v>epa f W
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency EPA/600/R-21/149 | July 2021 | www.epa.gov/research
2020 Annual Report
Office of Research and Development
Technical Support Coordination Division
Technical Support Coordination Division (TSCD)
Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response (CESER)
Office of Research and Development (ORD)
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
EPA/600/R-21/149
July 2021
2020 Annual Report
Office of Research and
Development
Technical Support
Coordination Division
by
Katherine Bronstein
RTI International
Research Triangle Park, NC
and
Technical Support Coordination Division
Cincinnati, OH
Contract Number: EP-C-16-021, WA#4-26
Project Officer: David Gwisdalla
Technical Support Coordination Division (TSCD)
Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency
Response (CESER)
Office of Research and Development (ORD)
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
Notice/Disclaimer
This report is intended to inform the public and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of
technical support provided through the Technical Support Coordination Division (TSCD)
during Fiscal Year 2020 (FY 2020).
This document has been reviewed in accordance with EPA policy, subjected to review by
the Office of Research and Development (ORD), and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents reflect the views of the Agency, nor does mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
-------
Foreword
The U.S. EPA is charged by Congress with protecting the nation's land, air, and water
resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human
activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this
mandate, the EPA's research program provides data and technical support for solving
environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to
manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and
prevent or reduce future environmental risks.
The Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response (CESER) within the
Office of Research and Development (ORD) conducts applied, stakeholder-driven research
and provides responsive technical support to help solve the nation's environmental
challenges. The Center's research focuses on innovative approaches to address
environmental challenges associated with the built environment. We develop technologies
and decision-support tools to help safeguard public water systems and groundwater, guide
sustainable materials management, remediate sites from traditional contamination
sources and emerging environmental stressors, and address potential threats from
terrorism and natural disasters. CESER collaborates with both public and private sector
partners to foster technologies that improve the effectiveness and reduce the cost of
compliance, while anticipating emerging problems. We provide technical support to EPA
regions and programs, states, tribal nations, and federal partners, and serve as the
interagency liaison for the EPA in homeland security research and technology. The Center
is a leader in providing scientific solutions to protect human health and the environment.
Gregory Sayles, Ph.D., Director
Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
-------
Abstract
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and Development's
(ORD) Technical Support Coordination Division (TSCD) housed in the Center for
Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response (CESER) supports the Agency in
addressing challenges at contaminated sites through direct and rapid access to technical
expertise through Superfund Technology Liaisons and five technical support centers
(TSCs). The TSCD actively collaborates with the Regions and Program Offices to address
issues that arise at EPA's most complex and high-priority cleanup sites.
These efforts accelerate the use of scientific knowledge and innovative technologies for
practical applications at Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
and Brownfield sites. Feedback from the EPA Regional and Program staff also provides
ORD with input to further prioritize research efforts. Sharing the latest state-of-the-
science and integrating technological advances helps to foster success in cleanup of these
sites.
In Fiscal Year 2020 (FY 2020), ORD's TSCD recorded 136 technical support activities,
aiding 120 unique Superfund and RCRA sites and responding to requests from all 10 EPA
Regions. This report highlights the technical support provided by ORD at contaminated
sites in FY 2020.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
iv
-------
Table of Contents
Notice/Disclaimer ii
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Table of Contents v
Figures vi
Tables vi
Acronyms and Abbreviations vii
Acknowledgments x
1. Introduction 1
2. Impact of Our Work 3
3. Challenges Addressed 6
3.1 Assessing and Treating Emerging and Persistent Contaminants 7
3.2 Site Assessment Support and Site Characterization Innovations 13
3.3 Remedy Evaluation and Innovations 20
3.4 Characterization and Remediation Innovations at Mining Sites 26
3.5 Preventing Adverse Human Health and Ecological Risk Impacts 34
4. Superfund and Technology Liaison Research Program 39
5. Technology Transfer 46
6. Conclusions & Contact Information 50
Appendix A. FY 2020 Support Projects 51
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
v
-------
Figures
Figure 1-1. TheTSCD Offerings 2
Figure 2-1. Count of Project Support Requests by Region 4
Figure 2-2. FY 2020 Support by Category (left, percentage) and by Region (right, count) 5
Figure 3-1. Eagle Industries Site, Oklahoma 7
Figure 3-2. Schematic of How ISCO Works to Remediate Groundwater Contamination 9
Figure 3-3. Hill AFB, Utah Location Map 10
Figure 3-4. Valmont Site, Pennsylvania Remediation Efforts 12
Figure 3-5. Captain Jack Mill, Colorado 14
Figure 3-6. L.A. Clarke & Son Site Map, Virginia 16
Figure 3-7 Groundwater Contamination, RCRA Facility in Region 2 17
Figure 3-8. Quendall Terminals Site, Washington 19
Figure 3-9. Cidra Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site, Puerto Rico 20
Figure 3-10. Westlake Landfill Simulated Regression of Gamma Counts and Radium 23
Figure 3-11. Fort Devens Site, Massachusetts 24
Figure 3-12. Chem-Dyne Site, Ohio 25
Figure 3-13. National Distribution of ORD Support at Mining Sites 26
Figure 3-14. Bonita Peak Mining District Seeps, Colorado 28
Figure 3-15. Elizabeth Mine Site, Vermont 29
Figure 3-16. Smoky Canyon Mine Site, Idaho 31
Figure 3-17. Spring River Watershed Basin 33
Figure 3-18. Tittabawassee, Chippewa River, and Saginaw Bay Site, Michigan 35
Figure 3-19. Dispersion Modeling for the Vo-Toys Site, New Jersey 37
Figure 3-20. Sample Collection at the LDW Site, Washington 38
Figure 4-1. SEM Images (left) and EDX Maps (right) of Soil Samples from the Vineland Site. 40
Figure 4-2. XRF Data from As-Contaminated Soils 41
Figure 4-3. Sediment Collection at Black Butte Mine, Oregon 42
Figure 4-4. Remediation of Coal Tar-Impacted Soil at a Superfund Site 44
Figure 5-1. FY 2020 Technology Transfer Products 46
Tables
Table 1-1. Description of the Five Technical Support Centers 1
Table 3-1. Challenges Addressed in FY 2020 6
Table 3-2. Westlake Landfill Model Example Parameters 22
Table 5-1. Contacts for Obtaining Technical Support Through the TSCs 50
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
vi
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
3-D three dimensional
13c Carbon 13
95UCL 95 percent upper confidence levels
AFB Air Force Base
AFFF aqueous film forming foam
ATU air treatment unit
BMP best management practices
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
CESER Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response
cPAH carcinogenic PAHs
DNAPL dense non-aqueous phase liquids
DRO diesel range organics
EDX energy dispersive X-ray analysis
EGS ecosystem goods and services
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERASC Ecological Risk Assessment Support Center
ET evapotranspiration
ETSC Engineering Technical Support Center
FFRRO Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
FO-DTS fiber optic distributed temperature sensing
Foe fraction of soil that is organic carbon
FS feasibility study
FY fiscal year
FYR Five-Year Review
GE/RCA General Electric/Radio Corporation of America
GET groundwater extraction and treatment
GIS geospatial information systems
rr Groundwater Characterization and Remediation Division,
Subsurface Remediation Branch
GWTSC Ground Water Technical Support Center
HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry
IDEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
ISCO in situ chemical oxidation
ISTR in situ thermal remediation
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
vii
-------
Kd
solid/liquid partition coefficient
L&RR
Landfill & Resource Recovery
LDW
Lower Duwamish Waterway
LLC
Limited Liability Corporation
MC-ICP-MS
multi-collector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry
mq/l
micrograms per liter
MNA
monitored natural attenuation
NPL
National Priority List
NTCRA
Non-Time Critical Removal Action
ODEQ
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
OLEM
Office of Land and Emergency Management
ORD
Office of Research and Development
OSC
On-Scene Coordinator
OU
Operable Unit
OSRTI
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
PAH
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PCB
polychlorinated biphenyl
PCE
perchloroethylene
PFAS
per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
PFC
perfluorinated compound
PFOA
perfluorooctanoic acid
PFOS
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
PRP
potentially responsible party
QA
quality assurance
QAPP
Quality Assurance Project Plan
QC
quality control
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCTS
Rotating Cylinder Treatment System™
RD
Remedial Design
RI
Remedial Investigation
RIM
Radiologically impacted material
ROD
Record of Decision
RODA
Record of Decision Amendment
RPM
Regional Project Manager
RRO
residual range organics
RSTIP
Regional State Technology Innovation Project
SCMTSC
Site Characterization and Monitoring Technical Support Center
SD
standard deviation
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
viii
-------
SEM
scanning electron microscopy
SHL
Shepley's Hill Landfill
SI
site investigation
SOP
standard operating procedure
STAR
self-sustaining Treatment for Active Remediation
STL
Superfund and Technology Liaison
STLR
Superfund Technology Liaison Research
STSC
Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center
SVE
soil vapor extraction
TCE
trichloroethylene
TSC
Technical Support Center
TSCD
Technical Support Coordination Division
TSMD
Tri-State Mining District
UFP-QAPP
Uniform Federal Policy Quality Assurance Project Plan
USAF
United States Air Force
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
USFS
United States Forest Service
USGS
United States Geological Survey
VOC
volatile organic compounds
WARMF
Watershed Analysis Risk Management Framework
XRF
X-ray fluorescence
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
ix
-------
Acknowledgments
The TSCD would like to recognize our interdisciplinary team of ORD scientists, engineers,
and contractors for their significant contributions toward solving the complex issues faced
in EPA's environmental cleanup efforts. We would like to extend a special thanks to our
Superfund and Technology Liaisons for providing a vital link to identifying EPA Regional
needs. We truly appreciate our dedicated EPA researchers and scientists who provide their
technical expertise to ensure the clients' needs are met. We are grateful for the
opportunity to deliver effective solutions to the Program Offices and Regions. Thank you
for the patronage and support. We welcome the opportunity to work in a collaborative
manner across many scientific and engineering disciplines to protect human health and
the environment.
This report was prepared by Katherine Bronstein (RTI International). David Gwisdalla
coordinated and provided oversight of report preparation. We appreciate the constructive
reviews provided by the TSC Directors, the Superfund Technology Liaisons, Edward Barth,
Thomas Speth, Chris Lutes (Jacobs Engineering), and Gunnar Emilsson (CDM Smith).
Michael Kravitz
Director, Ecological Risk Assessment Support Center
David Gwisdalla
Director, Engineering TSC
Randall Ross
Director, Ground Water TSC
Felicia Barnett
Director, Site Characterization and Monitoring TSC
Dahnish Shams
Director, Superfund Health Risk TSC
-------
1. Introduction
Sharing the latest state-of-the-science and integrating technological advances helps to
foster success in the cleanup of contaminated sites. This information also helps inform and
improve the decision-making process at Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund), Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), and Brownfield sites. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Office of Research and Development's (ORD) Technical Support Coordination
Division (TSCD), housed in the Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency
Response (CESER), supports the Agency in addressing challenges at contaminated sites
through direct and rapid access to technical expertise through their regional Superfund
Technology Liaisons (STLs) and five technical support centers (TSCs). Each TSC
contributes to the overall TSCD mission based upon their technical focus and support
capabilities as summarized in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1. Description of the Five Technical Support Centers.
The TSCs provide a suite of experts, ready to address challenges encountered at all stages of the assessment and
remediation process.
Ecological Risk Assessment Support Center (ERASC): Provides technical information and
addresses scientific questions related to ecological risk assessments. Also evaluates and publishes
on emerging issues and develops state-of-the science responses for ecological risk assessments.
Engineering Technical Support Center (ETSC): Provides site-specific assistance on engineering
and treatment issues during any phase of a site cleanup. Offers guidance for incorporating
technology-based data needs in studies, designs, and operational phases. Publishes on
characterization and remediation technologies for contaminated soil, sediment, and mine sites.
Ground Water Technical Support Center (GWTSC): Provides support on issues related to
groundwater contamination, cross-media transfer (e.g., movement from the groundwater to surface
water or air), and ecosystem restoration. Publishes on characterization and remediation
technologies for contaminated groundwater.
Site Characterization and Monitoring Technical Support Center (SCMTSC): Provides support
for the use of cutting-edge methods and technologies for identifying the nature and extent of
contamination. Expertise is available from planning to design and for data analysis and
interpretation, including statistical analyses. Publishes on innovative site characterization methods
and tools.
Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center (STSC): Provides scientific technical support
on issues related to human health risk assessments, primarily under CERCLA, including
interpretation of guidance and assessments and evaluation of toxicity values from EPA or other
Agencies, that allow for the development of more accurate quantitative estimates of risk.
*
o°
*
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
1
-------
A support request is typically made through a regional STL or directly to the TSCD (see
Section 6 for contact information). The STLs who serve as the primary ORD technical
liaisons between each of EPA's regional offices and ORD staff, actively collaborate with the
TSCD to address issues that arise at the EPA's most complex and high-priority cleanup
sites. The combined efforts accelerate the use of scientific knowledge and innovative
technologies for practical field applications. The knowledge gained from the long-term
support at many sites allows for responsive and timely engagements, allowing for best
practices to be learned. Feedback from the field on cleanup challenges faced by the
Regions also provides ORD with input to further prioritize research efforts. Figure 1-1
summarizes the TSCD offerings and the link to applied science and future research needs.
TSCD Offerings
The TSCD helps to accelerate cleanup
and advance economic revitalization
through expertise on the latest methods,
approaches, and technologies for
contaminated sites.
Through the support provided, the TSCD
plays a central part in linking technology
applications, resulting in important lessons
learned that drives future national research
needs.
Specifically, the TSCD:
Links ORD research to
Agency decisions
Applies best practices to
field applications
Serves as a nexus
between the field and the
research agenda
We develop critical links between ORD scientists and Agency decision
makers to channel technical expertise and research results to the
EPA's operating programs.
We leverage a national network of experts and facilitate application of
the best scientific understanding and practices to solve real-world
problems and reduce risks to public health and the environment.
We serve as a conduit to ensure ORD is addressing the most important
research gaps and problems the Agency is facing by providing
feedback from field applications to inform the research agenda.
Figure 1-1. The TSCD Offerings.
Fiscal Year 2020 (FY 2020) brought unique challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
EPA made decisions to pause, reduce, or continue field work on a case-by-case basis.
Despite these challenges, the TSCD continued to support the Regions and Program Offices
with scientific expertise. The TSCD continued to make progress on investigative, state-of-
the-science activities (e.g., modeling, statistical analyses, literature synthesis, guidance
documents). Highlights of the TSCD's work in FY 2020 are presented in this report along
with site-specific case studies demonstrating the breadth and depth of knowledge the five
TSCs provide in support of environmental cleanup and risk assessment.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
2
-------
2. Impact of Our Work
ORD's TSCD assists EPA cleanup professionals with making scientifically defensible
decisions by providing a one-stop shop for the breadth and depth of ORD technical
expertise. The Division actively supports cleanup at Superfund, RCRA, Brownfields, and
other sites by delivering expertise on the latest methods, approaches, and technologies.
Support is typically initially coordinated by the Regional STLs who work directly with
Regional Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) and other EPA Regional staff to identify the
specialized expertise needed to address site-specific challenges.
The TSCD typically supports:
¦ EPA Regions (i.e., Superfund RPMs, RCRA Corrective Action project managers, risk
assessors, geologists, on-scene coordinators); and
¦ EPA Program Offices (e.g., Office of Land and Emergency Management [OLEM]).
Through the Regions and Program Offices, the Division's TSCs also support state
scientists, research universities, and international agencies.
In FY 2020, TSCD recorded 136 technical support activities and direct assistance to 120
Superfund and RCRA sites spanning 36 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands
(see Figure 2-1, next page). The most support was provided to Missouri (20 support
requests), Nebraska (8 support requests), and California and New Jersey (7 support
requests each). Sites in these states include mining sites, landfills, military operations,
and a variety of industrial operations. The TSCD also engages in cross-cutting,
collaborative research with scientists across the EPA, including the Superfund Technology
Liaison Research (STLR) program, select projects of which are highlighted in Section 4 of
this report.
The TSCD continues to support sites on the EPA Administrator's Emphasis List1 of
Superfund sites that the EPA has targeted for immediate and intense action. This list is
dynamic, thus sites are added and removed as appropriate. In FY 2020, support was
provided to two sites on this list, L.A. Clarke & Son (Region 3, Virginia) and Bonita Peak
Mining District (Region 8, Colorado), which are highlighted in Section 3 of this report. The
TSCD has provided critical support for many years to these and other sites that have been
1 EPA 2021. Making Decisions and Making a Difference in Superfund: Administrator's Emphasis List 2017-2021. Available
online at https://www.epa.qov/sites/production/files/2021-01/documents/2020-ael-summarv-report-compliant.pdf.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
3
-------
on previous Emphasis Lists. In FY 2020, the TSCD also supported five Superfund
Redevelopment Opportunity Sites2 with a large, expected redevelopment and commercial
potential. These sites were Bunker Hill Mining & Metallurgical Complex (Region 10, Idaho),
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. sites in Columbus and Jacksonville (Region 4, Mississippi and
Florida, respectively), Quendall Terminal (Region 10, Washington), and Sharon Steel
Corp. (Region 8, Utah). These consultations helped optimize remedy selection, evaluate
pilot testing efforts, and deploy innovative site characterization techniques and sensor
networks.
R1
12 Projects
R2
15 Projects
i. y
R9
HI,
Guam, American
Samoa, Northern
Mariana Islands
®137
Support Requests
Covering direct, site-specific
technical assistance; document
review; engineering & prototype
testing; risk assessment; research &
technical transfer.
^ Site-specific Projects
Including 2 sites on the EPA
Administrator's Emphasis List of
Superfund sites targeted for
immediate and intense action.
27
STLR Projects
In collaboration with ORD STLs
to support scientifically
defensible decisions during site
cleanup.
Figure 2-1. Count of Project Support Requests by Region.
Figure note: STL = Superfund Technology Liaison; STLR = Superfund Technology Liaison Research.
Multi-region projects are not shown.
The TSCD provided a wide range of technical services in FY 2020 (see Figure 2-2),
primarily related to remedy evaluation and innovations (47 percent); site assessment
support and site characterization innovations (28 percent); and assessing and treating
emerging and persistent contaminants (10 percent). Spatially, TSCD supported projects in
all 10 EPA Regions and collaborated with other EPA offices. Support activities covered all
phases of the contaminated-site pipeline, and included evaluation of remedial
investigation (RI) work plans and reports, groundwater modeling reports, feasibility
2 The July 2017 list of Superfund Redevelopment Opportunity Sites is available at https://www.epa.gov/superfund-
redevelopment-initiative/superfund-redevelopment-oiDportunitv-sites.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
-------
studies (FS), treatability studies, remedial designs (RD), and remediation system
performance, as well as statistical analysis and lab and field support. Numerous
contaminant types were also addressed, with lead and other metals being the most
prominent followed by dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) and emerging and
persistent chemicals (e.g., trichloroethylene [TCE], per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
[PFAS]).
Count of Support Requests in FY 2020
10 15 20 25
30
35
| Assessing and Treating Emerging and Persistent Contaminants
| Characterization and Remediation Innovations at Mining Sites
| Preventing Adverse Human Health and Ecological Risk Impacts
| Remedy Evaluation and Innovations
| Site Assessment Support and Site Characterization Innovations
Figure 2-2. FY 2020 Support by Category (left, percentage) and by Region (right,
count).
Figure note: Technical support requests were categorized by region where the site is located, if site-specific, or technical
support requestor is based in.
R = Region. "Multi"' refers to technical support provided to more than one region, or a technical support request that has
broad reach. "EPA Internal" refers to technical support and research requests from EPA offices outside of ORD.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
5
-------
3. Challenges Addressed
Complexities in site characteristics and contaminant types can lead to challenges in
adequately assessing and remediating contaminated sites, These factors may call for the
use of specialized techniques or innovative technologies to assess, characterize, or
remediate a site. TSCD's approach to responding to a technical request starts by forming
a team of EPA scientists, engineers, and external technical experts (as needed) with
interdisciplinary backgrounds and knowledge to bring effective solutions to real-world
problems. The team also looks for opportunities to accelerate the application of research
findings and scientific knowledge into the field to benefit each project.
Examples of the breadth and depth of technical expertise and support provided by TSCD
in FY 2020 are highlighted in Table 3-1 and Sections 3.1 to 3.5. Several of these support
efforts generated substantial results, including optimized site sampling strategies,
increased remediation effectiveness, cost optimization (e.g., through implementation of
passive treatment for mine influenced water), and improved cleanup timeframes.
Table 3-1. Challenges Addressed in FY 2020.
1 Section and Challenge
Key Cleanup Sites Highlighted
3.1
Assessing and Treating
Emerging and Persistent
Contaminants
¦ Eagle Industries (Region 6)
¦ Landfill & Resource Recovery, inc. (Region 1)
¦ Valmont TCE Site (Region 3)
¦ Hill Air Force Base (Region 8)
3.2
Site Assessment Support and
Site Characterization
Innovations
¦ Captain Jack (Region 8)
¦ L.A. Clarke & Son (Region 3)
¦ RCRA Facility (Region 2)
¦ Quendall Terminals (Region 10)
¦ Cidra Groundwater Contamination (Region 2)
3.3
Remedy Evaluation and
¦ Westlake Landfill (Region 7)
Innovations
¦ Fort Devens (Region 1)
¦ Chem-Dyne (Region 5)
3.4
Characterization and
Remediation Innovations at
Mining Sites
¦ Bonita Peak Mining District (Region 8)
¦ Elizabeth Mine (Region 1)
¦ Southeast Idaho Selenium Project/Smoky Canyon Mine (Region 10)
¦ Tri-State Mining District (Region 6 and 7)
3.5
Preventing Adverse Human
¦ Tittabawassee, Chippewa River, and Saginaw Bay (Region 5)
Health and Ecological Risk
¦ Vo-Toys Facility (Region 2)
Impacts
¦ Lower Duwamish Waterway (Region 10)
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
6
-------
3.1 Assessing and Treating Emerging and Persistent Contaminants
ORD is making great strides in assessing, characterizing, and implementing strategies to
address emerging and persistent contaminants such as PFAS. Contaminated-site
practitioners rely on ORD expertise to understand the state-of-the-science and share best
practices for sampling and treating these contaminant types. In FY 2020, the TSCD
supported multiple projects related to PFAS, including four highlighted in this section.
Site Assessment of PFAS in Complex Hydrogeologic Environment
Site: Eagle Industries
Location: Region 6, Oklahoma
Challenge: Identifying remedial options considering complex groundwater flow directions
Center Support: ETSC and GWTSC
Activities at the Eagle Industries site leading to present-day contamination included
inspecting, cleaning, and repairing aircraft oxygen tanks and fire extinguishers (see
Figure 3-1). Cleaning was conducted with TCE from 1990 to the 2010s. A 2003
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) inspection found evidence the
company was dumping TCE on the ground, which violated RCRA regulations. Litigation
ensued, the facility ceased operations, and was listed on the National Priority List (NPL) in
2018.
The EPA and ODEQ are working to plan and
implement investigation activities. Limited
cleanup activity has occurred aside from
removal of a portion of the contaminated soil
in 2006. It is believed that on-site soil is a
continuing source of contaminant release into
the groundwater, prompting several
monitoring wells to be installed. Elevated
concentrations of TCE and 1,2-dichloroethane
have been observed in the on-site
groundwater wells. Additionally, several
affected residential properties had their wells
properly abandoned and were either provided
public water or had a new well installed.
In FY 2020, the GWTSC provided comments
related to the ongoing site investigation and
relayed expected difficulties with evaluating
the groundwater flow directions. ORD
conducted electric resistivity imaging at the site to demonstrate the applicability of the
Figure 3-1. Eagle Industries Site,
Oklahoma.
View of Eagle Industries site with facility in
background and empty fire extinguishers in
foreground. Source: EPA, 2018
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
7
-------
technology to characterize the complex stratigraphy of the aquifer. The results showed the
site geology is characterized by discrete sand units enveloped in fine-grained silts and
clays. To further complicate groundwater flow analysis, it was noted that wells completed
in separate sandstone units differed significantly with respect to barometric efficiency,
resulting in temporally and spatially variable water level responses to barometric pressure
fluctuations. ORD's insight and recommendations further assisted the Region in directing
their site contractor on how best to conduct the RI given the complex site conditions. This
led to the Region requiring the site's remediation contractor to employ a hydrogeologist
with an emphasis on borehole and surface geophysics to adequately characterize the site
for future cleanup efforts.
The ETSC also provided technical review comments for the site's PFAS Sampling Standard
Operating Procedure (SOP). Three issues were identified during the review:
¦ The SOP contained dated information that was in error. Specifically, the list of
materials to be used or to be avoided was out of date.
¦ The document failed to stress the importance of prescreening to evaluate whether
equipment and suppliers were PFAS-free prior to conducting field sampling.
¦ The document failed to include the collection of quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) samples to evaluate the possibility of contamination during sample
collection.
It was recommended that the contractor adopt the sampling strategies contained in the
General PFAS Sampling Guidance issued by the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality,3 which contains fact-driven recommendations about environmental sampling for
PFAS and identified areas of uncertainty. ORD's guidance helped prevent analytical false
positives due to errors in the contractor's proposed PFAS SOP sampling methods.
PFAS Remediation Technology Pilot
Site: Landfill & Resource Recovery, Inc. (L&RR)
Location: Region 1, Rhode Island
Challenge: Evaluating the effectiveness of an In-Situ Chemical Oxidation (ISCO)
technology pilot in sequestering PFAS compounds
Center Support: ETSC and GWTSC
The L&RR Superfund Site includes a 28-acre closed/capped landfill in an undeveloped
portion of North Smithfield, Rhode Island. The L&RR Superfund Site was initially used as a
sand and gravel pit. The site was eventually used for refuse and waste disposal from 1927
to 1985. During 1974-1979, a portion of the landfill was operated for disposal of
hazardous wastes.
3 The General PFAS Sampling Guidance issued by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality is available at
www.michiaan.aov/documents/pfasresponse/General PFAS Sampling Guidance 634597 7.pdf.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
8
-------
Primary contaminants of concern at the site include volatile organic compounds (VOCs,
including 1,4-dioxane), metals, and PFAS compounds. The remediation technology under
consideration was the use of ISCO (Figure 3-2) for treatment of 1,4-dioxane and some
PFAS compounds, combined with downgradient injection of activated carbon to sequester
untreated PFAS compounds within the aquifer. The RPM requested ORD support in
evaluating ISCO as the proposed innovative treatment option for in situ remediation of
PFAS in groundwater. The request required the GWTSC to review the remedial technology
pilot study work plan and analytical techniques being used to characterize PFAS
compounds at the site. A key input from the review was the recommendation to look at a
broader range of PFAS compounds. This was due to the concern that the treatment may
breakdown the existing PFAS to different forms of PFAS rather than destroy it. Without
acknowledging this possibility, the proposed monitoring protocol for the pilot treatment
program could have resulted in a misrepresentation of the actual treatment efficiencies of
PFAS at the site.
The ETSC's review also confirmed that the proposed remedial technologies primarily
sequester PFAS compounds within the aquifer. Some fraction of the PFAS compounds
sequestered onto activated carbon could
subsequently act as a secondary source for
recontamination of groundwater.
Furthermore, a portion of the aquifer would
become acidified during implementation of
ISCO, which could mobilize natural
constituents from the aquifer solids, such as
arsenic. Recommendations were made to
1) improve the data collection effort during
laboratory and field pilot-scale tests to better
understand the potential for groundwater
recontamination from sequestered PFAS
compounds, and 2) assess potential arsenic
mobilization and capacity of the downgradient
aquifer to naturally attenuate arsenic and
other mobilized constituents.
ORD's input informed the Region on the
potential concerns with impacts of the
proposed remedial action thereby insuring
they were further evaluated during the pilot testing phase.
Pump
Oxidant Tank
Undissolved
Contaminant
Piping
Dissolved
Contaminant
IpmkJ
Monitoring
Wells
1 <1 Injectinn Well
Figure 3-2. Schematic of How ISCO
Works to Remediate Groundwater
Contamination.
ISCO groundwater profile results and media
collection intervals at the L&RR Site.
Source: Clu-ln, 20124
4 Clu-ln. 2012. A Citizen's Guide to in Situ Chemical Oxidation. EPA 542-F-12-011.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
9
-------
PFAS Site Investigation QA/QC
Site: Hill Air Force Base
Location: Region 8, Utah
Challenge: Quality assurance and control for PFOS/PFOA site investigations
Center Support: ETSC
Prior to 2019, the United
States Air Force (USAF)
identified several
installations with
perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFOA) and perfluorooctane
sulfonate (PFOS)
contamination. In FY 2020,
the USAF began to explore
the potential for off-site
migration of PFOA/PFOS at
31 Air Force installations.
In many cases, the
migration had the potential
to affect drinking water
wells. A Uniform Federal
Policy for Quality Assurance
Project Plan (UFP-QAPP)
was prepared to describe
the potential PFOA/PFOS
monitoring activities with a separate UFP-QAPP addendum for each installation.
In FY 2020, the EPA Region 8 RPM requested support from the OLEM Federal Facilities
Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO), who brought in expertise from ORD. ORD was
requested to support the Region on the "Hill Air Force Base (AFB) PFOA/PFOS SI [Site
Investigation] QAPP" addendum to the UFP-QAPP. Hill AFB is situated between the
Wasatch Mountains and several towns in northern Utah. Prior to 1970, chemicals and
associated waste products were placed in chemical disposal pits and landfills or released
from storage or process areas. Hill AFB is now mitigating groundwater contamination and
vapor intrusion in the surrounding communities and on base.5 Figure 3-3 illustrates Hill
Figure 3-3. Hill AFB, Utah Location Map.
Hill AFB, located in northern Utah, occupies approximately 6,700 acres,
and includes several ongoing subsurface cleanup activities. The red
lines indicate areas of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) releases and
potential sources of PFOA/PFOS contamination.
Source: AFCEC, 2020s
5 Air Force Civil Engineer Center, 2020. Relative Risk Site Evaluation Hill Air Force Base, Utah. Available at AF Administrative
Record.
l ii m
IHID£03
Sun
Hills Golf
Course
Se'naic
Clearfield
AFFF Area 2
AFFF Area 13
AFFF Area 15
AFFF Area 15
Fi®h«r
' Park
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
10
-------
AFB's boundary and several ongoing subsurface cleanup activities from releases of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF), which contain PFOS and PFOA contamination.
The PFOA/PFOS SI QAPP focused on the sampling plan to assess migration and potential
impact of PFOA/PFOS-contaminated groundwater on off-base private wells.
Earlier in FY 2020, ORD provided a similar review and support for work in Region 9 at
Travis AFB in California. The Region 9 review led to ORD's support of Region 8, in
cooperation with FFRRO, where ORD reviewed the proposed PFOA/PFOS SI QAPP for Hill
AFB and provided a technical review. ORD's review focused on the analytical methods and
reporting for PFOA/PFOS compounds; and lab QC procedures required such as surrogate
recoveries, blanks, and matrix spike and matrix spike duplicates. A key finding of ORD's
review was that the USAF's proposed Hill AFB PFOA/PFOS Site Investigation QAPP did not
plan to analyze drinking water samples using the EPA's analytical methods for PFOA/PFOS
in drinking water (Methods 5371.1 or 533). Instead, contract labs were able to use other
methods that complied with Department of Defense quality criteria. Neither the original
UFP-QAPP nor the PFOA/PFOS SI QAPP for Hill AFB provided the rationale this decision.
The Region was able to coordinate with the USAF to ensure that the PFOS/PFOA sample
collection and analysis results may only be used as screening data because the analysis
did not meet the EPA's drinking water analysis QC standards.
ORD's feedback on the methods supported Region 8's review of the Hill AFB PFOA/PFOS
SI sampling efforts, but also groundwater monitoring for a subsequent request by USAF
for PFOA/PFOS SI work at F.E. Warren AFB in Wyoming. Nationally, ORD's feedback also
has applied to several other USAF-related NPL and RCRA corrective action sites related to
the USAF's PFOA/PFOS site investigations.
Site Remedy Evaluation for TCE and PFAS
Site: Valmont TCE Site
Location: Region 3, Pennsylvania
Challenge: Providing remedy selection insight for the removal of TCE and the potential for
PFAS removal
Center Support: GWTSC
The Valmont TCE site is in the Valmont Industrial Park in West Hazleton, Pennsylvania.
The site consists of one known source area of contamination, a former upholstery
manufacturing plant, and contaminated groundwater attributable to the plant in the
nearby residential neighborhood. Chromatex, which leased the property beginning in
1978, applied fluorocarbon stain repellants containing TCE to fabrics. The use of these
products and historical spills led to subsequent chlorinated solvent and PFAS
contamination at the site. The plant's building is currently owned by a company that uses
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
11
-------
it as a warehouse for non-hazardous
materials. The site was added to the
Superfund program's NPL in September
2001.6
The EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) in
2011 that outlined groundwater ISCO (see
Figure 3-4) and vapor intrusion remedies for
the site. The EPA's first Five-Year Review
(FYR) in 2016 found the selected remedy to
be protective of human health and the
environment in the short term. For longer-
term protection, the EPA evaluated different
remedial alternatives for the groundwater
contamination.
At the request of Region 3, GWTSC provided a
technical review of the "Draft Final Focused
Feasibility Study Report" for the site. The
focus of GWTSC's review was on Alternative 3:
In-Situ Thermal Remediation (ISTR) at Source
Areas Combined with Groundwater Extraction
and Treatment, and the cost estimate for this
potential alternative.7 Previous treatment
recommendations included groundwater and
vapor extraction from within the ISTR
treatment area to recover as much of the
PFAS contaminants as possible during the
remediation of the TCE source zone. While
Figure 3-4. Valmont Site,
Pennsylvania Remediation
Efforts.
in situ chemical oxidation injection to
mitigate groundwater contamination at the
Valmont TCE site (top), and the building
interior that overlies the TCE source area
(bottom). Source: EPA, 2020s
PFAS would not be the focus with the use of
ISTR, certain data on PFAS solubility as a function of temperature, while scarce,
suggested the solubility of PFAS compounds was expected to increase with a temperature
increase. Thus, increased recovery of dissolved phase PFAS could be expected in the
groundwater during ISTR and would be beneficial in helping to remediate the PFAS
contamination and control its migration.
This could likely be implemented by the thermal treatment vendor with minimal cost
increase to the proposed ISTR system, and would eliminate all the costs in the estimate
for Alternative 3 related to building and operating the groundwater extraction system.
Although the hydraulic conductivity of the site was not explicitly discussed in the
document, there were several references to the site as having low permeability. If this is
6 EPA, 2020. Valmont TCE Site Cleanup Activities. Available at
https://cumulis.epa.aov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.photovideoaudio&id=0303307
7 EPA 2021. Valmont TCE Superfund Site Cleanup Plan Fact Sheet. Available at
https://semspub.epa.aov/work/03/2312274.pdf
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
12
-------
the case, a groundwater extraction system may not be required during ISTR for hydraulic
control, resulting in the cost savings. The ISTR treatment alternative is preferred because
it is expected to permanently treat the greatest amount of TCE in the shortest amount of
time, and has the potential to remove some PFAS while doing so. ORD's third-party review
of ISTR ensured that the Regional staff had the information they needed to best evaluate
potential treatment alternatives for the site.
3.2 Site Assessment Support and Site Characterization Innovations
ORD GWTSC provided critical support at Superfund sites in FY 2020 by coordinating with
the Groundwater Characterization and Remediation Division, Subsurface Remediation
Branch (GCRD/SRB) to obtain specialized laboratory analytical services including inorganic
isotope and rare earth element analysis, as well as providing technical expertise on
document reviews and in meetings. This section highlights key support provided to a
mining site, former industrial sites, and a petroleum refinery in FY 2020.
Rare Earth Element and Isotope Analysis
Site: Captain Jack Mill
Location: Region 8, Colorado
Challenge: Site remedy optimization for an emergency response effort
Center Support: GWTSC
The Captain Jack Mill site located in the headwaters of upper Left Hand Creek in Boulder
County, Colorado was the site of gold and silver mining between 1860 and 1992. Historic
mining operations and the resulting acid mine drainage (see Figure 3-5, next page) have
contaminated soil and surface water with metals and other hazardous chemicals. In
addition to the complex contamination, the site is in an alpine environment with steep
terrain, a lack of utilities, and mixed ownership. The site was listed on the NPL in 2003
due to heavy metals loading to the Left Hand Creek watershed. The long-term remedy
was selected in 2008 and updated in 2011 and includes two components to address
surface and subsurface contamination sources, respectively.8 Cleanup activities are
ongoing.
The long-term remedy as designed was intended to raise the mine water pH to aid in the
precipitation of metals. The treatment system needed optimization, this was not apparent
until a release and a fish-kill occurred in October 2018 in Lefthand Creek. EPA's removal
program responded, temporarily shutting-down the in-situ treatment system, pumping
down the mine pool, and treating the mine water through a temporary and costly ex-situ
treatment system. Monitoring data at the time did not indicate the need for system
8 Weber et al., 2019. Captain Jack Mill Superfund Site: Pre-Design Investigation and Subsurface Remedy Design Concept.
Available online at https://clu-in.ora/download/issues/minina/Hard Rock/Tuesdav April 3/Case Studies/02 Weber.pdf.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
13
-------
performance optimization, however, the release demonstrated a need to optimize both the
treatment system performance and the sampling methods used.
Starting in FY2019 through FY2020, at the request of Region 8, ORD provided support for
on-site remedy and sampling method optimization efforts. Optimization reviews typically
offer recommendations for remedy improvements related to decreased costs and time of
operation.9
As part of the optimization efforts, ORD
installed a high density network of
stream logger/sensors to monitor surface
water temperature and conductivity
trends. These sensors were used to look
for changes in temperature and
conductivity trends indicative of
groundwater/surface water interactions
resulting from optimization of the in situ
remedy at the Big Five Tunnel and
potential impacts to the nearby mine
pool. In addition, critical insights into
interactions of mine pools, impacted
groundwater, and surface water were
determined using rare earth elements
and isotopes of oxygen, hydrogen, and
sulfur in conjunction with tracer tests and
temperature profiling. The data collected
coupled with U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) geochemical modeling were used
to understand the metals loading potential from the salts that coated the mine workings
and the impacts from raising/lowering the mine pool due to the interaction with those
salts.
ORD analytical services and field technical support provided direct site assistance to
improve remedy performance and optimize monitoring strategies at the Captain Jack Mill
Superfund Site. ORD technical support and the optimization effort allowed the Superfund
team to discontinue operation of a costly ex-situ temporary treatment system and resume
operation of the Big 5 tunnel in-situ remedy. The resulting geochemical modeling, surface
water logger networks, and use of multilevel sampling within existing monitoring wells
offer better predictions and monitoring strategies to closely watch remedy performance
and limit conditions that may result in a discharge and need for costly temporary
treatment.
Figure 3-5. Captain Jack Mill, Colorado.
The Big Five Tunnel at the Captain Jack Mill site was
determined to be a source of acid mine drainage.
Source: Weber et al., 2019s
9 EPA, totps://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup-optimization-superfund-sites.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
14
-------
I Exposure Point Concentration Estimation for Groundwater
Discharge
Site: L.A. Clarke & Son
Location: Region 3, Virginia
Challenge: Technical review of a methodology to estimate exposure point concentrations
associated with groundwater contamination
Center Support: GWTSC
The 44-acre L.A. Clarke & Son site in Spotsylvania County, Virginia was home to wood
preservation operations from 1937 to 1988. L.A. Clarke & Son operated the facility from
1937 until 1980 when the facility was sold to the Curtas family who operated the facility
until closure in 1988. During operations, railroad ties, telephone poles, and fence posts
were preserved by injecting them with a mixture of creosote and coal tar, resulting in
contamination of site surface soils and sediment with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) and benzene. Figure 3-6 illustrates the former facility's boundary and operations.
The EPA listed the site on the NPL in 1986; in 1988 the EPA issued a ROD to address
surface soil contamination and sediments. This site is on the EPA Administrator's
Emphasis List for immediate and intense action and the current owners have entered into
an agreement with the EPA to clean up the site under the EPA's oversight.10
Assessment and remedial activities have been ongoing since the late 1980s/1990s. In
2012, groundwater contamination, including DNAPLs, was identified on the south side of
Massaponax Creek. In 2015, the EPA determined that the previous human health and
ecological risk assessments had to be revised to properly evaluate all site-related
contaminants, and that groundwater monitoring is necessary at a minimum of four times
per year to understand seasonal variations. The EPA, in coordination with the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality, is overseeing the property owner's investigations
and studies leading to cleanup actions. The sixth FYR, completed in 2020, concludes the
remedy for operable unit (OU) 1 (addresses site security with fencing and signage), OU2
(addresses decontamination and demolition at the site), and OU4 (addresses treatment
and disposal of contaminated surface soil and sediment upland of Massaponax Creek) at
the site are protective of human health and the environment. While the remedy at OU4
protects human health, it has not adequately reduced surface soil contamination to meet
ecologically protective levels and there is an exposure pathway for ecological receptors.11
The FYR does not cover OU5, which addresses contaminants in groundwater and
downgradient sediments from the site. The contaminants, such as DNAPL, are present and
10 US EPA. 2021. L.A. Clarke & Son Spotsylvania, VA. Available at
https://cumulis.epa.aov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.Cleanup&id=0302542.
11 EPA, 2020. Sixth Five-Year Review Report for L.A. Clarke & Son Superfund Site, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Available at
https://semspub.epa.aov/work/03/2306148.pdf.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
-------
may be mobile in the soils below the process area, the former surface impoundment, and
the floodplain area of Massaponax Creek.
300
630
iJaunSma- fcav. t .TXfttmKJatMi Ottl srmer AND Atuts. t-u*f
Arinincwft UNSP-Vt'CiitC
CNf SMOftM DS, tJ.'i/JA. iJ.'iti-'i AmraCfmtJ. iryv. CW IMr
C^arrvnixii^ POtS fVPT unri In* 76 fH AvtfmkAvi £wgrj l
-------
I Chromium Source Evaluation
Site: RCRA Facility
Location: Region 2
Challenge: Evaluate extraneous sources of chromium to ensure representative
groundwater samples are collected
Center Support: GWTSC
Region 2 requested ORD's technical support on issues relating to the use of wells with
stainless steel construction for post-remediation groundwater monitoring at a RCRA
permitted facility. Stainless steel is known to corrode in chloride-rich solutions and with
increasing chloride-to-sulfate mass ratios, the potential for galvanic corrosion of well-
construction components increases. Stainless steel screens at this site were implicated as
the source of chromium (see Figure 3-7).
Technical input was requested by the Region
on possible methodologies that could be
adopted to eliminate extraneous sources of
chromium from the stainless wells to
maintain elements of the current sampling
network. The GWTSC provided suggestions
for minimizing detections of metals from
these wells. If implemented, these
suggestions would enable the facility to
continue using the existing stainless steel
monitoring wells and prevent the need to
install new monitoring wells at the site.
Region 2 also requested ORD's technical
support relating to updating the interim
vapor intrusion goals. Specifically, ORD
reviewed and commented on input and
output values submitted on behalf of the
facility to update the facility's existing vapor
intrusion model calculations. ORD also
provided suggestions regarding additional models that might be appropriate for sites such
as this one, which are contaminated with petroleum constituents.
Figure 3-7 Groundwater
Contamination, RCRA Facility in
Region 2.
Salinity-induced corrosion of stainless steel wells can
result in corrosion products such as chromium, nickel,
and iron. Source: EPA, 2020
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
17
-------
I Assessment of Creosote Waste Biodegradation
Site: Quendall Terminals
Location: Region 10, Washington
Challenge: Creosote waste remediation at a large waterfront site
Center Support: GWTSC
Quendall Terminals, a waterfront parcel next to Seattle's football stadium, is on the
Superfund Task Force's 2017 list of Superfund Redevelopment Opportunity Sites. The
facility manufactured creosote from 1916 to 1969 on the southeastern shore of Lake
Washington (see Figure 3-8, next page). Coal and oil-gas tar residues were distilled into
three fractions that were shipped off-site or sent to the neighboring facility for use in
wood treatment operations. The site was used to store crude oil, waste oil, and diesel
from 1969 to 1983; and used as a log-sorting and storage yard from 1975 to 2009. It is
currently vacant.
Contamination from the coal tars and distillate products from transport, production,
storage, and disposal has been identified in DNAPLform in the uplands (consisting of 22
acres and nearly 1,500 feet of Lake Washington shoreline) and the sediments on the lake
bottom. The EPA has defined the oil and sediment containing DNAPL as the principal
threat wastes. Off-site contamination covers approximately 29 acres of Lake Washington.
The DNAPL in soil and sediments is leaching into the groundwater and spreading to nearby
lake sediments where people and aquatic life may be exposed. Two of the Responsible
Parties for the site, Altino Properties and J. H. Baxter & Company, conducted an RI/FS in
2012 to better understand the type and amount of contamination and to develop a
cleanup plan.
The EPA finalized the cleanup plan, inclusive of public comments, in July 2020. Region 10
requested GWTSC support in FY 2020 to assist with reviewing the potential for the
biodegradation of creosote wastes and other remediation technologies. ORD reviewed the
draft work plan's pre-RD for the site, which proposed to use TarGOST, a direct push
characterization technology designed for delineating DNAPL found at creosote sites.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
18
-------
Figure 3-8. Quendall Terminals Site,
Washington.
Aerial view and site boundary of the Quendall
Terminals Superfund Site in Washington.
Source: EPA, 201912
One goal of comparing the calibrated
TarGOST responses to measured
concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbon
range orgariics is to determine whether
there is an adequate concentration of
hydrocarbons to support using Self-
sustaining Treatment for Active
Remediation (STAR) technology. It was
recommended that the calibrated
TarGOST response be compared to
petroleum hydrocarbon in the range of
diesel range organics (DRO) and residual
range organics (RRO) to determine a
TarGOST response above which the
measured pH in sediment in the range of
DRO and RRO would support combustion.
To evaluate biodegradation of benzene
and naphthalene, it was recommended
that two separate groups of Bio-Trap
passive samplers be prepared: one group
constructed with 13c-labeled benzene and
the second group constructed with 13c-
labeled naphthalene. The Bio-Trap
passive samplers constructed with 13c-
labeled benzene were directed to be
installed in one set of wells, and the
samplers constructed with 13c-labeled
naphthalene installed in a different set of
wells.
ORD's input allowed the PRP's consultant
to modify the draft work plan's pre-RD to
ensure the collection of additional site
characterization data, thus improving the
prospect of fully remediating the site.
12 EPA, 2019. Community Involvement Plan Quendall Terminals Superfund Site. September 2019. Available at
https://semspub.epa.QOv/work/10/100171237.pdf.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
19
-------
3.3 Remedy Evaluation and Innovations
As remedial technologies evolve and change over time, so does the overall strategy for
site cleanup. The TSCD applies its combined expertise to provide up-to-date knowledge on
the latest technologies for soil, sediment, and groundwater remediation. Independent
evaluations are paramount to improve remedial strategies and ensure remedial goals are
achieved. The TSCD's consultations covered various sites in FY 2020 related to optimizing
existing remediation systems and supporting the selection of successful remedial
strategies.
Evaluation of Thermal Treatment Remedial Design
Site: Cidra Ground Water Contamination Superfund Site
Location: Region 2, Puerto Rico
Challenge: Assess the thermal treatment design for a hydrogeologically complex site
Center Support: GWTSC
The site located in Cidra, Puerto Rico
includes four closed public drinking
water supply wells, a groundwater
plume contaminated with chlorinated
VOCs, an industrial facility, and a
former dry cleaner facility. The Puerto
Rico Department of Health ordered the
four public supply wells to be closed
due to contamination by
perchloroethylene (PCE). Cleanup
activities have been ongoing since
2002. Groundwater samples collected
from the four closed wells and 20 other
active and inactive wells in Cidra
confirmed PCE concentrations ranging
from 0.64 to 12 micrograms per liter
(pg/L); with the approximate extent of
contamination shown in Figure 3-9.
Related chlorinated solvents, including 1,1-dichloroethane, cis-l,2-dichloroethylene,
carbon tetrachloride, and TCE were also detected in groundwater samples collected from
the closed wells and nearby Zenith Laboratories' industrial supply wells. A RI/FS was
13 CDM Smith, n.d. Final Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Technical Memorandum, Cidra Groundwater
Contamination Site, Cidra, Puerto Rico, Available online at https://semspub.epa.aov/work/02/210460.pdf.
Figure 3-9. Cidra Groundwater
Contamination Superfund Site, Puerto
Rico.
The general location of the groundwater contamination in
the City of Cidra, Puerto Rico. Source: CDM Smith, n.d. 13
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
20
-------
conducted to determine the magnitude and extent of contamination, and to identify PRPs.
A ROD was signed in September 2014. The selected remedy addresses the soil and
groundwater contamination detected at the site protective of human health and the
environment. Soil contamination will be addressed at the dry cleaner site and industrial
property using soil vapor extraction, excavation, disposal, and containment. Groundwater
contamination under and downgradient of the industrial property will be addressed by
implementing an in situ treatment remedy to remove VOCs, coupled with long-term
monitoring. The EPA is currently developing three RDs (the industrial facility, the former
dry cleaner facility, and the groundwater) for the Cidra site; with one of them being
thermal treatment.
In FY 2020, GWTSC support was requested to review the Pre-Final (95%) Remedial
Design Specifications, Design Analysis Report, and Design Drawings for the Cidra
Groundwater Contamination Site. The GWTSC reviewer recommended additional
characterization to fully define the most highly contaminated area both horizontally and
vertically for thermal treatment, and to better determine the amount of groundwater
contained within the treatment zone. ORD's analysis ensured the Region's site
characterization process include the entire area requiring treatment considering
groundwater flow, not just the highly contaminated areas. This will help eliminate the
potential for recontamination of thermally treated areas from contaminated around but
not in the target thermal treatment zone.
I Modeling Radioactive Material Removal
Site: Westlake Landfill
Location: Region 7, Missouri
Challenge: Expert review of geostatistical modeling in support of a complex remedial design
for radioactive contamination
Center Support: SCMTSC
The Westlake Landfill Superfund site in Bridgeton, Missouri, is a former sanitary landfill
that closed in the 1970s. In 1973, approximately 38,000 tons of soil mixed with 8,700
tons of low-level radioactive material from the Manhattan Project referred to as "leached
barium sulfate" was brought to the landfill as clean fill material. This radiologically
impacted material (RIM) was used to cover compacted trash in two areas of Westlake
Landfill as part of routine operations. In 2008, the EPA issued a ROD for OU1 that called
for construction of an engineered landfill cover over the RIM. In response to community
requests to reconsider this approach and recommendations from the National Remedy
Review Board, the EPA required the PRPs to perform additional work to support
consideration of a full range of remedial alternatives at OU1, including leaving all the RIM
in place, partial excavation, and full excavation.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
21
-------
"SCMTSC's support was highly valuable
to the finalizatlon of the final Quality
Assurance Project Plan supporting the
Design Investigation and in particular
the development of statistically based
data quality objectives."
Tom Mahler, Region 7 Superfund and
Emergency Management Division
On September 27, 2018, a Record of
Decision Amendment (RODA) for OU1 was
signed by Acting Administrator Wheeler.
This RODA changed the remedy for OU1
from leaving all RIM in place and
construction of an engineered cover to
one that requires partial excavation of the
RIM with off-site disposal and construction
of an engineered cover system. The
selected remedy requires achieving the
necessary amount of radioactivity removal
while minimizing the amount of excavation required to do so through use of a
geostatistical model. The design of both the excavation and the cover system that will be
placed over the RIM that will remain at the site following excavation requires collection of
significant additional information.
EPA Region 7 requested support from the SCMTSC during review of the Preliminary
Excavation Plan, which included an updated 3-D Geostatistical Model of estimated
radiological contamination at the site. SCMTSC assisted Region 7 with review of the PRP's
updated model and the proposed modeling objectives that would be used to identify
excavation locations to potentially achieve the requirements in the RODA. SCMTSC
support continued with the review of the PRPs' Design Investigation Workplan and the
associated proposed data quality objectives. A primary objective of the design
investigation is to obtain additional data to improve the 3-D geostatistical model. The
PRPs also proposed to use the preliminary model as a tool to identify field sampling
locations based on modeling uncertainty and RODA excavation requirements.
The SCMTSC provided expert technical knowledge in geostatistics, environmental
sampling, and data QA to support Region 7 in developing scientifically sound feedback on
this complex RD project. Specifically, SCMTSC support resulted in the development of an
alternative approach to considering model uncertainty for the selection of sampling
locations more aligned with the objectives of the RODA. This approach was also
amendable to the development of data quality objectives in the QAPP. For example, one of
the goals of the design investigation was to decrease the model standard deviations to
thresholds based on Type I and Type II error limits (see example in Table 3-2).
Table 3-2. Westlake Landfill Model Example Parameters.
Probability of RIM
SD to Warrant Sampling
Type 1 Error (aa)
Type II Error (/?/?)
0.45
0.03
0.05
0.50
0.4
0.06
0.05
0.50
0.3
0.12
0.05
0.50
0.2
0.18
0.05
0.50
0.1
0.24
0.05
0.50
* Provided as an example and does not reflect the actual error limits selected for the project. RIM = radiologically impacted
material; SD = standard deviation.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
22
-------
The design investigation sought to improve
correlations between gross gamma
measurements and specific radionuclide
contaminants (see example in Figure 3-10).
This is an alternative approach to sampling,
which was reflected in the data quality
objectives in the QAPP and was valuable to the
selection of an optimal gamma count range for
biased sampling.
Plans for the design investigation for the areas
containing RIM were approved by the EPA in
the fall of 2020. The field investigation began
immediately and will continue into 2021. The
design investigation includes drilling more
than 225 borings and collecting more than
2,000 laboratory samples. Information from
this investigation is vital to completing the RD of the remedy for this portion of the site,
including development of the geostatistical model.
Site Characterization and Remedy Performance Assessment
Site: Fort Devens
Location: Region 1, Massachusetts
Challenge: Remedy performance for containment and treatment of arsenic contamination in
groundwater
Center Support: ETSC and GWTSC
Shepley's Hill Landfill (SHL) encompasses approximately 84 acres in the northeast corner
of the former Main Post area of Fort Devens Army Installation in Massachusetts. The
landfill is bordered to the northeast by Plow Shop Pond (see Figure 3-11, next page), to
the west by Shepley's Hill, to the south by a commercial development, and to the east by
a former railroad roundhouse. Plow Shop Pond discharges to Nonacoicus Brook, which is
located north of the landfill in the North Impact Area. Due to continued detection of site
contaminants exceeding cleanup goals and realization that cleanup goals would not be
attained within the timeframe specified in the ROD, the U.S. Army constructed and
implemented a groundwater extraction and treatment system in March 2006 along the
northern edge of the landfill. A vertical barrier wall was installed along the east portion of
the landfill as part of a 2012 Non-Time Critical Removal Action (NTCRA) to mitigate the
migration of arsenic-contaminated groundwater to Red Cove/Plow Shop Pond.
Figure 3-10. Westlake Landfill
Simulated Regression of Gamma
Counts and Radium.
Source: EPA, 2020
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
23
-------
Figure 3-11. Fort Devens Site, Massachusetts.
Plow Shop Pond dewatering equipment at the Fort Devens Site in Massachusetts. Source: EPA, n.d.14
In response to concerns raised in the 2015 Fort Devens FYR, supplemental investigations
are underway to evaluate the effectiveness of the SHL remedy, specifically the ability of
the groundwater extraction and treatment system to contain arsenic-contaminated SHL
groundwater at the base boundary, achieve cleanup goals, and ensure long-term
protection of human health and the environment.
ORD has supported the Region's work at Fort Devens for a number of years. For the most
recent request for technical support, Region 1 requested ORD to provide a technical
review of the adequacy of site characterization efforts and remedy performance
assessment for containment and treatment of arsenic contamination in the groundwater.
The GWTSC and ETSC provided technical reviews of both the 2019 Annual Operations,
Maintenance>, and Monitoring Report and the 2020 FYR with a focus on assessment of
interim remedy performance for containment and treatment of the arsenic contaminant
plume in the groundwater. Review comments on the performance monitoring parameters
and locations for sample collection were provided to the Region to ensure better site
characterization of the plume's location and movement. ORD also recommended increased
pumping rates to ensure contaminant capture; but the rates were limited due to the
existing treatment system's capacity. The ETSC also provided a review of a pilot study
test plan to evaluate a proposed pilot test of a Lamella Gravity Settler and a DynaSand
Filter at the site's arsenic treatment plant. The purpose of the pilot test technical review
was to determine whether the equipment can be used to effectively replace the existing
microfilter system for treatment of arsenic-contaminated discharge from the groundwater
extraction system installed at the northern end of the landfill. If successful, the new units
would also increase the system's treatment capacity thereby allowing increased
groundwater pumping rates and better plume capture.
14 EPA, n.d. Fort Devens, MA. Available online at
https://cumulis.epa.aov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.photovideoaudio&id=0100966.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
24
-------
I Evaluation of Monitored Natural Attenuation
Site: Chem-Dyne
Location: Region 5, Ohio
Challenge: MNA of soil, groundwater, and surface water contamination
Center Support: GWTSC
The 10-acre Chem-Dyne site was used for storage and processing of chemical wastes
including waste oils, plastics, and resins. More than 30,000 drums of waste and 300,000
gallons of bulk waste materials were stored on site that resulted in soil, groundwater, and
surface water contamination.
For nearly three decades, ORD's GWTSC
has provided as-needed technical support to
multiple Region 5 RPMs for the Chem-Dyne
site (see Figure 3-12). The most recent
request for technical support involved an
evaluation of monitored natural attenuation
(MNA) following decades of groundwater
extraction and treatment (GET) and soil
vapor extraction (SVE). GWTSC provided
expertise related to subsurface
bioremediation and hydrogeologic processes
to evaluate results of the MNA pilot test.
The technical review concluded that
mechanisms of natural attenuation (e.g.,
biological degradation, dispersion, and
dilution) are decreasing contaminant
concentrations, such that the 100 pg/L total VOC goal has been met in most sampling
locations at the site. The primary exception is an off-site location where elevated
concentrations continue to be observed. Concentrations of dissolved contaminants are
decreasing, and the trends are expected to continue. The time projections by the PRPs for
meeting site goals appear optimistic, yet reasonable, given the relatively high uncertainty
associated with such projections. ORD recommended and concurred with the Region's
assessment that MNA with performance monitoring be continued and suggested an
appropriate contingency plan be put in place, should conditions at the site change
significantly.
15 EPA Region 5, 2008. Reuse Assessment Report: Chem-Dyne Superfund Site. Prepared for EPA Region 5 by E2, Inc.
Available online at https://semspub.epa.gov/work/05/633172.pdf.
Figure 3-12. Chem-Dyne Site, Ohio.
Monitoring wells and treatment facility (far-right) at
the Chem-Dyne Site in Ohio. Source: EPA, 200815
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
25
-------
3.4 Characterization and Remediation Innovations at Mining Sites
Legacy contamination from mining activities is complex due to the expansive nature of the
contamination both temporally and spatially, the variety of contaminants, and the
continuous source of acid mine drainage. Thousands of abandoned mining sites exist in
the United States, requiring a significant and long-term investment by the EPA and state
agencies. The TSCD provided a range of innovative and cross-cutting services to help
RPMs understand site characterization and develop reliable remediation solutions at more
than 20 mines in the past five years (see Figure 3-13). Four support projects are
highlighted in this section, covering the application of innovative technologies, passive
treatment strategies, watershed-based monitoring and modeling, and targeted advice for
selenium removal from a pilot water treatment plant.
Midnite Mine
Formosa Mi
Leviathan Mine
Ur
anium Mill
R9
#
Navajo Nation
AUM District
Washington County LA
Lead District
Richwoods
Potosi
Furnace Creek
Elizabeth Mine
Big River Tailings /
St. Joe Minerals
Corp.
First Piedmont
Corp.
Madison County
Mines
Figure 3-13. National Distribution of ORD Support at Mining Sites.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
26
-------
I Evaluation of Monitored Natural Attenuation
Site: Bonita Peak Mining District
Location: Region 8, Colorado
Challenge: Characterization of groundwater and surface water interactions and metals
loading to surface water in a large, diverse mining district
Center Support: SCMTSC and GWTSC
The Bonita Peak Mining District in San Juan County, Colorado consists of 48 historic mines
or mining-related sources with ongoing release of metal-laden water and sediments
occurring within the Mineral Creek, Cement Creek, and Upper Animas River drainage
areas. Various remedial activities have been performed since 2005. This site is on the EPA
Administrator's Emphasis List for immediate and intense action. ORD has supported
characterization and RI activities at the Bonita Peak Mining District for several years. For
example, both the SCMTSC and the GWTSC provided investigation input and sample
analysis for mine water (trace metals, rare earth elements, and lead isotopes) and
leadership on the project team to understand mine water geochemistry.
In FY 2020, ORD efforts in support of RI activities at the Bonita Peak Mining District
included deploying innovative technologies like fiber optic distributed temperature sensing
(FO-DTS); in-stream loggers for conductivity, temperature, and pH; and thermal imaging;
along with ORD specialty analytical services, geophysics, and data analysis from SCMTSC
and GWTSC.
Region 8 requested isotopic and tracer analysis support to better understand shallow and
deep groundwater flow paths and how they relate to contaminant transport and surface
water and/or groundwater interactions. Isotopic analysis helps to identify source rock
materials for groundwater sources, age-date source water, and allows for the
consideration of mixing zones in relation to mine features and surface water expression.
The assessment identified key areas of seeps, springs, and areas of shallow groundwater
or surface runoff likely contributing to increased metals loading to the Upper Cement
Creek and the West Fork of the Animas River.
ORD personnel also performed geophysical surveys on each stream bank providing
resistivity and magnetic susceptibility results for shallow subsurface materials and
groundwater flows and worked on a Region 8 Regional State Technology Innovation
Project (RSTIP) entitled Temperature and Conductivity Profiting in Mine Impacted Surface
Water. The project deployed a dense network of FO-DTSs that can continuously provide
accurate water quality measurements with high spatial resolution to improve remediation
efforts. Best sampling and monitoring practices were captured and shared with key
partners to improve strategies and lower costs associated with these mitigation efforts.
The geophysical data was integrated by ORD to GIS layers for Region 8 analysis. Field
work was conducted in August and September of 2019 and a presentation of the results
was delivered to Region 8 in March 2020 (see Figure 3-14).
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
27
-------
II ransition to Successful Passive Treatment
Site: Elizabeth Mine
Location: Region 1, Vermont
Challenge: Assessment and implementation of strategies promoting a more sustainable
and cost-effective passive treatment option
Center Support: ETSC
Historical mining at the Elizabeth Mine in Stratford, Vermont generated mine waste piles
that created mining-influenced water and resulted in the contamination of more than five
waterways (see Figure 3-15, next page). Extensive work has been completed to clean up
the sources of acidity and metals contamination since being listed on the NPL in 2001,
including consolidation and capping of the waste piles and treatment of the leachate from
the tailings pile using active lime treatment with the Rotating Cylinder Treatment System
(RCTS) as an interim treatment from 2008 through 2018. The RCTS was found to be more
efficient than a traditional lime treatment plant. ETSC and the Region's RPM evaluated
nine years' worth of operating data for the site's active treatment plant, culminating in the
technical report entitled Evaluation of Rotating Cylinder Treatment System ™ at Elizabeth
Mine, Vermont.16
16 Butler, B. A. and E. Hathaway, 2020. Evaluation of Rotating Cylinder Treatment System™ at Elizabeth Mine, Vermont. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/194.
Using rare earth elements and isotopes of oxygen, hydrogen, and sulfur, in conjunction
with tracer tests, geophysical surveys, and temperature profiling continues to provide
critical insights into interactions of mine pools, impacted groundwater, and surface water.
The data collected from these studies will assist the project team as they consider metals
loading assessments and potential targeted actions at specific locations within the
watershed. Region 8 has since used similar technologies at the Captain Jack Mill site.
Figure 3-14. Bonita Peak Mining District Seeps, Colorado.
Seep locations identified from fiber optic distributed temperature sensing and results of resistivity/magnetic
susceptibility along the Upper Cement Creek at the Bonita Peak Mining District. Source: EPA, 2019
j ECa (uS/cm)
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
28
-------
Figure 3-15. Elizabeth Mine Site, Vermont.
Aerial imagery of a local waterway impacted by mining-influenced water from mine waste piles at the Elizabeth
Mine site in Vermont before (left) and after (right) implementing the RCTS. Source: EPA, n.d.
The reduction in contamination load
as concentrations and flows
decreased from the tailings facility
due to the source control actions
made it possible for passive
treatment to be a viable long-term
treatment option in lieu of the
RCTS. The passive system is a
green and more sustainable
remediation that uses natural
systems (in this case, limestone
dissolution, biochemical reactions,
"One of the most important aspects of the
Region-ORD [ETSC] partnership in 2020
was the final realization of all the good
technical support as evidenced by the
RCTS™ technical report being published ...
and key insights on the passive system
that led to treatment resiliency and
improved monitoring."
Ed Hathaway, Region 1, Elizabeth Mine Site
RPM
physical settling, and physical
aeration) and gravity flow to eliminate the need for power and reduce maintenance costs
resulting in an outcome more acceptable to the State of Vermont, which is responsible for
the long-term operation. A treatment system design was chosen based on pilot testing
results and input from ETSC, whose review of the pilot system data led to the addition of
a vertical flow pond to the overall system, sampling recommendations (where to sample
and what to sample for). The final design consisted of an anoxic limestone drain, vertical
flow pond, aerobic wetlands, and a settling pond. Construction occurred in 2018 and 2019
and it became fully operational by June 2020.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
29
-------
ETSC continues to provide technical assistance at the site by evaluating monitoring data
to ensure the system is operating as designed and providing recommendations for
improvement as needed. Long-term assessment of the passive treatment system at
Elizabeth Mine will provide valuable insight into the operational parameters in cold
climates and serve as a case study for understanding performance and potential
applicability of passive treatment systems in similar climates.
I Assessment of Proposed Remedial Modifications
Site: Smoky Canyon Mine, Southeast Idaho Selenium Project
Location: Region 10, Idaho
Challenge: Selenium-impacted ground water at a remote phosphate mine
Center Support: ETSC
The Southeast Idaho Selenium Project consists of several thousand acres, native lands,
and water sources such as the Blackfoot Tribe's reservoir, and 15 phosphate mines in the
southeastern corner of Idaho (see Figure 3-16, next page). Waste rock dumps and open
pits from historical mining operations are prevalent across the region and are conduits for
transporting contaminants such as selenium, which is naturally occurring in the bedrock.17
While selenium is an essential nutrient in small doses, it can cause adverse effects in
humans and animals at high doses. Beginning in 1996, isolated livestock deaths
associated with excessive selenium intake in the area prompted concerns and site
investigations.18 Cleanup activities are ongoing at the mines with oversight from the EPA,
U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ), Bureau
of Land Management, Shoshone-Bannock Tribe, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
agencies.
ORD's experts were asked by the Region 10 RPM in May 2020 to focus on two critical
issues related to the Smoky Canyon Mine—a proposed modification to a pilot water
treatment plant and a proposed evapotranspiration (ET) cover for existing mine tailings.
ETSC conducted a technical review of a proposed modification to the pilot water treatment
plant to include iron coprecipitation to help remove selenium from the treatment plant's
discharge. The proposed modification included the use of ultra-filtration/reverse osmosis
and biological selenium removal using a fluidized bed bioreactor treatment technology.
ORD's staff recommended additional treatment considerations for improved removal of
17 IDEQ, EPA, and USFS, 2017. Update: Phosphate Mine Site Investigations and Cleanup in Southeast Idaho: Southeast
Idaho Selenium Project. October 2017. Available at https://semspub.epa.aov/work/10/100072714.pdf.
18 USDA, 2017. Engineering Evaluation / Cost Analysis Report: Smoky Canyon Mine. Available at
https://www.fs.usda.aov/lnternet/FSE DOCUMENTS/fsm8 047325.pdf.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
30
-------
selenium and provided operational considerations for the Region to include in their follow-
up with the facility.
G*y Mine
jyL
^ i
r-'
t
v
I
j
J
L
1
EEEE33
\
ty
-'S
AREA OF
WttftfST
SOit«
_n_
namawa
EriDcn Valla? Mine
\ Soulti and Contra I
Honry Mine
/fin
*^3o-ulli RaimutMn Mint
/ / Raimuaaen Ridge Mines
/
Ballard Mine
>
Dry V*li*y
Hins
Nsfth Maybe Min«
1 IS
m
Con da Mint
8cnla
SjflrlnfP
r
Champ Mln» ^
Soulh Maybe Mine
Smejty
Canyon
Mine
r\\ I'-tJH
Mountain fu«l Mine
A
A
G-rorgitown
Canyon Mine '
nganma
Mf*rtpdl«
©
J'vtlsa
4
Figure 3-16. Smoky Canyon Mine Site, Idaho.
Phosphate mines (shaded in green) included in the Southeast Idaho Selenium Project. Smoky Canyon Mine is in
the center, far-right portion of this map. Source: IDEQ. et a!., 2Q1717
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
31
-------
The Regional RPM also needed insight on the mine owner's proposed ET cover system for
the existing mine tailings, which would use vegetative cover consistent with dominant
land ecology in the area. ORD recommended consideration of an alternative ET cover
using conifer trees that are native to the area. ORD reviewers provided supporting
research documentation of how other sites analyze water usage of coniferous forests in
the East and Midwest to assist with confirming that these trees are a suitable species for
an ET cover for the mine tailings at the site. The refined ET cover with conifer trees could
provide a more ecologically friendly design and have more long-term sustainability
compared to a vegetative ET cover.
I Identification of Best Management Practices and Optimization of a
Decision-Support Framework for Mining Waste
Site: Tri-State Mining District (TSMD)
Location: Regions 6 and 7 (Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma)
Challenge: Complex, multi-state and multi-site environmental cleanup resulting from mining
waste
Center Support: ETSC
In Regions 6 and 7, ORD scientists are supporting remediation decision making through
identifying best management cleanup practices in a contaminated watershed. The TSMD
in southeast Kansas, southwest Missouri, and northeast Oklahoma includes four NPL sites.
Parts of each of these NPL sites are in the Spring River Basin, a lead- and-zinc-mining
impacted watershed covering approximately 2,600 square miles (see Figure 3-17, next
page). In this watershed and nearby areas, mining wastes (also known as chat) that were
historically produced exceeded 100 million tons and are present in both surface piles and
residential/agricultural soils, underground mine workings with associated groundwater
contamination, and within streams and associated sediments.
To support regional and stakeholder decision making, ORD scientists are monitoring metal
and sediment transport in the watershed to identify best management practices (BMPs)
for remediation applicable to site-specific locations. Metal partitioning and speciation
evaluation will also assist with identifying areas where metals are more bioaccessible
and/or bioavailable. The goal of this support is to assess past, current, and proposed
future remediation efforts to assist with reducing metals concentrations in the TSMD
watershed.
To assist with the effective and efficient reduction of metals concentrations over time,
ORD scientists are evaluating the fate and transport of dissolved and suspended
sediment-bound contaminants, monitoring water and bed sediment chemistry data over
time, and using comprehensive datasets to evaluate whether contamination is decreasing,
increasing, or at a steady state. These data are used to optimize BMPs considered for
inclusion in a potential site-specific "tool box" of applicable stormwater treatment BMPs.
This conceptual water treatment tool box, would be created to categorize the
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
32
-------
contaminated media to be treated, identify site-specific BMPs, and provide justifications
for their use.
Legend
Center Cri?ok
—
Spring Riv«f
—
Cow Creek
—
Shawns* Creek
«—
Shoal Crook
,—,
Short Cfftek
—.
Turkey Creek
0
Sample Sites
Figure 3-17. Spring River Watershed Basin.
TSMD sediment impacts in the Spring River Watershed extending into southeast Kansas, southwest Missouri,
and northeast Oklahoma, Source: Al-Abed et al., 201619
The BMPs for a conceptual the location-specific tool box would then be optimized using a
comprehensive decision-support framework called the Watershed Analysis Risk
Management Framework (WARMF)20 in conjunction with ArcGIS. The WARMF is a model
that incorporates climate, surface properties, soil properties, and land use and implements
artificial intelligence methods for fate and transport of contaminants to evaluate the
impact of different BMP scenarios. WARMF offers the Regions an opportunity to evaluate
different site-specific treatment scenarios to determine the most efficient and effective
remediation options for individual stream segments as well as the overall watershed
within this large-scale, complex mining area.
19 Al-Abed, S. et al. 2016. Tri-State Mining District Modeling, Technical and Decision Support. Poster. Sustainable and Healthy
Communities. Available online at https://vvww.epa.aov/sites/production/files/2016-11/documents/tsmd bosc final.pdf.
® The Watershed Analysis Risk Management Framework (WARMF) is maintained by Systech Water Resources and is
available in the public domain. See www.svstechwater.com for the model documentation and a free copy of the WARMF
software.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
33
-------
3.5 Preventing Adverse Human Health and Ecological Risk Impacts
The state-of-the-science to assess current and possible future risks and determine a safe
level for potentially dangerous contaminants to human health and the environment
continues to evolve. TSCD experts provide an in-depth understanding of chemical
constituents most likely to drive human health and ecological risks and how to incorporate
these findings into the various cleanup stages. Three projects are highlighted for FY 2020,
two addressing human health risks, and one focused on new results and trends of
contaminants in seafood tissue.
Human Health Risk Assessment Support
Site: Tittabawassee, Chippewa River, and Saginaw Bay
Location: Region 5, Michigan
Challenge: Interpretation and evaluation of the probabilistic components of human health
risk assessment
Center Support: STSC
This 1,900-acre facility operated by Dow Chemical Company since 1897 abuts the
Tittabawassee River south of Midland, Michigan. More than 1,000 different organic and
inorganic chemicals have been manufactured by the Midland Plant since the early 1900s.
Past waste disposal practices, such as discharging liquid wastes directly into the
Tittabawassee River, have resulted in on- and off-site contamination of some sediment,
river banks, and floodplain areas extending more than 50 miles downstream from the site
in the Tittabawassee and Saginaw Rivers and into Saginaw Bay. Dioxin, a by-product of
the manufacture of chlorine-based products, has been found at elevated levels in the river
sediment and floodplain and is the primary risk driver.
EPA-selected cleanups, implemented by Dow Chemical, have been underway for several
years (see photos of cleanup activities in Figure 3-18, next page). In FY 2020, Region 5
requested ORD technical support on the review of a Post-Construction Human Health Risk
Assessment (HHRA) of Segments 1 through 7 along the Tittabawassee River developed by
Dow Chemical for the site.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
34
-------
Figure 3-13. Tittabawassee, Chippewa River, and Saginaw Bay Site, Michigan.
Cleanup activities at Segment 3 of the Tittabawassee, Chippewa River, and Saginaw Bay Superfund Site included
bank stabilization, floodplain soil removal, and preparation work to remove contaminated sediment.
Source: EPA, n.d.
The HHRA assesses the residual risk at 650 properties with 800 decision units across the
24-mile lower Tittabawassee River and the 4,500-acre floodplain. The STSC reviewed the
HHRA documents to assess human health risks at the site following the cleanup of more
than over 290,000 cubic yards of soil, and remediation of 18 sediment deposits, 33 river
banks, and approximately 100 floodplain areas. The STSC reviewed the HHRA documents
and aided the Region with interpreting and evaluating the probabilistic components of the
assessment and their potential impact on the site. The STSC recommended the following;
¦ Additional discussion and justification be provided to support the rationale for the
selected floodplain
¦ A sensitivity analysis be conducted on the entire soil model to better articulate the
predicated exposures
A simple mathematical model (e.g., a deterministic or stochastic model) be developed to
better articulate and justify conclusions presented in the probabilistic portion of the risk
assessment. Support provided by STSC will help to inform ongoing remedial actions at
this Superfund site. Assistance provided to EPA Region 5 provided additional context to
clarify short-term and long-term remedial action objectives and to assess the residual
risks posed to public health at the site following the conclusion of cleanup activities along
the Tittabawassee Floodplain.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
35
-------
IFire Risk Mercury Exposure Simulations
Site: Vo-Toys Former GE/RCA Facility
Location: Region 2, New Jersey
Challenge: Understand how nearby communities may be exposed to mercury from building
combustion
Center Support: SCMTSC and ETSC
The Vo-Toys site is a former industrial complex in Harrison, New Jersey, dating from the
early 1900s, where several companies used elemental mercury in their manufacturing
processes. The site footprint consists of three large vacant industrial buildings that occupy
a full city block, surrounded by a heavily populated, urban residential community. The
complex was slated for residential redevelopment when high levels of mercury were
discovered within the buildings. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
asked EPA Region 2 to evaluate the Vo-Toys site for a removal action, a time-critical
cleanup under the EPA's Superfund Program.
The Region 2 assessment focused on evaluating the threat of a potential mercury release
if one or all the buildings were to catch fire, a possible scenario considering the lack of
operational fire protection systems and large amount of combustible building material on
site. Starting in late FY 2017 and ending in early FY 2020, the Region requested support
from the SCMTSC and ETSC who collaborated in a two-phase approach (see Figure 3-19,
next page) to develop, refine, and interpret an ambient exposure model to simulate
releases during combustion to help determine potential risk from the site to neighboring
communities should a fire occur. The resulting model confirmed the potential for a release
of mercury vapor in the event of a building fire possibly reaching as far as New York City.
Supported by ORD and the model results, Region 2 assisted local officials and first
responders with emergency response planning for firefighting strategies, evacuation,
waste collection, and decontamination procedures. Extensive coordination efforts included
training local and state stakeholders on mercury characteristics, exposure hazards, health,
and safety options, and developing an emergency response contingency plan. Additionally,
comprehensive community outreach was performed, including holding multiple large
public meetings, distribution of fact sheets to over 400 residences, and door-to-door
visits. The modeling results greatly enhanced the team's ability to effectively
communicate the potential threat. In conjunction with the protective measures, the
Region was able to use the modeling to negotiate with the PRP to undertake a large-scale
removal action saving the EPA millions of dollars in remediation funds. Action is presently
underway to remove elemental mercury and contaminated building materials and
demolish impacted buildings while maintaining a continuous fire watch service at the site
until the removal action is completed.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
36
-------
Figure 3-19. Dispersion Modeling for the Vo-Toys Site, New Jersey.
ETSC worked with Region 2 to collect data for prediction of the amount of mercury in on-site buildings (left) and
then used this data to create air dispersion fate and transport models for different fire scenarios (right) at the
Vo-Toys site. Source: EPA, 2019
I Statistical Review of Seafood Tissue Data
Site; Lower Duwamish River (LDW)
Location: Region 10, Washington
Challenge: Changes in sampling methods over time required an in-depth review to confirm
whether statistical analyses and report findings were sound
Center Support: SCMTSC
The LDW Superfund site is a 5-mile segment of a major industrial corridor consisting of
Seattle's only river, the Duwamish. Various pathways—stormwater runoff, wastewater
discharges, and industrial practices—have resulted in contamination of the waterway's
sediments, adjacent soil, and groundwater from polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), arsenic,
carcinogenic PAHs (cPAHs), and dioxins and furans. Chemical contaminants have also
been found in fish and shellfish in the LDW to the extent that consumption of resident fish
and shellfish, and contact with contaminated sediments, pose a risk to human health.21
In 2017 and 2018, testing of sediment, water, and seafood was done to establish new
baseline conditions (see Figure 3-20, next page). The LDW Pre-Design Studies Data
Evaluation Report22 describes data collection and analysis of sediment, surface water,
seafood tissue, and porewater at the LDW site. The Region specifically requested
SCMTSC's review of the seafood tissue results included in this report to determine if there
were discernable changes from prior sampling events considering study design changes
21 EPA, 2021. Lower Duwamish Waterway, WA Cleanup activities. Available at
https://cumulis.epa.aov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.Cleanup&id=1002020#bkaround
22 The LDW Pre-Design Studies Data Evaluation Report is available at https://Idwq.orq/proiect-librarv/.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
37
-------
that have been made. Composite samples of two fish species (English sole and shiner
surfperch) and two crab species (Dungeness and Graceful Rock Crab) were collected in
2017, and composite samples of one clam species (Eastern softshell) were collected in
2018 and analyzed for human health risk drivers to establish baseline conditions. The
main study questions were to establish baseline 95 percent upper confidence levels
(95UCL) and mean tissue concentrations to compare to target tissue levels and to assess
trends following future sediment remediation, respectively.
SCMTSC conducted a detailed statistical review and recommended several improvements
to include confidence intervals, statistical significance, and variation of results over time.
These additional statistical analyses help the reader to determine if differences over time
are meaningful and significant. Relatedly, a trend analysis was also recommended to be
added to the report. Changes in the methodology (e.g., sampling area, fish per
composite, skin-on and/or skin-off) were identified as constraints to making valid
temporal conclusions on the PCB data. For example, data prior to 2003 used the skin-off
method while the skin-on method was used in later sampling events, making it difficult to
understand PCB behavior in the fish overtime. PCB data collected using the skin-on
method would be expected to have higher concentrations because PCBs are lipophilic, and
skin-on samples will have higher lipid content. For future analyses, the SCMTSC
recommended that skin-on data should be statistically compared only to other skin-on
data. All the additional statistical analyses recommended by SCMTSC were included in the
final report's statistical appendix.
Figure 3-20. Sample Collection at the LDW Site, Washington.
Collection and sorting of crab and fish at the LDW Superfund site. Individuals of target species were processed
for tissue chemical analysis. Source: EPA, 2017
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
38
-------
4. Superfund and Technology Liaison Research Program
The STLs are the primary ORD technical liaisons between each of the EPA's regional
offices and ORD staff on issues related to contaminated sites. STLs work to ensure that
contaminated-site practitioners in EPA have access to technical support that can help
them make scientifically defensible decisions during site assessment and cleanup. TSCD's
STLs also coordinate an applied research program created to address regional science
priorities. The STLR Program began in 2011 and provides ORD resources to address high-
priority, Superfund-related regional science needs. Supported projects have taken many
forms, including applied research, conferences, workshops, and trainings.
STLs lead the program solicitation in their Region and are substantially involved in the
projects awarded to their Region throughout the project life cycle. EPA Program Offices,
other federal agencies, states, local communities, and tribes are often included as
collaborators on STLR projects.
Provided below are select examples of recently completed and active STLR projects.
¦ Investigation of a Sustainable Approach to In Situ Remediation of
Arsenic-Impacted Groundwater
Region: 2
Status: Complete
Arsenic is a carcinogen that presents a serious threat to human health. Therefore, the
presence of arsenic in water and soil is of global concern. Despite the exponential rise in
scientific research, remediation of arsenic contamination in groundwater is mostly done
using ex situ methods, whereas more sustainable in situ methods often are not
considered. Assessment and successful in situ remediation of arsenic-contaminated sites
requires a rigorous understanding of the factors influencing arsenic transport and the
ability to predict the behavior of arsenic in soils and aquifer systems.
This STLR project was conducted at the arsenic-impacted Vineland Superfund Site in
Region 2. An optimization study conducted at the site in 2010 found that the current
system was unlikely to restore the aquifer within a reasonable time. The study listed
several recommendations designed to optimize or replace the pump and treat system,
including in situ remediation approaches to immobilize the arsenic. Subsequent work
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
39
-------
conducted by the Region showed that in situ air sparging had potential to address the
contaminated groundwater. The objectives of the STLR project were to further evaluate
this approach by studying the key processes controlling the arsenic immobilization
through specialized testing of aquifer sediment including scanning electron microscopy
(SEM), energy dispersive X-ray analysis (EDX), X-ray diffraction, X-ray absorption
spectroscopy, Raman spectroscopy, and inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry
(ICP-MS) analyses. Figure 4-1 shows results from SEM and EDX analyses for the arsenic-
contaminated soil and aquifer particles collected from the site.
[—1
As
~
Fe
n
Si
B
Al
0
ASB-1 27-28
SHI MAG; S20 a | , , , | | , , | VE&A3 IffcSCAl*
WM HW ?5.0 kV A5B1272*
Pertorraaflw « iwaosasce
J VtGAS It SCin
ASB-2 31-32
too-.
r
2C-
HjFe
¦ 5>
Ho
Figure 4-1. SEM Images (left) and EDX Maps (right) of Soil Samples from the
Vineland Site.
These images show that arsenic is closely associated with iron-rich coatings present on the aquifer particles.
Source: EPA, n.d.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
-------
The STLR research testing provided oxidation-state information for arsenic and iron, which
gave important insight on the mechanisms of arsenic uptake by the aquifer solids. Field
data showed that arsenic and iron concentrations were reduced from levels around 1,000
and 15,0000 pg/L to levels as low as 10 and 1,000 pg/L, respectively. Results from this
work can be used to optimize the design and operation of the full-scale air sparging
system at the site and provide guidance for the design of systems at sites with similar
conditions, including some mining sites. The results are published in the EPA report
Investigation of a Sustainable Approach to In-situ Remediation of Arsenic Impacted
Groundwater.23
Effectiveness of Using Field Portable XRF Analyzers on Arsenic-
Contaminated Soils
Region: 4
Status: Complete
This study aimed to improve CERCLA site X-
ray fluorescence (XRF) field procedures and
provide field decision makers more flexibility
and reliability when using XRF at arsenic-
contaminated sites. Soil samples from a
CERCLA site in Region 4 were analyzed in
the laboratory and screened with a hand-
held XRF analyzer (ex situ XRF). Each
analysis result was evaluated using the XRF
Field Screening Procedure and statistical
spreadsheets developed by the Office of
Superfund Remediation and Technology
Innovation (OSRTI).
A statistical comparison of the XRF screening
results to the laboratory analytical results
was used to determine the precision,
accuracy, and statistical reliability of XRF
field screening procedures. The results
strongly correlate with the laboratory
analysis when XRF is used to evaluate
arsenic-contaminated soils with the XRF Field
Screening Procedure and statistical
spreadsheets developed by OSRTI (see
Figure 4-2).
I
Figure 4-2. XRF Data from As-
Contaminated Soifs.
XRF analyzer (top left), arsenic and lead samples (top
right), and EPA research findings with strong correlation
between XRF and lab analytical results (bottom, XRF in
orange and lab in blue). Source: EPA, n.d.
23 North, T,, L. Sehayek, R. Wilkin, D. Cutt, N. Klaber, AND H. Young. Investigation of a Sustainable Approach to In-situ
Remediation of Arsenic Impacted Groundwater. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-
19/102, 2019. Available online at https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si public record Report.cfm?dirEntrvId=348256&Lab=CESER.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
41
-------
The results of this and similar studies were used to define field operations procedures,
including the Region 4 Superfund X-Ray Fluorescence Field Operating Guide,24 allowing
Regions, states, and other Superfund project managers to use XRF in the field for real-
time decision making on time-critical removal actions and remediation sites.
¦ Mercury Stable Isotope Fractionation Analysis to Identify Sources of
Mercury in Fish Downstream of a Superfund Site
Region: 10
Status: Complete
Mercury is a pollutant of global concern due to its widespread dispersion via the
atmosphere that can result in elevated contaminant levels in fish even in remote regions.
In areas where potential point sources of mercury exist (e.g., Superfund sites), it is
difficult to determine what proportion of mercury in fish (or other media) results from
local versus global sources. For site managers to identify effective and attainable
strategies to reduce mercury levels, they need to understand the relative contributions
from different sources. Until recently, it has not been possible to fingerprint mercury
sources; however, advancements in analytical chemistry now make it possible to use
mercury stable isotope ratios to characterize specific sources utilizing multi-collector
inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (MC-ICP-MS). This technique has recently
been applied at a few Superfund sites and has potential for broader application.
The objective of this study was to use mercury
stable isotope fractionation analysis from
sediment (see Figure 4-3) to determine the
source of mercury in different fish species in a
reservoir and river system downstream of a
Superfund mining site in Region 10 to
determine the extent to which fish are
influenced by mine releases. Collaborators for
this projected included federal, state, local,
and tribal partners.
The results of the isotopic mercury samples
showed that approximately 70 percent of the
mercury in sediment and approximately 53
percent of the mercury in surface water
originated from the historical Black Butte Mine
site. The isotopic mercury data from the fish
show significant differences in the mine-site
signature between species. For example, black
crappie showed much less of a mine influence
on their mercury concentrations than did the
Figure 4-3. Sediment Collection at
Black Butte Mine, Oregon.
Collecting sediment for stable isotope mercury
analysis from the Cottage Grover Reservoir,
downstream of the Black Butte Mine Superfund Site,
OR, Source: EPA, 2019.
24 EPA. Regional 4 Superfund X-Ray Fluorescence Field Operations Guide. Available online at
https://vwwv.epa.gov/risk/reqional-4-sui3erfund-x-rav-fluorescence-field-operations-auide.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
42
-------
brown bullhead. The differences in mine-related mercury signature between species
highlights that difference in species' trophic position and foraging behavior can have a
large impact on the accumulation of mercury from different sources. Overall, the results
clearly show that mercury is continuing to impact a reservoir that is located over 15 km
downstream of the historical Black Butte mining operations.
¦ Investigation and Characterization of the Capabilities and Effectiveness
of Commercially Available Portable Air Treatment Units for the
Temporary Reduction and Mitigation of Chlorinated Solvents in Indoor
Air
Region: 5
Status: Active
Emergency responses and time-critical removal actions involving residential vapor
intrusion by chlorinated solvents, particularly TCE and PCE, are increasing in frequency.
The standard approach to effectively mitigate vapor intrusion concerns is the installation
of a sub-slab depressurization system in homes,25 but implementation may be delayed
due to the need for system design and specialist subcontractor procurement. As an
interim measure, rapidly deployable, portable, commercially available air treatment units
(ATUs) that incorporate a carbon sorption bed or other technology have been utilized by
EPA removal programs to temporarily decrease the contaminant concentrations in indoor
air.
Although these ATUs are frequently used, a complete understanding of their operational
capabilities is not fully understood as noted in a 2017 EPA Engineering Issue paper26 that
analyzed and reviewed the available technical data. In the paper, a lack of specific
information was identified for the performance of ATUs for chlorinated solvents or their
effectiveness in mitigating contaminated air. This project is investigating ATUs and data
related to ATU operation. This project will provide federal on-scene coordinators (OSCs)
and RPMs with a validated dataset to work with on vapor intrusion mitigation incidents
when ATUs are considered for use.
25 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 2015. OSWER Technical Guide for Assessing and Mitigating the Vapor
Intrusion Pathway from Subsurface Vapor Sources to Indoor Air. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
OSWER Publication 9200.2-154
26 Schumacher, B., J. Zimmerman, R. Truesdale, K. Owen, C. Lutes, M. Novak, and K. Hallberg. 2017. Adsorption-based
Treatment Systems for Removing Chemical Vapors from Indoor Air. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC, EPA/600/R-17/276.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
43
-------
¦ Evaluation of a Sensitive, Real-Time Naphthalene Air Monitor during
Remediation of Coal Tar and Manufactured Gas Plant Sites
Region: 2
Status: Active
Naphthalene is a pungent and potent inhalation toxicant. Common sources include vehicle
exhaust, coal tar, and manufactured gas plant operations. Remediation of Superfund sites
contaminated with coal tar and manufactured gas plant-associated wastes can result in
the release of naphthalene emissions.
This research project is evaluating up to two field-deployable, optical technologies to
measure naphthalene in air that may be used to inform Region 2 site operations and the
public regarding acute health risks. This technology would be immediately applicable at
environmental cleanup sites nationwide.
This project addresses a regional science need to develop an innovative approach to
assessing contamination and risk at Superfund sites. The technology also has the potential
to assist and strengthen capabilities of state and local partners. Another important and
relevant purpose of this research is to generate a means to measure for acute
environmental exposure.
Figure 4-4. Remediation of Coal Tar-Impacted Soil at a Superfund Site.
Source: EPA, 2021
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
44
-------
Application of Ground-Based Hyperspectral Surveys, Artificial
Intelligence, and Machine Learning for Metals-Contaminated Site
Characterization and Monitoring
Region: 7 and 8
Status: Active
Heavy metals from mining activities contribute to groundwater and soil contamination
over large parts of Regions 7 and 8. The contamination represents a threat to human
health and the environment.
This project seeks to provide a field-deployable method for determining soil metal
contaminated concentrations (e.g., field or aircraft hyperspectral measurements across
the landscape) in real time using reflectance spectroscopy and machine learning. EPA ORD
will be conducting field surveys using non-destructive spectroscopic techniques in multiple
regions. The samples will be validated using XRF measurements. The use of reflectance
spectroscopy data on large, contaminated soil sites will help to develop a rapid, cost-
effective method for characterizing contaminated waste sites and minimize area-specific
sampling necessary to fully characterize and identify remedial options.
East Mount Zion Landfill Ecological Revitalization
Region: 3 and 5
Status: Active
The East Mount Zion Landfill is a Superfund Site in Region 3 that was capped in 1999. The
vegetation cover is now dominated by weeds and non-native plants and excellent habitat
for burrowing mammals (groundhogs) that pose a threat to the landfill cap. Researchers
on this project are using ecosystem goods and services (EGS) identification and
quantification tools to make decisions on how to revitalize the site and how to monitor
that revitalization. Sustainable, low maintenance native grasses and forbs will be
employed.
This landfill was selected to demonstrate the efficacy of ORD tools and decision science to
transform a Superfund site from a negative feature into a beneficial asset for the local
community. EGS will be generated by replacing the current degraded landfill vegetative
cover with naturally appropriate and community-directed native vegetation providing a
recreational and ecological resource for community use. The vegetative cover will also
greatly reduce annual maintenance costs given that the new native vegetation layer will
be designed to 1) require less mowing, and 2) grow to an appropriate height to dissuade
colonization by burrowing mammals, such as groundhogs. Community outreach will be
ongoing throughout the project and may include a technical workshop to identify how to
best use the site for community benefit. Success of this smaller-scale project will help
develop guidelines for using these ORD tools on larger, more complex efforts.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
45
-------
5. Technology Transfer
The TSCD regularly shares knowledge through presentations, technical reports, peer-
reviewed journal articles, webinars, web pages, models, engineering issue papers, and
other scientific communication products (see Figure 5-1). This section includes a
sampling of technology transfer products completed in FY 2020,
Peer-reviewed Articles &
Book Chapters
EPA External Reports
|] Presentations & Posters
^Trainings
Figure 5-1. FY 2020 Technology Transfer Products.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
46
-------
Peer-Reviewed Articles & Book Chapters
¦ Lead Speciation, Bioaccessibilitv and Source Attribution in Missouri's Big River
Watershed. Noerpel, M., M. Pribil, D. Rutherford, P. Law, K. Bradham, C. Nelson, R.
Weber, G. Gunn, and K. Scheckel, Applied Geochemistry, 123: 104757.
¦ Effectiveness of point-of-use/point-of-entrv systems to remove per- and polvfluoroalkvl
substances from drinking water. Patterson C., J. Burkhardt, D. Schupp, E.R. Krishnan,
S. Dyment, S. Merritt, L. Zintek, and D. Kleinmaier. AWWA Water Science. 2019,
1(2):1-12.
¦ Conceptual Bavesian networks for contaminated site ecological risk assessment and
remediation support. Carriger, J.F. and R.A. Parker. Journal of Environmental
Management. 2021, 278(Part 2):111478.
¦ Thioarsenite Detection and Implications for Arsenic Transport in Groundwater. Wilkin,
R.T., R.G. Ford, L.M. Costantino, R.R. Ross, D.G. Beak, and K.G. Scheckel.
Environmental Science & Technology. 2019, 53(20):11684-11693.
EPA External Reports
¦ Site Characterization and Monitoring Technical Support Center Annual Report Fiscal
Year 2018. Barnett, F. and J. Szaro. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/230,
2020.
¦ 2019 Annual Report Office of Research and Development Technical Support Centers.
Ross, R., M. Kravitz, F. Barnett, B. Owens, and R. Ford. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC,
EPA/600/R-20/283, 2020.
¦ Summary Report. Terrestrial Metals Bioavailability: A Literature-Derived Classification
Procedure for Ecological Risk Assessment. U.S. EPA, ERASC, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/R-
20/042, 2020.
¦ Summary Report. Separating Anthropogenic Metals Contamination from Background: A
Critical Review of Geochemical Evaluations and Proposal of Alternative Methodology.
U.S. EPA, ERASC, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/R-19/196, 2019.
¦ Evaluation of Rotating Cylinder Treatment System™ at Elizabeth Mine, Vermont. Butler,
B.A. and E. Hathaway. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/194, 2020.
¦ The Influence of Stormwater Management Practices and Wastewater Infiltration on
Groundwater Quality: Case Studies. Beak, D., M. Borst, S. Acree, R. Ross, K. Forshay,
R. Ford, J. Huang, C. Su, J. Brumley, A. Chau, and C. Richardson. U.S. EPA,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-20/143, 2020.
¦ Adaptive Site Management Plan for the Bonita Peak Mining District San Juan County.
Colorado. Dyson, B., K. Lynch, Timothy J. Canfield, and J. Carriger. U.S. EPA,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-20/034, November 2020.
¦ Watershed Hvdrolooic and Contaminated Sediment Transport Modeling in the Tri-State
Mining District. Rahman, K., M.M. Hantush, A. Hall, and J. McKernan. U.S. EPA,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-18/247, 2019.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
47
-------
¦ Investigation of a Sustainable Approach to In-situ Remediation of Arsenic Impacted
Groundwater. North, T., L. Sehayek, R. Wilkin, D. Cutt, N. Klaber, and H. Young. U.S.
EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/102, 2019.
Presentations and Posters
¦ Decision Support for Adaptive Site Management Planning and Remedy
Implementation. Dyson, B., K. Lynch, T. J. Canfield, and J. Carriger. Presented at
Ecological Risk Assessment Forum, Cincinnati, OH, August 18, 2020.
¦ Determining the Importance Sediment Methvlation to Methvlmercurv Concentrations
in the Nacimiento Reservoir, California. Millard, G., C. Eckley, and T. Luxton.
Presented at American Geophysical Union, December 1-17, 2020.
¦ Development and Testing of Two Polymers for In Situ Passive Sampling of Munitions
Compounds. Shipley, E., P. Vlahos, and R. Burgess. Development and Testing of Two
Polymers for in situ Passive Sampling of Munitions Compounds. SETAC North America,
41st Annual Meeting, Virtual, November 15-19, 2020.
¦ Geophysical Applications for Mine Waste Site Objectives. Werkema, D. 2019 CLU-IN
Webinar Series: ORD Mining and Mineral Processing Site - Site Characterization,
Corvallis, OR, October 2, 2019.
¦ Geophysical Assessment of a Proposed Landfill Site in Fredericktown, Missouri.
Johnson, C., K. Pappas, E. White, D. Werkema, N. Terry, R. Ford, S. Phillips, K. Limes,
and J. Lane Jr. FastTIMES. Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society,
Denver, CO, 25(2):98-106, 2020.
¦ Geophysical Tools for On-Scene Coordinators: Practical Non-Intrusive Applications to
Assess and Characterize the Subsurface. Werkema, D. Region 7 Annual On-Scene
Coordinators Training, Lenexa, KS, January 13-17, 2020.
¦ Groundwater Technical Support Center - What Is It and How Can It Help You? Ross,
R. Region 7 Regional Association of Remedial Project Managers (RARPM), Olathe, KS,
February 11 - 12, 2020.
¦ Response Activities on Uranium-Impacted Tribal Lands. Burton, T. 2019 CLU-IN
Webinar Series - Emergency Management, October 9, 2019.
¦ Measuring Microplastics: Building Best Practices & Methods for Collection, Preparation
and Analysis. Cook, A. and H. Allen. Presentation for Frontier Labs, ASTM Microplastic
Method Development and Instrument Training, Koriyama, Fukishima Prefecture,
Japan, January 20-23, 2020.
¦ EPA HHRA Upper Columbia River Site RI & FS. Public Webinars: June 10, 2020 & July
15, 2020.
¦ Joining EGS with ERA to Better Articulate Ecosystem Protection Importance for
Hazardous Waste Site Cleanups. Maurice, C., G. Ferreira, and T. Newcomer-Johnson.
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry North America Annual Meeting,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, November 3-7, 2019.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
48
-------
¦ The Value of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services in Restoration Effectiveness
Monitoring and Assessment. Jackson, C., C. Hernandez, M. Harwell, W. Berry, J.
Hoffman, M. Kravitz, and T. DeWitt. SETAC North America 41st Annual Meeting,
Virtual, November 15-19, 2020.
¦ Simulating Flood-Induced Sediment and Associated Contaminant Transport with a
Coupled HEC-RAS 2D and WASP Model. Whung, P., J. Barber, A. Shabani, S.
Woznicki, M. Mehaffey, J. Essoka, B. Pluta, R. Poeske, and G. Soscia. National Remedy
Review Board Meeting, Virtual, February 24-25, 2021.
Webinars and Trainings
¦ Geophysics Training. Annual Region 7 OSC Training. January 2020.
¦ ProUCL Utilization Training: Parti: ProUCL A to Z. August 2020.
¦ ProUCL Utilization Training: Part 2: Trend Analysis. August 2020.
¦ ProUCL Utilization Training: Part 3: Background Level Calculations. August 2020.
ProUCL Statistical Software
ProUCL is a comprehensive statistical software package used by cleanup
professionals to:
¦ establish background levels,
¦ determine outliers in data sets, and
¦ compare background and site sample data sets for site evaluation
and risk assessment at contaminated sites.
Numerous and varied statistical methods and graphical tools to address
many environmental sampling and statistical issues are incorporated
into ProUCL. Calculating upper statistical limits is a primary function of
the software. Graphical analyses offered includes probability plots,
histograms, box plots, and line/trend plots.
See https://www.epa.gov/land-research/proucl-software for more
information and to download the software and user support and training
materials. The SCMTSC also provides user support for ProUCL when
possible.
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
49
-------
6. Conclusions & Contact Information
The technical support requests
and responses summarized in
this report are a select sample
of those undertaken by the
ORD TSCD in FY 2020.
Several of these investigations
have generated substantial
results, while others are
working toward that end. The
highlighted support efforts
provide insight into the unique
role that the TSCs and STLs
play as a bridge between
environmental restoration
efforts and innovative
research in ORD. Through
their interdisciplinary staff,
the TSCs bring creative
thinking to life by applying
innovative research in real-
world scenarios. In addition to
the site-specific solutions
delivered, these innovations
have the potential to produce
long-lasting dividends,
improve environmental
conditions, and, ultimately,
provide for safer and healthier
communities. More
information can be obtained
through the EPA Website, TSC
Directors, and STLs from each
EPA Region (see Table 6 -1).
Table 6-1. Contacts for Obtaining Technical
Support Through the TSCs
Links to
ORD TSC
Websites
ORD TSC
Directors
EPA TSCs Main Page
ERASC
ETSC
GWTSC
SCMTSC
STSC
ERASC
ETSC
GWTSC
SCMTSC
STSC
Superfund
Technology
Liaisons
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6
Region 7
Region 8
Region 9
Region 10:
Michael Kravitz
David Gwisdalla
Randall Ross
Felicia Barnett
Dahnish Shams
Jonathan Essoka (Acting)
Diana Cult
Jonathan Essoka
Felicia Barnett
Stephen Dvment (Acting)
Terry Burton
Robert Weber
Stephen Dvment
Matthew Small (Acting) &
Robert Weber (Acting)
Diana Cutt (Acting)
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
50
-------
Appendix A. FY 2020 Support Projects
Table A-l. Site-specific Projects Supported by the TSCs in FY 2020.
Some sites are duplicated due to other technical support provided by a different TSC.
Support Type
Site Name
Region
State
Lead TSC
Valmont TCE Site (Former-Valmont
Industrial Park)
3
PA
GWTSC
Assessing and
Treating
Eagle Industries
6
OK
GWTSC
Riverfront
7
MO
ETSC
Emerging and
Persistent
Nebraska Ordinance Plant (Former)
7
NE
ETSC
Contaminants
Ellsworth Air Force Base
8
UT
ETSC
Hill Air Force Base
8
UT
ETSC
Travis Air Force Base
9
CA
ETSC
Elizabeth Mine
1
VT
ETSC
Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt
7
MO
SCMTSC
Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt
7
MO
ETSC
Madison County Mines
7
MO
ETSC
Cherokee County / Tri-State
7
MO
ETSC
Madison County Mines
7
MO
ETSC
Characterization
and Remediation
Washington County Lead District -
Richwoods, Old Mines and Potosi
7
MO
SCMTSC
Innovations at
Mining Sites
Barker Hughesville Mining District
8
MT
ETSC
Bonita Peak Mining District
8
CO
SCMTSC
Smoky Canyon
10
ID
ETSC
Bunker Hill Mining & Metallurgical
Complex
10
ID
ETSC
Formosa Mine
10
OR
ETSC
Southeast Idaho Selenium Project/
Smoky Canyon Mine
10
ID
ETSC
Vo-Toys Former GE/RCA Facility
2
NJ
SCMTSC
Saltville Waste Disposal Ponds
3
VA
SCMTSC
Preventing
Adverse Human
Health and
Ecological Risk
Western Tar Site
5
IN
SCMTSC
Tittabawassee, Chippewa River, and
Saginaw Bay
5
MI
STSC
Impacts
Bunker Hill Mining & Metallurgical
Complex
10
ID
SCMTSC
Lower Duwamish Waterway (LDW)
10
WA
SCMTSC
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
51
-------
Support Type
Site Name
Region
State
Lead TSC 1
Fort Devens
1
MA
ETSC
Industri-Plex
1
MA
ETSC
Landfill & Resource Recovery, Inc.
1
RI
ETSC
(L&RR)
South Municipal Water Supply Well
1
NH
GWTSC
L&RR
1
RI
GWTSC
Fort Devens
1
MA
GWTSC
Baird & McGuire
1
MA
GWTSC
Fort Devens
1
MA
GWTSC
LCP Chemicals, Inc.
2
NJ
ETSC
American Cyanamid Co.
2
NJ
GWTSC
Cidra Groundwater Contamination
2
PR
GWTSC
Solvent Savers
2
NY
GWTSC
Hidden Lane Landfill
3
VA
ETSC
Sharon Steel Corp (Fairmont Coke
Works)
3
WV
ETSC
Letterkenny Army Depot (PDO Area)
3
PA
GWTSC
Sharon Steel Corp (Fairmont Coke
Works)
3
WV
GWTSC
Remedy
Evaluation and
Innovations
Letterkenny Army Depot (PDO Area)
3
PA
GWTSC
E.I. Du Pont Nemours & Co., Inc.
(Newport Pigment Plant Landfill)
3
DE
GWTSC
Woolfolk Chemical Works, Inc.
4
GA
ETSC
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. -
A
MS
ETSC
Columbus
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. -
Jacksonville
4
FL
ETSC
B.F. Goodrich
4
KY
ETSC
Horton Iron and Metal
4
NC
ETSC
JFD Electronics/Channel Master
4
NC
GWTSC
Sonford Products
4
MS
GWTSC
Cristex Drum
4
NC
GWTSC
Indiana Harbor & Shipping Canal
5
IN
ETSC
Chem-Dyne
5
OH
GWTSC
RACER (Revitalizing Auto
5
GWTSC
Communities Environmental
MI
Response) Trust Eckles Road Site
Grand Traverse Overall Supply Co.
5
MI
SCMTSC
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant
6
LA
GWTSC
Arkwood, Inc.
6
AR
GWTSC
Westlake Landfill
7
MO
ETSC
Bruno Co-op Association
7
NE
ETSC
Westlake Landfill
7
MO
ETSC
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
52
-------
Support Type
Site Name
Region
State
Lead TSC 1
Garvey Elevator
7
NE
ETSC
Lawrence Todtz Farm
7
IA
ETSC
Chicago Heights
7
MO
ETSC
Lewis & Clark Sawmill
7
MO
ETSC
Westlake Landfill
7
MO
ETSC
Chicago Heights
7
MO
GWTSC
Remedy
Evaluation and
Findett Corp.
7
NE
GWTSC
Lawrence Todtz Farm
7
IA
GWTSC
Innovations
Weldon Spring Quarry/Plant/Pits
(U.S. Department of Energy/Army)
7
MO
GWTSC
Westlake Landfill
7
MO
SCMTSC
Montrose Chemical Corp.
9
CA
GWTSC
Hunters Point Naval Shipyard
9
CA
SCMTSC
Evoqua Water Technologies
9
Az
SCMTSC
Quendall Terminals
10
WA
GWTSC
BNSF Railway Black Tank Property
10
WA
GWTSC
McClouth Steel Corp.
2
NJ
ETSC
Diamond Alkali Co.
2
NJ
ETSC
Dewey Loeffel Landfill
2
NY
ETSC
Fulton Avenue
2
NY
GWTSC
Diaz Chemical
2
NY
GWTSC
Hovensa, LLC
2
St.
Croix,
US VI
GWTSC
Chemours Pompton Lakes Works Site
2
NJ
SCMTSC
Sherwin-Williams/Hilliards Creek
2
NJ
SCMTSC
Delaware Sand & Gravel
3
DE
GWTSC
Army Creek Landfill
3
DE
GWTSC
Site Assessment
L.A. Clarke & Son
3
VA
GWTSC
Support and Site
Allegany Ballistics Laboratory
3
WV
GWTSC
Characterization
Innovations
Army Creek Landfill
3
DE
GWTSC
Alaric Area GW Plume
4
FL
GWTSC
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plan
4
KY
GWTSC
Cristex Drum
4
NC
SCMTSC
USARMY/NASA Redstone Arsenal
4
AL
SCMTSC
Schroud Property
5
IL
ETSC
Chemical Recovery Systems
5
OH
ETSC
Cornerstone Chemical Company
6
LA
ETSC
Conservation Chemical Co.
7
MO
ETSC
Sporlan Valve Plant #1
7
MO
GWTSC
Oak Grove Village Well
7
MO
GWTSC
Ogallala Ground Water Contamination
7
NE
GWTSC
Parkview Well
7
NE
GWTSC
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
53
-------
Support Type
Site Name
Region
State
Lead TSC 1
Site Assessment
Garvey Elevator
7
NE
GWTSC
Support and Site
Characterization
Innovations
PCE - Carriage Cleaners
7
NE
SCMTSC
Captain Jack Mill
8
CO
GWTSC
Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility
9
HI
GWTSC
Reynolds Metals Co.
10
OR
ETSC
Nammo Talley, Inc.
10
AZ
GWTSC
Palermo Well Field Ground Water
Contamination
10
WA
GWTSC
2020 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
54
-------
SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED
STANDARD POSTAGE
& FEES PAID EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Office of Research and
Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300 '
------- |