PB95-182937
JEP&.-542-R-95-004
March 1995
Remediation Case Studies:
Soil Vapor Extraction
Federal
Remediation
Technologies
Roundtable
Prepared by the
Member Agencies of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
REPRODUCED BY: MTTtt
U.S. Department of Commerce13-*™'
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, Virginia 22161
Recycled/Recyclable
) Printed with Soy/Canda Ink on paper that
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
NOTICE
This report and the individual case studies were prepared by Agencies of the United States Government. Neither the United States
Government nor any Agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability
or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or
represents that its use would not infringe privately-owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or
service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the
United States Government or any Agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or
reflect those of the United States Government or any Agency thereof.
-------
PB95-182937
Remediation Case Studies: Soil
Vapor Extraction
Prepared by Member Agencies of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Defense
U.S. Air Force
U.S. Army
U.S. Navy
Department of Energy
Department of Interior
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Tennessee Valley Authority
Coast Guard
March 1995
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
FOREWORD
This report is a collection of ten case studies of soil vapor extraction projects
prepared by Federal agencies. The case studies, collected under the auspices of the Federal
Remediation Technologies Roundtable, were undertaken to document the results and lessons
learned from early technology applications. They will help establish benchmark data on cost
and performance which should lead to greater confidence in the selection and use of cleanup
technologies.
The Roundtable was created to exchange information on site remediation
technologies, and to consider cooperative efforts that could lead to a greater application of
innovative technologies. Roundtable member agencies, including the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Defense, and U.S. Department of Energy, expect to
complete many site remediation projects in the near future. These agencies recognize the
importance of documenting the results of these efforts, and the benefits to be realized from
greater coordination.
There are four case study reports, organized by technology, in this series. In
the future, the set will grow through periodic supplements tracking additional progress with
site remediation. In addition to this report on soil vapor extraction projects, the following
volumes are available:
Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation;
Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment; and
Remediation Case Studies: Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, and In Situ
Vitrification.
Ordering information for these and other Roundtable documents is on the following page.
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D.
Chairman
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
u
-------
Ordering Instructions
The following documents are available free-of-charge from the U.S. EPA/National Center for Environmental Publications and
Information (NCEPI). To order, mail or fax the completed form below to: U.S. EPA/National Center for Environmental Publications
and Information, P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242, or FAX requests to (513) 489-8695.
Title
Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies [ 106pp]
Guide to Documenting Cost and Performance for Remediation Projects [64pp]
Number Price
EPA-542-R-95-001 Free
EPA-542-B-95-002 Free
Please Send
Name.
Date.
Organization.
Address
City/State/Zip.
. Telephone.
Internet Address
The following documents are available by calling the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) at 703-487-4650 or writing
them at: National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161
Title
Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation
Remediation Case Studies: Ground water Treatment
Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor Extraction
Remediation Case Studies: Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing,
and In Situ Vitrification
Remediation Case Studies: Four Document Set
Number
PB95-182911
PB95-182929
PB95-182937
PB95-182945
PB95-182903
Price*
$17.50
$1750
$2550
$1750
$67.00
Other Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable (FRTR) documents available from NTIS:
Title Number Price*
Accessing Federal Databases for Contaminated Site Clean-Up Technologies (3rd Edition) PB94-144540 $1750
Federal Publications on Alternative and Innovative Treatment Technologies for
Corrective Action and Site Remediation (3rd Edition) PB94-144557 $ 1750
Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies
(3rd Edition) PB94-144565 $4450
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide (2nd Edition) PB95-104782 $45.00
* Additional fee for shipping and handling; next day delivery also available. Major credit cards accepted.
ill
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD ii
ORDERING INSTRUCTIONS iii
INTRODUCTION 1
SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION CASE STUDIES 6
Soil Vapor Extraction System at Commencement Bay,
South Tacoma Channel (Well 12A), Phase 2, Tacoma,
Washington 7
Soil Vapor Extraction at the Fairchild Semiconductor
Corporation Superfund Site San Jose, California 22
Soil Vapor Extraction at the Hastings Groundwater
Contamination Superfund Site Well Number 3 Subsite,
Hastings, Nebraska 49
Soil Vapor Extraction and Bioventing for Remediation
of a JP-4 Fuel Spill at Site 914, Hill Air Force Base,
Ogden, Utah 85
Soil Vapor Extraction at North Fire Training Area
(NFTA) Luke AFB, Arizona 103
In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction at McClellan Air Force
Base California 120
Soil Vapor Extraction at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal
Superfund Site Motor Pool Area (OU-18) Commerce
City, Colorado 137
Soil Vapor Extraction at the Sacramento Army Depot
Superfund Site, Tank 2 Operable Unit Sacramento,
California 160
IV
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at the SMS Instruments
Superfund Site Deer Park, New York 188
Soil Vapor Extraction at the Verona Well Field
Superfund Site, Thomas Solvent Raymond Road
(OU-1) Battle Creek, Michigan 207
-------
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to provide case studies of site cleanup
projects utilizing soil vapor extraction (SVE). This report is one of four volumes which
are the first in a series of studies that will be prepared by Federal agencies to improve
future remedy selection at contaminated sites. For projects that are ongoing, interim
findings will be updated in future publications as additional data become available.
The case studies were developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), and the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE). They present cost and performance information for full-scale
remediation efforts and several large-scale demonstration projects and were prepared
retrospectively, based on available information and interviews with project personnel.
The case studies are meant to serve as primary reference sources, and contain
information on the site; contaminants and media treated; technology and vendor; cost
and performance; and points of contact for the technology application. The studies
contain varying levels of detail, reflecting the differences in the availability of data and
information. Full-scale cleanup efforts are not conducted primarily for the purpose of
technology evaluation, and data collection is often limited to establishing compliance
with contractual requirements or regulatory levels.
This volume contains reports on ten projects. Various chlorinated aliphatic
contaminants were treated at eight of the locations. One report in this volume describes
a project that used SVE followed by bioventing. (Note: this one project, completed at
Hill Air Force Base, Site 914, is described in both the SVE and Bioremediation case
study volumes.) One of the projects described in the SVE volume used horizontal wells
with remote monitoring of equipment.
Table 1 provides a project summary including information on technology
used, contaminants and media treated, and project duration. The table also notes
highlights of the technology applications.
Table 2 summarizes cost data, including information on quantity of media
treated and contaminant removed. In addition, Table 2 shows a calculated unit cost for
some projects, and identifies key factors potentially affecting project cost. While a
summary of project costs is useful, it is difficult to compare costs for different projects
because of site-specific factors and differences in level of detail.
Cost data are shown on Table 2 as reported in the case studies, and have
not been adjusted for inflation to a common year basis. The dollar values shown in
Table 2 should be assumed to be dollars for the time period that the project was in
progress (shown on Table 1 as project duration).
The project costs shown in the second column of the table were compiled
consistently. However, the case studies themselves vary in terms of the level of detail
-------
and format of the available cost data. Where possible, project costs were categorized
according to an interagency Work Breakdown Structure (WBS).1 The WBS specifies
costs as 1) before-treatment costs, 2) after-treatment costs, or 3) treatment costs.
(Table 2 provides some additional information on activities falling under each category.)
In many cases, however, the available information was not sufficiently detailed to be
broken down in this way.
The column showing the calculated treatment cost provides a dollar value
per unit of soil or groundwater treated and, if possible, per pound of contaminant
removed. Note that comparisons using the information in this column are complicated
by the fact that calculated costs may only be available on a per cubic yard or per ton
basis, and cannot be converted back-and-forth due to limited availability of soil bulk
density data.
Key factors that potentially affect project costs include economies of scale,
concentration levels in contaminated media, required cleanup levels, completion
schedules, and hydrogeological conditions. It is important to note that several projects in
the case study series represent early applications, and the costs of these technologies are
likely to decrease in the future as firms gain experience with design and operation.
Abstracts and On-Line Access
The case studies have been summarized in abstracts which precede each
study and provide key project information in a consistent format. The abstracts are
based on recommended terminology and procedures from the Guide to Documenting
Cost and Performance for Remediation Projects.
The case study abstracts are also available on-line through EPA's Cleanup
Information Bulletin Board System (CLU-IN). To access CLU-IN by modem, call (301)
589-8366, or to contact the CLU-IN help desk, call (301) 589-8368. CLU-IN is available
on the Internet; the telnet address is clu-in.epa.gov or 134.67.99.13.
'Additional information on the contents of the Work Breakdown Structure and on whom to contact for
WBS and related information is presented in the Guide to Documenting Cost and Performance for
Remediation Projects - see ordering instructions on page iii.
-------
2
•*•!
-
t.
o
O
C/3
0)
• p«
•e
03
U
P«
2
CS
H
Highlights
g
•|
1
&
I
I
i
1
ill!
-. u u
i 41
1 ii
i*
gig
b
i
i
J3
'?
Demonstration project - discusses experience
on-site solvent recovery for off-gasses
8
C
!§
•3 oo
2
o"
i — v
£
3
i
•o
g6
*•* OH
1 Commencement Bay, South Tacoma Channel
Well 12A Superfund Site, WA (SVE w/product
recovery)
8 -o
Early application of SVE at a site with comp!
hydrogeology; included aquifer dewatering an
slurry wall installed prior to treatment
o
^
00
I
rj
&
v
§
•
IFairchild Semiconductor Corporation
Superfund Site, CA (SVE)
Relatively large quantity of soil treated using
SVE
m
t~^
cr\
f V
00
£
.5 O
II
1 Hastings Groundwater Contamination
Superfund Site, Well Number 3 Subsite, NE
(SVE w/GAC)
SVE used to reduce higher concentrations of
hydrocarbons; system converted from SVE to
bioventing after one year of operation
§
oo
00
0
f — v
&
1
/—N
3
S
!•
•
Hill Air Force Base, Site 914, UT (SVE with
catalytic oxidation followed by bioventing)
o
Estimated 14,200 pounds of contaminants
removed and destroyed using thermal oxidati
report discusses experience with operation of
thermal oxidizer
0\
s
\
0
rH
° ^
C .O
II
iff
•1 1 -
** 2 .y
•
•
W>
C
B
z |
ffl *
D UJ
o ^
O C/3
£ g
Demonstration project of SVE with catalytic
oxidation and scrubbing of extracted vapors
'
c S
1|
of
5 H b
McClellan Air Force Base, Operable Unit D,
Site S, CA (SVE w/catalytic oxidizer &
scrubber)
.c
Application demonstrated that a pilot-scale
system removed sufficient vapor contaminant
from the vadose zone, and that expansion of
system beyond a pilot-scale was not necessary
<^
(N
i— «
0\
^
,— N
Cl
" — '
A
ST
u
IS
i!
Rocky Mountain Arsenal Superfund Site
(Motor Pool Area-Operable Unit #18), CA
(SVE w/product recovery and GAC)
>,
0
Small quantity of soil treated using SVE;
unexpected recovery of Freon-113 began part
through operation
m
>
^L
00
£
ir
M
n
CJ 4)
§1
•
1 Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site,
Tank 2 (Operable Unit #3), CA (SVE w/GAC)
SVE using horizontal wells and remote
monitoring of system performance; relatively
small quantity of soil treated
m
o
o\
u-,
O
^
£
S g
[chlorobenz
chlorobenze
*)
•
ISMS Instruments Superfund Site, NY (SVE
w/catalytic incineration and scrubbing)
tH
•a
First Superfund application of SVE; catalytic
oxidation replaced activated carbon due to hi
than expected recoveries
01
^
00
00
8
a
&
gl
& c
II
•
1 Verona Well Field Superfund Site (Thomas
Solvent Raymond Road - Operable Unit #1),
MI (SVE w/catalytic oxidation and GAC)
o
•e
3
•a
II
E -
-------
a
*j
A
Q
O
U
1
c
E
=
Cfl
O)
«-
o
S.
rt
U
•2=3
co
OJ
—
3
ec
5
ll
BU'S-
r
tJM
1
b.
<2
•a t
w g
11
IS 2
IH
C3
V
Quantity of
Contaminant
Removed
1
ft
-t
S
9t
a
.
o ^
1 s
o <*.
n °
o
^1
oo"
(
i __
0°
1SS
"> a a
IU?
•a i> >
s 1 -^ §
| * "§ t3
O S 5* -S"
O H M »
^3
39 extraction wells; complex
hydrogeology; cleanup completed in
months
•M
!3 8
% -g
° 1
"2 -P 8 "S
?1|I
•8 fc "2 s
.0 e t-,
3 3
0 0
m -9"
& §
8 '
16,000 pounds
contaminants
removed
(16 months)
w
I
11
O HH
§0
„
r>
H
^i
OK
1
m
u
1,
•|^
<, sg'
a H
a 3
.-
2 extraction wells and permeable SOL
cleanup completed in 14 months
•M
eg
i
1 ^
!l
0 g
i§
(S
s
12,000 pounds
contaminants
removed
«
3
•§
>
a
0
Z
CO
4}
T3 -^v
73 & oo
B C \O
^"S 2"
o " f^
r-" S '
c\ -.T o
«^> S
o
1
lg
« 52.
S N -P
60 < a
8rfi
£ | S
•^i1!
ill
a ^ »
uotjBzuajoBJBqo
9}is sapnpui jsoo [BJOJ iuoijBUiuiBjuoo
jo sauoz g puB sjjaM uopofcipra n
2 §
T3 2
<3 i
00 J3
I 1
o o
e 1
0 -S
l/^
113,000 pounds
VOC removed (!.'
weeks operation)
«
/•i
«
^
^
o
Z
S3 «
18 -8 o
&| &
T3 r" c
^ .S 4>
3 ^S-
f^l
O o\ "
2 ON c
o ^H oa
iii
n" -
, T3
^ S
-. r \ C3
U h
iti
8WJ
^ Q £
'fit
l|^l
? i^ 2
s
« < O O
-------
fr
(4
03
C
03 O
s •£>
O 5-
" S
11
A qj
I*
C5
U
»?
V OS
« Wi
-
is o-
.2 «
^i
S'S
« 05
2
ts
70 pounds
contaminan
removed
o
»>
•>£ ca a\
r^ oo ^
in
liil
c y
treat
b of non-
$450/cub
ail
No
i
x
13
o
W)
o
'
an
o -a a,
• r,
-------
SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION
CASE STUDIES
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction System at Commencement Bay,
South Tacoma Channel (Well 12A),
Phase 2, Tacoma, Washington
(Interim Report)
-------
Case Study Abstract
Soil Vapor Extraction System at Commencement Bay,
South Tacoma Channel (Well 12A),
Phase 2, Tacoma, Washington
Site Name:
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma
Channel (Well 12A) Superfund Site
Location:
Tacoma, Washington
Contaminants:
Chlorinated Aliphatics
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene (DCE),
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (PCA),
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethene (PCE),
Trichloroethene (TCE)
- Average VOC concentrations in top 25 feet
of soil ranged from 10 to 100 mg/kg
- Average PCA concentrations in soil borings
ranged from 6,200 at 30 feet depth to over
19,000 mg/kg at 40 feet depth
- Approximately 571,000 Ibs of VOCs present
in unsaturated zone
Period of Operation:
Status: Ongoing
Report covers - 8/92 to 2/94
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup (Report
documents demonstration
phase)
Vendor:
Environmental Science &
Engineering, Inc.
SIC Code:
2851 (Paints, Varnishes, Lacquers,
Enamels, and Allied Products)
Technology:
Soil Vapor Extraction
- 22 wells used for vapor extraction, air inlet,
and observation
- Vapor-phase carbon adsorption (GAC)
used for treatment of extracted VOCs
- GAC beds regenerated on site with low
pressure steam
- Design flow rate for extraction system of
3,000 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm)
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA, Local Requirements
- ROD Date: 3/85
Point of Contact:
Phil Stoa
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Seattle District
Waste Source:
Storage - Drums; Other: Pour off
from Processing Tanks
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Application of soil vapor extraction
with an on-site solvent recovery
system; relatively large volume of
contaminated soil; possible presence
of separate liquid phases of VOCs
and tar-like compounds in soil.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- Volume of contaminated soil reported as 98,203 cubic yards, based on an area
of 66,300 ft2 and a depth of 40 ft
- Upper aquifer (50 ft thickness) consists of unconfined sand and gravel
- Surface soil permeability ranges from 2.8 to 3.6 x 10"3 cm/sec
- Separate liquid phases of VOCs in soil and groundwater suspected
- Tar-like compounds in soil suspected
-------
Case Study Abstract
Soil Vapor Extraction System at Commencement Bay,
South Tacoma Channel (Well 12A),
Phase 2, Tacoma, Washington (Continued)
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- No specific cleanup goals identified in Record of Decision
- Local permit required for air emissions
- Performance objective for air treatment system set at 99% removal
- Air discharge limits specified as follows:
PCA 0.149 Ibs/hr
PCE 0.095 Ibs/hr
TCE 0.344 Ibs/hr
Results:
- No results provided for quantity of contaminants removed during demonstration phase
- Computer modelling results show predicted removal rates for VOCs as a function of time
- Pilot-scale results indicated that 3 to 4 Ibs/day/well of VOC could be removed from the upper 30 feet of soil
- No results provided for air emissions - treatment system removals or mass discharge rates
- Problems were experienced with the operation of the solvent recovery system
- Condensed mixed solvents formed an emulsion which did not readily separate from the water
Cost Factors:
Total Capital Cost - $5,313,973 (as of 5/94) (no breakdown of costs available)
Annual Operating Costs - $100,000 (estimated) (no breakdown of costs available)
Description:
The Commencement Bay site was used from 1927 to 1964 for waste oil recycling, paint and lacquer thinner
manufacturing, and solvent reclamation and hundreds of drums of material were stored at the site. Leaks from these
drums, as well as the dumping of wastes directly on the ground and overflows from the solvent and waste oil recycling
tanks, resulted in contamination of the soil and groundwater at the site. The primary contaminants of concern at the
site included DCE (trans-l,2-dichloroethylene), PCA (1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane), PCE (1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethylene), and
TCE (trichloroethylene). VOC soil concentrations range from 10 to 100 mg/L.
A full-scale SVE system was constructed in 1992. Operation testing of this system began in August 1992 and this report
covers the demonstration phase of the project. The SVE system includes 22 vapor extraction wells. Granular activated
carbon (GAC), used to treat extracted vapors, is regenerated on site using low pressure steam, which was subsequently
condensed. The on-site solvent recovery system is used to separate VOCs from the condensate.
As of May 1994, the total capital costs and annual operating costs for this application were $5,313,973 and $99,810,
respectively. While no performance data are available at this time, it was noted that the SVE system seems to be
performing adequately. Several problems were experienced in the operation of the solvent recovery system. Condensed
mixed solvents formed an emulsion which did not readily separate from the water. The report identifies a need to
perform pilot testing of the solvent recovery system to ensure that separation of VOCs and water can be performed.
-------
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION ANALYSIS
Page 1 of 12 "•
CZ TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION
This analysis covers the field application of
in situ soil vapor extraction (SVE) to strip
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from a
contaminated soil matrix and treat the
extracted soil gases by vapor phase carbon
adsorption. Operational testing began in
August 1992 and is currently ongoing. This
analysis covers performance through
February 1994.
Groundwater at this site is being remediated
through pump and treat which is not includ-
ed in this analysis.
dSITE CHARACTERISTICS
i Site History/Release Characteristics
• During the period from 1927 to 1964 this site was used by National Oil and Paint for waste oil recycling, paint and
lacquer thinner manufacturing, and solvent reclamation. The site was purchased by the Time Oil Company in 1964.
• The pre-1964 operations appear to have contributed to the site VOC contamination in several ways. First, the site
was used to store hundreds of drums of potentially "useful" materials. Some of the stored drums leaked. Non-use-
able materials were dumped directly onto the ground. Second, during the recycling process for waste oil, solvents
contained in the oil floated to the top of the processing tank and were poured off. Periodically, the tank holding the
solvents overflowed onto the site.
• In 1981 chlorinated hydrocarbons were detected in groundwater samples from the city of Tacoma production well 12A.
• In 1983 a 5 tower air stripping system was built to treat well 12A water. In 1988 a pump and treatment system was
installed near the contamination source to intercept and treat the groundwater plume.
• In accordance with the Record of Decision (ROD) signed in 1985, soils and solid waste materials were disposed of in
an offsite Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) approved facility. This waste material was contaminated
with heavy metals (primarily lead),
• A pilot scale vapor extraction system was installed on site in 1985 and a full scale SVE was constructed in 1992. The
full scale SVE began operation testing in 1992 and was scheduled for full operation in March 1994.
U.S. Air Force
10
-------
South Tacoma SVE 2 of 12
\Contaminants of Concern
The VOCs of greatest concern in the soil and groundwater are the following chlorinated hydrocarbons:
DCE (trans-1,2-dichloroethylene)
PCA (1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane)
PCE (1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethylene)
TCE (trichloroethylene)
i Contaminant Properties
Properties of contaminants focused upon during remediation are:
Property at 1 atm
Empirical Formula
Density
Melting Point
Vapor Pressure @ 25°C mm Hg
Henry's Law Constant
Water Solubility
Log Octanol-Water
Partition Coefficient;
Organic Carbon Partition
Coefficient; Koc, L/kg
Nature & Extent of Contamination
• About 20% or the contamination is in the top 32.5 feet, and the remaining 80% is in the 32.5 to 40 feet depth interval.
• The volume of contaminated soil is (66,287 ft2 X 40 ft deep =) 2,651,480 ft3.
• For the VOCs, there may be separate liquid phases of these compounds or miscible solutions between them in both
the soil and groundwater.
• Free phase estimates are 3,734 pounds of PCE; 126,112 pounds of TCE; and 209,115 pounds of PCA.
• Tar like compounds (motor oil residues) may be present that will retard the extraction of PCA, PCE, and TCE by pro-
viding adsorptive layers in the soil. Tar like compounds will not be significantly extracted by the Soil Aeration
System.
• With one exception, average VOC soil concentrations in the top 25 feet ranged from 10 to 100 mg/L along with signif-
icant quantities of sem(volatile compounds.
• There are about 571,000 pounds of VOCs in the unsaturated zone.
Units
g/cm3
°C
mm Hg
atm)(m3)
mg/l
logKo.
118
lamination
DCE
C H Cl
1.257
-50
331
5.32X10-3
600
1.48
364
PCA
C2H2CI4
1.586
-43.8
419
3.81X10-*
2,900
2.39
126
•.: .. v-':-'.:,.:.
PCE
C2CI4
1.6311
-22.4
77
2.87X10-2
150
2.53
TCE
C2HCI3
1.462
-84.8
1.17X10-2
1,100
2.53
i
U.S. Air Force
11
-------
Soirf/i Tacoma SVE3of12
i Contaminant Locations and Geologic Profiles
Remedial investigation field activities at the site found the following concentrations:
Water from Well 12A
Contaminant Concentration, ppb
DCE 30 to 100
PCA 17 to 300
PCE 1.6 to 5.4
TCE 54 to 130
Figure 2
WCSIW
'apor Extractor)
Mid Treatment Ptar
WCSB-4
r
+WCC-1
1 TIME 01
J BUILDING
l>.Cant»rr*n*(M Sot
Li™^
j
TMCOL
BUILDING
WCSB-4
LOCATION OF EXCAVATION AREA AND TREATMENT SYSTEMS
DCE was detected (0.11 mg/kg soil) at only one site: the top 5 feet at WC8B 9, about 270 feet from the center of con-
tamination.
With the exception of the 40 foot depth of WCSB 5, TCE was only occasionally detected at other WCSBs, and then
only at concentrations of less than 10 mg/kg.
With the exceptions of WCSB 4 and 5, PCA concentrations were less than 180 mg/kg except for one surface (0.5 foot
depth) contamination at WCSB 7 where the concentration was 475 mg/kg.
At WCSB 4 and 5, average PCA concentrations dropped from a maximum of 161 mg/kg at 5 feet depth down to 6
mg/kg at a depth of 20 feet.
The average PCA concentrations in WCSB 4 and 5 increase from 6,200 mg/kg at 30 feet depth to over 19,000 mg/kg
at a depth of 40 feet. The corresponding TCE concentration at 40 feet was 25,000 mg/kg for WCSB 5.
The bulk of the contamination is centered at WCSB 4 & 5 (at the 30 to 40 foot depth) which are only 88 feet apart.
It appears that the bulk of the contamination is in an area that is less than 50 feet from a line drawn between WCSB 4
&5.
U.S. Air Force
12
-------
South Tacoma SVE 4 of 12
• Most of the contamination appears to be centered in an area of about (100 X188 =) 18,800 ft2, and in a volume of
about (15 X 18,800 =) 282,000 ft3 of soil.
* All of the contaminants of concern are DNAPLs. Clearly they have had time to pass through 40 feet of soil (leaving
relatively low residual concentrations in the top 20 feet) and have passed downward through the water table.
• All of the contaminants of concern have a solubility in water of 150 mg/l (PCE) or more (up to 2,900 mg/l for PCA).
Hydrogeologic Units
There are 2 hydrogeologic aquifers.
• The upper aquifer (unconfined sand and gravel) is 50 feet thick (depth to the water table is about 36 feet).
• The upper aquifer is separated from the lower aquifer by a 40 foot thick dense glacial till aquitard.
• The lower aquifer is not contaminated.
• The area suspected of groundwater contamination is in the upper aquifer and covers about 100 acres and is bound-
ed by the city water well field on the south, the Burlington Northern Railroad on the north, and Interstate 5 on the
East.
iS/fe Conditions
Average Air Temperature 38°F (Jan.) to 65°F (July)
Precipitation
-Annual Average 38. in.
-December Average 6.3 in.
-July Average 0.8 in.
Snowfall, Annual Average 14. in.
Relative humidity, Average 65% to 85%
Wind Speed, Average 10mph
The vadose zone thickness (depth to groundwater) varies from 33 to 40 feet.
The groundwater gradient is about 0.05%, falling to the north-northeast.
^•PKev Soil or Kev Aoulfer Characteristics 'ssasss
Property
Porosity
Particle density
Soil bulk density
Surface soil permeability
Depth to groundwater
Aquifer thickness
Water Saturated thickness
Units
%
g/cm3
g/cm3
cm/sec
feet
feet
feet
— - -" — i
Range or value
30
2.65
1.86
2.8 to 3.6X1 0-3
36
50
10 to 17
1 ••.:•. 1
U.S. Air Force
13
-------
South Tacormt SVE 5 of 12
d TREATMENT SYSTEM
The selected remedial action includes:
• Use of soil vapor extraction (vacuum applied via extraction wells that extend to the groundwater) to remove much of
the remaining contamination in the soil. Other wells serve as air inlet wells and also extend to the groundwater.
• Paving of the ground surface above the area of influence of the SVE to minimize short circuiting of air flow from the
surface and to promote deeper horizontal air flows in order to maximize VOC removal.
• The extracted vapor stream (vacuum pump discharge) is forced through a vapor phase carbon absorber where 99%
of the VOCs are removed.
• The cleaned vapor stream is discharged to the atmosphere.
* The GAC beds are regenerated with low pressure steam to remove the VOCs.
• The steam and VOCs are condensed and the VOC separated from the water by decanting.
Overall Process Schematics
Figure 4
Figure 3
*
Back Pressure
Regulating Valve
^
Vapor
Phase
Carton
Adsorber
1
XSP
To Atmosphere
LEGENn
SP Sampling Port
Vacuum Relief Valve
Extract on Well
Network
L Vacuum Pump
(existing)
To Liquid Phase
Treatment
Process Flow Diagram for Soil Vapor Extraction and
Treatment System.
Extraction Well Network
LEGEND
• Extraction VMb {« EW)
o Monitoring WWk (> MW)
EXTRACTION/MONITORING WELL NETWORK
• The pilot-scale VES showed that 3 to 4 pounds/(day)(well) of VOCs could be removed from the soil in the upper 30
feet.
• Full-scale VES contains 22 wells. Each well can act either as a vapor extraction well, an air inlet well, or as an obser-
vation well.
U.S. Air Force
14
-------
South Tacomu SVE 8 of 12
System Closeup
Figures
4'CONCRETE RE W
SOLO CHECKERS) COVER
^'. Oj* i
a
CEMENT GROUT
STATE Of WASHNQTON
SPECIFICATIONS!
1 /2" SCH 40 PVC - NNER P
CEMENT GROUT
«• SCH 40 PVC - C-JTEfl PFf
SENTGNOt
-LUSH THREADED PPE XWT
EXTRACTION WELL DETAIL
Key Design Criteria
• Design flow rate for the VES was 3,000 scfrn (136 scfm/well).
• TOE was the design component for the first 900 days and PGA was the design component for the next 900 days.
• The product of design flow rate (scfm) times half life* was taken to be a constant for a given contaminant at this site.
• Half lives used for 3,000 scfm were:
PCA 296 days
PCE 47 days
TCE 50 days
• For a given contaminant, the initial solvent removal rate (Ib/day) is directly proportional to the air flow rate (cfrn).
• Influent loading rate for the air treatment system:
Compound Influent loading rate, Ib/hr
PCE 9.46
PCA 14.89
TCE 34.42
Water 136.5
Air 13,930
• Total allowable air treatment system pressure drop: 2 psi @ 3,000 scfm
• The water treatment system must be able to treat 51 gallons per hour of condensate from the gas treatment system
mist eliminator (liquid knockout drum).
• The adsorption capacity of granular activated carbon (GAC) for PCA is given by the equation:
mg PCA adsorbed/g GAC » 12.8(mg/L of PCA in water)0.613
* The half life for a given contaminant is the time required for half of the original amount to be removed from the unsatu-
ratedzone.
U.S. Air Force
15
-------
Soot/1 TACO/TM SVE 7 of 12
i The Treatment System
SOLVENT LADEN AIR TREATMENT SYSTEM
Figure 6
Solvent Ladtn Air
extracted from the
soil
S* DIAMETER. 10
METER STACK
(UP FLOW>
VAPOR PHASE
CARBON
ABSORBER
VESSEL"
1
(UP FLOW)
VAPOR PHASE
CARBON
ABSORBER
VESSEL -
1
(UP FLOW!
SOLVENT RECOVER/ SYSTEM
Ctvbon AdMfptMn
Fe«d Watar
..If-*?""'
.X..
n
-------
South Tacoma SVE 8 of 12
[^PERFORMANCE:
i Performance Objectives
Clean up soil to the extent possible. (Specific goals were not set in the ROD or the construction documents).
Achieve air treatment system removal of 99%.
Achieve discharge limits for air of:
Compound Ib/hr
PCA 0.149
PCE 0.095
TCE 0.344
Treatment Plan i
An analysis was performed to estimate the amount of contaminants that can be removed daily from the unsaturated
soil at various air flow rates and from this the capacity of the soil ventilation system was determined.
A 3000 scfm soil vapor extraction (SVE), GAG gas treatment, and solvent recovery system was installed.
The design life of the SVE system is 30 years.
i Operational Performance*
Figure 7
PREDICTED REDUCTION IN THE TCE. PCE WO PCA
REMOVAL RATES A8 A FUNCTION Of TIME.
»0 300 *00 «W too 700 MO 900 1000 MOO 1200 1300 1400 1MO 1MO UOO
System Downtime
Currently (May 1994), the SVE system is in an extended startup due to problems with solvent recovery sys-
tem. As a result, periods of system downtime occur frequently.
U.S. Air Force
17
-------
South Tacoma SVE 9 of 12
i Treatment Performance
Effects on Plume
• Predictions made by the model used prior to operation of the soil aeration system estimated extraction efficiencies
of 1 to 2% for the ethylenes (TCE and PCE), while the efficiency for PCA was estimated to be 2 to 7%.
Contaminants versus Time at the Treatment Plant Influent
• Data for this performance parameter was not available.
Total Pounds Contaminants Removed
• Data for this performance parameter was not available.
Performance Assessment
• The system is still in the demonstration phase.
• The SVE process seems to be performing adequately.
• It is necessary to size, place and tune the wells to optimize the performance of the system.
• The solvent recovery system is experiencing problems. The condensed mixed solvents form an emulsion which does
not readily separate from the water.
U.S. Air Force lfi
1 o
-------
Soot/i Taeoma SVE10 of 12
GZCOST
Calculations showed that on site regeneration of carbon adsorption beds (with steam) would reduce the total cost of this
alternative from $4,657,000 to $944,050 for 5 years of operation. This was estimated to be the most cost effective alter-
native for treatment of the air removed by the gas collection system. Incineration was estimated at $1,439,200.
i Cap/fa/Costs
Total Capital Costs (as of 5 May 1994) $5,313,973
Annual Capital Cost (see above) $99,810*
* Estimated
EZREGULATORY/INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
Highly contaminated surface soils were transported to a RCRA subtitle C landfill facility for treatment/disposal
ARARs include RCRA, Clean Air Act regulations (for emissions of VOCs), the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking
Water Act (there are no drinking water standards for the contaminants present in Well 12A).
A permit was required by local authorities for the air treatment facilities.
If groundwater from Well 12A is to be used for drinking water, then it must be treated to the 10-6 risk level for the
contaminants present. Otherwise, in order to be consistent with 40 CFR 264, Subpart F, groundwater corrective
action is required until the concentration of hazardous constituents complies with one of the following:
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs - where designated for particular substances)
Alternate Concentration Limits (ACLs - that provide adequate protection of public health and the
environment or background).
NPL site.
Performance objective of the air treatment system: 99% removal.
Discharge limits for air:
Compound Ib/hr
PCA 0.149
PCE 0.095
TCE 0.344
U.S. Air Force
-------
South Tacom* SVE11 of 12
E~SCHEDULE:
• The specification for the soil aeration system (reference 4), dated April 1991, states that installation of equipment
shall be completed within 360 days of notice to proceed.
• No schedule showing the issuance of the notice to proceed was given.
• No schedule for the progress of the operating phase was given.
Date
9/84 Approve Remedial Action & Initiate Negotiation with PRPs
Negotiation Successful Negotiation Unsuccessful
3/85 Sign EDO, Consent 106 AO Unilateral 106 AO effective
Sign ROD, IAG
2/85 Design Initiated by PRPs Design Initiated by EPA
5/85 Construction Procurement
by PRPs
9/85 Construction Procurement by EPA
7/85 Construction Initiated
by PRPs
10/85 Construction Completed Construction Initiated by EPA
by PRPs
[^LESSONS LEARNED:
The solvent recovery system, using low pressure steam to strip the VOCs from the GAG is too complex and
very operator intensive.
Implementation Considerations
• Pilot testing of the solvent recovery system should be performed to ensure that a proper separation of solvent VOCs
and water can be performed.
• Total capital costs estimated in the ROD was $1,590,000 and O&M costs were estimated to be an additional
$50,000/year. Actual capital costs are more than $5,300,000 with annual operating costs currently estimated at nearly
$100,000.
• Well head vaults, if used, should probably be traffic-rated.
Future Technology Selection Considerations
The liquid phase solvent recovery system was evaluated to be more cost effective than incineration —
$944,050 for steam vs $1,439,200 for incineration (see the Cost Section). Any future technology selection
should consider the complexity of this process, the cost of addition operator involvement, as well as the diffi-
culties in separating product from water by the solvent decanting system during the process selection
process.
U.S. Air Force 2Q
-------
South Ttcomt 8VE12 of 12
^SOURCES
* Major Sources For Each Section
Site Characteristics: 2, 6, and 9
Treatment System: 3, 4, 5, and 6
Performance: Source #s
Cost: 7
Regulatory/Institutional Issues: 1, 3,4, and 5
Schedule: 1
Lessons Learned: 1, 3, and 4
i Chronological List of Sources and Additional References
1. EPA Superfund Record of Decision: South Tacoma Channel-Well 12A, WA, EPA/ROD/R10-85/OO4, May, 1985.
2. Revised Remedial Design Report, South Tacoma Channel Well 12A, by Woodward-Clyde Consultants for U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Superfund Branch, Kansas City, Missouri District, April 17,1987.
3. 100% Final Design Analysis, South Tacoma Channel Well 12-A, by Environmental Science & Engineering, Inc. for U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri, April, 1991.
4. Specifications for Soil Aeration System, South Tacoma Channel Well 12A, Phase 2, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Kansas City District, April, 1991.
5. Soil Aeration System, South Tacoma Channel Well 12-A, Phase 2, Operation and Maintenance Manual, by
Environmental Science & Engineering, Inc. for U.S. Army Engineering District, Kansas City Corps of Engineers, April,
1991.
6. Soil Aeration System, South Tacoma Channel Well 12-A, Phase 2 (drawings), by Environmental Science &
Engineering, Inc. for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District, June 10,1991.
7. Letter from Philip N. Stoa, EPA Coordinator, Construction Division, Construction Services Branch, Seattle District,
Corps of Engineers, December 15,1993.
8. RREL Treatability Data Base, Version 4.0, EPA, November 15,1991.
9. Climates of the States, by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce, pub-
lished by the Water Information Center, 1974.
10. Fax from Bill Brooker, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Lewis Area Office, dated 5/10/94.
CZANALYSIS PREPARATION
This analysis was prepared by:
Stone & Webster Environmental
Technology & Service
P.O. Box 5406
Denver, Colorado 80217-5406
Contact: Dr. Richard Carmichael 303-741-7169
EHREVIEW:
Support and review for the preparation of this report was provided by
Phil Stoa
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Corps of Engineers
Seattle District
U.S. Air Force
J* 1
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at the Fairchild
Semiconductor Corporation Superfund Site
San Jose, California
22
-------
Case Study Abstract
Soil Vapor Extraction at the Fairchild
Semiconductor Corporation Superfund Site
San Jose, California
Site Name:
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation
Superfund Site
Location:
San Jose, California
Contaminants:
Chlorinated and Non-Chlorinated Aliphatics
- TCA (trichloroethane), DCE (1,1-
dichloroethene), IPA (isopropyl alcohol),
xylenes, acetone, Freon-113, and PCE
(tetrachloroethene)
- Maximum concentration of total solvents
in soil was 4,500 mg/kg
- TCA - measured as high as 3,530 mg/kg
in soil; xylenes as high as 141 mg/kg in
soil
Period of Operation:
January 1989 to April 1990
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
Dennis Curran
Canonie Environmental Services
Corporation
441 N. Whisman Road, Building 23
Mountain View, CA 94043
(415) 960-1640
SIC Code:
3674 (Semiconductors and Related
Devices)
Technology:
Soil Vapor Extraction
- 39 extraction wells, 2 vacuum pumps
(capacity of 4,500 ft3/min at 20 inches of
Hg)
Vapor treatment system -
dehumidification unit and vapor phase
granular activated carbon
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA and State: California
- ROD Date: 3/20/89
- PRP Lead
Waste Source:
Underground Storage Tank
Point of Contact:
Belinda Wei
U.S. EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-2280
Purpose/Significance of Application:
One of the early full-scale
applications of SVE; used at a site
with a complex hydrogeology.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- 42,000 yds3
Sands, silts, and clays; air permeability 0.12-0.83 cm/sec; transmissivity
69,000 to 810,000 gpd/ft
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Operation of SVE system until total chemical removal rate was less than 10 Ibs/day and the chemical removal rate from
individual wells decreased to 10% or less of the initial removal rate or until the chemical removal rate declined at a rate
of less than 1% per day for 10 consecutive days
Results:
- Achieved the cleanup goal for the 10 Ibs/day total chemical removal rate in 8 months
- After 16 months of operation, the removal rate for total chemicals was less than 4 Ibs/day
Cost Factors:
- Actual capital costs - $2,100,000 (including installation of wells and vapor extraction system, and engineering services)
- Total operation and maintenance costs for 16 months - $1,800,000 (including water quality sampling and analysis, water
level monitoring, equipment maintenance, engineering services, and carbon regeneration)
23
-------
Case Study Abstract
Soil Vapor Extraction at the Fairchild
Semiconductor Corporation Superfund Site
San Jose, California (Continued)
Description:
The Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation Superfund site (Fairchild) is a former semiconductor manufacturing facility
which operated from 1977 to 1983. In late 1981, an underground storage tank used to store organic solvent was
determined to be leaking. An estimated 60,000 gallons of solvents were released to the soil and groundwater. The
primary contaminants of concern in the soil were 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), 1,1-dichloroethene (DCE),
tetrachloroethene (PCE), xylene, acetone, Freon-113, and isopropyl alcohol (IPA). Reported concentrations of total
solvents in the soil were as high as 4,500 mg/kg, with maximum concentrations of TCA and xylenes in soil of 3,530 mg/kg
and 941 mg/kg, respectively. As part of a multi-site cooperative agreement between EPA, the State of California, and
Fairchild, Fairchild conducted site remediation activities at the San Jose site, including installing a soil vapor extraction
(SVE) system. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board established a soil cleanup goal for this remediation
of a total chemical rate of less than 10 Ibs/day, along with specific performance goals for individual wells.
The SVE systerrf, which consisted of 39 extraction wells, operated from January 1989 to April 1990. The most rapid
reductions in contaminant concentrations occurred during the first 2 months of operation. After 8 months of operation,
the SVE system achieved the cleanup goal of less than 10 Ibs/day for total chemical removed. After 16 months of
operation, the system achieved a chemical removal rate of less than 4 Ibs/day, at which time the system was shut off.
The total costs for the SVE treatment system at Fairchild were approximately $3,900,000. The actual costs were about
7% less than the projected costs because the tune required for the cleanup was less than originally estimated. This
treatment application was part of a multi-faceted cleanup program which included the installation of a slurry wall and
dewatering of the aquifer which accelerated contaminant removal from the soil.
24
-------
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation Superfund Site—Page 1 of 24
COST AND PERFORMANCE REPORT
| EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents cost and performance
data for a soil vapor extraction (SVE) treat-
ment application at the Fairchild Semiconduc-
tor Corporation Superfund Site (Fairchild) in
San Jose, California. The SVE system, which
consisted of 39 extraction wells, operated
from January 1989 through April 1990 as part
of a remedial action. Contaminants of concern
at the site included 1,1,1 -trichloroethane
(TCA), 1,1-dichloroethene (DCE),
tetrachloroethene (PCE), xylene, Freon-113,
acetone, and isopropyl alcohol (IPA). This was
an early application of SVE at a site with
complex hydrogeology, and is notable for its
use of aquifer dewatering and slurry wall
installation prior to treatment.
The Fairchild site is a former semiconductor
manufacturing facility which operated from
April 1977 until its closure in October 1983. In
late 1981, Fairchild Semiconductor Corpora-
tion discovered that an underground organic
solvent storage tank had failed, resulting in
soil contamination and on- and off-site
groundwater contamination by a mixture of
solvents, including TCA, DCE, PCE, and xylene.
An estimated 60,000 gallons of solvents were
released.
In 1985, EPA and the State of California
entered into a multi-site cooperative agree-
ment with Fairchild which included the San
Jose site. Fairchild conducted site remediation
activities, including removal of the failed tank,
excavation and disposal of contaminated soil,
installation and operation of a groundwater
extraction and treatment system, installation
and operation of the SVE system, sealing
several wells to prevent cross-contamination
of aquifers, and construction of a slurry-
bentonite wall to contain contaminated
groundwater on-site. The California Regional
Water Quality Control Board established a soil
cleanup goal for this remediation of a total
contaminant extraction rate of less than 10
Ibs/day, along with specific performance goals
for individual wells.
During 16 months of operation, the SVE
system removed approximately 16,000
pounds of solvents from the soil. The most
rapid reductions in contaminant concentra-
tions occurred during the first two months of
SVE system operation. The system achieved
an extraction rate of less than 10 pounds per
day within 8 months of system operation.
The actual cost for treatment using the SVE
system was $3,900,000, consisting of
$2,100,000 in capital costs, and $1,800,000
in operating costs, corresponding to a calcu-
lated cost of $93 per cubic yard of soil treated
(42,000 cubic yards) and $240 per pound of
contaminant removed.
| SITE INFORMATION
Identifying Information:
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation
San Jose, California
CERCLIS # CAD097012298
ROD Date: 20 March 1989
Treatment Application;
Type of Action: Remedial
Treatability Study associated with applica-
tion? Yes (see Appendix A)
EPA SITE Program test associated with
application? No
Period of operation: 1/5/89 - 4/20/90
Quantity of material treated during applica-
tion: 42,000 cubic yards of soil
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
25
-------
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation Superfund Site—Page 2 of 24
| SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background
Historical Activity that Generated
Contamination at the Site: Semiconductor
manufacturing
Corresponding SIC Code: 3674 (Semicon-
ductors and Related Devices)
Waste Management Practice That
Contributed to Contamination: Under-
ground Storage Tank (failed underground
waste solvent tank)
Site History: The Fairchild site, located in
south San Jose, California, as shown in Figure
1, is a former semiconductor manufacturing
facility. The facility operated from April 1977
until its closure in October 1983. In late 1981,
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation dis-
covered that an underground organic solvent
storage tank had failed, resulting in soil
contamination and on- and off-site groundwa-
ter contamination by a mixture of solvents. An
estimated 60,000 gallons of waste solvent
were released. [5, 6]
Interim remedial cleanup activities of the soil
and groundwater at the site began in 1982.
Fairchild removed the failed tank and exca-
vated and disposed 3,400 cubic yards of soil
in a permitted hazardous waste facility in
1982. Installation of a hydraulic control
system in 1982 included groundwater extrac-
tion and treatment, to prevent further migra-
tion of contaminants and to extract contami-
nated groundwater from on-site and off-site
recovery wells. In 1983, Fairchild sealed wells
that provided potential pathways for contami-
nant migration to prevent contaminated
groundwater from the shallow aquifers from
entering, and contributing to further contami-
nation of the deeper aquifers. Fairchild in-
stalled a slurry-bentonite wall around the site
perimeter in 1986 to contain contaminated
groundwater on site within the shallower
aquifers. [5, 6]
Fairchild conducted remedial actions at the
site in accordance with a Remedial Action Plan
(RAP) prepared in October 1988. The RAP
identified specific activities, including soil
vapor extraction of on-site soils, designed to
further reduce the concentration of chemical
Fairchild Semiconductoi
Superfuiid Site
Sdn Jose, Cahfornu
Figure I. Site Location
contaminants in soil and groundwater at the
site. [5, 6]
Regulatory Context: In 1985, the State of
California and EPA entered into a multi-site
Cooperative agreement, which included
remediation activities at the Fairchild site in
San Jose, California. As a result of the agree-
ment, the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) identified site
cleanup requirements (SCR) in Order No. 89-
16, signed on January 18, 1989, [10] and
described in a Record of Decision signed in
March 1989. [6] Order No. 89-15, also
signed on January 18, 1989, specified require-
ments for discharge of extracted groundwater
to surface waters. [9] As discussed below
under Cleanup Goals and Standards, the
RWQCB subsequently amended the SCR to
allow the expedited completion of soil
cleanup activities. [8]
Remedy Selection: Soil vapor extraction was
selected as the remedy for contaminated soil
at the Fairchild Superfund site based on
treatability study results and because it
conserves water more than a pump and treat
program (i.e., less groundwater extraction).
[6]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
26
-------
Fairchlld Semiconductor Corporation Superfund Site—Page 3 of 24
| SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Site Logistics/Contacts
Site Management: PRP Lead
Oversight: California Regional Water Quality
Control Board
Remedial Project Manager:
Belinda Wei
U.S. EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-2280
State Contact:
Stephen Hill (primary contact for this applica-
tion)
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
2101 Webster Street, Suite 500
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 286-0433
Treatment System Vendor:
Dennis L. Curran
Canonic Environmental Services Corporation
441 N. Whisman Road, Building 23
Mountain View, CA 94043
(415)960-1640
| MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix Processed Through the Treat-
ment System: Soil (in situ)
Contaminant Characterization
Primary contaminant groups: Halogenated
and Nonhalogenated Volatile Organic Com-
pounds
The following solvents were detected in soils
at the Fairchild Semiconductor site: TCA, DCE,
IPA, xylenes, acetone, Freon-113, and PCE.
TCA was measured at concentrations as high
as 3,530 mg/kg and xylenes as high as 941
mg/kg- The maximum concentration of total
solvents (including TCA, 1,1 -DCE, IPA, xy-
lenes, acetone, Freon-113, and PCE) detected
in soil samples analyzed from the Fairchild
site, prior to the remedial action, was 4,500
mg/kg- As described below under site geology/
stratigraphy, and shown in Figure 2, the
concentration of certain contaminants (e.g.,
TCA) was plotted against location in the
subsurface, and concentration contours were
identified. Figure 2 shows TCA contours for 1,
10, and 100 mg/kg of TCA; contours were
also identified for
1,000 mg/kg of TCA at the site. [2]
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
The major matrix characteristics affecting cost
or performance for this technology and their
measured values are presented in Table 1. A
Table 1. Matrix Characteristics [4,11]
particle size distribution for one soil boring
(SB-1 74) is shown in Figure 3.
Parameter
Soil Classification
Clay Content and/or Particle Size
Distribution
Moisture Content
Air Permeability
Porosity
Total Organic Carbon
Nonaqueous Phase Liquids
Transmisslvity
Value
Sands, silts, and clays; U.S.C.S.
Soil types SW, SM, ML, and CL.
See Figure 2
Not Available
0. i 2-0.83 cm/sec
Not Available
Not Available
Not Present
69,000-810,000 gpd/ft
Measurement Procedure
Sieve Analysis
Sieve Analysis
Aquifer Performance Tests
Aquifer Performance Tests
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
27
-------
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation Superfund Site—Page 4 of 24
| MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Site Geology/Stratigraphy
Sl-ZOi Ji-JOl SB-ZOO 38-1*0 Sl-i
LESENP
I HIT
P^ IM> CAISSON SOIL EXCAVATION fKC NCTE V
or TCA CONCINTIATOI IN SOIL i»->
TCA CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL (pan) BASED ON
OKTWBOHTOFSOIL.
Figure 2. TCA Concentrations in ^ •'' profile L-L'
Measured in February - June I O87 [14]
O
IU
CO
IU
u
ct
Ul
CL
0
i1
40 "
30 •
100
SIEVE ANALYSIS
.EAR SIEVE US. STANDARD SIEVE
PENINGS 'NUMBERS
11/2" Vf V8* 4 10 20 40 80 140 i
X •*•» ' JL. I'
A 1
\ .y
vl
J:|
^
i
. i!
I
10
1 1
1
J ' i
\
\H
\\
fl\
\i\
\^
j \
j_
r^
\\
\'.
.0
~(i
s\
i!
\
i
\
\
\
^
•i
\
\
ks
V t -
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
!00
0
iO
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
O.I 0.01 0.001 0.0001
PARTICLE DIAMETER IN MM
o
CD
Q
LU
UJ
UJ
O
cc
UJ
ICOBBLES
r°8L°
GRAVEL
coarv* 1 fin*
SAND
socntF
medium 1 fin*
SILT AND CLAY FRACTION
Figure 3. Particle Size Distribution for Soil Boring 174 [11]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
28
-------
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation Superfund Site—Page 5 of 24
| MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Site Geology/Stratigraphy
The Fairchild site is located in a subarea of the
South Bay Drainage Unit known as the Santa
Teresa Subarea, or the Santa Teresa Plain. The
topography of the floor of the plain is gener-
ally flat to gently sloping, with overall valley
drainage to the northwest. The floor of the
plain is underlain by Quaternary alluvium,
which likely was deposited by the ancestral
Coyote Creek as it meandered across the
basin. [4]
The site consists of 330 to 360 feet of uncon-
solidated alluvial deposits overlying bedrock.
The structure of the alluvium is highly com-
plex, as shown on Figure 2 for site profile E-E',
consisting of layers of water-bearing sand and
gravel alternating with silt and silty-clay layers
which act as aquitards. Figure 2 also shows
the concentration of TCA in the soil at the site,
near soil boring (SB)-200.
Four distinct aquifer systems have been
identified in the alluvium as aquifers "A", "B",
"C", and "D", with "A" being the shallowest at
a depth ranging from 10 to 40 feet below
ground surface (BGS). The B aquifer ranges
from 50 to more than 70 feet BGS. The
alternating sand and gravel layers range in
thickness from several feet to approximately
140 feet in thickness while the silt and silty-
clay layers range from several feet to approxi-
mately 60 feet in thickness. An aquitard (silty-
clay layer) identified between the "A" and "B"
aquifer (the "AB" aquitard) ranges between 20
and 70 feet BGS. Aquifers merge or are absent
in some locations in the site area. [2]
I TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology Supplemental Treatment Technology
Soil vapor extraction Post-treatment (air) using carbon adsorption
Soil Vapor Extraction System Description and Operation
System Description
The SVE system used at Fairchild consisted of
39 extraction wells, installed in the area of
contaminated soil. As shown in Figure 4, the
majority of the extraction wells were screened
in the "A-B" aquitard. The "A" and "B" aquifers
had been dewatered prior to installation of
the extraction wells. In addition to the extrac-
tion wells, the SVE system contained air inlet
wells, installed in areas of uncontaminated
soil, to provide a means for bringing addi-
tional air into the area of contaminated soil.
The vendor performed a treatability study,
described in Appendix A, prior to the full-
scale treatment activities to determine design
parameters for the full-scale application. [12]
A slurry wall and groundwater extraction
system were used at Fairchild to dewater the
soil. These items also controlled the flow of
groundwater and were used to prevent
contaminant migration. Groundwater was
extracted from recovery wells within the slurry
wall enclosures to lower the water elevation
inside the slurry wall and maintain inward
gradients across the wall. These activities also
assisted in control and were used to contain-
ment of soil vapors for the SVE system.
Each extraction well was equipped with a
submersible pump to remove groundwater
that collected in the well. The pumps in the
vapor extraction wells were connected by
underground piping to the existing groundwa-
ter treatment system, which consisted of air
stripping and discharge to a surface water.
[12]
As shown in Figure 5, the extraction wells were
connected to a vapor extraction and treatment
system, consisting of vacuum pumps, a
dehumidification unit, and vapor phase
granular activated carbon (GAC).
U'S- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
29
-------
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation Superfund Site—Page 6 of 24
•TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)!
Soil Vapor Extraction System Description and Operation (cont.)
LEGEND
AIR EXTRACTION WELL
AIR INLET WELL
AIR EXTRACTION/AIR
INLET WELt
MAIN PLANT
Figure 4. SVE System Well Location Plan [12]
IN-SITU AERATION
EMISSION POINT
VACUUM PUMP SKID
GROUNDWATER
TREATMENT
SYSTEM
AIR
EXTRACTION
PIPELINE
VAPOR PHASE CARBON
TREATMENT SYSTEM
OFFICE TRAILER
LEGEND
• AIR EXTRACTION WELL
• MR INLET WELL
BUILDING
MAIN PLANT
Figure 5. SVE System Equipment Location Plan [12]
U S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
30
-------
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation Superfund Site—Page 7 of 24
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Soil Vapor Extraction System Description and Operation (cont.)
Two vacuum pumps with a capacity of ap-
proximately 4,500 cubic feet per minute (cfm)
at 20 inches of mercury (Hg) were used to
remove soil vapors. Each vacuum pump was
powered by a 250-horsepower high efficiency
electric motor. [2, 12]
Five GAC adsorption units were used to
capture the organic compounds extracted in
the soil vapors. Soil vapors were first routed to
two 3,000-pound GAC beds operating in
parallel, followed by a secondary set of two
3,000-pound GAC beds operating in parallel,
and then to a final, single 3,000-pound GAC
bed. [12]
System Operation
The SVE system was designed to operate
continuously five days a week. At any one
time, the system operated a maximum of 25
of the 39 extraction wells. The system was
operated over 427 days for a total of 9,800
hours between January 5, 1989 and April 20,
1990. The vacuum applied to the wells was
maintained at a constant level of 15 inches of
Hg during the operation. [2]
During the start-up period, several modifica-
tions were made to the SVE system, resulting
in a 3-month delay in system operation.
During this period, unexpectedly high chemi-
cal concentrations detected in air samples
collected from the well line resulted in con-
taminant breakthrough and required modifica-
tions to the sampling procedures. Circuit
breakers and other components in the vacuum
pumps did not operate properly and were
replaced or modified. The carbon treatment
vessels were found to be undersized and
replaced with a larger series of units. [12]
Because of the limited exposure of workers to
the chemicals, Level D health and safety
protective measures were employed, and the
work was performed in accordance with the
State-approved health and safety plan. [16]
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
The major operating parameters affecting cost or performance for this technology and the
values measured for each are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Operating Parameters [2]
Parameter
Air flow rate
Operating Vacuum
Value
28 scfm (Aquifer A);
144scfm (Aquifer B);
66 scfm (Aquitard A-B)
1 5 inches of Hg
U S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
31
-------
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation Superfund Site—Page 8 of 24
I TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Timeline
A timeline for this application is shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Timeline [2]
Start Date
04/77
10/81
11/81
4/87
10/88
1/89
3/89
7/89
12/93
End Date
10/83
-
'89
8/87
12/88
4/90
—
—
—
Activity
Fairchild Semiconductor manufacturing facility conducts operations
at San Jose location
Discovery of 60,000-gallcm waste solvent UST leak
Interim Remedial measures conducted
Pilot-study soil vapor extraction system conducted
Start-up activities conducted
Full-scale soil vapor extraction system operational
Record of Decision signed
Soil verification samples collected
5-Year Report submitted to CA RWQCB
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards
The State board established cleanup goals for
the SVE remedial action for both individual
vapor extraction wells and the overall SVE
system in terms of contaminant removal rates.
The State required air extraction from indi-
vidual wells until the contaminant removal rate
Additional Information on Goals
from the well decreased to 10% (or less) of
the initial removal rate, the contaminant
removal rate declined at a rate of less than 1 %
per day for 10 consecutive days, or until SVE
system operation achieved a total contami-
nant removal rate less than 10 Ibs/day. [2]
The ROD and the California RWQCB Order
originally established soil cleanup goals of
1 mg/kg for each of five contaminants: TCA,
DCE, xylenes, Freon-11 3, and PCE. [6, 9] As a
result of an appeal by Fairchild of several
Treatment Performance Data
aspects of the SCR, the State Board issued an
amendment of the Order in May 1990, which
established the cleanup goals described
above.[8]
Figure 6 shows the contaminant removal rate
in pounds per day for the SVE system as a
function of time for the first 11 months of full-
scale system operation (January 5 - December
1, 1988). Cumulative mass of contaminants
removed is plotted as a function of time on
Figure 7. The mass of contaminants removed
was calculated using analytical results from
charcoal tube samples of extracted soil vapors
collected from each extraction well, along with
extraction well flow rate data. Samples were
collected several times a month for the first
6 months of operation, and approximately
once per month during the latter part of the
operation. Samples were desorbed in a
laboratory and analyzed using EPA SW-846
Methods 8010, 8020, and 8240.
To assess the effect of shutting off individual
extraction wells, several wells that met the
shutoff criteria were shut off and turned back
on between October 1988 and April 1989 at
intervals of two, four, and six weeks. Table 4
shows the results from this effort for seven
wells.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
32
-------
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation Superfund Site—Page 9 of 24
I TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Treatment Performance Data (cont.)
140 j
120 --
100 --
EXTRACTION 80 '
RATE
(Ibs/day) 60 .
40
20 --
10 Ibs/day system shut oil criteria
6-Nov- 6-Dec- 5-Jan- 4-Feb- 6-Mar- 5-Apr- 5-May- 4-Jun- 4-Jul- 3-Aug- 2-Sep- 2-Oct- 1-Nov- 1-Dec-
88 88 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89
TIME
Figure 6. Contaminant Removal Rate as a function of Time [2]
Table 4. Effect of Shutting Off Extraction Wells [13]
Extraction Well
No.
AE-9A
AE-13A
AE-14A
AE-16A
AE-7A
AE-tSA
AE-20(A)
VOC Concentration
at Shutoff (ppmv)
23.2
744.3
627.5
14.1
64.5
27.5
5.7
Concentration Following Shutdown Period (ppmv)
2 Weeks
17.9
523.1
363.0
13.7
NA
NA
NA
4 Weeks
NA
NA
NA
NA
53.0
11.6
NA
6 Weeks
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.6
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
33
-------
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation Superfund Site—Page 10 of 24
I TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Treatment Performance Data (cont.)
MASS
of
CHEMICALS
(POUNDS)
0
1-Oct-88
30-Nov-88 29-Jan-89 30-Mar-89 29-May-89 28-Jul-89 26-Sep-89 25-Nov-89
TIME
A ANALYTICAL VALUES - 10/88 ESTIMATES
Figure 7. Cumulative Mass of Contaminants Removed as a Function of Time [13]
Soil boring samples were collected at several
site locations to assess the effectiveness of
the SVE system operation on soil concentra-
tions during the first seven months of treat-
ment. Six soil borings were collected in the
April to June 1987 period (pre-remediation)
and July 1989 (samples taken after approxi-
mately 7 months of operation). One of the
soil borings was drilled within the area of
highest contaminant concentration at the site
(SB-271, drilled within the 1,000 mg/kg TCA
contour at the site in June 1988); one within a
less contaminated area (SB-272, drilled within
the 100 mg/kg TCA contour); three within a
less contaminated area (SB-273, -274, and -
275, drilled within the 10 mg/kg TCA contour),
and one within the least contaminated area
(SB-276, completed within the 1 mg/kg TCA
contour). Soil boring samples were analyzed
using SW-846 Methods 8010, 8020, and
8240; the analytical results are shown in
Tables. [13]
Table 5. Comparison of Pre-Remedtation and July 1989 Soil Boring Analysis [2,13]
Soil Boring
Number
SB-271
SB-272
SB-273
SB-274
SB-275
SB-276
TCA (mg/kg)
Pre-
remediatio
3530
40.6
266
12.2
6.4
1.1
07/89
416
79
37.3
7.8
5.5
O.I
DCE (mg/kg)
Pre-
remediatio
16.6
3.4
12.5
1.6
0.5
0.05
07/89
2.2
2.5
1.5
0.3
1.5
0.01
Xylenec (mg/kg)
Pre-
remediatio
941
19.2
189
4.8
ND
ND
07/89
462
156
85.6
5.5
1.2
ND
Acetone (mg/kg)
Pre-
remediatio
18
ND
7.7
7.6
ND
ND
07/89
281
I.S
3.5
1.9
2.9
ND
IPA (rag/kg)
Pre-
remediatio
ND
ND
0.02
ND
ND
ND
07/89
134
0.9
1.8
ND
0.4
ND
Freon-l 13 (mg/kg)
Pre-
remediatio
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
07/89
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
PCE (mg/kg)
Pre-
remedlatlo
ND
ND
2.2
ND
ND
ND
07/89
4.1
1.2
0.5
0.04
ND
ND
ND - Not detected
NA - Not analyzed
Pre-remediation samples collected April - June 1987.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
34
-------
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation Superfund Site—Page 11 of 24
I TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Treatment Performance Data (cont.)
Additional soil samples were collected in
January 1995 to evaluate the current concen-
trations in soils. The data from these borings
are not available at this time. [16]
Performance Data Assessment
The treatment performance data shown in
Figures 6 and 7 indicate that overall SVE
system operation removed approximately
16,000 pounds of solvents from the soil
during 16 months of operation (January J 989
to April 1990), at which time the system was
shut off. The system achieved the cleanup
goal of less than 10 Ibs/day contaminant
removal rate 3.6 Ibs/day after 16 months of
operation. The extraction rate decreased from
a maximum of 130 pounds per day to less
than 4 pounds per day when it was shut off.
The SVE system was operated for 8 months
after the time when the 10 Ibs/day goal was
achieved to remove additional contaminants
from the soil (i.e., to the point where the soil
was believed to no longer leach contaminants
to the groundwater).
In addition, Figures 6 and 7 indicate that the
rate of contaminant extraction using the SVE
system increased rapidly during the initial
stages of system operation (2 months) and
then decreased at a more gradual rate.
The data in Table 4 indicate that shutting off
individual extraction wells did not increase the
concentrations in the soil vapors after two,
four, or six weeks of well shutdown. The SVE
system was shut off on April 20, 1990.
A review of the data in Table 5 indicates that
the concentration of many of the chemical
contaminants in the soil borings had de-
creased by July 1988 (seven months of SVE
system operation). However, concentrations
of several contaminants increased during this
period, including acetone in SB-271 and SB-
275, TCA in SB-272, xylenes in SB-272 and
SB-274, IPA in SB-271 through 273 and SB-
275, and PCE in SB-271 and SB-272. The
variation in contaminant concentrations in the
soil may be attributable to variation in con-
tamination across the areas where the soil
borings were collected.
Performance Data Completeness
Data are available for concentrations of
contaminants in the soil before treatment and
at a mid-point of the treatment process (after
7 of the 16 months of SVE system operation).
Confirmatory soil samples were collected by
the vendor after the remediation was com-
pleted; however, the data from these samples
are not available at this time. In addition, data
are available for characterizing concentrations
of contaminants in soil vapors from each
extraction well over the course of the treat-
ment operation.
Performance Data Quality
The QA/QC program used throughout the
remedial action met the EPA and the State of
California requirements. All monitoring was
performed using EPA-approved methods, and
the vendor did not note any exceptions to the
QA/QC protocols. [2]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
35
-------
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation Superfund Site—Page 12 of 24
REATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process
The PRPs contracted with Canonic Environ-
mental to construct and operate the SVE
system at the site. Canonie Environmental
Treatment System Cost
used several subcontractors to implement
specific aspects of the operation. [12]
The treatment vendor provided estimated
(projected) and actual treatment cost infor-
mation to the California RWQCB. The actual
treatment cost of $3,900,000 was reported
by the vendor in terms of capital costs and
operation and maintenance costs. The actual
capital costs for the soil vapor extraction
program were $2,100,000 (this does not
include costs for construction of the slurry
wall or for aquifer dewatering), and actual
operation and maintenance costs totalled
approximately $1,800,000 for 16 months of
operation. This corresponds to $240 per
pound of contaminants removed and $93 per
cubic yard of soil treated.
Because the specific items included in these
totals is not available, a cost breakdown using
the interagency Work Breakdown Structure
(WBS) is not provided in this report.
The total projected costs (based on 24
months of operation) were $4,200,000. The
projected capital cost of the soil vapor
extraction system, including installation of
extraction wells, installation of a vapor-
phase treatment system, preparation of the
treatment area, and engineering services,
was approximately $2,200,000. Projected
operation and maintenance costs, including
water quality sampling and analysis, water
level monitoring, equipment maintenance,
engineering services, and carbon regenera-
tion, was approximately $2,000,000. [2, 11]
The actual costs for this project were
approximately 7% less than the projected
costs because the amount of time required
for the remediation was less than originally
estimated.
The number of cubic yards of soil treated at
Fairchild is an estimate of the amount of soil
influenced by SVE, provided by the vendor;
the actual amount of soil treated is not
available at this time for comparison with
the estimate.
Cost Data Quality
Actual and projected capital and operations
and maintenance cost data are available from
the treatment vendor for this application. A
detailed breakdown of the cost elements
included in the total actual costs is not
available at this time. Limited information on
the items included in the total projected
costs was provided by the vendor, as
discussed above.
(OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Cost Observations and Lessons Learned
Actual costs for the SVE treatment
application at Fairchild were approxi-
mately $3,900,000 ($2,100,000 in
capital and $1,800,000 in operations
and maintenance), which corre-
sponds to $240 per pound of
contaminants removed and $93 per
cubic yard of soil treated.
The actual costs for this project
were approximately 7% less than the
projected costs because the amount
of time actually required for the
remediation was less than originally
estimated.
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
36
-------
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation Superfund Site—Page 13 of 24
• OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED (CONT.)
Performance Observations and Lessons Learned
• The treatment system performance
data indicate that approximately
16,000 pounds of solvents were
removed from the soil over 16 months
(427 days totalling 9.800 hours of
operation); and that the SVE system "
achieved the cleanup goal of less than
10 Ibs/day extraction rate after 8
months of operation, and less than 4
Ibs/day at the end of the 16-month
operating period, at which time the
system was shut off.
Other Observations and Lessons Learned
The most rapid reductions in contami-
nant concentrations occurred during
the first two months of treatment.
A test designed to evaluate potential
rebound in extraction wells revealed
that shutting off extraction wells for 2-
6 weeks did not cause soil vapor
concentrations to increase.
Several startup problems, including
electrical problems with the vacuum
pump and problems with properly
sizing the carbon handling equipment,
caused a 3-month delay in beginning
full-scale system operation.
A high powered pump was required
for this application because the soil
that was treated was very fine grained
and had previously been in a saturated
zone.
The heterogeneity of the areas where
the soil borings were collected limited
the accuracy of the process of match-
ing the pre-remediation and July
samples. Due to a planned change in
land use, additional soil boring
samples were collected in January
1995 to more precisely assess re-
moval efficiency and the extent of
residual soil contamination. Data from
these borings are not available at this
time.
According to the CA RWQCB, this
application revealed limitations
concerning the cleanup level that
could be achieved by SVE in a previ-
ously saturated aquifer. When the
project began, a 1 mg/kg total VOC
cleanup level for soil was developed
based on several soil cleanup stan-
dards adopted in other Superfund
orders and locally for other applica-
tions of SVE for soil in the vadose
zone. In the Fairchild application, the
system was not able to reach a 1 mg/
kg level for treatment of previously
saturated aquifers, and the RWQCB
accepted a performance goal of no
leaching instead of 1 mg/kg.
The results of the treatability study
showed that SVE was capable of
sufficiently reducing target contami-
nant concentrations in site soils, and
proved to be useful in designing the
full-scale SVE treatment system. The
vacuum blower that achieved the best
results in the treatability study was
used in the full-scale treatment
system. Also, the existing monitoring
network was used to reduce the
number of new wells that were
installed.
This treatment application was part of
a multi-faceted cleanup program.
Implementation of the slurry wall and
dewatering phases of the cleanup
assisted in acceleration of contami-
nant removal rates from both soil and
groundwater.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
37
-------
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation Superfund Site—Page 14 of 24
REFERENCES
1. Annual Status Report. January 1, 1992
through December 31. 1992. Canonic
Environmental, February 1993.
2. Five-Year Status Report and Effective-
ness Evaluation. Canonie Environmen-
tal, December 1993.
3. NPL Public Assistance Database,
Fairchild, Semiconductor Corp. (South
San Jose Plant), California, EPA ID
#CAD097012298, March 1992.
4. Revised Draft Report. Remedial Action
Plan, Fairchild Semiconductor Corpo-
ration Superfund Site, Canonie Envi-
ronmental, October 1988.
5. Superfund Interim Site Close Out
Report, Fairchild - San Jose, California,
U.S. EPA Region IX, March 25, 1992.
6. Superfund Record of Decision.
Fairchild Semiconductor, S. San Jose,
California, March 1989.
7. Memorandum to Steve Hill, California
Regional Water Quality Control Board,
March 17, 1994.
8. Amendment of Site Cleanup Require-
ments. Order No. 89-16. for Fairchild
Semiconductor Corporation and
Schlumberger Technology Corpora-
tion, California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, May 16, 1990.
9. California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, Order No. 89-15,
January 18, 1989.
Analysis Preparation
10. Site Cleanup Requirements. California
Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Order No. 89-16, January 18, 1989.
11. Draft Report, Remedial Action Plan
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation
San lose Facility. Canonie Environmen-
tal, Project 82-012, August 1987.
12. Interim Design Report. In-Situ Soil
Aeration System. Canonie Environ-
mental, Project 82-012, March 1989.
13. Supplement to Proposal to Terminate
In-Situ Soil Aeration System Operation
at Fairchild Semiconductor
Corporation's Former San lose Facility.
Canonie Environmental, 82-012-021,
December 1989.
14. In-Situ Soil Aeration Design. Fairchild
Semiconductor Corporation. San lose
Facility, Canonie Environmental, 82-
012, April 1988.
15. Personal communication, Steve Hill,
California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, November 9, 1994.
16. Letter to Ms. Linda Fiedler, EPA/TIO,
from Dennis L. Curran, Canonie,
Information on costs for cost and
performance report, Soil Vapor
Extraction at the Fairchild San Jose Site
in California, February 15, 1995.
This case study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by
Radian Corporation under EPA Contract No. 68-W3-0001.
U S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
38
-------
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation Superfund Site—Page 15 of 24
APPENDIX A—TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS
SUMMARY
Identifying Information
Site Location:
ROD Date:
Historical Activity at Site - SIC Codes:
Historical Activity at Site - Management Practices:
Dates of Operation:
Site Contaminants:
Type of Action:
Did the ROD include a contingency based on
treatability study results?
San Jose, CA
03/20/89
3674 (Semiconductors and Related Devices)
Underground Storage Tanks (failed underground waste
slovent tank)
1977 to 1983
VOCs, including tetrachloroethylene (PCE),
trichrlorethane (TCA), dichloroethylene (DCE),
Freon- 1 1 3, acetone, xylenes; and isopropyl alcohol
(IPA)
Remedial
No
Treatablllty Study Information
Type of Treatability Study:
Duration of Treatablllty Study
Media Treated:
Quantity Treated:
Treatment Technology:
Target Contaminants of Concern:
Conducted before the ROD was signed:
Additional treatability studies conducted:
Remedial or Removal Action:
Technology selected for full-scale application:
Pilot-Scale
04/20/87 through 06/87
Soil (in situ)
Not Available
Soil Vapor Extraction
One extraction well, 16 primary air inlet wells, 12
peripheral monitoring wells, a vacuum pump or
blower, and granulated activated carbon units VOCs,
including TCA, DCE, PCE, xylene, Freon- 1 1 3, acetone,
and IPA
Yes
No
Remedial
Yes
Treatability Study Strategy
Number of Runs:
Key Operating Parameters Varied:
Study was conducted in three stages: Stage 1 utilized
a vacuum pump at 25 inches Hg; Stage 2 utilized a
vacuum blower at 9 inches Hg; and Stage 3 utilized a
vacuum blower at 14.5 inches Hg Vacuum equipment,
vacuum pressure
U.S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
39
-------
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation Superfund Site—Page 16 of 24
APPENDIX A—TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (CONT.)
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
Type of Treatability Study
Pilot-Scale Soil Vapor Extraction Treatability
Study of Soil Contaminated with TCA, DCE,
TREATABILITY STUDY STRATEGY
PCE, Xylene, Freon-113, Acetone, and IPA
Treatability Study Purpose
The following purposes were identified for the
treatability study:
• To evaluate the technical feasibility of
soil vapor extraction (SVE) at the
Fairchild Semiconductor site; and
• To provide data to determine design
parameters and projected effective-
ness of SVE as part of the full-scale
treatment application.
The SVE report was submitted to comply with
a provision of the Site Cleanup Requirements
which required conducting treatability studies
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
and reporting the results to the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board
(CRWQCB).
The treatability study was conducted in three
stages in which the vacuum and extraction
equipment were varied, [11]
Cleanup Goals/Standards for the Fairchild
Semiconductor Site
Cleanup goals are described in Section 4 1 of
the full-scale treatment report for the Fairchild
site; however, these goals had not been
established at the time the treatability study
was conducted.
Treatment System Description and
Operation
Treatment System Description
The pilot-scale SVE treatment system, shown
on Figure A-l, consisted of one extraction well
(RW-23A), 16 primary air inlet wells and 12
peripheral wells for monitoring, a vacuum
pump (used in Stage 1 of the study), or a
vacuum blower (used in Stages 2 and 3 of the
study), and granulated activated carbon (GAC)
units for primary and backup treatment of
emissions. Location of some wells is shown in
Figure 5 of the full-scale report; however, a
figure showing all wells used in the treatability
study was not included in the available docu-
mentation.
The extraction well RW-23A, shown on Figure
A-2, was modified from a groundwater
recovery well to an air extraction well to draw
vapors from the unsaturated portion of the "A"
aquifer. Through design and equipment
modifications, the well was altered to main-
tain groundwater at 50 feet below ground
surface (BGS) to provide sufficient air flow,
and to allow the attachment of a six-inch
diameter air flow duct. The 1 7 primary air inlet
wells were installed in eight-inch diameter soil
borings drilled using the rotary-stem auger
method. The peripheral well network con-
sisted of 12 previously installed observation
wells.
In Stage 1 of the study, a Becker Model
U2.250 vacuum pump was used to extract air
from Well RW-23A. The pump was rated at
160 acfm air flow at 1 750 rpm. Stages 2 and
3 of the study used a Roots RCS Model 412
vacuum blower, rated at 680 acfm at 1500
rpm. Both vacuum units were air-cooled, oil-
lubricated, and utilized positive displacement.
Extracted air was treated using a primary and
secondary set of GAC treatment units. As
shown in Figure A-l, both the primary and
secondary treatment units each contained five
sub-units in parallel, containing 150 pounds of
GAC in a modified 55-gallon drum. The
primary unit was designed to remove VOCs
and SVOCs from the extracted vapors, and the
secondary unit was designed to ensure that
emission of these compounds did not occur.
[11]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
40
-------
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation Superfund Site—Page 1 7 of 24
APPENDIX A—TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (CONT.)
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (cont.)
s
*-_ o
O?:
tWtt-'nm _.j
I
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
41
-------
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation Superfund Site—Page 18 of 24
APPENDIX A—TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (CONT.)
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (cont.)
PROJECT NAME FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORP., SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA
BORING LOCATION N 268,896.9 E 1.629,153.4 DATE 4-8-87 BY
6" FLANGED-
STEEL TEE
34.5'
36.5'
57.0
NOTES
I. NOT DRAWN TO SCALE.
2 SEE BORING LOG SB-181 FOR
DETAILED SOIL DESCRIPTION.
6 DIA
18 DIA
DEPTH 0 0
AIR EXTRACTION SYSTEM
2°! \> GROUND SURFACE
-CEMENT-BENTONITE GROUT
-6" DIA. STEEL CASING
EL
174 5
DEPTH 35.0'
-No. 6 SAND PACK
rTOP OF BACKFILL
DEPTH 40 0'
'!!-. TOP OF SCREEN
'?!°. HIGH PROBE
DEPTH 50 0'
-0.045" SLOT/6" DIA. STEEL SCREEN
EL
I57_5
DEPTH 52 0'
-LOW PROBE
EL
155 5
DEPTH 54 0
EL 154 5
DEPTH 550
jr PUMP INTAKE
T- BOTTOM OF SCREEN
EPTH 570'
.BOTTOM OF BORING
Figure A-2. Extraction Well RW-23A [11]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
42
-------
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation Superfund Site—Page 19 of 24
APPENDIX A—TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (CONT.)
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (cont.)
Treatment System Operation
The treatability study was conducted in three
stages, as described below.
Stage 1 of the pilot study began on April 20,
1987. Initially, the vacuum pump operated at
an inlet vacuum of approximately 25 inches of
Hg which resulted in an air flow of 50 scfm.
After one week of operation, the vacuum at
the well head stabilized at 13.5 inches of
water. During Stage 1, the air inlet wells were
capped to enhance the removal of soil vapor.
Measurable vacuums were recorded for
sixteen of the 18 primary air inlet wells during
Stage 1. The highest recorded vacuum was
0.40 inches of water at both Well AI-4L and
AI-4M, 8 feet from the extraction well. The
smallest recorded vacuum was 0.05 inches of
water at Well AI-9A, located 35 feet from the
extraction well.
Stage 2 of the pilot study began on June 16,
1987. The vacuum blower produced a
vacuum of approximately 9 inches of Hg at
the extraction well head, and could be ad-
justed by a bleeder valve installed at the well
head to control the vacuum and ultimately the
air flow through the system. During Stage 2,
the bleeder valve was fully open to allow
ambient air to enter the extracted vapor flow.
The resulting air flows were 175 scfm at the
well head and 264 scfm through the bleeder
valve. The vendor estimated that 60 percent
of the total measured flow was through the
bleeder valve, and therefore the remaining 40
percent was extracted from the unsaturated
portion of the soil. The highest air velocity of
650 fpm from the primary inlet was recorded
at Well A1-3U, 35 feet from the extraction well.
The highest vacuum of 2.8 inches of water
was recorded from Well A1-4L, during Stage 2.
Stage 3, which began on July 13, was structur-
ally identical to Stage 2; however, the system
operation differed. The bleeder valve was
adjusted until the maximum design pressure
for the blower was achieved. The vacuum
measured at the well head during Stage 3 was
approximately 14.5 inches of Hg, and the
operating speed of the blower was set at
2500 rpm. The highest air inlet velocity from a
primary well was 750 fpm at Wells WCC-1OA
and AI-3U, and the highest vacuum from a
primary well was measured at Well AI-4M. A
measurable velocity was recorded at inlet Well
115A, which was 205 feet away from the
extraction well. All the inlet wells in the
peripheral well network exhibited small inlet
velocities at some time during the Stage 3
testing. [11]
Procurement Process/Treatability Study
Cost
No information regarding the procurement
process or cost of the treatability study was
included in the available documentation.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
43
-------
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation Superfund Site—Page 20 of 24
I APPENDIX A—TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (CONT.)
TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS
Operating Parameters and Performance
Data
Table A-1 presents the operating parameters
for each stage of the pilot-scale treatability
study.
Table A- f. Operating Parameters for the Pilot-Scale Treatability Study ft 1]
Test Parameter
Vacuum Applied
Blower Speed (Stages 2
and 3 only)
Vacuum Measured at Well
Head
Air Flow Rate
Value (units)
Stage \
25 inches Hg
-
13.5 inches water
50 scfm
Stage 2
9 inches Hg
2500 rpm
12.5 inches Hg
500 scfm
Stage 3
14.5 inches Hg
2500 rpm
14.5 inches Hg
320 scfm
Tables A-2 and A-3 present the results of the
treatability study. Chemical removal rates
were estimated by measured flow rates and
chemical concentrations of contaminants in
vapor extracted during the three stages.
In addition, soil samples were taken during
well installation to characterize approximate
top, intermediate, and bottom depths of the
unsaturated "A" aquifer and after Stages 1 and
3. These samples were taken at locations and
depths corresponding to the sampling efforts
during well installation. Air samples were also
collected from the air inlet well system prior
to conducting the treatability study, and
following each stage of operation. [11]
Table A-2. Performance Data from the Fairchild Semiconductor Site Pilot-Scale Treatability Study [11]
Parameter
Total VOCs Removed
Time of SVE System Operation*
Chemical Removal Rate (Total)
Value
Stage 1
Not Available
Not Available
1 .5-2.0 Ibs/day
Stage 2
Not Available
Not Available
7- 1 2 Ibs/day
Stage 3
Not Available
Not Available
7- 1 2 Ibs/day
Removal Rates of Specific Contaminants
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane (TCA)
1 ,1-Dichloroethene (DCE)
Acetone
Isopropyl alcohol (IPA)
Xylenes
1.25-1. 75 Ibs/day
0.25 Ibs/day
No measured removal
No measured removal
Not Available
Not Available
4.2-7.2 Ibs/day
No measured removal
No measured removal
0.84-2.4 Ibs/day
Not Available
4.2-7.2 Ibs/day
No measured removal
No measured removal
0.84-2.4 Ibs/day
*Treatability study report provides the start date for each stage, but does not indicate total
hours or the end date of SVE system operation.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
44
-------
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation Superfund Site—Page 21 of 24
I APPENDIX A—TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (CONT.)
TREATAB1L1TY STUDY RESULTS (cont.)
Table A-3. Soil Matrix Analysis Results from the Fairchild Semiconductor Site Treatability Study [11]
Soil Boring
Number*
A1-3/SB-222
AI-4/SB-225
AI-8/SB-223
SB-190/SB-2
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Sample
Depth (ft)
7.5-8.0
18.5-19.0
34.5-35.0
18.7-19.0
34.7-35.0
47.0-47.3
34.0-34.5
45.5-46.0
12.7-13.0
34.0-34.3
39.0-39.3
45.3-45.7
54.0-54.3
21 .5-22.0
33.5-34.0
47.0-47.5
21.7-22.0
26.7-27.0
33.7-34.0
42.0-42.3
47.0-47.3
54.3-54.7
69.0-69.3
9.7-1O.O
19.7-20.0
29.7-30.0
39.4-39.7
41.4-41.7
44.7-45.0
49.4-49.7
69.4-69.7
38.0-40.0
40.0-42.0
44.0-46.0
48.0-50.0
68.0-70.0
1,1,1-TCA
(mg/kg)
ND
0.12
0.09
ND
ND
0.03
0.06
0.15
ND
ND
ND
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.21
0.31
ND
0.02
ND
ND
0.16
27.0
0.11
ND
ND
ND
3.7
1.3
2.3
6
2.2
0.99
0.51
0.85
3.8
40
Xylene
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1 7
5.2
6.7
7.6
ND
9.5
3.2
3.5
2.7
22
Acetone
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
950.00
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
18
6.8
16
14
ND
860
740
1 7
10
6.9
IPA
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.12
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10.00
5.8
4.1
79
27
14
12
ND
Freon-113
(mg/kg)
ND
0.02
ND
0.02
ND
0.08
ND
O.05
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1,1 -DCE
(mg/kg)
ND
0.12
0.03
ND
ND
ND
0.03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.08
0.04
0 18
ND
0.75
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.76
PCE
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
0.02
ND
ND
ND
0.05
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.07
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND = Not detected.
"First number Is the pre-test soil boring, second number is the post-test soil boring.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
-------
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation Superfund Site—Page 22 of 24
I APPENDIX A - TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (CONT.)
TREATAB1LITY STUDY RESULTS (cont.)
Table Ar3 (Continued)
Soft Boring
Number*
SB-205/SB-228
SB-209/SB-221
SB-200/SB-226
SB-219/SB-227
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Pre-Test
Sample
Depth (ft)
9.70-10.0
19.7-20.0
39.7-40.0
49.7-50 0
55.0-55.3
59 7-60.0
39.7-40 0
55.0-55.3
59.7-60.0
9.7-10.0
19.7-20.0
29.7-30.0
39.7-40.0
49.7-50.0
59.7-60.0
71.0-71.3
49.7-500
55.0-55.3
59.7-60.0
9.3-9.7
194-19.7
29.4-29 7
39.7-40 0
49.7-50.0
55.30
580-58.3
63.0-63 3
69.7-70.0
38 0-40.0
44 0-46.0
48.0-50 0
54.0-56.0
58.0-60.0
62 0-64.0
68 0-70.0
20.5-21.0
25.7-26.0
31.2-31.5
36.2-36.5
41.2-41.5
45.7-46.0
l.M-TCA
(mtfkg)
ND
ND
0.33
ND
3.8
19
ND
2.8
303
ND
ND
0.2
0.4
0.79
8.7
48
4
14.1
29
ND
ND
ND
0 14
1.7
13
50.OO
280.00
028
ND
ND
0.52
7.3
35
30
3.4
ND
0.22
0.35
0.35
0.44
2.7
Xylene
(mg'kg)
ND
ND
16
3.6
2.7
3.8
2.4
1.8
204
ND
ND
ND
12
5.4
5.4
60
39
14
16
0.36
ND
ND
41.0
4.6
3.7
6.30
50000
035
1.8
1.4
2
22
13
3.3
2.1
ND
ND
ND
2.7
2.2
14.0
Acetone
(mtfkg)
ND
ND
800
22
1.2
3.3
310
3.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
15
13
2.8
ND
16
3.6
1 9
87
ND
ND
570
97
94
12.00
ND
ND
130
ND
ND
64
15
ND
2
ND
ND
ND
204.0
650.0
180.0
IPA
(mjtfkg)
ND
ND
1400
17
0.9
5.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6.6
ND
ND
ND
3.1
ND
ND
6.1
ND
ND
410
3.8
2
690
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8.2
1400.0
260.0
Freon-113
(mgfkg)
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
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1,1 -DCE
(ntfktf
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1 3
1.6
0.4
ND
1.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
0 17
0.88
5.70
17.OO
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.23
2.80
3.20
0.19
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.135
PCE
(mtfkg)
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
2.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND = Not detected.
*'First number is the pre-test soil boring, second number is the post-test soil boring.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
46
-------
Fairchlld Semiconductor Corporation Superfund Site—Page 23 of 24
I APPENDIX A - TREATABIL1TY STUDY RESULTS (CONT.)
TREATAB1LITY STUDY RESULTS (cont.)
Table A-3 (Continued)
SoU Boring
Number*
SB-219/SB-227
(cont.)
Post-Test
Sample
Depth (ft)
47.7-48.0
49.0-49.3
51.0-51 3
25.7-26.0
31.0-31.3
36.7-37.0
46.0-46.3
48.5-49 0
51.7-52.0
1,J,1-TCA
2.4
0.33
0.87
ND
0.47
ND
0.45
0.38
053
Xylene
12.0
6.0
0.55
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.80
ND
Acetone
460.0
460.0
14.0
ND
ND
170.0
790
60O
4.90
IPA
330.0
72.OO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
rreon-113
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1,1 -DC£
(mg/kg)
0.23
0.22
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
PCE
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND = Not detected,
* first number is the pre-test soil boring, second number is the post-test soil boring.
Performance Data Assessment
The vendor identified the following with
respect to performance of the SVE system
during the treatability study:
• Chemical removal rates during Stage
1 varied from 1.5 pounds to 2.0
pounds per day, based on analyses of
charcoal tube samples. The on-site
OVA readings indicated a removal rate
of approximately 1.7 to 2.7 pounds
per day. The contaminant TCA ac-
counted for 70% of the total chemical
removal rate during Stage 1. The
system did not effectively remove
acetone and IPA from unsaturated
soils. The vendor noted that the
removal rate for other contaminants
increased slightly during the first week
of operations, and then declined
slightly over time.
• Based on the results of charcoal tube
sampling, chemical removal rates
varied from 7 to 12 pounds per day
during Stage 2. OVA readings indi-
cated removal rates of 4 to 7 pounds
per day. TCA accounted for approxi-
mately 60% of the total chemical
removal rate during Stage 2. The
system did not effectively remove
acetone and IPA from unsaturated
soils. The vendor noted that no clear
trend in removal rate over time could
be established based on the char-
coal tube sampling data results;
however, the OVA readings indicated
a general decrease in removal rate
over time (approximately 40 percent
decrease in two weeks).
• Although the extraction rate was
increased during Stage 3, the
chemical removal rate was approxi-
mately equal to that measured
during Stage 2. Again, the vendor
noted that no clear trend in chemi-
cal removal rate over time could be
established based on the charcoal
tube sampling results; however, the
OVA readings indicated a similar,
general decrease in removal rate
over time as that measured in Stage
2 (approximately 40 percent de-
crease in two weeks). [11]
Performance Data Completeness
Performance data completeness cannot
currently be assessed because information
on soil boring locations, contaminant
removal over time, extracted soil vapor
concentrations, and material balance data
are not available at this time.
Performance Data Quality
According to the vendor, data collection and
sample analysis was performed in accor-
dance with QA/QC procedures described in
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
47
-------
Fairchlld Semiconductor Corporation Superfund Site—Page 24 of 24
I APPENDIX A - TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (CONT.)
TREATAB1LITY STUDY RESULTS (cont.)
the Site Sampling Plan, Quality Assurance/
Quality Control Plan, and Site Safety Plan.
In addition, duplicate samples of extracted air
vapors were collected using charcoal tubes
and were analyzed at two laboratories.
According to the vendor, analytical results
from the two laboratories "compared favor-
ably." The calculated relative mean difference
indicated an analytical precision of 15 per-
cent. An organic vapor analyzer (OVA) was
used to monitor extracted air vapor VOC
concentrations during the study. OVA readings
were taken 4 to 5 times per day and generally
indicated lower concentrations than those
measured in the laboratory. The QA/QC
procedures and complete analytical data were
not included in the available documentation
and could not be assessed at this time. [11]
Projected Rill-Scale Cost
No projected full-scale costs were provided in
the available documentation. However, the
vendor noted the following observations that
could impact the cost of full-scale treatment:
• A full-scale application would require
larger carbon treatment units to
replace the 55-gallon activated carbon
canisters used during the treatability
study; and
• A full-scale treatment application
would not require the extensive
monitoring of the inlet well network
that was conducted during the treat-
ability study. [11]
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
The following observations and lessons
learned were noted by the vendor:
• The vacuum blower used during
Stages 2 and 3 of the treatability
study were more effective in removing
contaminants than the vacuum pump
used during Stage 1.
• The SVE system removal efficiency for
TCA, xylene, and DCE was high;
however, the system's removal
efficiency from unsaturated soils for
highly immiscible contaminants such
as acetone and I PA was lower.
• The air extraction rate was lower
during Stage 2 compared to Stage 3,
yet the chemical removal rate was
relatively equal during both stages.
An average of approximately 8 pounds per
day were removed during Stages 2 and 3
of the treatability study.
The radius of influence of the air extraction
well was estimated using to be 75 feet
during Stage 3 of the study.
Analyses of soil samples collected from
the A-B aquitard (consisting of silty-clay
soils at 50-60 feet below ground surface)
indicated the highest concentrations of
contaminants both before and after
treatment. The treatability study results
were inconclusive regarding contaminant
removal from this depth and type of soil.
[11]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
48
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at the
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site,
Well Number 3 Subsite,
Hastings, Nebraska
49
-------
Case Study Abstract
Soil Vapor Extraction at the Hastings Groundwater Contamination
Superfund Site Well Number 3 Subsite, Hastings, Nebraska
Site Name:
Hastings Groundwater
Contamination Superfund Site, Well
Number 3 Subsite
Location:
Hastings, Nebraska
Contaminants:
Chlorinated Aliphatics
- Carbon tetrachloride, chloroform,
trichloroethylene (TCE), 1,1-
dichloroethane (DCA), 1,1,1-
trichloroethane (TCA), and
perchloroethylene (PCA)
- Highest carbon tetrachloride
concentration measured in soil gas was
1,234 ppmv at 112 ft below ground surface
Period of Operation:
June 1992 to July 1993
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
Steve Roe
Morrison-Knudsen Corporation
7100 East Belleview Avenue
Suite 300
Englewood, CO 80111
(303) 793-5089
SIC Code:
0723A (Crop Preparation Services for
Market, Except Cotton Ginning-
Grain Fumigation)
Technology:
Soil Vapor Extraction
- 10 extraction wells (5 deep, 3
intermediate, 2 shallow)
- 5 monitoring well probes
- An air/water separator, vacuum pump,
and vapor phase granular activated carbon
unit
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
- ROD Date: 9/26/89
- Fund Lead
Point of Contact:
Diane Easley (RPM)
U.S. EPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 551-7797
Waste Source:
Spill; Other: Contaminated Aquifer
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Full-scale SVE application at a
Superfund site to treat a large
quantity of soil contaminated with
carbon tetrachloride.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- 185,000 yd3
Shallow zone: moisture content 26.3%, air permeability 1.9 x 10"'° cm2,
TOC - 270 mg/kg
- Deep zone: moisture content 5%, air permeability 6.2 x 10"8 cm2,
TOC - < 50 mg/kg
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Extraction rate for carbon tetrachloride of 0.001 Ib/hr
- Established in 1992 by EPA and Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
Results:
- The SVE system achieved the cleanup goal of 0.001 Ib/hr extraction rate for carbon tetrachloride within 9 months of
operation
- Approximately 600 pounds of carbon tetrachloride extracted, about 45 pounds extracted within the first 2 months of
operation
Cost Factors:
- Total cost of $369,628 (including project monitoring and control, procurement support, construction management
(drilling, construction, system dismantlement, and grouting of wells), operations, maintenance, and reporting)
50
-------
Case Study Abstract
Soil Vapor Extraction at the Hastings Groundwater Contamination
Superfund Site Well Number 3 Subsite, Hastings, Nebraska (Continued)
Description:
Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) was used at the Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund site to treat approximately
185,000 cubic yards of soil contaminated with carbon tetrachloride (CC14). The site had become contaminated through
accidental spills of carbon tetrachloride which was used in the 1960s and 1970s as a fumigant at a grain storage facility.
Concentrations of CC14 were measured in soil gas at the site at levels as high as 1,234 ppmv. A Record of Decision
(ROD) was signed in September 1989, specifying SVE as an interim source control measure.
A pilot-scale treatability study (2 deep and 2 shallow extraction wells), conducted from April to May 1991, removed 45
pounds of CC14. The full-scale SVE system, based on the pilot-scale study, consisted of 10 extraction wells (5 deep, 3
intermediate, and 2 shallow) and was operated from June 1992 to July 1993. EPA and the Nebraska Department of
Environmental Quality established an extraction rate for CC14 of 0.001 Ib/hr as the cleanup goal with operation of the
system required until field analytical results were verified through laboratory analysis and confirmation of no rebounding
of CC14. The SVE system achieved the 0.001 Ib/hr CC14 extraction rate within 6 months (January 1993) with the results
verified and no rebounding confirmed by July 1993.
The total cost for this treatment application was approximately $370,000. Actual costs were 17% less than projected.
Cost savings were attributed to the effectiveness of the SVE system (the cleanup required only 9 months rather than the
estimated 2 years based on treatability study results), and use of local contractors.
51
-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site—Page 1 of 33 •
COST AND PERFORMANCE REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY |
This report summarizes cost and performance
data for a soil vapor extraction (SVE) treat-
ment application at the Well Number 3 Subsite
of the Hastings Groundwater Contamination
Superfund site. Soil at the site was contami-
nated with halogenated organic compounds.
Contamination was attributed to spills of
carbon tetrachloride (CCIJ which had been
used in the 1960s and 1970s as a fumigant at
a grain storage facility. Concentrations of CCI
were measured in the soil gas at the site at
levels over 1,200 ppmv.
On September 26, 1989, a Record of Deci-
sion (ROD) was signed to implement SVE as
an Interim Source Control measure. EPA and
the Nebraska Department of Environmental
Quality established an extraction rate for CCI4
of 0.001 Ib/hr as the cleanup goal, with
operation of the SVE system required until
field analytical results were verified through
laboratory analysis and it was confirmed that
no rebounding of CC14 was occurring.
A pilot-scale SVE treatability study was con-
ducted from April to May 1991. The pilot-
scale system included 2 deep and 2 shallow
extraction wells. During the pilot-scale opera-
I SITE INFORMATION
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site
Well Number 3 Subsite
Hastings, Nebraska
CERCLIS # NED980862668
ROD Date: 9/26/89
Treatment Application: Remedial
Treatability Study Associated with
Application? Yes (see Appendix A)
tion, 45 pounds of CCI were removed. The
full-scale SVE system consisted of 10 extrac-
tion wells (5 deep, 3 intermediate, and 2
shallow), 5 monitoring well probes, an air/
water separator, a vacuum pump, and vapor
phase granular activated carbon (GAC). The
full-scale system design included the two
deep extraction wells and one of the shallow
extraction wells used in the pilot-scale study.
The SVE system was operated from June 25,
1992 to July 1, 1993 to treat approximately
185,000 cubic yards of soil. The SVE system
achieved the 0.001 Ib/hr CCI extraction rate
4
within 6 months, with confirmation of analyti-
cal results and no rebounding of CCI4 by July
1993.
Actual costs for installing and performing the
SVE application, including disposal costs for
the GAC, were approximately $370,000,
which corresponds to $620 per pound of CCI4
removed (600 pounds removed) and $2.00
per cubic yard of soil treated. This large-scale
project benefited from treatment of soil with
relatively low levels of contaminants in the soil
gas.
EPA SITE Program Test Associated with
Application? No
Period of Operation: 6/25/92 - 7/1/93
Quantity of Material Treated During
Application: 185,000 cubic yards of soil
(based on an estimate provided by the
vendor of an areal extent of contamination
equal to 40,000 ft2 and a depth of contami-
nation equal to 125 ft) [21 ]
Background
Historical Activity that Generated Contami-
nation at the Site: Grain fumigation
Corresponding SIC Code(s): 0723A (Crop
Preparation Services for Market, Except
Cotton Ginning - Grain Fumigation)
Waste Management Practice that Contrib-
uted to Contamination: Spill/contaminated
aquifer
US ENV1RONMENTALPROTECT1ONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
52
-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site—Page 2 of 33 •
•SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background (cont.)
Site History: The Hastings Groundwater
Contamination Superfund site (Hastings)
is located in Adams County, Nebraska,
as shown in Figure 1. The site was used
as a grain storage facility in the 1960s
and 1970s. During this time, carbon
tetrachloride (CCI4) was used as a
fumigant and spillage resulted in soil
and groundwater contamination at the
site. As shown in Figure 2, the site
consists of several contaminant source
areas referred to as subsites. The Well
Number 3 Subsite is the location of a
CCI groundwater contaminant plume
and CC14 soil contamination extending
from the water table to near the surface
of the subsite. Contamination was detected in
samples of the public water system of
Hastings collected by the Nebraska Depart-
ment of Health (NDOH) in 1983 in response
to citizen complaints. AJso in 1983, NDOH
and the Nebraska Department of Environmen-
tal Quality (NDEQ) began to study groundwa-
ter contamination in Hastings. EPA began
quarterly sampling of wells in 1985. From
1986 through 1989, EPA performed soil gas
surveys to identify and characterize the
suspected source areas. [1 ]
Regulatory Context: [1, 20, 22] On Septem-
ber 26, 1989, a ROD was signed by EPA for
Interim Source Control Operable Unit 7, the
Hastings Ground\\dlcr
Conumniiition Supertund Site
Well Number 3 Subs He
Hastings, Nebraska
Figure 1. Site Location [1]
Well Number 3 Subsite. Soil vapor extraction,
followed by air emissions treatment with
granular activated carbon (GAC), was selected
as the most appropriate source control action
to protect public health and the environment
by controlling and reducing the migration and
volume of the contaminants present at the
site. The ROD also specified: off-site regen-
eration or incineration of the GAC at an
approved treatment facility; monitoring of the
contaminants in the soil above the aquifer;
groundwater monitoring; and monitoring of
the air emissions from the GAC treatment.
Site Logistics/Contacts
Site Management: Fund Lead
Oversight: EPA
Remedial Project Manager:
Diane Easley
U.S. EPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, I
-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site—Page 3 of 33 •
SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background (cont.)
"•
**
*
HASTINGS \ /
MUNICIPAL X
AIRPORT \
•*JV
- -9V NORTHERN_R_R
WELL NUMBER 3
SUBSITE
NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND
RAILROAD
CITY STREET
MAJOR HIGHWAY
APPROXIMATE AREA OF SUBSITE
Figure 2. Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site [2O]
in
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTKDNAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
1 Technology Innovation Office
-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamlnadon Superfund Site—Page 4 of 33 •
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix processed through the
treatment system: Soil (in situ)
Contaminant Characterization
Primary contaminant groups:
Halogenated Volatile Organic Compounds
The primary contaminant identified in the soil
at the Well Number 3 Subsite was carbon
tetrachloride (CCI4). Other contaminants
identified at the site included chloroform,
trichloroethene (TCE), 1,1 -dichloroethane
(DCA), 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), and
tetrachloroethene (PCA).
The results of soil gas surveys conducted by
EPA at the site and shown in Figure 3, indicate
that the highest CCI4 concentration measured
in the soil gas was 1,234 parts per million
volume (ppmv) at 112 feet below the ground
surface. In addition, CCI concentrations were
highest at depths of greater than 40 feet
below ground surface. [1,2]
y
M-S °
9 1.8
15 3.2
21 30
, M-5
1
15
71
na
1.0
1S
UEfiEHD
o PRCGEOPROBE (12/88)
o PRC COREHOLE (1/89)
A E&E CANISTER SAMPLE (12/89)
A ESE FIELD MEASUREMENT (12/88)
_ _ ESTIMATED LIMIT OF
CONTAMINATION
f CARBONTETRACHLORIDE
||| CONCENTRATION (PPMV)
* — DEPTH OF SOIL 3AS
MEASUREMENT
Figure 3. Soil Gas Concentrations [1]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT1ONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
55
-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site—Page 5 of 33 •
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
The major matrix characteristics affecting cost
or performance for this technology and their
measured values are presented in Table 1.
A particle size distribution as determined by
the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
for soils at 20 and 100 feet below ground
surface (BGS) is shown in Table 2.
Table 1. Matrix Characteristics [4]
Matrix Characteristic
Soil Classification
Particle Size Distribution
Moisture Content *
Air Permeability
Porosity
Total Organic Carbon*
Nonaqueous Phase Liquids
Depth to Groundwater
Depth of Contamination
Value
Not Available
See Table 2
26. 3% at 20 feet BGS
5.0% at 100 feet BGS
19x10 cm2 (shallow zone)"*
6.2 x 1 0 cm2 (deep zone) * *
Not Available
270 mg/kg at 20 feet BGS
< 50 mg/kg at 1 00 feet BGS
Not Available
125 feet BGS
125 feet BGS
Measurement Method
-
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Not Available
Not Available
Gas Tracer Test
-
Not Available
Not Available
--
Field Measurement
Field Measurement
"Moisture Content and TotaJ Organic Carbon results are from samples collected from soil boring of extraction well SVL-1D.
* * "Shallow zone" is defined as 0-65 feet BGS; the "deep zone" is defined as >65 feet BGS.
Table 2. Particle Size Distribution of Soil Samples from the Hastings Well Number 3 Subsite [4]
Soil Type
Gravel
Corase Sand
Medium Sand
Fine Sand
Very Fine Sand
Silt
Clay
Depth
20 Feet BGS
0.00%
0. 1 0%
0.00%
1 .50%
2.00%
73.70%
22.60%
100 Feet BGS
0.00%
9.30%
8.60%
5 1 .80%
23.40%
6.90%
0.035%
Site Geology/Stratigraphy
The Hastings site is underlain by two distinct
fluvial lithologies consisting of unconsolidated
sands, silts, and gravels of the Pleistocene and
Pleistocene/Miocene ages. The upper fluvial
unit consists of a poorly-graded fine sand to
sllty clay sand while the lower fluvial unit
consists of well-graded medium to coarse
gravelly sand. The water table is situated in
the lower unit at a depth of approximately
125 feet below ground surface. A stratigraphic
cross section of the site is presented in Figure
4. [3, 4]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTALPROTEC71ON AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
56
-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site—Page 6 of 33 •
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
*JPOMM» (bowd SurtK*
C-n !(««•• HUM
T
IMJU
wao
saes-
Legnd
_•-!.! J-1-J-llJ.!
H aaa.
CM CNMpwMHnaOiM«
M4 WMKM«I*AM«
Hole C IO»«)C-ll«aeloao«ll»ll
SVI -ID IBS togged bf IK, IS9I
Cross Section
finm-1
Hubkilicl
Figure 4. Stratigraphic Cress Section [4]
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology
Soil vapor extraction
Supplemental Treatment Technology
Post-treatment (air) using carbon adsorption
Soil Vapor Extraction System Description and Operation [2, 3, 4]
System Description
The SVE system used at the Hastings Well
Number 3 Subsite consisted of 10 extraction
wells (5 deep, 3 intermediate, 2 shallow), five
monitoring well probes, and associated
vacuum and air treatment equipment. The
location and depth of these wells are pre-
sented in Figure 5 and Table 3, respectively.
Extraction wells were installed at different
depths to capture the vertical extent of the
contamination which ranged from the ground
surface to the water table. The extraction wells
were constructed with 4-inch diameter,
schedule 80 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe,
with 0.01 -inch PVC screen. The intermediate
and deep extraction wells were installed in
pairs (three sets of collocated wells) approxi-
mately 5 feet apart.
Full-scale system design was based on the
results of the pilot-scale treatability study
(Appendix A) along with information on the
site geology and the results of a pump test.
The two deep extraction wells and one of the
two shallow extraction wells used in the
treatability study were utilized for the full-
scale application. One shallow extraction well
used in the treatability study was capped and
abandoned because the well interfered with
placement of the activated carbon canisters.
Additional wells added for the full-scale
application included one shallow well, three
intermediate wells, and three deep wells.
For each well pair, the screened interval of the
intermediate well was 50 to 80 feet below
ground surface (bgs), and 80 to 110 feet bgs
for the deep wells. This configuration allowed
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT1ONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
57
-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site—Page 7 of 33 •
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Soil Vapor Extraction System Description and Operation [2, 3, 4] (cont.)
Figure 5. Location of Extraction and Monitoring Wells [2]
Table 3. Status of Extraction and Monitoring Wells [3]
Well Type
Deep Extraction
Intermediate Extraction
Shallow Extraction
Monitoring
Weil No.
SVE- 1 D
SVE-2D
SVE-4D
SVE-5D
SVE-6D
SVE-41
SVE-SI
SVE-61
SVE- 1 S
SVE-2S
SVE-3S
MP-1P
MP-1S
MP-2
MP-3
MP-4
Status*
Used in TS and FS
Used in TS and FS
Installed for FS
Installed for FS
Installed for FS
Installed for FS
installed for FS
Installed for FS
Used in TS and FS
Abandoned from TS
Installed for FS
Used in TS and FS
Used in TS and FS
Installed for FS
Installed for FS
Installed for FS
Screened Interval
(In feet Below Ground Surface)
103-113
110-115
80- 1 1 0
80- 1 1 0
78- 1 08
50-80
50-80
50-80
20-40
30-40
20-40
55, 70, 110, 120
10, 30, 40
50, 70,90, 110
50, 70,90, 110
50, 70, 90, 1 10
*TS- Treatability Study
FS - Full-Scale Operation
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
58
-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site—Page 8 of 33 •
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Soil Vapor Extraction System Description and Operation [2,3.4] (cont.)
selective operation of the wells at higher
vacuum/flow conditions than could be
achieved through one well.
Each extraction well was installed with a
vacuum gauge to monitor well head condi-
tions and a butterfly valve to throttle the well
head vacuum and select use of the 30-foot
screened well. The extraction wells were hard
piped to the extraction and treatment system
with heat traced and insulated PVC pipe, as
shown in Rgure 6.
The extraction and treatment system con-
sisted of an air/water separator, an air-to-air
heat exchanger, a vacuum pump, and vapor
phase granular activated carbon (GAC). The
extraction system components were mounted
on a process skid which included a flow
metering piping run where the temperature,
pressure, and flow rate of the extracted gas
were monitored. The configuration of the
equipment on the process skid and the
arrangement of the system are shown in
Figure 7.
The system included six 1,000-pound canis-
ters of GAC, configured in two stages of three
canisters each. When spent, carbon canisters
were transported to a regeneration facility in
Parker, Arizona. The treated vapors were
discharged to the air through a 20-foot high
steel stack.
HOTtS
l (TWI «
«« I*
coouMwt
1 DIMCTOM *CU MM IMU |( HQUM
M 1* «CI V KM. *Ul &Wf
trt mm 1/4- n «H «ui ra MK
•on 10 MC u-t-ooi nm CCMKM.
MWCtHIM tf fO»*Nf wd 10 CQN-
imwim M rota MU
IWM 1 FKW IM MOM u
CXISTMC MlLl
NCW me «tuj
IEM-CKMT tftMCII M*NM
Figure 6. SVE System Site Layout [2]
U.S. ENV1RONMENTALPROTECT1ONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
59
-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site—Page 9 of 33 •
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Soil Vapor Extraction System Description and Operation [2, 3, 4] (cont.)
S.V
Figure 7. Process Area General Arrangement [2]
System Operation [2,6]
The SVE system was operated from June 25,
1992 to July 1, 1993 for a total of 6,600
hours. During operation of the SVE system,
selective use of the extraction wells occurred,
depending on the results of vapor samples
collected at the individual wellheads. Addi-
tionally, the entire system was temporarily
shut down when the overall extraction rate
was less than the required cleanup extraction
rate, carbon breakthrough occurred, or a
sampling event occurred. A chronology of the
SVE operations, including a description of
activities, is presented in Table 4.
Depending on the number of wells being
pumped at a given time, the total air flow rate
ranged from 519 to 754 standard cubic feet
per minute and the extraction well head
vacuums ranged from 3.05 to 7.6 inches of
mercury.
A detailed description of the SVE operation is
presented below [22]:
lune-lulv 1992: The initial operations of the
SVE system focused on the "heart" of the
contaminated area using extraction wells
SVE-1S, -ID, -3S, -51, and -5D. SVE modeling
results indicated that the SVE system at the
Well Number 3 Subsite would not generate
enough vacuum to effectively remove con-
taminants if all extraction wells were opened.
Initially, the plan was to extract from this area,
then to extract from the fringes (extraction
wells SVE-4I, -4D, -61, and -6D), modifying the
gas flow pattern as to when wells were
opened and closed. This operation plan was
unsuccessful because the high vacuum gener-
ated by pumping only on the interior wells,
drew water into the SVE system, which
resulted in a system shutdown. On July 1,
1992, system operation included all extraction
wells. The SVE system was operated for 789
hours with vacuum on all wells. The concen-
U.S.ENVIRONMENTALPROTECT1ONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
60
-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site—Page 10 of 33 •
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Soil Vapor Extraction System Description and Operation [2, 3, 4] (cont.)
Table 4. SVE System Operations Chronology [6]
Date
06/25/92
07/01/92
07/22/92
07/26/92
08/06/92
08/10/92
09/1 7/92
1 0/1 0/92
1 0/1 3/92
10/19/92
1 1/04/92
1 1/28/92
11/30/92
12/21/92
01/04/93
02/06/93
02/06/93
03/04/93
03/24/93
04/29/93
07/01/93
Time
11:30
11:05
15:40
14:55
12:00
08:20
22:52
1 5:45
18:00
10:20
09:30
20:45
17:00
09:40
09:30
13:20
14:20
13:08
11:15
9:15
16:30
Cululative
Down Time
(hrs)
0
3.8
52
6.3
198
198
21 1
759
759
760
760
760
780
780
781
1577
1577
2200
2207
2208
2446
Cululative
Elapsed Run
Time (hrs)
0
140
647
789
810
903
1816
1816
1890
2027
2409
2996
3020
3517
3852
3852
3853
3853
4325
5188
6600
Description
Start-up full-scale operation with extraction wells
SVE- IS, -ID, -3S, -51, and -5D open.
Opened remaining wells (SVE-4D, -41, -6D, and
-61) to reduce excessive water
Wells SVE- 1 S and -3S were taken out of service
since no contamination was being detected in
samples.
Entire system shut down for 9 days to evaluate
VOC rebounding effects.
The system was restarted with all wells pumped.
Wells SVE-1S, -3S, and -41 were taken out of
service because no contamination was being
detected in samples.
System shut-down due to carbon breakthrough.
System start-up after carbon replacement with all
wells being pumped.
Spent carbon shipped to TSD Facility.
Wells SVE- IS, -3S, and -4i were taken out of
service because no contamination was being
detected in samples.
Operation of the carbon system was changed to
two stages of two adsorbers per stage.
System shut-down due to concentration of CCI 4
in composite carbon outlet exceeding the
concentration of CCI 4 in the carbon Met.
Restart SVE system.
Granular activated carbon was removed fron the
system. EPA and NDEQ determined that the risk
attributed to air emissions were low and that the
GAC should be removed.
System shut down for two months because
extraction rate below 0.001 Ib/hr CCI 4.
System start-up for sample collection only.
System shut-down after sample collection.
System start-up with extraction wells SVE-1 D, -IS,
-3S, -51, -5D open.
Opened remaining wells (SVE-4D, -41, -6D, and
-61).
Closed extractions wells SVE-3S and -41 to
increase the vacuum at SVE-5D.
Operation of the SVE system terminated.
U.S. ENV1RONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office 61
-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site—Page 11 of 33 •
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Soli Vapor Extraction System Description and Operation [2, 3, 4] (cont.)
tration level of CC14 in the gas stream col-
lected at the system inlet (S-101), dropped
from 140 jUg/L to 13 /ug/L as measured in the
EPA analysis of the 6-L SUMMA™ canisters.
On July 26, 1992, the system was shut down
for 9 days to evaluate VOC rebounding
effects.
August-September 1992: On August 6, 1992,
the system was re-started (all SVE wells) to
determine rebounding effects. The analytical
results indicated that there was little or no
rebounding. The system was operated,
pumping on all extraction wells which con-
tained CC14, until September 1 7, 1992 (1,027
hours) when the system was shut down to
replace GAC.
October-lanuarv 1993: The system was
restarted on October 10, 1992 and operated
continuously until January 4, 1993 (an addi-
tional 2,036 hours). In November, additional
peaks in the sample analyses were noted by
the on-site analyst. The on-site analytical
system used an electron capture detector
which is sensitive to chlorinated solvents.
SUMMA™ canister samples were collected
from the wellhead locations from where these
extra peaks were noted (S-101 and SVE-5D)
on November 23, 1992 and sent to the EPA-
Region VII laboratory. Analysis of these
samples confirmed the presence of other
VOCs in the system.
In December 1992, several operational
changes took place. The NDEQ determined
that, due to the low levels of VOCs present in
the SVE gas stream, the GAC could be re-
moved, and EPA and the NDEQ set an extrac-
tion rate remediation goal for CCI4 at 0.001
pounds/hour. This level would need to be
achieved based upon pulsed pumping, and
verified with soil-gas sampling using
SUMMA™ canisters. The SVE system was shut
down on January 4, 1993 for a two-month
resting period.
February 1993: Gas samples were collected
on February 6, 1993 for both on-site and EPA
analyses. The EPA results indicated that the
levels of other VOCs increased in SVE-5D,
while the levels of CCI4 remained low. Gas
samples were collected during very cold
weather which could have affected the results.
SUMMA™ canister samples were believed to
be less affected by the low temperatures than
the syringe samples.
March 1993: The system was re-started with
pumping from wells SVE-IS, -ID, -3S, -51, and
-5D. Samples were collected with SUMMA™
canisters on March 4 and 6 to determine
rebounding effects. Some inconsistencies
between on-site and off-site analysis were
noted. There are several reasons why these
inconsistencies may have occurred including:
(1) sample size (10-mL syringe vs. 6-L
SUMMA™ canisters); (2) temperature effects
on collection method; and (3) low contami-
nant concentrations. On March 24, extraction
wells SVE-4I, -4D, -61, and -6D were added to
the system.
April-lune 1993: EPA and NDEQ agreed that
the system would run continuously until
analytical results could be verified, or until July
1, 1993. All extraction wells were being
pumped. A final inspection of SVE system
operation took place on April 19, 1993. On
April 29, 1993, two extraction wells were
removed from the system (SVE-3S and -41) to
increase flow to SVE-5D. Collection of verifica-
tion samples was conducted on May 1, 1993
with the collection of SUMMA™ canister
samples from SVE-5D and S-101 (system
inlet). On-site testing results indicated that the
CC14 levels remained low. Off-site EPA analy-
ses of samples indicated that the on-site, field
method has a negative bias of approximately
50%.
Post-June 1993: SVE skid equipment was
dismantled and moved to EPA's storage area
in Hastings, Nebraska. EPA abandoned all SVE
extraction wells and monitoring probes. The
chain-link fence has been reconfigured to
accommodate the groundwater treatabillty
study system.
U.S. ENV1RONMENTALPROTECT1ONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
62
-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site—Page 12 of 33 •
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
The major operating parameters affecting cost or performance for this technology and the
values measured for each are presented in Table 5.
Table 5, Operating Parameters [6-19]
Parameter
Air flow rate
Operating vacuum
Value
504 to 858 scfm
3.05 to 7.6 inches of Hg
Timeline
A timeline for this application is shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Timeline [1, 2, 4, 6]
Start Date
06/10/86
09/26/89
04/15/91
02/92
03/92
04/92
06/25/92
End Date
—
...
05/09/91
03/92
06/92
06/92
07/01/93
Activity
Site placed on NPL
ROD for Operable Unit 7 signed
Treatability test performed
Installation of additional full-scale extraction and
monitoring wells
Procurement and fabrication of the vacuum extraction
equipment
On-site construction of extraction and treatment
Full-scale operation of SVE
system
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards [1,5]
No cleanup levels were specified in the 1989
ROD. The remedial action at the Well Number
3 Subsite was completed as an interim
measure for the purpose of controlling con-
taminant migration. In December 1992, EPA
and the Nebraska Department of Environmen-
tal Quality established an extraction rate for
carbon tetrachloride of 0.001 Ibs/hr as a cutoff
value for terminating operation of the SVE
system. The rationale for the cutoff was
supported by a cost comparison with ground-
water extraction and treatment. For extraction
rates less than the cutoff value, groundwater
extraction and treatment at this site was found
to be less expensive than SVE.
In addition, EPA determined that the system
was to be operated until the field analytical
results were verified through laboratory
analysis and it was verified that no rebounding
of CC1 was occurring.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
63
-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site—Page 13 of 33 •
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Treatment Performance Data [2, 3, 6, 21, 22]
Treatment performance data for operation
running time, air flow rates (Qs), mass extrac-
tion rate, and total mass removed for carbon
tetrachloride for this SVE system are shown in
Table 7. Figures 8 and 9 show the mass
extraction rate and cumulative mass removed
for carbon tetrachloride, respectively, plotted
against time for the operation of the SVE
system. These data are based on field analyti-
cal results. The rate and mass were calculated
from the concentrations of extracted vapor
samples collected at the carbon system inlet.
Samples of the extracted vapor were collected
weekly using a gas-tight syringe and analyzed
on site with a gas chromatograph for carbon
tetrachloride only. [2, 3, 6]
Table 8 presents the carbon tetrachloride
concentrations measured at each wellhead
and the carbon system inlet. Sampling oc-
curred at each extraction well on a monthly
basis with analyses performed on site. On a
periodic basis, samples from the wellheads
and carbon inlet were collected in stainless
steel SUMMA™ canisters and were analyzed
by a Region VII laboratory for volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). The canister sampling
results, presented in Table 9, were used to
compare with the syringe sample results and
to quantify other VOCs that may be present.
Post-treatment sampling of the soil gas or soil
borings was not performed because of difficul-
ties with detecting VOCs in soils at the site.
Soil samples collected during the previous
investigations frequently showed non-detects
in locations where significant levels of soil gas
were found. Therefore, it was concluded that
soil gas was a more reliable and easily mea-
sured indication of vadose zone contamina-
tion.
Table 7. SVE System Operation Log [6]
Date
6/25/92
6/25/92
6/26/92
6/27/92
6/3O/92
7/08/92
7/17/92
7/22/92
7/28/92
8/06/92
8/12/92
8/19/92
8/26/92
9/03/92
9/07/92
9/12/92
9/17/92
10/10/92
Time
11:30
11:52
08:45
7:30
9:00
14:00
15:10
10:16
9:25
15:31
11:25
10:50
10:30
20:07
17:48
15:07
19:49
16:21
Down Time
(mln)
0
190
15
25
20
60
0
70
11520
720
15
0
0
0
40
0
32693
Q»
(*cfm)
771
728
530
485
680
678
658
620
728
673
600
595
579
582
579
523
0
CCI4 @
S-101
(ugrt.)
48.00
1 1 1 .00
42.00
56.00
13.97
10.03
10.11
15.14
8.08
6.66
12.48
12.19
2.63
5.66
3.14
4.06
4.32
Corrected
CCI4 @
S-101
(Itfl)
88.80
205.35
77.70
I03.6O
25.84
18.56
18.70
28.01
14.95
12.32
12.48
12 19
2.63
5.66
3.14
4.06
4.32
Time of
Operation
(hr»)
0.00
0.37
18.08
40.58
113.67
310.33
526.50
641 .60
783.58
813.68
941.58
1108.75
1276.42
1478.03
1571.72
1688.37
1813.07
1816-72
CCI4
Extraction
Rate
(lb/hr)
0.256
0.560
0.154
O.I 88
0.066
0.047
0.046
0.065
0.041
0.031
0.028
0.027
0.006
0.012
0.007
0.008
0.000
Total CCI4
Removed
(">)
0.09
10.02
13.49
27.27
40.19
50.38
55.68
64.92
66.15
70.12
74.81
79.36
80.51
81.67
82.46
83.46
83.46
u s ENV,RONMENTALPRoTECTIONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
64
-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site—Page 14 of 33 •
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Treatment Performance Data [2, 3, 6, 21, 22] (cont.)
Table 7 (cont.). SVE System Operation Log [6]
Date Time
10/19/92 13:00
JO/25/92 17:29
10/31/92 15:40
11/07/92 14:00
11/17/92 17:32
11/12/92 11:06
11/28/92 12:06
12/01/92 17:00
12/05/92 12:57
12/12/92 12:29
12/23/92 11:34
12/30/92 16:36
2/06/93 1 3:52
3/04/93 1 3:08
3/06/93 16:48
3/13/93 16:39
3/23/93 16:31
4/03/93 14:19
4/10/93 16:22
4/17/93 16:22
4/24/93 1 6:22
5/01/93 16:30
5/08/93 17:12
5/16/93 17:12
5/22/93 17:12
6/15/93 14:03
6/17/93 12:54
6/27/93 1 7:24
Down Time
(rain)
0
0
30
0
19
0
0
0
0
25
40
0
47760
37380
0
0
440
0
0
17
0
0
50
0
0
3515
0
3600
Q*
(scfm)
655
583
574
520
504
502
512
519
523
507
659
669
858
538
708
547
562
767
757
743
743
663
724
708
703
661
671
687
CCI4@
S-101
(utfL)
3.24
2.52
2.95
2.29
2.47
2.21
1.03
1.04
1.37
1.51
0.49
0.12
0.13
0.67
0.11
1.63
0.39
0.57
0.38
0.30
0.27
0.17
0.26
0.00
0.12
0.06
0.22
O.03
Corrected
CCI4@
S-101
<«*L)
3.24
2.52
2.95
2.29
2.47
2.21
1.03
1.04
1.37
1.51
0.49
0.12
0.13
0.67
0.11
1.63
0.39
0.57
0.38
0.30
0.27
0.17
0.26
0.00
0.12
0.06
0.22
0.03
Time of
Operation
(hrs)
2029.37
2177.85
2319.53
2485.87
2729.08
2866.65
2987.65
3064.55
3156.50
3323.62
3586.03
3759.07
3872.33
3872.60
3924.27
4092.12
4324.65
4586.45
4756.50
4924.22
5092.22
5260.35
5428.22
5620.22
5764.22
6278.48
6325.33
6509.83
CCI4
Extraction Total CCI4
Rate Removed
(Ib/hr) (Ib)
0.008 85.15
0.006 85.96
0.006 86.86
0.004 87.60
0.005 88.74
0.004 89.31
0.002 89.55
0.002 89.70
0.003 89.95
0.003 90.43
0.001 90.75
0.0003 90.80
0.0004 90.85
0.0014 90.85
0.0003 90.86
0.0033 91.42
0.0008 91.61
0.0016 92.04
0.0011 92.23
0.0008 92.37
0.0008 92.49
0.0004 92.56
0.0007 92.68
0.0000 92.68
0.0003 92.73
0.0001 92.80
0.0006 92.83
0.0001 92.84
U.S.ENVIRONMENTALPROTEC71ONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
65
-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site—Page 15 of 33 •
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.) 1
Treatment Performance Data [2, 3, 6, 21, 22] (cont.)
o
TIME OF OPERATION (hrs)
Figure 8. Carbon Tetrachlonde MASS Extraction Rate vs. Time [Adapted from Reference 6]
TIME OF OPERATION (hrs)
Figure 9. Cumulative Mass of Carbon Tetrachloride Removed vs. Time [Adapted from Reference 6]
U.S.ENMRONMENTALPROTECT10NAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
66
-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site—Page 16 of 33 •
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Treatment Performance Data (cont.)
Table 8. Carbon Tetrachlonde Concentrations (fJg/L) from On-site Analysis of Extracted Air Samples [6]
Sample
Location
SVE-IS
SVE-1D
SVE-3S
SVE-41
SVE-4D
SVE-51
SVE-5D
SVE-61
SVE-6D
S-101"
Sample
Location
SVE-IS
SVE-1D
SVE-3S
SVE-41
SVE-4D
SVE-51
SVE-5D
SVE-61
SVE-6D
S-101*
June 25
1992
5.00
240.1
7.8
42.3
184.8
263.9
224.3
56.4
82.7
88.8
December 23
1992
0.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.4
0.1
0.6
05
July 28
1992
0.0
11.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.9
15.9
2.7
13.0
28.0
February 6
1993
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0 1
0.0
0.1
August 6
1992
0.0
8.8
0.0
0.0
13.4
9.5
21.6
3.8
9.3
15.0
April}
1993
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
00
0.1
02
0,0
0 1
0.6
September 12
1992
0.0
9.6
0.0
0.0
4.3
0.2
6.9
0.3
1.2
4.1
May 1
1993
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.3
October 10
1992
0.2
10.2
0.0
0.4
8.4
2.0
2.8
1.0
1.6
4.3
June 17
1993
0.0
0.4
NS
NS
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
November 23
1992
0.0
4.0
0.1
0.0
1.4
0.6
2.6
0.0
0.6
2.2
*S-101 is the carbon system inlet.
NS = Not sampled
Note: A correction factor of 1.85 was applied to on-site GC results
obtained before August 12, 1992 to account for negative bias.
Table 9. Results of Canister Samples [6]
Canister Results for March 4, 1993
Contaminant
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Benzene
Trichloroethene
1,1-DCE
U.l-TCA
PCE
Methylene Chloride
Concentration at
Extraction Well SVE- ID
(P8/L)
1.80
O.12
0.17
1.10
1.10
0.95
1.40
0.10
Concentration at
Extraction Well SVE-5D
(PS/L)
0.92
O.04
0.18
7.20
5.20
4.60
5.90
0.16
Concentration at
Extraction Well
SVE-51 (/Jg/L)
0.52
0.13
0.01
1.20
0.98
O.83
1.10
0,43
. U.S.ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY
fc Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
$ Technology Innovation Office
67
-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site—Page 1 7 of 33 •
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.) 1
Treatment Performance Data (cont.)
Table 9. (cont.) Results of Canister Samples [6]
Canister Results for March 6, 1993
Contaminant
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Benzene
Trichloroethene
1,1 -DCE
1,1,1-TCA
PCE
MethyJene Chloride
Concentration at
Extract ion Well SVE- ID
{fgtl)
1.90
0.11
0.32
5.40
4.00
3.60
5.10
0.13
Concentration at
Extraction Well SVE-5D
G#L)
Non-Detect
Non- Detect
Non-Detect
Non-Detect
Non-Detect
Non-Detect
Non-Detect
0.18
Concentration at
Extraction Well SVE-5I
(Pg/1-)
0.37
0.12
Non-Detect
Non-Detect
Non-Detect
Non-Detect
Non-Detect
Non-Detect
Table 9. (cont.) Results of Canister Samples [6]
Canister Results for May 1. 1993
Contaminant
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Benzene
Trichloroethene
1,1 -DCE
t,l,l-TCA
PCE
Concentration at
Extraction Well Carbon
Inelt, S-101 (ug/l)
0.33
Non-Detect
0.05
5.30
2.80
2.50
3.00
Concentration at
Extraction Well
SVE-5D (f/g/L)
0.64
Non-Detect
Non-Detect
4.90 .
2.50
2.10
2.60
Performance Data Assessment
A review of the results in Table 7 and Figures 8
and 9 indicates that after approximately 3,600
hours of operation, the SVE system achieved
the extraction rate cleanup goal of 0.001 Ib/hr,
with a corresponding mass of carbon tetra-
chloride removed equal to approximately 90
pounds. The results indicate that more than
half of the mass removed occurred during the
first 22 days of operation, and that the
concentration of carbon tetrachloride at the
wellheads sharply decreased after the first
month of operation.
To verify that the carbon tetrachloride cleanup
goal was achieved, the system was shut down
for 2 months to assess the potential rebound
in the carbon tetrachloride concentration. As
shown in Table 7, there was no significant
increase in the carbon tetrachloride concen-
trations after a 2-month shutdown.
The rapid decrease in carbon tetrachloride
concentration is further supported by the
information in Table 8, which shows a de-
crease in CCL4 concentration by at least one
order of magnitude from June 25 to
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
68
-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site—Page 18 of 33 •
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Assessment (cont.)
July 28, 1992 for seven of eight sample
locations, followed by a more gradual de-
crease in concentrations through June 1 7,
1993. The results in Table 9 show that, in
addition to CCI4, detectable levels of chloro-
form, benzene, trichloroethene, 1,1-
dichloroethene (DCE), 1,1,1 -trichloroethane
(TCA), tetrachloroethene (PCE), and methyl-
Performance Data Completeness
ene chloride were present in the extracted
vapors from wells 1D, 5D, and 51. Also, as
shown in Tables 8 and 9, the CCI. concentra-
4
tions measured on May 1, 1994 using on-site
analyses and canister samples were within 25%
of each other for sampling locations S-101 (0.3
vs. 0.33 jug/L) and Well-5D (0.5 and 0.
Data characterize concentrations of contami-
nants in soil vapors from each extraction well
over the course of the treatment operation,
Performance Data Quality [12]
and show how treatment performance varies
with operating conditions of the SVE system.
A comparison of the on-site syringe results,
performed in August 1992, with the canister
results showed that the syringe results were
biased low. The bias is believed to be a result
of diffusion of the sample from the syringe
prior to analysis. A larger sample injection
volume was used to minimize the diffusion
effect. A correction factor of 1.85 was devel-
oped for the syringe results based on studies
done with larger injection volumes and the
canister results.
Other exceptions noted by the vendor for this
treatment application included:
In February 1993, a negative bias was also
observed and verified by the March sampling.
It was determined that the following reasons
could have contributed to this bias:
— Simple sampling equipment (10-mL
syringe versus 6-L SUMMA™
canisters);
— Low levels of contaminants in the
samples (at higher concentrations,
small fluctuations are not so dra-
matic) ;
— Cold weather conditions; and
— The on-site laboratory and analytical
methodology was limited, whereas
the off-site analyses were performed
by an EPA region laboratory.
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process [2]
EPA's ARCS contractor, Morrison-Knudsen
Corporation (MK), was assigned the Remedial
Design phase work for this action. MK was
also retained to develop the A/E bid packages,
to provide oversight of the construction of the
treatment system, and to operate the SVE
system during the shakedown period. MK
contracted with a drilling firm as a subcontrac-
tor to install the new extraction and monitor-
ing wells and procured the GAC through a
vendor. MK also issued subcontracts for
fabrication of the skid-mounted vacuum
extraction unit and for on-site construction
operations support. All of the subcontracts
were obtained through competitive bidding.
U.S. ENV1RONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
69
-------
(Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site—Page 19 of 33 •
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Treatment System Cost
In order to standardize reporting of costs
across projects, the treatment vendor's costs
were categorized according to an interagency
Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), as shown in
Table 10. The WBS contains specific elements
for activities directly attributed to treatment.
No costs were reported by the vendor for
before- or after-treatment activities, including
monitoring, sampling, testing, and analysis.
Table 11 presents the actual costs for con-
struction, operation, and decommissioning of
the SVE system, according to a format pro-
vided by the treatment vendor.
As shown in Tables 10 and 11, actual costs for
this application were approximately
$370,000. This value is 17% less than the
$447,700 value originally estimated for this
application. [21, 22]
The actual total treatment cost value of
$370,000 corresponds to $620 per pound of
CC14 removed (600 pounds CCId removed)
and $2.00 per cubic yard of soil treated. The
number of cubic yards of soil treated at
Hastings is an estimate based on information
provided by the vendor; the actual amount of
soil treated is not available at this time for
comparison with the estimate.
Table t O. Actual Costs Shown According to the WBS [adapted from 21]
Mobilization/Setup (well installation, SVE construction, and vacuum
extraction unit fabrication)
Operation (short-term; up to 3 years) (project monitoring and control,
procurement support, construction management, technical engineering
services, and O&M services)
Cost of Ownership (GAC, gas chromatograph lease, rolloff bin rental, and
award fee)
Dismantling (decommissioning)
TOTAL TREATMENT COSTS
$175,404
$159,250
$31,594
$3,380
$369,628
Cost Data Quality
A detailed breakdown of the cost elements
and actual cost data were provided by the
vendor for this application. Costs were pro-
vided for labor, equipment, subcontracts,
travel, other direct costs, and fees. Costs were
provided for project monitoring and control,
procurement support, construction manage-
ment, technical engineering services, and
award fee.
U.S. ENV1RONMENTALPROTECT1ONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
70
-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site—Page 20 of 33 •
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Treatment System Cost (cont.)
1-
LU
I
U
U
U
5
,o
u.
If
V IX
6 y
1
ho
H>
_
O
!
1
2"
•w
e
E
a.
"5
^
tw
J
J
^
£
S
1
o
m
VD
fl
^
-^
3
m
V*
in
3
vq
£
m
00
8
d
8
d
^.
r-«
^
rv
ON"
f
o
Project Monit
&. Control
fO
•^H
(^
\q
trf
oo
«1 rri rrf T3 •§
!•§
ST€
v^ v> v>
«e
ii
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
71
-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site—Page 21 of 33 •
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Cost Observations and Lessons Learned
Actual costs for installing and per-
forming the SVE application, including
disposal costs for the GAC, at the Well
Number 3 Subsite were approximately
$370,000, which corresponds to
$620 per pound of CCI removed
(600 pounds CCI4 removed) and
$2.00 per cubic yard of soil treated.
Actual costs were 17% less than
originally estimated. According to the
RPM, cost savings were realized in the
following areas:
1. The SVE system worked better
than expected, removed the
contamination faster than ex-
pected, and was on-line about 2/3
of the time.
2. Savings were realized by using
local construction contractors to
provide oversight during the
operation phase of the system.
The involvement of the ARCS
contractor was limited to phone
conversations. Limited site travel
was required during remediation
phase. Costs were saved by
utilizing a local chemist to per-
form chemical monitoring, and by
utilizing a Region VII laboratory to
provide off-site analysis.
3. The strong partnership, involve-
ment, and commitment, between
EPA and the State of Nebraska on
this project allowed operating
decisions to be based upon
system performance and through
an interactive decision-making
process.
4. The ability to use one contract
vehicle from design to project
completion. One ARCS contractor
designed the system and then
performed project oversight.
Subcontractors procured by the
ARCS contractor performed well.
Performance Observations and Lessons Learned
Soil vapor extraction met the remedial
action cutoff extraction rate (0.001
Ibs/hr) to remove carbon tetrachloride
contamination at this operable unit
within approximately 6 months of
system operation. No CC14 rebounding
effects were observed after a 2-month
shutdown period.
More than half of the contaminant
removal occurred during the first 22
days of system operation.
The RPM indicated that it is likely that
the mass of VOCs removed by the
system was greater than shown by the
field results, based on the following
information:
1. The EE/CA determined that 400
pounds of CCI4 was estimated to
be present;
2. Results from Westates Carbon
determined that the three GAC
canisters contained 19% VOCs
(approximately 570 pounds of
VOCs);
3. The use of 10-mL syringes to
collect gas samples from the
vacuum side of the system during
operation (approximately 7 in. of
Hg); and
4. The off-site confirmation testing
which indicated that the on-site
sampling had a negative bias of
approximately 50%.
In addition, the RPM indicated that
the on-site gas collection method,
while quick and inexpensive, likely
resulted in the dilution of the gas
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
72
-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site—Page 22 of 33 •
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED (CONT.)
Performance Observations and Lessons Learned (cont.)
sample during sample collection. The
RPM estimated that a total of approxi-
mately 600 pounds of CC14 were
removed by the SVE system at the
Other Observations and Lessons Learned
Well Number 3 Subsite during both the
treatability study phase and the
remedial action phase.
The full-scale system, designed based
on the results of the treatability study,
was implemented without modifica-
tion. The treatability study results
predicted that a 2-year operation
period would be required to remedi-
ate the site. The full-scale system
achieved the cleanup goals in less
than a year.
For the soils at Hastings, modelling
was not reflective of system perfor-
mance. The modelling predicted a
radius of influence of 300 feet for the
SVE wells; however, the actual radius
of influence was found to be at least
1,500 feet for the system (based on
an analysis of the source for additional
contaminants removed by the SVE
system).
The on-site analytical protocol was
not reflective of actual contaminant
concentrations in the extracted soil
vapors towards the end of the reme-
diation (i.e., for lower concentrations
of VOCs). For lower VOC concentra-
tions, a larger sample volume is
needed (e.g., a 6-liter SUMMA™
canister).
According to the RPM, the SVE system
was sufficiently flexible to allow the
sequential pumping of the system.
Sequential pumping was desirable for
the following reasons:
1. When two or more wells are
located close enough to each
other that their areas of vacuum
influence overlap, a small "dead
zone" will occur where soil gas
will not move toward either well;
and
2. After an extended pumping
period, the rate of VOC diffusion
from the soil or soil pore water
matrix to the soil gas may become
the limiting factor in the ability to
remove VOCs from the vadose
zone (the system becomes
"diffusion limited"). In this case it
is usually beneficial to stop
pumping to allow time for equilib-
rium to be established between
the VOCs in the soil/pore water
matrix and the surrounding soil
gas (i.e., rebounding).
EPA issued the ROD for groundwater
Operable Unit 1 3 on June 30, 1993,
which required groundwater extraction
and treatment. EPA initiated a ground-
water 30-day treatability study in April
1994 utilizing monitoring well CW-1.
Groundwater monitoring results
indicated that the levels of CC1 found
4
in monitoring well CW-1 varied from a
high of 1,400 pg/L (one time), to
levels between 100-150 jug/L prior to
EPA's treatability SVE action. Levels
continued to drop and in June 1993
were approximately 20 JL/g/L. During
EPA's 39-day treatability study/pump
test, using monitoring well CW-1, the
levels of CCI4 in the well averaged less
than 5 jL/g/L. [22]
. U.S.ENV1RONMENTALPROTECT10NAGENCY
ft Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
s Technology Innovation Office
73
-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site—Page 23 of 33 •
REFERENCES!
1. US. Environmental Protection Agency.
Record of Decision. Hastings Ground-
water. NE. September 1989.
2. Morrison-Knudsen Corporation.
Preliminary Design Report for a Soil
Vapor Extraction System, Well Number
3 Subsite. Revision 1. US. EPA ARCS,
September 1991.
3. US. Environmental Protection Agency.
Remedial Action Report for Source
Control Operable Unit at the Well #3
Subsite. Hastings. Nebraska. June 1 7,
1993.
4. Morrison-Knudsen Corporation. Soil
Vapor Extraction Treatability Study
Report. Well Number 3 Subsite. US.
EPA ARCS, July 1991.
5. Letter from Diane Easley, EPA to
Richard Schlenker, NDEQ, dated
December 1, 1992.
6. Morrison-Knudsen Corporation. "Well
Number 3 Source Control, Remedial
Design/Remedial Action - May/June
1993 Monthly Status Report," U.S.
EPA ARCS, July 7, 1993.
7. Morrison-Knudsen Corporation. "Well
Number 3 Source Control, Remedial
Design/Remedial Action - April 1993
Monthly Status Report," US. EPA
ARCS, May 3, 1993.
8. Morrison-Knudsen Corporation. "Well
Number 3 Source Control, Remedial
Design/Remedial Action - February/
March 1993 Monthly Status Report,"
US. EPA ARCS, April 6, 1993.
9. Morrison-Knudsen Corporation. "Well
Number 3 Source Control, Remedial
Design/Remedial Action - December
1992/January 1993 Monthly Status
Report," US. EPA ARCS, January 4,
1994.
10. Morrison-Knudsen Corporation. "Well
Number 3 Source Control, Remedial
Design/Remedial Action - November
1992 Monthly Status Report," US.
EPA ARCS, December 9, 1992.
11. Morrison-Knudsen Corporation. "Well
Number 3 Source Control, Remedial
Design/Remedial Action - October
1992 Monthly Status Report," US.
EPA ARCS, November 2, 1992.
12. Morrison-Knudsen Corporation. "Well
Number 3 Source Control, Remedial
Design/Remedial Action - September
1992 Monthly Status Report," US.
EPA ARCS, October 1, 1992.
13. Morrison-Knudsen Corporation. "Well
Number 3 Source Control, Remedial
Design/Remedial Action - August 1992
Monthly Status Report," U.S. EPA
ARCS, September 3, 1992.
14. Morrison-Knudsen Corporation. "Well
Number 3 Source Control, Remedial
Design/Remedial Action - July 1992
Monthly Status Report," U.S. EPA
ARCS, August 3, 1992.
15. Morrison-Knudsen Corporation. "Well
Number 3 Source Control, Remedial
Design/Remedial Action - May 1992
Monthly Status Report," US. EPA
ARCS, June 4, 1992.
16. Morrison-Knudsen Corporation. "Well
Number 3 Source Control, Remedial
Design/Remedial Action - April 1992
Monthly Status Report," US. EPA
ARCS, May 4, 1992.
1 7. Morrison-Knudsen Corporation. "Well
Number 3 Source Control, Remedial
Design/Remedial Action - March 1992
Monthly Status Report," US. EPA
ARCS, April3, 1992.
18. Morrison-Knudsen Corporation. "Well
Number 3 Source Control, Remedial
Design/Remedial Action - February
1992 Monthly Status Report," US.
EPA ARCS, March 3, 1992.
19. Morrison-Knudsen Corporation. "Well
Number 3 Source Control, Remedial
Design/Remedial Action - December
1991/January 1992 Monthly Status
Report," US. EPA ARCS, February 5,
1992.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
74
-------
REFERENCES (CONT.)
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site—Page 24 of 33 •
20. Interim Action Record of Decision,
Hastings Ground Water Contamination
Site, Well #3 Subsite, Groundwater
Operable Units, Plume 1 Operable
Unit #3, Plume 2, Operable Unit #18,
Hastings, Nebraska, U.S. EPA Region
VII, Kansas City, Kansas, June 30,
1993.
21. Comments submitted by Morrison-
Knudsen Corporation, on January 26,
1995.
22. Comments submitted by Diane Easley
of EPA Region VII on February 9, 1995.
Analysis Preparation
This case study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by
Radian Corporation under EPA Contract No. 68-W3-0001.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC71ONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
75
-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site—Page 25 of 33 •
APPENDIX A - TREATABILITY STUDY
SUMMARY
Identifying Information
Site Location:
ROD Date:
Historical Activity at Site - SIC Codes:
Historical Activity at Site - Management Practices:
Site Contaminants:
Type of Action:
Did ROD include a contingency based on
treatability study results?
Hastings, Nebraska
9/26/89
07Z3A (Crop Preparation Services for Market Except
Cotton Ginning - Grain Fumigation
Spill/Contaminated Aquifer
Carbon Tetrachloride (CCI4 ) and Chloroform
Remedial
No
Treatability Study Information
Type of Treatability Study:
Duration of Treatability Study:
Media Treated:
Quantity Treated:
Treatment Technology:
Target Contaminant of Concern:
Conducted before the ROD was signed:
Additional treatability studies conducted:
Technology selected for full-scale application:
Pilot
4/15/91 to 5/9/91
Soil (in situ)
45 pounds of VOCs removed
Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)
Four extraction wells (two deep and two shallow
were followed by an air/water spearator, a vacuum
pump blower, and two activated carbon canisters
Carbon Tetrachloride
No
No
Yes
Treatability Study Strategy
Number of Runs:
Key Operating Parameters Varied:
Three operational tests (step, steady-state, and gas
tracer) were performed
Vacuum applied, treatment time, air flow rate
Treatability Study Results:
Mass of Contaminants Removed:
Pre-test Soil Vapor Concentrations:
(measured by on-site laboratory)
Post-test Soil Vapor Concentrations:
(measured by on-site laboratory)
Correlation of Operating Parameters with
Performance Data:
45 pounds of CClj and chloroform from four wells
0.3 pg/L to 440 /jg/L of CC14
0.0 1 ps/L to 250 /jg/L of chloroform
Non-detectable to 2.0 pg/L of CCI4
0.002 /jg/L to 2.0 fjg/L of chloroform
Greater treatment time resulted in higher mass of
contaminant removed; removal of contaminants was
higher in deep wells compared to shallow wells
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
76
-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site—Page 26 of 33 •
APPENDIX A - TREATABILITY STUDY (CONT.)
TREATABILITY STUDY STRATEGY
Treatability Study Purpose [4]
The overall purposes of the pilot-scale treat-
ability study were to:
• Collect data on the removal rate of
carbon tetrachloride (CCIJ and
chloroform by the pilot SVE system in
order to develop full-scale treatment
system design criteria; and
• Collect data to project time and
effectiveness of full-scale treatment
system performance of the SVE
system.
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Specific objectives of the treatability study
included determination of well spacing and
well screening intervals for full-scale applica-
tion, evaluation of full-scale flow rate, vacuum
and granular activated carbon (GAC) require-
ments, estimation of cost and time required
for full-scale remediation, and collection of
additional subsurface condition data that
could affect full-scale design. In addition,
concentrations of CCI and chloroform in the
4
extracted soil vapor was also measured.
Treatment System Description and
Operation [4]
Treatment System Description
As shown in Figure A-1, the SVE pilot treat-
ment system included four vapor extraction
wells and two monitoring wells. Two extrac-
tion wells (SVE-IS and SVE-2S) were designed
to study the shallow zone, and two extraction
wells (SVE-1D and SVE-2D) were designed to
study the deep zone.
Shallow and deep monitoring wells (MP-1S
and MP-1 D) were 4 inches in diameter and
equipped with several probes at various
depths. The well casings were schedule 80,
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) casings with 0.01 -
inch slot wire wrapped stainless steel screens,
except for SVE-1 S which had a 0.01 -inch PVC
screen. As shown in Figure A-2, the extraction
wells were piped to an air/water separator,
vacuum pump/blower, and two 1,000-lb
activated carbon canisters. The treated vapors
were discharged to the air through a 20-foot
high stack.
Operational Tests
Three operational tests (step, steady-state,
and gas tracer) were performed for 10 days
on each well within the shallow and deep
zones. During the tests, the vacuum was
varied to optimize performance of the shallow
and deep wells. The step test was conducted
by pumping each well at incrementally in-
creasing vacuums to observe the flow rate
response. Results of the step test were used
to determine a flow rate for the second phase,
a steady-state test. The step test results were
also used to establish design criteria for
extraction wells, pumping, and vapor treat-
ment equipment required for full-scale reme-
diation. The steady-state test was conducted,
per the conditions determined in the step test,
to study removal rate of contaminants (CCI
and chloroform). At the end of the steady-
state test, the gas tracer test was conducted
to evaluate soil gas velocities and to calculate
permeability to air.
Wells SVE-1 D and SVE-1S were operated for
approximately 200 hours each and wells SVE-
2D and SVE-2S were operated for approxi-
mately 50 hours each. A total of 45 pounds of
volatile organic compounds were captured by
the granular activated carbon system during
the treatability study.
Pretest, operational, and post-test sampling
and analysis were performed by both on-site
(Close Support Laboratory or CSL) and off-site
laboratories (Contract Laboratory Program or
CLP). Samples of soil, extracted soil vapor,
carbon outlet gas, and water from the air/
water separator were also collected and
analyzed. Syringe samples were collected for
analysis by the CSL, canister samples were
collected for analysis by CLP.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
77
-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site—Page 27 of 33 •
APPENDIX A - TREATABILITY STUDY (CONT.)
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (cent.)
• SVE-2D
28
MCW-1
Legend:
KCW-1
• SVE-ID
® SVE-IS
BMP-ID
U C9/9A
BMP-IS
CD
TmttJ
Existing EPA Ground
Water Monitoring Wjfl
Deep Extraction WeN
Shallow Extraction WteK
Deep Monitor Probe Ctuslei
PRC Coiehole
Shallow Monilor Probe
Cluster
north
20 40
scale In feet
PaUey Lumber Company
Warehouse
Figure A-1. SVE Test Cell Layout [4]
CAP (OPTIOMAl)
Figure A-2. General Schematic of the SVE Treatment System [4]
|j s ENV,RONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
78
-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site—Page 28 of 33 •
APPENDIX A - TREATABILITY STUDY (CONT.)
Procurement Process/Treatability Study Cost [4]
Morrison-Knudsen Corporation Environmental
Services, under Alternative Remedial Contracts
Strategy (ARCS) Contract Number 68-W9-
0025, in conjunction with EPA Region VII, EPA
Ada Laboratory, and the NDEQ, conducted the
treatability study as the first phase of the
TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS
Remedial Design of the Hastings Well Number
3 Subsite. The cost of the treatability study
and remedial design was approximately
$400,000. Projected full-scale treatment
costs are discussed below.
Operating Parameters and Performance
Data [4]
The operating parameters for the step and
steady-state tests conducted during the
treatability study are shown in Table A-l.
Data on total mass removed and post-test
concentrations of CCI4 in extracted soil vapor
are presented in Figures A-3 to A-10 for the
four extraction wells (SVE-1D, SVE-2D, SVE-1S,
and SVE-2S). These results are summarized in
Table A-2.
Table A-3 compares results of the pre-test and
post-test analyses of soil vapor samples
collected at the site. Results for both off-site
and on-site analyses for CC14 and chloroform
are presented for samples collected from the
four extraction wells and seven monitoring
probe locations.
Table A- i. Operating Parameters for the Pilot-Scale SVE Treatability Study at the Hastings Well Number 3 Subsite [4]
Operational Test
Step Test (Up)
Applied Vacuum at
Well Head (in. Hg)
Step Test (Down)
Applied Vacuum at
Well Head (in. Hg)
Observed Flow
Rates at Well (scfm)
Duration of Step
Test flours)
Steady- State
Applied Vacuum at
Well Head (in. Hg)
Duration of
Steady-State Test
(hours)
Total Operating
Time (hours)
SVE-1D
2.85
5.30
6.92
8.55
11.41
11.81
10.08
7.33
5.70
3.26
65 (min.)
205 (max.)
30.17
11.8
168
198.17
SVE-2D
2.85
6.21
9.19
12.63
.
-
-
-
65 (min.)
1 75 (max.)
6.17
11.8
48
51.17
SVE-1 S
3.06
6.52
9.37
12.63
14.66
12.02
13.85
9.17
6.52
3.06
48 (min.)
1 78 (max.)
27.43
11.4
168
195.43
5VE-2S
.
-
-
.
.
-
.
-
.
-
_
-
.
13
48
48
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
79
-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site—Page 29 of 33 •
I APPENDIX A - TREATABILITY STUDY (CONT.)
TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (cent.)
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 ISO 200
ELASPED TIME (Ivs)
Figure A-3. Total Mass Removed in Extraction Well SVE-1D
Carbon Tetrachloride & Chloroform (Based on CSL Results) [4]
100
200 300 400
ELASPED TIME (hrs)
500
600
Figure A-4. Concentration of Carbon Tetrachloride in Extraction
Well SVE-1D (Based on CSL Results) [4]
S 10 IS 20 25 30 35 40 45
ELASPED TIME (lira)
figure A-5. Total Mass Removed in Extraction Well SVE-2D
Carbon Tetrachloride and Chloroform (Based on CSL Results) [4]
20
40 60 80 100
ELASPED TIME (hrs)
120
Figure A-6. Concentration of Carbon Tetrachloride in Extraction
Well SVE-2D (Based on CSL Results) [4]
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 16
ELASPED TIME (IKS)
160 200
Figure A-7. Total Mass Removed in Extraction Well SVE-iS
Carbon Tetrachloride and Chloroform (Based on CSL Results) [4]
5 10 IS 20 25 30 !
ELASPED TIME (hrs)
Figure A-9. Total Mass Removed in Extraction Well SVE-2S
Carbon Tetrachloride and Chloroform (Based on CSL Results) [4]
140
120
a. 100
t 60
111
Z 40
O
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
ELASPED TIME (hrs)
Figure A-8. Concentration of Carbon Tetrachloride in Extraction
Wall SVE-IS (Based on CSL Results) [4]
200
teo
g 160
3. 140
§ 120
•& 100
IS 20 25 30 36 40 45 50
ELASPED TIME (hrs)
Figure A-IO. Concentration of Carbon Tetrachloride in
Extraction Well SVE-2S (Based on CSL Results) [4]
usENviRONMENTALPROTECTlONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
80
-------
Hastings Groundwater- Contamination Superfund Site—Page 30 of 33 •
I APPENDIX A - TREATABILITY STUDY (CONT.)
TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (cont.)
Tattle A-2. Summary of CCI4 and Chloroform Mass Removal by the SVE System [4]
Well
SVE- ID
SVE-2D
SVE- IS
SVE-2S
Total
Duration of SVE System
Operation (hrs)
198.17
51.17
195.43
48
-
Mass of CCU and
Chloroform Extracted
(Ibs)
35
3
6
0.5
44.5
Post-Test Concentration
(CSL) of CCI4in Extracted
Soil Vapors ftJg/1)
80
12
1.0
32
-
CSL - Close Support Laboratory (on-site).
Table A-3, Comparison of Pre-Test and Post-Test Soil Vapor Concentrations ofCCI and Chloroform [4]
SVE- 1 D
SVE-2D
SVE- IS
SVE-2S
MP-1D-D
MP-1D-E
MP-1D-F
MP-1D-G
MP-1S-A
MP-1S-B
MP-IS-C
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Pre-Test
Post- Test
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Pre-Test
Post- Test
04/15/91
04/26/9 1
04/15/91
04/26/91
04/ 1 5/9 1
05/09/91
04/ 1 5/9 1
05/09/9 1
04/15/91
04/26/9 1
04/15/91
04/26/91
04/15/91
04/26/9 1
04/15/91
04/26/9 1
04/15/91
05/09/9 1
04/15/91
05/09/9 1
04/15/91
04/26/91
CLP Results
CCI4
(Wf/L)
20
48
100
9.4
100
1 7
130
48
360
280
540
200
480
240
200
190
130
ND
240
ND
250
ND
Chloroform
(PS/L)
0.39
1.8
1 1
0.1 1
28
ND
3.1
1 8
5
4.1
5.3
3.3
4 3
1 8
1.6
0.96
2.6
ND
4.8
ND
5.1
ND
CSL Results
CC14
tf>S/L)
440
80
03
12
1 1
1.0
40
32
31
250
270
240
64
190
19
1 10
30
0 3
38
0.3
21
0.01
Chloroform
(PS/L)
1
0.2
ND
0.1
0 12
0.3
2
0.9
ND
2.0
0.9
20
0.4
1.0
0.2
0.5
0.7
0.003
0.5
O.OOS
0.8
0.002
CLP - Contract Laboratory Program (off-site).
CSL - Close Support Laboratory (on-site).
ND - Not detected.
, U.S. ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY
tj Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
S Technology Innovation Office
81
-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site—Page 31 of 33 •
I APPENDIX A - TREATABILITY STUDY (CONT.)
TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (cent.)
Performance Data Assessment
A review of the data shown in Table A-2
indicates that a total of 38 pounds of CCI4 and
chloroform were extracted from the deep
wells (35 pounds from SVE-1D and 3 pounds
from SVE-2D). A total of 6.5 pounds of CCI4
and chloroform were extracted from the
shallow wells (6 pounds from SVE-1S and 0.5
pounds from SVE-2S). The deep well that
operated for approximately 200 hours ex-
tracted 35 pounds of CCI and chloroform
compared to the shallow well that extracted 6
pounds of contaminants, and the deep well
that operated approximately 50 hours ex-
tracted 3 pounds of CCI4 and chloroform
compared to the shallow well that extracted
0.5 pounds of contaminants.
Figures A-3, A-5, A-7, and A-9 indicate that
removal of CCI and chloroform from each
4
well increased from the start to finish of each
test; however, Figures A-4, A-5, A-8, and A-10
indicate that the measured concentrations of
CCI in the four extraction wells fluctuated
4
throughout the SVE system operation. For
example, during the steady-state test on SVE-
1 D, soil gas concentrations were measured as
high as 1,700 yug/L and were reduced to
approximately 200 /Jg/L after 168 hours of
operation (shown on Figure A-4).
Concentrations of CCI4 measured in soil vapor
samples ranged from 20 ps/L to 540 jUg/L pre-
test, and ranged from non-detectable to 280
fJg/L post-test, as reported by CLP. As re-
ported by CSL, CCI4 concentrations ranged
from 0.3 jug/L to 440 /Jg/L pre-test, and
ranged from 0.01 pg/L to 250ug/L post-test.
Concentrations of chloroform measured in soil
vapor samples ranged from 0.39 ji/g/L to 28
jUg/L pre-test, and ranged from non-detectable
to 4.1 jL/g/L post-test, as reported by CLP. As
reported by CSL, chloroform concentrations
ranged from non-detectable to 2 jL/g/L pre-
test, and ranged from 0.002 A/g/L to 2.0 jUg/L
post-test.
Soil gas ranges in pre-test/post-test soil vapor
sample analyses as reported by CLP indicate
that concentrations of CCI and chloroform
4
decreased in ten of the eleven locations
tested as reported by CLR Concentrations
decreased for only seven of the eleven CCI4
samples, and for four of the eleven chloroform
samples, as reported by CSL.
Performance Data Completeness
Data characterize concentrations of contami-
nants in soil vapors from each extraction well
over the course of the treatabilify study, and
show how treatment performance varies with
operating conditions of the SVE system.
Performance Data Quality [4]
Quality assurance procedures of the on-site
laboratory included decontamination proce-
dures for sample equipment, calibration
checks on analytical equipment, use of
calibration standards, analysis of water blanks,
and use of EPA audit samples. Off-site analy-
ses were performed as specified by the CLP
program. No exceptions to the QA/QC proto-
col were noted by the vendor.
Projected Full-Scale Treatment
Application Design [2]
A preliminary design for a full-scale SVE
treatment system was provided by Morrison-
Knudsen, based on the results of the treatabil-
ity study, as shown in Table A-4. The full-scale
system was designed to include three new
deep and intermediate extraction wells and
three new deep monitoring probes in addition
to the existing pilot-scale SVE system. One
shallow well was intended to be replaced by a
new shallow well; otherwise, the entire pilot-
scale system was intended to be used in full-
scale treatment application.
SVE was implemented at the Hastings Well
Number 3 Subsite. The preceding report
presents observations and lessons learned
concerning the full-scale application, including
observations concerning the results of the
treatability study.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
82
-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site—Page 32 of 33 •
I APPENDIX A - TREATABILITY STUDY (CONT.)
TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (cont.)
Table A-4. Preliminary Design for Full-Scale SVE System at the Hastings Well Number 3 Subsite [2]
Design Parameter
Value
Extraction Wells
Screened intervals of three wells:
Radius of influence:
Wellhead vacuum:
Flow Rate per well pair:
Well Diameter:
20-40 feet (shallow)
50-80 feet (intermediate)
80- 110 feet (deep)
100 feet
3 in. Hg
300 scfm
4 inches
Soil Gas Conditions at Wellhead
Carbon tetrachloride, maximum:
Carbon tetrachloride, average:
Chloroform, maximum:
Chloroform, average:
Temperature:
Relative humidity:
Pressure, absolute:
Maximum total flow rate:
1 ,800 /7g/L
100/ug/L
30/jg/L
3/Jg/L
50° F
100%
25 in. Hg
900 scfm
1 ,300 acfm
GAC System Criteria
Removal capacity:
Maximum total flow rate:
Number of adsorbers per stage:
Number of stages:
Total number of adsorbers:
Adsorber diameter:
Adsorber face velocity:
Mass of GAC per adsorber:
Total mass of GAC:
Totall adsorber capacity:
0.2 Ib CC14 /Ib GAC
1 ,300 acfm
3
2
6
42" min.
60 ft/min (max)
1 ,000 Ib
6,000 hr
l,200lbCCI4
Vacuum Pump Criteria
Maximum total flow rate:
Inlet vacuum:
Inlet temperature:
Outlet pressure:
900 scfm
1 ,300 acfm
9 in. Hg
70° F
23 in. H2O
Site Design Conditions
Elevation:
Barometric pressure:
Wind loading:
Mean ambient temperature:
Minimum ambient temperature:
Maximum ambient temperature:
1,900ft
28 in. Hg
SOmph
50° F
-30° F
110°F
U.S. ENV1RONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
83
-------
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site—Page 33 of 33 •
APPENDIX A - TREATABILITY STUDY (CONT.)
TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (cont.)
Projected Full-Scale Cost [2, 4]
Table A-5 presents estimated costs for con-
struction and a nine-month shakedown period
at the Hastings Well Number 3 Subsite. A
complete breakdown of these costs was not
presented in the available documentation.
Full-scale treatment activities were anticipated to
require 1.5 to 2 years, with system shutdowns
every three months for system performance
evaluation. However, the subsequent full-scale
activities did not require this length of time to
achieve the treatment goals.
Table A-5. Protected Full-Scale Cost of So/I Vapor Extraction at the Hastings Well Number 3 Subsite* [2]
Capital Costs
Item
Granular Activated Carbon
Modular Equipment
Capital Coit Subtotal
Estimated Costal
514,882
$82,162
$97,044
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs
tern
Estimated Costs
Construction $102,223
Architect/Engineer Construction Services [ '
Nine-Month Shakedown
O8JV1 Cost Subtotal
$ 106,448
$141,925
$350,596
TOTAL COST FOR CONSTRUCTION AND SHAKEDOWN
$447,640
*These costs address remedial construction and a nine-month shalfedown period. No costs for
operation and maintenance of the SVE system were provided in the available documentation.
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
A total of 45 pounds of CC14 and
chloroform were removed during the
treatability study using four extraction
wells. Thirty-eight pounds of CCI4 and
chloroform were extracted from the
deep wells, and 6.5 pounds were
extracted from the shallow wells. The
deep well that operated for approxi-
mately 200 hours extracted 35
pounds of CC\A and chloroform
compared to the shallow well that
extracted 6 pounds of CCI4 and
chloroform. The deep well that
operated for approximately 50 hours
extracted 3 pounds of CCI4 and
chloroform compared to the shallow
well that extracted 0.5 pounds of CC14
and chloroform.
Concentrations of CCI4 measured in
soil vapor samples ranged from
20 /Jg/L to 540 jL/g/L pre-test, and
ranged from non-detectable to 280
post-test, as reported by CLP. As
reported by CSL, CCI4 concentrations
ranged from 0.3 fjg/L to 440 /vg/L pre-test,
and ranged from 0.01 yug/L to 250/;g/L
post-test. Concentrations of chloroform
measured in soil vapor samples ranged
from 0.39 /jg/L to
28 jjg/L pre-test, and ranged from non-
detectable to 4.1 /Jg/L post-test, as
reported by CLP. As reported by CSL,
chloroform concentrations ranged from
non-detectable to 2 jL/g/L pre-test, and
ranged from 0.002 fJg/L to 2.0 jUg/L post-
test.
Results of soil vapor analyses performed
by CSL and CLP differed in the treatability
study; a possible explanation for these
differences is that the CSL samples were
collected by syringe and the CLP samples
were collected by canister.
Design of a full-scale SVE system was
based on the results from the treatability
study.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
84
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction and Bioventing
for Remediation of a JP-4 Fuel Spill
at Site 914, Hill Air Force Base, Ogden, Utah
85
-------
Case Study Abstract
Soil Vapor Extraction and Bioventing for Remediation of a JP-4 Fuel
Spill at Site 914, Hill Air Force Base, Ogden, Utah
Site Name:
Hill Air Force Base, Site 914
Location:
Ogden, Utah
Contaminants:
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)
- TPH concentrations in untreated soil
ranged from <20 to 10,200 mg/kg with
average soil TPH concentration of 411
mg/kg
Period of Operation:
October 1988 to December
1990
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
Not Available
SIC Code:
9711 (National Security)
Waste Source:
Spill of JP-4 Jet Fuel
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
One of the early applications
involving sequential use of SVE and
bioventing technology.
Technology: Soil Vapor Extraction followed
by Bioventing
SVE
- 7 vent wells (Numbers 5-11 located in areas
of highest contamination), 31 monitoring
wells, 3 neutron access probes (for soil
moisture monitoring)
- Vent wells approximately 50 feet deep with
4-inch diameter PVC casings, screened
from 10 to 50 feet below ground surface
- Plastic liner installed over part of spill area
surface to prevent local air infiltration and
bypassing of air flow to the vent well
directly from the surface
- Monitoring wells - ranged in depth from 6
to 55 feet with 1-inch diameter PVC casing
and a 2-foot screened interval to the
bottom of the well
- Catalytic incinerator for extracted vapor
- Air flow - 1,500 acfm (maximum), 700 acfm
(typical)
Bioventing
- 4 vent wells (Numbers 12-15) located on
the southern perimeter of the spill area; 31
monitoring wells; 3 neutron access probes
(soil moisture monitoring)
- Vent wells approximately 50 feet deep with
4-inch diameter PVC casings, screened
from 10 to 50 feet below ground surface
- Monitoring wells - range in depth from 6 to
55 feet with 1-inch diameter PVC casings,
screened from 10 to 50 feet below ground
surface
- No treatment of extracted vapors required
(hydrocarbon concentrations <50 mg/L;
use of catalytic incinerator not required)
- Air flow - 250 acfm
- Soil moisture - 6 to 12%
- Nutrients added - C:N:P ratio of 100:10:10
Cleanup Authority:
State: Utah
Point of Contact:
Robert Elliot
OO-ACC/EMR
7274 Wardleigh Road
Hill AFB, UT 84055
86
-------
Case Study Abstract
Soil Vapor Extraction and Bioventing for Remediation of a JP-4 Fuel
Spill at Site 914, Hill Air Force Base, Ogden, Utah (Continued)
Type/Quantity of Media Treated: Soil
5,000 yds3 contaminated by spill (surface area of 13,500 ft2)
Approximate extent of 10,000 mg/kg JP-4 contour covered area 100 by 150 feet
Formation consists of mixed sands and gravels with occasional clay lenses
Air permeability ranged from 4.7 to 7.8 darcies
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
38.1 mg/kg TPH
Cleanup conducted under Utah Department of Health's "Guidelines for Estimating Numeric Cleanup Levels for
Petroleum-Contaminated Soil at Underground Storage Tank Release Sites"
Results:
Achieved specified TPH levels
Average TPH soil concentrations in treated soil reduced to less than 6 mg/kg
211,000 Ibs of TPH removed in approximately 2 years of operation
Removal rate ranged from 20 to 400 Ibs/day
Cost Factors:
Total costs of $599,000, including capital and 2 years of operating costs
Capital costs - $335,000 (including construction of piping and wells, other equipment, and startup costs)
Annual operating costs - $132,000 (including electricity, fuel, labor, laboratory charges, and lease of equipment for
2 year operation)
Description:
In January 1985, an estimated 27,000 gallons of JP-4 jet fuel were spilled at the Hill Air Force Base Site 914 when an
automatic overflow device failed. Concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in the soil ranged from < 20
mg/kg to over 10,000 mg/kg, with an average concentration of about 400 mg/kg. The spill area covered approximately
13,500 ft2.
The remediation of this spill area was conducted from October 1988 to December 1990 in two phases: the soil vapor
extraction (SVE) phase followed by the bioventing phase. The SVE system included 7 vent wells (Numbers 5-11)
located in the areas of highest contamination, 31 monitoring wells, and a catalytic incinerator. The typical air flow rate
through the vent wells was 700 acfm, with a maximum of 1,500 acfm. In addition, a plastic liner was installed over part
of the spill area surface to prevent local air infiltration and bypassing of air flow to the vent well directly from the
surface. Within a year, the SVE system removed hydrocarbons from the soil to levels ranging from 33 to 101 mg/kg.
Further reduction of the hydrocarbon concentration in the soil, to levels below the specified TPH limit, was achieved by
using bioventing for 15 months. The bioventing system included 4 vent wells (Numbers 12-15), located on the southern
perimeter of the spill area, and the monitoring wells used for SVE system. Because hydrocarbon concentrations were
< 50 mg/L in the extracted vapors, the catalytic incinerator was not required for this phase. Biodegradation was
enhanced by injecting oxygen, moisture, and nutrients to the soil. Average TPH concentrations in the treated soil were
less than 6 mg/kg.
The total capital cost for this application was $335,000 and the total annual operating costs were $132,000. In
monitoring biodegradation rates, oxygen depletion was found to be a more accurate estimator of biodegradation rate
than carbon dioxide formation. Carbon dioxide sinks, such as biomass, solubility in water, and reaction with the soil,
limited the usefulness of carbon dioxide formation as a process control parameter.
87
-------
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION ANALYSIS
PmgelofIS •
CZSITE:
Operable Unit: Hill Air Force Base, area
around Building 914 as shown on Figure 1.
City, State: Ten miles south of Ogden,
Utah
CZTECHNOLOGY APPLICATION
This analysis addresses field application of soil
vapor extraction (SVE) as well as field and bench
scale application of bioventing. The two methods
were used sequentially at the site.
\Tt
% Ciiy Oat
Figure 1. Location of Hill AFB, Utah and Site of JP-4 Fuel Spill (914 Site).
CUSITE CHARACTERISTICS
i Site History/Release Characteristics
• Hill Air Force Base has been in operation since 1942, and Building 914 since 1972.
• In January 1985 27,000 gallons (estimated) of JP-4 jet fuel were released when an automatic overflow device failed.
2000 gallons were recovered as free product.
• The spill had an initial extent (Figure 2) of approximately 13,500 ft2.
• No other fuel releases are documented; however, others are suspected to have occurred.
• Site remediation began in December 18, 1988.
i Contaminants of Concern
Specific contaminants of greatest concern in the unsaturated zone were: benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene
(BTEX). However, total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) concentration was more frequently monitored throughout the
remediation due to relative ease of analysis compared to the specific compounds.
Groundwater contamination was not an immediate concern because the groundwater is present only in discontinuous
perched zones.
No other specific compounds occurring in the original spill were identified.
U.S. Air Force
88
-------
•i Contaminant Properties i
Properties of contaminants f
Property
Empirical Formula
Density O 20°C
Melting Point
Vapor Pressure (25°C)
Henry's Law Constant
Water Solubility
Octanol-Water
Partition Coefficient;
Organic Carbon Partition
Coefficient; Koc
lonization Potential
Molecular Weight
•All 3 isomers (M, O, & P)
•• Nature & Extent of Contt
ocused upon during remediation are provided below.
Units
g/cm3
•c
mm Hg
(atm)(m3)/mol
mg/l
Kow
ml/g
ev
tmlnatlon *
Benzene
C,H,
0.88
5.5
96
5.59 X10-3
1,750
132
83
9.24
7ai2
Ethyl benzene
C8H,0
0.87
-95
10
6.43 X 10-3
152
1410
1,100
8.76
106.18
Toluene
CrHe
0.87
-95
31
6.37X10-3
535
537
300
8.5
92.15
Xylenes*
C8H10
0.87 (avg)
-47.9 to1 3.3
9
7.04X10-3
198
1830
240
8.56
106.18
Remedial investigation field activities at the site provided TPH concentrations as shown in Figures 2 and 3
and as described below.
• In January 1985, approximately 27,000 gallons of JD-4 jet fuel were accidentally released, of which about 2,000 gal-
lons were recovered as free product.
• It was estimated that 5000 cubic yards of soil were contaminated by the spill.
• Soil samples were taken at each vent well location at five foot depth intervals down to 66 feet (see Figure 2).
• Soil concentrations were found to vary from <20 to 10,200 mg TPH per kg soil with an average of 411 (as of 10/88).
• Nine of the soil samples were analyzed for concentration of benzene, toluene and xylene. The benzene concentration
was <20 mg/kg for all samples. The toluene concentration ranged from <20 to 308 mg/kg. The xylene concentration
ranged from <20 to 600 mg/kg.
Figure 2. Hill AFB, Utah,
Site Map Illustrating the
Locations of Vent Wells
and Monitoring Ports.
ApproxinAic timi of
•all >10
-------
HiH-Boosting 3 of 15 —
i Contaminant Locations and Geologic Profiles
-EMt-
Figure 3. Vertical Isoconcentration
View of Sampled Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbon Concentration (mg/kg of
soil) as a Function of Depth (ft.) Prior
to soil Venting (10/88).
-10 -
-15 _
-20 -
-25 .
-30
-35
-40 _
-45 -
-SO
o-
vs
A
VS V7 V» V9
HwlaontH tocattora tn v«K «•«
I
V10
VII
A'
Hydrogeologic Units
The spill is contained in the Provo formation, which is a delta outwash of the Weber River.
The formation consists of mixed sands and gravels with occasional clay lenses.
The formation extends to a depth of approximately 50 feet and is then underlain by a 200 to 300 foot thick clay layer.
Areas of high TPH soil concentration appear to correlate with the presence of clay lenses.
tSfte ContStlons \
• Hill AFB elevation ranges from 5010 to 4570. The elevation in the vicinity of the spill is 4760 feet.
• The area has an arid climate with average ambient temperature of 58°F. The average minimum is 22*F. and the aver-
age high is 85°F.
• Precipitation averages 20.1 inches per year. With a maximum monthly precipitation of 6.4 inches occurring in May.
• The direction of groundwater flow at the site is from the east to the west.
i Key Soil or Key Aquifer Characteristics
Property
Porosity
Particle density
Soil bulk density
Particle diameter
Soil organic content
Moisture content
Permeability
Hydraulic conductivity
Air conductivity
Depth to groundwater
Groundwater temperature
Groundwater pH @ 25*C
Aquifer thickness
Units
g/cm3
g/cm3
mm
cm2
cm/s
darcy
ft
*C
Range or value
30 to 50
0.3 to 0.5
0.37 to 0.48
0.8 to 10
0.08 to 0.86
1.4 to 18% with average of <6%
10-12 to 10-1°
10-« to 10-n>
4.7 to 7.8
variable due to arid conditions, approximately 50 ft.
10 to 12
7.2 to 7.5
10 to 15
U.S. Air Force
90
-------
Hill - Biovunting 4 of IS
dTREATMENT SYSTEM
• Both soil vapor extraction (SVE) and bioventing were used at this site. Bioventing is still active.
• Both soil vapor extraction and bioventing use forced air flow through the contaminated formation. However, each
method is used for a different purpose and is optimized for different operating conditions.
• SVE normally uses significantly higher air flow rates than does bioventing. The higher air flow acts to strip the hydro-
carbons, transferring them from the soil to the gas phase.
• Soil vapor extraction is more applicable to treating high concentrations of volatile hydrocarbons.
• SVE will remove hydrocarbons from the pore space thereby preparing the soil for bioremediation. Some bioremedia-
tion also occurs during SVE.
• With bioventing, air flow aerates the soil to promote biological conversion of the hydrocarbon to biomass, CO2 and
H2O. The CO2 and the H2O are removed in the gas phase. Bioventing can be used to treat less volatile hydrocarbons.
i Overall Process Schematic'.
On-Siu
Analytical Trailer
Lateral Vfents
Vertical Venu
Figure 4. Conceptual drawing of the Hill AFB, Utah.
Conceptual drawing c
Field Sol Venung Sit
i System Description
The treatment system as shown in Figures 2 and 4 and as described below consists of 15 vent wells, 31 monitor
wells and 3 neutron access probes. The system also uses a single background vent well, which is not shown on the
figures.
Vent wells allow for soil gas to be actively removed from the formation. The monitor wells are used to analyze in situ
soil gas composition and measure vacuum efficiency. The neutron access probes extend to a depth of 50 feet and
are used to monitor soil moisture.
The background vent well is similar in design and operation to the other vent wells but is located 700 feet north of the
spill site and is used to establish baseline soil gas conditions in the uncontaminated formation. A separate blower
was used with the background vent well.
A plastic liner was installed over part of the spill area surface to prevent local air infiltration and bypassing of air flow
to the vent well directly from the surface.
Additional equipment shown in Figure 4 includes the blower (two in parallel), catalytic incinerator, and associated
manifold piping.
U.S. Air Force
91
-------
Hill - Biovunting Sol IS —
i System
Soil Vapor Extraction Phase
• The blower suction is connected via the manifold piping to vent wells 5 through 11 which are located in the contami-
nated formation.
• Air flow is induced from the ground surface, through the contaminated formation, into the vent manifold, to the blow-
er and finally discharged through the catalytic incinerator.
• A plastic lining restricts air flow directly from the surface to the vent wells, requiring the air flow into a longer path lat-
erally across the formation to the vent wells
• The catalytic Incinerator is used to destroy hydrocarbon gasses that are vented from the formation.
Bioventing Phase
• After It was determined that the soil vapor extraction was no longer efficient for removing hydrocarbons from the for-
mation, the bioventing phase was initiated by changing the blower suction manifold to wells 12 through 15, on the
periphery of the contaminated formation.
• Soil gas was drawn from the wells (with additional soil gas being drawn from a soil pile remediation project) at a
reduced flow rate. At this flow rate, the total hydrocarbon concentration was reduced to below 50 mg/1. The incinera-
tor, therefore, was not required and was permanently removed from service.
Well Design Close-Up
The vent wells are all approximately 50 feet deep. They all have 4 inch diameter PVC casing and a screened
interval of 40 feet. The screened interval begins approximately 10 feet below ground surface The depth of
the monitor wells varies from 6 to 55 feet They all have 1 inch diameter PVC casing and a 2 foot screened
interval at the bottom of the well. The details of the well design are shown in Figure 5. The following table
gives the depth at the bottom of each monitor well designated in Figure 2.
Well
A
B
C
E
F
H
J
K
Depth (ft)
30
6
40
25
25
46
30
25
Well
M
N
P
Q
R
S
T
U
Depth (ft)
25
48
30
30
30
6
55
6
Well
W
X
Y
Z
AA
BB
Depth (ft)
25
6
55
25
30
30
U.S. Air Force
92
-------
Hill • Biovunting 6 of 15 ~
Typical Vfent W«H - SO ft d«pth
Typfc*/ Monitor W*l. 30 ft dtpth
with PVC eftinff. ftuU wtf ttopth*
•r» from 6 to 55
40 It 002.1
PVC
q g
" P
tsn.
=>
Figure 5 - Typical Well Design
i Key Design Criteria
No specific design criteria were established in the document. However, for SVE key design criteria would
include the following:
• vacuum pressure in the wells
• air flow rate through the vent wells
• air temperature in the wells
• hydrocarbon composition in the vent gas
For bioventing operations, key design criteria would include:
• soil moisture content
• soil gas oxygen concentration at monitor wells
• soil nutrient concentration
• hydrocarbon composition in the soil
i Key Monitored Operating Parameters
SVE parameters monitored
• Total blower flow rate in acfm (actual cubic feet per minute - continuous measurement).
• Air flow Rate for a set of wells (continuous measurement).
• Offgas percent oxygen (continuous measurement).
• Offgas percent carbon dioxide (continuous measurement).
• C13/C12 isotope ratio (intermittent measurement).
Bioventing parameters monitored
• Soil Moisture content (intermittent measurement).
• Soil TPH content (intermittent measurement).
• Soil vapor Hydrocarbon concentration (intermittent measurement).
• In situ soil vapor percent oxygen content (continuous measurement).
• In situ soil vapor percent carbon dioxide (continuous measurement).
U.S. Air Force
93
-------
7 Of 15
CZI PERFORMANCE
i Performance Objectives
Remediate the site so that soil TPH is within the limit set by the Utah Department of Health (38.1 mg/kg).
Determine the affect of SVE at the site.
Determine the affect of bioventing at the site.
Conduct a bioventing/soil venting study that will generate sufficient data to demonstrate effectiveness and provide
support for designs at other similar sites.
i Treatment Plan
Initial Phase
• Determine the extent of site TPH contamination by taking soil samples in the wells at five foot depth intervals. The
TPH concentration is determined by gas chromatography. A plot of this data is given in Figure 3.
Soil Vapor Extraction Phase (bioventing is not optimized during this phase)
• Perform SVE with a maximum 1500 acfm (700 acfm is typical) flow for the site. Vent gas is collected through vent
wells 5-11, which are located in the areas of highest contamination. The system operation is 24 hours per day.
• Measure effectiveness of SVE by monitoring the air flow rate and the exit soil gas concentration. (This data was not
presented in the report).
• Measure the effectiveness of bioventing by continuously monitoring the concentration of soil gas O2 and CO2. If a
typical hydrocarbon composition is assumed, the amount of hydrocarbon degraded can be calculated by comparing
either the rise in C02 or the decrease in O2 relative to the background concentrations. This method should give a
conservative estimate since hydrocarbon converted to biomass or partially degraded to another organic compound is
not accounted for.
• Cease venting operations at three points in time and allow for "natural" biodegradatlon to occur. Measure the effec-
tive respiration as depletion of soil O2 concentration. This allows for determination of the rate of reaction (biodegra-
dation) and the associated rate constant.
• Qualitatively analyze the C02 which occurs in the soil gas. Use the C13 / C12 isotope ratio to determine the origin of
the carbon in the CO2. The testing should be able to differentiate CO2 which is from the atmosphere, hydrocarbon-
based, and derived from carbonate rock .
Interim Phase
• Determine the extent of site TPH contamination by taking soil samples near the wells at five foot depth intervals. The
TPH concentration is determined by gas chromatography. Note, this data set is not as complete as the initial data
set. No plot is provided.
Bioventing Phase (bioventing is optimized during this phase)
• Reduce the air flow rate from 1500 acfm to 250 acfm. Redirect the air flow so that vent wells on the perimeter of the
of the site are used for vapor extraction. These steps increase the residence time for biodegradation. Also, soil
moisture is removed at a slower rate at the reduced air flow. The system operation is 24 hours per day.
• Add water to the spill site surface to increase the soil moisture level to between 6 and 12%.
• Add nutrients, such as phosphates, nitrates, and ammonia, with water to the spill site. The nutrients were added in a
C:N:P ratio of 100:10:10 based on the soil TPH analysis taken in 9/89.
• Perform in situ respiration tests to determine the effectiveness of the steps to promote biodegradation. Soil gas O2
monitoring was used to calculate the mass of hydrocarbon degraded in this phase.
Final Phase
• Determine the extent of site TPH contamination by taking soil samples in the wells at five foot depth intervals. The
TPH concentration is determined by gas chromatography.
U.S. Air Force
94
-------
Hill • Bioventing 8 of IS —
i Results
Figures 6 and 7 show the results of three successive respiration tests at monitor wells M and Y, respectively.
Oxygen is consumed at a reduced rate at monitor well Y over the course of the respiration tests. The final test
shows virtually no oxygen depletion in the area. This indicates a low level of biological degradation occurring. The
low rate of degradation may be due to reduced soil hydrocarbon (i.e. remediation is nearly complete) or to low levels
of soil moisture. Soil moisture would tend to be depleted due to the relatively high air circulation rates established
for SVE At site M, the O2 depletion rate (biodegradation rate) increases with successive respiration tests. This is a
location below the plastic cover. The data indicates that remediation is not complete and that the area was formerly
oxygen starved.
Figures 8 and 9 show soil gas concentrations of O2, CO2, and hydrocarbon at the monitor well locations and the vent
well locations after the conclusion of the third respiration test. The data show that high levels of O2 correlate with
low levels of hydrocarbon and CO2. In general, a high level of oxygen with little carbon dioxide or hydrocarbon sug-
gests that any JP-4 originally In the soil has been removed. Also, note that vent well hydrocarbon levels are all lower
than the monitor well levels. This occurs because the 40 foot screen of the vent wells collects a composite sample
of the soil gas in the vicinity. As a result, local areas of high concentration are diluted.
25
gr 20-
I
5-
.4- Pint Ted butiucd 12/19/88
••- Second Ten biitiMed 1/13/89
•*• Third Ten Initiated 5/26/89
25-
-+- Fun Ten I mimed 12/19/88
-+• Second Ten Intuited 1/13/89
-•- Thin) Ten Initialed 5/26/89
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Time (M in)
1000 2000 3OOO 4OOO 5000 6000 7000 8000
Figure 6. The Results of the Three Successive In Situ
Respiration Text it Monitoring Point Y
(65 feet below land suffice). Hill AFB, Utah.
Figure 7. The Results of the Three Successive In Situ
Respiration Test at Monitoring Point M
(25 feet below land surface), Hill AFB, Utah.
DO, ilCO, B Hydrocarbon
1500
Hydrocarbon
Concentrations
>1500
1500 _
Figure 8. JP-4 Hydrocarbon (HC), O pnA CO .Concentrations 9 June
1989 in the Monitoring Points at the Conclusion of the Third In
Situ Respiration Test.
10
Vent }
Figure 9. JP-4 Hydrocarbon (HC). O, and CO, Concentrations 9 June
1989 in the Vents at the Conclusion of the Third In Situ
Respiration Test.
U.S. Air Force
95
-------
The carbon isotope study is used to determine the origin of CO2 in the soil gas. The possible sources include the
atmosphere, degraded hydrocarbon, and decomposition of carbonate rock in the formation. The isotope ratio is
characteristic of a given source of carbon. The laboratory analysis shows that vent gas CO2 has an isotope ratio
characteristic of petroleum and that less than 0.2% of the soil gas volume is due to CO2 not derived from the JP-4.
i Operational Performance
Volume of air circulated
The following table and figure show the air flow volumes and the affect on TPH removal.
As of Date
12/18/88
12/19/88
1/13/89
4/1/89
5/26/89
9/30/89
11/14/90
Total vented soil gas
inlOOO'sofacf
42.5
540
8642
45,000
167,000
512,000
Figure 10 shows how the fraction of hydrocarbon removal due to bioventing has been affected by the changing air
flow rates. In general, as the air flow rate is reduced, removal due to SVE decreases. The rate of biodegradation is
unchanged, but the relative contribution of biodegradation increases.
Enhanced
90-
10-
g 70-
J60-
SO-
40-
oo
# 30-
20-
10-
1
Biodegradation
Activities Begin _,_ __ _«.— -
k
^^^ ^•••^•*
1
1
/
1
1
1
1
'
r
High Rale Extraction r Low Rate Extraction ^
>IFMAMJJASONDIFMAMIJASO
IS 19S9 1990
..
Month of Operation
Volume of water added
As of Date
5/28/90
9/21/90
Figure 10. Percent of Recovered Hydrocarbon Attributed to
Biodegradalion Reactions at the Hill AFB, Utah, Soil
Venting Site Based on Oxygen Consumption in the
Vent Gas
Total gallons of
water added to surface
0
1,000,000
Average water
flow rate - gpm
30
U.S. Air Force
96
-------
Hill-Biovunting 10otIS —
Mass of nutrients added
• 300 Ib of N as ammonium nitrate, 30 Ib of P as treble superphosphate were added to the soil.
• Nutrients were added in three phases from 8/10/90 to 9/21/90. The nutrients were applied by direct surface addition,
tilling of the first six inches of soil, and irrigation of the area.
System Downtime
SVE system was down for six days because the hydrocarbon vapor catalytic incinerator was out of service.
Treatment Performance
Total Pounds Contaminants Removed
As of Date
12/18/88
9/30/89
10/1/89
11/14/90
Cumulative Ibs of
TPH removed by
vapor extraction
0
114,400
114,400
118,200
Cumulative Ibs of
TPH removed
by bioventing
0
23,200
23,200
92,900
Cumulative Ibs of
TPH removed
0
137,600
137,600
211,100
Rate of TPH removal
Ib/day by
vapor extraction
200-400
200-400
20
(not given)
Figures 11 and 12 show the estimated cumulative hydrocarbon removal due to soil vapor extraction and bioventing
as a function of time.
A S O N
1990
Date
Figure 11. Cumulative Hydrocarbon Removal (Volatilized and
Biodegraded) at Hill AFB, Utah, Soil Venting Site
(from 18 December 1988 to 14 November, 1990)
Performance Assessment
It is estimated that 211,000 Ib of hydrocarbon were removed from the site as a result of SVE and bioventing. The
original spill was estimated at 27,000 gallons. At the time of the spill, 2000 gallons of free liquid were recovered. If a
specific gravity of 0.75 is assumed for the remaining hydrocarbon, the mass of the spill would be approximately
156,200 Ibs. Despite the discrepancy in the estimates, the soil sampling at the end of the remediation showed that
the site was sufficiently cleaned to meet the regulatory requirements.
U.S. Air Force
97
-------
—————^———__———__——_________«^^_——___ HOI - Biovmnting 11 ot 15 —
• Figure 13 shows the average soil hydrocarbon concentrations at initial, intermediate and final phases of the site
remediation.
Hill AFB Building 914 Soil Samples
Depth
(feet)
Depth
(meters)
Hydrocarbon Concentration (mg/kg)
CD Before E3 Intermediate HB After
Figure 13. Mean Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Concentrations at 5-Foot Intervals Prior to Venting (Before),
After High RAte Operating Mode Venting but Before Low Flow Operating Mode with Moisture and
Nutrient Addition (Intermediate), and After Low Flow Operating Mode with Moisture and Nutrient
Addition (After).
• Following the demonstration, the state of Utah approved closure of the site.
U.S. Air Force
98
-------
12 of 15
d COST -;
i Capital Costs (thousands of dollars)
Construction of Piping System $25
Construction of Wells $130
Equipment Costs $150
Startup Costs $30
Total Capital Cost $335
i Annual Operating Costs (thousands of dollars) i
Electricity (9 $0.07/kWhr)$ $13
Propane (O $1.30/gal) $24
Labor $40
Laboratory Charges $11
Maintenance Labor & Parts $20
Lease of Incinerator $24
Total Annual Operating Cost $132
i Cost Sensitivities (thousands of dollars)
Incinerator salvage value $10 (if originally purchased instead of leased)
U.S. Air Force
99
-------
Hill - Biovmnting 13 of 15 —
d REGULATORY / INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
• The Davis County Health Department was involved in the planning stage of the SVE activities (1987).
• The site cleanup assessment was conducted subject to "Guidelines for Estimating Numeric Cleanup Levels for
Petroleum-Contaminated Soil at underground Storage Tank Release Sites", which are criteria published by the Utah
Department of Health.
• The recommended cleanup levels (RCL's) are presented for TPH, benzene, toluene, xytene, and ethylbenzene. These
were derived from the above DOH guidelines by project personnel.
• The numerical levels are assigned based on the source of the spill (gasoline, diesel, or waste oil) and the environmen-
tal sensitivity of the area. The jet fuel has physical characteristics which lie between those for gasoline and diesel
fuel. The RCL's are derived from the criteria for these listed fuels.
• Three levels of sensitivity are established based on the susceptibility of the groundwater to contamination from the
spill leachate. Because of uncertainty in the ranking criteria, RCL's for Level I sensitivity (the lowest set of values)
were used to assess the site cleanup.
• During combined SVE and bioventing operations, the catalytic incinerator was removed from service permanently
once system modifications were made that reduced the soil vent gas hydrocarbon concentration below the permit
limit of 50 mg/l.
Target Cleanup Levels/Criteria:
Contaminant
TPH
Benzene
Toluene
Xylene
Ethylbenzene
Level I RCL1
Soil mg/kg
65
<0.2
<100
<1000
<70
Site maximum
Soil mg/kg
38.1
<0.15
18
2.5
<0.15
RCL's for specific aromatic compounds are for either gasoline or diesel releases. The RCL for JP-4 is midway
between the value for gasoline and diesel.
I SCHEDUI F
Task
Laboratory Studies
SVE Phase (ORNL)
Initial site soil analysis
First respiration test
Second respiration test
Third respiration test
Intermediate site soil analysis
Bioventing Phase (Battelle)
Nutrient addition tests
Final site soil analysis
Start Date
5/87
10/88
10/88
12/19/88
1/13/89
5/26/89
10/89
10/1/89
9/21/90
12/90
I
End Date Duration, months
11/87
9/30/89
—
12/22/88
1/18/89
6/9/89
—
12/90
11/90
—
6
12
—
—
—
—
—
15
2
—
I I
U.S. Air Force
100
-------
Hi// - Bioventing 14 of 15 "—
dLESSONS LEARNED:
i Key Operating Parameters
SVE is preferable if the cleanup is required to proceed at a pace faster than that allowed by typical bioventing rates.
However, provisions may be necessary for air emissions control.
SVE is enhanced by high air flow rates and the presence of volatile hydrocarbons.
Biodegradation is enhanced by adequate soil oxygen, moisture and nutrient level.
Soil moisture appeared to have a greater impact than did nutrient level.
i Implementation Considerations
The system modifications required to decrease the soil gas hydrocarbon concentration below the permit limit
included use of vent wells only at the periphery of the spill (areas of low soil TPH concentration) and reduced soil gas
flow rates. These steps served to decrease the motive force for air stripping and increase the residence time for
biodegradation.
The above steps would enable direct venting to the atmosphere of the untreated soil gas, but the total time required
to clean up the site would be increased.
High air flow rates favor SVE but may retard biodegradation if too much soil moisture is removed or if contaminants
do not have adequate residence time in the soil matrix.
Contaminants (TPH) migrated in the formation over the course of the remediation activities. This was likely due to
gravitational flow of the hydrocarbon, entrainment in seeping groundwater, or entrainment in the SVE ajr stream.
Interim and final soil analysis should be sufficiently comprehensive to account for these possibilities.
Technology Limitations
SVE is limited to hydrocarbons that are sufficiently volatile to allow air stripping.
Bioventing is limited to hydrocarbons that can be degraded by the local bacteria. In addition, sufficient soil oxygen,
moisture and nutrients are required.
Estimates of biodegradation are more accurate if oxygen depletion rather than carbon dioxide formation is used.
Various carbon dioxide sinks exist in the system. These would include biomass, solubility in water, and reaction with
the soil. Oxygen is not as sensitive to these sinks.
i Future Technology Selection Considerations
The plastic cover did not result in significant air flow redirection at the spill site. This is probably because vent well
screened intervals began at a depth of 10 feet and vertical hydraulic conductivity is lower than horizontal hydraulic
conductivity at the site. Air distribution in the formation is in general an important parameter to address.
Methods to optimize bioventing and SVE as a simultaneous process should be addressed in greater detail. However,
at this site it was preferable to maximize bioventing (at the expense of SVE) in order to avoid air quality issues asso-
ciated with the high vent gas flow rate.
Soil chemistry criteria should be developed to establish when the application of nutrients would be beneficial to the
bioventing process.
U.S. Air Force
101
-------
LUSOURCES:
i Major Sources For Each Section \
Site Characteristics:
Treatment System:
Performance:
Cost:
Regulatory/Institutional Issues:
Schedule:
Lessons Learned:
Source #s 1,2,3 (from list below)
Source #s 1,4,5
Source #s 1,4,5
Source #s 1,4,5
Source #s 1 ;4,5
Source #s 1,4,5
Source #s 1,4,5
i Chronological List of Sources i
1. Final Report lor Hill A.F.B. JP-4 Site (Building 914) Remediation, Battelte, Hill Air Force Base, Utah, July, 1991.
2. Basics of Pump-and-Treat Ground-Water Remediation Technology, EPA-600/8-90/003, Mercer et al., GeoTrans, Inc.,
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK.
3. CffC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, R. C. Weast and M. J. Astle, 62 nd ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1981.
4. Notes of telephone conversation between W. White (SWEC) and R. Elliott (Hill AFB) on 3/1/94 and 378/94.
5. Response to Stone & Webster letter (2/16/94) by R. Elliott received on 3/7/94.
CHANALYSIS PREPARATION
This analysis was prepared by:
Stone & Webster Environmental
Technology & Service
P.O. Box 5406
Denver, Colorado 80217-5406
Contact Dr. Richard Canmichael 303-741-7169
CZREVIEW
Project Manager
This analysis accurately reflects the
performance and costs of this remediation:
Mr. Robert Elliot
OO-ACC/EMR
7274 Wardleigh Road
Hill AFB, Utah 84055-5137
U.S. Air Force
102
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at
North Fire Training Area (NFTA)
Luke AFB, Arizona
103
-------
Case Study Abstract
Soil Vapor Extraction at North Fire Training Area (NFTA)
Luke AFB, Arizona
Site Name:
Luke Air Force Base, North Fire
Training Area
Location:
Arizona
Contaminants:
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)
Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes
(BTEX), and Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)
- Initial soil contamination in two fire
training pits - Benzene - 0.2 to 16 mg/kg;
Toluene - 10 to 183 mg/kg; Ethylbenzene
- 21 to 84 mg/kg; Xylenes - 69 to 336
mg/kg; and Total Recoverable Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (TRPH) - 151 to 1,380
mg/kg
Period of Operation:
October 1991 to December
1992
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
Dan McCaffery
Envirocon, Inc.
James Ramm
Rust Environment
SIC Code:
9711 (National Security)
Technology:
Soil Vapor Extraction
- 1 extraction well for each of 2 fire pits
- Wells constructed with 35-foot screens to
depths up to 57 feet
- Thermal oxidizer used for destruction of
organics in extracted vapors
Cleanup Authority:
State: Arizona
Point of Contact:
Jerome Stolinksi
CERMO
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Omaha District
Waste Source:
Fire Training Area
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Full-scale cleanup of two fire training
pits using soil vapor extraction.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- Permeable silty sands, very permeable, clean well graded to poorly graded
sands, and permeable to low permeability inorganic silts
- Moisture content 10%
- Permeability of top soils ranged from 1 x 10"4 to 3 x 10"3 cm/sec
Porosity ranged from 36 to 46%
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Arizona Action Levels for soil - TPH - 100 mg/kg; and BTEX - 412 mg/kg
- Applicable state air emissions standards
Results:
- Treated soil concentrations indicated TPH and BTEX were below the Arizona Action Levels
- 12,000 Ibs of contaminants were removed during 30 weeks of operation
- Removal rate remained at 40 Ibs/day after 30 weeks of operation
- Soil gas concentration reductions achieved in 6 months for 8 constituents ranged from 72 to 96% (benzene)
Cost Factors:
Total cost - $507,185
- Capital costs - $297,017 (including site preparation, site work, startup, engineering, pipes, buildings, permitting,
regulatory)
- Annual operating costs - $210,168 (including labor, laboratory charges, monitoring, fuel, electricity, maintenance, and
disposal of residuals)
104
-------
Case Study Abstract
Soil Vapor Extraction at North Fire Training Area (NFTA)
Luke AFB, Arizona (Continued)
Description:
Routine fire training exercises were conducted at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona between 1963 and 1990, using
petroleum, oil, and lubricant wastes, and JP-4 fuel. Fire training pits number 3 and 4 were used since 1973. During site
investigations conducted between 1981 and 1989, soil at these two pits were determined to be contaminated with total
petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX). Cleanup goals were
established for TPH and BTEX in soil based on Arizona Action Levels (AALs) - TPH at 100 mg/kg, and BTEX at 412
mg/kg.
A full-scale cleanup using Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) of the soil in the two pits was conducted from October 1991 until
December 1992. A thermal oxidizer was used for destruction of organic vapors extracted from the soil. The full-scale
system, which used the thermal oxidizer, removed 12,000 pounds of contaminants in 30 weeks of operation. TPH and
BTEX levels were below the AALs after five months of operation, with TPH and benzene reported as not detected in
March 1992. Results of sampling in November 1992 showed ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes as not detected. System
downtime was about 1% during this period. After a temporary shutdown period, an attempt to restart the system caused
a malfunction in the thermal oxidizer and the destruction of the burner. As of December 1992, future activities at the
site were pending.
The total cost of this treatment application was $507,185. It was noted that the site investigation underestimated the
amount of contamination at the site. A pilot-scale study was conducted at Luke prior to implementing the full-scale
system. The pilot-scale system used vapor-phase granular activated carbon to treat extracted soil gas. Due to
unexpectedly high concentrations of volatile organic constituents, the carbon supply was exhausted after two days of
operation and the study was aborted. In discussing remediation of sites contaminated with JP-4 jet fuel, the report
includes a discussion of the relative benefits of using SVE and bioventing techniques.
105
-------
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION ANALYSIS
Page 1 of 14 ™
CZSITE:
North Fire Training Area (NFTA)
Site FT-7 in Operable Unit No. 2, Potential
Sources of Contamination (PSC)
Luke AFB, Arizona
CZSITE CHARACTERISTICS
EUTECHNOLOGY APPLICATION
This analysis covers a soil vapor extraction (SVE)
project to remove benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
xylenes, and total petroleum hydrocarbons by soil
vapor extraction (SVE). This project began October
1,1991. Normal SVE operations ended December
8,1992, pending a decision on future activities at
this site. This analysis covers performance through
December 8,1992.
i Site History/Release Characteristics
• Luke AFB has been in operation since 1941.
• Significant quantities of waste materials associated with aircraft maintenance and operation have been disposed
of within the base boundaries.
• Monthly fire training exercises were conducted in this fire training area from 1963 to 1973 and on a quarterly
basis from 1973 to as late as 1990.
• Petroleum, oil, and lubricant (POL) wastes in 55 gallon drums were transported to this fire training area for use
until 1973. After 1973, JP-4 fuel was used exclusively.
• Fire training pits number 3 and 4 have been used since 1973. Berms minimized fuel migration to the surrounding
area.
• Training fires were produced by pouring POL wastes on an older or simulated aircraft and igniting.
• The most current practice applied water to the pit floor before introducing the JP-4.
• Site investigations of the fire training area were conducted from 1981 to 1989.
• Two fire training pits, 3 and 4, were subsequently identified as requiring remediation.
• Further fire training exercises were conducted in Pits 3 and 4 after the contaminant characterizations had been
completed. This is assumed to have increased soil contaminant concentrations.
U.S. Air Force
106
-------
Luke AFB 2 of 14
^Contaminants of Concern
The major contaminant is petroleum hydrocarbons. Volatile soil contaminants of greatest concern are: BTEX
(benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes). Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) was also reported at the NFTA.
Other contaminants included: 4-methyl-2-pentanone, 2-hexanone, and 2-butanone.
i Contaminant Propertiesi
Properties of contaminants focused upon during remediation are:
Property at 1 atm
Empirical Formula
Density @20°C
Melting Point
Vapor Pressure @ 28°C
Henry's Law Constant
Water Solubility @ 20°C
Log Octanol-Water
Partition Coefficient;
Log Kow
Site Specific Soil-
Air Partition
Coefficient; Kh /Kd
Organic Carbon Partition
Coefficient; Koc
lonization Potential
Carbon absorption
Molecular Weight
*AII 3 isomers (M, O, & P)
Units
g/cm3
°C
mm Hg
mg/l
ug/l air
mg/kg soil
ml/g
ev
mg/g C
Benzene
C6H6
0.88
5.5
100
5.59 xlO'3
1 ,800
2.13
83
9.25
80
78.12
Ethylbenzene
CSHIO
0.87
-95
10
6.43x10-3
200
3.15
0.48
1,100
8.76
18
106.18
Toluene
C7H8
0.87
-95
36.7
6.37 x10'3
500
2.69
3.42
300
8.82
50
92.15
Xylenes*
0.87
-47.9 to 13.3
10
7.04 X10-3
200
2.77-3.2
0.77
240
8.56
106.18
i Nature & Extent of Contamination
A through field investigation conducted from 1 981 to 1 989 determined that no further action was required in all but
Fire Training Pits 3 and 4.
Three soil borings were drilled and sampled in each of these two fire training pits.
Samples were taken at the near surface (0-2') and at ten foot intervals down to 100 feet
The following table summarizes the maximum contaminant concentrations in the two pits and provides Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality soil cleanup levels (based on Arizona Action Levels) for the project.
Summary of Soil Contamination
Contaminant
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total Xylenes
Benzene
TRPH
Pit 3 (mg/kg)
183
84
336
16
1380
Pit 4 (mg/kg)
10
21
69
0.2
151
ADEQ Soil Cleanup Levels (mg/kg)
200
68
44
0.13
100
The contamination extended 55 to 60 feet below grade, with only the more mobile contaminants, BTEX, exceeding
cleanup levels at these depths.
The heavier, less mobile contaminants appeared to be at shallower depths.
All TRPH results for deep samples (greater than 30 feet below grade) met the 100 mg/kg cleanup level for TRPH with
the majority of the TRPH contamination located less than 10 feet below grade.
U.S. Air Force
-------
Luko AFB 3 of 14
^Contaminant Locations and Geologic Profiles
LEGEND
:^1 APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY N
^~=2 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF FORMER FIRE
TRAINING PITS
SB-1 PHASE 1 SOIL BORING LOCATION
\T] MW-109 EXISTING MONITORING WELL
[~Q~| APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF FIRE TRAINING PITS
SB-1/VB-1 PHASE 2 SOIL/VERIFICATION BORING
LOCATIONS
'. -X^SS-U. J
EXISTING BASE PRODUCTION WELL
Fire Department
Training Area
Inactive Pit 6
Soil Gas
Sampling
Linetyp.otS
Training Pit 3
Area of
Enlargement
EW = Extraction well
SG = Soil gas probe
Vapor Extraction &
Treatment System
Collection System
Apputenances
Training Pit 4
VERTICAL SECTION AT A-A'
SB-IS SB-1 SB-3 SB-8 SB-12
SB-18 VB-3 SB-11
SITE CONSISTS OF ABOUT 74% SM AND 8W/SP AND ABOUT 26% ML IN TOP 100 FEET.
VERTICAL SCALE MAGNIFIED BY A FACTOR OF 10.
M0494001 c
PERMEABLE TO LOW PERMEABILITY INOR-
GANIC SILTS CONSISTING OF EITHER SILTS,
CLAYEY SILTS, AND OR SANDY SILTS
PERMEABLE SILTY SANDS
VERY PERMEABLE, CLEAN, WELL-GRADED TO
POORLY- GRADED SANDS
APPROXIMATE AREA OF CONTAMINATION
U.S. Air Force
108
-------
———————————^^— Luk»AFB4of14
i Site Conditions •••••BBB^^^mres^*^^
Luke AFB elevations range from 1,115 feet at the northwest corner to 1,075 feet at the southeast comer (slope of
about 25 feet/mile).
Groundwater exists under water table (unconfined) conditions.
There is a groundwater depression west of the Base caused by irrigation. General groundwater gradient varies
seasonably from southwest to north/northwest depending on groundwater withdrawal.
From 1923 to 1977, groundwater levels declined over 300 feet Consequently, the overlying dewatered sediments
have begun to settle by compaction. Land subsidence has caused fissures or cracks (mostly tenskxial; no vertical
displacement) in the land surface. These fissures may extend down to the water table.
In 1991, the depth to groundwater was 361 feet, but it was still dropping at a rate of between 1.5 and 3 feet/year. In
1992, the USGS began a study of fissures in this area.
The site receives 7 inches/year precipitation, with 60 inches/year evaporation.
Desert area with hot, dry summers and mild winters (from below freezing to over 100°F)
iKey Sou or Key Aquifer Characteristics
Property Units Range or value
Porosity % 36-46
Soil organic (carbon) content % .01
Moisture content % by volume 10
Permeability cm2
Hydraulic conductivity cm/hr 0.02-29.70
Depth to groundwater ft 350
Groundwater temperature °F 80
Rainfall infiltration in/yr < 2
Groundwater pH @ 25°C 7.5
Aquifer thickness feet 650
The top soils have a permeability of 1 X 10"* to 3 X 10-3 cm/sec (2 to X 10-* to 6 X10-3 ft/min).
U.S. Air Force
-------
Luke AFB 5 of 14
CZTREATMENT SYSTEM
i Overall Process Schematic/Extraction Well Network
T-VACUUM
\ GAGE(TVP)
9 EXTRACTION WELL
BUTTERFLY VALVE
iN-UNE
FLOWMETER
(TYPOF2)
1/4' STAINLESS STEEL (TYR)
3/8-STAINLESS STEEL
2 COMPRESSION FITTING
3" MIN DIAMETER
'VAPOR
WELL
' CLUSTER
DILUTION
TREATED
OFF-GAS
TTTT
POSITIVEU Tp"
DISPLACEMENT PUMP
3-MIN. DIAMETER -
3- MIN DIAMETER
CONTRACTOR
SUPPLIED
ENRICHMENT
FUEL
DRUMMED CONDENSATE
FOR DISPOSAL
Vapor Extraction &
Treatment System
Vapor well cluster
(soil gas monitoring wells)
Training Pit 4
157'
. vapor extraction well BAM
' pressure monitoring well
Three Dimensional Conceptual Drawing of Identified Loop
U.S. Air Force
no
-------
Luke AFB 8 of 14
i System Description
A soil vapor extraction pilot study was performed to determine:
• Soil pH, moisture content, and nutrient concentrations.
• Radius of influence and pressure - flow relationship.
• Effectiveness of passive injection.
• Effectiveness of surface seals.
• Effectiveness of extracting from different screened intervals.
• Contaminant mass removal rates.
• Oxygen, carbon dioxide, and relative humidity of soil gas.
• Soil sampling for microbial enumeration and determination of soil nutrient concentrations was also included.
• The pilot plant design called for six vapor extraction wells, a regenerative blower, valves, piping, controls, data gath-
ering equipment, and vapor phase granular activated carbon for extracted soil gas. Five wells ware screened from 15
to 55 feet below grade and one well contained three discrete screen intervals in three geologically different zones.
• The pilot study began in November 1990 using vapor phase granular activated carbon to treat extracted soil gas. Due
to unexpected high concentrations of volatile organic constituents, the carbon supply was exhausted after two days
of operation and the study was aborted.
• A second attempt at the pilot study in January 1991 using a thermal oxidizer to treat extracted soil gas. Originally
planned to run for 30 days, the pilot could only be run for a total of ten days due to cost impacts of the failed attempt
using carbon.
• The pilot study results indicated that significant contaminant mass removal could be achieved using SVE. Mass
removal rates were greater than forty pounds per day at 20 ACFM during the ten day pilot test. Mass removal rates
remained steady during the pilot test and no estimate of cleanup time could be obtained.
• Condensate generation during the pilot was approximately 5 gallons per day.
The design of the full-scale removal action was performed by the Omaha District Corps of Engineers and
included the following:
• The design called for one extraction well centered in each fire pit.
» No surface seals or passive injection wells were used.
• Soil gas sampling clusters were provided to monitor soil gas contaminant levels and vacuum pressures, as well as,
oxygen, carbon dioxide, and relative humidity of soil gas.
• The 2 vapor extraction wells were connected to one extraction vacuum pump (a twin rotary vane positive displace-
ment vacuum pump blower) that conveyed soil vapor contaminants to a thermal oxidizer for destruction prior to dis-
charge to the atmosphere. Blower exhaust temperatures varied between 109 and 178°F and exhaust pressure was 20
psi.
• Extracted soil gases passed through a flame arrester, were then mixed with auxiliary propane fuel, and then passed
through the burner head where they began to bum.
• All pressure monitoring and extraction wells had a 35 foot screen spanning the depth interval of 22 to 57 feet.
U.S. Air Force
ill
-------
—^—^———— Luk»AFB7of14 "
iKey Design ft*atiii^M»^^»i»«wtf^^ . .
* Mass removal rates based on pilot study rates of >40 Ibs/day at 20 acfm.
• Pressure flow based on pilot study findings.
• The radius of influence was considered to extend to the point where the vacuum was 2.0.2 inches water.
• The design specified an O&M program which included start up, a 14-day prove out period, a stack test, and a 180-
day system monitoring period.
•Key Monitored Operating Parameters
Vacuum at 3 different depths (15,35, and 55 feet) of the monitoring wells and at the well head of each of the 2 extrac-
tion wells.
An on site gas chromatograph with a flame ionization detector was used to measure the contaminant concentrations
removed by the SVE system.
Flowrate and temperature at extraction wells.
About 1.2 gallons/day of condensate was produced.
The thermal oxidizer was the determining factor in choosing SVE operational settings. Optimum thermal oxidizer set-
tings were determined by the performance test bum (98% destruction efficiency for total hydrocarbons at 1,420 °F,
40 inches water vacuum, 95 CFM). Thermal oxidizer inlet vacuum ranged from 29.5 to 47 inches of water giving flow
rates between 95 and 110 ACFM (2.3 to 3.2 CFM/inch water vacuum). Row rates could vary between 80 and 120 CFM
without significantly affecting thermal oxidizer stability. Dilution air was necessary to increase combustion oxygen for
the first 2 months and resulted in vacuums as low as 10 Inches of water (no dilution air gave vacuums > 50 Inches of
water).
Fuel consumption was 110 gallons/day.
One extraction well produced 1.6 CFM/inch water vacuum and the second produced 5.4 CFM/inch water vacuum.
CO2 was >5% at start up, but averaged only 1.15% at shutdown (normal atmosphere 0.03%). O2 concentrations aver-
aged 7.8% at start up and 19.7% at shutdown (normal atmosphere contains 20.9% Q$.
Soil gas relative humidity varied from 59.5% to 100%.
Extraction well temperatures (69 to 84.5°F) varied both seasonally and diurnally with above ground air temperatures.
Soil gas concentrations were undetectable in most soil gas monitoring wells after 2 months of operation.
U.S. Air Force
-------
' LulaAFBOofU
OZPERFORMANCE ' ..." "
i Performance Objectives
• 90% destruction (by thermal oxidation) of soil gas contaminants prior to discharge to the atmosphere
• > 0.2 inches of water vacuum in remediation areas
i Treatment Plan
• The 3VE system's effectiveness in remediating the site was evaluated using baseline initial soil borings and post-
operation verification borings. Six initial boring samples were obtained two each from three different borings. Four
verification borings were obtained, two each from two different borings - one boring in each pit.
i Operational Performance \
• After 30 weeks of operation, removal rates were still 40 pounds/day.
System Downtime
• About 1%.
• After 30 weeks of operation, the system was shut down for 19 days for equilibration. It was restarted on November
24, with reduced flow rates. On December 5, flow rates were reduced by 50% in an attempt to reduce emissions
below one pound/day (no air emission controls are required below one pound/day). Reduced gas velocities through
the thermal oxidizer burner head were not sufficient to keep the combustion flame above the burner, causing the
flame to migrate down into and destroy the burner. As of December 8,1992, this ended normal SVE operations pend-
ing a decision on future activities at this site.
i Treatment Performance
Contaminant removal rates were determined using on-site GC analysis and extraction well flowrates. Calculations
using these two parameters indicate that as much as 2,200 pounds of photo-ionizable or as much as 12,000 pounds
of flame-ionizable contaminants were removed and destroyed; 5,500 from Pit No. 3 and 6,500 pounds from Pit No. 4.
Soil gas concentration reductions achieved in 6 months by SVE were:
Contaminant % Concentration Reduction in Soil Gas
Benzene 96
Ethylbenzene 74
Toluene 81
p & m-Xylene 79
o-Xylene 72
2-Butanone 95
2-Hexanone 84
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 95
U.S. Air Force
113
-------
Luk*AFB9of14
10,000
9,000
7,000
... 6,000
CD
_J
1 5,000
co"
en 4,000
5
o
o
cc
a
5 3,000
£
C3
£ 2,000
1,000
«t
X
0
/•
<
N
N
)
THER* CONTAMINANTS
* 2-BUTANONE (4%),
N 4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE(23%),
p\
\
\
AND 2-1-
\
\
\,
O ^
EXANOf
\
•SSl
\
E{73%)
® <
>
• |
^ 1
10 15 20 25
WEEK OF OPERATION
30
22 24 26 28 30 32
WEEK OF OPERATION
34 36
REDUCTION OF BTEX SOIL QAS CONCENTRATION BY SVE
BETXVST1ME
ItJW
45. lojvt.
^AA.
^*^
•«•• _
N
(
(
•v^
J
)
*•*«,
'->i
,) f
^^
}
^ ^
^
'•^
i.
"*"
(
^.
) ^
•»x^
)
•**.,
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
WEEKS OF OPERATION
Total Pounds Contaminants Removed
• 12,000 pounds of contaminants were removed by SVE during the 30 weeks of operation (an average of 57
pounds/day).
• During the last 7 weeks of operation, the contaminant removal rate/CFM averaged 0.51 (lb/day)/CFM.
U.S. Air Force
114
-------
Luk*AFB10of14
EUCOST
t Capital Costs
Equipment
Site Preparation
Site Work
Buildings/Structures
Mechanical/Piping/Wells
Electrical
Permitting & Regulatory
Startup Costs
Subtotal
Engineering
Project Management
Testing
Construction/Mobilization/Demobilization
Cumulative Subtotal
General & Administrative Overhead Costs @ 9.5%
Contractor Markup and Profit @ 10%
Total Capital Costs
Annual Capital Cost
i Operating Costsi
$57,050
4,890
76,919
2,445
4,483
11,614
16,300
12,225
185,926
4,075
408
16,300
206,709
19,637
20,671
$297,017
Electricity (Q $0.07/Kwhr) $16,750
Propane Fuel (@ $0.87/gal)
Labor (@ $20/hr Operator; $16/hr Technician excluding overhead) 29,943
Laboratory Charges 10,000
Maintenance Labor & Parts 2,000
Residual Disposal 10,500
Monitoring 4,400
Permitting & Regulatory 0
Insurance & Taxes 10,000
Administrative 9,983
Health & Safety (medical monitoring) 1,000
Subtotal
Contractor Markup & Profit 10,508
Total Semi-annual Operating Cost $105,084
Total Annual Operating & Capital Costs $507,185
U.S. Air Force
115
-------
Luk*AFB11of14
C™REGULATORY/INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
• Stack testing of off gasses to ensure that all appropriate state air emissions standards are met.
• Initial/end soil concentrations versus Arizona Action Levels (AALs):
Soil Boring Sample Results
Concentrations in mg/kg
Date
Depth, feet
Compound
TPH*
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylenes
BTEX"*
25Mar92
10
19,000
15
360
470
520
1,365
5Nov92
10
17,000
100
100
290
490
25Mar92
45
NO"
ND
ND
0.08
0.05
0.13
5Nov92
55
10
ND
ND
ND
AAL
100
0.13
68
200
44
412
*Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
**ND = Not Detected
***BTEX = sum of Benzene, Ethylbenzene, Toluene, and Xylenes concentrations.
EZ SCHEDULE
Original Proposed Schedule as of October 16,1991
(Project started October 1,1991)
Task # Description (in chronological order)
1 Prepare Submittals (Health & Safety Plan, etc.)
2 Mobilize (after Notice to Proceed & Preconstruction Meeting)
3 Await submittals (see #1 above) approval
4 Excavate and Remove Existing Fuel Lines
5 Construct Soil Vacuum (Vapor) Extraction (SVE) System.
(This task was completed about 3 months late.) Also drill new
extraction wells, install electric line, and make the electrical
hook up at the same time.
6 System Start Up, Prove Out, and Test Burn
7 Operate System and Perform Monitoring (This task was
completed about 4 months late.) Dispose of Hazardous
Condensate about every 2 or 3 months.
8 Shut System Down
9 Final Extraction and Monitoring
10 Demobilize Plant
11 Abandon New and Existing Extraction Wells
12 Prepare Draft Report (Site Clean Up at the same time)
13 Prepare Final Report. Original schedule called for project
completion before the end of November, 1992.
TOTAL (Does not include 4 month slippage in schedule.)
Task Duration, months
1
0.5
1.5
0.13
0.33
0.6
6
0.5
1
0.24
0.2
1
1
14
U.S. Air Force
116
-------
Luke AFB 12 of 14
CHLESSONS LEARNED
iKey Operating Parameters \
• Exhaust temperature of the thermal oxidizer.
• Flow rate to the thermal oxidizer must be sufficient to keep the combustion flame above the burner.
i Implementation Considerations
• Accurately characterizing the subsurface soil strata is critical when designing a SVE system. Design parameters influ-
enced by the strata composition and layering include: extraction well placement, well screen interval(s), the need for
well packers, vent wells, and the required vacuum pressures to be generated by the SVE system blower.
• Three soil borings were drilled and sampled in each pit during site investigations. However, extrapolations from these
three borings greatly underestimated the amount of contamination present. A good deal of planning should go into
site investigation borings so that an accurate characterization of the nature and extent of contamination can be
made.
• The fact that only one out of six initial soil boring samples contained significant contaminant concentrations formed a
weak basis upon which to judge the removal effectiveness of the SVE system. It is possible that the initial borings
revealed only a few of the highly contaminated soil strata.
• Soil homgencity.
• As removal rates drop, a decision must be made on when to obtain confirmation soil samples. When compounds
which were originally predominant in concentrations are reduced and supplanted by other of the original compounds,
it may be time to consider confirmation soil samples. In either case, the SVE system can continue operating while
obtaining soil samples. An effort should be made to avoid short circuiting the SVE system during either pre- or post-
soil borings. The borings should be located at a reasonable distance from either extraction or injection wells and the
borings should be completely sealed with grout after sampling.
Off-gas Treatment for Remedial Action:
• A combination thermal/catalytic oxidizer may be justified if adequate thermal oxidizer operating data is obtained dur-
ing the field-scale test. The thermal oxidizer is generally used during startup, and the catalytic oxidizer may be
brought on-line as contaminant concentrations drop and auxiliary fuel consumption increases. The reduced supple-
mental fuel costs associated with a catalytic oxidizer's ability to oxidize contaminants at low temperatures may justify
the additional capital outlay up-front.
• The catalytic converter should not be added as an after-thought for two reasons. Firstly, retrofitting a thermal oxidizer
system to include a catalytic converter is more expensive than ordering the pair up-front. Secondly, Regulatory agen-
cies usually mandate performance stack tests with associated costs which can approach the costs of the oxidizer
itself. If the thermal and catalytic oxidizers are purchased separately, two separate tests may have to be conducted,
including two mobilization charges. If the oxidizer combination is purchased as a pair up front, they can be tested in
sequence and with a single mobilization charge. SVE operating parameters and system operating settings are defined
during the performance stack test, and can only be deviated from slightly.
U.S. Air Force
117
-------
13 of 14
i Technology Limitations i
The mass of VOCs removed during pilot study operation was much higher than expected. The total mass of contami-
nants in Fire Pit 4 was estimated to be between 120 and 150 pounds according to estimates made prior to the pilot.
The large difference between the estimate of contaminant mass versus the mass removal rate of the pilot study may
have been due to insufficient characterization of the site or due to an additional fire training exercise. (During the lat-
ter stages of the design, it was discovered that a fire training exercise had been performed between the time of the
site investigation and the pilot study.)
Photoionization detectors (PIDs) are equipped with a 10.2 ev lamp which cannot detect compounds with ionization
potentials > 10.2 ev (all BTEX ionization potentials are < 10.2 ev). At this project, PIDs only detected about 20% of the
compounds detected by flame ionization detectors (FIDs).
Experience has shown that moisture on the PID lamp causes elevated readings.
iFuture Technology Selection Considerations
• SVE field pilot tests generally focus on geologic strata, well construction, well placement, extraction flow rates, and
soil-gas characteristics. Emission controls are often an afterthought, Soil-gases extracted immediately after startup
usually contain the highest contaminant concentrations encountered during the project. A common emission control
approach specifies activated carbon for the pilot test in an attempt to minimize capital costs. Carbon is excellent for
polishing dry airstreams with low contaminant concentrations. However, high contaminant concentration airstreams
rapidly exhaust carbons absorptive capability. Additionally, the soil-gases are usually moist (above 70% relative
humidity) and this moisture also exhaust carbon.
• Many of the hydrocarbon fractions contained in JP-4 jet fuel are heavy molecules, are relatively non-volatile, and are
not amenable to treatment using SVE. Consequently, if TPH concentrations are to be reduced further, a different
treatment method (such as in situ bioventing) will have to be used.
• The consultant recommended continuing SVE operations for an additional 4 months in order to reduce the targeted
VOCs below AALs.
• The available literature indicates that intermittent SVE can be more efficient than constant operation, especially as
time progresses and removal rates decrease. Intermittent cycling rates are best determined after soil gas concentra-
tions drop. The tests for optimum cycling rates require a flexible operating system. Extraction pumps will generally
accommodate an intermittent process, but thermal and/or catalytic oxidizers are less tolerant of varying process con-
ditions. If there are 2 or more extraction wells, the influent parameters can be maintained relatively constant by
switching between the sources instantaneously. However, provision must be made to maintain a constant flowrate
and similar influent soil-gas concentrations. Intermittent operation is simpler to implement where activated carbon is
used in controlling emissions or where emission controls are not required.
U.S. Air Force
118
-------
CZSOURCES
i Major Sources For Each Section
Site Characteristics: Source #s (from list below) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,7, and 8.
Treatment System: Source * 4, 8.
Performance: Source # 4, 8.
Cost: Source # 6.
Regulatory/Institutional Issues: Source # 6.
Schedule: Source # 6.
Lessons Learned: Source # 8.
tChronologlcal List of Sources and Additional References
1. Pre-Design Report, North Fire Training Area, Luke Air Force Base, Glendale, Arizona, prepared for U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Omaha District, by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., December, 1989.
2. Site Safety and Health Plan for the Vapor Extraction System Treatability Study at the North Fire Training Area (FT-07),
Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Missouri River Division, by Geraghty &
Miller, Inc., October, 1992.
3. Final Remedial Investigation Report, Operable Unit No. 2, Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, prepared for U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, by Geraghty & Miller, Inc., October 20,1992.
4. Final Report Removal Action, North Fire Training Area, Luke AFB, Arizona, submitted to U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Omaha, by Envirocon, Inc., March 10,1993.
5. RREL Treatability Data Base, Version 4.0, EPA, November 15,1991.
6. Personal communication with Terry Buchholz, CEMRO-ED-ED, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, 215
North 17th Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68102-4978, 402-221-7178, FAX 402-221-7796.
7. Basics of Pump-and-Treat Ground-Water Remediation Technology, EPA/600/8-90/003, Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory, Ada, OK 74820, March, 1990.
8. Soil Vapor Extraction of JP-4 Jet Fuel Contaminated Soils, James M. Ramm, Rust Environment - Infrastructure,
Jerome F. Stolinski, Jr., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Dan McCaffery, Envirocon, Inc.
dANALYSIS PREPARATION
This analysis was prepared by:
Stone & Webster Environmental
Technology & Service
P.O. Box 5406
Denver, Colorado 80217-5406
Contact: Dr. Richard Carmichae! 303-741-7169
dCERTIFICATION
(/ Mr. Jerome Stolinski
CEMRO
U.S. Army COE - Omaha District
U.S. Air Force 119
-------
In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction at
McClellan Air Force Base
California
(Interim Report)
120
-------
Case Study Abstract
In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction at McClellan Air Force Base
California
Site Name:
McClellan Air Force Base Superfund
Site, Operable Unit D, Site S
Location:
Sacramento, California
Contaminants:
Chlorinated Aliphatics
Tetrachloroethene (PCE), Trichloroethene
(TCE), 1,1-Dichloroethene (1,1-DCE), Vinyl
Chloride, 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (TCA), 1,2-
Dichloroethene (1,2-DCA), Freon 113
- PCE, TCE, 1,1-DCE, TCA, and Freon
113 account for over 99% of the speciated
VOC mass in the vadose zone
- Maximum borehole concentration of
VOCs in vadose zone reported up to
2,975,000
Period of Operation:
Status - Ongoing
Report covers - 1993 to 5/94
Cleanup Type:
Field Demonstration
Vendor:
CH2M Hill
SIC Code:
9711 (National Security)
Technology:
Soil Vapor Extraction
17 vapor extraction wells in three
contamination zones
5 vacuum blowers, 2 vapor/liquid
separators
- Catalytic oxidizer and scrubber used to
control air emissions
Total system average air flow rate was
2,500 scfm
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA and State: California
- ROD Date: pending
(scheduled for issuance
mid-1995)
Point of Contact:
Kendall Tanner
Remedial Project Manager
McClellan, AFB
Waste Source:
Disposal Pit (for fuel and solvents)
Purpose/Significance of Application:
A demonstration of soil vapor
extraction to remediate VOCs in
waste pit materials and vadose zone
soils, and to assess performance of
catalytic oxidation and scrubbing.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- Three zones of contamination - waste pit (landfilled silty sands and sandy silt
with oily material, wire wood, debris, etc.); intermediate alluvium; and deep
alluvium
Permeability ranged from 0.001 (for silty clay) to 1.7 (for sand) darcies
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Cleanup criteria not yet established for this site at McClellan
- Air Emissions - 95% destruction of total VOCs, required by the Sacramento Air Quality Management District
121
-------
Case Study Abstract
In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction at McClellan Air Force Base
California (Continued)
Results:
- Demonstration not complete at time of report; no soil samples to characterize post-treatment vadose zone were
collected at time of report
- Approximately 46,000 Ibs of speciated VOCs were extracted and treated during initial 6 weeks of operation; 113,000 Ibs
during initial 15 weeks of operation
- TCE, 1,1-DCE, and TCA accounted for more than 90% of the mass of contaminants removed
- Up to 150,000 Ibs of contaminants (hexane-equivalents) believed to have been biodegraded in situ during initial 6 weeks
of operation
- Overall DRE averaged 99% for total VOCs during second and third months of demonstration; lower DRE in first
month attributed to operational concerns
Cost Factors:
- Field demonstration budget - $1.8 million for 1993 and $2.0 million for 1994 (including site characterization; air
permeability testing; installation and operation of SVE wells; vapor probes and manifold; air/water separators; blowers;
scrubber; catalytic oxidizer (rented); resin adsorption (rented); electronic beam technology testing; laboratory analysis;
and engineering support)
Description:
The McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento, California is an Air Force Command Logistics Center that has been in
operation since 1943. The base was placed on the National Priorities List in 1987 and Site S within Operable Unit D is
one of the areas of confirmed contamination at the base. Site S is the location of a former fuel and solvent disposal pit,
used from the early 1940s to mid-1970s. Soil at Site S has been contaminated with chlorinated and petroleum-based
volatile organic constituents (VOCs). No cleanup goals had been established for Site S at the time of this report. The
report indicates that a Record of Decision for Operable Unit D (which includes the disposal pit site) is scheduled to be
issued in mid-1995. A 95% destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) for total VOCs in the extracted vapors was
required by the Sacramento Air Quality Management District.
A field demonstration of soil vapor extraction (SVE) at Site S began in mid-1993. This demonstration is being conducted
as part of a series of field programs designed to optimize remedial technologies to be used in a full-scale cleanup at
McClellan. This SVE system includes 17 vapor extraction wells, vapor/liquid separators, a catalytic oxidizer, and a
scrubber. Results from the field demonstration of SVE to date showed that approximately 113,000 pounds of VOCs were
extracted in 15 weeks of operation; mostly consisting of TCE, 1,1-DCE, and TCA. In addition, up to 150,000 pounds of
contaminants (hexane-equivalents) were believed to have been biodegraded in situ during the initial 6 weeks of the SVE
demonstration. The average DRE for total VOCs during the second and third months of the demonstration was 99
percent.
It was noted during this application that the heterogeneity of the soils at this site caused the radius of influence for the
extraction wells to vary from 15 to 60 feet for a single well. The calculated mass of contaminants was almost two orders
of magnitude less than the mass extracted in the first six weeks of system operation. It was also noted that SVE air
pollution control systems should be designed with sufficient capacity to provide for operational flexibility.
122
-------
UNOLOGY APPLICATION ANALYSIS
\ Pago 1 of 14 2T
McClellan Air Force Base
Site S, Operable Unit 0
Sacramento, California
• TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION
In situ soil vapor extraction (SVE) was field tested in
1993 and 1994 at a site with vadose-zone soil and fill
materials containing volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). The site is representative of many at the
base where SVE is a candidate remediation
technology. Catalytic oxidation and scrubbing were
used to control air emissions.
I SITE CHARACTERISTICS
l Site History/Release Characteristics
• McClellan Air Force Base (AFB), an Air Force Command Logistics Center, has been in operation since 1943. The
base was placed on the National Priorities List in 1987 as the highest ranked U.S. Air Force installation.
• Operable Unit (OU) D, located in the northwest corner of the facility, is one of ten OUs on the base. Site S, the subject
of this report, is located within OU D and is one of 238 sites on the base where contamination has been confirmed.
• Site S was used as a former fuel and solvent disposal pit and is one of 12 waste pits in OU D that were used from the
early 1940s until the mid 1970s. Limited excavation of wastes from the pits was performed in the late 1970s and early
1980s, and an impermeable cap was constructed above the former waste pits in 1987. A groundwater pump and treat
system was installed in 1987.
• Detailed characterization of the nature and extent of contamination for Site S was completed in June 1992. The full-
scale SVE demonstration system that is the subject of this report was field tested at Site S in late 1993 and early 1994.
Contaminants of Concern and Properties
The most prevalent contaminants of Site S
are chlorinated and petroleum-based
VOCs. Additional contaminants in waste
pit materials include: volatile aromatics;
semi-volatiles, pplychlorinatod biphenyls
(PCBs) and dioxins.
Seven chlorinated VOCs were
identified as contaminants of concern in
the risk assessment based primarily on
potential impacts to groundwater:
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-
trifluoroethane
(1,1-DCE)
1,2-DCA)
(Freon113)
Properties*
Density (g/cm3)
Vapor Pressure
(mrnHg)
Henry's Law Constant
(atm-m3/mol8)
Water Solubility (mg/l)
Octanol -Water
Partition
Coefficient; (K
-------
Contam/nant Locations and Geologic Profiles
Remedial investigation field activities at Site S have included extensive sampling and laboratory analysis of waste pit fill
materials, soil, soil vapor and groundwater for chemical, geotechnical and biological parameters. Field air permeability
testing was also performed. Data from some of these investigations is included in this section to provide a general
understanding of site conditions.
OU D and Site S Locations
Location of OU D
Location of Site SinOUD
Sito.S
Site.4
Crack
Site S Vadose Zone Contaminatiion
Second Creek
Site "S-
i— Legend
O SVE Well (29,270) Maximum Borehole Concentration of VOCs (ug/kg)
O Piezometer Nest •*>• •*• Schematic Cross Section Location
U.S. Air Force
124
-------
i Contaminant Locations and Geologic Profiles (Continued) I
Vadose Zone Llthologv and VOC Distribution (Site SI
A
• McClettan SVE • Page 3 of 14 —
HOPE Liner
Not*: Nonaquaous phase liquid (MAPI) may be present in the vadose zone soil matrix.
—Legend
Fill (gravel, sand & silt with clay
underlying the HPDE liner)
Fine sand (including sand with silt)
20ft
Total VOC concentration
in soil [ug/kg]
Waste pit materials (silty sands [fTI] Silty/dayey sand, sandy siltfday
and sandy silt with oily material. ^^ with lenses of silt and day o/«i»h«i« wn .,.• H~.b»*<*4
wire wood, debris, ete.) Borehole ND - not dectocted
Site Conditions
• McClellan AFB occupies 2,952 acres approximately 7 miles northeast of downtown Sacramento.
• Soils and geology at the base are a complex series of alluvial and fluvial deposits that were deposited, eroded, and
redeposited. Deposits of anyone lithologic type are limited in horizontal and vertical extent.
• Regional groundwater levels have dropped over 60 feet in the last 50 years due to pumping for agricultural irrigation;
levels have declined at a rate of 1.5 to 2 feet/year during the last 10 years. This has resulted in the smearing of
contaminants in the soil matrix above the declining water table.
• Three zones of contamination exist at Site S above the current water table:
1) Waste pit - Very high contaminant concentrations in a matrix of landfilled soils beneath the impermeable cap
and averaging 20 feet in thickness (from - 5 to 25 feet BGS).
2) Intermediate alluvium - High contaminant concentrations in an alluvial soil matrix directly below the waste pit
and averaging 15 feet in thickness (from -25 to 40 feet BGS).
3) Deep Alluvium • Lower contaminant concentrations in native alluvial soils located below the intermediate zone
and averaging 62 feet in thickness (from -40 to 102 feet BGS to the water table).
• Key Vadose Zone Soil Properties
Property [units] Sand Units Silty Clay Units Comments
Vertical Intrinsic
Permeability [darcies]
Horizontal Intrinsic
Permeability [darcies]
Percent Saturation
Fraction Organic
Carbon
0.02 to 1.5
0.1 to 1.7
47 to 75
Not Available
0.001 to 0.5
0.1 to 1.5
63 to 86
0.001 to 0.006
Lower intrinsic permeabilities imply more resistance to contaminant
transport either in solution or in gaseous phases.
Higher intrinsic permeabilities in the horizontal (versus vertical) direction
imply relatively less resistance to contaminant transport either in solution
or in gaseous state.
As percent saturation increases, the ability of the vadose zone medium
to convey air flow decreases.
High organic carbon fractions in the soils allow for more retardation of
organic chemicals during transport because they tend to absorb to the
organic material in the soil matrix.
Note: Field permeability values of 3 to 200 darcies exceeded the laboratory test results indicated above.
U.S. Air Force
125
-------
n REMEDIATION SYSTEM
Overall Process Schematic
' McClellan SVE - Page 4 of 14'
SVE Well Network
Vapor Extraction
Vapor
Emission Controls and Discharge
Tnated
Intermediate
Alluvium Extraction
Deep Alluvium
Extraction Wells
17 vapor extraction wells
connected by 2 headers to
above-ground equipment
for emission control.
Extraction Well Network
T/votorf
Scrubber
Slowdown
Extrained liquids removed
by 1 of 2 vapor/liquid separators.
5 vacuum blowers effect in-situ
extraction of soil vapor.
Discharge to Existing McClellan
Groundwatar Treatment System
Vapor treated by catalytic oxidation to
reduce VOC concentrations and
counterflow packed bed scrubbing to
reduce acid gas emissions.
Aqueous scrubber blowdown treated
using a clarifier and bag filters to reduce the
suspended solids concentration, and granular
activated carbon (GAG) to reduce
dioxins concentrations.
Condensate
Storage Tank
SiteS
N
Pad-Mounted
Transformer
Stac!
Caustic
Tank
r Legend
9 Deep Alluvium Vapor Extraction Well
• Intermediate Alluvium Vapor Extraction Well
A Waste Pit Vapor Extraction Well
U.S. Air Force
126
-------
' McClellan SVE - Page 5 of 14-
Extraction Well Detail •
Tvoical Extraction Well
3/8* Weep Hoi
Ground Surface
Existing 40 mil—
ting
:Me
HPOE Membrane
SST Centralizes at
Top and Bottom of
Screen Zones
Groundwater
Table
(1993)
To Extraction and Emission Control Equipment
8* Sched. 40 Protective Steal Casing
4" Schect 40 PVC Well Casing ASTM F480
Concrete Pad (Sloped Surface to Drain)
Compacted Cover Material
Cover Material
Compacted Low Permeability Soil Bentonite Mixture
Handcut Hole in Membrane
60 mil HOPE Slip Boot
Cement/Bentonite Grout
mtonite Seal 3 Feet Thick,
Granular, Hydrated
and Bridge 1-2 Feet Thick #30 Mesh
4' Sched 40 PVC Well Screen
w/0.020 Inch Slots
•Sand Pack, 8x20 Mesh
Fill With Bentonite Grout After
Collecting Soil Samples
• Key Design Criteria
• Extraction of soil vapor containing VOCs from three
zones of contamination above the water table (waste pit,
intermediate alluvium and deep alluvium).
• Overlapping radius of influence for vapor extraction
wells.
• Oxygenating vadose zone soils to effect in-situ
biodegradation.
• Maintain catalytic oxidizer VOC destruction efficiency
above 95% to comply with Sacramento AQMD
requirements.
• Maintain acid gas (HCI) emissions below 30% of the
TVL at a maximum loading of 75 pounds/hour HCI prior
to scrubbing, the risk assessment limit for on-base
workers. This criterion was modified after project
initiation to removal of 99% of HCI and by scrubbing
emissions from the catalytic oxidizer.
• Maintain dioxins concentrations in the scrubber
blowdown below 6 parts per trillion (TCDD equivalents)
so that suppliers can regenerate GAC in compliance
with federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) standards.
• Key Monitored Operating Parameters
• Extraction well flow rates, vacuum and temperature.
• Extraction well VOC, Og and CO2 concentrations.
• Vapor probe vacuum, temperature, and 02 and CO?
concentrations.
• Separators' water discharge flow rates and VOC
concentrations.
• Vacuum blowers ' inlet and outlet vacuum/pressure,
temperature, moisture content and VOC
concentrations.
• Catalytic oxidizer inlet flow rate, LEL, VOC
concentrations, moisture content and temperature.
• Catalytic oxidizer outlet VOC concentrations.
• Scrubber oil inlet/outlet flow rate, pressure and HCI,
HF, and dioxins concentrations.
• Scrubber blowdown flow rate, pH, conductivity and
dioxins concentrations.
• Caustic usage.
• Clarifier solids/sludge thickness.
• Filters' pressure.
• GAC influent/effluent pressure and dioxins
concentrations.
U.S. Air Force
127
-------
iSoi/ Vapor Extraction/Emission Control Systems Schematic
' McClellan SVE - Page 6 of 14 —
2,000 sctm Air/
Water Separator
(3) SO hp Blowers
500 scfm at 14' Hg
Catalytic Oxidzer
Section (1,100«F:
1 sec. residence time
at 3,000 scfm)
Natural Gas • Fired
Combustion Air
Blower
Mist
Eliminator
Bed
Scrubber
Sump
(Pumping
- 9 GPM)
Condensale
to Existing
Base
Groundwater
Treatment
System
iducad
Draft Fan
So* Serf So*
Vapor Vapor Vapor
From From From
Waste Intermediate Deep
Pit WeUs Alluvium Alluvium
WeUs Wets
Discharge Teated
Scrubber Slowdown
to Existing Base
Groundwater
Treatment
System
(2) 40 hp Blowers
900 scfm at 2'Hg
(4) 5-Micron
Bag Filters
GAG Absorber
(1.000 IDS.)
darifer Storm
(1,700 gallon Water
capacity) Sump
Pumps
20%NaOH
Caustic Solution
(8.200 gallon
capacity)
Makeup and
Quench
Water
Supply
U.S. Air Force
128
-------
McCtellan SVE - Page 7 of 14 —
PERFORMANCE
Performance Objectives
• Demonstrate effectiveness of SVE for reducing the concentrations of VOCs in waste pit materials and vadose
zone soils for future consideration at multiple McClellan sites with similar conditions.
• Evaluate the potential impact of increasing oxygen concentrations on in-situ bioremediation using SVE.
• Demonstrate the effectiveness of catalytic oxidation for reducing concentrations of VOCs in extracted soil vapor, and
scrubbing for reducing acid gas and dioxins emissions produced during catalytic oxidation.
• Previous remedial actions consisted of limited excavation of waste pit materials, capping and groundwater
pumping and treatment. SVE was recently demonstrated as part of an Engineering Evaluation - Cost Analysis
(EE-CA) of this technology for potential future use in remediating Site S and other McClellan sites.
Incoming
precipitation
row tod away
from waste
Ground surface ->
Groundwa
table
Conceptual model of previous and current Site S remediation
Initial Process Optimization Efforts •••^^•""•"••''••liiiiiiiiiiiiiii nil.
SVE viability is being tested in a series of field programs:
Current
Future
In-Srtu Air
Permeability
Testing
(Steady state test
of 5 wells over 4
days in 1991)
In-Srtu SVE Held
Demonstration
(17 wells in 3
zones scheduled
to be operated for
5 months)
This analysis
focuses upon this
portion of the
demonstration
program
Conduct Field
Test of In-SItu
Bioventing Using
SVE System to
Evaluate In-Situ
Biological
Remediation of
Contaminants
Conduct Held
Test of Hot Air
Injection in
Conjunction with
In-Situ SVE to
Evaluate
Increased
Physical Removal
of Contaminants
Operational Performance
• SVE Demonstration System Throughput
• During the initial 6 weeks of the SVE demonstration, ~ 150
million cubic feet of soil vapor was extracted and treated.
• The average (total system) air flow rate was - 2,500 scfm.
• - 46,000 pounds of speciated VOCs (±30%) were
extracted and treated during the initial 6 weeks of the SVE
demonstration. -113,000 pounds of VOCs (± 30%) were
extracted through 15 weeks of the demonstration.
• Up to 150,000 pounds of contaminants (hexane-
equivalents) are believed to have been biodegraded in situ
during the first 6 weeks of the demonstration.
r SVE Demonstration System Downtime
• The SVE demonstration system was shut down after
-6 weeks of operation because of base worker
complaints about acid gas emissions.
• A scrubber and support systems to reduce acid gas
[hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids (HCI and HF)1
emissions was constructed, and operation of the SVE
system recommenced in March 1994.
• The operational frequency was -70 to 75 % after
recommencing operation (except for downtime for
repairs to an off-site natural gas line and the base
groundwater treatment system).
U.S. Air Force
129
-------
McClellan SVE - Page 8 of 14'
PERFORMANCE (Continued)
Pneumatic Performance ••
In situ vacuum during the initial period of SVE demonstration system operation exceeded 24 inches H2O in all
piezometers and no apparent "dead flow areas* wore identified. Additional vacuum measurements would be
required to define the full radius of at the flow rates and the vacuum levels implemented during the demonstration.
The radius of influence achieved at Site S during a lower flow rate/vacuum air permeability test performed in 1991 is
shown below. (Note the greater horizontal than vertical radius of influence which is attributable to the greater
horizontal intrinsic permeabilities and the influence of the cap.)
Ground Surface
- Legend
i 0.3
All values in inches
H2O gauge vacuum
Screened section
; of piezometer or
! extraction well
0 25
Scale in Feet
Extract/on System
• The initial 15 weeks of SVE demonstration system operation resulted in the removal of an estimated 113,000
pounds of speciated VOCs (± 30 percent based on the precision inherent in on-site gas chromatographic analysis).
• The deep alluvium well system accounted for 59% of the flow and 61% of the mass of contaminants extracted
during this period. Generally, the estimated flow per linear foot of SVE well ranged from 1 to 5 scfm per linear foot
of screened interval. Flow rates exceeded this range for 2 wells; the higher flows may have been the result of
surface leakage.
• Three contaminants (TCE; 1,1 -OCE and 1,1,1 -TCA) accounted for > 90 % of the mass of contaminants extracted.
• Almost all of the SVE wells showed a reduction in concentrations for the most volatile species (e.g., vinyl
chloride and Freon 113) and a corresponding increase in the concentrations of the less volatile species (e.g.,
o-xylene and methyl chloride), probably due to the difference in their mass transfer rates. As the concentration
flux of more volatile compounds decreases, the mass transfer rate of less volatile species increase because of the
increase in their concentration flux.
• VOC concentrations generally increased in the most contaminated deep alluvium SVE well and the waste pit
wells. This increase may have been the result of contaminant transfer from newly formed flow paths connecting
adjacent waste pits and contaminated sites. The corresponding increase in extraction flow rates for some of these
wells is consistent with that theory.
• In shu respiration rates (based on oxygen consumption) and estimated biodegradation rates (expressed as
hexane equivalents) were also quantified during the SVE demonstration. Oxygen consumption in the waste pits
ranged from 0.16 to 0.79 percent O2/hour, yielding estimated biodegradation rates of 2.5 to 12.5 mg/kg - day.
Over a 1/4-acre site, 25 feet deep, this would correlate with a biodegradation rate of 35 to 175 pounds per day of
(hexane-equivalent) contaminants. Oxygen consumption rates for the intermediate and deep alluvium wells were
substantially lower, reflecting the lower contaminant concentrations as compared to the waste pit zone.
• Collection and laboratory analysis of soil samples from Site S is planned during later phases of operation and
upon completion of the demonstration project for use in assessing SVE performance.
U.S. Air Force
130
-------
McClollan SVE - Page 9 of 14
PERFORMANCE (Continued)
Treatment Equipment Performance
r— Blowers —'•
• Blowers operated within rated capacities without
breakdowns during the initial 15 week period.
• Overall system noise levels were 53.4 decibels and
were primarily associated with blowers and scrubber
system operations.
— Separators
• Between 55 and 325 gallons of liquid were collected
in each of the three initial months of system operation.
• After laboratory analysis, the liquid was discharged
with the scrubber blowdown for treatment (clarification,
filtration, GAC and polishing) at the base groundwater
treatment system.
— Catalytic Oxldlzer
• Overall destruction and removal of efficiency (ORE) averaged 99 percent for total VOCs during the second and
third months of the demonstration. Lower ORE measured during the first month of operation were attributed to
inadequate catalyst fluidization, rapid attrition/elutriation of catalyst, and low 02 conditions.
• Flow rates were adjusted to maintain catalyst fluidization and minimize catalyst attrition. Catalyst usage
averaged 5 pounds per 106 cubic feet of soil vapor treated during a majority of the initial 3 months of system
operation. The generation of fines from excessive catalyst attrition required reductions in vapor extraction flow
rate and modifications to the catalytic oxidizer to minimize chromium concentrations in the scrubber blowdown.
• Steady state flow rates eliminated flameout and fan surging experienced during initial system startup.
• Low concentrations of dioxins (<2E-9 Ibs/hour TCOD-equivalents) were formed during catalytic oxidation of the
chlorinated VOCs.
—Scrubber
• The scrubber consistently achieved > 99 percent removal efficiency for HCI and < 99.5% for HF. Approximately
65% of dioxins (TCDD-equivalents) were also removed during scrubbing.
• Approximately 0.3 gallons of 25 percent NaOH caustic was consumed per pound of Cl extracted during
scrubbing.
• Operational difficulties were experienced, necessitating minor scrubber system modifications. The scrubber
tower packing and components accumulated calcium carbonate precipitate, formed as a result of calcium in
makeup water, CO2 in the SVE gas, elevated system temperature, and the high pH of the recycle liquid
downstream of the caustic injection point. A swivel spray nozzle was installed in the tower to optimize acid
cleaning, and the frequency of acid cleaning was increased to once every 3 to 4 weeks. Acid cleaning takes - 2
days to complete. Softening the makeup water to minimize fouling is also being investigated.
• Blowdown flow rates were increased from 6 gallons per minute (gpm) to 8 gpm and then 14 gpm to reduce
dissolved salt content. Dioxins concentrations were found to be below detection limits in all of the blowdown
effluent samples analyzed.
i— Clarlfler, Filters and GAC
• Lower solids generation, due to modifications to the catalytic oxidizer after 3 months of operation, allowed the
darifier to be bypassed. Clarifier performance was not formally assessed.
• The frequency of changeout of the bag filters varied from between 4 to 36 hours. Factors believed to be
contributing to this frequent changeout rate include: higher particulate than anticipated due to catalyst attrition,
higher than anticipated blowdown flow rate and intermittent high blowdown flow rates causing solids carryover
from the clarifier. Nine micron bag filters were substituted for the 5-micron filters at the time the clarifier bypass
was initiated.
• Filters bags and clarifier solids were required to be disposed of as hazardous wastes because the chromium
concentrations in waste extracts exceeded the Soluble Threshold Concentration (STLC) of 5.0 milligrams per liter
(by a factor of 4 to 5). Catalyst carryover is the source of the chromium.
• Dioxins concentrations are below detection limits in the GAC influent and effluent. Thus the carbon effectively is
serving to decrease the apparent chlorine concentration in the blowdown and is a polishing step to remove
organics from operational upsets. GAC is changed out once every 1 -2 months. Backflushing was implemented in
response to solids buildup to extend carbon life.
U.S. Air Force
131
-------
McClellan SVE-Page 10 of 14 —
• The budget for the McClellan Site S SVE demonstration and initial removal action program was -1.8 million
for FY1993 and -2.0 million for FY1994. This budget includes: site characterization; field air permeability
testing; installation and operation of SVE wells, vapor probes and connecting manifold; purchase and operation
of the air/water separators, blowers, scrubber and support systems; rental and operation of the catalytic
oxidizer; short-term rental of a pilot resin adsorption system; electronic beam technology bench testing;
laboratory analysis; and engineering support.
• A "baseline cost estimate" was developed for a SVE system in support of McClellan's base wide EE-CA of
this technology. The cost estimate, which is based on Site S demonstration experience described in this report,
is for a "typical removal action" at McClellan. The baseline cost estimate assumes emissions control equipment
has a nominal capacity to process 2,500 sdm of extracted soil vapor containing contaminant concentrations of
3,000 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of chlorinated VOCs and 5,000 ppmv of petroleum hydrocarbons.
The baseline cost estimate provided below is based on the the use of a standardized configuration which
facilitates equipment design and procurement, which will be essential to installing transportable equipment that
will be used at multiple McClellan sites.
Capital Costs of Baseline SVE System
Item
Design Basis
Unit Cost
Item Cost
Site Preparation
Gas Connection
Electrical Connection
Transformer
Water Connection
Grading and Equipment Platform
Well Installation
Equipment
Vacuum Blowers
7-12 in. of Hg
Air-Water Separators
@18in. ofHg
Manifold and Piping
and support
Emissions Control System
Engineering'
Mobilization
750 feet of 2 inch polyurethane pipe
1,000 ft oi buried 4 in. conduit
12kv to 440v unit
1,000 ft of buried 2 in. PVC pipe
3,000 sq. ft of subgrade and concrete
9 wells at total depth of 800 ft
4 blowers rated 500-800 scfm @
$17,000
2 units, 12,000 & 2,000 scfm rated
1,000 ft of 4-8 in. PVC pipe, fittings
Catalytic oxidizer w/scrubber
10% of site and equipment cost
10% of site and equipment cost
$7.50/foot
$5.00/foot
$13.000
$14.00/foot
$6.00/sq. foot
$75.00/ft of depth
$68,000
$4,000
$30.00/foot
$355,000
$5,600
5,000
13,000
14,000
18.000
60,000
8,000
30,000
355,000
57,700
57.000
Total Capital Cost $692,000
* Excludes site characterization and other study costs.
Note: Project management costs are excluded from the baseline system estimate.
Operating Costs of Baseline SVE System
Item
Design Basis
Unit Cost
Monthly
Operating Costs
Operation and Maintenance
Natural Gas
Electricity
Water
Scrubber Chemicals
Waste Disposal
Testing and Monitoring
Operating Labor
Reporting
90% uptime, 648 hours per month
2,425 scfm $3.50/1,000 scf
105 kw/h $0.07S/kWh
617gph $1.00/1,000 gal
254 pph $350/ton
500 gph $3.00/1,000 gal.
1 stack test per month, 9 well analysis $2,500/sample
per month
90 hrs for 2-part-time techs and part-time $70/hour
sample collector
1 monthly operations report and pro-rated $6,000/month
summary report
$5,500
5,100
400
28,800
1,000
25,000
6,300
6,000
Total Monthly Operating Costs $78,100
Total Annual Operating Cost $937,200
Note: At a low VOC concentration (<100 to 200 ppmv), the cost of a carbon adsorption system to control air emissions is
comparable to that of a catalytic oxidizer and scrubber. The capital cost of a trailer-mounted carbon adsorption system is -
$120,000. Carbon consumption is - 40,000 pounds per month at a flow rate of 2,500 scfm and inlet VOCs concentration of 200
ppmv. The cost to replace the carbon is-$2.00 per pound.
U.S. Air Force
132
-------
- McClellan SVE - Page 11 of 14'
REGULATORY/INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
• The SVE demonstration was performed as part of a base wide EE-CA of this technology for in situ remediation of
vadose zone soil and fill materials containing VOCs. The demonstration program results will be used as the basis
for 1.) initiating SVE at Site S as an Initial Removal Action, and 2.) establishing SVE as the Presumptive Remedy for
Site "S" other sites at McClellan AFB for removal of VOCs from the vadose zone in accordance with EPA's
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM).
• Cleanup criteria for Site S and OU D have not yet been established.
• Catalytic oxidation was selected as the Best Available Control Technology for control of VOCs in extracted soil
vapor. The technology complies with the Sacramento Air Quality Management District requirements for 95%
destruction of total VOCs arid no significant impact on McClellan AFB workers (as determined by a site-specific risk
assessment).
• New sources of nitrogen oxide emissions in the Sacramento area and at McClellan must be offset by removal or
reduction from other sources in the region. Minimal nitrogen oxide is produced by the catalytic oxidizer used in the
McClellan SVE demonstration because of its low operating temperature. McClellan AFB is currently participating in
an offset program to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions from other sources.
• The scrubber and support systems were installed after site workers complained of odors and actual mass emission
rates for acid gas were greater than originally anticipated.
• Mufflers were installed on blower intake/discharge lines and acoustically deadened enclosures were installed on
blowers to reduce SVE system noise from 53.4 decibels to less than the City of Sacramento's 50 decibels limit.
SCHEDULE
Major Milestones
-
1981 | 1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989 | 1990
1991 | 1992
1993
1994
1995
U.S. Air Force
133
-------
McClellan SVE - Page 12 of 14 -
LESSONS LEARNED
Design and Implementation Considerations
• The radius of influence for SVE wells is dependent on the homogeneity of the soils being remediated. The radius of
influence to SVE wells screened in the waste pit material at Site S varied from 15 to 60 feet for a single well, reflecting the
heterogeneity of this zone of contamination.
• The mass of contaminants extracted and biodegraded during the initial 6 weeks of the Site S SVE demonstration
exceeded the estimated mass of contaminants calculated to be present based on site characterization results by almost 2
orders of magnitude, and the extracted soil vapor concentrations remained relatively constant during the initial
demonstration period. These results suggest the possible presence of free product in the waste pit materials and/or
alluvial soil in the vadose zone that was not previously identified. Alternatively, the analytical methods used to measure
subsurface containment concentrations may have not accurately quantified the total mass of contamination present at the
site. Recent studies have indicated that current EPA-preferred analytical methodology for determining soil VOC
concentrations, purge and trap, only measures that small fraction of total soil contamination that can be easily removed
(pore space and soil surface-bound contamination).
• The initial SVE demonstration indicated that substantial in situ biodegradation was occurring. However, the low
inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations detected in most soil samples could be potentially limit the extent of
biodegradation of organic contaminants. In addition, the waste pit fill materials may be somewhat drier than optimum for
microbial activity.
• Additional characterization of areas surrounding Site S are required to determine the impact of other contamination
sources on SVE operations at Site S.
• Additional vadose zone observation wells are needed in the area surrounding Site S to monitor changes in in situ soil
vapor VOC, O2 and CO2 concentrations over time.
• The higher the anticipated mass loading rate of chlorinated VOCs in extracted soil vapor resulted in higher acid gas
emissions than predicted. Although the actual acid gas (hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acid) emissions were were within
regulatory and risk-based limits, the SVE system was retrofitted with a scrubber. The scrubber was installed as a result of
odor complaints by base workers.
• Low concentrations of dioxins were formed during catalytic oxidation of the chlorinated VOCs. The presence of dioxins
required pretreatment of scrubber blowdown (clarification, filtration and liquid-phase GAC polishing) prior to discharge to
the base groundwater treatment system. Close monitoring of dioxins concentrations in the blowdown, clarifier solids,
filters and spent carbon is required to comply with hazardous waste regulations and waste disposal contractor
specifications.
• Higher than expected generation of fines was caused by catalyst attrition. Initial losses of catalyst may have been
caused by potential HF attack or localized high temperature excursions associated with non-uniform catalyst fluidization
and low O2 conditions.
• Higher than anticipated blowdown flow rates, intermittent flow surges, and a higher than anticipated concentration of
suspended solids associated with catalyst attrition caused operational difficulties and resulted in the need to modify the
catalytic oxidizer and blowdown treatment processes. Future SVE air pollution control systems should be designed with
sufficient capacity to provide for operational flexibility.
• Fines in scrubber blowdown contained sufficient concentrations of chromium to cause clarifier solids and bag filters to
managed as hazardous wastes.
Technology Limitations
• Cleanup criteria have not been established for vadose zone soils within OU D, including Site S. The ability of SVE to
meet cleanup criteria in both the waste pit fill materials and alluvial soils will be an important consideration in determining
whether the technology will be selected for full-scale remediation at McClellan AFB.
• It is uncertain whether the rate for diffusion for VOCs in soil micropores and soil organic matter is significant to the
remediation of vadose zone soils using SVE. Additional investigation is planned at McClellan AFB to address this
uncertainty prior to selecting one or more technologies for final remediation of VOC contaminated vadose zone soils.
U.S. Air Force 134
-------
McCleUan SVE - Page 13 of 14 —
• Future Technology Selection Cons/derations ••••••i^
• The SVE demonstration equipment was designed with excess capacity that will allow it to be used for remediation of
Site S after additional extraction wells and manifold are installed.
• Enhancements to SVE are planned for mid to late 1994 as part of the on-going demonstration program. Soil vapor
extraction rates will be decreased to promote aerobic in-situ biodegradation rather than volatization of organic
contaminants (bioventing). As part of another field pilot test at Site S, hot air injection will be conducted in conjunction with
SVE to assess its ability to enhance volatization of semi-volatile organic contaminants.
• A vapor phase resin adsorption system was field tested during early 1994 to evaluate its potential as an alternative to
catalytic oxidation and scrubbing. A performance evaluation based on the pilot test was not complete as of May 1994.
However, preliminary results indicate operating difficulties occurred, including preferential adsorption of some of the many
organic contaminants and frequent regeneration of the resin beds.
• Electron Beam Technology (EBT) was bench-tested to evaluate its potential application to the treatment of extracted soil
vapor at McClellan. The test results did not support using the technology without the addition of promoters (e.g., hydrogen
peroxide) for treatment of the chlorinated VOCs in soil vapor extracted from Site S. There is currently insufficient data on
optimizing process parameters with the use of promoters (e.g., hydrogen peroxide) for EBT to be considered by McCleUan.
ANALYSIS PREPARATION
This analysis was prepared by:
Stone & Webster Environmental A
Technology & Services
245 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02210
Contact Bruno BrodfeU (617)589-2767
Support and review for the preparation of this report was provided by:
Kendall Tanner
Remedial Project Manager
McCleUan AFB
U.S. Air Force 135
-------
McClellan SVE-Page 14 of 14 —
SOURCES
Major Sources For Each Section
Site Characteristic*:
Remediation System:
Performance:
Co«t:
Source #s (from list below) 1, 3. 4,10, and 11
Source #s 1,3, 4. 5, 6,11,12,13,14,15, and 16
Source #s 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13,14,15.16, and 17
Source #s 6,12.15,17,18, and 19
Regulatory/Institutional Issues: Source #s 8,15,16, and 17
Schedule: Source #s 8, 9.10,13,14,15,16,17, and 19
Lessons Learned: Source #s 2.5, 6, 7,8,12,13,14,15, and 16
Chronological List of Sources and Additional References
1. Draft Final Coov - Site Characterization Technical Memorandum, Soil Vapor Extraction Treatability Investigation, Site S Within
Operable Unit D, McClellan Air Force Base, prepared for McClellan Air Force Base, prepared by CH2M Hill, March 13,1992.
2. An Evaluation of Vapor Extraction of Vadose Zone Contamination, prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Document No.
ORNL/TM-12117,May199^
- Work Plan, Soil Vapor Extraction Treatability Investigation, Site S Within Operable Unit D, McClellan Air Force
II and III, prepared for McClellan Air Force Base, prepared by CH2M Hill, July 1992.
- Pilot System Installation and Site Characterization Report, Soil Vapor Extraction Treatability Investigation, Site S,
' Unit D, McClellan Air Force Base, prepared for McClellan Air Force Base, prepared by CH2M Hill, March 1993.
Site
1993.
Coov - Electron Beam Evaluation Technical Memorandum, Soil Vapor Extraction Treatability Investigation, Site S,
^prepared for McClellan Air Force Base, prepared by CH2M Hill, May 1993.
Copy - Purus Padre Pilot Scale Evaluation Technical Memorandum, Soil Vapor Extraction Treatability Investigation,
-'-'eUnit D, McClellan Air Force Base, prepared for McClellan Air Force Base, prepared by CH2M Hill, August 5,
7. Scrubber Alternatives Screening Technical Memorandum, Soil Vapor Extraction Treatability Investigation, Site S, Operable
Unit D, McClellan Air Force Base, prepared for McClellan Air Force Base, prepared by CH2M Hill. August 11.1993..
8. Working Copy - Work Plan Addendum, Soil Vapor Extraction Treatability Investigation, Site S, Operable Unit D, McClellan Air
Force Base, September 1993.
9. Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes, McClellan Air Force Base, October 23, 1993.
10. Draft • Groundwater Operable Unit Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Report, McClellan Air Force Base, prepared for
McClellan Air Force Base, prepared by CH2M Hill, November 1993.
11. Draft - Remedial Investigation Report, Operable Unit D, McClellan Air Force Base, prepared for McClellan Air Force Base,
prepared by CH2M Hill, December 1993.
12. Draft - O&M Manual Addendum. Scrubber System, McClellan Air Force Base, January 1994.
13. Operations Report for Month 1, Soil Vapor Extraction Treatability Investigation, SiteS, Operable UnitD, prepared for
McClellan Air Force Base, prepared by CH2M Hill, March 1994.
14. Operations Report - Month 2, Soil Vapor Extraction Treatability Investigation, Site S, Operable Unit D, prepared for McClellan
Air Force Base, prepared by CH2M Hill, April 1994.
15. Data Package provided by J. Steven Hodge, Remedial Project Manager, Operable Unit D, Environmental Restoration
Division, Environmental Management Directorate, McClellan Air Force Base, April 14,1994.
16. Operations Report - Month 3, Soil Vapor Extraction Treatability Investigation, Site S, Operable Unit D, prepared for McClellan
Air Force Base, prepared by CH2M Hill, May 1994.
17. Personal Communications with J. Steven Hodge, Remedial Project Manager, Operable Unit D, Environmental Restoration
Division, Environmental Management Directorate, McClellan Air Force Base, April - June, 1994.
18. Basewide Engineering Evaluation -Cost Analysis for Soil Vapor Extraction, General Evaluation Document, McClellan Air
Force Base, Undated.
19. Basewide Engineering Evaluation • Cost Analysis for Soil Vapor Extraction, Site Specific Document OU D/Site S, McClellan
Air Force Base, Undated.
U.S. Air Force
136
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at the
Rocky Mountain Arsenal Superfund Site
Motor Pool Area (OU-18)
Commerce City, Colorado
137
-------
Case Study Abstract
Soil Vapor Extraction at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal Superfund Site
Motor Pool Area (OU-18), Commerce City, Colorado
Site Name:
Rocky Mountain Arsenal Superfund
Site (Motor Pool Area - Operable
Unit 18)
Location:
Commerce City, Colorado
Contaminants:
Chlorinated Aliphatics
- Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Levels of TCE in soil vapor of up to 65
ppm
Period of Operation:
July 1991 to December 1991
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
Rick Beyak
Woodward-Clyde Federal Services
4582 S. Ulster St., Suite 1200
Denver, CO 80237
(303) 740-2600
SIC Code:
7699 (Repair Shops and Related
Services, Not Elsewhere Classified)
Technology:
Soil Vapor Extraction
- 1 shallow vapor extraction well and 1 deep
vapor extraction well
Shallow well screened between 13 and 28
feet below ground surface (bgs); deep well
screened between 43 and 58 feet bgs
Liquid/vapor separator tank, sediment
filter, and regenerative blower
Exhaust air from blower treated using two
granular activated carbon systems in series
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
- Federal Facilities Agreement
- ROD Date: 2/26/90
Point of Contact:
James D. Smith
Program Manager
Rocky Mountain Arsenal
Attn: AMCPM-RME
Commerce City, CO 80022-
1749
(303) 289-0249
Waste Source:
Other: Motor Vehicle, Railcar, and
Heavy Equipment Maintenance,
Repair, and Cleaning Activities
Purpose/Significance of Application:
This application demonstrated that a
pilot-scale SVE system removed
sufficient vapor contaminants from
the vadose zone, and expansion of
the system beyond a pilot-scale was
not necessary.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- 34,000 yd3 (70 ft radius by 60 ft deep)
- Unconsolidated deposits beneath Motor Pool Area consist of discontinuous
sand and gravel lenses
- 1-3 foot low-permeability clayey sand to clay layer 32 to 38 feet bgs
- Moisture content - 4.7 to 30.9%; permeability - 167 darcys at 38 ft bgs and
2,860 darcys at 55 ft bgs
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- No specific cleanup goals were specified for Motor Pool Area OU-18
Results:
- TCE concentrations decreased to less than 1 ppm after 5 months of operation of the SVE system
- Rate of TCE extraction decreased from 35 pounds per month to less than 10 pounds per month
- Approximately 70 pounds of TCE removed during operation of the system
138
-------
Case Study Abstract
Soil Vapor Extraction at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal Superfund Site
Motor Pool Area (OU-18), Commerce City, Colorado (Continued)
Cost Factors:
- Costs attributed to treatment activities: $75,600 (installation and operation)
- Costs attributed to before-treatment activities: $88,490 (including mobilization and preparatory work, monitoring, and
laboratory analytical)
- Costs attributed to after-treatment activities: $19,650 (including pilot study)
Description:
Soil vapor extraction (SVE) was performed at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA) Superfund site, Motor Pool Area, in
Commerce City, Colorado to remove halogenated volatile organic compounds (VOCs), primarily trichloroethylene, from
the vadose zone. The Motor Pool Area at RMA, referred to as Operable Unit 18, had been used for cleaning and
servicing equipment, vehicles, and railroad cars, and for storing diesel, gasoline, and oil products in aboveground and
underground storage tanks. VOCs, detected in the Motor Pool Area's soil and groundwater have been attributed to
releases of chlorinated solvents used during cleaning operations; these solvents were discharged through floor drains and
pipes into unlined ditches at the site.
This system was initially considered to be a pilot study because it was expected to provide performance data on SVE at
this site that could be used to expand the system to a full-scale operation. This application, operated from July to
December 1991, demonstrated that a pilot-scale SVE system removed sufficient vapor contaminants from the vadose
zone, and expansion of the system beyond pilot-scale was not necessary. The SVE system used within the Motor Pool
Area consisted of one shallow vapor extraction well and one deep vapor extraction well. Four clusters of vapor
monitoring wells were installed to aid in the assessment of the performance of the SVE system. TCE levels in soil vapors
collected from the vapor monitoring wells were reduced to non-detect or to levels of less than 1 ppm from initial vapor
monitoring well samples as high as 65 ppm. Approximately 70 pounds of TCE were recovered during this cleanup action.
The operating parameters collected during the system's 1991 operation indicated that a clay lense located beneath the site
affected the SVE system's performance by limiting both the shallow and deep vapor extraction wells' vertical zones of
influence. The contract award cost for procuring, installing, and operating the SVE pilot system, as well as preparing a
pilot study report was $182,800. This cost was approximately 15% less than the preliminary cost estimate provided by the
remediation contractor for the project. Factors contributing to the lower cost included lower construction and system
operating costs.
139
-------
Rocky Mountain Arsenal—Page 1 of 2.0
COST AND PERFORMANCE REPORT
I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents cost and performance
data for a soil vapor extraction system at the
Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA) Superfund
site, Motor Pool Area, in Commerce City,
Colorado. Soil vapor extraction (SVE) was
conducted from July to December 1991 as an
interim response action to treat soil between
the ground surface and groundwater (vadose
zone). The contaminants of concern at the site
were halogenated organics, primarily trichlo-
roethylene (TCE). This action was conducted
in response to requirements in a Record of
Decision from February 1990 and a Federal
Facilities Agreement between the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA), the Army,
and other parties. This action was initially
considered to be a pilot study because it was
expected to provide performance data on SVE
at this site that could be used to expand the
system. During this application, the pilot-scale
SVE system removed sufficient vapor contami-
nants from the vadose zone, and expansion of
the system beyond pilot-scale was not neces-
sary.
The Motor Pool Area at RMA, referred to as
Operable Unit 18, had been used for cleaning
and servicing equipment, vehicles, and
railroad cars, and for storing diesel, gasoline,
and oil products in aboveground and under-
ground storage tanks. VOCs, detected in the
Motor Pool Area's soil and groundwater, have
been attributed to releases of chlorinated
solvents used during cleaning operations;
these solvents were discharged through floor
drains and pipes into unlined ditches at the
site. Soil gas studies, completed within the
Motor Pool Area in 1986 and 1989, identified
a trichloroethylene (TCE) soil vapor plume
extending north, northwest from the Motor
Pool Area. A SVE system was installed in this
area in the location where the highest soil
vapor concentrations of TCE were measured
within the vadose zone, as identified in the
1989 study. The SVE system at this site was
principally designed to remediate the soil
vapors identified by the soil gas studies.
The SVE system used within the Motor Pool
Area consisted of one shallow vapor extrac-
tion well and one deep vapor extraction well,
and an activated carbon system for treatment
of extracted vapors. Four clusters of vapor
monitoring wells were installed as part of this
remedial action to aid in the assessment of
the performance of the SVE system. Within
five months of system operation, TCE levels in
soil vapors were reduced from levels as high
as 65 ppm to levels less than 1 ppm. Approxi-
mately 70 pounds of TCE were recovered
during this cleanup action. The operating
parameters collected during the system's
1991 operation indicated that a clay lense
located beneath the site affected the SVE
system's performance by limiting both the
shallow and deep vapor extraction wells'
vertical zones of influence.
The total cost for procuring, installing, and
operating the SVE pilot system, as well as
preparing a pilot study report was $182,800.
This cost was approximately 15% less than the
preliminary cost estimate provided by the
remediation contractor for the project.
Approximately $74,600 of the total costs
were for activities directly related to treat-
ment. This value does not include costs for
disposal of carbon. The $74,600 for treatment
activities corresponds to $2.20 per cubic yard
of soil treated (for 34,000 cubic yards of soil);
the soil treated contained relatively low levels
of contaminants.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
140
-------
1 Rocky Mountain Arsenal—Page 2 of 20
SITE IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
Identifying Information
Rocky Mountain Arsenal
Motor Pool Area (Operable Unit 18)
Commerce City, Colorado
CERCL1S #: C05210020769
ROD Date: 26 February 1990
Treatment Application
of Action: Remedial
Treatability Study Associated with Applica-
tion? No
EPA SITE Program Test Associated with
Application? No
Period of Operation: 7/16/91 - 12/16/91
Quantity of Material Treated During Appli-
cation: 34,000 cubic yards of soil. This value
is an estimated amount based on a treatment
area 70 feet in radius (approximate distance
of the farthest well cluster at which an appre-
ciable vacuum was measured during vapor
extraction) by 60 feet in depth (approximate
total depth of the deep extraction well and
depth to the water table).
Background
Historical Activity that Generated Contami-
nation at the Site: Motor vehicle, railcar, and
heavy equipment maintenance, repair, and
cleaning activities.
Corresponding SIC Code(s):
7699—Repair Shops and Related Services,
Not Elsewhere Classified
Waste Management Practice that Contrib-
uted to Contamination: Discharge to sewer
Site History: The Rocky Mountain Arsenal is a
former U.S. Army chemical warfare and
incendiary munitions manufacturing and
assembly facility that occupies more than
17,000 acres northeast of Denver, Colorado,
as shown on Figure 1. Since 1970, facility
activities have primarily involved the destruc-
tion of chemical warfare materials. The Motor
Pool Area, referred to as Operable Unit 18, is
located within the Rocky Mountain Arsenal in
the southeastern corner of Section 4, as
shown on Figure 2. Since 1942, this area has
been primarily used by the Rocky Mountain
Arsenal for cleaning and servicing equipment,
vehicles, and railroad cars, and for storing
diesel, gasoline, and oil products in above-
ground and underground storage tanks. [6]
From the early 1940s to at least 1985, chlori-
nated solvents were used during equipment
cleaning activities within the Motor Pool
Area's Buildings 624 and 631. [7] Haloge-
nated volatile organic compounds, including
trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethyl-
ene, have been detected in the Motor Pool
Area's soil and groundwater and the contami-
nation has been attributed to the use of
BOULDERJSOJ
JEFFERSON CO
Figure 1. Rocky Mountain Arsenal Location Map [6]
U.S. ENV1RONMENTALPROTECTTONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
141
-------
1 Rocky Mountain Arsenal—Page 3 of 20
SITE IDENTIFYING INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background (cont.)
chlorinated solvents during
equipment cleaning activities
within these two buildings.
Chlorinated solvents, along with
oil, grease, fuel, and other liquids
and residues generated from
maintenance operations, were
discharged through floor drains
and pipes into unlined ditches
located between Buildings 624
and 631, and Buildings 624 and
625. Figure 2 shows the relative
locations of Buildings 624, 625,
and 631 within the Motor Pool
Area. [6]
Regulatory Context: Rocky
Mountain Arsenal was added to
the National Priorities List in July
1987. In 1988, as a result of a
Consent Decree in the case of
United States v. Shell Oil Com-
pany, a Federal Facilities Agree-
ment was entered into between
five federal agencies: EPA, the
Army, the Department of the
Interior, the Department of Health
and Human Services, and the
Department of Justice. This
Federal Facility Agreement estab-
lished procedures for implement-
ing cleanup of the RMA, as
specified in the Technical Program Plan. The
Army and Shell Oil Company agreed to share
certain costs of the remediation to be devel-
oped and performed under the oversight of
EPA. The Federal Facilities Agreement specified
13 interim response actions determined to be
necessary and appropriate, including the
"Remediation of Other Contamination
Sources," which covered the Motor Pool Area.
[1 and 10]
Remedy Selection: The ROD for the Motor
Pool Area was signed on February 26, 1990.
Interim response action alternatives consid-
ered for the Motor Pool Area were no action,
monitoring, institutional controls, capping, on-
site and off-site incineration, bioremediation,
thermal desorption, and soil vapor extraction.
260 BOO
MM^SIS
SCALE IN peer
MOTOH AM* POOL \_ BiuL CLASSIFICATION YAHC
Figure 2. Motor Pool Area Pilot Study Vicinity Map [6]
Soil vapor extraction was selected as the
interim response action for the Motor Pool
Area because it was a cost effective alterna-
tive that was expected to provide an easily
implemented and, if necessary, expandable
method of reducing the volume of soil con-
taminated with volatile organic compounds,
specifically the halogenated volatile organics
detected in the Motor Pool Area's soil vapor.
The potential benefits in the utilization of soil
vapor extraction were the use of relatively
simple equipment in the implementation of
the technology, the application of a minimal
amount of intrusive procedures such as
excavation, and the generation of a small
amount of contaminated materials requiring
disposal. [1 and 8]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
142
-------
Rocky Mountain Arsenal—Page 4 of 20
SITE IDENTIFYING INFORMATION (CONT.)
Site Logistics/Contacts
Site Management: U.S. Army - Lead
Oversight: EPA
Remedial Project Manager:
Stacey Eriksen
US. EPA, Region 8
One Denver Place
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2466
(303)294-1083
Program Manager: (Primary contact for
further information on this application)
James D. Smith
Program Manager
Rocky Mountain Arsenal
Attn: AMCPM-RME
Commerce City, CO 80022-1 749
(303) 289-0249
Construction Manager/Vendor:
Rick Beyak
Woodward-Clyde Federal Services
4582 S. Ulster St., Suite 1200
Denver, CO 80237
(303) 740-2600
State Contact:
Jeff Edson
Colorado Department of Health
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, CO 80222-1530
(303) 692-2000
I MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix Processed by the Treatment System During this Application: Soil (in situ)
Contaminant Characterization
Primary contaminant groups that this
technology was designed for in this treat-
ment application: Halogenated Volatile
Organic Compounds
Two soil gas studies were completed in the
Motor Pool Area near Buildings 624 and 631
in 1986, and a third soil gas study was com-
pleted in this area during July of 1989. The
grid sampling results from the July 1989 soil
gas study are shown in Figure 3, and an iso-
concentration map of those results is provided
in Figure 4. Figures 3 and 4 show a TCE soil
vapor plume extending north, northwest from
an area north of Building 631 and west of
Buildings 624 and 625. [6]
In addition to the soil gas studies, soil investi-
gations were conducted in the Motor Pool
Area, and documented in 1988. The soil
investigations indicated that VOCs, including
TCE, ethylbenzene, and toluene, were present
in near surface soil samples at or below
4 |Ug/g. [6]
In October 1990, five soil borings were
collected to further characterize the lateral
and vertical extent of halogenated VOCs in
the soil west of Buildings 624 and 625. The
soil borings, shown in Figure 5, were collected
to the depth of groundwater. Soil borings
were sampled at 5-foot intervals and ana-
lyzed for halogenated VOCs by Datachem
laboratories using a gas chromatography
analytical method with an electrolytic conduc-
tivity detector. [2 and 6]
The results of this sampling indicated that
carbon tetrachloride (CCI4) was the only
analyte detected. CCI4 was detected in a
single sample collected from the 18 to 19-
foot below ground surface (BGS) interval in
boring COEMPA0005, at a concentration of
0.592 A/g/g. However, analysis of the duplicate
U.S ENV1RONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
143
-------
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Contaminant Characterization (cont.)
1 Rocky Mountain Arsenal—Page 5 of 20
-GROUND SURFACE
10.3
\
6.47
11.2
16.8
25.35
0.06
0.50
°"\J
O—i
10-
15—
20—'
SECTION A - A'
VARIATIONS IN TCE CONCENTRATIONS
WITH DEPTH
(NO HORIZONTAL SCALE)
figure 3. Motor Pool Area Pilot Study
1989 TCI Soil Gas Survey [6]
«u TCI wuis nocaat M PUN
ME « S FT. DEPTH.
•CAIE IN FEET
Figure 4. Motor Pool Area Pilot Study
1989 Soil Gas Survey Iso-ConcentraOon Profile [6]
sample collected from the 1 7 to 18-foot BGS
interval within the same boring did not detect
any halogenated VOCs. The reason for the
disparity between these sampling intervals is
not known. [6]
Site Geology/Stratigraphy
The unconsolidated deposits beneath the
Motor Pool Area consist of discontinuous sand
and gravel lenses, interbedded with silt and
clay. In the area of the SVE system, a low
permeability clayey sand to clay layer 1 to 3
feet thick exists between 32 and 38 feet BGS.
The water table is approximately 65 feet
below ground surface in the Motor Pool Area.
The topography around the Motor Pool Area is
generally flat with a minor slope toward the
northwest. Quaternary Alluvium is the upper-
most stratigraphic unit encountered in the
jwooocn rwi «UF?O»IT*
Figure 5. October 1990 Soil Boring Locations [6]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
144
-------
1 Rocky Mountain Arsenal—Page 6 of 20
| MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Site Geology/Stratigraphy (cont.)
area. Figure 6 shows the relative locations of 5
borings and the A-A and B-B' cross sections
that helped to characterize the geology of the
Motor Pool Area and to define the aerial
extent of volatile halogenated organics in the
soil west of Buildings 624 and 625. The
geologic cross sections that were produced,
based on the information gathered from these
borings, are shown in figures 7 and 8. Gravel
and gravelly sands are present at the base of
the alluvium, especially in ancient stream
channels called paleochannels. [6]
TK^ ri&nv^r Prtrnr^at'if^n ic th*» h^rlrrtf k l"i£*lf^\A/
1 1 1C Lxd IVCl i\Jl 1 1 IClllVJI 1 Id LI 1C UCVII WV-IV UCIvJ W
the approximately 70 to 1 00 feet thick allu-
vium. It predominantly consists of claystone
* ^
r r
WILL
04141 .
"S.
COIMMOOOI
\i
_• X
nw -^ i
COl
OVIIMIAD — -I
POWIKUMII
•
' \ 1
cofMi^Aoaoa
\]
\
\
\
com*
XT — :
MfAM04S
tftt
04C7>)
•LOO Ml
1 UeviHHtAD n>»
^\ HIIP •*••!. rirv *u*^
\ [BHwooBtx »»i im
>Lir
COIHMMOl'^IUy
'SoViJ A'
•LOO 114
with interbedded sandstone, siltstone, and
lignite beds that vary from approximately 2 to
20 feet in thickness. The bedrock surface
generally slopes to the northwest, except near
the northern boundary of the Motor Pool Area,
where a northwest trending paleochannel with
approximately 70 feet of relief exists. [6]
RAIUIOAO
TRACK*
• i IL II
AMIOIIMATI tCAll M HIT
KOTI IOKINO COIMMOM1 AND 10HW4 COIMMOOli
HAVI IIIN COUFIITIB AS UTRACTION WlUt
0.071 AND ««'«. mMICTIVlLT. MfWMt -OOOi. •«««« ANO -«00i
WIM MOUTU AND AlANOflMID MMItMATIUr AfTW OMXMO.
Figure 6. Motor Pool Area Pilot Study Site Plan [2]
K • ami SAW
a. • cur. LEAN
Figure 7. Motor Pool Area Pilot Study Cross Section A-A1 [2]
UHSUflVCVEO COCMMfffM COCMPAOM* 0*0 T»
QROUM) MMFACC
i
(•CAUMftlt
B. raOHLT «MAMD
nrvAw
VIL. KMM OHAMD
• LEAN
a
M
1F~ _ JC
M*
cz
Z2
*•
4 .
WK
-^, ^
-^, ~~ "
T.
2
tr
KlCL
Figure 8. Motor Pool Area Study Area Cross Section B-B' [2]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
145
-------
1 Rocky Mountain Arsenal—Page 7 of 20
I MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
The major matrix characteristics affecting cost or performance for this technology are shown
below in Table 1.
Table 1. Matrix Characteristics [6, 11, and 16]
Parameter
Value
MMiureaent Method
Soil Types (Soil classification and 0 to 35 ft. below ground surface (BGS): poorly Particle Size Analysis: ASTM Method D422-63
particle size distribution)
Moisture Content
Permeability
Porosity
Total Organic Carbon
Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids
graded sand (SP), poorly graded sand with gravel
(SP), and poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM).
35.5 ft BGS: lean clay with sand (CL).
55 ft BGS: poorly graded sand (SP).
4.7 to 30.9%
Oto -38 ft. BGS: 167 darcys
-55 ft BGS: 2,860 darcys
Gravimetric Analysis: ASTM Method D2216-90
Vacuum readings were taken at five-minute intervals from P-7B
and VES-4 during the system start-up until steady state
conditions were observed. Vacuum readings at each location
were plotted against the natural log of time. The slope and
y-mtercept of each plot were used in a Johnson et al., 1 990,
equation to predict sal permeability to air flow.
Not measured
Not measured
No evidence of NAPLs was found within Operable
Unit 18.
Not Reported
[TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology Type:
Soil Vapor Extraction
Supplemental Treatment Technology Type:
Post-Treatment of Vapors using Carbon
Adsorption
Soil Vapor Extraction System Description and Operation
As shown in Figure 9, the SVE system used in
the Motor Pool Area consisted of a shallow
vapor extraction well, VES-3, located above
the clay layer and screened between 13 and
28 feet BGS, and a deep vapor extraction
well, VES-4, located below the clay layer and
screened between 43 and 58 feet
BGS. The purpose of installing
both shallow and deep vapor
extraction wells was to provide a
means for assessing the affect of
the clay layer on the removal of
VOCs. The extraction wells were
connected by insulated PVC pipe
to a liquid vapor separator tank
designed to remove condensed
water, a sediment filter, and a 10-
horsepower regenerative blower.
Exhaust air from the blower was
discharged to two sets of vapor-
phase granular activated carbon
(GAC) canisters consisting of three
canisters each. The first series of
GAC canisters was designed to remove
approximately 90% of the TCE from the
extracted gas, while the second series was
used as a polishing step to remove remaining
TCE. A temporary building housed the blower
and associated equipment. [6]
SOIL VA=OR EXTRACTION WELL
PPF.S5URE CV*CUUM) INDICATOR
•EMPERATUPE TVCICATOR
SAM=_E PORT
VALVE
VACUUM RELIEF VALVE
GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON (VAf>0~ PHASE)
I
Figure 9. Soil Vapor Extraction System Process Flow Diagram [6]
U.S.ENV1RONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
146
-------
1 Rocky Mountain Arsenal—Page 8 of 20
[TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Soil Vapor Extraction System Description and Operation (cont.)
To better assess the performance of the SVE
system, four clusters of soil vapor monitoring
wells were installed in the Motor Pool Area.
Figure 10 shows the locations of the vapor
extraction wells and vapor monitoring well
clusters. The vapor monitoring well clusters
P-5, P-6, and P-7 were installed at the loca-
tions shown on Figure 10 based on an analysis
of the results from the 1989 soil gas survey
that showed a TCE vapor plume extending in a
P STIEL Kfl SUPPORTS
wooofN PPI SUPPORTS
»VI SYSTEM LOCATION
sot. won IXTKACTION wu.
to*. ai( tMMnoMM tnu.
figure 10. Motor Pool Area Pilot Study SVE Well Locations [6]
generally north to northwesterly direction from
the area west of Buildings 624 and 625.
Monitoring well cluster P-8 was installed to
the west of the vapor extraction wells to
evaluate any radial heterogeneities. Each
cluster had a shallow vapor monitoring well
screened between 12 and 14 feet BGS, an
intermediate vapor monitoring well screened
within the 30 to 38 feet BGS sandy clay to
clay layer, and a deep vapor monitoring well
screened between 52 and 56 feet BGS. The
shallow, intermediate, and deep vapor moni-
toring wells shown in Figure 10 are identified
by the letters A, B, and C, respectively. [6]
Vapor extraction wells VES-1 and VES-2 shown
on Figure 10 were used to perform an initial
air permeability test in October 1990 to
determine the relationship between the soil
gas flow rate and vacuum applied at well
locations within the Motor Pool Area; these
wells were not connected to the Motor
Pool Area's soil vapor extraction system.
VES-1 and VES-2 were constructed within
borings COEMPA0001 and
COEMPA0002, respectively, and the data
collected from them was used during the
design of the SVE system. [6]
The in situ soil vapor extraction system
was operated in 1991 and again briefly in
1993. During the first four weeks of
operation in 1991, referred to as the
short-term operating period, vapor was
extracted from VES-3 for weeks one and
two and then from VES-4 for weeks three
and four. The long-term operation began
immediately after the short-term opera-
tion period and continued for approxi-
mately four additional months. During the
first part of the long-term operation, soil
gas was extracted from VES-3 for approxi-
mately two weeks before extraction was
suspended for one week, to allow time
for the desorption of VOCs from the soil
and VOC vapor recovery within the well.
This cycle was then repeated three times.
The second part of the long-term operation
consisted of the same extraction and recovery
cycle, repeated three times, for VES-4. [6]
The system was operated again in 1993 for a
48-hour period to assess the longer-term
effectiveness of the treatment provided during
the system's 1991 operation. This 48-hour
operating period is referred to as a verification
program test. [5]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
147
-------
—•——•—•———i————i_^________^ Rocky Mountain Arsenal—Page 9 of 20
I TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.) •••••••••
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
Listed below in Table 2 are the key operating parameters for this technology and the values
measured in this application. Additional typical operating parameters and data are shown on
Table 3 below.
Table 2. Operating Parameters [6]
Parameter
Value
Mea»urement Method
Air Flow Rate
Operating Vacuum
145 to 335 cfm at blower exhaust Orifice type flow meters
(SP-1)
0 to 30 Inches of water
Magnehellc vacuum gauges
Table 3. SVC Pilot Study Summary of Typical Operating Conditions [6]
Well
VES-3
VES-4
P-5A
P-5B
P-5C
P-6A
P-6B
P-6C
P-7A
P-7B
P-7C
P-8A
P-8B
P-8C
Type of Vapor Well
Shallow Extraction
Deep Extraction
Shallow Monitoring
Intermediate Monitoring
Deep Monitoring
Shallow Monitoring
Intermediate Monitoring
Deep Monitoring
Shallow Monitoring
Intermediate Monitoring
Deep Monitoring
Shallow Monitoring
Intermediate Monitoring
Deep Monitoring
Vacuum
(InHjO)
0- 13.8
0- 30
0-0.74
0- 0.50
0 - 0.50
0.10- 1.2
0.4- 1.55
0 - 2.05
0.32 - 1 .80
0.30-3.0
0.30- 3.05
0 - 1 .85
0- 2.10
0-2.30
Separator Tank Vacuum (Pl-l): 18.2 to $6.& in HtO
Separator Level Gauge: 0 Inches
Blower Exhaust Temp. (Tf-IJ: 123 to 1S&F
Blower Exhaust Pressure (Pl-2): B to 12 in Hf3
Blower Exhaust (SP-1);
HNu OtoZOppm
Sens/dyne Oto JSppm
Velocity 2,600 to 6.00O fyinln
Flow Kate 145 to 33$ cfm
CAC Exhaust Temp (TI-2) 35 to f3ff>f
CAC Exhaust Concentration (SP-S) (13.7 Its/day st&te
emission limit):
HNu Oto 3.7 ppm
Sensldyne Oppm
Timeline
A timeline for this application is provided in Table 4.
Table 4. Timeline [S and 6]
Start Date
End Date
Activity
1942
1986
February 1990
October 1990
16 July 1991
12 August 1991
29 September 1993
1989
12 August 1991
16 December 1991
1 October 1993
Active use of Motor Pool Area (MPA) by U.S. Army.
Soil gas studies conducted.
Record of Decision signed.
Site characterization of area west of Buildings 624 and 625 in the
MPA using five soil borings.
Short-term SVE system operating period (4 weeks).
Long-term SVE system operating period (4 months).
Verification program testing and air monitoririg of the soil vapor
extraction system.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
148
-------
Rocky Mountain Arsenal—Page 10 of 20
(TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards
Neither the ROD [7] nor the Implementation Document [2] specified quantifiable cleanup goals
for the Motor Pool Area.
Additional Information on Goals
While no cleanup goals were specified for the
Motor Pool Area, chemical-specific goals,
including 5 fJg/L benzene, were established for
groundwater treatment for the Rail Classifica-
tion Yard, located adjacent to the Motor Pool
Area. [2, 7]
In addition, although not a quantifiable goal,
the results of the SVE pilot study were to be
assessed after completion of the 1991 operating
period to determine whether the TCE concentra-
tions in the system's exhaust were low and
relatively constant. The results of this assessment
were to be used to determine if a full-scale SVE
system would be required for soil cleanup at the
Motor Pool Area.
Treatment Performance Data
Performance data for the SVE system oper-
ated in 1991 include TCE concentrations in
the vapor extraction and monitoring wells, and
in the blower exhaust, as well as the vacuum
measured in the monitoring wells. Table 5
contains a summary of the TCE concentrations
determined by laboratory analysis of charcoal
tube samples of vapor from the extraction and
monitoring wells.
Field sampling and analysis of extraction and
monitoring well vapors during the 1991
operating period was performed using TCE-
indicating Sensidyne tubes and a HNu photo-
ionization detector. Laboratory analysis of gas
samples from these wells was by a modified
NIOSH method utilizing a Gillan personal
sampling pump and charcoal tube samples.
[6]
Figures 11 through 26 show the following
information:
• figure 1 1 —Summary of TCE Concen-
trations Determined by Laboratory
Analysis in the Blower Exhaust.
• Figure 12—Vacuum Measured in Soil
Gas Monitoring Wells (SGMW) During
VES-3 Extraction.
• Figure 13—Vacuum Measured in Soil
Gas Monitoring Wells (SGMW) During
VES-4 Extraction.
• Figures 14 through 17—TCE Concentra-
tions Determined by Laboratory Analysis
in the Shallow Monitoring Wells.
• Figures 18 through 21 —TCE Concentra-
tions Determined by Laboratory Analysis
in the Medium (intermediate depth)
Monitoring Wells.
• Figures 22 through 25—TCE Concentra-
tions Determined by Laboratory Analysis
in the Deep Monitoring Wells.
• Figure 26—Total mass of TCE extracted
during the 1991 SVE system operation, as
a function of the number of days of
system operation.
Performance data for the SVE system operated in
1993 include TCE and tetrachloroethylene con-
centrations in the vapor extraction and monitoring
wells. Field sampling and analysis of well vapor
samples associated with the 48-hour test were
performed with an on-site Photovac 1OS70 Gas
Chromatograph. In addition, passivated SUMMA
canister samples were collected and sent for off-
site laboratory analysis. [5]
The performance data are presented in Tables 6
through 9 as follows:
• Table 6—TCE and Tetrachloroethene
Concentrations Measured Onsite in the
Shallow, Medium, and Deep Monitoring
Wells Prior to the 48-Hour Test.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
149
-------
•—^—-^—^——-^—^———————•^—-^——— Rocky Mountain Arsenal—Page 11 of 20
| TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Table 5. SVE Pilot Study Summary of Analytical Results [6]
Sampling Date
STS
7/16/91
7/17/91
7/19/91
7/24/91
STD
''29/91
7/31/91
8/2/91
8/7/91
LTS
8/12/91
8/19/91
8/26/91
8/30/91
9/3/91
9/9/91
9/16/91
9/20/91
9/23/91
10/1/91
10/7/91
LTD
10/11/01
10/15/91
10/21/91
10/28/91
11/1/91
1 1/4/91
n/n/9i
1 1/18/91
12/2/91
12/9/91
12/16/91
TCE Concentrations (ppm)
P-5A
12.9
23.5
53
1 0
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
P-SB
302
63
20.0
3.1
2.1
0.7
ND
ND
ND
0.7
I.I
1 1
0.4
ND
ND
ND
07
0.5
07
0.5
0.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
P-SC
342
ND
234
7.5
ND
2.8
0.7
0.7
2.8
ND
0.4
ND
07
04
ND
ND
07
1 2
04
1.6
07
0.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
P-6A
27.8
12.2
65
3.1
1.1
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
P-6B
368
65
20.1
7.3
3.1
1.4
1.4
1.4
ND
0.7
0.7
07
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.7
09
0.7
04
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
P-6C
34 1
ND
26.5
202
2.1
ND
1.4
1 5
ND
28
ND
0.4
0.4
04
ND
0.7
2.0
1 4
2 1
1.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
.P-TA
65.4
7.6
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
P-TB
444
10.8
246
14.4
3.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.1
0.7
1.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
I.I
0.7
0.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
P-7C
36.3
ND
25.7
83
2.1
2.2
1.4
14
ND
2.1
ND
1.1
3.9
ND
ND
1.1
ND
1.6
2.3
2.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.1
06
0.2
P-8A
15.5
2.1
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
P-8B
19.4
2.2
11 6
4.2
3.2
2.1
2.1
2.9
ND
0.7
0.7
0.4
04
ND
ND
0.4
03
0.5
0.5
ND
0.4
ND
0.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.2
0.4
ND
P-8C
4.3
0.9
11.9
ND
ND
2.2
ND
7.8
2.1
2.1
ND
0.7
ND
1.0
ND
ND
1.0
ND
1.6
1.9
2.t
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.4
0.4
0.4
VES-3
N/A
51.6
16.7
10.6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.6
3.5
2.7
—
4.3
2.8
2.5
—
3.6
2.8
3.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
VES-4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
IS.3
13.6
9.S
5.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
—
2.6
2.8
2.4
27
2.7
—
2.4
2.7
1.7
2.8
— Sample not taken (recovery phase)
ND Not Detected
STS Short-term, shallow well (VES-3) extraction
STD Short-term, deep well (VES-4) extraction
LTS Long-term, shallow well (VES-3) extraction
LTD Long-term, deep well (VES-4) extraction
N/A Not Applicable
STS SHORT TERM SHALLOW WELL EXTRACIKM
STD - SHOCTT-TE** DEEP WEU EXTRACTION
US LOhQ TERM SHAUOW WELL EITTHACTION
LTD LONG-TERM KSP WELL EXTRACTION
\
e--3-a &-e-j
Figure 11. Summary of Long -and Short-Term Operations [6]
£~~—;rr~
DISTANCE FROM vt:- i SHALLOW "WCLl (
SHALLOW SCWW + MEDIUM SCMW
-------
Rocky Mountain Arsenal—Page 12 of 20
[TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
20 30 10 50 60
rVSTANCF FROM Vf S 4 DEfP WEI: f/' )
O SHALLOW SGMW + WLUUV ^CWW * DEEP SGMW
/5. Deep Extract/on Well Vacuum Readings [6]
\ -e D o-p a D Q '
07/16 07/29 CW/IZ D9X03 09/23 1 10/15 | U/04 | 12
07/19 OB/OZ 08/26 09/16 10/07 ID/28 11/lB
Sampllnc Date
Figure 14. P-5A Shallow Monitoring Well [6]
07/16 T 07/29 I 08/12 f 09/03 1 09/23 I 10/15 ] 11/04 I 12/M
07/19 DR/02 OS/EG 09/16 10/07 10/28 11/lB 13/16
Figure 15. P-6A Shallow Monitoring Well [6]
07/16 07/29 08/12 09/03 I 09/23 I 10/15 I 11/04 |12/9J
07/19 08/D2 08/26 09/16 10/07 10/ZB 11/18 12/16
Sumplint Dtte
/<5 P-7A Shallow MonitoringWell [6]
07/16 | 07/29 | D8/I2 | 09/D3 I 09/23 | 10/15 1 11/04 | 12/OSJ
07/19 08/02 08/26 09/16 10/07 ID/28 11/18 12/16
Simplmz Date
Figure / 7. P-8A Shallow Monitoring Well [6]
07/16 | 07/29 I 0
07/19 03/02
3/12 I 09/Oi 1 09/^J | 10/15 I 11/04 I
08/26 nq/16 10/07 10/28 11/1 f
Sampling Dole
2/0")
12/16
Figure 18. P-5B Medium Monitoring Wsll [6]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
151
-------
————————^———^——————^— Roc|
-------
1 Rocky Mountain Arsenal—Page 14 of 20
[TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
07/18 I 07/89 I it/It I 09/03 1 09/83 | 10/15 \ 11/04 I l2/0"i
07/19 08/OJ 08/25 09/16 10/07 10/29 11/10 12/16
Stmpliaf Dtte
figure 25. P-8C Deep Monitoring Well [6]
Table 7—TCI and Tetrachloroethene
Concentrations Detected by Labora-
tory Analysis in VES-3 and VES-4.
Table 8—TCE and Tetrachloroethene
Concentrations Measured Onsite in
VES-3 and VES-4.
Table 9—TCE and Tetrachloroethene
Concentrations Measured Onsite in
the Shallow, Medium, and Deep
Monitoring Wells After the 48-Hour
Test.
Table 7. Phase IISUMMA Canister Results for the Vapor
Extraction Wells During the 48-Hour Test Run [5]
Vapor
Extraction Well
VES-3
VES-3
VES-3
VES-3
VES-4
VES-4
VES-4
VES-4
Time (hours
into run)
0.5
16
32
47.5
0.5
16
32
47.5
Trlchloroethene
Concentration
(pprn)
2.410
4.150
4.410
3.940
0.945
1.800
0752
0703
Tetrachloroethene
Concentration
(ppm)-
O.OO5
0.005
<0.0!0
-------
1 Rocky Mountain Arsenal—Page 15 of 20
[TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Assessment
Table 9. Phase III On-Site GC Results
for the Soil Gas Monitoring Wells [5]
SoilGax
Monitoring Wen
P5-A
P5-B
P5-C
P6-A
P6-B
P6-C
P7-A
P7-B
P7-C
P8-A
P8-B
P8-C
Trichloroethene
Concentration
(PPm)
0.160
0 ISO
0230
O23O
0.240
0.090
0430
0760
0320
-------
1 Rocky Mountain Arsenal—Page 16 of 20
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Assessment (cont.)
well, as shown in Figure 12. A similar effect
occurred during extraction from the deep
vapor extraction well (VES-4). Rgure 13 shows
the vacuum at the shallow soil vapor monitor-
ing wells remained relatively constant inde-
pendent of their distance from the deep
extraction well. These results indicate that the
lower permeability of the clay layer found
between 32 and 38 feet BGS in the Motor
Pool Area was an effective barrier to soil vapor
flow. The lower permeability of the clay layer
prevented the shallow vapor extraction well
from effectively influencing the deeper region,
and vice versa.
The vacuum data collected during the initial
portion of the treatment application indicated
that capping the Motor Pool Area with an
asphalt surface was not necessary since a
Performance Data Completeness
sufficient zone of influence was created without
any surface seal. For example, vapor monitoring
well P-5A was 62.5 feet away from the shallow
extraction well, and 0.6 inches of water column
vacuum was measured in this well.
A review of the soil vapor data for each of the four
clusters of monitoring wells indicates that the
performance of the SVE system was impacted by
the particle size distribution and permeability of
the geologic media. The results for the intermedi-
ate vapor monitoring wells show that the reduced
air permeability within the clay layer may have
impeded the effectiveness of the SVE system
(compared with the results for the shallow wells),
in terms of reaching and maintaining a nondetect
level for TCE. The deep wells show results similar
to those for the intermediate wells.
Performance data for TCE include results for
samples of the untreated vadose zone soil
and soil gas, vapor within the vapor extraction
and vapor monitoring wells, and the SVE
system's exhaust. Spent GAC from the SVE
system was not sampled. In addition, because
Performance Data Quality
untreated soil samples showed no detectable
concentrations for TCE, no post-treatment soil
or soil gas sampling was performed. Typical
operating conditions are known for the SVE
system's 1991 and 1993 operating periods.
Analytical QA/QC procedures included use of
trip blanks for charcoal tube samples. No
exceptions to the QA/QC protocol were
identified by the vendor.
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process
The U.S. Army was responsible for the site
management during this treatment application
and paid the associated costs. The U.S. Army
retained Woodward-Clyde Consultants to
manage the planning, design, implementation,
operation, and reporting of the treatment
application. [8] Two negotiated delivery
orders were established between the US.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. Delivery Order
0003 covered the preparation of pre-pilot
study plans, including an architectural/engi-
neering firm (AE) Laboratory Quality Control
Plan, an AE Quality Control Sampling Plan, an AE
Site Safety and Health Plan, a Pre-Pilot Study Field
Investigations Plan, and a Pilot Study Program
Document (Implementation Document); and also
covered associated field investigation activities.
[12] Delivery Order 0004 covered the procure-
ment, installation, and operation of the pilot soil
vapor extraction system and preparation of a pilot
study report. [ 13 and 14]
The Final Implementation Document (Reference
2), developed under Delivery Order 0003, pre-
sented estimated total costs of $214,500 to
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
155
-------
1 Rocky Mountain Arsenal—Page 1 7 of 20
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Treatment System Cost
install and operate the SVE pilot system.
These treatment cost estimates were disag-
gregated in Reference 2 into a total capital
cost estimate and a total operating cost
estimate, as shown in Tables 10 and 11.
Elements of the total capital cost estimate
presented in Table 11 were obtained from
actual costs of similar systems or from vendor
quotes. [2]
The actual total costs provided by the vendor
for procuring, installing, and operating the SVE
pilot system, as well as preparing the pilot
study report are shown in Table 12.
In order to standardize reporting of costs
across projects, costs provided by the vendor
were categorized according to the format for
Table 10. Estimated Total Capital Cost [2]
Mobilization/Demobilization
Wellhead Installation (VES-3 and VES-4)
Monitoring Well Installation (3 wells)
Mechanical Installation
Blower $5,500
Activated Carbon 14,000
Inlet Separator 500
Instrumentation 2,200
Piping 8. Valvlng 1,300
Insulation 200
Installation 4,000
Electrical Installation
NEMA 1 Motor Starter 650
Cable THW # 10 AWG 100
Conduit V*-lnch RGS 150
Installation 2,000
$600
6,800
12,000
27,700
Shed
Subtotal
25% Contingency (approx.)
15% Contractor OH8J> (approx,)
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
2,900
7,ooQ
$57,000
14,300
$71,300
10,700
$87,000
Table 12. Actual Total Treatment Cost
as Provided by the Vendor [15]
Activity
Well and Monitor Probe Installation
Soil Vapor Extraction System Installation
Soil Vapor Extraction System Operation
Pilot Study Report Preparation
Project Management
Total for Delivery Order 0004
Cost
(dollars)
35,753
39,450
65,368
19,647
22,587
182,805
an interagency Work Breakdown Structure
(WBS), as shown in Table 13. The WBS
specifies 9 before-treatment cost elements, 5
after-treatment cost elements, and 12 cost
elements that provide a detailed breakdown
of costs directly associated with treatment.
Table 13 presents the cost elements exactly as
they appear in the WBS, along with the
specific activities, and unit cost and number of
units of the activity (where appropriate). As
shown on Table 13, RMA incurred SVE installa-
tion and operation costs of $74,600, which
corresponds to $ 1,100 per pound of contami-
Table II. Estimated Total Operating Cost[2]
Electrical Power $3,500
50,000 KWH @ $0.07/KWH
Carbon Changeout 5,000
2,000 Ibs @ $2.50/lb
Chemical Analysis 32,600
272 samples @ $120/sample
Technician 26,000
520 hours @ $50/hr
Field Sampling Equipment and Supplies 12,100
Miscellaneous Equipment and Supplies 1,000
Data Analysis and Report Preparation 35,000
Subtotal $lis,2"oo"
15% Contingency (approx.) 17,300
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $132,500"
Table 13. Actual Total Treatment Cost—Interagency Work
Breakdown Structure [IS]
Cost Element
Mobilization and Preparatory Work
- AE project management and mobilization
(lump sum)
Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and
Analysis
- Monitoring wells (probes) and associated
piping (3 ® $5,958)
Laboratory Analytical Costs (lump sum)
Air Pollution/Gas Collection and Control
- vapor welts and associated piping
(2 @ $8,938)
Soil Vapor Extraction
- installation and operating costs, Including
GAC treatment (excludes laboratory
analytical costs) (lump sum)
Other
- pilot study report (lump sum)
Total Contract Award Amount* Reported
by the Vendor
Co.t (ddlAT*)
23,440
17,874
29,300
17,876
74,600
19,650
182,800
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
156
-------
1 Rocky Mountain Arsenal—Page 18 of 20
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Treatment System Cost (cont.)
nant removed (70 pounds removed) and
$2.20 per cubic yard of soil treated. The
number of cubic yards of soil treated at Rocky
Mountain Arsenal is an estimate based on the
radius of influence of the extraction wells; the
actual amount of soil treated is not available
at this time for comparison with the estimate.
The treatment costs shown in Table 13 are
based on contract award amounts reported by
the vendor. [15] As Tables 12 and 13 illus-
trate, individual cost elements may be pre-
sented in different ways. (The difference in
actual total treatment costs presented in
Tables 12 and 13 is attributed to rounding.)
The actual total treatment cost of $ 182.800
for procuring, installing, and operating the SVE
pilot system, as well as preparing a pilot study
Cost Data Quality
report was approximately 15% less than the
$214,500 total of the capital and operating
cost estimates provided by the vendor, as
shown in Tables 10 and 11. Factors that
contributed to the actual total cost being
lower than the estimated total cost include: 1)
the contractor's mobilization and demobiliza-
tion costs were less than originally anticipated
because the contractor was concurrently
engaged in other projects at the RMA; 2) the
shed's actual cost was less than the estimated
cost; 3) electrical power costs were paid by
RMA and not the contractor, as was assumed
in the original estimate; and 4) GAC
changeout was not required during the
system's operation, as was assumed in the
original estimate. (GAC used in this applica-
tion is currently located at the RMA.)
Cost data represent actual contract award costs incurred for this project and thus accurately
portray the costs for this treatment application.
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Cost Observations and Lessons Learned
The actual total treatment cost for procur-
ing, installing, and operating the SVE pilot
system, as well as preparing the pilot
study report was $ 182,800. This was
approximately 15% less than the prelimi-
nary cost estimate provided by the
remediation contractor. Factors contribut-
ing to the actual cost being lower than the
estimated cost included lower construc-
tion and system operating costs.
The Rocky Mountain Arsenal Program
Manager identified the possible elimina-
tion of the GAC treatment of exhaust
vapors as a method of potentially reduc-
ing costs of soil vapor extraction in future
applications. This avenue was not
pursued for this project because of
regulatory considerations.
Approximately $74,600 of the total
costs were for activities directly
related to treatment. This value does
not include costs for disposal of
carbon. The $74,600 for treatment
activities corresponds to $2.20 per
cubic yard of soil treated (for 34,000
cubic yards of soil); the soil treated
contained relatively low levels of
contaminants.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
157
-------
Rocky Mountain Arsenal—Page 19 of 20
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED (CONT.)I
Performance Observations and Lessons Learned
TCE levels in the soil vapor at this site
were reduced within 5 months of
system operation from levels up to 65
ppm to levels of less than 1 ppm.
Approximately 70 pounds of TCE were
recovered during this cleanup action.
The clay layer inhibited the downward
movement of TCE through the vadose
zone. The majority of the TCE, ap-
proximately 66%, was extracted
during operation of the shallow vapor
extraction well.
The results of the pilot study indicated
that TCE concentrations in the SVE
system's exhaust at the end of the
1991 operating period were low and
relatively constant, and a full-scale
system was not required for the
Motor Pool Area.
Other Observations and Lessons Learned
This treatment application was
completed based solely on soil vapor
data collected from soil gas surveys
and the SVE system's extraction and
monitoring wells.
Because VOCs were not detected
during soil sampling, soil gas surveys
were used to delineate the TCE source
areas and plume location.
In lieu of soil data, soil gas and soil
permeability studies provided data on
the vadose zone parameters at this
site. The data provided by the perme-
ability studies was necessary for the
SVE system design and contributed to
the successful treatment application
at this site.
A 48-hour test completed two years
after the treatment application was
used to assess the longer-term
effectiveness of the SVE system. The
48-hour test indicated little rebound in
TCE concentrations, with TCE levels
measuring <6 ppm in vapor monitor-
ing wells at the start of the 48-hour
test, and decreasing to < 1 ppm at the
end of the 48-hour test.
According to the Rocky Mountain
Arsenal Program Manager, groundwa-
ter concentrations of TCE have
dropped steadily since completion of
the pilot study.
US ENV1RONMENTALPROTECT10NAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
158
-------
1 Rocky Mountain Arsenal—Page 20 of 20
REFERENCES
/. Final Decision Document for the Interim
Response Action at the Motor Pool Area,
Version 4.0. Woodward-Clyde Consult-
ants, RIC 900072R04, February 1990.
2. Implementation Document for the Interim
Response Action at the Motor Pool Area,
Final Version 3.1. Woodward-Clyde
Consultants, RIC 91052R01, Febru-
ary 1991.
3. Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual
Status Report, 5th edition. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, September
1993.
4. Letter from James D. Smith, Rocky Moun-
tain Arsenal, to Radian Corporation.
March 1994.
5. 1993 Motor Pool Area IRA Verification
Program Results. Ebasco Services Incorpo-
rated, 1993.
6. Soil Vapor Extraction Pilot Study Report
Version 3.1, Motor Pool Area, Rocky
Mountain Arsenal. Woodward-Clyde
Consultants, March 1992.
7. Superfund Record of Decision: Rocky
Mountain Arsenal, (Operable Unit 18),
CO, Third Remedial Action. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, EPA/ROD/RO8-
901038, February 1990.
8. Personal communication, James D. Smith,
Rocky Mountain Arsenal. March 29, 1994.
9. Personal communication, James D. Smith,
Rocky Mountain Arsenal. April 26, 1994.
10. Rocky Mountain Arsenal, CO. NPL Publi-
cations Assistance Database, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Region 8, EPA
ID #C05210020769, March 1992.
11. Personal communication, Richard A.
Beyak, Woodward-Clyde Federal Services,
November 2, 1994.
12. Letter from Woodward-Clyde Consultants
to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha
District. September 1990.
13. Letter from Woodward-Clyde Consultants
to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha
District. May 1991.
14. Personal communication, John Quander,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
Scott Thompson, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Kansas City District. October
26, 1994.
15. Cost information for soil vapor extraction
at the Motor Pool Area (OU-18), Rocky
Mountain Arsenal. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Kansas City District. July 1994.
16. Letter from Woodward-Clyde Consultants
to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Technology Innovation Office.
July 1994.
Analysis Preparation
This case study was prepared for the US. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by
Radian Corporation under EPA Contract No. 68-W3-0001.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
159
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at the
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site,
Tank 2 Operable Unit
Sacramento, California
160
-------
Case Study Abstract
Soil Vapor Extraction at the Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site,
Tank 2 Operable Unit, Sacramento, California
Site Name:
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund
Site, Tank 2 (Operable Unit #3)
Location:
Sacramento, California
Contaminants:
Chlorinated and Non-Chlorinated Aliphatics
- 2-Butanone (0.011 to 150 mg/kg);
Ethylbenzene (0.006 to 2,100 mg/kg),
Tetrachloroethene (0.006 to 390 mg/kg),
and Xylenes (0.005 to 11,000 mg/kg)
Period of Operation:
August 1992 to January 1993
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
James Perkins
Terra Vac, Inc.
14798 Wicks Boulevard
San Leandro, CA 94577
(510) 351-8900
SIC Code:
3471 (Electroplating, Plating,
Polishing, Anodizing, and Coloring)
3479 (Coating, Engraving, and Allied
Services, Not Elsewhere Classified)
Technology:
Soil Vapor Extraction
- 8 vacuum extraction wells, positive
displacement blower, vapor-liquid
separator, and primary and secondary
carbon filters
- Wells installed to depths of 15 to 28 feet
below ground surface
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA and Other: Federal
Facilities Agreement
- ROD Date: 12/9/91
Point of Contact:
Dan Obern
Sacramento Army Depot
8350 Fruitridge Road
Sacramento, CA 95813-5052
(916) 388-2489
Waste Source:
Underground Storage Tank
Purpose/Significance of Application:
This application of SVE was in a
relatively small volume of low
permeability, heterogenous,
contaminated soil.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- 650 yd3 (25 ft by 35 ft by 20 ft deep)
- Silt with clay content of <30%; moisture content - 25.6 to 26.5%; air
permeability 1.7 x 10'7 to 6.2 x 10'5 cm/sec; porosity - 44.3 to 45.8%; TOC
0.011 to 0.44%
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- 1991 ROD specified soil cleanup levels for the Tank 2 Operable Unit of 2-Butanone (1.2 ppm); ethylbenzene (6 ppm);
tetrachloroethene (0.2 ppm); and total xylenes (23 ppm)
- Cleanup levels were to be achieved within 6 months of system operation
Results:
- The specified cleanup levels were achieved within six months of system operation
- Levels of 2-butanone, ethylbenzene, tetrachloroethene, and total xylenes were reduced to below detection limits
Cost Factors:
Total cost of $556,000 - costs directly associated with treatment (including mobilization/setup, startup, operation,
sampling and analysis, demobilization)
- $290,000 of total cost attributed to treatment of non-Freon contaminants (adjusted assuming operation costs equivalent
for Freon and non-Freon contaminants)
161
-------
Case Study Abstract
Soil Vapor Extraction at the Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site,
Tank 2 Operable Unit, Sacramento, California (Continued)
Description:
The Sacramento Army Depot (SAAD) located in Sacramento, California is an Army support facility. Past and present
operations conducted at the site include equipment maintenance and repair, metal plating, parts manufacturing, and
painting. During investigations of the facility in 1981, soil contamination was identified in the area of an underground
storage tank and designated as Tank 2 Operable Unit. Tank 2 had been used to store solvents and the primary
contaminants of concern included ethylbenzene, 2-butanone, tetrachloroethene, and xylenes. These constituents were
detected in the soil at levels up to 11,000 mg/kg. A Record of Decision (ROD), signed in December 1991, specified soil
cleanup levels for the four primary constituents of concern and specified a six month timeframe for achieving these levels.
SVE was selected for remediating the contaminated soil because it was determined to be the most cost effective
alternative.
The SVE system consisted of 8 vacuum extraction wells, a vapor-liquid separator, and primary and secondary carbon
adsorption units, and was operated from August 6, 1992 to January 25, 1993. The system achieved the specified soil
cleanup levels a month ahead of the specified timeframe. In addition, the SVE system removed approximately 2,300
pounds of VOCs. During system operation, Freon 113 was unexpectedly encountered. Extraction of Freon 113
significantly increased the quantity of carbon required to treat the extracted vapors.
The total treatment cost for this application was $556,000. This cost was greater than originally estimated primarily as a
result of the additional carbon required as a result of the presence of Freon 113. A computer model treatability study
was used for this application. The study predicted SVE using 4 extraction wells could reduce concentrations of volatile
organics to non-detectable levels within 6 months.
162
-------
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site—Page 1 of 25
COST AND PERFORMANCE REPORT
| EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)
This report presents cost and performance
data for a soil vapor extraction (SVE) system at
the Tank 2 Operable Unit, Sacramento Army
Depot (SAAD) Superfund site in Sacramento,
California. SVE was used at the Tank 2 Oper-
able Unit to treat soil contaminated with
volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
The Tank 2 Operable Unit at SAAD was the
location of an underground storage tank
(Tank 2) used to store waste solvents. Release
of waste solvents from the tank to the sur-
rounding subsurface was suspected. The
results of a subsequent remedial investigation
(Rl) indicated that approximately 650 cubic
yards of soil surrounding Tank 2 were con-
taminated. Ethylbenzene, 2-butanone,
tetrachloroethene, and xylenes were the
primary constituents detected in soil at levels
ranging from 0.005 to 11,000 mg/kg.
A Record of Decision (ROD) addressing the
Tank 2 Operable Unit was signed in December
1991 and specified soil cleanup levels for
ethylbenzene, 2-butanone, tetrachloroethene,
and xylenes. The ROD also specified that
these cleanup levels must be achieved within
six months of system operation, as verified by
confirmatory soil sampling. SVE was selected
for remediating soil in the Tank 2 Operable
Unit because it was determined to be the
most cost effective of the remedial alterna-
tives considered.
The SVE system used for this application
consisted of eight vacuum extraction wells, a
positive-displacement blower, a vapor-liquid
separator, and primary and secondary carbon
adsorption units.
The system was operated for approximately
102 days from August 6, 1992 until January
21, 1993. During that time, approximately
2,300 total pounds of VOCs were removed.
Confirmatory soil boring data, collected in
March 1993, indicated that the soil cleanup
levels specified in the ROD were achieved for
this application.
A problem encountered during this treatment
application was the unexpected extraction of
significant amounts of Freon 1 13 (approxi-
mately 1,800 pounds of the total 2,300
pounds of total VOCs removed consisted of
Freon 113). The presence of Freon 1 13 in soil
at the Tank 2 Operable Unit was not identified
during the RI prior to system operation and
required the use of additional carbon.
The total costs for this application, excluding
costs for construction management and Title II
services, were $556,000. These costs were
higher than originally estimated. This was
attributed to the presence of Freon 113 which
caused the quantity of carbon required for this
application to exceed the original estimate.
The actual total cost was adjusted to show a
calculated cost for treatment of soil without
including the costs attributed to the Freon. The
adjusted cost was $290,000, which corre-
sponds to $450/cubic yard of soil treated.
I SITE INFORMATION
Identifying Information
Sacramento Army Depot
Sacramento, California
Operable Unit # 3 (Tank 2)
CERCLIS # CA0210020780
ROD Date: 12/9/91
Treatment Application
Type of Action: Remedial
Treatability Study Associated with
Application? Computer model of SVE
EPA SITE Program Test Associated with
Application? No
Operating Period: 8/6/92- 1/21/93
Quantity of Soil Treated During Application:
650 cubic yards (as reported by the vendor,
consisting of an area 25 by 35 feet by 20 feet
deep)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
163
-------
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site—Page 2 of 25
I SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background
Historical Activity That Contributed to
Contamination at the Site: Metal-plating and
painting operations, leaking underground
storage tank
Corresponding SIC Codes:
3471: Electroplating, Plating, Polishing,
Anodizing, and Coloring
3479: Coating, Engraving, and Allied
Services, Not Elsewhere Classified
Waste Management Practice that Contrib-
uted to Contamination: Underground
Storage Tank
Site History: The Sacramento Army Depot
(SAAD) is a 485-acre U.S. Army support
facility, located in Sacramento, California, as
shown on Figure 1. Current and historical
operations conducted at the facility include
electro-optics equipment repair, emergency
manufacturing of parts, shelter repair, metal
plating and treatment, and painting. In con-
junction with these operations, the Army
maintains unlined oxidation lagoons and burn
pits, a battery disposal area, areas designated
for mixing pesticides, and a firefighter training
area. [1]
In 1978 and 1979, the US. Army Toxic and
Hazardous Materials Agency (USATHMA)
identified several areas at SAAD, based on
historical data, where the use, storage,
treatment, and disposal of toxic substances
may have contributed to contamination of soil
and/or groundwater. In 1981, the Army and
the California Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) conducted
investigations of soil and groundwater in the
areas identified by USATHMA. The groundwa-
ter under the southwest corner of SAAD was
determined to be contaminated with volatile
organic compounds (VOCS) with the burn pits
suspected as the main source of groundwater
contamination. These investigations also
identified six other potential areas of contami-
nation (Figure 2): the Tank 2 area, the oxida-
tion lagoons, the Building 320 leach field, the
pesticide mix area, the firefighter training area,
and the battery disposal well. Operable units
were defined for each of these areas of
Sacramento Amiy Depot
Superftind Site
Sacramento, Calitorma
Figure 1. Site Location
contamination. The groundwater contamina-
tion was addressed in a 1989 Record of
Decision (ROD) and the other operable units
will be addressed in subsequent RODs. [1 ]
The Tank 2 Operable Unit was addressed in a
1991 ROD as Operable Unit #3 and is the
subject of this report. As shown on Figure 2,
the Tank 2 Operable Unit is located approxi-
mately at the center of the SAAD facility. This
operable unit previously contained a 1,000-
gallon underground storage tank (UST) used
to store waste solvents until 1980. The UST,
which was emptied in 1980 and removed in
1986, showed signs of deterioration indicating
a possible release to the subsurface. The Army
subsequently contracted Kleinfelder, Inc. to
conduct a remedial investigation (RI) and an
operable unit feasibility study (OUFS) to
determine the extent of contamination and
identify alternatives for cleaning up soil at the
Tank 2 Operable Unit. The results of the RI
indicated that the soil around the UST was
contaminated with VOCs but that the VOCs
had not migrated to the groundwater. Ethyl-
benzene, xylenes, 2-butanone, and
tetrachloroethene were the primary contami-
nants detected during the RI. Figures 3 and 4
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
164
-------
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site—Page 3 of 25
I SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background (cont.)
Figure 2. Site Layout [I]
show the location of soil contamination in a
plan view and cross section of the Tank 2
Operable Unit. The results of the OUFS,
completed in 1991, indicated that soil vapor
extraction (SVE) was the most appropriate
technology for remediating soil in the Tank 2
Operable Unit [1].
Regulatory Context: During the 1980s, EPA
and the California Department of Health
Services (DHS) became involved in the investi-
gations conducted at SAAD by the U.S. Army
and the CVRWQCB. The SAAD facility was
subsequently placed on the National Priorities
List (NPL) on August 21,1987. In 1988, the
U.S. Army, EPA, and the State of California
entered a Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA).
Under the FFA, the US. Army was the lead
agency responsible for implementing the
environmental response activities at SAAD.
A ROD, signed in 1991, specified treatment of
soil using SVE, dehumidifying the contami-
nated air stream using a moisture separator,
treating the contaminated air stream from the
moisture separator using carbon adsorption,
and treating water from the moisture separa-
tor in an on-site ultraviolet-hydrogen peroxide
treatment plant. The ROD also specified the
following cleanup levels for the treated soil:
• 2-Butanone: 1.2 ppm;
• Ethylbenzene: 6 ppm;
• Total xylenes: 23 ppm; and
• Tetrachloroethene: 0.2 ppm.
These cleanup levels were developed based
on the results of a public health evaluation
(PHE) performed as part of the OUFS and
correspond to risk reductions of 92, 99, 97,
and 98 percent for 2-butanone,
tetrachloroethene, ethylbenzene, and total
xylenes, respectively [1].
In addition, the ROD specified that the
cleanup levels must be achieved within six
months of system operation as verified by
confirmatory sampling of soil in the Tank 2
Operable Unit [1].
BUILDING *320
I
iu. ,rr E-VM m n-g a k n furu n -ti'T.f LH>? I E S
^ !
LEGEND
••.../""•- SESSSarai*1*1*™1"
X/^SoEii
N S
I J CROSS SECTION LOCATION
Mou Th«ww
APPROXIMAT E SCALE V. 10"
Figure 3. Soil Contamination-Plan View [1]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
165
-------
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site—Page 4 of 25
I SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background (cont.)
Remedy Selection: The ROD identified eight
alternatives as remedial alternatives consid-
ered for the Tank 2 Operable Unit:
• No action;
• SVE with air emission control by either
carbon adsorption, vapor recovery, or
thermal vapor treatment, and on-site
water treatment;
• SVE with air emission control by either
carbon adsorption, vapor recovery, or
thermal vapor treatment, and off-site
water treatment;
• Excavation, soil washing, activated
carbon vapor treatment, off-site liquid
treatment, and backfill;
• Excavation, incineration, and backfill;
• Excavation, low temperature desorp-
tion, air emission control by gas-phase
carbon adsorption or incineration, on-
site water treatment, and backfill;
• Excavation, low temperature desorp-
tion, air emission control by gas-phase
carbon adsorption or incineration, off-
site water treatment, and backfill; and
• Excavation, surface aerobic biodegra-
dation, and backfill.
LEGEND
I ,-* APPROXIMATE erTEHT OF
I ./ \ CONTAMINANT* AT CONCENTRATIONS
^-^ x ABOVE CLEANUP l£VB£
MofoonttniviaiiMibMMbfMtetaMdon imwpoWng brtwMn «**•« ufflpM boutotu.
figure 4. Soil Contamination - Cross Section
The ROD identified SVE, air emission control
by carbon adsorption, and on-site water
treatment as the selected remedy for the Tank
2 Operable Unit. This remedy was selected
because it was the most cost effective of the
alternatives considered.
Site Logistics/Contacts
Site Management: U.S. Army - Lead
Oversight: EPA
Remedial Project Manager:
Marlin Mezquita
U.S. EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA94105
(415) 744-2393
U.S. Army Facility Project Manager:
Dan Obern (primary contact for this
application)
Sacramento Army Depot
8350 Fruitridge Road
Sacramento, CA 95813-5052
(916)388-2489
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Project
Manager:
George Siller
U.S. ACE, Sacramento District
1325 ] Street
Sacramento, CA95814-2922
Treatment Vendor:
James A. Perkins
Terra Vac, Inc.
14798 Wicks Blvd.
San Leandro, CA 94577
(510)351-8900
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
166
-------
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site—Page 5 of 25
I MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix Processed Through the Treatment System: Soil (in situ)
Contaminant Characterization
Primary Contaminant Groups: Volatile
organic compounds (VOCs)
During the RI, samples were collected from 15
soil borings in the Tank 2 Operable Unit and
analyzed for VOCs, polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons, and pesticides. The primary
constituents of concern were 2-Butanone,
ethylbenzene, tetrachloroethene, and xylenes.
As shown in Table 1, ethylbenzene and xylene
were detected in 13.3 and 21.0 percent of the
samples analyzed, respectively, and at maximum
concentrations of 2,100 and 1 1,000 mg/kg,
respectively. The constituents 2-butanone and
tetrachloroethene were detected in 4.8 and
5.7 percent of the samples analyzed, respec-
tively, and at maximum concentrations of 150 and
390 mg/kg, respectively. [ 1 ]
Table 1. Subsurface Soil Contamination Levels in the Tank 2 Operable Unit [1]
Constituent
2-Butanone
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Xyienes
Total Number of
Samples Analyzed
105
105
105
105
Percent of
Times Detected
4.8
13.3
5.7
21.0
Range of Detected
Concentrations (mg/kg)
0.01 1 to 1 50
0.006 to 2, 100
O.O06 to 390
0.005 to 1 1 ,000
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
The major matrix characteristics affecting cost The following additional matrix characteristics
or performance for this technology and their were measured [5]:
measured values are listed in Table 2. F51
L J Unit weight, dry: 94.0 to 98.1 lbs/ft3
pH: 7.0 to 7.8
Nitrate as N- 2.7 to 3.8 mg/kg
Kjeldahl nitrogen as N: 15.2 to 91.4 mg/kg
Cation exchange capacity: 2O.2 to 1 18 milliequivalents
per 100 grams (as Na)
Chemical oxygen demand: 500 to 5,750 mg/kg
Table 2. Matrix Characteristics [5, 6, 7]
Parameter
Soil Classification
Clay Content
Particle Size Distribution
Moisture Content
Air Permeability
Porosity
Total Organic Carbon
Nonaqueous Phase Liquids
Value
Silt
<30%
2.5- 10O
25.6 to 26.5%
1.7 x 10"7 to
6.2 x 10'5 cm/sec
44.3 - 45.8%
0.01 1 to 0.44%
Not Detected
Measurement
Method
USCS Field
Determination
Laser Particie
Analysis
Laser Particle
Analysis
Dean-Stark
API PR 40 @ 25psi
_
Not available
Dean-Stark
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
167
-------
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site—Page 6 of 25
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Site Geology/Stratigraphy
The soil underlying the Tank 2 Operable Unit
generally consists of soil and clay with imbed-
ded units of sand and silty sand. Figures 5
and 6 show the A-A' and B-B' geologic cross-
sections for the Tank 2 Operable Unit, re-
spectively. These cross-sections were pre-
pared based on the logs for 15 soil borings
completed in the Tank 2 Operable Unit during
the RI. Figure 7 shows the locations of these
borings within the Tank 2 Operable Unit.
Boring logs for borings TT-1, TT-3, TT-5, TT-10,
TT-11, TT-12, and TT-13 indicate that:
• A 6-9 feet unit of medium to very
dense, fine grained sand is present 12
to 21 feet below the ground surface;
and
• The soil 20 to 22 feet below the
ground surface consists of a laterally
continuous unit of very stiff to hard
clay-silt/clay, which is white to gray-
white in color.
The logs for borings TT-1, TT-2, TT-5, and TT-8
indicate that a unit of very stiff to hard clayey-
silt is present 26 to 29 feet below the ground
surface. This unit contains trace amounts of
fine sand and does not appear to be laterally
continuous since it is not present in borings
TT-3, TT-6. TT-7, and TT-10 through TT-15. [5]
The depth to groundwater beneath the Tank 2
Operable Unit is approximately 80 feet below
the ground surface. [5]
(FACING NORTHWEST)
TT-15 TT-9
GROUND
SURFACE
30 -
- 10
40-1
Horizontal Scmlt: i*z 10"
V«rtleal Sc**: 1". f
NOT*.-
Till* Pu
-20
-30
TtitoPlit>Pra*ira4tor
i*f«««nmmi tnt mmummni
Purpo»»« Qnlr.
Figure 5. Cross Section A-A' [ 5]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
168
-------
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site—Page 7 of 25
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Source: [5]
KLEINFE L D ER
_24-1S001CI-A07
CROSS SECTION B-B'
TANK 2
SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT
SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA
Figure
6
Figure 6. Cross Section B-B' [5]
Building 320
Altu Slreet
L*g»nd
• ^.^..Hl.
y
/•/<<>•
LOCATION OF CSOSS SECTIONS
ItfEDIATlON OF TANK 2
SACRAHENTO ABny DEPOT
Figure
7. Cross Section Locations [5]
. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
tj Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response -> ,-Q
$ Technology Innovation Office L oy
-------
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site—Page 8 of 25
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology Supplemental Treatment Technology
Soil vapor extraction
Post-treatment of vapors: moisture separator,
carbon adsorption
Soil Vapor Extraction System Description and Operation
System Description
The SVE system used at the Tank 2 Operable
Unit consisted of eight vacuum extraction
wells (VE-1 through VE-8), a positive displace-
ment blower, a vapor-liquid separator, and
primary and secondary carbon filters, as
shown on Rgure 8. This system was designed
by the vendor to remove approximately 1,650
pounds of ethylbenzene and xylene (based on
Rl results) within the six month period speci-
fied in the ROD. Wells VE-1 and VE-2 were
installed and operated during a treatability
study and were used for the full-scale treat-
ment application. These wells were installed
to a depth of 18 feet below the ground
surface. Wells VE-3 through VE-8 were in-
stalled during July 1992, just prior to system
start-up on August 6, 1992, at depths ranging
from 15 to 28 feet below the ground surface.
Appendix B contains the boring logs for these
extraction wells showing the exact completion
depth and presenting information on the
BUILDING 320
VACUUM
BLOWER
VE 3 VE 4 VE 5
VE 1 T VE 2 (
VE 6 VE 7 VE 8
VAPOR - LIQUID
SEPARATOR
ATTU STREET
Figures. SVE Plot Plan [2]
specific materials of construction for each
well. [2]
Eight vacuum extraction wells were required
at the relatively small site due to the low
permeability of site soils and the schedule.
The ROD specified that the cleanup had to be
completed within 6 months after initiation.
The large number of wells were required to
meet the schedule. [9]
The soil cuttings generated when wells VE-3
through VE-8 were drilled were placed in a
lined box. The box was piped into the SVE
system so that the cuttings could be treated.
Wells VE-1 through VE-8 and the box contain-
ing the soil cuttings were connected to a 30-
horsepower positive displacement blower by
above-ground distribution piping. [2]
Vapors extracted using the vacuum extraction
wells were treated using a vapor-liquid
separator and carbon adsorption units. The
vapor first passed through the vapor-liquid
separator where entrained
water was separated from the
vapor and stored for future
treatment in the ultraviolet-
hydrogen peroxide treatment
plant operated at SAAD. A
total of 70 gallons of water
were generated during the
treatment application. The
vapor from the vapor-liquid
separator then passed through
1,000-pound primary and
secondary carbon units that
were placed in series. A total
of 33,000 pounds of spent
carbon were generated during
the treatment application.
Treated vapor from the sec-
ondary carbon unit was vented
to the atmosphere. [2]
SECONDARY
CARBON
FILTER
o
PRIMARY
CARBON
FILTER
NOT TO SCALE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
170
-------
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site—Page 9 of 25
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment System Description and Operation (cont.)
System Operation [2,7]
The vacuum extraction wells were installed
and the SVE system was assembled at the site
in July 1992. The SVE system was operated at
the Tank 2 Operable Unit from August 6, 1992
until January 21,1992 for a total of 102 days.
Confirmatory samples were collected on
March 22 and 23, 1993. The results of these
samples indicated that the cleanup levels had
been achieved. The SVE equipment was
demobilized and the site restored between
March and April 1993. Site restoration activi-
ties included off-site disposal of the treated
soil from well borings, and destroying wells
VE-1, VE-2, VE-4, VE-5, VE-6, and VE-8. Wells
VE-3 and VE-7 were completed below grade
and, therefore, were left open.
On January 21,1993, extraction was stopped
because the rate of extraction of target
compounds had been decreased to less than
0.01 pounds per day. To determine the
residual amounts of target contaminants, the
system was shut down for five days. On
January 26, the system was started up again
and the rate of extraction of target contami-
nants was measured. The target contaminants
were still being extracted at less than 0.01
pounds per day. Since the extraction rates of
target contaminants remained low, the system
was shut down.
Extraction of freon [2,7]
Shortly after system start-up, the treatment
vendor discovered that the SVE system was
extracting significant amounts of Freon 113, in
addition to the contaminants of concern.
Approximately 50 pounds per day of Freon
113 were being extracted from the wells.
Vapor concentrations data indicated that most
of the Freon 113 was being extracted from
beneath Building 320, located at the North
end of the site. The unexpected extraction of
Freon 113 caused an increase in the carbon
utilization rate above what the vendor had
estimated prior to operating the system. In
response, the vendor performed several
activities to decrease the amount of Freon 113
extracted from the wells:
• Wells VE-3, VE-4, and VE-5, which
were adjacent to Building 320, were
taken off line. By venting wells VE-3,
VE-4, and VE-5 to the atmosphere,
a passive pneumatic barrier was
created, resulting in significant reduc-
tion of Freon 113 extraction from the
other 5 wells.
• Since extraction rates of ethylbenzene
and xylenes from wells VE-4 and VE-5
had been high before they were taken
off line, an attempt was made to bring
these wells back on line. An ejection
test was performed on November 5,
1992. Air was injected into wells VE-3,
VE-4, and VE-5 and any changes in the
amount of Freon 113 extracted from
the other wells were recorded. The
rationale of the test was that an active
pneumatic barrier could be created
which would reduce the extraction of
Freon from beneath Building 320. The
results of the injection test showed
that extraction could be successfully
resumed at wells VE-3, VE-4, and VE-5
if an active pneumatic barrier was
established between these wells and
Building 320. The installation of 7 air
injection probes was proposed.
However, during installation the
probes were obstructed at 5 - 7 feet
below grade and the probes were
abandoned.
On December 16, 1992, wells VE-3, VE-4, and
VE-5 were put back on line to determine
residual Freon levels. The amount of extracted
Freon had dropped to between 10 and 18
pounds per day.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
171
-------
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site—Page 10 of 25
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
The major operating parameters affecting cost or performance for this technology and their
values measured during this treatment application are listed in Table 3. Information on daily air
flow rates is presented in Appendix B. [2]
Table 3. Operating Parameters [2]
Parameter
Air Flow Rate
Vacuum
Value
16 to 365 scfm
Not available
Measurement Method
Not available
Timeline
The timeline for this application is presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Timeline [2]
Start Date
7/22/87
12/9/9)
7/13/92
8/6/92
10/29/92
11/13/92
1 1/25/92
12/14/92
12/25/92
1/4/93
1/21/93
1/26/93
1/25/93
3/22/93
3/23/93
End Date
—
—
8/3/92
10/29/92
11/13/92
1 1/25/92
12/14/92
12/25/92
1/4/93
1/21/93
1/25/93
-
3/22/93
3/23/93
4/22/93
Activity
SAAD added to National Priorities List
ROD signed.
Vacuum extraction wells installed and SVE system assembled
SVE system operated
System shut down so that air injection test could be performed.
SVE system operated
SVE system shut down to attempt installation of vent probes.
SVE system operated with wells VE- 1 , VE-2, VE-4, and VE-5 on line.
SVE system shut down due to equipment failure.
SVE system operated.
SVE system shut down to prepare for start-up spike test
Start-up spike test performed. No spike detected.
Drilling plan for confirmatory soil borings reviewed and approved
Confirmatory soil samples collected
Equipment demobilized and site restored.
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Levels
The 1991 ROD specified the following
cleanup levels for the treated soil at the Tank
2 Operable Unit [1]:
• 2-Butanone: 1.2 ppm;
• Ethylbenzene: 6 ppm;
• Tetrachloroethene: 0.2 ppm; and
• Total xylenes: 23 ppm.
The ROD specified that these cleanup levels
were to be achieved by removing VOCs using
an SVE system with a moisture separator,
activated carbon unit, and ultraviolet-hydro-
gen peroxide water treatment plant. Addition-
ally, the ROD specified that the cleanup levels
were to be achieved within approximately six
months of system operation.
The cleanup levels for the four constituents
were developed based on the results of a
public health evaluation performed as part of
the OUFS. The cleanup levels for 2-butanone,
ethylbenzene, tetrachloroethene, and xylenes
result in estimated 92, 97, 99, and 98 percent
reductions in human health risks, respectively.
Ambient air standards were based on a 10'6
health risk criterion. [11]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
172
-------
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site—Page 11 of 25
I TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Treatment Performance Data [2, 9]
Confirmatory soil sampling was conducted at
the Tank 2 Operable Unit on March 22 and
23, 1993 to assess whether the cleanup levels
specified in the ROD had been achieved. Four
soil borings were completed in the Tank 2 area
and are referred to as confirmatory borings
(CB). Figure 7 shows the locations of CB-1
through CB-4 in the Tank 2 Operable Unit.
Three samples were collected from each
boring; one from an interval 9-10.5 feet below
the ground surface, one from 12-13.5 feet
below the ground surface, and one 15-16 feet
below the ground surface. These samples
were analyzed for 2-butanone, ethylbenzene,
tetrachloroethene, and xylenes using EPA
Method 8240. The samples were also tested
for Freon 113.
2-Butanone was detected in samples col-
lected from borings CB-1, CB-2, and CB-4 at
concentrations of 0.0038, 0.003, and 0.0051
mg/kg, respectively. Ethylbenzene was de-
tected in one sample collected from CB-4 at a
concentration of 0.021 mg/kg. Total xylenes
were detected in two samples collected from
CB-4 at concentrations of 0.018 and 0.140
mg/kg. Tetrachloroethene and Freon 113 were
not detected in any of the samples collected
from borings CB-1 through CB-4. The results
of these samples are presented in Table 5.
Performance Data Assessment
Additionally, vapor samples were collected
throughout the operation of the SVE system at
the Tank 2 Operable Unit and measured for
VOCs using direct injection into a gas chro-
matograph. The results for these samples,
along with air flow measurements collected
during system operation, were used to esti-
mate the mass of VOCs removed and the
extraction rates for VOCs.
Figure 9 shows the mass of total VOCs, Freon
113, and non-Freon VOCs removed during
system operation. Approximately 2,300
pounds of total VOCs, 1,800 pounds of Freon
113, and 500 pounds of non-Freon VOCs
were extracted during this application. Figure
10 shows the extraction rates of total VOCs,
Freon 1 1 3, and non-Freon VOCs during system
operation. The extraction rates ranged from
approximately 5 to 120 pounds per day of
total VOCs, 5 to 80 pounds per day of Freon
113, and 0 to 110 pounds per day of non-
Freon VOCs during this application. The data
used to generate these plots is contained in
Appendix B.
Ambient air sampling was performed during
intrusive work, such as construction and
drilling, and also periodically during routine
operation. The ambient air standards were
met, as no emissions were detected by the
monitoring devices.
As shown in Table 5, the cleanup levels
specified in the ROD were achieved for the
four specified constituents within the required
six months of system operation. 2-butanone,
ethylbenzene, tetrachloroethene, and total
xylenes were not detected in 82 percent of
the confirmatory soil samples.
The highest concentration detected in these
samples was total xylenes at 0.140 ppm in
the sample collected from the 12-13.5 feet
depth interval at CB-4.
In addition, Freon 113 was not detected in
any of the samples. As shown on Figure 9,
Freon 1 13 accounted for 1,800 of the esti-
mated 2,300 pounds of VOCs removed during
this application. As shown in Figure 10, the
extraction rate for non-Freon VOCs decreased
to nearly zero after approximately 78 days of
operation and remained at this level until the
system was shut down after 102 days. The
extraction rate for Freon 113, however,
remained near 15 Ibs/day during this period.
U-S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
173
-------
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site—Page 12 of 25
(TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Assessment (cont.)
Table 5. Results for Confirmatory Soil Borings [2, 7]
Constituent
2-Butanone
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethen
Total Xylenes
Freon 1 1 3
Boring No,
Interval (ft)
Cleanup Level
(m»*a)
1.2
6
0.2
23
NA
CB-1
9-10.5
I2-1S.
15-16
CB-2
9-10.5 12-13.
15-16
CB-3
9-10.5
12-13.
15-16
CB-4
9-10.5 j (2-13. 15-16
<»»*8>
0.0038
ND
(0.005)
ND
(0.010)
ND
(0.015)
ND
(0.01)
ND
(O.O05)
ND
(0.005)
ND
(0.010)
ND
(0.015)
ND
(0.01)
ND
(0.005)
ND
(0.005)
ND
(0.010)
ND
(0.015)
ND
(0.01)
a» <0N005,
ND ND
(0.005) (0.005)
ND ND
(0.010) (0.01 0)
ND ND
(0.015) (0.015)
ND ND
(0.01) (0.01)
ND
(OOO5)
ND
(0.005)
ND
(0.0 10)
ND
(0.015)
ND
(0.01)
ND
(O.O05)
ND
(O.O05)
ND
(0.010)
ND
(0.015)
ND
(001)
ND
(O.O05)
ND
(O.O05)
ND
(0.010)
ND
(0.015)
ND
(0.01)
ND
(O.OO5)
ND
(0.005)
ND
(0.0 10)
ND
(0.015)
ND
(0.01)
ND
(O.OO5)
ND
(0.005)
ND
(0.0 IO)
0.018
ND
(0.01)
,0^5) «»'
<"»' A)
ND ND
(O.O1O) (O.O1O)
™ <£»
ND ND
(0.01) (0.01)
ND = Not detected. Number in parenthesis is the reported detection limit.
NA = Not Applicable
REMEDIATION OF TANK NO.2
TOTAL LBS REMOVED
12.838 25.676 38.513 51.351 64.189 77027 89.864 102.70
RUN TIME (DAYS)
n ToUISftlwn
Source: 12]
ProjactNo
scita
Hwitkm
J5JL
A.Dockatader
Figure 9
CunuMI» Pouodt oi vac EflncWd
DMiwIMIanol Tink No.J
Sacranwnta Jbmy Mpol
SKraiMnla. CMItomli
Figure 9. Cumulative Pounds of VOC Extracted [2]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
174
-------
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site—Page 13 of 25
I TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Assessment (cont.)
11907
REMEDIATION OF TANK NO.2
EXTRACTION RATE
RUN TIME (DAYS)
Q ToUISyHw ^FraonllJ X
Source! (21
Scilt
R« villon
Dmmtg
101
Figure 10
Eltnclloii R*«V Tout Sr«am MM
R«nidMlen»ITMikNa.»
SKfUMMo Amy DtfxH
J
/O. VOC Extraction Rates [2]
Performance Data Completeness
The soil boring data allow for comparison of
performance of the SVE system with respect
to the cleanup levels specified in the ROD.
Additionally, the concentrations of VOCs and
Performance Data Quality
air flow were measured at the SVE system
inlet for estimating the cumulative pounds of
VOCs removed and extraction rates over the
course of system operation.
Ten percent of the samples collected during
this application, including the soil boring
samples, were split and analyzed by both the
contractors and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. No analytical concerns were
reported by the Army. Soil boring samples
were analyzed in accordance with EPA
Method 8240 including accepted criteria for
use of the method.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
175
-------
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site—Page 14 of 25
[ TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process
The U.S. Army was responsible for site man-
agement during this treatment application.
The US. Army, through the Corps of Engineers
(USAGE), retained Terra Vac to design, install,
and operate the SVE system at the site.
Kleinfelder, Inc., provided support to the Army
at SAAD under a basewide contract.
Kleinfelder was responsible for completing a
Treatment System Cost
computer modelling treatability study of an
SVE system, and collection of duplicate
samples during the remediation. This model
was used as a treatability study. The model
predicted that an SVE system with 4 extraction
wells and a volumetric flow rate of 500 cfm
would reduce the concentrations of
ethylbenzene and total xylenes to non-
detectable levels within 6 months. [10]
Terra Vac reported a total cost of $556,000
for this application, excluding costs for con-
struction management and Title II services.
The original contract between USAGE and
Terra Vac for remediation of the site was for
$400,549. However, the actual cost of
remediation was greater. The discrepancy
between the contractual and actual costs was
due primarily to the unexpected extraction of
large amounts of Freon, and the correspond-
ing increase in amount of carbon required for
this application. The cost of extra carbon and
its disposal are included in the "operation"
cost in Table 6. [7, 8]
Table 6 presents the costs reported by the
vendor for the soil vapor extraction applica-
tion at the Sacramento Army Depot Superfund
Site. In order to standardize reporting of costs
across projects, costs are shown in Table 6
according to the format for an interagency
Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). The WBS
specifies 9 before-treatment cost elements, 5
after-treatment cost elements, and 12 cost
elements that provide a detailed breakdown
of costs directly associated with treatment.
Table 6 presents the cost elements exactly as
they appear in the WBS.
As shown on Table 6, over 60% of the costs
are for operation of the SVE system, including
off-gas treatment using carbon (the vendor
Table 6. Treatment Cost Elements [3]
Cost Elements (Directly Associated with
Treatment)
Mobilization/Set Up
Startup/Testlng/Permits
Operation (Short Term - Up to 3 Years)
Demobilization
TOTAL TREATMENT COST
Acutal Cost
(dollars)
131,8)3
18,500
339,694
65,967
556,000
included sampling and analysis costs under
operation). To estimate a cost per cubic yard
of soil and per pound of contaminant treated,
the costs for operation were disaggregated
into a cost for treatment of Freon and non-
Freon contaminants. This was done to assess
the effect of the unexpectedly large amount of
Freon on the calculated costs. Operating costs
were assumed to be equivalent on a per unit
basis for treatment of Freon and non-Freon
contaminants. This approach shows that
about $266,000 of the operating costs were
for treatment of Freon, and $74,000 for
treatment of non-Freon contaminants. Total
costs for treatment of non-Freon contami-
nants, therefore, were $290,000, correspond-
ing to $450 per cubic yard of soil treated and
$580 per pound of non-Freon contaminant
removed. The number of cubic yards of soil
treated at SAAD is an estimate provided by
the vendor; the actual amount of soil treated
is not available at this time for comparison
with the estimate.
The vendor indicated that there were no costs
in this application for the following elements
in the WBS: Solids Preparation and Handling,
Liquid Preparation and Handling, Vapor/Gas
Preparation and Handling, Pads/Foundations/
Spill Control, Training, Operation (Long Term -
Over 3 Years), Cost of Ownership, Disman-
tling, Mobilization and Preparatory Work, Site
Work, Surface Water Collection and Control,
Groundwater Collection and Control, Air
Pollution/Gas Collection and Control, Solids
Collection and Containment, Liquids/Sedi-
ments/Sludges Collection and Containment,
Drums/Tanks/Structures/Miscellaneous Demo-
lition and Removal, Decontamination and
Decommissioning, Disposal (Other Than
Commercial), Disposal (Commercial), and Site
Restoration.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
176
-------
Sacramento Army Depot Superrund Site—Page I 5 of 25
I TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Cost Data Quality
Vendor Input
Total cost information was provided by the
Army's contractor for this project. Limited
information on the specific cost elements
included in the total cost figure were provided
by the vendor.
The vendor specified that the main factors driving
the cost of SVE are soil permeabilities and the
types of contaminants at the site and the schedule
for final cleanup. [9]
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Cost Observations and Lessons Learned
The total cost for the SVE treatment
application at the SAAD Tank 2
Operable Unit, excluding construction
management and Title II services, was
$556,000.
The total cost was adjusted to show a
calculated cost for treatment of soil
without including the costs attributed
to the Freon. The adjusted cost was
$290,000, which corresponds to
$450/cubic yard of soil treated.
Several activities (air injection test,
vent probe installation) performed
due to the unexpected extraction of
Freon 113 and the additional carbon
required were not anticipated in the
original scope of work for this treat-
ment application; therefore, the total
cost for the treatment application was
about 40% greater than the cost
originally estimated by the vendor and
contracted by USAGE.
Performance Observations and Lessons Learned
The cleanup levels for soil established
in the ROD were achieved after
operating the SVE system for approxi-
mately 102 days. Thus, the require-
ment to achieve the cleanup levels
within six months was also achieved.
2-Butanone, ethylbenzene,
tetrachloroethene, and total xylenes
were not detected in 82 percent of
the confirmatory soil boring samples.
Freon 113 was not detected in the
confirmatory soil boring samples.
Most of the non-Freon VOCs were
removed after approximately 78 days
of operation.
Other Observations and Lessons Learned
The majority of the estimated 2,300
pounds of VOCs removed during this
application consisted of Freon 113
(approximately 1,800 pounds re-
moved) .
The presence of Freon 113 was not
identified during the RI prior to system
operation and, according to the
vendor, was believed to be migrating
from an off-site source.
The computer model treatability study
predicted that an SVE system with 4
extraction wells and a volumetric flow
rate of 500 cfm would reduce the
concentrations of ethylbenzene and
total xylenes to non-detectable levels
within 6 months.
^
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
177
-------
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site—Page 16 of 25
REFERENCES
1. Superfund Record of Decision, Sacra-
mento Army Depot (Operable Unit 3),
California, U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response, EPA/ROD/R09-
02/077, December 1991.
2. Final Report; Remediation of Tank 2;
Sacramento Army Depot; Sacramento,
California; November 1991 -April 1993;
Terra Vac Corporation, San Leandro,
California; includes Analytical Summary,
Remediation of Tank 2 (Volumes I-IH)
Vacuum Extraction Soil Remediation;
undated.
3. Draft Remedial Action Report for the
Sacramento Army Depot Tank No. 2 Site;
Sacramento, California, July 1993.
4. Tank 2 Operable Unit Technical Memo-
randa on Field Activities; Appendix A-l,
Part 1 of 2 of the Remedial Investigation
Report; Sacramento Army Depot;
Kleinfelder, Inc., October 25, 1991.
5. Tank 2 Operable Unit Feasibility Study,
(Volumes I-III), Sacramento Army Depot,
Sacramento, California; Kleinfelder, Inc.;
August 2, 1991.
6. Perkins, J., G. Siller, C. Steele, and D.
Obern. "Remediation of Tank No. 2
Sacramento Army Depot Sacramento,
California" In: Proceedings of HAZMACON
'94. Hazardous Materials Management
Conference and Exhibition, San Jose,
California, 1994, pp. 428-440.
7. Letter from James A. Perkins of Terra Vac,
November 28, 1994.
8. Telecon regarding conversation with James
A. Perkins of Terra Vac, January 6, 1995.
9. Telecon regarding conversation with James
A. Perkins of Terra Vac, February 2, 1995.
10. Treatability Study report, Tank 2 Operable
Unit, Sacramento Army Depot, Kleinfelder,
Inc. February 25, 1991.
11. Memo from Pamela Wee, Kleinfelder, Inc.,
to Linda Fiedler, EPA/TIO. February 8,
1995.
Analysis Preparation
This case study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by
Radian Corporation under EPA Contract No. 68-W3-0001.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
178
-------
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site—Page 1 7 of 25
APPENDIX A—OPERATING SUMMARY I
Operating Summary
Remediation of Tank No. 2
Sacramento Army Depot [2]
Sample Time
Date
05-Aug
05-Aug
05-Aug
05-Aug
05-Aug
05-Aug
05-Aug
06-Aug
06-Aug
06-Aug
06-Aug
06-Aug
06-Aug
06-Aug
06-Aug
06-Aug
06-Aug
06-Aug
06-Aug
06-Aug
06-Aug
07-Aug
07-Aug
07-Aug
07-Aug
07-Aug
10-Aug
10-Aug
10-Aug
10-Aug
11-Aug
18'Aug
18-Aug
25-Aug
02-Sep
08-Sep
08-Sep
Mrs
14
14
IS
15
15
16
17
10
1 1
11
12
14
15
15
15
16
16
17
17
17
18
1O
10
11
1 1
12
12
13
15
16
13
13
14
14
9
14
15
Mln
20
44
20
30
55
45
10
10
0
25
0
45
0
30
35
35
40
20
45
50
50
15
55
25
55
15
20
5
10
15
35
30
5
0
5
1
30
Operating Summary
Sample
Number*
777
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
12
15
16
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
33
36
37
38
999
777
39
40
47
48
69
73
77
78
87
999
Run
Time
(Days)
0.00
0.02
0.04
0,05
0.07
0.10
0.12
0.83
0.86
0.88
0.90
1.02
1.03
1.05
1.05
1.09
1.10
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.19
1.83
1.86
1.88
1.90
1,91
1.91
1.94
2.03
2,08
2.97
9,96
9.99
16.98
24.78
30.98
31.05
Flow
Rate
(SCFM)
0.00
23.00
20.00
49.0O
49.00
49.00
97.00
97.00
46.00
46.00
46.00
43,00
43.00
43.OO
46.OO
46.00
43.00
43.00
43.00
16.00
1600
84.00
32.00
28.00
28.00
0.00
0.00
187.00
1 1 1 .00
1 1 1 .00
121.00
71.00
1 29.00
129.00
1 30.00
166.00
0.00
Total
(man.)
0.00
2.74
3.30
2.95
4.73
4.36
6.05
8.52
18.91
22.68
22.93
10.42
9.86
7.15
16.6!
15.00
9.79
11.51
11.93
0.32
0.61
9.31
1.56
4,99
5.68
5.68
5.68
11.41
12.00
9,61
3.65
7.59
5.34
2.79
1.10
0,62
0.62
Total
Rate
(#/Day)
6
6
13
21
19
52
74
79
95
96
40
38
27
68
62
38
44
46
0
1
70
4
12
14
14
14
192
1 19
95
40
48
62
3Z
13
9
9
Cum
VOC
(Ito)
0
o
0
0
1
1
2
47
49
51
53
61
61
62
62
65
65
66
67
67
67
90
91
91
91
91
91
95
108
113
173
480
482
811
988
1056
1056
*777 = Start-up, 888 = No sample taken, 999 = Shut-down
. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
179
-------
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site—Page 18 of 25
APPENDIX A—OPERATING SUMMARY (CONT.)
Operating Summary (Continued)
Remediation of Tank No. 2
Sacramento Army Depot
Sample Time
Date
1 0-Sep
10-Sep
1 1 -Sep
1 1 -Sep
14-Sep
14-Sep
1 4-Sep
1 5-Sep
1 5-Sep
1 5-Sep
1 6-Sep
1 6-Sep
1 8-Sep
21 -Sep
21 -Sep
23-Sep
25-Sep
28-Sep
28-Sep
28-Sep
02-Oct
02-Oct
04-Oct
05-Oct
05-Oct
08-Oct
08-Oct
12-Oct
12-Oct
1 5-Oct
19-Oct
23-Oct
26-Oct
26-Oct
29-Oct
03-Nov
03-Nov
Hr»
8
8
16
18
14
17
17
7
8
16
10
15
15
14
14
1 1
16
15
15
15
11
12
12
14
14
14
14
13
13
15
10
14
14
14
12
12
IS
Mln
0
45
47
30
45
15
45
45
57
30
30
45
30
5
15
25
0
15
20
50
45
35
0
40
45
0
45
0
15
15
45
45
0
45
0
0
0
Operating Summary
Sample
Number*
777
92
96
999
777
102
999
777
103
888
1 14
1 16
999
777
888
120
999
777
128
130
135
136
999
777
888
888
999
777
888
145
153
999
777
156
999
777
170
Run
Time
(Day.)
31.05
31.08
32.41
32.48
32.48
32.59
32.61
32.61
32.66
32.97
33.72
33 94
35.93
35 93
35.94
37.82
40.01
4001
40.01
40.03
43.86
43 90
45.88
45.88
45.88
4885
48.88
48.88
4889
51.97
55.78
59.95
59.95
59.98
62.90
62.90
63.03
Flow
Rate
(SCFM)
0.00
1 36.00
136.00
0.00
0.00
193.00
0.00
0.00
193.00
193.00
232.00
223.00
0.00
0.00
243.00
214.00
0.00
0.00
232.00
225.00
263 00
3 1 1 .00
0.00
0.00
31 1 00
305.00
0.00
0.00
294.00
294.00
305.00
0.00
0.00
324.00
0.00
0.00
300.00
Total
(mg/l)
0.62
2.30
3.03
3.03
3.03
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.80
0.80
2.26
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
1.72
1.72
1.72
1.67
1.08
0.96
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.78
1.54
1.54
1.54
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.81
Total
Rate
9
28
37
37
37
15
15
15
14
14
47
45
45
45
45
33
33
33
35
22
23
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
21
42
42
42
23
23
23
22
Cum
VOC
(DM)
1056
1057
1100
1103
1103
1106
1106
1 106
1 107
1111
1134
1 144
1234
1234
1234
1307
1380
1380
1380
1380
1466
1466
1493
1493
1493
1532
1533
1533
1533
1585
1705
1881
1881
1882
1949
1949
1952
*777 = Start-up, 888 = No sample taken. 999 = Shut-down
^ ENV|RQNMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
180
-------
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site—Page 19 of 25
APPENDIX A—OPERATING SUMMARY (CONT.)
Operating Summary (Continued)
Remediation of Tank No. 2
Sacramento Army Depot
Sample Time
Date
05-Nov
05-Nov
06-Nov
09-Nov
1 1 -Nov
1 1 -Nov
1 3-Nov
1 7-Nov
1 9-Nov
23-Nov
23-Nov
23-Nov
25-Nov
16-Dec
1 6-Dec
18-Dec
21 -Dec
25-Dec
05-Jan
05-Jan
12-Jan
18-jan
21 -Jan
26-Jan
26-Jan
26-Jan
Hrs
11
15
16
14
8
9
15
13
12
8
13
13
12
11
1 1
10
12
0
9
12
12
12
15
10
1O
11
Min
0
0
0
50
15
8
30
0
0
30
0
30
0
0
50
0
48
0
30
48
48
48
30
15
35
15
Operating Summary
Sample
Number*
177
183
999
777
184
196
999
777
199
999
777
202
999
777
21 1
217
218
999
777
888
231
244
999
777
255
999
Run
Time
(Days)
64.86
65.03
6607
66.07
67.80
67.83
70.10
70.10
72.06
75.91
75.91
75.93
77.87
77.87
77.90
79.83
82.94
86.41
86.41
86.55
93 55
99.55
102.66
102.66
102.67
102.70
Flow
Rate
(SCFM)
251.00
293.00
0.00
0.00
203.00
191.00
0.00
0.00
1 70.00
0.00
0.00
213.00
0.00
0.00
280.00
243.00
350.00
0.00
0.00
334.00
36500
284.00
0.00
0.00
274.00
0.00
Total
(mg/t)
0.36
0.02
0.02
0.02
1.23
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.71
0.71
0 71
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.52
0.48
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.50
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.42
0.42
Total
Rate
(#/Day)
8
1
1
1
22
10
10
10
1 1
1 1
1 1
8
8
8
13
1 1
4
4
4
4
16
17
17
17
1O
10
Cum
VOC
(Ibs)
1979
1080
1980
1980
2000
2001
2023
2023
2043
2085
2085
2085
2100
2100
2101
2124
2146
2160
2160
2161
2232
2331
2383
2383
2383
2383
*777 = Start-up, 888 = No sample taken, 999 = Shut-down
us ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
181
-------
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site—Page 20 of 25
I APPENDIX B—BORING LOGS FOR WELLS VE-3 THROUGH VE-8
TERRA
VAC
Date Drilled: 7/17/92
Project: Tank #2
Address: Sacramento Army Depot. Sacramento. California
Boring/Well Number VE-3
Project Number: 30-0041
Drilling Contractor: Guess Drilling. Inc.
Drill Rig Mobile B-53 Auger Size/Type: 10" Hollow Stem
Total Depth: 23 ft. Completed Depth: 23 ft.
Well Casing/Screen Material: Sen. 40PVC Diameter: 4 Inch Slot Size: .020 Inch
Filter Material/Size: 10-20 grade sand Well Seal: Benlonite pellets Backfill/Grout MaterialType l/ll neat cement
Log by: M. Wekteman
Sample Method: Spirt Spoon
Depth to Groundwater: N/A
I1
I*
J~U
i I
m i
i i
I 1
i i
I I
I 1
22 E2
1 — 1
p— ]
Depth
(feet)
^™ ^—
5 —
— —
~" "~
•^ ***
15 —
,_ _
20 —
25 —
30 —
35 —
45 —
50 —
*
ro
w
P^MI
-Ml
•
.
0> m
E!
<5§i
4.5-6
9C 1 A
14.5-16
19.5-21
23-24.5
V
K
0742
rt-yce
0813
0839
0906
to
40
25
33
57
II
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
mm
•"••"•»"
•'••*••"
.'.•'.••
-£^
i* •• ••
••.••.••
v.v.v.
......
>MU
••••••
• ••»•<
••••••
••••••
• • • • • i
Description' Name, Composition (%), Grain size, Color, Texture/Consistency, Induration,
Plasticity, Density, Moisture, Other distinguishing features.
6-8 inches concrete
gravel, sandy (25%), clayey (5-10%), brown, damp, (backfill)
as above, pebbles to 1", damp
silt, sandy (15-20%), clayey (<5%), brown with rust staining, damp
silt, clayey, sandy (<5%), It. brown, hard, friable, It. olive, damp
silt, clayey (20-25%), sandy (10%), sand Increasing with depth, hard,
friable, damp
t>
'
General Remarks:
• Blow counts are recorded for 12 inches of sampler penetration using a 140 Ib hammer unless otherwise specified.
• TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon concentrations, top number field screened with a PID, bottom number lab analysis.
This summary applies only at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other
locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions
encountered.
A
. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ft Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
$ Technology Innovation Office J g2
-------
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site—Page 21 of 25
I APPENDIX B—BORING LOGS FOR WELLS VE-3 THROUGH VE-8
lias
VAC
Date Drilled: 7/17,20/92
Project: Tank #2
Boring/Well Number VE-4
Project Number: 30-0041
Address: Sacramento Army Depot. Sacramento. California
Drilling Contractor: Guess Drilling, Inc.
Mobile B-53 Auger Size/Type: 10" Hollow Stem
Total Depth: 28 tt. _ Completed Depth: 28 ft.
Drill Rig
Log by: M. Weideman
Sample Method: Split Spoon
Depth to Groundwater: N/A
Well Casing/Screen Material: Sen. 40 PVC Diameter: 4 inch Slot Size: .020 inch
Fitter Material/Size: 10-20 grade sand Well Seal: Benlonile pellets Backfill/Grout MaterialType l/ll neat cement
m
I
1
n
n
II
H
SH
1
c5 ==
•R *
I*
*—
r
m
1
m
m
m
m
H
I
Depth
(feet)
_ _
— —
HV ^
—10 —
^20 —
25 —
—30 —
35 —
«0 —
'-'-
-------
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site—Page 22 of 25
I APPENDIX B—BORING LOGS FOR WELLS VE-3 THROUGH VE-8
TERRA
VAC
Dale Drilled: 7/20/92
Project:_ Tank *2
Boring/Well Number VE-5
Project Number: 30-0041
Address: Sacramento Army Depot. Sacramento. California
Drilling Contractor: Guess Drilling, Inc.
Drill Rig Mobile B-53 Auger Size/Type: 10" Hollow Stem
Total Depth: 23 ft. Completed Depth: 23 ft.
Log by: M. Weideman
Sample Method: Split Spoon
Depth to Groundwater: N/A
Well Casing/Screen Material: Sch. 40 PVC Diameter: 4 inch Slot Size: .020 inch
Filter Material/Size: 1Q-2Q grade sand Well Seal: Benlonite pellets Backfill/Grout MaterialJype l/ll neat cement
•
i
i
i
8
I*
1
I
i
§
IZ
Depth
(feet)
_ _
5
_ _
_ _
20 —
_ _
— —
25 —
30 —
— to —
50 —
CO
m
•
•
•
CO Z
4.5-6
9.5-10
14 5.1R
19.5-21
23-24.5
I
0812
0851
noi 5
0940
1005
m
78
li-
es
T1
29
50
II
0.0
0.0
o n
0.0
0.0
in
T r
'•ML':
••.••.-.]
...
>ML:
Description: N»me, Composition (96), Grim size, Color, Texture/Consistency, Induntion,
Plasticity, Density, Moisture, Other distinguishing features.
6-8 inches concrete
gravel, sandy (20%), clayey (10-20%), brown, damp, (backfill)
silt, clayey (30%), dk. brown damp
silt, clayey (1 5-5%), sandy (<5-5%), hard, friable, orangish-brown, dry
silt, clayey (25-40%), hard, friable, brown, dry
silt sandy (1 5-25%) It brown to tan dry at147ft to150ft sand
v. fine-fine grained, silty (30-40%), very stiff, damp
silt, clayey (35-45%), very stiff, brown, v. moist
silt, clayey(20-25%), very stiff, friable, It. grayish-brown, moist,
at 20.6 ft. clay, hard, moderately friable, It. olive, dry
silt, clayey (1 5-25%), brown, v. moist, from 23.4 ft. silt, sandy
(1 5-25%), clayey (5-10%), brown, at 23.6 ft. silt, clay ey(20-25%),
sandy (<5%), hard, friable, increasing sand content with depth, damp
General Remarks:
• Blow counts are recorded for 12 _ inches of sampler penetration using a 140 Ib hammer unless otherwise specified.
• TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon concentrations, top number field screened with a PID, bottom number lab analysis.
This summary applies only at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other
locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented Is a simplification of actual conditions
encountered.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
184
-------
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site—Page 23 of 25
I APPENDIX B—BORING LOGS FOR WELLS VE-3 THROUGH VE-8
155
VAC
Drill Rig Mobile B-53
Total Depth: 23 ft.
Date Drilled: 7/15.16/92
Project: Tank *2
Boring/Well Number VE-6
Project Number: 30-0041
Address: Sacramento Armv Depot. Sacramento. California
Drilling Contractor: Guess Drilling, Inc.
Auger Size/Type: 10" Hollow Stem
Log by: M. Weldeman
Sample Method: Split Spoon
Completed Depth: 23 ft.
Depth to Groundwater: N/A
Diameter: 4 Inch
Well Casing/Screen Material: Sch. 40PVC
Filter Material/Size: 10-20 grade sand Well Seal: Bentonlte pellets
Slot Size: .020 Inch
. Backfill/Grout Material-Type I/I I neat cement
g-g Depth |- g-f Six o
I
r
!
MmmviaBI
WP a^
—5-
_ _
10 —
30 —
35 —
40
'-'-
•••
•
•
•
•
4.5-6
9.5-10
14.5-16
16-17.5
19.5-21
1050
1217
1259
1304
1502
60
9"
86
11"
28
42
38
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
1.8
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.3
MM
.v.v.v.
SM;-
ivML-
Description: Nimt, Competition (K), Gnln (lie, Color, Textur»/Con»iiterey, Induction,
PlMtic/ty, Qentity, Moiiture, Other di«tinoui«hine futures.
6-8 inches concrete
silt, clayey, sandy with <5% scattered pebbles to 3*, brown, damp
silt, clayey (5%), brown, dry, from 4.7-5.0 ft., clay, silty, dk. brown, dry
silt, clayey (5-10%), brown, at 5.3 ft. clay, brown, dry, at 5.6 ft. silt, sandy
(15-20%), silty (<5%), very hard, brown, drilled to 10 ft. for next
sample
silt, clayey, hard, v. friable, olive with brown mottling, dry
silt, sandy, clayey (<5%), brown
sand fine grained silty (30%) brown with rust staining damp
silt, sandy, very stiff, v. friable, micaceous, root/worm holes, It. brown
with rust brown mottling, damp, from 17.8 to 18.0ft. sand, fine grained,
silty (20-30%) brown with rust mottling, damp
silt, sandy, clayey (<5%), It. brown, damp
silt, clayey, hard, It. olive, dry
as above, damp
General Remarks:
• Blow counts are recorded for 12 inches of sampler penetration using a 140 Ib hammer unless otherwise specified.
• TPH «= Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon concentrations, top number field screened with a PIO, bottom number lab analysis.
This summary applies only at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other
locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions
encountered.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
185
-------
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site—Page 24 of 25
I APPENDIX B—BORING LOGS FOR WELLS VE 3 THROUGH VE 8
TERRA
Date Drilled: 7/16/92 Boring/Well Number VE-7
Project: Tank #2
Address: Sacramento Army Depot. Sacramento.
Drillina Contractor: Guess Drillina. Inc.
1 Rip Mobile B-53 Auaer Size/Tvoe: 10" Hollow Stem
al Depth: 24 ft.
II Casing/Screen
Completed Death: 24 ft.
Material: Sch. 40PVC Diameter: 4 inch
Project Number: 30-0041
California
Lop by: M. Weldeman
Sample Method: Solit Spoon
Depth to Groundwater: N/A
Slot Size: .020 Inch
Filter Material/Size: 10-20 grade sand Well Seal: Bentonile pellets Backfill/Grout Material-Type l/ll neat cement
t'te
0*
O
4— u
H Hi
i 1
Depth
(feet)
— —
r- -
10 —
15 —
_ _
_
25 —
30 —
35 —
—•SO-""
O
kf
<5§
•
•••M
••
0 fe
E^
as
4.5-6
9.5-10
14.5-16
19.5-21
21-22.5
22.5-24
P
0628
0725
0818
0936
0944
1009
m
100
6"
80
10"
27
29
42
30
II
9.8
2245
50.8
252
95.7
14.7
8
s
•IM
MvXv
[ML.
"ML"
Description: Name, Compostion (M), Gram sac, Color, Texture/Consistency, Induration,
Plasticity, Density, Moisture, Other distinguishing feature*.
6-8 Inches concrete
\gravel, sandy, clayey (10%), dk. brown, damp (backfill)
silt, clayey, sandy, dk. brown, damp, at 4.0 ft. clay, silly, dk. brown,
brown, dry
silt, clayey (20%), hard, friable, olive, damp
silt, clayey, sandy, very stiff, micaceous, Increasing sand with depth,
brown to It. brown, damp
silt, clayey, sandy (5%), very stiff, friable. It. olive-brown to It. olive,
dry to damp
silt, clayey, hard, friable, brown to grayish-olive-brown, dry, a white
precipitate on top of sample in split spoon, dry
f~~~--' L s
x-. '
'
**&£^
.2 ^2 /
:/^&
OF U^S
\
i
General Remarks:
• Blow counts are recorded (or 12 Inches of sampler penetration using a 140 Ib hammer unless otherwise specified.
• TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon concentrations, top number field screened with a PIO, bottom number lab analysis.
This summary applies only at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other
locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented Is a simplification of actual conditions
encountered.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
186
-------
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site—Page 25 of 25
I APPENDIX B—BORING LOGS FOR WELLS VE-3 THROUGH VE-8
laa
VAC
Date Drilled: 7/16.17/92
Project: Tank 02
Address: Sacramento Army Depot. Sacramento. California
Boring/Well Number VE-8
Project Number: 30-0041
Drilling Contractor: Guess Drilling. Inc.
Drill Rig Mobile B-53 Auger Size/Type: 10' Hollow Stem
Total Depth: 23 ft. Completed Depth: i5ft.
Well Casing/Screen Material: Sen. 40 PVC Diameter: 4 Inch Slot Size: .020 inch
Filter Material/Size: 10-20 grade sand Well Seal: Bentonite pellets Backfill/Grout MaterialJype l/ll neat cement
Log by: M. Wekteman
Sample Method: Split Spoon
Depth to Groundwater: N/A
d
K
k/
[
1
II
1
&&
m
— IA
0=1
•5 "
1*
~~|
u—
^
•
•
•
!HI
b
I
i/
^
I
1
I
ffiffl
m
Depth
(feet)
- -
- -
- -
_ __
30 —
35 —
-^«0 —
45 —
50 —
OJ
I
^^^
~~
^^fm
—
—
^2
—
s s
e£
Si
4.5-6
9.5-10
1Q R-51
23-24.5
I
i-
1320
1352
174(1
1809
$
°
CD
87
9"
53
AA
60
II
5.0
102
0 3
0.7
&
B
mm
£GCJ
>MLv
..
.....
viML
;^S'K/
.....
"ML
DcSCriptionr N»me, Composition (%), Gr*m size. Color, Texture/Consistency, Induration,
Plasticity, Density, Moisture, Other distinguishing futures.
6-8 inches concrete
qravel, sandy, clayey (10%), brown, pebbles to 1", damp (backtill)
silt, clayey, dk.brown, moist, hard, friable, brown with rust staining, dry
silt, clayey (20-25%), brown, tight, damp
silt clayey (5-1 0%) sandy (<5%) hard friable It olive-brown dry to
damp
sand fine grained, silty, very stiff, friable, brown with rust staining,
damp
silt clayey (5-1 0%) sandy (<5%) hard It olive with yellowish-
silt, clayey sandy, hard, friable, It. brown, damp
/j^^
\>^^^
^^_Of_L>^^
General Remarks:
• Blow counts are recorded for 12 inches of sampler penetration using a 140 Ib hammer unless otherwise specified.
• TPH « Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon concentrations, top number field screened with a PID, bottom number lab analysis.
This summary applies only at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other
locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented Is a simplification of actual conditions
encountered.
.^ ^k.^. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office 187
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at the
SMS Instruments Superfund Site
Deer Park, New York
188
-------
Case Study Abstract
Soil Vapor Extraction at the SMS Instruments Superfund Site
Deer Park, New York
Site Name:
SMS Instruments Superfund Site
Location:
Deer Park, New York
Contaminants:
Chlorinated and Non-Chlorinated Aliphatics
and Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Concentration of specific volatiles ranged
as high as 1,200 mg/kg in source area
soils
Concentration of specific semivolatiles
ranged as high as 1,800 mg/kg in source
area soils
Period of Operation:
May 1992 to October 1993
Cleanup "type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
Bill Ballance
Four Seasons Environmental, Inc.
3107 South Elm - Eugene Street
P.O. Box 16590
Greensboro, NC 27416-0590
(919) 273-2718
SIC Code:
3728 (Aircraft parts and auxiliary
equipment, not elsewhere classified)
Technology:
Soil Vapor Extraction
Two horizontal vapor extraction wells
- Installed in trenches 15-feet deep, 2-feet
wide, and 75-feet long
- Extracted vapors treated using catalytic
incineration and scrubbing
- Remote monitoring used for process
control
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA and State: New
York
- ROD Date: 9/29/89
- Fund Lead
Point of Contact:
Abram Miko Fayon
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region 2
Jacob K. Javits Federal Building
New York, NY 10278-0012
(212) 264-4706
Waste Source:
Underground Storage Tank; Other:
Leaching Pool
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Full-scale SVE system that used
horizontal vapor extraction wells and
a process control system which
allowed for remote system
monitoring and oversight.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- 1,250 cubic yards of soil treated in this application
- Well-sorted sands to silty sands with fine gravel
- Permeability 0.00227 to 0.00333 cm/sec
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Soil cleanup levels established for 9 volatiles and 9 semivolatiles; levels ranged from 0.5 to 5.5 mg/kg
- Additional criteria specified for soil cleanup effort based on percent reductions
- Air emissions required to meet New York State ambient air guidelines for toxic air contaminants
Results:
- Soil cleanup levels and criteria were achieved within approximately 400 days after system operation began
Cost Factors:
- Total treatment system cost was $450,520 (including $182,700 for one year of monthly operation and maintenance,
mobilization, system design and construction, demobilization, drum relocation)
189
-------
Case Study Abstract
Soil Vapor Extraction at the SMS Instruments Superfund Site
Deer Park, New York (Continued)
Description:
The SMS Instruments site in Deer Park, NY was used for overhauling military aircraft components. Past waste disposal
practices at the site included discharging untreated wastewater from degreasing and other refurbishing operations to an
underground leaching pool. In addition, jet fuel was stored at the site in an underground storage tank. The results of a
Remedial Investigation at the site indicated soil contamination in the areas of the leaching pool and the underground
storage tank. Contaminant concentrations in soil ranged as high as 1,200 mg/kg for volatiles and 1,800 mg/kg for
semivolatiles. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation developed soil cleanup levels for 9 volatile and
9 semivolatile constituents.
Soil vapor extraction (SVE) was used at SMS to treat the contaminated soil. The SVE system, operated from May 1992
to October 1993, included two horizontal vapor extraction wells installed in trenches adjacent to the contaminated areas, a
catalytic oxidizer, and acid gas scrubber. Based on the results of soil boring data, collected in June 1993, SVE achieved
the cleanup levels and standards for 17 of the 18 specified organic constituents. For one constituent, BEHP,
concentrations were above the specified cleanup level. However, according to the EPA RPM, this result may be an
anomaly since the concentration of BEHP in the treated soil was greater than concentrations of BEHP identified during
the remedial investigation at the site. In addition, the state ambient air guidelines were met during the operation of this
system.
The total treatment cost for this application was $450,420. The treatment vendor indicated that the costs associated with
instrumentation were greater than anticipated and that there was a problem with corrosion of ductwork. The vendor
suggested several ideas for reducing costs of future similar applications including ways to reduce air monitoring costs.
190
-------
SMS Instruments Superfund Site—Page 1 of 16
COST AND PERFORMANCE REPORT
| EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)
This report presents cost and performance
data for a soil vapor extraction (SVE) treat-
ment system at the SMS Instruments Super-
fund site in Deer Park, New York. As a result of
leaks in an underground storage tank at SMS,
soil was contaminated with volatile and
semivolatile organic compounds, including
halogenated volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). SMS was added to the National
Priorities List in June 1986, and a ROD was
signed in September 1989.
The SVE system was operated from May 1992
to October 1993, and was notable for using
horizontal vapor extraction wells, a catalytic
oxidation unit for control of off-gases, and a
process control system which allowed for
remote monitoring of system performance.
SMS Instruments operated as an overhauler of
military aircraft components. Past waste
disposal practices at the site included dis-
charging untreated wastewater from
degreasing and other refurbishing operations
to an underground leaching pool. An invest!-
I SITE INFORMATION
Identifying Information
SMS Instruments Superfund Site
Deer Park, NY
Operable Unit #1
CERCLIS # NYD001533165
ROD Date: September 29, 1989
gation conducted in 1981 indicated that there
was a leak from an underground storage tank
used to store jet fuel at the site. The results of
a Remedial Investigation completed in 1989
indicated soil contamination in the areas of
the leaching pool and underground storage
tank.
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation developed soil cleanup levels for
nine volatile organic constituents and nine
semivolatile organic constituents, ranging from
0.5 to 5.5 mg/kg. Additional criteria for
assessing compliance with cleanup require-
ments were included in the monitoring plan
developed for the site. Soil boring data
collected in June 1993 indicated that all soil
cleanup levels and criteria were met for this
application.
The total cost for treatment activities at SMS
was $450,521, including $182,700 for one
year of monthly operations and maintenance.
This corresponds to $360/cubic yard of soil
treated (estimated at 1,250 cubic yards of
soil).
Treatment Application
Type of Action: Remedial
Treatability Study Associated with
Application? Yes (see discussion on cleanup
goals)
EPA SITE Program Test Associated with
Application? No
Operating Period: May 1992 to October
1993
Quantity of Soil Treated During Application:
1,250 cubic yards (estimate provided in the
Record of Decision)
Background [1]
Historical Activity that Generated Contami-
nation at the Site: Overhauling of military
aircraft components
Corresponding SIC Code(s): 3728 (Aircraft
parts and auxiliary equipment, not elsewhere
classified)
Waste Management Practice that Contrib-
uted to Contamination: Underground
Storage Tank
Site History: The 1.5-acre SMS Instruments
site is located in a light industrial and residen-
tial area of Deer Park, Suffolk County, New
York, as shown on Figure 1. Since 1967, the
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
191
-------
SMS Instruments Superfund Site—Page 2 of 16
I SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background [1] (cont.)
site was used for overhauling of military
aircraft components. Past waste disposal
practices at the site included the discharge
of untreated wastewater from degreasing
and other refurbishing operations to an
underground leaching pool. In 1980, the site
owner removed 800 gallons of contami-
nated wastewater from the pool, sealed all
drain pipes leading to the pool, and subse-
quently filled the pool with sand.
In 1981, Suffolk County required the site
owner to leak test a 6,000-gallon under-
ground storage tank (UST) used to store jet
fuel. The test results indicated that the tank
leaked. The tank was emptied, and subse-
quently excavated and removed from the
site.
A remedial investigation (RI), which was
completed at the site in i 989, indicated that
the site was contaminated with volatile and
semivolatile organic compounds, including
halogenated compounds. Several areas at the
site where VOCs concentrations exceeded
1,000 ug/kg were identified.
From May 1992 to October 1993, a SVE
system was used to treat 1,250 cubic yards of
contaminated soil. A pump and treat program
using air stripping for remediating contami-
nated groundwater at the site was
begun after the SVE treatment
process was completed, and was IN i
ongoing at the time of this report.
Regulatory Context: A Record of
Decision (ROD) was signed in 1989
which addressed soil and groundwa-
ter contamination at the site. The
ROD addressed control measures for
specific source areas at the site
including the leaching pool, former
UST area, and spill areas where
wastes were formerly stored in
drums, figure 2 shows the location
of these three source areas at the
site. In addition, the ROD specified
that suspected sources of upgradient
contamination be investigated. The
ROD refers to the leaching pool and
former UST area as Operable Unit
#1, and to the suspected upgradient
SMS Instruments
Supcrriind Sue
Dcei Park, New YiirV
Figure I. Site Location
PROPOSED TRENCH
LOCATIONS
CHAND OOUI EVARO
Figure 2. Site Layout [2]
U.S. EIWIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
192
-------
SMS Instruments Superfund Site—Page 3 of 16
I SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background [1] (cont.)
contamination sources as Operable Unit #2.
This report focuses on the soil contamination
in Operable Unit #1.
Remedy Selection: The ROD identified five
alternatives for remediating contaminated soil
at this site:
No action;
Source removal and off-site disposal;
Source removal and off-site incinera-
tion;
Low temperature soil stripping; and
In situ steam stripping.
Site Logistics/Contacts
The ROD specified in situ steam stripping as
the most appropriate remedy for contami-
nated soil at this site based on the results of
an analysis of the condition of the soil at the
site (homogeneity, high porosity, and absence
of clays). [1]
The ROD also required that a treatability study
be conducted during the design stage of the
remedy to assess whether the selected
technology could be used effectively. [1 ] The
results of the treatability study indicated that
steam stripping did not appear to be feasible,
and soil vapor extraction was recommended
as an appropriate treatment technology for
this application. [2]
Site Management: Fund Lead
Oversight: EPA
Remedial Project Manager:
Abram Miko Fayon
U.S. EPA Region 2
Jacob K. Javits Federal Building
New York, NY 10278-0012
(212)264-4706
Prime Contractor:
George Asimenios
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
(EPA ARCS contractor)
111 Fulton Street
Suite 710
New York, NY 10038
(212)393-9634
Subcontractor:
Bill Ballance
Four Seasons Environmental, Inc.
3107 South Elm - Eugene Street
P.O.Box 16590
Greensboro, NC 27416-0590
(919)273-2718
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
type of Matrix Processed Through the Treatment System:
Soil (in situ)
Contaminant Characterization
Primary Contaminant Groups: Volatile and
semlvolatile organic compounds
Twenty-nine soil borings were collected and
analyzed for volatile and semivolatile organic
compounds during the remedial investigation
and remedial design. The results from these
soil borings for selected constituents are
shown in Table 1. Figure 3 shows the location of
areas of contamination where VOCs exceed 1,000
/Jg/kg and lOOjug/kg, and shows the potential
extent of migration of semi-volatile compounds in
unsaturated soils at the site. Figure 4 illustrates
the con-taminant plume where VOCs exceed
1,000 jjg/kg at the water table. [2]
U-S.ENV1RONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
193
-------
SMS Instruments Superfund Site—Page 4 of 16
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Table I. Subsurface Soil Contamination Levels at SMS Instruments Site [2]
Source Area Soil
Constituent
Highest Concentration
(mg/lcg)
Average Concentration
(mg/kg)
Volatiles
trans- 1 ,2-Dldiloroethene
2-Butanone
Z-Hexanone
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Total Xylenes
Ethylbenzene
Chlorobenzene
1.5
10
160
6.5
60
0.051
1ZOO
150
340
0.456
5
1Q5
1.1
58
O.OZO
306
50
133
Semlvolatlles
\ ,4-Dlch!orobenzene
1 ,3-Dlchlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
1 ,Z,4-Trlchlorobenzene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Phenols
Z-IWethylphenol
Z,4~DlmethyIphenol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
330
64
1800
16
51
ZO
4.7
Z.8
4.6
7.4
68.9
15
Z97
6.4
13.5
8.4
0.83
2.8
3.55
Z.18
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance [2]
The major matrix characteristics affecting cost or performance for this technology, and the
values measured for each are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Matrix Characteristics [2]
Parameter
Value
Measurement Method
Soil Classification
Clay Content
Moisture Content
Soil Moisture Content (% Dry
Wt.)
Permeability
Porosity
Total Organic Carbon
Nonaqueous Phase Liquids
Well-sorted sands to silty sands
with fine gravel
3.14 to 27.89%
1.34 to 11.63%
0.5 to 14,3%
0.00227 to 0.00333 cm/sec
30 to 41%
l.OOO to 7,500 mg/kg
Not identified
Soil borings
Percent finer than #200 sieve
ASTM D2216
ASTM D22XS
Wykeham Farrance Shelby tube
permeameter
Ratio: volume of voids/total
specimen volume
EPA method SW 846-9060
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Wasfe and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
194
-------
SMS Instruments Superfund Site—Page 5 of 16
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance [2] (cont.)
In addition to those identified in Table 2, the following matrix characteristics were measured:
Average dry bulk density:
Hydraulic conductivity:
Depth to groundwater:
Average annual temperature of unsaturated soil:
Specific gravity:
Cation exchange capacity:
1.55-1.83 gm/cm3
268 ft/day (per R] slug test)
16-24 feet below grade
40-70°F
2.239-2.934
66.4-153.0 milliequivalents per 100 grams
(as NO/)
SMS Instruments
Building
- Potential Extent Of
Seml-Volatiles
0 etfW-4
scale
feet
• Previous Soil Boring (Rl/FS)
9 MW-4 Existing Monitoring Well
• SB-2 Soil Boring
Geotechnlcal Boring
Figure 3. VOC 's in Unsaturated Soils [2]
. U.S.ENV1RONMENTALPROTECT10NAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
195
-------
SMS Instruments Superfund Site—Page 6 of 16
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance [2] (cont.)
SMS Instruments
Building
scale
• Previous Soil Boring (RI/FS)
G MW-4 Existing Monitoring Well
• SB-2 Soil Boring
H SB-11 Geotecnnlcal Boring
Figure 4. VOC 's in Soil at the Water Table [2]
U.S. EIWIRONMENTALPROTEC71ON AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office 196
-------
SMS Instruments Superfund Site—Page 7 of 16
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Site Geology/Stratigraphy [2]
The RI identified two stratigraphic layers
within the contaminated areas of the SMS
site. The first layer, 0 to 16 feet below grade,
consists of well-sorted sands with little to no
fines. The second layer, 16 to 26 feet below
grade, consists of silty sands with fine gravel.
The site is located in the recharge zone of the
Magothy aquifer, a sole-source aquifer for
Long Island, and a groundwater recharge
basin is located directly adjacent to the site.
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology
Type
Soil Vapor Extraction
Supplemental Treatment Technology
Types
Post-Treatment of Vapors: Catalytic Incinera-
tor, Scrubber
Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment System Description and Operation
The SVE system used at the SMS site included
two horizontal vapor extraction wells, a
vacuum pump, a catalytic oxidizer, and an
acid gas scrubber. The horizontal wells were
installed in 2-feet wide, 75-feet long, 15-feet
deep trenches located adjacent to the con-
taminated areas, as shown in figure 5. Slotted
high density polyethylene pipe was installed in
the trenches approximately 8 feet below
grade. Figure 6 shows a cross-section of an
interceptor trench. The slotted pipes were
vented to a control building
containing a 300-cubic feet
per minute vacuum pump. [5.
6, and 32]
Extracted vapors were treated
using a catalytic oxidation unit
and an acid gas scrubber. The
catalytic oxidation unit, Global
Chloro-Cat VTM, is a pre-
fabricated modular device
containing a 325,000 Btu/hr
burner and a reactor using a
proprietary catalyst developed
by Allied Signal Corporation.
Contaminant-laden vapors
were heated to approximately
725°F prior to entering the
reactor. The acid gas scrubber
unit, Global Chloro-Cat Tailgas
Scrubber, is also a pre-fabricated modular
device and uses a 15% by weight solution of
NaOH to neutralize HCI vapors exiting the
catalytic oxidizer unit. [7]
Process Control: The SVE system used at
SMS included an extensive process control
system to allow remote monitoring and
system oversight. This system monitored
numerous parameters at the site and pro-
vided the information over a telephone line
TREATMENT/CONTROL BLDG
ORUU STORAGE SHED
PROPOSED TRENCH LOCATIONS
Figure 5. Trench Locations [5]
TREATMENT S^iSIEM
i- I PROPOSED
l—' rllAN UP
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
197
-------
SMS Instruments Superfund Site—Page 8 of 16
exisTWG ciuoe •
(ASP1ULT PAVING)
HFIUCNT
TO —
TOMUCMT
SYSTEM
PIPE
•HUPPED WITH
GEOTOaH£ FABRIC
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment System Description and Operation (cont.)
hook-up to the
vendor's home
office in another
state. The system
provided alarm
messages to the
vendor's remote
office location
when parameters
deviated from
programmed
ranges, and shut
down the treatment
system, as appro-
priate. Parameters
monitored during
this application included barometric pressure,
vacuum in several manometer clusters,
vacuum in both trenches, air velocity in both
trenches, vacuum at the blower inlet and
outlet, velocity at the blower outlet, vapor
stream temperatures and hydrocarbon con-
tent (measured using a photoionization
detector), motor current, blower oil pressure
and temperature, and sump water level. The
parameters monitored for the catalytic oxida-
tion unit included reactor inlet and outlet
temperature, system air velocity, percent of
lower explosive limit, blower motor current,
and gas train status. Acid gas scrubber param-
eters monitored included pH of the sump
water, water level in the sump, circulating
pump motor current, and water flow to the
stripping tower. [7]
Figure 6. Cross-Section of an Interceptor Trench [5]
System Operation: System operation began in
May 1992 and concluded in October 1993. The
system was operated to alternate extraction from
the two wells on a weekly basis. [32]
System operation was interrupted several times
and for a variety of reasons during this period,
including power failures, wind-related damage,
and lightning. System operation was shut down for
approximately 30 percent of the operating period.
A summary of these interruptions is presented in
Appendix A. [9-27].
Health and Safety: Field operations at SMS were
conducted in accordance with a written health
and safety plan as per OSHA standard 29 CFR
1910.120. [5]
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
The major operating parameters affecting cost
or performance for this technology and the
values measured for each during this applica-
tion are presented in Table 3. [9-27]
Table 3. Operating Parameters [9-2 7]
Parameter
Air Flow Rate
Vacuum
Value
57.1 1 to 444.67 cfrn
378. 17 to 405. 70 water
column inches absolute
Measurement
Method
Not available
Not available
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
198
-------
SMS Instruments Superfund Site—Page 9 of 16
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Timeline
The timeline for this application is presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Timeline [I, 3, 9-27}
Start Date
End Date
Activity
June 10, 1986
September 29, J989
May 1992
June 15. 1993
Novembers, 1993
— Listed on National Priorities List
— Record of Decision signed
October 18, 1993 SVE system operation
June 17, 1993 Soil sampling conducted to determine If cleanup levels achieved
November 10, 1993 SVE system pulsed operation test
[TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards [2]
As shown in Table 5, cleanup levels for nine
volatile and nine semivolatile contaminants in
soil at SMS were developed by the New York
State Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion. In addition, air emissions from the SVE
system were required to meet New York State
ambient air guidelines for toxic air contami-
nants.
Additional soil cleanup criteria specified in the
monitoring plan included:
• No more than 20% of soil samples
analyzed were to exceed individual
contaminant cleanup level, and
exceedances were limited to a total of
four target contaminants per sample;
and
Table 5. Soil Cleanup Levels and Ambient Air Guideline Concentrations [2]
Contaminant
Soil Cleanup Level
(mg/itg)
Ambient Air Guideline
Concentration (pgta>3)
Volatiles
trans- 1 ,2-Dlchloroethene
2-Butanone
2-Hexanone
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Total Xylene
Ethylbenzene
Chlorobenzene
0.5
0.5
0.7
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.2
5.5
1.0
Not identified
Not identified
Not identified
1,116
7,500
900
1,450
1,450
1,167
Semivolatiles
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,3-Dlchlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
1 ,2,4-THchlorobenzene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Phenol
2-Methylphenol
B!i(2-ethylhexyl>phthalate
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
2.3
2.0
0.33
2.6
4.5
Not Identified
Not Identified
1,000
167
133
Not identified
10
Not identified
Not identified
• Cleanup levels for soil
samples analyzed were not to be
greater than twice the soil cleanup
levels.
Requirements for measuring perfor-
mance included using samples from
seven soil borings at the site (PB1 -
PB7). Two samples were required
from each boring; one sample
collected from 1 foot above the
water table (approximately 16-18
feet below grade) and one sample
collected at approximately 12-14
feet below grade. All soil samples
were required to be analyzed for
volatile and semivolatile organic
compounds in accordance with EPA's
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP)
statement of work, multimedia,
multiconcentration (SOW-3/90).
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
199
-------
SMS Instruments Superfund Site—Page 10 of 16
I TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Additional Information on Goals
The ROD for this site specified treatment of
contaminated soil at SMS by SVE, and re-
quired that a treatability study be completed
during the design stage of the application to
assess the potential effectiveness of this
technology. In addition, the ROD indicated
Treatment Performance Data
that VOC contaminants were to be used as
indicators and that appropriate cleanup levels
would be identified during the treatability
study. [1]
Soil sampling was conducted at SMS on June
15 and 17, 1993 to assess whether the
cleanup levels had been achieved for soil at
the site. Seven soil borings were completed in
the leaching pool and underground storage
tank source areas, and are referred to as
performance borings (PB). Continuous split-
spoon samples were collected to completion
of the boring (approximately 17 feet below
grade). Two samples were collected from
each boring; one from an interval 15-17 feet
below grade, and one from an interval 10-14
feet below grade (showing the highest levels
measured by a field screening procedure). The
results for the two samples collected from
each of the seven soil borings at SMS are
presented in Table 6. [3 and 28]
Table 6. Results for Soil Borings at SMS [3]
Constituent
Volatile!
Acetone
2-Butanone
2-Hexanon*
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes (total)
Semivolatilrs
1,3-OteMorobenzen*
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 .2-PlcNorobtinzene
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Isophorone
2,4~C!iFnethy^henot
1 ,2,4-Tnchlorobenzene
Naphthalene
2-Methylnapnthalene
Acenapnthene
Dibenzofuran
Fluoren*
N-Nitrosodipheny-
lanune(l)
Pbenartthrene
Boring No.
Sample No.
Interval (ft)
Cleanup Level
0^8)
N/A
500
700
1.500
1.600
5,500
1,200
1,500
1.000
1,000
2,600
N/A
N/A
N/A
2,300
1.000
2,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
n
4
12-14
340 DE
13
IOU
IOU
IOU
IOU
IOU
670 U
670 U
250)
110)
100)
670 U
150J
670 U
67OU
670 U
70)
670 U
120)
670 U
770
1
5
15-17
IOU
IOU
iou
IOU
IOU
IOU
5)
340 U
340 U
340 U
510
180)
340 U
120)
90]
340 U
150)
340 U
340 U
65)
340 U
60)
Tl
3
10-12
71 U
IOU
IOU
IOU
IOU
IOU
200
76)
340 U
340 U
1.500
340
340 U
310)
710
100)
430
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
66)
2
5
15-17
30 U
4)
IOU
IOU
10)
IOU
14
340 U
340 U
340 U
390
ISO)
340 U
340 U
220)
340 U
160)
340 U
340 U
120)
340 U
310)
P
4
12-14
81
IOU
15
IOU
IOU
IOU
IOU
330 U
330 U
190)
170)
49)
330 U
35)
290)
64)
1 10)
330 U
330 U
330 U
330 U
330 U
B3
5
15-17
24
IOU
IOU
6]
230 E
92
IOOODJ
340 U
120]
1.400
200)
53)
340 U
75)
870
280)
590
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
PB
10-12
-------
SMS Instruments Superfund Site—Page 11 of 16
! TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Table 6. Results for Soil Borings at SMS (cont.)
CemOtumt
BorinjNo.
Sample No,
Interval (ft)
Oewup Uwel
FBI
4
12-14
5
15-17
PB2
3
10-12
5
IS-17
PB3
4
12-14
5
15-17
PB*
j
10-12
5
IS-17
PBS
4
12-14
5
is-ir
PBS
3
12-14
4
IS-17
PB7
3
10-12
5
IS-17
(UK**)
SemrvolAtiles (cont.)
Anthracene
Cwbazole
Di-n-butylphthalate
fluorantbene
Pyrene
Butylt>«n2ylphttMlai«
Benzo(a)anthracene
Cho*««»
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phth*late
Dl-n-octylphth«l«e
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Bemo{k)ftuor»nth«ne
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
WA
N/A
WA
4,500
N/A
N/A
N/A
240 J
94)
83 |
930
440)
670 U
230 J
320 J
1.300
670 U
150)
140 J
340 U
340 U
61 J
440
340 U
190]
340 U
340 U
2,100
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
ISO)
SOO
39 J
140 J
340 U
340 U
1 3000 D
IIOJ
340 U
340 U
59)
46)
9O)
750
180)
250)
110]
160)
3300 D
37)
82]
52 J
330 U
330 U
49)
110]
330 U
330 U
330 U
330 U
1000
330 U
330 U
330 U
340 U
340 U
7SJ
71)
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
1200
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
34OU
34OU
340 U
340 U
340 U
49]
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
39)
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
350 U
350 U
44)
4!j
54)
35OU
350 U
350 U
600
350 U
350 U
350 U
680 U
680 U
680 U
680 U
680 U
680 U
680 U
680 U
79)
«80 U
680 U
680 U
680 U
680 U
680 U
680 U
680 U
680 U
680 U
680 U
140)
680 U
680 U
680 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
3*0 U
340 U
3*0 U
340 U
3*0 U
340 U
3*0 U
340 U
3*0 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
3*0 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
340 U
NOTES:
a) "U" denotes that constituent was not detected. The value shown is the detection limit.
b) "]" denotes that the result is estimated.
c) "D" denotes that the result was quantified at a secondary dilution factor.
d) "E" denotes that the result is estimated and exceeded the instrument calibration range.
N/A - Not applicable. No cleanup level specified for this constituent.
Performance Data Assessment
The data in Table 6 show that the cleanup
levels for soil were achieved in twelve of the
fourteen samples collected. As shown in Table
6, only two contaminants exceeded the soil
cleanup levels at this site; 1,2-dichloroben-
zene at 1,400 /Jg/kg in boring PB3-5 and bis(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate (BEHP) at 13,000^g/kg
in boring PB2-3. Since only two of the four-
teen samples (14%) exceeded the cleanup
levels, and only one individual target contami-
nant exceeded the cleanup levels, the criterion
was met for fewer than 20% of soil samples
analyzed exceeding individual contaminant
cleanup levels, and exceedances being fewer
than four target contaminants per sample.
BEHP was measured at a concentration more
than twice its soil cleanup level in one soil
sample. The EPA RPM indicated that this result
may be an anomaly, because the concentra-
tion measured in the treated soil was greater
than the maximum concentration for BEHP
previously measured during the remedial
investigation at the site (7.4 mg/kg). [28]
The ambient air guideline concentrations were
met during SVE system operation.
Performance Data Completeness
Available soil boring data allow for comparison
of performance of the SVE system with
respect to cleanup levels.
Performance Data Quality
Soil boring data were analyzed in accordance
with EPA's CLP statement of work, multime-
dia, multiconcentration (SOW-3/90). [2]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
201
-------
SMS Instruments Superfund Site—Page 12 of 16
I TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process
The SVE system was procured by CDM Federal
Programs Corporation, an EPA ARCS contrac-
tor, on the basis of a cost proposal submitted
by Four Seasons Industrial Services, Inc. (now
Four Seasons Environmental, Inc.) in Septem-
ber 1991. This project was contracted on a
fixed price basis, with provisions in the con-
Treatment System Cost
tract for financial penalties if certain perfor-
mance criteria were not achieved within a
specified time period (i.e., 730 days after
construction of the SVE system). The remedia-
tion was completed within approximately 540
days. [4]
The treatment system costs are provided in
Table 7. As shown in Table 7, $450,521 of
costs were incurred by the treatment subcon-
tractor for this application. This total treat-
ment cost corresponds to $360 per cubic yard
of soil treated for 1250 cubic yards of soil
treated. This calculated cost per unit of media
treated is based on an estimate of the amount
of contaminated soil as shown in the ROD for
this site. The actual quantity of contaminated
media is not available for comparison pur-
poses.
Table 7 shows the costs for 14 specific items
included in this total value. No additional
Cost Data Quality
information on the specific items included in
these cost elements (e.g., for subcontract
completion), or on whether these values
represent actual or estimated costs, is avail-
able at this time. Because the specific items
included in these cost elements is not avail-
able, a cost breakdown using the interagency
Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is not
provided in this report.
In addition, costs incurred by the EPA ARCs
contractor for this application are not available
at this time. The specific activities completed
by the ARCs contractor in this application are
not described in the available references.
Treatment system cost information was
provided by the ARCs contractor for the costs
incurred by the treatment subcontractor. No
information is available on other costs in-
curred in this application (e.g., those incurred
by the EPA ARCs contractor).
Table 7. Cost Breakdown for Treatment Subcontractor [31 ]
Cost Element
Complete SVE System Design
Health and Safety Plan
Mobilization
Install SVE System Wells
SVE System Construction
Final O&JVt Manual
Monthly O8JV\ (one year)
Demobilization
Subcontract Completion
Monthly O&M (Option Period)
Completion of Contract Option
Relocation of Drums (mod. no. 4)
Relocation of Drums (mod. no. 5)
Incentive (mod. no. 11)
Subcontract Total
Cost ($)
16,240
4,060
2,030
12,180
60,900
4,060
182,700
2,030
I21,800
14,700
6,300
400
1,668
21,453
450,521
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
202
-------
SMS Instruments Superfund Site—Page 13 of 16
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Vendor Input
The treatment vendor indicated that reduced
air monitoring, and use of a flame ionization
detector (FID) instead of a photoionization
detector (PID) for measuring hydrocarbons in
extracted vapors would reduce the cost for
future applications of SVE. The moisture in the
vapors tended to interfere with the readings
on the PID, and the vendor indicated that an
FID would not be as sensitive to moisture as a
PID.
| OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Cost Observations and Lessons Learned
The total treatment system cost for
the SVE treatment system used at
SMS was $450,521, including
$182,700 for monthly operations
and maintenance costs for one year.
The cleanup levels specified for the
SVE system were achieved within the
730 day deadline imposed by the
contract for the treatment vendor,
and no financial penalties were
incurred.
The total treatment cost corresponds
to $360/cubic yard of soil treated
(estimated as 1,250 cubic yards of
soil). This was a relatively small
project which limited economies-of-
scale for treatment activities.
The treatment vendor indicated that
the costs associated with instrumenta-
tion were greater than anticipated
because the amount of maintenance
required for the system had been
underestimated.
Performance Observations and Lessons Learned
• The soil cleanup levels and criteria for
SMS were achieved for 1 7 of the 18
specified constituents within approxi-
mately 400 days after SVE operation
began.
• The ambient air guideline concentra-
tions were met during SVE system
operations.
• A process control system was used in
this application that allowed for
remote monitoring of system perfor-
mance.
The EPA RPM indicated that the BEHP
concentration, measured at a level
more than twice the cleanup level,
may have been an anomaly. The BEHP
concentration measured in the treated
soil was greater than the maximum
concentration for BEHP previously
measured during the remedial investi-
gation at the site.
Other Observations and Lessons Learned
The ductwork used to convey an
acidic air stream from the catalytic
oxidation unit to the offgas scrubber
corroded often due to a high salt
content and required replacement
several times during SVE system
operation.
SVE system operation was interrupted
several times and for a variety of
reasons, including power failures,
wind-related damage, and lightning.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC71ONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
203
-------
SMS Instruments Superfund Site—Page 14 of 16
REFERENCES
1. Superfund Record of Decision, SMS
Instruments, NY, U.S. EPA, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA/
ROD/R02-89/083, September 1989.
2. In-SItu Soil Stripping Treatability Study for
the SMS Instruments, Inc., Site, Deer Park,
New York, Final Report, Camp Dresser and
McKee, New York, NY, May 1991.
3. Soil Sampling Report for the SMS Instru-
ments Site Suffolk County, New York Soil
Vapor Extraction System, Four Seasons
Environmental, Inc., Greensboro, NC,
August 20, 1993.
4. Cost Proposal for the Design, Construc-
tion, Operation, and Removal of a Soil
Vapor Extraction System, Four Seasons
Environmental, Inc., Greensboro, NC,
September 6, 1991.
5. "Clarifications to our September 6, 1991
Proposal for the Design, Construction,
Operation, and Removal of a Soil Vapor
Extraction System at the SMS Instruments
Site in Deer Park, Suffolk County, New
York; Four Seasons Proposal No.
PG108110.1;" letter from John A. Hoyle,
Four Seasons, to Drew B. Bennett, Camp
Dresser and McKee, September 24, 1991.
6. Phase I On-Site Work Plan for the SMS
Instruments Site Deer Park, Suffolk
County, New York, Four Seasons Industrial
Services, Inc., Greensboro, NC, December
3, 1991.
7. Phase III On-Site Work Plan for the SMS
Instruments Site Deer Park, Suffolk
County, New York, Four Seasons Industrial
Services, Inc., Greensboro, NC, January 7,
1992.
8. "Emission Compliance Test Report; SMS
Instruments, Inc., Deer Park, New York;
P.O. No. 91 -4096," letter from Stephen J.
Fleischacher and Ronald W. Schultz,
Environmental Consultants Research and
Analytical Laboratories, Inc., to William
Ballance, Four Seasons Industrial Services,
Inc..January 7, 1993.
9. Monthly Report for May 1992 for the SMS
Instruments Site, Suffolk County, New
York, Soil Vapor Extraction System, Four
Seasons Industrial Services, Inc., Greens-
boro, NC, June 24, 1992.
10. Monthly Report for June 1992 for the SMS
Instruments Site, Suffolk County, New
York, Soil Vapor Extraction System, Four
Seasons Industrial Services, Inc., Greens-
boro, NC, June 30, 1992.
11. Monthly Report for July 1992 for the SMS
Instruments Site, Suffolk County, New
York, Soil Vapor Extraction System, Four
Seasons Industrial Services, Inc., Greens-
boro, NC, July 31, 1992.
12. Monthly Report for August 1992 for the
SMS Instruments Site, Suffolk County,
New York, Soil Vapor Extraction System,
Four Seasons Industrial Services, Inc.,
Greensboro, NC, September 8, 1992.
13. Monthly Report for September 1992 for
the SMS Instruments Site, Suffolk County,
New York, Soil Vapor Extraction System,
Four Seasons Industrial Services, Inc.,
Greensboro, NC, October I, 1992.
14. Monthly Report for October 1992 for the
SMS Instruments Site, Suffolk County,
New York, Soil Vapor Extraction System,
Four Seasons Industrial Services, Inc.,
Greensboro, NC, November 7, 1992.
15. Monthly Report for November 1992 for
the SMS Instruments Site, Suffolk County,
New York, Soil Vapor Extraction System,
Four Seasons Industrial Services, Inc.,
Greensboro, NC, December 7, 1992.
16. Monthly Report for December 1992 for
the SMS Instruments Site, Suffolk County,
New York, Soil Vapor Extraction System,
Four Seasons Industrial Services, Inc.,
Greensboro, NC, January 7, 1993.
1 7. Monthly Report for January 1993 for the
SMS Instruments Site, Suffolk County,
New York, Soil Vapor Extraction System,
Four Seasons Industrial Services, Inc.,
Greensboro, NC, February 7, 1993.
18. Monthly Report for February 1993 for the
SMS Instruments Site, Suffolk County,
New York, Soil Vapor Extraction System,
Four Seasons Industrial Services, Inc.,
Greensboro, NC, March 8, 1993.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
204
-------
SMS Instruments Superfund Site—Page 15 of 16
REFERENCES (CONT.)
19. Monthly Report for March 1993 for the
SMS Instruments Site, Suffolk County,
New York, Soil Vapor Extraction System,
Four Seasons Industrial Services, Inc.,
Greensboro, NC, April 7, 1993.
20. Monthly Report for April 1993 for the SMS
Instruments Site, Suffolk County, New
York, Soil Vapor Extraction System, Four
Seasons Industrial Services, Inc., Greens-
boro, NC, May 7, 1993.
21. Monthly Report for May 1993 for the SMS
Instruments Site, Suffolk County, New
York, Soil Vapor Extraction System, Four
Seasons Industrial Services, Inc., Greens-
boro, NC, June 7, 1993.
22. Monthly Report for June 1993 for the SMS
Instruments Site, Suffolk County, New
York, Soil Vapor Extraction System, Four
Seasons Industrial Services, Inc., Greens-
boro, NC, July 7, 1993.
23. Monthly Report for July 1993 for the SMS
Instruments Site, Suffolk County, New
York, Soil Vapor Extraction System, Four
Seasons Industrial Services, Inc., Greens-
boro, NC, August 7, 1993.
24. Monthly Report for August 1993 for the
SMS Instruments Site, Suffolk County,
New York, Soil Vapor Extraction System,
Four Seasons Environmental, Inc., Greens-
boro, NC, September 7, 1993.
25. Monthly Report for September 1993 for
the SMS Instruments Site, Suffolk County,
New York, Soil Vapor Extraction System,
Four Seasons Environmental, Inc., Greens-
boro, NC, October 7, 1993.
26. Monthly Report for October 1993 for the
SMS Instruments Site, Suffolk County,
New York, Soil Vapor Extraction System,
Four Seasons Environmental, Inc., Greens-
boro, NC, November 7, 1993.
27. Report for November 1-10, 1993 for the
SMS instruments Site, Suffolk County,
New York, Soil Vapor Extraction System,
Four Seasons Environmental, Inc., Greens-
boro, NC. November 23, 1993.
28. "Vapor Extraction (SVE); SMS Instru-
ments," letter from Abram Miko Fayon,
USEPA, Region II, to Linda Redler, EPA
Headquarters, February 9, 1994.
29. "SMS Instruments SVE Report" note from
Linda Fiedler, TIO, to Richard Weisman,
Radian Corporation, May 9, 1994.
30. Notes from meeting with Bill Ballance,
Four Seasons Environmental, Inc., Greens-
boro, NC, Tim Meeks, Radian Corporation,
May 17, 1994.
31. Letter to Dr. A.M. Fayon, RPM, from
George Asimenios, CDM Federal Programs
Corporation, "SMS Instruments Site; SVE
Remedial Action; Information Requested;
DCN: 7720-055-EP-CDJH", January
19,1995.
32. Letter to Richard J. Weisman, Radian
Corporation, from Douglas E. Wilson, "Four
Seasons Remedial Service Qualifications",
December 15, 1994.
Analysis Preparation
This case study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by
Radian Corporation under EPA Contract No. 68-W3-0001.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
205
-------
SMS Instruments Superfund Site—Page 16 of 16
(APPENDIXA— SYSTEM OPERATION INTERRUPTIONS
System Operation Interruptions[9-27]
Month and Year
interruption Period Reason for Interruption
May 1992
June 1992
August 1992
September 1992
October 1992
November 1992
December 1992
January 1993
February 1993
March 1993
April 1993
May 1993
June 1993
July 1993
August 1993
September 1993
October 1993
Weeks 1 and 4
6/10/92
8/8/92 to 8/31/92
9/8/92 to 9/11/S>2
9/14/92 to 9/24/92
10/10/92 to 10/23/92
I1/3/92
11/6/92
11/9/92
11/18/92 to 11/22/92
11/24/92
12/10/92
12/1 1/92 to 12/12/92
12/1 7/92 to 12/22/92
12/23/92 to 12/31/92
1/1/93 to 1/2/93
2/1/93 to 2/4/93
2/13/93 to 2/14/93
3/5/93 to 3/6/93
3/1 3/93 to 3/16/93
3/30/93
4/1/93 to 4/30/93
5/1/93 to 5/14/93
5/19/93 to 5/20/93
6/9/93 to 6/1 2/93
6/16/93 to 6/1 7/93
6/22/93 to 6/26/93
7/3/93 to 7/5/93
7/16/93 to 7/1 7/93
7/23/93 to 7/31/93
8/1/93 to 8/14/93
8/15/93
8/28/93 to 8/31/93
9/1/93 to 9/2/93
9/10/93 to 9/11/93
9/1 6/93 to 9/2S/93
10/2/93
Not known
Power failure caused controller to lose RAM function and backup
battery did not function properly
Foaming condition in acid gas scrubber and lightning hit
Gas leak
Water leak in transition duct between catalytic oxldlzer and acid gas
scrubber
Corrosion leaks in transition duct
Instrument calibration
Repairs including vacuum blower oil change
Power surge
Corrosion leaks In transition duct
Cleaning of flame arrestor
Replacement of signal transmitter
Repair of damage from high winds (scaffolding blown down and
broke water line to acid gas scrubber)
Repair of solenoid valve
Replacement of pump and repair of damage from wind storm,
which blew a section of roof off the SMS building onto the vacuum
blower building
Adjustments to NaOH feed system
Replacement of valve in acid gas scrubber
Adjustment of vacuum blower alarm
Power interruption
Power Interruption (snow storm)
Vacuum blower shut down
Repair of transition duct
Completion of repair of transition duct
Loose connection to power supply
Vacuum blower shut down
Soil sampling
Maintenance of acid gas scrubber
Power spike
Power failure
Leakage from the acid gas scrubber
Leakage from the acid gas scrubber
Power failure
Failure of an electronic component
Failure of an electronic component
Power failure
Not known
Low water flow in acid gas scrubber
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
206
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at the Verona
Well Field Superfund Site, Thomas
Solvent Raymond Road (OU-1)
Battle Creek, Michigan
207
-------
Case Study Abstract
Soil Vapor Extraction at the Verona Well Field Superfund Site, Thomas
Solvent Raymond Road (OU-1), Battle Creek, Michigan
Site Name:
Verona Well Field Superfund Site,
Thomas Solvent Raymond Road
(OU-1)
Location:
Battle Creek, Michigan
Contaminants:
Chlorinated and Non-Chlorinated Aliphatics
- Tetrachloroethene (PCE), 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, acetone, and toluene
Light nonaqueous phase liquids (LNAPL)
in groundwater
- Volume of organic compounds estimated
to be 3,900 Ibs in groundwater and 1,700
Ibs in soil
Period of Operation:
March 1988 to May 1992
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
Robert Pinewski
Terra-Vac, Inc.
9030 Secor Road
Temperance, MI 48182
(313) 847-4444
Technology:
Soil Vapor Extraction
23 extraction wells with 14 of 23 wells in
operation at a given time
- Catalytic oxidation and activated carbon
adsorption of offgases
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
- ROD Date: 8/12/85
- Fund Lead
SIC Code:
7389 (Business Services, Not
Elsewhere Classified)
Point of Contact:
Margaret Guerriero (RPM)
U.S. EPA Region 5
77 W. Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-0399
Waste Source:
Other: Solvent Storage, Blending,
Repackaging, Distribution, and
Disposal
Purpose/Significance of Application:
EPA's first application of SVE at a
Superfund site.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- 26,700 yd3 of soil (based on capture zone of 36,000 ft2 and depth of 20 ft)
- Clay content < 5%
- Moisture content 5%
- Permeability 10"3 cm/sec
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- 1991 ROD specified soil and groundwater cleanup standards for 19 constituents
- Standards in soil ranged from 0.014 mg/kg for carbon tetrachloride, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, and
tetrachloroethene to 16 mg/kg for toluene
- Standards in groundwater ranged from 0.001 mg/L for vinyl chloride, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, tetrachloroethene, and
benzene to 0.8 mg/kg for toluene
Results:
- SVE achieved the cleanup standards for all VOCs
- A total of 45,000 Ibs of VOCs were removed
208
-------
Case Study Abstract
Soil Vapor Extraction at the Verona Well Field Superfund Site, Thomas
Solvent Raymond Road (OU-1), Battle Creek, Michigan (Continued)
Cost Factors:
- Cost attributed to treatment activities - approximately $1,645,281 (including solids preparation and handling,
mobilization/setup, startup/testing/permits, operation, cost of ownership, and demobilization)
- Cost attributed to before-treatment activities - approximately $535,180 (including monitoring, sampling, testing and
analysis, and drums/tanks/structures/miscellaneous demolition and removal)
Description:
The Verona Well Field Superfund site is the location of the former primary well field that supplied potable water for the
city of Battle Creek, Michigan. In early 1984, 27 of the 30 wells were determined to be contaminated. The Thomas
Solvent Raymond Road area was determined to be a source of contamination. Soil in this area was determined to be
contaminated with chlorinated solvents, primarily tetrachloroethene and 1,1,1-trichloroethane. The amount of volatile
organic compounds in the soil at this site was estimated to be 1,700 pounds.
Full-scale operation of an SVE system to treat the soil began in March 1988 and ran intermittently until May 1992. Over
the course of the SVE operation, both carbon adsorption and catalytic oxidation were utilized to treat the extracted
vapors prior to atmospheric discharge. Dual vacuum extraction and nitrogen sparging were implemented to enhance
recovery rates during the latter stages of the groundwater remediation effort. A total of 45,000 pounds of VOCs were
removed from the subsurface soil, and 10,000 pounds from the groundwater, during the remediation. Cleanup verification
sampling of the soil occurred in June 1992 and the analytical results indicated that SVE reduced the constituent
concentrations in the soil at this operable unit. The constituent-specific soil cleanup standards established in a 1991 ROD
were met.
The cost attributed to treatment activities for this SVE application was approximately $1,650,000. The SVE system used
at Verona accommodated both carbon adsorption and catalytic oxidation for the treatment of extracted vapors. Catalytic
oxidation was identified as preferable for treatment of extracted vapors instead of carbon adsorption for the period of the
application where the contaminant mass removed by SVE was much greater than 10 to 20 Ib/day.
209
-------
Verona Well Field Superfund Site—Page 1 of 20
COST AND PERFORMANCE REPORT
I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY |
This report presents cost and performance
data for a soil vapor extraction (SVE) applica-
tion at the Verona Well Field Superfund site in
Battle Creek, Michigan.
This site was the primary well field for potable
water for the city of Battle Creek. In 1984, the
wells were determined to be contaminated
with chlorinated solvents, and several source
areas, including the Thomas Solvent Raymond
Road (TSRR) area were identified. TSRRwas
used from the 1960s to the 1980s for storage
and packaging of solvents. Spills from these
operations, along with leaks from under-
ground storage tanks, resulted in soil and
groundwater contamination in this area. The
contaminants of concern were volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), primarily
tetrachloroethene (PCE) and 1,1,1-
trichloroethane.
A Record of Decision (ROD), signed in 1985,
identified soil vapor extraction (SVE) as the
remedial alternative for the TSRR area.
Cleanup standards for the area were estab-
lished in a 1991 ROD. The SVE system in-
cluded 23 extraction wells, a separator, and
offgas treatment. Both carbon adsorption and
catalytic oxidation were used with this system,
with catalytic oxidation used when the con-
taminant removal rate was greater than 10 Ibs/
day. A pilot-scale SVE system was operated in
October 1987. Full-scale operation began in
March 1988 and continued through May
1992.
The full-scale SVE system removed an esti-
mated 45,000 pounds of VOCs. The soil
cleanup standards were achieved for all VOCs
with the exception of PCE. While there were
several exceedances of the PCE standard, the
average concentration of PCE was reported to
be below the cleanup standards.
A groundwater pump and treat system was
used at the TSRR area from March 1987 to
December 1991. The system included nine
shallow extraction wells and an air stripper. In
addition, a pilot-scale groundwater sparging
study was conducted in July 1991 and a
sparging test was performed from December
1991 to April 1992.
Approximately $2,180,000 were expended for
the SVE application at Verona, including
$ 1,645,281 for activities directly associated
with treatment. The $1,645,281 value corre-
sponds to $62/cubic yard of soil treated
(estimated as 26,700 cubic yards of soil) and
$37/pound of VOC removed. Costs for this
application were increased because of the
requirement for extensive sampling and
analysis. No information is contained in the
available references on costs for groundwater
cleanup at Verona,
I SITE INFORMATION
Identifying Information
Verona Well Field
Battle Creek, Michigan
Thomas Solvent Raymond Road
(Operable Unit #1)
CERCLIS #:
ROD Dates:
MID980793806
12 August 1985
28 June 1991
Treatment Application
Type of Action: Remedial
Treatability Study Associated with Applica-
tion? No
EPA SITE Program Test Associated with
Application? No
Operating Period: March 1988 to May 1992
Quantity of Soil Treated During Application:
26,700 cubic yards of soil (Based on an
estimate provided by the vendor of a capture
zone of 36,000 ft2 and a depth of contamina-
tion of 20 ft.)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
210
-------
Verona Well Field Superfund Site—Page 2 of 20
(SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background
Historical Activity that Generated
Contamination at the Site: Solvent storage,
blending, repackaging, distribution, and
disposal
Corresponding SIC Code: 7389 (Business
Services, not elsewhere classified)
Waste Management Practice that
Contributed to Contamination: Spill; under-
ground storage tanks
Site History: The Verona Well Field site was
the primary well field of potable water for the
city of Battle Creek, Michigan, as shown in
Figure 1. Routine testing in August 1981 of the
water supplies indicated that 10 of the city's
30 wells contained detectable levels of
volatile organic compounds. By early 1984,
27 of the 30 supply wells were determined to
be contaminated with volatile organic com-
pounds (VOCs). As shown in Figure 2, three
areas were identified as the sources of the
contamination: the Thomas Solvent Raymond
Road (TSRR) area, the Thomas Solvent Annex
(TSA), and the Grand Trunk Western Railroad
(GTWRR) facility. The TSRR area was used by
the Thomas Solvent Company for solvent
storage, transfer, and packaging from 1963 to
1984. This area, shown in Figure 3, was found
to have the largest mass of contamination
among the three source areas. Underground
storage tank leakage and surface spills re-
sulted in contamination of the soil and
groundwater at the site. [11]
In May 1984, an Initial Remedial Measure was
implemented that included converting 12
production wells into blocking wells to control
the migration of the plume, installing three
new production wells in the well field, and
installing an air stripping system to treat
extracted contaminated groundwater. [ 1, 10]
Regulatory Context: In August 1985, a ROD
was signed for the TSRR Operable Unit #1
(OU-1) to remediate the soil by soil vapor
extraction and the groundwater by pumping to
the existing air stripper for treatment. A
second ROD was signed in June 1991 to
remediate the TSA and GTWRR source areas
through soil vapor extraction and groundwater
extraction and treatment with air stripping,
and continued extraction and treatment of the
groundwater at the TSRR source area. The
second ROD also established final cleanup
goals for the source areas, including the TSRR.
[1.10]
Remedy Selection: Soil vapor extraction (SVE)
was selected as the remedial alternative for
the TSRR source area. SVE was expected to
remediate the contamination to 2% of its
original mass (initially estimated as 1,700 Ibs)
within 2 years of operation. In addition, the
installation and operation of SVE would not
disturb the soil and cause volatilization of the
contaminants to the surrounding area. Other
alternatives (capping, soil flushing) were
determined to be inconsistent with anticipated
future activities at the site or were believed to
require too much time to remediate the soil.
[1,12]
VeroM Well Field
Supcrluiid SiLc
Rjlllc Creek-. M
Figure 1. Site Location
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
211
-------
(SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background (cont.)
Verona Well Field Superfund Site—Page 3 of 20
Figure 2. Vicinity Map [I I]
Q -Tcntt nwnecr
Figure 3. Thomas Solvent Raymond Road [10]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
212
-------
Verona Well Field Superfund Site—Page 4 of 20
I SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Site Logistics/Contacts
Site Management: Fund Lead
Oversight: EPA
Remedial Project Manager:
Margaret Guerriero/George Hudak
U.S. EPA - Region 5
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-0399/(312) 886-6144
Prime Contractor:
Paul Boersma
CH2M Hill
411 E. Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53202
(414) 272-2426
Treatment System Vendor:
Robert Piniewski
Terra-Vac
9030 Secor Road
Temperance, Ml 48182
(313)847-4444
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix Processed Through the Treatment System:
Soil (in situ); Groundwater
Contaminant Characterization
Primary Contaminant Groups: Halogenated
and nonhalogenated volatile solvents.
The primary contaminants identified in the soil
and groundwater included tetrachloroethene
(PCE), trichloroethene, 1,1,1 -trichloroethane,
acetone and toluene. A light nonaqueous
phase liquid (LNAPL) layer was identified in
the groundwater. The contamination in the
unsaturated zone covered an area of approxi-
mately one acre and the groundwater plume
in the saturated zone covered an area of
approximately one mile by one-half mile at
the site. [1]
Data from the remedial investigation, con-
ducted in November 1983, indicated that the
total estimated volume of organic com-
pounds, at the TSRR source area in the
groundwater to be 3,900 pounds, and in the
soil to be 1,700 pounds. These mass esti-
mates were based on sample data obtained
using a soil sampling procedure that is now
known to produce VOC results lower than
actual values. The total VOC mass in ground-
water and soils was estimated in 1988 to be
13,000 to 16,500 pounds. This estimate was
based on a pre-construction investigation
performed prior to the installation of the SVE
system. A special sampling technique, involv-
ing the use of 3-inch brass liners fitted inside
the split spoon sampler, was employed for
this soil sampling event to minimize handling
and volatilization of the samples. [1, 12]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
213
-------
Verona Well Field Superfund Site—Page 5 of 20
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance [5, 10, 17]
The major matrix characteristics affecting cost or performance for this technology and their
measured values are presented in Table 1. A particle size distribution as determined by the
Unified Soil Classification System for soil boring W-6 at a depth of 10 feet is shown in Table 2.
Table 1: Matrix Characteristics [S, 1O, 17]
Table 2: Particle Size Distribution [S]
Parameter
Clay Content
Particle Size Distribution
Moisture Content
Air Permeability
Porosity
Total Organic Carbon
Nonaqueous Phase Liquids
Hydraulic Conductivity
Value
<5%
See Table 2
5%
1 0'5 cm/sec
30-40%
Not available
Present
(LNAPL layer identified)
0.0025 cm/sec
Measurement
Method
uses
uses
estimated
estimated
estimated
—
—
Not available
Soil Type %
Gravel
Coarse Sand
Medium Sand
Fine Sand
Silt and Clay
5.70%
4.00%
21.50%
64.20%
4.60%
Site Geology/Stratigraphy
The geology at the site consists of 10 to 50
feet of relatively permeable Pleistocene and
recent glacial and alluvial sand, sometimes
gravelly or silty. These deposits overlie the
Mississippian-age Marshall Sandstone, prima-
rily a fine- to medium-grained quartz sand-
stone with interbeds of limestone, siltstone,
and shale, particularly at depths of 90 to 100
feet. The sandstone is 100 to 120 feet thick
and overlies the Mississippi Coldwater Shale, a
gray to dark gray and silty shale. The shale
thickness at the site is unknown as rock cores
did not fully penetrate the shale. The natural
groundwater surface at the site is located
between 14 and 16 feet; however, pumping of
the extraction wells lowers the water table to
between 16 and 25 feet. The groundwater
extraction system used in this application
created a 50-foot cone of influence in the
glacial aquifer. Bedrock beneath the site
occurs on the average of 35 feet below the
water table. Figure 4 shows the location of
geologic cross-sections for the TSRR source
area; Figures 5 and 6 show the results from
characterizing the geology of the TSRR source
area. [10, 13]
ICOEND
0 OCI'OKU
• MCMnonxnmtt
figure 4, Geologic Cross-Section Locations ff3J
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
214
-------
Verona Well Field Superfund Site—Page 6 of 20
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Site Geology/Stratigraphy (cont.)
LEGEND
D
PlE'STOCtNC AND HCCTNT Ct»O*L
AND M.LUWAL OCPOSitS
WiSStS9PPIAN-AC[ MARSHALL S
MISSISSIPPI AN -ACC CCHDWATIH SMAIf
I " ,!"— """ i
',CMI IN UUfi
figure 6. Geologic Cross-Section D-D' [13]
IIISSISVPIAN-ACC M»R5H*U SAH05TONC
MISSISSIPPI AN- ACC COLDWATtK SHALE
*
. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office 215
-------
Verona Well Field Superfund Site—Page 7 of 20
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION I
Primary Treatment Technology
Types
Soil Vapor Extraction
Pump and Treat With Air Stripping
Sparging
Soil Vapor Extraction and
Groundwater Extraction System Description and Operation [9,11]
Supplemental Treatment Technology
Types
Post-treatment (Air)—Carbon Adsorption and
Catalytic Oxidation
A description of the soil vapor extraction
system (both pilot-scale and full-scale) and
the groundwater extraction system is pre-
sented in this section.
Soil Vapor Extraction—Pilot-Scale: A pilot-
scale SVE system was installed in November
1987 and was operated intermittently over 15
days for a total operation time of 69 hours.
The system consisted of 4 wells with indi-
vidual extracted air flow rates ranging from 60
to 165 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm),
and wellhead vacuums of 3 to 4 inches of
mercury. The extraction wells were first
operated independently to determine their
radius of influence and their vapor flow rate/
vacuum pressure relationship, to investigate
the effect of the underground tanks on the
vacuum pressure distribution in the vadose
zone, and to identify the VOC loading rates
from the individual wells as a function of
vacuum pressure and flow rate. The results
were used to determine the optimum process
variables and locations of additional wells for
the full-scale system.
The total VOC concentrations in the soil vapor
ranged from 2 mg/L to 204 mg/L with ap-
proximately 3,000 pounds of contaminants
being removed. The radius of influence for the
wells was determined to be greater than 50
feet, as measured with vacuum piezometers
in nearby extraction wells. The average stack
gas concentration of VOCs was 0.067 mg/L,
at an average combined flow rate of 500 cfm.
Soil Vapor Extraction—lull-Scale: The full-
scale soil vapor extraction (SVE) system used
at the Verona Well Field TSRR, shown in Figure
7, consisted of 23 extraction wells, an air/
water separator, offgas treatment, and two
vacuum blowers. The extraction wells were
DISCHARGE |—|
STACK
TYPICAL SOIL VAPOR
EXTRACTION WELL
AIR
FLOW
OFFGAS
TREATMENT
SYSTEM
CONTAMINATED ZONE
Figure 7 Schematic of Soil Vapor Extraction System [IO]
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office 216
-------
Verona Well Field Superfund Site—Page 8 of 20
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.) |
Soil Vapor Extraction and
Groundwater Extraction System Description and Operation [9,11] (cont.)
2- and 4-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) screened from approximately 5 feet
below the ground surface to 3 feet below the
groundwater table. The extraction wells had a
sand pack around the screen portion and were
also grouted to grade to prevent short circuit-
ing of soil vapor along the side of the extrac-
tion wells. The extraction wells were con-
nected together by a surface collection
manifold. A throttling valve, sample port, and
vacuum pressure gauge were attached to each
well. The surface manifold was connected to a
centrifugal air/water separator followed by
vapor-phase carbon air treatment and 40- and
FENCE LJNE
SCALE* FEET
25-horsepower vacuum units. Following
treatment, the off gas was discharged to the
atmosphere through a 30-foot stack [9, 11].
During this full-scale operation, 14 of the 23
wells were used at a time to maximize the
contaminant loading to the off-gas system.
The selection of the 14 wells was determined
based on VOC concentrations at the wellhead.
This operating scheme produced a combined
system air extraction flow rate between 1,400
and 1,600 scfm.
The SVE system was operated from March
1988 to May 1992. Operation of the system
was temporarily suspended from
November 1990 to February 1991, to
dismantle the system, to remove the
underground tanks, and to re-install
the full-scale SVE system.
LEGEND
A*
D
O
Figure 8. SVE System Layout
According to the vendor, the under-
ground storage tanks were left in
place due to health and safety con-
cerns until the level of contamination
was reduced. The tanks were re-
moved in January 1991 after the SVE
system had removed over 40,000
pounds of contaminants.
In February 1991, the SVE unit re-
sumed operation and consisted of 20
wells, including 10 existing and eight
new vapor extraction wells, and two
new, dual groundwater/SVE wells, as
shown in Figure 8. This re-assembled
system operated almost continuously
from February 1991 to May 1992 and
produced a combined system air
extraction flow rate of 1,000 scfm.
Carbon Adsorption—-When the SVE
system was originally installed, carbon
adsorption was used to remove
volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
from the vapor stream prior to
discharge. The carbon adsorption
system, which was used from March
1988 to January 1990 and again from
February 1991 to May 1992, con-
sisted of two sets of four carbon
U S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
217
-------
Verona Well Field Superfund Site—Page 9 of 20
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Soil Vapor Extraction and
Groundwater Extraction System Description and Operation [9,11] (cont.)
vessels connected in series. Each carbon
vessel contained 1,000
Ibs of granular activated carbon.
The primary set of carbon
vessels adsorbed the majority of
the VOCs; the secondary set was
a backup for contaminant
breakthrough from the primary
set. The primary carbon was sent
off site for regeneration and the
secondary carbon placed in the
primary position when break-
through occurred. Carbon
adsorption was selected because
the contaminant mass was
expected to be relatively small;
however, full-scale SVE operation
indicated that the total VOC
mass in the subsurface was
approximately 25 times larger
than originally estimated, and
carbon changeouts were re-
quired more frequently than
originally anticipated. These
changeouts resulted in greater
downtime of the extraction
system than anticipated, and the
carbon system was replaced with
a catalytic oxidation (CATOX)
unit. Based on the relatively
lower mass of VOCs remaining in
the subsurface in February 1991
as compared with January 1990 (following the
removal of the USTs and surrounding contami-
nated soil), carbon adsorption was deter-
mined to be more cost effective than the
CATOX unit to treat the SVE off gas and was
re-installed at this time. [9, 11]
CATOX—The CATOX system, which was used
from January 1990 to October 1990, con-
sisted of a particulate filter, blower, heat
exchanger, a natural gas-fired burner, and
catalyst bed. Chlorinated compounds that
entered the CATOX unit were converted to
carbon dioxide, water vapor, and hydrochloric
acid. The catalyst in the system enabled the
oxidation reaction to occur at lower tempera-
tures than would be possible without the
Figure 9. Groundwater Extraction System Layout [iO]
catalyst. During its use at the site, the CATOX
system was run at temperatures between
780°F and 820°F. [9, 11]
Groundwater Extraction System:
In addition to the SVE system, a groundwater
pump and treat system was used at the TSRR
from March 1987 to December 1991. The
groundwater extraction (GWE) system, as
shown in Figure 9, consisted of nine shallow
extraction wells, screened in the unconsoli-
dated aquifer, their associated instrumentation
and controls, and approximately 5,000 feet of
double-walled HDPE (high-density polyethyl-
ene) extraction force main piping. The well
depths, screened intervals, and typical pump-
ing rates for the wells are presented in Table
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
218
-------
Verona Well Field Superfund Site—Page 10 of 20
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Soil Vapor Extraction and
Croundwater Extraction System Description and Operation [9,11] (cont.)
Table 3. Verona Well Field (TSKR) Croundwater Extraction Well Characteristics [11]
Extraction Well
(EW)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8**
9
Well Diameter
(Inches)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
24
8
Well Depth
(feet)
33
40
40
40
40.5
40
40
43
40
Screen Interval
(feet)
1 3 to 30
20.5 to 37
20.5 to 37
20.5 to 37
20.5 to 37.5
20 to 37
20 to 37
1 2 to 36
20.5 to 37
Typical Pumping
Rate (gpm)
NA*
57
59
37
34
38
24
50
60
*£W-I was abandoned in 1989.
* *EW-8 is a product recovery well with a 24-inch steel casing. An 8-inch groundwar •
extraction well is also located within the well.
3. All but Extraction Well (EW) 8 are W /
8-inch diameter wells. EW-8 is a 24- IT<
inch diameter well that was installed \ ,
in the vicinity of the LNAPL layer and ^ — ~\
operates as a dual groundwater/ -^
product recovery well. Groundwater N___ _ __ _
was extracted from the individual — • — T \ ^
wells to the monitoring building, and W"14S « *'
fed to the extraction force main (i >
(common header), which carries the '
groundwater to the wet well at an '
existing air stripper in the well field.
The extraction wells each discharged
between 30 to 70 gallons per minute *
(gpm) of groundwater for a total \
combined flow of 300 to 350 gpm. \ \
The capture zone of the GWE system \ \
is shown in Figure 1 0. \s 0*127
N
The GWE system was completed and NXX
began operating in March 1987.
Through 1 988, the product recovery
pump in EW-8 removed more than _-----
1 50 gallons (approximately 1 ,200 "T^L..., »«
pounds) of the NAPL, which was 0 ^^^^
collected in a holding tank and — an»wmwcemoun
ultimately disposed off site. EW- 1 i************)
was removed from service in 1 989 Fi3ure >°- Approximate Gmundw
because the maximum extraction Unconsoiidated L
rate was only 5 to 7 gpm. In 1 990, EW-8 was
converted to a dual vacuum extraction (DVE)
K^
^**
A
EWZ^-
/B-20-
'(
EW3\
V
A
EW4
X^
.•--"
ater Extr.
Inft, Apn
1
Sx\
N^\ \ x>
uV^i \ \
A \ Ar\ » \
Jin \Ewr\\ , \
< } J \ J «"
^ / :\ /
^-^ / A.''
«• / / X,
/ / /«N
^-+-y " i
-^y :
««* *
Oho. \ '•
Buung ^-|
Action Well Capture Zone In
1 1989 fit]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
219
-------
Verona Well Field Superfund Site—Page 11 of 20
| TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Soil Vapor Extraction and
Groundwater Extraction System Description and Operation [9,11] (cont.)
well. The use of the DVE resulted in a 30%
increase in vapor phase VOC recovery rates of
the SVE system. The use of DVE was limited to
the capacity of the existing groundwater
treatment system, and consequently, addi-
tional DVE extraction wells could not be
included because the treatment system could
not accommodate the quantity of water that
would be generated.
Sparging—An July 1991, a pilot-scale ground-
water sparging (GWS) study was conducted
using three sparging wells to evaluate sparging
as a potential means for improving the perfor-
mance of the GWE system for remediating the
saturated soils. The sparging wells (AW1,
AW2, and AW3) were installed at a depth
between 30 to 35 feet below ground surface
(approximately 10 feet below the dynamic
water table) and were constructed of 2-inch
PVC pipe with a 2-foot screen. The sparging
wells were placed in an arc around EW-8 and
were within the zone of influence for both
groundwater and vacuum extraction. Each well
included a rotameter to measure flow rates,
and a pressure gauge to measure injection
pressures. Additionally, two piezometer nests
were installed to assess the effects of sparging
within EW-8. Each nest consisted of a shallow
(8 feet above the saturated zone), medium (3
feet above the saturated zone), and deep (2
feet below the dynamic water table) piezom-
eters, constructed of 2-inch PVC pipe with a
2-foot screen. Nitrogen was used as the
sparging gas instead of air to minimize forma-
tion of iron oxides in the groundwater. Based
on the results of the pilot-scale study, a five-
month sparging study was conducted from
December 1991 to April 1992. [4, 11]
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
The major operating parameters affecting cost or performance for this technology and the
values measured for each are presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Operating Parameters [9]
Parameter
Value
Measurement Method
Air Flow Rate
Operating Pressure/Vacuum
1,400 to 1,600 cfm
Not available
Not specified
Timeline
A timeline for this application is shown in Table 5.
TableB. Timeline [1, 2, to, 11, 12, 13, 16]
Surt Date
September 1983
May 1984
August 1985
March (987
October 1 987
Much 1988
January 1 990
November 1990
January 1991
FebrtKUy tWI
June 1991
June 1991
December 1991
June 1992
bid Dale
-
_
-
December 1991
-
May 1992
October 1 990
February 1991
—
May 199Z
June 1991
—
Apnl 1992
-
Activity
Verona Well Field added to the National Priorities Ust
Initial Remedial Measure implemented
ROD signed for Operable Unit #1
Operation of OWE System
Pilot -scale operation of SVE
Full-scale operation of SVE
Catalytic oxidation unit used in SVE system in place of carbon
adsorption
SVE operation temporarily suspended
Underground storage tanks removed
SVE operation resumes; carbon adsorption replaces CATOX unit
Pilot -Scale Sparging Test
Second ROD Signed
Sparging Test
Performance Objective Sol! Sampling
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
220
-------
Verona Well Field Superfund Site—Page 12 of 20
| TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards [10,18]
The 1991 ROD specified the
cleanup standards, shown in Table
6 for soil and groundwater at
Verona. The 1991 ROD, which
addressed and specified the
remedy for the TSRR and two other
source areas, stated that final soil
and groundwater cleanup stan-
dards for the TSRR source area
were to be the same as those for
the TSA and GTWRR source areas.
[10] The tetrachloroethene (PCE)
cleanup goal shown in Table 6
(0.014 mg/kg , or 14 ppb) was
changed from the goal shown in
the 1991 ROD (10 ppb) to be
consistent with a State of Michigan
law (Act 307), which became
effective subsequent to the signing
of the 1991 ROD. Act 307 estab-
lished levels for contaminants in
soil that correspond to a 10'6 risk level.
Additional Information on Goals [1,10,11]
Table 6. Cleanup Standards [10]
Soil Cleanup
Constituent Standards (mg/kg)
Acetone
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
! , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
cis-l ,2-Dichloroethene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Tolune
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trlchloroethane
Tnchloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes
N/A
0.02
0.01
N/A
N/A
0.02
001
0.01
0.02
2
1.4
0.1
0.014
16
4
N/A
0.06
N/A
6
Groundwater Cleanup
Standards (ntg/L)
0.7
0.001
N/A
O.j
0.006
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.1
0.07
0.005
0.001
0.8
0.2
0.001
0.003
0.001
0.3
N/A - Cleanup standards not specified for this constituent in this media.
Although the 1985 ROD did not specify
chemical-specific cleanup goals, contractual
documents for the construction, operation,
and maintenance of the SVE system, devel-
oped following the 1985 ROD, initially speci-
fied two performance objectives (1) none of
the treated soil samples could have VOC
concentrations greater than 10 mg/kg; and (2)
less than 15% of the soil samples could have
VOC concentrations greater than 1 mg/kg.
As specified in the 1991 ROD (signed during
the operational phase for the SVE system),
constituent-specific cleanup standards for soil
and groundwater were established that
superseded the performance objectives stated
in the contractual documents.
Treatment Performance Data [2, 3, 4, 9, 12]
Soil Vapor Extraction System
Table 7 presents the analytical results of the
performance objective soil sampling effort at
the TSRR area. Confirmatory sampling of 26
soil borings was conducted in June 1992 to
determine if the SVE system achieved the soil
cleanup standards. A total of 1 15 soil samples
were collected at random horizontal and
vertical directions within each grid of the grid
system established in accordance with the
MDNR Guidelines for Verification of Soil
Remediation. The soil samples were analyzed
for VOCs according to CLP custody and
analysis protocols.
The mass of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) removed during this SVE application is
shown in Figure 11 as a function of cumulative
days of system operation.
An in-line photoionization detection meter
was used to monitor and determine break-
through of the primary carbon system effluent.
An on-site gas chromatograph was utilized to
analyze vapor samples from individual well-
heads and from the carbon system to calcu-
late VOC loading and breakthrough rates.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
221
-------
Verona Well Field Superfund Site—Page 13 of 20
(TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Treatment Performance Data [2,3,4,9,12] (cont.)
Groundwater Pump and Treat System
Dissolved phase VOC concentration data
were collected to assess the performance of
the nitrogen sparging system. Groundwater
sample analyses were performed using EPA
Methods 601, 602, 8010, and 8020. Table 8
presents dissolved phase VOC data for
selected constituents from EW-8 for ground-
water monitoring events both before and
during sparging and for two events after
sparging. Figure 12 shows the measured
concentrations in the extracted vapor (i.e.,
Table 7. Analytical Results of Soil Sampling at the TSRR Source Area [2,3,10]
Soil Cleanup
Constltutent Standard (mg/kg)
Acetone
Benzene
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulflde
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Chloromethane
1 , 1 -Dlchloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dlchloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethene (total)
cis-l ,3-Dlchloropropene
Ehtylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Xylenes (total)
14
0.02
8
14
0.01
0.12
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.01
2
0.004
1.4
0.1
0.014
16
4
0.06
6
Untreated Soil
(mg/kg)
(Maximum)
130
NA
17
NA
NA
2
NA
NA
27
NA
NA
NA
78
60
1800
730
270
550
420
Treated Soil
(mg/kg) (Range)
ND to 0. 1 8
ND to 0.001
ND to 0.0 18
ND to 0.002
ND
ND to 0.007
0.007
ND
ND to 0.005
ND
ND to 0.006
0.002
ND to 0.004
0.002
ND to 0.71 1
ND to 0.073
ND to 0.004
ND to 0.047
ND to 0.01 8
Number of Detects
Number of Greater than Cleanup
Detects Standard
13
24
3
4
0
8
1
0
4
0
14
1
4
1
70
16
18
38
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
ND - NotDet
50000
45000
40000
35000
* 30000
•D
§ 25000
a 20000
1SOOO
10000
5000
ected
jr**- •—«——"-
M^^
^"^
/•*
jf
1
2
0 50 100 160 200 260 300 350 400
Cumulative Day* of Operation
Figure 11. Total VOCs Removed Through Soil Vapor Extraction [1 1J
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
222
-------
Verona Well Field Superfund Site—Page 14 of 20
(TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Treatment Performance Data [2,3,4,9,12] (cont.)
vapor phase VOC concentrations) from EW-8
before sparging (June, September, and
November 1991) and during sparging (De-
cember 1991 through April 1992).
Table 8. Summary of Dissolved Phase VOC Concentrations (fJg/L) At EW-8 [4]
VOC
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
(total)
Tetrachloroetiiylene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trlchloroethylene
Toluene
Xylenes (total)
Ethylbenzenes
Total VOCs
5/91
170
440
100
290
320
230
14
1,564
5/91
140
430
96
270
250
280
0
1,466
7/91
300
480
220
480
20
430
0
1,930
9/91
290
510
140
350
370
330
41
2,031
11/91
360
310
100
300
99
97
0
1,266
12/91
370
380
120
320
580
390
68
2,228
2/92
140
220
0
84
130
180
22
776
2/92
71
160
10
73
39
160
0
513
3/92
130
84
33
160
48
19
0
474
4/92
0
30
10
60
0
0
0
100
6/92
530
250
90
400
380
0
0
1,650
7/92
90
87
30
120
130
75
7
539
NOTE: Sparging started on December 3, 1991, and ended on April 30, 1992.
350
300
2SO
200
150
too
60
3/91
9/91
12/91
4/92
?/92
Figure 12. Vapor Phase VOC Concentrations in EW-8 vs. Time. [4]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
223
-------
Verona Well Field Superfund Site—Page 1 5 of 20
[ TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Assessment
The analytical results from the soil sampling in
June 1992 shown in Table 7 indicate that the
SVE system achieved the cleanup standards
for all VOCs with the exception of PCE. PCE
was detected at concentrations greater than
the cleanup standard of 0.014 mg/kg in 20 of
115 soil samples. According to the prime
contractor, the average PCE concentration in
the soil samples was less than the 0.014 mg/
kg cleanup standard. [19]
Rgure 11 indicates that over the course of
about 375 days of operation, 45,000 Ibs of
total VOCs were removed through operation
of the SVE system. Total VOCs shown in Figure
11 are the sum of the concentrations for the
19 constituents shown in Table 7. In addition,
Rgure 1 1 shows that the VOC removal rate
had dropped from a high of 1,000 Ibs/day
during the first 2 weeks of operation to less
than 100 Ibs/day after 250 days of operation.
According to the vendor, the removal rate had
dropped to less than 1 Ib/day after 400 days
of operation. [1 7]
According to the remediation contractor, data
from the groundwater remediation indicates
the following:
Performance Data Completeness
• Dissolved phase VOC concentrations
remained relatively constant prior to
sparging (which began in December
1991);
• Dissolved phase VOC concentrations
increased during the initial phases of
sparging operation (December 1991);
• Dissolved phase VOC concentrations
decreased during the sparging opera-
tion from a high of 2.228 mg/L in
December 1991 to a low of 0.1 mg/L
at the conclusion of sparging; and
• Dissolved phase VOC concentrations
increased after the sparging operation
was ended (according to the vendor,
this increase may be the result of
upgradient contamination). [17]
The results for vapor phase VOC concentra-
tions (Rgure 12) indicate that the VOC con-
centrations increased from about 0.04 mg/L
to 0.342 mg/L during the first two months of
sparging, then decreased to the pre-sparging
levels of about 0.05 mg/L in March.
The available data are suitable for matching
the maximum untreated soil concentrations to
Performance Data Quality
a range of treated soil concentrations.
CLP protocols used for laboratory analysis of
soil boring samples include required QA/QC
procedures. The results for the QA/QC efforts
are available from the contractor or vendor for
this application. [3]
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process
The remedial activities at the Verona Well Reid
Site were funded by EPA. Procurement of soil
vapor extraction began in March of 1987 and
ended seven months later in September 1987.
CH2M Hill was the prime contractor who
subcontracted with Terra Vac for the vacuum
extraction technology, in a competitive
procurement process. [20]
In September of 1990, the contract was
switched from a Remedial Planning (REM) IV
contract to an Alternative Remedial Contract-
ing Strategy (ARCS) contract. Since there are
different requirements under ARCS, CH2M Hill
rebid the subcontract. When the subcontract
was rebid under ARCS, CH2M Hill wrote a sole
source justification for Terra Vac to continue
the work. [20]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
224
-------
Verona Well Field Superfund Site—Page 16 of 20
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Treatment System Cost
Tables 9 and 10 present the costs for the Soil
Vapor Extraction application at Verona Well
Field. In order to standardize reporting of
costs across projects, costs are shown in
Tables 9 and 10 according to the format for an
interagency Work Breakdown Structure (WBS).
The WBS specifies 9 before-treatment cost
elements, 5 after-treatment cost elements,
and 12 cost elements that provide a detailed
breakdown of costs directly associated with
treatment. Tables 9 and 10 present the cost
elements exactly as they appear in the WBS,
along with the specific activities, and unit cost
and number of units of the activity (where
appropriate), as provided by the treatment
vendor (Terra Vac) and oversight contractor
(CH2M Hill). CH2M Hill provided costs for
contractor oversight and soil sampling and
analysis. All other costs were provided by
Terra Vac.
As shown in Table 9, the vendor and contrac-
tor provided cost data that shows a total of
Cost Data Quality
$1,645,281 for cost elements directly associ-
ated with treatment of 26,700 cubic yards of
soil treated (i.e., excluding before-treatment
cost elements). This total treatment cost
corresponds to $62 per cubic yard of soil
treated, and to $37 per pound of contaminant
removed (45,000 pounds). This calculated
cost per cubic yard of soil treated is based on
an estimate of the zone of influence of the
extraction wells. The actual quantity of con-
taminated media is not available for compari-
son purposes. In addition, the vendor and
contractor provided costs data that show a
total of $535,180 for before-treatment costs.
The vendor and contractor indicated that
there were no costs in this application for
after-treatment activities.
No information is contained in the available
references on the costs for groundwater
cleanup at Verona.
Actual treatment cost data for 11 WBS ele-
ments were provided for this application.
These costs are broken down into detailed
activities completed at Verona, and include
costs incurred by both the treatment vendor
and oversight contractor.
Table 9. Actual Costs for Activities Directly Associated with Treatment [Adapted from 17, 19]
Activity
Vapor/G«« Preparation and Handling
Acttviated carbon (per ib.)
Catalytic oxidation (per 2 months)
80,000 pounds of carbon
1 00,000 pounds of carbon plu-, additional labor
CATOX continuous operation
Carbon Adsorption System
Mobilization/ Setup
Submit O&M Manual
Subnttttals. Pilot lest
Set-up Facilities
Evaluate Well Data
Pilot Test Design
Install Pilot test
SVE DesigiVSubmittals
install Manifold
Install Vacuum System
Unit Cost
J2.55
$18,720.00
$170,000.00
$285,000.00
$78,000.00
$4,650.00
$25.000.00
$27,000.00
$49,000.00
$4,000.00
$15,000.00
$43,000.00
$29,000.00
$1 f, 000.00
$ 1 1 5,000.00
Number of Unit*
14,600
0.22
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
Co*
$37,230.00
$4,118.40
$170,000.00
$285,000.00
$78,000.00
$4,650.00
$25,000.00
$2 7.000.00
$49,000.00
$4,000.00
$15,000.00
$43,000,00
$29,000.00
$11,000.00
$115,00000
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
225
-------
Verona Well Field Superfund Site—Page 17 of 20
I TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Treatment System Cost (cont.)
Table 9. (cont.) Actual Costs for Activities Directly Associated with Treatment [Adapted from 17. 19]
Activity
Mobilization/ Setup (cont.)
install Carbon system
Mobilize and Setup (CATOX)
Mobilization for Drilling
Drilling - Level D (1 SO feet)
Drilling Mobilization
Vapor Extraction Well Casing and Seal (70 Feet)
Vapor Extraction Well Screen and Gravel Pack (80 Feet)
SVE System Hookup (per hookup)
Construction of Dual Groundwater SVE Well
Construction of 2 Piezometer Well
Construction of 3 Air Injection Well Nests
Construction of EW-6 to Dual Extraction Well
Installation of 20-ft fence gate
Set-up and Mobilization of Sparging System
Startup/Testing/Permits
Startup and Test SVE
CATOX Startup
SVE Well Monitoring System Restart (per day)
Operation (short-term - up to 3 years)
Operate Pilot Study
24 Month Operations
Pilot Study Saturated Zone Sparging
First Month of Operations
January Sparging Operations
February Sparging Operations
March Sparging Operations
April Sparging Operations
Groundwater Extraction System Connection to Blower Seal
Repair
HOPE Piping &, Conduit Repairs
Contractor Oversight (per month)
Operation (long-term - over J yean)
SVE Sytem Operation (per month)
Contractor Oversight (per month)
Cost of Ownership
Contract Execution
Bond/Insurance
Bonding
Unit Cost
$37,000.00
$30,000.00
$950.00
$171.00
$475.00
$29.50
$38.70
$385.00
$7,100.00
$5,350.00
$6,925.00
$2,425.00
$1,450.00
$7,375.00
$44.000.00
$25,000.00
$ 1 ,500.00
$31,000.00
$175,000.00
$23,230.00
$11,480.00
$9,039.00
$6,526.43
$9,180.00
$8,748.00
$4,950.00
$8,010.00
$1,000.00
$6,096.00
$1,000.00
$14,000,00
$54,000.00
$33.200.00
Number of Units
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
26.80
lump sum
101.00
70.00
11. OO
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
3.00
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
36.00
16.07
20
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
Cost
$37,000,00
$30,000.00
$930.00
$4,582.80
$475.00
$2,979.50
$2,709.00
$4,235.00
$7,100.00
$5,350.00
$6,925.00
$2,425.00
$1,450.00
$7,375.00
$44.000.00
$25,000.00
$4,500.00
$31,000.00
$175,000.00
$23,230.00
$11,480.00
$9,039.00
$6,526.43
$9,180.00
$8,748.00
$4,950.00
$8,010.00
$36,000.00
$98,010.00
$20,000,00
$14,000,00
$54,000.00
$33.200.00
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
226
-------
Verona Well Field Superfund Site—Page 18 of 20
I TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Treatment System Cost (cont.)
Table 9. (cont.) Actual Costs for Activities Directly Associated with Treatment [Adapted from 17, 19]
Activity
Dismantling
Well Abandonment (per welt)
Demobilization
SVE Manifold Piping Removal and Replacement (per foot)
SVE System Demobilization (per system)
Drilling Demobilization
TOTAL
Unit Cost
$110.00
$19.10
$10,125.00
$475.00
Number of Unit*
13
567
0.604
lump sum
Cost
$1,430.00
$10,829.70
$6,1 18.34
$475.00
$1,645,281.17
Table 10. Actual Before-treatment Cost Elements [adapted from 17, 19]
Activity
Unit Cost Number of Units
Cost
Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis
Daily Reporting
Additional Soil Borings
Additional Air Sampling
Split Spoon Sampling During SVE Well
Construction (per well)
Soil Sampling and Analysis Performed by
ARCS Contractor
Subsurface Investigation
Soil Gas Survey
Geophysical Study
Site Work
Bail LNAPL
Backfill and Compaction of spoils
Backfill and Compaction of Clean Fill
Packaging and Handling of Contaminated
Soils (per package)
Drums/Tanks/Structures/Miscellaneous
Drum Disposal (per drum)
Excavation of USTs
Tank Removal, Cleaning, and Disposal
TOTAL
$2,000.00
$23,000.00
$75,000.00
$50.00
$150,000.00
$42,000.00
$5,500.00
$8,000.00
$2,000.00
$24,773.00
$23,356.00
$110.62
Demolition and Removal
$950.OO
$114,225.00
$61,005.00
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
6
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
2
4
lump sum
lump sum
$2,000.00
$23,000.00
$75,000.00
$300.00
$150,000.00
$42,000.00
$5,500.00
$8,000.00
$2,000.00
$24,773.00
$23,356.00
$221.24
$3,800.00
$114,225.00
$61,005.00
$535,180.24
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED I
Cost Observations and Lessons Learned
A total of approximately $2,180,000
were expended for the SVE applica-
tion at Verona, including $1,645,281
for activities directly associated with
treatment. The $1,645,281 amount
corresponds to $62 per cubic yard of
soil treated and $37 per pound of
VOC removed.
Costs for this application were in-
creased due to the requirement for
extensive sampling and analysis.
. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ft Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
S Technology Innovation Office 227
-------
Verona Well Field Superfund Site—Page 19 of 20
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED (CONT.)
Cost Observations and Lessons Learned (cont.)
Because the actual mass of VOCs
removed during the remediation was
approximately 25 times greater than
the original estimate of 1,700 pounds
of VOCs in the soil, the use of carbon
adsorption proved to be more costly
than originally anticipated during the
initial phase of system operation. This
higher cost was due to frequent
carbon changeouts needed for the
larger than expected VOC loadings,
and contributed to the decision to
replace the carbon system with a
catalytic oxidation system. Also, the
duration of the cleanup was increased
since the extraction vapor system did
not operate during carbon
changeouts, which also contributed to
an increase in costs.
The use of carbon adsorption during
the latter phase of system operation
was determined to be more cost-
effective than the catalytic oxidation
system (CATOX). This decision was
attributed to the VOC loadings follow-
ing UST removal being less than the
loadings to the vapor treatment
devices during the initial phase of the
operation.
Performance Observations and Lessons Learned
The SVE system achieved the speci-
fied soil cleanup standards for all
VOCs, with the exception of PCE.
Several exceedances of PCE were
identified; however, the average
concentration of PCE was reported to
be below the specified cleanup
standard of 0.014 mg/kg.
The VOC removal rate varied consid-
erably over the course of operating
the SVE system, dropping from a high
of 1,000 Ibs/day during the first 2
weeks of operation to less than 100
Ibs/day after 250 days of operation.
The results from the sparging studies
indicated that groundwater sparging
had a quick and fairly significant effect
in reducing dissolved phase VOC
concentrations for selected constitu-
ents.
According to the remediation contrac-
tor, dissolved phase VOC concentra-
tions remained relatively constant
prior to sparging and increased after
the sparging operation ended.
According to the vendor, air or oxygen
could have been used for sparging
instead of nitrogen to enhance biore-
mediation of the nonaqueous phase
liquid hydrocarbons. Air or oxygen
would have been less expensive than
nitrogen.
Other Observations and Lessons Learned
Naturally-occurring radon gas was
detected in the carbon vessels.
However, because the levels were not
considered to be a public or worker
health hazard, there were no addi-
tional costs associated with handling
the vessels as low level radioactive
waste.
Additional information provided by the
RPM and Contracting Officer concern-
ing the procurement and contracting
processes at the Verona Well Reid Site
(and other remedial action sites) is
provided in Reference 20. Reference
20 is available from the U.S. EPA
National Center for Environmental
Publications and Information (NCEPI),
P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH
45242; (fax orders only-(513)
489-8695).
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
228
-------
Verona Well Field Superfund Site—Page 20 of 20
I REFERENCES
1. U.S. EPA, Record of Decision, Verona Well
Field, MI, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, Washington D.C.,
August 1985.
2. CH2M Hill Memo dated 26 February 1993,
"Report on the Thomas Solvent Raymond
Road Groundwater Extraction System and
Assessment of the Downgradient Plume
Verona Well Field, Battle Creek, MI".
3. CH2M Hill Memo dated 6 August 1993,
"Analytical Data from Performance Objec-
tive Soil Sampling at TSRR".
4. CH2M Hill Memo dated 31 August 1992,
"Review of Nitrogen Sparging at Thomas
Raymond Road".
5. CH2M Hill Memo dated 23 July 1992,
"Thomas Solvent Raymond Road Soil
Borings, June 22-29, 1992".
6. CH2M Hill Memo dated 22 January 1992,
"Operation of SVE System during 1992 at
Thomas Solvent Raymond Road".
7. CH2M Hill Memo dated 17 October 1991,
"Nitrogen Sparging at Thomas Solvent
Raymond Road, Verona Wellfield, Battle
Creek, MI".
8. CH2M Hill Memo dated 12 September
1991, "Air Injection and Sparging Pilot
Tests at Thomas Solvent Raymond Road".
9. "Soil Vapor Extraction and Treatment of
VOCs at a Superfund Site in Michigan",
CH2M Hill, Undated.
10. U.S. EPA, Record of Decision, Verona Well
Field, MI, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.,
June 1991.
11. "Performance Evaluation Report Thomas
Solvent Raymond Road Operable Unit
Verona Well Field Site, Battle Creek
Michigan", ARCS V, CH2M Hill, April 1991.
12. "In-Situ Soil Vacuum Extraction System
Verona Well Field Superfund Site, Battle
Analysis Preparation
Creek, Michigan," Final Report for NATO/
CMS Pilot Study on Remedial Action
Technologies for Contaminated Land and
Groundwater Presented at the Third
International Meeting November 6-9,
1989.
13. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study,
Technical Memorandum 3, Verona Well
Field, Battle Creek, Michigan, CH2M Hill,
April 24, 1989.
14. Personal communication with Margaret
Guerriero of the U.S. EPA and Radian,
November 1993.
15. Pinewski, R., et al., "Vacuum Extraction/
Groundwater Sparging System for In Situ
Remediation of Soil and Groundwater,"
Vapor Extraction Control, (undated)
16. NPL Public Assistance Database (NPL
PAD); Verona Well Field, Michigan, EPA ID
#MID980793806, March 1992.
1 7. Comments received from Robert
Pineiwski, Terra Vac, on the draft cost and
performance report, Soil Vapor Extraction
at Verona Well Field Superfund Site,
December 1994.
18. Comments received from Margaret
Guerriero, RPM for the Verona Well Field
Superfund Site, on the draft cost and
performance report, Soil Vapor Extraction
at the Verona Well Field Site, February
1995.
19. Comments received from Paul Boersma,
CH2M Hill, on the draft cost and perfor-
mance report, Soil Vapor Extraction at
Verona Well Field Superfund Site, February
1995.
20. Procuring Innovative Treatment Technolo-
gies at Remedial Sites: Regional Experi-
ences and Process Improvements, U.S.
EPA, Publication 542/R-92/002, April
1992.
This case study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by
Radian Corporation under EPA Contract No. 68-W3-0001.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
• D.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1995-386-541/22008
229 * ,. ,'. ; a 1': .: ' -«• )
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
m
Ui
33
cb
Ol
o
o
-0 O
o
CD
c
CO
CD
O TO
5' o
2 m
?
6
45».
CO
O
CD
------- |