Abstracts of Remediation
Case Studies
Volume 11
Federal
Remediation
Technologies
Roundtable
www.frtr.gov
Prepared by the
Member Agencies of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
-------
Abstracts of Remediation
Case Studies
Volume 11
Prepared by Member Agencies of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Defense
U.S. Air Force
U.S. Army
U.S. Navy
Department of Energy
Department of Interior
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
August 2007
-------
NOTICE
This report and the individual case studies and abstracts it covers were prepared by agencies of the U.S.
Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of its employees, makes any
warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of
any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately-
owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark,
manufacturer, or otherwise does not imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Government
or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect
those of the U.S. Government or any agency thereof.
Compilation of this material has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
under EPA Contract No. 68-W-02-034.
-------
FOREWORD
This report is a collection of abstracts summarizing 10 new case studies of site remediation applications
prepared primarily by federal agencies. The case studies, collected under the auspices of the Federal
Remediation Technologies Roundtable (Roundtable), were undertaken to document the results and
lessons learned from technology applications. They will help establish benchmark data on cost and
performance which should lead to greater confidence in the selection and use of innovative cleanup
technologies.
The Roundtable was created to exchange information on site remediation technologies, and to consider
cooperative efforts that could lead to a greater application of innovative technologies. Roundtable
member agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Department of
Defense, and U.S. Department of Energy, expect to complete many site remediation projects in the near
future. These agencies recognize the importance of documenting the results of these efforts, and the
benefits to be realized from greater coordination.
The abstracts are organized by technology, and cover a variety of in situ and ex situ treatment
technologies and some containment remedies. The abstracts and corresponding case study reports are
available through the Roundtable Web site, which contains a total of 393 remediation technology case
studies (the 10 new case studies and 383 previously-published case studies). Appendix A to this report
identifies the specific sites, technologies, contaminants, media, and year published for the 393 case
studies. Appendix A is only available in the online version of this report and can be downloaded from
the Roundtable Web site at: http://www.frtr.gov.
Abstracts, Volume 11, covers a wide variety of technologies, including full-scale remediations and
large-scale field demonstrations of soil, groundwater, and acid rock drainage treatment technologies.
Previously published versions of the Abstracts Volume are listed below. Additional abstract volumes
will be compiled as agencies prepare additional case studies.
Abstracts
Volume 1: EPA-542-R-95-001; March 1995; PB95-201711
Volume 2: EPA-542-R-97-010; July 1997; PB97-177570
Volume 3: EPA-542-R-98-010; September 1998
Volume 4: EPA-542-R-00-006; June 2000
Volume 5: EPA-542-R-01-008; May 2001
Volume 6: EPA-542-R-02-006; June 2002
Volume 7: EPA 542-R-03-011; July 2003
Volume 8: EPA 542-R-04-012; June 2004
Volume 9: EPA-542-R-05-021; July 2005
Volume 10: EPA-542-R-06-002; August 2006
Volume 11: EPA-542-R-07-004; August 2007
-------
Accessing Case Studies
All of the Roundtable case studies and case study abstracts are available on the Internet through the
Roundtable Web site at: http://www.frtr.gov/costperf.htm. This report is also available for downloading
at this address. The Roundtable Web site also provides links to individual agency Web sites, and
includes a search function. The search function allows users to complete a key word (pick list) search of
all the case studies on the Web site, and includes pick lists for media treated, contaminant types, primary
and supplemental technology types, site name, and site location. The search function provides users with
basic information about the case studies, and allows users to view or download abstracts and case studies
that meet their requirements. Users are encouraged to download abstracts and case studies from the
Roundtable Web site.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
FOREWORD i
INTRODUCTION 1
IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT ABSTRACTS 7
Phytoremediation at Palmerton Zinc Pile Superfund Site, Palmerton, Pennsylvania 9
Phosphate-induced metal stabilization (PIMS) at Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 11
Soil Vapor Extraction and In Situ Chemical Oxidation at Swift Cleaners, Jacksonville, Florida . . 13
IN SITU GROUND WATER TREATMENT ABSTRACTS 17
Permeable Reactive Barrier at East Helena site, East Helena, Montana 18
In Situ Remediation of a TCE-Contaminated Aquifer Using a Short Rotation Woody Crop
Groundwater Treatment System, Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base, Fort Worth, Texas 20
Electronically Induced Redox Barriers for Treatment of Groundwater at F.E. Warren Air Force Base,
Wyoming 22
Demonstration of Bioaugmentation at Kelly Air Force Base, Texas 24
EX SITU AGIO ROCK DRAINAGE TREATMENT ABSTRACTS 27
Constructed Wetland at Copper Basin Mining District, Ducktown, Tennessee 29
Compost-free Bioreactor at Leviathan Mine Superfund Site, Markleeville, California 31
Lime Treatment at Leviathan Mine Superfund Site, Markleeville, California 34
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES 37
Tables
1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies 3
2. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data 5
in
-------
This page intentionally left blank
IV
-------
INTRODUCTION
Increasing the cost effectiveness of site remediation is a national priority. The selection and use of more
cost-effective remedies requires better access to data on the performance and cost of technologies used in
the field. To make data more widely available, member agencies of the Federal Remediation
Technologies Roundtable (Roundtable) are working jointly to publish case studies of full-scale and
demonstration-scale remediation projects. At this time, the Roundtable is publishing 10 new remediation
technology case studies to the Roundtable Web site (http://www.frtr.gov/costperf.htm). A total of 393
case studies have now been completed, primarily focused on contaminated soil and groundwater cleanup.
The 10 new remediation technology case studies were developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
They were prepared based on recommended terminology and procedures agreed to by the agencies.
These procedures are summarized in the Guide to Documenting and Managing Cost and Performance
Information for Remediation Projects (EPA 542-B-98-007; October 1998).
By including a recommended reporting format, the Roundtable is working to standardize the reporting of
costs and performance to make data comparable across projects. In addition, the Roundtable is working
to capture information in case study reports that identifies and describes the primary factors that affect
cost and performance of a given technology. Factors that may affect project costs include economies of
scale, contaminant concentration levels in impacted media, required cleanup levels, completion
schedules, and matrix characteristics and operating conditions for the technology.
The case studies and abstracts present available cost and performance information for full-scale
remediation efforts and several large-scale demonstration projects. They are meant to serve as primary
reference sources, and contain information on site background, contaminants and media treated,
technology, cost and performance, and points of contact for the technology application. The case studies
and abstracts contain varying levels of detail based on the availability of data and information for each
application.
The case study abstracts in this volume describe a wide variety of in situ and ex situ treatment
technologies for soil, groundwater, and acid rock drainage. Contaminants treated included halogenated
volatiles and heavy metals.
-------
Table 1 provides summary information about the technology used, contaminants and media treated, and
project duration for the 10 technology applications in this volume. This table also provides highlights
about each application. Table 2 summarizes cost data, including information about quantity of media
treated and quantity of contaminant removed. In addition, Table 2 shows a calculated unit cost for some
projects, and identifies key factors potentially affecting technology cost. The column showing the
calculated unit costs for treatment provides a dollar value per quantity of media treated and contaminant
removed, as appropriate. The cost data presented in the table were taken directly from the case studies
and have not been adjusted for inflation to a common year basis. The costs should be assumed to
represent dollar values for the time period that the project was in progress (shown on Table 1 as project
duration).
Appendix A to this report provides a summary of key information for all 393 remediation case studies
published to date by the Roundtable, including information about site name and location, technology,
media, contaminants, and year the project began. The appendix also identifies the year that the case
study was first published by the Roundtable. All projects shown in Appendix A are full-scale unless
otherwise noted. This report can be downloaded from the Roundtable Web site.
-------
Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies
Site Name, State (Technology)
Principal
Contaminant
Groups*
Volatiles -
Halogenated
Metals
Media
(Quantity Treated)
Project
Duration
Summary
In Situ Soil Treatment
Camp Stanley Storage Activity,
Texas (Solidification/Stabilization)
Palermton Zinc Superfund Site,
Pennsylvania (Phytoremediation)
Swift Cleaners, Florida (In Situ
Chemical Oxidation and Soil Vapor
Extraction)
• •
• •
• •
Soil (3,000 cy)
Soil (1,240 acres),
Sediment (220
acres),
Groundwater (NP)
Soil (NP),
Groundwater (NP)
April 2002 to April 2003.
1991 to Present - Ongoing
March 2001 to May 2006
In situ stabilization using Apatite II ™ to treat soil
contaminated with heavy metals (lead).
Use of phytoremediation to treat soil, sediment, and
groundwater contaminated with heavy metals (cadmium,
lead, and zinc).
Use of in situ chemical oxidation and soil vapor extraction
to treat soil and groundwater contaminated with
halogenated volatiles.
In Situ Groundwater Treatment
Kelly Air Force Base, Texas
(Bioaugementation)
F.E. Warren Air Force Base,
Wyoming (Permeable Reactive
Barrier)
Naval Air Joint Reserve Base, Texas
(Phytoremediaiton)
East Helena, Montana (Permeable
Reactive Barrier)
• •
• •
• •
• •
Groundwater (NP)
Groundwater (NP)
Groundwater (NP)
Groundwater (450
feet by 2, 100 feet)
November 1999 to May
2002
August 2002 to August
2004
August 1996 to September
2998
Spring 2005 to Present -
Ongoing
Use of in situ bioremediation to treat groundwater
contaminated with halogenated volatiles.
Use of a permeable reactive barrier to treat groundwater
contaminated with halogenated volatiles.
Use of phytoremediation to treat groundwater contaminated
with halogenated volatiles.
Use of a permeable reactive barrier to treat groundwater
contaminated with heavy metals (arsenic).
-------
Site Name, State (Technology)
Principal
Contaminant
Groups*
Volatiles -
Halogenated
Metals
Media
(Quantity Treated)
Project
Duration
Summary
Ex Situ Acid Rock/Mine Drainage Treatment
Leviathan Mine, California (Active
lime treatment, semi-passive alkaline
lagoon treatment)
Leviathan Mine, California (Ex Situ
Bioremediation)
Copper Basin Mining District,
Tennessee (constructed wetland)
• •
• •
• •
ARD (12.3 million
L),
ARD/AMD(17.4
million L),
AMD (28.3 million
L)
ARD (3 1.34 million
L)
Surface water/ARD
(241 gpm)
Active lime treatment:
1999 to Present -Ongoing,
Semi-active lagoon
treatment: 2001 to Present -
Ongoing.
SITE demonstration: June
2002 to October 2003.
Spring 2003 to Present -
Ongoing.
SITE demonstration:
November 2003 to July
2005.
1998 to present - Ongoing
Use of chemical precipitation to treat acid rock/mine
drainage contaminated with heavy metals.
Use of ex situ bioremediation to treat acid rock drainage
contaminated with heavy metals.
Use of a constructed wetland to treat surface water and acid
rock drainage contaminated with heavy metals.
* Contaminant group focused on for the technology covered in the case study.
Key: NP = Not Provided
L
cy
SITE
= Liters
= cubic yards
= U.S. EPA Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program
ARD = Acid Rock Drainage
AMD = Acid Mine Drainage
gpm = gallons per minute
-------
Table 2. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data
Site Name, State (Technology)
Technology
Cost (S)1-2
Quantity of
Media Treated
Quantity of
Contaminant
Removed
Calculated Unit
Cost for
Treatment1-2
Key Factors
Potentially Affecting Technology Costs
In Situ Soil Treatment
Camp Stanley Storage Activity,
Texas
(Solidification/Stabilization)
Palermton Zinc Superfund Site,
Pennsylvania (Phytoremediation)
Swift Cleaners, Florida (In Situ
Chemical Oxidation and Soil
Vapor Extraction)
D - $63,775
T - $9 million (Initial 850
acres)
DI- $428,000
AO - $30,000 (Soil)
$30,000 (Groundwater)
Soil: 3,000 cy
Soil: 1240 acres
Sediment: 220
acres
Groundwater:
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
$22 per cy of Soil
10,600 per acre
(Based on initial
850 acres)
NP
The key factor that affects this
technology is the material and shipping
costs for Apatite II.
Costs may be affected by the type of
materials used in the biosolids. After the
initial 850 acres of Blue Mountain were
treated sewage sludge in the biosolids
was replaced with mushroom/leaf-litter
compost.
NP
In Situ Groundwater Treatment
Kelly Air Force Base, Texas
(Bioaugmentation)
F.E. Warren Air Force Base,
Wyoming (Permeable Reactive
Barrier)
Naval Air Joint Reserve Base,
Texas (Phytoremediaiton)
East Helena, Montana
(Permeable Reactive Barrier)
T- $255,936
C - $67,727
AO- $188,209
C - $74,863
T- $77,565
D- $64 1,467
D - $325,000
40,000 gallons
Groundwater:
63,000 gallons
NP
Groundwater
plume: 450 ft
wide by 2, 100 ft
long
NP
NP
NP
NP
$6.4 per gallon
$419. 63 per ft2
NP
NP
The single biggest factor that would
affect the cost of the technology is the
depth to contamination. Costs associated
with drilling, disposal, and labor would
be affected by the depth to
contamination.
The number of electrodes used to form
the electrically induced redox barrier will
potentially affect the costs
The major cost drivers for this
technology are the amount of
monitoring required to adequately
evaluate the process over the life of the
project and the labor required to prepare
and maintain the tree plantations and to
conduct sampling operations.
The nature of the site's hydrogeology
could determine whether or not the PRB
could be implemented at the site.
-------
Table 2. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data
Site Name, State (Technology)
Technology
Cost (S)1'2
Quantity of
Media Treated
Quantity of
Contaminant
Removed
Calculated Unit
Cost for
Treatment1'2
Key Factors
Potentially Affecting Technology Costs
Ex Situ Acid Rock Drainage Treatment
Leviathan Mine, California
(Active lime treatment, semi-
passive alkaline lagoon
treatment)
Leviathan Mine, California (Ex
Situ Bioremediation)
Copper Basin Mining District,
Tennessee (constructed wetland)
C-$ 1,02 1,4 15 (Active lime
treatment - monophasic mode)
C - $1,261,076 (Active lime
treatment - biphasic mode)
C - $297,482 (Semi-passive
alkaline lagoon treatment)
C- $548,431 (Gravity flow
mode)
C - $554,551 (Reticulation
mode)
C- $1,300,000
ARD: 12.3
million L
ARD/AMD:
17. 4 million L
AMD: 28.3
million L
ARD: 31.34
million L
Effluent
Treated: 241
gmp
NP
NP
NP
$20. 97 per 1,000
L of water (Active
lime treatment -
monophasic mode)
$16. 97 per 1,00 L
of water (Active
lime treatment -
biphasic mode
$16.44 per 1,000
L of water ( Semi-
passive alkaline
lagoon treatment)
$15. 28 per 1,000
gallons (Gravity
flow mode)
$16. 54 per 1,000
gallons
(Reticulation
mode)
NP
Factors that would affect both treatment
types include flow rate, concentration of
contaminants, geographic site location,
and type and quantity of residuals
generated.
Factors that would affect both modes of
treatment include flow rate,
concentration of contaminants,
geographic site location, and type and
quantity of residuals generated.
NP
Actual full-scale costs are reported unless otherwise noted.
Cost abbreviation: T = Total costs, AO = Annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, C = Capital costs, DI = Design and implementation costs, D = Demonstration-
scale costs, P = Projected full-scale costs.
Key: ft = feet
cy = cubic yards
PRB = permeable reactive barrier
AMD = acid mine drainage
NP = Not Provided
L = Liter
ARD = acid rock drainage
gpm = gallons per minute
-------
IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT ABSTRACTS
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Phytoremediation at Palmerton Zinc Pile Superfund Site, Palmerton, Pennsylvania
Site Name:
Palmerton Zinc Pile Superfund Site
Location:
Palmerton, Pennsylvania
Period of Operation:
1991 -Ongoing
Cleanup Authority: CERCLA
Purpose/Significance of Application:
The site is being revegetated to:
-Stop or significantly reduce wind erosion, which will prevent the spread of
heavy metal contamination through air-borne particulates
-Stop or significantly reduce surface water erosion, thus preventing the spread of
heavy metal contamination into surface waters at the site
-Increase evapotranspiration by establishing a permanent vegetative cover over
the site, which will prevent water from leaching through the contaminated soil
and limit the migration of heavy metal contamination to groundwater
Cleanup Type: Full Scale
Contaminants:
Blue Mountain
Surface soil - Heavy Metals: Cadmium (Cd) (364 to 1,300 parts per million
[ppm]), Lead (Pb) (1,200 to 6,475 ppm), Zinc (Zn) (13,000 to 35,000 ppm)
Cinder Bank
Sediment - Heavy Metals: Cd (250 ppm), Pb (3,600 ppm), Zn (27,000 ppm)
Stone Ridge
Groundwater - Heavy Metals: Cd (1 to 1,670 ppm), Pb (1 to 1,630 ppm), Zn (40
to 2,122,000 ppm)
Waste Source:
Zinc smelting operations
Contacts:
Remedial Project Manager
Charlie Root
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Region III
Phone:215-814-3193
E-mail: root.charlie@epa.gov
Technology:
Phytoremediation
-850 acres of Blue Mountain and 220 acres of cinder bank were revegated using
seed mixtures and Ecoloam (a mixture of municipal sewage sludge, power plant fly
and/or bottom ash, and agricultural limestone).
-At Blue Mountain, Ecoloam application rates were adjusted as necessary to provide
up to 2,000 pounds/acre of organic nitrogen.
-At the cinder bank, Ecoloam was applied at a rate of 60 dry tons per acre.
-An additional 350 acres of Blue Mountain and 40 acres of Stoney Ridge were
revegetated using seed mixtures, mushroom/leaf-litter compost, lime, and fertilizer.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
As of mid-2006, almost 1,200 acres of the Blue Mountain area, 220 acres of the cinder bank, and 40 acres of Stoney Ridge
have been revegetated.
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: Not Provided
Results:
After 10 years, the initial 850 acres of revegetated land on Blue Mountain has retained more than 70 percent of its
vegetative cover.
Costs:
The estimated cost for revegetating the initial 850 acres of Blue Mountain was $9 million. This cost included the cost of
revegetation and the construction of more than 60 miles of switchback roads for use by the application trucks.
-------
Phytoremediation at Palmerton Zinc Pile Superfund Site, Palmerton, Pennsylvania (continued)
Description:
The Palmerton Zinc Pile Superfund Site is located in Palmerton, Pennsylvania. The Site operated as a zinc smelter from
1898 till 1980. Smelting operations resulted in heavy metal contamination of the Site and caused defoliation of more than
2,000 acres of land in the vicinity of Blue Mountain. Additionally, process residue and other wastes were deposited along
a cinder bank at the base of the Blue Mountain.
After several years of pilot testing, a full scale phytoremediation project was implemented to revegetate the Blue Mountain
area. Initially, 850 acres of land on Blue Mountain were revegetated using seed mixtures and a biosolid consisting of lime,
potash, sewer sludge, and fly ash. This operation lasted from 1991 to 1995 and cost $9 million. Additionally, 220 acres of
the cinder bank were revegetated using this same procedure.
After the initial application on Blue Mountain and the cinder bank, sewage sludge in the biosolid material was replaced
with mushroom and leaf-litter due to the public's negative perception of sewage sludge. In 2005, this new mixture was
applied to 40 acres of Stoney Ridge and to an additional 350 acres of Blue Mountain.
Studies conducted 10 years after the start of the project, have shown that the initial 850 acres of treated land on Blue
Mountain have retained more than 70 percent of their vegetative cover.
10
-------
Phosphate-induced metal stabilization (PIMS) at Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas
Site Name:
Camp Stanley Storage Activity (CSS A)
Period of Operation: April 2002 to April 2003
Location:
Texas
Cleanup Authority: Demonstration
conducted under the Department of Defense
(DoD) Environmental Security Technology
Certification Program (ESTCP).
Purpose/Significance of Application: The purpose of the full scale Cleanup Type: Full Scale
application was to determine suitable emplacement methodologies for the
treatment of Pb-contaminated soils using PIMS™ and to determine actual
field implementation costs.
Contaminants: Lead
Contacts:
Dr. Judith Wright
UFA Ventures, Inc.
403 West Riverside Dr.
Carlsbad, NM 88220
Telephone: 505-628-0916
Fax: 505-628-0915
E-mail: judith@ufaventures.com
Dr. James Conca
Carlsbad Environmental Monitoring & Research
Center
Carlsbad, NM 88220
Telephone: 505-234-5555
Fax: 505-887-3051
E-mail: jconca@cemrc.org
Brian Murphy
CSSA
1408 Moore Place, SW
Leesburg, VA20175
Telephone: 571-331-5374
E-mail: murphyb@adelphia.net
Ken Rice
Parsons Inc.
8000 Centre Park, Suite 200
Austin, TX 78754
Telephone: 512-719-6050
Fax: 512-719-6099
E-mail: Ken.R.Rice@parsons.com
Waste Source: Pb-containing bullets used
at the firing range
Technology:
Phosphate-induced metal stabilization (PIMS™) using Apatite II™
-Apatite II™ uses a natural, benign material derived from processing
fishbone waste products to treat soil contaminated with heavy
metals.
-In August 2002, a full scale application was conducted by treating
3,000 cubic yards of lead (Pb)-contaminated firing range soil at
Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) B-20 at the CSSA. Apatite
II™ binds Pb into Pb-pyromorphite, an insoluble phase that is stable.
Pb-pyromorphite has an extremely low solubility and will remain
insoluble under most environmental conditions.
-Approximately 3% by weight of Apatite HTM material was mixed
with Pb-contaminated soil at a rate of about 500 yd3 per day.
-Soil, groundwater and leachate samples were collected for chemical
analysis.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated: Soil (3,000 cubic yards)
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: Three cleanup goals were established for the site
-Cleanup goal for leachate from amended soils - Maximum contaminant level (MCL) for Pb in drinking water (0.015
milligrams per liter [mg/L])
-The State of Texas class 2 nonhazardous waste classification criterion for Pb ( 1 . 5 mg/L for soil) in leachate using the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
-Reduce the bioavailability or bioaccessibility of the Pb in the soil
11
-------
Phosphate-induced metal stabilization (PIMS) at Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas
(continued)
Results: The untreated soil contained an average total Pb concentration of 1,942 mg/kg and did not meet State of Texas
class 2 nonhazardous waste classification criterion of 1.5 mg/L Pb in leachate. After treatment with PIMS™, the treated
soils met the TCLP criterion with an average TCLP Pb concentration of 0.46 mg/L. Analytical results of the field leachate
from the site after treatment indicted an average of 0.0065 mg/L Pb concentration, well below the 0.0150 mg/L EPA
standard for Pb in drinking water. Bioaccessibility data showed that treatment reduced the bioavailability of lead. A U. S.
patent (#6,217,775) was awarded for PIMS™ using Apatite II™ during the course of this application.
Costs: The total costs for this demonstration was $63,775 which includes $8,100 in start-up costs and $55,675 in
operational costs.
Description: Lead-contaminated soils at Department of Defense (DoD) range sites are widespread. These soils pose one
of the costliest environmental issues facing the DoD. CSSA was chosen as the test site because it is representative of many
other DoD sites, both in contaminant type and field characteristics.
The PIMS™ technology is an in situ stabilization or sequestration technology that uses a natural, benign material, Apatite
II™. During treatment, Apatite II™ is mixed into the contaminated soil using nonspecialized equipment such as a
front-end loader and a maintainer. The Apatite II™ causes the Pb to form Pb-pyromorphite, which immobilizes the Pb
without changing the basic nature of the soil. This technology allows the soil to be reused or disposed as a nonhazardous
material.
12
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction and In Situ Chemical Oxidation at Swift Cleaners, Jacksonville, Florida
Site Name: Swift Cleaners
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Period of Operation:
Soil Vapor Extraction
March 6 to May 9, 2001 - SVE system installed and beginning of system operation
April 2002 to Present - SVE system operations and maintenance (O&M)
In Situ Chemical Oxidation (ISCO)
May 21 to June 21, 2001 - Two injection events conducted.
April 2002 - Third injection event conducted.
August 2001 to November February 2003 - Conducted quarterly groundwater sampling
September 2004, and May 2006 - Conducted annual groundwater monitoring
Cleanup Authority:
Bureau of Waste Cleanup
(aspartofFDEP'sDry
Cleaning Solvent Cleanup
Program)
Purpose/Significance of Application: Full-scale remediation of PCE in soil and
groundwater.
Cleanup Type: Full-
scale
Contaminants:
Volatiles-halogenated: 1,1-dichloroethene (DCE); cis-l,2-DCE; tetrachloroethene (PCE)
DNAPL; trans-l,2-DCE; trichloroethene (TCE); vinyl chloride (VC).
Waste Source:
Inappropriately discarded
spent filters containing
PCE at the drycleaning
facility
Technology:
SVE
ISCO
The SVE system consists of five 12-ft vapor extraction wells (VEW).
The design radius of influence is 15 ft with a design flow rate of 27 cubic feet per minute (cfm).
Additional VEWs are being considered for the SVE system.
In June 1999, a pilot test was conducted in the source area located at the upgradient edge of the groundwater
plume at the site. The test area covered approximately 2,500 square feet (ft2) and consisted of three injections of
Fenton's chemistry-based Oxy-Cat™.
The full-scale operation for groundwater and dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) remediation using
Fenton's chemistry-based Oxy-Cat™ began in April 2001. According to the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for this
site, the full-scale remediation will include five phases (I to V).
Baseline groundwater samples were collected from selected monitoring and injection wells prior to the first
injection event.
Phase I, which began in April 2001, focused on two areas - Area IA and Area IB. Area IA was the same as the
2,500 ft2 pilot test area which contained a large portion of the contaminant mass. Seven new injection wells were
installed in this area at depths ranging from 35 to 45 ft. Area IB was downgradient of area IA and covered 2,000
ft2. Thirteen new injection wells were installed in this area.
Based on the results of groundwater samples taken after the first two full-scale injection events in areas IA and IB,
a third injection was conducted in April 2002 in 11 select injection wells from areas IA and IB.
At the end of Phase I, it was determined that implementation of Phases II to V would be less cost effective. As of
March 2007, FDEP planned to assess soil and evaluate various options to treat the downgradient PCE plume.
Treatment options include enhanced biodegradation with reductive dechlorination, thermal treatment, and
excavation of the contaminated soil in the source area.
13
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction and In Situ Chemical Oxidation at Swift Cleaners, Jacksonville, Florida
(continued)
Contacts:
Deinna Nicholson
Contract Manager
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
2600 Blair Stone Road, MS4520
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Telephone: 850-245-8932
E-mail: DdjmaJJidi^^
Kelly Baltz
Colder Associates, Inc.
9428 Baymeadows Road, Suite 400
Jacksonville, FL 32256
Telephone: 904-363-3430
E-mail: kelly_baltz@go lder.com
Type/Quantity of Media Treated: Soil; Groundwater (quantity not documented)
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Soil cleanup target levels for the site were based on leachability tests while the groundwater cleanup levels were based on
the primary standards (maximum contaminant levels (MCLs)). The goal was to use active remediation activities such as
chemical oxidation to reduce the contaminant levels to the Natural Attenuation Default Source Concentrations (NADSC)
and use monitored natural attenuation (MNA) to lower concentrations below NADSCs to the primary standards.
Results:
SVE
Quarterly monitoring of the SVE system indicated that the system continued to remove PCE from the soil target
area.
As of August 2006, the SVE system was operational and removing approximately one to four Ibs per month and
has removed a total of 140.7 Ibs.
Additional VEWs were being considered for the SVE system.
ISCO
Results of the pilot test indicated that Fenton' s chemistry was capable of remediating both the dissolved phase and
adsorbed phase PCE at the site. However, the intermediate and deep areas with higher concentrations of PCE
would require greater volume of the Fenton's reagent to reduce PCE levels to the groundwater cleanup goals.
Samples collected from the source area in September 2001 after the first and second injections for Areas IA and
IB showed that PCE concentrations were reduced to below 200 • g/L in most monitoring wells. However,
monitoring results from November 2001 revealed that concentrations of PCE in several wells in the source area
had increased to levels at, or above, baseline concentrations.
A third injection was conducted in March 2002 at 11 selected wells in Areas IA and IB to address the areas where
contaminant rebound was identified.
Groundwater monitoring results from 2004 indicated that elevated concentrations of PCE are still present at
certain locations on the site in the shallow, intermediate and deep zones of the aquifer.
Groundwater sampling results from May 2006 indicated that PCE and TCE concentrations had decreased in all
three surficial aquifers. The concentrations of cis-l,2-DCE, trans-l,2,DCE, and VC continued to be detected at
low concentrations, indicating that the contaminants are not effectively degrading beyond TCE.
14
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction and In Situ Chemical Oxidation at Swift Cleaners, Jacksonville, Florida
(continued)
Costs:
Cost for site characterization totaled $164,000. Cost for design and implementation totaled $428,000, which included
$110,000 for the ISCO pilot test, $118,000 for SVE construction, and $200,000 for 3 ISCO injection events. The
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for soil and groundwater were $30,000 per year.
Description:
Swift Cleaners in Jacksonville, Florida, is an active dry cleaning facility that has been in operation since 1971 and
primarily uses PCE as a dry cleaning solvent. Three source areas of contamination were identified at the site, including 1)
the area outside the service door of the facility where the spent filters were stored, 2) the soils beneath the building floor
slab near the dry cleaning machine, and 3) a former sanitary sewer line leak. The main waste source at the site was found
to be inappropriately discarded spent filters containing PCE and an assessment was conducted in 1997 to determine the
extent of contamination. Maximum PCE concentration in the source area was approximately 40 milligrams per kilogram
(mg/kg), with the highest concentration being near the surface at approximately 1 foot below ground surface (bgs). The
groundwater PCE plume appeared to have migrated vertically and laterally westward to a maximum depth of
approximately 60 ft in the area downgradient from the source. The highest PCE concentration in groundwater was found
to be 10,000 • g/L, at a depth of 40 to 45 ft bgs. This indicated the presence of PCE as DNAPL, with the source zone
located behind the Swift Cleaners building. The down gradient edge of the plume could not be determined due to offsite
access issues.
The remedial action plan developed for the site included ISCO using Fenton's chemistry-based Oxy-Cat™ to treat
groundwater and DNAPL contamination and SVE to treat the contaminated soil. A pilot test was conducted in 1999 to
determine the viability of chemical oxidation at the site and based on the results, a multiphase approach was developed for
the full-scale application. At the time of writing this report, full scale application of the remedial action was still being
conducted at the site and approximately 22,500 cubic feet (ft3) of soil and 37,500 ft3 of groundwater had been treated.
15
-------
This page intentionally left blank
16
-------
IN SITU GROUNDWATER TREATMENT ABSTRACTS
17
-------
Permeable Reactive Barrier at East Helena site, East Helena, Montana
Site Name: Location:
East Helena East Helena, Montana
Period of Operation:
Spring 2005 to Ongoing
Purpose/Significance of Application:
To remediate arsenic contaminated groundwater.
Contaminants:
Groundwater: -Heavy Metals; Arsenic (As) (20 milligrams per Liter [mg/L])
Contacts:
Remedial Project Manager:
Linda Jacobson
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region VIII
Phone:(303)312-6503
Email: Jacobson.linda@epa.gov
Project Manager:
Rick Wilkin
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
National Risk Management Research
Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
Phone: (580) 436-8874
Email: wilkin.rick@epa.gov
Cleanup Authority: CERCLA
Cleanup Type: Field Demonstration
Waste Source:
Process ponds contaminated due to
lead smelting operations.
Technology:
Zero-Valent Iron Permeable Reactive Barrier
-The permeable reactive barrier (PRB) consists of a trench 30 feet long, 46 feet
deep and 6 feet wide, with 175 tons of zero-valent iron (ZVI) placed in the
trench.
-The ZVI PRB system was installed 600 feet downgradient of the source area,
perpendicular to the flow of contaminated groundwater.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
The ZVI PRB system is treating an arsenic contaminated groundwater plume that is 450 feet wide and extends 2, 100 feet
downgradient from the process ponds.
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic is 0.010 mg/L.
Results:
Initial, post-installation monitoring evaluations indicated that arsenic concentrations in the groundwater had been reduced
from 20 mg/L (highest concentration) to below 0.010 mg/L. Due to the limited evaluation of the system it has not been
determined if the treatment has been successful. A two year evaluation to determine if the system should be implemented
at a full scale will be completed in 2007.
Costs:
The ZVI PRB system cost approximately $325,000 to construct. There are no additional operation and maintenance costs
associated with this system.
18
-------
Permeable Reactive Barrier at East Helena site, East Helena, Montana (continued)
Description:
The East Helena site is located in East Helena, Montana. The site was added to the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1984.
The site was a lead smelting facility that operated from the late 1880s to 2001. Smelting operations over a period of a
hundred years have lead to heavy metal contamination of soil, surface water, and groundwater at the site.
Groundwater at the site had become contaminated with arsenic due to leaching from the contaminated process ponds
located over the shallow groundwater. The arsenic plume is approximately 450 feet wide and extended 2,100 feet
downgradient from the process ponds. The ZVIPRB was installed as a pilot project in spring of 2005.
The ZVI PRB includes a 30 foot long trench that is 46 feet deep and 6 feet wide. The trench is filled with 175 tons of ZVI
and coarse sand. The system was constructed approximately 600 feet downgradient from the process ponds, perpendicular
to the flow of the arsenic contaminated groundwater plume.
The construction of the system cost approximately $325,000. There are no operation and maintenance costs associated
with this system.
The first round of post-implementation groundwater data was collected in June 2005. Based on this data, arsenic
concentrations in treated groundwater had been reduced from 20 mg/L to below 0.010 mg/L. The system is currently in
the process of a two year evaluation to determine if the system should be implemented in full scale.
19
-------
In Situ Remediation of a TCE-Contaminated Aquifer Using a Short Rotation Woody Crop
Groundwater Treatment System, Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base, Fort Worth, Texas
Site Name:
Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base (NAS-JRB)
Location:
Fort Worth, Texas
Period of Operation:
August 1996 to September 1998
Cleanup Authority:
Department of Defense's (DoD's) Environmental
Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)
Purpose/Significance of Application:
To evaluate the capability of Eastern cottonwood trees (Populus
deltoides) to intercept and treat groundwater contaminated with
TCE and c-DCE.
Cleanup Type:
Field Demonstration
Contaminants:
Halogenated - volatiles; Tetrachloroethene (PCE);
Trichloroethylene (TCE); Cis-l,2-dichloroethene (cDCE);
trans-l,2-DCE; methylene chloride; vinyl chloride; toluene
Waste Source:
Historically, manufacturing processes at Plant 4 of
the NAS-JRB generated an estimated 5,500 to 6,000
tons of waste per year, including: waste solvents,
oils, fuels, paint residues, and miscellaneous spent
chemicals. TCE is believed to have leaked from
degreasing tanks in the assembly building at Plant 4
and entered the underlying alluvial aquifer.
Contacts:
Mr. Gregory Harvey
ASC/ENVR
Building 8, Suite 2
1801 10th Street, Area B
Wright Patterson AFB, OH 45433
Telephone: 937-255-3276
Fax: 937-255-4155
E-mail: gregory.harvey@wpafb.af.mil
Dr. Jeff Marqusee
ESTCP Program Office
901 North Stuart Street, Suite 303
Arlington, VA 22203
Telephone: 703-696-2117
Fax: 703-696-2114
E-mail: jeffrey.marqusee@osd.mil
Ms. Sandra M. Eberts
United States Geological Survey
6480 Doubletree Avenue
Columbus, OH 43229
Telephone: 614-430-7740
Fax: 614-430-7777
E-mail: smeberts@usgs.gov
Mr. Steven Rock
EPANRMRL
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Telephone: 513-569-7149
Fax: 513-569-7879
E-mail: rock.steven@epa.gov
Technology:
Phytoremediation
-The primary objective of the demonstration was to study the mechanism of
phytocontainment. Phytocontainment is achieved via transpiration (the
evaporative loss of water from a plant). Eastern cottonwood trees were chosen
as the preferred vegetation for this demonstration. They are classified as a short
rotation woody crop (SRWC) because they are fast-growing and are easy to
regenerate.
-The SRWC groundwater treatment (SRWCGT) system consisted of two 15 x
75 square meter (m2) plantations, one planted with seven rows of whips or
1-year old stem cuttings (438 total) and the other planted with seven rows of
caliper trees or 1-year old seedlings (224 total). A total of 662 trees were
planted at the site. The two sizes of trees were selected for planting so that
differences in rate of growth, contaminant reductions, and cost based on
planting strategy could be compared.
-Both plantations were oriented generally perpendicular to groundwater flow
direction and spanned the most concentrated portion of the underlying
TCE-groundwater plume.
-Contrary to many conventional treatment processes, a SRWCGT system does
not require the addition of any chemical or biological enhancements.
20
-------
In Situ Remediation of a TCE-Contaminated Aquifer Using a Short Rotation Woody Crop
Groundwater Treatment System (continued)
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater (quantity not specified)
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The cleanup goals for the contaminants of concern were the maximum contaminant levels (MCL), in ug/L: TCE - 5;
c-DCE - 70; t-DCE - 100; methylene chloride - 5; vinyl chloride - 5; toluene - 1,000.
The primary objective of the SRWCGT system focused on localized hydraulic containment and the goals were to:
-Achieve a 30% reduction in the mass of TCE in the aquifer that is transported across the downgradient end of the site
during the second growing season, relative to baseline TCE mass flux calculations.
-Achieve a 50% reduction in mass of TCE in the aquifer that is transported across the downgradient end of the site during
the third growing season, relative to baseline TCE mass flux calculations.
Results:
The SRWCGT system did not achieve the mass flux reductions goal of 30% and 50% for the second and third growing
seasons, respectively. For the second growing season, the TCE mass flux was up 8% during peak season, as compared to
baseline conditions. The planted trees reduced the outward flux of groundwater by 5% during the peak of the second
season, but TCE concentrations in a row of wells immediately downgradient of the trees were higher, resulting in the
increase in TCE mass flux. For the third growing season, the TCE mass flux was down 11% at peak season and down 8%
near season's end, as compared to baseline conditions. Concentrations of TCE during the third season in the row of
downgradient wells were similar to concentrations at baseline, and the reduction in TCE mass flux is primarily attributed to
a reduction in the volumetric flux of groundwater out of the site. The primary objective was not met because the trees did
not reach their full transpiration potential during the time period of the demonstration study, but greater hydraulic control
at the site is anticipated in the future.
The data show a general decrease in TCE concentrations throughout the demonstration site over the course of the study.
However, since a decrease in TCE concentration was observed in the upgradient monitoring wells as well as in the wells
within the plantations, this trend does not appear to be predominantly related to the establishment of the whip and caliper
tree plantations. Secondly, downgradient monitoring wells did not exhibit a significant decrease in TCE concentrations.
The change in TCE concentrations within the study area over time may be attributed to dilution from recharge to the
aquifer and volatilization of TCE from the water table.
Costs:
Total estimated demonstration costs were $641,467, which included $426,427 in actual labor costs, $172,740 in other
direct costs and $42,300 in laboratory costs.
Description:
The site chosen for the demonstration was a DoD site with a large unattenuated contaminant plume due to the lack of
adequate amounts of native and/or anthropogenic carbon and dissolved oxygen (DO) levels. The site was selected to
demonstrate the SRWCGT system because of its geographical location, type of contamination, and depth of contamination.
The site specifically exhibited the following characteristics:
-Type-3 conditions (i.e., DO levels >1 mg/L and a lack of carbon sources that prevented reductive dechlorination of
chlorinated compounds).
-The groundwater at the site is shallow and thus accessible to trees soon after planting.
-An ample area, clear of obstructions, was available for plantations (i.e., the technology is well suited for use at very large
field sites where other methods of remediation are not cost effective or practical).
-The site allowed for long-term, field-scale monitoring and evaluation.
-Previously installed wells were available to monitor the treatment system (water levels in wells provide a direct means for
assessing groundwater uptake by the trees).
The site selected for the demonstration was an approximate 70-m-wide portion of a TCE plume on the north side of the
site. Specifically, the study was undertaken to determine the potential for a SRWC to decrease TCE flux. Although TCE
was the focus of the demonstration, other chlorinated organic compounds detected in the groundwater or plant tissue
included, but were not limited to, cDCE, tDCE, PCE, methylene chloride, toluene, and VC.
21
-------
Electronically Induced Redox Barriers for Treatment of Groundwater at F.E. Warren Air Force
Base, Wyoming
Site Name: Location:
F.E. Warren Air Force Base Wyoming
Period of Operation:
August 2002 to August 2004
Purpose/Significance of Application:
The purpose of the demonstration was to demonstrate/validate a
potential new efficient and cost-effective technology for managing
contaminated groundwater at the Department of Defense (DoD)
facilities.
Contaminants:
Trichloroethene (TCE), approximately 300 mg/L
Contacts:
Andrea Leeson
ESTCP Program Manager
901 North Stuart Street, Suite 303
Arlington, VA 22203
Telephone: 703-696-2118
Fax: 703-696-2114
E-mail: andrea.leeson@osd.mil
Don Ficklin
HQ AFCEE/ERT
3207 Sidney Brooks Road
Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5344
Telephone: 210-536-5290
Fax: 210-536-9026
Rob Stites
EPA - Region 8 (EPR-F)
999 18th St., Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: 303-312-6658
E-mail: stites.rob@epa.gov
Jane Cramer
Wyoming Department of Environmental
Quality
WDEQPG
122 West 25th St. 4-W
Cheyenne, WY 82002
Telephone: 307-777-7092
E-mail: jcramer@state.wy.us
Technology:
Cleanup Authority:
Demonstration conducted under the Department of
Defense (DoD) Environmental Security
Technology Certification Program (ESTCP).
Cleanup Type: Field Demonstration
Waste Source:
Historical missile maintenance and disposal
activities.
Electrically Induced Redox Barrier (e-Barrier)
-An e-barrier consists of a panel of closely spaced permeable electrodes
installed in a trench that intercepts a plume of contaminated groundwater.
-Application of an electrical potential to the electrodes creates oxidizing
conditions at the positive
electrodes and reducing conditions at the negative
electrodes. This drives sequential oxidation and/or reduction of contaminants
with the net benefit of reducing contaminant flux.
-The e-barrier constructed for this field demonstration consisted of 17
individual electrode panels each 0.3 x 2 square meters (m2) in area.
Concentric interlocks linked the individual panels. The overall as-built
dimension of the e-barrier is 9.2 x 1.9 m2. The effective cross-sectional area
was 17 m2.
-Each panel contained three Ti-mmo electrodes, four layers of GeotextileTM,
and six layers of Triplanar GeonetTM.
-Panels were framed in slotted 3 -in inner diameter (ID) PVC pipe.
-Each e-barrier module includes a discrete electrical connection, gas vents,
and washout tubing that are conveyed to the surface via 3 -in PVC riser pipes.
-The assembled e-barrier was installed in two sections.
-Washed granular backfill from the Crow Creek alluvium was placed around
the e-barrier to an elevation of approximately 1 foot (ft) above the barrier.
-Following installation at
the site, the e-barrier was allowed to equilibrate
with the contaminant in the plume for 5 months. Power was applied to the
e-barrier in January 2003
Power was supplied by a 30V DC 200 amp
single-phase rectifier. The rectifier was connected to a 1 10V AC 60 amp
electrical service.
-As of August 2004, the e-barrier had been operating continuously for
approximately 19 months
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater: .63,000 gallons
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Trichloroethene - 5 ug/L; cis-l,2-DCE - 70 ug/L.
22
-------
Electronically Induced Redox Barriers for Treatment of Groundwater at F.E. Warren Air Force
Base, Wyoming (continued)
Results:
The primary effect of the e-barrier was to shift thermodynamic conditions in the vicinity of the electrodes, resulting in an
overall effect of oxidation followed by reduction. This facilitated oxidation and/or reduction of the TCE. The groundwater
became more acidic (approximately 1 pH unit) close to the e-barrier. On day 290, the highest potential was applied.
Samples of groundwater collected at this time showed a 95% reduction in TCE concentration between 0.5 meters up- and
downgradient face of the e-barrier. This achieved the cleanup goal of 5ug/L.
In general, no adverse reaction intermediates were observed. An exception was the apparent formation of chloroform at the
center of the e-barrier. Plausible explanations for chloroform formation include highly toxic conditions developed at the
e-barrier and/or unanticipated reactions with polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe cement. Operation of the e-barrier had no
apparent impact on the mobility of inorganic constituents in groundwater.
Costs:
The total costs associated with the demonstration included capital expenditure (96.5% of total) and operation and
maintenance (O&M) (3.5% of total). The capital costs consisted of e-barrier installation (29.7%), electrode materials
(15.5%), and labor for panel fabrication (9%). Total observed capital and O&M costs, normalized to the cross-sectional
area of the e-barrier, were $409/ft2/year and $10/ft2/year, respectively.
Description:
Research on e-barriers has been underway at Colorado State University (CSU) since September 1998. The e-barrier was
designed and fabricated at CSU in May through July 2002 and was installed at F.E. Warren AFB in August 2002. Warren
AFB was selected for this demonstration due to favorable geologic conditions at the site, the presence of the desired target
compound, and proximity to CSU. Some primary site attributes include a background TCE concentration of
approximately 300 ug/L; depth to groundwater of approximately 12 ft (below grade); and a groundwater seepage velocity
of 0.37 ft/day.
F.E. Warren is a 7,000-acre facility underlain by alluvial deposits and the Ogallala Formation. Locally, the Ogallala
Formation consists of interbedded gravel, sand, and silt with varying clay content and cementation. The site selected for
the demonstration is a shallow alluvial plume containing approximately 300 ug/L of TCE.
23
-------
Demonstration of Bioaugmentation at Kelly Air Force Base, Texas
Site Name: Location:
Kelly Air Force Base Texas
Period of Operation:
November 1999 to May 2002
Purpose/Significance of Application: The primary objective of the
demonstration was to determine if complete reductive dechlorination could be
stimulated through the introduction of a microbial culture KB-1 known to
contain halorespiring bacteria. Secondary objectives involved testing the
robustness of the applied microbial culture by depriving it of electron donor
and adding sulfate to the system.
Contaminants: Volatiles - Halogenated; Tetrachloroethene (PCE);
Trichloroethene (TCE)
Cleanup Authority:
Demonstration conducted under the
Department of Defense (DoD)
Environmental Security Technology
Certification Program (ESTCP).
Cleanup Type:
Field Demonstration
Waste Source: Not provided
Technology:
Bioaugmentation
-Bioaugmentation was tested to treat chlorinated solvents-contaminated groundwater. The KB-1 culture, consisting of
halorespiring bacteria, was added to a bioaugmentation demonstration plot.
-The bioaugmentation system consisted of one injection well and three extraction wells. Groundwater was extracted and
pumped into a tank; electron donors (methanol and acetate) were added to the groundwater stream to achieve a total
concentration of 7.2 milliMoles (mM). The groundwater was then pumped into the injection well. A groundwater
recirculation rate of 3 gallons per minute (gpm) was maintained throughout the test with a residence time in the
demonstration plot of approximately 8 days.
-The demonstration plot included nine wells: one injection well, three extraction wells, and five monitoring wells. Three of
the monitoring wells were aligned along the center of the plot parallel to the groundwater flow direction and located at a
distance of 8, 12, and 22 ft downgradient of the injection well. The other two monitoring wells were aligned perpendicular
to groundwater flow, and were initially installed to be outside the zone of influence of the system. Each of the wells in
both plots were completed to a depth of 25 feet below ground surface (ft bgs) and were screened from 15 to 25 ft bgs to
reduce the opportunity for aeration and increased oxygen concentrations of the groundwater as it moved through the
treatment system.
-Groundwater samples were collected monthly during operation or when system operating parameters were modified.
During each sampling event, groundwater was collected for pH, temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen (DO),
oxidation-reduction potential, salinity, and turbidity volatile organic compound (VOC), volatile fatty acid (VFA), sulfate,
nitrite, nitrate, bromide (tracer), and dissolved gas analyses. In addition, samples were collected for gene probe analysis for
detection of the KB-1 culture.
24
-------
Demonstration of Bioaugmentation at Kelly Air Force Base, Texas (continued)
Contacts:
2nd Lt. Kolin Newsome Matt Place
Air Force Research Laboratory Battelle Memorial Institute
13 9 Barnes Drive, Suite 2 505 King Avenue
Tyndall AFB, Florida 32403 Columbus, Ohio 43201
Telephone: 850-283-6308 Telephone: 614-424-4531
Fax: 850-283-6064 Fax: 614-424-3667
Paul Kerch Dr. Dave Major
Air Force Research Laboratory GeoSyntec Consultants
139 Barnes Drive, Suite 2 160 Research Lane
Tyndall AFB, Florida 32403 Guelph, Ontario NIG 5B2
Telephone: 850-283-6126 Telephone: 519-822-2230
Fax: 850-283-6064 Fax: 519-822-3151
Dr. Bruce Alleman
Battelle Memorial Institute
505 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43201
Telephone: 614-424-5715
Fax: 614-424-3667
Type/Quantity of Media Treated: Groundwater: 40,000
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: No regulatory requirements or cleanup goals were provided for the
demonstration.
Results: Baseline monitoring, in November 1999, indicated that PCE was the dominant chloroethene species at the site.
When the electron donors alone was added to the demonstration plot, limited reductive dechlorination of PCE occurred
(PCE conversion to dichlorothene [DCE]). The demonstration plot was then bioaugmented with KB-1 on May 6, 2000.
Within 72 days of the addition of the KB-1 culture, ethane was detected in the demonstration plot and the PCE, TCE, and
c-DCE were observed at the lowest levels observed since 1999. This indicates that the addition of the KB-1 culture
stimulated complete reductive dechlorination of PCE to ethene.
After demonstrating the effects of bioaugmentation for the potential to promote complete reductive dechlorination, the
system was shut down (the addition of the electron donor stopped on September 25, 2000). Groundwater samples were
collected from the test plot on August 23, 2001 to determine the effects of eliminating the electron donor for one year on
the population of the KB-1 culture and the reductive dechlorination process. Gene probe analysis of the groundwater
samples indicated presence of KB-1 from demonstration plot. Samples from a non-augmented control plot tested negative
for KB-1. The microbial analyses and the distribution of chloroethenes indicated that the KB-1 culture was present and
complete dechlorination was still occurring in the demonstration plot.
Sulfate was added to the system at 3.6 mM on March 9, 2002, to determine if the competitive use of the electron donor
between the chloroethenes and sulfate would limit the reductive dechlorination occurring in the test plot. Monitoring data
collected on May 9, 2002 indicated that the addition of sulfate did not significantly affect reductive dechlorination.
The study indicated that the KB-1 culture was robust and able to compete with, and survive among, the indigenous
microbial population. It also indicated that bioaugmentation may not require continuous monitoring following inoculation
at sites where the natural attenuation requirements are met.
Costs: The total cost for the field demonstration of the bioaugmentation technology at Kelly AFB was $333,936, including:
$78,000 for microcosm testing; $67,727 for capital costs for full-scale study; and $188,209 for operation and maintenance
(O&M).
25
-------
Demonstration of Bioaugmentation at Kelly Air Force Base, Texas (continued)
Description: A field demonstration was conducted at Kelly AFB to test the capability of a microbial culture, KB-1, to
dechlorinate PCE to ethane, and to test the survivability of the culture in the field under various conditions such as
presence and absence of electron donors. Bioaugmentation had been successfully demonstrated earlier at Kelly AFB in
microcosm studies. The demonstration plot was selected for the earlier microcosm bioaugmentation study based on the
presence and concentrations of the contaminants, access to an existing test infrastructure, hydrogeology/ geology of site,
and site logistics (site access, electrical power, water, etc.). The geology in the vicinity of the test site consisted of
unconsolidated alluvial deposits that have been deposited on the top of the undulatory erosional surface of the Navarro
Clay. The alluvial deposits consisted of gravel, sand, silt, and clay, ranging in thickness from 20 to 40 ft bgs. From the
surface down, the geology typically consists of 1 to 4 ft of black organic clay, 6 to!6 ft of tan silty, calcareous clay; and 4
to 20 ft of clayey limestone and chert gravel (denoted as clayey/gravel). The water table was approximately 15 to 20 ft bgs,
and the saturated zone thickness was between 5 to 12 ft bgs. Generally, groundwater flow is to the southwest with a flow
velocity of approximately 0.3 ft/day. The volatile organic compounds (VOC) at the site groundwater consisted primarily of
PCE, TCE, and their degradation products c-DCE and vinyl chloride. Total chlorinated ethene concentrations in the
groundwater exceed 8,000 • g/L.
26
-------
EX SITU ACID ROCK DRAINAGE TREATMENT ABSTRACTS
27
-------
This page intentionally left blank
28
-------
Constructed Wetland at Copper Basin Mining District, Ducktown, Tennessee
Site Name:
Copper Basin Mining District
Location:
Ducktown. Tennessee
Period of Operation:
1998 to Present
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
Purpose/Significance of Application:
The wetland was constructed to aide in the overall remediation of manganese
and aluminum contamination at the site.
Cleanup Type:
Field Demonstration
Contaminants:
-Heavy Metals: Iron (Fe) (7.0 mg/L), Manganese (Mn) (1.2 mg/L), Copper (Cu)
(0.6 mg/L), Zinc (Zn) (1.7 mg/L), Aluminum (Al) (4.2 mg/L).
Waste Source:
Copper and sulfur mining operations.
Contacts:
Remedial Project Manager:
Loften Can-
US. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IV
Phone: 404-562-8804
E-mail: Carr.Loften@epa.gov
Technology:
Constructed Wetland
-The system consists of an anaerobic cell and a concrete diversion dam, both
constructed in 1998. Two aerobic cells and a limestone-rock filter were later
constructed in 2003.
-The concrete diversion dam was constructed to control the flow of the McPherson
Branch into the constructed wetland and to provide a settlement basin to remove silt
from the flow before it enters the wetland.
-A liner was installed in 1998 on the west bank of the McPherson Branch, 70 meters
(m) upstream of the concrete dam to minimize infiltration into, and drainage from,
mined waste rock under the roadway parallel to McPherson Branch.
-The wetland includes a Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL) covered by a 0.7 m thick
agricultural lime-enriched soil layer; a 0.7 m thick layer of crushed 2.5 centimeter (cm)
limestone (minimum 75% Calcium Carbonate [CaCO3]); hay bales; and a 0.15 m layer
of spent mushroom compost.
-The limestone-rock filter and aerobic cells were added to oxygenate the constructed
wetland effluent, volatilizate hydrogen sulfides in the effluent, and provide additional
settlement for metal precipitates in the effluent.
-The constructed wetland is 2 acres in size.
-The average flow of water into the constructed wetland is 291 gallons per minute
(gpm) and the average flow out of it is 241 gpm.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
The average flow of water entering the anaerobic wetland is 241 gpm.
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
EPA secondary maximum contaminant level (MCL) standards for public water systems:
-Heavy Metals: Fe (0.3 mg/L), Mn (0.05 mg/L), Cu (1.0 mg/L), Zn (5 mg/L), Al (0.05 - 0.2 mg/L).
Results:
After the initial construction of the wetland in 1998, a study was conducted from September 15, 1999 to February 5, 2003
to evaluate the performance of the wetland. The study found that the wetland was reducing the acidity and concentration
of most of the metals in the McPherson Branch flow. However, concentration of manganese was not being reduced. The
study also found an increase in the hardness of water and a decrease in sulfate concentration. Later in 2003, two additional
aerobic cells and a limestone-rock filter bed were installed to help decrease manganese concentrations.
As of 2006, the effluent concentrations of heavy metals are:
-Al at 0.055 mg/L
-Feat0.133 mg/L
-Mn at 0.294 mg/L
-Cu at 0.017 mg/L
-Zn at 0.197 mg/L
With the exception of manganese, all metal concentrations have been reduced to below the EPA MCL standards.
29
-------
Constructed Wetland at Copper Basin Mining District, Ducktown, Tennessee (continued)
Costs:
-The construction cost of the anaerobic wetland in 1998 was approximately $1 million. This included the initial removal
of waste material and the construction of the anaerobic cell.
-In 2003, the cost of adding the two additional aerobic cells to the wetland was approximately $300,000. This included the
cost for the installation of the two cells, the cost for adding a rock filter, and the restoration of a segment of habitat on
McPherson Branch downstream of the anaerobic wetland.
Description:
The Copper Basin Mining District is located in Polk County, Tennessee and Fannin County, Georgia. Copper and sulfur
mining and processing occurred at the site from 1843 until 1987, with sulfuric acid production continuing until 2000. As a
result of mining activities, an area of more than 35 square miles, including the Davis Mill Creek Watershed, the North
Potato Creek Watershed, and sections of the Ocoee River, had become contaminated.
The site is currently being investigated and remediated through a collaborative three-party effort that was formalized by a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), dated January 11, 2001. The three parties overseeing remediation of the site are:
the EPA, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, and OXY USA (a subsidiary of Occidental
Petroleum Corporation). Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. (GSHI), also a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum Corporation, is
conducting the remedial work at the site.
The constructed wetland was installed by GSHI on the McPherson Branch near its convergence with Burra Burra Creek
within the North Potato Creek Watershed. The two-acre wetland was constructed on a highly eroded watershed, near the
location of a former ore roast yard. In 1998 the initial anaerobic cell of the wetland was installed on the McPherson
Branch. The construction cost of the wetland and removal of waste from the area was approximately $1 million.
After construction of the wetland, a study was initiated in September 1999 to monitor the performance of the system. The
study ended in February 2003 and found that the wetland had succeeded in reducing the acidity and concentration of most
of the metal contamination in the McPherson Branch. The only metal that was not reduced to below the EPA MCL was
manganese.
To help reduce the concentrations of manganese, two additional aerobic cells were added to the wetland system. In
addition, a rock filter was constructed to provide oxygenation, volatilization of hydrogen sulfide, and settlement for metal
precipitates. These additions to the wetland were conducted in 2003 at a cost of $300,000. This also includes the cost for
the restoration of a segment of the stream downriver from the wetland.
The average volume of influent into the constructed wetland system is 291 gpm. Iron, copper, zinc, and aluminum
concentrations have been reduced by an order of magnitude. In addition, acidity has been reduced with the pH of treated
water increasing from 3.82 to 6.50.
30
-------
Compost-free Bioreactor at Leviathan Mine Superfund Site, Markleeville, California
Site Name:
Leviathan Mine
Location:
Markleeville, CA
Period of Operation:
Spring 2003 - Ongoing
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE): November 2003 to July
2005
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
Technology evaluated under the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) SITE program
Purpose/Significance of Application:
The primary objectives of the SITE evaluation were to:
-Determine the removal efficiencies for the primary target metals (Al, Cu, Fe,
and Ni) over the evaluation period
-Determine if the concentrations of the primary target metals in the treated
effluent are below the interim (pre-risk assessment and record of decision)
discharge standards mandated in 2002 Action Memorandum for Early Actions
at Leviathan Mine
Cleanup Type: Full Scale
Contaminants:
Average gravity flow mode influent ARD concentrations:
-Heavy metals: Aluminum (Al) (37,467 ug/L), Copper (Cu) (691 ug/L), Iron
(Fe) (117,167 ug/L), Nickel (Ni) (487 ug/L)
Average recirculation mode influent ARD concentrations:
-Heavy metals: Al (40,029 ug/L), Cu (795 ug/L), Fe (115,785 ug/L), Ni (529
ug/L)
Waste Source:
Copper and sulfur mining activities.
31
-------
Compost-free Bioreactor at Leviathan Mine Superfund Site, Markleeville, California (continued)
Contacts:
EPA Contacts:
Edward Bates, EPA Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
26 West Martin Luther King Jr. Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7774
bates.edward@epa.gov
Kevin Mayer, EPA Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street, SFD-7-2
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)972-3176
mayer.kevin@epa.gov
Vendor Contact:
Roy Thun, Project Manager
BP Atlantic Richfield Company
6 Centerpointe Drive, Room 6-164
La Palma, CA 90623
(661) 287-3855
thunril@bp.com
State of California Contact:
Richard Booth, Project Manager
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Lohontan Region
2501 Lake Tahoe Blvd.
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
(530) 542-5470
RBooth@waterboards.ca.gov
University of Nevada-Reno Contact:
Dr. Glenn Miller and Dr. Tim Tsukamoto
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Science
University of Nevada-Reno, Mail Stop 199
Reno, NV 89557-0187
(775) 784-4413
gcmiller@unr.edu
timothy t@unr. edu
Technology:
Compost-free Bioreactor
-A compost-free bioreactor system was installed in the spring of
2003.
-The system consists of a flow control weir, a pretreatment pond,
two sulfate-reducing bioreactors, a settling pond, and an aeration
channel.
-Influent acid rock drainage (ARD) enters the system through a
flow control weir. Sodium hydroxide is added to the influent to
adjust the pH to approximately 4. Precipitates formed during the
pH adjustment are settled out in the pretreatment pond. Ethanol is
added to the ARD as it flows into a series of two sulfate-reducing
bioreactors where sulfate is reduced to sulfide. Effluent from the
bioreactors enters a settling pond where metal sulfide precipitates
are removed. Finally, effluent from the settling pond flows
through a rock lined aeration channel to promote gas exchange
before being discharged into Aspen Creek.
-Ethanol is contained in a 7,600 Liter (L) ethanol feed stock tank
and sodium hydroxide is contained in three 3,800 L feed stock
tank.
-The system is designed to handle influent flows up to a maximum
of 1 15 liter per minute (L/min). During the evaluation inlet flows
were evaluated up to 91 L/min.
-The two bioreactors are lined with 60 mil high density
polyethylene (HOPE) and filled with 20 to 40 centimeters (cm) of
river rock.
-The system operated in two modes: gravity flow mode and
recirculation mode. The gravity flow mode operates by having the
ARD pass through two successive sulfate-reducing bioreactors
followed by precipitation of metal sulfides in the continuous flow
settling pond. The recirculation mode operates by having ARD
come into direct contact with the sulfide rich water from the
bioreactors followed by precipitation of the metal sulfides in the
settling pond. Also in the recirculation mode, a portion of the
settling pond supernatant containing excess sulfate is then pumped
back to the head of the bioreactors to generate additional sulfides.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
From November 2003 to mid-May 2004 the system treated 9.24 million liters of ARD while in gravity flow mode. From
mid-May 2004 to July 2005, 22.1 million liters of ARD were treated using the recirculation mode.
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Maximum EPA Interim Discharge Standards:
-Heavy Metals: Al (4,000 ug/L), Cu (26 ug/L), Fe (2,000 ug/L), Ni (840 ug/L)
32
-------
Compost-free Bioreactor at Leviathan Mine Superfund Site, Markleeville, California (continued)
Results:
The evaluation showed that the compost-free bioreactor system is effective in neutralizing acidity and reducing the
concentrations of the heavy metal contamination to below the interim discharge standards. During the gravity flow mode,
the system removed an average of 94 percent of the total heavy metal contamination from the ARD. The recirculation
mode approach removed an average of 96 percent of the contamination. In addition, the metal sulfide precipitates created
by the system were found to be non-hazardous, did not pose a threat to water quality, and could be used as a soil
amendment for site reclamation.
Costs:
The estimated initial fixed cost to construct a treatment system for the gravity flow mode was $836,617 and $864,119 for
the recirculation mode system. These costs included site preparation, permitting, and capital and equipment costs. The
site preparation costs included costs for system design, project and construction management, and preconstruction site
work. The capital and equipment costs ($548,431 for gravity flow mode and $554,551 for recirculation mode) included
costs for all equipment and materials used during construction, delivery of equipment and materials, earthwork, and initial
system construction. The equipment and materials costs included costs for reagent storage tanks, pumps, valves, pond
liners, rock substrate, pH control equipment, automation equipment and satellite phones for reliable communication at the
remote site.
The total variable cost to operate the treatment system was $82,155 for gravity flow mode (over a 6-month period) and
$75,877 for the recirculation mode (over a 16-month period). These costs include the cost of system startup and
acclimation, consumable and rentals, labor, utilities, waste handling and disposal, analytical services, and maintenance and
system modifications.
Description:
The Leviathan Mine is a former copper and sulfur mine located in Alpine County on the eastern slopes of the Sierra
Nevada Mountain range. Mining activities since the 1860s have resulted in significant acid mine drainage (AMD) and
ARD contamination. In the 1950s, approximately 22 million tons of overburden and waste rock were removed from the
site's open pit mine and were placed in the Aspen Creek drainage channel.
In the spring of 2003 installation of a compost-free bioreactor at the site was completed. From November 2003 to July
2005 the treatment system was evaluated by the EPA SITE program to determine its effectiveness in treating ARD
collected from the Aspen Seep.
The system operated in gravity flow mode from November 2003 through mid-May and in recirculation mode from
mid-May through July 2005. During both periods the influent flow of ARD into the system ranged from 25 to 91 L/min.
During gravity flow mode the system treated 9.24 million liters of ARD and during recirculation mode the system treated
22.1 million liters of ARD. The initial fixed cost to construct the treatment system for gravity flow mode is $836,617 and
$864,119 for a recirculation mode system.
Results from the evaluation showed that the system was able to remove on an average 94 to 96 percent of the total heavy
metal contamination from the ARD. Based on the success of the system, remediation of the ARD from the Aspen Seep
continued.
33
-------
Lime Treatment at Leviathan Mine Superfund Site, Markleeville, California
Site Name:
Leviathan Mine
Location:
Markleeville, CA
Period of Operation:
Active lime treatment system: 1999 - ongoing; semi-passive lagoon treatment
system: 2001 - ongoing
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE): June 2002 to October
2003.
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
Technology evaluated under the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) SITE program
Purpose/Significance of Application:
The primary objectives of the SITE evaluation were to:
-Determine the removal efficiencies for the target metals over the evaluation
period
-Determine if the concentrations of the target metals in the treated effluent are
below the interim (pre-risk assessment and record of decision) discharge
standards mandated in 2002 Action Memorandum for Early Actions at
Leviathan Mine
The secondary objectives of the evaluation were to:
-Document operating parameters and assess critical operating conditions
necessary to optimize system performance
-Monitor the general chemical characteristics of the AMD or ARD water as it
passes through the treatment system
-Evaluate operational performance and efficiency of solids separation systems
-Document solids transfer, dewatering, and disposal operations
-Determine capital and operation and maintenance costs
Cleanup Type:
Full Scale
Contaminants:
Average active lime treatment biphasic operation influent AMD concentrations:
-Heavy metals: Aluminum (Al) (381,000 ug/L), Copper (Cu) (2,383 ug/L), Iron
(Fe) (461,615 ug/L), Nickel (Ni) (7,024 ug/L)
Average active lime treatment monophasic operation influent ARD/AMD
concentrations
-Heavy metals: Al (107,800 ug/L), Cu (2,152 ug/L), Fe (456,429 ug/L), Ni
(2,560 ug/L)
Average semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment influent ARD concentrations
-Heavy metals: Al (31,988 ug/L), Cu (13.5 ug/L), Fe (391,250 ug/L), Ni (1,631
ug/L)
Waste Source:
Copper and sulfur mining activities.
34
-------
Lime Treatment at Leviathan Mine Superfund Site, Markleeville, California (continued)
Contacts:
EPA Contacts:
Edward Bates, EPA Project
Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
Office of Research and
Development
26 West Martin Luther King Jr.
Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7774
bates.edward@epa.gov
Kevin Mayer, EPA Remedial
Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street, SFD-7-2
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)972-3176
mayer.kevin@epa.gov
Vendor Contact:
Roy Thun, Project Manager
BP Atlantic Richfield Company
6 Centerpointe Drive, Room
6-164
La Palma, CA 90623
(661) 287-3855
thunril@bp.com
State of California Contact:
Richard Booth, Project Manager
California Regional Water
Quality Control Board
Lohontan Region
2501 Lake Tahoe Blvd.
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
(530) 542-5470
RBooth@waterboards.ca.gov
Technology:
Active lime treatment system
-Acid rock drainage (ARD) and acid mine drainage (AMD) are neutralized using lime
to precipitate dissolved iron, other metals, and oxy-hydroxides.
-Influent flows into a reaction tank where it is mixed with lime slurry. The process
solution then flows through a 4,000 Liter (L) flash/floe mixing tank where polymer
flocculent is added. The solution then flows into a 40,000 L clarifier for floe settling
and thickening. Solids are periodically pumped from the clarifier into a 550
L-capacity batch filter press for dewatering.
-The system operated in two modes: monophasic and biphasic. The monophasic mode
is a single stage process that treats a combined flow of ARD and AMD. The biphasic
mode consists of two stages where only AMD is treated. During biphasic mode, the
AMD flow passes through two sets of reaction tanks, flash/floe mixing tanks, and
clarifiers.
-The monophasic mode of the system treated ARD/AMD flows up to 250 liter per
minute (L/min) while the biphasic mode treated AMD flow up to 720 L/min.
-Forty-five percent lime slurry was added to the AMD at a rate of up to 1.3 L/min for
biphasic mode and to the ARD/AMD at 0.35 L/min for monophasic mode.
Semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system
-ARD with low arsenic concentration is neutralized using lime to form hydroxide
precipitate.
-The semi-passive system operates as a continuous flow lime contact system.
-ARD influent passes through three 4,000 L air sparge/lime contact tanks where initial
precipitation occurs. Forty-five percent lime slurry is added to each contact tank at a
combined rate of 0.16 L/min. The tanks are sparged with compressed air to mix the
ARD and lime. The ARD/lime solution then flows through a series of six, spun fabric
bag filters where approximately 60 percent of the precipitate is captured. Effluent
from the bag filters then flows into a 5.4 million L multi-cell settling lagoon. Treated
ARD is periodically discharged from the settling lagoon into the Leviathan Creek.
-The system treats low ARD flows of approximately 120 L/min with relatively low
arsenic content.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
In monophasic mode, the active lime treatment system treated 17.4 million liter of combined AMD and ARD using 23.8
dry tons of lime over 6 months. During the biphasic mode the active treatment system treated 28.3 million liter of AMD
using 125 dry tons of lime over 6 months.
The semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system treated 12.3 million liters of ARD using 19.4 dry tons of lime over 6
months.
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
EPA Project Discharge Standards (Maximum):
-Heavy metals: Al (4,000 ug/L), Cu (26 ug/L), Fe (2,000 ug/L), Ni (840 ug/L)
35
-------
Lime Treatment at Leviathan Mine Superfund Site, Markleeville, California (continued)
Results:
-Both the monophasic and biphasic modes for active lime treatment were able to remove on average 93.1 to 100 percent of
each metal contaminant, with the exception of lead, which had a removal percentage of 74.6 to 78.3 percent.
-The semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system was able to remove on an average 88.5 to 100 percent of each metal
contaminant, with the exception of lead (removal efficiency of 66.4 percent) and copper (removal efficiency of 58.3).
-Despite the low average percent removal efficiency for lead and copper, all contaminant metal concentrations in the
effluent were below the interim discharge standards for both systems.
Costs:
The initial fixed costs to construct the lime treatment systems were:
-Active lime treatment operated in monophasic mode: $1,021,415
-Active lime treatment operated in biphasic mode: $1,261,076
-Semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment: $297,482
The initial fixed costs consisted of site preparation costs, permitting costs, and capital and equipment costs. Site
preparation costs included system design, project management, and construction management. Capital and equipment
costs included all equipment and materials used, delivery, and initial system construction. Equipment and materials
included reaction tanks, settling tanks, piping, pumps, valves, pH control equipment, automation equipment and satellite
phones to support communication in the remote location.
Variable costs to operate each system over the 6-month evaluation period were as follows:
-Active lime treatment operated in monophasic mode: $200,022
-Active lime treatment operated in biphasic mode: $224,813
-Semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment: $195,151
Variable costs included system startup and shakedown, consumables and rentals, labor, utilities, waste handling and
disposal, analytical services, maintenance and system modification, and system winterization.
Description:
The Leviathan Mine is a former copper and sulfur mine located in Alpine County on the eastern slopes of the Sierra
Nevada Mountain range. Mining activities since the 1860s has resulted in significant AMD and ARD contamination. In
the 1950s, approximately 22 million tons of overburden and waste rock were removed from the open pit mine and
distributed throughout the site.
The active lime treatment system was installed at the site in 1999 and the semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system
was installed in 2001. The SITE evaluation was conducted from June 2002 to October 2003. Each system used lime to
neutralize AMD and/or ARD. The initial fixed costs for active lime treatment were $1,021,415 and $1,261,076 for
monophasic and biphasic treatment respectively, and $297,482 for the semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system.
Both treatment systems were able to remove an average of 88.5 to 100 percent of each metal contaminant from the
influent, with the exception of lead for the active lime treatment system (both modes), and copper and lead for the
semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system. Lead had an average removal efficiency percentage of 74 to 78 with the
active lime treatment and 66 percent removal efficiency with the semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment. Copper had an
average 58 percent removal efficiency with the semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment. Based on these results, both lime
treatment systems were continued after the SITE evaluation, with the active lime treatment system operating in biphasic
mode to treat AMD and the semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system treating ARD.
36
-------
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES
37
-------
This page intentionally left blank
38
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES
Site Name, Location
Case
Study
ID
Technology *f
Media
Contaminants
Year
Operation
Began
Year
Published
Soil Vapor Extraction (43 Projects)
Basket Creek Surface Impoundment
Site, GA
Camp Lejeune Military Reservation,
Site 82, Area A, NC
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma
Channel Well 12A Superfund Site, WA
Davis-Monthan AFB, Site ST-35, AZ
Defense Supply Center Richmond, OU
5, VA
East Multnomah County Groundwater
Contamination Site, OR
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation
Superfund Site, CA
Fort Lewis, Landfill 4, WA
Fort Richardson, Building 908 South,
AK
18
32
45
51
52
370
68
84
88
SVE
SVE
SVE
SVE
SVE (Field Demonstration)
SVE;
Air Sparging;
Pump and Treat
SVE
SVE;
Air Sparging
SVE
Soil
Soil
Soil;
DNAPLs
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Soil
Soil
Soil
TCE; Volatiles-
Halogenated;
Ketones;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals
BTEX; PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
BTEX; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated
1992
1995
1992
1995
1992
1991
1989
1994
1995
1997
1998
1995
1998
1998
2004
1995
1998
1998
A-l
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Fort Greely, Texas Tower Site, AK
Hastings Groundwater Contamination
Superfund Site, Well Number 3
Subsite, NE
Holloman AFB, Sites 2 and 5, NM
Intersil/Siemens Superfund Site, CA
Luke Air Force Base, North Fire
Training Area, AZ
McClellan Air Force Base, Operable
Unit D, Site S, CA
Multiple (2) Dry Cleaner Sites - In situ
SVE, Various Locations
Multiple (3) Dry Cleaner Sites - In Situ
Treatment, Various Locations
Multiple (3) Dry Cleaner Sites -
SVE/ Air Sparging, Various Locations
Case
Study
ID
82
104
108
117
145
154
366
363
317
Technology *f
SVE;
Air Sparging;
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
SVE
SVE
SVE
SVE
SVE (Field Demonstration)
SVE
SVE;
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in
situ)', Thermal Treatment (in
situ)
SVE;
Air Sparging
Media
Soil;
Groundwater
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Groundwater
Soil;
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Soil;
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Contaminants
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
TCE; Volatiles-
Halogenated
BTEX; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
TCE; Volatiles-
Halogenated
BTEX; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Ketones
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1994
1992
1994
1988
1990
1993
1994
2001
Various
years -
starting 1995
Year
Published
1998
1995
1998
1998
1995
1995
2004
2004
2003
A-2
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Multiple (3) Dry Cleaner Sites -
SVE/MNA, Various Locations
Multiple (4) Dry Cleaners - SVE and
SVE Used with Other Technologies,
Various Locations
Multiple (6) Dry Cleaner Sites, Various
Locations
Multiple (7) Dry Cleaner Sites
Multiple (7) Dry Cleaner Sites -
P&T/SVE/MPE, Various Locations
Multiple (3) Dry Cleaner Sites, Various
Locations
NAS North Island, Site 9, CA
Patrick Air Force Base, Active Base
Exchange Service Station, FL
Case
Study
ID
320
365
345
176
349
379
183
214
Technology *f
SVE; Monitored Natural
Attenuation; Pump and Treat
SVE;
Air Sparging;
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in
situ); Pump and Treat;
Monitored Natural
Attenuation;
Multi Phase Extraction
SVE
SVE;
Pump and Treat
SVE;
Multi Phase Extraction;
Pump and Treat
SVE
SVE (Photolytic Destruction)
(Field Demonstration)
SVE (Biocube™) (Field
Demonstration)
Media
Soil;
Groundwater
Soil;
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Soil;
DNAPLs
Soil;
DNAPLs
Soil;
Groundwater;
DNAPLs;
Off-gases
Soil;
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Soil
Soil
Contaminants
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; Volatiles-
Halogenated; BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
DCE; PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX; Volatiles-
Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE; BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated
BTEX; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Year
Operation
Began
Various
years -
starting 1996
1997
Various
years -
starting 1992
Various
years -
starting 1998
Various
years -
starting 1991
Various
years -
starting 1999
1997
1994
Year
Published
2003
2004
Various
years - 2002,
2003
Various
years -
2001, 2002
Various
years - 2002,
2003
2005
1998
2000
A-3
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Patrick Air Force Base, Active Base
Exchange Service Station, FL
Rocky Mountain Arsenal Superfund
Site (Motor Pool Area - Operable Unit
#18), CO
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund
Site, Tank 2 (Operable Unit #3), CA
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund
Site, Burn Pits Operable Unit, CA
Sand Creek Industrial Superfund Site,
Operable Unit 1, CO
Seymour Recycling Corporation
Superfund Site, IN
Shaw AFB, OU 1, SC
SMS Instruments Superfund Site, NY
Stamina Mills Superfund Site, RI
Case
Study
ID
215
237
241
240
242
258
261
264
273
Technology *f
SVE (Internal Combustion
Engine) (Field
Demonstration)
SVE
SVE
SVE
SVE
SVE;
Containment - Caps;
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
SVE;
Free Product Recovery
SVE
SVE;
Multi Phase Extraction
(Field Demonstration)
Media
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil;
LNAPLs
Soil
Soil;
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Soil
Soil;
Off-gases
Contaminants
BTEX; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
TCE; Volatiles-
Halogenated
Ketones; BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
BTEX; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1993
1991
1992
1994
1993
1992
1995
1992
1999
Year
Published
2000
1995
1995
1997
1997
1998
1998
1995
2001
A-4
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Swift Cleaners, FL
Tyson's Dump Superfund Site, PA
U.S. Department of Energy,
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant,
OH
U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah
River Site, SC
U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah
River Site, SC, and Sandia, NM
Vandenberg Air Force Base, Base
Exchange Service Station, CA
Verona Well Field Superfund Site
(Thomas Solvent Raymond Road -
Operable Unit #1), MI
Case
Study
ID
404
285
292
295
251
306
307
Technology *f
SVE; Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
SVE
SVE;
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in
situ);
Solidification/Stabilization;
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
SVE (Flameless Thermal
Oxidation) (Field
Demonstration)
SVE;
In- Well Air Stripping;
Bioremediation (in situ)
ALL;
Drilling
(Field Demonstration)
SVE (Resin Adsorption)
(Field Demonstration)
SVE
Media
Soil;
Groundwater
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Off-gases
Soil;
Groundwater
Soil
Soil
Light Non-
aqueous Phase
Liquids
Contaminants
TCE; PCE; Vinyl Chloride;
DCE; Volatile-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Volatiles-Halogenated
BTEX; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Ketones; BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
PCE; Volatiles-Halogenated
Year
Operation
Began
2001
1988
1992
1995
1988
1994
1988
Year
Published
2007
1998
1997
1997
2000
2000
1995
Other In Situ Soil/Sediment Treatment (51 Projects)
Alameda Point, CA
5
Electrokinetics(Field
Demonstration)
Soil
Heavy Metals
1997
2001
A-5
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Argonne National Laboratory-East,
3 17/3 19 Area, Argonne, IL
Argonne National Laboratory - West,
Waste Area Group 9, OU 9-04, ID
Avery Dennison, IL
Beach Haven Substation, Pensacola, FL
Brodhead Creek Superfund Site, PA
California Gulch Superfund Site, OU
11, CO
Camp Stanley Storage Activity, TX
Castle Airport and Various Sites, CA
Castle Airport, CA
Cleaners #1, Kent, WA
Confidential Chemical Manufacturing
Facility, IN
Case
Study
ID
390
12
329
20
24
373
401
361
35
394
330
Technology *f
Phytoremediation
Phytoremediation(Field
Demonstration)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
Electrokinetics (Field
Demonstration)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
Solidification/Stabilization
(Field Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization
Bioremediation (in situ)
Bioventing
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Bioventing (Field
Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation,
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
Media
Soil;
Groundwater
Soil
Soil; DNAPLs
Soil
Soil; DNAPLs
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil,
Groundwater
Soil;
DNAPLs;
Off-gases
Contaminants
BTEX; Volatiles-
Nonhalogenated; Volatiles-
Halogenated; Semivolatile-
Halogenated
Heavy Metals
Volatiles-Halogenated
Arsenic
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Arsenic
Heavy Metals
Heavy Metals
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
DCE; PCE; TCE; Volatiles-
Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1999
1998
1999
1998
1995
1998
2002
1998
1998
1998
1997
Year
Published
2006
2000
2003
2000
1998
2005
2007
2004
1999
2006
2003
A-6
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Crooksville/Roseville Pottery Area of
Concern (CRPAC), OH
Dover Air Force Base, Building 719,
DE
Eielson Air Force Base, AK
Ensign-Bickford Company - OB/OD
Area, CT
Former Mare Island Naval Shipyard,
CA
Fort Richardson Poleline Road
Disposal Area, OU B, AK
Frontier Hard Chrome Superfund Site,
WA
Hill Air Force Base, Site 280, UT
Hill Air Force Base, Site 914, UT
Hunter Army Airfield, Former
Pumphouse #2, GA
Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory, ID
Case
Study
ID
327
57
64
66
75
89
381
106
107
382
114
Technology *f
Solidification/Stabilization
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Bioventing
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Bioventing (Field
Demonstration)
Phytoremediation
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)',
SVE (Field Demonstration)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Bioventing
Bioremediation (in situ)
Bioventing;
SVE
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Bioventing
(Field Demonstration)
Media
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Groundwater
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Soil
Contaminants
Heavy Metals
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Heavy Metals
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Heavy Metals
BTEX; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
BTEX; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1998
1998
1991
1998
1997
1997
2003
1990
1988
2002
1996
Year
Published
2002
2000
1995
2000
2000
2000
2005
1995
1995
2005
2000
A-7
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Jones Island Confined Disposal
Facility, Milwaukee, WI
Koppers Co. (Charleston Plant) Ashley
River Superfund Site, SC
Lowry Air Force Base, CO
Magic Marker, NJ and Small Arms
Firing Range (SAFR) 24, NJ
Missouri Electric Works Superfund
Site, MO
Morses Pond Culvert, MA
Multiple Air Force Test Sites, Multiple
Locations
Multiple (4) Dry Cleaner Sites - In Situ
Chemical Oxidation, Various Locations
Case
Study
ID
393
350
143
146
160
351
180
380
Technology *f
Phytoremediation (Field
Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization
Bioremediation (in situ)
Bioventing
Phytoremediation (Field
Demonstration)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Bioventing
(Field Demonstration)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
Media
Sediment
Sediment;
DNAPLs
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Groundwater
Contaminants
PCBs; PAHs; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
PAHs; Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
BTEX; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Heavy Metals
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
Heavy Metals
BTEX; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
DCE; PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
Year
Operation
Began
2001
2001
1992
Magic
Marker -
1997;
Fort Dix -
2000
1997
2001
1992
Various
years-
starting 1999
Year
Published
2006
2006
1995
2002
1998
2004
2000
2005
A-8
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Multiple (3) POL-Contaminated Sites,
AK
Naval Air Weapons Station Point Mugu
Site 5, CA (USAEC)
Naval Air Weapons Station Point Mugu
Site 5, CA (USEPA)
Onalaska Municipal Landfill Superfund
Site, Onalaska, WI
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
(PGDP) Superfund Site, KY
Palmerton Zinc Superfund Site, PA
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises
Superfund Site, MI
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant,
X-231A Site, Piketon, OH
Case
Study
ID
376
188
189
387
328
396
212
225
Technology *f
Phytoremediation;
Bioremediation (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Electrokinetics (Field
Demonstration)
Electrokinetics (Field
Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Bioventing, Pump and Treat,
Monitored Natural
Attenuation
Lasagna™
Phytoremediation
Vitrification (in situ)
Fracturing (Field
Demonstration)
Media
Soil
Soil;
Sediment
Soil
Soil;
Groundwater
Soil
Soil;
Sediment;
Groundwater
Soil;
Sediment
Soil;
Groundwater
Contaminants
BTEX; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
PCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
Heavy Metals
Heavy Metals
BTEX; DCE; Heavy
Metals; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated; PCE;
TCE; Volatiles-
Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Heavy Metals
Pesticides/Herbicides;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals;
Dioxins/Furans
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year
Operation
Began
Various
years -
starting 1998
1998
1998
1994
1999
1991
1993
1996
Year
Published
2005
2000
2000
2006
2002
2007
1997
2001
A-9
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Rocky Mountain Arsenal Superfund
Site, Denver, CO
Sandia National Laboratories, Unlined
Chromic Acid Pit, NM
Savannah River Site 321-M Solvent
Storage Tank Area, GA
Sulfur Bank Mercury Mine Superfund
Site
Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant,
MN
U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah
River Site, SC, and Hanford Site, WA
U.S. Department of Energy, Paducah
Gaseous Diffusion Plant, KY
U.S. Department of Energy,
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant,
OH and Other Sites
U.S. Department of Energy, Multiple
Sites
U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford
Site, WA, Oak Ridge (TN) and Others
White Sands Missile Range, SWMU
143, NM
Case
Study
ID
386
246
337
391
283
296
291
293
288
289
313
Technology *f
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
Electrokinetics (Field
Demonstration)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization
(Bench Scale)
Phytoremediation (Field
Demonstration)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Lasagna™ (Field
Demonstration)
Fracturing (Field
Demonstration)
Drilling (Field
Demonstration)
Vitrification (in situ)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Media
Soil
Soil
Soil; DNAPLs
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Sediment
Soil;
Groundwater
Soil;
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Soil;
Sediment
Soil;
Sludge;
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Soil
Contaminants
Pesticides/Herbicides;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
Heavy Metals
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Heavy Metals
Heavy Metals;
Arsenic
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
-
Pesticides/Herbicides;
Heavy Metals;
Arsenic;
Dioxins/Furans;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
PCBs;
Radioactive Metals
Heavy Metals
Year
Operation
Began
2001
1996
2000
2000
1998
1993
1995
1991
1992
Not Provided
1998
Year
Published
2006
2000
2003
2006
2000
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
2000
A-10
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Young-Rainy Star Center (formerly
Pinellas) Northeast Area A, FL
Case
Study
ID
355
Technology *f
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
Media
Soil;
Groundwater
Contaminants
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
DCE; PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year
Operation
Began
2002
Year
Published
2004
Incineration (on-site) (18 Projects)
Baird and McGuire, MA
Bayou Bonfouca, LA
Bridgeport Refinery and Oil Services,
NJ
Celanese Corporation Shelby Fiber
Operations, NC
15
19
23
36
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Soil;
Sediment
Soil;
Sediment
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid;
Sediment;
Organic
Liquids;
Sludge
Soil;
Sludge
Dioxins/Furans;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Arsenic;
Heavy Metals;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals;
BTEX
1995
1993
1991
1991
1998
1998
1998
1998
A-ll
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Coal Creek, WA
Drake Chemical Superfund Site,
Operable Unit 3, Lock Haven, PA
FMC Corporation - Yakima, WA
Former Nebraska Ordnance Plant - OU
1,NE
Former Weldon Springs Ordnance
Works, OU 1, MO
MOTCO, TX
Case
Study
ID
43
59
72
76
79
165
Technology *f
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Media
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Soil;
Sludge;
Organic
Liquids
Contaminants
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
Pesticides/Herbicides;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
Explosives/Propellants
Explosives/Propellants;
Heavy Metals;
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1994
1998
1993
1997
1998
1990
Year
Published
1998
2001
1998
1998
2000
1998
A-12
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Old Midland Products, AR
Petro Processors, LA
Rocky Mountain Arsenal, CO
Rose Disposal Pit, MA
Rose Township Dump, MI
Case
Study
ID
206
217
236
238
239
Technology *f
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Media
Soil;
Sludge
Soil;
Organic
Liquids;
DNAPLs
Soil;
Organic
Liquids
Soil
Soil
Contaminants
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Pesticides/Herbicides;
Heavy Metals; Arsenic
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
PAHs;
Ketones
Year
Operation
Began
1992
1994
1993
1994
1992
Year
Published
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
A-13
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Sikes Disposal Pits, TX
Times Beach, MO
Vertac Chemical Corporation, AR
Case
Study
ID
262
280
308
Technology *f
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Media
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid;
Organic
Liquids
Contaminants
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Dioxins/Furans;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
Dioxins/Furans;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1992
1996
1992
Year
Published
1998
1998
1998
Thermal Desorption (30 Projects)
Anderson Development Company
Superfund Site, MI
Arlington Blending and Packaging
Superfund Site, TN
Brookhaven National
Laboratory(BNL), NY
8
13
325
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Soil;
Sludge
Soil
Soil
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals
Pesticides/Herbicides;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Arsenic
Heavy Metals
1992
1996
Not provided
1995
2000
2002
A-14
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Cape Fear Superfund Site, NC
PCX Washington Superfund Site, NC
Fort Lewis, Solvent Refined Coal Pilot
Plant (SRCPP), WA
Fort Ord, CA
Industrial Latex Superfund Site, NJ
Letterkenny Army Depot Superfund
Site, K Areas, OU1, PA
Lipari Landfill, Operable Unit 3, NJ
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant,
Burning Ground No. 3, TX
Case
Study
ID
33
69
86
354
348
135
137
138
Technology *f
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Media
Soil
Soil
Soil
Debris/Slag/S
olid; Off-gas
Soil;
Off-gases
Soil
Soil
Soil
Contaminants
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Arsenic; Heavy Metals;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
BTEX
Pesticides/Herbicides;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
Heavy Metals
Pesticides/Herbicides;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
PAHs; PCBs; Arsenic
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Arsenic;
Heavy Metals;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1998
1995
1996
2002
1999
1993
1994
1997
Year
Published
2002
1998
1998
2004
2002
2000
2002
2000
A-15
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
McKin Superfund Site, ME
Metaltec/Aerosystems Superfund Site,
Franklin Borough, NJ
Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Site 17,
OU 2, FL
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site,
New Bedford, MA
Outboard Marine Corporation
Superfund Site, OH
Port Moller Radio Relay Station, AK
Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site, OH
Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site, MA
Case
Study
ID
155
156
182
197
209
223
227
230
Technology *f
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Media
Soil
Soil
Soil
Sediment
Soil;
Sediment
Soil
Soil
Soil
Contaminants
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Pesticides/Herbicides;
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Ketones;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1986
1994
1995
1996
1992
1995
1993
1993
Year
Published
1995
2001
1998
2001
1995
1998
1995
1998
A-16
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Reich Farm, Pleasant Plains, NJ
Reilly Industries Superfund Site,
Operable Unit 3, IN
Rocky Flats Environmental Technology
Site, Mound Site, Golden, CO
Rocky Flats Environmental Technology
Site, Trenches T-3 and T-4, CO
Sand Creek Superfund Site, OU 5, CO
Sarney Farm, Amenia, NY
Site B (actual site name confidential),
Western United States
TH Agriculture & Nutrition Company
Superfund Site, GA
Case
Study
ID
228
229
234
235
243
248
333
277
Technology *f
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Media
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Off-gases
Soil
Contaminants
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Ketones; BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Radioactive Metals
Pesticides/Herbicides;
Arsenic
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Ketones;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Pesticides/Herbicides;
Semivolatiles- Halogenated;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
Pesticides/Herbicides
Year
Operation
Began
1994
1996
1997
1996
1994
1997
1995
1993
Year
Published
2001
2002
2001
2000
2000
2001
2003
1995
A-17
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Waldick Aerospaces Devices
Superfund Site, NJ
Wide Beach Development Superfund
Site, NY
TH Agriculture and Nutrition Site,
OU2, GA
Case
Study
ID
310
314
374
Technology *f
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)',
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (ex situ)
Thermal Desorption (ex situ)
Media
Soil
Soil
Soil
Contaminants
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
PCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
PCBs
Pesticides/Herbicides;
Semivolatiles- Halogenated;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1993
1990
1999
Year
Published
1998
1995
2005
Other Ex Situ Soil/Sediment Treatment (33 Projects)
Bonneville Power Administration Ross
Complex, Operable Unit A, WA
Brookhaven National Laboratory, NY
Brown Wood Preserving Superfund
Site, FL
Burlington Northern Superfund Site,
MN
Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfund
Site, FL
22
25
27
29
60
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Land Treatment
Physical Separation
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Land Treatment
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Land Treatment
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Composting
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Sludge
Soil
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
Radioactive Metals
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
1994
2000
1989
1986
1993
1998
2001
1995
1997
1997
A-18
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Fort Polk Range 5, LA
Fort Greely, UST Soil Pile, AK
French Ltd. Superfund Site, TX
Hazen Research Center and Minergy
GlassPack Test Center, WI
Idaho National Environmental and
Engineering Laboratory (INEEL), ID
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant, IL
King of Prussia Technical Corporation
Superfund Site, NJ
Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM
Lowry Air Force Base, CO
Case
Study
ID
87
83
91
358
116
121
125
141
144
Technology *f
Acid Leaching;
Physical Separation(Field
Demonstration)
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Land Treatment
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Slurry Phase
Vitrification (ex situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Physical Separation
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Slurry Phase (Field
Demonstration)
Soil Washing
Physical Separation
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Land Treatment
Media
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Sludge
Sediment
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Sludge
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Soil
Contaminants
Heavy Metals
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Arsenic;
Heavy Metals
PCBs;
Dioxins/Furans;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
Radioactive Metals
Explosives/Propellants
Heavy Metals
Radioactive Metals
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1996
1994
1992
2001
1999
1994
1993
1999
1992
Year
Published
2000
1998
1995
2004
2001
2000
1995
2000
1995
A-19
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Massachusetts Military Reservation,
Training Range and Impact Area, Cape
Cod, MA
Naval Construction Battalion Center
Hydrocarbon National Test Site, CA
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site,
New Bedford, MA
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site,
New Bedford, MA
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site,
New Bedford, MA
Novartis Site, Ontario, Canada
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN
Pantex Plant, Firing Site 5, TX
Peerless Cleaners, WI; Stannard
Launders and Dry Cleaners, WI
RJVH Titanium Company Extrusion
Plant, OH
Sandia National Laboratories, ER Site
16, NM
Sandia National Laboratories, ER Site
228A, NM
Case
Study
ID
152
190
198
195
196
199
201
211
216
231
245
244
Technology *f
Solidification/Stabilization
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Composting (Field
Demonstration)
Vitrification (ex situ) (Field
Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization
(Field Demonstration)
Solvent Extraction (ex situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Land Treatment (Field
Demonstration)
Vitrification (ex situ) (Field
Demonstration)
Physical Separation
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Composting
Solvent Extraction (ex
situ)(Field Demonstration)
Physical Separation
Physical Separation
Media
Soil
Soil
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Soil
Sludge
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Contaminants
Heavy Metals
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
Pesticides/Herbicides;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
Heavy Metals;
Radioactive Metals
Radioactive Metals
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
Radioactive Metals
Radioactive Metals
Radioactive Metals
Year
Operation
Began
1998
1996
1996
1995
1996
1996
1997
1998
Not Provided
1997
1998
1998
Year
Published
2001
1998
2001
2001
2001
1998
2000
2000
2001
2000
2000
2000
A-20
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Scott Lumber Company Superfund
Site, MO
Southeastern Wood Preserving
Superfund Site, MS
Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Station,
AK
Stauffer Chemical Company, Tampa,
FL
Tonapah Test Range, Clean Slate 2, NV
Umatilla Army Depot Activity, OR
Umatilla Army Depot Activity, OR
Case
Study
ID
254
270
272
275
282
300
301
Technology *f
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Land Treatment
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Slurry Phase
Solvent Extraction (ex situ)
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Composting (Field
Demonstration)
Physical Separation
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Composting (Field
Demonstration)
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Composting
Media
Soil
Soil;
Sludge
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Soil
Soil
Contaminants
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
Pesticides/Herbicides
Radioactive Metals
Explosives/Propellants
Explosives/Propellants
Year
Operation
Began
1989
1991
1996
1997
1998
1992
1994
Year
Published
1995
1997
1998
2001
2000
1995
1997
Pump and Treat (50 Projects)
Amoco Petroleum Pipeline, MI
Baird and McGuire Superfund Site,
MA
7
16
Pump and Treat;
Air Sparging
Pump and Treat
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Groundwater
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Pesticides/Herbicides;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
1988
1993
1995
1998
A-21
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Bofors Nobel Superfund Site, OU 1,
MI
Charnock Wellfield, Santa Monica, CA
City Industries Superfund Site, FL
Coastal Systems Station, AOC 1, FL
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma
Channel Well 12A Superfund Site, WA
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma
Channel Superfund Site, WA
Des Moines TCE Superfund Site, OU
1,IA
Former Firestone Facility Superfund
Site, CA
Case
Study
ID
21
37
41
44
46
47
54
73
Technology *f
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat;
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (ex
s7/tt)(Field Demonstration)
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat (Field
Demonstration)
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat;
SVE
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Media
Groundwater
Drinking
Water
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil;
DNAPLs;
LNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater
Contaminants
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
MTBE;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Ketones;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; DCE; Volatiles-
Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1994
1998
1994
1997
1988
1998
1987
1986
Year
Published
1998
2001
1998
1998
1995
2001
1998
1998
A-22
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Fort Lewis Logistics Center, WA
Ft. Drum, Fuel Dispensing Area 1595,
NY
JMT Facility RCRA Site (formerly
Black & Decker RCRA Site), NY
Keefe Environmental Services
Superfund Site, NH
King of Prussia Technical Corporation
Superfund Site, NJ
Lacrosse, KS
Langley Air Force Base, IRP Site 4,
VA
LaSalle Electrical Superfund Site, IL
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (LLNL) Site 300 - General
Services Area (GSA) Operable Unit,
CA
Case
Study
ID
85
81
119
122
126
127
128
129
134
Technology *f
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat;
Free Product Recovery
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Drinking
Water
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil;
DNAPLs
Contaminants
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Heavy Metals
BTEX; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons;
MTBE;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
BTEX; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1995
1992
1988
1993
1995
1997
1992
1992
1991
Year
Published
2000
1995
1998
1998
1998
2001
1995
1998
1998
A-23
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Marine Corps Base, OU 1 and 2, Camp
Lejeune, NC
Marine Corps Base, Campbell Street
Fuel Farm, Camp Lejeune, NC
McClellan Air Force Base, Operable
UnitB/C, CA
Mid-South Wood Products Superfund
Site, AR
Mystery Bridge at Hwy 20 Superfund
Site, Dow/DSI Facility - Volatile
Halogenated Organic (VHO) Plume,
WY
Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Eastern
Groundwater Plume, ME
Odessa Chromium IIS Superfund Site,
OU 2, TX
Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site,
OU 2, TX
Case
Study
ID
149
150
153
158
181
185
204
203
Technology *f
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat;
SVE
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Contaminants
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Pesticides/Herbicides;
Heavy Metals;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals;
Arsenic
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Heavy Metals
Heavy Metals
Year
Operation
Began
1995
1996
1988
1989
1994
1995
1993
1993
Year
Published
2001
2001
1995
1998
1998
2001
1998
1998
A-24
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Offutt AFB, Site LF-12, NE
Old Mill Superfund Site, OH
Ott/Story/Cordova Superfund Site,
North Muskegon, MI
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, KY
Pinellas Northeast Site, FL
Pope AFB, Site SS-07, Blue Ramp
Spill Site, NC
Pope AFB, Site FT-01, NC
Rockaway, NJ
SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site, SC
Case
Study
ID
205
207
208
344
219
222
221
233
255
Technology *f
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat(Field
Demonstration)
Pump and Treat (Membrane
Filtration - PerVap™) (Field
Demonstration)
Pump and Treat;
Free Product Recovery
Pump and Treat;
Free Product Recovery
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Drinking
Water
Groundwater
Contaminants
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Pesticides/Herbicides
Radioactive Metals
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
MTBE; BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1997
1989
1996
1999
1995
1993
1993
1980
1992
Year
Published
1998
1998
2001
2002
1998
1998
1998
2001
1998
A-25
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Shaw AFB, Sites SD-29 and ST-30, SC
Shaw AFB, Site OT-16B, SC
Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers
Superfund Site, TX
Solid State Circuits Superfund Site,
MO
Solvent Recovery Services of New
England, Inc. Superfund Site, CT
Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site,
NH
Tacony Warehouse, PA
Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant,
MN
Case
Study
ID
260
259
265
266
267
276
278
284
Technology *f
Pump and Treat;
Free Product Recovery
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat;
Containment - Barrier Walls
Pump and Treat;
Containment - Barrier Walls;
Containment - Caps;
SVE
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Media
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater
Contaminants
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals;
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Ketones;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1995
1995
1993
1993
1995
1982
1998
1987
Year
Published
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
2000
1995
A-26
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
U.S. Department of Energy Kansas
City Plant, MO
U.S. Aviex Superfund Site, MI
U.S. Department of Energy Savannah
River Site, AM Area, SC
Union Chemical Company Superfund
Site, ME
United Chrome Superfund Site, OR
Western Processing Superfund Site,
WA
Case
Study
ID
290
286
297
302
303
312
Technology *f
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat;
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in
situ);
SVE
Pump and Treat
Pump and Treat;
Containment - Barrier Walls
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater
Groundwater;
LNAPLs;
DNAPLs
Contaminants
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated
PCBs;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Heavy Metals
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals
Year
Operation
Began
1983
1993
1985
1996
1988
1988
Year
Published
1995
1998
1995
2001
1998
1998
In Situ Groundwater Bioremediation (46 Projects)
Abandoned Manufacturing Facility -
Emeryville, CA
2
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Groundwater
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
1997
2000
A-27
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Altus Air Force Base, Landfill 3 (LF 3),
OK
Avco Lycoming Superfund Site, PA
BalfourRoad Site, CA; Fourth Plain
Service Station Site, WA; Steve's
Standard and Golden Belt 66 Site, KS
Brownfield Site, Chattanooga, TN
(specific site name not identified)
Contemporary Cleaners, Orlando. FL
Cordray's Grocery, Ravenel, SC
Dover Air Force Base, Area 6, DE
Dover Air Force Base, Area 6, DE
Edwards Air Force Base, CA
Former Industrial Property, CA
Case
Study
ID
338
14
17
28
49
50
56
55
63
372
Technology *f
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(HRC)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(ORC)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Contaminants
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
MTBE; BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
BTEX; MTBE
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year
Operation
Began
2000
1997
1995
1999
Not Provided
1998
1996
1996
1996
2000
Year
Published
2003
2000
1998
2001
2001
2001
2000
2002
2000
2004
A-28
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
French Ltd. Superfund Site, TX
Gas Station, Cheshire, CT (specific site
name not identified)
Hartford Site, WA
Hayden Island Cleaners, Portland, OR
Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory, Test Area
North, ID
ITT Roanoke Site, VA
Kelly Air Force Base, TX
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, CA
Libby Groundwater Superfund Site,
MT
Moffett Field Superfund Site, CA
Case
Study
ID
92
94
96
105
115
118
400
133
136
162
Technology *f
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(HRC)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediaiton (in situ)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation;
Pump and Treat
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater
Groundwater
Contaminants
BTEX;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
BTEX;
MTBE
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; PCE; Volatiles-
Halogenated
MTBE
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1992
1997
1995
Not Provided
1999
1998
1999
Not Provided
1991
1986
Year
Published
1998
2001
2000
2001
2002
Not Provided
2007
2001
1998
2000
A-29
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Moss-American Site, WI
Multiple Dry Cleaner Sites
Multiple (4) Dry Cleaner Sites - In Situ
Bioremediation, Various Locations
Multiple (4) Dry Cleaner sites - In Situ
Bioremediation, Various Locations
Multiple (5) Dry Cleaner sites - In Situ
Bioremediation, Various Locations
National Environmental Technology
Test Site, CA
Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, CA
Naval Air Station New Fuel Farm Site,
NV
Case
Study
ID
369
174
346
384
383
371
194
360
Technology *f
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation;
Permeable Reactive Barrier
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(HRC)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Bioventing;
Free Product Recovery
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Soil;
Groundwater
Soil;
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil;
LNAPLs
Groundwater
Contaminants
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated,
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
BTEX; MTBE
DCE; PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Volatiles-Semihalogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
DCE; PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
MTBE
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
LNAPLs
Year
Operation
Began
2000
Not Provided
Various
years -
starting 2002
Various
years -
starting 2000
Various
years -
starting 2001
2001
1997
Not Provided
Year
Published
2004
2001
2003
2005
2005
2004
2000
2004
A-30
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve
Plant (NWIRP) , TX
Naval Base Ventura County, CA
Offutt Air Force Base, NE
Pinellas Northeast Site, FL
Savannah River Site Sanitary Landfill
(SLF), SC
Savannah River Site, SC
Service Station, CA (specific site name
not identified)
Service Station, Lake Geneva, WI
(specific site name not identified)
Site A (actual name confidential), NY
Case
Study
ID
315
352
339
218
362
250
256
257
263
Technology *f
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(ORC)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(ORC)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation;
Pump and Treat;
Air Sparging;
SVE
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater
roundwater
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Sediment
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Contaminants
TCE, Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
BTEX; MTBE;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
BTEX; MTBE;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1999
1999
Not provided
1997
1999
1992
Not Provided
Not Provided
1995
Year
Published
2002
2004
2003
1998
2004
2000
2001
2001
1998
A-31
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
South Beach Marine, Hilton Head, SC
Specific site name not identified
Texas Gulf Coast Site, TX
U.S. Navy Construction Battalion
Center, Port Hueneme, CA
U.S. Department of Energy Savannah
River Site, M Area, SC
Vandenberg Air Force Base, Lompoc,
CA
Watertown Site, MA
Case
Study
ID
268
304
279
299
298
305
311
Technology *f
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Bench Scale)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
(Field Demonstration)
Media
Groundwater
roundwater;
Soil
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Sediment
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil
Contaminants
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
BTEX;
MTBE;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
MTBE;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
MTBE;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
MTBE; BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1999
Not Provided
1995
1998
1992
1999
1996
Year
Published
2001
2001
2000
2001
1997
2001
2000
Other In Situ Groundwater Treatment (86 Projects)
328 Site, CA
A.G. Communication Systems, IL
1
332
Multi Phase Extraction;
Fracturing
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater;
Soil
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
1996
1995
2000
2003
A-32
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Edgewood
Area J - Field Site, MD
Amcor Precast, UT
Brookhaven National Laboratory, NY
Butler Cleaners, Jacksonville, FL
Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base,
Bldg 25, Camp Lejeune, NC
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station,
Launch Complex 34, FL
Carswell Air Force Base, TX
Charleston Naval Complex, AOC 607,
SC
Clear Creek/Central City Superfund
site, CO
Confidential Manufacturing Facility, IL
Case
Study
ID
3
6
26
30
31
340
34
378
326
48
Technology *f
Phytoremediation(Field
Demonstration)
In- Well Air Stripping;
SVE
In- Well Air Stripping (Field
Demonstration)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
(KMnO4)
Flushing (in situ) (SEAR and
PITT)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Phytoremediation (Field
Demonstration)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
Phytoremediation (Field
Demonstration)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil;
DNAPLs
Contaminants
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
DCE; PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Heavy Metals
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1996
1992
1999
Not Provided
1999
1999
1996
2001
1994
1998
Year
Published
2002
1995
2002
2001
2001
2003
2002
2005
2002
2000
A-33
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Confidential Maryland Site, MD
Defense Supply Center, Acid
Neutralization Pit, VA
Del Norte County Pesticide Storage
Area Superfund Site, CA (Air Sparging
and Pump and Treat)
Eaddy Brothers, Hemingway, SC
East Helena, MT
Edward Sears Site, NJ
Eight Service Stations, MD (specific
sites not identified)
F. E. Warren Air Force Base, WY
Fernald Environmental Management
Project, OH
Former Sages Dry Cleaners,
Jacksonville, FL
Former Nu Look One Hour Cleaners,
Coral Springs, FL
Case
Study
ID
388
53
359
61
395
62
65
403
70
78
77
Technology *f
Permeable Reactive Barrier
(Field Demonstration)
Multi Phase Extraction (Field
Demonstration)
Air Sparging;
SVE
Air Sparging;
SVE
Permeable Reactive Barrier
(Field Demonstration)
Phytoremediation (Field
Demonstration)
Multi Phase Extraction
Permeable Reactive Barrier
(Field Demonstration)
Flushing (in situ) (Field
Demonstration)
Flushing (in situ) (Ethanol
Co-solvent)
In- Well Air Stripping
(NoVOCs™)
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil
LNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Contaminants
DCE;
Explosives/Propellants;
TCE; PCE; Volatiles-
Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Pesticides/Herbicides;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
BTEX; MTBE
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
Arsenic; Heavy Metals
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX; Volatiles-
Nonhalogenated
BTEX; MTBE
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
TCE; Volatiles-
Halogenated
Heavy Metals
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year
Operation
Began
2003
1997
1990
1999
2005
1996
1990
2002
1998
Not Provided
Not Provided
Year
Published
2006
2000
2004
2001
2007
2002
2001
2007
2001
2001
2001
A-34
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Former Intersil, Inc. Site, CA
Fort Devens, AOCs 43G and 43J, MA
Fort Richardson, AK
Four Service Stations (specific site
names not identified)
Fry Canyon, UT
Gold Coast Superfund Site, FL
Hanford Site, 100-H and 100-D Areas,
WA
Multiple (3) Naval Facilities - In Situ
Chemical Reduction, Various Locations
Hunter's Point Ship Yard, Parcel C,
Remedial Unit C4, CA
ICN Pharmaceuticals, OR
Johannsen Cleaners, Lebanon, OR
Case
Study
ID
74
80
331
90
93
95
101
389
357
334
120
Technology *f
Permeable Reactive Barrier;
Pump and Treat
Monitored Natural
Attenuation
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Air Sparging
Permeable Reactive Barrier
(Field Demonstration)
Air Sparging;
Pump and Treat
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Chemical Reduction (in situ,
nanoscale zero-valent iron)
(Field Demonstration)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)',
SVE
Multi Phase Extraction
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil
LNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil
DNAPLs;
Off-gases
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater,
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Contaminants
TCE; DCE; Volatiles-
Halogenated
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
BTEX; MTBE
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Radioactive Metals;
Heavy Metals
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Heavy Metals
DCE; TCE; PCE; Volatiles-
Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1995
1997
1999
1993
1997
1994
1995
Not Provided
2002
2000
Not Provided
Year
Published
1998
2000
2003
2001
2000
1998
2000
2006
2004
2003
2001
A-35
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Keesler Air Force Base Service Station,
AOC-A (ST-06), MS
Kelly Air Force Base, Former Building
2093 Gas Station, TX
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory Gasoline Spill Site, CA
Loring Air Force Base, Limestone, ME
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant, LA
Marshall Space Flight Center, AL
Massachusetts Military Reservation,
CS-10 Plume, MA
McClellan Air Force Base (AFB), OU
A, CA
Miamisburg, OH
Milan Army Ammunition Plant, TN
Case
Study
ID
123
124
130
392
142
336
159
151
343
157
Technology *f
Monitored Natural
Attenuation
Monitored Natural
Attenuation
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Monitored Natural
Attenuation
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in
situ); Fracturing; Permeable
Reactive Barrier (Field
Demonstration)
In- Well Air Stripping (UVB
and NoVOCs) (Field
Demonstration)
Air Sparging; Bioremediation
(in situ) Enhanced
Bioremediation (Field
Demonstration)
Air Sparging;
SVE
Phytoremediation (Field
Demonstration)
Media
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater
Contaminants
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
DCE; PCE; TCE; Volatiles-
Halogenated
Explosives/Propellants
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Explosives/Propellants
Year
Operation
Began
1997
1997
1992
2002
Not Provided
2000
1996
1999
1997
1996
Year
Published
2000
2000
1995
2006
2001
2003
2002
2001
2001
2000
A-36
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Moffett Field Superfund Site, CA
Moffett Federal Airfield, CA
Monticello Mill Tailings Site,
Monticello, UT
Multiple Dry Cleaner Sites
Multiple (10) Sites - Air Sparging,
Various Locations
Multiple Air Force Sites
Multiple Air Force Sites
Multiple Air Force Sites
Multiple DoD Sites, Various Locations
Case
Study
ID
163
161
164
171
342
177
178
179
347
Technology *f
Permeable Reactive Barrier
(Field Demonstration)
Permeable Reactive Barrier
(Field Demonstration)
Permeable Reactive Barrier
(Field Demonstration)
Air Sparging;
SVE
Air Sparging
Multi Phase Extraction (Field
Demonstration)
Monitored Natural
Attenuation (Field
Demonstration)
Monitored Natural
Attenuation (Field
Demonstration)
Permeable Reactive Barrier
(Field Demonstration)
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Contaminants
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Metals
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; PCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-Nonhalogenat
ed; BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
MTBE; Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
BTEX;
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1996
1996
1999
Not Provided
Various
years
Not Provided
1993
1993
Various
years
Year
Published
2000
1998
2001
2001, 2002
2002
2001
1999
1999
2003
A-37
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Multiple (2) Dry Cleaner Sites, Various
Locations
Multiple (2) Dry Cleaners - In Well Air
Stripping
Multiple Dry Cleaner Sites
Multiple Dry Cleaner Sites
Multiple Sites
Multiple Sites
Multiple Sites
Case
Study
ID
324
364
175
173
167
166
169
Technology *f
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
In- Well Air Stripping
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Multi Phase Extraction;
Pump and Treat
Permeable Reactive Barrier
(Full scale and Field
Demonstration)
Permeable Reactive Barrier
(Full scale and Field
Demonstration)
Permeable Reactive Barrier
(Full scale and Field
Demonstration)
Media
Groundwater;
Dense
Non-aqueous
Phase Liquids
(DNAPLs)
Soil;
Groundwater
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Contaminants
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals;
Radioactive Metals;
Arsenic
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals;
Radioactive Metals;
Arsenic
Year
Operation
Began
Various
years -
starting 1998
1994
1999
Not Provided
1991
1997
1995
Year
Published
2003
2004
2001, 2002
2001, 2002
2002
2002
2002
A-38
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Multiple Sites
Multiple Sites
Multiple Dry Cleaner Sites
Multiple (4) Dry Cleaner sites - In Situ
Chemical Oxidation
Naval Air Joint Reserve Base, TX
Naval Air Station - Joint Reserve Base
Fort Worth, TX
Naval Air Station, Pensacola, FL
Naval Submarine Base, Kings Bay, GA
Naval Submarine Base, Kings Bay, GA
Case
Study
ID
170
168
172
385
402
34
187
193
192
Technology *f
Permeable Reactive Barrier
(Full scale and Field
Demonstration)
Permeable Reactive Barrier
(Full scale and Field
Demonstration)
Flushing (in situ)',
Thermal Treatment (in situ)',
In- Well Air Stripping (Field
Demonstration)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
Phytoremediation (Field
Demonstration)
Phytoremediation (Field
Demonstration)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in
situ);
Monitored Natural
Attenuation
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil;
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Contaminants
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
Heavy Metals;
Radioactive Metals;
Pesticides/Herbicides
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals;
Radioactive Metals
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
DCE; PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
DCE; PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; Volatiles-
Halogenated
TCE; DCE; Volatiles-
Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1995
1995
Not Provided
Various
years -
starting 2001
1996
1996
1998
1999
1998
Year
Published
2002
2002
2001
2005
2007
2005
2001
2001
2000
A-39
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Naval Air Engineering Station (NAES)
Site (Area I), NJ
Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek,
Site 11, GA
Naval Air Station, North Island, CA
Naval Air Station, Pensacola, OU 10,
FL
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN
Pinellas Northeast Site, FL
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant,
X-70 IB Facility, OH
RMI Titanium Plant, Ashtabula
Environmental Management Project,
OH
Scotchman #94, Florence, SC
Case
Study
ID
353
375
186
184
202
220
226
232
253
Technology *f
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
Flushing (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
In- Well Air Stripping
(NoVOCs) (Field
Demonstration)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Permeable Reactive Barrier -
Funnel and Gate
Configuration and Trench
(Field Demonstration)
Thermal Treatment (in situ) -
Dual Auger Rotary Steam
Stripping (Field
Demonstration)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Flushing (in situ) (WIDE)
(Field Demonstration)
Multi Phase Extraction;
Air Sparging;
SVE
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater;
Soil
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater;
Soil
Contaminants
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
DCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Radioactive Metals
PCE; TCE; DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Radioactive Metals
PAHs;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated;
BTEX;
MTBE;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Year
Operation
Began
2002
2002
1998
1998
1997
1996
1988
1999
1998
Year
Published
2004
2005
2000
2000
2002
1998
2000
2001
2001
A-40
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Site 88, Building 25, Marine Corps
Base Camp Lejeune, NC
South Prudence Bay Island Park, T-
Dock Site, Portsmouth, RI
Sparks Solvents/Fuel Site, Sparks, NV
Tinkham's Garage Superfund Site, NH
U.S. Coast Guard Support Center, NC
U.S. Department of Energy Savannah
River Site, AM Area, SC
Visalia Superfund Site, CA
Westover Air Reserve Base, MA
Case
Study
ID
147
269
271
281
287
294
309
377
Technology *f
Flushing (in situ) (SEAR)
(Field Demonstration)
Air Sparging;
Bioremediation (in situ)
Enhanced Bioremediation
Multi Phase Extraction
Multi Phase Extraction
Permeable Reactive Barrier
In- Well Air Stripping;
Pump and Treat (Field
Demonstration)
Thermal Treatment (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Phytoremediation;
Bioremediation (in situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Media
Groundwater;
DNAPLs;
LNAPLs
Groundwater
Groundwater;
LNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil
Groundwater;
DNAPLs
Groundwater;
Soil
DNAPLs
Groundwater
Stormwater
Contaminants
Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
PCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
BTEX; MTBE;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated;
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Heavy Metals
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
Semivolatiles-
Nonhalogenated
Year
Operation
Began
1999
1998
1995
1994
1996
1990
1997
2001
Year
Published
2001
2001
2001
2000
1998
1995
2000
2005
Debris/Solid Media Treatment (28 Projects)
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant, AL
4
Thermal Desorption (ex
situ)(Field Demonstration)
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Explosives/Propellants
1995
1998
A-41
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Argonne National Laboratory - East, IL
Argonne National Laboratory - East, IL
Argonne National Laboratory, IL
Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) Research
Reactor, Argonne National Laboratory,
IL
Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) Research
Reactor, Argonne National Laboratory,
IL
Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) Research
Reactor, Argonne National Laboratory,
IL
Clemson University, SC
Envirocare of Utah, UT
Fernald Site, OH
Hanford Site, C Reactor, WA
Case
Study
ID
9
11
10
38
39
40
42
67
71
102
Technology *f
Physical Separation
(Scabbling) (Field
Demonstration)
Physical Separation
(Concrete Demolition) (Field
Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization
(Phosphate Bonded
Ceramics)(Field
Demonstration)
Physical Separation
(Centrifugal Shot Blast)(Field
Demonstration)
Physical Separation (Rotary
Peening with Captive
Shot)(Field Demonstration)
Physical Separation (Roto
Peen Sealer with VAC-PACR
System)(Field
Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization
(Sintering) (Bench Scale)
Solidification/Stabilization(Fi
eld Demonstration)
Physical Separation (Soft
Media Blasting)(Field
Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization
(Polymer Coating) (Field
Demonstration)
Media
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Debris/Slag/
Solid;
Groundwater
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Contaminants
Radioactive Metals
Radioactive Metals
Heavy Metals
Radioactive Metals
Radioactive Metals
Radioactive Metals
Heavy Metals
Radioactive Metals
Radioactive Metals
Radioactive Metals
Year
Operation
Began
Not Provided
1997
Not Provided
1997
1997
1996
1995
1996
1996
1997
Year
Published
2000
2000
2000
1998
1998
1998
2000
1998
2000
1998
A-42
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Hanford Site, WA
Hanford Site, WA
Hanford Site, WA
Hanford Site, WA
Hanford Site, WA
Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory, ID
Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory, ID
Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory, ID
Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory, ID
Case
Study
ID
97
98
99
100
103
110
109
113
112
Technology *f
Physical Separation(Concrete
Grinder) (Field
Demonstration)
Physical Separation
(Concrete Shaver) (Field
Demonstration)
Physical Separation
(Concrete Spaller) (Field
Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization
(Polyester Resins) (Field
Demonstration)
Physical Separation;
Solvent Extraction
(Ultrasonic Baths) (Field
Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization
(Innovative Grouting and
Retrieval) (Full scale and
Field Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization
(DeHgSM Process) (Field
Demonstration)
Physical Separation (Wall
Scabbier) (Field
Demonstration)
Vitrification (ex situ)
(Graphite Furnace) (Field
Demonstration)
Media
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Debris/Slag/
Solid;
Groundwater
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Debris/Slag/
Solid;
Soil
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Debris/Slag/
Solid;
Organic
Liquids; Soil
Contaminants
Radioactive Metals
Radioactive Metals
Radioactive Metals
Radioactive Metals;
Heavy Metals;
Arsenic
Radioactive Metals
Radioactive Metals
Heavy Metals
Heavy Metals
Heavy Metals;
Radioactive Metals
Year
Operation
Began
1997
1997
1998
Not Provided
1998
1994
1998
2000
1997
Year
Published
2000
2000
2000
2000
1998
2000
2000
2001
2000
A-43
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory, Pit 2, ID
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, CA
Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM
Los Alamos National Laboratory,
Technical Area 33, NM
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
WA
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant,
OH
Savannah River Site, SC
STAR Center, ID
Case
Study
ID
ill
132
139
140
210
224
249
274
Technology *f
Solidification/Stabilization
(Polysiloxane) (Field
Demonstration)
Chemical
Oxidation/Reduction (ex situ)
(Field Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization
(ADA Process) (Field
Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization
(Field Demonstration)
Solidification/Stabilization
(Sol Gel Process) (Bench
Scale)
Solidification/Stabilization
(ATG Process)(Field
Demonstration)
Acid Leaching(Field
Demonstration)
Vitrification (ex situ) (Plasma
Process)(Field
Demonstration)
Media
Debris/Slag/
Solid;
Groundwater
Debris/Slag/
Solid;
Groundwater
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Sludge
Debris/Slag/
Solid;
Groundwater
Organic
Liquids
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Debris/Slag/
Solid;
Soil;
Sludge
Contaminants
Heavy Metals
PCE; TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated
PCBs;
Semivolatiles-Halogenated;
Explosives/Propellants
Heavy Metals
Heavy Metals;
DCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Radioactive Metals
Heavy Metals
Heavy Metals;
Radioactive Metals
Radioactive Metals
Heavy Metals;
Radioactive Metals
Year
Operation
Began
1997
Not Provided
1998
1997
Not Provided
1998
1996
1993
Year
Published
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
Containment (7 Projects)
Dover Air Force Base, Groundwater
Remediation Field Laboratory National
Test Site, Dover DE
58
Containment - Barrier Walls
(Field Demonstration)
Groundwater
1996
2001
A-44
-------
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 393 CASE STUDIES (continued)
Site Name, Location
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (LLNL) Site 300 - Pit 6
Landfill OU, CA
Marine Corps Base Hawaii, HI
Naval Shipyard, CA
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN
Sandia National Laboratory,
Albuquerque, NM
U.S. Department of Energy, SEG
Facilities, TN
Case
Study
ID
131
148
191
200
247
252
Technology *f
Containment - Caps
Containment - Caps (Field
Demonstration)
Containment - Caps (Field
Demonstration)
Containment - Barrier Walls
(Field Demonstration)
Containment - Caps (Field
Demonstration)
Containment - Barrier Walls
(Field Demonstration)
Media
Debris/Slag/
Solid
Soil
Soil
Soil;
Sediment;
Groundwater
Soil
Soil
Contaminants
TCE;
Volatiles-Halogenated;
Radioactive Metals
-
BTEX;
Volatiles-Nonhalogenated
Radioactive Metals
-
-
Year
Operation
Began
1997
1994
1997
1996
1995
1994
Year
Published
1998
1998
1998
2000
2001
1997
Ex Situ Acid Rock Drainage Treatment (3 Projects)
Copper Basin Mining District, TN
Leviathan Mine, CA
Leviathan Mine, CA
397
398
399
Bioremediation (Field
Demonstration)
Bioremediation
Chemical Precipitation
AMD/ARD
AMD/ARD
AMD/ARD
Heavy Metals
Heavy Metals
Heavy Metals
1998
2003
1999
2007
2007
2007
* Full scale unless otherwise noted
•f Technology focused on in case study listed first, followed by other technologies identified in the case study
Key: DNAPLs = Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids
SVE = Soil Vapor Extraction
BTEX = Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene
PAHs = Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PCBs = Fob/chlorinated Biphenyls
TCE = Trichloroethene
PCE = Tetrachloroethene
DCE = Dichloroethene
LNAPLs Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids
MTBE = Methyl tert-butyl ether
ARD = Acid Rock Drainage
AMD = Acid Mine Drainage
A-45
-------
Solid Waste and EPA 542-R-07-004
Emergency Response August 2007
(5203P) www.epa.gov
www.frtr.gov
National Service Center for
Environmental Publications
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
------- |