
Provided
1997
1996
1996
1996
1999
1993
1993
Not
Provided
1998
Year
Published
2000
2001
2000
2000
1995
2001
2001
2000
1998
2000
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
A-16
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 274 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Naval Air Station Pensacola, OU 10, FL
Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, GA
Naval Submarine Base, Kings Bay, GA
Pinellas Northeast Site, FL
Pinellas Northeast Site, FL
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant,
X-701B Facility, OH
Scotchman #94, Florence, SC
South Prudence Bay Island Park, T-Dock
Site, Portsmouth, RI
Sparks Solvents/Fuel Site, Sparks, NV
Tacony Warehouse, PA
Tinkham's Garage Superfund Site, NH
U.S. Coast Guard Support Center, NC
U.S. Department of Energy Savannah River
Site, AM Area, SC
Visalia Superfund Site, CA
Technology *
In Situ Oxidation; Fenton's Reagent (Field
Demonstration)
In Situ Oxidation; Fenton's Reagent
In Situ Oxidation; Monitored Natural
Attenuation
Air Sparging - Dual Auger Rotary Steam
Stripping (Field Demonstration)
Membrane Filtration - PerVap (Field
Demonstration)
In Situ Oxidation (Field Demonstration)
Air Sparging; Pump and Treat
Biosparging
Multi-Phase Extraction
Permeable Reactive Barrier; Pump and
Treat
Multi-Phase Extraction
Permeable Reactive Barrier
Air Sparging (Field Demonstration)
Dynamic Underground Stripping (Field
Demonstration)
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Soil and Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Contaminants
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents
MTBE, BTEX, PAHs
BTEX
MTBE, Chlorinated
Solvents, TPH
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents,
Metals
Chlorinated Solvents
PAHs (Creosote)
Year
Operation
Began
1998
1998
1999
1996
1995
1988
1998
1998
1995
1998
1994
1996
1990
1997
Year
Published
2000
2000
2001
1998
1998
2000
2001
2001
2001
2000
2000
1998
1995
2000
A-17
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 274 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Technology *
Media
Contaminants
Year
Operation
Began
Year
Published
Debris/Solid Media Treatment (24 Projects)
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant, AL
Argonne National Laboratory - East, IL
Argonne National Laboratory - East, IL
Argonne National Laboratory - West,
Waste Area Group 9, OU 9-04, ID
Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) Research Reactor,
Argonne National Laboratory, IL
Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) Research Reactor,
Argonne National Laboratory, IL
Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) Research Reactor,
Argonne National Laboratory, IL
Clemson University, SC
Fernald Site, OH
Hartford Site, WA
Hartford Site, WA
Hartford Site, WA
Hartford Site, WA
Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory, ID
Transportable Hot-Gas Decontamination
(Field Demonstration)
Physical Separation (Scabbling) (Field
Demonstration)
Physical Separation (Concrete Demolition)
(Field Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization (Phosphate
Bonded Ceramics) (Field Demonstration)
Centrifugal Shot Blast (Field
Demonstration)
Rotary Peening with Captive Shot (Field
Demonstration)
Roto Peen Sealer with VAC-PACR System
(Field Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization (Sintering)
(Bench Scale)
Physical Separation (Soft Media Blasting)
(Field Demonstration)
Physical Separation (Concrete Grinder)
(Field Demonstration)
Physical Separation (Concrete Shaver)
(Field Demonstration)
Physical Separation (Concrete Spaller)
(Field Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization (Polyester
Resins) (Field Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization (Innovative
Grouting and Retrieval)
Debris/Solid Media
Debris/Solid Media
Debris/Solid Media
Debris/Solid Media
Debris/Solid Media
Debris/Solid Media
Debris/Solid Media
Debris/Solid Media
Debris/Solid Media
Debris/Solid Media
Debris/Solid Media
Debris/Solid Media
Debris/Solid Media
Debris/Solid Media
Explosives
Radionuclides
Radionuclides
Metals
Radionuclides
Radionuclides
Radionuclides
Metals
Radionuclides
Radionuclides
Radionuclides
Radionuclides
Metals, Radionuclides
Radionuclides
1995
Not
Provided
1997
Not
Provided
1997
1997
1996
1995
1996
1997
1997
1998
Not
Provided
1994
1998
2000
2000
2000
1998
1998
1998
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
A-l 8
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 274 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory, Pit 2, ID
Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory, ID
Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory, ID
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
CA
Los Alamos National Laboratory,
Technical Area 33, NM
Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
WA
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, OH
Savannah River Site, SC
STAR Center, ID
Technology *
Solidification/Stabilization (Polysiloxane)
(Field Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization (DeHgSM
Process) (Field Demonstration)
Vitrification (Graphite Furnace) (Field
Demonstration)
Chemical Reduction/Oxidation; Direct
Chemical Oxidation (Field Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization (Field
Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization (ADA Process)
(Field Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization (Sol Gel
Process) (Bench Scale)
Solidification/Stabilization (ATG Process)
(Field Demonstration)
Chemical Reduction/Oxidation (Acid
Digestion) (Field Demonstration)
Vitrification (Plasma Process) (Field
Demonstration)
Media
Debris/Solid Media
Debris/Solid Media
Debris/Solid Media
Debris/Solid Media
Debris/Solid Media
Debris/Solid Media
Debris/Solid Media
Debris/Solid Media
Debris/Solid Media
Debris/Solid Media
Contaminants
Metals
Metals
Metals, Radionuclides
Chlorinated Solvents,
Explosives/Propellants
Metals, Radionuclides
Metals
Metals
Metals, Radionuclides
Radionuclides
Metals, Radionuclides
Year
Operation
Began
1997
1998
1997
Not
Provided
1997
1998
Not
Provided
1998
1996
1993
Year
Published
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
Containment (5 Projects)
Dover Air Force Base, Groundwater
Remediation Field Laboratory National
Test Site, Dover DE
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
(LLNL) Site 300 - Pit 6 Landfill OU, CA
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN
Vertical Engineered Barrier (Field
Demonstration)
Cap
Frozen Soil Barrier (Field Demonstration)
Groundwater
N/A
Groundwater
None
Chlorinated Solvents,
Radioactivity
Radionuclides
1996
1997
1996
2001
1998
2000
A-19
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 274 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque,
NM
U.S. Department of Energy, SEG Facilities,
TN
Technology *
Cap (Field Demonstration)
Frozen Soil Barrier Technology (Field
Demonstration)
Media
N/A
Soil (in situ)
Contaminants
Not contaminated
Not Applicable (not a
contaminated site)
Year
Operation
Began
1995
1994
Year
Published
2001
1997
* Full scale unless otherwise noted
Key: DNAPLs = Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids
SVOCs = Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds
GAC = Granular Activated Carbon
SVE = Soil Vapor Extraction
BTEX = Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene
TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
PAHs = Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PCBs = Polychlorinated Biphenyls
TCA = 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
TCE = Trichloroethene
PCE = Tetrachloroethene
DCE = Dichloroethene
TNT = 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene
RDX = Hexahydro-l,3,5-trinitro-l,3,5 triazine
HMX = Octahydro-l,3,5,7-tetranitro-l,3,5,7-tetrazocine
MBOCA = 4,4-methylene bis(2-chloroaniline)
MIBK = Methyl isobutyl ketone
A-20
-------
ซ?xEPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
(5102G)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
E PA 542-R-01-008
-------
Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies; Volume 5
------- |