REMEDIATION SYSTEM EVALUATION

BAIRD AND MCGUIRE SUPERFUND SITE

HOLBROOK, MASSACHUSETTS

Report of the Remediation System Evaluation,

Site Visit Conducted at the Baird and McGuire Superfund Site

April 18-19, 2001

Final Report Submitted to Region 1

January 18, 2002

 

 

 
NOTICE

Work described herein was performed by GeoTrans, Inc. (GeoTrans) and the United States Army Corps

of Engineers (USACE) for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Work conducted by

GeoTrans, including preparation of this report, was performed under Dynamac Contract No. 68-C-99-

256, Subcontract No. 91517. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute

endorsement or recommendation for use.

This document (EPA 542-R-02-008j) may be downloaded from EPA’s Technology Innovation Office

website at www.epa.gov/tio or www.cluin.org/rse. 
i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The 32.5-acre Baird and McGuire Superfund Site, located in Holbrook, Massachusetts, addresses VOC,

SVOC, and arsenic contamination from a chemical mixing and batching plant that operated between 1912

and 1983. South Street and residences border the site to the west, the Cochato River borders the site to the

east, and woodlands border the site to the north and south. Excavation and onsite incineration of

contaminated soils was completed in 1997. A pump and treat system, that initially treated water from the

excavation and incineration, now operates to remediate contaminated groundwater. An LNAPL recovery

system has also been installed and removes approximately 5 to 10 gallons of LNAPL per day. This longterm remediation action is led by the EPA with Superfund providing 90% of the approximate $2,880,000

annual operating costs (not including oversight by USACE). Site lead and full financial responsibility of

the site is expected to be turned over to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 2004. 

This pump and treat system currently consists of seven groundwater extraction wells. One of the wells 

also collects LNAPL, which is collected and transported offsite for incineration. The total groundwater

extraction rate is approximately 127 gallons per minute. The groundwater treatment system consists of

decommissioned activated sludge biotreatment units (now used as air strippers), a metals removal system,

pressure filters, liquid and vapor phase activated carbon units, and sludge disposal system. The plant has

24-hour security, two operators on duty 24 hours per day, eight additional operators/technicians working

normal business hours, and an onsite laboratory staff of five people also working normal business hours.

The RSE team found the pump and treat system at the Baird and McGuire site to be effective, but

operating at a much higher cost than similar systems. Since the addition of an extraction well in 1998, the

system has contained the plume based on water level measurements and modeling efforts. In addition, the

treatment plant regularly meets its own design discharge criteria of drinking water standards for the

contaminants of concern. 

Recommendations included in this RSE suggest the potential to reduce annual O&M costs by more than $2

million per year, without any reduction in effectiveness. Additional savings would likely occur due to a

decrease in USACE oversight. Recommendations to reduce costs include the following:

• Reducing process monitoring, decommissioning the onsite laboratory, and sending samples to a

certified laboratory will reduce the costs by approximately $600,000 per year. 

• Replacing 24-hour security with a hired patrol system (night only) will reduce costs by

approximately $144,000 per year.

• Automating the treatment plant and reducing operator labor will save approximately $1.3 million

per year.

• Transporting and disposing of the LNAPL as a liquid rather than a solid will save approximately

$30,000 per year. The site managers should clarify with the relevant agencies the regulations and

precautions regarding the transport of the recovered LNAPL. The recovered LNAPL should also

be tested by an independent, offsite laboratory to verify that transporting it as a liquid conforms

with all pertinent regulations.
ii

• Although the contractor currently covers the cost associated with sludge disposal, changing the

sludge disposal procedure will save approximately $6,000 per year in future contracts or if the

scope of work is reduced and the contract is renegotiated.

• Replacing the current air strippers (converted activated sludge units) with a more efficient unit,

such as a low-profile tray aerator, will improve mass removal of organics from the process water

and would cost up to $400,000 but would result in savings of approximately $30,000 per year in

electrical costs.

• Replacing the filter media in the pressure filters would likely cost $30,000 but would improve the

lifetime of the granular activated carbon resulting in savings of approximately $50,000 per year in

carbon replacement.

Note that removing the lab could free up office space, such that the office space in trailers might no longer

be necessary. This would add to the cost savings, though no attempt was made to quantify those costs.

Finally, a preliminary investigation into the use of in situ chemical oxidation is recommended to attempt to

eliminate the LNAPL, and thereby increase the potential for site closeout. Addition of oxidants to the

subsurface could also change the oxidative state of arsenic to its more immobile state, potentially

alleviating the arsenic impacts in the groundwater.
iii

PREFACE

This report was prepared as part of a project conducted by the United States Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA) Technology Innovation Office (TIO) and Office of Emergency and Remedial Response

(OERR). The objective of this project is to conduct Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs) of pumpand-treat systems at Superfund sites that are “Fund-lead” (i.e., financed by USEPA). RSEs are to be

conducted for up to two systems in each EPA Region with the exception of Regions 4 and 5, which already

had similar evaluations in a pilot project.

The following organizations are implementing this project.

Organization Key Contact Contact Information

USEPA Technology Innovation

Office

(USEPA TIO)

Kathy Yager 11 Technology Drive (ECA/OEME)

North Chelmsford, MA 01863

phone: 617-918-8362

fax: 617-918-8417

yager.kathleen@epa.gov

USEPA Office of Emergency and

Remedial Response 

(OERR)

Paul Nadeau 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Mail Code 5201G

phone: 703-603-8794

fax: 703-603-9112

nadeau.paul@epa.gov

GeoTrans, Inc. 

(Contractor to USEPA TIO)

Doug Sutton GeoTrans, Inc.

2 Paragon Way

Freehold, NJ 07728

(732) 409-0344 

Fax: (732) 409-3020

dsutton@geotransinc.com

Army Corp of Engineers:

Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive

Waste Center of Expertise

(USACE HTRW CX)

Dave Becker 12565 W. Center Road

Omaha, NE 68144-3869

(402) 697-2655

Fax: (402) 691-2673

dave.j.becker@nwd02.usace.army.mil
iv

The project team is grateful for the help provided by the following EPA Project Liaisons.

Region 1 

Region 2

Region 3

Region 4

Region 5

Darryl Luce and Larry Brill

Diana Cutt

Kathy Davies

Kay Wischkaemper

Dion Novak

Region 6

Region 7

Region 8

Region 9

Region 10

Vincent Malott

Mary Peterson 

Armando Saenz and Richard Muza

Herb Levine

Bernie Zavala

They were vital in selecting the Fund-lead pump-and-treat systems to be evaluated and facilitating

communication between the project team and the Remedial Project Managers (RPM’s).
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................. i

PREFACE .............................................................................. iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................... v

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 1

1.1 PURPOSE ................................................................. 1

1.2 TEAM COMPOSITION ......................................................... 1

1.3 DOCUMENTS REVIEWED ...................................................... 2

1.4 PERSONS CONTACTED ....................................................... 2

1.5 SITE LOCATION, HISTORY, AND CHARACTERISTICS ................................. 2

1.5.1 LOCATION ......................................................... 2

1.5.2 POTENTIAL SOURCES ................................................. 3

1.5.3 HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING ............................................. 3

1.5.4 DESCRIPTION OF GROUND WATER PLUME ................................. 4

2.0 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION .............................................................. 5

2.1 SYSTEM OVERVIEW ......................................................... 5

2.2 EXTRACTION SYSTEM ........................................................ 5

2.3 GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM ........................................... 5

2.4 LNAPL RECOVERY SYSTEM ................................................... 6

2.5 MONITORING SYSTEM ....................................................... 6

3.0 SYSTEM OBJECTIVES, PERFORMANCE AND CLOSURE CRITERIA ......................... 7

3.1 CURRENT SYSTEM OBJECTIVES AND CLOSURE CRITERIA ............................. 7

3.2 TREATMENT PLANT OPERATION GOALS .......................................... 7

3.3 ACTION LEVELS ............................................................ 8

4.0 FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS FROM THE RSE SITE VISIT .............................. 9

4.1 FINDINGS ................................................................. 9

4.2 SUBSURFACE PERFORMANCE AND RESPONSE ...................................... 9

4.2.1 WATER LEVELS AND CAPTURE ZONES .................................... 9

4.2.2 CONTAMINANT LEVELS ............................................... 9

4.2.3 NATURAL ATTENUATION POTENTIAL ..................................... 9

4.3 COMPONENT PERFORMANCE .................................................. 9

4.3.1 EXTRACTION-WELL PUMPS AND PIPING .................................... 9

4.3.2 EQUALIZATION TANK ................................................ 10

4.3.3 METALS REMOVAL SYSTEM ........................................... 10

4.3.4 SLUDGE HANDLING SYSTEM ........................................... 10

4.3.5 ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM (USED AS AIR STRIPPERS) ..................... 10

4.3.6 VAPOR PHASE GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON UNITS ....................... 10

4.3.7 PRESSURE FILTERS .................................................. 10

4.3.8 GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON SYSTEM ................................ 11

4.3.9 LNAPL RECOVERY SYSTEM ........................................... 11

4.3.10 CONTROLS ........................................................ 11

4.4 COMPONENTS OR PROCESSES THAT ACCOUNT FOR MAJORITY OF COSTS ................ 11

4.4.1 LABOR (SYSTEM OPERATIONS, LABORATORY NOT INCLUDED) ................. 11

4.4.2 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS (ON AND OFF SITE) ................................. 12

4.4.3 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ........................................... 12
vi

4.4.4 NON UTILITY CONSUMABLES AND DISPOSAL COSTS ......................... 12

4.4.5 UTILITY COSTS ..................................................... 12

4.4.6 SECURITY ......................................................... 12

4.5 RECURRING PROBLEMS OR ISSUES ............................................. 12

4.6 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE .................................................. 13

4.7 TREATMENT PROCESS EXCURSIONS AND UPSETS, ACCIDENTAL CONTAMINANT/REAGENT

RELEASES ................................................................ 13

4.8 SAFETY RECORD .......................................................... 13

4.9 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT .................................................. 13

5.0 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SYSTEM TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT

.............................................................................. 14

5.1 GROUND WATER .......................................................... 14

5.2 SURFACE WATER .......................................................... 14

5.3 AIR .................................................................... 14

5.4 SOILS ................................................................... 14

5.5 WETLANDS ............................................................... 14

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 15

6.1 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ENSURE EFFECTIVENESS .................................. 15

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS TO REDUCE COSTS ......................................... 15

6.2.1 REDUCE PROCESS MONITORING ........................................ 15

6.2.2 REDUCE SECURITY .................................................. 15

6.2.3 AUTOMATE SYSTEM TO ALLOW OVERNIGHT OPERATION WITHOUT STAFFING ..... 16

6.2.4 LNAPL DISPOSAL .................................................. 16

6.2.5 SLUDGE DISPOSAL .................................................. 17

6.2.6 REPLACE THE CURRENT AIR STRIPPER WITH A MORE EFFICIENT UNIT ........... 17

6.2.7 CHANGE FILTER MEDIA .............................................. 17

6.3 TECHNICAL IMPROVEMENT .................................................. 18

6.3.1 CONVERT BIOSYSTEM CLARIFIER TO AN EQUALIZATION TANK ................. 18

6.4 RECOMMENDATIONS TO GAIN SITE CLOSEOUT .................................... 18

6.4.1 EXAMINE IN-SITU CHEMICAL OXIDATION ................................. 18

6.5 UNUSED GOVERNMENT-OWNED EQUIPMENT ..................................... 18

7.0 SUMMARY ....................................................................... 19

List of Tables

Table 6-1. Analysis frequency in February 2001 versus recommended frequency.

Table 7-1. Cost summary table of individual recommendations.

List of Figures

Figure 1-1. Site layout showing the extraction wells (current and recommended) and the SVOC plume from the

2000 sampling event

Figure 2-1. Conceptual diagram of the groundwater treatment system
1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE

In the OSWER Directive No. 9200.0-33, Transmittal of Final FY00 - FY01 Superfund Reforms Strategy,

dated July 7,2000, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response outlined a commitment to optimize

Fund-lead pump-and-treat systems. To fulfill this commitment, the US Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) Technology Innovation Office (TIO) and Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR),

through a nationwide project, is assisting the ten EPA Regions in evaluating their Fund-lead operating

pump-and-treat systems. This nationwide project is a continuation of a demonstration project in which the

Fund-lead pump-and-treat systems in Regions 4 and 5 were screened and two sites from each of the two

Regions were evaluated. It is also part of a larger effort by TIO to provide USEPA Regions with various

means for optimization, including screening tools for identifying sites likely to benefit from optimization

and computer modeling optimization tools for pump and treat systems.

This nationwide project identifies all Fund-lead pump-and-treat systems in EPA Regions 1 through 3 and 6

through 10, collects and reports baseline cost and performance data, and evaluates up to two sites per

Region. The site evaluations are conducted by EPA-TIO contractors, GeoTrans, Inc. and the United States

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), using a process called a Remediation System Evaluation (RSE),

which was developed by USACE. The RSE process is meant to evaluate performance and effectiveness (as

required under the NCP, i.e., and “five-year" review), identify cost savings through changes in operation

and technology, assure clear and realistic remediation goals and exit strategy, and verify adequate

maintenance of Government-owned equipment. 

The Baird and McGuire Site was chosen based on initial screening of the pump-and-treat systems managed

by USEPA Region 1 and discussions with the Project Liaison for that Region. This report provides a brief

background on the site and current operations, a summary of the observations made during a site visit, and

recommendations for changes and additional studies. The cost impacts of the recommendations are also

discussed.

A report on the overall results from the RSEs conducted at Baird and McGuire and other Fund-lead pumpand-treat systems throughout the nation will also be prepared and will identify lessons learned and typical

costs savings.

1.2 TEAM COMPOSITION

The team conducting the RSE consisted of the following individuals:

Frank Bales, Chemical Engineer, USACE Kansas City District

Rob Greenwald, Hydrogeologist, GeoTrans, Inc. (EPA TIO’s contractor)

Peter Rich, Civil and Environmental Engineer, GeoTrans, Inc.

Doug Sutton, Water Resources Engineer, GeoTrans, Inc.
2

1.3 DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

Author Date Title/Description

US EPA 9/30/1986 Record of Decision, Baird and McGuire, Holbrook,

Massachusetts, September 30, 1986

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 2/24/1989 Final Design Analysis for the Baird and McGuire

Groundwater Treatment Plant, Vol. 1

KSE, Inc.;

USACE

1/1997 - 3/1997 Communications regarding a Value Engineering Proposal

for use of an off-gas catalytic destruction unit

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 4/10/97 Value Engineering Proposal for Vapor Phase Carbon in

Lieu of Fume Incineration

US EPA 9/1999 Final Five-year Review for the Baird and McGuire

Superfund Site, Holbrook, Massachusetts

Professional Services

Group

2/2000 - 2/2001 Monthly Process Summaries for February 2000 through

February 2001

Professional Services

Group

4/24/2000 Value Engineering Change Proposal for Metals Removal

Using Potassium Permanganate 

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1/2001 Evaluation of Groundwater Remediation Progress at the

Baird and McGuire Superfund Site

USACE 3/2001 Payment Estimate - Contract Performance (pages 4 and 5)

1.4 PERSONS CONTACTED

The following individuals were present for the site visit:

Chuck Sands, EPA OERR

Ed Cayous, EPA HQ

Robert Bacher, Project Manager, PSG/US Filter

Jack Connolly, Project Engineer, USACE, Northeast Region

Melissa Taylor, Remedial Project Manager, USEPA Region 1

Dorothy Allen from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection was contacted via phone

and email but was not present for the site visit

1.5 SITE LOCATION, HISTORY, AND CHARACTERISTICS

1.5.1 LOCATION

The Baird and McGuire Superfund Site is located at 775 South Street in Holbrook, Norfolk County,

Massachusetts. The site is approximately 32.5 acres in area and is surrounded by a fence except along the
3

Cochato River which borders the site to the east. Woodlands border the site to the north and south, and

South Street borders the site to the west. Holbrook is largely a residential and commercial community with

residences to the west of the site across South Street. The site layout with contaminant plumes is depicted

in Figure 1-1.

1.5.2 POTENTIAL SOURCES

This Superfund site addresses contamination associated with Baird and McGuire, Inc., a chemical mixing

and batching company that operated from 1912 to 1983. The site-related contamination includes various

volatile and semi-volatile organics compounds (VOCs and SVOCs), pesticides, and arsenic. The primary

VOCs are BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene), tetrachlorethylene (PCE), and the daughter

products of PCE degradation. The primary SVOCs are polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) such as

naphthalene. This contamination stems from plant operations as well as disposal components and practices

that included

• laboratory sinks that drained indirectly to a nearby surface water,

• storage tanks overflowed and leaked,

• an uncovered “beehive” cesspool,

• an unlined and undiked tank farm, and

• the breach of a creosote collection lagoon.

Present sources of contamination exist onsite, particularly in the form of light non-aqueous phase liquid

(LNAPL) that provides a continuing source of VOCs and SVOCs, and possibly arsenic. Buried soil and

ash from site excavation and subsequent incineration may also provide continuing sources of arsenic. 

However, the contribution of ash as a continuing source of the arsenic has not been investigated to date. In

the early 1980's LNAPL from a breached lagoon was re-circulated from near the Cochato River into the

subsurface near EW-8 as an interim measure, and pools of LNAPL are currently found in that area. 

Sheens of LNAPL have also been observed across much of the site.

1.5.3 HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING

The site ranges from 170 feet above mean sea level (MSL) on the western boundary of the site where the

present treatment plant is located to 119 feet above MSL along the bank of the Cochato River. Wetlands

occupy approximately 44% of the site and more than 60% of the site lies within the 100 year flood plain of

the river. Prior to site excavation, the subsurface at the Baird and McGuire site was mainly glacial

outwash which extended from the surface to fractured bedrock at an elevation of 129 feet above MSL to

the west and 20 feet above MSL to the east. However, the ash from excavation and onsite incineration was

redeposited onsite to reshape the landscape to its near-original form. This ash is very impermeable and

now serves limits recharge via infiltration especially in the western half of the site near the old process

areas. However, no tests to date have been performed on the permeability of the backfilled ash. The

majority of the glacial outwash is fine to coarse sand underlain by glacial till. Fine sands and silt underlay

the river.

Groundwater elevations at the site range from approximately 130 feet above MSL in the west to

approximately 120 feet above MSL in the east, thereby directing flow east toward the Cochato River. 

However, groundwater beneath the site is captured by the extraction system and does not discharge to the

Cochato River from the west. 
4

1.5.4 DESCRIPTION OF GROUND WATER PLUME

The groundwater plume was originally defined by remedial investigation activities beginning in 1983. The

most recent full scale groundwater sampling event reported was for the first half of 2000. Plumes of

VOCs, SVOCs, and arsenic have the following maximum concentrations according to the sampling in event

in 2000: 5.5 ppm for total VOCs, 4,545 ppm for total SVOCs, and 1.9 ppm for arsenic. The VOC and

SVOC plumes, which extend approximately 500 feet in length and/or width, are depicted in Figure 1-1. 

The highest concentrations of VOCs and SVOCs are associated with an area where LNAPL is present

around EW-8. In addition to its location near former site operations, this area was the discharge point for

pumping from a creosote lagoon breach in the 1980's. Elevated arsenic concentrations in groundwater

generally correspond to the VOC and SVOC plume; however, an arsenic plume detached from the main

plume is present in the overburden along the western bank of the river. Pesticides are present in the

collected LNAPL at the site, but do not extend significantly in the dissolved phase plume. Contamination

mostly exists in the glacial overburden, but small plumes with concentrations below drinking water

standards are present in the underlying bedrock. 
5

2.0 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

2.1 SYSTEM OVERVIEW

The groundwater treatment and extraction systems have been used since 1993. During the onsite soils

remedy (1993-1997) the treatment plant was primarily used to treat the discharge from the onsite

incinerator and the dewatering water from deep excavations. LNAPL was discovered during deep

excavation in the area of EW-8, and in 1999 a LNAPL recovery system was installed and began operation.

The system is continuously staffed by two operators and a security guard. Eight additional system

operators/technicians and five laboratory chemists/technicians work normal business hours. The laboratory

staff and equipment is utilized mainly for analyzing process samples including daily effluent samples. 

2.2 EXTRACTION SYSTEM

The original extraction system included six groundwater extraction wells (EW-1 to EW-6). EW-1 was

decommissioned due to low well yield and minimal contaminant removal. In 1998 EW-7 was installed and

now is operating to prevent groundwater contamination from reaching the Cochato River downgradient to

the east. EW-8 was added in 1999 in an area of pooled LNAPL. In addition, an extraction well control

building was added in 1998 to manifold, control, and measure the flow from each of the wells. 

The recent Evaluation of Groundwater Remediation Progress at the Baird and McGuire Superfund Site

(M&E, 2001) has recommended that EW-4 be replaced with another well in a more highly contaminated

area. This change and an additional extraction well (EW-9) to address the localized arsenic plume along

the river are planned for the Summer of 2001. The extraction system currently operates at approximately

127 gpm and maintains hydraulic capture based on groundwater modeling.

2.3 GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM

The original plant design included two activated sludge biotreatment units; a fume incinerator; a two-stage

metals removal system that used lime for pH adjustment, ferric chloride, and a polymer; pressure filters;

and granular activated carbon (GAC). Due to an insufficient supply of organics in the plant influent to

support biological growth in the activated sludge, the biotreatment units were decommissioned and are now

used as air strippers. In addition, two Value Engineering Proposals resulted in the replacement of the fume

incinerator with vapor phase carbon in 1997 and the use of potassium permanganate for metals removal in

2000. 

The current treatment train consists of the following processes:

• equalization tank

• rapid mix tank for metals removal

• clarifying tanks
6

• pH neutralization tanks (no longer required as pH adjustment is no longer needed for metals

removal)

• air strippers converted from activated sludge units

• pressure filter feed tank

• pressure filters

• GAC units

• effluent tank

Water from the pressure filter feed tank is sent in semi-batch mode through the pressure filters and carbon. 

The treated water is discharged to one of four infiltration basins (on a rotating basis) at approximately 150

gpm.

A conceptual schematic of the treatment process is presented in Figure 2-1. Individual treatment processes

and the typical pathway of water through the system are shown, but pumps, system controls, and pathways

for recycling of process water are not shown.

2.4 LNAPL RECOVERY SYSTEM

Total fluids extraction from EW-8 and passive phase separation of phases results in recovery of five to ten

gallons of LNAPL per day. The recovered LNAPL is solidified with corn cobs prior to shipping offsite for

disposal by incineration. Water from the phase separation is discharged through a nearby monitoring well,

captured by EW-8, and pumped to the plant for treatment with the other extracted groundwater.

2.5 MONITORING SYSTEM

The monitoring system consists of approximately 60 monitoring wells that screen the glacial overburden. 

In addition, 19 monitoring wells screen the underlying bedrock. Approximately 60 monitoring wells are

sampled on an annual basis and the resulting plume maps are compared to those generated from previous

sampling events. In addition, water in the extraction wells is sampled on a quarterly basis.
7

3.0 SYSTEM OBJECTIVES, PERFORMANCE AND CLOSURE

CRITERIA

3.1 CURRENT SYSTEM OBJECTIVES AND CLOSURE CRITERIA

The goal of the extraction and treatment system as documented in the ROD (dated September 30, 1986) is

to contain and remediate the groundwater “within a reasonable time” and to protect groundwater and

surface water. Specific cleanup levels were not specified in the ROD. The ROD states that restoration

target levels will be proposed during the design phase and reviewed after five years of operation for

practicability and protectiveness, but this review has not yet occurred. The design (M&E, 2/24/89) states

that the intent of the remediation is to restore the aquifer to drinking water quality. The system has

operated since 1993, but prior to 1997, it was operated largely to support incinerator activities. Only since

1997 has groundwater remediation been the site priority. Therefore, the five year review (September 1999)

utilized MCLs as an interim cleanup standard, and determined that the site was not close to cleanup

completion. The five year review recommended that a review of restoration levels be part of the next fiveyear review, in concert with turning over the site operations to the State in 2004.

3.2 TREATMENT PLANT OPERATION GOALS

From 1997 to 1999 the extraction and treatment system was upgraded with the groundwater remediation

objectives in mind. These upgrades, already mentioned in Section 2.0, include the following:

• LNAPL delineation was conducted and a recovery system was installed (vicinity of EW8).

• EW-7 was installed to augment hydraulic containment that prevents migration of impacted

groundwater to the Cochato River.

• An extraction well control building was installed to ease operation of the extraction

system.

• The thermal oxidizer for VOC emissions was replaced by vapor phase GAC.

• The original metals removal system was replaced by use of potassium permanganate.

• Treatment system pumps and other units were upgraded to increase the plant hydraulic

capacity to 180 gpm.

Although there is no permit for this discharge, according to the design the effluent must meet MCLs and

State standards. 

The plant has mainly operated without excursions with only infrequent exceedances. System emissions are

captured and treated through vapor GAC to mitigate odors and avoid public concern.
8

3.3 ACTION LEVELS

Site cleanup levels and treatment plant effluent levels are described in Sections 3.1 and 3.2.
9

4.0 FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS FROM THE RSE SITE VISIT

4.1 FINDINGS

In general, the RSE team found the system to be well operated and maintained. The observations and

recommendations given below are not intended to imply a deficiency in the work of either the designers or

operators, but are offered as constructive suggestions in the best interest of the EPA and the public. These

recommendations obviously have the benefit of the operational data unavailable to the original designers. 

The RSE team found the site operators and the remedial project manager interested in improving the

performance of the system. The site operators have been working to optimize the treatment plant and

overcome unanticipated problems as demonstrated by the Value Engineering efforts.

4.2 SUBSURFACE PERFORMANCE AND RESPONSE

4.2.1 WATER LEVELS AND CAPTURE ZONES

Selected monitor wells are gauged at least monthly. A contour map drawn based on the field measurements

for May 2000 and modeling efforts by M&E indicate containment of the plume.

4.2.2 CONTAMINANT LEVELS

Contaminant levels and plume configurations for most of the site have generally remained stable since

1998. However, concentrations near the river have decreased substantially, which is likely due to the

addition of EW-7 in that location during 1998. Contaminant levels of VOCs and SVOCs are likely to

remain high elsewhere at the site as long as the LNAPL is there to provide a continuing source. The

presence of buried soils and ash contaminated with arsenic may provide a continuing source of that

contaminant, although this has not yet been determined. LNAPL may also provide a continuing source of

dissolved arsenic contamination.

4.2.3 NATURAL ATTENUATION POTENTIAL 

As discussed by M&E (January 2001) the presence of chlorinated solvent breakdown products and the high

levels of dissolved ferrous iron are direct evidence of biodegradation of chlorinated organics via reductive

dechlorination. However, as a significant amount of LNAPL still exists at the site, biodegradation will

have relatively little impact on contaminant mass reduction, and as long as a reducing environment prevails,

arsenic likely will remain in its more mobile state, arsenite.

4.3 COMPONENT PERFORMANCE

4.3.1 EXTRACTION-WELL PUMPS AND PIPING

The Grundfos pumps in all seven extraction wells are working at their highest capacity and have low-level

shutoff switches to prevent pump failures. No maintenance issues with pumps were identified. 
10

Underground piping is double contained HDPE with separate branch lines from the motor/valve control

building to each recovery well. The leak detection system is reportedly not functional for some intervals of

piping. The piping from each of the well heads is brought together in a single header in an extraction well

control building where control valves and flowmeters, and motor controls are installed for each well. 

4.3.2 EQUALIZATION TANK

There is one 15,000 gallon equalization tank that receives water from the extraction system and provides

process water to the metals removal system.

4.3.3 METALS REMOVAL SYSTEM

The metals precipitation system was converted from a lime and ferric chloride addition to potassium

permanganate in 2000. This has resulted in less sludge production and the elimination of pH control

requirements. The metals removal system has two stages in series each consisting of a flash mix tank,

flocculation tank and clarifier only one of the two stages is actively used with potassium permanganate and

polymer addition for metals removal. The second stage allows the process water to flow through without

chemical addition and metals removal. Removal rates for arsenic and iron are about 90%. The arsenic

concentration in the effluent, which is measured daily, is on average around 5 ug/L. The current metals

removal system results in the treatment plant consistently meeting the arsenic effluent limits of 5 ug/L. 

This new metals removal system is improved in that it operates at lower cost and produces less sludge. 

This new system, like the old one, requires the filtration step (Section 4.3.7) to meet the effluent criteria. 

4.3.4 SLUDGE HANDLING SYSTEM

Sludge is pumped from the clarifiers to a holding tank and then to thickeners prior to the filter press. The

filter press is operated about once every three days and generates one ton of about 23% solid filter cake at

each dump. The sludge is disposed as a hazardous waste even though it passes TCLP testing.

4.3.5 ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM (USED AS AIR STRIPPERS)

Two activated sludge units are installed at the plant but have been decommissioned due to difficulty in

maintaining biological activity. Two 20 horsepower blowers are used to aerate the tanks and remove about

75% of the VOC and SVOC mass from the process water. The influent levels for VOCs and SVOCs are

typically about 0.5 mg/L and 2 mg/L, respectively. The mass removed by the stripping is captured by

vapor phase GAC.

4.3.6 VAPOR PHASE GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON UNITS

Two 3,000-pound vapor phase GAC units are located in the rear of the treatment plant. These units are

arranged and plumbed to collect offgas from both the activated sludge unit, the metals removal system, and

other plant tanks to minimize emissions inside the building. The vapor GAC units have been replaced once

in the past two years, and remove approximately 3 pounds per day of contaminants. 

4.3.7 PRESSURE FILTERS

Process water is fed in batch mode from a pressure filter feed tank to two multimedia units that are used for

removal of solids prior to liquid GAC. Filtration effectiveness as measured by turbidity is not meeting

objectives. The filters are backwashed at least daily; recent head loss data indicates that the media is

fouled.
11

4.3.8 GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON SYSTEM

Two GAC vessels containing 8,500 pounds each are used in series to remove VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides,

arsenic, iron, and turbidity remaining from upstream processes. The GAC has been effective at reaching

treatment objectives. GAC is replaced at a rate of eight vessels per year. The lead vessel is replaced due to

measured head loss through the unit, rather than exhaustion of carbon determined through chemical

measurements.

4.3.9 LNAPL RECOVERY SYSTEM

Since 1999, LNAPL has been recovered at a rate of approximately 5-10 gallons per day from EW-8 and

two nearby monitoring wells (MW-97-1 and MW-98-1). After passive phase separation, the LNAPL is

collected in a storage tank, which when emptied fills approximately three transportation boxes packed with

LNAPL plus corn cobs (for stabilization). When approximately 20 boxes are stockpiled, they are shipped

to Texas for incineration. The water from the passive phase separation is discharged to MW-97-3,

captured by groundwater extraction in EW-8, and transported to the plant for treatment.

4.3.10 CONTROLS

The plant is operator intensive, and the system is not setup to operate remotely. Despite large amounts of

process monitoring, the plant operations are governed by readings from turbidity meters and oxidationreduction potential (ORP) sensors. The plant operators target less than 10 NTU for turbidity and keep the

ORP about 660 mV after dosing with potassium permanganate (KMnO4). The plant has programmable

logic controllers (PLCs) and uses Wonderware operator software with Fix software used for redundancy

and backup.

4.4 COMPONENTS OR PROCESSES THAT ACCOUNT FOR MAJORITY OF

COSTS

Professional Service Group (PSG) is the plant operator under contract to USACE. Metcalf & Eddy

maintains a technical review role for the project under contract to EPA. PSG’s average monthly

expenditure based on a payment estimate provided by USACE and discussion during the RSE site visit is

about $240,000/month. Cost for USACE and M&E were not provided although the USACE project

manager is reportedly 50% dedicated to the Baird McGuire remedy. The ROD estimate for total O&M

costs was about $58,000/month, but the actual cost, not including oversight by USACE, is four times

higher than the ROD estimate.

4.4.1 LABOR (SYSTEM OPERATIONS, LABORATORY NOT INCLUDED)

Operating costs associated with maintaining two operators around the clock and a total operational staff of

10 during normal business hours is $127,000/month. This cost is about five to eight times higher than that

seen for similar systems. The system operates largely without operator attention, and with minor upgrades,

including a callout system, around the clock attention would not be necessary.
12

4.4.2 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS (ON AND OFF SITE)

Daily effluent samples and twice weekly process samples from several locations are analyzed for arsenic

and iron, other metals, VOCs, SVOCs and pesticides based on a monitoring scope not provided for review

by the RSE team. Additionally, extraction wells are sampled quarterly and about 60 monitoring wells are

included in an annual sampling event.

The cost of the laboratory analysis is about $57,000/month plus approximately $100,000 per year for

USACE certification. This is also five to eight times higher than that seen for similar systems. Over 95%

of the analytical work is done by the onsite laboratory that is staffed by five full time employees. The large

amount of data collection reportedly results from intense community involvement during previous project

stages; however, the bulk of the data is not used or required. The plant is operated based on readings from

turbidity meters and ORP sensors.

4.4.3 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE

These costs total about $14,000/month. Well pumps and motors require replacement on a yearly basis. 

Portions of the maintenance budget have funded system upgrades to allow higher flow capacity and ease of

operation; therefore, expenditures may decrease over time. The amount currently is higher than that for

similar systems

4.4.4 NON UTILITY CONSUMABLES AND DISPOSAL COSTS

LNAPL disposal costs are about $5,000/month (approximately $30/gallon). Sludge disposal is about

$1,000/month. Liquid GAC and vapor GAC replacement costs are $6,000 and $500 per month,

respectively.

4.4.5 UTILITY COSTS

Electricity costs are about $12,000/month, natural gas costs are about $2,000/month, telephone costs are

about $2,000/month, and water and sewer costs are $200/month.

4.4.6 SECURITY

About $14,000/month is spent on around the clock security at the site. This high level of security is

reportedly due to intense community involvement during previous project stages (mainly due to the

incinerator). 

4.5 RECURRING PROBLEMS OR ISSUES

Plant downtime has been minimized in recent months. Liquid GAC change outs and effluent screen

cleaning contribute a few hours of downtime per month. Non-routine repairs to the electrical and control

systems have also resulted in some downtime.
13

4.6 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE

The plant does not have regulated discharge requirements; however, it regularly meets design requirements

that are consistent with drinking water standards for the contaminants of concern.

4.7 TREATMENT PROCESS EXCURSIONS AND UPSETS, ACCIDENTAL

CONTAMINANT/REAGENT RELEASES

Monthly averages of daily arsenic concentrations in the plant effluent as reported in the monthly updates

did not exceed MCLs during 2000 and the period of 2001 before the RSE visit. In addition, there were

only three times when monthly averages of total VOCs exceeded 5 ug/L (the MCL for PCE, TCE, and

many other VOCs). There were, however, frequent excursions of the pH MCLs, with discharges reaching

as high as 10.3, and occasional excursions in turbidity and iron. Excursions of the pH MCLs, have not

occurred since July 2000 when the use of potassium permanganate for metals removal began.

4.8 SAFETY RECORD

The system has an excellent safety record.

4.9 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

Community involvement in the remedy design and operation have been high and mainly surrounded the use

of an onsite incinerator. Since the decommissioning of the incinerator, community involvement has

dropped off significantly. 
14

5.0 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SYSTEM TO PROTECT HUMAN

HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT

5.1 GROUND WATER

The groundwater extraction system appears to have achieved containment of the plume. The system has

been effectively designed and optimized with groundwater modeling to achieve this goal. Removal of

contaminant mass with the groundwater extraction system is relatively slow with about 5 lbs/day removed

in the treatment plant. With LNAPL acting as a continuing source of dissolved phase contamination in the

subsurface, this removal rate will not result in cleanup goals in the foreseeable future. The LNAPL

recovery system does remove approximately 5 to 10 gallons per day, but this recovery rate has not

decreased significantly, which suggests large volumes remain in the subsurface.

The South Street well field that once supplied municipal water was turned off in 1973 because these wells

were capturing a portion of the contaminant plume. Municipal water now comes from Richardi Reservoir

which is located downstream of the site along the Cochato River. The inlet from the river to the reservoir

has been closed since 1983; therefore, the public water supply is not currently affected by site-related

contaminants.

5.2 SURFACE WATER

Samples from the Cochato River are analyzed annually for arsenic, PAHs and pesticides. Results of this

analysis were not available for review.

5.3 AIR

Air from the activated sludge/air stripping units is treated with vapor phase carbon that effectively removes

contaminants at a rate of 3 pounds per day. 

5.4 SOILS

The ash from onsite incineration was placed back on site to reshape the landscape to its original or near

original topography. As a result, remaining contaminated soils from the excavation are largely buried

beneath the ash and topsoil.

5.5 WETLANDS

Wetlands adjacent to the Cochato River exchange water with the river, and the river is sampled frequently

for site associated contaminants. The results of this sampling were not available to the RSE team for

review.
15

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Cost estimates provided have levels of certainty comparable to those done for CERCLA Feasibility Studies

(-30/+50%), and these cost estimates have been prepared in a manner consistent with EPA 540-R-00-002,

A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study, July 2000. 

6.1 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ENSURE EFFECTIVENESS

The remedy at the Baird and McGuire site appears to be effective, although at a much higher cost than is

actually necessary. The modeling studies have demonstrated that the plume is contained and has been since

the operation of EW-7 in 1998. Furthermore, effluent monitoring suggests that the treatment plants is

effectively removing contaminants and discharging water that meets the required levels. The RSE team

concurs with the previous recommendations of M&E (January, 2001) to change the location of EW-4 and

install a new extraction well (EW-9).

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS TO REDUCE COSTS

6.2.1 REDUCE PROCESS MONITORING

Process operations for metals removal were reported to be monitored and controlled based on

oxidation/reduction potential (ORP) and turbidity readings. For VOC removal, GAC has been changed out

mainly based on pressure buildup in the lead vessel. The results of the chemical analysis conducted for

process monitoring are not used for day to day adjustments. Additionally, the analyses have indicated

relatively consistent influent and process performance. Table 6-1 includes a comparison of samples taken

in February 2001 with a recommended number of samples for process monitoring and weekly effluent

monitoring. The key process monitoring samples are for the metal precipitation check and the change out

of GAC units. The recommended process monitoring should cost under $10,000 per month if sent to an

offsite certified lab compared to the $57,000 per month used to operate and staff the laboratory and the

$100,000 per year required to certify the laboratory. Thus, the reduction in process monitoring and

decommissioning of the onsite lab would likely would save in excess of $50,000 per month.

Note that removing the lab could free up office space, such that the office space in trailers might no longer

be necessary. This would add to the cost savings, though no attempt was made to quantify those costs.

6.2.2 REDUCE SECURITY

The on site security is not necessary at the site based on existing site activities and community relations. 

The site can be secured except from water access with the existing fence and a lock system (especially if

over-night staff is eliminated as per other recommendations). A contracted security patrol at night could be

considered if it is available locally. Reduction of the site security will save at least $12,000 per month.
16

Table 6-1: Analysis Frequency in February 2001 Versus Recommended Frequency.

Sample Location

Samples taken per month (RSE recommendation in parentheses)

VOC SVOC Pesticides Arsenic Iron

Other

Metals**

1C Plant Influent 7(2) 6(2) 7(2) 27(2) 27(2) 7(1)

2* Stage 1 Metal Removal

Influent

27(0) 27(0)

3 Stage 1 Metal Removal

Effluent

27(1) 27(1)

4 Stage 2 Metal Removal

Effluent

7(0) 7(0) 7(0) 27(2) 27(2)

11 Stripper Effluent*** 7(1) 7(1) 7(0) 27(0) 27(0)

12 Multimedia Filter

Effluent

26(1) 26(1)

13 After GAC#1? 7(2) 7(2) 7(2) 27(1) 27(1)

17 Effluent 27(4) 27(4) 27(4) 27(4) 27(4) 27(1)

TOTAL 55(9) 54(9) 55(8) 215(11) 215(11) 34(2)

* 2 and 1C are redundant, and step 2 should be removed

** Barium, chromium, copper, mercury, lead, and zinc

*** The air stripping step should be removed as per Section 6.2.6

6.2.3 AUTOMATE SYSTEM TO ALLOW OVERNIGHT OPERATION WITHOUT STAFFING

The system currently operates with minimal operator attention. The addition of an autodialer, alarm

interlocks, and minor process adjustments such as automating filter backwashes and KMnO4 batching

would allow the system operation to be conducted by two or three full time (40 to 50 hours per week)

employees who would be alerted by plant alarms if problems occur while the plant is not manned. Less

than $100,000 would be needed for system upgrades. Savings of over $105,000 per month can be achieved

with these upgrades and associated reduction in staff.

6.2.4 LNAPL DISPOSAL

The cost for LNAPL disposal by incineration is doubled due to the solidification with corn cobs

accomplished on site. Also, significant labor hours are spent in the solidification process. The RSE team

is not aware of any regulations that require solidification, and this LNAPL could potentially be transported

and disposed as a liquid as is done at other Superfund sites. The site managers should clarify with the

relevant agencies the regulations and precautions regarding the transport of the recovered LNAPL. The

recovered LNAPL should also be tested by an independent, offsite laboratory to verify that transporting it

as a liquid conforms with all pertinent regulations. Discontinuing the solidification process and transporting

the recovered LNAPL as a liquid will likely save in excess of $2,500 per month ($30,000 per year) plus

allow for substantial reductions in labor costs.
17

6.2.5 SLUDGE DISPOSAL

The filter cake is currently disposed offsite as hazardous waste even though it reportedly passes the TCLP

test and is not a listed waste. Although the contractor currently covers the cost associated with sludge

disposal, disposal of this material in a lined Subtitle D facility could save $500/month. Thus, this savings

would only be realized if the contract is negotiated or a new O&M contractor is hired. 

6.2.6 REPLACE THE CURRENT AIR STRIPPER WITH A MORE EFFICIENT UNIT

The two activated sludge units have not supported a bacterial population and have therefore been used only

as air strippers. Two 20 horsepower blowers supply air to these two units, and overall mass reduction of

organics is around 75%. Together, these blowers require approximately $3,000 per month in electricity

(assuming $0.10/kwh).

A low profile tray aerator using a 7.5 horsepower blower could provide substantially higher mass removal

at approximately $500 per month in electricity (assuming $0.10/kwh). Thus, a savings of approximately

$2,500 per month (or $30,000 per year) could result from installing and operating a tray aerator in place of

the current activated sludge units. The improved reduction in the mass of organics in the process water

could also extend the time of the GAC units if the pressure filtration media is improved to prevent fouling. 

Purchase, installation, and start up of the tray aerator should require approximately $400,000 in up front

costs. 

6.2.7 CHANGE FILTER MEDIA

Contaminant loading (SVOC, VOCs, Pesticides) to the liquid-phase GAC in February 2000 was less than

2 lbs/day. The organic compounds in the process water are approximately 75% SVOCs (such as

naphthalene) and 25% VOCs such as toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene. The combined concentration of

VOCs and SVOCs currently exiting the stripping units is approximately 500 ug/L. At this concentration,

approximately 10 pounds of carbon is required per pound of naphthalene. A lower usage is expected for

ethylbenzene and xylene, but a higher carbon usage is expected for toluene. Based on an estimate of 20 to

25 pounds of carbon per pound of contaminant, changeout of the lead 8,500 pound carbon vessel under

current operations (2 lbs/day loading which requires 50 lbs/day carbon) should occur about twice per year. 

However, site operations currently include much more frequent carbon changeouts (about eight vessel

change outs per year) due to pressure buildup in the lead GAC vessel. This is likely due to clogging, which 

can be avoided by upgrading the filtration media to more effectively remove solids prior to the GAC. If

that occurs, GAC changeouts will be required on the basis of chemical load from contaminants rather than

the pressure drop due to clogging, and the efficiency of the carbon should increase as preferential flow

paths caused by the clogging will be significantly reduced.

A carbon changeout twice a year would indicate an approximate reduction of six carbon changeouts per

year. At approximately $8,500 per changeout (assumes $1 per pound of carbon), this would result in a

savings of approximately $50,000 per year. More significant savings would be expected if a more efficient

air stripping system is used because the stripping would remove more of the organic constituents of the

process water prior to the GAC units. The cost of upgrading the filter would be approximately $30,000, so

overall cost savings should be realized in less than one year.
18

6.3 TECHNICAL IMPROVEMENT

6.3.1 CONVERT BIOSYSTEM CLARIFIER TO AN EQUALIZATION TANK

The system equalization tank is about 15,000 gallons. This provides only 90 minutes to make system

repairs without having extraction-well downtime. As the 150,000-gallon aeration tanks are not needed in

the treatment process, one could be converted to an emergency equalization tank if desired. This would

provide approximately 900 minutes to make system repairs without having extraction-well downtime.

6.4 RECOMMENDATIONS TO GAIN SITE CLOSEOUT

6.4.1 EXAMINE IN-SITU CHEMICAL OXIDATION

The total VOC and SVOC concentrations in the monitor wells around EW-8 have remained at a relatively

high level since 1997. The LNAPL present in this area is a continuing source of dissolved contamination

and, even with removal rates as high as 10 gallons per day, is not likely to be removed by current

operations. The site setting, contaminants, and hydrogeology appear to be ideal for in-situ chemical

oxidation in the area around EW-8. A site profile should be supplied to several commercial vendors to

obtain proposals. Such a profile could be generated with the available materials for under $2,000. Based

on information and estimates provided by the vendors, site managers could then determine if the technology

should be further pursued through bench or pilot tests. 

Removal of the LNAPL would lead to site cleanup of VOCs and SVOCs much more quickly than the

current remedy. Also, the addition of oxidants to the subsurface would increase the likelihood of oxidizing

arsenic to its more immobile oxidative state.

6.5 UNUSED GOVERNMENT-OWNED EQUIPMENT

If the recommendation to reduce process monitoring and decommission the onsite laboratory (Section 6.2.1)

is implemented, a number of government-owned laboratory instruments will be available for use at EPA

labs or other sites. These instruments include, but are not limited to, a Perkins Elmer Optima 3300 DV

spectrophotometer, three Hewlett Packard 6890 gas chromatography systems, two Hewlett Packard 5973

mass selective detectors. 
19

7.0 SUMMARY

The observations and recommendations given below are not intended to imply a deficiency in the work of

either the designers or operators, but are offered as constructive suggestions in the best interest of the EPA

and the public. These recommendations obviously have the benefit of the operational data unavailable to

the original designers.

The RSE process is designed to help site operators and managers improve effectiveness, reduce operation

costs, improve technical operation, and gain site closeout. In this report, no recommendations are made to

assure system effectiveness as the contaminant plumes appear to be captured and the treatment plant

regularly meets discharge targets. A number of recommendations, however, are made to reduce future

operations and maintenance costs. The recommendations include reducing process monitoring, reducing

security, automating the system and reducing labor, altering LNAPL and sludge disposal procedures, and

replacing filter media. 

Together, these recommendations could reduce the annual system costs associated with the plant operation

by more than $2 million per year. This does not include further savings that would likely result from a

decrease in costs associated with oversight by USACE. A number of technical improvements are suggested

in the course of reducing operating costs, and in addition to those, the report recommends converting a

decommissioned activated sludge unit into an equalization tank to provide a high capacity for extracted

water if necessary. Finally, the RSE report recommends investigating the use of in situ chemical oxidation

as a method of reducing or eliminating the presence of LNAPL, which will increase the potential for site

closeout

Tables 7-1 summarizes the costs and cost savings associated with each recommendation. Both capital and

annual costs are presented as well as the expected change in life-cycle costs over a 30-year period for each

recommendation both with discounting (i.e., net present value) and without it.
20

Table 7-1. Cost summary table for individual recommendations

Recommendation Reason

Estimated Change in

Capital

Costs 

 Annual

Costs

Life-cycle

Costs*

Life-cycle

Costs **

6.2.1 Reduce process

monitoring

Cost reduction $0 ($600,000) ($18,000,000) ($9,685,000)

6.2.2 Reduce security Cost reduction $0 ($144,000) ($4,320,000) ($2,324,000)

6.2.3 Automating systems

and reducing labor

Cost reduction $100,000 ($1,260,000) ($37,700,000) ($20,238,000)

6.2.4 Changing LNAPL

disposal procedure

Cost reduction $0 ($30,000) ($900,000) ($484,000)

6.2.5 Changing sludge

disposal procedure

Cost reduction $0 ($6,000) ($180,000) ($97,000)

6.2.6 Replace the current

air stripper with a more

efficient unit

Cost

Reduction

$400,000 ($30,000) ($500,000) ($84,000)

6.2.7 Changing filter media Cost reduction $30,000 ($50,000) ($1,470,000) ($777,000)

6.3.1 Converting

decommissioned activated

sludge unit into an

equalization tank

Technical

Improvement /

Effectiveness

$1,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000

6.4.1 Investigating in situ

chemical oxidation

Technical

Improvement

$2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000

Total $533,000 ($2,126,000) ($63,067,000) ($33,686,000)

Costs in parentheses imply cost reductions.

* assumes 30 years of operation with a discount rate of 0% (i.e., no discount). 

** assumes 30 years with a discount rate of 5% and no discounting in the first year.
FIGURES
22

 the Evaluation of Groundwater Remediation Progress at the Baird and

ok, Massachusetts, prepared by Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., January 2001.)

UT SHOWING THE LOCATIONS OF THE EXTRACTION WELLS (CURRENT AND RECOMMENDED) AND THE SVOC PLUME

NG EVENT. 
Equalization 

Tank

15,000 gallon 

capacity

1st Stage Metals 

Removal System

KMnO4addition 

polymer addition

flocculation 

clarification

Activated 

Sludge Unit

used as an air 

stripper

2nd Stage 

Metals Removal 

System

not active, pass 

through only

Pressure 

Filter Feed 

Tank

1,500 gallon 

capacity

Multimedia 

Pressure 

Filter

1 of 2 units is 

used at a time

Granular 

Activated 

Carbon

(8,500 pounds)

Granular 

Activated 

Carbon

(8,500 pounds)

Effluent Tank

Activated 

Sludge Unit

used as an air 

strippers

FIGURE 2-1. CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAM OF THE GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM

Groundwater

extraction

Discharge to 

infiltration galleries

(Note: This figure does not indicate recycling through the treatment plant.)
U.S. EPA National Service Center 

for Environmental PublicationsP.O. Box 42419Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419

Solid Waste and Emergency Response(5102G)

542-Octowwwwww