v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
540R03508
      Arctic Foundations, Inc.
      Freeze Barrier Technology

      Innovative Technology
      Evaluation Report
               SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
              TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION

-------

-------
                                                    EPA/540/R-03/508
                                                      September 2004
           Arctic Foundations, Inc.
          Freeze Barrier Technology

Innovative Technology Evaluation Report
           National Risk Management Research Laboratory
               Office of Research and Development
              U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                   Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
                                               Recycled/Recyclable
                                               Printed with vegetable-based ink on
                                               paper that contains a minimum o-
                                               50% post-consumer fiber content
                                               processed chlorine free.

-------
                                         Notice
The inrormation in this document has been lunded by tne U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under
Contract No. 68-C5-0037 to Tetra Tech EM Inc.  It has been subjected to me Agency's peer and
administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade
names or commercial products does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use.
                                           11

-------
                                        Foreword
 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's
 land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
 formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between Jbaiman activities and the
 ability of natural systems to nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is providing
 data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowledge
 base necessary" to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health,
 and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.

 The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for investigation of
 technological and management approaches for reducing risks from threats to human health and the
 environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods for the prevention and
 control of pollution to air, land, water and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public
 water systems; remediation of contaminated sites and groundwater; and prevention and control of
 indoor air pollution.  The goal of this research effort is to catalyze development and implementation of
 innovative, cost-effective environmental technologies; develop scientific and engineering information
 needed by EPA to support regulatory and policy decisions; and provide technical support and
 information transfer to ensure effective implementation of environmental regulations and strategies.

This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan.  It is
published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
                                          Larry Rieter, Acting Director
                                          National Risk Management Research Laboratory
                                            111

-------
                                        Abstract


 Arctic Foundations, Inc. (API), of Anchorage, Alaska has developed a freeze barrier technology
 designed to prevent the migration of contaminants in groundwater by completely isolating contaminant
 source areas until appropriate remediation techniques can be applied.  With this technology,
 contaminants are contained in situ with frozen native soils serving as the containment medium.  The
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
 Program evaluated the technology at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Oak Ridge National
 Laboratory facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee from September 1997 to July 1998.

 For the evaluation, an array of freeze pipes called "thermdprobes" were installed in a box-like
 structure around a former waste collection pond. The thermoprobes were installed vertically to a depth
 of 32 feet below ground surface and anchored hi bedrock.  The thermoprobes were connected to a
 refrigeration system by a piping network. A cooled refrigerant (R404A) was circulated through the
 system to remove heat from the soil.  When the soil matrix next to the pipes reached 0 °C, soil
 particles bonded together as the soil moisture froze. Cooling continued until an impermeable frozen
 soil barrier was formed.

 After the barrier wall reached its design thickness of 12 feet, the groundwater level within the former
pond dropped, indicating that the barrier wall was effective in impeding recharge into the former pond.
Further, water levels collected from within the former pond did not respond to storm events compared
to water levels collected from locations outside the containment area, indicating that the barrier wall
was effective in impeding horizontal groundwater flow through the former pond. Finally, a 1996
groundwater tracing investigation showed groundwater transport from the former pond area in a radial
pattern which was not the case during the demonstration groundwater tracing investigation.
                                              IV

-------
                                 Contents



NOTICE	"

FOREWORD	m

ABSTRACT	•		iv

CONTENTS	v

FIGURES AND TABLES	   viii

ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS	  *

CONVERSION FACTORS	»»

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS	»»

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	ES-1

1.0   INTRODUCTION	  viii

      1.1    DESCRIPTION OF SITE PROGRAM AND REPORTS	  1

            1.1.1  Purpose, History, and Goals of the SITE Program	  1
            1.1.2  Documentation of SITE Demonstration Results	2

      1.2    OVERVIEW AND APPLICATION OF FROZEN SOIL BARRIERS	3
      1.3    API FREEZE BARRIER TECHNOLOGY	4
      1.4    OVERVIEW AND OBJECTIVES OF THE SITE DEMONSTRATION  	6

            1.4.1  Site Background	6
            1.4.2  Site Topography and Geology	  10
            1.4.3  Site Hydrogeology	  10
            1.4.4  System Construction	  12
            1.4.5  SITE Demonstration Objectives  	  15
            1.4.6  Predemonstration Activities	  16
            1.4.7  Demonstration Activities	  22

      1.5    KEY CONTACTS 	  25

 2.0   TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS	  27

      2.1    SITE DEMONSTRATION RESULTS 	  27

-------
                               Contents (Cont'd.)
            2.1.1  Methods  . . .	  27
            2.1.2  Results of the Demonstration Background Study	  29
            2.1.3  Evaluation of Objective PI	  JQ

            2.1.4  Evaluation of Objectives S-l and S2	  39
            2.1.5  Evaluation of Objective S-3	   50
            .2,1.6  Evaluation of Objective S-4	.^.		   57
            2.1.7  Data Quality	"  53

3.0    TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS ANALYSIS			61

      3.1    APPLICABLE WASTE	   61
      3.2    FACTORS AFFECTING TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE	 . .	 ]  61

            3.2.1  Hydrogeologic  Characteristics., .......	   61
            3.2.2  Engineered Structures	   62
            3.2.3  Diffusion Characteristics  . . .	   62

      3.3    SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS  	   63

            3.3.1  Site Area and Preparation Requirements		 ,   63
            3.3.2  Climate Requirements	,	   64
            3.3.3  Utility and Supply Requirements	'  64
            3.3.4  Maintenance Requirements	 ,   65
            3.3.5  Support Systems	   65
            3.3.6  Personnel Requirements	   66

      3.4    MATERIAL HANDLING REQUIREMENTS	   66
      3.5    TECHNOLOGY LIMITATIONS .	.	' 67
      3.6    POTENTIAL REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS	\ 67

            3.6.1  Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
                  and Liability Act	   67
            3.6.2  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act	   69
            3.6.3  Clean Water Act		' 70
            3.6.4  Safe Drinking Water Act	   71
            3.6.5  Clean Air Act	] 7!
            3.6.6  Mixed Waste Regulations	   72
            3.6.7  Occupational Safety and Health Act	 72

      3.7    STATE AND COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE	 73
                                        VI

-------
                            Contents (Cont'd.)
4.0    ECONOMIC ANALYSIS		• •  	74

      4.1   FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS  	•		 75
      4.2   ASSUMPTIONS OF THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS		 80

      4.3   COST CATEGORIES	 84

           4.3.1  Site Preparation	*	• • 84
           4.3.2  Permitting and Regulatory	•	 86
           4.3.3  Mobilization and Startup	•	 87
           4.3.4  Capital Equipment	 88
           4.3.5  Labor	; • ••	 89
           4.3.6  Supplies		 90
           4.3.7  Utilities .	 90
           4.3.8  Effluent Treatment and Disposal ...:......	 91
           4.3.9  Residual Waste Shipping and Handling	 9.1
           4.3.10 Analytical Services	• 92
           4.3.11 Equipment Maintenance	 93
           4.3.12 Site Demobilization	 94

      4.4    ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY	,	,	. . 94

 5.0   TECHNOLOGY STATUS AND IMPLEMENTATION . ,	 .	96

 6.0   REFERENCES  				 97


Appendix

 A    SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM THE DEMONSTRATION OF THE FREEZE
      BARRIER TECHNOLOGY: JANUARY 1998 - JULY 1998


Attachment

 A    VENDOR'S CLAIMS FOR THE TECHNOLOGY
                                      vu

-------
                               Figures



 1-1       SITE DEMONSTRATION SYSTEM LAYOUT	      5

 1-2       ENGINEERING DESIGN FOR THE HRE POND	             7

 1-3       PLAN VIEW OF HRE POND SHOWING SITE TOPOGRAPHY AND ON-SITE
          MONITORING WELLS, STANDPIPES, AND PIEZOMETERS		9

 1-4       GENERALIZED GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION OF THE HRE POND ........ 11

 1-5       PLAN VIEW OF SYSTEM CONFIGURATION AND PROFILE VIEW OF
          THERMOPROBE	........          13

 1-6       RECOVERY POINTS AND RHODAMINE WT AND EOSINE OJ DETECTS .... 18

 2-1       INFERRED MIGRATION PATHWAY FOR PHLOXINE B	 31

 2-2       PHLOXINE B RESULTS FOR LOCATION STP10	       , . .  . 32

 2-3      PHLOXINE B RESULTS FOR LOCATION AFIP	.......; 32

 2-4      PHLOXINE B RESULTS FOR LOCATION STPl	    . ....  , 33

 2-5      PHLOXINE B RESULTS FOR LOCATION STP2	 33

 2-6      PHLOXINE B RESULTS FOR LOCATION STP9	 34

 2-7      PHLOXINE B RESULTS FOR LOCATION MW4 (1112)	 34

 2-8      GROSS BETA ACTIVITY IN SURFACE WATER SAMPLES
         COLLECTED FROM WEIR BOX	          	 33

 2-9      HYDROGRAPH FOR STANDPIPEI2	     	40

 2-10      HYDROGRAPH FOR STANDPIPE STP10 	  ... 40

 2-11      HYDROGRAPH FOR MONITORING WELL MW2 (1110)	 41

2-12      OAK RIDGE PRECIPITATION DATA FROM  MARCH
         1997 THROUGH JULY 1998	        ... 41

2-13      EOSINE OJ RESULTS FOR LOCATION STPl ......                 ... 42
                                 VIM

-------
                           Figures (Cont'd.)


2-14      EOSINE OJ RESULTS FOR LOCATION STP2	44

2-15      EOSINE OJ RESULTS FOR LOCATION DLD	45

2-16      EOSINE OJ RESULTS FOR LOCATION MW4 (1112)	46

2-17      EOSINE OJ RESULTS FOR LOCATION STP9	48

2-18      SUBSURFACE TEMPERATURE DATA OVER TIME FOR T-3	51

2-19      SUBSURFACE TEMPERATURE DATA OVER TIME FOR T-4 	. . . .		52

2-20      SUBSURFACE TEMPERATURE DATA OVER TIME FOR T-5	 53

2-21      SUBSURFACE TEMPERATURE DATA OVER TIME FOR T-6	54

2-22 .     SUBSURFACE TEMPERATURE DATA OVER TIME FOR T-7	55

2-23      SUBSURFACE TEMPERATURE DATA OVER TIME FOR T-8	56

4-1       DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL COSTS FOR CASE 1	79

4-2       DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL COSTS FOR CASE 2	79




                                 Tables
1-1       RESULTS OF THE 1996 GROUNDWATER TRACING INVESTIGATION FOR
         RHODAMINE WT	 . . .	20

1-2       RESULTS OF THE 1996 GROUNDWATER TRACING INVESTIGATION
         FOR EOSINE OJ	21

1-3       RECOVERY POINTS AND SAMPLING METHODS	24

2-1       RESULTS OF THE DEMUNSTRAllON GROUNDWATER TRACING INVESTIGATION
         FOR PHLOXINE B	35

3-1       SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS	68

4-1       ESTIMATED COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FREEZE BARRIER
         TECHNOLOGY	76

4-2       COST DISTRIBUTION FOR THE FREEZE BARRIER TECHNOLOGY . .	. . 78

                                   ix

-------
                  Acronyms, Abbreviations and Symbols
 ARAR       Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
 AEA         Atomic Energy Act
 API         Arctic Foundations, Inc.
 bgs          Below ground surface
 CAA         Clean Air Act
 CERCLA     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
 CFR         Code of Federal Regulations
 Cs          Cesium
 CWA        Clean Water Act
 DOE         U.S. Department of Energy
 EPA         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 HPE         Homogeneous reactor experiment
 HVAC       Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
 ITER         Innovative Technology Evaluation Report
 kWh         Kilowatt-hour
 MCL         Maximum contaminant level
 MCLG       Maximum contaminant level goal
 Means        R.S>. Means Company, Inc.
 mg/kg        Milligrams per kilogram
 Mrad/hbur    Milliradian per hour
 MSE         MSB Technology Applications, Inc.
 MSL         Mean sea level
 NPDES       National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
 NPV         Net Present Value
 NRC         Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NRMRL      National Risk Management Research Laboratory
O&M         Operation and maintenance
ORD         U.S. jsPA Office of Research and Development

-------
           Acronyms, Abbreviations and Symbols (Cont'd.)

ORNL        Oak Ridge National Laboratory
OSHA        Occupational Safety and Health Act
OSWER      Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
POTW        Publicly owned treatment works
ppb          parts per billion
PPE          Personal protective equipment
QAPP        Quality assurance project plan
QA/QC       Quality assurance/quality control
RCRA        Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RTD         Resistance temperature detector
SARA        Superfiind Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SITE         Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
Sr           Strontium
TDEC        Tennessee Department of Environmental Conservation
UIC          Underground injection control
VOC         volatile organic compound
                                         XI.

-------
                       Conversion Factors
                      To Convert From
                        To           Multiply By
 Length:
Area:
Volume:
inch
foot
mile
square foot
acre
gallon
cubic foot
centimeter
meter
kilometer
square meter
square meter
liter
cubic meter
2.54
0.305
1.61
0.0929
4,047
3.78
0.0283
Mass:
   pound
kilogram           0.454
Energy:
kilowatt-hour          megajoule          3.60
Power:
  kilowatt           horsepower          1.34
Temperature:          ("Fahrenheit - 32)         "Celsius          0.556
                                 xn

-------
                                Acknowledgments
This report was prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program by Tetra Tech EM Inc. (formerly PRC Environmental
Management, Inc.) under the direction and coordination of Mr. Steve Rock, project manager for the
SITE Program in the National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Special acknowledgment is given to Mr. Ed Yarmak of Arctic Foundations, Inc.; Ms. Elizabeth
Phillips and Dr. Gerilynn Moline of the U.S.  Department of Energy; Gareth Davies of Cambrian
Groundwater Company; and Dr. Sidney Jones and Mr. John Sebastian of the Tennessee Department of
Environmental Conservation for their cooperation and support during the SITE Program demonstration
and during the development of this report.
                                          xm

-------

-------
                                  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Arctic Foundations, Inc. (API), originally developed the freeze barrier technology to give load-bearing
strength to soils during excavation activities and construction of subsurface structures. The technology
of freezing soils has just recently been considered for use as a containment technology to isolate a
contaminant source area. API's freeze barrier technology was demonstrated under the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Program from September 1997 to July 1998 at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Oak Ridge
National Laboratory (ORNL) in O"1- Ridge, Tennessee.

The purpose of this Innovative Technology Evaluation Report (ITER) is to present information that will
assist Superfund decision-makers in evaluating the freeze barrier technology for application at a
particular hazardous waste site. The report provides an introduction to the SITE Program and the
freeze barrier technology and discusses the demonstration objectives and activities (Section 1);
evaluates the technology's effectiveness (Section 2); analyzes key factors pertaining to application of
this technology (Section 3); analyzes the costs of using the technology to impede waterborne
contaminants (Section 4); summarizes the technology's current status (Section 5); and presents a list of
references (Section 6). Analytical data for groundwater and surface water samples collected during the
demonstration are included in the appendix.  Vendor's claims are included in the attachment.

This executive summary briefly summarizes the information discussed in the ITER and evaluates the
technology with respect to the nine criteria used in Superfund feasibility studies.

Technology Description

The use of frozen barrier technology as a hazardous waste control/containment technology typically
involves the installation of an array of freeze pipes (thermoprobes) around and  often beneath a
contaminant source area in an effort to seal off a hazardous waste area, thereby preventing further
migration of contaminants. Thermoprobes are typically installed in a "V or "U" configuration to
ensure complete encapsulation and isolation of a waste source. This type of installation is accomplished
by placing the thermoprobes within closely spaced, directional boreholes.  Standard drilling techniques
                                              ES-1

-------
 are normally used to create boreholes that house the thermoprobes. A "V" or "U" configuration is not
 always necessary or possible. In certain geological settings, where downward migration of
 contaminants is limited by a lithologic unit that is characterized by very low permeability, and when
 such a unit occurs at a shallow depth, thermoprobes may be installed in a vertical position, with the
 bottoms of the thermoprobes anchored in the unit. The arrangement of the thermoprobes to create a
 frozen barrier wall ultimately depends on the topography and underground disposition of the waste to
 be contained. For the freeze barrier wall to be effective, the waste source must be completely
 surrounded by the frozen soil barrier, or a combination of the frozen barrier and other impermeable
 features, limiting and perhaps preventing groundwater movement into and out of the waste source. To
 limit hydraulic loading due to direct infiltration of precipitation, the surface of the enclosed waste area
 is typically sealed. API claims that the technology can contain most known biological, chemical, and
 radioactive contaminants.

 Once installed, the thermoprobes are connected to a refrigeration system through a piping network.  A
 two-phase refrigerant is circulated through the  system to remove heat from the soil, with the heat being
 dissipated to the air.  When the soil matrix next to the pipes reaches 0 °C, soil particles are bonded
 together as soil moisture freezes. Cooling is continued until the frozen region around each
 thermoprobe begins to expand and build outward, coalescing with frozen regions developed around
 other thermoprobes until a continuous impermeable,  frozen soil barrier is formed.

 Overview of the Freeze Barrier Technology SITE Demonstration

 The SITE demonstration of the freeze barrier technology occurred between September 1997 and July
 1998.  The demonstration site was a former surface impoundment known as the Homogeneous Reactor
 Experiment (HRE) Pond in Waste Area Grouping 9 at ORNL.  The HRE pond's surface measured
 roughly 75 feet by 80 feet with sides sloping to a bottom measuring 45 feet by 50 feet. The HRE pond
 served as a retention/settling basin and received low-level radioactive liquid wastes. The HRE pond
also received high levels of fission products and shield  water from a chemical processing system.  Past
sediment and groundwater samples collected from the HRE pond area indicate the presence of
radioactive contaminants including cesium137, strontium90, and tritium.
                                            ES-2

-------
For the SITE Program demonstration, a ground freezing system was constructed around the former
pond to determine the effectiveness of the technology in impeding groundwater flow into and out of the
former pond. The system incorporated an array of thermoprobes that were installed in oversized drill
holes, spaced about 6 feet apart, to form a 75 foot by 80 foot box-like structure around the former
pond.  The thermoprobes were installed vertically to a depth of 30 feet below ground surface and
anchored in bedrock.

The thermoprobe is an innovative closed, two-phase system that can be used in both an active and
passive mode. This active-passive system, called a "hybrid thermosyphon," is commonly used in
temperate locations where reliance on low ambient temperatures (the passive mode application) is not
feasible.  The hybrid thermosyphon system consists of multiple thermoprobes, an active powered
refrigeration unit, a two-phase active/passive refrigerant, a piping system, and a control system. Once
installed, the thermoprobes were connected to the refrigeration unit, where the working fluid was
circulated within the closed system to remove heat from the thermoprobe. For the demonstration,
R-744 (carbon dioxide) was used as the passive refrigerant and R-404A (carbon dioxide) was used as
the active refrigerant in the system. To monitor progress of the freeze barrier wall, a series of
subsurface temperature monitoring points were installed at strategic locations.

The primary objective of the SITE demonstration was as follows:
       Determine the effectiveness of the freeze barrier wall in preventing horizontal groundwater
       flow beyond the limits of the frozen soil barrier through the performance of a groundwater
       tracing investigation using a fluorescent dye
The secondary objectives of the demonstration were as follows:

•      Verify whether flow pathways outside the former pond are still open after placement of the
       frozen soil barrier
•      Evaluate hydrogeologic isolation of the enclosed area before and after placement of the frozen
       soil barrier
•      Monitor development of the frozen soil barrier
•      Document installation and operating parameters of the freeze barrier wall
                                             ES-3

-------
Prior to conducting the groundwater tracing investigation, a background study was conducted to

determine if any dyes still remained in the groundwater system from previous tracer studies and to

identify natural background fluorescence. Following the background study, the dye phloxine B was

injected into a standpipe located in the center of the former pond.  Groundwater and surface samples
were collected and analyzed for phloxine B from February through July 1998. Samples were also

collected and analyzed for the dye cosine OJ which was injected into an upgradient monitoring well.

Groundwater and surface water samples were collected from the same dye recovery points that were
used during a groundwater tracing investigation conducted by EPA Headquarters in 1996.  These

recovery points included a series of monitoring wells, piezometers, standpipes, springs, and a nearby

tributary.  Field measurements of subsurface soil temperatures and groundwater elevations were also
performed to evaluate system performance.


SITE Demonstration Results


The following items summarize the significant results of the SITE demonstration:


•      The frozen soil barrier reached its design thickness of 12 feet about 18 weeks following system
       startup and was maintained at an average power consumption rate of about 300 kilowatt-hours
       per day. Subsurface temperature data collected from temperature monitoring points
       demonstrated that the soil was frozen from the ground surface down to a depth of about 30 feet.
       The total volume of soil frozen is estimated at about 134,000 cubic feet and the total volume of
       soil isolated within the area enclosed by the barrier at about 180,000 cubic feet.

•      Following establishment of the frozen soil barrier, water level data collecteu from within the
       barrier wall showed a drop in the water table elevation and a lack of response to storm  events
       compared to locations outside the former pond, indicating that the barrier wall was effective hi
       impeding recharge into the former pond.

•      Tracer data collected during the demonstration show that the barrier was effective in impeding
       horizontal groundwater flow,  with the exception of a breach in the northwest corner likely
       attributed to a subsurface pipe left in place after the former pond was closed or fractured
       bedrock.

•      The barrier can be expected to maintain its integrity for several weeks following a loss of
       power or refrigeration as demonstrated during the technology demonstration.

•      Results of the  SITE demonstration show that subsurface engineering structures may interfere
       with the formation of a frozen soil barrier and preclude the use of this technology at some sites.
                                             ES-4

-------
Economics

Using information from the SITE demonstration, API, and other sources, an economic analysis was
conducted that examined 12 cost categories for two different applications of the freeze barrier
technology.  The first case (Case  1) presents a cost estimate for extending the use of the freeze barrier
technology at the HRE pond site over a 5-year period. The second case (Case 2) is based on applying
the freeze barrier  technology to a Superfund site over a 10-year period. The cost estimate for Case 2
assumes that site conditions and contaminants were similar to those encountered at the HRE pond site,
with the exception of the size of the containment area. Case 2 assumes that the area requiring
containment is about 900,000 cubic feet.  Based on these assumptions, the total cost per unit volume  of
frozen soil was about $8.30 per cubic foot for Case 1 and $8.50 per cubic foot for Case 2.  The cost
per unit volume of waste isolated decreased with increased size of the containment area which was
about $6.50 per cubic foot for Case 1 and $2.80 per cubic foot for Case 2.  Costs for applications of
the freeze barrier  technology may vary significantly from these estimates, depending on site-specific
factors.

Superfund Feasibility Study Evaluation Criteria for the Freeze Barrier Technology

Table ES-1 briefly discusses an evaluation of the freeze barrier technology with respect to the nine
evaluation criteria used for Superfund feasibility studies when considering remedial alternatives at
Superfund sites (EPA 1988b).
                                            ES-5

-------
                                        TABLE ES-1
               SUPERFUND FEASmBLITY STUDY EVALUATION CRITERIA
                        FOR THE FREEZE BARRIER TECHNOLOGY
           Criterion
                                                       Discussion
 Overall Protection of Human
 Health and the Environment
Compliance with Applicable or
Relevant and Appropriate
Requirement? (ARAR)
Long-Term Effectiveness and
Permanence
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, or Volume Through
Treatment
Short-Term Effectiveness
Implementability
 The technology is expected to protect human health and the
 environment by preventing the further spread of waterborne
 contaminants until appropriate remediation techniques can be
 applied.

 Requires measures to protect workers during drilling and
 installation activities.
 Requires compliance with RCRA storage and disposal
 regulations for hazardous waste and pertinent Atomic Energy
 Act, DOE, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements
 for radioactive or mixed waste.
 Drilling, construction, and operation of a ground freezing
 system may require compliance with location-specific ARARs.
 The treatment provides containment of wastes for as long as
 freezing conditions are maintained or until remediation
 techniques can be applied.
 Periodic review of ground freezing  system performance is
 needed because application of this technology to hazardous
 waste sites with contaminated groundwater is relatively recent.
 A properly installed frozen soil barrier can isolate a
 contaminant source area without excavation, decreasing the
 potential for waste mobilization.
 The speed of development of the barrier wall may vary
 depending on site hydrogeology, topography, soil moisture
 content, soil type, and climate.
 Hydrogeologic conditions should be well-defined prior to
 implementing this technology. The  technology is most easily
 implemented at shallow depths; however, companies that
 employ this technology claim that barriers can be established
 to depths of 1,000 feet or more and  can be used in both vadose
 and saturated zones.
The site must be accessible to standard drilling and other
heavy equipment and delivery vehicles.
The actual space requirements depend on the size of the
containment area and thickness of the barrier wall.	
                                           ES-6

-------
                                    TABLE ES-1 (Continued)

                  SUPERFUND FEASrolLITY STUDY EVALUATION CRITERIA '
                          FOR THE FREEZE BARRIER TECHNOLOGY
          Criterion
                       Discussion
Cost
Community Acceptance
State Acceptance
•   Ice does not degrade or weaken over time and is repairable in
    situ. The barrier wall is simply allowed to melt upon
    completion of containment needs and thermoprobes are
    removed.
•   Subsurface structures may interfere with the formation of a
    frozen soil barrier.
•   The formation of a frozen soil barrier in arid conditions may
    require a suitable method for adding moisture to the soils to
    achieve saturated conditions prior to barrier  wall development.
•   For a frozen soil barrier applied to a site that is 150 feet by
    200 feet in size and operating for 10 years under some of the
    same general conditions observed at the HRE pond site, total
    estimated fixed costs are estimated to be about $1,903,700.
    Annual operating and maintenance costs, including those for
    utilities, supplies, analytical services, labor,  and equipment
    maintenance are estimated to be about $63,200.
•   This criterion is generally addressed in the record of decision
    (ROD) after community responses are received during the
    public comment period. However, because communities are
    not expected to be exposed to harmful levels of contaminants,
    noise, or fugitive emissions, community acceptance of the
    technology is expected to be high.
•   This criterion is generally addressed in the ROD; state
    acceptance of the technology will likely depend on the long-
    term effectiveness of the technology.	
Note:
     EPA. 1988b. CERCLA Compliance with Other Environmental Laws: Interim Final. OSWER.  EPA/540/G-89/006.
    August.
                                            ES-7

-------

-------
                            1.0    INTRODUCTION

This section describes the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program and the
Innovative Technology Evaluation Report (ITER); provides an overview and application of frozen soil
barriers; presents background information on the Arctic Foundations, Inc. (API), freeze barrier
technology; provides an overview and objectives of the SITE demonstration; and lists key contacts.

1.1    DESCRIPTION OF SITE PROGRAM AND REPORTS

This section provides information about (1) the purpose, history, and goals of the SITE Program, and
(2) the reports used to document SITE demonstration results.

1.1.1   Purpose, History, and Goals of the SITE Program

The primary purpose of the SITE Program is to advance the development and demonstration, and
thereby establish the commercial availability, of innovative treatment technologies applicable to
Superfund and other hazardous waste sites. The SITE Program was established by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) and Office of Research and Development (ORD) in response to the  Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), which recognizes the need for an alternative or innovative
treatment technology research and demonstration program. The SITE Program is administered by
ORD's National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) in Cincinnati, Ohio, The overall
goal of the SITE Program is to carry out a program of research, evaluation, testing, development, and
                                                                                     !
demonstration of alternative or innovative treatment technologies that can be used in response actions to
achieve more permanent protection of human health and welfare and the environment.

The SITE Program consists of four component programs:  (1) the Demonstration Program, (2) the
Emerging Technology Program,  (3) the Monitoring and Measurement Technologies Program, and
(4) the Technology Transfer Program.  This ITER was prepared under the SITE Demonstration
Program.  The objective of the Demonstration Program is to provide reliable performance and cost data
on innovative technologies so that potential users can assess a given technology's suitability for a
                                             1

-------
 specific site cleanup.  To produce useful and reliable data, demonstrations are conducted at hazardous
 waste sites or under conditions that closely simulate actual waste site conditions. The program's
 rigorous quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures provide for objective and carefully
 controlled testing of field-ready technologies. Innovative technologies chosen for a SITE demonstration
 must be pilot- or full-scale applications and must offer some advantage over existing technologies.

 Implementation of the SITE Program is a significant, ongoing effort involving ORD, OSWER, various
 EPA regions, and private business concerns, including technology developers and parties responsible
 for site remediation. Cooperative agreements between EPA and the innovative technology developer
 establish responsibilities for conducting the demonstrations and evaluating the technology.  The
 developer is typically responsible for demonstrating the technology at the selected site and is expected
 to pay any costs for the transport, operation, and removal of related equipment. EPA is typically
 responsible for project planning, site preparation, technical assistance support, sampling and analysis,
 QA/QC, report preparation, information dissemination, and transport and disposal of treated waste
 materials.

 1.1.2   Documentation of SITE Demonstration Results

 The results of each SITE demonstration are reported in an ITER.  Information presented in the ITER is
 intended to assist Superfund decision-makers in evaluating specific technologies for a particular clean-
up situation.  The ITER represents a critical step in the development and commercialization of a
technology.  The ITER discusses the effectiveness and applicability of the technology, summarizes the
overall data quality, and analyzes costs associated with its application. The technology's effectiveness
is evaluated based on data collected during the SITE demonstration and from other case studies. The
applicability of the technology is discussed in terms of waste and site characteristics that could affect
technology performance, material handling requurements, technology limitations, and other factors for
application of the technology.

-------
1.2     OVERVIEW AND APPLICATION OF FROZEN SOU BARRIERS

Artificially frozen soil barriers have been used for over 100 years in the mining and construction
industries (API 1998).  The technology has been used in a variety of settings, including dam, tunnel,
and highway construction. The process has recently been considered as a control and containment
technology hi the hazardous waste remediation industry.  With this type of application, contaminants
are contained in situ with native soils serving as a subsurface barrier. In theory, a frozen soil barrier is
impermeable to aqueous phase waste  and can thus provide subsurface containment for a variety of sites,
including underground tanks, nuclear waste sites, groundwater plumes, burial trenches, in situ waste
treatment areas, and ponds.  Each application is site-specific and must take into account a number of
factors that include, but are not limited to, waste type, topography, overall site hydrogeology, soil
moisture content, subsurface structures, soil types, and thermal conductivity.

rhermoprobes may be installed in a "V" or "U" configuration to ensure complete encapsulation and
isolation of a waste source (API 1998). This type of installation is accomplished by placing the
thermoprobes  within closely spaced directional boreholes. Standard drilling techniques are normally
used to create  boreholes that house the thermoprobes. In certain geological settings, where downward
migration of contaminants is limited by a very low permeability clay or bedrock unit, and when such a
unit occurs at  a shallow depth, thermoprobes can be installed in a vertical position with the bottoms of
the pipes anchored in the unit, which acts as a basal bottom confining layer.

The arrangement of the thermoprobes to create a frozen barrier wall ultimately depends on the
topography and underground disposition of the waste material.  For a freeze barrier wall to be
effective, the waste source must be completely surrounded by the frozen soil barrier, thereby
preventing groundwater movement into and out of the waste source.  To limit hydraulic loading due to
direct infiltration of precipitation, the surface of the enclosed waste area is sealed. Once installed, the
thermoprobes are connected to a refrigeration system by a distributive manifold.  A two-phase
refrigerant is circulated through the system to remove heat from the soil, with the heat being dissipated
to the air.  When the soil matrix next to the pipes reaches 0  °C, soil particles are bonded together as
soil moisture freezes.  Cooling is continued until the frozen region around each pipe begins to expand
and build outward, coalescing with frozen regions developed around other pipes until a continuous,

-------
 impermeable frozen soil barrier is formed. Barrier wall thickness and temperature will vary depending
 on site conditions.
 1.3     AFI FREEZE BARRIER TECHNOLOGY

 For the SITE demonstration, AFI used an innovative thermoprobe to demonstrate the capabilities of its
 freeze barrier technology. A standard AFI thermoprobe removes heat from the soil by acting as a
 thermosyphon.  A thermosyphon removes heat passively, which means that soil can be frozen or
 maintained in the frozen state without the need for an external supply of energy or power.  The
 thermosyphons function using a two-phase working fluid.  The working fluid is contained in the
 thermoprobe, which is partially buried.  In cold climates, particularly in permafrost regions,
 thermosyphons are used to maintain a frozen subgrade for foundation stability purposes.  In these
 situations, the thermosyphons operate in a passive mode. In this case,  the aboveground portion is
 subjected to cold ambient air, which cools and condenses the working fluid.  The condensate flows by
 gravity to below ground level, where it encounters a warmer regime, warms, vaporizes and rises
 upward again to repeat the cycle.

 AFI used a closed two-phase system that can be used in an active-passive mode and is applicable when
 the ambient air temperature is above freezing. Such active-passive systems are called "hybrid
 thermosyphons" and are often used in more temperate locations where  reliance on low ambient air
 temperatures (passive mode application) is not feasible. API's ground freezing system deployed at the
 U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) homogeneous reactor
 experiment (HRE) pond  site included 50 thermoprobes; two above-grade, 30-horsepower refrigeration
 units; a two-phase working fluid; an interconnecting piping network; and an instrument
 control system. The ground freezing system used during the SITE demonstration is shown in Figure
 1-1.

 For the "active/passive"  operating tnermoprobes, carbon dioxide in the bottom of each thermoprobe
 functions as the two-phase working fluid to move heat against gravity.  As the surrounding soil warms
the thermoprobe walls, the liquid phase of the carbon dioxide boils and the vapor rises to  the top of the
thermoprobe. At the top of the thermoprobe, a heat exchanger coil connected to an abovegrade

-------
l/l
                                                                         MW2
                                                                        •"(1110)
                                                                           W898
                                                                         STP5
         *
W67
 ,(1111)
 TMW3
-REFRIGERATION UNITS
                                                                     INSTRUMENTATION
                                                                     AND SYSTEM
                                                                     CONTROL SHELTER
                                                                                                         WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE
                                                                                                         LIMNS OF ASPHALt CAP
                                                                                                         FORMER TOP OF  POND
                                                                                                         FORMER POND BOTTOM
                                                                                                         THERMOPROBE
                                                                                                         TEMPERATURE MONITORING POINTS
                                     +M
                                    >-STP,I
                                                                                                            MW
                                       Monitoring Well
                                       Stondpipo
                                       Piezometer
     SOURCE; MODIFIED FROM EPA QAPP 1998
                                                                              NOT TO  SCALE
                                                                                             ARCTIC FOUNDATIONS, INC. - HRE POND SITE
                                                                                                  OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
                                                                                                      OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE
                                      FIGURE M
                            SITE DEMONSTRATION  SYSTEM
                                LAYOUT  AT HRE POND
                        BJTetra  Tech  EM  inc.

-------
 refrigeration unit through a copper piping network cools and condenses the carbon dioxide vapor back
 to its liquid phase. The liquid carbon dioxide flows down the inside walls of the thermoprobes,
 drawing heat energy from the surrounding soil, again vaporizing the liquid, and the cycle repeats.
 Thermal expansion valves at each thermoprobe modulate to allow flow of carbon dioxide from the
 refrigeration unit, through the heat exchanger coil.  Each expansion valve is controlled by a pressurized
 bulb attached to the suction side of its respective heat exchanger coil, opening whenever the suction
 side temperature is above -32 °C. There are no other moving components in the thermoprobe
 structure.

 Each refrigeration unit consists  of two motor/compressors hi parallel and two fan coils in parallel.
 During the initial freeze-down,  both units operated simultaneously to increase heat removal from the
 soil surrounding the thermoprobes.  Once the frozen soil barrier reached an average thickness of 12
 feet, the units were set up to operate for alternating periods of 24 hours each, sufficient to maintain
 barrier design thickness.

 1.4     OVERVIEW AND OBJECTIVES OF THE SITE DEMONSTRATION

 This section provides site background, site topography and geology, hydrogeology, system
 construction, SITE Program demonstration objectives, and predemonstration and demonstration
 activities.

 1.4.1    HRE Pond Site Background

 The SITE Program demonstration of the freeze barrier technology was conducted over a 5-month
period from February to My 1998.  The technology was demonstrated at DOE's ORNL Waste Area
Grouping 9 area in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.  A former unlined surface impoundment known as the HRE
pond was the specific location for the technology demonstration.  When it was operational, the HRE
pond's surface measured about 75 feet by 80 feet, with sides sloping to a bottom measuring 45 feet by
50 feet (EPA 1998). The bottom of the  HRE pond was reportedly about 15 feet below ground surface
(bgs) (EPA 1998). Figure  1-2 shows the original engineering diagram for the HRE pond.

-------
                                \   «\    .   !j /
                                  \   \  !!i?
                           \      \   \.    I'h
SOURCE: MODIFIED FROM OOE 1998o
                                                ARCTIC FOUNDATIONS, INC. - HRE POND SITE
                                                    OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
                                                        OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE
                                                            FIGURE 1-2
                                                ENGINEERING DRAWING OF  HRE POND
                                                 SHOWING INFLUENT  AND EFFLUENT
                                                   PIPES AND DRAINAGE DITCHES
                                                    Tetra Tech  EM

-------
From 1958 through 1961, the HRE pond served as a retention/settling basin for low-level radioactive
liquid wastes with a radioactivity level equal to or less then 1,000 counts per minute (cpm). High
levels of fission products from a chemical processing system and shield water containing about 340
curies (Ci) of beta-gamma activities were generated hi a reactor tank in the HRE Building (7561); an
influent line carrying these wastes reportedly entered the northwest corner of the HRE pond (DOE
1984). Contaminants from these waste streams were flocculated hi the HRE pond, and treated water
from the pond was piped and discharged to a weir box located about 40 feet southeast of the pond.  The
water was then released from the weir box to a small nearby tributary.  A series of drainage ditches
were also located on the north, south, and west sides of the HRE pond to contain any overflow from
the waste streams (DOE 1998a; EPA 1998). In 1970, the HRE pond was (1) closed and backfilled with
off-site soil containing shale fragments, (2) combined with sodium borate, and (3) capped with 8 niches
of crushed limestone followed by an asphalt cap (EPA 1998). Figure 1-2 shows the influent and
effluent lines along with the drainage ditches, which are identified as troughs.

In 1986, DOE conducted a soil and groundwater characterization study in and around the former pond
to determine the  concentrations of radiological contaminants (DOE 1986). As part of these activities,
six soil borings were advanced and a series of monitoring wells, piezometers, and standpipes were
installed (see Figure 1-3). The monitoring wells, piezometers, and standpipes were installed at depths
ranging from 10  to 40 feet bgs.  The standpipes are 3-inch-diameter steel pipes with 1-inch-diameter
holes drilled along the length of the pipe. Analytical data from the soil borings indicated that the
primary radiological contaminants detected in the former pond were cesium137 (Cs) and strontium90 (Sr).
A soil boring installed hi the northwest comer of the former pond yielded the highest radiological level,
with a portion of the core reading about  100 millirems at a depth near the top of the former pond (DOE
1998a).  Similar  soil patterns were encountered hi each borehole installed within the former pond. The
stratification of each borehole consisted of about 4 inches of asphalt at the surface, about 1  foot of
crushed limestone below the asphalt cap, followed by 13 feet of clay and shale fragments mixed with
fill material down to an elevation of 803 feet above mean sea level (MSL), which is consistent with the
bottom of the former pond (DOE 1998b). A plan view of the HRE pond showing site topography and
on-site monitoring wells, standpipes, and piezometers is shown hi Figure 1-3.

-------
                                                                SCALE- 1" * 30'
                        FORMER TOP OF POND
                        FORMER POND BOTTOM
                        LIMITS OF ASPHALT CAP
                        10-FOOT CONTOUR LINE
                        2-FOOT CONTOUR LINE
                        GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION LINE
ARCTIC FOUNDATIONS.  INC. - HRE POND SITE
    OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
         OAK RIDGE. TENNESSEE
             FIGURE 1-3
PLAN VIEW  OF HRE POND SHOWING
  SITE TOPOGRAPHY AND ON-SITE
  MONITORING WELLS,  STANDPIPES,
         AND PIEZOMETERS
                       MW = Monitoring Well
                       STP, I  - Standplpe
                       W - Piezometer
                                                         Tetra Tech
SOURCE: MODIFIED FROM EPA 1998

-------
 1.4.2   Site Topography and Geology

 The site is located in Melton Valley about 2,000 feet southeast of the Copper Creek fault.  The HRE
 pond was excavated in clay and weathered sedimentary rock of the Conasauga Group.  Figure 1-4
 (cross-section line A-A' from Figure 1-3) shows that the former pond is situated on a fairly steep slope.
 The weathered sedimentary rock is underlain by bedrock units of the Conasauga Group at an elevation
 about 790 feet above MSL. The two units include the Rogersville shale and the underlying Friendship
 formation.  The Rogersville shale consists of interbedded mudstones and calcareous and noncalcareous
 siltstones. The Friendship formation is characterized by interbedded limestone and shale.  Regional
 strike in the area is 45 to 60 degrees east of north.  Bedding dips locally from 30 to 40 degrees to the
 southeast (DOE 1986; 1998b).

 The thickness of the overlying soil ranges from less then 1 foot to 9 feet and includes clayey soil mixed
 with shale fragments introduced by backfill material.  Beneath the soil is a leached saprolitic zone that
 extends down to the water table in the site vicinity. A generalized geologic cross-section of the HRE
 pond is presented in Figure 1-4.

 1.43   Site Hydrogeology

 The hydraulic gradient in the vicinity of the HRE pond trends south to southeast toward the on-site
 tributary that flows to Melton Branch. However, available information indicates that bedrock is
 fractured and that fractures in part control groundwater flow in the former pond area (DOE 1998b).
 Past studies at ORNL also indicate  that the direction of groundwater movement is affected by the
 intrinsic permeability of the strata in bedrock. The Conasauga Group is reportedly anisotropic with
 respect to hydraulic conductivity. Therefore, groundwater flow is expected to occur at some acute
 angle to the hydraulic gradient and strongly affected by bedding planes and joint orientations.  Past
 studies at other ORNL sites suggest that groundwater flow in the overlying saprolite is also  controlled
 in part by fractures.  DOE has reported that groundwater flow may be controlled by the gravel layer
underlying the asphalt cap that covers the former pond during periods of high groundwater elevation.
The groundwater transport zones are also reportedly in hydraulic communication. Other anthropogenic
conditions may also affect groundwater flow on site.  Water level data collected from on-site
standpipes, piezometers, and monitoring wells indicate that groundwater at the site exhibits significant

                                              10

-------

                   I '  I ' I '  I ' I  ' I '  I ' I   I   I  I   I   '  I   I  . t . I . I  . I
10 i—
5  —
 0
                  ,    ,   ABBREVIATIONS
       |    I    |   I    I   MW - Monitoring Well
                                                 LEGEND
                                                     Clay and
      '	'	'	'	'	:„  S-- Top of Sand Pack    r^T. '      *
     0  Approximate   50  T - Top of Well Screen    fT-. :>'•! Saprolitlc zone
       Scale in Feet       B - Bottom of Well Screen"   "*
                            MSL = Mean Sea Level
SOURCE: MODIFIED FROM DOE 1986 AND DOE 1998a
               NOTE
               Geologic conditions were
shale fragments   extrapolated from on-site
               boring logs. Actual
               conditions  may vary
Weathered shale   significantly from those
Shale bedrock    dePIcted °" thls  fl9ure-
                                                                                           ARCTIC FOUNDATIONS, INC. -  HRE POND SITE
                                                                                               OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
                                                                                                    OAK RIDGE. TENNESSEE
                                                                                                        FIGURE 1-4
                                                                                                 GENERALIZED GEOLOGIC
                                                                                             CROSS-SECTION  OF  HRE  POND
                                                                                              ITetra  Tech  EM  Inc.

-------
 responsiveness to rainfall and storm events.  The average depth to groundwater is about 6 to 10 feet bgs
 in the site vicinity (DOE 1986; EPA 1998).

 1.4.4   System Construction

 Prior to system  construction, an electromagnetic geophysical survey of the former pond was conducted
 to identify objects that could potentially disrupt drilling and installation activities.  The survey identified
 three anomalies, one of which extended through the northwest portion of the former pond that was
 consistent with a subsurface pipe, as shown in Figure 1-2.  The two other anomalies were interpreted as
 possible buried scrap metal in the northwest and southeast corners of the former pond (DOE 1996;
 1998b). API's ground freezing system was constructed from May through September 1997. The system
 was constructed around the top of the former pond, just southeast of the HRE building (building 7500).
 A categorical exclusion was granted under the National Environmental Policy Act for construction of the
 freeze barrier system, indicating that the project would not significantly affect the surrounding
 environment.

 A total of 58 boreholes were drilled vertically, using solid-stem auger and air rotary drilling methods, to
 a depth of about 30 feet bgs  into the underlying bedrock (DOE 1998a).  Fifty thermoprobes, spaced
 about 6 feet apart, were installed into the boreholes with the base of each thermoprobe anchored in
 bedrock.  The annular space around each thermoprobe was then filled with quartz sand.  API also
 installed a piezometer, identified as AFIP on Figure 1-5, at a depth of about 7 feet bgs within the
 confines of the barrier wall, just southeast of standpipe 12.  Figure 1-5 shows the system configuration in
plan view and a profile view of API's thennoprobe.

Eight temperature monitoring points (T-l through T-8) were installed in the remaining eight boreholes.
using the same general procedures used to install the thennoprobes. The temperature monitoring points
were placed at strategic locations to monitor development of the frozen barrier wall (see Figure 1-5).
Temperature monitoring points were set inside protective casings to protect the instruments and allow
                                               12

-------
                                                                                   Active System Suction Un»
                                                                                    Active System Uquld Line
                                                                                     Passive Refrigerant Valve
                                                                                Waterproofing Membrane.
                                                                                                                  Top Pressure Cap of Thetmaprobe
                                                                                                                  Membrane Boot
                                                                                                                  Lugs on Thermoprobe
                                                                                                                    Riser Clamp
                                                                    New Extruded
                                                              Polystyrene Insulation
                                                                 Existing Asphalt Cap
                                                     REFRIGERATION UNITS
                                                   INSTRUMENTATION
                                                   AND SYSTEM
                                                   CONTROL SHELTER
                                                                                                                 Ekutomeric Sealant
                                                                                                                 Heat Exchanger CoB
                                                                                     Existing Crushed
                                                                                     Limestone Bass
  LEGEND
         4-
         4-
      PLAN VIEW OF
 SYSTEM CONFIGURATION
        NOT TO SCALE

WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE
LIMITS OF ASPHALT CAP
FORMER TOP OF POND
FORMER POND  BOTTOM
THERMOPROBE
TEMPERATURE MONITORING POINTS
MW - Monitoring Well
STP. I - Stondplpe
W  - Piezometer
                                                                                                PROFILE VIEW OF
                                                                                                 THERMOPROBE
                                                                                                   NOT TO SCALE
SOURCE: MODIFIED FROM EPA 1998
                                                                               NOT  TO  SCALE
                                                                                                ARCTIC FOUNDATIONS. INC. -  HRE POND SITE
                                                                                                     OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
                                                                                                          OAK RIDGE,  TENNESSEE
               FIGURE 1-5
PLAN VIEW OF SYSTEM  CONFIGURATION
 AND PROFILE VIEW  OF  THERMOPROBE
     "Tetra  Tech  EM  Inc.

-------
replacement without having to redrill.  The temperature sensors used for the temperature monitoring
points are thermistors, which are reportedly stable resistance thermometers commonly used for soil
temperature monitoring.  Temperature monitoring points T-l through T-4 have eight sensors each and
are positioned to collect temperature readings at the top and bottom of the insulation material. Points
T-l through T-4 were installed following installation of the thermoprobes and have sensors positioned to
collect temperature readings at 2.5, 7.5, 12.5, 17.5, 22.5, and 30.0 feet bgs. Temperature monitoring
points T-5 through T-8 have seven sensors each, positioned to collect temperature readings at ground
surface, 2.5, 7.5, 12.5, 17.5, 22.5, and 30.0 feet bgs.

Additionalrsubsurface temperature data were collected from platinum resistance temperature  detectors
(RTD) that were installed on the external surface about midway down (15 feet bgs) each thermoprobe.
The RTDs provide an indication of the operating temperature of each thermoprobe, and thus provided a
means for API to evaluate thermoprobe performance. API then wired each thermistor and RTD to a
datalogger for continuous collection of subsurface temperature data. The stored data were accessed
either remotely by modem or were downloaded with a portable computer.  Subsurface temperature data
are discussed hi detail hi Section 2.1.4.

Following placement of thermoprobes and temperature monitoring points, cracks and voids hi the asphalt
cap were filled with an asphalt patching material. An extruded polystyrene insulation material was then
placed over the asphalt surface extending 10 feet on each side of the centerline of the thermoprobes, and
cut to fit securely around the thermoprobes and temperature monitoring points. A waterproofing
membrane was placed over the insulation to prevent infiltration of rain or surface water.  Concrete
pavers were placed along the perimeter of the membrane and on other centralized locations to prevent
uplift from wind.  Once the waterproof membrane cured,  the two refrigeration units, an abovegrade
copper piping network, and the electrical connection were installed.

The two refrigeration units, each connected to 25 thermoprobes, were configured so that every other
thermoprobe hi the array surrounding the former pond was plumbed to the same refrigeration unit.
Before the system was charged with two-phase refrigerant, the system underwent pressure testing to
ensure that there were no leaks or blockages.  The  ground freezing system was activated hi mid-
                                                14

-------
September 1997 and the frozen soil barrier reached its design thickness of 12 feet about 18 weeks
following system startup.

1.4.5   SITE Demonstration Objectives

EPA established primary and secondary objectives for the SITE demonstration of me freeze barrier
technology.  The objectives were based on EPA's understanding of the freeze barrier technology, SITE
demonstration program goals, and input from AH. The objectives were selected to provide overlapping
evaluation capacity and to provide potential users of the freeze barrier technology with technical
information to determine if the technology is applicable to other contaminated sites.  The SITE
demonstration was designed to address one primary objective and four secondary objectives for
evaluation of the freeze barrier technology.

Primary Objective

The following was the primary (P) objective of the technology demonstration:

    •    PI - Determine the effectiveness of the freeze barrier technology in preventing horizontal
         groundwater flow beyond the limits of the frozen soil barrier through the performance of a
         groundwater tracing investigation using a fluorescent dye

The primary objective was established to evaluate the frozen soil barrier's ability to control
hydrogeologic conditions in the former pond.  The barrier wall was evaluated through the performance
of a groundwater tracing investigation that included injecting a fluorescent dye into standpipe 12, located
in the center of the former pond, and monitoring for  the dye at groundwater and surface water recovery
points located within and outside the former pond.

Secondary Objectives

The following were the secondary (S) objectives of the demonstration:
     SI - Verify whether flow pathways outside the former pond were still open after placement of the
     freeze barrier wall
     S2 - Evaluate the hydrogeologic isolation of the enclosed former pond area before and after
     placement of the freeze barrier wall
                                                15

-------
 •   S3 - Monitor development of the freeze barrier wall
 •   S4 - Document installation and operating parameters of the freeze barrier wall

 Secondary objective SI was evaluated through the performance of a second groundwater tracing
 investigation that included adding a second fluorescent dye to upgradient monitoring well MWI (1109)
 and monitoring for its presence at groundwater and surface water recovery points within and outside the
 barrier wall. Objective S2 was evaluated through a comparison of water level data obtained from
 standpipe 12 and monitoring wells MWI (1109) and MW2 (1110).  Objective S3 was evaluated by
 collecting subsurface temperature data from a  series of temperature monitoring points located within and
 outside the barrier wall in the southeast corner of the containment area.  Objective S4 was established to
 provide data for estimating costs associated with use of the freeze barrier technology, and was based on
 observations made during the demonstration, demonstration data, and data provided by AH.

 1.4.6   Predemonstration Activities at the HRE Pond

 Predemonstration activities at the HRE pond site,  which included a groundwater tracing investigation
 conducted by EPA in 1996 and two helium gas tracer studies conducted by DOE in 1996 and 1997, are
 discussed below.

 1996 EPA Groundwater Tracing Investigation

 EPA conducted a groundwater tracing investigation at the HRE pond site between June 6 and August
 16, 1996. The investigation was conducted to  validate (1) the suitability of the two injection points
 (monitoring  well MWI [1109] and standpipe 12) proposed for use during the demonstration groundwater
tracing investigation; (2) the functionality of the dyes prior to establishment  of the barrier wall; and (3)
to identify viable groundwater and surface water sampling locations  for the demonstration groundwater
tracing investigation. The investigation was also used as a baseline for comparing dye transport patterns
to those observed during the demonstration groundwater tracing investigation after the barrier wall was
in place.
                                              16

-------
Prior to the investigation, EPA initiated a background study to determine if the fluorescent dyes under
consideration for the groundwater tracing investigation already occurred at detectable concentrations in
the vicinity of the former pond.  Dyes exhibiting characteristics similar to natural background
fluorescence, or commercial dyes detected in the groundwater system would not be used for the
groundwater tracing investigation. A background study was initiated on May 17, 1996, and included
collection of water and charcoal samples at 20 surface water and monitoring well recovery points in the
vicinity of the HRE pond. Figure 1-6 shows the specific groundwater and surface water recovery points
selected for the study.  The background study took place over a 3-week period so that three samples
were collected from each location. After collection, the samples were analyzed for detectable
concentrations of frequently used fluorescent dyes and natural background fluorescence. The dye
uranine was detected at the following recovery points: SI, S3, S4, S5, S6, and S7 (EPA 1996).

Two dyes, rhodamine WT and eosine OJ, were  selected for use during the groundwater tracing
investigation because the dyes were not detected in samples collected during the background study.  On
June 7, 1996, 9.01 X 102 grams of rhodamine WT dye was injected into monitoring well MW1 (1109)
located hi the northwest corner of the pond, and 9.89 X 102 grams of eosine OJ dye was injected into
standpipe 12 located near the center of the asphalt cap covering the former pond  (see Figure 1-6). Both
dyes were flushed into the surrounding aquifer by a slow injection of deionized water over a 5-day
period. A few days after dye injection, Oak Ridge received several inches of rain, which also helped to
mobilize the dyes (EPA 1996).

During the groundwater tracing investigation, charcoal packets and water samples were collected from
the same locations used during the background study. Rhodamine WT was detected at 16 recovery
points and eosine OJ was detected at 12 recovery points (EPA 1996).  Recovery points DLD, SBC, S3,
S4, S5, S6,  and S7 showed detectable concentrations of rhodamine WT tracer between 2 and 5 days
following dye injection.  Transport of rhodamine WT was also evident at locations MW2 (1110), MW3
(1111), and MW4 (1112) 15 days following dye injection.  Rhodamine WT was detected at recovery
point STSS 22  days after dye injection. At recovery points STP2, STP9, STP10, W898, and W674,
                                               17

-------
                        RHODAMINE WT INJECTION POINT
                              STP1
                                I
  GROUND
  WATER
   o
   e
 	  FORMER POND BOTTOM
	  LIMITS OF ASPHALT CAP
 SURFACE
  WATER,

       RECOVERY POINT

       RHODAMINE WT DETECTIONS

       RHODAMINE WT AND
       EOSINE OJ DETECTIONS
                             x
                  X
SOURCE: MODinED FROM EPA 1998
                               1.5*     0     iff
                                          •
                                  SCALE:  1""- 30'
                                                      ARCTIC FOUNDATIONS, INC. - HRE POND SITE
                                                          OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
                                                      	     OAK RIDGE. TENNESSEE
           FIGURE™
RHODAMINE WT  AND  EOSINE  OJ
  TRACER  RECOVERY  POINTS
 Tetra  Tech EM  Inc.
                                           18

-------
rhodamine WT was detected at times ranging between 39 and 50 days following dye injection (EPA
1996). Figure 1-6 shows the locations where rhodamine WT was recovered. Table 1-1 presents
elapsed time data for rhodamine WT at each recovery point and the initial concentration.

Eosine OJ tracer was detected at times ranging from 15 to 22 days following dye injection at recovery
points MW2 (1110), MW3 (1111), and MW4 (1112).  Thirty-nine to 50 days following dye injection,
transport of eosine OJ was also evident at recovery points STP2, STP9, STP10, SBC, W898, and
W674. At recovery points S3, S5, and OLD, eosine OJ arrived at times ranging from 50 to 56 days
following dye injection (EPA 1996). Figure 1-6 shows the locations where eosine OJ was recovered.
Table 1-2 presents elapsed time data for eosine OJ at each recovery point and the initial concentration.
Days to peak concentration and the peak concentration value also are provided.  The eosine OJ results
suggested that a preferential pathway may exist on the north side of the former pond because eosine OJ
was detected in water samples collected from the small tributary sooner then the recovery points closest
to the eosine OJ injection point, MW1 (1109).  The eosine OJ bypassed on-site monitoring wells,
standpipes, and piezometers and discharged directly  into the tributary within 2 to 4 days following
injection.  The 1996 groundwater tracing investigation also showed that groundwater transport out of
the former pond occurs in a radially distributed pattern and that the pond is hydraulically connected to
the surrounding soils.

DOE Helium Gas Tracing Investigations

Following EPA's groundwater tracing investigation,  DOE conducted two independent gas tracing
investigations using helium in the summer of 1996 and winter of 1997.  The results of DOE's
investigations confirmed that transport out of the former pond occurs in a radially distributed pattern.
DOE also reported that transport out of the former pond occurs under ambient conditions and not just
under forced-gradient conditions (water injection) as was the case with the groundwater tracing
                                              19

-------
                                   TABLE 1-1

                 RESULTS OF THE 1996 GROUNDWATER TRACING
                      INVESTIGATION FOR RHODAMINE WT
Recovery
Point
SBC
S7
S6
S5
S3
S4
DLD
MW2 (1110)
MW3(1111)
MW4(1112)
STSS
STP10
W674
W898
STP2
STP9
Initial Detection
(days)'
2
4
4
4
4
4
5
15
15
15
22
39-43
43
43
43
50
Peak Detection
(days)"
7.81
71.00
14.91
14.91
14.91
14.91
7.81
14.91
71
36.21
27.52
42.60
63.90
63.90
56.09
56.09
Initial
Concentration
(ppb)
1.20e-05
l.OOe-01
1.06e-01
1.12e-01
2.95e-01
1.16e-01
3.70e+01
2.83e-01
6.48e-03
8.81e-03
9.60e-04
Not Determined"
8.45e-02
1.78e-01
1.20e-05
1.20e-07
Peak
Concentration
(ppb)
3.27e-01
2.15e+01
7.86e+00
5.41e+00
1.24e+01
9.09e+00
8.36+01
2.83e-01
1.76e-02
1.20e-02
5.50e-03
4.90e-02
2.91e-01
3.38e-01
1.59e-02
3.63e-02
Notes:

ppb parts per billion
a Number of days following dye injection
b Initial concentration could not be determined due to the sampling frequency
                                      20

-------
                                   TABLE 1-2

                     RESULTS OF THE 1996 GROUNDWATER
                    TRACING INVESTIGATION FOR EOSINE OJ
Recovery
Point
MW2(1110)
MW4 (1112)
MW3(1111)
W674
STP10
W898
STP2
SBC
STP9
S5
S3
DLD
Initial Detection
(days)"
15
22
22
39-43
39-43
39-43
43
43-50
50
50-56
50-56
56
Peak Detection
(days)8
42.6
36.21
42.6
42.6
42.6
42.6
63.9
49.7
63.9
55.38
55.38
71
Initial
Concentration
(ppb)
1.10e-02
5.29e-03
4.04e-02
Not Determined"
Not Determined1"
Not Determined"
1.10e-05
Not Determined"
1.10e-05
Not Determined"
Not Determined"
1.64e+01
Peak
Concentration
(ppb)
6.71e-02
2.68e+00
1.32e-01
1.25e+00
1.79e-01
4.98e+00
2.03e+00
4.19e-01
2.85e-02
5.676+00
1.656-01
4.29e+01
Notes:

ppb parts per billion
* Number of days following dye injection
b Initial concentration could not be determined due to the sampling frequency
                                       21

-------
 investigation (DOE 1998b).  Based on available information, including the geology ot the former pond
 area, the construction of the former pond, and the subsequent backfilling and capping of the former
 pond, it appears that multiple groundwater transport pathways from the former pond may exist.  These
 transport pathways include transport from the bottom of the former pond through shallow fractured
 bedrock; transport through the fill material (clay and shale fragments) and gravel layer overlying the
 former pond; and transport through the walls of the former pond, by abandoned influent/effluent pipes
 (DOE1998a).

 1.4.7   Demonstration Activities at the HRE Pond

 The effectiveness of API's freeze barrier technology was evaluated over an 11-month period by collecting
 independent data. In general, three types of data were obtained: (1) analytical tracer data from
 groundwater, surface water, and charcoal packet samples collected within and outside the freeze barrier
 wall;  (2) water level data from on-site monitoring wells, standpipes, and piezometers; and (3) subsurface
 temperature data from eight temperature monitoring points.  Data collection procedures for the
 demonstration were specified in (1) the EPA-approved quality assurance project plan (QAPP) written
 specifically for the freeze barrier technology demonstration, and (2) EPA's guidance for applying dye
 tracing techniques (EPA 1988c; 1998).

 This SITE project incorporated the assistance  and expertise of SITE Program individuals and participants
 outside the normal SITE Program umbrella. These participants included DOE and DOE's subcontractor,
 AH, Cambrian Groundwater Company, and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
 (TDEC).
In January 1998, a demonstration background study was conducted to identify (1) detectable
concentrations of residual dyes remaining in the groundwater system from EPA's initial groundwater
tracing investigation conducted in 1996, and (2) natural background fluorescence that might interfere
with the demonstration groundwater tracing investigation.  During the demonstration background study,
groundwater, surface water, and charcoal packet samples were collected from locations within and
                                              22

-------
      the barrier wall over a period of 21 days, as specified in «he QAPP.  The samples were
anaiyzed for residual dyes and background fluorescence by spectrofluorophotometric analyse The
background sampling began after the barrier wall reached its design thickness of about 12 fee,.
 Based on the demonstration background study result, (see Section 2.1 . 1) mo dyes, ohloxtae B and
 eosineOJ  were selected for use during the demonstration groundwater tracing investigation.  The two
 dye injection poims, standpipe B and monitoring weu MW1 (1109), ft* were used durtag EPA's 1996
                                                                                       '
 ,0,.
 into standpipe 12 was to evaluate me effectiveness of the barrier wall in controlling the horizontal flow
 of groundwater in the containment area.  The purpose of injecting dye into monitoring well MW1
 (1109) was to evaluate the effect of the barrier wan on the groundwater system outside the conttmmen,
 area by comparing the results to the 1996 groundwater tracing investigation data obtained pnor to
 establishment of the barrier wall.

  On February 20,  1998, field personnel injected about 1,800 grams of eosine OJ in* monitoring weU
  MW1 (1109) and about 450 grams of phloxine B inu, standpipe 12.  Next, about 130 gallons of potable
  water was flushed into each injection point over a 5-day period to assist in mobilizing the two dyes.
  Dye was monitored by collecting groundwater an* surface water samples and by sorption of dye onto
  particles of activated charcoal packets suspended in the flow of water, as specified in the QAPP.
   Charcoal packed were initially used, bu, later discontinued because water samples yielded more
   reliabte fluorescence dau. Table 1-3 describes each recovery pota. and the sampling method used a.
   each location.

   Field personnel collected samples from five additional locations identified as MH, KL, OF283, TCP
   and FS in Table 1-3.  The additional locations are also identified on Figure 2-1 in Section 2.1.3.  When
   Weather conditions warranted, the frequency of sample collection was sometimes modified to ensure
   thataslugofdyedidnotpassrecoverypointsundetected.  QA/QC samples were also prepared and
    submitted for analyses, as specified in the EPA-approved QAPP (EPA 1998) .  Samples were dehvered
    to a local laboratory for spectrofluorophotometric analysis.
                                                 23

-------
              TABLE 1-3
RECOVERY POINTS AND SAMPLING METHODS
Recovery Point
MW1 (1109)
MW2 (1110)
MW3(1111)
MW4(1112)
12
STP1
STP2
STP5
STP6
STP7
STP8
STP9
STP10
AFIP
W898
SBC
STSS
MH
KL
OLD
OF283
SCS
SI
S2
S7
TCP
FS
Description
monitoring well/injection point
monitoring well
monitoring well
monitoring well
standpipe/injection point
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
piezometer
piezometer
stream below culvert
Trivelpiece Spring
manhole south of pond
Keller's Leak
Dale's Little Dipper Spring
Overflow 283
Steel Cylinder Spring
small tributary
small tributary
small tributary
terra cotta pipe
Frank's Spring
Sampling Method
water grab samples
automatic water sampler/charcoal packet
water grab samples
automatic water sampler/charcoal packet
water grab samples
water grab samples
water grab samples/charcoal packet
water grab samples
water grab samples
water grab samples
water grab samples
water grab samples/charcoal packet
water grab samples/charcoal packet
water grab samples
automatic water sampler/charcoal packet
automatic water sampler/charcoal packet
water grab samples/charcoal packet
water grab samples
water grab samples
water grab samples
water grab samples
water grab samples
water grab samples/charcoal packet
water grab samples/charcoal packet
water grab samples/charcoal packet
water grab samples
water grab samples
                24

-------
In addition to samples collected for dye tracer analyses, water level data were supposed to be collected
from standpipe 12 located in the center of the former pond, monitoring well MW1 (1109) located
upgradient of the pond, and monitoring well MW2 (1110) located downgradient of the former pond, as
specified in the QAPP.  Due to complications with DOE's data logging equipment, however, pre-
barrier water level data from upgradient well MW1 (1109) were not available; therefore, water level
data from upgradient standpipe STP10 located directly adjacent to MW1 (1109) were used,.  Water
level data were collected by DOE personnel using either a manual water level indicator or a field data
logger in combination with a series of pressure transducers positioned belcw the water in each well or
standpipe, as specified in the QAPP (EPA 1998).

Continuous subsurface temperature data were collected from a series of temperature monitoring points
positioned at strategic locations to  track the development of the barrier wall. API installed these points
for operational monitoring purposes and, as such, set up the dataloggers and frequency of monitoring to
best suit their objectives.  Of particular interest to the SITE Program was the array installed near the
southeast comer of the barrier (T-3 through T-8), which provided information on development of the
barrier wall.  Development of the  freeze barrier wall is discussed further in Section 2.1.2.

1.5    KEY CONTACTS

Additional information on the freeze barrier technology,  API, the SITE Program, and the DOE
demonstration site is available from the following sources:

The Freeze Barrier Technology

EdYarmak
Chief Engineer
Arctic Foundations, Inc.
5621 Arctic Boulevard
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
(907) 562-2741
                                              25

-------
The SITE Program
Annette M. Gatchett
Assistant Director for Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Land Pollution and Remediation Control Division
26 West Martin Luther King Jr.  Drive
(MD215)
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
(513) 569-7697


 Steve Rock
 EPA Work Assignment Manager
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 National Risk Management Research Laboratory
 26 West Martin Luther King Jr. Drive
 Cincinnati, Ohio 45368
 (513) 569-7149


 The DOE Demonstration Stte
  Elizabeth Phillips
  ORNL Program Manager
  3 Main Street
  P.O. Box 2001
  Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831
  (423) 241-6172
                                              26

-------
              2.0    TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS

This section addresses the effectiveness of the freeze barrier technology in preventing groundwater flow
beyond the limits of the frozen soil barrier.  The effectiveness of the freeze barrier technology in
controlling the horizontal flow of groundwater through the former pond was the primary objective of
the SITE demonstration. Some characteristics of the HRE pond site, such as shallow depth to
groundwater, waste properties, and site topography and drainage  appeared favorable for demonstrating
the freeze barrier technology. Prior to the demonstration, participants identified several unconfirmed
features, such as groundwater flow hi fractured bedrock and subsurface features (pipes) in the former
pond area with the potential to affect dye migration. For this reason, the SITE Program demonstration
included objectives based on factors such as piezometric data ana suosunace soil temperature data,  in
addition to the tracer studies, to evaluate system performance.  The analysis of the technology's
effectiveness presented in this section is based on the results of the SITE demonstration at the HRE
pond site.

Tables summarizing the laboratory analytical data for groundwater and surface water samples collected
during the demonstration are included hi the appendix.  API's claims regarding the effectiveness of the
freeze barrier technology are presented hi the attachment.

 2.1     SITE DEMONSTRATION RESULTS

 This section summarizes the methods and procedures used to collect and analyze samples for the
 critical parameters during the SITE demonstration, the results of the SITE demonstration, including the
 demonstration background study,  the demonstration groundwater tracing investigations, water level
 measurements, subsurface soil temperature, installation and operating parameters, and quality control
 results.

 2.1.1   Methods

 Both the demonstration background study and groundwater tracing investigation employed the use of
 activated charcoal packets and grab sampling techniques for the collection of groundwater and surface
                                               27

-------
water samples from potential dye recovery points. The potential dye recovery points were located
downgradient and cross gradient from the two dye injection points (standpipe 12 and monitoring well
MW1 [1109]). Charcoal packets were suspended in water at each recovery point using nylon cord and
an anchor, so as to expose them to as much water as possible.  Grab samples of water were collected
using one of three techniques, depending on location: (1) decontaminated bailers, (2) ISCO* automatic
water samplers, or (3) by lowering a clean sample vial into the well using nylon fishing line.  The
samples were collected in accordance with the methods required by the Freeze Barrier Technology
Demonstration QAPP (EPA 1998).

The demonstration background study was conducted over a 21-day period hi January 1998 after the
frozen soil barrier reached its design thickness of 12 feet.  A total of 22 charcoal packets and 114 grab
samples of water were collected from the recovery points over the 21-day period. The samples were
analyzed using a spectrofiuorophotometer for any residual dyes from the 1996 groundwater tracing
investigation or natural background fluorescence.

The demonstration groundwater tracing phase of the demonstration was conducted over a 5-month
period after the background study was completed.  Phloxine B and cosine OJ were injected at locations
12 and MW1 (1109),  respectively.  As before, each dye recovery point was monitored using activated
charcoal packets and  by collecting and analyzing frequent grab samples of groundwater and surface
water. A total of 15  charcoal packets and 359 grab samples of water were collected from the recovery
points, using the same general sample collection procedures as described above.  As stated in Section
1.4.7, charcoal packets were initially used, but later discontinued because water samples provided more
reliable fluorescence  data. The frequency of sample collection at each recovery point for both phases
of the SITE demonstration are included in the appendix.

The samples were analyzed for the two dyes phloxine B and cosine OJ, using a
spectrofiuorophotometer. The laboratory method, which used a synchronous scanning
spectrofiuorophotometer, enabled the evaluation of both excitation and emission spectra for the dyes.
Each sample was placed in the cuvette or sample compartment; the appropriate wavelengths were
selected; and the sample was scanned in the synchronous mode. Calculations comparing the emission
spectra for the sample to known standard emission spectra were performed to identify the source of the
                                              28

-------
fluorescence and determine sample concentrations. Dilutions were made as necessary to keep sample
measurements within the range of the standards. All samples and standards were analyzed at room
temperature with all other conditions being the same for all analyses performed.

2.1.2   Results of the Demonstration Background Study

Results of analysis of samples collected during the background study indicated the presence of residual
concentrations of the dyes eosine OJ and rhodamine WT at the same recovery points where the two
dyes were detected during the 1996 groundwater tracing investigation (see Section 1.4.6).  According
to the analytical laboratory, a green compound, which is a common derivative of rhodamine WT, was
identified in samples collected from recovery points STP2, STP9, DLD, KL, and MW1 (1109).
Analytical results also  indicated that uranine was present hi water samples collected from recovery
points 12, SBC, STP9, AFIP, MW4 (1112), SI, and S2. Uranine also was present in samples collected
from the same recovery points during the 1996 groundwater tracing investigation.

The highest concentration of fluorescence in background samples in the range of the emission spectra
for phloxine B and eosine OJ was 1.30e-03 parts per billion (ppb). This background concentration for
phloxine B and eosine  OJ was used as a baseline for comparison to demonstration groundwater tracing
investigation results. Therefore, phloxine B and eosine OJ detected above the highest background
concentration was considered a detection at any recovery point.

During the demonstration background study, field personnel interviewed Mr. Marlin Ritchey, a
Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc., engineer in charge of sump pumps hi the basement of the HRE
building (7561), located northwest (upgradient) of the former pond. Mr. Ritchey was interviewed in an
attempt to identify a source for the uranine.  Mr. Ritchey stated that he had conducted a number of dye
tracing experiments from the basement  of the HRE building, using the dye uranine, during the period
between the 1996 groundwater tracing investigation and the demonstration background study. After
discovering a potential source for the uranine, it was unclear how uranine migrated from the HRE
building to standpipe 12 and piezometer AFIP located within the containment area.  Available
information indicates that a number of pipes connected to the HRE building entered the former pond
from the northwest and may have been  left hi place after the pond closed.  A report of a geophysical
                                             29

-------
 survey conducted prior to the demonstration refers to a subsurface pipe that extends through the
 northwest wall of the fonner pond, inferring that a pathway could exist between the former pond and
 the HRE building (DOE 1996). However, it is unknown whether this pathway was open or closed after
 placement of the barrier wall.

 2.1.3   Results of the Demonstration Groundwater Tracing Investigations

 Tracing investigation results of the dye phloxine B injected into standpipe 12 located within the
 containment area and the dye cosine OJ injected into monitoring well MW1 (1109) located outside and
 northwest of the containment area are presented below. Figure 2-1 shows the recovery points where
 phloxine B and cosine OJ were detected during the demonstration groundwater dye tracing
 investigation.

 Phloxine B Results

 Phloxine B was detected in water samples collected outside the former pond at recovery points STP10,
 AFIP, STP1, STP2, STP9, and MW4 (1112).  Figures 2-2 through 2-7 plot the concentration of
 phloxine B relative to days following dye injection for dye recovered at each recovery point. Phloxine
 B was first recovered about 16 days after dye injection at recovery point STP10, which is located
 upgradient of injection point 12. The concentration of phloxine B  detected at recovery point STP10 was
 3.20e-01 ppb, well above the highest concentration (1.30e-03 ppb) detected during the demonstration
 background study.  The recovery pattern  at STP10 shows a rapid increase in concentration of the
 emission peak for phloxine B over time, with a lower exponential  decrease as shown in Figure 2-2.
 The second detection of phloxine B occurred at recovery point AFIP 10 weeks after dye injection.
AFIP is located within the area surrounded by the  freeze barrier wall, just southeast of injection point
12 (see Figure 2-3).

Based on the recovery of phloxine B at recovery point STP10, the probability that a series of pipes may
exist in the northwest portion of the former pond cannot be discounted. The pathway from standpipe 12
to the area near standpipe STP10 is very close to the reported location and alignment of a geophysical
anomaly, inferred to be a pipe, that was detected prior to the technology demonstration.
                                             30

-------
COSINE OJ
INJECTION POINT
cf
'671
LEGEND
 GROUND SURFACE
 WATER   WATER
                                          r-PHLOXINE B
                                          \ INJECTION POINT
             FORMER TOP OF POND
             FORMER POND BOTTOM
             LIMITS OF ASPHALT CAP

             DRAINAGE DITCH CONFIGURATION
          0  RECOVERY POINT

              PHLOXINE B DETECTIONS

          4  COSINE OJ DETECTIONS

              EOSINE OJ AND
              PHLOXINE B DETECTIONS

           •  THERMOPROBE

           ®  TEMPERATURE
              MONITORING POINTS
  URCE: EPA 1998; DOE 1998o
                                          1"  - 30'
                                                     ARCTIC FOUNDATIONS, INC.  - HRE POND SITE
                                                         OAK RIDGE NATIONAL  LABORATORY
                                                              OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE
                                                                   FIGURE 2-1
                                                      RECOVERY  OF PHLOXINE  B  AND EOSINE
                                                    OJ  DURING DEMONSTRATION  INVESTIGATE
                                                     fflTetra Tech  EM inc.
                                               31

-------
                     Figure 2-2
      Concentrations of Phloxine B Versus Time
                for Location STP10
J.JUii-Ul
3.00E-01 -
£ 2.50E-01 -
i
A 2.00E-01 -
J1.50E-01 -
l.OOE-01 -
5.00E-02 -

0 OOP400 -
*

•




* * *
»•> •• ttttt 	 -«y A A A. A ^.
-25 0 25 50 75 100 125 15
       Dayi Relative to Dye Injection at Zero
               Figure 2-3
Concentrations of Phloxine B Versos Time
           for Location AFIP
^.UUJtl-UJL
8.00E-01 -
7.00E-01 -
6.00E-01 -
5.00E-01 -
4.00E-01 -
3.00E-01 -
2.00E-01 -
l.OOE-01 -
0 OOF40O -
^





*
•^ 	 •««• »• +. A^. ^ A. ^
-25 0 25 50 75 100 125 15
      Days Relative to Dye Injection at Zero
               32

-------
 3.00E-02
                                     Figure 2-4
                      Concentrations of Phloxine B Versos Time
                                 for Location STF1
 O.OOE+00
         -25        0       25        50        75      100
                            Days Relative to Dye Injection at Zero
                                                        125
          150
3.00E-01
2.00E-01
 l.OOE-01 -
                                   Figure 2-5
                    Concentrations of Phloxine B Versos Time
                                for Location STP2
O.OOE-HX)
-25
                           25       50       75       100
                       Days Relative to Dye Injection at Zero
125
150
                                        33

-------
                                         Figure 2-6
                          Concentrations of Phloxine B Versos Time
8.00E-02 -|
7.00E-02 -
6.00E-02 -
5.00E-02 -
4.00E-02 -
3.00E-02 -
2.00E-02 -
l.OOE-02 -
O.OOE+00 *
AWA JUWAUUIl hJj.Jt.7






r ttttiti a* * * MMi A A ^
-25 0 25 50 75 100 125 15
                           Dayi Retettv* to Dye Injection at Zero
 3.00E-02
 2.00E-02 -
 l.OOE-02 -
O.OOE+00
                                        Figore2-7
                         Concentrations of Phlozine B Versos Time
                                for Location MW4 (1112)
        -25
25       50        75       100
Day§ Relative to Dye Injection at Zero
                                                                125
150
                                     34

-------
Although this is not the exact location for the inlet pipes shown in Figure 1-2, there are no as-built
diagrams available to confirm the exact location of the pipes. Drilling activities associated with
installation of the ground freezing system revealed the highest concentration of radionuclides in auger
cuttings collected in the northwest corner of the former pond, close to where the geophysical anomaly
was identified.  This high concentration is most likely associated with either a leak in the influent pipe
that extends from the HRE building to the former pond or where the pipe emptied into the pond (DOE
1998a).

Water level data collected from standpipes 12 and STP10, during water injection to mobilize the
phloxine B dye, revealed that the groundwater elevation in standpipe 12 was higher compared to that in
standpipe STP10 (DOE 1998b). The hydrograph for standpipe 12 shows a rapid water level increase
and subsequent decrease during water injection to mobilize the phloxine B dye.  According to DOE,
this fluctuation was caused by groundwater mounding following water injection at standpipe 12.  The
water level data collected within and outside the area surrounded by the barrier wall also showed that
the barrier wall inhibited groundwater recharge into the former pond area.  This factor along with
water injection at standpipe 12 likely created a temporary gradient reversal in the direction of STP10
This gradient reversal may have transported the phloxine B-laden groundwater laterally through the
subsurface pipe to  the area near standpipe STP10. Although the exact depth of the subsurface pipe is
unknown, the pipe is assumed to be located close to where the highest concentrations of radionuclides
were detected during installation of the freeze barrier system. The highest concentration of
radionuclides were detected in the northwest corner of the former pond at depths ranging from 10 feet
to 14 feet bgs, consistent with the water table which is found at an average depth of 6 to  10 feet bgs in
the former pond area (DOE 1998a).

Phloxine B also was detected at concentrations above background at recovery points STP1, STP2,
MW4 (1112), and  STP9 between 69 and 126 days following dye injection, which was much later than
the detection at STP10.  Based on the timing of the recoveries and decreased concentrations with
distance from recovery point STP10, it does not appear that phloxine B migrated directly to any other
location. Available information also indicates that recovery points STP10, STP1, STP2, STP9, and
MW4 (1112) may  be located within the drainage ditches on the north and west sides of the former
pond, outside the containment area.  The drainage ditches, which are located around the perimeter of
                                              35

-------
the former pond, were designed to contain any pond overflow and prevent release into the surrounding
groundwater system. The ditches are also reportedly below the water table at an elevation of about 804
feet above MSL (DOE 1998a). The ditch locations and flow directions, based on information provided
by DOE, are shown on Figure 2-1.  The drainage ditches may have provided a preferential pathway to
transport the phloxine B from STP10 to recovery points STP1, STP2, STP9, and MW4 (1112) which
were located downgradient of STP10.

As previously discussed, the dye tracing investigation conducted in 1996 demonstrated that
groundwater within the former pond is hydraulically active and connected to the surrounding soil.  The
tracer dye cosine OJ injected into center standpipe 12 was transported radially throughout the
surrounding area to recovery points MW2 (1110), MW3 (1111), MW4 (1112), W674, STP10, W898,
STP2, SBC, STP9, S3, S5, and DLD. This was not the case during the demonstration investigation
using phloxine B as shown in Figure 2-1. Table 2-1 compares the results of the  1996 investigation with
the demonstration investigation from tracer dye injection point standpipe 12.

During the technology demonstration, TDEC state regulators also collected surface water samples from
the weir box located in the outfall about 40 feet southeast of the former pond, to compare radionuclide
levels during and after development of the barrier wall. Surface water sampling results from July
through September 1998 showed slightly lower levels of gross beta activity.  However, sampling results
should be qualified until long-term results are made available because the samples were collected
during the dry season when gross beta activity is generally lower (TDEC 1998).  See Figure 2-8 for
surface water sampling results.

Eosine OJ Results

The tracer dye transport behavior of eosine OJ, injected into monitoring well MW1 (1109), observed
during the demonstration dye tracing investigation differed from the dye tracing investigation conducted
by EPA in 1996, suggesting that the barrier wall had an effect on horizontal groundwater flow in the
former pond area.  The 1996 investigation showed rhodamine WT dye tracer transport from injection
point MW1 (1109) to most of the downgradient recovery points including DLD,  SBC, MW2 (1110),
MW3 (1111), MW4 (1112), STSS, STP2, STP9, STP10, W674, W898, and S3 through S7 (EPA
1996).
                                             36

-------
                                 TABLE 2-1

              COMPARISON OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM THE
               1996 INVESTIGATION WITH THE RESULTS OF THE
               DEMONSTRATION DYE TRACING INVESTIGATION
                             FOR STANDPIPE12
1996 Investigation Using Eosine OJ
Recovery
Point
MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
MW3(1111)
W674
STP10
W898
STP2
SBC
STP9
S5
S3
DLD
Initial
Detection
(days)'
15
22
22
39-43
39-43
39-43
43
43-50
50
50-56
50-56
56
Initial Concentration
(ppb)
1.10e-02
N 5.29e-03
4.04e-02
Not Determinedb
Not Determined1"
Not Determined1"
1.10e-05
Not Determined"
1.10e-05
Not Determined11
Not Determinedb
1.64+01
Peak Detection
(toys)"
43
36
43
43
43
43
64
50
64
55
55
71
Peak
Concentration
(ppb)
6.71e-02
2.686+00
1.32e-01
1.256+00
1.796-01
4.98e+00
2.036+00
4.19e-01
2.85e-02
5.67e+00
1.65e-01
4.29e+01
Demonstration Investigation Using Phloxine B
STP10
AFBP
MW4(1112)
STP2
STP1
STP9
16
69
70
79
100
126
3.20e-01
7.99e-01
7.10e-03
2.03e-02
2.03e-02
9.40e-03
16
69
70
100
100
126
3.206-01
7.99e-01
7.10e-03
2.24e-02
2.03e-02
9.406-03
Notes:
* number of days following tracer dye injection
ppb parts per billion
b initial concentration could not be determined due to the sampling frequency
                                     37

-------
                  Figure 2-8
        Gross Beta Activity in Surface Water Samples
              Collected From Weir Box
9000
 /////
                     Date
                   38

-------
The demonstration dye tracing investigation only showed tracer dye (eosine OJ) transport from
iniection point MW1 (1109) to recovery points STP1, STP2. STP9, MW4 (1112), and OLD.  This
change in transport behavior is likely due to diversion of dye-laden groundwater around the barrier
wall.  This behavioral change is apparent in the eosine OJ analytical data for recovery point MW4
(1112), where the highest concentration detected during the investigation did not occur until 2 weeks
prior to the end of the technology demonstration (Cambrian 1998).  Figures 2-9 through 2-13 plot tt
concentration of eosine OJ against days relative to dye injection for dye recovered at each location.

Results from the 1996 dye tracing  investigation also showed tracer dye transport to the furthest
recovery points (from monitoring well MW1 [1109]) along the tributary (SBC and S3 through S7)
sooner than the closest locations (STP2, W898, W674, and DLD) (EPA 1996).  Tracer dye appear©
bypass the upgradient recovery points and discharge directly into the tributary, indicating  that a
preferential pathway may exist on the north side of the former pond. Tracer dye transport from
injection  point MW1 (1109) to the tributary was not observed during the demonstration dye tracing
investigation, indicating that horizontal groundwater flow may have been impeded or retarded as a
result of the barrier wall.  Table 2-2 compares the results of the 1996 investigation with the
demonstration investigation from tracer dye injection point MW1 (1109).

2.1.4    Groundwater Elevation Results

Information on water level results discussed in this section is based on data gathered by DOE and
presented in a report entitled "HRE-Pond Cryogenic Barrier Technology Demonstration: Pre- and Post-
Barrier Hydrologic Assessment" prepared by Dr. Gerilynn Moline, ORNL Environmental Sciences
Division. Hydrographs plotting  average water table elevations before, during, and after emplacement
of the barrier wall for standpipes 12 and STP10 and monitoring well MW2 (1110) are included in
Figures 2-14 through 2-16. The following sections describe the groundwater  conditions encountered
before and  after establishment of the barrier wall in the former pond area.
                                             39

-------
    4.00E-02
 |[  3.00E-02 -

 3  2.00E-02-
 =
 |  1.00E-02-I
   O.OOE+00
                                      Figure 2-9
                       Concentrations of Eosine OJ Versus Time
                                  for Location STP1
-25       0       25       50       75      100
              Days Relative to Dye Injection at Zero
                                                                125
                                                150
   3.00E-01
   2.00E-01 -
   1.00E-01 -
Ul
   O.OOE+00
                                   Figure 2-10
                    Concentrations of Eosine OJ Versus Time
                                for Location STP2
          -25
   25       50       75       100
Days Relative to Dye Injection at Zero
                                                    125
                                                                        150
                                 40

-------
                                     Figure 2-11
                       Concentrations of Eosine OJ Versus Time
1 .AWCr^VU -
1.00E+03 -
8.00E+02 -
6.00E+02 •
4.00E+02 •
2.00E+02 -
O.OOE+00 -
-2
*

*
4 +*
*.*.^*.^A.*. ± *. ^
5 0 25 50 75 100 125 1S
                            Days Relative to Dye Injection at Zero
  3.00E-02
|.2.00E-02 -

3
§
11.00E-02 -
  O.OOE+DO
                                       Figure 2-12
                         Concentrations of Eosine OJ Versus Time
                                 for Location MW4 (1112)
          -25
  25       50       75      100
Days Relative to Dye Injection at Zero
125
                                                                         150
                              41

-------
              Figure 2-13
Concentrations of Eosine OJ Versus Time


s
&
3
w
1
8
Ul



v.wuu-w^ -
7.00E-02 -
6.00E-02 •
5.00E-02 -

4.00E-02 •
3.00E-02 •

2.00E-02 <
1.00E-02-
O.OOE+00 -

*



*

^
'»,»•» » * »
^r
^ A ^ •ft' ^4 t
-25      0       25       50       75      100
              Days Relative to Dye Injection at Zero
                                        125
150
        42

-------
                                 TABLE 2-2

             COMPARISON OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM THE 1996
       INVESTIGATION WITH THE RESULTS OF THE DEMONSTRATION DYE
          TRACING INVESTIGATIONS FOR MONITORING WELL MWI (1109)

Recovery
Point
SBC
S7
S6
S5
S3
S4
DLD
MW2(1110)
MW3(1111)
MW4(1H2)
STSS
STP10
W674
W898
STP2
STP9

STP1
STP2
STP9
MW4(1H2)
DLD
1996 Investigation Using Rhodamine WT
Tnitiql
Detection
(days)*
2
4
4
4
4
4
5
15
15
15
22
39-43
43
43
43
50
Initial Concentration
(ppb)
1.20e-05
l.OOe-01
1.06e-01
1.12e-01
2.95e-01
1.16e-01
3.70e+01
2.83e-01
6.48e-03
8.81e-03
9.60e-04
Not Determined b
8.45e-02
1.78*01
1.20e-05
1.20e-07
Peak Detection
(days)*
8
71
15
15
15
15
8
15
71
36
28
43
64
64
56
56
Peak
Concentration
(ppb)
3.27e-01
2.15e+01
7.86e+00
5.41e+00
1.24e+01
9.09e+00
8.36+01
2.83e-01
1.76e-02
1.20e-02
5.50e-03
4.90e-02
2.91e-01
3.38e-01
1.59e-02
3.63e-02
Demonstration Investigation Using Eosine O J
97
3
2
137
2
3.07e-02
2.75e-02
1.52e-02
2.70e-03
1.09+03
97
25
27
137
2
3.07e-02
1.826-01
4.15e-02
2.706-03
1.09+03
Notes:

* number of days following tracer dye injection
ppb parts per billion
b initial concentration could not be determined due to the sampling frequency
                                    43

-------
820


819


818
                                                                 Figure 2-14
                                                        Hydrograph for Standpipe 12
            812
                                                                  Replacament of
                                                                  Pressure Transducers
                     Jan-97     Mar-97   May-97    Jul-97      Sep-97     Nov-97
                                                                      Time
                                                                                                              Recorded by data logger
                                                                                                              Manual water level
                                                                                                             Peaks correspond to
                                                                                                             dye/water injections
                                                                                                             starting on 2/20/98
                                                                                          Mar-98    May-98      Jul-98
Source:  DOE 1998b

-------
                                                             Figure 2-15
                                                  Hydrograph for Standpipe STP10
823
822
821
820
819
                                                            Freezing
                                                            initiated
                                                            9/8/97
                                                                                                            Recorded by data logger
                                                                                                            Manual water level
                                                                                                            Dye/water
                                                                                                            injections
                                                                                                            2/20/98
818
 Jan-97
               Mar-97       May-97          Jul-97
Sep-97        Nov-97
        Time
Jan-98        Mar-98          May-98         Jul-98
Source: DOE 1998b

-------
                                                           Figure 2-16
                                          Hydrograph for Monitoring Well MW2 (1110)
                                                                                ~T"    Recorded by data logger
                                                                                     Manual water level
                  804-H
                    Dec-96    Felv-97     Apr-97     Jun-97
Aug-97      Oct-b7     De<>97
 Time
Fet>98
DOE 1998b

-------
Pre-Barrier Groundwater Conditions

Water level data collected from monitoring locations 12, STP1Q, and MW2 (1110) compared to
precipitation data presented in Figure 2-17 indicates that all three monitoring points were responsive to
storm events prior to establishment of the frozen soil barrier.  The data also show that all three
monitoring locations exhibited similar water level fluctuations during storm events. The rapid rise hi
groundwater elevations at standpipe 12 during some storm events also suggests that the water table may
intersect the gravel layer beneath the asphalt cap, thereby providing a pathway for migration of
contaminants out of the former pond through this high permeable layer. This relationship can be seen
hi the hydrograph for standpipe 12, where the elevation from the top of the asphalt cap at standpipe 12
is 818.5 feet above MSL and the groundwater elevation at standpipe 12 frequently exceeded 817 feet
above MSL during storm events. The cap is assumed to be 1 foot thick (DOE 1998b). Groundwater
elevation data also show a hydraulic gradient in the direction of the tributary, located just east of the
former pond, indicating that there is potential for contaminants to be transported through the shallow
groundwater system, eventually discharging into the tributary.

The 1996 groundwater tracing investigation conducted by EPA, discussed hi more detail in Section
1.4.6, also shows that groundwater within the former pond is hydraulically active and  connected to the
surrounding soils, as evidenced by the transport of tracers from within the pond to areas outside the
pond.  The dye eosine OJ, injected into center standpipe 12 under forced-gradient conditions during
water injection, was transported radially throughout the area surrounding the former pond.  The
rhodamhie WT dye injected into monitoring well MW1 (1109) showed that a preferential pathway may
exist on the north side of the former pond between monitoring well MW1 (1109) and the tributary
located just east of the pond. Rhodamine WT was transported directly to the tributary  and bypassed on
site recovery points directly in line with the tributary. DOE's study using helium gas demonstrated that
transport out of the former pond also occurs under ambient conditions and is more frequent during the
whiter months when water levels are highest (DOE 1998b).
                                              47

-------
•9
I
o
o
m
                                              Precipitation (mm)
  3/1/97
 3/15/97
 3/29/97
 4/12/97
 4/26/97
 5/10/97
 5/24/97
  6/7/97
 6/21/97
  7/5/97
 7/19/97
  8/2/97
 8/16/97
 8/30/97.
 9/13/97.
 9/27/97
10/11/97.]
10/25/97
 11/8/97
11/22/97
       12/6/97 .
      12/20/97
        1/3/98
       1/17/98
       1/31/98
       2/14/98
       2/28/98
       3/14/98
       3/28/98
       4/11/98
       4/25/98
        5/9/98
       5/23/98
        6/6/98
       6/20/98
        7/4/98 .
       7/18/98 .
        8/1/98

-------
Groundwater measurement results showed that the water level within the former pond was sigmficantly
affected by the barrier wall.  As demonstrated in the hydrograph for standpipe 12, the measured water
table elevations gradually decreased over time and did not appear to respond to storm events (compared
to locations outside the containment area) after freezing was initiated (see Figure 2-14). According to
API, the slow decline in water levels at standpipe 12 is a result of soil moisture being drawn to the
frozen soil barrier (API 1998). The slow decline also may have been a result of slow seepage through
fractured bedrock in the base of the former pond, combined with the inhibited recharge induced by the
barrier wall. The hydrograph for standpipe 12 also shows some distinct peaks just prior to the
demonstration groundwater tracing investigation that do not reflect actual water table fluctuations mat
require some explanation.  According to DOE, the water level monitoring system at standpipe 12 was
not maintained due to budgetary problems, which resulted in moisture buildup hi the pressure
transducer. The pressure transducer was replaced just prior to initiation of the demonstration
groundwater tracing investigation, which reportedly displaced the water level in standpipe 12, resulting
in fluctuations in the hydrograph for standpipe 12. The only other water level responses seen hi the
hydrograph for standpipe 12 correspond to water injections that occurred for 5 days following dye
injection, even though there were numerous storm events during this period as seen in the precipitation
data presented in Figure 2-17 (DOE 1998b).  As seen in the hydrograph for standpipe 12, there
appeared to be a slow decline in water levels at standpipe 12 following the initial increase caused by dye
and water injections.

Water table elevations downgradient of the former pond were  also affected by me frozen soil barrier.
DOE reported that the water level hi standpipe STP5 dropped  about 6.5 feet following barrier
placement. DOE also reported that water levels at standpipe STP6 were not as responsive to storm
events following barrier placement and that only large storms produced the type of response observed
at STP6 prior to barrier placement. This effect also shows that horizontal groundwater flow through
the former pond to these downgradient locations was  impeded or that flow was diverted around the
barrier wall, resulting hi suppression of the water table at these locations (DOE 1998b).
                                              49

-------
 2.1.5    Subsurface Soil Temperature Results

 Continuous subsurface temperature data were collected from eight temperature monitoring points at
 various locations and distances from the Thermoprobes to monitor the development of the frozen soil
 barrier wall (see Figure 1-5).  Six temperature monitoring points (T-3 through T-8) installed in the
 southeast corner of the containment area were used to monitor development of the barrier wall.  Each
 temperature monitoring point was equipped with eight temperature sensors installed at various depths to
 provide a vertical profile of temperature conditions at each location.  Figures 2-18 through 2-23 plot
 temperature at each sensor interval against time for temperature monitoring points T-3 through T-8 to
 show a vertical profile of temperature response with distance from the barrier. Temperature data from
 each sensor interval were averaged for each month to facilitate presentation of data in Figures 2-18
 through 2-23.

 The ground freezing system operated in three phases:  initial freeze-down, freezing to design thickness,
 and maintenance freezing.  During the freeze-down phase, which began in mid-September 1997, the
 two refrigeration units operated simultaneously, driving the 50 thermoprobes at temperatures below
 0° C.  Gradually, the soil temperature was reduced until the soil moisture around each thermoprobe
 was frozen and began coalescing, which occurred about mid-October 1997.  According to AH, this
 process was continued until the frozen soil region around each thermoprobe reached about 3 feet in
 thickness radially and completely joined at the surface of the asphalt pavement, which occurred around
 the first week of November 1997 (see Figure 2-18) (AH 1998). This process, which is referred to as
 "freezing to closure," occurred about 7 weeks following system start-up.

 Following closure, API reported that freezing was continued until the frozen soil wall reached the
 design thickness of 12 feet, which occurred in mid-January 1998, or about 18 weeks following system
 startup (API 1998). According to API, the design thickness was selected based on API's past
 experience using the thermoprobe placement configuration similar to that applied to the HRE pond site.
 As shown in Figure 2-18, subsurface temperatures at T-3 (located directly on the centerline  of the
barrier) from the bottom of the insulation to 30 feet bgs remained well below 0° C, from mid-January
through mid-July 1998.  According to API, the frozen soil barrier probably extended to a depth of
about 36 feet bgs, into the bedrock. However, this claim cannot be confirmed because the deepest
temperature sensors are set at about 30 feet bgs along the length of the temperature monitoring points.

-------
          £
    130
    125
    120
    115
    110
    105
    100
     85
     90
     85
     80
     75
    , 70
cn
5  £ w
£  *«•
S  Q 50
*~    45
              40
              35
              30
              25
              20
              15
              10
               5
               0
              •5
              -10
                                                              Figure 2-18
                                           Subsurface Temperature Data Over Time for T-3
                                                                                                                0)
                                                             (0
                                                              •8
                                                                                 CO
                               Top of Insulation
                                7.5 ft. BGS
                                22.5 ft BGS
                                                         •Bottom of Insulation
                                                           12.5 ft. BGS
                                                           30 ft.
•  2.5 ft. BGS
•  17.5 ft. BGS
•Freeze Line

-------
CO
OJ

"
   CM
f* >
   00
   O
   CO
il
   Ul
   t
   to

   bi

   r*

   03

   Q
   CO
                                   Temperature

                                    Degrees F
      September
        October
       November
       December
        January
February
          March
           April
           May
   June
    July
                                                                    CO
                                                                    c
                                                                    tr
                                                                    §
                                                                    •a
3
o
                                                            §
                                                            9

                                                            =!

                                                            9

                                                            31


-------
                               Temperature
                                Degrees F
H
^1 TJ
01 O

* 5
0)
It
B
01


CD

0)
tt
O)
it
  8
     September
       October
      November
      December
        January
       February
         March
          April
          May
          June
          July
                                                             CO
                                                             c
S3
a N>
                                                             I
                                                             
-------
                                                 Figure 2-21
                                Subsurface temperature Data Over time for t-6
    50
    45
    40
    35
    30
    25
    20
    15
    10
    5
    0
2

S.
                                                       I
                                                       I
(0
» Top of Ground
X 17.5fLBGS
• 2.5ft.BGS
— • — 22.5fLBGS
A 7.5 ft. BG5
— 1— 30ft.BGS
)C 12.5fLBGS
.. 	 Freeze Line

-------
                                        95
                                      Temperature
                                       Degrees F
H
01 o
8
   §.
01 =b
f» '•*
CO
W -«
   j*

   s
   CO
   N>
   bi
  .
5" CD
(D  O
   CO
       September
         October
        November
        December
         January
         February
           March
            April
            May
June
            July
                                                             to

                                                             I

                                                             i
                                                             S
                                                                5

                                                                ^
                                                                10
                                                             I
                                                             o
                                                             cf

                                                             H

-------
                                      99
                                     Temperature
                                      Degrees F
H
K  -i1
en  o
o
3
H
O>
CD
O
CO
    i
   CO
   M
   bi
   F»
   CD
    i
   ?»
   m
   Q
   CO
   September
        October
   November
      December
        January
        February
          March
           April
           May
           June
        July
                                                                   i
                                                                   o
                                                                   o
                                                                   I
                                                                   "8
                                                                   If
                                                                   3 S
                                                                   » IS
                                                                   5f w
                                                                      o

-------
Once the design thickness was achieved, the maintenance freezing phase began and the refrigeration
units operated on a 24-hour alternating run schedule to minimize power consumption. Maintenance
freezing required significantly less energy then the initial freezedown. According to AH, the barrier
wall thickness remained fairly constant during this phase and will be maintained at the HRE pond site
through fiscal year 2002 for DOE.  The total volume of soil frozen was estimated to be about 134,000
cubic feet and the total volume of soil contained was estimated to be about 180,000 cubic feet (API
1998).

In late September 1998, AH simulated a power outage at the HRE pond site.  The refrigerant feed to
the array of Thermoprobes was shut down for a period of 8 days while subsurface temperature data
were continuously collected. AH reported that ambient air temperatures during this period averaged
between 32°  C and 24° C. The barrier reportedly lost less than 2 percent of its design thickness during
this period, with the maximum loss at the  top of the barrier, just beneath the insulation.  However,-
subsurface temperature data collected from T-3 showed that the centerline of the barrier from the
bottom of the insulation to 30 feet bgs remained frozen throughout the 8-day testing period (AH 1998).

2.1.6   Installation and Operating Costs

The cost to implement the freeze barrier technology at the HRE pond site was determined by assessing
the following 12 cost categories.

     1. Site  preparation
     2. Permitting and regulatory requirements
     3. Capital equipment
     4. Mobilization and startup
     5. Labor
     6. Supplies
     7. Utilities
     8. Effluent treatment and disposal
     9. Residual waste shipping and handling
     10. Analytical services
     11. Equipment maintenance
     12. Site demobilization

The actual costs associated with the implementation of the freeze barrier technology at the HRE pond
site are presented and analyzed in Section 4.0.  The demonstration costs are grouped into 12 cost

                                              57

-------
 categories, and a breakdown of these costs under the 12 cost categories is presented in Table 4-1 and
 Figure 4-1.

 2.1.7   Data Quality

 A data quality review and assessment was conducted to remove unusable values from the investigation
 data set, to evaluate the field and laboratory QC sample results, and to assess the overall data quality.
 All project data specified in the project QAPP that were collected to directly support demonstration
 objectives were reviewed, including those data relating to physical measurements.

 The only critical measurement (measurement required to support a primary objective) was the
 fluorescent dye data concentration in groundwater and in the eluant from charcoal packet samples.  A
 detailed review of the analytical data for these dyes was therefore conducted. Data from field QC
 samples and laboratory QC samples were reviewed to estimate the precision of the results and to
 demonstrate that measurements were not affected by cross-contamination. The QC data were evaluated
 against the QA objectives defined in the Freeze Barrier Technology Demonstration QAPP (EPA 1998).
 Accuracy was not an issue, since only relative values were of interest. For this reason, a QA objective
 and QC samples to evaluate accuracy were not required. The QC samples included laboratory blanks
 and sample duplicates. Initial and continuing calibrations were also reviewed to assure that proper
procedures were implemented.

The following specific items were evaluated during the data review:

    •   Sample chain of custody, condition, and holding times
    •   Instrument performance checks
    •   Initial and continuing calibrations
    •   Blanks
    •   Sample/sample duplicate precision

The following subsections discuss the results of quality control activities that were implemented hi
relation to the fluorescent dye measurements and summarize any limitations of the analytical data based
on the evaluation of QC sample results. It should be recognized that the fluorescent dye data was used

                                              58

-------
to indicate whether penetration of a barrier had occurred; therefore, the most important issue was
whether detections of dye could be differentiated from background fluorescence.  The review of overall
data quality indicates that the fluorescent dye data are useful for the purpose of evaluating the
technology.

Sampfc rh^in-pf-custodv. Condition, and Holding Timt*

All samples collected at the demonstration site were hand-delivered from the field to the laboratory in
good condition.  Chain-of-custody protocols were followed for all samples delivered to the laboratory.
Samples for analysis of dyes were analyzed or prepared within 2 weeks of sample collection, as
specified in the QAPP.
            Performance Check
Instrument performance checks were performed on an as-needed basis or whenever the
spectrofluorophotometer was moved, serviced, or its components (for example, xenon lamps) were
changed or serviced.  Standard and blank results were used to assess instrument performance on a day-
to-day basis. No anomalous results were documented during the daily analyses of the standards and
blanks.

Initial and Continuing Calibrations

All calibration curves were linear with regression coefficients typically near 0.999. Calibration curves
were constructed and plotted when standards were prepared and after all the samples  were analyzed.
For the  C.I. Acid Red 92 (Phloxine B) dye, calibration data were produced for that specific batch of
dye (hi water samples).  The calibration curve was plotted and included  hi each data package. No
calibration was performed for charcoal eluant analyses, since these data  are qualitative.
The spectrofluorophotometer is capable of consistently detecting the dyes used hi this investigation at
concentrations of 0.0065 ppb.  No tracers were reported in any of the laboratory clanks, indicating no
                                              59

-------
laboratory contamination or interferences.  Each laboratory blank was prepared in a clean, new test
tube using either distilled water or Oak Ridge tap water.  Oak Ridge tap water is representative as a
blank, since it has background fluorescence but does not contain any dye.  Eluant blanks were prepared
from each new batch of eluant, and rinsed in one of the containers that would be used for preparation.
If dye had been detected in a blank, the batch of eluant would have been discarded and a new batch
prepared from new reagents; however, this was not necessary during analysis of the demonstration
samples.

Sample/Sample Duplicate Precision

A comparison of sample and sample duplicate results indicates that most of the field duplicate results
were within the QA objective of±25 percent relative percent difference (RPD).  Out of 32 sample
duplicates that were processed, only four had RPDs of greater than 25 percent. Overall, precision of
the data appeared adequate.

The reason for the higher RPD percentages in the four duplicate samples that were outside of the QA
objective is thought to be related to varying levels of flocculant and associated fluorescence of Fe(OH)2
in the sample as compared to the duplicate. Variation in the amount of flocculant present between
samples and their duplicates was observed on at least one occasion due to imperfect decanting of the
supernatant.
                                              60

-------
               3.0     TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS ANALYSIS

This section discusses the following topics regarding the applicability of the freeze barrier technology:
applicable waste, factors affecting technology performance, site characteristics and support
requirements, material handling requirements, technology limitations, potential regulatory
requirements, and state and community acceptance. Information in this section is based on the results
of the site demonstration at ORNL and additional information provided by API and other sources.

3.1     APPLICABLE WASTE

According to API, the frozen soil barrier can provide subsurface containment for most biological,
chemical, and radioactive contaminants transportable hi groundwater.  At the HRE pond site, the SITE
Program demonstration primarily examined the technology's ability to contain the radioactive
contaminants Cs137 and Sr90. A contaminant's effects on barrier wall integrity should be evaluated prior
to implementing this technology at  any contaminated site.

3.2     FACTORS AFFECTING TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE

Factors potentially affecting the performance of the freeze barrier technology include site
hydrogeologic characteristics, engineered structures, and diffusion characteristics.

3.2.1   Hydrogeologic Characteristics

The technology's implementability  is affected by the depth to and saturated thickness of the aquifer.
The technology is most effective when it can be installed to completely contain groundwater over the
entire saturated thickness of the aquifer.  The base of the thermoprobes should be keyed into an
underlying aquitard to prevent groundwater from flowing beneath the barrier wall. For sites with no
underlying aquitard, the thermoprobes may be installed in a "V or "U" configuration to promote
complete isolation of the waste source.  Near-surface refrigerant piping and proper ground insulation
should be used to ensure complete isolation of the shallower portion of the aquifer.
                                             61

-------
Refrigeration technology has been used for freezing soils on large-scale construction engineering
projects for over 100 years.  Companies that employ this technology claim that barriers can be
established to depths of 1,000 feet bgs.  API recently prepared a quote on the installation of a frozen
soil barrier to a depth of 450 feet bgs with a length of 3.5 kilometers for groundwater control at a
mining site.  However, another contractor was selected to install the frozen soil barrier.  Deeper
applications of this technology have not been conducted at contaminated sites. The effectiveness of
facilitating deeper applications of this technology may require additional research.

3.2.2   Engineered Structures

Prior to barrier placement, geophysical measurements of the source area should be conducted to
determine soil characteristics and to determine if subsurface structures exist.  Based on observations
durine the SITE Program demonstration at the HRE pond site, subsurface structures may provide a
conduit for movement of groundwater outside the barrier wall. The proximity of surface structures
such as roads, foundations, and tanks also should be taken into account prior to placement of a frozen
soil barrier due to the potential for frost heave effects.

3.2.3   Diffusion Characteristics
                                                                      s-

Prior to applying the freeze barrier technology, laboratory diffusion studies should be conducted on
site-related contaminants to assess diffusion characteristics.  Previous laboratory-scale diffusion studies
have shown that a frozen soil barrier with a hydraulic permeability of less than 4xlOE'10 centimeters per
second can be formed effectively hi saturated soils with a chromate concentration of 4,000 milligrams
per kilogram (mg/kg) and a trichloroethylene concentration of 6,000 mg/kg.  Tests using Cs also
reportedly showed no detectable diffusion through a barrier with the same permeability; however, the
immobility of Cs may have been partially  attributable to sorption onto soil grams (DOE 1995)
Laboratory diffusion studies using various contaminants of differing concentrations are required to
determine the effects, if any, on barrier wall integrity.
                                               62

-------
3.3     SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS

Site-specific factors can affect the application of the freeze barrier technology, and these factors should
be consiaered before selecting the technology for use at a specific site. Site-specific ractors addressed
in this section are site area and preparation requirements; climate; utilities and supplies; maintenance;
support systems; and personnel requirements.  The suppon requirements for the ground freezing
system may vary depending on the size of the containment area.  This section presents support
requirements based on information collected during the SITE demonstration at ORNL.

3.3.1   Site Area and Preparation Requirements

In audition to the hydrogeologic conditions mat determine the technology's applicability and design,
other site characteristics affect implementation of this technology. The amount of space required for a
ground freezing system depends on the thickness of the barrier wall and size of the containment area.
For the HRE pond demonstration, the array of thermoprobes encompassed an area of about 75 feet by
80 feet, with an average frozen soil barrier wall thickness of 12 feet. Thermoprobes may be installed
in a "V or "U" configuration to promote complete encapsulation and isolation of the waste source.  At
the HRE pond site, the thermoprobes were installed hi a vertical position, with the bottom of each
thermoprobe anchored in bedrock, to inhibit horizontal groundwater movement into and out of the
waste source area.

The site must be accessible and have sufficient operating and storage space for heavy construction
equipment. Access for a drill rig or pile driver to install the thermoprobes and temperature monitoring
points for system operation is required.  A crane may also be necessary to install the thermoprobes and
to subsequently remove the thermoprobes from the containment area following remediation activities.
Access for tractor trailers (for delivery of thermoprobes, refrigeration units and associated piping,
construction supplies, and equipment) is preferable. Underground utilities crossing the path of the
proposed system may require relocation if present, and overhead space should be clear of utility Ikies to
allow installation equipment to operate.  Construction around existing surface structures may also be
required.
                                              63

-------
 Where drilling is used as the installation technique, soil from drill cuttings at contaminated sites may
 require management as a potentially hazardous or radioactive waste. For this reason, roll-off boxes or
 55-gallon drums to store the soil, and sufficient space near, but outside of the construction area for
 staging,  should be available. During drilling activities at the HRE pond site, radiation levels in soil
 cuttings  were continuously monitored and were classified as Category 1 (< 1 milliradian [mRad]/hour),
 Category 2 (> 1 mRad/hour), or Category 3 (> 5 mRad/hour) to facilitate proper management of the
 waste (DOE 1998a).  A portable tank or tanker truck should also be available for thermoprobe
 installation to temporarily store water generated during drilling activities. Where soil type and site
 conditions are appropriate, thermoprobes also may be installed by pile driving methods. This method
 eliminates handling drill cuttings and minimizes environmental disturbance.  A building or shed also
 may be necessary to house the system control module and instrumentation wiring, as well as for use by
 workers during routine operation and maintenance (O&M) activities.

 3.3.2    Climate Requirements

 The thermoprobes used in the system design can operate in an "active" or "passive" mode and are used
 in temperate locations where reliance on low ambient temperatures (the passive mode application; is not
 feasible. For this reason, the system can be installed and operated in any climate. For applications in
 regions with high ambient temperatures, such as Oak Ridge, proper ground insulation is required to
 ensure that surficial soil (1 to 2 feet bgs) is adequately frozen.

 3.3.3   Utility and Supply Requirements

 The installation at Oak Ridge required water during construction for a safety shower, personnel
 decontamination, and equipment washing.  Temporary arrangements were made during construction to
 supply a minimal quantity of water to the site. If water is unavailable, engineered controls must be
made to minimize water requirements and  temporary facilities arranged to deliver, store, and pump
water during construction of the  system.

Electricity is required to power the refrigeration units, instrumentation, and control system that
regulates the temperature of the thermoprobes. Electrical power for the ground freezing system can be
provided by portable generators or any standard electrical service. Based on information collected

                                               64

-------
during the SITE demonstration and estimates provided by API, the electrical power required from
system startup to establishment of a 12-foot-thick barrier wall was about 72,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh).
Once frozen, the average power consumption required to maintain the barrier wall was reportedly
about 288 kWh per day.  The thermoprobes also can operate without electrical power whenever air
temperature drops below the target soil temperature.  Should a power loss or other system failure
occur, an immediate breach in the barrier wall is unlikely because subsurface frozen soil thaws at a
slow rate. As discussed in Section 2.1.5, thawing was evaluated during a simulated power outage at
the HRE pond site and found to be minimal.

3.3.4   Maintenance Requirements

The system components should be inspected periodically for proper operation.  Maintenance of the
ground freezing system components is required only in the event of a  mechanical failure associated
with the refrigeration units and thermoprobes.  Because the refrigeration units are standard unmodified
items, they are easily serviced by a qualified heating, ventilation, and air conditioning  (HVAC)
technician. Maintenance of the refrigeration units includes, but is not limited to, leak repair,
refrigerant recharge, and replacement of worn equipment.  Maintenance and repair of the
thermoprobes would require the attention of an API designer/fabricator due to the proprietary nature of
the devices.

3.3.5   Support Systems

in situ temperature sensors, such as the temperature monitoring points used during the HRE pond SITE
demonstration, may be required to monitor and track the development of the frozen soil barrier and
ensure that refrigeration equipment is operating properly.

Groundwater tracing similar to that completed during this demonstration may be required to monitor
barrier wall integrity.  According to API, geophysical techniques such as soil resistivity that is capable
of detecting barrier infrastructure properties such as voids also can be used to monitor performance of
the barrier wall.
                                              65

-------
 3.3.6   Personnel Requirements

 Personnel requirements for the system are minimal.  Personnel are required to periodically inspect the
 ground freezing system, including the thermoprobes and refrigeration units and associated piping, for
 general operating condition. A certified HVAC technician is required for routine maintenance of the
 refrigeration units. Personnel also should inspect the condition of the insulation and waterproofing
 membrane over the containment area and identify indications of potential problems, such as tears or
 uplifted edges.

 Personnel working with the system at hazardous waste sites should have completed the training
 requirements under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) outlined in Title 29 of the Code of
 Federal Regulations (CFR) #1910.120, which covers hazardous waste operations and emergency
 response.  Personnel working with the system at radioactive waste sites, such as the HRE pond site,
 also should have completed radiation worker training in accordance with 10 CFR Part 20, which covers
 standards for protection against radiation.  Personnel should also participate in a medical monitoring
 program as specified under OSHA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

 3.4     MATERIAL HANDLING REQUIREMENTS

 Material handling requirements for the freeze barrier technology include those for the soil and water
 removed during drilling activities.  Groundwater removed from boreholes during thermoprobe
 installation activities will probably contain site-related contaminants.  Soils removed from below the
 water table in the vicinity of a contaminant plume may have become contaminated by contact with
 contaminated groundwater. For this reason, soil and water generated during construction activities
may require handling, storage, and management as hazardous wastes. Precautions may include
availability of lined, covered, roll-off boxes; drums;  or other receptacles for the soil; storage tanks or
drums for the water;  and appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) for handling contaminated
materials.  Contaminated soils should be stockpiled on site separately  from soils determined to be clean*
to minimize the amount of material requiring management as potentially hazardous waste.
                                             66

-------
3.5     TECHNOLOGY LIMITATIONS

Potential users of this technology must consider the possibility that formation of a soil barrier in arid
conditions may require a suitable method of adding and retaining moisture in soils to achieve saturated
conditions. API claims, however, that it is rarely necessary to add moisture to soils because the in situ
moisture will migrate and concentrate in the frozen soil and create an impervious wall.  The
effectiveness  Of this technology for containment of contaminants in arid soils will require assessment.

The practicality of implementing this technology at some sites may be limited.  As for most hi situ
containment systems, the need for intrusive construction activities requires a significant amount of open
surface space, possibly precluding the use of this technology at certain sites. API claims, however, that
the open surface area required to construct a frozen soil barrier is significantly less than any other
barrier technology.

3.6     POTENTIAL REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

This section discusses regulatory requirements pertinent to using the freeze barrier technology at
Superfund, Resource Conservation and Recovery (RCRA) corrective action, and other cleanup sites.
The regulations pertaining to applications of this technology depend on site-specific conditions;
therefore, this section presents a general overview of the types of federal regulations that may apply
under various conditions.  State and local requirements also should be considered.  Because these
requirements vary, they are not presented in detail in this section.  Table 3-1 summarizes the
environmental laws and associated regulations discussed in this section.

3.6.1   Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),  as
amended by SARA, authorizes the federal government to respond to releases of hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants that may present an imminent and substantial danger to public health or
welfare. CERCLA pertains to the freeze barrier system by governing the  selection and application of
remedial technologies at Superfund sites.  Remedial alternatives that significantly reduce the volume,
toxicity, or mobility of hazardous substances and provide long-term protection are preferred.  Selected

                                              67

-------
                                                        TABLE 3-1
       Act/Authority
       CERCLA
       RCRA
       CWA
                               SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS
 Applicability
 Superfund sites
 Superfund and RCRA
 sites
 Discharges to surface
 water bodies
Application to the Freeze Barrier Technology

This program authorizes and regulates the cleanup of
releases of hazardous substances. It applies to all
CERCLA site cleanups and requires that other
environmental laws be considered as appropriate to
protect human health and the environment.
                                               RCRA regulates the transportation, treatment,
                                               storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes.  RCRA
                                               also regulates corrective actions at treatment,
                                               storage, and disposal facilities.
                                               NPDES requirements of the CWA apply to both
                                               Superfund and RCRA sites where treated water is
                                               discharged to surface water bodies. Pretreatment
                                               standards apply to discharges to POTWs.  These
                                               regulations do not typically apply to containment
                                               technologies.       	
                                                                                               Citation
                                                                                               40 CFR part 300
                                                40 CFR parts 260 to 270
                                                40 CFR parts 122 to
                                                125, part 403
       SDWA
 Water discharges,
 water reinjection, and
 sole-source aquifer
 and wellhead
 protection
                                              Maximum contaminant levels and contaminant level
                                              goals should be considered when setting water
                                              cleanup levels at RCRA corrective action and
                                              Superfund sites. Sole sources and protected wellhead
                                              water sources would be subject to their respective
                                              control programs.  These regulations do not typically
                                              apply to the freeze barrier technology unless used in
                                              conjunction with a remediation program.
                                              Regulations governing underground injection may
                                              apply at sites requiring addition of soil moisture to
                                              achieve freezing.     	
                                                40 CFR parts 141 to 149
       CAA
Air emissions from
stationary and mobile
sources
                                              The technology may be used to limit migration of
                                              contaminant plumes, and therefore may help reduce
                                              the potential for exposure to airborne VOCs
                                              emanating from contaminated groundwater. If VOC
                                              emissions occur or hazardous air pollutants are of
                                              concern, these standards may be ARARs for a site
                                              cleanup. However, this technology uses benign
                                               efrigerants, produces no air emissions, and does not
                                              degrade air quality. For these reasons, the CAA will
                                              not apply to this technology in most cases.  State air
                                               irogram requirements also should be considered.
                                               40 CFR parts 50, 60,
                                               61, and 70
      AEA and RCRA
                               wastes
                     AEA and RCRA requirements apply to the treatment,
                     storage, and disposal of mixed waste containing both
                      lazardous and radioactive components. OSWER and
                     DOE directives provide guidance for addressing
                     mixed waste.
                                                                                              AEA (10 CFR part 60)
                                                                                               nd RCRA (see above)
      OSHA
All remedial actions
                                              OSHA regulates on-site construction activities and
                                               ic health and safety of workers at hazardous waste
                                               ites. Personnel working on installation and
                                               peration of the freeze barrier technology at
                                               uperrand or RCRA cleanup sites must meet OSHA
                                               equirements.	
                                                                      9 CFR parts 1900
                                                                     01926
      VRC
All remedial actions
                                              These regulations include radiation protection
                                               tandards for NRC-licensed activities.
                                                                      0 CFR part 20
Note: Acronyms used in this table are defined in the "List of Acronyms and Abbreviations," (pages x through xi).
                                                           68

-------
remedies must also be cost-effective, protective of human health and the environment, and must comply
with environmental regulations to protect human health and the environment during and after
remediation.

CERCLA requires identification and consideration of environmental requirements that are Applicable
or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARAR) for site remediation before implementation of a
remedial technology at a Superfund site.  Subject to specific conditions, EPA allows ARARs to be
waived in accordance with Section 121 of CERCLA.  The conditions under which an ARAR may be
waived are (1) an activity that does not achieve compliance with an ARAR, but is part of a total
remedial action that will achieve compliance (such as a removal action), (2) an equivalent standard of
performance can be achieved without complying with an ARAR, (3) compliance with an ARAR will
result in a greater risk to health and the environment than will noncompliance, (4) compliance with an
ARAR is technically impracticable, (5) the situation involves  a state ARAR that has not been applied
consistently, and (6) for fund-lead remedial actions, compliance with the ARAR will result in
expenditures that are not justifiable in terms of protecting public health or welfare, given the needs for
funds at other sites.  The justification for a waiver must be clearly demonstrated (EPA 1988a). Off-site
remediations are not eligible for ARAR waivers, and all applicable substantive and administrative
requirements  must be met. CERCLA requires on-site discharges to meet all substantive state and
federal ARARs, such as effluent standards. However, the freeze barrier wall is a containment
technology and does not typically result in off-site discharges.

3.6.2   Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, regulates management
and disposal of municipal and industrial solid wastes.  EPA and the states  implement and enforce
RCRA and state regulations.  Some of the RCRA Subtitle C (hazardous waste) requirements under 40
CFR parts 264 and 265 may apply at CERCLA sites because remedial actions generally involve
treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste. However, RCRA requirements may be waived for
CERCLA remediation sites, provideo equivalent or more stringent ARARs are followed
                                             69

-------
 Most RCRA regulations affecting conventional treatment technologies will n<* apply to the freeze
 barrier technology because once installed, a properly designed and maintained system does not generate
 any residual waste. However, the soil and groundwater removed from boreholes during drilling and
 installation activities may be contaminated and classified as hazardous waste.  Wastes defined as
 hazardous under RCRA include characteristic and listed wastes.  Criteria for identifying characteristic
 wastes are included in 40 CFR part 261 subpart C. Listed wastes from specific and nons^cuu
 industrial sources, off-specification oroducts, spill cleanups, and other industrial sources are itemized in
 40 CFR part 261 subpart D.  If soil and/or groundwater are classified as RCRA hazardous waste, they
 will require management, including storage, transport, ana disposal, in accordance with Subtitle C of
 RCRA. Active industrial facilities generating hazardous waste are required to have designated
 hazardous waste storage areas, and operate miaer 90-day or 180-dav storage permits, depending on
 generator status. A facility's storage area could be used as a temporary storage area for contaminated
 ffrnnnnwater and/or soil generated during the installation of the freeze barrier technology. For
 nonactive facilities, or those not generating hazardous waste, a temporary storage area should be
 constructed on site following RCRA guidelines,  and a temporary hazardous waste generator
 identification number should be obtained iiom the regional or state uPA office, as appropriate.
 Guidelines for hazardous waste storage are listed under 40 CFR parts 264 and 265.

 Other applicable RCRA requirements may include (1) obtaining Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifests if
 the soil and/or groundwater are transported as a  RCRA hazardous waste, and (2) placing restrictions on
 depositing the waste in land disposal units.

 3.6.3   Clean Water Act

 The Clean Water Act  (CWA) governs discharge  of pollutants to navigable surface water bodies or
publicly owned treatment works (POTW) by providing for the establishment of federal, state, and local
discharge  standards.  Because the freeze barrier technology does not normally result in discharge of
contaminated groundwater to surface water bodies or POTWs, the CWA would not typically apply to
the normal operation and use of this technology.  According to API, however, if an open, water-cooled
condensing system is used, the effect of the heated water on the local environment must be evaluated.
                                              70

-------
3.6.4   Safe Drinking Water Act

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended in 1986, required EPA to establish regulations to
protect human health from contaminants in drinking water. The legislation authorized national drinking
water standards and a joint federal-state system for ensuring compliance with these standards. The
SDWA also regulates underground injection of fluids and sole-source aquifer and well head protection
programs.  An underground injection control (UIC) permit was issued by TDEC for the injection of
tracer dyes and potable water used during the technology demonstration; however, the technology
would only require injection of fluids if the soil moisture content is too low to allow freezing to occur
in soil pore water voids.

The National Primary Drinking Water Standards are found hi 40 CFR parts 141 through 149. These
drinking water standards are expressed as maximum contaminant levels (MCL) for some constituents,
and maximum contaminant level goals (MCLG) for others. Under CERCLA (Section 121
(d)(2)(A)(ii)), remedial actions are required to meet the standards of the MCLGs when relevant. The
freeze barrier technology is not a groundwater treatment technology, but it could improve the quality of
groundwater by containing the source of contamination until appropriate remediation techniques can be
applied.  As a result, MCLGs would not apply to this technology unless used hi conjunction with a
groundwater treatment technology.

3.6.5   Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended in 1990, regulates stationary and mobile sources of air
emissions.  CAA regulations are generally implemented through combined federal, state,  and local
programs.  The CAA includes pollutant-specific standards for major stationary sources  that would not
be ARARs for the freeze barrier technology. However, state and local air programs have been
delegated significant air quality regulatory responsibilities,  and some have developed programs to
regulate toxic air pollutants (EPA 1989).  Therefore, state air programs should be consulted regarding
installation and use of the freeze barrier technology. The only emissions associated with operation of
the freeze Darner system, which are typical of most commercial refrigeration systems, include water
                                              71

-------
condensate and heat. This technology also uses benign refrigerants and does not produce air emissions
so the technology would not be subject to CAA regulations.

3.6.6   Mixed Waste Regulations

Use of the freeze barrier technology at sites with radioactive contamination, such as the HRE pond site,
might involve containment of mixed waste.  As defined by the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and RCRA,
mixed waste contains both radioactive and hazardous waste components. Such waste is subject to the
requirements of both acts.  However, when application of both AEA and RCRA regulations results in a
situation that is inconsistent with the AEA (for example, an increased likelihood of radioactive
exposure), AEA requirements supersede RCRA requirements (EPA 1988a). OSWER, in conjunction
with the NRC, has issued several directives to assist in identification,  treatment, and disposal of low-
level radioactive mixed waste.  Various OSWER directives include guidance on defining, identifying,
and disposing of commercial, mixed, low-level radioactive, and hazardous waste (EPA 1988b). If the
freeze barrier technology is used to contain low-level mixed waste, these directives should be
considered, especially regarding contaminated soils removed during installation.  If the technology is
used to provide containment for high-level mixed waste or transuranic mixed waste during any
remediation program, internal DOE orders should be considered when developing a protective remedy
(DOE 1988). The SDWA and CWA also contain standards for maximum allowable radioactivity levels
in water supplies.

3.6.7   Occupational Safety and Health Act

OSHA regulations  in 29 CFR parts 1900 through 1926 are designed to protect worker health and
safety. Both Superfund and RCRA corrective actions must meet OSHA requirements, particularly
§1910.120, Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response.  Part 1926, Safety and Health
Regulations for Construction, applies to any on-site construction activities.  For example, drilling of
boreholes  for placement of thermoprobes and temperature monitoring points during the demonstration
was required to comply with regulations hi 29 CFR part 1926, subpart N. Any more stringent state or
local requirements  must also be met. In addition, health and safety plans for site remediation projects
                                             72

-------
should address chemicals of concern and include monitoring practices to ensure that worker health and
safety are maintained.

For most on-site workers, PPE will include gloves, hard hats, steel-toed boots, and coveralls.
Depending on contaminant types and concentrations, additional PPE may be required.  Noise levels
should be monitored to ensure that workers are not exposed to noise levels above a time-weighted
average of 85 decibels over an 8-hour day. Noise levels associated with the freeze barrier technology
are limited to compressor noise from the refrigeration units.

3.7     STATE AND COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE

State regulatory agencies will likely be involved in most applications of the freeze barrier technology at
hazardous waste sites. Local community agencies and citizens' groups are often actively involved in
decisions regarding remedial alternatives.

Because few applications Of the freeze barrier technology have been completed, limited information is
available to assess long-term state  and community acceptance. However, state and community
acceptance of this technology is generally expected to be high, for several reasons: (1) it provides a
means to fully contain waste, thereby preventing the further spread of contaminants; (2) the barrier is
environmentally safe, using benign working fluids; (3) the barrier wall does not have any lasting effects
and is simply allowed to melt after thermoprobes are removed; and (4) the system generates no residual
wastes requiring off-site management and does not transfer waste to other media.

TDEC oversees investigation and remedial activities at ORNL. State personnel were actively involved
in the preparation of the QAPP and field work and data gathering activities during the technology
demonstration.  The state also issued a UIC permit for the groundwater tracing investigation.  The role
of states in selecting and applying  remedial technologies will likely increase in the future as state
environmental agencies assume many of the oversight and enforcement activities previously performed
at the EPA Regional level.  For these reasons, state regulatory requirements that are sometimes more
stringent than federal requirements may take precedence for some applications.  As risk-based closure
and remediation become more commonplace, site-specific cleanup goals determined by state agencies
will drive increasing numbers of remediation projects, including applications involving  the freeze
barrier technology.

                                              73

-------
                              4.0     ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

 This economic analysis presents two cost estimates for applying the freeze barrier technology to
 prevent off-site migration of contaminants.  The estimates are based on data compiled during the SITE
 demonstration and from additional information obtained from API, DOE, current construction cost
 estimating guidance, and SITE Program experience. Past studies by API have indicated that the costs
 for this technology are highly variable, and depend on the site hydrogeology, climate, regulatory
 requirements, and other site- and waste-specific factors.  The following containment volumes and time
 frames presented for both cases represent typical applications for the freeze barrier technology
 anticipated by the vendor.

 Two estimates have been performed in this analysis to determine costs for applying the freeze barrier
 technology.  The first estimate (Case 1) presents a cost estimate that is based on costs incurred during
 the demonstration for operating the barrier wall at the HRE pond site at ORNL extrapolated over a
 5-year period.  The isolated area at the HRE pond site is about 75 feet by 80 feet (6,000 square feet),
 and the estimated isolated volume (to a depth of 30 feet bgs) is 180,000 cubic feet. The volume of soil
 frozen is estimated to be about 134,000 cubic feet, based on the perimeter length (310 feet), an
 assumed maximum frozen depth of 36 feet (estimated by API), and thickness of the barrier wall (12
 feet).

 The second estimate (Case 2) is for containment over a 10-year period  for a site with conditions similar
 to the HRE pond site, but a larger containment area (see Section 4.2).  The cost estimate for Case 2 is
 based on extrapolation of data from the HRE pond SITE demonstration costs over a  10-year period.
 For Case 2, the dimensions of the isolated area are assumed to be 150 feet by 200 feet, with an
 assumed aquitard depth of 30 feet bgs. The total isolated area is assumed to be 30,000 square feet,
 with a volume of 900,000 cubic feet.  The volume  of soil frozen is about 300,000 cubic feet, based on
 a perimeter of 700 feet, frozen depth of 36 feet bgs, and a thickness of 12 feet.

For sites with no aquitard, the barrier wall would be installed in a "V"  or "U"  configuration to
promote complete isolation of a waste source. However, the SITE Program demonstration involved a
vertical system, and cost data tor other configurations were not collected.  For  these reasons, both
scenarios assume vertical systems.

                                              74

-------
This section summarizes factors that influence costs, presents assumptions used in this analyse,
discusses estimated costs, and presents conclusions of the economic analysis.  Tables 4-1 and 4-2
present the estimated costs generated from this analysis.  Costs have been distributed among 12
categories applicable to typical cleanup activities at Superfund and RCRA sites, and the distribution of
these costs is shown in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 (Evans 1990). Costs are presented in 1998 dollars, are
rounded to the nearest 100 dollars, and are considered to be -30 percent to +50 percent order-of-
magnitude estimates.

4.1     FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS

Costs for implementing the freeze barrier technology are significantly affected by site-specific factors,
including site regulatory status, waste-related factors, containment duration, and site features and
geology.  The regulatory status of the site typically depends on the type of waste management activities
that occurred on site, the relative risk to nearby populations and ecological receptors, the state in which
the site is located, and other factors. The site's regulatory status affects costs by mandating ARARs
and remediation goals that may affect the system design parameters and duration of the remediation
project.  Certain types of sites may have more stringent monitoring requirements than others,
depending on regulatory status.  Site features and geology determine the renuired installation depth and
configuration of the freeze barrier system layout which will affect costs.

Waste-related factors affecting costs include the volume and distribution of contamination at the site,
because these factors directly affect the size and positioning of the barrier that is required for
containment. Formation of frozen soil barriers in areas where low freezing point contaminants are
present may require a different refrigeration system then what was applied at the HRE pond site, which
will affect costs.  The type and concentration of contaminant will also affect disposal costs for
investigation-derived wastes.  Finally, the length of time that the barrier must remain in place will
affect costs, due to ongoing electricity usage, general maintenance, and monitoring costs.
                                               75

-------
                         TABLE 4-1
ESTIMATED COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FREEZE BARRIER TECHNOLOGY
Cost Category
Barrier Volume
Isolated Volume
Fixed Costs
Site Preparation Costs
Administrative
System design
Drilling/placement
Soil disposal
Surface seal
Total Site Preparation Costs
Total Permitting and Regulatory Costs
Mobilization and Startup Costs
Mobilize and transport equipment
System installation and startup
Total Mobilization and Startup Costs
Capital Equipment Costs
Thermoprobes
Refrigeration units
Piping, instrumentation, control system,
temperature monitoring point materials, and
miscellaneous materials
Total Capital Equipment Costs
Utility Costs
Initial freeze down
Total Utility Costs
Total Effluent Treatment and Disposal Costs
Casel
134,000 ft3
180,000ft3


$10,000
150,000
127,500
3,900
94,500
$385,900
$0

$7,700
96,000
$103,700

$75,000
84,000
261,000


$420,000

$3,600
$3,600
$0

$/ft3*


$0.06
0.83
0.71
0.02
0.53
$2.15
$0

$0.04
0.53
$0.58

$0.42
0.47
1.45


$2.33

$0.02
$0.02
$0
Case 2
300,000 ft3
900,000ft3


$10,000
75,000
270,400
8,000
275,000
$638,400
$0

$17,700
221,000
$238,700

$172,500
168,000
600,000


$940,500

$8,300
$8,300
$0

$/ft3*


$0.01
0.08
0.30
0.009
0.31
$0.71
$0

$0.02
0.25
$0.27

$0.19
0.19
0.67


$1.05
x

$0.009
$0.009
$0
                            76

-------
                                    TABLE 4-1 (Continued)
     ESTIMATED COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FREEZE BARRIER TECHNOLOGY
    Cost Category
Casel
       Case 2
                               Barrier Volume      140,000 ft3              300,000 ft3
                               Isolated Volume      180,000 ft3      */ft3«    900,000ft3
    Total Waste Shipping & Handling Costs

    Analytical Services Costs
      Background study
    Total Analytical Services Costsb

    Demobilization Costs
      System disassembly
      Borehole abandonment
    Total Demobilization Costs
        $0
$0
$0
    $2,300    $0.01
    $2,300    $0.01
    $1,100   $0.006
    34,800     0.19
   $35,900    $0.20
$0
          $1,800    $0.002
          $1,800    $0.002
         $2,200    $0.002
         73,800      0.08
        $76,000     $0.08
   Total Estimated Fixed Costs
  $951.400    $5.29    $1.903.700     $2.12
   Annual Costs
   Annual Labor Costs
   Annual Supply Costs
   Annual Utility Costs0
   Annual Analytical Costs
   Annual Equipment Maintenance Costs
    $9,100    $0.05
    $1,300   $0.007
                                                                              $8,600     $0.01
         $1,000    $0.001
    $5,500    $0.03       $12,600    $0.01
   $12,600    $0.07
         $9,000    $0.01
   $14,300    $0.08       $32,000    $0.04
   Total Estimated Annual Costs
   $42.800     $0.24       $63.200    $0.07
   Total Estimated Fixed & Annual Costs
$1.165.400     $6.50    $2.535.700    $2.80
   Cost per unit barrier volume ($/ft3)
     $8.30
          $8.50
Notes:
a Costs per cubic foot of isolated waste.
b Based on the assumption that a groundwater tracing investigation would be performed to verify
 barrier integrity for Case 2.                                                            J
c Costs presented do not reflect costs associated with initial freeze down, which are listed hi fixed
 costs.
                                              77

-------
                    TABLE 4-2
COST DISTRIBUTION FOR THE FREEZE BARRIER TECHNOLOGY

Cost Categories
Site Preparation
Permitting and Regulatory
Mobilization and Startup
Capital Equipment
Labor
Supplies
Utilities
Effluent Treatment & Disposal
Residual Shipping & Handling
Analytical Services
Equipment Maintenance
Site Demobilization
Total Costs
Case 1
Costs
385,900
0
103,700
420,000
45,500
6,500
31,100
0
0
65,300
71,500
35,900
$1,165,400

% Costs
33.0
0
9.0
35.5
4.0
0.5
3.0
0
0
6.0
6.0
3.0
100
Case 2
Costs
638,400
0
238,700
940,500
86,000
10,000
134,300
0
0
91,800
320,000
76,000
$2,535,700

% Costs
25.2
0
9.4
37.1
3.4
0.4
5.3
0
0
3.6
12.6
3.0
100
                       78

-------
         Analytical (6.0%)

      Utilities (3.0%)

   Supplies (0.5%)
                          Maintenance (6.0%)
    Labor (4.0%)
             Capital Equipment
                 (35.5%)
                           Oemobization
                              (3.0%)
                                              Site Preparation
                                                 (33.0%)
                                          MtJbfeation&
                                         Startup (9.0%)
  Note: effluent treatment and disposal, residual shipping and handling costs, and permitting and
   "egulatory costs are not included because costs are $0 for this estimate.

                                            Figure 4-2
                              Distribution of Total Costs for Case 2
                Analytical
                 (3.6%)
Maintenance (12.6%)
Demobflzation (3.0%)
    Unties (5.3%)

   Supplies (0.4%)

      Labor (3.4%)
                                               Site Preparation
                                                  (25.2%)
                        Capital Equipment
                            (37.1%)
                                             Mobtoatton & Startup
                                                   (9.4%)
Note: effluent treatment and disposal, residual shipping and handling, and permitting and regulatory costs are
not included because costs are $0 for this estimate.
                                                  79

-------
Site features affecting costs include site hydrogeology, location, and physical characteristics.
Hydrogeologic conditions are significant factors in determining the applicability and design parameters
of the barrier and should be thoroughly defined before applying this technology.  The depth to
groundwater and depth to the uppermost underlying aquitard, if present, determine the depth of the
installation and the type of construction technology that will be employed. Sites with no underlying
aquitard will require thermoprobes to be installed hi closely spaced, directional boreholes in a "V or
"U" configuration.  Each of these factors affect site preparation, capital, and operating costs.  Site
location and physical features will affect mobilization, demobilization, and site preparation costs.
Mobilization and demobilization costs are affected by the relative distances that system materials must
travel to the site. High visibility sites in densely populated areas may require higher security and the
need to minimize obtrusive construction activities, noise, dust, and air emissions.  Sites requiring
extensive surficial preparation (such as constructing access roads, clearing large trees, working around
or demolishing structures) or restoration activities will also incur higher costs. The availability of
existing electrical power and water supplies may facilitate construction activities and continuing O&M
activities for the ground freezing system. Within the U.S., significant regional variations may occur hi
costs for materials, equipment, and utilities.

4.2     ASSUMPTIONS OF THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

This section summarizes major assumptions regarding site-specific factors and equipment and operating
parameters used for both cases.  For Case 1, existing technology and site-specific data from the
demonstration were used to present costs for extended use of the barrier wall over a 5-year period at
the HRE pond site.  Certain assumptions were made to account for variable site and waste parameters
for Case 2.  Other assumptions were made to simplify cost estimation for situations that would require
complex engineering or financial functions.  In general, most system operating issues and assumptions
are based on information provided by API, DOE, and observations made during the SITE
demonstration. Cost figures for both cases are established from information provided by API, DOE
(MSB Technology Applications, Inc. [MSB]  1998), current environmental restoration cost guidance
(R.S. Means Company, Inc. [Means] 1998),  and SITE Program experience.
                                              80

-------
Assumptions regarding site- and waste-related factors for Case 1 include the following:
•      The site is a former surface impoundment known as the HRE pond at DOE's ORNL facility in
       Oak Ridge, Tennessee.  The HRE pond received radioactive liquid wastes, which consisted
       primarily of Cs and Sr.  The site has been well-characterized in terms of hydrogeology and
       type and extent of contamination

•      The estimated total volume of material within the HRE pond that would require containment is
       about 180,000 cubic feet

•      The system would continue to be used as an interim containment measure to limit off-site
       migration of wastes to a nearby tributary

•      The site has a series of monitoring wells, piezometers, and standpipes installed at depths
       ranging from  10 to 40 feet bgs that were used during previous site characterization work.  The
       wells are located within, upgradient, and downgradient of the impoundment and would
       continue to be used as part of the  groundwater tracing investigation to monitor barrier wall
       integrity. The site also has some nearby springs and a tributary that would continue to be used
       as recovery points during  the investigation

•      The site has existing electrical lines and an access road

•      The site has no on-site structures that require demolition and did not requke extensive clearing
       during construction activities.  No utilities were on site that required relocation or that
       restricted operation of heavy equipment

•      Electricity for the site is readily available at a cost of $0.05 per kWh

•      Contaminated water is located in a shallow aquifer that overlies a shale bedrock unit at a depth
       of about 30 feet bgs

•      The aquifer is a moderately permeable clay mixed with shale fragments introduced from
       backfill material after the  impoundment was closed. Groundwater is found at an average depth
       of 6 to  10 feet bgs.

Assumptions regarding system design and operating parameters for Case 1 include the following:
•       The thermoprobes, using carbon dioxide as the two-phase working fluid, are installed vertically
        to a depth of about 30 feet bgs and anchored in the underlying shale bedrock unit

•       A series of eight temperature monitoring points are placed at strategic locations in the
        northwest and southeast corners of the barrier wall to monitor the barrier wall

•       Two 30-horsepower refrigeration units operating hi cycles are required for system operation
                                               81

-------
        API will provide a representative as an on-site consultant during key phases of the construction

        Downtime for routine maintenance will be minimal and is therefore, not considered in this
        estimate. During the demonstration, API simulated a power outage which showed (based on
        temperature monitoring points data) that periodic downtime would not affect system
        performance because the barrier thaws slowly

        After construction, the ground freezing system operates without the constant attention of an
        operator. Routine labor requirements consist of monthly sampling and inspection of the
        thermoprobes, temperature monitoring points, refrigeration units and associated piping, and the
        surface seal

        This estimate assumes that the freeze barrier wall will be effective in containing groundwater
        contamination and therefore, effluent treatment and disposal costs will not be incurred

        The freeze barrier technology will not generate wastes other than soil from drilling activities

        Periodic maintenance of system components will be required for worn parts and refrigerant
        leaks associated with the refrigeration units and piping

        All system materials, including the thermoprobes, are fabricated at API's location in
        Anchorage, Alaska and transported to the site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee

        About 70 groundwater and surface water samples per month, or 840 per year, would be
        collected from the same recovery points and analyzed for the same dyes used during the
        demonstration for 5 years. Additional groundwater samples may also be required to monitor
        for the contaminants of concern in groundwater outside the containment area, but were not
        included in this estimate

        Labor costs for all 12 cost categories are presented as 1998 dollars  and are not adjusted for
        inflation (Means 1998)

        Salvage values on equipment were considered negligible after 5 years of operation and were
        therefore not included hi this estimate
Assumptions regarding site- and waste-related factors for Case 2 include the following:


•      The location is a Superfund site hi the southeastern U.S., and the site has been well-
       characterized in terms of hydrogeology and type and extent of contamination

•      The system will be used as an interim containment measure to limit off-site migration of a
       contaminant plume. The estimated total volume of the contaminant plume requiring
       containment is about 900,000 cubic feet

•      Site groundwater is assumed to be contaminated with radionuclides, including Cs and Sr

                                              82

-------
       The site has 10 monitoring wells at an average depth of 30 feet bgs that were installed during
       previous site characterization work.  The wells are located within and ddwngradient of the
       containment area and will be used as dye injection/sampling points for a groundwater tracing
       investigation to monitor barrier wall  integrity. No other potential sampling points such as
       springs or nearby streams exist within the site vicinity

       The site is located in a rural area, but is easily accessible to heavy equipment

       The site has no on-site structures requiring demolition and does not require extensive clearing.
       No utilities exist on site that require relocation or that restrict operation of heavy equipment

       Electricity for the site is readily available at a cost of $0.05 per kWh

       Contaminated water is located in a shallow aquifer that overlies a bedrock unit at a  depth of 30
       feet bgs

       The aquifer is a moderately permeable silty clay mixed with fill material in the site  area.
       Locally, groundwater is found at  an  average depth of 10 feet bgs
Assumptions regarding system design and operating parameters for Case 2 include the following:
        The thermoprobes, using carbon dioxide as the two-phase working fluid, will be installed
        vertically to a depth of about 30 feet bgs and anchored in the underlying bedrock

        A series of eight temperature monitoring points will be placed within and outside the barrier
        wall so API can assess whether the system is operating as expected and to make adjustments to
        the system, if required

        Four 30-horsepower refrigeration units operating in cycles, similar to the units used for Case 1,
        will be required for system operation

        API will provide a representative as an on-site consultant for key phases of the construction

        Downtime for routine maintenance is assumed to be minimal and is not considered in this
        estimate. API has also indicated that downtime for maintenance would not affect system
        performance because ice thaws slowly

        After construction, the ground freezing system operates without the constant attention of an
        operator.. Routine labor requirements consist of monthly sampling and inspection of the
        thermoprobes, temperature monitoring points, refrigeration units and associated piping, and the
        surface seal

        This estimate assumes that the freeze barrier wall will be effective in containing groundwater
        contamination and therefore, effluent treatment and disposal costs will not be incurred
                                                83

-------
         The freeze barrier technology is not expected to generate residual wastes.  Soil from drilling
         activities will require management as a hazardous waste

         Periodic maintenance of system components will be required for worn parts and refrigerant
         leaks associated with the refrigeration units and piping

         All system materials, including the thermoprobes, will be fabricated at API's location in
         Anchorage, Alaska and transported to the site

         The number of samples to be collected for barrier performance monitoring is not expected to be
         as high as for Case 1, due to a decrease in the number of potential recovery points  For the
         background study, an estimated 120 samples will be collected from the 10 on-site monitoring
         wells.  An estimated 600 samples per year will be collected during the groundwater tracing
         investigation over a 10-year period.  Additional groundwater samples may be also required to
        monitor for the contaminants of concern in groundwater outside the containment area  but were
        not included in this estimate.  Number of samples are based on information collected during the
        freeze barrier technology demonstration and may vary considerably from this estimate

 •      Labor costs for all 12 cost categories are presented as  1998 dollars (Means  1998)

        Salvage values on equipment were considered negligible after  10 years of operation and were
        therefore not included hi this estimate
 4.3     COST CATEGORIES


 Table 4-1 presents cost breakdowns for each of the 12 cost categories for the freeze barrier containment
 technology. Data have been presented for the Mowing cost categories: (1) site preparation,
 (2) permitting and regulatory, (3) mobilization and startup, (4) capital equipment, (5) labor,
 (6) supplies, (7) utilities, (8) effluent treatment and disposal, (9) residual waste shipping and handling,

 (10) analytical services,  (11) equipment maintenance, and (12) site demobilization. Each of the 12 cost
 categories are discussed hi the following sections.


 4.3.1   Site Preparation


 Site preparation costs include those for administration, engineering design, and preparation of the

 installation area, which includes costs associated with installing the thermoprobes and subsurface

temperature monitoring points and sealing the surface of the containment area. Administrative costs

include those for legal searches, contracting, and general project planning activities. Administrative

costs for Case  1 were $10,000, or about 100 hours of technical staff labor at a rate of $50 per hour and
                                              84

-------
200 hours of administrative staff labor at a rate of $25 per hour (Means 1998).  Based on costs from
the demonstration, the administrative costs for Case 2 were assumed to also be about $10,000.
However, administrative costs are highlv site-specific and may vary significantly from this estimate.

After a site assessment, API assists in designing an optimal system configuration for the site.  The total
system design cost for Case  1 was estimated to be $150,000.  Design costs include engineering designs
for thermoprobes and temperature monitoring points, including placement and construction, site layout,
electrical power supply and piping configuration, and any other necessary engineering services.
Itemized costs for each design component were not provided; therefore this estimate assumes that 2,000
hours at an average labor rate of $75 per hour were required for system design services (Means 1998).
Based on API's experience with Case 1 and similar conditions assumed for Case 2, API's design costs
are expected to be minimal because the same ground freezing system configuration for Case 1 would be
applied to the Case 2 site therefore, design costs for Case 2 were assumed to be considerably less at a
cost of about $75,000.

For Case  1, 58 30-foot-deep, 10-inch-diameter borings were drilled for placement of 50 thermoprobes
and 8 temperature monitoring points  using solid-stem auger and air rotary drilling methods. The total
cost for drilling including mobilization, demobilization, miscellaneous materials, and installation of
thermoprobes and temperature monitoring points was estimated to be $127,500, or $73.28 per foot
drilled. Auger cuttings were categorized and managed off site by DOE personnel and therefore, costs
for waste  disposal were not  incurred  during the demonstration. For comparison of costs to Case 2,
however,  an estimated 26 cubic yards of soil was assumed to have been removed during installation of
Thermoprobes and temperature monitoring points.  For Case 1, the total estimated cost for waste
disposal is about $3,900, which includes a loading and transport cost of $1,300, a hazardous waste
tipping cost of $2,200, and a washout and manifesting cost of $400 (Means 1998). Costs for
Thermoprobes and temperature monitoring points are discussed in Section 4.3.4, Capital Equipment.

Similar types  of costs associated with preparing the site were assumed to be incurred for Case 2,
although the site is much larger and overall site preparation costs would therefore increase accordingly.
This estimate assumes that the barrier will require about  115 thermoprobes, and based on information
collected  from the freeze barrier technology demonstration would use a 6-foot spacing configuration
                                               85

-------
 and an estimated eight temperature monitoring points.  A total of 123 10-inch-diameter borings would
 be drilled to a depth of 30 feet bgs using the same drilling methods used for Case 1. Based on drilling
 costs from the demonstration (Case 1), the total cost for drilling including mobilization, demobilization,
 miscellaneous materials, and installation of thermoprobes and temperature monitoring points was
 $270,400, or $73.28 per foot drilled. Auger cuttings generated from drilling activities may require
 management as a hazardous waste. This cost estimate assumes that the soil will be stored on site in
 55-gallon drums pending characterization,  and shipped off site and disposed of as a hazardous waste.
 The volume of soil estimated to be displaced and requiring disposal is about 54 cubic yards.  The total
 estimated cost for waste disposal is about $8,000, which includes a loading and transport cost of
 $2,700, a hazardous waste tipping cost of $4,500,  and a washout and manifesting cost of $800  (Means
 1998).  Actual costs for waste disposal are  highly site-specific, and may vary substantially from this
 estimate, particularly if the soil requires incineration. Where site geologic conditions are appropriate,
 thermoprobes and temperature  monitoring points may also be installed by pile-driving methods,
 eliminating the need for drilling and waste handling.

 Following drilling activities for Case 1, an  extruded polystyrene insulation is placed over the
 containment area to ensure that surficial soil was adequately frozen.  A waterproofing membrane is
 then placed over the insulation  to prevent rainfall infiltration. In high traffic areas, a surfacing  layer
 will be added for skid and wear resistance.  The total cost for surface seal materials, including labor for
 installation, was estimated at $94,500.  Assuming the same type of surface seal is used at the Case 2
 site and based on costs provided by API, the surface seal  is estimated to cost about $275,000.
 According to API, larger areas can be efficiently sealed using pre-manufactured sheets of surface seal
 at half the cost of the spray applied system used at the HRE pond site.

 The total estimated site preparation costs for Case 1 are $385,900, and for Case 2 are $638,400.

 4.3.2  Permitting and Regulatory

In applications of the freeze barrier technology as part of a remediation program,  permitting and
regulatory costs will vary depending on whether remediation is performed at a Superfund or RCRA
corrective action site.  Superfund site remedial actions must be consistent with ARARs of
                                               86

-------
environmental laws, ordinances, regulations, and statutes, including federal, state, and local standards
and criteria.  Remediation at RCRA corrective action sites requires additional monitoring and
recordkeeping, which can increase the base regulatory costs.

For Case 1, a NEFA categorical exclusion was granted for the construction of the ground freezing
system. A UIP was also issued by the TDEC for injection of dyes and potable water into groundwater
conducted as part of the groundwater tracing investigations.  No other regulatory permits were required
for Case 1.  However, information regarding regulatory costs was not available for Case 1  and
therefore permitting and regulatory costs are not included in this estimate.

Because permitting and regulatory requirements are highly variable, the costs were not included for
Case 2.

4.3.3   Mobilization and Startup

Mobilization costs consist of mobilizing the construction equipment and transporting materials to the
site. Startup activities include installation of the piping network, refrigeration units, instrumentation,
remote system controls, and electrical power supply hookup.

For Case 1, equipment and materials were transported from Anchorage, Alaska to Knoxville.
Tennessee at an estimated cost of $5,000.  Two semi-trailer trucks were necessary to haul the
equipment to the site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee at an estimated ground transportation cost of $17.00 per
mile or $2,000, for a total transportation cost of $7,000.  Two workers at an estimated labor rate of
$15 per hour worked about three 8-hour days to unload the equipment from the trucks, for a total cost
of about $700.  The total cost of mobilization and transportation for Case 1 was estimated to be $7,700.

The cost for connecting the piping system to the refrigeration units and thermoprobes, and  installing
and making electrical connections to the temperature monitoring points, control system, and
instrumentation for Case 1, was reported by API to be about $96,000. This cost consisted of about
1,300  hours of labor at an estimated rate of $75 p«v v/nir for OSHA-train^ field technicians to
                                               87

-------
 assemble and start up the system, which included a pressure test to determine if there were any leaks or
 blockages in the system.

 The total mobilization and transportation costs for the Case 2 site were scaled up using a factor of 2.3
 times the cost for the Case 1 site.  This factor was determined based on the differences between the
 estimated volume of barrier required for each site. The increase in barrier volume for the Case 2 site
 will increase the amount of equipment (thermoprobes and refrigeration units) that will have to be
 transported to the site, which increases transportation costs. Using a factor of 2.3, the total estimated
 cost for mobilization and transportation of equipment to the Case 2 site are assumed to be $17,700.

 The total assembly and startup costs for the Case 2 site, which was also scaled up from the Case 1
 costs, are assumed to be about $221,000.  This cost assumes an average labor rate of $75 per hour for
 field technicians to work an estimated 2,950 hours to assemble and start up the system. All field
 technicians are assumed to be trained in hazardous waste site health and safety procedures, so health
 and safety training costs are not included as a direct startup cost.

 The total estimated mobilization and startup costs for Case 1 are $103,700; for Case 2, costs are
 assumed to be about $238,700.

 4.3.4   Capital Equipment

 Capital  equipment for the ground freezing system consists of thermoprobes, temperature monitoring
 points, refrigeration units and associated copper piping, an instrumentation and control system, and
 miscellaneous materials.  For this estimate, salvage values on equipment were considered negligible
 and were therefore not included in this  estimate. Costs for the surface seal were previously discussed
 in Section 4.3.1, Site Preparation, and are not considered capital equipment costs for this estimate.

For the  Case 1 site, the 30-horsepower barrier required 50 thermoprobes at a cost of $1,500 each, for a
total cost of $75,000. Two 30-horsepower refrigeration units at  a cost of $42,000 each, for a total cost
of $84,000, were used for Case 1.  Other capital equipment such as copper piping, the instrumentation
and control system, eight temperature monitoring points, and miscellaneous materials were reported as
                                              88

-------
a combined cost, for a total of $261,000. The total estimated costs for capital equipment for Case 1 are
$420,000.

Based on the size of the containment area for Case 2, the barrier is estimated to require 115
thermoprobes at an assumed cost of $1,500 each, for a total cost of $172,500. Four 30-horsepower
refrigeration units are estimated to be required for the initial freeze down and maintenance of the
barrier for Case 2.  At a cost of $42,000 per unit, a total cost of $168,000 would be incurred for the
refrigeration units.  To estimate the cost of piping, instrumentation and controls, temperature
monitoring points, and miscellaneous materials, it was necessary to scale up the reported costs from
Case 1 using a factor of 2.3.  As stated in Section 4.3.3, this factor is based on the differences between
the estimated volume of barrier required for each site. Using this scale-up factor, the remaining capital
equipment required for Case 2 would cost an estimated $600,000.  For Case 2, the total estimated
capital equipment costs are $940,500.

4.3.5   Labor

Once the system is functioning, it can essentially operate unattended and requires only limited
monitoring and sampling activities.  System monitoring activities include (1) periodic inspection of the
system to ensure that it is operating properly, and (2) inspection of the surface seal for tears or uplifted
edges.  For Case 1, these activities require about 4 hours per month by an API-trained person at an
estimated labor rate of $50 per hour, resulting in a monthly cost of $200.  Personnel are also required
for sampling activities associated with a background study and groundwater tracing investigation using
fluorescence dyes to monitor barrier wall integrity.  Groundwater and surface water sampling activities
at the Case 1 site would require an estimated 16 hours per month at a labor rate of about $35 per hour,
for a total cost of $560 per month.  The total monthly labor cost would be about $760 per month, or
$9,100 per year.  Over the 5-year life of the project, the total estimated labor costs would be $45,500
for Case 1.

Because the containment area for the Case 2 site is larger, an estimated 6 hours per month is assumed
to be required for monitoring the system, at a labor rate of about $50 per hour, for a monthly cost of
$300.  Because there are less recovery points (ten monitoring wells) for Case 2 to conduct a
                                               89

-------
 background study and groundwater tracing investigation, sampling time is expected to be less then for
 Case 1 and is estimated to require 12 hours per month at a labor rate of about $35 per hour, for a total
 cost of $720 per month.  This monthly cost correlates to an annual cost of $8,600, and an estimated
 total of $86,000 over the 10-year life of the project for Case 2.

 Laboratory analytical costs are presented in Section 4.3.10, Analytical Services. Labor requirements
 associated with routine maintenance activities for thermoprobes, refrigeration units, and piping network
 for both cases are discussed in Section 4.3.11, Equipment Maintenance.

 4.3.6  Supplies

 The necessary supplies for sampling associated with a background study and groundwater tracing
 investigation include Level D disposable PPE and miscellaneous field supplies.  Disposable PPE
 typically consists of latex inner gloves, nitrile outer gloves, and safety glasses. Disposable PPE is
 estimated to  cost about $300 per year for Case 1. Field supplies for Case 1 consisted of fluorescent
 dyes, sample bottles, shipping containers, disposable bailers, and labels. Annual sampling supply costs
 were estimated to be about $1,000 per year, resulting in a total annual supply cost of $1,300 for
 Case 1. The total estimated costs for supplies over the 5-year life of the project is about $6,500.

 Because there are fewer sampling points for a background study and groundwater tracing investigation
 for Case 2, the amount of sampling supplies is expected to be less  then for Case 1.  Annual sampling
 and PPE supply costs for Case 2 are estimated to be $1,000. The  total estimated costs for supplies over
 the 10-year life of the project are about $10,000 for Case 2.
4.3.7   Utilities
Electricity is used to run the refrigeration units and to power the temperature monitoring points,
instrumentation, and computer-controlled operating system. The electricity consumption rates for the
system can be broken down into the initial freeze down cost when the barrier design thickness is
reached, and an operating cost to maintain the barrier design thickness.  Based on costs from the
demonstration, freeze down for Case 1 was assumed to require about 72,000 kWh at a cost of $3,600.
                                               90

-------
Maintaining the freeze barrier for Case 1 requires about 300 kWh per day, or $15 per day at $0.05 per
KWh rates, for an annual cost of $5,500. However, when outdoor temperatures are below freezing and
heat load on the system is low, the entire system shuts down, thereby decreasing utility costs.  The total
estimated utility costs to maintain the barrier over the 5-year life of the project after the initial freeze
down is about $27,500 for Case 1. Therefore, the total utility costs, including the initial freeze down
and maintenance of the barrier over a 5-year period, are $31,100.

Electrical costs for Case 2 have been scaled up from Case 1, using a factor of 2.3, based on the larger
frozen soil volume required for containment. Electricity costs may vary considerably depending on the
geographic location of the site and local utility rates.  As with Case 1, a utility rate of $0.05 per kWh
was assumed for this estimate. The initial freeze down is estimated to cost about $8,300 (165,600
kWh), with annual utility requirements estimated to be about 251,900 kWh at a cost of $12,600.  The
total estimated utility costs to maintain the barrier over the 10-year life of the project after the initial
freeze down are about $126,000 for Case 1. Therefore, the total utility costs, including the initial
freeze down and barrier maintenance over a 10-year period, are $134,300 for Case 2.

Water is required for personnel and equipment decontamination during construction of the ground
freezing system, but is not vital for system operation. Telephone service is required for remote
monitoring of system performance and detection of system malfunction. Water and telephone costs are
insignificant compared to electricity costs and are therefore not included in this estimate.

4.3.8  Effluent Treatment and Disposal

This estimate assumes that groundwater contamination will be effectively contained on site by the
freeze barrier wall.  For this reason, effluent treatment and disposal costs will not be incurred.

4.3.9  Residual Waste Shipping and Handling

The ground freezing system generates no residual wastes.  However, soil from drilling activities during
installation of the system may require handling as a hazardous waste and is discussed in Section 4.3.1,
Site Preparation.
                                              91

-------
 4.3.10 Analytical Services

 Analytical services include costs for laboratory analyses, data reduction, and QA/QC.  Sampling
 frequencies and number of samples are highly site-specific and are based on rainfall frequency, size of
 the containment area, and distance between the containment area and sampling points (nearby surface
 water bodies, springs, or monitoring wells).

 During the background study at the Case 1 site, about 150 samples were collected over a 25-day period
 and analyzed for natural background fluorescence and dyes used during previous investigations, at a
 cost of about $15 per sample, for a total of $2,300. During the groundwater tracing  investigation for
 Case  1, an average of 70 samples per month was collected over a 6-month period and analyzed at a
 cost of $15 per sample, for a total cost of about $6,300. Continued sampling at the same frequency as
 the demonstration period for Case 1 would require an estimated 840 samples per year, for a total
 analytical services cost of $12,600 annually.  This estimate includes analytical services costs for
 standard QA/QC samples.  This cost estimate includes only those samples associated  with a
 groundwater tracing investigation for system performance monitoring. Additional groundwater
 samples may be also required to monitor for the contaminants of concern in groundwater outside the
 containment area, resulting in additional costs.  The total estimated costs for analytical services wcr me
 5-year life of the project are $63,000 for Case 1. Thus, the total analytical costs for the background
 study and monthly sampling are estimated to be $65,300.

 Fewer groundwater samples are assumed for Case 2 because there are only 10 potential recovery points
 (monitoring wells) and no nearby springs or streams exist on site.  For the purposes of this estimate, it
 is assumed that the cost for sample analysis is also $15 per sample.  For the Case 2 background study,
 an estimated average of 120 groundwater samples will be collected from on-site monitoring wells over
 a 3- to 4-week period. The analytical services cost for the  Case 2 background study is estimated to be
 about $1,800.

 Because there are fewer potential recovery points for the Case 2 groundwater tracing investigation, an
estimated average of 50 samples per month, or 600 samples per year, will be  collected from on-site
monitoring wells, for an analytical services cost of $9,000 annually.  Case 2 assumes that standard
                                              92

-------
QA/QC samples will be analyzed at no additional cost. This cost estimate includes only those samples
associated with a groundwater tracing investigation for system performance monitoring. Additional
groundwater samples may be also required to monitor for the contaminants of concern in groundwater
outside the containment area, resulting in additional costs.  The total estimated costs for analytical
services over the 10-year life of the project are $90,000 for Case 2.  Therefore, the total analytical
costs from the background study and monthly sampling are estimated to be $91,800.

4.3.11 Equipment Maintenance

Periodic maintenance of the ground freezing system components includes repairing refrigerant leaks,
recharging lefrigerant, and replacing worn equipment. Actual costs associated with maintenance
activities for the demonstration were not provided; therefore, maintenance costs for Case 1 were
estimated to be about 3 percent of capital equipment costs (excluding labor), for a total of $12,600 per
year.  Most maintenance activities associated with the refrigeration units and piping can be completed
by an HVAC technician; however,  maintenance of thermoprobes requires the attention of an API
technician. Total routine maintenance labor is estimated to require about 4 hours per month, at an
average labor rate of $35 per hour, for an annual cost of $1,700. The total annual maintenance cost for
Case 1 is estimated to be $14,300, which corresponds to $71,500 over the 5-year life of the project.

For Case 2, the same annual estimate of 3 percent of capital costs is  assumed to be required for routine
maintenance activities, excluding labor, resulting in a cost of about $28,200.  The labor required for
routine maintenance of equipment for the Case 2 site was scaled up using a factor of 2.3 times the cost
for the Case 1 site.  The Case 2 site will have more  equipment requiring maintenance which will
increase the number of labor hours. Based on a factor of 2.3, about 9 hours of labor per month is
estimated to be required to maintain the equipment,  at a labor rate of $35 per hour or $3,800 annually.
Based on these estimates, annual equipment maintenance for Case 2 would cost about $32,000, which
corresponds to $320,000 over the 10-year life of the project.
                                              93

-------
 4.3.12 Site Demobilization

 After the system is shut down and allowed to thaw, the surface seal would be removed and disposed of
 as nonhazardous material or scrap.  Following system shutdown, a two-person crew at an estimated
 labor rate of $35 per hour would work about two 8-hour days to disassemble the system for Case 1 at a
 cost of $1,100.  The 50 thermoprobes and eight temperature monitoring points, installed at a depth of
 30 feet bgs, would then be removed and the boreholes grouted to the ground surface at an estimated
 cost of $20 per foot, for a total cost of about $34,800.  Thermoprobes and temperature monitoring
 points may be decontaminated and salvaged, if possible. However, as stated in Section 4.3.4, salvage
 values were not included in this estimate. Total site demobilization costs for Case 1 are assumed to be
 about $35,900.

 For Case 2, a two-person crew also earning an estimated labor rate of $35 per hour would work about
 four 8-hour days to disassemble the system at a cost of $2,200.  The same cost for Case 2, $20 per
 foot,  is also assumed to be incurred for removal of 115 thennoprobes and eight temperature monitoring
 points also installed at a depth of 30 feet bgs, and grouting boreholes, for a total cost of about $73,800.
 Total site demobilization costs for Case 2 are assumed to be about $76,000.

 4.4     ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY

 This analysis presents two cost estimates for installing the freeze barrier technology to prevent off-site
 migration of contaminants.  Two cases are discussed: the first case (Case 1) involves a cost estimate
 that is based on costs collected during the demonstration for operating the barrier wall at the HRE pond
 site at ORNL over a 5-year period, and the second case (Case 2) involves applying the ground freezing
 system to a larger site having conditions similar to those encountered at the Case 1 site, over a 10-year
 period.  Table 4-1 shows the estimated costs associated with the 12 cost categories presented in this
 analysis for both cases.

 The total costs and percent distributions for the 12 cost categories in both cases are presented in Table
4-2.  The predominant cost categories for Case 1 were capital equipment (35.5 percent) and site
preparation (33.0 percent), accounting for over 60 percent of the total costs for both cases. For Case
                                              94

-------
1, other important cost categories included mobilization and startup (9.0 percent), equipment
maintenance (6.0 percent), analytical services (6.0 percent), labor (4.0 percent), demobilization (3.0
percent), and utilities (3.0 percent).  All other cost categories (permitting, supplies, effluent treatment,
and residual shipping) accounted for less than 1 percent of the total costs.  Figure 4-1 shows the
distribution of total costs for Case 1.

For Case  1, extending the use of the barrier wall at the HRE pond site over a 5-year period resulted in
total estimated fixed and total annual costs of about $1,165,400.  This figure corresponds to a unit cost
of $8.30 per cubic foot of frozen soil, or $6.50 per cubic foot of isolated volume.  Fixed costs
represent  82 percent and annual costs represent 18 percent of the total costs for the Case 1 estimate.

For the Case 2 estimate (see Figure 4-2), capital equipment (37.1 percent) and site preparation (25.2
percent) account for the majority of costs.  Significant costs were accrued in the following categories:
equipment maintenance (12.6 percent),  mobilization and startup (9.4 percent), utilities (5.3 percent),
analytical services (3.6 percent), labor (3.4 percent), and demobilization (3.0 percent).  The costs for
permitting, supplies, effluent treatment, and residual shipping accounted for less than 1 percent of the
total costs for Case 2.

The total estimated cost for applying the freeze barrier technology to the Case 2 site over a 10-year
period is approximately $2,535,700.  Unit costs of $8.50 per cubic foot of frozen soil, or $2.80 per
cubic foot of isolated volume, were calculated based on this estimate. About 75 percent of the total
costs were for fixed costs, with the remaining 25 percent associated with annual costs. The annual
costs for Case 2 are a larger fraction of the total costs than for Case 1, primarily due to  the longer
duration of the barrier application for this estimate.
                                               95

-------
               5.0    TECHNOLOGY STATUS AND IMPLEMENTATION

 To date, this SITE demonstration represents the first full-scale application of the AH frozen soil barrier
 tecnnoiogy at a contaminated site.  However, API has been developing, designing, fabricating, and
 installing ground freezing systems for about 30 years.  AH has used the techno^ to seal subsurface
 structures against flooding of groundwater; to stabilize soils for excavation; and for foundation and
 ground stabilization purposes. While the AH ground freezing system a** been primarily used in arctic
 and subarctic environments, such as Alaska, Canada, and Greenland, the system can also be used in
 more temperate locations as demonstrated at the HRE pond site.

 Current plans for AH's ground freezing at ORNL's HRE pond site incluae maintaining the frozen soil
bamer through DOfe's fiscal year 200210 assess long-term performance of the barrier wall. DOE is
also considering toe use of the freeze barrier technology for containment of radiologically contaminated
groundwater plumes at two other DOE facilities, including Savannah River and Hanford. The
technology also is being considered for containment of a groundwater plume contaminated with
polychlorinated biphenyls and dense nonaqueous-phase liquids at a site in Smithville, Canada.
                                             96

-------
                                  6.0    REFERENCES

Arctic Foundations, Inc. (API). 1998. "The Frozen Soil Barrier Demonstration Project." Report
       prepared for U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

Evans, G. 1990.  "Estimating Innovative Treatment Technology Costs for the SITE Program." Journal
       of Air and Waste Management Association. Volume 40, Number 7. July.

Means, R.S. Company, Inc.  1998.  Environmental Restoration Assemblies Cost Book. R.S. Means
       Company, Inc., Kingston, Massachusetts.

MSB Technology Applications, Inc.  1998. Facsimile Regarding Costs Associated with the Freeze
       Barrier Technology. From Mike Harper, Bechtel-Jacobs, to Stan Lynn, Tetra Tech EM Inc.
       (TetraTech).  October.

Tennessee Department of Environmental Conservation.  1998.  "Gross Beta Flux Sample Results
       Collected From Weir Box."  November 13

DOE.  1986.  "Cnaracterization of the Homogeneous Reactor Experiment (HRE) No. 2 Impoundment."
       Environmental Sciences Division. July.

DOE.  1988.  Radioactive Waste Management Order. DOE Order 5820.2A.  September.

DOE.  1995.  "Frozen Soil Barrier Technology Innovative Technology Summary Report." Office of
       Technology Development.  April.

DOE.  1996.  Internal Memorandum Regarding Electromagnetic Conductivity Survey of the HRE Pond.
       From Ron Kaufmann, Environmental Sciences Division. To Mike Harper, Lockheed Martin
       Energy Research Corporation. April 8.

DOE.  1998a. "HRE Pond Cryogenic Barrier Technology Demonstration: Pre-Barrier Subsurface
       Hydrology and Contaminant Transport Investigation."  Environmental Sciences Division.
       March.

DOE.  1998b. "HRE Pond Cryogenic Barrier Technology Demonstration: Pre- and Post-Barrier
       Hydrologic Assessment." Environmental Sciences Division. December.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1988a.  Protocol for a Chemical Treatment
       Demonstration Plan. Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory.  Cincinnati, Ohio.
       April.

EPA.  1988b. CERCLA Compliance with Other Environmental Laws: Interim Final. Office of Solid
       Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). EPA/540/G-89/006.  August.

EPA.  1988c. Application of Dye Tracing Techniques For Determining Solute-Transport Characteristics
       ofGroundwaterinKarstTerranes. EPA/904/6-88-001. October.


                                            97

-------
EPA. 1989. CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: Part II.  aeon Air Act and Other
       Environmental Statutes and State Requirements. OSWER. EPA/540/G-89-006.


EPA' ^Octob^f. GrOUnd-Water TracinS Results- National Center For Environmental Assessment.


EPA. 1998  "Freeze Barrier Technology Final Quality Assurance Project Plan." Prepared bv Tetra
       Tech on behalf of EPA NRMRL, Cincinnati, Ohio. January.                     Y
                                          98

-------
                   APPENDIX

      SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM THE
DEMONSTRATION OF THE FREEZE BARRIER TECHNOLOGY:
             JANUARY 1998 - JULY 1998

                    (15 Pages)

-------

-------
  Analytical Results for
Eoslne OJ and Phloxine B
         (ppb)
Location
OLD
12
MW1 (1109)
MW2(1110)
MW3(1111)
S2
S7
SBC
S1
STP10
STP2
STP9
STP5
W898
SBC
W898
MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
SBC
W898
SBC
W898
OLD
12
MW1(1109)
MW3(1111)
S1
S2
S7
SBC
STP10
STP2
STP9
STP5
W898
MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
SBC
W898
Description
Dale's Little Dipper Spring
standpipe
monitoring well
monitoring well
monitoring well
small tributary
small tributary
stream below culvert
small tributary
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
piezometer
stream below culvert
piezometer
monitoring well
monitoring well
stream below culvert
piezometer
stream below culvert
piezometer
Dale's Little Dipper Spring
standpipe
monitoring well
monitoring well
small tributary
small tributary
small tributary
stream below culvert
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
piezometer
monitoring well
monitoring well
stream below culvert
piezometer
Phase
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
Sample Type
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
Sample Date
1/26/98
1/26/98
1/26/98
1/26/98
1/26/98
1/26/98
1/26/98
1/26/98
1/26/98
1/26/98
1/26/98
1/26/98
1/26/98
1/26/98
1/27/98
1/27/98
1/28/98
1/28/98
1/28/98
1/28/98
1/29/98
1/29/98
1/30/98
1/30/98
1/30/98
1/30/98
1/30/98
1/30/98
1/30/98
1/30/98
1/30/98
1/30/98
1/30/98
1/30/98
1/30/98
1/31/98
1/31/98
1/31/98
1/31/98
Eosine OJ
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.38E-01
2.09E-02
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.28E-02
1.90E-02
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
Phloxine B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
1.30E-03
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
1.30E-03
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
           A-1

-------
  Analytical Results for
Eosine OJ and Phloxine B
         (ppb)
Location
SBC
W898
MW3(1111)
MW3(1111)
S'
S2
S7

STP10
STP2
STP9
STP5
W898
MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
SBC
W898
SBC
W898
SBC
W898
OLD
MW2(1110)
MW3(1111)
MW4(1112)
S1

S7
SBC
STP10
STP2
STP9
Description
stream below culvert
piezometer
Dale's Little Dipper Spring
Keller's Leak
monitoring well
monitoring well
small tributary
small tributary
small tributary
small tributary
small tributary
small tributary
stream below culvert
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
piezometer
monitoring well
monitoring well
stream below culvert
piezometer
stream below culvert
piezometer
stream below culvert
piezometer
Dale's Little Dipper Spring
monitoring well
monitoring well
monitoring well
small tributary
small tributary
small tributary
stream below culvert
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
Phase
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
Sample Type
GS
GS
i§S
C
c
C
C
__
GS
C
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
Sample Date
2/1/98
2/1/98
2/2/98
2/2/98
2/2/98
2/2/98
2/2/98
2/2/98
2/2/98
2/2/98
2/2/98
2/2/98
2/2/98
2/3/98
2/3/98
2/3/98
2/4/98
2/4/98
2/5/98
2/5/98
2/6/98
2/6/98
2/6/98
2/6/98
2/6/98
2/6/98
2/6/98
2/6/98
2/6/98
2/6/98
2/6/98
Eosine OJ
ND
ND
I ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.47E-02
1.33E-02
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.85E-02
1.30E-03
Phloxine B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
1.30E-03
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
1.30E-03
1.30E-03
         A-2

-------
  Analytical Results for
Eosine OJ and Phloxine B
         (ppb)
Location
STSS
W898


OLD
12
MW1 (1109)
MW2(1110)
MW2(1110)
MW3(1111)
MW3(1111)
MW4(1112)
S1
S1
S2
S2
S7
S7
SBC
STP10
STP2
STP9
STSS
STSS
W898


MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
AFIP
OLD
12
MW1 (1109)
MW2(1110)
MW3(1111)
MW4(1112)
S1
S2
S7
Description
Trivelpiece Spring
piezometer


Dale's Little Dipper Spring
standpipe
monitoring well
monitoring well
monitoring well
monitoring well
monitoring well
monitoring well
small tributary
small tributary
small tributary
small tributary
small tributary
small tributary
stream below culvert
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
Trivelpiece Spring
Trivelpiece Spring
piezometer


monitoring well
monitoring well
piezometer
Dale's Little Dipper Spring
standpipe
monitoring well
monitoring well
monitoring well
monitoring well
small tributary
small tributary
small tributary
Phase
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
Sample Type
GS
GS
NSC
NSC
GS
GS
GS
GS
C
GS
C
GS
GS
C
GS
C
GS
C
C
GS
GS
GS
GS
C
C
NSC
NSC
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
C
GS
C
GS
GS
GS
Sample Date
2/6/98
2/6/98
2/7/98
2/8/98
2/9/98
2/9/98
2/9/98
2/9/98
2/9/98
2/9/98
2/9/98
2/9/98
2/9/98
2/9/98
2/9/98
2/9/98
2/9/98
2/9/98
2/9/98
2/9/98
2/9/98
2/9/98
2/9/98
2/9/98
2/9/98
2/10/98
2/11/98
2/12/98
2/12/98
2/13/98
2/13/98
2/13/98
2/13/98
2/13/98
2/13/98
2/13/98
2/13/98
2/13/98
2/13/98
Eosine OJ
ND
ND


1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.79E-02
1.90E-02
ND
ND
ND


ND
5.14E-02
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
Phloxine B
ND
ND


ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
1.30E-03
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND


ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
           A-3

-------
  Analytical Results for
Eosine OJ and Phloxine B
Location
SBC
STP10
STP2
STP9
STSS
W898
MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
OLD
MW2(1110)
MW3(1111)
MW4(1112)
S1
S2
S7
SBC
SBC
STP10
STP2
STP9
STSS
W898
W898
MW4(1112)
SBC
W898
AFIP
OLD
MW2(1110)
MW3(1111)
MW4(1112)
S2
sic

Description
stream below culvert
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
Trivelpiece Spring
piezometer
monitoring well
monitoring well
Dale's Little Dipper Spring
monitoring well
monitoring well
monitoring well
small tributary
small tributary
small tributary
stream below culvert
stream below culvert
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
Trivelpiece Spring
piezometer
piezometer
monitoring well
stream below culvert
piezometer
piezometer
Dale's Little Dipper Spring
monitoring well
monitoring well
monitoring well
small tributary
small tributary
small tributary
stream below culvert
standpipe
Phasi
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
RKfi
BKG
BKG
BKG
BKG
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
Sample Type
C
GS
GS
GS
GS
C
NSC
GS
GS
NSC
GS
C
GS
C
GS
GS
GS
GS
C
GS
GS
uo
GS
GS
C
NSC
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
«q
GS
GS
GS
GS
Sample Date
2/13/98
2/13/98
2/13/98
2/13/98
2/13/98
2/13/98
2/14/98
2/15/98
2/15/98
2/16/98
2/17/98
2/17/98
2/17/98
2/17/98
2/17/98
2/17/98
2/17/98
2/17/98
2/17/98
2/17/98
2/17/98
2/17/98
2/17/98
2/17/98
2/17/98
2/18/98
2/19/98
2/19/98
2/1 9/98
2/20/98
2/20/98
2/20/98
2/20/98
O/Ort/OQ
2/20/98
2/20/98
2/20/98
2/20/98 1
Eosine OJ
ND
ND
6.07E-02
1.90E-02
~~ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.14E-02
7.17E-02
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
1.09E+03
ND
ND
1 .30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
	 ND
Phlnyina n
ND
1.30E-03
1.30E-03
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
	
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
1.30E-03
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND 	
1.30E-03
         A-4

-------
  Analytical Results for
Eosine OJ and Phloxine B
         (ppb)
Location
STP2
STP9
STSS
W898
MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
SBC
W898
W898
MW4(1112)
SBC
W898
AFIP
OLD
KL
MW2(1110)
MW3(1111)
MW3(1111)
MW4(1112)
S1
S1
S2
S2
S7
S7
SBC
STP10
STP10
STP2
STP9
STSS
STSS
W898
MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
SBC
W898
W898
AFIP
Description
standpipe
standpipe
Trivelpiece Spring
piezometer
monitoring well
monitoring well
stream below culvert
piezometer
piezometer
monitoring well
stream below culvert
piezometer
piezometer
Dale's Little Dipper Spring
Keller's Leak
monitoring well
monitoring well
monitoring well
monitoring well
small tributary
small tributary
small tributary
small tributary
small tributary
small tributary
stream below culvert
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
Trivelpiece Spring
Trivelpiece Spring
piezometer
monitoring well
monitoring well
stream below culvert
piezometer
piezometer
piezometer
Phase
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
Sample Type
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
C
C
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
C
GS
GS
C
GS
C
GS
C
GS
GS
C
GS
C
GS
C
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
C
GS
Sample Date
2/20/98
2/20/98
2/20/98
2/20/98
2/21/98
2/21/98
2/21/98
2/21/98
2/21/98
2/22/98
2/22/98
2/22/98
2/23/98
2/23/98
2/23/98
2/23/98
2/23/98
2/23/98
2/23/98
2/23/98
2/23/98
2/23/98
2/23/98
2/23/98
2/23/98
2/23/98
2/23/98
2/23/98
2/23/98
2/23/98
2/23/98
2/23/98
2/23/98
2/24/98
2/24/98
2/24/98
2/24/98
2/24/98
2/25/98
Eosine OJ
2.75E-02
1.52E-02
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
6.27E+02
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.55E-02
7.60E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
NO'
Phloxine B
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
1.30E-03
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
           A-5

-------
  Analytical Results for
Eosine OJ and Phloxine B

MW2(1110)
MW3(1111)
MW4(1112)
S1
82
S7
SBC
STP10
STP2
STP9
STSS
W898
MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
SBC
W898
AFIP
KL
MW2(1110)
MW3(1111)
MW4(1112)
S1
S2
S7
SBC
SBC
SCS
STP10
STP9
STSS
W898
MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
SCS
W898
MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
SCS
W898

Description
monitoring well
monitnrinn u/pll
monitoring well
small tributary
small tributary
small tributary
stream below culvert
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
Trivelpiece Spring
piezometer
monitoring well
monitoring well
stream below culvert
piezometer
piezometer
Keller's Leak
monitoring well
monitoring well
monitoring well
small tributary
small tributary
small tributary
stream below culvert
stream below culvert
Steel Cylinder Spring
standpipe
standpipe
Trivelpiece Spring
piezometer
monitoring well
monitoring well
Steel Cylinder Spring
piezometer
monitoring well
monitoring well
Steel Cylinder Spring
piezometer

Phas
TR
TD
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR

Sample Type
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
/"*Q
(jo
GS
GS
GS
GS
C
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS

Sample Date
2/25/98
2/25/98
2/25/98
2/25/98
2/25/98
2/25/98
2/25/98
2/25/98
2/25/98
2/25/98
2/25/98
2/25/98
2/26/98
2/26/98
2/26/98
2/26/98
2/27/98
2/27/98
2/27/98
2/27/98
2/27/98
2/27/98
2/27/98
2/27/98
2/27/98
2/27/98
2/27/98
2/27/98
2/27/98
2/27/98
2/27/98
2/28/98
2/28/98
2/28/98
2/28/98
3/1/98
3/1/98
3/1/98
3/1/98

Eosine OJ
ND
ND
1 30E-03
ND
ND
~~ ND
ND
ND
5.20E-03
7.60E-03
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND

Phloxine B
ND
ND
"^ M— ««. w_
1 •snc_no
1 .OUt-UJ
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
1.30E-03
1 SOF-fl**
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
1.30E-03
~ND~
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND .
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
        A-6

-------
  Analytical Results for
Eosine OJ and Phloxine B
         (ppb)
Location
MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
scs
W898
MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
SCS
W898
MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
SCS
W898
MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
SCS
W898
AFIP
MW2(1110)
MW3(1111)
MW4(1112)
S1
S2
S7
SCS
STP10
STP2
STP9
STSS
W898
MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
SCS
W898
MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
SCS
W898
OLD
MW2(1110)
Description
monitoring well
monitoring well
Steel Cylinder Spring
piezometer
monitoring well
monitoring well
Steel Cylinder Spring
piezometer
monitoring well
monitoring well
Steel Cylinder Spring
piezometer
monitoring well
monitoring well
Steel Cylinder Spring
piezometer
piezometer
monitoring well
monitoring well
monitoring well
small tributary
small tributary
small tributary
Steel Cylinder Spring
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
Trivelpiece Spring
piezometer
monitoring well
monitoring well
Steel Cylinder Spring
piezometer
monitoring well
monitoring well
Steel Cylinder Spring
piezometer
Dale's Little Dipper Spring
monitoring well
Phase
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
Sample Type
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
Sample Date
3/2/98
3/2/98
3/2/98
3/2/98
3/3/98
33/3/98
3/3/98
3/3/98
3/4/98
3/4/98
3/4/98
3/4/98
3/5/98
3/5/98
3/5/98
3/5/98
3/6/98
3/6/98
3/6/98
3/6/98
3/6/98
3/6/98
3/6/98
3/6/98
3/6/98
3/6/98
3/6/98
3/6/98
3/6/98
3/7/98
3/7/98
3/7/98
3/7/98
3/8/98
3/8/98
3/8/98
3/8/98
3/9/98
3/9/98
Eosine OJ
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.04E-02
1.51E-02
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.66E+02
ND
Phloxine B
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.20E-01
1.30E-03
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
           A-7

-------
  Analytical Results for
Eosine OJ and Phloxine B
Location
MW4(1112)
W898
SBC
SCS
W898
W898
SBC
MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
W898
SBC
STP2
AFIP
MW3(1111)
W898
S1
S2
S7
SBC
STP10
STP2
STP9
STSS
MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
W898
SBC
W898
SBC
MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
W898
SBC
SBC
MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
Description
monitoring well
piezometer
stream below culvert
Steel Cylinder Spring
piezometer
piezometer
stream below culvert
monitoring well
monitoring well
piezometer
stream below culvert
standpipe
piezometer
monitoring well
piezometer
small tributary
small tributary
small tributary
stream below culvert
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
Trivelpiece Spring
monitoring well
monitoring well
piezometer
stream below culvert
piezometer
stream below culvert
monitoring well
monitoring well
piezometer
stream below culvert
piezometer
stream below culvert
monitoring well
monitoring well
piezometer
stream below culvert
Phase
IR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
Sample Type
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
Sample Date
3/9/98
3/9/98
3/9/98
3/9/98
3/9/98
3/10/98
3/10/98
3/11/98
3/11/98
3/11/9.8
3/11/98
3/11/98
3/12/98
3/12/98
3/12/98
3/12/98
3/12/98
3/12/98
3/12/98
3/12/98
3/12/98
3/12/98
3/12/98
3/13/98
3/13/98
3/13/98
3/13/98
3/14/98
3/14/98
3/15/98
3/15/98
3/15/98
3/15/98
3/16/98
3/16/98
3/17/98
3/17/98
3/17/98
3/17/98
Eosine OJ
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
<•»*«•— •——•«___^__B
ND
4.74E-02
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.82E-01
2.64E-02
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
Phloxine B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3/V7C ni
.076-02
1.30E-03
1.30E-03
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
        A-8

-------
  Analytical Results for
Eosine OJ and Phloxine B
         (ppb)
Location
AFIP
OLD
W898
OF283
SBC
SCS
STP10
STP2
STP9
MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
W898
SBC
OLD
W898
SBC
STP1
STP10
STP2
STP9
MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
W898
SBC
W898
SBC
AFIP
OLD
MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
W898
S7
SBC
STP1
STP10
STP2
STP9
W898
SBC
Description
piezometer
Dale's Little Dipper Spring
piezometer
Overflow 283
stream below culvert
Steel Cylinder Spring
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
monitoring well
monitoring well
piezometer
stream below culvert
Dale's Little Dipper Spring
piezometer
stream below culvert
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
monitoring well
monitoring well
piezometer
stream below culvert
piezometer
stream below culvert
piezometer
Dale's Little Dipper Spring
monitoring well
monitoring well
piezometer
small tributary
stream below culvert
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
piezometer
stream below culvert
Phase
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
Sample Type
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
Sample Date
3/18/98
3/18/98
3/18/98
3/18/98
3/18/98
3/18/98
3/18/98
3/18/98
3/18/98
3/19/98
3/19/98
3/19/98
3/19/98
3/20/98
3/20/98
3/20/98
3/20/98
3/20/98
3/20/98
3/20/98
3/21/98
3/21/98
3/21/98
3/21/98
3/22/98
3/22/98
3/23/98
3/23/98
3/23/98
3/23/98
3/23/98
3/23/98
3/23/98
3/23/98
3/23/98
3/23/98
3/23/98
3/24/98
3/24/98
Eosine OJ
ND
1.83E+01
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6.79E-02
1.30E-03
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
9.10E+01
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
4.15E-02
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.19E+02
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
2.28E-02
2.09E-02
ND
ND
Phloxine B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
1.30E-03
1.30E-03
1.30E-03
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
1.59E-02
1.30E-03
1.30E-03
ND
ND
          A-9

-------
  Analytical Results for
Eosine OJ and Phloxine B
Location
DI n
MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
W898
SBC
STP10
STP9
W898
SBC
AFIP
OLD
MW3(1111)
OF283
S1
S1
S2
S2
S7
S7
SBC
SBC
STP10
STP2
STP9
STSS


SBC

AFIP
OLD
KL
STP10
STP2
STP9
SBC


Description
uaie s utne Dipper Sprinc
monitoring well
monitoring well
piezometer
stream below culvert
standpipe
standpipe
piezometer
stream below culvert
piezometer
Dale's Little Dipper Spring
monitoring well
Overflow 283
small tributary
3mall triKittarw
small tributary
small tributary
small tributary
small tributary
stream below culvert
stream below culvert
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
Trivelpiece Spring


stream below culvert

piezometer
Dale's Little Dipper Spring
Keller's Leak
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
stream below culvert


Phas
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TD
TR
TD
1 K
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TD
1 K
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
Sample Type
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
C
GS
C
GS
C
GS
GS
GS
GS
NSC
NSC
NSC
GS
NSC
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
NSC
NSC
Sample Date
3/25/98
3/25/98

3/25/98
3/25/98
3/25/98
3/25/98
3/26/98
3/26/98
3/27/98
3/27/98
3/27/98
3/27/98
3/27/98
3/27/98
3/27/98
3/27/98
3/27/98
3/27/98
3/27/98
3/27/98
3/27/98
3/27/98
3/27/98
3/27/98
3/28/98
3/29/98
3/30/98
3/31/98
4/1/98
4/2/98
4/2/98
4/2/98
4/2/98
4/2/98
4/2/98
4/3/98
4/4/98
4/5/98
Eos
3.5
— n^TU^^^U

.3
1.3
•^••r ••
4 5f
"«»— — ^-w.
1
1
I
I
• 1 1
f
•H^WUH^^H^H
I
•WHIBH^^^^^
f
fl
|t
ft
|v
36'
•^ «
1 3C
"K
•^—••WHKBm^H

r,

N
4.50
l\
N
9.44
1.30
N
••^••j— •

                                        ND
       A-10

-------
  Analytical Results for
Eosine OJ and Phloxine B
         (ppb)
Location

SBC


SBC



SBC
AFIP
OF283
STP10
TCP

SBC



SBC


SBC


MW2(1110)
AFIP
SBC
STP1
STP10
STP2
MW4(1112)

MW2(1110)
SBC
W898

SBC
MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
Description

stream below culvert


stream below culvert



stream below culvert
piezometer
Overflow 283
standpipe
terra cotta pipe

stream below culvert



stream below culvert


stream below culvert


monitoring well
piezometer
stream below culvert
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
monitoring well

monitoring well
stream below culvert
piezometer

stream below culvert
monitoring well
monitoring well
Phase
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
Sample Type
NSC
GS
NSC
NSC
GS
NSC
NSC
NSC
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
NSC
GS
NSC
NSC
NSC
GS
NSC
NSC
GS
NSC
NSC
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
NSC
GS
GS
GS
NSC
GS
GS
GS
Sample Date
4/6/98
4/7/98
4/8/98
4/9/98
4/10/98
4/11/98
4/12/98
4/13/98
4/14/98
4/15/98
4/15/98
4/15/98
4/15/98
4/16/98
4/17/98
4/18/98
4/19/98
4/20/98
4/21/98
4/22/98
4/23/98
4/24/98
4/25/98
4/26/98
4/27/98
4/28/98
4/28/98
4/28/98
4/28/98
4/28/98
4/29/98
4/30/98
5/1/98
5/1/98
5/1/98
5/2/98
5/3/98
5/4/98
5/4/98
Eosine OJ

ND


ND



ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND



ND


ND


ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
1.30E-03

ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
1.30E-03
Phloxine B

ND


ND



ND
1.30E-03
ND
1.30E-03
ND

ND



ND


ND


ND
7.99E-01
ND
1.30E-03
2.35E-01
1.30E-03
7.10E-03

ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
1.30E-03
          A-11

-------
  Analytical Results for
Eosine OJ and Phloxine B
Location
SBC
W898

MW4(1112)
AFIP
OLD
FS
KL
MH
MW2(1110)
MW3(1111)
OF283
S1
S2
STP1
STP10
STP2
STP5
STP6
STP7
STP9
TCP
W898
MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
SBC
W898
MW4(1112)
MW2(1110)
SBC
W898
MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
W898
ftAjkf* ri nfinn
stream below culvert
piezometer

monitoring well
piezometer
Dale's Little Dipper Spring
Frank's Spring
Keller's Leak
manhole south of pond
monitoring well
monitoring well
Overflow 283
small tributary
small tributary
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
terra cotta pipe
piezometer
monitoring well
monitoring well
stream below culvert
piezometer
monitoring well
monitoring well
stream below culvert
piezometer
monitoring well
monitoring well
piezometer
Dkooo
rnasi
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
IHH"/
Sample Type
GS
GS
NSC
GS
GS
GS
GS
oo
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
NSC
NSC
GS
GS
GS
GS
NSC
GS
GS
GS
GS
NSC
NSC
GS
GS
GS

Sample Date
5/5/98
5/5/98
5/6/98
5/7/98
5/8/98
5/8/98
5/8/98
5/8/98
5/8/98
5/8/98
5/8/98
5/8/98
5/8/98
5/8/98
5/8/98
5/8/98
5/8/98
5/8/98
5/8/98
5/8/98
5/8/98
5/8/98
5/8/98
5/9/98
5/10/98
5/11/98
5/11/98
5/12/98
5/12/98
5/13/98
C/1/t/QO
o/ 14/ao
5/15/98
5/15/98
5/15/98
5/16/98
5/17/98
5/18/98
5/18/98
5/19/98

Eosine OJ
ND
ND

1.30E-03
ND
1.30E+00
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
1.52E-02
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
1 .30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
Phloxine B
~~ ~ND "
~ND ~
— — — — — — — _ _
1.30E-03
2.44E-01
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
1 30E-03
2.03E-02
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
        A-12

-------
  Analytical Results for
Eosine OJ and Phloxine B
         (ppb)
Location

MW4(1112)
MW2(1110)
W898


MW4(1112)
W898

MW4(1112)
AFIP
MW2(1110)
MW3(1111)
MW4(1112)
W898
STP1
STP10
STP2
STP5
STP6
STP8
STP9


MW2(1110)
W898
SBC



STP6
MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
W898
SBC


MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
Description

monitoring well
monitoring well
piezometer


monitoring well
piezometer

monitoring well
piezometer
monitoring well
monitoring well
monitoring well
piezometer
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe
standpipe


monitoring well
piezometer
stream below culvert



standpipe
monitoring well
monitoring well
piezometer
stream below culvert


monitoring well
monitoring well
Phase
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
Sample Type
NSC
GS
GS
GS
NSC
NSC
GS
GS
NSC
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
NSC
NSC
GS
GS
GS
NSC
NSC
NSC
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
NSC
NSC
GS
GS
Sample Date
5/20/98
5/21/98
5/22/98
5/22/98
5/23/98
5/24/98
5/25/98
5/26/98
5/27/98
5/28/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/30/98
5/31/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/2/98
6/3/98
6/4/98
6/5/98
6/5/98
6/5/98
6/5/98
6/5/98
6/6/98
6/7/98
6/8/98
6/8/98
Eosine OJ

1.30E-03
ND
ND


1.30E-03
ND

1.30E-03
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
3.07E-02
ND
3.61 E-02
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03


ND
ND
ND



ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND


ND
1.30E-03
Phloxine B

1.30E-03
ND
ND


1.30E-03
ND

1.30E-03
3.30E-02
ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
2.03E-02
2.60E-02
2.24E-02
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03


ND
ND
ND



ND
ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND


ND
1.30E-03
           A-13

-------
                                            Analytical Results for
                                          Eoslne OJ and Phloxine B
                                                   (ppb)
                      Description
                      piezometer
                                             Sample Date
                                                6/8/98
                                                6/8/98
                                                6/9/98
                                               6/10/98
                                               6/10/98
                                               6/10/98
                                               6/10/98
                                               6/10/98
                                                            Eoslne OJ
                                                               ND
                                                               ND
Phloxine B
    ND
    ND
                  stream below culvert
 MW3Q111
   STP10
    STP5
 monitoring well
                                                                              1.30E-03
                                                                                ND
                                                                                ND
                                                                              1.30E-03
                                                                              1.30E-03
    STP6
    STP9
 MW4
                    monitoring well
                                                                6/11/98
                                                                6/12/98
                                                                6/12/98
                                                               1.30E-03
                                                                 ND
                                                               1.30E-03
 monitoring well
 monitoring well
   ND
 1.3pj=-03
   ND
   ND
                      piezometer
                 stream below culvert
                                                                6/14/98
                                                                6/15/98
  monitoring well
     ezometer
                 stream below culvert
                    monitoring well
                                              6/15/98
                                              6/16/98
                                              6/17/98
                                              6/18/98
                                              6/19/98
                                              6/19/98
                                              6/19/98
                                              6/19/98
                                              6/20/98
                                              6/21/98
MW2J1110)
MW4(1112)
   W898
monitoring well
monitoring well
                 stream below culvert
                   monitoring well
                     piezometer
                                              6/22/98
                                              6/22/98
                 stream below culvert
                   monitoring well
                   Frank's Sprin
                manhole south of pond
                   monitoring well
                                                                                 ND
                                                                               1.30E-03
                                                                                 ND
Trivelpiece Spring
                                                 A-14

-------
                                            Analytical Results for
                                           Eosine OJ and Phloxine B
                                                    (ppb)
Location

MW4(1112)
W898
SBC


MW2(1110)
W898
SBC
MW4(1112)

MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
W898
SBC


W898
SBC
MW4(1112)


MW4(1112)


MW2(1110)
MW4(1112)
Description

monitoring well
piezometer
stream below culvert


monitoring well
piezometer
stream below culvert
monitoring well

monitoring well
monitoringjvell
piezometer
stream below culvert


piezometer
stream below culvert
monitoring well


monitoring well


monitoring well
monitoring well
Phase
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
Sample Type
NSC
GS
GS
GS
NSC
NSC
GS
GS
GS
GS
NSC
GS
GS
GS
GS
NSC
NSC
GS
GS
GS
NSC
NSC
GS
NSC
NSC
GS
GS
Sample Date
6/25/98
6/26/98
6/26/98
6/26/98
6/27/98
6/28/98
6/29/98
6/29/98
6/29/98
6/30/98
7/1/98
7/2/98
7/3/98
7/3/98
7/3/98
7/4/98
7/5/98
7/6/98
7/6/98
7/7/98
7/8/98
7/9/98
7/10/98
7/11/98
7/12/98
7/13/98
7/14/98
Eosine OJ

1.30E-03
ND
ND


ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03

ND
2.70E-03
ND
ND


ND
ND
1.30E-03


1.30E-03


ND
1.30E-03
Phloxine B

1.30E-03
ND
ND


ND
ND
ND
1.30E-03

ND
1.30E-03
ND
ND
' '

ND
ND
1.30E-03


1.30E-03


ND
1.30E-03
Notes:
BKG = background
TR = tracer
GS = grab sample
C = charcoal
ND = none detected
ppb = parts per billion
NSC = no samples collected
                                                      A-15

-------

-------
                                 ATTACHMENT A

                    VENDOR'S CLAIMS FOR THE TECHNOLOGY
(Note: All information in this appendix was provided by the vendor, Arctic Foundations, Inc. [AFI].
Inclusion of any information is at the discretion of AFI, and does not necessarily constitute U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency concurrence or endorsement.)

-------

-------
                                     VENDOR'S CLAIMS

A.1    Background

Since 1862, ground freezing has been used to augment soil properties at civil works and mining sites to
facilitate construction. Freezing gives load-bearing strength to soils and has frequently been used for
large scale engineering projects. API has produced over 600 foundation and ground stabilization systems
since the early 1970s.  Systems have been installed at sites including hangars, towers, antennae, schools,
houses, apartments, hospitals, power stations, maintenance facilities, pipelines, oil production facilities,
water treatment facilities, sewage treatment and containment facilities, roadways, air fields, shopping
centers, libraries, and storage tanks.

In 1962, the Atomic Energy Commission disposed of over 6,800 kilograms of radioactively contaminated
material in a burial mound at the Project Chariot site in northwestern Alaska.  The naturally occurring
frozen soil at the site (permafrost) was deemed to be the perfect containment medium for the
radionuclides. Indeed, upon remediation of the site in 1995, it was found that virtually no transport of
radionuclides into the permafrost had occurred. There are several sites where the impermeability of
permafrost is used to prohibit migration of contaminants such as sewage, landfill leachate, and mining
tailings in Alaska, Canada, and Russia. The technology of freezing soil has just recently been considered
as a hazardous waste containment technology.

A.2    Freeze Barrier Technology

Generally, soil refrigeration for ground freezing is performed using a series of concentric pipes
(thermoprobes) installed in a line to approximate the geometry of the proposed frozen barrier. Pumping
cold brine down the inside pipe and letting it flow back through the annular space between the inner and
outer pipes freezes the soil. The frozen soil grows on the outside of the concentric pipes until it connects
to the frozen cylinder formed on the adjacent pipe in the array.  The typical refrigerating medium used to
chill the brine is ammonia.  The brine is commonly a mixture of calcium chloride and water. Should a
leak occur in the brine system, the possibility exists that the antifreeze brine will solution-thaw the frozen
soil and cause a breach in the barrier.  Likewise, groundwater contamination  can occur and brine
                                          Attachment-1

-------
 contaminated soil may have to be excavated and cleaned, depending upon the environment where the
 work is taking place.

 The thermosyphons or passive heat removal devices, efficiently move heat against gravity without the
 need for an external energy source. They are the most widely used passive refrigeration systems for
 creation, maintenance, and augmentation of permafrost.  In cold region applications where the mean
 annual air temperature is below freezing, they are completely self-sufficient refrigeration devices. In the
 pure passive form, thermosyphons function with no moving parts.  Thermosyphons operate because of a
 two-phase working fluid. The working fluid is contained in a closed vessel, which is usually partially
 buried. Whenever the above ground portion of the vessel is subjected to air that is cooler than the buried
 portion, heat is released to the air by condensation of the vapor within the vessel. The condensate flows
 via gravity to the portion of the vessel below the ground where it evaporates and the vapors return to the
 top. The cycling repeats until the air temperature rises above the soil temperature. These devices are
 thermodynamically similar to heat pumps; that is, they absorb heat by vaporizing a liquid, carry heat in the
 vapor phase, and release heat by condensing the vapor.

 Hybrid thermosyphons incorporate an integral heat exchanger to allow the units to be driven with a
 standard mechanical refrigeration system.  A typical system utilizing hybrid thermosyphons includes an
 active (powered) refrigeration condenser, an interconnecting supply and return piping system, and system
 controls. The hybrid thermosyphons will function actively without direct dependence on the ambient air
 temperature. If ambient temperatures are sufficiently low enough, the hybrid units will function passively,
 thereby reducing energy costs.

 A.3    Deployment of Freeze Barriers

 Frozen  barriers  are well  suited to control  a  variety of contaminants including,  but  not limited to,
 radionuclides, DNAPLs, hydrocarbons, sewage, landfill leachate, and other hazardous chemicals. They can
 be deployed at a wide variety of sites at any depth from the ground surface to several thousand feet deep. The
barrier can be continuous from the surface to a great depth or it can be restricted to a predetermined zone
below the surface.  Freezing can be confined to specific subsurface target zones for more efficient energy
usage.  Subsurface heat loads due to flowing groundwater, utilities, and other sources can be quantified and
accounted for in the design of the barrier. It can be used to form a vertical, horizontal, or angled impervious

                                         Attachment-2

-------
barrier or as an encapsulating soil mass.  The configuration of the barrier is primarily constrained by the
installation techniques that are available. The temperature of the barrier can be adjusted to ensure the
necessary liquid to solid phase change even though certain contaminants may effect a depression of the phase
change temperature to a point well below 0°C. Frozen barriers can be developed in soils that are saturated
or relatively dry. It is rarely necessary to add moisture because the in-situ moisture will migrate and
concentrate in the frozen soil and create an impervious wall. The movement of waterborne contaminants only
serves to accelerate this process.

The frozen barrier technology can also be used for immobilization of aqueous contaminants such as
tritium. As there is no large scale method of removing tritium from groundwater, one simple method for
treatment is to contain or immobilize tritiated water until the tritium has decayed to acceptable levels.
Typically, 2 to 3 half-lives, or about 30 years of containment is the time period considered for most tritium
treatment provided the source is eliminated.  Similarly, MSr with a half-life of approximately 29 years
could be immobilized for 90 years or so to significantly reduce the contamination hazard. Immobilization
periods must correspond to contamination levels and acceptable standards or the immobilization may be
used as a stopgap measure to preclude the spread of contamination until technology can be found for
remediation. The majority of system components for a frozen soil barrier using hybrid thermosyphons
have no wear parts other than the skid-mounted condensing units so it is a relatively simple procedure to
replace worn out components.  In fact, the hybrid thermosyphons are not particular on how they are
driven, so newer refrigeration technologies may provide increased efficiencies when the original
equipment mechanical systems wear out.

A.4    Advantages and Innovative Features

 Although there are numerous developed and embryonic technologies, such as steel, concrete, slurry walls,
 or grout curtains, that purport to contain or immobilize hazardous wastes, few can match the use of a
 frozen barrier created and maintained with thermosyphons. This technology is proven to be effective
 independent of climatic zone. The self-healing feature of the frozen barrier makes it attractive in locations
 where ground movement may occur. The soil strengthening feature is advantageous where weak soils are
 present or where the plane of the barrier may be on the slip surface of a potential slope failure. One of the
                                                                        /
 most appealing features of the frozen barrier is the reversibility feature, mat is, when the barrier is no
 longer needed, it is simply allowed to thaw with no lasting effect on the subgrade. Reversibility allows

                                          Attachment-3

-------
new science to be used in the future without being hamstrung by technology that may be outdated. The
frozen soil barrier also offers the following advantages over conventional containment systems:

       •       Ice does not degrade or weaken over time
       •       The system does not create unwanted reactions and by-products in the subsurface
       •       It provides a means to fully contain wastes, including a bottom, without excavation
               Maintenance costs are extremely low, allowing continued use for extended periods
       •       The barrier uses benign refrigerants and does not have any lasting effects
                                        Attachment-4

-------

-------
v>EPA
      United States
      Environmental Protection
      Agency


      Office of Research and Development
      National Risk Management
        Research Laboratory
      Cincinnati, OH 45268

      Official Business
      Penalty for Private Use
      $300


      EPA/540/R-03/508
      September 2004
      www.epa.gov
PRESORTED STANDARD
 POSTAGE & FEES PAID
        EPA
   PERMIT No. G-35
                                        Recycled/Recyclable
                                        Printed with vegetable-based ink on
                                        paper that contains a minimum of
                                        50% post-consumer fiber content
                                        processed chlorine free

-------