Abstracts Of Remediation Case Studies, Volume 10


                            542R06002
Abstracts of Remediation
Case Studies
Volume 10
                  Federal
                Remediation
                Technologies
                Roundtable

                www.frtr.gov
                Prepared by the
            Member Agencies of the
   Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable

-------
Abstracts of Remediation
Case Studies
    Volume 10
    Prepared by Member Agencies of the
    Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
        Environmental Protection Agency
        Department of Defense
            U.S. Air Force
            U.S. Army
            U.S. Navy
        Department of Energy
        Department of Interior
        National Aeronautics and Space Administration
                   August 2006

-------
                                              NOTICE

This report and the individual case studies and abstracts it covers were prepared by agencies of the U.S.
Government.  Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of its employees, makes any
warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of
any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately-
owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark,
manufacturer, or otherwise does not imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Government
or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect
those of the U.S. Government or any agency thereof.

Compilation of this material has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
under EPA Contract No. 68-W-02-034.

-------
FOREWORD

This report is a collection of abstracts summarizing 9 new case studies of site remediation applications
prepared primarily by federal agencies. The case studies, collected under the auspices of the Federal
Remediation Technologies Roundtable (Roundtable), were undertaken to document the results and
lessons learned from technology applications. They will help establish benchmark data on cost and
performance which should lead to greater confidence in the selection and use of innovative 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 (EPA), U.S. Department of
Defense, and U.S. Department of Energy, expect to complete many site remediation projects in the near
future. These agencies recognize the importance of documenting the results of these efforts, and the
benefits to be realized from greater coordination.

The abstracts are organized by technology, and cover a variety of in situ treatment technologies and some
containment remedies. The abstracts and corresponding case study reports are available through the
Roundtable Web site, which contains a total of 383 remediation technology case studies (the 9 new case
studies and 374 previously-published case studies). Appendix A to this report identifies the specific
sites, technologies, contaminants, media, and year published for the 383 case studies. Appendix A is
only available in the online version of this report and can be downloaded from the Roundtable Web site
at: http://www.frtr.gov.

Abstracts, Volume 10, covers a wide variety of technologies, including full-scale remediations and
large-scale field demonstrations of soil, groundwater, and sediment treatment technologies. Previously
published versions of the Abstracts Volume are listed below. Additional abstract volumes will be
compiled as agencies prepare additional case studies.

Abstracts

Volume 1: EPA-542-R-95-001; March 1995; PB95-201711

Volume 2: EPA-542-R-97-010; July 1997; PB97-177570

Volume 3: EPA-542-R-98-010; September 1998

Volume 4: EPA-542-R-00-006; June 2000

Volume 5: EPA-542-R-01 -008; May 2001

Volume 6: EPA-542-R-02-006; June 2002

Volume 7: EPA 542-R-03-011; July 2003

Volume 8: EPA 542-R-04-012; June 2004

Volume 9: EPA-542-R-05-021; July 2005

Volume 10: EPA-542-R-06-002; August 2006

-------
Accessing Case Studies

All of the Roundtable case studies and case study abstracts are available on the Internet through the
Roundtable Web site at:  http://www.frtr.gov/costperf.htm.  This report is also available for downloading
at this address.  The Roundtable Web site also provides links to individual agency Web sites, and
includes a search function. The search function allows users to complete a key word (pick list) search of
all the case studies on the Web site, and includes pick lists for media treated, contaminant types, primary
and supplemental technology types, site name, and site location. The search function provides users with
basic information about the case studies, and allows users to view or download abstracts and case studies
that meet their requirements. Users are encouraged to download abstracts and case studies from the
Roundtable Web site.

In addition to being accessible through the Roundtable Web site, a limited number of copies of this
document are available free of charge by mail from the National Service Center for Environmental
Publications (NSCEP) (allow  4-6 weeks for delivery), at the following address:

        U.S. EPA/NSCEP
        P.O. Box 42419
        Cincinnati, OH  45242
        Phone: (513)489-8190 or
               (800)490-9198
        Fax:    (513)489-8695

-------
                                TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section                                                                             Page

FOREWORD	i

INTRODUCTION	  1

INSITUSQIL TREATMENT ABSTRACTS	  7

   Deployment of Phytotechnology in the 317/319 Area at Argonne National Laboratory-East,
   Argonne, Illinois	  9

   Dredged Material Reclamation at the Jones Island Confined Disposal Facility,
   Milwaukee, Wisconsin  	  12

   In Situ Bioremediation at the Cleaners #1 Site, Kent, Washington  	  14

   In Situ Thermal Desorption at Rocky Mountain Arsenal Hex Pit,
   Denver, Adams County, Colorado 	  17

   Pump and Treat and In Situ Bioventing at Onalaska Municipal Landfill Superfund Site,
   Onalaska, Wisconsin	  19

   Stabilization of Mercury in Waste Material from the Sulfur Bank Mercury Mine,
   Lake County, California  	  22

IN SITU GROUNDWATER TREATMENT ABSTRACTS 	  25

   Edible Oil Barriers for Treatment of Perchlorate Contaminated Groundwater 	  27

   Nanoscale Zero-Valent Iron Technology for Source Remediation	  29

   Steam Enhanced Remediation Research for DNAPL in Fractured Rock Loring Air Force Base,
   Limestone, Maine 	  33

APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 383 CASE STUDIES	  35


                                         Tables

1.  Summary of Remediation Case  Studies 	  3

2.  Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data	  5
                                           in

-------
This page intentionally left blank
               IV

-------
INTRODUCTION

Increasing the cost effectiveness of site remediation is a national priority. The selection and use of more
cost-effective remedies requires better access to data on the performance and cost of technologies used in
the field. To make data more widely available, member agencies of the Federal Remediation
Technologies Roundtable (Roundtable) are working jointly to publish case studies of full-scale and
demonstration-scale remediation projects. At this time, the Roundtable is publishing 9 new remediation
technology case studies to the Roundtable Web site (http://www.frtr.gov/costperf.htm). A total of 383
case studies have now been completed, primarily focused on contaminated soil and groundwater cleanup.

The case studies were developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD), and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). They were prepared based on
recommended terminology and procedures agreed to by the agencies. These procedures are summarized
in the Guide to Documenting and Managing Cost and Performance Information for Remediation
Projects (EPA 542-B-98-007; October 1998).

By including a recommended reporting format, the Roundtable is working to standardize the reporting of
costs and performance to make data comparable across projects. In addition, the Roundtable is working
to capture information in case study reports that identifies and describes the primary factors that affect
cost and performance of a given technology. Factors that may affect project costs include economies of
scale, contaminant concentration levels in impacted media, required cleanup levels, completion
schedules, and matrix characteristics and operating conditions for the technology.

The case studies and abstracts present available cost and performance information for full-scale
remediation efforts and several large-scale demonstration projects. They are meant to serve as primary
reference sources, and contain information on site background, contaminants and media treated,
technology, cost and performance, and points of contact for the technology application. The case studies
and abstracts contain varying levels of detail based on the availability of data and information for each
application.

The case study abstracts in this volume describe a wide variety of in situ treatment technologies for both
soil and groundwater. Contaminants treated included polychlorinated biphenyls; explosives/propellants;
petroleum hydrocarbons and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes; polycyclic aromatic

-------
hydrocarbons; pesticides and herbicides; metals; halogenated volatiles and semivolatiles; and
nonhalogenated volatiles and semivolatiles.

Table 1 provides summary information about the technology used, contaminants and media treated, and
project duration for the 9 technology applications in this volume. This table also provides highlights
about each application. Table 2 summarizes cost data, including information about quantity of media
treated and quantity of contaminant removed. In addition, Table 2 shows a calculated unit cost for some
projects, and identifies key factors potentially affecting technology cost. The column showing the
calculated unit costs for treatment provides a dollar value per quantity of media treated and contaminant
removed, as appropriate. The cost data presented in the table were taken directly from the case studies
and have not been adjusted for inflation to a common year basis. The costs should be assumed to
represent dollar values for the time period that the project was in progress (shown on Table 1 as project
duration).

Appendix A to this report provides a summary of key information about all 383 remediation case studies
published to date by the Roundtable, including information about site name and location, technology,
media, contaminants, and year the project began. The appendix also identifies the year that the case
study was first published by the Roundtable. All projects shown in Appendix A are full-scale unless
otherwise noted. Appendix A is only available in the online version of this report and can be
downloaded from the Roundtable Web site.

-------
03
O
e
_o
•^
05

05
14-,
e

o
3
tuna|oj)aj
xaia
- f3||)B|QAjai3S
pJ<8»-'8 £
E "8 & § 'S <£

-------

/~\
T3
_C
B
e
u

ej
••••
a
IK
as
U

S
"5

&
"o
ss
E

^H
O

*•

,
5

« c
H

S
1
It
GX
w
9t9tdiAi
pa]Bua3o)BH - a|!JB|OAj«ias

«Hva
| sttoq-iwwitfiiniiiaiai,^
i xaia
S pafBiiaJoiBtiiiaM - sainB|OAiuia$
U
*S paj»u»So|BH - «a|))«|o \
"On i -

I
I
M

sf
5
a
'Jr.

stabilization to ||
aminated with |
2 c
Z §

S <

z
'5
trt
•

rcury Mine
California (In Situ
0

"5 3 »
C/3 CO V3

C
U
^^
ndwater Trea
3
e
U
•I

leable reactive ||
t groundwater II
with halogenated I
P J* ^3
g_£ •§ ,
5 -I I i
y E c -S
P JD 8 °

ro
Ig
*- O
£ «
2 -c
U CL
O <

X c
S3 "S —
•B « •«
g 6 Si
1'P
t? &S
O 2--*

II
•*- 5^

!5 u
1 ^

ift
3 T? •£•
K f 1 -s
c 1 1 J |

1
1
s

°
i is?f
S '5 - °°" I J2 °°" | -f.
linillll
gjgoo ui^^-i.g"
O-J— -£Li-,i.JC.C

3
£ S.
u ^
1 ^
£ s=
, , Q

z "i "
§S|
111

thermal treatment ||
dwater II
with halogenated II
3 S T3
** 1 a
iill
B
i
s 3
^ *o
I'g.
&0 00

c
!
g
c5

c
u
c
!_
« 1

o ^
Loring Air F
Situ Therma

u
J
>.
X
73
g i
J "
•?. | 1
t*c -^
u [S
05 f u
•o g g
5 e s
1 < 5
'£ .a ,
111
£ <£ m

« n X
82 E p
<-> < E
a. a. CD

E
«l B.
V C
o i
•£ $
e w
is Eg
p o
1 ^
S g
>> (•-
ffi „
0 £
"o 5
c >
J= 0
8 g
js S "g
- -S I
<2 3 I
1 1 1 t I
3 e. ? o "
o S -g | «
« ?: ^ 3 P
§" II 1! II II

So
§ w £
c fc w) >, fc
c 2- jQ o w
A
§ iL
u &
» ^
-------
OS
•fcri
«
o
U
C8
E
E
cc
•
s
U
.3
•3
i
OS
H
Soi
Si
0
r-i
cS
r-j .2
^ "a
S 1J

111
g a &
lie
U c/5 Q
Arsenal
Desorpt
Rocky Moun
(In Situ Ther
o
t/3
o
'il O
H ~ vg
3
o5
c
sS
II
3 ~S
HO
u ..
s "
111
PO J S
<2 £ 5
3 §-3
oo on cfl
-------
T)

V
§
I

I
9*

S
3
•

S
•3
4>

Z
as

H
2:
H
u
v

•o

3
O

I
11
.- -
0 .S .£ - .E .E

•2 G

§'E
eg

CQ
ary
.S %

52(2

.2 u

c S
aj ro

•« s
is E
c g
o ,?

U C-
o
o

o
I i?
•1.
S "
I,

11
8 i
ot
u.

< .
g>[f

'%*
J c/
•S.2
U O.
,S£ o

£ "cd

II
K ii a

| o S
§ < "
T^ w O
is ?
S i- 5

^ " g
CA f— -Si,

8 df
u o °"
•S -s 11

f '? *•
SS *> «T

•2|1

151
o o g
< u «
&
-C 00
5. u - o

2 «^ 5
U
&
^
-------
IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT ABSTRACTS
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Deployment of Phytotechnology in the 317/319 Area at Argonne National Laboratory-East,
Argonne, Illinois
Site Name:
Argonne National Laboratory-East, 317/319 Area
Location:
Argonne, Illinois
Period of Operation:
Project started in June 1999. SITE Evaluation period from July 1999 to
September 2001. Treatment period up to 20 years after project started.
Cleanup Authority:
RCRA Corrective Action
Purpose/Significance of Application:
The objectives of the project are to:
Hydraulically contain the VOCs and tritium plumes south of the 317 Area
French Drain and 319 Area Landfill.
Continue the remediation of residual VOCs within the 317 Area French Drain.
Minimize water infiltration into the 317 Area French Drain soils and stabilize
the surface to prevent erosion, runoff, and downstream sedimentation.
Protect downgradient surface and groundwater by hydraulically containing the
contaminated plume.
Cleanup Type:
Full Scale
Contaminants:
317 Area:
• Soil:
- Volatile-halogenated compounds: carbon tetrachloride (maximum of
54,000 |lg/kg); chloroform (maximum of 21,000 Hg/kg); PCE (maximum
of 190,000 Hg/kg); TCE (maximum of 47,000 |J.g/kg).
- Volatile-nonhalogenated compounds: benzene (maximum of 3,200
|ig/kg); 4-methyl-2-pentanone (maximum of 78,000 ng/kg).
• French Drain Groundwater:
- Volatile-halogenated compounds: chloroform (maximum of 380 (ig/L);
PCE (maximum of 50,000 Hg/L); TCE (maximum of 8,600 Hg/L).
• Fence-line Groundwater:
- Volatile-halogenated compounds: carbon tetrachloride (maximum of 8
|ig/L); chloroform (maximum of 4 Hg/L); methylene chloride (maximum
of 14 Hg/L); TCE (maximum of 6 Hg/L); 1,2-DCE (maximum of 6 (ig/L).

319 Area:
• Landfill Groundwater:
- Tritium (maximum of 233,000 pCi/L)
- Volatile-halogenated compounds: cis-1,2-DCE (maximum of 240 (ig/L);
TCE (maximum of 24 [ig/L); vinyl chloride (maximum of 5 \ig/L).
• Fence-Line Groundwater:
- Volatile-halogenated compounds: TCE (maximum of 5 |J.g/L).
Waste Source:
Solid and liquid waste disposed at the
site from various laboratory activities.
Contacts:

SITE Demonstration Contact:
Steven Rock
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
5995 Center Hill Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45224
Phone: (513)569-7149
Fax: (513)569-7879
E-mail: rock.steven@epa.gov
Technology:
Phytoremediation:
• The patented TreeMediation* TreeWell* Treatment System from Applied
Natural Sciences was deployed at the site. System is designed to reach
groundwater 30 feet below ground surface (bgs).
• In the 317/319 Area, approximately 800 trees were planted (approximately 600
hybrid poplars and 200 hybrid willows).
• In addition, the 317 Area French Drain area was seeded with a mix of legumes
and grasses to minimize water infiltration and to stabilize the soil.
• Operational period for the phytoremediation treatment will last for 20 years.
Afterwards the trees will be harvested, chipped, and used as landscaping material
-------
Deployment of Phytotechnology in the 317/319 Area at Argonne National Laboratory-East,
Argonne, Illinois (continued)
Contacts (continued):

ANL-E Phytotechnology System SITE Program Contact:
ontact: Annette Gatchett
M. Cristina Negri National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Argonne National Laboratory U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
9700 South Cass Avenue 26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Building 362 Cincinnati, OH 45268
Argonne, IL 60439 Phone: (513)569-7697
Phone: (630) 252-9662 E-mail: gatchett.annette@epa.gov
E-mail: Negri@anl.gov

James Wozniak
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 South Cass Avenue
Building 331
Argonne, IL 60439
Phone: (630)252-6306
E-mail: Jwozniak@anl.gov
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil and groundwater up to 30 ft bgs.
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Specific contaminant remediation goals are:
317 Area VOC concentrations:
• French Drain Soil (Jig/kg): benzene (80); carbon tetrachloride (1,024); chloroform (1,670); PCE (152); TCE (80); 4-
methyl-2-pentanone (28,200).
• French Drain Groundwater (\ig/L): chloroform (211); PCE (316); TCE (127).
• Fence-line Groundwater (|lg/L): carbon tetrachloride (5); chloroform (0.02); methylene chloride (5); TCE (5); 1,2-
DCE (5).

319 Area Tritium/VOC concentrations:
• Landfill Groundwater (|ig/L or pCi/L): cis-1,2-DCE (70); TCE (5); vinyl chloride (2); tritium (20,000).
• Fence-Line Groundwater (|ig/L): TCE (5).
Results:
The phytoremediation technology deployed at the site is ongoing and was evaluated after three growing seasons. The
effectiveness of the various plantings was monitored directly through groundwater and soil measurement and samples, as
well as indirectly via plant tissue analysis, microbial surveys, geochemical analysis, soil moisture probes, and sap flow
monitoring. Groundwater chemical data indicated decreasing concentrations of target VOCs and increasing concentrations
of degradation byproducts. Tissue analysis of willows growing at the source area indicated that TCE and PCE were being
taken up by the trees and that a portion of the transported contaminants were being degraded in the leaves. TCE and PCE
and their degradation byproducts were seen at nearly all groundwater wells throughout the study area, implying that
microbial attenuation of some form was occurring.
Costs:
The following conclusions have been drawn based upon the information provided by the Argonne National Laboratory-
East:
• The total project cost, which included designing, installing and maintaining the system for the first four years (1999-
2002), was $2,382,632.
• The total estimated treatment cost over 20 years of the project is $4,592,632.
10
-------
Deployment of Phytotechnology in the 317/319 Area at Argonne National Laboratory-East,
Argonne, Illinois (continued)
Description:
The 317/319 Area at the Argonne National Laboratory - East (ANL-E) is located on the far southern end of the ANL-E
site, immediately adjacent to the DuPage County Waterfall Glen Forest Preserve, an area used for public recreation and as
a nature reserve. It covers a surface area of approximately five acres and encompasses several sites used in the past to
dispose of solid and liquid waste from various laboratory activities. Releases from the disposal of waste have
contaminated the soil and groundwater with VOCs and low levels of tritium. Several interim actions have been
implemented at the site in the past to reduce the VOC and tritium releases from this area; however, additional remedial
actions are ongoing to further restore the site.

Starting in June 1999, ANL-E planted over 800 hybrid poplars and hybrid willows and a supplemental ground cover of
herbaceous plants in the 317/319 Area. Earlier in 1999, EPA expressed an interest in participating with DOE in this study
and subsequently included it as a demonstration project under the National Risk Management Research Laboratory
(NRMRL) Superfiind Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program. ANL-E anticipates operating the
phytoremediation system for 20 years. The phytoremediation technologies implemented at ANL-E are intended to
eventually replace the existing pump-and-treat system. The project has so far has demonstrated success in decreasing
target VOC concentrations and increasing concentrations of degradation byproducts and absorbing TCE and PCE into the
plant tissue.
11
-------
Dredged Material Reclamation at the Jones Island Confined Disposal Facility, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin
Site Name:
Jones Island Confined Disposal Facility
Location:
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Period of Operation:
SITE testing period: June 2001 to September 2002.
Cleanup Authority:
USACE and the Milwaukee Port Authority.
Purpose/Significance of Application:
This demonstration was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of using
jhytoremediation to remediate dredged material at the Jones Island
Confined Disposal Facility. The demonstration consisted of comparing and
analyzing the results of three different plant species.
Cleanup Type:
Field Demonstration
Contaminants:
Analyte concentrations in individual cells ranged from:
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): 77 to!61 mg/kg
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): 2.0 to 3.6 mg/kg
Reduce diesel range organic (DRO): 24 to 440 mg/kg
Waste Source:
The dredged material was contaminated
from airborne and regulated industrial
discharges, spills, and urban run-off.
Contacts:

SITE Demonstration Contact:
Steven Rock
EPA SITE Project Manager
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
5995 Center Hill Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45224
Phone: (513)569-7149
Fax: (513)569-7879
E-mail: rock.steven@epa.gov

USACE Project Managers:
Richard Price
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development
Center
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Phone: (601)634-3636
E-mail: Richard.A.Price@erdc.usace.army.mil

David Bowman
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Detroit District
477 Michigan Avenue
P.O. Box 1027
Detroit, MI 48231-1027
Phone: (313)226-2223
E-mail: David.W.Bowman@Ire02.usace.army.mil

SITE Program Contact:
Annette Gatchett
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Phone: (513)569-7697
E-mail: gatchett.annette@epa.gov
Technology:
Phytoremediation
• Prior to the field demonstration, treatability studies were
conducted by the technology developer at the USACE's
Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) to
determine the crops and grasses that would survive in the
dredge material.
• Four field plots, each containing four treatment cells, were
established on the Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) by
excavating, screening, and depositing soil in the cells.
• Each test plot was 60 ft by 23 ft. The four treatment cells
were each 12 ft by 20 ft. The intercell berms separating the
treatment cells were 2 ft wide. The outer berms were 3 ft
wide.
• Each plot had four randomized treatments: com hybrid,
sandbar willow, local grasses, and an unplanted control
(plant suppression).
• Corn was planted twice during the growing season, from June
through September.
• The project duration was for two growing seasons.
12
-------
Dredged Material Reclamation at the Jones Island Confined Disposal Facility, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin (continued)
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Dredged material containing PAHs, PCBs, and DRO above relevant Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR) and USEPA standards.
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
• Reduce PAHs to Category 1 and 2 standards specified in WDNR NR 538.
• Reduce PCBs to less than or equal to 1 mg/kg.
• DRO to less than 100 mg/kg.
Results:
• After two growing seasons, the three treatments plots had PAH concentrations at or below numerical standards for 7 of
the 16 PAH compounds listed in Category 1 of the WDNR NR 538. The control plot had 8 compounds at or below
Category 1 standards.
• After two growing seasons, the three treatments plots had 8 PAH compounds at or below the Category 2 standards of
the WDNR NR 538. The control plot had 11 compounds.
• None of the treatments produced concentrations of PCBs of less than 1 mg/kg.
• None of the treatments produced concentrations of DRO of less than 100 mg/kg.
Costs:
The estimated costs for remediating 1,613 cubic yards (1 acre surface area by 1 foot deep) of dredged material was
$47,227 using corn, and $44,280 using willow plants. The costs included equipment costs, direct installation costs,
indirect costs, and direct and indirect annual operating costs.
Description:
The Jones Island Confined Disposal Facility (JICDF) is located in Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The facility
receives dredged materials from maintenance operations of Milwaukee's waterways. USAGE, in partnership with the
Milwaukee Port Authority, is exploring a range of beneficial reuse options for the dredged material, from building and
road fill to landscape material.

A field demonstration was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of using phytoremediation to remediate the dredged
material. Treatability studies were conducted to determine suitable crops and grasses. Once the plants were selected, field
plots were established on the CDF by excavating, mixing, and depositing soil in test cells. The test plots closely followed
established protocols for plot size, sampling, and statistical design. The field demonstration involved four different
treatment plots: hybrid com, an indigenous willow, local grasses, and an unplanted control. The EPA Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation Program (SITE) and USACE evaluated the demonstration from 2001 to 2002. The
effectiveness of the various plantings was monitored directly through soil sampling and indirectly through a variety of
assessments.

After two growing seasons, the three plant treatments plots had PAH concentrations at or below numerical standards for 7
of the 16 PAH compounds listed in Category 1 of the WDNR NR 538. The control plot had 8 compounds at or below
Category 1 standards. Also, the three plant treatments plots had 8 PAH compounds at or below the Category 2 standards
of the WDNR NR 538, with the control plot having 11 compounds at or below the standards. None of the treatments
produced concentrations of PCBs of less than 1 mg/kg, and none produced concentrations of DRO of less than 100 mg/kg.

The estimated costs for remediating 1,613 cubic yards (1 acre surface area by 1 foot deep) of dredged material was
$47,227 using corn, and $44,280 using willow plants. The costs included equipment costs, direct installation costs,
indirect costs, and direct and indirect annual operating costs.
13
-------
In Situ Bioremediation at the Cleaners #1 Site, Kent, Washington
Site Name:
Cleaners #1
Location:
Kent, Washington
Period of Operation:
In situ bioremediation
- First application (injection application): December 15 to!8,1998
- Second application (excavation application): April 21 to 22,1999
- Third application (injection application): July 21,2000
Mechanical soil aeration - April 1999
Thermal desorption - April 1999
Cleanup Authority:
State Corrective Action
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Full-scale remediation of VOCs in groundwater and soil using in situ
bioremediation.
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
VOCs - PCE, TCE, DCE, and vinyl chloride
Waste Source:
Dry cleaning facility operations.
Technology:
In Situ Bioremediation
Hydrogen Release Compound (HRC"1) is a proprietary mixture produced by ReGenesis that consists of ammonium
chloride, potassium tripolyphosphate, lactic acid, yeast extract, and sodium hydroxide.
In the first application, HRC® was injected using 55 Geoprobe boreholes over a 2,000 square foot area, and to a depth
of 6 to 18 feet below ground surface (bgs). A total of 1,140 pounds (114 gallons) was injected.
Following soil excavation to repair a leaky sewer pipe, HRC* was applied to the bottom of two excavations to address
any remaining soil contamination. A third application (the second injection application of HRC*) was conducted in
July 2000.

Mechanical Soil Aeration and Thermal Desorption
• Soils exceeding the state cleanup level of 0.5 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) for PCE were mechanically aerated in an
on-site treatment cell, which consisted of a plastic liner with straw bale berms.
• Following mechanical soil aeration, these soils were transported off-site for treatment using thermal desorption.

In addition, approximately 80 cubic yards of soil excavated from the area close to the facility contained low levels of PCE
(less than 0.5 mg/kg). These soils were also transported off-site for thermal desorption treatment prior to disposal.
Contacts:

State Contact Project Manager Technology Vendor
Nnamdi Madakor Jim Reuf Stephanie Dobyns
Headquarters VCP Policy & Environmental Associates, Inc. ReGenesis
Technical Manager 2122 112th Avenue NE 1011 Calle Sombra
Department of Ecology Suite B-l 00 San Clemente, CA 92673
Toxics Cleanup Program HQ Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: (949)366-8000
300 Desmond Drive Phone: (425)455-9025 Fax: (949)366-8090
Lacey, WA 98504 Fax: (425)455-2316
Phone: (360)407-7244
Fax: (360)407-7154
E-mail: nmad461@ecy.wa.gov
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
• 6 to 18 feet bgs over a 2,000 square foot area

Soil
• 24,000 cubic yards using in situ bioremediation (based on dimensions of injection area)
• 86 cubic yards using ex situ thermal desorption (6 cubic yards also treated by mechanical soil aeration prior to thermal
desorption)
14
-------
In Situ Bioremediation at the Cleaners #1 Site, Kent, Washington (continued)
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Groundwater cleanup goals are based on Washington State Model Toxic Control Act standards. Cleanup levels for three
contaminants are based on residential use as follows: PCE at 5 micrograms per Liter (ug/L), TCE at 5 ug/L, and vinyl
chloride at 0.2 ug/L. Cleanup levels for two other contaminants are based on universal use at all sites: cis-l,2-DCE at 80
ug/L and trans-1,2-DCE at 160 ug/L.

The soil cleanup levels for PCE and TCE are both 0.5 mg/kg.
Results:
In Situ Bioremediation:

Following HRC® injection into the groundwater in December 1998, PCE concentrations increased significantly at MW-1
(from 551 up to 67,000 micrograms per liter [ug/L]) in January, February, and March 1999. This increase was attributed
to a leaking sewer pipe that allowed PCE-contaminated sewer effluent to seep into the subsurface. Following excavation
activities, samples of remaining soils were collected and the results indicated concentrations below cleanup levels (0.5
mg/kg for PCE and 0.5 mg/kg for TCE). After excavation of soil, repair of sewer pipes, and treatment of soil with HRC*
at the bottom of the excavations (second HRC* application), PCE and TCE concentrations in groundwater at MW-1
decreased by approximately 99% and 86%, respectively, but cleanup goals were not achieved. Concentrations of vinyl
chloride in MW-1 increased due to increased degradation of cis-1,2-DCE. Samples of soil remaining in the excavations
were below cleanup levels.

Following the third HRC* application, PCE, TCE, and DCE achieved cleanup goals. These concentrations decreased by
99.9% to less than 2 ug/L for PCE and TCE, and to 0.24 ug/L for DCE. Vinyl chloride also decreased by 99.9% but
exceeded the cleanup level of 0.2 ug/L with a concentration of 0.29 ug/L in June 2004. Based on discussions with the
project manager in June 2006, subsequent sampling indicated that concentrations of vinyl chloride were eventually reduced
to non-detect levels. However, sampling data from the vendor were not available to verify the statement.

Groundwater samples collected from MW-4, MW-5, and MW-6, which are located further downgradient of MW-3, have
not shown detectable concentrations of PCE or PCE-degradation by-products.

Mechanical Soil Aeration:

Laboratory analysis of treated soils indicated PCE concentrations ranging from 0.12 to 0.28 mg/kg prior to soil treatment
using thermal desorption.
Costs:
The cost of HRC® was $13,860 for the two injection applications (December 1998 and July 2000).
Description:
Cleaners #1 is an operational dry cleaning facility located in a retail strip mall in Kent, Washington. The facility is
approximately 1,600 square feet in area and is surrounded by mixed retail, commercial, and residential properties.

Contamination was first discovered at the facility in August 1998, during a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA),
Interior and exterior soil samples were collected from below the facility floor near the dry cleaning machine, and outside
the facility near the rear door. Groundwater samples were collected outside the facility. PCE and TCE were found at
concentrations above state cleanup levels in groundwater, and PCE slightly exceeded cleanup levels in exterior soil
samples. Interior soil samples showed only trace levels of PCE.

Additional soil sampling conducted in September 1998 from six exterior borings and three interior borings indicated that
PCE and TCE concentrations were not detected above state cleanup levels. However, groundwater samples collected from
three of the six exterior locations showed PCE above the state cleanup levels, with the highest concentration being closest
to the rear door of the facility.
15
-------
In Situ Bioremediation at the Cleaners #1 Site, Kent, Washington (continued)
Description (continued):
Enhanced bioremediation using HRC® was used to primarily address groundwater contamination at the site, while also
treating some residual soil contamination. Excavated soil was treated using thermal desorption and mechanical soil
aeration. After the first round of HRC* injection at the site, PCE concentrations increased. To determine potential sources
of the contamination, sampling of sewer effluent being discharged from the facility to the sanitary sewer system was
conducted. Results showed that PCE was being discharged from the facility at levels above state cleanup standards
through two potential leaks in the sewer pipe. Following this determination, approximately 86 cubic yards of soil were
excavated and the pipes were repaired. HRC® was applied to the bottom of each excavation to address any residual soil
contamination. Excavated soil was treated on site using mechanical soil aeration followed by off-site thermal desorption
prior to off-site disposal. A third application included HRC* injection in July 2000. Subsequent sampling has shown
PCE, TCE, DCE, and vinyl chloride at concentrations below state cleanup levels. The State of Washington is anticipating
receipt of a No Further Action letter for this site. ^__^_
16
-------
In Situ Thermal Desorption at Rocky Mountain Arsenal Hex Pit,
Denver, Adams County, Colorado
Site Name:
Rocky Mountain Arsenal
Location:
Denver, Adams County, Colorado
Period of Operation:
October 2001 to March 2002
Cleanup Authority:
• CERCLA - Remedial Action
• Record of Decision issued in June
1996
• Technology evaluated under the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) program
Purpose/Significance of Application:
To evaluate the performance of full-scale application of ISTD to treat soil
contaminated with hex and other organochlorine pesticides
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
Organic pesticides and herbicides (hex, aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin, endrin, and
isodrin)

Composite soil sample contained the following mean pretreatment contaminant
concentrations (expressed in milligrams/kilogram [mg/kg]): hex, 7,600;
dieldrin, 3,100; total chlordane, 670; endrin, < 280; isodrin, < 200; and aldrin, <
170.
Waste Source:
Disposal of distillation products and
other residues that were primarily
generated during the production of hex,
a chemical formerly used in pesticide
manufacturing. The waste was
disposed in an unlined earthen pit.
Technology:
In Situ Thermal Desorption (ISTD)
• The system design involved a total of 266 thermal wells (210 H-O wells and 56 H-V wells), installed to depths of 12.5
ft below ground surface in a hexagonal arrangement covering an area of 7,194 ft2
• Dewatering wells were installed several feet below the ISTD thermal well field
• Each thermal well was equipped with an electrical heating element designed to reach maximum temperatures between
1,400 and 1,600 degrees Fahrenheit
• A vacuum pressure of approximately 20 inches of water column was maintained along the boundaries of the treatment
area to capture steam and contaminant vapors

The captured off-gas was conveyed to an off-gas treatment system that consisted of a cyclone separator, a flameless
thermal oxidizer, a heat exchanger, a knock-out pot, two acid gas dry scrubbers, two activated carbon adsorption beds, and
two main process blowers.
Contacts:

EPA Contact:
Kerry Guy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202-2466
Telephone: (303)312-7288
E-mail: guy.kerry@epa.gov
EPA SITE Program Contact:
Marta Richards
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Telephone: (513)569-7692
E-mail: richards.marta@epa.gov
Vendor Contact:
Ralph S. Baker, Ph.D.
TerraTherm, Inc.
356 Broad Street
Fitchburg,MA01420
Telephone: (978) 343-0300
E-mail: rbaker@terratherm.com
17
-------
In Situ Thermal Desorption at Rocky Mountain Arsenal Hex Pit,
Denver, Adams County, Colorado (continued)
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
The volume of waste in the pit was approximately 3,200 cy, and the waste included solid and semisolid layers of tar-like
material

The contaminated portion of the pit extended over an area of approximately 7,000 ft2 and its depth varied from 8 to 10 ft.
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Remediation Goal I: meet or exceed the ROD requirement of 90 percent destruction removal efficiency (DRE) for the
six contaminant of concerns (COCs) that include hex, aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, isodrin, and chlordane
Remediation Goal II: reduce the mean concentration of the six COCs below the ROD human health exceedance criteria

The performance of the technology was also evaluated according to a number of secondary objectives.
Results:
• The ISTD system at the Hex Pit operated for 12 days. The system was shutdown because portions of the aboveground
piping had been corroded by hydrochloric acid that was generated during heating of the organochlorine contaminants.
Shutdown of the system prevented the evaluation of the effectiveness of the technology at this site.

During operation and post-treatment monitoring, sampling and analysis of air emissions indicated that none of the hourly
average air quality standards for off-gas emissions had been exceeded during system operation or during the extended well
field cool-down period.
Costs:
The total cost of design and construction of the ISTD system was approximately $1.9 million. Because of the short period
of system operation, no operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are available.
Description:
Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA) near Denver, Colorado, was established in 1942 as a chemical agent and munitions
facility, and was later used in the manufacture of pesticides. The disposal of pesticides in drums that later corroded or
ruptured resulted in contamination of soil, surface water, and groundwater at the facility. In 1987, RMA was placed on the
National Priorities List. One of the contaminated areas of RMA, the Hex Pit, was an unlined, earthen disposal pit used for
the disposal of distillation products that were generated during the production of hex, a chemical formerly used in pesticide
manufacturing. In addition, other organochlorine pesticides were disposed of in the pit. The 1996 ROD selected
innovative thermal technology for remediation of the Hex Pit. The ROD required the application of specific criteria to
evaluate the innovative thermal technology. The criteria included greater than 90 percent DRE for hex, dieldrin, and
chlordane, and a cost lower than off-site incineration. Several thermal technologies were evaluated and ISTD was selected
as the remedial technology because it could meet the criteria specified in the ROD.

The ISTD system was implemented to treat approximately 3,200 cy of contaminated soil. Installation of the system began
in October 2001 and was completed in February 2002. The system design involved a number of H-O wells, H-V
extraction wells and dewatering wells. The system was started up on March 3,2002, and was expected to run for 85 days
until the end of May 2002. However, because portions of the aboveground piping became corroded by hydrochloric acid
that was generated during heating of the organochlorine contaminants, the system was shut down on March 15, 2002, 12
days after system startup. Following shutdown, the Hex Pit site was buried under approximately 3 ft of imported fill
material, and the application was evaluated, and lessons learned noted.

The total cost of design and construction of the ISTD system was approximately $1.9 million. Because of the short period
of system operation, no operation and maintenance costs are available.
18
-------
Pump and Treat and In Situ Bioventing at Onalaska Municipal Landfill Superfund Site,
Onalaska, Wisconsin
Site Name:
Onalaska Municipal Landfill Superfund Site
Location:
Onalaska, Wisconsin
Period of Operation:
Groundwater
• Pump and Treat (P&T) - June 1994 through November 2001 [data are
available from May 2001 to October/November 2001]
• Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) - November 2001 to present [data are
available from October 2001 to April 2003]

Soil
• In Situ Bioventing - May 1994 to February 1997
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA - Remedial Action
ROD Date - August 14,1990
ESD Dates - September 29,2000;
November 13, 2001
Five-Year Reviews - 1998, 2003
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Full-scale remediation of VOCs, SVOCs, and metals in groundwater and soil
using P&T, in situ bioventing, and MNA.
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
VOCs, SVOCs, and metals
• VOCs (groundwater) - TCE; 1,1 -DCA (800 ^g/L maximum); 1,1,1 -TCA (8
Hg/L maximum); 1,1-DCE; 1,2-DCE (27 Hg/L maximum); and BTEX.
• SVOCs (soil) - petroleum hydrocarbon solvents, primarily naphtha, at levels
as high as 550 mg/kg

Metals (groundwater) - barium, arsenic, iron, manganese, and lead
Waste Source:
Disposal of municipal and chemical
wastes in a landfill
Contacts:

U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Contact:
Michael Berkoff
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region 5
77 W. Jackson Blvd
SRF-6J
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312)353-8983
Fax: (312)353-8426
E-mail:
berkoff.michael@epa.gov

State Contact:
Eileen Kramer
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
P.O. Box 4001
Eau Claire, WI 54702
Phone: (715)839-3824
Fax: (715)839-6076
E-mail: kramee@dnr.state.wi.us
Technology:
Pump and Treat
• Five extraction wells located along the downgradient edge of the landfill with a
total design flow rate of 600 to 800 gallons per minute (gpm).
• Treatment system included aeration, clarification, and the addition of sodium
hydroxide and polymer for iron removal.
• Air stripping used to remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
• Treated water was discharged to the river, and the clarifier sludge was dewatered
and disposed in a landfill.
• During its 7.5 years of operation, more than 2 billion gallons of groundwater were
extracted and treated.

Monitored Natural Attenuation
• After the P&T system was shut down, MNA was evaluated to address low levels
of contamination.
• The monitoring network comprises of 26 monitoring points, including 6 air
injection wells, 5 piezometers, 13 monitoring wells, and 2 residential wells.
• Analytes include VOCs; metals; benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX);
naphthalene; and natural attenuation parameters such as oxidation-reduction
potential, dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, and specific conductance.
• Baseline monitoring of natural attenuation was performed in October 2001. The
second and third monitoring events occurred in December 2002 and April 2003.
19
-------
Pump and Treat and In Situ Bioventing at Onalaska Municipal Landfill Superfund Site,
Onalaska, Wisconsin (continued)
Contacts (continued):

EPA Support Contractor:
H2MHU1
135 South 84IhSt, Suite 325
Milwaukee, WI 53214
Phone: (414)272-2426
Fax: (414)272-4408
Web site: www.ch2m.com

State Support Contractor:
Peter Moore
ENSR Corporation
4500 Park Glen Road, Suite 210
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Phone: (952)924-0117
Technology (continued):

In Situ Bioventing
• Consisted of injecting air into the area of petroleum nonaqueous phase liquid
(NAPL) contamination to stimulate naturally-occurring aerobic microbes and to
promote biodegradation of the organic compounds.
• Area of NAPL contamination targeted was 2.5 acres downgradient of the landfill.
• 3- to 5-foot NAPL layer was estimated to be at a depth of 8 to 12 feet below
ground surface (bgs).

System consisted of 29 vertical air injection wells (each 2 inches in diameter,
installed on 40- to 50-foot centers, and screened within the NAPL layer). The wells
were connected by a header piping network to a single aeration well blower and
operated between 270 and 320 standard cubic feet per minute (scfrn).
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
10 to 70 feet below ground surface (bgs); 2.17 billion gallons of groundwater treated soil
11 to 15 feet bgs (quantity of soil treated was not reported)
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
• Estimated cleanup goal was 80 to 95 percent reduction of the organic contaminant mass in the soil (ROD did not
establish chemical-specific soil cleanup goals).

In 2000, cleanup goals for groundwater were revised to the current state goals in an explanation of significant differences
(ESD).
Results:
P&T
• The P&T system operated at an average extraction rate of 563 gpm.
• By May 2001, concentrations for organic contaminants (except benzene and trimethylbenzene) had decreased to below
cleanup goals, based on results for samples collected from 14 wells located on- and off-site. Arsenic, barium, iron, and
manganese continued to be detected in groundwater at concentrations above the cleanup goals.
• As of October and November 2001, elevated concentrations of organic contaminants were present, primarily in one
well. Trimethylbenzenes were present in two wells, with concentrations as high as 670 Hg/L.
• As of November 2001, arsenic, barium, and manganese were present in several monitoring wells at levels as high as
14.9, 997 Hg/L, and 3,780 (J.g/L, respectively.

In Situ Bioventing
• The system operated with an air injection rate of 270 to 320 scfrn and targeted 3 separate areas of the site (Areas A, B,
andC).
• In situ bioventing resulted in aerobic soil conditions, as evidenced by a steady increase in oxygen concentrations at the
site, to levels as high as 21 percent. Carbon dioxide concentrations decreased from an average of 10 percent to less
than 1 percent, and average methane concentrations decreased from 1.4 to 0.1 percent.
• The average hydrocarbon degradation rate was estimated to be 1 milligram per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day) in Areas
A and B and 0.5 mg/kg/day in Area C.
• The total mass of hydrocarbons removed was estimated to be 7,780 kilograms (kg) from Area A; 11,000 kg from Area
B and 1,247 kg from Area C.
20
-------
Pump and Treat and In Situ Bioventing at Onalaska Municipal Landfill Superfund Site,
Onalaska, Wisconsin (continued)
Results (continued):
UNA
• The results of the December 2002 and April 2003 sampling events showed that the oxidation-reduction potential (ORP)
ranged from 87 to 190 millivolts (mV), indicating that reductive dechlorination may be occurring. Concentrations of
dissolved oxygen ranged from 0.23 to 7.07 milligrams per liter (mg/L), indicating aerobic conditions in the
groundwater.
• As of April 2003, two organic contaminants, trimethylbenzenes and methylene chloride, remained at concentrations
above their respective cleanup goals. In addition, two inorganic compounds, iron and manganese remain at
concentrations above their respective cleanup goals.

Monitoring for natural attenuation continues at the site.
Costs:
Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for the P&T system before the system was shut down (for 1998 through 2001)
were about $200,000 per year including groundwater extraction, wastewater treatment plant O&M, sampling and
monitoring, monitoring well maintenance, and reporting. After system shutdown, O&M costs were about $60,000 per year
for 2002 and 2003.
Description:
The Onalaska Municipal Landfill Superfund Site is located in Onalaska, Wisconsin and was originally used as a sand and
gravel quarry from the early to mid-1960s. In the mid-1960s, the Town of Onalaska began using the site as a landfill for
both municipal and chemical wastes. Landfill operations stopped in September 1980, and the landfill was capped in June
1982. Subsequent investigations found elevated levels of VOCs and metals in a groundwater plume that extended at least
800 feet from the southwestern edge of the landfill and discharged to nearby wetlands and the adjacent Black River. The
aquifer beneath the landfill served as the primary source of drinking water for the residents in the area. In addition, soils
above the groundwater table and adjacent to the southwestern edge of the landfill were contaminated with petroleum
solvents.

The site was placed on the National Priorities List in September 1984 and remedial investigations were conducted in 1988
and 1989. A record of decision (ROD) was signed in August 1990, which specified a P&T system for groundwater and in
situ bioventing for soils. The P&T system operated from June 1994 through November 2001 and was designed to remove
VOCs and metals. In situ bioventing operated from May 1994 to February 1997. In 1998, as part of the first 5-year
review, EPA concluded that bioventing was no longer affecting biodegradation, and the system was shut down. Based on
confirmation of oxygen levels in soil gas, EPA determined that the bioremediation cleanup phase was completed. An BSD
was issued in November 2001 that allowed for the temporary shutdown of the P&T system to evaluate the effectiveness of
MNA, based on the long-term groundwater monitoring that was being conducted at the site. Monitoring of natural
attenuation at the site is ongoing.

Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for the P&T system before the system was shut down (for 1998 through 2001)
were about $200,000 per year including groundwater extraction, wastewater treatment plant O&M, sampling and
monitoring, monitoring well maintenance, and reporting. After system shutdown, O&M costs were about $60,000 per year
for 2002 and 2003.
21
-------
Stabilization of Mercury in Waste Material from the Sulfur Bank Mercury Mine, Lake County,
California
Site Name: i Location:

Sulfur Bank Mercury Mine Superfund Site Lake County, California
'eriod of Operation:
November 15, 2000 to April 29, 2001

^urpose/Significance of Application:
To determine the effectiveness of three stabilization technologies for
immobilizing mercury in waste rock material, thereby reducing leachable mobile
mercury in the effluent.
Contaminants:
Heavy Metals
• Mercury: Mercury concentrations ranged from 312 to 1360 milligrams per
kilogram (mg/kg) in the mercury ore and 130 to 447 mg/kg in the waste rock
Contacts:

U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Contacts:
Ed Bates
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory (NRMRL)
26 W. Martin Luther King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Phone: (513)569-7774

Roger Wilmoth
Mine Waste Technology Program
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory (NRMRL)
26 W. Martin Luther King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Phone: (513)569-7509

Technology Vendor Contacts:
E & C Williams, Inc.
Charlie Williams
Project Manager
120VamfieldDr, Ste. A
Summerville, SC 29483
Phone: (843)821-4200

Klean Earth Environmental
Company
Amy Anderson
Project Manager
19023 36th Ave. West, Ste. E
Lynnwood, WA 98036
Phone: (425)778-7165
Technology:
Cleanup Authority:
• EPA's Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE)
program
• Mine Waste Technology Program
(MWTP)
Cleanup Type:
Bench Scale

Waste Source:
Historic mining activities at the site.

Three stabilization technologies were used for immobilizing mercury in sulfide
mine waste materials from the Sulfur Bank
technologies are listed below:

• ENTHRALL Technology:
- Developed by E & C Williams, Inc.
Mercury Mine (SBMM) site. The three

- Uses inorganic sulfide reagent to target heavy metals. The treatment forms
permanent bonds between the reagent surface and heavy metals.
- Used a proprietary sonic drilling rig
to inject the reagent. Two rigs were
used concurrently to inject the reagent directly into the waste pile at 15-foot
intervals.

• KEECO's Silica Micro Encapsulation (SME) process:
- Developed by Klean Earth Environmental Company (KEECO).
- Encapsulates metal in an impervious microscopic silica matrix, which
eliminates the adverse effects of the
environment.
- A modified ex situ process in which
metal on human health and the

material is removed from its location for
treatment at an adjacent on-site facility. The material is mixed with the
reagent at the on-site facility and then returned to the site where it is replaced
and compressed in place.

• Generic Phosphate treatment:

- Forms insoluble phosphate salts containing the contaminant.
- Phosphates stabilize metals by chemically binding them into new stable
phosphate phases, such as apatites, and other relatively insoluble phases in
the soil.

Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Waste Material (quantity not provided)

22
-------
Stabilization of Mercury in Waste Material from the Sulfur Bank Mercury Mine, Lake County,
California (continued)
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
To achieve a 90% reduction in the total mass of mercury leached from each treatment (relative to the control) over a 12-
week continuous column leaching study.
Results:
E&C William's ENTHRALL Technology:
• The ENTHRALL Technology was not effective in reducing levels of mobile mercury in the mercury ore columns.
• The total mass of mercury in both the paniculate and dissolved fractions were similar to the control column.

KEECO 's SME Technology:
• The SME process was applied both ex situ and in situ and was effective in reducing mobile mercury (< 25\lm).
• The in situ process reduced leachability by 88% and the ex situ process by 86%, when compared to the control.
• Both the in situ and ex situ treatments achieved a 99% reduction in particulate-associated mercury, relative to the
control.
• There was however a significant increase in the mass of mercury in the dissolved fraction (< 0.45 Jim). The in situ
applications showed a 198% increase in comparison to the control, and the ex situ showed a 238% increase.

Generic Phosphate:
• The phosphate treatment increased the levels of both the paniculate and dissolved fractions (< 0.45 |lm) over the course
of the 12-week study.
• The mass of mercury leached was high during the first two weeks or monitoring.
• The treatment accelerated the breakdown of the mercury ore material matrix and facilitated the release of particulates.
• The rise in leachable mercury invalidates this treatment as a possible remedial alternative for the materials at the
SBMM site.
Costs:

E&C William's ENTHRALL Technology:
• Estimated total operating cost for remediating the SBMM piles was $59,807,000. No cost for residual handling was
presented because the technology does not produce residuals.
• The largest cost component, the chemical reagents, was $57,008,000 (93.5% of the total cost).
• The second highest cost, equipment, was $1,633,500 (2.7% of the total cost).
• The remediation cost per ton of material is $27.82.

KEECO's SME Technology:
• Estimated total operating cost for remediating the SBMM piles is $35,690,000. No cost for residual handling was
presented because the technology does not produce residuals.
• The largest cost component, the chemical reagents, was $26,700,000 (68% of the total cost).
• The KEECO technology requires residual handling, which costs $1,283,000 and constitutes the second highest cost
item.
• The remediation cost per ton of material is $16.60.

Generic Phosphate:
• Full-scale treatment costs were not provided. Based on the study results, further experimentation and product
modifications are required before the reagent can be considered for use at the SBMM site.
23
-------
Stabilization of Mercury in Waste Material from the Sulfur Bank Mercury Mine, Lake County,
California (continued)
Description:
The Sulfur Bank Mercury Mine (SBMM) Superfund site is located on the south shore of Oaks Arm of Clear Lake, in Lake
County, California. SBMM was mined periodically from 1865 to 1957, with open pit mining beginning in 1915. Starting
in the late 1920s, heavy earthmoving equipment was used on a large-scale basis, which dramatically increased the
environmental impacts of the mining. Various mining activities over the years have deposited large amounts of mercury in
the Clear Lake ecosystem.

Two innovative in situ stabilization technologies and one generic phosphate stabilization treatment were evaluated in a
treatability study, using material from the SBMM. The two innovative technologies were the ENTHRALL, developed by
E & C Williams, Inc., and the Silica Micro Encapsulation (SME) process, developed by the Klean Earth Environmental
Company.

The ENTHRALL technology uses an inorganic sulfide reagent, which forms a permanent bond between the reagent and the
heavy metals. The reagent is injected using a proprietary sonic drill. The SME process encapsulates the heavy metals in
an impervious microscopic silica matrix. The process can be conducted ex situ by first excavating the material and mixing
it with the reagent at an adjacent on-site facility. The material is then returned to the site and compressed into place. The
generic phosphate treatment stabilizes the heavy metals by chemically binding them into stable phosphate phases, such as
apatites, and other relatively insoluble phases in soil.

The ENTHRALL technology was not effective in reducing levels of mobile mercury in the mercury ore columns. The
SME process was applied both ex situ and in situ and was effective in reducing mobile mercury. Both the in situ and ex
situ treatments achieved a 99% reduction in paniculate-associated mercury, relative to the control, but there was a
significant increase in the mass of mercury in the dissolved fraction. The phosphate treatment increased the levels of both
the particulate and dissolved fractions. The rise in teachable mercury invalidates this treatment as a possible remedial
alternative for the materials at the SBMM site.

The estimated total operating cost for the ENTHRALL and SME process technologies were $59,807,000 and $35,690,000,
respectively. Residual handling costs were not included in these costs because the technologies do not produce residuals.
Full-scale treatment costs were not provided for the generic phosphate treatment.
24
-------
IN SITU GROUNDWATER TREATMENT ABSTRACTS
25
-------
This page intentionally left blank
26
-------
Edible Oil Barriers for Treatment of Perchlorate Contaminated Groundwater
Site Name:
Confidential Site
Location:
Maryland
Period of Operation:
Demonstration was conducted in October 2003. Monitoring lasted for 18 months
(from October 2003 to April 2005).
Purpose/Significance of Application:
The primary objective of the project was to evaluate the cost and performance of
an EOS* PRB to control the migration of perchlorate plumes at the Site.
Cleanup Authority:
Field Demonstration
Cleanup Type:
Field Demonstration
Contaminants:
Explosives/Propellants, Volatiles-Halogenated:
• Explosives/propellants: perchlorate: 3,100 to 20,000 Hg/L; Volatiles-
halogenated: 1,1,1-TCA: 5,700 to 17,000 |J.g/L; 1,1-DCA: 7 to 62 jig/L;
chloroethane: <5 to <20 jig/L; 1,1-DCE: 270 to 1,200 |ig/L; PCE: 25 to 110
p.g/L; TCE: 28 to 210 p,g/L; cis-l,2-DCE: 5.5 to 10 \ig/L; trans-1,2-DCE: <5
to <20 \lg/L; vinyl chloride <5 to <20 ^g/L; ethane: 0.16 to 4.28 \ig/L;
ethene: 0.04 to 1.94
Waste Source:
Former lagoon that received
ammonium perchlorate and waste
solvent.
Contacts:

State Contact:
Stephen Markowski
Maryland Dept. Environmental
Hazardous Waste Program
Waste Management Administration
1800 Washington Blvd, Ste. 645
Baltimore, MD 21230-1719
Phone: (410)537-3354
Fax: (410)537-4133
E-mail:
smarkowski@mde.state.md.us

Vendor Contact:
Robert C. Borden, P.E.
Solutions-IBS
3722 Benson Drive
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: (919)873-1060
Fax: (919)873-1074
E-mail: rcborden@eos.ncsu.edu

Navy Contact:
Bryan Harre
Naval Facilities Engineering Service
Center
1100 23rd Avenue, Code 411
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
Phone: (805)982-1795
Fax: (805)982-4304
E-mail: harrebl@nfesc.navy.mil
Technology:
Permeable Reactive Barrier:
• The field demonstration consisted of a one-time injection of emulsified oil
substrate (EOS*) and chase water to create a 50-ft long permeable reactive
barrier (PRB).
• Approximately 110 gallons of EOS* and 2,070 gallons of chase water were
injected into the subsurface.
• The PRB was located approximately 50 ft upgradient of an existing
interceptor trench.

Groundwater was extracted from the interceptor trench, treated using an air
stripper, and re-injected using an upgradient infiltration gallery.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater:
• The shallow aquifer (5 to 15 ft below ground surface). Approximately 405,000 gallons of groundwater was treated.
27
-------An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\Region 2\00000BFI\tiff\2000ZP3J.tif): Unspecified error
-------
Nanoscale Zero-Valent Iron Technology for Source Remediation (continued)
Technology (continued):
Naval Air Station Jacksonville:
300 Ibs of bimetallic nanoscale particles (BNP) was mixed with water drawn from an extraction well to produce an iron
slurry (4.5 to lOg/L).
The slurry was injected into the subsurface by a combination of direct push and closed-loop recirculation wells.
Injection was conducted first at 10 "hot spot" locations and the recirculation wells were used to distribute the slurry to
the rest of the suspected source zone.

Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst:
300 Ibs of BNP was mixed with water drawn from an extraction well and from a fire hydrant to produce a dilute iron
slurry (2 g/L).
The slurry was injected in to the subsurface using direct push technology.
Injections were done at 10 locations in the Northern Plume and at five locations in the Southern Plume.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Hunters Point Shipyard: First study, treatment zone covered an area of 1,818 ft2. Second study, treatment zoned
covered an area of approximately 8,700 ft2.
Naval Air Station Jacksonville: Groundwater (Quantity not provided).
Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst: Northern groundwater plume - approximately 8,470 ft2; Southern
groundwater plume - approximately 4,350 ft2.
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Hunters Point Shipyard: Not provided.
Naval Air Station Jacksonville: Reduce the total site contaminated mass by 40 to 50%.
Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst: Not provided.
Results:
Hunters Point Shipyard:
• First study:
- TCE levels declined sharply in all monitoring wells in the treatment zone without any significant formation of cis-
1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride.
- Sharp declines in oxygen-release potential (ORP) and noticeable increases in pH supported the contention that
strongly reducing condition suitable for abiotic reduction of CVOCs was created.
- Pneumatic fracturing combined with liquid atomization injection of the ZVT slurry was successful in distributing
ZVI through most of the target treatment zone.
- Injecting at shallow depths may lead to nitrogen and slurry seeping up to the ground surface.
• Second study:
- TCE and DCE were reduced rapidly in the treatment zone wells.

Naval Air Station Jacksonville:
• Within five weeks after injection, concentrations of parent VOCs were reduced by 65 to 99%.
• ORP reduction was experienced in most of the source zone monitoring wells, indicating that the direct push and
recirculation methods of injection worked relatively well.
• The injection did not create the strongly reducing conditions necessary to generate substantial abiotic degradation of
TCE.

Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst:
• TCE and PCE concentrations were reduced on average by 79% and 83%, respectively.
• The average decrease in total VOC concentrations was 74%.
• Monitoring data was unable to determine what caused reductions in the CVOC concentrations.
30
-------
Nanoscale Zero-Valent Iron Technology for Source Remediation (continued)
Costs:
Hunters Point Shipyard:
- Total cost for the first study was $289,300. This included costs for mobilization, equipment and supplies (ZVI cost
$32,500), labor, drilling services, sampling and analysis including waste disposal, and other miscellaneous costs.
- For the second study the total cost was $1,390,000. This included $770,000 for materials, equipment, field labor for
the injection, and waste characterization and disposal; $452,000 for baseline and post-injection groundwater
sampling and analysis; and $168,000 for project management, data management, and reporting.

Naval Air Station Jacksonville:
- The approximate total cost reported for the field demonstration was $259,000 with an additional $153,000 for
administrative tasks such as project management, work plan development, and a bench scale study. The field
demonstration total cost included cost from mobilization, monitoring well installation, injection/circulation events
(NZVI cost $37,000), sampling and analysis as well as waste disposal, and other miscellaneous costs.

Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst:
- The approximate total cost reported for the field demonstration was $255,500 which included monitoring well
installation, baseline sampling, nanoscale iron injection, six-month post injection sampling, and reporting results.
Description:
• Hunters Point Shipyard:
- Hunters Point is situated on a long promontory located in the southeastern portion of San Francisco County and
extends eastward into the San Francisco Bay. From 1869 through 1986, it operated as a ship repair, maintenance,
and commercial facility. In 1991, the Navy designated Hunters Point for closure under the federal Base Closure and
Realignment Act. Hunters Point was divided into six separate geographic parcels (Parcels A through F) to facilitate
the closure process. The first and second ZVI demonstrations were performed at Site RU-C4 in Parcel C, which is
located in the eastern portion of Hunters Point. The groundwater plume at Site RU-C4 had been contaminated with
chlorinated solvents, primarily TCE.
- The first ZVI injection was conducted in the source area of the contamination. The treatment zone covered an area
of 1,818 ft2. The total cost of the first study was $289,300. The second ZVI injection was conducted in the
groundwater plume. The approximate treatment area was 8,700 ft2. The total cost for the second injection project
was $1,390,000.

• Naval A ir Station Jacksonville :
- Naval Air Station (NAS) Jacksonville is located in Duval County, Florida and has been used for Navy operations
since 1940. The demonstration site, H1K, was located in the interior portion of the facility and contained two
USTs. The USTs previously received waste solvents and other substances from a wash rack, manhole and other
operations. The tanks and associated pipelines were removed and capped in 1994. Cleanup of HI K is managed
under CERCLA, and the groundwater monitoring program is managed under RCRA.
- In 2000 and 2001, an Interim Remedial Action consisting of chemical oxidation was conducted in the source area.
In March 2002, a site characterization sampling effort was performed to redefine the extent of contamination. The
horizontal extent of contamination is approximately 1,450 ft2 with a thickness of 18 ft (saturated zone), resulting in a
total volume of 967 cubic yards of soil.
- Iron slurry was injected into the subsurface by a combination of direct push and closed-loop recirculation wells.
Within five weeks after injection, concentrations of parent VOCs were reduced by 65 to 99%. The approximate
total cost reported for the field demonstration was $259,000, with an additional $153,000 for administrative tasks.
31
-------
Nanoscale Zero-Valent Iron Technology for Source Remediation (continued)
Description (continued):
• Naval A ir Engineering Station Lakehurst:
- Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst is located in Jackson and Manchester Townships, Ocean County, New
Jersey, 14 miles inland from the Atlantic Ocean. The facility covers 7,383 acres and is within the Pinelands
National Reserve.
- The demonstration project involved two areas with the highest groundwater contaminant concentrations within the
northern plume and the southern plume, Areas I and J. The contamination vertically extends 70 ft below the
groundwater table. The largest amount of contamination is located in the zone from 45 to 60 ft below the
groundwater table.
- A bench-scale treatability study in 2001 and a pilot test study in 2003 were performed at the facility to evaluate the
feasibility of using BNP as an in situ remediation technology to reduce or eliminate the contaminants at Areas I and
J. This preliminary testing showed that BNP had the potential to perform better than NZVI without any catalyst
coating. 10 injections of BNP were conducted in the northern plume and five injections were conducted in the
southern plume. The approximate total cost for the field demonstration was $255,500. ^^
32
-------
Steam Enhanced Remediation Research for DNAPL in Fractured Rock Loring Air Force Base,
Limestone, Maine
Site Name:
Loring Air Force Base
Location:
Limestone, Maine
Period of Operation:
September 1 to November 19, 2002. Post-steam injection monitoring: Spring
2003 to Spring 2004.
Cleanup Authority:
• EPA's Office of Research and
Development (ORD) National Risk
Management Research Laboratory
(NRMRL),
• U.S. EPA Region 1,
• Maine Department of
Environmental Protection
(MEDEP), the United States Air
Force, and EPA's Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) program.
Purpose/Significance of Application:
The main objectives of the study were to:
• Develop an improved understanding of the mechanisms controlling DNAPL
and dissolved phased contaminant behavior in fractured bedrock systems;
• Evaluate how a remediation technology could be successfully implemented
and controlled in a fractured bedrock environment;
• Reduce the mass of contaminants in the subsurface to reduce the overall
remediation timeframe; and
• Evaluate characterization needs for fractured bedrock systems.
Cleanup Type:
Pilot Study
Contaminants:
Volatiles-halogenated: 1,1 -dichloroethylene; benzene; chlorobenzene; cis-1,2-
dichloroethylene; ethylbenzene; tetrachloroethylene; trans-1,2-dichloroethylene;
toluene; trichloroethylene; vinyl Chloride; xylenes (total)
Waste Source:
Past disposal practices of wastes from
construction, industrial, and
maintenance activities at the Base.
Contacts:
Eva Davis
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Center
Ground Water and Ecosystems
Restoration
P.O. Box #1198
Ada, OK 74821-1198
Phone: (580)436-8548
E-mail: davis.eva@epa.gov

Rob Hoey
Maine Department of
Environmental Protection
17 State House Station
Augusta, Maine 04333-0017
E-mail: Rob.Hoey@maine.gov
Technology:
Thermal Treatment (in situ):
• The steam remediation system consisted of a network of vertical wells and borings.
13 boreholes were used as injection or extraction wells and 10 boreholes were used
as geophysical and/or temperature monitoring locations.
• Steam was produced in an above ground steam generating unit, which transferred
steam using a steam header at 690 kilopascal (kPa) gauge pressure (corresponding
to a temperature of 170 °C).
• Steam injection rates varied from 27 to 508 kilograms per hour (kg/hr).
• At the injection wellhead, steam was reduced to pressures between 200 and 620 kPa
(corresponding to 135 to 155 °C) depending on the depth of delivery.
• Air was injected in order to help develop fractures for improved steam injection
rates, to create a buoyant vapor phase, and to assist in vadose zone flushing.
• During operations, a total of 824,000 cubic meters of non-condenseable vapor was
extracted.
• Over the course of the test, a total of 739,000 liters of water was extracted as liquid
phase.
33
-------
Steam Enhanced Remediation Research for DNAPL in Fractured Rock Loring Air Force Base,
Limestone, Maine (continued)
ontacts (continued):
Vlike Nalipinski Kent Novakowski
LJ.S. EPA, Region 1 Queens University
1 Congress Street Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L3N6
Suite 1100 Phone: (613) 533 6417
Boston, MA 02114-2023 E-mail: kent@civil.queensu.ca
Phone: (617)918-1268
E-mail: Kent Udell
nalipinski.mike@epa.gov University of California, Berkeley
6147 Etcheverry
Steve Carroll & Gorm Heron Berkeley, California 94720
SteamTech Environmental Phone: (510)642-2928
Services, Inc. E-mail: udell@me.berkeley.edu
4750 Burr Street
Bakersfield, California 93308
Phone: (661)322-6478
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater (quantity not documented).
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
None documented.
Results:
Based on the limited duration of the project it could not be determined conclusively that steam injection would be
capable of heating the entire treatment area to the target temperature.
The vapor and water treatment system employed by the vendor effectively treated these effluent streams to meet
discharge limitations.
For Steam Enhanced Remediation (SER) to be successful for the remediation of the site, extensive characterization
would be needed and extremely long injection times would be required.
Further research is warranted on steam injection remediation in fractured rock at a less complex site.
Costs:
Not documented.
Description:
The former Loring Air Force Base (AFB) is located in the northeastern portion of Maine, approximately 5 km west of the
United States/Canadian border. A quarry at the site, located near the northwestern boundary, had historically been used for
the disposal of wastes from construction, industrial, and maintenance activities at the Base. The site was added to the
Superfund National Priorities List in 1990. During remedial activities in the 1990s, approximately 450 drums were
removed from the quarry. The Record of Decision (ROD), signed in 1999, recognized that it was impractical at the time to
restore groundwater in fractured rock to drinking water standards. However, an agreement was made between the Air
Force, the MEDEP, and EPA Region 1 to use the quarry to conduct a research project to further develop remediation
technologies for fractured bedrock. An evaluation of potential technologies to be tested at the site was issued in 2001, and
SER was chosen from the proposals received.

Construction was initiated in August 2002 and extraction began on August 30, 2002. Steam injection was initiated on
September 1, 2002, and continued until November 19, 2002, when funding for the project was no longer available.
Extraction was terminated on November 26, 2002.

Based on the limited duration of the project, it could not be determined conclusively that steam injection would be capable
of heating the entire treatment area to the target temperature. The vapor and water treatment system employed by the
vendor effectively treated these effluent streams to meet discharge limitations. It was concluded that for SER to be
successful for the remediation of the site, extensive characterization would be needed and extremely long injection times
would be required. No cost information was provided.
34
-------
APPENDIX A

SUMMARY OF 383 CASE STUDIES
Appendix A is only available in the online version of this report and can be downloaded from the Roundtable
Web site at: http://www.frtr.gov.
35
-------
This page intentionally left blank
36
-------
Solid Waste and EPA 542-R-06-002
Emergency Response July 2006
(5102P) www.epa.gov
www.frtr.gov
National Service Center for
Environmental Publications
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
-------