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
-------
-------
|