In Situ Thermal Treatment
of Chlorinated Solvents:
Fundamentals and Field Applications
CV"X-V<
-------
Office of Solid Waste March 2004
and Emergency Response EPA 542-R-04-010
(5102G) www.epa.gov/tio
www.cluin.org
In Situ Thermal Treatment of
Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
Washington, DC 20460
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS i
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS iii
NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF REPORT 1
1.2 SPECIFIC TECHNOLOGIES ADDRESSED 2
1.3 SOURCES OF INFORMATION 2
1.4 STRUCTURE AND CONTENTS OF THE REPORT 6
2.0 BACKGROUND 7
2.1 PROPERTIES OF CHLORINATED SOLVENTS 7
2.2 FATE AND TRANSPORT OF CHLORINATED SOLVENTS 10
2.3 CONVENTIONAL AND INNOVATIVE TREATMENT OF CHLORINATED
SOLVENTS 12
2.4 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF IN SITU THERMAL TREATMENT 13
3.0 IN SITU THERMAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES 16
3.1 STEAM ENHANCED EXTRACTION 16
3.2 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVE HEATING 21
3.3 THERMAL CONDUCTIVE HEATING 24
4.0 OVERALL APPLICABILITY AND ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS 28
4.1 APPLICABILITY OF SEE, ERH, AND THERMAL CONDUCTIVE HEATING.... 28
4.2 ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS FOR SEE, ERH, AND THERMAL
CONDUCTIVE HEATING 29
5.0 INFORMATION SOURCES 31
TABLES
Table 1-1: In Situ Thermal Treatment Technology Applications Used to Treat Chlorinated
Solvents 3
Table 1-2: Selected In Situ Thermal Treatment Technology Applications 5
Table 2-1: Chlorinated Solvents Commonly Identified as Environmental Contaminants 7
Table 2-2: Chemical and Physical Properties of Chlorinated Solvents 9
Table 2-3. Thermal Effects on Chlorinated Solvent Properties 13
Table 2-4. Heterogeneous Azeotropes of Common Chlorinated Solvents 14
Table 3-1: Cost Data Reported for Selected SEE Applications 21
Table 3-2: Cost Data Reported for Selected ERH Technology Applications 24
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
FIGURES
Figure 1-1: In Situ Thermal Treatment Profiles 3
Figure 2-1: Molecular Structures of Common Chlorinated Solvents 8
Figure 2-2: Phase Equilibrium Mechanisms and Properties of Chlorinated Solvents 10
Figure 2-3: Example Chlorinated Solvent Subsurface Transport Processes 11
Figure 3-1: SEE System Schematic 17
Figure 3-2: Typical ERH System Configuration 23
Figure 3-3: Typical Thermal Conductive Heating System Configuration 26
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - IN SITU THERMAL TREATMENT SUMMARIES
Dynamic Underground Stripping-Hydrous Pyrolysis Oxidation at the Savannah
River Site 321-M Solvent Storage Tank Area, Aiken, South Carolina
Steam Enhanced Extraction at the A.G. Communication Systems Site,
Northlake, Illinois
Electrical Resistive Heating at the Former Manufacturing Facility, Skokie, Illinois
Electrical Resistive Heating at the Poleline Road Disposal Area, Arrays 4,
5, and 6, Fort Richardson, Alaska
Electrical Resistive Heating at the ICN Pharmaceutical Site, Portland, Oregon
Electrical Resistive Heating at the Avery Dennison Site, Waukegan, Illinois
In Situ Conductive Heating at the Confidential Chemical Manufacturing
Facility, Portland, Indiana
APPENDIX B - OTHER IN SITU THERMAL TREATMENT PROJECTS
Remediation of NAPLs Using Steam Enhanced Extraction and Electrical
Resistive Heating at the Young-Rainey STAR Center, Northeast Site Area
A, Largo, Florida
Electrical Resistive Heating at Air Force Plant 4, Fort Worth, Texas
Electrical Resistive Heating at Dry Cleaner, Suburban Chicago, Illinois
Thermal Conductive Heating at Confidential Ohio Site
APPENDIX C - IN SITU THERMAL TREATMENT VENDORS
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
bgs Below ground surface
BTEX Benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene
CA Chloroethane
CAS Chemical Abstracts Service
CF Chloroform
CFM Cubic feet per minute
CLUIN EPA's Hazardous Waste
Clean-Up INformation
system
CM Chloromethane
CT Carbon tetrachloride
DCA Dichloroethane
DCB Dichlorobenzene
DCE Dichloroethene
DNAPL Dense nonaqueous-phase
liquid
DUS Dynamic underground
stripping
EPA U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
ERH Electrical resistive heating
ERT Electrical resistance
tomography
ft Foot/feet
FIPO Hydrous pyrolysis oxidation
ISTD™ In Situ Thermal Desorption
MC Methylene chloride
MCB Monochlorobenzene
mg/L Milligram per liter
mm Hg Millimeters of mercury
NAPL Nonaqueous-phase liquid
NPL National Priorities List
O&M Operation and maintenance
PAH Polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon
PCA Tetrachloroethane
PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl
PCE Tetrachloroethene
psi Pounds per square inch
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
SEE Steam enhanced extraction
SVOC Semivolatile organic
compound
TCA Trichloroethane
TCE Trichloroethene
VC Vinyl chloride
VOC Volatile organic compound
in
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
Preparation of this report has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) under Contract Number 68-W-02-034. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. A limited
number of printed copies of In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents is available free
of charge by mail or by facsimile from:
U.S. EPA/National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP)
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419
Telephone: (513) 489-8190 or (800) 490-9198
Fax: (513)489-8695
A PDF version of this report is available for viewing or downloading from the Hazardous Waste
Cleanup Information (CLUIN) system web site at . Printed copies of the report
can also be ordered through that web address, subject to availability.
For more information regarding this report contact Jim Cummings, EPA Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology Innovation, at (703) 603-7197 or cummings.james@epa.gov.
IV
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF REPORT
This report contains information about the use of in situ thermal treatment technologies to treat
chlorinated solvents in source zones containing free-phase contamination or high concentrations
of contaminants that are either sorbed to soil or dissolved in groundwater in the saturated or
unsaturated zone. Chlorinated solvent source zones have a high frequency of occurrence at
hazardous waste sites. In situ thermal treatment technologies have proven to be effective in
remediating source zones contaminated with chlorinated solvents, and are increasingly being
used for that purpose.
The information in this report may be helpful to site managers, site owners, treatment technology
vendors, regulators, consulting firms, and the public who may be involved in the cleanup of sites
contaminated with chlorinated solvents. The information presented in this report assumes that
the reader is familiar with the technical aspects of site remediation and soil and groundwater
treatment technologies, although not necessarily with in situ thermal treatment.
This report includes the following information:
Principles and science behind the in situ thermal treatment of chlorinated solvents, such
as the effects of increased temperature on the fate and transport properties of chlorinated
solvents.
Applicability and general engineering considerations associated with in situ thermal
treatment for chlorinated solvents, such as the observation that energy costs for in situ
thermal treatment are typically less than 30 percent of the total project costs, and that
these technologies are not generally affected by variations in soil permeability.
Application of in situ thermal treatment to chlorinated solvent remediation through site-
specific examples; included as detailed case studies for some projects and brief
summaries for other projects.
Readers should note that specific projects discussed in this report, including those provided as
case studies, took place over a ten-year period. It is to be expected that later applications will
incorporate lessons learned from earlier applications.
This report is intended to be used as an information source about the application of in situ
thermal treatment technologies for chlorinated solvent remediation. As a technology overview
document, the information can serve as a starting point for identifying options for chlorinated
solvent remediation. However, decisions about the use of a particular technology will depend on
site-specific factors and may require treatability studies.
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
1.2 SPECIFIC TECHNOLOGIES ADDRESSED
Information is provided about the following in situ thermal treatment technologies:
Steam Enhanced Extraction (SEE) - In situ thermal treatment in which steam is
injected into the source zone to volatilize, mobilize, or degrade contaminants.
Electrical Resistive Heating (ERH) - In situ thermal treatment in which electrical
current is passed through the contaminated zone, increasing the subsurface temperature
based on the electrical resistance of the soil and groundwater to volatilize, mobilize, or
degrade contaminants.
Thermal Conductive Heating - In situ thermal treatment in which surface or subsurface
conductive heating elements are used to create a high-temperature zone to volatilize,
mobilize, or degrade contaminants.
These in situ thermal treatment technologies have been used to treat a variety of contaminants,
including chlorinated solvents, nonchlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs), petroleum
hydrocarbons, and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs). For example, SEE was used to
remediate a creosote- and pentachlorophenol-contaminated source zone at the Visalia Pole Yard
Superfund site; ERH was used to address contamination with diesel-range organics (DRO) at a
site in Atlanta, Georgia; and thermal conductive heating has been used to remediate
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and diesel range organics (DRO) at other sites.
Additional variations of in situ thermal treatment, such as hot water injection and radio
frequency heating, have also been applied to site remediation. However, these technologies have
typically been used to remediate less volatile petroleum contamination rather than chlorinated
solvents, and are not discussed further in this report.
1.3 SOURCES OF INFORMATION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has compiled a database of projects that use
in situ thermal treatment. The database is available on-line at http://cluin.org/products/thermal/
(see Figure 1-1). A review of that database and additional information provided by project
managers, technology vendors, and researchers in the field of in situ thermal treatment identified
a total of 41 projects where in situ thermal technologies were used to treat soil and groundwater
contaminated with chlorinated solvents, as of February 2004. These projects included 24 full-
scale and 17 pilot-scale projects (technology applications) located throughout the U.S. and in one
foreign country (Germany). Table 1-1 lists the 41 technology applications, along with
information on their locations, scales, and operational status.
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
Figure 1-1: In Situ Thermal Treatment Profiles
As of February 2004, the EPA In Situ Thermal Treatment Web Site, available at
http://cluin.org/products/thermal/. included profile information about more than 70 in situ
thermal treatment applications. Of the technology applications, 41 were used to treat
chlorinated solvents. Each profile has a varying level of detail, depending on the data and
information that were available. The profiles contain available information from each
technology application, including the following:
Project information
o Site background and setting
o Contaminant(s) and media treated
o Area of contamination and quantity treated
Technology design and operation
Cost and performance information
Point(s) of contact
References
This database and website are updated as additional information is made available.
Table 1-1: In Situ Thermal Treatment Technology Applications Used to Treat
Chlorinated Solvents
Site Name
Site Location
Scale
Status
STEAM ENHANCED EXTRACTION
A.G. Communications a
Plating Facility
Jennison Wright Corporation, Inc.
Young-Rainey STAR (Former Pinellas Site),
Area A (SEE plus ERH)
Young-Rainey STAR (Former Pinellas Site),
Area B (SEE plus ERH)
Edwards Air Force Base, Site 61
Former Hazardous Waste Disposal Site
Loring AFB
McClellan AFB
North Island NAS
Portsmouth DOE
Savannah River Site, Building 321 a
Site 5, Alameda Point
Launch Complex 34 (Steam Injection)
Northlake, IL
Danbury, CT
Granite City, IL
Largo, FL
Largo, FL
CA
Muehlacker, Germany
Caribou, ME
Sacramento, CA
San Diego, CA
Portsmouth, OH
Aiken, SC
Alameda, CA
Cape Canaveral, FL
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Pilot
Pilot
Pilot
Pilot
Pilot
Pilot
Pilot
Pilot
Pilot
Completed (2002)
Completed
Ongoing
Completed (2003)
Pending (Contract
awarded)
Completed (2003)
Completed (2001)
Completed (2003)
Completed
Completed (2000)
Completed (1999)
Completed (2001)
Completed (1999)
Completed (2002)
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
Table 1-1 (continued): In Situ Thermal Treatment Technology Applications Used to Treat
Chlorinated Solvents
Site Name
Site Location
Scale
Status
ELECTRICAL RESISTIVE HEATING
Air Force Plant 4
Avery Dennison Site"
Charleston Naval Complex
Electronics Manufacturing Facility
Fargo Dry Cleaner
Former Drycleaner
Former Electronics Manufacturing Facility a
Former Pharmaceutical Manufacturer/ICN a
Ft. Lewis
Honeywell
Lockformer
Naval Air Station Alameda (Project 1)
Naval Air Station Alameda (Project 2)
Operating Dry Cleaner
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
Dover AFB
Launch Complex 34 (3-phase)
Lowry Landfill
Poleline Road Disposal Area (PRO A),
Operable Unit B a
Savannah River Site, Area M
Silresim
USAFB Fire Training Pit
Former Agricultural Products Facility,
Pesticide Remediation
Fort Worth, TX
Waukegan, IL
Charleston, SC
Chicago, IL
Fargo, ND
Seattle, WA
Skokie, IL
Portland, OR
WA
FL
Lisle, IL
Alameda, CA
Alameda, CA
Chicago, IL
Paducah, KY
Dover, DE
Cape Canaveral, FL
Aurora, CO
Fort Richardson, AK
Aiken, SC
MA
Niagara Falls, NY
Newark, CA
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Pilot
Pilot
Pilot
Pilot
Pilot
Pilot
Pilot
Pilot
Completed (2002)
Completed (2000)
Completed (2002)
Completed (1997)
Pending (contract
award expected
shortly)
Completed (1999)
Completed (1999)
Completed (2000)
Ongoing
Pending (contract
awarded)
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Completed (2003)
Pending (following
successful pilot -
pilot completed
2003)
Completed (1997)
Completed (2000)
Completed (2002)
Completed (1999)
Completed (1993)
Completed
Completed (1996)
Ongoing
THERMAL CONDUCTIVE HEATING
Confidential Chemical Manufacturing
Facility a
Delavan Municipal Well No. 4
Confidential Chlorinated Solvent Site, Ohio
Confidential Chlorinated Solvent Site,
California
Portland, IN
Delavan, WI
OH
CA
Full
Full
Full
Full
Completed (1997)
Completed (2001)
Ongoing
Ongoing
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
Notes:
* Includes ERH component
a A case study for this project is included in Appendix A
Source: EPA Thermal Treatment Profiles 2002
Table 1-2 provides general information about seven selected in situ thermal treatment projects
that are discussed further in Section 3.0 and in case studies provided in Appendix A. These
projects cover the range of technologies discussed in this report.
Table 1-2: Selected In Situ Thermal Treatment Technology Applications
Application
Contaminants Treated
Media
Addressed
Description of Hydrogeology
STEAM ENHANCED EXTRACTION
A.G. Communications Systems
(full-scale)
Savannah River Site 321-M,
Solvent Storage Tank Area
(pilot-scale)
TCE, cis-l,2-DCE, and
BTEX
PCE and TCE
Soil and
groundwater
Soil and
groundwater
Alternating clay and sandy till
layers; groundwater at 38 to 40 ft
bgs
Interbedded sand and clay over a
clay aquitard; groundwater at 143
ft bgs
ELECTRICAL RESISTIVE HEATING
Former Manufacturing Facility -
Skokie (full-scale)
Poleline Road Disposal Area,
Area 3 (pilot-scale)
ICN Pharmaceutical Site
(full-scale)
Avery Dennison Site
(full-scale)
PCE, TCE, and
degradation products
1,1,2,2-PCA,PCE, and
TCE
TCE, cis-l,2-DCE, VC,
and other VOCs
MC and industrial solvent
Soil and
groundwater
Soil and
groundwater
Soil and
groundwater
Soil and
groundwater
Heterogeneous sand, silt, and
clay; groundwater at 7 ft bgs
Sand and gravel; perched
groundwater and water table at 12
ft bgs
Silt and sand; groundwater at 8 ft
bgs
Glacial till with silty clay;
groundwater at 6 to 30 ft bgs
THERMAL CONDUCTIVE HEATING
Confidential Chemical
Manufacturing Facility -
Portland (full-scale)
PCE, TCE, 1,1-DCE
Soil and
groundwater
Heterogeneous layers of clay,
sand, and gravel; groundwater at
22 to 25 ft bgs
Notes:
TCE
DCE
BTEX
ft
bgs
PCE
PCA
VC
Trichloroethene
Dichloroethene
Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene
Feet
Below ground surface
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloroethane
Vinyl chloride
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
1.4 STRUCTURE AND CONTENTS OF THE REPORT
The remainder of this report is organized as follows:
Section 2.0 - Background - Describes the properties and fate and transport of
chlorinated solvents and provides general information about in situ thermal treatment
technologies.
Section 3.0 - In Situ Thermal Treatment Technologies - Describes the principles,
applicability considerations, and engineering considerations related to in situ thermal
treatment technologies, as well as information about field experience with each
technology.
Section 4.0 - Summary - Includes a discussion of overall applicability and engineering
considerations for in situ thermal treatment.
Section 5.0 - Information Sources - Includes a list of cited references, as well as
additional sources of information that are relevant to in situ thermal treatment.
Appendix A contains detailed case studies about seven in situ thermal treatment projects.
Appendix B contains brief snapshots of additional in situ thermal projects, and Appendix C
contains a list of in situ thermal treatment technology vendors.
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 PROPERTIES OF CHLORINATED SOLVENTS
Chlorinated solvents are artificial organic compounds, including tetrachloroethene (PCE);
trichloroethene (TCE); 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), carbon tetrachloride (CT); chloroform (CF);
methylene chloride (MC); vinyl chloride (VC); and other chlorinated methanes, ethanes, ethenes,
and benzenes. Chlorinated solvents are typically manufactured from naturally occurring
hydrocarbon constituents (methane, ethane, and ethene) and chlorine through various processes
that substitute one or more chlorine atoms for hydrogen atoms, or selectively dechlorinate
chlorinated compounds to a less chlorinated state. Chlorinated solvents have historically been
used in a wide variety of applications, including uses as solvents and degreasers and in the
manufacturing of other chemicals. As a result of this widespread historic use, three of the 12
most common contaminants at Superfund sites are specific chlorinated solvents (VC, 1,1,1-TCA,
and TCE) (EPA 2001). Table 2-1 lists the chlorinated solvents most commonly identified as
environmental contaminants, their abbreviations, and their common names. Figure 2-1 presents
the molecular structures of some of the more common chlorinated solvents.
The physical and chemical properties of chlorinated solvents govern their fate and transport in
the subsurface environment, as well as their susceptibility to various remediation technologies.
The number of substituted chlorine atoms on the chlorinated solvents directly affects their
physical and chemical behavior. As the number of substituted chlorine atoms increases,
molecular weight and density generally increase, and vapor pressure and aqueous solubility
generally decrease. Table 2-2 lists pertinent physical and chemical data for the chlorinated
solvents commonly identified as subsurface contaminants.
Table 2-1: Chlorinated Solvents Commonly Identified as
Environmental Contaminants
Name
Common Name(s)
Abbreviation1
CHLORINATED ETHENES
Tetrachloroethene (-ethylene)
Trichloroethene(-ethylene)
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene(-ethylene)
trans-l,2-Dichloroethene (-ethylene)
1,1-Dich loroeth ene(-ethylen e)
Chloroethene (-ethylene)
Perchloroethene
None
Acetylene dichloride
Acetylene dichloride
Vinylidene chloride
Vinyl chloride
PCE
TCE
cis-DCE
trans-DCE
1,1 -DCE
VC
CHLORINATED ETHANES
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1- Trich loroeth ane
1,1,2- Trich loroeth ane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
Chloroethane
1,1,2,2-Perchloroethane
Methyl chloroform
Vinyl trichloride
Ethylene chloride
Ethylidene chloride
Chloroethane
1,1,2,2-PCA
1,1,1-TCA
1,1,2-TCA
1,2-DCA
1,1 -DCA
CA
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
Table 2-1 (continued): Chlorinated Solvents Commonly Identified
as Environmental Contaminants
Name
Common Name(s)
Abbreviation1
CHLORINATED METHANES
Tetrachloromethane
Trichloromethane
Dichloro methane
Chloromethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform, methane trichloride
Methylene chloride, methylene dichloride
Methyl chloride, monochloromethane
CT
CF
MC
CM
CHLORINATED BENZENES
Monochlorobenzene
Dichlorobenzene (3 isomers)
Chlorobenzene
1,2- (ortho-), 1,3- (meta-), and 1,4- (para-)
dichlorobenzene
MCB
DCB
Notes:
Abbreviations are based on the names in bold italic type.
Sources: Sawyer and others 1994, Merck 1989
Figure 2-1: Molecular Structures of Common Chlorinated Solvents
c c
\ x
C C
Perch oroethene
C H
\ x
H C
Trans-1,2-
Dich oroethene
Ch orinated Ethenes
c c
Trich oroethene
C H
1,1-Dfch oroethene
Ch orinated Ethanes
H H
cis-1,2-
Dich oroethene
H H
\ /
,C = Cs
C H
Viny Choride
C H
C C C H
C H
1,1,1-Trichoroethane
H H
C C C C
H H
1,2-Dichoroethane
H H
C C C H
C H
1,1-Dichoroethane
C H
C C C C
H H
1,1,2-Trichoroethane
H H
H C C H
C H
Ch oroethane
Ch orinated Methanes
c
c c c
c
Carbon Tetrach oride
H
C C C
c
Ch oroform
H
C C
H
H C
Methyene Choride Ch oromethane
Source: Modified from Sawyer and others 1994
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
Table 2-2: Chemical and Physical Properties of Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated Solvent
(CAS Number)
Boiling
Point
(•C)
Liquid Density
(g/mL at 20« C)
Liquid Viscosity
(cP@25«C)
Octanol-Water
Partition
Coefficient
(@ 25' C)
Aqueous
Solubility (mg/L
@25'C)
Vapor Pressure
(mm Hg @ 25'C)
Henry's Law
Constant
(atm-m3/mol
@ 25T)
CHLORINATED ETHENES
PCE (127-18-4)
TCE (79-01-6)
cis-l,2-DCE (156-59-2)
trans- 1,2-DCE (156-60-5)
1,1-DCE (75-35-4)
VC (75-01-4)
121
87
60
49
32
-13
.62
.46
.28
.26
.21
gas
0.844
0.545
0.445
0.317
0.464
gas
3.40
2.42
1.86
2.09
2.13
1.36
200
1,472
3,500
6,300
2,250
8,800
19
73
203
333
600
2,982
0.0184
0.0103
0.0041
0.0094
0.0261
0.0270
CHLORINATED ETHANES
,1,2,2-PCA (79-34-5)
,1,1-TCA (71-55-6)
,1,2-TCA (79-00-5)
,2-DCA (107-06-2)
,1-DCA (75-34-3)
CA (75-00-3)
130
74
114
84
57
12
.50
.34
.44
.24
.18
gas
1.6
0.793
NA
0.779
NA
gas
3.00
2.49
2.05
1.48
1.79
1.43
11,000
1,334
4,420
8,524'
5,057
5,678'
12
124
23
79
227
1,008'
0.0024
0.0172
0.0009
0.0010
0.0056
0.0088
CHLORINATED METHANES
CT (56-23-5)
CF (67-66-3)
MC (75-09-2)
CM (74-87-3)
77
61
40
-24
1.59
1.48
1.33
gas
0.908
0.537
0.413
gas
2.83
1.97
1.25
0.91
793
7,920
13,030
5,325
115
197
433
4,300
0.0304
0.0037
0.0022
0.0088
CHLORINATED BENZENES
MCB (108-90-7)
DCB (3 isomers)
132
173-180
1.10
1.20-1.30
0.8
1.3
2.80
3.40-3.60
470
79-160
12
1-2
0.0037
0.0019-0.0031
Notes:
NA
gas
atm
CAS
Reference temperature is 20« C for the properties of these compounds g/mL
Liquid viscosity of 1,1,2-TCA and 1,1 -DCA not available cP
VC, CA, and CM are pure gases under standard temperature and rng/L
pressure mm/Hg
Atmosphere nrVmol
Chemical Abstracts Service
Grams per milliliter
Centipoises
Milligrams per liter
Millimeters of mercury
Cubic meter per mole
Sources: Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (EPA 1996), Davis 1997, Perry and others 1984
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
2.2 FATE AND TRANSPORT OF CHLORINATED SOLVENTS
A chlorinated solvent released to the subsurface as an organic liquid (commonly referred to as a
nonaqueous-phase liquid [NAPL] in the subsurface) will result in a source zone containing free-
phase contamination or high concentrations of contaminants that are either sorbed to soil or are
dissolved in groundwater in the saturated or unsaturated zone in the area of the release. Most of
the chlorinated solvent NAPLs, such as PCE, TCE, and TCA, are denser than water (referred to
as dense nonaqeous-phase liquids [DNAPLs]). Chlorinated solvents that do not form DNAPL
include VC, chloroethane (CA), and chloromethane (CM). These compounds are gaseous in
their pure phases under standard conditions. DNAPLs tend to sink through both unsaturated and
saturated soils until they reach the lowest point on the top of a confining layer. DNAPLs may
also penetrate some distance into the confining layer, depending on its geotechnical
characteristics and the amount of DNAPL present. In addition, capillary forces can trap NAPLs
in porous media above or below the water table (EPA 2000).
Chlorinated solvents released to the environment will seek phase equilibrium (a condition in
which all acting influences are canceled by others, resulting in a stable, balanced, or unchanging
system). The chlorinated solvent will remain as a NAPL, adsorb to soil, dissolve in
groundwater, or volatilize into soil gas to the extent defined by the physical and chemical
properties of the individual chlorinated solvent and the subsurface environment. Partition
coefficients, which are related to the hydrophobicity and aqueous solubility of a chlorinated
solvent, define the extent to which a chlorinated solvent will partition between NAPL, adsorb to
soil, and dissolve in groundwater. The vapor pressure of a chlorinated solvent defines the extent
to which it will partition between NAPL and soil gas or soil and soil gas. Chlorinated solvents
dissolved in groundwater will also partition themselves between the dissolved phase and the
vapor phase, as defined by their Henry's Law constants. Figure 2-2 shows the mechanisms by
which chlorinated solvents transfer phases to reach equilibrium conditions, along with the related
physical and chemical properties of the chlorinated solvents (EPA 2000).
Figure 2-2: Phase Equilibrium Mechanisms and
Properties of Chlorinated Solvents
SOIL GAS
GROUND
WATER <
partition coefficient
SOIL
DISSOLUTION
Source: Modified from Huling, S.G., and J.W. Weaver 1991
10
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
Chlorinated solvents can migrate in the subsurface in their nonaqueous, aqueous, and vapor
phases through various processes. Through advection and dispersion, chlorinated solvents can
migrate along with the flow of the groundwater or soil gas to which they are partitioned. In
addition, diffusion in the vapor and aqueous phases driven by concentration gradients causes the
chlorinated solvent to seek phase and concentration equilibrium with its surrounding
environment. The extent of subsurface migration is a function of the volume of chlorinated
solvent released, the area over which the release occurs, the duration of the release, and the
chemical and physical properties of both the chlorinated solvent and the subsurface environment
(EPA 2000).
Releases of chlorinated solvents can result in the formation of a source zone containing NAPL,
either as a separate phase or adsorbed to soil. If this source zone is in contact with groundwater
or is in the pathway of recharge to groundwater, it will result in the formation of a groundwater
plume. In soil, chlorinated solvents typically are transported by the flow of DNAPL or diffusion
in soil-gas vapor. In groundwater, advective transport (the movement of contaminants by
flowing groundwater) is the most important process that affects the fate of dissolved chlorinated
solvents. In general, the more soluble the compound, the more readily it can be transported with
groundwater flow. For example, based on solubility data provided in Table 2-2, MC and CF
would be transported more readily in groundwater than PCE and CT. Figure 2-3 presents an
example of typical DNAPL subsurface transport processes. In addition, DNAPL can move
independent of, and in different directions, than groundwater flow. For example, Figure 2-3
shows DNAPL moving in a direction opposite to groundwater flow (EPA 2000).
Figure 2-3: Example Chlorinated Solvent Subsurface Transport Processes
DNAPL
Source
,-•£-&'.?•=> '~~—
/
!
-X.
/ 1
/ — ?Vj vV'
li •***»»•**__/ \
i ^- *"-• "~^ ^-
"X^"" _^-"~ ~" " J^ I._ . !._..<
Wf»wa*d«
/ '•" • " r. *.':Ha i *'fc'MJiil*" tt
Diffusion in vapor / c^- <5ay lens _-^-: Diffusiort, in vapor
\7 ,-i_j \^-^ : !>,..-. • ^~ ' \
—
-"./
4 "?••?/DNAPL
Diffusion in / / /migration
GW / / I by gravity^ •
< ^ ,x /^
^••••••••• n •
GWflow
Advection
with GW
Source: Modified from Sims and others 1992
11
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
In addition to the physical transport processes described above, chlorinated solvents can also be
biologically degraded through natural mechanisms (intrinsic bioremediation). Some chlorinated
solvents (for example, 1,1,1-TCA and CT) can also degrade naturally through abiotic
(nonbiological) mechanisms. In most systems under ambient conditions, biological degradation
tends to dominate, depending on the type of contaminant and the groundwater chemistry (EPA
2000).
Recent work suggests that in appropriate subsurface conditions, abiotic processes may also
contribute. Abiotic processes are affected by items such as mineralogy (e.g., ferrous iron),
reactivity, organic content, and soil surface area. Thermal enhancement of such processes is a
subject of active investigation. (Benson, 2003)
While the above discussion addresses the fate and transport of chlorinated solvents under
naturally occurring conditions, these properties and mechanisms can be modified through
engineered systems, such as those employed during in situ thermal treatment. The modifications
employed during in situ thermal treatment, and how they can enhance remediation, are discussed
later in this section.
2.3 CONVENTIONAL AND INNOVATIVE TREATMENT OF
CHLORINATED SOLVENTS
Use and management of wastes containing chlorinated solvents has resulted in contamination of
soil and groundwater, with chlorinated solvents present at many contaminated groundwater sites
in the U.S. Chlorinated solvents and their degradation products, including DCA, DCE, and VC,
may persist in the subsurface because of their chemical properties and fate and transport
tendencies, discussed above.
Many sites contaminated with chlorinated solvents have used pump-and-treat systems to clean up
and/or contain groundwater plumes. These systems likely will need to be operated for extended
time frames, with the potential for relatively high operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.
Pump-and-treat involves extracting contaminated groundwater through recovery wells or
trenches and treating the groundwater by ex situ (aboveground) processes, such as air stripping,
carbon adsorption, biological reactors, or chemical precipitation. Variables in the design of a
typical pump-and-treat system include the number, depth, and pumping rate of groundwater
extraction points, and the ex situ treatment processes employed (EPA 200 Ib).
Use of innovative source zone treatment technologies is being considered for many sites
contaminated with chlorinated solvents, including sites that currently are using pump-and-treat or
other conventional treatment approaches. Directly addressing the source zone can result in a
more time- and cost-effective remedial approach than addressing the contaminated plume alone;
even considering energy costs, which are typically less than 30 percent of total project cost for in
situ thermal treatment, with ERH typically less than 15-20 percent. Innovative source zone
remediation technologies have included in situ thermal treatment, as well as in situ chemical
oxidation, and surfactant/co-sol vent flushing (ITRC 2002).
12
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
Challenges in using conventional approaches such as pump-and-treat to remediate sites
contaminated with chlorinated solvents present as DNAPL or dissolved in groundwater,
especially to stringent clean up levels such as maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), include:
The relatively low aqueous solubility of chlorinated solvents does not allow for
significant mass removal through dissolution in groundwater (even at concentrations
approaching saturation).
The relatively high octanol-water partition coefficient for chlorinated solvents results in
the preferential partitioning of solvents to organic matter in the subsurface, rather than to
groundwater, making contaminants more difficult to extract.
In situ thermal treatment technologies increase the temperature of the source zone to increase the
mobility of the chlorinated solvents in the subsurface. This enhanced mobility facilitates the
removal of chlorinated solvents, and, in some cases, can also result in in situ destruction of
contaminants (Davis 1997).
2.4 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF IN SITU THERMAL TREATMENT
The key physical and chemical properties that govern the fate and transport of chlorinated
solvents, including viscosity, solubility, vapor pressure, octanol-water partition coefficient, and
Henry's Law constant, are temperature dependent. The chlorinated solvent properties
summarized in Table 2-2 are generally based on a "standard" temperature of 25°C. At the higher
temperatures employed during in situ thermal treatment, these properties change, typically in a
way that enhances the treatability of the chlorinated solvents. The primary thermal effects
applicable to chlorinated solvents present in the free phase, sorbed phase and the dissolved phase
are summarized below and in Table 2-3. More detailed information is available in the document
titled How Heat Can Enhance In-situ Soil and Aquifer Remediation: Important Chemical
Properties and Guidance on Choosing Appropriate Technique (Davis 1997).
Table 2-3. Thermal Effects on Chlorinated Solvent Properties
Fate and Transport Property
Liquid density
Vapor pressure
Liquid viscosity
Vapor viscosity
Diffusivity
Solubility
Henry's constant
Partition coefficient
Biological degradation
Abiotic degradation
Effect as Temperature Increases
Decreases moderately (less than 100 percent)
Increases significantly (10 to 20 fold)
Decreases significantly until boiling point and drops
markedly upon conversion from liquid to vapor
Increases slightly as vapor temperature increases
Increases
Increases as temperature increases
Increases (more likely to volatilize from water)
Decreases (less likely to partition to organic matter in soil)
Increases (may decrease at higher temperatures)
Increases
Source: Derived from Davis 1997
13
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
The common chlorinated solvents present as free-phase liquids under ambient temperatures boil
and convert to a gas at temperatures ranging from 40 to 180°C. However, mixtures of
chlorinated solvents (both free-phase and dissolved-phase) with water exhibit heterogeneous
azeotropic properties; that is, the mixture boils at a constant temperature without a corresponding
change in composition. Typically, the boiling points of aqueous chlorinated solvent mixtures are
less than the pure-phase boiling points of both the chlorinated solvent and water. For example,
an azeotropic mixture of PCE and water will boil at 88°C, more than 30°C less than the 121°C
boiling point for pure PCE and significantly less than the boiling point of water. Table 2-4
shows the heterogeneous azeotropes of several common chlorinated solvents (Gmehling and
Onken 1977).
Table 2-4. Heterogeneous Azeotropes of Common Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated
Solvent
PCE
TCE
1,1,2-TCA
CT
CF
MC
Pure Substance
Boiling Point (°C)
121
87
114
77
61
40
Heterogeneous Azeotrope with Water
Boiling Point (°C)
88
73
86
67
56
39
Molar Concentration of
Chlorinated Solvent in
Liquid/Vapor (%)
83
94
84
96
97
99
Source: Gmehling and Onken 1977
Even at temperatures less than their boiling points, free-phase chlorinated solvents tend to
partition to the gas phase because their vapor pressures increase as the temperature increases.
Typically, chlorinated solvents that boil at less than 100 °C will have a 5 to 7 times greater vapor
pressure at 50 °C than at 10 °C (Fares and others 1995). In addition, the liquid viscosity of a
given chlorinated solvent generally decreases by 1 percent per °C of increased temperature up to
its boiling point, enhancing its mobility in the subsurface. In the gas phase, a mass of chlorinated
solvent occupies a larger volume than it does as a liquid, resulting in expansion and advective
flow. For example, a mass of water occupies 1,600 times more volume as a gas than it does as a
liquid (Davis, 1997). As chlorinated solvents expand, the mass of a chlorinated solvent can be
captured and removed from the subsurface. In addition, the viscosity and diffusivity rates (in air)
allow for more efficient flow of chlorinated solvents as a gas than as a liquid. The viscosity of a
chlorinated solvent as a gas is generally 2 orders of magnitude less than that of a liquid.
Increasing the temperature from 10 to 100 °C will increase the diffusion in the vapor phase by
approximately 50 percent (Davis 1997).
Thermal effects also enhance the removal of chlorinated solvents dissolved in source zone
groundwater or pore water. Physical and chemical properties, such as solubility, Henry's Law
constant, octanol-water partition coefficient, and aqueous diffusivity rate, change in ways
beneficial to remediation. For solubility, concentrations increase by a factor or two or more as
an area is heated. The Henry's Law constant for chlorinated solvents generally increases and the
partitioning from the aqueous phase to soil (based on the octanol-water partition coefficient)
generally decreases with elevated temperature. For example, the Henry's Law constant for TCE
14
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
increases by 1 order of magnitude, and its adsorption from the aqueous phase onto soils can be
expected to decrease by a factor of approximately 2.2 when the temperature is increased from 20
to 90°C (Heron and others 1996). The aqueous diffusion rate will increase by approximately 30
percent when the temperature is increased from 10 to 90°C (Treybal 1980).
The elevated temperatures achieved during in situ thermal treatment can also enhance abiotic and
biotic degradation or destruction of chlorinated solvents. Abiotic degradation pathways, such as
hydrolysis, where the hydrogen ions in water replace the chlorine ions in the chlorinated solvent
molecule, and hydrous pyrolysis oxidation (HPO), where chlorinated solvents under oxidizing
and aqueous conditions may be oxidized (eventually to carbon dioxide), have been shown to
increase substantially at elevated temperatures. For example, the hydrolysis rates for chlorinated
methanes and ethanes have been shown to result in relatively short half-lives for these
contaminants at elevated temperatures (Jeffers and others 1989). In addition, rates of HPO of
chlorinated solvents have been shown to increase (up to a maximum rate) with temperature
(Baker and Kuhlman 2002).
Biological degradation pathways may also be enhanced at elevated temperatures. One
commonly used rule of thumb, (based on the Van't Hoff-Arrhenius relationship) states that, for
every 10°C increase in temperature, there is roughly a two-fold increase in biological activity
resulting in an increase in degradation rate constants (EPA 1997). Extremely high temperatures
may sterilize soils of some microbes. However, significant levels of thermophiles (microbes that
thrive under high temperature conditions) are present in many soils, and nearly all microbes
benefit from elevated temperatures in the more moderately heated soil regions at the fringe of the
treatment area. The overall effect of the elevated temperatures achieved during in situ thermal
treatment on biological degradation pathways has not been fully determined, and is dependent on
site-specific conditions. The following references provide additional information about research
on this subject as related to petroleum contamination:
Newmark, R.L. and R.D. Aines. Summary of the LLNL gasoline spill demonstration-
Dynamic Underground Stripping Project, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
Berkeley Environmental Restoration Center. UCRL-ID-120416. Aprils, 1995.
Udell, K.S., M. Itamura, L. Alvarez-Cohen, and M. Hernandez. NAS Lemoore JP-5
cleanup demonstration. Berkeley Environmental Restoration Center, University of
California, Berkeley. 1994.
Richardson, R.E.; C.A. James; V.K. Bhupathiraju; L. Alverez-Cohen. "Microbial
activity in soils following steam treatment". Biodegradation. 13, 285-295, 2002
Each of the three technologies discussed in this report (SEE, ERH, and thermal conductive
heating) employs a different method to increase the temperature within the saturated or
unsaturated contaminated zone. This temperature increase results in conditions under which
chlorinated solvents can be more easily volatilized, mobilized, and then extracted from the
subsurface using a vapor (and in some cases liquid extraction) system. In addition, each
technology may also degrade contaminants directly in the subsurface through HPO or hydrolysis
at lower temperatures, oxidation or pyrolysis at higher temperatures, or by stimulating the
growth of microbes that biodegrade contaminants.
15
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
3.0 IN SITU THERMAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES
In situ thermal heating methods were first developed by the petroleum industry for enhanced oil
recovery. These methods were adapted to the treatment of soil and groundwater. Initial
variations included hot water injection, steam injection, hot air injection, and ERH. In the late
1980s and early 1990s, thermal conductive heating was developed.
Currently, steam injection (SEE), ERH, and thermal conductive heating are used for remediation
of soil and groundwater in source zones contaminated with chlorinated solvents. These in situ
thermal treatment technologies have also been used for treating other volatile and semivolatile
organic contaminants, such as PCBs; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); pesticides; and
various fuels, oils, and lubricants that are less amenable to other treatment methods. For
example, hot water injection has been used to enhance the recovery of low volatility and low
solubility oils. RF-heating, a variety of ERH that uses radio-frequency energy, has been applied
to remediation of various contaminants in the unsaturated zone, but its applicability in the
saturated zone has been limited. Hot air injection has seen limited application as a stand-alone
remediation technology because of the relatively low heat capacity of air (1 kilojoule per
kilogram-°C) compared to that of steam (4 kilojoules per kilogram-°C). In addition, steam
provides additional heating capacity based on the heat of condensation of water (2,300 kilojoules
per kilogram). As such, higher airflow rates would be needed as compared to steam flow rates to
provide the same heating effect. Air injection also can lead to formation of soil fractures when
performed at very high pressures. However, hot air injection has sometimes been applied during
steam injection to maintain the excess concentrations of oxygen necessary to promote HPO
(Davis 1997).
3.1 STEAM ENHANCED EXTRACTION
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION AND PRINCIPLES
SEE was initially used by the petroleum industry for the enhanced recovery of oil during
production operations by lowering the viscosity of heavy oils and increasing the volatility of
light oils, facilitating the production from deep formations. SEE takes advantage of the
relatively large heating capacity of steam, which provides a greater heat input to the subsurface
than injecting hot air. In remedial applications, as shown in Figure 3-1, SEE typically involves
the injection of steam into the subsurface to dissolve, vaporize, and mobilize contaminants that
are then recovered. Mobilized contaminants are extracted from the subsurface using vapor and
liquid extraction equipment. Extracted vapors and liquids are treated using conventional
aboveground treatment technologies, such as condensation, air stripping, carbon adsorption, and
thermal oxidation.
16
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
Figure 3-1: SEE System Schematic
Steam
Generation
Vapor Treatment
Liquid Treatment
Source: Derived from Davis 1998
During the initial stages of SEE, injected steam condenses and raises the temperature of the soil
and pore fluids. When the soil surrounding the injection wells becomes heated to the boiling
point of water, a steam front begins to form in the subsurface, and liquids and vapors are
mobilized towards recovery wells. The steam front is characterized by high contaminant
concentrations in the vapor phase (behind the steam front) and the aqueous phase (ahead of the
steam front). At this stage, three distinct zones develop: a steam temperature zone, a variable
temperature zone, and an ambient temperature zone. Within the steam zone, the main
contaminant removal mechanisms are steam distillation and displacement. In the variable zone,
physical forces (such as viscous, expansion, and inertial) play the largest role in contaminant
transport. In the ambient zone, direct displacement is the main contaminant removal mechanism
(Wu 1977). Pressure cycling has been used to increase the removal efficiency of SEE after the
target volume has been heated to near boiling temperatures and steam is breaking through to the
extraction wells (Udell and others 1991).
At some sites, such as Young-Rainey STAR, Northeast Area A (see summary in Appendix B),
SEE and ERH were used in a combined treatment system. ERH is incorporated in the steam
injection wells to mobilize contaminants within less permeable zones (Newmark and others
1998). This combination is sometimes referred to as dynamic underground stripping (DUS).
An enhancement of SEE, HPO, uses injected air in addition to steam. The oxygen in the injected
air, coupled with the high temperatures, has been shown to promote the in situ oxidation of some
contaminants. Air and steam are both typically injected into the subsurface using the same
injection wells, often in alternating cycles (Udell and others 1994).
Steam injection has been applied at two fractured bedrock sites (Loring AFB and Edwards AFB).
During 2002, a research/pilot project was carried out using steam at the former Quarry site at
Loring Air Force Base, located in Limestone, Maine. Drums containing waste solvents had been
17
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
disposed in various locations in the quarry. Limited groundwater characterization efforts located
an area in the fractured limestone bedrock where PCE concentrations indicated the possible
presence of DNAPL. The objectives of the research project included determining the feasibility
of using steam to remediate VOCs from fractured limestone, and reducing the mass of
contaminants in the subsurface to reduce the timeframe for natural attenuation. Extensive
characterization of the fracture framework and contaminant distribution was carried out as the
steam injection system was installed. Characterization activities included logging of bedrock
cores, conventional borehole geophysics, extracting and analyzing rock chip samples,
transmissivity testing on discrete intervals, groundwater sampling from discrete intervals, and
interconnectivity testing. Based on the information gathered during these characterization
efforts, the steam injection and extraction system was designed to inject steam into the less-
contaminated boreholes while extracting contaminants from the more contaminated boreholes.
The characterization activities had revealed that the fracture spacing was larger than expected,
and thus the transmissivity was lower. This limited the steam injection rates that could be
achieved. However, even with only limited heating of the subsurface, significant increases in the
extraction rate of contaminants was achieved during this limited-duration project. The data from
this project indicates that different mechanisms than are normally found in unconsolidated media
are likely contributing to the enhanced extraction rates found here. Laboratory experiments are
planned to help elucidate the mechanisms for contaminant recovery that are important in
fractured limestone (Davis, 2004).
Edwards AFB Site 61 was also a pilot effort, conducted in fractured granite (quartz monzonite).
The pilot encompassed a vapor capture radius of approximately 80 ft and heated to a depth of
approximately 45 ft. Heating was initially at depth with vapor recovery in shallow zones.
Although steam distribution was uneven, the site was partially heated and mass removal was
accelerated. Approximately 700 pounds of VOCs were recovered, some from zones not thought
to contain NAPL. Air co-injection was included as part of the pilot. Data suggests that the air
injection may have had a beneficial effect of opening fractures to steam flow. Electrical
Resistance Tomography (ERT) proved useful as a process monitoring tool as heated zones
showed significant increases in electrical resistivity (Davis, 2004).
APPLICABILITY CONSIDERA TIONS
SEE is most effective when the steam is able to enter the pore space of the soils and best suited
for zones of moderate to high permeability. In low permeability soil, steam cannot penetrate the
pore space as rapidly, resulting in higher heat losses and, in some cases, the inability to
completely heat the area. In addition, smaller pore diameters create higher capillary pressures
and, as a result, lower the rate of evaporation of contaminants. It may be possible to heat lower
permeability zones with steam if the zones are sufficiently thin that they can be conductively
heated from above or below. Alternatively, it may be possible to combine SEE with other
technologies, such as ERH during DUS, to address lower permeability zones. Heterogeneities in
subsurface geology can also affect the flow of injected steam in the subsurface because
preferential flow through higher permeable zones can result in channeling. However, channeling
effects for steam may be minimized because heat losses from more permeable zones are typically
higher. This effect results in a slowed steam front in these zones and, overall, a more uniform
steam front expansion. Lower permeable lenses typically will heat more slowly in inter-bedded
18
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
soils. If the scale of the bedding is small (less than about 9 feet thick), this effect may not be
significant. As described above, if the low permeable zone thickness is large, other in situ
thermal treatment technologies alone or in combination with SEE may be more appropriate.
ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
The major components of SEE systems are steam generating equipment, a steam distribution
system, and vapor, groundwater, and free product extraction systems. At chlorinated solvent
sites, most contaminants will be recovered in the vapor phase. Steam for the SEE system may be
supplied by existing equipment used for other purposes at the site (such as at the Savannah River
site described in Appendix A) or by using a mobile steam plant. Such plants can be powered
with natural gas, propane, or other fuel sources. The sizes and numbers of generators necessary
will depend on the required steam mass injection rate. The fuel source will depend on the
availability of fuel at the location of the site. In most cases, steam-generating equipment may
require feed water pretreatment to avoid scale buildup and fouling in areas where water supplies
are of low quality (Schumacher 1980). The steam distribution typically includes a manifold that
allows for the control of steam flows to individual wells or groups of wells.
Important operational parameters for SEE equipment include steam pressure, steam quality (level
of saturation), and the ability to inject continuously until breakthrough at the extraction wells
occurs in the more permeable zones. Steam pressures must be sufficient to penetrate the soils
and displace groundwater while not exceeding the fracturing pressure. Fracturing during
injection can cause channeling, leading to the potential for bypassing contaminated areas and
steam breakthrough at the soil surface. Under certain conditions, injection pressures as high as
2.4 pounds per square inch (psi) per meter below ground surface (bgs) have been used without
causing fracturing (Earth Tech and SteamTech 2003). As a rule of thumb, achievable injection
pressure increases by about 1.5 psi per meter (0.5 psi per foot) of overburden (Davis 1998).
High quality (100 percent vapor) steam is typically preferred for in situ thermal treatment
application. Supersaturated or higher temperature steam does not appear to offer an additional
advantage because the heating potential of the steam is relatively independent of temperature. In
addition, increased steam temperature can result in greater radiant and conductive heat losses to
areas outside of the treatment area. Continuous injection until the steam zone extends from the
injection wells to the extraction wells is typically employed to provide adequate heating rates and
reduce heat losses.
A SEE system typically consists of a series of injection wells and extraction wells. For small
applications, a ring of injection wells typically surround a central extraction well located near the
middle of the DNAPL area. In this configuration, the injection wells are placed in clean areas
around the source zone, if possible, to minimize the risk of contaminant spreading. In some
cases, but less frequently, an inside-out configuration has been used, where the steam is injected
centrally, and extraction wells on the perimeter provide hydraulic and pneumatic control,
reducing the potential for contaminant spreading outward. For larger areas, multiple arrays of
injection and extraction wells typically are used to heat the area and capture mobilized
contaminants in the treatment area. The patterns and spacing of the injection/extraction wells
depend on the geologic conditions (including whether the application is in unsaturated or
19
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
saturated media), the permeability, and the depth of application. Typical spacing for SEE wells
ranges from several to more than 10 meters (Davis 1998).
Thermocouples or electrical resistance tomography are used to monitor subsurface temperatures.
Once the desired subsurface temperature within the treatment zone has been achieved, cyclic
steam injection is sometimes used. When steam injection is cycled off but vapor extraction is
continued, the subsurface is depressurized, resulting in the vaporization of residual water and
contaminants present within pore spaces. This approach has been shown to reduce the amount of
steam required to meet a given cleanup level, and possibly to reduce overall cleanup time
(Itamura and Udell 1993).
The wells used for injection, extraction, or monitoring, and the steam distribution system need to
be designed to handle the expected temperatures and changes in temperatures that are inherent to
SEE. Steel is typically the preferred casing and screen material, because conventional polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) or fiberglass wells can degrade or deform under high temperature conditions.
Well casing joints and grout must also be selected to handle pressures and thermal expansion. In
some cases, grouts can be amended with quartz silica or silica flour for temperature stability and
with sodium chloride for greater expansion capability. Temperature considerations are also
relevant to the selection of groundwater extraction and monitoring wells and equipment, because
some in situ groundwater extraction pumps do not function reliably under high temperature
conditions. Often, water extraction pumps with the drive systems at the surface are used,
including pneumatic air lift pumps, positive displacement pumps, liquid ring pumps (limited to
shallower depth applications of less than 30 feet bgs) (Davis, 1998), and progressive cavity
pumps (often employed to minimize emulsification of extracted contaminants). SEE has been
employed under structures with no reported adverse effects. Geotechnical considerations are an
integral part of the remedial design process when treating contamination through structures.
TECHNOLOGY FIELD EXPERIENCE
This report includes information on the following two full-scale technology applications
employing SEE to treat chlorinated solvents:
SEE at A.G. Communication Systems - Northlake, Illinois
DUS/HPO at Savannah River Site 321-M Solvent Storage Tank Area -
Aiken, South Carolina
Full-text case studies for these projects are included in Appendix A. The case studies include
information about observed performance and cost of SEE. Table 3-1 summarizes the cost data
that was available for these two SEE applications.
20
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
Table 3-1: Cost Data Reported for Selected SEE Applications
Application
A.G. Communication
Systems,
Northlake, IL
Savannah River Site
321-M Solvent Storage
Tank Area (field
demonstration),
Aiken, SC
Total Cost
$4,900,000
Not provided
Total Cost Components
Pilot testing, design, installation,
O&M, negotiation support
Not provided
Unit Costs
$15 per cubic yard treated
$140 per pound of
contaminant removed
$29 per cubic yard treated
(not including steam
generation and aboveground
treatment, provided by SRS)
3.2 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVE HEATING
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION AND PRINCIPLES
ERH involves the application of electrical current through the subsurface, resulting in the
generation of heat. ERH uses the natural electrical resistance within the subsurface where
energy is dissipated through ohmic, or resistive, losses. This manner of in situ heating allows
energy to be focused into a specific source zone. When the subsurface temperature is increased
to the boiling point of the pore water or the saturated media in the treatment zone, steam is
generated. The steam strips contaminants from the soils and enables them to be extracted from
the subsurface. In addition, contaminants are directly volatilized from unsaturated soil.
The necessary power input to the subsurface is inversely proportional to the soil resistivity and
directly proportional to the square of the applied voltage, based on the following equation
derived from Ohm's Law.
Power = (Voltage)2/Resistance
The resistance of a subsurface matrix is largely determined by its water content, concentration of
dissolved salts or ionic content in the water, and ion exchange capacity of the soil itself (Kendall
and Wolf 1999). The organic carbon content of soils also affects resistivity, but has a greater
effect on the required treatment time as a result of the stronger partitioning of organic
contaminants, such as chlorinated solvents, to the soils. In addition, the resistivity is a function
of temperature, and as the water reaches its boiling point, the resistivity decreases with increased
ion mobility. Soil resistance can be measured in the field or estimated from characterization data
for soils and groundwater. The total resistance of an ERH system is determined based on the
resistivity of the soil and the geometry of the electrode system. For matrices with a total
resistance of 10 to a few hundred ohms, and applied voltages range from 100 to 1,500 volts,
required power inputs will be on the order of tens or hundreds of kilowatts.
21
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
APPLICABILITY CONSIDERA TIONS
ERH is particularly suited to the treatment of lower permeability strata and to DNAPLs that have
become consolidated within lower permeability zones with higher organic content. In some
cases, ERH can be combined with SEE (as in DUS) in aquifers interbedded with low permeable
lenses or in situations where a lower aquitard has been impregnated with DNAPLs. ERH is used
to treat the lower permeability zones, which the steam vapors cannot penetrate rapidly (Beyke
1998).
ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
An ERH system consists of subsurface electrodes to direct current through the subsurface, and a
vapor extraction system to capture the volatilized water and contaminants. In some cases,
groundwater extraction is also used to lower the water table within the treatment zone during
initial stages of treatment (prior to temperatures exceeding the boiling point of subsurface water)
or to provide hydraulic control. To improve the uniformity of heating and reduce local current
densities at the electrodes, most configurations employ multiple phased arrays of electrodes with
a central ground electrode that typically doubles as a vapor extraction well. This method
increases the available current pathways as electrodes are phased so that current can flow from
one electrode to any other electrode or to the neutral ground. Larger areas are remediated by
installing adjacent arrays so that the heated zones overlap (Beyke 1998). Figure 3-2 shows a
general schematic of an ERH system using six electrodes surrounding a combination ground
electrode/vapor extraction well.
Electrodes can be installed using several different drilling or direct-push techniques, including
angled or horizontal methods. The installation method generally depends on space constraints at
the surface or on the geology. Because the current density is highest at the electrodes, the
applied voltage is dependent on the contact resistance. In vadose zone applications or once full
steaming conditions are achieved in aquifer applications, water is typically injected to maintain
good electrical contact and prevent excessive drying or voltage breakdown at the electrodes.
This injection may be augmented with low concentrations of salt added to the water and/or the
use of highly conductive packing (for example, carbon/graphite or steel shot) around the
electrodes. Additional equipment is required for water (or brine) injection at the electrodes.
22
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
Figure 3-2: Typical ERH System Configuration
Source: Pope and Nienkerk 2002
Surface equipment varies depending on the specific method, site, and scale. Typically, utility
(60 Hertz) electrical power is used with power conversion equipment to regulate voltage or to
convert the phase characteristics of the power. Depending on soil properties, single arrays up to
100 feet in diameter (typical arrays are 30 to 40 feet in diameter) can be operated. Multi-phase
heating requires additional space for a transformer (typically mounted on a standard tractor
trailer), which can also be designed to include voltage controls (Beyke 1998).
Vapor extraction systems are typically used to remove volatilized water and contaminants from
the subsurface. The vapor extraction and aboveground treatment equipment is similar to that
used with SEE, as described in Section 3.1. Higher temperature conditions should be considered
when designing extraction and monitoring wells and associated equipment for the treatment area.
Existing equipment may require modifications or replacement to accommodate these elevated
temperature conditions. Furthermore, due to safety concerns with regard to high voltage
potentials in surface work areas and/or the potential for buried conductors to carry high voltage
potentials out of the immediate remediation area, care must be taken in applying the technology
in heavily developed or industrial areas. Typically, all conductive (metallic) equipment, such as
well components, process piping, monitoring ports, and electric equipment, are bonded together
with a copper conductor, which is connected to an earth ground.
ERH practitioners use Power Control Units (PCUs) for electrical power delivery from the
municipal power line to the subsurface electrodes installed in the remediation area. These PCUs
include isolation transformers that prevent electrical current from traveling outside of the
remediation area and offsite to above ground structures. Common electrical grounding
techniques developed and used by the electrical utility industry are used on ERH projects to
further enhance and ensure safe working conditions during ERH operations. The standard for
safe working electrical voltages adopted by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
23
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
(OSHA) is less than 50 volts at the surface of a working site. Most ERH practitioners have
adopted safety policies that provide a significant safety margin by ensuring that less than 15 volts
are present at the surface during the operations of ERH remediation systems. This is
accomplished by implementing a combination of engineering controls and standard grounding
techniques. In addition, standard practice during the operation of ERH systems involves ongoing
monitoring of surface voltages.
TECHNOLOGY FIELD EXPERIENCE
This report includes information on the following four full-scale technology applications
employing ERH to treat chlorinated solvents:
ERH at Former Manufacturing Facility - Skokie, Illinois
ERH at Poleline Road Disposal Area, Area 3 - Fort Richardson, Alaska
ERH at ICN Pharmaceutical Site - Portland, Oregon
ERH at Avery Dennison Site - Waukegan-Gurnee Industrial Park, Illinois
Full-text case studies for these projects are included in Appendix A. The case studies include
information about observed performance and cost of ERH. Table 3-2 summarizes the cost data
that was available for these four ERH applications.
Table 3-2: Cost Data Reported for Selected ERH Technology Applications
Application
Former Manufacturing
Facility,
Skokie, IL
Poleline Road
Disposal Area, Area 3
(field demonstration),
Fort Richardson, AK
ICN Pharmaceutical
Site,
Portland, OR
Total Cost
Not provided
$968,000
$2,206,000
Total Cost Components
ERH power and electrodes; soil vapor
extraction and condensate treatment; project
permitting; preparation of work plans;
electrical use; waste disposal; interim
sampling; progress reporting (electrical usage
cost was 20% of total cost
Total cost includes on-site power generation
Capital ($1,29 1,000) and
O&M ($915,000)
Unit Costs
$32 per cubic yard
treated (air emission
controls not required or
included in cost;
estimated to add
approximately $9 per
cubic yard)
$189 -$288 per cubic
yard treated
$73 per cubic yard
treated
3.3 THERMAL CONDUCTIVE HEATING
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION AND PRINCIPLES
Thermal conductive heating involves simultaneous application of heat and vacuum to subsurface
soils with an array of vertical heater/vacuum wells or, much less commonly, with surface blanket
heaters and a vacuum insulated shroud. In both of these configurations, heat originates from a
24
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
heating element and is transferred to the subsurface largely via thermal conduction and radiant
heat transport, which dominates near the heat sources (Stegemeier 1998). There is also a
contribution through convective heat transfer that occurs during the formation of steam from
pore water. Because this technology can achieve elevated soil temperatures (in excess of
500°C), a significant portion (reported up to 99 percent at some sites) of organic contaminants
either oxidize (if sufficient air is present) or pyrolize once high soil temperatures are achieved.
Therefore, this technology is also considered to be an in situ destruction method (Baker and
Kuhlman 2002).
Because soil is not an efficient conductor of heat (as compared to other substances like metals),
high temperatures heat sources are required to effectively conduct energy into soils where
contaminants and water can be destroyed or vaporized in situ and extracted and treated at the
surface (Vinegar 1998). Soil heat conductivities are all fairly similar in magnitude, and the
movement of heat away from the heaters, whether vertically or radially outward, is uniform.
However, because the driving force for heat migration is the temperature gradient, soils initially
are not heated to the same temperature within the treatment area resulting in a temperature
profile that decreases radially from the source. Over time, superposition of heat from adjacent
heaters tends to even out these differences. Other factors, including advective heat transport, the
anisotropic nature (variable thermal conductivity depending on flow direction) of the thermal
conductivity of soils, or heat loss through groundwater flow, can also affect the uniformity of
subsurface heating.
Soil thermal conductivities are affected by moisture content, with conductivities diminishing as
water content decreases. Therefore, once soils become dry, higher temperature gradients are
needed to transfer the required energy. Other soil properties, such as permeability, carbon
content, grain size, and mineralogy can vary between soils and these properties may, to a lesser
extent, affect the well spacing and temperature needed for effective treatment. At high
temperatures, soils can shrink and crack and become permeable, enhancing contaminant
transport.
APPLICABILITY CONSIDERA TIONS
Thermal conductive heating is suited to treating DNAPL source zones in most hydrogeologic
conditions. Thermal conductive heating differs from other heating methods (SEE and ERH) in
that it does not rely solely on steam as a heat source or water as a conductive path. It can heat
soils to temperatures in excess of 500°C, making it particularly applicable to semivolatile
organic contaminants (SVOCs) such as PCBs, PAHs, pesticides, and herbicides (Vinegar 1998).
However, these higher boiling point compounds typically require high temperatures (for example
325°C that typically can only be achieved in the unsaturated zone. Lower boiling compounds
such as chlorinated solvents can be treated with thermal conductive heating through achievement
of steam distillation temperatures in the bulk of the interwell regions. Locations close to heaters
may achieve temperatures well above the boiling point of water. However, boiling off of all of
the soil water is not necessary. Removal rates in excess of 99 percent have been measured for
thermal conductive heating of chlorinated solvents (Vinegar and others 1999).
25
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
Thermal conductive heating has been employed under structures. As noted previously,
geotechnical features are considered in designing thermal conductive heating applications.
ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
A thermal conductive heating system generally consists of subsurface heaters (electrical
elements within a solid casing) used to generate heat and a vapor extraction system used to
capture the volatilized water and contaminants. Heater-vacuum wells that combine the vapor
extraction well with a heating element situated inside a non-perforated pipe running down the
length of the well casing are typically used. In some cases, groundwater extraction or diversion
is also used to dewater the treatment zone during initial stages of treatment (prior to temperatures
exceeding the boiling point of subsurface water). Figure 3-3 shows a general cross-section of
both a subsurface heater (as well as the less frequently used thermal blanket) configuration for a
thermal conductive heating system, referred to as In Situ Thermal Desorption (ISTD™) (Baker
and Kuhlman 2002).
Figure 3-3: Typical Thermal Conductive Heating System Configuration
CONTROL
TRAILER
THERMAL
WELLS
Source: Stegemeier and Vinegar 2001
26
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
The spacing of subsurface heaters depends on several factors, including the contaminant type and
depth, the soil type and moisture content, the power output, the desired minimum temperature
between heaters, and the time desired to achieve that temperature. A triangular pattern is
generally used; this results in a hexagonal pattern for large arrays in which the centrally located
subsurface heater also serves as a vacuum extraction well. If high temperatures are required,
such as for treating SVOCs, spacing between heaters is typically 5 to 7 feet (Vinegar and
Stegmeier 1998). If lower temperatures are required, such as for chlorinated solvents, spacing
between heaters is typically 12 to 20 feet. Thermal heaters can be installed with any
conventional drilling or direct-push technique. The treatment area is usually covered with an
impermeable and insulating surface seal that prevents infiltration of precipitation into the
treatment area, minimizes surface heat losses, and minimizes short-circuiting of the vapor
extraction system.
Surface equipment includes a power transformer and a control room trailer. The control room
uses data from thermocouples placed within the treatment area to adjust power outputs. Because
of the high temperatures achieved in the subsurface, the surface vapor treatment and handling
equipment may need to be designed to handle corrosive vapors (containing hydrochloric acid).
Acid generation during thermal conductive heating is more prevalent during the treatment of
highly chlorinated contaminants, such as PCBs and pesticides. However, systems designed to
treat chlorinated solvents may need to be constructed or lined with corrosive resistant materials.
Because the temperatures and chemical properties of the off-gas vapors may damage vacuum
blowers, they are typically placed near the exhaust end of the treatment process, after the exhaust
has been cooled and treated to remove corrosives. In some cases, treatment may also include a
cyclone separator to handle entrained particulate produced in the subsurface (Vinegar 1998).
TECHNOLOGY FIELD EXPERIENCE
This report includes information on the following technology application employing thermal
conductive heating to treat chlorinated solvents:
Confidential Chemical Manufacturing Facility - Portland, Indiana
A full-text case study for this project is included in Appendix A. This case study summarizes
information about observed performance of thermal conductive heating. No information about
the cost of thermal conductive heating at this site was provided.
27
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
4.0 OVERALL APPLICABILITY AND
ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
SEE, ERH, and thermal conductive heating have been used to treat chlorinated solvent source
zones after conventional remediation technologies, such as SVE or pump-and-treat, have been
ineffective. For example, in situ thermal treatment was used at the Poleline Road Disposal Area,
where a soil vapor extraction/air sparging system was ineffective, and at the Avery Dennison Site,
where a similar system was ineffective, in treating the chlorinated solvent source zone. This
section summarizes information on the overall applicability and engineering considerations
associated with in situ thermal treatment. This information was derived from the treatment
profiles (available at http://cluin.org/products/thermal/), as well as other information sources
listed at the end of this report. This report focuses on the treatment of chlorinated solvents. The
technology applications selected for inclusion in Appendices A and B treated PCA, PCE, TCA,
TCE, DCE, VC, and MC, as well non-halogenated VOCs, such as benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) constituents.
4.1 APPLICABILITY OF SEE, ERH, AND THERMAL CONDUCTIVE HEATING
CONTAMINANT TYPE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
The scientific basis for in situ thermal treatment technologies suggests that these technologies
can be used to treat any contaminant that can be volatilized. In situ thermal treatment
technologies have proven to be effective in remediating chlorinated solvents, as well as other
VOCs and SVOCs within a source zone under a wide range of site conditions. Contaminants
may include VOCs, such as chlorinated solvents; SVOCs, such as fuels, oils, PCBs, and
pesticides; and even volatile metals (using thermal conductive heating), such as mercury (Davis
1997).
In situ thermal treatment typically is used to target the source zone (or hot spots) within the
saturated or unsaturated zones rather than to address larger, less contaminated areas of soil or
groundwater plumes. The technology applications identified in this report have treated quantities
of soil and groundwater ranging from 5,000 to 300,000 cubic yards.
In situ thermal treatment can address contaminated source zones in the following areas:
Beneath structures or active areas
Beneath the water table
Too deep to be excavated
The maximum depth of in situ thermal treatment is only limited by the ability to deliver a heat
source (steam, electricity, or conductive heater) to a desired depth. The depths of the technology
applications included in this report ranged from 11 to 160 feet bgs.
28
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
SITE HYDROGEOLOGY
In situ thermal treatment has been used to treat contamination in a wide range of hydrogeologic
conditions. Applications included in this report have been performed in site hydrogeologies such
as high permeability sand formations, low permeability silty-clay layers, and heterogeneous
matrices. As discussed below, certain methods of in situ thermal treatment are more suited to
high versus low permeability or saturated versus unsaturated conditions.
4.2 ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS FOR SEE, ERH, AND THERMAL
CONDUCTIVE HEATING
Several physical and chemical soil properties, such as heat capacity, soil type, and degree of
saturation, affect energy requirements. For saturated soils (unconsolidated sands and silts), about
200 kilowatt hours per cubic meter is usually required. The largest contribution to the energy
requirement (approximately two-thirds of the energy for saturated soils) is the heat capacity
(latent heat of vaporization) of water. Because of their azeotropic characteristics, DNAPL-water
mixtures can boil at temperatures below 100°C. Heat losses to soil outside of the treatment area,
through the surface, or with the extracted vapors also contribute to the overall energy
requirement. Groundwater flowing into the treatment zone can also significantly affect the
energy requirements because of its "heat sink" effect.
In situ thermal heating technologies enhance contaminant transport. Design of thermal treatment
systems are based on the horizontal and vertical extent of contamination, as well as the types of
soil and lithology. In situ thermal treatment can extract contaminants from throughout a
heterogeneous subsurface.
When applied to a highly concentrated plume or source area, in situ thermal heating typically
employs a subsurface layout configuration involving placement of multiple arrays of "heat
sources" (steam injectors, electrodes, or conductors). Where appropriate, systems have been
designed with heat sources located below the contaminated zone that induce the rising of heated
(and thus lower density) contaminants in the vapor phase through the contaminated zone
(referred to as the "hot floor" effect). In addition, some system configurations may incorporate
the injection of a noncondensable gas, such as air, to aid in the upward mobilization of
contaminants. Vapor extraction is accomplished with wells within and/or above the
contaminated area. In some cases, the extraction wells have been placed both within and around
the target treatment area to minimize migration out of the treatment zone area.
Aboveground water and vapor treatment systems associated with in situ thermal treatment
systems generally are constructed to withstand the elevated temperatures and extraction rates
associated with these processes. Most in situ thermal treatment applications for chlorinated
solvents rely on vapor extraction as the primary contaminant removal mechanism, coupled with
liquid extraction to remove condensate and maintain hydraulic control. In some cases, additional
condensation potential is added to the aboveground treatment process to accommodate extracted
steam. The condenser module sometimes requires an organic/water separator to handle NAPL
condensed from the extracted vapor stream. Off-gas treatment systems are sized to treat higher
and often highly varying concentrations and the vacuum extraction pump(s) are sized to handle
29
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
the higher vapor flow. Consideration is given to induced fluid movement during thermal
applications (for example, rising hot vapors, thermal convection in groundwater, etc.) and this
movement may need to be taken into account when deciding where to locate extraction wells and
screens (Webb 1994).
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is in the process of preparing a design manual about the use
of in situ thermal treatment.
30
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
5.0 INFORMATION SOURCES
Baker, R.S., and Bierschenk, J.M. "In Situ Thermal Destruction Makes Stringent Soil and
Sediment Cleanup Goals Attainable." Proceedings of the Fourth Tri-Service Environmental
Technology Symposium. San Diego, CA, 18-20. June 2001.
Baker, R.S., and M. Kuhlman. A Description of the Mechanisms of In-Situ Thermal Destruction
(ISTD) Reactions. Submitted for publication in H. Al-Ekabi (Ed.), Current Practices in
Oxidation and Reduction Technologies for Soil and Groundwater, and presented at the 2nd
International Conference on Oxidation and Reduction Technologies for Soil and Groundwater,
ORTs-2, Toronto, Canada. November 17-21, 2002.
Benson, L.A. The Determining Role of Abiotic CAH Fate Processes: Possible Impacts on Your
Remedy Plans and Implementation Efforts. Presentation at 2003 AFCEE Technology Transfer
Workshop. February 26, 2003.
Beyke, G. 6-Phase Electrical Heating. Paper presented at the In Situ Thermal Treatment
Conference, U.S. EPA TIO. Atlanta, Georgia. December 1998.
Davis, E.L. How Heat Can Enhance In Situ Soil and Aquifer Remediation: Important Chemical
Properties and Guidance On Choosing The Appropriate Technique. EPA/540/S-97/502. April
1997.
Davis, E.L. Steam Injection For Soil and Aquifer Remediation. EPA/540/S-97/505. January
1998.
Davis, E.L. Comments on In Situ Thermal Treatment Document. E-mail to James Cummings,
EPA. March 5, 2004
Earth Tech and SteamTech. Site 61 Treatability Study Report: Steam Injection, Northwest Main
Base OU 8, Edwards Air Force Base, California. Draft report prepared for US Air Force and
AFCEE. March 2003.
EPA. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix. EPA 540/R-96/028. June 1996
EPA. Analysis of Selected Enhancements for Soil Vapor Extraction. EPA/542/R-97/007.
September 1997.
EPA. Engineered Approaches to In Situ Bioremediation of Chlorinated Solvents: Fundamentals
and Field Applications. EPA 542-R-00-008. July 2000.
EPA. Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report (Tenth Edition). EPA
542-R-01-004. 2001a.
EPA. Groundwater Pump and Treat Systems: Summary of Selected Cost and Performance
Information at Superfund-financedSites. EPA 542-F-01-025. December 2001b.
EPA. Thermal Treatment Profiles. 2004. http://cluin.org/products/thermal/
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
Fan, Y.H. and Udell, K.S. An Analysis of the Vaporization of Volatile Organic Contaminants
from Porous Media by Conductive Heating. Proceedings of the ASME Heat Transfer and Fluids
Engineering Divisions, HTD-32, 715-721. 1995.
Fares, A., B. Kindt, R. Lapuma, and G. P. Perram. Desorption kinetics of trichloroethylene from
powdered soils. Environ. Sci. Technol. 29(6): 1564-1568. 1995.
Finsterle, Stefan. "Demonstration of Optimization Techniques for Groundwater Plume
Remediation" LBNL-46746. September 2000.
Gmehling and Onken. Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium Data Collection. DECHEMA Chemistry Data
Series, Colume 1 (Parts 1-10). Frankfort. 1977.
Hansen, K.S., D.M. Conley, HJ. Vinegar, J.M. Coles, J.L. Menotti, and G.L. Stegemeier. "In
Situ Thermal Desorption of Coal Tar." Proceedings of the Institute of Gas Technology/Gas
Research Institute International Symposium on Environmental Biotechnologies and Site
Remediation Technologies. Orlando, FL, December 7-9, 1998.
Heine, Kevin S., Steckler, David. Augmenting In-Situ Remediation by Soil Vapor Extraction
with Six-Phase Soil Heating. 1999.
Heron, G.; Christensen, T.H.; Enfield, C.G. "Henry's Law Constant for Trichloroethylene
between 10 and 95 C". Environmental Science and Technology. 32 (10), 1433-1437. 1998a.
Heron, G.; Van Zutphen, M.; Christensen, T.H.; Enfield, C.G. "Soil heating for enhanced
remediation of chlorinated solvents: A laboratory study on resistive heating and vapor extraction
in a silty, low-permeable soil contaminated with trichloroethylene". Environmental Science and
Technology. 32 (10), 1474-1481. 1998b.
Heron, G., T. H. Christensen, and C. G. Enfield. Temperature effects on the distribution of
organics in soils and groundwater and implications for thermally enhanced in-situ remediation.
Submitted for publication in Environ. Sci. Technol. December 1996.
Huling, S.G. and J.W. Weaver. Groundwater Issue: Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquids. EPA
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Research and Development.
Washington, D.C. EPA/540/4-91-002. March 1991.
ITRC. Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPLs): Review of Emerging Characterization
and Remediation Technologies. June 2000.
Itamura, M.T., and K.S. Udell. Experimental clean-up of a dense Nonaqueous phase liquid in
the unsaturated zone of a porous medium using steam injection. Multiphase Transport in Porous
Media. HTD-265, 57-62. 1993.
Jeffers, P.M., L.M. Ward, L.M. Woytowitch, and N.L. Wolfe. Homogeneous hydrolysis rate
constant for selected chlorinated methanes, ethanes, ethenes, and propanes, Environ. Sci.
Technol. 23,965-969. 1989.
32
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
Kaslusky, S.F., and K.S. Udell. "A Theoretical Model of Air and Steam Co-Injection to Prevent
The Downward Migration of DNAPLs During Steam-Enhanced Extraction." J. Contaminant
Hydrol, 55, 213-232. 2002.
Kendall, S. and J. Wolf. Six-Phase Heating: The New Power Tool. 1999.
Looney, B.B. and R.W. Falta, Eds. Vadose Zone Science and Technology Solution, Volume II.
Battelle Press. Columbus, Ohio. 2000.
Merck & Co., Inc. The Merck Index, An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and Biologicals,
Eleventh Edition. Merck & Co., Inc. Rahway, New Jersey. 1999.
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center Cost and Performance Report: In-Situ Thermal
Desorption at The Former Mare Island Naval Shipyard. November 1999.
Newmark, R.L. and R.D. Aines. Summary of the LLNL Gasoline Spill Demonstration-Dynamic
Underground Stripping Project, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Berkeley
Environmental Restoration Center. UCRL-ID-120416. April 3, 1995.
Newmark, R.L., R.D. Aines, R. Leif, and K. Knauss. Thermal Treatment: Dynamic
Underground Stripping and Hydrous Pyrolysis Oxidation. Paper presented at the In Situ
Thermal Treatment Conference, U.S. EPA TIO. Atlanta, Georgia. December 1998.
Perry, R.H., Green, D.W., and Maloney, J.O. Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook, Sixth
Edition. McGraw-Hill. 1984.
Pope, J.L, and M.M. Nienkerk. In Situ Remediation ofMethylene Chloride in Low-Permeability
Soils Using Electrical Resistive Heating. Clayton Group. 2002.
Richardson, R.E.; James, C.A.; Bhupathiraju, V. K.; Alvarez-Cohen, L. "Microbial activity in
soils following steam treatment". Biodegradation. 13, 285-295. 2002.
Sawyer, C.N. and others. Chemistry for Environmental Engineering, Fourth Edition. McGraw-
Hill, Inc. New York. 1994.
Schmidt, R., J. Gudbjerg, T.O. Sonnenborg, and K.H. Jensen. "Removal of NAPLs From The
Unsaturated Zone Using Steam: Prevention of Downward Migration By Injecting Mixtures of
Steam and Air." J. Contaminant Hydrol, 55, 233-260: 2002.
Schumacker, M.M. Enhanced Recovery of Residual and Heavy Oils, Second Edition. Noyes
Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey. 1980.
Sims, J.L. and others. Groundwater Issue: In-Situ Bioremediation of Contaminated Ground
Water. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Research and
Development. Washington, D.C. EPA/540/S-92/003. February 1992.
Stegemeier, G.L. Design Equations for In Situ Thermal Desorption. January 19, 1998.
33
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
Stegemeier, G.L. and H. J. Vinegar. "Thermal Conduction Heating For In Situ Thermal
Desorption of Soils." Hazardous & Radioactive Waste Treatment Technologies Handbook.
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 2001.
Stegemeier, G.L., and H. J. Vinegar. "Soil Remediation By Surface Heating and Vacuum
Extraction." Proceedings, 1995 SPE/EPA Exploration & Production Environmental
Conference. Houston, Texas. March 27-29, 1995.
Technical Resources. Thermal Conduction Process Destroys PAHs in Soil. Volume 17, Issue 7.
November/December 1999.
Technical Resources. Treating Chlorinated Solvents in Soil and Groundwater using Natural
Attenuation Volume 18, Issue 2. 2000.
TerraTherm, Inc. Website. 2003. http://www.terratherm.com/
Treybal, R. E. Mass-Transfer Operations, 3rd. ed. McGraw-Hill. New York. 1980.
Udell, K.S., M. Itamura, L. Alvarez-Cohen, and M. Hernandez. NAS Lemoore JP-5 cleanup
demonstration. Berkeley Environmental Restoration Center, University of California, Berkeley.
1994.
Udell, K.S.; Sitar, N.; Hunt, J.R.; Stewart, L.D. Process for In Situ Decontamination of
Subsurface Soil and Groundwater. United States Patent # 5,018,576. 1991.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. "Technical Guidance for the Hazardous and Toxic Waste
Treatment and Cleanup Activities." U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Manual EM 1110-
1-5-230. Washington, DC: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. April 1994.
Vinegar, H. and Stegemeier, G. In Situ Thermal Desorption. Paper presented at the In Situ
Thermal Treatment Conference, U.S. EPA TIO. Atlanta, Georgia. December 1998.
Vinegar, H.J., G.L. Stegemeier, F.G. Carl, J.D. Stevenson, and RJ. Dudley. "In Situ Thermal
Desorption of Soils Impacted with Chlorinated Solvents." Proceedings of the Annual Meetings
of the Air and Waste Management Association., Paper No. 99-450. 1999
Webb, S.W. TOUGH2 Simulations of the TEVES Project Including the Behavior of a Single-
Component NAPL; SAND94-1639/UC-2010. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM,
prepared for the U.S. Dept. of Energy, under Contract DE-AC04-94AL85000. 1994.
Wu, C.H. A critical review of steamflood mechanisms. Society of Petroleum Engineers Paper
SPE6550. 1977.
34
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
APPENDIX A
IN SITU THERMAL TREATMENT SUMMARIES
Dynamic Underground Stripping-Hydrous Pyrolysis
Oxidation at the Savannah River Site 321-M Solvent
Storage Tank Area, Aiken, South Carolina
Steam Enhanced Extraction at the A.G. Communication
Systems Site, Northlake, Illinois
Electrical Resistive Heating at the Former Manufacturing
Facility, Skokie, Illinois
Electrical Resistive Heating at the Poleline Road Disposal
Area, Arrays 4, 5, and 6, Fort Richardson, Alaska
Electrical Resistive Heating at the ICN Pharmaceutical
Site, Portland, Oregon
Electrical Resistive Heating at the Avery Dennison Site,
Waukegan, Illinois
In Situ Conductive Heating at the Confidential Chemical
Manufacturing Facility, Portland, Indiana
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
APPENDIX A
IN SITU THERMAL TREATMENT SUMMARIES
Table A-l. Information from the Seven In Situ Thermal Treatment Summaries
Application
Application
Dates
Quantity
Treated
Injection/Extraction
Wells
Temperature
Aboveground
Treatment
STEAM ENHANCED EXTRACTION APPLICATIONS
Savannah River Site
321-M Solvent
Storage Tank Area
(field demonstration),
Aiken, SC
A.G. Communication
Systems,
Northlake, IL
June 2000 to
Sept. 2001
Sept. 1994 to
Dec. 2001
52,000 cy soil/
groundwater
(200 ft2 by 160 ft
deep)
330,000 cy soil/
groundwater
(180,000 ft2 by
50 ft deep)
9 injection wells (three
clusters)
3 vapor extraction wells
on perimeter
1 combination
groundwater/vapor
extraction well in center
65 injection wells (two
depth zones)
186 vapor extraction
wells
2 groundwater
extraction wells
80 dual-phase
extraction wells
87« C (target)
29-60' C (soil)
20-74' C
(groundwater)
Condenser, phase
separation, air
stripper, vapor
treatment
Condenser, phase
separation, air
stripper, carbon
adsorption
ELECTRICAL RESISTIVE HEATING APPLICATIONS
Former Manufacturing
Facility,
Skokie, IL
Poleline Road
Disposal Area, Area 3
(field demonstration),
Fort Richardson, AK
ICN Pharmaceutical
Site,
Portland, OR
Avery Dennison Site,
Waukegan, IL
June 1998 to
Nov. 1998
and
Dec. 1998 to
April 1999
July 1999 to
Oct. 1999
May 2000 to
Dec. 2001
Dec. 1999 to
Nov. 2000
23,000 cy soil
initially (26,000
ft2 by 24 ft
deep);
11, 500 cy soil
additional
13,000 tons
(16,800 cy) soil
(5,500 ft2 by 35
ft deep)
30,000 cy
(39,000 tons) soil
(18,400 ft2 from
20 to 60 ft deep)
16,000 cy soil (to
24ftbgs)
107 electrodes initially
(78 additional
electrodes added)
37SVEwells(5ftbgs)
21 electrodes in 3
arrays (38ftbgs)
9 SVE wells
60 electrodes in 3 zones
initially (80 additional
electrodes added)
53 SVE wells (25 to 3 5
ftbgs)
95 electrodes
34 SVE wells
1,250 kW
100' C
700-800 kW
44-100' C
950 kW
342 kW
65-80' C
Condenser, phase
separation, air
stripper
Information not
available
Condenser, phase
separation, carbon
adsorption,
oxidation (KPO4)
Information not
available
THERMAL CONDUCTIVE HEATING APPLICATIONS
Confidential Chemical
Manufacturing
Facility,
Portland, IN
July 1997 to
Dec. 1997
5,200 cy soil in 2
areas (7,500 ft2
by 18 ft deep and
600 ft2 by lift
deep)
148 heater vacuum
wells
1 - 1.5 MW
760 - 870' C
(heater)
100- 260' F
(soil)
Thermal oxidation,
carbon adsorption
-------
COST AND PERFORMANCE
REPORT
Dynamic Underground Stripping-Hydrous Pyrolysis Oxidation
at the Savannah River Site 321-M Solvent Storage Tank Area
Aiken, South Carolina
June 2003
-------
-Savannah River Site 321-M Solvent Storage Tank Area
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
Site Name: Savannah River Site 321-M Solvent Storage Tank Area
Location: Aiken, SC
Regulatory Context: RCRA
Technology: Dynamic Underground Stripping-Hydrous Pyrolysis Oxidation (DUS/HPO)
Scale: Field demonstration
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION
Period of Operation: September 9, 2000 to September 28, 2001
Type/Quantity of Material Treated during Application: Source zone - Total volume of 52,000 cubic
yards based on a surface area of 100 ft by 100 ft and a depth of 160 ft
BACKGROUND [1,2,3]
The M-Area Settling Basin Hazardous Waste Management Facility (HWMF) includes the M-Area Settling
Basin and associated areas of the U.S. DOE Savannah River Site (SRS), in Aiken, S.C. The HWMF
received effluent from various processes at SRS containing high concentrations of tetrachloroethene
(PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs). VOC contamination
occurred as a result of breaks in the former process sewer line and disposal practices associated with the
settling basin. An estimated 3.5 million pounds of residual solvents were released to the sewer leading to
the M-Area settling basin and associated outfall. An initial site characterization, conducted in the early
1990's, identified high levels of chlorinated solvents (0.2-0.3% by weight) indicating the presence of
DNAPL contamination. Additional site characterization using surface geophysics was performed to further
delineate DNAPL contamination and determine chemical composition. Results estimated the composition
of the DNAPL as 90% PCE and 10% TCE. Prior to treatment, the total contaminant mass was estimated
at 26,800 Ibs (total contaminants, not only DNAPLs).
The Solvent Storage Tank Area (SSTA) is located west of Building 321M in the M-Area of SRS. Building
321M operated as a target fabrication facility, primarily housing metallurgical and mechanical processes
such as casting, extrusion, hot-die-sizing and welding. Cleaning solvents and caustic solutions were used
to prepare the materials for fabrication. The SSTA consisted of a 17,000 gallon storage tank with
associated piping and equipment. The tank, located adjacent to a railroad car transfer facility, was used to
store chlorinated solvents including PCE and TCE, beginning in 1957. Numerous undocumented spills
and leaks were suspected to have occurred in this area. One reported spill released an estimated 1,200
gallons of PCE to the ground. The tanks, part of the railroad track and associated above-ground
equipment were removed in the fall of 1997. The concrete pad and two sumps were left in place. The
SSTA contains three M-Area SVE wells and the groundwater is maintained under hydraulic control by two
M-Area recovery wells.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency June 2003
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
-------
-Savannah River Site 321-M Solvent Storage Tank Area
CONTACTS
Technical Contacts:
Jerry "Bull" Bullard
Site Technical Representative
Westinghouse Savannah River Company
Building 730-2B
Aiken, SC 29808
Telephone: (803) 592-6359
Thomas F. Kmetz
Project Task Team Leader
Westinghouse Savannah River Company
Building 730-2B
Aiken, SC 29808
Telephone: (803) 952-6494
Technology System Vendor:
Dr. David Parkinson
Project Manager
Integrated Water Resources
P.O. Box2610
Santa Barbara, CA 93120
Telephone: (805) 966-7757
E-mail: dave@integratedwater.com
State Contact:
Mair DePratter, P.G.
Hydrogeologist
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC)
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 898-3432
MATRIX AND CONTAMINANT IDENTIFICATION
Type of Media Treated with Technology System: Source zone (saturated and unsaturated)
Primary Contaminant Groups: Chlorinated Solvents (PCE and TCE)
SITE HYDROGEOLOGY AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION [1,2]
The surficial geology of the SRS consists of Atlantic Coastal Deposits, which is primarily composed of
both unconsolidated and consolidated strata, ranging from Late Cretaceous to Miocene in age. Coastal
Plain Sediments are comprised of interbedded sand, muddy sand, and mud (clay and silt).
The hydrogeology of the area includes three aquifers of the Floridian-Midville aquifer system which
includes in ascending order the McQueen Branch aquifer, the Crouch Branch aquifer, and the Steed Pond
aquifer. The Crouch Pond aquifer is the principle water producing aquifer. The vadose zone beneath the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency June 2003
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
-------
-Savannah River Site 321-M Solvent Storage Tank Area
M-Area contains several clay layers interspersed with more transmissive, sandier intervals. A "Green
Clay" horizon is located at approximately 160 -165 ft bgs.
The high concentrations of contaminants suggested the presence of DNAPL in silts and clays in the
vadose zone above the water table at depths ranging from 20 to 35 feet bgs, and below the water table in
the form of disconnected ganglia (rather than a large, solvent saturated layer).
Table 1 lists the matrix characteristics affecting treatment cost or performance for this application.
Table 1. Matrix Characteristics [1,2]
Parameter
Soil Classification
Depth to Groundwater
Porosity
Presence of NAPLs
Hydraulic Conductivity
Value
Interbedded sands and clays overlying a clayey
aquitard
143ft
0.3
Contaminant concentrations suggested the
presence of DNAPL
0.4 ft/min - average value from pump tests
conducted on 5/4/2000
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
Dynamic Underground Stripping and Hydrous Pyrolysis Oxidation (DUS/HPO)
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION [1,2,3]
Figure 1 shows a plan view of the DUS/HPO system used at the SSTA. Three steam-injection well
clusters were installed around the perimeter of the 100 ft by 100 ft treatment area (at the northwest corner,
northeast corner, and southern boundary). Each well cluster consisted of three injection wells with screen
intervals at 50-70 ft bgs, 110-130 ft bgs , and 150-160 ft bgs. One dual-phase groundwater and vapor
extraction well (DUS-10) was installed in the center of the target zone with a screen interval from 20-160 ft
and used to extract both groundwater and vapor from the subsurface. Groundwater was extracted from
the well using a high-temperature electric-submersible pump, located 25 to 35 ft below the static
groundwater elevation (143 ft bgs). The extracted groundwater was collected in a tank, with final
discharge through an air stripper.
Vapor extraction was performed using DUS-10 and three existing vadose zone soil vapor extraction wells
(MVE-1, -2, and -3), located along the perimeter of the target zone. The steam for the system was
supplied from other industrial operations at SRS. Steam pressure was reduced to 100 psi prior to entering
the DUS/HPO system.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
-------
-Savannah River Site 321-M Solvent Storage Tank Area
Figure 1. Plan View of DUS/HPO System [1]
SOLVENT STORAGE TANK. AREA PLAN VILW
>.TTti»>~ID rtMiTDl RlBXPCa. NC
SRS's 6M Soil Vapor Extraction Unit (6M-SVEU) was used to extract vapors from wells DUS-10 and MVE-
1, 2, and 3. The vapor flow input of the unit was about 500 scfm. The hot extracted vapors were cooled
through a heat exchanger, and condensed liquids were separated from vapors in a knockout tank. The
condensate was routed through a DNAPL-water separator (DWS), which separated DNAPL droplets for
collection and removal. Figure 2 shows a process flow diagram of the DUS/HPO system, with vapor and
wastewater treatment. The 6M-SVEU was operated to keep levels of contaminants in the vapor discharge
was below air emissions limits.
Beginning in December of 2000, air was injected into the deep saturated zone injection wells to enhance
the HPO process. Air injection was implemented over one 10-hour period at a rate of approximately 5
scfm. According to the vendor, air injection occurred whenever deep injection of steam occurred. During
the later stages of the effort, this injection into the deep wells was implemented intermittently during
periods of steam injection into the shallow wells.
Initial steam injection to the deep vadose zone was at a maximum design pressure of 60 psig and a
temperature of 152°C; and 40 psig and 143°C for the intermediate vadose zone. In addition, initial heating
was performed in the saturated area to set up a "hot plate" at the base of the treatment area, and followed
by steam injection heating in the vadose zone. According to the vendor, this approach helped to drive
contaminants towards the recovery system while limiting potential for dispersal in the subsurface.
Approximately 50% - 90% dilution air was used prior to contaminant entry into the SVE unit (6M) so that
vapor emissions remained within permitted discharge limits.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
-------
-Savannah River Site 321-M Solvent Storage Tank Area
Figure 2. Simplified Process Flow Diagram [1]
STEAM IHJSCTIO* Wcu, CJ
WELL. MI AD* WITH VALvn
DUS/HPO PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Hc*T
REGULATING
3t CAM
SUPPLY
M^
BCPAKATDH
Camum
Thermal monitoring of the subsurface conditions included temperature profiles from 14 downhole
thermocouple arrays and electrical resistance tomography (ERT) images which displayed changes in
subsurface resistance caused by differences in temperature. For ERT monitoring, 6 electrode strands
were placed through narrow boreholes: 4 on the perimeter of the treatment zone, one in the middle, and
one in an abandoned groundwater monitoring well. Each borehole with an electrode also housed a
thermocouple string. Eight additional thermocouple strings were installed: four outside and four inside the
target area. In addition, one thermocouple was installed at the base of each steam injection well and at
the base of the main vapor extraction well. Thermocouples ranged in depth from 3 ft bgs to 163 ft bgs,
and were vertically spaced 6 ft apart on each thermocouple strand.
For the pilot demonstration, data collected included: steam flow; steam injection at each well-head; vapor
extraction information from the SVE unit, including concentration data; extracted vapor temperature and
pressure collected at the wellhead; cooling system data; and wastewater stream data (total flow and
temperature). In addition, regular vapor (Tedlar bag) and water samples were collected to track system
performance. Groundwater was heated to a temperature of approximately 100 °C, while the source zone
reached a temperature of approximately 87°C. Table 2 provides a summary of operational data for the
DUS/HPO pilot demonstration.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
-------
-Savannah River Site 321-M Solvent Storage Tank Area
Table 2. Operational Data from SRS DUS/HPO Pilot Demonstration [1,2]
Parameter
Source zone temperature
Operating pressure/vacuum
Weight of injected steam
Heat content of injected steam
Total time for steam injection
Total time for effluent treatment
system operation
No. of pore volumes extracted
Total volume of extracted air
Volumetric equivalent flow rate of
extracted steam
Average non-condensible
extraction rate
Value
87 °C
5.1 in of Hg
45,400,000 Ibs
4.5x1010BTUs
3,226 hours (134 days)
7,020 hours (293 days)
420
176,000,000ft3
698 scfm
300 scfm
TIMELINE M.21
September 9, 2000
December 2000
March 8, 2001
September 28, 2001
October 2001
Demonstration system operations began
Air injection for enhancing HPO began
Performance objective met; operational period extended to meet revised
mass removal goals
System shutdown; began cold standby
Began demobilization
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES [1,2]
The following performance objectives were identified for the pilot demonstration:
Contaminants must be extracted from the target source zone
The target source zone must be heated to the applied boiling point
Air to support HPO must be injected into the treatment area
In addition, discharge limits were established for vapor emissions and water discharge, however specific
values were not provided.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
-------
-Savannah River Site 321-M Solvent Storage Tank Area
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE [1,2]
Concentrations of PCE an TCE were provided for the four vapor extraction wells (DUS-10, MVE-1, MVE-
2, and MVE-3) from August 2000 to February 2001, and for the 6M-SVEU from March 2001 to July 2002.
During the first six months of operation, concentrations of PCE and TCE from the dual-phase extraction
well (DUS-10), located in the target zone, increased to 4,200 ppmv and 230 ppmv, respectively, while
concentrations in wells MVE 1, 2, and 3 varied. From March 2001 to July 2002, vapor contaminant
concentrations for 6M-SVEU ranged from 963 to 5,733 ppmv for PCE and 25 to 99 ppmv for TCE.
Table 3. Contaminant Concentrations in Extracted Vapors August 2000 to July 2002 [1]
Date
8/22/00
9/14/00
10/11/00
11/15/00
12/13/00
1/30/01
2/14/01
3/19/01
4/3/01
5/7/01
6/11/01
7/9/02
6M-SVEU
PCE
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
5,733
5,320
963.1
3,471
1,256
TCE
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
66.3
99.1
25.2
38.7
35.9
Flow
(scfm)
NR
474
468
645
578
545
554
500
306
301
272
288
DUS-10
PCE
160
120
190
160
570
1,500
4,200
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
TCE
42
19
48
34
73
120
230
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
MVE-1
PCE
NR
9.5
86
57
17
47
12
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
TCE
NR
1.9
15
17
4.1
36
3.4
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
MVE-2
PCE
3.6
10
2.3
3.9
25
2.2
310
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
TCE
1.1
7.4
0.76
1.2
3.1
0.52
8.7
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
MVE-3
PCE
NR
160
3.5
22
120
5.6
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
TCE
NR
49
4.3
2.1
4.4
0.93
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR - not reported
Figure 4 shows the cumulative removal of PCE and TCE from September 2000 through September 2001.
During this time, a total of 30,000 kg of PCE and 1,000 kg of TCE were removed for a total of 31,000 kg of
mass of contaminant removed.
By March 2001, over 62% of TCE mass had been removed compared to 26% of PCE mass, attributed to
the lower boiling point of TCE. According to the vendor, after March 2001, concentrations and daily
removal rates decreased more rapidly for TCE than for PCE, likely due to removing the majority of TCE
during initial heating and the relatively higher rate of destruction of TCE by HPO.
Performance objectives were met on March 8, 2001, however system operation was continued until
September 26, 2001 for additional contaminant mass removal. Once the treatment area had reached the
target temperatures in March, only intermittent steam injection was needed to maintain steam
temperatures. After March, the majority of steam injection was targeted at maintaining temperature in the
shallow sections which tended to cool more rapidly. Contaminant removal patterns also indicated that
much of the contaminant mass was being removed from the shallowest portion of the treatment area.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
-------
-Savannah River Site 321-M Solvent Storage Tank Area
Figure 3. Average Concentrations in Extracted Vapors for PCE and TCE [1]
mooi i'lft'ui j/iann 4/1™ sniyni
Date
7;]'M1. S'JWfll WlOTl
D91atlFO«i!bW25L'01
Figure 4. Cumulative Mass Removal Rates for PCE and TCE [1]
!' <''
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
-------
-Savannah River Site 321-M Solvent Storage Tank Area
From May to September 2001, vapor extraction data indicated that the majority of the contaminant mass
removal was coming from within the periphery of the target zone (DUS-010 consistently recorded the
highest concentrations of vapor). The vendor indicated that the residual contaminant removal pattern may
have resulted from the volatilization of PCE and TCE bound in clay horizons above 20 ft bgs (above the
DUS/HPO remedial target zone). The vendor also indicated that the data from the last two months of
operation suggested that the source of this contaminant had not been heated much, supporting the
interpretation that it was volatilized from horizons above the target zone.
The mass of contaminants destroyed in the subsurface by HPO was not quantified. However, based on
estimates from other projects and experimental work at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the
vendor indicated that the amount of dissolved phase contaminants expected to be destroyed by HPO
would be at least 10% (6,800 Ibs) and could be as high as 30% (20,000 Ibs) of the contaminant removed
by DUS. Information was not provided about any potential indicators for the amount of contaminant
removed by HPO.
The following information about wastewater stream totals, steam injection rates/pressure, vapor extraction
temperatures, and subsurface thermal monitoring were provided by the vendor.
Wastewater Stream Totals:
At the beginning of the pilot demonstration, groundwater accounted for the majority of the wastewater
collected. Following steam breakthrough in the saturated zone, condensate increased and at times
exceeded the groundwater production rates. In comparison to the vapor stream, the wastewater stream
produced a very small amount of contaminant. This was because PCE has a solubility limit of 150 ppm,
which would only be sustained in condensate when the vapor stream was saturated with PCE. Low
wastewater production rates combined with a low solubility contaminant like PCE yielded a modest
amount of contaminant removed via groundwater extraction (about 75 Ibs PCE and 10 Ibs TCE).
Steam Injection Rates/Pressures:
Steam injection rates regularly increased from startup to a maximum rate of 20,000 Ib/hr in February 2001
and continued at that level through March 2001 and most of May 2001. Injection pressures never reached
the design injection pressures (design injection pressures were 60, 40, and 26 psig), particularly in the
deep and intermediate wells (DUS-004 through DUS-009). Injection pressures remained constant over
the life of the project, indicating a lack of blockage in the wells that might require well maintenance.
Vapor Extraction Temperatures:
Vapor extraction temperaturescan be found in Figure The vendor reported that maintenance of very high
vapor temperatures in the extracted vapor stream (+93°F) would have required almost continuous steam
injection. The reduced steam injection rates used in June to September 2001 caused only minor
decreases in vapor extraction temperatures, indicating that considerable latent heat remained in the
subsurface.
Subsurface Thermal Monitoring Data:
ERT images identified several lithologic layers, particularly a zone at approximately 100 ft bgs that was
slower to heat than surrounding layers. Boring logs indicated that those layers are fine-grained clay
horizons and were slow to show changes in electrical resistance and heat up or cool down. For example,
during a shutdown period, more permeable horizons cooled slightly but the finer grained layers showed
increasing temperatures caused by.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency June 2003
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
-------
-Savannah River Site 321-M Solvent Storage Tank Area
COST OF THE TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM
COST DATA [21
For this pilot demonstration, the Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC) reported a project cost
of $29/cu yd, but did not indicate what was included in the cost or how it was calculated. The ITRC stated
that cost for steam generation and treatment of vapor and dissolved phase contaminants were not
included in this cost, because these services were provided by SRS.
Information was not provided about the projected cost for using this technology on a full-scale basis at
SRS.
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED [1,2,3]
A one-year pilot demonstration of steam injection lead to the removal of 31,000 kg (68,000 Ibs) of PCE
and TCE. The target treatment area was heated to near 90 °C and air was injected to support HPO,
leading to an additional, unquantified amount of contaminant destroyed in situ by HPO.
The following lessons learned were provided by the vendor:
During the DUS/HPO process, steam was injected through wells that were specially designed to
withstand elevated pressures and temperatures. It was important that existing and new
monitoring wells be similarly designed or removed prior to steam injection. If non-high
temperature wells are left in place, then DNAPL likely would have condensed and collected within
the target region.
During the later stages of system startup and testing, the jet pump designed for groundwater
extraction was not performing well. Using steam as the motive fluid combined with the depth to
groundwater was not sufficient for pumping. Other fluids such as air or water were determined
not to be cost effective. To address these concerns, a 15 gpm high-temperature electric
submersible pump was installed in November of 2000.
During the span of system operations, there was little loss of injection capability, which would
have resulted in increasing pressures for constant injection rates. High injection rates with low
injection pressures indicated that the formation had the ability to receive large volumes of steam.
Consequently, the steam injection rate was limited only by the amount of steam that could be
delivered.
The most difficult region of the target zone to heat was the shallow portions at the center of the
treatment area. The most likely reason for this was the circulation of air from the surface to the
shallow zone. Restricting vapor extraction and continuous long-term steam injection sufficiently
heated this portion after five months of steam injection.
Removal rates could have been considerably higher had there been the capability for contaminant
destruction in the vapor stream. However, the SRS SVE unit was not configured for contaminant
destruction.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
10
-------
-Savannah River Site 321-M Solvent Storage Tank Area
During system operations, both thermocouple and ERT systems experienced shutdowns due to
lightning ground strikes in the immediate vicinity of the project area. The ERT experienced fewer
but more prolonged shutdowns from the lightning strikes due to its complexity.
On November 26, 2000, the knockout tank was reported to be physically rocking on its base and
the SVE unit was shut down. It was determined that the concrete pad supporting the knockout
tank was not level and the support used to stabilize the tank was no longer in place. The
restarting of the SVE system disturbed water in the tank causing the water to slosh and the tank to
rock. The support was relocated to the base of the unit and checked daily; there was no
recurrence of the problem over the remainder of the project.
1. Integrated Water Resources. "Deployment of a Dynamic Underground Stripping-Hydrous
Pyrolysis/Oxidation System at the Savannah River Site 321-M Solvent Storage Tank Area, Final
Report. September 2002.
2. ITRC DNAPL Team Case Study Report: 321 M Solvent Storage Tank Area, Savannah River Site,
Aiken, South Carolina. September 2002.
3. Project Descriptions, Integrated Water Resources. Savannah River Site- 321-M Solvent Storage
Tank Facility. Savannah River, South Carolina.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
11
-------
COST AND PERFORMANCE
REPORT
Steam Enhanced Extraction at the
A.G. Communications Systems Site
Northlake, Illinois
June 2003
-------
-A.G. Communications Systems
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
Site Name: A.G. Communications Systems
Location: Northlake, IL
Regulatory Context: State voluntary cleanup
Technology: Steam Enhanced Extraction (SEE)
Scale: Full-scale
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION [1,2,3]
Period of Operation: September 1995 to November 1999
Type/Quantity of Material Treated during Application: Source zone (saturated and unsaturated) -
Estimated 330,000 cubic yards treated
BACKGROUND [1,2]
The A.G. Communications site, located near Chicago, IL, operated as a telecommunications
manufacturing facility from the 1950s through the early 1990s when it was sold to a real estate
development company. Trichloroethene (TCE) and mineral spirits used in manufacturing operations were
stored in underground storage tanks (UST). During the decommissioning of the manufacturing facility,
chlorinated solvents, including TCE and cis-1,1-dichloroethene (DCE) and components of mineral spirits,
including xylene and benzene, were found in soil and groundwater at the site. The source of the
contamination was identified as an area in the vicinity of the former tank farm and beneath the
manufacturing facility. Approximately 63,000 tons of contaminated soil were excavated from the former
tank farm area and disposed off site.
The site was remediated under the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) voluntary site
remediation program (SRP). A SEE system was pilot-tested at the site from January through July 1994.
Full-scale SEE operation was performed from September 1995 to November 1999.
CONTACTS
State Regulator:
Not available
Site Contact:
Brian LeMaster
Environmental and Safety Specialist
A.G. Communication Systems
Northlake, IL 60164
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency June 2003
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
-------
-A.G. Communications Systems
Technical Contact/Vendor:
Timothy Adams
ENSR Corporation
27755 Diehl Rd.
Warrenville, IL 60555
Telephone: (630)836-17000
E-mail: tadams@ensr.com
MATRIX AND CONTAMINANT IDENTIFICATION [1,2,6]
Type of Media Treated With Technology System: Source zone (saturated and unsaturated)
Primary Contaminant Groups: Chlorinated solvents (TCE, cis-1,2-DCE), and petroleum hydrocarbons
(xylene and benzene)
SITE HYDROGEOLOGY AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION [1,4]
The geologic strata at the site consists of three till layers overlying dolomite bedrock. The Tinley Till (0-35
ft bgs; hydraulic conductivity of 1x10"8 cm/sec), overlain by clayey silt fill, consists of dense silty clay with
thin discontinuous seams of sand and silt. The Valparaiso Till (36-38 ft bgs; hydraulic conductivity of
2.9x10"3 cm/sec) consists of a fine to medium grained sand layer which is underlain by a dense,
overconsolidated, well sorted laminated silt (38-48 ft bgs; hydraulic conductivity of 9x10"8 cm/sec). The
Lemont Drift (48-65 ft bgs) consists of thick coarse-grained sand and gravel layer underlain by a fine
grained dolomite sand and silt with some gravel fragments. Weathered Silurian dolomite is present at 65-
75 ft bgs, with Silurian dolomite bedrock present at greater than 75 ft bgs. The depth to groundwater is
38-40 ft bgs.
Contamination was present primarily in the Tinley and Valparaiso Till layers. According to the vendor,
TCE and DCE were present as DNAPL, as well as in the dissolved phase. Xylene and benzene were
present as LNAPL and in the dissolved phase. The only data available for contaminant concentration prior
to treatment was a groundwater TCE concentration of greater than 45,000 ug/L in December 1995.
Table 1 lists the matrix characteristics affecting treatment cost or performance for this application and the
values measured for each.
Table 1. Matrix Characteristics [1,4]
Parameter
Soil Classification
Clay Content and/or Particle Size Distribution
Depth to Groundwater
Value
Alternating clay and sand till, with intermittent
sand and silt layers
0-7 ft below ground surface (bgs) clayey silt
30-40 ft bgs dense silty clay
38-40 ft bgs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
-------
-A.G. Communications Systems
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
Steam enhanced extraction
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION [1,2,3,4]
SEE was tested on a pilot-scale basis at the site from January through July 1994. While details of the
pilot-scale system were not provided, the vendor reported that the pilot-scale system was incorporated into
the full-scale system. The full-scale system, shown in Figure 1, was operated from September 1995 to
November 1999. The system covered an area of about 250,000 ft2 to a depth of about 50 ft in the former
tank farm area and beneath the existing building. The system included shallow vapor extraction wells,
shallow and deep steam injection wells, vacuum-enhanced groundwater/vapor extraction wells, deep
groundwater extraction wells, and two vacuum extraction units.
The 65 steam injection wells were installed in shallow and deep permeable zones. The 39 shallow steam
injection wells were screened across the sand layer at the base on the Tinley Till at a depth of 35 ft bgs.
The 26 deep steam injection wells were screened across the cobble layer at the base of the Valparaiso Till
at a depth of 46 ft bgs. Steam was supplied by a 294 kilowatt series HF Scotch-Box boiler at pressures
ranging from 3 to 7 psi. Temperature thermocouples were installed around two of the deep steam
injection wells and one shallow steam injection well. During system operation, soil temperatures ranged
from 84°F to 140°F, and groundwater temperatures ranged from 68°F to 165°F.
Soil vapor extraction was performed using 186 shallow wells screened in the Tinley Till and the 76
combination groundwater/vapor extraction wells screened across the Tinley and Valparaiso Tills. Two
vapor extraction units (VES #1 and VES #2) were operated at 150 to 250 scfm at 7 to 15 inches of
mercury. Hydrocarbon emissions from the VES #1 and VES #2 were measured continuously using a
TECO® 51 flame ionization detector (FID). The type of treatment used for off-gases was not identified.
Groundwater extraction was performed using the 76 combination groundwater/vapor extraction wells
screened across the Tinley and Valparaiso Tills, the two deep groundwater extraction wells screened in
the Lemont Drift, and one excavation dewatering well. Groundwater was extracted at a rate ranging from
15 to 30 gpm with the groundwater/vapor extraction wells operated at a total flow rate of 4 to 6 gpm and
the two deep groundwater extraction wells operated at a flow rate of 10 to 11 gpm per well.
Extracted groundwater was treated using a stainless steel shallow tray air stripper equipped with a 900
cubic meter/minute blower followed by treatment using two 1,000 Ib activated carbon vessels, and then
discharged under the facility's NPDES permit. Groundwater discharge averaged 500,000 gallons per
month.
In addition to SEE, chemical oxidant flushing using chlorine dioxide (CI02) was performed in recalcitrant
source areas. CIO2 flushing was used to oxidize soil mineral surfaces and modify pH and redox
conditions. According to the vendor, this approach was used to enhance TCE partitioning from soil for
removal through the groundwater/vapor extraction wells, and redox levels of-100 to -200 mV were
achieved. No additional information about the timing, extent, or effectiveness of the CIO2 flushing was
provided.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
-------
-A.G. Communications Systems
Figure 1. Remediation System Layout [1]
•
TEMFCRWr WILL
©
LEG
L-ZS
cm
•5
END:
cm
^
**|
I
D
• /
i—
£
'
(
f
O
\ L
—\.
h
»
/
i
i
i
o
i • t
o
-w
,
/x
1
^ ^
m-is
.
/
•
•
^~
•
^
1
1
i • L
o
• <
o
/
1
^
1
1 I
_,
s
B
,
/'
• 2
O
O
•
A
tuw-
©
'
•
•
•
•
A
^•'
JS8-J,
o
A
o
o
Iss-;1
o
•
II
1
**l
>Z-1|
L • ^
1
M
A
EMPORAR
ntf-jo
•
r*
\
•
i L
o
olU
I
o
'-??*
o
o
A
°
1
©
•
•
•
=t,
o
o
i • ^
K-SS
•^
•
(flf-JS
A
1
+ '
O
o
•
S. L
o
+
^*i
•
A
°
1
1
X
i • L
o
r*
o
ISB-2
+
.
\t-4
*A
•
•
•
x
^4-
•
i
o
o
M/r
0 - SHALLOW STEAM INJECTION WELL (39)
• - DEEP STEAM INJECTION WELL (9 INSIDE, 17 OUTSIDE)
» - TEMPERATURE THERMOCOUPLE STRING (12 INSIDE, 6 OUTSIDE)
VACUUM ENHANCED GROUNDWATER RECOVERY/VAPOR
EXTRACTION WELL
A - SHALLOWVAPOREXTRACTION/INDUCTIONWELL(186)
•$• - LEMONT DRIFT GROUNDWATER RECOVERY WELL (2)
ft - EXCAVATION DEWATERING WELL (3)
^ - EXISTING MONITORING WELL
^ - EXISTING PIEZOMETER
•* 3K
SHM-J
^
/
/
*
o
tos
40
e
E MC
SHEE
f
1
O
o
4
E 4M
T PILI
*&-
*
o
fflW-5
WC— 45
&
'
NG
•
-*'
I
|
|
i
I
|
I
I
I
J,
H>
n»
If-fO
'
^
-5
'
HOE"
•
^—EXTENT OF EXCAVATION
© ©
NORTH
i
MAP SCALE
0 40
^s^^^^^sa
SCALE IN FEET
1" = 40--0"
(NORIH BOUM1MW OF FENCE
80
5
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
-------
-A.G. Communications Systems
TIMELINE n.51
April 1992
January to July 1994
Sept 1995 to Nov 1999
May 2002
Excavation and off site disposal of soil from former LIST area
Pilot test conducted
Full scale system operation performed
Remedial Action Completion Report submitted to Illinois EPA;
under review by IEPA
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES [1,2]
The remediation was conducted under the IEPA Voluntary SRP. The remedial objective was to obtain
IEPA approved closure under Tiered Approach to Corrective Action guidelines. The proposed closure
strategy was to use site-specific parameters to calculate a first order degradation constant and
demonstrate that there are no on-site or off-site receptors at risk from volatile organic hydrocarbons in soil
or groundwater.
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE [1,2,3,5]
Treatment performance data are available for contaminant concentrations from September 1995 to
September 1997, and total mass removal through November 1999. Treatment progress was monitored in
terms of the reduction in TCE and DCE concentrations in groundwater and the total mass of hydrocarbons
removed. Hydrocarbon mass removal was calculated based on the FID readings from the air stripper and
the two vapor extraction units. The FID readings included the mass of chlorinated solvents (TCE, DCE)
and petroleum hydrocarbons (xylenes, benzene).
Concentration Data
Quarterly groundwater sampling was performed for the 76 combination groundwater/vapor extraction
wells. Figure 2 shows that the average groundwater concentrations for TCE was reduced from
approximately 20,000 ug/L to <1,000 ug/L over the period from September 1995 to September 1997.
Figure 2. Average Groundwater Concentrations of TCE Over Time (Sept 95 - Sept 97) [1]
o
'•&
S
4-1
c
01
o
o
O
40
35
20 -
15 -
10
5 -
0 -
.
-------
-A.G. Communications Systems
In addition, groundwater concentration data were available for TCE and cis-1,2-DCE for 17 wells for the
period from December 1995 to October 1997. As shown in Table 2, TCE concentrations were reduced in
16 of the 17 wells between December 1995 and October 1997, with most wells showing a reduction of
>90%. As of October 1997, TCE concentrations ranged from 28 ug/Lto 10,526 ug/L. During this time,
DCE concentrations were reduced in 14 of the 17 wells, with about half the wells showing a reduction of
>90%. As of October 1997, DCE concentrations ranged from below detection levels to 122 u/L.
Table 2. Concentrations of TCE and cis 1,2-DCE in Groundwater (ug/L) [1]
Well
Location
200n230e
220n210e
220n250e
240n190e
260n250e
276n110e
276n230e
276n270e
276n310e
300n270e
300n290e
320n110e
320n220e
320n290e
340n270e
360n180e
360n240e
TCE
Dec-1995
94,166
3,007
337
431,318
161
7,615
1,336,589
164,764
190,527
46,743
189,610
352,639
266
341,207
75,213
86
954
Oct-
1997
74
212
28
2,890
33
342
4,488
140
4,700
1,941
1,466
39
599
10,526
270
28
497
% Reduction
Dec95toOct 97
>99%
93%
92%
99%
80%
96%
>99%
>99%
98%
96%
99%
>99%
+125%
97%
>99%
67%
48%
Cis1,2-DCE
Dec-1995
2,311
1
29
168
11
74
437
478
467
1
456
47
22
259
228
33
423
Oct-
1997
0
17
0
101
7
0
80
0
4
10
13
0
34
73
0
14
122
% Reduction
Dec 95 to Oct 97
>99%
+1600%
>99%
40%
36%
>99%
82%
>99%
99%
+900%
97%
>99%
+55%
72%
>99%
58%
71%
Mass Removal Data
Table 3 provides a summary of the mass of hydrocarbons (including TCE and DCE) removed from the air
stripper and two vapor extraction units during the period from August 1995 to January 1998 (29 months).
The table shows that the total hydrocarbon removal was approximately 26,000 Ibs (11,700 kg) and that the
monthly hydrocarbon removal ranged from about 240 Ibs (111 kg) to 1,550 Ibs (706 kg). Approximately
two-thirds of the contaminant mass was removed as vapor from the two VES units. The vendor reported
that as of November 1999, more than 33,000 Ibs of hydrocarbons had been removed from soil vapor and
groundwater. The mass of TCE and DCE removed during this time was not reported separately from the
total mass of hydrocarbons removed.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
-------
-A.G. Communications Systems
Table 3. Hydrocarbon Removal Totals [1]
Month
Aug 95
Sep95
Oct95
Nov95
Dec 95
Jan 96
Feb96
Mar 96
Apr 96
May 96
Jun 96
Jul96
Aug 96
Sep96
Oct96
Nov96
Dec 96
Jan 97
Feb97
Mar 97
Apr 97
May 97
Jun 97
Jul97
Aug 97
Sep97
Oct97
Nov97
Dec 97
Air Stripper
Discharge (kg)
0.0
147.92
110.36
82.62
113.55
139.62
101.78
131.29
181.89
262.76
255.22
122.83
118.74
127.49
145.63
97.75
86.75
81.57
72.22
87.19
89.57
98.59
69.95
50.26
132.18
126.55
94.99
224.39
84.58
VES#1
(kg)
0.0
64.28
114.17
319.67
247.21
193.09
107.53
400.42
331.48
298.28
128.59
243.84
202.34
114.43
107.65
128.64
148.49
131.12
71.41
144.67
161.97
136.17
60.57
28.41
41.75
40.81
87.66
243.76
213.63
VES#2
(kg)
222.39
152.59
198.58
190.22
185.78
228.65
106.65
160.92
133.60
145.42
109.89
72.92
119.80
90.68
98.21
104.07
93.15
82.77
42.96
105.72
86.36
68.44
44.58
32.67
204.29
164.82
182.30
35.10
46.02
Monthly Total
(kg)
222.39
364.79
423.10
592.51
546.54
561.36
315.96
692.63
646.97
706.46
463.69
439.59
440.89
332.61
351.50
330.45
328.39
295.46
186.59
337.58
337.90
303.20
175.11
111.35
378.23
332.18
364.94
503.25
344.24
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
-------
-A.G. Communications Systems
Table 3. Hydrocarbon Removal Totals [1] (continued)
Month
Jan 98
TOTALS:
Air Stripper
Discharge (kg)
90.98
3,499.23
VES#1
(kg)
121.15
4,633.20
VES#2
(kg)
87.67
3,597.25
Monthly Total
(kg)
299.80
11,729.68
As of November 1999, more than 55,000 ft2 of the remediation area had been approved for closure by
IEPA. The Remedial Action Completion Report was submitted to IEPA in May 2002, with a decision on
site closure expected in October 2002. According to the vendor, based on the site-specific first order
degradation constant, the calculated groundwater concentrations at the point of compliance (property
boundary) met Class I remediation objectives. Where the soil concentrations beneath the building
exceeded the soil remediation objectives, a theoretical groundwater concentration leached from the soil
was calculated and, along with the site specific degradation constant, was shown to meet the Class I
remediation objectives at the point of compliance. No analytical data were provided to support these
calculated values.
COST OF THE TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM
COST DATA [21
The vendor reported that the actual cost for the application was $4.9 million and $13 to 15 per cubic yard
treated, including the cost of the pilot test, system design and installation, five years of operation and
maintenance, and negotiations with IEPA. A further breakdown of costs was not provided.
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED [1,2,4]
The use of steam enhanced extraction removed an estimated 33,000 Ibs of hydrocarbons from the soil
and groundwater at the site and reduced TCE and DCE concentrations by more than 90%. According to
the vendor, this application demonstrated that SEE is effective in a heterogenous clay till.
In August 1997, the vendor performed an experiment to evaluate the cycling of steam injection to improve
the rate of hydrocarbon removal (analogous to the oil industry practice of using steam for enhanced oil
recovery). Results indicated a dramatic increase in hydrocarbon removal following steam shutdown, and
the vendor is currently evaluating appropriate frequencies for the steam cycle.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
-------
-A.G. Communications Systems
1. Adams, Timothy V., Smith, Gregory J. "DNAPL/LNAPL Remediation in Clay Till Using Steam
Enhanced Extraction." Battelle Conference Proceedings. Not Dated.
2. ENSR, Case Study: Northlake, IL Site, "DNAPL Remediation in Heterogeneous Clay Till Using
Steam-Enhanced Groundwater and Vapor Extraction." Not Dated.
3. ENSR, Statement of Qualifications. "DNAPL Remediation in Clay Till Using Steam-Enhanced
Groundwater and Vapor Extraction". Not Dated.
4. ENSR, Power Point Presentation: "DNAPL/LNAPL Remediation in Clay Till Using Steam-
Enhanced Groundwater and Vapor Extraction". Not Dated.
5. Tim Adams, ENSR. E-mail correspondence about A.G. Communications, North Lake, IL.
September 18, 2002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
-------
COST AND PERFORMANCE
REPORT
Electrical Resistive Heating at the
Former Manufacturing Facility
Skokie, Illinois
June 2003
-------
Former Manufacturing Facility, Skokie, Illinois
SITE INFORMATION
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
Site Name: Former manufacturing facility (confidential commercial client)
Location: Skokie, Illinois (near Chicago, Illinois)
Regulatory Context: State voluntary cleanup
Technology: Electrical Resistive Heating
Scale: Full-scale
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION
Period of Operation: June 4, 1998 to November 20, 1998 (initial area treated); December 1998 to April
30, 1999 (additional area treated)
Type/Quantity of Material Treated during Application [7,8]: Initial source zone area - approximately
23,100 cubic yards of soil and groundwater, based on a treatment area of 26,000 square feet and a depth of
24 feet below ground surface (bgs). Additional source zone area -11,500 cubic yards of soil and
groundwater
BACKGROUND [2,4,5,7,8,9,13]
The site is a former electronics manufacturing facility located in Skokie, Illinois. Manufacturing at this
location began in 1958 and included machining, electroplating, heat treating, silk screening, silicon chip
production, and research and development. Trichloroethene (TCE) and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) were
feedstock chemicals associated with various manufacturing processes. By 1988, all processes had been
discontinued, and the facility was sold and redeveloped.
Releases occurred from spill containment systems and underground storage tanks that leaked. Figure 1
shows the areas where soil and groundwater at the site were found to be contaminated with pools of dense
nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPL). The site was remediated under Illinois' voluntary Site Remediation
Program. From 1991 to 1998, steam injection combined with groundwater and vapor extraction was used to
clean up the site. After seven years of operation, the area of contamination had been reduced from about
115,000 square feet to about 23,000 square feet. As of early 1998, the remaining area to be remediated
represented four source locations where manmade subsurface features limited the effectiveness of the
previously used steam-based remediation system. These locations consisted of a closed-end catch basin
acting as a heat sink, a subsurface void, two areas with very dense soil near a building (believed to be
limiting vapor extraction), and an additional area adjacent to a wall with a deep foundation (where foundation
backfill was believed to be providing a preferential pathway for injected steam).
To complete the remediation, the site owner selected Electrical Resistive Heating (ERH) technology that
combines electrically heating the subsurface with electrodes inserted in the ground, and soil vapor
extraction. This report focuses on the use of ERH and not the steam injection previously completed at the
site.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency June 2003
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
-------
Figure 1. Layout of the Skokie Site [7,13]
Former Manufacturing Facility, Skokie, Illinois
0 40
CONTACTS
Technology System Vendor:
William Heath
Current Environmental Solutions
1100 Laurel Crest Way
Marietta, GA 30064
E-mail: bill@cesiweb.com
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
-------
Former Manufacturing Facility, Skokie, Illinois
David Fleming, Corporate Development Leader
Current Environmental Solutions
P.O. Box 50387
Bellevue, WA 98015
Telephone: (425) 603-9036
Fax: (425)643-7590
E-mail: david@cesiweb.com
PRP Oversight Contractor1:
Gregory Smith
ENSR
27755 Diehl Rd.
Warrenville, IL 60555
State Regulator:
Stan Komperda
Illinois EPA
Bureau of Land, No. 24
1021 East North Grand Avenue
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Telephone: (217)782-5504
E-mail: epa4207@epa.state.il.us
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
MATRIX AND CONTAMINANT IDENTIFICATION
Type of Media Treated With Technology System: Source zone (saturated and unsaturated)
Primary Contaminant Groups: Chlorinated Solvents (TCE and TCA, as well as degradation products cis-
and trans-1,2-dichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethane, vinyl chloride and chloroethane)
Now at: URS/Radian International, One Continental Towers, 1701 Golf Road, Suite 1000,
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008, greg_smith@radian.com
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
-------
Former Manufacturing Facility, Skokie, Illinois
SITE HYDROGEOLOGY AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION [3,4,7,13]
The facility overlies heterogeneous silty sands with clay lenses to 18 feet bgs and a hydraulic conductivity
ranging from 10~4 to 10~5 cm/sec. Below 18 feet bgs, a dense clay till or ground moraine forms an aquitard
with a hydraulic conductivity of 10"8 cm/sec. Groundwater is encountered at 7 feet bgs. The majority of the
remaining DNAPL at the site was pooled on top of the clay till at 18 feet bgs.
At the initiation of ERH, aqueous phase concentrations and concentration trends indicated the presence of
DNAPL. Sampling indicated that DNAPL resided in proof-rolled clays at depths of 5 to 8 feet bgs, and in
the soil pores from the water table (7 feet bgs) to depths of 18 to 20 feet bgs. Concentrations in
groundwater at the initiation of SPH for cis-1,2-dichloroethene (DCE) were as high as 160 mg/L, forTCE as
high as 130 mg/L, and for TCA as high as 150 mg/L.
Table 1 lists the matrix characteristics affecting treatment cost or performance for this application.
Table 1. Matrix Characteristics [3,4,7,13]
Parameter
Soil Classification
Clay Content and/or Particle Size Distribution
Depth to Groundwater
Hydraulic conductivity
Air permeability
Porosity
Presence of NAPLs
Moisture content
Total organic carbon
Electrical resistivity of soil
Value
Heterogeneous sandy and silty clays
Two discrete clay intervals: 1) silty clay from 5 to 18
feet bgs, and 2) denser clay below 18 feet bgs
7 feet bgs
Ranges from 10~4to 10~5 centimeters/second (cm/sec) in
silty sand and less than 10~8 cm/sec in the denser clay
Not available
Not available
DNAPL present
Typical for water saturated clay (quantitative information
not available)
0.12%
3 ohms
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
-------
Former Manufacturing Facility, Skokie, Illinois
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
Electrical Resistive Heating (Six-Phase Heating™) and air stripping for extracted groundwater condensate
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION [1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,13]
For the Skokie site, a network of 107 electrodes was designed and installed in the initial treatment area,
with 85 of the electrodes constructed beneath the floor of a warehouse building. After November 20, 1998,
the system was shut down for about a month while 78 more electrodes were installed (185 electrodes total).
All electrodes were designed to be electrically conductive throughout a depth interval of 11 to 21 feet bgs
and to increase the subsurface temperature in the depth interval of 5 to 24 feet bgs to the boiling point of
water. A network of 37 soil vapor extraction wells, screened to 5 feet bgs, were used to capture vapors.
The off gas system consisted of a vacuum extraction blower and a steam condenser. Figure 1 shows the
location of the electrodes and monitoring wells at the site, while Figure 2 shows typical ERH equipment
layout.
The ERH process operated at the Skokie site from June 4, 1998 to November 20, 1998 to remediate the
initial estimated 23,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil. Results of sampling conducted in December
1998 indicated there was a potential for vinyl chloride to be produced outside the initial treatment area at
levels in excess of the Tier III cleanup levels. As a result, the treatment area was expanded, restarted in
December 1998, and operated until April 30, 1999.
During system operation, the ERH process was controlled remotely via software, allowing real-time
adjustment of electrode voltage to control power delivered to the soil. According to the vendor,
thermocouples placed in the soil were used to monitor the heating pattern as a basis for adjusting the
distribution of power and to assist in determining the best electrical configuration for power delivery as the
cleanup progressed. The electrical configuration was adjusted in the field by reconnecting electrical
jumpers between electrodes to re-focus electrical energy as needed to maintain rapid treatment. During all
phases of the operation, the total power, energy delivered, and electrical current, voltage, and power factors
were measured and recorded along with soil temperatures using a computer based data acquisition and
control system.
During treatment, the source zone was heated to 100° C, and the system achieved an operating vacuum of
7.5 inches of mercury. Electric power input was 1,775 Mw-hrs from June 4 to November 20, 1998.
Information on power input was not provided for December 1998 to May 1999.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
-------
Former Manufacturing Facility, Skokie, Illinois
Figure 2. Typical ERH Equipment Layout [7]
13.8kV Local
Service
480V Alternate
Power Supply
Instrumentation
and control
Typical
Heating
Pattern
Typical
Voltage
Pattern
Off-gas System
Vacuum Extraction
Contaminated Zone
Treatment progress was monitored by measuring vapor concentrations in the soil off-gas exiting the
condenser and by periodically monitoring in situ concentrations through groundwater samples collected
from wells. The off-gas measurements were used to estimate the rate of contaminant removal and total
removed mass throughout the site operation. According to the vendor, approximately 99% of the removed
mass was found to remain in the vapor phase past the off-gas condenser while the remaining 1 % was
collected in the condensed phase. This partitioning reflects the relatively high volatility and modest
solubility of the contaminants. The condensate was treated with air stripping prior to discharge.
Groundwater monitoring data were available for March 1998, before the ERH was initiated, and from April
1998 through May 1999. During ERH treatment, up to 40 well points (from the previous steam injection
system) were sampled on a periodic basis. According to the vendor, all of these well points were
abandoned in July 1999 in accordance with Cook County Department of Public Health-approved procedures.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
-------
Former Manufacturing Facility, Skokie, Illinois
TIMELINE [3.4.5.8.9.131
1991-3/98
6/4/98
8/4/98 (approx.)
10/98
12/98
4/30/99
7/29/99
5/99-12/99
Steam injection and soil and groundwater extraction used at site
ERH system began operation
Temperatures throughout entire soil volume reach boiling point of water
ERH system temporarily shut off
Additional ERH system began operation
System shut off and demobilization began
Illinois EPA issues a no further remediation letter
Post-remedial monitoring conducted
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES [4,10,13,14]
Table 2 shows the Tier III cleanup criteria for groundwater proposed by the vendor and approved by Illinois
EPA as the cleanup goals for the site. According to Illinois EPA's Site Remediation Program guidelines,
Tier III allows conduct of variable-scale risk assessment activities and more complex contaminant fate and
transport modeling than is allowed in more stringent cleanup tiers. The more stringent Tier I standards are
shown for comparison.
Table 2. Cleanup Criteria for Skokie Site (Tier III) [13,14]
Contaminant
cis 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (DCE)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (TCA)
Trichloroethene (TCE)
Tier III Cleanup Level for
Groundwater (ug/L)
35,500
8,850
17,500
Tier I Cleanup Level for
Groundwater (ug/L)
200
1,000
25
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE [4,6,8,9,13]
Performance data are available for the remediation of the initial 23,000 cubic yards of remaining
contamination at the site conducted from June to November 1998 (Table 3) and for the remediation of the
additional 11,000 cubic yards of contamination at the site conducted from December 1998 to April 1999
(Table 4). Groundwater monitoring continued after system shutdown in April and data are available through
May 1999. Figures 3, 4, and 5 show the changes in groundwater contaminant concentrations by well for
DCE, TCA, and TCE, respectively, from March 1998 through May 1999.
As shown in Table 3, by November 20, 1998, the Tier III cleanup goals had been achieved for the three
constituents of concern in all seven wells. In addition, as of November 1998, contaminant concentrations in
a number of wells had been reduced to the more stringent Tier I cleanup levels. For example, the Tier I
cleanup level for TCA had been met in all seven wells, for DCE in one well, and for TCE in two wells.
In October 1998, following 18 weeks of ERH operation, elevated levels of TCE (81,000 ug/L) were detected
in well Ca6. According to the vendor, the source of the high concentrations of TCE was not known. To
address the elevated concentrations: 1) well Ca6 was converted to an electrode to improve heating;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
-------
Former Manufacturing Facility, Skokie, Illinois
and 2) Fenton's reagent was added in and around the catch basin to oxidize oils which may have
potentially leaked from the catch basin. By November 1998, TCE concentrations in the Ca6 well area had
decreased to levels ranging from 250 |jg/L to 1,600 |jg/L.
Table 4 presents a summary of groundwater monitoring data for the remediation of the additional area of
contamination, conducted from December 1998 to April 1999. As shown in Table 4, concentrations of DCE
and TCE were higher than the Tier III cleanup levels in well Ca6 in January 1999. By February 1999, TCE
concentrations in this well had decreased to between the cleanup levels. As of April 1999 contaminant
concentrations in all wells were below the cleanup goals and the system was shut down. Groundwater
monitoring data for May 1999 showed that contaminant concentrations remained below cleanup levels.
Groundwater samples were collected monthly and analyzed via head space extraction using an HP 5890
gas chromatograph equipped with an electron capture detector (GC/ECD). A subset of the sample
population was analyzed using a gas chromatograph with a mass spectrometer (GC/MS) following EPA
Method 8240. Contaminant concentrations in the collected condensate were monitored periodically. Off-
gas concentrations exiting the condenser were monitored using a flame ionization detector (FID).
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency issued a letter on July 29, 2002 granting the site's request for
a no further action determination and provided several conditions and terms for the determination, including
installation of a passive ventilation system (vent wells) to provide a preferential pathway for vapors to
migrate.
Two additional rounds of groundwater monitoring sampling were performed following completion of ERH in
April 1999. Table 5 shows the concentrations of TCE, TCA, and DCE in groundwater monitoring wells from
May 1999 (1 month after completion of the remediation) and December 1999 (8 months after completion of
the remediation). During this time, the concentrations of TCE, TCA, and DCE remained below the Tier III
groundwater cleanup levels, and contaminant concentrations remained stable or continued to decrease.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency June 2003
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
-------
Former Manufacturing Facility, Skokie, Illinois
Table 3. Monthly Groundwater Quality During ERH Remediation of Area of Remaining Contamination [4]
(June 1998 to November 1998)
Well No.
B3
Ba6
C4
Ca6
Da2
F13
Fa2
Average
Constituent
cis 1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
cis 1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
cis 1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
cis 1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
cis 1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
cis 1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
cis 1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
cis 1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
Tier III
Clean-up Level
(ug/L)
35,500
8,850
17,500
35,500
8,850
17,500
35,500
8,850
17,500
35,500
8,850
17,500
35,500
8,850
17,500
35,500
8,850
17,500
35,500
8,850
17,500
35,500
8,850
17,500
Prior to
SPH Remediation
3/24/98
(ug/L)
48,000
82,000
34,000
9,800
88,000
7,000
43,000
11,000
75,000
1,800
10,000
83,000
18,000
28,000
47,000
510
16,000
800
3,900
24,000
22,000
17,900
37,000
38,400
During Remediation
6/26/98
(ug/L)
22,000
4,000
640
18,000
52,000
23,000
160,000
13,000
24,000
52,000
NR
NR
8,100
94,000
130,000
500
150,000
2,800
2,400
810
4,800
37,600
52,300
30,900
7/15/98
(ug/L)
390
500
240
NR
NR
NR
22,000
8,800
89,000
1,800
1,200
5,200
4,000
51,000
230,000
1,000
14,000
1,000
50
420
880
4,900
12,700
54,400
8/20/98
(ug/L)
18,000
17,000
58,000
NR
NR
NR
47,000
1,000
120,000
52,000
4,200
230,000
11,000
5,600
44,000
218
2,000
830
850
200
3,100
21,500
5,000
76,000
9/17/98
(ug/L)
4,200
500
2,900
3,500
2,600
10,000
16,000
1,000
17,000
8,400
2,000
12,000
9,100
5,000
370,000
120
100
400
590
100
280
6,000
1,600
58,900
10/6/98
(ug/L)
780
500
790
200
50
510
1,300
100
1,600
22,000
2,000
81,000
7,300
500
8,800
480
250
260
470
50
1,200
4,600
500
13,500
11/20/98
(ug/L)
390
500
250
1,200
50
470
550
100
ND
250
20
1,600
3,000
100
320
38
250
12
210
50
12
800
200
400
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
-------
Former Manufacturing Facility, Skokie, Illinois
Figure 3. Monthly Cis-DCE Concentrations (• g/L) In Groundwater in Initial Area of Contamination (March 1998 to May 1999, log-scale) [4]
cis 1,2-DCE
100,000
10,000
1,000
100
clean-up goal
Well subject to continuing release
average reduction: 98.8% (excluding Ca6)
PH remediation ended
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
10
June 2003
-------
Former Manufacturing Facility, Skokie, Illinois
Figure 4. Monthly 1,1,1-TCA Concentrations (• g/L) in Groundwater in Initial Area of Contamination (March 1998 to May 1999, log-scale) [4]
1,1,1-TCA
100,000
10,000
1,000
100
10
Well subject to continuing release
average reduction: >99.99% (excluding Ca6)
SPH remediation ended
03
(35
.a
a>
oo
05
co
oo
(35
oo
05
CD
oo
(35
oo
(35
oo
(35
D)
oo
(35
0.
(D
00
(35
"o
O
oo
(35
O
oo
(35
(i
(D
Q
(35
(35
co
(35
(35
.a
(D
05
05
co
(35
(35
05
05
co
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
11
June 2003
-------
Former Manufacturing Facility, Skokie, Illinois
Figure 5. Monthly TCE Concentrations (• g/L) in Groundwater in Initial Area of Contamination (March 1998 to May 1999, log-scale) [4]
TCE
1,000,000
100,000
10,000
1,000
100
10
clean-up goal
* Well subject to continuing release
average reduction: 99.6% (excluding Ca6)
SPH remediation ended
03
(35
.0
-------
-former Manufacturing Facility, Skokie, Illinois
Table 4. Monthly Groundwater Quality During ERH Remediation of Additional Area of
Contamination [11] (December 1998 to May 1999)
Well No.
B3
Ba6
C4
Ca6
Da2
F13
Fa2
Average
it
Constituent
cis-1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
cis-1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
cis-1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
cis-1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
cis-1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
cis-1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
cis-1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
cis-1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
Tier III
Clean-up
Level
(• g/L)
35,500
8,850
17,500
35,500
8,850
17,500
35,500
8,850
17,500
35,500
8,850
17,500
35,500
8,850
17,500
35,500
8,850
17,500
35,500
8,850
17,500
NR
NR
NR
December-
98
(• g/L)
1
<1
2
7,900
<25
4,900
450
15
100
8,100
<20
22,000
190
<100
2,100
50
<10
12
46
8
26
2,391
14
4,163
January-
99
(• g/L)
NR
NR
NR
17,000
<25
4,000
NR
NR
NR
41,000
<2,000
370,000
140
<20
1,400
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
8,306
341
125,000
February-
99
(• 9/L)
NR
NR
NR
3,600
<25
2,800
NR
NR
NR
530
1,200
13,000
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2,065
606
7,900
March-
99
(• g/L)
7
<1
3
4,400
<25
1,300
890
<10
270
4,800
<50
1,500
1,600
<20
7,900
4
<1
<1
770
<1
62
1,782
8
1,577
April-
99
(• g/L)
NR
NR
NR
52
<1
11
NR
NR
NR
40
<1
13
77
<1
500
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
56
1
196
May-
99
(• g/L)
<1
<1
2
630
<1
210
66
<1
12
4,200
<25
1,300
410
3
650
6
<1
1
300
<1
31
240
1
150
*Not detects (<) were assumed to be present at one-half the detection limit in computing average
concentrations.
NR - not reported
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
13
June 2003
-------
-Former Manufacturing Facility, Skokie, Illinois
Table 5. Groundwater Quality After ERH Remediation [15]
Well No.
A6
Ba3
D3
D7
D9
E5
F9
F13
G3
Ga8
Ga13
Ja4
Ja9
Constituent
cis 1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
cis 1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
cis 1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
cis 1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
cis 1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
cis 1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
cis 1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
cis 1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
cis 1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
cis 1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
cis 1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
cis 1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
cis 1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
5/99
(M9/L)
1,100
ND
1,000
390
ND
ND
3
ND
32
1,300
ND
250
300
ND
1
740
ND
4
760
ND
6
12
ND
1
460
ND
12
150
ND
ND
90
ND
19
180
ND
ND
100
ND
ND
12/99
(M9/L)
5
7
ND
150
ND
ND
19
ND
ND
160
ND
ND
140
ND
1
430
ND
ND
900
ND
ND
26
ND
3
12
ND
ND
27
ND
ND
10
ND
3
94
ND
2
53
ND
ND
ND = Not detected, detection limit not provided.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
14
June 2003
-------
-Former Manufacturing Facility, Skokie, Illinois
COST OF THE TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM
COST DATA [5.7.121
While data about the total cost of remediation efforts to date was confidential, the vendor provided costs on
a per unit basis for the full-scale ERH remediation through November 1998 (initial treatment of 23,100 cubic
yards). The cost of $32 per cubic yard included the installation and operation of the ERH power system
and electrodes, vapor extraction and condensate treatment, project permitting, preparation of work plans,
electrical use, waste disposal, interim sampling, and progress reporting. As of November 20, 1998, a total
of 1,775 MW-hr of electrical energy had been consumed by the ERH system at a cost of as much as
$14,000/month plus $40 per MW-hr for a total cost for electricity of $148,000. This corresponded to $6.40
per cubic yard of treatment volume, or 20% of the total cost of $32 per cubic yard.
In addition, the vendor provided a unit cost for treatment from December 1998 through May 1999 (treatment
of 11,500 cubic yards). This unit cost also was $32 per cubic yard.
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
The ERH system used at this site achieved the established Tier III cleanup goals for the remediation of the
initial estimated 23,000 cubic yards of remaining contamination at the site in about six months and for the
remediation of the additional 11,500 cubic yards of contamination at the site in about five months. In
addition, the concentrations of constituents in a number of wells had been reduced to the more stringent
Tier 1 standards.
1. Eastep, Lawrence W., Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Review of Remedial Action
Completion Report. July 29, 1999.
2. Beyke, Gregory, CES, et al. DNAPL Remediation Closure With Six-Phase Heating. The Second
International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds. Monterrey,
CA. Pages 183-189. May 22-25, 2000.
3. Fleming, David. Corporate Development Leader, Current Environmental Solutions (CES). Personal
communication with Bryan Smith, Tetra Tech EM Inc., December 1998.
4. CES. "Applications Analysis Report: DNAPL Remediation in the Saturated Zone Using Six-Phase
Heating™." Former Manufacturing Facility in Chicago [Skokie], Illinois. November 1998.
5. CES. "Skokie Site Update and Cost and Effectiveness Information." November 1998.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
15
-------
Former Manufacturing Facility, Skokie, Illinois
6. CES. "Soil Vapor Extraction to the Sixth Degree." Reprint from Soil and Groundwater Cleanup
magazine. July 1997.
7. Heath, Bill. Comments on Draft Cost and Performance Report. Six-Phase Heating™ (SPH) at a
Former Manufacturing Facility near Chicago, Illinois. March 1999.
8. Heath, Bill. Update on site activity. Personal communication with Bryan Smith, Tetra Tech EM
Inc., April 28, 1999.
9. Beyke, Greg. Update on site activity. Personal communication with Bryan Smith, Tetra Tech EM
Inc., April 29, 1999.
10. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Site Remediation Program.
http://www.epa.state.il.us/land/site-remediation/overview.html
11. Beyke, Greg. E-mail to Bryan Smith, Tetra Tech EM Inc. Skokie Groundwater Data. May 6,
1999.
12. Beyke, Greg. Update on site activity. Personal communication with Bryan Smith, Tetra Tech EM
Inc., April 29, 1999 and with Richard Weisman, Tetra Tech EM Inc. on June 29, 1999.
13. Smith, Gregory. Comments on Draft Report for Six-Phase Heating Application, Skokie, IL. July
23, 1999.
14. Komperda, Stan. Comments on Draft Report for Six-Phase Heating Application, Skokie, IL via
personal communication with Richard Weisman, Tetra Tech EM Inc., July 26, 1999.
15. Smith, Gregory, et al. Closure of Trichloroethene and 1,1,1-Trichloroethane DNAPL Remediation
Using Thermal Technologies. The Second International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated
and Recalcitrant Compounds. Monterrey, CA. Pages 167-174. May 22-25, 2000.
16. Komperda, Stan, Illinois EPA. Personal communication with Mary Sherrill, Tetra Tech EM Inc.
August 21, 2002.
17. Adams, Tim, ENSR. Personal communication with Mary Sherrill, Tetra Tech EM Inc. September
4, 2002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency June 2003
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
16
-------
COST AND PERFORMANCE
REPORT
Electrical Resistive Heating at the
Poleline Road Disposal Area, Arrays 4, 5, and 6
Fort Richardson, Alaska
June 2003
-------
Poleline Road Disposal Area (PRDA), Arrays 4, 5, and 6, Fort Richardson, AK
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION [21
Site Name: Poleline Road Disposal Area (PRDA), Arrays 4, 5, and 6
Location: Fort Richardson, Alaska
Regulatory Context: CERCLA
ROD Date: August 8, 1997
Technology: Electrical Resistive Heating (ERH)
Scale: Field demonstration
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION [21
Period of Operation: July through October 1999
Type/Quantity of Material Treated During Application: Source zone - Estimated to be 13,000 tons or
7,333 yd3 based on a treatment area of approximately 110 ft long by 50 ft. wide by 36 ft. deep.
BACKGROUND [2,6]
Fort Richardson, established in 1940 as a military staging and supply center during World War II, is
located approximately 10 miles northeast of Anchorage, Alaska and occupies about 56,000 acres. Its
current mission is to provide services, facilities, and infrastructure to support the rapid deployment of Army
forces. The site was added to the National Priority List (NPL) in June 1994. In December 1994, the Army,
the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), and EPA signed a Federal Facilities
Agreement (FFA) to address contamination at the site. The FFA divided Fort Richardson into four
Operable Units. This report addresses the use of ERH at the Poleline Road Waste Disposal Area (PRDA)
which is part of Operable Unit B (OUB).
The PRDA is a 1.5 acre area that was used as a disposal area from 1950 to 1972. PRDA was divided into
four areas: .Areas A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4. Shallow trenches (8 to 10 ft. deep) were used for the disposal
of a wide variety of wastes including chemical warfare agents and training materials, smoke bombs, and
other materials. During operation, a layer of bleach and lime was placed in the bottom of the trench, with
the contaminated materials placed on a pallet in the trench. Diesel fuel was poured on the waste and
ignited. After cooling, chlorinated solvents, including trichloroethene (TCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE), and
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane (PCA) were mixed with lime or bleach and poured over the materials to
neutralize the chemical agents.
Results of a geophysical survey showed that Areas A-3 and A-4 contained the greatest amount of buried
waste. Sampling of these areas showed that soil and groundwater has been contaminated with
chlorinated solvents including TCE, PCE, and TCA. A removal action was conducted in these two areas
in 1993 and 1994 to remove contaminated soil and debris. Soil was excavated to a depth of up to 14 ft
(depth at which groundwater was encountered). Excavated soils that exceeded the removal action
concentration levels (TCE-600 • g/kg), PCE (100 • g/kg), and TCA (30 • g/kg) were stockpiled for
treatment.
Areas A-1 and A-2 were not sampled because of the potential for buried unexploded ordnance. Results of
soil and groundwater sampling in surrounding areas showed relatively lower contaminant concentrations,
therefore no treatment was performed in them. During the remedial investigation, chlorinated solvents
were found in soil and groundwater in Areas A-3 and A-4. TCE, PCE, and PCA were found at levels as
high as 2,030 • g/kg for PCA, with the soil determined to be a continuing source of groundwater
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency June 2003
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
-------
Poleline Road Disposal Area (PRDA), Arrays 4, 5, and 6, Fort Richardson, AK
contamination. All four main water bearing zones at the site were determined to be contaminated with
TCE and PCE at levels as high as 1,900 • g/L for TCE.
To evaluate the effectiveness of potential remedial technologies, a treatability study of SVE and air
sparging groundwaterwas conducted in 1996. The results of the study indicated that SVE had the
potential to reduce contamination at the site but that air sparging would not be effective in remediating
groundwater contamination.
ERH was then evaluated as a potential remediation technology for the site. Two field demonstrations of
ERH were performed at the site. A 1997 ERH field demonstration was used to treat 7,150 tons of soil in
Areas A-3 and A-4, and involved three heating arrays (labeled 1, 2, and 3). The results of this
demonstration are presented in the report Cost and Performance Report Soil Vapor Extraction Enhanced
by Six-Phase Heating at Poleline Road Disposal Area, OU-B Fort Richardson Alaska, prepared by the
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste Center of Expertise.
This report describes the second ERH field demonstration, in Area A-3 using heating arrays labeled 4, 5,
and 6, that was conducted from July through October 1999.
CONTACTS [1,2]
Site Lead:
Mark Prieksat
U.S. Army, Department of Public Works
Fort Richardson, AK
Telephone: (907) 384-3042
Regulatory Contacts:
Lewis Howard
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC)
555 Cordova Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 269-7552
Email: Lhoward@envircon.state.ak.us
Matt Wilkening
US EPA Region 10
1200 6th Street
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206)553-1284
Email: wilkening.matt@epamail.epa.gov
Contractor:
Scott Kendall
Woodward-Clyde Federal Services (now URS Corporation)
3501 Denali Street, Suite 101
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone: (907)561-1020
Email: Scott_Kendall@urscorp.com
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency June 2003
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
-------
Poleline Road Disposal Area (PRDA), Arrays 4, 5, and 6, Fort Richardson, AK
Technology System Vendor:
Beniah Jorgensen
Current Environmental Solutions
350 Hills Street
Richland, WA 99352
Telephone: (509)371-0905
Email: benaiah@cesiweb.com
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
MATRIX AND CONTAMINANT IDENTIFICATION [21
Type of Media Treated: Source zone (saturated and unsaturated)
Primary Contaminant Group: Chlorinated solvents - TCE, PCE, PCA
SITE HYDROGEOLOGY AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION [2,6]
The subsurface soil at ths site is primarily high density glacial tills, including silty sands with some gravel
and a few clay-sized particles. Four water-bearing intervals have been identified at PRDA: a perched
groundwater interval, a shallow aquifer, an intermediate aquifer, and a deep aquifer. Zones of high-
density tills separate the saturated intervals. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 4 to 14 ft. bgs.
Between 4 and 12 ft. bgs the groundwater encountered was perched, and groundwater encountered
below 12 ft. was in the shallow aquifer. The deep aquifer and glacial tills overlie bedrock composed of a
hard black fissile claystone with fine sandy siltstone interbeds. Bedrock is encountered from
approximately 80 to 170 ft. bgs and has an unknown thickness.
Contaminants in soil and groundwater at the PRDA include TCE, PCE, and PCA. Sampling data indicated
that the soil between 16 and 27 ft. bgs had the highest contaminant concentrations. Groundwater
contamination was present in all four intervals. In addition, DNAPL has been observed. Table 1 lists the
matrix characteristics affecting treatment cost or performance for this application.
Table 1: Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance [2,6]
Parameter
Soil Classification
Clay Content and/ or Particle
Size Distribution
Moisture Content
Soil Air Permeability
Value
SP-gravelly sand
GP-sandy gravel
GM-silty sandy gravel
Low clay content; silt, sand and
gravel observed
7.3-13.9%
1.6x10-7cm2
Measurement Procedure
Unified Soil Classification
System
Visual
Method 7-2.2, Methods of Soil
Analysis
Calculated using field
measurements and steady state
equation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
-------
Poleline Road Disposal Area (PRDA), Arrays 4, 5, and 6, Fort Richardson, AK
Table 1: Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance [2,6] (continued)
Parameter
Porosity
Depth bgs or Thickness of Zone
of Interest
Total Organic Carbon
Presence of Nonaqueous
Phase Liquids (NAPLs)
Electrical Conductivity
Value
21-27%
8 to 35 ft. bgs
0.19-0.66%
DNAPL found in a 2" monitoring
well (site personnel did not
identify separate phase DNAPL
in other areas of the site)
Acceptable
Measurement Procedure
Estimated from soil
classification and particle size
distribution
Soil and groundwater sampling
data
ASA 90-3.2
Visual
Not Available
Table 2 lists the contaminants of concern found at the site, the maximum concentration in the groundwater
or soil, and the Remedial Action Objectives (see further discussion below under technology performance).
Table 2. Maximum Contaminant Concentrations in Soil and Groundwater Before Treatment and
Remedial Action Objective [2]
Contaminant
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
PCE
TCE
PCA
Maximum
Groundwater
Concentration
(mg/L)
0.017
0.037
0.73
0.73
0.30
7.8
18.0
Groundwater
Remedial
Action
Objective
(mg/L)
0.005
0.005
0.07
0.1
0.005
0.005
0.052
Maximum Soil
Concentration
(mg/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
120
640
12,000
Soil Remedial
Action
Objective
(mg/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.0
0.015
0.1
NA - Information not available
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
-------
Poleline Road Disposal Area (PRDA), Arrays 4, 5, and 6, Fort Richardson, AK
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY [21
Electrical Resistive Heating (Six-Phase Heating™)
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION [2,6]
The ERH system used for this demonstration (Figures 1 and 2) was constructed in three phases. The
electrode arrays for these three phases were identified as Arrays 4, 5, 6. Each phase included an array of
seven electrodes, 3 SVE wells, and two thermocouple. A 300 kW transformer supplied power to the
electrodes. The electrodes were spaced approximately 19 ft. apart, and electrodes in one row were offset
from electrodes in adjacent rows by approximately 9.5 ft.. Electrodes were installed to a depth of 38 ft. to
treat an area approximately 110 ft. long by 50 ft. wide by 35 ft. deep.
Array 5 was installed from May 18-27, 1999; Array 4 from June 7-15; and Array 6 from July 12-20. The
ERH field demonstration was conducted from July to October 1999. Parameters monitored during the
demonstration included transformer voltage, amperages, and total power; soil temperature from
thermocouples which measured soil temperature at six locations within the treatment areas at depths of
12, 25, and 38 ft; and soil resistivity. Other parameters monitored included vacuum pressure,
concentration of VOCs in condensed off-gas, and off-gas vacuum flow. During operation, an on-site
computer was used to adjust voltages on the transformer to maintain a power input of 700 to 800 kW. The
vacuum applied by the blower was adjusted by opening or closing a vacuum relief valve located just
between the condenser and the blower. The system was designed to increase the temperature of the soil
to 100°C. The soil temperature achieved during the demonstration ranged from 44 to 100°C. The highest
soil temperatures achieved during the demonstration ranged from 55 to 82°C at 12 ft., 98 to 100°C at 25
ft., and 43 to 80°C at 38 ft.. The soil temperature at 38 ft. was less than at 25 ft. because there was less
moisture at that depth (moisture was removed from the area by the SVE system) thereby decreasing the
soil conductivity.
The SVE system was operated two weeks prior to ERH system start up to allow testing of the SVE
system. The SVE system was then shut down until August 1999 (the time at which the output of the ERH
system had reached 1099 V). The SVE system was used to remove steam and contaminant vapors. The
extracted soil gas vapor was passed through a condenser, a condensate holding tank and an off-gas
treatment unit. No information was provided about the type of off-gas treatment.
Condensate and condenser off-gas samples were collected approximately every other day during
operation and analyzed for VOCs. Instrument readings and analytical results were used to calculate the
mass of contaminants removed via the extracted soil gas and condensate water. Table 3 presents
information on the soil temperatures achieved during operation.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
-------
Poleline Road Disposal Area (PRDA), Arrays 4, 5, and 6, Fort Richardson, AK
Figure 1. Treatment Area and Location of Sampling Points for the Electrical Resistive Heating
Treatment at the Fort Richardson Site [2]
LEGEND:
<8> E4-1 Electrode
-^)- T4—1 Thermocouple
© VS-T1 Vapor Extraction Well
• C4—1 Confirmation Boring
^ MW-22 Monitoring Well
O A3-C2 Soil Boring
/ . Limit of
/ Heating Zone
/ . for Arrays 4,
GRAPHIC SCALE
©
SITE MAP FOR ARRAYS 4, 5, AND 6
POLEL1NE ROAD DISPOSAL AREA
OUB, FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA
URS Greiner Woodward Clyde
Dwg: DVOUB2_2
Project: 74FOEP4O8L
By: AH
Date: 03/20/00
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
-------
Poleline Road Disposal Area (PRDA), Arrays 4, 5, and 6, Fort Richardson, AK
Figure 2. Process Flow Diagram of Electrical Resistive Heating System Used at the Fort Richardson Site [2]
'~~'
frorn WE ft,
(2} t-t>C'i electrode- la conr«cled ta a i!ng>* ptiaic IrarMlanrvir.
(3) tliKlne CLrrnt ectsuhtj ihrouqt sol craatei hasit
(_4} Water li add<4 to eivctredrT ro »«p .neort/ 50* mcJat
(_§^ Sr.ecrn cre^tsil by Jma^inij iri^ $3"!^ is r»sno"«^d by fAC
gas
lo
1)
r
Fl^^rifeBl^r, Ftp.
•Pressure, T«ntp*rrtuife
fe) « Svt
ro s:
. HEATING PROCESS
POLBUNE RGAD DlSK^AL AflEA
fly;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
-------
Poleline Road Disposal Area (PRDA), Arrays 4, 5, and 6, Fort Richardson, AK
Table 3. Temperature Achieved During ERH Operation [2]
Thermocouple
Location
T4-1
T4-1
T4-1
T5-1
T5-1
T5-1
T6-1
T6-1
T6-1
T4-2
T4-2
T4-2
T5-2
T5-2
T5-2
T6-2
T6-2
T6-2
Depth (ft)
12
25
38
12
25
38
12
25
38
12
25
38
12
25
38
12
25
38
Highest Temperature
Achieved (°C)
80
100
61
78
98
55
77
100
100
80
100
58
82
100
63
55
87
43
Date
Sept 26, 1999
Sept 26, 1999
OcMO, 1999
Oct3, 1999
Oct3, 1999
OcMO, 1999
OcMO, 1999
Sept 26, 1999
Oct3, 1999
Oct3, 1999
Sept 26, 1999
Oct3, 1999
Sept 14, 1999
Aug15, 1999
Sept 14, 1999
Oct2, 1999
Oct3, 1999
Oct8, 1999
TIMELINE H.21
August 1997
June - December 1997
July-October 1999
Record of Decision signed
First ERH treatment application
Second ERH treatment application
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES [2,6]
The objective of this field demonstration was to evaluate the effectiveness of ERH in reducing the
concentration of chlorinated solvents in groundwater. Performance of the system was evaluated by
monitoring the ability of the system to:
Heat the soil in the study area
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
-------
Poleline Road Disposal Area (PRDA), Arrays 4, 5, and 6, Fort Richardson, AK
Increase the removal rate of contaminants, as compared to previous ERH tests conducted at the
site
Effectively remove VOCs from the soil and groundwater
The remedial action criteria were established in the ROD, based on MCLs in the State of Alaska, and are
listed by contaminant in Table 2.
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE [21
Performance data for the ERH system included mass removal data, groundwater concentration data, and
soil concentration data. Groundwater monitoring data are available for three wells in the area treated:
MW-19, MW-22, and MW-23. In addition, four soil borings were collected from the treatment area and
analyzed before treatment: T4-1, T4-2, T6-1 and T6-2.
The mass of TCE, PCE, and PCA removed by the system was estimated based on the estimated mass
removed via the off-gas and condensate. The estimated mass of TCE, PCE, and PCA removed in the off-
gas was 1,008 pounds, 53 pounds, and 324 pounds, respectively. The estimated mass of TCE, PCE, and
PCA removed in the condensate was 10 pounds, 0.25 pounds, and 55 pounds, respectively.
Tables 4 and 5 present data on concentrations of contaminants in groundwater and soil, respectively, for
samples collected before ERH treatment (March 1999), and after the treatment was completed (November
1999).
Table 4. Groundwater Performance Date for ERH at the Fort Richardson Site [2]
Analyte
Benzene
Carbon
tetrachloride
Cis-1,2-
dichloroethene
Trans-1,2-
dichloroethene
PCA
PCE
TCE
Remedial
Action
Objective
(mg/kg)
0.005
0.005
0.07
0.1
0.052
0.005
0.005
Month
Sampled
March
November
March
November
March
November
March
November
March
November
March
November
March
November
Concentration and Detection Limit (mg/L)
MW-19
ND(0.001)
ND(0.001)
ND(0.001)
ND(0.001)
0.014
0.01
0.006
0.0013
0.690
0.850
0.007
ND (0.001)
0.280
0.021
MW-22
ND(0.01)
ND(0.001)
ND(0.01)
ND(0.001)
0.180
0.058
0.060
0.015
2.800
0.810
0.062
0.029
1.700
1.600
MW-23
ND(0.01)
ND(0.001)
ND(0.01)
ND(0.001)
0.230
0.300
0.230
0.036
17.000
0.100
0.072
0.0010
3.100
0.970
Table 5. Soil Performance Date for ERH at the Fort Richardson Site[2]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
-------
Poleline Road Disposal Area (PRDA), Arrays 4, 5, and 6, Fort Richardson, AK
Analyte
PCA
PCE
TCE
Remedial
Action
Objective
(mg/kg)
0.1
4.0
0.015
Month
Sampled
March
November
March
November
March
November
Concentration and Detection Limit (mg/kg)
T4-1
12,000
ND (0.03)
120
0.012
640
12
T4-2
67
ND (0.034)
1
0.098
6
0.087
T6-1
530
ND (0.033)
3.1
0.71
200
63
T6-2
0.07
ND (0.032)
0.09
ND (0.032)
1.7
0.84
As shown in Table 4, groundwater contaminant concentrations generally decreased between March 1999
and November 1999, with PCA, PCE and TCE decreasing an average of 49 percent, 75 percent and 56
percent, respectively. Concentrations of PCA in groundwater from MW-19 increased between March and
November 1999. According to the vendor, because only a portion of the contaminated area was treated,
and MW-19 was on the edge of the treatment area, this increase may have been due to contaminant
migration from outside the treatment area. Concentrations of cis-1,2-dichloroethene, a breakdown product
of TCE, increased in MW-23. As of November 1999, concentrations of PCA, PCE, TCE, and cis-1,2-DCE
were above the remedial action objectives in groundwater.
As shown in Table 5, concentrations of PCA, PCE and TCE in soil decreased from March to November
1999. PCA and PCE were reduced to below the remedial action objectives. However, TCE
concentrations remained above the remedial action objective, with concentrations ranging from 0.087 to
63 mg/kg.
Temperature data collected from thermocouples at the site showed that soil and groundwater
temperatures could be increased to 100°C, however, this temperature was not consistently achieved
throughout the treatment area. The temperature in Array 6 was only raised to 90°C for a short time, and
the percent reduction in this array was the lowest of the three arrays.
The residual groundwater contaminant plume is being monitored in 22 groundwater wells on a quarterly
basis. This monitoring includes two wells in the area treated, MW-19 and MW-23. Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6
show the concentrations of TCE and PCA in these wells in November 1997 and April 2001, respectively.
In MW-19, concentrations of both contaminants were greater than 100 • g/L before treatment. After
treatment, the concentrations of each of these contaminants was reduced to less than 1 • g/L. In MW-23,
concentrations of both contaminants were greater than 1,000 • g/L before treatment. After treatment, the
concentrations of these contaminants remained at more than 100 «g/L.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
10
-------
Poleline Road Disposal Area (PRDA), Arrays 4, 5, and 6, Fort Richardson, AK
Figure 3. Residual Groundwater Plume Monitoring Data at the Fort Richardson Site:
TCE in MW-19 (log scale) [7]
Nov-97 Mar-9.
Jul-98 Nov-98
Mar-99 Jul-99 Nov-99 Mar-00
Sample Date
Jul-00 Nov-00 Mar-01
Figure 4. Residual Groundwater Plume Monitoring Data at the Fort Richardson Site:
PCA in MW -19 (log scale) [7]
§
is 100
Nov-97 Mar-98 Jul-98
Mar-99 Jul-99 Nov-99
Sample Date
Mar-00 Jul-00 Nov-00 Mar-01
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
11
June 2003
-------
Poleline Road Disposal Area (PRDA), Arrays 4, 5, and 6, Fort Richardson, AK
Figure 5. Residual Groundwater Plume Monitoring Data at the Fort Richardson Site:
TCE in MW-23 (log scale) [7]
=! 100
Nov-97 Mar-:
Jul-99 Nov-99
Sample Date
Mar-00 Jul-00 Nov-00 Mar-01
Figure 6. Residual Groundwater Plume Monitoring Data at the Fort Richardson Site:
PCA in MW-23 (log scale) [7]
100000 -r
10000
1000
100
10
n situ
electrical
resistive
heating
o
O
Sample Date
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
12
June 2003
-------
Poleline Road Disposal Area (PRDA), Arrays 4, 5, and 6, Fort Richardson, AK
COST OF THE TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM
Cost information was not provided for this application.
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
The field demonstration of ERH reduced soil and groundwater contaminant concentrations in Area A-3.
Groundwater contaminant concentrations were reduced by as much as 75 percent, though concentrations
remained about the remedial action objective for the site. Concentrations of PCA, PCE and TCE in soil
decreased during this period. PCA and PCE were reduced to below the remedial action objectives;
however, TCE concentrations in soil remained above the remedial action objective.
1. Tetra Tech EM, Inc. Record of Telephone Conversation Regarding the Poleline Road Disposal
Area Between Mary Sherrill, Tetra Tech EM, Inc. and Mark Prieksat, Department of Defense
Environmental Resources Department. August 19, 2002.
2. URS Corporation. "Design Verification Study Arrays 4, 5, and 6, Operable Unit B, Poleline Road
Disposal Area, Fort Richardson, Alaska," Prepared for the Alaska District, U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers. March, 2001.
3. URS Corporation. "Long Term Groundwater Monitoring Report, Operable Unit B, Poleline Road
Disposal Area, Fort Richardson, Alaska," Prepared for the Alaska District, U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers. July, 2001.
4. URS Corporation. "Long Term Groundwater Monitoring Report, Operable Unit B, Poleline Road
Disposal Area, Fort Richardson, Alaska," Prepared for the Alaska District, U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers. October, 1999.
5. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste Center of Expertise, "Cost
and Performance Report Soil Vapor Extraction Enhanced by Six-Phase Heating at Poleline Road
Disposal Area, OU-B Fort Richardson Alaska. October 1999.
6. U.S. EPA. Record of Decision for Operable Units A and B, Fort Richardson, Anchorage, Alaska.
EPA-541-R-97-202. August 1997.
7. URS Corporation. "Long Term Groundwater Monitoring Report, Operable Unit B, Poleline Road
Disposal Area, Fort Richardson, Alaska," Prepared for the Alaska District, U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers. November, 2000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
June 2003
13
-------
COST AND PERFORMANCE
REPORT
Electrical Resistive Heating at the
ICN Pharmaceutical Site
Portland, OR
February 2004
-------
-ICN Pharmaceutical Site
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
Site Name: ICN Pharmaceuticals Incorporated
Location: 6060 NE 112th Ave., Portland, Oregon
Regulatory Context: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) oversight
Technology: Electrical resistive heating (ERH)
Scale: Full-scale
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION
Period of Operation: May 2000 to December 2001
Type/Quantity of Material Treated during Application [4]: Source zone - Estimated 48,000 to 65,000
cubic yards based on a treatment area of three-quarters to one acre in size and a depth of 40 ft.
Groundwater - Plume size estimated to be 120 ft by 80 ft
BACKGROUND [1,2]
The ICN Pharmaceuticals site, located in Portland, Oregon, was used as a clinical laboratory from 1961 to
1980. The laboratory used a variety of organic and inorganic compounds with wastes from laboratory
operations disposed in a dry well which was about 20 ft deep. In 1980, the laboratory was shut down and
materials and machinery were removed. In 1993 and 1994, the laboratory building and associated
structures were removed from the site. Results of groundwater investigations at the site identified the
former dry well as the source of groundwater contamination. The groundwater in the vicinity of the former
dry well was determined to be contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including
trichloroethene (TCE), cis-1,2-dichloroethene (DCE), vinyl chloride (VC), benzene, and toluene. TCE,
DCE, and VC were detected in the groundwater at concentrations greater than 1% of their solubility,
suggesting the presence of dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL). On August 23, 1999, a record of
decision (ROD) was signed for the site to address the groundwater contamination in the area of the dry
well. ERH, in conjunction with SVE, was implemented at the site to treat the DNAPL source and dissolved
phase VOCs in groundwater.
CONTACTS
Technology System Vendor:
Jim Jeffs
Current Environmental Solutions
Applied Process Engineering Laboratory
350 Hills St.
Richland, WA 99352
Telephone: (509)371-0905
Email: jjeffs@cesiweb.com
Contractor:
Michelle Peterson
AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc.
7376 SW Durham Road
Portland, OR 97224
Telephone: (503) 639-3400
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency February 2004
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office 1
-------
-ICN Pharmaceutical Site
State Contact:
Jennifer Sutter, Project Manager
Oregon DEQ
2020 SW Fourth Avenue
Portland, OR 97201-4987
Telephone: (503)229-6148
Email: Sutter.jennifer@deq.state.or.us
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
MATRIX AND CONTAMINANT IDENTIFICATION [1,2]
Type of Media Treated: Source zone (saturated and unsaturated)
Primary Contaminant Groups: Chlorinated solvents - TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, VC
SITE HYDROGEOLOGY AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION [2,4]
The site geology consists of fluvial and lacustrine depositional sequences (Overbank) to a depth of
approximately 60 feet bgs. Silts and sands are discontinuously interlayered throughout the Overbank
deposits. The water table is encountered in the Overbank at approximately 8 ft bgs. Troutdale Gravel
Aquifer (TGA) underlies the Overbank formation and consists of unconsolidated and cemented gravels of
the Troutdale Formation. The TGA is approximately 175 feet thick in the site area (60 to 235 feet bgs). A
confining layer encountered at a depth of 235 ft bgs at the base of the TGA consists of sand, silt, and clay
of lacustrine origin and is approximately 100 feet thick at the site.
DNAPLs were present in the Overbank, with dissolved phase VOCs present in both the Overbank and
TGA layers. The areal extent of the DNAPL source in the Overbank was estimated to be three-quarters
to one acre in size, extending about 120 ft to the south of the dry well with a width of about 80 ft.
Table 1 lists the matrix characteristics affecting technology cost and performance for this application:
Table 1. Matrix Characteristics Affecting Technology Cost or Performance [1,2,4]
Parameter
Soil Classification
Clay Content and/or Particle
Size Distribution
Depth to Groundwater
Hydraulic conductivity
Air permeability
Porosity
Presence of NAPLs
Total organic carbon
Electrical resistivity of soil
Value
Silts and sands
Upper 1 5 feet of the Overbank consists predominantly of silts. Silts and
sands are discontinuously interlayered throughout the Overbank
Deposits.
The water table was encountered in the silts at approximately 8 ft
The transmissitivity of the Overbank ranges from 5 to 1 1 gpd/foot
conductivity ranges from 2.6x10-5 to 5.2x10-5 cm/sec.
bgs
The
Not available
Not available
Suggested presence of DNAPL
Not available
Not available
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
February 2004
-------
-ICN Pharmaceutical Site
Table 1. Matrix Characteristics Affecting Technology Cost or Performance [1,2,4] (continued)
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
Electrical Resistive Heating (Six-Phase Heating™)
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION [1,4,5]
The ERH system at the site was operated from May 2000 to December 2001. The initial ERH system
consisted of 60 electrodes installed to a depth of 58 feet. The electrodes were placed in hexagonal arrays
of 6 electrodes each, with a seventh neutral electrode in the middle of each array. The annular spaces in
the boreholes into which the electrodes were installed were packed with steel shot to improve conductivity
and increase the effective diameter of the electrodes. In addition, impermeable seals were placed in the
annular spaces to prevent hot vapors and liquids from escaping through the boreholes. Each electrode
was capable of directing power to three zones in the Overbank: 20-30 ft bgs, 34-44 ft bgs, and 48-58 ft
bgs. A 95 kW transformer was used to convert standard three-phase electrical power to six separate
phases. The system was monitored using 13 subsurface pressure monitoring points and 8 subsurface
thermocouples. The treatment system began operating in May 2000. The initial heating was limited to the
bottom interval (45 to 58 ft bgs) to establish a "hot floor" and prevent downward migration of
contamination. No information was provided about how long this initial heating was conducted or when
heating in other zones began.
During the operation, steam and hot water were observed outside the treatment area. In addition, steam
and hot water at the surface of the site were identified as a health and safety hazard at the site. In
December 2000, 50 "electrode vents" screened from 25-35 feet bgs were placed along the perimeter of
and throughout the treatment area to control the migration of steam and hot water. In addition, because
the steam and hot water were contaminated, the treatment area was expanded in May 2001. The
additional treatment areas were located along the eastern, southern, and northern portions of the initial
treatment area where contaminated steam and hot water had been observed.
Nine electrodes, four "electrode vents", two groundwater monitoring wells, and one thermocouple were
installed in the eastern portion of these expanded treatment areas. In the southern portion, 4 electrodes,
11 "electrode vents" screened from 25-35 ft bgs, two groundwater monitoring wells, and two
thermocouples were installed. In the northern portion 2 "electrode vents" were installed.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
February 2004
-------
-ICN Pharmaceutical Site
In August 2001, a blower failed, and steam and vapors could not be removed from an unspecified portion
of the treatment area. The system was turned off in this area. A new blower was installed in September
2001 and the treatment was restarted.
When the ERH remediation area was expanded, in December 2000 and May 2001, electrodes were
placed within close proximity to the security fence that surrounded the perimeter of the ERH remediation
area. As a result, an induced voltage was detected during a routine step-and-touch voltage survey on the
security fence gate. The voltage on the fence was an induced voltage caused by the fence crossing
through the electro magnetic field (EMF) generated by the power transfer between the different phased
electrodes. This condition was further enhanced by the concurrent operation of two separate treatment
zones at least 100 yards apart, where the same perimeter fence encircled both zones. This configuration
caused an increased difference in voltage potential at any point where the fence was broken (e.g., at a
gate). This problem was remedied by making sure that the fence line remained unbroken, so that it
formed one continuous loop. This corrective action was accomplished by grounding the gates to a wire
mesh screen that was buried beneath shallow soils, and attached to both adjacent fence sections. The
fence was also grounded on both sides of the site (i.e. separate treatment zones) to help decrease the
voltage potential at the fence. Before these two corrective actions were implemented voltage at the fence
was as high as 40 V at any point where the fence line was broken, after the fixes the voltages were below
12 V for the remainder of the project.
A soil vapor extraction (SVE) system was used to recover the steam and contaminant vapors from the
unsaturated region immediately above the heated region. The initial 53 vapor extraction wells were
screened from 5-10 feet bgs. The SVE system was designed to separate the vapor and liquid phases and
separately treat the two effluent streams. The vapor treatment system consisted of a heat exchanger/
condenser, followed by granular activated carbon and potassium permanganate treatment. Recovered
water was discharged to a municipal sewer. As of September 2002, the SVE blower remained in
operation, at the request of the DEQ, to collect any remaining vapors generated from the subsurface.
Groundwater monitoring is continuing, with data available through June 2002.
TIMELINE
August 1999
May 2000
December 2000
May 2000
December 2001
December 2001 -
September 2002
ROD signed for the site
Full-scale operation began
50 "electrode vents" added
Treatment expanded with the addition of 13 electrodes and 19 "electrode
vents"
Remediation completed; ERH system was shut off
Groundwater monitoring performed
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES [21
The Remedial Action Objectives for this site, specified in the Record of Decision (ROD), were to:
Prevent and contain migration of separate-phase DNAPL during treatment
Reduce contaminant groundwater concentrations to levels that indicate DNAPL has been
removed or treated
The ROD specified that the primary goal of the action was to remediate DNAPL and that the residual risk
to human health and the environment and the need for further remediation would be assessed following
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
February 2004
-------
-ICN Pharmaceutical Site
remediation of the DNAPL. No numeric clean-up levels for contaminants were identified in the ROD,
therefore the cleanup goals were based on Oregon maximum contaminant levels (MCLs).
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE [1,4]
Figure 1 shows the location of the shallow, intermediate, and deep monitoring wells at the site, relative to
the area that was treated. TCE, DCE, and VC concentrations were monitored in the Overbank area and
DCE, VC, and benzene concentrations were monitored in the TGA layer. Table 2 shows the maximum
groundwater contaminant concentrations before treatment, when the ERH system was shut down
(December 2001), and six months later (June 2002). As of December 2001, maximum groundwater
contaminant concentrations in the Overbank area had been reduced from 150,000 ug/L to 100 ug/L for
TCE, from 370,000 ug/L to 1,300 ug/L for DCE, and from 24,000 ug/L to 50 ug/L for VC. Through June
2002, TCE concentrations decreased to 8.11 ug/L while DCE and VC concentrations were unchanged.
The concentrations of all three contaminants were above Oregon MCLs.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency February 2004
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office 5
-------
Figure 1. Application and Monitoring of ERH at the ICN Pharmaceuticals Site in Portland, Oregon [1[
ICN Pharmaceutical Site
FLHJ IM3IHT+3
UOMUJMIU WELL LOCATIONS
•HI
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
February 2004
-------
-ICN Pharmaceutical Site
Table 2. ERH Groundwater Monitoring Results, Maximum Concentrations Measured [1,4]
Contaminant
TCE
DCE
VC
Benzene
Toluene
Oregon
MCLs
(ug/L)
5
70
2
Not
availabl
e
5,600
Concentrations in Overbank
(ug/L)
Initial
Concentra
tions
Before
ERH
Treatment
150,000
370,000
24,000
51
Not
available
December
2001
(when
system
was shut
down)
100
1,300
50
Not
available
Not
available
June 2002
(6 months
after
system
shut
down)
8.11
1,300
50.5
Not
available
Not
available
Concentrations in TGA
(ug/L)
Initial
Concentra
tions
Before
ERH
Treatment
ND
1.71
2.11
5.98
16.4
December
2001
(when
system
was shut
down)
Not
available
49.5
ND
200
Not
available
June 2002
(6 months
after
system
shut
down)
Not
available
ND
NA
>0.35
Not
available
Initial contaminant concentrations in the TGA layer were at or below the Oregon MCLs. As of December
2001, the concentrations of DCE and benzene had increased to 49.5 |jg/L and 200 |jg/L, respectively. VC
concentrations decreased from 2.11 |jg/L to not detected. According to the vendor, the increase in
benzene concentrations indicated a possible compromise in 3 well casings which provided a conduit for
contamination migration from the Overbank layer. These wells were abandoned in April 2002. As of June
2002, benzene was detected at levels above the PRG of 0.35 ug/L.
Because dissolved phase VOCs remained above DEQ generic risk-based screening levels at various
locations at the site, biosparging was planned for September 2002, as part of the IRAM. Groundwater
monitoring at the site is continuing. Information was not provided about whether the biosparging was
implemented and any potential results of the biosparging.
Figures 2 through 5 show the concentrations of DCE over time in the source zone (intermediate well MW-
28 and deep well MW-31), the treated area outside the source zone (MW-25), and downgradient from the
treated area (MW-53). As shown in these figures, DCE concentrations in the source zone treatment area
wells decreased following ERH treatment of the source, with the concentrations in the downgradient wells
remaining relatively level.
COST OF THE TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM
COST DATA
No cost data were provided for this application.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
February 2004
-------
ICN Pharmaceutical Site
Figure 2. ICN Site: cis-1,2-DCE Concentrations in Source Zone (MW-28)
May 1996 - June 2002 (log scale) [1]
100000 i
10000 -
1000 -
o
•4=
ro
i:
c
01
o
O
100-1
10
In situ electical
resistive heating
CD
O)
oo
O)
O)
O)
0
W
0
Q
0
w
0
Q
0
w
0
Q
0
w
0
Q
o o
9 9
m C
0
W
0
Q
9 9
m C
CM CM
9 9
0
w
0
Q
Sam pie Date
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
February 2004
-------
ICN Pharmaceutical Site
Figures. ICN Site: cis-1,2 DCE Concentrations in Source Zone (MW-31)
May 1996 - June 2002 (log scale) [1]
1000000
100000
o
0)
o
o
o
10000
1000
100
10
In situ electrical
resistive heating
of <
Sample Date
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
February 2004
-------
Figure 4. ICN Site: cis-1,2-DCE Concentrations in Treatment Area (MW-25)
May 1996 - June 2002 (log scale) [1]
1000000
100000
10000
ICN Pharmaceutical Site
o
0)
u
o
o
1000
In situ electrical
resistive heating
100
Sample Date
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
February 2004
10
-------
Figure 5. ICN Site: cis-1,2-DCE Concentrations in Downgradient Area (MW-53)
May 1996 - June 2002 ((log scale) [1]
100000
ICN Pharmaceutical Site
o
§
Ǥ
10000
1000
100
10 -
0.1
In situ electical resistive
heating
CD
en
CD
Cn
Q.
-------
-ICN Pharmaceutical Site
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
ERH reduced concentrations of TCE, DCE, and VE in the source zone by more than 99 percent.
However, after 18 months of treatment, contaminant concentrations remained above the state MCLs.
Further treatment using biosparging was planned to address these elevated concentrations.
The vendor provided the following observations:
At some locations, steam pressures built up inside monitoring wells to the extent that some wells
vented steam for several hours. The steam moved out laterally along more permeable pathways.
Vertical movement upward was inhibited by cooler temperatures within 20 feet of the surface and
by less permeable soils, creating a high pressure zone. Removal of a well cap could release the
pressure and cause steam and hot water to flash up the well casing. As a solution, existing 3/8-
inch diameter vent lines from the electrodes were replaced with larger (1-inch diameter) tubing.
These electrode vents were also connected to the vapor extraction system
Several modifications to the system were required as a result of the high temperatures achieved
during the remediation and modifications needed to handle boiling water. These included
replacing PVC in wells with CPVC to minimize heat damage, replacing bentonite with concrete as
a seal, and modifications to groundwater sampling using bailers.
Biological growth increased significantly during heating. The condenser/heat exchanger required
frequent cleaning. As a solution, a knockout tank was added to the system to remove some of
this material before to it entering the heat exchanger. The heat exchanger still required frequent
cleaning, but the problem was reduced.
1. AMEC Earth & Environmental, September 2002. "Quarterly Monitoring and Project Status Report,
ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Site, June 2002".
2. Record of Decision, Selected Remedial Action for ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. DNAPL
Contamination, Multnomah County, Oregon, August 23, 1999.
3. Notice of Selected Environmental Cleanup Method, ICN Pharmaceuticals DNAPL Contamination,
September 1, 1999.
4. ITRC Team Case Study Report, ICN Pharmaceuticals Site, Portland, Oregon, Undated.
5. Jennifer Sutter, Oregon DEQ. E-mail comments to James Cummings, EPA. ICN Stray Voltage
Discussion. January 5, 2004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
February 2004
12
-------
COST AND PERFORMANCE
REPORT
Electrical Resistive Heating at the
Avery Dennison Site
Waukegan, Illinois
June 2003
-------
. A very Dennison Site, Waukegan, IL
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION [1,2]
Site Name: Avery Dennison Site
Location: Waukegan-Gurnee Industrial Park, Illinois
Regulatory Context: Illinois EPA Site Remediation Program
Technology: Electrical Resistive Heating
Scale: Full Scale
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION [1,2]
Period of Operation: December 1999 to November 2000
Type/Quantity of Material Treated during Application: Source zone - Estimated to be 16,000 yds3
based on an estimated soil density of 1.3 tons per yd3, corresponds to 21,000 tons treated.
BACKGROUND [1,2]
The Avery Dennison site is located in the Waukegan-Gurnee Industrial Park in Waukegan, Illinois. From
1975 through 1992 film coating operations were performed at the site. Methylene chloride (MeCI) used in
these operations was unloaded in the northeast corner of the building, and transferred by underground
piping to above-ground storage tanks in the northwest corner of the building. In May 1985, an inventory
check indicated that approximately 1,585 gallons of MeCI had been released from an underground pipe.
Site investigations indicated that the released MeCI was present in the soil and groundwater beneath the
loading area, the bulk storage tank area, the underground transfer pipe, and a former stormwater drainage
system. The site is described in terms of the western and eastern portions.
In 1985, cleanup activities began at the site, including the removal of the above-ground storage tanks, 260
yds3 of soil from beneath the tanks, and 175 feet of storm sewer and surrounding fill. In addition, 4,600
gallons of contaminated groundwater and 14,000 gallons of rainwater that collected in the excavation were
removed. In 1988, a subsurface grout curtain was installed around the former bulk storage area.
In 1991, a soil vapor extraction system (seven vapor extraction wells) was installed. Over the next several
years, several remediation technologies were used at the site and operated until 1994, at which time the
operation of the system was discontinued. The vendor had determined that the relatively impermeable
silty-clay soils at the site rendered the treatment ineffective. From 1992 through 1998, pump and treat of
groundwater was performed with four of the extraction wells converted to air sparging wells in 1994. The
air sparging and pump and treat wells were shut down in 1998. A risk-based analysis of groundwater
contamination performed by the vendor indicated that additional remediation of groundwater was not
required. The results of additional investigations indicated that DNAPL was present in soil at the site.
ERH was used from December 1999 through November 2000 to address the DNAPL source in the
unsaturated zone.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency June 2003
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation 1
-------
CONTACTS [1,2]
Technology System Vendor:
Chris Thomas
Current Environmental Solutions
Telephone: (847) 298-2764
Email: Chris@cesiweb.com
Site Contact:
Wayne Wirtanen
Avery Dennison
330 East Main Street
Milford, MA 01757
Telephone: (508)422-3187
State Contact:
Jennifer Seul
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Bureau of Land
Division of Remediation Management
Remedial Project Management Section
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Post Office Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Telephone: (217)785-9399
Email: Jennifer.Seul@epa.state.il.us
. Avery Dennison Site, Waukegan, IL
MATRIX IDENTIFICATION [1,2]
Type of Media Treated With Technology System: Source Zone (unsaturated)
Primary Contaminant Groups: Chlorinated Solvents (MeCI)
SITE HYDROGEOLOGY AND EXTENT OF THE CONTAMINATION [1,2]
The topography of the site is generally flat, with a slight manmade slope that drains toward stormwater
collection drains. The geology underlying the site is predominantly heterogeneous silty-clay, glacial till to a
depth of about 180 feet below ground surface (bgs). Discontinuous silty sand and sand lenses are
present at some locations within the till. Bedrock (Niagaran dolomite) is encountered at depths ranging
from 180 to 270 feet bgs. Depth to groundwater ranges from approximately 6 feet to 25 feet bgs.
Approximately 17,000 ft2 of soil along the north side of the building on the site was contaminated with
MeCI to depths as great as 24 ft bgs, with concentrations as high as 40,000 mg/kg. MeCI concentrations
in the soil in this area averaged 1,900 mg/kg.
Table 1 lists the matrix characteristics affecting the technology cost and performance for this application.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation
June 2003
-------
. A very Dennison Site, Waukegan, IL
Table 1. Matrix Characteristics Affecting Technology Cost or Performance [1,2]
Parameter
Soil Classification
Clay Content and/or Particle Size Distribution
Depth to Groundwater
Hydraulic conductivity
Air permeability
Porosity
Presence of DNAPLs
Moisture content
Total organic carbon
Electrical resistivity of soil
Value
Glacial till consisting
of silty clay
Silty clay
Between 6 and 25 feet bgs
Not available
Not available
Not available
Suggested presence
of DNAPL
Not available
Not available
Not available
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY [21
Electrical resistive heating
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION [1,2]
ERH was used to treat MeCI-contaminated soil at the site from December 1999 to November 2000. The
treatment area was divided into 20 treatment cells. For each treatment cell, electrodes were installed
around the perimeter to a depth of 24 feet. A total of 95 copper electrodes were installed including 6
installed below an active street, and 16 installed inside the existing building. Two thermocouples were
installed in the center of each treatment cell, at the shallowest and deepest levels of contamination, 4 and
24 feet bgs. In addition, 34 recovery wells were installed at 20 locations to extract soil vapor and steam.
The designed power input was 610 kW. The treatment system was expected to raise soil temperatures at
a rate of at least 1°C per day until a temperature above 75°C was achieved.
Operation of the western portion of the treatment zone began in December, 1999. The subsurface
temperature in this area was 13°C prior to treatment. After four weeks of operation, the expected targets
had not been met. The average soil temperature was 34°C, the average heating rate was 0.4°C per day,
and input to the subsurface was about 320 kW. The vendor determined that the copper electrodes had
oxidized, which reduced conductivity, and that many of the down hole connections between the power
cables and the electrodes were damaged, though the reason for the damage was not identified. In
January 2000, 1-inch galvanized steel pipes were installed around each electrode, and the power cables
were attached to the pipes above ground. Typically, five pipes were installed around each of the copper
electrodes to add conductive surface area and improve power output. When the system was restarted,
the heating rate was 1°C per day and the power input to the subsurface was 410 kW.
Operation of the eastern portion of the treatment zone began in June, 2000. Galvanized steel pipe
electrodes were installed. Most of the treatment system was shut down in October, 2000. While
operational data were not provided for this portion of the treatment zone, the vendor indicated that the
heating rate and power input were similar to that achieved in the western portion using galvanized steel
pipe electrodes (heating rate of 1°C per date and power input of 410 kW). However, soil samples in four
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation
June 2003
-------
. A very Dennison Site, Waukegan, IL
treatment cells indicated that concentrations of MeCI remained above the treatment goals. Additional
galvanized steel pipe electrodes were added to these cells, and the treatment system was operated in the
four cells for another month, and was shut down in November, 2000. The maximum temperature
achieved ranged from 65°C to 100°C. The average delivery of power to the subsurface was 320 kW, less
than the expected delivery of 610KW.
TIMELINE M.21
1985
1988
1991-1994
1992-1994
1994-1998
December 1999
June 2000
November 2000
Removal Action
Installation of grout curtain around the former bulk storage area.
Seven point soil vapor extraction at former bulk storage area. This was
ineffective and discontinued at the end of 1994.
Pump and treating of groundwater
Air sparging of groundwater
ERH initiated in western portion
ERH initiated in eastern portion
ERH completed
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES [1,2]
The remediation objective was to reduce the concentration of MeCI in the soil to below 24 mg/kg, based
on Illinois EPA's Tiered Approach to Corrective Action Objectives (TACO).
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE [1,2]
A total of 125 soil samples were collected and analyzed for MeCI. Average MeCI concentrations in soil
were reduced to 2.51 mg/kg, below the cleanup goal. Based on the results of the confirmatory samples,
the Illinois EPA issued a No Further Remediation (NFR) letter for this property.
The soil vapor extraction system removed VOCs at a rate of approximately 3 pounds per day. According
to the vendor, the amount of MeCI in the extracted vapor was less than expected. Additional sampling and
analysis was conducted to determine whether MeCI was being removed by degradation processes,
including biodegradation, hydrous/pyrolysis oxidation (HPO), and hydrolysis. In May 2000, one
background soil sample and four soil samples in the treatment area were collected. As shown in Table 2,
biological activity in the background and 30°C samples were moderate. While no microbial activity was
identified in the samples at 70°C and 100°C, the vendor concluded that biological degradation was not
contributing significantly to MeCI removal. The concentration of soluble chloride in each of the soil
samples in the treatment area were above background levels. According to the vendor, the elevated
soluble chloride levels indicated that thermally enhanced degradation was occurring. Additional sampling
of extracted vapor and analysis for carbon dioxide and methane were conducted to determine whether the
degradation mechanism was HPO or hydrolysis. According to the vendor, methane in the extracted vapor
was negligible, while carbon dioxide was at 4 times the background level. Based on these results, the
ERH vendor concluded that HPO was a significant contributor to the degradation of MeCI, while hydrolysis
was not. No further information on the degradation mechanism was provided.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation
June 2003
-------
. A very Dennison Site, Waukegan, IL
Table 2. Results of Sampling and Analysis to Identify MeCI Degradation Mechanisms [1]
Sample Location
Background
Thermocouple 17
Thermocouple 6
Thermocouple 2
Electrode 2
Temperature (°C)
10
30
70
100
100
Microbiological
Activity
moderate
moderate
none
none
none
Soluble Chloride
(mg/L)
<50
240
340
445
230
COST OF THE TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM
No cost information was provided for this application.
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED [1,2]
ERH reduced MeCI concentrations in 16,000 yds3 of soil to below the remediation objective in about a
year. MeCI soil concentrations were reduced from as high as 40,000 mg/kg with an average
concentration of 1,400 mg/kg to an average concentration of 2.51 mg/kg.
According to the vendor, ERH was selected to remediate soil at the site because of a variety of factors,
including the location of existing structures and the low permeability of the soil. The presence of the Avery
Dennison building and a neighboring building just to the north made excavations to the depths required to
meet remediation objectives (approximately 24 feet) impractical. A previous application of SVE to the site
from 1991 to 1994 was unsuccessful due to the low permeability of the soil.
The treatment system's ability to transfer power to the subsurface soils was hindered by equipment
failures, including power cable failures and corrosion of copper electrodes. The use of additional
galvanized steel pipe electrodes with above-ground power cable connections improved power input, but
the system did not achieve the expected power input levels. As a result, the planned operating
temperature of greater than 75°C was not achieved in all treatment areas, and the treatment time was
extended from the originally anticipated 25 weeks to 47 weeks.
Analyses of soil samples for microbial activity and soluble chloride levels, and analyses of extracted vapor
samples for methane and carbon dioxide were performed by the vendor to identify whether degradation of
MeCI was contributing to the remediation. The vendor concluded from the results of these analyses that
in addition to extraction through the vapor recovery system, MeCI was removed by degradation, primarily
via HPO.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation
June 2003
-------
. A very Dennison Site, Waukegan, IL
1. Nienkerk, Monte M., et al. 2001. "Cleanup of Methylene Chloride Spill." Vendor report. August,
2001.
2. Jeff L. Pope, and Monte M. Nienkerk, CPG. 2002. "In Situ Remediation of Methylene Chloride in
Low Permeability Soils Using Electrical Resistive Heating." Undated.
http://www.claytongrp.com/insiturem_art.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation
June 2003
-------
COST AND PERFORMANCE
REPORT
In Situ Conductive Heating at the
Confidential Chemical Manufacturing Facility
Portland, IN
June 2003
-------
-Confidential Chemical Manufacturing Facility, Portland, IN
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
Site Name: Confidential Chemical Manufacturing Facility
Location: Portland, Indiana
Regulatory Context: Voluntary cleanup
Technology: In Situ Conductive Heating
Scale: Full-scale
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION [1,2]
Period of Operation: July to December 1997
Type/Quantity of Material Treated During Application: Source zone (unsaturated) - Estimated area
treated was 5,000 cubic yards or 6,500 tons of soil
BACKGROUND [1,2]
The 16 acre site is a chemical manufacturing facility located in the southern portion of Portland, Indiana,
southeast of the Salmonie River. The site has the operated since 1886, first as a lumberyard, then for
wheel manufacturing. From 1937 to the mid-1970's, the site was used for the manufacture of hard rubber
products used in automobiles and then for the manufacture of plastic exterior automobile parts. The site
has four buildings: the north plant building, a parts storage building, a paint storage building, and a former
boiler house. According to the plant manager, the north plant building is currently being used part time for
the reworking of automotive parts.
Sampling conducted as part of a due diligence assessment in June 1994 showed the presence of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) in soil and groundwater. Results of additional investigations performed from
July 1995 to February 1996 confirmed the presence of VOCs in subsurface soils in two areas identified as
GP-31, adjacent to the loading dock at the north building, and GP-28, about 300 feet (ft), southeast of the
loading dock. Results of groundwater sampling conducted in August 1995 showed that VOCs were not
present in the sand and gravel aquifer beneath the site at levels higher than the cleanup goals.
CONTACTS
Technology System Vendor:
Ralph Baker, Ph.D.
CEO and Technology Manager
TerraTherm, Inc.
356 Broad St.
Fitch burg, MA 01420
E-mail: rbaker@terratherm.com
State Contact:
Mary Beth Tuohy
Assistant Commissioner
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Office of Environmental Response
P.O. Box6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency June 2003
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation 1
-------
-Confidential Chemical Manufacturing Facility, Portland, IN
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
MATRIX AND CONTAMINANT IDENTIFICATION [1,2]
Type of Media Treated With Technology System: Source zone (unsaturated)
Primary Contaminant Groups: Chlorinated Solvents
SITE HYDROGEOLOGY AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION [1,2]
Figure 1 is a cross-section of the site. The site geology included fill, a combination of sand, clayey sand
and construction debris, to a depth of about 7 ft. Till consisting of moist, damp, silty clay extended to a
depth ranging from 18 to 19 ft, with sand seams running through the till. Below the till was a sand and
gravel layer extending to a depth of 30 ft and consisting of poorly sorted sand. Groundwater was
encountered in the sand and gravel layer at depths of 22-25 ft. The estimated hydraulic conductivity of
this zone was 10"8 cm/sec.
Contamination in GP-31 covered an area of 150 ft by 50 ft to a depth of 18 ft and primarily consisted of
trichloroethene (TCE) and tetrachloroethene (PCE), detected at levels up to 79 mg/kg and 3,500 mg/kg,
respectively. The high concentration of PCE in the GP-31 area suggested the presence of DNAPL. The
contamination in the GP-28 area covered an area of 30 ft by 20 ft to a depth of 11 ft and primarily
consisted of 1,1-dichloroethene (DCE), detected at a maximum concentration of 0.65 mg/kg.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation
June 2003
-------
Confidential Chemical Manufacturing Facility, Portland, IN
Figure 1. Representative Cross Section of Treated Subsurface [1]
nn-
2*0
DISTAWCfc W
IFKFND
scu. i" * -
Metcalf & Eddy
CROSS SECHQN A - A1
'•" ^-•"4- - —p
M
n-?
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation
June 2003
-------
-Confidential Chemical Manufacturing Facility, Portland, IN
Table 1 lists the matrix characteristics affecting treatment cost or performance for this application.
Table 1. Matrix Characteristics [1]
Parameter
Soil Classification
Clay Content and/or Particle Size Distribution
Depth to Groundwater
Hydraulic conductivity
Porosity
Air Permeability
Presence of NAPLs
Moisture content
Total organic carbon
Value
Heterogenous zones of clay, sand, gravel, and debris fill
Fill consisting of sand, clayey sand, gravel, and
construction debris from 1 to 7 ft bgs. Silty clay with
discontinuous sand seams containing perched
groundwater beneath the fill to 18 to 19 ft bgs. Sand
gravel from the silty clay to 30 ft bgs.
Aquifer located 22 to 25 ft bgs, perched groundwater
sand seams at shallower depths
and
in
10"8 cm/sec in the silty clay layer. Information not
available for the fill and sand and gravel layers.
Not available
Not available
Suggested presence of DNAPL
Not available
Not available
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
In situ conductive heating (In Situ Thermal Desorption™)
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION [1,2]
The in situ conductive heating system used at this site consisted of three free-standing trailers - a control
trailer containing instrumentation, an electrical substation providing power for the system (1 to 1.5 MW),
and an off gas vapor treatment trailer containing a flameless thermal oxidizer. The heater/vacuum wells
were operated at 1,400 -1,600 °F. Heat was injected into the subsurface and soil gas was extracted
under a vacuum.
For area GP-31, a total of 130 heater/vacuum wells were installed on 7.5 foot triangular spacing to a depth
of 19 ft, as shown in Figure 2. Twenty-five of these wells were drilled through the concrete loading dock.
For Area GP-28, 18 heater/vacuum wells were installed on 7.5 foot triangular spacing to depths of 12 ft,
with approximately 1 well per 50 square ft of surface area treated.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation
June 2003
-------
-Confidential Chemical Manufacturing Facility, Portland, IN
Figure 2. Heater/Vacuum Well Layout for Loading Dock Area1 [2]
' / /"
- ^tx;/ ;
, I:::: ™i *.,.£ ,
::|- " -f
•>.•""" ~^L''" 'N
i + . *
^^"v ,»fs*«. *-^s
^ 1 «: J * *
T i •>•;-'
58- 4 "
,X .,/"'/' ^"/^J/ /Iv/'-V^
• *j*'" /^•y'"" .^*fx'*J 7^/ /f'"* jj
--'"^•H. X" 'I ^'-*fc. '•*iV. x***-..
^-W + 1*«4 ^-J ' 1
-«'* aT •••*•" ">^ V'"
•" I •*• + 1 '*' ' "•' ' "I"""
_ I i ! :
v^w%,_ ,»^^-v ^«^n., ."T^«-. .j-*
- |*4 T - 'f + "" f
o
!!? Vf,-s^ I'
'J
IS-3
lit !*•;' ;3J- :B& .isj' IfH" '»" 112" 5't" («:' SP it Jf- l'<)' Id" '-'
1 Circles and triangles that are filled in indicate locations where the PCE concentrations exceeded the cleanup
goals prior to treatment. Open circles indicate locations where the PCE concentrations were below the cleanup
goals prior to treatment. The "+" symbols indicate the locations of the heater/vacuum wells.
The well was 4.5 inches in diameter with sand packed liners in 6 inch augured holes. The heaters were
extended 3 ft below the deepest contaminated layer. The surface area between wells was covered by an
impermeable silicone rubber sheet to prevent fugitive emissions. A thermally insulated mat was used to
minimize surface heat loss. During installation, the thick fill in the northernmost part of the site was found
to be saturated with water originating from a railroad gravel bed. After pumping failed to dry the area, a 5
ft deep dewatering trench was installed.
Subsurface temperature in the treatment zone was monitored using 91 hollow logging tubes placed in the
areas expected to be the coldest locations in each triangular heater pattern, which were at the centroids of
the triangles. The maximum soil temperature achieved in the treatment area at a depth of 13 ft ranged
from 212°F to 500°F. During operation, recharge of water in the wet till region prevented temperatures in
this area from rising above 212°F; however, all temperatures in the area were at least as high as the
boiling of water.
Off-gases were treated with an 1800 scfm flameless thermal oxidizerwith an operating temperature range
of 1800 - 1900°F. Off-gases were cooled by a heat exchanger, then passed through a carbon absorption
bed. Off-gases were monitored for hydrogen chloride, which was used as an indicator of the
decomposition of chlorinated solvents.
TIMELINE M.21
1994- 1996
July- Dec 1997
Date not provided
Site investigations performed
Remediation performed
Indiana EPA issues a no further action letter
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation
June 2003
-------
-Confidential Chemical Manufacturing Facility, Portland, IN
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES [1,2]
Cleanup goals were based on the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) Tier II
Clean-Up Goals for Industrial Land Use. The soil cleanup goals were 8 mg/kg for PCE, 25 mg/kg for
TCE, and 0.080 mg/kg for 1,1-DCE.
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE [1,2]
Prior to discontinuing heating, about 50 soil samples were collected from the coldest locations (centroids)
furthest from each heater well and analyzed for VOCs. The results from the soil samples, along with data
from temperature profiles and HCI monitoring, were used to determine whether additional heating was
required. Based on the results, heating was discontinued in December 1997. Before confirmation
sampling was conducted, soil temperatures were monitored for about 6 months as the soil within the
treatment area cooled to below 100°F. Confirmation sampling was conducted in accordance with the
random sampling methodology required by the IDEM Voluntary Remedial Program Resource Guide. With
the exception of GP-31, SA-13, and SA-4, a 1 foot sampling interval was used for each confirmatory soil
boring location. Sample intervals for borings GP-31, SA-13, and SA-4 correspond to the intervals where
the highest concentrations of VOCs were detected in the subsurface soils prior to treatment.
Sampling locations SA-13, GP-31, SA-4, SB-20, SB-19, and CS-12 had relatively higher concentrations of
PCE and TCE before treatment, at the depths shown in Table 2. This table shows that the concentrations
of PCE and TCE in the soil at these locations was less than the cleanup goals after treatment. Figure 3
shows the after-treatment results for confirmatory samples across area GP-31. This figure shows that
contamination had not spread outside the treatment area. No confirmation samples were available for the
smaller, DCE contaminated zone (area GP-28).
Table 2. Comparison of Selected Pre-Heating and Post-Heating Contaminant Concentrations [1]
Sampling Location
SA13
GP31
SA4
SB 20
SB 19
CS 12
(8 ft away)
Depth (ft)
9-10
15-16
4-5
4-5
12-14
Contaminant Concentration (mg/kg)
Before Treatment
PCE = 3,500
TCE = 79
PCE = 570
TCE = NA
PCE = 23
TCE = 0.25
PCE = 2.9
TCE = 0.67
PCE = 76
TCE = 1.6
After Treatment
(Cleanup goal - PCE 8; TCE 25)
PCE = 0.011
TCE = 0.020
PCE = 0.18
TCE = 0.008
PCE = 0.530
TCE = ND
PCE = 0.046
TCE = ND
PCE = 0.048
TCE = ND
ND - non-detect (detection limits not provided)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation
June 2003
-------
• Confidential Chemical Manufacturing Facility, Portland, IN
Figure 3. Subsurface Confirmatory Samples [1]
• ~,r rap. f»i' • ••'AM5 (•( , A~\ \
JJ : ""'"III ",AM~1 • _' AT •..'.
B 7 "•"'_, •'• '..»>,*• ILL .""I •'.'-•
•« . . i 'i
• =*.•.-. (h^?i ^" -. .'-.'
SA-11
NORTH TREATMENT AREA
Mete all & Eddy
ANALYTICAL RESULT OF
CONFIRMATORY
POfi1LA?O, IWQANA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation
June 2003
-------
-Confidential Chemical Manufacturing Facility, Portland, IN
COST OF THE TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM
COST DATA
Cost data were not provided for this application.
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
In situ conductive heating treated 6,500 tons of soil contaminated with chlorinated solvents to below
cleanup goals in six months.
During the installation stage, perched water was encountered in the thick fill in the northernmost portion of
the site originating from railroad gravel bed. According to the vendor, after weeks of pumping failed to dry
the area, a 5 foot deep dewatering trench was installed north of the last row of wells to reduce water
inflow. However, during treatment system operation, water recharge occurred in this area. According to
the vendor, while the soil temperature in this area reached the boiling point of water, allowing for
remediation of the contaminants, the presence of the water prevented the soil temperatures in this area
from exceeding 212°F.
To prevent migration of contaminants out of the treatment zone, and ensure effective heating of the entire
treatment zone, heaters/vacuum wells were installed 3 ft below the deepest contaminated layer and at
least one grid of wells was installed beyond the contaminant zone. This resulted in an increase in the size
of the treatment area.
1. Vinegar, Harold J., G.L. Stegemeier, F.G. Carl, J.D. Stevenson, and R.J. Dudley. 1999. "In Situ
Thermal Desorption of Soils Impacted with Chlorinated Solvents." Proceedings of the Annual
Meetings of the Air and Waste Management Association, Paper No. 99-450.
2. Baker, R.S., H.J. Vinegar, and G.L. Stegemeier. 1999. "Use of In-Situ Thermal Conduction
Heating to Enhance Soil Vapor Extraction." Pp. 39-57. In: P.T. Kostecki, E.J. Calabrese, and M.
Bonazountas (eds.). Contaminated Soils, Volume 4. Amherst Scientific Publishers, Amherst, MA.
3. Stegemeier, G.L., and Vinegar, H.J. 2001. "Thermal Conduction Heating for In-Situ Thermal
Desorption of Soils." Ch. 4.6, pp. 1-37. In: Chang H. Oh (Ed.). Hazardous and Radioactive
Waste Treatment Technologies Handbook, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation
June 2003
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
APPENDIX B
OTHER IN SITU THERMAL TREATMENT PROJECTS
Remediation of NAPLs Using Steam Enhanced Extraction and
Electrical Resistive Heating at the Young-Rainey STAR Center,
Northeast Site Area A, Largo, Florida
Electrical Resistive Heating at Air Force Plant 4, Fort Worth, Texas
Electrical Resistive Heating at Dry Cleaner, Suburban Chicago, Illinois
Thermal Conductive Heating at Confidential Ohio Site
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
REMEDIATION OF NON-AQUEOUS PHASE LIQUIDS (NAPLs) USING STEAM
ENHANCED EXTRACTION AND ELECTRICAL RESISTIVE HEATING AT THE
YOUNG-RAINEY STAR CENTER, NORTHEAST SITE AREA A, LARGO, FLORIDA
Site Type: Young-Rainey Science, Technology, and Research (STAR) Center
(formerly the Department of Energy's Pinellas Plant)
Site Location: Largo, Florida
Technology Employed: Steam Enhanced Extraction (SEE) and Electro-Thermal Dynamic
Stripping (ET-DSP™)
Remediation Scale: Full scale
Project Duration: September 2002 to February 2003
Site Information: Northeast Site Area A covered an area of approximately 10,000 square
ft to a depth of 35 ft for a volume of 13,000 cubic yards
Contaminants: Principal NAPL contaminants of concern were trichloroethene (TCE) and
toluene, both present as free product. Other NAPL contaminants of concern included methylene
chloride and cis-l,2-dichloroethene (DCE), as well as total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). Soil
concentrations of TCE and toluene were as high as 2,900 mg/kg and 1,000 mg/kg, respectively.
Groundwater concentrations of TCE and toluene were as high as 26,000 |ig/L and 20,100 |ig/L,
respectively. The estimated mass of NAPL contamination at the site prior to NAPL remediation
was 5,500 Ibs, including 2,600 Ibs of VOCs and 2,900 Ibs of TPH. The depth of contamination
was estimated to be 29 ft bgs.
Hydrogeology: Area A is underlain by flat-lying sedimentary deposits, referred to as the
surficial sand layer. The surficial sands, fine-grained, moderately to well-sorted sand with
variable amounts of silt and clay, range in thickness from 26 to 34 ft. A 1 to 2 foot thick layer of
silty, sandy clay with shell fragments is locally present at the base of the surficial sands. This
layer is underlain by the Hawthorn formation, consisting of silty clay with variable amounts of
gravel, underlain by weathered clay and limestone, a layer of silty, sand, phosphatic clay, and a
layer of carbonaceous clay. The Tampa Limestone Member, starting at a depth of 100 ft,
consists of interbedded clays and muddy carbonates, and forms the upper part of the Floridan
Aquifer.
The local water table ranges from 1 to 6 ft bgs, depending on seasonal rainfall. An unconfined
surficial aquifer, composed of relatively fine-grained sand, is present from 3 to 30 ft bgs at the
site. The hydraulic conductivity of this aquifer is IxlO"3 cm/sec, with groundwater flowing east-
southeast. This aquifer is underlain by the Hawthorn clay, which acts as an aquitard.
Project/Cleanup Goals: The purpose of this remediation effort was to remove NAPLs from the
subsurface. Table 1 shows the cleanup goals for soil and groundwater at the site. Once the
minimum operating temperature of 84°C was achieved, this temperature was to be maintained at
all times.
Appendix B Page 1 of 9
Young-Rainey Area A
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
Table 1: Groundwater and Soil Cleanup Goals
NAPL Component
TCE
cis-l,2-DCE
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
TPH
Groundwater (jig/L)
11,000
50,000
20,000
5,500
50,000
Soil (mg/kg)
20.4
71
227
15
2,500
Project Approach: A combination of SEE and ET-DSP™ was used to optimize the heating
patterns at the site and to maximize contaminant removal, while maintaining hydraulic control.
ET-DSP™ was used to heat the lower permeability zones at depths of 30 to 35 ft bgs (about 5 ft
below the top of the Hawthorn) and in the upper sands at depths of 10 to 15 ft. A combination of
ET-DSP™ and steam injection was used to heat the perimeter of the treatment area. Hydraulic
and pneumatic control were achieved using liquid and vapor extraction. In addition, pressure
cycling was used to optimize contaminant mass removal by varying the steam injection rates and
the ET-DSP™ power delivery. Steam for the SEE component was provided by an 8,000 Ibs/hr
steam generator fired by diesel. Power for the ET-DSP™ component was provided by five 400
KW ET-DSP units. Air emissions equipment consisted of an air stripper and granular activated
carbon (GAC) units in series. Temperature monitoring was conducted using thermocouples and
Digitam temperature sensors.
In September 2002, when operations began at the site, the SEE/ET-DSP™ system included 15
steam injection wells around the perimeter of the treatment area; 28 extraction wells with ET-
DSP™ electrodes located below the screened interval for heating the Hawthorn and the base of
the surficial aquifer; 21 combined steam-injection/ET-DSP™ wells for heating the surficial
aquifer, and 2 deep ET-DSP™ electrodes located in the Hawthorn that did not have extraction
screens. A total of 36 temperature monitoring boreholes were located throughout the treatment
area and 4 pairs of monitoring wells were installed outside the treatment area. During treatment
operations, soil samples were collected to determine treatment effectiveness. In addition, soil
sampling was conducted during operations to determine which areas had met cleanup goals and
which areas needed additional efforts. This sampling identified a relatively cool area and a near-
surface lens of resinous material where high levels of contamination remained. To address the
remaining high levels of contamination, the system was expanded in January 2003 by adding 12
shallow steam injection wells. This improved steam delivery and heat distribution to the
remaining contaminated area.
Project Contact: David Ingle, Environmental Restoration Program Manager, U.S. Department
of Energy, (727) 541-8943, d.s.ingle@worldnet.att.net; Randy Juhlin, Project Manager, S. M.
Stoller Inc., (970) 248-6502, Randall.Juhlin@gio.doe.gov; Gorm Heron, Scientist and Engineer,
SteamTech Environmental Services, Inc, 661-322-6478 heron@steamtech.com
Costs: The total project cost (including design, construction, operations, demobilization,
sampling and analysis and preparation of required reports) was approximately $3.8 million.
Appendix B Page 2 of 9
Young-Rainey Area A
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
Project Results:
Hydraulic and pneumatic control by liquid and vapor extraction was achieved in October 2002.
The target operating temperature of 84°C was reached across the entire treatment area within 35
days of beginning thermal treatment (by mid-November 2002), with temperatures maintained at
or above 100°C for at least 70 days. Steam injection rates varied between 100 and 5,000 Ibs/hr
during operation. Air injection rates were estimated to range from 1 to 10 scfm per well during
injection events, and between 25 and 100 scfm for the system. A total of 4.7 billion BTU was
delivered to the subsurface using the ET-DSP™, with power delivery varied from about 50 kW
to just under 700 kW during system operation.
After about one month of pressure cycling operations, mass removal diminished, indicating that
only a minor quantity of VOC mass was left. Interim soil samples were collected in areas where
the temperature monitoring indicated that heating and treatment might have been least effective.
On January 13, 2003 an area with resin was discovered, and soil samples collected above and
below the resin layer showed VOC levels above the cleanup criteria. Shallow injection and
extraction screens were added in the area where the resin was discovered. This modification led
to a significant increase in VOC recovery rates for the following weeks, until rates diminished
again. During this time, another 100 pounds of VOCs were removed, based on PUD screening
results.
During the last four weeks of operation, recovery rates diminished, and several pressure cycles
and different sparging modes were tested in order to see if this would result in another spike in
recovery. Because no substantial increases were observed, the system went into cool-down
mode on February 17, 2003 and operation was ceased on February 28, 2003. The cool down and
polishing included continued vapor and liquid extraction combined with air and cold water
injection. Operations ended on March 24, 2003 when target cool down temperatures were
reached.
Post-treatment soil and groundwater sampling showed that all samples were below the cleanup
goals and most were below site MCLs, with nearly all VOCs removed, as shown in the attached
tables. Hydraulic control was achieved and there was no evidence of horizontal or vertical
migration of contamination from Area A. During pressure cycling, the mass recovery was
highest during time of de-pressurization and during times when areas were heated to above 70 to
80°C. Removal efficiency for NAPLs was estimated to average 99.93 percent.
Lessons learned and suggestions for improving the system included heating the upper 10 ft of the
treatment area more rapidly, using ET-DSP™ or steam injection wells at shallower depths; and
improving the efficiencies of the liquid and vapor treatment systems.
Sources:
U.S. DOE Grand Junction Office. 2003. Pinellas Environmental Remediation Project, Northeast
Site Area A NAPL Remediation Final Report. GJO-2003-482-TAC. September.
www.gio.doe.gov.
Appendix B Page 3 of 9
Young-Rainey Area A
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
David Ingle, Environmental Restoration Program Manager, DOE. 2004. Comments on
Thumbnail Sketch for Area A Remediation. E-mail to Jim Cummings, EPA. February 18 and
February 19.
Appendix B Page 4 of 9
Young-Rainey Area A
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
Confirmatory Sampling for Groundwater - Young-Rainey STAR Center, Area A
units;
Location
NAPL
Remediation
Goals
Groundwater
MCLs:
Date
PIN15-CS-01
PIN15-CS-02
PIN15-CS-03
PIN15-CS-04
PIN15-CS-05
PIN15-CS-06
PIN15-CS-07
PIN15-CS-08
PIN15-CS-09
PIN15-CS-10
PIN15-CS-11
PIN15-CS-12
PIN15-CS-13
PIN15-CS-14
PIN15-CS-15
PIN15-CS-16
PIN15-0560
PIN15-0561
PIN15-0562
PIN15-0563
PIN15-0564
PIN15-0565
PIN15-0566
PIN15-0567
cis-l,2-DCE
50,000
70
Apr 16-17
ND
ND
ND
0.3 J
23
0.5 J
ND
2.4
ND
ND
ND
0.43 J
ND
ND
ND
1.3
ND
ND
ND
1.5
2.4
ND
ND
2.3
May 13-15
3.3
0.74 J
ND
0.45 J
9.9
36
0.22 J
1.8
ND
ND
ND
0.45 J
ND
0.3 J
ND
1.2
ND
ND
ND
1.6
0.56 J
ND
0.35 J
1.4
July 23-24
76
52
16
0.18 J
8.6
27
0.83 J
2.1
ND
0.65 J
ND
0.24J
ND
0.16 J
ND
7.5
ND
ND
ND
1.8
ND
ND
1.4
1.3
Methylene Chloride
20,000
5
Apr 16-17
ND
ND
ND
ND
13
4.2 J
0.48 J
ND
0.52 J
0.82 J
ND
0.74J
0.62 J
0.78 J
0.68 J
0.8 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
May 13-15
0.4 JB
0.49 JB
1.2 JB
1.3 JB
3.8 JB
150 B
1.2 JB
1.8 JB
1.4JB
ND
ND
1.1 JB
1.7JB
1.7JB
ND
0.75 JB
0.84JB
0.55 JB
0.37JB
0.41 JB
0.59 JB
0.85 JB
0.6 JB
ND
July 23-24
ND
ND
11
ND
ND
12
ND
ND
ND
0.62 J
ND
0.51 J
0.3 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.32 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
Toluene
5,500
1,000
Apr 16-17
ND
0.24J
1.3
4.1
1.5
0.59 J
1.4
17
1.4
1.4
0.49 J
4.5
1.3
1
4.7
4.5
ND
ND
ND
0.3 J
ND
ND
1.1
ND
May 13-15
ND
0.38 J
ND
2.5
0.83 J
ND
7
8.3
1.8
1.2
1.5
2.5
0.85 J
ND
ND
38
ND
ND
ND
0.54J
ND
ND
1.4
ND
July 23-24
0.2 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6.8
7.6
ND
1.7
1.1
3.2
0.58 J
0.75 J
1.1
23
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.2
ND
TCE
11,000
3
Apr 16-17
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.63 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.28 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.4
0.12 J
ND
ND
ND
May 13-15
0.58 J
0.13 J
ND
ND
0.35 J
2.7
ND
2
ND
ND
ND
0.42 J
ND
0.11 J
ND
29
ND
ND
ND
0.92 J
0.2 J
ND
ND
ND
July 23-24
12
8
1.2
ND
ND
3.6
ND
0.44 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6.8
ND
ND
ND
1.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
Florida Petroleum Range Organics
50,000
*
Apr 16-17
ND
ND
340
120 J
3200
120 J
1000
210 J
400
180 J
110 J
490
240 J
120 J
1000
ND
ND
ND
ND
160 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
May 13-15
ND
320
510
970
6800
140 J
6700
580
740
340
270 J
980
580
400
2400
190 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
July 23-24
ND
ND
2000
910
1300
ND
9500
1700
260 J
1200
140 J
1300
ND
ND
2600
110 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND = Not Detected
J = Estimated value above the instrument detection limit but below the reporting limit.
B = Analyte also found in method blank.
* Florida Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons is not a COPC for the Northeast Site, but if it was, the MCL would be 5,000 ug/L.
Appendix B
Young-Rainey Area A
PageS of 9
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
Confirmatory Sampling for Soils - Young-Rainey STAR Center, Area A
units are jig/kg
Location
Date
NAPL Remediation
Goals:
PIN15-CS-51
PIN15-CS-51
PIN15-CS-51
PIN15-CS-51
PIN15-CS-51
PIN15-CS-51
PIN15-CS-52
PIN15-CS-52
PIN15-CS-52
PIN15-CS-52
PIN15-CS-52
PIN15-CS-53
PIN15-CS-53
PIN15-CS-53
PIN15-CS-53
PIN15-CS-53
PIN15-CS-53
PIN15-CS-54
PIN15-CS-54
PIN15-CS-54
PIN15-CS-54
PIN15-CS-54
PIN15-CS-54
PIN15-CS-55
PIN15-CS-55
PIN15-CS-55
PIN15-CS-55
PIN15-CS-55
4/10/2003
4/10/2003
4/10/2003
5/21/2003
5/21/2003
5/21/2003
4/10/2003
4/10/2003
4/10/2003
4/10/2003
5/21/2003
4/10/2003
4/10/2003
4/10/2003
4/10/2003
4/10/2003
5/21/2003
4/9/2003
4/9/2003
4/9/2003
4/9/2003
4/9/2003
5/21/2003
3/27/2003
3/27/2003
3/27/2003
3/27/2003
5/22/2003
Sample
Depth
(fbs)
6.8
14.8
22.8
31-35
31-35 Dup
33-37
1.1
9.1
17.1
25.1
31.1-35.1
0.3
8.3
16.3
16.3 Dup
24.3
30.3-34.3
3.2
3.2 Dup
11.2
19.2
27.2
33-37
5.9
13.9
21.9
29.9
33-37
cis-1,2-
DCE
71,000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Methylene
Chloride
227,000
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.4 J
5.8 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.6 J
ND
ND
ND
3.9 J
ND
5J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.4 J
ND
ND
Toluene
15,000
13
14
15
ND
ND
ND
12
12
11
220
ND
ND
11
11
12
ND
ND
18
18
11
18
ND
ND
14
12
15
12
ND
TCE
20,400
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.7
3.8 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Florida
Petroleum
Range
Organics
2,500,000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
46,000
ND
ND
ND
ND
81,000
ND
5,600 J
6,300 J
ND
ND
120,000
240,000
54,000
16,000
64,000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Appendix B
Young-Rainey Area A
Page 6 of 9
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
Confirmatory Sampling for Soils - Young-Rainey STAR Center, Area A
units are jig/kg
Location
Date
NAPL Remediation
Goals:
PIN15-CS-56
PIN15-CS-56
PIN15-CS-56
PIN15-CS-56
PIN15-CS-56
PIN15-CS-57
PIN15-CS-57
PIN15-CS-57
PIN15-CS-57
PIN15-CS-57
PIN15-CS-57
PIN15-CS-58
PIN15-CS-58
PIN15-CS-58
PIN15-CS-58
PIN15-CS-58
PIN15-CS-59
PIN15-CS-59
PIN15-CS-59
PIN15-CS-59
PIN15-CS-59
PIN15-CS-60
PIN15-CS-60
PIN15-CS-60
PIN15-CS-60
PIN15-CS-60
PIN15-CS-61
PIN15-CS-61
PIN15-CS-61
4/10/2003
4/10/2003
4/10/2003
5/23/2003
5/23/2003
4/9/2003
4/9/2003
4/9/2003
4/9/2003
4/9/2003
5/21/2003
4/9/2003
4/9/2003
4/9/2003
4/9/2003
5/22/2003
3/27/2003
3/27/2003
3/27/2003
3/27/2003
5/22/2003
4/10/2003
4/10/2003
4/10/2003
4/10/2003
5/23/2003
4/8/2003
4/8/2003
4/8/2003
Sample
Depth
(fbs)
3.6
11.6
19.6
25.6-29.6
33-37
3.7
11.7
19.7
27.7
27.7 Dup
33-37
5.3
13.3
21.3
29.3
33-37
3
11
19
27
33-37
1.8
9.8
17.8
25.8
31.8-35.8
2.9
10.9
18.9
cis-1,2-
DCE
71,000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Methylene
Chloride
227,000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.7 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Toluene
15,000
18
10
13
ND
ND
18
16
16
ND
14
ND
21
10
12
12
ND
14
12
ND
16
ND
16
16
14
14
ND
43
ND
14
TCE
20,400
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
9.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.4
ND
ND
Florida
Petroleum
Range
Organics
2,500,000
310,000
ND
ND
ND
ND
330,000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
110,000
5,100 J
ND
ND
ND
36,000
ND
ND
ND
ND
86,000
ND
ND
ND
ND
47,000
ND
ND
Appendix B
Young-Rainey Area A
Page 7 of 9
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
Confirmatory Sampling for Soils - Young-Rainey STAR Center, Area A
units are jig/kg
Location
Date
NAPL Remediation
Goals:
PIN15-CS-61
PIN15-CS-61
PIN15-CS-62
PIN15-CS-62
PIN15-CS-62
PIN15-CS-62
PIN15-CS-62
PIN15-CS-62
PIN15-CS-63
PIN15-CS-63
PIN15-CS-63
PIN15-CS-63
PIN15-CS-63
PIN15-CS-64
PIN15-CS-64
PIN15-CS-64
PIN15-CS-64
PIN15-CS-64
PIN15-CS-65
PIN15-CS-65
PIN15-CS-65
PIN15-CS-65
PIN15-CS-65
PIN15-CS-66
PIN15-CS-66
PIN15-CS-66
PIN15-CS-66
PIN15-CS-66
4/8/2003
5/21/2003
4/9/2003
4/9/2003
4/9/2003
5/22/2003
5/22/2003
5/22/2003
3/24/2003
3/24/2003
3/27/2003
3/24/2003
5/22/2003
4/10/2003
4/10/2003
4/10/2003
4/10/2003
5/22/2003
4/8/2003
4/8/2003
4/8/2003
4/8/2003
5/21/2003
4/10/2003
4/10/2003
4/10/2003
4/10/2003
5/22/2003
Sample
Depth
(fbs)
26.9
32.9-36.9
6.7
14.7
22.7
28.7-32.7
28.7-32.7 Dup
33-37
6
14
22
30
33-37
0.9
8.9
16.9
24.9
30.9-34.9
5
13
21
29
33-37
0.4
8.4
16.4
24.4
30.4-34.4
cis-1,2-
DCE
71,000
ND
ND
65
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
14
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
47
ND
ND
ND
120
ND
ND
ND
ND
9.5
90
ND
ND
ND
Methylene
Chloride
227,000
ND
5.9 J
ND
ND
ND
7.9 J
3.6 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.6 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.2 J
ND
ND
8.2 J
ND
3J
ND
ND
4J
Toluene
15,000
ND
ND
65
ND
16
ND
ND
7.6
11
11
ND
ND
ND
16
220
14
13
ND
83
12
14
ND
ND
12
420
15
12
ND
TCE
20,400
ND
ND
5.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
110
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
25
74
ND
ND
ND
Florida
Petroleum
Range
Organics
2,500,000
ND
ND
ND
16,000
57,000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
550,000
ND
ND
ND
ND
110,000
ND
ND
ND
ND
95,000
ND
ND
ND
8,800 J
Appendix B
Young-Rainey Area A
Page 8 of 9
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
Confirmatory Sampling for Soils - Young-Rainey STAR Center, Area A
units are jig/kg
Location
Date
NAPL Remediation
Goals:
PIN15-CS-67
PIN15-CS-67
PIN15-CS-67
PIN15-CS-67
PIN15-CS-67
PIN15-CS-68
PIN15-CS-68
PIN15-CS-68
PIN15-CS-68
PIN15-CS-68
PIN15-CS-69
PIN15-CS-69
PIN15-CS-69
PIN15-CS-69
PIN15-CS-69
PIN15-CS-69
PIN15-CS-70
PIN15-CS-70
PIN15-CS-70
PIN15-CS-70
PIN15-CS-70
3/24/2003
3/24/2003
3/24/2003
3/24/2003
5/20/2003
3/25/2003
3/25/2003
3/25/2003
3/25/2003
5/20/2003
3/25/2003
3/25/2003
3/25/2003
3/25/2003
3/25/2003
5/20/2003
3/25/2003
3/25/2003
3/25/2003
3/25/2003
5/20/2003
Sample
Depth
(fbs)
5.1
13.1
21.1
29.1
33-37
0.6
8.6
16.6
24.6
30.6-34.6
3.7
3.7 Dup
11.7
19.7
27.7
33-37
6.1
14.1
22.1
30.1
33-37
cis-1,2-
DCE
71,000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
ND
ND
ND
240
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Methylene
Chloride
227,000
ND
ND
ND
ND
6.6 J
ND
ND
ND
6.2 J
4.5 J
3 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Toluene
15,000
14
11
ND
17
ND
15
11
13
62
ND
11
ND
ND
ND
12
ND
ND
11
ND
12
ND
TCE
20,400
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
130
ND
ND
ND
Florida
Petroleum
Range
Organics
2,500,000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
460,000
21,000
9,200 J
15,000
ND
130,000
130,000
26,000
5,300 J
ND
ND
6,800 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND = Not Detected
J = Estimated value above the instrument detection limit but below the reporting limit.
B = Analyte detected in the laboratory method blank.
Appendix B
Young-Rainey Area A
Page 9 of 9
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
ELECTRICAL RESISTIVE HEATING AT AIR FORCE PLANT 4, FORT WORTH, TX
Project Name: Aircraft Manufacturing Facility
Project Location: Fort Worth, TX
Technology Employed: Electrical Resistive Heating (ERH)
Remediation Scale: Full Scale
Project Duration: April 2002 to December 2002
Site Information: Soil and groundwater beneath Building 181 at Air Force Plant 4, in Fort
Worth TX, was contaminated with TCE. An ERH system was installed inside the building and
used to remediate TCE and DNAPL. The ERH system covered an area of about 0.5 acres within
the building. The estimated treatment volume was 27,000 cubic yards.
Contaminants: TCE and DNAPL. Prior to remediation, the maximum TCE levels were
95,000 |ig/L in groundwater and 91 mg/kg in soil.
Hydrogeology: The geology at the sit consisted of heterogeneous interbedded silt, clay, and
gravel. The depth to groundwater was 27 ft. bgs.
Project/Cleanup Goals: The cleanup objectives were to reduce the average TCE concentrations
in soil and groundwater by 90%, with a target of 11.5 mg/kg for soil and 10,000 |ig/L in
groundwater.
Project Approach: ERH was used to treat TCE and DNAPL in soil and groundwater beneath
Building 181. A pilot test of ERH was conducted at the site from August to October 2000. In
April 2002, TRS, as a subcontractor to URS Corp., designed, installed and operated a full-scale
ERH system consisting of 60 electrodes and co-located vapor recovery wells covering an area of
about l/2 of an acre inside the building. The layout of the ERH system is shown in Figure 1.
Many of the ERH electrodes and co-located vapor recovery wells were installed underneath
manufacturing equipment, chemical bath tanks, and piping racks, at angles up to 32°. Figure 2
shows one of the ERH electrodes and one of the co-located vapor and steam recovery wells that
were installed through the concrete floor. In addition, several of the system components were
installed below the floor grade in protected well vaults to allow for unrestricted access by
operations personnel and vehicles. Vapors from the recovery wells were vented to the main
eight-inch CPVC main vapor recovery pipe (Figure 2) that was used to transport vapors to GAC
units. Safety features of the system included below grade completion, semi-permanent
construction fencing, heavy-duty electrical cable and continuous indoor air monitoring. The
system was operated from April to December 2002, on a 24 hours per day, 7 days a week
schedule.
Continuous indoor air monitoring of TCE was performed using an INNOVA system . The
INNOVA system consisted of an online gas chromatograph that sampled the indoor air every
five minutes for ambient TCE concentrations. The system was designed to automatically
shutdown the ERH system if background TCE concentrations in the indoor air exceeded 3 ppm.
TCE concentrations in the indoor air did not exceed this threshold during ERH operations.
Appendix B Page 1 of 6
Air Force Plant 4
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
Figure 1. ERH System Layout Inside Building 181
Heavy Traffic
Corridor
— — - _!. '
"* * * • •••"• « * .1
J«*--i7C«
H
a. . f _
~^_ ^
.
-* A
I •
'• !-»,, * -
•%•";,. fcis -- r,^ „
- • • • il»v
- *. ••. I * ••
-,•• • AlTT—
*
V '., f ,
. t . *
•
- _ .J: ''L_m ..:,^ -x
IH'IIIIINCilKI
Former ERH
Pilot Test
IL
Figure 2. Main VR Piping Inside Building 181
Appendix B
Air Force Plant 4
Page 2 of 6
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
Project Contact: The Remediation Design Engineer was Mr. Greg Beyke and the Operations
Manager was Mr. Jerry Wolf.
Costs: The costs reported for the pilot test were $55 per cubic yard. No cost data were provided
for the full-scale remediation.
Project Results: Figures 3 and 4 show the subsurface temperature versus depth (as of
September 2002) and subsurface temperature versus time (as of December 2002), respectively.
As shown in Figure 3, the majority of the subsurface temperatures reached or exceeded the
boiling point of TCE (73°C) at depth. As shown in Figure 4, subsurface temperatures reached
the boiling point for TCE in July 2002, with the average subsurface temperatures remaining
steady through the end of the project.
Figure 5 shows the amount of condensate and TCE removed by the system through October
2002. During this time, almost 1,400 pounds of TCE and 160,000 gallons of condensate were
removed. According to TRS, by December 2002, more than 1,600 pounds of TCE had been
removed.
Figure 3. Subsurface Temperature vs. Depth (September 09, 2002)
Temperature Vs Depth
9/09/02
Temperature (C)
Appendix B
Air Force Plant 4
Page 3 of 6
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
Figure 4. Average Subsurface Temperature vs. Time (December 10, 2002)
-•— Site Avg -7
SiteAvg-12
-*— Site Avg -17
-•—Site Avg-22
—•—Site Avg -27
-*— Site Avg -32
Site Avg.
Figure 5. Condensate and TCE Removed Over Time
TO
(A
C
0)
T3
o
o
180000
160000
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
Condensate (red) and TCE (blue) Removed
October 15, 2002
I/O
2/19
4/9
5/29
7/18
Date
1600
9/6
Figure 6 shows the average weekly power input overtime through December 13, 2002. The
average input ranged from about 450 to 675 kilowatts (kW) between May and August, dropping
to below 300 kW for the remainder of the system operation. A total of about 1,900,000 kilowatt-
hours (kWh) of energy were input to the subsurface during ERH operations.
Appendix B
Air Force Plant 4
Page 4 of 6
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
Figure 6. Average Weekly Power Input (kW)
800
700
Weekly Power Average (kW)
6/13/02 7/13/02 8/13/02 9/13/02
Week Biding
10/13/02
11/13/02
12/13/02
Figure 7 shows TCE concentrations in groundwater from April to November 2002. After eight
months of operation, TCE groundwater concentrations were reduced an average of 93% from
95,000 |ig/L to below the cleanup goal of 10,000 jig/L.
Figure 7. TCE Concentrations in Groundwater April - November 2002
Monitoring Well Locations
Outside of
Remediation Area
Appendix B
Air Force Plant 4
Page 5 of 6
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
Figure 8 shows TCE concentrations in soil from April to December 2002. TCE concentrations in
soil were reduced an average of 90% to 0.391 mg/kg, below the cleanup goal of 11.5mg/kg.
Figure 8. TCE Concentrations in Soil April - December 2002
20000
18000
TCE ug/k!
o - °
CD
8= 5- ¥
§§
90 percent
Average
Reduction
After m
i I 8
Sources:
TRS. March 2004. ERH Remediation - Air Force Plant - Fort Worth, Texas.
http://thermalrs.com/TRSPages/Proiects/Cproil AF FWTX.html.
EPA. January 2001. In Situ Thermal Treatment Site Profile Database. Air Force Plant 4, Fort
Worth, TX. http://www.cluin.org.
Appendix B
Air Force Plant 4
Page 6 of 6
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
ELECTRICAL RESISTIVE HEATING AT DRY CLEANER,
SUBURBAN CHICAGO, ILLINIOS
Site Type: Dry Cleaner Facility
Site Location: Chicago, IL
Technology Employed: Electrical Resistive Heating (ERH)
Remediation Scale: Full Scale
Proj ect Duration: Decemb er 2002 to March 2003
Site Information: The site is a former drycleaner facility with a soil contamination depth of 4 to
20 ft. A ruptured sewer line released PCE to the soil 300 ft. downgradient from the drycleaner
facility. The site infrastructure includes sewer lines, water lines, natural gas lines, and electrical
conduits. The cleanup was performed under the Illinois EPA Voluntary Site Remediation
Program.
Contaminants: Soil at the site was contaminated with VOCs, including PCE. The total
estimated mass of VOCs in soil was 2,238 Ibs. The maximum PCE concentration in soil was
13,000 mg/kg, with an average PCE concentration of 1,492 mg/kg.
Hydrogeology: The contaminated soil at the site was clayey glacial till deposits with very low
permeability (hydraulic conductivity 10"8 cm/sec). Groundwater at the site was encountered
below 50 ft.
Project/Cleanup Goals: The goal of the project was to remove residual DNAPL in soil to
below 529 mg/kg. (The project's calculated saturation limit for site-specific soil with total
organic carbon content > 1.6%)
Project Approach: Initially, soil vapor extraction was performed at the site. A total of 70
4-inch-diameter SVE wells were operated for 4 years. The SVE system removed 200 pounds of
VOCs. ERH was then used to remove the residual DNAPL in soils. This piping and associated
equipment were removed from the site prior to installation of the ERH system.
The ERH system included a total of 17 electrodes installed to a depth of 21.5 ft. Vapor recovery
wells were installed within the same boring and screened at depths from 22 to 24.5 ft. The
spacing between electrodes was approximately 11 ft. The electrodes were arranged in 6 arrays to
facilitate the soil heating process. In addition, 3 vertical vapor recovery wells screened from 8 to
18 ft. were installed to assist in recovery of heated vapors. A series of 11 lateral vapor recovery
screens were place approximately 18-inches below grade to prohibit loss of vapors to the surface.
A grid of galvanized metal wire was placed over the treatment area to capture any stray voltage
and the entire area was covered with asphalt pavement.
The recovered vapor was passed through a condenser, and the air was emitted through a vent
stack that extended approximately 20 ft. in the air. The air stream was passed through an
activated carbon unit during the peak VOC removal period to meet the 8-pound-per-hour VOC
emissions limit in the air permit.
Appendix B Page 1 of 2
Dry Cleaner — Chicago
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
Water collected from the condensation unit was cooled in a cooling tower and recirculated to the
treatment area to provide moisture for the electrodes. In addition, a potable water source was
also used to ensure that a sufficient amount of water was available to keep the electrodes moist.
The temperature profile for the project was: Start-up: 14.7°C; 30 days: 83.4°C; 60 days:
87.8°C; and 90 days: 93.6°C. The ERH system was operated from December 2002 to March
2003. Demobilization was also conducted in March.
Project Contact: Clayton Group Services, Inc. (Clayton) served as General Contractor.
Thermal Remediation Services (TRS) provided the Electrical Resistive Heating.
David Fleming Russ Chadwick
Thermal Remediation Services Clayton Group Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 50387 3140 Finley Road
Bellevue, WA 98015 Downers Grove, IL 60515
(425)396-4266 (630)795-3218
Costs: The estimated cost of the excavation alternative (shoring the building, utility relocation
soil removal as hazardous waste and soil replacement) was $1.1 million. The total fixed price,
guaranteed remediation for ERH was $695,000.
Project Results: Over 90% reduction of initial PCE concentration.
Appendix B Page 2 of 2
Dry Cleaner — Chicago
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
THERMAL CONDUCTIVE HEATING AT CONFIDENTIAL OHIO SITE
Site Type: Confidential chlorinated solvents site
Site Location: Ohio
Technology Employed: Thermal Conductive Heating
Remediation Scale: Full Scale
Project Duration: August 2002 to September 2003
Site Information: The site is an operating manufacturing facility that used chlorinated solvents.
The vadose at three locations on the property was found to be contaminated with trichloroethene
(TCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE), and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA). The cleanup was conducted
under the State Voluntary Cleanup Program.
Contaminants: The maximum contaminant concentrations in soil prior to remediation were:
PCE, 370 mg/kg; TCE, 4,130 mg/kg; and TCA, 1,400 mg/kg.
Hydrogeology: Contaminated soil at the site consisted primarily of a low permeability silty-clay
till unit. The thickness of the till unit requiring treatment is approximately 15 ft. beneath all
three sites. Perched water in the silty-clay till unit was reported in several locations. The layer
below the till is a sand and gravel layer, consisting of fine to coarse sand and locally occurring
gravel. The regional water table was located within the sand and gravel layer, approximately 30
ft bgs. At the site, there was a perched water table at a depth of 3 ft. bgs.
Project/Cleanup Goals: The cleanup goals for soil were: 5.94 mg/kg for PCE; 1.056 mg/kg
for TCE; and 28.6 mg/kg for 1,1,1-TCA.
Project Approach: Thermal conductive heating was used to treat contaminated soil at the site
targeting three areas to a depth of 15 ft. The system included a total of 138 wells (45
heater/vacuum wells and 93 heater-only wells) and was used to treat a total of 11,000 cy of soil.
The wells were installed in a hexagonal pattern within each area: Area 1-90 wells total
covering an area approximately 14,200 ft2 and 15 ft. deep (about 8,000 cy); Area 2-24 wells
covering an area approximately 3,100 ft2 and 15 ft. deep (about 1,700 cy); and Area 3-24 wells
covering an area approximately 2,400 ft2 and 15 ft. deep (about 1,300 cy).
The first area of contamination was adjacent to residences, located as close as 1 foot from the
property line. A second area had a buried fire suppression line running through it, which was
protected with an insulation jacket. The third area contained a former sludge lagoon.
The soil within the treatment areas were heated until the coolest regions (i.e., the centroids
between the thermal wells) attained a temperature of 100°C. The primary mechanism for the
removal of the chlorinated solvents was volatilization and steam stripping, although regions
around the thermal wells attained temperatures in excess of 100°C (e.g., temperatures near the
heater-vacuum wells were greater than 500°C). The heating duration required to achieve the
remedial objectives was approximately 90 days. Vapors (steam and contaminants) produced
during heating were removed from the subsurface via the heater-vacuum wells and treated above
Appendix B Page 1 of 2
Confidential Ohio Site
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
ground using neutralization and granular activated carbon (GAC) prior to discharge to the
atmosphere.
The system was constructed from December 2002 to April 2003. In situ thermal treatment was
conducted from May to June 2003. Demobilization was conducted in August 2003.
Project Contact: TerraTherm, Inc. provided all project design, construction, operation and
equipment.
Costs: Turnkey remedial costs including power, were $1.3 million or $118 per cy. The contract
included a performance guarantee.
Project Results: Pending
Appendix B Page 2 of 2
Confidential Ohio Site
-------
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents
Fundamentals and Field Applications
APPENDIX C
IN SITU THERMAL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY PROVIDERS
STEAM ENHANCED EXTRACTION
ELECTRICAL RESISTIVE HEATING
ENSR Corporation
27755 Diehl Rd.
Warrenville, IL 60555
(630)836-1700
Timothy Adams
tadams@ensr.com
Integrated Water Resources
P.O. Box 2610
Santa Barbara, CA 93120
(805) 966-7757
mesa@integratedwater.com
Southern California Edison
Rosemead, CA
Craig Eaker
(626)302-8531
craig.eaker@sce.com
SteamTech Environmental Services, Inc.
4750 Burr Street
Bakersfield, CA 93308
(661) 322-6478
Gorm Heron, Principal Environmental
Scientist/Engineer
heron@steamtech.com
THERMAL CONDUCTIVE HEATING
TerraTherm Environmental Services, Inc.
356-B Broad Street
Fitchburg, MA 01420
(978)343-0300
Ralph Baker, President
rbaker(a)terratherm. com
Clayton Group Services
3140FinleyRoad
Downers Grove, IL 60515
Monte Nienkerk, Senior Project Manager
(703) 390-0628
Current Environmental Solutions
350 Hills St.
Richland, WA 99352
(509) 371-0905
William Heath, Chief Operating Officer
bill@cesiweb.com
KAI Technologies, Inc.
16 Marin Way
Stratham,NH 03885
(603)778-1888
Bruce Cliff, Director of RF Sales
cliff@kaitech.com
McMillan-McGee
P.O. Box 1102 St. M
Calgary AB T3H 1Z2
Canada
(877) 346-7488
mcgee @mcmillan-mcgee. com
Thermal Remediation Services, Inc.
7421-A Warren SE
Snoqualmie, WA 98065
425-396-4266
David Fleming, Vice President,
Sales & Marketing
dfleming(fl),thermalrs .com
------- |