EPA542-R-98-014
September 1998
Remediation Case Studies
Ground water Pump and Treat
(Nonchlorinated Contaminants)
Volume 10
Federal
Remediation
Technologies
Roundtable
Prepared by the
Member Agencies of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
-------
Remediation Case Studies:
Groundwater Pump and Treat
(Nonchlorinated Contaminants)
Volume 10
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
This report and the individual case studies and abstracts were prepared by agencies of the U.S.
Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any
warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that
its use would not infringe privately-owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,
process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of
authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Government or any agency
thereof.
Compilation of this material has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency under EPA Contract No. 68-W5-0055.
11
-------
FOREWORD
This report is a collection of fourteen case studies of groundwater pump and treat (nonchlorinated
contaminants) 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 nonchlorinated contaminants (Volume 10). 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
111
-------
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.firtr.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 .......................................... • ...................... l
GROUNDWATER PUMP AND TREAT (NONCHLORINATED CONTAMINANTS)
CASE STUDIES [[[ 9
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the Baird and McGuire
Superfund Site, Holbrook, Massachusetts ........................................ H
UV Oxidation at the Bofors Nobel Superfund Site, Muskegon, Michigan ................. 33
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the City Industries Superfund
Site, Orlando, Florida ............. .......................................... 57
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the King of Prussia Technical
Corporation Superfund Site, Winslow Township, New Jersey ......................... 77
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the LaSalle Electrical Superfund
Site, LaSalle, Illinois [[[ 95
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the Mid-South Wood Products
Superfund Site, Mena, Arkansas .............................................. I*1
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the Odessa Chromium I
Superfund Site, OU 2, Odessa, Texas .......................................... 129
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the Odessa Chromium IIS
Superfund Site, OU 2, Odessa, Texas .......................................... 147
Groundwater Containment at Site FT-01, Pope AFB, North Carolina ................... 165
Groundwater Containment at Site SS-07, Pope AFB, North Carolina ............. . ..... 175
Pump and Treat and Containment of Contaminated Groundwater at the
Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site, Nashua, New Hampshire ...................... 185
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the United Chrome Superfund
Site, Corvallis, Oregon [[[ 205
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at the U.S. Aviex Superfund Site,
9*7 1
-------
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, one application used
only to contain groundwater, and two applications used to recover free product. For these applications,
groundwater was contaminated with a variety of contaminants including chlorinated solvents, petroleum
hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides/herbicides, and heavy metals (e.g.,
chromium). The quantity of groundwater treated in these applications ranged from 23 to 1,200 million
gallons, and project durations ranged from two to 13 years. Many of these applications are ongoing, and
the case studies are interim reports about these applications.
-------
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
(Nonchlorinated Contaminants)
', ' ,
-j*'*i i j
*' *- ' * . * ' *
f s, ?; N "-«'
"', -' *'* v* * /'' - '^ ''"''\'
••',; \ ,
'' :'^^iai,£tete&*rtteatog& -
Baird and McGuire Superfund Site, MA
(Pump and Treat with Aeration, Air Stripping,
Chemical Treatment, Clarification, and Filtration)
Bofors Nobel Superfund Site - OU 1, MI
(Pump and-Treat with Air Stripping, Carbon
Adsorption, Chemical Treatment, Filtration, and
UV/Oxidation)
City Industries Superfund Site, FL
(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping)
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund
Site,NJ
(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping, Carbon
Adsorption, and Electrochemical Treatment)
LaSalle Electrical Superfund Site, IL
(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping, Carbon
Adsorption, and Oil/Water Separation)
,»
ft
•
•
•
•
iucjp
I
9
•
•
slGm
t
V*
9
[ttami
2
I
9
aaats
*5
*
;
o
•
' f *
'/ v *"
:, * '/ ;:,
f s
ikedjaCQiiantiJjj
Groundwater
(80 million gallons)
Groundwater
(700 million gallons)
Groundwater (151.7
million gallons)
Groundwater (151.5
million gallons)
Groundwater
(23 million gallons)
^ 't < ''•
5 " 1 % , j
>W ' 1
^, :
? V S
'' ••'! :
*/-:'/-, - , * H's
'; 'K, ? ; ,
* JWgitfe
Groundwater contaminated with a wide
variety of contaminants; relatively
expensive remediation, with high
capital costs for treatment system
The extraction system has contained
the contaminant plume; the treatment
system has consistently met discharge
requirements since system startup in
1994
The hydrogeology at this site is
relatively simple and hydraulic
conductivity relatively high
Treatment system consists of a
treatment train designed for removal of
metals and organics
System consists of collection trenches
instead of extraction wells; relatively
low groundwater flow, contaminants
include PCBs and chlorinated solvents
-------
Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Pump and Treat
(Nonchlorinated Contaminants) (continued)
r:'SiJ'>
Mid-South Wood Products Superfiind Site, AR
(Pump and Treat with Carbon Adsorption,
Filtration, and Oil/Water Separation)
Odessa Chromium I Superfiind Site, OU 2, TX
(Pump and Treat with Chemical Treatment,
Flocculation, Multimedia Filtration,
pH Adjustment, and Precipitation)
Odessa Chromium IIS Superfiind Site, OU 2, TX
(Pump and Treat with Chemical Treatment,
Flocculation, Multimedia and Cartridge Filtration,
pH Adjustment, and Precipitation)
Pope AFB, Site FT-01.NC
(Free Product Recovery)
Pope AFB, Site SS-07, Blue Ramp Spill Site, NC
(Free Product Recovery)
Principal Contaminant**
'1
1
I
*
*
1
1
1
I
I
I
J
I
*
*
'Metfst {QmKt%ty)y
Groundwater (100.6
million gallons)
Groundwater
(125 million gallons)
Groundwater
(121 million gallons)
Groundwater and
Free Product
Groundwater
'/,
-------
Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Pump and Treat
(Nonchlorinated Contaminants) (continued)
'' 'SIS ', '',
\ ''' '' • , I
- *' S >', < ''>''""
: ' •- \ ' '..<.. '",'-,,
^ < M - f \ 'M s - - j' 1 :
/) * >r '' <„•'•* * , '
s ^teJ^imi.xSfeftep'gelraolPgy) 1 J
Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site, NH
(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping, Biological
Treatment, Chemical Treatment, Clarification,
Flocculation, and Mixed-media Pressure
Filtration; Cap; Soil Vapor Extraction; Vertical
Barrier Wall)
United Chrome Superfund Site, OR
(Pump and Treat with Reduction and
Precipitation)
U.S. Aviex Superfund Site, MI
(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping)
Western Processing Superfund Site, WA
(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping and Filtration;
Vertical Barrier Wall)
- £rftt«^a*€oHtaiHiaaati*
a
•
•
•
j
\
Of
•
i
it
V3-
*
w
if
•
•
•
' $
$ e
'$ •• j
' f '
' ' -, ? ' '
^ , ' I
' \
' * ',
M«^t , , , 1
M , "A ;
A combination of technologies was
used to remediate the site; cleanup
goals were met for all contaminants
with one exception (1,1-DCA) which
was reported as below the detection
limit
Extracted groundwater was treated on-
site at the beginning of this
application; however, because
concentrations dropped over time, on-
site treatment was discontinued
Performed modeling for system
optimization (MODFLOW and
Randomwalk); contaminants included
diethyl ether and chlorinated solvents
Met goals for off-site plume within
eight years of operation; shallow well
points recently replaced with deeper
wells to provide containment
* Principal contaminants are one or more specific constituents wilhin Ihe groups shown that were identified during site investigations.
-------
Table 2. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data
Site Name> State £reeb»oI0g$
Baird and McGuire Superfund Site,
MA
(Pump and Treat with Aeration, Air
Stripping, Chemical Treatment,
Clarification, and Filtration)
Bofors Nobel Superfund Site - OU 1,
M
(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping,
Carbon Adsorption, Chemical
Treatment, Filtration, and
UV/Oxidation)
City Industries Superfund Site, FL
(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping)
King of Prussia Technical
Corporation Superfund Site, NJ
(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping,
Carbon Adsorption, and
Electrochemical Treatment)
LaSalle Electrical Superfund Site, 1L
(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping,
Carbon Adsorption, and Oil/Water
Separation)
Mid-South Wood Products Superfund
Site, AR (Pump and Treat with
Carbon Adsorption, Filtration, and
Oil/Water Separation)
Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site,
OU 2, TX (Pump and Treat with
Chemical Treatment, Flocculation,
Multimedia Filtration,
pH Adjustment, and Precipitation)
Icc&HBtogy
€»st<$)«
Total:
$22,726,000
C: $14,958,000
O: $7,768,000
Total:
$13,726,000
C: $12,200,000
O: $763,000
Total: $1,674,800
C: $1,094,800
0: $580,000
Total: $2,816,000
C: $2,031,000
O: $785,000
Total: $6,138,576
C: $5,314,576
O: $824,000
Total: $1,212,600
C: $465,300
0: $747,300
Total: $2,742,000
C: $1,954,000
O: $728,000
l^aatily Treated
80 million gallons
700 million
gallons
151.7 million
gallons
151. 5 million
gallons
23 million gallons
100.6 million
gallons
125 million
gallons
Qtt8Bl%
-------
Table 2. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data (continued)
'- m^m^^te&w3mfr^
Odessa Chromium IIS Superfund
Site, OU 2, TX (Pump and Treat
with Chemical Treatment,
Flocculation, Multimedia and
Cartridge Filtration, pH Adjustment,
and Precipitation)
Pope AFB, Site FT-01,NC
(Free Product Recovery)
Pope AFB, Site SS-07, Blue Ramp
Spill Site, NC
(Free Product Recovery)
Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund
Site,NH
(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping,
Biological Treatment, Chemical
Treatment, Clarification,
Flocculation, and Mixed-media
Pressure Filtration; Cap; Soil Vapor
Extraction; Vertical Barrier Wall)
United Chrome Superfund Site, OR
(Pump and Treat with Reduction &
Precipitation)
U.S. Aviex Superfund Site, M
(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping)
f
I TD&elHLttlflgsr '
r e«$$>*
Total: $2,487,700
C: $1,927,500
O: $560,200
Total: $355,600
C: $289,000
O: $66,600
Total: $490,200
C: $394,000
0: $96,200
Total:
$27,600,000
C: $9,100,000
O: $18,500,000
Total: $4,637,160
C: $3,329,840
O: $1,307,320
Total: $1,942,000
C: $1,332,000
0: $610,000
t t ' .. ', "
OwttfttyTZtwiteti'
121 million
gallons
Not provided
Not provided
1,200 million
gallons
62 million gallons
329 million
gallons
Qttafttitydf ,
.CttlJfcJfltiBiffit
JfcemfiTOJ
131 Ibs
5,163 gals
3,516 gals
427,000 Ibs
31,459 Ibs
664 Ibs
f
Cakala&iCtostfor -
lrestiaeB0 ''
$26/1,000 gals GW
$19,000/lb of cont.
O (average): $12.90/gal
of free product
O (average): $27.36/gal
of free product
$23/1,000 gals GW
$64/lb of cont.
$75/1,000 gals GW
$140/lb of cont.
$5/1,000 gals GW
$2,925/lb of cont.
ft* - f *, '>\
Key f actors PfllemtiaayAifecittag i
f
-------
Table 2. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data (continued)
SiteJfsmw, State fF«ch»o!0g$
Western Processing Superfund Site,
WA
(Pump and Treat with Air Stripping,
and Filtration; Vertical Barrier Wall)
Tectoiotegy
CusH$}«
Total:
$48,730,112
C: $16,032,629
O: $32,697,483
t2raa^l=ice«*c
-------
Groundwater Pump and Treat (Nonchlorinated Solvents)
Case Studies
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
10
-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the Baird and McGuire Superfund Site,
Holbrook, Massachusetts
11
-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the Baird and McGuire Superfund Site,
Holbrook, Massachusetts
Site Name:
Baird and McGuire Superfund site
Location:
Holbrook, Massachusetts
Contaminants:
Volatiles - nonhalogenated
(BTEX); semivolatiles -
nonhalogenated; polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs,
acenaphthene, naphthalene, 2,4-
dimethylphenol); organic
pesticides/herbicides (dieldrin,
chlordane); heavy metals (lead);
and nonmetallic elements (arsenic)
- Maximum initial concentrations
measured at the site were VOCs
(>1,000 ug/L), SVOCs (>10,000
ug/L); concentrations of specific
contaminants not provided
Period of Operation:
Status: Ongoing
Report covers: 4/93 - 2/97
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup (interim results)
Vendor:
Metcalf & Eddy Services
Walsh Contracting
Barletta Engineering
Treatment System Operator:
Tim Beauchemin
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
696 Virginia Road
Concord, MA 01742-2751
(978)318-8616
State Point of Contact:
Harish Panchol
Massachusetts DEQE
(617)292-5716
Technology:
Pump and Treat
- Groundwater is extracted using 6
wells, located on site, at an average
total pumping rate of 60 gpm
- Extracted groundwater is treated
with chemical treatment (addition
of ferric chloride, lime slurry,
phosphoric and sulfuric acids, and
ammonium sulfate), clarification,
aeration, filtration, and carbon
adsorption
- Treated groundwater is reinjected
through infiltration basins
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA Remedial
-RODDate: 9/30/86
EPA Point of Contact:
Chet Janowski, RPM
U.S. EPA Region 1
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
One Congress Street
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 573-9623
Waste Source:
Surface impoundment/lagoon,
hazardous materials storage,
discharge to septic system,
discharge to wetlands
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Groundwater contaminated with a
wide variety of contaminants;
relatively expensive remediation,
with high capital costs for
treatment system.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
- 80 million gallons treated as of February 1997
- LNAPL observed in several monitoring wells on site
- Groundwater is found at 10-15 ft bgs
- Extraction wells are located in 3 aquifers, which are influenced by a
nearby surface water
- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 0.5 to 45 ft/day
12
-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the Baird and McGuire Superfund Site,
Holbrook, Massachusetts (continued)
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Cleanup goals were established to be maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) as defined by the primary
drinking water standards and the state of Massachusetts drinking waster quality criteria. Cleanup goals were
established for benzene (5 ug/L), toluene (2,000 ug/L), ethylbenzene (680 ug/L), xylene (440 ug/L), 2,4-
dimethyl phenol (2.12 ug/L), naphthalene (0.62 ug/L), acenaphthene (0.52 ug/L), dieldrin (0.000071 ug/L),
chlordane (0.00046 ug/L), arsenic (0.05 ug/L), and lead (0.05 ug/L).
- Additional goals were to remediate the contaminated aquifer within a reasonable time to prevent present or
future impacts to groundwater drinking water supplies, and to protect the Cochato River from future
contaminant migration by establishing hydraulic containment of the plume.
Results:
- During the first two years of operation, the pump and treat system reduced average VOC and SVOC
concentrations. From 1994 to 1995, average VOC concentrations decreased by 16% and average SVOC
concentrations by 48%. However, contaminant concentrations in some individual wells did not decline over
this period and concentrations have not been reduced to below treatment goals. As of December 1995,2,100
pounds of organic contaminants have been removed from the groundwater.
- Contaminants have been detected in down-gradient monitoring wells and plume containment has not been
achieved. A 1995 study made recommendations for achieving plume containment.
Cost:
- Actual costs for pump and treat were $22,726,000 ($14,958,000 in capital and $7,768,000 in O&M), which
correspond to $284 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $10,822 per pound of contaminant
removed.
- Operating costs are relatively high because of the need to analyze for a large number of contaminants and the
need for an operator to be on-site 24 hours per day.
Description:
Baird and McGuire Inc. conducted chemical mixing operations at this site from 1912 to 1983. Contamination of
an on-site public drinking water well was first detected in 1982 by the town of Holbrook. Also in 1982, a citizen
complaint of an oily substance in the Conchato River, which runs along the eastern boundary of the site led to an
inspection by DEQE. This inspection revealed that a tank farm was not lined or diked, sewage waste, process
waste, and surface water runoff were collected in an open cesspool; and a black oily substance was being
discharged to on-site wetlands. During emergency removal actions by EPA in 1983 and 1985, a plume of VOCs
and SVOCs was identified in the groundwater beneath the site. The site was added to the NPL in October 1982
and a ROD was signed in September 1986.
The groundwater extraction system consists of six wells placed in the part of the plume where the highest levels
of contamination were detected. Groundwater treatment includes equalization and removal of free floating
product, chemical treatment (with ferric chloride and lime in one stage, and phosphoric and sulfuric acids and
ammonium sulfate in a second stage), fiocculation/clarification, aeration, pressure filtration, and carbon
adsorption, prior to discharge to infiltration basins. Above-ground biological treatment (using activated sludge)
was included in the original design for this site, but was found to be not necessary, and deleted from the
treatment system. After three years of operation, the system has not met the cleanup goals established for this
site. In addition, the report discusses the impacts of having concurrent groundwater and soil remediation
activities at this site.
13
-------
Baird and McGuire Superfund Site
SITE INFORMATION
Identifying information
Baird and McGuire Superfund Site
Holbrook, Massachusetts
CERCL1S#: MAD001041987
ROD Date: September 30, 1986
Background fS.6.71
Treatment Application
Type of action: Remedial
Period of operation: 1993 - Ongoing
(Data collected through February 1997)
Quantity of material treated during
application: 80 million gallons of groundwater
[9]
Historical Activity that Generated
Contamination at the Site: Chemical mixing
and batching operations
Corresponding SIC Code: 2841 (Soap and
other detergents), 2879 (Pesticides and
agricultural products), 2491 (Wood preserving)
Waste Management Practice That
Contributed to Contamination: Surface
impoundment/lagoon, hazardous materials
storage, discharge to septic system, discharge to
wetlands
Location: Holbrook, Massachusetts
Facility Operations:
• Baird and McGuire Inc. (BMI) conducted
chemical mixing operations at this site from
1912 to 1983.
• Contamination of an on-site public drinking
water well was first detected in 1982 by the
Town of Holbrook. This well had to be
abandoned after contamination was
detected. In 1982, a citizen complaint of an
oily substance in the Cochato River, which
runs along the eastern property boundary,
led to a DEQE inspection. This inspection
revealed the following: the tank farm was
not lined or diked; sewage waste, process
waste, and surface water runoff were
collected in an open cesspool; and a black
oily substance was being discharged to on-
site wetlands.
On May 2, 1983, BMI's permit to store
chemicals at the site was revoked by the
Town of Holbrook. As a result, BMI was
forced to cease operations.
EPA-initiated two emergency removal
actions in 1983 and 1985. During these
emergency removals, a plume of volatile
organic and base neutral/acid extractable
compounds was identified in the
groundwater beneath the site.
BMI voluntarily implemented a series of
remedial actions. These included: installing
a catch basin near the tank farm; filling the
cesspool with concrete; installing booms on
the Cochato River; removing the wetlands
discharge pipe; and constructing a clay dike
around the creosote lagoon to prevent a
release.
The site was listed on the National Priorities
List (NPL) in October 1982.
An Rl was conducted in 1984 and 1985.
Contaminants identified in the groundwater
included PAHs, halogenated and
nonhalogenated organics, inorganics, and
pesticides.
Source removal actions at the site included
excavation and on-site incineration of
contaminated soils. These removal actions
took place in 1983, 1985, and 1995 through
1997.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
14
TIO3.WP6\0116-03.stf
-------
Baird and McGuire Superfund Site
SITE'INFORMATION (CONT.)
ai*lfnmiinri fftont1
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
(NCR), 40 CFR 300.
• A Record of Decision (ROD) was issued in
September 1986.
Groundwater Remedy Selection:
The groundwater remedy initially selected for
this site consisted of extraction and treatment
through biological activated sludge. The
treatment system has been modified, and the
activated sludge tanks are currently used as air
stripping units.
Site Lead: EPA
Remedial Project Manager:
Chet Janowski*
U.S. EPA Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
One Congress Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
617-573-9623
State Contact:
Harish Panchol
Massachusetts DEQE
617-292-5716
Treatment System Vendor:
Metcalf & Eddy Services
Walsh Contracting
Barletta Engineering
Treatment System Operator:
Tim Beauchemin
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
696 Virginia Road
Concord, MA 01742-2751
(978)318-8616
Indicates primary contact.
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
rix Identification
Type of Matrix Processed Through the
Treatment System: Groundwater
Contaminant Characterization F5.6.71
Primary Contaminant Groups: Halogenated
and nonhalogenated volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds
(SVOCs), inorganics, and pesticides.
• Selected index contaminants at the BMI site
include: arsenic, lead, BTEX, trans-1,2-
dichloroethylene (trans-1,2-DCE), 4-methyl
phenol, 2,4-dimethyl phenol, naphthalene, 2-
methyl naphthalene, acenapthene,
dibenzofuran, fluorene, phenanthrene,
dieldrin, and chlordane. Attachment 1
provides a complete list of contaminants
detected at the site. Maximum
concentrations for individual contaminants
are not provided in available documentation.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
15
TIO3.WP6\0116-03.stf
-------
Baird and McGuire Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Contaminant Characterization (Cont.)
Concentrations of contaminants at the site
were greater than 10,000 ug/L for total
SVOCs and greater than 1,000 ug/L for total
VOCs.
Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the contaminant
contours detected in 1988 and 1995,
respectively, for total VOCs.
The areal extent of the initial plume was
estimated to be more than 700,000 square
feet and approximately 70 feet thick. Based
on a standard porosity of 30%, the plume
volume was estimated at 111 million gallons.
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Costs or Performance
A light nonaqueous phase liquid (LNAPL)
has been observed in several on-site
monitoring wells. The material was identified
as an immiscible oily substance that floats
on the water table in the 1985 Rl.
Hydrogeology [6,7]:
Four distinct hydrogeologic units have been identified beneath this site. They are:
Unit 1A Stratified material consisting of silty sands, sand, and silt.
Unit 1B Stratified material consisting of fine to medium, fine to course sand.
Unit 2 Unstratified glacial till.
Unit 3 Fractured bedrock.
Figure 3 shows an east-west cross-section through the site that depicts the hydrogeology of the site. The
upper stratified units (Unit 1A and 1 B) pinch out on the west side of the site. A bowl-shaped depression is
formed by bedrock beneath the site. Shallow groundwater is found at 10 to 15 feet below ground surface.
Groundwater discharges to the Cochato River along the eastern site boundary.
The toe of the plume has migrated beyond the river. However, it reached a stagnation point in 1988.
Figure 4 shows the same east-west cross-section and depicts the vertical plume distribution as detected
in 1985. Measured flow velocities indicate that groundwater in Units 1 and 2 can move between 50 and
500 feet per year.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
16
TIO3.WP6\0116-03.stf
-------
Baird and McGuire Superfund Site
(MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Figure 1. Total Volatile Organic Compounds, in yg/L (1988) (Best Copy Available) [8]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
17
TIO3.WP6\0116-03.Stf
-------
Baird and McGuire Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Figure 2. Total Volatile Organic Compounds, in yg/L (1995) (Best Copy Available) [8]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
18
TIO3.WP6\0116-03.stf
-------
Baird and McGuire Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
MO
, ,,53.7)
COCHATO
RIVER
SEWER 915 (123.2)
UME BW-1S (124.4)
A'
BH-36 (128.0) PW-1 (122.0) 914(119.7)
Figure 3. Site Hydrogeology [6]
1
A*
Figure 4. Vertical Extent of Total VOC Plume (ug/L) [6]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
19
TI03.WP6\0116-03.stf
-------
Baird and McGuire Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
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
Unit 1A
UnitIB
Unit 2
Units
Thickness
(ft)
10-20
25-50
10-20
>50
Conductivity
(ft/day)
3
45
10
0.5
Average Velocity
(ft/day)
NA
0.3 - 0.7
0.1 -1.25
0.3-3
Flow
Direction
East1
East1
East1
East1
Source: [6,7]
NA - Not characterized
1West side of Cochato River only; flow direction may vary on the east side of the Cochato River.
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology
Pump and treat with air stripping and
hydroxide precipitation/ferric chloride treatment
[3].
System Description and Operation
Supplemental Treatment Technology
Filtration, carbon adsorption, sludge dewatering
[3].
Table 2. Technical Well Data
Well Name
EW-1
EW-2
EW-3
EW-4
EW-5
EW-6
Unit Name
Units 2 and 3
UniMB
UnitIB
Units 2 and 3
UnitIB
UnitIB
Depth (ft)
64
30
38
84
32
30
Note: Represents initial design conditions. Average system extraction rate is 60
the actual volume of water pumped since operations began and a 93% operation
_1.993 to December 1995.
Design Yield
(gal/day)
28,800
43,200
43,200
43,200
28,800
28,800
gpm based on
rate from April
Source: [3]
System Description [3,8,9]
• To accommodate soil remediation activities
scheduled for 1995, the original groundwater
extraction system, installed between 1990
and 1992, was constructed with temporary
piping placed in contaminated soils. As
discussed earlier, contaminated soils were
excavated and incinerated under a separate
remedial action. The temporary piping and
wells had to be removed when the
excavation of contaminated soils began in
1995. The following section describes the
system as originally installed and operated
through February 1997; however,
modifications were made after soil
remediation was complete in 1997.
The extraction system consisted of six wells
and associated piping. Four wells were
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
20
TIO3.WP6\0116-03.stf
-------
Baird and ftfcGu ire Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
System Description and Operation (Cont.)
completed in the stratified material (Units 1A
and 1B) and two were screened in both the
till (Unit 2) and bedrock (Unit 3). The wells
were placed in the part of the plume where
the highest levels of contaminants were
detected. The extraction system design was
intended to restore the aquifer and contain
the contaminant plume.
Figure 5 shows a groundwater treatment
plant flow diagram. An 8,000-gallon
equalization tank is used as the first element
of the treatment train to allow for constant
flow rate and to remove free floating product.
Two stages of hydroxide precipitation are
used in the treatment system to allow for
maximum metals removal efficiency at
different pH levels.
The original remedial design for the
treatment system specified biological
treatment of organic contaminants via an
activated sludge process. However,
because no biological mass existed, the
biological treatment process did not achieve
effluent limits. Historical analytical data
indicate that sufficient organic removal rates
are attained without the use of biological
treatment [12].
The activated sludge tanks are currently
being used as modified air strippers.
Following the air stripping step, rapid sand
filtration is used to remove any suspended
solids. Filtration is followed by two stages of
activated carbon adsorption as a final
polishing step.
Effluent from the treatment system is re-
injected into the aquifer through four gravel
bed infiltration basins located upgradient of
the plume.
Off-gas generated from each of the unit
operations is collected and vented to an on-
site fume incinerator (separate from the soil
incinerator), which destroys organics by
thermal oxidation at a temperature of
1,800°F. The fume incinerator is soon to be
replaced by vapor phase carbon.
Solid waste including precipitate and
activated carbon from the treatment system
is disposed of off site.
• A total of 49 monitoring wells were installed
in units 1B, 2, and 3 to evaluate contaminant
concentration levels from 1993 to 1995.
During soil excavation activities from 1995 to
1997, nearly half of the monitoring wells
were damaged and not usable. The
monitoring wells were replaced in 1997.
System Operation [8,9,10]
• From April 1993 to June 1995, the extraction
system was operated using all six wells.
After soil excavation began in June 1995,
only one well, on average, was operating.
Extraction wells were taken off line to allow
for excavation activities, and because of
poor well yield. There was no change to the
treatment system until early 1997 when
several upgrades were completed. Since
startup, the treatment system has operated
at an average extraction rate of 60 gpm, and
has been unable to operate at its design rate
of 150 to 200 gpm because of several
problems, including undersized pumps and
sludge thickener loading rates. Pumps were
replaced and a larger sludge thickener
installed in early 1997. These changes have
enabled the treatment system to operate at
its design rate since then.
• According to site engineers, at the time
excavation and incineration activities began,
the groundwater extraction system had not
provided the required extraction rate to
achieve hydraulic containment of the plume.
In 1995, new well locations and screen
intervals were chosen to increase the
extraction rate. Other activities that were
planned included replacing three of the
extraction wells, installing two additional
extraction wells, and retrofitting two existing
extraction wells with collection equipment to
enhance LNAPL removal. A groundwater
model was used to optimize the extraction
system. Extraction system upgrades should
be completed in late 1997 when the P&T
system is scheduled to resume full-scale
operation.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
21
TIO3.WP6\0116-03.stf
-------
Baird and McGuire Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
5. Groundwater Treatment Plant Flow Diagram [12]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
22
TIO3.WP6\0116-03.stf
-------
Baird and McGuire Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM (DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Svstem Description and Operation (Cont.)
Quantity of groundwater pumped from
aquifer in gallons:
Total Volume
Year Pumped (gallons) Unit Name
1993 18 million 1B,2,3
1994 34 million 1B,2,3
1995 28 million 18,2,3
As of February 1997, the treatment system
has been 93% operational. Down time has
been primarily due to problems with
computer control instrumentation and lime
buildup in feed lines.
Excavation and on-site incineration of soils
took place from 1995 to 1997. Wastewater
from dewatering and incineration blowdown
operations was pumped to the groundwater
treatment system during this time. Since
January 1996, the majority of flow to the
treatment system has come from these
operations.
The wastewater generated from soil
dewatering and incineration activities was
estimated to be 100 gpm. The treatment
system was required by contract to handle
this additional wastewater flow and would
reduce the volume of groundwater being
sent from extraction wells if needed.
However, this was not required because the
groundwater extraction rate was
approximately 50 gpm at that time.
Once excavation and incineration activities
began, piping and extraction wells were
removed and replaced as contaminated soils
were excavated and clean fill was replaced.
During this time, the average extraction rate
was approximately 25 gpm.
The carbon units have been changed out
approximately every two months or every
eight million gallons treated. Approximately
115,000 pounds of spent carbon were
regenerated or disposed of from 1993 until
1997.
During soils excavation activities, the
excavating contractor accidentally damaged
or destroyed over 25 of the 49 monitoring
wells. As a result, the site engineer has not
been able to adequately monitor the
contaminant plume during soil remediation
activities. The excavation contractor will
replace the damaged wells after soil
remediation activities are complete.
The long-term groundwater monitoring
procedure approved by EPA stated that 20
perimeter wells would be monitored on a
quarterly basis. After two consecutive
sampling events from a well where no
contaminants are detected, a different well
nearer to the source area is chosen for the
next sampling event.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
23
TIO3.WP6\0116-03.stf
-------
Baird and McGuire Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
Table 3 shows operating parameters affecting cost or performance for this technology.
Table 3: Performance Parameters
Parameter
Average Extraction Rate
Performance Standard (effluent)
and
Remedial Goal (aquifer)
(ug/L)
Rvalue ' *-
60gpm
Arsenic
Lead
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
2,4-dimethyl phenol
Naphthalene
Acenapthene
Dieldrin
Chlordane
0.05 pg/L
0.05 ug/L
5 pg/L
2,000 ug/L
680 pg/L
440 ug/L
2.12 ug/L
0.62 pg/L
0.52 ug/L
0.000071 pg/L
0.00046 U9/L
Source: [5]
Timeline
Table 4 presents a timeline for this remedial project.
Table 4: Project Timeline
Start Date
9/86
5/87
9/87
5/90
1/93
6/95
2/97
8/97
End Data
—
—
6/89
1/93
—
5/97
—
—
' • - Activity *' ""--'-."' "' ' ;- ' N<
Date of ROD for this OU
Remedial design accepted
Design document prepared by Metcalf & Eddy
Construction of the groundwater treatment system
Groundwater treatment plant begins operations and compliance monitoring
begins
Incineration activities performed
Groundwater treatment plant modified to increase capacity to 200 gpm
Anticipated date for restart of P&T full-scale operation
Source: [3, 8, 9,10]
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards
Cleanup goals were established during the
design phase to be maximum contaminant levels
(MCL), as defined by the Primary Drinking Water
Standards and the State of Massachusetts
Drinking Water Quality Criteria. Specific criteria
are included in Table 3. These goals must be
met in all monitoring wells located on site [5].
Additional Information on Goals
In the cases where no MCL is available, the
applicable regulation is EPA Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Freshwater Aquatic
Organisms and Criteria for Human Consumption.
Of the pollutants listed in Table 3, only arsenic,
lead, and BTEX compounds have MCLs
established [5].
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
24
TIO3.WP6\0116-03.stf
-------
Baird and McGuire Superfund Site
TREATMENT [SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Treatment Performance Goals [3.51
• To remediate the contaminated aquifer
within a reasonable time to prevent present
or future impacts to groundwater drinking
water supplies.
Performance Data Assessment [8.9.10.11.121
To protect the Cochato River from future
contaminant migration by establishing
hydraulic containment to capture the
contaminant plume.
For the purposes of this report, total
contaminants refers to the broad classes of VOC
and SVOC compounds detected at this site.
• During the first three years of operation, the
P&T system reduced average VOC and
SVOC concentration levels. The maximum
concentration of contaminants detected in
individual wells after three years of system
operation were total SVOCs (7,967 ug/L)
and total VOCs (11,870 ug/L).
Figure 6 illustrates changes in average
contaminant concentrations in the
groundwater from 1994 to 1995. The data in
Figure 6 show an overall decline of 16%
(VOC) and 48% (SVOC) in average
groundwater concentration from 1994
through 1995. However, contaminant
concentrations in some individual wells did
not decline over this period, and contaminant
concentrations have not been reduced to
below treatment goals.
• Contaminants have been detected in
downgradient monitoring wells as noted in
the 1995 Annual Report. On the basis of
this information, plume containment has not
been achieved. A 1995 groundwater study
made recommendations for achieving plume
containment.
• Groundwater models run by site engineers
estimated that an extraction rate of
approximately 150 gpm is required for plume
containment. However, the treatment plant
was not able to operate at its design rate of
150 to 200 gpm due to undersized pumps
and sludge thickener.
The extraction network also could not
achieve the design extraction rate of 150
gpm due to well placement, clogging
problems, and the shut-down of wells for soil
remediation.
As shown in Figure 7, the P&T system
removed approximately 2,100 pounds of
organic contaminant mass from the
groundwater as of December 1995. Mass
removed from metals precipitation units was
not estimated for this report.
Figure 7 presents the mass removal of
contaminants through the treatment system
from June 1994 to December 1995. A total
of 80 million gallons of groundwater have
been treated. The daily average treatment
rate was 60 gpm as determined by the on-
site contractor.
The contaminant removal rate has fluctuated
over the 1994-1995 operating period. The
data presented in Figure 7 show a reduction
in mass flux rate from 1994 to 1995. This
decrease is due primarily to a decrease in
flow rate to the treatment system. Available
data indicate that influent concentrations
have remained relatively constant.
Several modifications are planned for
groundwater remediation after the soils
remediation activities are complete.
Implementation of these modifications has
reportedly begun. The first new extraction
well is scheduled to be on-line by April 1998.
An additional extraction well plus two LNAPL
extraction wells are scheduled for later this
year.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
25
TIO3.WP6\0116-03.stf
-------
Baird and McGuire Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
I
!§
o>
u
6
U
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Apr-94
•c 11
-«•, - -*-
Jul-94
Oct-94
Jan-95
Apr-95
. Total VOC
. Total SVOC
Figure 6. Average Contaminant Concentrations (1994-1995)
2,500
Jun-94 Sep-94 Dec-94
Mar-95
Jun-95
Sep-95
Dec-95
. Mass Rux
. Mass Removed
Figure 7. Mass Flux Rate and Cumulative Contaminant Removal (1994-1996)
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
26
TIO3.WP6\0116-03.stf
-------
Baird and McGuire Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Completeness
Performance sampling for the treatment
system is completed on a weekly basis.
Influent concentration, effluent
concentration, flow, chemical usage, and
sludge production data are available in
monthly reports.
Monthly reports for 1994 and 1995 were
used for mass flux analyses performed in
this report. No data were available for
performance evaluation from April 1993 to
June 1994.
Contaminant mass removal was determined
using analytical results from weekly influent
and effluent sampling, along with average
flow rate data. One weekly event per month
was used for this calculation.
Concentration data for the six extraction
wells are available for April 1994, October
1994, March 1995 and April 1995 sampling
rounds only. These data were used to
compute the average groundwater
concentration presented in Figure 6. A
geometric mean was used to estimate
average groundwater concentrations and
provide a trend for the entire plume.
Performance Data Quality
The QA/QC program used throughout the remedial action met the EPA and the State of Massachusetts
requirements. All monitoring was performed using EPA-approved methods, and the vendor did not note
any exceptions to the QA/QC protocols.
Procurement Process
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
The U.S. EPA is the lead agency for this site. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), N.E. Division,
has been contracted to provide operations and maintenance of this site for the first ten years of operation.
The New England Division of the USAGE is managing all on-site activities. Metcalf & Eddy Services was
awarded the contract for treatment system design and subsequently subcontracted Barletta Engineering
to construct the treatment system. Metcalf & Eddy Services has been contracted to provide operation and
maintenance services for the groundwater treatment system.
Cost Analysis
• All costs for remedial activities at this site were shared by the U.S. EPA and Massachusetts DEQE.
The costs presented are for the groundwater pump and treat system only. No costs for the soil
excavation and incineration, performed under a separate remedial action, are included.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
27
TIO3.WP6\0116-03.stf
-------
Baird and McGuire Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Capital Costs F4,91
Remedial Construction
Administrative, Mobilization, $3,490,595
and Demobilization
Monitoring Wells and Sampling $230,222
Site Work $159,016
Ground Water Extraction/ $633,884
Infiltration
Treatment System $9,274,652
Corps Management Costs $1,169,292
Total Remedial $14,957,661
Construction
Operating Costs T4.91
Operation and Maintenance $4,902,878
Chemicals $61,016
Metal Sludge Disposal $568,670
Biological Sludge Disposal $30,259
Carbon Regeneration/Purchase $175,044
Utilities $685,351
Laboratory Supplies $772,211
Site Security $408,159
Lab Services $140,076
Equipment for collection and $25,110
storage of LNAPL
Total Cumulative Operating $7,768,780
Expenses from April 1993 to
February 1997
Other Costs T4.91
Remedial Design
Remedial Design
State Oversight
$3,364,222
$39,911
Cost Data Quality
Actual capital and operations and maintenance cost data are available from the Army Corps of Engineers
contact for this site.
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Total cost for the P&T system at the BMI site
was approximately $22,726,000
($14,958,000 in capital costs and
$7,768,000 in cumulative operation and
maintenance costs). The unit costs for this
clean-up are calculated to be $284 per 1,000
gallons of groundwater treated, and $10,822
per pound of organic contaminant removed.
According to the site contact, substantial
time and money were spent during the first
year of operation in an attempt to acclimate
biological organisms to the wastewater
stream [4].
EPA
Operating costs are high due to high
analytical costs for the large number of
contaminants and the cost for an operator to
be on-site 24 hrs per day.
The management plan to have concurrent
groundwater and soil remediation activities
resulted in high construction costs and
logistics problems. A temporary
groundwater extraction system was installed
and then removed two years later when soil
excavation began. In addition, monitoring
wells installed across the site made it difficult
to operate heavy machinery without
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
28
TIO3.WP6\0116-03.Stf
-------
Barn/ and McGuire Superfund Site
OBSERVATIONS AND LES$ONS LEARNED (CONT.)
damaging well heads. Ultimately, over 25
monitoring wells were accidentally damaged
or destroyed during the soil excavation
activities. Replacement costs for these wells
will be paid by the excavation contractor.
In early 1997, plant upgrades such as pump
replacement and sludge thickener unit
replacement were required to achieve
design capacity of 200 gpm. Upgrades were
completed at a cost of $100,000 which is
included in the $14.9 million [9].
The treatment system performance data
indicate that over 2,100 pounds of organic
contaminants were removed from the
groundwater as of December 1995. The
P&T system has not met the cleanup goals,
and maximum VOC and SVOC
concentrations in extraction wells remain in
excess of 11,000 and 7,000 ug/L,
respectively.
LNAPL material has been observed in two
on-site wells, indicating the presence of a
subsurface source of pollutants.
Fluctuations in contaminant concentration
levels were noted within several wells placed
near the center of the plume. These
fluctuations are also indicative of possible
subsurface source zones contributing to the
dissolved groundwater plume.
During excavation and incineration activities,
extraction wells and associated piping were
replaced. These activities disrupted the
groundwater extraction program and may
have resulted in further off-site plume
migration. Plume migration cannot be
assessed at this time because of the
interruption of the groundwater monitoring
program.
From 1993 to 1996, the overall extraction
rate was 60 gpm, which is less than the
design extraction rate of 150 to 200 gpm.
Modifications to the extraction system will be
made in 1997. According to the site
engineer, the modifications will include
repairing three wells and adding two new
wells. The 1995 annual groundwater study
and a calibrated groundwater model of the
site were used to locate the two additional
wells. Several wells will also be equipped to
remove LNAPL material [9].
The 1995 annual groundwater study
included an optimization section which, with
the aid of the groundwater model, made
recommendations for enhancing the P&T
system performance. Most
recommendations were targeted at
improving plume containment and increasing
mass flux to the treatment system.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
29
TIO3.WP6\0116-03.stf
-------
Baird and McGuire Superfund Site
1. Final Work Plan Focused Feasibility Study.
Ebasco Services, February 1988.
2. Water Supply Feasibility Study. Ebasco
Services, May 1990.
3. Remedial Action Report. Baird and McGuire
Superfund Site, Holbrook, MA, Operable
Unit#1, Groundwater Treatment Facility,
March 1993.
4. Correspondence with Mr. Chet Janowski,
Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA
Region I, April 10,1997.
5. Superfund Record of Decision. U.S. EPA,
September 1986.
6. Remedial Investigation Report. Baird &
McGuire Site, Holbrook, MA. GHR
Engineering Associates, Inc., May 1985.
Analysis Preparation
REFERENCES
7. Remedial Investigation Addendum Report.
Baird & McGuire Site, Holbrook, MA. GHR
Engineering Associates, Inc., June 1986.
8. Evaluation of Extraction System
Performance at the Baird & McGuire
Superfund Site. Metcalf & Eddy Services,
July 1995.
9. Correspondence with Mr. Chris Zevitas, Site
Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineering
(USAGE), April 14, 1997.
10. Monthly Process Summaries, 1994-1996,
USAGE.
11. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquids. Huling,
S.G., and J.W. Weaver, U.S. EPA, March
1991.
12. Monthly Process Summary, February 1997.
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
30
TIO3.WP6\0116-03.stf
-------
Baird and McGuire Superfund Site
ATTACHMENT A
Detected Compounds Listed in the ROD
1 , 1 -Dichloroethy lene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Aldrin
Arsenic
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)pyrene
Beryllium
BHC-Alpha
BHC-Beta
BHC-Delta (Tech)
BHC-Gamma
Cadmium
Chlordane
Chloroform
Dieldrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Nickel
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
1 ,2-frans-dichloroethylene
1 ,3-frans-dichloropropylene
2-Butanone
Parius
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Lead
Silver
Toluene
Xylenes (TOT)
Zinc
Dibenzofuran
Total Other PAHs:
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluorene
ldeno(1 ,2,3-CD)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
"Individual pollutant levels were not provided.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
31
TIO3.WP6\0116-03.stf
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
32
-------
UV Oxidation at the Bofors Nobel Superfund Site
Muskegon, Michigan
33
-------
UV Oxidation at the Bofors Nobel Superfund Site
Muskegon, Michigan
Site Name:
Bofors Nobel Superfund Site •
Operable Unit 1
Location:
Muskegon, Michigan
Cleanup Type:
Groundwater Remediation
Project Management:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Carl Plate
Grand Haven Area Office
P.O. Box 629
Grand Haven, Michigan 49417
(616)842-5510
SIC Code:
2869 (Industrial Organic
Chemicals)
Contaminants:
VOCs and SVOCs
• Benzene, Benzidine, 2-Chloroaniline,
1,2-Dichloroethene, Trichloroethene,
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine, Aniline, Vinyl
Chloride
• Selected Maximum concentrations in
ug/kg - Benzene (60,000),
2-Chloroaniline (63,000), Aniline
(10,000), 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
(2,600)
Period of Operation:
• Full-Scale Treatment System
Operation since September 1994.
• Treatment Currently ongoing and
expected to last 50+ years.
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA and State
ROD date
- September 17, 1990
Technology:
Groundwater Extraction and On-Site
treatment by UV Oxidation
• Groundwater is extracted from 13
wells at the site.
• Total flow rate from the network of
wells ranges from 390 to 500 gpm.
• Extracted water was initially sent
through a chemical precipitation
step. This step has since been
removed from the system.
• Treatment steps include: dual-media
filtration, UV Oxidation, GAC
treatment (polishing), pH
adjustment, stripping for ammonia
removal and neutralization.
• Treated water is discharged to an-
onsite surface water body (Big
Black Creek)
Vendor:
Kevin Dulle
Sverdrup Environmental
400 South 4* Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63102
(314)436-7600
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
700 million gallons extracted since
1994.
7,500 pounds of organic contaminants
removed from extracted groundwater
Waste Sources:
Disposal of process wastes in
10 unlined impoundments at the site
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The following list contains current discharge limits for selected
contaminants. All limits have been established by MDEQ and are maximum
allowable concentrations, based on weekly effluent sampling.
Purgeable Halocarbons - 5 ug/L (each)
Purgeable Aromatics - 5 ug/L (each)
Aniline - 5 ug/L
2-Chloroaniline - 10 ug/L
Purpose/Significance of Application:
The extraction and treatment system has successfully contained migration of
contaminants from the site and consistently met discharge requirements
since system startup in 1994.
Regulatory Points of Contact:
John Fagiolo
USEPA Region V
77 West Jackson Blvd
Mail Code: SR6J
Chicago, Illinois 60604
312)886-0800
Dennis Eagle
MDEQ-ERD
Knapps Centre
'.O. Box 30426
^ansing, Michigan 48909
517)373-8195
34
-------
UV Oxidation at the Bofors Nobel Superfund Site
Muskegon, Michigan (continued)
Results:
• The extraction and treatment system is containing
the ground-water contamination plume at the site.
Contaminant concentrations in the treatment
system effluent have been consistently below
surface water discharge limitations for the site.
Costs:
The total capital cost for construction of the treatment system
was $12,200,000. Yearly O&M costs average $763,000. Over
three years, the capital plus O&M costs translate to $19.61 per
1,000 gallons of groundwater treated, or $1,830 per pound of
organic contaminants removed. Yearly O&M costs translate
to $3.27 per 1000 gallons of groundwater treated, or $305 per
pound of organic contaminants removed. •
Description:
For approximately 20 years, chemical process waste liquids and sludge were routinely disposed in 10 unlined surface
impoundments at the site. In addition, impoundment berms occasionally failed, releasing sludge into nearby surface
water bodies. In 1978, thirteen extraction wells were installed at the site to collect contaminated groundwater down
gradient of the impoundments. Collected water was treated in an existing system located at a nearby facility, and was
subsequently sent the local POTW for additional treatment. A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in September
1990, specifying construction of a new on-site treatment system with UV oxidation as the primary treatment
technology.
Under direction of the USAGE, treatability testing and treatment system design were performed in 1991 and 1992. In
1992 a contract was awarded for construction of the treatment system. In September 1994, construction of the system
was completed and full-scale treatment was begun. The treatment system originally consisted of: metals precipitation
pretreatment, dual media filtration, UV oxidation treatment for removal of organics, GAC treatment (polishing), pH
adjustment, stripping to remove ammonia and neutralization. After one year of operation, the metals precipitation step
was determined to be unnecessary, and was removed from the treatment train. Treated water is discharged to an on-
site surface water body (Big Black Creek).
The treatment system is currently in operation and is successfully containing groundwater contamination at the site. It
is estimated that significant reductions in groundwater contaminant concentrations will not be realized until the
sources of contamination (impoundment soils and sludge) are removed or isolated.
35
-------
, Bofors Nobel Superfund Site
SITE INFORMATION
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
Site Name:
Location:
Operable Unit:
CERCLIS #:
ROD Date:
Technology:
Type of Action:
Bofors Nobel Superfund Site
Muskegon, Michigan
OU1
MID006030373
September 17, 1990
Ultraviolet (UV) Oxidation
Groundwater Remediation
Figure 1 shows the location of the Bofors Nobel Superfund Site in Michigan.
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION
Period of Operation:
September 1994 - Ongoing
Quantity of Material Treated During Application (to date):
Approximately 700 million gallons of contaminated groundwater has been extracted and treated at the site
Approximately 7,500 pounds of organic compounds have been removed from the groundwater These
quantities are cumulative through October 1997.
This application is part of an ongoing project to contain contaminated groundwater at the facility
Groundwater extraction and treatment has been performed at the site since 1978 The ultraviolet (UV)
oxidation treatment application has been in operation since 1994. Additional contamination in site surface
water, soil, and sediment is being addressed under a later phase of this Operable Unit (OU) and is not a
direct part of this application.
Site Background:
The Bofors Nobel Superfund Site is located on 85 acres in a chemical manufacturing area six miles
east of Muskegon, Michigan in Egelston Township. The site includes an operating specialty chemical
manufacturing plant that is currently owned by Lomac, Incorporated. The Muskegon, Michigan area
is home to a number of superfund sites as a result of past chemical manufacturing production The
geological conditions at the Bofors Nobel site include a sandy soil horizon which allowed for the rapid
infiltration of contaminated liquids generated by chemical wastes which were regularly discharged to
ten separate, unlined surface impoundments at the site.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineer;
Final
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Octobers, 1998
36
-------
, Bofors Nobel Superfund Site
BOFORS 1.DWG DC-RTG 5/8/98
Bofors
Nobel Site
NOTE: NOT DRAWN TO SCALE
Figure 1. Site Location Map, Bofors Nobel Superfund Site, Muskegon, Michigan
Prepared by;
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
Octobers, 1998
37
-------
1 Bofors Nobel Superfund Site
• Prior to 1970, the facility produced chemicals such as 3,3-dichlorobenzidine (DCB), benzidine, and
azobenzene for use in alcohol based detergents and as die intermediates. Raw materials used in the
production of detergents included fatty alcohol, fatty ether alcohol, sulfur dioxide, aqueous ammonia
and caustic. In the production of dye intermediates, raw materials utilized included muriatic acid,
suifuric acid, nitrobenzene, methanol, benzene, caustic, sodium chloride and zinc.
• Lakeway produced a lauryl alcohol base detergent, dye intermediates, pesticides, and herbicides
during the 1970s.
• In September 1977, Lakeway Chemicals merged with Bofors Industries, Incorporated to become
Bofors Lakeway, Incorporated. On December 31, 1981, Bofors Lakeway, Inc. merged with Nobel
Industries of Sweden and the company name was changed to Bofors Nobel, Incorporated. In
December 1985, the corporation filed for bankruptcy, claiming that the company had expended in
excess of $60 million dollars for environmental cleanup.
• The Bofors Nobel, Inc. assets were sold to Lomac, Inc. in March of 1987. As a part of the sales
agreement, an "Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue" was entered into between the State and
Lomac for site contamination caused by previous facility operators. These agreements and
covenants allowed Lomac to operate the facility independently of site remediation activities.
• In March 1989, the Bofors Nobel site was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL).
Figure 2 shows the layout of the Bofors Nobel facility.
SIC Code: 2869 (Industrial Organic Chemicals)
Waste Management Practices that Contributed to Contamination:
For approximately 20 years, chemical process waste liquids and sludge were routinely disposed in ten
unlined surface impoundments at the site. In addition, lagoon berms occasionally failed, releasing
impoundment sludge into nearby surface water bodies.
Site Operation History:
• Lakeway Chemicals, Incorporated began producing industrial chemicals at the site in 1960. During
the late 1960s and 1970s, process wastes were discharged through open trenches to ten unlined
Surface Impoundments located south of the plant area.
• During the 1970s, berm failures at the impoundments resulted in the discharge of sludge directly into
Big Black Creek.
• Use of the surface impoundments for waste disposal was discontinued in 1976 when the facility
began discharging its liquid wastes to the Muskegon County Wastewater Treatment System. At that
time, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) requested that Lakeway perform
hydrogeologic tests at the site to define aquifer characteristics and define extraction well placement
to prevent migration of site contamination.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Final
Octobers, 1998
Center of Expertise
38
-------
, Bofors Nobel Superfund Site
BOFORS NOBEL
SITE BOUNDARY
BIG BLACK CREEK
Figure 2. Layout of the Bofors Nobel Facility
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
39
Final
Octobers, 1998
-------
, Bofors Nobel Superfund Site
Groundwater extraction wells were installed along the southern boundary of the site and began
operating in 1978.
SITE LOGISTICS/CONTACTS
Carl Plate
USAGE, Grand Haven Area Office
P.O. Box 629
Grand Haven, Michigan 49417
(616) 842-5510
Ted Streckfuss
CENWO-ED-D
USAGE, Omaha District
215 North 17th Street
Omaha, Nebraska 68102
(402) 221-3826
Dennis Eagle
MDEQ-ERD
Knapps Centre
P.O. Box 30426
Lansing, Michigan 48909-7926
(517)373-8195
John Fagiolo
USEPA, Region V
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Mail Code: SR6J
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 886-0800
Kevin Dulle
Sverdrup Environmental
400 South 4th Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63102
(314) 436-7600
Site Investigations
• The site has been divided by the EPA into two operable units, OU 1 and OU 2. OU 1 consists of
addressing soil and groundwater contamination in the lagoons area. OU 2 consists of addressing soil
and groundwater contamination in the northern portion of the facility (The Lomac plant area).
• OU 1 has been subdivided into two phases. The first phase, termed the Groundwater Operable Unit
(GOU), included installation of the Groundwater Treatment Plant (GWTP). The second phase,
termed the Lagoon Operable Unit (LOU), will include remediation or containment of contaminated
soil in the lagoons area of the facility. This report refers only to the first phase of OU 1 (The GOU).
• Because of the nature and extent of the contamination on the Bofors Nobel site, the State of
Michigan contacted the U.S. EPA to evaluate the site for placement on the National Priorities List
(NPL), pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthon'zation Act (SARA).
• The EPA conducted a site evaluation, and nominated the Bofors Nobel site to the NPL in July 1988,
with listing occurring in March 1989. A Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) was initiated
in August 1987 and was completed in June 1990.
• A Record of Decision (ROD) for the Bofors Nobel site was signed on September 17,1990. The ROD
addressed remediation of the sludge lagoons as well as restoration of the groundwater aquifer.
• Supplemental groundwater monitoring was performed by the USAGE during the design of the GWTP
and for design of an on-site landfill remedy. This monitoring was performed from March 1991 to June
1994.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
Octobers, 1998
40
-------
, Bofors Nobel Superfund Site
MATRIX AKip CONTAMINANT DESCRIPTION
MATRIX IDENTIFICATION
Groundwater (ex situ)
SITE GEOLOGY/STRATIGRAPHY
The regional geology of the Bofors site can be characterized as surficial Pleistocene sediments of varying
compositions above Paleozoic sedimentary bedrock occurring on the margin of the Michigan Basin. These
two different depositional age sediments rest on a Pre-cambrian basement complex.
The surficial geology is comprised of material deposited by the Wisconsin advance during the glacial
periods of the Pleistocene Epoch. As the Wisconsinan glacier began to recede across Michigan, it re-
established a lobate character subdividing into the Michigan, Saginaw, and Lake Erie lobes. During this
general retreat, end moraines developed parallel to the margins of the several lobes with some local
development of interlobate moraine. The development of these moranic systems impounded meltwater
behind them and initiated the first stages of the Great Lakes. Continued retreat and advances of the
glacial ice created additional moranic systems and lacustrine and outwash plains. The final retreat of
glacial ice left Michigan with a complex landscape generally less than 20,000 years old, developed on drift
deposits. The landscape is composed of low-relief features such as outwash, till, and lacustrine plains and
greater relief features including moraines, drumlins, kame, kettles, eskers, wave-cut cliffs, and dunes.
Surficial geology near the Bofors site can be characterized as Pleistocene glacio-lacustrine sands,
outwash sediments, and tills overlying the lower Mississippian Marshal Sandstone and Coldwater Shale
Formations. These latter two formations are part of the geologic structure known as the Michigan Basin.
Surficial geology consists of alluvium comprised of laminated sand and silt with peaty and fibrous material
associated with Big Black Creek, and three glacially derived zones described below:
The uppermost zone is a predominately fine to medium grained sand with generally less than five percent
fines passing the No. 200 sieve. Occasional coarser-textured beds with higher percentage of fines do
occur, but these beds are sporadic. Low percent of fines, good sorting, uniform texture, and consistency of
occurrence characterize this zone.
The next lower sequence consists of sand deposits that are variable in texture, generally greater than five
percent fines, with some units containing more than 30 percent, commonly interbedded with units of silty
clay. Occasional sand beds of the uppermost zone-type occur within this zone. However, these are
generally thin and sporadic. General variability and lack of uniformity characterize this sequence, with
represents a highly complex pattern of sedimentation.
The basal zone of the glacial stratigraphic section is a silty clay commonly containing 60 percent or
greater fines. In addition, there are local minor beds of silt and sand with gravel. This zone appears to be
related to deposits of the Morainal uplands because the total thickness of the two upper zones thins
adjacent to the Morainal areas, and the basal unit is encountered at progressively higher levels.
Paleozoic rocks make up the majority of the structure known as the Michigan Basin. These sedimentary
formations are bowl-shaped and tend to thin towards the basin's margins. Muskegon County is located on
the margin of the Michigan Basin. The upper Paleozoic rocks in this region are the Osagean and
Kinderhookian Series of the lower Mississippian age, consisting of sandstones and shales. Below the
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
Octobers, 1998
41
-------
, Bofors Nobel Superfund Site
Osagean and Kinderhookian Series are Paleozoic age sedimentary rocks comprised in general of
mudrocks, sandstones, carbonates, and evaporates. The bedrock topography along the western margin of
the Southern Peninsula of Michigan near Muskegon County increases gradually in elevation from the Lake
Michigan shoreline.
The stratigraphic column beneath the Bofors site, beginning with the youngest formation, includes:
a) Recent sediments of alluvium and swamp deposits associated with Big Black Creek.
b) Quaternary lacustrine sand formation consisting of three subunits; the upper, middle and lower
units.
c) Quaternary glacial till formation.
d) Mississippian Marshall sandstone formation.
The topography at the Bofors Nobel Superfund site slopes from a high elevation of approximately 660 feet
Mean Sea Level (MSL) at the northern edge of the site to Big Black Creek, which flows along the southern
border of the project boundary, at an elevation of approximately 617 MSL. Groundwater beneath the site
is steeply sloping, and is located between elevations 621 and 625 MSL. Depth to groundwater at the site
ranges from the ground surface at Big Black Creek, to approximately 34 feet below grade at the northern
edge of the site. At the extraction well points, the estimated depth to groundwater ranges from 25 to
SOfeet. It has been estimated that the primary aquifer at the site is 80 feet thick.
Local Climate
Regional climate characterization indicates a humid, continental climate influenced by nearby Lake
Michigan. Lake Michigan influences Muskegon's climate by reducing summer maximum temperatures,
and by moderating arctic air masses during winter. Strong north-westerly air flow during the winter months
overrides the relatively warm water of Lake Michigan, producing snow squalls along the eastern shoreline.
Consequently, snowfall in Muskegon is considerably higher than what is observed across the lake in
Wisconsin or inland toward the center of lower Michigan. A thick snow cover results during winter months
which may reduce the potential for wind-blown particulates. The influence of Lake Michigan is observed
when comparing the Muskegon area with Grand Rapids, approximately 40 miles inland. The mean annual
number of days with maximum temperatures of 90°F or greater is six at Muskegon, and thirteen at Grand
Rapids. The mean number of days where minimum temperatures are below 32°F is 144 at Muskegon
compared to 150 days at Grand Rapids. The mean monthly temperature in Muskegon during January is
approximately 23°F, with total precipitation averaging three inches, including 33 inches of snow. Inland at
Grand Rapids, the mean temperature is 21 °F, with 2.5 inches precipitation, including 22 inches of snow.
CONTAMINANT CHARACTERIZATION
Primary Contaminant Groups:
Key Specific Contaminants:
Volatiles (Halogenated)
Semivolatiles (Halogenated)
Benzene
Benzidine
2-Chloroaniline
1,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
Aniline
Vinyl Chloride
_
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
Octobers, 1998
42
-------
, Bofors Nobel Superfund Site
Over sixty contaminants have been detected in the groundwater beneath the site. The following table
provides a partial list of contaminants of concern at the site.
Table 1. Partial Listing of Contaminants of Concern
Acetone
Benzene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-dichloroethane
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 ,1-Dichloroethylene
3,3'-Dichloro-2,4'-diaminobiphenyl
Aniline
Benzidine
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Chloroisophorone
1 ,3-DichIorobenzene
Dichlorobiphenyl
Isophorone
Toluene
2-MethyIphenol
Vinyl Chloride
Xylene
3,3-dichlorobenzidine isomer
Azobenzene
2-chloroaniline
3-chloroaniline
Dichloroazobenzene
1 ,4-DichIorobenzene
1 ,2-dichloroethylene
Phenols
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trimethylphenol
di-n-Propyl formamide
Trans-1 ,2-dichloroethylene
CONTAMINANT PROPERTIES
Table 2 lists selected properties for several of the most common contaminants present at the Bofors Nobel
site.
Table 2. Contaminant Properties
fc ' ItofStlyl I
Chemical Formula
Molecular Weight
Specific Gravity
Vapor Pressure
Boiling Point
Octanol-Water Partition
Coefficient («„,)
4~
-
g/mole
-
mmHg
°C
-
; Benzene
C6H6
78.11
0.8765
76 (20°C)
80.1
135
''Benz|ftnje<|
C12H12N2
184.23
1.250
0.83 (20°C)
402
65
c
C6H6CIN
127.57
1.213
0.1 7 (20 C)
208.8
79
flilpilE'*;
C2H2CK
96.95
1.28 (cis)
1.26 (trans)
200 (trans)
(14°C)
60 (cis)
48 (trans)
123 (trans)
?'SJ*4I5r.
C2HCI3
131.5
1.46
57.8 (20°C)
86.7
339
NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
Several environmental investigations have been performed at the Bofors Nobel site. In 1978, Bofors
Lakeway, at the direction of MDEQ, completed installation and began operation of thirteen groundwater
extraction wells, primarily located along the southern boundary of the property. The wells were designed
to prevent the migration of contamination beyond the site boundaries. Operation of the extraction wells
has continued since that time. Prior to 1994, extracted groundwater was treated at the Lomac facility and
discharged to the Muskegon County Wastewater Treatment Facility. Since 1994, groundwater treated by
the UV oxidation system has been discharged directly to Big Black Creek. No groundwater contamination
has been detected down gradient of the project site. Modeling has indicated that the existing extraction
system is capable of retaining the plume of contamination on the project site. It is estimated that
termination of extraction well operation would allow contaminant migration offsite within three days of
pump cessation.
Prepared by:
Final
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
October 6,1998
43
-------
. Bofors Nobel Superfund Site
Remedial investigation field activities at the site have included:
a) Surface soil sampling
b) Subsurface soil sampling
c) Groundwater sampling
d) Geophysical investigation
e) Air monitoring
Data from hundreds of soil boring and groundwater monitoring wells has allowed the development of
numerous two-dimensional contour diagrams illustrating the surface areas, groundwater elevations, and
contaminant concentrations profiles. These diagrams have been used to verify that current pumping
scenarios are adequate to provide capture of the site contamination.
The hydrogeologic unit located beneath the project site is consistent in composition and exhibits a range
of conductivity values commonly associated with a clean sand aquifer. The mean hydraulic conductivity for
the wells tested at the project site was 4.4 x 10'2 cm/sec. The transmissivity at the site ranges from 43,000
to 60,000 gpd/ft, with an average value of 48,000 gpd/ft. These values are judged to be representative of
the aquifer, based upon its characterization. The storage coefficient, also felt to be consistent for a sandy
aquifer, was found to be approximately 0.27. Based upon the assumption that the aquifer is 80 feet thick
and the average transmissivity of 48,000 gpd/ft, the coefficient of permeability was found to be 600 gpd/ft2,
or 2.8 x 10"2 cm/sec, which correlates well with the previously stated value of 4.4 x 10"2 cm/sec.
The most prevalent and highest concentration contaminants of concern at the Bofors Nobel site include
benzene, benzidine, 2-chloroaniline, 1,2-dichloroethene, trichloroethene, 3,3-dichlorobenzidine, aniline
and vinyl chloride. The highest groundwater concentrations detected for each of the contaminants listed
above are shown in Table 3. These concentrations are all from groundwater samples collected prior to
installation of the GWTP (pre-1994).
Table 3. Highest Detected Contaminant Concentrations (Pre-1994)
Constituent
Benzene
Benzidine
2-Chloroaniline
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
Aniline
Vinyl Chloride
Maximum Concentration (ug/L)
60,000
1,300
63,000
1,900
43
2,600
10,000
1,000
. . - WeIlorii|illusl|llfc;;-;
WC-27
MW-108
WC-27
LW-3
PW-41
PW-41
WC-27
W-33
The average concentrations of the most prevalent groundwater contaminants over a 16-month period from
November 1994 through February 1996 are shown in Table 4.
Prepared by:
Final
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
October 6,1998
44
-------
, Bofors Nobel Superfund Site
Table 4. Average Concentrations for Selected Contaminants (1994-1996)
*{*' ,"""
Benzene
Benzidine
2-Chloroaniline
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
Aniline
Vinyl Chloride
350
315
270
180
100
80
40
33
As of October 1997, extracted groundwater contained approximately 1.5 mg/L of total organic compounds
prior to treatment. The metals concentrations in the plant influent have not exceeded the regulatory limits
established by the MDEQ.
OU 01 (GOU) was intended as a remedy for contaminated groundwater at the site. To summarize the
aquifer parameters discussed in the previous paragraphs, the critical aquifer characteristics have been
estimated as follows:
Table 5. Aquifer Characteristics
""?" „* ^ *•
' o ;• Unit' ' "
Operable Unit 1
Apparent, , '.'
•^'" '^thickness
80 feet
-i~ Hydraulic
Conductivity SI .
600 gpd/ft-2
^Transnyssfvity* .
48,000 gpd/ft
/»/
^ FI6w Direction
Southerly
Groundwater at the southern boundary of the project site and across the entire Bofors Nobel site acts as
an unconfined aquifer.
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
PRIMARY TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
Pump and Treat with UV Oxidation
SUPPLEMENTAL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Pretreatment (water) - Chemical (chemical precipitation) and Filtration
Post-Treatment (water) - Carbon Adsorption and Air Stripping
Post-Treatment (solids) - Sludge Dewatering (filter press)
TIMELINE
Table 6 shows a timeline of significant activities that have occurred on the Bofors Nobel project.
Prepared by:
Final
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Octobers, 1998
45
-------
, Bofors Nobel Superfund Site
Table 6. Project Timeline
Date
September 1991
September 1991 through April 1992
August 1992
October 1992
November 1992
June 1994
September 1994
' ^ -, ' .Activity *" - ,, ,„ , '"' .
Advanced Oxidation Treatment Demonstration Testing
System Design
Bid Submittal Deadline
Contract Award
Construction Mobilization
Construction Complete
Initiate Treatment Operations
TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC AND TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION
Figure 3 shows a schematic diagram of the groundwater treatment system.
The extraction well network was constructed in 1978 as part of a proactive approach to site cleanup by the
state of Michigan. No additional extraction wells were installed during construction of the groundwater
treatment facility. Records providing extraction well details, pump types and casing/screen intervals are
limited and were not available for the preparation of this document.
The facility design flow has been established as 782 gpm, with a maximum of 732 gpm derived from the
wellfield, and 50 gpm as plant recycle. The current operating flow rate varies between 390 and 500 gpm,
depending upon the season. Groundwater is discharged to the treatment facility from the extraction well
network and was initially directed to a metals precipitation unit (solids contact unit 1) for pretreatment prior to
organics removal. The metals precipitation unit was operated for approximately two years after system start-
up. Because it was determined to be unnecessary at that time, it has since been taken out of service.
Following solids contact unit 1, water is sent through a dual media gravity filter. Filtered water gravity flows
through a UV Oxidation system to treat organic contaminants. Treated water gravity flows into a sump, from
which it is pumped through four columns of granular activated carbon (GAG). GAG treatment is provided for
polishing, and as a backup measure in the event the UV system is offline. Following polishing, the pH is
elevated in solids contact unit 2 to convert ammonium ions (NH4+ - present at neutral pH) to strippable
ammonia (NH3), for removal within the ammonia stripping columns. The pH-adjusted water travels from
solids contact unit 2 to the ammonia stripping sump, where it is then pumped through the ammonia stripping
column. After stripping, the water is neutralized by acid addition, and the water is directed to the effluent
holding vault. The holding vault also serves as a source of fire protection water at the facility. Water from the
holding vault overflows through a weir and discharges to Big Black Creek at the southern edge of the site.
Solids generated in the two solids contact units are pumped to a sludge thickener. Thickened sludge is
amended with lime to improve handling and dewatering, and is then pumped to a sludge filter press. The
25 to 35 percent solid sludge cake from the filter press is further processed to remove excess water using
a sludge dryer. The solids content in the sludge is increased to approximately 90 percent in the sludge
dryer. Sludge exiting the sludge dryer is transferred to bags and is disposed at a solid waste landfill. Water
generated by the filter press is recycled to the head of the treatment facility.
Prepared by:
Final
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Octobers, 1998
46
-------
, Bofors Nobel Superfund Site
TO
ATMOSPHERE
EXTRACTION
WELLS SOLIDS CONTACT
UNIT t
SLUDGE
TO DISPOSAL
SOLIDS CONTACT UNIT 1
GRAVITY FILTER
SLUDGE THICKENING PROCESS/FILTER PRESS
UV/OXIDATION/GRANULAR
ACTIVATED CARBON
SOLIDS CONTACT UNIT 2
AIR STRIPPERS
Removes metols from woter by elevating pH and adding
polymer to form a slurry mixture. Slurry sent to sludge
Thickening Process: remaining water sent to Gravity Filter.
Note: This unit was taken out of service in 1995 because
it was not needed to meet discharge limitations.
Removes fine particles from woter.
Forms sludge by adding lime to slurry and forcing it
through Filter Press. Sludge sent offsite for disposal.
water recycled to Solids Contact Unit 1.
Removes organic compounds from water.
Elevates the pH for ammonia removal and adds a
polymer to form o slurry mixture. Slurry sent to sludge
Thickening Process.
Ammonia stripped from water prior to discharge to Big
Black Creek.
TO BIG BLACK CREEK
Figure 3. Groundwater Treatment Process Schematic
Bofors Nobel Superfund Site, Muskegon, Michigan
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise 4
Final
Octobers, 1998
-------
, Bofors Nobel Superfund Site
KEY DESIGN CRITERIA
The expected operational lifetime of the treatment system is estimated to be greater than 60 years.
OPERATING PARAMETERS AFFECTING TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE
The following table lists several of the key operating parameters for the GWTP. Where possible, design
values are compared to actual values.
Parameter
Pumping Rate
Water Temperature
Influent
UV Oxidation Unit
Effluent
Influent and Effluent Contaminant Concentrations
Influent (9 Primary Contaminants)
Effluent (9 Primary Contaminants)
Pressure Loss Through GAG Columns
System pH (influent)
Chemical Feed Rates
Caustic (50% NaOH)
Acid (96% H2SO4)
Polymer
Hydrogen Peroxide
Ozone Generated
Head Loss Through the Dual Media Filtration System
• '•-'>' Units'!***1*-?
gpm
—
OF
OF
OF
—
ug/L
Mg/L
PSI
NA
—
gal/day
gal/day
gal/day
gal/day
Ibs/day
Feet
Design Value
782
—
NA
NA
NA
—
5,218
43
1-3
7.0
—
380
687
18
NA
NA
2.57
^ActualWalue(1)r
390 - 500
—
56
54
54
<1500
<9
NA
7.3
...
NA
NA
39
8.0
49.7
NA
(1)-1998 Information
NA - Not Applicable
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
The overall objective of the GOU at the Bofors Nobel Superfund Site is to control the offsite migration of
contaminated groundwater, and to reduce the contaminant mass remaining in the aquifer. Limitations have
been established by the MDEQ for discharge of treated groundwater from the site. Table 7 lists the MDEQ
limitations for water discharged from the GWTP to Big Black Creek. Weekly sampling is required for all
parameters listed in the table.
The treatment strategy for OU 01 at the Bofors Nobel site is to first address the contaminated groundwater
beneath the project site by preventing offsite migration. After successfully achieving this goal, the source
of the site contamination (soil and sludge in the lagoons) must be addressed in order to allow the site to be
remediated. Contaminated soils at the project site have not yet been addressed through any type of
remediation activity, therefore, a continuous source of contaminant loading to the aquifer remains at the
site. To date, alternatives that have been considered to address the contaminated soils include
incineration, excavation with consolidation in an onsite landfill, and placement of a slurry
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 6,1998
48
-------
, Bofors Nobel Superfund Site
Table 7. Discharge Limitations for the GWTP
JC
COD
Ammonia Nitrogen
12/1-4/30
5/1 - 9/30
10/1-11/30
Purgeable Halocarbons
Each
Purgeable Aromatics
Each
Aniline
2-Chloroaniline
Carbon Disulfide
2-Butanone
2-Methylphenol
Benzidine
3,3-Dichlorobenzene
2,4-Dinitrophenol
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Total Copper
Total Lead
Total Mercury
Total Zinc
Dissolved Oxygen
5/1 - 9/30
10/1 -4/30
pH
t^Jf:'*^ •:M^^^^-^M:ff:,:^
20 mg/L
—
29 mg/L
2.0 mg/L
12 mg/L
—
5 Mg/L
—
5 Mg/L
10 pg/L
20 Mg/L
5 Mg/L
500 Mg/L
5 Mg/L
0.12 Mg/L (1)
0.18 Mg/L (1)
29 Mg/L (1)
5 Mg/L
5 Mg/L
62 Mg/L/ 38 Mg/L (1)
11M9/L(1)
0.001 3 Mg/L (1)
320 Mg/L/ 185 Mg/L (1)
—
6.5 mg/L (minimum)
4.0 mg/L (minimum)
6.5 - 9.0 (acceptable range)
(1) - Allowable Monthly Average Concentration
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 6,1998
49
-------
——————————^—___-^_— Bofors Nobel Superfund Site
wall combined with installation of an impermeable cap at the site. At the time this report was prepared, no
final action had been selected to address the issue of soil and sediment contamination.
In 1991, treatability testing was performed to assess the performance of several groundwater treatment
technologies. Technologies tested included: UV/peroxide oxidation, UV/ozone oxidation, and carbon
adsorption. Test results indicated that UV/ozone oxidation was the superior technology for treatment of
groundwater at the Bofors Nobel site.
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA
The concentration of contaminants in the influent to the groundwater treatment facility has consistently
been less than design values. As previously indicated, the total concentration of organic compounds in
extracted groundwater is approximately 1.5 mg/L (versus a design estimate of greater than 5 mg/L), and
has not varied significantly since project start-up. The consistency of the influent concentration is
expected, since the source of soil and sediment contamination at the site has not yet been addressed. It is
likely that future soil remediation at the site will include removal and/or capping of the contamination,
ultimately leading to a reduction in the amount of contamination being carried to the site groundwater. It
has been estimated that long-term cleanup of the site groundwater will take 50 to 70 years.
The groundwater treatment facility has consistently treated the target contaminants to concentrations
below the limits established by the MDEQ. The site has not exceeded the permit limits for any individual
contaminant since start-up in 1994. Toxicity testing was not required under the original operating contract,
but has since been added to the facilities operating charter. Since initiation of toxicity testing, some
difficulties have been encountered when testing 100 percent effluent on the target specie, Daphnia magna
or D. pulex. Toxicity testing issues are currently being addressed at the facility, and should be closely
coordinated with state regulatory personnel.
Since 1994, over 7,500 pounds of organic compounds have been removed from the groundwater at the
Bofors Nobel site. The principal treatment technology employed by the groundwater treatment system at
the site is UV oxidation. This technology treats organic compounds by destruction as opposed to phase
transfer. Destruction treatment technologies function by converting (either by physical or chemical means)
contaminants into less harmful substances, many of which can be discharged directly to the environment.
Phase transfer technologies collect contaminants from one medium (e.g., water) and concentrate them in
or on another medium (e.g., granular activated carbon). The concentrated contaminants are subsequently
easier and less expensive to transport and dispose. Destruction technologies are typically preferable to
phase transfer technologies because with destruction, the need for further handling or treatment of wastes
is minimized or eliminated.
As of October 1997, the Bofors Nobel groundwater treatment facility has processed approximately 700
million gallons of contaminated groundwater without exceeding any of the discharge limitations
established by the state of Michigan. The treatment facility has been operating since September 1994,
effectively preventing migration of the site contaminants. The facility has treated an average of six pounds
of organic compounds per day since startup, with little variation in the contaminant plume configuration.
There have been no adverse air emissions caused by the operation of the treatment facility. The system is
able to operate with no downtime (100% operability) as a result of system flexibility and operating flow
rates below system design flow rates. During an average monthly operating cycle in 1997, the facility used
between 190,000 and 200,000 kwhrs of electricity, and approximately 10,000 CCF (therms) of natural gas,
depending upon ambient temperature and treatment flowpath. In 1997, treatment system chemical usage
rates averaged 500 gallons per month for hydrogen peroxide, and 2500 pounds per month for ozone.
Pretreatment prior to the UV oxidation system is not currently being practiced, with no adverse findings.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
Octobers, 1998
50
-------
, Bofors Nobel Superfund Site
Since system startup, there have been periodic shutdowns for scheduled maintenance activities. The
replacement of six concrete C-5000 reactor vessels with stainless steel reactor vessels has been
completed. This change was required as a result of leakage that was occurring along cracks in the
concrete vessels and at the piping entry points.
Hydrodynamic Performance
Thirteen extraction wells are located along the southern boundary of the project site, adjacent to Big Black
Creek. All extraction wells are not operated simultaneously. Typically, nine wells are sufficient to provide
capture of the contaminant plume. Selection of operating extraction wells is based on total system flow
rate. The extraction wellfield has a history of problems associated with the development of biomass
around the well screens and within the well packs. A proprietary rejuvenation process, blended chemical
heat treatment (BCHT), has been implemented to improve flow rates in the wells. The flow rates from
individual wells vary significantly, and can range from 40 to 100 gpm, depending upon the degree of
fouling and aquifer characteristics. It is estimated that the contaminant plume at the site has been
contained horizontally and vertically by the extraction well network.
Treatment System Cost
PROCUREMENT PROCESS
The Feasibility Study and the project ROD called for Ultraviolet Oxidation (UV Oxidation) as the selected
technology for destruction of organic contaminants present in the groundwater. UV/ozone oxidation was
determined to be the most appropriate treatment technology for this site based on a treatability study that
evaluated UV/ozone oxidation, UV/peroxide oxidation and GAG. The ROD also directed final effluent
discharge to a cold water trout stream located on site (Big Black Creek). Rapid and complete evaluation of
the chosen technology was performed by the Corps to determine whether the low discharge standards
established by the state could be achieved. The evaluation results indicated that the selected technology
would allow the discharge limitations to be met. One of the primary concerns was the contracting effort
related to the procurement of the selected treatment system. The number of vendors capable of meeting the
treatment performance requirements was limited, and the proposed life cycle costs for the various vendors
was an important consideration.
The relatively recent development of the oxidation technology (mid 1970s) is one of the reasons that
corporate competition was limited. At the time design was initiated on the groundwater treatment facility
(September 1991), only three vendors had exhibited the capabilities necessary to effectively treat a
groundwater contaminated with both volatile and semivolatile constituents on a high flow rate (greater than 1
MGD) basis. Because it was anticipated that the treatment system would operate for a long period of time
(greater than 30 years), it was anticipated that operation and maintenance (O&M) costs might be more
significant than capital costs. Based on this, consideration was given to procurement of the UV Oxidation
system based upon life cycle cost rather than capital cost. Based upon the outcome of the predesign testing,
a sole source justification was used to procure the UV Oxidation vendor most appropriate for this specific
groundwater application. Justification was contingent upon two primary criteria: the capability of the process
to treat the contaminated groundwater to acceptable levels, and life cycle cost for the end user. The outcome
of this logical progression was a "treat-off" between three vendors ,io allow the government to obtain the
services of the vendor that could most cost effectively address the contaminants present in the site
groundwater.
The contract to construct and operate the GWTP for one year was awarded on a firm fixed-price (FFP) basis
to Sverdrup of St. Louis, Missouri. The O&M period was later expanded from one year to 2.5 years. At that
time, the O&M contract was awarded to Ayers, Lewis, Norris and May of Muskegon, Michigan.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
Octobers, 1998
51
-------
, Bofors Nobel Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Cost data for the Bofors Nobel project has been developed using available records at the facility. It is
estimated that 7,500 pounds of organic compounds were removed from extracted groundwater between
September 1994 and October 1997. It is also estimated that 700 million gallons of groundwater have been
extracted from the site over the same time period. The following tables list capital and annual O&M costs
for the project.
Capital Costs:
"DIRECT COSTS •:.•-.•'•.•.•.•:::;:::;.:,•••• •• —•:::.;•• :o'' ';.?••
System Mechanical
Ultraviolet Oxidation System
Granular Activated Carbon
Ammonia Stripping
Solids Contact Units
Filter system
Sludge Handling
Chemical Feed
Chemical Storage
Hydrated Lime Feed System
Tankage and Pumps
System Plumbing/HVAC
Miscellaneous Equipment
Architectural/Structural
Electrical/Controls
Civil/Site
One Year O&M and System Startup
Contract Amount •-.. 'n^v:. '>'•$!;&„,.
2,200,000
420,000
1,200,000
600,000
300,000
400,000
60,000
50,000
150,000
150,000
900,000
250,000
1,500,000
800,000
520,000
2,700,000
.,.,-. «$12,2CKM)00 W-. -
Operating Costs:
Staffing/Labor
1997 Average Values
Offsite Laboratory Testing
Process Chemicals
Parts Replacement and Onsite Lab
Extraction Well Maintenance
Interior/Exterior Maintenance
Miscellaneous Expenses
Electricity (at $0.06 per kwh)
Utility Usage
Natural Gas (at $0.50 per therm (CCF))
Annual Operating Cost
260,000
160,000
70,000
20,000
10,000
40,000
5,000
138,000
60,000
$763,000
Based on these costs, it can be calculated that $13,726,000 has been spent over the first three years of
treatment system operation. This total cost translates to treatment costs of $1,830 per pound of
contaminant removed, or $19.61 per 1000 gallons of groundwater treated. If removals are compared to
annual O&M costs, yearly treatment costs are equal to $305 per pound of contaminant removed or $3 27
per 1000 gallons of water treated.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
Octobers, 1998
52
-------
, Bofors Nobel Superfund Site
REGULATORY/lNSTiTUTiONAL ISSUES
Surface water discharges from the treatment system are regulated by MDEQ. Discharge limitations for the
site are listed in a previous section of this report (Treatment System Performance).
Groundwater cleanup criteria have not yet been established for this site. It is expected that the USEPA will
develop these criteria in September 1998 in the form of a second amendment to the ROD for the site.
OBSERVATIONS ANDiI_EssoN$ LEARNED
Procurement Issues:
It appeared that a FFP contract worked well overall for this project. It is possible that a cost-reimbursable
contract would have allowed a higher level of responsiveness to field modifications (especially smaller
modifications) to the system during the construction phase. These modifications might have been
processed and implemented more rapidly under a cost-reimbursable contract.
Implementation Considerations:
A preliminary understanding of the site characteristics was obtained through the operation of the
groundwater extraction system, which went online in 1978. It was recognized that until a remediation
decision is made on the source of the contamination (the sludge lagoons), significant headway into
reducing the volume of contamination annually treated would be difficult to achieve. It is anticipated that it
will be easier to reduce the volume of contamination in the groundwater at the site following a capping or
removal action. A preventive maintenance program to insure uninterrupted operation of the groundwater
extraction system has been implemented to reduce downtime associated with biofouling and plugging of
the well screens.
During selection of the principle treatment technology (UV Oxidation), it was recognized that water quality
parameters associated with deposition of various species on the ultraviolet light quartz sheaths could
impact system performance, and ultimately increase treatment cost if not addressed during system
design. As a result of these concerns, pretreatment components were included in the treatment system to
minimize the possibility of poor performance in the principal treatment units.
The establishment of effluent discharge criteria early in the design process is critical in order to provide a
treatment system that will be capable of meeting all requirements. Toxicity testing of the plant effluent was
stipulated following completion of construction. It is important that the designer be aware of the potential
for chronic and acute toxicity testing, so that consideration may be given to alternative treatment schemes
that may be necessary to meet toxicity requirements. At a minimum, the designer should closely consult
and coordinate with the regulatory personnel responsible for developing the permit requirements to ensure
that issues relative to specie selection and dilution concentrations are appropriately addressed for the
specific site characteristics.
The concept of having the construction contractor perform initial (first year) O&M of the treatment system
appeared to be a good idea. This allows more continuity and a smoother transition from the construction
to O&M phase of the project.
Consideration should be given on future projects to the possibility that more system operators will be
required during the early stages (first 2 years) of O&M. After this period, it is likely that most operational
issues will have been addressed, and that less system troubleshooting will be necessary.
Prepared by:
Final
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Octobers, 1998
53
-------
, Bofors Nobel Superfund Site
Technology Limitations:
Until an overall remediation strategy is developed to address contamination still present within the ten
onsite lagoons, this technology is not expected to reduce the in-situ contamination in the site groundwater
to below the levels required by MDEQ. The inability of the constructed system to rapidly reduce the level
of site groundwater contamination is a result of the presence of a contamination source area overlying the
impacted aquifer. Until the source area is addressed under a separate remediation action, contaminants
will continue to leach to the groundwater. No alternative systems have been recommended or identified to
improve upon what is currently in place at the Bofors Nobel superfund site for treatment of the
contaminated groundwater.
While continuing plume containment appears to be successful, the overall concentrations of VOCs,
SVOCs and metals have not been significantly decreased after several years of extraction and treatment.
Future Technology Selection Considerations:
The following observations were made based on conversations with the construction contractor, various
vendors, the site construction manager and the using agency.
Perhaps the most important aspect of any project is communication. Maintaining open lines of
communication between different agencies insures that the needs of all parties are incorporated into the
final product. This aspect of the project was important not only in relation to the UV Oxidation process, but
also in regard to items such as establishment of discharge criteria for the completed groundwater
treatment facility. Due to the complexity and uniqueness of the selected contracting vehicle,
communication was especially critical in this project.
The Treat-Off test associated with the predesign stage of the project required a concerted effort by the
designer to insure that the goals of the "treat-off1 were clearly communicated to the vendors. This was
necessary to insure that the vendors realize that the "treat-off1 test is the vehicle by which the selection of
the full-scale process will be made. As a lesson learned, communication between the designer and the UV
Oxidation vendors regarding the ultimate goals of the pilot testing should be emphasized.
Following selection of the most appropriate vendor for the UV Oxidation system, it was important that
good communication was maintained during the design process. Items such as electrical connections,
system control, cooling water requirements, system placement, foot print sizing and a host of other
technical issues had to be presented to the supplier of the UV Oxidation system.
It is always important, when developing any proprietary specification, that an equitable project cost be
maintained, and that cost increases following notification to the vendor of choice be minimized. During
predesign activities, it should be emphasized to the prospective suppliers that the final report that they
supply to the using agency will be used as the basis of selection for the finished product. It should also be
emphasized that the vendor will be held to the costs presented within the report for the full-scale system,
provided the final design assumptions do not change. It may be appropriate to enter into a legally binding
agreement with the selected vendor to establish capital and operating costs. It should be recognized that
operational costs for the full-scale system are an integral part of the projected system costs, and little can
be done other than estimate the costs based upon supplier projections. The project designer should
review the vendor costs for accuracy. Another potential option is to provide a fixed cost line item within the
bid package, so that all prime contractors are aware of the costs associated with the UV Oxidation
package.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
Octobers, 1998
54
-------
, Bofors Nobel Superfund Site
Following award of the contract, it is important to develop a strong working relationship between the
contractor, supplier, and designer, so that a quality product will be supplied. As a part of this process, it is
very effective to hold pre-submittal conferences on all major equipment packages to insure that the
contractor, supplier, and designer are all fully aware of the requirements of the specific process, and are
aware of the responsibilities of each individual. The pre-submittal conferences will set the tone for the
subsequent dealings between all of the parties.
REFERENCES
Major Sources for Each Section:
Site Characteristics:
Treatment System:
Performance:
Cost:
Regulatory Institutional Issues:
Schedule:
Lessons Learned:
Source #s (from list below) - 3, 4
Source #s - 6, 8
Source #s-1,2
Source #s - 1, 2
Source #s - 4, 7
Source #s - 5
Source #s - 7, 8
Chronological List of Sources and Additional References:
1. 1997 Annual Monitoring information - Facility Operations
2. Monthly Operating Reports 1994 - 1997
3. Remedial Investigation Report for the Bofors Site, Muskegon, Michigan; February 1990.
4. Phase II Remedial Investigation Report for the Bofors Site, Muskegon, Michigan; March 1990.
5. Record of Decision, Bofors Nobel Superfund Site, Muskegon, Michigan; September 1990.
6. Streckfuss, Ted H. "Lessons Learned: So!e Source Procurement of a UV/Oxidation System
and Operating Problems in a Biological Groundwater Treatment Plant." Third USAGE
Innovative Technology Transfer Workshop, June 1993.
7. Streckfuss, Ted H., Olson, Craig R. "Innovative Contracting Strategies for Equipment
Procurement, Bofors Nobel Superfund Site, Muskegon, Ml." Fourth Forum on Innovative
Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and International." November 1992.
8. Streckfuss, Ted H. "The Greening of Groundwater." American Society of Civil Engineers Civil
Engineering. April 1995.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This analysis was originally prepared by:
Omaha District Corps of Engineers
12565 West Center Road
Omaha, Nebraska 68144
Contact: Ted H. Streckfuss, Eny. P.E.
(402) 697-2560
This report was modified for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under USAGE Contract No. DACA45-96-
D-0016, Delivery Order No. 12.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
Octobers, 1998
55
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
56
-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the City Industries Superfund Site
Orlando, Florida
57
-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the City Industries Superfund Site
Orlando, Florida
Site Name:
City Industries Superfund Site
Location:
Orlando, Florida
Contaminants:
Chlorinated solvents and BTEX
- Initial contaminants of concern
included 1,1,1-DCA, 1,1-DCE,
methylene chloride, vinyl chloride,
PCE, TCE, 1,1,1-TCA, benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, acetone,
MEK, MIBK, and phthalates
- Maximum concentrations
detected in 1988 included 1,1-DCE
(6,000 ug/L), acetone (146,000
ug/L), and MIBK (78,000 ug/L)
Period of Operation:
Status: Ongoing
Report covers: May 1994 through
May 1997
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup (interim results)
Vendor:
Design: Jerry Peters
PEER Consultants P.C.
12300 Twinbrook Pkwy, Suite 410
Rockville,MD 20852
(301)816-0700
Construction and O&M: ERM-
EnviroClean, Inc.
250 Phillips Blvd #280
Ewing,NJ 08618
(609) 895-0050
State Point of Contact:
Don Harris
Florida DEP(FDEP)
Twin Towers Office Bldg.
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(904)488-0190
Technology:
Pump and Treat with Air Stripping
- Extraction system consists of 13
recovery wells installed across the
width of the initial contaminant
plume
- Treatment includes an
equalization/neutralization tank
followed by an air stripping tower
- A network of 41 monitoring wells
and 13 recovery wells are used to
monitor quarterly changes in
groundwater quality
- The actual average pumping rate
for the system has been 195 gpm
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA Remedial
- ROD Date: 3/29/90
EPA Point of Contact:
Pam Scully, RPM
U.S. EPA Region 4
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 562-8898
Waste Source:
Improper disposal practices and
unauthorized dumping
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
The hydrogeology at this site is
relatively simple and hydraulic
conductivity relatively high,
conditions which should lead to a
successful application for pump
and treat technology.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
-151.7 million gallons treated as of May 1997
- No NAPL have been observed in monitoring wells on site
- Extraction wells are located in one aquifer at the site
- Hydraulic conductivity reported as 6.3936 fit/day
58
-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the City Industries Superfund Site
Orlando, Florida (continued)
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Cleanup goals are to remediate groundwater to levels set by the FDEP for the following constituents: acetone
(700 ug/L), benzene (1 ug/L), 1,1-DCA (5 ug/L), 1,1-DCE (7 ug/L), cis-l,2-DCE (70 ug/L), trans-l,2-DCE (70
ug/L), ethylbenzene (700 ug/L), methylene chloride (5 ug/L), MEK (200 ug/L), MIBK (350 ug/L), PCE (3
ug/L), toluene (2,000 ug/L), 1,1,1-TCA (200 ug/L), TCE (3 ug/L), total phthalates (3 ug/L), and vinyl chloride
(1 ug/L).
- The primary goal of the system is to achieve hydraulic containment of the plume.
Results:
- From May 1994 through May 1997, total concentrations of contaminants have been reduced 86% from 3,121
to 444 ug/L. However, concentrations of all VOCs remain above cleanup goals. In addition, concentrations of
acetone, 1,1-DCE, and MIBK remain at persistently elevated concentrations. Through May 1997,
approximately 2,700 pounds of contaminants have been removed from the groundwater.
- No contaminants have been detected in down-gradient monitoring wells since the beginning of remedial
operations, and the plume has been contained.
Cost:
- Estimated costs for pump and treat were $1,674,800 ($1,094,800 in capital and $580,000 in O&M), which
correspond to $10.60 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $590 per pound of contaminant removed.
Description:
The City Industries site operated as a hazardous waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility (TSDF) from
1971 until 1983. From 1981 through 1983, EPA and county officials cited the facility for multiple violations of
RCRA. In 1983, EPA, FDEP, and the county ordered the business to close, and the owner of the site abandoned
the property. FDEP completed a multi-phased remedial investigation in May 1986. The site was listed on the
NPL in March 1989 and a ROD was signed in March 1990.
The extraction system used at the site consists of 13 recovery wells installed across the width of the initial
contaminant plume. Treatment includes an equalization/neutralization tank followed by an ah" stripping tower.
Total concentrations of VOCs have declined 86% at this site, but remain above cleanup levels. The
hydrogeology at this site is relatively simple and hydraulic conductivity relatively high, conditions which should
lead to a successful application for pump and treat technology. According to the RPM, contaminant levels at the
site in late 1997 and 1998 are lower than shown in the May 1997 monitoring data.
59
-------
City Industries Superfund Site
SITE INFORMATION
Identifying Information:
Treatment Application:
City Industries Superfund site
Orlando, Florida
CERCLIStf: FLD055945653
ROD Date: March 29,1990
Background
Type of Action: Remedial
Period of operation: 05/94 - Ongoing (Data
collected through May 1997)
Quantity of groundwater treated during
application: 151.7 million gallons
Historical Activity that Generated
Contamination at the Site: Hazardous waste
handling
Corresponding SIC Code: 4953 (Hazardous
Waste Material Disposal Sites)
Waste Management Practice That
Contributed to Contamination: Improper
disposal practices and unauthorized dumping
Location: Orlando, Florida
Facility Operations [1,2,3]:
• The City Industries site operated as a
hazardous waste Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal (TSD) facility from 1971 until 1983.
From 1981 through 1983, U.S. EPA and
Orange County officials cited the facility for
multiple RCRA violations. In July 1983,
EPA, the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP), and
Orange County ordered the business to
close under Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) authority.
• In 1983, the owner of the site abandoned the
facility. That same year, EPA and FDEP
performed source control activities, including
the FDEP removing 41 tons of waste drums,
sludge, and liquid hazardous waste. EPA
also thermally treated 1,670 tons of
contaminated soil off site, and returned the
clean soil to the site as fill. EPA removing
10 tons of highly contaminated soil and
transported it to an off-site hazardous waste
landfill. As a result of these activities, the
only remaining media of concern at the site
was the groundwater.
• In 1984, EPA issued an Administrative Order
to City Industries requiring cleanup;
EPA
In
however, the company ignored the order.
December 1985, the facility owner was
found guilty on 17 counts of hazardous
waste handling violations and other criminal
charges.
FDEP completed a multiphased Remedial
Investigation (Rl) in May 1986.
• In 1988, FDEP and the City Industries
steering committee entered into an
agreement to develop viable cleanup
options. The Feasibility Study (FS) was
conducted by the Potentially Responsible
Parties (PRPs) under a consent agreement
between the PRPs and FDEP and was
completed in December 1989.
• In March 1989, the site was listed on the
National Priorities List (NPL), and EPA
assumed oversight responsibility from
FDEP. A Record of Decision (ROD) for the
site was signed on March 29, 1990.
• In 1991, EPA negotiated a consent decree
with the PRPs to fund the necessary
activities to clean up the site.
Regulatory Context:
• The ROD for the site was signed in 1990.
• An Explanation of Significant Differences
(ESD) was signed in February 1994 to
revise the selected remedy and to identify
two new contaminants. The ROD called for
secondary treatment of effluent to meet
POTW pretreatment standards; however,
the POTW refused to accept the discharge.
The ESD revised the remedy to include air
stripping with no secondary treatment and
discharge to surface water under an NPDES
permit.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
60
TIO3.WP6\0319-04.stf
-------
City Industries Superfund Site
SITE^ INFORMATION (CoNT.)
Backaround (Cont.)
• 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 (NCR), 40 CFR 300.
Site Loaistics/Contacts
Groundwater Remedy Selection: The selected
groundwater remedy for the site is pumping and
treating the contaminated groundwater through air
stripping with discharge to surface water, as
specified in the ROD and modified in the ESD.
Site Lead: PRP
Oversight: EPA
Remedial Project Manager:
Pam Scully*
U.S. EPA Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 562-8898
State Contact:
Don Harris
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(904)488-0190
* Indicates primary contacts
Treatment System Vendor:
Jerry Peters
PEER Consultants P.C. (Design)
12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 410
Rockville, MD 20852
(301)816-0700
Stuart Bills*
ERM-EnviroClean, Inc. (Construction &
Operation/Maintenance)
250 Phillips Blvd. #280
Ewing, NJ 08618
(609) 895-0050
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix Processed Through the
Treatment System: Groundwater
Contaminant Characterization n.2.3.101
Primary Contaminant Groups: Halogenated
and nonhalogenated volatile organic compounds
(VOCs).
• The initial 14 contaminants of concern at the
site were acetone, benzene,
1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA),
-• 1,1rdichloroethylene(1,1-DCE),
irans-1,2-dichloroethylene (fra/?s-1,2-DCE),
ethylbenzene, methylene chloride, methyl
ethyl ketone (MEK), methyl isobutyl ketone
(MIBK), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), toluene,
1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA),
trichloroethylene (TCE), and total phthalates.
During construction of the treatment system in
1994, two additional contaminants of concern
were identified and added to the list in the
ESD: c/s-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
61
TIO3.WP6\0319-04.Stf
-------
City Industries Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Contaminant Characterization fCont.l
The maximum concentrations of
contaminants detected during a 1988 FS
sampling event were acetone (146,000
ug/L), benzene (100 ug/L), 1,1-DCA (500
ug/L), 1,1-DCE (6,000 ug/L), methylene
chloride (165,000 ug/L), MEK (20,000 ug/L),
MIBK (78,000 ug/L), toluene (9,000 ug/L),
TCE (27,000 ug/L), 1,2-DCE (24,000 |jg/L),
1,1,1-TCA (430 ug/L), ethylbenzene (2,100
ug/L), and PCE (380 ug/L). The maximum
concentrations of vinyl chloride and c/s-1,2-
DCE detected during 1994 were 2,400 ug/L
and 38,000 ug/L, respectively.
Based on 1986 Rl data, site engineers
estimated the initial plume covered
approximately eight acres extending from
the City Industries site toward the drainage
canal east of the site. Based on an area of
eight acres, a plume thickness of
approximately 50 feet, and a porosity of 0.3,
the initial plume volume was estimated for
this report to be approximately 39 million
gallons.
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Costs or Performance
Contamination has been detected in the
upper aquifer (the Surficial Aquifer). Figures
1 and 2 illustrate plume distribution in the
Surficial Aquifer in August 1994. Figure 1
depicts concentration contours detected in
intermediate zone wells; Figure 2 depicts
concentration contours detected in deep
zone wells. Intermediate and deep
monitoring wells are screened in the top 40
feet and lower 20 to 30 feet of the Surficial
Aquifer, respectively.
Figures 1 and 2 reveal that the majority of
the contamination is in the top 40 feet of the
Surficial Aquifer. The plume in the top 40
feet (Figure 1) is more concentrated than the
plume in the lower 20 to 30 feet (Figure 2).
The plume has migrated east of City
Industries, concurrent with groundwater flow
direction.
Hydrogeology: [4]
Two distinct hydrogeologic units have been identified beneath this site.
Unit 1 Surficial Aquifer
Unit 2
Floridan Aquifer
Unconfined aquifer of fine to medium-grained quartz sand with
limestone, gravel, chert, and coarse-grained sand.
Interlayered clayey gravel, clayey sand, clay, and limestone.
The hydrogeology at the site consists of two units separated by a 140-foot thick aquitard. Groundwater
flows in an easterly direction across the site through the 60- to 70-foot thick Surficial Aquifer. This aquifer
is not used as a potable source in the vicinity of the site. Groundwater in the Floridan Aquifer has not
been characterized because it is not contaminated at the site; however, the City of Winter Park draws its
water from a well supply field in the Floridan Aquifer 1,900 feet west of the site. The Surficial and Floridan
Aquifers are not hydraulically connected. Tables 1 and 2 present technical aquifer information and well
data, respectively.
Table 1. Technical Aquifer Information
Unit Name
Surficial Aquifer
Floridan Aquifer
Thickness
(ft)
60-70
100
Conductivity
(ft/day)
6.3936
NA
Average Velocity
(ft/day)
0.064
NA
Flow
Direction
East
NA
NA - indicates not characterized
Source: [4]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
62
TIO3.WP6\0319-04.stf
-------
City industries Superfund Site
; MATRIX DESCRIPTION (GONT.)
Figure 1. Total VOCs in Intermediate Zone Monitoring Wells, August 1994 [2]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
TlO3.WP6\0319-04.stf
63
-------
City Industries Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
•g
0
UK.
I s
"S V
!*
si
£?
^s.
.
~o _
§r
°
1
3
F/gure 2. Total VOCs in Deep Zone Monitoring Wells, August 1994 [2]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
64
TIO3.WP6\0319-04.stf
-------
City Industries Superfund Sfte
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology
Pump and treat (P&T) with air stripping
System Description and Operation
Sunnlemental Treatment Technoloqv
Equalization/neutralization prior to air stripping
Table 2. Extraction Well Data
Well Name
RW-1 through RW-8
RW-9 through RW-1 3
Unit Name
Surficial Aquifer
Surficial Aquifer
Depth (ft)
25-70
25-70
Design
Yield (gpm)
10
5
Source: [2]
System Description [2]
• The groundwater extraction system consists
of 13 recovery wells (RW-1 through RW-13)
located on five adjacent properties east of
the original site, as listed in Table 2. The
recovery wells are divided into two groups,
which are installed across the width of the
initial contaminant plume. The well
placement is designed to intercept the plume
and to achieve hydraulic containment of the
plume as it flows east. The first group
consists of eight recovery wells (RW-1
through RW-8) which are located just
downgradient from the site, perpendicular to
the plume centerline, where most of the
contamination has been found. The second
group consists of the remaining five recovery
wells (RW-9 through RW-13). These wells
are located further downgradient,
perpendicular to the centerline and are
estimated to be at the leading edge of the
contaminant plume.
• The treatment system constructed in 1994
consists of an equalization/neutralization
tank followed by an air stripping tower. The
1,500-gallon equalization tank serves to
settle aggregates and equalize flow to the
tower. The air stripper has been designed
for a 97% treatment efficiency.
• Treated water from the air stripper is
transported via a gravity pipeline
approximately 2,250 feet east to a county-
maintained drainage canal (Crane Strand)
where it is discharged in accordance with
NPDES permit limits.
EPA
• A network of 41 monitoring wells and 13
recovery wells is used to measure quarterly
changes in groundwater levels and
concentrations. Twenty additional
monitoring wells are sampled on an annual
basis. The monitoring wells are screened at
various depths and some are in a series of
clusters of shallow, intermediate, and/or
deep wells.
System Operation [2,10]
• Quantity of groundwater pumped from the
aquifer in gallons:
Year Volume Pumped (gal)
5/94-4/95 48,430,000
5/95-4/96 47,750,000
5/96-5/97 51,524,849
6/97 3,990,000
System operations began on May 19, 1994.
As of June 1997, the P&T system has been
operational approximately 90% of the time.
• A primary operational concern is biological
growth on pumps in the wells, in the
equalization tank, and in the air stripping
tower. Biological growth degrades system
performance below design and permit
requirements. In June 1996, the system
was shut down for 24 hours and the pumps
and treatment system were shocked with a
high dose of chlorine, which alleviated a
biological growth problem.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
65
TIO3.WP6\0319-04.stf
-------
City Industries Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
System Description and Operation fCont.)
The air stripping tower packing continues to
require cleaning approximately every six
months. The air stripping media has been
removed and washed with a weak acid
solution four times to remove scaling:
August 1994, March 1995, November 1995,
and April 1996. Discharges (liquid and solid)
from the cleaning operations are tested and
disposed of according to applicable
regulations.
The extraction system has pumped an
average of 105 gpm from May 1994 through
June 1997, which meets the design
requirement for plume containment.
EPA Region 4 completed an optimization
study in December 1996 to maximize plume
capture during pumping. The study
examined what pumping rates from all the
existing wells were best to maximize zones
of influence and to minimize stagnation
zones. Pumping options were limited in that
the total treatment capacity remained at 115
gpm; however, the study found that zones of
influence would increase by decreasing
pumping from wells located along the
upgradient edge of the plume and increasing
pumping from those at the leading edge of
the plume. The following recommended
changes were incorporated in June 1997:
increased pumping in three wells at the
leading edge of the plume from 5 to 10 gpm
and decreased pumping in three other wells
at the upgradient edge from 10 to 5 gpm.
Quarterly sampling data indicates that
several recovery wells are showing no
contamination now. Wells with increased
rates are drawing in more contaminants, but
data are being analyzed to determine if
stagnant zones are moving.
In March 1998, four wells were shut down
and the rates in the other wells were
increased to try to increase recovery.
Sampling was reduced to semi-annual.
When results are available the EPA will
determine if the plume is still contained or if
wells need to be restarted.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
66
TIO3.WP6\0319-04.stf
-------
City Industries SuperfuncfSrte
TREATMENT SYSTEM jDESCRiPTiON (CoNT.)
Oneratina Parameters Affectina Treatment Cost or Performance
The major operating parameter affecting cost or performance for this technology is the extraction rate.
Table 3 presents the design value for this and other performance parameters.
Table 3. Performance Parameters
Design Pump Rate
Performance Standards
(Effluent)
Remedial Goals
(Florida MCLs)
115 gpm (actual average =
Acetone
Benzene
1 ,1 ,-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
c-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
frans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Ethyl Benzene
Methylene Chloride
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1 ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Xylenes, total
Acetone I
Benzene /
1,1,-Dichloroethane
1 ,1-DichIoroethene
c-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
t-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Ethyl Benzene
Methylene Chloride
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Total Phthalates
Vinyl Chloride
105 gpm*)
88,000 pg/L
53 ug/L
11 60 pg/L
303 |jg/L
1160|jg/L
11 60 pg/L
453 |jg/L
11 00 pg/L
56,400 pg/L
42.800 pg/L
84 pg/L
175 pg/L
530 pg/L
4,500 |jg/L
525 Mg/L
260 pg/L
700 pg/L
1pg/L
5 pg/L
7 pg/L
70 pg/L
70 pg/L
700 pg/L
5 pg/L
200 pg/L
350 pg/L
3 pg/L
2,000 pg/L
200 pg/L
3 pg/L
3 pg/L
1 pg/L
Source: [1,2]
*The average of 105 gpm was provided in the Interim Long-Term Response Action Report.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
67
TIO3.WP6\0319-04.stf
-------
City Industries Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Timeline
Table 4 presents a timeline for this remedial project.
Start Date
3/90
1992
2/94
5/94
5/94
End Date
—
—
—
_
ongoing
. Activity f~ •* '" ' > '"•*
ROD issued
Final remedial design completed
ESD issued
Construction of the treatment system and extraction wells completed
System operation begun
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards M^
Cleanup goals are to remediate groundwater to
levels set by the Florida Primary Drinking Water
Standards (which for this site are the same as
Maximum Containment Levels (MCLs) set by the
Federal Primary Drinking Water Standards).
These standards are listed in Table 3 and are
applied throughout the aquifer.
Treatment Performance Goals n. 21
The primary performance goal of the P&T
system is to achieve hydraulic containment
of the plume.
Performance Data Assessment [2.5.6.9.10]
The performance goal of the treatment
system is to reduce effluent contaminant
concentrations to meet NPDES permit
requirements listed in Table 3.
For the purposes of this report, total VOCs
consist of acetone, benzene, 1,1-DCA, 1,1-DCE,
cis-1,2-DCE, trans-1,2-DCE, ethylbenzene
methylene chloride, MEK, MIBK, PCE, toluene,
1,1,1-TCA, TCE, total phthalates, and vinyl
chloride.
• Figure 3 illustrates the trend of average total
VOC concentrations from May 1994 through
May 1997. Total concentrations of
contaminants have been reduced 86%
during this period, from 3,121 ug/L to 444
ug/L. However, concentrations of all VOCs
remain above cleanup goals.
EPA
Although concentrations have been reduced
significantly, three of the VOCs show
persistently elevated concentrations:
acetone, 1,1-DCE, and MIBK. Nonetheless,
maximum levels of acetone have decreased
84%, from 146,000 ug/L to 23,000 ug/L.
Maximum levels of 1,1-DCE have declined
52% from 6,000 ug/L to 2,900 ug/L.
Maximum levels of MIBK have declined 93%
from 78,000 ug/L to 5,000 ug/L
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
68
TIO3.WP6\0319-04.stf
-------
City Industries Superfund Site
TREATMENT] SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Assessment (continued) F2, 5. 6. 9,101
Figures 4 and 5 illustrate contours of total
VOCs detected during August 1996
sampling events in intermediate and deep
monitoring wells, respectively. Compared to
the plume of total VOCs detected in August
1994 (illustrated in Figures 1 and 2), the
volume of total VOCs in the plume detected
in August 1996 has decreased. The 55,000
ug/L contour in the intermediate wells has
decreased in size from 1994 to 1996. In
addition, the level of maximum VOCs has
decreased in the deep wells from 40,000
ug/L in August 1994 to 8,000 ug/L in August
1996.
No contaminants have been detected in
downgradient monitoring wells since the
beginning of remedial operations, and the
plume has been contained. In addition,
monitoring done since 1997 has shown that
the plume has reduced in size. No plume
map was available to demonstrate the
change in size.
,500
Figure 6 illustrates total VOC concentrations
in wells MW-13D, MW-43I, and MW-22I,
where contamination is concentrated.
Concentrations have decreased
exponentially since operations began. In
February 1996, an increase was seen in all
three wells; however, concentrations have
continued to decrease since 1996.
Effluent standards for the treatment system
have been met during system operation.
From June 1994 through May 1997, the P&T
system removed approximately 2,700
pounds of contaminant mass from the
groundwater. Figure 7 shows mass flux rate
and total contaminant removal from June
1994 through May 1997. The mass flux rate
spiked in April 1996, but the spike is
attributed to a high concentration of acetone
detected during that sampling event.
~ 1,500
0)
o
Mar-94 Sep-94 Apr-95 Oct-95 May-96 Dec-96 Jun-97
.Average Concentration of Total VOCs
Figure 3. Average of Total VOCs in all Monitoring Wells from May 1994 through May 1997 [2,5,6,9]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
69
TIO3.WP6\0319-04.stf
-------
City Industries Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
I?
5 a
1 o
.o
'S~;
c t-
II
^ S
i
* °!
Figure 4. Total VOCs in Intermediate Zone Monitoring Wells, August 1996 [2]
^
FP A
trM
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
70
TIO3.WP6\0319-04.stf
-------
City Industries Superfund Site
TREAf MEN!) SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
SJ "8
a: £
* o
t t
F/gure 5. Total VOCs /n Deep Zone Monitoring Wells, August 1996 [2]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
71
TIO3.WP6\0319-04.stf
-------
City Industries Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
1,000,000
I
¥
0>
10,000
100
Mar-94 Sep-94 Apr-95 Oct-95 May-96 Dec-96 Jun-97
Date
.MW-43I
.MW -22!
.MW - 13D
Figure 6. Total VOCs Concentrations in Highly Contaminated Wells, May 1994 through May 1997
[2,5,6,9]
I
jo
8
i
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00 ,
0.00
.„.,,', „ ^y/
•« *^ ^~
I(*W *M^HjMiM"rftff«t' l*4f*8t * ^W**>. S'li^K >
^Ji^,^^^^ ^w^wtoLMMTOKla. S / 08^ "^i <*E
'» rf.
3,000
May-94 Nov-94 May-95 Nov-95 May-96 Nov-96 May-97
Date
.Mass Flux (Ibs/day) _H_Cum.Mass Rem.(lbs)
Figure 7. Mass Flux and Cumulative Mass Removal, June 1994 through May 1997 [2,6,9]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
72
TIO3.WP6\0319-04.stf
-------
City Industries Superfund Site
TREATMENT|SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Completeness
• Monthly data for contaminant concentrations
in monitoring and recovery wells are
available for June 1994 through May 1996 in
the Interim Long-Term Remedial Action
Report. Quarterly data for contaminant
concentrations in monitoring and recovery
wells are available in monthly reports from
the site operators for September 1996
through September 1997. At the time of
preparation of this report, the site contact
(the EPA RPM) had not received reports
past May 1997. For the analyses in this
report, including the average concentrations
of total VOCs shown in Figures 3 and 6,
quarterly data were used from June 1994
through May 1996 and annual data were
used from May 1996 through May 1997.
Performance Data Qualitv
For Figure 3 analyses, the average
concentration of total VOCs was calculated
using a geometric mean of contaminant
concentrations in wells within the initial
contaminant plume. A geometric mean was
used to show the trend of contaminant levels
across the site. Where contaminant levels
were below detection limits, half of the
detection limit was used.
Monthly data regarding contaminant removal
through the treatment system are available
for June 1994 through May 1997 in the
Monthly Operations and Maintenance
Reports. For the mass removal analyses in
Figure 7 of this report, quarterly data were
used from June 1994 through May 1997.
The QA/QC program used throughout the remedial action met the EPA and the State of Florida
requirements. All monitoring was performed using EPA-approved methods, and the site contact did not
note any exceptions to the QA/QC protocols.
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process
EPA contracted with Peer Consultants, P.C. to design the groundwater extraction and treatment system.
EPA awarded the construction, startup and O&M (2-year base period) contract to ERM-EnviroClean, Inc.
FDEP was the lead agency until 1989, at which time EPA took over the lead and maintained responsibility
for operation and maintenance of the treatment system.
Cost Analysis _
All costs incurred for remedial activities at this site were borne by Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs).
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
73
TIO3.WP6\0319-04.stf
-------
City Industries Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Capital Costs 141
Remedial Construction
Mobilization and Preparatory
Work
Site Work
Well Installation, Instrumentation,
and Piping
Install Well Manholes
Air Stripper
Effluent Pipeline
Demobilization
Total Construction
$174,700
$68,100
$559,140
$13,700
$202,060
$27,100
$50,000
$1,094,800
Operating and Maintenance Costs T4.5]
5/94-4/95 $186,250
5/95-4/96 $186,250
5/96-5/97 $133,295
Total O&M $505,795
Other Costs F41
Remedial Design
Remedial Design $190,234
Preparatory Work $90,494
Tank Removal $74,377
Field Data Development $147,922
Treatability Studies $38,979
Closeout $5,619
Remedial Oversight $34,913
Total Design $582,538
EPA Personnel $99,675
Cost Data Quality
Capital and operations and maintenance cost data were supplied in a 1994 Cost Study of the site,
originated from the treatment vendor, and were updated by the RPM.
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Approximate costs for the P&T system at
this site were $1,674,800, consisting of
$1,094,800 in capital costs and $580,000 in
cumulative operating and maintenance costs
through May 1997, which corresponds to
$590 per pound of contaminants removed
and $10.60 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater
treated.
Total concentrations of VOCs have declined
86% at this site, but remain above cleanup
goals.
The mass flux rate illustrated in Figure 6 is
more constant over time than at many P&T
sites. The hydrogeology at the site is
relatively simple and hydraulic conductivity is
relatively high compared to typical hydraulic
conductivities [7]. In addition, no pure
phase, or nonaqueous phase liquid (NAPL),
has been detected at the site [5J.
Given the matrix of contaminants at this site,
there is potential for cometabolic
degradation. Cometabolic degradation of
TCE, DCE, and vinyl chloride is supported in
the presence of aromatic compounds, such
as toluene [8].
Based on conversations with the RPM for
the site, contaminant levels in late 1997 and
1998 at the site are lower than the May 1997
monitoring data.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
74
TIO3.WP6\0319-04.stf
-------
City Industries Superfuncf Site
OBSERVATIONSJAND LESS'ONS LEARNED (CONT.)
The site contractor did not anticipate
biofouling in the air stripper in the design.
According to the contractor, design
specifications assumed a different
temperature and alkalinity for the
groundwater from actual conditions.
Chlorine treatment was found to alleviate
biofouling and the system has been
operational 90% of the time.
The RPM also indicated that the P&T system
has lowered contaminant concentrations in
extracted water to levels below effluent
NPDES requirements. Thus, in the near
future, the extracted water may be
discharged directly to the POTW and
treatment will not be necessary.
REFERENCES
1. Record of Decision. City Industries
Superfund Site. U.S. EPA Region 4, March
9, 1990.
2. Interim Long-Term Response Action Report.
City Industries Superfund Site. U.S. EPA
Region 4, Undated.
3. Explanation of Significant Differences. U.S.
EPA Region 4, February 1994.
4. Cost and Performance Profile. City
Industries Superfund Site. U.S. EPA
Hazardous Site Control Division Remedial
Operations and Guidance Branch,
unpublished.
5. Correspondence with Pam Scully, EPA
RPM. April, May, and December 1997,
February, March, and April 1998.
6. Monthly Operation and Maintenance
Reports, June 1996-May 1997. ERM-
EnviroClean, Inc.
7. Groundwater Regions of the United States.
Heath, Ralph. U.S. Geological Survey
Water Supply Paper 2242, 1984.
8. Biofilm Reactor for Chlorinated Gas
Treatment. Remediation Technologies, Inc.
Internet publication, http://clu-in.com/site/
complete/remedial htm, May 21,1998.
9. Twelfth Quarterly Groundwater Sampling
Results; City Industries Superfund
Remediation Project, ERM EnviroClean,
Inc., September 19, 1997.
10. Comments on draft report provided by Pam
Scully, Region 4 Remedial Project Manager,
July 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 Tetra Tech EM Inc.
and Eastern Research Group, 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.WP6\0319-04.stf
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
76
-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site
Winslow Township, New Jersey
77
-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site
Winslow Township, New Jersey
Site Name:
King of Prussia Technical
Corporation Superfund Site
Location:
Winslow Township, New Jersey
Contaminants:
Chlorinated solvents, BTEX,
Heavy metals
- Contaminants of concern include
l,l-DCA,trans-l,2-DCE, 1,1,1-
TCA, TCE, PCA, PCE, benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, beryllium,
chromium, copper, and nickel
- Maximum initial concentrations
included PCE (2,500 ug/L), trans-
l,2-DCE(12ug/L), 1,1,1-TCA
(2,200 ug/L), and chromium (1,040
Period of Operation:
Status: Ongoing
Report covers: April 1995 through
December 1997
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup (interim results)
Vendor:
Treatment System Vendor: Andco
Environmental Processes, Inc.
Operations: Geraghty and Miller,
Inc.
Additional Contact:
Frank Opet
PRP Coordinator
Johnson Matthey
200 INolte Drive
West Deptford, NJ 08066
(609) 384-7222
Technology:
Pump and Treat
- Groundwater is extracted using
11 wells at an average total
pumping rate of 175 gpm in the
upper aquifer and 25 gpm in the
lower aquifer
- Extracted groundwater is treated
with an electrochemical system for
removal of heavy metals, and air
stripping and granular activated
carbon for removal of organics
- Treated groundwater is reinjected
through infiltration trenches and
galleries
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA Remedial
- ROD Date: 9/9/90
EPA Point of Contact:
Jon Gorin, RPM
U.S. EPA Region 2
290 Broadway, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
(212) 637-4361
Waste Source:
Discharge of waste to surface
impoundment/lagoon; unauthorized
dumping
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Treatment system consists of a
treatment train designed for
removal of metals and organics.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
-151.5 million gallons treated as of December 1997
- Groundwater is found at 15-35 ft bgs (shallow aquifer) and from 50-250
ft bgs (deep aquifer)
- Extraction wells are located in two aquifers
- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 55 to 100 ft/day
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- The remedial goal for the site is to reduce contaminant concentrations to below maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs) set by the New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act and the primary drinking water standards. Cleanup
goals were established for beryllium (4 ug/L), cadmium (10 ug/L), chromium (50 ug/L), copper (1,000 ug/L),
mercury (2 ug/L), nickel (210 ug/L), zinc (5,000 ug/L), 1,1-DCA (2 ug/L), trans-l,2-DCE (10 ug/L), 1,1,1-
TCA (26 ug/L), TCE (1 ug/L), PCA (1.4 ug/L), PCE (1 ug/L), benzene (1 ug/L), toluene (2,000 ug/L), and
ethylbenzene (50 ug/L).
- The extraction system was designed to create an inward hydraulic gradient to contain the plume.
78
-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site
Winslow Township, New Jersey (continued)
Results:
- Cleanup goals for metals and VOCs have been met in the deep aquifer and for all but some wells in the
shallow aquifer (two for VOCs and four for metals). Groundwater monitoring data indicate that the plume
appears to have been contained.
- From March 1995 through December 1997, the treatment system removed 1,510 pounds of organics and 3,910
pounds of metals, for a total mass removal of 5,420 pounds.
Cost:
- Actual costs for pump and treat were approximately $2,816,000 ($2,031,000 in capital and $785,000 in
O&M), which correspond to $19 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $520 per pound of
contaminant removed.
Description:
The King of Prussia Technical Corporation operated as a waste disposal and recycling facility from January 1971
until early 1974, with six lagoons used to process industrial waste. EPA estimates that the company processed at
least 15 million gallons of acid and alkaline wastes at this site. Drums of VOCs were buried at the site. In
addition, trash and hazardous waste are suspected to have been dumped at the site illegally between 1976 and
1988 after the company stopped operations. Soil and groundwater contamination were detected by the state in
1976, and the site was added to the NPL in September 1983. A ROD was issued for this site hi September
1990.
Groundwater is extracted at this site using six wells in the shallow aquifer and five wells in the deep aquifer.
Extracted groundwater is treated with an electrochemical system for removal of heavy metals, and ah- stripping
and granular activated carbon for removal of organics. Treated groundwater is reinjected through infiltration
trenches and galleries. Cleanup goals for metals and VOCs have been met in the deep aquifer and for all but
some wells in the shallow aquifer. As of December 1997, groundwater elevations have achieved steady-state
under the current pumping scheme. The groundwater flow and contaminant transport will be reevaluated using
models to evaluate remediation enhancements, including adding or removing extraction wells. In addition, the
site operator is considering pumping changes.
79
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site
SITE INFORMATION
Identifying Information:
King of Prussia Technical Corporation
Winslow Township, New Jersey
CERCLIS # NJD980505341
ROD Date: September 9,1990
Background n.2.31
Treatment Application:
Type of Action: Remedial
Period of operation: April 1995 - Ongoing
Data collected through December 31, 1997
Quantity of groundwater treated during
application: 151.5 million gallons
Historical Activity that Generated
Contamination at the Site: Waste disposal
and recycling
Corresponding SIC Code: 4953, Sanitary
Services - Refuse Systems
Waste Management Practice That
Contributed to Contamination: Discharge of
waste to surface impoundment/lagoon;
unauthorized dumping
Location: Winslow Township, New Jersey
Facility Operations:
• The 10-acre King of Prussia (KOP) site is
located in a light industrial area and is
bordered to the northeast, northwest, and
southwest by a wooded state park and to the
southeast by Piney Hollow Road.
• The KOP Technical Corporation operated
as a waste disposal and recycling facility
from January 1971 until early 1974.
• Six lagoons were used to process industrial
waste. An on-site swale directed site runoff
toward the Great Egg Harbor River, located
approximately 1,000 feet southwest of the
site.
• The swale has been designated a wetlands,
and the Great Egg Harbor is used for
recreational purposes.
• EPA estimates that, while in operation, the
KOP Technical Corporation processed at
least 15 million gallons of acid and alkaline
waste at this site. Drums of VOCs were
buried at the site. Also, trash and
hazardous waste are suspected to have
EPA
been dumped at the site illegally between
1976 and 1988 after KOP ceased
operations.
• Soil and groundwater contamination were
detected by the State of New Jersey in
1976. Subsequently, the KOP site was
added to the National Priorities List (NPL) in
September 1983. As part of initial removal
actions conducted from 1985-1989, EPA
excavated plastic containers and metal
drums.
• Elevated levels of metals were identified in
soils, lagoon sludges, swale sediment, and
groundwater at the site. Elevated levels of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were
detected in soils in the drum disposal area
and in the groundwater.
• Soil and sediment were remediated on site
by soil washing in 1993. Tankers and
buried drums were removed and disposed
of off site.
• A cost and performance report entitled Soil
Washing at the King of Prussia Technical
Corporation Superfund Site, Winslow
Township, New Jersey was previously
prepared about the soil washing application
at this site.
Regulatory Context:
• A Record of Decision (ROD) was issued for
the site in September 1990 and included
remedial activities for operable unit 1 (OU1)
for soil and sediment contaminated with
metals, OU2 for removal of contaminated
soil in the area of the buried drums, and
OU3 for groundwater.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
80
TIO3.WP6\0108-02.stf
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site
SITE| INFORMATION (CONT.)
Site activities are conducted under provi-
sions 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.
Site Logistics/Contacts
Groundwater Remedy Selection: The
selected remedy for OU4, groundwater
remediation, was extraction of groundwater
followed by treatment for metals and VOCs to
capture the contaminated groundwater and
prevent discharge of contaminants to the Great
Egg Harbor River. The ROD also designated
on-site groundwater treatment to remove
contaminants from the collected groundwater,
followed by a system to reinject treated
groundwater into the aquifer.
Site Lead: PRP
Oversight: EPA
PRP Contact:
Frank Opet*
PRP Coordinator
Johnson Matthey
2001 Nolte Drive
West Deptford, NJ 08066
(609) 384-7222
indicates primary contacts
Remedial Project Manager:
Jon Gorin*
U.S. EPA Region 2
290 Broadway, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
(212) 637-4361
Treatment System Vendor:
Operations: Geraghty and Miller, Inc.
Treatment System Vendor: Andco
Environmental Processes, Inc.
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix Processed Through the
Treatment System: Groundwater
Contaminant Characterization r-l.2.41
Primary Contaminant Groups: Metals, VOCs
• The contaminants of greatest concern at
this site are metals and VOCs. The metals
of concern are beryllium, chromium, copper,
and nickel. The VOCs of concern are 1,1-
dichloroethane (1,1-DCA), frans-1,2-
dichloroethylene (trans-1,2-DCE), 1,1,1-
trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA),
trichloroethylene (TCE), 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane (1,1,2,2-PCA),
tetrachloroethylene (PCE), benzene,
toluene, and ethylbenzene.
Cleanup standards are set for total
chromium. Likewise, laboratory analyses
test for total chromium. For these reasons,
chromium levels tested and regulated at the
KOP site are for total chromium.
Figure 1 illustrates the site layout and the
contaminant plumes as delineated using
1993 sampling data. Figure 1 is a
compilation of drawings provided by the
PRP coordinator. During the 1985-1989
remedial investigation, the metals and VOC
plumes were determined to be commingled
but originating from different sources.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
81
TIO3.W P6\0108-02.Stf
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
_ APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF
METALS PLUME ABOVE ARAR3.
APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF
VOCs PLUME ABOVE ARARS
© MONITORING WELL
RECOVERY WELL
JMJ INFILTRATION TRENCH
9 INFILTRATION GALLERY
Figure 1. Approximate Areal Extent of Metals and VOCs Plumes (1993) [3]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
82
TIO3.WP6\0108-02.stf
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site
I MATRIX: DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Contaminant Characterization fCortt.)
The metals plume originated from wastes
that were dumped throughout the site onto
the soil in lagoons and in the former swale.
Contamination in the metals pliime is
evenly distributed, with hot spots around
wells 5-S (center of the plume) land 29-S
(northern portion of the plume)]
The maximum initial metals concentrations
detected by EPA during remedjal
investigations from 1985-1989 Jin the
shallow, or upper, aquifer were 100 ug/L
(beryllium), 1,040 ug/L (chromium), 12,500
ug/L (copper), and 4,670 ug/L (nickel). The
metals contamination is 99% contained in
the upper aquifer. Cadmium, rjiercury, and
zinc were detected in the shallow aquifer,
but at concentrations below concern.
The upper 10 to 15 feet of the deep aquifer
is referred to as the intermediate aquifer.
Copper and nickel were the only two
compounds that were detected at
concentrations of concern in the
intermediate aquifer. The maximum initial
concentrations of copper and nickel
detected during the 1985-1989 remedial
investigation in the intermediate aquifer
were 3,070 ug/L and 899 ug/L,, respectively.
Chromium was the only metal detected at
levels of concern in the deep aquifer. The
maximum chromium concentration detected
during the 1985-1989 remedial investigation
was 77 ug/L.
The VOC plume originated at the
northeastern end of the site in the shallow
aquifer, in the former drums location. This
area is noted in Figure 1 as the location of
the infiltration trenches. Contamination in
the VOC plume is concentrated in the
northeastern part of the plume, with the
highest contamination in well 29-S.
The maximum initial VOC concentrations
detected during the 1985-1989 remedial
investigation in the shallow aquifer were
1,1-DCA at 64 ug/L; frans-1,2- DCE at 12
ug/L; 1,1,1-TCA at 2,200 ug/L; TCE at 940
ug/L; 1,1,2,2-PCA at 2,900 ug/L; PCE at
2,500 |jg/L; benzene at 8 ug/L, toluene at
190 |jg/L and ethylbenzene at 80 ug/L [1].
However, PCE was detected at levels as
high as 20,000 |jg/L during an April 1995
sampling event.
TCE was the only VOC detected at levels of
concern in the deep aquifer. The maximum
initial concentration of TCE detected during
the 1985-1989 remedial investigations in the
deep aquifer was 3 ug/L
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Costs or Performance
Hydrogeology [1]: '•
The site is underlain by unconsoliojated Coastal Plain sediments of unconsolidated sands, gravels, and
clays. Underlying the sediment formations is relatively low permeability metamorphic bedrock.
Two hydraulic units were identified in the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the KOP
site. Both of these aquifers are part of the regional Kirkwood-Cohansey Aquifer system. The shallow
aquifer begins at 15 feet and extetjids to approximately 35 feet below ground surface. A 10- to 20-foot
semiconfining layer separates the shallow and deep aquifers and is composed predominately of
discontinuous silt and clay zones. The deep aquifer extends downward from 50 feet to approximately
250 feet below ground surface. Tljie upper 10 to 15 feet of the deep aquifer is referred to as the
intermediate aquifer. \
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
83
TI03.WP6\0108-02.stf
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Costs or Performance (Cont.)
The groundwaterflow direction at the KOP site is southwest, towards the Great Egg Harbor River.
Lateral groundwater flow in the shallow and deep aquifers is approximately 1 and 0.4 foot per day,
respectively. The shallow aquifer discharges to the Great Egg Harbor River, while the deep aquifer may
only discharge a minor flow component to the river. Contamination from metals and VOCs are primarily
in the shallow aquifer.
There are no residential wells in the vicinity of the site. Two wells, neither of which serve as potable
water supplies, are located within a half-mile radius of the site. The nearest residential water wells are
located approximately one mile northeast and upgradient of the site.
Tables land 2 present technical aquifer information and well data, respectively.
Table 1. Technical Aquifer Information
Unit Name
Thickness
(ft)
Conductivity
ftt/dav)
Average Linear
Velocity
fft/dav)
Shallow 20 56-100 1.0
Deep* 200 55-62 0.4
*The upper 10-15 feet of the deep aquifer are referred to as the Intermediate zone In some reports.
Flow
Direction
Southeast
Southeast
source: [1]
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
primary Treatment Technology
Pump and treat (P&T) with an electrochemical
system and granular activated carbon treatment
System Description and Operation [3.4.81
Supplemental Treatment Technology
None
Table 2. Technical Well Data
Well Name* Unit Name
R-1S Shallow
R-2S Shallow
R-3S Shallow
R-4S Shallow
R-5S Shallow
R-6S Shallow
R-7D Deep
R-8I Deep
R-9I Deep
R-10D Deep
R-1 1 1 Deep
Depth (ft)
34
34
28
26
42
26
95
51
50
92
57
* S denotes well screened In shallow aquifer, I denotes well screened In upper 10-15 feet of the deep aquifer (Intermediate), and
D denotes well screened In lower portion of the deep aquifer.
bource: [2J
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
84
TIO3.WP6\0108-02.stf
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site
TREATMENT :SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
System Description and Operation fConU
System Description
• The extraction well system includes 11 wells
throughout the plume, as listed in Table 2.
• The shallow recovery wells are designed to
pump a total of 175 gpm from the shallow
aquifer. The deep and intermediate wells
are designed to pump a total of 25 gpm
from the deep aquifer. These pump rates
were determined using the computer
models MODFLOW and MT3D.
• Two recovery wells, R-1 and R-2, were
placed in the shallow aquifer near the buried
drums area at the northern portion of the
plume. Recovery wells R-7D and R-8I were
placed in the deep aquifer in the same area.
• Recovery wells R-10D and R-9I were placed
in the deep aquifer at the center of the
plume, where the greatest metals
contamination is located. Recovery well R-
3 was placed in the shallow aquifer in the
same area.
. Recovery wells R-4, R-5, and R-6 were
placed in the shallow aquifer and R-111 in
the deep aquifer at the toe of the plume.
• Groundwater is pumped through the wells to
an equalization tank to regulate flow. It is
then fed into an electrochemical treatment
system.
• The electrochemical system, developed by
Andco Environmental Processes, Inc.. is a
heavy metals removal process that can be
applied to chromium-, copper-, and nickel-
contaminated groundwater. A direct current
is conducted through a cell containing
carbon steel electrodes, which generates
ferrous iron, reducing Cr*6 to Cr*3. Trivalent
chromium then complexes with hydroxyl
groups to form chromium hydroxide, which
is insoluble in water. The electrodes are
consumed in generating the ferrous ions
and require periodic replacement. The
reaction occurs at a pH of six to nine.
Copper and nickel form insoluble
hydroxides and precipitate out at a pH of six
to nine. The electrochemical system
reduces the chromium and copper
concentrations to less than 10 ug/L, and
nickel concentrations to less than 20 ug/L.
• After metals treatment, the water passes
through an inclined plate clarifier for sludge
separation. Sludge is pumped out,
dewatered, and disposed off-site. Clarified
water is sent through a set of multimedia
filters.
Filtered water is passed through two packed
air stripping towers to remove organics.
GAC units were added because TCA, PCE,
and TCE did not meet effluent
requirements. Since the addition of GAC,
the effluent meets requirements.
• Treated effluent is tested for effluent
contaminant criteria. Of the effluent, 40% is
reinjected through five infiltration trenches
upgradient of the plume and 60% is
reinjected through 10 infiltration galleries
downgradient of the plume.
• Reinjected water works to recharge the
aquifer as well as to desorb contaminants
from the aquifer material into the
groundwater.
• Groundwater is monitored according to the
Long Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP), which
requires quarterly testing of five monitoring
wells and annual monitoring of 13
monitoring wells.
System Operation
• Quantity of groundwater pumped from the
aquifer in gallons:
3/95-3/31/96,
4/1/96-3/31/97
4/1/97-12/31/97
Total Gallons
Pumped
55.1 million
55.5 million
40.9 million
Aquifer
Shallow and deep
Shallow and deep
Shallow and deep
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
85
TIO3.WP6\0108-02.stf
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
System Description and Operation fCont.l
The order of treatment units was optimized
for efficiency and minimal operational
problems. Metals removal is followed by air
stripping and carbon polishing for organics.
The treatment system has been operational
approximately 76% of the time. The major
downtime occurred between February 10,
1997 and April 1,1997 to repair a crack in
one filter. Also, during this shutdown,
multimedia filter tanks were emptied to
allow re-engineering of the system in all
tanks and installation of new media in the
proper order for maximum filtration [2].
The agreed time frame of two years and
eight months of monitoring under the Long
Term Monitoring Plan has ended, and a new
proposal will be provided by the PRPs to
EPA for sampling in the future [2]. The past
monitoring plan will be used until a new one
is developed [3].
According to operations contractor,
Geraghty and Miller, Inc., as of December
1997, the groundwater elevations at the site
have achieved steady-state under the
current pumping scheme. At this point, the
groundwater flow and contaminant transport
at the site will be reevaluated using
MODFLOW and MT3D to evaluate
remediation enhancements, including
adding or removing extraction wells [5].
The site operator is considering pumping
changes.
Monitoring data indicate that contaminant
levels in the deep aquifer are below cleanup
criteria [2]. According to the PRP
representative, the redeveloped monitoring
plan and remediation enhancements may
focus on remediation of the shallow
aquifer [3]. The requested change is
awaiting EPA approval.
The PRP contact also indicated that, after
cleaning the well and changing a pump,
pump rates in R-1 were increased in 1998.
The organics concentrations in the area of
MW-29S decreased as a result of the higher
pumping rates.
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
A major operating parameter affecting cost or performance for pump and treat is the extraction rate.
Table 3 presents design values for this and other performance parameters.
fete,"!1 :-.•."".-: ••--'-• Parameter -..'.:-..,;;;
Design Pump Rate
Performance Standard (Effluent)
Remedial Goal (Aquifer
s - , ;- , Value ''-- ':<- '- --
175 gpm, upper aquifer
25 gpm, lower aquifer
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Mercury (Hg)
Ni
Zn
1,1 -DCA
frans-1 ,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
1,1,2,2-PCA
PCE
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
4.0 ug/L
10 ug/L
50 ug/L
1,000 ug/L
2 ug/L
210 ug/L
5,000 ug/L
2 ug/L
10 ug/L
26 ug/L
1 ug/L
1.4 ug/L
iug/L
1 ug/L
2,000 ug/L
50 ug/L
same as Performance Standards
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
86
TIO3.WP6\0108-02.stf
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Super-fund Site
TREATMENT! SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Timeline
Table 4 presents a timeline for this remedial project.
Table 4. Timeline
bSwI&afr:
9/29/90
8/94
3/93
4/95
Ongoing
^ibatr^
—
—
11/93
Ongoing
...
. ••• ??-• :•'!£-•. --' '-:^^. .f.~~~}-~~~<~i .. ; f**f -,, -~ " • •••"•• a**- sff
• C^>v-i'' ^iwty.sga.; »• -ssi, ?«$• ^ • ^ il °r> ^
ROD signed
Remedial Design completed
Soil washing performed
Groundwater extraction, treatment, and quarterly monitoring
Recalibration of groundwater models, reanalysis of extraction well placement,
consideration of remedial alternatives
Source: [1-3]
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards
The remedial goal for the site is to reduce
concentrations of contaminants at the site to
below the Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs) set by the New Jersey Safe Drinking
Water Act and the Primary Drinking Water
Standards. The required cleanup levels are
listed above in Table 3 and are applied
throughout both the shallow and deep aquifers,
as measured in all monitoring wells [1].
Treatment Performance Goals
• Effluent discharged from the treatment
system must meet the remedial goals listed
in Table 3 for reinjection [1].
Performance Data Assessment T2.31
The extraction system is designed to create
an inward hydraulic gradient to contain the
plume [1].
For the purpose of this analysis, metals include
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper,
mercury, and zinc and total VOCs include 1,1-
DCA, trans-1,2-DCE, 1,1,1-TCA, TCE, 1,1,2,2-
PCA, PCE, benzene, toluene, and ethylbenzene.
• Cleanup goals for metals and VOCs appear
to have been met in the deep aquifer.
Cleanup goals for metals and VOCs have
not been met overall in the shallow aquifer;
however, cleanup goals for VOCs have
been met in all but two wells in the shallow
aquifer.
EPA
Figures 2 and 3 depict the trend of metals
and VOC concentrations, respectively, in
the shallow aquifer groundwater.
Based on groundwater monitoring data, the
plume appears to have been contained.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
87
TIO3.WP6\0108-02.stf
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Assessment (Cont.)
Metals
VOCs
Metals concentrations in the shallow aquifer
have been reduced to levels below cleanup
goals in some wells. Metals goals have
been met at the southwest end of the
plume.
Figure 2 illustrates metals concentrations in
individual wells with contamination above
cleanup goals and the average metals
concentrations in the shallow aquifer from
September 1994 to March 1997. The
concentrations of metals decreased in all
wells from September 1994 to April 1995;
however, concentrations fluctuated in wells
25-S and 5-S. Well 5-S, located at the
center of the site, has the highest
concentrations of metals.
Below are the remaining constituents above
cleanup goals in the shallow aquifer:
- The maximum concentration of
beryllium has been reduced by 35%,
from 100 ug/L in April 1994 to 65 ug/L
in December 1997, above the cleanup
goal of 4 ug/L
- The maximum concentration of
chromium has been reduced by 87%,
from 1,040 ug/L detected during the
1985-1989 remedial investigation to 137
ug/L in December 1997, above the
cleanup goal of 50 ug/L.
The maximum concentration of copper
has been reduced by 77%, from 12,500
ug/L detected during the 1985-1989
remedial investigation to 2,900 ug/L in
December 1997, above the cleanup
goal of 1,000 ug/L.
- The maximum concentration of nickel
has been reduced by 62%, from 1,100
ug/L detected during the 1985-1989
remedial investigation to 680 ug/L in
December 1997, above the cleanup
goal of 210 ug/L.
In the shallow aquifer, VOC contaminant
levels have decreased overall.
VOC contamination is concentrated in the
source areas of wells 5-S and 29-S.
Figure 3 illustrates that the VOC
concentrations in wells 5-S and 29-S
fluctuate, primarily because of fluctuating
PCE and 1,1,1-TCA concentrations in the
former drum area.
Wells 5-S and 29-S are the only wells with
elevated levels of frans-1 ,2-DCE and 1,1,1-
TCA. The remainder of the wells show low
levels of TCE, 1,1,2,2-PCA, PCE, and TCE,
but no detectable levels of the other
organics of concern.
Below are data on individual VOCs in the
shallow aquifer:
The concentrations of 1 ,1 -DCA in the
shallow aquifer have met cleanup goals.
The maximum concentration of 1,1-
DCA in the shallow aquifer was reduced
from 64 ug/L detected during the 1985-
1989 remedial investigation to levels
below detection limits in December
1997 (cleanup goal is 2 ug/L).
- The maximum concentration of trans-
1 ,2-DCE in the shallow aquifer has
increased from 12 ug/L detected during
the 1985-1989 remedial investigation to
160 ug/L in December 1997 (cleanup
goal is 10 ug/L).
- The maximum concentration of 1,1,1-
TCA fluctuated from 2,200 ug/L
detected during the 1985-1989 remedial
investigation to 4,670 in September
1997 to 2,420 in December 1997
(cleanup goal is 26 ug/L).
The maximum concentration of 1 ,1 ,2,2-
PCA has been reduced from 2,900 ug/L
detected during the 1985-1989 remedial
investigation to 190 ug/L in December
1997 (cleanup goal is 1.4 ug/L).
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
88
TIO3.WP6\0108-02.stf
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Assessment (Cont.)
The maximum concentration of PCE
has fluctuated from 2,500 ug/L detected
during the 1985-1989 remedial
investigation, to 20,000 ug/L in April
1995, to 15,000 ug/L in February 1996,
and most recently to 8,160 ug/L in
December 1997, above the cleanup
goal of 1 ug/L.
The maximum concentration of TCE in
the shallow aquifer has been reduced
from 980 ug/L detected during the 1985-
1989 remedial investigation to 310 ug/L
in December 1997, above the cleanup
goal of 1 ug/L.
Benzene, toluene, and ethylbenzene
have been detected solely in well 29-S.
In December 1997, ethylbenzene was
detected at a concentration of 1,130
ug/L, above the cleanup goal of 50
ug/L. Benzene was detected at levels
below detection limits, below the
cleanup goal of 1 ug/L. Toluene was
detected at 1,130 ug/L, below the
cleanup goal of 2,000 ug/L.
Treatment System
• Effluent monitoring results indicate that
during January 1997, VOC concentrations in
the treatment effluent were slightly above
treatment performance goals. After
maintenance during treatment system
shutdown, treatment performance goals
have been met.
• Figure 4 illustrates concentrations of
contaminants in the influent to the treatment
system. The metals concentration in the
influent varied from 20 ug/L in March 1995
to 5,591 ug/L in July 1996 to 2,532 in
October 1997. The VOCs concentration in
the influent increased from March to June
1995, from 1,236 to 2,170 ug/L, and
primarily declined from June 1995 to
October 1997.
• During operation from March 1995 through
December 1997, the treatment system
removed 1,510 Ibs of organics and 3,910 Ibs
of metals, for a total mass removal of 5,420
Ibs. The rate of mass removal declined as
the mass in the influent declined.
8,500 rrr
8,000
7,500
7,000
^ 6,500
1, 6,000
=, 5,500
c 5,000
.2 4,500 kg.
to 4,000 "*"
•g 3,500
g 3,000
= 2,500
O 2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Aug-94
Jan-95 May-95 Oct-95
Mar-96
Jul-96
Dec-96 Apr-97
• Average*
-*-
Well
31 -S
-*-
Well
5-S
-•-
Well
25-S -4
K— Well
29-S
'Average concentrations include wells 5-S, 25-S, 27-S, 29-S, and 31 -S
Figure 2. Metals Contaminant Concentrations in the Shallow Aquifer (September 1994 - March 1997) [2]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
89
TIO3.WP6\0108-02.Stf
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
35,000
Aug-94 Jan-95 May-95 Oct-95 Mar-96
Jul-96
Dec-96 Apr-97
-Average* -*— Well 5-S -*-Well 29-S
'Average concentrations include wells 5-S, 25-S, 27-S, 29-S, and 31 -S
Figure 3. VOC Contaminant Concentrations in the Shallow Aquifer (September 1994 - March 1997) [2]
Sep-95
Apr-96
Nov-96
May-97
Dec-97
-Organfcs Influent Concentration, ug/L —•—Metals Influent Concentration, ug/L
Figure 4. Influent Concentrations to the Treatment System (March 1995 - November 1997) [2]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
90
TI03.WP6\0108-02.stf
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Completeness
For the contaminant concentrations shown
in Figures 2 and 3, quarterly monitoring data
were used from September 1994 through
March 1997. Annual monitoring data from a
separate subset of wells are available from
the PRP site contact. However, because
the annual data used in conjunction with the
quarterly data would not have represented a
continuous data set for analysis, these data
were not used for Figure 2 and 3 analyses.
Performance Data Quality
A geometric mean of contaminant
concentrations was used to represent the
trend of contaminant concentrations across
the site for Figures 2 and 3.
Contaminant concentrations in the influent
shown in Figure 4 were reported in quarterly
monitoring reports for March 1995 through
November 1997.
Mass removal calculations were reported in
quarterly monitoring reports for March 1995
through November 1997.
The QA/QC program used throughout the remedial action met the EPA and the State of New Jersey
requirements. All monitoring was performed using EPA-approved methods, and the site contact did not
note any exceptions to the QA/QC protocols [2].
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process
• The PRPs contracted with Geraghty & Miller, Inc. to construct and operate the remedial system,
under the oversight of EPA. Geraghty & Miller, Inc. contracted with Andco Environmental
Processes, Inc. to provide and install the treatment system.
Cost Analysis
• All costs for investigation, design, construction and operation of the treatment system at this site
were borne by the PRPs.
Capital Costs T31
Remedial Construction
Groundwater Treatment
Equipment
Permits
Construction Management
SOP/D&M Manual
Electrical System Construction
Other Subs
Plant Construction
Cultural Resources
Groundwater Control
Well Construction
Recovery System Construction
Total Construction
$1,743,563
$927,127
$31,637
$234,548
$63,681
$130,424
$194,003
$131,924
$30,219
$287,703
$116,166
$171,707
$2.031.430
Operating Costs H 995-1 9971 F31
Labor $325,760
Travel $14,325
Disposal (Sludge and Water) $2,432
Chemicals $49,226
Lab Supplies $1,017
Health & Safety Supplies $3,941
Administrative Expenses $46,950
Maintenance $159,542
Utilities $181,501
Total Operations $784.694
Operations By Year
March 1 995 - April 1 995 $74,230
May 1 995 - April 1 996 $393,740
May 1 996 - April 1 997 $284,1 31
May 1 997 - April 1 998 $281 ,298*
*June 1997 - April 1998 costs of $251,443 not included in
unit costs
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
91
Tl03.WP6\0108-02.stf
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Other Costs T31
Groundwater Investigations
Groundwater Modeling
Western Plume Boundary
Treatability Study
Treatment System Design
Overall Design Management
Well Installation Costs
Total Other
$250,860
$140,718
$40,652
$87,247
$304,145
$379,473
$279,617
$1.482.712
Cost Data Quality
Actual capital and operations and maintenance cost data are available from the PRPs for this
application.
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Actual costs for the P&T application at the
KOP site were approximately $2,816,000
($2,031,000 in capital costs and $785,000 in
operating and maintenance costs), which
corresponds to $520 per pound of
contaminants removed and $19 per
thousand gallons of groundwater treated,
based on cost incurred and treatment
performed through December 31,1997.
Cleanup goals have been met in the deep
aquifer, but not the shallow aquifer. Two
shallow wells, in source areas, remain
contaminated with VOCs. Four wells
remain contaminated with metals.
The concentrations of VOCs and metals in
treatment system influent have decreased
faster than concentrations in shallow
monitoring wells. Concentrations of PCE
and 1,1,1-TCA in these wells were higher
during the November 1997 sampling than in
the baseline sampling, and concentrations
of other contaminants in the wells
fluctuated, spiking above baseline sampling
levels.
There are several possible explanations for
why treatment influent concentrations are
falling faster than concentrations in the
shallow monitoring wells. Two conditions
would allow extracted water to circumvent
the more contaminated areas. One is the
tendency of contaminants in the
groundwater to travel through preferential
pathways, as observed at some Superfund
sites [6]. Another possible factor is
stagnation zones, which develop where low
hydraulic gradients are created in
overlapping zones of influence from
recovery wells and/or from low permeability
zones [7]. Stagnation zones and
preferential pathways can be counteracted
by adjusting the location and pumping rates
of the extraction wells. The PRPs are
evaluating P&T performance and will
consider such adjustments to optimize mass
removal and contaminant reduction [3,5].
While no dense nonaqueous phase liquid
(DNAPL) has been directly observed during
sampling, high initial concentrations of TCE
and PCE indicated its likely presence. If
DNAPL is present at this site, it will lead to
persistent plumes, as it dissolves
continuously into the aqueous phase.
Elimination of possible DNAPL sources, if
present, could improve the effectiveness of
P&T at this site.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
92
TIO3.WP6\0108-02.stf
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site
REFERENCES
1. Record of Decision. U.S. EPA, Region 2,
September 1990.
2. Quarterly Groundwater Treatment Plant
Monitoring Reports. Johnson Matthey,
January 16,1998, April 23,1997, and April
21,1996.
3. Correspondence with Mr. Frank J. Opet,
Johnson & Matthey, January 30,1997,
February 14,1997, June 5,1997, July 15,
1997, August 1,1997, January 15, 1998,
and July 17,1998.
4. Correspondence with Mr. Jack Reich, Andco
Environmental Processes, Inc., February
1998.
5. Correspondence with Mr. Steve Feldman,
Geraghty and Miller, Inc., January 19, 1998.
6. Surfactant-Enhanced Remediation of a
TCE-Contaminated Aquifer. Smith, James
A., Sahoo, D., McLellan, H.M., and
Imbrigiotta, T.E. Environmental Science
and Technology, 1997, V.31, No-12, 3565-
3572.
7. Design Guidelines for Conventional Pump-
and-Treat Systems. Robert M. Cohen,
James W. Mercer, Robert M. Greenwald,
and Milovan S. Beljin. EPA Ground Water
Issue, September 1997.
8. Comments on draft report provided by
Frank Opet, PRP Representative, July
1998.
Analvsis Preoaration
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 Tetra Tech EM Inc.
and Eastern Research Group, Inc. under EPA Contract No. 68-W4-0004.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
93
TlO3.WP6\0108-02.stf
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
94
-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the LaSalle Electrical Superfund Site,
LaSalle, Illinois
95
-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the LaSalle Electrical Superfund Site,
LaSalle, Illinois
Site Name:
LaSalle Electrical Superfund Site
Location:
LaSalle, Illinois
Contaminants:
PCBs and chlorinated solvents
- Maximum concentrations
detected in 1980-1981 were PCBs
(760,000 ug/L), TCE (13,341
ug/L), trans-1,2-DCE (7,152 ug/L),
1,1,1-TCA (3,123 ug/L), and vinyl
chloride (500 ug/L)
Period of Operation:
Status: Ongoing
Report covers: 12/92 - 5/97
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup (interim results)
Vendor:
Ecology & Environment, Inc.
ThermoCor Kimmons
Additional Contacts:
None
Technology:
Pump and Treat
- Groundwater is extracted using 3
infiltration trenches, at an average
total extraction rate of 17 gpm
- Extracted groundwater is treated
with oil/water separation, air
stripping, and carbon adsorption,
and discharged to a POTW
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA Remedial
- ROD Date: 3/30/88
State Point of Contact:
Rich Lange
Illinois EPA (IEPA)
2200 Churchill Road
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(815)223-1126
Waste Source:
Spills from capacitor cleaning and
spreading polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCB)-laden waste oils as a dust
suppressant
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Relatively high unit cost; system
consists of collection trenches
instead of extraction wells;
relatively low groundwater flow.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
- 23 million gallons treated as of May 1997
- DNAPL observed in groundwater on site
- Groundwater is found at 3-5 ft bgs
- Contaminants are primarily found hi a shallow aquifer at the site
- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from <0.01 to 0.22 ft/day
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- The goal of this remedy is to restore the groundwater to primary drinking water standards; these are PCBs (0.5
ug/L), 1,2-DCE (5 ug/L), 1,1-DCA (5 ug/L), TCE (5 ug/L), PCE (100 ug/L), 1,1,1-TCA (200 ug/L), and vinyl
chloride (2 ug/L).
- Containment was not a specific goal of this remediation.
Results:
Groundwater monitoring results for the deep aquifer (through March 1996) and shallow aquifer (through May
1997) indicate that total contaminant concentrations have not been reduced below cleanup goals. At specific
monitoring wells, contaminant concentrations fluctuate with precipitation rates.
From 1993 to September 1997, the system removed approximately 127 pounds of contaminants from the
groundwater; 1,1,1-TCA makes up the majority of the mass removed by the treatment system.
96
-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the LaSalle Electrical Superfund Site,
LaSalle, Illinois (continued)
Cost*
- Actual costs for pump and treat are approximately $6,138,576 ($5,314,576 in capital and $824,000 in O&M),
which correspond to $266 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $48,000 per pound of contaminant
removed.
Description: „
LaSalle Electrical Utilities operated this site as a manufacturing facility for electrical equipment rrom 1940 to
1978. PCBs and chlorinated solvents were used in the manufacturing process during this time. As a result of
complaints, government agencies issued several orders in 1975 against the company for its manufacturing and
waste handling practices. In 1980 and 1981, Illinois EPA performed sampling at the site which confirmed the
presence of PCB and VOC contamination in soils and groundwater. The site was placed on the NPL in
December 1982 and a ROD was signed in March 1988.
The groundwater collection system is a passive design that uses three infiltration trenches instead of wells. The
three trenches form an H-pattern, and drain to a wet well, which in turn is pumped to the treatment unit. The
trenches were installed horizontally at a depth of approximately 17 to 25 ft bgs. Approximately 127 pounds of
contaminants (primarily 1,1,1-TCA) have been removed from the groundwater over 45 months, however the
system has not achieved the cleanup goals. As of May 1997, no design modifications were being considered for
this site. ^—^=^=^=^=^=^=^^=^=
97
-------
LaSalle Electrical Superfund Site
SITE INFORMATION
Identifying Information:
LaSalle Electrical Superfund Site
LaSalle, Illinois
CERCLIS#: SCD980711394
ROD Date: March 30, 1988
Background
Treatment Application:
Type of Action: Remedial
Period of operation: 12/92 - Ongoing
(Data collected through 1997)
Quantity of material treated during
application: 23 million gallons of groundwater
Historical Activity that Generated
Contamination at the Site: Electrical
equipment manufacturing
Corresponding SIC Code: 3612 (power,
distribution, and specialty transformers)
Waste Management Practice That
Contributed to Contamination: Spills from
capacitor cleaning and spreading poiychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB)-laden waste oils as a dust
suppressant
Location: LaSalle, Illinois
Facility Operations: [4,7]
• LaSalle Electrical Utilities (LEU) operated
this 10-acre site as a manufacturing facility
for electrical equipment from 1940 to 1978.
PCB and chlorinated solvents were used in
the manufacturing processes during this
time.
• Site contamination resulted from operations,
spills of dielectric fluids from capacitor
cleaning, and PCB-laden waste oils that
were applied as a dust suppressant to the
ground surface.
• As a result of complaints, government
agencies issued several orders in 1975
against LEU for its manufacturing and waste
handling practices.
• In 1980 and 1981, Illinois EPA (IEPA)
performed sampling at the site which
confirmed the presence of PCB and volatile
organic compound (VOC) contamination in
soils and groundwater.
• In 1981, EPA ordered LEU to cease
operations because of its waste
management practices and existing health
threats.
• The site was placed on the National
Priorities List (NPL) in December 1982.
• Between 1982 and 1986, several emergency
removal actions occurred at the site to
package, stage, or cap highly contaminated
soil.
• A remedial investigation (Rl) and feasibility
study were completed between 1983 and
1985.
In March 1986, after review of the draft Rl
report, the U.S. EPA elected to split the site
into two separate projects. The 1985 Rl had
adequately characterized the soil
contamination in the area. However, it had
failed to sufficiently determine the extent of
groundwater contamination emanating from
the LEU property. A second Rl addressing
groundwater conditions was completed in
1988.
Under a separate Record of Decision
(ROD), (issued in September 1986), highly
contaminated soils were excavated and
incinerated. The incinerated soils were
replaced and regraded across the site.
Regulatory Context:
• A ROD was signed for groundwater
remediation on March 30, 1988.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
98
TIO3.WP6M 229-03.stf
-------
LaSalle Electrical Superfund Site
SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background fConU
» Site activities were 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.
Site Logistics/Contacts
Groundwater Remedy Selection:
The selected remedy for groundwater at this site
was extraction and treatment of groundwater via
air stripping and carbon adsorption.
Site Lead: State
Oversight: EPA
State Contact:
Rich Lange*
Illinois EPA (IEPA)
2200 Churchill Road
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
(815)223-1126
Treatment System Vendor:
Ecology & Environment, Inc.
ThermoCor Kimmons
"Indicates primary contact
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix Processed Through the
Treatment System: Groundwater
Contaminant Characterization T6. 71
Primary Contaminant Groups: PCBs and
halogenated VOCs
• The primary contaminants of concern at this
site are the PCBs: Arochlor-1242, -1248,
and -1254; and VOCs: tetrachloroethylene
(PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE),
frans-1,2-dichloroethylene (frans-1,2-DCE),
1,1,1 -trichloroethane (1,1,1 -TCA),
1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA), and vinyl
chloride (VC).
• Maximum groundwater contaminant
concentrations detected by EPA during
initial investigations in 1980-1981 were PCB
(760,000 ug/L), TCE (13,341 ug/L),
trans-1,2-DCE (7,152 ug/L), 1,1,1-TCA
(3,123 ug/L), and VC (500 ug/L).
The plume of groundwater contaminants
initially detected in 1980 was estimated by
the IEPA to cover over 700,000 square feet
[7]-
Figure 1 illustrates PCB concentration
contours at the LaSalle Electrical site in
1982.1 The plume of VOCs is not shown in
Figure 1; however, the VOC plume is
approximately the same size and in the
same location.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
99
TIO3.WP6M 229-03.stf
-------
LaSalle Electrical Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Contaminant Characterization (ConU
Concentrations of RGBs in soils up to
17,000 ppm were detected at several
locations on site. These soils were
excavated and incinerated in 1991 and
1992.
Site engineers observed a dense non-
aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) in the
bottom three to five feet of a 10 foot well
casing up to 300,000 (jg/L PCB. The
amount of DNAPL present in the subsurface
was unknown; however, significant
quantities of oily liquids were removed with
excavated soils.
» Uowraoto wtu
MONO I MUPIBKJ
KX. MtOYI DETECTION UMT
COWIHJHATIOWIHajiL
CONKX* IWES OMHEO WHEN IKFEBfltD
F/gure Y. Initial PCB Concentration Contour Map (Best Copy Available) (1982) [6]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
100
TIO3.WP6\1229-03.stf
-------
LaSalle Electrical Superfund Site
JMATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Costs or Performance f61
Hydrogeology:
Three primary units have been identified within the upper 100 feet of the soils at this site. Two of these
units function as aquifers (Units 1 and 3), and the third functions as an aquitard (Unit 2). Upward vertical
gradients are observed across the site which limit the downward migration of contaminants into the
lower water bearing unit (Unit 3). The water table is encountered at three to five feet below ground
surface. Contaminants are primarily found, in the shallow aquifer (Unit 1) and are migrating in a
southeast direction with the natural groundwater flow.
Unit 1 Maiden Till Interbedded unit of sand, silt, and clay, which is an unconfined water-
bearing unit.
Unit 2 Tiskilwa Till Silty clay and clay with occasional silt and sand lenses, which acts as an
aquitard. This unit is discontinuous across the site.
Unit 3 Bond Bedrock unit composed of clay, shale, and coal seams at depth.
Formation
Table 1 presents the technical aquifer characteristics. This information comes from the Phase II
Remedial Investigation performed in 1988.
Unit Name
Maiden Till
Tiskilwa Till
Bond Formation
Thickness
(ft)
15-25
10-12
>60
Conductivity
(ft/day)
0.22 (Kh)
0.000005 (Kv)
0.0005 (Kh)
Average Velocity
(ft/day)
.016
NC
NC
Flow
Direction
Southeast
NC
Southeast
Kh - Horizontal conductivity, \^ - Vertical conductivity, NC - Not characterized
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology
Pump and treat with air stripping and carbon
adsorption.
fiv^tom Descrintion and Oneration
Supplemental Treatment Technology
Vapor-phase carbon adsorption, oil/water
separation.
System Description [5,6]
• The groundwater collection system is a
passive design that uses three infiltration
trenches instead of wells. It was designed
to capture the on-site groundwater directly
beneath the original plant site, and extends
200 feet south of the original plant site. The
one main east-west collection trench and
the north-south collection trenches form an
H-pattern. The north-south collection
trenches drain to the east-west trench,
which'in turn flows to a wet well. Collected
groundwater is pumped from the wet well to
the groundwater treatment unit. The
average extraction rate is 16-15 gpm.
Figure 2 shows the groundwater collection
and monitoring system at the LEU site.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
101
TIO3.WP6\1229-03.stf
-------
LaSalle Electrical Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Figure 2. Site Diagram [2]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
102
TIO3.WP6M 229-03.stf
-------
LaSa/fe Electrical Superfund Site
TREAtMENTl SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Svstem Description and Operation (Cont.)
• The collection system consists of trenches
with six-inch perforated polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) pipe installed horizontally
approximately 17 to 25 feet deep. The
perforated pipe was installed in a 4-foot
deep by 4-foot wide gravel bed. The gravel
bed is surrounded by filter fabric to retard
infiltration of fines. The on-site trenches
were backfilled with incinerated soil to within
one foot of final grade. The backfilled soils
were then capped with six inches of clay and
six inches of topsoil to limit infiltration. Parts
of the collection system which extended off-
site were backfilled to within five feet of final
grade and capped with clean fill and one foot
of top soil.
• The groundwater treatment unit consists of
an oil/water separator and twin air strippers
for the chlorinated solvents. A vapor-phase
carbon adsorption unit is used to treat gas
vapors from the strippers. Two 10,000-
pound liquid phase carbon adsorption
systems are used to remove the suspended
and dissolved PCBs. An acid injection
system was added to the original design to
control pH of the effluent.
• The air strippers are operated in series.
Each is two feet in diameter and has 11 feet
of packing material. The stripping columns
are 23 feet tall. The design ratio of air to
water is 50:1.
• Effluent from the treatment system is
discharged to a local Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTW) under an
industrial pretreatment permit.
• The groundwater monitoring system
includes monitoring wells for the deep
aquifer and manhole sampling points in
collection trenches for the shallow aquifer.
System Operation [5,7]
This report covers operation of the collection
and treatment systems during construction and
through September 1997.
Quantity of groundwater pumped from
aquifer in gallons:
Year
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997 (9 months)
Volume Pumped (gal)
3,015,000
5,700,000
2,620,000
3,895,000
4,800,000
3,200,000
The treatment unit was completed in April
1992 and began to operate by treating the
groundwater and precipitation that
accumulated in open excavations during
construction activities.
In December 1992, part of the collection
system was installed. The remainder of the
collection network was installed between
March 1993 and June 1993. The collection
system was installed in phases to minimize
the number of open trenches at one time.
Approximately eight million gallons were
treated through the system between April
1992 and September 1993. The average
extraction rate is approximately 18,000
gallons per day based on the volume of
water treated to date.
The full collection system went online in
September 1993. The remedial system is
operated in a batch mode. Groundwater is
extracted for approximately 8-10 hours, then
the aquifer is allowed to recover for 12-16
hours. The treatment system is designed for
an optimum capacity of 20 gpm. It has been
operating between 10-15 gpm to handle the
volume of water extracted. According to the
site contact, the treatment system has
operated for approximately 15,530 hours and
treated 14.6 million gallons since September
1993.
The extraction system is operational five
days a week 24 hours a day. An operator is
on-site daily 4-8 hours.
i
The pH of effluent is controlled to maintain
compliance with the discharge permit.
Caustic conditions also have caused a
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
103
TIO3.WP6\1229-03.stf
-------
LaSalle Electrical Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
System Description and Operation (ConU
mineral deposit to build up in the first
carbon unit. Control of pH levels has
minimized this problem.
The oil/water separator has been used
primarily as a settling tank for entrained
solids. No oil component has been noted in
the influent stream during the operation of
the system.
Air stripping media have not been changed;
however, the polypropylene media has
required acid washing to remove deposits
every two years.
Since start-up in 1993, the site has been
operational approximately 75% of the time.
The system was shut down from July 1994
through January 1995 during a period of
negotiation with the construction contractor
over cost and scope of work for operations
and maintenance [7].
Spent carbon was changed once in 1993.
Influent concentrations to the carbon units
have generally been below detection limits
since that time and have not exceeded the
capacity of the carbon.
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
The groundwater extraction rate is a major operating parameter affecting cost or performance for this
technology. Table 2 presents the average extraction rate between 1993 and 1997 and the performance
parameters required to restore the groundwater to primary drinking water standards.
Table 2: Performance Parameters
Parameter " «• :, :•'
Average Extraction Rate (1993-1997)
Performance Standard (effluent)
Remedial Goals
(aquifer)
-. '-'K3Si &i: .'ijjfijjte^ • • .,
15- 18 gprn
1,2-DCE
1,1-DCA
TCE
PCE
1,1,1-TCA
VC
PCBs
1,2-DCE
1,1-DCA
TCE
PCE
1,1,1-TCA
VC
PCBs
7 ug/L
20 ug/L
5 ug/L
100 ug/L
200 |jg/L
2Mg/L
1 ug/L
5 ug/L
5 ug/L
5Mg/L
100 ug/L
200 ug/L
2|jg/L
.5 ug/L
Source: [4], [7]
Timeline
Table 3 shows a timeline for this remedial project.
Table 3: Project Timeline
Start Date
3/88
1/89
10/91
4/92
12/92
9/93
6/94
End Date
—
10/90
4/92
8/93
6/93
—
12/94
•'••^ M^etiyjty s '','""/•>
Record of Decision signed for this site
Remedial system designed
Treatment unit constructed
Treatment system operated while full system construction completed
Collection system constructed
Operations and quarterly monitoring began
Remedial system shutdown while contractor was replaced
Source: [5]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
104
TIO3.WP6M 229-03.stf
-------
LaSalle Electrical Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards f41
The goal of this remedy is to restore the
groundwater to the primary drinking water
standards as listed in Table 2. These standards
are applied throughout the aquifer as measured
in all on-site wells.
Treatment Performance Goals [41
• 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 an industrial
pretreatment permit which reflects the treatment standards included in the ROD and also are
presented in Table 2.
Performance Data Assessment 15,8,91
For this discussion and Figures 3 through 6,
total contaminants consist ofPCBs and VOCs.
• Figures 3 and 4 present groundwater
monitoring results for the deep and shallow
aquifers. Available data (through March
1996 for the deep aquifer and through May
1997 for the shallow aquifer) indicate that
total contaminant concentrations have not
been reduced below cleanup goals.
• Figure 3 illustrates changes in average total
contaminant concentrations in the deep
aquifer over time. This figure is generated
from a geometric mean of data from four
wells in the deep aquifer. The concentration
of total contaminants was 6 ug/L in March
1996 [5,8]-
• The maximum concentration of
contaminants detected in the groundwater
after 45 months of system operation were,
PCB (BQL), TCE (530 ug/L), 1,1,1-TCA
(1,700 ug/L), 1,1 -DCE (1,800 ug/L.), and VC
(180 ug/L).
• The average groundwater concentration of
total contaminants in the deep aquifer
peaked at 125 ug/L in April 1993 and
dropped to less than 40 ug/L by June 1993,
as shown in Figure 3. The early peak
appears to be due to high concentrations
within one well.
• The majority of contaminants at this site are
found in the shallow aquifer. Figure 4 shows
an average of total contaminant
concentrations detected at five manhole
sampling points in the shallow aquifer.
These sampling points are located in the
collection trenches which intercept the
shallow aquifer. MH1E located near the old
LEU buildings shows the highest peak
concentrations of total contaminants 1993-
1997 with concentrations up to 11,800 ug/L.
MH3S, located adjacent to MH1E,
consistently showed the lowest measured
total contaminant concentration with no
discernable spiking.
No contaminants have been detected in
downgradient monitoring wells since the
beginning of remedial operations. On the
basis of this information, plume containment
appears to have been achieved; however,
containment was not a specific goal of the
remedial system.
Water level measurements indicate that the
southern capture zone boundary, in the
vicinity of monitoring well G111, is
uncertain. A 60-inch leaking storm sewer
pipe runs through the site at this point and
creates an artificial recharge zone to the
shallow aquifer. As a result a groundwater
mound has been created which varies in
size depending on precipitation and
recharge rates [5].
At wells G103, G107, and G112A,
contaminant concentrations increase during
wet seasons and decrease during dry
seasons. This variance is likely due to
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
105
TIO3.WP6\1229-03.stf
-------
LaSalle Electrical Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
140.00
120.00
sAl^Md««S»
0.00
Jul-92
Jan-93 Aug-93 Mar-94 Sep-94
Apr-95
Oct-95 May-96
Figure 3. Average Deep Groundwater Concentrations for Total Contaminants (PCBs and VOCs)
(Dec. 1992-Mar. 1996) [6,8]
Jan-93
Jun-94
Oct-95
Mar-97
Figure 4. Total Contaminant Concentration in Shallow Aquifer Manholes (1993-1997) [6,8]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
106
TI03.WP6\1229-03.stf
-------
LaSalle Electrical Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Assessment (Cont.)
precipitation infiltrating through residual
contaminated soils [5]. The concentrations
detected in the collection trenches do not
coincide with this pattern.
A total of 23 million gallons of groundwater
have been treated through the remedial
system. Taking into account the hours of
system operation, a daily average treatment
rate of 15-18 gpm has been achieved.
As shown in Figure 5, the system has
removed approximately 127 pounds of
contaminant mass from 1993 to September
1997.
The mass flux rate, as shown in Figure 5,
varies between 0.07 and 0.29 Ibs/day from
start up through July 1994 when the system
was temporarily shutdown. During the later
operating period from 1995 to September
1997, the mass flux rate starts at 0.02 and
increases to 0.19 Ibs/day.
Based on available data, 1,1,1-TCA is the
primary contaminant detected in the influent
samples and makes up the majority of the
mass removed by the treatment system.
Figure 6 illustrates the relationship between
1,1,1-TCA and the total contaminants
removed from 1993 to September 1997.
Performance Data Completeness
Contaminant mass removal was determined
using analytical results from system influent
measurements, along with treatment rate
data. Wells were sampled quarterly for
contaminant concentrations. Influent data
were available through September 1997.
Groundwater data are available from before
treatment and during quarterly sampling
events. Groundwater data from January
1993 through May 1997 were used in this
report. Figure 3 includes only data through
March 1996 because different wells were
sampled after that date.
Figures 3 and 4 are generated by
calculating a geometric mean of data from
specific monitoring points. The mean is
used to represent a trend across the site.
Data are available for water level
measurements from before treatment and
during quarterly sampling events.
Effluent samples are collected on a weekly
basis and analyzed for PCBs and VOCs.
Effluent data are available from October
1993 through September 1997.
Monthly influent and effluent samples for
total PCB and VOC contaminants were
used for mass flux determinations
presented in Figure 5. Cumulative mass
removal was generated from these data
and monthly flow rates.
Monthly influent and effluent samples were
used for TCA data presented in Figure 6.
Performance Data Quality
The QA/QC program used throughout the remedial action met the EPA and the State of Illinois
requirements. All monitoring was performed using EPA-approved methods, and the site contact 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
107
TIO3.WP6M 229-03.stf
-------
LaSalle Electrical Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
0.35
0.25
t
«= 0.15
0.05
140
120
100
80
60
0)
Jan-93 Aug-93 Mar-94 Sep-94 Apr-95 Oct-95 May-96 Dec-96 Jun-97 Jan-98
. Mass Flux
. Mass Removed
Figure 5. Mass Flux and Cumulative Removal (Oct. 1993 - Sept. 1997)
0.35
8
£
0.05
0.00
140.00
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
I
in
i
Jan-93 Aug-93 Mar-94 Sep-94 Apr-95 Oct-95 May-96 Dec-96 Jun-97 Jan-98
-Total Mass Flux
-TCA Mass Flux — •— Total Mass Removed
-TCA Mass Removed
Figure 6. Comparison of TCA and Total Contaminant Mass Flux and Cumulative Removal
(Oct. 1993 - Sept. 1997)
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
108
TIO3.WP6\1229-03.stf
-------
LaSalle Electrical Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process
The IEPA is the lead agency for this site; however, U.S. EPA is providing operations and maintenance
funding for the first 10 years. Ecology & Environment, Inc. has been contracted to provide site
management activities. ThermoCor Kimmins was contracted to provide treatment system construction.
Carmichael, Inc. has been contracted to provide long-term O&M.
Cost Analysis
• The majority of costs for design, construction, and operation of the treatment system at this site were
provided by U.S. EPA.
Capital Costs F71
Remedial Action
Engineering and Site
Management
Analytical Services
Parking Lot, Fence, etc.
Treatment System
Treatment Plant Structure
Total Remedial Construction
Cost Data Quality
$2,780,312
$1,053,496
$86,022
$1,186,423
$208,323
$5,314,576
Ooeratina Costs F71
Plant Operations and Maintenance
Analytical Services
Carbon Treatment
Total Cumulative Operating
Expenses (1992-1 997)
Other Costs F7]
Remedial Design
State Technical Assistance
Total Remedial Design1
EPA Personnel Costs
Includes the management of soils-related
$593,700
$115,700
$114,600
$824,000
$310,431
$15,487
$325,918
$95,895
activities.
Actual capital and operations and maintenance cost data are available from the IEPA for this project.
OBSERVATlbNS AND L.ESSONS LEARNED
Total costs for the collection and treatment
system were approximately $6,138,576
($5,314,576 in capital and $824,000 in
operations and maintenance) which
corresponds to $48,000 per pound of
contaminants removed and $266 per 1,000
gallons of groundwater.
The collection system was installed in
phases over a six-month period. On-site
excavation was only to meet the remedial
action objectives for PCBs in soil as stated
in the ROD. The collection underdrain
system was installed post-excavation for
PCB thermal treatment and prior to
backfilling. This sequential installation
significantly reduced re-excavation and
resulting costs.
The treatment system performance data
indicate that approximately 127 pounds of
contaminants were removed from the
groundwater over 45 months; however, the
collection and treatment system has not
achieved the cleanup goal.
The leaking storm sewer drain has caused
an artificial recharge zone in the vicinity of
the collection system. The storm sewer
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
109
TIO3.WP6M 229-03.stf
-------
LaSalle Electrical Superfund Site
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED (CONT.)
trench may also act as a conduit for plume
migration off site [5].
At specific monitoring wells, contaminant
concentrations fluctuate with precipitation
rates. During wet seasons contaminant
concentrations are observed to increase,
which is an indicator that contaminant
materials are trapped in pore spaces or
sorbed to unsaturated soils. When
precipitation infiltrates, the contaminants are
transported into the groundwater [5].
PCBs were initially expected to be the
primary contaminant at this site. According
to the site contact and as shown in Figure 6,
TCA accounts for the majority of the total
contaminants in groundwater at the site [7].
According to the site contact, the original
design has been adequate in addressing the
site cleanup efforts to date. No design
alterations are currently being considered
[7].
The visual observation of an oily DNAPL
material in a well casing confirms the
presence of subsurface source zones.
Additional subsurface source zones are
likely present at this site. Persistent and
highly variable concentrations in the
groundwater may indicate the presence of
additional DNAPLs, which may act as
sources for persistent groundwater
contamination.
REFERENCES
1. Phase II Construction Oversight. Ecology
and Environment Engineering, April 1989.
2. Phase II Remedial Design. Ecology and
Environment Engineering, June 1988.
3. Remedial Project Manager, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
4. Record of Decision. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, March 1988.
5. Review and Assessment of Performance
Report. LaSalle Electric Utilities Company
Site. Groundwater Treatment Unit Inception
Through December 1995. Ecology and
Environment, Inc. 1996.
Analysis Preparation
6. Phase II Remedial Investigation.
Groundwater Hydrogeological Report.
Ecology and Environment, Inc. 1988.
7. Conversations with I EPA
Representative, May 29, 1997.
8. Quarterly monitoring data from Ecology
and Environment, Inc. (1996-1997).
9. Monthly treatment unit data from LEU.
(January 1996 - September 1997) Data
supplied by Rich Lange, IEPA.
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
110
TIO3.WP6M 229-03.stf
-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the Mid-South Wood Products Superfund Site,
Mena, Arkansas
111
-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the Mid-South Wood Products Superfund Site,
Mena, Arkansas
Site Name:
Mid-South Wood Products
Superfund Site
Location:
Mena, Arkansas
Contaminants:
Semivolatiles - halogenated:
pentachlorophenol (PCP); PAHs;
heavy metals (chromium); and
nonmetallic elements (arsenic)
- Maximum concentrations
detected during RI include PCP
(10,230 ug/L), fluoranthene (263
ug/L), chrysene (37 ug/L),
benzo(a)anthracene (35 ug/L), Cr
(183 ug/L), and As (18 ug/L)
Period of Operation:
Status: Ongoing
Report covers: 9/89 - 12/97
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup (interim results)
Vendor:
Bill Fletcher
B&F Engineering, Inc.
928 Airport Road
Hot Springs National Park, AR
71913
(501) 767-2366
State Point of Contact:
Mike Arjmandi
Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control & Ecology
P.O. Box 8913
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, AR 72219-8913
(501) 682-0852
Technology:
Pump and Treat
- Groundwater is extracted using
15 wells, at an average total
pumping rate of 24 gpm
- Extracted groundwater is treated
with oil/water separation, filtration,
and carbon adsorption, and
discharged to a surface water under
a NPDES permit
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA Remedial
-ROD Date: 11/14/86
EPA Point of Contact:
Shawn Ghose, RPM
U.S. EPA Region 6
(6SF-AP)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 665-6782
Waste Source:
Improper disposal, on-site spills
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Groundwater contaminated with
wood treating chemicals; system
optimization performed after eight
years of operation; groundwater
contamination had been reduced to
one localized area of concern.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
- 100.6 million gallons treated as of December 1997
- DNAPL and LNAPL observed in groundwater at the site
- Extraction wells are located in 2 aquifers
- Hydraulic conductivities were not provided for this site
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- The cleanup goal stated in the ROD was to treat the groundwater contamination to levels that posed no health
or environmental risk. Remedial goals were specified for PCP (0.20 mg/L), benzo(a)anthracene (0.01 mg/L),
benzo(a)pyrene (0.01 mg/L), benzo(b+k)fluoranthene (0.01 mg/L), chrysene (0.01 mg/L), arsenic (0.05 mg/L),
and chromium (0.05 mg/L).
- The performance goal for the recovery system was to provide containment of the plume on site.
112
-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the Mid-South Wood Products Superfund Site,
Mena, Arkansas (continued)
Results:
- Groundwater contamination has been reduced to one localized area of concern. Between April 1989 and May
1996, average concentrations of total contaminants in the groundwater were reduced 32%, from 0.14 to 0.09
mg/L, with concentrations of contaminants reduced to below cleanup goals in 29 of 35 wells monitored in May
1996. It is estimated that the pump and treat system will operate for a minimum of five more years to reach the
specified goals.
- Monitoring data indicate that the plume has been contained. Because contamination was found along rock
fractures and not in a continuous plume, plume size reduction could not be measured. During the first seven
years of operation, 363 kg of PCP were removed by the system; data were not provided to estimate mass
removal for other contaminants.
Cost:
- Estimated costs for pump and treat were $1,212,600 ($465,300 in capital and $747,300 in O&M), which
correspond to $13 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $1,500 per pound of PCP contaminant
removed.
Description:
The Mid-South Wood Products site was originally developed in the late 1930s to produce untreated wood posts.
In 1955, the facility added pressure treating to its process, and from 1967 to 1977, the site was operated as a PCP
and creosote wood treatment facility. In 1977, the PCP plant was abandoned and a new plant was built to treat
the lumber with a chromated copper arsenate (CCA) wood treating process. From 1978 to 1981, the Arkansas
Department of Pollution Control & Environment sampled drinking wells near the site, investigating the source of
a fish kill that occurred in November 1976. The source was ultimately determined to be an unauthorized release
of wastewater from a waste pond at the site. Further contamination of the site resulted when liquids and sludge
from the pond were sprayed on and around land farm areas at the site. The site was placed on the NPL in 1983
and a ROD was signed in November 1986.
An interim extraction system was built in late 1984 and operated from early 1985 until 1989. The system
consisted of three pairs of extraction wells and French drains, and was designed to collect contaminated
groundwater from shallow depths where flow and contamination were expected to be the greatest. An expanded
extraction system, which began operating in the summer of 1989, consisted of nine shallow extraction wells and
six deep extraction wells (drilled into bedrock formations at depths up to 170 ft bgs). In February 1997, three
major changes were made to optimize system operations. Five recovery wells were removed from operation, five
other wells began a period of on-off operation (three months on, three months off), and the sampling frequency
for 12 monitoring wells was decreased. Groundwater contamination at the site has been reduced but has not yet
met all remedial goals. It is estimated that the pump and treat system will operate for a minimum of five more
vears to reach the snecified coals. _^
113
-------
Mid-South Wood Products Superfund Site
SITE INFORMATION
identifying Information:
Mid-South Wood Products Superfund Site
Mena, Arkansas
CERCLIS#: ARD092916188
ROD Date: November 14,1986
Treatment Application:
Type of Action: Remedial
Period of operation: September 1989 -
Ongoing
(Performance data collected through December
1996; pumping data collected through
December 1997)
Quantity of groundwater treated during
application: 100.6 million gallons through
December 1997
Background
Historical Activity that Generated
Contamination at the Site: Wood treatment
facility
Corresponding SIC Code: 2491 (Wood
Preserving)
Waste Management Practice That
Contributed to Contamination: Improper
disposal, on-site spills
Location: Mena, Arkansas
Facility Operations: [2 3]
• The Mid-South Wood Products site is
located on 57 acres in western Arkansas.
Several streams flow through the site,
feeding either the Ouachita or the Little
Rivers. Previously, there were 14 private
drinking wells nearby, serving the 18
properties adjacent to the site. Currently
public water serves the site.
• The site was originally developed in the late
1930s to produce untreated wood posts. In
1955, the facility added pressure treating to
its process. From 1967 to 1977, the site was
operated as a pentachlorophenol (PCP) and
creosote wood treatment facility. In 1977,
the PCP plant was abandoned and a new
plant was built to treat the lumber with a
chromated copper arsenate (CCA) wood-
treating process.
• The site includes the old wood treatment
plant, an unlined waste pond, and two land
farms. The waste pond was a collection
EPA
basin for the waste from the PCP and
creosote treatment processes.
From 1978 to 1981, the Arkansas
Department of Pollution Control &
Environment (ADPC&E) sampled drinking
wells near the site, investigating the source
of a fish kill that occurred in November
1976. The source was ultimately
determined to be an unauthorized release of
wastewater from the waste pond.
In 1978, an unsuccessful attempt was made
to close the waste pond. Further
contamination of the site resulted when
liquids and sludge from the pond were
sprayed on and around the land farm areas.
A portion of the contaminated land farm
soils were placed back into the waste pond
as fill [2].
An Administrative Order (AO) was issued by
ADPC&E in March 1983 that directed the
PRPs to perform short-term remedial
actions and conduct a full site investigation.
The site was placed on the NPL in 1983.
EPA conducted a Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) and a
supplemental remedial investigation (SRI)
of the CCA plant area in 1984 and 1986,
respectively. The results of the
investigations showed that the area around
the CCA treatment plant was contaminated
by spills of the wood treatment products
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
114
TIO3.WP6\0106-04.stf
-------
Mid-South Wood Products Superfund Site
SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Rarknrnunri /Cont.}
and the unlined waste pond was
contaminated by the disposal of wood
treatment wastes.
• Groundwater samples collected during the
RI/FS and the SRI from wells located
around the waste pond, land farms, and
CCA plant showed high concentrations of
PCP. Lower concentrations of arsenic and
chromium also were found in the
groundwater.
• As specified in the Record of Decision
(ROD), the contaminated soils from the
waste pond and the old plant area were
excavated for source control, stabilized, and
consolidated in the waste pond. All other
contaminated soil from the site was
consolidated in one of the land farms. The
waste pond and land farm were then capped
with clay, sand, and topsoil to prevent
further contamination of the groundwater.
Regulatory Context:
• EPA signed the final ROD for this site in
September 1986. The ROD addressed both
soil and groundwater actions.
• A Consent Decree was signed by the two
identified Potentially Responsible Parties
(PRPs) and entered in the Arkansas District
Court on May 16,1987.
• 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.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits were required to
discharge treated groundwater to surface
drains.
Groundwater Remedy Selection:
Groundwater extraction and treatment via
carbon adsorption was selected as the remedy
for this site.
Site Lead: PRP
Oversight: EPA
Remedial Project Manager:
Shawn Ghose*
U.S. EPA Region VI (6SF-AP)
First Interstate Bank Tower at Fountain Place
1445 Ross Avenue 12th Floor Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 665-6782
State Contact:
Mike Arjmandi
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control &
Ecology
P.O. Box8913
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, AR 72219-8913
(501) 682-0852
Treatment System Consultant:
Bill Fletcher*
B&F Engineering, Inc.
928 Airport Road
Hot Springs National Park, AR 71913
(501)767-2366
Indicates primary contacts
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
115
TlO3.WP6\0106-04.stf
-------
Mid-South Wood Products Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix Processed Through the
Treatment System: Groundwater
Contaminant Characterization l"1. 2. 61
Primary Contaminant Groups: Semivolatile
organic compounds and inorganics
• The contaminants of concern at the site are
PCP, chromium, arsenic, and polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), including
benzo(b+k)fluoranthene, chrysene, and
benzo(a)anthracene [1].
• The maximum concentrations detected in
shallow groundwater during the Rl include
PCP (10,230 ug/L), chromium (183 |jg/L),
arsenic (18 ug/L), fluoranthene (263 M9/L),
chrysene (37 ug/L), and benzo(a)anthracene
(35 ug/L) [1].
• No samples were taken of the groundwater
in the underlying bedrock unit during the Rl,
as additional study of the deep
contamination was considered to be too
costly, given the complexity of the
hydrogeology. However, a sampling event
in 1990 (after remedial operations began)
revealed significant contamination in a well
drilled to 172 feet below ground surface.
The presence of light nonaqueous phase
liquid (LNAPL) contamination by carrier oils
has been observed directly [2]. In addition,
fluoranthene and PCP were detected at
concentrations at or greater than 60% of
their aqueous solubility, suggesting the
presence of dense nonaqueous phase
liquids (DNAPLs). As noted above, while
confined to the upper portion of the bedrock,
DNAPLs were subsequently found at depths
of 172 feet during deep drilling [2]. Figure 1
illustrates site layout and the location of
monitoring wells. The monitoring wells are
located primarily around the land farm and
the old pond.
Contaminants have been found only along
fractures in rock along the fault line;
therefore no continuous contaminant plume
was defined. Thus, no plume map or
volume estimate was generated.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
116
TIO3.WP6\0106-04.stf
-------
Mid-South Wood Products Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
e
§
a.
3
vt
ill
Figure 1. Site Map (November 1995, Best Copy Available) [6]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
117
TIO3.WP6\0106-04.stf
-------
Mid-South Wood Products Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Costs or Performance
Hydrogeology [1,2]:
One distinct hydrogeologic unit has been identified beneath this site. This unit has two separate geologic
features: a thin layer of sandy, gravelly material overlying the sandstone bedrock of the Mississipian
Age formation. A fault zone in the bedrock runs west to east and passes under the old waste pond. The
fault zone is characterized by highly fractured shales and influences groundwater flow patterns by
creating a highly permeable zone within the bedrock. Groundwater flows primarily to the west-northwest,
except in the eastern two-thirds of the site, where it flows westerly to southwesterly. Groundwater flow
velocity along the fault is approximately 20 ft/yr, or 0.055 ft/day. Higher velocities of 30 to 60 ft/yr have
been observed along the slopes of the site.
Unitl
Overburden Aquifer
Unit 2
Bedrock Aquifer
Consists of 1 to 10 feet of silt, sand, and clay with gravel.
The gravel consists primarily of angular rock fragments. The
saturated zone in soil exists 1 to 9 feet above the lower
bedrock formation.
Consists of consolidated sandstone and shale bedrock.
Groundwater mainly occurs in the joints, fractures, and
bedding planes. Depth of water within the bedrock unit is
generally 30 feet, with infiltration into deeper zones to depths
of 172 feet.
Tables 1 and 2 present technical aquifer information and well data, respectively.
Table 1: Technical Aquifer Information
Unit Name
Overburden Aquifer
Bedrock Aquifer
Thickness
(ft)
1 -10
>10
Conductivity
(ft/day)
NA
NA
Average
Velocity
(ft/day)
0.055
0.082
Flow Direction
West-Northwest
West-Northwest
Source: [2]
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology
Pump and treat with liquid-phase carbon
treatment
Supplemental Treatment Technology
Oil/water separator
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
118
TIO3.WP6\0106-04.stf
-------
Mid-South Wood Products Superfund Site
TREATMENT; SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
System Description and Operation
Table 2: Extraction Well Data
Well Name
RW-1.RW-2, RW-3,
RW-5, RW-6, RW-7,
RW-8, RW-9, RW-15
RW-4, RW-10, RW-11,
RW-12, RW-13, RW-14
Unit Name
Overburden Aquifer*
Bedrock Aquifer
Depth (ft)
12.8-23.4
21 - 170
Yield (gal/day)
8.7-3,216
4,167-8,487
*Overburden wells are screened within a French drain.
Source: [2]
System Description
• In response to the 1983 AO, an interim
extraction system was built in late 1984 and
operated from early 1985 until 1989. The
system consisted of three pairs of extraction
wells and French drains. Each well was
screened in a drain. The system was
designed to collect contaminated
groundwater from shallow depths where flow
and contamination were expected to be the
greatest [2]. Table 2 presents extraction
well data.
• The 1986 ROD specified an expansion of
the existing system as the final groundwater
remedy. This expanded extraction system,
which began operating in the summer of
1989, consisted of nine extraction wells
(including the original three sets of drains),
screened in eight French drains, and six
deep extraction wells drilled into the
bedrock formation to depths up to 170 feet
[2].
• The original three French drains, installed in
1984, are located on a NW/SE axis across
the site along the fault zone. Three of the
five drains installed in 1989 are located
along the same fault line, and two were
installed downgradient of the old pond area
[2].
• The French drain trenches were excavated
to the depth of backhoe refusal at the top of
the bedrock, which was approximately 15
feet. The bottom of the drains is filled with
4-inch pea gravel to a depth of one foot.
The pea gravel is covered with
approximately two feet of Vz- to 11/a-inch
gravel, and the ditch is backfilled with
clay [10].
Five of the six drilled wells are located
along the same axis as the original drains,
and are installed close to, or in between, the
three original French drains. The remaining
drilled well was installed on the southwest
corner of the land farm area [6].
Recovery wells RW-2, 4, 6, 12, and 13 were
closed February 1,1997 as recommended
in the 1995 Annual Report with approval
from EPA. Recovery wells RW-3,5,9,10,
and 14 began the on/off period [12].
Extracted water is pumped through force
mains to an oil/water separator and then to
a storage tank. The water is then pumped
through fabric filters to remove suspended
solids and treated by carbon adsorption to
remove organics. Treated groundwater is
discharged to storm drains through two
outfalls under an NPDES permit [2].
The carbon treatment system consists of
two parallel lines, each with two 2,000-
pound canisters in series, to treat organics
[2]. •
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
119
TIO3.WP6\0106-04.stf
-------
Mid-South Wood Products Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Svstem Description and Operation (Cont.)
• An additional carbon treatment system was
added in October 1996 to treat metals-
contaminated groundwater from RW-15,
located near the CCA plant. Originally, the
contaminated groundwater from RW-15 was
used as make-up water in the CCA plant.
As plant operations declined in 1996, so did
the demand for make-up water. Therefore,
the new carbon treatment system was
added to treat this water prior to discharge.
The new system consists of two parallel
lines, each with two 180-pound canisters set
in series. The carbon system was used for
less than one year. Plant operations
resumed in 1997, and the water extracted
from RW-15 was returned to use in plant
operations [9].
• A network of six monitoring wells, along with
the remaining recovery wells, is used to
monitor changes in groundwater quality and
water levels annually [7].
• The remaining 12 monitoring wells went
from annual sampling to 5-year sampling as
recommended in the 1995 Annual Report
with approval from EPA [6].
System Operation
• Under the provisions of the 1983 AO, the
interim treatment system operated from
1985 until 1989, when it was expanded.
The final remedy began operation in
September 1989. This report addresses the
final remedy [2].
• Quantity of groundwater pumped from the
bedrock and overburden aquifers in gallons
is shown below [4,5,6,7].
Year Volume Pumped (gallons)
1989 4,752,300
1990 12,691,050
1991 10,165,250
1992 14,676,650
1993 11,607,000
1994 19,958,200
1995 11,430,140
1996 12,557,350
Approximately 40,000 pounds of carbon
were used from September 1989 until
December 1996. The canisters have been
changed nine times since the start of the
operation. The average volume of water
treated by each canister was approximately
10 million gallons. [5,6,7]
In June 1995, a Five Year Evaluation of the
site was performed.
The oil/water separator extracts small
quantities of oil. From September 1992 to
December 1995, two 55-gaIlon drums of oil
were extracted from the groundwater [6].
In late 1996, the site engineer reported that
free oils had been detected in piezometer
IWE, located near the two farthest
downgradient recovery wells, RW-3 and
RW-14. No concentrations of contaminants
above detection limits have been detected
in the recovery wells since 1990. The
piezometer IWE was drilled prior to
recovery well installation. Once IWE was in
place, the casing may have trapped
DNAPL, blocking the recovery wells'
subsequent zones of influence. [7,9]
In February 1997, three major changes were
made to optimize system operations. First,
five recovery wells in which no
contaminants had been found above
remedial goals for the past four years were
removed from operation. Second, five
other recovery wells meeting the same
criteria for a period of the last three years
began a period of on-off operation (three
months on, three months off). Finally, the
sampling frequency for 12 monitoring wells
was decreased to once every five years.
These wells have either a history of
contaminant levels below detection limits or
are in close proximity to wells that will
continue to be sampled annually [9].
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
120
TIO3.WP6\0106-04.stf
-------
Mid-South Wood Products Superfund Site
TREATMENT ;SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
System Description and Operation fCont.)
An additional recovery well is planned
near the waste pond. Monitoring well
data have shown that contaminants in
the groundwater in this area were not
being remediated as quickly as other
areas of the site [7].
Monitoring wells M-17 (near CCA Plant) and
MW-19 (near Old Pond) are scheduled to be
over drilled in June 1998 and replaced with
recovery wells. IWE will be over drilled and
plugged.
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
Table 3 presents the major operating parameters affecting cost or performance for this technology.
Table 3: Performance Parameters
H -/"r, -?< :£$aii£j*r -^r^' •
Average Pump Rate
Performance Standard (effluent)
(in mg/L)
Remedial Goal (aquifer)
(in mg/L)
fcr'to. • 3S8i<$? Jf;S
24gpm
NPDES effluent limitations
Arsenic
Chromium
Naphthalene
Fluoranthene
PCP
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b+k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Arsenic
Chromium
0.050
0.050
2.30
3.98
0.20
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.05
Source: [2]
Timeline
Table 4 presents a timeline for this remedial project.
Table 4: Project Timeline
-ISfcrfDite J
1984
11/86
12/86
1989
6/95
10/96
2/97
End Date.
1989
...
7/89
ongoing
—
„.
—
•"*' /•//• *" .iT-'" ,:" Ao«^t ;"V ^ . ' *'_,"" ' 2 '•
Interim extraction system built and operated
Record of Decision signed
Remedial design and construction performed
Final extraction system operational
Five Year evaluation
RW-1 5 brought into treatment network, and two additional carbon filters to treat metals added to
treatment system
System optimization performed
Source: [2]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
121
TIO3.WP6\0106-04.Stf
-------
Mid-South Wood Products Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards l"l. 51
The cleanup goal stated in the ROD was to
treat the groundwater contamination to
levels that posed no health or
environmental risk. This goal is to be
achieved throughout the on-site aquifer.
The cleanup goal for PCP was equal to the
EPA reference dose. Goals for
benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene,
benzo(b+k) fluoranthene, and chrysene
were set at the respective detection limits.
Goals for arsenic and chromium were set at
the maximum contaminant level (MCL)
stipulated in 40 CFR 264.94, as listed in
Table 3.
Treatment Performance Goals Ml
• The goal of the treatment system is to
reduce effluent contaminant concentrations
to meet NPDES permit requirements.
Performance Data Assessment T4. 5. 6. 71
The goal of the recovery system is to
contain the plume on site.
For the purpose of this report, total
contaminants includes arsenic, PCP, chromium,
and total PAHs.
• Groundwater contamination has been
reduced to one localized area of concern.
The wells on the western portion have
recorded contaminant levels below
detection limits. RW-15 and other wells
located around the CCA plant and pond
area still show contaminant levels above the
remedial goals.
• Between April 1989 and May 1996, average
concentrations of total contaminants in the
groundwater were reduced 32%, from 0.14
mg/L to 0.09 mg/L Over this same period,
average arsenic concentrations increased
20%, from 0.0030 mg/L to 0.0036 mg/L.
Average PCP levels decreased 50%, from
0.022 mg/L to 0.011 mg/L. Average
chromium concentrations decreased 83%,
from 0.030 mg/L to 0.005 mg/L. Total PAHs
decreased 34%, from 0.035 mg/L to 0.023
mg/L. Contaminant concentrations in some
individual wells remain above remedial
goals.
• PCP concentrations detected during the
May 1996 monitoring were above the
cleanup goal of 0.10 mg/L in five wells
(RW-1, RW-7, RW-8, RW-15, and M-17).
The maximum concentration of PCP
detected in May 1996 was 6.6 mg/L (in RW-
15, near the former CCA plant). Elevated
levels of PCP also showed in the wells near
the former pond area (RW-1, RW-7, RW-8,
and M-17). Figure 2 illustrates that the PCP
concentrations in the monitoring wells near
the pond area have declined, but remain
above the cleanup goal of 0.10 mg/L.
Concentrations of contaminants detected in
the May 1996 monitoring were below
remedial goals in all but six of the 35 wells
monitored. Arsenic concentrations were
above the remedial goal of 0.05 mg/L in
only one well (RW-15) at 0.69 mg/L.
Chromium concentrations were above the
remedial goal of 0.05 mg/L in only one well
(RW-15) at 0.13 mg/L. Total PAHs
concentrations were above the combined
remedial goal of 0.40 mg/L in only one well
(IWB-170) at 1.18 mg/L. The plume of
total contaminants is concentrated in the
former CCA plant area, in RW-15 and IWB-
170. Figure 3 illustrates that the
concentrations of PCP, chromium, and
arsenic in RW-15 have declined since
January 1991, but remain above the
respective remedial goals.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
122
TIO3.WP6\0106-04.stf
-------
Mid-South Wood Products Superfund Site
TREATMENT $YSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Assessment (ConU
• RW-15 remains the well with the highest
levels of contaminants, specifically arsenic,
chromium, and PCP. This well is located
100 feet downgradient of the CCA plant and
upgradient of the pond area. The
contamination found in this well reflects its
proximity to both the CCA plant and the
location of the old PCP plant. Overall,
contaminant concentrations in this well have
decreased during remedial operations (see
Figure 3). Reasons for the sharp spikes in
concentrations seen in both the first quarter
of 1990 and the third quarter of 1991 are not
known [9]. By the secopd quarter in 1996,
concentrations of all three of the
contaminants remained above remedial
goals [7].
• The monitoring data for the wells
downgradient of the land farm show that the
concentrations of all contaminants remained
below detection levels, indicating successful
plume containment. Moreover, monitoring
results from wells placed downgradient of
the pond area but upgradient of the land
farm show no evidence that contamination
is moving between the two areas.
Monitoring data have indicated that the area
of contamination has decreased in size.
The site operators have recommended that
wells in the western portion of the site be
either removed from service or operated on
an on-off basis. The remaining wells around
the waste pond still show contaminant levels
higher than cleanup goals. It is estimated
that the P&T system will operate for a
minimum of five more years to reach the
specified goals.
Performance Data Completeness
Because contamination was found along
rock fractures and not in a continuous
plume, plume size reduction cannot be
measured.
NPDES limits have been exceeded six
times for hazardous pollutants (arsenic or
chromium) from July 1989 through
December 1996. Only one out of the six
exceedances was from Outfall 001, the
treated groundwater. The other
exceedances were at a stormwater outfall.
Over the same period, effluent samples
failed once for Seven-Day Renewal Chronic
Toxicity to Certiodaphia and 10 times for
reproduction criteria. Exceedances were
reported to the Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control and Ecology. No process
changes were made.
Figure 4 presents the removal of
contaminants through the treatment system
from 1990 to 1996. Over this period, a total
of 93 million gallons of groundwater were
treated, at a daily average treatment rate of
24 gpm.
During the first seven years of operation,
the carbon filter system removed a total of
363 kg of PCP. Other contaminants were
removed as well, but sufficient data were
not available to be able to estimate their
mass. Therefore, removal of total
contaminants is likely to be higher.
PCP removal rates, reported in annual
performance reports, declined from 0.39
kg/day in 1990 to 0.03 kg/day in 1995.
The 18 monitoring wells and the 15
recovery wells located at the site were
monitored on an annual basis and reported
in the annual report.
The data used in Figures 3 and 4 were
taken from the summary table in the 1996
Annual Report [7].
Data for contaminant removal through the
carbon filter system were reported in the
1994 Annual Report and Five Year
Evaluation, the 1995 Annual Report, and
the 1996 Annual Report [4,6,7].
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
123
TIO3.W P6\0106-04.stf
-------
Mid-South Wood Products Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
0.001
Dec-88 May-90 Sep-91 Jan-93 Jun-94
Oct-95
Mar-97
MW-17
•RW-1
RW-7 -x-RW-8
Figure 2. PCP Concentrations in Wells Near Pond Area (April 1989 to May 1996) [4,5,6,7]
100
I
•s 0.1
O
o
0.01
0.001
-Arsenic (MCL=0.05 mg/L) —•—Chromium (MCL=0.05 mg/L) —A—PCP (MCL=0.20 mg/L)
Figure 3. Contaminant Concentrations in RW-15, Near CCA Plant (April 1989 to May 1996) [4,5,6,7]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
124
TIO3.WP6\0106-04.Stf
-------
Mid-South Wood Products Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
400
J-350
300 &
250 o
I
200
150 g
100 £
O
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
• Mass Flux (kg/day)
- Cum. Mass Removed (kg)
Figure 4. Mass Flux Rate and Cumulative POP Removal (1990 to 1994) [5]
Performance Data Quality
The QA/QC program used throughout the remedial action met the EPA and the State of Arkansas
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
125
TIO3.WP6X0106-04.stf
-------
Mid-South Wood Products Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process
B&F Engineering provided remedial design services and has provided monitoring and reporting services
during the P&T operation period. Rollins provided construction services and Mid-South Wood Products
(one of the two PRP's) has operated the P&T system.
Cost Analysis
All costs for design and construction and operation of the treatment system at this site were borne by the
PRPs.
Capital Costs T6T
Remedial Construction and Design
Mobilization, Bond & Insurance $25,560
Health and Safety $7,875
French Drain Construction $95,100
Recovery Well Casings $45,470
Recovery Well Pumps $28,900
Rock Excavation $11,393
Cable $26,818
Treatment Plant $141,990
RW-15 Well and Treatment Unit $24,700
Miscellaneous $57,470
Total Site Cost $465,276*
•Does not Include stabilization, consolidation, and capping
costs for remediation of contaminated soils.
Operating Costs T6T
Carbon Regeneration $100,100
Sludge, Oil, Filter, etc. Disposal $8,400
Miscellaneous Pipe, Filters, etc. $10,500
Operating Labor Cost $54,600
Contract Labor Cost $8,400
Electrical Power Cost $33,600
Analysis, Reporting, and Monitoring $395,800
Annual Report $24,500
Five Year Evaluation $14,000
Carbon Canister Replacement $45,000
Pump Replacement $17,200
Meter Replacement $2,600
Electrical Controls Replacement $6,600
Filter Replacement $4,000
Operator Training Cost $4,000
Contingency Fund $18,000
Estimated Total Operating Expenses $747,300
Through 1996
Note: Operating costs are based on annual cost estimates
provided by B&F Engineering.
Annual Costs [81
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Cost Data Quality
$136,350
$103,350
$88,350
$90,350
$88,750
$152,000
$88,150
Estimated capital and operating and maintenance cost data are available from the system operator for
this application.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
126
TIO3.WP6\0106-04.stf
-------
Mid-South Wood Products Superfund Site
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
The site engineer identified one change
order for the original groundwater treatment
system construction contract, totaling
$9,966.
Estimated costs for the P&T treatment
application at Mid-South were
approximately $1,212,600, consisting of
$465,300 in capital costs and $747,300 in
cumulative operating and maintenance
costs through 1996 [8]. This corresponds to
unit costs of $13 per 1,000 gallons treated
and $3,330 per kg PCP removed ($4,510
per pound PCP removed).
The use of fabric filters to remove
suspended solids has increased the
operating life of the carbon filters. The high
rate of changeout for the fabric filters has
not added a significant level of effort to
routine operations [8].
The increase in mass flux seen in 1993 may
be attributed to an increase in precipitation
during the year. The increased precipitation
could have accelerated groundwater flows,
which would then cause a contaminant level
increase in the recovery wells.
DNAPLs have been visually observed from
a drilled well at 172 feet of depth. The
presence of DNAPL at the site also is
suggested by fluoromethane,
benzo(a)anthracene, and chrysene being
detected at concentrations 60%, 63%, and
30% of their aqueous solubility,
respectively. Similarly, PCP was detected
at concentrations greater than its aqueous
solubility. Further, a monitoring well near
the waste pond has shown persistent
elevated contaminant concentrations when
compared to the other wells at the site [2,4].
Initially, French drains were chosen to
recover groundwater because engineers
believed that the fractured nature of the
bedrock would result in low yields from a
system composed only of drilled extraction
wells. Actual experience at this site has
shown that the extraction rates from the
French drains are much lower than those
from the drilled extraction wells, and that
pumping from the drilled wells has
significantly changed groundwater flow
patterns at the site [6].
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
127
TIO3.WP6\0106-04.stf
-------
Mid-South Wood Products Superfund Site
REFERENCES
1. Superfund Record of Decision. Mid-South
Wood Products, Mena, Arkansas,
November 1986.
2. Case Studies and Updates. U.S. EPA,
"Case Study 20, Mid-South Wood
Products," March 25,1992.
3. Superfund Site Status Summaries. U.S.
EPA, "Mid-South Wood Products,"
http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6sf/midsouth,
April 30,1997.
4. Superfund Remediation 1994 Annual Report
& Five Year Evaluation. Mid-South
Superfund Site, B&F Engineering, Inc., June
1995.
5. Superfund Remediation 1989-1990 Annual
Report. Mid-South Superfund Site, B&F
Engineering, Inc., May 1991.
Analysis Preparation
6. 1995 Annual Report. B&F Engineering, Inc.,
October 1996.
7. 1996 Annual Report. B&F Engineering, Inc.,
February 1997.
8. Cost estimates provided by
Linda McCormick, B&F Engineering, Inc.,
June 1997.
9. Telephone conversation with
Linda McCormick, B&F Engineering, Inc.,
October 6, 1997.
10. Personal Communication with
Linda McCormick, B&F Engineering, Inc.,
October 16, 1997.
11. Comments on Draft Report, provided by
Linda McCormick, B&F Engineering, Inc.,
June 1998.
12. Operations and Maintenance Manual. B&F
Engineering, Inc., January 1997.
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
128
TI03.WP6\0106-04.stf
-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site, OU 2
Odessa, Texas
129
-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site, OU 2
Odessa, Texas
Site Name:
Odessa Chromium I Superfund
Site, Operable Unit 2 (OU 2)
Location:
Odessa, Texas
Contaminants:
Heavy Metals (Chromium)
- Maximum concentration of Cr
detected during 1985 sampling
event was 72 mg/L
Period of Operation:
Status: Ongoing
Report covers: 11/93 - 1/98
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup (interim results)
Vendor:
Design and Management: IT
Corporation (ITC)
Construction and Oversight:
WATEC
State Point of Contact:
Lei Medford
Texas Natural Resources
Conservation Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711
(512)239-2440
Technology:
Pump and Treat
- Groundwater is extracted using 6
wells at an average total pumping
rate of 60 gpm
- Extracted groundwater is treated
for Cr removal with chemical
treatment (ferrous ion, produced on
site), pH adjustment, flocculation,
precipitation, and multimedia
filtration
- Treated groundwater is reinjected
through 6 injection wells
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA Remedial
-RODDate: 9/8/86
EPA Point of Contact:
Ernest Franke, RPM
U.S. EPA Region 6
First Interstate Bank Tower at
Fountain Place
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214)655-8521
Waste Source:
Improper disposal practices
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Includes on-site treatment for
chromium; relatively low
groundwater flow; contamination
in one aquifer
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
- 125 million gallons treated as of January 1998
- Groundwater is found at 30-45 ft bgs
- Extraction wells are located in 1 aquifer, which is influenced by
production wells in the area
- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 1.7 to 5.1 ft/day
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Remediate groundwater so that chromium levels are less than the maximum contaminant level (MCL) or
primary drinking water standard.
- Prior to 1990, the drinking water standard for chromium was 0.05 mg/L; in 1990, EPA revised the drinking
water standard to 0.10 mg/L.
- Treated effluent that is reinjected into the aquifer must have a chromium level of less than 0.05 mg/L.
- The remedial system was required to create an inward gradient toward the site to contain the plume.
Results:
- Groundwater monitoring results indicate that chromium concentrations have been reduced compared to initial
levels, but not to levels below the cleanup goal of 0.10 mg/L.
Average chromium concentrations were reduced by 48% from January 1992 to January 1997.
From December 1993 to 1996, 1,143 pounds of chromium have been removed from the groundwater.
Treated effluent has met the required performance standard throughout treatment.
Plume containment has been achieved since 1995; this was achieved after two monitoring wells were
converted to recovery wells, and two other recovery wells were taken offline.
130
-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site, OU 2
Odessa, Texas (continued)
Cost:
- Actual costs for the P&T application were approximately $2,742,000 ($1,954,000 in capital and $728,000 in
O&M), which correspond to $30 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $2,400 per pound of
contaminant removed.
- The ROD specified that the ferrous iron used in the treatment system be produced electrochemically, which
limited the number of vendors to two and potentially increased the cost of the treatment system.
- The costs for design, construction, and operation of the P&T system were split 90:10 by EPA and TNRCC,
respectively.
Description:
Metal plating and chrome plating facilities operated at this site from 1954 to 1977, producing chromium- and
other metals-containing wastewater. In 1977, the TNRCC investigated citizen complaints of poor drinking water
quality in private wells and discovered elevated levels of chromium in the groundwater. The chromium
contamination was attributed to the discharge of chromium-containing wastewater into unlined dirt ponds,
directly to the soils, and into a septic tank drain field; contaminants also are suspected to have migrated to the
aquifer through an abandoned open well bore on the site. The Odessa I site was added to the NPL in September
1984, and a ROD for OU 2 was signed in September 1986. OU 1, not addressed by this case study, concerned
providing for an alternate water supply to replace water previously supplied by contaminated wells.
The extraction system used at this site consisted of six extraction wells constructed in the Trinity Sand Aquifer to
a depth of 138 ft bgs, each with a design yield of 14,400 gpd. Extracted groundwater was treated with ferrous
iron (produced on site in an electrochemical cell), pH adjustment and aeration, clarification, and multi-media
filtration. While chromium concentrations have been reduced to below the MCL in three wells, as of December
1996, groundwater cleanup goals have not been achieved throughout the site.
There were several startup problems that delayed full-scale operation at this site, including clogging of injection
wells and filters by iron and calcium. These problems were solved through system modification and no longer
interfere with operations.
131
-------
Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site
SITE INFORMATION
Identifying Information;
Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site
Operable Unit 2 (OU 2)
Odessa, Texas
CERCLIS#: TXD980867279
ROD Date for OU2: September 8,1986
Background M. 2. 31
Treatment Application:
Type of Action: Remedial
Period of operation: 11/93 - Ongoing
(Monitoring and mass removal data collected
through December 1996)
(Data on volume treated collected through
January 1998)
Quantity of material treated during
application: 125 million through January 1998
Historical Activity that Generated
Contamination at the Site: Metals plating
Corresponding SIC Code: 3471, Plating of
Metals
Waste Management Practice That
Contributed to Contamination: Improper
disposal practices
Location: Odessa, Texas
Facility Operations:
• In 1977, the Texas Natural Resources
Conservation Commission (TNRCC)
investigated citizen complaints of poor
drinking water quality in private wells and
discovered elevated levels of chromium in
the groundwater. The 0.4-acre facility at
4318 Brazos Avenue was identified by EPA
as the source of chromium contamination.
* Metals plating and chrome plating facilities
operated at the site from 1954 to 1977,
producing chromium and other metals-
containing wastewater. Operations at the
site ceased in 1977.
• High levels of chromium were detected in
the soil and groundwater. The chromium
contamination was caused by discharge of
chromium-containing wastewater into
unlined dirt ponds, directly to the soils, and
into a septic tank drain field. Contaminants
are also suspected to have migrated into the
aquifer through an abandoned open well
bore on the site.
In 1984, the building, foundation, and soils
contaminated with chromium were
excavated and disposed. Shallow soils,
down to approximately two feet, were
removed. The remaining soils at the site
were found to contain other heavy metals at
detectable levels, but at levels that posed
no apparent risk to human health and the
environment.
• From 1977 until 1985, the TNRCC
conducted drinking water well surveys to
determine the extent of the chromium
contamination.
• The Odessa I site was added to the National
Priority List (NPL) in September 1984.
• The Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) was completed in 1986.
Regulatory Context:
• For the Odessa I site, EPA issued two
Records of Decision (ROD): Operable Unit
1 (OU1) to address the need for an
alternative drinking water supply and
Operable Unit 2 (OU2) to address
groundwater cleanup.
• In 1986, through the ROD for OU1, an
alternate drinking water source was made
available to replace water previously
supplied by the contaminated wells.
• On March 18, 1988, the ROD for OU2 was
approved for groundwater remediation.
Further soil removal was not required by the
ROD.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
132
TIO3.WP6\0212-03.Stf
-------
Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site
SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Backaround fCont.}
• 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.
Site Loaistics/Contacts
Groundwater Remedy Selection: Extraction
of the groundwater and treatment of chromium
through ferrous ion reduction, followed by
reinjection of treated water to the aquifer, was
determined to be the most appropriate remedy
for groundwater based on treatability studies.
Site Lead: State
Oversight: EPA
Remedial Project Manager:
Ernest Franke
U.S. EPA Region 6
First Interstate Bank Tower
at Fountain Place
1445 Ross Avenue
12th Floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 655-8521
indicates primary contact
State Contact:
Lei Medford*
Texas Natural Resources Conservation
Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 239-2440
Treatment System Vendor:
Design and Management: IT Corporation (ITC)
Construction and Operation: WATEC
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matriy Identification
Type of Matrix Processed Through the
Treatment System: Groundwater
Contaminant Characterization M .2.4.91
Primary Contaminant Group: Chromium
• The contaminant of concern is chromium.
The groundwater is contaminated with the
hexavalent chromium species. However,
cleanup standards are set for total
chromium. Likewise, laboratory analyses
test for total chromium. For these reasons,
chromium levels tested and regulated at the
Odessa I site are for total chromium. No
organic contaminants were detected in the
soil or groundwater.
During a 1985 sampling event, chromium
was detected in the groundwater at levels
up to 72 mg/L. During sampling events in
1993, prior to pump and treat application,
chromium was detected at levels up to 4.3
mg/L.
The chromium plume directly beneath the
former on-site building was heavily
concentrated in the Trinity Sands, which is
the major aquifer in the region. The
remnants of the Ogallala Aquifer found at
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
133
TIO3.W P6X0212-03.stf
-------
Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Contaminant Characterization (Cont.^
the site contain a few feet of saturated
thickness at the most. The northern plume
migration concurs with the north-
northeasterly groundwater flow direction
observed during the RI/FS.
The initial volume of the chromium plume
was estimated in the 1986 RI/FS to be 15
million gallons between 44th and 48th
streets. The areal extent of the initial plume
was estimated to be approximately 283,000
square feet, based on a chromium contour
of 0.05 mg/L.
The ROD required the chromium levels in
the groundwater to meet the maximum
contaminant level (MCL) for chromium.
EPA changed the MCL from 0.05 to 0.10
mg/L in 1990.
Figure 1 illustrates the boundaries for the
chromium plume for 1994, 1995 and 1996.
From 1994 and 1996, the surface area of
the chromium plume has decreased from
440,000 ft2 to 247,000 ft2, a reduction in
plume size of 44%. The areal plumes are
based on a total chromium concentration
contour of 0.1 mg/L.
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Costs or Performance
Hydrogeology: [4,9]
Two distinct hydrogeologic units have been identified beneath this site. Soil and sandy caliche overlie
the water-bearing formations. The first water-bearing unit is encountered at approximately 30 to 45 feet
below ground surface.
Unit 1 Ogallala This unit is formed of fluvial plastics consisting of fan deposits of fine to
Formation coarse grained sands, silt, clay, and occasional strings of gravel. There
(Perched are only erosional remnants of this formation present in the site area,
Zone) with a saturated thickness of less than 10 feet in the lower most portion.
The erosional remnants of the Ogallala are hydraulically connected to
the underlying Trinity Sand Aquifer, and water from the Ogallala flows
into the Trinity. The Ogallalla does not exist as a continuous aquifer and
thus flow direction could not be measured.
Unit 2 Trinity Sand This unit consists of sands and ferragiorous calcite cemented
Aquifer sandstones. Settled lenses of gravel, clay, and siltstone occur at irregular
intervals. This unit is the primary groundwater water supply for municipal
and private residences in the area. It is underlain by the Chinle
Formation, which acts as an effective aquitard. Groundwater in this unit
in the area of the site was observed to flow north to northeast, which
concurs with the spread of the plume from the source. However,
changes in water levels have altered groundwater flow direction.
The water level in the Trinity Sand Aquifer has risen over 25 feet from 1986 to 1993. The rise in the
water table is attributed to the decrease of public and private wells using the aquifer and to increased
precipitation during this period.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
134
TIO3.W P6X0212-03.Stf
-------
Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
a
J33SUS OMC»
U3SJ1S
a
g
*i
X '• \
\
\ ••:
N
?A
i^_ _^,-'x...
;
*
I
O U (J
aa *
t
F/gure 7. Chromium Concentration Contour Map, 1994 -1996 [9]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
135
TIO3.WP6\0212-03.stf
-------
Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Tables 1 and 2 include technical aquifer information and technical well data, respectively. Extraction
wells are discussed in the following section.
Table 1. Technical Aquifer Information
Unit Name
Unit!
(Ogallala)
Unit 2
(Trinity Sand)
Thickness
(ft)
Conductivity
(ft/day)
Average Flow
Velocity (ft/day)
Flow Direction
0-10
70
1.6
1.7-5.1
0.02
0.03 - 0.00
Not
Characterized1
North-Northeast2
'Water flows from the Ogallala to the Trinity, but the direction of flow has not been
characterized.
2Flow observed during the 1986 remedial investigation was towards the north-northeast.
However, the water table rose from 1986 to 1993 by 25 feet. Flow observed during a 1993
investigation was towards the southeast. Groundwater investigations since 1993 have shown
groundwater flow direction to be northerly.
Source: [4]
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology
Pump and treat with electrochemical
precipitation of chromium using ferrous ion
System Description and Operation
Supplemental Treatment Technology
None
Table 2. Extraction Well Data
Well Name
RW-1/102
RW-2
RW-3
RW-4
RW-5/106
RW-6
Unit Name
Trinity Sand
Trinity Sand
Trinity Sand
Trinity Sand
Trinity Sand
Trinity Sand
Depth (ft)
138
138
138
138
138
138
Design Yield
(gal/day)
14,400
14,400
14,400
14,400
14,400
14,400
Source: [4]
System Description [4, 5]
• The extraction system consists of six
recovery wells, located in the Trinity Aquifer
(Unit 2). No recovery wells were placed in
the Ogallalla Formation, directly beneath
the site because only erosional remnants of
the Ogallalla remain in the vicinity of the
Odessa I site. In addition, the groundwater
in this zone flows directly into the Trinity
Aquifer. A computer model was used to
determine well placement and design
extraction rates in the Trinity Aquifer. The
modelling determined capture zone for the
plume that exceeded 0.1 mg/L chromium.
ITC used Randomwalk to model solute
transport (an in-house model by Reed and
Associates) and Geoflow to model
groundwater flow (an in-house model by
ITC).
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
136
TIO3.WP6\0212-03.Stf
-------
Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
System Description and Operation (ConU
The metals treatment system is designed to
treat the collected groundwater at a rate of
60 gpm. Influent tanks regulate flow
through the treatment system.
Water from the extraction wells is sent to a
dual-chamber reaction tank. Ferrous ion is
fed into the first chamber and mixed with
the contaminated well water. Ferrous ion is
produced on site in an electrochemical cell.
The ion reduces the hexavalent chromium
to trivalent chromium, to facilitate
subsequent hydroxide precipitation. In the
second chamber of the reaction tank, pH is
adjusted to the range of 8.5 to 8.8 to
achieve minimum solubility for chromium
hydroxide. Also in the second chamber,
ferrous ion is oxidized by aeration to
insoluble ferric ion and converted to ferric
hydroxide. Both the ferric and the
chromium hydroxide are mixed with a poly-
electrolyte in the second chamber.
The treated water is clarified through a
flocculation and precipitation tank, where
insoluble hydroxides are precipitated out.
From here, the treated water is polished
through a multimedia filter for reinjection. A
backwash unit stores a portion of the treated
water, which is used to flush the filter at
least once every 24 hours. The sludge from
the clarifier is disposed off site.
Chromium concentrations in the influent and
the effluent from the treatment system are
monitored continuously. If the level of
chromium exceeds 0.05 mg/L in the
effluent, it is pumped back through the
treatment system. Treated water with
chromium concentrations less than 0.05
mg/L is injected through a network of six
injection wells.
A network of 14 monitoring wells placed in
the Trinity Aquifer is used to monitor plume
containment quarterly. The six recovery
wells are monitored on a monthly basis for
water quality parameters as well.
System Operation [4,5,6,7]
• Quantity of groundwater pumped from the
aquifer by year is:
Year Volume Pumped (gal)
1992 361,000*
1993 5,339,885*
1994 28,400,155
1995 30,692,836
1996 30,598,566
*The volume pumped during 1992 was during a 30-
day unsuccessful trial run. The extraction system
operated only for the months of November and
December in 1993.
• Initial startup began in July 1992. The
injection wells and the filter began to clog
with iron and calcium in the first 30 days of
system operation. The extraction and
treatment systems were shut down for the
following alterations.
- The reactive tank was altered from a
single-chamber to a two-chamber tank,
separated by a baffle. The second
chamber allowed for further
precipitation of iron, the cause of
clogging.
- A backwash unit was added after the
multi-media polishing filter to unclog the
filter of iron and other precipitates. The
pH of the water after the clarifier was
reduced to less than 7.5.
- Original injection wells continued to be
used, but infiltration rates had slowed
because of clogging. Three additional
injection wells were constructed to
increase the injection rate.
— After modifications were made from
May 1993 to August 1993, the system
resumed operation in November 1993.
— Backwash water is stored in the
mqdified backwash unit and is added
slowly to the influent tank. The slow
addition avoids upsetting the pH
balance in the influent tank.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
137
TIO3.WP6\0212-03.stf
-------
Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Descrintion and Ooeration (Cont.)
Based on sampling events from 1993 to
1995, the higher chromium concentrations
appeared to be migrating to the northwest.
Recovery wells RW-1 and RW-5 were shut
down and monitoring wells MW-102 and
MW-106 were converted to recovery wells
to continue pumping from areas in the
plume with high chromium concentrations.
One injection well was found to continually
plug because of a local formation of silty
fines. It was taken off line in May 1995.
The rate of injection of treated water
remained the same.
The site has been operational 95% of the
time since 1993. Downtime is primarily due
to shutdowns for local brown outs and
system maintenance.
Onpratinn Parameters Affectina Treatment Cost or Performance
The major operating parameter affecting cost or performance for this technology is extraction rate.
Table 3 presents the values measured for this and other performance parameters.
Table 3. Performance Parameters
telfSflsajPlrameter . ' .;:.. _!„;,
Average Pump Rate
Performance Standard (effluent)
Remedial Goal (aquifer)
' •"'"'"' ' : Valued- -
86,500 gpd*
0.05 mg/L total chromium
0.10 mg/L total chromium
Source: [2, 6]
*The average system extraction rate from January 1998 until December 1996 was estimated for
this report to be 86,500 gpd or approximately 14,400 gpd per well, based on the actual 125 million
gallons pumped and 95% operating rate.
Table 4 presents a timeline for this remedial action.
Table 4. Timeline
Start Date
January 1992
July 1992
May 1993
November 1993
April 1995
Mav 1995
End Date
July 1992
August 1992
August 1993
...
—
—
< Ac«vl#7 -'**"'
Remediation system constructed
System started; injection wells clogged with iron and calcium
Alterations made to remedial system
~/// *
Continuous operation of remediation system begun. Monthly monitoring of groundwater
begun.
Shitt in plume detected. Monitoring wells MW-102 and MW-106 converted to recovery wells
RW-1 02 and RW-1 06. RW-1 and RW-5 shut down
Iniection Well IJ-2 taken off line because of oiuaaina
Source: [2, 4, 6, 7]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
138
TIO3.WP6\0212-03.Stf
-------
Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards T21
• The cleanup goals as established by
TNRCC and EPA are to remediate
groundwater so that chromium levels are
less than the maximum contaminant level
(MCL), or the Primary Drinking Water
Standard, of 0.10 mg/L. This goal is applied
throughout the aquifer, as measured in all
on-site monitoring wells.
Treatment Performance Goals T41
Additional Information on Goals
• The original drinking water standard for
chromium set by EPA was 0.05 mg/L. In
1990, EPA revised the standard to the
Primary Drinking Water Standard of 0.10
mg/L.
• Effluent injected into the aquifer from the
treatment system must have levels of
chromium below 0.05 mg/L.
Performance Data Assessment T1. 3. 4. 5. 6. 71
As a secondary goal, the remedial system is
required to create an inward gradient toward
the site to contain the plume.
Three wells have met the cleanup goal for
chromium of 0.10 mg/L: RW-1, RW-3, and
RW-5. The maximum concentration of
chromium detected in the groundwater in
January 1997 was 2.9 mg/L. Groundwater
monitoring results indicate that chromium
concentrations have been reduced
compared to initial levels, but not to levels
below the treatment goal.
Figure 2 illustrates the changes in average
chromium concentrations in the
groundwater from January 1992 to January
1997 [6]. Average chromium levels were
reduced by 48% during that time, from 0.98
mg/L in March 1992 to 0.54 mg/L in January
1997.
The individual wells provided wide
variations in month to month chromium
concentrations for the first two years. The
variation became less pronounced in 1996
with a noticeable downward trend [9].
Concentrations of chromium in the
groundwater have fluctuated in different
wells. Figure 3 illustrates that chromium
levels in RW-1 and RW-5 increased from
1992 to 1995. Figure 4 illustrates well-
specific chromium levels that decreased
from 1991 to 1997, then fluctuated during
1994. Figure 5 illustrates well-specific
chromium levels that decreased from 1986
until 1997 [4,6].
The September 1994 sampling event
revealed spikes in concentrations of
chromium in many wells [7]. The site
contact has indicated that while no QA/QC
problems were identified, the validity of the
September 1994 sampling event is
questionable [6].
Other spikes in concentrations of chromium
may be a result of incomplete source
removal. According to the site contact,
source control measures were applied only
to shallow soils. Because the ROD did not
specify complete removal of soil
contamination, additional soil removal was
not performed.
Figure 6 presents the removal of chromium
through the treatment system from
December 1993 to 1996 [1,5]. During this
time, a total of 1,143 pounds of chromium
were removed from the groundwater [1].
Chromium mass removal was determined
based on the chromium concentrations in
the sludge. Data on the amount of
chromium removed by the treatment system
during the 30-day period in 1992 were not
available.
Figure 6 illustrates that mass flux decreased
after the first year of system operation, from
1.2 pounds per day to less than 0.8 pounds
per day [1 ].
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
139
TIO3.W P6\0212-03.Stf
-------
Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
PArfnrmanrp Data Assessment
• Effluent chromium levels have met the
required performance standard of 0.05 mg/L
throughout treatment [6].
• Based on sampling events, plume
containment has been achieved since 1995
[3,6]. The site operators determined there
was a failure in plume containment during
1993 and 1995, based on a rise in
chromium concentrations in some
monitoring wells during this period [4]. Two
monitoring wells within the area of concern
were converted to recovery wells, and two
recovery wells from a less contaminated
area were taken off line.
Pprfnrmanrp Data Comnleteness
Data on mass flux and mass removed are
reported on a monthly basis and are
available for this site from the TNRCC.
Annual data were used for the analyses in
Figure 6.
For the chromium concentration analyses in
Figures 2 through 5, annual monitoring data
were used for 1993 and 1995 through 1997.
Quarterly data were used for 1994. These
data were supplied in monthly reports and in
the Project Status Draft Report prepared by
ITC in 1995. Monitoring data are available
on a quarterly basis for this site from the
TNRCC.
orfrtriYmnr*A Data Onalitv
A geometric mean was used for average
chromium concentrations detected in the
groundwater, as presented in Figure 4, to
represent the overall trend of chromium
contamination in the groundwater at the site.
When concentrations below detection limits
were encountered, half of the detection limit
was used for evaluation purposes.
The QA/QC program used throughout the remedial action met EPA and TNRCC requirements. All
monitoring was performed using EPA Method 218.1 and EPA-approved methods for pH, total suspended
solids, and other water quality parameters. Except for the September 1994 data (discussed above) the
vendor did not note any exceptions to the QA/QC protocols [6].
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
140
TIO3.WP6\0212-03.stf
-------
Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
1.4000
o.oooo
Jan
-92
Jan-93
Jan-94
Jan-95
Jan-96
Jan-97
Figure 2. Average Chromium Concentrations in the Groundwater (1992 - January 1997) [4,6]
* Two monitoring wells converted to extraction wells; two other extraction wells shut down.
o
0
Jan-92
Jan-93
Jan-94
Jan-95
-RW-1
-RW-5
Figure 3. Chromium Concentrations in Wells RW-1 and RW-5 (1992 - 1997) [4,6]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
141
TIO3.WP6\0212-03.Stf
-------
Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Jan-91
Jan-92
Jan-93
Jan-94
Jan-95
Jan-96
-RW-2
-RW-4
-RW-6
-RW-102/MW-102*
Jan-97
"RW-102 was MW-102 until 4/95
Figure 4. Chromium Concentrations in Wells RW-2, RW-4, RW-6, and RW-102 (1991 - 1997) [4,6]
vmwr%^ / , *
Jan-86 Jan-87 Jan-88 Jan-89 Jan-90 Jan-91 Jan-92 Jan-93 Jan-94 Jan-95 Jan-96 Jan-97
-RW-3
•RW-106/MW-106*
*RW-106 was MW-106 until 4/95
Figure 5. Chromium Concentrations in Wells RW-3 and RW-106 (1986 - 1997) [4,6]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
142
TiO3.WP6\0212-03.stf
-------
Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
1200
I
- Mass Flux
-Mass Removed
Figure 6. Mass Flux Rate and Cumulative Chromium Removal (1993 - 1996) [6]
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process
TNRCC is the lead authority on this site. WATEC was awarded the construction and operations contract
for the site. ITC was awarded the oversight contract for the site.
Cost Analvsis
The costs for design, construction, and operation of the P&T system at this site were split 90:10 by
EPA and TNRCC, respectively.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
143
TIO3.WP6\0212-03.stf
-------
Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Capital Costs 161
Remedial Construction
Mobilization Work
Monitoring Wells -
Sampling/Testing Analysis
Groundwater Collection &
Control
Installation of Treatment Plant
Site Restoration
Site Security
Construction Management
Total Remedial Construction
Cost Data Quality
$334,723
$52,761
$287,947
$944,800
$13,542
$3,298
$316,533
$1,953,604
Operating Costs T61
Operation and Maintenance $774,418
Monitoring Costs $13,841
Total Cumulative Operating $788,259
Expenses (1993-1996)
1993 Operating Costs (11/93 - $25,772
12/93)
1994 Operating Costs (1/94 -12/94) $202,817
1995 Operating Costs (1/95 -12/95) $228,705
1996 Operating Costs (1/96 -12/96) $330,965
Other Costs f 6"|
Remedial Design
Original Bid Design $132,180
Final Amount (redesign in 1993) $230,438
(total for design)
Actual capital and operation and maintenance cost data are available from TNRCC for this application.
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Actual costs for the pump and treat
application at Odessa I were approximately
$2,742,000 ($1,954,000 in capital costs and
$788,000 in operation and maintenance
costs), which corresponds to $30 per 1,000
gallons of groundwater treated and $2,400
per pound of chromium removed. The $30
per 1,000 gallons is based on volume
treated through December 1996, because
cost data through 1998 were not available at
the time of this report.
The ROD specified that the ferrous ion used
to reduce the chromium would be
electrochemically produced, which limited
the number of the on-site system vendors to
two and potentially increased the cost of the
treatment unit.
The costs listed above include the system
modifications performed in 1993 and in
1995. There have been no further changes
to the cost for the remedial system at the
site [3].
Operating costs have increased from 1993
to 1996. The operations contract has a
fixed annual cost for disposal of up to 500
Ibs of chromium. Any amount of chromium
EPA
beyond 500 Ibs is paid on a cost plus fixed
fee basis, resulting in additional annual
disposal costs each year since 1993.
While chromium levels have been reduced
below the MCL in three wells, the
groundwater cleanup goals have not been
achieved as of December 1996. Extraction
and treatment will continue until goals are
achieved [3,4,6].
Overall, average chromium concentrations
decreased, but concentrations of chromium
have fluctuated in some wells [4]. These
variations in chromium levels are most
likely a result of the increased groundwater
level and further desorption of chromium
from aquifer materials [3,7]. According to
the site contact, because complete removal
of all contaminated soils was not specified
in the ROD, source control measures (i.e.,
soil removal) were applied to only shallow
soils [4]. Deeper aquifer material may still
contain high levels of chromium that can act
as a source for continuing contamination
[3,7]. The site contact also noted that
complete source removal would have
eliminated the source for a persistent plume
[3].
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
144
TIO3.WP6\0212-03.stf
-------
Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED (CONT.)
The plume has been contained since 1995,
after containment failure from 1993 to 1995
[1]. The shift in groundwater flow observed
in 1993 may have caused the containment
failure [6]. By adjusting the extraction
system, plume containment was achieved.
This illustrates the importance of flexibility
in system operation.
There were several startup problems,
including clogging of injection wells and
filter by iron and calcium, that delayed full-
scale operations [4]. These problems were
solved through system modification, and no
longer interfere with operations. The site
contractor has suggested that one potential
approach to identifying the problems earlier
would be to increase the length of pilot
operations. At this site, pilot operations
were conducted in hourly increments, and
the results were used to simulate full-cycle
operations. Had the pilot operations been
conducted for a full 24-hour cycle, it is likely
that the iron and calcium fouling problems
that led to clogging would have been
identified [4].
Full-scale operations were delayed by iron
encrustation in the injection wells and in the
filter. Setting effluent standards for iron in
the future could prevent such delays.
ITC also has concluded that the continuous
chromium monitors on the influent were not
useful because they could not detect
chromium levels above 1.0 mg/L. They did
not operate until wells were well on the way
to being clean. Monthly tracking was found
to be helpful for monitoring site cleanup, but
continuous data were not useful [4].
During system operation, system operators
determined that backwash from the filter
system should be equalized and added
slowly to the influent tank to avoid large
changes in the influent chemistry [4].
During early system operations, backwash
water was introduced directly into the
influent tank. The differences between the
pH levels in the backwash and the influent
reduced the effectiveness of the reaction
tank. The backwash storage unit allows
gradual addition of backwash to the influent.
This has alleviated the earlier problems in
the reaction tank [4].
REFERENCES
1. Record of Decision. USEPA, Odessa
Chromium #1, OU2, March 18,1988.
2. Record of Decision. USEPA, Odessa
Chromium I, OU1, Septembers, 1986.
3. Correspondence with Mr. Lei Medford,
TNRCC.
4. Project Status Draft Report. ITC, January
1995.
5. Odessa Chromium I & IIS Superfund Sites
Treatment System. WATEC. No date
listed.
6. Odessa Chromium I Monthly Reports. ITC.
December 1993/January 1994, January
1995, January 1996, January 1997.
7. Lessons Learned. ITC, January 1997.
8. Groundwater Regions of the United States.
Heath, Ralph. U.S. Geological Survey
Water Supply Paper 2242. 1984.
9. TNRCC comment on draft report, dated
3/11/98.
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
145
TIO3.W P6\0212-03.stf
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
146
-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the Odessa Chromium US Supeiiimd Site, OU 2
Odessa, Texas
147
-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the Odessa Chromium IIS Superfund Site, OU 2
Odessa, Texas
Site Name:
Odessa Chromium US Superfund
Site, Operable Unit 2 (OU 2)
Location:
Odessa, Texas
Contaminants:
Heavy Metals (Chromium)
- Maximum concentration of Cr
detected during 1986 sampling
event was 50 mg/L (perched zone
aquifer)
Period of Operation:
Status: Ongoing
Report covers: 11/93 -12/97
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup (interim results)
Vendor:
Design and Management: IT
Corporation (ITC)
Construction and Oversight:
WATEC
State Point of Contact:
Lei Medford
Texas Natural Resources
Conservation Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711
(512) 239-2440
Technology:
Pump and Treat
- Groundwater is extracted using
10 wells at an average total
pumping rate of 58.5 gpm
- Extracted groundwater is treated
for Cr removal with chemical
treatment (ferrous ion, produced on
site), pH adjustment, flocculation,
precipitation, and multimedia and
cartridge filtration
- Treated groundwater is reinjected
through 9 injection wells
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA Remedial
-ROD Date: 3/18/88
EPA Point of Contact:
Ernest Franke, RPM
U.S. EPA Region 6
First Interstate Bank Tower at
Fountain Place
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 655-8521
Waste Source:
Unlined wastewater-holding ponds
and waste drum burial
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Includes on-site treatment for
chromium; relatively low
groundwater flow; contamination
in two aquifers.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
- 121 million gallons treated as of December 1997
- Groundwater is found at 30-45 ft bgs
- Extraction wells are located in 2 aquifers, which are influenced by
production wells in the area
- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 1.6 to 5.1 ft/day
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Remediate groundwater so that chromium levels are less than the maximum contaminant level (MCL) or
primary drinking water standard.
- Prior to 1990, the drinking water standard for chromium was 0.05 mg/L; in 1990, EPA revised the drinking
water standard to 0.10 mg/L.
- Treated effluent that is injected into the aquifer must have a chromium level of less than 0.10 mg/L.
- The remedial system was required to create an inward gradient toward the site to contain the plume.
148
-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the Odessa Chromium HS Superfund Site, OU 2
Odessa, Texas (continued)
Results:
- Groundwater sampling results show that chromium levels have been reduced to less than 0.10 mg/L in the
Trinity Aquifer but not in the Ogallala Aquifer. Results from January 1997 show that concentrations have
been reduced in the Ogallala Aquifer (since startup), but not to levels below 0.10 mg/L.
- The P&T system removed 131 pounds of chromium from the groundwater from 1993 to December 1996.
- Effluent chromium levels have met the required performance standard of 0.10 mg/L throughout system
operation.
- The plume has been contained in both aquifers.
Cost:
- Actual costs for the P&T system were approximately $2,487,700 ($1,927,500 in capital and $560,200 in
O&M), which correspond to $26 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $19,000 per pound of
contaminant removed.
- The ROD specified that the ferrous iron used in the treatment system be produced electrochemically, which
limited the number of vendors to two and potentially increased the cost of the treatment system.
- The costs for design, construction, and operation of the P&T system were split 90:10 by EPA and TNRCC,
respectively.
Description:
Basin Radiator & Supply operated a radiator repair facility at this site from 1960 to the early 1970s. Wastewater
containing chromium was discharged to unlined ponds, and waste radiator sludge containing chromium corrosion
inhibitors was buried on the site. In 1977, the TNRCC discovered elevated levels of chromium in the
groundwater during investigations conducted in response to citizen complaints of contaminated well water. This
site later became known as the Odessa n South (S) site. The Odessa IIS site was placed on the NPL in June
1986, and a ROD was signed for the site in March 1988.
The extraction system used at this site consisted of six extraction wells constructed in the Trinity Sand Aquifer
and four extraction wells in the Ogallala Formation. Extracted groundwater was treated with ferrous iron
(produced on site in an electrochemical cell), pH adjustment and aeration, clarification, and multi-media and
cartridge filtration. While chromium concentrations have been reduced to below the MCL in the Trinity Aquifer,
groundwater cleanup goals have not been achieved in the Ogallala Formation.
There were several startup problems that delayed full-scale operation at this site, including clogging of injection
wells and encrustation of the multimedia filter by iron and calcium. These problems were solved through system
modification and no longer interfere with operations.
149
-------
Odessa Chromium IIS Superfund Site
SITE INFORMATION
Identlfying-Information:
Odessa Chromium IIS Superfund Site
Operable Unit 2 (OU 2)
Odessa, Texas
CERCLIS#: TXD980697114
ROD Date: March 18,1988
Backaround
Treatment Application:
Type of Action: Remedial
Period of Operation: 11/93 - Ongoing
(Performance data collected through December
1996)
(Data on volume treated collected through
December 1997)
Quantity of Material Treated During
Application: 121 million gallons
Historical Activity that Generated
Contamination at the Site: Radiator repair
Corresponding SIC Code: 7538
Waste Management Practice That
Contributed to Contamination: Unlined
wastewater-holding ponds and waste drum
burial
Location: Odessa, Ector County, Texas
Facility Operations: [1, 2, 3]
• The site is located in a mixed residential,
commercial, industrial area. The Basin
Radiator & Supply formerly located in the
5300 block of Andrews Highway operated
from 1960 to the early 1970s. Wastewater
containing chromium was discharged to
unlined ponds, and waste radiator sludge
containing chromium corrosion inhibitors
was buried on the site. Also located in the
5300 block of Andrews Highway was
Wooley Tool and Manufacturing which had
a chromium plating operation.
• In 1977, the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission (TNRCC)
discovered elevated levels of chromium in
the groundwater during investigations in
response to citizen complaints of
contaminated well water.
• The TNRCC concluded that the two facilities
were the source of chromium in the
groundwater: Wooley Tool and
Manufacturing and Basin Radiator & Supply.
The former became known as the Odessa II
North site and the latter as the Odessa II
South(S) site. The Odessa IIS site is the
subject of this report.
In 1978, the TNRCC removed drums, on-
site buildings, and contaminated soils from
the site.
• In 1986, the Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) was completed.
On June 10,1986, Odessa IIS was placed
on the National Priorities List (NPL).
Regulatory Context:
For the Odessa IIS site, the EPA issued two
Records of Decision (ROD). In 1986, the
ROD for Operable Unit 1 (OU1) was signed
to provide an alternative drinking water
supply.
• On March 18,1988, the ROD for OU2 was
approved for groundwater remediation at
Odessa IIS. Source control was not
required by the ROD.
• 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.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
150
T1O3.W P6\0420-02.Stf
-------
Odessa Chromium IIS Superfund Site
SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background (Cont.l
Groundwater Remedy Selection:
Groundwater extraction followed by treatment to
remove chromium contamination and injection
of the treated water back to the aquifer was
determined by the FS to be the most
appropriate methodology for site remediation.
The results of a pilot study confirmed the basic
approach.
Site Logistics/Contacts
Site Lead: State
Oversight: EPA
Remedial Project Manager:
Ernest Franke
U.S. EPA Region 6
First Interstate Bank Tower at Fountain Place
1445 Ross Avenue
12th Floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 655-8521
Indicates primary site contact
State Contact:
Lei Medford*
Texas Natural Resources Conservation
Commission (TNRCC)
P.O. Box13087
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 239-2440
Treatment System Vendor:
Design and Management: IT Corporation (ITC)
Construction and Operation: WATEC
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix Processed Through the
Treatment System: Groundwater
Contaminant Characterization M. 31
Primary Contaminant Groups: Chromium
• The contaminant of concern is chromium.
Hexavalent chromium is the species of
concern in the groundwater because under
the aquifer conditions it is the only species
that is soluble and can affect the drinking
water. The ROD stipulates a clean-up
standard based on total chromium since the
Maximum Contaminant Limit (MCL) was set
for total chromium, instead of an individual
species.
Two hydraulically connected chromium
plumes have been identified and are
referred to as the Perched Zone plume and
the Trinity Aquifer plume.
The maximum concentration of chromium in
the groundwater in the Trinity Aquifer,
detected during a 1985 sampling event, was
2.8 mg/L. The maximum chromium
concentration in the Perched Zone
groundwater, detected in 1986, was greater
than 50 mg/L.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
151
TIO3.W P6\0420-02.stf
-------
Odessa Chromium IIS Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Contaminant Characterization M. 31 (Cont.)
The initial volume of the chromium plume in
the Perched Zone was estimated in the
1986 RI/FS at 980,000 gallons. The areal
extent of the initial plume was estimated to
be approximately 105,000 square feet.
The initial volume of the chromium plume in
the Trinity Aquifer was estimated in the
1986 RI/FS at 79,000,000 gallons. The
areal extent of the initial plume was
estimated to be approximately 585,000
square feet.
The ROD required the site to be cleaned to
meet the MCL for chromium. In 1990, EPA
changed the MCL from 0.05 mg/L to 0.10
mg/L in 1990 by EPA. The plume size
estimates were originally calculated based
on the 0.05 mg/L contour.
Figures 1 and 2 delineate the 0.1 mg/L
chromium contours in the Perched Zone
and Trinity Aquifer, respectively, as
observed during a September 1994 (nine
months after beginning treatment) sampling
event.
In the Project Status Draft Report, the
plume volumes in the Perched Zone and
Trinity Aquifer were calculated based on the
revised 0.1 mg/L clean-up goal and data
that were nine years more current than the
original Rl data. A significant change in the
aquifer water level and the chromium
concentration had occurred between 1985
and 1994 because of lower water withdrawal
rates in the area.
The Perched Zone plume was found to be
61,270 square feet in area and 690,000
gallons in volume, compared to the 1986
plume estimate of 105,000 square feet in
area and 980,000 gallons in volume. The
Trinity Aquifer plume was found to be
210,385 square feet in area and 44,000,000
gallons in volume, compared to the 1986
estimate of 585,000 square feet and
79,000,000 gallons. The plume reductions
are in part because of lowered levels of
chromium but also because of the less
stringent standard.
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Costs or Performance
Hydrogeology: [1,3]
Two distinct hydrogeologic units have been identified beneath this site. Soil and sandy caliche overlie
the water-bearing formations. The first water-bearing unit is encountered at approximately 30 to 45 feet
below ground surface.
Unit 1 Ogallala This unit is formed of fluvial plastics consisting of fan deposits of fine to
Formation coarse grained sands, silt, clay, and occasional strings of gravel. A few
(Perched miles to the south, the Ogallala has been removed by erosion. It is
Zone) present in some parts of the site with a saturated thickness of
approximately 5 to 15 feet, and is referred to as the Perched Zone. It is
hydraulically connected and discharges to the underlying Trinity Sand
Formation under natural conditions. The Ogallalla does not exist as a
continuous aquifer and thus flow direction could not be measured.
Unit 2 Trinity Sand This unit consists of sands and ferragiorous calcite cemented
Aquifer sandstones. Settled lenses of gravel, clay, and siltstone occur at
irregular intervals. This unit is the primary groundwater supply for
municipal and private residences in the area. It is underlain by the
Chinle Formation, which acts as an aquitard. Groundwater flow in this
unit has been observed to flow north to northeast; however, changes in
water levels have altered groundwater flow direction.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
152
TIO3.W P6\0420-02.stf
-------
Odessa Chromium IIS Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
MW-232 •»:
WUMHCTCN AMMUE
IWOTW MTHUt
OOMITHV tuotue
ANDREWS HIGHWAY
U.S. HWY 385
NO
PUW-201
MW—2O1A
__ r~l OtROHEO ZONE RECOVERY WELL
PRW—18 I A I WITH CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL
"-•> i__l CHROMIUM C"<«/L). CNOVCMBER i»e«)
2O7 -
MO
PU-2S
PERCHED ZONE MOMTOmNG WELL
WITH CONCENTRATION OT TOTAL
CHROMIUM <*T.Q/L). (OCTOBER !»»'
PERCHED ZONE INJECTION WCU.
n 1 _«_ LINE OF EQUAL CHROMIUM CONCENTRATION
IN PERCHED ZONE (mg/L)
MO CHROMIUM NOT DETECTED AT REPORTING LIMIT
W NOT TAKEN
SOURCE tWATEC MONTHLY REPORTS
OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 199«
^»~1«it 1 TRINrTY RECOVERY WELL
MW—2O5 «. TRINrrv MONITORING WELL
UT2' » I TRimrv MJCCTION WELL
Figure 1. Perched Aquifer Chromium Contour Map (1994, Best Copy Available) [3]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
153
TIO3.W P6\0420-02.Stf
-------
Odessa Chromium IIS Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
. MW-233
HO
' /) ****
MMlMHlHQ -^ o
/rt*-1* . fc>
/ •>•*' ^
TRINfTY RECOVERY WELL WITH
CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL
CHROUWM (mo/L). (NOVEMBER 1994)
MW-2O3.+. TRINITY MONITORING WELL. WITH
CM.? CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL
CKROUHJM (mg/L). (OCTOBER t99*>
U<-21 j> ~~| TMN«TY iNJCCTtON WELL
PKW-1O <*l PERCHED ZONE RECOVERY WELL
PUW—2O7 -I- I^RCHCO ZONE UONTTOKtNC WELL
PU-2S fa] PERCHED ZONE INJECTION WELL
CHROMIUM NOT DETECTED AT REPORTING LIMIT
Figure 2. Trinity Aquifer Chromium Contour Map (1994, Best Copy Available) [3]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
154
TIO3.W P6\0420-02.Stf
-------
Odessa Chromium IIS Stipe/fund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Costs or Performance fCont.>
The water level in the Trinity Aquifer has risen over 25 feet from 1986 to 1993. The rise in the water
table is attributed to the decrease of public and private wells in the aquifer and to increased precipitation
during this period.
Tables 1 and 2 present technical aquifer information and extraction well data, respectively.
Table 1. Technical Aquifer Information
Unit Name
Thickness
(ft)
Conductivity
(ft/day)
Unit! 5-15 1.6
Unit 2 70 1.7-5.1
1Flow observed during the 1986 remedial investigation was towards the north
feet and could have resulted in a change in groundwater flow direction.
Average Flow
Velocity (ft/day)
Flow Direction
0.0190 Not Characterized
0.0262 - 0.0782 North-Northeast1
-northeast. However, the water table rose from 1 986 to 1 993 by 25
Source: [1,3]
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology
Pump and treat (P&T) with electrochemical
precipitation of chromium using ferrous ion
System Description and Operation
Supplemental Treatment Technology
Solids removed by flocculation and filtration
Table 2. Extraction Well Data
Well Name
PRW18
PRW19
PRW20
PRW28
RW12
RW13
RW14
RW15
RW16
RW17
Unit Name
Ogallala Formation
Ogallala Formation
Ogallala Formation
Ogallala Formation
Trinity Aquifer
Trinity Aquifer
Trinity Aquifer
Trinity Aquifer
Trinity Aquifer
Trinity Aquifer
Depth (ft)
70
70
70
70
165
165
165
165
165
165
Design Yield
(gal/day)
4,070
4,070
4,070
4,070
21,600
21,600
21,600
21,600
21,600
21 ,600
Source: [1,3,4]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
155
TIO3.WP6\0420-02.stf
-------
Odessa Chromium IIS Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Deselection and Ooeration (Cont.)
System Description [3, 5, 8]
• The extraction system consists of six
recovery wells in the Trinity Aquifer and four
recovery wells in the Ogallala Formation.
ITC used Random Walk to model solute
transport (an in-house model by Reed &
Associates) and Geoflow to model
groundwater flow (an in-house model by IT).
Model results were used to determine well
placement based on projected pumping
rates.
• The metals treatment system is designed to
treat the collected groundwater at a rate of
60 to 90 gpm. An influent tank regulates
flow through the treatment system.
• Water from the extraction wells is sent to a
dual chamber reaction tank (initially single
chamber), into which ferrous ion is fed and
mixed with the contaminated well water.
Ferrous ion is produced on site in an
electrochemical cell. The ion reduces the
hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium
to facilitate subsequent hydroxide
precipitation. In the second chamber of the
reaction tank, pH is adjusted in the range of
8.5 to 8.8 to achieve minimum solubility for
chromium hydroxide. Also, in the second
chamber, excess ferrous ion is oxidized by
aeration to insoluble ferric ion and
converted to ferric hydroxide. The ferric
and chromium hydroxide precipitate is
mixed with a polyelectrolyte in the second
chamber to aid settling.
• The treated water is clarified through a
flocculation and precipitation tank. From
here, the treated water is polished through a
multimedia and cartridge filter for
reinjection. The multimedia filters are
backwashed with treated water based on
pressure drop and the cartridge filters are
replaced when a specified pressure
differential is exceeded. The sludge from
the clarifier and the cartridge filters are
disposed off site as nonhazardous waste.
• Chromium concentrations in the influent to
and the effluent from the system are
monitored continuously. If the level of
chromium exceeds 0.05 mg/L in the
EPA
effluent, the effluent is recycled through the
treatment system. Treated water with
chromium concentrations less than 0.05
mg/L is injected through a network of six
injection wells in the Trinity Aquifer and
three injection wells in the Ogallala
Formation.
• The recovery wells are monitored on a
monthly basis for water quality parameters.
A network of wells is used to monitor plume
containment on a semiannual basis: 10
monitoring wells and the recovery wells in
the Trinity Aquifer, and two monitoring wells
and the recovery wells in the Ogallala
Formation.
System Operation [3, 4, 5, 8]
• Quantity of groundwater pumped from
aquifer by year:
Year Volume Pumped (gal)
11/93-12/93 4,269,133
1994 29,660,519
1995 29,118,867
1996 31,257,749
1997 26,320,000
Initial startup began in July 1992; however,
the multimedia polishing filter and injection
wells began to clog with iron and calcium in
the first 30 days and treated water could not
be reinjected. The extraction and treatment
systems were shut down and the following
alterations were made:
— The reaction tank was altered from a
single-chamber to a two-chamber tank,
separated by a baffle. The second
chamber allowed for precipitation of the
excess iron, the main clogging problem.
A tank was added to receive backwash
from the multimedia filters. The
backwash tank acted as an equalization
tank to prevent shock change to the
system influent tank when the filters
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
156
TIO3.W P6\0420-02.Stf
-------
Odessa Chromium IIS Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Svstem Descriotion and Ooeration (Cent.)
were backwashed. The pH of the
treated water was set to between 7.0
and 7.5 pH beyond the clarif ier to
prevent precipitation of calcium
carbonate.
-- Two additional injection wells were
constructed to allow for higher
reinjection rates.
— Backwash water is stored in the
modified backwash unit and is slowly
added to the influent tank. The slow
addition avoids upsetting the pH
balance in the influent.
— Modifications were completed in August
1993, and the extraction and treatment
systems became operational in
November 1993.
In September 1996, a low-flow test was
performed in case future extraction would
be from the Ogallala Formation only,
because the Ogallala Formation was being
remediated more slowly than the Trinity
Aquifer. The treatment system was tested
for ability to operate at 20 gpm, and was
successful at low flow rates.
In March 1997, an additional recovery well
was installed in the Ogallala Formation to
expedite cleanup of the suspected source
area. The additional well expanded the
extraction network to a total of four recovery
wells in the Ogallala Formation.
Ooeratina Parameters Affectina Treatment Cost or Performance
Since November 1993, the site has been
operational 95% of the time. Downtime is
primarily due to shutdowns for local brown-
outs and routine system maintenance.
On December 12,1997 the Odessa IIS
plant was shut down for major modification.
All of the Trinity Aquifer wells had met the
clean-up criterion set by the ROD as did all
but two of the Ogallala Formation wells.
Since the remaining two perched zone wells
produced less than two gpm total flow, it
became inefficient to operate a 60 gpm
plant for such a small flow. Modifications
were made to collect the water from the two
remaining Ogallala Formation wells in the
influent and effluent tanks at the plant.
These tanks are periodically discharged to a
tank truck for transport to an off-site
treatment plant.
The equipment that was not needed in the
modified plant was either disposed off site
or disconnected and stored on site for future
use. All of the Trinity Aquifer recovery wells
with the exception of RW14 were plugged,
as were Ogallala Formation wells PRW18
and PRW19. RW14 supplies injection water
to two Ogallala Formation injection wells to
aid in pushing contaminated water toward
the Ogallala Formation recovery wells.
The operating parameter affecting cost or performance for this technology is the extraction rate. Table 3
presents the average pump rate and other performance parameters.
Table 3. Performance Parameters
-**'•< feararheter - '" .<
Average Pump Rate
Performance Standard (effluent)
Remedial Goal (aquifer)
- Value
84,200 gpd*
0.05 mg/L total chromium
0.10 mg/L total chromium
The average system extraction rate from November 1993 until December 1996 was approximately
84,200 gpd, based on a total volume of 94 million gallons extracted and a 95% operation rate.
Source: [3,4]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
157
TIO3.W P6\0420-02.Stf
-------
Odessa Chromium IIS Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Timeline-
Table 4 presents a timeline for this application.
Table 4. Timeline
Start Date
January 1992
July 1992
August 1992
May 1993
November 1993
September 1996
March 1997
December 1997
End Date
July 1992
August 1992
May 1993
August 1993
...
—
—
—
Activity
Remediation system constructed
Trial run conducted and injection wells clogged with iron and calcium
Redesign and pilot studies performed
Alterations made to remedial system
Continuous operation of remediation system begun. Monthly
monitoring of groundwater began
Treatment system tested for effectiveness during low flow
Recovery Well PRW-28 constructed in Perched Zone
Plant shut down and modified for collection of Perched Zone water onlv.
Source: [1-4]
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards Ml
The cleanup goals as established by the EPA
and TNRCC are to lower the chromium levels in
the groundwater to less than the maximum
contaminant level (MCL), or Primary Drinking
Water Standard, of 0.10 mg/L This goal is
applied throughout the aquifer, as measured in
all on-site monitoring wells.
Treatment Performance Goals F31
Additional Information on Goals
The original drinking water standard for
chromium set by EPA was 0.05 mg/L In 1990,
EPA revised the standard to the primary
drinking water standard of 0.10 mg/L.
Effluent injected into the aquifer from the
treatment system must have levels of
chromium below 0.10 mg/L.
Performance Data Assessment T3.4. 61
As a secondary goal, the remedial system is
designed to create an inward hydraulic
gradient toward the site to contain the
plumes.
Based on monthly sampling events, cleanup
goals have been achieved in the Trinity
Aquifer but not in the Ogallala Formation
[1,5]. Groundwater monitoring results from
the January 1997 sampling event indicate
that chromium concentrations in the
Ogallala Formation have been reduced, but
not to levels below treatment goals.
However, in the Trinity Aquifer, chromium
levels detected in the 1997 sampling event
were all found to be below the MCL [6].
Based on sampling results, the site
operators have concluded that the plume
has been contained in both aquifers [4,6].
Figure 3 illustrates the decline in average
chromium concentrations in the
groundwater over time for the Trinity
Aquifer. The average chromium levels in
the groundwater have decreased in this unit.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
158
TIO3.W P6\0420-02.stf
-------
Odessa Chromium IIS Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Assessment (Cont.)
Figure 3 also shows a spiking of the
average chromium concentrations in the
Ogallala Formation in 1995. ITC has
attributed this spike to desorption of
chromium from the previously unsaturated
zone that was affected by increased
precipitation from 1986 to 1996[5]. Since
then, concentrations have again dropped.
The average concentration of chromium
detected in the groundwater in the Ogallala
Formation in January 1997 was 0.18 mg/L,
while the maximum concentration found
during the same sampling event was 0.88
mg/L, a level exceeding the MCL [4].
Effluent chromium levels have met the
required performance standard of 0.10
mg/L; thus, reinjection of effluent has been
possible throughout system operation [4].
From 1993 to December 1996, the P&T
system removed a total of 131 pounds of
chromium from the groundwater, as shown
in Figure 4. Figure 4 illustrates the decline
in contaminant removal rate for the P&T
system during the first three years of full-
scale system operation (1993-1996). The
chromium removal rate decreased from
0.18 pounds per day in December 1993 to
0.05 pounds per day in 1996 [4].
1.20
c
to
0)
_
0)
i
a
Mar-92
Mar-93
Mar-94
Mar-95
Mar-96
Mar-97
-Trinity Aquifer
- Perched Aquifer
Figure 3. Average Chromium Concentrations from March 1992 - January 1997[3,4]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
159
TIO3.WP6\0420-02.stf
-------
Odessa Chromium IIS Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
140
e!
S
0.04
0.02
0.00
Dec-93
Dec-94
Dec-95
Dec-96
• Mass Flux
-Mass Removed
Figure 4. Mass Flux Hate and Cumulative Chromium Removal (1993 - 1996) [3,4]
Performance Data Completeness
Data on mass flux and mass removed are
reported on a monthly basis, and are
available from the TNRCC. Annual
monitoring data were used for Figure 3.
Annual data on chromium mass removed
were provided by the TNRCC and were
used for Figure 4 analyses.
Performance DataCJualitv
A geometric mean was used for average
chromium concentrations detected in the
groundwater in Figure 4 to show the overall
trend of chromium levels in the groundwater
on an annual basis.
When concentrations below detection limits
were encountered, half of the detection limit
was used for evaluation purposes.
The QA/QC program used throughout the remedial action met the EPA and the TNRCC requirements.
All monitoring was performed using EPA Method 218.1 and EPA-approved methods for pH, total
suspended solids, and other water quality parameters. The vendor did not note any exceptions to the
QA/QC protocols [4].
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
160
TIO3.W P6\0420-02.stf
-------
Odessa Chromium IIS Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process
The TNRCC is the lead authority on this site. WATEC was awarded the construction and operations
contract for the site. ITC was awarded the oversight contract for the site.
Cost Analvsis
The costs for design, construction, and operation of the treatment system at this site were split 90:10
by the EPA and the TNRCC, respectively.
Capital Costs F61
Remedial Construction
Mobilization Work $334,723
Monitoring Wells - $43,500
Sampling/Testing Analysis
Groundwater Collection & Control $330,944
Installation of Treatment Plant $884,962
Site Restoration $13,542
Site Security $3,298
Construction Management $316,533
Total Remedial Construction $1,927,502
Operating Costs F61
Operation and Maintenance 1993- $524,766
1996
Monitoring: Sampling and Analysis $35,466
1993-1996
Total 1993-1996 Operating Costs $560,232
1993 Operating Costs (11/93-12/93) $ 13,060
1994 Operating Costs (1/94-12/94) $146,260
1995 Operating Costs (1 /95-12/95) $232,416
1996 Operating Costs (1/96-12/96) $168,506
Other Costs F61
Engineering Design
Oversight
EPA Oversight
$417,452
$48,154
$113,978
Cost Data Qualitv
The costs listed above include the system
modifications performed in 1993 and in
1995. There were no other changes to the
cost of the remedial system for this site
greater than 10% of the total cost [6].
Actual capital and operations and
maintenance cost data are available from
the TNRCC for this application.
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Actual costs for the P&T application at
Odessa IIS were approximately $2,487,700
($1,927,500 in capital costs and $560,200 in
operations and maintenance costs), which
corresponds to $26 per 1,000 gallons of
groundwater treated and $19,000 per pound
of chromium removed.
The ROD specified that the ferrous ion used
to reduce the chromium would be
electrochemically produced. This
requirement limited the on-site system to
two vendors and potentially increased the
cost of the treatment unit.
Average concentrations of chromium in the
Ogallala Formation spiked between 1993
and 1 995. The increase may be a result of
aquifer recharge through chromium-
containing soil. ITC has determined the
chromium in the Ogallala Formation is the
source for chromium in the Trinity Aquifer.
Because the Ogallala Formation is
hydraulically connected to the Trinity
Aquifer, water within the Ogallala Formation
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
161
TIO3.W P6\0420-02.stf
-------
Odessa Chromium IIS Superfund Site
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED (CONT.)
is expected to continue to move downward
over time, adding additional contaminated
water to the Trinity Aquifer [3]. Continued
extraction from the Ogallala Formation will
help prevent downward migration of the
plume to the Trinity Aquifer.
Chromium levels in the Trinity Aquifer have
been reduced to below the MCL. Extraction
and monitoring of groundwater in the Trinity
Aquifer will continue to ensure that
concentrations remain stable. If levels of
chromium remain below the MCL, extraction
from this unit will be discontinued and
increased pumping from the Ogallala
Formation will begin [6].
There were several startup problems,
including clogging of injection wells and
encrustation of the multimedia polishing
filter by iron and calcium carbonate that
delayed full-scale operations. These
problems were accommodated through
system modification, and no longer interfere
with operations. ITC has suggested that
one potential approach to identifying
problems earlier would be to increase the
length of pilot operations. At this site, pilot
tests were conducted in hourly increments,
and the results were used to simulate full-
cycle operations. Had the pilot operations
been conducted for a full 24-hour cycle, it is
likely that the iron fouling problems that led
to clogging could have been identified [2].
Full-scale operations were delayed by iron
and calcium encrustation in injection wells
and the filter. Future effluent standards set
for iron could prevent such delays.
ITC found monthly monitoring of chromium
levels in influent wells helpful. However,
this was not the case for continuous
monitoring. The continuous chromium
monitors installed at this site could not
detect levels above 1.0 mg/L [2].
During system operation, ITC determined
that backwash from the filter system should
be equalized and added slowly to the
influent tank to avoid large changes in the
influent chemistry. During early system
operations, backwash water was introduced
directly into the influent tank. The
differences between the pH levels in the
backwash and the influent reduced the
effectiveness of the reaction tank. The
backwash storage unit allowed gradual
addition of backwash to the influent.
Addition of an equalization tank alleviated
the earlier problems in the reaction tank [2].
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
162
TIO3.W P6\0420-02.Stf
-------
Odessa Chromium IIS Superfund Site
REFERENCES
1. Record of Decision. USEPA, Odessa
Chromium IIS, March 18, 1988.
2. Lessons Learned. IT Corporation, January
1997.
3. Project Status Draft Report. ITC, January
1995.
4. Odessa Chromium IIS Monthly Reports.
ITC, December 1993/January 1994,
January 1995, January 1996, January 1997.
5. Odessa Chromium I & IIS Superfund Sites
Treatment System. Waste Abatement
Technology, Inc. No date listed.
Analysis Preparation
6. Correspondence with Mr. Lei Medford,
TNRCC. February 12, March 5, March 11,
March 14, June 4, July 29, and December 5,
1997.
7. Groundwater Regions of the United States.
Heath, Ralph. U.S. Geological Survey
Supply Paper 2242. 1984.
8. TNRCC comment on draft report, dated
May8,1998.
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
163
TIO3.W P6\0420-02.stf
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
164
-------
Groundwater Containment at
Site FT-01, Pope AFB, North Carolina
165
-------
Groundwater Containment at
Site FT-01, Pope AFB, North Carolina
Site Name:
Site FT-01, Pope AFB
Location:
North Carolina
Contaminants:
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
(TPH), free product (JP-4 fuel):
- TPH concentrations in soil
reported as high as 44,000 ppm
- 24,000 gallons of free product in
groundwater
Period of Operation:
11/93 - ongoing (as of 4/98);
projected completion in 2001
Data reported through November
1996
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor/Consultant:
Parsons Engineering Science
Additional Contacts:
U.S. Air Force Air Combat
Command
Technology:
Free product recovery system
consisting of four recovery wells
and one trench. JP-4 is recovered
using a pneumatic skimmer pump
and stored in a product recovery
tank.
Cleanup Authority:
Installation Restoration Program
Regulatory Point of Contact:
Information not provided
Waste Source: Fuel Spill
Purpose/Significance of
Application: Recovery of free
product from groundwater
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater and free product - the areal extent of the plume was
estimated at 1.5 acres. Groundwater is encountered between 2 and 5 feet
below ground surface. The total amount of free product removed as of
November 1996 was 5,163 gallons of JP-4.
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The operational objective of the free product recovery was to remove liquid-phase contamination as quickly and
cost-effectively as possible to prevent continued contamination of surrounding soil and groundwater.
Results:
Data on system performance were available for the first three years of operation (through November 1996). The
total amount of JP-4 product recovered during this time was 5,163 gallons. Monthly removal rates ranged from
1 to 650 gallons.
Cost:
The capital cost for the system was $289,000. The total cumulative O&M costs from November 1993 through
November 1996 was $66,600. According to the report, accurate month-to-month O&M data were not available;
however, the average monthly O&M costs were reported as $1,800. After three years of operation, the average
O&M costs per unit of contaminant removed was $12.90/gallon of JP-4.
166
-------
Groundwater Containment at
Site FT-01, Pope AFB, North Carolina (continued)
Description:
Site FT-01 is located at the Pope AFB in North Carolina. Soil and groundwater at the site were contaminated
with JP-4 fuel. TPH concentrations as high as 44,000 ppm were detected in soil at the site. The areal extent of
groundwater contamination was estimated to be 1.5 acres with an estimated 24,000 gallons of free product
floating on the groundwater. In September 1993, 3,175 tons of contaminated soil were removed from the site.
In November 1993, a free product recovery system were installed at the site to recover JP-4 fuel.
The free product recovery system included four recovery wells and one trench. A pneumatic skimmer pump was
used to recover the JP-4, which was then stored in a product recovery tank. The system was operational at the
time of this report (April 1998) and is expected to operate through 2001. Data on cost and performance are
available for the first three years of operation (through November 1996). During this time, 5,163 gallons of JP-
4 fuel was recovered, with the monthly removal rates ranging from 1 to 650 gallons. The report includes a
graph of JP-4 recovered versus time. As of November 1996, the curve had not flattened, indicating that the
operational objectives of the system were still being met.
The total capital cost for this system was $289,000. The total O&M costs through November 1996 were
$66,600. Although accurate monthly O&M costs were not available, the average monthly O&M cost was
$1,800. The average O&M cost per unit of JP-4 fuel recovered was $12.90 per gallon.
167
-------
Groundwater Containment at
Site FT-01, Pope AFB
Site Background
This section focuses on the groundwater
containment system located at FT-01,
Pope AFB. A site map for FT-01 is included as
Figure 37.
Contaminants in Soil
• TPH concentrations detected up to
44,000 ppm.
• In September 1993, 3,175 tons of
contaminated soil were removed from the
site.
Contaminants in Groundwater
• The areal extent of JP-4 fuel contamination
was estimated at 1.5 acres.
• As much as 24,000 gallons of free product
are floating on top of the groundwater.
Lithology
• Fine- to medium-grained sands to 25 feet
bgs; hard silty clay from a depth of 26 feet
bgs to 70 feet bgs.
• Groundwater is encountered between 2 and
5 feet bgs.
Groundwater Containment System Details
• Free floating product recovery system.
• The system consists of four recovery wells
(RW-1, RW-2, RW-3, and MW-2) and one
trench.
• JP-4 is recovered by a pneumatic skimmer
pump and stored in a product recovery tank.
Operation Period
• The system began operation in November
1993 and may operate until 2001.
Total Capital Costs
• $289,000 for initial capital investment.
Total O&M Costs
• Total cumulative O&M costs from November
1993 through November 1996 were $66,600.
Cost and Performance of Groundwater Containment at Site FT-01
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 38 illustrates curves of the O&M costs for
the groundwater containment system at
Site FT-01. Accurate month to month data were
not available. The monthly O&M costs average
$1,800. Total O&M costs after three years of
operation were $66,600.
Contaminant Removal
Figure 39 illustrates curves of the removal rates
of JP-4 product at the groundwater containment
system at Site FT-01. Monthly removal rates of
JP-4 product ranged from 1 to 650 gallons. Total
contaminant removal after three years of
operation was 5,163 gallons of JP-4 product. In
November 1996, the curve representing the
cumulative removal rate had not flattened,
indicating that the removal rate was still
adequate for this system's performance and it
was meeting its operational objectives.
168
-------
Aircraft
Mockup
Burning
Area
fe "'!fp|;, Jj'^"^;p3'f*^
0«*?*^A^^^W, .*•&'/' M'?"^«®'#Vs'?^; <9!"^- 5
Direction of
Groundwater Flow
Source: Metcalf& Eddy, 1990
169
-------
$70.000
$50,000
$50,000
e? $40,000 •
I
Q
0 $30,000
Figure 38
Monthly and Cumulative O&M Costs vs. Time
JP-4 Free Product
SiteFT-01, PopeAFB
-O&M costs per month ($/month)
-Cumulative O&M costs ($)
Nov- Dec- Mar- Apr- Jun- Aug- Oct- Dec- Feb- Apr- Jun- Aug- Oct- Dec- Feb- Apr- Jun- Aug- Oct-
93 93 94 94 94 94 94 94 95 95 95 95 95 95 96 96 96 96 96
Months
RawftOI .ids; O&M costs
6,000-1
5,000-
Figure 39
Monthly & Cumulative JP-4 Product Recovery vs. Time
SiteFT-01, PopeAFB
-Volume of contaminants removed per month (Gallons/month)
-Cumulative Volume of contaminants removed (Gallons)
Mar-94
Sep-94
Apr-95 Oct-95
Months
May-96
Dec-96
Jun-97
Rawft01.xls; Volume
170
-------
Correlation of Costs and Contaminant
Removal
Figures 40 and 41 illustrate the relationship
between the O&M costs and the removal rates
for the groundwater containment system at
SiteFT-01.
Figure 40 illustrates the cumulative O&M cost
over the cumulative contaminant removal. As of
November 1996, this curve had not steepened.
In November 1996, this groundwater
containment system was operating efficiently for
this system's performance and was meeting its
operational objectives.
Figure 41 illustrates curves of the monthly and
cumulative cost per unit of contaminant removal
over the operation time of the technology. The
monthly curve illustrates the cost per gallon of
JP-4 product removal in each month. The
cumulative curve illustrates that the average
cost per unit of contaminant removal was
$12.90/gallon of JP-4 product after three years
of operation time.
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000 -
0 $40,000 -
1
•| $30,000 -
o
$20,000
$10,000 -
$0
Figure 40
Cumulative O&M Costs vs. Cumulative JP-4 Recovered
SiteFT-01, PopeAFB
-Cumulative O&M costs ($)
1,000
2,000 3,000 4,000
Cumulative JP-4 Product Recovered (Gallons)
5,000
6,000
RawftOI .xls; $ vs. vol
171
-------
$10.000 j
$1,000:
I
I
o
$100
$10:
$1
Figure 41
Monthly and Cumulative Costs per Gallon of JP-4 Recovery vs. Time
Site FT-01, Pope AFB
-Monthly O&M costs per volume of contaminant recovered ($/gallon)
-Cumulative O&M costs per cumulative volume of contaminant recovered ($/gallon)
Nov-93 Feb-94 May-94 Aug-94 Nov-94 Feb-95 May-95 Aug-95 Nov-95 Feb-96 May-96 Aug-96 Nov-96
Months
Rawft01.xls; monthly$pergalovert
172
-------
APPENDIX A
Detailed Cost and Performance Data Table
173
-------
JP-4 Free-Product Recovery Pumping
Fire Protection Training Area No. 4 (FT-01)
PopeAFB
Date of
contamination
Nov-93
Dec-93
Jan-94
Feb-94
Mar-94
Apr-94
Mav-94
Jun-94
Jul-94
Aug-94
Seo-94
Od-94
Nov-94
Dec-94
Jan-95
Feb-95
Mar-95
Mav-95
Jun-95
Jul-95
Oct-95
Nov-95
Jan-96
Mav-96
Jun-96
Jul-96
Aug-96
Oct-96
Nov-96
Volume of
contaminants
removed per month
151
240
202
433
417
145
136
134
389
150
140
175
95
24
36
63
131
46
36
105
60
650
23
58
121
29
41
15
69
40
66
18
1
79
Cumulative Volume
of contaminants
151
391
443
645
1.078
1.299
1.716
1.861
1.997
2.131
2.520
2.670
2.810
2.985
3.080
3.104
3.140
3,203
3.334
3,380
3.416
3.521
3.581
-.231
'.312
'.433
4j462
' .503
'J518
' .587
4.627
4.693
4.711
4.712
5.084
I 5.163
O&M costs per month
(S/month)
$1,800.00
51,800.00
$1,800.00
$1.800.00
$1.800.00
$1,800.00
$1.800.00
$1,800.00
$1.800.00
$1,800.00
$1,800.00
$1.800.00
$1.800.00
$1.800.00
$1,800.00
$1.800.00
$1.800.00
$1.800.00
$1.800.00
$1,800.00
$1.800.00
$1.800.00
$1.800.00
$1.800.00
$1,800.00
$1.800.00
$1.800.00
$1.800.00
$1.800.00
$1.800.00
$1.800.00
$1,800.00
$1.800.00
$1,800.00
$1.800.00
$1.800.00
$1.800.00
Cumulative O&M
costs (S)
$1.800.00
$3.600.00
$5.400.00
$7.200.00
$9.000.00
$10.800.00
$12.600.00
$14.400.00
$16.200.00
$18.000.00
$19.800.00
$21.600.00
$23.400.00
$25.200.00
$27.000.00
$28.800.00
$30.600.00
$32.400.00
$34.200.00
$36.000.00
$37.800.00
$39.600.00
$41 ,400.00
$43,200.00
$45,000.00
$46,800.00
$48.600.00
$50.400.00
$52.200.00
$54.000.00
$55.800.00
$57.600.00
$59.400.00
$61 .200.00
$63.000.00
$64.800.00
$66.600.00
Monthly O&M costs
per volume of
contaminant
recovered (S/gallon)
$11.92
$7.50
$34.62
$8.91
$4.16
$8.14
$4.32
$12.41
$13.24
$13.43
$4.63
$12.00
$12.86
$10.29
$18.95
$75.00
$50.00
$28.57
$13.74
$39.13
$50.00
$17.14
$30.00
$2.77
$78.26
$31.03
$14.88
$62.07
$43.90
$120.00
$26.09
$45.00
$27.27
$100.00
$1.800.00
$4.84
$22.78
Cumulative O&M
costs per
cumulative volume
of contaminant
recovered (S/ga!lon)
$11,92
$9.21
$12.19
$11.16
$8.35
$8.31
$7.34
$7.74
$8.11
$8.45
$7.86
$8.09
$8.33
$8.44
$8.77
$9.28
$9.75
$10.' 2
$10.26
$10.65
$11.07
$11.25
$11.56
$10.21
$10.58
$10.85
$10.96
$11.30
$11.59
$11.95
$12.16
$12.45
$12.66
$12.99
$13.37
$12.75
$12.90
174
-------
Groimdwater Containment at
Site SS-07, Pope AFB, North Carolina
175
-------
Groundwater Containment at
Site SS-07, Pope AFB, North Carolina
Site Name:
Site SS-07, Blue Ramp Spill Site,
Pope AFB
Location:
North Carolina
Contaminants:
Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs), free product (JP-4 fuel)
- VOCs in soil detected as high as
l,000ppm
- 75,000 gallons of JP-4 fuel
estimated to be floating on
groundwater
Period of Operation:
11/93 - ongoing (as of 4/98)
Data reported through November
1996
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor/Consultant:
Parsons Engineering Science
Additional Contacts:
U.S. Air Force Air Combat
Command
Technology:
Free product recovery system
consisting of a dual pump recovery
system with one free product cut-
off trench. JP-4 was recovered
using pneumatic skimmer pumps
and stored in a product recovery
tank. The system operates at an
average flow rate of 1 gallon per
minute (gpm).
Cleanup Authority:
Installation Restoration Program
Regulatory Point of Contact:
Information not provided
Waste Source: Fuel Spill
Purpose/Significance of
Application: Recovery of free
product using active pumping
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater - Groundwater is encountered between 22.5 and 27 feet
below ground surface.
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The operational objective of the free product recovery was to remove liquid-phase contamination as quickly and
cost-effectively as possible to prevent continued contamination of surrounding soil and groundwater.
Results:
Data on system performance were available for the first three years of operation (through November 1996). The
total amount of JP-4 product recovered during this time was 3,516 gallons. Monthly removal rates ranged from
one to 340 gallons.
Cost:
The capital cost for the system was $394,000. The total cumulative O&M costs from November 1993 through
November 1996 was $96,200. According to the report, accurate month-to-month O&M data were not available;
however, the average monthly O&M costs were reported as $2,600. After three years of operation, the average
O&M costs per unit of contaminant removed was $27.36/gallon of JP-4.
176
-------
Groundwater Containment at
Site SS-07, Pope AFB, North Carolina (continued)
Description:
Site SS-07, the Blue Ramp Spill Site, is located at the Pope AFB in North Carolina. Soil and groundwater at
the site were contaminated with JP-4 fuel and VOCs. VOC concentrations as high as 1,000 ppm were detected
in the vadose zone at the site, and the areal extent of the soil vapor plume was .estimated to be 25 acres.
Dissolved VOCs were detected in the groundwater and an estimated 75,000 gallons of free product was floating
on the groundwater. In November 1993, a free product recovery system were installed at the site to recover JP-4
fuel.
The groundwater free product recovery system was a dual pump recovery system with one free product cut-off
trench. JP-4 is recovered with pneumatic pumps and stored in a product recovery tank. The trench was
extended in 1993 and again in 1995. The system was operational at the time of this report (April 1998) and is
expected to operate for 40 years. Data on cost and performance are available for the first three years of
operation (through November 1996). During this time, 3,516 gallons of JP-4 fuel was recovered, with the
monthly removal rates ranging from 1 to 340 gallons. The report includes a graph of JP-4 recovered versus
time. After April 1995, the curve began to flatten, indicating that the removal rate for the system is slowing.
According to the report, it is recommended that the system be evaluated to determine how to increase product
removal.
The total capital cost for this system was $394,000. The total O&M costs through November 1996 were
$96,200. Although accurate monthly O&M costs were not available, the average monthly O&M cost was
$2.600. The average O&M cost per unit of JP-4 fuel recovered was $27.36 per gallon.
177
-------
Groundwater Containment at
Site SS-07, Pope AFB
Site Background
This section focuses on the groundwater
containment system located at the Blue Ramp
Spill Site, SS-07, Pope AFB. A site map for
SS-07 is included as Figure 42.
Contaminants in Soil
• Soil vapor investigations indicate
concentrations of greater than 1,000 ppm of
VOCs exist in the vadose zone.
• The soil vapor plume is estimated at
25 acres in areal extent.
Contaminants in Groundwater
• As much as 75,000 gallons of JP-4 free
product are floating on top of the
groundwater.
• Dissolved VOCs have also been detected
within the groundwater.
Lithology
• Subsurface soils are silty to clayey fine-
grained sands.
• Clay lenses ranging from 1 to 5 feet in
thickness.
• Groundwater is encountered between 22.5
and 27 feet bgs.
Groundwater Containment System Details
• Dual pump recovery system with one free
product cut-off trench (Radian Corporation,
1996).
• In 1993 and 1995, the free product cut-off
trench was extended.
• The system operates at an average
groundwater flow rate of 1 gpm.
• JP-4 is recovered by pneumatic skimmer
pumps and is stored in a product recovery
tank.
Operation Period
• The system began operation in November
1993 and may operate approximately
40 years.
Total Capital Costs
« $394,000 for initial capital investment.
Total O&M Costs
• Total cumulative O&M costs from
November 1993 through November 1996
were $96,200.
Cost and Performance of Groundwater Containment at Site SS-07
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 43 illustrates curves of the O&M costs for
the groundwater containment system at
Site SS-07. Accurate month to month data were
not available. The monthly O&M costs average
$2,600. Total O&M costs after three years of
operation were $96,200.
178
-------
Building
742
Grass
Portion of Cut-off
Trench Installed
in 1995
Parking Lot
Portion of Cut-off Trench Installed
in 1991 (Assumed Location)
N
i 1 550-Gallon Aboveground Tank
Portion of Cut-off Trench Installed
in 1993 (Assumed Location)
Equipment/Pump Building
Source: OHM (June 1995)
Not to Scale
Figure 42. Free Product Recovery System at Site SS-07, Pope AFB
179
-------
Figure 43
Monthly and Cumulative O&M Costs vs. Time
JP-4 Free Product Recovery
SiteSS-07, PopeAFB
$120.000 ,
5100,000 .
$80,000 .
$60,000 -
$40,000.
$20,000 .
-O&M costs per month ($/month)
-Cumulative O&M costs ($)
SO?
Nov- Dec- Mar- Apr- Jun- Aug- Oct- Dec- Feb- Apr- Jun- Aug- Oct- Dec- Feb- Apr- Jun- Aug- Oct-
93 93 94 94 94 94 94 94 95 95 95 95 95 95 96 96 96 96 96
Months
Raws07.xls; O&M costs
Contaminant Removal
Figure 44 illustrates curves of the removal rates
of JP-4 product at the groundwater containment
system at Site SS-07. Monthly removal rates of
JP-4 product ranged from 1 to 340 gallons. Total
contaminant removal after three years of
operation was 3,516 gallons of JP-4 product.
After April 1995 the curve representing the
cumulative removal rate had begun to flatten,
indicating that the removal rate for this system is
slowing. It is recommended that the system be
evaluated for increasing product removal.
Correlation of Costs and Contaminant
Removal
Figures 45 and 46 illustrate the relationship
between the O&M costs and the removal rates
for the groundwater containment system at
Site SS-07.
Figure 45 illustrates the cumulative O&M cost
relative to the cumulative contaminant removal.
In November 1996, this curve was no longer
vertical. In November 1996, this groundwater
containment system was operating adequately
for this system's performance and meeting its
operational objectives of cost-effectively
removing contaminants.
Figure 46 illustrates curves of the monthly as
well as the cumulative cost per unit of
contaminant removal over the operation time of
the technology. The first curve illustrates the cost
per gallon of JP-4 product removal in each
month. The cumulative curve illustrates that the
average cost per unit of contaminant removal
was $27.36/gallon of JP-4 product after three
years of operation time.
180
-------
4,000 ,
3,500 -
3,000 -
Figure 44
Monthly & Cumulative JP-4 Product Recovery vs. Time
SiteSS-07, PopeAFB
-Volume of contaminants removed per month (Gallons/month)
- Cumulative Volume of contaminants removed (Gallons)
Nov- Dec- Mar- Apr- Jun- Aug- Oct- Dec- Feb- Apr- Jun- Aug- Oct- Dec- Feb- Apr- Jun- Aug- Oct-
93 93 94 94 94 94 94 94 95 95 95 95 95 95 96 96 96 96 96
Months
Rawss07.xls; Volume
$120,000 -,
$100,000 -
!
u
$80,000
$60,000 -
$40,000 -
$20,000 -
Figure 45
Cumulative O&M Costs vs. JP-4 Product Volume Recovered
SiteSS-07, PopeAFB
-Cumulative O&M costs ($)
500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
Cumulative JP-4 Recovered (Gallons)
3,000
3,500
4,000
Rawss07.xls; O&M vs. vol
181
-------
$10,000 ,
$1,000 .
I
•g 5100
$10-
$1
Figure 46
Monthly and Cumulative Costs per Gallon of JP-4 Recovered vs. Time
SiteSS-07, PopeAFB
- Monthly O&M costs/monthly Volume ($/Gal)
-Cumulative O&M costs/Cumulative Volume (S/Gal)
Nov- Jan- Mar- May- Jul- Sep- Nov- Jan- Mar- May- Jul- Sep- Nov- Jan- Mar- May- Jul- Sep- Nov-
93 94 94 94 94 94 94 95 95 95 95 95 95 96 96 96 96 96 96
Months
Rawss07.xls; monSpergalovert
182
-------
APPENDIX A
Detailed Cost and Performance Data Tables
183
-------
JP-4 Free Product Recovary Pumping
Blua Ramp Spill Site (SS-07)
Pope AFB
Date of
contamination
removal
Nov-93
Dec-93
Jan-94
Feb-94
Mar-94
Apr-94
May-94
Jun-94
Jul-94
Aug-94
Sep-94
Oct-94
Nov-94
Dec-94
Jan-95
Feb-95
Mar-95
Apr-95
May-95
Jun-95
Jul-95
Aug-95
Sep-95
Oct-95
Nov-95
Dec-95
Jan-96
Feb-96
Mar-96
Apr-96
May-96
Jun-96
Jul-96
Aug-96
Sep-96
Oct-96
Nov-96
Volume of
contaminants
removed per month
(Gallons/month)
160
340
128
334
192
126
234
78
79
46
226
175
150
220
130
160
135
50
65
35
20
17
7
7
1
2
16
7
3
6
200
6
0
79
12
29
41
Cumulative Volume
of contaminants
removed (Gallons)
160
500
628
962
1,154
1,280
1,514
1,592
1,671
1,717
1,943
2,118
2,268
2,488
2,618
2,778
2,913
2,963
3,028
3,063
3,083
3,100
3,107
3,114
3,115
3,117
3,133
3,140
3,143
3,149
3,349
3,355
3,355
3,434
3,446
3,475
3,516
O&M costs per
month ($/month)
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
Cumulative O&M
costs ($)
$2,600
$5,200
$7,800
$10,400
$13,000
$15,600
$18,200
$20,800
$23,400
$26,000
$28,600
$31,200
$33,800
$36,400
$39,000
$41,600
$44,200
$46,800
$49,400
$52,000
$54,600
$57,200
$59,800
$62,400
$65,000
$67,600
$70,200
$72,800
$75,400
$78,000
$80,600
$83,200
$85,800
$88,400
$91,000
$93,600
$96,200
Monthly O&M
costs/monthly
Volume ($/Gal)
$16.25
$7.65
$20.31
$7.78
$13.54
$20.63
$11.11
$33.33
$32.91
$56.52
$11.50
$14.86
$17.33
$11.82
$20.00
$16.25
$19.26
$52.00
$40.00
$74.29
$130.00
$152.94
$371.43
$371.43
$2,600.00
$1,300.00
$162.50
$371.43
$866.67
$433.33
$13.00
$433.33
$2,600.00
$32.91
$216.67
$89.66
$63.41
Cumulative O&M
costs/Cumulative
Volume ($/Gal)
$16.25
$10.40
$12.42
$10.81
$11.27
$12.19
$12.02
$13.07
$14.00
$15.14
$14.72
$14.73
$14.90
$14.63
$14.90
$14.97
$15.17
$15.79
$16.31
$16.98
$17.71
$18.45
$19.25
$20.04
$20.87
$21.69
$22.41
$23.18
$23.99
$24.77
$24.07
$24.80
$25.57
$25.74
$26.41
$26.94
$27.36
184
-------
Pump and Treat and Containment of Contaminated Groundwater at
the Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site
Nashua, New Hampshire
185
-------
Pump and Treat and Containment of Contaminated Groundwater at
the Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site
Nashua, New Hampshire
Site Name:
Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund
Site
Location:
Nashua, New Hampshire
Contaminants:
Chlorinated solvents; volatiles -
nonhalogenated; and heavy metals
(selenium)
- Maximum concentrations detected
in 1980 included methylene chloride
(122,500 ug/L), chloroform (81,000
ug/L), tetrahydrofuran (1,000,000
ug/L), methyl ethyl ketone (80,000
ug/L), and toluene (140,000 ug/L)
Period of Operation:
Status: Ongoing
Report covers: 1982 through
December 1995
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup (interim results)
Vendor:
Construction:
Weston
O&M:
Joe Fritsch
Metcalf & Eddy
57 Gilson Road
Nashua, NH 03062
State Point of Contact:
Tom Andrews
NHDES
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, MA 03301
(603)271-2910
Technology:
Pump and Treat; Vertical Barrier
Wall; Cap; and Soil Vapor
Extraction
- Groundwater was extracted using
14 wells, located on site, at an
average total pumping rate of 265
gpm
- Extracted groundwater was treated
with addition of chemicals (lime
slurry), flocculation, clarification,
mixed-media pressure filtration, air
stripping (at elevated temperature
(175 °F), and biological treatment
(biological treatment was used for
only 50 of the 265 gpm extracted)
- Treated groundwater was
reinjected on- and off-site through
recharge trenches
- A slurry wall, 4 ft wide, 4,000 ft
long, and as much as 100 ft deep,
encloses the 20-acre site
- A 40-mil HOPE synthetic cap
covers the area inside the slurry wall
- The SVE system included 66 wells
and a boiler/incinerator for
destruction of VOCs
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA Remedial
- ROD Dates: 7/29/82 and 9/22/83
EPA Point of Contact:
Darryl Luce, RPM
U.S. EPA Region 1
JFK Federal Building
1 Congress Street
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 573-5767
Waste Source:
Waste disposal, drum burial, waste
storage
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
ACLs have been met for all
contaminants, with one exception.
The exception has an ACL which is
less than the state standard and
below the analytical detection limit
for that constituent.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
- 1,200 million gallons treated as of December 1995
- LNAPL (toluene) observed in several monitoring wells on site
- Depth to groundwater was not provided for this site
- Extraction wells are located in 3 hydrogeologic units which are influenced
by a nearby surface water
- Hydraulic conductivity in the upper unit ranges from 30 to 50 ft/day
186
-------
Pump and Treat and Containment of Contaminated Groundwater at
the Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site
Nashua, New Hampshire (continued)
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- The remedial goal for this site were set as alternate concentration limits (ACLs) within the containment structure.
ACLs were set at 10% of the maximum concentration detected, and consisted of the following: vinyl chloride (95
ug/L), benzene (340 ug/L), chloroform (1,505 ug/L), 1,1,2-TCA (1.7 ug/L), MEK (8,000 ug/L), chlorobenzene
(110 ug/L), methylene chloride (12,250 ug/L), toluene (2,900 ug/L), 1,1-DCA (1.5 ug/L), trans-l,2-DCA (1,800
ug/L), 1,1,1-TCA (200 ug/L), methyl methacrylate (350 ug/L), selenium (2.6 ug/L), and phenols (400 ug/L).
- Risk-based concentration levels were set for groundwater outside of the containment structure.
- A performance goal for the remedial system was to prevent the contaminant plume from further migration.
Results:
- As of December 1995, the remedial action appears to have attained ACLs for all contaminants except 1,1-DCA.
The levels of 1,1 -DCA are less than the state standard of 81 ug/L and below the analytical detection limit; EPA is
reportedly considering adjusting the ACL set for this contaminant. From 1986 through 1995, the system removed
427,000 pounds of contaminants from the groundwater.
- A net inward flow into the containment structure has been maintained, thus reducing downward migration of
contaminants.
Cost:
- Actual costs for the remedial application at this site were $27,600,000 ($9,100,000 in capital and $18,500,000 in
O&M), which correspond to $23 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $64 per pound of contaminant
removed.
- The high O&M costs for this site were attributed to the 300 gpm treatment system and the number of staff
required to operate it. For many years, the site was staffed with 15 full-time personnel who operated the site 24
hours/day.
Description:
The Sylvester/Gilson Road site is a 2-acre site. Approximately six acres of the site was used as a sand borrow pit
for an undetermined number of years. Illegal dumping was first discovered in 1970. Although the total amount of
hazardous waste disposed at the site had not been determined, documents show that approximately 900,000 gallons
of hazardous waste were discarded at the site during a 10-month period in 1979. It was estimated that the site was
used for hazardous waste disposal for five years. In 1981, initial remedial investigations by the state showed high
concentrations of heavy metals and organic compounds in the groundwater under the site. A ROD for this site was
signed in July 1982 and a supplemental ROD in September 1983. In July 1990, EPA issued a BSD for this
application.
The remedial application at this site consisted of a pump-and-treat system, vertical barrier wall, cap, and soil vapor
extraction system. Groundwater was extracted using 14 wells, located on site, and treated with addition of
chemicals, flocculation, clarification, mixed-media pressure filtration, air stripping, and biological treatment. A
slurry wall encloses the 20-acre site, and a HOPE synthetic cap covers the area inside the slurry wall. To address an
area with LNAPL (toluene) that was identified part-way through the application, a SVE system was installed mat
included 66 extraction wells. As of December 1995, the remedial action appears to have attained ACLs for all
contaminants except 1,1-DCA.
187
-------
Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site
SITE INFORMATION
Identifvlna Information:
Treatment Application:
Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site
Nashua, New Hampshire
CERCLIS#: NHD099363541
ROD Dates: July 29,1982 and September 22,
1983.
ESDDate: July 10,1990
R $* r* limni i n rl
Type of Action: Remedial
Period of operation: 1982 through 1995
(Performance Data Collected Through
December 1995)
Quantity of groundwater treated during
application: 1.2 billion gallons [1]
Historical Activity that Generated
Contamination at the Site: Illegal waste
disposal
Corresponding SIC Code: NA
Waste Management Practice That
Contributed to Contamination: Waste
disposal, drum burial, waste storage
Location: Nashua, New Hampshire
Facility Operations:
• The Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site
is a 20-acre site. Approximately six acres of
the site was used as a sand borrow pit for
an undetermined number of years. Illegal
dumping was first discovered in 1970. A
court injunction was issued in 1976, which
required removal of all materials from the
site. The operator of the site failed to
comply with the injunction. In 1978, New
Hampshire state personnel observed drums
being stored at the site. A second court
order was issued in 1979 prohibiting further
disposal of hazardous wastes on the site.
• Although the total amount of hazardous
waste disposed of at the site had not been
determined, documents show that
approximately 900,000 gallons of hazardous
waste were discarded at the site during a
10-month period in 1979 [5]. It was
estimated that the site was used for
hazardous waste disposal for five years [2,
10].
• During 1980, the state removed 1,314
drums of waste from the site and disposed
of them off site.
In 1981, initial remedial investigations by
the State of New Hampshire showed high
concentrations of heavy metals and organic
compounds in the groundwater under the
site. The contamination formed a plume in
the groundwater, which was moving from
the site toward Lyle Reed Brook. As the
plume discharged to Lyle Reed Brook,
hazardous compounds volatilized into the
air at levels above acceptable public health
limits [5].
In December 1981, the EPA initiated an
emergency containment action at the site
that entailed installing a groundwater
recirculation system. Four extraction wells
were installed and pumped for containment
only; no treatment was provided at this time.
Contaminated groundwater was extracted
and discharged to recharge trenches
upgradient of the disposal area.
A feasibility study was completed in May
1982 and a Record of Decision (ROD) was
issued in July 1982. The ROD required a
slurry wall to be installed around the 20-acre
site and a synthetic cap to be placed over
the area. The slurry wall and cap were
designed to isolate the source area and
provide containment of the groundwater
plume. The containment system was
installed by December 1982. The 1982
ROD also required groundwater extraction
and treatment, but did not specify a
treatment method for groundwater.
However, pilot studies were underway to
determine the appropriate treatment
method. A groundwater recirculation
system operated from 1981 until 1986.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
188
T1O3.W P6X0212-04.stf
-------
Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site
SITE! INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background (Cont.)
• A Supplemental ROD (SROD) concerning
groundwater extraction and treatment was
issued in September 1983. The SROD
established cleanup goals within the slurry
wall containment area. The groundwater
treatment plant began operation in April
1986 to remove metals and organic
compounds.
• In July 1990, EPA issued an Explanation of
Significant Differences (ESD), which
concluded that certain adjustments to the
treatment remedy described in the SROD
were necessary. These changes included
an extension of operation by five years,
additional extraction wells, and measures to
control a toluene contamination source.
The source control measures included a soil
vapor extraction (SVE) system and an
additional source-area groundwater well.
Regulatory Context:
• The ROD was signed on July 29,1982, and
the SROD was signed on September 22,
1983. An ESD was signed on July 10,
1990.
Site Logistics/Contacts
• The State of New Hampshire and the U.S.
EPA have entered into a cooperative
agreement for remediating this site.
• 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: In the
original ROD, the selected remedy included
construction of a slurry wall and cap with
treatment of groundwater within the slurry wall.
The treatment method was not included in the
original ROD language. The SROD specified
groundwater extraction, treatment via chemical
and biological processes, and discharge to the
on-site aquifer.
Site Lead: State
Oversight: EPA
Remedial Project Manager:
Darryl Luce
U.S. EPA Region I
John F. Kennedy Fed Bldg.
1 Congress Street
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 573-5767
* Indicates Primary Contact
State Contact:
Tom Andrews*
New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services (NHDES)
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301
603-271-2910
Contractors:
Weston (construction oversight)
Metcalf & Eddy (O&M)
Contact: Joe Fritsch
57 Gilson Road
Nashua, NH 03062
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
189
TIO3.W P6X0212-04.stf
-------
Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix IdentifJeaiiQJL
Type of Matrix Processed Through the
Treatment System: Groundwater
Contaminant Characterization n.2.5.61
Primary Contaminant Groups: Heavy metals
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
• The reported initial maximum
concentrations of organic contaminants
found in the groundwater included:
tetrahydrofuran (THF) at 1,000,000 ug/L,
methylene chloride at 122,500 pg/U methyl
ethyl ketone (MEK) at 80,000 ug/L, toluene
at 140,000 pg/L, and chloroform at 81,000
ug/L Selenium was the primary heavy
metal compound detected in the
groundwater.
• Because toluene and 1,1 -DCA
concentrations in the groundwater remained
high after several years of treatment,
toluene was thought to be floating on the
water table as a non-aqueous phase liquid
(NAPL) at the southern end of the site. In
1988, the toluene concentration in this area
was 140,000 pg/L, approximately 26 percent
of the aqueous solubility of toluene. 1,1-
DCA concentrations also remained
persistently high. Based on similar
concentration contours for toluene and 1,1-
DCA and the low water solubility for both
contaminants, 1,1-DCA appeared to be in
solution with the toluene NAPL.
Figure 1 illustrates the total VOC
concentration contours of the plume as
detected during a December 1980 sampling
event. The outermost concentration contour
marks the 1,000 ug/L levels; the innermost
contour marks the 1,000,000 ug/L levels.
The size of the plume in Figure 1 was
estimated to be 669,000 square feet at the
1,000 ug/L contour. The plume volume was
estimated at 59.9 million gallons based the
areal extent, 40 feet of plume thickness,
and a porosity of 30%.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
190
TI03.WP6\0212-04.stf
-------
Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site
.MATRJX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
.EM-IZ
RECHADOE WELL
CENTER LINE OF RECHftHGE TBENCH
A SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATION
4- MONITOR WELL
0 MULTILEVEL WELL
APPROXIMATE TOTAL VOt CONCENTRATION CONTOUR
-I.OOO IN ug/L. I INTERPRETATION ADAPTED FROM
DECEMBER I9BI GZA PLAN)
Figure 1. Contaminant Contours (based on results of 1980 Sampling Event) [9]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
191
TIO3.WP6\0212-04.stf
-------
Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Costs or Performance
Hydrogeology [4,6]:
The site is underlain by fractured bedrock mantled with 20 to 100 feet of unconsolidated sediments.
These sediments consist of a thin low-permeability glacial till covered by a high-permeability sand and
gravel outwash deposit.
Unit 1 Stratified Drift
Unit 2 Glacial Till
Unit 3 Bedrock
High permeability sand and gravel deposit. Groundwater
encountered is under water table conditions.
A discontinuous silt, sand, and gravel till layer with low
permeability. This unit may act as a confining layer in some
places.
A biotite schist of the Merrimack Group and igneous rocks. It
is differentially weathered and fractured. The top of the
bedrock surface is irregular, with variation in relief of more
than 70 feet.
The site is located in the Lyle Reed Brook watershed. Lyle Reed Brook flows from the east to within 50
feet of the northern property boundary. Two major aquifers within this watershed underlie the site. One
is a sand and gravel stratified drift aquifer, and the other is a fractured bedrock aquifer. A discontinuous
till layer separates the two aquifers. In general, the till has a lower hydraulic conductivity than the
overlying stratified drift, and may act as a confining layer in some places.
Groundwater in the stratified drift is under water table conditions, while groundwater within the fractured
bedrock is under semiconfined conditions. Groundwater flows northwest through both aquifers and is
encountered 10 to 20 feet below ground surface. The high-concentration area of the plume extended in
a northwestern direction in an elliptical shape from the area of historical liquid waste disposal near the
current location of Trench 3. Contamination has been detected in both aquifers.
Tables 1 and 2 present technical aquifer information and well data, respectively.
Table 1. Technical Aquifer Information
Unit Name
Stratified Drift
Glacial Till
Bedrock
NA - not available
Thickness
(ft)
20-80
0-20
>100
Conductivity
(ft/day)
30-50
5 (vertical)
6,500 fta/day
(transmissivity)
Average Velocity
(ft/day)
0.15-0.25
NA
NA
Flow
Direction
Northwest
NA
Northwest
Source: [6]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
192
TIO3.W P6X0212-04.stf
-------
Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology
Pump and treat (P&T) with precipitation and
high temperature air stripping.
System Description and Operation F11
Supplemental Treatment Technology
Biological treatment for polishing effluent from
the groundwater treatment system prior to
discharge to off-site recharge trenches.
Table 2. Extraction Well Data
Well Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
Ka
L
La
Note: The average extraction
Unit Name
Stratified Drift
Stratified Drift
Stratified Drift
Stratified Drift
Stratified Drift
Stratified Drift
Stratified Drift
Stratified Drift
Stratified Drift
Stratified Drift
Stratified Drift
Bedrock
Stratified Drift
Bedrock
rate for the extraction system
Depth (ft)
51
56
50
52
50
46
35
46
55
56
34
68
50
85
is 265 gpm.
Yield
(gal/min)
45
45
53
90
61
49
48
90
23
22
17
25
40
25
Source: [1]
System Description [1,4]
• A 40-mil high-density polyethylene (HOPE)
synthetic cap and containment wall were
constructed to minimize infiltration and limit
contaminant migration. The containment
wall was constructed of bentonite slurry with
a design hydraulic conductivity of
10~7 cm/sec. The slurry wall is
approximately four feet wide, 4,000 feet in
perimeter length, and 100 feet deep in some
places. The bottom of the slurry wall is
keyed into fractured bedrock.
Approximately 20 acres is enclosed by the
wall and covered by the cap.
The remedial system includes 14
groundwater extraction wells (listed in
Table 2) and seven recharge trenches.
Groundwater is extracted, treated, then
recharged through the trenches. The
remedial system has been designed to
isolate contaminated groundwater, recover
and treat groundwater from within the slurry
wall, and induce uniform flushing of the
upper saturated zone.
Four extraction wells (B, C, D, E) were
installed in 1981 and 1982 as part of an
emergency groundwater interception and
recirculation system to halt the migration of
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
193
TIO3.WP6\0212-04.Stf
-------
Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
SvsteflLDescription and Operation (ConU
contaminated groundwater. Wells A, F, and
G were installed in 1986 as part of the
construction of the site groundwater
remedial system. Wells H, I, J, K, Ka, L,
and La were installed in 1991 as part of the
modification to the groundwater remedial
system. Wells A, B, C, D, E, I, and J are
located in the downgradient portion of the
site. Wells F, G, and H are located in the
area of original dumping and contamination.
Wells K, Ka, L, and La are located in areas
that EPA and NHDES determined to be
areas of persistent contamination. All
extraction wells are located inside the slurry
wail.
Pumping rates for each well were initially
set by the design engineer. Wells A, B, C,
D, E, I, and J were pumped at a rate to
minimize leakage of groundwater from the
containment area. Wells F, G, and H were
pumped at a rate to maximize recovery of
contaminated groundwater. Well L was
pumped at a rate to depress the water table
in the vicinity of the SVE system and
recover contaminated groundwater. Well K
was pumped to reduce a persistent "hot
spot". Bedrock wells Ka and La were
pumped at very low rates and only as long
as bedrock contamination was present.
The treatment system consisted of physical,
chemical, biological, and thermal unit
processes (Figure 2). Approximately 265
gpm of groundwater passed through a pH
adjustment tank where pH was adjusted to
approximately pH 11 using a lime slurry.
Water then flowed to a flocculation tank
where polymer was added and mixed using
a variable speed mixer. After f locculation,
groundwater passed through an inclined
plate settler where metals in the form of
suspended solids were removed. The
groundwater was then neutralized to pH 7.
Neutralized groundwater was pumped
through four (series) mixed-media pressure
filters to remove small particulate matter.
Following filtration, the groundwater
temperature was raised to 175° F. Heated
groundwater then passed through a stripping
column for removal of VOCs. Stripped
vapors were introduced into a
boiler/incinerator where No. 2 fuel oil was
burned to create sufficient heat to destroy
organic vapors.
Stripped groundwater was pumped through
a heat exchanger to transfer heat from
treated groundwater to incoming
groundwater. Stripped groundwater was
then divided into two streams: one stream
(215 gpm) was discharged to on-site
recharge trenches while the other stream
(50 gpm) flowed to biological treatment.
Biological treatment consisted of extended
aeration with an activated sludge and
removed the remaining volatile organic
compounds before discharge to off-site
recharge trenches.
The biological treatment effluent was
discharged off site to remove water from the
containment area, thereby inducing water to
flow into the containment area through the
fractured bedrock below and reducing
leakage downward from the site.
The stripping column used at this site was a
4-foot diameter, 40-foot tall stainless steel
stripper with demister at the top and
stripped water sump at the bottom. The
effective stripping depth was about 20 feet.
The packing used was Type 3Y Flexipack
elements stacked to approximately 16 feet.
Well L and the SVE system were installed to
recover and remove toluene from the
source area identified by a toluene NAPL
floating on the groundwater surface. The
SVE system, which operated for
approximately three years, consisted of six
headers with eleven extraction/injection
wells on each header. A variable speed
pump extracted soil gas, and pumped the
vapors into the boiler/incinerator for
destruction of VOCs.
The groundwater monitoring system
consisted of 73 monitoring wells. All wells
were sampled quarterly. Because there
were many contaminants in the
groundwater, three indicator compounds
were selected to monitor water quality:
toluene, THF, and 1,1-DCA.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
194
TIO3.WP6\0212-04.Stf
-------
Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM PESCRIPTION (CONT.)
UIME
300 GPM FROM
RECOVERY WELLS
SECURE
SETTLING
LUDGE LANDFILL
SLUDGE
DEWATERING
SLUDGE
THICKENING
IRON SLUDGE
_l
BIOLOGICAL
SLUDGE
K
INCINERATOR
VAPORS
J
PUMPS
STRIPPING
COLUMN
PREHEATER
4-
, 5O GPM TO EXTERIOR
PUMPS
'RECHARGE TRENCH
, 250 GPM TO INTERIOR
SETTLING
BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT
rRECHARGE TRENCHES
Figure 2. Process Flow Diagram of the Sylvester Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System [4]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology. Innovation Office
195
TIO3.W P6X0212-04.stf
-------
Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
System Description and Operation fCont.)
System Operation [1,4]
• Quantity of groundwater pumped from
aquifer by year:
Year
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Total Volume
Pumped
(gallons)
80,666.000
138,029,000
130,086,000
112,587,000
125,437,000
107,285,000
125,040,000
125,476,000
124,395,000
126,889,000
Unit Name
1,3
1,3
1,3
1,3
1,3
1,3
1,3
1,3
1,3
1,3
The remedial system operated from mid-
1986 through 1995, with the following
exceptions. Incinerator repair in 1989
reduced operation for approximately one
month. The treatment facility was off line
for a portion of 1991 and 1992 to make
modifications. According to the site contact,
the system has operated an average of 88%
of the time between 1986 and 1995. The
treatment facility was designed to operate
24 hours per day, 365 days per year.
The groundwater treatment facility started
up in April 1986, and full-scale operation
commenced in June 1986. TheSROD
estimated that cleanup levels inside the 20-
acre containment area would be met within
two years of treatment system initiation.
After two years, the SROD required EPA
and NHDES to evaluate the site to
determine the degree to which treatment
goals had been met. In March 1988, the
evaluation was performed and EPA and the
NHDES concluded that several "hot spots,"
or areas of elevated groundwater
contamination, persisted. An ESD was
issued in July 1990, which included
adjustments to the remedy as a result of the
1988 evaluation.
As required by the ESD, the groundwater
treatment plant operated for an additional
four years, six additional recovery wells
were installed in areas of greatest residual
contamination, and the location of an
apparent toluene contamination source was
investigated.
The total pump rate to the treatment facility
did not increase substantially after the
addition of six new extraction wells in 1991.
The groundwater treatment facility was
designed with a capacity of approximately
330 gpm, which could not be increased
without decreasing contaminant removal
efficiency. When new extraction wells were
placed on line, the pumping rate from less
contaminated existing wells was decreased.
The original remedial design sought to
optimize capture and treatment of
contaminated groundwater while reducing
leakage of groundwater from the site. Later
optimization included increasing pumping
rates at extraction wells with demonstrated
greater groundwater contamination and
using a MODFLOW model to maximize
mass removal.
The air stripper media and heat exchangers
were acid washed quarterly to prevent
clogging from iron fouling.
High temperature air stripping was selected
over conventional cold stripping because of
the solubility of the organic compounds
present and the desire to remove 90% of
the VOCs on each pass through the stripper.
While the removal efficiency was above
expectations, the higher concentration of
VOCs and greater total mass of pollutants
resulted in a longer-than-expected treatment
period to reduce groundwater
concentrations to cleanup goals.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
196
TIO3.WP6\0212-04.stf
-------
Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
System Description and Operation (Cont.)
In 1994 to 1995, a Remedial Action
Evaluation Study was conducted to
determine whether the remedy was
protective of human health and the
environment. The study concluded that the
remedy used at the Sylvester/Gilson Road
site was effective and that cleanup goals
had been met. Groundwater extraction and
treatment ceased on December 31,1995 and
access to the site was limited. On January 1,
1996, a three-year standby period was begun at
the site. During this period, groundwater
treatment equipment at the site will be
maintained and kept in a ready state in the
event that treatment must resume.
Operating Parameters Affectina Treatment Cost or Performance
Table 3 presents parameters affecting performance for this technology.
Table 3. Performance Parameters
fneter
Value
Average Pump Rate
265 gpm
Performance Standard (Effluent)
1. Same as remedial goals for effluent discharged to
recharge trenches.
2. MCLs for effluent discharged outside the slurry wall.
Remedial Goal (within the
containment structure)
Vinyl Chloride
Benzene
Chloroform
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chlorobenzene
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
1,1-Dichloroethane
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Methyl Methacrylate
Selenium
Phenols
95 ug/L
340 ug/L
1,505 ug/L
1.7 ug/L
8,000 ug/L
110 ug/L
12,250 ug/L
2,900 ug/L
1.5 ug/L
1,800 ug/L
200 ug/L
350 ug/L
2.6 ug/L
400 ug/L
Source: [5]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
197
TI03.WP6\0212-04.stf
-------
Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Timeline
Table 4 presents a timeline for this remedial project.
Table4. Project Timeline
!' Start Data
7/29/82
9/22/83
10/83
7/82
4/84
6/86
7/90
9/91
3/92
...
1/96
End Date
—
—
3/84
12/82
4/86
—
—
3/92
12/95
—
. Activity '•".. ./%>? '•?' - '- >
/* '
Original ROD issued
SHOD issued
Treatment facility designed
Slurry wall installed and synthetic cap placed over 20-acre area
Groundwater treatment facility constructed
Full-scale operations of groundwater treatment facility begin
ESD extending the operation of the treatment system, adding six new wells, and initiating toluene
source removal actions issued
Six additional extraction wells installed to enhance plume recovery
Soil vapor extraction system added to remove toluene NAPL on groundwater surface
Remedial goals achieved and groundwater extraction and treatment system shut down
Three vear standby period beaun
Source: [2, 3, 7]
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards T81
The remedial goal for this site was to clean up
groundwater to meet the recommended
Alternate Concentration Levels (ACLs) within
the containment structure. ACLs were set for
14 groundwater contaminants, as shown in
Table 3, at 10% of the maximum concentration
detected. These limits were established to be
protective of the bentonite slurry containment
wall and the surrounding groundwater outside
the containment system.
Treatment Performance Goals F81
Additional Information on Goals [8]
Risk-based concentration levels were set for
groundwater outside of the containment
structure. Treated water discharged to
infiltration trenches outside the slurry wall
must meet maximum contaminant levels.
• Volatization from Lyle Reed Creek must be
reduced to acceptable exposure levels.
One performance goal of the remedial
system was to prevent the contaminant
plume from further migrating. The slurry
wall was designed to eliminate horizontal
flow of contaminants; the
extraction/infiltration system was designed
to hydraulically minimize downward leakage
of contaminants to the bedrock aquifer
below.
Another goal of the treatment system was to
reduce contaminant concentrations by 90%
with each pass through the treatment train.
It was envisioned that treating two pore
volumes would reduce groundwater
concentrations by 99%.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
198
TI03.WP6\0212-04.stf
-------
Sylvester/Gilson Hoad Superfund Site
TREATMENT! SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Assessment M. 4. 5. 71
For the purpose of this analysis, total
contaminants includes all those contaminants
listed in Table 3.
• According to the site contact, as of
December 1995, the remedial action
appears to have attained ACLs for all
contaminants except 1,1-DCA. The levels
of 1,1-DCA are below the New Hampshire
groundwater quality standards of 81 ug/L
and below the detection limit of analytical
equipment feasible at this time. EPA is
reportedly considering adjusting the ACL set
for this contaminant.
• A slurry wall and cap were installed to
contain the contaminant plume and
minimize groundwater flow into and through
the site, which would have carried
contaminants further downgradient.
Eliminating infiltration reduced the
downward migration of groundwater into the
bedrock. The extraction system further
reduced downward migration by extracting
more groundwater than was injected thus
maintaining a net inward flow into the
containment structure.
Figure 3 presents the removal of
contaminants through the treatment system
from 1986 through 1995. The treatment
system was shut down in December 1995.
Performance Data Completeness
The mass flux data show that the mass of
contaminant removed per day increased
from 1986 to 1988 and reached a maximum
of 512 pounds per day on average. The
mass removed per day decreased in 1989
to 72 pounds and continued to decrease to
less than 10 pounds per day in 1995. The
total mass removed curve demonstrates
that the mass of contaminants removed
between 1986 and 1988 was 368,000
pounds, and between 1988 and 1995 was
only 59,000 pounds.
From 1986 through 1995, the P&T system
removed approximately 427,000 pounds of
contaminant mass from 1.2 billion gallons of
groundwater treated.
Most contaminant concentrations decreased
after the treatment remedy was installed.
However, two contaminants, toluene and
1,1-DCA, showed persistently high
concentrations until a source control
measure (SVE) aimed at removing a
toluene NAPL was implemented.
Figure 4 illustrates changes in total VOC
concentrations in the groundwater since the
remedial system was shut down. The total
VOC measurement is the cumulative
concentrations of contaminants detected in
all monitoring wells. These data show that
total concentrations are not rebounding.
For the purpose of the analyses shown in
Figure 3, annual flow rates, influent
concentrations, mass removed data, and
percent operational data were provided by
the site contact.
Quarterly data are available; however, an
annual average was used in this report to
present the data.
The total VOCs data were taken from a
common set of monitoring wells to
demonstrate how contaminant
concentrations are changing over the entire
site.
Contaminant mass removal was determined
using analytical results from influent
samples, along with flow rate data. Annual
averages were used to calculate total mass
removed and daily mass flux.
Mass flux data was calculated with the
following equation:
mass flux = (QxC)/ %operational,
where:
mass flux = pounds per day
Q = total yearly flow in gallons per year
C( = average annual influent concentration
in pounds per gallon
% operational = days of operation per year
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
^^ Technology Innovation Office
199
TIO3.WP6\0212-04.stf
-------
Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Qualitv
The QA/QC program used throughout the remedial action met the EPA and the State of New Hampshire
requirements. All monitoring was performed using EPA-approved methods, and the vendor did not note
any exceptions to the QA/QC protocols.
1000
100
£
I
450,000
• • 400,000
350,000
300,000 1"
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000'
50,000
1986
1987
1988 1989 1990 1991
1992
1993 1994
1995
• Mass Flux (Ib/day)
-Total Mass Removed (Ibs)
Figure 3. Mass Flux Rate and Cumulative Contaminant Removal (June 1986 - December 1995) [1]
8
o
Sep-94 Apr-95 Oct-95 May-96 Dec-96 Jun-97 Jan-98 Jul-98
Figure 4. Total VOC vs. Time (1995 -1997) Data Represents the Sum of All VOCs Detected [1]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
200
T!O3.WP6\0212-04.Stf
-------
Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process F11
The NHDES is the lead for this site. Weston was the Remedial Action Contractor.
Cost Analysis Ml
• All costs through 1995 for design, construction and operation of the treatment system at this site
were shared by the U.S. EPA (90%) and the State of New Hampshire (10%). As of 1996, all costs
for the site have been borne by the State of New Hampshire.
Capital Costs Ml
Remedial Construction
Slurry Wall & Cap
Groundwater Extraction and
Treatment Facility
Change Order #1
Change Order #2
Change Order #3
Groundwater Treatment
Facility Modifications
Change Order #1
Change Order #2
Change Order #3
Groundwater Treatment
Facility Landfill Closure
Total Site Construction
$2,200,000
$5,375,000
$14,844
$118,863
$124,947
$1,385,000
Period of
Performance
Extension
$39,179
$31,329
$109,465
$9,069,465
Operating Costs m
Operating and
Year
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Total Annual
Operating
Expenses
Other Costs rn
Maintenance Cost
Cost
$1,142,411
$1,615,500
$1,590,169
$1,574,255
$1,908,630
$1,896,018
$1,981,405
$1,961,017
$1,940,022
$2,116,624
$375,385
$366,170 (estimated)
$18,467,606
Remedial Design Cost
Slurry Wall & Cap $180,741
Groundwater Treatment Facility $291,200
Groundwater Treatment Facility $183,800
Modifications
Remedial Action Evaluation and
Closure Studies
Remedial Action Investigation $350,000
(1988)
Remedial Action Evaluation and $810,000
Closure Study (1994)
Cost Data Quality
Actual cost data were provided by the NHDES site contact.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
201
TIO3.WP6\0212-04.Stf
-------
Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
The total construction and operating and
maintenance (O&M) costs for the
Sylvester/Gilson Road site were
approximately $27.6 million (9.1 million in
capital costs and $18.5 million in O&M
costs) which corresponds to $64 per pound
of contaminant removed and $23 per 1,000
gallons treated.
Modifications were made to the system in
1991 to reflect changes required by the ESD
and the site evaluation performed in 1988.
These modifications resulted in a 15%
increase in capital expenditures. The
modifications included six new extraction
wells and the installation of an SVE system
for toluene source removal. (Listed as
Groundwater Treatment Facility
Modifications under Capital Costs.)
O&M costs varied between approximately
$1 and $2 million per year. The system was
initially planned to operate for two years. As
a result of higher than expected
concentrations and overall mass of
contaminants, the remedial system was
required to operate for almost ten years.
The high O&M costs at this site are
attributed to the 300 gpm treatment system
and number of staff required to operate it.
For many years, the site was staffed with 15
full-time personnel who operated the site 24
hours per day.
The slurry wall and cap contained the plume
at the Sylvester/Gilson Road site.
According to the site contact, this remedial
action reduced the concentration of
contaminants in Lyle Reed Brook while most
groundwater contamination was being
isolated and treated within the containment
structure.
Mass flux data from the Sylvester/Gilson
Road site generally shows the typical
asymptotic decline for mass removed using
a P&T system. The mass flux slightly
increased in 1992 to 23 Ibs/day from 19
Ibs/day in 1991. This increase was due to
the addition of seven extraction wells
installed in 1991.
Based on persistent high toluene
concentrations, additional investigations
were performed and identified a toluene
NAPL floating on the groundwater surface.
As a result, a source removal action was
initiated to remove the toluene NAPL after
almost six years of P&T operation. After a
SVE system was installed and removed the
source area, groundwater concentrations
were eventually reduced below cleanup
goals.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
202
TIO3.WP6\0212-04.stf
-------
Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site
REFERENCES
1. Data provided by site contact, Tom
Andrews. August, 1997.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Record of Decision. July 1982.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Explanation of Significant Differences. July
1990.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Evaluation of Groundwater Extraction
Remedies Phase II. February 1992.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Five
Year Review. Svlvester/Gilson Road
Superfund Site. September 1994.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Innovative Operational Treatment
Technologies for Application to Superfund
Sites. April 1990.
7. New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services, Annual Report
(1996-1997) The Gilson Road Superfund
Site. June 1997.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Supplemental Record of Decision.
September 1983.
9. Plume map from: Remedial Program
Evaluation Gilson Road Site. Nashua. NH.
Weston, July 1989.
10. Correspondence with John Fritsch, Metcalf
& Eddy, July 9, 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
203
TIO3.W P6\0212-04.stf
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
204
-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the United Chrome Superfund Site
Corvallis, Oregon
205
-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the United Chrome Superfund Site
Corvallis, Oregon
Site Name:
United Chrome Superfund Site
Location:
Corvallis, Oregon
Contaminants:
Heavy Metals (Chromium)
- Testing in 1983-1984 showed
concentrations of chromium up to
3,619 mg/L in the shallow aquifer
and up to 30 mg/L in the deep
aquifer
Period of Operation:
Status: Ongoing
Report covers: August 1988
through March 1997
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup (interim results)
Vendor:
Operations:
CH2M Hill, Inc.
State Point of Contact:
Tom Penpraze
Utilities Division Manager
Public Works Dept.
City of Corvallis
P.O. Box 1083
Corvallis, OR 97339-1083
Technology:
Pump and Treat
- Currently, groundwater is
extracted using 9 wells in the upper
aquifer and one well in the deep
aquifer
- Pumping rates ranged from 4-11.5
gpm for the upper aquifer and 1.5-
15.8 gpm for the deep aquifer
- Extracted groundwater was
treated with a reduction and
precipitation system until
November 1994; since that time,
extracted groundwater has been
discharged to a POTW without on-
site treatment
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA Remedial
- ROD Date: 9/12/86
EPA Point of Contact:
Al Goodman, RPM
U.S. EPA Region 10
811 Southwest Sixth Ave.
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 326-3685
Waste Source:
Discharge to unlined disposal pit
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Extracted groundwater was treated
on-site at the beginning of this
application; however, because
concentrations dropped over time,
on-site treatment was discontinued.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
- 62 million gallons treated as of March 1997
- Groundwater is found at 0-10 ft bgs
- Extraction wells are located in two aquifers, with flow from the upper to
lower aquifer and lower to upper at times during the year
- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 0.5 to 60 ft/day
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Cleanup goals require a concentration for chromium of 10 mg/L in the upper aquifer and 0.10 mg/L in the deep
aquifer.
- The system is also required to hydraulically contain the contaminant plume.
Results:
- Chromium concentrations in both aquifers have been reduced. In the upper aquifer, average chromium
concentrations have been reduced from 1,923 mg/L in August 1988 to 18 mg/L in March 1997. In the deep
aquifer, average chromium concentrations have been reduced from 1.4 mg/L in August 1991 to 0.11 mg/L in
March 1997. Cleanup goals for chromium have been met in 11 or 23 wells in the upper aquifer and six of
seven wells in the deep aquifer.
- Approximately 31,363 pounds of chromium have been removed from the upper aquifer and 96 pounds from
the deep aquifer, for a total of 31,459 pounds as of March 1997.
206
-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the United Chrome Superftmd Site
Corvallis, Oregon (continued)
Cost:
- Actual costs for pump and treat were $4,637,160 ($3,329,840 in capital and $1,307,320 in O&M), which
correspond to $75 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $140 per pound of contaminant removed.
- Annual operating costs dropped by an order of magnitude when use of the treatment system was discontinued
in 1992.
Description:
United Chrome products is a former industrial hard chrome plating facility that manufactured and repaired hard
chrome plated parts from 1956 until early 1985. In 1956, a disposal pit for liquid waste was dug in the area west
of the former on-site building, and chromium-laden wastewater was discharged to the pit from 1956 to 1982. In
June 1983, EPA conducted a field investigation at the site, discovering chromium contamination in on-site
surface water and soils. The site was placed on the NPL in September 1984 and a ROD was signed in September
1986.
Groundwater contamination was addressed in two phases. Phase 1 was directed at remediation of the upper
aquifer and began in August 1988. Phase 2 was directed at remediation of the deep aquifer and began in
September 1991. Currently, groundwater is extracted using nine wells in the upper aquifer and one well in the
deep aquifer. Until November 1994, extracted groundwater was treated on site; since that time, extracted
groundwater has been discharged to a POTW without on-site treatment. Chromium concentrations in both
aquifers have been reduced, but have not yet met cleanup goals. Future operations of the groundwater extraction
systems will be determined following a 1998 investigation of the remaining soil in the area of the former plating
tanks and the disposal pit. '
207
-------
United Chrome Superfund Site
SITE INFORMATION
Identifying Information:
United Chrome Superfund Site
Corvallis, Oregon
CERCLIS#: ORD009043001
ROD Date: September 12,1986
ESDDate: December 12,1991
Background
Treatment Application:
Type of Action: Remedial
Period of operation: 8/1/88 - Ongoing
(Mass Removal Data Collected From 8/88
through 3/97)
(Monitoring Well Data Collected from 8/88
through 12/96)
Quantity of groundwater treated during
application [1]: 62 million gallons
Historical Activity that Generated
Contamination at the Site: Chrome plating
Corresponding SIC Code: 3471 (Plating of
Metals)
Waste Management Practice That
Contributed to Contamination: Discharge to
unlined disposal pit
Facility Operations [1-4]:
• United Chrome Products is a former
industrial hard chrome plating facility that
manufactured and repaired hard chrome
plated parts from 1956 until early 1985.
In 1956, a disposal pit for liquid waste was
dug in the area west of the former on-site
building. Plating tanks were located just
northeast of the disposal pit. Chromium-
laden wastewater was discharged to the pit
from 1956 to 1982. Sludges were removed
from the pit and disposed of under the
guidance of the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) in 1982 and
1983.
• In June 1983, EPA conducted a field
investigation at the site, discovering
chromium contamination in on-site surface
water and soils. United Chrome Products
was placed on the National Priorities List
(NPL) on September 21, 1984.
• EPA performed contaminated soil removal
activities at the site from July 2, 1985 until
November 6,1985. An on-site surface
drainage ditch was dammed and rerouted as
part of remedial activities in 1988.
EPA
• Groundwater contamination was addressed
in two phases. Phase I was directed at
remediation of the upper aquifer and
containment of the plume. Phase II focused
on remediation of the lower aquifer. Phase I
began in August 1988 and Phase II began in
September 1991.
Regulatory Context:
• The Record of Decision (ROD) for the site
was signed on September 12, 1986.
• An Explanation of Significant Differences
(ESD) was signed on December 12,1991.
• 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 was for extraction, treatment,
and surface discharge of groundwater from the
unconfined and confined aquifers and limited
excavation of contaminated soil and removal of
plating tanks and residual sludge. The remedy
was modified by the ESD that allowed for
discharge to the City of Corvallis Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTW) in accordance with
the Pretreatment Requirements.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
208
TIO3.WP6\0306-04.stf
-------
United Chrome Superfund Site
SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Site Logistics/Contacts
Site Lead: PRP
Oversight: EPA
Site Contact:
Tom Penpraze
Utilities Division Manager
Public Works Department
City of Corvallis
P.O. Box 1083
Corvallis, OR 97339-1083
indicates primary contact
Remedial Project Manager:
Al Goodman*
U.S. EPA Region 10
811 Southwest Sixth Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204
(503) 326-3685
Treatment System Vendor:
Operations Contractor: CH2M Hill, Inc.
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix Processed Through the
Treatment System: Groundwater
Contaminant Characterization
Primary Contaminant Groups: Chromium
• The contaminant of concern in the
groundwater is chromium. The groundwater
is contaminated with the hexavalent
chromium species. However, cleanup
standards are set for total chromium.
Likewise, laboratory analyses test for total
chromium. For these reasons, chromium
levels tested and regulated at the United
Chrome site are for total chromium [3].
• Initial testing for chromium in the
groundwater in 1983 revealed levels of up to
3,619 mg/L in the shallow aquifer and 3.0
mg/L in the deep aquifer. Later sampling in
1984 revealed levels of chromium of up to
30 mg/L in the deep aquifer [3].
• The contaminant plume in the upper
unconfined aquifer as estimated by the 1985
remedial investigation (Rl) was
approximately 1 acre in size and 17 feet
thick, with a plume volume of over 2 million
gallons. The Rl revealed that the
contaminant plume in the deep aquifer was
approximately 1.4 acres in size and 15 feet
thick, with a plume volume of 2.4 million
gallons [5].
In 1988, a plume map was drawn to show
the extent of contamination. Figure 1 shows
the approximate boundary of the chromium
contamination plumes in the upper and deep
aquifers prior to treatment in August 1988.
At that time, chromium concentrations in the
upper aquifer as high as 19,000 mg/L were
measured near the location of the plating
tanks.
Based on the plumes shown in Figure 1, the
surface areas of the upper and deep plumes
were 1.5 and 1.7 acres, respectively. The
upper plume had migrated to the northeast
concurrent with on-site flow direction. The
chromium contamination plume in the deep
aquifer migrated northeast of the former
plating tanks, concurrent with groundwater
flow in the deep aquifer.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
209
TIO3.WP6\0306-04.stf
-------
United Chrome Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Figure 1. Chromium Contaminant Plumes in the Upper and Deep Aquifers Prior to August 1988 [2]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
210
TIO3.WP6\0306-04.stf
-------
United Chrome Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Costs or Performance
Hydrogeology [2,5]:
The site hydrogeology consists of four hydrogeologic units, beginning with an upper aquifer (also called
the upper zone) underlain by an upper aquitard and ending with a deep aquifer underlain by a lower
aquitard.
Unitl Upper Aquifer
Unit 2 Upper Aquitard
Unit 3 Deep Aquifer
Approximately 18 feet thick and consisting of fine silt overlying the
upper aquitard. Recharge to the upper aquifer is limited.
Stiff dark gray clay, ranging from 2 to 10 feet thick, that grades into
deep aquifer soils at about 23 feet below the ground surface.
Interbedded silty sand and sandy gravel, ranging from 15 to 25 feet
thick. It is semiconfined above by the upper aquitard and confined
below by the lower aquitard. Recharge is supplied from the overlying
silts. Water in this aquifer is used for drinking purposes. The nearest
drinking water well is approximately 3,000 feet northeast of the site.
Recharge to the lower aquifer is not limited.
Unit 2 Lower Aquitard Plastic clay at least 40 feet thick.
Groundwater in the upper and deep aquifers regionally flows northeast. The unconfined water table in
the upper zone fluctuates seasonally between 0 and 10 feet below the ground surface. Based on
water level comparison between aquifers, groundwater flow through the upper aquitard is estimated
as high as 0.4 foot per year from the upper aquifer to the deep aquifer. For about one month a year
during dry summer conditions, the groundwater flows from the deep aquifer to the upper aquifer.
Tables 1 and 2 present technical aquifer information and well data, respectively.
Table 1. Technical Aquifer Information
Thickness
Unit Name (ft)
Upper Aquifer 15-18
Deep Aquifer 1 5 - 25
Conductivity
(ft/day)
0.5 - 2.5
50-60
Average Velocity
(ft/day)
0.008 - 0.04
0.04-0.16
Flow Direction
North to
Northeast*
North to
Northeast
'Previously, local groundwater flow in the upper aquifer was affected by a former drainage ditch and flowed south
to southeast. The ditch has since been dammed and rerouted.
Source: [5]
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology
Pump and treat (P&T) (original system)
Pump and discharge to POTW (current system)
Supplerriental Treatment Technology
None
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
211
TIO3.WP6\0306-04.stf
-------
United Chrome Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
System Description and Operation PI ,2,6,7,91
Table 2. Extraction Well Data
Wells
23 Wells
7 Wells
*Pumping rate for all wells
Unit Name
Upper Aquifer
Deep Aquifer
in each unit
Depth (ft)
9-19
35-40
Design Pumping
Rate (gpm)*
7.5
10.0
Source: [1,7]
System Description
• Since 1988, groundwater has been extracted
from both aquifers. The initial extraction
system used 23 wells in the upper aquifer
and seven in the deep, as listed in Table 2.
The current extraction system consists of 10
recovery wells, nine for the upper aquifer
and one for the deep aquifer. Extracted
water is discharged to the City of Corvallis
POTW.
• Two infiltration basins and one infiltration
trench (discontinued in 1993) were
constructed to inject water from the City of
Corvallis into the upper aquifer.
• Extracted water from the upper aquifer was
formerly treated through a reduction and
precipitation system with a 50 gpm capacity;
however, since November 1994, chromium
levels have been sufficiently reduced to
allow discharge to the POTW in accordance
with Pretreatment Standards. Extracted
water from the deep aquifer has always
been discharged to the POTW.
• Recovery wells were placed throughout the
plume, with higher extraction rates from
recovery wells with higher chromium
contamination levels. No computer model
was used, and upper zone extraction well
spacing was determined from a pump test
and plume geometry. Pumping rates are
adjusted with orifice plates. Originally, 23
extraction wells were placed in the upper
aquifer and seven extraction wells were
placed in the deep aquifer. As chromium
concentrations in extraction wells decreased
below remedial goals, pumping from these
wells was stopped, as discussed in the
System Operation section.
• Groundwater quality is monitored semi-
annually through a network of seven
monitoring wells in the upper aquifer and five
monitoring wells in the deep aquifer. Active
extraction wells (nine in the upper aquifer
and one in the deep aquifer) are monitored
quarterly.
System Operation
• Average groundwater pumping rate from
aquifer in gallons per minute (gpm):
8/1/88 -
1/1/89 -
12/31/88
12/31/89
1/1/90 -
6/1/90 -
1/1/91 -
1/1/92 -
1/1/93 -
1/1/94 -
1/1/95 -
1/1/96 -
1/1/97 -
12/31/90
12/31/90
12/31/91
12/31/92
12/31/93
12/31/94
12/31/95
12/31/96
• 3/31/97
Unit
Upper
Deep
Upper
Deep
Upper
Deep
Upper
Deep
Upper
Deep
Upper
Deep
Upper
Deep
Upper
Deep
Upper
Deep
Upper
Deep
Average
Pumping Rate
(cmml
10.4
None
9.3
None
11.5
1.6
11.2
6.6
8.8
5.5
6.4
15.8
4.5
4.0
4.4
10.1
4.0
1.5
7.0
3.2
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
212
TIO3.WP6\0306-04.stf
-------
United Chrome Superfuntf Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM (DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
The volume of water in the upper aquifer
available for extraction is limited, and the
upper aquifer becomes dewatered with too
much pumping. Clean potable water was
reinjected to recharge the aquifer and flush
any sorbed chromium. By 1992, chromium
levels had decreased more quickly than
originally anticipated. Some wells that had
chromium levels below the 10 mg/L cleanup
goal were no longer pumped. In addition, by
1995, chromium levels had decreased
sufficiently so that treatment of the water
extracted from upper aquifer was no longer
necessary.
In 1991, because of the drop in chromium
levels in the upper aquifer, an ESD was
approved for the site to discharge extracted
water which met pretreatment standards to
thePOTW. In November 1995, with
permission from EPA, the treatment system
was discontinued.
Adjustments have been made to the upper
aquifer extraction system since 1988 to
optimize contaminant capture. Higher
pumping rates were used at wells with
greater levels of chromium contamination.
Pumping has continued from nine of the
original 23 extraction wells in the upper
aquifer, because those nine had elevated
levels of chromium. The remaining
extraction wells in the upper aquifer were not
used because levels of chromium were
either below or slightly above the cleanup
level of 10 mg/L (less than 15 mg/L).
In the deep aquifer extraction system, only
one of the seven original extraction wells
was still operating during 1997. The cleanup
goal of 0.10 mg/L of Cr in the lower aquifer
was met in the other six extraction wells.
Future operations of the groundwater
extraction systems will be determined
following a 1998 investigation of the
remaining soil in the area of the former
plating tanks and the disposal pit.
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
One operating parameter affecting cost or performance for pqmp and treat is the extraction rate. Table 3
presents values for this and other performance parameters.
Table 3. Performance Parameters
w^' * < ~ - -.-,-•«-.«-,
u Parameter " - -i, *A
Pump Rate Range
(August 1988 - March 1997)
Remedial Goals
Treatment Performance Goals:
Pretreatment Requirement
^ S "•--'• f~ •%*«** f r< -• r,, „ r
-'.- Value "1 " "'•*,
4.0 - 1 1.5 gpm, upper aquifer
1.5 - 15.8 gpm, deep aquifer
Upper Aquifer 10 mg/L, Cr
Deep Aquifer 0.10 mg/L Cr
Cr
7 Ibs/day maximum average
discharge to POTW
Source: [1,3,4]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
213
TIO3.WP6\0306-04.stf
-------
United Chrome Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Timeline
Table 4 presents a timeline for this application.
Table 4. Timeline
Start Data End Date
9/12/86 —
2/4/87 9/11/87
8/88 —
9/91 —
7/91 —
3792 —
5/92 —
9/92 —
1/94 —
2/94 —
9/94 —
6/95 —
1995 —
1996 —
12/97 —
11/1/92 —
11/28/94 —
•; . Activity - • • ' „ ,'?
ROD signed
Remedial design completed
Phase 1 of the remediation system begun. Pumping
monitoring begun.
Phase II of the remediation system begun. Pumping
and treating from upper aquifer and
and treating from deep aquifer begun.
EW-77, EW-18, and EW-23 shut down
EW-21 shut down
EW-43 shut down
EW-3 shut down
EW-1 shut down
EW-1 1 shut down
EW-1 3 and EW-27 shut down
EW-1 6 shut down
EW-9, DW-13, DW-17, and DW-18 shut down
DW-16, DW-12, and DW-15 shut down
EW-2, EW-7, EW-1 2, and EW-1 5 shut down
ESD signed.
EPA approval to pump groundwater and discharge to POTW without pretreatment received
Source: [2,3]
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards F31
The cleanup goals require a level of 10 mg/L for
chromium in the upper aquifer and 0.10 mg/L
(the current maximum contaminant limit, or MCL)
for chromium in the deep aquifer.
Additional Information on Goals [3]
The cleanup goal of 10 mg/L for chromium in the
upper aquifer was determined to be the
maximum allowable concentration in the upper
aquifer that was still protective of the deep
aquifer, and that met the risk requirement for the
upper aquifer. In addition, the MCL established
by EPA for total chromium was originally 0.05
mg/L but was revised to 0.10 mg/L in 1992.
Treatment Performance Goals T31
The primary treatment performance goal is
to hydraulically contain the contaminant
plume.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
214
TIO3.WP6\0306-04.stf
-------
United Chrome Superfund Site
TREATMENti SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Assessment F1.61
• Chromium concentrations in both aquifers
have been reduced. Figure 2 illustrates the
decrease in average chromium
concentrations in both the upper and the
deep aquifers over time. Performance data
indicate that the average chromium
concentrations in the upper aquifer have
been reduced 99%, from 1,923 mg/L in
August 1988 to 18 mg/L in March 1997.
Average chromium concentrations in the
deep aquifer have been reduced 92%, from
1.4 mg/L in August 1991 to 0.11 mg/L in
March 1997.
• Cleanup goals for chromium have been met
in 11 of 23 wells in the upper aquifer and in
six of seven wells in the deep aquifer.
Cleanup goals have been met in all
perimeter wells. In the upper aquifer,
chromium concentrations in 12 wells remain
above the 10 mg/L cleanup goal, with a
Performance Data Completeness
maximum concentration of 64 mg/L. In the
deep aquifer, chromium concentrations in
one well remain slightly above the 0.10 mg/L
cleanup goal, with a maximum concentration
of 0.11 mg/L
Approximately 31,363 Ibs of chromium have
been removed from the upper aquifer and
approximately 96 Ibs of chromium have been
removed from the deep aquifer, for a total of
31,459 Ibs removed. Figures 3 and 4 show
mass removal over time from August 1988
through March 1997 for the shallow and
deep aquifers, respectively. The mass
removal rate has decreased since August
1988. The upper aquifer continues to yield
approximately 0.8 Ibs/day of chromium;
however, the deep aquifer yields less than
0.01 Ibs/day of chromium.
Average chromium concentrations and mass removal data used in Figures 2, 3, and 4 were provided in
the 1997 First Quarterly Report. Chromium concentrations in individual wells are available in various
quarterly reports. Monthly data from August 1988 through December 1996, the most recent data
available, were used for Figure 2. Monthly data from August 1988 through March 1997 were used to
depict mass removal in Figures 3 and 4.
Performance Data Quality
The QA/QC program used throughout the remedial action met EPA and State of Oregon 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
215
T1O3.WP6\0306-04.stf
-------
United Chrome Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
10000
1000
i
I
E
ZJ
O
o
D)
100 -
10
0.1 ,-
0.01
Aug-87 Dec-88 Apr-90 Aug-91 Dec-92 Apr-94 Aug-95 Dec-96
.Shallow Aquifer _«—Deep Aquifer
Figure 2. Chromium Levels in the Groundwater as a Function of Time [1]
60.00
35,000
CO
i » Mass Rux x Cumulative Mass Removed i
Figure 3. Chromium Mass Removed from the Upper Aquifer as a Function of Time [1]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
216
TIO3.WP6\0306-04.stf
-------
United Chrome Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
-Mass Flux
. Cumulative Mass Removed :
Figure 4. Chromium Mass Removed from the Deep Aquifer as a Function of Time [1]
Procurement Process
The City of Corvallis operates the remediation systems. EPA has contracted with CH2M Hill, Inc. to
oversee and evaluate the remediation system.
Cost Analysis
All costs for investigation, design, and construction of the treatment system at this site were borne by
EPA. The City of Corvallis has borne the costs of operation and made payment to EPA under terms of a
Consent Decree.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
217
TIO3.WP6\0306-04.stf
-------
United Chrome Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Capital Costs [8]
Administration and Mobilization
Monitoring Wells and Sampling
Site Work
Groundwater Extraction
Treatment System
Construction Management and
Other Engineering Services
State Oversight
Other Costs
Total Remedial Construction
Cost Data Quality
$745,035
$131,903
$300,195
$611,669
$1,374,625
$130,235
$13,656
$22,522
$3,329,840
Operating Costs [9]
1987-1 998 (fiscal year)
1988-1989
1989-1990
1990-1991
1991-1992
1992-1993
1993-1994
1994-1995
1995-1996
1996-1997
Cumulative 1987-1997
Other Costs \8]
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study
Corps Oversight
Total RI/FS
Remedial Design
State Oversight
Total Remedial Design
EPA Oversight (Contractor included)
$11,722
$177,405
$97,838
$531,626
$251,573
$90,523
$53,428
$36,748
$25,374
$31,081
$1,307,318
$263,832
$4,759
$268,590
$348,810
$15,059
$363,869
$250,000
Actual capital and operating cost data were provided by the EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM) and
the City of Corvallis for this site.
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Actual costs for the P&T application at
United Chrome were approximately
$4,637,160 ($3,329,840 in capital costs and
$1,307,320 in operating costs. This cost
corresponds to $75 per 1,000 gallons of
water treated and $140 per pound of
contaminant removed.
Operations costs dropped by an order of
magnitude when the treatment system was
discontinued in 1992.
The City of Corvallis realized the chromium
level in the treatment system influent would
drop below pretreatment standards prior to
complete remediation, and planned
EPA
accordingly. They used a modular shorter-
term treatment system at a cost of $1.3
million, compared to a more expensive
permanent remedy.
Normal groundwater recharge to the upper
aquifer is limited and reinjection of water into
the aquifer was necessary to continue
flushing the contaminated aquifer.
Therefore, it was necessary to remove as
little water as possible from the upper aquifer
and to optimize the contaminant removal per
gallon of water pumped. The flexible
pumping and injecting system enabled the
remediation system to operate in these
conditions.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
218
TIO3.WP6\0306-04.stf
-------
United Chrome Superfund Site
REFERENCES
1. United Chrome Quarterly Report/First
Quarter 1997. Tom Penpraze, City of
CorvalliSj April 4, 1997.
2. Case History: Effective Groundwater
Remediation at the United Chrome
Superfund Site. U.S. EPA Region 10, CH2M
Hill, undated.
3. Record of Decision. U.S. EPA Region 10,
September 12, 1986.
4. Explanation of Significant Differences. U.S.
EPA Region 10, November 1, 1992.
5. Final Remedial Investigation Report.
Ecology and Environment, Inc., July 26,
1985.
6. Process Modification Request.
Correspondence U.S. EPA Region 10,
November 28, 1994.
7. United Chrome 1996 Annual Report. Tom
Penpraze, City of Corvallis, March 11, 1997.
8. Ground-water Remedial Cost Analysis.
Pump and Treat of Contaminated
Groundwater at the United Chrome Products
Site, Corvallis, OR, unpublished document
prepared under the U.S. EPA Hazardous
Site Control Division Remedial Operations
Guidance Branch.
9. Draft comments provided by the City of
Corvallis, August 1998.
10. Draft comments provided by Allan
Goodman, EPA Region 10.
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 EMI Inc. under EPA Contract No. 68-W4-0004.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
219
TIO3.WP6\0306-04.stf
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
220
-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the U.S. Aviex Superfund Site,
Niles, Michigan
221
-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the U.S. Aviex Superfund Site,
Niles, Michigan
Site Name:
U.S. Aviex Superfund Site
Location:
Niles, Michigan
Contaminants:
Chlorinated solvents and
volatiles - nonhalogenated
- Maximum concentrations
detected in 1985 sampling event
were 1,1,1-TCA (200,000 ug/L),
1,2-DCA (1,600 ug/L), and diethyl
ether (DEE, at 5,700 ug/L)
Period of Operation:
Status: Ongoing
Report covers: 7/93 - 12/96
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup (interim results)
Vendor:
EPA Contractor:
Jack Brunner
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
200 East Randolph Dr, Suite 4700
Chicago, IL 60601
(312)856-8700
Air Stripping Tower: LANTAC
Construction Subcontractor: ATEC
Associates Inc.
2777 Finley Road, Unit 4
Downers Grove, IL 60515
Technology:
Pump and Treat
- Groundwater is extracted using 5
wells, located on site, at an average
total pumping rate of 232 gpm
- Extracted groundwater is treated
with air stripping and discharged to
a surface water under a NPDES
permit
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA Remedial
-RODDate: 9/7/88
State Point of Contact:
Carl Chavez
MDEQ
P.O. Box 30426
Lansing, MI 48909-7926
(517)373-8174
EPA Point of Contact:
Ken Glatz, RPM
U.S. EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
(312)886-1434
Waste Source:
Ruptured drums, leaking
underground pipe
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Performed modeling for system
optimization (MODFLOW and
Randomwalk).
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
- 329 million gallons treated as of December 1996
- DNAPL suspected in groundwater at this site
- Groundwater is found at 20 ft bgs
- Extraction wells are located in 1 aquifer
- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 9.1 to 45.4 ft/day
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Remediate the groundwater to levels established by MDEQ and the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs)
established by the SDWA.
- Cleanup goals include DEE (43 ug/L), 1,1,1-TCA (200 ug/L), 1,2-DCA (5 ug/L), 1,1-DCE (7 ug/L), TCE (5
ug/L), PCE (0.88 ug/L), benzene (5 ug/L), toluene (2,000 ug/L), ethylbenzene (680 ugL), and xylene (440 ug/L).
- A secondary goal of the system is to create an inward hydraulic gradient to contain the contaminant plume.
222
-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the U.S. Aviex Superfund Site,
Niles, Michigan (continued)
Results:
- The average concentration of total contaminants has decreased from 158 to 67 ug/L over 3 1/2 years of
operation; however, contaminant concentrations have declined but remain above cleanup goals.
- Approximately 664 pounds of contaminants have been removed from the groundwater from September 1993 to
December 1996.
- Plume containment has been maintained in this application; however, additional contamination has been
identified outside of the original plume. This has been attributed to historically elevated levels not discovered
during the RI/FS.
Cost:
- Actual costs for the P&T system from 1993-1996 were approximately $1,942,000 ($1,332,000 in capital and
$610,000 in O&M), which correspond to $5 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $2,925 per pound
of contaminant removed.
Description:
The site was operated as a non-lubricating automotive fluids manufacturer from the early 1960s until 1978.
Fluid manufacturing included repackaging of bulk products and formulation of new products from bulk
ingredients. In July 1972, an underground pipe carrying diethyl ether (DEE) broke during excavation activities,
releasing an unknown quantity to the soil and groundwater. In November 1978, a fire ruptured chemical-storing
drums. The water used to extinguish the fire washed unknown amounts of chlorinated hydrocarbons onto
unpaved areas. After the 1978 release, U.S. Aviex performed a groundwater investigation. The site was placed
on the NPL in 1983 and a ROD was signed in 1988.
The pump and treat system currently in use at U.S. Aviex consists of five extraction wells installed to 100 ft bgs,
and an air stripper 56 ft tall, 4 ft in diameter, and packed with plastic media. Groundwater monitoring data
indicate that while maximum contaminant concentrations have dropped (up to 99% for 1,1,1-TCA), they remain
above cleanup goals. In addition, contamination has been detected in wells down-gradient of the plume
identified in the RI/FS, and EPA is in the process of further characterizing the plume.
223
-------
U.S. Aviex Superfund Site
SITE INFORMATION
Identifying Information:
Treatment Application:
U.S. Aviex Superfund Site
Niles, Michigan
CERCLIS#: MID980794556
ROD Date: September?, 1988
Rapknrnund
Type of Action: Remedial
Period of operation: 7/93 - Ongoing
(Performance Data Collected Through
December 1996)
Quantity of material treated during
application: 329 million gallons of groundwater
treated
Historical Activity that Generated
Contamination at the Site: Production of
industrial organic chemicals
Corresponding SIC Code: 2869, (manufacture
of industrial organic chemicals)
Waste Management Practices That
Contributed to Contamination: Ruptured
drums, leaking underground pipe
Location: Niles, Michigan
Facility Operations: [1,2]
• The site, a six-acre parcel of land, operated
as a non-lubricating automotive fluids
manufacturer, from the early 1960s until
1978. Fluid manufacturing included the
repackaging of bulk products and the
formulation of new products from bulk
ingredients.
• In July 1972, an underground pipe carrying
diethyl ether (DEE) broke during excavation
activities, releasing an unknown quantity to
the soil and groundwater.
• In response to the 1972 pipeline break, U.S.
Aviex installed five on-site monitoring wells
and supplied affected residences with
bottled water. No remedial work was
documented from 1972 to 1978.
• In November 1978, a fire ruptured chemical-
storing drums. The water used to extinguish
the fire washed unknown amounts of
chlorinated hydrocarbons onto unpaved
areas [1]. Operations at the site ceased in
1978.
• After the 1978 release, U.S. Aviex performed
a groundwater investigation. In 1982, U.S.
Aviex entered into an agreement with the
Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ) to construct an on-site
pump and treat (P&T) system to contain the
identified contamination.
In November 1983, U.S. Aviex began
extraction and treatment of groundwater
from two extraction wells as an interim
remedy during the remedial investigation.
Contaminated soils were left in place.
• In 1983, the site was placed on the National
Priorities List (NPL). In 1987, the MDEQ
installed an alternate water supply system to
affected residences.
• The Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) began in 1985, funded by U.S.
Aviex. In 1988, U.S. Aviex was declared
bankrupt and the RI/FS was completed by
the EPA.
• Currently, EPA is further characterizing the
site to determine the full extent of the
contaminant plume.
Regulatory Context:
• The 1987 interim remedy was constructed
under a 1982 agreement with the MDEQ.
The performance data presented in this
report do not address the performance of the
1983 interim remedy, but does address
performance of the current system from July
1993 to December 1996.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
224
TIO3.WP6\1120-02.stf
-------
U.S. Aviex Superfund Site
SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background (Cont.)
• The Record of Decision (ROD) for the U.S.
Aviex site was signed on September 7,
1988, and addressed both on-site and off-
site contamination in the soil and
groundwater. The selected remedy for soil
remediation was soil flushing; however, it
was determined after the ROD during pre-
design investigations that the soil was clean.
No soil flushing was performed.
• Site activities are conducted under
provisions of the Comprehensive
Site Logistics/Contacts
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.
Remedy Selection: The selected remedy for
groundwater treatment is extraction of
groundwater, followed by treatment through air
stripping, with discharge of treated water to
nearby surface water.
Site Lead: EPA-Lead 1988-1996
Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ)-Lead
1996-Ongoing
Oversight: EPA
Remedial Project Manager:
Ken Glatz
U.S. EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604-3507
(312) 886-1434
State Contact:
Carl Chavez*
MDEQ
PO Box 30426
Lansing, Michigan 48909-7926
(517) 373-8174
Treatment System Vendors:
EPA Contractor. Jack Brunner*
Tetra Tech EM Inc. (Formerly PRC
Environmental Management, Inc.)
200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 4700
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 856-8700
Air Stripping Tower: LANTAC
Construction Subcontractor: ATEC Associates,
Inc.
2777 Finley Road, Unit 4
Downers Grove, Illinois 60515
* Indicates Primary Contacts
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix Processed Through the
Treatment System: Groundwater
Contaminant Characterization M. 3. 4. 5. 61
Primary Contaminant Groups: Volatile
organic compounds (VOCs)
The groundwater contaminants of concern
detected at the site are the following VOCs:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
225
TIO3.WP6\1120-02.stf
-------
U.S. Aviex Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
benzene, 1,2-dichloroethane(1,2-DCA), 1,1-
dichloroethene (1,1-DCE),frans-1,2-
dichloroethene (frans-1,2-DCE), DEE,
dichlorofluoromethane (DCFM),
tetrachloroethene (PCE), 1,1,1-TCA,
trichloroethene (TCE), and
trichlorofluoromethane (TCFM).
Contamination only has been detected in the
upper water table aquifer.
The index contaminants of the site are DEE,
1,1,1-TCA, and 1,2-DCA.
The maximum concentrations of the index
contaminants detected in on-site wells
during a 1985 sampling event (data provided
by U.S. Aviex) were 1,1,1-TCA (200,000
ug/L), DEE (5,700 ug/L), and
1,2-DCA (1,600 ug/L). The concentration of
1,1,1-TCA was greater than 60% of its
solubility. The maximum concentrations
detected in off-site wells during the 1984
sampling event were 1,1,1-TCA (3,000
ug/L), DEE (4,800 ug/L), and 1,2-DCA
(1,700 ug/L).
The concentration of 1,1,1-TCA detected
during the 1985 remedial investigation,
200,000 ug/L, is greater than 20% of its
solubility limit.
Figure 1 illustrates contaminant
concentrations detected during a 1988 RI/FS
sampling episode performed by EPA. The
plume extends southwest of the U.S. Aviex
property, in the direction of observed
groundwater flow.
Based on the map shown in Figure 1, the
initial contaminant plume was estimated to
be approximately 18 acres in size. Based on
an average depth of 30 feet as measured
during the RI/FS and a standard porosity of
0.30, the plume volume in 1988 was
calculated for this report to be approximately
53,664,000 gallons.
From 1996-1997 EPA reexamined the
plume. Figure 2 illustrates the plume
delineated by data from a December 1996
quarterly sampling event.
The additional assessment performed in
1997 detected DCA and DEE at
concentrations greater than cleanup levels,
in wells outside the initially identified plume
(see later discussion under performance
data assessment).
DCA has been detected at concentrations
above the cleanup level of 90 ug/L up to
approximately 2,400 feet northwest of the
initial plume boundary.
DEE has a ROD-specified maximum
contaminant level (MCL) of 43 ug/L based
on the 1988 MDEQ standard; however, the
health-based drinking water (HBDW)
standard is currently 3,700 ug/L. No
elevated levels of DEE above the current
HBDW standard have been detected outside
the initial plume. DEE has been detected
above the 43 ug/L limit given in the ROD up
to approximately 3,900 feet northwest of the
initial plume boundary.
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Costs or Performance [1. 3. 5. 7]
Hydrogeology:
Two distinct hydrogeologic units have been identified beneath this site. The upper water table aquifer is a
sand and gravel aquifer which extends from the water table, at approximately 20 feet below ground
surface, to approximately 110 feet below ground surface. A discontinuous sandy clay layer divides the
upper aquifer from the lower aquifer. Limited data are available on the lower aquifer, but it is known to be
an artesian non-flowing aquifer confined by the sandy clay layer in the area of the site. The groundwater
flow patterns observed in the confined aquifer are similar to those patterns of the upper aquifer.
Replacement residential wells were installed in this aquifer. No contamination has been detected in the
lower aquifer in the site vicinity.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
226
TIO3.WP6\1120-02.stf
-------
U.S. Aviex Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
EPA
Figure 1. Distribution of Contamination (1988) [7]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
227
TIO3.WP6\1120-02.stf
-------
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
U.S. Aviex Superfund Site
Figure 2. Distribution of Contamination (December 1996) [9]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
TIO3.WP6\1120-02.Stf
-------
U.S. Aviex Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Costs or Performance (Cont.)
Groundwater in the site vicinity flows southwest, which concurs with the plume distribution southwest of
the source. Prior to startup of remediation in 1993, the contaminant plume migrated further southwest
than the previous sampling events indicated. Further characterization has been completed by Tetra Tech
EM Inc. for the EPA and MDEQ to determine the extent of the plume, and is reported in their Additional
Groundwater Assessment Summary Report.
The additional assessment determined that groundwater in the site vicinity of U.S. Aviex flows southwest,
but regionally returns to northwest flow. Further discussion of the assessment is given in the Performance
Data Assessment section.
Table 1 includes technical aquifer information.
Table 1. Technical Aquifer Information
Unit Name
Thickness
(ft)
Conductivity
(ft/day)
Average Velocity
(ft/day)
Upper Aquifer 70-100 9.1-45.4 0.5
Lower Aquifer Not Characterized Not Characterized Not Characterized
* Groundwater flows southwest in the site vicinity, but flows northwest regionally.
Flow Direction
Southwest*
Not Characterized
Source: [1]
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology
Pump and treat with air stripping
System Description and Operation \2, 3. 5. 8.101
Supplemental Treatment Technology
None
Table 2. Extraction Well Data
Well
Name
EW-1
EW-2
EW-3
EW-4
EW-5
Unit Name
Upper Aquifer
Upper Aquifer
Upper Aquifer
Upper Aquifer
Upper Aquifer
Depth (ft)
100
100
100
100
100
Design
Yield (gal/min)
100
50
50
50
50
Source: [1]
System Description
• In 1982, U.S. Aviex entered into an
agreement with the MDEQ to construct a
P&T system in an effort to prevent further
migration of the groundwater contaminant
plume detected both on and off site. The
P&T system consisted of two extraction
wells, an air stripper, and a force main.
The extraction wells were placed on site in
the area of the 1978 release to hydraulically
contain the source. Groundwater was
extracted, passed through the air stripper,
and pumped to the force main outfall.
This P&T system was an interim remedy that
operated from 1982 until its shutdown in
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
229
TIO3.WP6YI120-02.stf
-------
U.S. Aviex Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
1988. No monitoring data were available
from MDEQ or EPA records for operation
from 1982 until 1988. Therefore, this report
does not address the cost or performance of
this interim remedy.
After the RI/FS was conducted in 1985 to
characterize contamination in the area and
the ROD was signed in 1988, the existing
P&T system was modified to meet
requirements specified by the EPA in the
ROD.
The two extraction wells constructed as part
of the 1982 P&T system were replaced in
1993 by a network of five extraction wells at
a depth of 100 feet. Table 2 presents a
summary of extraction well data and the
specific design extraction rates. The total
system design extraction rate is 300 gallons
per minute (gpm). Assuming the system is
operational 95% of the time and total
extraction is 329 million gallons, the actual
average volume of water treated is
estimated to be approximately 190 gpm.
The air stripper from the 1982 P&T system
was retrofitted to meet the new remedial
design requirements. The operating air
stripper is 56 feet tall and 4 feet in diameter.
Influent wastewater is distributed over a bed
of plastic media, 46 feet high, packed in the
air stripper. Air introduced at the bottom of
the tower passes countercurrent to the
groundwater, stripping the contaminants
from the groundwater. The effluent vapor
from the air stripper is discharged directly to
the atmosphere. Treated water from the air
stripper is ultimately discharged to the St.
Joseph River via an effluent force main to
the Bame-Huntley drain in accordance with
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit requirements.
Groundwater quality is monitored through
the five extraction wells and surrounding
network of 18 monitoring wells.
Groundwater flow is monitored through a
network of 10 piezometers.
System Operation
• Quantity of groundwater pumped from
aquifer in gallons (gal):
Year Average Volume Pumped (Gal)
1993 58,850,000
1994 104,650,000
1995 79,720,000
1996 86,120,000
1997 67,290,000
• The site is operational 95% of the time. The
treatment system is shut down four times
per year or as needed for cleaning of the
wells and system maintenance.
• The present extraction system was designed
to contain the contaminant plume defined in
the 1988 RI/FS and to allow for optimization
of groundwater extraction rates from wells in
source zone areas and off-property.
• EW-1 is located at the downgradient edge of
the plume. Modflow and Randomwalk
computer models determined that an
extraction rate of 100 gpm from EW-1 would
contain the plume. The other extraction
wells, also analyzed by computer model,
were designed to remove groundwater from
areas closer to the source areas.
• The average groundwater extraction rates
from 1993 until 1996 for each extraction well
are listed below:
Well Average Pumping Rate
(gal/min)
EW-1 133
EW-2 24
EW-3 12
EW-4 16
EW-5 47
• Pumping from EW-1 was increased from 123
gpm in 1994 to 159 gpm in 1996, in an effort
to contain the contaminant plume. At
system operation startup in 1993,
contaminant concentrations were detected
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
230
TIO3.WP6\1120-02.stf
-------
U.S. Aviex Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM [DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
System Description and Operation (Cont.)
above clean-up levels in wells installed
outside the remedial system capture zone to
monitor collection system performance. To
increase the system capture zone, pumping
from EW-1 was increased. This approach
has not been completely successful and the
extent of the plume was re-investigated.
The investigation by the EPA and state
concluded that historical contamination
existed outside the original plume, as
discussed in the Performance Data
Assessment section of this report.
Because low levels of contamination were
detected in extraction wells EW-3 and
EW-4, these wells were shut down from
1994 through December 1996.
Pumping from EW-2 was adjusted according
to fluctuations in contaminant
concentrations from this well. When
contaminant concentrations decreased in
1995, pumping was decreased. When
contaminant concentrations increased in
1996, pumping increased.
Well EW-5 is located at the source area of
the plume. It has pumped at about 50
gallons per minute from 1994 through
December 1996.
New plastic packing material was put in the
air stripper in 1993 because of fouling. The
packing media has not been changed since
that time.
Based on additional assessment, several
options were identified by the treatment
vendor for possible expansion of the
treatment system [9].
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
The groundwater extraction rate is a major operating parameter affecting cost or performance for this
technology. Table 3 presents the average extraction rate between system start up in July 1993 through
December 1996 and the required performance parameters.
Table 3: Operating Parameters
-^Parameter
Average Extraction Rate
Remedial Goal
(aquifer)
Performance Standard
(effluent)
NPDES Requirements
Source: [1, 8]
'Value
190-280 gpm
DEE 43 pg/L
1,1,1-TCA 200 pg/L
1,2-DCA5pg/L
Benzene 5 pg/L
Ethylbenzene 680 pg/L
Toluene 2,000 pg/L
Xylene 440 pg/L
Chloroform 2 ug/L
1,1-DCE7pg/L
TCE 5 pg/L
PCE 0.88 pg/L
trans-1,2-DCE 700 ug/L
trichlorofluoromethene (TCFM) 32,000 pg/L
dichlorofluoromethane (DCFM) 3,000 ug/L
DEE 275 ug/L
1,1,1-TCA 120 ug/L
1,2-DCA 560 ug/L
Benzene 51 ug/L
Ethylbenzene 62 ug/L
Toluene 100 pg/L
Xylene 40 pg/L
Chloroform 43 pg/L
1,1-DCE3pg/L
• TCE 94 pg/L
PCE 20 pg/L
trans-1,2-DCE 90 pg/L
TCFM 20 pg/L
DCFM 20 ug/L
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
231
TIO3.WP6\1120-02.stf
-------
U.S. Aviex Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Tim A! In A
A timeline for this remedial project is shown in Table 4.
Start Date
1982
1986
9/7/88
09/88
4/92
7/93
1993
1997
End Date
—
_
09/91
6/93
—
_
Activity
Interim P&T system installed
Interim P&T system shut down and RI/FS completed
Record of Decision signed
Remedial design
Remedial construction, including replacement of interim extraction wells
Remedial system begins operations; quarterly monitoring of groundwater begins
Contamination detected in downstream monitoring wells; pumping from EW-1 and
EW-5 increased
Extent of plume examined
Source: [2,3,5]
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards f1]
• The cleanup goals for the site are to
remediate the groundwater to levels
established by the MDEQ and the maximum
contaminant levels (MCL) established by the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA); these
levels are applied throughout the aquifer.
The cleanup goals for DEE, 1,1,1-TCA, and
1,2-DCA are listed in Table 3.
Treatment Performance Goals Ml
Additional Information on Goals [11
• The MDEQ health-based cleanup
concentration for DEE is now 3,700 ug/L, not
43 ug/L as given in the ROD. EPA and
MDEQ are deciding on future action
regarding the cleanup standard for DEE.
• Emissions during operation of the air stripper
will not be monitored because influent
groundwater contaminant levels are not
significant and vapor emissions comply with
Clean Air Act and permitting requirements.
The primary goal for the treatment system is
to reduce index contaminant concentrations
to levels which meet the NPDES
requirements listed in Table 3.
The secondary goal for the treatment system
is to create an inward hydraulic gradient to
contain the contaminant plume.
Performance Data
fA S 6 8. 91
For this discussion and Figures 2 and 3, total
contaminant concentration includes
concentrations of benzene, 1,2-DCA, 1,1-DCE,
trans-1,2-DCE, DEE, DCFM, PCE, 1,1,1-TCA,
TCE, and TCFM. In addition, this discussion
addresses system performance only for the
current P&T system; the interim system (1982-
1986) is not included in this assessment.
• Contaminant concentrations have declined
but remain above cleanup goals. The
maximum concentration of 1,1,1-TCA has
EPA
dropped from 200,000 ug/L to 400 ug/L, a
99.8% reduction. The maximum
concentration of DEE dropped from 5,700
ug/L to 100 ug/L, a 98% reduction. The
maximum concentration of 1,2-DCA dropped
from 4,800 ug/L to 33 ug/L, a 99% reduction.
As illustrated in Figure 3, average total
contaminant concentrations have also
declined, indicating contaminant reduction
across the entire plume. The average
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
232
TIO3.WP6M120-02.stf
-------
U.S. Aviex Superfund Site
TRE^TMENf SYSTEM jDESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Performance Data Assessment fContl
concentration of total contaminants has
decreased from 158 to 67 ug/L over 3 Yz
years of operation, a 58% reduction. The
average concentration of 1,1,1 -TCA has
decreased from 107 to 40 yg/L over 3 !4
years of operation, a 63% reduction.
• NPDES permit requirements have been met
consistently over the 42 months of operation.
• In 1993, contaminants were detected at
concentrations above cleanup goals in
downgradient monitoring wells beyond the
limits of the plume initially identified. The
increased pumping rate in EW-1 was not
sufficient to recapture the plume.
• The additional assessment, as discussed in
the Matrix Description section, found
contamination outside of the initial plume.
However, the assessment determined the
elevated DCA and DEE levels were not due
to loss of plume containment. Wells along
the perimeter and just outside the extraction
well capture zone were not found to contain
elevated levels of contaminants, which
indicates that plume containment had been
Performance Data Completeness
maintained. The discovery of contamination
outside the originally estimated plume has
been attributed to historically elevated levels
not discovered during the RI/FS.
To address the additional contamination, the
number of extraction wells may be expanded
or innovative remediation may be applied.
Figure 4 presents the removal of total
contaminants through the treatment system
from September 1993 to December 1996.
Over this period the P&T system removed
approximately 664 pounds of total
contaminant mass from the groundwater.
During system startup in the first two months
of operation, the contaminant mass removal
was low, at 0.064 Ib/day. The removal rate
increased to 0.65 Ib/day in November 1993,
as shown in Figure 3. However, as
contaminant levels in the groundwater
dropped from 1993 to 1995, the removal rate
also dropped from 0.65 Ibs/day in November
1993 to 0.22 Ib/day in December 1995.
• Data are available for contaminant
concentrations in the groundwater in the
extraction wells during quarterly sampling
events from May 1993 to December 1996.
Data are available for contaminant
concentrations in the influent to the
treatment system from September 1993 to
September 1996. Data regarding the
additional contamination outside the plume is
available in Reference 9.
• Contaminant mass removal, depicted in
Figure 4, was determined using analytical
results of samples from the influent stream
to the treatment plant from each well and the
extraction well flow data, along with
treatment effluent data, from September
1993 to September 1996.
Performance Data Quality
The geometric mean of total contaminant
concentrations, depicted in Figure 3, was
determined using analytical results from
annual sampling of extraction wells and
monitoring wells. The geometric mean
represents the trend of contaminant
concentrations across the entire plume.
All extraction wells within the original plume
were used for calculation of the mean
concentration. When concentrations below
detection limits were encountered, half of the
detection limit was used for evaluation
purposes.
No data were available for the interim P&T
system (1982-1986); therefore, the system
performance was not evaluated as part of
this report.
The QA/QC program used throughout the remedial action met the EPA and the MDEQ requirements. All
monitoring was performed using EPA-approved methods: SW-846 Methods 601, 602, 624, 625,
Hardness, and TDS. 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
233
TIO3.WP6\1120-02.stf
-------
U.S. Aviex Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
300
Jan-93 Aug-93 Mar-94 Sep-94 Apr-95 Oct-95 May-96 Dec-96 Jun-97
. 1,1,1-TCA-B—Total Contaminants
Figure 3. Average Contaminant Concentrations from May 1993 until December 1996 [8]
700
1
I
u.
.Mass Flux (Ib/day)
.Mass Removed (Ib) i
Figure 4. Mass Flux Rate and Cumulative Total Contaminant Removal from September 1993 to
December 1996 [8].
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
234
TIO3.WP6YI120-02.Stf
-------
U.S. Aviex Superfund Site
Procurement Process
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
EPA contracted with Tetra Tech EM Inc. (formerly PRC Environmental Management, Inc.) for design and
construction oversight. ATEC Associates, Inc. constructed and operated the remedial system.
Cost Analysis
The costs incurred during initial remedial actions and during the beginning of the RI/FS through 1986 were
paid for by U.S. Aviex. MDEQ and EPA provided the remainder of the remedial costs.
Capital Costs F41
Remedial Construction of 1993 P&T System
Mobilization and Preparatory Work $223,833
Monitoring and Analysis $45,511
Site Work $354,241
Extraction Wells $130,731
Vapor Phase Carbon Filter $8,550
System Construction $559,954
Decontamination of Equipment and Area $8,855
Total Remedial Construction $1,331,675
Other Costs f4.51
Operating Costs from July 1993 until December 1996
Utilities
Sampling and Analytical Services
Other Operations and Maintenance
Total Operating Expenses
Other Costs F4.5T
$29,110
$238,887
$342,327
$610,324
Total Remedial Design
EPA Oversight Costs
1987 Air Stripper
1987 Effluent Force Main Outfall
$586,775
$170,000
$25,000
$50,000
Cost Data Quality
Actual cost data are available from the site manager for this application.
OBSERVATIONS ANDILESSONS LEARNED
The actual cost for groundwater treatment at
U.S. Aviex from 1993-1996 was
approximately $1,942,000 ($1,332,000 in
capital and $610,000 in operations and
maintenance), which corresponds to $2,925
per pound of total contaminants removed
and $5.00 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater
treated.
The impact of remediation on the plume size
is inconclusive because of the new data
regarding historically elevated contaminant
levels.
Contamination has been detected in wells
downgradient of the plume identified in the
RI/FS. As a result, further characterization
and expansion of the remedial system is
necessary. The further action will increase
the cost.
No performance data are available on the
interim P&T system; however, operation of
this system before the 1993 P&T system
went on line may have impacted the total
cost of the remediation. The interim system
began remediation and contained part of the
source area prior to full-scale remediation.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
235
TIO3.WP6\1120-02.stf
-------
U.S. Aviex Superfund Site
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED (CONT.)
Observations and Lessons Learned fConU
Monitoring data from extraction wells
indicate that while maximum contaminant
concentrations in the groundwater have
dropped significantly (up to 99% for 1,1,1-
TCA), they remain above cleanup goals.
After four years of P&T operation the rate of
contaminant removal has slowed [4]. While
no dense non-aqueous phase liquid
(DNAPL) has been directly observed during
sampling, high initial concentrations of 1,1,1-
TCA (greater than 60% of its solubility)
indicated the potential presence of DNAPL.
DNAPLs act as a constant source of
contamination and can replenish
groundwater plumes as they slowly desorb
and dissolve from saturated sediments into
the aqueous phase. If DNAPLs are present,
locating and eliminating them would improve
the effectiveness of this remedy [6].
The treatment system achieved a maximum
rate of total contaminant removal of 0.65
Ib/day during the first year of operation. The
total contaminant removal rate has
continuously declined since the beginning of
operations. By December, 1995, the total
contaminant removal rate had declined to
0.29 Ib/day. The decline in contaminant
removal rate is typical of P&T systems, in
that they remove contaminants most
efficiently at the beginning of operations,
when contaminant levels are highest.
REFERENCES
1. Record of Decision. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, September?, 1988.
2. Correspondence with Mr. Carl Chavez, SMU
#3 Project Manager, Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality. May 5, May 13, and
May 22,1997.
3. Remedial Action Report Completion
(RACR). PRC Environmental Management,
Inc., January 26,1994.
4. Ground-Water Cost Analysis. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
unpublished.
5. Correspondence with Mr. Ron Riesing and
Mr. Rick Hersemann, PRC Environmental
Management, Inc. (Now Tetra Tech EM
Inc.). April 21, May 9, May 15, and
November 12 1997; March 24 and April 3,
1998.
Analysis Preparation
6. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquids. Halin,
Scott G. And J.W. Weaver, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, March
1991.
7. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. EDI
Engineering and Science, 1988.
8. Annual Summary Monitoring Reports. PRC
Environmental Management, Inc., 1993-
1997.
9. Additional Groundwater Assessment
Summary Report. U.S. Aviex Site, prepared
by Tetra Tech EM Inc. for EPA Region 5
February 27, 1998.
10. Comments on draft report provided by Ron
Riesing, Tetra Tech EM, Inc. May 20,1998.
This case study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office in consultation with the MDEQ. 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
236
T1O3.WP6M 120-02.stf
-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the Western Processing Superfund Site,
Kent, Washington
237
-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the Western Processing Superfund Site,
Kent, Washington
Site Name:
Western Processing Superfund Site
Location:
Kent, Washington
Contaminants:
Chlorinated solvents; volatiles -
nonhalogenated (toluene); PAHs;
and metals
- Maximum initial concentrations
of chlorinated solvents and metals
were trans-1,2-DCE (390 mg/L),
TCE (250 mg/L), cadmium (2.5
mg/L), nickel (280 mg/L), and zinc
(510 mg/L)
Period of Operation:
Status: Ongoing
Report covers: 10/88 - 12/96
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup (interim results)
Vendor:
Contractors:
OHM Remediation Services, Corp.
(Formerly CWM)
Landau Associates, Inc.
PRP Contact:
PaulJohansen
Western Processing
20015 72nd Avenue South
Kent, Washington 98032
(425) 393-2565
State Point of Contact:
Christopher Maurer, P.E.
Washington Department of
Ecology
Technology:
Pump and Treat and Vertical
Barrier Wall
- Groundwater is extracted on-site
using 15 wells at an average total
pumping rate of 190 gpm; this
water is treated with air stripping
and reinjected through an
infiltration system
- Prior to 1996, groundwater was
extracted using 210 shallow,
vacuum-operated recovery well
points
- A slurry wall (vertical barrier
wall), 40 ft deep, encloses the 13-
acre site
- Groundwater is extracted off-site
using 3 wells at an average total
pumping rate of 40 gpm; this water
is treated with filtration and air
stripping prior to reinjection or
discharge to a POTW
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA Remedial
-RODDate: 9/85
EPA Point of Contact:
Lee Marshall, RPM
U.S. EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue(ECL-l 16)
Seattle, WA 98010
(206) 553-2723
Waste Source:
Unauthorized dumping, spills, and
leaks from surface impoundments
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Met goals for off-site plume within
eight years of operation; shallow
well points replaced recently with
deeper wells to provide for
containment; relatively large and
expensive system.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
- 974 million gallons treated as of December 1996
- LNAPL observed and DNAPL suspected in groundwater at this site
- Groundwater is found at 5-10 ft bgs
- Extraction wells are located in 2 aquifers; the aquifers are influenced by
a nearby surface water
- Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 1 to 100 ft/day
238
-------
Pump and Treat of Contaminated Groundwater at
the Western Processing Superfund Site,
Kent, Washington (continued)
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Groundwater cleanup goals were established in terms of surface water quality goals for Mill Creek (adjacent to
the site), based on federal ambient water quality criteria. These goals were required to be met within three
years. Surface water goals were established for cadmium (1.1 ug/L), chromium (207 ug/L), copper (11.8
ug/L), lead (3.2 ug/L), mercury (0.012 ug/L), nickel (158 ug/L), silver (0.12 ug/L), zinc (120 ug/L), cyanide
(5.2 ug/L), and hardness (100 ug/L).
- Remedial goals for the off-site aquifer were established for cis-l,2-DCE (70 ug/L) and trans-1,2-DCE (70
ug/L).
- An BSD, issued in 1995, changed the focus of the remediation from site restoration to containment.
Results:
- Monthly monitoring data indicated that the surface water quality in Mill Creek met the established criteria by
mid-1990. Further, concentrations for TCE, vinyl chloride, and zinc decreased in on-site wells by two orders
of magnitude from 1988 to 1995. However, elevated concentrations of contaminants remain in on-site wells.
As of June 1995, concentrations were reported as high as TCE (55,200 ug/L), DCE (14,600 ug/L), vinyl
chloride (5,490 ug/L), cadmium (1,360 ug/L), and zinc (117,000 ug/L).
- The system achieved the cleanup goal for DCE in all three of the extraction wells located in the off-site plume.
Concentrations of DCE have decreased in the off-site plume from above 2,000 ug/L in 1988 to less than 70
ug/L in January 1996. In addition, containment for the off-site plume has been achieved.
- A total of 102,000 pounds of contaminants have been removed from the groundwater during eight years of
operation.
Cost:
- Actual costs for pump and treat were $48,730,000 ($16,032,629 in capital, including the slurry wall, and
$32,697,483 in O&M), which correspond to $50 per 1,000 gallons of groundwater extracted and $478 per
pound of contaminant removed.
Description:
This site operated as a waste processing facility from 1961 to 1983. Over 400 businesses transported industrial
wastes to the site to be stored, reclaimed, or buried. Processes used at the site included recovery of metals from
sludges and liquid wastes, spent solvent recovery, reprocessing of pickle liquor, and waste oil reclamation. In
March 1981, during a RCRA audit, EPA first discovered violations of regulations governing waste storage, drum
management, surface impoundments, and waste piles. Remedial investigations were conducted between 1983
and 1985. An initial ROD was issued in September 1985, and an amended ROD in September 1986.
Groundwater is extracted on-site using 15 well; this water is treated with air stripping and reinjected through an
infiltration system. Prior to 1996, groundwater was extracted using 210 shallow, vacuum-operated recovery well
points. Groundwater is extracted off-site using 3 wells; this water is treated with filtration and air stripping prior
to reinjection or discharge to a POTW. The original approach to this site was an aggressive effort to fully restore
the site to original conditions within seven years. Restoration was a priority and high costs were incurred to
achieve this goal, including high operating costs. After eight years of pump and treat, the goal of restoration was
changed to containment based on the technical impracticability of achieving full restoration.
239
-------
Western Processing Superfund Site
SITE INFORMATION
Identifvina Information!.
Western Processing Superfund Site
Kent, Washington
CERCLISf: WAD009487514
ROD Date: September 1985
Amended September 1986
Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD)
December 1995
Treatment Application:
Type of Action: Remedial
Period of operation: 10/88-Ongoing
(Performance data collected through December
1996)
Quantity of groundwater treated during
application: 974 million gallons
Historical Activity that Generated
Contamination at the Site: Waste processing
Corresponding SIC Code: 4953W
(Miscellaneous waste processing)
Waste Management Practice That
Contributed to Contamination: Unauthorized
dumping, spills, and leaks from surface
impoundments
Location: Kent, Washington
Facility Operations: [3, 7]
• The 13-acre site operated as a waste
processing facility from 1961 to 1983. Over
400 businesses transported industrial
wastes to the site to be stored, reclaimed, or
buried. Processes at the site included the
recovery of metals from sludges and liquid
wastes; spent solvent recovery; reclamation
of caustics, flue ash, and ferrous sulfide;
reprocessing pickle liquor; electrolytic
destruction of cyanides; chemical
recombination to produce zinc chloride and
lead chromate; and waste oil reclamation.
Operations ceased in 1983 by order of the
EPA.
• In March 1981, during a RCRA audit, EPA
first discovered violations of regulations
governing waste storage, drum
management, surface impoundments, and
waste piles.
In 1983, EPA performed an emergency
waste removal operation to stabilize the
site. Over 460,000 gallons and 127 drums
of waste liquids were removed.
• Remedial investigations were conducted
between 1983 and 1985.
Site cleanup activities were divided into two
phases. Phase I involved removing tanks,
buildings, impoundments, and waste piles
from the site. Phase II involved subsurface
cleanup.
The initial ROD was issued in September
1985. It was amended in 1986 to reflect the
requirements to be included in the Consent
Decree.
In April 1987, a Consent Decree was
entered to begin Phase II cleanup activities.
In the summer of 1987, construction
activities began, which included installing
two extraction and treatment systems and a
slurry wall, enclosing the site. Extraction
and treatment began in October 1988.
After eight years of remediation that
focused on groundwater and soil restoration,
the objective was changed to contain the
contamination on site and prevent further
off-site migration. An ESD was issued in
December 1995 to reflect a Technical
Impracticability (Tl) Waiver.
A new extraction system was installed in
1996 to provide more automated operation
during the period of containment. A new
treatment system was constructed for all
groundwater extracted during containment
operations and became operational in June
1997.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
240
TIO3.WP6YI118-05.stf
-------
Western Processing Superfund Site
SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background fCont.}
Regulatory Context:
• Site activities are conducted under
provisions of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, and the
National Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR
300.
• The ROD for the site was signed in
September 1985 and amended in
September 1986. A Consent Decree was
issued in 1987. An ESD was issued in
December 1995.
Site Logistics/Contacts
Groundwater Remedy Selection:
• Originally, the selected remedy was
extraction and treatment of groundwater in
conjunction with a passive containment
system (slurry wall) and an aggressive effort
to restore groundwater quality to acceptable
levels within five to seven years. In the
ESD, the remedy was changed to
containment of the on-site and off-site
plumes.
Site Lead: PRP
Oversight: EPA/State of Washington
(Joint Oversight)
Remedial Project Manager:
Lee Marshall
U.S. EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue (ECL-116)
Seattle, WA 98010
(206) 553-2723
State Contact:
Christopher Maurer, P.E.
Washington Department of Ecology
Contractors:
OHM Remediation Services, Corp. (Formerly
CWM)
Landau Associates, Inc.
PRP - Lead:
Paul Johansen*
Western Processing
20015 72nd Avenue South
Kent, Washington 98032
(425) 393-2565
indicates primary contact
Matrix Identification
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
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
241
TIO3.WP6\1118-05.stf
-------
Western Processing Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Contaminant Characterization n. 2.13.171
Primary Contaminant Groups: Halogenated
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), phenolic
compounds, and metals
• The primary organic contaminants of
concern are trichloroethene (TCE), cis- and
frans-1,2-dichloroethene (DCE), methylene
chloride, toluene, and vinyl chloride.
• The metal contaminants of concern are
cadmium, zinc, chromium, nickel, copper,
and lead.
• Figures 1 and 2 show plume maps from
1988,1991, and 1995 for TCE and vinyl
chloride.
• Investigations conducted during the
remedial investigation identified more than
90 of EPA's priority pollutants at the site,
mostly volatile and semivolatile organic
compounds and metals.
• The maximum initial concentrations of
contaminants detected were 390 mg/L
(frans-1,2-DCE), 250 mg/L (TCE), 510 mg/L
(zinc), 280 mg/L (nickel), and 2.5 mg/L
(cadmium).
• In 1989, an EPA toxicologist suggested that
the organic compound oxazolidinone
present in the site groundwater might be
genotoxic. As a result, an activated carbon
system was added to remove this
compound from the treated groundwater.
The compound was later found to be non-
hazardous and the carbon treatment system
was removed [13].
An immiscible liquid has been visually
observed floating in samples taken from
several on-site wells, confirming the
presence of light nonaqueous phase liquid
(LNAPL). The levels of DCE found in
groundwater samples were also greater than
6% of solubility. Although this concentration
indicates the likely presence of a dense
nonaqueous phase liquid (DNAPL), DNAPLs
were never found.
The volume of the plume was estimated for
this report to be approximately 500 million
gallons, based on monitoring data collected
in 1987 [17].
The majority of contaminants are found on
site within the upper unconfined aquifer.
The on-site plume contains many
contaminants and primarily impacts Mill
Creek to the west of the site.
A separate, deeper plume containing
primarily c/s-1,2-DCE is also present off
site. This plume originates on site in the
southern portion of the site.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
242
TIO3.WP6\1118-05.Stf
-------
Western Processing Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Figure 1. Trichloroethene (TCE) Contour Maps (Concentrations in ug/L) [10]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
243
TIO3.WP6\1118-05.stf
-------
Western Processing Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Figure 2. Vinyl Chloride Contour Maps (Concentrations in ug/L) [10]
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
244
TIO3.WP6YI118-05.stf
-------
Western Processing Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Costs or Performance
Hydrogeology [1]:
Three major geologic units comprise the hydrogeologic system in the vicinity of the site. These units
comprise the White River Alluvium, the valley fill deposits that occur throughout the Kent Valley and
beneath the Western Processing site. The alluvial fill consists primarily of sand, silt, and clay with
occasional layers of sandy gravel. The White River Alluvium is not considered to be a major drinking
water source due to naturally occurring poor water quality. Groundwater is encountered at 5 to 10 feet
below ground surface. Shallow groundwater (Unit 1) flows northwest from the site and discharges into
Mill Creek. The deeper aquifer (Unit 2) begins approximately 40 feet below ground surface.
Groundwater in this unit flows northwest also, but passes below Mill Creek. Contaminants in Unit 2 were
transported downgradient of the site and Mill Creek; contaminants in Unit 1 migrated to Mill Creek prior
to the installation of a slurry wall around the site.
Unitl (Shallow Aquifer)
Unit 2 (Deep Aquifer)
A complex sequence of discontinuous interbedded silt, sand, and clay
lenses to a depth of 40 feet below ground surface.
A fairly continuous fine to medium sand with intermittent silty zones
existing below 40 feet. This sand unit extends to a depth of 150 feet
below ground surface.
Tables 1 and 2 present technical aquifer information and technical well data, respectively.
Table 1. Technical Aquifer Information
Unit Name
1
2
Thickness
(ft)
35-40
75-100
Conductivity
(ft/day)
1 -10
10-100
Velocity
(ft/day)
.27
0 02 - 0 2
Flow Direction
Northwest
Northwest
bource: [1]
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology
Pump and treat (P&T) with air stripping and
metals precipitation
In situ soil flushing (1988 -1996)
Supplemental Treatment Technology
Passive containment system (slurry wall)
Carbon polishing (1990-1991)
Peroxide oxidation (1988 -1989)
Chromium reduction (1988 -1989)
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
245
TI03.WP6\1118-05.Stf
-------
Western Processing Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Description and Operation
Table 2. Extraction Well Data
Well Name
Wellpointsl -210
U-wells 1 - 6
T2-T4
'Cumulative extraction yield
Unit Name
Unitt
Unitl
Unit 2
Depth (ft)
30
40
70
Design Yield
(gal/min)
100-2001
15 each
15 each
Source: [2]
System Description [2, 4,14]
• Remedial systems at the site originally
included an on-site extraction and treatment
system, an off-site extraction and treatment
system, and a slurry wall that enclosed the
13-acre site.
• The on-site extraction system, which
operated from 1988 until 1997, consisted of
210 vacuum-operated recovery well points.
These were divided into seven well-point
groups, all of which were connected to three
30-horsepower centrifugal-vacuum pumps.
Each of the well point installations was sand
packed continuously from 5 to 30 feet below
ground surface. Well points were installed
over the entire site, with a greater density of
well points in the areas known to have
higher concentrations of contaminants.
• The objective of the on-site extraction
system was to create and sustain a net
inward flow of groundwater at the site
perimeter and a net upward flow of
groundwater within the area surrounded by
the slurry wall. An infiltration system (soil
flushing) was placed in the shallow on-site
soils within the slurry wall to flush
contaminants out. The soil-flushing system
was designed to expedite leaching of
contaminants from the shallow soils.
• The well-point system was designed to offer
flexibility and 'Variable" pumped volume.
Header pipes and valves at the top of each
well could be used to select specific flow
rates from each section of the system.
The extraction system was modified in late
1996 and early 1997. Use of the shallow
vacuum-operated well points (on site) was
discontinued and a set of 15 deeper
recovery wells were installed in 1996 to
replace the vacuum-operated well point
system.
The original treatment system for
groundwater extracted included stripping of
VOCs, followed by oxidation of phenolic
compounds with hydrogen peroxide,
reduction of hexavalent chromium to the
trivalent form, pH adjustment, metals
precipitation, and carbon polishing. The
carbon polishing step was removed in 1991.
Treated water was reinjected into the
ground through the infiltration system or
discharged to the POTW.
Because of severe fouling of the on-site
stripping tower by inorganic precipitates, the
treatment sequence was modified in
September 1989 to provide metals
precipitation before stripping of VOCs [10.]
After 1989, the treatment system was
modified to provide metals removal before
air stripping, and phenol oxidation and
hexavalent chromium reduction were
discontinued. The treatment system was
replaced in 1997 with a new automated
system for VOCs only.
Liquid-phase carbon filters were used to
remove oxazolidinone from treated water
before discharge to the POTW. EPA
eventually determined that this compound
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
246
TI03.WP6Y1118-05.stf
-------
Western Processing Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
System Description and Operation fCont.)
had no detrimental health effects and the
carbon polishing was discontinued.
• The slurry wall, which is 40 feet deep and
laterally confines the on-site contaminants
to the site boundaries, enhances the
recovery process. The soil/bentonite wall
was installed using a backhoe and bucket
excavator.
• The off-site extraction system consisted of
three deep wells (trans wells) screened
between 40 and 70 feet below ground
surface. The purpose of the trans wells was
to extract groundwater from an off-site
plume of c/s-1,2-DCE. The Consent Decree
required overlapping zones of influence for
these extraction wells. Each well was fitted
with a submersible electric pump and
designed to produce up to 15 gpm which
was determined to provide sufficient
overlapping zones.
• Water extracted from the off-site trans wells
was directed to a separate treatment system
consisting of a sand filter bed and an air
stripper. Effluent from this system was
reinjected to the infiltration gallery or
discharged to the POTW.
• Contaminant concentrations in groundwater
and water levels are monitored using a
system of 51 monitoring wells and 28
piezometers located on and off the site in
both Units 1 and 2.
System Operation [2, 4, 6, 7,10,13,14]
• Construction and installation of the on-site
and off-site extraction and treatment
systems was completed in 1988. The slurry
wall installation was completed in 1989 [2].
• Six new extraction wells (U-wells) were
installed in the spring of 1993. Four of
these were placed within the slurry wall and
two were placed off site adjacent to the
slurry wall, where high concentrations of
organic contaminants were detected. These
wells were equipped with dedicated down-
well pumps and were connected directly to
the existing treatment system. Well depths
were approximately 40 feet [7].
• The average extraction rate for the site has
been approximately 230 gpm based on
annual averages from 1988 to 1997. The
annual rate was reduced to 140 gpm in
1996 and 40 gpm in 1997 [10]. The
extraction rate was reduced in conjunction
with the change to a containment focus from
a restoration focus, and because the
infiltration of about 100 gpm of treated water
was discontinued at the end of 1996.
Groundwater Pumped From Aquifer in gallons
per minute (gpm):
Year
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Average GPM Pumped
On-Site System Off-Site System
225
225
225
225
225
225
200
100
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
The original on-site treatment system
included a phenol oxidation and a chromium
reduction process, which were discontinued
by December 1988 because it was found
that the concentrations of phenol and
chromium in the influent were below effluent
permit limits [14].
Effluent from both treatment systems
continue to be combined and discharged to
the local POTW under a Waste Discharge
Permit. The limitations in the permit have
not been exceeded since operations began
[10].
The Western Processing facility also has a
permit from the Puget Sound Air Pollution
Control Agency for the emissions from the
air stripper [6].
The site is operational seven days per week,
24 hours per day. From 1988 until 1996,
the system has operated 97% of the time for
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
247
TIO3.WP6\1118-05.stf
-------
Western Processing Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Su«?tem Dfiseriniion and Ooeration fCont.)
a total of approximately 70,000 hours [13].
The new extraction and treatment systems
that became operational in 1997 have
experienced similar operational efficiency.
Air stripping media for the off-site treatment
system was changed once in the first year of
operation because of fouling caused by scale
buildup. Acid washing of the stripping tower
was conducted once every three weeks to
minimize scale buildup. This procedure
required four hours of down time [13].
The carbon system used to remove
oxazolidinone from the treated groundwater
required carbon changeouts approximately
once per month in 1990 and early 1991. The
air phase carbon system associated with the
air stripping process required carbon
changeouts approximately once per month at
first, but has averaged about once every eight
months due to declining contaminant
concentrations and the use of more efficient
activated carbon.
nnoratlnn Paramr>tpr<; Affectina Treatment Cost or Performance
Table 3 presents operating parameters affecting cost and performance at this site.
Table 3. Performance Parameters
''" ' ' ''Parameter '•'•• --.
Average Extraction Rate (for both on- and off-site systems)
Air Discharge Requirements
Treated Groundwater Discharge Permit Requirements (daily
averages)
Remedial Goal (Surface Water Requirements)2
Remedial Goal (Off-site Aquifer)
Note: Average system yield over eight years of operation was 2
Source: [3, 10]
•" .-. :•:. :;;:^::^Jiilt: .11: i
230 gpm
Hydrochloric gas 100mg/l
Methylene Chloride 1 00 mg/l
Arsenic 1.0 mg/l
Cadmium 0.5 mg/l
Chromium 2.75 mg/l
Copper 3.0 mg/l
Lead 2.0 mg/l
Mercury 0.1 mg/l
Nickel 2.5 mg/l
Silver 1 .0 mg/l
Zinc 5.0 mg/l
Cyanide 2.0 mg/l
Organics1 Monitoring only
Cadmium 1.1 ug/L
Chromium 207 ug/L
Copper 11. 8 ug/L
Nickel 158 ug/L
Lead 3.2 ug/L
Zinc 120 ug/L
Mercury .01 2 ug/L
Silver .12pg/L
Cyanide 5.2 ug/L
For Hardness 1 00 ug/L
frans-1,2-DCE -70|jg/L
C/S-1.2-DCE 70 ug/L
30 gpm for both systems based on annual data.
'Organics include: Acrdein, Acrylonltrile, Benzene, Carbon Teirachloride, Chlorinated Benzene, Chloroform, Dichlorobenzene,
1,2-DIchIoroethane, Dichioroethylenes, Dichloropropane, Dichloropropene, Ethylbenzene, 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane, Toluene,
1,1,2-Trlcnloroethane, Trtchloroethene
*Attha time of the Consent Decree, the organic compounds detected in Mill Creek did not have associated Ambient Water Quality Criteria
values.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
248
TI03.WP6Y1118-05.Stf
-------
Western Processing Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Timeline
Table 4 presents a timeline for major events performed during this remedial project.
Table 4. Project Timeline
,,,.:*• ,,»*-. s
Start Date
9/85
9/86
4/87
4/87
10/88
5/88
3/90
12/92
10/86
9/95
6/96
12/95
1/97
6/97
EitdDite
'
___
10/89
5/93
8/93
—
—
—
V V* ^>"^.L«^> /iLUlr.4, Activity '„ VT 1*rt ^ "> <**•'," * "*
Record of Decision issued
Amended Record of Decision issued
Consent Decree issued
Subsurface remediation begun
Operations for both P&T systems begun
Slurry wall constructed around the site
Three-year performance standards achieved for Mill Creek (surface water goals)
Five deep wells added to the collection system
Mill Creek restoration goals achieved
Tl Waiver Petition submitted
Containment wells installed
ESD issued in response to Tl Waiver (restoration goal changed to containment goal)
Containment pumping phased into operation
New treatment system started
Source: [3, 7,10]
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards f11.14]
As determined by the Consent Decree and the
amended ROD, the following cleanup goals
were established:
• Surface water quality goals for Mill Creek
(adjacent to site) are Federal Ambient
Water Quality Criteria (AWQC). The
Consent Decree required that these goals
be met within three years. Attachment A
includes the Consent Decree text which
pertains to surface water goals.
• Off-site groundwater goals were established
by the Consent Decree for cis- and trans-
1,2-DCE.
Additional Information on Goals [11]
• Shallow groundwater from the site
discharges to Mill Creek. The surface water
requirements were a means of measuring
cleanup within shallow groundwater beneath
the site. There were no other on-site
cleanup goals set for the shallow
groundwater.
• The ESD, issued in 1995, did not change
the surface water or off-site groundwater
cleanup or treatment performance goals
from the amended ROD. The focus of
remediation was changed from site
restoration to containment.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
249
TIO3.WP6YI118-05.stf
-------
Western Processing Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Treatment Performance Goals F111
As determined by the Consent Decree and the
amended ROD, the following treatment
performance goals have been established:
• Achievement of an inward flow of shallow
groundwater (<40 ft bgs) within a specified
area of the site. This area is approximately
defined by the property boundaries (see
Figure 1 of this report).
• Achievement of either: 1) a reversal of
groundwater flow for Unit 2 at a depth of 40
to 70 feet at the western boundary of the
site; or 2) establishment of a hydraulic
barrier to regional groundwater flow at the
40- to 70-foot depth at the western boundary
of the site.
Combined wastewater effluent from the
treatment systems must meet discharge
criteria included in the POTW discharge
permit. Specific criteria are included in
Table 3.
All air emissions must comply with a
discharge permit issued from the Puget
Sound Air Pollution Control Agency.
Specific criteria are included in Table 3.
Performance Data Assessment MO. 14.151
For this report, total metals includes zinc, nickel,
chromium, copper, and cadmium. Total VOCs
includes TCE, DCE, vinyl chloride, methylene
chloride, and chloroform.
• According to monthly surface water
monitoring data, surface water criteria in Mill
Creek were achieved by mid-1990. Figure
3 shows concentrations of zinc in the
downstream monitoring point of Mill Creek.
Zinc concentrations were the highest of any
metal contaminant. By mid-1990,
concentrations were below 100 ug/L.
• The P&T system achieved the cleanup goal
of 70 ug/L of DCE in all three of the
extraction wells in the off-site trans plume.
• Concentrations of DCE in the off-site plume
have decreased since operations began in
1988. As shown in Figure 4, concentrations
of DCE have decreased in all three trans
wells from above 2,000 ug/L in 1988 to less
than 100 ug/L in January 1996, a 95%
reduction.
• Contaminants have not increased in
downgradient monitoring wells as noted in
the 1996 Quarterly Report. On the basis of
this information, plume containment for the
off-site plume has been achieved [17].
Monitoring well data from on-site wells (N-
wells, U-wells, and monitoring wells) show
contaminant concentrations for TCE, vinyl
chloride, and zinc decreased by two orders
of magnitude from 1988 to 1995.
The maximum concentrations of
contaminants detected in on-site well points
(extraction wells) during the June 1995
sampling event were zinc (117,000 |jg/L),
cadmium (1,360 ug/L), DCE (14,600 ug/L),
vinyl chloride (5,490 \Jtg/L), and TCE
(55,200 ug/L).
Figure 5 shows the contaminant removal
rate in pounds per day for the P&T systems
from 1988 through 1996. This figure
includes combined removal rates for total
metals and total VOCs from both treatment
systems. The extraction rate decreased to
less than 20 Ibs/day within 3 years. It has
remained below 20 Ibs/day since then.
A total of 102,000 Ibs of contaminants was
removed during eight years of operation.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
250
TIO3.WP6\1118-05.stf
-------
Western Processing Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
1,000
100
o
§
1
Mar-86 Aug-87 Dec-88 May-90 Sep-91 Jan-93 Jun-94 Oct-95 Mar-97
-Mill Creek Data
Figure 3. Zinc Concentration at Downstream Monitoring Point of Mill Creek (1988-1996) [10]
10,000 -r
I
o
I
0)
o
o
1,000
100
Dec-88
May-90 Sep-91 Jan-93
Jun-94
Oct-95
4. Total DCE Concentrations in 3 Trans Wells (1988-1996) [10,15]
Mar-97
— •— T2
-B-T3 ->
k— T4 ^
<— Goal
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
251
TIO3.WP6YI118-05.stf
-------
Western Processing Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
May-90 Sep-91 Jan-93
Jun-94
Oct-95
Mar-97
-Mass Flux
-Mass Removed
Figure 5. Mass Flux and Cumulative Contaminant Removal (1988-1996) [10,15]
Performance Data Assessment (ConU
• Data from annual reports indicate that
inward flow gradients have been
achieved in all but two deep (45 ft)
piezometer pairs, which are both
located in the northwest portion of the
site. These two piezometer pairs, each
composed of one piezometer located
inside and one outside of the slurry wall,
have historically displayed neutral or
outward gradients [10].
Performance Data Completeness
Discharge requirements established by the
wastewater discharge and air emission
permits have been met consistently by
treatments systems on site [10].
Data are available in annual reports for
concentrations of contaminants in the
groundwater and surface water according to
the following schedule [10]:
Monitoring wells Quarterly
N-Wells Bimonthly
Trans Wells Monthly
U-Wells Bimonthly
Well Points Annually
Stream Sampling Points Quarterly
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
252
TIO3.WP6\1118-05.Stf
-------
Western Processing Superfund Site
TREATMENTiSYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Completeness fCont.)
Data are available for influent and effluent
concentrations to both treatment plants on a
monthly basis.
Contaminant mass removal data for the on-
site system was provided by the site
engineer.
Contaminant mass removal for the off-site
system was calculated from annual well
concentration data and pumping rates from
each well.
Figures 2 and 3 were generated from data
provided in annual reports. Figure 4 was
generated from data provided by the
primary contact for this site. Annual data
were used to generate the graph.
Data are available from 1988 through 1996
for this report. The 1995 Annual Report
includes data from 1988 through 1995.
Quarterly reports were used for data through
the first quarter of 1996.
Eerfs
ice Data Quality
The QA/QC program used throughout the remedial action met the EPA and the State of Washington
requirements. All monitoring was performed using EPA-approved SW-846 methods, and the vendor did
not note any exceptions to the QA/QC protocols.
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
ant Proces!
The Western Processing Trust Fund contracted with Chemical Waste Management (now OHM) to
construct and operate the initial P&T system at the site. Landau Associates is the primary technical
consultant to Western Processing Trust Fund. Tacoma Pump and Drilling Company has been contracted
to provide parts of the installation.
Cost Analysis
• All costs for investigation, design, construction and operation of the treatment system at this site
were borne by the PRPs. The following costs are for the remediation systems operating at this site
through 1995 and exclude excavation and disposal [17].
Caoital Costs T13.16.171
Remedial Construction
Administration and Mobilization $2,827,998
On-Site Laboratory and Monitoring Wells $1,051,610
Site Work $3,282,631
Slurry Wall $1,382,744
Extraction/Reinjeotion Wells and Infiltration $2,977,339
System
Original Treatment System $1,895,740
Original Air Stripping System $2,311,988
Oversight $302,579
Total Construction $16,032,629
Ooeratina Costs M3.161
Operations and Maintenance $18,866,923
Administration and Taxes $4,057,576
Operational and Environmental $7,657,272
Monitoring
Wastewater Treatment Discharge Fees $2,115,712
Total Operating Expenses $32,697,483
(1988-1995)
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
253
TIO3.WP6YI118-05.stf
-------
Western Processing Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Rgmedial Investigation
Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study $2,366,654
Oversight $13,191
Total Investigation $2,379,845
Remedial Design
Remedial Design $1,382,919
Oversight $22,644
Total Design $1,405,563
gaaLDataflualltv
Actual capital and operations and maintenance cost data are available from Landau Associates, Inc.
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
The cost for groundwater remediation
between 1988 and 1995 was approximately
$48,730,000 ($16,032,629 in capital costs,
including the slurry wall, and $32,697,483 in
operating costs), corresponding to a unit
cost of $50 per 1,000 gallons of
groundwater treated and $478 per pound of
contaminant removed.
The average annual operating expenses
estimated using the above information are
about $4,500,000.
The original approach to this site was an
aggressive effort to fully restore the site to
original conditions within seven years.
Restoration was a priority and high costs
were incurred to achieve this goal. For
example, the on-site extraction system
consisted of over 200 thirty-foot well points
each connected to a vacuum extraction
system. This system was very costly to
install and operate, but was expected to
restore the site. After eight years of P&T,
the goal of restoration was changed to
containment based on technical
Impracticability of achieving full restoration.
Goals set for surface water (Mill Creek)
were time-specific. Mill Creek goals were
set to be achieved within three years of the
Consent Decree. The PRPs made the
decision to install a slurry wall around the
EPA
site at a cost of approximately $1.4 million
to achieve this goal.
More detailed study of the interactions of
the broad range of contaminants found at
the site was started in 1990. This effort
included studies relating to contaminant
transport and partitioning coefficients, as
well as additional testing on the LNAPL
layer and recovery system. These studies
added an additional $600,000 in overall
costs.
The use of a slurry wall and a groundwater
extraction system was successful at
meeting the surface water criteria for Mill
Creek. The surface water goals were
achieved within the three-year window
granted by the Consent Decree.
Cleanup efforts at this site were very
complicated from an engineering
perspective. Organic and inorganic
compounds were located in the saturated
zone to depths of 40 feet and below. Many
source areas were spread over the 13-acre
site and subsurface source zones were
likely present in several areas. The
chemical and hydrogeologic complexity of
this site led to increased costs and
ultimately a change in approach from
restoration to containment.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
254
TIO3.WP6Y1118-05.Stf
-------
Western Processing Superfund Site
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED (CONT.)
The most rapid reductions in contaminant
concentrations occurred between 1988 and
1991 (see Figure 3). Contaminant
concentrations level out from 1991 through
1996. This trend has been observed at
several other P&T sites.
REFERENCES
1. Final Report Hvdroaeoloaical Assessment.
Hart Crowser and Associates, Inc., October
1984.
2. Remedial Action Plan Phase II: Subsurface
Cleanup. Landau Associates, Inc.,
September 1984.
3. Record of Decision. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, September 1985.
4. Schedule Work Plan. Chemical Waste
Management, Inc., December 1987.
5. Quarterly Interpretive Report 4th Quarter
1993. Landau Associates, Inc., April 1994.
6. Remedial Action Report. Landau
Associates, Inc., May 1994.
7. Remedial Action Report. Installation of
Extraction Wells 5U1A. 5U2A. 1U3A. 1U4A.
1U5A. 1U6A and Well Points 207-210.
Landau Associates Inc., May 24,1994.
8. Technical Impracticably Waiver Petition.
Western Processing. Landau Associates,
Inc., September 12,1995. (Referenced as
T.I. Petition.)
9. Technical Impracticably Waiver Petition.
Western Processing (Appendices). Landau
Associates, Inc., September 12,1995.
(Referenced as T.I. Petition.)
Analvsis Preparation
10. 1995 Annual Evaluation. Western
Processing. Landau Associates, Inc., May
14,1997. (Referenced as 1995 Annual
Evaluation.)
11. Copy of Western Processing Consent
Decree. Filed April 10,1987.
12. [Explanation of Significant Differences.
Western Processing Superfund Site. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
December 11,1995.
13. Correspondence with Paul Johansen and
Bill Enkeboll, July 8,1997.
14. 1991 Annual Evaluation. Landau
Associates, Inc., Augusts, 1992.
15. Quarterly Interpretive Report. 3rd Quarter
1996. Landau Associates, Inc., April 2,
1997.
16. Groundwater Remedial Cost Analysis.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Unpublished.
17. Comments on draft report provided by Lee
Marshall, Region 10 Project Manager, and
Bill Enkeboll, Landau Associates.
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
255
TIO3.WP6\1118-05.stf
-------
Western Processing Superfund Site
Attachment A
Consent Decree Text Pertaining to
Mill Creek Standards
Allowable Concentrations in Mill Creek.
a. If the concentration of a Mill Creek indicator chemical (as listed in Table 1) or other priority
pollutant at the upstream (background) monitoring point in Mill Creek is less than two-thirds of
the applicable upstream Federal Ambient Water Quality Criterion for Aquatic Organisms
(Water Quality Criterion)1, the maximum allowable concentration at the downstream
compliance point1 shall be the downstream Water Quality Criterion3.
b. If a Water Quality Criterion is not achievable because the upstream (background) concentration
of a chemical is near or above the Water Quality Criterion, the maximum allowable
concentration at the downstream compliance point shall be the level described below:
i. If the concentration of a Mill creek indicator chemical or other priority pollutant at the
upstream (background) monitoring point in Mill Creek is at or above two-thirds of the
upstream Water Quality Criterion but less than the upstream Water Quality Criterion, the
maximum allowable concentration at the downstream compliance point shall be no more
than the background concentration plus fifty (50) percent of the background concentration;
or
ii. If the concentration of a Mill Creek indicator chemical or other priority pollutant at the
upstream (background) monitoring point in Mill Creek is at or above the upstream Water
Quality Criterion, the maximum allowable concentration at the downstream compliance
point shall be no greater than background plus eighty (80) percent of the upstream Water
Quality Criterion.
c. Meeting the above performance standards shall not require responsibility for any contaminated
water entering Mill Creek between the upstream monitoring and downstream compliance
points that is contaminated by a source other than the Site or Western Processing activities.
Upon demonstration by the Consenting Defendants that water contaminated by a source other
than the Site or Western Processing activities is entering Mill Creek between the upstream
monitoring and downstream compliance points and quantification of such contamination by the
Consenting Defendants, an appropriate adjustment will be made by the Governments for the
Contaminants attributable to such .other source.
1The applicable Water Quality Criteria shall be those final criteria published in the Federal Register as of the
date of entry of this Consent Decree.
2The upstream monitoring point and the downstream compliance point are those described in subparagraph
IV.D.7.b. below.
Designation of upstream and downstream is necessary because the applicable Water Quality Criterion varies
depending on the hardness of the water.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
256
TI03.WP6\1118-05.stf
------- |