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

-------