EPA542-R-97-010
PB97-177570
July 1997
Abstracts of Remediation
Case Studies
VOLUME 2
Federal
Remediation
Technologies
Roundtable
Prepared by the
Member Agencies of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
-------
Abstracts of Remediation Case
Studies
Volume 2
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
July 1997
-------
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, completeness, or
usefulness 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. Army Corps of Engineers and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under USAGE Contract Number DACA45-96-D-0016 to Radian
International LLC.
NRJ-100
0623-01.mj
11
-------
FOREWORD
This report is a collection of abstracts summarizing 17 case studies of site
remediation projects prepared by federal agencies. The case studies, collected under the
auspices of the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, were undertaken to
document the results and lessons learned from early 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, 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 in a
multi-volume set listed below. Remediation Case Studies, Volumes 1-4, and Abstracts,
Volume 1, were published in March 1995, and contain 37 case studies. Remediation
Case Studies, Volumes 5 and 6, and Abstracts, Volume 2, were published in July 1997,
and contain 17 case studies. These 17 case studies cover recently completed full-scale
remediations and large-scale field demonstrations. In the future, the set will grow
through periodic supplements tracking additional progress with site remediation.
Remediation Case Studies, Volume 1:
Remediation Case Studies, Volume 2:
Remediation Case Studies, Volume 3:
Remediation Case Studies, Volume 4:
Remediation Case Studies, Volume 5:
Remediation Case Studies, Volume 6:
Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies,
Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies,
Bioremediation, EPA-542-R-95-002; March 1995;
PB95-182911
Groundwater Treatment, EPA-542-R-95-003; March 1995;
PB95-182929
Soil Vapor Extraction, EPA-542-R-95-004; March 1995;
PB95-182937
Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, and In Situ
Vitrification, EPA-542-R-95-005, March 1995;
PB95-182945
Bioremediation and Vitrification, EPA 542-R-97-008, July
1997; PB97-177554
Soil Vapor Extraction and Other In Situ Technologies,
EPA 542-R-97-009, July 1997; PB97-177562
Volume 1: EPA-542-R-95-001; March 1995
Volume 2: EPA 542-R-97-010, July 1997;
PB97-177570
NRJ-100
0623-Ol.nrj
Ul
-------
Ordering Information
These documents are available free of charge by fax or mail from NCEPI
(allow 4-6 weeks for delivery), at the following address:
U.S. EPA/National Center for Environmental Publications and
Information (NCEPI)
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Fax Number: (513)489-8695
Phone Verification: (513) 489-8190 or
(800) 490-9198
In addition, the case studies and case study abstracts are available on the
internet through the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR) home page
at: http://www.frtr.gov. The FRTR home page provides links to individual FRTR
members' home pages, and includes a search function. Case studies and abstracts
prepared by EPA are also available through EPA's Cleanup Information Bulletin Board
System (CLU-IN BBS). CLU-IN BBS is available through the internet at
http://clu-in.com, or via modem at (301) 589-8366 (8 Data Bits, 1 Stop Bit, No Parity,
VT-100 or ANSI; Voice help: (301) 589-8368). Case studies prepared by the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) are available through the internet, on the Office of
Science and Technology home page, at http://em-52.em.doe.gov/ifd/ost/pubs.htm, under
Innovative Technology Summary Reports. Individual Reports prepared by DOE are
available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical
Information, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831; or to the public through the U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield,
VA 22161 ((703) 487-4650).
NRJ-100
0623-W.nrj
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
Page
FOREWORD iii
INTRODUCTION 1
BIOREMEDIATION CASE STUDIES 9
Land Treatment at the Burlington Northern Superfund
Site, Brainerd/Baxter, Minnesota 10
Composting at the Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfund
Site, Cantonment, Florida 12
Slurry Phase Bioremediation at the Southeastern
Wood Preserving Superfund Site, Canton, Mississippi 14
Cost Report: Windrow Composting to Treat
Explosives-Contaminated Soils at Umatilla Army
Depot Activity (UMDA) 16
In Situ Bioremediation Using Horizontal Wells, U.S.
Department of Energy, M Area, Savannah River Site,
Aiken, South Carolina 18
Lasagna™ Soil Remediation at the U.S. Department of
Energy Cylinder Drop Test Area, Paducah Gaseous
Diffusion Plant, Paducah, Kentucky 20
VITRIFICATION CASE STUDIES 22
In Situ Vitrification at the Parsons Chemical/ ETM
Enterprises Superfund Site, Grand Ledge, Michigan 23
In Situ Vitrification at the U.S. Department of Energy
Hanford Site, Richland, Washington; Oak Ridge
National Laboratory WAG 7, Oak Ridge, Tennessee;
and Various Commercial Sites 25
NRJ-100
0623-Ol.nrj
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
4.0
5.0
6.0
Page
SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION CASE STUDIES 27
Soil Vapor Extraction at the Basket Creek Surface
Impoundment Site, Douglasville, Georgia 28
Soil Vapor Extraction at the Sacramento Army Depot
Superfond Site, Burn Pits Operable Unit, Sacramento,
California 30
Soil Vapor Extraction at the Sand Creek Industrial
Superfund Site, Operable Unit No. 1, Commerce City,
Colorado 32
ENHANCEMENTS/ADDITIONS CASE STUDIES 34
In Situ Enhanced Soil Mixing, U.S. Department of
Energy, X-231B, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant,
Piketon, Ohio 35
Flameless Thermal Oxidation at the M Area,
Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, in
Cooperation With the U.S. Department of Energy Oak
Ridge Operations 37
Six Phase Soil Heating at the U.S. Department of
Energy, M Area, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South
Carolina, and the 300-Area, Hanford Site, Richland,
Washington 39
OTHER IN SHU TECHNOLOGIES 41
Hydraulic and Pneumatic Fracturing at the U.S.
Department of Energy Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion
Plant, Ohio, Department of Defense and Commercial
Sites 42
Frozen Soil Barrier Technology at the SEG Facilities,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee in Cooperation with U.S.
Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations 44
ResonantSonic Drilling 46
NRJ-100
VI
-------
1.0
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
(FRTR) are working jointly to publish case studies of full-scale remediation and
demonstration projects. In March, 1995, the FRTR published a four-volume series of
case study reports. At this time, the FRTR is publishing two additional volumes of case
study reports, providing case studies of site cleanup projects using bioremediation,
vitrification, soil vapor extraction, and other in situ technologies.
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). The case studies were prepared based on recommended terminology
and procedures from the Guide to Documenting Cost and Performance for Remediation
Projects (EPA-542-B-95-002; March 1995). They present available cost and performance
information for full-scale remediation efforts and several large-scale demonstration
projects. The case studies are meant to serve as primary reference sources, and contain
information on site background and setting, contaminants and media treated, technology,
cost and performance, and points of contact for the technology application. The studies
contain varying levels of detail, reflecting the differences in the availability of data and
information. Because full-scale cleanup efforts are not conducted primarily for the
purpose of technology evaluation, data collection on technology cost and performance is
often limited.
Tables 1 and 2 provide a project summary including information on
technology used, contaminants and media treated, and project duration for
bioremediation and vitrification, and soil vapor extraction and other in situ technologies,
respectively. These tables also note highlights of the technology applications. Table 3
summarizes cost data, including information on quantity of media treated and
contaminant removed. In addition, Table 3 shows a calculated unit cost for some
projects, and identifies key factors potentially affecting project cost. While a summary of
project costs is useful, it is difficult to compare costs for different projects because of
site-specific factors and differences in level of detail. Cost data are shown on Table 3 as
reported in the case studies, and have not been adjusted for inflation to a common year
basis. The dollar values shown in Table 3 should be assumed to be dollars for the time
period that the project was in progress (shown on Tables 1 and 2 as project duration).
The project costs shown in the second column of the table were compiled,
where possible, according to an interagency Work Breakdown Structure (WBS).1 The
WBS specifies costs as 1) before-treatment costs, 2) after-treatment costs, or 3) treatment
costs. (Table 3 provides some additional information on activities falling under each
category.) In many cases, however, the available information was not sufficiently
detailed to be broken down in this way.
'Additional information on the contents of the WBS and on whom to contact for WBS and related
information is presented in the Guide to Documenting Cost and Performance for Remediation Projects.
NRJ-100
0623-01.nrj 1
-------
The column showing the calculated treatment cost provides a dollar value
per unit of soil or groundwater treated and, where available, per pound of contaminant
removed. Note that when calculated costs are available on a per cubic yard or per ton
basis, costs cannot be converted back-and-forth due to limited availability of soil bulk
density data, and, therefore, comparisons using the information in this column may be
complicated.
Key factors that potentially affect project costs include economies of scale,
concentration levels in contaminated media, required cleanup levels, completion
schedules, and hydrogeological conditions. It is important to note that several projects in
the case study series represent early applications, and the costs of these technologies are
likely to decrease in the future as firms gain experience with design and operation.
NRJ-100
-------
Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation and Vitrification
\ ' Sie Name, Sate d«tarfogy>
Contaminants Treated
J&H&
and/Or
TPH
Chlorinated
Alipfaatfcs
PAHs
Historical AttMy
(Principal Contaminants}
Mafia (Qw»%)
Project
Duration
Highlights
Bioranediation
Burlington Northern Superfund Site, MN (Land
Treatment)
Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfund Site, EL
(Composting)
Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfund Site,
MS (Slurry-Phase Bioremediation)
Umatilla Army Depot Activity, OR (Windrow
Composting)
U.S. Department of Energy Savannah River
Site, SC (In Situ Bioremediation)
U.S. Department of Energy Paducah Gaseous
Diffusion Plant, KY (LasagnaT" Soil
Remediation)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Wood preserving of railroad
ties (PAHs, Methylene
Chloride Extractable
Hydrocarbons)
Waste treatment, recycling,
and disposal facility (PAHs,
Toluene, TCE)
Wood preserving with
creosote (Naphthalene,
Benzo(a)pyrene)
Munitions (TNT, RDX,
HMX)
Nuclear material production
and research (TCE, PCE)
Nuclear weapons
production/uranium
enrichment (TCE)
Soil and Sludge
(13,000 yd')
Soil (19,705 tons)
Soil and Sludge
(14,140 tons)
Soil (10,969 yd3)
Soil and
Groundwater
(not provided)
Soil and Soil Pore
Water (not
provided)-
5/86 - 10/94
11/93 - 9/94
1991-1994
3/94 - 9/96
2/92 - 4/93
1/95 - 5/95
Full-scale application of land treatment at a
creosote-contaminated site.
Full-scale application of composting to treat
VOC- and PAH-contaminated soil.
Full-scale application of slurry-phase
bioremediation to treat soil with relatively
elevated levels of PAHs.
Full-scale application of windrow composting to
biodegrade explosives-contaminated soils.
Demonstration combining biodegradation
(sparging and biostimulation) with SVE to
remediate both soil and groundwater
contaminated with VOCs.
Demonstration of an in situ technology suited to
sites with low permeability soils that combines
several technologies to remediate soil and soil
pore water contaminated with soluble organic
compounds.
Vitrification
Parsons Chemical/Kl'M Enterprises Superfund
Site, MI (In Situ Vitrification)
U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site, WA,
Oak Ridge (IN), and Others (In Situ
Vitrification)
•
Agricultural chemicals
mixing, manufacturing, and
packaging (Pesticides,
Metals, Dioxins)
Hanford - Nuclear materials
production; Others - Not
provided (pesticides, metals,
dioxin/furan, PCBs)
Soil and Sediment
(3,000yd5)
Soil, Sludge, and
Debris (ranged
from 3,100-5,600
tons)
5/93 - 5/94
Information
not provided
First application of ISV at a Superfund site.
Full-scale and field demonstrations of ISV for
variety of media types and variety of
contaminants.
Key:
BTEX - Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene
TPH - Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
NRJ-100
0623-01.nrj
-------
Table 2. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor Extraction and Other In Situ Technologies
SJteNwae, State (Technology)
CwtanwunCs Treated
BTEX
•ad/or
TPH
CBorkutted
Alptutics
Not-
dblorinated
AHptatfcs
Historical Activity
(Principal Cont8*wuiwtj}
Media (Q«Hw%}
Project
Dur*tHwt
Highlights
Son Vapor Extraction (SVE)
Basket Creek Surface Impoundment Site, GA
(SVE)
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site, Bum
Pits Operable Unit, CA (SVE)
Sand Creek Industrial Superfund Site, Operable
Unit No. 1, CO (SVE)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Illegal disposal of liquid
refinery and other hazardous
wastes (Toluene, MEBK)
Army support - Bum Pits
(TCE, PCE, DCE)
Pesticide manufacturing,
petroleum refinery (PCE,
TCE)
Soil (1,600 yd1)
SoU (247,900 yds)
Soil (31,440-
52,920 ydj)
9/92-4/93
5/94 - 9/95
9/93-4/94
SVE was performed after low-permeability soil
was excavated (ex situ SVE).
SVE system combining injection and extraction
wells in a complex subsurface.
SVE system combining injection and extraction
wells.
Fjihanrommfc/ Additions
US. Department of Energy, Portsmouth
Gaseous Diffusion Plant, OH (In Situ
Enhanced Soil Mixing)
U.S. Department of Energy Savannah River
Site, SC (Flameless Thermal Oxidation)
U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah River
Site, SC, and Hanford Site, WA (Six Phase Soil
Heating)
Other In Situ Technologies
U.S. Department of Energy, Portsmouth
Gaseous Diffusion Plant, OH, and Other Sites
(Hydraulic and Pneumatic Fracturing)
US. Department of Energy, SEG Facilities, TN
(Frozen Soil Barrier Technology)
US. Department of Energy, Multiple Sites
(ResonantSonic Drilling)
•
•
•
Waste Treatment Plant
(TCE, TCA, DCE)
Nuclear material production
and research (TCE, PCE,
TCA)
Nuclear material production
and research (TCE, PCE)
Soil (not
provided)
Off-Gases (not
provided)
Soil and Sediment
(not provided)
6/92
4/95-5/95
10/93 - 1/94
Field demonstration of four technologies used to
remediate fine-grained soils, including enhancing
SVE performance.
Field demonstration of an alternative technology
for treatment of extracted vapors during an SVE
application.
Field demonstration of technology used to
enhance removal of contaminants from clayey soil
during an SVE application.
•
Tinker AFB - Underground
Storage Tank
Others - not provided
(VOCs, DNAPLs, product)
Not applicable (not a
contaminated site)
Not applicable (not a
contaminated site)
Soil and
Groundwater (not
provided)
Soil (35,694 ff)
Soil and Sediment
(not provided)
7-91 - 8/96
(multiple
demonstra-
tions during
this period)
5/94 - 10/94
1992 - 1994
Field demonstrations of technology used to
increase hydraulic conductivity, contaminant mass
recovery, and radius of influence (for example, in
a SVE application).
Field demonstration of technology used to control
waste migration in soils.
Multiple field demonstrations of alternative
drilling technology that in some applications may
be less costly and produce less drilling waste than
cable tool or mud rotary technologies.
Key:
MTBK - Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
TCE - Trichloroethene
PCE - Tetrachloroethene
DCE - 1,2-Dichloroethene
TCA - 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
NRJ-100
0623-01.nrj
-------
Table 3. Remediation Case Studies - Summary of Cost Data
Site Name, State
-------
Table 3. Remediation Case Studies - Summary of Cost Data (Continued)
Site Name, State (Technology)
U.S. Department of Energy Paducah
Gaseous Diffusion Plant, KY (Lasagna.™
Soil Remediation)
Project Cost <$)*
Not provided
Quantity Treated
Not provided
Quantity of
Contaminant
Removed
Not provided
Calculated Cost for
Treatment**
$40-90^ (projected)
Key Factors Potentially Affecting
Project/Technology Costs***
Demonstration project: Capital costs
are driven by costs for electrode
construction. The ability to place
treatment zones and electrodes in
relatively close spacing and at
reasonable cost are key drivers for
technology cost-effectiveness.
Vitrification
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises
Superfund Site, MI (In Situ
Vitrification)
U.S. Department of Energy Hanford
,Site, WA, Oak Ridge (TN), and Others
(In Situ Vitrification)
T - $800,000
B - $800,000
A -$164,000
Not provided
5,400 tons
(3,000 yd3)
Parsons: 4,800
tons
Wasateh: 5,600
tons
Private Superfund
Site: 3,100 tons
Not provided
Not provided
$148/ton
($267/yd3)
(based on cost ceiling)
Generic project costs in the
range of $375-425/ton; site-
specific costs not provided
Relatively high soil moisture content
contributed to higher unit cost for in
situ vitrification treatment.
Multiple projects: In general, unit
costs for in situ vitrification are
affected by the local price of
electricity, consumables, labor,
mobilization and startup, and facilities
modifications.
Project Cost* Calculated Cost for Treatment**
T = Costs for treatment activities, including preprocessing, capital equipment, operation, and maintenance "Calculated based on costs for treatment activities (T): excludes costs for before- (B) and
B = Costs for before-treatment activities, including site preparation, excavation, and sampling and analysis after- (A)treatment activities. Calculated costs shown as "Not Calculated" if an estimate of
A = Costs for after-treatment activities, including disposal of residuals and site restoration treatment costs unavailable.
C = Capital costs
O = Annual operating costs
"*For full-scale remediation projects, this identifies factors affecting actual project costs. For demonstration-scale projects, this identifies generic factors which would affect project costs for a future
application using this technology.
NKT-100
0623-01.nrj
-------
Table 3. Remediation Case Studies - Summary of Cost Data (Continued)
Site Kara*, State €F«Moiogj<)
Project Cost®)* j
i-
Quantity Treated
Quantify of
; Contaminant
Removed
Calculated Cost for
Treatment**
: t
Key Factors Potentially Affecting
ItojectfTw&iwJBgy Costs*** _
Soil Vapor Extraction
Basket Creek Surface
Impoundment Site, GA (SVE)
Sacramento Army Depot
Superfund Site, Burn Pits
Operable Unit, CA (SVE)
Sand Creek Industrial Superfund
Site, Operable Unit No. 1, CO
(SVE)
T - 660,000
B - 1,300,000
A - 220,000
T - 670,500
B - 195,000
T - 2,058,564
B - 81,231
1,600 yd3
247,900 yd3
31,440-52,920 yd3
72,084 Ibs
138 Ibs
176,500 Ibs
$413^
($275/ton)
$9.20Ab VOC
$2.70/yd3
$4,858/lb VOC
$39-65^
$11.70/lbVOC
This project addressed treatment of a
relatively small quantity of highly-
contaminated soil.
This project addressed treatment of a
relatively large quantity of less-
contaminated soil.
The calculated unit costs varied
depending on how the soil quantity
treated was estimated (larger estimates
of soil quantity treated lead to lower
unit costs).
Enhancements/Additions
U.S. Department of Energy,
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion
Plant, OH (In Situ Enhanced
Soil Mixing)
U.S. Department of Energy
Savannah River Site, SC
(Blameless Thermal Oxidation)
U.S. Department of Energy,
Savannah River Site, SC, and
Hanford Site, WA (Six Phase
Soil Heating)
C - 1,956,000
O - 20,000/day
C - 50,000
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
$150-200/yd3 (projected)
$0.72/lb VOC destroyed
(projected)
SSe/yd3 (projected)
Demonstration project: Technology
costs vary based on required materials
and equipment.
Demonstration project: Heating content
of off-gas and economies-of-scale are
key factors affecting cost.
Demonstration project: Diameter and
depth of plume, energy demand, and
type of contaminants are key factors
affecting cost.
Project Cost* Calculated Cost for Treatment**
T = Costs for treatment activities, including preprocessing, capital equipment, operation, and maintenance "Calculated based on costs for treatment activities (T): excludes costs for before- (B) and
B = Costs for before-treatment activities, including site preparation, excavation, and sampling and analysis after- (A)treatment activities. Calculated costs shown as "Not Calculated" if an estimate of
A = Costs for after-treatment activities, including disposal of residuals and site restoration treatment costs unavailable.
C = Capital costs
O = Annual operating costs
""For full-scale remediation projects, this identifies factors affecting actual project costs. For demonstration-scale projects, this identifies generic factors which would affect project costs for a future
application using this technology.
NRJ-100
0623-01.nrj
-------
Table 3. Remediation Case Studies - Smnmaiy of Cost Data (Continued)
Site Name, State (Technology)
Project Cost $}*
Quantity Treated
Qusfflit%of
C-OBlflnWHSTlt
Removed
Calculated Cost for
Treatment**
Key F»ctow Potentially Affecting
Project/Technology Costs***
Other In Situ Technologies
U.S. Department of Energy,
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion
Plant, OH, and Other Sites
(Hydraulic and Pneumatic
Fracturing)
U.S. Department of Energy,
SEG Facilities, TN (Frozen Soil
Barrier Technology)
U.S. Department of Energy,
Multiple Sites (ResonantSonic
Drilling)
Not provided
C - 481,427
Not provided
Not provided
35,694 ft?
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
SS-lT/yd5 soil treated
$140/Ib TCE removed
$4-14/ft? ice formed
(projected)
$208-270/ft well drilled
(projected)
Demonstration project: Labor, capital
equipment, site preparation, and
residuals disposed are key factors
affecting cost.
Demonstration project: Quantity of
refrigeration and barrier thickness
needed are key factors affecting cost.
Demonstration project: Drilling
difficulty and type of site (e.g.,
uncontaminated, hazardous waste,
mixed waste) are key factors affecting
cost.
Calculated Cost for Treatment**
Project Cost*
T = Costs for treatment activities, including preprocessing, capital equipment, operation, and maintenance "Calculated based on costs for treatment activities (I): excludes costs for before- (B) and
B = Costs for before-treatment activities, including site preparation, excavation, and sampling and analysis after- (A)treatment activities. Calculated costs shown as "Not Calculated" if an estimate of
A = Costs for after-treatment activities, including disposal of residuals and site restoration
C = Capital costs
O = Annual operating costs
treatment costs unavailable.
***For full-scale remediation projects, this identifies factors affecting actual project costs. For demonstration-scale projects, this identifies generic factors which would affect project costs for a future
application using this technology.
NRJ-100
0623-OlJirj
-------
2.0
ABSTRACTS OF REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES
BIOREMEDIATION CASE STUDIES
Land Treatment at the Burlington Northern Superfund
Site, Brainerd/Baxter, Minnesota „ 10
Composting at the Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfund
Site, Cantonment, Florida 12
Slurry Phase Bioremediation at the Southeastern
Wood Preserving Superfund Site, Canton, Mississippi 14
Cost Report: Windrow Composting to Treat
Explosives-Contaminated Soils at Umatilla Army
Depot Activity (UMDA) 16
In Situ Bioremediation Using Horizontal Wells, U.S.
Department of Energy, M Area, Savannah River Site,
Aiken, South Carolina 18
Lasagna™ Soil Remediation at the U.S. Department of
Energy Cylinder Drop Test Area, Paducah Gaseous
Diffusion Plant, Paducah, Kentucky 20
NRJ-100
0623-01.nrj
-------
Case Study Abstract
Land Treatment at the Burlington Northern
Superfund Site, Brainerd/Baxter, Minnesota
Site Name:
Burlington Northern Superfund Site
Location:
Brainerd/Baxter, Minnesota
Contaminants:
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs),
Other Semivolatiles - Nonhalogenated
- Total PAH concentrations ranged from
33,982 to 70,633 mg/kg
- Individual PAH concentrations ranged up
21,319 mg/kg
- Benzene extractable concentrations ranged
from 66,100 to 112,500 mg/kg
Period of Operation:
May 1986 - October 1994
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
Mindy L. Salisbury
Remediation Technologies, Inc.
(ReTeC)
413 Waconta St., Suite 400
St. Paul, MN 55110
(612) 222-0841
SIC Code:
2491 B (Wood Preserving using
Creosote)
Technology:
Land Treatment
- Land treatment unit (LTU) constructed
with outer dimensions of 300 x 495 ft
- LTU constructed in layers, over HDPE,
silty sand, gravel, and clean, silty sand base
- 1,100 to 1,500 yds3 spread over LTU each
year, to a depth of 6-8 inches
- Operation included weekly cultivation,
irrigation, lime addition, and cow manure
application
- Treatment conducted from May through
October each year from 1986-1994 (9
"treatment seasons")
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
- Enforcement Decision
Document Date June 4, 1986
- PRP Lead
Point of Contact:
Tony Rutter
USEPA Region V
77 . Jackson Boulevard
Mail Code HSR-6J
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-8961
Waste Source:
Manufacturing Process, Surface
Impoundments
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil and Sludge
- 13,000 cubic yards of soil and sludge
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Full-scale application of land
treatment at a creosote-
contaminated site
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Total PAHs (sum of 17 specific constituents) less than 8,632 mg/kg
- Methylene chloride extractable (MCE) hydrocarbons (a replacement for benzene extractables) less than 21,000 mg/kg
- Place a cover over the LTU if cleanup goals not met
Results:
- Cleanup goal of 8,632 mg/kg for total PAHs was met for all nine treatment seasons
- At completion of treatment, total PAH concentration ranged from 608-795 mg/kg throughout the LTU
- Cleanup goal of 21,000 mg/kg for MCE hydrocarbons was not met for any treatment season
- At completion of treatment, MCE hydrocarbon concentration ranged from 24,800-26,900 mg/kg throughout the LTU
- A cover was placed over the LTU after completion of treatment
NRJ-100
0623-Ol.nij
10
-------
Case Study Abstract
Land Treatment at the Burlington Northern
Superfund Site, Brainerd/Baxter, Minnesota (Continued)
Cost Factors:
No information on actual cost data were provided for this application
Description: .it ...
The Burlington Northern site was the location of a railroad tie treating plant that operated from 1907 to 1985. Wood
preserving processes operated at the site involved pressure treatment using a heated creosote/coal tar or creosote/fuel
oil mixture. Wastewater generated from the wood preserving processes was discharged to two shallow, unlined surface
impoundments for disposal. In the 1980s, EPA determined that soil beneath these two surface impoundments, as well
as soil in three other areas at the site (the process, drip track, and black dock areas) were contaminated. Total PAH
concentrations for visibly-contaminated soils in the surface impoundments were measured as high as 70,633 mg/kg, with
individual PAHs measured as high as 21,319 mg/kg. Concentrations of benzene-extractable constituents in the surface
impoundment soils ranged from 66,100 to 112,500 mg/kg.
Based on a consent agreement, EPA issued an Enforcement Decision Document (a predecessor to a ROD) in June
1986, which required Burlington Northern to treat visibly-contaminated soils and sludges using on-site land treatment.
The land treatment unit (LTU) used in this application had outer dimensions of approximately 300 by 495 feet (150,000.
ft2) and an area available for treatment of approximately 255 by 450 feet (115,000 ft2). Each year from 1986 through. ,
1994 (nine years total), between 1,100 and 1,500 cubic yards of contaminated soil and sludge were spread over the LTU
to a depth of 6-8 inches. Land treatment was conducted from May through October (the "treatment season"), and ' c
included weekly cultivation, irrigation, lime addition, and cow manure application. The analytical data from the LTU at
the completion of treatment indicate that the cleanup goal was met for total PAHs with the concentration of total PAHs
ranging from 608 to 795 mg/kg throughout the depth of the treated soil and sludge. However, MCE hydrocarbons in
the treated soil ranged from 24,800 to 26,900 mg/kg, and the cleanup goal was not met. Therefore,-a cover was placed
over the LTU. , ^
• .' ".,"'•. . .I,'; ."**
MCE hydrocarbons were not treated to below the cleanup level because a "plateau effect" limited the extent of
biodegradation of these constituents. However, MCE hydrocarbons are no longer typically used as a performance
measure for land treatment systems. This application demonstrated that treatment efficiency for PAHs decreased with
increasing number of ring structures in the PAH molecule (e.g., two-ring more efficient, four-ring less efficient). The *,
land treatment application at Burlington Northern was PRP-lead, and no information on actual total costs or unit cdsts
incurred is provided in the available references.
NRJ-100
0623-01.nrj
11
-------
Case Study Abstract
Composting at the Dubose Oil Products Co.
Superfund Site, Cantonment, Florida
",.- I , --,1 ;•"';.'«'>'J"f- "• *':;:}' -.1'
r^rs1?;!;
Site Name:
Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfund
Site
Location:
Cantonment, Florida
Contaminants:
Organic compounds - volatiles, halogenated;
volatiles, nonhalogenated (BTEX);
semivolatiles, halogenated and semivolatiles,
nonhalogenated (PAHs)
- Total VOC concentrations ranged from
0.022-38.27 mg/kg
- Total PAH concentrations ranged from
0.578-367 mg/kg
- PCP concentration ranged from 0.058-51
mg/kg
Period of Operation:
November 1993 - September
1994
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
David Price/Garland Long
Waste Abatement Technology, L.P.
(WATEC)
1300 Williams Drive
Marietta, GA 30066
(770) 427-1947
SIC Code:
4953 W (Waste processing facility,
miscellaneous)
Technology:
Composting •>•
- Treatment structure was 33,000 ft2 modular
building
- Included systems for leachate collection,
aeration, inoculum growth and application,
and wastewater treatment
- Ambient air was drawn down through soil
pile
- Operating parameters included soil oxygen
and moisture contents, pH, and nutrient
levels
- Each batch of soil was-treated to less than
the cleanup goals within 14-30 days
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
- ROD Date 3/29/90
- PRP Lead
Point of Contact:
MarkFite
USEPA Region 4
Atlanta Federal Center
100 Alabama St., S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 562-8927
Waste Source:
Waste Treatment Plant
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Full-scale application of composting
to treat VOC- and PAH-
contaminated soil
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
SoU : ;;
- 19,705 tons of soil
- Lakeland loamy sand
- TPH 300-600 mg/kg
- Moisture content 8%
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Total PAHs (sum of 17 specific constituents) less than 50 mg/kg
- Total xyienes less than 1.5 mg/kg; benzene less than 10 mg/kg; TCE less than 0.05 mg/kg; DCE less than 0.07
mg/kg; and PCP less than 50 mg/kg
Results:
- Cleanup goal met for all constituents, with total PAHs in treated soil ranging from 3.3-49.9 mg/kg
- Of the 58,559 tons of soil excavated, only 19.705 tons exceeded cleanup goal and thus required treatment
NRJ-100
0623-0:.mJ
12
-------
Case Study Abstract
Composting at the Dubose Oil Products Co.
Superfund Site, Cantonment, Florida (Continued)
Cost Factors:
- Actual costs of $7,736,700 were reported by the PRP Steering Committee
- The cost for activities directly attributed to treatment was not provided separately from the total project cost, and
therefore a unit cost for treatment was not calculated
Description:
The Dubose Oil Product Co. Superfund site is a former waste treatment, recycling, and disposal facility that operated
from 1979 to 1981. Operations performed at Dubose included thermal treatment of waste oil, petroleum refining
wastes, oil-based solvents, and wood treatment wastes; steam heating of spent iron and pickle liquors; and rock salt
filtration of waste diesel fuel. During a remedial investigation (RI), soil at the site was found to be contaminated with
PAHs at concentrations ranging from 0.578 to 367 mg/kg total PAH, PCP ranging from 0.058 to 51 mg/kg, and VOCs
ranging from 0.022 to 38.27 mg/kg. v
A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed for this site in March 1990. Composting was selected in the ROD instead of
in situ biological treatment because it was identified as easier to control and more reliable, and because it was believed
that monitoring would be easier to perform. The composting system used at Dubose consisted of a treatment structure,
a leachate collection system, an aeration system, an inoculum growth and application system, and an on-site wastewater
treatment system. Contaminated soil was treated in batches, with each batch containing from 660 to 2,310 tons of soil.
For most of the batches, soil depth ranged from 4.0 to 4.25 feet. Composting activities were performed from May to
November 1993, and site restoration activities were completed by August 1996.
All 359 soil grids in the compost system met the soil cleanup goals established for Dubose. For total PAHs, before-
treatment concentrations ranged from 50.8 to 576.2 mg/kg, while after-treatment concentrations ranged from 33 to 49.9
mg/kg (average - 19 mg/kg). For PCP, before-treatment concentrations ranged from 7.67 to 160 mg/kg, while after-
treatment concentrations ranged from 16.5 to 36.3 mg/kg. The primary removal mechanism identified for VOCs in this
application was volatilization, while for PAHs it was bioremediation. Several lessons were learned about operation of
the composting system during this application. For example, the vendor indicated that applying an inoculum mixture
with a fire hose provided for adequate diffusion of soil moisture. '
NRJ-100
0623-01.nrj
13
-------
Case Study Abstract
Slurry Phase Bioremediation at the Southeastern Wood Preserving
Superfimd Site, Canton, Mississippi
Site Name:
Southeastern Wood Preserving
Superfund Site
Location:
Canton, Mississippi
Contaminants:
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
- Total PAH concentrations approximately
4,000 mg/kg
- Total carcinogenic PAH concentrations
ranged from approximately 1,000-2,500
mg/kg
Period of Operation:
1991-1994
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
Douglas E. Jerger/Pat Woodhull
OHM Remediation Services Corp.
16406 U.S, Route 224 East
P.O. Box 551
Findlay, OH 45840
(419) 425-6175
SIC Code:
2491 B (Wood Preserving using
Creosote)
Technology:
Slurry Phase Bioremediation
- System included a power screen, slurry mix
tank, 4 bioreactors, and dewatering unit
- Bioreactors were 38 ft diameter and 24 ft
high, and equipped with diffusers and a
blower for aeration, and an impeller for
mixing and suspension
- Each bioreactor had a 180,000 gal capacity
- 61 batches were treated, with each batch
consisting of 160-180 yd3 of material
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
- Action Memorandum Date
9/30/90
- Fund Lead
Point of Contact:
R. Donald Rigger
USEPA Region 4
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-3931
Waste Source:
Manufacturing Process/Surface
Impoundment/Lagoon
Purpose/Significance of
Application;
Full-scale application of slurry phase
bioremcdiation to treat soil with
relatively elevated levels of PAHs
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil and Sludge
- 14,140 tons (10,500 cubic yards) total
- Clay. 55%; sand: 40%; and gravel: 5%
- Various types of debris were present in the excavated materials
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Total PAHs (sum of 16 specific constituents) less than 950 mg/kg
- Bcnzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P)-equivalent carcinogenic PAHs less than 180 mg/kg
- Cleanup goals based on an LDR treatability variance
Results:
- Cleanup goal met for total and B(a)P-equivalent PAHs
- Average total PAH concentrations reduced from 8,545 to 634 mg/kg
- Average B(a)P-equivalent PAH concentrations reduced from 467 to 152 mg/kg
Cost Factors:
- Actual costs of $2,900,000 included treatment, design engineering, treatability, and pilot-scale testing
- Of this total, approximately $2,400,000 were for activities directly attributed to treatment
- The unit cost for activities directly attributed to treatment was $170/ton
NRJ-100
0623-Ol.nrj
14
-------
Case Study Abstract
Slurry Phase Bioremediation at the Southeastern Wood Preserving
Superfund Site, Canton, Mississippi (Continued)
Description:
The Southeastern Wood site was the location of a creosote wood preserving facility that operated from 1928 to 1979,
and included three unlined wastewater treatment surface impoundments. Bottom sediment sludge from the
impoundments was found to contain PAHs at levels of approximately 4,000 mg/kg, and was identified as a RCRA K001-
listed hazardous waste. PAH concentrations measured included acenaphthene at 705 mg/kg, naphthalene at 673 rag/kg,
and benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P) at 224 mg/kg.
A slurry phase bioremediation system was operated at Southeastern Wood from July 1991 until 1994, and consisted of a
power screen, a slurry mix tank, four slurry phase bioremediation reactors (bioreactors), and a slurry dewatering unit.
The bioreactors were 38 feet in diameter and 24 feet in height, and were equipped with a blower for aeration and an
impeller for mixing and keeping the slurry in suspension. The bioreactors were operated on a batch basis, and each
batch was monitored during treatment to evaluate performance with respect to the cleanup goals. Treatment
performance data are available for 13 of the 61 bioreactor batches, and show that the average total PAH concentration
was reduced from 8,545 to 634 mg/kg, which corresponds to a treatment efficiency of 93 percent. The average B(a)P-
equivalent concentration was reduced from 467 to 152 mg/kg, or 67 percent.
This application showed that treatment efficiency was greater for PAH constituents with 2-4 rings, and lower for PAHs
with 5-6 rings. The design of the treatment process was modified significantly from the original plans, including addition
of a desanding process. Operating problems identified in this application included foam production in the bioreactors,
and achievability of LDR treatment standards (which lead to a need for a treatability variance).
NRJ-100
0623-Ol.nrj
15
-------
Case Study Abstract
Cost Report: Windrow Composting to Treat Explosives-Contaminated
Soils at Umatffla Army Depot Activity (UMDA)
Site Name:
Umatilla Army Depot Activity
(UMDA)
Location:
Hcrmiston, Oregon
Contaminants:
Explosives
- Primary soil contaminants include 2,4,6-
Trinitrotoluene (TNT); Hexahydro-1,3,5-
trimtro-l,3,5-triazine (RDX); Octahydro-
l,3,5,7-tetranitro-l,3,5,7-tetrazocine (HMX);
and 2,4,6-Trinitrophenyhnethyhiitramine
(Tetrvl)
- TNT and RDX soil concentrations ranged
from 100 to 2,000 ppm; and HMX from < 1
to 100 ppm
- Contamination present in top 6 ft of soil
Period of Operation:
March 1994 - September 1996
(anticipated end date)
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale remediation
Vcndon
Wilder Construction Co. (Phase I)
Biorcmcdiation Services, Inc.
(Phase n)
SIC Code:
9711 (National Security)
Technology:
Composting (Windrow)
- Soil excavated and stored on site (Phase I)
- Soil treated inside 200 x 90 ft structure
(Phase EL)
- Moisture content maintained at 30-35%
- Turning frequency was once every 24 hrs
for first 5 days followed by less frequent
turning on subsequent days
- Composting batches required approximately
22 days to reach cleanup goals
- Full-scale treatment based on 3 trial tests
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
- ROD Date: September 1992
Point of Contact:
Remedial Project Manager
Umatilla Army Depot Activity
Hermiston, OR
Waste Source:
Surface Impoundment/Lagoon
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
First full-scale application of
windrow composting to biodegrade
explosives-contaminated soils
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- 10,969 cubic yards (13 windrows with 810 cubic yards each and 1 windrow with
439 cubic yards)
- Predominantly Quincy fine sand and Quincy loamy fine sand
- Soil pH gradually increased from 7 (at ground surface) to 8.5 at 5 ft below
ground surface
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Concentrations of explosives in soil of less than 30 ppm for each of target compounds - TNT and RDX
Results:
- Windrow composting generally reduced the levels of target explosives to below the cleanup goals
- Average concentrations prior to composting were 190 ppm for TNT and 227 ppm for RDX
- 27 x 30 cu. yd. grids sampled in each batch
- Through 11 batches, only 2 of ahnost 300 grids did not meet cleanup goal after initial phase of treatment
NRMOO
0623-Ol.nrj
16
-------
Case Study Abstract
Cost Report: Windrow Composting to Treat Explosives-Contaminated
Soils at UmatiUa Army Depot Activity (UMDA) (Continued)
Cost Factors:
- Actual total project cost of $5,131,106, corresponding to a unit cost of $346 per ton from mobilization to
demobilization
- Phase I cost $1,320,162 (soil excavation and storage)
- Phase H cost $3,810,944 (soil treatment)
- Costs specific to biological treatment ($1,989,454) correspond to unit cost of $181/cubic yard soil treated
Description:
From approximately 1955 to 1965, the UMDA operated a munitions washout facility in Hermiston, Oregon, where hot
water and steam were used to remove explosives from munitions casings. About 85 million gallons of heavily-
contaminated wash water were discharged to two settling lagoons at the site. The underlying soils and groundwater
were determined to be contaminated with explosive compounds, primarily TNT, RDX, and HMX, and the site was
placed on the NPL in 1987.
Windrow composting was used for a full-scale remediation at UMDA, with treatment taking place from July 1995 to
September 1996 (anticipated completion date per September 1996 report). A total of 10,969 yd3 of contaminated soil
were treated at UMDA, hi 14 batches. Analytical results indicated that average concentrations were reduced from 190
to <30 ppm for TNT, and from 227 to <30 ppm for RDX. Through 11 batches, only two of almost 300 grids did not
meet the cleanup goal (30 ppm) after an initial phase of treatment.
Detailed information on actual costs for this application are provided in the report. Actual costs are shown according to
an interagency Remedial Action-Work Breakdown Structure (RA-WBS). Factors affecting costs that were identified for
this application included climate, soil characteristics, and amendment availability and cost. For example, the semi-arid
cool climate and sparse vegetation at UMDA contributed to fairly low preparatory site work cost. Amendment
availability and cost are significant factors for composting and are driven by the proximity, seasonally, quality, and
consistency of the materials to be used. At UMDA, the majority of the amendments were readily available in the
Umatilla area.
NRJ-100
0623-01.nrj
17
-------
Case Study Abstract
In Situ Bioremediation Using Horizontal Wells, U.S. Department
of Energy, M Area, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina
Site Name:
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),
Savannah River Site (SRS),
M Area Process Sewer/Integrated
Demonstration Site
Location:
Aiken, South Carolina
Contaminants:
Chlorinated Aliphatics
- Trichloroethene (TCE) and
tetrachloroethene (PCE)
- TCE concentrations in the ground water
ranged from 10 to 1031 Mg/L, and PCE
from 3 to 124 fig/L
- TCE concentrations in the sediments
ranged from 0.67 to 6.29 mg/kg, and PCE
from 0.44 to 1.05 mg/kg.
Period of Operation:
February 1992 to April 1993
Cleanup Type:
Field demonstration
Technical Information:
Terry Hazen and Brian Looney,
Prin. Inv., WSRC,
(803) 725-6413, (803) 725-3692
Caroline Teelon, (Licensing
Information), WSRC,
(803) 725-5540
SIC Code:
9711 (National Security)
3355 (Aluminum Forming)
3471 (Metal Finishing)
Technology:
In Situ Bioremediation (ISB)
- Combines gaseous injection of air and
nutrients (N, P, CH4) into ground water
with soil vacuum extraction
- Provides for sparging/biodegradation of
VOCs in the ground water
- Uses horizontal wells to provide more
effective access to subsurface contamination
- Horizontal wells installed at 176 ft below
ground surface (bgs) (saturated zone - used
for injection) and 75 ft bgs (vadose zone -
used for extraction)
Cleanup Authority:
State: Air discharge and
underground injection control
(UIC) permits for the SRS are
in place with the South
Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control
(SCDHEC).
Points of Contact:
Kurt Gerdes, DOE,
(301) 903-7289
Jim Wright, DOE,
(803) 725-5608
Waste Source:
Surface impoundment (unlined
settling basin)
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
ISB combines biodegradation
(sparging and biostimulation) with
SVE to remediate both soil and
ground water contaminated with
VOCs
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil (sediment) and Ground Water
- Water table located at 120 ft bgs
- Vadose zone well radius of influence estimated to be greater than 200 ft
- Saturated zone well influence extended as far as 100 ft from well
- Vadose zone soils consists of sand, silt, clay, and gravel, with layers ranging up
to 18% silt and clay
- Saturated zones consist of several layers of sand with silt and clay beds
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- The demonstration was covered by permits issued by the SCDHEC, including an air quality permit and a UIC permit
(because of the addition of methane and nutrients).
- Groundwater protection standards of 5 ppb for TCE and PCE, and 200 ppb for TCA, were identified for Area M
NRJ-100
0623-Ol.mj
18
-------
Case Study Abstract
In Situ Bioremediation Using Horizontal Wells, U.S. Department
of Energy, M Area, Savannah River Site, Aiken,
South Carolina (Continued)
Results:
- Almost 17,000 Ibs of VOCs were removed or degraded over 384 days of operation (12,096 Ibs extracted and 4,838 Ibs
biodegraded)
- Mass balance data showed that bioremediation destroyed 40% more VOCs than simple air sparging
- ISB reduced VOC concentrations in the ground water below the 5 ppb cleanup goals for TCE and PCE; overall
groundwater concentrations were reduced by up to 95%
- VOC concentrations in most sediments were nondetectable; soil gas concentrations decreased by more than 99%
Cost Factors:
- No information is provided on the capital or operating costs for the ISB demonstration at SRS
- An analysis of capital and operating costs for an ISB application was made by LANL in a comparison with
conventional pump and treat with SVE
- The LANL analysis showed that ISB had capital costs approximately 30% greater than PT/SVE, operating costs 10%
lower, and would require 3 yrs instead of 10 yrs to remediate the demonstration site
Description:
From 1958 to 1985, Savannah River Area M conducted manufacturing operations including aluminum forming and metal
finishing. Process wastewater from these operations containing solvents (TCE, PCE, and TCA) was discharged to an
unlined settling basin at Savannah River, which lead to contamination of ground water and vadose zone soils. Full-scale
treatment of groundwater began in 1985. Treatment of vadose and saturated zones has been the subject of several
demonstrations (e.g., in situ air stripping), including this investigation of the technical and economic feasibility of in situ
bioremediation (ISB) technology.
ISB combines gaseous injection of air and nutrients (N, P, CH4) into ground water with soil vacuum extraction
technology. This provides for sparging and biodegradation of VOCs in the ground water, and extraction of VOCs from
the vadose zone. At SRS, two horizontal wells were used to provide more effective access to subsurface contamination.
Horizontal wells were installed at 176 ft bgs (in the saturated zone - used for injection) and 75 ft bgs (in the vadose
zone - used for extraction).
Almost 17,000 Ibs of VOCs were removed or degraded at SRS over 384 days of ISB operation. This total consists of
12,096 Ibs of VOCs extracted and 4,838 Ibs biodegraded. Mass balance data showed that bioremediation destroyed 40%
more VOCs than simple air sparging, and that it reduced VOC concentrations in the ground water below the 5 ppb
cleanup goals for TCE and PCE. Overall TCE and PCE groundwater concentrations were reduced by up to 95%. In
addition, VOC concentrations in most sediments were nondetectable, with soil gas concentrations decreased bv more
than 99%. *
NRJ-100
0623-01.nrj
19
-------
Case Study Abstract
Lasagna™ Soil Remediation at the U.S. Department of Energy
Cylinder Drop Test Area, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant,
Paducah, Kentucky
Site Name:
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
Cylinder Drop Test Area
Location:
Paducah, Kentucky
Contaminants:
Trichloroethene (TCE)
- TCE concentrations in clay soil ranged
from 1 ppb to 1760 ppm
- Average TCE concentration was 83.2
- Highest TCE concentrations (200 - 300
ppm) found 12-16 ft below surface
Period of Operation:
January - May 1995
Cleanup Type:
Field demonstration
Technical Information:
Sa V. Ho, Monsanto, (314) 694-5179
Steven C. Meyer, Monsanto,
(314) 275-5946
Joseph J. Salvo, GE, (518) 387-6123
Stephen H. Shoemaker, DuPont,
(713) 586-2513
SIC Code:
Not Available
Technology:
Integrated in situ technology
- patented technology developed by an
industrial consortium consisting of
Monsanto, GE, and DuPont
- combines electroosmosis, biodegradation,
and physicochemical treatment processes
- electrodes energized by direct current cause
water and soluble contaminants to move
through treatment layers
- treatment zones decompose or adsorb
contaminants
- water collected at the cathode is recycled to
the anode for acid-base neutralization
Cleanup Authority:
EPA and State of Kentucky
Points of Contact:
Skip Chamberlain, DOE,
(301) 903-7248
Dave Biancosino, DOE,
(301) 903-7961
Jim Wright, DOE,
(803) 725-5608
Kelly Pearce, DOE,
(304) 285-5424
Waste Source:
Not Available
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Lasagna™ is an in situ technology
suited to sites with low permeability
soils that combines several
technologies to remediate soil and
soil pore water contaminated with
soluble organic compounds
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil and soil pore water
- 4 ft layer of gravel and clay overlaying 40 ft layer of sandy clay loam with
interbedded sand layers
- low organic content
- 15 ft wide x 10 ft across x 15 ft deep
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- A cleanup standard for TCE in soil was set at 5.6 ppm.
- No air permits or Underground Injection permits were needed.
- The demonstration was granted a categorical exclusion under the NEPA.
NRJ-100
0623-Ol.nrj
20
-------
Case Study Abstract
Lasagna™ Soil Remediation at the U.S. Department of Energy
Cylinder Drop Test Area, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant,
Paducah, Kentucky (Continued)
Results:
- Treatment reduced TCE concentrations in test zone on average from 72.6 to 1.1 ppm (a 98% reduction)
- An electroosmosis flow rate of 4 L/hr was achieved, and 3 pore volumes of water were transported during a 4-month
operating period
- In probable DNAPL locations, TCE was reduced to less than 1 ppm, except for one deep location near an untreated
zone that was reduced to 17.4 ppm (diffusion from untreated deep zones suspected)
- Results from the field demonstration were used to develop plans for expanded treatment at Paducah
Cost Factors:
- No data are provided on the capital or operating costs for the field demonstration
- DuPont analyzed the costs for using Lasagna™ to treat TCE-contaminated clayey soil, and estimated that costs would
range from $40 to 90/yd3 of soil for a 1-acre site, ranging from 1-3 years for remediation
- Major cost elements include electrode construction; other factors include electrode spacing, placement of electrodes
and treatment zones, soil properties, depth of contamination, required purge water volume, cleanup time, and cost of
electrical power
- DuPont benchmarked unit costs for Lasagna™1 compared with other in situ technologies which required more than 30
years to remediate a site (in situ treatment zones using iron filings, pump and treat, in situ aerobic biological
treatment, and surfactant flushing) and determined that Lasagna™ is within the range of unit costs for these
technologies ($25-75/yd3)
Description:
Lasagna™ is an in situ technology that combines electroosmosis, biodegradation, and physicochemical treatment
processes to treat soil and soil pore water contaminated with soluble organic compounds. The technology was
developed by an industrial consortium consisting of Monsanto, GE, and DuPont and patents for the technology and the
trademark have been granted to Monsanto. The technology is suited for sites with low permeability soils. The process
uses electrokinetics to move contaminants in soil pore water into treatment zones where the contaminants can be
captured or decomposed.
At the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Lasagna™ was demonstrated on a clayey soil contaminated with TCE, with an
average concentration of 83 ppm. Treatment reduced TCE concentrations in a test zone from on average 72.6 to 1.1
ppm (a 98% reduction). An electroosmosis flow rate of 4 L/hr was achieved, and 3 pore volumes of water were
transported during a 4-month operating period. Results from the field demonstration were used to develop plans for
expanded treatment at Paducah (scheduled for June 1996, per report dated April 1996).
NRJ-100
0623-01.nrj
21
-------
3.0
VITRIFICATION CASE STUDIES
In Situ Vitrification at the Parsons Chemical/ ETM
Enterprises Superfund Site, Grand Ledge, Michigan
23
In Situ Vitrification at the U.S. Department of Energy
Hanford Site, Richland, Washington; Oak Ridge
National Laboratory WAG 7, Oak Ridge, Tennessee;
and Various Commercial Sites
25
NRJ-100
0623-Ol.mj
22
-------
Case Study Abstract
In Situ Vitrification at the Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises
Superfund Site, Grand Ledge, Michigan
NOTE:
This report is the final version of the EPA Cost and Performance Report for this application, and
supersedes the interim version of this report published in Volume 4 of this series in March 1995.
This final version reflects the most recent sampling of the vitrified material.
Site Name:
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises
Superfund Site
Location:
Grand Ledge, Michigan
Contaminants:
Pesticides, heavy metals, and dioxin
- Pesticide concentrations ranged up to
340,000 /Jg/kg (4,4'-DDT)
- Zinc concentration 150,000 jug/kg
- 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration 1.13
Period of Operation:
May 1993 to May 1994
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
James E. Hansen
Geosafe Corporation
2950 George Washington Way
Richland, WA 99352
(509) 375-0710
SIC Code:
2879 (Agricultural Chemicals, NEC)
Technology:
In Situ Vitrification
- 9 melt cells, each 26x26 ft square and 16 ft
deep
- Air emissions controls included an off-gas
collection hood, quencher, water scrubber,
and thermal oxidizer
- 8 melts required to vitrify the soil
- Melts ranged from 10 to 19.5 days
- Melts required approximately one year to
cool sufficiently to sample
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
- Action Memorandum Date
9/21/90
- Fund Lead
Point of Contact:
Len Zintak
USEPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
(312) 886-4246
Waste Source:
Manufacturing Process
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
First application of ISV at a
Superfund site
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil and sediment
- 3,000 cubic yards (5,400 tons)
- Silty clay
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Cleanup requirements identified for both soil and off-gasses
- Soil cleanup requirements were as follows: chlordane: 1 mg/kg; 4,4"-DDT: 4 mg/kg; dieldrin: 0.08 mg/kg; and
mercury: 12 mg/kg
Results:
- Confirmation coring samples indicated that vitrified materials met soil cleanup requkements for pesticides and
mercury
- Pesticides and mercury in vitrified material and soil beneath vitrified material were below detection limits
- Stack gas emissions met off-gas cleanup requirements
Cost Factors:
- Contractor's costs were specified in terms of a ceiling of $1,763,000
- Of this total, approximately $800,000 were for activities directly attributed to treatment
- The unit cost for activities directly attributed to treatment was $267/yd3
NRJ-100
0623-01.nrj
23
-------
Case Study Abstract
In Situ Vitrification at the Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises,
Superfund Site, Grand Ledge, Michigan (Continued)
Description:
The Parsons site is a former agricultural chemicals mixing, manufacturing, and packaging facility. Soils and sediments at
the Parsons site were contaminated with pesticides, heavy metals, and dioxins. ISV treatment of approximately 3,000 yd3
of contaminated soils and sediments at the Parsons site, consisting of eight melts, was performed from May 1993 to May
1994. This was notable for being the first full-scale application of ISV treatment at a Superfund site.
Confirmation coring sampling could not be performed until after the ISV melt had cooled, approximately one year after
treatment was completed. Three corings, or drill holes, were performed in locations selected to represent the ares with
potential residual contamination. The confirmation coring sampling results indicated that the vitrified material in.all
three drill holes had mercury and pesticide concentrations below detection limits, and therefore that the vitrified
material met the cleanup goals for this application. Also, analytical data for volatiles and semivolatiles in the
containment soil beneath the three drill holes were reported as below detection limits, indicating that volatiles and
semivolatiles were not present in the soil beneath the vitrified material.
This application demonstrated that final sampling of vitrified material needs to allow adequate time for the melt to -cool
(e.g., one year). In addition, the vendor identified several operational issues (e.g., decomposition of particle board
forms, irregular melt shapes) during treatment of the first few cells at Parsons. The cleanup contractor's cost ceiling for
the ISV treatment application at Parsons was $1,763,000, including $800,000 for vitrification, which corresponds to $267
per cubic yard of soU treated.
NRMOO
0623-01.nrj
24
-------
Case Study Abstract
In Situ Vitrification, U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford Site,
Richland, Washington; Oak Ridge National Laboratory WAG 7,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and Various Commercial Sites
Site Name:
1. U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE), Hanford Site
2. Oak Ridge National Laboratory
WAG 7
Various commercial sites (e.g.,
Parsons, Wasatch)
Location:
1. Richland, Washington
2. Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Commercial sites - various
Contaminants:
Parsons: pesticides (chlordane, dieldrin, 4,4-
DDT), metals (As, Pb, Hg)
ORNL: Radioactive elements (Ce137)
Wasatch: dioxin/furan, pentachlorophenol,
pesticides, VOCs, SVOCs
Private Superfund site: PCBs
Period of Operation:
Information not provided
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale remediation (Parsons,
Wasatch)
Field demonstration (e.g.,
ORNL)
Technical Information:
Craig Timmerman, Geosafe Corp.,
(509) 375-0710
SIC Code:
9711 (National Security)
Commercial sites - Information not
provided
Others - Information not provided
Technology:
In Situ Vitrification (ISV)
- Patented process that destroys organics and
some inorganics by pyrolysis
- Uses electricity as energy source
- Remaining contaminants (heavy metals and
radionuclides) are incorporated into
product; product has significantly reduced
leachability
- Vitrified material has 20-50% less volume
than original material
- Hood used to contain and collect off-gasses
from melt
Cleanup Authority:
- Information not provided
about authorities for specific
remediations and
demonstrations
- Detailed regulatory analysis of
ISV provided by CERCLA
criteria
Points of Contact:
J. Hansen, Geosafe,
(509) 375-0710
Jim Wright, DOE,
(803) 725-5608
B. Spalding, ORNL,
(423) 574-7265
Waste Source:
Wasatch - Other (concrete
evaporation pond)
Others - Information not provided
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Full-scale and field demonstrations
of ISV for variety of media types
and variety of contaminants
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil, Sludge, and Debris
- Parsons: 4800 tons
- Wasatch: 5600 tons
- Private Superfund site: 3100 tons
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Parsons: regulatory limits for Hg, chlordane, dieldrin, and 4,4-DDT
- Others - information not provided
NRJ-100
0623-01.nrj
25
-------
Case Study Abstract
In Situ Vitrification, U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford Site,
Richland, Washington; Oak Ridge National Laboratory WAG 7,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and Various Commercial Sites (Continued)
Results:
- Parsons: contamination reduced to below detection limits (ND) for most constituents
- Wasatch: molten product dip samples and surrounding berm post-ISV samples mostly ND
- ORNL treatability test had a "melt expulsion event (MEE)" where excess water vapor generation upset the melt and
caused overheating of the off-gas collection hood
- Supcrfund site in Washington State showed DRE for PCBs of greater than 99.9999%
Cost Factors:
- Vitrification operations $375-425/ton
- Ancillary costs: treatability/pilot testing - $50-150K; mobilization - $150-200K; and demobilization - $150-200K
- No information is provided on the capital or operating costs for specific full-scale or demonstration projects
Description:
In situ vitrification (ISV) has been used in three large-scale commercial remediations in the United States and in several
demonstrations. The commercial remediations were conducted at the Parsons Chemical Superfund site (see separate
report on Parsons); a Superfund site in Washington State; and at the Wasatch Chemical site. A demonstration of ISV
was conducted at ORNL WAG 7 on Cs137-contaminated material, where a melt expulsion event occurred .
ISV simultaneously treats mixtures of waste types, contaminated with organic and inorganic compounds. ISV has been
demonstrated at sites contaminated with hazardous and mked wastes, and achieves volume reductions ranging from 20-
50%. Metals and radioactive elements are bound tightly within the vitrified product. Full-scale remediation at Parsons
met the regulatory limits for chlordane, dieldrin, 4,4-DDT, and mercury. Full-scale remediation at Wasatch achieved
ND for 12 constituents in the molten product dip samples. A TSCA demonstration at a Superfund site in Washington
State showed destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) for PCBs of greater than 99.9999%. At the ORNL WAG 7
demonstration, a need was identified to take additional precautions when dealing with sites containing large amounts of
free water.
Site requirements for ISV, as identified by the vendor, are a function of: (1) the size and layout for equipment used in
the process; (2) the staging area requirements for treatment cell construction; and (3) the area needed for maneuvering
and operating equipment, excavating soils, and preparing treatment cells. In addition, the properties for fusion, melt
temperature, and viscosity are determined by the overall oxide composition of the soil.
NRMOO
0623-Ol.nrj
26
-------
4.0
SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION CASE STUDIES
Soil Vapor Extraction at the Basket Creek Surface
Impoundment Site, Douglasville, Georgia 29
Soil Vapor Extraction at the Sacramento Army Depot
Superfund Site, Burn Pits Operable Unit, Sacramento,
California _. 31
Soil Vapor Extraction at the Sand Creek Industrial
Superfund Site, Operable Unit No. 1, Commerce City,
Colorado . ; 33
NRJ-100
0623-01.nrj
27
-------
Case Study Abstract
Soil Vapor Extraction at the Basket Creek
Surface Impoundment Site, Douglasville, Georgia
Site Name:
Basket Creek Surface Impoundment
Site
Location:
Douglasville, Georgia
Contaminants:
Organic Compounds (Volatiles -
Halogenated: trichloroethene (TCE); and
Volatiles - Nonhalogenated: toluene, methyl
isobutyl ketone (MIBK), and methyl ethyl
ketone (MEK)) and Inorganic Compounds
(Heavy Metals: lead and mercury)
- Toluene: BDL-220,000 mg/kg
- MIBK: BDL-66,000 mg/kg
- MEK: BDL-23,000 mg/kg
Period of Operation:
November 1992 to April 1993
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
Mark Rigatti
OHM Remediation Services Corp.
5335 Triangle Parkway, Suite 450
Norcross, GA 30092
(770) 453-7630
SIC Code:
4953 W (Refuse Systems - waste
processing facility, miscellaneous)
Technology:
Soil Vapor Extraction (ex situ)
- In situ SVE was not used because of low
soil permeability
- Soil was excavated on a grid basis
- 48 grids were excavated, each 10x10 ft
square
- Treatment was conducted in metal building
60 ft wide by 120 ft long by 26 ft tall
- System included shaker (power) screen, 17
horizontal vapor extraction wells, 3 vacuum
pumps, a baghouse, and a thermal oxidizer
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
- Action Memorandum Date
4/11/91
- Fund Lead
Point of Contact:
R. Donald Rigger
USEPA Region 4
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-3931
Waste Source:
Surface Impoundment/Lagoon
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Ex situ SVE application on low-
pcrmcability soil contaminated with
organic and inorganic constituents.
Type/Quantify of Media Treated:
Soil
- 1,600 cubic yards (2,400 tons)
- Particle size distribution: clay - 16.4%; silt - 34.4%; sand - 40.8%; and gravel
8.4%
- Air permeability: 1.5xlO"7 cm/sec
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Soil treatment targets identified for 4 VOCs, lead, mercury, and total HOCs
- Targets for VOCs and metals set at TC regulatory levels
Results:
- Soil treatment targets met for all 14 sampling grids after 6 months of treatment
- TCLP results were as follows: TCE - <0.1 mg/L; PCE - < 0. 3 mg/L; benzene - <0.03 mg/L; MEK - < 2.0 mg/L;
lead < 2.0 mg/L; and mercury - all ND
- 72,000 Ibs of total VOCs recovered in this application
NRJ-100
0623-Ol.nrj
28
-------
Case Study Abstract
Soil Vapor Extraction at the Basket Creek
Surface Impoundment Site, Douglasville, Georgia (Continued)
Cost Factors:
- Actual costs of $2,200,000 were expended, including $1,300,000 for before-treatment activities, $660,000 for activities
directly attributed to treatment, and $220,000 for after-treatment activities
- The unit cost for activities directly attributed to treatment was $413/yd3 of soil treated ($275/ton), and $9.20/lb of
VOC removed
Description:
Basket Creek was used in the 1960s for illegal disposal of liquid refinery and other hazardous wastes. In 1991, soil at
the site was identified as a RCRA hazardous waste exhibiting the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) for lead, MEK, and TCE.
Soil samples collected in March 1990, May 1991, and January 1992 showed the following concentrations in a total waste
analysis: TCE - below detection limit (BDL) to 8,600 mg/kg; PCE -BDL to 2,700 mg/kg; toluene - BDL to 220,000
mg/kg; xylenes - BDL to 7,300 mg/kg; MEK - BDL to 23,000 mg/kg; and MEBK - BDL to 66,000 mg/kg.
An action memorandum for Basket Creek was signed on April 11, 1991 and specified soil treatment targets for TCE,
PCE, benzene, MEK, lead, mercury, and total halogenated organic compounds (HOCs). An ex situ SVE system was
used at Basket Creek, consisting of a 7,200 ft2 containment building, a shaker (power) screen, 17 vapor extraction wells,
vacuum pumps, a baghouse, an induced draft blower, and a thermal oxidizer. Excavation, screening, and vapor
extraction all took place inside the containment building. The system was run from November 1992 to February 1993,
and again from March to April 1993, for a total of 6 months of operation.
Analytical data indicated that the soil treatment targets were met for all contaminants after the six month treatment
period. Total VOCs in the treated soil ranged from 0.142 to 1570.7 mg/kg, and approximately 72,000 Ibs of total VOCs
were recovered from the soil. Toluene was the largest quantity VOC recovered, accounting for approximately 80% of
the total VOCs recovered, and MffiK was the second largest quantity, accounting for 11%. Ex situ SVE was selected
for this application after in situ SVE was ruled out because of the low permeability of the contaminated soil. Excavation
of soil was performed within an enclosure to control emissions. Because of space constraints, this resulted in the
excavation taking a much longer time (3 months) than would have been required were the excavation to have been done
outside (a few days).
NRJ-100
0623-Ol.nq
29
-------
Case Study Abstract
Soil Vapor Extraction at the Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site,
Burn Pits Operable Unit, Sacramento, California
Site Name:
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund
Site, Burn Pits Operable Unit
Location:
Sacramento, California
Contaminants:
Organic Compounds; Volatiles-Halogenated
- Trichloroethene (TCE), tetrachloroethene
(PCE), and 1,2-dichloroethene (DCE) each
less than 0.01 mg/kg
Period of Operation:
May 1994 - September 1995
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
Ashok Gopinath
OHM Remediation Services Corp.
5731 W. Las Positas Blvd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
(510) 227-1100
SIC Code:
3471: Electroplating, Plating,
Polishing, Anodizing, and Coloring
3479: Coating, Engraving, and
Allied Services, Not Elsewhere
Classified
Technology:
Soil Vapor Extraction
- System was OHM's patented Fluid
Injection-Vacuum Extraction (FIVE)
technology
- Included 10 shallow extraction/injection
wells, 12 deep wells, 1 horizontal well,
HEPA filters, and 2 trams of GAC units
- Shallow wells screened 10-25 ft below
ground surface (bgs)
- Deep wells screened 50-80 and 17-47 ft bgs
- Some wells operated as injection wells and
others as extraction wells
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
- Record of Decision Date
2/26/93
- U.S. Army Lead
Point of Contact:
Marlin Mezquita
USEPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-2393
Waste Source:
Disposal Pit; Incineration Residuals
Handling
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Full-scale application combining
fluid injection and vacuum
extraction wells in a complex
subsurface environment.
Type/Quantify of Media Treated:
son
- 247,900 cubic yards
- Subsurface consists of interbedded sands, silts, and clays, with some coarse
gravels
- Six facies identified during site investigation
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Soil cleanup standards for TCE, PCE, and DCE of 0.005 mg/kg
- Air emission limits identified for TCE, PCE, and DCE
Results:
- Soil cleanup goals met within 14 months of system operation
- Concentrations in treated soil were: TCE - 0.0021 mg/kg; PCE - 0.0013 mg/kg; and DCE - 0.0027 mg/kg
- Approximately 138 Ibs of TCE, PCE, and DCE extracted
Cost Factors:
- Actual costs of $865,873 included $195,000 for before-treatment activities (drilling, soil gas survey, confirmatory
borings, and chemical testing), and $670,500 for activities directly attributed to treatment (design, mobilization,
construction, start-up/testing/permitting, SVE operations and maintenance, and demobilization)
- The unit cost for activities directly attributed to treatment was $2.70/yd3 of soil treated, and $4,858/lb of VOC
removed
NRJ-100
0623-01.nrj
30
-------
Case Study Abstract
Soil Vapor Extraction at the Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site,
Burn Pits Operable Unit, Sacramento, California (Continued)
Description:
The Burn Pits Operable Unit at SAAD was the location of two rectangular trenches constructed in the late 1950s and
used intermittently as incineration pits until 1966. Materials reportedly buried and/or burned in the pits included
plating shop wastes, oil and grease, batteries, and construction debris. Remedial investigations conducted from 1990 to
1993 showed average soil contaminant concentrations for TCE ranging from 0.0029 to 0.0069 mg/kg, PCE from 0.0029
to 0.0079 mg/kg, and DCE from 0.0038 to 0.0055 mg/kg. In addition, the Army's basewide contractor estimated the
total mass of selected contaminants in the operable unit as follows: TCE - 22.3 Ibs; PCE - 7.1 Ibs; and DCE - 39.3 Ibs.
A Record of Decision (ROD) addressing the Burn Pits O.U. was signed in March 1993. OHM's patented fluid
injection/vapor extraction (FIVE) system was used to remediate the Burn Pits O.U. In the FIVE technology,
pressurized air is injected into vadose zone soils to produce relatively larger subsurface pressure gradients and higher
flow rates of extracted vapors than would be achieved solely with using vapor extraction technology. The vendor stated
that this system "enhanced subsurface volatilization and shortened the period of remediation," however, no data were
provided to support this statement. The FIVE system used at the SAAD Burn Pits consisted of 10 shallow
extraction/injection wells, 12 deep extraction/injection wells, 1 horizontal extraction/injection well, air injection piping,
vapor monitoring wells, liquid/vapor separators, high efficiency particulate filters, vapor phase granular activated carbon,
and positive displacement blowers. The wells were screened up to 80 feet below ground surface.
Confirmatory soil borings showed that the average concentrations for each of the three target contaminants was less
than the cleanup standards set hi the ROD. TCE was reduced to an average concentration of 0.0021 mg/kg, PCE to
0.0013 mg/kg, and DCE to 0.0027 mg/kg. Approximately 138 Ibs of TCE, PCE, and DCE were extracted during this
application, or roughly two times as much VOCs as originally estimated to be present at the operable unit. Possible
reasons for the discrepancy between the original estimate and the actual amount recovered identified by the treatment
vendor include inaccuracies in the original estimate and for 1,2-DCE, a reductive dehalogenation mechanism that
occurred in situ. According to the vendor, the use of the FIVE technology "enhanced subsurface volatilization and
shortened the period of remediation"; however, no additional information comparing this technology to other SVE
systems was provided.
NRJ-100
0623-01.nrj
31
-------
Case Study Abstract
Soil Vapor Extraction at the Sand Creek Industrial Superfund Site*
Operable Unit No. 1, Commerce City, Colorado
Site Name:
Sand Creek Industrial Superfund
Site, Operable Unit No. 1
Location:
Commerce City, Colorado
Contaminants:
Volatiles - Halogenated: chloroform,
methylene chloride, tetrachloroethene (PCE),
and trichloroethene (TCE); Volatiles -
Nonhalogenated: TPH
- Maximum soil concentrations: chloroform
- 0.820 mg/kg; methylene chloride - 5.8
mg/kg; TCE - 0.087 mg/kg; and PCE -
9.34 mg/kg
Period of Operation:
September 24, 1993 - April 27,
1994
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
Christopher Strzempka
Project Technical Mgr. for OU-1
OHM Remediation Services Corp.
16406 U.S. Route 224 East
Fmdlay, OH 45840
(800) 537-9540
SIC Code:
2879 (Pesticides and Agricultural
Chemicals, NEC)
2911 (Petroleum Refining)
Technology:
Soil Vapor Extraction
- System was OHM's patented Fluid
Injection-Vacuum Extraction (FTVE)
technology
- Included 31 vertical wells and 1 horizontal
well, and catalytic oxidizer
- Wells screened 3-32.5 ft below ground
surface (bgs)
- Some wells operated as injection wells and
others as extraction wells
Cleanup Authority:
CERCIA
- Action Memorandum Date
9/29/89
- Federal Lead/Fund Financed
Point of Contact:
Erna Waterman, 8 EPR-SR
USEPA Region VHI
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2466
(303)312-6762
Waste Source:
Manufacturing Process
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Full-scale application combining
fluid injection and vacuum
extraction wells to treat VOC-
contaminated soil.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- Estimates of quantity treated ranged from 31,440 - 52,920 yd3
- Sandy loams, loamy sands
- Silt and clay - 19.99-24.71%
- LNAPL plume also identified at site
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: ,
- Soil cleanup goals specified for 4 VOCs as follows: chloroform - 0.165 mg/kg; methylene chloride - 0.075 mg/kg;
TCE - 0.285 mg/kg; and PCE - 1.095 mg/kg ^__
Results:
- Soil cleanup goals met within 6 months of system operation
- Maximum concentrations in treated soil were: chloroform - 0.0099 mg/kg; methylene chloride - ND; TCE - 0.10
rag/kg; and PCE - 0.28 mg/kg
- Approximately 3,250 Ibs of chloroform, methylene chloride, TCE, and PCE extracted (primarily PCE)
- Approximately 176,500 Ibs of total VOCs extracted
NRI-100
32
-------
Case Study Abstract
Soil Vapor Extraction at the Sand Creek Industrial Superfund Site,
Operable Unit No. 1, Commerce City^ Colorado (Continued)
Cost Factors:
' £P£™aJely ^v'°°?- WT eXP?nded f°r tWs aPPUcati°n> Chiding $8^31 for before-treatment activities, and
$2,058,564 for activities directly attributed to treatment
" remorcd C°8t f°r aCtiVitieS dfa"eCtly attributed to treatment was $39-65/yd3 of soil treated, and $11.70/lb of VOC
— abr/missions control equipmentfrom activated carbon with off-site regeneration to catalytic
resulted in a significant cost savings to the government <*<"y^
Description:
The Sand Creek O.U. 1 site was the location of pesticide manufacturing companies in the 1960s and 1970s, and prior to
wetS a P^T 7-f ^ PeSbdde manufacturmg comPa»ies had two fires in the period from 1968-1977, and
were reported to have unsatisfactory waste management practices. Remedial investigations conducted from 1984 to 1988
h^latd'Vn^, S? COnt™ti°Vt Sand ^^ °'U- l ** *» m°^ maximum soil concentrations of
halogenated VOCs: chloroform - 0.820 mg/kg, methylene chloride - 5.8 mg/kg, TCE - 0.087 mg/kg, and PCE - 9 34
C°nCentratl0nS' EPA "fr"-*1 «* total mass of the four target contaminaSs in the operable
fi n addj:eAssing Sand Creek °'U- 1 was signed in September 1989 and an Explanation of
Sigmficant Deferences (ESD^ modnymg the 1989 ROD was issued in September 1993. OHM's patented fluid
injechon/vapor faction (FIVE) system was used to remediate O.U. 1. In the FIVE technology, pressurized air is
mjected into vadose zone sods to produce relatively larger subsurface pressure gradients and Mgher flow rates oT
exacted vapors than would be achieved solely with using vapor extraction technology. The FIVE system used at
3,2,extractlon/^ction wells (31 vertical, 1 horizontal), three positive displacement blowers
* one ^^ oxidizer' ^ ^ blowers (for injection)- The
sasehe.n ** C°ncentrations for «n four ««»* contaminants were less than the cleanup
standards set in the ROD. The maxunum concentration of target contaminants measured in the confirmation soil
borings was: chloroform - 0.0099 mg/kg, methylene chloride - not detected, TCE - 0.10 mg/kg and PCE 0 ZS
,.,,-- > removed was ahnost 5 times greater than the original estimate
-a* -* ^JTtr^
NRJ-100
0623-01.nrj
33
-------
5.0
ENHANCEMENTS/ADDITIONS CASE STUDIES
In Situ Enhanced Soil Mixing, U.S. Department of
Energy, X-231B, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant,
Piketon, Ohio
35
Flameless Thermal Oxidation at the M Area,
Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, in
Cooperation With the U.S. Department of Energy Oak
Ridge Operations
37
Six Phase Soil Heating at the U.S. Department of
Energy, M Area, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South
Carolina, and the 300-Area, Hanford Site, Richland,
Washington
39
NRJ-100
0623-Ol.mj
34
-------
Case Study Abstract
In Situ Enhanced Soil Mixing, U.S. Department of Energy,
X-231B, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Piketon, Ohio
Site Name:
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant
X-231B
Location:
Piketon, Ohio
Contaminants:
Chlorinated Aliphatics
- 13 VOCs were identified in the soil at
PGDP
- Most prevalent VOCs were
Trichloroethene (TCE), 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane (TCA), 1,1-Dichloroethene
(DCE), and methylene chloride
- Concentrations ranged from several
hundred to several thousand
Period of Operation:
June 1992
Cleanup Type:
Field demonstration
Technical Information:
Robert L. Siegrist, Prin. Inv.,
ORNL, (303) 273-3490
Vendors:
Jim Brannigan, Millgard,
(313) 261-9760
Steve Day, Geo-Con, (916) 858-0480
SIC Code:
9711 (National Security)
Others - information not provided
Technology:
In Situ Enhanced Soil Mixing (ISESM)
- ISESM consists of soil mixing combined
with additional technology
- Four additional technologies were
demonstrated at PGDP: vapor extraction
with ambient air injection (stripping); vapor
extraction with hot air injection (stripping);
hydrogen peroxide injection; and grout
injection for solidification/stabilization
- 12 soil columns, each 10 ft in diameter and
15 ft deep, were treated in the
demonstration
- One additional column was treated by hot
air stripping to a depth of 22 ft
- Another additional column was used for a
tracer study
Cleanup Authority:
State: Ohio EPA
Points of Contact:
Dave Biancosino, DOE,
(301) 903-7961
Jim Wright, DOE,
(803) 725-5608
Waste Source:
Waste Treatment Plant/Disposal Pit
(waste oil biodegradation units)
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Application of ISESM to remediate
fine-grained soils that are difficult to
treat with other technologies alone;
technology is particularly suited to
shallow applications, above the
water table.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- Detailed information provided on soil characteristics, including physical,
chemical, and biological properties
- Clay content ranged from 12 to 25%
- 78% of VOCs were present in uppermost 12 ft of soil
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Closure plan required 70% mass removal
- No RD&D permit was required
NRJ-100
0623-01.nrj
35
-------
Case Study Abstract
In Situ Enhanced Soil Mixing, U.S. Department of Energy,
X-231B, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Piketon, Ohio (Continued)
Results:
- Soil mixing with each of the 4 additional technologies performed better than the 70% VOC mass removal requirement
- Soil mixing with ambient air stripping achieved >90% removal after 3.75 hrs of treatment
- Soil mixing with hot air stripping achieved >95% removal after 3.75 hrs of treatment
- Soil mixing with peroxidation achieved >70% removal after 1 hr of treatment
- Soil mixing with solidification achieved >90% capture after 1 hr of treatment
- Soil mixing with hot air (thermal) stripping was selected as the remedial option for the site, with cleanup and closure
completed in 1994; 628 soil columns at a depth of 22 ft were treated in remediation
Cost Factors:
- Actual capital costs of $1,956,000 were expended for the demonstration, including $481,000 for labor and $500,000 for
vendor subcontracts
- Equipment operating costs during demonstration were estimated at $20,000 per day
- Demonstration costs for all four technologies reported as ranging from $150-200/yd3
- Hot air stripping costs were 5% greater than for ambient air stripping, but achieved cleanup goals faster
Description:
The X-231B waste management unit at the DOE Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP) consists of two waste oil
biodcgradation areas. The unit was used from 1976 to 1983 for treatment and disposal of waste oils and degreasing
solvents, and contributed to contamination of soil and shallow ground water with VOCs. Thirteen VOCs were identified
in the soil, including TOE, TCA, DCE, and methylene chloride, at concentrations ranging from several hundred to
several thousand /70% (for peroxidation) to >95% (for hot ah- stripping). Based on
the results of the demonstration, hot air stripping was selected for site remediation, which was completed in 1994. In
situ solidification was more complicated than originally anticipated due in part to difficulty hi effectively mixing the
dense day soil in situ and delivering the proper volume of grout. In addition, the solidification process generated
secondary liquid wastes from grout delivery trucks and equipment cleanup. An unproved "grout-on-demand" system has
been developed to minimize waste.
NRJ-100
0623-Ol.nrj
36
-------
Case Study Abstract
Flameless Thermal Oxidation at the M Area,
Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, in Cooperation With
the U.S. Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations
Site Name:
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),
Savannah River Site,
M Area Process Sewer/Integrated
Demonstration Site
Location:
Aiken, South Carolina
Contaminants:
Chlorinated Aliphatics
- Trichloroethene (TCE), tetrachloroethene
(PCE), and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA)
- TCE concentrations hi the off-gas ranged
from 157 to 291 ppm, PCE from 243 to 737
ppm, and TCA from 12 to 21 ppm.
Period of Operation:
April to May 1995
Cleanup Type:
Field demonstration
Vendor:
Bob Wilbourn
Thermatrix, Inc.
(615) 539-9603
Technical Information:
Tim Jarosch, Prin. Inv., WSRC,
(803) 725-5189
Richard Machanoff, HAZWRAP,
(615) 435-3173
SIC Code:
9711 (National Security)
3355 (Aluminum Forming)
3471 (Metal Finishing)
Technology:
Post-Treatment (Ah-) - Flameless Thermal
Oxidation
- Flameless Thermal Oxidizer (FTO) is a
commercial technology available from
Thermatrix, Inc.
- FTO uses a heated packed bed reactor
typically filled with saddle- and spherical-
shaped inert ceramic pieces to destroy
chlorinated and non-chlorinated volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) hi vapors
extracted by a Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)
system.
- Designed to oxidize off-gases without
forming PICs or HAPs; not viewed as an
incineration technology.
Cleanup Authority:
State: Air discharge permits
for the Savannah River
demonstration site are hi place
with the South Carolina
Department of Health and
Environmental Control
(SCDHEC)
Point of Contact:
Jef Walker, DOE,
(301) 903-7966
Jim Wright, DOE,
(803) 725-5608
Waste Source:
Surface impoundment (unlined
settling basin)
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Off-gases (extracted vapors)
- Information not provided on quantity treated
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
FTO was demonstrated as an
alternative technology for treatment
of extracted vapors during an SVE
application to oxidize off-gases
without forming PICs or HAPs.
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- The Savannah River site maintains air discharge permits for hi situ remediation demonstrations associated with VOCs
hi non-arid soils and ground water.
- No specific regulatory requirements or cleanup goals were identified for the FTO demonstration.
NRJ-100
0623-01.nrj
37
-------
Case Study Abstract
Flameless Thermal Oxidation at the M Area,
Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina in Cooperation With
the U.S. Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations (Continued)
Results:
This demonstration was evaluated in terms of destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) for specific VOCs and total
chlorinated VOCs (CVOCs).
- The FTO unit achieved >99.995% DRE for PCE and >99.95% for TCE and total CVOCs during a 22-day
continuous operation testing stage.
- The FTO unit achieved > 99.995% DRE for total CVOCs during a 2.5 day testing period where the influent stream
was spiked with 950 to 3060 ppm CVOC. ' .
Cost Factors:
- Capital cost for the FTO unit used in the demonstration was $50,000 (for an electrically heated, 5 scrm unit without an
integrated caustic scrubber).
- Total operating costs for FTO technology were estimated at $0.72 per pound of CVOC destroyed, including costs for
capital recovery, energy, labor, and maintenance.
- No additional details provided on components of capital or operating costs; however, the authors report that FTO
costs less per pound of CVOC destroyed than competing technologies such as thermal catalytic technologies.
Description:
From 1958 to 1985, Savannah River Area M conducted manufacturing operations including aluminum forming and metal
finishing. Process wastewater from these operations containing solvents (TCE, PCE, and TCA) was discharged to an
unlined settling basin at Savannah River, which lead to contamination of ground water and vadose zone soils.
Treatment of vadose zone soils has been the subject of several demonstrations (e.g., hi situ air stripping), including this
investigation of the technical and economic performance of off-gas treatment technologies.
Flameless thermal oxidation (FTO) is a commercial technology used in a demonstration at Savannah River Area M to
treat chlorinated VOCs in off-gasses extracted using a SVE system. FTO uses a heated packed bed reactor typically
filled with saddle- and spherical-shaped inert ceramic pieces to destroy chlorinated and non-chlorinated VOCs in vapors
extracted by a SVE system. The demonstration was based on pumping from one horizontal SVE well at a flow rate of 5
scfin, and the thermal reaction zone in the FTO was maintained at 1400 to 1700°F. A caustic scrubber was not included
in this demonstration because of the relatively small quantity of HC1 produced.
This demonstration was evaluated in terms of destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) for specific VOCs and total
chlorinated VOCs (CVOCs). The FTO unit achieved > 99.99% DRE for PCE, and > 99.995% DRE for total CVOCs
during a testing period where the influent stream was spiked with CVOC. During the continuous and spike testing
phases, no PICs or HAPs were detected hi the FTO effluent.
NRJ-100
0623-Ol.uj
38
-------
Case Study Abstract
Six Phase Soil Heating at the U.S. Department of Energy, M Area,
Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, and the
300-Area, Hanford Site, Rich land, Washington
Site Name:
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),
Savannah River Site (SRS), M Area
Process Sewer/Integrated
Demonstration Site
(for Hanford Site, see Results)
Location:
Aiken, South Carolina
Contaminants:
Chlorinated Aliphatics
- Trichloroethene (TCE) and
tetrachloroethene (PCE)
- TCE concentrations in the sediments
ranged from 0 to 181 (Jig/kg (ppb), and
PCE from 0 to 4,529 fig/kg.
Period of Operation:
October 1993 to January 1994
Cleanup Type:
Field demonstration
Technical Information:
Theresa Bergsman, PNL,
(509) 376-3638
Phil Gauglitz, (509) 372-1210
Bill Heath, (509) 376-0554
Harry Burkholder (Licensing),
PNL, (509) 376-1867
SIC Code:
9711 (National Security)
3355 (Aluminum Forming)
3471 (Metal Finishing)
Technology:
Six Phase Soil Heating (SPSH)
- SPSH splits conventional three-phase
electricity into six separate electrical
phases, with each phase delivered to a
single electrode.
- The six electrodes are placed in a
hexagonal pattern, with the vapor extraction
well located in the center of the hexagon.
- At SRS, the diameter of the hexagon was
30 ft, and 1 to 2 gals/hr of water with 500
ppm NaCl was added at each electrode to
maintain moisture. Electrical resistivity
tomography (ERT) was used to monitor
heating progress.
Cleanup Authority:
State: Air discharge and
underground injection control
(UIC) permits for the SRS are
in place with the South
Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control
(SCDHEC).
Points of Contact:
Kurt Gerdes, DOE EM-50,
(301) 903-7289
Dave Biancosino, DOE,
(301) 903-7961
Jim Wright, DOE,
(803) 725-5608
Waste Source:
Surface impoundment (unlined
settling basin)
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
SPSH was demonstrated as an
alternative technology for enhancing
removal of contaminants from
clayey soils during an SVE
application
Type/Quantify of Media Treated:
Soil and Sediment
The contaminated target.zone was a ten-foot thick clay layer at a depth of
approximately 40 feet, underlain by a thick section of relatively permeable sands
with thin lenses of clayey sediments.
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- The demonstration was covered by permits issued by the SCDHEC, including an air quality permit and a UIC permit
(because of the addition of NaCl-bearing water to the electrodes).
- No specific regulatory requirements or cleanup goals were identified for the SPSH demonstration.
NRJ-100
0623-01.nrj
39
-------
Case Study Abstract
Six Phase Soil Heating at the U.S. Department of Energy, M Area,
Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, and the
300-Area, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington (Continued)
Results:
- Temperature in the day zone increased to 100°C within 8 days and held at 100-110°C for 25-day demonstration.
- 19,000 gallons of water were removed from the soil as steam; approximately 5,000 gallons of water were added to
maintain electrode conductivity.
- Median removal of PCE from the soil was 99.7%
- 180 kg of PCE and 23 kg of TCE were removed from the soil within the heated zone.
- SPSH at the Hanford site was conducted in 1993 on an uncontaminated area.
- Results from Hanford were used to improve process understanding, refine system design (e.g., of electrodes), and
address scale-up issues.
Cost Factors:
- No data are provided on the capital or operating costs for the two demonstrations.
- An analysis of the capital and operating costs comparing SPSH and SVE technologies was made based on the
following assumptions: a plume 100 ft in diameter; depth from 20 to 120 ft; energy demand 200 kW-hr per yd3; target
contaminants are VOCs and semi-VOCs.
- SPSH was shown to have a lower cost than SVE ($86/yd3 compared with $576/yd3) and to require less time for
remediation (5 yrs compared with 50 yrs).
Description:
From 1958 to 1985, Savannah River Area M conducted manufacturing operations including aluminum forming and metal
finishing. Process wastewater from these operations containing solvents (TCE, PCE, and TCA) was discharged to an
unlined settling basin at Savannah River, which lead to contamination of ground water and vadose zone soils.
Treatment of vadose zone soils has been the subject of several demonstrations (e.g., in situ air stripping), including this
investigation of the technical and economic feasibility of six phase soil heating (SPSH) technology.
At SRS, SPSH was used to increase the removal efficiency of SVE for a clayey soil contaminated with TCE and PCE.
At Hanford, SPSH was demonstrated on an uncontaminated site to improve process understanding, refine system design
(e.g,, of electrodes), and address scale-up issues. SPSH splits conventional three-phase electricity into six separate
electrical phases, with each phase delivered to a single electrode. The six electrodes are placed in a hexagonal pattern,
with the vapor extraction well located in the center of the hexagon.
Results from the SRS demonstration showed that SPSH increased the temperature in the clay zone to 100°C within 8
days and maintained it at 100-110°C for a 25 day demonstration. In addition, there were 19,000 gallons of water
removed from the soil as steam, and approximately 5,000 gals of water added to maintain electrode conductivity. The
median removal of PCE from the soil was 99.7%, with overall results showing that 180 kg of PCE and 23 kg of TCE
were removed from the soil within the heated zone. Operating difficulties included drying out of the electrodes and
shorting of the thermocouples. The system design was improved to overcome these difficulties.
NRJ-100
MZJ-Ol.nij
40
-------
6.0
OTHER IN SITU TECHNOLOGIES
Hydraulic and Pneumatic Fracturing at the U.S.
Department of Energy Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion
Plant, Ohio, Department of Defense and Commercial
Sites
Frozen Soil Barrier Technology at the SEG Facilities,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee in Cooperation with U.S.
Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations
ResonantSonic Drilling
42
44
46
NRJ-100
0623-01.nrj
41
-------
Case Study Abstract
Hydraulic and Pneumatic Fracturing, U.S. Department
of Energy (Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Ohio),
Department of Defense, and Commercial Sites
Site Name:
1. U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE), Portsmouth Gaseous
Diffusion Plant (PGDP)
2. DoD (e.g., Tinker AFB) and
Commercial sites (various)
Location:
Piketon, Ohio (for PGDP)
Contaminants:
- Demonstrations conducted at sites
contaminated with Volatile Organic
Contaminants (VOCs) (including
Trichloroethene (TCE)), Dense
Nonaqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPLs), and
at uncontaminated sites
Period of Operation:
July 1991 - August 1996
(multiple demos during this
time period)
Cleanup Type:
Field demonstration
Technical Information:
Pneumatic J. Liskowitz/T. Keffer,
ARS, (908) 739-6444
John Semiring, NJTT, (201) 596-5849
Hydraulic: L. Murdoch, Univ. of
Cine., (513) 556-2519
W. Slack, FRX, (513) 556-2526
R. Siegrist, ORNL, Col. Sch. of
Mines, (303) 273-3490
SIC Code:
9711 (National Security)
Others - information not provided
Technology:
Hydraulic and Pneumatic Fracturing
- Hydraulic fracturing equipment includes
lance, notch tool, slurry mixer, and pump
- Gel-laden proppant is pumped into notch
under 60 psig to create a fracture
- Pneumatic fracturing equipment includes
high-pressure air source, pressure regulator,
and receiver tank with inline flow meter
and pressure gauge
- Air is injected at 72.5-290 psi for <30
seconds using a proprietary nozzle
- Design considerations include formation
permeability, type, and structure; sand
proppant; state of stress; site conditions;
and depth
- Fracturing used in conjunction with other
in situ technologies such as SVE,
, bioremediation, and pump and treat
Cleanup Authority:
Information not provided
Points of Contact:
Skip Chamberlain, DOE,
(301) 903-7248
James Wright, DOE,
(803) 725-5608
Waste Source:
Tinker - Underground Storage Tank
Others - Information not provided
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Demonstrations of technology used
to increase hydraulic conductivity,
contaminant mass recovery, and
radius of influence (for example, in
a SVE application)
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil and Ground Water
- Generally applicable in low permeability formations
- At PGDP, was used at uncontaminated site underlain by low permeability
clays and silts to a depth of approximately 15-22 ft
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- No special permits were required for use in the demonstrations
- Some states may be concerned about injection of fluids and other materials that may alter the pH of the subsurface
NRJ-100
0623-Ol.mj
42
-------
Case Study Abstract
Hydraulic and Pneumatic Fracturing, U.S. Department
of Energy (Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Ohio),
Department of Defense, and Commercial Sites (Continued)
Results:
- Hydraulic fracturing demonstrations showed mass recovery increased from 2.8-50 times, and radius of influence from
25-30 times
- Pneumatic fracturing at Tinker Air Force Base increased product thickness in recovery well from 1.5 to 20.2 ft
- Pneumatic fracturing at PGDP doubled hydraulic conductivity, and increased radius of influence by 33% after one day
of pumping
Cost Factors:
- Capital and annual costs not provided for demonstrations
- Hydraulic fracturing projected to cost $5,400 for one-time costs, and $5,700 for daily costs (corresponding to $950-
1,425 per fracture, for 4-6 fractures)
- Pneumatic fracturing projected to be similar to those for hydraulic fracturing ($400-1,425 per fracture)
- Pneumatic fracturing at a SITE demonstration estimated at $140/lb of TCE removed; other estimates predict
pneumatic fracturing cost of $8-17/yd3 soil treated
Description:
Hydraulic and pneumatic fracturing are technologies that can enhance access to the subsurface for remediation of
contaminants above and below the water table. Enhanced access is provided by creating new or enlarging existing
fractures in the subsurface. These fractures enhance the performance of in situ remediation technologies such as SVE,
bioremediation, and pump and treat by increasing the soil permeability; increasing the effective radius of recovery or
injection wells; increasing potential contact area with contaminated soils; and intersecting natural features. Fracturing
can also be used to improve delivery of materials to the subsurface (e.g., nutrients).
A number of demonstrations of hydraulic and pneumatic fracturing have been conducted to show technology
applicability and performance in a variety of settings. Hydraulic fracturing demonstrations have showed mass recovery
increases from 2.8-50 times, and radius of influence increases from 25-30 times. Pneumatic fracturing demonstrations
have been conducted at Tinker Air Force Base and PGDP, with results provided hi terms of increased product thickness
in recovery wells and increases in hydraulic conductivity and radius of influence. Hydraulic fracturing is commercially
available from several companies, while pneumatic fracturing has been patented by the New Jersey Institute of
Technology (NJIT). The NJIT has licensed pneumatic fracturing to Accutech Remedial Services (ARS). While
hydraulic fracturing produces larger apertures and can be performed at greater depths than pneumatic fracturing, the
addition of water in hydraulic fracturing may create a larger volume of contaminated media possibly requiring
remediation. Prior to proposing fracturing, sites should be analyzed for permeability. Sites with extensively fractured
strata will have permeabilities that are high enough that fracturing may not be required.
NRJ-100
0623-01.nrj
43
-------
Case Study Abstract
Frozen Soil Barrier Technology at the SEG Facilities, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee in Cooperation with U.S. Department of Energy
Oak Ridge Operations
Site Name:
Scientific Ecology Group (SEG),
Gallahcr Road Facility
Location:
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Contaminants:
None
- Surrogate solution (200 ppm Rhodamine-
WT) were used to test the integrity
characteristics of the barrier.
Period of Operation:
May 12 - October 10, 1994
Cleanup Type:
Field demonstration
Technical Information:
Rick Swatzell, Prin. Inv., Martin
Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
(615) 435-3126
Ray Peters, SEG
(615) 376-8194
SIC Code:
Not Applicable (not a contaminated
site)
Technology:
Frozen Soil Barrier
- Uses refrigeration to freeze soils and
provide barrier/containment for hazardous
and/or radioactive contaminants in soil and
ground water.
- Demonstration facility was "V-shaped,
with dimensions of 56 by 56 feet outside
and 33 by 33 feet inside; maximum depth
was 28 feet;
- Refrigerant pipes were installed around
circumference of facility in a double-rowed
configuration with an ice wall allowed to
grow together between the pipes and
forming a barrier.
Cleanup Authority:
None - demonstration
conducted at a nonhazardous
site
Management Information:
Jef Walker, DOE EM-50
Plumes Focus Area Program
Manager, (303) 903-7966
Waste Source:
Not Applicable (not a contaminated
site)
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Frozen soil barrier technology has
been demonstrated for controlling
waste migration in soils.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- Subsurface soils consisted of 13 to 22 feet of fill soils overlying residual soils.
Fill soils consisted of stiff to hard red-brown silty clay, with varying amounts of
chert fragments. Residual soils consisted of stiff to soft red-brown to brown
silty clay and clayey silt, with varying amounts of chert fragments.
- Soil density measured as 108.8 Ib/ft3.
- Average soil moisture content ranged from 26.5 to 33.9%.
- 8,175 cubic feet of soil contained by the frozen barrier.
- 35,694 cubic feet of soil composed frozen barrier.
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
No regulatory requirements or cleanup goals were identified for this demonstration because it was conducted at a
nonhazardous site.
Results:
This demonstration was evaluated using the following four types of performance testing: 1) computer model validation;
2) soil movement testing, including heat grid tests; 3) barrier diffusion and leaking tank tests; and 4) barrier integrity
testing. The barrier diffusion and leaking tank tests were used to demonstrate containment by the frozen barrier wall by
releasing Rhodamine-WT from a tank inside the containment structure and measuring its potential diffusion across the
barrier wall.
- Tests showed that Rhodamine was found only inside the barrier region, confirming barrier integrity.
- Tests showed that Rhodamine migrated approximately two feet in unfrozen soils, while essentially no Rhodamine was
found below open-ended well casings within the freeze barrier.
NRJ-100
0623-Ql.nrj
44
-------
Case Study Abstract
Frozen Soil Barrier Technology at the SEG Facilities, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee in Cooperation with U.S. Department of Energy
Oak Ridge Operations (Continued)
Cost Factors:
- Total capital costs for the SEG demonstration were $481,427.
- Maintenance costs for the demonstration were estimated as $40,000 per year ($3322 per month).
- No additional details provided on components of capital or maintenance costs.
- Unit costs identified for this technology ranged from $4 to $14 per cubic foot of iced formed, and are compared with
unit costs for grout systems ranging from $1 to $37 per cubic foot.
- Report authors indicated that a more realistic cost (i.e., for an actual remedial activity) for this type of technology
would be $332,754, assuming that extra sensors and test support were not needed, if equipment were leased instead of
purchased, and barrier thickness was decreased (which would mean less drilling, energy consumption, etc.).
Description:
Frozen soil barrier technology was demonstrated under the sponsorship of the U.S. DOE In Situ Remediation
Integrated Demonstration Program at a nonhazardous site on SEG property at the Gallaher Road Facility in Oak Ridge
Tennessee. Frozen soil barrier technology has been used for a number of years in large-scale civil engineering projects
to seal tunnels, mine shafts, and other subsurface structures against flooding, and to stabilize soils during excavation.
Advantages of frozen soil barrier technology include: 1) it can provide complete containment; 2) it uses benign material
(water/ice) as a containment medium; 3) frozen barriers can be removed by thawing; and 4) frozen barriers can be
repaired in situ (by injecting water into the leaking area).
At the SEG. demonstration, a "V"-shaped containment structure was constructed 56 feet long by 56 feet wide by 28 feet
deep. Refrigerant piping was used to create an area of frozen soil ranging from 5 to 15 feet thick. Several types of
performance testing were performed, including barrier diffusion and leaking tank tests, based on use of a surrogate
solution containing 200 ppm of Rhodamine-WT. The barrier diffusion and leaking tank tests showed that Rhodamine
was found only inside the barrier region, confirming barrier integrity, and that Rhodamine migrated approximately two
feet in unfrozen soils, while essentially no Rhodamine was found below open-ended well casings within the freeze
barrier.
Determining the suitability of this technology for applications for arid/sandy environments will require development of
methods for homogeneously adding and retaining moisture in the soils. In addition, technology applications hi fine-
grained soils around structures may be limited because of soil movement.
NRJ-100
0623-01.nrj
45
-------
Case Study Abstract
ResonantSonic Drilling
Site Name:
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),
1. Hanford Site
2. Sandia National Laboratory
Location:
1. Richland, Washington
2. Albuquerque, New Mexico
Contaminants:
Not used at contaminated sites
Period of Operation:
1992-1994 (see results)
Cleanup Type:
Field demonstration
Technical Information/Vendor:
Information not provided
SIC Code:
9711 (National Security)
Others - information not provided
Technology:
ResonantSonic Drilling
- Used to access the subsurface for
installation of monitoring and/or
remediation wells and for collection of
subsurface materials
- Uses a combination of mechanically
generated vibrations and limited rotary
power to penetrate soil
- Drill head consists of two counter rotating,
out-of-balance rollers that cause the drill
pipe to vibrate
- Transmits 50,000 to 280,000 Ibs of force to
the drill pipe; drills hole diameters up to 16
inches
- Newer designs also include drill head
rotation capability
Cleanup Authority:
Not used at contaminated sites
Points of Contact:
Information not provided
Waste Source:
Not used at contaminated sites
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
ResonantSonic drilling, an
alternative to traditional drilling
technologies, was shown in some
applications to be less costly and
produce less drilling wastes than
cable tool or mud rotary
technologies.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil and Sediment
- At Hanford, most drilling occurred in two facies: a coarse-grained sand and
granule-to-boulder gravel; and a fine-to-coarse-grained sand and silt
- At Sandia, sediments are extremely heterogeneous, complexly-interlayered
units consisting of sands, gravels, and cobbly units, with discontinuous low-
permeability layers present
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Not used at contaminated sites
- Does not requke addition of fluids to a well, which in some states is restricted
NRJ-100
0623-Ol.mj
46
-------
Case Study Abstract
ResonantSonic Drilling (Continued)
Results:
- Initial Hanford demonstration averaged 23.9 ft drilled per day (8.9 ft/day, including downtime)
- Well depths ranged from 30 to 227 ft
- Provided intact lithologic samples
- Second Hanford demonstration included boreholes drilled at 45° angles, with wells up to 172 ft long
- Sandia demonstration included 3 different drill rigs, with 5-10% less down time than at Hanford
Cost Factors:
- Capital and operating costs for the demonstrations are not provided in the report
- A comparison of cost ($/ft) for ResonantSonic, cable-tool, and mud-rotary drilling is provided based on a hypothetical
scenario, for regular and difficult drilling
- ResonantSonic drilling ranged from $208-270/ft, cable-tool from $600-758/ft, and mud-rotary from $221-951/ft,
depending on type of site and type of drilling
Description:
ResonantSonic drilling has been demonstrated at the U.S. DOE Hanford and Sandia sites as an alternative to cable tool
and rotary-mud drilling. This technology is used for installation of monitoring and/or remediation wells, and for
collection of subsurface materials for environmental restoration applications. Advantages of ResonantSonic drilling
include: lower cost per foot for drilling, can provide relatively undisturbed continuous core samples; uses no drilling
fluids and minimizes waste generation; and can be used to drill slant (angle) holes.
ResonantSonic drilling uses a combination of mechanically generated vibrations and limited rotary power to penetrate
soil. The drill head consists of two counter-rotating, out-of-balance rollers that cause the drill pipe to vibrate, and
transmit force to the drill pipe. From 1991 to 1994, this technology was used on uncontaminated soil in two
demonstrations at Hanford and three at Sandia, with an additional demonstration planned at Hanford. These
demonstrations included drilling hole diameters up to 16 inches.
Results from these demonstrations were used to improve system design and operation. For example, the initial Hanford
demonstration had high percentages of downtime, while later demonstrations at Sandia resulted in much less downtime.
These demonstrations included wells drilled up to 227 ft deep, and several wells drilled at 15-45° angles. Further, this
technology shows significant waste minimization compared to mud rotary. However, heating core materials remains an
issue where no fluid is used to cool the formation and under difficult drilling conditions. ResonantSonic generated core
temperatures from 70°F to 140°F under difficult drilling conditions at Hanford. In addition, few drilling companies
currently provide ResonantSonic drilling services. This should be considered in selecting this drilling alternative.
NRJ-100
0623-01.nrj
47
-------
------- |