Abstracts of Remediation
Volume 8
r.
Federal
Remediation
Technologies
Roundtable
Prepared by the
Member Agencies of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Abstracts of Remediation
Case Studies
Volume 8
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
June 2004
-------
NOTICE
This report and the individual case studies and abstracts were prepared by agencies of the U.S. Government.
Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy 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 19 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 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 case study reports and abstracts are organized by technology, and cover a variety of in situ and ex
situ treatment technologies and some containment remedies. The case study reports and abstracts are
available on a CD-ROM, which contains a total of 361 remediation technology case studies (the 19 new
case studies and 342 previously-published case studies). Appendix A to this report identifies the specific
sites, technologies, contaminants, media, and year published for the 361 case studies.
Abstracts, Volume 8, covers a wide variety of technologies, including full-scale remediations and
large-scale field demonstrations of soil, groundwater, and sediment treatment technologies. Additional
abstract volumes will be prepared as agencies prepare additional case studies.
2004 Series
CD-ROM: FRTR Cost and Performance Case Studies and Related Information, 5th Edition;
EPA-542-C-04-004; June 2004
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
-------
Accessing Case Studies
The case studies and case study abstracts are available on the Internet through the Roundtable web site
at: http://www.frtr.gov/costperf.htm. The Roundtable web site 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, a limited number of copies of the CD-ROM and Abstracts - Volume 8 are available free of
charge by mail from NSCEP (allow 4-6 weeks for delivery), at the following address:
U.S. EPA/National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP)
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Phone: (513) 489-8190 or
(800)490-9198
Fax: (513)489-8695
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
FOREWORD i
INTRODUCTION 1
IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT ABSTRACTS 11
In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) at Two Dry Cleaner Sites, Various Locations 12
In Situ Treatment at Three Dry Cleaner Sites, Various Locations 14
Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) and SVE Used with Other Technologies at Four Dry Cleaner
Sites, Various Locations 16
Groundwater Pump and Treat, Air Sparging, and Soil Vapor Extraction at the Cascade
Corporation Site, Troutdale Gravel Aquifer, East Multnomah County Groundwater
Contamination Site, OU 2, Gresham, Oregon 18
Natural Pressure-Driven Passive Bioremediation at Castle Airport, Merced, CA 20
In Situ Chemical Reduction at the Morses Pond Culvert, Wellesley, Massachusetts 22
Steam Enhanced Extraction and Electro-Thermal Dynamic Stripping Process (ET-DSP)
at the Young-Rainy Star Center (formerly Pinellas) Northeast Area A, Largo, Florida 24
EX SITU SOIL/SEDIMENT TREATMENT ABSTRACTS 27
Thermochemical Conversion of Demolition Debris from Fort Ord, California 28
Glass Furnace Technology (GET) Demonstration at the Hazen Research Center in Golden,
Colorado and the Minergy GlassPack Test Center in Winneconne, Wisconsin 30
ill
-------
IN SITU GROUNDWATER TREATMENT ABSTRACTS 33
In Situ Bioremediation Using HRCฎ at a Former Industrial Property, San Jose, CA 34
Biotreatment Funnel and Gate at the Moss-American Site, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 36
In Situ Remediation of MTBE Contaminated Aquifers Using Propane Biosparging at the
National Environmental Technology Test Site, Port Hueneme, CA 38
Prepump Separation Technologies to Enhance Bioslurping at the Naval Air Station, New
Fuel Farm Site, Fallen, NV 40
In Situ Bioremediation at Naval Base Ventura County, Port Hueneme, California
(Field Demonstration) 42
Biosparging at the Savannah River Site Sanitary Landfill, Aiken, South Carolina 44
Ferox Injection at Hunter's Point Shipyard, Parcel C, Remedial Unit C4, San Francisco, CA ... 46
In Situ Bimetallic Nanoscale Particle (BNP) Treatment at the Naval Air Engineering
Station Site (Area I), Lakehurst, New Jersey 48
Air Sparging and Pump and Treat at the Del Norte County Pesticide Storage Area
Superfund Site, Crescent City, California 50
In Well Air Stripping at Two Dry Cleaners, Various Locations 52
APPENDIX A 55
Tables
1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies 3
2. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data 7
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 projects. At this time, the Roundtable is publishing a CD-ROM
(5th Edition), which contains a total of 361 remediation technology case studies (19 new case studies and
342 previously-published 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 identify and describe the primary factors that affect cost
and performance of a given technology. Factors that may affect project costs include economies of scale,
concentration levels in contaminated 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
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.
1
-------
Table 1 provides summary information about the technology used, contaminants and media treated, and
project duration for the 19 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 be
dollars 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 361 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. All projects shown in Appendix A are full-scale unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies
Site Name, State (Technology)
Principal
Contaminants*
Volatiles-Halogenated
BTEX and/or TPH
Pesticides/Herbicides
M
ฃ
Metals
Radionuclides
Media
(Quantity Treated)
Project
Duration
Highlights
In Situ Soil Treatment
Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)
Multiple (2) Dry Cleaner sites - In situ SVE (SVE)
Multiple (3) Dry Cleaner Sites - In Situ Treatment
(SVE, In Situ Chemical Oxidation)
Multiple (4) Dry Cleaners - SVE and SVE Used with
Other Technologies (SVE, Air Sparging, Chemical
Reduction, Pump and Treat, Monitored Natural
Attenuation, Multi Phase Extraction)
East Multnomah County Groundwater Contamination
Site, OR (SVE, Pump and Treat, Air Sparging)
Soil and
Groundwater
Soil, Groundwater,
and DNAPL
Soil, Groundwater,
and DNAPL
Soil, Groundwater,
and LNAPL
Various dates from
February 1994 - June
2001
Various dates from
April 2002 - August
2002
Various dates from June
1998 - August 2003
June 1991 - ongoing
Use of in situ SVE to treat soil and
groundwater contaminated with chlorinated
solvents at dry cleaner sites
Use of in situ heat SVE and in situ chemical
oxidation to treat chlorinated solvents in soil
and groundwater at dry cleaner sites
Use of SVE and SVE used with other
technologies to treat groundwater
contaminated with chlorinated solvents and
BTEX at dry cleaner sites
Use of SVE, pump and treat, and air sparging
to treat soil and groundwater contaminated
with chlorinated solvents
Other In Situ Soil Treatment
Castle Airport and Various Sites, CA (Bioventing)
VIorses Pond Culvert, MA (Chemical Reduction)
Young-Rainy Star Center (formerly Pinellas) Northeast
Area A, FL (ET-DSP)
Soil
Soil
(1,025 yd3)
Soil and
Groundwater
March - October 1998
September - October
2001
September 2002 -
March 2003
Field demonstration of natural pressure-
driven passive bioventing to treat soil
contaminated with petroleum
Use of in situ chemical reduction using
calcium polysulfide to treat soil
contaminated with chromium
Use of steam enhanced extraction and
Electro-Thermal Dynamic Stripping Process
(ET-DSP) to treat soil and groundwater
contaminated with chlorinated solvents
-------
Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies (continued)
Site Name, State (Technology)
Principal
Contaminants*
Volatiles-Halogenated
BTEX and/or TPH
Pesticides/Herbicides
S3
Metals
Radionuclides
Media
(Quantity Treated)
Project
Duration
Highlights
Ex Situ Soil/Sediment Treatment
Thermal Desorption
Fort Ord, CA (Thermal Desorption)
Debris/Slag/Solid
and Off-gas
October 2002
Field demonstration of thermochemical
conversion (thermal treatment) to remediate
demolition debris contaminated with heavy
metals
Vitrification
Hazen Research Center and Minergy GlassPack Test
Center, WI (Vitrification)
Sediment
January 2001 (dryer
evaluation)
August 2001 (melter
evaluation)
Field demonstration of vitrification to
remediate sediment contaminated with PCBs,
other organics, and metals
In Situ Groundwater Treatment
Bioremediation
Former Industrial Property, CA (Bioremediation -
HRCฎ)
VIoss-American Site, WI (Bioremediation - Permeable
Reactive Barrier)
Mational Environmental Technology Test Site, CA
(Bioremediation - Propane Biosparging)
"
"
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
May 2000 - ongoing
October 2000 - ongoing
May 2001 - March 2002
Use of enhanced in situ bioremediation using
HRCฎ to treat VOC -contaminated
groundwater
Use of a funnel and gate treatment system
combined with biotreatment to treat
groundwater contaminated with PAH and
BTEX
Field demonstration of bioremediation
(propane biosparging) to treat groundwater
contaminated with MTBE
-------
Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies (continued)
Site Name, State (Technology)
Maval Air Station New Fuel Farm Site, NV
(Bioremediation - Bioventing, Free Product Recovery)
Maval Base Ventura County, CA (Bioremediation)
Savannah River Site Sanitary Landfill (SLF), SC
(Bioremediation - Biosparging)
Principal
Contaminants*
genated
Volatiles-Halo
H
BTEX and/or
rbicides
Pesticides/He
fi
S3
t
Metals
Radionuclide
Media
(Quantity Treated)
Groundwater and
LNAPL
Groundwater
Groundwater
Project
Duration
4 months
September - December
2002
October 1999 - ongoing
Highlights
Field demonstration of prepump separation
technologies to treat groundwater
contaminated with LNAPL
Use of bioremediation (MTBE biobarrier) to
assess reduction in MTBE concentrations
Use of biosparging using horizontal wells in
conjunction with a cap, to treat chlorinated
solvents in groundwater beneath a sanitary
landfill
Chemical Reduction
Hunter's Point Ship Yard, Parcel C, Remedial Unit CA,
CA (Chemical Reduction - Ferox )
Naval Air Engineering Station (NAES) Site (Area I), NJ
(Chemical Reduction)
Groundwater
Groundwater
(1,800 ft3 or
13,500 gals)
December 5-23, 2002
February - March 2002
(pilot test)
Field demonstration of chemical reduction
using Ferox injection to treat groundwater
contaminated with chlorinated VOCs
Use of chemical reduction to conduct a pilot
test of Bimetallic Nanoscale Particle injection
to remediate groundwater contaminated with
chlorinated hydrocarbons
-------
Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies (continued)
Site Name, State (Technology)
Principal
Contaminants*
3
S
a
0
i
&
3
1
Q
X
H
1
ง
X
U
ป
a
3
^
*
|
g
'3
1
V
ac
ffl
b
JS
1
s
a
=
=
fl
_o
(A
Media
(Quantity Treated)
Project
Duration
Highlights
Other In Situ Groundwater Treatment
Del Norte County Pesticide Storage Area Superfund
Site, CA (Air Sparging and Pump and Treat)
Multiple (2) Dry Cleaners - In Well Air Stripping (In
Well Air Stripping and Pump and Treat)
Groundwater
Groundwater and
Soil
April 1990 - October
1997
March 1994 -
November 1996 (Air
Sparging)
Various dates from
September 1994 -
December 10, 1997
Use of air sparging, in conjunction with pump
and treat, to remediate groundwater
contaminated with 1,2-dichloropropane
(DCP) and other contaminants at a pesticide
storage area
Use of in well air stripping and pump and
treat to treat chlorinated solvents in
groundwater at dry cleaner sites
' Principal contaminants are one or more specific constituents within the groups shown that were identified during site investigations
-------
Table 2. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data
Site Name, State (Technology)
Technology
Cost ($)J'2
Quantity of
Media
Treated
Quantity of
Contaminant
Removed
Calculated Unit
Cost for
Treatment w
Key Factors
Potentially Affecting Technology Costs
In Situ Soil Treatment
Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)
Multiple (2) Dry Cleaner sites - In
situ SVE (SVE)
Multiple (3) Dry Cleaner Sites - In
Situ Treatment (SVE, In Situ
Chemical Oxidation)
Multiple (4) Dry Cleaners - SVE
and SVE Used with Other
Technologies (SVE, Air Sparging,
Chemical Reduction, Pump and
Treat, Monitored Natural
Attenuation, Multi Phase
Extraction)
East Multnomah County
Groundwater Contamination Site,
OR (SVE, Pump and Treat, Air
Sparging)
T- $182,903.63
(Oxboro)
D - $34,500 (Eastgate)
OA - $50,000 (Former
Market Place)
T - $300,000 (Colonial)
AO - $300,000 (Long
Prairie)
Treatment - $406,000
Groundwater extraction -
$2,000,000
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
2,3131bs(MPE
and SVE at
Midway)
9581bsofVOC
Not Provided
$39/yd3 (Denver
Colorado Dry
Cleaner)
Not Provided
$2,540/lb
Oxboro Cleaners: Clay lens at 10 ft bgs held most
of the PCE in place, making SVE easier to
implement
Former Market Place: Chemical oxidation system
shut itself down frequently because it was not
designed to meet specifications
Long Prairie Cleaners: Aggressive source removal
led to a decrease in contaminant plume
concentrations, making SVE easier to implement
Early on-site groundwater extraction provided the
greatest annual rate of pounds of mass
removed, reinforcing the value of early near
source Interim Removal Action Measure (IRAM)
actions.
-------
Table 2. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data (continued)
Site Name, State (Technology)
Technology
cost ($y>*
Quantity of
Media
Treated
Quantity of
Contaminant
Removed
Calculated Unit
Cost for
Treatment w
Key Factors
Potentially Affecting Technology Costs
Other In Situ Soil Treatment
Castle Airport and Various Sites,
CA (Bioventing)
Morses Pond Culvert, MA
(Chemical Reduction)
Young-Rainy Star Center (formerly
Pinellas) Northeast Area A, PL
(ET-DSP')
Not Provided
T- $119,719
Calcium polysulfide
injection - $69,296
Labor -$13,900
Installation of injection
wells & collection of soil
borings - $36,523
T - $3,800,000
Not Provided
1,025 yd3
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
3,000 Ibs
$1.93/yd3
(estimated for full
scale)
$2.09/yd3
(conventional
bioventing)
Not Provided
Not Provided
Suitability of lithology/stratigraphy, depth to
groundwater, and natural air flow rates
Soil geology, moisture content, and pH
Efficiency of vapor recovery system
Ex Situ Soil/Sediment Treatment
Thermal Desorption
Fort Ord, CA (Thermal Desorption)
C - $1,950,000
(estimated)
AO - $987,00
Not Provided
Not Provided
$117/ton (based on
a projection of
processing 8,450
tons/year)
Requirement of a relatively simple dry filtration
system to treat off-gas
Vitrification
Hazen Research Center and
Minergy GlassPack Test Center,
WI (Vitrification)
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
$38.72/ton
(estimated for full-
scale)
Amount of moisture contained in the sediment
-------
Table 2. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data (continued)
Site Name, State (Technology)
Technology
cost ($y>*
Quantity of
Media
Treated
Quantity of
Contaminant
Removed
Calculated Unit
Cost for
Treatment w
Key Factors
Potentially Affecting Technology Costs
In Situ Groundwater Treatment
B ioremediation
Former Industrial Property, CA
(Bioremediation - HRCฎ)
Moss-American Site, WI
(Bioremediation - Permeable
Reactive Barrier)
National Environmental
Technology Test Site, CA
(Bioremediation - Propane
Biosparging)
Naval Air Station New Fuel Farm
Site, CA (Bioremediation -
Bioventing, Free Product
Recovery)
Naval Base Ventura County, CA
(Bioremediation)
Savannah River Site Sanitary
Landfill (SLF), SC (Bioremediation
- Biosparging)
Two applications of
HRC - $107,000
Direct push injections -
$30,000
Monitoring & analysis
(May - July 2000) -
$130,000
Not Provided
D - $333,288
(C -$122,311
AO - $184,647)
P - $145,600
D - $70,000
P - $309,000
Biobarrier installation -
$307,200
AO - $77,486 per year
Installation of two wells
- $1 million
Construction of pad/well
piping - $750,000
AO -$440,000
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
$10/galof fuel
removed
Not Provided
Not Provided
A one-time application process with no ongoing
operation and maintenance activities
Low levels of dissolved oxygen in the treatment
gates required the installation of well packers and
an attempt to install inflatable bladder packers
pH and permeability of saturated zone soils
High LNAPL production rates require larger
liquid traps and production rates to handle the
additional flow
The conditions at the site showed that
biostimulation (aeration only) was a viable option
and bioaugmentation was not necessary
Clay content of soil, hydraulic conductivity, and
depth to groundwater
-------
Table 2. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data (continued)
Site Name, State (Technology)
Technology
cost ($y>*
Quantity of
Media
Treated
Quantity of
Contaminant
Removed
Calculated Unit
Cost for
Treatment w
Key Factors
Potentially Affecting Technology Costs
Chemical Reduction
Hunter's Point Ship Yard, Parcel C,
Remedial Unit C4, CA (Chemical
Reduction - Ferox )
Naval Air Engineering Station
(NAES) Site (Area I), NJ
(Chemical Reduction)
D - $146,665
Not Provided
Not Provided
1,800ft3
(13,500 gals)
Not Provided
Not Provided
$117/yd3
Not Provided
Most of the reduction in TCE concentrations
occurred during the first 3 weeks of the
demonstration, indicating that less monitoring
would be needed for future applications
Concentration of the Bimetallic Nanoscale Particle
(BNP) suspension and number of injection points
Other In Situ Groundwater Treatment
Del Norte County Pesticide Storage
Area Superfund Site, CA (Air
Sparging and Pump and Treat)
Multiple (2) Dry Cleaners - In Well
Air Stripping, (In Well Air
Stripping and Pump and Treat)
AO- $166,518 (1995)
AO - $106,928 (1996)
AO- $84,211 (1997)
T - $773,716 (Schloff)
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
High silt and clay content of the soil, and chemical
properties of 1,2-dichloropropane
Schloff Chemicals: system required frequent
maintenance
Former Base: System was unable to achieve
design pumping rates
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.
10
-------
IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT ABSTRACTS
11
-------
In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) at Two Dry Cleaner Sites, Various Locations
Site Name:
Multiple (2) Dry Cleaner sites - In situ SVE
Location:
Eastgate: Memphis, TN
Oxboro: South Bloomington, MN
Period of Operation:
Eastgate: February 1994 - November 1996; System reactivation in March
2001 - June 2001 (trial period)
Oxboro: October 10, 1997 - Not specified
Cleanup Authority:
State
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of in situ SVE to treat soil and groundwater contaminated with chlorinated
solvents at dry cleaner facilities.
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
1,1-Dichloroethene (1,1 DCE), 1,2-Dichloroethene (1,2 DCE), cis-1,2-
Dichloroethene (cis-1,2 DCE), Methylene Chloride, Tetrachloroethene (PCE);
Trichloroethene (TCE), Vinyl Chloride, Benzene, Toluene, Acetone,
Naphthalene
Eastgate: Plume size = 120,000 ft2
- Halogenated Volatiles - 1,1-DCE- 13 |ig/L; 1,2-DCE - 1,300 |ig/L; cis-1,2-
DCE - 1,000 |ig/L; methylene chloride - 0.55 |ig/L; PCE - 2,100 |ig/L; TCE
-1,200 |ig/L; vinyl chloride - 1.1 |ig/L; PCE soil concentrations - 7,170
M-8/kg
- Non-Halogenated Volatiles - benzene- 1.7 |ig/L; toluene - 0.63 |ig/L;
acetone - 37,000 |ig/L
Oxboro:
- Halogenated Volatiles - 1,1-DCE - 13 |ig/L; 1,2-DCE - 3.4 |ig/L; PCE - 37
|ig/L; TCE - 58 |ig/L
- Non-Halogenated Volatiles: Naphthalene - 2.2 |ig/L; Acetone - 24 |ig/L;
PCE in soil - 1 |ig/kg
Waste Source:
Waste and wastewater from dry
cleaning operations
Contacts:
Varied by site
Technology:
In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction
Eastgate: Between 1994 and 1996, system operated under pulse venting techniques, involving
turning off the system for shorter periods of time. The 2001 trial period involved 24-hour per
day operations, with an airflow rate of 300 cfm. A 6-hour per day pulse mode was initiated in
March and continued until cessation of operations in June. A total of 2,000 Ibs of granular
activated carbon was used to treat the soil vapor.
Oxboro: In situ SVE system included soil venting wells and a blower system operation checked
weekly during first three weeks of operation and monthly thereafter; monitoring included air
flow rates, vacuum, and total organic vapor; no specific operating data provided
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil, Groundwater
Eastgate:
- Depth to groundwater - perched groundwater at 40 ft with a basal fluvial aquifer at 70 ft
- Subsurface geology - Loess deposits of 20 to 25 ft of clayey silts overlying fluvial material (50 to 80 ft) underlain by
the Jackson-upper Claiborne confining bed, encompassing the Jackson Clay and the Cockfield Cook Mountain
Formations (125 ft thick)
- Conductivity - 2.55xlO"5 to 3.97xlO"5 ft/day (depths between 8 and 28 ft)
- Groundwater gradient - 0.001 to the ESE (perched zone)
Oxboro:
- Depth to groundwater - 40 ft
- Subsurface geology - Tan and black gravel/silt (0-2 ft); Dark red sand/gravel (5-35 ft); sand/cobbles (35-40 ft)
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Eastgate:
- Groundwater- PCE - 5 |ig/L; TCE - 5 |ig/L; 1,1 DCE - 7 |ig/L; cis-DCE - 70 |ig/L; 1,2 DCE total - 70 |ig/L
- Soil- PCE - 500 |ig/kg
Oxboro: Clean up goals not identified
12
-------
In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) at Two Dry Cleaner Sites, Various Locations (continued)
Results:
Eastgate:
- Approximately 1,350 Ibs of PCE and TCE were removed during initial operations (1994-1996).
- During 2001 trial period, approximately 0.16 Ibs of total PCE and TCE was recovered from both deep and shallow
extraction wells. The system was terminated upon verification that a negligible volume of mass was entering the
system; next step is natural attenuation to further reduce contamination.
Oxboro:
- Soil - PCE concentration decreased from 160 mg/m3 on October 20, 1997 to 2.3 mg/m3 on May 8, 1998.
- DCE was detected at a concentration of 7.2 mg/m3 in the October 20, 1998 sample, but was not detected in the
remaining samples.
- Cleanup goals were reported to have been met "within a couple of years"
Costs:
Eastgate: $34,500 (trial period)
Oxboro: $182,906.63 (total cost for clean up)
Description:
In situ SVE was conducted at two dry cleaner sites contaminated with chlorinated organic compounds from leaks, spills, or
dumping of dry cleaning solvents or waste waters. The concentrations of PCE and TCE contamination varied by site with
levels of PCE in groundwater as high as 2,100 g/L and TCE in groundwater as high as 1,200 g/L. Levels of PCE in soil
were as high as 7,170 g/kg and 1 g/kg, respectively. The remediations included full-scale in situ SVE and a trial period
where the in situ SVE system was operated under pulse venting techniques, involving turning off the system for shorter
periods of time.
At the Eastgate site, approximately 1,350 Ibs of PCE and TCE were removed during the 2-year full-scale operation. An
additional 0.16 Ibs of contaminants were removed during the trial period. The system operation was terminated in June
2001 based on the negligible amount of contaminant mass entering the system. Natural attenuation is planned to further
reduce the contaminant levels.
At the Oxboro site, as of October 1997, soil vapor concentrations of PCE decreased from 160 mg/m3 to 2.3 mg/m3. As of
October 1998, soil vapor concentrations of DCE decreased to 7.2 mg/m3 in one sample and was not detected in remaining
samples.
13
-------
In Situ Treatment at Three Dry Cleaner Sites, Various Locations
Site Name:
Multiple (3) Dry Cleaner Sites - In Situ Treatment
Location:
Former Market Place Shopping Center
Site, Hilton Head, SC
Denver Colorado Dry Cleaner, Denver,
CO
United Cleaners Site #1973, Lemont, IL
Period of Operation:
Former Market Place - June 1, 2002
Denver Colorado-April 2001
United Cleaner #1973 - August 26, 2002
Cleanup Authority:
State
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of in situ treatment technologies to treat chlorinated solvents in
groundwater at dry cleaner facilities
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale and field demonstration
Contaminants:
Tetrachloroethene (PCE); Trichloroethene (TCE); Dichloroethene (DCE);
Volatiles-Halogenated
Former Market Place: PCE - 27,000 g/L; Plume size: 28,600ft2
Denver Colorado - PCE - 18,200 g/L; TCE - 12,600 g/L
United Cleaners #1973 - PCE - 4,300,000 g/kg; TCE - 170,000 g/kg;
cis-l,2-DCE - 144,000 g/kg; trans-l,2-DCE - 865 g/kg; 1,1,1-
trichloroethane - 5,610 g/kg; 1,1-Dichloroethene - 306 g/kg
Waste Source:
Waste and wastewater from dry cleaning
operations
Contacts:
Varied by site
Technology:
In Situ Chemical Oxidation (ISCO); In Situ Heat Soil Vapor Extraction (HSVE)
At the Former Market Place site: ISCO with ozone was implemented; followed by monitored natural
attenuation (MNA); technology included ozone air sparge and C-sparging with ozone injection
At the Denver Colorado site: ISCO using ISOTEC's Modified Fenton's Reagent was implemented;
two phases - two injection events for the area inside the former dry cleaner building to treat
contaminant source; three injection events to treat the entire groundwater plume; a total of 26,987
gallons of ISOTEC reagents were injected through 244 temporary injection locations; 1st phase:
direct push locations (nine points per event) inside former dry cleaner building; direct push locations
were on 15-ft centers and shifted laterally between events; 2nd phase: direct push injection points
were spaced on 30-ft centers based on a conservative radius of influence of 15 ft determined from a
pilot test; direct push locations for second and third injection events shifted laterally from first event
locations to ensure complete reagent coverage across the site
At the United Cleaners #1973 site, in situ HSVE was implemented; system used a series of in-ground
coils to transfer heat, increase volatility of organic contaminants, and facilitate removal of volatile
solvents from the soil using a vapor extraction system; after operation for 120 days, the system was
modified slightly, including adding heat points and an extraction well
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater; Soil; DNAPL
Former Market Place:
- Depth to groundwater: 10 ft bgs
- Subsurface geology: fine silty sands, clay and shellhash
Groundwater gradient: 0.006 ft/ft
Denver Colorado
- Depth to groundwater: 9 ft bgs
- Subsurface geology: sands, silts, and clay overlying siltstone bedrock. Clay, 0-9 ft bgs; permeable sand and gravel, 9-
12 ft bgs; siltstone, 12+ ft bgs; subsurface conditions appear to be relatively uniform throughout the plume area;
groundwater at the site appears to be confined to the permeable zone overlying the siltstone;
- Groundwater gradient: 0.121 ft/ft to the east
United Cleaners #1973
- Native soils in the vicinity are Wadsworth and Haeger Members of the Wedron Formation; Silty and pebbly drifts
containing local areas of sandy to gravely till in outer moraines. Bedrock in the site consists of Silurian-aged dolomite
14
-------
In Situ Treatment at Three Dry Cleaner Sites, Various Locations (continued)
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Former Market Place - Groundwater: <5 g/L of PCE; <5 g/L of TCE; <70 g/L of cis-l,2-DCE, <100 g/L of trans-
1,2-DCE, <2 g/L of vinyl chloride
Denver Colorado - None available
United Cleaners #1973 - site-specific cleanup goals: 1,1-DCA - 1,830,000 g/kg; cis-l,2-DCE - 1,900,000 g/kg; PCE -
100,000 g/kg; TCE - 440,000 g/kg; vinyl chloride - 250 g/kg
Results:
Former Market Place - MW-2I (an intermediate well with the highest initial concentration on site) showed a reduction of
PCE from 26,800 g/L to 704 g/L
Denver Colorado:
- Following final injection event, PCE concentrations ranged from 70 g/L to non-detect (ND); average PCE
concentration across the site was reduced from 3,267 g/L to 39.6 g/L, a reduction of 99%. PCE concentration in
MW-5 was reduced from 925 g/L to 51 g/L, a reduction of 94%.
- TCE concentrations ranged from 170 g/L to ND; average TCE concentration across the site was reduced from
1,387.8 g/L to 64.9 g/L, a reduction of 95%. TCE concentration in MW-5 was reduced from 550 g/L to 52 g/L,
a reduction of 90%.
- Average TCE concentrations in all wells (including source area wells) was reduced by 98%.
United Cleaners #1973 - PCE soil concentrations reduced from 4,300,000 g/kg to 2,400,000 g/kg. Additionally, one
of the two areas where the remediation system was installed was completely cleaned up. The vapor extraction system
was turned off in this area. Extraction has continued only at those areas where the objectives have not yet been met.
Costs:
Former Market Place - Cost for operation and maintenance (O&M) - $50,000
Denver Colorado - $39/cubic yard of saturated soil treated. Costs include pilot scale tests, full-scale treatment, and
direct push injection equipment and labor.
United Cleaners #1973 - Not available
Description:
In situ treatment was conducted at three dry cleaner sites contaminated with chlorinated solvents from dry cleaning
operations, with PCE and TCE as the primary contaminants in groundwater. The technologies implemented included
ISCO and HS VE. The concentrations of PCE and TCE contamination varied by site with levels of PCE in groundwater as
high as 27,000 g/L and TCE in groundwater as high as 12,600 g/L. Levels of PCE and TCE in soil were as high as
4,300,000 g/kg and 170,000 g/kg, respectively. The remediations, including full-scale and demonstration-scale projects,
involved the subsurface injection of ozone and ISOTEC's Modified Fenton's Reagent, and the use of in-ground coils to
transfer heat and remove volatile contaminants.
At the Former Market Place site, PCE concentrations were reduced substantially, but still remained above the cleanup goal
of 5 g/L. At the Denver Colorado site, PCE concentrations across the site were reduced by 99%, and TCE concentrations
were reduced by 90%. At the #1973 site, PCE soil concentrations were reduced by approximately 50%. Additionally, one
of the two areas where the remediation system was installed was completely cleaned up. At the Denver Colorado site, the
cost of implementing ISCO was approximately $39/cubic yard of saturated soil treated. At the United Cleaners #1973 site,
it was useful to have remote access capability to check the system during operation.
15
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) and SVE Used with Other Technologies at Four Dry Cleaner Sites,
Various Locations
Site Name:
Multiple (4) Dry
Cleaners - SVE and
SVE Used with
Other Technologies
Location:
Shorty Cleaners, Stillwater, MN
Long Prairie, Long Prairie, MN
Colonial Square Mall, MN
Midway Plaza, St. Paul, MN
Cleanup
Authority:
State
Cleanup
Type:
Full scale
Waste Source:
Waste and
wastewater from
dry cleaning
operations
Contacts:
Varied by
state
Period of Operation:
Shorty: SVE - June 1998; ISCO - pending as of August 2003
Long Prairie: SVE - April 1997
Colonial: June 4, 1999
Midway: February 3, 1999
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of SVE and SVE used with other technologies to treat
chlorinated solvents and BTEX in groundwater at dry
cleaner facilities
Contaminants:
Tetrachloroethene (PCE); Trichloroethene (TCE); BTEX;
Volatiles-Halogenated; Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenated
Shorty:
Groundwater - PCE - 50,000 g/L; TCE - 5,500 g/L; cis-1,2-
dichloroethene - 5,000 g/L; vinyl chloride - 430 g/L;
benzene - 3.3 g/L; toluene - 34 g/L; Naphthalene -
1,500 g/L
Soil - PCE - 1,200 mg/kg; TCE - 16 mg/kg; cis-1,2-
dichloroethene - 6.1 mg/kg; benzene - 4 mg/kg; naphthalene -
23 mg/kg
Long Prairie:
Groundwater - PCE - 150,000 g/L; TCE - 760 g/L; cis-1,2-
DCE - 250 g/L; vinyl chloride - 3 g/L.
Soil - PCE - 7,300,000 g/kg; TCE - 15 g/kg; cis-l,2-DCE -
10 g/kg
Colonial:
Groundwater - PCE - 3,500 g/L; TCE - 55 g/L; cis-l,2-DCE
- 62 g/L
Soil - PCE - 150,000 g/kg; cis-l,2-DCE - 110 g/kg;
methylene chloride - 3.6 g/kg
Midway:
Groundwater - PCE - 41,000 g/L; TCE - 840 g/L; cis-1,2-
DCE - 100 g/L; methylene chloride - 34 g/L; ethylbenzene -
120 g/L; benzene - 22 g/L; acetone - 140 g/L
Soil - PCE - 11,000 mg/kg; methylene chloride - 1.3 mg/kg;
acetone - 0.32 mg/kg
Technology:
SVE, ISCO, MNA, P&T, MPE, AS
Shorty: Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE), In Situ Chemical
Oxidation (ISCO), and Monitored Natural Attenuation
(MNA)
SVE system had 6 extraction points, with piping for the
system buried 4 ft below grade; soil vents were inserted
through old soil boring locations in situ; radius of
influence was assumed to be 25 ft; air flow operated
continuously with exhaust air flow typically around 125
scfm
The system was turned off after 24 months
MNA is being assessed through semi-annual groundwater
monitoring
Long Prairie: SVE, MNA, Pump and Treat (P&T)
Colonial: SVE, MNA
SVE system comprised of 5 vents; side-mounted SVE
system placed outside the rear of the store; system has a
design flow of 300 cfm extracted at 24 inches of water
vacuum.
Midway: SVE, Multi Phase Extraction (MPE), Air
Sparging (AS)
MPE implemented in one area of the site; AS/SVE
implemented in another area of the site
Total of 10 MPE extraction wells, 7 SVE wells, and 2 AS
wells
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil, Groundwater, Dense Non-aqueous Phase Liquids
(DNAPLs)
Shorty:
Depth to groundwater - 10 to 12 ft bgs
Subsurface geology - Complex glacial lithology: 0-11 ft silty
sand fill; 11-20 ft sand to silty sand (water bearing unit); 20-
40 ft sand to silty sand with clay layers (clay layers are 0.25 to
11 inches thick); 40-60 ft gravelly sand; 60-120 ft bedrock
Shallow aquifer conductivity - 0.837 to 5.47 ft/day; Deep
aquifer conductivity - 0.211 to 33.40 ft/day
Groundwater gradient: 0.318 ft/ft
Long Prairie:
Depth to groundwater - 5-5 ft bgs
Subsurface geology - Series of interbedded glacial till and
sand and gravel outwash deposits that extend to at least
200 feet below grade; glacial drift deposits up to 700 ft
thick ; western 2/3 of site underlain by sand and gravel
outwash deposits that extend from the ground surface to a
till layer that is about 60 to 80 feet below grade; eastern
1/3 of site is underlain by upper and lower outwash layers
that are separated by an approximately 20-ft thick layer
that acts as an aquitard separating the upper and lower
outwash layers.
16
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) and SVE Used with Other Technologies at Four Dry Cleaner Sites,
Various Locations (continued)
Colonial:
Depth to ground-water - 36 to 105 ft bgs
Subsurface geology - 0-10 ft yellow brown sand,
dry, fine to coarse fill; 10-15 ft layered silt and
sand; 11.5-12 ft Quaternary-aged loamy till, sandy
till and lacustrine clay and silt deposits; multiple
sand stringers in the predominantly silty soil;
sediments overlying bedrock estimated to be 150
to 200 ft in the area; two discrete saturated zones
that may be present beneath the site.
Aquifer conductivity - 1.18 ft/day to 1.29 ft/day
Groundwater gradient - 0.04 to 0.05 ft/ft
Midway:
Depth to groundwater - 25.5 to 33 ft bgs
Subsurface geology - 0-11 ft: fine to medium, red-brown sand;
11-22 ft: silty to clayey moderately stiff, red-brown till; 22-26 ft:
silty, fine to medium, tan-brown sand; 26-28 ft: dry, stiff to very
dense, clayey, fine to medium, gray sand overlaying a well sorted fine
to medium gray sand, which is laterally discontinuous and averages
less than 3 ft in thickness; groundwater in the unconsolidated glacial
sediments is not hydraulically connected across the entire site;
undulations in the bedrock surface appear to be the primary factor
controlling the hydrogeology of the unconsolidated sediments at the
site
Aquifer conductivity - 4 to 9 ft/day
Groundwater gradient - 0.01 ft/ft
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Shorty: Groundwater - Eliminate hot spot at MW-3; Soil - Reach asymptotic removal rates of VOCs for three consecutive
quarters.
Long Prairie: Groundwater - MCLs: 5 g/L for PCE and TCE; 70 g/L for DCE; Soil - PCE - 1,200 g/kg
Colonial: PCE - 3.8 g/L (ecological criteria due to the presence of wetlands); no numerical standards set for soil
Midway - Groundwater - PCE: 5 g/L and steady-state in groundwater; soil - PCE: 19,900 g/kg
Results:
Shorty:
Concentration of degradation products has increased steadily over time, although the concentration of
PCE remains high
PCE concentration in groundwater decreased by 50% (6,200 g/L to 3,000 g/L) during operation of
SVE, but spiked up again (10,000 g/L) after SVE system was shut off
Long Prairie:
Mass of chlorinated solvent contamination in the plume has been reduced, especially near the source
area; concentration of chlorinated solvent contamination in the groundwater has decreased by three
orders of magnitude near the source area.
Soil cleanup goals were met after operation of the SVE system at the source area for approximately three
years
Active remediation will continue until MCLs are met or until data show MNA to be effective to meet
MCLs
Colonial:
Quarterly monitoring from 1997 to 2002 indicates that the groundwater plume is stable
SVE system operated continuously for 36 months; system was shut down and removed after a year of
groundwater monitoring following SVE operation
Midway:
Mass removal for both MPE and SVE from February 2, 1999 to June 8, 2001 is 2,313 pounds
Average daily contaminant recovery declined from a high of 22 Ib/day to 0.2 Ib/day (in January 2001)
Exponential decay analysis indicates that average daily recovery has reached an asymptotic level
MPE system was authorized to be shut down on December 11, 2001
AS/S VE system was shut down after one year of operation
Soils meet cleanup goal of 19,900 g/kg, therefore, closure has been requested for the soils
Costs:
Shorty:
Not provided
Long Prairie:
$300,000 annual
operation and
maintenance
(O&M) costs
Colonial:
Total cost was
approximately
$300,000
Midway:
Not provided
Description:
SVE was implemented together with other technologies at four dry cleaner sites in Minnesota contaminated with chlorinated
solvents and BTEX from dry cleaning operations. Initial concentrations of PCE and TCE in groundwater were as high as
150,000 g/L and 5,500 g/L, respectively, and 7,300 mg/kg and 16 mg/kg in soil. The remediation involved SVE with other
technologies such as air sparging, in situ chemical oxidation, pump and treat, and multi phase extraction.
At the Shorty site, PCE concentrations in the groundwater continue to remain high even though the concentration of degradation
products has increased steadily over time. At the Long Prairie and Midway sites, soil cleanup goals were met and the SVE
system was shut down. At the Colonial site, the groundwater plume was stable and the SVE system was shut down after
operating for 36 months.
At the Long Prairie site, source removal was key to reducing contaminant concentrations.
17
-------
Groundwater Pump and Treat, Air Sparging, and Soil Vapor Extraction at the Cascade
Corporation Site, Troutdale Gravel Aquifer, East Multnomah County Groundwater
Contamination Site, OU 2, Gresham, Oregon
Site Name:
East Multnomah County Groundwater Contamination Site
Location:
Gresham, Oregon
Period of Operation:
June 1991 to present
Cleanup Authority:
EPA
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of multiple technologies to treat chlorinated solvents in soil and
groundwater at the site
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
Tetrachloroethene (PCE), Trichloroethene (TCE), Cis-1,2-
dichloroethene (DCE), Halogenated-Volatiles.
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) detected in soil at
concentrations as high as 0.09 mg/kg (PCE), 5.5 mg/kg (TCE), and
10mg/kg(l,2-DCE).
VOCs in groundwater detected at concentrations as high as 920 g/L
(PCE), 11,000 g/L (TCE), 13,000 g/L (1,2-DCE), and 106 g/L
(vinyl chloride).
Chromium detected in groundwater at concentrations as high as
172 g/L
Site noted to also have light non-aqueous phase liquids (LNAPLs)
Waste Source:
Suspected releases from site operations,
including overflow from an underground storage
tank (UST), spills, and on-site land disposal
Contacts:
Remedial Project Manager
Alan Goodman
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
Telephone: (503) 326-3685
E-mail: goodman.alan@epa.gov
Project Manager
Bruce Gilles
ODEQ
2020 SW Fourth Avenue
Suite 400
Portland, OR 97201
Telephone: (503) 229-5263
E-mail: Gilles.Bruce@deq.state.or.us
Site Contractor
Sarah Pro well
Prowell Environmental, Inc.
2216 SW Sunset Blvd.
Portland, OR 97239
Telephone: (503) 452-0972
E-mail: sprowell@ix.netcom.com
Technology:
Technology: Groundwater pump and treat (P&T), air sparging, and soil
vapor extraction (SVE)
Remedy included multiple technologies for the site
Air sparging was performed in 2 test wells in the same source area as the
Total Fluid Extraction (TFE) wells
An air sparging pilot test was performed using two air sparge wells to
determine if sparging would enhance volatilization of VOCs from
groundwater, enhance SVE mass removal rates, and enhance the oxygen
levels in groundwater
SVE was performed using 8 SVE wells and the 13 DPE wells
SVE was shut down from March to October 1999, followed by seasonal
SVE shutdown, and permanently ceased operation in December 2001
Groundwater was extracted from 5 recovery wells and 13 DPE wells;
LNAPLs were extracted using TFE in one source area
Groundwater extraction rates for individual on-site wells in 1998 ranged
from 0.01 to 5 gpm; in September and October 1998, total groundwater
extraction rates were estimated to range from 8 to 11 gpm
An off-site control trench was used to intercept the plume and to protect
surface water and an underlying aquifer
Source area groundwater extraction continued through 2002, at which
time pulse pump operation began to cyclically desorb contaminants from
the soil matrix during off-cycles and extract contaminants during
on-cycles
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil and groundwater
TGA consists of gravel with sand, silt, and clay, and is approximately 50 ft thick on-site. Upper TGA materials consist
primarily of unconsolidated silty, sandy gravel with cobbles and boulders. The lower TGA is typically an indurated
sandstone.
Depth to groundwater - 10 -12 ft bgs
18
-------
Groundwater Pump and Treat, Air Sparging, and Soil Vapor Extraction at the Cascade
Corporation Site, Troutdale Gravel Aquifer, East Multnomah County Groundwater
Contamination Site, OU 2, Gresham, Oregon (continued)
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Groundwater ( g/L): PCE - 5, TCE - 5, cis-l,2-DCE - 70, vinyl chloride - 2, and chromium (VI) - 100
Soil (mg/kg): PCE - 0.3, TCE - 0.4, cis-l,2-DCE - 4.0, vinyl chloride - 0.008 mg/kg, chromium (VI) - 1,5000 (total waste
analysis), 0.86 mg/L (TCLP)
Results:
As of 2003, a total of 958 pounds of VOCs were removed over the 13 year period, consisting of 561 pounds removed from
groundwater, 377 pounds removed from soil, and 20 pounds removed as LNAPL. In addition, the TCE plume in the TGA
groundwater was significantly reduced.
While the concentrations of the contaminants were reduced, they remained above cleanup levels as of 2003.
Costs:
Total cost for treatment (without disposal of residues) was approximately $406,000.
Total cost for groundwater extraction (without disposal of residues) was approximately $2,000,000.
For the 958 pounds of VOC removed by the system during this time, the unit cost amounts to $2,540 per pound of VOC
removed.
Description:
The East Multnomah County (EMC) Groundwater Contamination site covers three square miles in Multnomah County,
east of Portland, Oregon, and includes multiple facilities. The Cascade site (OU 2), located within the EMC site consists
of those portions of Cascade Corporation's property containing soil or groundwater contamination at levels requiring
remedial action. Soil and groundwater at the Cascade site are contaminated with chlorinated solvents, primarily PCE, TCE
and cis-l,2-DCE, as well as LNAPL. The Record of Decision (ROD), signed for OU 2 in December 1996, specified the
use of multiple technologies, including S VE with destruction of VOCs using catalytic oxidation or equivalent; continued
operation of on- and off-site IRAMs (using P&T); expansion of the off-site groundwater extraction trench; extraction of
LNAPL by co-pumping LNAPL and groundwater; additional on-site groundwater extraction using existing and new wells;
and air sparging using approximately 25 on-site wells.
Performance data available through 2003 showed that a total of 958 pounds of VOCs have been removed over a 13 year
operating period, consisting of 561 pounds removed from groundwater, 377 pounds removed from soil, and 20 pounds
removed as LNAPL. While contaminant concentrations and plume sizes have decreased, concentrations remain above
cleanup levels. Operation of the control trench and groundwater extraction are continuing. A pilot test of bioaugmentation
is planned for the source area. In addition, 850 poplar trees were planted in 2000 for future use in treating VOCs in
groundwater north of the control trench.
19
-------
Natural Pressure-Driven Passive Bioremediation at Castle Airport, Merced, CA
Site Name:
Castle Airport and Various Sites
Location:
Merced, CA and Various Locations
Period of Operation:
March 1998 - October 1998 (Castle Airport); varying times for other
locations
Cleanup Authority:
Not identified
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Field demonstration of natural pressure-driven passive bioventing of
petroleum-contaminated soil
Cleanup Type:
Field demonstration
Contaminants:
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), BTEX
TPH concentrations in soil as high as 28,000 mg/kg
BTEX concentrations in soil as high as 12 mg/kg benzene, 80 mg/kg
toluene, 40 mg/kg ethylbenzene, and 180 mg/kg total xylenes
Waste Source:
Spills and leaks of jet fuels and gasoline
Contacts:
Sherrie Larson
Project Manager
and Principal Investigator
Phone: (805)982-4826
E-mail: larsonsl@nfesc.navy.mil
Michael B. Phelps
Parsons Engineering Science, Inc.
Phone: (510)891-9085
E-mail: michaeljhelps@parsons.com
Technology:
Natural Pressure-Driven Passive Bioventing
Uses the force generated by normal daily fluctuations in atmospheric
conditions for injecting air into the subsurface; primary advantage over
conventional bioventing is that no electrical blower is needed
15 DoD sites across the country were screened as possible demonstration
sites for passive bioventing; screening criteria included evaluating
suitability of lithology/stratigraphy, depth to groundwater, and natural air
flow rates, with a minimum criteria for air flow into existing vent wells of
at least 1 cfm; report includes summary of information by site and a
description of selection process
Report focuses on Castle Airport, which was selected for the demonstration
One vent well - 4-in inside diameter, PVC casing, screened between 25 and
85 ft bgs, with three isolated 10-foot screened sections to evaluate airflow
rates in three different lithologic zones
8 vapor monitoring points, installed at radial distances of 4, 8, 12, and 16 ft
The radius of influence of the bioventing well was estimated at 42 feet after
seven weeks
The daily airflow rates ranged from 27 to 9,300 cubic ft per day and
averaged 3,400 cubic feet per day; peak airflow rates ranged from 5.1 to 15
cfm
During the 6-month demonstration, six tests conducted to evaluate the
technology, including establishing radius of influence and in situ,
respiration; conditions were varied, such as vent well open or closed
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
Three main layers - upper 20 to 25 ft of subsurface comprised of silty sands/sand; underlain by sand to 35 ft; underlain
by sand/silty sand
Air permeability of sands below 25 ft, ranged from 38 to 200 darcies
Soil moisture - average about 6%
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Goals of the demonstration included achieving consistent air flow rate to vadose zone greater than 1 cfm and 1,200 cubic
feet per day and a radius of influence greater than 10 feet
No specific cleanup levels were identified for the demonstration
20
-------
Natural Pressure-Driven Passive Bioremediation at Castle Airport, Merced, CA (continued)
Results:
Air supply during demonstration consistently exceeded goals of 1 cfm and 1,200 cubic feet per day; ranged from 27 to
9,300 cubic feet per day and averaged 3,400 cubic feet per day
The radius of influence was estimated to be 42 feet after seven weeks, exceeding the goal of 10 feet.
As areas near the well are remediated and the oxygen demand is satisfied, the predicted radius of influence would be
expected to be 85 feet, comparing favorably to conventional bioventing radius of influence of 110 feet.
Costs:
The estimated cost of a full-scale passive bioventing system was $1.93 per cubic yard of soil treated; the cost of
conventional bioventing was estimated at $2.09 per cubic yard
Passive bioventing would require the use of 1.5 times as many wells as conventional bioventing, and a treatment time of
4 years instead of 3 years at the Castle Airport Site, however an overall reduction in costs would be achieved by
eliminating the capital cost of blowers and the O&M cost of powering the blowers
A cost comparison between the installation and operation of a full scale passive bioventing and a conventional
bioventing system at Castle Airport suggests that the passive system would save approximately $31,300; this cost saving
would be significantly greater if electricity were not already available at the site to operate electric blowers for a
conventional bioventing system.
Description:
15 DoD sites across the country were screened as possible demonstration sites for passive bioventing; screening criteria
included evaluating suitability of lithology/stratigraphy, depth to groundwater, and natural air flow rates, with a minimum
criteria for air flow into existing vent wells of at least 1 cfm. A demonstration of natural pressure-driven passive
bioventing was performed at Castle Airport in Merced, CA. The petroleum oil and lubricants fuel farm area was the bulk
fuel storage and distribution facility for the former AFB located at the site. Soil and groundwater contamination resulted
from leaking underground storage tanks and fuel distribution lines and surface spills. The Department of Defense
Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP), the Air Force Research Laboratory, and Naval
Facilities Engineering Service Center, and the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE) cooperated in
conducting the demonstration.
Natural pressure-driven passive bioventing is similar to conventional bioventing with the exception that it uses the force
generated by normal daily fluctuations in atmospheric conditions to replace a powered blower for injecting air into the
subsurface. During the demonstration, six tests of natural pressure-driven passive bioventing were performed over a six
month period. A single well installed to a depth of 65 feet achieved an average daily air flow rate to the vadose zone of
3,400 cubic feet and a radius of influence of 42 feet. As areas near the well are remediated and the oxygen demand is
satisfied, the predicted radius of influence would be expected to be 85 feet, comparing favorably to conventional
bioventing radius of influence of 110 feet. The projected cost of a full-scale passive bioventing system was $1.93 per cubic
yard of soil treated, compared to $2.09 per cubic yard for conventional bioventing.
21
-------
In Situ Chemical Reduction at the Morses Pond Culvert, Wellesley, Massachusetts
Site Name:
Morses Pond Culvert
Location:
Wellesley, Massachusetts
Period of Operation:
September - October 2001
Cleanup Authority:
EPA
Purpose/Significance of Application:
In situ treatment of chromium-contaminated soils at a railroad
embankment where excavation of soils deeper than 4 ft was determined
not to be practical or safe due to slope stability and structural concerns.
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
Chromium, zinc, and lead
1994: Soil chromium concentrations of 100,000 mg/kg, and surface
water hexavalent chromium concentration of 210 g/L. Zinc
concentrations above ambient water quality criteria.
1999: Total chromium in soil as high as 129,000 mg/kg and hexavalent
chromium as high as 31,000 mg/kg in surface soils located on residential
property, the embankment, and areas adjacent to the pond, and levels of
total chromium as high as 10,800 mg/kg in soils and sediments in the
culvert and cove areas.
Waste Source:
Chromium-laden pigment from former paint
factory used as fill material for improving
railroad embankment around the culvert.
Contacts:
EPA OSC:
Frank Gardner
One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (HER)
Boston, MA 02114-2023
Telephone: (617) 918-1278
E-mail: gardner.frank@epa.gov
USACE:
Laureen Borochaner
USACE
696 Virginia Road
Concord, MA 01742
Telephone: (978)318-8220
EPA Contractors:
Mandy Butterworth
Weston Solutions, Inc.
START Contractor
37 Upton Dr.
Wilmington, MA 01887
Telephone: (978) 657-5400
E-mail: mandy.butterworth@westonsolutions.com
Jim White
GZA GeoEnvironmental Inc
27 Nack Road
Vernon, CT 06066
Telephone: (860)858-3111
E-mail: jwhite@gza.com
Technology:
In situ chemical reduction using calcium polysulfide
Total of 40 injection well points installed along an
embankment, each 10 ft apart to allow for a 5-ft radial
distribution of reagent from each well.
Wells installed to depths ranging from 5 to 25 ft.
Treatment performed first in western portion of
embankment area, followed by eastern portion.
Total of 56,800 gallons of calcium polysulfide reagent
(18% solution) injected.
Additional area (4 injection points) on western embankment
added to in situ treatment area.
Post-treatment soil borings collected from locations of pre-
treatment borings and analyzed for total chromium and lead
(off-site laboratory) and field screened for hexavalent
chromium.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil; approximately 1,025 cubic yards treated in total.
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Non-binding goals for treatment: hexavalent chromium - 200 mg/kg (total) and 1 mg/kg using the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP).
22
-------
In Situ Chemical Reduction at the Morses Pond Culvert, Wellesley, Massachusetts (continued)
Results:
Post-treatment concentrations in the western portion of the embankment:
Hexavalent chromium: zero to 5,600 mg/kg (with pre-treatment concentrations as high as 11,400 mg/kg)
Total chromium: 140 to 67,000 mg/kg (with pre-treatment concentrations as high as 97,000 mg/kg)
Total lead: 24 to 11,000 mg/kg (with pre-treatment concentrations as high as 32,3000 mg/kg)
Post-treatment concentrations in the eastern portion of the embankment:
Hexavalent chromium: zero to 5,000 mg/kg (with pre-treatment concentrations as high as 11,700 mg/kg)
Total chromium: 92 to 35,000 mg/kg (with pre-treatment concentrations as high as 59,000 mg/kg)
Total lead: 23 to 220 mg/kg (with pre-treatment concentrations as high as 440 mg/kg)
Costs:
Total cost of approximately $ 119,719
- EPA noted that cost for calcium polysulfide injection was $69,296, plus about $13,900 for ERRS contractor labor
(injecting reagent), in addition to $36,523 paid to GZA Geoenvironmental, Inc., for installing the injection wells and
collecting pre- and post-treatment soil borings.
Description:
The Morses Pond Culvert Site is located in Wellesley, Massachusetts. The southern portion of the site includes an earthen
railroad embankment, divided by a culvert into eastern and western portions. It is suspected that chromium-laden pigment
from a former paint factory was used as fill material for improving the embankment and was the source of chromium
contamination at the site. Due to slope stability and structural concerns with the steep embankment area, in situ chemical
reduction using calcium polysulfide was selected as the remedy for treating chromium-contaminated soil at the site.
The injection system consisted of a total of 40 well points installed to depths ranging from 5 to 25 ft bgs. A total of 56,800
gallons of calcium polysulfide reagent was injected, treating 1,025 cubic yards of soil. The non-binding goals of treatment
for hexavalent chromium were 200 mg/kg and 1 mg/kg using the TCLP. Post-treatment hexavalent chromium
concentrations ranged from zero to 5,600 mg/kg in the western embankment, and from zero to 5,000 mg/kg in the eastern
embankment. Total chromium concentrations after treatment ranged from 140 to 67,000 mg/kg in the western
embankment, and from 92 to 35,000 mg/kg in the eastern embankment. According to the work plan for the site, calcium
polysulfide was selected over ferrous sulfate for this application for several reasons, including that less calcium polysulfide
would be needed compared to the ferrous sulfate. The total cost for the treatment was approximately $119,719, including
$69,296 for the calcium polysulfide, $13,900 in labor costs, and $36,523 for installing the injection wells and collecting
pre- and post-treatment soil borings.
23
-------
Steam Enhanced Extraction and Electro-Thermal Dynamic Stripping Process (ET-DSP) at the
Young-Rainy Star Center (formerly Pinellas) Northeast Area A, Largo, Florida
Site Name:
Young-Rainy Star Center (formerly Pinellas) Northeast Area A
Location:
Largo, Florida
Period of Operation:
September 2002 to March 2003
Cleanup Authority:
RCRA Corrective Action
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Steam Enhanced Extraction and ET-DSP were combined to treat
NAPL contamination in soil and groundwater
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
Halogenated Volatile Organics, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, DNAPL,
and LNAPL
TCE and toluene present as free product; concentrations in soil
boring samples were as high as 2,900,000 g/kg for TCE and
1,000,000 g/kg for toluene
Dissolved phase VOCs included TCE, cis-l,2-DCE, vinyl chloride,
methylene chloride, and toluene; methylene chloride detected as high
as 12,000,000 g/L and TCE as high as 26,000 g/L
Waste Source:
Past operation and disposal activities
Contacts:
David Ingle
Environmental Restoration Program
Manager
U.S. Department of Energy
Telephone: (727) 541-8943
E-mail: d.s.ingle@worldnet.att.net
Randy Juhlin
Project Manager
S. M. Stoller Inc.
Telephone: (970) 248-6502
E-mail: Randall.Juhlin@gjo.doe.gov
Gorm Heron
Scientist and Engineer
SteamTech Environmental Services, Inc.
Telephone: 661-322-6478
E-mail: heron@steamtech.com
Technology:
Steam Enhanced Extraction and Electro-Thermal Dynamic Stripping Process
(ET-DSP)
Steam Enhanced Extraction and ET-DSP were combined to deliver energy
to the subsurface, optimize the heating patterns, and maximize contaminant
removal during pressure cycling operations; system consisted of:
- 15 steam injection wells around the perimeter of the treatment cell
- 28 extraction wells with ET-DSP electrodes located below the screened
interval for heating of clay of the Hawthorn Group (Hawthorn) and the
base of the surficial aquifer
- 21 combined steam injection-ET-DSP wells for heating of the surficial
aquifer
- 2 deep ET-DSP electrodes, located in the Hawthorn and without
extraction screens
- 36 temperature-monitoring boreholes distributed across Area A; 8
monitoring wells (in four well pairs) installed outside Area A
12 additional shallow steam injection wells were installed based on results of
additional soil sampling
ET-DSP was used to preheat the perimeter of the remediation area, the
upper Hawthorn, the bottom of the surficial sands, and an interval of the
upper sand located above the depth of the steam injection screens; steam
injection was used to form a steam barrier around the perimeter of Area A,
and to deliver steam energy to heat the site
When the Hawthorn clay and the outside perimeter were heated sufficiently,
the inside upper electrodes and steam injection wells were turned on to heat
the entire target volume to temperature; pressure cycling was then induced
by creating temporal changes in downhole pressure by varying the steam
injection pressures and the electrical heating rate
Steam injection rates varied between 100 and 5,000 Ib/hr; ET-DSP
delivered a total of 4,700 million British Thermal Units (BTU) to the
subsurface
After heating ceased, extraction was continued during the initial cool-down
All effluents from the system, including vapors, liquids, and solids were
treated; treatment included heat exchange, separations, and carbon
adsorption
24
-------
Steam Enhanced Extraction and Electro-Thermal Dynamic Stripping Process (ET-DSP) at the
Young-Rainy Star Center (formerly Pinellas) Northeast Area A, Largo, Florida (continued)
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil and Ground water
Site hydrogeology at Area A consists of 30 ft of a surficial, unconfmed aquifer composed of relatively fine-grained sand,
underlain by Hawthorn clay, which acts as a local aquitard; surficial sands range in thickness from 26 - 34 feet (ft) and
typically consist of fine-grained, moderately to well-sorted sand, with variable amounts of silt and clay
Local water table ranges in depth from 1- 6 ft bgs; ground water flows toward the east-southeast at a very low gradient
Horizontal hydraulic conductivity ranges from 3.5xlO"4 to 3.5 xlO"3 centimeters per second (cm/sec); vertical hydraulic
conductivity ranges from 1.06 xlO"6 to 1.06xlO"4 cm/sec.
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Soil cleanup goals: TCE - 20,400 ซg/kg; DCE - 71,000 ซg/kg; methylene chloride - 227,000 ซg/kg; toluene-
15,000 g/kg; TPH - 2,500,000 g/kg
Groundwater cleanup goals: TCE - 11,000 g/L; DCE - 50,000 g/L; methylene chloride - 20,000 g/L; toluene -
5,500 g/L; TPH - 50,000 g/L
Results:
Target temperature of greater than 84 ซC established across entire treatment cell at a depth of 14 - 34 ft below ground
surface (bgs) within 35 days; bulk of the site (14-34 ft bgs) was maintained at or above 100 ซC for a period of at least
70 days until the beginning of active cooling
All soil and groundwater samples were below the cleanup goals; many groundwater samples met the more stringent
MCLs; an estimated 3,000 Ibs of VOCs were removed
Costs:
The total project subcontract cost was approximately $3,800,000, including all aspects of the project from design,
permitting, drilling, construction, operations, sampling, waste disposal, demobilization, and reporting; no additional cost
data were provided
Description:
The Young-Rainy Star Center (formerly Pinellas) Northeast Area A, located in Largo, Florida, was the site of NAPL
contamination in soil and groundwater. NAPL constituents included TCE, DCE, methylene chloride, toluene, and
petroleum range organics. Contaminant concentrations were as high as 2,900,000 g/kg for TCE in soil and
12,000,000 g/L for methylene chloride in groundwater. Area A covered approximately 10,000 ft2 by 35 ft deep, for an
estimated cleanup volume of 13,000 cubic yards. A combination of steam-enhanced extraction and ET-DSP was chosen
by DOE to remediate the site because of the challenges at the site including low permeability sediments and the suspected
presence of TCE, DNAPL, and oily LNAPL. The initial system of 66 wells included steam injection, ET-DSP, and
combined wells. Results from additional soil sampling resulted in the installation of 12 shallow steam injection wells to
improve the steam delivery and heat distribution in the subsurface in Area A.
After 4.5 months of operation, all soil and groundwater cleanup goals had been met, with many groundwater samples
showing contaminant levels having been reduced to below the more stringent MCLs. During this application, several ways
to improve system efficiency were identified. These included more rapid heating or flushing of the upper 10 ft of the
treatment cell, lowering the water discharge rate, and using a more robust GAC system.
25
-------
This page intentionally left blank
26
-------
EX SITU SOIL/SEDIMENT TREATMENT ABSTRACTS
27
-------
Thermochemical Conversion of Demolition Debris from Fort Ord, California
Site Name:
Fort Ord
Location:
Monterey, California
Period of Operation:
October 2002
Cleanup Authority:
Not applicable
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Field demonstration of thermochemical conversion to treat demolition
debris
Cleanup Type:
Field Demonstration
Contaminants:
Heavy Metals (lead) (evaluated for recycling or stabilization after
thermal treatment of debris)
Waste Source:
Demolition of 26 World War II-era wooden
military buildings located at Fort Ord
Contacts:
Navy
Commanding Officer
(specific name not provided)
Naval Facilities Engineering
Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
Technology:
Thermochemical Conversion (thermal treatment)
Wood waste processed at three different scales: small, intermediate, and large
- Small scale-test conducted in a tube furnace (a horizontal electrically heated
chamber that houses a refractory tube in which the sample is placed)
- 2 series of tests conducted, the first on wood shavings, and the second on ash
produced from the intermediate-scale processing of wood shavings to test the
sintering properties of the fluxed ash
- Intermediate scale test conducted in a 4.7 ft2-area rotary hearth furnace
- Four of five burners operated during the test, with the hearth maintained at a
negative pressure via an induced draft fan
- Large-scale test conducted at contractor's test facility; operating temperature of
hearth was about 1500ฐF
- Following system shutdown, ash samples from various parts of hearth and off-gas
system collected and analyzed
Leach performance of ash produced from test was evaluated including ash as-
produced, fluxed and sintered ash, and ash to which Portland cement and water had
been added
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Demolition debris
Wood siding coated with lead-based paint (LBP)
Wood shavings and LBP generated from attempts to remove LBP and recycled lumber
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Conduct a series of thermal treatment tests to collect data that would facilitate designing and estimating
capital/operational costs for a transportable treatment system that could process such waste on site during demolition
activities at current and former military installations
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) target for lead: 5.0 parts per million (ppm)
Results:
97% volume reduction and 90% reduction in mass of waste
Over 99.9% of lead released to off-gas system during processing was in particulate form >0.7 microns in effective
diameter
Concentrations of lead in residual ash ranged from about 7 - 12% from the processing of whole boards to about 25%
from the processing of wood and paint shavings.
Data collected from off-gas monitoring and sampling suggest that emission control for processing lead-based paint
(LBP) waste will be relatively simple and consist of a dry filtration system. There will not be a need for a wet off-gas
system thus eliminating issues surrounding management of wastewater.
Data produced from the tests facilitated development of a design for a transportable processing system for LBP-coated
materials.
Costs:
Estimated capital cost: $1,950,000
Estimated average annual operating costs - $987,000 (for a system with capacity to process 1.5 tons/hour)
Estimated unit cost - $117/ton (based on the processing of 8,450 tons/year)
28
-------
Thermochemical Conversion of Demolition Debris from Fort Ord, California (continued)
Description:
Fort Ord, located near Monterey, California, is a former military facility that has undergone decommissioning and
demolition. Due to the application of LBP on many of the buildings at the site, the demolition debris has been shown to
exhibit hazardous properties. A series of in situ thermal desorption tests (at three different scales) was conducted on
debris from the site, to collect data that would facilitate the design and capital/operational cost estimates for a transportable
treatment system that could process such wastes on site during demolition activities at current and former military
installations. The large-scale test was performed at a test facility in Tacoma, Washington. Leach performance of ash
produced from the tests were evaluated, including ash as-produced, fluxed and sintered ash, and ash to which Portland
cement and water had been added.
The results showed that the technology was able to effect a 97% reduction in volume and a 90% reduction in mass of
waste. Analyses of the chemistry and recyclability of the ash showed that concentrations of lead ranged from about 7-12%
from the processing of whole boards, to about 25% from the processing of wood and paint shavings. Data collected from
off-gas monitoring and sampling suggest that a combination of a bag house and HEP A filter in a dry off-gas system will be
capable of meeting regulatory standards. Based on these tests, a design for a transportable processing system for LBP-
coated materials was developed. The estimated unit cost for a system that can process 8,450 tons of waste per year at the
rate of 1.5 tons/hour is $117/ton.
The tests also showed that hearth ash typically passed leach tests for lead, while bag house ash did not, and the addition of
Portland cement tended to improve leach characteristics but relatively large quantities of cement will be required to
immobilize lead in bag house ash. Fluxing and sintering of ash impaired leach performance because of the lack of glass
forming ions in the ash.
29
-------
Glass Furnace Technology (GFT) Demonstration at the Hazen Research Center in Golden,
Colorado and the Minergy GlassPack Test Center in Winneconne, Wisconsin
Site Name:
Hazen Research Center and Minergy GlassPack Test Center
Location:
Golden, CO and Winneconne, WI
Period of Operation:
January 2001 (dryer evaluation); August 2001 (melter evaluation)
Cleanup Authority:
EPA SITE Program
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Demonstration of GFT to treat river sediment contaminated with
PCBs, other organics, and metals
Cleanup Type:
Field Demonstration
Contaminants:
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Heavy Metals, Dioxins/Furans
Total PCB concentration in sediments in the 20 to 30 ppm range
Other contaminants included mercury, dioxins and furans
Waste Source:
Contaminated river sediment dredged from the
Lower Fox River
Contacts:
Ms Marta K. Richards
EPA SITE Project Manager
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
U.S. EPA
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH
Telephone: (513) 569-7692
Fax: (513)569-7676
E-mail: richards.marta@epa.gov
Mr. Terry Carroll and Mr. Tom Baudhuin
Minergy Corporation
1512 S. Commercial St., P.O. Box 375
Neenah, WI 54957
Telephone: (920)727-1411
Fax: (920)727-1418
Email: tcarroll@minergy.com
tbaudhuin@minergy.com
Technology:
Ex Situ Glass Furnace Technology (GFT) (Vitrification)
Demonstration process - two steps: sediments drying (dryer) and
dried-sediment vitrification (melter)
Sediment dryer - Holofliteฎ dryer that was a small batch, bench-
scale unit with a capacity of 14 Ib/hr of dewatered sediment (45-
55% by weight); portions of the sediment were dried and mixed
with the dredged and dewatered sediment to create better flow
characteristics of the feed material; unit was 30-in long with two
hollow, oil-filled augers; oil heated to about 180ฐC; dried
sediment had a moisture content of <10%; steam from dryer
condensed and collected;
Melter - pilot-scale glass furnace designed to simulate full-scale
production - 8 split-stream, oxygen-fuel burners; fired with
oxygen and natural gas to control nitrogen-related and particulate
emissions; refractory brick; charger was a standard screw feeder,
retrofitted with a small screw barrel and flights for the
demonstration
Melter characteristics - melter area was 10 ft2; length/width
aspect ratio of 2:1; melting rate - 5.4ft2/ton; dwell time - 6 hrs;
gas usage - 1.7 MM Btu/hr; oxygen usage - 35 cubic ft/hr; output
- 2 tons/day
Process controls - thermocouple signals to maintain constant
temperature and automatically adjust gas and oxygen in each
zone
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Sediments
Dredged sediments - dewatered form (45-55% solids by weight)
The report stated that because GFT is not designed to be used on one particular site, information about site location and
hydrogeology are not needed for demonstration purposes
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Primary objectives of the demonstrations were to determine the treatment efficiency of GFT in treating PCB-
contaminated dredged-and-dewatered sediment, and to determine whether GFT glass aggregate product met relevant
regulatory criteria for beneficial reuse
30
-------
Glass Furnace Technology (GFT) Demonstration at the Hazen Research Center in Golden,
Colorado and the Minergy GlassPack Test Center in Winneconne, Wisconsin (continued)
Results:
Total PCBs - 99.9995% of total PCBs were removed or destroyed
Mercury - reduced from concentrations slightly less than 1 ppm to non-detect in the glass aggregate; report stated that if
mercury was not removed thermally, it was likely inactivated within the glass matrix
Dioxins and furans - >99.9995% reduction
Glass aggregate met the state of Wisconsin requirements for beneficial reuse
Leach test results of glass aggregate, including Synthetic Precipitate Leaching Procedure (SPLP) - no contaminants
detected in leachate
Costs:
Report includes detailed cost analysis for the technology
Estimated unit cost for full-scale GFT is $38.72 per ton of dredged-and-dewatered sediment, based on 50% moisture and
a 15 year project life expectancy
Costs may depend on location of treatment facility, amount of moisture in the sediment, and the potential end use of the
product
Description:
Glass Furnace Technology (GFT), developed by Minergy Corporation, was evaluated by the EPA SITE Program. The
demonstration included an evaluation of the drying process at the Hazen Research Facility in Golden Colorado in January
2001 and an evaluation of the melter at Minergy's GlassPack Test Center in Winneconne, WI in August 2001. The
primary objectives of the demonstration were to evaluate the effectiveness of GFT in treating PCB-contaminated sediments
that had been dredged and dewatered and to determine if the glass aggregate product met relevant requirements for
beneficial reuse. Sediment dredged from the Little Fox River in Green Bay, WI was used for the demonstration; the
sediment was dewatered to a moisture content of 50% by weight.
Results of the demonstration showed that GFT removed or destroyed contaminants in the sediment including 99.9995% of
the PCBs (measured as total PCBs), >99.9995% of dioxins and furans, and appeared to be capable of reducing mercury
concentrations. In addition, the glass aggregate met the Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter NR 538 Category 2
criteria and qualified for beneficial reuse. Projected full-scale unit costs of GFT are $38.74 per ton of sediment treated
(50% moisture), with costs dependent of factors such as location of the treatment facility, sediment moisture content, and
potential end use of the product. According to the vendor, GFT is designed to treat contaminated river sediment at any
location and can be scaled to accommodate a wide range of sediment projects. The report indicates that possible areas
where scale-up economies could be realized include lower energy costs per ton of sediment treated, reduced sampling and
analysis requirements once the treatment efficiencies for the technology are established, and the potential to automate some
of the processes.
31
-------
This page intentionally left blank
32
-------
IN SITU GROUND WATER TREATMENT ABSTRACTS
33
-------
In Situ Bioremediation Using HRCฎ at a Former Industrial Property, San Jose, CA
Site Name:
Former Industrial Property
Location:
San Jose, CA
Period of Operation:
May 2000 to Ongoing (data available through July 2003)
Cleanup Authority:
State
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of enhanced in situ bioremediation using HRCฎ to treat VOC-
contaminated groundwater at a site with an active business
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
Volatiles-Halogenated; Trichloroethene (TCE)
Volatile organic contaminants (VOCs), primarily TCE
TCE concentrations as high as 10,000 g/L in groundwater and
10,000 g/kg in soil
Waste Source:
Released from manufacturing operations
Contacts:
State Contact:
Michelle Rembaum-Fox
The California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, San Francisco Bay
Region
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 622-2387
Prime Contractor:
Catherine McDonald
GeoTrans Inc.
3035 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 40
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Telephone: (916) 853-1800
Vendor:
Stephen S. Koenigsberg
Regenesis Bioremediation Products
1011 CaileSombra
San Clemente, CA 92673
Telephone: (949) 366-8000
E-mail: steve@regensis.com
Technology:
In Situ Bioremediation Using HRCฎ
HRCฎ is a proprietary, food quality, polylactate ester that slowly degrades
to lactic acid upon hydration; the lactic acid is metabolized to a series of
organic acids and hydrogen, which serve as electron donors for reductive
dechlorination of chlorinated VOCs
Two applications - first in May 2000 withl,329 gal injected in 103
injection points from 8 to 28 ft bgs using a bottom-up injection method;
second in November 2001 in 105 injection points with 575 gal injected
from 10 to 30 ft bgs using a top-down injection method
HRCฎ applied on a 5 ft by 10 ft grid within the 1,000 g/L TCE in
groundwater contour(about two-thirds of the injection points), and on a 5 ft
by 5 ft grid within the 5,000 g/L TCE contour (about one third of the
injection points)
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
Depth to groundwater - 7 to 10 ft bgs
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Groundwater cleanup goals based on state and EPA MCLs, including TCE - 5 g/L; cis-l,2-DCE - 6 g/L; trans-1,2-
DCE-10 g/L; vinyl chloride - 0.5 g/L
No soil cleanup goals established as initial concentrations were below EPA Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals for
residential soils
34
-------
In Situ Bioremediation Using HRCฎ at a Former Industrial Property, San Jose, CA (continued)
Results:
Data are available for May 1999 to July 2003, with analytical data presented for four wells, including wells upgradient,
in the center of the plume, and along the perimeter of the plume
After the first injection of HRCฎ in May 2000, concentrations of TCE decreased, with corresponding increase in
degradation products cis-l,2-DCE and vinyl chloride
After the second injection in November 2001, TCE concentrations continued to decrease, concentrations of cis-l,2-DCE
and vinyl chloride decreased, and concentrations of degradation product ethene increased
As of July 2003, TCE concentrations were below cleanup goals in selected wells; while concentrations of cis-l,2-DCE
and vinyl chloride continued to decrease, they remained above the cleanup goals in most of the selected wells
Currently, groundwater monitoring and natural attenuation monitoring are being performed on a semiannual basis at the
site
Costs:
Costs for two applications of HRCฎ were $107,000
Direct push injection costs totaled approximately $30,000 including the two HRCฎ applications and soil sampling
Groundwater monitoring costs averaged approximately $8,000 per monitoring round for nine wells, including field costs
(low-flow purging) and laboratory costs for the full suite of in-situ bioremediation monitoring parameters
Estimated budget for the in-situ monitoring and analyses conducted from May 2000 through July 2003 totaled
approximately $130,000
Description:
The site is a 4.1 acre property, located in San Jose, California, that is occupied by a 76,000 square foot building that is
currently being used for light industrial retail. From the 1960s to the 1980s, the site was used for various manufacturing.
Site investigations, conducted in the late 1980s, showed the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the
subsurface, with TCE concentrations detected as high as 5,000 g/L in groundwater and 10,000 g/kg in soil. Cleanup
activities at the site are being conducted under a State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco
Bay Region order. In late March 1997, the site was proposed for a pilot under a state research and development project to
develop methods for setting site cleanup objectives. In March 1999, the Board approved the "In-Situ Remedial
Alternatives Evaluation Report" for the site where the proposed remedy was to stimulate anaerobic degradation activities.
Results of bench-scale testing during the Spring of 1999 showed that the use of an electron donor could stimulate microbial
activity and biodegradation. HRCฎ and a benzoate-lactate mixture were considered. HRCฎ was selected because it offered
a one-time application process with no ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M) activities, while the benzoate-lactate
application used a continuous feed system that would require daily O&M activities. Therefore, it was concluded that
HRCฎ could stimulate the microbial community and the biodegradation process without disrupting the business activities
being conducted at the site.
Two applications of HRCฎ were performed. HRCฎ was applied on a 5 ft by 10 ft grid within the 1,000 g/L TCE in
groundwater contour (about two-thirds of the injection points), and on a 5 ft by 5 ft grid within the 5,000 g/L TCE
contour (about one third of the injection points). The first application in May 2000 involved injecting 1,329 gal injected in
103 injection points. TCE concentrations decreased, with a corresponding increase in degradation products cis-l,2-DCE
and vinyl chloride. A second application of HRCฎ was performed in November 2001 to complete the degradation process
and involved injecting 575 gal into 105 injection points. As of July 2003, TCE concentrations had decreased to below
cleanup goals in selected wells. Concentrations of cis-l,2-DCE and vinyl chloride decreased, with a corresponding
increase in ethene concentrations; however, these contaminants remain above the cleanup goals in selected wells.
Currently, groundwater monitoring and natural attenuation monitoring are being performed on a semiannual basis at the
site.
35
-------
Biotreatment Funnel and Gate at the Moss-American Site, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Site Name:
Moss-American Site
Location:
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Period of Operation:
October 2000 - Ongoing (Data available through June 2003)
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of a funnel and gate treatment system combined with biotreatment
to treat PAH and BTEX groundwater contamination at the site
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(PAHs), Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes (BTEX)
Contaminants from creosote and No.6 fuel oil; creosote present as
free product
Waste Source:
Wastes generated from wood preserving
operations
Contacts:
Russell Hart
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region 5
Telephone: (312)886-4844
E-mail: hart.russell@epa.gov
Binyoti Amungwafor
Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources
Telephone: (414)263-8607
E-mail: binyoti.amiingwafor@dnr.state.wi.us
Thomas Graan
PRP Contractor
Weston Solutions, Inc.
Telephone: (847) 918-4142
E-mail: Thomas.graan@westonsolutions.com
Technology:
Funnel and Gate System with Biotreatment
System consists of six treatment gates, constructed in three rows of
two gates each; Waterloo sheet piling located on both sides of gates
to direct groundwater flow through gates
Biotreatment includes injection of air and nutrients into the gates; air
injection began in October 2000, with air injected into all six gates;
nutrient injection was performed at Gate 1, using a solution that
contained potassium nitrate and potassium phosphate from late June
2001 to October 2002
As of June 2003, flow of groundwater was directly through treatment
Gates 1 and 2, but at an obtuse angle through Gates 3-6
Free product sumps are used to collect free product creosote prior to
its entering the treatment gates
Groundwater monitoring is performed using 7 shallow groundwater
monitoring wells and 8 containment performance monitoring wells
System expected to be in place approximately 20 years
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
Depth to groundwater - 3.6 to 7.3 ft bgs
Hydraulic gradients vary across the site; within the treatment gate area, the hydraulic gradient is approximately
0.0009 ft/ft in an easterly direction
Groundwater flow velocities within the treatment gates were estimated to range from 0.0076 to 0.14 ft/day
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Groundwater cleanup goals based on the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Preventative Action Limit for
BTEX and PAH constituents, including benzene - 0.5 g/L; benzo(a)pyrene - 0.02 g/L; benzo(b)fluoranthene -
0.02 g/L; chrysene - 0.02 g/L; naphthalene - 8 g/L
Results:
Results are available through June 2003
As of June 2003, groundwater concentrations for the contaminants of concern had been reduced to below detection
limits in several wells; however, concentrations of all five contaminants remained above the cleanup goals in one or
more monitoring wells
With the exception of naphthalene, detected concentrations ranged from about 1.4 to 7.9 g/L; naphthalene
concentrations were as high as 6,100 g/L
Naphthalene concentration data for September 2000 to June 2003 provided for one monitoring well show that
concentrations of this contaminant have remained relatively constant over a three-year period (in the range of 5,000 to
7,000 g/L, with a concentration of 6,100 g/L as of June 2003)
The concentration of microbial degraders has been decreasing in Gates 1 and 2 over a period of 2 1/3 years, indicating
that the biodegradation may be decreasing
36
-------
Biotreatment Funnel and Gate at the Moss-American Site, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (continued)
Costs:
No cost data were provided for the biotreatment funnel and gate system
Description:
The Moss-American Site, located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is approximately 88 acres in size, and consists of a former
wood preserving facility, portions of the Little Menomonee River, and adjacent flood plain soils. The discharge of wastes
from wood preserving operations resulted in the contamination of groundwater at the site with PAHs, including creosote,
and BTEX from No. 6 fuel oil. A mixture of creosote and fuel oil were present as free product in the subsurface at the site.
The site was added to the National Priorities List in 1984, and a record of decision (ROD) was signed in 1990, with an
Explanation of Significant Difference (BSD) signed in 1997 changing soil treatment to thermal desorption and
groundwater treatment to a biotreatment funnel and gate system. Free product recovery was performed from 1996 to 1999,
with about 12,500 gallons of liquid extracted. In addition, contaminated soil was excavated and treated using thermal
desorption.
The biotreatment funnel and gate system consists of six treatment gates, with Waterloo sheet piling located on both sides of
the gates to direct groundwater flow. Operation of the system began in October 2000, with the injection of air, followed by
the addition of nutrients in Gate 1 in June 2001. In addition, sumps are being used to collect any free product prior to its
entering the treatment gates. During the three years of operation for which data are available, the concentration of
benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, and chrysene have been reduced to near or below cleanup goals in most
monitoring wells. As of June 2003, naphthalene concentrations were as high as 6,100 g/L. The concentration of
microbial degraders has been decreasing in Gates 1 and 2 over a period of 2 1/3 years, indicating that biodegradation may
be decreasing. The PRP contractor suggested that the relatively fine-grained soil and low groundwater flow rates have lead
to low oxygen conditions and inhibited the ability to introduce nutrients and other additives. To address the low levels of
dissolved oxygen, well packers were installed in Treatment Gate 5 injection wells in June 2000. However, this did not
lead to substantial increases in DO levels in those wells. The contractor is continuing to evaluate alternatives for air
injection into the treatment gates.
37
-------
In Situ Remediation of MTBE Contaminated Aquifers Using Propane Biosparging at the National
Environmental Technology Test Site, Port Hueneme, CA
Site Name:
National Environmental Technology Test Site
Location:
Port Hueneme, CA
Period of Operation:
May 2001 to March 2002
Cleanup Authority:
State
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Field demonstration of propane biosparging to treat MTBE-
contaminated groundwater
Cleanup Type:
Field Demonstration e/L
Contaminants:
MTBE and TEA
Groundwater contaminant concentrations as high as - 6,300 g/L for
MTBE; TEA detected in one well only at 470 g/L
Waste Source:
Leaks from a gasoline distribution system
Contacts:
Navy
Commanding Officer
(specific name not provided)
Naval Facilities Engineering
Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
Technology:
In Situ Bioremediation (Propane Biosparging)
Test plot and control plot (90 ft by 60 ft)
Test plot - network of 8 oxygen injection points (OIP), 7 propane injection points
(PIPs), and 7 bacteria injection points (BIPs) installed along a line perpendicular to
groundwater flow; groundwater monitoring network of 15 dual-level (shallow and
deep), nested wells
Control plot - 8 OIPs installed along a line perpendicular to groundwater flow; no PIPs
or BIPs; groundwater monitoring network of 10 dual-level (shallow and deep), nested
wells
2 oxygen cylinders per plot; oxygen delivery - 40-60 psig; one propane cylinder for test
plot; propane delivery - 20-30 psig; oxygen and propane control manifold assemblies,
and a control panel
Oxygen system - operated for four, 6-minute cycles per day, yielding approximately 5
Ib/day of oxygen in the test and control plots
Propane system operated for four, 10-minute cycles per day and yielded approximately
0.5 Ib/day of propane at the test plot; after several months of operation and a review of
the geochemical data, the propane flow was decreased from 1 scfh to between 0.3 and
0.4 scfh (yield of approximately 0.17 to 0.2 Ib/day of propane)
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
Unconsolidated sediments composed of sands, silts, clays, and small amounts of gravel and fill material
Upper-most water-bearing unit - shallow, semi-perched, unconfmed aquifer (upper silty sand, underlain by fine to coarse
grain sand, and a basal clay layer)
Depth to groundwater - 6 to 8 ft bgs; saturated aquifer thickness - 16 to 18 ft
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Treatment goal for the demonstration was to reduce MTBE and TEA concentrations to <5 g/L for MTBE (California
secondary MCL) and <12 g/L for TEA (California Action Level)
Primary objectives of the demonstration were to: (1) demonstrate the safe application of propane biosparging for in situ
remediation of MTBE and (2) evaluate the ability of this technology in reducing MTBE concentrations in groundwater
to below 5 g/L
Results:
MTBE concentrations were reduced in both the test plot and the control plot, as expected based on the results of
microcosm studies and previous demonstrations at the site; however, MTBE concentrations were reduced to <5 g/L in
only 3 of the 30 monitoring wells in the test plot; in the control plot, MTBE concentrations remained above 5 g/L in all
wells; most active MTBE degradation appeared to occur near the oxygen injection points
MTBE concentrations - in test plot, in shallow wells decreased 62-88% and in deep wells decreased 86-97%; in control
plot, decreased 86-97% and in deep wells decreased 88-90%; results indicate that indigenous bacteria at this site are
capable of aerobically degrading MTBE
TEA concentrations - in test plot, generally <25 g/L in shallow and deep wells; reduced to below 12 g/L in some
wells
38
-------
In Situ Remediation of MTBE Contaminated Aquifers Using Propane Biosparging at the National
Environmental Technology Test Site, Port Hueneme, CA (continued)
Costs:
Costs for the demonstration were $333,288, including $122,311 in capital costs, $184,647 in O&M costs, and $26,329
for treatability studies
Projected full scale costs are $145,600, reflecting improved efficiencies of technology implementation and reduced
monitoring and reporting requirements than those required for a demonstration project
Description:
The National Environmental Technology Test Site, Port Hueneme, CA was the location of a field demonstration of
propane biosparging to (1) demonstrate the safe application of propane biosparging for in situ remediation of MTBE and
(2) evaluate the ability of this technology in reducing MTBE concentrations in groundwater to below the California
secondary MCL of 5 g/L. Leaks from a gasoline distribution system resulted in the groundwater at the site being
contaminated with MTBE and its degradation product, TEA. BTEX was present at low levels only. The demonstration,
conducted from May 2001 to March 2002, included a test plot and a control plot, with oxygen injected in both. The
technology was also evaluated under the EPA SITE Program.
MTBE concentrations were reduced in both the test plot and the control plot. This was expected based on the results of
microcosm studies and previous demonstrations at the site. However, in the test plot, MTBE concentrations were reduced
to <5 g/L in only 3 of the 30 monitoring wells and were not reduced below this level in any wells in the control plot. The
most active MTBE degradation appeared to occur near the oxygen injection points. The results of a cost assessment
indicated that full-scale application would be up to 44% less costly than the demonstration project, reflecting improved
efficiencies of technology implementation and reduced monitoring and reporting requirements than those required for a
demonstration project. Observations and lessons learned from the demonstration included: propane biosparging can be
applied safely and economically; system designs must ensure sufficient delivery of oxygen; indigenous microbes in some
aquifers can effectively degrade MTBE if supplied the appropriate nutrient or oxygen; and propane biosparging can
support the growth or activity of indigenous or added propane oxidizing bacteria.
39
-------
Prepump Separation Technologies to Enhance Bioslurping at the Naval Air Station, New Fuel
Farm Site, Fallon, NV
Site Name:
Naval Air Station New Fuel Farm Site
Location:
Fallon, NV
Period of Operation:
Long term demonstration conducted over a 4-month period
Cleanup Authority:
State
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Field demonstration of prepump technologies to enhance the cost-
effectiveness of bioslurping to treat LNAPL-contaminated groundwater
Cleanup Type:
Field Demonstration
Contaminants:
Petroleum Hydrocarbons, LNAPL
Demonstration site was selected because it appeared to contain
sufficient LNAPL to support a four month demonstration
Waste Source:
Leaks from JP-5 fuel storage tanks
Contacts:
Navy
Commanding Officer
(specific name not provided)
Naval Facilities Engineering
Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
Technology:
Separation
Demonstration of prepump separation technologies to enhance biosplurper systems;
prepump separation of LNAPL prevents the formation of emulsions and floating solids
in the bioslurper process effluent, thereby minimizing/eliminating the need for
downstream waste treatment and decreases the concentrations of contaminants in the
process off-gases
Evaluated in-well and above-ground prepump (knockout tank) separation technologies
in short-term single-well and long term multiple well demonstrations; compared to
conventional bioslurper
Various configurations tested including use of dual drop tubes for in-well prepump
system to extract the LNAPL and water/soil gas in two separate streams and use of a
knockout tank to separate LNAPL from the liquid stream prior to entry into the liquid
pump ring; report included detailed information about configurations tested and testing
sequence
Primary components of the bioslurper system (liquid ring pump, oil/water separator and
piping) were the same for all tests; operating conditions of the system were held
constant
Baseline data included depth to groundwater, LNAPL thickness, lateral extent of the
plume, TPH concentrations and subsurface vacuum
System performance parameters included petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations in
effluents, emulsions and floating solids formed, LNAPL recovery rates, groundwater
recovery rates, and stackgas flow rates
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
Soils - fine sand and clay loam, underlain by alternating layers of clay, silty/clayey sand, and sand
Vadose zone - primarily clay loam
Depth to groundwater - 7 to 15 ft bgs
Demonstration site selected based on soils being sufficiently permeable to allow LNAPL flow while still being "tight"
enough to allow the bioslurper to create a vacuum-induced pressure gradient (no specific data were provided)
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The objectives of the demonstration included quantifying the cost effectiveness of prepump LNAPL separation methods
in controlling effluent emulsion formation and reducing the concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in the aqueous
and off-gas streams from the bioslurper
40
-------
Prepump Separation Technologies to Enhance Bioslurping at the Naval Air Station, New Fuel
Farm Site, Fallon, NV (continued)
Results:
Assessment of performance was based primarily on aqueous and vapor TPH concentrations; production of floating
solids and emulsions formed by the different configurations was also assessed, along with information of LNAPL and
groundwater recovery
Average TPH concentration reduction in the seal tank water compared to conventional bioslurper - 98% for in-well and
82% for the knockout tank (report includes data for each configuration)
LNAPL recovery and groundwater recovery rates generally remained constant
Dual drop and knockout tank configurations reduced the formation of milky emulsions; site did not produce floating
solids during the demonstration
While TPH concentrations in the off-gas were not affected during the long term demonstration, average TPH
concentrations were observed in other demonstrations by both prepump configurations
Costs:
Total cost of the long term demonstration was about $70,000 with a unit cost of $10 per gallon of fuel removed; total
cost for the demonstration program (seven demonstrations) was $480,000
Estimated cost for full-scale implementation at a 2-acre site - in-well separation bioslurping - about $309,000; more cost-
effective than conventional systems (bioslurping with a DAF unit for postpump treatment - about $519,000; bioslurping
with manual removal of floating solids - about $554,000)
Costs for prepump separation systems at a site are affected primarily by the potential for emulsion formation, free
product recovery rates, and groundwater recovery rates
Description:
The NAS in Fallon Nevada was selected by the Navy for a demonstration of prepump separation technologies to enhance
the cost-effectiveness of bioslurping to treat LNAPL in groundwater. The New Fuel Farm, located in the northwestern
portion of the NAS Fallon, is used for the storage of jet propulsion (JP) jet fuel in underground and aboveground storage
tanks, and historically has been used for the storage of jet fuel, aviation gasoline, diesel, and motor gasoline. An LNAPL
plume is located beneath the site. According to the Navy, this site was selected for the demonstration based on soils being
sufficiently permeable to allow LNAPL flow while still being "tight" enough to allow the bioslurper to create a vacuum-
induced pressure gradient, and because it appeared to contain sufficient LNAPL to support a four month demonstration
(long term demonstration). The prepump separation technologies were evaluated in both short-term, single well
configurations and in long-term, multiple well configurations. This report focuses on the long-term demonstration.
Two prepump separation technologies were evaluated - in-well and knockout tanks. These technologies were compared to
conventional bioslurper systems. The results of the demonstrations showed that the in-well and knockout systems were
effective in reducing TPH concentrations in the seal tank water and in the off-gas, and are more cost effective than
conventional bioslurper systems (including manual separation and DAF). Costs for prepump separation systems at a site
are affected primarily by the potential for emulsion formation, free product recovery rates, and groundwater recovery rates.
According to the Navy, the results of the short-term and long-term demonstrations show that the dual drop configuration
worked well at a variety of sites that include tidal influence, varied geologic conditions, and varied LNAPL type and
thickness. Scale-up considerations include proper sizing of components for full-scale operations; pilot-scale testing is
recommended to determine the feasibility of bioslurping and the scale-up engineering evaluation for a specific site.
41
-------
In Situ Bioremediation at Naval Base Ventura County, Port Hueneme, California
(Field Demonstration)
Site Name:
Naval Base Ventura County
Location:
Port Hueneme, California
Period of Operation:
September 2000 to December 2002 (biostimulation began in
September 2000 and bioaugmentation began in December 2000)
Cleanup Authority:
California Regional Water Quality Control
Board (CARWQCB)
Purpose/Significance of Application:
To install and operate a full-scale MTBE biobarrier across a mixed
MTBE-BTEX dissolved plume and to assess the reductions in
MTBE and BTEX concentrations achieved over time, and
effectiveness of air delivery to the treatment zone
Cleanup Type:
Field Demonstration
Contaminants:
MTBE, BTEX and TEA
Dissolved MTBE plume 5,000 ft long and 500 ft wide
MTBE concentrations ranging from 1,000 |ig/L to 10,000 |ig/L and
BTEX concentrations about 1,000 |ig/L in the vicinity of the source
zone soils
TEA concentrations approximately 1,000 g/L
Waste Source:
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)
from the Naval Exchange service station located
on-site
Contacts:
Karen Miller
NFESC
kmiller@nfesc.navy.mil
Paul C. Johnson, Ph.D.,
Arizona State University
paul.c.johnson@asu.edu
Cristin L. Bruce, Ph.D.,
Arizona State University
cristin. l.bruce@asu.edu
Technology:
In Situ Bioremediation
A 500 ft wide biobarrier (biologically reactive groundwater flow-through
biobarrier) installed downgradient of the source zone in the mixed MTBE-
BTEX dissolved plume
Biobarrier comprised of two different bioaugmented plots (oxygenated and
seeded with two MTBE-degrading cultures), and two different types of
biostimulated plots (one aerated and one oxygenated)
Seeding done using two cultures: MC-100 microbial culture and also a MTBE-
degrading isolate identified as SC-100 (Rhodococcus aetherovorans)
Aeration/oxygenation system consisted of 21 modules; each module with a
satellite gas injection tank and 6 solenoid valves, connected to the gas injection
wells; Injection wells screened at 14-15 ft bgs for shallow wells and 18-20 ft for
deep wells; Air used for oxygenation
Over 400 wells installed; 225 for monitoring and 175 for gas injection
Monitoring wells were screened over 4-ft intervals
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
The shallow aquifer of interest is unconfined and the depth to ground water is approximately 8 ft bgs, varying seasonally
to about a foot
Minor amounts of gravel and fill material
Unconsolidated clay, silt, and sand to 30 ft bgs, and a clay aquitard at approximately 20 ft bgs
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
MTBE, BTEX, and TEA concentrations - <10 |ig/L
Results:
MTBE concentrations in groundwater exiting the treatment system were below the cleanup goal of 10 g/L within 7
months of operation
Downgradient benzene concentrations reached the cleanup goal by December 2000 (prior to start of bioaugmentation)
TEA concentrations measured in March 2002 were below the cleanup goal
The aeration/oxygenation system achieved dissolved oxygen levels above 4 mg/L
42
-------
In Situ Bioremediation at Naval Base Ventura County, Port Hueneme, California
(Field Demonstration) (continued)
Costs:
Biobarrier installation costs totaled approximately $307,200, and included $186,519 for air and oxygen delivery system,
$29,716 for field laboratory, and $90,964 for culture injection
Annual O&M costs were $77,843 per year, and included $19,000 for oxygen generator O&M, $44,400 for sampling and
analysis, and $14,443 for utilities
Description:
The Naval Exchange service station at Naval Base Ventura County in Port Hueneme, CA, contained USTs that leaked
MTBE-containing gasoline between September 1984 and March 1985. The leak resulted in contamination of soil and
groundwater at the site, and caused a mixed MTBE-BTEX plume measuring 5,000-ft long and 500-ft wide to develop.
Laboratory and pilot field testing of in situ bioremediation were carried out at the site in 1998, with the addition of oxygen
and MC-100 microbial culture. The success of these tests prompted a large field demonstration of the technology using a
500-ft wide biobarrier containing MC-100 and another MTBE-degrading isolate, SC-100, for in situ bioremediation of the
mixed MTBE-BTEX plume.
The biobarrier was installed down-gradient of the source zone and began operation in September 2000. It consisted of two
different bioaugmented plots (oxygenated and seed with MC-100 and SC-100), and two different types of biostimulated
plots (one aerated and one oxygenated). Biostimulation began in September 2000, and bioaugmentation began in
December 2000. Approximately 225 wells were used for regular performance monitoring on a monthly to quarterly basis
for dissolved oxygen (DO), MTBE, and BTEX, and 175 wells were used for gas injection. The operation ended in
December 2002.
The results showed that the biobarrier was able to reduce effluent MTBE concentrations to below the cleanup goal of
10 g/L within 7 months of operation. Concentrations of benzene were reduced to the cleanup goal using bioaugmentation
alone. Biostimulation was not required for the reduction of benzene levels to acceptable levels. The biobarrier system was
able to reduce TEA concentrations to the cleanup goal by March 2002. The aeration/oxygen system was successful in
achieving dissolved oxygen levels above 4 mg/L, the level determined necessary to stimulation and support aerobic
degradation. The biobarrier installation costs were $307,200, with the annual O&M costs being $77,843. A lesson
learned from this demonstration is that biostimulation (aeration only) was successful where the influent MTBE
concentration was as high as 1,000 |ig/L, and that biostimulation could be a viable option at some sites.
43
-------
Biosparging at the Savannah River Site Sanitary Landfill, Aiken, South Carolina
Site Name:
Savannah River Site Sanitary Landfill (SLF)
Location:
Aiken, SC
Period of Operation:
October 1999 to ongoing (data available through 2003)
Cleanup Authority:
RCRA Corrective Action
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Biosparging, using horizontal wells, in conjunction with a cap, to treat
chlorinated solvents in groundwater beneath a sanitary landfill
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
Halogenated VOCs
Primary contaminants of concern are TCE, cis-l,2-DCE, and vinyl
chloride
Waste Source:
Disposal of waste in unlined sanitary landfill
Contacts:
David Noffsinger
Westinghouse Savannah River Co.
Phone: (803)952-7768
E-mail: d.noffsinger@srs.gov
Marianna DePratter
State Lead
RCRA Hydrogeology Section 1
Bureau of Land and Waste
Management
South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control
Phone: (803)896-4018
E-mail: DEPRATMP@dhec.sc.gov
Technology:
Biosparging
Biosparging system includes two horizontal wells; injection pad - a compressor,
a header for each well, NO2 cylinder and triethyl phosphate drum, and methane
vents that discharge directly into the air
Horizontal wells - installed to depth of 60 ft bgs; screened to length of 800 ft and
900 ft; 6-inch diameter outer casing of carbon steel with holes (0.17% open
area); 4-inch inner HOPE casing with varied slit spacing to distribute injectate
(0.28% open area); system operated on pulsed injection schedule
Groundwater monitoring network includes 90 monitoring wells
Initially, one well used to inject methane, air, and nutrients (nitrous oxide and
triethyl phosphate) to stimulate the growth of methanotropic (methane oxidizing)
organisms to complete the mineralization of TCE; second well used to inject air
and nutrients to aerobically degrade and volatilize vinyl chloride
Methane injection stopped in January 2001 after TCE concentrations decreased
Air and nutrients continue to be injected in both wells; system operations to
continue until cleanup goals are met
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
The estimated volume of water that has moved through the treatment zone is 9.4 billion gallons
Depth to groundwater - ranges from 30 to 60 ft bgs
Contamination occurs in the uppermost hydrogeologic unit - Steel Pond Aquifer; water table/unconfined aquifer
consisting of interbedded sands and clayey/silty sands
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Savannah River Site (SRS) negotiated with the state for Alternate Concentration Limit/Mixing Zone Concentration
Limits (ACL/MZCLs)
ACL/MZCLs include: TCE (21 g/L), cis-l,2-DCE (287 g/L), and vinyl chloride (12 g/L)
Results:
As of 2001, the TCE plume had diminished and methane injection was stopped; DOE determined that TCE
concentrations had decreased substantially and the results of numerical modeling predicted that further methane injection
would not be beneficial
As of FY2003, the maximum TCE concentrations ranged from not detected at wells in the interior of the landfill to a
maximum of 8 g/L at point of compliance wells upgradient of the treatment system; in the monitoring wells
downgradient from the horizontal treatment wells, TCE was not detected at a quantifiable concentration (< 2 g/L)
Vinyl chloride concentrations have continued to decrease over the past year, with maximum concentrations during FY
2003 reaching 80 g/L in an interior landfill monitoring well, and 14 g/L in a point of compliance well at the base of
the landfill (upgradient from the treatment system); vinyl chloride was not detected in wells downgradient from the
treatment system
Westinghouse Savannah River Company indicated that biosparging reduced concentrations in a well in the treatment
zone by 99 percent for vinyl chloride and 75 percent for TCE.
44
-------
Biosparging at the Savannah River Site Sanitary Landfill, Aiken, South Carolina (continued)
Costs:
The actual costs to date for the biosparging application are: installation of two horizontal injection wells - $1 million;
construction of the injection pad/well piping - $750,000; operation of the biosparging system - $225,000/year; and cost
of groundwater monitoring - $215,000/year
Description:
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS) is a 310 square-mile facility located near Aiken, South
Carolina. From 1974 to 1994, a variety of wastes from SRS were disposed of in the unlined SRS Sanitary Landfill (SLF),
which includes a main section (33 acres) and two expansion areas - a 22-acre southern expansion area and a 16-acre
northern expansion area. In 1988, results of groundwater monitoring showed elevated levels of chlorinated solvents at the
SLF, including TCE, 1,2-DCE, and vinyl chloride. In 1996, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control (SCDHEC) approved a closure plan for the SLF, which included the installation of a low-permeability
geosynthetic cap (engineered RCRA cap). From 1996 to 1997, the cap was installed over the main section and southern
expansion area of the SLF, which were certified closed in October 1997. Installation of the cap minimized infiltration and
produced anaerobic conditions in the subsurface, facilitating reductive dechlorination of TCE.
In 1999, two horizontal biosparging wells were installed with one well used to inject methane, air, and nutrients to
stimulate the growth of methanotropic organisms to complete the mineralization of TCE, and the second well used to inject
air and nutrients to promote the aerobic degradation and volatilization of vinyl chloride. In January 2001, methane
injection was stopped as TCE concentrations had decreased substantially and the benefits of additional injections were
determined to be limited. Air and nutrient injection is ongoing. As of 2003, biosparging reduced concentrations in a well
in the treatment zone by 99 percent for vinyl chloride and 75 percent for TCE. SRS negotiated with the state for Alternate
Concentration Limit/Mixing Zone Concentration Limits, and the system will continue to operate until these levels are met.
According to the State, reducing conditions below the landfill helped degrade trichloroethene, but caused the vinyl
chloride groundwater contaminant plume to increase. The current rate of growth of the vinyl chloride groundwater
contaminant plume is insignificant. Future increases in the concentration of vinyl chloride in groundwater below the SLF
are limited by the small mass of dissolved trichloroethene, its precursor, remaining and by the presence of the landfill cap,
which prevents additional leaching of contamination from above.
45
-------
Feroxsm Injection at Hunter's Point Shipyard, Parcel C, Remedial Unit C4, San Francisco, CA
Site Name:
Hunter's Point Ship Yard, Parcel C, Remedial Unit C4
Location:
San Francisco, CA
Period of Operation:
December 5 - 23, 2002
Cleanup Authority:
Not identified
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Field demonstration to evaluate use of Ferox injection to treat
chlorinated VOCs
Cleanup Type:
Field Demonstration
Contaminants:
Volatiles-Halogenated, Trichloroethene (TCE), DNAPL
- Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), primarily TCE; TCE
concentrations in groundwater as high as 88,000 g/L
Waste Source:
Leaks from underground storage tanks, and
wastes from painting and degreasing operations
Contacts:
Navy
Mr. Patrick Brooks
Remedial Project Manager
Southwest Division
Naval Facilities Engineering
Command
San Diego, California
Technology:
Chemical Oxidation using Ferox Injection
4 injection boreholes; 32 ft deep (below where DNAPL expected to be observed);
injections performed from the bottom up to minimize potential DNAPL
displacement downward and horizontally; injections conducted sequentially in
each of the 4 boreholes; 3-ft intervals starting at 30 ft bgs, going to 10 ft bgs
Injection process integrated pneumatic fracturing and Ferox delivery, with
nitrogen gas used as both the fracturing and injection fluid; zero valent ion (ZVI)
slurry (1 kg ZVI powder to 1 gal water) injected at pressures ranging from 40 to
180 psig; about 16,000 Ibs of ZVI injected during the demonstration
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
Estimated subsurface volume treated was 1,683 cubic yards (based on a treatment area of about 1,818 ft2 and extending
from the top of the water table of 7 ft bgs to 32 ft bgs
Two aquifers (A and B) and one bedrock water-bearing zone; hydrogeology characterized by shallow bedrock overlain
predominantly by artificial fill material with variable hydraulic conductivity; Aquifer A hydraulic conductivity ranged
from 26.6 to 43 ft/day
Groundwater flow directions are variable, generally trend south to southwest; depth to groundwater ranged from 6.2 to
6.8 bgs
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Primary objective of the demonstration was to evaluate the cost and performance of Ferox injection in treating
chlorinated VOCs in source areas at Hunter's Point
Other objectives included evaluating the percent reduction of TCE, PCE, 1,2-DCE, vinyl chloride, total chlorinated
ethenes, chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride; no specific cleanup goals were identified
Results:
Groundwater sampling conducted prior to the injections and at 2, 6, and 12 weeks after injection
The overall reduction percentages within the treatment zone for the VOCs were: TCE (99.2 percent), PCE (99.4
percent), cis-1,2-DCE (94.2 percent), vinyl chloride (99.3 percent), total chlorinated ethenes (99.1 percent), chloroform
(92.6 percent), and carbon tetrachloride (96.4 percent)
Horizontal zone of influence (based on ORP and other parameters) - extended at least 15 ft from the injection boreholes
Costs:
Total cost of the field demonstration was $289,274 or $172 per cubic yard of the treatment zone
Excluding costs for sampling, analysis, and management of demonstration-derived wastes, the total cost was $196,665,
or $117 per cubic yard
Economies of scale for certain cost elements, such as mobilization and demobilization, could result in somewhat lower
unit costs for larger-scale applications
46
-------
Feroxsm Injection at Hunter's Point Shipyard, Parcel C, Remedial Unit C4, San Francisco, CA
(continued)
Description:
Hunter's Point Shipyard (HPS) is located in the southeastern portion of San Francisco. The 928-acre facility operated
from 1869 through 1986, as a ship repair, maintenance, and commercial facility; in 1991 the facility was designated Navy
for closure under the federal Base Closure and Realignment Act.
Parcel C, located in the eastern portion of HPS, was identified as having several groundwater plumes, with a chlorinated
solvent plume (primarily TCE) located beneath Remedial Unit-C4 (RU-C4). Ferox injection is a patented technology of
ARS Technologies, Inc. for in situ subsurface remediation of source areas of chlorinated VOCs. The Feroxsm technology
involves injection of liquid atomized zero-valent iron (ZVI) powder into targeted subsurface zones, using a packer system
to isolate discrete depth intervals within open boreholes.
A field demonstration of Ferox injection was conducted at HPS RU-C4 to evaluate the use of the technology to treat
chlorinated solvents in groundwater. The demonstration involved the use of 4 boreholes and the use of an injection
process that integrated pneumatic fracturing and Ferox delivery (nitrogen gas used as both the fracturing and injection
fluid). Results of the demonstration showed reductions in concentrations of chlorinated solvents, including DNAPL, of as
high as 99.4 percent. It was noted that most of the reduction in TCE concentrations occurred during the first 3 weeks of
the demonstration. For future applications, it was suggested that less monitoring would be needed than was performed for
the demonstration.
47
-------
In Situ Bimetallic Nanoscale Particle (BNP) Treatment at the Naval Air Engineering Station Site
(Area I), Lakehurst, New Jersey
Site Name:
Naval Air Engineering Station (NAES) Site (Area I)
Location:
Lakehurst, New Jersey
Period of Operation:
February to March 2002 (pilot test)
Cleanup Authority:
Not applicable
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Pilot test of in situ BNP injection to treat groundwater contaminated
with chlorinated hydrocarbons
Cleanup Type:
Field Demonstration
Contaminants:
Volatiles-Halogenated
Tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), 1,1,1-trichloroethane
(1,1,1,-TCA), cis-dichloroethene (cis-DCE), and vinyl chloride.
Contamination extends vertically 70 feet below groundwater table
Largest amount of contamination in the zone from 30 to 50 feet
below groundwater table
In February 2000, total volatile organic compound (VOC)
concentrations in groundwater approximately 900 g/L
Waste Source:
Various facility operations and releases
Contacts:
Paul Ingrisano
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007 - 1866
Telephone: 212-637-4337
E-mail: ingrisano.paul@epa.gov
Mike Figura
Naval Air Engineering Station -
Lakehurst
Building 343, Hwy 547
Lakehurst, NJ 08733-5000
(732) 323-4857
March Gill
PARS Environmental, Inc.
6A South Gold Drive
Robbinsville, NJ 08691
Telephone: (609) 890-7277
E-mail: hgill@parsenviro.com
Technology:
In Situ Bimetallic Nanoscale Particle (BNP) treatment (categorized as in situ
chemical reduction)
BNP consists of submicron particles of zero valent iron (Feฐ) with a trace
coating of palladium (approximately 0.1% by weight) that acts as a catalyst;
treatment of contaminants is based on a redox process where the zero
valent iron serves as the electron donor
Pilot test of in situ BNP conducted at Area I; groundwater recirculation
initiated one day prior to injection of BNP to enhance in situ mixing and
achieve hydraulic control of pilot test area
BNP pressure injection performed from February 5-7, 2002, using three
injection points; piston pump used with open probe rods using a bottom up
injection procedure
Injection point-1 (IP-1):
- String of probe rods retracted from 65 to 43 feet bgs at injection rate of
approximately 2.5 gpm
- Total of approximately 2,260 liters of 1.4 g/L BNP suspension (average
concentration) injected
IP-2:
- String of probe rods retracted from 65 feet below grade to ground surface
at injection rate of approximately 2.5 gpm; due to problems with grout
pump (likely from pressure build-up) rods had to be pulled up to ground
surface
- Total of approximately 2,070 liters of 1.5 g/L BNP suspension (average
concentration) injected
IP-3:
- String of probe rods retracted from 65 to 34 feet below grade at injection
rate of approximately 2.5 gpm
- Total of approximately 2,315 liters of 1.4 g/L BNP suspension (average
concentration) injected
Groundwater monitoring performed on day 1, 7, 14, and 28 following BNP
injection and analyzed for VOCs, chloride, iron, and geochemical
parameters
48
-------
In Situ Bimetallic Nanoscale Particle (BNP) Treatment at the Naval Air Engineering Station Site
(Area I), Lakehurst, New Jersey (continued)
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater: 1,800 cubic feet or 13,500 gallons; based on an assumed treatment area of 300 ft2, an impacted groundwater
thickness of 20 ft, and porosity of 0.3
Average hydraulic conductivity of aquifer - 88.31 ft/day
Estimated hydraulic gradient - 0.002 ft/ft
Estimated groundwater velocity - 0.59 ft/day
Geology: unconsolidated sediments characterized as a fairly uniform, brown-yellow, fine to coarse sand; grain size
analyses characterized sediments as 0.5 to 5.9% gravel, 85.8 to 93.6% sand, and 5.4 to 8.6% clay; total organic carbon
levels ranged from 40 to 800 mg/kg
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The primary objective of the pilot test was to assess the feasibility of using BNP to treat chlorinated hydrocarbons in
groundwater in Area I at the site. The remedial goal was to reduce, but not completely degrade, chlorinated hydrocarbons
in the treatment area. Changes in groundwater chemistry (for example, oxidation-reduction potential (ORP)) following the
application of BNP were also evaluated. No specific cleanup goals were identified.
Results:
Results from the BNP pilot test are based on data collected from February 8 to May 6, 2002
Average reductions of concentrations for PCE, TCE, and cis-DCE in the treatment area were approximately 67% to
87%. The total reduction of VOCs within the treatment area during this period was approximately 74%.
Within specific wells, reductions were as high as 100% for PCE, 74% for TCE, 89% for cis-l,2-DCE, and 88% for total
VOCs
During the pilot test, ORP levels in groundwater were reduced from a range of + 170to+311 mV to a range of -100 to -
400 mV. Reducing conditions were observed two months following the completion of the pilot test.
Based on the results of the pilot test, a larger scale pilot test of BNP in Area I was recommended
Costs:
Not provided
Description:
NAES Lakehurst, located in Orange County, New Jersey, is approximately 7,300 acres in size. Groundwater in Area I at
the site was determined to be contaminated with chlorinated hydrocarbons, including PCE, TCE, 1,1,1-TCA, and vinyl
chloride, with levels of VOCs as high as 900 g/L. A pilot test of in situ BNP was conducted at the site from February to
March 2002. BNP consists of submicron particles of zero valent iron with a trace coating of palladium that acts as a
catalyst. The treatment of contaminants using BNP is based on a redox process where the zero valent iron serves as the
electron donor. The objective of the pilot test was to assess the feasibility of using BNP to treat chlorinated hydrocarbons
in groundwater in Area I at the site, and to evaluate changes in groundwater chemistry following the application of BNP.
A BNP-water suspension was injected into the groundwater at three injection points using pressure injection through open
probe rods. A total of approximately 7,000 liters of BNP suspension was injected from February 5 to 7, 2002, and
groundwater sampling was performed through May 2002.
The average reductions of PCE, TCE, and cis-DCE in the treatment area were approximately 67% to 87% from February 8
to May 6, 2002. The total reduction of VOCs within the treatment area during this period was approximately 74%. ORP
data showed that reducing conditions were achieved during the pilot test and two months after completion of the test.
Based on these results, a larger scale pilot test of BNP in Area I was recommended. Suggestions for improvement in the
larger scale test included increasing the amount of BNP injected into the groundwater by increasing the concentration of
the suspension and increasing the number of injection points, and injecting BNP in a grid pattern to create a reaction zone.
49
-------
Air Sparging and Pump and Treat at the Del Norte County Pesticide Storage Area Superfund
Site, Crescent City, California
Site Name:
Del Norte County Pesticide Storage Area Superfund Site
Location:
Crescent City, California
Period of Operation:
April 1990 - October 1997 (Air Sparging: March 1994 - November
1996)
Cleanup Authority:
EPA
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of air sparging, in conjunction with pump and treat, to enhance the
removal of DCP in groundwater
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
1,2-Dichloropropane (DCP), 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D),
chromium
DCP concentrations prior to start up of air sparging: 15 - 40 g/L
Waste Source:
Residues and rinse water disposed of in an
unlined sump
Contacts:
Bob Mandel
EPA Lead
EPA Region 9
Emergency Response Section
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
Telephone: (415) 972-3040
E-mail: mandel.bob@epa.gov
Patrick Lee
State Lead
California Department of Toxics
Substances Control
700 Heinz Ave., Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710 - 2721
Telephone: (510) 540-3847
E-mail: pleel@dtsc.gov
Technology:
Technology: Air Sparging and Pump and Treat
A pump and treat system was installed in 1990 and operated until October 1997; no
details of this system were provided
Air sparging was added in 1994 in an attempt to enhance contaminant removal
The air sparging system included:
- 10 air sparge points initially installed within the 1,2-dichloropropane (DCP)
plume; after one year of operation, 15 additional sparge points installed
- Points consisted of !/2-inch diameter PVC tubes placed to bottom of aquifer; tubes
were plumbed to air compressor to force air through tubes to bottom of aquifer
- System was shut off in November 1996 after no discernable changes in DCP
concentrations were noted
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
Groundwater depth - ranged between 3 and 10 feet bgs
Groundwater flow direction - southeast
Thickness of uppermost aquifer - approximately 30 feet
Hydraulic conductivity - approximately 10"3 crri/s
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
1985 ROD specified 10 g/L for DCP (health-based standard)
2000 ROD Amendment - included a TI Waiver and changed the groundwater remedy to plume containment through
natural attenuation, groundwater monitoring, and institutional controls
50
-------
Air Sparging and Pump and Treat at the Del Norte County Pesticide Storage Area Superfund
Site, Crescent City, California (continued)
Results:
The pump and treat system operated from 1990 to 1997; the air sparging system operated from 1994 to 1996; DCP data
are available for 1994 to 2003
The areal extent of the DCP plume (greater than 5 g/L) was reduced from approximately 12,000 ft2 to 5,000 ft2 (as of
1998)
An estimated 3.75 gallons DCP removed from groundwater between 1990 and 1997 (95% of this amount was estimated
to have been removed by the pump and treat system between 1990 and 1994)
Operation of the air sparging system resulted in no discernable changes in groundwater DCP concentrations; the system
was shut down in 1996
Continued operation of the pump and treat system resulted in no discernable changes in groundwater DCP
concentrations; the system was shut down in 1997
As of March 2003, groundwater DCP concentrations ranged from 2.4 to 6.6 g/L
Costs:
EPA provided actual costs for O&M for 1995 to 1997: 1995 - $166,518; 1996 - $106,928;
1997 - $84,211; no additional details were provided regarding the O&M costs; no capital cost data were provided
Description:
Del Norte County Pesticide Storage Area Superfund Site is located in Crescent City, California, and operated from 1970 to
1981 as a county-wide collection point for the interim and emergency storage of pesticide containers generated by local
industry. Pesticide containers were rinsed on site, with residues and rinse water improperly disposed of in a unlined sump.
This resulted in groundwater at the site becoming contaminated with pesticides, herbicides, and volatile and semi-volatile
compounds. Contaminants of concern at the site included DCP, 2,4-D, and chromium. The site was listed on the NPL in
1983. The 1985 ROD specified pump and treat as the groundwater remedy for the site.
The pump and treat system was installed in 1990. In 1994, EPA determined that while DCP concentrations had decreased
in monitoring wells, asymptotic levels of between 15 and 40 g/L had been reached. In an attempt to enhance contaminant
removal, an air sparging system was added, and after one year of operation, expanded to include additional sparge points.
EPA noted that there were no discernable changes in DCP concentrations and the air sparging system was shut down in
November 1996. Continued operation of the pump and treat system did not result in discernable changes in DCP
concentrations and the system was shut down in 1997. EPA concluded that neither the pump and treat remedy nor any
other technology available at the time would be able to treat DCP to below the cleanup level and a TI waiver was issued
based on these findings. In August 2000, a ROD Amendment was signed amending the groundwater remedy for the site to
include plume containment through natural attenuation, continued monitoring of the groundwater, and institutional
controls. Final site cleanup and equipment removal was completed in December 2000, and the site was deleted from the
NPL in September 2002.
During operation of these systems between 1990 and 1997, an estimated 3.75 gallons of DCP were removed from the
groundwater, with 95% of this amount removed by the pump and treat system between 1990 and 1994. O&M costs
available for 1995 to 1997 were: $166,518 in 1995, $106,928 in 1996, and $84,211 in 1997. Results of groundwater
monitoring after system shut down showed DCP concentrations in groundwater ranging from 2.4 to 6.6 g/L.
51
-------
In Well Air Stripping at Two Dry Cleaners, Various Locations
Site Name:
Multiple (2) Dry Cleaners - In Well Air Stripping
Location:
Schloff Chemicals and Supply Company, Inc., St. Louis
Park, MN
Former Base Laundry & Dry Cleaning Facility, Orlando,
FL
Period of Operation:
Schloff: September 1994
Former Base: December 10, 1997
Cleanup Authority:
State
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Use of in well air stripping (IWAS) to treat chlorinated solvents in
groundwater at dry cleaner facilities
Cleanup Type:
Full scale
Contaminants:
Tetrachloroethene (PCE); Trichloroethene (TCE); Volatiles-
Halogenated
Schloff: PCE - 7,800 g/L; TCE - 240 g/L
Former Base: Groundwater - PCE - 34,000 g/L; TCE -
15,000 g/L; Soil - PCE - 430 g/kg; TCE - 27 g/kg; plume size
245,000 ft2
Waste Source:
Waste and wastewater from dry cleaning
operations
Contacts:
Varied by site
Technology:
IWAS - UVB; Pump & Treat (P&T)
Schloff:
- Two UVB wells installed
- Water being pumped into the UVB-200-1 reactor at 4 m3/h, and back into the two UVB-200-
2 stripping reactors at 2 m3/h
Former Base:
- Two UVB wells installed 300 ft downgradient of the facility, approximately 85 ft apart; wells
constructed of 10-inch diameter schedule 80 PVC with two stainless steel screens (0.01-inch
slots)
- Contaminated groundwater was extracted through the upper screen (3.5 -12.5 ft bgs - upper
surficial aquifer)
- Water was treated in an in-well stripping unit installed on the top of the wellhead
- Treated water was injected through the lower screen interval (39-45 ft bgs - lower surficial
aquifer)
- Design flow rate for each submersible pump was 40 gpm
- VOC emissions from the system were estimated to be approximately 2.0 Ibs/day; therefore no
emissions treatment was installed
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater, Soil
Schloff:
- Depth to groundwater: 8 - 12 ft bgs
- Subsurface geology: 0-27 ft fine to coarse grained sand; 27-75 ft bedrock
- Aquifer conductivity: 0.5 - 25.2 ft/day
- Groundwater gradient: 0.004 - 0.005 ft/ft
Former Base:
- Depth to groundwater: 3.3 - 10.1 ft bgs
- Subsurface geology: (Upper surficial aquifer) 0-17 ft bgs fine-grained sand; 17-20 ft bgs moderately to well
indurated silty, fine-grained sand. (Lower surficial aquifer) 20-54 ft bgs fine-grained sand; 54-71 ft bgs silty, fine, fine
to coarse sand with phosphate nodules and shells; 71 - depth of investigation silty, clayey sand with clay interbeds
- Aquifer conductivity: Upper surficial aquifer - 10 ft/day; Lower surficial aquifer - 40 ft/day
- Groundwater gradient: 0.008 ft/ft
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Schloff: Not provided
Former Base: Groundwater (MCLs) PCE - 3 g/L; TCE - 3 g/L; cis 1,2-DCE - 70 g/L
52
-------
In Well Air Stripping at Two Dry Cleaners, Various Locations (continued)
Results:
Schloff: Not provided
Former Base: Results not available because the system could not achieve design pumping rates and therefore, did not
achieve capture of the downgradient portion of the contaminant plume.
Costs:
Schloff: $773,716 (total cost as of 1999)
Former Base: Not available
Description:
In Well Air Stripping (IWAS) - UVB was implemented at full scale at Schloff Chemicals in Minnesota and Former Base
Laundry in Florida. The contaminants at the sites were mainly halogenated volatiles, including PCE and TCE. PCE was
found in groundwater at concentrations as high as 34,000 g/L, and TCE as high as 15,000 g/L. In the soil,
concentrations of PCE and TCE were 430 g/kg and 27 g/kg, respectively.
The application of UVB technology at Schloff was the first application of its kind in the state of Minnesota. However,
results were not provided for the project. At Former Base, results were not available because the system could not achieve
design pumping rates. The system had many operational and maintenance problems including silt/sand entering the well
screens, failed packers, biofouling, precipitation, and problems associated with equalizing influent and effluent pumping
rates.
53
-------
This page intentionally left blank
54
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES
Site Name, Location
Case
Study ID
Technology *f
Media
Contaminants
Year
Operation
Began
Year
Published
Soil Vapor Extraction (40 Projects)
Basket Creek Surface Impoundment
Site, GA
Camp Lejeune Military Reservation,
Site 82, Area A, 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 Greely, Texas Tower Site, AK
18
32
45
51
52
370
68
82
SVE
SVE
SVE
SVE
SVE (Field Demonstration)
SVE;
Air Sparging;
Pump and Treat
SVE
SVE;
Air Sparging;
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Soil
Soil
Soil;
DNAPLs
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Soil
Soil;
Groundwater
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
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
1992
1995
1992
1995
1992
1991
1989
1994
1997
1998
1995
1998
1998
2004
1995
1998
57
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Fort Lewis, Landfill 4, WA
Fort Richardson, Building 908 South,
AK
Hastings Groundwater Contamination
Superfund Site, Well Number 3 Subsite,
NE
Holloman AFB, Sites 2 and 5, NM
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
Case
Study ID
84
88
104
108
117
145
154
366
363
Technology *f
SVE;
Air Sparging
SVE
SVE
SVE
SVE
SVE
SVE (Field Demonstration)
SVE
SVE;
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ);
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
Media
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Groundwater
Soil;
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Contaminants
TCE;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
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
Year
Operation
Began
1994
1995
1992
1994
1988
1990
1993
1994
2001
Year
Published
1998
1998
1995
1998
1998
1995
1995
2004
2004
58
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
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
NAS North Island, Site 9, CA
Patrick Air Force Base, Active Base
Exchange Service Station, FL
Case
Study ID
317
320
365
345
176
349
183
215
Technology *f
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 (Photolytic Destruction)
(Field Demonstration)
SVE (Internal Combustion
Engine) (Field
Demonstration)
Media
Soil;
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Soil;
Groundwater
Soil;
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Soil;
DNAPLs
Soil;
DNAPLs
Soil;
Groundwater;
DNAPLs;
Off-gases
Soil
Soil
Contaminants
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
PCE;
TCE;
DCE;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Year
Operation
Began
Various years -
starting 1995
Various years -
starting 1996
1997
Various years -
starting 1992
Various years -
starting 1998
Various years -
starting 1991
1997
1993
Year
Published
2003
2003
2004
Various years
- 2002, 2003
Various years
- 2001, 2002
Various years
- 2002, 2003
1998
2000
59
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Patrick Air Force Base, Active Base
Exchange Service Station, FL
Rocky Mountain Arsenal Superfund Site
(Motor Pool Area - Operable Unit #18),
CO
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund
Site, Burn Pits Operable Unit, CA
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund
Site, Tank 2 (Operable Unit #3), CA
Sand Creek Industrial Superfund Site,
Operable Unit 1, CO
Seymour Recycling Corporation
Superfund Site, IN
ShawAFB, OU 1, SC
SMS Instruments Superfund Site, NY
Case
Study ID
214
237
240
241
242
258
261
264
Technology *f
SVE (Biocube) (Field
Demonstration)
SVE
SVE
SVE
SVE
SVE;
Containment - Caps;
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
SVE;
Free Product Recovery
SVE
Media
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil;
LNAPLs
Soil
Soil;
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Soil
Contaminants
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE;
TCE;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Ketones;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
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
Year
Operation
Began
1994
1991
1994
1992
1993
1992
1995
1992
Year
Published
2000
1995
1997
1995
1997
1998
1998
1995
60
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Stamina Mills Superfund Site, RI
Tyson's Dump Superfund Site, PA
U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah
River Site, SC
U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah
River Site, SC, and Sandia, NM
U.S. Department of Energy, Portsmouth
Gaseous Diffusion Plant, OH
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
273
285
295
251
292
306
307
Technology *f
SVE;
Multi Phase Extraction
(Field Demonstration)
SVE
SVE (Flameless Thermal
Oxidation) (Field
Demonstration)
SVE;
In-Well Air Stripping;
Bioremediation (in situ) ALL;
Drilling
(Field Demonstration)
SVE;
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ);
Solidification/Stabilization;
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
SVE (Resin Adsorption)
(Field Demonstration)
SVE
Media
Soil;
Off-gases
Soil
Soil;
Off-gases
Soil;
Groundwater
Soil
Soil
Soil
Light Non-
aqueous Phase
Liquids
Contaminants
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE;
TCE;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE;
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Ketones;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
PCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1999
1988
1995
1988
1992
1994
1988
Year
Published
2001
1998
1997
2000
1997
2000
1995
Other In Situ Soil/Sediment Treatment (38 Projects)
Alameda Point, CA
Argonne National Laboratory - West,
Waste Area Group 9, OU 9-04, ID
5
12
Electrokinetics (Field
Demonstration)
Phytoremediation (Field
Demonstration)
Soil
Soil
Heavy Metals
Heavy Metals
1997
1998
2001
2000
61
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Avery Dennison, IL
Beach Haven Substation, Pensacola, FL
Brodhead Creek Superfund Site, PA
Castle Airport, CA
Castle Airport and Various Sites, 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
Case
Study ID
329
20
24
35
361
330
327
57
64
66
75
89
Technology *f
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
Electrokinetics (Field
Demonstration)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
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)
Media
Soil; DNAPLs
Soil
Soil; DNAPLs
Soil
Soil
Soil; DNAPLs;
Off-gases
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Contaminants
Volatiles-Halogenated
Arsenic
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Arsenic
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
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
Year
Operation
Began
1999
1998
1995
1998
1998
1997
1998
1998
1991
1998
1997
1997
Year
Published
2003
2000
1998
1999
2004
2003
2002
2000
1995
2000
2000
2000
62
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Hill Air Force Base, Site 280, UT
Hill Air Force Base, Site 914, UT
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
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
Case
Study ID
106
107
114
350
143
146
160
351
180
188
189
328
Technology *f
Bioremediation (in situ)
Bioventing
Bioremediation (in situ)
Bioventing;
SVE
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)
Electrokinetics (Field
Demonstration)
Electrokinetics (Field
Demonstration)
Lasagna
Media
Soil
Soil
Soil
Sediment;
DNAPLs
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Sediment
Soil
Soil
Contaminants
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Volatiles-Halogenated
PAHs; Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Heavy Metals
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
Heavy Metals
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Heavy Metals
Heavy Metals
TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1990
1988
1996
2001
1992
Magic Marker -
1997;
Fort Dix - 2000
1997
2001
1992
1998
1998
1999
Year
Published
1995
1995
2000
2003
1995
2002
1998
2004
2000
2000
2000
2002
63
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
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, Hanford
Site, WA, Oak Ridge (TN) and Others
U.S. Department of Energy, Multiple
Sites
U.S. Department of Energy, Paducah
Gaseous Diffusion Plant, KY
U.S. Department of Energy, Portsmouth
Gaseous Diffusion Plant, OH and Other
Sites
U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah
River Site, SC, and Hanford Site, WA
White Sands Missile Range, SWMU
143, NM
Case
Study ID
212
225
246
337
283
289
288
291
293
296
313
Technology *f
Vitrification (in situ)
Fracturing (Field
Demonstration)
Electrokinetics (Field
Demonstration)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Phytoremediation (Field
Demonstration)
Vitrification (in situ)
Drilling (Field
Demonstration)
Lasagna (Field
Demonstration)
Fracturing (Field
Demonstration)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Media
Soil;
Sediment
Soil;
Groundwater
Soil
Soil; DNAPLs
Soil
Soil;
Sludge;
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Soil;
Sediment
Soil;
Groundwater
Soil;
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Soil;
Sediment
Soil
Contaminants
Pesticides/Herbicides ;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals;
Dioxins/Furans
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Heavy Metals
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Heavy Metals;
Arsenic
Pesticides/Herbicides ;
Heavy Metals;
Arsenic;
Dioxins/Furans;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
PCBs;
Radioactive Metals
-
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE;
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Heavy Metals
Year
Operation
Began
1993
1996
1996
2000
1998
Not Provided
1992
1995
1991
1993
1998
Year
Published
1997
2001
2000
2003
2000
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
2000
64
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Young-Rainy Star Center (formerly
Pinellas) Northeast Area A, FL
Case
Study ID
355
Technology *f
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
Media
Soil;
Groundwater
Contaminants
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
DCE;
PCE;
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year
Operation
Began
2002
Year
Published
2004
Incineration (on-site) (18 Projects)
Baird and McGuire, MA
Bayou Bonfouca, LA
Bridgeport Refinery and Oil Services,
NJ
Celanese Corporation Shelby Fiber
Operations, NC
15
19
23
36
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Soil;
Sediment
Soil;
Sediment
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid;
Sediment;
Organic
Liquids;
Sludge
Soil;
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
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals;
BTEX
1995
1993
1991
1991
1998
1998
1998
1998
65
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
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
MOTCO, TX
Old Midland Products, AR
Case
Study ID
43
59
72
76
79
165
206
Technology *f
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Media
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Soil;
Sludge;
Organic
Liquids
Soil;
Sludge
Contaminants
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
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1994
1998
1993
1997
1998
1990
1992
Year
Published
1998
2001
1998
1998
2000
1998
1998
66
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Petro Processors, LA
Rocky Mountain Arsenal, CO
Rose Disposal Pit, MA
Rose Township Dump, MI
Sikes Disposal Pits, TX
Times Beach, MO
Vertac Chemical Corporation, AR
Case
Study ID
217
236
238
239
262
280
308
Technology *f
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Media
Soil;
Organic
Liquids;
DNAPLs
Soil;
Organic
Liquids
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid;
Organic
Liquids
Contaminants
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
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Dioxins/Furans;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
Dioxins/Furans;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1994
1993
1994
1992
1992
1996
1992
Year
Published
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
67
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Case
Study ID
Technology *f
Media
Contaminants
Year
Operation
Began
Year
Published
Thermal Desorption (29 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
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
8
13
325
33
69
86
354
348
135
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
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)
(Field Demonstration)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Soil;
Sludge
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Debris/Slag/So
lid; Off-gas
Soil; Off-gases
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
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
Heavy Metals
Pesticides/Herbicides ;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
PAHs; PCBs; Arsenic
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
1992
1996
Not provided
1998
1995
1996
2002
1999
1993
1995
2000
2002
2002
1998
1998
2004
2002
2000
68
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
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,
OU2, FL
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site,
New Bedford, MA
Outboard Marine Corporation
Superfund Site, OH
Port Moller Radio Relay Station, AK
Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site, OH
Case
Study ID
137
138
155
156
182
197
209
223
227
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)
(Field Demonstration)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Media
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Sediment
Soil;
Sediment
Soil
Soil
Contaminants
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
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Pesticides/Herbicides ;
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals
Year
Operation
Began
1994
1997
1986
1994
1995
1996
1992
1995
1993
Year
Published
2002
2000
1995
2001
1998
2001
1995
1998
1995
69
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
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
Sand Creek Superfund Site, OU 5, CO
Sarney Farm, Amenia, NY
Case
Study ID
230
228
229
234
235
243
248
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)
Media
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Soil
Soil
Contaminants
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
Pesticides/Herbicides ;
Arsenic
TCE;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Ketones;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1993
1994
1996
1997
1996
1994
1997
Year
Published
1998
2001
2002
2001
2000
2000
2001
70
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
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
Case
Study ID
333
277
310
314
Technology *f
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ);
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (ex situ)
Media
Soil; Off-gases
Soil
Soil
Soil
Contaminants
Pesticides/Herbicides ;
Semivolatiles- Halogenated;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
Pesticides/Herbicides
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
PCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
PCBs
Year
Operation
Began
1995
1993
1993
1990
Year
Published
2003
1995
1998
1995
Other Ex Situ Soil/Sediment Treatment (33 Projects)
Bonneville Power Administration Ross
Complex, Operable Unit A, WA
Brookhaven National Laboratory, NY
Brown Wood Preserving Superfund
Site, FL
Burlington Northern Superfund Site,
MN
Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfund
Site, FL
22
25
27
29
60
Bioremediation (ex situ) Land
Treatment
Physical Separation
Bioremediation (ex situ) Land
Treatment
Bioremediation (ex situ) Land
Treatment
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Composting
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Sludge
Soil
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
Radioactive Metals
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
1994
2000
1989
1986
1993
1998
2001
1995
1997
1997
71
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Fort Greely, UST Soil Pile, AK
Fort Polk Range 5, LA
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
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
Case
Study ID
83
87
91
358
116
121
125
141
144
152
Technology *f
Bioremediation (ex situ) Land
Treatment
Acid Leaching;
Physical Separation (Field
Demonstration)
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Slurry Phase
Vitrification (ex situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Physical Separation
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Slurry Phase (Field
Demonstration)
Soil Washing
Physical Separation
Bioremediation (ex situ) Land
Treatment
Solidification/Stabilization
Media
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Sludge
Sediment
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Sludge
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Soil
Soil
Contaminants
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
Heavy Metals
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Arsenic;
Heavy Metals
PCBs;
Dioxins/Furans;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
Radioactive Metals
Explosives/Propellants
Heavy Metals
Radioactive Metals
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Heavy Metals
Year
Operation
Began
1994
1996
1992
2001
1999
1994
1993
1999
1992
1998
Year
Published
1998
2000
1995
2004
2001
2000
1995
2000
1995
2001
72
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
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
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
Case
Study ID
190
196
198
195
199
201
211
216
231
245
244
254
Technology *f
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Composting (Field
Demonstration)
Solvent Extraction (ex situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Vitrification (ex situ) (Field
Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (ex situ) Land
Treatment (Field
Demonstration)
Vitrification (ex situ) (Field
Demonstration)
Physical Separation
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Composting
Solvent Extraction (ex situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Physical Separation
Physical Separation
Bioremediation (ex situ) Land
Treatment
Media
Soil
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Soil
Sludge
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Contaminants
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
Radioactive Metals
Radioactive Metals
Radioactive Metals
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1996
1996
1996
1995
1996
1997
1998
Not Provided
1997
1998
1998
1989
Year
Published
1998
2001
2001
2001
1998
2000
2000
2001
2000
2000
2000
1995
73
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
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
270
272
275
282
300
301
Technology *f
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;
Sludge
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Soil
Soil
Contaminants
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
Pesticides/Herbicides
Radioactive Metals
Explosives/Propellants
Explosives/Propellants
Year
Operation
Began
1991
1996
1997
1998
1992
1994
Year
Published
1997
1998
2001
2000
1995
1997
Pump and Treat (50 Projects)
Amoco Petroleum Pipeline, MI
Baird and McGuire Superfund Site, MA
Bofors Nobel Superfund Site, OU 1, MI
7
16
21
Pump and Treat;
Air Sparging
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Pesticides/Herbicides ;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
1988
1993
1994
1995
1998
1998
74
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Charnock Wellfield, Santa Monica, CA
City Industries Superfund Site, FL
Coastal Systems Station, AOC 1, FL
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma
Channel Superfund Site, WA
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma
Channel Well 12A Superfund Site, WA
Des Moines TCE Superfund Site, OU 1,
IA
Former Firestone Facility Superfund
Site, CA
Fort Lewis Logistics Center, WA
Case
Study ID
37
41
44
47
46
54
73
85
Technology *f
Pump and Treat;
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (ex situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat (Field
Demonstration)
Pump and Treat;
SVE
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Media
Drinking
Water
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil;
DNAPLs;
LNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Contaminants
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
PCE;
TCE;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
TCE;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1998
1994
1997
1998
1988
1987
1986
1995
Year
Published
2001
1998
1998
2001
1995
1998
1998
2000
75
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
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
Marine Corps Base, Campbell Street
Fuel Farm, Camp Lejeune, NC
Case
Study ID
81
119
122
126
127
128
129
134
150
Technology *f
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
Pump and Treat
Media
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Drinking
Water
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil
Contaminants
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
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1992
1988
1993
1995
1997
1992
1992
1991
1996
Year
Published
1995
1998
1998
1998
2001
1995
1998
1998
2001
76
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Marine Corps Base, OU 1 and 2, Camp
Lejeune, NC
McClellan Air Force Base, Operable
Unit B/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 I Superfund Site, OU
2, TX
Odessa Chromium IIS Superfund Site,
OU 2, TX
Offutt AFB, Site LF-12, NE
Case
Study ID
149
153
158
181
185
203
204
205
Technology *f
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
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Contaminants
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Pesticides/Herbicides ;
Heavy Metals;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated
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
1988
1989
1994
1995
1993
1993
1997
Year
Published
2001
1995
1998
1998
2001
1998
1998
1998
77
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION 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 FT-01, NC
Pope AFB, Site SS-07, Blue Ramp Spill
Site, NC
Rockaway, NJ
SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site, SC
Case
Study ID
207
208
344
219
221
222
233
255
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
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Drinking
Water
Groundwater
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
Year
Operation
Began
1989
1996
1999
1995
1993
1993
1980
1992
Year
Published
1998
2001
2002
1998
1998
1998
2001
1998
78
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Shaw AFB, Site OT-16B, SC
Shaw AFB, Sites SD-29 and ST-30, 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
Case
Study ID
259
260
265
266
267
276
278
284
Technology *f
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat;
Free Product Recovery
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
Media
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater
Contaminants
PCE;
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
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
Year
Operation
Began
1995
1995
1993
1993
1995
1982
1998
1987
Year
Published
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
2000
1995
79
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
U.S. Aviex Superfund Site, MI
U.S. Department of Energy Kansas City
Plant, MO
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
286
290
297
302
303
312
Technology *f
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
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
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater
Groundwater;
LNAPLs;
DNAPLs
Contaminants
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCE;
TCE;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
PCBs;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals
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
1993
1983
1985
1996
1988
1988
Year
Published
1998
1995
1995
2001
1998
1998
In Situ Groundwater Bioremediation (42 Projects)
Abandoned Manufacturing Facility -
Emeryville, CA
2
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Groundwater
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
1997
2000
80
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
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)
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
Case
Study ID
338
14
17
28
49
50
56
55
63
372
Technology *f
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
(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
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Contaminants
TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
MTBE;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
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
Year
Operation
Began
2000
1997
1995
1999
Not Provided
1998
1996
1996
1996
2000
Year
Published
2003
2000
1998
2001
2001
2001
2000
2002
2000
2004
81
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
French Ltd. Superfund Site, TX
Gas Station, Cheshire, CT (specific site
name not identified)
Hanford Site, WA
Hayden Island Cleaners, Portland, OR
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
Case
Study ID
92
94
96
105
115
118
133
136
162
Technology *f
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(HRC)
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)
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater
Groundwater
Contaminants
BTEX;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
BTEX;
MTBE
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE;
TCE;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE;
TCE;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
MTBE
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1992
1997
1995
Not Provided
1999
1998
Not Provided
1991
1986
Year
Published
1998
2001
2000
2001
2002
Not Provided
2001
1998
2000
82
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Moss-American Site, WI
Multiple (4) Dry Cleaner Sites - In Situ
Bioremediation, Various Locations
Multiple Dry Cleaner Sites
National Environmental Technology
Test Site, CA
Naval Air Station New Fuel Farm Site,
NV
Naval Base Ventura County, CA
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
(NWIRP) , TX
Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, CA
Offutt Air Force Base, NE
Pinellas Northeast Site, FL
Case
Study ID
369
346
174
360
352
315
194
339
218
Technology *f
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation;
Permeable Reactive Barrier
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(HRC)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Bioventing;
Free Product Recovery
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)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil;
LNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Contaminants
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated,
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
BTEX; MTBE
PCE;
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
MTBE
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
LNAPL
TCE;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE, Volatiles-Halogenated
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year
Operation
Began
2000
Various years -
starting 2002
Not Provided
2001
Not Provided
1999
1999
1997
Not provided
1997
Year
Published
2004
2003
2001
2004
2004
2004
2002
2000
2003
1998
83
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Savannah River Site, SC
Savannah River Site Sanitary Landfill
(SLF), SC
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. Department of Energy Savannah
River Site, M Area, SC
Case
Study ID
250
362
256
257
263
268
304
279
298
Technology *f
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
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)
Media
Groundwater;
Sediment
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Sediment
Contaminants
PCE;
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
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
PCE;
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1992
1999
Not Provided
Not Provided
1995
1999
Not Provided
1995
1992
Year
Published
2000
2004
2001
2001
1998
2001
2001
2000
1997
84
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
U.S. Navy Construction Battalion
Center, Port Hueneme, CA
Vandenberg Air Force Base, Lompoc,
CA
Watertown Site, MA
Case
Study ID
299
305
311
Technology *f
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;
Soil
Contaminants
MTBE;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
MTBE;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCE;
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1998
1999
1996
Year
Published
2001
2001
2000
Other In Situ Groundwater Treatment (76 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
1
332
3
6
26
Multi Phase Extraction;
Fracturing
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
Phytoremediation (Field
Demonstration)
In-Well Air Stripping;
SVE
In-Well Air Stripping (Field
Demonstration)
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater
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
1996
1995
1996
1992
1999
2000
2003
2002
1995
2002
85
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
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
Carswell Air Force Base, TX
Clear Creek/Central City Superrund 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)
Case
Study ID
30
31
341
340
34
326
48
53
359
Technology *f
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
(KMnO4)
Flushing (in situ) (SEAR and
PITT)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Phytoremediation (Field
Demonstration)
Phytoremediation (Field
Demonstration)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
Multi Phase Extraction (Field
Demonstration)
Air Sparging;
SVE
Media
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater
Contaminants
PCE;
TCE;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCE;
TCE;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Heavy Metals
TCE;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE;
TCE;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Pesticides/Herbicides ;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
Year
Operation
Began
Not Provided
1999
1999
1999
1996
1994
1998
1997
1990
Year
Published
2001
2001
2002
2003
2002
2002
2000
2000
2004
86
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Eaddy Brothers, Hemingway, SC
Edward Sears Site, NJ
Eight Service Stations, MD (specific
sites not identified)
Fernald Environmental Management
Project, OH
Former Intersil, Inc. Site, CA
Former Nu Look One Hour Cleaners,
Coral Springs, FL
Former Sages Dry Cleaners,
Jacksonville, FL
Fort Devens, AOCs 43G and 43J, MA
Fort Richardson, AK
Case
Study ID
61
62
65
70
74
77
78
80
331
Technology *f
Air Sparging;
SVE
Phytoremediation (Field
Demonstration)
Multi Phase Extraction
Flushing (in situ) (Field
Demonstration)
Permeable Reactive Barrier;
Pump and Treat
In-Well Air Stripping
(NoVOCs)
Flushing (in situ) (Ethanol
Co-solvent)
Monitored Natural
Attenuation
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Media
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil;
LNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil;
LNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil;
DNAPLs;
Off-gases
Contaminants
BTEX;
MTBE
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
PCE;
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
BTEX;
MTBE
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Heavy Metals
TCE;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE;
TCE;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE;
TCE;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1999
1996
1990
1998
1995
Not Provided
Not Provided
1997
1999
Year
Published
2001
2002
2001
2001
1998
2001
2001
2000
2003
87
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
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
Kelly Air Force Base, Former Building
2093 Gas Station, TX
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory Gasoline Spill Site, CA
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant, LA
Case
Study ID
90
93
95
101
357
334
120
123
124
130
142
Technology *f
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
Monitored Natural
Attenuation
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Monitored Natural
Attenuation
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater
Contaminants
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
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Explosives/Propellants
Year
Operation
Began
1993
1997
1994
1995
2002
2000
Not Provided
1997
1997
1992
Not Provided
Year
Published
2001
2000
1998
2000
2004
2003
2001
2000
2000
1995
2001
88
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
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 Federal Airfield, CA
Moffett Field Superfund Site, CA
Monticello Mill Tailings Site,
Monticello, UT
Multiple (2) Dry Cleaner Sites, Various
Locations
Case
Study ID
336
159
151
343
157
161
163
164
324
Technology *f
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)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Dense
Non-aqueous
Phase Liquids
(DNAPLs)
Contaminants
Tetrachloroethene (TCE);
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE;
TCE;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE;
TCE;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Explosives/Propellants
PCE;
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE;
TCE;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Metals
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year
Operation
Began
2000
1996
1999
1997
1996
1996
1996
1999
Various years -
starting 1998
Year
Published
2003
2002
2001
2001
2000
1998
2000
2001
2003
89
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Multiple (2) Dry Cleaners - In Well Air
Stripping (In Well Air Stripping and
Pump and Treat)
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 Dry Cleaner Sites
Multiple Dry Cleaner Sites
Case
Study ID
364
342
177
178
179
347
172
171
Technology *f
In-Well Air Stripping
Air Sparging
Multi Phase Extraction (Field
Demonstration)
Monitored Natural
Attenuation (Field
Demonstration)
Monitored Natural
Attenuation (Field
Demonstration)
Permeable Reactive Barrier
(Field Demonstration)
Flushing (in situ);
Thermal Treatment (in situ);
In-Well Air Stripping (Field
Demonstration)
Air Sparging;
SVE
Media
Soil;
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil;
DNAPLs
Contaminants
PCE;
TCE;
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;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1994
Various years
Not Provided
1993
1993
Various years
Not Provided
Not Provided
Year
Published
2004
2002
2001
1999
1999
2003
2001
2001, 2002
90
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Multiple Dry Cleaner Sites
Multiple Dry Cleaner Sites
Multiple Sites
Multiple Sites
Multiple Sites
Multiple Sites
Case
Study ID
175
173
167
166
169
170
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)
Media
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil;
DNAPLs
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
Year
Operation
Began
1999
Not Provided
1991
1997
1995
1995
Year
Published
2001, 2002
2001, 2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
91
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Multiple Sites
Naval Air Engineering Station (NAES)
Site (Area I), NJ
Naval Air Station, North Island, CA
Naval Air Station, Pensacola, OU 10,
FL
Naval Air Station, Pensacola, FL
Naval Submarine Base, Kings Bay, GA
Naval Submarine Base, Kings Bay, GA
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN
Case
Study ID
168
353
186
184
187
193
192
202
Technology *f
Permeable Reactive Barrier
(Full scale and Field
Demonstration)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
In-Well Air Stripping
(NoVOCs) (Field
Demonstration)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ);
Monitored Natural
Attenuation
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
Permeable Reactive Barrier -
Funnel and Gate
Configuration and Trench
(Field Demonstration)
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Contaminants
PCE;
TCE;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals;
Radioactive Metals
PCE;
TCE;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE;
TCE;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE;
TCE;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Radioactive Metals
Year
Operation
Began
1995
2002
1998
1998
1998
1999
1998
1997
Year
Published
2002
2004
2000
2000
2001
2001
2000
2002
92
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Pinellas Northeast Site, FL
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant,
X-701B 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
Case
Study ID
220
226
232
253
147
269
271
281
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
Media
Groundwater;
Soil;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater;
DNAPLs;
LNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil
Contaminants
PCE;
TCE;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Radioactive Metals
Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbon (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
Year
Operation
Began
1996
1988
1999
1998
1999
1998
1995
1994
Year
Published
1998
2000
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2000
93
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
U.S. Coast Guard Support Center, NC
U.S. Department of Energy Savannah
River Site, AM Area, SC
Visalia Superfund Site, CA
Case
Study ID
287
294
309
Technology *f
Permeable Reactive Barrier
In-Well Air Stripping;
Pump and Treat (Field
Demonstration)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Media
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Contaminants
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
PCE;
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1996
1990
1997
Year
Published
1998
1995
2000
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
94
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Clemson University, SC
Envirocare of Utah, UT
Fernald Site, OH
Hanford Site, C Reactor, WA
Hanford Site, WA
Hanford Site, WA
Hanford Site, WA
Hanford Site, WA
Hanford 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
95
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION 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
96
-------
EXHIBIT A-l. SUMMARY OF 361 REMEDIATION 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
SVOCs = Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds
GAC = Granular Activated Carbon
SVE = Soil Vapor Extraction
BTEX = Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene
TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
PAHs = Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PCBs = Polychlorinated Biphenyls
TCA = 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
TCE = Trichloroethene
PCE = Tetrachloroethene
DCE = Dichloroethene
TNT = 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene
RDX = Hexahydro-l,3,5-trinitro-l,3,5 triazine
HMX = Octahydro-l,3,5,7-tetranitro-l,3,5,7-tetrazocine
MBOCA = 4,4-methylenebis(2-chloroaniline)
MIBK = Methyl isobutyl ketone
MTBE = Methyl tert butyl ether
97
-------
-------
-------
Solid Waste and EPA 542-R-04-012
Emergency Response June 2004
(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
-------
Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies; Volume 8
------- |