REMEDIATION SYSTEM EVALUATION
BAIRD AND McGuiRE SUPERFUND SITE
HOLBROOK, MASSACHUSETTS
Report of the Remediation System Evaluation,
Site Visit Conducted at the Baird and McGuire Superfund Site
April 18-19, 2001
Final Report Submitted to Region 1
January 18, 2002
V
\
01
C3
-------
NOTICE
Work described herein was performed by GeoTrans, Inc. (GeoTrans) and the United States Army Corps
of Engineers (USAGE) for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Work conducted by
GeoTrans, including preparation of this report, was performed under Dynamac Contract No. 68-C-99-
256, Subcontract No. 91517. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document (EPA 542-R-02-008J) may be downloaded from EPA's Technology Innovation Office
website at www.epa.gov/tio or www.cluin.org/rse.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 32.5-acre Baird and McGuire Superfund Site, located in Holbrook, Massachusetts, addresses VOC,
SVOC, and arsenic contamination from a chemical mixing and batching plant that operated between 1912
and 1983. South Street and residences border the site to the west, the Cochato River borders the site to the
east, and woodlands border the site to the north and south. Excavation and onsite incineration of
contaminated soils was completed in 1997. A pump and treat system, that initially treated water from the
excavation and incineration, now operates to remediate contaminated groundwater. An LNAPL recovery
system has also been installed and removes approximately 5 to 10 gallons of LNAPL per day. This long-
term remediation action is led by the EPA with Superfund providing 90% of the approximate $2,880,000
annual operating costs (not including oversight by USAGE). Site lead and full financial responsibility of
the site is expected to be turned over to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 2004.
This pump and treat system currently consists of seven groundwater extraction wells. One of the wells
also collects LNAPL, which is collected and transported offsite for incineration. The total groundwater
extraction rate is approximately 127 gallons per minute. The groundwater treatment system consists of
decommissioned activated sludge biotreatment units (now used as air strippers), a metals removal system,
pressure filters, liquid and vapor phase activated carbon units, and sludge disposal system. The plant has
24-hour security, two operators on duty 24 hours per day, eight additional operators/technicians working
normal business hours, and an onsite laboratory staff of five people also working normal business hours.
The RSE team found the pump and treat system at the Baird and McGuire site to be effective, but
operating at a much higher cost than similar systems. Since the addition of an extraction well in 1998, the
system has contained the plume based on water level measurements and modeling efforts. In addition, the
treatment plant regularly meets its own design discharge criteria of drinking water standards for the
contaminants of concern.
Recommendations included in this RSE suggest the potential to reduce annual O&M costs by more than $2
million per year, without any reduction in effectiveness. Additional savings would likely occur due to a
decrease in USAGE oversight. Recommendations to reduce costs include the following:
• Reducing process monitoring, decommissioning the onsite laboratory, and sending samples to a
certified laboratory will reduce the costs by approximately $600,000 per year.
Replacing 24-hour security with a hired patrol system (night only) will reduce costs by
approximately $144,000 per year.
• Automating the treatment plant and reducing operator labor will save approximately $1.3 million
per year.
Transporting and disposing of the LNAPL as a liquid rather than a solid will save approximately
$30,000 per year. The site managers should clarify with the relevant agencies the regulations and
precautions regarding the transport of the recovered LNAPL. The recovered LNAPL should also
be tested by an independent, offsite laboratory to verify that transporting it as a liquid conforms
with all pertinent regulations.
-------
Although the contractor currently covers the cost associated with sludge disposal, changing the
sludge disposal procedure will save approximately $6,000 per year in future contracts or if the
scope of work is reduced and the contract is renegotiated.
Replacing the current air strippers (converted activated sludge units) with a more efficient unit,
such as a low-profile tray aerator, will improve mass removal of organics from the process water
and would cost up to $400,000 but would result in savings of approximately $30,000 per year in
electrical costs.
• Replacing the filter media in the pressure filters would likely cost $30,000 but would improve the
lifetime of the granular activated carbon resulting in savings of approximately $50,000 per year in
carbon replacement.
Note that removing the lab could free up office space, such that the office space in trailers might no longer
be necessary. This would add to the cost savings, though no attempt was made to quantify those costs.
Finally, a preliminary investigation into the use of in situ chemical oxidation is recommended to attempt to
eliminate the LNAPL, and thereby increase the potential for site closeout. Addition of oxidants to the
subsurface could also change the oxidative state of arsenic to its more immobile state, potentially
alleviating the arsenic impacts in the groundwater.
-------
PREFACE
This report was prepared as part of a project conducted by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) Technology Innovation Office (TIO) and Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(OERR). The objective of this project is to conduct Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs) of pump-
and-treat systems at Superfund sites that are "Fund-lead" (i.e., financed by USEPA). RSEs are to be
conducted for up to two systems in each EPA Region with the exception of Regions 4 and 5, which already
had similar evaluations in a pilot project.
The following organizations are implementing this project.
Organization
Key Contact
Contact Information
USEPA Technology Innovation
Office
(USEPA TIO)
Kathy Yager
11 Technology Drive (ECA/OEME)
North Chelmsford, MA 01863
phone: 617-918-8362
fax: 617-918-8417
yager.kathleen@epa.gov
USEPA Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response
(OERR)
Paul Nadeau
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Mail Code 5201G
phone: 703-603-8794
fax:703-603-9112
nadeau.paul@epa.gov
GeoTrans, Inc.
(Contractor to USEPA TIO)
Doug Sutton
GeoTrans, Inc.
2 Paragon Way
Freehold, NJ 07728
(732) 409-0344
Fax: (732) 409-3020
dsutton@geotransinc.com
Army Corp of Engineers:
Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive
Waste Center of Expertise
(USAGE HTRW CX)
Dave Becker
12565 W. Center Road
Omaha, NE 68144-3869
(402) 697-2655
Fax: (402) 691-2673
dave j .becker@nwd02 .usace .army .mil
in
-------
The project team is grateful for the help provided by the following EPA Project Liaisons.
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Darryl Luce and Larry Brill
Diana Curt
Kathy Davies
Kay Wischkaemper
Dion Novak
Region 6
Region 7
Region 8
Region 9
Region 10
Vincent Malott
Mary Peterson
Armando Saenz and
Herb Levine
Bernie Zavala
Richard Muza
They were vital in selecting the Fund-lead pump-and-treat systems to be evaluated and facilitating
communication between the project team and the Remedial Project Managers (RPM's).
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
PREFACE iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 PURPOSE 1
1.2 TEAM COMPOSITION 1
1.3 DOCUMENTS REVIEWED 2
1.4 PERSONS CONTACTED 2
1.5 SITE LOCATION, HISTORY, AND CHARACTERISTICS 2
1.5.1 LOCATION 2
1.5.2 POTENTIAL SOURCES 3
1.5.3 HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING 3
1.5.4 DESCRIPTION OF GROUND WATER PLUME 4
2.0 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION 5
2.1 SYSTEM OVERVIEW 5
2.2 EXTRACTION SYSTEM 5
2.3 GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM 5
2.4 LNAPL RECOVERY SYSTEM 6
2.5 MONITORING SYSTEM 6
3.0 SYSTEM OBJECTIVES, PERFORMANCE AND CLOSURE CRITERIA 7
3.1 CURRENT SYSTEM OBJECTIVES AND CLOSURE CRITERIA 7
3.2 TREATMENT PLANT OPERATION GOALS 7
3.3 ACTION LEVELS 8
4.0 FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS FROM THE RSE SITE VISIT 9
4.1 FINDINGS 9
4.2 SUBSURFACE PERFORMANCE AND RESPONSE 9
4.2.1 WATER LEVELS AND CAPTURE ZONES 9
4.2.2 CONTAMINANT LEVELS 9
4.2.3 NATURAL ATTENUATION POTENTIAL 9
4.3 COMPONENT PERFORMANCE 9
4.3.1 EXTRACTION-WELL PUMPS AND PIPING 9
4.3.2 EQUALIZATION TANK 10
4.3.3 METALS REMOVAL SYSTEM 10
4.3.4 SLUDGE HANDLING SYSTEM 10
4.3.5 ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM (USED AS AIR STRIPPERS) 10
4.3.6 VAPOR PHASE GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON UNITS 10
4.3.7 PRESSURE FILTERS 10
4.3.8 GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON SYSTEM 11
4.3.9 LNAPL RECOVERY SYSTEM 11
4.3.10 CONTROLS 11
4.4 COMPONENTS OR PROCESSES THAT ACCOUNT FOR MAJORITY OF COSTS 11
4.4.1 LABOR (SYSTEM OPERATIONS, LABORATORY NOT INCLUDED) 11
4.4.2 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS (ON AND OFF SITE) 12
4.4.3 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 12
-------
4.4.4 NON UTILITY CONSUMABLES AND DISPOSAL COSTS 12
4.4.5 UTILITY COSTS 12
4.4.6 SECURITY 12
4.5 RECURRING PROBLEMS OR ISSUES 12
4.6 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE 13
4.7 TREATMENT PROCESS EXCURSIONS AND UPSETS, ACCIDENTAL CONTAMINANT/REAGENT
RELEASES 13
4.8 SAFETY RECORD 13
4.9 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 13
5.0 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SYSTEM TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
14
5.1 GROUND WATER 14
5.2 SURFACE WATER 14
5.3 AIR 14
5.4 SOILS 14
5.5 WETLANDS 14
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 15
6.1 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ENSURE EFFECTIVENESS 15
6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS TO REDUCE COSTS 15
6.2.1 REDUCE PROCESS MONITORING 15
6.2.2 REDUCE SECURITY 15
6.2.3 AUTOMATE SYSTEM TO ALLOW OVERNIGHT OPERATION WITHOUT STAFFING 16
6.2.4 LNAPL DISPOSAL 16
6.2.5 SLUDGE DISPOSAL 17
6.2.6 REPLACE THE CURRENT AIR STRIPPER WITH A MORE EFFICIENT UNIT 17
6.2.7 CHANGE FILTER MEDIA 17
6.3 TECHNICAL IMPROVEMENT 18
6.3.1 CONVERT BiosYSTEM CLARIFIER TO AN EQUALIZATION TANK 18
6.4 RECOMMENDATIONS TO GAIN SITE CLOSEOUT 18
6.4.1 EXAMINE IN-SITU CHEMICAL OXIDATION 18
6.5 UNUSED GOVERNMENT-OWNED EQUIPMENT 18
7.0 SUMMARY 19
List of Tables
Table 6-1. Analysis frequency in February 2001 versus recommended frequency.
Table 7-1. Cost summary table of individual recommendations.
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Site layout showing the extraction wells (current and recommended) and the SVOC plume from the
2000 sampling event
Figure 2-1. Conceptual diagram of the groundwater treatment system
VI
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
In the OSWER Directive No. 9200.0-33, Transmittal of Final FYOO - FY01 Superfund Reforms Strategy,
dated July 7,2000, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response outlined a commitment to optimize
Fund-lead pump-and-treat systems. To fulfill this commitment, the US Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) Technology Innovation Office (TIO) and Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR),
through a nationwide project, is assisting the ten EPA Regions in evaluating their Fund-lead operating
pump-and-treat systems. This nationwide project is a continuation of a demonstration project in which the
Fund-lead pump-and-treat systems in Regions 4 and 5 were screened and two sites from each of the two
Regions were evaluated. It is also part of a larger effort by TIO to provide USEPA Regions with various
means for optimization, including screening tools for identifying sites likely to benefit from optimization
and computer modeling optimization tools for pump and treat systems.
This nationwide project identifies all Fund-lead pump-and-treat systems in EPA Regions 1 through 3 and 6
through 10, collects and reports baseline cost and performance data, and evaluates up to two sites per
Region. The site evaluations are conducted by EPA-TIO contractors, GeoTrans, Inc. and the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), using a process called a Remediation System Evaluation (RSE),
which was developed by USAGE. The RSE process is meant to evaluate performance and effectiveness (as
required under the NCP, i.e., and "five-year" review), identify cost savings through changes in operation
and technology, assure clear and realistic remediation goals and exit strategy, and verify adequate
maintenance of Government-owned equipment.
The Baird and McGuire Site was chosen based on initial screening of the pump-and-treat systems managed
by USEPA Region 1 and discussions with the Project Liaison for that Region. This report provides a brief
background on the site and current operations, a summary of the observations made during a site visit, and
recommendations for changes and additional studies. The cost impacts of the recommendations are also
discussed.
A report on the overall results from the RSEs conducted at Baird and McGuire and other Fund-lead pump-
and-treat systems throughout the nation will also be prepared and will identify lessons learned and typical
costs savings.
1.2 TEAM COMPOSITION
The team conducting the RSE consisted of the following individuals:
Frank Bales, Chemical Engineer, USAGE Kansas City District
Rob Greenwald, Hydrogeologist, GeoTrans, Inc. (EPA TIO's contractor)
Peter Rich, Civil and Environmental Engineer, GeoTrans, Inc.
Doug Sutton, Water Resources Engineer, GeoTrans, Inc.
-------
1.3
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
Author
US EPA
Metcalf& Eddy, Inc.
KSE, Inc.;
USAGE
Metcalf& Eddy, Inc.
US EPA
Professional Services
Group
Professional Services
Group
Metcalf& Eddy, Inc.
USAGE
Date
9/30/1986
2/24/1989
1/1997-3/1997
4/10/97
9/1999
2/2000-2/2001
4/24/2000
1/2001
3/2001
Title/Description
Record of Decision, Baird and McGuire, Holbrook,
Massachusetts, September 30, 1986
Final Design Analysis for the Baird and McGuire
Ground-water Treatment Plant, Vol. 1
Communications regarding a Value Engineering Proposal
for use of an off-gas catalytic destruction unit
Value Engineering Proposal for Vapor Phase Carbon in
Lieu of Fume Incineration
Final Five-year Review for the Baird and McGuire
Superfund Site, Holbrook, Massachusetts
Monthly Process Summaries for February 2000 through
February 2001
Value Engineering Change Proposal for Metals Removal
Using Potassium Permanganate
Evaluation of Groundwater Remediation Progress at the
Baird and McGuire Superfund Site
Payment Estimate - Contract Performance (pages 4 and 5)
1.4
PERSONS CONTACTED
The following individuals were present for the site visit:
Chuck Sands, EPA OERR
Ed Cayous, EPA HQ
Robert Bacher, Project Manager, PSG/US Filter
Jack Connolly, Project Engineer, USAGE, Northeast Region
Melissa Taylor, Remedial Project Manager, USEPA Region 1
Dorothy Allen from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection was contacted via phone
and email but was not present for the site visit
1.5
1.5.1
SITE LOCATION, HISTORY, AND CHARACTERISTICS
LOCATION
The Baird and McGuire Superfund Site is located at 775 South Street in Holbrook, Norfolk County,
Massachusetts. The site is approximately 32.5 acres in area and is surrounded by a fence except along the
-------
Cochato River which borders the site to the east. Woodlands border the site to the north and south, and
South Street borders the site to the west. Holbrook is largely a residential and commercial community with
residences to the west of the site across South Street. The site layout with contaminant plumes is depicted
in Figure 1-1.
1.5.2 POTENTIAL SOURCES
This Superfund site addresses contamination associated with Baird and McGuire, Inc., a chemical mixing
and batching company that operated from 1912 to 1983. The site-related contamination includes various
volatile and semi-volatile organics compounds (VOCs and SVOCs), pesticides, and arsenic. The primary
VOCs are BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene), tetrachlorethylene (PCE), and the daughter
products of PCE degradation. The primary SVOCs are polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) such as
naphthalene. This contamination stems from plant operations as well as disposal components and practices
that included
laboratory sinks that drained indirectly to a nearby surface water,
• storage tanks overflowed and leaked,
an uncovered "beehive" cesspool,
• an unlined and undiked tank farm, and
the breach of a creosote collection lagoon.
Present sources of contamination exist onsite, particularly in the form of light non-aqueous phase liquid
(LNAPL) that provides a continuing source of VOCs and SVOCs, and possibly arsenic. Buried soil and
ash from site excavation and subsequent incineration may also provide continuing sources of arsenic.
However, the contribution of ash as a continuing source of the arsenic has not been investigated to date. In
the early 1980's LNAPL from a breached lagoon was re-circulated from near the Cochato River into the
subsurface near EW-8 as an interim measure, and pools of LNAPL are currently found in that area.
Sheens of LNAPL have also been observed across much of the site.
1.5.3 HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING
The site ranges from 170 feet above mean sea level (MSL) on the western boundary of the site where the
present treatment plant is located to 119 feet above MSL along the bank of the Cochato River. Wetlands
occupy approximately 44% of the site and more than 60% of the site lies within the 100 year flood plain of
the river. Prior to site excavation, the subsurface at the Baird and McGuire site was mainly glacial
outwash which extended from the surface to fractured bedrock at an elevation of 129 feet above MSL to
the west and 20 feet above MSL to the east. However, the ash from excavation and onsite incineration was
redeposited onsite to reshape the landscape to its near-original form. This ash is very impermeable and
now serves limits recharge via infiltration especially in the western half of the site near the old process
areas. However, no tests to date have been performed on the permeability of the backfilled ash. The
majority of the glacial outwash is fine to coarse sand underlain by glacial till. Fine sands and silt underlay
the river.
Groundwater elevations at the site range from approximately 130 feet above MSL in the west to
approximately 120 feet above MSL in the east, thereby directing flow east toward the Cochato River.
However, groundwater beneath the site is captured by the extraction system and does not discharge to the
Cochato River from the west.
-------
1.5.4 DESCRIPTION OF GROUND WATER PLUME
The groundwater plume was originally defined by remedial investigation activities beginning in 1983. The
most recent full scale groundwater sampling event reported was for the first half of 2000. Plumes of
VOCs, SVOCs, and arsenic have the following maximum concentrations according to the sampling in event
in 2000: 5.5 ppm for total VOCs, 4,545 ppm for total SVOCs, and 1.9 ppm for arsenic. The VOC and
SVOC plumes, which extend approximately 500 feet in length and/or width, are depicted in Figure 1-1.
The highest concentrations of VOCs and SVOCs are associated with an area where LNAPL is present
around EW-8. In addition to its location near former site operations, this area was the discharge point for
pumping from a creosote lagoon breach in the 1980's. Elevated arsenic concentrations in groundwater
generally correspond to the VOC and SVOC plume; however, an arsenic plume detached from the main
plume is present in the overburden along the western bank of the river. Pesticides are present in the
collected LNAPL at the site, but do not extend significantly in the dissolved phase plume. Contamination
mostly exists in the glacial overburden, but small plumes with concentrations below drinking water
standards are present in the underlying bedrock.
-------
2.0 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
2.1 SYSTEM OVERVIEW
The groundwater treatment and extraction systems have been used since 1993. During the onsite soils
remedy (1993-1997) the treatment plant was primarily used to treat the discharge from the onsite
incinerator and the dewatering water from deep excavations. LNAPL was discovered during deep
excavation in the area of EW-8, and in 1999 a LNAPL recovery system was installed and began operation.
The system is continuously staffed by two operators and a security guard. Eight additional system
operators/technicians and five laboratory chemists/technicians work normal business hours. The laboratory
staff and equipment is utilized mainly for analyzing process samples including daily effluent samples.
2.2 EXTRACTION SYSTEM
The original extraction system included six groundwater extraction wells (EW-1 to EW-6). EW-1 was
decommissioned due to low well yield and minimal contaminant removal. In 1998 EW-7 was installed and
now is operating to prevent groundwater contamination from reaching the Cochato River downgradient to
the east. EW-8 was added in 1999 in an area of pooled LNAPL. In addition, an extraction well control
building was added in 1998 to manifold, control, and measure the flow from each of the wells.
The recent Evaluation of Groundwater Remediation Progress at the Baird and McGuire Superfund Site
(M&E, 2001) has recommended that EW-4 be replaced with another well in a more highly contaminated
area. This change and an additional extraction well (EW-9) to address the localized arsenic plume along
the river are planned for the Summer of 2001. The extraction system currently operates at approximately
127 gpm and maintains hydraulic capture based on groundwater modeling.
2.3 GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
The original plant design included two activated sludge biotreatment units; a fume incinerator; a two-stage
metals removal system that used lime for pH adjustment, ferric chloride, and a polymer; pressure filters;
and granular activated carbon (GAC). Due to an insufficient supply of organics in the plant influent to
support biological growth in the activated sludge, the biotreatment units were decommissioned and are now
used as air strippers. In addition, two Value Engineering Proposals resulted in the replacement of the fume
incinerator with vapor phase carbon in 1997 and the use of potassium permanganate for metals removal in
2000.
The current treatment train consists of the following processes:
equalization tank
• rapid mix tank for metals removal
clarifying tanks
-------
• pH neutralization tanks (no longer required as pH adjustment is no longer needed for metals
removal)
• air strippers converted from activated sludge units
pressure filter feed tank
• pressure filters
GAC units
• effluent tank
Water from the pressure filter feed tank is sent in semi-batch mode through the pressure filters and carbon.
The treated water is discharged to one of four infiltration basins (on a rotating basis) at approximately 150
gpm.
A conceptual schematic of the treatment process is presented in Figure 2-1. Individual treatment processes
and the typical pathway of water through the system are shown, but pumps, system controls, and pathways
for recycling of process water are not shown.
2.4 LNAPL RECOVERY SYSTEM
Total fluids extraction from EW-8 and passive phase separation of phases results in recovery of five to ten
gallons of LNAPL per day. The recovered LNAPL is solidified with corn cobs prior to shipping offsite for
disposal by incineration. Water from the phase separation is discharged through a nearby monitoring well,
captured by EW-8, and pumped to the plant for treatment with the other extracted groundwater.
2.5 MONITORING SYSTEM
The monitoring system consists of approximately 60 monitoring wells that screen the glacial overburden.
In addition, 19 monitoring wells screen the underlying bedrock. Approximately 60 monitoring wells are
sampled on an annual basis and the resulting plume maps are compared to those generated from previous
sampling events. In addition, water in the extraction wells is sampled on a quarterly basis.
-------
3.0 SYSTEM OBJECTIVES, PERFORMANCE AND CLOSURE
CRITERIA
3.1 CURRENT SYSTEM OBJECTIVES AND CLOSURE CRITERIA
The goal of the extraction and treatment system as documented in the ROD (dated September 30, 1986) is
to contain and remediate the groundwater "within a reasonable time" and to protect groundwater and
surface water. Specific cleanup levels were not specified in the ROD. The ROD states that restoration
target levels will be proposed during the design phase and reviewed after five years of operation for
practicability and protectiveness, but this review has not yet occurred. The design (M&E, 2/24/89) states
that the intent of the remediation is to restore the aquifer to drinking water quality. The system has
operated since 1993, but prior to 1997, it was operated largely to support incinerator activities. Only since
1997 has groundwater remediation been the site priority. Therefore, the five year review (September 1999)
utilized MCLs as an interim cleanup standard, and determined that the site was not close to cleanup
completion. The five year review recommended that a review of restoration levels be part of the next five-
year review, in concert with turning over the site operations to the State in 2004.
3.2 TREATMENT PLANT OPERATION GOALS
From 1997 to 1999 the extraction and treatment system was upgraded with the groundwater remediation
objectives in mind. These upgrades, already mentioned in Section 2.0, include the following:
LNAPL delineation was conducted and a recovery system was installed (vicinity of EW-
8).
• EW-7 was installed to augment hydraulic containment that prevents migration of impacted
groundwater to the Cochato River.
An extraction well control building was installed to ease operation of the extraction
system.
• The thermal oxidizer for VOC emissions was replaced by vapor phase GAC.
• The original metals removal system was replaced by use of potassium permanganate.
• Treatment system pumps and other units were upgraded to increase the plant hydraulic
capacity to 180 gpm.
Although there is no permit for this discharge, according to the design the effluent must meet MCLs and
State standards.
The plant has mainly operated without excursions with only infrequent exceedances. System emissions are
captured and treated through vapor GAC to mitigate odors and avoid public concern.
-------
3.3 ACTION LEVELS
Site cleanup levels and treatment plant effluent levels are described in Sections 3.1 and 3.2.
-------
4.0 FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS FROM THE RSE SITE VISIT
4.1 FINDINGS
In general, the RSE team found the system to be well operated and maintained. The observations and
recommendations given below are not intended to imply a deficiency in the work of either the designers or
operators, but are offered as constructive suggestions in the best interest of the EPA and the public. These
recommendations obviously have the benefit of the operational data unavailable to the original designers.
The RSE team found the site operators and the remedial project manager interested in improving the
performance of the system. The site operators have been working to optimize the treatment plant and
overcome unanticipated problems as demonstrated by the Value Engineering efforts.
4.2 SUBSURFACE PERFORMANCE AND RESPONSE
4.2.1 WATER LEVELS AND CAPTURE ZONES
Selected monitor wells are gauged at least monthly. A contour map drawn based on the field measurements
for May 2000 and modeling efforts by M&E indicate containment of the plume.
4.2.2 CONTAMINANT LEVELS
Contaminant levels and plume configurations for most of the site have generally remained stable since
1998. However, concentrations near the river have decreased substantially, which is likely due to the
addition of EW-7 in that location during 1998. Contaminant levels of VOCs and SVOCs are likely to
remain high elsewhere at the site as long as the LNAPL is there to provide a continuing source. The
presence of buried soils and ash contaminated with arsenic may provide a continuing source of that
contaminant, although this has not yet been determined. LNAPL may also provide a continuing source of
dissolved arsenic contamination.
4.2.3 NATURAL ATTENUATION POTENTIAL
As discussed by M&E (January 2001) the presence of chlorinated solvent breakdown products and the high
levels of dissolved ferrous iron are direct evidence of biodegradation of chlorinated organics via reductive
dechlorination. However, as a significant amount of LNAPL still exists at the site, biodegradation will
have relatively little impact on contaminant mass reduction, and as long as a reducing environment prevails,
arsenic likely will remain in its more mobile state, arsenite.
4.3 COMPONENT PERFORMANCE
4.3.1 EXTRACTION-WELL PUMPS AND PIPING
The Grundfos pumps in all seven extraction wells are working at their highest capacity and have low-level
shutoff switches to prevent pump failures. No maintenance issues with pumps were identified.
-------
Underground piping is double contained HDPE with separate branch lines from the motor/valve control
building to each recovery well. The leak detection system is reportedly not functional for some intervals of
piping. The piping from each of the well heads is brought together in a single header in an extraction well
control building where control valves and flowmeters, and motor controls are installed for each well.
4.3.2 EQUALIZATION TANK
There is one 15,000 gallon equalization tank that receives water from the extraction system and provides
process water to the metals removal system.
4.3.3 METALS REMOVAL SYSTEM
The metals precipitation system was converted from a lime and ferric chloride addition to potassium
permanganate in 2000. This has resulted in less sludge production and the elimination of pH control
requirements. The metals removal system has two stages in series each consisting of a flash mix tank,
flocculation tank and clarifier only one of the two stages is actively used with potassium permanganate and
polymer addition for metals removal. The second stage allows the process water to flow through without
chemical addition and metals removal. Removal rates for arsenic and iron are about 90%. The arsenic
concentration in the effluent, which is measured daily, is on average around 5 ug/L. The current metals
removal system results in the treatment plant consistently meeting the arsenic effluent limits of 5 ug/L.
This new metals removal system is improved in that it operates at lower cost and produces less sludge.
This new system, like the old one, requires the filtration step (Section 4.3.7) to meet the effluent criteria.
4.3.4 SLUDGE HANDLING SYSTEM
Sludge is pumped from the clarifiers to a holding tank and then to thickeners prior to the filter press. The
filter press is operated about once every three days and generates one ton of about 23% solid filter cake at
each dump. The sludge is disposed as a hazardous waste even though it passes TCLP testing.
4.3.5 ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM (USED AS AIR STRIPPERS)
Two activated sludge units are installed at the plant but have been decommissioned due to difficulty in
maintaining biological activity. Two 20 horsepower blowers are used to aerate the tanks and remove about
75% of the VOC and SVOC mass from the process water. The influent levels for VOCs and SVOCs are
typically about 0.5 mg/L and 2 mg/L, respectively. The mass removed by the stripping is captured by
vapor phase GAC.
4.3.6 VAPOR PHASE GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON UNITS
Two 3,000-pound vapor phase GAC units are located in the rear of the treatment plant. These units are
arranged and plumbed to collect offgas from both the activated sludge unit, the metals removal system, and
other plant tanks to minimize emissions inside the building. The vapor GAC units have been replaced once
in the past two years, and remove approximately 3 pounds per day of contaminants.
4.3.7 PRESSURE FILTERS
Process water is fed in batch mode from a pressure filter feed tank to two multimedia units that are used for
removal of solids prior to liquid GAC. Filtration effectiveness as measured by turbidity is not meeting
objectives. The filters are backwashed at least daily; recent head loss data indicates that the media is
fouled.
10
-------
4.3.8 GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON SYSTEM
Two GAC vessels containing 8,500 pounds each are used in series to remove VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides,
arsenic, iron, and turbidity remaining from upstream processes. The GAC has been effective at reaching
treatment objectives. GAC is replaced at a rate of eight vessels per year. The lead vessel is replaced due to
measured head loss through the unit, rather than exhaustion of carbon determined through chemical
measurements.
4.3.9 LNAPL RECOVERY SYSTEM
Since 1999, LNAPL has been recovered at a rate of approximately 5-10 gallons per day from EW-8 and
two nearby monitoring wells (MW-97-1 and MW-98-1). After passive phase separation, the LNAPL is
collected in a storage tank, which when emptied fills approximately three transportation boxes packed with
LNAPL plus corn cobs (for stabilization). When approximately 20 boxes are stockpiled, they are shipped
to Texas for incineration. The water from the passive phase separation is discharged to MW-97-3,
captured by groundwater extraction in EW-8, and transported to the plant for treatment.
4.3.10 CONTROLS
The plant is operator intensive, and the system is not setup to operate remotely. Despite large amounts of
process monitoring, the plant operations are governed by readings from turbidity meters and oxidation-
reduction potential (ORP) sensors. The plant operators target less than 10 NTU for turbidity and keep the
ORP about 660 mV after dosing with potassium permanganate (KMnO4). The plant has programmable
logic controllers (PLCs) and uses Wonderware operator software with Fix software used for redundancy
and backup.
4.4 COMPONENTS OR PROCESSES THAT ACCOUNT FOR MAJORITY OF
COSTS
Professional Service Group (PSG) is the plant operator under contract to USAGE. Metcalf & Eddy
maintains a technical review role for the project under contract to EPA. PSG's average monthly
expenditure based on a payment estimate provided by USAGE and discussion during the RSE site visit is
about $240,000/month. Cost for USAGE and M&E were not provided although the USAGE project
manager is reportedly 50% dedicated to the Baird McGuire remedy. The ROD estimate for total O&M
costs was about $58,000/month, but the actual cost, not including oversight by USAGE, is four times
higher than the ROD estimate.
4.4.1 LABOR (SYSTEM OPERATIONS, LABORATORY NOT INCLUDED)
Operating costs associated with maintaining two operators around the clock and a total operational staff of
10 during normal business hours is $127,000/month. This cost is about five to eight times higher than that
seen for similar systems. The system operates largely without operator attention, and with minor upgrades,
including a callout system, around the clock attention would not be necessary.
11
-------
4.4.2 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS (ON AND OFF SITE)
Daily effluent samples and twice weekly process samples from several locations are analyzed for arsenic
and iron, other metals, VOCs, SVOCs and pesticides based on a monitoring scope not provided for review
by the RSE team. Additionally, extraction wells are sampled quarterly and about 60 monitoring wells are
included in an annual sampling event.
The cost of the laboratory analysis is about $57,000/month plus approximately $100,000 per year for
USAGE certification. This is also five to eight times higher than that seen for similar systems. Over 95%
of the analytical work is done by the onsite laboratory that is staffed by five full time employees. The large
amount of data collection reportedly results from intense community involvement during previous project
stages; however, the bulk of the data is not used or required. The plant is operated based on readings from
turbidity meters and ORP sensors.
4.4.3 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
These costs total about $14,000/month. Well pumps and motors require replacement on a yearly basis.
Portions of the maintenance budget have funded system upgrades to allow higher flow capacity and ease of
operation; therefore, expenditures may decrease over time. The amount currently is higher than that for
similar systems
4.4.4 NON UTILITY CONSUMABLES AND DISPOSAL COSTS
LNAPL disposal costs are about $5,000/month (approximately $30/gallon). Sludge disposal is about
$l,000/month. Liquid GAC and vapor GAC replacement costs are $6,000 and $500 per month,
respectively.
4.4.5 UTILITY COSTS
Electricity costs are about $12,000/month, natural gas costs are about $2,000/month, telephone costs are
about $2,000/month, and water and sewer costs are $200/month.
4.4.6 SECURITY
About $14,000/month is spent on around the clock security at the site. This high level of security is
reportedly due to intense community involvement during previous project stages (mainly due to the
incinerator).
4.5 RECURRING PROBLEMS OR ISSUES
Plant downtime has been minimized in recent months. Liquid GAC change outs and effluent screen
cleaning contribute a few hours of downtime per month. Non-routine repairs to the electrical and control
systems have also resulted in some downtime.
12
-------
4.6 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
The plant does not have regulated discharge requirements; however, it regularly meets design requirements
that are consistent with drinking water standards for the contaminants of concern.
4.7 TREATMENT PROCESS EXCURSIONS AND UPSETS, ACCIDENTAL
CONTAMINANT/REAGENT RELEASES
Monthly averages of daily arsenic concentrations in the plant effluent as reported in the monthly updates
did not exceed MCLs during 2000 and the period of 2001 before the RSE visit. In addition, there were
only three times when monthly averages of total VOCs exceeded 5 ug/L (the MCL for PCE, TCE, and
many other VOCs). There were, however, frequent excursions of the pH MCLs, with discharges reaching
as high as 10.3, and occasional excursions in turbidity and iron. Excursions of the pH MCLs, have not
occurred since July 2000 when the use of potassium permanganate for metals removal began.
4.8 SAFETY RECORD
The system has an excellent safety record.
4.9 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Community involvement in the remedy design and operation have been high and mainly surrounded the use
of an onsite incinerator. Since the decommissioning of the incinerator, community involvement has
dropped off significantly.
13
-------
5.0 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SYSTEM TO PROTECT HUMAN
HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
5.1 GROUND WATER
The ground-water extraction system appears to have achieved containment of the plume. The system has
been effectively designed and optimized with groundwater modeling to achieve this goal. Removal of
contaminant mass with the groundwater extraction system is relatively slow with about 5 Ibs/day removed
in the treatment plant. With LNAPL acting as a continuing source of dissolved phase contamination in the
subsurface, this removal rate will not result in cleanup goals in the foreseeable future. The LNAPL
recovery system does remove approximately 5 to 10 gallons per day, but this recovery rate has not
decreased significantly, which suggests large volumes remain in the subsurface.
The South Street well field that once supplied municipal water was turned off in 1973 because these wells
were capturing a portion of the contaminant plume. Municipal water now comes from Richardi Reservoir
which is located downstream of the site along the Cochato River. The inlet from the river to the reservoir
has been closed since 1983; therefore, the public water supply is not currently affected by site-related
contaminants.
5.2 SURFACE WATER
Samples from the Cochato River are analyzed annually for arsenic, PAHs and pesticides. Results of this
analysis were not available for review.
5.3 AIR
Air from the activated sludge/air stripping units is treated with vapor phase carbon that effectively removes
contaminants at a rate of 3 pounds per day.
5.4 SOILS
The ash from onsite incineration was placed back on site to reshape the landscape to its original or near
original topography. As a result, remaining contaminated soils from the excavation are largely buried
beneath the ash and topsoil.
5.5 WETLANDS
Wetlands adjacent to the Cochato River exchange water with the river, and the river is sampled frequently
for site associated contaminants. The results of this sampling were not available to the RSE team for
review.
14
-------
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Cost estimates provided have levels of certainty comparable to those done for CERCLA Feasibility Studies
(-307+50%), and these cost estimates have been prepared in a manner consistent with EPA 540-R-00-002,
A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study, July 2000.
6.1 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ENSURE EFFECTIVENESS
The remedy at the Baird and McGuire site appears to be effective, although at a much higher cost than is
actually necessary. The modeling studies have demonstrated that the plume is contained and has been since
the operation of EW-7 in 1998. Furthermore, effluent monitoring suggests that the treatment plants is
effectively removing contaminants and discharging water that meets the required levels. The RSE team
concurs with the previous recommendations of M&E (January, 2001) to change the location of EW-4 and
install a new extraction well (EW-9).
6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS TO REDUCE COSTS
6.2.1 REDUCE PROCESS MONITORING
Process operations for metals removal were reported to be monitored and controlled based on
oxidation/reduction potential (ORP) and turbidity readings. For VOC removal, GAC has been changed out
mainly based on pressure buildup in the lead vessel. The results of the chemical analysis conducted for
process monitoring are not used for day to day adjustments. Additionally, the analyses have indicated
relatively consistent influent and process performance. Table 6-1 includes a comparison of samples taken
in February 2001 with a recommended number of samples for process monitoring and weekly effluent
monitoring. The key process monitoring samples are for the metal precipitation check and the change out
of GAC units. The recommended process monitoring should cost under $10,000 per month if sent to an
offsite certified lab compared to the $57,000 per month used to operate and staff the laboratory and the
$100,000 per year required to certify the laboratory. Thus, the reduction in process monitoring and
decommissioning of the onsite lab would likely would save in excess of $50,000 per month.
Note that removing the lab could free up office space, such that the office space in trailers might no longer
be necessary. This would add to the cost savings, though no attempt was made to quantify those costs.
6.2.2 REDUCE SECURITY
The on site security is not necessary at the site based on existing site activities and community relations.
The site can be secured except from water access with the existing fence and a lock system (especially if
over-night staff is eliminated as per other recommendations). A contracted security patrol at night could be
considered if it is available locally. Reduction of the site security will save at least $12,000 per month.
15
-------
Table 6-1: Analysis Frequency in February 2001 Versus Recommended Frequency.
Sample
1C
2*
3
4
11
12
13
17
Location
Plant Influent
Stage 1 Metal Removal
Influent
Stage 1 Metal Removal
Effluent
Stage 2 Metal Removal
Effluent
Stripper Effluent***
Multimedia Filter
Effluent
After GAC#1?
Effluent
TOTAL
Samples taken per month (RSE recommendation in parentheses)
VOC
7(2)
7(0)
7(1)
7(2)
27(4)
55(9)
svoc
6(2)
7(0)
7(1)
7(2)
27(4)
54(9)
Pesticides
7(2)
7(0)
7(0)
7(2)
27(4)
55(8)
Arsenic
27(2)
27(0)
27(1)
27(2)
27(0)
26(1)
27(1)
27(4)
215(11)
Iron
27(2)
27(0)
27(1)
27(2)
27(0)
26(1)
27(1)
27(4)
215(11)
Other
Metals**
7(1)
27(1)
34(2)
1 2 and 1C are redundant, and step 2 should be removed
'* Barium, chromium, copper, mercury, lead, and zinc
'** The air stripping step should be removed as per Section 6.2.6
6.2.3
AUTOMATE SYSTEM TO ALLOW OVERNIGHT OPERATION WITHOUT STAFFING
The system currently operates with minimal operator attention. The addition of an autodialer, alarm
interlocks, and minor process adjustments such as automating filter backwashes and KMnO4 batching
would allow the system operation to be conducted by two or three full time (40 to 50 hours per week)
employees who would be alerted by plant alarms if problems occur while the plant is not manned. Less
than $100,000 would be needed for system upgrades. Savings of over $105,000 per month can be achieved
with these upgrades and associated reduction in staff.
6.2.4
LNAPL DISPOSAL
The cost for LNAPL disposal by incineration is doubled due to the solidification with corn cobs
accomplished on site. Also, significant labor hours are spent in the solidification process. The RSE team
is not aware of any regulations that require solidification, and this LNAPL could potentially be transported
and disposed as a liquid as is done at other Superfund sites. The site managers should clarify with the
relevant agencies the regulations and precautions regarding the transport of the recovered LNAPL. The
recovered LNAPL should also be tested by an independent, offsite laboratory to verify that transporting it
as a liquid conforms with all pertinent regulations. Discontinuing the solidification process and transporting
the recovered LNAPL as a liquid will likely save in excess of $2,500 per month ($30,000 per year) plus
allow for substantial reductions in labor costs.
16
-------
6.2.5 SLUDGE DISPOSAL
The filter cake is currently disposed offsite as hazardous waste even though it reportedly passes the TCLP
test and is not a listed waste. Although the contractor currently covers the cost associated with sludge
disposal, disposal of this material in a lined Subtitle D facility could save $500/month. Thus, this savings
would only be realized if the contract is negotiated or a new O&M contractor is hired.
6.2.6 REPLACE THE CURRENT AIR STRIPPER WITH A MORE EFFICIENT UNIT
The two activated sludge units have not supported a bacterial population and have therefore been used only
as air strippers. Two 20 horsepower blowers supply air to these two units, and overall mass reduction of
organics is around 75%. Together, these blowers require approximately $3,000 per month in electricity
(assuming $0.10/kwh).
A low profile tray aerator using a 7.5 horsepower blower could provide substantially higher mass removal
at approximately $500 per month in electricity (assuming $0.10/kwh). Thus, a savings of approximately
$2,500 per month (or $30,000 per year) could result from installing and operating a tray aerator in place of
the current activated sludge units. The improved reduction in the mass of organics in the process water
could also extend the time of the GAC units if the pressure filtration media is improved to prevent fouling.
Purchase, installation, and start up of the tray aerator should require approximately $400,000 in up front
costs.
6.2.7 CHANGE FILTER MEDIA
Contaminant loading (SVOC, VOCs, Pesticides) to the liquid-phase GAC in February 2000 was less than
2 Ibs/day. The organic compounds in the process water are approximately 75% SVOCs (such as
naphthalene) and 25% VOCs such as toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene. The combined concentration of
VOCs and SVOCs currently exiting the stripping units is approximately 500 ug/L. At this concentration,
approximately 10 pounds of carbon is required per pound of naphthalene. A lower usage is expected for
ethylbenzene and xylene, but a higher carbon usage is expected for toluene. Based on an estimate of 20 to
25 pounds of carbon per pound of contaminant, changeout of the lead 8,500 pound carbon vessel under
current operations (2 Ibs/day loading which requires 50 Ibs/day carbon) should occur about twice per year.
However, site operations currently include much more frequent carbon changeouts (about eight vessel
change outs per year) due to pressure buildup in the lead GAC vessel. This is likely due to clogging, which
can be avoided by upgrading the filtration media to more effectively remove solids prior to the GAC. If
that occurs, GAC changeouts will be required on the basis of chemical load from contaminants rather than
the pressure drop due to clogging, and the efficiency of the carbon should increase as preferential flow
paths caused by the clogging will be significantly reduced.
A carbon changeout twice a year would indicate an approximate reduction of six carbon changeouts per
year. At approximately $8,500 per changeout (assumes $1 per pound of carbon), this would result in a
savings of approximately $50,000 per year. More significant savings would be expected if a more efficient
air stripping system is used because the stripping would remove more of the organic constituents of the
process water prior to the GAC units. The cost of upgrading the filter would be approximately $30,000, so
overall cost savings should be realized in less than one year.
17
-------
6.3 TECHNICAL IMPROVEMENT
6.3.1 CONVERT BIOSYSTEM CLARIFIER TO AN EQUALIZATION TANK
The system equalization tank is about 15,000 gallons. This provides only 90 minutes to make system
repairs without having extraction-well downtime. As the 150,000-gallon aeration tanks are not needed in
the treatment process, one could be converted to an emergency equalization tank if desired. This would
provide approximately 900 minutes to make system repairs without having extraction-well downtime.
6.4 RECOMMENDATIONS TO GAIN SITE CLOSEOUT
6.4.1 EXAMINE IN-SITU CHEMICAL OXIDATION
The total VOC and SVOC concentrations in the monitor wells around EW-8 have remained at a relatively
high level since 1997. The LNAPL present in this area is a continuing source of dissolved contamination
and, even with removal rates as high as 10 gallons per day, is not likely to be removed by current
operations. The site setting, contaminants, and hydrogeology appear to be ideal for in-situ chemical
oxidation in the area around EW-8. A site profile should be supplied to several commercial vendors to
obtain proposals. Such a profile could be generated with the available materials for under $2,000. Based
on information and estimates provided by the vendors, site managers could then determine if the technology
should be further pursued through bench or pilot tests.
Removal of the LNAPL would lead to site cleanup of VOCs and SVOCs much more quickly than the
current remedy. Also, the addition of oxidants to the subsurface would increase the likelihood of oxidizing
arsenic to its more immobile oxidative state.
6.5 UNUSED GOVERNMENT-OWNED EQUIPMENT
If the recommendation to reduce process monitoring and decommission the onsite laboratory (Section 6.2.1)
is implemented, a number of government-owned laboratory instruments will be available for use at EPA
labs or other sites. These instruments include, but are not limited to, a Perkins Elmer Optima 3300 DV
spectrophotometer, three Hewlett Packard 6890 gas chromatography systems, two Hewlett Packard 5973
mass selective detectors.
18
-------
7.0 SUMMARY
The observations and recommendations given below are not intended to imply a deficiency in the work of
either the designers or operators, but are offered as constructive suggestions in the best interest of the EPA
and the public. These recommendations obviously have the benefit of the operational data unavailable to
the original designers.
The RSE process is designed to help site operators and managers improve effectiveness, reduce operation
costs, improve technical operation, and gain site closeout. In this report, no recommendations are made to
assure system effectiveness as the contaminant plumes appear to be captured and the treatment plant
regularly meets discharge targets. A number of recommendations, however, are made to reduce future
operations and maintenance costs. The recommendations include reducing process monitoring, reducing
security, automating the system and reducing labor, altering LNAPL and sludge disposal procedures, and
replacing filter media.
Together, these recommendations could reduce the annual system costs associated with the plant operation
by more than $2 million per year. This does not include further savings that would likely result from a
decrease in costs associated with oversight by USAGE. A number of technical improvements are suggested
in the course of reducing operating costs, and in addition to those, the report recommends converting a
decommissioned activated sludge unit into an equalization tank to provide a high capacity for extracted
water if necessary. Finally, the RSE report recommends investigating the use of in situ chemical oxidation
as a method of reducing or eliminating the presence of LNAPL, which will increase the potential for site
closeout
Tables 7-1 summarizes the costs and cost savings associated with each recommendation. Both capital and
annual costs are presented as well as the expected change in life-cycle costs over a 30-year period for each
recommendation both with discounting (i.e., net present value) and without it.
19
-------
Table 7-1. Cost summary table for individual recommendations
Recommendation
6.2.1 Reduce process
monitoring
6.2.2 Reduce security
6.2.3 Automating systems
and reducing labor
6.2.4 Changing LNAPL
disposal procedure
6.2.5 Changing sludge
disposal procedure
6.2.6 Replace the current
air stripper with a more
efficient unit
6.2.7 Changing filter media
6.3.1 Converting
decommissioned activated
sludge unit into an
equalization tank
6.4.1 Investigating in situ
chemical oxidation
Total
Reason
Cost reduction
Cost reduction
Cost reduction
Cost reduction
Cost reduction
Cost
Reduction
Cost reduction
Technical
Improvement /
Effectiveness
Technical
Improvement
Estimated Change in
Capital
Costs
$0
$0
$100,000
$0
$0
$400,000
$30,000
$1,000
$2,000
$533,000
Annual
Costs
($600,000)
($144,000)
($1,260,000)
($30,000)
($6,000)
($30,000)
($50,000)
$0
$0
($2,126,000)
Life-cycle
Costs*
($18,000,000)
($4,320,000)
($37,700,000)
($900,000)
($180,000)
($500,000)
($1,470,000)
$1,000
$2,000
($63,067,000)
Life-cycle
Costs **
($9,685,000)
($2,324,000)
($20,238,000)
($484,000)
($97,000)
($84,000)
($777,000)
$1,000
$2,000
($33,686,000)
Costs in parentheses imply cost reductions.
* assumes 30 years of operation with a discount rate of 0% (i.e., no discount).
** assumes 30 years with a discount rate of 5% and no discounting in the first year.
20
-------
FIGURES
-------
FIGURE 1-1. SITE LAYOUT SHOWING THE LOCATIONS OF THE EXTRACTION WELLS (CURRENT AND RECOMMENDED) AND THE SVOC PLUME
FROM THE 2000 SAMPLING EVENT.
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
AREA
INFILTRATION
GALLERIES
RESIDENTIAL AREA
OA
EW-8
v'oooo-
'J00-
'10.
•5-
• BIOTREATMENT
UNITS
GROUNDWATER
TREATMENT
PLANT
LEGEND
CURRENT EXTRACTION WELL
O RECOMMENDED EXTRACTION WELL
• GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION AND
LNAPL RECOVERY WELL
— 5— CONCENTRATION CONTOURS FOR
THE 2000 SVOC PLUME
NOTE: EW-4 WILL BE REPLACED BY EW-4A
(Figure compiled from figures of the Evaluation of Groundwater Remediation Progress at the Baird and
McGuire Superfund Site, Holbrook, Massachusetts, prepared by Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., January 2001.)
22
0 300
SCALE IN FEET
600
-------
FIGURE 2-1. CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAM OF THE GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
Groundwater
extraction
Equalization
Tank
15,000 gallon
capacity
1st Stage Metals
Removal System
KMnO4 addition
polymer addition
flocculation
clarification
2nd Stage
Metals Removal
System
not active, pass
through only
Activated
Sludge Unit
rressure
Filter Feed
Tank
>
1,5 00 gallon
capacity
c J
Granular
Activated
-^. ^ ,
^.
iviiiiiiiiitiiia
Pressure
Filter
1 of 2 units is
used at a time
c J
Granular
Activated
^
used as an air
strippers
Activated
Sludge Unit
used as an air
stripper
Effluent Tank
Disch;
infiltratio
(8,500 pounds)
(8,500 pounds)
(Note: This figure does not indicate recycling through the treatment plant.)
-------
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5102G)
542-R-02-008J
October 2002
vwwv.clu-in.org/rse
www.epa.gov/tio
U.S. EPA National Service Center
for Environmental Publications
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419
------- |