Abstracts of Remediation
Case Studies
Volume 9
5
\v/
Federal
Remediation
Technologies
Roundtable
Prepared by the
Member Agencies of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Abstracts of Remediation
Case Studies
Volume 9
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
July 2005
-------
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 13 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 and ex 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 374 remediation technology case
studies (the 13 new case studies and 361 previously-published case studies). Appendix A to this report
identifies the specific sites, technologies, contaminants, media, and year published for the 374 case
studies.
Abstracts, Volume 9, 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
-------
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 download 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
IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT ABSTRACTS
In Situ Biosolids and Lime Addition at the California Gulch Superfund Site,
OU 11, Leadville, Colorado 11
In Situ Chemical Oxidation Using Hydrogen Peroxide at Four Dry Cleaner Sites, Various
Locations 13
In Situ Chemical Reduction at the Frontier Hard Chrome Superfund Site,
Vancouver, Washington 15
Electrical Resistive Heating at Hunter Army Airfield, Former Pumphouse #2,
Savannah, Georgia 17
Soil Vapor Extraction at Three Dry Cleaner Sites, Various Locations 19
Rhizosphere-Enhanced Bioremediation of Petroleum, Oil and Lubricant (POL)-Contaminated
Soils at Three Sites in Alaska 21
EX SITU SOIL/SEDIMENT TREATMENT ABSTRACTS
Thermal Desorption at the T.H. Agriculture and Nutrition Site, OU2, Albany, Georgia 25
IN SITU GROUNDWATER TREATMENT ABSTRACTS
Electrical Resistive Heating at Charleston Naval Complex, AOC 607, North Charleston, South
Carolina 29
In Situ Bioremediation Using Various Additives at Five Dry Cleaner Sites, Various Locations ... 31
In Situ Bioremediation Using Hydrogen Release Compound (HRCฎ) at Four Dry Cleaner
Sites, Various Locations 33
In Situ Chemical Oxidation at Four Dry Cleaner Sites, Various Locations 35
Cyclodextrin-Enhanced In Situ Removal of Organic Contaminants from Groundwater at Site 11,
Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek, Virginia Beach, Virginia 37
Enhanced Biological Attenuation of Aircraft Deicing Fluid Runoff Using Subsurface Flow
Constructed Wetlands at the Westover Air Reserve Base, Chicopee, Massachusetts 39
in
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section Page
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES A-l
Tables
1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies 3
2. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data 5
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
remediation and demonstration-scale remediation projects. At this time, the Roundtable is publishing 13
new remediation technology case studies to the Roundtable web site (http://www.frtr.gov/costperf.htm),
for a total of 374 case studies, 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, reflecting the differences in the availability of data and
information about the application.
-------
The case study abstracts in this volume describe a wide variety of ex situ and in situ soil treatment
technologies for both soil and groundwater. Contaminants treated included chlorinated solvents;
petroleum hydrocarbons and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes; polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons; pesticides and herbicides; metals; and radioactive materials.
Table 1 provides summary information about the technology used, contaminants and media treated, and
project duration for the 13 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 374 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.
-------
Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies
Site Name, State (Technology)
Principal
Contaminant
Groups*
s
Volatiles-Halogena
a
03
=
o
03
Semivolatiles - Non
BTEX and/or TPH
o>
Pesticides/Herbicid
1
Media
(Quantity Treated)
Project
Duration
Summary
In Situ Soil Treatment
California Gulch Superfund Site, OU 1 1, CO (In Situ
Solidification/Stabilization - Biosolids)
Multiple (4) Dry Cleaner Sites - In Situ Chemical
Oxidation, Various Locations (In Situ Chemical
Oxidation, Monitored Natural Attenuation, Enhanced
Fluid Recovery)
Frontier Hard Chrome Superfund Site, WA (In Situ
Chemical Reduction)
Hunter Army Airfield, Former Pumphouse #2, GA (In
Situ Thermal Treatment - Electrical Resistive Heating)
Multiple (3) Dry Cleaner Sites - SVE, Various
Locations (Soil Vapor Extraction)
Multiple (3) POL-Contaminated Sites, AK
(Rhizosphere-EnhancedBioremediation)
Soil (NP)
Soil, Groundwater
(NP)
Soil (20,962 yd3),
Groundwater (185,000
gallons)
Soil (35,000 yd3),
Groundwater, LNAPLs
Soil, Groundwater,
DNAPLs (NP)
Soil (NP)
June 17, 1998 -August
20, 1999 (Biosolids
addition: July - August
1998)
Various dates from
1999 -April 22, 2003
January - September
2003
April 5 - August 5,
2002
Various dates from
January 1999 - August
2003
Various dates from
summer 1998 - date
unknown
Use of in situ biosolids and lime addition to
treat soil contaminated with heavy metals
(cadmium, copper, lead, manganese, zinc)
Use of in situ chemical oxidation to treat
soil and groundwater contaminated with
chlorinated solvents at dry cleaner sites
Use of in situ chemical reduction to treat
soil contaminated with chromium
Use of in situ thermal treatment to treat soil
and groundwater contaminated with
chlorinated solvents
Use of in situ SVE to treat soil and
groundwater contamination with
chlorinated solvents at dry cleaner sites
Use of rhizosphere-enhanced
bioremediation to treat soil contaminated
with diesel and gasoline range organics
Ex Situ Soil/Sediment Treatment
T.H. Agriculture and Nutrition Site, OU2, GA (Thermal
Desorption)
Soil (10,424 tons)
October - November
1999
Use of ex situ thermal desorption to treat
soil contaminated with pesticides
-------
Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies (continued)
Site Name, State (Technology)
Principal
Contaminant
Groups*
Volatiles-Halogenated
Semivolatiles - Nonhalogenated
BTEX and/or TPH
Pesticides/Herbicides
^
"3
5
ง
Media
(Quantity Treated)
Project
Duration
Summary
In Situ Groundwater Treatment
Charleston Naval Complex, AOC 607, SC (In Situ
Thermal Treatment - Electrical Resistive Heating)
Multiple (5) Dry Cleaner sites - In Situ Bioremediation,
Various Locations (In Situ Bioremediation Using
Various Additives)
Multiple (4) Dry Cleaner sites - In Situ Bioremediation,
Various Locations (In Situ Bioremediation Using
HRCฎ)
Multiple (4) Dry Cleaner sites - In Situ Chemical,
Various Locations Oxidation (In Situ Chemical
Oxidation)
Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek, Site 1 1, GA
(Cyclodextrin-Enhanced In Situ Flushing)
Westover Air Reserve Base, MA (Constructed
Treatment Wetlands)
Groundwater,
DNAPLs (NP)
Soil, Groundwater,
DNAPLs (NP)
Soil, Groundwater
(NP)
Soil, Groundwater,
DNAPLs (NP)
Soil, Groundwater,
DNAPLs (NP)
Stormwater (12.2
million gallons)
October 2001 -July
2002
Various dates from
Spring 2001 -date
unknown
Various dates from May
2000 -September 2002
Various dates from July
2001 - date unknown
June - September 2002
August 2001 -May
2003
Use of in situ thermal treatment to treat
groundwater contaminated with
halogenated volatiles
Use of in situ bioremediation using various
additives to treat soil and groundwater
contaminated with chlorinated solvents at
dry cleaner sites
Use of in situ bioremediation using HRCฎ
to treat soil and groundwater contaminated
with chlorinated solvents at dry cleaner
sites
Use of in situ chemical oxidation to treat
soil and groundwater contaminated with
chlorinated solvents at dry cleaner sites
Use of in situ flushing (cyclodextrin
enhanced flushing) to treat soil and
groundwater contaminated with chlorinated
solvents
Use of constructed treatment wetlands to
treat aircraft deicing fluid runoff
' Contaminant group focused on for the technology covered in the case study.
Key: NP = Not Provided
LNAPLs = Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids
OU = Operable Unit
SVE = Soil Vapor Extraction
POL = Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants
AOC = Area of Concern
HRCฎ = Hydrogen Release Compound
BTEX = Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene
-------
Table 2. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data
Site Name, State (Technology)
In Situ Soil Treatment
California Gulch Superfund Site, OU
11, CO (In Situ
Solidification/Stabilization -
Biosolids)
Multiple (4) Dry Cleaner Sites - In
Situ Chemical Oxidation, Various
Locations (In Situ Chemical
Oxidation, Monitored Natural
Attenuation, Enhanced Fluid
Recovery)
Frontier Hard Chrome Superfund
Site, WA (In Situ Chemical
Reduction)
Hunter Army Airfield, Former
Pumphouse #2, GA (In Situ Thermal
Treatment - Electrical Resistive
Heating)
Multiple (3) Dry Cleaner Sites -
SVE, Various Locations (Soil Vapor
Extraction)
Multiple (3) POL-Contaminated
Sites, AK (Rhizosphere-Enhanced
Bioremediation)
Technology
Cost (S)1'2
D - $3,477,697 (includes
$1,738,750 for investigation
and characterization, and
$1,738,947 for construction
and cleanup)
NP
Source area: C - $398,000
AO- $2,02 1,500
ISRM wall: C- $350,300;
AO - $679,700
T- $1,300,000 (includes
$1,042,129 for design,
mobilization/demobilization,
installation, and O&M for
four months); $259,000 for
electrical service connection
ABC:
Soil: T- $521,463;
Groundwater: T - $2,262,900
Parisian: T- $202,531
(includes DI - $72,458)
Randolf s: DI - $298,500
Total for 3 sites:
D - $8,650 (includes C -
$7,250 and AO - $ 1,400)
Quantity of
Media Treated
NP
Spin City:
Soil -172 yd3
Soil: 20,962 yd3
Groundwater:
185,000 gallons
Soil: 35,000 yd3
NP
NP
Quantity of
Contaminant
Removed
NP
NP
NP
44,000 Ibs of
VOCs (from
April to August
2002)
NP
NP
Calculated Unit
Cost for
Treatment1'2
NP
NP
Source area:
$124/yd3ofsoil
treated
ISRM wall:
$330/ft2 of wall
NP
NP
NP
Key Factors
Potentially Affecting Technology Costs
Number of samples required to provide
statistically significant results to evaluate
the effectiveness of the treatment system
Use of other technologies, such as enhanced
fluid recovery, to reduce the amount of
chemicals required for in situ chemical
oxidation
Clay and moisture content of soil, and pH
and flow rate of groundwater
Limited amount of time that PCU was
loaned to DoD for the remediation
Parisian: Good soil sampling under the
building leading to good design of SVE
system
Monitoring, frequency of monitoring, and
the duration of the monitoring period
-------
Table 2. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data (continued)
Site Name, State (Technology)
Technology
Cost (S)1'2
Quantity of
Media Treated
Quantity of
Contaminant
Removed
Calculated Unit
Cost for
Treatment1'2
Key Factors
Potentially Affecting Technology Costs
Ex Situ Soil/Sediment Treatment
T.H. Agriculture and Nutrition Site,
OU2, GA (Thermal Desorption)
T- $1,058,230 (includes C-
$566, 184 and AO -
$492,046)
10,424 tons
NP
$102/tonofsoil
treated
Functional equivalency (as demonstrated by
the vendor) of the thermal desorption
system used at OU2 with the thermal
desorption system used at OU1, thereby
eliminating the need for a performance test
In Situ Groundwater Treatment
Charleston Naval Complex, AOC
607, SC (In Situ Thermal Treatment
- Electrical Resistive Heating)
Multiple (5) Dry Cleaner sites - In
Situ Bioremediation, Various
Locations (In Situ Bioremediation
Using Various Additives)
Multiple (4) Dry Cleaner sites - In
Situ Bioremediation, Various
Locations (In Situ Bioremediation
Using HRC8)
Multiple (4) Dry Cleaner sites - In
Situ Chemical, Various Locations
Oxidation (In Situ Chemical
Oxidation)
Naval Amphibious Base Little
Creek, Site 1 1, GA (Cyclodextrin-
Enhanced In Situ Flushing)
T- $1,250,000 (includes C-
$373,000 and AO -
$473,000)
Blacks: DI - $30,000;
estimated AO - $35,000 (for
injection of electron donor
and bacterial treatment) and
$20,000 per year for
on-going groundwater, soil
gas, and indoor air
monitoring
Carousel: D - $75,000
Former 60: C - $107,500; DI
- $32,300; AO - $140,200
Ted's Cleaners: D - $1 10,000
Niles Finest: DI (includes
post-injection sampling) -
$32,285
Springvilla: DI - $103,000;
AO - $3,000
D - $863,000 (includes C -
$448,000, AO - $409,000,
and other technology-specific
costs)
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
Slower groundwater heating than was
projected in the design stage, especially in
the deeper portions of the saturated zone
Former 60: Choice of injectant, ethyl
lactate, was cheaper to obtain than ethanol
Carousel: Additive provided by the vendor
at no cost
Former Prestonwood: Fracturing at high
pressures, resulting in unseating of straddle
packers at some locations
Niles Finest: Tight clay soils making
remediation via chemical oxidation,
especially with permanganate, difficult
Soil delisted (using contained-in policy) and
disposed of as solid waste at a Subtitle D
landfill instead of being handled as listed
hazardous waste
-------
Table 2. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data (continued)
Site Name, State (Technology)
Westover Air Reserve Base, MA
(Constructed Treatment Wetlands)
Technology
Cost (S)1'2
D - $332,900 (includes C -
$326,000 and AO - $6,900)
Quantity of
Media Treated
12.2 million
gallons
Quantity of
Contaminant
Removed
NP
Calculated Unit
Cost for
Treatment1'2
NP
Key Factors
Potentially Affecting Technology Costs
System built on a slope, requiring
additional excavation to achieve the proper
bed bottom level
Actual full-scale costs are reported unless otherwise noted.
Cost abbreviation: T = Total costs, AO = Annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, C = Capital costs, DI = Design and implementation costs, D :
Demonstration-scale costs, P = Projected full-scale costs.
Key:
NP = Not Provided
OU = Operable Unit
ISRM = In Situ Redox Manipulation
BTEX = Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene
SVE = Soil Vapor Extraction
PCU = Power Converter Unit
HRC* = Hydrogen Release Compound
PCU = Power Converter Unit
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT ABSTRACTS
-------
This page intentionally left blank
10
-------
In Situ Biosolids and Lime Addition at the California Gulch Superfund Site,
OU 11, Leadville, Colorado
Site Name:
California Gulch Superfund Site, OU 11
Location:
Leadville, Colorado
Period of Operation:
June 17, 1998 - August 20, 1999 (Biosolids addition: July - August 1998)
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Field demonstration of in situ biosolids and lime treatment of mine tailing
deposits contaminated with heavy metals, including cadmium, copper, lead,
manganese, and zinc.
Cleanup Type:
Field demonstration
Contaminants:
Heavy metals (cadmium, copper, lead, manganese, zinc)
Waste Source:
Mine tailings and acid mine drainage
from mine operations
Contacts:
Environmental Response
Team Contacts:
Harry Compton (Primary
contact)
U.S. EPA
Raritan Depot
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
Telephone: 732-321-6751
Email:
compton.harry@epa.gov
Mark Sprenger, Ph.D.
U.S. EPA
Raritan Depot
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
Telephone: 732-906-6826
Email:
sprenger. mark@epa. gov
On-Scene Coordinator:
Michael Zimmerman
U.S. EPA Region 8
999 18th Street
Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202-2466
Telephone: 303-312-6828
Email:
zimmerman.mike@epa.gov
Remedial Project Manager:
Michael Holmes
999 18th Street
Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202-2466
Telephone: 303-312-6607
Email:
holmes. michael@epa. gov
Technology:
Solidification/Stabilization - In situ biosolids and lime additions
Biosolids - EPA Class B anaerobically digested cake with a 17% solids content
Biosolids application rate of 100 dry tons/acre
Lime application rate of 3/8" agricultural lime at 100 tons/acre
Incorporation depth of 4 to 12 inches
11
-------
In Situ Biosolids and Lime Addition at the California Gulch Superfund Site,
OU 11, Leadville, Colorado (continued)
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil classified as mining tailings with high mineral content
Quantity not provided
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The goals of the field demonstration were to 1) reduce metals bioavailability, 2) increase the pH of the tailings, and 3)
promote vegetation.
Results:
The application of biosolids and lime:
Did not appear to dilute the COC concentrations in the tailings; no consistent trend in COC concentrations was
observed before and after treatment.
Appeared to reduce the availability of COCs, based on a decrease in extractable metals in treated tailings, including
water leachable, exchangeable, weak acid extractable, TCLP, and MEP metals in treated tailings.
Appeared to improve soil quality, based on an increase in pH, TOC, water holding capacity, total nitrogen,
phosphorous, and chloride, as well as percent saturation in cation exchange capacity by potassium and sodium after
treatment.
Increased plant and soil microbial activity based on the high biogeochemical activity of the treated soil.
Reduced soil toxicity, based on the results of plant and earthworm assays.
Reduced the dietary exposure risk for higher trophic organisms, based on the results of several preliminary dietary
exposure models.
Costs:
The total cost for the one-year field demonstration was $3,477,697. This cost included $1,738,750 for investigation and
characterization and $1,738,947 for construction and cleanup.
Description:
Mining operations at the California Gulch Superfund Site, located in Leadville, Colorado, resulted in the release of large
volumes of mine waste and acid mine drainage. California Gulch was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in
1983, and the primary contaminants of concern (COCs) at the site are cadmium, copper, lead, manganese, and zinc. The
site is divided into 12 operable units (OUs). This report focuses on a field demonstration conducted at OU 11, the
Arkansas Floodplain, where tailings have been deposited into and along the banks of the Upper Arkansas River.
Biosolids and lime were added to several tailing locations in a one-year study (July to August 1998). The biosolids used in
the study were EPA Class B anaerobically digested cake with a solids content of 17%. Tailings were treated at a rate of
100 dry tons per acre of biosolids cake and 100 tons per acre of 3/8" agricultural grade lime. The results of the one-year
study indicated that this treatment:
Did not appear to dilute the COC concentrations in the tailings; no consistent trend in COC concentrations was
observed before and after treatment.
Appeared to reduce the availability of COCs, based on a decrease in extractable metals in treated tailings, including
water leachable, exchangeable, weak acid extractable, TCLP, and MEP metals in treated tailings.
Appeared to improve soil quality, based on an increase in pH, TOC, water holding capacity, total nitrogen,
phosphorous, and chloride, as well as percent saturation in cation exchange capacity by potassium and sodium after
treatment.
Increased plant and soil microbial activity based on the high biogeochemical activity of the treated soil.
Reduced soil toxicity, based on the results of plant and earthworm assays.
Reduced the dietary exposure risk for higher trophic organisms, based on the results of several preliminary dietary
exposure models.
EPA indicated that additional investigation will be needed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of this treatment. The
results of the study were not statistically significant. EPA attributed this to the small sample size and wide variation in
results.
The total cost for the one-year field demonstration was $3,477,697. This cost included $1,738,750 for investigation and
characterization and $1,738,947 for construction and cleanup.
12
-------
In Situ Chemical Oxidation Using Hydrogen Peroxide at Four Dry Cleaner Sites
Site Name:
Multiple (4) Dry Cleaner Sites - In Situ Chemical
Oxidation
Location:
Daisy Fresh: College Park, Georgia
Former Alpine Cleaners: Friendswood, Texas
Park Avenue Cleaners: Richardson, Texas
Spin City: Piano, Texas
Period of Operation:
Daisy Fresh: Phase I pilot test - April 8, 2003 and April 22, 2003; Phase II
pilot test - August 25, 2003 and September 25, 2003
Alpine: 1999
Park Avenue: September 2000
Spin City: September 2000
Cleanup Authority:
State
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of in situ oxidation technologies for remediation of chlorinated solvents in
groundwater at drycleaner facilities
Cleanup Type:
Field demonstration - Daisy Fresh
Full scale - Alpine, Park Avenue, and
Spin City
Contaminants:
Chlorinated Solvents
Daisy Fresh: (Groundwater) Chloroform - 33 g/1; cis-l,2-DCE -1,600 g/1;
PCE - 20,000 g/1; TCE - 2,300 g/1; vinyl chloride -18 g/1; xylenes -16 g/1
(Soil) 1,1-DCE -11 g/kg; 1,2-DCE - 47 g/kg; benzene - 8ซ g/kg; chloroform -
44 g/kg; cis-l,2-DCE -12,600 g/kg; naphthalene -16 g/kg; PCE - 219,000
g/kg; TCE - 560,000 g/kg; vinyl chloride - 600 g/kg; xylenes - 87 g/kg
Alpine: 1,1-DCE - 5.9 g/1; cis-l,2-DCE - 3,100 g/1; PCE - 2,940 g/1; TCE -
1,400 g/1; vinyl chloride - 300 g/1. Contaminant concentrations in soil were
below cleanup standards.
Park Avenue: (Groundwater) cis-1,2-DCE - 56 g/1; PCE - 470 g/1;
trans-l,2-DCE - 4 g/1; TCE -150 g/1; xylenes -1 g/1. (Soil) cis-l,2-DCE- 56
g/kg; PCE - 44,590 g/kg; TCE - 940 g/kg; chlorobenzene -19 g/kg
Spin Citv: (Groundwater) cis-l,2-DCE - 900 g/1; PCE - 2,900 g/1;
trans-l,2-DCE -140 g/kg; TCE - 320ซ g/1. (Soil) cis-l,2-DCE -130 g/kg;
PCE - 47,350 g/kg; trans-l,2-DCE -140 g/kg; TCE -1,500 g/kg
Waste Source:
Waste and wastewater from
drycleaning operations
Contacts:
Varied by site
Technology:
In Situ Chemical Oxidation
Daisy Fresh: Other technologies used - monitored natural attenuation, enhanced fluid
recovery.
ISOTEC's chemical oxidation process was used
Phase 1-46 direct push (DP) points with multiple injection intervals and 12
injections wells; Phase II - 54,190 gallons of ISOTEC reagents injected
Alpine:
Initially, an aqueous solution of ferrous sulfate and hydrochloric acid was injected.
This was followed by hydrochloric acid and finally by a 35% solution of hydrogen
peroxide; In August and September of 2001, a total of 135 gallons of a 5.5% solution
of potassium permanganate was injected at the site.
Park Avenue:
550 gallons of a biodegradable surfactant was injected at each injection point
310 gallons of a proprietary catalyst solution was injected at each point
A mixture of a proprietary acid (total of 270 gallons) and a hydrogen peroxide
solution (total of 640 gallons) was injected
Spin Citv:
550 gallons of a biodegradable surfactant was injected at each injection point
116 gallons of a proprietary catalyst solution was injected at each point
A mixture of a proprietary acid (total of 295 gallons) and a hydrogen peroxide
solution (total of 515 gallons) was injected
13
-------
In Situ Chemical Oxidation Using Hydrogen Peroxide at Four Dry Cleaner Sites (continued)
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Daisy Fresh: Soil, groundwater
Alpine: Groundwater
Park Avenue: Soil, groundwater
Spin City: Soil, groundwater; volume of treated soil: 172 cubic yards; groundwater treatment area: approximately
0.74 acres
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Daisy Fresh:
Groundwater: PCE and TCE - 5 g/1; VC - 2 g/1; Cis-1,2 DCE -156 g/1. Soil: PCE and TCE - 0.5 mg/kg; VC -
0.044 mg/kg; Cis-l,2-DCE - 78.2 mg/kg
Alpine:
PCE - 5 g/1; TCE - 5 g/1; cis 1,2-DCE - 70 g/1; vinyl chloride - 2 g/1
Park Avenue:
Groundwater: PCE - 500 g/1; TCE - 500 g/1. Soil: PCE -5,000 g/kg; TCE - 5,000 g/kg
Spin City:
Groundwater: PCE-500 g/1. Soil: PCE - 500 g/kg; TCE - 500 g/kg
Results:
Daisy Fresh:
Phase I - VOCs in two soil samples reduced from 105 g/kg and 87 g/kg to non-detect. Concentrations of VOCs in
groundwater decreased by 83%
Phase II - average VOC concentrations decreased by 89% from baseline conditions measured in April 2003.
In two wells, concentrations of VOCs decreased at first and then increased. This was attributed to the desorption of
solvents from the soil.
Alpine:
3 3 % reduction in contaminant concentrations
Park Avenue:
Soil contaminant concentrations reduced by 99% and groundwater concentrations reduced by 95-100%.
Spin City:
Contaminant concentrations reduced by 56 to 99.9% in soils and by 83 to 100% in groundwater.
Costs:
No cost data available
Description:
In situ chemical oxidation was conducted at four drycleaner sites contaminated with chlorinated solvents from drycleaning
operations, with TCE and PCE as the primary contaminants in groundwater. The concentration of PCE and TCE varied
between the two sites, ranging from 470 to 20,000 g/L for PCE, and 150 to 2,300 g/L for TCE. The remediation
involved in situ chemical oxidation using hydrogen peroxide at full-scale at three sites and at pilot-scale at one site (Daisy
Fresh).
Contaminant concentrations at all four sites were reduced following treatment. The percentage reduction ranged from 33
to 100 percent. At one site (Daisy Fresh), concentrations of VOCs decreased at first and then increased in two wells. This
was attributed to the desorption of solvents from the soil. Cost data were not provided for any of the projects. At several
of the sites, monitored natural attenuation will continue to be evaluated as a remediation technology following the
application of in situ chemical oxidation.
14
-------
In Situ Chemical Reduction at the Frontier Hard Chrome Superfund Site, Vancouver,
Washington
Site Name:
Frontier Hard Chrome (FHC) Superfund Site
Location:
Vancouver, Washington
Period of Operation:
May to October, 2002 - Pilot scale test
January to September, 2003 - Full scale treatment
Cleanup Authority:
Record of Decision for Soil/Source
control (OU1) issued in December
1987
Record of Decision for
groundwater (OU2) issued in July
1988
Record of Decisions (OU1 and
OU2) amended to include in situ
chemical reduction of hexavalent
chromium to trivalent chromium in
August 30, 2001
Purpose/Significance of Application:
To treat source area soil by reducing hexavalent chromium to trivalent
chromium, and to treat migrating chromium from the source area.
Cleanup Type:
Field demonstration and full-scale
treatment
Contaminants:
Heavy Metals (Chromium)
Total chromium concentrations in soil as high as 7,500 mg/kg
Total chromium concentration in the groundwater at the ISRM treatment wall
as high as 300,000 g/L
Waste Source:
Discharge of wastes from the
chromium plating operations to an
on-site dry well
Technology:
In Situ Redox Manipulation (ISRM) to treat soil and groundwater in the source area and downgradient
Treatment of source area proceeded in two steps -1) ECOBONDฎ reagent injection to reduce hexavalent chromium to
trivalent chromium, followed by 2) cement-based grout injections to provide structural strength to treated soil
ECOBONDฎ is a proprietary sulfur-based reagent that reduces hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium.
Treatment depth at the source area ranged between 20 and 33 feet deep
The application used a 10-foot diameter auger to perform in situ vertical auger mixing; the auger size was reduced to a
6-foot diameter to reach depths below 25 feet
An ISRM treatment wall was installed to treat migrating chromium from the source area
The wall consisted of a series of eight pairs of injection wells (16 wells total)
Each pair of injection wells had one deep well (screened 28 to 33 ft bgs) and one shallow well (screened 23 to 28 ft bgs)
Approximately 5,700 gallons of sodium dithionite reagent was mixed with water and injected into each well pair
(40,000 gallons total)
Contacts:
EPA Contact:
Sean Sheldrake
Site Manager
U.S. EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 553-1220
E-mail: sheldrake.sean@epa.gov
State Contact:
Barnett Guy
Washington State Department of Ecology
Southwest Regional Office
300 Desmond Drive
Lacey, WA 98503
Telephone: (360)407-7115
E-mail: gbar461@ecy.wa.gov
Contacts (continued):
Oversight Contractor
Larry Vanselow
Project Manager
Weston Solutions, Inc.
190 Queen Anne Avenue North, Suite 200
Seattle, WA 98109-4926
Telephone: (206) 521-7692
E-mail: Larry.vanselow@westonsolutions.com
On-site Contractor
Mark A. Fieri, PE
Vice President
Compass Environmental Inc.
2075 West Park Place
Stone Mountain, Ga 30087
Telephone: 770.879.4075
E-mail: mfleri@compassenvironmental.com
15
-------
In Situ Chemical Reduction at the Frontier Hard Chrome Superfund Site, Vancouver,
Washington (continued)
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil and Groundwater
20,962 cubic yards of contaminated soil treated
185,000 gallons of contaminated groundwater treated
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The cleanup goals for soil were 19 mg/kg of hexavalent chromium and 80,000 mg/kg of trivalent chromium.
The cleanup goal for groundwater was 50 g/L of total chromium.
Results:
The total chromium concentration in soil at the source area was reduced from as high as 7,500 mg/kg to non-detect (< 5
mg/kg), and from 300,000 g/L to less than 800 g/L in the groundwater. Total chromium concentration in the
groundwater at the ISRM treatment wall was reduced from as high as 300,000 g/L to 25 g/L.
Costs:
ISRM treatment wall:
Total capital costs in 2003 dollars were $350,300. Total operating and maintenance costs (O&M) costs were $679,700.
The cost per square foot of the treatment wall was $330.
Source area treatment:
Total capital costs in 2003 dollars were $398,000. Total O&M costs were $2,021,500. The cost per cubic yard of
treated soil was $124.
Description:
The Frontier Hard Chrome (FHC) Superfund site was used for chrome plating operations from 1958 to 1983. Since 1983,
the site has been leased and most recently used as a metals shop.
Discharge of wastes from the chrome plating operations resulted in soil and groundwater contamination at the site. Total
chromium concentrations in soil were found to be as high as 7,500 mg/kg, and as high as 300,000 g/L in groundwater at
the treatment wall. Soil at the site was also contaminated, with chromium concentrations as high as 7,500 mg/kg. In
September 1983, the site was added to the National Priorities List. Records of Decision (RODs) were issued in December
1987 for the soils/source control operable unit (OU1) and in July 1988 for the groundwater operable unit (OU2). In Situ
Redox Manipulation (ISRM) was selected to treat soil and groundwater contamination at the site. From January to
September 2003, the remedial action was conducted in three phases: building demolition, ISRM treatment wall
installation, and source area treatment. ECOBONDฎ, a proprietary sulfur-based reagent was used to treat the source soil
by reducing hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium. The ISRM treatment wall was installed to treat migrating
chromium from the source area.
Approximately 20,962 cubic yards of contaminated soil and 185,000 gallons of contaminated groundwater were treated at
the source area. Total chromium concentrations in soil were reduced from as high as 7,500 mg/kg to non-detect (< 5
mg/kg). Total chromium concentrations in groundwater were reduced from as high as 300,000 g/L to less than 800 g/L
(detection limit using HACH chromium test kits). At the ISRM treatment wall, total chromium concentrations in the
groundwater were reduced from as high as 300,000 g/L to 25 g/L.
The total capital costs and O&M costs for the treatment of source area in 2003 dollars were $398,000 and $2,021,500,
respectively. The cost per cubic yard of treated soil was $124. The total capital costs and O&M costs for the treatment
wall in 2003 dollars were $350,300 and $679,700, respectively. The cost per square foot of the treatment wall was $330.
16
-------
Electrical Resistive Heating at Hunter Army Airfield, Former Pumphouse #2, Savannah, Georgia
Site Name:
Hunter Army Airfield (Hunter AAF), Former Pumphouse
#2
Location:
Savannah, Georgia
Period of Operation:
April 5, 2002 to August 5, 2002
Cleanup Authority:
State (Georgia Environmental
Protection Division)
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of ERH to remediate PAHs in soil, groundwater, and LNAPL form
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
Petroleum constituents - BTEX and PAHs
Dissolved groundwater plume covered an area of approximately 85,800 ft2.
Initial area of benzene contamination in groundwater was approximately 55,500
ft2 observed in January 2002. A 1997 investigation discovered Light
nonaqueous-phase liquid (LNAPL) in one of the wells which covered an area of
approximately 3,825 ft2. In May 2002, LNAPL covered an area of 11,500 ft2.
Waste Source:
Leaks from underground storage tanks
(USTs)
Technology:
Electrical Resistive Heating - Six-Phase Heating (SPH)
A total of 111 ERH electrodes were installed at a spacing of 18 feet (ft), and to a depth of 16 ft bgs. The steel
conductive interval ranged from 8 to 16 ft bgs, with the actual steel electrode extending from 9 to 16 ft bgs.
In the area where free product (LNAPL) was located, 18 of the electrodes were installed as a combination of electrode
and dual vapor extraction (DVE) wells. The conductive interval was 9 to 16 ft bgs for the DVE wells. The
electrode/DVE wells served as heating elements and as contingency product-extraction points.
A total of 23 vapor recovery wells (VRWs) were installed at a spacing of 40 ft, for a radius of influence of 25 ft. Two
types of VRWs were installed in 8-inch diameter boreholes; DVE and soil vapor extraction (SVE) wells.
To monitor the internal temperature of the treatment area, 15 temperature monitoring points (TMPs), were installed
with thermocouples located at 8, 12, and 16 ft bgs.
The average subsurface temperature was greater than 90 ซC.
Contacts:
State Regulator
Mr. William Logan
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
Underground Storage Tank Management Program
4224 International Parkway, Suite 104
Atlanta, Georgia 30354
Telephone: (404) 362-4529
E-mail: William_Logan@dnr.state.ga.us
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) Oversight
Ms. Ana Vergara
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE)
Savannah District
100 W. Oglethorpe Avenue
Savannah, Georgia 31401
Telephone: (912)652-5835
E-mail: Anadel.R.Vergara@sas02.usace.army.mil
Contacts (continued):
Ms. Tressa Rutland
Department of the Army Headquarters, Fort Stewart
Directorate of Public Works, Environmental Branch
1550 Frank Cochran Drive, Bldg. 1137
Fort Stewart, Georgia 31314-4927
Telephone: (912) 767-2010
E-mail: Tressa.Rutland@stewart.army.mil
Consultant/Contractor
Ms. Patricia A. Stoll, P.E.
Science Applications International Corporation
151 Lafayette Drive
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831
Telephone: (865) 481-8792
E-mail: Patricia.A.Stoll@saic.com
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil, groundwater, and LNAPL
Approximately 35,000 cubic yards of media were treated.
17
-------
Electrical Resistive Heating at Hunter Army Airfield, Former Pumphouse #2, Savannah, Georgia
(continued)
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The objectives of the corrective action were to remove free product (LNAPL) from the site, reduce concentrations of
benzene in groundwater to less than the alternate concentration limit (ACL) of 469 micrograms per liter ( g/L), and to
reduce concentrations of benzene and indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene in soil to below their alternate threshold levels (ATLs) of
0.44 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg) and 0.66 mg/kg, respectively.
Results:
From April to August 2002, an estimated 44,000 pounds of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were removed. The
amount of free product was reduced from a maximum of 11,500 ft2 measured in May 2002 to no free product measured
beginning in June 2002.
Confirmatory soil samples were collected in February 2003. These samples indicated that none of the BTEX or PAH
compounds exceeded their applicable ATLs.
As of March 2004, post-treatment concentrations of benzene and other PAHs in groundwater were all below their
respective ACLs.
The site remains in a semiannual monitoring only program. If the concentrations of the constituents are below their
ACLs following a year of semiannual sampling, then a no-further-action-required status will be requested for the site.
Costs:
The total cost for the ERH application at Hunter AAF was approximately $1,300,000, consisting of:
$1,042,129 for design, mobilization/demobilization, installation, and operation and maintenance of the system for four
months;
$259,000 for electrical service connection.
This total cost does not include costs for the generator (PCU), which was provided on loan from DOE.
Description:
Hunter AAF contains a former aviation-gas fuel island (Former Pumphouse #2), which was used from approximately 1953
to the early 1970s. It consisted often 25,000-gal USTs. The pumphouse was inactive from the early 1970s to 1995. In
1995, eight of the ten 25,000-gal USTs were removed from the ground. Leakage from USTs resulted in the contaminant
plume. The site is being remediated under Georgia Environmental Protection Division, Underground Storage Tank
Management Program.
Site investigations carried out in 1996 and 1997 identified petroleum contaminants in soil and groundwater, including
BTEX and PAHs. The investigation identified the dissolved groundwater plume as covering an area of approximately
85,800 ft2. The 1997 investigation also discovered LNAPL in one of the wells which covered an area of approximately
3,825 ft2. The ERH implementation was initiated in April 2002 and continued for four months. Approximately 35,000
cubic yards of media were treated.
Site-specific ACLs for groundwater and ATLs for soil were developed for contaminants at the site. The objectives of the
treatment were to remove LNAPL from the site, reduce concentrations of benzene in groundwater to less than the ACL of
469 g/L, and reduce concentrations of benzene and indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene in soil to below their ATLs of 0.44 mg/kg and
0.66 mg/kg, respectively. From April to August 2002, an estimated 44,000 pounds of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
were removed. The amount of free product was reduced from a maximum of 11,500 ft2 measured in May 2002 to no free
product measured beginning in June 2002. Confirmatory soil samples collected in February 2003 indicated that none of
the BTEX or PAH compounds exceeded their applicable ATLs. As of March 2004, post-treatment concentrations of
benzene and other PAHs in groundwater were all below their respective ACLs.
The total cost for the ERH application at Hunter AAF was approximately $1,300,000, consisting of $1,042,129 for design,
mobilization/demobilization, installation, and operation and maintenance of the system for four months; and $259,000 for
electrical service connection. This total cost does not include costs for the generator (PCU), which was provided on loan
from DOE.
18
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at Three Dry Cleaner Sites, Various Locations
Site Name:
Multiple (3) Dry Cleaner Sites - Soil Vapor Extraction
Location:
ABC One-Hour Cleaners: Jacksonville, North Carolina
Parisian Cleaners: Orlando, Florida
RandolFs Cleaners and Alterations: Tallahassee, Florida
Period of Operation:
ABC One-Hour Cleaners: Soil - April 2000. Groundwater-January 1999
Parisian Cleaners: July 9, 2002
RandolFs Cleaners and Alterations: August 21. 2003
Cleanup Authority:
State
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of SVE to treat soil and groundwater contaminated with chlorinated solvents
at dry cleaner facilities
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
Chlorinated Solvents, Petroleum Hydrocarbons
ABC:
(Groundwater) 1,2-DCE -1,200 g/L; PCE - 5,400 g/L; TCE - 640 g/L; VC -
110 g/L. (Soil) 1, 2 DCE - <31,000 g/kg; PCE - 2,100,000 g/kg; TCE -
33,000 g/kg; VC - <31,000 g/kg
Parisian:
(Groundwater) 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene - 365 g/L; 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene -120
g/L; PCE - 320ซ g/L; TCE - 4.4 g/L. (Soil) 1,2,4-trimethlybenzene - 410
g/kg; naphthalene - 570 g/kg; PCE -130 g/kg; xylenes -188 g/kg
RandolFs:
(Groundwater) cis-l,2-DCE - 840 g/L; PCE - 47,760 g/L; DCE - 7 g/L; TCE
- 275 g/L; VC - 27 g/L. (Soil) PCE -18,000 g/kg; TCE - 54 g/kg; Toluene
- 199 g/kg; TPH - 12,000 g/kg
Waste Source:
Waste and wastewater from dry
cleaning operations.
At ABC One-Hour Cleaners, prior
disposal of PCE wastes and still
bottoms as pothole fill may also have
contributed to the contamination.
Contacts:
Varied by site
Technology:
Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)
ABC: Six extraction wells installed in April 2000. In July 2002, two additional
wells installed and three others shut down. For treatment of contaminated
groundwater, five extraction wells installed, with four in the surficial aquifer and one
is the Castle Hayne Aquifer.
Parisian: Two vertical extraction wells installed for the SVE system. One well
placed inside the building and other well placed next to the building.
Randolf s: SVE system consisted of a 50 HP blower designed to operate at an
extraction rate of approximately 480 SCFM at a vacuum of 16 inches of mercury.
Extracted vapors treated in two GAC units.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil, Groundwater, DNAPL
ABC:
Depth to Groundwater: 15 ft bgs; Conductivity: 10.3; Gradient: 0.13 ft/ft
Parisian:
Depth to Groundwater: 12.5 ft bgs; Gradient: 0.003 ft/ft to 0.004 ft/ft
Randolf s:
Depth of Groundwater: 45-55 ft bgs; Conductivity: 3 ft/day; Gradient: 0.024 ft/ft
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
ABC: Soil remediation goals based on soil to groundwater leachability. Groundwater cleanup goals equivalent to
groundwater standards.
Parisian: Groundwater: PCE - 3 g/L; TCE - 3 g/L; naphthalene - 20 g/L; 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene -10 g/L;
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene -10 g/L. Soil (leachability): PCE - 0.3 mg/kg; TCE - 0.3 mg/kg; naphthalene -1.7 mg/kg;
1,2,4 trimethylbenzene - 0.3 mg/kg; 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene - 0.3 mg/kg
Randolf s: Groundwater: PCE - 3 g/L; TCE - 3 g/L; cis 1,2-DCE - 70 g/L; VC 1 g/L. Soil: PCE - 30 g/kg; TCE
- 30 g/kg; TPH - 340,000 g/kg
19
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at Three Dry Cleaner Sites, Various Locations (continued)
Results:
ABC: Contaminant concentrations in soil decreased since installation of extraction wells in April 2000, but remedial
objectives have not been met. Contaminant concentrations in groundwater decreased since installation of extraction
wells in January 1999, but remedial goals have not been met in the surficial aquifer. Contamination in the Castle Hayne
aquifer has migrated beyond the zone of extraction well influence.
Parisian: Contaminant concentrations in soil and groundwater decreased since using the SVE system. No further action
(NFA) is the final remedy for both soils and groundwater.
RandolFs: After one year of operation, an estimated 345 pounds of chlorinated ethenes were recovered.
Approximately 90 percent of this contaminant mass were recovered from soil vapor. Approximately 1.6 million gallons
of groundwater have been recovered and treated. Except for one well, contaminant concentrations in groundwater
samples produced by recovery wells are the same order of magnitude since system startup with PCE concentrations in 4
of the 6 recovery wells ranging from 1,300 to 4,300 g/L. PCE concentrations in groundwater samples collected from
monitor wells however, have dropped by one order of magnitude from 10s of mg/L to less than 10 mg/L. The SVE
system operation rate has been 73% and the groundwater recovery system operation rate has been 87%. Downtime has
been due to power interruptions, air stripper upsets, and broken drive belts on the SVE system. Hydraulic capture of the
contaminant source area also has been achieved.
Costs:
ABC: $521,463 for treatment of contaminated soil and $2,262,900 for treatment of contaminated groundwater
Parisian: Assessment - $92,120.30; design and implementation - $72,458; operation and maintenance - $29,264;
monitoring - $8,689; total cost - $202, 531.
RandolFs: Assessment - $147,800; design and implementation - $298,500; operation and maintenance - $64,500
(includes monitoring and utility payments.
Description:
Soil vapor extraction was conducted at three dry cleaner sites contaminated with chlorinated solvents from leaks, spills, or
dumping of dry cleaning solvents or wastewaters. The concentration of contaminants varied by site with levels of PCE in
groundwater as high as 47,760 g/L and 1,2-DCE as high as 1,200 g/L. Levels of TCE in soil were as 33,000 g/kg and
PCE as high as 2,100,000 g/kg. At all three sites remediation was carried out at full scale.
At the ABC One-Hour Cleaners site, the SVE system is being expanded with an additional two to three wells, since the
remedial objectives have not been met. Additional monitoring wells are being installed for treatment of groundwater and
monitored natural attenuation will be investigated as a viable option. An important lesson learned at this site was that after
more than a decade of soil and groundwater remediation, neither the soil nor the groundwater remediation goals have been
attained. Soil excavation may have been a more expensive alternative than SVE; however, source removal would have
been accomplished. The removal of the dominant source may have allowed the pump and treat system a better chance at
remediation. An important lesson learned at the Parisian Cleaners site was that good soil sampling under the building
provided a good design of the SVE system. Lessons learned at the Randolph's Cleaners and Alterations site were that in
low permeability sediments, considerable contaminant mass can be trapped in unsaturated zone, capillary zone, and the
upper most portion of the saturated zone. Also, a seasonal rise in the water table at the site resulting in an order of
magnitude increase in contaminant concentrations in monitor well groundwater samples, indicates the presence of DNAPL
in and near the capillary zone at the site.
20
-------
Rhizosphere-Enhanced Bioremediation of Petroleum, Oil and Lubricant (POL)-Contaminated
Soils at Three Sites in Alaska
Site Name:
Multiple (3) POL-Contaminated Sites
Location:
Annette Island site, Former U.S. Army Air Force Landing
Field, Metlakatla, Alaska
Galena/Campion site, Former Air Force Station, Galena,
Alaska
Barrow sites, Former Tank Farm, and Former Dry
Cleaning Facility, Barrow, Alaska
Period of Operation:
Demonstrations at Annette Island and Galena/Campion began in Summer
1998 with site installation including soil preparation and seeding
Soil preparation and seeding at Barrow began in Summer 1999
Performance data available through Summer 2000
Cleanup Authority:
Not applicable
Purpose/Significance of Application:
To demonstrate remediation of POL-contaminated surface soils in cold
climates using cold-tolerant plants
To determine relative effectiveness of fertilized and planted areas versus
unfertilized areas and unplanted areas
To study relationship between contaminant degradation and root-zone
microbes.
To study microbial population and composition
Cleanup Type:
Field demonstration
Contaminants:
Diesel range organics (DRO) and gasoline range organics (GRO)
Annette Island: Soil - fuel-related contaminants - specific information not
available
Galena/Campion: Soil - DRO (1995 data) - 36 mg/kg to 75,000 mg/kg; GRO
(1995 data) - 59 mg/kg to 7,500 mg/kg
Barrow:
Dry Cleaning Facility:
-D Soil (1995 data) - DRO - 230 mg/kg to 810 mg/kg; GRO - below
detection limit to 85 mg/kg; PCE
Tank Farm:
-D Soil (1994 data) - Total petroleum hydrocarbons - 47 mg/kg to 9,400
mg/kg; lead -8.1 mg/kg to 365 mg/kg; BTEX, halogenated aliphatics,
PAHs, phenolics, solvents and inorganic compounds were also detected
Waste Source:
Annette Island: Presumed to be
from operations involving a fuel
storage tank farm
Galena/Campion: Presumed to be
from operations involving a heating
fuel storage tank farm
Barrow: From operations related
to a former dry cleaning facility
and former bulk fuel tank farm;
bulk fuel tanks contained diesel
fuel, gasoline, Mogas and JP-5 jet
fuel
Contacts:
Varied by site
Technology:
Rhizosphere-enhanced bioremediation
Used a seed mixture of three species of cold-tolerant grasses
Annual ryegrass (10% to 15%)
Arctared red fescue (60% to 70%)
White clover (20% to 25%)
Minimal soil preparation prior to seeding
Surface-applied seeds with handheld seeders and pressed seed into soil
Added maximum permissible (less than 2,000 mg nitrogen/kg of soil) quantity of
standard agricultural fertilizer
Prepared control area with fertilizer but no seeds
Prepared control area with seeds but no fertilizer
21
-------
Rhizosphere-Enhanced Bioremediation of Petroleum, Oil and Lubricant (POL)-Contaminated
Soils at Three Sites in Alaska (continued)
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
Barrow:
Surface soils, mainly coarse sand and gravel marine beach deposits, but silty in vegetated areas
An estimated 7,000 cubic yards of petroleum contaminated soil present
Soils remain frozen through most of the year, but thaw to a maximum depth of 55 inches in August or September
and refreeze by late October
Groundwater occurs only in the thawed zone above the permafrost, and there is no significant flow
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Short term goal - to achieve reduction in contaminant concentrations; long-term goal - to restore Native American lands
contaminated by DoD
Quantitative cleanup goals were not provided
Results:
Contaminant concentration were reduced (quantitative results were not available)
Significant plant growth was observed in fertilized areas
Long term cleanup goals are anticipated to be achieved only after continued remediation during future thaw periods
Costs:
Capital cost - $7,250; operation and maintenance - $1,400 per year
Other costs - $6,000 per year (includes long-term monitoring, regulatory oversight, compliance testing/analysis,
excavation, and disposal of residues
Total cost (based on a 10,000-ft2 treatment area, 2-ft treatment depth, and 10-year period of operation) - $27,250
Description:
Rhizosphere-enhanced bioremediation was demonstrated at field-scale at three sites (Annette Island, Galena/Campion and
Barrow) in Alaska. The contaminants at the sites were mainly petroleum hydrocarbons, including gasoline range organics
(GRO) and diesel range organics (DRO). Barrow also had trace-level tetrachloroethene (PCE) and daughter products in
the soil as a remnant of a removal action at a former dry cleaning facility. Demonstrations at all three sites included
fertilizing and seeding of contaminated areas with a mixture of three cold-tolerant grasses. Installation at Annette and
Galena/Campion, including soil fertilization and seeding, was conducted in Summer 1998. At Barrow, soil fertilization
and seeding was completed during the next thaw-period in Summer 1999. Progress was monitored at all three sites at least
until Summer 2000. Satisfactory plant growth was observed in fertilized and seeded areas and contaminant concentrations
were reduced in these areas. Quantitative cleanup goals were not provided for the demonstration. The capital cost for the
was $7,250, and the O&M cost was $1,400 per year.
22
-------
EX SITU SOIL/SEDIMENT TREATMENT ABSTRACTS
23
-------
This page intentionally left blank
24
-------
Thermal Desorption at the T.H. Agriculture and Nutrition Site, OU2, Albany, Georgia
Site Name:
T.H. Agriculture and Nutrition (THAN) Site, OU2
Location:
Albany, Georgia
Period of Operation:
October to November 1999
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of thermal desorption to treat soil contaminated with pesticides and
inorganic contaminants.
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
Organochlorine and organophosphorus pesticides including DDT, toxaphene,
methyl parathion, and ethylene dibromide, as well as inorganics.
Waste Source:
Pesticide formulation and packaging
Contacts:
Vendor (Primary Contact):
Mark A. Fieri, P.E.
Vice President
Williams Environmental
Services, Inc.
2075 West Park Place
Stone Mountain, GA 30087
Telephone: (800)
247-40307(770) 879-4075
Fax: (770)879-4831
Email: mfleri@wsgl.usa.com
EPA Contact:
Humberto Guzman
U.S. EPA Region 4
61ForsythSt, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
Telephone: (404) 562-8942
Email:
guzman. humberto@epa. gov
Technology:
Thermal Desorption
Thermal treatment system was a low temperature thermal desorption (LTTD) system.
System included a feed system, rotary dryer, baghouse, wet quench, air mix chamber,
and granulated activated carbon beds.
Countercurrent rotary dryer, approximately 31 feet long and 6.5 feet in diameter, was
direct-fired using a 32 million BTU/hr burner.
Excavated soil was screened to 2 inches in diameter.
System processed an average of 15 tons of soil/hr, with a typical soil exit
temperature of 975ฐF.
Off-gas was passed through a baghouse to remove particulates, cooled using flash
evaporation of water in a spray tower quench chamber, passed through a mist
eliminator, cooled in an on-line mix chamber where ambient air was added, and
reheated prior to being sent to the carbon beds.
Treated soil was combined with baghouse dust and water, discharged to a soil
stacking area, and finally sent to a verification holding area for sampling.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
10,424 tons
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Cleanup goals were - DDT - 94 mg/kg; Toxaphene - 29 mg/kg; Methyl Parathion -17 mg/kg; Ethylene Dibromide -
0.006 mg/kg
Maximum stack gas total hydrocarbon (THC) levels were limited to 118 parts per million by volume (ppmv)
Emissions had to meet state ambient air concentration levels for organic emissions
Carbon beds removal efficiency >90%
Results:
10,424 tons of soil were treated in 18 batches
All but one batch met the cleanup goals after initial treatment in the thermal desorber (the batch that was out of
compliance met cleanup goals after the second treatment)
Treated soil was backfilled on site
There were no exceedances of the state ambient air limits
Results of analyses of the removal efficiency of the carbon beds indicated that changeout of the carbon beds was not
necessary
Costs:
Actual costs for this application - $1,058,230, including $566,184 for capital costs and $492,046 for O&M costs
Unit cost of $102 per ton, based on 10,424 tons of treated soil
25
-------
Thermal Desorption at the T.H. Agriculture and Nutrition Site, OU2, Albany, Georgia (continued)
Description:
The THAN site, in Albany Georgia, operated from the 1950s until 1982 to formulate and package pesticides. Operations
at the site resulted in contamination of soil and groundwater. The site was listed on the National Priorities List in 1989.
During remedial investigations, it was discovered that the groundwater plume from the THAN parcel had migrated beneath
an adjacent property owned by Larry Jones (Jones Property). The 5-acre Jones Property was the site of a former pesticide
formulation and packaging facility (operated from 1964 to the 1970s). EPA divided the THAN site into two operable units
(OU). OU1 addresses soil and groundwater from the original THAN site (western parcel). OU2 addresses soil
contamination at the Jones Property (eastern parcel). This report addresses the remediation of OU2.
A record of decision (ROD) for OU2 was signed in 1996. The ROD specified excavation of contaminated soil and
treatment using low temperature thermal desorption. Contaminants found in soil at the Jones Property included
organochlorine and organophosphorus pesticides including DDT, toxaphene, methyl parathion, and ethylene dibromide, as
well as inorganics. From October to November 1999, thermal desorption treated 10,424 tons of pesticide-contaminated
soil to below cleanup goals. All but one batch met the cleanup goals after the initial treatment in the thermal desorber.
The batch that was out of compliance met cleanup goals after the second treatment. All treated soil was backfilled on the
site. The cost for thermal desorption at this site was $1,058,230 or $102 per ton of soil treated.
26
-------
IN SITU GROUNDWATER TREATMENT ABSTRACTS
27
-------
This page intentionally left blank
28
-------
Electrical Resistive Heating at Charleston Naval Complex, AOC 607, North Charleston, South
Carolina
Site Name:
Charleston Naval Complex, AOC 607
Location:
North Charleston, South Carolina
Period of Operation:
October 2001 to July 2002
Cleanup Authority:
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) - Corrective Action
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of ERH to remediate chlorinated solvents and PCE DNAPL in groundwater.
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
Chlorinated Solvents - PCE Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL), TCE,
cis-l,2-DCE, 1,1-DCE, VC
Initial maximum contaminant concentrations:
Total volatile organic compounds (VOCs) -18,000 g/L
PCE - 8,090 g/L
Waste Source:
Use, storage, disposal, and accidental
release of chlorinated solvents at a
former dry cleaning facility
Contacts:
U.S. EPA Region 4
Mr. Darin Spariosu
EPA Region 4
6IForsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
Phone: (404)562-8552
Email: spariosu.dann@epa.gov
State Regulator
Mr. David Scaturo
South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental
Control
Bureau of Land and Waste
Management
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Phone: (803)896-4185
Email: scaturdm@dhec.sc.gov
Technology Vendor
Mr. Greg Beyke, P.E.
Thermal Remediation Services,
Inc.
Phone: (615)791-5772
Email: gbeyke@thermalrs.com
Technology:
Electrical Resistive Heating - Six-Phase Heating (SPH) for subsurface heating
Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) system for vapor recovery
Above-ground treatment system to process vapor and liquid wastes generated by
SVE
ERH system:
Two 500 kilowatt (kW) power control units (PCU) operating 101 electrodes.
Electrodes installed to a depth of approximately 10 to 10.5 feet below ground
surface (bgs) with a lateral spacing of approximately 14 feet.
PCU 1 began operating on October 3, 2001 in the more contaminated "southern"
portion of the Target Treatment Area (TTA).
PCU 2 began operating in the "northern" portion of the TTA on December 13,
2001.
From April 15 to May 15, 2002, the entire ERH system operated using 101
electrodes, twelve 8-inch diameter steel piles, six Geoprobe electrodes, and 310
3/4-inch diameter ground rods.
To optimize performance, both PCUs cycled with 50 minutes of operation
followed by 10 minutes of shut-down, to allow "re-wetting" of the electrodes and
prevent the drying of soils close to the electrodes.
The average weekly power input during the nine-month ERH operation was
approximately 278 kilowatts (kW), with a maximum power input of 520 kW that
occurred during the week immediately following the start-up of PCU-2. The
ERH system was shut down on July 8, 2002.
A condenser (to remove water vapor), a cooling tower (to cool condensate), and
granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption units (to treat dry vapor prior to
atmospheric release).
Following completion of the ERH in July 2002, TTA monitoring continued until
March 2004.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater and DNAPL
Approximately 4,300 cubic yards of media were treated. This volume is based on a 7-foot deep (saturated zone: 4 feet bgs
to 11 feet bgs treatment zone) over a 16,525 square feet (ft2) TTA.
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The objective of the ERH treatment was to reduce the amount of chlorinated volatile organic compounds (CVOC) DNAPL
present in the aquifer, thereby reducing its potential to act as a continuing source for dissolved-phase contamination. A
quantifiable cleanup objective was not established during this remediation action.
29
-------
Electrical Resistive Heating at Charleston Naval Complex, AOC 607, North Charleston, South
Carolina (continued)
Results:
In general, ERH resulted in a decrease in the area of the plume and a decrease in the number of high concentration
zones.
In March 2004 (22 months after ERH shutdown), PCE was detected in a monitoring well at a concentration of 283
g/L. This suggested a 95 percent reduction in concentration compared to the pre-treatment baseline.
Total volatile organic compounds concentration decreased by 83 percent.
Total CVOCs and PCE mass recovered during ERH system operation was calculated at 247 and 234 Ibs respectively.
Costs:
The total cost for the full-scale application was approximately $1,250,000. Costs were divided into the following
categories:
Capital costs - $373,000, including $71,000 for mobilization/demobilization
Operational costs - $473,000
Retrofit (electrode installation and well replacement) - $60,000
Monitoring (laboratory analytical services) - $50,000
Project oversight-$215,000
Description:
Charleston Naval Complex area of concern (AOC) 607 consisted of a former dry cleaning facility. PCE was one of the
primary chemicals that was used, stored, disposed of, and accidentally released at the site.
A RCRA Facility Investigation conducted in 1996 and 1997 detected dissolved-phase chlorinated solvents in the saturated
zone including PCE, TCE, cis-l,2-DCE, 1,1-DCE and VC. In addition, PCE in the form of DNAPL appeared to have
migrated into the shallow saturated zone. Initial maximum contaminant concentrations included 18,000 g/L of total
VOCs and 8,090 g/L of PCE. The site was remediated under the RCRA Corrective Action Program. Operation of the
ERH system was initiated in October 2001 and continued until July 2002. Approximately 4,300 cubic yards of media were
treated. This volume is based on a 7-foot deep (saturated zone: 4 feet bgs to 11 feet bgs treatment zone) over a 16,525
square feet (ft2) TTA.
The objective of the ERH treatment was to reduce the amount of DNAPL present in the aquifer, thereby reducing its
potential to act as a continuing source for dissolved-phase contamination. A quantifiable cleanup objective was not
established during this remediation action.
In general, ERH resulted in a decrease in the area of the plume and a decrease in the number of high concentration zones.
PCE concentrations reduced by about 95 percent in concentration compared to the pre-treatment baseline. Total VOCs
decreased by 83 percent. Total CVOCs and PCE mass recovered during ERH system operation was calculated at 247 and
234 Ibs respectively.
The total cost for the full-scale application was approximately $1,250,000. Costs were divided into the following
categories:
Mobilization/demobilization costs - $71,000
Capital costs - $373,000
Operational costs - $473,000
Retrofit (electrode installation and well replacement) - $60,000
Monitoring (laboratory analytical services) - $50,000
Project oversight-$215,000
One of the main issues that arose during the ERH treatment at AOC 607 was that the treatment took longer than
anticipated, mainly due to slower heating of the groundwater in deeper portions of the saturated zone. The ERH system
was enhanced by using additional electrodes to achieve adequate heating.
30
-------
In Situ Bioremediation Using Various Additives at Five Dry Cleaner Sites, Various Locations
Site Name:
Multiple (5) Dry Cleaner Sites - In Situ Bioremediation
Location:
Blacks Cleaners - Portland, Oregon
Boone Dry Cleaners - Jackson, Tennessee
Carousel Cleaners - Oregon City, Oregon
Former 60 Minute Cleaners - Ft. Myers, Florida
Village Green Shopping Center - Rockledge, Florida
Period of Operation:
Blacks - Summer 2002 to present (Full-scale)
Boone - April to December 2002
Carousel - Spring 2001 to Winter 2003
Former 60 - March 13. 2004 to date unknown
Village Green - November 12, 2002 to February 13, 2003
Cleanup Authority:
State
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of in situ bioremediation using various additives to treat soil and
groundwater contaminated with chlorinated solvents at dry cleaner facilities.
Cleanup Type:
Full scale - Blacks, Boone, Former
60, and Village Green
Field demonstration - Carousel
Contaminants:
Blacks (Groundwater) cis-l,2-DCE - 39 mg/L; dichlorobenzenes - 0.003
mg/L; PCE - 8.7 mg/L; TCE -10.4 mg/L; vinyl chloride 0.35 mg/L; xylenes
0.05 mg/L
(Soil) cis-l,2-DCE -10.9 mg/kg; PCE -1,100 mg/kg; TCE - 91.6 mg/kg;
vinyl chloride - 0.14 mg/kg
Boone (Groundwater) 1,1-DCE - 2.7 g/L; benzene - 32,100 g/L;
cis-l,2-DCE -1780 g/L; m-xylene -16,300 g/L; PCE - 89,800 g/L;
trans-l,2-DCE - 6.0 g/L; TCE - 610 g/L; vinyl chloride - 220 g/L.
(Soil): cis-l,2-DCE -156 g/kg; lead -151 mg/kg; m-xylene - 283 g/kg;
PCE - 6,090 mg/kg; trans-l-2-DCE -13 g/kg; TCE - 39 g/kg
Carousel (Groundwater) PCE - up to 25,700 g/L; (Soil) PCE - up to 7,000
mg/kg
Former 60 (Groundwater) 1,1-DCA - 8.6 g/1; 1,1-DCE -1,050 g/1; benzene
-150 g/1; cis-l,2-DCE - 2,321 g/1; MTBE - 29.5 g/1; PCE - 6,820 g/1;
trans-l,2-DCE -150 g/1; TCE - 2,040 g/1; vinyl chloride -150 g/1
(Soil): PCE -1,800 g/kg; TCE - 2.97 g/kg
Village Green (Groundwater) cis-l,2-DCE - 8,550 g/L; PCE - 27,300 g/L;
TCE - 7,900 g/L; vinyl chloride - 780 g/L
(Soil) PCE - 564,000 g/kg; TCE - 5,007 g/kg
Waste Source:
Waste and wastewater from dry
cleaning operations
Contacts:
Varied by site
Technology:
In situ bioremediation - various additives
Blacks - In-situ bioremediation using sodium lactate followed by emulsified soybean
oil. System includes three horizontal injection points beneath building footprint, a
horizontal injection system in former source area, and several vertical injection wells
between dry cleaner facility and adjacent apartment building.
Boone - In-situ bioremediation using corn syrup, Simple Greenฎ, and vegetable oil.
Twelve 4" injection wells and eight 2" pilot test monitoring wells installed to a
depth of 18ft.
Carousel - In situ bioremediation using BioRem H-10
Former 60 - In situ bioremediation using ethyl lactate injection/groundwater
withdrawal and re-injection.
A total of 110 gallons injected in a 1-2% solution.
Village Green - In situ bioremediation using ethyl lactate
12 injection points and 7 recovery wells installed in the source area for the
bioremediation
In dissolved phase portion, 4 shallow and 5 deep injection wells were installed.
A total of 880 gallons of ethyl lactate were pumped into the 12 injection points
above the source area.
31
-------
In Situ Bioremediation Using Various Additives at Five Dry Cleaner Sites, Various Locations
(continued)
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil, groundwater, DNAPL
Blacks: Groundwater, soil, DNAPL; depth to groundwater: varies seasonally from 6 to 12 feet
Boone: Groundwater, soil; depth to groundwater: 10.11 ft (shallow); 45.87 (intermediate); 65.85 (deep)
Carousel: Groundwater, soil; depth to groundwater: seasonally varies from 10 to 20 ft bgs
Former 60: Groundwater, soil; depth to groundwater: 4 ft bgs
Village Green: Groundwater, soil, DNAPL; depth to groundwater: 4 ft bgs
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Blacks: Cleanup goals primarily based on vapor intrusion into buildings; preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) for
groundwater: 1 g/L PCE; 100 g/L TCE; and 20 g/L vinyl chloride.
Boone: Soil - EPA Region 9 PRGs; Groundwater - MCLs
Carousel: Final cleanup goals yet to be established. Likely cleanup goals for groundwater and soil will be based on
vapor intrusion modeling, and protection of deep aquifer at the MCL of 5 g/L for PCE.
Former 60: Groundwater - PCE - 3 g/L, TCE - 3 g/L, cis-l,2-DCE - 70 g/L, trans-l,2-DCE -100 g/L; 1,1-DCE - 7
g/L; vinyl chloride -1.0 g/L. Soil: PCE - 30 g/kg; TCE - 30 g/kg
Village Green: Groundwater - PCE - 3 g/L, TCE - 3 g/L, cis-l,2-DCE - 70 g/L. Soil (teachability): PCE - 30
g/kg; TCE - 30 g/kg
Results:
Blacks - Not available
Boone -
Wells with greatest PCE impact indicated an 85-95% decrease by August 2002.
Carousel -
BioRem H-10 was able to degrade PCE without generation and accumulation of more toxic daughter products,
namely TCE and vinyl chloride.
Former 60 -
There was a rapid decrease in PCE concentrations in system influent in the first quarter of system operation, coupled
with an increase in cis-l,2-DCE in groundwater influent concentrations.
Village Green -
The site is currently in natural attenuation monitoring with semi-annual dilute ethyl lactate dosing.
Confirmatory soil sampling revealed that maximum PCE contaminant concentrations in soil decreased from 564,000
g/kg to 2,300 g/kg.
Costs:
Blacks: Cost for design and implementation was approximately $30,000; costs for operation and maintenance are
estimated to be $35,000 per year for the periodic injection of electron donor and bacterial treatment, and $20,000 per
year for on-going groundwater, soil gas, and indoor air monitoring.
Boone and Village Green: Cost data unavailable
Carousel: 2-year pilot demonstrations costs were $75,000 for the injection system and monitoring. BioRem contributed
the H-10 bacteria product for the study.
Former 60: Design costs were $32,300, and construction costs were $107,500; operation and maintenance costs for the
first year (includes ethyl lactate, injection, monitoring, and reporting) was $140,2000.
Description:
In situ bioremediation was conducted at five drycleaner sites contaminated primarily with chlorinated solvents from
drycleaning operations. PCE, TCE, DCE, and vinyl chloride were the main contaminants of concern in soil and
groundwater. At two sites (Blacks and Village Green), DNAPLs were present. The remediations, including full-scale and
pilot-scale bioremediation, involved the subsurface injection of various additives such as sodium lactate, soybean oil, corn
syrup, Simple Greenฎ, vegetable oil, BioRem H-10, and ethyl lactate.
Results of the bioremediation were available for four of the five sites. Reductions in PCE and TCE concentrations and
increases in PCE and TCE biodegradation products were reported for all four sites. At Boone, the remedy of corn syrup,
Simple Green, and vegetable oil caused the vegetable oil to float on top of water. A lesson learned from this application
was that remedial designs that call for injections of oil containing nutrient-enriched emulsions should consider the
separation of oil from the emulsion.
32
-------
In Situ Bioremediation Using Hydrogen Release Compound (HRCฎ) at Four Dry Cleaner Sites,
Various Locations
Site Name:
Multiple (4) Dry Cleaner Sites - In Situ Bioremediation
Location:
Arlington: Arlington, TX
Former Colony: Richardson, TX
Former Prestonwood: Dallas, TX
Ted's Cleaners: Nashville, TN
Period of Operation:
Arlington: 2 HRCฎ injections - May 2000 and August 2002.
Former Colony: Single injection - October 2000.
Former Prestonwood: Single injection-June 2001.
Ted's Cleaners: Single injection - September 2002.
Cleanup Authority:
State
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of in situ bioremediation using HRC* to treat soil and groundwater
contaminated with chlorinated solvents at dry cleaner facilities.
Cleanup Type:
Full scale (Arlington, Former
Colony, Former Prestonwood)
Field demonstration (Ted's)
Contaminants:
Chlorinated Solvents: PCE; TCE; DCE; Cis-l,2-DCE; Trans-l,2-DCE;
1,1-DCE; 1,1,1-TCA; Vinyl Chloride; Dichlorobenzenes; Ethylbenzene
Arlington: (Groundwater) cis-l,2-DCE - 7.3 g/L; PCE - 4.5 g/L; TCE - 7.3
g/L; VC - 0.87 g/L
Former Colony: (Groundwater) cis-l,2-DCE - 3.85 g/L; trans-l,2-DCE - 0.18
g/L; PCE - 0.63 g/L; TCE - 2.6 g/L; VC - 0.008 g/L; dichlorobenzenes - 0.006
g/L. (Soil) cis-l,2-DCE - 0.4 g/kg; PCE - 7.4 g/kg; TCE - 0.84 g/kg;
ethylbenzene - 0.04 g/kg.
Former Prestonwood (Groundwater) 1,1-DCE - 0.005 g/L; cis-l,2-DCE -1.08
g/L; trans-l,2-DCE - 0.55 g/L; PCE - 2.35 g/L; TCE - 0.429 g/L; 1,1,1-TCA -
0.012 g/L. (Soil) PCE - 53 g/kg
Ted's Cleaners: (Groundwater) cis-l,2-DCE - 2.33 g/L; trans-l,2-DCE -
0.021 g/L; PCE - 22 g/L; TCE - 0.82 g/L; VC - 0.001 g/L. (Soil) cis-l,2-DCE
- 0.0410 mg/kg; PCE - 0.0640 mg/kg; TCE - 0.0025 mg/kg
Waste Source:
Waste and wastewater from dry
cleaning operations.
At one site (Ted's Cleaners), prior
disposal of PCE wastes, still
bottoms, and spent filter cartridges
in a dumpster located at the
facility, may also have contributed
to the contamination.
Contacts:
Varied by site
Technology:
In Situ Bioremediation - HRCฎ
Arlington: In May 2000, approximately 7,000 Ibs of HRCฎ were injected into 45
borings in the vicinity of the source zone covering an area of approximately 3,000
ft2. A second injection was performed in August 2002.
Former Colony: A single injection event of HRCฎ occurred in October 2000. The
compound was injected at depths of 6 to 12 ft bgs via direct push at 5 locations up
gradient of the source zone. Four Ibs/ft were injected for a total of 50 Ibs/injection
point (total of 250 Ibs).
Former Prestonwood: The limestone subsurface was fractured by injecting HRCฎ at
high pressure at depths of 15 to 25 ft bgs. At shallower depths of 5 to 15 ft bgs,
slightly less pressure (40-60 psi) was used. A total of 3,400 Ibs was injected.
Ted's Cleaners: In September 2002, HRCฎ was injected at nine injection points.
The free product from the wells was removed by bailing in May 2003. Groundwater
monitoring events were conducted in November 2002; January 2003; May 2003; and
June 2004.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil, Groundwater
Arlington: depth to groundwater: 7 ft bgs; subsurface geology: Predominantly medium to dark gray shale
Former Colony: depth to groundwater: 13 to 15 ft bgs; subsurface geology: Clay at 15 ft bgs, limestone (Austin Chalk)
at 15 ft bgs
Former Prestonwood: depth to groundwater: 5 ft bgs; subsurface geology: Fill material, clay lenses, limestone
Ted's Cleaners: depth to groundwater: 3.2 to 10.7 ft bgs; subsurface geology: Limestone bedrock is overlain by sand
and gravel alluvium in a matrix of silt and clay. Overburden varies from 5.7 ft to 22.5 ft bgs.
33
-------
In Situ Bioremediation Using Hydrogen Release Compound (HRCฎ) at Four Dry Cleaner Sites,
Various Locations (continued)
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Arlington: (Groundwater) PCE - 500 g/L; TCE - 500 g/L; cis-l,2-DCE - 7,000 g/L; VC - 200 g/L. (Soil) PCE - 7
mg/kg; TCE - 0.5 mg/kg; cis-l,2-DCE - 0.5 mg/kg; VC - 0.2 mg/kg
Former Colony: Cleanup goals not specified
Former Prestonwood: (Groundwater) PCE - 500 g/L. (Soil): PCE - 50,000 g/kg
Ted's Cleaners: Remove or reduce contaminant source area. No site specific cleanup goals were established.
Results:
Arlington: Sampling conducted in January and April 2002 indicated that PCE concentrations exceeded the cleanup goal
in one monitoring well, leading to a second HRCฎ injection event. Following the second injection, the dissolved
contaminants remained below cleanup goals. Confirmatory soil samples indicated that cleanup goals for the soil were
not exceeded. A certificate of completion was issued for this site.
Former Colony: Contaminant concentrations in groundwater have decreased since HRCฎ injection in October 2000.
Groundwater monitoring is being continued at the site.
Former Prestonwood: Two years after HRCฎ injection, PCE concentration in one monitoring well increased from
15,000 g/L to 23,500 g/L. Additional groundwater monitoring has been recommended for the site.
Ted's Cleaners: As of the June 2004 monitoring results, no effect of HRCฎ injection had been observed on down
gradient contaminant concentrations approximately 5 ft away. Additional testing is being done at the site, including the
polymerase chain reaction test.
Costs:
Arlington. Former Colony, and Former Prestonwood: No cost data available
Ted's Cleaners: $7,500 (remedy selection report); $35,000 (pilot study injection); $110,000 (total project cost to date
including monitoring)
Description:
In situ bioremediation using HRCฎ was conducted at four dry cleaner sites contaminated with chlorinated solvents. The
concentration of contaminants varied by site with levels of cis-l,2-DCE and TCE as high as 7.3 g/L and PCE as high as 22
g/L. Levels of TCE, and PCE in soil were as high as 0.8 g/kg, and 53 g/kg, respectively. At three sites (Arlington, Former
Colony, and Former Prestonwood), remediation was carried out at Ml scale while at Ted's Cleaners, a pilot scale
operation was performed.
At the Arlington site, HRCฎ was injected in two events. Following these injections, the concentrations of dissolved
contaminants were reduced to below the cleanup goals and a certificate of completion was issued for the site. An
important lesson learned at this site was that contaminant concentrations can rebound with use of HRCฎ. Monitoring
should be continued for at least a year after injection to ensure that cleanup levels for various contaminants are not
exceeded. At the Former Colony site, HRCฎ injection was used to stimulate biodegradation. A single injection was
carried out in October 2000, where 250 Ibs was injected into the contaminated source area. PCE concentrations have
steadily declined since the injection. Monitoring is ongoing at the site. At the Former Prestonwood site, excavation of
contaminated soil had been carried out prior to HRCฎ. Injection in June 2001. At this site, limestone subsurface had to be
fractured using a higher pressure injection of HRCฎ at greater depths and a lower pressure injection at shallower depths.
Approximately 136 Ibs were injected into 25 boreholes, for a total injection of 3,400 Ibs of HRCฎ at the site. PCE
concentration increased from 15,000 g/L to 23,500 g/L approximately two years after the first injection. Additional
monitoring has been recommended at the site. At the Ted's Cleaners site, HRCฎ was selected for a pilot test, where it was
injected at 9 points in the target area in a grid-like pattern. As of June 2004, no change in groundwater contaminant
concentrations had been observed, and additional monitoring is being carried out at the site for natural attenuation
parameters in addition to polymerase chain reaction tests. The total cost of the project including monitoring costs was
about $ 110,000.
34
-------
In Situ Chemical Oxidation at Four Dry Cleaner Sites, Various Locations
Site Name:
Multiple (4) Dry Cleaner Sites - In Situ Chemical
Oxidation
Location:
Former Cowboy Cleaners: Broomfield, CO
Niles Finest Cleaners: Niles, IL
Rummel Creek Shopping Center: Houston, TX
Springvilla Dry Cleaners: Springfield, OR
Period of Operation:
Former Cowboy Cleaners: September 2001 to February 2003
Niles Finest Cleaners: May 2004 to date unknown
Rummel Creek Shopping Center: July 17, 2001 to date unknown
Springvilla Dry Cleaners: October 11, 2004 to date unknown
Cleanup Authority:
State
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of in situ oxidation technologies for remediation of chlorinated solvents in
groundwater at drycleaner facilities.
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
Chlorinated Solvents: cis-l,2-DCE; PCE; TCE; 1,2-dichloropropane;
trans-l,2-DCE); 1,1-DCE; 1,1,1-TCA); Vinyl Chloride
Former Cowboy Cleaners: PCE -1,900 g/L
Niles Finest: (Groundwater) PCE -1 mg/L: TCE - 0.015 mg/L. (Soil)
1,1,1-TCA - 5.61 mg/kg; 1,1-DCE - 3.5 mg/kg; PCE -1,300 mg/kg;
trans-l,2-DCE - 0.865 mg/kg; TCE -18 mg/kg; VC - 2.84 mg/kg; Chromium
- 0.0015 mg/L
Rummel Creek: (Groundwater) 1,1-DCE - 9.7 g/L; cis-l,2-DCE - 2600
g/L; PCE - 2,200 g/L; trans-l,2-DCE - 20 g/L; TCE - 610 g/L; VC -12
g/L
Springvilla: (Groundwater) 1,1-DCE - 6.8 g/L; cis-l,2-DCE - 4 g/L; PCE -
7,800 g/L; TCE - 48 g/L. (Soil) cis-l,2-DCE - less than 5 g/kg; PCE -
130,000 g/kg; TCE - 50 g/kg
Waste Source:
Waste and wastewater from dry
cleaning operations
Contacts:
Varied by site
Technology:
In situ chemical oxidation
Former Cowboy: A total of 12 nested injectors were installed in the source area.
Upon setting of the grout, a 10% (by weight) solution of permanganate was
introduced under pressure into each injector. Up to 300 gallons per day of 1-2%
solution were fed into the system during remediation. A series of injectors was
installed downstream to control PCE that was mobilized into groundwater from soil
in the source area.
Niles Finest: A 10 percent (by weight) of sodium permanganate (NaMnO4) solution
was injected into the surface of the 200-ft2 area on a 24-point grid pattern. 15-19
gallons of the NaMnO4 were injected at each injection point.
Rummel Creek: A 0.5 to 2% KMnO4 solution was injected into the perched water
bearing zone using direct push technologies. Injections were carried out four times
over a one year period. A total of 837 pounds of KMnO4 was injected. Each
injection point received injections at two depths: one approximately 5 ft from the
bottom of the transmissive zone, and the other five to 10 ft above the first.
Springvilla: The treatment technologies used at this site include ISCO, monitored
natural attenuation, carbon adsorption, removal, and SVE. On October 11, 2004,
100 gallons of 4% sodium permanganate solution was injected through lower
infiltration piping in source area excavation. Groundwater monitoring is ongoing.
Injection of electron donor to initiate bioremediation is planned for 2005.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil, Dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL), Groundwater
Former Cowboy: Depth to groundwater: 25 ft bgs
Niles Finest Cleaners: Depth to groundwater: 3.74 ft bgs (average); conductivity: 0.101 ft/day; gradient: 0.034 ft/ft
Rummel Creek: Depth to groundwater: 18 to 23 ft bgs; conductivity: 4.2 to 9.2 ft/day; gradient: 0.0045 ft/ft
Springvilla: Depth to groundwater: 5 to 13 ft bgs; conductivity: 5 to 10 ft/day (for gravel); gradient: 0.003 ft/ft
35
-------
In Situ Chemical Oxidation at Four Dry Cleaner Sites, Various Locations (continued)
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Former Cowboy Cleaners: Cleanup goals were not identified.
Niles Finest Cleaners: Soil remediation objective for PCE was 704.1 mg/kg. Contaminants found in groundwater were
below the groundwater remediation objectives.
Rummel Creek Shopping Center: PCE - 5 g/L; TCE - 5 g/L; cis-l,2-DCE - 70 g/L; trans-l,2-DCE -100 g/L; VC -
2-g/L
Springvilla Dry Cleaners: Reduce contaminant mass beneath building to reduce/remove soil source of groundwater
contamination and to reduce vapor intrusion potential.
Results:
Former Cowboy Cleaners:
Initial PCE concentration in the source area was 1,900 g/L; after eight months of treatment, the concentration was
In February 2003, the State of Colorado issued a No Action Determination Approval
Niles Finest Cleaners:
For groundwater, results of post injection sampling indicated that PCE contamination increased to 56 g/L 30 days
after injection, and to 150 g/L 60 days after injection.
Post-injection soil sampling showed a decrease in PCE contamination. However, the 60-day post-injection
sampling showed much higher concentrations, ranging from 2,000 mg/L to 2,800 mg/L, near the original hot-spot
area
Even though the rebound of groundwater contamination can be addressed by injecting additional NaMnO4, the
Illinois Fund Administrator and the consultant decided to abandon the use of NaMnO4.
Based on post-injection sampling, excavation has been proposed to address the soil contamination
Rummel Creek Shopping Center:
The maximum concentrations observed at the source wells prior to the injection of permanganate were 2,200 g/L
for PCE and 610 g/L for TCE.
The first KMnO4 injection reduced the concentrations in the source wells which ranged from non-detect to 79 g/L
for PCE and non-detect to 74 g/L for TCE.
The TCE and PCE concentrations were found to vary across the non-source wells, but the concentrations were
generally decreasing.
At the downgradient wells, the concentrations had either remained stable or had decreased.
Springvilla Dry Cleaners:
Following the excavation of contaminated soil, PCE concentration observed in a monitoring well closest to the
treatment area was approximately half the pre-injection concentration.
Evidence of permanganate (manganese dioxide) has been observed at wells >300 ft downgradient of the treatment
area.
Groundwater monitoring will continue and an evaluation of the remediation system will be performed to determine
whether to inject additional permanganate or to switch to a bioremediation approach using simple electron donor
added to infiltration gallery. Additional injection to infiltration gallery is planned for summer or fall 2005.
Costs:
Former Cowboy Cleaners and Rummel Creek Shopping Center: Cost data unavailable
Niles Finest Cleaners: Design and implementation, including post-injection sampling: $32,285
Springvilla Dry Cleaners:
Design and Planning: $8,000
Implementation (through soil treatment and initial permanganate treatment): $95,000
Cost for Operation and Maintenance (O&M): Approximately $3,000/year for vapor recovery system monitoring
and analytical costs
Description:
ISCO using either sodium or potassium permanganate was conducted at five dry cleaner sites contaminated with
chlorinated solvents, primarily PCE and TCE. The concentration of contaminants in groundwater varied by site with levels
of PCE as high as 110,000 g/L and TCE as high as 610 g/L. The remediation involved in situ chemical oxidation at
full-scale at both sites. The remediation involved in situ chemical oxidation at full-scale at all four sites.
Reductions in contaminant concentrations following treatment were observed at all the sites except one (Niles Finest
Cleaners). At the Niles site, a rebound in PCE concentrations was observed in both soil and groundwater after the
injection of oxidant. Excavation has been proposed for the contaminated soil as an alternative to chemical oxidation. A
lesson learned with this application is that when utilizing chemical oxidation, rebound or increase of chlorinated solvents in
groundwater should be carefully monitored, even where contamination in soil was the only initial concern.
36
-------
Cyclodextrin-Enhanced In Situ Removal of Organic Contaminants from Groundwater at Site 11,
Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek, Virginia Beach, Virginia
Site Name:
Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek, Site 11
Location:
Virginia Beach, Virginia
Period of Operation:
June to September 2002
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Field demonstration of CDEF to recover chlorinated solvent DNAPLs from soil
and groundwater.
Cleanup Type:
Field demonstration
Contaminants:
VOCs - TCE, 1,1,1-TCA, 1,1-DCE, and chloroform
Waste Source:
Waste generated from metal plating
operations
Contacts:
LANTDIV Remedial Project
Manager
Dawn Hayes
LANTNAVFACENGCOM
Code EV22DH
1510 Gilbert Street
Norfolk, VA 23511-2699
Phone: (757)322-4792
Email:
Hay esDM@efdlant. navfac. nav
y.mil
USEPA Region III Remedial
Project Manager
Mary Cooke
U.S. EPA Region 3
Federal Facilities Branch
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
Phone: (215)814-5129
Email:
cooke.maryt@epamail.epa.gov
State Remedial Project
Manager
Robert Weld
Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality
629 East Main Street, 4th floor
Richmond, VA 23219
Phone: (804)698-4227
Email: rjweld@deq.state.va.us
Technology:
Flushing (in situ) - cyclodextrin-enhanced flushing (CDEF).
Flushing system consisted of eight 4-inch PVC injection/extraction wells - five for
both injection and extraction and the other three for extraction only. Wells were
screened in the lower 5 feet of the surficial aquifer.
System operated at an average flow rate of 7,200 gallons per day.
Cyclodextrin solution (20% by weight) was stored in a 6,500 gallon storage tank and
gravity fed into the injection/extraction wells.
Groundwater extraction wells were used to capture the injectate flushed through the
contaminated media.
Extracted groundwater was passed through a 2 um sand filter to remove fines.
Filtered groundwater was then passed through an air stripper to remove TCE from
the cyclodextrin-TCE complex.
A pervaporation unit was also used for TCE removal. The unit operated only for a
limited period of time to field test it as an alternative to air stripping.
The stripped cyclodextrin solution was then recycled using an ultrafiltration unit and
reinjected.
The gas-phase waste stream from the air stripper was passed through an activated
carbon unit prior to atmospheric discharge.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater, soil
Surficial aquifer is composed primarily of poorly sorted sand with lenses of clay, silt, sand, peat, and shell fragments.
The aquifer is generally unconfmed and is underlain by a clay confining unit.
Water table was encountered 7 to 8 feet below ground surface.
Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer in the remediation zone was 8 x 10"4 centimeters per second.
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
To achieve greater than 90 percent reduction in DNAPL mass and greater than 99 percent reduction in aqueous TCE
concentrations.
37
-------
Cyclodextrin-Enhanced In Situ Removal of Organic Contaminants from Groundwater at Site 11,
Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek, Virginia Beach, Virginia (continued)
Results:
Mass reduction in subsurface DNAPL was between 70 and 81 percent. This corresponded to a mass of 39 kilograms and a
volume of 30 liters. The average TCE concentration in groundwater was reduced by 78 percent.
Costs:
The total cost of the demonstration was $863,000, consisting of a capital cost of $448,000, an operation and maintenance
cost of $409,000, and other technology-specific costs.
Description:
Site 11, Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek (NABLC), Virginia Beach, Virginia encompassed a former plating shop that
was operated by the NABLC, School of Music. Chlorinated solvents and other industrial liquids that were stored in tanks
at this facility leaked and migrated into the underlying surficial aquifer. Impacted soils, tanks and piping were removed in
1996. The site was listed on the NPL on May 10, 1999. The contaminants of concern at this site include chlorinated
solvents such as TCE, 1,1,1-TCA, 1,1-DCE and chloroform. A demonstration of CDEF was conducted at the site to
evaluate the effectiveness of the technology to treat the contaminants of concern. The demonstration began in June, 2000
and continued until September, 2000. Treatment goals for the demonstration were to achieve greater than 90 percent
reduction in DNAPL mass and greater than 99 percent reduction in aqueous TCE concentrations.
CDEF achieved 70 to 81 percent DNAPL mass reduction and approximately 78 percent reduction in the average
concentration of TCE in groundwater. The total capital cost for constructing the CDEF system was $448,000, and the total
cost of operation and maintenance for the period of the demonstration was $409,000.
Some problems were encountered during the demonstration. One of the problems was that aeration of the injectant caused
iron present in the groundwater to precipitate inside the air stripper, increasing the air stripper's maintenance frequency. In
addition, injection wells became clogged by the precipitation of iron in the injectant. These problems were solved by
storing the injectant in tanks long enough to allow the injectant's natural oxidant demand to consume any dissolved
oxygen.
38
-------
Enhanced Biological Attenuation of Aircraft Deicing Fluid Runoff Using Subsurface Flow
Constructed Wetlands at the Westover Air Reserve Base, Chicopee, Massachusetts
Site Name:
Westover Air Reserve Base (ARB)
Location:
Chicopee, Massachusetts
Period of Operation:
August 2001 to May 2003 (performance data available from December 2002)
Cleanup Authority:
Not applicable
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Demonstration of SSF CTW for treatment of aircraft deicing fluids-contaminated
storm water runoff at the Westover ARB.
Cleanup Type:
Field demonstration
Contaminants:
Nonhalogenated semivolatiles: aircraft deicing fluids - propylene glycol,
ethylene glycol and additives
On average, 10,000 gallons of aircraft deicing fluid used annually at Westover
ARB
50,000 gallons of aircraft deicing fluid used during period of demonstration
(2002 - 2003)
Peak influent biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) concentrations ranged from
974 to 15,098 mg/L in 10 deicing events during 2002
Waste Source:
Aircraft deicing operations resulting
in contamination of storm water
runoff
Contacts:
JeffKarrh
Project Manager
Naval Facilities Engineering
Service Center
Robert L. Knight
Wetland Solutions, Inc.
2809 N.W. 161 Court
Gainesville, FL 32609
Phone: (386)462-1003
Email:
bknight@wetlandsolutionsinc.c
om
Technology:
Subsurface Flow (SSF) Constructed Treatment Wetlands (CTW)
A passive system operating under gravity flow that treats storm water runoff from a
162 acre watershed.
Approximately 3 feet deep and consists of phragmites sp. rhizomes growing on a
sand and gravel bed. 2,000 rhizomes were planted on 3-foot centers in a 3-inch layer
of 3/4-inch gravel.
Can handle a mean flow of 100,000 gpd, and maximum flow of 400,000 gpd.
Constructed over a low elevation 0.6-acre area and has a trapezoidal cross section.
Hydraulically isolated from surrounding soils by a 30 mil PVC liner.
Perforated inlet and outlet pipes buried in subsurface coarse rock layers that run
along opposing inside edges of the SSF CTW. The inlet pipe runs close to the
surface and the outlet pipe runs close to the base liner.
Storm water to be treated enters the SSF CTW through the perforated inlet pipe,
flows horizontally through the root zone in the granular media and exits through the
perforated outlet pipe.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Stormwater
Approximately 12.2 million gallons of storm water was treated between December 2002 and May 2003.
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Compliance with NPDES permit requirement - monthly mean BOD in effluent less than 30 mg/L.
Results:
Results are based on performance between December 2002 and May 2003.
Average monthly influent BOD ranged from 165 to 2,655 mg/L. Average monthly effluent BOD ranged from 100 to
1,667 mg/L. BOD reduction ranged from 11.2 to 78 percent.
The NPDES permit requirement for BOD was not met during the demonstration. However, the NPDES permit changed
from individual to multi-sector during the project. It was therefore suggested that comparison of demonstration results
to individual permit criteria was not valid.
Other parameters measured were chemical oxygen demand (COD), methyl-lH-benzotriazole (deicing fluid additive),
dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, redox, temperature and turbidity. Significant changes in average influent and effluent pH
were observed. The average pH of influent and effluent was 7.58 and 9.54 respectively.
39
-------
Enhanced Biological Attenuation of Aircraft Deicing Fluid Runoff Using Subsurface Flow
Constructed Wetlands at the Westover Air Reserve Base, Chicopee, Massachusetts (continued)
Costs:
Capital cost for the demonstration totaled $326,000. The cost included design, mobilization, equipment purchase,
construction, management, permitting and demobilization.
Operation and maintenance cost during the demonstration totaled $6,900. The cost included labor, utilities, equipment
and equipment maintenance.
Projected annual cost for operation and maintenance was $2,000. The cost included analytical testing.
Description:
Westover ARB, located in Massachusetts, is situated approximately 2 miles east of the Connecticut River, and is traversed
and bounded by Cooley and Stony Brooks. The Base performs deicing and anti-icing on its aircrafts and runways during
snow storms and freezing rain events. This generates contaminated storm water runoff that can impact adjacent surface
waters.
The demonstration of CTW was performed to evaluate it as an alternative for treating runoff from Westover ARB. A
passive SSF CTW was constructed over 0.6 acres of land to handle an average flow of 100,000 gpd and a maximum flow
of 400,000 gpd. The CTW consisted of phragmites sp. rhizomes grown over a sand and gravel base. Stormwater runoff
was delivered to the CTW through a perforated inlet pipe and exited it through a perforated outlet pipe.
The regulatory goal of the demonstration was to comply with the NPDES permit requirement of a monthly mean BOD in
effluent of less than 30 mg/L. The CTW treated almost 12.2 million gallons of water during the demonstration. The
average monthly influent BOD ranged from 165 to 2,655 mg/L, and the average monthly effluent BOD ranged from 100 to
1,667 mg/L. The regulatory goal was not met. Noncompliance with the goal was attributed to its inapplicability to the
multi-sector permit for this site.
The capital cost for the demonstration totaled $326,000, which included design, mobilization, equipment purchase,
construction, management, permitting, and demobilization costs. The O&M cost totaled $6,900, which included labor,
utilities, equipment and equipment maintenance.
40
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES
Site Name, Location
Case
Study ID
Technology *f
Media
Contaminants
Year Operation
Began
Year
Published
Soil Vapor Extraction (41 Projects)
Basket Creek Surface Impoundment Site,
GA
Camp Lejeune Military Reservation, Site 82,
AreaA,NC
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma
Channel Well 12A Superfund Site, WA
Davis-Monthan AFB, Site ST-35, AZ
Defense Supply Center Richmond, OU 5,
VA
East Multnomah County Groundwater
Contamination Site, OR
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation
Superfund Site, CA
Fort Lewis, Landfill 4, WA
Fort Richardson, Building 908 South, AK
Fort Greely, Texas Tower Site, AK
Hastings Groundwater Contamination
Superfund Site, Well Number 3 Subsite, NE
Holloman AFB, Sites 2 and 5, NM
18
32
45
51
52
370
68
84
88
82
104
108
SVE
SVE
SVE
SVE
SVE (Field Demonstration)
SVE;
Air Sparging;
Pump and Treat
SVE
SVE;
Air Sparging
SVE
SVE;
Air Sparging;
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
SVE
SVE
Soil
Soil
Soil;
DNAPLs
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Groundwater
Soil
Soil
TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated;
Ketones;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals
BTEX; PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated; BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated; Heavy
Metals
BTEX; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated
BTEX; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
1992
1995
1992
1995
1992
1991
1989
1994
1995
1994
1992
1994
1997
1998
1995
1998
1998
2004
1995
1998
1998
1998
1995
1998
A-l
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Intersil/Siemens Superfund Site, CA
Luke Air Force Base, North Fire Training
Area, AZ
McClellan Air Force Base, Operable Unit D,
Site S, CA
Multiple (2) Dry Cleaner Sites - In situ SVE,
Various Locations
Multiple (3) Dry Cleaner Sites - In Situ
Treatment, Various Locations
Multiple (3) Dry Cleaner Sites - SVE/Air
Sparging, Various Locations
Multiple (3) Dry Cleaner Sites - SVE/MNA,
Various Locations
Multiple (4) Dry Cleaners - SVE and SVE
Used with Other Technologies, Various
Locations
Multiple (6) Dry Cleaner Sites, Various
Locations
Multiple (7) Dry Cleaner Sites
Multiple (7) Dry Cleaner Sites -
P&T/SVE/MPE, Various Locations
Multiple (3) Dry Cleaner Sites, Various
Locations
Case
Study ID
117
145
154
366
363
317
320
365
345
176
349
379
Technology *f
SVE
SVE
SVE (Field Demonstration)
SVE
SVE;
Chemical Oxidation/Reduction
(in situ), Thermal Treatment (in
situ)
SVE;
Air Sparging
SVE; Monitored Natural
Attenuation; Pump and Treat
SVE;
Air Sparging;
Chemical Oxidation/Reduction
(in situ), Pump and Treat;
Monitored Natural Attenuation;
Multi Phase Extraction
SVE
SVE;
Pump and Treat
SVE;
Multi Phase Extraction;
Pump and Treat
SVE
Media
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Groundwater
Soil;
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Soil;
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Soil;
Groundwater
Soil;
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Soil;
DNAPLs
Soil;
DNAPLs
Soil;
Groundwater;
DNAPLs;
Off-gases
Soil;
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Contaminants
TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated
BTEX; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Ketones
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated; BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; Volatiles-
Halogenated; BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated; BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated; BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
DCE; PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated; BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Year Operation
Began
1988
1990
1993
1994
2001
Various years -
starting 1995
Various years -
starting 1996
1997
Various years -
starting 1992
Various years -
starting 1998
Various years -
starting 1991
Various years -
starting 1999
Year
Published
1998
1995
1995
2004
2004
2003
2003
2004
Various
years - 2002,
2003
Various
years -
2001,2002
Various
years - 2002,
2003
2005
A-2
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
NAS North Island, Site 9, CA
Patrick Air Force Base, Active Base
Exchange Service Station, FL
Patrick Air Force Base, Active Base
Exchange Service Station, FL
Rocky Mountain Arsenal Superfund Site
(Motor Pool Area - Operable Unit # 1 8), CO
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site,
Tank 2 (Operable Unit #3), CA
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund Site,
Bum Pits Operable Unit, CA
Sand Creek Industrial Superfund Site,
Operable Unit 1, CO
Seymour Recycling Corporation Superfund
Site, IN
ShawAFB,OUl,SC
SMS Instruments Superfund Site, NY
Stamina Mills Superfund Site, RI
Tyson's Dump Superfund Site, PA
Case
Study ID
183
214
215
237
241
240
242
258
261
264
273
285
Technology *f
SVE (Photolytic Destruction)
(Field Demonstration)
SVE (Biocube) (Field
Demonstration)
SVE (Internal Combustion
Engine) (Field Demonstration)
SVE
SVE
SVE
SVE
SVE;
Containment - Caps;
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
SVE;
Free Product Recovery
SVE
SVE;
Multi Phase Extraction
(Field Demonstration)
SVE
Media
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil;
LNAPLs
Soil
Soil;
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Soil
Soil;
Off-gases
Soil
Contaminants
PCE; TCE; DCE; BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated
BTEX; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
BTEX; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated
Ketones; BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated; BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
BTEX; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year Operation
Began
1997
1994
1993
1991
1992
1994
1993
1992
1995
1992
1999
1988
Year
Published
1998
2000
2000
1995
1995
1997
1997
1998
1998
1995
2001
1998
A-3
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
U.S. Department of Energy, Portsmouth
Gaseous Diffusion Plant, OH
U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah River
Site, SC
U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah River
Site, SC, and Sandia, NM
Vandenberg Air Force Base, Base Exchange
Service Station, CA
Verona Well Field Superfund Site
(Thomas Solvent Raymond Road - Operable
Unit #1), MI
Case
Study ID
292
295
251
306
307
Technology *f
SVE;
Chemical Oxidation/Reduction
(in situ)',
Solidification/Stabilization;
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
SVE (Flameless Thermal
Oxidation) (Field Demonstration)
SVE;
In- Well Air Stripping;
Bioremediation (in situ) ALL;
Drilling
(Field Demonstration)
SVE (Resin Adsorption) (Field
Demonstration)
SVE
Media
Soil
Soil;
Off-gases
Soil;
Groundwater
Soil
Soil
Light Non-
aqueous Phase
Liquids
Contaminants
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Volatiles-Halogenated
BTEX; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Ketones; BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
PCE; Volatiles-Halogenated
Year Operation
Began
1992
1995
1988
1994
1988
Year
Published
1997
1997
2000
2000
1995
Other In Situ Soil/Sediment Treatment (43 Projects)
Alameda Point, CA
Argonne National Laboratory - West, Waste
Area Group 9, OU 9-04, ID
Avery Dennison, IL
Beach Haven Substation, Pensacola, FL
Brodhead Creek Superfund Site, PA
California Gulch Superfund Site, OU 1 1, CO
5
12
329
20
24
373
Electrokinetics (Field
Demonstration)
Phytoremediation (Field
Demonstration)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
Electrokinetics (Field
Demonstration)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
Solidification/Stabilization
(Field Demonstration)
Soil
Soil
Soil; DNAPLs
Soil
Soil; DNAPLs
Soil
Heavy Metals
Heavy Metals
Volatiles-Halogenated
Arsenic
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Arsenic
Heavy Metals
1997
1998
1999
1998
1995
1998
2001
2000
2003
2000
1998
2005
A-4
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Castle Airport and Various Sites, CA
Castle Airport, CA
Confidential Chemical Manufacturing
Facility, IN
Crooksville/Roseville Pottery Area of
Concern (CRPAC), OH
Dover Air Force Base, Building 719,
DE
Eielson Air Force Base, AK
Ensign-Bickford Company - OB/OD
Area, CT
Former Mare Island Naval Shipyard,
CA
Fort Richardson Poleline Road Disposal
Area, OU B, AK
Frontier Hard Chrome Superfund Site,
WA
Hill Air Force Base, Site 280, UT
Hill Air Force Base, Site 914, UT
Case
Study ID
361
35
330
327
57
64
66
75
89
381
106
107
Technology *f
Bioremediation (in situ)
Bioventing
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Bioventing (Field
Demonstration)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
Solidification/Stabilization
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Bioventing
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Bioventing (Field
Demonstration)
Phytoremediation
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)',
SVE (Field Demonstration)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Bioventing
Bioremediation (in situ)
Bioventing;
SVE
Media
Soil
Soil
Soil; DNAPLs;
Off-gases
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Groundwater
Soil
Soil
Contaminants
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Heavy Metals
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Heavy Metals
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Heavy Metals
BTEX; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Year Operation
Began
1998
1998
1997
1998
1998
1991
1998
1997
1997
2003
1990
1988
Year
Published
2004
1999
2003
2002
2000
1995
2000
2000
2000
2005
1995
1995
A-5
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Hunter Army Airfield, Former
Pumphouse #2, GA
Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory, ID
Koppers Co. (Charleston Plant) Ashley
River Superfund Site, SC
Lowry Air Force Base, CO
Magic Marker, NJ and Small Arms
Firing Range (SAFR) 24, NJ
Missouri Electric Works Superfund Site,
MO
Morses Pond Culvert, MA
Multiple Air Force Test Sites, Multiple
Locations
Multiple (4) Dry Cleaner Sites - In Situ
Chemical Oxidation, Various Locations
Case
Study ID
382
114
350
143
146
160
351
180
380
Technology *f
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Bioventing
(Field Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization
Bioremediation (in situ)
Bioventing
Phytoremediation (Field
Demonstration)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Bioventing
(Field Demonstration)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
Media
Soil;
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Soil
Sediment;
DNAPLs
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Groundwater
Contaminants
BTEX; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
Volatiles-Halogenated
PAHs; Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
BTEX; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Heavy Metals
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
Heavy Metals
BTEX; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
DCE; PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
Year Operation
Began
2002
1996
2001
1992
Magic Marker -
1997;
Fort Dix - 2000
1997
2001
1992
Various years-
starting 1999
Year
Published
2005
2000
2003
1995
2002
1998
2004
2000
2005
A-6
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Multiple (3) POL-Contaminated Sites,
AK
Naval Air Weapons Station Point Mugu
Site 5, CA (USAEC)
Naval Air Weapons Station Point Mugu
Site 5, CA (USEPA)
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
(PGDP) Superfund Site, KY
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises
Superfund Site, MI
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant,
X-231ASite,Piketon, OH
Sandia National Laboratories, Unlined
Chromic Acid Pit, NM
Savannah River Site 321-M Solvent
Storage Tank Area, GA
Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant,
MN
U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah
River Site, SC, and Hanford Site, WA
U.S. Department of Energy, Paducah
Gaseous Diffusion Plant, KY
U.S. Department of Energy, Portsmouth
Gaseous Diffusion Plant, OH and Other
Sites
Case
Study ID
376
188
189
328
212
225
246
337
283
296
291
293
Technology *f
Phytoremediation;
Bioremediation (in situ) (Field
Demonstration)
Electrokinetics (Field
Demonstration)
Electrokinetics (Field
Demonstration)
Lasagna
Vitrification (in situ)
Fracturing (Field
Demonstration)
Electrokinetics (Field
Demonstration)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Phytoremediation (Field
Demonstration)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Lasagna (Field
Demonstration)
Fracturing (Field
Demonstration)
Media
Soil
Soil;
Sediment
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Sediment
Soil;
Groundwater
Soil
Soil; DNAPLs
Soil
Soil;
Sediment
Soil;
Groundwater
Soil;
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Contaminants
BTEX; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
PCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
Heavy Metals
Heavy Metals
TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated
Pesticides/Herbicides;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals;
Dioxins/Furans
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Heavy Metals
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Heavy Metals;
Arsenic
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year Operation
Began
Various years -
starting 1998
1998
1998
1999
1993
1996
1996
2000
1998
1993
1995
1991
Year
Published
2005
2000
2000
2002
1997
2001
2000
2003
2000
1997
1997
1997
A-7
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
U.S. Department of Energy, Multiple
Sites
U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford
Site, WA, Oak Ridge (TN) and Others
White Sands Missile Range, SWMU
143, NM
Young-Rainy Star Center (formerly
Pinellas) Northeast Area A, FL
Case
Study ID
288
289
313
355
Technology *f
Drilling (Field
Demonstration)
Vitrification (in situ)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
Media
Soil;
Sediment
Soil;
Sludge;
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Soil
Soil;
Groundwater
Contaminants
-
Pesticides/Herbicides;
Heavy Metals;
Arsenic;
Dioxins/Furans;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
PCBs;
Radioactive Metals
Heavy Metals
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
DCE; PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year Operation
Began
1992
Not Provided
1998
2002
Year
Published
1997
1997
2000
2004
Incineration (on-site) (18 Projects)
Baird and McGuire, MA
Bayou Bonfouca, LA
Bridgeport Refinery and Oil Services,
NJ
15
19
23
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Soil;
Sediment
Soil;
Sediment
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid;
Sediment;
Organic
Liquids;
Sludge
Dioxins/Furans;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Arsenic;
Heavy Metals;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals;
Volatiles-Halogenated
1995
1993
1991
1998
1998
1998
A-8
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Celanese Corporation Shelby Fiber
Operations, NC
Coal Creek, WA
Drake Chemical Superfund Site,
Operable Unit 3, Lock Haven, PA
FMC Corporation - Yakima, WA
Former Nebraska Ordnance Plant - OU
1,NE
Former Weldon Springs Ordnance
Works, OU 1, MO
Case
Study ID
36
43
59
72
76
79
Technology *f
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Media
Soil;
Sludge
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Contaminants
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals;
BTEX
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
Pesticides/Herbicides;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
Explosives/Propellants
Explosives/Propellants;
Heavy Metals;
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
Year Operation
Began
1991
1994
1998
1993
1997
1998
Year
Published
1998
1998
2001
1998
1998
2000
A-9
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
MOTCO, TX
Old Midland Products, AR
Petro Processors, LA
Rocky Mountain Arsenal, CO
Rose Disposal Pit, MA
Rose Township Dump, MI
Case
Study ID
165
206
217
236
238
239
Technology *f
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Media
Soil;
Sludge;
Organic
Liquids
Soil;
Sludge
Soil;
Organic
Liquids;
DNAPLs
Soil;
Organic
Liquids
Soil
Soil
Contaminants
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Pesticides/Herbicides;
Heavy Metals; Arsenic
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
PAHs;
Ketones
Year Operation
Began
1990
1992
1994
1993
1994
1992
Year
Published
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
A-10
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Sikes Disposal Pits, TX
Times Beach, MO
Vertac Chemical Corporation, AR
Case
Study ID
262
280
308
Technology *f
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Media
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid;
Organic
Liquids
Contaminants
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Dioxins/Furans;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
Dioxins/Furans;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Year Operation
Began
1992
1996
1992
Year
Published
1998
1998
1998
Thermal Desorption (30 Projects)
Anderson Development Company
Superfund Site, MI
Arlington Blending and Packaging
Superfund Site, TN
Brookhaven National Laboratory
(BNL), NY
Cape Fear Superfund Site, NC
PCX Washington Superfund Site, NC
8
13
325
33
69
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Soil;
Sludge
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals
Pesticides/Herbicides;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Arsenic
Heavy Metals
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Arsenic; Heavy Metals;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
BTEX
Pesticides/Herbicides;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
1992
1996
Not provided
1998
1995
1995
2000
2002
2002
1998
A-ll
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Fort Lewis, Solvent Refined Coal Pilot
Plant (SRCPP), WA
Fort Ord, CA
Industrial Latex Superfund Site, NJ
Letterkenny Army Depot Superfund
Site, K Areas, OU1, PA
Lipari Landfill, Operable Unit 3, NJ
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant,
Burning Ground No. 3, TX
McKin Superfund Site, ME
Metaltec/Aerosystems Superfund Site,
Franklin Borough, NJ
Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Site 17,
OU 2, FL
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site,
New Bedford, MA
Case
Study ID
86
354
348
135
137
138
155
156
182
197
Technology *f
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Media
Soil
Debris/Slag/So
lid; Off-gas
Soil; Off-gases
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Sediment
Contaminants
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
Heavy Metals
Pesticides/Herbicides;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
PAHs; PCBs; Arsenic
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Arsenic;
Heavy Metals;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
Year Operation
Began
1996
2002
1999
1993
1994
1997
1986
1994
1995
1996
Year
Published
1998
2004
2002
2000
2002
2000
1995
2001
1998
2001
A-12
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Outboard Marine Corporation
Superfund Site, OH
Port Moller Radio Relay Station, AK
Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site, OH
Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site, MA
Reich Farm, Pleasant Plains, NJ
Reilly Industries Superfund Site,
Operable Unit 3, IN
Rocky Flats Environmental Technology
Site, Mound Site, Golden, CO
Rocky Flats Environmental Technology
Site, Trenches T-3 and T-4, CO
Case
Study ID
209
223
227
230
228
229
234
235
Technology *f
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Media
Soil;
Sediment
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Contaminants
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Pesticides/Herbicides;
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Ketones;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Ketones; BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Radioactive Metals
Year Operation
Began
1992
1995
1993
1993
1994
1996
1997
1996
Year
Published
1995
1998
1995
1998
2001
2002
2001
2000
A-13
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Sand Creek Superfund Site, OU 5, CO
Sarney Farm, Amenia, NY
Site B (actual site name confidential),
Western United States
TH Agriculture & Nutrition Company
Superfund Site, GA
Waldick Aerospaces Devices Superfund
Site, NJ
Wide Beach Development Superfund
Site, NY
TH Agriculture and Nutrition Site, OU2,
GA
Case
Study ID
243
248
333
277
310
314
374
Technology *f
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ);
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Media
Soil
Soil
Soil; Off-gases
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Contaminants
Pesticides/Herbicides;
Arsenic
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Ketones;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Pesticides/Herbicides;
Semivolatiles- Halogenated;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
Pesticides/Herbicides
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
PCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
PCBs
Pesticides/Herbicides;
Semivolatiles- Halogenated;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
Year Operation
Began
1994
1997
1995
1993
1993
1990
1999
Year
Published
2000
2001
2003
1995
1998
1995
2005
Other Ex Situ Soil/Sediment Treatment (33 Projects)
Bonneville Power Administration Ross
Complex, Operable Unit A, WA
Brookhaven National Laboratory, NY
22
25
Bioremediation (ex situ) Land
Treatment
Physical Separation
Soil
Soil
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
Radioactive Metals
1994
2000
1998
2001
A-14
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Brown Wood Preserving Superfund
Site, FL
Burlington Northern Superfund Site,
MN
Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfund
Site, FL
Fort Polk Range 5, LA
Fort Greely, UST Soil Pile, AK
French Ltd. Superfund Site, TX
Hazen Research Center and Minergy
GlassPack Test Center, WI
Idaho National Environmental and
Engineering Laboratory (INEEL), ID
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant, IL
Case
Study ID
27
29
60
87
83
91
358
116
121
Technology *f
Bioremediation (ex situ) Land
Treatment
Bioremediation (ex situ) Land
Treatment
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Composting
Acid Leaching;
Physical Separation (Field
Demonstration)
Bioremediation (ex situ) Land
Treatment
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Slurry Phase
Vitrification (ex situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Physical Separation
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Slurry Phase (Field
Demonstration)
Media
Soil
Soil;
Sludge
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Sludge
Sediment
Soil
Soil
Contaminants
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
Heavy Metals
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Arsenic;
Heavy Metals
PCBs;
Dioxins/Furans;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
Radioactive Metals
Explosives/Propellants
Year Operation
Began
1989
1986
1993
1996
1994
1992
2001
1999
1994
Year
Published
1995
1997
1997
2000
1998
1995
2004
2001
2000
A-15
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
King of Prussia Technical Corporation
Superfund Site, NJ
Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM
Lowry Air Force Base, CO
Massachusetts Military Reservation,
Training Range and Impact Area, Cape
Cod, MA
Naval Construction Battalion Center
Hydrocarbon National Test Site, CA
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site,
New Bedford, MA
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site,
New Bedford, MA
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site,
New Bedford, MA
Novartis Site, Ontario, Canada
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN
Pantex Plant, Firing Site 5, TX
Peerless Cleaners, WI; Stannard
Launders and Dry Cleaners, WI
Case
Study ID
125
141
144
152
190
198
195
196
199
201
211
216
Technology *f
Soil Washing
Physical Separation
Bioremediation (ex situ) Land
Treatment
Solidification/Stabilization
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Composting (Field
Demonstration)
Vitrification (ex situ) (Field
Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization
(Field Demonstration)
Solvent Extraction (ex situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (ex situ) Land
Treatment (Field
Demonstration)
Vitrification (ex situ) (Field
Demonstration)
Physical Separation
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Composting
Media
Soil;
Sludge
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Soil
Soil
Soil
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Soil
Sludge
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Soil
Contaminants
Heavy Metals
Radioactive Metals
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Heavy Metals
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
Pesticides/Herbicides;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
Heavy Metals;
Radioactive Metals
Radioactive Metals
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
Year Operation
Began
1993
1999
1992
1998
1996
1996
1995
1996
1996
1997
1998
Not Provided
Year
Published
1995
2000
1995
2001
1998
2001
2001
2001
1998
2000
2000
2001
A-16
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
RMI Titanium Company Extrusion
Plant, OH
Sandia National Laboratories, ER Site
16, NM
Sandia National Laboratories, ER Site
228A, NM
Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site,
MO
Southeastern Wood Preserving
Superfund Site, MS
Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Station,
AK
Stauffer Chemical Company, Tampa,
FL
Tonapah Test Range, Clean Slate 2, NV
Umatilla Army Depot Activity, OR
Umatilla Army Depot Activity, OR
Case
Study ID
231
245
244
254
270
272
275
282
300
301
Technology *f
Solvent Extraction (ex situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Physical Separation
Physical Separation
Bioremediation (ex situ) Land
Treatment
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Slurry Phase
Solvent Extraction (ex situ)
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Composting (Field
Demonstration)
Physical Separation
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Composting (Field
Demonstration)
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Composting
Media
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Sludge
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Soil
Soil
Contaminants
Radioactive Metals
Radioactive Metals
Radioactive Metals
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
Pesticides/Herbicides
Radioactive Metals
Explosives/Propellants
Explosives/Propellants
Year Operation
Began
1997
1998
1998
1989
1991
1996
1997
1998
1992
1994
Year
Published
2000
2000
2000
1995
1997
1998
2001
2000
1995
1997
Pump and Treat (50 Projects)
Amoco Petroleum Pipeline, MI
7
Pump and Treat;
Air Sparging
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
1988
1995
A-17
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Baird and McGuire Superfund Site, MA
Bofors Nobel Superfund Site, OU 1, MI
Charnock Wellfield, Santa Monica, CA
City Industries Superfund Site, FL
Coastal Systems Station, AOC 1, FL
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma
Channel Well 12A Superfund Site, WA
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma
Channel Superfund Site, WA
Des Moines TCE Superfund Site, OU 1,
IA
Case
Study ID
16
21
37
41
44
46
47
54
Technology *f
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat;
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (ex situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat (Field
Demonstration)
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat;
SVE
Pump and Treat
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater
Drinking
Water
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil;
DNAPLs;
LNAPLs
Groundwater
Contaminants
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Pesticides/Herbicides;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
MTBE;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Ketones;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; DCE; Volatiles-
Halogenated
Year Operation
Began
1993
1994
1998
1994
1997
1988
1998
1987
Year
Published
1998
1998
2001
1998
1998
1995
2001
1998
A-18
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Former Firestone Facility Superfund
Site, CA
Fort Lewis Logistics Center, WA
Ft. Drum, Fuel Dispensing Area 1595,
NY
JMT Facility RCRA Site (formerly
Black & Decker RCRA Site), NY
Keefe Environmental Services
Superfund Site, NH
King of Prussia Technical Corporation
Superfund Site, NJ
Lacrosse, KS
Langley Air Force Base, IRP Site 4, VA
LaSalle Electrical Superfund Site, IL
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (LLNL) Site 300 - General
Services Area (GSA) Operable Unit, CA
Case
Study ID
73
85
81
119
122
126
127
128
129
134
Technology *f
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat;
Free Product Recovery
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Drinking
Water
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil;
DNAPLs
Contaminants
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Heavy Metals
BTEX; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons;
MTBE;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
BTEX; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year Operation
Began
1986
1995
1992
1988
1993
1995
1997
1992
1992
1991
Year
Published
1998
2000
1995
1998
1998
1998
2001
1995
1998
1998
A-19
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Marine Corps Base, OU 1 and 2, Camp
Lejeune, NC
Marine Corps Base, Campbell Street
Fuel Farm, Camp Lejeune, NC
McClellan Air Force Base, Operable
UnitB/C, CA
Mid-South Wood Products Superfund
Site, AR
Mystery Bridge at Hwy 20 Superfund
Site, Dow/DSI Facility - Volatile
Halogenated Organic (VHO) Plume,
WY
Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Eastern
Groundwater Plume, ME
Odessa Chromium IIS Superfund Site,
OU 2, TX
Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site, OU
2, TX
Offutt AFB, Site LF-12, NE
Case
Study ID
149
150
153
158
181
185
204
203
205
Technology *f
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat;
SVE
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Contaminants
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Pesticides/Herbicides;
Heavy Metals;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals;
Arsenic
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Heavy Metals
Heavy Metals
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year Operation
Began
1995
1996
1988
1989
1994
1995
1993
1993
1997
Year
Published
2001
2001
1995
1998
1998
2001
1998
1998
1998
A-20
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Old Mill Superfund Site, OH
Ott/Story/Cordova Superfund Site,
North Muskegon, MI
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, KY
Pinellas Northeast Site, FL
Pope AFB, Site SS-07, Blue Ramp Spill
Site, NC
Pope AFB, Site FT-01,NC
Rockaway, NJ
SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site, SC
Shaw AFB, Sites SD-29 and ST-30, SC
Case
Study ID
207
208
344
219
222
221
233
255
260
Technology *f
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat (Field
Demonstration)
Pump and Treat (Membrane
Filtration - PerVap) (Field
Demonstration)
Pump and Treat;
Free Product Recovery
Pump and Treat;
Free Product Recovery
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat;
Free Product Recovery
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Drinking
Water
Groundwater
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Contaminants
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Pesticides/Herbicides
Radioactive Metals
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
MTBE; BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year Operation
Began
1989
1996
1999
1995
1993
1993
1980
1992
1995
Year
Published
1998
2001
2002
1998
1998
1998
2001
1998
1998
A-21
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Shaw AFB, Site OT-16B, SC
Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers
Superfund Site, TX
Solid State Circuits Superfund Site, MO
Solvent Recovery Services of New
England, Inc. Superfund Site, CT
Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site,
NH
Tacony Warehouse, PA
Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant,
MN
U.S. Department of Energy Kansas City
Plant, MO
U.S. Aviex Superfund Site, MI
Case
Study ID
259
265
266
267
276
278
284
290
286
Technology *f
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat;
Containment - Barrier Walls
Pump and Treat;
Containment - Barrier Walls;
Containment - Caps;
SVE
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Media
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Contaminants
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals;
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Ketones;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
PCBs;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Year Operation
Began
1995
1993
1993
1995
1982
1998
1987
1983
1993
Year
Published
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
2000
1995
1995
1998
A-22
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
U.S. Department of Energy Savannah
River Site, AM Area, SC
Union Chemical Company Superfund
Site, ME
United Chrome Superfund Site, OR
Western Processing Superfund Site, WA
Case
Study ID
297
302
303
312
Technology *f
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat;
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ);
SVE
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat;
Containment - Barrier Walls
Media
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater
Groundwater;
LNAPLs;
DNAPLs
Contaminants
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Heavy Metals
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals
Year Operation
Began
1985
1996
1988
1988
Year
Published
1995
2001
1998
1998
In Situ Groundwater Bioremediation (44 Projects)
Abandoned Manufacturing Facility -
Emeryville, CA
Altus Air Force Base, Landfill 3 (LF 3),
OK
Avco Lycoming Superfund Site, PA
Balfour Road Site, CA; Fourth Plain
Service Station Site, WA; Steve's
Standard and Golden Belt 66 Site, KS
Brownfield Site, Chattanooga, TN
(specific site name not identified)
2
338
14
17
28
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
MTBE; BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
1997
2000
1997
1995
1999
2000
2003
2000
1998
2001
A-23
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Contemporary Cleaners, Orlando. FL
Cordray's Grocery, Ravenel, SC
Dover Air Force Base, Area 6, DE
Dover Air Force Base, Area 6, DE
Edwards Air Force Base, CA
Former Industrial Property, CA
French Ltd. Superfund Site, TX
Gas Station, Cheshire, CT (specific site
name not identified)
Hanford Site, WA
Hayden Island Cleaners, Portland, OR
Case
Study ID
49
50
56
55
63
372
92
94
96
105
Technology *f
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(HRC)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(ORC)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(HRC)
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Contaminants
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
BTEX; MTBE
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
BTEX;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
BTEX;
MTBE
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year Operation
Began
Not Provided
1998
1996
1996
1996
2000
1992
1997
1995
Not Provided
Year
Published
2001
2001
2000
2002
2000
2004
1998
2001
2000
2001
A-24
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory, Test Area
North, ID
ITT Roanoke Site, VA
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, CA
Libby Groundwater Superfund Site, MT
Moffett Field Superfund Site, CA
Moss-American Site, WI
Multiple Dry Cleaner Sites
Multiple (4) Dry Cleaner Sites - In Situ
Bioremediation, Various Locations
Multiple (4) Dry Cleaner sites - In Situ
Bioremediation, Various Locations
Case
Study ID
115
118
133
136
162
369
174
346
384
Technology *f
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation;
Pump and Treat
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation;
Permeable Reactive Barrier
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(HRC)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Media
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Soil;
Groundwater
Contaminants
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
MTBE
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
Volatiles-Halogenated
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated,
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
BTEX; MTBE
DCE; PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Volatiles-Semihalogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Year Operation
Began
1999
1998
Not Provided
1991
1986
2000
Not Provided
Various years -
starting 2002
Various years -
starting 2000
Year
Published
2002
Not
Provided
2001
1998
2000
2004
2001
2003
2005
A-25
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Multiple (5) Dry Cleaner sites - In Situ
Bioremediation, Various Locations
National Environmental Technology
Test Site, CA
Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, CA
Naval Air Station New Fuel Farm Site,
NV
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
(NWIRP) , TX
Naval Base Ventura County, CA
Offutt Air Force Base, NE
Pinellas Northeast Site, FL
Savannah Paver Site Sanitary Landfill
(SLF), SC
Savannah River Site, SC
Case
Study ID
383
194
360
315
352
339
218
362
250
Technology *f
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Bioventing;
Free Product Recovery
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Media
Soil;
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil;
LNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Sediment
Contaminants
DCE; PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
MTBE
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
LNAPLs
TCE, Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year Operation
Began
Various years -
starting 2001
2001
1997
Not Provided
1999
1999
Not provided
1997
1999
1992
Year
Published
2005
2004
2000
2004
2002
2004
2003
1998
2004
2000
A-26
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Service Station, CA (specific site name
not identified)
Service Station, Lake Geneva, WI
(specific site name not identified)
Site A (actual name confidential), NY
South Beach Marine, Hilton Head, SC
Specific site name not identified
Texas Gulf Coast Site, TX
U.S. Navy Construction Battalion
Center, Port Hueneme, CA
U.S. Department of Energy Savannah
River Site, M Area, SC
Vandenberg Air Force Base, Lompoc,
CA
Case
Study ID
256
257
263
268
304
279
299
298
305
Technology *f
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(ORC)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(ORC)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation;
Pump and Treat;
Air Sparging;
SVE
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Bench Scale)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Sediment
Groundwater
Contaminants
BTEX; MTBE;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
BTEX; MTBE;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
BTEX;
MTBE;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
MTBE;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
MTBE;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
MTBE; BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Year Operation
Began
Not Provided
Not Provided
1995
1999
Not Provided
1995
1998
1992
1999
Year
Published
2001
2001
1998
2001
2001
2000
2001
1997
2001
A-27
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Watertown Site, MA
Case
Study ID
311
Technology *f
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Media
Groundwater;
Soil
Contaminants
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year Operation
Began
1996
Year
Published
2000
Other In Situ Groundwater Treatment (80 Projects)
328 Site, CA
A.G. Communication Systems, IL
Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Edgewood
Area J - Field Site, MD
Amcor Precast, UT
Brookhaven National Laboratory, NY
Butler Cleaners, Jacksonville, FL
Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, Bldg
25, Camp Lejeune, NC
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station,
Launch Complex 34, FL
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station,
Launch Complex 34, FL
1
332
3
6
26
30
31
340
341
Multi Phase Extraction;
Fracturing
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
Phytoremediation (Field
Demonstration)
In- Well Air Stripping;
SVE
In- Well Air Stripping (Field
Demonstration)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
(KMn04)
Flushing (in situ) (SEAR and
PITT)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated
1996
1995
1996
1992
1999
Not Provided
1999
1999
1999
2000
2003
2002
1995
2002
2001
2001
2003
2002
A-28
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Carswell Air Force Base, TX
Charleston Naval Complex, AOC 607,
SC
Clear Creek/Central City Superfund site,
CO
Confidential Manufacturing Facility, IL
Defense Supply Center, Acid
Neutralization Pit, VA
Del Norte County Pesticide Storage
Area Superfund Site, CA (Air Sparging
and Pump and Treat)
Eaddy Brothers, Hemingway, SC
Edward Sears Site, NJ
Eight Service Stations, MD (specific
sites not identified)
Fernald Environmental Management
Project, OH
Former Sages Dry Cleaners,
Jacksonville, FL
Former Nu Look One Hour Cleaners,
Coral Springs, FL
Case
Study ID
34
378
326
48
53
359
61
62
65
70
78
77
Technology *f
Phytoremediation (Field
Demonstration)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
Phytoremediation (Field
Demonstration)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
Multi Phase Extraction (Field
Demonstration)
Air Sparging;
SVE
Air Sparging;
SVE
Phytoremediation (Field
Demonstration)
Multi Phase Extraction
Flushing (in situ) (Field
Demonstration)
Flushing (in situ) (Ethanol
Co-solvent)
In- Well Air Stripping
(NoVOCs)
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil;
LNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Contaminants
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
DCE; PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Heavy Metals
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Pesticides/Herbicides;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
BTEX; MTBE
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX; Volatiles-
Nonhalogenated
BTEX; MTBE
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Heavy Metals
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year Operation
Began
1996
2001
1994
1998
1997
1990
1999
1996
1990
1998
Not Provided
Not Provided
Year
Published
2002
2005
2002
2000
2000
2004
2001
2002
2001
2001
2001
2001
A-29
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Former Intersil, Inc. Site, CA
Fort Devens, AOCs 43G and 43J, MA
Fort Richardson, AK
Four Service Stations (specific site
names not identified)
Fry Canyon, UT
Gold Coast Superfund Site, FL
Hanford Site, 100-H and 100-D Areas,
WA
Hunter's Point Ship Yard, Parcel C,
Remedial Unit C4, CA
ICN Pharmaceuticals, OR
Johannsen Cleaners, Lebanon, OR
Keesler Air Force Base Service Station,
AOC-A (ST-06), MS
Case
Study ID
74
80
331
90
93
95
101
357
334
120
123
Technology *f
Permeable Reactive Barrier;
Pump and Treat
Monitored Natural
Attenuation
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Air Sparging
Permeable Reactive Barrier
(Field Demonstration)
Air Sparging;
Pump and Treat
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)',
SVE
Multi Phase Extraction
Monitored Natural
Attenuation
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil;
LNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil;
DNAPLs;
Off-gases
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil
Contaminants
TCE; DCE; Volatiles-
Halogenated
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
BTEX; MTBE
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Radioactive Metals;
Heavy Metals
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Heavy Metals
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals
Year Operation
Began
1995
1997
1999
1993
1997
1994
1995
2002
2000
Not Provided
1997
Year
Published
1998
2000
2003
2001
2000
1998
2000
2004
2003
2001
2000
A-30
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Kelly Air Force Base, Former Building
2093 Gas Station, TX
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory Gasoline Spill Site, CA
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant, LA
Marshall Space Flight Center, AL
Massachusetts Military Reservation, CS-
10 Plume, MA
McClellan Air Force Base (AFB), OU
A, CA
Miamisburg, OH
Milan Army Ammunition Plant, TN
Moffett Field Superfund Site, CA
Moffett Federal Airfield, CA
Monticello Mill Tailings Site,
Monticello, UT
Case
Study ID
124
130
142
336
159
151
343
157
163
161
164
Technology *f
Monitored Natural
Attenuation
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Monitored Natural
Attenuation
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ);
Fracturing; Permeable
Reactive Barrier (Field
Demonstration)
In-Well Air Stripping (UVB
and NoVOCs) (Field
Demonstration)
Air Sparging; Bioremediation
(in situ) Enhanced
Bioremediation (Field
Demonstration)
Air Sparging;
SVE
Phytoremediation (Field
Demonstration)
Permeable Reactive Barrier
(Field Demonstration)
Permeable Reactive Barrier
(Field Demonstration)
Permeable Reactive Barrier
(Field Demonstration)
Media
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Contaminants
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Explosives/Propellants
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Explosives/Propellants
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Metals
Year Operation
Began
1997
1992
Not Provided
2000
1996
1999
1997
1996
1996
1996
1999
Year
Published
2000
1995
2001
2003
2002
2001
2001
2000
2000
1998
2001
A-31
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Multiple Dry Cleaner Sites
Multiple (10) Sites - Air Sparging,
Various Locations
Multiple Air Force Sites
Multiple Air Force Sites
Multiple Air Force Sites
Multiple DoD Sites, Various Locations
Multiple (2) Dry Cleaner Sites, Various
Locations
Multiple (2) Dry Cleaners - In Well Air
Stripping
Case
Study ID
171
342
177
178
179
347
324
364
Technology *f
Air Sparging;
SVE
Air Sparging
Multi Phase Extraction (Field
Demonstration)
Monitored Natural
Attenuation (Field
Demonstration)
Monitored Natural
Attenuation (Field
Demonstration)
Permeable Reactive Barrier
(Field Demonstration)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
In- Well Air Stripping
Media
Groundwater;
Soil;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Dense
Non-aqueous
Phase Liquids
(DNAPLs)
Soil;
Groundwater
Contaminants
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; PCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenat
ed; BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
MTBE; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year Operation
Began
Not Provided
Various years
Not Provided
1993
1993
Various years
Various years -
starting 1998
1994
Year
Published
2001, 2002
2002
2001
1999
1999
2003
2003
2004
A-32
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Multiple Dry Cleaner Sites
Multiple Dry Cleaner Sites
Multiple Sites
Multiple Sites
Multiple Sites
Multiple Sites
Multiple Sites
Case
Study ID
175
173
167
166
169
170
168
Technology *f
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Multi Phase Extraction;
Pump and Treat
Permeable Reactive Barrier
(Full scale and Field
Demonstration)
Permeable Reactive Barrier
(Full scale and Field
Demonstration)
Permeable Reactive Barrier
(Full scale and Field
Demonstration)
Permeable Reactive Barrier
(Full scale and Field
Demonstration)
Permeable Reactive Barrier
(Full scale and Field
Demonstration)
Media
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Contaminants
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals;
Radioactive Metals;
Arsenic
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals;
Radioactive Metals;
Arsenic
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals;
Radioactive Metals;
Pesticides/Herbicides
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals;
Radioactive Metals
Year Operation
Began
1999
Not Provided
1991
1997
1995
1995
1995
Year
Published
2001, 2002
2001, 2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
A-33
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Multiple Dry Cleaner Sites
Multiple (4) Dry Cleaner sites - In Situ
Chemical Oxidation
Naval Air Station, Pensacola, FL
Naval Submarine Base, Kings Bay, GA
Naval Submarine Base, Kings Bay, GA
Naval Air Engineering Station (NAES)
Site (Area I), NJ
Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek,
Site 11, GA
Naval Air Station, North Island, CA
Naval Air Station, Pensacola, OU 10,
FL
Oak Pudge National Laboratory, TN
Case
Study ID
172
385
187
193
192
353
375
186
184
202
Technology *f
Flushing (in situ);
Thermal Treatment (in situ)',
In- Well Air Stripping (Field
Demonstration)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ);
Monitored Natural
Attenuation
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
Flushing (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
In- Well Air Stripping
(NoVOCs) (Field
Demonstration)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Permeable Reactive Barrier -
Funnel and Gate
Configuration and Trench
(Field Demonstration)
Media
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Contaminants
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
DCE; PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
TCE; DCE; Volatiles-
Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
DCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Radioactive Metals
Year Operation
Began
Not Provided
Various years -
starting 2001
1998
1999
1998
2002
2002
1998
1998
1997
Year
Published
2001
2005
2001
2001
2000
2004
2005
2000
2000
2002
A-34
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Pinellas Northeast Site, FL
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant,
X-70 IB Facility, OH
RMI Titanium Plant, Ashtabula
Environmental Management Project,
OH
Scotchman #94, Florence, SC
Site 88, Building 25, Marine Corps Base
Camp Lejeune, NC
South Prudence Bay Island Park, T-
Dock Site, Portsmouth, RI
Sparks Solvents/Fuel Site, Sparks, NV
Tinkham's Garage Superfund Site, NH
U.S. Coast Guard Support Center, NC
Case
Study ID
220
226
232
253
147
269
271
281
287
Technology *f
Thermal Treatment (in situ) -
Dual Auger Rotary Steam
Stripping (Field
Demonstration)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Flushing (in situ) (WIDE)
(Field Demonstration)
Multi Phase Extraction;
Air Sparging;
SVE
Flushing (in situ) (SEAR)
(Field Demonstration)
Air Sparging;
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Multi Phase Extraction
Multi Phase Extraction
Permeable Reactive Barrier
Media
Groundwater;
Soil;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater;
DNAPLs;
LNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Contaminants
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Radioactive Metals
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
BTEX;
MTBE;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
PCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
BTEX; MTBE;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
Year Operation
Began
1996
1988
1999
1998
1999
1998
1995
1994
1996
Year
Published
1998
2000
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2000
1998
A-35
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
U.S. Department of Energy Savannah
River Site, AM Area, SC
Visalia Superfund Site, CA
Westover Air Reserve Base, MA
Case
Study ID
294
309
377
Technology *f
In- Well Air Stripping;
Pump and Treat (Field
Demonstration)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Phytoremediation;
Bioremediation (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Media
Groundwater;
Soil;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Stormwater
Contaminants
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
Year Operation
Began
1990
1997
2001
Year
Published
1995
2000
2005
Debris/Solid Media Treatment (28 Projects)
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant, AL
Argonne National Laboratory - East, IL
Argonne National Laboratory - East, IL
Argonne National Laboratory, IL
Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) Research
Reactor, Argonne National Laboratory,
IL
Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) Research
Reactor, Argonne National Laboratory,
IL
Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) Research
Reactor, Argonne National Laboratory,
IL
4
9
11
10
38
39
40
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Physical Separation
(Scabbling) (Field
Demonstration)
Physical Separation (Concrete
Demolition) (Field
Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization
(Phosphate Bonded Ceramics)
(Field Demonstration)
Physical Separation
(Centrifugal Shot Blast) (Field
Demonstration)
Physical Separation (Rotary
Peening with Captive Shot)
(Field Demonstration)
Physical Separation (Roto
Peen Sealer with VAC-PACR
System) (Field
Demonstration)
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Debris/Slag/
Solid;
Groundwater
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Explosives/Propellants
Radioactive Metals
Radioactive Metals
Heavy Metals
Radioactive Metals
Radioactive Metals
Radioactive Metals
1995
Not Provided
1997
Not Provided
1997
1997
1996
1998
2000
2000
2000
1998
1998
1998
A-36
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Clemson University, SC
Envirocare of Utah, UT
Fernald Site, OH
Hanford Site, C Reactor, WA
Hartford Site, WA
Hartford Site, WA
Hartford Site, WA
Hartford Site, WA
Hartford Site, WA
Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory, ID
Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory, ID
Case
Study ID
42
67
71
102
97
98
99
100
103
110
109
Technology *f
Solidification/Stabilization
(Sintering) (Bench Scale)
Solidification/Stabilization
(Field Demonstration)
Physical Separation (Soft
Media Blasting) (Field
Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization
(Polymer Coating) (Field
Demonstration)
Physical Separation(Concrete
Grinder) (Field
Demonstration)
Physical Separation (Concrete
Shaver) (Field Demonstration)
Physical Separation (Concrete
Spaller) (Field
Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization
(Polyester Resins) (Field
Demonstration)
Physical Separation;
Solvent Extraction (Ultrasonic
Baths) (Field Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization
(Innovative Grouting and
Retrieval) (Full scale and
Field Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization
(DeHgSM Process) (Field
Demonstration)
Media
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Debris/Slag/
Solid;
Groundwater
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Debris/Slag/
Solid;
Soil
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Contaminants
Heavy Metals
Radioactive Metals
Radioactive Metals
Radioactive Metals
Radioactive Metals
Radioactive Metals
Radioactive Metals
Radioactive Metals;
Heavy Metals;
Arsenic
Radioactive Metals
Radioactive Metals
Heavy Metals
Year Operation
Began
1995
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1998
Not Provided
1998
1994
1998
Year
Published
2000
1998
2000
1998
2000
2000
2000
2000
1998
2000
2000
A-37
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory, ID
Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory, ID
Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory, Pit 2, ID
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, CA
Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM
Los Alamos National Laboratory,
Technical Area 33, NM
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
WA
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant,
OH
Savannah River Site, SC
Case
Study ID
113
112
111
132
139
140
210
224
249
Technology *f
Physical Separation (Wall
Scabbier) (Field
Demonstration)
Vitrification (ex situ)
(Graphite Furnace) (Field
Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization
(Polysiloxane) (Field
Demonstration)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (ex situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization
(ADA Process) (Field
Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization
(Field Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization
(Sol Gel Process) (Bench
Scale)
Solidification/Stabilization
(ATG Process) (Field
Demonstration)
Acid Leaching (Field
Demonstration)
Media
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Debris/Slag/
Solid;
Organic
Liquids; Soil
Debris/Slag/
Solid;
Groundwater
Debris/Slag/
Solid;
Groundwater
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Sludge
Debris/Slag/
Solid;
Groundwater
Organic
Liquids
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Contaminants
Heavy Metals
Heavy Metals;
Radioactive Metals
Heavy Metals
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Explosives/Propellants
Heavy Metals
Heavy Metals;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Radioactive Metals
Heavy Metals
Heavy Metals;
Radioactive Metals
Radioactive Metals
Year Operation
Began
2000
1997
1997
Not Provided
1998
1997
Not Provided
1998
1996
Year
Published
2001
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
A-38
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 374 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
STAR Center, ID
Case
Study ID
274
Technology *f
Vitrification (ex situ) (Plasma
Process) (Field
Demonstration)
Media
Debris/Slag/
Solid;
Soil;
Sludge
Contaminants
Heavy Metals;
Radioactive Metals
Year Operation
Began
1993
Year
Published
2000
Containment (7 Projects)
Dover Air Force Base, Groundwater
Remediation Field Laboratory National
Test Site, Dover DE
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (LLNL) Site 300 - Pit 6
Landfill OU, CA
Marine Corps Base Hawaii, HI
Naval Shipyard, CA
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN
Sandia National Laboratory,
Albuquerque, NM
U.S. Department of Energy, SEG
Facilities, TN
58
131
148
191
200
247
252
Containment - Barrier Walls
(Field Demonstration)
Containment - Caps
Containment - Caps (Field
Demonstration)
Containment - Caps (Field
Demonstration)
Containment - Barrier Walls
(Field Demonstration)
Containment - Caps (Field
Demonstration)
Containment - Barrier Walls
(Field Demonstration)
Groundwater
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Sediment;
Groundwater
Soil
Soil
~
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Radioactive Metals
-
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Radioactive Metals
-
-
1996
1997
1994
1997
1996
1995
1994
2001
1998
1998
1998
2000
2001
1997
* Full scale unless otherwise noted
f Technology focused on in case study listed first, followed by other technologies identified in the case study
Key: DNAPLs = Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids
SVE = Soil Vapor Extraction
BTEX = Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene
PAHs = Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PCBs = Polychlorinated Biphenyls
TCE = Trichloroethene
PCE = Tetrachloroethene
DCE = Dichloroethene
LNAPLs Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids
MTBE = Methyl tert-butyl ether
A-39
-------
Solid Waste and 542-R-05-021
Emergency Response July 2005
(5102G) 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
------- |