FEDERAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES ROUNDTABLE
REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES ANDTECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT REPORTS
FACTSHEET
The Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
(FRTR) promotes interagency cooperation to
advance the use of innovative technologies for
the remediation of hazardous waste sites. One
of the FRTR's priorities is the documentation and
distribution of cost and performance information
for completed and ongoing remediation projects.
Primary members of the FRTR include the U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD), Department of
Energy (DOE), Department of Interior (DOI),
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
The remediation case studies and general
technology assessment reports published by the
FRTR are available at www.frtr.gov. These
reports provide site-specific information about
actual technology applications and long-term
monitoring/optimization based on information
provided by federal and state agencies. Site
managers, regulators, technology vendors,
contractors, and the public can benefit from
these experiences to improve technology
selection and operation. This fact sheet
describes the status of cost and performance
activities, including recent additions of completed
case studies and reports.
The FRTR recently announced the release of 45
new remediation case study reports and
technology assessments in four focus areas.
These include 13 cost and performance case
study reports describing the use of remediation
technologies; 10 reports describing the use of site
characterization and monitoring technologies; 13 case
studies describing long-term monitoring/optimization
of remediation technologies; and 10 reports describing
the assessments of remediation technologies at
hazardous waste sites.
The four focus areas for remediation case studies
and technology assessment reports represent a wide
spectrum of technology deployment in the field,
ranging from large-scale demonstrations to full-scale
applications at single sites and at multiple sites, and
long-term technology optimization.
HIGHLIGHTS
7 new case studies addressing cleanup using
aggressive in situ technologies such as
chemical oxidation, thermal treatment, chemical
reduction, and bio re mediation.
2 new case studies about expediting site
assessment using the Triad approach
13 new case studies on long-term monitoring/
optimization prepared by federal agencies such
as EPA, the Air Force, and the Navy
10 technology assessment reports covering
technologies such as phytoremediation,
bioremediation, air sparging, in situ thermal
treatment, and in situ chemical oxidation
EXHIBIT 1: SOIL REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES BY TECHNOLOGY
Ex Situ Soil Treatment
Thermal Desorption (29)
Incineration (14) ,
Physical/Chemical Treatment (16)
Physical Separation/ Segmented Gate
System (8)
Solvent Extraction (2)
Vitrification (3)
Solidification/Stabilization (1)
Acid Leaching (1)
Soil Washing (1)
Bioremediation (16) .
Land Treatment (7)
Composting (6)
Slurry-Phase Bioremediation (3)
In Situ Soil Treatment
Soil Vapor Extraction (47)
Thermal Treatment (16)
Bioventing (9)
Electrokinetics (5)
Other (23)
Phytoremediation (5)
Chemical Oxidation/Reduction (6)
Vitrification (2)
Fracturing (3)
Solidification/Stabilization (4)
Lasagna™ (2)
Drilling (1)
-------
EXHIBIT 2: GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES BY TECHNOLOGY
Ex Situ Groundwater Treatment
In Situ Groundwater Treatment
Pump and Treat (56)
-Other (31)
In-Well Air Stripping (9)
Monitored Natural Attenuation (9)
Flushing (7)
Phytoremediation (6)
Bioremediation (47)
Multi-Phase Extraction (16)
Air Sparging (16)
Permeable Reactive Barrier (14)
Chemical Oxidation/Reduction (17)
Thermal Treatment (12)
TECHNOLOGY COST AND
CASE
The FRTR has added 13 new remediation case studies for a
total of 374. These remediation technology cost and
performance case studies cover a wide range of technology
types and contaminants. Each report (about 10-40 pages in
length) provides information about site background and
hydrogeology, a description of the technology design and
operation, data about cost and performance, information about
lessons learned from the project, and points of contact.
The new remediation case studies include several different
technologies fortreating soil orgroundwatercontamination or
both, with 7 reports addressing soil cleanup and 8 reports
concerning groundwater. Exhibits 1 and 2 show the specific
soil and groundwater technologies covered by the site
remediation reports, along with the number of reports for each
technology.
Abstracts (2 pages in length) are provided for each of the
case studies summarizing key information about the site-
specific technology application. Abstracts forthe new reports
are available in the ninth volume of Abstracts of Remediation
Case Studies (EPA 542-R-05-021, July 2005). The 13 reports
and associated abstracts, along with additional related FRTR
resources, are on-line atwww.frtr.gov.
CHARACTERIZATION AND
The FRTR has added 10 new site characterization reports,
including reports about using the Triad to expedite site
characterization, sediment characterization, contaminant
analyses, and geophysical techniques. The 10 reports cover
a full range of site characterization and monitoring techniques
with many focused on technologies used in the investigation
stage of site cleanup.
HIGHLIGHT OF NEW CHARACTERIZATION REPORT
The Cos Cob Power Plant Site in Connecticut is being
assessed for potential reuse options. The Triad approach
was used to expedite site characterization, and a
preliminary conceptual site model (CSM) was developed
based on a review of existing data from previous
investigations. Contaminants of potential concern include
asbestos, petroleum-related substances, poly chlorinated
biphenyls(PCBs), and arsenic. It was agreed that a primarily
field-based approach could be used to expand sampling
and analytical coverage at the site and that a dynamic work
strategy would be beneficial to assist in further delineation
of contaminants at the site, particularly for PCBs. The
dynamic work strategy called for use of test kits, field
methods and a grid sampling approach to affordably expand
the extent and density of information available to support
decision-making. Direct-push methods were used to collect
soil samples from 1-foot intervals across the site. Estimated
cost savings as compared with the use of a more traditional,
phased approach were calculated at approximately 35
percent.
LONG-TERM MONITORING/OPTIMIZATION STUDY
REPORTS
The FRTR has added 13 new reports on long-term
management/optimization. The reports describe long-term
management/optimization efforts that have either been
implemented or evaluated, and cover techniques such as
groundwater monitoring program evaluation, plume capture
evaluation, and hydraulic optimization. Reports include
activities at single sites and at multiple sites.
-------
HIGH LIGHT OF LONG-TERM MONITORING/
OPTIMIZATION CASE STUDY
Pump and treat was Implemented at the Fort Lewis Logistics
Center in Washington in 1995 to treat groundwater
contaminated wlthTCE, DCE, and otherhalogenated organic
compounds. Remedial action monitoring network
optimization was conducted for the extraction and treatment
system. Monitoring and Remediation Optimization System
(MAROS) software developed by the Air Force Center for
Environmental Excellence (AFCEE) was utilized for
statistical analyses and network optimization. A small-scale
increase in the overall number of remedial action monitoring
wells and surface water locations sampled (increase of 20
locations), coupled with a reduction in the frequency at which
samples are collected for a number of wells, is expected to
result in a significant time and cost savings over the course
of the remedial action monitoring program at the Logistics
Center. In each of the first two years after implementation of
the recommendations set forth in this report, a cost savings
of approximately $31,000 per year is likely to be achieved.
REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT REPORTS
The FRTR is compiling general technology assessment
reports prepared by federal agencies and the Interstate
Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC) (www.itrcweb.org).
As technologies mature, federal agencies and states are
moving beyond documenting individual projects to providing
more comprehensive analyses about technologies that have
been used at multiple sites. These reports provide a
summary of findings about the use of a technology based
on practical field experience across multiple sites, including
lessons learned. Some of these reports contain information
about the design, implementation, and selection of a
technology. Currently, there are 64 FRTR remediation
technology assessment reports covering 16 technology
types and 3 contaminant/site-type focus areas, including
arsenic, Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPLs), and
Underground Storage Tank (UST) sites/fuel-contaminated
sites. A separate fact sheet has been prepared which
highlights recent reports of greatest value to project
managers.
EXHIBIT 3: REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT REPORTS
Other (19)
In Situ Chemical Oxidation (3)
Containment - Barrier Walls (2)
Flushing (2)
Soil Vapor Extraction (2)
Soil Washing (2)
In-Well Air Stripping (2)
Multi-Phase Extraction (2)
Containment - Caps (1)
In Situ Thermal Treatment (1)
Incineration (on-site) (1)
Solidification/Stabilization (1)
Bioremediation (10)
Air Sparging (4)
Phytoremediation (6)
Thermal Desorption (4)
Monitored Natural Attenuation (4)
Permeable Reactive Barriers (9)
-
The following FRTR documents are available free-of-charge from the U.S. EPA/National Service Center for Environmental
Publications (NSCEP), while supplies last. To order, mail a request to:
U.S. EPA/National Service Center for Environmental Publications
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242
or FAX to (513) 489-8695. Also, telephone orders may be placed at (800) 490-9198 or (513) 489-8190.
Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies, Volume 9, July 2005 (EPA 542-R-05-021)
Guide to Documenting and Managing Cost and Performance Information for Remediation Projects, Revised Version,
October 1998 (EPA 542-B-98-007).
-------
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5102G)
National Service Center for
Environmental Publications
P.O. Box42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
EPA542-F-05-004
July 2005
www.epa.gov
www.frtr.gov
9002
pej
jueiussessv
A6o|ouipej.
pue
;,.;i f? «§»;?%;,;!•:!
W±&irjxMf
lj^%
«• |
^
.- -vSs^S'G^S'S*;.-.
,^* 'Qsft—a.-izi;,'* **x^
------- |