EPA542-R-98-013
                                   September 1998
Remediation Case Studies
Groundwater Pump and Treat
(Chlorinated Solvents)

Volume 9

                        e>
                      ./
                  Federal
                Remediation
                Technologies
                 Roundtable
               
                 Prepared by the

            Member Agencies of the
   Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable

-------
111 nib n
i|i| ..... 1
   fl|iniiiininiiinnnn|inii|in n  in in in 1 1   n    i  i   nnn|iiinii|i|wi  in     i ill i in i nni   mi i  n    in   g 1 1 1 in
   i1     i      i                       i
              Uill ....... llliliillllllilL ',1,1',1'ii::1 '  ' illllllllllllli'lnili,/';,,!!!'!' |i 'i'1 ir,',' ...... l. Li   "; > v,  .<;; i w4;,  uw  v.  •• •:;,":, t :,fi:  :-i i, :^ itfii;1 ,i:!,;'  i •  '"' i;1 :• ••  $ -    :   ; •  >	;!;"
 lililllEI1!' Kliill''^!''!'!!,1! HJ'I iI'lllIU <  ,	11  ,   llllillllllH'iii','' ill"!"   •" ,|i' i,i'!,i1 '1,1: '  il 11,1,!	'  ', ," l  liilllililiilllji  I, ii,,il" '„:,:"  , ,;,' ,<, '" 	"  ,,ill; i,  MhM  n    Ji  I 'H  !'    !  «, mi	Ik m „"" ,   i •  r: • r \    "1      i   	v    'Mi Ji!
                                                                                                         ,u,il,f,.,i






                                                                                                         MI, iiii,i,
                                                                                                                                             .'..y i ill i   ;'!  I  "I1!'!1 :  ,'['
                                    in,111,i,  '"t'   ',  ",,'ii
liji:;:,,!:,:' j  ^'Eiii;,',;::,;,{,!;	,
H,,iiir,,	L'.hHiuhjn,;,,1	„„ i,;;,:1,,,  ,i
                                                                         ;;	i	i"


-------
Remediation Case Studies:
Groundwater Pump and Treat
(Chlorinated Solvents)
    Volume 9
    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
                 September 1998

-------
                                                        NOTICE
              w  |              p|   t    I   ll|l II   ||         II I              II   I       I     '•'• ' '• •'  '	
           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
           aiihors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Government or any agency
           thereof.
           "",  'IJIIIlliil: I r: I,i! I'll1 "" , '"'.                      II                I                     I            \
i;i;,i i ii	'hiiiiiiin '. .«:  ..aiin iiii  , , ,„ ,; . i ill  i      ill III i           i i | mi in in        in       i                               •
           Cgmpilation of this material has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection
           Agency under EPA Contract No. 6
                                         Juit, .'filii:.,, " -;;:|l •	i'l- t
                                                            11

-------
                                        FOREWORD

This report is a collection of fourteen case studies of groundwater pump and treat (chlorinated solvents)
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
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 1-6, and Abstracts, Volumes 1 and 2, were published previously, and
contain 54 case studies. Remediation Case Studies, Volumes 7-13, and Abstracts, Volume 3, were
published in September 1998. Volumes 7-13 cover a wide variety of technologies, including groundwater
pump and treat of chlorinated solvents (Volume 9).  The 14 pump and treat case studies in this report
include completed full-scale remediations and large-scale field demonstrations.  In the future, the set will
grow as agencies prepare additional case studies.

                                          1995 Series

        Volume 1:      Bioremediation, EPA-542-R-95-002; March 1995; PB95-182911

        Volume 2:      Groundwater Treatment, EPA-542-R-95-003; March 1995; PB95-182929

        Volume 3:      Soil Vapor Extraction, EPA-542-R-95-004; March 1995; PB95-182937

        Volume 4:      Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, and In Situ Vitrification, EPA-542-R-95-005;
                      March 1995; PB95-182945

                                          1997 Series

        Volume 5:     Bioremediation and Vitrification, EPA-542-R-97-008; July 1997; PB97-177554

        Volume 6:     Soil Vapor Extraction and Other In Situ Technologies, EPA-542-R-97-009;
                      July 1997; PB97-177562

                                          1998 Series

        Volume 7:     Ex Situ Soil Treatment Technologies (Bioremediation, Solvent Extraction,
                      Thermal Desorption), EPA-542-R-98-011; September 1998

        Volume 8:     In Situ Soil Treatment Technologies (Soil Vapor Extraction, Thermal Processes),
                       EPA-542-R-98-012; September 1998
                                               ill

-------
                                    1998 Series (continued)

       Volume 9:      Groundwater Pump and Treat (Chlorinated Solvents), EPA-542-R-98-013;
                      September 1998

       Volume 10:    Groundwater Pump and Treat (Nonchlorinated Contaminants), EPA-542-R-98-014;
                      September 1998

       Volume 11:    Innovative Groundwater Treatment Technologies, EPA-542-R-98-015;
                      September 1998

       Volume 12:    On-Site Incineration, EPA-542-R-98-016; September 1998

       Volume 13:    Debris and Surface Cleaning Technologies, and Other Miscellaneous
                      Technologies, EPA-542-R-98-017; September 1998
                                          Abstracts

       Volume 1:      EPA-542-R-95-001; March 1995; PB95-201711

       Volume 2:      EPA-542-R-97-010; July 1997; PB97-177570

       Volume 3:      EPA-542-R-98-010; September 1998
Accessing Case Studies

The case studies and case study abstracts are available on the Internet through the Federal Remediation
Technologies Roundtable web site at: http://www.frtr.gov. The Roundtable web site provides links to
individual agency web sites, and includes a search function. The search function allows users to complete
a key word (pick list) search of all the case studies on the web site, and includes pick lists for media treated,
contaminant types, and primary and supplemental technology types. The search function provides users
with basic information about the case studies, and allows them to view or download abstracts and case
studies that meet their requirements.

Users are encouraged to download abstracts and case studies from the Roundtable web site.  Some of the
case studies are also available on individual agency web sites, such as for the Department of Energy.

In addition, a limited number of hard copies are available free of charge by 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
        Phone:  (513) 489-8190 or
               (800) 490-9198
        Fax:   (513)489-8695
                                              IV

-------
                                 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section

INTRODUCTION	1

GROUNDWATER PUMP AND TREAT (CHLORINATED SOLVENTS) CASE STUDIES	9

       Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the Des Moines TCE Superfund
       Site, OU 1, Des Moines, Iowa	11

       Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the Former Firestone Facility
       Superfund Site, Salinas, California 	29

       Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the JMT Facility RCRA Site,
       Brockport, New York  	45

       Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the Keefe Environmental Services
       Superfund Site, Epping, New Hampshire	61

       Groundwater Pump and Treat and Soil Vapor Extraction at DOE's Lawrence
       Livermore National Laboratory Site 300,  GSA OU	77

       Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the Mystery Bridge at Hwy 20
       Superfund Site, Dow/DSI Facility, Evansville, Wyoming	107

       Groundwater Containment at Site LF-12, Offutt AFB, Nebraska	125

       Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the Old Mill Superfund Site,
       Rock Creek, Ohio	-	131

       Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site,
       Cayce, South Carolina	I49

       Groundwater Containment at Site OT-16B, Shaw AFB, South Carolina	167

       Groundwater Containment at Sites SD-29 and ST-30, Shaw AFB, South Carolina	177

       Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the Solid State Circuits Superfund
       Site, Republic, Missouri  	I89

       Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers
       Superfund Site, Houston, Texas	211

       Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater with Containment Wall at the Solvent
       Recovery Services of New England, Inc.  Superfund Site, Southington, Connecticut	229

-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
              VI

-------
                                       INTRODUCTION
Increasing the cost effectiveness of site remediation is a national priority.  The selection and use of more
cost-effective remedies requires better access to data on the performance and cost of technologies used in
the field. To make data more widely available, member agencies of the Federal Remediation Technologies
Roundtable (Roundtable) are working jointly to publish case studies of full-scale remediation and
demonstration projects. Previously, the Roundtable published a six-volume series of case study reports.
At this time, the Roundtable is publishing seven additional volumes of case study reports, primarily focused
on soil and groundwater cleanup.

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 agreed to by the agencies.  These procedures
are summarized in the Guide to Documenting and Managing Cost and Performance Information for
Remediation Projects (EPA 542-B-98-007; October 1998). (The October 1998 guide supersedes the
original Guide to Documenting Cost and Performance for Remediation Projects, published in March 1995.)

The case studies present available cost and performance  information for full-scale remediation efforts and
several large-scale demonstration projects.  They are meant to serve as primary reference sources, and
contain information on site background 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 on technology cost and
performance may be limited.

The case studies in this volume describe 14 pump and treat applications used to remediate contaminated
groundwater, including 11 applications used to remediate contaminated groundwater, two applications used
only to contain groundwater, and one application that was an interim action to recover free product. For all
 14 applications, groundwater was contaminated with chlorinated solvents such as tetrachloroethene (PCE),
trichloroethene (TCE), dichloroethene (DCE), and  vinyl  chloride. The quantity of groundwater treated in
these applications ranged from  13 to 4,900 million gallons, and project durations ranged from one to nine
years. Many of these applications are ongoing, and the case studies are interim reports about these
 applications.
                                                 1

-------
 Table 1 provides a summary including information on technology used, contaminants and media treated,
 and project duration for the 14 pump and treat projects in this volume.  This table also provides highlights
 about each application.  Table 2 summarizes cost data, including information on quantity of media treated
 and quantity of contaminant removed.  In addition, Table 2 shows a calculated unit cost for some projects,
 and identifies key factors potentially affecting technology cost.  (The column showing the calculated unit
 costs for treatment provides a dollar value per quantity of groundwater treated and contaminant removed,
 as appropriate.) Cost data are shown as reported in the case studies and have not been adjusted for
 inflation to a common year basis.  The costs should be assumed to be dollars for the time period that the
 project was in progress (shown on Table 1 as project duration).

 While a summary of project costs is useful, it may be difficult to compare costs for different projects
 because of unique site-specific factors. However, by including a recommended reporting format, the
 Roundtable is working to standardize the reporting of costs to make data comparable across projects.  In
 addition, the Roundtable is working to capture information in case study reports that identify and describe
the primary factors that affect cost and performance of a given technology. Key factors that potentially
affect project costs for pump and treat applications include economies of scale, concentration levels in
contaminated media, required cleanup levels, completion  schedules, matrix characteristics such as soil
classification, clay content and/or particle size distribution, hydraulic conductivity, pH, depth and thickness
of zone of interest, total organic carbon, oil and grease or total petroleum hydrocarbons, presence of
NAPLs, and other site conditions.

-------
Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Pump and Treat (Chlorinated Solvents)
' t , '
' ff ' $
' " ' * - M
S^Jfaai%^fe(l^iEliiS.«fogy> ;
Des Moines TCE Superfund Site, OU 1, IA
(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping)
Former Firestone Facility Superfund Site, CA
(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping, Carbon
Adsorption, and Oil/Water Separation)
JMT Facility RCRA Site (formerly Black &
Decker RCRA Site), NY
(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping)
Keefe Environmental Services Superfund Site, NH
(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping and
Coagulation/Flocculation)
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
Site 300 - General Services Area (GSA) Operable
Unit, CA (Pump and Treat with Air Stripping and
Carbon Adsorption; Soil Vapor Extraction)
Mystery Bridge at Hwy 20 Superfund Site,
Dow/DSI Facility - Volatile Halogenated Organic
(VHO) Plume, WY (Pump and Treat with Air
Stripping; Soil Vapor Extraction)
f J*fw^£w#mfyMBlte*l
v
•
•
•
•
•
•
',
1
£j
«






5 ••






1






I
1






.






1 ',
1 ' ' * ,*
ff -,f f f .,
' f >
*' ^.',
'- p*lk", ,; .
{Qaatt&y -
treated**)
Groundwater (4,900
million gallons)
Groundwater (1,800
million gallons)
Groundwater (50. 1
million gallons)
Groundwater
(46 million gallons)
Groundwater (93.8
million gallons)
Groundwater (192.8
million gallons)
* .. '
t ' r, ', ' .
'•%''•
f z * ^ :
\ " '!*£»{**# :
Daratiou ^ 5 1
Status: Ongoing
Report Covers:
12/87 - 10/96
2/86-11/92
Status: Ongoing
Report Covers:
5/88-12/97
Status: Ongoing
Report Covers:
4/93 - 5/97
Status: Ongoing
Report Covers:
6/91 - 7/97
Status: Ongoing
Report Covers:
3/94 - 10/97
f f f
f
f \
"%• $ '
" " '< '*
f
'* •• $ ', ,
''•• , ' '' ', ' '
* '* HighligMs , ' •/, '
Met goals for off-site plume within two
years of operation; nearly five billion
gallons treated
Met goals within seven years of
operation; site had relatively high
hydraulic conductivity and was located
near high-volume agricultural wells
RCRA corrective action site with
relatively low groundwater flow,
greater than 90% reduction in average
concentrations of contaminants
Performed optimization study after two
years of operation; relatively low
groundwater flow
Combined use of groundwater pump
and treat and S VE to remediate TCE
andDNAPLs
Remedial strategy includes use of
pump and treat for the on-site plume
and natural attenuation for the off-site
plume

-------
Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Pump and Treat
                    (Chlorinated Solvents) (continued)
f
>, ' '- J ' w f f 1 * ^ ,_
,' /, ' ",v'' , ',',', 1 '', '• '< , ', ; ' , ',/,s,''
/'•,",,,$'$ ' '<'•*!',, ' ', ' '
'"'" %' r, '
Site JSame, State (Techaofogy) , '
Oflutt AFB, Site LF-12, NE
(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping)
Old Mill Superfund Site, OH (Pump and Treat
with Air Stripping and Carbon Adsorption)
SCKDI Dixiana Superfund Site, SC
(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping)
Shaw AFB, Site OT-16B, SC
(Hydraulic Containment Through Active
Pumping)
Shaw AFB, Sites SD-29 and ST-30, SC
(Free Product Recovery with Air Stripping)
Solid State Circuits Superfund Site, MO
(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping)
Pnndpul CwtfaMwiwts*
<5»
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
1+
|
u




•

fr'






•w-
3?






!|






J',l',
^






"f,
"0'?<&' ;
Utetfia , -
{<£uaKt!ty'
'Matetl^)'
Groundwater
(quantity not
provided)
Groundwater
(13 million gallons)
Groundwater (20.6
million gallons)
Groundwater and
Free Product
Groundwater and
Free Product
Groundwater
(257 million gallons)
4& ''"
•" -J
:' Bfftjcd: ;
Durati0tt :
Not Available;
System was
operating in
1/97
Status: Ongoing
Report Covers:
9/89 - 7/97
Status: Ongoing
Report Covers:
8/92 - 3/97
2/95 - 12/96
3/95-2/96
Status: Ongoing
Report Covers:
1993 - 3/97
V ->
HIPgNs - ; i - ' -
Containment of groundwater using
active pumping
Remediation at site with low
groundwater flow, relatively small
quantity of groundwater extracted
Remediation at a site with complex
hydrogeology, consisting of eight
distinct hydrogeological units
Groundwater containment of
chlorinated solvents using active
pumping
Interim action to recover free product
from groundwater
Groundwater characterized as a leaky
artesian system occurring in a karst
formation

-------
               Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Pump and Treat
                                         (Chlorinated Solvents) (continued)
* '',
I " '
i .' ' r .
' $it«JSfaw.«!,Stete(f*<;fett<)fe|gy>
Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers Superfund Site,
TX (Pump and Treat with Air Stripping, Carbon
Adsorption, and Filtration)
Solvent Recovery Services of New England, hie.
Superfund Site, CT (Pump and Treat with Carbon
Adsorption, Chemical Treatment, Filtration, and
UV/Oxidation; Vertical Barrier Wall)
'' " 1 ',
FriucjHal Cojif aminants*
1
$
11
1
*
*
X
**
1
it


'

'
fe


i
"f
1
i




1
t


/
**

I

*
•* f
%0 f $••
I Mc
-------
Table 2. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data
Sit* Name*. State (Tcdmology)
Des Moines TCE Superfund Site, OU
1.1A
(Pump and Treat with Aii Stripping)
Former Firestone Facility Superfund
Site, CA
(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping,
Carbon Adsorption, and Oil/Water
Separation)
JMT Facility RCRA Site (formerly
Black & Decker RCRA Site), NY
(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping)
Keefe Environmental Services
Superfund Site, NH
(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping
and Coagulation/Flocculation)
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (LLNL) Site 300 -
General Services Area (GSA)
Operable Unit, CA (Pump and Treat
with Air Stripping and Carbon
Adsorption; Soil Vapor Extraction)
Mystery Bridge at Hwy 20 Superfund
Site, Dow/DSI Facility - Volatile
Haiogenated Organic (VHO) Plume,
WY (Pump and Treat with Air
Stripping; Soil Vapor Extraction)
Offirtt AFB, Site LF-12, NE
(Primp and Treat with Air Stripping)
Technology
Co$f<$)«
Total: $2,596,000
C: $1,587,000
0: $1,009,000
Total:
$12,884,813
C: $4,133,543
0: $8,751,270
Total: $2,163,000
C: $879,000
O: $1,284,000
Total: $2,408,000
C: $1,582,539
O: $826,000
Total:
$36,600,000
(costs not
provided
separately for
P&TandSVE)
Total: $918,000
C: $305,000
O: $613,000
Total (not
provided)
C: $540,000
O: $20,000/year
(average)
Quantity^
Media Treated
4,900 million
gallons
1,800 million
gallons
50.1 million
gallons
46 million gallons
93.8 million
gallons GW
399,000 ft3 soil
vapor
192.8 million
gallons
Not provided
Quantity «f
Contaminant
Removed
30,000 Ibs
496 Ibs
842 Ibs
68 Ibs
221bs(P&T)
671bs(SVE)
21 Ibs
12.81 gals
Calculated Cost for
Tieatraen***
$0.53/1,000 gals GW
$80/lb of cont
$7/1,000 gals GW
$26,000/lbofcont
$47/1,000 gals GW
$2,569/lb of cont.
$52/1,000 gals GW
$35,000/lb of cont.
Not calculated
$5.65/1,000 gals GW
$44,000/lb of cont.
Not calculated
K^ Factors PbteaffaJly Affecting
Teetaofogy Costs**"
Unit cost reflects economies-of-scale
for treatment of large volume of
extracted groundwater
Site operators frequently adjusted
operation of extraction system to
maximize contaminant removal; site
had complex hydrogeology
Two modifications to treatment
system (including enclosure for
treatment system) increased capital
costs by 35% over original estimate
As a result of an optimization study,
replaced two extraction wells to
increase removal of contaminant mass
Costs relatively high because site uses
three systems (two groundwater and
one soil) to treat contaminated media
Relatively low concentrations in
groundwater (20-70 ug/L) lead to
relatively high unit costs per pound of
contaminant removed
Information not provided

-------
Table 2. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data (continued)
* *' :< :< **,'
Old MiU Superfiind Site, OH (Pump
and Treat with Air Stripping and
Carbon Adsorption)
SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site, SC
(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping)
Shaw AFB, Site OT-16B, SC
(Hydraulic Containment Through
Active Pumping)
Shaw AFB, Sites SD-29 and ST-30,
SC
(Free Product Recovery with Air
Stripping)
Solid State Circuits Superfund Site,
MO
(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping)
Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers
Superfund Site, TX (Pump and Treat
with Air Stripping, Carbon
Adsorption, and Filtration)
'*, ' * '
%fecfidad6&* '
^ *. €&**$>* , .
Total: $3,236,000
C: $1,596,000
0: $1,640,000
Total: $1,439,700
(EPA-lead
portion)
C: $1,189,700
0: $250,000
Total: $2,010,000
C: $1,960,000
O: $50,000
Total (not
provided)
C: $394,000 (for
SD-29)
O: $17,000 (cum.
for SD-29 and
ST-30)
Total: $2,510,400
C: $893,700
0: $1,616,700
Total: $2,547,387
C: $2,104,910
O: $442,477
, r*
,<$ti$p$<$T , i
Irf fedia f r«ai6d '
13 million gallons
20.6 million
gallons
Not provided
Not provided
257 million
gallons
13 million gallons
: ; .iCiililitiBiliaBt !
'' ' BteinWed ,
124 Ibs
71bs
40.5 gals
102 gals
2,754 Ibs
4,960 Ibs
CaieutofefCBsfcfiiF
fe*a*M66t**
$250/1,000 gals GW
$26,100/lb of cont.
$464/1,000 gals GW
$200,000/lb of cont.
Total: $50,000/gal of
cont.
O&M (average):
$15.12/gal of cont
O&M (average):
$166/gal of cont.
$10/1,000 gals GW
$913/lb of cont.
$196/1,000 gals GW
$514/lb of cont.
K^%ters:;P6tentfa% Affecfing ' i
\ f*leseWfllQg^Ctefe*** - I
Modifications to improve plume
containment increased capital costs by
22%
Complex hydrogeology, major
modifications were made by PRP to
modify system used during EPA-lead
portion of application
Containment system was operating
efficiently and was meeting its
operational objectives
To reduce operating costs, passive
skimmer bailers were installed in
recovery wells
Capital costs do not include costs for
installation of four deeper wells,
which were installed as part of the
Rl/FS and not available as a separate
cost element
Site characterization performed
during RI did not identify extent of
contamination and system had to be
modified after the remedial design
was completed

-------
                         Table 2.  Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data (continued)
, Site -Na«*, $&& #&&»«&£$
Solvent Recovery Services of New
England, Inc. Superfund Site, CT
(Pump and Treat with Carbon
Adsorption, Chemical Treatment,
Filtration, and UV/Oxidation;
Vertical Barrier Wall)
Teebhetogy :
€*>&<$* I
Total: $5,556,900
C: $4,339,600
O: $1,217,300
Q«jHr£i$«f
M&& Tilled
32.5 million
gallons
Qtt*at%«f
Contaminant
Bemoved
4,344 Ibs
<&I«t}ated£0stf0r
i leeatwcBt**
$265/1,000 gals GW
$l,280/lb of conL
Key Bstfews I>0fentjs|})' Affect^
Technology Cfcsfe*"*
Presence of DNAPLs contributed to
elevated costs
Technology Cost*
C = Capital costs
O = Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs
Calculated Cost for Treatment**
Calculated based on sum of capital and O&M costs, divided by quantity treated or
removed.  Calculated costs shown as "Not Calculated" if an estimate of costs or
quantity treated or removed was not available. Unit costs calculated based on both
quantity of media treated and quantity of contaminant removed, as appropriate.
    For full-scale remediation projects, this identifies factors affecting actual technology costs. For demonstration-scale projects, this identifies generic factors which would
    affect costs for a future application using this technology.

-------
Groundwater Pump and Treat (Chlorinated Solvents)




                  Case Studies

-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
               10

-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
   the Des Moines TCE Superfund Site, OU 1,
              Des Moines, Iowa
                     11

-------
                   Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
                       the Des Moines TCE Superfund Site, OU 1,
                                      Des Moines, Iowa
Site Name:
Des Moines TCE Superfund Site,
Operable Unit 1 (OU 1)
Location:
Des Moines, Iowa
Contaminants:
Chlorinated solvents
- Maximum concentrations
detected during 1985 RI included
TCE (8,467 ug/L), 1,2-DCE (2,000
ug/L), and vinyl chloride (95 ug/L)
Period of Operation:
Status: Ongoing
Report covers:  12/87-10/96
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup (interim results)
Vendor:
Tonka Equipment Company
Additional Contacts:
None
Technology:
Pump and Treat
- Groundwater is extracted using 7
wells, located on site, at an average
total pumping rate of 1,041 gpm
- Extracted groundwater is treated
with air stripping and discharged to
a surface water under a NPDES
permit
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA Remedial
-RODDate: 7/21/86
EPA Point of Contact:
Mary Peterson, RPM
U.S. EPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913)551-7882
Waste Source:
Land application of waste sludges,
including use of waste sludges on
road surfaces for dust control
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Met goals for off-site plume within
two years of operation; nearly five
billion gallons treated.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
- 4,900 million gallons treated as of December 1996
- DNAPL suspected in groundwater at this site
- Groundwater is found at 10-25 ft bgs
- Extraction wells are located in 1 aquifer, which is influenced by a nearby
surface water
- Hydraulic conductivity reported as 535 ft/day
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- The cleanup goal for this site is to reduce the TCE concentration in groundwater on the west side of the
  Raccoon River to 5 ug/L or less for four consecutive months. At this time, on-site goals have not been
  specified.
- As a secondary goal, the remedial system is designed to create an inward gradient toward the site to contain
  and treat the on-site plume.
Results:
- The pump and treat system met the cleanup goal for TCE within two years of system operation, and an inward
  hydraulic gradient appears to have been achieved within the first month of operation that encompasses the
  entire contaminant plume. Pumping continued after that time to maintain containment and provide for
  potential reductions in contaminant concentrations in on-site wells. However, on-site wells continue to show
  concentrations of TCE at greater than 5 ug/L.
- By February 1997, the pump and treat system had removed nearly 30,000 pounds of contaminants from the
  groundwater.
Cost:
- Estimated costs for pump and treat were $2,596,000 ($1,587,000 in capital and $1,009,000 hi O&M), which
  correspond to $0.53 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $80 per pound of contaminant removed.
                                               12

-------
                  Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
                      the Des Moines TCE Superfund Site, OU 1,
                               Des Moines, Iowa (continued)
Description:
An iron foundry operated on this property from approximately 1910 until Dico Corporation purchased the
property in the early 1940s. Dico manufactured metal wheels and brakes at the site from 1961 through 1993. In
September 1976, testing by the DMWW and EPA detected TCE in the city's north gallery groundwater
infiltration system, which served as a source of drinking water for the city.  Investigations by EPA suggested that
solvent sludges used on road and parking lot surfaces could be the cause of the subsurface contamination. The
site was placed on the NPL in September 1983 and a ROD was signed in July 1986.

The groundwater extraction system consists of seven wells installed in the plume east of the Raccoon River on
the Dico property to a depth of 40 ft. These wells were designed for full containment and partial aquifer
restoration (to achieve off-site groundwater goals). Extracted groundwater is treated using an air stripper and
discharged under a NPDES permit. The pump and treat system met the off-site cleanup goal for TCE within two
years of system operation, and plume containment appears to have been achieved.                       	
                                               13

-------
                                                                 Des Moines TCE Superfund Site
                                    SITE INFORMATION
Identifying Information:
Des Moines TCE Superfund Site
Des Moines, Iowa
Operable Unit 1

CERCLIS #: IAD98060687933

ROD Date: July 21,1986
Background
Treatment Application:
Type of action: Remedial

Period of operation: 12/87-Ongoing
(Contaminant concentration data collected
through 1996; mass removal data collected
through February 1997)

Quantity of material treated during
application: As of December 1996, 4.9 billion
gallons of groundwater
Historical Activity that Generated
Contamination at the Site:  Manufacturing of
metal wheels and brakes, and chemical storage/
distribution.

Corresponding SIC Code: 3523
(Manufacturing of farm machinery and
equipment)

Waste Management Practice That
Contributed to Contamination:  Use of waste
sludges on road surfaces for dust control and
land application of waste sludges

Location:  Des Moines, Iowa

Facility Operations: [8]
•   An iron foundry operated on the property
    from approximately 1910 until Dico
    Corporation purchased the property in the
    early 1940s.

•   Dico manufactured metal wheels and
    brakes at the site from 1961 through 1993.
    Dico was purchased by Titan Wheel
    International, Inc.  in 1993. Production at
    the facility ceased in 1995.

•   In September 1976, testing by the DMWW
    and the EPA detected TCE in the City's
    north gallery groundwater infiltration system,
    which served as a source of drinking water
    for the city. TCE levels ranged from 200 to
    450 ug/L in samples collected from the
    gallery.

•   EPA studies conducted between April and
    September 1978 identified TCE
    contamination  in the production well on the
    Dico property.  Investigations by EPA
    suggested that solvent sludges used on
    road and parking lot surfaces could be the
    cause  of subsurface contamination.
•   In October 1978, Dico agreed to discontinue
    the surface application of solvent sludges.
    No other source control measures were
    undertaken.

•   In 1981 and 1982, an EPA Field
    Investigation Team (FIT) performed an
    assessment and RCRA Interim Status
    Inspection of the Dico area. Monitoring
    wells were installed on site and samples
    collected. Quarterly sampling of these
    monitoring wells was initiated in 1982.

•   The site was placed on the National
    Priorities List (NPL) in September 1983.

•   In April 1984, DMWW closed the north
    gallery water infiltration system.

    Remedial investigation (Rl) field work was
    conducted in 1984 and 1985.

Regulatory Context: [9]
•   On July 21, 1986, EPA issued a ROD for
    OU1, which addresses contaminated
    groundwater at this site.

•   A Unilateral Administrative Order was
    issued to Dico on July 21,1986 designating
    it as the lead for remedial activities.

•   Site activities are conducted under
    provisions of the Comprehensive
    Environmental Response, Compensation,
    and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as
    amended by the Superfund Amendments
    and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986
    §121, and the National Contingency Plan
    (NCP), 40 CFR 300.
      EPA
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                   Technology Innovation Office
                                             14
                                                                            TI03.WP6\0119-04.stf

-------
                                                               Des Moines TCE Superfund Site
                              SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background fConU
Remedy Selection [9]:
Groundwater extraction and treatment via air
stripping was selected in the 1986 ROD as the
remedy for this OU.
Qita I nni
Site Management:
PRP Lead

Oversight:
U.S. EPA Region VII

Treatment System Vendor:
Tonka Equipment Company

Indicates primary contact
Remedial Project Manager:
Mary Peterson*
U.S. EPA Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
913-551-7882
                                 MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix Processed Through the
Treatment System:  Groundwater

Contaminant Characterization M.2.3.4.5.61
 Primary Contaminant Groups:  Halogenated
 volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

 •   Contaminants of greatest concern at the site
    are trichloroethylene (TCE), trans-1,2-
    dichloroethylene (trans-1,2-DCE), and vinyl
    chloride (VC).

 •   Maximum concentrations detected during
    the 1985  RI/FS include TCE (8,467 ug/L),
    1,2-DCE  (2,000 ug/L), and VC (95 ug/L).
    Figures 1 and 2 provide TCE concentration
    contour maps prepared in 1985 and 1995,
    respectively. The 1985 figure shows the
    500 ug/L TCE contour line crossing the
    Raccoon River (from the Des Moines TCE
    site). The 1995 figure shows the 10 ug/L
    TCE contour line pulled back to the same
    side of the Raccoon River as the Des
    Moines TCE site.

    The contaminant plume was estimated in
    the 1988 Annual Performance Report to be
    up to 45 feet thick and cover a 130-acre
    area. Assuming a standard porosity of 30%,
    the volume of contaminated groundwater
    was calculated to be 512 million gallons.
       EPA
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                   Technology Innovation Office
                                             15
                           TIO3.WP6\0119-04.stf

-------
                                                         Des Moines TCE Superfund Site
                       MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
                                  ^
              J- ,	.'," -~:-'CHMTPiAL
                    ^:"MPUS
                        	innrmtt Contour
                                 Hfghor Concentration of
                                 Two N«st«d W0H3
                            21.0 TCE Concentration (uo/1)
                                 Compound Urxtotoctaa
                 Figure 1. TCE Concentration Contours (1985) [10]
EPA
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
	Technology Innovation Office
                                     16
                                                                   TIO3.WP6\0119-04.stf

-------
                                                         Des Moines TCE Superfund Site
                     MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
LEGEND:

    ™«-3 MCCCWCRV *&».
CW-AMW-1S*  MAMTCMHNO WEU.
      r-i •  nEzoMOCM
      (2}     TwcmofioeiHiA»e

   	1.O-


      <•»>
         eOCOMCCMIKAIIOM
         (OASHCO
         COMTOUK
         MONC OC1ECTED
         SAMPLE dLUTCO
  t*>
EPA
                      Figure 2. TCE Concentration Contours (1995) [5]
                                                           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                   Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                                                  Technology Innovation Office
                                       17
                                                                          TIO3.WP6\0119-04.stf

-------
                                                                 Des Moines TCE Superfund Site
                              MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
 Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Costs or Performance

 Hydrogeology [8]:

 Two distinct hydrogeologic units have been identified beneath this site.
     Upper
     Unit
     Lower
     Unit
The geology of this unit consists of 40 to 60 feet of unconsolidated alluvial silt,
clay, sand, and gravel overlying consolidated shale bedrock. The top 10 feet of
the alluvial materials consist of silt and clay overbank deposits.  The bottom 30 to
50 feet of aquifer consist of sand and gravel, which extend to the top of the shale
bedrock.

The shale bedrock extends over 100 feet in depth.  This unit is not contaminated.
 Water levels range from 10 to 25 feet below ground surface. Groundwater flow is to the
 southeast; however, high-volume pumping from the DMWW infiltration galleries may affect the
 flow direction in some areas.  The Raccoon River, which flows between the site to the east and
 the DMWW facility to the west, can gain from or lose to the aquifer depending on water levels.

 Tables 1 and 2 include technical aquifer information and technical well data. A discussion of
 extraction wells is included in the following section.

                             Table 1:  Technical Aquifer Information
Unit Name
Upper Aquifer
Thickness
(ft)
40-60
Conductivity
(ft/day)
535
Average Velocity
(ft/day)
0.1-0.8
Flow
Direction
South and
Southeast
bource: [9]
                          TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology
Pump and treat with air stripping
                                  Supplemental Treatment Technology

                                  None
     EPA
                                             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                     Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                    	Technology Innovation Office
                                            18
                                                                           TIO3.WP6\0119-04.stf

-------
                                                                 Des Moines TCE Superfund Site
                     TREATMENT! SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
System Description and Operation

ERW-3
ERW-4
ERW-5
ERW-6
ERW-7
ERW-8
ERW-9
Note: Overall the average total
Unit Name
Upper Aquifer
Upper Aquifer
Upper Aquifer
Upper Aquifer
Upper Aquifer
Upper Aquifer
Upper Aquifer
extraction rate is approximately
Death (ft)
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
1 .5 million gpd,
Design Yield
(aal/dav)
230,400
201,600
187,200
230,400
302,400
302,400
252,000
based on the volume of
System Description [7,10]
•   The groundwater extraction system consists
    of seven wells installed in the plume east of
    the Raccoon River on the Dico property.
    Extraction wells are constructed of 12-inch
    diameter galvanized steel pipe with seven
    feet of screen placed near the bottom of the
    sand and gravel aquifer. The purpose of
    the design was to achieve off-site
    groundwater goals and to capture the on-
    site plume to eliminate further off-site
    contamination. The two-dimensional
    Modflow model was used in the design
    process.

.   The extraction  system was designed for full
    containment and partial aquifer restoration.
    Extraction wells were located within the
    heart of the plume, and hydraulic
    manipulation of the groundwater gradient
    was used to contain the contaminant  plume.

 •   Groundwater is withdrawn from the aquifer,
    treated through an air stripper, and
    discharged to the Raccoon River under a
    National Pollution Discharge Elimination
    System (NPDES) permit.  During the nine
    years of operation, the system has achieved
    an average extraction rate of 1,000 gpm.

 •   The treatment system consists of a 39-foot
    tall stainless steel tower with an internal
    diameter of 7Vz feet.  Countercurrent flows
    of air and groundwater are sent through the
       EPA
   tower at a ratio of 60 to 1, respectively. The
   tower is designed for a maximum flow of
   1,850 gpm for a minimum 96% removal
   efficiency. Treated groundwater is
   discharged to the Raccoon River through an
   18-inch sewer outfall.

System Operation [1,2,3,4,5,6]
•  A system of 29 on- and off-site monitoring
   wells is used to measure changes in
   groundwater concentrations on a quarterly
   basis and water levels on a monthly basis.

•  The average system extraction rate was
  .  1,270 gpm from  start-up until February
    1990,1,000 gpm from February 1990
   through January 1995, and 800 gpm since
    January 1995. The reduction in extraction
    rates has been due to wells clogging from
    iron corrosion. Hydraulic containment was
    still achieved at the reduced extraction
    rates. The overall pumping history is listed
    below:
       Year         Average Gallons/Year Pumped
     1988-1989             667,512,000
     1990-1994             525,600,000
     1995-1996             420,480,000
             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                    Technology Innovation Office
                                               19
                            TIO3.WP6\0119-04.Stf

-------
                                                                 Des Moines TCE Superfund Site
                      TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
 System Description and Operation fCont.)
    From December 1987 through December
    1996, the system has been operational
    approximately 95% of the time. Downtime
    has been due to routine maintenance
    activities.

    Iron corrosion resulted in severe plugging of
    the air stripping media in September 1988.
    Spherical shaped media were replaced with
    chandelier type media in January 1991.

    An in-line pump was installed in June 1991
    to provide a continuous injection of
    organophosphanic acid and biological
    growth inhibitor (chlorine) into the system.
    This reduced iron corrosion and bio-fouling
    problems.
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
 By 1993, iron encrustation and corrosion
 caused various problems with the extraction
 system. Wells ERW-5 and ERW-7 were
 redeveloped, and ERW-9 was completely
 taken out of service.  Redevelopment of
 wells ERW-5 and ERW-7 flushed corrosion
 and iron build-up from the wells and re-
 opened screened intervals to improve water
 flow.
Table 3 presents the major operating parameters affecting cost or performance for this technology and
the values measured for each.

                               Table 3: Performance Parameters
Parameter
Average Pump Rate
Performance Standard
(effluent)
Remedial Goal (aquifer)
• : - ^~VH» " ' ' -
1,041 gpm
1 . 96% removal efficiency
2. NPDES effluent
limitations:
TCE 80.7 ug/L
PCE 8.85 ug/L
frans-1,2-DCE 135,000 ug/L
VC 43.5 ug/L
5 ug/L TCE (off-site only)
                  Source: [1,2,3,4,5,6,9]
Timeline
Table 4 presents a timeline for this remedial project.
I 	 L-SlfrtDaJ. 	
7/86
10/86
9/87
12/87
6/91
5/92
6/93
End Date
—
3/87
12/87
ongoing
...
._
10/93
Activity ;, ^ , '„
ROD and UAO issued
Remedial design performed
Remedial construction performed
Operation of remedial system and quarterly remedial monitoring
Installation of organophosphanic acid and chlorine pumps
Final inspection of groundwater extraction and treatment system by EPA
Redevelopment of wells ERW-5, 7, and 9
Source: [7]
      EPA
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
	Technology Innovation Office
                                            20
                                                                           TIO3.WP6\0119-04.stt:

-------
                                                                 Des Moines TCE Superfund Site
                         TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
    nnn finals/Standards
The cleanup goal for this site is to reduce the TCE concentration in groundwater on the west side of
Raccoon River (opposite the facility) to 5 ug/L or less for four consecutive months. This goal must be
met in all monitoring wells located on the west side of Raccoon River. At this time, on-site goals have
not been specified [9].
Trpatmpnt Performance Goals
•   The groundwater treatment system is
    required to remove, at a minimum, 96% of
    the influent TCE concentration [7].

-   Effluent discharged from the treatment
    system must meet surface water criteria for
    the Raccoon River. The NPDES permit
    limits are included in Table 3 [7].

Performance Data Assessment
As a secondary goal, the remedial system is
designed to create an inward gradient
toward the site to contain and treat the on-
site plume [9].
For this report, total contaminant concentration
includes TCE, trans-1,2-DCE, and VC
concentrations.

•   The first goal of the remedial system is
    aquifer restoration on the west side of
    Raccoon Riven Based on 1989 sampling
    data from all off-site monitoring wells, the
    system appears to have achieved this goal
    within the first two years [3].

•   The secondary goal of the treatment system
    is to capture and treat the on-site plume to
    prevent future off-site contamination.
    Figure 3 depicts groundwater elevation
    contours measured in October 1996. The
    figure shows that groundwater elevations
    closest to the source areas are
    approximately 1 foot lower than at the outer
    edges of the plume [6].  Groundwater levels
    have been measured monthly during the
    remedial action. Based on data provided in
    the 1988 Annual Performance Report, an
    inward hydraulic gradient appears to have
    been achieved within the first month of
    operation. The area affected by the inward
    hydraulic gradient encompasses the entire
    contaminant plume [1].

    Figure 4 depicts the TCE concentrations
    detected in off-site wells NW-15 and NW-21
    from 1987 to 1996.  These are the off-site
    wells closest to the source area and have
    historically had the highest off-site TCE
concentrations.  TCE concentration in wells
NW-15 and NW-21 dropped from levels as
high as 12 ug/L and 25 ug/L, respectively, to
below the goal of 5 ug/L by the December
1989 sampling event.

Figure 5 illustrates changes in average
contaminant concentrations in the
groundwater over time.  This figure depicts
total concentrations of TCE, trans-1,2-DCE
and VC, as well as TCE concentrations
alone.  All monitoring wells, on-site and off-
site, were used for this figure. Average total
contaminant concentrations declined
steadily from 1987 through October 1996.
Average  TCE concentrations have declined
from 45 ug/L to less than 5 ug/L.

Figure 6  depicts the concentration of TCE
detected  in on-site wells ERW-6, ERW-7,
and NW-7. These wells are located in the
most contaminated part of the plume. The
maximum concentrations of contaminants in
the groundwater during the October 1996
sampling event were 2,400 ug/L (TCE), 150
ug/L(1,2-DCE),  and 100 ug/L (VC). These
concentrations were found in well ERW-6,
which is  in the center of the plume.

By December 1996, a total of 4.9 billion
gallons of groundwater were treated [6].
Taking into account the life of the system
and a 95% operational rate, the average
treatment rate was 1,000 gpm.
       EPA
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                Technology Innovation Office
                                              21
                        TIO3.WP6\0119-04.Stf

-------
                                                                 Des Moines TCE Superfund Site
                     TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Assessment (ConU
•   Figure 7 presents data on contaminant
    removal from 1988 to 1997. By February
    1997, the P&T system had removed nearly
    30,000 pounds of contaminant mass from
    the groundwater.  The mass flux rate
    declined from 62 Ibs/day to 16 Ibs/day within
    the first 6 months of operation.  During the
    last 8 years of operation, the mass flux rate
    declined from 16 Ibs/day to less than 2
    Ibs/day.  The decrease in mass flux can be
    attributed to a decrease in contaminant
    concentrations in the influent to the
    treatment system as well as a reduction in
    the volume of groundwater treated.

Performance Data Completeness	
At the 6-month sampling event, the influent
concentration to the treatment system was
1,100 ug/L and the average groundwater
concentration was 70 ug/L.
•   Data are available for concentrations of
    contaminants in the groundwater on a
    quarterly basis. Data for influent and
    effluent concentrations from the treatment
    system are available on a weekly basis.

•   Contaminant concentrations detected during
    annual sampling events were used for
    analyses performed in this report. As of the
    date of this report, data are available for the
    1987, 1988, 1989, 1990,  1991, 1992, 1993,
    1995, and 1996 annual sampling events.
    References 1-6 contain annual sampling
    data.

•   In Figure 5, a geometric mean was used for
    average groundwater concentrations
    detected in 13 monitoring wells and 6
    extraction wells located within the original
    plume area. It should be noted that for the
    October 1996 sampling event, data from 4
    of the 13 monitoring wells was not available.

Performance Data Quality	
Contaminant mass removal was determined
using analytical results from influent
samples, along with flow rate data.
Quarterly data were used for the first year to
better depict the rapidly changing mass flux
rate.

Data from all monitoring and extraction
wells within the original plume were used to
calculate the mean concentration.  When
concentrations below detection limits were
encountered, half of the detection limit was
used in the calculation of the mean.
The QA/QC program used throughout the remedial action met the EPA and the State of Iowa
requirements. All monitoring was performed using EPA-approved methods, and the vendor did not note
any exceptions to the QA/QC protocols.
      EPA
        U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
	      Technology Innovation Office
                                             22
                                                                            TI03.WP6\0119-04.stf

-------
                                                        Des Moines TCE Superfund Site
             TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
                                         ER*f'3® RECOVERY WEIL
                                      CW-3.M»-18« MOWTOftWC WOL
                F/gure 3.  Groundwater Elevation Contours (1996) [6]
EPA
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
	Technology Innovation Office
                                     23
                                                                   TIO3.WP6\0119-04.Stf

-------
                                                         Des Moines TCE Superfund Site
              TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
                                                                             Oct-96
          Figure 4.  TCE Concentration for Two Off-Site Monitoring Wells [1-6]
 o
 Oct-87
Oct-88    Oct-89    Oct-90   Oct-91    Oct-92   Oct-93    Oot-94    Oct-95    Oct-96
                         -TCE,1,2-DCE,VC
                                   -TCE
-TCE Goal
           Figure 5. Geometric, Mean of Total Contaminants and TCE [1-6]
EPA
                                            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                     Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                    	Technology Innovation Office
                                      24
                                                                    TIO3.WP6\0119-04.stf

-------
to
o
CO

in
ct,
     m
     "0
s
o
       Q. '
       SB


      * CD 3
3 en  >

ill
  SCO  O
  
-------
                                                                 Des Moines TCE Superfund Site
                               TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process
Dico Corporation contracted with Eckenfelder, Inc. to construct and operate the treatment system.  Dico
maintains responsibility for operations and maintenance of the treatment system.

Cost Analysis

All costs for investigation, design, construction and operation of the treatment system at this site were
borne by Dico Corporation.

                                                 Operating Costs n 4.151	
Caoital Costs pi 41
Remedial Construction
Site Management
Site Work
Supplies
Piping
Monitoring Wells
Extraction Wells
Air Monitoring
Air Stripper
Analyses
Total Remedial
Construction

$639,962
$10,934
$28,118
$463,399
$63,189
$231,541
$2,046
$103,807
$44,287
$1,587,283

                                                  Operation and Maintenance
                                                  Labor                             $48,438
                                                  Utilities                           $435,946
                                                  Analyses                          $141,279
                                                  Maintenance                       $383,471
                                                  Cumulative Operating Expenses   $1,009,134
                                                  through 1996


                                                 Other Costs
                                                  Remedial  Design
                                                  Air Stripper and Manhole             $271,717
                                                  Engineering Work                   $87,137
                                                  Analyses                          $128,570
                                                      Remedial Design               $487,424
                                                  EPA Personnel                    $247,398
Cost Data Quality
Capital and operations and maintenance costs are provided in an unpublished EPA document entitled
"Groundwater Remedial Cost Estimates." Estimates of operating costs for 1995 and 1996 were provided
by the former Remedial Project Manager, Mr. Glenn Curtis.
                        OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
    Total costs for the P&T system at this site
    were approximately $2,596,000 ($1,587,000
    in capital costs and $1,009,000 in operating
    costs), which corresponds to $80 per pound
    of contaminants removed and $0.53 per
    1,000 gallons of groundwater treated.

    Reports from as early as 1984 identify a
    separate plume of groundwater
    contamination that is moving southward
    from points north of the Dico property.

    The costs for this project were
    approximately $833,000 more than the
    projected costs in the ROD. This cost figure
    exceeds the ROD estimate by 47%, which
falls within the confidence interval of no
greater than 50% and no less than 30% as
stated in the ROD.

As of October 1996, the mean concentration
of contaminants in the groundwater was 18
ug/L The mean concentration is computed
from 19 sampling points and provides an
average measurement across all points.
The maximum concentration detected was
2,650 pg/L at extraction well ERW-6 [6].
Although the average groundwater
concentration  has declined significantly,
areas of high contamination still  remain on
site.
      EPA
        U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
	Technology Innovation Office
                                             26
                                                                            TIO3.WP6\0119-04.stf

-------
                                                               Des Moines TCE Superfund Site
                 OBSERVATIONS AND LESIONS LEARNED (CONT.)
   Within several wells placed near the center
   of the plume, TCE concentration levels
   have fluctuated dramatically.  In Figure 7,
   concentrations in well NW-7 can be seen to
   vary between 22 ug/L and 2,800 ug/L. This
   variation in contaminant concentrations
   typically indicates DNAPL presence.

   The most rapid reductions in contaminant
   concentrations occurred during the first two
   years of operation when mean concentration
   levels in groundwater fell by 81%. The
   mean groundwater concentrations only
   declined an additional 9% over the next
   eight years.

   Nearly 30,000 pounds of contaminants were
   removed from the groundwater over 108
   months [6]. The P&T system was able to
   meet the cleanup goal on the west side of
   Racoon River, and contain and treat the on-
   site plume.  However, TCE concentrations
   in on-site extraction wells remain above the
   remedial goal of 5 ug/L, with concentrations
   in well ERW-6 remaining in excess of 2,600
                                                Because groundwater concentrations of
                                                TCE have remained at elevated levels after
                                                nine years of groundwater extraction, the
                                                presence of a subsurface source zone,
                                                potentially a residual or sorbed DNAPL
                                                within the saturated zone,  is suggested.

                                                Initial estimates of contaminant mass
                                                released predicted that less than 10 gallons
                                                of pure TCE would be removed from the
                                                aquifer [7]. In contrast, more than 2,800
                                                gallons of contaminants have been
                                                removed as of December  1996, 80% of
                                                which is TCE.

                                                Dico has submitted a "Petition for
                                                Reimbursement of Costs"  to the U.S. EPA
                                                for remedial costs incurred in addressing a
                                                northern plume of contamination.  Dico
                                                claims that an off-site source has
                                                contributed to groundwater contamination
                                                that is flowing onto the Des Moines TCE
                                                site. Dico estimates that 29% of all costs
                                                incurred are attributed to the northern
                                                plume. This argument is made based on
                                                the fact that 2 of the 7 wells used in the
                                                remedial design for this site are placed in an
                                                area deemed the northern plume area.  Dico
                                                claims that the northern plume was created
                                                by other parties to the north of their property
                                                [12]. The petition is in court at this time and
                                                no ruling has been made.
                                      REFERENCES
1.  Performance Evaluation Report No. 1
   (December 1987 through March 1988).
   Aware, Inc. April 1988.
2.
3.
4.
Performance Evaluation Report No.
(June 1988 through January 1989).
Eckenfelder, Inc. May 1989.

Performance Evaluation Report No.
(January through December 1989).
Eckenfelder, Inc. February 1990.
Performance Evaluation Report No.
(January through December 1993).
Eckenfelder, Inc. July 1994.
5.   Performance Evaluation Report No. 10
    (January through December 1995).
    Eckenfelder, Inc. June 1996.

6.   Progress Report for October 1996. Des
    Moines TCE Site. Eckenfelder, Inc.
    December 1996.

7.   Remedial  Action Report for Ground Water
    Treatment at the Des Moines TCE Site.
    U.S.  EPA Region VII.  July 21, 1992.
      EPA
                                                        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                                                Technology Innovation Office
                                            27
                                                                        TIO3.WP6\0119-04.stf

-------
                                                                Des Maines TCE Superfund Site
                                 REFERENCES (CONT.)
8.  Case Studies and Updates. U.S. EPA,
    "Case Study 3, Des Moines TCE."  March
    25,1992.

9.  Record of Decision. U.S. EPA, Des Moines
    TCE. July 1986.

10. Correspondence with U.S. EPA Remedial
    Project Manager, Mary Peterson, Region
    VII, March 4,1997.

11. Groundwater Regions of the United States.
    Heath, Ralph. U.S. Geological Survey
    Water Supply Paper 2242.  1984.
12. Petition for Reimbursement of Costs, July 8,
   1988. Dico, Inc.

13. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquids, Huling,
   Scott G. and J. W. Weaver. U.S. EPA.
   March 1991.

14. Groundwater Remedial Cost Estimates.
   prepared for Des Moines TCE Superfund
   Site, U.S. EPA, Unpublished.

15. Correspondence with Mr. Glen Curtis,
   former Remedial Project Manager, 3-4-97.
Analysis Preparation
This case study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by Eastern Research
Group, Inc. and Tetra Tech EM Inc. under EPA Contract No.  68-W4-0004.
      EPA
           U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                   Technology Innovation Office
                                            28
                                                                           TIO3.WP6\0119-04.stf

-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
  the Former Firestone Facility Superfund Site,
              Salinas, California
                     29

-------
                   Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
                      the Former Firestone Facility Superfund Site,
                                     Salinas, California
Site Name:
Former Firestone Facility
Superfund Site
Location:
Salinas, California
Contaminants:
Chlorinated solvents and
volatiles - nonhalogenated
- Contaminants included 1,1-DCE,
TCE, PCE, 1,1-DCA, 1,1,1-TCA,
benzene, toluene, and xylene
- Maximum concentration for 1,1-
DCE detected in 1983-1984 was
120 ug/L
Period of Operation:
2/86-11/92
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
Construction: Monterey
Mechanical; Woodward/Clyde
Operations: International
Technology Corporation (ITC)
State Point of Contact:
Dr. Wei Lui
CA RWQCB
Central Coast Region
81 Higuera St., Ste. 200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-5427
(805) 542-4648
Technology:
Pump and Treat
- Groundwater is extracted using
25 wells, located on- and off-site,
at an average total pumping rate of
480 gpm
- Extracted groundwater is treated
with oil/water separation, air
stripping, and carbon adsorption,
and discharged to a surface water
under a NPDES permit
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA Remedial
-RODDate: 9/30/89
EPA Point of Contact:
Elizabeth Adams, RPM
U.S. EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-2261
Waste Source:
Accidental releases of chemicals to
soil and groundwater from a
RCRA-permitted facility.
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Met goals within seven years of
operation; site had relatively high
hydraulic conductivity and was
located near high-volume
agricultural wells.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
- 1,800 million gallons treated
- Groundwater is found at near ground surface at the site
- Extraction wells are located in 3 aquifers, which are influenced by
production wells in the area
- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 100 to 1,200 ft/day
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Remedial goals were identified based on chemical-specific ARARs that included maximum contaminant
  levels (MCLs) and health-based restrictions. Remedial goals were established for 1,1-DCE (6 ug/L), 1,1-
  DCA (5 ug/L), TCE (3.2 ug/L), PCE (0.7 ug/L), benzene (0.7 ug/L), toluene (20 ug/L), and xylene (70 ug/L).
- A secondary goal of the system was to prevent migration of contaminants into the adjoining property.	
                                               30

-------
                   Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
                      the Former Firestone Facility Superfund Site,
                               Salinas, California (continued)
Results:                                                                                .   .
  1,1-DCE was identified as the index contaminant to identify compliance with remedial goals for this site.
  Monitoring results showed that concentrations of this contaminant decreased from as high as 120 ug/L in
  1986 to 4.8 ug/L in 1994 and 6 ug/L in 1995. From 1986 to 1992, 496 pounds of total VOCs had been
  removed from the groundwater.
- By 1987, monitoring data indicated that plume containment had been achieved. There had been some
  migration of contaminants noted in 1986, but an addition of five off-site wells in the deep aquifer in 1987
  prevented further migration.
Cost:
- Actual costs for pump and treat were $12,884,813 ($4,133,543 in capital and $8,751,270 in O&M), which
  correspond to $7 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $26,000 per pound of contaminant removed.
Description:
The former Firestone facility operated as a tire manufacturing plant from 1963 until 1980. During pre-closure
investigations of the facility's solid waste management units in 1983, 11 areas were investigated, and results
showed that soil and groundwater were contaminated. A plume of VOCs was identified in the groundwater that
extended 2.5 miles down-gradient. The site was placed on the NPL in July 1987 and a ROD was signed in
September 1989.

The extraction system originally consisted of 25 wells installed both on- and off-site. In July 1987, five
additional wells were installed off-site in the deep aquifer to prevent plume migration, and in October 1989, five
additional wells were installed off-site in the intermediate zone to treat contamination in that area. The system
design was performed using a computer model.  The remedial goals at this site were met within approximately
seven years of treatment. Site operators frequently adjusted the extraction system to maximize the removal of
contaminants from the groundwater and maintain the highest possible level of contaminants in the influent
 ctr*»5mi tn
             treatment svstem
                                                 31

-------
                                                                        Former Firestone Facility
                                    SITE INFORMATION
 Identifying Information:
 Former Firestone Facility Superfund Site
 Salinas, California

 CERCLIS#:  CAD990793887

 ROD Date: September 30,1989



 Background	
 Treatment Application:
 Type of Action: Remedial

 Period of operation: February 1986 -
 November 1992
 (Monitoring data collected through July 1993)

 Quantity of groundwater treated during
 application:  1.8 billion gallons
 Historical Activity that Generated
 Contamination at the Site: Manufacture of
 tires

 Corresponding SIC Code: 3011

 Waste Management Practice That
 Contributed to Contamination: Accidental
 releases of chemicals to soil and groundwater
 from a RCRA-permitted facility.

 Location:  California

 Operations [1,2,4]:
 •   The former Firestone facility is located in a
    suburban industrial area with mixed local
    land use,  both industrial and agricultural.
    Bordered on the north by a rail line and on
    the south by a river, the facility operated as
    a tire manufacturing plant from 1963 until
    1980.

 •   During preclosure investigations of the
    facility's solid waste management units in
    1983,11 areas were investigated; soil
    contamination was identified in a materials
    storage area and in the sludge drying beds.
    The groundwater investigation found that
    the levels of several volatile organic
    compounds (VOCs) exceeded state Primary
    Drinking Standards. The same  investigation
    identified a plume of VOCs that extended
    2.5 miles downgradient.

•   On- and off-site groundwater pumping was
    initiated to reduce further contaminant
    migration. The evaluation of potential
    sources of contamination led to  the removal
    of 22 storage tanks and excavation of 5,300
    cubic yards of inorganic- and organic-
      EPA
     contaminated soils for off-site disposal.  The
     tanks and soil were determined later by the
     site contractor not to be sources of
     groundwater contamination.

 •   After extensive investigation, the principal
     source of groundwater contamination was
     believed to be from the use of 1,1,1-
     trichloroethane (TCA) for maintenance and
     cleaning of equipment. The site contractor
     determined that small amounts were
     released through floor cracks, sumps, and
     drains. The TCA had degraded to 1,1-
     dichloroethylene (DCE) and other
     breakdown products by the time
     contamination was detected.

 •   The site was placed on the National
     Priorities List (NPL) in July 1987.

 Regulatory Context:
 •   Remedial actions were underway before the
     site was placed on the NPL in July 1987.
     The final ROD was signed on September
     30, 1989.

 •   Site activities are conducted under
     provisions of the Comprehensive
     Environmental Response, Compensation,
     and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as
     amended by the Superfund Amendments
     and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)
     §121, and the National Contingency Plan
     (NCP), 40 CFR 300.

 Groundwater Remedy Selection:
 •   The selected remedy for this site was
     groundwater extraction and treatment via
     carbon adsorption and air stripping with
     discharge to a river.

             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
	Technology Innovation Office
                                             32
                                                                             TI03.WP6\1203-04.stf

-------
                                                                      Former Firestone Facility
                              SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Site Logistics/Contacts
Site Lead:  PRP

Oversight: California Regional Water Quality
Control Board (CARWQCB)

Remedial Project Manager:
Elizabeth Adams*
U.S. EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-744-2261
State Contact:
Dr. Wei Lui*
CARWQCB
Central Coast Region
81 Higuera St., Ste. 200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-5427
805-542-4648

Treatment System Vendor:
Construction:  Monterey Mechanical
             Woodward/Clyde
Operations: International Technology
Corporation (ITC)
"Indicates Primary Contacts
                                  MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix Processed Through the
Treatment System: Groundwater

Contaminant Characterization M. 2. 31
 Primary Contaminant Groups: Volatile
 organic compounds

 •   The contaminants of greatest concern
    include benzene, 1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-
    DCA), 1,1,1 trichlorethane(1,1,1-TCA),
    trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene
    (PCE), 1,1-dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE),
    toluene, and xylene.

 •   1,1-DCE was selected during the design
    process as the index compound for the
    remedial action. The maximum
    concentration detected on site during the
    1983-1984 groundwater investigation was
    120ug/L
    The plume shown in Figure 1 was based on
    1986 sampling events.  It was estimated to
    be 1,300 feet wide and extend 3,400 feet
    downgradient. In the areas downgradient of
    the source, the plume was identified in the
    deeper hydrogeologic zones. High-volume
    agricultural wells screened in this zone
    influenced groundwater flow patterns,
    affecting plume migration.

    Using the surface area in Figure 1, the unit
    thickness given in Table 1, and an average
    porosity of 0.3, this report estimates the
    plume could contain as much as 2.9 billion
    gallons of contaminated groundwater.
       EPA
             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                    Technology Innovation Office
                                              33
                            TIO3.WP6\1203-04.stf

-------
                                                               Former Firestone Facility
                       MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
                                                                          ce
                                                                          bJ
                                                                          Q-
                                                                        i!

                                                                        I!
                                                                        8A
                                                                          QJ
                                                                        xo
              Figure 1. 1,1-DCE Groundwater Contamination in 1986 [2]
EPA
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
	Technology Innovation Office
                                     34
                                                                   TIO3.WP6\1203-04.s1f

-------
                                                                         Former Firestone Facility
                              MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Costs or Performance F21

Hydrogeology:

Groundwater in the vicinity of the site occurs in three interconnected, aquifer zones, designated the
shallow, intermediate, and deep aquifers. The groundwater at this site is contaminated by high levels of
nitrate from agricultural activities in the area and is not a suitable drinking water source.  The shallow
aquifer extends from ground surface to a depth of about 90 feet. The intermediate zone is about 40 feet
thick and extends from 100 to 140 feet below ground surface. Locally, the deep aquifer system has four
distinct zones at depths of approximately 200, 300,400, and 500 feet. The various aquifers are
separated by locally discontinuous clay or silt layers (aquitards) of varying  thicknesses. Where the
aquitards are thin or discontinuous, flow  and/or dispersion can occur between the overlying and
underlying aquifers. The shallow aquifer has limited use because it dries up during drought years.  The
intermediate aquifer also has limited use because it is very localized and does not yield a large quantity
of water. The deep aquifer yields water  and is used agriculturally and domestically.
  Unit 1   Shallow Aquifer
  Unit 2   Intermediate Aquifer
  Unit 3   Deep Aquifer
Composed of permeable sands and gravels enclosed by impermeable
silts and clays. This aquifer is underlain by a thin, discontinuous clay
horizon. It is of limited use and  is dry in drought years.

Composed of alluvial channels of sands and underlain by a
discontinuous layer of estuarine clay. It is of limited use because of
low yield and  is highly localized in the area of the site.

Composed of sands and gravel with discontinuous clay aquitards that
divide the  aquifer into four zones at depths of about 200, 300, 400,
and 500 feet.  It is extensively developed for agricultural and some
domestic uses.
 Tables 1 and 2 present technical aquifer information and well data, respectively.
Table 1. Technical Aauifer Information
Unit Name
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Thickness
(ft)
90
10-45
200 - 500
Conductivity
(ft/day)
100
200-1,200
200-1,200
Average Velocity
(ft/day)
2-3
2-3
3-4
^•^••^•^^•^
Flow Direction
West
Downward
Northwest
•^••^••^^•^•i
 Source: [2]
       EPA
                                  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                          Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                         Technology Innovation Office
                                                35
                                                 TIO3.WP6M 203-04.stf

-------
                                                                          Former Firestone Facility
                            TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
 Primary Treatment Technology

 Pump and treat (P&T) with air stripping and
 carbon adsorption

 System Description  and Operation [2, 3,41
Supplemental Treatment Technology

Oil/water separation
                                   Table 2. Extraction Well Data
Well Name
S1-S4
S5-S8
S9-S11
S12-S13
M1
M2
5 wells
5 wells
Unit Name
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Intermediate
Off-site Deep
Depth (ft)
60-72
60-89
52-69
49-57
98
82
90
100-150
Yield (gal/day)
57,600
72,000
50,400
14,400
172,800
72,000
576,000
345,000
 bource:  [2]

 System Description [2,3]
 •   The extraction system originally comprised
    25 wells installed both on and off site, as
    listed in Table 2. Fifteen wells were
    screened in the shallow aquifer and five
    each were installed in the intermediate and
    deep aquifers. The extraction system was
    designed to prevent off-site migration, and
    the shallow extraction wells were placed
    along the facility boundary to intercept the
    plume. In July 1987, five wells were
    installed off site in the deep aquifer to
    prevent migration of the plume up into the
    intermediate zones.  In October 1989, five
    wells were installed off site in the
    intermediate zone to treat off-site
    contamination in that zone.  The system
    was designed using a computer model.

•   The treatment system consisted of an
    oil/water separator, an air stripper, and a
    series of carbon filters. Most of the
    extracted groundwater was treated in two
    fixed-bed carbon adsorption filters, operated
    in series.

•   Groundwater from two specific areas was
    pretreated before being processed through
    the carbon filters to avoid clogging.
      EPA
   Groundwater from the first area, where high
   levels of oil and grease had been identified,
   was pretreated using two fixed-bed
   adsorbers containing Klensorb ® adsorbent.
   The adsorbers were designed to operate in
   series at a rate of 15 gpm.

   Groundwater from the second area,
   containing high levels of chlorinated
   solvents, was pre-treated in an air stripper.
   The stripper was designed to treat water at a
   rate of 50 gpm using an air flow of 750 cfm
   to achieve greater than 98 percent removal.

   Groundwater from all other areas was mixed
   with the water from the Klensorb ® and the
   air stripping units  before passing through the
   final set of carbon filters at a design rate of
   550 gpm.

   Treated groundwater was aerated in effluent
   tanks prior to discharge to the Salinas River.
   The aerated water was required to meet
   minimum dissolved oxygen requirements of
   the NPDES permit.
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
   Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
  	Technology Innovation Office
                                              36
                                                                              TIO3.WP6\1203-04.stf

-------
                                                                        Former Firestone Facility
                      TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Svstem Descriotion and Ooeration (Cont.)
•   Groundwater quality is monitored semi-
    annually in a system of 190 wells, installed
    in all aquifers both on and off site,

System Operation [2, 3,4,15]
•   Quantity of groundwater pumped from
    aquifer in gallons:
    Year

    1987

    1988

    1989

    1990

    1991

    1992

    Total
Volume Pumped (gal)

    264,100,000

   >160,000,000

    266,190^)00

    360,600,000

   > 182,200,000

    Not Available

   1,800,000,000
    [Missing data points for six months in 1988,1991,
    and all of 1992.]
    Source: [3, 6-14]

    Over the life of this project, the treatment
    system was 97 percent operational.
    Downtime was due to regular periodic
    maintenance and the construction of new
    wells in 1987.

    The media in the air stripper was not
    changed over the life of the remedial action.
    There were at least 15 changeouts of the
    carbon beds.

    The Remedial Action Plan provided the site
    manager flexibility to adjust the number of
    extraction wells pumped and the pumping
    rates for each well. The site operator
    reviewed the monitoring data monthly and
    shifted pumping patterns to optimize
    contaminant extraction. Examples of the
    specific operational changes are provided
    below.
 Oneratina Parameters Affectina Treatment Cost or Performance
Over time, pumping was discontinued at the
lateral edges of the plume to prevent the
plume from migrating transverse to the
groundwater flow.

When on-site pumping began to reduce the
flow gradient between the on-site
intermediate and deep extraction wells and
the on-site shallow extraction wells, the
shallow wells were turned off to allow the
groundwater flow to increase. Increased
groundwater flow carried the remaining
contamination to the off-site intermediate
wells faster.

For a two-week period in July 1986, site
operators evaluated  aquifer response to
increased pumping rates. The treatment
system flow rate was increased to 950 gpm
and the carbon filter system was changed to
parallel operations to accommodate the
increased flow [2, 4]. As a result of the
aquifer response test, the extraction rate
was increased.

In February 1987, the Klensorb® unit was
removed from service. From that point, the
groundwater was treated directly in the
carbon filter system.

In June 1992, cleanup levels were achieved
in all extraction wells, and remediation
operations were suspended.  Groundwater
monitoring  has continued since that date.

As of July 1995,  142 of the 190 extraction
and monitoring wells had been
decommissioned.
 The major operating parameter affecting cost and performance for this technology is the average
 extraction rate. Table 3 presents the values measured for this and other parameters.
      EPA
                                         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                                Technology Innovation Office
                                              37
                                                        TIO3.WP6\1203-04.stf

-------
                                                                    Former Firestone Facility
                     TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance (Cont.)

                               Table 3: Operating Parameters
Parameter
Average Pump Rate

1, 1-DCE
Benzene
1,1-DCA
TCE
PCE
Toluene
Xylene
Valiie "x*'
480 gpm , ,
Remedial Goal
6 ug/L
0.7 ug/L
5.0 ug/L
3.2 ug/L
0.7 ug/L
20 ug/L
70 ug/L
Performance Standard
0.21 ug/L
0.7 ug/L
None
5 ug/L
None
100 ug/L
620 ug/L
Note: Average system pump rate over life of project was an estimated
696,000 gpd, as reported in monthly performance reports.
                Source: [1,4, 6-14]
Timeline
Table 4 presents a timeline for this remedial project.
                                  Table 4:  Project Timeline
Start Date
10/85
2/86
7/1/86
7/15/86
2/87
9/87
9/89
9/89
6/92
11/92
11/93

End Date
2/86
6/86
7/14/86
10/87
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
7/95
Activity :
Multicomponent treatment system constructed
System operated at design rate of 550 gpm
System extraction rate increased to 950 gpm to assess effect on vertical
groundwater flow
System modified to operate at 700 gpm
Klensorb® unit removed from system; Area 2 wells integrated into remaining
system
Five deep aquifer extraction wells installed off site
Record of Decision issued
Five extraction wells installed in intermediate aquifer off site
Remedial goals achieved in extraction wells
System operations ended for aquifer stability test
Seven wells decommissioned
Remedial system decommissioned by state; confirmation sampling continues in 10
wells
Source: [2,4,15]
      EPA
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
	Technology Innovation Office
                                           38
                                                                          TIO3.WP6\1203-04.stf

-------
                                                                       Former Firestone Facility
                         TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards m
•   The remedial goals shown in Table 3 were
    based on chemical-specific applicable or
    relevant and appropriate requirements
    (ARARs), that include Maximum
    Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and health-
    based restrictions such as carcinogenic risk
    levels of less than 10"6 and a Hazard Index
    of 1.  These goals were to be achieved
    throughout the affected aquifers [1].

Treatment Performance Goals [21
                                              Additional Information on Goals f41

                                              •   The initial remedial goal for 1,1-DCE was
                                                 0.2 ug/L, based on state drinking water
                                                 standards.  In June 1986, the  California
                                                 Department of Health Services (DHS)
                                                 revised the state drinking water action level
                                                 for 1,1-DCE to 6 ug/L. This level became
                                                 the final remedial goal.
•   The primary goal of the treatment system
    was to reduce levels of 1,1-DCE in the
    influent to below NPDES standards, listed in
    Table 3.

Performance Data Assessment M, 5-141
                                                 The secondary goal of the system was to
                                                 prevent the migration of contaminants into
                                                 the adjoining property to the northwest.
Total VOCs include 1,1-DCA, 1,1,1-TCA, TCE,
PCE, and 1,1-DCE for the purposes of this
section.

•   Figure 2 illustrates the decline of average
    1,1-DCE contaminant concentrations in
    groundwater overtime.  As shown in this
    figure, the average level of 1,1-DCE (the
    index contaminant) in the groundwater
    dropped by half in the first year, from
    120 ug/L to an average of 61  ug/L. The
    average concentration dropped by half
    again in the following year. The average
    concentrations for 1994 and 1995 were 4.8
    and 6.0, respectively. Average
    concentrations in monitoring wells were
    provided by the system operator.

•   There were no reported exceedences of the
    NPDES limits over the life of the remedial
    action [5-13].

•   Contaminants were detected  in
    downgradient monitoring wells during a
    1986 sampling event, indicating that full

Performance Data Completeness	
                                                  containment had not been achieved. This
                                                  led to the installation of five off-site wells in
                                                  the deep aquifer in 1987. No further
                                                  migration of contaminants has been noted
                                                  in subsequent sampling events. Therefore,
                                                  it appears that the contaminant plume was
                                                  contained by 1987 [1,4].

                                                  Figure 3 shows that from 1986 to 1992, 496
                                                  pounds of total VOCs were removed from
                                                  the groundwater.  The shape of the mass
                                                  removed curve indicates a continuous
                                                  reduction in removal efficiency over the life
                                                  of the operating system.

                                                  The mass flux rate declined steadily from
                                                  77 Ibs during the first half of 1986 to 0.7 Ibs
                                                  in the last six months of operations. The
                                                  sharpest decline in the removal rate was
                                                  noted in the first 36 months during which the
                                                  removal rate dropped 84 percent from
                                                  77 lbs/6-month period to 18.7 lbs/6-month
                                                  period.  Over the next four years, the
                                                  removal rate declined to 0.7 lbs/6-month
                                                  period [6-14].
NPDES monitoring reports, containing
treatment system flow volumes, influent
concentrations, and contaminant mass
removed, are available on a semi-annual
basis from June 1986 to July 1993 [5-13].
      EPA
                                                     Groundwater monitoring data are available
                                                     in monthly reports from February 1986 to
                                                     July 1993.
                                                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                  Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                                                 Technology Innovation Office
                                             39
                                                                             TIO3.WP6\1203-04.stf

-------
                                                                    Former Firestone Facility
                    TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONTJ)
Performance Data Comoleteness (Cont.)
•  Contaminant removal data were supplied by
   the system operator for each six-month
   period from June 1986 to November
   1992 [4].

•  The data used in Figure 2 are the highest
   concentrations found in any well over a 12-
   month period [4].

Performance Data Quality
Annual concentrations in monitoring wells
were provided by the system operator for
1986, 1987, 1988, and 1993.
   The QA/QC program used throughout the remedial action met the EPA and the State of California
   requirements. All monitoring was performed using EPA-approved methods, and the site engineer did
   not note any exceptions to the QA/QC protocols.
    I
          1986   1987    1988   1989    1990    1991   1992    1993   1994    1995    1996

                 Figure 2.  Groundwater 1,1-DCE Concentrations, 1986 -1992 [4]
      EPA
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
               Technology Innovation Office
                                            40
                                                                          TIO3.WP6M 203-04,stf

-------
                                                                       Former Firestone Facility
                    TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
 •O
  O
  0)
  Q.
  O

  to
 UL
  10
  V)
  CO
     140
     120
     100
                                                                                    600
       0
      Mar-86
Aug-87
Dec-88
May-90
Sep-91
               . 1,1-DCE Mass Flux
                   . Total Mass Flux
                                                               . Cumulative Removal
          Figure 3. Mass Flux Rate and Cumulative Contaminant Removal, 1986 - 1992 [4]
                               TREATMENT !SYSTEM:COST
Procurement Process
    From 1983 to 1986, Woodward-Clyde constructed and operated the remedial treatment system. In
    August 1986, International Technology Corp. took over the operations and maintenance of the
    system.
Cost Analvsis
    All costs for design, construction, and operation of the treatment system at this site were borne by
    the PRPs.
Capital Costs F4. 51
                             Operating Costs T4. 51
 Remedial Construction
 Extraction Wells Treatment       $749,344
 System/Wells/Caps           $3,314,899
 Site Restoration                 $69,300
 Total Construction           $4,133,543
                               Plant Operations                $3,056,430
                               Monitoring/Analysis/Data
                               Management                   $3,524,622
                               Project Management             $2,170,218
                               Total Operating Expenses       $8,751,270

                             Other Costs T51	____^
                                                   Remedial Design
                                                   Miscellaneous Cost
                                                            $3,030,175
                                                            $9,176,300
Note: UST removal, lagoon closure, soil removal and disposal, and other costs unrelated to groundwater cleanup are not included here.
      EPA
                                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                  Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                                 Technology Innovation Office
                                             41
                                                                             TIO3.WP6\1203-04.stf

-------
                                                                      Former Firestone Facility
                          TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Cost Data Quality
Actual capital and operations and maintenance cost data were available from the PRPs.
                       OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
•   The cleanup standards were met at this site
    within approximately seven years.

•   There were no changes in system
    construction or operation that significantly
    changed the expected cost of remediation.

•   Actual costs for the P&T treatment
    application were $4.1 million in capital costs
    and $8.8 million in operating and
    maintenance costs, which corresponds to
    $26,000 per pound of contaminants
    removed and $7 per thousand gallons of
    groundwater pumped.

•   The site operators frequently adjusted the
    extraction system to control contaminant
    removal from the aquifers [4]. The effect of
    this flexible operation was to maximize the
    removal of contaminants from the
    groundwater and maintain the highest
    possible level of concentrations in the
    influent stream. This operational strategy
    was key to avoiding the asymptotic decline
    in contaminant removal that other P&T
    systems have experienced.
Often, concentrations of 1,1-DCA were
higher at the sample point before the
second carbon bed than at the point directly
before the first bed. This pattern suggests
that 1,1-DCE was being preferentially
adsorbed in the first bed, displacing
previously adsorbed 1,1-DCA [6].
      EPA
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
	Technology Innovation Office
                                             42
                                                                            TIO3.WP6\1203-04.stf

-------
                                      REFERENCES
                                                                      Former Firestone Facility
1.  Record of Decision.  U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency, September 13, 1989.

2.  Industrial Report.  International Technology
    Corporation, August 1993 (unpublished).

3.  Fact Sheet.  U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency. June 1994.

4.  Various communications with Corporation.
    July 2 to August 15, 1997.

5.  Groundwater Remedial Cost Analysis. U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency, October
    1994.
6.
7.
8.
Semi-Annual NPDES Report for January -
June 1987.  International Technology
Corporation, July 31,1987.

Semi-Annual NPDES Report for July -
December 1987. International Technology
Corporation, January 29,1988.
Semi-Annual NPDES Report for January -
June 1988.  International Technology
Corporation, July 28,1988.
                                             9.  Semi-Annual NPDES Report for January -
                                                 June 1989.  International Technology
                                                 Corporation, July 28,1989.

                                             10. Semi-Annual NPDES Report for July -
                                                 December 1989. International Technology
                                                 Corporation, January 30, 1990.
                                              11. Semi-Annual NPDES Report for January -
                                                 June 1990.  International Technology
                                                 Corporation, July 30, 1990.

                                              12. Semi-Annual NPDES Report for July -
                                                 December 1990. International Technology
                                                 Corporation, January 30,1991.
13. Semi-Annual NPDES Report for January -
   June 1991. International Technology
   Corporation, July 30, 1991.

14. Semi-Annual NPDES Report for July -
   December 1993. International Technology
   Corporation, January 28, 1994.

15. Letter to CADTSC.  International
   Technology Corporation, November 1993.
Analysis Preparation
This case study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by Eastern Research
Group, Inc. and Tetra Tech EM, Inc. under EPA Contract No. 68-W4-0004.
      EPA
                                                         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                                	Technology Innovation Office
                                            43
                                                                           TlO3.WP6\1203-04.stf

-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
               44

-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
         the JMT Facility RCRA Site,
            Brockport, New York
                    45

-------
                   Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
                                the JMT Facility RCRA Site,
                                    Brockport, New York
 Site Name:
 JMT Facility RCRA Site (formerly
 Black & Decker RCRA Site)
 Location:
 Brockport, New York
 Contaminants:
 Chlorinated solvents
 - Maximum concentrations
 detected in March 1988 were TCE
 (70,000 ug/L) and 1,2-DCE
 (23,000 ug/L)
 Period of Operation:
 Status: Ongoing
 Report covers: 5/88 - 12/97
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup (interim results)
 Vendor:
 Hydro Group, Inc. (1988-1997)
 1011 Route 22
 Bridgewater, NJ 08807
 (908) 704-8882
 O'Brien & Gere Operations, Inc.
 (1997-Present)
 5000 Brittonfield Parkway
 Syracuse, NY 13221
 (315)437-8800
 State Point of Contact:
 Larry Thomas
 New York State Department of
 Environmental Conservation
 (NYSDEC)
 50 Wolf Road
 Albany, NY 12233-7252
 (518)457-9253

 Site Contact:
 Paul William Hare
 Corporate Environmental Programs
 General Electric Company
 One Computer Drive South
 Albany, NY 12205
 (518)458-6613
 Technology:
 Pump and Treat
 - Groundwater is extracted using 1
 well, located on site, at an average
 total pumping rate of 11.2 gpm
 - Extracted groundwater is treated
 with air stripping and discharged to
 a surface water under a SPDES
 permit
 - An interceptor drain was
 artificially created  in the bedrock
 around the extraction well using
 controlled blasting techniques
Cleanup Authority:
RCRA
- Corrective Action
EPA Point of Contact:
Michael Infurna
U.S. EPA Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
(212)264-6150
Waste Source:
 .eaks from surface impoundments/
drying beds
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
RCRA corrective action site with
•elatively low groundwater flow;
greater than 90% reduction in
average concentrations of
contaminants.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
- 50.1 million gallons treated as of December 1997
- DNAPL suspected in groundwater at this site
- Groundwater is found at 10 ft bgs
- The extraction well is located in 1 aquifer; the geology at this site was
reported as very complex
- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 0.65 to 0.93 ft/day
                                              46

-------
                   Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
                                the JMT Facility RCRA Site,
                             Brockport, New York (continued)
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Cleanup goals were set at state groundwater standards as follows: TCE (5 ug/L), cis-l,2-DCE (5 ug/L), TCA
  (5 ug/L), and vinyl chloride (2 ug/L).
- The cleanup goals must be met in the single recovery well at the site and in point-of-exposure wells, of which
  there are currently 17.
- A goal of the recovery system is to achieve hydraulic containment of the plume.
Results:
- Concentrations of contaminants decreased by more than 80% from 1987 to 1997, but remain above cleanup
  goals.
- Although contaminants have been detected in off-site wells, NYSDEC and the owner/operator have concluded
  that the plume had been contained and the off-site contamination was believed to be residual contamination
  prior to pump and treat. The addition of a new extraction well and a treatment system is currently being
  evaluated.
- From 1988 to 1996, the system removed 842 pounds of contaminants from the groundwater.
Cost:
- Estimated costs for pump and treat were $2,163,000 ($879,000 in capital and $1,284,000 in O&M), which
  correspond to $47 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $2,569 per pound of contaminant removed.
- Building an enclosure for the treatment system was a substantial cost (about 23% of capital); however, the
  efficiency of the overall system has improved, especially in the winter months, and less time is needed for
  shutdown due to inclement weather.
Description:
The JMT Facility was operated as an appliance manufacturing facility by G.E. Company from 1949 to 1984 and
by Black and Decker from 1984 to 1986. JMT Properties, Inc., is the current owner of the site and leases the
facility to Kleen-Brite. Kleen-Brite uses the facility for packaging and distributing household products such as
laundry detergent and bleach. G.E. and Black and Decker operated an on-site RCRA treatment, storage, and
disposal facility (TSDF) under interim status.  In 1984, routine sampling revealed elevated levels of halogenated
VOCs in the groundwater at the site. In August 1987, Black and Decker closed the regulated units and, in early
1988, initiated a corrective measures program for groundwater. In 1987, Black and Decker submitted a RCRA
Post-Closure Permit application to NYSDEC; the permit was issued in April 1994.

The groundwater extraction system consists of one recovery well installed in 1987 as an interceptor well at the
leading edge of the plume; the well placement was designed to prevent additional contaminants from migrating
off site. To increase the degree of hydraulic conductivity and the interconnection in the bedrock fractures in the
extraction well area, an interceptor drain was artificially created in the bedrock around the extraction well. The
drain was created using controlled blasting techniques and rubblizing the upper portion of the bedrock. Data
indicate that the pump and treat system has reduced the contaminant concentrations in the plume, however
concentrations in much of the plume remain above the cleanup goals.	
                                                47

-------
                                                                         JMT Facility RCRA Site
                                    SITE INFORMATION
 Identifying Information:
JMT Facility RCRA Site (previously Black and
Decker)

RCRIS#:  NYD002221919
                         Treatment Application:
                         Type of Action: Corrective Action

                         Period of operation: 5/88 - Ongoing
                         (Monitoring and pumping data collected through
                         December 1997)
                         (Mass removal data collected through 1996)

                         Quantity of material treated during
                         application: 50.1 million gallons of groundwater
Background
Historical Activity that Generated
Contamination at the Site: Appliance
Manufacturing
Corresponding SIC Code:
manufacturing)
3699 (appliance
Waste Management Practice That
Contributed to Contamination: Leaks from
surface impoundments/drying bed

Location: Brockport, New York

Facility Operations: [1,2,3]
•   The JMT Facility (formerly the Black and
    Decker site) is located on 28.5 acres in a
    largely industrial area. Several industrial
    plants are nearby, and an inactive
    hazardous waste disposal site is adjacent to
    the western boundary, crossgradient to the
    site.

•   The site was operated as an appliance
    manufacturing facility by G.E. Company from
    1949-1984 and by Black and Decker from
    1984-1986. JMT Properties, Inc. is the
    current owner of the site and leases the
    facility to Kieen-Brite. Kleen-Brite uses the
    facility for packaging and wholesale
    distributing of household products (e.g.,
    laundry detergent, bleach).

•   G.E. and Black and Decker operated an on-
    site RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal
    facility (TSDF) under interim status.  The
    solid waste management units (SWMUs)
    included six surface impoundments, one
    drying bed, and three waste storage areas,
      EPA
    which were significant sources of
    contamination.

 •  In 1984, routine sampling revealed elevated
    levels of halogenated volatile organic
    compounds (VOCs) in the groundwater
    below the SWMUs. This discovery led to a
    site-wide groundwater quality assessment
    program as required by the 40 CFR 265.93
    regulations for groundwater monitoring.

 •  In response to the findings of the
    groundwater assessment,  Black and Decker
    closed the regulated units in August 1987,
    and initiated a corrective measures program
    for groundwater in early 1988.  For source
    control, Black and Decker removed the
    uppermost soil/sludge, backfilled
    excavations, and established vegetative
    cover.

 •  In 1987, Black and Decker submitted a
    RCRA Post-Closure Permit application to
    NYSDEC. The permit was issued on April 4,
    1994 and requires that the system continue
    to be operated, maintained, and monitored
    until certain termination criteria are met.  The
    permit required an Off-Site Ground Water
    Investigation (OSGWI) which was presented
    in August 1996.

 Regulatory Context:
    Site activities are conducted under
    provisions of the Resource Conservation
    and Recovery Act (RCRA) in 1976, as
    amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste
    Amendments (HSWA) in 1984,  and 40 CFR
    264 and 265 Subpart A through H.

             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
	           Technology Innovation Office
                                             48
                                                                            TIO3.WP6\1117-03.stf

-------
                                                                       JMT Facility RCRA Site
                             SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
   A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
   System (NPDES) permit was required to
   discharge treated groundwater to the New
   York State Barge Canal.
Groundwater Remedy Selection:
Groundwater extraction and treatment via air
stripping was selected as the remedy for this
site.
Site Loaistics/Contacts
Site Lead: Owner/Operator

Oversight:
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC)

Remedial Project Manager:
Michael Infurna
U.S. EPA Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
(212)264-6150

Site Contact:
Paul William Hare*
Corporate Environmental Programs
General Electric Company
One Computer Drive South
Albany, NY 12205
(518)458-6613
State Contact:
Larry Thomas*
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC)
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-7252
(518)457-9253

Treatment System Vendor:
Hydro Group, Inc. (1988-1997)
1011 Route 22
Bridgewater, NJ 08807
(908)704-8882

O'Brien & Gere Operations, Inc. (1997-Present)
5000 Brittonfield Parkway
Syracuse,  NY 13221
(315)437-8800

Technical Advisors to the Site Management:
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
19 Walker Way
Albany, New York 12205
(518)452-9392
•Indicates primary contacts.
Matrix Identification
                                 MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Type of Matrix Processed Through the
Treatment System:  Groundwater

Contaminant Characterization
 Primary Contaminant Groups: Halogenated
 VOCs

 •   The contaminants of concern at the site are
    trichloroethylene (TCE), 'c/s-1,2-
    dichloroethylene Cc/s-1,2-DCE), 1,1,1-
    trichloroethane (TCA), and vinyl chloride.

    The maximum concentration of TCE
    detected in March 1988 was 70,000 ug/L in
    well 23-B. The maximum concentration of
      EPA
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                   Technology Innovation Office
                                            49
                                                                           TIO3.WP6\1117-03.Stf

-------
                                                                              JMT Facility RCRA Site
                          MATRIX SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
     1,2-DCE detected during the same time was
     23,000 ug/L in well 18-S. Vinyl chloride and
     1,1,1-TCA have been detected sporadically.

     The presence of DNAPL was investigated
     during the RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI).
     No evidene of DNAPL was found as a result
     of this investigation.
                         The initial contaminant plume, shown in
                         Figure 1, was estimated to be 30 feet thick
                         and to cover an 11 -acre area.
                         Contamination was found to have migrated
                         downward though the overburden into the
                         fractured bedrock.  The resulting plume is
                         migrating in a northwesterly direction
                         consistent with groundwater flow [2].  Plume
                         volume could not be estimated given the
                         subsurface variability.
                                                                             UCCNO
                                                                             • Uonilartog Wall Ueattan
                                                                             a Talaphana Pain
                                                                            780 CeiKtnlralm In Brtioch Wlltl IpSfl)
                                                                             'gr CoMKHratiaa In 0*«kuri«»With (pet)
                                                                             - Hal Ollacla*
                                                                      NOTTS:
                                                                      Baaa mop from plal pton by Canartf Clacdk «• l-tl tf«M 3/10/fl:
                                                                         by Dutm Gaeickftea Cefaarotlan
                                                                      TK« hlghttt eonartwon
                                                                      badrodTMII dvtftf*
                                                                     THICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) CONCENTRATION
                                                                         WITHIN BEDROCK AQUIFER
                                                                           OCTOBER IS, 1986
                                                                        BLACK & DECKER (U.S.) INC.
                                                                          BR'OCKPORT. NEW YORK
                                                                               7535
                 Figure 1.  Initial TCE Concentration Contour Map (October 15,1986) [5]

Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Costs or Performance [2]

Hydrogeology:

Although subsurface materials at this site tend to function as a single hydrogeologic unit, due to
differences in the geologic nature at this site of the materials, the site has been characterized as two units
for EPA's remedial evaluation. The geology at this site is very complex, and the OSGWI has identified
numerous hydrostratigraphic units. Information  presented here is simplified for this discussion.
 Unit 1    Overburden Aquifer
 Unit 2   Bedrock Aquifer
Silty fine to coarse sand and fine to coarse sandy silts with a little
gravel and /or clay in places.

Fractured sandstone interconnected to some degree with the
overlying overburden materials.
      EPA
                                  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                         Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                              	Technology Innovation Office
                                                50
                                                                                 TIO3.WP6\1117-03.slf

-------
                                                                         MT Facility RCRA Site
                        MATRIX SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
The composition of both the overburden and bedrock units creates a complex environment for
groundwater below this site. Groundwater flow is variable, less than 0.08 ft/day, and migration is very
limited in the overburden aquifer.  Groundwater flows along preferential pathways in the bedrock aquifer,
complicating plume containment and monitoring. Furthermore, ambient water levels vary throughout the
year to the extent that some of the overburden wells are dry for part of the year. On average,
groundwater is encountered at 10 feet.

Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Costs or Performance fCont.)

Groundwater flows across the site in a northwesterly direction. The source areas are located in the
central portion of the site. As the groundwater reaches the western side of the site it is captured in the
fracture  zone and extracted for treatment.

Tables 1 and 2 present technical aquifer information and technical well data, respectively.

                              Table 1: Technical Aquifer Information
Unit Name
Overburden
Bedrock
Thickness
(ft)
5-20
150
Conductivity
(ft/day)
0.93
0.65
Average Velocity
(ft/day)
0.0806
0.078
Flow
Direction
Northwest
Northwest
 Source: [4]
                          "^REATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
 Primary Treatment Technoloov
 Pump and treat with air stripping
Supplemental Treatment Technology

None
  ifctom Doer^rinf irin nnri On
                                  Table 2: Technical Well Data
Well Name
RW-1A
Unit Name
Bedrock Unit
Depth (ft)
40
Yield (gal/day) 1
16,150 1
 Source:  [3]

 System Description [2, 3, 5]
 •  The groundwater extraction system consists
    of one recovery well (designated RW-1A)
    installed in 1987 as an interceptor well at the
    leading edge of the plume northwest of the
    former surface impoundments on the JMT
    facility, as listed in Table 2. The well
       EPA
    placement was designed to prevent
    additional contaminants from migrating off
    site by achieving hydraulic containment [3].

    The initial plan for multiple conventional
    wells would not have been sufficient
    because of heterogeneity, as shown by

             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                    Technology Innovation Office
                                              51
                           TIO3.WP6\1117-03.stf

-------
                                                                           JMT Facility RCRA Site
                       TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
     pumping tests. The design engineers
     determined that one well placed at the toe of
     the plume in a blasted fractured zone would
     hydraulically contain the plume.

     To increase the degree of hydraulic
     conductivity and the interconnection in the
     bedrock fractures in the extraction well area,
     an interceptor drain was artificially created in
     the bedrock around the extraction well.
     Using controlled blasting techniques, a 300-
     foot long fracture zone was created in the
     upper 25 feet of the bedrock hydrogeologic
     unit, in effect "rubblizing" the upper portion of
     the bedrock. The blasted fracture zone was
     placed perpendicular to the direction of flow
     carrying the contaminant plume [2,3,5].

     The treatment system consists of a 57.5-foot
     packed-column air stripper tower with an
     internal diameter of 2.25 feet and a chemical
     feed system for addition of a sequestering
     agent to reduce bio-fouling. The tower is
     designed for a maximum flow of 100 gpm,
     and an air-to-water ratio of 75 to 1. The
     column was designed based upon 99.8%
     removal efficiency of TCE.  Treated
    groundwater is discharged to the New York
    State Barge Canal under a SPDES permit
    [3].

    Two major modifications have been made to
    the system. In November 1995, an electrical
    and piping box was installed at the extraction
    well location, and a full-scale rehabilitation of
    the extraction well occurred during this same
    general time frame. In November 1996, an
    enclosure was constructed around the
    treatment system to provide heat and
    secondary containment.
•   The groundwater quality is monitored
    quarterly in a core group of 15 wells and the
    extraction well. The discharge compliance
    monitoring for the treatment system is
    performed on a monthly basis as required by
    the SPDES permit.

System Operation [5, 6, 7-15]

    Quantity of groundwater pumped from the
    bedrock aquifer in gallons [5, 7-15]:
      Year
      1988
      1989
      1990
      1991
      1992
      1993
      1994
      1995
      1996
      1997
      Total
Volume Pumped
   3,086,700
   4,865,000
   6,538,700
   4,222,300
   6,094,900
   7,054,800
   7,107,600
   3,787,100
   3,388,550
   3,924,750
  50,070,680
   As of December 1996, the treatment system
   was operational nearly 90% of the time.
   Shutdowns have been caused by periodic
   events, such as severe cold weather, ice
   storms, and lightning strikes.  Downtime has
   also been influenced by rehabilitation,
   construction and maintenance activities [6].

   The air stripping media has only been
   changed once during the life of the treatment
   system in November 1995. A weak solution
   of nitric acid (5%) was used to remove
   scaling (bio-fouling) from the inside of the
   column and to loosen the packing [6]. Also
   in November 1995, a recovery well (RW-1A)
   rehabilitation was performed [13].
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
The major operating parameter affecting cost or performance for this technology is the groundwater
extraction rate. Table 3 presents the average extraction rate between 1988 and 1996, and the required
performance parameters.
      EPA
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
   Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
   	Technology Innovation Office
                                              52
                                                                             TIO3.WP6Y1117-03.s1f

-------
                                                                     JMTFacility RCRA Site
                    TREATMENT! SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Oneratina Parameters Affectina Treatment Cost or Performance (Cont.)
                              Table 3: Performance Parameters

Average System Extraction
Rate
Performance Standard
(Daily Maximum in SPDES
permit)
Remedial Goal
(MCLs)
«r,4«-;M ,>; • . , ar , w» ^ *w ~
1 - ii jfe- A ItV&Jue . - s« - "• ;» *-
1 1 .2 gpm
TCE 0.026 kg/day
c/s-1,2-DCE 0.079 kg/day
TCA 0.026 kg/day
Vinyl chloride 0. 1 32 kg/day
TCE 5ug/L
c/s-1,2-DCE 5ug/L
TCA 5 ug/L
Vinyl chloride 2|jg/L
Note: Average system rate was 11.2 gpm based on 46,145,650
gallons treated, system run time, and a 90% operational rate
                 Source: [5,7-15,17]
Timeline
Table 4 presents a timeline for this corrective action project.

                                  Table 4: Project Timeline
'fStMfDale'
1987
1987
5/88
4/94
10/94
8/96
End Date i
— -
__-
—
—
1996
—
i';tf "^;\'-*rT -^-; v~."fl "-\ ^civl^?# ;|!f ,%1 &"->£$'-"$%" *••$' ^ '*£ ''I
Remedial construction performed
Artificial fracture created
P&T system placed into operation
Post-closure permit issued
Installation of 40 off-site monitoring wells
Off-site qroundwater investiqation presented
Source: [2,16,17,18]
                        TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards
    Clean-up goals are set at New York State
    groundwater standards which are the
    Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) listed
    in Table 3 [17].
Additional Information on Goals

•  The cleanup goals must be met in recovery
   well RW-1A [17].  The single compliance
   well is analyzed for Appendix IX
   constituents. However, termination criteria
   for the P&T system is also dependent on
   point-of-exposure wells, of which there are
   currently 17 [21].
      EPA
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
    	Technology Innovation Office
                                           53
                                                                         TIO3.WP6M 117-03.stf

-------
                                                                         JMT Facility RCRA Site
                     TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
 Treatment Performance Goals
 •   The goal of the treatment system is to
    reduce effluent contaminant concentrations
    to mass-based limits in order to meet
    SPDES permit requirements listed  in
    Table 3 [2].

 Performance Data Assessment T5. 6.7-15.18.211
 The goal of the recovery system is to
 achieve hydraulic containment of the plume
 [6].
 For this discussion and Figures 3 and 5, total
 contaminant concentrations include TCE,
 1,2-DCE, 1,1,1-TCA, and vinyl chloride.

 •   Figure 2 shows the trend in VOC
    concentrations detected in RW-1A from late
    1987 to April 1988, before the system
    became operational, and from May 1988
    through September 1997. As shown in this
    figure, concentrations of TCE declined 80%
    from 4,600 ug/L in December 1987 to 490
    ug/L in September 1997. Concentrations of
    1,2-DCE declined 91% from 1,600 ug/L in
    December 1987 to 140 ug/L in September
    1997.  Concentrations of contaminants
    remain above remedial goals [15].

 •   Groundwater monitoring results from May
    1988 to December 1996 indicate that total
    contaminant concentrations have been
    reduced.  Figure 3 illustrates changes in the
    average total contaminant concentrations in
    the groundwater over time. In the first year,
    average total contaminant concentrations
    declined 84% and average TCE
    concentrations dropped by a similar amount.
    Over the next six years, average total
    contaminant contamination declined  by 80
    percent [5, 7-15].

•   In May 1996, the average concentration of
    TCE detected was 7 ug/L, while the
    maximum TCE concentration detected was
    21 ug/L.  Both the maximum and average
    concentrations are above the site cleanup
    levels.

•   The use of blasting fractures to enhance
    conductivity in the fracture zone  was an
    innovative approach to the challenges
    posed by the highly variable groundwater
      EPA
 flow patterns at this site.  Its effectiveness in
 enhancing the degree of conductivity and
 contaminant capture is demonstrated in
 Figure 4. In the first sampling episode after
 the zone was created in May 1987, TCE
 concentrations increased in wells GEB-
 31BD and GEB-32BI, both of which are
 directly downgradient of the fracture zone.
 However, as shown in the figure, these
 concentrations then decreased steadily in
 both wells [5, 7-11].

 During a 1994 -1996 post-closure
 investigation, contaminants were detected
 in off-site wells.  However, the NYSDEC
 and the owner operator have concluded that
 the plume had been contained, and the off-
 site plume was believed to be residual
 contamination prior to pump-and-treat[21].
 The addition of a new extraction well and a
 treatment system is currently being
 evaluated [16].

 The SPDES permit limitations have been
 met consistently since the permit was
 issued in May 1988 [6].

 Figure 5 presents the removal of
 contaminants through the treatment system
 annually from 1988 to 1996. During this
 time the P&T system removed
 approximately 842 pounds of contaminant
 mass from the groundwater [7,18].

The average system extraction rate is 11.2
gpm. Annual average pump rates have
ranged from 8.2 gpm to a  high of 13.5 gpm
in 1994 [7,13].
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
	Technology Innovation Office
                                             54
                                                                            TIO3.WP6\1117-03.stf

-------
                                                                      JM T Facility RCRA Site
                 TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
   10000
    1000
D)
•2    100
I
o
u
                                    iJk** f  /\s **''^JN   *"•'>*     *?  *
                                    /•^ jf.UjJ^A   ...:  ,-. **.„
       1
      29-Mar-  11-Aug-  23-Dec- 7-May-90  19-Sep-  31-Jan-  15-Jun-  28-Oct-  11-Mar-  24-Jul-98

        86      87      88              91      93      94      95      97
                          .TCE  B   1,2-DCE.
                                                         1.1,1-TCA
          Figure 2. VOC Concentrations Detected in RW-1A (1987-1997) [5,7-15, 21]
     1000
       Aug-87     Dec-88    May-90    Sep-91      Jan-93    Jun-94      Oct-95    Mar-97
                                .TCE
                                              . Total Contaminants
Figure 3.  Average Groundwater Concentrations at the Toe of the Plume (1988-1996) [5, 7-15]


                                                        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

                                                Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

          	Technology Innovation Office
   EPA
                                          55
                                                                         TIO3.WP6\1117-03.stf

-------
                                                                  JMT Facility RCRA Site
              TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)



I
I
Concent


5,000 -r-
4,500 4
4,000 4
3,5004
3.000H
2,500-
2,000-
1,500-
1,000
500
0
                                              Fractured Zone
                                            Created May 1987
                                                                GEB-32BD

                                                              GEB-32BI

                                                            GEB-31BD

                                                          GEB-30BI

                                                       GEB29BD
           Figure 4. Well TCE Concentrations Near Fracture Zone [5, 7-11]
                                                                        900.00
                                                                        800.00
                                                                        700.00
                                                                        600.00 »
                                                                        500.00
                                                                      .. 400.00 g
                                                                        300.00
                                                                        200.00
                                                                        100.00
   o jz	,		-  ,	_i	?  .   •     >.r..^g.	^	i o.oo
  Aug-87    Dec-88    May-90   Sep-91    Jan-93     Jun-94    Oct-95    Mar-97
                            . Mass Flux
. Mass Removed
   Figure 5. Mass Flux Rate and Cumulative Contaminant Removal (1988-1996) [7, 18]
EPA
               U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
       Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
      	Technology Innovation Office
                                       56
                                                                     TIO3.WP6\1117-03.stf

-------
                                                                          JMT Facility RCRA Site
                    TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Completeness
•   Performance sampling for the treatment
    system is performed on a monthly basis.
    Data for the influent concentrations, effluent
    concentrations, and the system flow rate
    are available in the monthly SPDES
    Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR). The
    analyses in Figure 2 are based on one
    month's data per year (June) collected from
    1988 to 1996.

•   Groundwater quality monitoring is
    performed during quarterly sampling
    events. A core group of 15 monitoring wells
    and the single recovery well are sampled for
    VOCs.  Cyanide is monitored in the
    recovery well and 3 monitoring wells.

Performance Data Quality	
   A geometric mean was used for the average
   groundwater concentrations to represent the
   trend of contaminants in the groundwater at
   the toe of the plume. The second quarter
   monitoring event was used for annual data
   points plotted in Figure 3 of this report. A
   series of five well clusters throughout the
   plume, three wells in each cluster, has been
   used consistently to monitor the shallow,
   intermediate, and deep bedrock since 1988.
   A subset of five wells at the toe of the plume
   has been selected to document the
   effectiveness of the P&T system (i.e., GEB-
   28BS, GEB-29BD, GEB-30BI, GEB-31BI,
   GEB-32BI).
The QA/QC program used throughout the corrective action met New York State requirements. All
sample monitoring was performed using EPA-approved methods (SW-846 Methods 8010 and 9010),
and the vendor did not note any exceptions to the QA/QC protocols unless otherwise noted.
                               TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process T6.191
G.E. contracted with Hydro Group, Inc. and its affiliate, Ground Water Associates, Inc., to construct and
operate the remediation system, under the oversight of the NYSDEC. G.E. subsequently contracted with
O'Brien & Gere Operations, Inc. for these services.

Cost Analysis	
    Black and Decker and G.E. Company assumed all costs for investigation, design,-construction, and
    operation of the treatment system at this site.
Capital Costs f6.191
 Remedial Construction & Design

 Includes blasting of artificial fracture        $650,000
 zone, pre- and post-blast pump tests,
 and construction of treatment system

 Enclosure building                     $204,000

 Piping and electrical enclosure at the        $25,000
 extraction well - "hot-box"

 Total Site Cost                       $879,000
Operating Costs T6.191
 Annual Operation and Maintenance

 Includes all SPDES reporting,             $150,000
 groundwater quality sampling,
 preparation of quarterly and annual
 reports, and maintenance costs

 Estimated Cumulative Total           $1,284,000
 Operating Expenses
 (1987 to 1996)
                                                               U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                       Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                                      	Technology Innovation Office
                                              57
                                                                              TIO3.WP6\1117-03.stf

-------
                                                                         JMT Facility RCRA Site
Cost Data Quality
The G.E. Company provided an estimate for actual capital costs, and an estimate of cumulative
operating costs through 1997 [19].
                       OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
    The total cost of treatment using the P&T
    system was $2,163,000, consisting of
    $879,000 in capital costs and $1,284,000 in
    estimated cumulative operating and
    maintenance costs through 1996 (assuming
    an average O&M cost of $150,000 per year)
    [6,19]. According to the site contact, the
    cost of O&M has dropped significantly since
    1988; largely because of more efficient
    O&M methods, decline in analytical service
    rates, upgrades, and less frequent non-
    routine maintenance requirements [6].

    Two modifications to the P&T system,
    enclosure of the treatment system and
    installation of a hot-box, resulted in an
    increase in capital costs totaling $229,000.
    Capital costs increased 35% over the
    original cost.

    The treatment system performance data
    indicate that approximately 842 pounds of
    contaminants were removed from the
    groundwater over 103 months at a cost of
    $2,569 per pound.  As of the date of this
    report, the P&T system had not achieved
    cleanup goals [5, 7-15].

    Taking into account the cumulative cost of
    capital and operations and the volume of
    groundwater treated through 1996, the cost
    per 1,000 gallons treated was $47.
    Building an enclosure for the treatment
    system was a substantial cost.  However,
    according to the site contact, the efficiency
    of the overall system has improved,
    especially in the winter months, and less
    time is needed for shutdown due to
    inclement weather. The cost-effectiveness
    of the enclosed building will be better
    determined  in the future [21].

    Data indicate that the P&T system has
    reduced the contaminant concentration
    levels in the plume; however, contaminant
    concentrations in much of the plume remain
    above the established remedial goals [5, 7-
    15].

    Implementation of an artificially  produced
    fracture zone in the bedrock was an
    innovative remedial alternative for this site.
    Through the use of controlled blasting, a
    selected zone of bedrock was transformed
    into a conduit which conveys groundwater
    to the single extraction well [20].

    Data from the RFI indicated that no
    significant amounts of DNAPL were present
    at the facility. The site engineer believes
    that the steady decline in contaminant
    concentrations in source areas is further
    evidence that no DNAPL contamination
    occurred at this site [6].
                                       REFERENCES
1.  Detailed Design for Treatment Enclosure.
    JMT Facility (EPA ID No.  NYD002221919^
    Brockport, New York. General Electric
    Company Memorandum.

2.  Evaluation of Ground Water Extraction
    Remedies:  Phase II. Volume 2: Case
    Studies and Updates.  U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency. PB2-963346. February
    1992.
3.  Post Closure Permit Application. Part B.
    Appendix E-19: Treatment Facility Design.
    Hydrogroup.  Decembers, 1987.

4.  Remedial System Performance Monitoring
    Plan. Black and Decker. Brockport. NY.
    Appendix E-26 of Post Closure Permit
    Application.  Dunn Geoscience Corporation.
    January 11,  1989.
      EPA
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
    	Technology Innovation Office
                                             58
                                                                             TI03.WP6\1117-03.stf

-------
                                                                      JUT Facility RCRA Site
                                REFERENCES (CONT.)
5.  RCRA Annual Groundwater Monitoring
    Report-1987.  Dunn Geoscience
    Corporation. March 1988.

6.  Correspondence with Paul Hare, General
    Electric Company. June 2,1997.

7.  RCRA Annual Groundwater Monitoring
    Report-1988.  Dunn Geoscience
    Corporation. March 1989.

8.  1989 RCRA Annual Groundwater
    Monitoring Report. Dunn Geoscience
    Corporation. March 1990.

9.  1990 RCRA Annual Groundwater
    Monitoring Report. Dunn Geoscience
    Corporation. March 1991.

10.  1991 RCRA Annual Groundwater
    Monitoring Report. Dunn Geoscience
    Corporation. February 1992.

11.  1992 RCRA Annual Groundwater
    Monitoring Report. O'Brien & Gere
    Engineers, Inc. March 1993.

12.  1993 RCRA Annual Groundwater
    Monitoring Report. O'Brien & Gere
    Engineers, Inc. March 1994.

13.  1994 RCRA Annual Groundwater
    Monitoring Report. O'Brien & Gere
    Engineers, Inc. March 1995.
14.  1995 RCRA Annual Groundwater
    Monitoring Report. O'Brien & Gere
    Engineers, Inc. March 1996.

15.  1996 and 1997 RCRA Annual Groundwater
    Monitoring Reports. O'Brien & Gere
    Engineers, Inc. February 1997.

16.  Off-Site Ground Water Investigation Report.
    O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. August
    1996.

17.  RCRA Post Closure Permit.  New York
    Department of Environmental Conservation.
    April 1994.

18.  June SPDES Discharge Reports,
    Hydrogroup and O'Brien & Gere.  June
    1988-June 1996.

19.  Personal communication with Lawrence
    Thomas, NYDEC.  May 12-13, 1992.

20.  Personal Communication with Paul Hare,
    General Electric Company.  May 17,1994.

21.  Comments on draft report provided by Paul
    Hare, General Electric Company, and Larry
    Thomas, New York State Department of
    Environmental Conservation.
Analysis Preparation
This case study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by Eastern Research
Group, Inc. and Tetra Tech EM Inc. under EPA Contract No. 68-W4-0004.
      EPA
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
   	Technology Innovation Office
                                           59
                                                                         TIO3.WP6M 117-03.Stf

-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
               60

-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the Keefe Environmental Services Superfund Site,
           Epping, New Hampshire
                    61

-------
                  Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
                   the Keefe Environmental Services Superfund Site,
                                  Epping, New Hampshire
Site Name:
Keefe Environmental Services
Superfund Site
Location:
Epping, New Hampshire
Contaminants:
Chlorinated solvents
- Maximum concentrations
included PCE (140 ug/L), TCE
(210 ug/L), 1,1-DCE (1,200 ug/L)
Volatiles- nonhalogenated
- Maximum concentrations
included benzene (160 ug/L)
Period of Operation:
Status: Ongoing
Report covers: 4/93-5/97
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup (interim results)
Vendor:
David Didian
Woodward & Curran, Inc. (W&C)
41 Hutchins Drive
Portland, ME 04101
(207)774-2112
State Point of Contact:
Tom Andrews
NHDES
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301
(603)271-2910
Technology:
Pump and Treat
- Groundwater is extracted using 5
wells, located off site, and 1 trench,
located on site, at an average total
pumping rate of 23.4 gpm
- Extracted groundwater is treated
with coagulation/flocculation and
air stripping
- Treated groundwater is
discharged to the groundwater
through an infiltration trench and
spray irrigation system
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA Remedial
-RODDate: 3/21/88
- BSD Date: 6/90
EPA Point of Contact:
Darryl Luce, RPM
U.S. EPA Region 1
JFK Federal Building
One Congress Street
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 573-5767
Waste Source:
Storage of drums and containers,
unauthorized dumping, leaking
lagoon
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Performed optimization study after
two years of operation; relatively
low groundwater flow
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
- 46 million gallons treated as of May 1997
- Extraction wells are located in 2 aquifers, which are not influenced by a
nearby surface water
- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 0.025 to 42.5 ft/day
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Cleanup standards were established for the upper overburden and bedrock aquifers on site and the sand and
  gravel aquifer off site. These standards were required to have been met in all monitoring wells in the
  respective aquifers for two consecutive sampling rounds.
- Cleanup standards were identified for 1,2-DCA (5 ug/L), 1,2-DCE (7 ug/L), TCE (5 ug/L), PCE (5 ug/L), and
  benzene (5 ug/L).
- The treatment system was required to meet the cleanup goals for groundwater re-injected into the aquifer.
- The extraction system must capture and contain the contaminant plume.
Results:
- Average contaminant concentrations at the site have decreased 76% from April 1993 to October 1996.
  However, individual contaminant concentrations have not been reduced to below the cleanup goals.
- The P&T system has removed approximately 68 pounds of contaminants through February 1997.
- The treatment system has consistently met the performance standards established for this application.
- Plume containment has been achieved.
                                               62

-------
                  Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
                  the Keefe Environmental Services Superfund Site,
                          Epping, New Hampshire (continued)
Cost:
- Actual cost data for this application show that approximately $2,408,000 ($1,582,539 in capital costs and
  $826,000 in O&M) were expended through May 1997, which correspond to $52 per 1,000 gallons of
  groundwater extracted and $35,000 per pound of contaminant removed.
- The mass removed through the treatment system may be significantly lower than the total mass extracted from
  the groundwater because of volatilization and other loses prior to the treatment plant; therefore, the cost per
  pound removed may be less than shown above.             	  	^^^
Description:
Keefe Environmental Services operated from 1978 until 1981 as a spent solvent bulking, recovery, and
reclamation facility. The facility consisted of drum storage areas, large bulk storage tanks, equipment shelters, a
bulking area, and a 700,000-gallon, synthetically-lined waste lagoon.  In 1979, a groundwater monitoring
program began, and chlorinated solvents were detected. The site was added to the NPL hi 1983 and a ROD was
signed in March 1988. An BSD was issued in June 1990.

The current extraction system consists of four wells in the upper overburden aquifer, one well in the bedrock
aquifer, and a collection trench. This extraction system was modified hi 1995 (two years after startup) to
optimize performance. Two wells were added and two others removed; locations for the new wells were selected
to increase extraction rates. The treatment system consists of a coagulation/flocculation unit, an air stripping
tower, and a vapor-phase carbon adsorption unit; the maximum design flow rate is 60 gpm.  After four years of
operation, the P&T system has reduced average contaminant concentrations within the plume and contained the
olume from further migration. The site has not, however, met  cleanup goals.      	
                                                63

-------
                                                     Keefe Environmental Services Superfund Site
                                   SITE INFORMATION
Identifying Information;
Keefe Environmental Services (KES) Superfund
Site

CERCLIStf: NHD092059112

ROD Date: March 21,1988
Background
                                                Treatment Application:
                                                Type of Action: Remedial

                                                Period of operation:  April 1993 - Ongoing
                                                (Data collected through May 1997)

                                                Quantity of material treated during
                                                application: As of May 1997, 46 million gallons
                                                of groundwater
Historical Activity that Generated
Contamination at the Site: Spent solvent
bulking, recycling, and reclamation

Corresponding SIC Code: 7389A (Solvents
Recovery)

Waste Management Practice That Contributed
to Contamination: Storage of drums and
containers, unauthorized dumping, leaking lagoon

Location: Epping, New Hampshire

Facility Operations:  [1,9]
•   The 7.5-acre site was operated by KES from
    1978 until 1981 as a spent solvent bulking,
    recovery, and  reclamation facility.

•   During its operation, the facility consisted of
    drum storage areas, large storage tanks,
    equipment shelters, a bulking area, and a
    700,000-gallon, synthetically-lined waste
    lagoon.

•   In 1980, KES abandoned the site because of
    financial constraints, leaving behind drums
    and storage tanks full of hazardous materials.

•   In 1981, EPA took emergency response
    actions to remove hazardous materials that
    were stockpiled at the site. These materials
    presented an imminent hazard to human
    health and the environment [1].

•   In 1982, EPA and NHDES expanded the
    groundwater monitoring program that was
    initiated in 1979.  Chlorinated solvents have
    been detected in the groundwater since
    monitoring began.

•   The site was added to the National Priorities
    List (NPL) in 1983.
                                                •   The Remedial Investigation (Rl) performed in
                                                   1985 and 1986 found contaminants in the on-
                                                   site soils and groundwater. This report will
                                                   cover the groundwater contaminants only.

                                                Regulatory Context: [1, 9]
                                                •   On March 19,1986, the State of New
                                                   Hampshire, the Town of Epping, and 127
                                                   settling PRPs entered into a Consent Decree.

                                                •   On March 21,1988, EPA issued a Record of
                                                   Decision (ROD) for the groundwater cleanup
                                                   at this site.

                                                •   On June 8,1990, EPA issued an Explanation
                                                   of Significant Differences (ESD) for this site.

                                                •   Site activities are conducted under provisions
                                                   of the Comprehensive Environmental
                                                   Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
                                                   (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by the
                                                   Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
                                                   Act (SARA) of 1986, §121, and the National
                                                   Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR 300.

                                                Remedy Selection:
                                                •   Groundwater extraction and treatment via air
                                                   stripping and carbon adsorption was selectee!
                                                   as the remedy for this site based on
                                                   treatability studies [1].

                                                •   The original design included soil vapor
                                                   extraction (SVE) to remove contaminants
                                                   from shallow soils that may act as a source
                                                   zone. The remedy was amended in an ESD
                                                   when additional sampling during remedial
                                                   design found soil concentrations to be lower
                                                   than found in the Rl. SVE was not used at
                                                   this site and no other source control
                                                   measures were conducted or planned.
     EPA
                                                            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                     Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                                                    Technology Innovation Office
                                            64
                                                                           TIO3.WP6\0209-04.Stf

-------
                                                    Keefe Environmental Services Superfund Site
                              SITJE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Site Logistics/Contacts
Site Lead: State

Oversight: EPA

Remedial Project Manager:
Darryl Luce
U.S. EPA Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
One Congress Street
Boston, MA 02203
617-573-5767

State Contact:
Tom Andrews*
NHDES
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301
603-271-2910

•Indicates primary contact
Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
Contractor:
David Didian
Woodard & Curran Inc. (W&C)
41 Hutchins Drive
Portland, ME 04101
207-774-2112

Design Contractor:
Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc (COM)
Cambridge, MA 02142
617-252-8000
                                  MATRIX DESCRIPTION
 Matrix Identification
 Type of Matrix Processed Through the
 Treatment System: Groundwater

 Contaminant Characterization n.71
 Primary Contaminant Groups:  Halogenated
 volatile organic compounds

 •  Contaminants of concern include
    tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene
    (TCE), 1,1-dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE), 1,2-
    dichloroethane (1,2-DCA),  and benzene.

 •  In 1990, maximum contaminant
    concentrations observed in the groundwater
    were PCE at 140 ug/L, TCE at 210 ug/L,
    1,1-DCE at 1,200 ug/L, and benzene at 160
    H9/L

 •  By 1993, groundwater contaminants had
    migrated off site, and the size of the plume
    was estimated by site engineers to be 12
    acres and 15 to 30 feet deep. The volume
    of contaminated groundwater was estimated
    to be 9.8 million gallons. Figure 1 presents
    a contour map of contaminant
    concentrations encountered at the site in
    1993. No estimates of plume size before
    1993 were provided in the available
    references.

    Contaminants are primarily found in the
    overburden material (Unit 2) which  overlies
    the bedrock. Figure 1 shows concentration
    contours of total VOCs and 1,1 ,-DCE as
    high as 1,000 ug/L and 4,000 \ig/L,
    respectively.
       EPA
            U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                    Technology Innovation Office
                                             65
                           TlO3.WP6\0209-04.Stf

-------
                                               Keefe Environmental Services Superfund Site
                       MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
          Figure 1.  Concentration Contour Map (1993 Best Copy Available) [7]
EPA
       U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
	Technology Innovation Office
                                      66
                                                                     TIO3.WP6\0209-04.Stf

-------
                                                        Keefe Environmental Services Superfund Site
                              MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Costs or Performance
Hydrogeology:  [5,6,7,8]

Three distinct hydrogeological units have been identified at this site.
     Unit 1    Off site
     Unit 2    On site
     Units
Off site and
On site
Glacial sand and gravel outwash deposit consisting of stratified, silty,
fine-to-medium sand and gravel that overlies the glacial till in lowlands
adjacent to the site. The outwash is partially confined by a thin silty clay
layer at the surface. This unit begins at the site boundaries.

Upper overburden aquifer lacking sand lenses and consisting of glacial
till. This unit is found on site and is overlain by Unit 1 off site.

Fractured bedrock consisting of a muscovite schist.  The bedrock is
highly fractured throughout the upper 20 to 25 feet.
In Unit 2, groundwater flows radially away from the site toward the sand and gravel layer. Groundwater
flow is determined by hydraulic conductivity and hydraulic gradient.  Unit 2, composed of glacial till, is
characterized by low hydraulic conductivity and high hydraulic gradient. The reverse situation occurs at
the site boundary where the sand and gravel layer (Unit 1) overlies the glacial till. Unit 1  is present to the
south and west of the site, and is the most conductive unit.  Groundwater flows preferentially through this
unit. Regionally, groundwater flow is to the west. The aquifer conductivity estimated for this site ranges
from very high in the off-site sand and gravel unit to very low in the on-site glacial till.

Tables 1 and 2 provide technical aquifer information and well data, respectively.
Unit Name
Unitl
Unit 2
Unit3
Thickness
(ft)
0-30
20-125
50-120
Average Groundwater
Conductivity Velocity Flow
(ft/day) (ft/day) Direction
42.5
0.025
NA
0.033
0.033
NA
Radial
Radial
NA
      Source:  [5,6]
      NA - not applicable (fractured bedrock)
       EPA
                                                   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                           Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                                           Technology Innovation Office
                                                67
                                                                   T1O3.W P6\0209-04.stf

-------
                                                      Keefe Environmental Services Superfund Site
                           TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology

Pump and treat with air stripping


System Description and Operation
Supplemental Treatment Technology

Vapor-phase carbon adsorption,
coagulation/flocculation
                                  Table 2. Technical Well Data
Well Name
EW-1
EW-2
EW-3 (Not in
service)
EW95-2 (New)
EW95-7 (New)
EW-5 (Not in
service)
BEW
Unit Name
Overburden
Overburden
Overburden
Overburden
Overburden
Overburden
Bedrock
Depth (ft)
30
30
30
30
30
30
120
Yield (gal/dav)
2,160-4,320
144-432
NA
11,520-14,400
11,520-14,400
NA
NA
Note: Average system rate is 33,700 gpd, based on the volume of water pumped since operations
began and an operational rate of 95%. NA - no water currently pumped from these wells.
     Source: [7,8]

System Description [7]
•   The current extraction system consists of
    four wells in the upper overburden aquifer
    (Unit 1), one well in the bedrock aquifer
    (Unit 3), and a collection trench. The
    extraction wells are located off site, and the
    trench is located on site near the property
    boundary.  This extraction system design
    was modified in 1995 (two years after
    remediation startup) to optimize
    performance.  Two wells (EW95-2 and
    EW95-7) were added and two wells (EW-3
    and EW-5) were removed from service.
    Locations for the two new wells were chosen
    to increase extraction rates. The bedrock
    well has been  shut down since February
    1995 because no contaminants were
    detected in this well.

•   The extraction system design placed the
    wells off site and the collection trench  on
    site at the property boundary to pull the
    plume towards the extraction network.
   Wells were placed off site because
   hydrogeologic conditions allowed for better
   pump rates and larger capture zones.

   The treatment system consists of a
   coagulatipn/flocculation unit, an air stripping
   tower, and a vapor-phase carbon adsorption
   unit. Maximum design flow rate is 60 gpm.

   The air stripper is 2.5 feet in diameter and
   38 feet tall. A packing height of 30 feet with
   an air-to-water ratio of 50:1 is used to meet
   discharge requirements.

   The packing media is a 3.5-inch diameter
   polypropylene Tripac type.

   Effluent from the treatment system is
   discharged to the groundwater through an
   infiltration trench and a spray irrigation
   system. The spray irrigation system was
   implemented in June 1995 and operates
   when the temperature is above freezing.
      EPA
           U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
   	Technology Innovation Office
                                             68
                                                                             TI03.WP6\0209-04.stf

-------
                                                     Keefe Environmental Services Superfund Site
                     TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Svatem Descriotion and Operation fCont.)
System Operation [3,7, 8]
•  The system began operating in April 1993.
   Below is the quantity of groundwater
   pumped from the aquifer in gallons (annual
   extraction rates not provided):
    Total to Date

     5,159,000

      332,000

     2,445,000

     5,150,000

     8,838,000

     23,756,000

     45,680,000
 Well Location

     EW-1

     EW-2

    EW95-2

    EW95-7

 Off-line wells*

Collection Trench

     Total
*This includes the two removed wells and the inactive
bedrock well.

•   By 1995, contaminant concentrations in the
    extracted groundwater were reduced to less
    than 20 ug/L on average and mass flux to
    the treatment  system was less than 0.01
    Ibs/day.  As a result, the O&M contractor
    conducted an evaluation to optimize system
    performance.  A calibrated groundwater
    model was used in the site evaluation [8].
    The groundwater model for the Keefe site
    was created using MODFLOW, and
    PATH3D was used to estimate capture
    zones.
          Parameters Affectina Treatment Cost or Performance
As of May 1997, the treatment plant has
been operational 97% of the time.
Downtime is attributed to brownouts and
routine maintenance [7].

Air stripping media has not been changed to
date, and the media has not required
washing [3].

Spent vapor-phase carbon was changed
once in August 1996, at a cost of $5,000 [7].
This material was shipped off site by the
vendor for regeneration.

As a result of the optimization study in 1995,
the installation of two new wells allowed two
existing wells to be taken off line. The new
wells, listed as EW-95-2 and EW-95-7 in
Table 2, also were placed off site. Their
locations were chosen, with the aid of the
groundwater model, to increase
groundwater extraction rates [8].
The major operating parameter affecting cost or performance for this technology is the extraction rate.
Table 3 presents the values measured for this and other performance parameters.
                                Tabled:  Performance Parameters
? ^^JlPafaJftisiler^^*' "l-'j
Average Pump Rate
Performance Standard
Remedial Goals
(aquifer and effluent)
^" ,*.* ~~" 3fait& 2- - *•>'
23.4 gpm
Remedial Goals
Benzene 5 ug/L
1,2,rDCA 5 ug/L
1,1 -DCE 7 ug/L
TCE 5 ug/L
PCE 5 ug/L
                  Source: [2]
       EPA
                                           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                   Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                                  Technology Innovation Office
                                              69
                                                          TIO3.WP6\0209-04.stf

-------
                                                     Keefe Environmental Services Superfund Site
                     TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Timeline
Table 4 presents a timeline for this remedial project.

                                   Table 4:  Project Timeline
Start Date
3/88
6/90
9/90
6/92
4/93
—
6/95
End Date
—
—
11/91
4/93
...
9/93
—
:.:, •;;.?...,.. Activity ""- '^!St& §*l, -:-%
ROD signed
ESD issued
Dates for design
Dates of construction
P&T system operations begun
Start-up and shake down process completed
P&T system optimized to increase pump rate and mass removed and shorten expected operating
time requirement
Sources: [1,5,6]
                         TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards
Groundwater remediation must continue until all
cleanup standards (listed in Table 3) have been
attained in the upper overburden and bedrock
aquifers on site and in the sand and gravel
aquifer off site. These conditions must be met in
all monitoring wells in the respective aquifers for
two consecutive quarterly sampling rounds [9].

Treatment Performance Goals [1]	
Additional Information on Goals

If cleanup goals are not met after 10 years of
treatment, EPA and NHDES will reevaluate the
appropriateness of the groundwater treatment
system and/or cleanup standards [9].
•  The treatment system effluent must meet
   the remedial goals for the groundwater
   since effluent is reinjected to the aquifer [7].

Performance Data Assessment 17.81	
   As a secondary goal, the extraction system
   is designed to capture and contain the
   contaminant plume [7].
For this report, total VOC concentration includes
PCE, TCE, 1,1-DCE, 1,2-DCA and benzene.

•   Average contaminant concentrations at this
    site have decreased 76% from April 1993 to
    October 1996. Groundwater monitoring
    results indicate that individual contaminant
    concentrations in the groundwater were not
    reduced below remedial goals.

    Figure 2 illustrates how the mean VOC
    concentration in the groundwater has
    changed over time.  A geometric mean of
    the contaminant concentrations is used to
    indicate the trend within the entire plume.
    The data show that, overall, the mean
    decreased from 80 ug/L to 20 ug/L after a
    large decrease in the first year. The rate of
    concentration decrease has slowed over the
    last two years of operation.
    Figure 3 presents the removal of total VOCs
    through the treatment system annually from
    November 1993 to February 1997. During
    this time, the P&T system has removed
    approximately 68 pounds of contaminant
    mass.  The extraction rate decreased from
    0.13 Ib/day to less than 0.04 Ib/day during
    the first year of operation.  During the next
    three years, the extraction rate remained
    nearly constant at 0.04 Ib/day or less. The
    data show a gap where the system was shut
    down for modifications.  The mass flux
    increased immediately after the new
    extraction wells were installed,  but also
    shows steady decline over the next year of
    sampling.
      EPA
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
   	Technology Innovation Office
                                            70
                                                                           TIO3.WP6\0209-04.Stf

-------
                                                     Keefe Environmental Services Superfund Site
                     TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Assessment (ConU
   According to the state contact, the mass
   removed through the treatment plant may
   be lower than the total mass extracted from
   the groundwater plume due to volatilization
   and other losses prior to the treatment plant.

   Based on Monthly Operating Reports, the
   treatment system effluent has consistently
   met the performance standards listed in
   Table 3.

   Prior to the 1995 system  modifications, the
   contaminant plume was migrating off site.
   Based on a review of contaminant plume
   maps from 1995 and 1996, it appears that
   containment has been achieved since the
   extraction system was modified.  The off
   site part of the plume has decreased in size,
   but still remains around wells EMW-3, CDM-
   IA, andCDM-10.

   Figure 4 presents total VOC concentrations
   in on-site monitoring wells Q1 and EMW-1.
   Both monitoring wells are located near the
   area of highest concentrations on site. The
   data in the figure indicate that elevated
   concentrations persist in the on-site
Performance Data Completeness
groundwater.  Concentrations in well EMW-
1 have fluctuated between 100 ug/L and
3,200 ug/L. Concentrations in well Q1 have
increased during the October 1996 sampling
event after steadily decreasing in every
sampling event prior.  Overall, the
concentrations in both wells are down from
original levels. The reasons for the
concentration fluctuations in monitoring well
EMW-1 and the increase in Q1 are not
known at this time.

Figure 5 presents total VOC concentrations
in monitoring wells CDM-9, CDM-10, and
EMW-3. These wells are located off site in
the contaminant plume.  Contaminant
concentrations have decreased in all three
wells from startup to the October 1996
sampling event. As of October 1996, total
VOC concentrations in monitoring wells
CDM-9, CDM-10, and EMW-3 were 25 ug/L,
190 ug/L, and 480 ug/L,  respectively.

By May 1997, a total of 46 million gallons of
groundwater were treated.  Over the life of
the system, the average flow rate was 23.4
gpm with a 97% operational rate.  The site
contact also reported that an additional 8
million gallons were treated during the
remaining months of 1997.
•   Performance sampling for the treatment
    system is conducted monthly.  Data for
    influent concentration, effluent
    concentration, flow, chemical usage, and
    sludge production are available in monthly
    reports. Three monthly sampling events per
    year were used for Figure 3. These data
    were provided by the NHDES contact.

•   Groundwater monitoring is performed semi-
    annually based on the monitoring program
    agreed to by EPA and the state.  Data from
    37 monitoring and extraction wells are
    available for these monitoring events. Eight

Performance Data Quality	
groundwater sampling events were used for
analyses performed in this report.

Influent data and well data were provided by
the NHDES contact. A geometric mean was
used for average groundwater
concentrations to represent the level of
contaminants in the groundwater across the
entire plume.  Where concentrations were
below detection limits, half of the detection
limit was used for analysis of the data.

Contaminant mass removal data were
provided by the state contact.
The QA/QC program used throughout the remedial action met the EPA and the State of New Hampshire
requirements. All monitoring as performed using EPA-approved methods, and the vendor did not note
any exceptions to the QA/QC protocols.
      EPA
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                Technology Innovation Office
                                            71
                                                                            TIO3.WP6\0209-04.Stf

-------
                                                Keefe Environmental Services Superfund Site
                TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
    Oct-93                     Oot-94                    Oct-95                    Oct-96


       Figure 2. Average Groundwater Concentrations of Total VOCs (1993 to 1996) [7]
                                                                                0

   Nov-93   Mar-94  Jul-94  Nov-94  Mar-95   Jul-95   Nov-95  Mar-96   Jul-96   Nov-96  Mar-97
                                - Mass Flux
- Mass Removed
Figure 3.  Mass Flux Rate and Cumulative Contaminant Removal for Total VOCs (12/93 - 2/97) [7]
   EPA
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                  Technology Innovation Office
                                         72
                          TIO3.W P6\0209-04.stf

-------
                                                 Keefe Environmental Services Superfund Site
                TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
   3500
c
8  1500
o
o
g  1000
                              11/1/94
                         11/1/95
                                                                                11/1/96
-+— Q1
— •— B/IW-1
         Figure 4. Total VOC Concentration in Two On-Site Wells (1993 -1996) [7]
  1600
  1400

     11/1/93
11/1/94
                                                      11/1/95
                                                  11/1/96
                               -CDM-9
              -CDM-10
                                                        -EMW-3
        Figure 5. Total VOC Concentration in Three Off-Site Wells (1993 -1996) [7]
  EPA
                          U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
                   Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                  Technology Innovation Office
                                        73
                                                                       TIO3.WP6\0209-04.stf

-------
                                                      Keefe Environmental Services Superfund Site
                               TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process
The State of New Hampshire is the lead authority on this site. NHDES has contracted with Woodard &
Corran (W&C) for operations and maintenance at the site.
Cost Analvsis
AH costs for design, construction, and operation of the treatment system at this site were borne by the
Responsible Parties.
Caoital Costs F71
                Operating Costs F71
 Remedial Construction

 Administration, Mobilization, and
 Demobilization
$306,494
Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost
(1993-1997)

Labor                            $497,000
Monitoring Wells
Site Work
Extraction System
Treatment System
Total Remedial
Construction




Other Costs F7I
Oversight
Remedial Design
Disposal of Hazardous Wastes
Cost Data Quality
$8,000
$215,000
$428,120
$624,925
$1,582,539





$558,299
$863,334
$50,000

Utilities
Chemicals
Repair and Maint.
Nonroutine Maint.
Sludge Disposal
Analyses
Office Supplies
Subcontracts
Safety, Training
Other
Total
Operatinq Data by Year
1993-1994
1994-1995
1995-1996
1996-1997
$73,973
$9,306
$24,103
$37,475
$421
$28,060
$7,413
$116,835
$30,545
$549
$825,680
$285,000
$233,500
$230,600
$219,400
Actual capital and operations and maintenance cost data are available from the state contact for this
application.
      EPA
                            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                   Technology Innovation Office
                                              74
                                           TIO3.WP6\0209-04.Stf

-------
                                                     Keefe Environmental Services Superfund Site
                       OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
    Total cost for the P&T system at the Keefe
    Environmental site through May 1997 was
    approximately $2,408,000 ($1,582,539 in
    capital costs and $826,000 in total operation
    and maintenance costs), which corresponds
    to $52 per 1,000 gallons and $35,000 per
    pound of contaminant removed. The mass
    removed through the treatment plant may
    be significantly lower than the total mass
    extracted from the groundwater plume due
    to volatilization and other losses prior to the
    treatment plant.

    The 1995-1996 system optimization study
    cost a total of $36,500.  These costs were
    incurred in the operation and maintenance
    contract and are included under annual
    O&M costs [7].

    After four years of operation, the P&T
    system has reduced average contaminant
    concentrations within the plume and
    contained the plume from further migration.
    The site has not, however, met cleanup
    goals.
    In 1995, the system was reevaluated by the
    O&M contractor for this site. The
    reevaluation involved developing a
    groundwater model in conjunction with a
    test well program.  The evaluation resulted
    in the installation of two replacement
    extraction wells.  The new extraction wells
    increased extraction rates and increased
    mass flux to the treatment system.  The
    increased extraction rates also resulted in
    more efficient plume capture [8].

    The reevaluation was prompted by the
    asymptotic decline of contaminant mass
    removed by the treatment system. To
    increase contaminant mass removal from
    the aquifer and decrease the required
    operating life of the system, additional wells
    were installed [8].'

    Based on monitoring well data, the plume
    was not contained until a groundwater
    model was used to optimize the extraction
    well network by installing two new extraction
    wells  in the overburden unit.
                                      REFERENCES
1.   Record of Decision. USEPA, Keefe
    Environmental Services, March 1988.

2.   Monthly Operating Report (February 1997),
    Woodard & Curran, March 1997.

3.   Monthly Operating Report (March 1997),
    Woodard & Curran, April 1997.

4.   Draft Off-Site Hvdroqeological Evaluation
    Report. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.,
    March 1991.

5.   Supplemental Remedial Investigation
    Report. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.,
    December 1987.

Analysis Preparation       	
6.   Remedial Investigation Report. Tighe &
    Bond, 1982.

7.   Correspondence with Mr. Tom Andrews,
    NHDES Representative.  March 19, 1997.

8.   Optimizing and Re-Evaluating Groundwater
    Extraction Systems Could Mean Early
    Shutdown. Carlson, Eric T., Environmental
    Technology, May/June 1996.

9.   Declaration for the Explanation of
    Significant Differences. USEPA, Keefe
    Environmental Services, June 1990.
This case study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by Eastern Research
Group, Inc. and Tetra Tech EM Inc. under EPA Contract No. 68-W4-0004.
      EPA
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
   	           Technology Innovation Office
                                            75
                                                                            TIO3.W P6\0209-04.stf

-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
               76

-------
Groundwater Pump and Treat and Soil Vapor Extraction at DOE's
   Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300, GSA OU
                            77

-------
         Groundwater Pump and Treat and Soil Vapor Extraction at DOE's
             Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300, GSA OU
 Site Name:
 Lawrence Livermore National
 Laboratory (LLNL)Site 300 -
 General Services Area (GSA)
 Operable Unit (OU)
 Location:
 Livermore, CA
 Contaminants:
 Volatile Organic Compounds:
 - Trichloroethene (TCE)
 - DNAPLs
Period of Operation:
6/91 - ongoing
(Data reported through July 1997)
                                Cleanup Type:
                                Full-scale
 Vendor/Consultants:
 Lockheed-Martin Energy Systems
 Inc.
 Oak Ridge, TN

 Weiss Associates
 Emeryville, CA
 Additional Contacts:
 Michael G. Brown
 Deputy Director
 DOE/OAK Operations Office
 L-574
 Lawrence Livermore National
 Laboratory
 Lawrence, CA 94551
 (510)423-7061

 John P. Ziagos
 Site 300 Program Leader
 L-544
 Lawrence Livermore National
 Laboratory
 Lawrence, CA 94551
 (510)422-5479
 Technology:
 Eastern GSA pump and treat
 (P&T)
 - Three extraction wells
 - Treatment includes 5-micron
 particulate filter and three aqueous
 phase GAC units in series with a 50
 gpm capacity
 Central GSA pump and treat
 (P&T)
 - 19 extraction wells - extract
 groundwater and soil vapor
 simultaneously
 - Treatment includes shallow tray
 air stripper (50 gpm); 5-micron
 particulate filter; two vapor-phase
 GAC units; air emissions stack
 housed in a portable treatment unit
 Central GSA Soil Vapor
 Extraction (SVE)
 - Seven extraction wells
 - 2-hp vacuum pump
 - Four vapor-phase GAC units hi
 series
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
- Removal action - 1991
- ROD date: not provided
Regulatory Point of Contact:
Information not provided
Waste Source: Waste buried in
shallow trenches; disposal of
wastewater in dry wells; leaks and
spills
Purpose/Significance of
Application: Combined use of
groundwater pump and treat and
SVE to remediate TCE and
DNAPLs
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Through July 1997:
Groundwater - a total of 93.8 million gallons of groundwater; 9.9 kg of
VOC mass removed
Soil - 399,000 cubic feet of soil vapor; 30.5 kg of VOC mass removed
                                             78

-------
        Groundwater Pump and Treat and Soil Vapor Extraction at DOE's
     Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300, GSA OU (continued)
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
-Groundwater - reduce VOC concentrations to MCLs in all contaminated groundwater including a cleanup goal
of 5 ug/L for ICE. The discharge limit is 0.5 ug/L for total VOCs.
- Soil - soil vapor of 0.36 ppmv; soil vapor remediation will continue until: 1) it is demonstrated that VOC
removal from the vadose zone is no longer technically or economically feasible and 2) the VOC inhalation risk
inside Building 875 is adequately managed.                                	
Results:
- Maximum TCE groundwater concentrations had been reduced from pre-remediation levels ranging from as high
as 240,000 ug/L at the site to levels of 13 ug/L (eastern GSA) and 33 ug/L (central GSA) as of May 1997. These
levels are above the cleanup goal of 5 ug/L.
- Maximum TCE soil vapor concentrations had been reduced from a pre-remediation level of 450 ppmv to 2
ppmv as of May 1997, above the cleanup goal of 0.36 ppmv.
- The discharge limits have been met while the system was operating.	
Cost:
- Total cost for GSA OU - $36.6 million, including $6.2 million for the Eastern GSA P&T and $32.4 million for
the Total Central GSA P&T and SVE systems. The costs include preconstruction and construction activities and
post-construction O&M.                                        	
Description:
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300 is a DOE experimental test facility located near Livermore
California.  Craft shops and equipment fabrication and repair facilities in the General Services Area (GSA) used
solvents as degreasing agents. In the eastern portion of the GSA, craft shop debris was buried in shallow
trenches. In the central portion, rinse waters from operations were disposed of in dry wells. The results of site
investigations, begun in 1982, identified VOC contamination in the soil and groundwater. Groundwater TCE
concentrations have been detected as high as 74 ug/L in the eastern GSA and 240,000 ug/L in the central GSA.
Groundwater TCE plumes have been identified in both areas.  The highest pre-remediation concentration of TCE
in.soil in the central GSA were 360,000 ug/L. Remediation began in 1991 as a removal action. A Record of
Decision was signed moving the cleanup to the remedial phase.

The remedy at the eastern portion of the GSA, begun in 1991, involves groundwater extraction using three wells
and treatment using carbon adsorption.  The system originally used air sparging; however, as VOC concentrations
in the groundwater decreased, air sparging was replaced with carbon adsorption. After six years of operation, the
system has removed 5.1 kg of VOC mass, treated 93 million gallons of groundwater and reduced the maximum
TCE concentration in groundwater to 13 ug/L. The remedy for the central portion of the GSA included both
groundwater extraction and treatment and SVE. The groundwater system, operated since 1993, had 19 extraction
wells and includes air stripping for vapors and carbon adsorption for treatment of groundwater. After four years
of operation, the system has removed 4.8 kg of VOC mass, treated 787,000 gallons of groundwater, and reduced
maximum TCE levels to 33 ug/L. The SVE system, operated since 1993, has removed 30.5 kg of VOC mass and
reduced TCE concentrations in the soil vapor to 2 ppmv.  Levels of VOC remained above the cleanup goals as of
 1997. Cyclic pumping is used to maximize VOC mass removal efficiency from all three systems. Results of
modeling used to predict the timeframe for cleanup indicated that the SVE system would require  10 years and
groundwater extraction and treatment 55 years.

The total cost for the three technologies at the GSA OU as of 1997 is $36.6 million. This includes
preconstruction and construction activities and post-construction O&M. The costs for the Eastern GSA P&T
 svstem is $6.2 million. The cost for the Central GSA P&T and SVE systems is $32.4 million.    	
                                                79

-------
         GSA Cost and Performance Report
          September 1997
    11.  SUMMARYI
 This report summarizes cost and performance data for
 ground water and soil vapor extraction and treatment at
 the General Services Area (GSA) Operable Unit (OU) at
 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) Site
 300. Solvents containing volatile organic compounds
 (VOCs), primarily trichloroethene (TCE), were released
 to the ground as a result of past activities in the craft
 shops and equipment fabrication and repair facilities.

 Remediation began in 1991 as a removal action under the
 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
 and Liability Act (CERCLA). A Record of Decision
 (ROD) is in place (DOE, 1997), and the cleanup has
 moved into the remedial action phase. The ROD specifies
 Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) as the ground
 water cleanup standards.

 DOE/LLNL is currently operating two ground water
 extraction (GWE) wellfields and one soil vapor extraction
 (SVE) system. A total of 93 million gallons of ground
 water have been extracted and treated using air stripping
 or granular activated carbon (GAC).  Approximately
 40.4 kilograms of VOCs have been removed from the
 subsurface as of July 1997, most of which was TCE. In
 the eastern GSA, the primary objective of ground water
 extraction is to control migration of the contaminant
 plume. The length of the offsite
 TCE plume exceeding MCLs has
 been reduced from 4,500 to 200
 feet, and the maximum ground
 water TCE concentration is now
 below 13  ug/L.  At the central
 GSA, where the objective of the
 removal action is source control,
 maximum TCE concentration in
 ground water has been reduced
 from 240,000 ug/L to 10,000
 ug/L. TCE concentration in
 extracted soil vapor has dropped
 from over 1,000 ppmv/v to 2
 ppmv/v. Future remedial actions
 will  expand the extraction well
 field.

 The  total actual and projected
 costs for investigation and reme-
 diation in the GSA OU are esti-
 mated at $38.6M. Modeling pre-
 dicts that to meet cleanup stan-
 dards soil vapor extraction will
need to continue for 10 years, and
ground water extraction for 55      central GSA extraction wells.
years.
                    Sacramento
Sc«l»; Mll«»

0   10  20
4>     \
       Location of LLNL Site 300.
                                                    80

-------
       GSA Cost and Performance Report
September 1997
•2.  SITE INFORMATION
   Identifying Information
  Facility: Lawrence Livermore National
  Laboratory, Site 300.
  Operable Unit: General Services Area
  (OU 1).
  Regulatory Drivers: CERCLA, Record of
  Decision, Site 300 Federal Facility
  Agreement.
  Type of Action: Ground water and soil
  vapor extraction and treatment.
  Period of Operation: Ongoing since June
   1991.
              Location of the General Services
               Area Operable Unit at Site 300.
                                                                                   General Services
                                                                                  Area Operable Unit
    Technology Application
 Prior to the ROD, DOE/LLNL used
 CERCLA removal actions to remediate
 VOCs hi the subsurface through ground
 water and soil vapor extraction.  Due to the
 success of these removal actions, the remedi-
 al action will continue this strategy and
 expand the extraction wellfield to 1) capture
 more contaminated ground water, 2) address
 additional source areas, and 3) shorten
 cleanup time.
                     Central GSA soil vapor
                       extraction manifold.
                                                    81

-------
         GSA Cost and Performance Report
                                September 1997
     Technology Application (cont.)
  Remediation technology application in the GSA OU (Julv 1997V
Treatment system
Eastern GSA ground water
Central GSA ground water
Central GSA soil vapor
_Total
Startup date
(length of operation)
1991
(6 vrs)
1993
(4 vrs)
1994
(3 vrs)

Volume of media treated
93,000,000 gal of ground water
787,000 gal of ground water
399,000 cubic feet of soil vapor

Mass of VOCs removed
5.1kg
4.8kg
30.5 kg
40 4 ke
    Site Background and History
 In the eastern GSA, craft shop debris containing TCE was
 buried in shallow trenches. Test pits were excavated and
 trace concentrations of VOCs found in soil and bedrock.

 Solvents containing VOCs were commonly used in the
 central GSA craft shops as a degreasing agent. Rinse
 water from these operations were disposed in dry wells.
 The dry wells at the GSA typically were gravel-filled
 excavations about 3 to 4 feet deep and 2 feet across.
 Piping from floor drains  in the shops led to the dry wells.
 All dry wells have been excavated.

 Environmental investigations began in 1982. Almost 100
 ground water monitor wells have been installed. Other site
characterization methods include soil sampling, soil vapor
surveys, hydraulic testing, colloidal borescope investiga-
tions, and geophysical surveys.  These investigations iden-
tified six release sites, but central GSA dry wells 875-S1
and 875-S2 and the eastern GSA debris burial trench are
the primary contributors to subsurface contamination.

Documents prepared for the GSA OU include the Site-Wide
Remedial Investigation report (Webster-Scholten, 1994), a
Feasibility Study (Rueth and Berry, 1995), a Proposed Plan
(DOE, 1996), a Record of Decision (DOE, 1997), and a
draft Remedial Design report (Rueth et al., 1997).

All releases in the GSA OU fall under SIC code 9631 A.
                              Steam-cleaning/
                              sink facility
                                   \:
       Decommissioned
       solvent drum rack
       and solvent
       retention tank
                                Former dry wells
Contaminant release sites in the central GSA.
                                                                                         5 ug/L TCE MCL
                                                                                         isoconcentration contour
                                                                                           Scale: feet
                                                                                         o    125    y.so
                                                     82

-------
      GSA Cost and Performance Report
                            September 1997
   Site Background and History (cont.)
 Contaminant releases in the GSA.
Contaminant release site
Dry wells 875-S1 and 875-S2
Dry well 872-S
Dry well 873-S
Decommissioned solvent drum rack and underground
solvent retention tank
Building 879 steam-cleaning/sink facility
Debris burial trenches
Mechanism
Rinse water containing solvents from a parts dipping tank and steam
cleaning/equipment washdown area in Building 875 was disposed during the 196C
and 1970s.
Rinse water containing solvents from a cascade water spray area and equipment
rinse down area in Building 872 was discharged during the 1960s and 1970s.
Rinse water containing solvents from a paintbrush cleaning pad in Building 873
was discharged during the 1970s.
Solvent spills from a drum rack and tank occurred during 1970s and 1980s.
Waste water containing oil and grease and minor amounts of solvents was
discharged to unlined drainage ditch during 1960s and 1970s.
Craft shop debris contaminated with solvents was disposed in shallow trenches
during the 1960s.
   Site Contacts
Michael G. Brown
Deputy Director
Environmental Restoration Division
DOE/OAK Operations Office
L-574
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA 94551
(510)423-7061
John P. Ziagos
Site 300 Program Leader
L-544
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA 94551
(510) 422-5479
  13.  MATRIX AND CONTAMINANT DESCRIPTION
   Matrix Identification
VOC-contaminated ground water and soil vapor are
extracted from the subsurface and treated by the GSA
remediation systems. VOCs have been detected in the
vicinity of the dry wells 875-S1 and 875-S2 at concentra-
tions indicative of Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids
(DNAPLs). High concentrations of VOCs have also been
detected in soil vapor samples collected from the vicinity
of these dry wells.
                                              83

-------
        GSA Cost and Performance Report
                                    September 1997
    Hydrogeology
Eastern GSA: Depth to ground water is approximately
10 to 15 feet. Ground water flow in the alluvial valley fill
(Qal) and shallow bedrock is eastward, turning north to
follow the trend of the valley. Ground water flow veloci-
ty is estimated to be about 0.5
to 3 feet per day. This shallow
aquifer is in hydraulic commu-
nication with the deeper
regional aquifer (Tnbsj).
Central GSA: Depth to water is
approximately 10 to 20 feet.
Ground water flow is south-
southeast with an estimated flow
velocity of 0.05 to 0.10 feet per
day. The shallow aquifer occurs
in terrace alluvium (Qt) and
underlying fractured sandstone
(Tnbsj).  Ground water in this
aquifer is hydraulically isolated
from the Tnbsj regional aquifer
by a 60-  to 80-foot-thick aquitard
(Tnscj) in most of the central
GSA.  The shallow aquifer is
also referred to as the Qt-
 hydrogeologic unit. The regional aquifer is encountered 35 to
 145 feet below ground surface under confined to semi-con-
 fined conditions. Ground water flow in the regional aquifer is
 south-southeast at a velocity of 0.3 feet per day.
                                      Low permeability
                                      sedimentary rock
t
Legend
Fault; arrows show
relative sense of
vertical offset
.X. Water table
Not to scalo
  Conceptual hydrogeologic model of the GSA Operable Unit.
    Contaminant Physical  Properties
 Contaminant physical properties.
Contaminant
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
1,1-Dichloroethene
trans-l ,2-Dichloroethene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vapor pressure
(mmHg)
9.52E+01
3.75E-01
1.60E+02
5.91E+02
2.65E+02
l.OOE+02
1.40E+01
5.78E+01
Henry's Law
constant
(atm-m3/moD
5.40E-03
1.60E-03
3.23E-03
1.80E-02
7.20E-03
1.62E-02
1.53E-02
9.10E-03
Density constant
(a/cm3)
0.8680
1.97
1.4890
1.2180
1.2565
1.3390
1.6227
1.4642
Water solubility
(mg/L)
1.75E+03
6.73E+03
8.00E+03
2.25E+03
6.30E+03
1.55E+03
1.50E+02
1.10E+03
Kow
131.83
123.03
79.43
69.18
123.03
295.12
398.11
338.84
Koc
87.10
74.13
43.65
64.57
58.88
151.36
263.03
107.15
 Vapor Pressure: The higher the vapor pressure, the more volatile.
 Henry's Law Constant:  Compounds with constants greater than 1E-
 3 readily volatilize from water; compounds with constants less than
 1E-5 are not as volatile.
 Density: Compounds with a density greater than 1 have a tendency to
 sink (i.e., DNAPLs); compounds with a density less than  1 have a
 tendency to float (i.e., LNAPLs).
Water Solubility:  Highly soluble chemicals can be rapidly leached
from wastes and soils and are mobile in ground water; the higher the
value, the higher the solubility.
Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient (K ow): Used in estimating the
sorption of organic compounds on soils (high K ow tends to adsorb
more easily).
Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient (K oc): Indicates the capacity
for an organic chemical to adsorb to soil because organic carbon is
responsible for nearly all adsorption in most soils (the higher the
value, the more it adsorbs).
                                                          84

-------
        GSA Cost and Performance Report
                                September 1997
   Nature and Extent of Contamination
In the eastern GSA, the highest TCE concentrations in
ground water (up to 74 ug/L) occur in alluvium near the
debris burial trench area release site. TCE has also been
detected in the underlying bedrock regional aquifer at
maximum concentrations of 62 ug/L.  A ground water
plume extends eastward from the debris burial trench
area and has migrated northward in the Corral Hollow
alluvium.  Very low VOC concentrations (up to 0.19
mg/kg) have been detected in soil at the debris burial
trenches.
In the central GSA, the highest pre-remediation TCE con-
centrations in soil or bedrock (up to 360,000 ug/kg) were
detected below the Building 875 dry wells. TCE at con-
centrations up to 1,100 ppmv/v has also been reported in
vadose zone soil vapor samples. A ground water plume,
consisting primarily of TCE at historic concentrations up
to 240,000 ug/L, extends into the Corral Hollow Creek
alluvium.  The bulk of contamination is present in the
Tnbs2 sandstone, approximately 35 feet below the surface.
There is a smaller ground water plume with significantly
lower TCE concentrations to the north associated with the
drum storage rack and steam cleaning release sites.
                                IfK^JX'
         TCE tsoconcentration contour
         in shallow ground water (ug/L)
  CON-1 -$- Existing water-supply well
                                                       Debris burial trench
    Steam cleaning/sink facility
Distribution of TCE in ground water (1997).
                                                     85

-------
        GSA Cost and Performance Report
                                                    September 1997
   Matrix Characteristics
Matrix characteristics: ground water (Eastern GSA).
Matrix characteristic
Depth to ground water:
10 to 15 ft below ground surface (bgs)
Saturated thickness:
Qal: 0 to 22 ft
Total unit: 150 to 170 ft
Hydraulic condition:
Unconfined
Hydraulic conductivity (K):
10"1 cm/sec (maximum)
Ground water flow direction and gradient:
E-NE to N with a gradient of 0.003 to 0.009
Typical well yields:
<0.5 to 50 gpm
Potential effects on cost or performance
The bulk of contamination is concentrated in the Qal, therefore extraction wells are
relatively shallow. However, if pumping of source area in the Qal does not adequately
remediate the underlying Tnbsi, deeper extraction wells may be necessary.
None.
High K results in high flow volume to treatment system. As a result, the VOC mass
removal rate per volume of water treated is relatively low.
Strategic placement of extraction wells prevents further offsite migration of
contaminated ground water.
Relatively high well yields necessitate continuous operation of treatment facility for
hydraulic control.
Matrix characteristics: ground water (Central GSA).
              Matrix characteristic
1
Potential effects on cost or performance
Qt-Tnsc, hydrogeologic unit (shallow aquifer)
Depth to ground water:
20 to 30 ft bgs
Saturated thickness:
80ft
Hydraulic condition:
Unconfined
Hydraulic conductivity:
10'3 to ID"4 cm/sec
Ground water flow direction and gradient:
S-SE with a gradient of 0.04
Typical well yields:
<0.5 to 5 gpm
The depth to ground water in this unit allows for the installation of relatively shallow
extraction wells.
The bulk of contamination in this hydrogeologic unit is in the Tnbs2 sandstone, which
is approximately 18 to 25 ft thick.
None.
The relatively low hydraulic conductivity in this unit has contributed to the limited
migration of contaminants in ground water from the source areas.
Strategic placement of extraction wells prevents further offsite migration of
contaminated ground water.
Low well yields from this unit necessitates batch treatment of contaminated ground
water in the treatment facility.
Relationship to adjacent hydrogeologic units:
Conformably overlies, but is hydraulically isolated from
theTnbsi regional aquifer except in the vicinity of the
sewage treatment pond.	
  The Tnscj confining layer, where present, prevents the migration of contaminants into
  the Tnbsj regional aquifer, eliminating the need for remediation of this aquifer in most
  of the central GSA.
Tnbsj regional aquifer
Depth to ground water:
35 to 145 ft bgs
Saturated thickness:
285 to 320 ft
Hydraulic condition:
Semi-confined to confined
Hydraulic conductivity:
10"4 cm/sec
Ground water flow direction and gradient:
S-SE with a gradient of 0.09
Typical well yields:
<0.5 to 40 gpm
The contaminated portion of the Tnbsi is at a relatively shallow depth where this unit
subcrops beneath the Qal to the east. Therefore, the planned extraction well for this
unit will be relatively shallow.
The confined portion of this unit is uncontaminated and does not require remediation.
The relatively low hydraulic conductivity of this unit has limited the migration, of
contaminated ground water.
A downgradient Tnbsj reinjection well was included as part of the central GSA
wellfield to help prevent further contaminant migration in this unit.
The central GSA treatment facility was designed to handle ground water pumped from
one Tnbsj extraction well.
Relationship to adjacent hydrogeologic units:
Conformably underlies, but is hydraulically isolated from
the Qt-Tnscj hydrogeologic unit in most of the central
GSA.
  Where the overlying Tnscj confining layer is not present, contaminants have migrated
  into the Tnbsi aquifer resulting in the need for deeper extraction wells.
                                                            86

-------
       GSA Cost and Performance Report
                                                               September 1997
   Matrix Characteristics (cont.)i
 Matrix characteristics; vadose zone soil or bedrock (Central GSA).
Matrix characteristic
Potential effects on cost or oerformance
Tnbs2 sandstone
Lithology:
The Tnbs2 sandstone, in which SVE is conducted,
consists of a massive fine- to medium-grained sandstone
with interbedded siltstone and claystone. Fractures have
been observed in cores from this unit.
Range of Thickness:
Approximately 25 ft thick in the vicinity of Building 875
where SVE efforts are concentrated.
Porosity:
0.36
Moisture Content:
Saturated .
Although SVE is typically utilized in soil applications, combined SVE and GWE has
proven more effective in remediating VOCs in the subsurface in the central GSA
Building 875 dry well pad area than the use of GWE alone.
SVE and GWE efforts are focused in the lower Tnbs2 where the bulk of the
contamination was identified.
Porosity of the Tnbs2 bedrock was sufficient to implement SVE successfully.
This unit is purposely dewatering by ground water extraction so SVE can be used.
  14.  REMEDIATION  SYSTEM  DESCRIPTION!
   Treatment Technology Types
JTreatoenUeclmolog^ype^
   Location
               Soil/bedrock
                                                                    Ground water
 Eastern GSA
 Central GSA
None
Soil vapor extraction with ex situvapor-phase carbon
j>dsorp_tion	
                                                      Extraction and ex situtreatment with aqueous-phase carbon
                                                      adsorption	
                                                     Extraction and ex situtreatment with air stripping and
                                                     -va£or::2hase_carbon_adsorEtion	
         Central GSA soil vapor
             treatment system.
                                             87

-------
        GSA Cost and Performance Report
                                                             September 1997
   Key Design Criteria
Eastern GSA Ground Water Extraction and
Treatment System
•  Three extraction wells completed in the alluvium and
   shallow bedrock.
•  Submersible electric pumps.
•  Water distribution piping.
•  5-micron particulate filtration system.
•  Three 1,000-lb aqueous-phase GAC units
   connected in series with a design capacity
   of 50 gpm.

Central GSA Ground Water
Extraction and Treatment System
•  Nineteen extraction wells complet-
   ed in the alluvium, shallow
   bedrock, and regional aquifers.
•  Submersible electric and pneumatic
   pumps.
•  Water distribution piping.
•  Shallow tray air stripper with a
   design capacity of 50 gpm, 5-
   micron particulate filter, two 140-lb
   vapor-phase GAC units, and air emis-
   sions stack housed in a Portable
   Treatment Unit (PTU).
•  Pre- and post-treatment storage tanks.

Central GSA Soil Vapor Extraction and
Treatment System
•  Seven extraction wells that extract ground
   water and soil vapor simultaneously.
•  Vapor distribution lines.
•  2-hp vacuum pump.
•  Four 140-lb vapor-phase GAC
   units connected in series.
•  Treated vapor discharge
   stack.
                                                 Water treatment
                                               (Aqueous phase GAC)
                                                                         Discharge
                                                                         of treated
                                                                         ground water
                                                                         to Corral
                                                                         Hollow
                                                      Ground water
                                                      extraction wells
                           Schematic of the eastern GSA remediation system.
                                                                    Discharge of
                                                                    treated vapor
                                           Vaooi treatment (6A
                    Vapor from
                    atr stripper
                       Discharge
                       of treated
                   ground water to
                   ground surface
                              Vapor treatment (GAC
    Water
  treatment
(air stripper
or aqueous-
phase GAC)
                                         ^Extracted
                                            soil vapor
                                   Vacuum pump
                                                Ground water and soil
                                                vapor extraction wells
                                                         Extracted
                                                      ground water
  ound water
extraction well
                                                                Claystone aqurtard
                                                     |s£;^.*»  Regional aquifer J!pvv'» "*X"I'X/*»»pi,%|, .|,«vX*. ••<•••
                                    * Treatment of vapor from ground water treatment system is not necessary If aqueous-phase GAC is used.
                                                             Schematic of the central GSA remediation system.
                                                          88

-------
      GSA Cost and Performance Report
September 1997
  Treatment System Operating parameters
Eastern GSA GWE system.
Operating
parameters
Operating time
Pumping rate
System throughput
PH
VOC concentrations
Mass removal rate
EGSA Ground water
extraction and treatment
system
Continuous operation; 24 hrs/day, 7
days/wk
45 gpm combined flow from 3
extraction wells
45 gpm for a total monthly
throughput of 1.5 to 2 million
gallons
System influent: 7.5
System effluent: 8.1
System influent: 4 to 10 ug/L
System effluent: <0.5 ug/L
28 grams VOCs/month
Potential effects on cost or performance
Continuous operation is more cost effective for contaminant mass removal at this
time. Cyclic operation may be considered in the future to eliminate potential
stagnation zones.
Modeling indicated that increasing the pumping rate and/or number of extraction
wells did not significantly increase mass removal or enhance plume capture.
Combination of low flow rate and low influent VOC concentration allowed use of
aqueous-phase GAC treatment technology.
NPDES permit discharge require 6.5
-------
      GSA Cost and Performance Report
September 1997
   Treatment System Operating Parameters (cont.)
 Central GSA SVE system.
Operating
parameters
Operating time
Extraction rate
Moisture control
VOC concentrations
Air flow rate
Mass removal rate
CGSA Soil vapor
extraction and treatment
system
Continuous extraction; cyclic
operation may be utilized to
maximize contaminant mass
removal
Approximately 15 scfm
Water knockout drum
System influent: 2 to 100
ppmv/v
System effluent: <6 ppmv/v
15 scfm
510 grams VOCs/month
Potential effects on cost or performance
In general, a higher mass removal rate is achieved through continuous operation of
SVE; however, cyclic operation may be more cost-effective. Cyclic operation allows
VOCs to reequilibrate in soil vapor possibly resulting in the same mass removal during
shorter operating periods. In addition, cyclic operation can eliminate stagnation zones.
SVE testing indicated that more efficient mass removal was achieved using lower flow
rates.
The water knockout drum was installed to reduce the moisture content in soil vapor
prior to GAC treatment. A high moisture content in vapor can reduce the efficiency of
vapor-phase GAC treatment.
Although SVE has been effective in mass removal in the central GSA, more innovative
technologies will continue to be evaluated to identify remediation measures which
could significantly reduce cleanup time.
See "Extraction Rate" discussion.
SVE is a cost-effective method of remediating VOCs in the subsurface with a mass
removal rate over 5 times that achieved through GWE.
Central GSA ground water treatment system (1993-1997).
Eastern GSA extraction wells and treatment system.
                                              90

-------
        GSA Cost and Performance Report
                                 September 1997
    Treatment System  Operating Parameters (cont.)
         Existing and proposed
         ground water extraction wells
       -#• Existing soil vapor and
         ground water extraction wells
         Proposed well to reinject
         treated ground water
 CON-1 -£- Existing water-supply well
         5 ng/L TCE MCL isoconcen-
         tration contour in alluvial
         ground water
         Ground water flow direction
         (shallow aquifer)
                                                                                                     California
                                                                                                     Department
                                                                                                     of Forestry
                                                                                                     Fire Department
                                                                                            TCON-1
                                                         Central GSA soil vapor
                                                         treatment system
 ERD-S3R-97-0093


Existing and proposed extraction wells, reinjection well, and treatment systems.
   GSA Treatment Facility Personnel iRequirements
Each facility has a designated Facility Operator who has
been trained in the safe and efficient operation of the
treatment facility. To qualify as a Facility Operator,
personnel must attend appropriate Facility Operator and
Health and Safety training courses and undergo facility
operation training in the field under the direction and
supervision of a qualified Facility Operator. Total onsite
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) personnel require-
ments for both the eastern and central GSA facilities aver-
age approximately 60 hours per month. These O&M
activities include water and vapor facility compliance
sampling, flow measurements, permit compliance docu-
mentation, daily inspections, GAC replacement, and well
and treatment system maintenance.
                                                      91

-------
       GSA Cost and Performance Report
                               September 1997
•5.  REMEDIATION SYSTEM  PERFORMANCE I
   Cleanup Objectives
   Reduce VOC concentrations in ground water to levels
   protective of human health and the environment.
  Reduce VOC concentrations in soil vapor to meet
  ground water cleanup standards.
  Mitigate VOC inhalation risk inside Building 875.
   Cleanup Standards
Soil vapor remediation will continue until: 1) it is demon-
strated that VOC removal from the vadose zone is no
longer technically and/or economically feasible in order to
meet ground water cleanup standards sooner, more cost
effectively, and more reliably, and 2) the additive VOC
inhalation risk inside Building 875 is adequately managed.
Ground water remediation will be conducted to reduce
VOC concentrations to MCLs in all contaminated ground
water.  Modeling indicates that ground water cleanup
standards should be reached in 10 years in the eastern
GSA and in 55 years in the central GSA.
 Ground water cleanup standards.
Contaminant of concern
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
1,1-DCE
cis-l,2-DCE
PCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
EPA Cancer
group a
A
B2
B2
C
D
B2-C
D
B2-C
Federal MCL
(ug/U
5
100b
100b
7
70
5
200
5
State MCL
fcis/U
1
100b
100b
6
6
5
200
5
"From Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database maintained by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
A s known carcinogen; B2 = probable carcinogen; C = possible carcinogen; D = noncarcinogen.
'Total trihalomethanes.
   Criteria for Terminating Treatment System Operation
To monitor the progress of subsurface soil remediation, soil
vapor concentrations will be monitored at dedicated soil
vapor sampling points and at SVE wells through the life of
remediation. The demonstration that the vadose zone
cleanup has been achieved to the point that the remaining
vadose zone VOC contaminants no longer cause concentra-
tions in the leachate to exceed the aquifer cleanup levels
will be made through contaminant fate and transport model-
ing, trend analysis, mass balance, or modeling.  In addition,
VOC concentrations in soil vapor will be monitored to
ensure that the inhalation risk inside Building 875 is ade-
quately managed.
As specified in the ROD, ground water cleanup in the GSA
will continue until cleanup standards are achieved.  Ground
water will be monitored throughout the life of remediation to:
1) determine the effectiveness of the remedial action in achiev-
ing cleanup standards, 2) re-evaluate and improve the remedia-
tion plans, 3) determine when cleanup standards as stipulated
in the ROD have been achieved, and 4) determine when active
remediation should cease. When VOC concentrations in
ground water are below negotiated cleanup standards, selected
wells will be sampled for five years as part of post-closure
monitoring. Remediation will be considered complete when
contaminant concentrations remain below the cleanup stan-
dards for five years. If concentrations rise above cleanup stan-
dards, extraction will resume at the appropriate wells.
                                                    92

-------
       GSA Cost and Performance Report
                              September 1997
   Monitoring
VOC concentrations in GSA ground water and soil vapor
are monitored regularly to evaluate the performance of the
remedial action in meeting cleanup standards.
 Ground water sampling and analysis program.
Area
Central GSA
QA/QC
Eastern GSA
QA/QC
1 No. of wells sampled
54
2
12
2
15
14 (10% of total)
34
5
2
12
1 Analyses conducted I
EPA Method 601
EPA Method 601
EPA Method 602
Dissolved drinking water metals
Dissolved drinking water metals
EPA Method 601
EPA Method 602
Dissolved drinking water metals
EPA Method 601
EPA Method 601
EPA Method 601
EPA Method 601
Sampling frequency
Semi-annual
Quarterly
Annually
Annually
Every 2 years
Annually
Semi-annually
Quarterly
Monthly
Annually
   Reitiediation Plan
  The eastern and central GSA ground water extraction
  and treatment systems have been operating since 1991
  and 1993, respectively, as CERCLA removal actions.
  Based on the performance evaluation and the progress
  of these removal actions in remediating ground water,
  the existing extraction and treatment systems will con-
  tinue to be used as part of the long-term remedial
  action.

  The focus of the central GSA removal action has been
  source control at the Building 875 dry well release
  area.  In the remedial action,  the wellfield will be
  expanded to  address additional contaminant releases
  and to capture much of the contaminated ground water.
  The estimated time to cleanup may be significantly
  reduced by the addition of strategically placed extrac-
  tion wells and by using cyclic pumping to address stag-
  nation zones that may develop in the subsurface.

  In July 1994, soil vapor extraction for source control
  began in the  central GSA  Building 875 dry well area as
  part of a CERCLA removal action.  Based on the per-
  formance evaluation and the progress of the removal
  action in remediating soil  vapor in the central GSA, the
existing soil vapor extraction and treatment system will
continue to be used as part of the long-term remedial
action.

Ground water monitoring will be performed throughout
the predicted 55 years of remediation or until ground
water cleanup standards are met plus 5 years of post-
remediation monitoring.  Soil vapor concentrations will
be monitored periodically from soil vapor extraction
wells and soil vapor monitoring points during the pre-
dicted 10 years of SVE or until soil vapor cleanup stan-
dards are met.

Administrative controls will be implemented to prevent
human exposure to contaminants, if necessary.  These
controls may include access restrictions and procedures
for construction in areas where possible exposure to
contaminated media may occur.

Point-of-use (POU) treatment systems may be required
at offsite water-supply wells if VOC concentrations in
these wells exceed MCLs.  The POU treatment system
design consists of two gravity-flow aqueous-phase
GAC canisters mounted on a double-containment skid.
                                                     93

-------
        GSA Cost and Performance Report
                               September 1997
   Remediation Plan (cont.)
14
•o
        I '  '  '  I
                 i i  i    i I  i    i  i i    i  i i    i  i r
        • •<> • Cumulative
        —-a— Per quarter
Oct
 91
Oct.
 92
Oct.    Oct.
 93      94
     Time
Oct.
 95
Oct.
 96
                                                 Oct.
                                                 97
  30


  25
D)
i£. 20
•a
§

I"
g 10
       l^   I"   I
• o • Ground water
—a— Soil vapor
—o- Total
Jan.  Jul.  Jan.  Jul.  Jan.   Jul.   Jan.  Jul.
 93    93   94   94   95   95   96   96
                       Time
                                            Jan.
                                             97
                                         Jull
                                         97l
Mass of TCE removed from ground water at the
Eastern GSA.
Cumulative mass of TCE: removed from ground water and sc
vapor at the Central GSA.
                                 Central GSA Portable Treatment Unit (since 1997).
                                                     94

-------
       GSA Cost and Performance Report
                             September 1997
  Treatment Facility Sampling and Analysis Program
Treatment facility sampling and analysis program.
Monitoring program
EGS A GWTS NPDES Permit
CGSA GWTS Substantive
Requirements
CGSA SV Treatment System
Air Discharge Permit
Type of samples
collected
Influent/Effluent
Receiving Waters
Influent/Effluent
Effluent
Sampling frequency
Bi-monthly
Weekly when creek is flowing
Monthly
Weekly
Analytical methodology
EPA Method 601, TDS, pH
EPA Method 601, pH, turbidity.
EPA Method 601 & 602, pH,
spec, conduct.
Monitored with an OVA.
OA/OC
10% of total no. of
samples collected
10% of total no. of
samples collected
OVA calibrated
before each use
   Quantity of Material Treated
 Volume of contaminated media treated and mass of contaminants removed (July 1997).
Treatment system
Eastern GSA GWTS
Central GSA GWTS
Central GSA SVTS
1 Operation mode
Continuous
Batch
Continuous
I Average flow rate | Volume treated to date
45 gpm
12,000 gal/month
15.3 scfm
93,000,000 gal
787,000 gal
399,000 cf
1 VOC mass removed to date
5.1kg
4.8kg
30.5 kg
GSA Total: 40.4kg
   Quantity of Material Stored or Disposed
Approximately 1,100 Ibs of VOC-laden GAC residual is
generated by the central GSA treatment system annually.
Based on contaminant concentration and flow rates, it is
estimated that the 1,000-lb aqueous-phase GAC canisters
from the eastern GSA ground water treatment system will
need to be replaced approximately every two to three
years. All spent GAC canisters are packaged, labeled for
shipment, manifested, and temporarily stored onsite for up
to 90 days before being transported offsite for regenera-
tion or disposal.
                                                 95

-------
      GSA Cost and Performance Report
                                                                  September 1997
  Untreated and Treated Contaminant Concentrations
Contaminant concentrations prior to and during remediation.
Media
Shallow ground water
Regional aquifer
ground water
Shallow ground water
Area
Central GSA
(Bldg. 875 dry well pad)
Central GSA
(West of sewage
treatment pond)
Eastern GSA (Debris
burial trench area)
Pre-remediation
maximum TCE
concentrations
240,000 ug/L
58 ug/L
74 ug/L
Maximum TCE
concentrations (May 1997)
10,000 ug/L
33 ug/L
13ug/L
Cleanup
standards
5 ug/L
5 ug/L
5ug/L
Soil/bedrock
Central GSA                360 mg/kg
(Bldg. 975 dry well pad)	
                     Not measured
                                                                                            Not applicable
Soil/bedrock
Eastern GSA (Debris
burial trench area)
0.19 mg/kg
                                                                    Not measured
                     Not applicable
Soil vapor
Central GSA
(Bide. 875 dry well pad)
450 ppmv/v
2 ppmv/v
0.36
Contamination concentration prior to and following treatment (May 1997).
        Constituent
            Discharge limits
         Average untreated media
              concentration
        (treatment system influent)
              Average treated media
                  concentration
             (treatment system effluent)
CGSA ground water treatment system
Total VOCs	Monthly median: 0.5 ug/L
                                          1,500 ug/L
                                   Monthly median: <0.5 ug/L
EGSA ground water treatment system
Total VOCs	Monthly median: 0.5 ug/L
                                            7 ug/L
                                   Monthly median: <0.5 ug/L
CGSA soil vapor treatment system
TCE                       6 ppmy/y
                                          2 ppniy/y
                                            0 ppniy/y
                                                   96

-------
       GSA Cost and Performance Report
                                    September 1997
   Comparison with Cleanup Objectives
After six years of ground water remedi-
ation in the eastern GSA, the maximum
VOC concentrations in ground water
have been reduced from a historical
pre-remediation maximum of 74 ug/L
to a maximum concentration of 13 ug/L
as of second quarter 1997.  Only five of
the 42 monitor wells in the eastern GSA
currently contain TCE in concentrations
that exceed the cleanup standard of
5 ug/L.  All other contaminants of
concern  in the eastern GSA have been
remediated to below their respective
cleanup  standards (MCLs).

Prior to remediation of the eastern GSA
VOC plume, the portion  of the TCE
plume in which concentrations exceed
the cleanup standards for TCE (MCL of
5 ug/L) extended approximately 4,500
feet offsite. The TCE plume with con-
centrations exceeding the MCL now
extends less than 200 feet from the site
boundary.

In the central GSA, maximum TCE
concentrations detected in ground water
prior to remediation were 240,000
ug/L. The maximum TCE concentra-
tion detected in ground water as of the
fourth quarter of 1996, after approxi-
mately three years of source area reme-
diation, was 10,000 ug/L.  Of the eight
VOCs identified as contaminants of
concern  in the central GSA, currently
only TCE and PCE are detected in
wells in  concentrations which exceed
the cleanup standards (MCLs). The
actual mass removal achieved by the
central GSA ground water treatment
system is similar to the mass removal
rate predicted by modeling.

Following two years of soil vapor
extraction and treatment in the central
GSA, TCE concentrations in soil vapor
have been reduced from a pre-remedia-
tion concentration of 1,000 ppmv/v to
2 ppmv/v.
     Extent of TCE
         (5 |ig/L) in
       Spring 1991
Debris burial
  trench area
                                   Extent of TCE
                                   (5 |ig/L) in
                                   Winter 1996
                                           GSA-PM-96-0003
                                                   Eastern GSA pre-remediation and current plume configurations.
                                                   97

-------
        GSA Cost and Performance Report
September 1997
    Comparison with Cleanup Objectives  (cont.)
 Distribution of TCE in ground water (1991).
   * •  ~> TCE teoconcantratton contour
         ki shallow ground watar Gig/L)
   COH-1+ Existing watar-tupply wall
           Scala:faat
             100  200
Distribution of TCE in ground water (1997).
                                                    98

-------
       GSA Cost and Performance Report
                                             September 1997
   Comparison with  Cleanup Objeptives (fcont.)
    91
                    Jan.  Jul.  Jan. Jul.  Jan.  Jul.  Jan.  Jul.  Jan.  Jul.
                     93   93   94   94   95   95   96   96   97   97
                                         Time
TCE concentration in ground water treatment system
influent at the eastern GSA.
              TCE concentration in ground water treatment system
              influent at the central GSA.
                             500
                               Oct.
                               94
Apr.
 95
Oct      Apr.
 95       96
    Time
Oct.
 96
Apr.
 97
                          VOC concentration in soil vapor extraction system influent at
                          the central GSA.
                                                   99

-------
        GSA Cost and Performance Report
                                September 1997
    Risk Reduction
The GSA baseline risk assessment identified two exposure
routes that could potentially result in unacceptable risk to the
community and workers on site: 1) ingesting contaminated
ground water, and 2) inhaling TCE vapor inside Building 875.

The calculated excess cancer risk for potential residential
use of ground water in the vicinity of the eastern GSA
debris burial trenches or at offsite wells is about 1 in
100,000 (10-5). Existing offsite water-supply wells are
monitored monthly for VOCs, however no VOCs have ever
been detected in these wells at concentrations above MCLs.
Water from these existing wells is used primarily for live-
stock watering and non-drinking water domestic purposes.
The excess cancer risk for use of ground water from a
hypothetical well that could potentially be installed at the
site boundary near Building 875 was calculated to be
approximately 7 in 100 (7 x 10'2). No water-supply wells
currently exist at the site boundary location, and ground
water in the area is not used for drinking water.

The excess human cancer risk from inhalation of TCE
vapor inside Building 875 in the GSA was calculated to be
1 in 100,000 (10-5X However, current VOC concentrations
are likely lower due to ongoing soil vapor remediation.
  16.  COST SUMMARY!
   Assumptions
All preliminary activities and removal actions were con-
ducted and associated costs incurred prior to the signing
of the Final GSA ROD in February 1997. The worth of
pre-1997 costs is based on the year incurred. The remain-
ing activities presented are post-ROD with the exception
of monitor well installation and removal action construc-
tion and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.
Projected costs (post 1997) are present worth as estimated
in the Feasibility Study and Remedial Design Documents.
Costs presented for post-ROD remedial action activities
have been calculated based on the projected life of the
project. The total actual and projected investigation and
remediation cost for the GSA Operable Unit is $38.6 M.
                                                    100

-------
     GSA Cost and Performance Report
September 1997
 Cost Elements
Cost Elements for Eastern GSA.
General
activity areas
fWBS)
Preliminary/
Preconstruction
Activities
(32)
Construction
Activities (33)
Post-Constructio
Operations and
Maintenance
(O&M):
Removal Action
(34)
Post-Constructio
Operations and
Maintenance
(O&M):
Remedial Action
(34)
WBS 2nd level cost
elements
(WBS)
• RI/FS (32.02)
• Remedial Design
(32.03)
• Monitoring, Sampling,
Testing, and Analysis
(33.02)
• GW Collection and
Control Construction
(33.06)
• Physical .Treatment
Construction (33.13)
i« Monitoring, Sampling,
Testing, and Analysis
(34.02)
• GW Collection and
Control (34.06)
• Physical Treatment
O&M (34.13)
• Other: Treatment
Facility Compliance
Reporting (34.90)
i» Monitoring, Sampling,
Testing, and Analysis
(34.02)
• GW Collection and
Control (34.06)
• Gas/Vapor Collection
and Control (34.07)
• Physical Treatment
O&M (34.13
• Other: Treatment
Facility (TF) Compliance
Reporting (34.90)
Cost items
(WBS)
• Field Investigations (32.02.06)
• Remedial Investigation
- Data Evaluation (32.02.11)
- Risk Assessment (32.02.12)
- RI Document (32.02.13)
• Feasibility Study:
- Alternative Evaluation (32.02.14)
- FS document (32.02.16)
• Proposed Plan/ROD (32.02.03)
• Sampling and Analysis (32.02.08)
• Removal Action Design (32.03.20)
• Remedial Design Report (32.03.20)
• Monitor Well Installation/Soil Sampling (57 wells) (33.02.09,
33.02.06)
• Ground Water Sampling and Analysis (33.02.05)
• Removal Action Construction:
OWE:
- Air Stripping System Construction (33.13.07)
- GAC-vapor systems (2) (33.13.19)
- Extraction Wellfield Construction (33.06.01)
• Remedial Action Construction:
OWE:
- GAC-Liquid System Construction (33.13.20)
• Removal Action Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis:
- Air Monitoring (34.02.03)
- Monitor Well O&M (34.02.04)
- Ground Water/Treatment Facility Sampling (34.02.05)
- Lab Chem. Analysis (34.02.09)
• Removal Action Ground Water Extraction and Treatment
System O&M:
- Extraction Well O&M (34.06.01)
- Air Stripping System O&M (34.13.07)
- Carbon Adsorption-Gas System O&M (34.13.19)
• Removal Action TF Compliance Reporting (34.90.01)
Remedial Action Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis:
• Air Monitoring (34.02.03)
• Monitor Well O&M (34.02.04)
• GW/Facility Sampling (34.02.05)
• Lab Chem. Analysis (34.02.09)
• Remedial Action O&M - GWE:
- Extraction/Injection O&M (34.06.01)
- GAC-Liquid O&M (34.13.20)
• Remedial Action Compliance (34.90.02)
Costs
($K)
545
437
430
92
215
9
117
271
39
173
205
215
816
159
580
1,600
310
Total Eastern GSA
Subtotal
($K)
1,845
688
1,190
2,490
$6,2 13K
                                             101

-------
     GSA Cost and Performance Report
September 1997
 Cost Elements (cont.)
Cost elements for Central GSA.
General activity
areas (WBS)
Preliminary/
Prcconstruction
Activities
(32)
Construction
Activities (33)
Post-Construction
Operations and
Maintenance
(O&M): Removal
Action
(34)
Post-Construction
Operations and
Maintenance
(O&M): Remedial
Action
(34)


WBS 2nd level
cost elements (WBS)
• RI/FS (32.02)
• Remedial Design
(32.03)
• Monitoring, Sampling, Testing,
and Analysis (33.02)
• GW Collection and Control
Construction (33.06)
• Air Pollution/Gas Collection and
Control (33.07)
• Physical Treatment Construction
(33.13)
• Monitoring, Sampling, Testing,
and Analysis (34.02)
• GW Collection and Control
(34.06)
• Gas/Vapor Collection and
Control (34.07)
• Physical Treatment O&M (34.13)
• Other: Treatment Facility (TF)
Compliance Reporting (34.90)
• Monitoring, Sampling, Testing,
and Analysis (34.02)
• GW Collection and Control
(34.06)
• Gas/Vapor Collection and
Control (34.07)
• Physical Treatment O&M (34.13)
• Other: Facility Compliance
Reporting (34.90)
Cost items
(WBS)
• Field Investigations (32.02.06)
• Remedial Investigation
- Data Evaluation (32.02.1 1)/
Risk Assessment (32.02. 12)/
RI Document (32.02.13)
• Feasibility Study:
- Alternative Evaluation (32.02.14)
- FS document (32.02.16)
• Proposed Plan/ROD (32.02.03)
• Sampling and Analysis (32.02.08)
• Removal Action Design
• Remedial Action Design (32.03.20)
• Monitor Well Installation/Soil Sampling (57 wells)
(33.02.09, 33.02.06)
• GW Sampling and Analysis (33.02.05)
• Removal Action Construction (GWE)
- Air Stripping System Construction (33.13.07)
- GAC-vapor systems (2) (33.13.19)
- Extraction Wellfield Construction (33.06.01)
• Removal Action Construction(SVE)
- GAC-vapor System (33. 13. 19)
-SVE System (33. 13.23)
- Extraction Wellfield Construction (33.06.01)
• Remedial Action Construction:
1)GWE:
- Air Stripping System Construction (33.13.07)
- GAC-vapor System Construction (33.13.19)
2) SVE:
• Extraction wellfield expansion (33.06.01)
• Extraction/Instrumentation
- Equipment/Pipeline Construction (33.06.07)
Removal Action Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and
Analysis:
• Air Monitoring (34.02.03)
• Monitor Well O&M (34.02.04)
• GW/Treatment Facility Sampling (34.02.05)
• Lab Chem. Analysis (34.02.09)
• Removal Action O&M (includes equipment and labor
for TF and extraction wellfield O&M):
- Extraction Well O&M (34.06.01)
- Air Stripping System O&M (34.13.07)
- GAC-vapor O&M (34. 13. 19)
- SVE O&M (34.13.23)
• Removal Action TF Compliance Reporting (34.90.01)
• Remedial Action Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and
Analysis:
- Air Monitoring (34.02.03)
- Monitor Well O&M (34.02.04)
- Ground Water/Treatment Facility Sampling (34.02.05)
- Lab Chem. Analysis (34.02.09)
• Remedial Action O&M - GWE
- Extraction/Injection Wellfield O&M (34.06.01)
- Air stripping System O&M (34.13.07)
- Carbon Adsorption-Gas O&M (34.13.19)
• Remedial Action O&M - SVE:
- GAC-vapor O&M (34.13.19)
- SVESvstem O&M (34. 13.23)
• Remedial Action TF Compliance Reporting (34.90.02)
Total Central GSA
Costs
($K)
731
437
430
92
82
75
126
374
55
506
123
296
347
286
334
883
472
10,230
12,375
1,050
3,135

Subtotal
($K)
1,973

1,987
1,689
26,790
$32,439K
                                            102

-------
       GSA Cost and Performance Report
                               September 1997
  17.  REGULATORY
Regulatory agencies overseeing the GSA cleanup include
the: 1) U.S. EPA, 2) Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board, and 3) California Department of
Toxic Substances Control.

The driver for ground water cleanup is based on VOC
concentrations in GSA ground water that exceed MCLs.
Ground water in the GSA OU is considered a potential
drinking water source by the state and federal regulatory
agencies who require restoration of ground water to pro-
tect beneficial uses.

The driver for soil vapor cleanup is based on VOC concentra-
tions in soil vapor in the central GSA Building 874 dry well
pad area that are estimated to impact ground water in excess
of drinking water standards and result in an inhalation risk
inside Building 875 requiring risk management.

The state regulatory agency requires that discharges from
the central and eastern GSA ground water treatment sys-
tems be treated for VOCs to meet a discharge limit of
<0.5 ug/L VOCs.  This standard is met by treating
ground water with an air-stripping system in the central
GSA and an aqueous-phase GAC system in the eastern
GSA. The existing waste discharge permits and Record
of Decision allow these treatment technologies to be
readily supplemented by innovative treatment/destruction
technologies if a more cost-effective method of treating
contaminated ground water is identified. Treated water is
discharged under a NPDES permit in the eastern GSA
and under Substantive Requirements for Waste Discharge
in the central GSA.

The local air regulatory agency requires that emissions to
air from the central GSA soil vapor treatment system and
ground water air-stripping system be treated for VOCs to
meet a 6 ppmv/v discharge limit. Currently, this standard
is met by treating emissions with vapor-phase GAC. The
existing permit and Record of Decision allow the GAC to
be readily supplemented by innovative treatment/destruc-
tion technologies if a more cost-effective method of treat-
ing contaminated vapor is identified.

In the GSA ROD, the state and federal regulatory agen-
cies did not concur with the selection of MCLs as the
cleanup standard for chloroform and bro-
modichloromethane because the MCL for total tri-
halomethanes is based on the economics of chlorinating a
municipal water supply to remove pathogens and the
agencies stated that the MCL did not adequately protect
the beneficial uses of a drinking water source that has not
been, and may not be, chlorinated. The modeling per-
formed for the GSA Feasibility Study predicted that, in
the course of remediating TCE to MCLs, chloroform and
bromodichloromethane would be remediated to the taste
and odor threshold levels desired by the regulatory agen-
cies. However, the ROD states that if remediation does
not show that cleanup of these compounds is proceeding
as predicted, the cleanup standards for chloroform and
bromodichloromethane will be revisited.
  18.  SCHEDULE

Removal actions
Record of Decision
Remedial design
Extraction wel (field expansion
Remedial actions
Post-remediation monitoring
Year
1990 2000






— .
4
—
•




2010



•i




2020








2030








2040








2050








2060







•••••






                                                    103

-------
        GSA Cost and Performance Report
                                September 1997
   19.  LESSONS  LEARNEDI
    Implementation Considerations
 Soil vapor extraction and treatment in the central GSA
 Building 875 dry well pad area may continue past the 10
 year estimated time to cleanup if it is demonstrated that it
 will expedite ground water cleanup in a cost-effective
 manner.

 As VOC concentrations in ground water decreased in the
 eastern GSA, the air sparging system was replaced with
 aqueous-phase GAG. Using GAG will incur lower opera-
 tion and maintenance costs and eliminated the need for an
 air discharge permit and associated compliance monitoring.

 Carbonate scale buildup in both the central and eastern
 GSA treatment systems resulted in a reduction in treatment
 system efficiency and clogging of the discharge lines. To
 correct this problem, scale control agents (JP-7 and CO2)
 are injected into the water stream. CO2 injection can also
 be used to control the pH of the treatment system effluent
 to meet NPDES permit waste discharge requirements.

 In the central GSA Building 875 dry well pad area,
 ground water extraction was used to dewater bedrock and
 create an "artificial" vadose zone. Simultaneous soil
 vapor and ground water extraction dramatically increased
 VOC mass removal rates from those obtained by ground
 water extraction alone.

 Cyclic pumping (e.g. alternaiting periods when the extrac-
 tion system is on and off) is used to maximize VOC mass
 removal efficiency from both ground water and soil vapor.
 During the pump-off cycles, VOCs desorb from solids
 into ground water and soil vapor, increasing the mass
 removal rate when the extraction system is turned back
 on.  Cyclic pumping is also used to minimize  or eliminate
 stagnation zones that develop due to competition between
 extraction wells.

 The central GSA ground water treatment system is housed
 in a portable treatment unit (PTU). Using a PTU will:
 1) prevent UV degradation of system components,
 2) be significantly less costly than a permanent facility,
 and 3) allow the treatment system to be moved to another
 areas at LLNL if a more effective treatment technology is
 employed at the central GSA.
   Technology Limitations
The ability to restore ground water to MCLs using active
pumping is unlikely at many sites. If the stakeholders
determine that extraction is technically and economically
infeasible to reduce VOCs in ground water to the cleanup
levels established in the ROD, the selected technologies
may be re-evaluated. Low well yields (<0.5 gpm) in the
central GSA may limit the effectiveness of pump and
treat for ground water restoration and source control.
Long-term ground water extraction in the central GSA
Building 875 dry well pad area will be considered as
a technique to enhance soil vapor extraction for the
purposes of source removal.
   Future Technology Selection Considerations
Innovative technologies will be considered for the GSA
throughout the process of remediation to shorten cleanup
time, improve cleanup efficiency, and reduce cost.
If technologies that enhance contaminant mobility are
used (e.g. surfactants) it may be necessary to implement
hydraulic controls near source areas to prevent further
plume migration.
                                                   104

-------
        GSA Cost and Performance Report
                               September 1997
   110.  REFERENCES
 Rueth, L., and T. Berry (1995), Final Feasibility Study for
 the General Services Area Operable Unit, Lawrence
 Livermore National Laboratory Site 300, Lawrence
 Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA
 (UCRL-AR-11380)

 Rueth, L., R. Ferry, L. Green-Horner, and T. DeLorenzo
 (1997), Draft Remedial Design Document for the General
 Services Area Operable Unit, Lawrence Livermore
 National Laboratory Site 300, Lawrence Livermore
 National Laboratory, Livermore, CA
 (UCRL-AR-127465 DR)

 Webster-Scholten, C. P., Ed. (1994), Final Site-Wide
 Remedial Investigation Report, Lawrence Livermore
 National Laboratory Site 300, Lawrence Livermore
 National Laboratory, Livermore, CA
 (UCRL-AR-108131).
 U. S. Department of Energy (1996), The United States
 Department of Energy Presents the Proposed Plan for
 Remediation of the Lawrence Livermore National
 Laboratory Site 300 General Services Area, Lawrence
 Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA
 (UCRL-AR-122585)

 U. S. Department of Energy (1997), Final Record of
 Decision for the General Services Area Operable Unit •
 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300,
 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA
 (UCRL-AR-124061)
  111.   VALIDATION I
Signatories:

 "This analysis accurately reflects the current performance
and projected costs of the remediation."
Michael G. Brown
Deputy Director
Environmental Restoration Division
Oakland Operations Office
U. S. Department of Energy
JohniE-^fagos
Site 300 Program Manager
Environmental Restoration Division
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
                                                 105

-------
    GSA Cost and Performance Report
                       September 1997
112.  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
                                 This analysis was prepared by:
              Weiss Associates
            Emeryville, California
          under Subcontract B319805
             (R. Ferry, L. Rueth)
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
   Environmental Restoration Division
         Livermore, California
     under Contract W-7405-Eng-48
    (B. Clark, T. Dresser, K. Hey ward)
                HAZWRAP
     Lockheed-Martin Energy Systems Inc.
            Oak Ridge, Tennessee
                 (T. Ham)
          DOE Headquarters
           Washington, DC
           (K. Angleberger)
                                            106

-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
  the Mystery Bridge at Hwy 20 Superfund Site,
     Dow/DSI Facility, Evansville, Wyoming
                    107

-------
                  Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
                    the Mystery Bridge at Hwy 20 Superfund Site,
                        Dow/DSI Facility, Evansville, Wyoming
Site Name:
Mystery Bridge at Hwy 20
Superfund Site, Dow/DSI Facility •
Volatile Halogenated Organic
(VHO) Plume
Location:
Evansville, Wyoming
Contaminants:
Chlorinated solvents
- Maximum concentrations
detected in September 1989 were
trans-1,2-DCE (500 ug/L), TCE
(430 ug/L), PCE (540 ug/L), and
1,1,1-TCA (500 ug/L)
Period of Operation:
Status: Ongoing
Report covers: March 1994
through October 1997
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup (interim results)
Vendor:
Thomas J. Mueller, P.E.
Western Water Consultants, Inc.
611 Skyline Road
P.O. Box  4128
Laramie,WY  82071
(307)742-0031
State Point of Contact:
Don Fisher
Solid and Haz. Waste Div.
Wyoming Dept. of Environmental
Quality
1222 W. 25th Street
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 672-6457
Technology:
Pump and Treat and Soil Vapor
Extraction
- Groundwater is extracted using 3
wells, located on site, at an average
total pumping rate of 103 gpm
- Extracted groundwater is treated
with air stripping and reinjected
using an infiltration trench with
600 ft of surface area
- SVE is used as a source control
activity
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA Remedial
-RODDate:  9/24/90
EPA Point of Contact:
Lisa Reed Lloyd, RPM
U.S. EPA Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2466
(303)312-6537
Waste Source:
Various contaminant releases,
spills, and leaks
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Remedial strategy includes use of
pump and treat for the on-site
plume and natural attenuation for
the off-site plume.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
- 192.8 million gallons treated as of December 1997
- Groundwater is found at 14-42 ft bgs
- Extraction wells are located in 1 aquifer at the site
- Hydraulic conductivity was reported as 340 ft/day
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- The remedial goal is to reduce the levels of contaminants in the on-site, up-gradient portion of the groundwater
  plume to below MCLs such that the remainder of the plume off site meets MCLs through natural attenuation
  within a reasonable time limit.
- Remedial goals were established for TCE (5 ug/L), PCE (5 ug/L), trans-l,2-DCE (100 ug/L), cis-l,2-DCE (70
  ug/L), 1,1-DCE (7 ug/L), and 1,1,1-TCA (200 ug/L).                          	
                                              108

-------
                   Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
                     the Mystery Bridge at Hwy 20 Superfund Site,
                  Dow/DSI Facility, Evansville, Wyoming (continued)
Results:
- Contaminant concentrations in all wells have declined significantly, yet remain above MCLs. Concentrations
  of contaminants in three out of four source area wells fell below their respective MCLs in the last two
  sampling events in 1996; hi the fourth well, the total contaminant concentration was 9.4 ugfL.
- Wells in the down-gradient portion of the plume declined from March 1993 to December 1996, but in at least
  one well (225 ft down-gradient of the site boundary) individual contaminant concentrations remain
  significantly above then- respective MCLs.
- Approximately 21 pounds of contaminants have been removed from the groundwater at this site.
Cost:
- Actual costs for groundwater remediation were $918,000 ($305,000 in capital and $613,000 in O&M), which
  correspond to $5.65 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $44,000 per pound of contaminant
  removed.
Description:
Since 1958, the Dow/DSI facility was used as a base for oil field service operations.  Dow/DSI used mobile
pumps, tanks, and other equipment to perfonn services for the oil and gas industry. It is believed that wash water
from equipment cleaning operations contained chlorinated solvents. In addition, a tank at the site was used to
store large volumes of toluene, which was used for cleaning purposes and oil well servicing activities. In 1986,
residents complained of poor water and air quality.  In response, EPA conducted an Expanded Site Investigation,
which led to the discovery of contaminants in the groundwater. The site was placed on the NPL in August 1990
and a ROD was issued in September 1990.

The remedial strategy at this site was to actively treat the on-site groundwater plume using pump and treat with
air stripping, and to allow natural attenuation to reduce contaminant levels in the off-site portion of the plume to
levels below the MCLs. In four years of operation, contaminant concentrations in all wells have declined
significantly, yet remain above MCLs.
                                              109

-------
                                                          Mystery Bridge at Hwy 20 Superfund Site
                                   SITE INFORMATION
Identifvina Information:
Mystery Bridge at Hwy 20 Superfund Site
Dow/DSI facility - VHO Plume
Evansville, Wyoming

CERCLISS: WYD981546005

ROD Date: September 24,1990
Treatment Application:
Type of Action: Remedial

Period of operation:  March 1994 - Ongoing
(Performance data collected through October
1997)

Quantity of groundwater treated during
application: 192.8 million gallons through
December 1997
Backaround
Historical Activity that Generated
Contamination at the Site: Oil and gas
production enhancement

Corresponding SIC Code: 2911 (Oil and gas
production enhancement)

Waste Management Practice That
Contributed to Contamination: Various
contaminant releases, spills, and leaks.

Operations: [1,2]
•   The Mystery Bridge Superfund site
    encompasses 400 acres, and is bordered
    on the north by the North Platte River, to the
    south by several industrial facilities, and to
    the east and west by the Brookhurst/
    Mystery Bridge subdivision. The remedial
    action at the site addresses several
    groundwater contaminant plumes,
    emanating from several separate properties
    (KN Energy and  Dow/DSI. Another source
    of contamination, from the Little America
    Refining Company, was not addressed as a
    remedial action for this site under
    CERCLA). The plumes contain different
    sets of contaminants, and each is being
    treated in a separate treatment system.
    This report addresses the remedial actions
    undertaken to address the plume originating
    from the Dow/DSI facility only.

•   In 1986 residents complained of poor water
    and air quality. In response, EPA
    conducted an Expanded Site Investigation,
    which led to the original discovery of
    contaminants in the groundwater.

•   The 23-acre Dow/DSI facility is situated
    along the Burlington Northern Railroad
    (BNRR) line, east of Evansville, WY. Since
      EPA
    1958, the site was used as a base for oil
    field service operations. Dow/DSI used
    mobile pumps, tanks, and other equipment
    to perform services for the oil and gas
    industry. It is believed that wash water from
    equipment cleaning operations contained
    chlorinated solvents.  In addition, a large
    tank was located at the northern end of the
    site and was used to store large volumes of
    toluene, used for cleaning purposes and oil-
    well servicing activities.

    Releases were suspected from both the
    equipment cleaning activities and the
    toluene storage tank. Wash water from
    equipment cleaning operations flowed into a
    1,000-gallon underground oil-water
    separator, located on the western portion of
    the site.  Wash water from the oil-water
    separator sump seeped into the subsurface
    soils and the underlying groundwater. In
    addition, various spills and leaks were
    suspected to have occurred around the
    toluene storage tank, contaminating the
    subsurface soils in that area, as well.

    Beginning in January 1988, removal
    activities began at the Dow/DSI site, when
    approximately 440 cubic yards of
    contaminated soil were removed from the
    sump area and landfilled by Western Water
    Consultants (WWC).  At the same time, the
    oil-water separator, an underground waste
    oil tank, and portions of the tile drain were
    removed by WWC. Soil vapor extraction
    (SVE) systems were installed in the sump
    and toluene storage areas to remove
    contaminants from subsurface soils.  No
    further source control activities were
    performed.
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                    Technology Innovation Office
                                             110
                                                                             TIO3.WP6\0211-04.stf

-------
                                                        Mystery Bridge at Hwy 20 Superfund Site
                              SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Backaround (Cont.)
•  The sump area SVE system consisted of
   two extraction wells and 80 feet of
   horizontal collector pipe. The extraction
   wells were installed to within two to four feet
   above the highest recorded water table
   level. The collector pipe was installed at a
   depth of five feet.  From April to August
   1988, approximately 334 pounds of volatile
   organic compounds (VOCs) were removed
   from the sump area [6].

•  The toluene storage area SVE system
   consisted of two wells, installed to within
   two to four feet of the highest recorded
   water table level.  From April to August
   1988, approximately 6,000 pounds of VOCs
   were removed from the toluene storage
   area [6].

•  In December 1987, an Administrative Order
   on Consent was issued to Dow/DSI (and
   KN Energy), requiring them to perform a
   remedial investigation/feasibility study
   (RI/FS). The RI/FS was completed in June
   1990 and concluded that a plume of
   groundwater contaminated with volatile
   halogenated organic (VHO) compounds
   extended from the Dow/DSI facility to the
   North Platte River, approximately 0.5 mile
   downgradient. Another plume was
   identified originating from the KN Energy
   facility, but the RI/FS concluded that the two
   plumes had different sources, contained
   different compounds, and were not
   commingled.

•  The site was placed on the National
   Priorities List (NPL) in August 1990.

Site Logistics/Contacts	
Regulatory Context:
•  On September 24,1990, EPA issued a
   Record of Decision (ROD) for the
   groundwater operable unit.  This operable
   unit covers the remedial activities at both
   the KN Energy and Dow/DSI facilities.

•  A Consent Decree for the RI/FS was signed
   in 1988 between USEPA, Dow/DSI, and KN
   Energy.

•  Site activities are conducted under
   provisions of: the Comprehensive
   Environmental Response, Compensation,
   and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by
   the Superfund Amendments and
   Reauthorization Act of 1986
   (CERCLA/SARA) §121, the National
   Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR 300; the
   Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as
   amended by 1984 reauthorization and
   amendments; Clean Air Act and 1990
   Amendments; and the Resource
   Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of
   1976 and 1984 amendments.

Remedy Selection:
•  Groundwater extraction and treatment in the
   on-site portion of the plume via air stripping
   was selected as the remedy for the
   Dow/DSI VHO plume at this site. Effluent
   was to be reinjected to the alluvial aquifer.
   Contamination in the off-site portion of the
   plume was to be eliminated through natural
   attenuation.
Site Lead:  EPA-Lead

Oversight: State of Wyoming

Remedial Project Manager:
Lisa Reed Lloyd*
U.S. EPA Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2466
303-312-6537

* Indicates primary contacts
State Contact:
Don Fisher
Solid and Hazardous Waste Division
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
1222W. 25th Street
Cheyenne, WY 82002
307-672-6457

Remedial Contractor:
Western Water Consultants, Inc.*
Thomas J. Mueller, P.E., Project Manager
611 Skyline Road
PO. Box 4128
Laramie, Wyoming 82071
307-742-0031
      EPA
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                   Technology Innovation Office
                                            111
                                                                          TIO3.WP6\0211-04.stf

-------
                                                           Mystery Bridge at Hwy 20 Superfund Site
                                   MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix Processed Through the
Treatment System: Groundwater

Contaminant Characterization	
Primary Contaminant Groups:
Halogenated volatile organic compounds

•   The primary contaminants of concern at the
    site are 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1 -DCE),
    f/a/7S-1,2-dichloroethene (fra/?s-1,2-DCE),
    trichloroethene (TCE), tetrachloroethene
    (PCE), 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA),
    and 1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA).
    Concentrations of toluene in the
    groundwater near the toluene storage tank
    did not justify it being considered a
    contaminant of concern [1].

•   The maximum concentrations detected for
    the principal contaminants during the
    September 1989 sampling event included:
    (trans-1,2-DCE) 500 ug/L,  (TCE) 430 ug/L,
    (PCE) 540 ug/L, and (1,1,1-TCA) 500
    ug/MU
To assess the likelihood that contaminants
were present as nonaqueous phase liquids
(NAPLs), samples were taken by WWC at
discrete intervals in one well, which was
screened across the aquifer. Relatively
higher concentrations in samples taken at
the top and bottom of the aquifer than those
found in the central portion would have
indicated the presence of NAPLs.  No such
evidence was found [2].

Figure 1 shows that the VHO plume
extends from the DSI facility through the
subdivision in a northeast direction towards
the North Platte River.  The areal extent of
the plume was estimated during the RI/FS
to be approximately 135 acres and to
contain 18,571,000 gallons of contaminated
groundwater [1].
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Costs or Performance
Hydrogeology:

Groundwater moves across the site in a northeasterly direction towards the North Platte River. An
alluvial aquifer is located in an erosional trough in the bedrock surface.  The alluvial aquifer is composed
of permeable, unconsolidated materials.  The aquifer is bound on the northwestern and southeastern
sides by subcrops of bedrock rising above the water table, limiting drainage from adjacent basins.
Underlying the alluvium, the bedrock is composed of sandstone, interspersed with shale seams.
Groundwater is found at an average depth of 35 feet below land surface, and flows at an average rate of
2.1 feet/day. A technical description of the alluvial aquifer is given below:


          Alluvial     The alluvial geology consists of 14.5 to 81 feet of quaternary alluvial floodplain
          Aquifer     and terrace deposits along the North Platte River and Elkhorn Creek. The upper
                    1.5 to 13 feet of the alluvial deposit is a surficial soil layer, which consists of a
                    mixture of sandy silt and clayey silt.  The remaining alluvium ranges in thickness
                    from 13 to 68 feet (average thickness of 50 feet)  and consists of well-sorted
                    coarse to medium sand with little fine sand and trace amounts of silt and gravel.
                    The depth to the groundwater in the alluvium ranges from 14 to 42 feet. The
                    aquifer is underlain by non-water-bearing bedrock.
      EPA
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                Technology Innovation Office
                                             112
                                                                              TIO3.WP6\0211-04.stf

-------

MATRIX; DESCRIPTION (CONT.) |

r
!
01
1
10

50
1
200
400
C459) *\
CND) -|
!




1


!



1


•* _
osi-e
A 'SSL
•— 	 ^flEi 	 03,
^fl^qTp "J* '"""
/ S 4 /'
1 P87-4 S 1 /
/ / y6
/' / ^ —*•
C28) 1 . /** C2
/ • I V \.i

I/
;/
//>-i-
pSf

*^S
H
^
.s^

DBA:H
0

/


I *
4
. \OCJG.

'

-— •""• —«v»»7-a 1 N. itor*
OS'-7 t X ^"^ «^
" A \ ^-^LX^
\ 03JMK-3
^IfeMKMv' V""97"4 C20)
fl^Sv^- 1 CEO
^.
SaTyfe^7 ^*~"~
^-^ ««7-a^
ssCt^
"\wj?r o/i
einovto)
^Sta _ ^^^*
A^***^» -«•« — ' ~ "* "*
f-TftXK ^*^ ^^*^ ^^^
fUfHTStMNCf
BUiLo:ne
^^••iOT fUB. TMK
CRSflOVCD)

P87-I

1 of see \
- — \ tUt LOIUS \
LEGEND

C17) " ;
BUT
^»^ CS7) "I
2^- ^*
•' »^^P^ /
.. 	 _> /
"""" _^.
1 ^^^
• •***
/- -79«sr ISLAM
' CND)
9SJ^.f
^^^* *^^


P87-2
•








_._


1
t


10
.
'
1
0

i






1



1
1
J
P87-2 • (Mt_n ~
* eXISTINS PIEZOMETER D3I-«A 33^ goRlN* INSTALLED

V
• BY 080 IN SEPTEMBER, 1888
• nONITORIM WELL INSTALLED •»«)
MO7-2 BY WESTERN HATER CONSULTANTS **""» CONCENTRATION IN fROUKO MATER (PPTO
DSimr-7
j^oao^N^swTEweRy^iaaa SO*"** ""* ISOCONCENTMTION CONTOUR CAPWOXJ
SCALE, I'.IOO'
Figure 1. Concentration Contour Map for Volatile Halogenated Organics (VHO) - Dow/DSI Facility

A
WEPA


r^"/y ^990; w


U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
113
                                    TIO3.WP6\0211-04.stf

-------
                                                          Mystery Bridge at Hwy 20 Superfund Site
                             MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Costs or Performance (Cont.)

Table 1 includes technical aquifer information.

                              Table 1.  Technical Aquifer Information
Unit Name
Alluvial Aquifer
Thickness
(ft)
14.5-81
Conductivity
(ft/day)
340
Average Velocity
(ft/day)
2.12
Flow 1
Direction 1
Northeast |
Source: [1]
                          TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology

Pump and treat with air stripping

System Description and Operation
Supplemental Treatment Technology
None
                                 Table 2. Extraction Well Data
Well Name
XW93-1
XW93-2
XW93-3
Unit Name
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
Depth (ft)
40 - 45
40 - 45
40 - 45
Yield
(gal/min)
25
50
25
Source: [2]

System Description
•   The remedial approach at this site was to
    actively treat the on-site groundwater plume
    using pump and treat with air stripping, and
    to allow natural attenuation to reduce
    contaminant levels in the off-site portion of
    the plume to levels below MCLs [3].

•   The extraction system  consists of three
    wells placed along the  eastern boundary of
    the Dow/DSI facility. Each well was
    designed to produce a  minimum of 100
    gpm. Based on groundwater modeling with
    Quikflow™, it was determined that a
    combined pump rate of 100 gpm would be
    sufficient to maintain hydraulic control over
    the plume, and not interfere with the  pump
    and treat system at the nearby KN Energy
    facility.  Each well was completed to
    bedrock and screened  over the entire
    saturated zone [3].
   An infiltration gallery is used to reinject the
   treated groundwater. A design goal of the
   infiltration gallery was to minimize
   mounding at the point of infiltration. A site
   plan is included as Figure 2. The infiltration
   trench is 150 feet long, 4 feet wide, and 10
   feet deep, for a total of 600 square feet of
   surface area. The trench has an infiltration
   capacity of 280 gpm. The bottom 5 feet is
   filled with washed gravel  over a slotted PVC
   pipe.  Another trench was constructed as a
   backup for when  cleaning activities would
   shut down the primary trench [3].

   A particle trace test determined that the
   travel time between the infiltration gallery
   and the extraction wells was from 70 to 320
   days. Based on this information, it was
   determined that approximately five pore
   volumes of water should  be flushed through
   the center of the plume each year. Using
      EPA
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                   Technology Innovation Office
                                             114
                                                                            TIO3.WP6\0211-04.Stf

-------

TREATMENT; SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.) |

— : __ .' 	 ; 	 '" •
.
1 W'%f/'s%tf'
^/^/y% 0™k
1 xV^VVVVl 0


k'////
1 \/&
1 >j. MW87-5 . •VV'
\ V>V
STORAGE
. BUILDING
1
1
1
' P87-4
1
1
1
1
I /—EXISTING BURIED
1 / WATER LINE
. /

1 177511^—- T 	 TREATMENT
§3 ,43 vy ' — i BUILDING
1 J3S'!*-1 0 ^
• i i ^uu
1 \
i i \
: i \
11 _ i ' — AIR STRIPPING COLUM
. i , t ! MW-2
0-i
1 | \


\ j
1 TzZZZZ'
\ %
| •PIEZOMETER. CTYP)
'/S/Ss
/VS// BUILDING ,
L___
— . . 	

A
^g^H
^fi^EPA
---____ 	
DSIMW-5 <|> ~~~ " 	 	 • 	 	
' MW87-8 EXTRACTION WELL *3-> |~~j
OBULK C- 
-Aj.MWB?-* J^| EXTRACTION WELL $\ -1
^"UTIUTT TRENCH
1-3 WIRE CONDUCTORS W/ GROUND
(AS REQUIRED BY PUMP
MANUFACTURER. MIN. f6)

>. MWB7-2
H^ g
s
g DSIMW-7 .
i <>
•ALLERY § GROUND-WATER
MONITORING
WELL. (TYP)
P87-2



~J
[
JL j
\
i
^®|o^ ' I
O 60 Ft. I
	 . __ I i I 1
— - 	 . . 	 	 SCALE
Figure 2. Site Plan
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
115
                                     TIO3.WP6\0211-04.stf

-------
                                                           Mystery Bridge at Hwy 20 Superfund Site
                      TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
 System Description and Operation fCont.)
    retardation factors that range from 1.2 to
    2.6, the site engineer estimated that TCE
    would be flushed through the system in a
    maximum of 0.5 to 1.5 years [3].

•   The air stripper designed for this site has a
    column diameter of 2.5 feet, a packing
    height of 30 feet, and a maximum water
    loading rate of 150 gpm.

•   Some design considerations were made
    based on shared experience with operating
    a pump and treat system at the KN Energy
    facility. For instance, the design called for a
    stripping column that would allow for rapid
    and easy removal, cleaning, and
    replacement of the stripping media. It was
    known, from the KN Energy system, that
    certain chemical species are likely to
    precipitate in the tower, fostering biological
    growth on the stripping media. As a result,
    the design specified that a chemical
    treatment system be included to add
    chelating agent for iron and manganese to
    inhibit such growth [3].

•   Groundwater contamination and water
    levels are monitored in a network of 30
    wells, placed both on and off site. All 30
    wells are sampled quarterly for the seven
    primary contaminants of concern. Five
    wells, located off site along the Burlington
    Northern right-of-way and on a neighboring
    industrial property are monitored eight times
    per year for the seven primary contaminants
    of concern [4].

System Operation
•   Remedial construction was completed on
    June 24,1994; however, portions of the
    system were operating on a nearly
    continuous basis starting from March 28,
    1994 [5].
 Quantity of groundwater pumped from
 aquifer in gallons by year [5]:
     Year
     1994

     1995
     1996
     1997
 Total Volume
 through 1997
 Volume Pumped (gal)
36,309,200 (missing data
      for 11/94)
      53,808,900
      55,472,300
      47,167,600
     192,758,000
The system has operated continuously from
June 1994 to May 1998. The most
persistent problems have been corrosion in
the extraction wells and piping. All three
extraction pumps have been taken out of
service and cleaned. The reinjection pump
also has been taken out of service for
repairs.  None of these events has led to a
system shutdown or a loss of hydraulic
control on the contaminant plume [5].

Air stripping media has never been
changed or cleaned.  Annual inspections
have revealed some build up of iron oxide,
but not enough to require media cleaning or
replacement.

It was originally anticipated that cleanup of
the site would take approximately six years.
At this time, the downgradient portion of the
plume appears to be ahead of schedule,
i.e., it has achieved or is approaching the
performance standards. The upgradient
portion of the plume has not achieved the
performance standards.
      EPA
        U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                Technology Innovation Office
                                             116
                                                                             TIO3.WP6\0211-04.stf

-------
                                                       Mystery Bridge at Hwy 20 Superfund Site
                    TREATMENT; SivsfTEM DESCRIPTION (.CONT.)
Ooeratina Parameters Affectina Treatment Cost or Performance
Table 3 presents operating parameters affecting cost or performance.

                             Table 3. Performance Parameters
^ffe 'i'i liPairl'nieier : ;
•- Jtm-ifiSi? *r?»v ^.-..,:,-,^ zm -**/.,• •£
Average Pump Rate
Performance Standard
(M9/L)
Remedial Goal
TCE
PCE
trans-DCE
c/s-DCE
1J-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
•- %^te~t®.-.M>M -H^riiite/ IP^
103gpm
Remedial Goals
(M9/D
5
5
100
70
7
200
Note: Average pump rate was calculated as the average of
monthly flow rates.
                Source: [4]
Timeline
Tale 4 presents a timeline for this remedial project.

                                 Table 4. Project Timeline
' 'stfftbate
09/90
3/92
8/93
_.
6/94
End Data '
—
6/93
3/94
6/94
ongoing
" J ~, »., > ^ -» lv '? Ac«vltr>* -Z. ^ , 7'' " \v *,*••-*
Record of Decision for OU1 signed by EPA
Remedial design completed
Remedial construction begun
Remedial construction complete
Groundwater treatment operational
Source: [1,2, 3,5]
SS^EPA
       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
              Technology Innovation Office
                                           117
                                                                         TIO3.WP6\0211-04.Stf

-------
                                                          Mystery Bridge at Hwy 20 Superfund Site
                         TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards
The goal of this remedy is to reduce the level of
contaminants in the on-site upgradient portion
of the groundwater plume to below MCLs, as
shown in Table 3, such that the remainder of
the plume off site meets MCLs through natural
attenuation within a reasonable time limit [3].
Treatment Performance Goals
Additional Information on Goals

The upgradient portion of the plume was
defined as the on-site plume; the downgradient
portion of the plume was defined as the off-site
plume. Extensive groundwater modeling was
used to determine that the cleanup time needed
to achieve MCLs in the downgradient portion of
the plume would be 6 to 14 years [3].
The treatment system was designed to reduce contaminant levels in the influent to below MCLs for
reinjection of the treated groundwater [3].

Performance Data Assessment F5.7.81	        	
For this report, total contaminants include TCE,
PCE, 1,1,1-TCA, trans-, and cis-1,1-DCE.

•   Contaminant concentrations in all wells
    have declined significantly, yet remain
    above MCLs.

•   Figure 3 presents the total contaminant
    concentrations from January  1993 to July
    1997 in the wells located closest to the
    source area. From their initial levels,
    ranging from 20 ug/L to 70 ug/L,
    concentrations of all contaminants fell
    below their respective MCLs in three of four
    source area wells in the last two sampling
    events in 1996. In the fourth well, DSIMW-
    3, total contaminant concentration was 9.4
    ug/L. Over time, concentrations of total
    contaminants have declined in a cyclical
    pattern, with concentrations spiking
    periodically, and then falling to levels
    gradually lower than in previous sampling
    events.

•   Figure 4 presents concentrations of total
    contaminants detected in wells located near
    the site boundary, and at the edge of the
    extraction system capture zone,
    approximately mid-plume. During the
    October 1996 sampling event,
    concentrations of all contaminants were
    below their respective MCLs in two of four
   wells and had been at or below their
    respective  MCLs in three of the last four
    sampling events.  In the remaining two wells
    (DSIMW-4 and MKMW-1), which are both
    located near the plume centerline, total
    contaminant concentrations had declined by
    at least 62 percent from their initial levels,
    and were measured at 14 ug/L and 9.8
    ug/L, respectively.

    Figure 5 shows total contaminant
    concentrations for the wells located in the
    downgradient portion of the plume, and
    which are beyond the hydraulic capture
    zone of the extraction system.  These wells
    are installed in the downgradient portion of
    the plume, where, according to the ROD,
    natural attenuation should be acting to
    reduce contaminant levels. Total
    contaminant concentrations have declined
    in all wells. The sharpest declines were
    seen in wells EPA1-7 and EPA2-15, located
    approximately  225 feet downgradient of the
    site boundary.  Total contaminant
    concentrations declined 72% and 86%,
    respectively in  these two wells over the
    period from March 1993 to December 1996.
    Nonetheless, individual contaminants in
    EPA1-7 remain significantly above their
    respective MCLs, indicating that
    contaminants may be migrating past this
    point. However, concentrations in the wells
    directly downgradient of EPA1-7 have
    remained below MCLs since January 1995,
    suggesting that sufficient natural attenuation
    is occurring between the two wells [7].
      EPA
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                   Technology Innovation Office
                                             118
                                                                             TIO3.WP6\0211-04.stf

-------
                                                       Mystery Bridge at Hwy 20 Superfund Site
                   TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (GONT.)
   1*

   .o
   ^5

   1
   o
   u
   o
   O
                                                                   CD   CD   Is"   Is-   Is-
                                                                   O>   O5   C?   O5   CJ
                                                               ^-   •=:   -i   c   >!••=:
                                                               0-^0   TO   Q-   =
                                                               <   ~   O   -»   <   ^
                    .MW87-4 _«_DSIMW-3   .  MW87-7
                                                                .MW87-8
                  F/gure 3. Tote/ VOC Concentrations in Source Area Wells [5]
   o>
   o

   1
   4^
   a>
   u
   o
   O
20
      10
       Aug-93   Mar-94   Sep-94   Apr-95   Oct-95   May-96   Dec-96   Jun-97    Jan-98
                          . DSIMW-4
                                . DSIMW-6
. DSIMW-7
-MKMW-1
                   Figure 4.  Total VOC Concentration in Mid-Plume Wells 1 [5]


Discontinuous lines indicate that the well was not sampled on that date
      EPA
                                                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                              Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                                            Technology Innovation Office
                                           119
                                                                         TIO3.WP6\0211-04.stf

-------
          CD
                                                         Mystery Bridge at Hwy 20 Stipe/fund Site
                   TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (COJNTJ)
^
3
—S
*
o
CO
O.
<
3
—3
•5
O
ro
—a
Q.
<
3
—)
i>
o
c
CO
— s
_^_EPA1-6 _._EPA1-7 _^_EPA2-10 ^_
O.
<
=»
-3
.EPA2-15
O
O
                                                                                 c
                                                                                 CO
              Figure 5. Total VOC Concentrations in Off-Site Downgradient Wells 1 [5]

1Discontinuous lines indicate that the well was not sampled on that date
Performance Data Assessment (Cont.)
    Monthly reports on the treatment system
    performance indicate that the treatment
    system has consistently reduced influent
    concentrations to levels below detection
    limits.

    Figure 6 reflects on the performance of the
    treatment system in removing volatile
    compounds in the influent stream.  Figure 5
    presents the cumulative mass removed and
    the mass per day removed in each of the
    three extraction wells from May 1994
    through December 1996. Mass flux through
    the system, as measured by pounds of
    contaminant removed per day, has been
    unusually low for this type of site, and
    varied  from 0.0088E-4 ibs/day to 0.03E-2
    Ibs/day. Since the beginning of system
    operations, the efficiency rate has remained
    close to 0.0073E-3 Ibs/day. However,
    during  the final quarter of 1995, this rate
    increased sharply. This increase follows a
    sharp increase in contaminant
                                       concentrations in many of the monitoring
                                       wells during the previous quarter.

                                       In three years of operation, the treatment
                                       system has removed less than 21  pounds of
                                       contaminants from the groundwater.
                                       Moreover, mass flux rates through the
                                       system are very low, reflecting the relatively
                                       low concentrations in the influent [5].
      EPA
                                               U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
                                        Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                                       Technology Innovation Office
                                            120
                                                                            TIO3.WP6\0211-04.stf

-------
                                                        Mystery Bridge at Hwy 20 Superfund Site
                   TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Completeness
•  Quarterly data are available for
   concentrations of contaminants in the on-
   site groundwater from 27 monitoring wells
   and three extraction wells in monthly
   reports, and in spreadsheets delivered to
   the EPA RPM between reports. Twice-
   quarterly data are available for
   concentrations of contaminants in the off-
   site groundwater from five monitoring wells.

Performance Data Quality	
Monthly data are available for the volume of
groundwater treated by the system (missing
November 1994).

All available data were used in Figures 3
through 6.
The QA/QC program used throughout the remedial action met the EPA and the State of Wyoming
requirements.  All monitoring is performed using EPA Method SW 8020, and the vendor did not note any
exceptions to the QA/QC protocols [4].
  w   1.00E-02
      5.00E-03 ;
     O.OOE+00
            4/14/94  10/12/94  1/12/95   10/24/95  1/15/96   4/16/96   7/8/96   10/15/96
                    .XW93-1  ,  XW93-2  A  XW93-3   x  Cumulative Removal (Ibs)
                    Figure 6. Mass Flux and Cumulative VOC Removal [5]
     EPA
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
               Technology Innovation Office
                                           121
                                                                          TIO3.WP6\0211-04.stf

-------
                                                         Mystery Bridge at Hwy 20 Superfund Site
                              TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process
The PRP, Dow/DSI, contracted with Western Water Consultants, Inc. for engineering, design and
oversight services at the facility.

Cost Analysis                                                                        _

•  All costs for investigation, design, construction and operation of the treatment system at the site
   were borne by Dow/DSI.
Capital CostsJ6L
                Operating Costs F61
 Remedial Construction
$305,352
May 1994 through December
1987
$612,622
                                                  Other Costs F61
                                                   Remedial Design
                                                 $257,692
Cost Data Quality
Actual costs for this site are available from the PRP.
                       OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
    Concentrations of contaminants in the on-
    site portion of the plume have been
    reduced, largely to levels below their
    respective MCLs. The one exception is well
    DSIMW-3, where concentration levels
    remain above MCLs.

    Source removal activities were performed in
    1988. With the source areas controlled,
    initial contaminant groundwater
    concentrations were relatively low and
    progress towards remedial goals has been
    realized by the date of this report.

    The total cost for groundwater remediation
    at this site through October 1997 was
    $918,000 ($305,000 in capital costs and
    $613,000 in operating costs) which
    corresponds to a unit cost of $5.65 per
    1,000 gallons of groundwater treated and
    $44,000 per pound of contaminant
    removed.
                   Site engineers indicated that it is likely that
                   by the time the RI/F8 was performed,
                   further expansion of the plume had ceased.
                   Site engineers reached this conclusion after
                   taking into account the amount of time that
                   the source may have been active and the
                   relatively high mobility of chlorinated
                   solvents in an aquifer of this type. A
                   comparison of the plume geometries over
                   the period  1988 to 1990 showed a slowing
                   rate of growth. Based on this analysis, site
                   engineers concluded that the plume had
                   probably reached an equilibrium between
                   the rate of transport and the rate of
                   degradation by the time that the remedial
                   system was constructed [2].
      EPA
                           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                   Technology Innovation Office
                                            122
                                                                            TIO3.WP6\0211-04.stf

-------
                                                         Mystery Bridge at Hwy 20 Superfund Site
                                      REFERENCES
1.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
    Record of Decision: Mystery Bridge at
    Highway 20. September 24,1990.

2.  Obrien & Gere. RI/FS Report: Mystery
    Bridge Road/Highway 20 Site. Natrona
    County. Wyoming. June 1990.

3.  Western Water Consultants. Design Report
    for the Dow/DSI Ground-water Remediation
    System at the Brookhurst/Mystery Bridge
    Site.  February 1993.

4.  Western Water Consultants. Operation and
    Maintenance Plan for the Dow
    Chemical/Powell Schlumberger Remedial
    Design and Remedial Action at the
    Brookhurst/Mystery Bridge Site.  May 21,
    1993.
5.  Western Water Consultants. Monthly
   Progress Reports: August 1993 to April
   1997. Various dates.

6.  Correspondence with Brent Schindler, PRP
   Counsel, April 13,1998.

7.  Comments on draft report from Tom
   Mueller, Western Water Consultants,
   May 26, 1998.

8.  Comments on draft report from Dennis
   Jaramillo, EPA Region VIII May 20,1998.
Analysis Preparation
This case study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by Eastern Research
Group, Inc. and Tetra Tech EM Inc. under EPA Contract No. 68-W4-0004.
                                                            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                     Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                                              	Technology Innovation Office
                                            123
                                                                           TIO3.WP6\0211 -O4.stf

-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
              124

-------
  Groundwater Containment at
Site LF-12, Offutt AFB, Nebraska
             125

-------
                              Groundwater Containment at
                            Site LF-12, Offutt AFB, Nebraska
Site Name:
Site LF-12, Offutt AFB
Location:
Nebraska
Contaminants:
Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs)
- Levels of VOCs in soil vapor
included 18 ppm acetone, 0.077
ppm toluene, and 0.031 ppm xylene
- Contaminants in groundwater
included 500 ppb TCE, 16,000 ppb
DCE, 3.3 ppb chloroform, and
7 ppb bromodichloromethane
Period of Operation:
Not available; system was operating
in January 1997
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
Information not provided
Additional Contacts:
U.S. Air Force Air Combat
Command
Technology:
Hydrualic containment consists of
three recovery wells.  The system
operates at an average flow rate of
105 gpm. Groundwater is treated
with air stripping and effluent is
discharged to a local POTW.
Cleanup Authority:
Installation Restoration Program
Regulatory Point of Contact:
Information not provided
Waste Source: Disposal of refuse,
waste solvents, and sewage sludge.
Purpose/Significance of
Application: Containment of
groundwater using active pumping
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater - Quantity treated not provided.  Groundwater is
encountered between 9 and 18 feet below ground surface.
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Information on cleanup objectives was not included in this report.
Results:
Limited performance data are available for this application. The volume of contaminant removed as of January
1997 was 12.81 gallons. The average concentration of TCE in the extracted groundwater was 151 ppb.	
Cost:
The capital cost for the system was $540,000. The O&M costs average $20,000 per year. Monthly O&M data
were not provided.	
                                               126

-------
                               Groundwater Containment at
                     Site LF-12, Offutt AFB, Nebraska (continued)
Description:
Site LF-12 is located at Landfill 4 at Offutt AFB in Nebraska. An estimated 40,000 cubic yards of refuse, waste
solvents, and sewage sludge were disposed at Landfill 4, resulting in contamination of soil and groundwater at the
site.  Low levels of VOCs, including acetone, toluene, and xylene, were detected in the soil vapor. TCE (500
ppb), DCE (16,000 ppb), chloroform (3.3 ppb), and bromodichloromethane (7 ppb) were detected in the
groundwater.

A hydraulic containment system was installed at the site, and was operating as of January 1997. Information on
the start date for the system was not provided. The system consists of three recovery wells, and operates at an
average flow rate of 105 gpm. Groundwater is treated with air stripping and effluent is discharged to a local
POTW. Only limited cost and performance data are available for this application. The volume of contaminant
removed as of January 1997 was 12.81 gallons. The average concentration of TCE hi extracted groundwater was
151 ppb.

The capital cost for the system was $540,000, including design, labor, equipment, materials, and startup. O&M
costs average $20,000 per year and include electrical, monitoring, equipment and materials, and operations. No
data on actual monthly O&M costs were provided.	
                                               127

-------
Groundwater  Containment at
SiteLF-12,  Offutt AFB
 Site Background
This section focuses on the groundwater
containment system located at Site LF-12 at
Off utt AFB. Site LF-12 is located at Landfill 4 at
Offutt AFB. A site map for LF-12 is included as
Figure 47.


Contaminants in Soil

•  An estimated 40,000 cubic yards of refuse,
   waste solvents, and sewage sludge were
   disposed of at the Landfill 4 (LF-12) before
   being covered.

•  Low levels of VOCs present in the soil vapor
   (up to 18 ppm acetone, 0.077 ppm of
   toluene and 0.031 ppm of xylene).

Contaminants in Groundwater

•  TCE, DCE, chloroform, and
   bromodichloromethane was detected in
   groundwater at concentrations of 500 ppb,
   16,000 ppb, 3.3 ppb, and 7 ppb,
   respectively.

Lithology

•  Landfill 4 (Site LF-12) is situated on an
   alluvial terrace. The fill overlies a 70 to
   80 feet thick alluvial deposit. A 1 to 2 foot
   layer of clay lies on top of the alluvium,
   below the fill, which retards vertical migration
   of water. The alluvium rests on 5 to 10 feet
   of glacial till. Pennsylvania bedrock
   (limestone and shale) exists at 80 to 95 feet
   bgs.

•  Depth to groundwater is 9 to 18 feet bgs.

Groundwater Containment System Details

•  Hydraulic containment consists of three
   recovery wells (HF2C-PW1, LF4-PW3, and
   LF4-PW4).

•  The system operates at an average
   groundwater flow rate 105 gpm.

•  Groundwater is treated with air stripping and
   effluent is discharged to local POTW.

Total Capital Costs

•  $540,000 (design, labor, equipment and
   materials, startup).

Total O&M Costs

•  O&M costs average $20,000/year (electrical,
   monitoring, equipment and materials,
   operations).
 Cost and Performance of Groundwater Containment at Site LF-12
The limited cost and performance data available
for Site LF-12 at Offutt AFB is provided below:

•  O&M costs average $20,000 per year.

•  The average concentration of extracted
   groundwater was 151 ppb of TCE.

•  The volume of contaminants removed as of
   January 1997 was 12.81 gallons.
                                        128

-------
                                                   <*k    \\  -^
Legend

 •   Hydropunch
 -$•   Monitoring Well
rrrTTj Estimated Extent of VOC
IVi'tVi Groundwater Contamination

Concentrations shown in pg/L
                                                LF4-HP5 \
§
«
i
§
Source: Woodward-Clyde (June 1993)
                                                                        Scale In Feet
    Figure 47. VOCs Detected in Groundwater at Landfill No. 4, Site LF-12, Offutt AFB


                                         129

-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
              130

-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
  the Old Mill Superfund Site, Rock Creek, Ohio
                     131

-------
                  Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
                    the Old Mill Superfund Site, Rock Creek, Ohio
Site Name:
Old Mill Superfund Site
(this site consists of two parcels of
land - the Henfield property and the
Kraus property)
Location:
Rock Creek, Ohio
Contaminants:
Chlorinated solvents
 and volatiles - nonhalogenated
- Maximum concentrations
detected in one plume (Henfield)
were TCE (6,100 ug/L), PCE (300
ug/L), trans-l,2-DCE (460 ug/LO,
and VC( 14 ug/L)
- Maximum concentrations
detected in other plume (Kraus)
were ethylbenzene (19,000 ug/L)
and xylenes (43,000 ug/L)
Period of Operation:
Status: Ongoing
Report covers: 9/89-7/97
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup (interim results)
Vendor:
Construction: Aptus Environmental
Services, Inc.
Coffeyville, KS 67337
Operation & Maintenance:
Omprakash Patel
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
3 Hawthorn Pkwy, Suite 400
Vernon Hills, IL 60061-1450
(847)918-4051
State Point of Contact:
Mike Eberle
Ohio EPA
(216)963-1126
Technology:
Pump and Treat
- Groundwater is extracted using 3
wells and 5 trenches at an average
total pumping rate of 3.1 gpm
- Extracted groundwater is treated
with air stripping and carbon
adsorption
- Treated groundwater is
discharged to a surface water under
a NPDES permit
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA Remedial
-RODDate: 8/7/85
                                 EPA Point of Contact:
                                 Ron Muraawski, RPM
                                 U.S. EPA Region 5
                                 77 W. Jackson Blvd.
                                 Chicago, IL 60604-3590
                                 (312)886-2940
Waste Source:
Illegal waste disposal
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Relatively high unit cost, due to
small quantity of groundwater
extracted and low groundwater
flow.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
-13 million gallons treated as of 1997
- Groundwater is found at 5 ft bgs
- Extraction wells are located in 2 aquifers
- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 0.22 to 1.25 ft/day
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Remedial goals were established for contaminants of concern that must be met throughout the site. These
  goals were based on achieving a carcinogenic risk level of 1 x 10'5, and consist of 1,2-DCE (1.9 ug/L), TCE
  (15 ug/L), PCE (8.2 ug/L), and ethylbenzene (8,000 ug/L).
- Treatment system performance standards were established to meet NPDES permit requirements.
- The system was required to contain the plume and prevent off-site migration of contaminants.  	
                                              132

-------
                  Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
             the Old Mill Superfund Site, Rock Creek, Ohio (continued)
Results:
- The 1997 annual sampling data indicate that the P&T system has contained the plume, but that contaminant
  concentrations in much of the plume remain above remedial goals. In addition, two hot spots remain
  problematic at this site, with TCE concentrations of 1,700 and 1,400 ug/L as of March 1997.
- The P&T system removed approximately 124 pounds of contaminants from 1990 to 1997.
- Treatment performance standards have been met consistently during this application.
Cost:
- Actual costs for the P&T system were approximately $3,236,000 ($1,596,000 in capital and $1,640,000 in
  O&M), which correspond to $250 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $26,100 per pound of
  contaminant removed.
- The actual capital cost was approximately 22% higher than the original bid cost, due to a need to add collection
  trenches.
Description:
The Old Mill Superfund site includes two parcels of land, the Henfield and Kraus properties. The site was used
for illegal disposal of drummed wastes for an undetermined number of years. In 1979, U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA
found approximately 1,200 drums of waste including oils, resins, and PCBs on the Old Mill site. Drum and soil
removal were completed in 1982 as a Superfund emergency removal action. Limited information is provided
about site investigation activities, however, data are presented showing VOCs in the groundwater based on 1984
sampling data.  The site was listed on the NPL in September 1983 and a ROD was signed in August 1985.

The P&T system has been designed to remediate plumes from both the Henfield and Kraus properties. The
system consists of three deep recovery wells and five collection trenches.  Extracted groundwater from both
plumes is treated in one treatment plant, which consists of an 18-inch diameter air stripping tower and a granular
activated carbon unit.  In 1989 and 1994, the collection system was modified by adding collection trenches at the
Kraus property needed to maintain containment.  After eight years of P&T operation, the cleanup goals for this
site have not been met. According to the RPM, the P&T system at this site does not appear to have the typical
effect on groundwater contamination. New contaminants have been identified after the initial investigation and
contaminant concentrations have increased at times during operations. The reasons for these events is not known
at this time.
                                               133

-------
                                                                        Old Mill Superfund Site
                                   SITE INFORMATION
Identifying Information
Treatment Application
Old Mill Superfund Site
Rock Creek, Ohio

CERCLIS#: OHD980510200

ROD Date: August 7,1985
Background
Type of Action:  Remedial

Period of operation:  September 1989 -
Ongoing
(Data collected through 1997)

Quantity of material treated during
application: 13 million gallons of groundwater
[9]
Historical Activity that Generated
Contamination at the Site:  Illegal waste
disposal

Corresponding SIC Code: NA

Waste Management Practice That
Contributed to Contamination: NA

Location: Rock Creek, Ohio

Facility Operations:  [4,11]
•  The Old Mill Superfund site includes two
   parcels of land, the Henfield property and
   the Kraus property. The Henfield property is
   approximately three acres in size, and the
   Kraus property is approximately 10 acres in
   size (see Figures 1 and 2).  The two  parcels
   are located across the road from each other,
   in a rural setting near the Village of Rock
   Creek, Ohio.  The site was used for illegal
   disposal of drummed wastes for an
   undetermined number of years.

•  In 1979, the U.S. EPA (EPA) and Ohio EPA
   (OEPA) found approximately 1,200 drums
   of waste including oils, resins, and PCBs on
   the Old Mill site.  Drum and soil removal
   was completed in November 1982 as a
   Superfund emergency removal activity.
   The source removal actions at the Old Mill
   site included removal of drums containing
   hazardous materials,  as well as excavation
   and off-site disposal of contaminated soil.
   Allowable Residual Contaminant (ARC)
   Criteria, or cleanup levels, were calculated
   to determine the concentrations of
   contaminants that could remain in the soil.
    No other contaminant sources, underground
    or above ground, were identified at the site.

•   The site was listed on the National Priorities
    List (NPL) in September 1983.

•   The Remedial Investigation (RI)/Feasibility
    Study (FS) was completed in 1984. An
    addendum to the Rl was completed in 1985.

Regulatory Context:
•   Site activities are conducted under
    provisions of the Comprehensive
    Environmental Response, Compensation,
    and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as
    amended by the Superfund Amendments
    and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986,
    §121, and the National Contingency Plan
    (NCP), 40 CFR 300 [4].

•   On August 7,1985, the EPA issued a
    Record of  Decision (ROD).

Remedy Selection:
    Extraction of groundwater and treatment via
    carbon filtration was selected as the remedy
    for contaminated groundwater at this site.
    Effluent is discharged to a local waterway.
    An air stripper and collection trench were
    added to the remedy during remedial
    design [4].
      EPA
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
   	Technology Innovation Office
                                            134
                                                                            TIO3.WP6\0327-01.stf

-------
                                                                       Old Mill Superfund Site
                              SHE, INFORMATION (CONT.)
Site Logistics/Contacts
Site Lead:  EPA

Remedial Project Manager:
Ron Murawski*
U.S. EPA Region 5
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
(312)886-2940

State Contact:
Mike Eberle
Ohio EPA
216-963-1126

Indicates primary contacts
Treatment System Vendor:
Aptus Environmental Services, Inc.
Coffeyville, KS 67337
(Construction Contractor)

Operations & Maintenance:
Omprakash Patel (Site Manager)*
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Suite 400
3 Hawthorn Parkway
Vernon Hills, IL 60061-1450
(847) 918-4051
                                 MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix identification
Type of Matrix Processed Through the
Treatment System:  Groundwater

Contaminant Characterization M.101
Primary Contaminant Groups: Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOCs)

•   Contaminants of concern at the site include
    TCE, PCE, frans-1,2-DCE, and VC.
    Phthalates also were detected at the site.
    However, since initial sampling, phthalate
    compounds have not been detected in
    groundwater.

•   Two separate plumes (depicted in Figures 1
    and 2) were identified at the site, one on the
    Kraus parcel and one on the Henfield
    parcel.  The two plumes are not
    commingled and are located over 1,000 feet
    apart. As originally detected, the Henfield
    plume primarily consisted of halogenated
    VOCs and the Kraus plume consisted of
    benzene and xylene.

•   The maximum contaminant concentrations
    detected on the Henfield parcel were TCE
    (6,100 ug/L), PCE (300 ug/L), trans-1,2-
    DCE  (460 ug/l_), and VC (14 ug/L).  The
      EPA
    maximum contaminant concentrations
    detected on the Kraus parcel were
    ethylbenzene (19,000 ug/L.) and xylenes
    (43,000 ug/L)- Halogenated compounds
    were not originally detected in the plume
    located on the Kraus parcel. However,
    during construction activities, TCE and
    frans-1,2-DCE were discovered in the soils
    and groundwater on the Kraus parcel, and
    continue to be the primary contaminants
    within that plume.

    The initial plume at the Henfield parcel
    extended 150 to 250 feet downgradient from
    the site. The areal extent of this plume was
    estimated during the remedial investigation
    to be 130,000 square feet.  Based on a
    porosity of 30% and plume thickness of five
    feet, the volume of contaminated
    groundwater on the Henfield parcel was
    estimated for this report at 1.5 million
    gallons. Plume thickness was estimated
    based on the saturated thickness of the
    upper aquifer.

            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                   Technology Innovation Office
                                            135
                                                                           TIO3.WP6\0327-01 .stf

-------
                                                                          Old Mill Superfund Site
                              MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
fVtntamlnant Characterization fCont.)
    The plume at the Kraus parcel was initially
    estimated to be 110,000 square feet in areal
    extent during the remedial investigation.
    Based on a porosity of 30% and a plume
    thickness of five feet, the volume of
    contaminated groundwater at the Kraus
    parcel was estimated for this report at 1.2
    million gallons.
Figures 1 and 2 depict total VOC
contaminant contours for the Old Mill site
(as detected during 1984 sampling events).
Note the orientation of the figures for later
discussion of groundwater characteristics.
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Costs or Performance
Hydrogeology:  [1,3,10]
     Two distinct hydrogeologic units have been identified beneath this site. Groundwater moves
     across the site at a relatively slow rate of 20 feet per year. The first hydrogeologic
     characterization depicted the site as primarily two interconnected soil groups. However, later
     findings during characterization efforts in 1985 showed that the site was actually two separate
     aquifers with an aquitard in between.
     Groundwater is found at approximately five feet below ground surface. The majority of the
     groundwater contamination is found in the upper unit.  Groundwater flow is to the west-southwest
     on the Henf ield property and to the north-northwest on the Kraus property. Rock Creek is located
     approximately 500 feet south of the site. Tables 1 and 2 include technical aquifer information and
     well data, respectively.
     Unit 1    Glacial till        The upper unit is approximately 10 feet thick and consists of silty
                               glacial till. The aquifer is considered poor quality for domestic well
                               supply.  This unit is separated from the underlying shale unit by a low
                               conductivity layer of a clayey till that acts as an effective aquitard.
                               The clayey till is approximately five feet thick.

     Unit 2   Weathered       This lower unit is approximately 16 feet thick and consists of a
              Shale            weathered shale with evident vertical fractures. The porosity of this
                               unit decreases with depth.
Thickness
Unit Name (ft)
Glacial Till
(Henfield)
Weathered Shale
(Henfield)
Glacial Till (Kraus)
Weathered Shale
10

16

10
16
Conductivity
(ft/dav)
1.25

0.22

1.25
0.22
Average Velocity
(ft/dav) Flow Direction
0.055

NA

0.055
NA
West-Southwest

West

North-Northwest
North-Northwest
 Source:  [10]
 NA - not available
       EPA
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                 Technology Innovation Office
                                              136
                         TIO3.WP6\0327-01 .stf

-------
                                                                       Old Mill Superfund Site
                          MATRIX PESCRIPTION (CONT.)
                                                                          PENN CENTRAL
                                                                            PROPERTY
fej MARSHY AREA


@ STOCKPILES OF RAILROAD BALLAST

 •  GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS


 '  CONCENTRATION ISOPLETH (ufl/1)


 A- ONLY ACETONE DETECTED


 NOTE: «AMX- MIOW METHOD DETECTION 1UMI
                  IN
                                 400
                   700
               SCALE IN FEET

     (PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE)
       Figure 1. Total VOC Concentration Contour Map of the Kraus Property (1984) [1]
  EPA
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
	Technology Innovation Office
                                          137
                                                                          TIO3.WP6\0327-01.Stf

-------
                                                                      Old Mill Superfund Site
                          MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
NOTE: »WD<.-»aOW METHOD DETECTION UMtT
 •  EXISTING GROUNOWATER MONITORING WEILS

 /  CONCENTRATION ISOPtETH (og/1)
 (5) NEW GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS
                N
       0	^         170
                 60
              SOME IN FEET
(PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE)
      Figure 2. Total VOC Concentration Contour Map of the Henfield Property (1984) [1]
  EPA
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                Technology Innovation Office
                                          138
                        TI03.WP6\0327-01.Stf

-------
                                                                          Old Mill Superfund Site
                           TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
 Primary Treatment Technology

 Pump and treat (P&T) with air stripping

 System Description and Operation
Supplemental Treatment Technoloav
Carbon adsorption, particulate filters
                                  Table 2.  Technical Well Data
Extraction
Well Name
Martin Sump*
Henfield Sump
Kraus Sump-1
Kraus Mod-2
Kraus A-Sump
Henfield Well
Kraus Well-1
Kraus Well-2
The Martin Sump is
Unit Name
Glacial Till
Glacial Till
Glacial Till
Glacial Till
Glacial till
Lower Aquifer
Lower Aquifer
Lower Aquifer
located off site adjacent to the
Death (ft)
7
7 .
7
7
7
25
25
25
Henfield property in
Design Yield (god)
1,000
1,175
1,000
900
140
700
215
100
the downgradient part of the plume.
System Description [3]

•   The P&T system has been designed to
    remediate plumes from both parcels. The
    current extraction system for both plumes
    consists of three deep recovery wells to
    extract groundwater from the lower unit
    (lower aquifer) and five collection trenches
    to collect groundwater from the upper unit
    (glacial till). The collection trenches are
    seven feet deep and total 1,055 feet in
    linear length. The deep recovery wells are
    approximately 25 feet deep with a 10-foot
    screen interval set at the bottom.  The
    extraction system was designed to remove
    a total of five gpm from the aquifer. The
    deep recovery wells were placed in the
    center of the plumes and the collection
    trenches at the toe of the plumes.  Extracted
    water from both plumes is treated in one
    treatment plant.

•   The part of the extraction system on the
    Kraus property required several
    modifications. The original extraction
    system consisted of two deep extraction
    wells and one collection trench. During
    construction, a new  area of VOC-
    contaminated groundwater was discovered.
    Construction temporarily stopped while  a
      EPA
   revised design was configured.  Once
   approved by EPA, a second collection
   trench was constructed approximately 200
   feet downgradient of the first. This
   collection trench is 73 feet long and was
   placed to capture the newly detected
   groundwater contaminants.

   In 1993, the plume of TCE and 1,2-DCE on
   the Kraus property was observed
   downgradient of the second collection
   trench. As a result, a third collection trench
   was constructed on the Kraus property, and
   placed approximately 250 feet downgradient
   of the second trench.  It is over 360 feet
   long and is situated to completely intercept
   the migrating plume. Two new monitoring
   wells were added to monitor groundwater
   downgradient of the third collection trench.

   During design of the treatment plant, a
   recycle line was incorporated to boost
   process flow from 5 gpm to 35 gpm through
   the stripping tower.  This change allowed for
   more efficient blower sizing and stripping
   media selection.

   The initial, on-site treatment system
   consists of an 18-inch diameter air-stripping
   tower and two 1,000-pound granular


           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
   Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
  	Technology Innovation Office
                                             139
                                                                             TIO3.WP6\0327-01 .stf

-------
                                                                         Old Mill Superfund Site
                      TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CoNT.);
        Description and Operation (ConU
   activated carbon adsorption units in series.
   In March, 1997, the two carbon units were
   replaced by one 1,000-pound, granular
   activated carbon unit. Polypropylene
   saddle-type packing media are used in the
   stripping tower with a packing height of 14
   feet.

•  A groundwater monitoring system consisting
   of 18 wells on the Kraus property (including
   the two new wells), eight wells on the
   Henfield property,  and eight total
   piezometers on both properties is used to
   track contaminant  movement and
   groundwater flow.

•  Effluent from the treatment system is
   discharged to Rock Creek under a NPDES
   permit. Rock Creek is located 500 feet
   south of the site.

System Operation [5-9,11]
•  Quantity of groundwater pumped from
   aquifer by year:
    Year

    1990

    1991

    1992

    1993

    1994

    1995

    1996

    1997
  Volume Pumped (gal)

Upper Unit       Lower Unit

 1,377,424

 1,793,060

 1,186,225

 1,756,546

 1,235,491

 1,019,864
 1,455,491

 1,849,201
495,777

404,081

269,540

294,605

327,780

274,777

277,132

407,829
The extraction network continues to extract
groundwater from both the deep and
shallow aquifers at a. 20:80 ratio.  Overall,
groundwater extraction rates declined
slightly during the first seven years of
operation, then increased by 30 percent in
the eighth year.

The treatment train includes carbon filtration
to remove any organic compounds, such as
phthalates, that may remain in the effluent
from the air stripper. The operating history
of the treatment plant indicates that very
little, if any, material enters the carbon
treatment unit. As reported in each Annual
Performance Report, the activated carbon
may be under-utilized. A new carbon
adsorption tank was installed in March 1997,
replacing two existing tanks.  No other
carbon changes have occurred during the
life of the system.

The extraction network on both properties
has worked well with no reported clogging
problems. Pumps within wet wells
associated with the collection trenches have
reportedly worked properly.

From March 1990 to September 1997, the
system was 99% operational.

Air stripper media has not required changing
during this period of operation.

Following the replacement of the old carbon
units with a new carbon unit, the
groundwater extraction rate increased
significantly.
       EPA
                                                  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                          Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                                         Technology Innovation Office
                                              140
                                                                 TIO3.WP6\0327-01.Stf

-------
                     TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
                                                                      Old Mill Superfund Site
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
The major operating parameter affecting cost or performance for this technology is the extraction rate.
Table 3 presents the value measured for this and other performance parameters.

                              Table 3.  Performance Parameters
^^•^M^njj^Ny, . ('
Extraction Rate
Performance Standard (Effluent
NPDES Limits)
Remedial Goals
(Aquifer)
•< -s^ -' i- * •' «*<«- .- , **• ^
^ --^varue... -v , - -
Avg. = 3.1 gpm (2.46 - 4.18)
PCE 4.1 ug/L
TCE 1.9 ug/L
TCA 3.8 ug/L
frans-1,2-DCE 1.6 ug/L
PCE 8.2 ug/L
TCE 15.0 ug/L
1,2-DCE 1.9 ug/L
ethylbenzene 8,000 ug/L
Note: The average system extraction rate was 4,500 gpd based on 13
million gallons of groundwater pumped and a 99% operation rate.
              Source: [3]
Timeline
Table 4 presents a timeline for this application.
                                     Table 4.  Timeline
Start Date
8/85
2/87
6/87
3/89
9/89
4/94
EpdOate ,
—
—
6/89
6/89
—
7/94
~r- -^ mss? *%?s ™ ? -^-^ /^/ \^ ^ ** t® ? *
I A£i*T^iX**lr ^^
(^r -A^ x x x1^^^ ACHyKy ^t^" g^r- "^ , \. tsf* ^ t * \
ROD signed
Changes made to the remedial design
Extraction and collection system constructed, and contaminated soils removed
Additional collection trench and deep extraction well added to Kraus collection system based on
field sampling conditions during soils removal operations
Treatment system operations begun
Additional collection trench and monitoring wells added to the Kraus property
                         TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards
Specific cleanup criteria were established during
the design phase by OEPA and EPA personnel.
Table 3 includes goals for contaminants of
concern. These goals must be met throughout
the aquifer as measured in all on-site wells [4].
Additional Information on Goals

The cleanup goals for groundwater remediation
at this site were based on achieving a 1 x 10"5
carcinogenic risk level [4].
      EPA
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                  Technology Innovation Office
                                           141
                                                                         TIO3.WP6\0327-01 .Stf

-------
                                                                        Old Mill Superfund Site
                    TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Treatment Performance Goals f31
•   To contain the contaminant plume and
    prevent off-site migration of contaminants.

Performance Data Assessment F5-131	
To reduce effluent contaminant
concentrations to meet NPDES permit
requirements.
    The 1997 annual sampling data indicate that
    the P&T system has contained the plume;
    however, contaminant concentrations in
    much of the plume remain above
    established goals.  Although additional
    collection trenches were required at the
    Kraus property, no contaminants have
    migrated off site.  [9]

    After eight years of operation, levels of TCE
    and frans-1,2-DCE still exceed cleanup
    goals.  Figures 3 and 4 show concentrations
    of TCE and 1,2-DCE in  on-site sampling
    points on the Henfield Property. Figures 5
    and 6 depict TCE and 1,2-DCE
    concentrations detected on the Kraus
    property. Concentrations in  Figure 6 are an
    average of two wells in the deep aquifer.

    The 1993 annual performance report
    indicated that the plume of contaminants in
    the shallow aquifer had  migrated past the
    second collection trench.  As a result, an
    additional collection trench was added and
    appears to be  providing adequate
    containment.  No contaminants have
    migrated off site.

    The Henfield plume has been contained
    with the original collection trench and deep
    extraction well configuration. No
    contaminants  have migrated downgradient
    of the Henfield site.

    Two hot spots in the vicinity of the Henfield
    sump and Kraus modified sump remain
    problematic at this site. As of March 1997,
    TCE concentrations in the Kraus modified
    sump and the  Henfield sump were 1,400
    ug/L and 1,700 ug/L, respectively.
The maximum concentrations of
contaminants in the groundwater during the
July 1997 sampling event were TCE (1,700
ug/L), frans-1,2-DCE (730 ug/L), and PCE
(93 ug/L).

Figure 7 presents the removal of total
contaminants through the treatment system
from 1990 to 1997.  The P&T system
removed approximately 124 pounds of
contaminant mass during this period.

Due to increased concentrations of TCE and
1,1-DCE in the influent and increased flow
through the treatment plant, the VOC mass
loading to the treatment plant has increased
in 1997.

Groundwater level contour maps in annual
reports indicate the deep extraction wells
are creating an inward gradient over the
affected areas. The collection trenches are
also creating an inward gradient in their
vicinity.  Groundwater that naturally flows
toward the trenches is collected.

As noted earlier, the second goal of the
treatment system is to remove
contaminants from extracted groundwater to
meet discharge requirements of the NPDES
permit. Based on annual performance
reports, discharge requirements have been
met consistently. Phthalate compounds,
which may require carbon treatment, have
not been detected in influent or effluent
sampling.

Total contaminant removal rates reported in
annual performance reports have fluctuated;
however, the trend of the contaminant
removal rate has declined exponentially
from 0.08 Ibs/day in July 1991 to 0.01
Ibs/day in September 1996. However, the
contaminant removal rate increased to 0.04
Ibs/day in 1997.
      EPA
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                Technology Innovation Office
                                             142
                                                                            TIO3.WP6\0327-01.stf

-------
                                                                     Old Mill Superfund Site
                  TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
§
c
o
U
   2000
   1500
   1000
    500
      May-90
Sep-91
Jan-93
Jun-94
Oct-95
                                    Mar-97
                                    Jul-98
                        -TCE in Henfield well
                             -1,2-DCE in Henfield well
     Figure 3. TCE and 1,2-DCE Concentrations on the Henfield Property (Deep Aquifer)
                          (July 1991 - October 1996) [6-9,12]
     3500
     3000
     2500

  I
  •f  2000


  I
  c  1500
     1000
      500
       May-90
  Sep-91
  Jan-93
              Jun-94
                          Oct-95
                                      Mar-97
                                                   Jul-98
                  -TCE in Kraus modified sump
                               •1,2-DCE in Kraus modified sump
       Figure 4. TCE and 1,2-DCE Concentrations on the Kraus Property (Shallow Aquifer)
                              (July 1991 - July 1997) [6-9,12]
    EPA
                                         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                                Technology Innovation Office
                                         143
                                                                         TIO3.WP6\0327-01.stf

-------
                                                                    Old Mill Superfund Site
                  TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONTJ)
   5000
u
                 Sep-91
Jan-93
Jun-94
Oct-95
                                                                Mar-97
                                               Jul-98
                      -TCE in Henfield Sump —•—1,2-DCE in Henfield Sump
    Figure 5. TCE and 1,2-DCE Concentrations on the Henfield Property (Shallow Aquifer)
                            (July 1991 - July 1997) [6-9,12]
   1000
    800
•=•  600
    400
    200
                  Sep-91
                              Jan-93
            Jun-94
                                                     Oct-95
                                   Mar-97
                                                                            Jul-98
                          I —4—Average TCE —•—Average 1,2-DCE
       Figure 6.  TCE and 1,2-DCE Concentrations on the Kraus Property (Deep Aquifer)
                            (July 1991 - July 1997) [6-9,12]
    EPA
                            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                     Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                   Technology Innovation Office
                                         144
                                                                        TIO3.WP6\0327-01.Stf

-------
                                                                      Old Mil Superfund Site
                   TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
                                                                                 140
                                                                                 120
                                                                              N-100

                                                                                 0
        Dec-88    May-90    Sep-91    Jan-93    Jun-94    Oct-95    Mar-97    Jul-98
                                -Mass Flux —•— Mass Removed
        Figure 7. Mass Flux Rate and Cumulative Mass (TCE, 1,2-DCE, and PCE) Removal
                                  (1990 - 1997) [6-9,12]
Performance Data Comoleteness
•  Performance data for influent, effluent, and
   groundwater concentrations are available
   quarterly from 1990.

   Contaminant mass removal and the volume
   of groundwater treated annually was
   provided in annual performance reports.

•  Contaminant concentrations detected during
   annual sampling events were used for
   analyses performed in this report.

Performance  Data Qualitv
References 6 through 9 and 14 contain
annual sampling data.

When results were reported below detection
limits, half of the detection limit was used
for evaluation purposes.
The QA/QC program used throughout the remedial action met the EPA and the State of Ohio
requirements. All monitoring was performed using EPA-approved methods, and the vendor did not note
any exceptions to the QA/QC protocols.
                                                            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                                                   Technology Innovation Office
                                           145
                       TIO3.W P6X0327-01 .Stf

-------
                                                                         Old Mill Superfund Site
                                TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
 Procurement Process
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) was responsible for oversight during construction activities.
Woodward-Clyde was awarded the remedial design contract. The USAGE contracted with Aptus
Environmental to perform remedial action activities. Roy F. Weston is the operations and maintenance
contractor for the treatment facility.

.Cost Analysis

All costs for the investigation were borne by the U.S. EPA and OEPA.  The U.S. EPA is responsible for
O&M costs for the first 10 years, at which point the State of Ohio will assume responsibility.

Capital Costs F21	
  Remedial Construction

  Monitoring Wells, Sampling

  Backfilling and Paving

  Groundwater Extraction
  System

  Groundwater Treatment
  Facility

  Additional collection trench,
  monitoring wells (1994)

      Total Remedial
       Construction
  $138,000

  $474,000

  $537,200


  $345,100


  $101,700


$1,596,000
Operatina Costs \2]
Cumulative Ooeratina
Labor
Utilities
Analytical
Maintenance
Miscellaneous
Report Preparation
Total Operating
Expenses
Costs (1989-1 9961
$787,132
$93,230
$478,308
$22,568
$34,215
$224,547
$1,640,000
                                                  Other Costs
                                                   Remedial Design

                                                   Corps Oversight
                                                   $954,235

                                                    $49,968
Cost Data Quality
Actual capital and operating cost data were provided by the U.S. EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM),
including a detailed breakdown of the cumulative operating costs included in this report.
                        OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
    Collection trenches were added to improve
    plume containment. This modification
    resulted in an increase of $286,000 to total
    capital costs. $184,000 of this increase was
    included in the original remedial action
    costs; $102,000 was added in 1994.

    The total cost of treatment using the P&T
    system was $3,236,000, consisting of
    $1,596,000 in capital costs and $1,640,000
    in cumulative operating costs through 1997.
    This corresponds to a cost of $26,100 per
    pound of contaminant removed and $250
    per thousand gallons of groundwater
    treated.
      EPA
                     The actual capital cost for this project was
                     approximately $286,000 more than the
                     original bid cost. An additional $184,000
                     was required during initial construction
                     activities and $102,000 was added in 1994.
                     This represents a 22% increase in capital
                     costs over the original bid cost.

                     The average annual O&M cost, based  on
                     the first eight years of operation, was
                     approximately $205,000 per year. This cost
                     includes O&M costs, report preparation
                     costs, analytical costs, and capital
                     expenditure costs [13].

                     After eight years of P&T operation and the
                     removal of 124 pounds of contaminants

                             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                     Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                    	        Technology Innovation Office
                                             146
                                                                             TiO3.WP6\0327-01.stf

-------
                                                                       Old Mill Superfunof Site
                  OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED (CONT.)
   from the groundwater, the cleanup goals
   have not been met.

   In several wells, concentrations of
   contaminants have increased above initial
   levels. According to the RPM formerly
   assigned to the site, the reason for the
   increase in groundwater concentration is not
   known at this time; however, it potentially is
   due to precipitation increase or a subsurface
   source zone [2].
   According to the RPM, the P&T system at
   this site does not appear to have the typical
   effect on groundwater contamination.  New
   contaminants have been identified after the
   initial investigation and contaminant
   concentrations have increased at times
   during operations.  The reasons for these
   events is not known at this time [2].

   A dual-stage carbon adsorption system was
   built into the treatment system to handle the
   anticipated levels of semivolatiles in the
   influent; however, the levels in the influent
   stream have not been above detection limits
   since operations began.  Consequently, the
   activated carbon units have not been
   utilized as intended and may not have been
   necessary [11].
                                      REFERENCES
1.   Remedial Investigation Report for Old Mill.
    CH2M Hill,  1984.

2.   Correspondence with Remedial Project
    Manager. U.S. EPA Region V, May 7,
    1997.

3.   Remedial Action Report. U.S. Army Corps
    of Engineers, 1990.

4.   Superfund Record of Decision. U.S. EPA,
    1985.

5.   Eighth Quarterly Evaluation Report. Roy F.
    Weston, Inc., 1993.

6.   Third Annual Performance Evaluation
    Report. Roy F. Weston, Inc., 1993.

7.   Fourth Annual Performance Evaluation
    Report. Roy F. Weston, Inc., 1994.
8.   Fifth Annual Performance Evaluation
    Report. Roy F. Weston, Inc., 1995.

9.   Sixth Annual Performance Evaluation
    Report. Roy F. Weston, Inc., 1996.

10. Addendum to the Remedial Investigation
    Report. CH2M  Hill. 1985.

11. Five Year Review. U.S. EPA, 1996.

12. Seventh Annual Performance Evaluation
    Report. Roy F. Weston, Inc., April 1998

13. Comments on the April 14,1998
    Preliminary Draft Cost and Performance
    Report, Ron Murawski and Omprakash
    Patel, May 18,  1998.
Analysis Preparation
This case study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by Eastern Research
Group, Inc. and Tetra Tech EM Inc. under EPA Contract No. 68-W4-0004.
      EPA
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                   Technology Innovation Office
                                            147
                                                                           TIO3.WP6\0327-01.stf

-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
              148

-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
      the SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site,
            Cayce, South Carolina
                    149

-------
                  Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
                           the SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site,
                                   Cayce, South Carolina
Site Name:
SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site
Location:
Cayce, South Carolina
Contaminants:
Chlorinated solvents
- Maximum concentrations
detected during intial investigations
were PCE (600 ug/L), TCE (130
ug/L), 1,1,1-TCA (560 ug/L), 1,1-
DCE (470 ug/L), and 1,1,1,2-PCA
(25 ug/L)
Period of Operation:
Status: Ongoing
Report covers: 8/92-3/97
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup (interim results)
Vendor:
EPA Contractor: Ebasco Services,
Inc.
PRP Project Coordinator: de
maximis, Inc.
PRP contractor: S&ME, Inc.
PRP Operations Contractor: O&M,
Inc.
State Point of Contact:
Yanqing Mo
South Carolina DHEC
Bureau of Hazardous and Solid
Waste
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Technology:
Pump and Treat
- Groundwater is extracted using
15 wells and a 300-ft shallow
extraction trench, at an average
total pumping rate of 40 gpm
- Extracted groundwater is treated
with air stripping and discharged to
aPOTW
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA Remedial
-RODDate:  9/26/86
                                 EPA Point of Contact:
                                 Yvonne Jones, RPM
                                 U.S. EPA Region 4
                                 345 Courtland St., N.E.
                                 Atlanta, GA 30365
                                 (404) 562-8793
Waste Source:
Spills from poor waste handling
practices, leaking drums
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Remediation at a site with complex
hydrogeology, consisting of eight
distinct hydrogeological units.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated
Groundwater
- 20.6 million gallons treated as of March 1997
- Groundwater is found at 14 ft bgs
- Extraction wells are located in 4 aquifers, and al! 4 aquifers are
contaminated
- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 5 to 45 ft/day
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Reduce the concentration of contaminants in the groundwater to primary drinking water standards or maximum
  contaminant levels (MCLs).
- Cleanup goals were established for 1,1,1-TCA (200 ug/L),TCE (5 ug/L), 1,1,2-TCA (5 ug/L), PCE (5 ug/L),
  1,1,2,2-TCA (5 ug/L), 1,1-DCE (7 ug/L), chloroform (100 ug/L), carbon tetrachloride (5 ug/L), benzene (5
  ug/L), and dichloromethane (5 ug/L)
- A secondary goal is to hydraulically contain the migration of contaminants in the groundwater.
                                              150

-------
                   Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
                            the SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site,
                             Cayce, South Carolina (continued)
 Results:
 - Groundwater monitoring results indicate that contaminant concentrations have not been reduced to below
   cleanup goals. Concentrations in the well with the highest concentration, however, have been reduced by
   approximately 81% since 1992.
 - The plume was not contained from 1992 until November 1995. Hydrodynamic control of the plume has been
   maintained since November 1995.
 - The P&T system has removed approximately 7 pounds of contaminants from the groundwater from 1992 to
   1996.
 Cost:
 - Actual costs during the EPA-lead portion of the P&T system operation were approximately $1,439,700
  ($1,189,700 in capital and $250,000 in O&M), which correspond to $464 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater
  extracted and $200,000 per pound of contaminant removed.
 - Costs for the PRP-lead portion of the operation were $294,000 for capital and $180,000 for O&M.
 Description:
 South Carolina Recycling and Disposal Inc (SCRDI) operated this site as an industrial waste storage facility until
 1978. The starting date of operations at this facility is not known. Waste materials stored on site included
 solvents, phenols, specialty chemicals, hydrogen peroxide, and pyridine. In 1978, SCRDI applied for a waste
 management permit from the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC).
 After a site visit, the permit was denied because of poor waste management practices, such as materials stored in
 leaking containers, drums stored in exposed conditions, and improper waste handling procedures. In June 1980,
 SCDHEC implemented a preliminary groundwater study to determine the extent of subsurface contamination^
 Analytical results from this study indicated that halogenated organic and metal contamination was found on site.
 The site was placed on the NPL in August 1982 and a ROD was signed in September 1986.

 Two distinct remedial systems have operated at this site; one operated from August 1992 to June 1994 (EPA-lead
 aortion), and the other from November 1995 to present (PRP-lead portion). A Supplemental Site Investigation
 (SSI) was performed in 1994 and a remedial system optimization study was performed in 1995; as a result the
 system was modified to include 15 extraction wells, a 300 ft shallow collection trench, and a shallow  stacked tray
 air stripper.

 The EPA portion of this application was based on RI results which did not accurately characterize the site.
Based on these results, wells were screened in two lower groundwater units, but not in an upper, contaminated
unit. In addition, during the EPA portion, wells were screened across two units, which allowed contaminants to
migrate from one unit to the other, previously uncontaminated unit.	
                                              151

-------
                                                                  SCRD! Dixiana Superfund Site
                                   SITE INFORMATION
Identifvina Information
Treatment Aoolication
SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site
Cayce, South Carolina

CERCLIS#: SCD980711394

ROD Date: September 26,1986
Type of Action: Remedial

Period of operation:  8/92 - Ongoing
(Data collected through March 1997)

Quantity of material treated during
application: 20.6 million gallons of
groundwater through March 1997
Historical Activity that Generated
Contamination at the Site:  Industrial waste
storage

Corresponding SIC Code:  NA

Waste Management Practice That
Contributed to Contamination: Spills from
poor waste handling practices, leaking drums

Location:  Cayce, SC

Facility Operations:
•   South Carolina Recycling and Disposal, Inc.
    (SCRDI) operated this site as an industrial
    waste storage facility until 1978. The
    starting date of operations at the site is not
    known. Waste materials stored on site
    included solvents, phenols, specialty
    chemicals, hydrogen peroxide, and pyridine.

    In 1978, SCRDI applied for a waste
    management permit from the South
    Carolina Department of Health and
    Environmental Control (SCDHEC). After a
    site visit, the permit was denied because of
    poor waste management practices, such as
    materials stored in leaking containers,
    drums stored in exposed conditions, and
    improper waste handling procedures.

•   A suit was filed by SCDHEC against SCRDI
    for its waste management practices.  As a
    result of this suit, SCRDI removed over 70
    drums of waste and visibly contaminated
    soils were removed by SCRDI between
    September 1978 and June 1980.  No other
    source control actions were performed at
    the site.
    In June 1980, SCDHEC implemented a
    preliminary groundwater study to determine
    the extent of subsurface contamination.
    Analytical results from this study indicated a
    potentially serious health concern from
    halogenated organic and metal
    contamination found on site. SCDHEC
    advised owners of affected residential wells
    to seek alternative water sources, and
    recommended a more detailed groundwater
    investigation.

    Groundwater contamination was confirmed
    during a detailed site investigation
    completed by SCDHEC in August 1982.

    The site was placed on the National
    Priorities List (NPL) in September 1983.

    A remedial investigation (Rl) was completed
    in October 1985. The Rl provided detailed
    information about the organic and metal
    contaminants found on site. The feasibility
    study (FS) was completed in September
    1986.

    A Record of Decision (ROD) was issued in
    September 1986 for groundwater
    remediation.  An Explanation of Significant
    Differences (ESD) was issued in 1991.  The
    ESD documents specific modifications to
    the discharge point and treatment system.

    S&ME Inc., a PRP contractor, conducted an
    additional hydrogeologic study in 1994.  The
    report, entitled Supplemental Site
    Investigation (SSI) Report provided new
    information about the hydrogeology of the
    site.
      EPA
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                    Technology Innovation Office
                                             152
                TIO3.WP6\19_09_SRCDI Dixiana.wpd

-------
                                                                 SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site
 Background (Cont.)
                              SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
•   The remedial action for this site was
    managed by SCDHEC and EPA through
    June 1994. Remedial activities ceased in
    June 1994 because the EPA ARCS contract
    was canceled. EPA identified and named
    responsible parties in a Unilateral
    Administrative Order (UAO) issued in
    February 1995.  As a result, the site
    changed from a fund-lead to a PRP-lead
    site. A new PRP contractor was hired and
    remedial activities resumed in November
    1995.

Regulatory Context:
•   On September 26,1986, a ROD was signed
    for ground water remediation at this site.

Site Logistics/Contacts	
•   Site activities are conducted under
    provisions of the Comprehensive
    Environmental Response, Compensation,
    and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as
    amended by the Superfund Amendments
    and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986,
    §121, and the National Contingency Plan
    (NCP), 40 CFR 300.

Remedy Selection: Extraction and treatment
of groundwater via air stripping was selected as
the remedy for this site.
Site Lead: EPA-leadfrom August 1992
through June 1994; PRP-lead from November
1995 to present

Oversight:  EPA

Remedial Project Manager:
Yvonne Jones*
U.S. EPA Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
404-562-8793

indicates primary contact
State Contact:
Yanqing Mo
South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control
Bureau of Hazardous and Solid Waste
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, S.C. 29201

Treatment System Vendor:
Ebasco Services, Inc. (EPA Contractor)
Waste Abatement Technology (WATEC)
de maximis, Inc. (PRP project coordinator)
S&ME, Inc. (PRP contractor)
O&M, Inc. (PRP operations contractor)
                                 MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix Processed Through the
Treatment System: Groundwater

Contaminant Characterization T4.10]
Primary Contaminant Groups: Halogenated
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and metals

•  The primary contaminants of concern are
   perchloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene
   (TCE), 1,1-dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE),
   1,1,1 -trichloroethane (1,1,1 -TCA) and
   1,1,1,2-perchloroethane (1,1,1,2-PCA).

   The maximum concentrations detected
   during initial investigations were PCE (600
   ug/L), TCE (130 ug/L), 1,1,1-TCA (560
      EPA
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                   Technology Innovation Office
                                           153
                                                               TIO3.WP6\19_09_SRCDI Dixiana.wpd

-------
                                                                     SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site
                              MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Contaminant Characterization fCont.)
    ug/L), 1,1-DCE (470 ug/L), and 1,1,1,2-PCA
    (25 ug/L).

    According to the Rl report, the areal extent
    of the plume in 1982 was 80,000 square
    feet and it extended to a depth of 40 feet.
    The volume of the plume detected at the
    site was initially estimated to be 4.8 million
    gallons. A1994 groundwater study found
    the plume to be 204,000 square feet in
    areal and approximately 12.2 million
    gallons. According to the study report, the
    plume increased in size partly because the
    plume was not contained during the first two
    years of operation. The increase in size also
    is attributed to a more accurate estimate of
    the plume location, since the 1994 estimate
    reflects a better understanding of the site
    hydrogeology [10].
Figure 1 illustrates contaminant distribution
detected during the 1994 site investigation.

In 1982, contaminants were suspected to
be located primarily within Units C and D
beneath the site. Subsequent groundwater
evaluations performed in 1994 revealed
multiple sand zones (see Hydrogeology),
all contaminated.
                                                                       —. HO-CKEIflCALCONCENTR/UlON CONTOUR
                                                                         USE. CONTOUR WTCRVAt A3 SHOWN.
                                                                         DASHED WHERE ESTIMATED.
                                                                     «,.£  EXTRACnONWEU.ANDTOTAl.VOC
                                                                         CONCEMTRATIONINIXML.
                   Figure 1. Initial Concentration Contour Map - Total VOCs (1994)
      EPA
         U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                 Technology Innovation Office
                                               154
             TIO3.WP6\19_09_SRCDI Dixiana.wpd

-------
                                                                      SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site
                              MATRIX,DESCRIPTION (CoNT.)
 Matrix Characteristics Affectina Treatment Costs or Performance
 Hydrogeology [4,10]:

 Eight distinct soil layers have been identified within the upper 100 feet of soils beneath the SCRDI
 Dixiana site.  These units are labeled A through H.  Five water-bearing units (A,C,D,F, and H) have been
 identified; Units B, E, and G are semiconfining layers. The water table begins approximately 14 feet
 below ground surface. Groundwater flows in an easterly direction in the upper unconfined aquifer (Unit
 A). Groundwater flows in a southeasterly direction in Units C, D, F, and H.

 The original site characterization data collected in 1984 and 1985 identified Unit C as the uppermost
 water-bearing region.  Units C and D are hydraulically connected and were suspected of containing the
 majority of the groundwater contamination.  In the 1994 investigation, Unit A was identified as the
 uppermost aquifer and samples revealed that most groundwater contaminants were present in this unit.
 The original remedial design was based on the early site characterization data. As a result, no
 extraction wells were placed in Unit A.  Because the thickness of Unit D was overestimated in many
 areas in the early study, many of the extraction wells placed in Unit D were actually screened across
 both Units D and F.  The wells with screened intervals across both units presented a pathway for
 contaminants to migrate from Unit D  into Unit F, which was previously uncontaminated.

    Unit A Undifferentiated sands, silts, clays
    Unit B Kaolinitic clays
    Unit C Undifferentiated sands, silts, clays
    Unit D Sands, silty sands
    Unit E Kaolinitic clays
    Unit F Sands, clayey sands, discontinuous clay layers
    UnitG Kaolinitic clays
    Unit H Sands, silty sands, clayey sands

 Tables 1 and  2 include technical aquifer information and extraction well data, respectively. The
 extraction wells are discussed in the  following section.
Unit Name
A
C
D
F
H
Thickness
(ft)
10-15
7-10
7-9
10-15
50-70
Conductivity
(ft/day)
10
10
10
45
5
Average Velocity
(ft/day)
0.6
0.8
0.8
NC
NC
Flow
Direction
East
Southeast
Southeast
Southeast
NC
NO - Not Characterized
Source: [10]
      EPA
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
	  Technology Innovation Office
                                              155
                                                                   TIO3.WP6\19_09_SRCDI Dixiana.wpd

-------
                                                                  SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site
                          TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technoloqv
Pump and treat with air stripping

System Description and Operation f6.11.121
SuDolemental Treatment Technoloqv
Pyrolox metal media filtration
                                 Table 2. Technical Well Data
Well Name
7 Extraction Wells
1 Extraction Well
7 Extraction Wells
Recovery Trench
Unit Name
C/D
C
D
A
Depth (ft)
18-35
13-26
24-35
10-12
Note: Table represents current conditions. Average system rate for Phases I and II
Average system rate since November 1995 has been 40 gpm. NA = Not Available
Design Yield
(gal/min)
3-10
3-10
3-10
NA
was 4 gpm.
Source: [11]

System Description:
•   Two distinct remedial systems have
    operated at this site; one operated from
    August 1992 to June 1994, and the second
    from November 1995 to present. A
    supplemental site investigation (SSI) was
    performed in 1994, and a remedial system
    optimization study was performed in 1995.
    As a result, the remedial system operated
    by PRPs (November 1995 to present) was
    modified from the EPA system (August
    1992 to June 1994) to optimize
    performance.

•   From August 1992 to June 1994, 20
    extraction wells were pumped to remove
    groundwater from Units C and D and Unit F
    (through the hydraulic connection with
    Unit D). Eight of the extraction wells were
    located in areas of higher contaminant
    concentrations; the remaining wells were
    located on the periphery of the plume.

•   The treatment system that operated from
    August 1992 until June 1994 consisted of
    an 18,000-gallon  equalization tank, a
    pyrolox metal media filter unit, and a
    packed-column air stripper.

    Under the PRP-lead, the pump and treat
    (P&T) system was modified to consist of 15
    extraction wells (five taken off line), a 300-
    foot shallow collection trench, and a shallow
    stacked tray air stripper.  The revised
    extraction system was designed to collect
    groundwater from contaminated Units A,C,
    and D. Total extraction rate for this system
    has averaged 40 gpm.

•   The pre-1995 treatment system was
    replaced in October 1995; the modified
    system became operational in November
    1995. The equalization tank is no longer
    used in the modified system.

•   Effluent from both systems has been
    discharged to the City of Cayce municipal
    treatment plant under a wastewater
    discharge permit.

System Operation:
•   Quantity of groundwater pumped from the
    aquifer in gallons:
    Year

   1992-1994

   1995-1997
Volume
Pumped
(gallons)
3.1 million
17.5 million
 Unit
Name

 C,D,F
 A,C,D
                                                              U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                      Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                                                     Technology Innovation Office
                                             156
                TIO3.WP6\19_09_SRCDI Dixiana.wpd

-------
                                                                   SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site
                     TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
System Description and Operation (Cont.)
    From August 1992 to June 1994, the site
    was operational approximately 80% of the
    time. Downtime was due to power failures
    from lightning strikes and scaling within
    process piping.

    From November 1995 through March 1997,
    the remedial system has been operational
    nearly 98% of the time.  The modified
    system was designed to operate
    continuously without full-time staff on site.
    A remote sensing and control system was
    installed, which allows personnel to check
    and modify system operations from off-site
    locations.

    The EPA groundwater remediation program
    (1992-1994) was designed to be performed
    in two phases lasting 270 days (Phase I)
    and 321 days (Phase II), respectively.
    During Phase I, eight on-site wells within
    the more contaminated part of the plume
    were to be pumped at 1.5 gpm each, and
    12 off-site wells were to be pumped at 0.17
    gpm each.  During Phase II, after on-site
    groundwater was remediated, the on-site
    wells would not be pumped, and the off-site
    wells would be pumped at either 0.5 or 0.9
    gpm each.

    Based on a site modeling evaluation
    completed with Phase I data, the pumping
    rates for Phase II were revised.  On-site
    wells would continue to be pumped at 1.5
    gpm and eight off-site wells would be shut
    off.  The remaining four off-site wells would
    continue pumping  at 0.17 gpm each.

   The modified extraction well system
   designed by the PRPs consists of 15
   extraction wells including eight existing
   wells, four replacement wells,  and three
    new wells.

   The four wells that were replaced were
    hydraulically connecting Units D and F. The
   old wells were properly closed and replaced
   with new wells at the same location, but
   screened in Units C and D only.
 Three new well locations were picked to
 optimize hydraulic containment and mass
 recovery.  The locations were chosen based
 on information from the 1994 SSI.

 Six of the  15 extraction wells are located  in
 the central part of the plume. These wells
 are pumped at approximately 4 to 6 gpm.
 The remaining wells are pumped at 1 to 2
 gpm.

 A shallow recovery system (SRS) was also
 installed to collect groundwater from Unit A.
 This system has reportedly contributed
 approximately 6 gpm.  The SRS consists of
 300 feet of trenches that intercept the
 shallow groundwater plume to a depth of 12
 feet.

 The new extraction system was designed to
 optimize recovery from Units C and D, while
 eliminating the cross-contamination of
 Unit F. The extraction rate has been
 increased  by a factor of 10, and the
 groundwater plume is being contained.

 A shallow  stacked tray air stripper was
 chosen to  replace the tall packed column air
 stripper because the newer models of
 stacked tray air strippers are more
 economical to operate and maintain [12].

 The QuickFlow™ Analytical Ground-Water
 Flow Model developed by Geraghty & Miller
 was used during optimization of the
 modified extraction well systems [12].

 From  1992 to  1994, air stripping media was
 changed on one occasion when it became
 clogged and ineffective.

 Since 1995, no air stripping media has been
 utilized in the On-site treatment system;
therefore, downtime from changeouts has
not occurred.
     EPA
        U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                Technology Innovation Office
                                            157
                                                                 TIO3.WP6\19_09_SRCDI Dixiana.wpd

-------
                                                                 SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site
                     TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONTJ)
Ormratina Parameters Affectina Cost or Performance
The major operating parameter affecting cost or performance for this technology is the extraction rate.
Table 3 presents the value measured for this and other performance parameters.

                              TableS: Performance Parameters
j,,:,!.,, 	 '., ,, Parameter . , •:,-
Extraction Rate
Maximum Daily Flow
Performance Standard (Effluent)











Remedial Goals
(aquifer)








/ " '-o T: ,-Vjaliie , ' - ,
4 gpm (92-94); 40 gpm
86,000 gallons
Temp.
PH
Dichloromethane
Carbon tetrachloride
1 ,1-Dichloroethane
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
Chloroform
1,1,2-TCA
1,1,2,2-TCA
1,1 -DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
1,1,2-TCA
PCE
1,1,2,2-TCA
1,1-DCE
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
Benzene
Dichloromethane
(95-97)

140 °F
6-9 units
1 .58 mg/L
5.07 mg/L
29. 13 mg/L
2.60 mg/L
6.48 mg/L
1.21 mg/L
1.78 mg/L
13.54 mg/L
3.46 mg/L
1.67 mg/L
200 ng/L
5|jg/L
5 M9/L
5 pg/L
5 Mg/L
7 Mg/L
100 Mg/L
5 Mg/L
5 Mg/L
5UP/L
Source: [5,6, 7,12]
Table 4 presents a timeline for this remedial project.
                                  Table 4: Project Timeline
Start Date
9/86
—
10/90
7/91

8/92
7/93
6/94
10/94
6/95
11/95
End Date
—
9/88
7/91
—
6/92
7/93
6/94
—
—
10/95
ongoing
••"-:. <&' -W ^^^fatoW?:1 *•''•'.' - *, -.- -
Record of Decision signed
Remedial design completed
P&T system constructed
ESD issued
Sewer line completed to City of Cayce POTW
Phase 1 performed
Phase II performed
Remedial activities stopped; EPA and PRPs enter into negotiations; UAO issued,
changing site to PRP-lead
Supplemental Site Investigation performed
P&T system modified by PRPs
Modified P&T system restarted
Source: [6,8,10]
      EPA
       U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
               Technology Innovation Office
                                            158
           TIO3.WP6\19_09_SRCDI Dixiana.wpd

-------
                                                                  SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site
                         TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards T5. 6. 7.121

•  The goal of this remedy is to reduce the
   concentration of contaminants in the
   groundwater to primary drinking water
   standards or maximum contaminant levels
   (MCL).  These standards are applied
   throughout the aquifer as measured in all
   wells installed on and off site. Table 3
   contains specific clean-up criteria.

Treatment Performance Goals T5. 6.7.121
Additional Information on Goals

•  A secondary goal of this remedy is to
   hydraulically control the migration of
   contaminants in the groundwater to
   eliminate further spreading of contaminants
   downgradient of the site.
•  The treatment system must reduce contaminant levels in the treated water to meet discharge
   requirements imposed by the local POTW. These requirements are stipulated in the discharge
   permit with the City of Cayce POTW and are also included in Table 3.

Performance Data Assessment F7. 8. 9.101	
For this report, total contaminants includes
PCE, 1,1-DCE, and 1,1,1-TCA.

•  From 1992 to 1997, groundwater monitoring
   results indicate that contaminant
   concentrations have not been reduced to
   below cleanup goals. To illustrate how total
   contaminant concentrations have changed
   from 1992 to 1997, Figure 2 presents data
   from wells NUS-04 and CDM-13 in the
   central part of the plume. Well NUS-04 and
   CDM-13 are the only wells that were
   sampled consistently from 1992 to 1997.
   Total contaminant concentrations in well
   NUS-04 have been reduced by
   approximately 81% since 1992.

•  From 1992 until November 1995, the plume
   was not contained, as was determined
   during a SSI performed in October 1994.
   Sampling revealed that groundwater
   contaminants in Units C and D had
   migrated more than 300 feet downgradient
   of the most downgradient extraction well.
   The total plume size at that time was
   estimated to be 204,000 square feet. The
   initial plume size was estimated to be
   80,000 square feet.  According to the SSI,
   the increase was attributed to both the loss
   of plume containment and increased
   accuracy in the estimate of the plume size.
   Water level data collected in quarterly
   reports indicate that hydrodynamic control
   of the plume has been maintained since
   November 1995. Only one off-site well,
   DMW 202, shows contaminant
   concentrations above detection limits.

   A total of 20.6 million gallons of
   groundwater was treated from 1992 to
   1997. Taking into account the hours of
   system operation, the calculated daily
   average treatment rate was 4 gpm during
   EPA-lead operation and 40 gpm during
   PRP-lead operation. The remedial system
   was shut down from June 1994 through
   November 1995.

   As shown in Figure 3, the P&T system has
   removed approximately seven pounds of
   contaminant mass from 1992 to 1996.
   Figures 4, 5, and 6 show PCE, TCE, and
   1,1-DCE concentrations,  respectively, for
   NUS-04 and CDM-13.

   PCE concentrations in Figure 4 begin at
   2,500 ug/L and 1,100 ug/L for wells NUS-04
   and CDM-13, respectively. PCE
   concentrations in NUS-04 decline to 500
   ug/L, but spike above 3,000 ug/L on two
   occasions. PCE concentrations in CDM-13
   decline to 64 ug/L, but then rebound to 500
   in the December 1993 sampling.
                                                             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                     Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                                                    Technology Innovation Office
                                            159
                                                                TIO3.WP6\19_09_SRCDI Dixiana.wpd

-------
                                                             SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site
                TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
    ,500
D)
2  2,000
o
o
      May-92 Dec-92 Jun-93  Jan-94  Aug-94 Feb-95  Sep-95  Mar-96 Oct-96  Apr-97
                                     .CDM-13   -  NUS-04
 Figure 2. Total Contaminant Concentrations in Groundwater (August 1992 - July 1997) [2,7,8,12]
   0.12
    0.1
Is  0.08
1
J3
3
11.
in
   0.06
   0.04
   0.02
     Jun-92     Jan-93     Jul-93     Feb-94     Aug-94     Mar-95     Oct-95
                            .Ibs/day —*	cumulative mass removed
           Figure 3.  Total Contaminant Mass Flux and Cumulative Mass Removal
                          (August 1992 - January 1996) [2,7,8]
   EPA
       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
              Technology Innovation Office
                                        160
                                                            TI03.WP6\19_09_SRCDI Dixiana.wpd

-------
                                                              SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site
                TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
   4,000
   3,500
   3,000
   2,500
~  2,000
   1,500 .
   1,000
     500
s



1
o
o
ui
O
Q.
       May-92  Dec-92  Jun-93  Jan-94  Aug-94 Feb-95 Sep-95 Mar-96  Oct-96  Apr-97  Nov-97
                                     .CDM-13   •  NUS-04
                  Figure 4. PCE Concentrations (1992 - 1997) [2,7,8,12]
   600
     May-92 Dec-92  Jun-93  Jan-94  Aug-94  Feb-95  Sep-95  Mar-96 Oct-96 Apr-97  Nov-97
                                    .CDM-13  „  NUS-fU
                   Figure 5. TCE Concentrations (1992 -1997) [2,7,Q, 12]
                                                         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

                                                 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

                                                                Technology Innovation Office
                                        161
                                                            TIO3.WP6\19_09_SRCDI Dixiana.wpd

-------
                                                                  SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site
                    TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
      600
            fHu k« • f{»i^ ^.i*.nL**W!i(ji^««m™«Mi» »»«-->, •--<*, i     s,

                                                S . ' •'
                       ~*r~-	',	1' 			 rfi'A	ii. ,,\..,'>., '	,1 1, lm.f»'
        May-92 Dec-92  Jun-93 Jan-94  Aug-94 Feb-95  Sep-95 Mar-96  Oct-96  Apr-97 Nov-97
                                        .CDM-13
.NUS-04
                    Figure 6.  1,1-DCE Concentrations (1992 - 1997) [2,7,8,12]
Performance Data Assessment (Cont.)
   In Figure 5, TCE concentrations in wells
   NUS-04 and CDM-13 follow similar
   patterns, beginning near 450 ug/L and
   declining to approximately 75 ug/L.  In
   October 1996, TCE concentrations were 2
   and 6 ug/L, respectively.

   As shown in Figure 6,1,1-DCE
   concentrations in NUS-04 and CDM-13
   begin at 675 ug/L and 425 ug/L,
   respectively. Concentrations in NUS-04 are
   reduced to 30 ug/L and in CDM-13 to 74
   ug/L before the system is shut down. In
   October 1995, concentrations in NUS-04
   increased to 150 ug/L, but declined below
   detection limits by July 1997.

   During Phase I and II operations, all  effluent
   limitations were met with one exception.
PCE and 1,1,1 -TCA were detected at 5.9
and 7.7 ug/L, respectively, in effluent
samples collected during December 1992.
The treatment system was shut down and
the air stripper packing was replaced after it
was determined that the original material
had become clogged and ineffective. The
system was restarted and all effluent
limitations were met during the remainder of
Phases I and II.

Review of the treatment system influent and
effluent data from November 1995 through
March 1997 indicate that the treatment
system is compliant with SCDHEC air
discharge requirements and  wastewater
discharge permit for the City of Cayce
POTW.
     EPA
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
               Technology Innovation Office
                                            162
                                                                TIO3.WP6\19_09_SRCDI Dixiana.wpd

-------
                                                                 SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site
                   TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Completeness
•  During Phases I and II, monitoring wells
   were sampled monthly according to the
   Performance Standards Verification
   Monitoring (PSVM) plan. During PRP
   management, a set of seven sampling
   points were monitored quarterly. Two of
   the seven wells were the same during both
   PRP and EPA operation periods.

•  Influent and effluent samples are collected
   on a monthly basis. Data are reported to
   the City of Cayce to comply with the
   wastewater discharge permit. Data from
   1992 to 1994, December 1995, and January
   1996 were available for mass removal
   calculations in this report.

Performance Data Quality	
Contaminant mass removal was determined
from system influent measurements, along
with treatment data from 1992 through
January 1996. The PRPs have not
collected influent data; therefore, mass
removal can be calculated only through
January 1996.

Sample collection procedures are
documented in the PSVM plan.
The QA/QC program used throughout the remedial action met the EPA and the State of South Carolina
requirements.  All monitoring was performed using EPA-approved methods, and the vendor did not note
any exceptions to the QA/QC protocols.
                              TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process
Until the 1995 UAO, the U.S. EPA was the lead agency for this site and SCDHEC was the support
agency. Ebasco was the EPA ARCS contractor responsible for remedial action activities until 1994.
Currently, the site is a PRP-lead site with Solutia, Lucent Technologies, and Therm-O-Disc named as
primary responsible parties, de maximis, Inc. is currently the primary contractor for the PRP group.

Cost Analysis

All costs for investigation, design, construction and operation of the treatment system at this site were
borne by the PRPs.
                                                           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                                                   Technology Innovation Office
                                           163
                                                               TIO3.WP6\19_09_SRCDI Dixiana.wpd

-------
                                                                   SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site
                          TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Capital Costs for EPA-Lead Operation T51

 Remedial Construction
 Mobilization and Preparatory          $103,000
 Work
 Groundwater Extraction Wells         $267,000
 Groundwater Treatment System       $474,000
 Installation
 Facilities Construction               $214,000
 Analytical                           $7,100
 Mobilization/Demobilization of Lab       $3,800
 Services
 Demobilization                     $120,800
 Total Remedial Construction       $1,189,700


Costs for PRP-Uead Operation
 Upgrade from Stripping Tower, New    $294,000
 Extraction Wells, and Collection
 Trench
 PRP O&M Costs (total through        $180,000
 March 1997)*
Operating Costs for EPA-Lead Operation f51
 Significant Operations                $35,000
 Influent/Effluent Analysis              $70,000
 Periodic Maintenance               $125,000
 POTW                            $20,000
 Total Annual Operating             $250,000
 Expense


Other Costs for EPA-Lead Operation T51
 Project Planning
 Intermediate Design
 Final Design
 Closeout
 Technical Assistance
 Corps Oversight
 Total Design
 EPA Oversight
 State Oversight
•Estimated O&M cost for PRP activities is less than $100,000/year.
Cost Data Quality
$334,668
 $58,600
 $88,013
  $4,978
 $27,823
 $17,080
$531,161
  $9,627
$123,377
Actual cost data are available from the EPA Region IV Remedial Project Manager (RPM).
                       OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
    Actual costs incurred during the EPA-lead
    operation of the P&T system were
    approximately $1,439,700 ($1,189,700 in
    capital costs and $250,000 in operating and
    maintenance costs), which corresponds to
    $200,000 per pound of contaminants
    removed and $464 per 1,000 gallons of
    groundwater.  Mass removed and the
    volume of groundwater treated under PRP
    management were not included in unit
    calculations.

    After 35 months of operation, the
    contaminant concentrations in the well with
    the highest concentrations (NUS-04), have
    been reduced by 81%. However,
    containment concentrations remain above
    the cleanup goals.

    The treatment system has met the
    SCDHEC air discharge requirements and,
    with one exception in December 1992, has
    operated in compliance with effluent
    limitations. The exceedance was attributed
    to air stripper packing becoming clogged;
    after the packing was replaced, there were
    no additional exceedances.

    According to the RPM, the pumping
    schedule set for this site during the original
    EPA design anticipated total site restoration
    within less than two years [5].

    As a result of the initial Rl, which did not
    accurately characterize the site, initial
    extraction wells were screened across
    Units D and F, which allowed contaminants
    from the upper contaminated Unit (D) to
    flow into the lower, previously
    uncontaminated  Unit (F). These wells were
    subsequently closed to eliminate the source
    of contaminants for the lower zone. New
      EPA
            U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                    Technology Innovation Office
                                             164
                                                                  TIO3.WP6\19_09_SRCDI Dixiana.wpd

-------
                                                                  SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site
                         TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
   wells were completed with screened
   intervals entirely within Units C and D [10].

   In the 1994 supplemental site investigation,
   the upper sandy Unit A, was determined to
   be the most highly contaminated unit
   beneath this site. Initial characterization
   data failed to identify this, and initial design
   parameters did not include groundwater
   recovery from this unit. Until November
   1995, the contaminant plume in this unit
   migrated off site unimpeded. The modified
   extraction system was designed to prevent
   further migration of the plume in this unit as
   well as all groundwater contamination [10].

   When the ARCS contract that Ebasco
   operated under was terminated, no
   groundwater was extracted from June 1994
   until November 1995. The stop in
   operations led to  plume loss during this
   period [5].
    In 1994 and 1995, after a supplemental site
    investigation was completed by the PRPs,
    the extraction well configuration was
    redesigned and a collection trench was
    added to the recovery system. This effort
    was required to contain the groundwater
    plume that was escaping the groundwater
    recovery system up until that time.

    The air stripping tower was leased to EPA
    by Ebasco for use at this site.  When
    Ebasco was replaced by the PRP
    contractor, de maximis, a new stacked tray
    air stripper was purchased. The cost of
    upgrading to the stacked tray air stripper, as
    well as reconfiguring the extraction wells
    and adding the collection trench, was
    approximately $294,000.
                                      REFERENCES
1.   Ebasco Environmental.  Operational Status
    Report for March 1994.

2.   Ebasco Environmental.  Phase II
    Operations Evaluation. May 1994.

3.   Ebasco Environmental.  Phase I Operations
    Evaluation. July 1993.

4.   NUS. Remedial Investigation Report for
    SCRDI Dixiana. 1986.

5.   Correspondence with Remedial Project
    Manager. U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency/Region 4, January 16, 1998.

6.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
    Remedial Action Report for the SCRDI
    Dixiana Site. December 1993.

7.   Superfund Record of Decision: SCRDI
    Dixiana, 1986.

Analysis Preparation	
8.  Site Monitoring Report. August 1
   through October 31,1996. O&M, Inc.,
   November 1996.

9.  O&M, Inc. Site Monitoring Report.
   November 1 through March 31,1997,
   April 1997.

10. S&ME, Inc. Supplemental Site
   Investigation Report. November 1994.

11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
   Five Year Report for the SCRDI Dixiana
   Superfund Site. September 1995.

12. Comments on draft Cost and
   Performance Report, May 1998. U.S.
   EPA Region 4 and de maximis, Inc.,
   May 31, 1998.
This case study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by Eastern Research
Group, Inc. and Tetra Tech EM Inc. under EPA Contract No. 68-W4-0004.
      EPA
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                   Technology Innovation Office
                                            165
                                                                TIO3.WP6\19_09_SRCDI Dixiana.wpd

-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
               166

-------
     Grotmdwater Containment at
Site OT-16B, Shaw AFB, South Carolina
               167

-------
                              Groundwater Containment at
                        Site OT-16B, Shaw AFB, South Carolina
Site Name:
Site OT-16B, Shaw AFB
Location:
South Carolina
Contaminants:
Organic Compounds - Chlorinated
Solvents:
- Trichloroethene (TCE)
- Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
- one plume contains PCE and
TCE; one plume contains TCE only
Period of Operation:
 2/95 - 12/96
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
IT Corporation
Additional Contacts:
U.S. Air Force Air Combat
Command
Technology:
Hydrualic containment through
active pumping. One recovery
well.
Cleanup Authority:
Installation Restoration Program
Regulatory Point of Contact:
Information not provided
Waste Source: Fuel Spill
Purpose/Significance of
Application: Groundwater
containment of chlorinated solvents
using active pumping.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater and free product - A total of 40.5 gallons of PCE and TCE
were removed during this interim action.
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The operational objective of the interim action was to achieve hydraulic containment of the plume and to operate
as efficiently as possible over a relatively long period of time.       	
Results:
- Data on whether plume containment was achieved was not available. Therefore, the report presents results in
  terms of the efficiency of the contaminant that has been removed by the system through August 1997.
- A total of 40.5 gallons of TCE and PCE (14.2 gallons TCE and 26.3 gallons PCE) were removed during the
  interim action.  Monthly removal rates ranged from 0.16 gallons to 4.85 gallons of contaminant.	
Cost:
The capital cost for the interim groundwater containment system was $1,960,000. The total cumulative O&M
costs from February 1995 through August 1997 were about $50,000. Monthly O&M costs ranged up to $10,436.
The average O&M cost per gallon of contaminant removed was $1,512.	
                                               168

-------
                              Groundwater Containment at
                 Site OT-16B, Shaw AFB, South Carolina (continued)
Description:
Site OT-16B , located at the Shaw AFB in South Carolina, is part of Operable Unit 2 at the site. The groundwater
at Site OT-16B is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and two contaminant plumes were
identified in the Upper Black Creek Aquifer at the site. One plume contained TCE and PCE ; the other contained
TCE only. As part of an interim action at the site, a system was installed to provide hydraulic containment of
these contaminant plumes through active pumping. The interim action system consisted of one recovery well
which was operated from February 1995 through December 1996.

Data on whether the plumes had been contained was not available.  Therefore, the performance data presented in
the report focuses on the efficiency of contaminant removal by the system. Performance and cost data were
provided from system startup in February 1995 through August 1997. During this time, a total of 40.5 gallons of
TCE and PCE were removed from the groundwater, with monthly removal rates ranging from 0.16 gallons to 4.85
gallons. The total O&M costs through August 1997 was about $50,000. The average O&M cost per unit of
contaminant removed was $1,512.
                                             169

-------
Groundwater Containment at
Site OT-16B,  Shaw AFB
 Site Background
This section focuses on the interim action
groundwater containment system located at
OT-16B, Shaw AFB. Site OT-16B is part of OU2
at Shaw AFB. A site map for OT-16B with TCE
groundwater contamination is included as
Figure 32.


Contaminants in Groundwater

•  The principal groundwater contaminants in
   the Upper Black Creek Aquifer at the site
   are trichloroethene (TCE), and
   tetrachloroethene (PCE).

•  The Black Creek Aquifer contains two
   plumes: one plume contains PCE and TCE,
   the other plume contains only TCE.

Lithology

•  The Upper Black Creek Aquifer, at Site OT-
   16B, consists of clays, silts, silty sand, and
   clayey sand.

Groundwater Containment System Details

•  Hydraulic containment through active
   pumping.
•  The interim action system consisted of one
   recovery well (2BEX-01).

•  Following operation of this interim action
   system, a full-scale remedial action began in
   January 1998 with the installation and
   operation of three extraction wells located
   within and at the edge of the groundwater
   plume.

Operation Period

•  The interim action groundwater system was
   started in February 1995 and was operated
   through December 1996.

Total Capital Costs

•  The estimated capital costs for the interim
   action groundwater system was $1,960,000.

Total O&M Costs

•  Total cumulative costs from February 1995
   through August 1996 were $36,000.
 Cost and Performance of Groundwater Containment at Site OT-16B
Groundwater Containment of Dissolved
Contaminants Operational Objectives

Groundwater containment systems are most
often used to protect downgradient areas
threatened by a containment plume. The
objective of groundwater containment for
dissolved phase contaminants is to operate
efficiently over a relatively long period of time.
The emphasis of dissolved phase groundwater
containment is whether containment was cost
effectively achieved, not mass removal.

Data on whether groundwater containment is
being achieved at each site is not available.
Therefore, this report will only present the
efficiency of contaminant removal for
groundwater containment sites. However, each
dissolved phase site should be evaluated to
determine if the plume is cost effectively being
contained.

Cost for Operation
Figure 33 illustrates curves of the O&M costs for
the interim action groundwater containment
system at Site OT-16B. The monthly O&M costs
range from $0 to $10,437. Total O&M costs after
2.5 years of operation were $51,000.

Contaminant Removal

Figure 34 illustrates the removal rates of
dissolved PCE and TCE at the interim action
groundwater containment system at
                                         170

-------
  Legend
       *-» TCE Concentration (ppb)
 Source: Shaw AFB Map (July 1994), 4Q97 LTM Report (February 1997)
Figure 32. TCE Isoconcentrations in the Black Creek Aquifer at OU2, Site OT-16B, Shaw AFB
                                         171

-------
                                           Figure 33
                            Monthly and Cumulative O&M Costs vs. Time
                                     Dissolved TCE and PCE
                                     Site OT-16B, Shaw AFB
$60,000-,
$50.000.
     $40.000.
$30,000.
$20,000.
$10,000 .
                             -monthly O&M cost ($)
                             -cumulative O&M cost ($)
                                                  Tims
                                                                              Rawotl6b.xls; O&M costs new
                                            Figure 34
                           Monthly & Cumulative VOC Removal vs. Time
                                     Dissolved TCE and PCE
                                     Site OT-16B, Shaw AFB
   45 1

   40.


   35.


f 30.


2. 25.

>
I 20.


8 15.


   10.


    5.
               -Cumulative Gallons of VOCs (TCE and PCE)

               -Monthly Gallons of VOCs (TCE and PCE)
                                                Time
                                                                                 Rawot16b.xls; Vol. vs. time
                                          172

-------
Site OT-16B. Monthly removal rates of dissolved
PCE and TCE product ranged from 0.16 to
4.85 gallons. Total contaminant removal after
2.5 years of operation was 40.5 gallons of PCE
and TCE. In August 1997, the curve
representing the cumulative removal rate had
not yet begun to flatten, indicating that the
removal rate was still adequate for this system's
performance and it was meeting its operational
objectives. This system was expanded to a full-
scale system in January 1998.


Correlation of Costs and Contaminant
Removal

Figures 35 and 36 illustrate the relationship
between the O&M costs and the removal rates
for the interim action groundwater containment
system at Site OT-16B.

Figure 35 illustrates the cumulative O&M cost
relative to the cumulative contaminant removal.
As of August 1997, the curve had not
steepened. In August 1997, this groundwater
containment system was operating efficiently for
this system's performance and was meeting its
operational objectives.

Figure 36 illustrates curves of the monthly and
cumulative cost per unit of contaminant removal
relative to the operation time of the technology.
The monthly curve illustrates the cost per gallon
of dissolved TCE and PCE removal in each
month. The cumulative curve illustrates that the
average cost per unit of contaminant removal
was $1,512/gallon of TCE and PCE after
2.5 years of operation time.
                                            Figure 35
                         Cumulative O&M Costs vs. Cumulative VOCs Removed
                                      Dissolved TCE and PCE
                                      Site OT-16B, Shaw AFB
   $60,000 -
   $50,000
   $40,000 -
   $30,000
O  $20,000
   $10,000
       $0
                           -cumulative O&M cost ($)
                           10        15       20        25        30

                                   Cumulative volume of VOCs removed (gallons)
                      35
                               40
                                        45
                                                                               Rawot16b.xls; $ per vol
                                             173

-------
   $12.000 ,



__ $10.000 -



1  $8,000 -



8  $6,000.

•s

1  $4.000 -

I

O  $2.000 -
       $04-
                                                  Figure 36
                       Monthly & Cumulative Cost per gallon of VOCs Removed vs. Time
                                           Dissolved TCE and PCE
                                           Site OT-16B, Shaw AFB
monthly cost per monthly volume of VOC's ($/gal)

cumulative cost per cumulative volume of VOC's ($/gal)
                                                     Time
                                                                                     Rawot16b.xls; $ per vol vs. time
                                                   174

-------
            APPENDIX A



Detailed Cost and Performance Data Table
                175

-------
Dissolved Phi** VOC Rtcovery Pumping
            SltaOT-ICB
        Shaw Air Fore* Ba»»
Data of
Contaminant
Removal
23-Feb-95
27-Mar-95
28-Apr-95
25-May-95
8-Jun-95
11-JuI-95
23-Aug-95
22-Sep-95
18-OCI-95
1-Nov-95
13-D6C-95
21-Feb-96
7-Mar-96
20-Mar-96
3-Apr-96
19-Apr-96
31-May-96
13-Jun-96
26-Jun-96
25-Jul-96
14-Aug-96
11-Dec-96
11-Jan-97
11-Feb-97
11-Mar-97
11-Apr-97
12-May-97
12-Jun-97
13-Jul-97
13-Aug-97
Cumulative
mass of
TCE
removed
(kg)
0.25
1.17
2.39
3.47
4.17
5.01
7.28
8.52
9.68
10.26
12.03
15.01
15.65
16.12
16.51
17.65
19.58
20.15
20.88
21.77
22.88
23.88
24.64
26.94
28.8
29.8
30.8
31.8
32.8
33.8
Cuirailatlv*
mats of
TCE
removed
(Ib)
0.551155
2.5794054
5.2690418
7.6500314
9.1932654
11.045146
16.049634
18.783362
21.340722
22.619401
26.621579
33.091346
34.502303
35.538474
36.398276
38.911543
43.16646
44.423093
46.032466
47.994577
50.441706
52.646326
54.321837
59.392463
63.493056
65.697676
67.902296
70.106916
72.311536
74.516156
Cumulative
mass of
PCE
removed
(kg)
0.48
1.6
3.46
5
6.18
7.56
11.57
13.57
15.45
16.37
19.11
23.53
24.49
25.24
25.87
27.61
30.4
31.04
31.97
33.47
35.15
36.45
37.24
39.62
41.99
44.17
47.44
50.77
54.1
56.53
Cumulative
mm of
PCE
removed
(Ib)
1.0582176
3.527392
7.6279852
11.0231
13.624552
16.666927
25.507453
29.916693
34.061379
36.089629
42.130288
51.874709
53.991144
55.644609
57.033519
60.869558
67.020448
68.431405
70.481701
73.788631
77.492393
80.358399
82.100049
87.347044
92.571994
97.378065
104.58717
111.92856
119.26994
124.62717
Cumulative
mass of
VOCs(TCE
and PCE)
(kg)
0.73
2.77
5.85
8.47
10.35
12.57
iass
22.09
25.13
26.63
31.14
38.54
40.14
41.36
42.38
45.26
49.98
51.19
52.85
55.24
58.03
60.33
61.88
66.56
70.79
73.97
78.24
82.57
86.9
90.33
Cumulative
mass of
VOCsfTCE
and PCE)
(Ibs)
1.6093726
6.1067974
12.897027
1E6731314
22.817817
27.7120734
41.557087
48.7000558
55.4021006
58.7090306
68.6518668
84.9660548
88.4934468
91.1830832
93.4317956
99.7811012
110.1869076
112.8544978
116.514167
121.7832088
127.9340986
133.0047246
136.4218856
146.7395072
156.0650498
163.0757414
172.4894688
182.0354734
191.581478
199.1433246
Cumulative
Gallons of
TCE
0.1
0.45
0.92
1.34
1.61
1.93
2.81
3.28
3.73
3.95
4.64
5.79
6.03
6.22
6.37
6.81
7.55
7.77
8.05
8.39
8.82
10.38
10.67
11.56
12.27
12.66
13.05
13.43
13.82
14.2
Cumulative
Gallons of
PCE
0.06
0.38
0.94
1.97
2.16
2.66
3.25
4.98
5.84
6,64
7.04
8.22
10.11
10.53
10,85
11.12
11.87
13.07
13.34
13.74
14.38
17.67
18.01
19.04
20.05
20.99
22.39
23.83
25.26
26.3
Cumulative
Gallons of
VOCsfTCE
and PCE)
0.16
0.83
1.86
3.31
3.77
4.59
6.06
8.26
9.57
10.59
11.68
14.01
16.14
16.75
17.22
17.93
19.42
20.84
21.39
22.13
23.2
28.05
28.68
30.6
32.32
33.65
35.44
37.26
39.08
40.5
Monthly
Gallons of
VOCsfTCE
and PCE)
0.16
0.67
1.03
1.45
0.46
0.82
1.47
2.2
1.31
1.02
1.09
2.33
2.13
0.61
0.47
0.71
1.49
1.42
0.55
0.74
1.07
4.85
0.63
1.92
1.72
1.33
1.79
1.82
1.82
1.42
monthly
OSM cost
(«
1.091.59
647.45
1,346.82
2,013.44
0.00
2,242.21
0.00
653.01
669.94
473.22
1,258.16
2,563.59
0.00
2,707.48
0.00
2.71Z79
•ftftHftM
0.00
5,252.04
2,073.37
0.00
2,431.05
62.70
1,265.12
458.04
287.48
287.48
454.53
454.53
454.53
cumulative
OSM cost
($)
1,091.59
1,739.04
3,085.86
5,099.30
5,099.30
7,341.51
7,341.51
7,994.52
8,664.46
9,137.68
10,395.84
12,959.43
12,959.43
15,666.91
15,666.91
18,379.70
28,816.22
28,816.22
34,068.26
36,141.63
36,141.63
47,269.96
47,332.66
48,597.78
49,055.82
49,343.30
49,630.78
50,085.31
50,539.84
50,994.37
monthly
cost per
monthly
volume of
VOC-s
($/gal)
6.822.44
966.34
1,307.59
1,388.58
0.00
2,734.40
0.00
296.82
511.40
463.94
1,154.28
1,100.25
0.00
4,438.49
0.00
3,820.83
7,004.38
0.00
9,549.16
2,801.85
0.00
501.25
99.52
658.92
266.30
216.15
160.60
249.74
249.74
320.09
cumulative
cost par
cumulative
volume of
VOC-s
(Wgal)
6,822.44
2,095.23
1,659.06
1,540.57
1,352.60
1,599.46
1,211.47
967.86
905.38
862.86
890.05
925.01
802.94
935.34
909.81
1,025.08
1,483.84
1,382.74
1,592.72
1,633.15
1,557.83
1,685.20
1,650.37
1,588.16
1,517.82
1,466.37
1,400.42
1,344.21
1,293.24
1,259.12
cumulative
cost per
total
cumulative
mass (S/kg)
1,495.33
627.81
527.50
602.04
492.69
584.05
389.47
361.91
344.79
343.13
333.84
336.26
322.86
378.79
369.68
406.09
576.56
562.93
644.62
654.27
622.81
783.52
764.91
730.13
692.98
667.07
634.34
606.58
581.59
564.53
cumulative
cost per
total
cumulative
mass (Mb)
678.27053
284.7712
239.2691
273.08221
223.47887
264.92099
176.66084
164.15833
156.39227
155.64352
151.42837
152.52479
146.44508
171.81816
167.68285
184.20021
261.52127
255.33958
292.39586
295.77022
282.50193
355.40061
346.95797
331.18402
314.32931
302.57903
287.73223
275.14038
263.80337
256.06869
              176

-------
         Groundwater Containment at
Sites SD-29 and ST-30, Shaw AFB, South Carolina
                    177

-------
                               Groundwater Containment at
                  Sites SD-29 and ST-30, Shaw AFB, South Carolina
Site Name:
Sites SD-29 and ST-30, Shaw AFB
Location:
South Carolina
Contaminants:
Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Free
Product (JP-4 fuel), Chlorinated
Solvents
- estimated 60 gallons of JP-4 fuel
spilled at SD-29; total petroleum
hydrocarbon levels up to 592 ppm
in soil at ST-30
- Free product in groundwater at
both sites
Period of Operation:
 3/95 - 2/96
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale
Vendor:
IT Corporation
Additional Contacts:
U.S. Air Force Air Combat
Command
Technology:
Interim action free product
recovery systems at SD-29 and ST-
30. The systems used pneumatic
products skimmer pumps until 1/96.
At that time, passive skimmer
bailers were placed in the wells to
reduce operating costs.
Contaminated groundwater was
treated using an air stripper.
Cleanup Authority:
Installation Restoration Program
Regulatory Point of Contact:
Information not provided
Waste Source: Fuel spill and
leaking supply line
Purpose/Significance of
Application: Interim action to
recover free product from
groundwater
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater and free product - A total of 102 gallons of free product were
recovered
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The operational objective of the interim action free product source removal was to remove liquid-phase
contamination as quickly and cost-effectively as possible to prevent continued contamination of surrounding soil
and groundwater.
Results:
- A total of 102 gallons of free-phase JP-4 fuel was recovered during the year the system was operated (97 gallons
from ST-30 and 5 gallons from SD-29). Monthly removal rates ranged from 0 to 50 gallons of free product. By
October 1995, the removal rates had decreased to below 5 gallons/month. By February 1996, the removal rate
had become negligible and the system was shut down.
Cost:
The capital cost for the SD-29 groundwater containment system was $394,000. Data on the capital cost for the
ST-30 system were not available.
Data on O&M costs were reported as a total for both systems. The total cumulative cost for the SD-29 and ST-30
was $17,000. Monthly O&M costs ranged from $0 to $6,021. In January 1996, after removal rates had decreased,
passive bailers were installed in the wells to reduce operating costs. The operating cost for February 1996 was
$500.
The average O&M cost was $166/gallon of JP-4 recovered.
                                               178

-------
                               Groundwater Containment at
           Sites SD-29 and ST-30, Shaw AFB, South Carolina (continued)
Description:
Sites SD-29 and ST-30 at Shaw AFB, located in South Carolina, were the locations of soil and groundwater
contamination as a result of leaks and spills of JP-4 fuel. An estimated 60 gallons of JP-4 fuel were spilled at site
SD-29 when an oil/water separator pump failed. Eighty tons of soil were excavated from the site. In addition, the
groundwater was determined to be contaminated with free phase JP-4 fuel, dissolved fuel components, and
dissolved chlorinated solvents. A leaking jet fuel supply line was the source of contamination at the ST-30 site.
Free phase JP-4 fuel was identified in the groundwater. Interim action groundwater containment systems were
installed to remove free product and prevent continued contamination of surrounding soil and groundwater. The
systems were operated from March 1995 through February 1996.

The groundwater containment systems included pneumatic product skimmer pumps to recover free product.
These pumps were used until January 1996, when the removal rate has decreased and the system was evaluated to
determine if operating costs could be reduced. Passive skimmer bailers were then installed to reduce operating
costs. The system was shut down in February 1996, after the removal rates had remained negligible for several
months. During the year of operation, a total of 102 gallons of JP-4 was recovered - 97 gallons from ST-30 and 5
gallons from SD-29. Monthly removal rates ranged from 0 to 50 gallons per month.

The total capital cost for the SD-29 system was $394,000. No data on capital costs were available for the ST-30
system. Data on O&M costs were reported as a total  for the SD-29 and ST-30 systems. The total cumulative
costs for the year of operation was $17,000. Monthly O&M costs ranged from $0 to $6,021. The operating cost
for February 1996 was $500.  The average O&M cost per unit of contaminant removed was $166/gallon of JP-4.
                                              179

-------
Groundwater  Containment at
Sites SD-29 and ST-30,  Shaw AFB
 Site Background on Site SD-29
This section focuses on the interim action
groundwater containment system located at
Site SD-29, Shaw AFB. A site map for SD-29 is
included as Figure 25.

Contaminants in Soil

•  In January 1992, sixty gallons of JP-4 jet
   fuel was spilled when a pump failed at an
   oil/water separator located at the site.

•  Eighty tons of contaminated soil was
   excavated.

•  Further investigation indicated that the soil
   at the site was contaminated with volatile
   organic compounds (VOCs), with
   contaminant concentrations increasing with
   sample depth.

Contaminants in Groundwater

•  Free product JP-4 jet fuel, dissolved fuel
   components, and dissolved chlorinated
   solvents have been identified in the
   groundwater.

Lithology/Hydogeology

•  Sands and silts.

•  Groundwater is found in a shallow water
   table aquifer and the Upper Black Creek
   Aquifer.

Groundwater Containment System Details

•  Interim action JP-4 free product recovery
   system.
 Site Background on Site ST-30
This section focuses on the interim action
groundwater containment system located at Site
ST-30, Shaw AFB. A site map for ST-30 is
included as Figure 26.

Contaminants in Soil

•  Soil was contaminated with JP-4 jet fuel by a
   leaking jet fuel supply line.
•  Pneumatic product skimmer pumps were
   used from March 1995 through January
   1996.

•  Passive skimmer bailers were placed in
   wells in January 1996.

•  Approximately 5 gallons of JP-4 was
   recovered during its year of operation.

•  Contaminated groundwater was treated with
   an air stripper.

•  An Interim Corrective Measure, consisting of
   three extraction wells, has been designed
   and is being implemented to address the
   mobile JP-4, dissolved fuel, and dissolved
   chlorinated solvent plumes. The target pump
   rate is 1 to 2 gpm.

Operation Period

•  The interim action system began operation
   in March 1995 and was operated through
   February 1996.

•  The interim action system was shut down
   when product recovery became negligible.

Total Capital Costs

•  The estimated capital costs for the SD-29
   interim action groundwater containment
   system was $394,000.


Total O&M Costs

•  See below.
•  TPH concentrations ranged from 87 to
   592 ppm.

Contaminants in Groundwater

•  Free product JP-4 jet fuel was identified on
   groundwater.
                                        180

-------
         Tl

         in'
         ro
         o


         I
         w
         (0

         D
00
        •o
         a>
         CO


         I
         >
         •n
         00
                                                     MW706
                                                     INS)  *



                                                     MW706
 Legend

         Monitoring Well

  A     Existing Groundwater Extraction Well

 {NS>     Not Sampled

^-ioo~N TCE Contour (f/g/L)

         (Tic marks indicate decreasing

         concentrations within closed contour)
                                                                                                        .         .
                                                                                                      ..  \        \
                                                                                                      •   N        x
                                                                                                           \  /   o
                                                                                                       •-.   \  .     \
                              0      100     200


                                 Scale In .Feet
                     SOURCE: IT, Third Quarter Ung-Tenn

                             Monitoring Report IRP SD-29

-------
            SB1613-1®  Main
                       Leak
 Legend
- — Approximate Location of JP-4 Pipelines
 O  Geocone
 ®  Piezocone/Geocone
 ®  Hydroeone
 e  Monitoring Well
Source: Rust in Shaw AFB Map (September 1994)
0      25     50

  Scale In Feet
            Figure 26. Location of Leaking Fuel Line, Site ST-30, Shaw AFB
                                         182

-------
 Lithology

 •  Predominantly interlayered poorly graded,
    well graded, and clayey coarse to fine grain
    sands.

 Groundwater Containment System Details

 •  In March 1995, an interim action free
    product recovery system was installed to
    remove free-phase JP-4.

 •  Contaminated groundwater was treated with
    an air stripper.

 •  Approximately 97 gallons of JP-4 was
    recovered during its year of operation.

 •  Pneumatic product skimmer pumps were
    used from March 1995 through January
    1996.

 •  Passive skimmer bailers were installed in
    January 1996 and are checked monthly.
 Cost and Performance of Grouridwater Containment at Sites SD-29 and ST-30
 •  There are currently no remedial activities or
    monitoring at ST-30.

 Operation Period

 •  The interim action system was operated
    from March 1995 through February 1996.

 •  The interim action system was shut down
    when recovery of JP-4 became negligible.

 Total Capital Costs

 •  Data not available.

 Total O&M Costs - Sites SD-29 and ST-30

 •  Total cumulative costs for the SD-29 and
    ST-30 interim action free product recovery
    system were $17,000 from March 1995
    through February 1996.
Groundwater Containment with Free Product
Source Removal Operational Objectives

The objective of free product source removal is
typically to remove liquid-phase contamination
as quickly and cost-effectively as possible to
prevent continued contamination of surrounding
soil and groundwater. The emphasis for free
product removal is that the mass of
contaminants is cost effectively removed.

Cost for Operation

Figure 27 illustrates curves of O&M costs for the
interim action groundwater containment systems
at Sites SD-29 and ST-30. The monthly O&M
costs ranged from $0 to $6,021. Total O&M
costs after one year of operation were $17,000.

Contaminant Removal

Figures 28 and 29 illustrate curves of the
removal rates of JP-4 free product for the interim
action groundwater containment system at
Sites SD-29 and ST-30. Monthly removal rates
of JP-4 free product ranged from 0 to 50 gallons.
Total contaminant removal after one year of
operation was 102 gallons of JP-4 free product.
By October 1995, both curves representing the
cumulative removal rate had flattened, indicating
that the removal rates were negligible and a
system evaluation for reducing operating cost
was warranted. In January 1996 passive
skimmer bailers were installed in the recovery
wells. The interim action systems were shut
down in February 1996 as recovery was
negligible and the system was no longer able to
meet the operation objectives.

Correlation of Costs and Contaminant
Removal
Figures 30 and 31 illustrate the relationship
between  the O&M costs and the JP-4 recovery
of the interim action groundwater containment
system at Sites SD-29 and ST-30.

Figure 30 illustrates the cumulative O&M cost
relative to the cumulative contaminant removal.
During October 1995, the curve had become
vertical where the cost per unit of contaminant
removal rose exponentially. In January 1996, to
reduce cost, passive skimmer bailers were
installed in the recovery wells. The system was
shut down in February 1996 as recovery was
negligible and the system was no longer able to
meet the operation objectives.

Figure 31 illustrates curves of the monthly and
cumulative cost per unit of contaminant removal
over the operation time of the systems. The
monthly curve illustrates the cost per gallon of
JP-4 removal in each month. The cumulative
curve illustrates that the average cost per unit of
contaminant removal was $166/gallon of JP-4
after one year of operation.
                                            183

-------
                                            Figure 27
                           Cumulative and Monthy O&M Costs vs. Time
                                Sites SD-29 and ST-30, Shaw AFB
                                                                      Cumulative O&M Costs
                                                                      Monthly Cost
                                                                                                   $500.00
                                                   Month
                                                                       Shaw2930.xls; Cumulative and Monthly Costs
                                              Figure 28
          Monthly JP-4 Free Product Recovered at Sites SD-29 and ST-30 and Cumulative Gallons
                                        Recovered, Shaw AFB
120,
100.
 80.
 60.
 40.
 20.
                          Gallons Recovered/Month at SD-29
                          Total Cumulative Gallons Recovered
                          Gallons Recovered/Month at ST-30
               i
i
i      i
CO      O
                                                   Month
                                                                         s       s
                                                                          Shaw2930.xls; Monthly Gallons Recovered
                                               184

-------
                                            Figure 29
                            Cumulative JP-4 Free Product Recovered
                                Site SD-29 and ST-30, Shaw AFB
120
                                                                 -Total Cumulative Gallons Recovered
                                                                 -Cumulative Gallons Recovered at ST-30
                                                                 -Cumulative Gallons Recovered at SD-29
     Mar-95  Apr-95  May-95  Jun-95  Jul-95  Aug-95  Sep-95  Oct-95   Nov-95  Dec-95  Jan-96  Feb-96
                                             Month
                                                                        Shaw2930.xls; Cumulative Gallons Recovered
                                           Figure 30
                 Cumulative O&M Costs per Cumulative JP-4 Product Recovered
                                Sites SD-29 and ST-30, Shaw AFB
                      20
                                     40             60            ,80
                                      Cumulative JP-4 Product Recovered
                                                (Gallons)
100
              120
                                                                           Shaw2930.xls; Cumulative Cost & Gallons
                                               185

-------
$2,000 ,


$1,800 .


$1,600 .


$1,400 .


$1,200 .


$1.000 .


  $800 .


  S600 .


  $400


  $200


    SO
                                               Figure 31
                      Cumulative and Monthly Costs per Gallon Recovered vs. Time
                                    Sites SD-29 and ST-30, Shaw AFB
-Monthly Cost Per Gallon Recovered
- Cumulative Cost per Gallon Recovered
                                                      Month
                                                                                         Shaw2930.xls; Cost Per Gallon
                                                   186

-------
             APPENDIX A



Detailed Cost and Performance Data Tables
                187

-------
                                 JP-4 Free Product Recovery
                                   Sites SD-29 and ST-30
                                    Shaw Air Force Base
   Cost Per Gallon For Free Product Recovery Interim Remedial Action System At IRP Sites SD-29 and ST-30 O&M Cost
Month
Mar-95
Apr-95
May-95
Jun-95
Jul-95
Aug-95
Sep-95
Oct-95
Nov-95
Dec-95
Jan-96
Feb-96
Gallons
Recovered/Month
0
0
2
3
8
50
29
8
2
0
0
0
Total
Cumulative
Gallons
Recovered
0
0
2
5
13
63
92
100
102
102
102
102
Monthly Cost
$409.04
$699.92
$444.09
$1,441.85
$2,667.88
$1,027.00
$6,021.22
$0.00
$989.00
$1,900.00
$500.00
$850.00
Cumulative
O&M Costs
$409.04
$1,108.96
$1,553.05
$2,994.90
$5,662.78
$6,689.78
$12,711.00
$12,711.00
$13,700.00
$15,600.00
$16,100.00
$16,950.00
Monthly Cost
Per Gallon
Recovered
$409.04
$699.92
$222.05
$480.62
$333.49
$20.54
$207.63
$0.00
$494.50
$1,900.00
$500.00
$850.00
Cumulative Cost per
Gallon Recovered
$409.04
$1,108.96
$776.53
$598.98
$435.60
$106.19
$138.16
$127.11
$134.31
$152.94
$157.84
$166.18
   Free Product Recovery
  Remedial Action System
IRP Site SD-29, Building 1202
Month
Mar-95
Apr-95
May-95
Jun-95
Jul-95
Aug-95
Sep-95
Oct-95
Nov-95
Dec-95
Jan-96
Feb-96
Gallons
Recovered/Month at
SD-29
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
Cumulative
Gallons
Recovered at
SD-29
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
4
5
5
5
5
Free Product Recovery Interim
   Remedial Action System
Operable Unit 1, IRP Site ST-30
Month
Mar-95
Apr-95
May-95
Jun-95
Jul-95
Aug-95
Sep-95
Oct-95
Nov-95
Dec-95
Jan-96
Feb-96
Gallons
Recovered/M
onth at ST-30
0
0
2
2
8
50
29
5
1
0
0
0
Cumulative Gallons
Recovered at ST-30
0
0
2
4
12
62
91
96
97
97
97
97
                                           188

-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
     the Solid State Circuits Superfund Site,
              Republic, Missouri
                    189

-------
                  Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
                         the Solid State Circuits Superfund Site,
                                     Republic, Missouri
Site Name:
Solid State Circuits Superfund Site
Location:
Republic, Missouri
Contaminants:
Chlorinated solvents
- Contaminants of greatest concern
at this site are TCE, 1,1-DCA, 1,1-
DCE, methylene chloride, 1,1,1-
TCA, and vinyl chloride
- Maximum concentration of TCE
was 290,000 ug/L
Period of Operation:
Status: Ongoing
Report covers:  1993-3/97
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup (interim results)
Vendor:
Steve Chatman
Chatman & Associates
647 Massachusetts Ave., Ste. 211
Lawrence, KS 66044-2250
(785) 843-1006
State Point of Contact:
Candice Hamil
Missouri Dept. Of Nat. Resources
205 Jefferson Ave., P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65101
(314) 751-3176 or (800) 334-6946
Technology:
Pump and Treat
- Groundwater is extracted using 7
wells, 4 located on site and 3
located off site, at an average total
pumping rate of 34 gpm
- Three wells have depths of 90 ft
bgs, two wells of approximately
300 ft bgs, one of 600 ft bgs, and
one of 985 ft bgs
- Groundwater extracted from on-
site wells is treated with air
stripping and discharged to a
POTW
- Groundwater extracted from off-
site wells is discharged without
treatment to a POTW
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA Remedial
-RODDate: 9/27/89
                                                                  EPA Point of Contact:
                                                                  Steve Auchterlonie, RPM
                                                                  U.S. EPA Region 7
                                                                  726 Minnesota Avenue
                                                                  Kansas City, KS 66101
                                                                  (913)551-7778
Facility Engineer:
Greg Vierkant
Lucent Technologies
2101 West Chesterfield Blvd.
Suite C100-110
Springfield, MO 65807-8672
(417)882-2211
Waste Source:
Storage of stripper and plating
wastes in sump pit
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Groundwater characterized as a
leaky artesian system occurring in a
karst formation.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
- 257 million gallons treated as of March 1997
- DNAPL suspected in groundwater on site
- Extraction wells are located in 3 aquifers, which are influenced by a
nearby surface water
- Groundwater is characterized as a leaky artesian system occurring in
karst formations, with three units identified at the site
- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from <0.01 to 1.62 ft/day
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- The remedial goals for this site are to reduce the TCE concentration in groundwater to 5 ug/L and maintain
  hydraulic control over the groundwater contaminant plume.
- Performance goals were that TCE levels in individual discharge points to the POTW were below 200 ug/L, and
  that average water levels and pump rates from specific wells be within specified ranges; these latter
  requirements were to ensure hydraulic containment.
                                               190

-------
                  Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
                         the Solid State Circuits Superfund Site,
                              Republic, Missouri (continued)
Results:
- TCE concentrations in some of the wells have decreased from 1987 to 1996, and are below the cleanup goal in
  one well, however, TCE concentrations in most wells remain well above the cleanup goal.
- From March 1988 through March 1997,2,754 pounds of TCE were removed from the groundwater.
- Plume containment has been achieved for this site.
Cost:
- Actual costs for the P&T system were approximately $2,510,400 ($893,700 in capital and $1,616,700 in
  O&M), which correspond to $10 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $913 per pound of
  contaminant removed.
- The capital costs do not include the costs for installation of the four deeper wells; these costs were accounted
  for as part of the RI/FS and are not included in the total cost shown above.
Description:
From 1968 through November 1973, Solid State Circuits manufactured circuit boards and used TCE as a
cleaning solvent in portions of its manufacturing process. Since 1973, the site was occupied by a number of
tenants, including Micrographics, Inc., a photographic processing firm. In November 1979, a fire partially
destroyed the building, and the debris was pushed into the basement under the remaining portion of the building.
In June 1982, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources collected samples of water from the city's three
municipal wells and detected elevated concentrations of TCE in one well located 500 ft from the site. In 1984,
MDNR investigated the site and found elevated levels of TCE in the fill dirt and rabble from the basement, in a
540 ft deep well in the basement, and in shallow groundwater outside the building. The site was placed on the
NPL in June 1986 and a ROD was signed in September 1989.

The groundwater is characterized as a leaky artesian system occurring in karst formations, with three units
identified at the site, with shallow and deep bedrock zones extending up to 1,500 ft bgs. The groundwater
extraction system consists of seven wells, one of which is a municipal well. Extracted groundwater is treated
using air stripping. After nine years of operation, cleanup goals for TCE have not been achieved.  Site operators
are evaluating innovative technologies to enhance the remedial effort, such as air sparging using a horizontal
well.
                                               191

-------
                                                               Solid State Circuits Superfund Site
                                    SITE INFORMATION
Identifying Information:
Solid State Circuits (SSC) Superfund Site
Republic, Missouri

CERCLIS #: MOD9808854111

ROD Date: September 27,1989



Background	
Treatment Application:
Type of Action:  Remedial

Period of operation: 1993 - Ongoing
(Data collected through March 1997.)

Quantity of material treated during
application: 257,149,396 gallons of
groundwater as of March 1997.
Historical Activity that Generated
Contamination at the Site: Manufacturing of
printed circuit boards

Corresponding SIC Code: 3571 (Electronic
Computers)

Waste Management Practice That
Contributed to Contamination: Storage of
stripper and plating wastes in sump pit in the
basement.

Facility Operations [1,2]:
•   The site is located in the town of Republic,
    Missouri and occupies a lot that is
    approximately 0.5 acres in a primarily urban
    area.

•   The site operated as Solid State Circuits
    (SSC) from 1968 through November 1973.
    During this time, SSC manufactured circuit
    boards and used trichloroethene (TCE) as a
    cleaning solvent in portions of its
    manufacturing process.  Since that date, the
    site was occupied by a number of tenants,
    including Micrographics, Inc., a photographic
    processing firm, and a factory outlet store.
    In November 1979, a fire partially destroyed
    the building, and the debris was pushed into
    the basement under the remaining portion of
    the building.

•   In June 1982, the Missouri Department of
    Natural Resources (MDNR) collected
    samples from of Republic's three municipal
    wells for analysis of volatile organic
    compounds as part of EPA's National
    Synthetic Organic Chemical Survey.
    Elevated concentrations of TCE were
    detected in one municipal well, located 500
    feet from the former SSC site. Periodic
    sampling in the three municipal wells over
    the next three years consistently revealed
    elevated TCE concentrations in the well
    closest to the site; no TCE was detected in
    two other municipal wells nor in two
    additional wells installed by the City of
    Republic since the start of the RI/FS.

    In 1984, MDNR investigated the former
    manufacturing  facility in an attempt to
    identify the source of contamination in the
    municipal well. Samples of soils and debris
    from pipes and sumps in the basement, as
    well as from a 540-foot deep well found in
    the basement, were collected.  Elevated
    levels of TCE were found in the fill dirt and
    rubble excavated from the basement, in the
    basement well, and in the shallow
    groundwater outside of the building.

    In 1984, MDNR removed 75  to 150 cubic
    yards of TCE-contaminated soils from the
    basement and recased the upper 40 feet of
    the basement well in the hopes of using it as
    an extraction well. The well yield was very
    low and the well was plugged per state
    regulations. In 1985, EPA excavated and
    removed an additional 1,400 cubic yards of
    contaminated soil from within and below the
    basement.

    In June 1987, SSC began the Remedial
    Investigation/Feasibility Study.  Between
    June and December 1987, a number of
    activities were performed, including a
      EPA
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
   	Technology Innovation Office
                                             192
                                                                             TIO3.WP6\0317-06.stf

-------
                                                              Sotid State Circuits Superfund Site
                              SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background (Cont.)
    survey of the sewer system and private wells
    in the area.  Monitoring wells were installed
    and a dual-tower air stripper was installed to
    treat groundwater pumped from on-site
    extraction wells.

•   The site was placed on the National
    Priorities List (NPL) on June 10,1986.

Regulatory Context:
•   The Record of Decision was signed on
    September 27, 1989.

•   The EPA, MDNR, and SSC signed a
    Consent Decree in July 1990, requiring SSC
    to conduct design, construction, and
    operations activities for the groundwater
    cleanup under DNR supervision. The
    Consent Decree was entered  in May 1991.

Site Logistics/Contacts	
•   Site activities are conducted under
    provisions of the Comprehensive
    Environmental Response, Compensation,
    and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as
    amended by the Superfund Amendments
    and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)
    §121, and the National Contingency Plan
    (NCP), 40 CFR 300.

Groundwater Remedy Selection: An
expansion of the existing system of groundwater
extraction and treatment via air stripping was
selected as the remedy for this site as the most
cost-effective approach.
Site Lead:  State

Oversight: EPA

Remedial Project Manager:
Steve Auchterlonie
U.S. EPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 551-7778

State Contact:
Candice Hamil*
Missouri Department of Natural
Resources(MDNR)
205 Jefferson Avenue
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65101
(314) 751-3176 or (800) 334-6946

Indicates primary contacts
Treatment System Operator:
Steve Chatman*
Chatman & Associates
647 Massachusetts St., Ste. 211
Lawrence, KS 66044-2250
(785)843-1006

Facility Engineer:
Greg Vierkant*
Lucent Technologies
2101 West Chesterfield Blvd.,
Suited 00-110
Springfield, MO 65807-8672
(417)882-2211
                                                             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                     Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                                    	     Technology Innovation Office
                                            193
                                                                           TIO3.WP6\0317-06.stf

-------
                                                                Solid State Circuits Superfund Site
                                  MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix Processed Through the
Treatment System: Groundwater

Contaminant Characterization f21	
Primary Contaminant Groups:  Volatile
Organic Compounds

•   Contaminants of greatest concern at the site
    are 1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA), 1,1-
    dichloroethylene (1,1 -DCE), frans-1,1 -
    dichloroethylene (frans-1,1-DCE), methylene
    chloride, 1,1,1 -trichloroethane (TCA),
    trichloroethylene (TCE), and vinyl chloride.
    TCE was reported at concentrations several
    orders of magnitude greater than the
    contaminant with the next largest
    concentration.

•   TCE contamination was found during the
    RI/FS in the three groundwater units
    beneath the site at both on- and off-site
    locations. Maximum TCE concentrations
    detected in the surficial, or Unconsolidated
    Fractured Shallow Bedrock (UFSB), unit
    ranged from 300 ug/L  near Highway 60
    (approximately 1,000 feet downgradient) to
    40,000 ug/L on site. The on-site maximum
    concentration in the intermediate, or
    Unfractured Shallow Bedrock (SBR), unit
    was 290,000 ug/L, and the highest
    concentrations in this unit were found
    between 150 and 300  feet  below ground
    surface (bgs). The maximum on-site
    concentration of TCE found in the deep, or
    Deep Bedrock (DBR),  unit was 18,000 ug/L,
    with the highest concentration found
    between 400 and 500  feet  bgs.
Significant effort has been expended to
detect dense, nonaqueous phase liquid
(DNAPL) at this site. No direct physical,
chemical, or visual evidence has been
reported from the site.  Nevertheless,
concentrations of TCE found during the Rl
are well above 1 percent of solubility, and
high concentrations persist in localized
extraction wells, two indicators of subsurface
source zones.

Figures 1 through 3 show the TCE plumes in
each groundwater unit, respectively, in
1989. The plume in the surficial unit is
controlled by a fracture zone, and, in 1989,
contamination was restricted to a narrow
area less than 50 feet wide, 10 feet deep,
and extending approximately 1,500 feet
downgradient. The plume in the
intermediate unit had not migrated far from
the point of release and was estimated to be
no greater than 100 feet in length with
highest concentrations found between 150
and 300 feet bgs. In the deep unit, the
plume was estimated to extend 785 feet
downgradient and to be 500 feet wide.  The
initial volumes of contaminated groundwater
contained in the three units were estimated
in 1989 to be  15 million, 790,000, and 42
million gallons, respectively.
      EPA
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
	Technology Innovation Office
                                             194
                                                                             TIO3.WP6\0317-06.stf

-------
                                                                Solid State Circuits Superfund Sits
                             MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Costs or Performance
Hydrogeology [2]:

The groundwater system at the SSC site is characterized as a leaky artesian system occurring in karst
formations with shallow bedrock and deep bedrock zones separated by a semiconfining shale layer.
Groundwater flow is vertical as well as lateral. There is an interconnection between the fracture zone in
the UFSB and nearby Robert Spring/Shuyler Creek but no contamination has been detected in the spring
or the creek [2]. There are three principal units in the groundwater system.
     Unit 1     USFB
     Unit 2     SBR
     Unit 3     DBR
Unconsolidated material formed of reddish-brown clay
interspersed with a layer of weathered coarse crystalline
limestone. Water yield is low and aquifer is not a significant
source of drinking water

Consolidated limestone formations with fractures that can
significantly impact flow velocity and direction. It is
interconnected to some degree with the overlying overburden
materials.

Confined aquifer composed of dolomite and sandstone
formations. This is the principal drinking water source in the
area.
Tables 1 and 2 present technical aquifer information and technical well data, respectively. A discussion of
extraction wells is included in the next section.
                              Table 1. Technical Aquifer Information
Unit Name
UFSB
SBR
DBR
Thickness
(ft)
1-15
250 - 300
1,000-1,500
Conductivity
(ft/day)
0.0000001 - 0.01
0.023
1.62
Average
Velocity
(ft/day)
Not Available
0.0009
0.43
Flow
Direction
Consistent
with surface
water flow
Southeast
Southeast
   Source: [2]
SS'EPA
                                     U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
                              Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                             Technology Innovation Office
                                              195
                                                                              TIO3.WP6\0317-06.stf

-------
                                                               Solid State Circuits Superfund Site
                             MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Figure 1. Initial Concentration Contour Gwg/L) Map of Unconsolidated Fractured Bedrock, June 1989 [1]
                                                            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                     Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                                    ^	Technology Innovation Office
                                           196
                                                                           TIO3.WP6\0317-06.stf

-------
                                                          Solid State Circuits Superfund Site
                         MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Figure 2.  Initial Concentration Contour Gug/L) Map of Unfractured Shallow Bedrock, June 1989 [1]
  EPA
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
	Technology Innovation Office
                                        197
                                                                       TIO3.WP6X0317-OS.stt

-------
                                                        Solid State Circuits Superfund Site
                       MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
    Figure 3. Initial Concentration Contour (j^g/L) Map of Deep Bedrock, June 1989 [2]
EPA
       U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
  	     Technology Innovation Office
                                      198
                                                                     TIO3.WP6\0317-06.stf

-------
                                                                Solid State Circuits Superfund Site
                           TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology

Pump and treat with air stripping

System Description and Operation 12.31
                                                Supplemental Treatment Technology

                                                None
                                  Table 2.  Technical Well Data
Well Name
SSC-29
SSC-30
SSC-31
SSC-6C
REM-2
CW-1
REM-1
Note: Average system yield
time from 1993 to 1996.
Unit Name
UFSB
UFSB
UFSB
SBR
SBR
DBR
DBR
is 49,493 gallons per day,
Depth (ft)
90
90
90
283
331
985
600
taking into account the
Ave. Yield
(gal/min)
1-3
1.2-7
1.8-17.4
0.3-1.6
.01 -.42
65
55
system operational
source:
             oj
   The groundwater extraction system at this
   site was installed in phases from 1987 to
   1993. The initial system consisted of four
   on-site wells. Two were installed in the SBR
   unit and one in the DBR unit; the existing
   Municipal Well CW-1 , which was
   contaminated with TCE, is the fourth well. In
   1993, three additional wells were installed in
   UFSB, along the off-site portion of the
   plume.

   The extraction wells in each of the three
   hydrologic units are operated differently to
   ensure that hydraulic containment of the
   plume in that unit is maintained.

   UFSB wells are operated continuously to
   maintain an annual rolling average water
   level between 5 to 20 feet above the bottom
   of the well.  The SBR wells are operated
   intermittently to maintain a level between 25
   to 50 feet above the well bottom, with both
   wells pumping for a limited period every day.
   The DBR wells operate continuously.
                                                    The on-site wells and SSC-30 discharge
                                                    to the treatment system while the off-site
                                                    wells discharge directly to the public
                                                    sewer line where it is carried to and
                                                    treated at the POTW.  If the levels
                                                    exceed discharge standards, the
                                                    groundwater is routed to the air stripper
                                                    for treatment.  Monitors are installed at
                                                    the points of discharge to selectively
                                                    shut off when the discharge standard is
                                                    violated [3].

                                                    The state required pipes  carrying
                                                    extracted water with TCE concentrations
                                                    levels greater than 100 ppb to be
                                                    constructed of double-walled PVC,  while
                                                    lines carrying less contaminated water
                                                    can be single-walled [3].

                                                    Groundwater with TCE concentrations
                                                    that exceed 200 ug/L is treated in a
                                                    treatment system consisting of an
                                                    equalization tank and two stripper
                                                    towers set in a series [3].
                                                              U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
                                                      Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                                      	Technology Innovation Office
                                             199
                                                                             TIO3.WP6\0317-06.stf

-------
                                                                So//d State Circuits Superfund Site
                      TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Svstem Descriotion and Operation (Cont.)
    The equalization tank holds 960 gallons and
    serves to regulate the flow of water from the
    extraction wells that are pumping at different
    rates and frequencies [3J.

    The two 23-foot air stripping towers are
    plumbed in series, each having an internal
    diameter of 37.25 inches. The towers are
    packed with PVC packing to a height of 13.5
    feet. Air and groundwater are sent through
    the tower at a ratio of 750 to 1, respectively,
    and have a design flow rate of 150 to 175
    gpm. Treated groundwater is then
    discharged to the local POTW. Effluent is
    monitored once every 90 days to ensure that
    discharge standards are being met [3, 4, 5].

    Air emissions from the stripping towers were
    monitored during the Pilot Program,
    conducted from October 1991 to January
    1992. Emission levels remained below the
    state air standards, and no treatment of air
    emissions is required [3].

    The extraction and treatment system
    operations are monitored and controlled by a
    specialized software package. The software
    tracks and monitors system parameters,
    such as individual well pump rates and water
    levels, and water levels in the sanitary
    sewer. A telecommunications component of
    the software permits users to access the
    system from off-site locations with a modem.
    The software can control well pump rates to
    maintain the rolling average extraction levels
    required by the Consent Decree. The
    software also monitors the leak detectors
    installed along the pipelines and can turn off
    specific wells in the event of a leak. A
    meteorological station feeds external
    temperature and precipitation data to the
    software system to identify freezing or high
    water conditions that might affect treatment
    system operations [10].

    According to the PRP contractor, the
    integrated hardware and software data
    acquisition and control system results in
    significant cost savings for the project. Total
    estimated savings are at least $25,000 per
    year.

•   Groundwater quality is monitored in all
    seven extraction wells and 13 monitoring
    wells. As of January 1996, the chemical
    monitoring frequency was reduced to
    annual. The UFSB unit has eight monitoring
    points, and the SBR and DBR units have six
    each. All wells are monitored quarterly for
    TCE. Groundwater levels are monitored
    daily, averaged, and reported as annual
    rolling averages on a quarterly basis. The
    Consent Decree specified that certain water
    levels above the well bottom must be
    maintained in the UFSB and SBR units to
    ensure hydraulic containment [6].

System Operation [2,4,5,7]
•   The total quantity of groundwater pumped
    from each unit is given below [7]:
                 Volume Pumped (gallons)
 Year

 Pre-
 1993
 UFSB

  Not
available
   DBR

123,563,609
 All Units

123,563,609
1993
1994
1995
1996
March
1997
825,416
3,058,415
3,633,828
3,505,324
1,584,276
47,587,620
39,727,669
19,626,360
9,468,533
4,069,400
48,483,946
42,893,284
23,398,958
13,089,613
5,719,986
 SBR

  Not
available

 70,910

 107,200

 138,770

 115,756

 66,310
 Total  12,607,259   498,946   244,043,191  257,149,396

    As of March 1997, the treatment system has
    been operational approximately 95% of the
    time. The majority of downtime is for routine
    maintenance of the pumps and the strippers.
    A small amount of downtime is due to
    updates to the software control system, and
    seasonal high water levels in the sanitary
    sewer that prevent discharge to the POTW
    [4, 5].
                                                               U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                       Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                                              	Technology Innovation Office
                                             200
                                                                              TIO3.WP6X0317-06.stf

-------
                                                                 Solid State Circuits Superfund Site
                      TREATMENT Sj/STEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
 System Description and Operation (Cont.l
 •   Pumping of contaminated groundwater
    began during the RI/FS in 1987.  At that
    time, groundwater was extracted from CW-1
    and treated in a rented air stripper (which
    was purchased in December 1987).  Over
    the next two years, three additional wells
    were installed on site to provide influent to
    the air stripper.  In late 1990, the air stripper
    was re-conditioned with new packing and
    piping. In 1993, three wells were installed in
    the off-site fracture zone. The effluent from
    these wells is discharged directly to the
    sanitary sewer [2, 5].

 •   The treatment system was shut down
    several times prior to 1994 because of
    freezing water in the strippers.  During the
    first quarter of 1994, the stripper blowers
    were changed to link to the transfer pumps.
    This change allowed the blowers to operate
    only when there was water in the stripping
    towers. Since the switch, there has not been
    a freezing problem [5].

Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
       Air stripping media has not been changed
       since operations began. The towers are
       cleaned twice in the summer with sodium
       hyperchlorite to prevent biofouling [10].

       The site operators have begun evaluating
       the feasibility of adding innovative
       technology to improve the efficiency of the
       remedial action.  Soil vapor extraction and
       air sparging are two technologies currently
       under review, both for their efficacy in
       reducing concentrations in soils and
       groundwater and for their ability to stimulate
       bioremediation [4, 5]. At the time of this
       report, no decisions had been made.
       Currently, the site operators are installing a
       485-foot horizontal well beneath Main Street
       and above the Main Street fracture.
The major operating parameter affecting cost or performance for this technology is the pumping rate.
Table 3 presents the values measured for this and other operating parameters.

                                 Table 3. Operating Parameters
                    Range of Treatment System
                         Pumping Rates
                      Performance Standard
                         Remedial Goal
                  Source: [1,3,7]
        19-105gpm
Discharge from any one point
 not to exceed 200 ug/L TCE
        TCE 5 ug/l
     EPA
              U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
      Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
     	   Technology Innovation Office
                                            201
                                                                             TIO3.WP6\0317-06.stf

-------
                                                            Solid State Circuits Superfund Site
                   TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Table 4 presents a timeline for this remedial project.
Start Data
1987
Sept 1989
1991
1993
Jan 1993
Jan 1993
Sept 1993
1995
Jan 1996
End Date
1989

1992




—

- : ^jg^'-ifiSSSPT ; . •• •
RI/FS and interim groundwater treatment conducted
ROD issued
Remedial design performed
UFSB off-site wells installed
System operation began
Quarterly monitoring begins
Additional UFSB extraction well, SSC-31, installed
Water sampling in municipal distribution reduced to biannual; chemical monitoring reduced to
semiannual
Chemical monitorinq reduced to annual
Source: [6]
                        TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
CleanuD Goals/Standards Ml
The remedial goals for this site are to reduce the
TCE concentration in groundwater to 5 ug/L and
maintain hydraulic control over the groundwater
plume. These goals must be met throughout all
affected aquifers.

Treatment Performance Goals f61
 Performance goals for the system were
 delineated in the Consent Decree and were
 formulated in terms of required pump rates and
 water levels to ensure hydraulic containment of
 the plume. Specific goals were:

 •   To ensure that TCE levels in  individual
    discharge points to the POTW are below 200
To maintain an average water level above
well bottom in UFSB wells of 5 to 20 feet.

To maintain an average water level above
well bottom in SBR wells of 25 to 50 feet.

To maintain an average annual pump rate
from the DBR wells of 75 gpm.

Total sewer discharge cannot exceed 200
gpm from all sewer discharge locations.
 Performance Data Assessment
    No contaminants have been detected in
    downgradient monitoring wells nor in Robert
    Spring since 1993 when the UFSB wells
    were installed, and plume containment
    appears to have been achieved [7].
Contaminant removal through the air stripper
is shown in Figure 4. From March 1988
through March 1997, 2,754 Ibs of TCE were
removed from the groundwater. Two
periods of increased removal were noted.
      EPA
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
	Technology Innovation Office
                                           202
                       TIO3.WP6\0317-06.stf

-------
                                                              Solid State Circuits Superfund Site
                    TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Assessment fCont.l
    In the first quarter of 1989, the two SBR
    wells were installed, and mass flux
    increased from less than 2 Ib/day to 5.3
    Ib/day. By the following quarter, it had
    returned to its previous level.  When the
    UFSB wells were installed in early 1993, the
    mass removal rate rose abruptly from less
    than 2 Ib/day to 4.8 Ib/day, and reached 25.1
    Ib/day by the final quarter of 1993. However,
    by the end of the first quarter of 1994, the
    rate of removal had returned to less than 2
    Ib/day [7].

    Figure 5 illustrates changes in the TCE
    concentrations found in the DBR wells over
    time. Groundwater monitoring results
    indicate that contaminant concentrations in
    one DBR well have been reduced below
    treatment goals. TCE concentrations in CW-
    1,  located at the toe of the DBR plume, have
    declined steadily, and, as of April 1993, have
    remained below detection limits.
    Contaminant levels in REM-1, located in the
    source area, were high in 1987 (4,758 ug/L),
    and had dropped to approximately 100 ug/L
    in  the last quarter of 1996 [7, 8].
    Additionally, the reduction in concentrations
    in  REM-1 demonstrates the pathway
    contributing contaminants into the DBR has
    been shut off and concentrations near the
    source have been reduced by a factor of 40
    [11].
 The data in Figure 6 show the change in
 TCE concentrations in the on-site SBR wells.
 Concentrations have declined regularly in
 well REM-2 from 1987 through 1996, they
 have varied in SCC-6C, going through
 cycles over the period [7, 8].

 Figures 7 through 9 present changes in TCE
 concentrations in three different areas of the
 UFSB plume: the source, mid-plume, and
 the toe. As shown in Figure 5, TCE
 concentrations in the source area have
 clearly declined in both wells since 1987.
 The largest decline was seen in SSC-11,
 which dropped from 31,067 ug/L in 1987 to
 3,200 ug/L at the end of 1996.
 Contamination levels at mid-plume have not
 reduced appreciably from their levels in
 1993, and have increased significantly in
 SSC-20. However, a 1987 sampling event
 found a level of 66,560 ug/L in that well;
 therefore, despite the rise in TCE
 concentrations in this well from 1993 to
 1996, the level of TCE in SSC-20 in the final
 quarter of 1996 was substantially lower than
 the 1987 level. At the toe of the plume, TCE
 concentrations have declined to less than 50
 ug/L in wells SSC-31, SSC-26, and SSC-27
 [7, 8].
     EPA
        U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
	Technology Innovation Office
                                           203
                                                                           TIO3.WP6\0317-06.stf

-------
                                                        Solid State Circuits Superfund Site
              TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT;.)
                                                                             3,000
!
u.
n
    Aug-87     Dec-88     May-90     Sep-91     Jan-93     Jun-94      Oct-95     Mar-97
                   .Mass Flux (Ib/day)
. Cumulative Mass Removed (Ib)
        Figure 4. Mass Flux Rate and Cumulative Total Contaminant Removal from
                            March 1988 to March 1997 [7]
 5.000
     8/87   12/91   1/92   1/93   4/93    7/93   10/93  1/94   4/94   7/94    1/95   7/95   12/96
                                    C\AM
     RHVI-1
Figure 5. TCE Groundwater Concentrations in DBR Wells, August 1987 to December 1996 [7]
 EPA
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
   Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                  Technology Innovation Office
                                       204
                         TIO3.WP6\0317-06.stf

-------
                                                             Solid State Circuits Superfund Site
                  TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
      160,000
      140,000
      120,000
   3  100.000
       80,000
       60,000

       40,000
       20,000
            8/87  12/91   1/92   1/93   4/93   7/93   10/93  1/94   4/94   7/94   1/95   7/95   12/96
                                       .SSC-6C
   .RBW-2
   Figure 6. TCE Groundwater Concentrations in SBR Wells, August 1987 to December 1996 [7]
      35,000
      30,000
  21  25,000
  O)

  ^  20,000
      15,000

   1
   o  10,000
  O

       5,000
           8/87  12/91   1/92   1/93   4/93   7/93   10/93  1/94   4/94   7/94   1/95   7/95  12/96
                                      -SSC-29
        .SSC-11
Figure 7.  TCE Groundwater Concentrations in UFSB Wells (Source Area), August 1987 to December
                                        1996 [7]
    EPA
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
	Technology Innovation Office
                                          205
                                                                         TI03.WP6\0317-06.stf

-------
                                                            Solid State Circuits Superfund Site
                  TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONTT)
  120,000
  100,000
   80,000
   60,000
o
o
   40.000
   20,000
        8/87  12/91   1/92   1/93  4/93   7/93   10/93   1/94   4/94   7/94   1/95   7/95   12/96
                                    -SCC-30
                                          -SCC-20
 -SSC-24
          Figure 8. TCE Groundwater Concentrations in UFSB Wells (Mid-Plume Area),
                             August 1987 to December 1996 [7]
      350
      300
   T 250^
      200
   I
   O
150
       100
         8/87   12/91   1/92   1/93   4/93   7/93  10/93   1/94   4/94   7/94   1/95   7/95   12/96
                                  .SSC-31
                                         .SSC-26
-SSC-27
              Figure 9. TCE Groundwater Concentrations in UFSB Wells (Toe Area),
                             August 1987 to December 1996 [7]
     EPA
                                                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                              Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                                      	Technology Innovation Office
                                           206
                                                                          TIO3.WP6\0317-06.stf

-------
                                                             Solid State Circuits Superfund Site
                   TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Completeness
•  Performance monitoring data are only
   available for TCE because it is one to three
   orders of magnitude greater than other
   constituents and this was chosen as the
   indicator compound to be monitored.
   Furthermore, the amount of TCE removed
   by the POTW is not available. Therefore,
   the estimated mass removed through the air
   stripper represents an underestimate of total
   contamination removed during this remedial
   action.

•  Air stripper influent monitoring data,
   collected quarterly, are available from
   January 1993 to the final quarter of 1996;
   these data were used in Figure 4. To
   generate data for the period from 1987 to
   1993, sporadic monitoring in wells, CW-1
   and REM-1 were combined with monthly
   pumping volumes to generate estimates of
   contaminant removal in these two wells over
   this period.

Performance Data Quality	
Groundwater quality was monitored in all
wells on a quarterly basis from January 1993
to January 1996. At that time, the
monitoring frequency was changed to semi-
annual. Data in Figures 5 to 9 represent all
available data for the wells shown.
The QA/QC program used throughout the remedial action met the EPA and the State of Missouri
requirements. All monitoring was performed using EPA Method 8010, as set out in the Consent Decree,
and the site operator did not note any exceptions to the QA/QC protocols. [10]
                              TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process
Solids States Circuits, and later the Missouri Remedial Action Corporation (MRAC), a company founded
by the PRPs at this site (other sites as well), have contracted with a series of companies to construct and
operate the remedial system at this site. Presently, the system is being operated by Chatman Associates
of Lawrence, Kansas.

Cost Analysis

All costs for design, Construction and operation of the treatment system at this site were borne by MRAC.
      EPA
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
	Technology Innovation Office
                                           207
                                                                          TI03.WP6\0317-06.stf

-------
                                                              Solid State Circuits Superfund Site
                          TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Capital Costs F61
 Remedial Construction
 Engineering and Site
 Management
 DBR/SBR Extraction Wells
 UFSB Extraction Wells and
 Piping
 Air Stripper
     Rental/Purchase
     Rehabilitation
     Total Remedial
     Construction
    $57,329

Not Available

   $786,085
    $49,290

    $40,266

   $893,666
Operating Costs [61
Project Management
Data Management
Monitoring/Analysis
Utilities
Periodic Maintenance
Reporting
Other
Cumulative Operating Cost
through 6/30/97
Annual Operatina Costs
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Other Costs [6]
Remedial Design
EPA/DNR Oversight
$386,000
$134,000
$282,000
$370,700
$146,600
$152,400
$145,600
$1,616,700
$104,121.69
$431,410.13
$264,246.69
$272,721.17
$215,832.75
$255,390.00
$1,543,722.43
Not Available
$243,771
Cost Sensitivities
•   There were no significant changes to the
    construction scope of work that increased
    the capital cost by more than 10 percent [5].

Cost Data Quality	
                      There have been no significant events that
                      have increased or decreased the cost of
                      operations more than was expected [4].
Actual capital and operations and maintenance cost data are available from the responsible party for this
application. Limited information on the items included in the total capital costs was provided. The
individual costs of remedial design and the installation of the DBR and SBR wells were not available
because they were tracked as part of the RI/FS [5].
                       OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
    According to the PRP contractor, the
    remedy, as operated, has eliminated
    groundwater pathways to human populations
    and the environment; ensured that municipal
    water supply operations are not impacted;
    ensured safe operation of the remediation
    system during times of high sewer flow;
    ensured minimal human exposure; and kept
                      annual O&M manpower costs to less than
                      half of what was originally projected. In
                      addition, the PRP contractor noted that the
                      pumping rate for wells in the DBR unit was
                      reduced 80 percent (from 75 gpm to 15 gpm)
                      [11].
      EPA
                              U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                       Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                      	Technology Innovation Office
                                            208
                                                                            TIO3.WP6\0317-06.stf

-------
                                                            Solid State Circuits Superfund Site
               OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED (CONT.)
Project management costs for both
construction and operations were about 6
percent of the respective totals. If periodic
reporting is included, the percentage rises to
18 percent. This is a relatively low
percentage for project management, which
can be attributed, in part, to the active role
played by the MRAC engineer. [6]

Total cost for the remedial action at this site
were $2,510,400 ($1,616,700 in O&M costs
and $893,700 in construction costs) which
corresponds to $913 per pound of
contaminant removed and $10 per 1,000
gallons treated.

TCE concentrations in some of the wells
have decreased from 1987 to 1996, and are
below the cleanup goal in one well; however,
TCE concentrations in most wells remain
well above the cleanup goal.

Contaminant removal rates through this
system have been relatively low,  less than
two pounds of contaminant per day, on
average. This low rate is largely due to the
hydrogeology of the site, which is dominated
by tight clay materials and solution-
weathered limestone. In both materials,
contaminants are difficult to remove [5].

TCE levels in CW-1, the first well to be
contaminated, declined rapidly after the
original extraction system came online.  The
site engineer stated that pumping in CW-1
prior to the Rl had established groundwater
flow paths that drew contamination from the
basement dry well towards CW-1. Once the
source removal actions were complete, the
dissolved contamination remaining between
the source area and CW-1 defined a narrow
path that was rapidly remediated by pumping
CW-1  [5].
The site engineer believes that DNAPL is not
likely to be present at the site.  No DNAPL
has ever been identified, despite several
extensive groundwater assessments.
However, concentrations in several wells
remain high, and in some wells are presently
higher than 1 percent of the solubility limit for
TCE.

To enhance the remedial effort, site
operators are evaluating innovative
technologies at the time of this report.  They
are considering  installing an air sparging
system using a horizontal well in the fracture
zone of the UFSB. Placement of the
horizontal well along the fracture zone would
force the groundwater pressure gradients
towards the SBF extraction wells in the
highest part of the plume, enhancing VOC
removal from the groundwater in that stage
of the plume. The well would be designed
and constructed for two other uses:  as a
nutrient injection well to enhance natural
bioremediation in the fracture system, and
as an air sparging well.

According to the site engineer, institutional
constraints that restricted the operator's
ability to use reinjection at this site may have
increased the time required for site
remediation more than any other single
factor [11].
                                                           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                   Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                                                  Technology Innovation Office
                                         209
                                                                          TIO3.WP6X0317-06.stf

-------
                                                               Solid State Circuits Superfund Site
                                       REFERENCES
1.  Record of Decision for Solid States Circuits.
    Republic. MO. U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency. July 1989.

2.  Remedial Investigation Report for the
    Republic. Missouri Site. Geraghty & Miller.
    June 1989.

3.  Remedial Design Report for the Republic.
    Missouri Site. McLaren/Hart Environmental
    Engineering Corporation.  October 1992

4,  Communications with Chatman Associates.
    June 18,1997.

5.  Communications with Greg Vierkant, Lucent
    Technologies, June 24-25,1997.

6.  Five Year Review Report. Solid States
    Circuits. Republic. Missouri. Missouri
    Department of Natural Resources.
    September 1996.

Analvsis Preoaration
7.   Electronic Spreadsheet for Remedial
    Costs. MRAC, Inc. 1993-1997.

8.   Electronic Spreadsheet for System
    Operation. Missouri Remedial Action
    Corporation, Inc. 1993-1997.

9.   1996 Annual Report for the Republic
    Missouri Site. Chatman and Associates,
    Inc. January 1997.

10. Supplemental Shallow Ground-Water
    Investigation Tasks: Remedial
    Investigation/Feasibility Study.
    Geraghty & Miller, Inc. April 1988.

11. Correspondence from Steve Chatman,
    Chatman & Associates, Inc., June 23,
    1998.
This case study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by Eastern Research
Group, Inc. and Tetra Tech EM Inc. under EPA Contract No. 68-W4-0004.
      EPA
            U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
    	Technology Innovation Office
                                             210
                                                                             TIO3.WP6\0317-06.stf

-------
 Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers Superfund Site,
                 Houston, Texas
                      211

-------
                   Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
                 the Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers Superfimd Site,
                                       Houston, Texas
 Site Name:
 Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers
 Superfund Site
 Location:
 Houston, Texas
 Contaminants:
 Chlorinated solvents
 - Maximum concentration of TCE
 detected in 1988 was 1,200 mg/L
Period of Operation:
Status: Ongoing
Report covers:  10/93 - 10/96
                                 Cleanup Type:
                                 Full-scale cleanup (interim results)
 Vendor:
 Clearwater Systems, Inc.
 P.O. Box 822
 New Caney, TX 77357
 (713)399-1980

 Installation, Startup, and
 Operation Subcontractor:
 Maxim Technologies, Inc.
State Point of Contact:
James Sher
TNRCC, Mail Code 144
12100 Park Circle
Austin, TX 78753
(512)239-2444

Site Management:
John Kovski
Radian International LLC
9801 Westheimer, Suite 500
Houston, TX 77042
(713)914-6426
Technology:
Pump and Treat
- Groundwater is extracted using
12 wells at an average total
pumping rate of 8 gpm
- Extracted groundwater is treated
with filtration (for iron), pH
adjustment, air stripping, carbon
adsorption, and filtration
- Treated groundwater is reinjected
through 14 wells
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA Remedial
-RODDate: 9/23/88
EPA Point of Contact:
Ernest R. Franke, RPM
U.S. EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214)665-8521
Waste Source:
Disposal of punctured
trichloroethene drums on the
ground surface
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Relatively high unit cost for
treatment, due to high capital costs
and small quantity of groundwater
extracted.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
-13 million gallons treated as of October 1996
- DNAPL was suspected in groundwater at this site
- Groundwater is found at 20-25 ft bgs
- Extraction wells are located in 3 aquifers
- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 0.14 to 25.5 ft/day
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- A remedial goal was established for TCE of 5 ug/L, based on the maximum contaminant level, that must be
  met throughout all affected aquifers.
- A goal for the extraction system is hydraulic containment of the plume.
                                             212

-------
                   Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
                 the Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers Superfund Site,
                                 Houston, Texas (continued)
Results:
- From 1994 to 1996, concentrations of contaminants were reduced in some wells, but remain above the cleanup
  goal in the silty, shallow, and intermediate zone wells. In some shallow zone wells, concentrations have
  increased to higher than 1,000 ug/L over this period.  Through 1996, approximately 4,960 pounds of
  contaminants have been removed from the groundwater.  Further plume delineation was being performed at the
  time of this report.
- Hydraulic containment of the plume has not been achieved, according to the TNRCC manager.
Cost:
- Actual costs for pump and treat were $2,547,387 ($2,104,910 in capital and $442,477 in O&M), which
  correspond to $196 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $514 per pound of contaminant removed.
Description:
Sol Lynn owned and operated this site as Industrial Transformers, a scrap metal and electrical transformer
reclamation facility, from 1971 through 1978.  Sol Lynn then leased the property to Ken James, who operated the
site as Sila King, Inc., a chemical supply business, in 1979 and 1980. During the fall of 1971, the city of
Houston Water Pollution Control Division discovered that workers at Industrial Transformers poured oil out of
electrical transformers onto the ground during transformer dismantling. In 1981, reports of strong odors
originating from the site were brought to the attention of the Texas Department of Water Resources. Upon
inspection, approximately 75 punctured drums were found scattered about the property. A remedial investigation
conducted from 1984 through 1991 showed elevated levels of PCBs in surficial soils and TCE in shallow soils
and groundwater, and that the plume had migrated off site.  The Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformer site was listed
on the NPL in March 1989 and a ROD was signed in September 1988.

The extraction system used at this site consists of 12 wells - five wells in the silty zone, six wells in the shallow
sand zone, and one well in a lower, intermediate aquifer.  Eight of the 12 wells are located across the centerline
of the plume along the site's northern boundary. This placement serves to intercept contaminated groundwater as
it moves across the site and to draw back the off-site plume. As of 1996, concentrations of contaminants were
reduced in some wells, but remain above the cleanup goal in the silty, shallow, and intermediate zone wells.
Although remediation is not complete, the site engineers shut down the extraction system in October 1996.
Extraction well pipes were leaking and fouled, and the extraction  system lost plume containment.  Currently, the
site is being reevaluated. Aquifer usage, alternative remedial actions, and plume boundaries are being examined.
                                               213

-------
                                                   Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers Superfund Site
                                    SITE INFORMATION
Identifvina Information:
Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers Superfund Site
Houston, Texas

CERCLIS#: TXD980973327

ROD Date: September 23,1988
Treatment Application:
Type of Action:  Remedial

Period of operation: October 1993 - October
1996
(Performance data collected through October
1996)

Quantity of material treated during
application:  13 million gallons of contaminated
groundwater.
Baekaround
Historical Activity that Generated
Contamination at the Site: Chemical recycling
and supply

Corresponding SIC Code: 2869

Waste Management Practice That
Contributed to Contamination:  Disposal of
punctured trichloroethylene drums on the
ground surface

Location:  Houston, Texas

Facility Operations: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

•   Mr. Sol Lynn owned and operated the site
    as Industrial Transformers, a scrap metal
    and electrical transformer reclamation
    facility, from 1971 through 1978. Sol  Lynn
    then leased the 3/4-acre property to Ken
    James, who operated the site as Sila King,
    Inc., a chemical supply business, in 1979
    and 1980 [1,2].

•   The first documented investigation of this
    site took place during the fall of 1971 when
    the City of Houston Water Pollution Control
    Division discovered that workers at
    Industrial Transformers poured oil out of
    electrical transformers onto the ground
    during transformer dismantling. In 1981,
    strong odors originating from the site were
    brought to the attention of the Texas
    Department of Water Resources, the
    predecessor of the Texas Water
    Commission (TWC). Upon inspection,
    approximately 75 drums were found
    scattered about the property.  Most of the
      EPA
    drums, labeled "Trichloroethylene" (TCE),
    were empty and had puncture holes [2].

    A remedial investigation (Rl) and feasibility
    study was performed from December 26,
    1984 through February 21,1991. Remedial
    design was performed from June 22,1989
    through August 26,1992 [2].

    The results of the Rl showed elevated levels
    of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) in surficial
    soils and TCE in shallow soils and
    groundwater [3]. The Rl also showed that
    the plume had migrated off site [3].

    An unidentified silty water-bearing unit was
    discovered and investigated in 1991,
    concurrent with groundwater remedial
    design activities.  Groundwater samples
    taken in this zone as part of a Field
    Investigation of the Silty Zone Report
    revealed high concentrations of TCE, the
    highest of which was 1,200 mg/L [4].

    Approximately 2,400 cubic yards of soil,
    which included all soils with PCB
    contamination of 25 mg/kg or greater, were
    excavated and treated in a dechlorination
    unit for source control in late 1992. Treated
    soils were disposed of in an off-site
    landfill [5].

    The Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformer
    Superfund Site was listed on the National
    Priorities List (NPL) March 31,1989 [1].
             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                    Technology Innovation Office
                                             214
                                                                             TIO3.WP6/1116-03.stf

-------
                                                 Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers Superfund Site
                              SITE; INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background fConU
Regulatory Context:
•  A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed for
   this site on September 23,1988.

•  Site activities are conducted under
   provisions of the Comprehensive
   Environmental Response, Compensation,
   and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as
   amended by the Superfund Amendments
   and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)
   §121, and the National Contingency Plan
   (NCP), 40 CFR 300.

Site Logistics/Contacts	
Groundwater Remedy Selection:
•  The selected groundwater remedy for this
   site is extraction and treatment via air
   stripping and carbon adsorption.  Air stripper
   exhaust is treated through vapor-phase
   carbon adsorption to meet Texas air quality
   criteria.
Site Lead: State

Oversight:  EPA

Remedial Project Manager:
Ernest R. Franke
U.S. EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Ave., Ste. 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 665-8521

State Contact:
James Sher*
Texas Natural Resources Conservation
Commission (TNRCC), Mail Code 144
12100 Park Circle
Austin, Texas 78753
Phone: (512)239-2444
FAX:   (512)239-2450

indicates primary contacts
Installation, Startup, and Operation
Subcontractor:
Maxim Technologies, Inc.
(previously named Huntingdon Engineering and
Environmental, Inc. and Southwest
Laboratories, Inc.)

Treatment System Vendor:
Clearwater Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 822
New Caney, Texas 77357
(713)399-1980

Site Management:
John Kovski*
Radian International LLC
(formerly Radian Corporation)
9801 Westheimer, Ste. 500
Houston, TX 77042
(713) 914-6426
                                 MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix Processed Through the
Treatment System:  Groundwater
      EPA
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
    	Technology Innovation Office
                                           215
                                                                          TIO3.WP6/1116-03.stf

-------
                                                   Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers Superfund Site
                              MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Contaminant Characterization f3. 4. 201
Primary Contaminant Groups: Halogenated
volatile organic compounds

•   The on-site groundwater is contaminated
    with TCE. In 1988, during the remedial
    investigation site sampling of the shallow
    and intermediate aquifer zones, the
    maximum concentration of TCE detected in
    groundwater on site was 600 mg/L. An off-
    site maximum TCE concentration of 790
    mg/L also was detected during this sampling
    episode [3]. During the field investigation of
    the silty zone, the maximum concentration
    of TCE detected in the groundwater was
    1,200 mg/L [4].

•   While free product was not observed,
    according to the Silty Zone Investigation
    report, the high dissolved concentrations of
    TCE detected at the site suggest that
Matrix Characteristics Affectina Treatment Costs or Performance
                         residual TCE product, a dense non-aqueous
                         phase liquid (DNAPL), exists in the aquifer
                         material. This residual TCE is most likely
                         adsorbed in the interstitial spaces of the
                         aquifer matrix, rather than pooled as a free-
                         phase DNAPL at the base of the zone [4].

                         The EPA Region 6 Fact Sheet reports that
                         4.2 million gallons of groundwater are
                         contaminated with site wastes; groundwater
                         contamination in the 90-foot zone has not
                         been determined [2].  Figures 1 and 2 are
                         contour maps which depict the silty and
                         shallow sand zone groundwater
                         contamination during design sampling
                         episodes [3, 4].
Hydrogeology [2,3,4, 8]:

Groundwater is found at this site in two distinct zones ~ the Upper Aquifer and the Lower Aquifer. The
Upper Aquifer is composed of two units:  a discontinuous perched zone, called the Silty Zone (Unit 1),
and the Shallow Sand Zone (Unit 2).  Neither serves as a known supply of drinking water. The
groundwater flows in a northwesterly to westerly direction and is encountered at approximately 20 to 25
feet below land surface. Both aquifers are composed of similarly sandy material, resulting in relatively
homogeneous flow conditions. The three water-bearing units are described below:
 Unit 1    Silty Zone


 Unit 2   Shallow Sand
          Zone
  Unit 3   Intermediate
          Aquifer
A layer of silty clay with low yield.  This unit is not continuous
across the site.

A layer of water-bearing sand with sand content varying from 50%
to 70 percent. This unit is underlain by a stiff clay layer.
Investigations in March 1998 revealed an additional sandy layer
beneath this layer.  No further characterization was available on
the newly discovered sand layer.

A layer of water-bearing sand that is underlain  by a thick clay
layer.
      EPA
                                 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                         Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                           	Technology Innovation Office
                                             216
                                                                              TIO3.WP6/1116-03.stf

-------
                                              Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers Superfund Site
                          MATRIX; DESCRIPTION (CoNT.)
   s«
   *s      I
 •  li   11 .is
\    -fo
                3. 3
                1  3
             Figure 1.  TCE Concentration Contours Detected in Silty Zone (1994) [3]
                                 (Best Copy Available)
     EPA
       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
              Technology Innovation Office
                                        217
                                                                     TIO3.WP6/1116-03.Stf

-------
                                           Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers Superfund Site
                      MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
       Figure 2.  TCE Concentration Contours Detected in the Shallow Sand Zone
                      (February 1991, Best Copy Available) [3]
EPA
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
       	Technology Innovation Office
                                      218
                                                                     TIO3.WP6/1116-03.stf

-------
                                                 Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers Superfund Site
                            MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Tables 1 and 2 provide technical aquifer information and extraction well data, respectively.

                            Table 1. Technical Aquifer Information
Unit Name
Silty Zone
Shallow
Sand Zone
Intermediate
Aquifer
Average
Depth
(ft)
20
35
80
Thickness
(ft)
5-10
2-12
11
Conductivity
(ft/day)
3.8
25.5
0.14
Average Velocity
(ft/year)
10.5
106
NA
Flow
Direction
Northwest
Northwest
West
NA - The average velocity of the groundwater in the lower aquifer is not available.
Source:  [2]
                         TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology

Pump and treat with air stripping and liquid-
phase carbon adsorption

System Description and Operation T3. 4. 201
Supplemental Treatment Technology

Vapor-phase carbon adsorption
                                Table 2.  Extraction Well Data
Well Name
SZE-1 through SZE-5
SZR-1 through SZR-2
SZER-1 through SZER-5
SE-1 through SE-6
SR-1 through SR-7
IE1
Note: Extraction well designations
Unit Name
silty zone
silty zone
silty zone
shallow sand zone
shallow sand zone
intermediate aquifer
end in "E," recharge well
Depth (ft)
25
25
25
40
40
92
designations end in
Design Yield
(gal/min)
0.5-5.0
0.5-5.0
0.5-5.0
3-10
3-10
3-10
"R."
Source:  [2]
      EPA
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
   	Technology Innovation Office
                                          219
                                                                         TIO3.WP6/1116-03.stf

-------
                                                    Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers Superfund Site
                      TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
        DpQRrmtian and Ooeration fCont.)
System Description [6]
•   The recovery system is designed to
    maintain hydraulic control over the
    contaminant plume. The system includes
    five wells in the silty zone, six wells in the
    shallow sand zone, and one well in the lower
    aquifer, as listed in Table 2.  Eight of the 12
    wells are located across the centerline of
    the plume along the site's northern
    boundary. This placement serves to
    intercept contaminated groundwater as it
    moves across the site and to draw back the
    off-site plume. The remaining extraction
    wells in the upper aquifer are installed in the
    silty zone along or near the center line of
    the plume.  The single extraction well
    installed in the intermediate aquifer is
    placed near the center of the plume.

•   A groundwater model, MODFLOW, was
    used to identify well placement and
    extraction rates.  The possibility of ground
    settlement as a result of dewatering in the
    siity zone supported the use of a
    groundwater model for well placement and
    designing extraction rates.

•   Groundwater treatment consists of air
    stripping and carbon polishing. To minimize
    fouling in the air stripper packing, an iron
    filter and pH adjustment unit were installed
    up stream of the air stripper.  The iron filter
    consists of two parallel tanks filled with
    Pyrolox media. Hydrochloric acid is added
    to lower the pH to inhibit the formation of
    mineral salts in the stripper.

•   The 15 foot high, 36 inch diameter air
    stripper tower is filled with polypropylene
    packing.  The air stripper removes the
    majority of the volatile organic contaminants
    in the water.

 •   After air stripping, liquid-phase carbon
    absorption is used to remove the remaining
    volatile and nonvolatile organic
    contaminants in the water. Two activated
    carbon adsorption columns are operated in
    series; each contains 80 cubic feet of
    activated carbon.
•   Filters remove suspended solids above 0.45
    micron size from the treated groundwater
    prior to recharge or on-site release.

•   The secondary treatment system consists of
    activated carbon adsorption of the volatile
    organic contaminants in the off gas from the
    air stripper. Two activated carbon columns
    are operated in series; each holds 60 cubic
    feet of activated carbon.

•   The groundwater reinjection system consists
    of 14 recharge wells, seven wells in the silty
    zone and seven wells in the shallow sand
    zone. Groundwater was designed to be
    reinjected at approximately 60 gpm, which
    is consistent with the design extraction rate.

•   The groundwater monitoring system
    consists of 20 monitoring wells:  five wells in
    the silty zone, eight wells in the shallow
    sand zone, and seven wells in the
    intermediate zone.

System Operation [12,14,19,20]

•   Quantity of groundwater pumped from
    aquifer in gallons:

              Volume Pumped (gallons)
Year SiltyZone
1993 Not available
1994 347,962
1995 744,024
1996 113,880
Source: [14]
Shallow
Aquifer
Not available
630,791
3,955,502
1,559,517

Intermediate
Aquifer
Not available
2,858,755
7,576,419
2,256,088

    The remedial action strategy at this site
    employed a two-phase approach. During
    Phase I, groundwater was extracted from
    the silty and intermediate zones. Treated
    groundwater was discharged to the local
    publicly owned treatment works (POTW).
    This pumping strategy was intended to
    reduce or eliminate contamination migration
    from the silty zone into the shallow zone.
    The Phase II pumping strategy shifted
    extraction to the shallow and the
       EPA
             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                    Technology Innovation Office
                                              220
                            TIO3.WP6/1116-03.Stf

-------
                                                    Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers Superfund Site
                      TREATMENT, SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
System Description and Operation T3.4. 201
    intermediate zones.  Treated groundwater
    was recharged through seven silty zone and
    seven shallow zone wells [4].  The decision
    to start Phase II operations was made based
    on evaluation of the contamination levels
    and the groundwater levels in the silty zone.
    The reduction in contamination levels from
    Phase I operations had leveled off and
    further reductions in the groundwater level
    would be unproductive [19].

    As of March 1996, the site engineer
    reported that system had been
    approximately 69% operational. More
    recent information on operational status was
    not available [12].

    The Rl did not identify contamination in the
    Silty Zone. As a result, construction and
    design were altered after the later
    investigation of the silty zone found
    contamination.
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
 During operation, site engineers were
 unable to achieve design extraction rates,
 and pumping rates were low.

 Although remediation is not complete, the
 site engineers shut down the extraction
 system in October 1996.  Extraction well
 pipes were leaking and fouled, and the
 extraction system lost plume containment.

 Currently, the site is being reevaluated.
 Aquifer usage, alternative remedial actions,
 and plume boundaries are being examined.
 The redesign for the piping system and
 electrical distribution  system was completed
 in January 1998 and the bid was opened in
 April 1998 [20].
The groundwater extraction rate is the major operating parameter affecting cost or performance for this
technology. Table 3 presents the values for all performance parameters.

                               Table 3: Performance Parameters
^j»P^f^r;^^,,
Average Pump Rate
Effluent Performance Standard
(POTW and Recharge)
Cleanup Goal
Air Emission Limit
'?'?'<$££''%' 1 ^ ~~ ^*^^L*SSi'» i.ffi^&fe'i "' A??'i£$'.
^-mimn&£} < • ' ^Vslllilft ^vK- "*^fe'
<%??'%%? MfSJjtffa' J^W******** ^ggffiyfyy SMS!**. • V
||ll||1,|;^11^|Ww>" •£-!" , f^S -Wsfe
8gpm*
TCE (5 ppb)
TCE (5 ppb)
TCE (0.4 ibs/hr)
                  Source: [1,6]
                  *Based on 13 million gallons of groundwater pumped and a 69% operation rate over three
                  years.
      EPA
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
	Technology Innovation Office
                                            221
                                                                             TIO3.WP6/1116-03.stf

-------
                                                 Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers Superfund Site
                     TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Table 4 presents a timeline for this remedial project.

                                  Table 4: Project Timeline
if : start Date
9/23/88
6/22/89
8/92
10/8/93
10/12/94
10/96
End Date

8/26/92
10/93

...
ongoing
r 	 v 	 ..,-C*^ ^;': ..;
Record of Decision approved
Design of remediation system
Remedial construction
Begin Phase I Remedial Operations
Begin Phase II Remedial Operations
Site shutdown for redesign
Source: [1, 2,11]
                         TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards Ml
The remedial goal for TCE in the groundwater is
the maximum concentration limit (MCL) of 5
pg/L, set under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
This goal must be met throughout all aquifers.

Treatment Performance Goals \3. A]
 *   The goal of the extraction system is
    hydraulic containment of the plume.

 •   The performance goal for the treatment
    system is to meet the effluent standard of 5
    ppb for TCE in recharge.

 Performance Data Assessment F8.14.15.16.19. 201
The air emission limit from the vapor phase
carbon filter is 0.4 Ibs/hr, or 30 ppmv, for
TCE as measured at the vent stack.
    After two years of operation, concentrations
    of TCE in most areas of the plume
    remained above remedial goals; overall
    concentrations in the lower aquifer have
    been below goals but exceeded goals on a
    periodic basis [15].

    Figure 3 shows TCE concentrations in the
    silty zone wells from August 1994 to
    October 1996. These data show that
    average TCE concentrations in the silty
    zone declined in all wells. However, the
    decline varied from well to well, and by
October 1996, TCE levels in the silty zone
still exceeded 100,000 pg/L in two of these
wells. In three wells, concentrations had
dropped below 70,000 ug/L, with the lowest
concentration recorded at 32,650 ug/L [15].

Figure 4 presents TCE concentrations in
shallow sand zone wells over the same
period. During the first three months of
Phase II operations (beginning October
1994) TCE concentrations  rose in four of the
five wells, including rapid increases in SE-3
and SE-4. In December 1994,
       EPA
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                Technology Innovation Office
                                             222
                       TIO3.WP6/1116-03.Stf

-------
                                                  Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers Superfund Site
                    TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
   concentrations in SE-4 had risen to more
   than 500,000 ug/L. However, by late 1995
   and early 1996, a discernable downward
   trend emerged. By October 1996,
   concentrations in the two shallow zone wells
   with the highest levels of TCE remained in
   excess of 200,000 ug/L while concentrations
   in SE-1  and SE-2 were 136 ug/L and 2,920
   ug/L, respectively [15].

   Figure 5 shows TCE concentrations in the
   single intermediate aquifer well from August
   1994 to October 1996. Over much of this
   period, TCE concentrations remained below
   the remedial goal of 5 ug/L, with the
   exception of short periods in the late
   summer of  1994 and 1996, when
   concentrations increased to 34 ug/L and 72
   ug/L, respectively [14].

   Concentrations of contaminants increased
   in the lower aquifer and the newly
   discovered sandy layer after pumping
   began, indicating connectivity between the
   shallow zone and these layers.

   Hydraulic containment of the plume has not
   been achieved, according to the TNRCC
   manager [16].
Influent concentrations of TCE were
consistently reduced by the treatment
system to levels below the 5 ug/L remedial
goal [15].

Concentrations of TCE in air emissions
have not exceeded the 0.4 Ib/hr limit
specified in the air permit during remedial
operations [16].

Figure 6 presents the removal of
contaminants through the treatment system
from 1993 to 1996. Over this period, the
pump and  treat system has removed
approximately 4,960 pounds of  contaminant
mass from the groundwater [8].
Contaminant removal rates reported in
annual performance reports have fluctuated;
however, the trend of the contaminant
removal rate declines from 7.1  Ibs/day in
July 1995 to 1.8 Ibs/day in October 1996 [8].

From 1993 to 1996, a total of 13 million
gallons of groundwater were treated.
Taking into account the hours of system
operation,  the average treatment rate is
12,000 gpd [8].
Performance Data Completeness
   Contaminant mass removal information is
   available in monthly reports for the period
   December 1993 through October 1996.
   Figure 6 incorporates these data.

   Water level measurements and influent
   concentrations were collected on a biweekly
   basis over the period from December 1993
   through October 1996.
Groundwater concentration data were
available for all extraction wells and five
silty zone recharge wells for the period
August 1994 through October 1996. These
data were used to calculate the three-month
rolling averages shown in Figures 3 through
6. A rolling average was used to smooth
out for graphical purposes the extreme
variation present in the monthly data.
Performance Data Quality
The QA/QC program used throughout the remedial action met the EPA and the State of Texas
requirements. All monitoring was performed using EPA-approved methods, and the vendor did not note
any exceptions to the QA/QC protocols.
      EPA
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                Technology Innovation Office
                                            223
                                                                           TIO3.WP6/1116-03.stf

-------
                                           Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers Superfund Site
               TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
     Aug-94    Nov-94   Feb-95   May-95  Sep-95   Dec-95   Mar-96    Jul-96   Oct-96
                         -SZE-1
-SZE-2
-SZE-3 -5K—SZE-4
                                                                 -SZE-5
   Figure 3. TCE Concentrations in SiltyZone Wells (August 1994 - October 1996) [15]
I
          Aug-94   Nov-94   Feb-95  May-95   Sep-95  Dec-95  Mar-96   Jul-96   Oct-96
                                 SE-2
       SE-3
                                                                      SE-6
    Figure 4.  TCE Concentrations in Shallow Zone Wells (August 1994 - October 1996) [15]
  EPA
                    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
            Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                          Technology Innovation Office
                                      224
                                  TIO3.WP6/1116-03.Stf

-------
                                                Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers Superfund Site
                   TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
      100
   o
   0>
   o
   §
   o
        Jul-94   Oct-94   Jan-95   May-95  Aug-95   Nov-95    Mar-96   Jun-96   Sep-96

    Figure 5. TCE Concentrations in Intermediate Zone Wells (August 1994 - September 1996) {15}
                                                                            4,000  £,
               &~  V'  '
                                                                             000
                          2,000
                                                                            1,000
   Dec-93  Apr-94  Aug-94  Dec-94  Apr-95  Aug-93  Dec-95  Apr-96  Aug-96
                                  -Mass Flux -^Mass Removed
Figure 6. Mass Flux Rate and Cumulative Containment Removal (December 1993 - October 1996) [15]
     EPA
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
	Technology Innovation Office
                                          225
                                                                        TIO3.WP6/1116-03.stf

-------
                                                   Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers Superfund Site
                               TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission is the lead at this site. Radian International LLC
(formerly Radian Corporation) is responsible for oversight of the Sol Lynn site. Maxim Technologies,
Inc., was the installation, startup, and operation contractor through April 1997. (Maxim Technologies,
Inc. was previously operated as Huntingdon Engineering and Environmental, Inc. and as Southwest
Laboratories, Inc.)

Cost Analysis

All costs for investigation design, construction and operation of the treatment system at this site were
shared by EPA and the TNRCC.
Caoital Costs f9.11.141
 Remedial Construction
 Mobilization and Preparatory          $351,275
 Work
 Monitoring, Sampling, Analysis          $8,759
 Fences, Gates, etc.                  $26,106
 Groundwater Collection and          $712,971
 Control
 Treatment System                  $359,526
 Site Security                        $58,941
 Construction Management and        $348,446
 Engineering
 Other                            $238,886
 Total Remedial Construction       $2,104,910
Operating Costs T141
 1993 Operations and Maintenance         $59,443
 Costs
 1994 Operating and Maintenance Costs    $173,517
 1995 Operating and Maintenance Costs    $123,511
 1996 Operating and Maintenance Costs     $86,006
 Total Cumulative Operating Costs       $442,477

Other CostsJIDJ	_^______
  Remedial Investigation
  Remedial Design
  Design
  Analytical
  TNRCC Review
  Technical Support
  Total Design
  EPA Oversight
$750,030


$490,490
  $7,016
  $4,300
$102,452
$614,305

$114,446
Cost Data Quality
Actual capital and operations and maintenance cost data are available from TNRCC and Radian
International for this application.
                        OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
    Total actual cost to date for the pump and
    treat system at the Sol Lynn/Industrial
    Transformers site was $2,547,387
    ($2,104,910 in capital and $442,477 in
    operations and maintenance), which
    corresponds to $196 per 1,000 gallons of
    groundwater treated and $514 per pound of
    contaminant removed [14].

    The treatment system has removed 4,960
    pounds of volatile organic compounds from
       EPA
       the groundwater over three years.
       However, after two years of pump and treat
       system operation at Sol Lynn, TCE
       concentrations remain above the remedial
       goal of 5 ug/L. Data from the silty and the
       shallow sand zones show concentrations
       above 100,000 ug/L. While TCE
       concentrations in the intermediate aquifer
       have generally remained below the remedial
       goal, concentrations increased above the
       goal during the summer of 1996 [15].

               U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
       Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
            	Technology Innovation Office
                                             226
                              TIO3.WP6/1116-03.Stf

-------
                                                  Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers Superfund Site
                  OBSERVATION^ AND LESSONS LEARNED (CONT.)
    Monthly sampling in monitoring wells
    downgradient of the capture zone showed
    an increase in TCE concentrations in
    groundwater after August 1996, indicating
    that the plume had extended beyond the
    capture zone. Therefore, the system was
    shut down in October 1996 for redesign.
    System redesign was completed in January
    1998.  Further plume delineation was being
    performed at the time of this report [15,16].
   The site characterization performed during
   the Rl did not identify silty zone
   contamination. As a result, problems were
   encountered with the original design.  The
   design and construction had to be modified
   after the Remedial Design was completed
   [2].
                                      REFERENCES
1.   Record of Decision. U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency, September 1988.

2.   ITS Remedial Action Interim Report.
    Volume 1.  Radian Corporation. February
    1995.

3.   Feasibility Study Report Phase II. Radian
    Corporation. 1994.

4.   Field Investigation of the Siltv Zone Report.
    Radian Corporation.  1992.

5.   Industrial Transformer Site Remedial
    Design Report - Volume II: Soil
    Dechlorination Treatment.  ENSR
    Consulting and Engineering, June 1991.

6.   Operation & Maintenance Manual.
    Huntingdon Engineering & Environmental,
    Inc. February 1995.

7.   Industrial Transformer Superfund Site
    Remedial Action Oversight Contract
    Monthly Status Reports. Radian
    Corporation. October 1993 - September
    1995, November 1995 - January 1996,
    March 1996.

8.   Remedial Action Oversight Contract Annual
    Status Reports.  Radian Corporation. 1994-
    1996.

9.   Change Order #15. TNRCC. April, 1997.

-Analysis Preparation	
10. Remedial Design Phase Invoice History.
   Radian Corporation.  1989-1991.

11. Groundwater Remedial Oversight Invoice
   History. Radian Corporation. 1992-1994.

12. Personal Communication with James Sher,
   TNRCC, June 17, 1997.

13. Personal Communication with John Kovski,
   Radian Corporation, June 3, 1997.

14. Remedial Action Invoice History.  Southwest
   Labs Environmental Services. January
   1993-August 1993.

15. Monthly Reports. Radian Corporation.
   August 1994 to November 1996.

16. Personal Communication with James
   Sher, TNRCC.  April 11, 1997.

17. Personal Communication with James Sher,
   TNRCC. November 20, 1997.

18. Sol Lynn Site Facts Sheet. EPA Region 6.
   March 31, 1998.

19. Comments on draft report provided by John
   Kovski,  Radian International LLC, June
   1998.

20. Comments on draft report provided by
   James Sher, TNRCC, June 1998.
This case study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by Eastern Research
Group, Inc. and Tetra Tech EM, Inc. under EPA Contract No. 68-W4-0004.
      EPA
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
   	Technology Innovation Office
                                           227
                                                                           TIO3.WP6/1116-03.stf

-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
               228

-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater with Containment Wall at
   the Solvent Recovery Services of New England, Inc. Superfund Site
                     Southington, Connecticut
                               229

-------
    Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater with Containment Wall at
        the Solvent Recovery Services of New England, Inc. Superfund Site
                                 Southington, Connecticut
Site Name:
Solvent Recovery Services of New
England, Inc. Superfund Site
Location:
Southington, Connecticut
Contaminants:
Chlorinated solvents; semivolatiles
- nonhalogenated; PCBs; and heavy
metals
- Maximum concentrations
detected in 1991 included TCE
(41,000 ug/L), cis-l,2-DCE
(110,000 ug/L), 1,1,1-TCA
(320,000 ug/L), PCBs (85 ug/L),
barium (3,510 ug/L), cadmium
(76.9 ug/L), chromium (111 ug/L),
lead (175 ug/L), and manganese
(37,200 ug/L)
Period of Operation:
Status: Ongoing
Report covers: July 1995 through
June 1998
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup (interim results)
Vendor:
NTCRA 1 Design Contractor:
Blasland, Bouck, & Lee, Inc (BBL)
Syracuse, NY
NTCRA 1 Const. Contractor:
BBL Environmental Services
NTCRA 1 Operations Contractor:
Handex of New England
PRP Oversight Contractor:
de maximis, Inc.
Bruce Thompson
PRP Project Manager
37 Carver Circle
Simsbury, CT 06070
(860)651-1196
Technology:
Pump and Treat and Vertical
Barrier Wall
- Groundwater is extracted using
12 wells at an average total
pumping rate of 20 gpm
- Extracted groundwater is treated
with addition of chemical (caustic),
clarification, filtration,
UV/oxidation, and activated carbon
- Treated groundwater is
discharged to a surface water
- A sheet pile wall, 700 ft long, is
located at the downgradient portion
of the plume
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA Removal
- Non-Tune Critical Removal
Action Memorandum: 4/1/93
State Point of Contact:
Mark Beskind
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106-5127
(860)424-3018
                                 EPA Point of Contact:
                                 Karen Lumino, RPM
                                 U.S. EPA Region 1
                                 JFK Federal Building
                                 One Congress Street
                                 Boston, MA 02203
                                 (617) 573-9635
Waste Source:
Waste lagoons, open pit
incineration, incineration residuals
handling, drum storage
 Purpose/Significance of
 Application:
 UV/oxidation has been effective at
 treating water contaminated with
 pure phase contaminants, including
 a mix of VOCs, PCBs, and metals.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
- 32.5 million gallons treated as of June 1998
- DNAPL was observed in several monitoring wells on site
- Depth to groundwater was not provided for this site
- Extraction wells are located in 2 aquifers, which are both heterogeneous
and anisotropic
- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 0.023 to 300 ft/day
                                              230

-------
        Pump and Treat and Containment of Contaminated Groundwater at
         the Solvent Recovery Services of New England, Inc. Superfund Site
                           Southington, Connecticut (continued)
 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
 -  No cleanup goals or standards have been established as of the time of this report. A ROD is expected to be
   finalized in 1999, at which time cleanup standards will be set. The ROD is expected to incorporate a waiver of
   groundwater standards within the NAPL zone due to technical impracticability.
 -  A primary goal of the extraction system is to prevent migration of all contaminated overburden groundwater
   from the operations area at the site.
 Results:
 - Contaminant levels within the containment wall have not been reduced as DNAPL continues to dissolve into
  the aqueous phase.
 - During the past three years, containment of the plume has been maintained the majority of the time, and wells
  down-gradient of the plume have not had increased contaminant levels. Containment was lost less than four
  days over the three years of operation.
 - From July 1995 to July 1997, approximately 4,344 pounds of VOCs have been removed from the groundwater.
Cost:
- Actual costs for pump and treat were $5,556,900 ($4,339,600 in capital and $1,217,300 in O&M), which
  correspond to $265 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $1,280 per pound of contaminant removed.
- Expedited review of design documents helped to minimize costs for this application.
Description:
Solvent Recovery Services of New England, Inc. (SRS) reclaimed spent industrial solvents for reuse or blending
from 1955 until March 1991. Chemicals from site activities and process sludge were disposed of in two on-site
unlined lagoons from 1955 until 1967, when they were closed.  For several years thereafter, wastes were burned
in an open pit incinerator at the southeastern corner of the operations area, and incinerator ash was used as fill at
the facility. Operating practices for handling of spent solvents resulted in spills and leaks to the soils. From
1980 to 1982, EPA conducted numerous investigations of the SRS site. The site was placed on the NPL in
September 1983 and a non-time critical removal action memorandum was signed in April 1993.

The groundwater containment system consists of 12 extraction wells and a down-gradient steel sheet pile wall
that extends to the bedrock.  Eleven wells are located along the interior of the wall, and one well is located in the
center of the containment area. Containment of the plume has been maintained 98% of the time over a three year
period. UV/oxidation has been effective at treating water contaminated with pure phase contaminants, including
a mix of VOCs, PCBs, and metals, to levels that meet state discharge standards.
                                              231

-------
                                                                           SftS Superfund Site
                                   SITE INFORMATION
Identifvina Information:
                                                 Treatment ADDlication:
Solvent Recovery Services of New England,
Inc. Site
Southington, Connecticut

CERCLIS #: CTD009717604

ROD Date: Scheduled for September 1999

Non-Time Critical Removal Action
Memorandum: April 1,1993

Background
Type of Action: Removal

Period of operation: July 19,1995 - Ongoing
(Performance data collected through July 1997;
data on volume treated collected through June
1998)

Quantity of groundwater treated during
application:  32.5 million gallons through
June 30,1998
Historical Activity that Generated
Contamination at the Site: Solvents recovery

Corresponding SIC Code: 7389A (Solvents
Recovery)

Waste Management Practice That
Contributed to Contamination: Waste
lagoons, open pit incineration, incineration
residuals handling, drum storage

Facility Operations [1,2,3,7]:
•   This case study presents  information on
    Phase 1 of the Non-Time Critical Removal
    Action (NTCRA) performed at the Solvent
    Recovery Services of New England, Inc.
    (SRS) Site. The final Rl Report was
    submitted in June  1998.  The Record of
    Decision (ROD) will be prepared by
    September 1999.

•   The 2.5-acre site is located in a suburban
    area bordered by commercial, agricultural,
    and residential properties. Included in the
    area potentially affected by the SRS plume
    is the SRS facility operations area, an
    adjoining property, and the Town of
    Southington wellfield.

•   SRS reclaimed spent industrial solvents for
    reuse or blending from 1955 until March
    1991. Chemicals  from site activities and
    process sludge were disposed of in two on-
    site unlined lagoons from 1955 until 1967,
    when they were closed. The lagoon
    contents were drained and disposed of off
    site. The lagoons were then backfilled with
    clean soil.

    For several years thereafter, wastes were
    burned in an open pit incinerator at the
       EPA
    southeastern corner of the operations area,
    and incinerator ash was used as fill at the
    facility. Practices used for waste handling,
    transferring, and storing of spent solvents
    and fuels in drums and tanks resulted in
    spills and leaks to the soils.

    From 1980 to 1982, EPA conducted
    numerous investigations of the SRS site
    during the evaluation process for the
    Comprehensive Environmental Response,
    Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
    (CERCLA) National Priorities List (NPL).
    Further investigations were performed from
    1980 through 1990 under the purview of
    Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
    (RCRA). The site was placed on the NPL
    on September 8,1983.

    In 1983, SRS entered into a Consent
    Decree with EPA which required changes to
    solvent handling procedures, spill control
    measures, paving of the operations area,
    fire protection measures, and the installation
    of a system to recover groundwater.

    The groundwater recovery system, named
    the On-site Interceptor System (OIS),
    included 25 recovery wells but no
    monitoring wells. The OIS extracted
    groundwater, treated it in an air stripper, and
    discharged it to the Quinnipiac River.  EPA
    reviewed OIS performance in 1993. The
    OIS was found to be ineffective in
    preventing off-site migration of
    contaminated overburden groundwater.
    The OIS unit was shut down in 1994 when
    EPA made the decision that NTCRA 1 was
    needed.
             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                    Technology Innovation Office
 October 20,1998
                                             232
                            TIO3.WP6\0107-06.stf

-------
                                                                          S/?S Superfund Site
                               SITE INFORMATION (CoNT.)
 Background fCont.)
    SRS disposed of remaining on-site sludges
    from tanks, concrete dikes, and drums
    during shutdown cleanup from January 25 to
    March 26, 1991.

    In 1992, EPA removed PCB-containing
    sediments from a drainage ditch as part of a
    Time-Critical Removal Action. From
    January through February 1994, EPA
    conducted a Time-Critical Removal Action
    to dispose of drums, pails, and other
    containers with residual laboratory
    chemicals off site.

    The NTCRA 1  Action Memorandum was
    signed by the Region 1 Regional
    Administrator on April  1,1993, and
    addresses the  performance of soil studies
    and the extraction and treatment of the
    groundwater in the overburden aquifer to
    contain the plume.

    On October 4,1994, EPA entered into an
    Administrative Order of Consent (AOC) for
    NTCRA 1 with  greater than 1,600 Potentially
    Responsible Parties (PRPs). A 1994 de
    minimis settlement reduced the number of
    active PRPs to 360. NTCRA 1 was the only
    action addressed in the first AOC.  EPA
    entered into a second AOC for NTCRA 2
    and to complete the RI/FS and perform a Tl
    Evaluation with the PRPs on February 6,
    1997, with an effective date of five days
    after signature.

    NTCRA 1 pre-design investigation work was
    initiated in September 1994, and included
    installation of four initial recovery wells, four
    overburden piezometers and four bedrock
    piezometers. The 100% Design was
    submitted in December 1994,  and
    construction occurred from February 1995
    to July 1995, with system start-up in July
    1995. This report addresses only the
    groundwater activities performed under
    NTCRA 1.
      Regulatory Context:
         Remedial activities in the overburden
         aquifer are being performed under NTCRA
         1, as an interim remedy.

      •   Site activities are managed under CERCLA,
         as amended by the Superfund Amendments
         and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)
         §121, and the National Contingency Plan
         (NCP), 40 CFR 300.

      Remedy Selection: Groundwater containment
      is currently being conducted under a two-phase
      Non-Time Critical Removal Action (NTCRA 1
      and NTCRA 2).  NTCRA 1 was mandated to
      minimize migration of contaminated
      groundwater in the overburden aquifer. NTCRA
      2 was mandated to minimize migration of
      contamination in the bedrock aquifer.  Under
      NTCRA 1, contaminated groundwater is
      pumped from the overburden aquifer
      containment system, treated by ultra violet light
      (UV) oxidation, and discharged to the
      Quinnipiac River. Containment is also provided
      by a downgradient sheet pile wall.  NTCRA 2
      will extend the groundwater extraction system
      into the bedrock aquifer and will use the same
      treatment technology [1].
      EPA
                 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
         Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
        	Technology Innovation Office
October 20,1998
233
                                                                           TI03.WP6\0107-06.stf

-------
                                                                         S/?S Superfund Site
                              SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Site Logistics/Contacts
Site Lead: PRP

Oversight: EPA

Remedial Project Manager:
Karen Lumino*
U.S. EPA Region I
John F.  Kennedy Federal Building
One Congress Street
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 573-9635

State Contact:
Mark Beskind*
Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection
PERD
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106-5127
(860)424-3018
Treatment System Vendor(s):
PRP Oversight Contractor:  de maximis, Inc.
Bruce Thompson*
PRPs Project Manager
37 Carver Circle
Simsbury, CT  06070
(860)651-1196

Treatment System Vendor:
NTCRA 1 Design Contractor: Blasland, Bouck,
& Lee, Inc. (BBL), Syracuse, NY
NTCRA 1 Construction Contractor:  BBL
Environmental Services
NTCRA 1 Operations Contractor: Handex of
New England
 "Indicates primary contacts
                                  MATRIX DESCRIPTION
 Matrix Identification
 Type of Matrix Processed Through the
 Treatment System: Groundwater

 Contaminant Characterization n.3.4.71
 Primary Contaminant Groups: Volatile organic
 compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic
 compounds (SVOCs), polychlorinated biphenyls
 (PCBs), and metals.

 •  The contaminants of concern at the site
    include VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, and metals.
    Refer to Attachment A for a complete list
    and range of contaminants detected in the
    groundwater during sampling in 1991.
    VOCs are the most prevalent contaminants.

 •  As shown in Attachment A, sampling events
    performed in 1991 detected concentrations
    of trichioroethlene (TCE) at 30,000 ug/L,
    c/s-1,2-dichloroethylene (c/s-1,2-DCE) at
    110,000 ug/L, 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-
    TCA) at 78,000 ug/L, as well as other VOCs
    in the overburden aquifer. The same
    sampling events detected TCE
    concentrations of 41,000 ug/L, c/s-1,2-DCE
    at 5,300 ug/L, 1,1,1-TCA at 320,000 ug/L,
    as well as other VOCs in the bedrock
    aquifer.

    PCBs and metals were also detected at
    levels of concern.  PCBs were detected at
    concentrations  up to 85 ug/L in 1991.
    Barium (3,510 ug/L), cadmium (76.9 ug/L),
    chromium (111 ug/L.). lead (175 ug/L),  and
    manganese (37,200 ug/L) all had maximum
    concentrations  of concern.
       EPA
             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                    Technology Innovation Office
 October 20,1998
                                            234
                           TI03.WP6\0107-06.stf

-------
                                                                                   SRS Superfund Site
                                MATRIX DESCRIPTION (GoNj.)
Contaminant Characterization (Cont.)
    From 1994 to 1995, Blasland, Bouck, and
    Lee, Inc.  (BBL) constructed the NTCRA 1
    system.  During construction, dense
    nonaqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) was
    found in samples from monitoring wells and
    in the soil from the bottom of some wells.
    DNAPL has been visually observed in
    samples from both aquifers. The DNAPL
    was analyzed and found to contain primarily
    TCE, perchloroethylene (PCE), and toluene,
    with additional VOCs at smaller fractions.

    DNAPL is present in both the overburden
    and bedrock aquifers. Figures 1, 2, and 3
    illustrate the contaminant plume distribution
    in the upper, middle, and lower layers of the
    overburden aquifer, respectively, based on
    November 1996 to February 1997 data.
    Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the contaminant
    plume distribution in the shallow and deep
    layers of the bedrock aquifer, respectively,
    based on November 1996 to February 1997
    data .
                                           Figures 1, 2, and 3 show that the
                                           contaminant plume in the overburden
                                           covered the on-site operations area and
                                           migrated downgradient east, offsite, to the
                                           Quinnipiac River.  The  1998 Rl data
                                           modified the plume delineation shown  in
                                           Figures 1 and 2, and the northern extent of
                                           the plume was decreased.

                                           Figures 4 and 5 show that the contaminant
                                           plume in shallow bedrock covered the
                                           operations area and migrated south and
                                           east to the Quinnipiac River.

                                           An estimate of the volume of the plume was
                                           not provided in the available reference
                                           material. An estimate could not be
                                           developed because of the complexity of the
                                           hydrogeology at the site. However, the
                                           1998 Rl by BBL estimated the volume of
                                           actual DNAPL in the  aquifer at up to
                                           900,000 gallons.  The recovery of DNAPL is
                                           discussed in the System Operations section.
                                                          SHALLOW OVERBURDEN MONITORING WELL

                                                          NTCRA 1 EXIRACnON KLL,

                                                          NTCRA .1 COMPLIANCE PIEZOMETER

                                                          NTCRA 1 WETUNO DHWEPaNT
                                                          ESTfUATEO EXTENT OF GROUND-WATER
                                                          REGULATORY EXC£EDENCE(SJ
                                                        D IOCATTCN WTH ALCOHOLS DETECTION IN CRCUNO WATER

                                                          GENERALIZED GROUND-WATER FLOW DIRECTION
1.t-DICHLOROETHAK£
BENZENE
CHLOROFORM
1.2-DICHLOROETHENE
1.1-DICHLOROETHENE
ETHYLBEMZCNe
UETHYLENE CHLORIDE
ACETONE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
1,1,1 -THJCHLDROETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
2-BUTANONE
VINYL CHLORIDE
e
TW-04
4.«P
    A REGULATOR^ EXCEEDB4CE RATIO
	S >1.O INDICATE GROUND-WATER
REGULATORY UU1T EXCEEDED.
NUMBERS 
-------
                                                                                           SRS Superfund Site
                                  MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
                             HTH REGULATORY CXCECDENCC RATIO.
                          REXUUTOftY UUTT EXCEEDED,
                          NWBEH3 <1.0 KXCATE EXCOSCKCE RATIO
                          rat COMPOUNDS DETECTED BELOW
                          KOOUTOHY IMT.
                          rwsr Hutaen KIMTES UAXUUU
                          CF A poeciro voc OVER RCCULATCRY
                                                              LOCAT1CN «TH ALCOHOLS DETECTION IN CROUND

                                                              COTERAUZED CflOUNO-VTATPt ROW DIRECTION
u ifomoeawoot
H AetKM
Figure 2.  Distribution of Contaminant Plume in Middle Overburden Aquifer Based on November 1996 to
                                      February 1997 Sampling Data [3]
                                                              DEEP OVERBURDEN UGHTORWO MEU.

                                                              MTCRA 1 .JEXIRACTIOH
                                                              HTCRA 1 COUPtlANCC PCIOMODl
                                                              LOCATKN W1H ALCOHOLS OETKTT10H ,

                                                              GCHERMJ2O) CftOUNO-WATCR FtOMT DHtECTIOK'
                                 N3CA7KS 3JOO » IMT].
                                 COWOUWO WTO WDICATCD
                                                           t. MAPPNO BASO) OH nCURE 'SOLVENT RECOWRY SERVlCEpF HWI
                                                                TlDN/nASaUTY STUDr. IAZV tAHC, SOOTHHOTOM. CONNEOICU
                                                                BY BVERSFltO TECHNOLOGIES CCRPORATKW,
  Figure 3. Distribution of Contaminant Plume in Deep Overburden Aquifer Based on November 1996 to
                                       February 1997 Sampling Data [3]
       EPA
                                                                       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                             Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                                                                Technology Innovation Office
October 20,1998
                                                      236
                                                                                         TIO3.WP6\0107-06.stf

-------
                                                                                                              SRS Superfund Site
                                           MATRIX DESCRIPTION (COIMT.)
                                                                              SHALLOW BEDROCK MONITORING IftELL

                                                                              SHALLOW BEDROCK PIEZOMETER
                             Mil MTM RgOJLATOftY EXCEEDENCC RATIO.
                       UW-707R NUMBERS >t.O INDICATE GROUND- WATER
                             REGULATORY UMT EXCEEDED.
                             NUMBERS <1.0 WDICATE EXCEEDENCC RATIO
                             FOR COMPOUNDS DETECTED BELOW .
                             RCCUIATDRY UUfT.
                             FtRST NUMBER NOICATES UAXMUM MULTIPLE
                             Of A DETECTED VOC OVER REGULATORY
BENZENE
CHLOROFORU
1,2-tMCHUWOETHENE
1.1-DICHLOftOETHENE
UETHYLENE CH.ORCE
TETRACH.OROETHEW:
1.1.1-TRICHLOROETOANE
TR1CM.DROE1HENE
2-8UTANONE
   CHUJRIOE
  ESTWATED EXTENT OF GHOUKD-WATER
  REGULATORY EXC£EOENC£(S)
13 LOCATION WTH ALCOHOLS DETECTION

  GENERALIZED CflOUND-WATEa F1.0W DIRECTION
                             IMT (•.». 4.B INDICATES 4J « UUT1
                                             IH INtHCA
                                                                        1. HAPKNC BASED ON FICWE "SOLVENT RECOWlV SERMCE OF NEW
                                                                         IHVESTFCATlON/fCASIBIUTY STUDY. LAZY LANE: SOUTHNCTON,
                                                                         6-28-93 BY EXVCTSflEO TECHNOLOGtES CORPORATION.
     NO VOC. DETECTED
     IWO-fEBRUABY 1
                           ERS K
                        EXCeCDENCe RATIOS
                        COMPOUNDS AND WELLS.
                        (-) (HOICATES NO OTHER
                        EXCEEOENCes.
     SAMPLING EVENT. Oft JUKE 1997 SAUPUNC
          ) CLUSTER.
   Figure 4.  Distribution of Contaminant Plume in Shallow Bedrock Aquifer Based on November 1996 to
                                              February 1997 Sampling Data [3]
                                                                            Q LOCATION NTH ALCOHOLS OETECTION

                                                                               CCHERAUZED GROUND-WTEH • fl,OVf
         TEmACHLOROETKENE
         1.1.1-TiHCHLOftOETHANe
                                                                        MAPPING BASED OK FIWJRE •so.vtNT HCCOV^IY STRMCE or HEW ENGLAND REMEDIAL
                                                                        «WST1CATlCN>TeA9BUTY STUDY, LAZY LANE, SOUTHINCTW. CONMeCTtCUr DATED
                                                                        C-20-B3 BY DlVERSIFIEO TECHHOUXaES CORPORATION.
    Figure 5.  Distribution of Contaminant Plume in Deep Bedrock Aquifer Based on November 1996 to
                                              February 1997 Sampling Data [3]
        EPA
                                                                                    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                                        Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                                                       	Technology Innovation Office
October 20,1998
                                                           237
                                                                                                              TI03.WP6\0107-06.stf

-------
                                                                             S/?S Superfund Site
                              MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
  afrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Costs or Performance
Hydrogeology [3,7]:

The geology of the study region consists of Pleistocene glacial deposits overlying the Upper Triassic New
Haven Arkose bedrock ("red bed").  Wisconsin-age glaciation partly eroded and smoothed the bedrock
hills depositing the principle unconsolidated overburden units throughout the region.  The hydrogeology
at the site is complex. For the purposes of this report, the hydrogeology can be grossly characterized as
two units: the overburden and the bedrock. Hydraulic conductivity in both aquifers is heterogeneous and
anisotropic  Hydraulic conductivities have been measured to range over three orders of magnitude in
the overburden and five orders of magnitude in the bedrock.  Regional groundwater flow is towards the
Quinnipiac River, from both sides of the river.

     Overburden      The overburden unit was divided into three layers for characterization purposes:
     Unit             shallow overburden, middle overburden, and deep overburden. These layers
                      do not necessarily correspond to separate hydrostratigraphic  units. The shallow
                      overburden is glacial outwash, a mix of reddish-brown silty sand and gravel
                      interbedded with layers of silt and  sorted sand and gravel. The middle
                      overburden is unstratified reddish-brown clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, and
                      boulders, but also includes discontinuous sandy seams.  The deep layer is basal
                      till, primarily coarse-grained sand  and gravel with cobbles and boulders. In
                      some areas at the site, fill overlies the overburden. The thickness of the
                      overburden unit varies from 10 to  40 feet and decreases towards the river.

     Bedrock Unit     The bedrock unit is severely weathered in the top 5 feet and  is more competent
                      but still highly fractured and permeable 5 to 30 feet below ground surface. As
                      the bedrock dips towards the river, depth from ground surface to bedrock
                      increases.

 Groundwater at the site flows towards the Quinnipiac River from both sides; however, south of the site,
 the river discharges to the overburden aquifer. This flow  pattern implies a circulation common to
 Connecticut hydrology. The groundwater at the site flows east, but regionally groundwater flow direction
 varies. The overburden aquifer is a water-bearing unit, but  is not used for drinking water because of poor
 water quality. The bedrock fractures contain groundwater but connectivity of the fractures is
 undetermined.

 Tables 1 and 2 present technical aquifer information and  well data, respectively.

            	   Table 1. Technical Aquifer Information
       Unit Name

      Overburden
        Bedrock
 Thickness
     (ft)
Conductivity
   (ft/day)
Solute Velocity
    (ft/day)
                                                                                      Flow
                                                                                   Direction
   10-40

     Not
Characterized
  0.2 - 3001

    0.351
      2.32

      Not
   Available
    East3

     Not
Characterized
 1   Conductivity is highly variable because of heterogeneity and anisotropy.  Bedrock hydraulic
     conductivity is the bulk conductivity
 2   Solute velocities varied from 0.00 ft/day for PCBs and naphthalene to 2.30 ft/day for methanol.
 3   At the site, groundwater flows east. Regionally, groundwater flows to the Quinnipiac River from both
     sides.
 Source: [3]
        EPA
                                        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                                Technology Innovation Office
  October 20,1998
                                               238
                                                        TIO3.WP6V0107-06.stf

-------
                                                                             S/?S Superfund Site
                           TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
 Primary Treatment Technology
 Pump and treat (P&T) with UV oxidation
Svstem Description and Operation 1*3.4.71
      Supplemental Treatment Technology

      Metals precipitation and liquid phase carbon
      adsorption
                                  Table 2. Technical Well Data
Well Name
RW-1
RW-2
RW-3
RW-4
RW-5
RW-6
RW-7
RW-8
RW-9
RW-10
RW-11
RW-1 2
MWD-601
Unit Name
Overburden
Overburden
Overburden
Overburden
Overburden
Overburden
Overburden
Overburden
Overburden
Overburden
Overburden
Overburden
Overburden
Screened Interval (feet below
ground surface)
14.5-27
19-31.5
18-28
9.9-21
10.21 -20.21
10.14-20.14
8.58-18.58
11 -26
10.81 -30.81
8.27 - 33.27
8.84 - 23.84
12.5-27.5
21 .4 - 26.4
Source: [1]
System Description
•   The groundwater containment system
    consists of 12 extraction wells and a
    downgradient steel sheet pile wall that
    extends to the bedrock.

•   The extraction wells are placed according to
    locations determined by computer modeling,
    using MODFLOW to optimize containment.
    MODFLOW showed that because of low
    hydraulic conductivity, containment could
    not be achieved by recovery wells alone;
    therefore, a sheet pile wall was installed.

•   The sheet pile wall is shaped in a horseshoe
    in the downgradient portion of the plume.  It
    is approximately 700 feet long and extends
    vertically to the bedrock.

    Eleven wells are located along the interior
    of the sheet pile wall, with one in the center
    of the containment area. Water is pumped
    from the wells to a transfer pipe leading to
    the groundwater treatment system.
         The recovery wells are 8" diameter stainless
         steel screens, installed into 14" diameter
         boreholes. Each recovery well incorporated
         a 2' stainless steel sump at the base of the
         screen, in anticipation of DNAPL
         mobilization towards the wells.

         Influent water is pumped through the
         treatment train illustrated in Figure 6. A
         metals pretreatment system is the first
         treatment step.  This is primarily a gravity-
         flow system designed to operate at a flow
         rate of up to 100 gpm and to remove
         inorganics (primarily iron and suspended
         solids). The metals pretreatment system
         consists of a 10,000-gallon flow equalization
         tank followed by a 1,000-gallon clarifier feed
         tank.  Caustic soda is added to the clarifier
         feed tank to adjust the pH from
         approximately 7.0 to 9.0.  Water from the
         clarifier feed tank flows first to a flash-mix
         chamber (not shown) where polymer is
         added; next to a slow-mix chamber (not
         shown) where flocculation occurs; and then
      EPA
                 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
         Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
         	Technology Innovation Office
October 20,1998
239
                                                                             TI03.WP6\0107-06.stf

-------
                                                                            SRS Superfund Site
                      TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
System Description and Operation fCont.)
    to an inclined-plate clarifier where solids
    settle out.  Effluent from the clarifier flows
    by gravity to a sand filter and then to a
    3,000-gallon oxidation feed tank. Sulfuric
    acid is added to the oxygen feed tank to
    reduce the pH from approximately 9.0 to
    7.0. The water is then pumped through the
    UV oxidation treatment system.

    The treated groundwater from the metals
    pretreatment system is pumped to the
    enhanced oxidation treatment system,
    which consists of two independent oxidation
    chambers. Each is designed to
    accommodate a flow rate of 50 gpm, for a
    total flow of 100 gpm. The enhanced
    oxidation treatment system removes
    organic compounds using high-powered UV
    lamps that emit UV radiation through a
    quartz sleeve  into the water stream.
    Simultaneously, an oxidizing agent,
    hydrogen peroxide, is added and forms
    oxidizing radicals that destroy the organic
    compounds contained in the water.

    The UV oxidation treatment system
    discharges treated water into a 3,000-gallon
    granular activated carbon  (GAG) feed tank
    and is pumped through two liquid-phase
    GAC units connected in a series. Each
    liquid-phase GAC unit consists of two skid-
    mounted liquid-phase GAC vessels
    connected in parallel. The first GAC unit
    removes organic compounds that may
    remain in the water following treatment in
    the enhanced oxidation treatment system.
    The treated water then flows through a
    second  GAC unit designed to remove any
    residual peroxide.  Treated effluent is
    discharged to the Quinnipiac River.

    The equalization tank, clarifier feed tank,
    flash mix chamber, slow mix chamber,
    inclined plate clarifier, sludge thickener
    tank, sludge dewatering press, filter press,
    sand filter, and oxidation feed tank are all
    vented to a vapor-phase carbon adsorption
    treatment system.
•  The sludge from the bottom of the clarifier is
   pumped to a sludge thickener tank and then
   to a sludge-dewatering filter press. A
   portion of the sludge from the bottom of the
   clarifier is recycled back to the flash mix
   chamber to enhance precipitation and
   flocculation in the clarifier. The filter press
   uses the compaction pressure of the sludge
   pump to dewater sludge into filter cakes
   consisting of 25 to 60 percent solids. The
   filter cake is dropped into two collection
   hoppers and transferred into containers for
   off-site disposal. Supernatant from the
   sludge thickener, filtrate from the filter
   press, backwash from the sand filter, and
   water collected in the building sump and
   filter press room sump are directed back to
   the equalization tank.

 •  The groundwater levels at the downgradient
    end of the site are monitored continuously
   to verify containment.  There are 12
    monitoring wells just upgradient of the sheet
    pile wall and 12 monitoring wells
    downgradient of the sheet pile wall. An
    inward vertical gradient of 0.3 foot must be
    maintained between the wells upgradient
    and downgradient of the wall to demonstrate
    that containment is being maintained. One
    pair of wells is equipped with a datalogger,
    which is programmed to notify site operators
    by telephone if the 0.3-foot gradient is not
    maintained.

 System Operation
 •   Approximately 32.5 million gallons of water
    have been treated from July 1995 to June
    30, 1998.  From July 1995 through 1997,
    approximately 21 million gallons of water
    were treated.

 •   The site has been operational 100% of the
    time.  As described in System Description,
    pumping must be continuous to meet the
    0.3-foot inward gradient requirement.
       EPA
             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                    Technology Innovation Office
 October 20,1998
                                              240
                            TIO3.WP6\0107-06.stf

-------
                                                                           S/?S Superfund Site
                      TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
System Description and Operation fCont.1
    The system has a 100 gpm capacity, but
    has averaged at 20 gpm. The initial
    MODFLOW modeling predicted the need for
    a steady-state pumping rate of 20 gpm.
    The system was designed to treat a higher
    flow in anticipation of eventual expansion.

    The 0.3-foot inward gradient was lost in one
    pair of compliance piezometers on June 25-
    28,1996. The event lasted less than one
    day.  Failure of a recovery pump caused the
    temporary loss of containment. Recovery
    wells are now redeveloped at least once per
    year, at which time the pump heads are
    removed and serviced (cleaned).

    In August, January, and February 11,1998,
    containment was lost for less than one day
    due to power outages. In December 1996,
    containment was lost because of CAC
    backpressure. All of these losses were
    quickly mitigated.

    Containment was also lost at one pair of
    compliance  piezometers located in the
    extreme south end of the system several
    times in May 1998. Extremely heavy
    rainfall events, coupled with artesian
    conditions in the bedrock aquifer and slight
    fouling in a recovery well pump, caused the
    loss.  The pump head was replaced with a
    higher capacity unit (16 gpm replaced an 8
    gpm head), which restored containment.

    Operations and maintenance efforts depend
    largely on pump rate and influent
    contaminant concentrations, because the
    largest cost  is the electrical power required
    by the UV oxidation system. O&M
    optimization has focused on energy
    management, which has included reducing
    electrical power demand by staggering
    pump and UV oxidation cycling, changes in
    electrical rates paid (based on the reduced
         demands), and tailoring the number of UV
         bulbs in operation (each bulb "on" accounts
         for roughly $1,000 per month in power cost).
         Also, although DNAPL was observed in
         some wells, no corrosion has been observed
         in any NTCRA 1 wells.  One PVC
         monitoring well was observed to have been
         affected by DNAPL, and it was abandoned.

         Recovery wells are surged and redeveloped
         annually, due to fouling of the well screens.
         The recovery well pumps are also pulled
         and cleansed as part of the maintenance
         procedure. Most of the recovery well level
         controls need to be cleaned on a weekly
         basis to remove biological fouling. Routine
         preventive maintenance (redevelopment)
         has minimized operational issues.

         According to the PRP oversight contractor,
         in May  1998, the gravel access road across
         the NTCRA 1 containment area was
         relocated to the west of the sheetpile wall
         and 1,000 poplar trees were planted within
         the containment area. The PRP oversight
         contractor stated that this "phytoremediation
         pilot study" is predicted to achieve the
         NTCRA 1 containment requirements during
         the growing season within three to five
         years, which  may allow shut down of the
         NTCRA 1 system over a portion of each
         year. No additional information on the pilot
         study was provided [7].

         In addition, the PRP oversight contractor
         indicated that, as part of the FS work, the
         PRPs have contracted with the University of
         Connecticut to perform a bench-scale
         treatability study of the potential
         effectiveness of Fenton's Reagent in
         treating NTCRA 1 influent. If appropriate, a
         pilot scale demonstration will be
         implemented [7].
      EPA
                 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
         Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
        	Technology Innovation Office
October 20,1998
241
                                                                            TI03.WP6\0107-06.stf

-------
                                                                              SRS Superfund Site
                     TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CoisiT.)
 FlltafCake
 to Off-Sita
 Disposal
                  Primary
                  Liquid-
                  Phase
                   6AC
                   Units
                                                                                 Hydrogen
                                                                                 Peroxide
                                                                                  Storage
                                                                                   Tank
Discharge to
Atmospharo
            Dtschargtta
           Qulnntplac Ritftr
                         - Ground-Wttar From
                         extraction Will*
                                    Legend
                                    ^    a Main Process Flow

                                    •4---- s Additional Process Flow

                                    •4"-» = Process Ventilation Flow

F/gure 6. Treatment System Schematic [1]
      EPA
                                    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                            Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                            Technology Innovation Office
October 20,1998
                                               242
                                                    T1O3.WP6\0107-06.stf

-------
                                                                         SRS Superfuncf Site
                     TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Oneratina Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
One major operating parameter affecting cost or performance for this technology is the flow rate. Values
for this and other performance parameters are presented in Table 3.

                              Table 3: Performance Parameters
Parameter
Average Pump Rate
Performance Standard (Effluent)
Remedial Goal (Aquifer)
Value
•"•* .*_ 	 •• ffff 	 ;»• 	
20gpm
See Attachment B
NA*
              *NA - This action is a removal action and remedial goals do not apply as discussed
               in the Cleanup Goals section.
               Source: [1,3]
Timeline
A timeline for this remedial project is shown in Table 4.

                                  Table 4: Project Timeline
- '"StartBate i
1980
9/83
1991
1991
1994
4/95
7/19/95
End Date
1993
	
_
__
_„
	
—
	 ? 	 ' 	 :: 	 &&!*&*! 	 ' 	 ' 	 :". ....\". 	
RCRA investigations
Site placed on NPL, OIS constructed
SRS closed
EPA issues UAO which mandates two NTCRAs
EPA begins Remedial Investigation
NTCRA 1 written and approved
Beain operation of NTCRA1
Source: [1]
                         TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards
No cleanup goals or standards have been
established at this time.  A ROD will be finalized
in 1999, at which time cleanup standards will be
set.  The ROD is expected to incorporate a
waiver of groundwater standards within the
NAPL Zone due to technical impracticability.

Treatment Performance Goals       	
Additional Information on Goals
None
    The primary goal of the extraction system is
    to prevent migration of all contaminated
    overburden groundwater from the
    operations area of the site.
    The primary goal for the treatment system is
    to reduce contaminant concentrations in the
    effluent to the substantive requirement
    levels Discharge Limits listed in Attachment
    B, set by the Connecticut Department of
    Environmental Protection.
      EPA
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                   Technology Innovation Office
 October 20,1998
                                           243
                          TI03.WP6\0107-06.stf

-------
r
                                                                                        SRS Superfund Site
                                  TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
              Performance Data Assessment n.3.71
              For the purpose of this analysis, total
              contaminants includes the contaminants listed in
              Attachment A. Total VOCs includes those
              contaminants listed under VOCs in
              Attachment A.

              •   Mass removed and influent contaminant
                 concentrations are expressed in terms of
                 total VOCs because the level of total VOCs
                 is high compared with levels of other
                 contaminants. During operation of NTCRA
                 1, monitoring was performed for VOCs and
                 PCBs. Dioxins and furans are monitored
                 quarterly, with none detected to date.

              •   As discussed in System Description and
                 Operation, an inward hydraulic gradient of
                 0.3 feet must be maintained to show
                 hydraulic plume containment.  Overall
                 containment has been lost less than four
                 days out of the three years of operation,
                 resulting in a 98% operation rate.
                 Furthermore, water quality sampling data in
                 wells downgradient of the plume have not
                 had increased contaminant levels.

              •   There are 230 monitoring wells associated
                 with  the SRSNE Site, up, down and side
                 gradient of the NTCRA 1 system. These
                 wells were sampled as part of the Rl field
                 work, and the data was interpreted to
                 produce the Rl plume figures.  Wells in the
                 vicinity of the NTCRA 1 system are gauged
                 on a weekly basis. Contaminant levels
                 within the wall have not reduced as DNAPL
                 continues to dissolve into the aqueous
                 phase.

              Performance Data Completeness M .3.71	
Influent concentrations of VOCs to the
treatment system were 10,000 ug/L in July
1997. Effluent standards have been met
throughout system operation.  Refer to
Attachment B for a list of the most recent
effluent monitoring results.

Influent from the overburden aquifer has
been found to have VOC contaminant
concentrations ranging from 9,750 to 63,800
ug/L.  Figure 7 shows the temporal change
in total VOC concentrations in  the influent,
as calculated by BBL.  The average influent
concentration from August 1995 through
July 1997 has decreased but fluctuations
are seen throughout the operation.

The cumulative mass of dissolved VOCs
removed from July 26,1995 to July 2,1997
was approximately 4,344 Ibs (1,970 kg).
Figure 8, also calculated by BBL, illustrates
incremental mass removal and cumulative
mass removal over time. The incremental
removal has fluctuated over the two years
of operation, with an average removal rate
of 5.95 Ib/day (2.7 kg/day).

Historically, DNAPL has  been concentrated
in RW-5.  Approximately two liters of
DNAPL were recovered from RW-5 per
week from August 1995 to October 1995.
RW-5 is now gauged weekly for DNAPL, but
no recovery has occurred since Spring
1996. A total of approximately 20 liters of
DNAPL was recovered, which  apparently
depleted the  "pool" intercepted and
mobilized by pumping at RW-5.
              •  Performance Data regarding plume containment were provided in the Innovative Technology Data
                 Questionnaire, from EPA Region I. Graphs of performance data in Figures 7 and 8 regarding mass
                 removed and VOC influent concentrations were provided in the Rl.

              Performance Data Quality

              The QA/QC program used throughout the remedial action met the EPA and the State of Connecticut
              requirements. All monitoring was performed using EPA-approved methods, and the vendor did not note
              any exceptions to the QA/QC protocols.
                    EPA
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
	Technology Innovation Office
              October 20,1998
                                                         244
                       TI03.WP6\0107-06.stf

-------
                     TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
                                                                               SRS Superfuncf Site
               70,000
               60,000
            O)
            •5- 60,000
               40,000
            §
            o
            O
            O
            S

            1
 30,000
 20,000
               10,000
                  4/11/34     10/10/95      4/10/96      10/10/96     4/10/97      10/09/97
                                             Date
                      Figure 7. NTCRA 11nfluent Total VOC Concentrations [3]
        O
        o

        1
        0)
        S*
        o
19.0


15.8


12.6- •


9.4- •


 6.3


3.1- •
                                                                               •4410
                                                                               3308
2205
1103
                                                                                     O
               4/11/95  7/11/95 10/10/95 1/09/96 4/10/96 7/10/96 10/09/96 1/08/97 4/10/97  7/10/97
                                            Date
                        o  Incremental Mass (Ib/day)    	Cumulative Mass (Ib)

                     Figure 8. NTCRA 1 Total VOC Mass Removal Summary [3]
      EPA
                                                   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                           Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                                           Technology Innovation Office
October 20,1998
                                               245
                                                                   TI03.WP6\0107-06.stf

-------
                                                                           SRS Superfund Site
                               TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Prnmrpmpnt Process
The PRPs contracted with de maximis to manage the remediation and with Handex to operate the
system. EPA and the State of Connecticut oversee the site.
All costs for remediation at this site are borne by the PRPs.

                                                  Ooeratina Costs Ml
Capital Costs [1]
 Construction Management            $135,200

 Deliverables                        $17,650

 Construction Management            $138,900

 Engineering Services                $562,150

 Site Work (sheet pile wall, site        $1,211,702
 grading, foundation work)

 Recovery Wells and Piezometers      $254,235

 Electrical Work                     $330,612

 Mechanical Work                   $273,900

 Prefab Building (80' x 80' building)     $207, 1 85

 UV/OX Units                       $732,250

 Metals Pretreatment System          $388,355

 Granular Activated Carbon             $87,450
 Systems

 Total Site Construction            $4,339,589
                                                   Start-up                            $54,800

                                                   Operations & Maintenance (first         $67,930
                                                   two months)

                                                   July 1995 - July 1996                $634,386

                                                   July 1996 - July 1997                $460,224

                                                   Total O&M                      $1,217,340



                                                  Other Costs PIl	
                                                   Pre-Design Investigation

                                                   Design

                                                   Project Management

                                                   Bedrock Modeling

                                                   DNAPL Response Activities
$135,400

 $21,700

 $26,200

 $31,400

 $16,500
  ncf Data
Cost data were supplied by the PRP representative, de maximis, Inc. The reported Construction,
Design, and Operating Costs provided by de maximis were actual costs incurred.
                        OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
    The cost for groundwater treatment at SRS
    from 1995 to 1997 was $5,556,900
    ($4,339,600 in capital costs and $1,217,300
    in Operating Costs), which corresponds to
    $265 per 1,000 gallons treated and  $1,280
    per Ib of contaminant removed (based on 21
    million gallons of water treated and 4,344
    Ibs of contaminants removed through 1997).

    The NTCRA 1 project was designed,
    approved, and constructed in nine months
    by eliminating redundant reviews of the
    design document.  The design was  written in
    one step, avoiding the 30%, 60%, 95%, and
       EPA
                                                      100% reviews typically required. The
                                                      expedited review helped minimize costs [4].

                                                      After two years of operation, the
                                                      groundwater pump and treat system at SRS
                                                      has removed approximately 4,300 Ibs of
                                                      VOCs.  Effluent standards have been met
                                                      throughout the system operation.

                                                      Containment has been maintained 98% of
                                                      the time.  Containment has been lost for a
                                                      total of less than four days. Water quality
                                                      sampling data from wells downgradient of
                                                      the plume have not showed an  increase in
                                                      contaminant levels.

                                                              U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                      Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                                                      Technology Innovation Office
 October 20,1998
                                             246
                                                                             TIO3.WP6\0107-06.stf

-------
                                                                          SRS Superfund Site
                  OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED (CONT.)
   UV oxidation treatment is effective at
   treating water contaminated with pure phase
   contaminants to levels that meet the State
   of Connecticut standards. The mix of
   contaminants (VOCs, PCBs, and metals)
   makes treatment difficult. High (pure-
   phase) VOC levels would require a large
   stripper or series of strippers.  In addition,
   several of the influent contaminants
   (including ketones and alcohols) are not
   amenable to air-stripping, and the public
   was sensitive to potential air emissions from
   air stripping. Unlike GAG, UV oxidation
   allows treatment of contaminants with no
   residual solids. In addition, considering the
   concentrations of contaminants, GAC would
   have required frequent regeneration. UV
   oxidation is thus an ideal alternative for
   treatment when the matrix of contaminants
   includes high levels of VOCs, in addition to
   metals and PCBs [1,7].

   DNAPL has been identified at this site.
   Residual  DNAPL acts as a constant source
   for a dissolved plume to form.  DNAPL
presence is one cause of fluctuation in total
VOC concentrations in the influent. Because
of the complex hydrogeology and the
DNAPL, a Technical Impracticability (Tl)
waiver will be applied for [4].

According to the remedial contractor,
DNAPL characterization has been
discovered to follow Raoult's Law, with
physical data to demonstrate the empirical
relation.  Mobile DNAPL was found in an
overburden well installed during NTCRA 1
construction. Both the DNAPL and
supernatant groundwater were sampled and
characterized, which allowed effective
solubility limits to be empirically
demonstrated.  The results correlated
closely with effective solubility limits
predicted using Raoult's Law. DNAPL was
also encountered in a bedrock monitoring
well installed during the Rl. Similar
sampling, analysis and correlation was
performed. SRS remedial contractors and
the PRP representative are finalizing this
finding in a future publication [7].
                                      REFERENCES
1.   Innovative Technology Questionnaire.             5.
    Solvent Recovery Service of New England.
    Inc. Site. Southinaton. Connecticut. EPA
    Region 1, undated.

2.   Solvents Recovery Service of New England.
    Superfund Facts Sheet, EPA Region 1,
    undated.                                      6.

3.   Draft Remedial Investigation, provided by
    de maximis, Inc. Undated.

4.   Correspondence with Mr. Bruce Thompson,        7.
    de maximis, Inc. December 22,1997.
Analysis Preparation
 Non-Time Critical Removal Action No. 1.
 Ground-water Containment and Treatment
 System Operations Plan. Solvent Recovery
 Service of New England. Inc. Superfund
 Site. Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc., June
 1995.

 Correspondence with Mr. John Smaldone,
 U.S. EPA Region 1, November 11, 1997,
 December 18,1997, and December 23,
 1997.

 Comments on draft report provided by
 Bruce Thompson, de maximis, Inc., July
 and August 1998.
This case study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by Eastern Research
Group, Inc. and Tetra Tech EM Inc. under EPA Contract No. 68-W4-0004.
      EPA
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                 Technology Innovation Office
October 20,1998
                                            247
                        TIO3.WP6\0107-06.stf

-------
                                                                                S/?S Superfund Site
                                         ATTACHMENT A
         CONTAMINANTS DETECTED IN THE GROUNDWATER DURING 1991 SAMPLING
VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS
Methylene Chloride
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane
Acetone
2-Butanone (MEK)
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
frans-1 ,2-dichloroethene
cfe-1 ,2-Dlchloroethene
1 ,2-Diohloroelhane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,2-Dichloropropane
Trichloroethene
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Benzene
4-MethyI-2-pentanone (MIBK)
frans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Tetrachloroethene
1 ,1 ,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Xylene (total)
Isopropylbenzene
a-propylbenzene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene





























CONCENTRATION
OVERBURDEN GW
MIN
ug/l

3so,i $$

R
R
*»JW
290 J

2,&XUf

24$»^ :
290-W !

.2&0004







mi? ;






MAX
ug/l

6204 Sj*
1100 J
R
R
18#*>,»
5500 J

iWjOteJp
940 4 S/
?&,0004
0,100 JS,?

30.QOOJ

6304S(r*
22,000 J

3,000 J$j*

41,0084
iSQiODOJF
^OfflSJr

1.200J


950 J






























BEDROCK GW
MIN
ug/l

SJS,F

R
R
^90J^,P
94.5 J

27SJ f

ir,000J
^SJS,?

144 *y*


22.5

4.6 J


51J
9.7 J




2.6 J
MAX
ug/l

incus,?1
2J
R
R
2,306 JS/
940 J
0.8 J
$,300 JF
1,343
320i>Q00 j
2,00048,? ;
0.7 J
41 ,000 4
4.7 J
1,043
2,1 00 J
^9&JS-
t^DOJS/
1.8J
is&,aooj
740 J Is

43.5 J
1 J
0.8 J
1 J
710 J
Connecticut
Department of
Health Safe
Drinking Water
Standards
(ug/l)

2


1,000
7



1
200
5
5
5

1

10
5

1,000







        Notes:   (+)  = The sample was averaged with its field duplicate
               J   = Value Is estimated
               R   = Value was rejected
               S   = Exceeds Connecticut DHS Standards
                 F      = Exceeds Federal MCLs
                 MEK    = Methyl Ethyl Ketone
                 MIBK   = Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
                 Shading denotes exceeds Federal MCLs
      EPA
                  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
          Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                          Technology Innovation Office
October 20,1998
248
                                  TIO3.WP6\0107-06.stf

-------
                                                                            SRS Superfuncf Site
                                ATTACHMENT A (Continued)
        CONTAMINANTS DETECTED IN THE GROUNDWATER DURING 1991 SAMPLING
                                          (Page 2)
SEMIVOLATILE
ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS
Phenol
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Isophorone
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Naphthalene
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
Dimethyl Phthalate
Phenanthrene
DI-N-Butylphthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Bis(2-ethyl hexyl)phthlate
Di-N-Octylphthalate

PESTICIDES/PCB
COMPOUNDS
Aroclor1254
Aroolor1260




















CONCENTRATION
OVERBURDEN GW
MIN
ug/l
22



14
14

7J
3J


2J

U
gj


MAX
ug/l
4,200


30
83
100
8J
11
44
16
3J
17
10J
52 J
63 J
11,000
26 J



















BEDROCK GW
MIN
ug/l




12
4J
2J

2J








MAX
ug/l
14
2J
10

16
13
9J
2J
3J




3J



Connecticut
Department of
Health Safe Drinking
Water Standards
(ug/l)


75


















OVERBURDEN GW
MIN
ug/l


MAX
ug/l






BEDROCK GW
MIN
ug/l


MAX
ug/l
tf&#

Treatment
Performance
Standards
(CT DHS)
STDS
(ug/l)
1
1
       Notes:   (+)  = The sample was averaged with its field duplicate
              J   = Value is estimated
              Shading denotes exceeds Federal MCLs

              Source: [1]
      S   * Exceeds Connecticut DHS Standards
      F   = Exceeds Federal MCLs
      EPA
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
               Technology Innovation Office
October 20,1998
                                             249
                       TI03.WP6\0107-06.stf

-------
                                                                              S/?S Superfund Site
                                  ATTACHMENT A (Continued)
         CONTAMINANTS DETECTED IN THE GROUNDWATER DURING 1991 SAMPLING
                                            (Page 3)
METALS
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc




















CONCENTRATION
OVERBURDEN GW
FILT. SAMP.
(ug/i)
35.6
2.0 J
280


65,100

52.4
10.4
7,350

3,360
0,7;$ £



12,600

47.6 J
MIN
ug/l
12,200
5.0
604
1.1 J
2.6 J
37,100
§128
19.6
44.1J
39,100
S&O 4
9,540
7$10£

32.4 J
5,940
10,100
38.1J
66.2
MAX
ug/l
51,700
21.0
3#«M
5.4 J
W9$yp
349,000
, *1*&F
140
324
84,400
$75 &F
25,700
I 37,200 £
0.35 J
84.3
1 4,000 J
iaSjW04s
114
151





















BEDROCK GW
MIN
ug/l
906
4.0 J
106
1.9J

41, 850 J
*144$,P
10.4
5.6
1,930
5.3
1,490
45.5

101
1 2,465 J
6,320 '
32.8
393 J
MAX
ug/l
91,300
8.0 J
%mt ;
8.54 J
4.25 J
140,000
1?$$,F
267.5 J
1^0- <* .
99,850 J
mo
-------
                                                                     S/?S Superfund Site
                                   ATTACHMENT B
       EFFLUENT STANDARDS SET BY THE CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
" "" *ma£' :'"' \
Subsfarrtjve Requirement
Kfos! Pteee&t Effluent
A. ORGANIC PARAMETERS
Volatile Organic Compounds
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes, Total
Vinyl chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Tetrahydrofuran
1,2-Dichloroethene*
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,1 ,1 -Trichloroethane
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Methylene chloride
Styrene
Alcohols
Ethanol
Methanol
2-Butanol (sec-Butanol)
2-Propanol (Isopropanol)
Ketones
Acetone
2-Butanone (Methyl Ethyl Ketone)
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (Methyl Isobutyl Ketone)
0.973
0.106
4.0
1.0
0.50
4.50
0.06
0.50
5.0
0.25
4.0
0.25
15.0
0.50
<0.002 JB
<0.005
0.022
0.003 J
0.003 J
0.27
0.007
0.14 J
0.915
0.008
0.12
<0.005
0.230 B
<0.005

20.0
30.0
10.0
10.0

35.0
10.0
2.0
<5
<5
<5
<5

N/A
N/A
N/A
B. INORGANIC PARAMETERS
Metals
Copper, Total
Iron, Total
Lead, Total
Nickel, Total
Zinc, Total
Other
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Peroxide
pH (SU)
Dioxins/Furans
Total PCBs
15.8g/day
5.0
3.2g/day
0.5
40.3 g/day

30.0
1.0
1.0
NL
NL
1.98
1.68
0.4
<0.040
1.99

<4.0
0
0
NS
NS
NOTES:
mg/L = Milligrams per liter unless otherwise noted.
SU = standard units
J = denotes an estimated value less than the Laboratory's Practical Quantitation Level
B = parameter detected in the laboratory method blank
NL = no limited specified
NS = not sampled (total PCBs analysis required monthly; dioxin/furan analysis required quarterly)
ND = parameter not detected at analytical method detection limit
* =1 ,2-Dichloroethene represents cis and trans 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
N/A = As of July 6, 1 998 the results for these analytes had not been provided by Katahdin Analytical Services
     EPA
       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
              Technology Innovation Office
October 20,1998
                                        251
                     TI03.WP6\0107-06.stf

-------

-------